A number of notes:

1. A belated Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there. Because we start creating the pages the day before they actually go live, we often forget to acknowledge occasions until it's too late. We actually did go back and put up a note on yesterday's page, but thought we would also put something here.

2. We have examined Redfield and Wilton Strategies more closely, and have concluded they are partisan pollsters who work primarily for candidates of one political party. So, we have struck them from our database, and we will not be including their polls going forward.

3. We have made reference to this, but we are working on a list of resources (websites, books, films, etc.) that people can consult in order to better understand the current situation in the Middle East. If you have suggestions, please send them to us at comments@electoral-vote.com.

4. On a related note, we would like to hear from readers as to whether your vote will or will not be influenced by events in the Middle East, along with some explanation as to your thinking. Please send your thoughts to comments@electoral-vote.com.

We now resume our regularly scheduled programming.

Netanyahu Is Losing...

On the whole, the news is not getting better for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. There were a couple of big stories over the weekend that spoke to the corner he has painted himself into.

First up is news that was initially reported by The Times of Israel. Apparently, there are serious tensions right now between Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi and Netanyahu. And the problem is that Netanyahu, in Halevi's view, has no strategy for what he is trying to accomplish in this war.

To be more specific, the IDF has conquered a number of territories (like, say Jabaliya) and has dismantled the Hamas infrastructure in those places. However, because there has been no indication of what governing authority is supposed to succeed Hamas, there is nobody to hand authority over to. So, the IDF leaves, and... Hamas reestablishes itself. This forces the IDF to retake the same territory again... and again. Last week, we shared our view that "there was no clear win condition (or, at least, no achievable win condition) in Vietnam, and that seems also to be true in Gaza right now." Halevi clearly agrees with us, and he is in a way better position to know than we are. He also said that if the IDF does not get clear instructions as to what the plan is for the endgame, then the task he and his troops face is "Sisyphean."

And it's not only Halevi who has grown snippy. Shin Bet (Israeli intelligence) chief Ronen Bar, who is subordinate to Netanyahu, and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who is not, have been meeting to discuss strategy. When Netanyahu found out about these meetings, he blew a gasket, and said such discussions should only be held in his presence. Gallant fired back, and said: (1) if there are to be strategic discussions, then he (Gallant) needs to be prepared, and (2) it doesn't really matter right now, because "you (Netanyahu) don't hold these deliberations." Another person who seems to agree with us, and who is in a way better position than we are to make such a judgment.

Meanwhile, the shift in the Biden administration's posture—which we have been expecting for months—continued apace this weekend. Secretary of State Antony Blinken appeared on several of the weekend news shows to opine on the Middle East, and he didn't have much flattering to say about Netanyahu. The Secretary had several choice observations: (1) that Israel appears to have violated international law with its use of American armaments, (2) that the U.S. wants to see "credible plans for security, for governance, for rebuilding" in Gaza, (3) that there better not be an invasion of Rafah until such plans are in place, and (4) that if Israel stays the course it's charting right now, it will be "holding the bag on an enduring insurgency."

Returning to the Vietnam example for a moment, the Lyndon Johnson administration (and the Richard Nixon administration) managed to keep that war going for a very long time, even after people within the administration and without began pointing out that there was no real plan to end the war. And maybe Netanyahu can dance that dance for a good long time, too. However, we are inclined to doubt it. First, once an American president is in office, they can't be removed for 4 years, except by impeachment. An Israeli PM, by contrast, could see his ministry fall at any time, particularly when his governing coalition is as shaky as Netanyahu's is. Second, the U.S. did not need money or armaments from other countries to fight the Vietnam War. Israel does require these things to fight Hamas. So, it would be our guess that a reckoning of some sort is coming for Netanyahu much more rapidly than it did for Johnson or Nixon. (Z)

...But What Does That Mean for Biden?

There were two very interesting pieces on Joe Biden's reelection campaign that were not meant as companion pieces, and yet kind of work that way. First up is an op-ed written by Mark Penn, who was a key figure in the Bill Clinton presidential campaigns, and who now runs the Harris Poll. Under the headline "Biden Is Doing It All Wrong," Penn writes:

President Biden appears behind in all the swing states and his campaign appears all-too-focused on firming up his political base on the left with his new shift on Israel, a $7 trillion budget, massive tax increases and failing to connect on the basic issues of inflation, immigration and energy. By pitching too much to the base, he is leaving behind the centrist swing voters who shift between parties from election to election and, I believe, will be the key factor deciding the 2024 race.

Penn had a number of prescriptions for Biden '24. Here's his commentary on Israel:

Mr. Biden's campaign has fundamentally miscalculated on Israel. Those Haley voters are strong defense voters who would back ally Israel unreservedly and I believe want to see a president who would be putting maximum pressure on Hamas to release hostages. By pandering to base voters with no choice, Biden is pushing the Haley vote to Trump and so his first instincts on Israel were both good policy and good politics. Eighty-four percent of independents support Israel more than Hamas in the conflict and 63 percent believe a cease-fire should occur only after the hostages have been released. The more Biden has pandered to the left by softening his support of Israel, the weaker he looks and the more his foreign policy ratings have declined. Rather than pull decisively away from Israel, Mr. Biden should instead find a plan that enables Israel to go into Rafah and that has enough precautions for Rafah's civilians so the American president can back it.

We're not sure that advice is all that insightful, since pushing for a Rafah invasion plan that protects civilians appears to be what the administration is already doing.

The second piece, meanwhile, is courtesy of Nicholas Grossman at The Bulwark. Under the headline "How Much Will Gaza Affect Joe Biden's Re-election Chances?," Grossman lays out an argument that is very well supported with lots of data, and that basically comes down to two things. The first is that polls show that even among young people, the Middle East is very low on the list of major concerns, with things like inflation, healthcare, abortion and protecting democracy far higher. The second is that since things have gone south in the Middle East, Biden's approval rating hasn't changed much, either among the public in general, or among young voters. Grossman's ultimate conclusion is this:

PROTESTERS AREN'T POLICYMAKERS. They don't need to know all the nuances of a situation to conclude that it's bad, and don't need a well-articulated plan for fixing it before they demand improvement. But framing Biden's Middle East policy in electoral terms raises the question: Is it possible for Biden to win back the voters he's lost with a change in policy?

For a contingent on the left, one that's especially vocal online, the answer is probably No. If someone currently believes it would be immoral to vote for the politician they've been calling "Genocide Joe," they will likely think so later this year, too. The war might be over by the fall, but even in the best-case scenario, Gaza will likely be in crisis, with food and medicine shortages, and problems of governance.

If the Americans accusing Biden of genocide by proxy already largely disapproved of him before the Israel-Hamas war—because he's too old or too moderate or for any other reason—then no plausible adjustment in his stance on Israel-Palestine is likely to satisfy them.

In short, both writers are proposing that Biden should stay the course and stick with a firm, pro-Israel position, as that is where the largest number of votes is to be had.

We pass these commentaries along because they are worth considering, though we're not entirely sure we buy them. We think it is possible that, consistent with the item above, Netanyahu has become problematic enough that it's concerning to a much greater number of voters than was the case a month ago, or 3 months ago. After all, Vietnam was unpopular with a small minority... until it was unpopular with a majority. It is also the case that even if Biden can't win the votes of protesters back, having them be a source of chaos and disorder throughout the summer would be a bad overall look for him and his leadership.

In any event, this is why we've asked readers to share their thinking as regards voting and the current tensions in the Middle East. It's not a scientific sampling, but it may help to illuminate the dynamics a little. (Z)

Biden Makes the Ballot in Alabama... But Not Ohio

Deep red Alabama, one of the states where Joe Biden had a "deadline" problem with making the state's general election ballot, has resolved the matter. By a vote of 93-0, the legislature approved a measure giving him special dispensation, just as they did for Donald Trump 4 years ago. Gov. Kay Ivey (R-AL) has already signed the measure.

Ohio, on the other hand, hasn't yet managed to figure things out. Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) said that if Biden was to be granted an exception by the legislature, that exception had to be in place by this past Thursday, because absent an "emergency" clause, bills do not take effect for 90 days. Although both chambers of the state legislature grappled with the matter, they could not agree on a single, unified bill, and so the deadline passed without anything being done. The legislature could still rectify the situation by deploying an "emergency" clause, but reportedly things are at an impasse.

The careful reader might take note that there is no chance on God's green Earth that Biden will win Alabama, so there's no real downside to putting him on the ballot there. On the other hand, it's not impossible Biden could win Ohio, since the Democratic candidate has won the state in four of the last eight elections. It's not likely, mind you, but it's not impossible. Meanwhile, how hard is it to figure out "just the right" verbiage to say "The ballot deadline does not apply to Joe Biden in 2024." Heck, Ohio waived the deadline for Trump in 2020. Just get out that bill, cross out "Trump" and "2020" and write in "Biden" and "2024." Done!

In other words, we don't really believe this was a good-faith effort. Biden will end up on the ballot, but it may have to happen at the business end of a court order. Gov. Mike DeWine (R-OH) said as much on Friday. We don't know why Ohio Republicans apparently want to force that course of action; perhaps they think there's a slim chance Biden won't win in court, or perhaps they think this is an opportunity to "punish" Biden in the same way that Colorado "punished" Trump. We don't know. However, the Ohio GOP could be playing with fire here, since a major theme of the Biden campaign is going to be "Republicans are anti-democracy," and this would serve as a pretty good illustration of that. Plus, it might just piss off a bunch of Ohio Democrats who might not otherwise be motivated to vote. We'll probably learn this week if the Ohio legislature is going to do something or not. (Z)

Republicans Are Anti-Democracy

That's a pretty loaded headline, but if the shoe fits, well...

Donald Trump has already made very clear that he will only accept the results of this year's presidential election if the voting is "honest" (with "honest" defined as "resulting in a Trump victory"). There are many Republican politicians who spend their days kowtowing to him on every single issue, either because they want his endorsement, or they hope to be his running mate, or because they fear that he will attack them. Therefore, by transitive property, there are many Republican politicians who are making it very clear that they will only accept the results of this year's election if the voting is "honest" (according to the same definition that Trump uses). A rundown of some of the more prominent ones:

• Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) told The New York Times he would "adhere to the rule of law" on accepting results, but is fine with legal challenges.
  
  
• Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was on Meet the Press yesterday, and said that he'll accept the results if "there's no massive cheating."
  
  
• Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) refused to answer repeated inquiries on Meet the Press, calling it a "hypothetical question."
  
  
• Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) was on State of the Union and said he'll accept the results if they're "fair and free."
  
  
• Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) told reporters she'll accept the results if they are "constitutional," but also said the 2020 election did not meet that standard.
  
  
• Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) told a crowd at a political convention that he will accept the results if he thinks they're fair and if states follow their own laws.

You could argue that Johnson might be the exception, but either five of these six people, or all six of them, are using the same mealymouthed language as Donald Trump, so they can position themselves correctly for a Trump victory ("totally legitimate!") or a Biden victory ("totally fake!"). In a democracy, there is only one correct answer to the question "Will you accept the results?" and that answer is "Yes." Period. End of story. Obviously, if clear fraud, backed by evidence, was uncovered after the election, a person who answered "yes" would still have room to object to the tainted results. The only reason to pre-qualify one's answer is in anticipation of phony, unsubstantiated election "fraud."

The damnable thing is that none of these people are True Believers. It is at least possible that a Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) or a Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) actually believes the 2020 election was rigged. But none of the people on the list above believe that. It's all about pandering to The Donald for political purposes. That said, in so doing, they have made clear what their values are, and what their priorities are, and a healthy democracy is not on the list. In a sane world, they would be expelled from Congress, as anyone who helps chip away at the foundations of the Constitution is not suited to be a servant of the people. But that's not how it works, unfortunately. (Z)

Trump Legal News: The Trial (Day 16 preview)

This is going to be a big week in the Trump criminal fraud trial. Probably the biggest. And that's not just ridiculous hyperbole from a participant who may, or may not, have a habit of declaring everything he's involved in to be the biggest and bestest ever.

Yep, this is the week that star witness Michael Cohen takes the stand. The prosecution has done pretty much everything it can to corroborate the story he's going to tell, but he's the heart and soul of the thing, and there are many elements of the scheme that only he can speak to. In addition to getting his story out there, the prosecution will do everything it can to bolster his credibility while the defense will do everything it can to destroy it.

You can never know what will happen until it actually does, but lawyer Norman Eisen, who has been covering the case for CNN, had an interesting piece over the weekend. In it, Eisen notes that he has personally cross-examined Cohen, and Cohen is... very good on the witness stand. Eisen describes him as "candid, remorseful and funny." Plus, Cohen was a sleazy lawyer for 30 years, so he knows all the sleazy lawyer tricks.

Also, referring back to last week's testimony, lawyer-reader A.R. in Los Angeles sent in some comments on Stormy Daniels' testimony, and its purposes:

Thank you for pointing out that the truth of Daniels' unfortunate encounter with Trump is irrelevant to the question of whether Trump paid for her silence and why. But it still has evidentiary value and is relevant to explain his motive in doing so. The prosecution would have preferred not calling her to the stand but part of Trump's defense is that it never happened and he doesn't know her, so he wouldn't have paid her off.

The prosecution, then, needs to establish that Daniels is different and more like Karen McDougal, as opposed to the myriad of other women who weren't paid off. Beyond just the incident itself are the details of how it was arranged, the continued interactions and the many times they appeared together after that. Short of calling a bunch of people who saw them together on multiple occasions, it was better to have her testify as to all of it. While the media is focusing on those 30 seconds in the hotel room, to me, the more important testimony was: (1) the fact that Trump continued to call Daniels, as evidenced by the fact that they both had each other's numbers—and Trump's secretary confirmed that; and (2) other, later encounters as evidenced by photos of them together in public. Also crucial is that he never told Daniels to keep it secret until 2016, after the Access Hollywood tape came out. In truth, he was probably bragging about it himself.

The defense has kind of boxed themselves in here. Had they taken a more nuanced approach, they could have avoided her testimony altogether. They could have acknowledged the affair but argued that either: (1) Trump had no idea Cohen paid her off; or (2) Trump paid her off but it was to protect his family, not the campaign. Now they're stuck with this story that a guy who built his reputation as a womanizer was too loyal to his wife to sleep with a porn star who he met at a golf tournament sponsored by the porn industry. Yeah, right.

Also, it's worth keeping in mind what the prosecutors actually have to prove. I found this article at LawFare really helpful. They point out that, to make this a felony, Bragg is likely looking to show an intent to commit an election law violation, most likely New York election law, which prohibits "conspiring to promote... the election of any person to public office by unlawful means." Notice the wording there: "an intent to commit." So, they don't have to prove the violation, just an intent to do so. The intent part is further defined to mean to "[act] with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime." So, if the prosecution can prove that Trump acted with a "conscious aim" to conspire to get himself elected by paying off Daniels and falsifying records to cover it up, they can secure a conviction. And her testimony, including the lurid, creepy details (I'm guessing she wishes she had just waited to use the bathroom in her own room), make it more likely he would have wanted to keep her quiet, especially as the election approached and more was revealed about his misogyny.

As an aside, hats off to her for several jabs during the clumsy cross—"if it weren't true, I would have made up a better story" and "not unlike Trump" when asked if she were selling wares online. Those are lines most people only come up with hours/days later, if at all.

Thanks, A.R.!

Note, incidentally, that we say that this will "probably" be the biggest week because if Trump were foolish enough to take the stand in his own defense next week, that would almost certainly be bigger. We don't imagine he'd be that dumb but, then, we wouldn't have imagined he would be that dumb in the E. Jean Carroll trial. And yet... (Z)

Trump May Owe a $100 Million Tax Bill

You know, $100 million here, $100 million there... it starts to add up to serious money. In case his various legal judgments are not enough of a liability, there's additional bad news for Donald Trump on the financial front. This weekend, both The New York Times and ProPublica reported that an IRS investigation into Trump's Chicago tower is now complete, and that the former president could be on the hook for more than $100 million.

Trump International Hotel & Tower Chicago is actually the last major construction project that Trump undertook before he shifted his focus to media and branding. It is also a 100-story, 1,388-foot-tall reminder that, outside of good luck with Trump Tower New York, he's not a very successful real estate developer. The project was deep, deep, deep in the red while under construction, such that Trump took a $651 million loss on his tax returns in 2008, before the building even opened. That amount made the building, in effect, a total loss ("worthless," to use the verbiage from the tax code). Then, in 2010, Trump transferred ownership of the building from one shell company he owns to a different shell company he owns. Thereafter, he took an additional $168 million in additional losses over the next decade. That's a no-no.

By all indications, this is not especially close to being over, since the relevant tax laws here are very abstruse, and since Trump and his businesses can mount a number of appeals, both with the IRS and within the court system. One can also imagine this going away entirely, should he be reelected in November. Still, whether or not this particular rooster comes home to roost, he really, really needs his DJT stock to end up being at least somewhat valuable, or he's going to be in financial trouble with all his other debts and judgments. (Z)

And Don't Forget the Other Crooks

Donald Trump is not the only (alleged) crook currently at risk of facing the music for his (alleged) crooked activities. For a quartet of less-than-upright political figures, this was not a great weekend.

We'll start with the Democrat on the list, New Jersey senator Bob Menendez. His federal corruption trial begins today. Actually, make that his second federal corruption trial. He beat the rap the first time on a technicality, and the lesson he learned from that was... apparently nothing. For a guy who says he did nothing wrong, the feds have an awfully long list of goods he received (that were found in his residence) and duties he performed for the Egyptian government and others. If the Senator escapes this unscathed, he'll be in competition with Trump for the title of Teflon Man of the Year, 2024.

And now the Republicans. Remember back in 1952, when Richard Nixon's career was nearly destroyed by allegations that he used campaign funds for personal expenses? Tricky Dick managed to save his career, thanks significantly to his dog Checkers, so that he could destroy it later. Still, the lesson there would seem to be "don't dip your hand into the cookie jar, because the authorities are watching closely." Quite a few members of Congress over the years did not learn the lesson, however, and it seems like a member gets popped every few years for this very crime.

The latest entry on the list might be Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX), who is best known for being a Trump sycophant, including writing the book The Big Fraud: What Democrats Don't Want You to Know about January 6, the 2020 Election, and a Whole Lot Else. Should you wish to pick up a copy, it's priced to move on Amazon, presumably since they will need to make room for all the books about how the 2024 election was rigged (see above). Anyhow, Nehls is now being investigated by the House Ethics Committee for an alleged scheme in which the Nehls campaign rented office space in a building owned by... Troy Nehls. The inquiry has been underway for a couple of months, reportedly, and so we may soon learn if Nehls is sanctioned and/or if the feds decide to pick up on this.

Moving along, Steve Bannon has thus far been able to do what Peter Navarro could not: avoid being punished for ignoring a House subpoena. His luck may soon run out, however, as his conviction for contempt of Congress was upheld by a three-judge panel DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The trio, which included one appointee each from Joe Biden, Donald Trump and Barack Obama, unanimously rejected each and every argument that Bannon's lawyers made as to why his conviction is unfair, why he shouldn't have to follow the rules, etc. At this point, he can ask for a full en banc hearing, or he can go to the Supreme Court. He may not be granted cert at either level, and even if he does get another bite at the apple, he's got no legal legs to stand on. So, he's mostly just delaying his stay as a guest of Uncle Sam, if he keeps fighting, while burning through tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

And finally, this isn't exactly a legal matter, but it's adjacent, we would say. It would seem that, despite being warned many times, Rudy Giuliani made one too many false claims about the 2020 election on his WABC radio show. So, his show was canceled, and he was suspended from appearances on the station. There goes another $400,000 a year in income. On his way out the door, Giuliani said he's going to sue, because his First Amendment rights have been violated. Good luck getting a lawyer to take that one, Rudy, especially given that you can't afford to pay a retainer.

Who knows what is going on with America's Former Mayor. Maybe he's a True Believer who is determined to go down with the ship, consequences be damned. It's also entirely possible that there's something wrong with him cognitively, and that he no longer fully grasps the distinction between reality and fantasy. In any case, getting booted off one's radio show in 2024 for lies about an election that has been over for nearly 4 years is not going to be helpful in the various civil and criminal cases he is facing. He can hardly claim he didn't say those things, and he can't even claim that he initially believed the election was stolen, but that he changed his views, because clearly he did not. It's hard to think of any politician, across the entirety of American history, who has fallen so far so fast as Rudolph W. Giuliani. Maybe Aaron Burr, or Joseph McCarthy, or Nixon. (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, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger