Trump Warns of a Bloodbath If He Loses

Maya Angelou put it very succinctly: "“When people show you who they are, believe them." On Saturday in Dayton, OH, while campaigning for Senate candidate Bernie Moreno (R), Donald Trump gave his take on immigrants: "I don't know if you call them people. In some cases they're not people, in my opinion. But I'm not allowed to say that because the radical left says that's a terrible thing to say." If they are not people, what are they? We know: vermin. He already told us. He previously said they were "poisoning the blood of our country."

Then Trump continued: "If I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole—that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country." He clearly sees the Jan. 6, 2021, coup attempt as the out-of-town tryout. The real show will begin on Jan. 6, 2025. Does he mean it? Angelou would say yes. Joe Biden's campaign spokesman, James Singer concurred: "This is who Donald Trump is." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told CNN's Dana Bash yesterday: "We just have to win this election because he's even predicting a bloodbath." But Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) defended Trump, saying: "But you could also look up the definition of bloodbath, and it could be an economic disaster." In the next few days, we expect more Republicans to defend Trump. They are all scared witless of him.

Trump's calls for violence have not gone unnoticed by other candidates. Michele Morrow, who is the Republican nominee for superintendent of public instruction in North Carolina, has called for the execution of Hillary Clinton, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, and Barack Obama. Specifically about Obama, she tweeted: "I prefer a Pay Per View of him in front of the firing squad. I do not want to waste another dime on supporting his life. We could make some money back from televising his death." In case you thought you missed something, no, Obama is not in prison and is not guilty or even accused of any crime, much less a capital crime. And it is not even known if Bill Gates is a Democrat or a Republican. But the base wants to put people in front of a firing squad, and Gates is famous and rich. Tough luck. North Carolina schools, which she calls indoctrination centers, aren't going to be the same if she wins.

Trump is clearly ramping up the rhetoric to work his base into a frenzy and make sure every last one of them votes. He doesn't care if that offends everyone else, as he believes that if all his supporters vote, that will be enough. It is an unusual strategy. Most politicians try to use dog whistles when getting controversial messages through to their base, but Trump doesn't care who hears him. He thinks it worked in 2016 so it will work again.

Trump was crude, as usual. He referred to Joe Biden as a "dumb son of a b**ch." When referring to Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis, he said: "It's spelled fanny, like your ass." He called the governor of California Gavin New-scum. He mocked Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) saying: "He wants to eat all the time. I'll have five burgers please. Who the hell orders five burgers?" Trump, svelte eater of health food that he is, never has more than two Big Macs at a sitting. Well, OK, maybe three.

What is also noteworthy is that Trump is going to run a very dark campaign, calling America a dystopian place, a real hellhole. This is a 180-degree turn from Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America" or Barack Obama's "Hope." Trump has a good feel for what his base wants. Many of them feel marginalized, unheard, and looked down upon, so to them, maybe America is a dystopian place. The ironic thing here is that many of his supporters live in quiet rural areas where people generally get along and neighbors help each other, hardly the dystopia Trump is imagining. Believing Trump requires them to have two contradictory visions of America in their heads at the same time.

It's all about Trump. All the time. He apparently forgot that the reason he came to Ohio was to campaign for wealthy Mercedes-Benz car dealer Moreno, who is running for the Senate in tomorrow's primary. Trump barely mentioned Moreno. Ohio is not a priority for the Trump campaign. What's going on here? Usually when you fly 1,000 miles from home to do something, you remember why you went there. Did he forget why he went to Ohio? We're not neurologists, so we are not going to attempt a remote diagnosis here. (V)

Trump Has Not Reached Out to Nikki Haley

Donald Trump is running a base-only campaign. His goal is to get enough true believers to the polls to win and to hell with everyone else. That includes Republicans who voted for Nikki Haley. Usually after a divisive primary, the winner tries to make nice to the losers, tell them they put up an excellent fight, but now it is time for the party to unify and back the winner. That's not how Trump works.

Now that Trump is the candidate-presumptive (analagous to the president-elect), he could have contacted Haley, told her she ran an impressive campaign, and asked her to join the effort to defeat the evil Joe Biden. He hasn't done it. Trump also has not reached out to key people in Haleyworld, such as Republican megadonor Art Pope, who handled the funding Haley got from the remaining Koch brother. Pope has no interest in going to Trump with his tail between his legs and begging forgiveness, either. He said he wants to see who Trump will pick as his running mate and what the tone of the Republican National Convention is. If he wants to know, he can drop us a note and we can tell him with 99% certainty what the tone of the convention will be.

One top Haley donor said: "At the end of the day, it's just hubris and this belief that no matter what, they've got this, and they don't need Nikki's voters. I think this is all going to end badly [in the general] and Haley will have proven to be correct. Everybody is going to deserve what they get here." If the Haley voters go for Biden, a third-party candidate, or sit this one out, Trump's arrogance could come back to bite him in the rear in November.

Another person Trump has not approached is Mike Pence, his former veep, who said that he "cannot in good conscience" endorse Trump. And Pence said this on Fox on Friday, so the Trump faithful will know it. He also went on Face the Nation yesterday and said it again. But his reason wasn't Trump's attempt to shred the Constitution or his encouraging rioters who were chanting "Hang Mike Pence." No, his argument is that Trump is insufficiently conservative on abortion, the national debt, China, and TikTok. Chris Christie is also not on board (yet). (V)

Trump's Hush Money Trial Will Be Delayed by at Least 30 Days

Donald Trump got some good news on Friday. The hush-money case in New York has officially been delayed at least 30 days, so it won't begin until sometime in April at the earliest. The delay comes because the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York just turned over 70,000 pages of records, some of which could be relevant to the case. These records had been requested a year ago. Why did the SDNY take so long to produce them? They aren't telling.

Prosecutor Alvin Bragg said he didn't mind the delay because the defense needed some time to sift through the documents. He was afraid that if he hadn't agreed to the delay and Trump lost, Trump would appeal on the grounds that his team had no chance to review the documents. Given that a trial that began in late April would still be finished well before the election, Bragg did not give up much.

Of course, Trump's goal is simply to delay all the trials until after the election, so we can expect that in 30 days, Trump's lawyers will say they need more time to read 70,000 pages. Assuming the lawyers work 8 hours every day, even weekends, they would have to read 292 documents/hour to make it in 30 days, so a request for delay might seem reasonable. On the other hand, many of the documents have nothing to do with the case, so they can be disposed of quickly.

So with this trial now delayed, no trials are yet scheduled. The status of the cases is roughly as follows:

Case	Location	Status
Hush money	New York	Potentially could start at the end of April
Jan. 6 coup	D.C.	Waiting for SCOTUS to rule on presidential immunity; could start in August
Mar-a-Lago documents	Florida	Judge Cannon is in no hurry at all and is just dragging her feet
RICO case	Georgia	Fani Willis has to pick a new lead prosecutor; trial before the election seems unlikely

Will any cases go to trial before the election? The hush-money case and coup case have a shot at it and the RICO case maybe has a small chance, but Trump's lawyers will file motion after motion with the expectation of having them denied, just so they can appeal. It's not about winning. It's all about delay. (V)

Twice as Many Voters Think Trump's Policies Helped Them More than Biden's

A new Siena College poll has some pretty amazing findings and good news for Donald Trump. It shows that more voters believe Trump's policies helped them personally than did Biden's policies. Here is what it looks like:

A shocking 40% of voters think that Trump's policies helped them personally. Only 18% of voters said that Biden's policies help them personally. This cuts across all demographic groups.

This shows that voters have little to no understanding of economics. What many voters mean is that the economy treated them better under Trump (until COVID-19 hit) than under Biden. Trump didn't cause the good economy due to his policies though. He simply inherited a good economy from Barack Obama. Biden was hit with the aftermath of the pandemic, namely high inflation. It was not his policies that caused inflation. It was disturbances to supply chains and logistics that happened on Trump's watch and about which he couldn't do anything that caused the inflation. But voters don't understand that presidents don't really have much effect on the economy.

Also, some respondents confused "policies that helped me personally" with "policies I like." For example, some of them cited Trump's plan to build a wall on the Mexican border as a plus for Trump. Of course, very few people benefited personally from the plan, which was never executed anyway. Still, Biden has to deal with perception, not reality. That's the way it goes in politics. (V)

The SOTU Is Now Political

Art. I, Sec. 3 of the Constitution says of the president: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient ..." Seems simple, no? Not in our polarized country. The #3 House Republican, Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN), doesn't want to hear from Biden again if he wins, Constitution or no Constitution. Emmer said: "That was about the most divisive State of the Union—I wouldn't extend him an invitation next year, if that's what we're going to get." Is Emmer asking for a copy of the speech in advance so he can judge if it is acceptable? Sounds like that. Biden did have unkind things to say about Donald Trump, but he also laid out his plans for a second term. And the Constitution actually requires him (note the use of "he shall" in the actual wording) to recommend Measures he thinks are necessary. His plans for a second term are the things he thinks are necessary. The Constitution does not give Congress a veto over the speech if some members think they are not going to like the state of the union or the Measures.

Emmer is not the only one who wants to block Biden. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) introduced a bill blocking the SOTU speech unless Biden produced a budget and a national security proposal on time. Actually, he did submit a budget; the Republicans just don't like it. There is nothing in the Constitution or even federal law about national security proposals. Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) doesn't want another SOTU speech next year unless Biden does something about the border. Perry, of course, has neglected the detail that three different border bills have been introduced to Congress and Republicans are blocking them all. (V)

Democrats Raise $53 Million in February

The Biden campaign, DNC, and their joint committees raised $53 million in February. Since April 2023, they have raised $331 million. As of Feb. 20, they had $155 million left in the bank. This is the highest total for a campaign and associated committees in history. The campaign has had 1.3 million donors who gave a total of 3.4 million times so far, with 97% giving under $200.

A lot of the money will go to the ground game. The campaign is planning to open 100 offices in the half-dozen battleground states and hire 350 people to staff them. But it is also going to fight in the air. It is planning to spend $30 million on TV ads in the swing states.

The Trump campaign hasn't released its February numbers yet, but the RNC had $40 million at the end of January. However, that number could be somewhat misleading because Trump is probably going to tap at least some of it to pay his lawyers, reducing what he has for campaigning. The DSCC, DCCC, NRSC, and NRCC haven't reported on February yet either.

Historically, money doesn't matter so much in presidential races because the candidates get so much free publicity. It does matter down-ballot, though. This is why DNC and RNC money is important. These committees have the flexibility to shovel money where it is needed most. (V)

Could Carroll Successfully Sue Trump a Third Time?

Aaron Blake of The Washington Post has an interesting piece about whether E. Jean Carroll could win a third defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump if she tried. As you probably recall, suit #1 will cost Trump $5 million plus interest and suit #2 will cost Trump $83 million plus interest. After he lost the second time, Trump made comments very similar to the ones that cost him $83 million in #2. For example, at a rally in Georgia after he lost the second case, he said: "I just posted a $91 million bond—$91 million on a fake story, totally made-up story. Ninety-one million based on false accusations made about me by a woman that I knew nothing about, didn't know, never heard of. I know nothing about her." Two juries have already found otherwise and there is photographic evidence that he knew Carroll.

In fact, in the speech and at other venues, Trump has repeated almost all the words that got him in trouble the second time. The only things he did not repeat are that: (1) she has ulterior motives to the lawsuit (i.e., selling a book) and (2) "she is not my type."

A defamation case has three parts. First, the plaintiff has to prove that the defamatory statements are false. True statements can never be the basis of a defamation lawsuit. Second, the plaintiff has to prove actual malice. A statement simply made in ignorance is not defamatory. Third, the plaintiff has to demonstrate the damage caused by the defamatory statements. Since the situation this time is so similar to the other two, Carroll probably has a good case.

Defamation lawyer Tre Lovell said that Trump continuing to say things that he knows have been found defamatory in the past gives Carroll a very strong case and could push the damages much higher, perhaps into the hundreds of millions of dollars. This would not be due to actual damages, since the first decisions covered them. It would be for punitive damages, basically making it so expensive for Trump that he would shut up for fear of being bankrupted on a fourth case.

Trump's attacks on Carroll are perplexing given his cash crunch. He needs to get a bond for $454 million to stay seizure of his properties while he appeals his loss in the New York State fraud case. If Carroll sues him a third time and wins a judgment of, say, $200 million, he would need to come up with 110% of that (i.e., $220 million) to stay seizure of his assets pending an appeal. He understands that process extremely well, but apparently simply cannot control himself. Maybe he believes that if he wins the election, Carroll won't be able to collect, but that is not true. If he loses #3 and posts a bond, the surety company is going to insist on the bond being fully collateralized. That is, he will have to assign the company the right to seize some of his property if he loses the appeal. That process will continue even if he is elected president because defamation is a civil case, not a criminal one, and presidents are not immune to civil cases arising from matters not relating to their official duties. Since Trump was not president when he made the remarks disparaging Carroll in Georgia last week, he has no immunity at all from a potential third lawsuit. (V)

Supreme Court Will Hear Case about Government Attempts to Suppress Disinformation

Today the Supreme Court will hold oral hearings on what could be an important First Amendment case. During the height of the COVID pandemic, various government agencies contacted social media companies and politely asked them to remove misleading information from their sites. It was pointed out that if people believed what they read there, they or other people could be harmed by the misinformation (e.g., taking horse dewormer and then thinking you were immune to COVID-19). The government never threatened any sanctions for failure to follow the advice. The officials who issued the requests hoped that the companies had enough sense to do this on their own.

Well, the conservative attorneys general of Missouri and Mississippi couldn't stand this, even though none of the companies or agencies are located in those states, so they sued. After all, if the government gets away with asking companies not to publish harmful lies from users, pretty soon they could be censoring harmful lies from politicians in their states. The case made it to the Supreme Court, and today the Court will hold oral hearings on the case.

The constitutional issue is that Congress may make no laws abridging the freedom of speech. Is a government agency asking a private company to stop publishing harmful lies sort of the same thing as Congress passing a law making it a crime for a private company to publish harmful lies? In other words, were the companies coerced and does that rise to the level of abridging a First Amendment right the companies have (even though the plaintiffs weren't exactly involved)?

Naturally, this issue has become part of the culture wars. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and 44 other House Republicans have filed an amicus brief claiming that the Biden administration has suppressed conservative speech online. It is possible that it is only conservatives that are posting the harmful information, which is why they feel they are under attack.

We don't know how the Court will rule, of course, but we do know that when the Fifth Circuit ruled on the case last year and the Supreme Court paused the circuit court's injunction, Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas dissented. That suggests that there are at least three votes for ruling that the government may not even ask social media companies to suppress harmful lies. (V)

Putin Is "Reelected"

The Russians held a sham presidential election over the weekend, and Vladimir Putin "won" a fifth term as president. That means, barring death or overthrow, he'll be in office until 2030. He's also arranged for the rules on term limits to be changed, such that he can stage another sham election in that year, and then serve until 2036. At that point, he'd still only be a year older than Joe Biden is right now. In other words, Putin has been running Russia forever.

We do not presume to have any special expertise in Russian politics or culture, but Putin's win percentage strikes us as just about the worst win percentage possible. He took 87% of the vote, since there was no real opposition, and since Russian voters were strongly "encouraged" to get themselves to the polls to show their "support" for their Dear Leader. Nobody, within Russia or without, can look at that total and take it seriously. Particularly just a few weeks after Putin's biggest critic, Alexei Navalny, died in prison under hazy circumstances.

At the same time, despite all the factors acting in Putin's favor, there was still 13% of the vote that did not go for him. Clearly there is a resistance out there. We would say that if you're going to rig an election, you really should arrange to win at least 95% of the vote, the way Kim Jong-Un does. Otherwise, have a real election, knowing you'll still win based on incumbency and name recognition, so that you can claim an actual mandate, as opposed to a faux mandate.

In any event, when Putin does leave office, it likely will not be voluntary. And between his reported health issues, along with the fact that he's already faced at least one coup attempt, we wonder what the odds are that he actually makes it to 2030. Maybe 50/50? (Z)

---

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 in school, at work, etc., please click here.

---

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

---The Votemaster and Zenger