A bug in the software has screwed up the historical data in the map above. We're working on fixing it, and will take this message down once we get it in order.

Trump Legal News: The Trial (Day 10)

Should we really be writing an item every day Donald Trump's trial is in session? This week, Jon Stewart mocked all of the various outlets that are giving daily attention to the subject. But the fact is, it's unprecedented for a former president/current major-party candidate to face criminal charges. Further, it is not only a certainty that the trial will affect the campaign in some way, regardless of the outcome, it is entirely plausible that the impact will be significantly affected by specific elements of the trial. For example, a fairly detailed knowledge of the trial will be needed to evaluate Trump's current and future claims of unfair treatment. Similarly, if he is acquitted, then it matters if it's more on the "clear acquittal" end of the spectrum, or more on the "got off on a technicality" end. We don't particularly enjoy writing about this story, but for these reasons, we give it close attention, Stewart's criticism notwithstanding. Here are the big stories from yesterday, a day that was particularly... tabloidesque:

• Contemptible?: Yesterday, Judge Juan Merchan once again began the day by listening to arguments about whether or not Trump has violated his gag order. He did not make a ruling, but putting all the pieces together, including what Merchan said in court, here's a pretty safe prediction: Trump will be fined $3,000 for the second group of violations, and will be warned that further violations will result in jail time.
  
  
• A Rock and a Hard Place: Todd Blanche is a good enough attorney to know that you want to keep both the judge happy and the client happy. The problem is that with this particular client, that is none too easy. During the gag order discussion, Blanche had to concede a number of points that were raised by the judge and that were critical of Trump's behavior. This was necessary, since Blanche has already pushed his luck in terms of credibility with the Judge. But admitting to Trump's bad behavior in open court visibly angered the former president.
  
  
• Character Assassination, Part I: Keith Davidson was the lawyer who represented Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal in their negotiations with the Trump campaign. The defense spent much time yesterday tearing him to shreds, and making the case that he's a sleazeball who serves as "lawyer to the porn stars" and who shakes down wealthy adulterers for money. All of this appears to be 100% true. However, none of it would seem to counter the claim that Trump paid Daniels off for political reasons. So, seems like a distraction to us.
  
  
• Trump Speaks: No, he did not take the stand, nor did he have a temper tantrum in open court. It was a tape recording in which Trump and Michael Cohen can be heard discussing the $150,000 payoff to Karen McDougal. This may make the payments, and Trump's involvement therein, more real to the jurors.
  
  
• Character Assassination, Part II: Cohen has not yet taken the stand (possibly next week), but the defense is already working to set him up as an unreliable witness with an ax to grind. Team Trump got Davidson to testify that Cohen was deeply disappointed that he did not get a job in the Trump Administration, and that he was maybe even expecting to be made Attorney General. The obvious implication here is that maybe Cohen's version of events, vis-à-vis Stormy Daniels, has been exaggerated, or even fabricated, as a means of getting revenge against his former boss.
  
  
• Will He Live This Down?: As Blanche endeavored to paint Cohen as a nasty, mean-spirited person with a chip on his shoulder, he read some social media posts that Cohen wrote. And in one of those posts, Cohen referred to Trump as... VonShitzinPants. We presume that everyone understands the reference, but just in case, there is a long-standing rumor that Trump lost effective control of his bowels many years ago, and that he compensates for that by wearing Depends undergarments. We do not have any opinion as to whether or not that is true, but we do know that this nickname is the kind of thing that is likely to linger for a good, long while. In fact, #VonShitzinPants was trending on eX-Twitter all day yesterday.

And that's the news out of New York. Lord knows what today will bring. (Z)

Trump 2024: The Catch-22 Shuffle

This is a story that just barely qualifies as news. It's important, which is why we are writing it up, but it's so predictable that it's a "dog bites man" kind of story. In fact, it's so predictable, it's more like a "dog is given piece of bacon, decides to eat it" kind of story. We would have been happy to bet our entire net worth, at least one or two limbs, our diplomas, and just about any other asset that we could accurately predict this "news."

So what is this entirely predictable story? Well, Donald Trump did an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and was asked if he would accept the election results. His response: "If everything's honest, I'd gladly accept the results. If it's not, you have to fight for the right of the country... I'd be doing a disservice to the country if I said otherwise."

In the novel Catch-22, which happens to be (Z)'s favorite work of fiction, the title comes from a paradox that confronts the soldiers serving in the U.S. Army during World War II (specifically, in the case of the book, Italy). It is army policy that any soldier who is insane is not fit to serve, and will be relieved from duty; all they have to do is ask for an evaluation. However, anyone who is self-aware enough to ask for an evaluation is deemed to be not insane. Ipso facto, while you CAN be discharged on the basis of insanity, there's no actual way to be deemed insane and thus to trigger the discharge. That's the Catch-22 (actually, that's the biggest one and the one that inspired the title; there are also others in the book).

Anyhow, for the third election in a row, Trump has set up his own, political Catch-22. Trump claims he will accept the election result, if it is honest. This ostensibly fools some people into believing he is being fair and reasonable. However, the "proof" of an honest election for him is a Trump victory. So, while he theoretically would accept an "honest" Biden victory, there is no satisfactory proof, for him and his acolytes, of an honest Biden win. So, there is no actual circumstance in which he will accept a Biden win. Catch-22!

What this means is that for the third or fourth time this week, Trump has reminded us exactly who he is. If Joe Biden wins again, then we're going to see a repeat of what happened in 2020. It's as certain as the sun rising in the east. Or the dog eating the bacon.

One thing to keep in mind is that Jan. 6, 2025, will not be like Jan. 6, 2021. First, President of the Senate Kamala Harris knows exactly what she is supposed to do and will do it unfailingly. Second, the Electoral Count Act has been updated, specifying the counting procedure in more detail. Third, Joe Biden is fully aware of what could happen and will probably have the phone number of the commander of the National Guard on speed dial. The Guard itself will be far more prepared this time than last time. If violent demonstrators show up, they will face thousands of fully armed troops in riot gear with helicopters, tear gas, pepper spray, flash bangs, and more equipment available if the commander requires them. (Z)

Kristi Noem: Dog Shooting Is Now Officially Her Waterloo

Speaking of dogs, it was obvious to us that when the news broke about Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) shooting her dog, her VP hopes were officially done. Donald Trump does not care about dogs, per se, but he knows that many of his voters do. Further, he does not want a running mate who takes over news cycles, particularly with damaging news, and particularly due to that running mate's poor political judgment.

In the last couple of days, Trump campaign insiders have confirmed that Noem's goose is cooked. She was already a long shot, and her desperate attempt to pander to the former president finished the job of knocking her out of contention. So, she won't be getting out of South Dakota anytime soon.

Note, incidentally, that the dog-shooting story was just the final straw for Team Trump. Noem already had some serious black marks against her before that news broke:

• The rumors of an extramarital affair with Corey Lewandowski
• The weird commercial for a Texas cosmetic dentistry practice
• The even weirder commercials in which Noem dressed up as a construction worker, doctor, etc. and tried to convince people to move to South Dakota
• The inability to handle questions about abortion laws (not that Trump is much better on this)
• The crazy eyes

Ok, we might have added that last one ourselves. But the rest were already major causes of concern for the Trump campaign, especially since Noem doesn't really bring any constituency with her, other than the ones Trump already has pretty well covered.

So, her VP hopes are over. And, in our view—and we briefly alluded to this on Sunday—her career is over, too. The way the story is told in Noem's book, she executed a puppy for... acting like a puppy. She made no serious effort, in her telling, to correct the behavior (say, hiring a dog trainer). And the things she described, with only one exception, perhaps, came nowhere close to out-of-bounds, behavior-wise. The possible exception is her claim that the dog bit her, but one dog bite is really not "time to put them down," especially when the bite apparently happened when she waded into a situation when the dog's instincts/cerebral cortex had taken over.

Various Noem-friendly media propagandists, like Sean Hannity, are trying to rehabilitate the Governor by somehow comparing her dog management to that of Joe Biden. Nice try, Sean, but the fact is that one dog was killed in a brutal fashion, while the other is still alive and (reportedly) happy. Further, the actual incident was bad enough, but... how soulless/tone deaf do you have to be to try to turn it into a political chit?

Noem is term-limited, and will be done serving as governor on Jan. 5, 2027. She's never again going to be a player in national politics; this dog story is going to linger longer and with a nastier stench than Mitt Romney's dog story. We hardly know the politics of South Dakota, but the two Senate seats are firmly in the hands of Republicans Mike Rounds and John Thune, and even if they step down, it's hard to accept that Noem could survive the primary that would ensue. Same goes for the state's at-large seat in the House; Dusty Johnson (R) is only 47, and will instantly become the favorite if one of the two senators does retire. If Noem's willing to pull a Jerry Brown, and run for a lower-on-the-ladder statewide job, then... maybe? But she seems to have an ego many orders of magnitude larger than Brown's and, again, she wants to be out of South Dakota. We just can't see a plausible path forward for her. (Z)

Ron DeSantis: Moby Dick, Meet Captain Ahab

Speaking of people who look to be done once their term as governor is up, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) has emerged from whatever rock he was hiding under, and is ready to take on the white whale of presidential politics once again. To that end, he has firmly attached his lips to Donald Trump's posterior, and is working to raise lots and lots of money for Trump and for other Republican candidates for office, like Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX).

Politicians tend to be "What's in it for me?" types of people, and DeSantis is certainly not an exception. He is not helping these people because it gives him the warm fuzzies, he's doing it because he believes that no matter what happens with Trump in this election, DeSantis 2028 is looking like a very realistic possibility. So, the Governor is making his moves.

There is a small problem here, though, and that is that it's not too common for a wannabe presidential candidate to come back from the dead, after mounting a failed presidential bid. On the Republican side of the aisle, we count only six occasions in the last 60 years that someone has been frustrated in their first run for president, only to come back and claim the nomination in a subsequent election:

1. Richard Nixon (1960, 1968): This is the obvious parallel for DeSantis, as Nixon also had a reputation for being a little shady, was also bad at retail politics, and was also a poor public speaker. And indeed, Nixon managed to reinvent himself, with the "New Nixon" coming back to win election after a stinging defeat 8 years previous.
   
   That said, while DeSantis might be a Dick at heart, we find it implausible that he could follow the Nixon playbook. First of all, Nixon actually got the nomination in 1960, and nearly won that election. DeSantis had nowhere near that level of success this year. Second, Nixon's pitch in 1968 was "elder statesman who has serious foreign policy chops and knows how to deal with the Cold War and the Vietnam War." DeSantis has neither the foreign policy experience nor the foreign affairs crises to run on in 2028. Third, Nixon went away for nearly a decade, which was time for people to forget about some of his negatives. It was also time enough for the Republican Party to be left without a clear leader. DeSantis is clearly plotting a 4-year plan, which is probably not enough time for people to forget his missteps. Further, even if Trump is not running, he'll likely still be alive and so will still be the leader of the Republican Party. And Trump is not likely to be supportive of Ron DeSanctimonious, fundraising or no.
   
   
2. Ronald Reagan (1976, 1980): Big-state governor takes his shot, learns some lessons, and takes a second, successful shot 4 years later? That's DeSantis' exact battle plan. But Reagan didn't lose the 1976 nomination because he was a weak candidate, he lost it because he was up against an incumbent president. Further, St. Ronnie had a number of things going for him in 1980, among them his enormous charisma and his great television presence, not to mention an unpopular incumbent to run against. DeSantis has no charisma and no presence, and there is not likely to be an incumbent on the ballot in 2028, as the person who wins in 2024 will be term-limited.
   
   
3. George H.W. Bush (1980, 1988): The ultimate GOP insider, by virtue of his family connections as well as his service in various posts, like CIA Director. He was not great in the charisma department, however, and that was a real problem for him up against Reagan in 1980. Eight years' service as VP, and being seen as the heir apparent to the popular Reagan, will do wonders for one's presidential hopes, however. Obviously, DeSantis will never have either of those things going for him.
   
   
4. Bob Dole (1988, 1996): He was a longtime U.S. Senator and a VP candidate in 1976. The theme here, and it will continue, is that folks who manage to bounce back tend to have national stature, and tend to be well connected in Washington. The former might be true of DeSantis, the latter is not. It's also worth noting that from here on out, all of the folks who DID bounce back... ended up losing. That means that no presidential-nominee zombie has come back, and has actually been elected president, since 1988.
   
   
5. John McCain (2000, 2008): McCain tried it out in 2000, but ran into the Bush Family Express. Then he added an extra 8 years to his time as a U.S. Senator of national stature, and managed to overcome a pretty weak field on his second go-round. Oh, and he was also a war hero. DeSantis might draw a weak field in 2028, but he's not going to spend all of the next 4 years making national news. And while he's a veteran, he's not a war hero. Not a lot of combat decorations go to folks in the JAG Corps.
   
   
6. Mitt Romney (2008, 2012): Finish a respectable second, then come back as the heir apparent 4 years later? That probably also sounds pretty good to DeSantis. However, DeSantis did not finish a respectable second this year; he was a clear-cut third behind both Trump and Nikki Haley (who will surely also be back in 2028). Further, nobody really sees DeSantis as inevitable, whereas plenty of folks felt that way about Romney '12. And even then, Romney had to wait out several months' worth of flavor-of-the-month frontrunners—Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, etc.—before he was finally able to land the nomination.

That means that of the last 16 presidential elections, only 6 featured Republican candidates who came back to life to claim their party's nomination. And we're only cutting it off at 16 because of the Nixon parallel. If we extend it to 24, then it only adds one more name to the list, namely Thomas Dewey.

It is certainly possible that DeSantis will come up with a new and inventive approach, and will find a way to come back from the wannabe-presidential dead. But he's got a tough hill to climb and, in his career thus far, he's shown limited tactical skill and almost zero imagination. Meanwhile, he lacks most of the major advantages that the six men listed above enjoyed. That's why we are inclined to see DeSantis 2028 as nothing more than Ahab taking another stab (another harpoon?) at Moby Dick. (Z)

Evan Low: The Man Who Saw Tomorrow

Readers may recall the jungle-style primary in California's 16th district, where several Democrats were jockeying to replace Rep. Anna Eshoo (D), who is retiring. Former San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo (D) finished in first place, but in second place it was a tie between Assemblyman Evan Low (D) and Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian (D). For a short while, there was talk of allowing both Low and Simitian to advance to the general, for a three-way race with Liccardo. Eventually, however, a recount was initiated. And this week, after just shy of 2 months, CA-16 finally has a second-place finisher.

We know that readers sometimes like to see how the sausage is made, and reader S.C. in Mountain View, CA, was following the story closely, and was kind enough to send us regular updates. So, if you really want to get weedy, and also to find out who will face Liccardo, read on:

April 10: In "Fong Can Double Dip," you wrote: "We don't know the exact politics of the three [CD-16] candidates..." Allow me to assist. (Please note that I am not unbiased here, and my bias will probably leak through.) I apologize in advance for the length.

This was "supposed" to be Joe Simitian's seat. Joe (age 71) has had a long and distinguished career in politics, starting with the Palo Alto School Board (1983-91), then moving to the Palo Alto City Council (1992-96), Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (1996-2000), California State Assembly (2000-04), California State Senate (2004-12), and back to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (2012-present). (The Assembly and State Senate have term limits. The Board of Supervisors didn't for his first stint, but does now, and his final term is up at the end of this year.) He's been planning (and raising money) for years to run for this seat when Anna Eshoo (age 81) eventually retired, and when she did she endorsed him. He is well-loved by the people he has represented over the years, and of the three is the only candidate who has represented people in San Mateo County, which is why he led Evan Low in that county. If he loses, this is probably his Last Hurrah. If he wins, Evan or Sam (or both) can run to replace him when he retires.

Sam Liccardo (age 53) is, frankly, a carpetbagger. While San Jose does comprise 46% of the district by population, he does not live in that portion of San Jose that is in the district. He served on the San Jose City Council from 2007-14, and as elected Mayor of San Jose from 2015-22. He was strongly opposed by labor in his first election as Mayor, and I think also in his first election to the City Council. (San Jose has a two-term limit, so it isn't worth challenging an incumbent, and he had no serious challengers in his re-election campaigns.) He was expected to run for Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren's seat (CD-18) when she eventually retires (she's 76), as that is the district in which he lives, but he opportunistically jumped into the CD-16 race when Eshoo announced her retirement. He is the favorite, having garnered the endorsement of both the San Jose Mercury News and the San Francisco Chronicle. He is backed by Neighbors for Results, a SuperPAC that got a $500,000 contribution from Michael Bloomberg. (I received four mailings from them. To be fair, the other two candidates also have SuperPACs supporting them.) He will probably win, but if he loses he'll probably go back to whatever he was doing before he ran.

Evan Low (age 40) is the youngster of the three. He served on the Campbell City Council from 2006-14, and was elected to the California State Assembly in 2014. He could have run for re-election, but due to term limits it would have been for his last term, so he really had nothing to lose by jumping into the CD-16 contest. He is openly gay and is appealing (in both senses of the word) to the LGBTQ+ community, the East Asian-American community, and the youth vote. He has labor's strong endorsement. I don't know what his plans are if he loses the congressional race, but he has a bright political future ahead of him.

All three are staunch Democrats, so the seat will remain Democratic no matter what. Because Eshoo announced her retirement after the California Democratic Party held its endorsing convention in November 2023 (the CDP endorsed Eshoo, of course), none of the three had the CDP's pre-primary endorsement. A post-primary endorsing caucus is scheduled for this weekend.

As for the recount, there were two requested. The first was by Dan Stegink, who doesn't really have the money, but wanted to make a statement. The second is by Jonathan Padilla, who was finance director for Liccardo's San Jose mayoral campaign and is CEO and Co-Founder of Snickerdoodle Labs. Presumably he does have the money to pay for the recount.

It is possible that the recount confirms the tie for second place rather than breaks it. In any event, no matter how it comes out, whoever is paying for the recount probably won't get their money back. According to Elections Code Section 15634, "The money deposited shall be returned to the depositor if, upon completion of the recount... in an election where there are two or more candidates, the recount results in the candidate for whom the recount was requested appearing on the ballot in a subsequent runoff election or general election who would not have so appeared in the absence of the recount." [Emphasis added.]

If Padilla's paperwork names Liccardo, well, Liccardo is on the November ballot no matter what. And if his paperwork names either Low or Simitian, either that one stays on the November ballot or is removed, but both would have appeared on the November ballot "in the absence of the recount." The only way he gets his money back is if one or both counties makes an exception and returns it. (This has happened in the past, when a recount for a Sunnyvale City Council election resulted in a one-vote deficit becoming a tie. The recount requester ended up losing the drawing of lots that resolved the tie, so lost anyway, but the County decided that since he could have won the lot-draw it would be unfair not to refund his money.)

April 14: Padilla's paperwork named Evan Low, who immediately disavowed the recount request. The general impression is that Padilla requested the recount so that Liccardo would only have one opponent in November instead of two, making it easier for Liccardo to win. And he presumably named Low because he thought the recount would likely result in Low coming in second, kicking Simitian off the November ballot, and since this could be construed as favoring Low, he (incorrectly) assumed he would get his money back.

Padilla initially requested a hand-recount, which was estimated to cost $320K just for the Santa Clara County portion of the district, but changed it to a machine recount (estimated to cost $84K for the Santa Clara County portion), presumably because he realized he wouldn't be getting his money back. A machine recount is less likely to change the result. However, the recount will include examining the signatures of unopened vote-by-mail envelopes, unopened because the Registrar of Voters' office decided the signature didn't match and the voter didn't send in an updated signature form. If any challenges to that decision result in opening and counting those ballots, that could change the result.

People are curious as to whether Padilla is paying for this out of his own pocket or if he's being reimbursed by Liccardo or his campaign or by Neighbors for Results. One could interpret Padilla's payment of the recount as an independent expenditure to ostensibly help Low's campaign (since Low is named on the paperwork), but since a recount request isn't a communication urging someone to vote for or against a candidate, it appears to fall through the cracks in the regulations of the Federal Elections Commission. And if Padilla is reimbursed directly by Bloomberg or contributors to Liccardo's campaign or Liccardo himself, and not out of a campaign committee's treasury, we may never know who actually paid for the recount.

April 15: My wife, L.C. in Mountain View, CA, went down to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters' office to observe the recount. She was interviewed by a reporter and you can read about it here.

April 17: It appears that the recount is being paid for by a newly established SuperPAC, Count The Vote. This SuperPAC just happens to have the same address as the Neighbors for Results SuperPAC that is supporting Sam Liccardo. What a coincidence! Even more of a coincidence is that the treasurer of Count The Vote, James Sutton, works for the same law firm as the treasurer of Neighbors for Results, Matthew Alvarez. And they just happen to use the same bank in San Francisco; it's a small world.

April 28: The recount will go into a third week. The lawyer for Padilla is arguing that sixteen conditional ballots that weren't counted because a box on the envelope wasn't checked should be counted. I expect the lawyer to ask a court to order the county to count those ballots. Also, San Mateo County has 16 ballots that haven't been counted yet as they are waiting for the post office to let them know if they were mailed on or before Election Day, as the postmark dates are either missing or illegible.

There are some who believe that the Count the Vote SuperPAC that is paying for the recount is illegally coordinating with the Liccardo campaign, and a complaint has been filed with the Federal Election Commission alleging such.

April 30: This afternoon the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters announced that Evan Low gained eleven additional votes in the recount while Joe Simitian gained seven votes, putting Low four votes ahead of Simitian. The press release explains it all. We still have to wait and see what happens with the 16 outstanding San Mateo County ballots.

May 1: Our long CD-16 nightmare is finally over. This afternoon, the San Mateo County Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder announced that Evan Low gained one vote in the San Mateo recount and there was no change in Joe Simitian's vote total. That means Low has five more votes than Simitian and will face Sam Liccardo in the November general election. We will have to wait until July to find out who actually paid for the recount.

So there you have it: Liccardo vs. Low in November for all the marbles. Thanks for the reporting, S.C. and L.C.!

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Butterfly

Last week, there was only one hint as to the headline theme, because we didn't have a proper Saturday posting. It was actually a double hint, though:

The campus protests story is not part of the contest; beyond the fact that we don't make a game of violence and strife, this particular theme would be very inappropriate for that particular item. That's actually something of a clue, though not a very helpful one; we'll explain the problem next week. As to a real clue, how about this: The answer is very colorful.

And now, the solution, courtesy of reader T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts:

All of the headlines this week contain the title of a Pink Floyd song:

• Trump Legal News, Part I: Trump Bought Himself Some Time, Courtesy of SCOTUS
• Trump Legal News, Part II: The Trial (Day 7)
• Trump Legal News, Part III: Green Is the Colour
• Angry Republicans: No More Money for Ukraine
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: The Dogs of War
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Goodbye Cruel World
• This Week in Freudenfreude: It's Never Too Late

Thanks, T.K.! And the reason it would have been in poor taste to make an Israel item part of the game is that Pink Floyd founder/leader Roger Waters is rather well known as an anti-Israel zealot whose zealotry has sometimes descended into outright antisemitism.

Incidentally, Butterfly, from the headline of this item, is also a Pink Floyd song, albeit a deep cut from the very earliest years of the band, when Syd Barrett was still a member.

The fact that we did not have a Saturday hint didn't matter too much, as this one was a bit easier than the previous headline theme. Here are the first 30 readers to get it:

1. T.K. in Half Moon Bay
2. J.B. in Sewell, NJ
3. M.B. in Albany, NY
4. B.O.S. in Dublin, Ireland
5. I.H. in Washington, DC
6. K.P. in Tampa, FL
7. E.B. in Bloomington, IL
8. K.R. in Austin, TX
9. D.L. in Uslar, Germany
10. D.E. in High Springs, FL
11. B.R. in Arlington, MA
12. G.L. in St. Louis, MO
13. S.K. in Drexel Hill, PA
14. A.J. in Baltimore, MD
15. J.D. in Indianapolis, IN
16. R.W. in Decatur, GA
17. T.M.M. in Odessa, MO
18. D.S. in Chantilly VA
19. K.G.W. in Lafayette, IN
20. M.G. in DuBois, PA
21. W.A. in Red Lion, PA
22. R.F. in Washington, DC
23. A.M. in Brookhaven, PA, who adds "Still waiting for you to somehow fit in 'Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict'"
24. M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO
25. E.K. in Arlington, MA
26. D.M. in Austin, TX
27. G.W. in Avon, CT
28. D.S. in Layton, UT
29. D.W. in Oxnard, CA
30. J.W. in Mount Kisco, NY

We're not too surprised that there are (apparently) a lot of fans of the band out there among the readership. After all, the band is just fantastic, that's really what we think, even if we aren't quite sure which one is Pink.

For this week, well, we're somewhat constrained by the fact that we have to make use of "The Trial" every week. That said, this week's theme is again in the area of Arts & Entertainment, and relies on some but not all of the words to the right of the colon. As to a hint, we will tell you there's a touch of evil in the theme. And no, we don't mean Kristi Noem.

If you have a guess, send it along to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "May 3 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Too Much Johnson

There was a by-election in England yesterday, and regular British correspondent S.T. in Worcestershire agreed to send in a report:

Blackpool was once one of the—if not THE—premiere seaside resorts in the U.K. Unfortunately, the advent of cheap "package" holidays to the rest of Europe, starting in the 1960s, dealt a body blow to such communities. Blackpool still has its perennially windy and cheerfully gaudy seafront (think Coney Island), but just inland lie wards with some of the most significant levels of social and economic deprivation in England.

This decline had a political impact. For much of the 20th century, Blackpool supported at first one, then two, reliably Conservative constituencies, North and South. From the 1970s onwards, they began to slowly trend towards the Labour party. In the 1997 general election, assisted by favorable boundary changes, former historian Gordon Marsden became Blackpool South's first ever Labour MP. He held the seat for 22 years until the 2019 "Brexit" general election, when Scott Benton regained the seat for the Conservatives.

Regular Electoral-Vote.com readers may be able to guess what happened next. In a classic sting operation, journalists from the Sunday Times, posing as businessmen, had a meeting with Benton during which he agreed to leak confidential information and lobby ministers in return for payments. There followed an independent inquiry, a recommendation for a 35-day suspension which was approved by MPs, and the launch of a recall petition to hold a by-election. Benton jumped before he was pushed and resigned.

Given these circumstances and the current opinion polls in the U.K., it is no surprise that Labour's Chris Webb was elected yesterday, albeit on a miserable turnout of just 32%. Not that Webb will be too worried: he achieved a swing of 26%, the 3rd highest Conservative-to-Labour swing ever in a by-election! The Conservative vote plummeted by over 30%, leaving their candidate David Jones just 107 votes ahead of populist Reform party's Mark Butcher. There is absolutely no comfort for the Conservatives in this result. It confirms, and indeed far exceeds, the 16.5% swing in recent national opinion polls. It also highlights the vulnerability of the so called "Red Wall" seats, the traditionally Labour-voting seats which the Conservatives won at the last general election, and without which their majority evaporates.

Thanks, S.T.!

Now, you might be wondering why we ran this as our schadenfreude item of the week. Part of it is because it's good to see a corrupt politician get his just desserts (which we would say, in his case, is spotted dick). However, it's also because there were local elections in several constituencies, including Boris Johnson's home of South Oxfordshire. And the former PM, who probably thinks of himself as a potential future PM, showed up to vote but could not, because he had forgotten to bring valid ID. Sorry, Boris!

It is possible American readers did not know that the U.K. has a voter ID law, because it hasn't been on the books for very long. It was adopted by Parliament while it was under the leadership of... Boris Johnson. If that is not schadenfreude, we don't know what is. In any case, congrats to the former PM for blocking at least one undesirable voter from casting a ballot. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: A Safe Place

This item is about drones and Ukraine. Knowing that, you would probably assume that, in some way, it's a downer of an item about how the U.S. is going to help Volodymyr Zelenskyy kill Russians more efficiently.

If you did assume that, however, you would be wrong. After all, this is a freudenfreude piece. In this case, the drones are not under military control, they belong to Safe Pro AI, a startup company founded by a pair of computer scientists named Gabriel Steinberg and Jasper Baur. The two men are part of a community of activists that has been working on the problem of unexploded land mines (and other ordnance). There are at least 60 countries with such hazardous material, resulting in roughly 5,000 people being killed or injured each year. And thanks to having been the site of numerous recent conflicts, Ukraine is considered to be the single-most landmine-contaminated country in the world.

The normal process for identifying landmines for removal is both laborious and dangerous. That's where Safe Pro AI and their drones come in. The drones fly over a large area and take tens of thousands of images. Then, the images are analyzed by AI to find where the ordnance is, so that it might be removed. Steinberg and Baur are still refining their process, but in a demonstration for the U.N., they managed to accurately scan and analyze an area of 25 hectares (about 60 football fields) in 3 days (most of that was data crunching; the actual drone portion took about 5 hours). Altogether, the two scientists think they can reduce the number of man hours needed for effective minesweeping by 99% or more. If you would like to read more, Baur has produced a more detailed (but still readable) report here.

On reading about this, we could not help but think of Isaiah 2:3-4:

For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Turning drones into minesweepers sure looks to us like the modern-day equivalent of beating swords into plowshares. Certainly, it's a much more noble use of the technology than killing more people. Congrats to Steinberg and Baur on their work, and have a good weekend, all! (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

Wow, there are a lot of undecided/third-party voters in Utah right now. Very plausible, however, as Utahns (particularly LDS Church members) tend not to like Democrats, but also tend not to like Donald Trump. (Z)

State	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Utah	23%	47%	Apr 08	Apr 16	Noble Predictive Insights

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

---

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

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

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

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger