Main page    Dec. 10

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu

New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA MI NV PA WI

Today's Appointments News

Yesterday was another day with a fair bit of news on the appointments front, so we'll return to the capsule approach:

That's the news. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow. (Z)

Time for Budget Olympics, Part 423

As readers will recall, Congress kicked the budget can down the road in September, adopting a continuing resolution that funded the government through December 22. They did this to avoid taking any controversial stances right before an election. They also did it because they know that few politicians want to shut the government down at Christmas, or to be in Washington, working, during the holiday break. In other words, December 22 is a particularly motivating deadline.

There is little doubt that there will be another kicking of the can, especially since there are only 9 working days left until the deadline. It is also exceedingly probable that Mike Johnson will rely on Democratic votes to help with the kicking, since their demands are going to be more reasonable than those of the Freedom Caucusers. The main questions: (1) What goodies will the Democrats get in exchange for their support? and (2) Exactly how far into the future will the can be kicked?

The first of those two questions is easier to answer. The blue team's opening bid includes three early Christmas presents: (1) $100 billion in disaster relief funding, (2) renewal of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which covers most federal job-training programs, and (3) renewal of the Older Americans Act, which funds programs for seniors. These are not outlandish asks, and much of the funding involved will go to red/purple states and/or Republican voters. So while Johnson isn't likely to agree to a figure as high as $100 billion (which is really just an opening bid), he is likely willing to give the Democrats much of what they want. The only real obstacle is whether that would be enough for the FC to try to block Johnson's bid to remain as speaker. Of course, the Democrats have the power to nullify that threat, as well, if they so choose.

The second question, by contrast, is much harder to answer because nobody has said anything about the timeframe they are looking at. In the absence of any information, then, we will hazard a guess that the can will be kicked until April 15. That will give the House Republican Conference roughly 10 days where it is back at full strength after the special elections to fill the seats of Elise Stefanik, Matt Gaetz and Mike Waltz, and will also add Tax Day as an X-factor to the maneuvering. That could provide a messaging opportunity (e.g., "On this Tax Day, we are pleased to announce a deal that will reduce your tax burden next year..."). Or, it could provide a distraction, if the budget ends up being controversial. (Z)

Police Arrest, Charge Suspect in Murder of Insurance Executive

Unless you spent yesterday spelunking, then you know that the search for the killer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson has produced an arrest and criminal charges. The arrestee is a 26-year-old Pennsylvania man named Luigi Mangione; he's been charged with murder in New York and with forgery and possession of unregistered firearms in Pennsylvania.

He is, of course, innocent until proven guilty. However, authorities are pretty confident they have their man. Mangione is a dead ringer for the person caught on security cameras, and he was in possession of an anti-healthcare manifesto when he was arrested. He has also had extensive spinal surgery, so he's interacted with the healthcare system a fair bit. Oh, and illegal 3D-printed guns were found at his residence. What it boils down to is that Mangione is either the guy, or he's the unluckiest person on Earth right now, given how closely he fits the profile.

If Mangione is indeed the guy, then the question everyone wants an answer to is: What are his politics? As far as we know—and we've looked—nobody has uncovered a voting record, or even proof of voter registration, as yet. Based on the online clues that have been uncovered, such as his tweets on eX-Twitter and his reading list on the site GoodReads, he does not seem to be someone who really fits on the standard political spectrum. He's embraced some left-wing ideas and books, but he's also indulged in a lot of the sort of books and podcasts and the like that are favored by the "burn it all down" set. It is known that Mangione is the cousin of a Republican politician in Maryland; that doesn't mean all that much, but it does slightly discourage a "them durned lib'ruls" knee-jerk response. It is also known that the suspect is an Ivy League graduate (Penn) and that he earned multiple degrees in the sciences, along with a reputation for being pretty brilliant. If you run down the "known" profile—brilliant, member of an accomplished family, Ivy League, manifesto, angry about "the system," people are drawing comparisons to The Unabomber. We haven't seen anything that substantially controverts that comparison, as yet.

With that said, we would actually like to draw two other comparisons. The first is Charles Guiteau, the disappointed office-seeker who assassinated President James A. Garfield (admittedly, with considerable help from Garfield's germ-ignorant doctors). That assassination provided the impetus for the passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act a couple of years later. And the second is George Floyd, the Black man who was executed without benefit of trial by police in Minnesota. Everyone knows the myriad changes in American society that resulted from Floyd's death.

To those comparisons, we add this, brought to our attention by readers J.L. in Albany, NY and S.K. in Los Angeles, CA. Right-wing twerp Ben Shapiro can always be counted on to take the side of money and power, and can always be counted on to blame all wrongdoing and all social ills on "the left." That is his brand, and that is what he did here. He went on an extended harangue on his podcast, which he then posted to eX-Twitter with this note:

The radical Left-wing celebrates the murder of the United Healthcare CEO. They're violent revolutionaries, and all it takes is a spark to light the tinderbox of their Marxist brutality. The 1970s was plagued by Left-wing political violence. It may be coming back.

Unusually, Shapiro got roasted for this... by his own followers. He has lived a life of comfort and privilege, and seems to actively avoid any information that might lead to empathy or to an awareness of the struggles of those less fortunate (remember, Z knew him in college). Anyhow, a vast number of conservatives piped up to advise Shapiro that America's private healthcare system is badly broken, and that people across the political spectrum have been denied healthcare that was necessary, and that they were entitled to, in service of the insurance companies' bottom line.

So, maybe we are at the start of a "moment" here, in much the same way that the murders of Garfield and Floyd sparked a "moment." There's clearly a serious problem, and people are getting angry and desperate. Those politicians who don't do anything about it risk losing their jobs or... worse. The same applies, of course, to the people who run the health insurance industry (and associated industries, like the medical devices industry).

That said, if the private insurance industry is failing, then the main alternative, as we wrote yesterday, is the expansion of public options. It is an objective fact that: (1) public insurance in the United States, most obviously Medicare, is more cost-efficient and that (2) the U.S. spends far more on healthcare than Western countries with public healthcare systems, and with worse outcomes. That said, the phrase "socialized medicine" is a boogeyman with many voters. This is why a different name is needed, like "Expanded Medicare," "New Medicare," or something else tied to the (popular) Medicare.

There are numerous Republican members of Congress who will strongly oppose any sort of change, whether because they have internalized the notion that "socialized medicine" is evil, or they have come to believe that public insurance will increase the deficit, or because they are in the pockets of Big Pharma. Yesterday, for example, Rep. Mark Alford (R-MO) did a bunch of media hits in which he said that it's really time to cut Medicare. This seems a particularly impolitic time, to us, to be making such declarations. Or, put another way, "Read the room, man." In any event, it shows how deeply entrenched the resistance to change is. (Z)

Murdoch Gets Outfoxed by His Kids

Rupert Murdoch is 93 years old and the end is presumably not too far off. It could be a year, it could be 10 years, but he's not likely to be around for the 2048 presidential contest between Barron Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. To that end, he put his media empire into an irrevocable trust to be equally controlled by his four oldest kids. Thereafter, he decided that "irrevocable" actually means "revocable," and sued to be allowed to change the terms of the trust. There was no question that all four kids would get an equal cut, but what dad wanted was to give 100% voting control to eldest son Lachlan, with the other three kids as silent partners.

This weekend, Murdoch lost his case. Nevada commissioner Edmund Gorman got out his dictionary (well, he probably fired up merriam-webster.com) and discovered that "irrevocable" does, in fact, mean "irrevocable." In a 96-page ruling, which has not been made public, but which was acquired by The New York Times, the Commissioner found that Rupert and Lachlan were acting "in bad faith" and that voting power would be shared by all four children.

The dynamic underlying all of this wrangling is that Rupert and Lachlan are both right-wing, while daughter Prudence is more a centrist, and son James and daughter Elisabeth are liberals. None of these people are under the age of 50, so it's not like their political sensibilities emerged only recently. Why Murdoch was OK with the arrangement when he created the trust, but then changed his mind, is known only to him.

So, what does this presage for the future of the Fox cable channel? That is unknowable at this point. To start, this likely isn't the end of the legal wrangling, and dad is still alive. Even if the current situation holds once both the legal maneuvering and dad's life have come to an end, it may not be too easy for the liberal children to force a change in direction. The family only controls 41% of the votes in the corporation right now, and there could be rules changes that reduce that share.

We tend to think that change is coming for Fox, but not primarily because of an upcoming change in leadership. At the moment, the channel brings in a robust $14 billion per year in profit. However, as we've pointed out numerous times, the average viewer is 68 years old. Father Time is going to shrink the viewer base significantly in the next 5-10 years, and with its current approach, Fox has been completely unable to attract and retain new viewers. CNN was once dominant, and now it's in the middle of an identity crisis, not to mention a bottom-line crisis. We suspect that, sometime in the next decade, Fox will be at the same place CNN is. After all, as the ancient Romans took care to remind their emperors, glory is fleeting. (Z)

"Word of the Year" Maybe a Little Too Much on the Nose

Did you know that the company that publishes the Guinness Book of World Records isn't really in the publishing business anymore? Yes, they still produce an annual copy of their signature "reference" work, but that's not how they pay the bills. Their primary source of income is staging world-record attempts. That is to say, a business that wants some publicity for their event will contact Guinness, and ask the company to concoct a world record that company can break. Then, that company will promote their event: "Come to our event at which we are introducing our newest sprockets, at which we will try to set a world record for the tallest stack of sprockets ever assembled!"

The world's dictionary publishers are in something of a similar predicament. Relatively few people buy paper dictionaries anymore, and so those publishers have to think of a way to draw attention to their websites, where they make (most of) their money from advertising. One of the best tricks for getting those extra clicks is to announce a "word of the year," because various news outlets and commentators (including us) are suckers for that, as a useful marker of the zeitgeist.

Yesterday, Merriam-Webster announced its word of the year, and we must say, they chose well. First, the runners-up, which were presented in random, unranked order:

You can see how this year's presidential contest permeates much of the list. So, it's not too surprising that the word of the year is also a political word. It is... polarization.

We don't have much to say about Merriam-Webster's selection process, other than they seem to have chosen well. Of course, they have stats about what pages are being clicked on the most, so it wasn't too hard for them to figure out what words are getting disproportionate attention. The one thing we do have to add is this question: Is there ANY hope that there will be a year, in the next four, where "polarization" would not be an appropriate choice for word of the year? We are not optimistic, obviously. That said, let us try to imagine the best-case scenario.

To start, Donald Trump and his rhetoric are both getting old. He's back to carping about the exact same things as always; yesterday it was how "nasty" and "unfair" Kristen Welker was during her Meet the Press interview of the President-elect. We know, beyond all doubt, that people on the left are tired of Trump's shtick as a politician, which has now been on display for nearly 10 years. We have plenty of reason to believe that many people on the right are tired of it, too. And Trump is a lame duck, and could become lamer (ducker?) if mental or physical health problems limit him. Maybe he won't be able to stir the pot as much in the next 4 years as he's been able to in the last 10.

On top of that, the precarious balance in Congress, and in particular the House, is somewhat designed to encourage reaching across the aisle. Mike Johnson talks like a hardliner Republican, but he's shown numerous times that if the easier path is "get some Democratic votes" as opposed to "placate the Freedom Caucusers," he's willing to choose the former. Indeed, it looks like he's about to do so yet again in the next few weeks (see above).

Finally, there are some legitimate opportunities for bipartisan compromises. Something related to healthcare (see above) is a possibility. So is something related to the border. Donald Trump does not care about policy; he cares about "wins." So, he might well sign a bill that reflects a largely Democratic vision of policy, as long as he can claim credit for it. Meanwhile, a lot of the things that Trump and his appointees say they want to do are certainly anathema to Democrats... but are also anathema to many Republicans, too. So, the incoming administration's most extreme impulses are likely to be blunted.

We are certainly not bipartisanship Pollyannas the way that, say, Sen. Joe Manchin (I-WV) is. But we can at least imagine a world in which things in the next 4 years are less nasty than everyone fears. (Z)

It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas, Day 6: Merry Christmas America, Part I

Reader T.B. in Powell, OH posed this question to readers: "Imagine you were going to give a Christmas gift to the United States. Specifically, a law, institution, initiative, civic structure, or like commodity imported from some other nation. What gift would you bestow?"

And now, half a dozen answers:

We'll be doing this question for a few more days. If you care to weigh in, send your picks to comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers