The Iowa delegate totals have been updated after all the votes were counted. The process is actually complicated because all the precinct caucuses in Iowa Monday really did was elect pledged delegates to the county caucuses. There, delegates to the district caucuses will be elected. At the district caucuses, delegates to the state caucus will be selected. Only there will the delegates to the Republican National Convention be chosen, so numbers can change over time. In Iowa, Vivek Ramaswamy got 3 delegates, so we have introduced a category "Other." Also note that in some jurisdictions there are unpledged delegates, usually party leaders. For the current score in detail, see The Green Papers scorecard.

Trump Will Be Tested Much More in New Hampshire

In the past three competitive Republican primaries (2016, 2012, and 2008), Iowa picked the wrong horse and New Hampshire got it right. Will this year add to the streak or break it? Donald Trump had it easy in Iowa. The state is jam-packed with conservative evangelicals. New Hampshire is a horse of a different color. A big win there could seal the deal for him, but a landslide win like in Iowa is going to be much harder to pull off.

To start with, there are far fewer evangelicals in New Hampshire than in Iowa. Second, Iowa is a very rural state. Part of southern New Hampshire is in the outer Boston suburbs. Manchester, NH, is only 52 miles from downtown Boston; Nashua, NH, is only 35 miles from Boston. People in Southern New Hampshire get Boston TV stations. Third, Nikki Haley has been carpet bombing Boston TV and New Hampshire TV with ads claiming that both Biden and Trump are too old. Fourth, independents in New Hampshire can vote in the Republican primary and there are more independents in the state than Republicans. Fifth, New Hampshire voters tend to be moderates and Trump did not do well with moderates in Iowa. Sixth, the mechanics of a caucus enabled 1,700 Trump-trained precinct leaders to make a last-minute pitch for the candidate at 7 p.m. when the caucuses started. Primaries are all-day affairs with no electioneering.

The FiveThirtyEight website has Trump at 43%, Haley at 30%, and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) at 6%. It is expected to be a lot closer than Iowa, but surprises can always happen.

However, DeSantis threw a wrench in the works yesterday by pulling his staff (at least, the ones he didn't fire) out of New Hampshire and Nevada and sending them to South Carolina. This way he has an "excuse" for being totally crushed in New Hampshire, which his pullout now guarantees. But with no one else but Trump and Haley operating in New Hampshire, Haley has the one-on-one race she wants. If she can make a good showing in New Hampshire, she can move on to Nevada and again face Trump head-to-head. If she does well again, DeSantis is deluding himself that he can make a last stand in Haley's own state. If Haley doesn't do well in New Hampshire and Nevada, then the race is over. (V)

Wall Street Journal to DeSantis: Drop Out

The Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, but which is nevertheless not very Trumpy, ran an editorial Tuesday telling Ron DeSantis to pack it up and go back to Florida. The board wrote that if DeSantis actually believes what he is saying—that Trump can't win in November—then it is his duty as a loyal Republican to drop out now and let Nikki Haley win New Hampshire and have a shot at capturing the nomination.

As expected, the editorial board is strongly against Joe Biden and wants the Republican nominee to be able to beat him. It doesn't think Trump is up to that, so it is DeSantis' duty to get out of the way and help Haley, who might be able to pull it off since she can appeal to women and moderates. The board also noted that Trump's weakness in New Hampshire reflects his weakness with everyone outside his base, and his base isn't big enough to win a national election in which Democrats and independents together greatly outnumber Republicans. In addition, the board pointed to polls showing that Haley would beat Biden by a bigger margin than Trump. And of course, if Trump is a convicted felon by November, the gap will get only bigger.

Is DeSantis going to drop out before Tuesday? Yesterday would have been prime dropping-out time and he didn't do it. Hope springs eternal. Maybe DeSantis had been deluding himself into believing that his brand of anti-wokeness was somehow going to work well with moderate suburban voters in southern New Hampshire or traditional Yankees in northern New Hampshire. Both of these are different breeds from the Iowa corn farmers and hog farmers. Apparently someone clued him in that it wasn't going to work, so he took his marbles and flew off to South Carolina for a last stand. (V)

Trump Is Already Changing the World

Donald Trump hasn't even been nominated yet, let alone elected, but around the world leaders and diplomats are beginning to seriously consider the consequences of another Trump presidency. And they are not so good for America. Many European officials are expecting Trump to greatly disrupt trade if he wins, and also to withdraw to Fortress America. This means that countries that have depended on America in so many ways for decades are now contemplating what they would do in America's absence.

In 2017, then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned Europe that it could not count on Trump to aid Europe if it were attacked. Other politicians are echoing that even more strongly now. This view has real world consequences. Europe is starting to build up its arms industries and military preparations. It means that when America has a problem (like catching Osama bin Laden or invading Iraq, or sanctioning some country it doesn't like), other countries may not be in much of a hurry to help out if their own direct interests are not threatened. It means that more world trade will be in euros, not dollars, reducing the power of the U.S., since it can't print unlimited euros as it can dollars. In short, the power of the U.S. in the world will become less and the world will become multipolar, with power centers in the U.S., Europe, Russia, India, and China, not all of which will be inclined to do what is best for the U.S.

Closely related to the concerns about Trump are worries about the actions (or inactions) of the Republicans in the House. Ambassadors are normally very discreet and tend not to have much to say about the internal affairs of other countries, but that is starting to change. One European ambassador told a Politico reporter that the U.S. is a "fat buffalo trying to take a nap as hungry wolves approach. I can hear those Champagne bottle corks popping in Moscow—like it's Christmas every fu**ing day." What the ambassador meant is that the House Republicans are willing to turn Ukraine—and after that, the rest of Eastern Europe—over to Vladimir Putin to score points with their base over the Mexican border. Another ambassador said: "I don't know if in the coming years people will be looking at the United States as a model for democracy."

Trump and the House Republicans have this idea that they can build a big wall around the country and let nothing and no one in and all will be well. They have no idea of how dependent the U.S. is on chips from Taiwan, ingredients for some medicines from China, and certain critical raw materials for electric car batteries and more from Africa and other places. Until those supplies dry up. And a huge amount of manufacturing is done in Asia, either in China or in countries that could easily fall into China's sphere of influence if China wanted to push the matter.

Many ambassadors criticize coupling the aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan to funding border enforcement. In every other country these issues would be considered separately on their individual merits. By coupling them, the relatively popular aid for three friendly countries is tied to the toxic issue of border enforcement. As a result, (potential) wars in three regions might end up with the U.S. ally losing due to partisan politics not related to any of the three countries.

Many European diplomats have the sense that moral or national security issues about a big country simply invading a smaller and weaker neighbor that did nothing to provoke the invasion carry no weight with the American far-right. Thus any claim America might have to moral leadership in the world is vanishing down the drain. Why should anybody listen to what America wants when it is just another big country that likes to throw its weight around when it can? How does that make it any different from Russia or China?

Another diplomat noted: "It is right that countries debate their foreign policy stances, but if all foreign policy issues become domestic political theater, it becomes increasingly challenging for America to effectively play its global role on issues that need long-term commitment and U.S. political capital—such as climate change, Chinese authoritarianism, peace in the Middle East and containing Russian gangsterism." In short, a Trump presidency with a Republican Congress would not only test the rule of law within America, but also deal a huge blow to America's authority and power on the world stage. (V)

House and Senate Republicans Are Not on the Same Page on the Border

While the House is tied in knots over border security, the Senate is moving toward a bipartisan bill. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that with Trump in the White House, no deal will be possible. Now is the time and members of both parties are working on a bill, with Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) working with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) to craft legislation that can pass the Senate.

Over at the other end of the Capitol, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has proactively killed the Lankford/Murphy bill, even before it is finished, saying it has to be his way or not at all. The senators aren't taking him very seriously, though, and are still trying to put together a bill that can pass the Senate with a large bipartisan majority. Once that is done, they will confront Johnson with the fact that he can't pass any bill that has a prayer in the Senate and maybe not even a prayer in the House since what the Freedom Caucus wants is not going to get any Democratic votes and maybe not all the votes of the Biden 17.

Some Republican senators are cautiously telling Johnson to pipe down. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said: "I understand the Speaker has got a very tough job and he's got an unruly constituency of Republicans over there, but it makes no sense to me for us to do nothing when we might be able to make things better and stem the flow of humanity across the border for the next year." (English translation: "Johnson, if no bill passes Congress it will be your fault.") Sen. John Thune (R-SD), the #2 Republican in the Senate, said: "It's not like you have somebody that you've worked through a lot of these types of battles in the past [with]." (English translation: "Johnson is a newbie and has no idea how things get done around here.")

In short, the senators are working on a bill and are likely to pass it and send it over to the House. Then it is Johnson's job to either hold a vote on it or pass some other bill that has a chance to pass the Senate. If he fails, everyone will see whose fault it is.

On the other hand, if Johnson brings the not-yet-written Senate bill for a vote, it will pass with mostly Democratic votes, but there are sure to be three or more Republicans who join them. If Johnson does this, Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ), a member of the Freedom Caucus, is likely to introduce a motion to vacate the chair. Crane said: "It's extremely frustrating to watch." He predicted that Republicans "will get rolled, just like we always do." What he means is that the Freedom Caucus, which has something like 30 members, can't get bills passed. But the threat is real, as it takes only one member to introduce a motion to vacate the chair and there are certainly three Republicans who will join all the Democrats who will vote to fire Johnson.

Johnson's only viable strategy is to make a deal with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to bring the Senate bill up for a vote. If it passes, the Democrats would then agree not to vote to vacate the chair. This would absolutely drive the Freedom Caucus stark raving mad, but there is really no other way out for Johnson since he doesn't have the votes for anything unless he works with the Democrats.

However, working with the Democrats will anger Donald Trump, who is opposed to the as-yet-to-be-written Senate bill. Don't ask us how this is going to play out. Your guess is as good as ours. (V)

Supreme Court Could Neuter Jack Smith's Case

A lot of ink and pixels have been devoted to Donald Trump's "immunity" case that is going to end up in the Supreme Court before long. But there is another case looming that could have major implications for Special Counsel Jack Smith's case against Trump. It's a sleeping giant, even though Trump is a not a party to it.

The case is Joseph W. Fischer v. United States. At issue is a 2002 law, Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), that was intended to prosecute financial crimes. Two of the crimes that Smith has accused Trump of—obstructing an official proceeding and conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding—were made into crimes by that law. Fischer entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and was arrested for it and charged with obstructing an official proceeding (the counting of the electoral votes). Fischer is arguing that SOX applies only to financial crimes and he is not charged with money laundering or any other financial crimes. The wording of the law does not mention that it applies only to financial crimes, although the impetus for passing it was Enron's financial shenanigans. When then-president George W. Bush signed the bill, he noted that it had the effect of "strengthening laws that criminalize document shredding and other forms of obstruction of justice." Another part of the law specifically says that an official proceeding includes a proceeding before the Congress. Thus, Fischer's case appears to be weak.

However, there is another provision in SOX that says that whoever "corruptly—alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object ... with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding" is engaging in a criminal act. Fischer is going to argue that he didn't "corruptly" do anything. He thought he was saving the republic.

The lower court agreed with Fischer, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. reversed that and ruled that SOX covers any official proceeding, even ones not related to finances or records. On the other hand, Smith's charges include Trump's role in the plan to submit false certificates from the fake electors, and those certificates are definitely documents.

Generally, the Supreme Court tends to be tough on crime—except when the crime is abstract and Republicans or right-wingers are the perpetrators. If the Supreme Court agrees with Fischer, then two of the four charges Smith brought against Trump may have to be thrown out unless Smith can prove that Trump "corruptly" took actions to encourage the insurrection. This makes Trump's state of mind critical. Laws that criminalize thought crimes are often difficult to prove. The other two charges will still stand, though.

Trump's trial is now slated for March 4 (unless the immunity stuff delays it). The decision in Fischer won't be announced until June. Consistent with Trump's strategy of delay, delay, and delay more, his lawyers are surely going to try to get the trial moved until after the Court rules on Fischer. Judge Tanya Chutkan could decide to ignore Trump's lawyers and hold the trial in March anyhow, saying that two of the charges are not related to SOX and if Trump is found guilty of them, the Fischer decision won't affect them. In any event, keep an eye out for this case as it could prove important later. (V)

Judge Warns Trump He Could Be Booted Out of the Courtroom

Donald Trump's second defamation trial is now underway. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan has already ruled that Trump defamed E. Jean Carroll when he called her a liar in 2019, shortly after she publicly accused him of sexually assaulting her decades earlier. Trump attended the trial because it got him some free publicity—lots of it—even though there is no legal requirement that he attend (it is a civil case, not a criminal case). Carroll is asking for $10 million in compensatory damages for having her reputation destroyed and an unspecified amount in punitive damages.

If Trump wants to address the jury in his defense, the judge would certainly allow it. But The Donald has a different strategy. Trump clearly intends to provoke the judge into doing something that could later form the basis of an appeal. During the trial, Trump muttered that the trial is a "witch hunt" and "a con job" so the jury could hear him. The judge rebuked him for this, saying: "Mr. Trump has the right to be present here. That right can be forfeited, and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive, which is what has been reported to me." Then the judge spoke directly to Trump and said: "Mr. Trump, I hope I don't have to consider excluding you from the trial. I understand you are probably very eager for me to do that." Then Trump said: "I would love it. I would love it," indicating that he could try to use that to get the appeals court to undo the inevitable judgment. Kaplan then said: "I know you would. I know you would. You just can't control yourself in this circumstance, apparently." Trump shot back: "You can't either."

After the lunch break, one of Trump's lawyers, Michael Madaio, asked Kaplan to recuse himself. Kaplan replied: "Denied." (V)

The Fish That Could Overturn 40 Years of Legal Precedent

Many laws are intentionally vague. For example, a law may empower some agency to ban chemicals harmful to human health or protect endangered species—without listing the chemicals or the species. The intention is to let the relevant agency consult with experts and make decisions based on what those experts say. Conservatives have long chafed at laws that effectively give legislative power to executive agencies, even when Congress clearly intends to delegate that power. The claim is that Congress may not delegate legislative power to the executive branch, and if Congress wants to ban certain chemicals or protect certain species, Congress must name all of them in the law.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments that could upend 40 years of precedents and hamstring executive agencies under all presidents going forward. That is precisely what the plaintiffs want: to get the Executive Branch out of the rule-making business. Taken to its extreme, the FDA would no longer have the power to approve or ban new drugs. Congress would have to approve or ban each new drug application itself. It would become the FDA... and every other executive branch agency. There are a lot of industries that would really, really, like gutting every government agency.

There are two cases at issue here, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. They relate to a Dept. of Commerce fishery inspection rule requiring vessel owners to pay for third parties to monitor their compliance with fishing regulations. The plaintiffs are backed by Koch network and other business interests. The plaintiffs want to overturn a 40-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Chevron that said judges should defer to agencies' interpretations of laws when the laws were not specific enough. Conservatives have been fighting to overturn Chevron for decades and now they have a chance, because Dobbs showed that the Supreme Court was willing to throw decades of jurisprudence in the paper shredder. The government is arguing that overturning Chevron would mean a "convulsive shock to the legal system" and unsettle hundreds or thousands of court decisions going back decades.

Legal scholars tend to agree it would be better if Congress would write into the laws more specifically what agencies are allowed to do. But others say Congress doesn't have the time or expertise to get involved in all the details dealt with by dozens of agencies. Also, circumstances change all the time, so if Congress couldn't delegate broad rule-making power to the agencies, the 535 members would have to do the work of tens of thousands of agency staffers.

One justice has a personal stake in all this: Neil Gorsuch. His mom, Anne Gorsuch, ran the EPA in the early 1980s and slashed air and water quality regulations with a vengeance. In recent years, like mother like son, Justice Gorsuch has voted against regulations that protect the environment and against COVID-19 mask regulations. In fact, when COVID-19 was spiking in early 2022, Gorsuch was the only justice who refused to wear a mask during oral hearings. Even Clarence Thomas had the sense to do that. This puts Gorsuch to the right of Thomas on health and environmental matters, even though it's a tight squeeze over there.

Gorsuch mère was appointed by Ronald Reagan with the mission to dismantle the EPA. She tried but immediately clashed with members of Congress, who claimed she was single-handedly trying to invalidate laws Congress had passed. Congress subpoenaed her over documents about hazardous waste cleanup and she refused to comply and was held in contempt of Congress. Eventually the pressure on her became too much and she resigned. Now the ball is in her son's Court. (V)

The Nobodies Are Now Fighting Each Other

In case you have forgotten, Cornel West sees himself sitting in the big chair in the White House commanding the troops or throwing ketchup against the wall or doing whatever people do in that chair. So naturally he is campaigning by telling everyone why he is better than Joe Biden and Donald Trump, right? Wrong. He is too busy denouncing leading candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for something Kennedy's uncle and father did some 60 years ago. Way to go, Cornel. The voters can't wait to hear who's next on your list.

The big issue is the wiretap the Kennedy administration placed on Martin Luther King Jr. RFK Jr.'s father was attorney general at the time and his uncle was president. RFK fils was in short pants, about 8 years old then. West said: "RFK Jr. has to realize that this is not a question of some kind of institutional arrangement between his father and uncle and the FBI—no, no. They declared war on my people." Kennedy said that there was "a good reason for them doing that at that time." The Kennedy brothers believed that one of King's close advisers, Stanley Levison, who helped King raise funds for the Montgomery bus boycott, was a communist. Kennedy added: "My father gave permission to [FBI Director J. Edgar] Hoover to wiretap them so he could prove that his suspicions about King were either right or wrong."

By now, Hoover has been completely discredited and most historians believe that he indeed was trying to derail the Civil Rights Movement. Nevertheless, it's hard for us to see where attacking Kennedy family members, both living and dead, gets West votes. Maybe he sees his target audience as double haters who prefer Kennedy to him and he wants to convince them that they should switch to him on account of decisions Jack and Bobby made in 1963, by claiming that Jack and Bobby (especially) "declared war on his people."

Maybe West ought to check out the Wikipedia article on the Ole Miss riot of 1962. It describes how then-AG Bobby Kennedy led the battle to integrate the University of Mississippi by enrolling the first Black student, James Meredith, using the full power of the United States government and 31,000 federal troops to force then-Mississippi governor Ross Barnett to admit Meredith against the governor's will. This was the first time federal troops were used to desegregate any educational institution in Mississippi. This move broke the back of the Southern resistance to the Civil Rights Movement. From then on, it became clear to Southerners that the Kennedy brothers were prepared to use massive force to defend the rights of Black Americans. (V)

Rep. Jeff Duncan is Retiring

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC), who served four terms in the South Carolina state House and seven terms in the U.S. House, has announced that he is retiring at the end of this term. He is 58 and his district is R+23, so he could easily be good for another 20-30 years in the House. He didn't even have an opponent in 2022 and regularly got at least 70% of the vote. It seems unusual for someone so young in such a deep red district to throw in the towel. In his statement, he said it has been a pleasure serving South Carolinians and blah blah blah.

What he didn't mention is that he has been married to Melody Hodges for 35 years. In Sept. 2023, she filed for divorce, claiming that he has had multiple extramarital affairs, including one with a lobbyist Hodges believes her soon-to-be-ex-husband is living with in D.C. Hodges has alleged that Duncan has told many members of his staff about this arrangement. Does the divorce relate to the retirement? We don't know. We do know that in bitter divorces, sometimes the wife is willing to give a congressman's primary or general-election opponents all kinds of dirt that could undo him. In deeply religious South Carolina, having Hodges make a TV commercial for a primary opponent telling what Duncan has been doing all these years might just be a problem, so he decided to bow out "gracefully." In any event, his retirement is not so he can spend more time with his wife and three (adult) children. (V)

---

If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer on the site, please send it to questions@electoral-vote.com, and include your initials and city of residence. If you have a comment about the site or one of the items therein, please send it to comments@electoral-vote.com and include your initials and city of residence in case we decide to publish it. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at corrections@electoral-vote.com.

---

Email a link to a friend or share some other way.

---The Votemaster and Zenger