Feb23

Pres map


Previous | Next

IVF Decision: Republicans Are Running for the Hills

The decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, that frozen embryos count as people for legal purposes, has already had the predicted effect: Three clinics in the state have suspended all IVF-related operations, at least for now. They are making plans to relocate currently existing embryos to another state, and then they will think about next steps.

As we noted yesterday, Nikki Haley went all-in on supporting the Alabama ruling. Perhaps she should have waited to see how the political winds were blowing, because most other Republicans are doing whatever they can to distance themselves from the decision. Among the high-profile Republicans who have made public statements supporting IVF, and doing whatever it takes to keep the procedure available, are Govs. Brian Kemp (R-GA), Bill Lee (R-TN) and Kevin Stitt (R-OK), along with Reps. Nancy Mace (R-SC), Don Bacon (R-NE) and Nick LaLota (R-NY). Even Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) expressed unhappiness with the Alabama decision:

Something is totally wrong. The people who want to have a family should have the government and the law on their side. And the notion that discarded embryos in an IVF somehow turn these people who want children and want families and want the American dream, into criminals is really wrong.

There aren't many issues where Nikki Haley is further right than Matt Gaetz.

Other Republicans are taking the head-in-the-sand approach, and hoping this somehow blows over. The various personalities who host shows on Fox have spent a grand total of 6 minutes talking about the decision. Alabama AG Steve Marshall (R) has noticeably declined to say anything about the ruling, or to give instructions to his subordinates about how to respond to it. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) largely dodged questions about the case, saying only "it's tough."

The loudest silence, meanwhile, has come from Donald Trump, who is trying mightily to avoid any engagement with reproductive-rights-related issues, particularly those where the button is as hot as it is here. That did not stop Joe Biden from hammering his rival, of course. In a statement yesterday, the Biden campaign, alluding to a speech Trump was scheduled to give in Nashville last night, said: "Tonight Donald Trump will come face to face with the horrific reality he created: speaking in a state that has banned abortion entirely with no exceptions for rape or incest. Next door in Alabama, couples who face challenges becoming pregnant are cruelly being denied the right to start a family."

In short, most Republican politicians, particularly the ones who are running for office this year, would really like this to go away. They could get their wish. Democrats in the Alabama state House have introduced a bill that would make explicit that embryos are not people. Democrats in the U.S. Senate have done the same. Either or both of these bills could plausibly pass, since there are so many Republicans for whom the IVF decision is a bridge too far (or is too politically poisonous). Alternatively, the U.S. Supreme Court could get involved. It won't be easy to get them to take a case that involves interpretation of state law, but there are a few potential angles, including interference with interstate commerce and violation of due process rights. Remember that the really good lawyers are paid big bucks to make a case even where none exists.

So, this story is most certainly not over. Either the GOP will find a way to overcome this self-inflicted wound, or... it won't. (Z)

Biden Impeachment: GOP Hopes Are Shattered

Continuing with headaches for the Republican Party, their efforts to paint the Biden family as a bunch of crooks have hit some rather large snags this week. We already had an item about how the key "witness" (in fact, the only "witness") to Hunter Biden's alleged shady dealings, Alexander Smirnov, turns out to have been full of it. His lies were so transparent that they've not only been disregarded by the Justice Department, they've also led to his indictment. Smirnov was arrested yesterday (actually, to be precise, he was re-arrested).

Since we wrote that item, there have been a number of new, and very relevant, developments:

In summary, the chances of a Hunter Biden trial, particularly before the presidential election, have grown much smaller. Meanwhile, the key witness that might be used in a Joe Biden impeachment has gone south, and the most infamous source of evidence appears to have done the same. Further, pressing these matters could serve to remind voters that Republican politicians are broadly in the thrall of the Russians, and more specifically that they keep falling victim to Russian spies. Even Rep. James Comer (R-KY), who was beating the impeachment drum most loudly, has backed off noticeably. This story would appear to be nearing its conclusion. (Z)

Biden Age: Could the Antiques Roadshow Reach a Dead End?

With the impeachment and the "Biden crime family" narrative apparently going up in flames, Joe Biden's age would seem to be the very best cudgel the Republicans have on this year's campaign trail. To that end, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has just scheduled Special Counsel Robert Hur for a March 12 hearing, in which Hur will draw on his extensive experience in neurology and gerontology to once again opine on the President's mental fitness. That should give Fox, what, a week's worth of material?

But maybe, just maybe, this is a mistake. Alex Conant is one of the best-connected political strategists in Washington, and a Republican, though not a Trumpy one. In a new op-ed written for Politico, he insists that running against your opponent's age is not a winner, and Republicans will do so this year at their own peril.

Conant begins by observing that he very much would like presidential candidates this year who are not also candidates for the old folks' home. However, drawing on his extensive experience, he believes that both age and lack of mental acuity just don't work as lines of attack. "One is hard pressed to identify a single president, governor or senator who lost reelection because voters thought they were too old. And that's despite many younger challengers leveling that attack," Conant writes. Without using their names (for some reason), he brings up the examples of Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and John Fetterman (D-PA); the former having won reelection as an octogenarian in 2022, the latter having overcome a stroke and "serious cognitive health concerns" to defeat Mehmet Oz. Conant also notes that when he worked for Marco Rubio's 2016 presidential campaign, they tried to use Donald Trump's age as a weapon, and it didn't work, any better than it's working for Nikki Haley right now.

While we are passing Conant's opinion along, since his expertise means he should be taken seriously, we are very skeptical of his conclusions. It is one thing if a U.S. Senator can't remember their own name. It's another thing entirely if the person responsible for responding to a nuclear attack, or handling any other such crisis, isn't playing with a full deck. Also, Biden is much more prone to the sorts of gaffes that give this issue legs, as compared to Grassley or Fetterman or nearly anyone else (well, nearly anyone else not named Trump).

There is one thing that does give us pause, however, and that makes us think that mayyyyyyyybe Conant will be proven correct. Remember that during the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton expended much oxygen reminding people of Donald Trump's shortcomings. As a result, the attacks became somewhat tiresome and people began to tune them out. Meanwhile, she wasn't doing enough to tell people how she was going to make their lives better. We can at least imagine a world where Republican attacks on Biden for being old end up getting, well, old.

It is also the case that the "doddering old man" line of attack will be reliant on Biden making more gaffes, something that is not in the Republicans' control. So, there are strong arguments for finding some other angles. Maybe the fact that Biden's dog apparently bit every USSS agent in sight (a staggering 24 additional incidents, on top of the ones that were already known) before being banished from the White House. We understand the reluctance to banish the First Dog, but that is just not good judgment. (Z)

Right-Wing Websites in Decline: Breitbart's the Biggest Loser

The Righting is an interesting website. It aggregates headlines from right-wing websites, but does so for the benefit of left-leaning readers. Basically, the idea is "here's the most outlandish stuff the right-wingers are talking about today."

Yesterday, the site published a rundown of the traffic to various sites in January 2020 vs. January 2024, and for anyone whose living depends on traffic to right-wing sites not named Fox, it's pretty grim. Here are the top fifteen right-wing sites, ranked by number of unique visitors in Jan. 2020:

Site UV, Jan. 2020 UV, Jan. 2024 Change
Fox 111.6M 85M -24%
Washington Examiner 13.8M 4.6M -66%
Washington Times 11.1M 2M -82%
The Blaze 7.1M 2.8M -60%
National Review 7M 2M -72%
Western Journal 6.5M 1.6M -76%
Breitbart 6.3M 0.8M -87%
Daily Caller 5.4M 2.2M -59%
Daily Wire 4.6M 1.2M -73%
Newsmax 3.2M 4.4M +37%
Townhall 2.4M 0.3M -87%
Twitchy 1.9M <0.2M N/A
PJ Media 1.8M <0.2M N/A
Gateway Pundit 1.8M 0.8M -54%
Washington Free Beacon 1.7M 0.2M -87%

Traffic levels for Twitchy and PJ Media have fallen to a level so low they are not measurable by the tracker (Comscore) that The Righting is using.

Meanwhile, for purposes of comparison, here are the numbers for a few notable non-right-wing sites:

Site UV, Jan. 2020 UV, Jan. 2024 Change
CNN 141M 112.8M -20%
New York Times 103.7M 81.2M -22%
Washington Post 87.9M 48.6M -45%

Poor Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos. If this continues, how will he make ends meet?

People's consumption habits are changing, such that even those folks who stay on top of the news are doing so in different ways, in many cases. One source of competition to big-time media websites is podcasts, and another is blogging platforms like Substack and beehiiv. Quite a few folks who used to be reporters for the big media players have now struck out on their own and have taken a chunk of their audience with them. That list includes Bari Weiss, Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald.

But why have the right-wing sites, on the whole, been hit much harder than the others? The biggest answer to that question is a single word: Facebook. That site made some changes to how it handles news, including downplaying news-oriented content in favor of other content (like pictures of your high school friend's summer vacation). The smaller sites were/are MUCH more dependent on Facebook traffic than the big sites, and the right-wing sites were/are MUCH more dependent than non-right-wing sites. And so the right-wing sites, especially the more extreme ones (ahem, Breitbart) were hit hard by the change.

It is impossible to say if this will have an impact in 2024, since the two likely presidential candidates are so well known. That said, the main impact of social media is not to change people's minds, but instead to motivate those whose minds are already made up to actually get themselves to the polls. In 2020, and in 2016 in particular, Donald Trump was much more a beneficiary of that dynamic than his Democratic rivals. So, he would be the one to be harmed in 2024, should there be an effect here. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: The Big Break

Readers were all over last week's headline theme. We'll let reader F.Y. in Ann Arbor, MI, do the honor of laying it out:

Each headline contains a chess term, hence the "Black and White" and "Russian" clues. This one seemed impossible for a while, but thanks in large part to both clues, things fell into place. My wife and I were making noises about a re-watch of that wonderful Netflix series The Queen's Gambit. This may just do the trick. Even though I'm at a loss for things to do on this Sunday, I'm glad you two took a probably much-needed day off.

Thanks, F.Y.! The only thing we'd add is that when a king is checkmated in an Arabian Mate, the rook is involved, too.

Here are the first 25 readers to send in the solution:

As to this week's theme, it relies on some (but not all) words on the right side of the colons, it fits in the Trivial Pursuit category Arts & Entertainment, and boy is it appropriate on a day where we have a lot of items about Donald Trump. If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "February 23 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: What Not to Wear

By now, everyone knows that Donald Trump's latest money-making scheme is Trump-branded shoes (the first run of which have sold out). Presumably, everyone also knows that the price tag was very high ($400), the quality is very low, and the tacky factor is off the charts. Just in case you haven't seen them:

Gold lamé, with a flag design wrapped around the heel, and a 'T' embossed on both the side and the tongue

It is very hard to imagine the type of person who would want to run around with those on their feet. Though it's also clear that some sizable chunk of the 1,000 purchasers are actually looking to re-sell the shoes, not to wear them. On eBay, many sellers are asking for four or five figures, with a top ask of $30,000. Remarkably, that last seller isn't even going to throw in free shipping. Once you've laid out your 30K, you're still $61.84 away from having shoes in hand.

In any event, the shoes are so hideous, and the use of the presidency to hawk such shoes is so gauche, that Trump has been roundly mocked on social media and on late-night TV since the sneakers were unveiled. And we thought that the best way to share that, for schadenfreude purposes, was to present the 10 best suggested names we've seen for the shoes. And so:

  1. Q Trainers
  2. Despair Jordans
  3. Sketchys
  4. Upchuck Taylors
  5. CONverse
  6. Air Surrections
  7. Plea-boks
  8. Crocks
  9. No Balance
  10. Hair Jordans

There are some pretty creative people out there.

If you would like a bit more schadenfreude, then we will also pass along a story brought to our attention by reader L.S.-H. in Naarden, The Netherlands. David Hogg, survivor of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, and now a prominent political activist, had the foresight to squat on a couple of obvious domain names. And he's up for a deal, as he announced on Ex-Twitter:

Dear Trump team-

I own BOTH http://ShopTrumpShoes.com AND http://TrumpSneakers.com I will sell it to you for the small amount of $2M to be donated to March For Our Lives. But every 25,000 more calls via the site the price goes up 1M. Please DM for ACH instructions.

Hogg has since acquired shoptrumpsneakers.com, which he's set to redirect to an anti-gun-violence website.

And finally, to round it out with some schadenfreude whipped cream, it is well within the realm of possibility that Trump's attempt to raise some money to pay off his lawsuits is... going to trigger another lawsuit. Because the former president is working with a small-time operator to make the shoes, as opposed to an actual professional operation, nobody involved noticed, it would seem, that red soles are already a trademark of top-flight designer Christian Louboutin:

White high tops with red soles, very similar to the soles of the Trump shoe

Louboutin pretty famously made his first pair of red-soled shoes with his secretary's nail polish, and he's defended the trademark in court several times. There's no evidence he or his company have filed suit against Trump yet, but it's only been a week, so there's time. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Happy Birthday to an American Idol

Yesterday was George Washington's birthday. We're not ever going to be able to give him the obituary treatment, since—and you might not know this—he's been dead for 225 years. So, we thought we'd take this opportunity to share 10 stories about the first president that you might not know:

  1. Duel Loyalty: During the 1754 elections for the Virginia legislature, Washington had a disagreement with a man named William Payne, as the two men supported different candidates. Washington said something indecorous, and Payne hauled off and decked the future president. The next day, Payne received an invitation to a local pub from Washington. He assumed a duel was in the offing, but when he arrived, there was a carafe of wine and two glasses set up on a table. "Mr. Payne," Washington said, "to err is nature; to rectify error is glory. I believe I was wrong yesterday; you have already had some satisfaction, and if you deem that sufficient, here is my hand, let us be friends." Payne was a firm supporter of Washington from that point forward.

  2. Rear Guard: Washington was known in his day, albeit not in ours, for his sense of humor. On one occasion, when the stove he was sitting in front of got too hot, he moved to another part of the room. Someone observed that a general really ought to be able to withstand a little incoming fire. "Not from behind," remarked Washington.

  3. Risky Bet: Alexander Hamilton was one of the few people who was not intimidated by Washington. One day, Hamilton proposed to Pennsylvania politician Gouverneur Morris that if he (Morris) were to approach Washington, slap the General on the back, and congratulate him on his good health, then a full dinner would be provided for Morris and 12 of his friends. Morris took the bait, did as instructed, and was rewarded with a frown and an angry glare from Washington. "I have won the bet," said Morris ruefully, "but paid dearly for it, and nothing could induce me to repeat it!"

  4. Strength in Numbers: The fellows who wrote the Constitution were leery of standing armies, and so discussed the possibility of limiting the size of the U.S. Army to no more than 5,000 soldiers. Washington, who presided over the proceedings, did not often speak, as the chair could not offer motions. But he did mutter under his breath that the conventioneers better also add a rule that foreign invaders were not allowed to bring more than 3,000 troops.

  5. For the Dogs: Washington was one of the biggest dog lovers ever to occupy the presidency, and throughout his life he was master to dozens of dogs, generally giving them imaginative names like Tipsy, Mopsey, Truelove, Ragman, Sweetlips and Vulcan. None of them ever bit a Secret Service agent, especially since the USSS didn't exist at that time. However, Vulcan was notorious for stealing food, and once grabbed a whole ham from the family table and made off with it.

  6. On the Clock: The first president was known for being punctual, and for expecting the same from his guests. At one dinner, a member of Congress arrived late, and found Washington and the rest of the invitees already dining. "We are obliged to be punctual here," the President advised. "My cook never asks whether the company has arrived, but whether the hour has."

  7. Mouthy: Washington was compelled to sit for portraits on occasion, and he hated it. While sitting for the famous painting by Gilbert Stuart, the painter tried to lighten things up by declaring: "Now, sir, you must let me forget that you are General Washington and I am Stuart the painter." Washington, apparently annoyed, replied: "Mr. Stuart need never feel the need for forgetting who he is and who General Washington is." This offended the painter, and in response, he reportedly exaggerated Washington's mouth to make him look more dour. That portrayal, appearing on billions of $1 bills as it does, has had a profound influence on Americans' perceptions of Washington and his temperament.

  8. The Art of Diplomacy: In 1797, Frenchman Constantin Volney visited Washington and asked for a letter of recommendation. Washington did not wish to insult Volney, but also did not want to give his support to a man known to have radical ideas. He solved the problem by writing "C. Volney needs no recommendation from Geo. Washington."

  9. On Fire: Washington was fascinated by fire, and was an enthusiastic amateur fireman. Shortly before his death, a fire broke out in the city of Alexandria while he was passing through. The former general rallied the citizenry, and oversaw the successful effort to extinguish the blaze. It was, in effect, his final battle.

  10. Make Mine Freedom: We recognize, of course, that this is a laudatory piece about a man who was a slaveowner. It was, of course, a different time, and abolitionism was barely known in Washington's day. However, he was personally uncomfortable with the institution. There were some pretty strict limits placed on what he could do, but he did free many enslaved people in his will, and his wife freed more when she died (in each case, enslaved people could only be freed by the person in whose name they were owned, and even then only when that person died). Both Washingtons also provided that freedpeople who were too elderly or infirm to care for themselves would be supported by the residue of the estate for the remainders of their lives.

And there you have it, a portrait of the Father of his Country. Happy 292nd birthday, Mr. President. You don't look a day over 280. (Z)


Back to the main page