House, White House Have a Deal

You have to be careful about these things, because they could always go to pieces at the last moment. But it appears that, a mere 5 months late, Joe Biden and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) have hammered out an agreement that will keep the government from shutting down.

The key sticking point that remained in the negotiations was funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Johnson wanted to kick that can down the road, which would have meant stagnant, or even slightly reduced, funding for the department, per the agreement that Biden and then-speaker Kevin McCarthy made last year. However, over the weekend, Biden said he would not sign a short-term funding bill for DHS because there is a critical need for help at the southern border. Johnson eventually yielded on this point, and has agreed to a bill that will increase funding a bit. It's interesting that this is not getting more attention.

At this point, with a potential shutdown just a few days away, there are a couple of big obstacles left. First, Johnson has to deal with the Freedom Caucusers, who are going to be howling mad. He presumably knows he has the votes, with Democrats lining up behind the bill, but there might just be a motion to vacate the chair. You never know with the FCers.

Then, once the House has done its part (assuming it does), the Senate has to approve. Given the tight timeline, unanimous consent will likely be required to get the bill in under the deadline. If one of the senators objects (ahem, Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY), then there may be a brief shutdown, or else a stopgap bill that allows the time necessary for the upper chamber to take care of business. Why would a stopgap bill get through quickly when a regular bill could not? Because there are senators who want to amend the regular bill to address their pet projects/issues, while there would be little point in doing that with the stopgap bill. (Z)

Five More States Vote Today

This year's primaries, which were already pretty low-drama because both parties' presidential nominees had no serious challengers, have become even less interesting now that Joe Biden and Donald Trump have secured a majority of their parties' delegates, and so are now both presumptive nominees. That's not to say there is nothing of interest going on, however, as voters in five more states cast ballots today.

Although they are now largely beside the point, there will be presidential primaries in Arizona, Illinois, Kansas and Ohio, on both sides of the aisle. Florida will also have a Republican primary—we thought it had been canceled, but, in fact, only the Democratic primary was kiboshed. It's not too easy to get accurate information on these things, and those sources that do exist often disagree. Anyhow, we'll get a little more presidential data today, and we'll see if it tells us anything of interest.

On top of that, Ohio and Illinois are also holding primaries for the other federal offices. Here's a rundown of 10 races of interest:

1. U.S. Senate, Ohio: This is the biggie, as three Republicans duke it out for the right to challenge Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) looks to be out of luck; perhaps he is being held responsible for the failed attempt to ban abortion access in the state. Car dealer Bernie Moreno is less electable, but more Trumpy, and so has the former president's full-throated backing. Baseball owner Matt Dolan is more electable, but less Trumpy, and so The Donald has been attacking him mercilessly. Yesterday, for example, Trump blasted Dolan for changing the name of his team from the Cleveland Indians to the Cleveland Guardians. The culture wars never, ever end.
   
   
2. OH-02: There are 11 Republicans running to replace Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R) as the holder of this ruby-red, R+25 seat. That's a situation that allows for wins with a small plurality, and thus potentially for a loon to land the nomination. Is Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) about to get a new friend?
   
   
3. OH-09: At R+3, this is one of the few swingy seats in Ohio, thanks to effective gerrymandering by the state's legislature. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D) will find out who her opponent is today; she would have liked to face J.R. Majewski (R), who is a scandal-ridden nutter, but he dropped out. So, it's likely to be either state Rep. Derek Merrin (R) or former state Rep. Craig Riedel. Riedel might have won, but a clip of him bashing Donald Trump came to light, and that may be fatal. Merrin is the preferred choice of the Republican establishment, and he also landed Trump's endorsement... about 12 hours ago.
   
   
4. OH-13: This seat, at R+1, is another one of the small handful of swingy seats. Rep. Emilia Sykes (D) is unopposed; she'll likely end up facing either councilman Chris Banweg (R), who is nutty enough to have gotten the endorsement of Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), or else former state legislator Kevin Coughlin, who is nutty enough to have gotten the endorsement of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH).
   
   
5. IL-06: Like Ohio, Illinois has very few swingy seats, due to effective gerrymandering. Of course, in the Land of Lincoln, the favoritism goes in the other direction. At D+3, this is one of the few seats that could plausibly switch hands in November. Rep. Sean Casten (D) is pro-Israel, and has drawn two challengers who are pro-Palestine and are hammering him for his stance. If Casten goes down, that could be a wake-up call for many Democrats. Whichever Democrat survives will go on to face Republican businesswoman Niki Conforti.
   
   
6. IL-07: This seat is D+36, and so will remain Democratic. However, Rep. Danny Davis (D) has drawn four challengers. Their main line of attack is that, at 82, Davis is too old.
   
   
7. IL-11: This is another potential swing seat, at D+5, and another Democratic primary that has largely become about Israel, with Rep. Bill Foster (D) taking the pro-Israel position and challenger Qasim Rashid (D) taking the pro-Palestine position. The Republican side of the race has three people, and they are competing to prove who is Trumpiest of all.
   
   
8. IL-12: Another district that will not be changing hands, as it is R+24. However, Rep. Mike Bost (R) has incumbency and Donald Trump's endorsement, while former state Rep. Darren Bailey (R) has a lot of vocal fans. Could be a barnburner.
   
   
9. IL-13: Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D) will be asked to defend her D+3 seat. Fortunately for her, the two Republicans running for the right to challenge her are Thomas Clatterbuck, who is busy finishing law school, and Joshua Loyd, who calls himself an entrepreneur but has been vague about what exactly his field is. Must be like Mr. Green in the movie Clue; a businessman whose business is "business."
   
   
10. IL-17: Basically, the same story as in IL-13. Rep. Eric Sorensen (D) will be asked to defend a swingy (D+2) district, but will face an unknown. In this case, the Republican will either be Scott Crowl, a farmer, or Joe McGraw, a judge.

We will, of course, have a rundown of the results tomorrow. (Z)

Trump Legal News: You Never Give Me Your Money

Yesterday, Donald Trump's attorneys told the New York Appellate Division that their client just can't come up with the money needed to post the roughly $470 million bond he needs to post while trying to get the judgment against him overturned.

According to Team Trump, the former president has approached 30 different surety companies about underwriting the bond and has found no takers, because the insurers want liquid assets as collateral (securities, cash, etc.) and won't accept real estate for the purpose when so much money is involved. Perhaps this is true; it's not so easy to unload high-end real estate, especially when the guy who would be valuing it is in trouble for lying about the value of his properties. On the other hand, perhaps the full truth is that Trump just doesn't have enough equity in his properties for it to be viable to use them as collateral. That could be true if they are not nearly as valuable as he says they are, or if he's already mortgaged them to the hilt for other purposes. Or both.

Trump offered to post a $100 million bond instead. For those who do not have their calculators handy, or their staff mathematician available due to the aftereffects of St. Patrick's Day, $100 million is a wee bit less than $470 million. Alternatively, yesterday's filing implies that if Trump was given more time, he'd be able to come up with the money, either by finding a sucker... er, lender to underwrite the bond, or by selling some property. However, if he has to come up with cash on an expedited timeline, the filing whines... er, says, he may have to sell at a "massive, irrecoverable" loss. Hm, too bad he didn't know, say, three months ago—when Judge Arthur Engoron ruled that Trump was guilty, and that his trial was primarily to establish exactly what the penalty would be—that he was going to need some cash.

Legally, Trump has no leg to stand on here (and we confirmed this with reader/lawyer R.E.M. in Brooklyn). In particular, part of the trade off for "we'll hear your appeal" is "but you'll make it easy to settle the matter when and if you lose." The courts generally don't like to do their part if the defendant isn't doing HIS part, particularly since the defendant's inability to do HIS part is pretty good evidence he can't actually satisfy the judgment. That said, as R.E.M. pointed out to us, "The five most useless words in the English language are 'Judge, you can't do that.'" So, you never know until you know. Reportedly, if Trump does not prevail here and does not somehow come up with the money, AG Letitia James will begin taking steps to enforce the judgment on March 25 (i.e., Monday of next week).

Meanwhile, on a somewhat related note, CNBC reports that Trump's fundraising does not appear to be going very well. The figures for 2024 are still fuzzy, but in 2023, he was down 62.5% among small-money donors as compared to 2019. It could be fatigue, since he's been hitting the base up for cash on a multiple-times-daily basis for nearly a decade. It could also be that they don't want their "let's win the election" donations to somehow turn into "let's pay the lawyers" money.

At the same time, the big-money donors are largely keeping their checkbooks in their pockets. Normally, they would donate to the RNC or to the various PACs affiliated with Trump. But the fat cats definitely believe that their money would go to legal fees instead of campaigning, and they want no piece of that. Maybe getting rid of Ronna Romney McDaniel, and putting the RNC under the control of ultra-loyalists who will not say "no" to Trump under any circumstances was not the best idea, after all. In any case—and as we have predicted numerous times—it looks like the former president is going to have real problems meeting his legal expenses, and also paying for his campaign. Some unpleasant choices appear to be looming in the near future. (Z)

Of Course Trump Meant His "Bloodbath" Comment

Let us start this item by talking about... The Wizard of Oz. There is a well-known argument (at least among historians) that the book is an allegory for the Populist movement, with Dorothy representing average people, the scarecrow representing farmers, the tin woodsman representing silver miners and factory workers, and the cowardly lion representing William Jennings Bryan (note that "lion" rhymes with "Bryan") as they try to solve their problems by traveling the yellow brick road (i.e., by using gold). In the end, the path of gold fails to do anything for Dorothy, and what actually solves her problem (namely, that she wants to get home) is the slippers she's wearing. While the slippers are made from rubies in the famous 1939 movie, so as to show off the then-new medium of color film, in the book they are made of silver. So, silver saves her where gold failed.

There are many historians who buy this interpretation (first put forward in the 1950s). There are many historians who say it's poppycock. (Z) is inclined to side with the first group, due to one detail in particular. If it is an allegory, then the wicked witches would represent businessmen and bankers, who were the enemies of the Populists. And in the movie, after Dorothy (inadvertently) kills the Wicked Witch of the West by pouring water on her, the Wizard of Oz observes that "you liquidated her, eh?" That's a pretty odd way to refer to getting rid of someone UNLESS the author was trying to carry off the allegory, and so needed the double-meaning of "got rid of" and "put out of business." Often, the biggest clues to the existence of allegory are unusual word choices. Yes, it is true you need the silver slippers from the book, and the "liquidated" line from the movie to make it work well, but one can argue the movie's screenwriters just made explicit the notion that L. Frank Baum implied in the novel (i.e., liquidating the witch).

What does this have to do with anything? Well, in yesterday's posting, we noted that at one of his rallies this weekend, Donald Trump warned that there will be a "bloodbath" if he is not reelected. We also added that this was just the latest such remark in what is proving to be a very dark campaign for the presidency.

By the time we were writing that, some Republicans had already leapt to Trump's defense, suggesting that he did not mean "bloodbath" in the sense of "violent uprising" but more in an economic sense. During the day yesterday, after we went live, many more Republicans advanced that line of thinking, going onto the various news programs and social media platforms to defend the former president and to lambaste the media for making much ado of nothing (see here, here and here for examples). And note, it wasn't just pundits, and it wasn't just Republicans. In fact, we got several e-mails from readers saying that we should not have misrepresented Trump's words the way we did.

For the record, so readers can judge for themselves, here is exactly what Trump said:

They think that they're going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border. Let me tell you something to China. If you're listening President Xi [Jinping], and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal: Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you're building in Mexico right now, and you think you're gonna get that, you're gonna not hire Americans and you're gonna sell the cars to us—no.

We're gonna put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not gonna be able to sell those guys if I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's gonna be a bloodbath for the whole—that's gonna be the least of it, it's gonna be a bloodbath for the country, that'll be the least of it.

For our part, we stand 100% behind what we wrote yesterday, for these three reasons:

1. If you are a politician, particularly one who would presume to run for President of the United States, you are responsible for every word that comes out of your mouth, and that also means having an awareness that "bigger" thoughts could be reduced to smaller sound bites. Think, for example, of Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables." In context, what she said was perfectly correct. But it was reduced down to that three-word phrase, which enraged many Trump supporters. Few Democrats, and zero Republicans, were rushing to Clinton's defense to say that the remark was taken out of context. And, to be blunt, it was Hillary's fault; she should have known full well the risk that her words would be decontextualized like that.
   
   
2. Donald Trump has used dark and violent rhetoric before. And not once, or twice, or three times, but dozens of times. If, say, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) or Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had used the word bloodbath in a concerning way, then maybe you give them the benefit of the doubt, because they do not have a history of using violent verbiage. But Trump gave up that benefit of the doubt long ago.
   
   
3. Most important, how many damn times does this man have to run this playbook before people catch onto it? He blathers out a word salad and included therein is something problematic. Then, when he's called out on the problematic verbiage, he claims his words were taken out of context, and it's just more fake news from a media establishment that's out to get him. Oh, and he also turns around and uses that to fundraise, which he is already doing with the bloodbath situation. To return to The Wizard of Oz, it is very odd to use the word "bloodbath" in this particular context UNLESS you are trying to get your violent ideas out there while at the same time giving yourself plausible deniability, so you can then do your performative outrage.

Oh, and even if you think Trump was shooting straight, and really was just talking about the auto industry, his threat to put a 100% tariff on all foreign cars, including those from Mexico, is lunacy, and would devastate the U.S. economy if it happened. In case the $230 billion his trade wars have cost the country was not enough.

But again, he wasn't just talking about the auto industry. Trump meant what he said, and he said what he meant. And while he's squeezing the "evil media" angle for all it's worth, he's already moved on to the next bit of violent and hate-filled rhetoric. Yesterday, he sat for an interview with Sebastian Gorka and decreed that Jews who vote Democratic "hate Israel" and aren't truly Jewish. So, it was a day full of fake news and fake Jews for him. Undoubtedly, he only meant Jews in the auto industry though, right? (Z)

Not All Insurrectionists Are Made the Same, Apparently

Fresh off of making Donald Trump virtually Fourteenth-Amendment-proof, the Supreme Court has declined to consider the case of Couy Griffin. So, Griffin is barred from holding office under the Insurrection Clause, while Trump is not.

Inasmuch as the Court did not hear the case, the Supremes did not explain their reasoning in allowing Griffin's disqualification to stand. There are two big differences between him and Trump: (1) Griffin has been convicted of an insurrection-related crime (for participating in the events of 1/6) and Trump hasn't, and (2) Griffin was disqualified by his state for a state-level office. Presumably, it was one of these two things that caused SCOTUS to draw a distinction between Griffin and Trump.

That said, either of these possibilities raises questions. If Griffin's disqualification stands because he was convicted of an insurrection-related act, then does that mean a Trump conviction in the court of Tanya Chutkan would automatically disqualify Trump? If so, then shouldn't SCOTUS prioritize his presidential immunity case, so the American people have that rather important piece of information?

On the other hand, if Griffin's disqualification is because he was not a federal officeholder, does that mean he could still run for Congress? Or the presidency? And if being disqualified from federal office requires federal enabling legislation, then how come being disqualified from state office does not require state enabling legislation?

In short, it seems to us like SCOTUS should have probably taken this case, so as to resolve at least some of the ambiguities present in the Trump decision. As it is, we're more confused than ever as to what the Insurrection Clause does, and does not, do. (Z)

How Good Are National Polls This Early?

George Elliott Morris, who took charge of FiveThirtyEight after the departure of Nate Silver, has taken a look at how good election polls are 8 months in advance. He starts out by noting that if the election were held today, there is no doubt that Donald Trump would win. However, the election is not being held today, and therein lies the rub.

Historically, there have been years when polling this far out was terribly wrong. For example, at this point in 1980, Jimmy Carter was 14 points ahead of Ronald Reagan. Reagan won by 10 points, so the shift from March to November was 24 points. In 1992, the early polls were off by 19 points. In 2000, they were off by 8. This is not entirely surprising because stuff happens. Also, many voters really aren't paying attention this early. Here is a scatterplot of the early polls vs. the election result.

If the early polls were perfectly predictive of the final result, all the data points would lie along the red line. Some are above it, meaning the Democrat overperformed the early polls. Some are below it, meaning the Democrat underperformed the early polls. The ones in the second and fourth quadrants predicted the wrong horse would win.

Another thing Morris looked at is the average absolute value of the error. This far out it is about 8 points, with the state polls being a fraction of a point worse than the national polls.

However, a new consideration is the enormous polarization in the country. We will go out on a limb here and predict that the Republican will win the 2028 election... in Wyoming. For a vast number of voters, nothing will change their opinion, so states can be accurately predicted many years in advance, and 8 months is nothing. On the other hand, elections have become so close that getting it wrong by 2 points can be the difference between winning and losing.

A problem that all pollsters are facing now is nonresponse. A pollster may have to call 20 people to get one valid response. This drives up costs and makes pollsters more willing to use smaller samples and then force the sample population into the model of the electorate using statistics. But if the model of the electorate is wrong, the prediction will also be wrong. This effect is often around 3 points, so if the statistical margin of error is 4 points, the combined margin of error is 7 points. In close elections, this is enormous. Stating that Jones will beat Smith by 4±7 points is not enormously useful.

Still, most of the time the candidate leading in March ultimately won, even if the predicted margin was way off. That is a good sign for Donald Trump. But this year is so volatile, with a very long campaign, much action on the legal front, and two elderly candidates, that a lot can happen in the next 8 months. (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 in school, at work, etc., please click here.

---

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

---The Votemaster and Zenger