Biden Raises $30 Million at Event in Los Angeles

Big fundraisers are the in thing these days. Joe Biden raised $26 million at an event in New York last month, then Donald Trump raised $50 million at an event at Mar-a-Lago. Now Biden has raised another $30 million at a star-studded event in Los Angeles. The beat goes on.

Lots of well-known Hollywood favorites were there, with Julia Roberts for the straight guys and gay women and George Clooney for the straight gals and gay men, plus many more. Jimmy Kimmel moderated a discussion between Biden and Barack Obama. They, and numerous others, took off the gloves and went after Donald Trump in a much stronger way than they had before. Biden said of Trump: "What he did on January 6th, and now he's literally saying if he doesn't win there'll be a bloodbath. It's outrageous—what he's talking about is outrageous." Obama said: "We have the spectacle of the nominee of one of the two major parties sitting in court and being convicted by a jury of his peers on 34 counts. His foundation is not allowed to operate because it was engaging in monkey business... You have his organization being prosecuted for not paying taxes." Kimmel described the Trump administration as being like a colonoscopy that people want to forget.

Other than the money, the event showed that the Democrats are now going to go after Trump in a way they hadn't before, really attacking him. He will attack back, of course. It's going to get nasty. The debate in 10 days could have some real fireworks. (V)

Trump Turned 78 on Friday

Donald Trump turned 78 on Friday. We didn't write "Donald Trump celebrated his 78th birthday on Friday" because he definitely didn't celebrate it. In fact, he tried to hide it, but every reporter in the country knows his birthday is on his Wikipedia page. Besides, it is on Flag Day. We're actually surprised that he hasn't claimed that Flag Day was set to June 14th to honor his birthday. We bet Martha-Ann Alito would back him up on that.

The reason Trump didn't want to celebrate his birthday is because he didn't want every paper in the country to run a story headlined "Trump is now 78, and if elected would become the oldest president in American history by the end of his term." But, of course, it happened anyway—for example, here. Although Trump harps on Joe Biden's age, our staff chronologer has calculated that Biden is only 3½ years older than Trump. The more people that know this, the weaker "Biden's old" becomes as a campaign theme. Put another way, a pretty good answer to "He's 81!" is "Yeah, and the other guy's 78."

At a rally last week in Las Vegas, Trump's overenthusiastic supporters sang "Happy Birthday" to him, albeit a couple of days early. He was quite upset at them doing this. He told them: "You know, there's a certain point at which you don't want to hear 'Happy Birthday.' You just want to pretend the day doesn't exist." This is especially true when having people wish you a happy 78th birthday reminds people of your age and actually increases the chances of your going to prison. Consequently, Trump tries to downplay his age and upplay (?) Biden's age. Biden's strategy is simple: We're both old but only one of us has gained some wisdom over the years.

When Trump was younger, his birthday bash was a big, newsworthy event. In 1988, when he turned 42, he threw a swinging party at one of his casinos, before it went belly up. He played videos of Liza Minnelli and Billy Crystal wishing him a happy birthday. Then-president Ronald Reagan even sent him a telegram. For our younger readers, a telegram is like a text message sent in Morse code, but you had to go tell a company called Western Union to do it for you. You couldn't do it on your own. For birthday 44, Dolly Parton and Elton John sent videos. For number 50, Eartha Kitt sang for him and there was an ice sculpture of his then-wife, Marla Maples, as a mermaid.

Trump got various presents for his birthday, but the biggest one was intangible. It was the exceedingly grudging handshake he got from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who openly despises the former president. But McConnell felt that he had to shake Trump's hand for 1/100 sec. so it could be photographed. This signaled the unconditional surrender of the Republican Party to Trump, kinda like what Japanese Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu and Gen. Yoshijiro Umezu did on the U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay on Sep. 2, 1945, except without a written document this time. But make no mistake, the surrender was just as valid. Although McConnell will not be leader of the Republican caucus come Jan. 3, 2025, he knows the Senate Johns well, and hopes either Cornyn or Thune becomes majority leader. (V)

Seniors Are Warming to Biden

Older voters are moving towards Joe Biden and younger ones are moving towards Donald Trump. Historically, that is all wrong. Seniors have traditionally favored Republicans and juniors have always been Democrats. That never made any sense since it's the Democrats who want to protect Social Security and it's the Republicans who want to privatize it. Now this certainty seems to be coming unglued.

In a recent Siena College poll registered voters 65+, when pushed, favored Biden 51% to 42%. Among voters 18-29, Biden led by 1 point, 46% to 45%. What's wrong with this picture? It could be that in their dotage, the 1960s hippies have come to respect the institutions they previously hated and don't want to burn the whole thing down. Swapping age groups is not neutral. Seniors vote and juniors, meh. When asked if they were likely to vote, 88% of the 65+ voters said they were very likely or certain to vote. Among voters 18-29, the figure was 65%. For Biden, trading groups is a sweet deal.

Quinnipiac University also ran a poll recently. The results are similar. Among seniors, Biden leads 55% to 43%; among 18 to 34-year-olds, Trump leads 48% to 47%.

These results agree with the fact that Biden is doing better in the "northern route" states than in the "southern route" states. Pennsylvania is the 10th oldest state or territory (median age is 40.9), Michigan is 14th at 40.1, and Wisconsin is 16th at 40.0. In contrast, Nevada and Arizona are tied for 34th (38.5), and Georgia is 42nd at 37.3. In other words, the "Rust Belt" states have proportionally more older voters and they like Biden (and like voting). (V)

These Are the Least-Liked Candidates in Decades

It's 2024: The year of the double haters. More people dislike both presidential candidates than in any year since pollsters began asking the question. In second place is 2016, the Don and Hill show. Oddly enough, people didn't hate the candidates as much in 2020, although to the best of our memory, there were great similarities with the current candidates.

It should be noted that the survey was conducted before Trump was convicted in New York. There may be some moderate Republicans who never liked Biden and now also have soured on Trump to become double haters.

The approval ratings of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden are at historical lows. In 1988, for example, Michael Dukakis was at 66% and George H.W. Bush was at 51%. Now Biden is at 37% and Trump is at 39%. People really don't like either one. A lot of this is the increased partisanship now. Dukakis and Bush supporters didn't like the other candidate's policies but few people thought that the election of the other candidate would mean the end of the country as we now know it. Now practically everyone thinks that. In 1988, 27% of Republicans had a favorable view of Dukakis. Now 8% of Republicans have a favorable view of Biden. Similarly, in 1988, 50% of Democrats had a favorable view of George H.W. Bush (who they saw as an honorable and decent person whose policies they disliked). Now only 6% of Democrats have a favorable view of Trump. What a change! (V)

Pollsters Are Trying Harder but Still Worried

We're not sure if there was ever a golden age of polling, but we are absolutely sure it is not now. As noted above, a quarter of the electorate hates both candidates. No one knows what they will do. Hold their noses and pick the least bad one? Vote third-party? Stay home and listen to soothing music on Nov. 5? With such a large fraction of the electorate angry, pollsters may have a rough year.

In 2016, there were a lot of shy Trump voters—people who were embarrassed to tell the pollsters that they liked Trump and wouldn't talk to them. As a consequence, pollsters oversampled college-educated voters, who were becoming Democrats in droves. The polling results in 2020 also were not good. The error was the worst in 40 years. The predicted "red wave" didn't happen in 2022. Is polling dead?

Gee, we hope not. Pollsters know all these things and are trying to adjust. One big change is that no serious pollster uses phone calls to landlines exclusively anymore. All pollsters call landlines and cell phones at a bare minimum. In any event, random digit dialing is deader than the proverbial dodo. Many pollsters now buy lists of people and randomly select from the lists. The best lists are lists of registered voters, but they are not available in every state.

One key development is the advent of multimodal polling. Some pollsters are calling people, sending them text messages, and contacting them online by various means. They then compare the results of, say, talking to people on the phone with polling via text messages. By comparing the different modes, they are trying to correct for systemic errors in any one mode. And the underrepresentation of noncollege voters has certainly been fixed.

One big remaining problem is trying to determine who is a likely voter. This is important because Donald Trump does better with marginal voters than does Joe Biden. How much correction needs to be applied to deal with this?

Another big problem is "message-sending." Some young voters are angry with Joe Biden over Gaza and are happy to tell pollsters that in no uncertain terms. But in November, many of them are surely going to bite their tongues and vote for Biden anyway because deep down, they know Trump will be much worse on Gaza and given a choice between "bad" and "truly evil," "bad" may win.

So far, the only thing we truly believe we have learned from the polling is that the "northern route" will be easier for Biden than the "southern route." Also, we believe that of the southern swing states, Nevada and Arizona will be easier for Biden than Georgia and North Carolina. But as we keep pointing out, it's only June and, well, stuff happens. (V)

Q: When Is a Machine Gun Not a Machine Gun? A: When SCOTUS Says So

A machine gun is a weapon that can continuously fire bullets with one trigger pull. In 2017, a mass murderer killed 60 people in Las Vegas using semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks, which lets a gun fire continuously. It was the deadliest mass shooting in the country's history. This slaughter prompted the Trump administration to ban bump stocks.

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the ban was unconstitutional because the folks who wrote the Constitution, who did their work at a time when smooth-bore, muzzle-loading muskets were the go-to weapon for armies, clearly understood the difference between a machine gun (which is banned) and an accessory (which turns a semiautomatic rifle into the functional equivalent of a machine gun). Or something. In other words, a weapon that is designed for rapid fire is banned, but an attachment that turns a semiautomatic into the functional equivalent of a machine gun is fine. The decision hung on the exact definition of "machine gun," which Congress has banned for civilians.

The decision was 6-3, along party lines (20 years ago, we wouldn't have talked about the Supreme Court voting along party lines, but now, well, that's the way it often is). Maybe there was a split decision because when they were in law school, the two groups had different professors for Gunnery 101, where the students learn about the different kinds of guns so they can better understand the Second Amendment.

In the dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: "When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. Because, like Congress, I call that a machine gun." Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, which is very unusual and only done when a justice feels very strongly about a dissent.

The majority generously noted that if Congress wants to change the definition of machine gun to include semiautomatics with bump stocks, it is free to do so. The decision was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, who—surprisingly—wasn't on vacation with Harlan Crow last week. Thomas' opinion was an exercise in sophistry, as he used lots of diagrams and words to argue that guns with bump stocks aren't machine guns because you have to pull the trigger more often on the former than the latter. This raises a pretty basic question: If the bump stocks don't meaningfully increase the rate of fire, then why do people buy them? (V)

Court Blocks Enforcement of Rules Protecting Transgender Students

Another hot legal item came out Friday, although not from the Supreme Court. Rest assured though, it will get there in the fullness of time. And this time it didn't even involve Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who thinks he can rule the country from Amarillo, TX. The ruling was from U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana. This case also hangs on a definition, this time not "machine gun," but "sex." Title IX is a 50-year-old law that bans discrimination in schools based on sex. What Congress had in mind, among other things, was schools saying "We have a boys' basketball team but no girls' basketball team because girls are too short." This is forbidden by Title IX.

But the Biden Education Dept. has reinterpreted the law to mean that transgender students must be allowed to use the bathroom corresponding to their preferred sex and be on sports teams of their preferred sex, and perhaps most controversial of all, change for gym and take showers in locker rooms that correspond to their preferred sex. Also, teachers must use the students' preferred pronouns. Pronoungate, anyone? Or showergate?

As you might imagine, there are people who don't buy the idea of allowing boys into the girls' locker room and showers because they identify as girls (and may not look like girls when undressed). The attorneys general of four states—Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho—sued to have the reinterpretation of the law rescinded. Doughty agreed and ordered schools in those four states not to follow the new rules until the dust has settled (which almost certainly means until the Supreme Court has ruled on the case). The ruling does not apply to other states, although similar cases are in progress in many of them. This was simply the first ruling.

Doughty wrote that protecting "biological males" as if they were females subverts the whole purpose of Title IX and represents an abuse of power by the Biden administration. He is somewhat correct, in that Title IX was indeed passed much more to protect girls than it was to protect boys. We can imagine that some girls will not feel protected if they see a biological boy in their locker room or showers after gym class. The actual wording of Title IX doesn't really help here. It just bans discrimination based on sex and there is little doubt that when the law was passed, Congress wasn't thinking in trans terms.

The Title IX Legal Manual states: "Congress enacted Title IX with two principal objectives in mind: to avoid the use of federal resources to support discriminatory practices in education programs, and to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices. See Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 704 (1979)." Title IX began when Sen. Birch Bayh (D-IN) introduced an amendment to a bill stating that its purpose was to combat "the continuation of corrosive and unjustified discrimination against women in the American educational system." He didn't define "women" (or "girls"). He thought that was pretty obvious and the wording in the text makes it clear that "sex," in the mind of 1970s members of Congress, refers to "males" and "females."

Title IX does not contain any text to the effect "see Appendix B for the legal definition of 'girl.'" Clearly at some point the Supreme Court is going to have to write Appendix B. Is an announcement from a student enough? A doctor's note? Hormone treatments? Surgery? Given that this issue is going to come up in every state, the Supreme Court is going to have to deal with this (unless Congress gets there first, which seems unlikely since Democrats and Republicans are generally not on the same page here). We're going to go way out on a limb here and predict that ultimately Doughty's decision will be upheld by the Supreme Court by 6-3 along party lines. But that is years away. (V)

Democrats Are Planning Counterprogramming to Netanyahu's Speech to Congress

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been invited to address Congress on July 24. Some Democrats are not pleased. They could walk out en masse when he starts speaking, but some of them want to make a stronger statement that they are unhappy with his policies in Gaza. And there are others who want to make a strong statement supporting him. There could be a lot of counterprogramming before, during, or after his speech.

Multiple proposals are being batted around to see how much support they can get. Progressives will probably hold one or more events focused on getting a ceasefire now so the killing can stop. Of course, Joe Biden is already working on that, but finding a proposal that both Israel and Hamas can agree to is not so easy. Other Democrats may take part in an event where the focus is bringing all the hostages home. To that end, they may invite the families of the hostages to take part. They may accuse Netanyahu of not doing enough to save the hostages. Still other Democrats are concerned that Netanyahu is undermining the work Biden and Secretary of State Tony Blinken are doing to try to establish peace.

Discussions are in the early stages and there could well be multiple counterprogramming events held. In addition, some House members may boycott the speech and others may try to disrupt it. Since Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is pro-Israel, he will probably not tolerate disruption and will order the sergeant-at-arms to remove anyone disrupting Netanyahu's speech.

As an aside, (V) once attended a formal ceremony at a university to confer an honorary doctorate on someone certain students did not like at all. They barged in and started chanting. The president of the university thought quickly and said: "I'll offer you a deal. You get one minute to state your case against the honoree and then you leave quietly. If you refuse the deal, I will have security remove you by force right now." The students took the deal, made their case, and then left.

Netanyahu probably understands America as well as any foreign leader. He studied at M.I.T. and received a bachelor's degree there in architecture in 1975. Then he got a master's from M.I.T.'s Sloan School of Management, where he graduated near the top of his class. He simultaneously took courses at Harvard. He was studying for a Ph.D. in political science at M.I.T. when his brother was killed, so he returned to Israel. His professors have said he was extremely bright and organized. He speaks unaccented English and if you didn't know better, could pass for a senator from somewhere in New England. He will know exactly what to say to Congress to get the largest number of members to support him.

Donald Trump likes Netanyahu and vice-versa. Netanyahu will do his best to help Trump, but he is clever enough not to let that show. Biden and Netanyahu don't like each other and don't agree on much. Nevertheless, Netanyahu is dependent on Biden for weapons and more at least until Jan. 20, 2025, and maybe until Jan. 20, 2029, so he has to be very careful in how he helps Trump because he can't afford to anger Biden now. (V)

"It Has a Lifespan of 5 or 6 Years"

A number of Democrats and organizations are already planning on how to deal with Trump v2.0 if it comes to that. As one example, the 19th century Comstock Act bans sending pornography, contraceptives, and abortifacients across state lines. It is never enforced anymore, but a new Trump administration could start to vigorously enforce it in order to stop pharmacies in blue states from sending mifepristone to women in red states.

So, what has Gov. Jay Inslee (D-WA) done? He has ordered the State of Washington to stockpile enough mifepristone in state to handle the expected number of abortions in his state for 4 years so it could be supplied to women in Washington without it going over any state lines. The headline is a quote from Inslee about mifepristone. He didn't quite express it right (he meant "shelf life" not "lifespan"), but even if Trump is elected, women in Washington will be able to get abortions. California, New York, and other states have done likewise. There are also international organizations that will ship mifepristone to women in the U.S. from pharmacies in India. That would be illegal, but there is no easy way to detect this (short of opening all packages from India, which would itself be illegal). That would simply cause the organizations to mail them from somewhere else. Also, there is certainly no way to punish foreign pharmacies or stop them.

Inslee is not the only one who is very worried. Many pro-democracy groups are expecting Trump to simply ignore the Constitution and the law and send federal troops into Democratic cities, carry out mass deportations, build huge camps to hold immigrants, and replace 50,000 civil servants with his flunkies. They are doing their best to prepare for the worst.

One hope is that the hundreds of judges Joe Biden and Barack Obama appointed will block many of Trump's plans. Democracy groups are already writing briefs for expected lawsuits. At the very least, the courts could slow Trump down by ruling he can't do some of the things he wants to do until the Supreme Court has ruled on them, which could take years. The groups will not be caught flat-footed again, like in 2017.

ACLU has mapped out 63 scenarios in which Trump could threaten the rule of law and is preparing lawsuits to deal with them. In particular, it expects Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act to send federal troops into cities, against the express wishes of the mayors in question. It is prepared to argue before the Supreme Court that the Insurrection Act does not authorize the president to shut down protests allowed by the First Amendment. It is also recruiting plaintiffs who would have standing to sue. The ACLU has also hired an auditing firm to go over its finances with a microscope since it expects Trump to sic the IRS on it.

Another source of opposition to Trump's attempt to establish a dictatorship is federalism itself. Trump will not control about half the state governments. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) has founded a group called the Reproductive Freedom Alliance for blue state governors to coordinate their activities opposing Trump. They are planning new state laws that could thwart Trump. Federal law trumps state law (no pun intended), but if the Democrats manage to control at least one chamber of Congress, Trump won't be able to get any new laws passed and state laws trump executive orders. In that case, Trump won't get any funding for massive deportation, concentration camps, and the like. In many cases, the blue-state governors will be able to get funding for their plans since Democrats hold the trifecta in 17 states (and Republicans in 23 states). Ten have mixed control.

In any event, numerous Democratic officials and pro-democracy groups are planning for a Trump presidency and how to thwart it in numerous ways. This, by the way, is the price of refusing to accept the legitimacy of elections. If Trump insists that Joe Biden need not be respected as the president, then the same holds when the shoe is on the other foot. (V)

Republicans Are Angry about Johnson Putting Scott Perry on the Intel Committee

The House Intelligence Committee is not one of the most powerful House committees—like the Appropriations Committee, which decides how the federal government will spend $6 trillion each year, or the Oversight Committee, which can investigate anyone it wants to investigate. Nevertheless, it is extremely prestigious because its members are briefed on all manner of confidential things that other House members don't get to know. Being a member makes a Congresscritter a true insider. Slots on the Committee are highly desired and getting one is a big plum.

So when Mike Johnson gave a coveted slot to Freedom Caucus member and all-around firebrand Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), it set off a lot of alarms within the Republican caucus. In particular, Republicans already on the Committee were shocked, but their shock turned quickly into rage because members get access to national security secrets and there is a long-standing tradition of bipartisanship when handling anything that affects national security. Seats on the Intel Committee were previously granted based on the ability to keep secrets and work across the aisle. Intelligence Committee member Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) said of the appointment: "It upends the meritocracy that has long been the defining practice on Intel." Then he added: "The speaker needs to remember that there isn't only one group that can threaten him. Just do not teach the lesson that the only way for us to be effective here is threatening, because I'll take the lesson and I'll do it."

Other Republicans said (on background) that rewarding hardliners like Perry will only encourage more antics, like tanking procedural votes, blocking bills, or making motions to vacate the chair. A large chunk of the Republican caucus is very upset by Johnson's caving to the Freedom Caucus. It is worth noting that none of the Democrats' most pugnacious members are on the Committee. (V)

Graves Won't Run for Election in New Black and Blue District

Three-term congressman Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA) has announced that he will not run for reelection in November due to the court-ordered redistricting of Louisiana. His current district, which runs from Baton Rouge to New Orleans, is R+19. All he would have had to do to win there is pay the filing fee and ward off any Republican challengers. The district shows off the gerrymanderer's artwork at its finest:

However, the new map turned LA-06 into a majority-Black district and one that is heavily Democratic. Graves would have had no chance there, so he preemptively threw in the towel.

The redistricting and withdrawal of the incumbent means that the Democrats are sure to pick up the seat. State Sen. Cleo Fields (D) of Baton Rouge is already in. So is Quentin Anderson, the executive chairman of the Justice Alliance. So is Republican Scott Sonnier, but he has no chance at all because the district is so blue now. (V)

---

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