Mike Johnson: An End to the Heartburn?

Life just isn't getting easier for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). He's already got a motion to vacate hanging over his head, and earlier this week, 19 of the troublemakers in his conference tanked a procedural vote on one of the two FISA bills that is up for (potential) renewal. Normally, these sorts of procedural votes are pro forma, and break along party lines, meaning the majority is always able to proceed with whatever business it wants to proceed with. Not with this majority, however.

Many members of the House Republican Conference were left sputtering at the latest act of intransigence from their (mostly) Freedom Caucus colleagues. "We don't truly have a majority at this point. You have a loosely aligned coalition government right now, and it's an incredible challenge," said Rep. Garrett Graves (R-LA). "This is incredibly reckless," said Rep. Max Miller (R-OH). "It's an impossible job. The Lord Jesus Himself could not manage this conference," said Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX).

What's going to happen next? Well, Johnson is going to try again to get the bill through Congress. This will not be an easy feat, however. While Johnson spent much time on Thursday trying to whip the rebels' votes, they got their marching orders directly from the Lord Jesus Himself... er, we mean, from Donald Trump.

Johnson has already been advised that the Democrats aren't going to help him, and so today he will make the pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago to prostrate himself before Trump. After they have a meeting, the two men will hold a joint press conference, at which they will address "election security."

What this means is that Johnson's best chance of passing the FISA bill is to say what Trump wants to hear about "stop the steal" and how the election of 2020 was fraudulent. Johnson knows full well it wasn't stolen, and that constantly harping about it 3 years later is not helping the GOP's political prospects. But he also knows that if he doesn't perform like a barking seal, he won't be able to get much done in Washington. We'll see how the Speaker threads this particular needle.

There is one other possibility, though. Trump is reportedly not too happy about the motion to vacate, which he thinks is counterproductive. On top of that—and you can't make this stuff up—it appears that the former president actually tanked the wrong bill. The reason he wanted the bill killed, per his messages on his plummeting-share-price social media platform ($32.41 close yesterday), is that he thinks it was weaponized against him. But the matter the House was considering this week was FISA Section 702, which governs surveillance of foreign individuals. Even if you believe Trump was targeted, it would have been under the auspices of FISA Title 1, which is the NEXT bill the House will tee up. So, maybe Trump backs down here, and waits until the next round to flex his muscles.

And finally, let's point out again that Johnson is reportedly tired of all the hassles involved with his current post, and that he's getting close to the end of his rope. If so, it's not impossible that this situation is the final straw that causes him to chuck it all. By nearly all accounts, he's just hanging on for the good of the GOP, so they don't have to have another contentious election for speaker. But if the Party keeps sticking knives in his back, maybe he won't feel so much need to take one for the team. (Z)

Biden Campaign Hones Its Abortion Messaging

After we published the mailbag last weekend, we got an e-mail from reader J.T. in San Bernardino, CA observing that a broad set of campaign messages for Joe Biden, like the one proposed by K.H. in Scotch Plains, is not the right approach, because so many voters don't pay attention. So, as an alternative, J.T. proposed this nine-point plan for what Biden should focus on:

1. Abortion
2. Abortion
3. Abortion
4. Abortion
5. CHIPS Act
6. Prescription drug prices are lower, like I promised
7. Abortion
8. "Trump is a clown who already lost"
9. Abortion

It would seem that the White House has figured it out, because the Biden campaign is hard at work on hammering Donald Trump on the abortion issue.

Last week, in fact, we had an item about a commercial put out by the Biden campaign, in which clips of Donald Trump bragging about the end of Roe are paired with footage of Biden talking about how he will do everything he can to protect abortion access. Not bad, but Democratic strategists see two potential problems here. The first is that attacking Trump might alienate voters who supported him in the past, and don't want to feel judged. The second is that Biden is not wholly credible, since he's male, and a Catholic, and has some votes in his Senate career that are not 100% abortion-access-friendly.

And so, the Biden campaign is working on a somewhat different approach, one that worked pretty well for Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) in his reelection campaign. Beshear had ads featuring Kentucky women who were victimized, or who would have been victimized, by Kentucky's new, harsh abortion law. For example, Hadley Duvall was raped and impregnated by her stepfather as a child, and in her spot she talked about how she would have been required to carry the baby to term, had the rape happened in 2023.

Taking a cue from that, here is the new ad from the Biden campaign:

For those who do not care to watch, it features Amanda Zurawski and her husband Josh talking about how excited they were to welcome baby Willow, and then going through some of the things they had bought in anticipation of the event, like a baby book and a onesie. Then, of course, she had a miscarriage, but one that left the (deceased) fetus still in the womb. Nonetheless, no doctor in Texas would perform an abortion. As the commercial points out, this led to sepsis, nearly killed Zurawski twice, and left her potentially unable to carry another baby to term. It ends with what is clearly going to be a recurring tagline: "Donald Trump did this." The ad is... brutal. Very powerful, but very hard to watch. And there will be more.

Also, as long as we are on the general subject, reader S.S. in Toronto, ON, Canada, brings to our attention a piece by Robert Hubbell from his Today's Edition Newsletter. He points out that there's a way for a re-elected President Trump to ban abortion nationwide, and to do so without needing to worry about Congress/the filibuster, and without even needing to break his "promise" not to sign a national abortion ban. Here's the key passage:

Trump is playing word games with the fundamental rights of women. If elected, Trump doesn't need to "sign" a national abortion ban to enforce a national abortion ban. How can that be?

Project 2025 is a plan being prepared by Trump's reactionary advisors to implement an authoritarian regime under Trump if he is reelected. One prong of Project 2025 is to use the 1873 federal law known as the Comstock Act to effectuate a national ban. See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, Arizona's abortion ban is back. It's every state's future if Trump wins. (slate.com)

Like the 1864 Arizona law, the Comstock Act is a moribund law that has been overtaken by newer statutes—but it has not been repealed. A Trump-appointed Attorney General could simply start enforcing a federal law that has been on the books since 1873 and claim that there is no "ban" signed by Trump. The national "ban" on abortion was signed by President Ulysses S. Grant in 1873—and would be enforced as an existing law by his Attorney General (Kash Patel?).

Indictments under the Comstock Act would be challenged in federal court, which would place the ongoing validity of the Comstock Act on the US Supreme Court's docket. It is reasonable to assume that the reactionary majority on the US Supreme Court will rule in the same way as the Republicans on the Arizona Supreme Court.

In short, don't fall for Trump's "I won't sign a national ban" lies. He will instruct his Attorney General to enforce the Comstock Act—and claim that he kept his promise.

So, Democrats will surely hammer on that point, too: "The exact same thing that happened in Arizona could happen nationwide; the only difference is that the federal law is from the 1870s instead of the 1860s." (Z)

Third Party Candidates: The State of Play

We are in the portion of the election cycle where third-party candidates are announcing their VP picks. Why now? Part of it is that they don't want to wait until summer, only to get drowned out by the major-party conventions. And part of it is that when your whole campaign is retail politics, it's better to have two candidates running around as opposed to one. But the main reason is that many states won't let third-party candidates on their ballots unless those candidates have a running mate. Ballot deadlines are looming, so choices must be made.

Consequently, Cornel West announced yesterday that his #2 will be Melina Abdullah. She is a Black Lives Matter activist (and co-founder), a big supporter of the "defund the police" movement, and a professor in Cal State LA's Pan-African Studies Department. In other words, West found someone even leftier than he is. All other things being equal, a ticket with two Black candidates might be expected to pick up a few extra votes from Black people here and there. But this ticket is way further left than the majority of Black voters. The target here is definitely the far left, a group that skews very white. And most folks on that part of the political spectrum are all-but-certain to vote third-party anyhow. What we are saying, in other words, is that we don't think the West/Abdullah ticket is going to take many votes away from Joe Biden (and definitely not from Donald Trump). In view of that probable irrelevance, this could well be the last thing we write about West's campaign for weeks or months. Maybe ever.

Meanwhile, when a candidate of any prominence names their running mate, there's usually a bounce in their polling numbers. It may be a dead cat bounce (i.e., temporary), but it usually happens. In the case of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Nicole Shanahan, however, it has not happened. There are several possible explanations for this. One is that Shanahan simply didn't excite anyone. A second is that her politics or her lack of experience drove as many people FROM the ticket as TO the ticket. But the likeliest explanation is that RFK Jr. has hit his ceiling, and there's nobody else out there he can plausibly win over.

If this is so, that somewhat implies (and the linked article also points this out) that Kennedy/Shanahan isn't really about Kennedy or Shanahan; it's just become the "protest vote" campaign in a year where many people are dissatisfied with both major-party candidates. Had Kennedy not run, someone else would very likely be getting support from the same group of voters—maybe Jill Stein, maybe Chase Oliver (Libertarian), maybe someone else. We also continue to believe, consistent with past presidential cycles, that Kennedy's support will shrink dramatically as November draws closer. This will happen, in part, as more and more low-information voters find out what Kennedy's all about. And it will happen, in part, because people who say they are voting third-party tend to get gun-shy about voting for a candidate they know cannot win once it's time to cast actual ballots.

And as long as we are on the subject of RFK Jr., Donald Trump posted a rambling video about him on "Truth" Social yesterday. The basic point, which takes some work to decipher, is that Kennedy is a far-left nutter (so, Republicans should never consider voting for him) but that he's still better than Joe Biden (so Democrats definitely should vote for him). Here's a chunk of yesterday's word salad:

It's great for MAGA, I hope he continues to run, but the communists will make it very hard on him to get on the ballot, as they did for him as a Democrat. He wanted to get on the ballot. They made it very, very difficult for him. They really went after him viciously, just like they go after me. Welcome to the crowd, RFK Jr. But the fact is that the Democrats are vicious communist fascists, they're horrible people. They really hurt him badly, what they did to him as a Democrat, that's why he's running as an independent, but expect him to be indicted any day now, probably for environmental fraud.

Trump either doesn't know what a communist is, or doesn't know what a fascist is, or doesn't know what either is. And we have no idea at all where the notion that Kennedy is about to be charged with environmental fraud (which is usually a corporate crime) comes from. Presumably Trump only knows two things about Kennedy, namely "environmentalist" and "anti-vaxxer," and The Donald can't exactly tell his base that being an anti-vaxxer is a crime, so we're left with accusing Junior of environmental crimes. In any case, it's another reminder that Trump and the MAGA movement now see Kennedy as a threat, and are going to try to take him down. (Z)

Republican Senate Candidates: Liars, Cheaters and Carpetbaggers

As the Democrats try desperately to hold on to the Senate, they keep getting gifts from their Republican opposition. Earlier this week, we noted the remarks from Eric Hovde (R), who is running in Wisconsin, and who said that nursing home residents really shouldn't be allowed to vote, since they'll be dead soon anyhow. To that, we add three more potential anchors around Republican candidates' necks:

1. Montana: Tim Sheehy, if he makes it through the primaries, hopes to knock off Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT). The candidate is a former Navy SEAL who has talked in the past about the bullet wound in his arm that he received in combat. However, according to The Washington Post, he never mentioned it to anyone while he was in Afghanistan, while he DID tell a park ranger at Montana's Glacier National Park that he got the wound when he dropped his gun during a visit to the park, and it went off accidentally. Sheehy says he was lying to the ranger, which is a very strange lie to tell, especially since it earned him a $525 fine for illegally discharging his weapon in the national park.
   
   
2. Texas: There's no question Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is nervous about the challenge posed by Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX); there have now been three polls that have the race as a dead heat. The Senator claims that the Democrats are targeting him because they hate him more than any other senator. That is not true; they are targeting him because he appears to be more vulnerable than any Republican in the Senate besides Rick Scott (R-FL). The fact that they hate him more than any other senator is just incidental.
   
   In any case, Cruz is looking for money for his campaign anywhere he can find it (have you talked to the Saudis, Ted?). He does a podcast three days a week, for which he says he is not compensated. However, the company that produces and distributes the podcast, iHeartMedia, has "donated" more than $600,000 to his affiliated PAC this year. That may well be illegal, since a candidate is not allowed to solicit contributions over $5,000 to PACs. When Cruz was asked if he might have broken any laws, he spat: "It really is sad what's happening to the media. The media exists right now seemingly to parrot left-wing Democrat attacks." The careful reader will notice that the phrase, "No, I did not break any laws" does not appear anywhere in there.
   
   
3. Michigan: We made a passing reference to Mike Rogers' situation earlier in the week. Rogers represented Michigan in the House for over a decade, and now he'd like to represent the state in the Senate. One small problem: He's now registered to vote in Florida, where he also owns a million-dollar home. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who is also running for that seat, and who knows a thing or two about trolling, took to eX-Twitter to suggest these things might just indicate that Rogers is now a resident of Florida, not Michigan. We suspect she might just bring that up once or twice during the general election campaign, if he's her opponent. But the question is: Does Rogers like the crudités they sell at Wegner's?

Who knows what will come of these stories, if anything. But if you're the Democrats, the more Republican skeletons that pop up, the better, since at least some of the dirt will stick. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: The Purple Rose of Cairo

For last week's puzzle, we gave the hints that "we may only have come up with the idea a few hours ago, but we already know it's an award-winning puzzle," and then on Saturday, "[A] lot of people are in the ballpark with this week's theme, but missed the fact that the clue we give is a valuable part of the puzzle, especially this week."

And now, the answer key, courtesy of reader H.M. in San Dimas, CA:

I never thought having a cold would pay off, but here I am awake when the new posting goes live. Hope I'm first!

The answer is "Major League Baseball MVP winners":

• Trump Legal: Funky Judge—Aaron Judge, 2022 NY Yankees
• Mike Johnson: Time as Speaker May Not Last Much Longer—Tris Speaker, 1912 Boston Red Sox
• No Labels: No Candidate Would Carry Our Mantle—Mickey Mantle, 1956, 1957 and 1962 NY Yankees
• Nebraska: Republicans Fail to Out-Fox Democrats—Nellie Fox, 1959 Chicago White Sox
• British Politics: How Much of a Beating Will the Tory Bench Take?—Johnny Bench, 1970 and 1972 Cincinnati Reds
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Sticky Fingers—Rollie Fingers, 1981 Milwaukee Brewers
• This Week in Schadenfreude: It Burns, Oh How It Burns—George Burns, 1926 Cleveland Indians
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Cuban Takes DEI to the Bank(s)—Ernie Banks, 1958 and 1959 Chicago Cubs

So disappointed you couldn't find a way to list Gibson (Kirk, not Bob), Sandy Koufax or, so easy this year, Steve Garvey!

We actually did have a Garvey headline, and also Vida Blue headline, but we had to hold those items due to time constraints. In any event, hope you're feeling better! And not quite first, but close.

Here are the first 30 readers to hit it on the nose (quite a few recognized the baseball theme, but "baseball players" doesn't quite match the clues, while "Hall of Famers" is not correct for Judge or Burns):

1. J.T. in Philadelphia, PA
2. B.M. in Chico, CA
3. M.B. in Albany, NY
4. H.M. in San Dimas
5. E.K. in Arlington, MA
6. B.A. in Edmond, OK
7. S.K. in Drexel Hill, PA
8. J.H. in Sturbridge, MA
9. A.B.W. in New Haven, CT
10. J.N. in Zionsville, IN
11. L.D. in Bedford, MA
12. N.K. in Cleveland Heights, OH
13. D.S. in Lakewood, OH
14. D.L. in Uslar, Germany
15. M.V. in Aurora, CO
16. M.K.M. in Marblehead, MA
17. N.S. in Los Angeles, CA
18. R.H.O. in Portland, ME
19. C.S. in Boca Raton, FL
20. R.S. in Milan, OH
21. M.T in Wheat Ridge, CO
22. W.M.H.B. in Salamanca, Spain
23. D.C. in South Elgin, IL
24. S.B. in Natick, MA
25. D.E. in High Springs, FL
26. D.D. in Highland Park, IL
27. S.W. in Orland Park, IL, who adds "With that, I will place my Betts that I'm right, ring the Bell, and take comfort in knowing that I Rose to the occasion."
28. J.C. in Johns Creek, GA
29. W.V. in San Jacinto, CA
30. C.G. in Pittsburgh, PA

We had quite a few people point out that the "Burns" headline also contains the name "Oh," as in Sadaharu, who won nine MVP awards in Japan. So, that's a fair substitute answer. We also had quite a few people point out that we misspelled the name Foxx, as in Jimmie, which we did not. In any case, the important thing here is that the answer has to make sense in the context of the clue; we often use the clue to make the commonality more clear.

As to this week's theme, it relies on some of the words to the right of the colon, but not all of them. It would be in the Trivial Pursuit category Entertainment, and the story on abortion is not part of the puzzle. As to a clue, the Civil War historian on staff very badly wanted to work Gettysburg in, but while that fits the theme, it does not work for any headline.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with the subject line "April 12 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Dumb and Dumber

Today in this space, we have a round-up of stupid behavior by Republicans. None of these stories was quite enough to carry the feature by themselves, but as a group they work. So:

• Pay Up: There are many political dirty tricksters out there. But there may be no political dirty tricksters who are as moronic as Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman. There's no question they are True Believers in MAGA and they're willing to do anything to help the cause. But their schemes are so transparent and so easily foiled that they really ought to appear as the villains-of-the-week on an episode of Scooby-Doo. For example, they set up an operation that made robocalls to Black voters in New York City pushing a bunch of false information meant to keep those voters from casting ballots. Among other things, the calls claimed that anyone who votes via mail gets put into a database of people who must receive mandatory vaccines.
  
  Because Wohl and Burkman are dopes, they apparently don't realize that targeting Black voters is extra problematic from a legal standpoint. They also are not tech savvy enough to know that their role in the scheme would be easily uncovered. So, AG Letitia James brought charges, and this week the two men were hit with a fine of as much as $1.25 million. Since they don't actually have that kind of money, James has offered a payment plan that would allow them to discharge the debt by making about half a million dollars in payments over the next 5 years. Either way, it's gonna hurt.
  
  
• Out of Africa: Newsmax host Rob Finnerty was conducting an interview yesterday with Rep. James Comer (R-KY). And the host was searching for examples of how Joe Biden is stupid and mentally infirm. One of the examples he came up with? According to the Hur Report, Biden doesn't even know Africa is a country.
  
  We must concede, this is true. Biden does not know Africa is a country. Neither do we, for that matter. And note that the only time "Africa" appears in the report, it's in reference to Emanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston, South Carolina. So not only was Finnerty's remark dumb, it was also a baldfaced lie.
  
  
• There Is More than One Rosenberg in New York? Really?: In preparation for next week's hush-money trial, Donald Trump's lawyers want some documents from Jeremy Rosenberg, who was a supervising investigator in the Manhattan district attorney's office. So, they looked up Jeremy Rosenberg's name in the city directory, and sent him a subpoena. It apparently did not occur to them that, in New York, there might just be more than one Jeremy Rosenberg. And not only did the wrong Jeremy Rosenberg not have the documents, he says he's not giving back the $15 that was included for postage and copying costs.
  
  
• Unite the White... Er, Right: Enid, OK, City Council Commissioner Judd Blevins has a habit of saying racist things online (under an easily deciphered pseudonym). He also attended the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA, back in 2017. Oh, and he was also a recruiter for the white supremacist group Evropa. Blevins insists that his words and actions have nothing to do with racism, and that he's not a racist. He also says he has a First Amendment right to say and do such things, if indeed he just so happened to be a racist. That may be true, but he does not have a First Amendment right to keep his job if he is recalled by the voters of Enid. Which he was this week.

Note that, realizing that our sights are set entirely on Republicans here, we wondered if we might have overlooked some really stupid behavior by Democrats. All we could find was a story from Fox about Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), who was speaking to schoolkids on the day of the eclipse, and who garbled her astronomical knowledge, claiming that the moon is a planet and that it's made of gas. Neither is true, of course.

However, this underscores the fundamental problem in making this feature less skewed. We are happy to be equal-opportunity critics, but for schadenfreude to be called for, there has to be an underlying element of bad behavior. Wohl and Burkman did harm to innocent people, Finnerty lied, Trump's lawyers are working for a sleazy client and Blevins is clearly a bigot. What Lee said was embarrassing, but it didn't come from a bad place. She was just trying to engage some schoolkids. Democrats often do stupid or embarrassing things, but those things rarely (these days) have an undercurrent of venality. And we can only squeeze so many schadenfreudes out of Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ). (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: The Need for Speed

This item is timely, on a personal level, for (Z) because this week would have been his grandmother's 102nd birthday. During World War II, she worked as a riveter, building airplanes in Connecticut. And not only did she and the other "Rosies" have to do the same work as the men, they had to do it fast, fast, fast, as planes and tanks and bombs and guns were needed in almost endless supplies for the war effort.

(Z)'s grandmother, whose name was Jean Stewart, did not live to participate in the festivities that took place in Washington, DC, this week (and that were brought to our attention by reader J.B. in Fort Kent, ME), but she would have been there if she could have been. In short, thanks to a legitimately bipartisan effort, the women who helped win the war by picking up the slack in America's factories were recognized with the Congressional Gold Medal, the United States' highest civilian honor.

For the ceremony, the organizers managed to find 27 living Rosies, ranging in age from mid-90s to 106, who were able to attend in person. Jeanne Gibson, who is 98, gave a brief acceptance speech on behalf of the group. It's only about 3 minutes if you'd care to watch it:

For someone who's just a hop, skip and a jump from the century mark, she did a heck of a job. She ended her remarks by reminding the women in the audience that no matter what challenge may arise, "We can do it!" She did not specify what specific modern-day women's issue she might have in mind, but we have a pretty good guess.

In any event, a tip of the cap to all of the nation's Rosies, those who are still with us, and those who have gone. And as to the recognition from the government, it's about damn time. Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

Given that Donald Trump won Florida by 4 points in 2020, and by a little over a point in 2016, and the last time any candidate won the state by 10+ points was back in 1988, we find that Emerson result hard to swallow, particularly given recent events in the state. The California and North Carolina numbers both pass the smell test, however. (Z)

State	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
California	54%	31%	Mar 19	Mar 25	Public Policy Inst. of Calif.
Florida	38%	51%	Apr 09	Apr 10	Emerson Coll.
North Carolina	42%	45%	Mar 22	Mar 30	High Point University

Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger