Previous | Next | Senate page
New polls: GA MA
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: GA ME NV PA WI
Trump Wants the Gag Order Lifted before the Debate
Donald Trump's lawyers are asking Judge Juan Merchan to lift the gag order on Trump before the June 27 debate with Joe Biden so he can discuss the case then. In reality, he is free to discuss the case even with the gag order. What he is not free to do is threaten people who work in the judicial system. Was Trump planning to tell his supporters on national television to go attack the judge's assistant or even the judge's daughter? The judge himself and Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg are not covered by the order. The lawyers said that Trump is entitled to "unrestrained campaign advocacy" since the trial is over now.
In reality, Trump knows that if he violates the gag order, all that will happen is that the judge will fine him $1,000 again and won't do anything if he refuses to pay. He is counting on the fact that the judge won't find him in contempt of court and give him an all-expenses-paid vacation on lovely Rikers Island, with its view of the magnificent new LaGuardia terminal. In reality, any other defendant who violated court orders 10 times would have been in jail long ago. Trump is being handled with kid gloves, despite his endless bellyaching about his treatment. So far, the judge hasn't made a decision on the gag order. (V)
Democrats Are Telling Biden That He Needs to Tell Voters He is Feeling Their Pain
Bill Clinton was a master at telling people that he was feeling their pain. Was he really feeling it? We doubt it, but he was very good at convincing people that he was. Joe Biden hasn't gone there yet, even though the economy is one of his weak spots. Instead, he has been telling the voters the actual truth: The economy is very good. Nearly anyone who wants a job can find one, the stock market is roaring, inflation is down, and wages are up. But it is not working. People are thinking: "Milk costs more now than it did 3 years ago and it is Biden's fault." Simply telling the voters the truth doesn't work.
Democratic strategists like Brad Bannon are urging Biden to stop trying to teach Economics 101 to the voters and simply say: "I know you're suffering, but we're making progress, and we will continue to make progress if I have a second term." Biden hasn't done this because he (rightly) believes the economy is in good shape—and nonpartisan economists agree with him—and he doesn't want to suddenly start apologizing for a (nonexistent) bad economy. He wants to take credit for the economy actually being so good (although the credit belongs much more to Fed Chairman Jerome Powell).
As with so much in politics, reality doesn't matter (and never has). It is the perception of reality that matters, and the popular perception is that the country is in a recession and inflation is roaring. We can understand Biden's reluctance to agree that things are awful when they are not, but that is what it might take. Historian Michael Eric Dyson said: "He's got to become a preacher, an evangelist to tell that story. He's got the money, but money can't buy perception and speak the language of the people he's trying to reach." (V)
Hunter Biden's Trial Got Personal
Seems you can't have a decent trial these days without some woman complaining about the defendant's behavior. No porn stars at Hunter's trial, just his ex-wife, Kathleen Buhle, and a former girlfriend, Zoe Kestan. Buhle testified that between 2015 and 2019, she searched her then-husband's car at least a dozen times and found crack cocaine or related paraphernalia. Her time on the stand for the direct examination, the cross-examination, and the follow-up lasted a total of 20 minutes. Stormy did better than that, but of course, she is used to appearing in public.
Kestan testified that she met Biden at a strip club and he booked her for a private dance. He smoked something and she assumed it was crack, but wasn't really sure. She did say that she felt safe around him. She continued to see him and started having feelings for him. She also said that later he used crack every 20 minutes. She also showed a photo from her phone showing him in a bathtub holding a crack pipe. Salacious! At least Stormy didn't show any photos of her, uh, interaction with Trump. Upon cross-examination, Kestan testified that she helped Biden get cocaine, so she is no angel herself.
It doesn't matter that Biden was a drug addict in 2017. What matters was whether he viewed himself as a drug addict when he bought a gun in 2018 and certified that he was not a drug addict. He is charged with lying on the form. If he did not regard himself as a drug addict when he bought the gun, that may not count as lying.
What also came up is Biden repeatedly withdrawing money from ATMs and bank branches. The prosecution says this is because he needed cash to buy crack. Old-fashioned drug dealers don't take PayPal. Defense attorney Abbe Lowell said they were for paying rent, rehab services, and other mundane things. In the 3-month period that included the gun purchase, Biden withdrew $151,000 in cash.
The judge barred Lowell from telling the jury that somehow two different versions of the gun form ended up at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. That could indicate that Biden filled out one form and someone else filled out the other. If Biden is convicted, Lowell will surely bring this up on appeal, saying the judge banned evidence that puts the prosecution's case in doubt. Lowell also noted that the writing on the form is in three different colors, suggesting that multiple people filled out the form with different pens. Was Biden framed?
There was also discussion about Biden's laptop, the most famous computer since Hillary's e-mail server. The defense claims that it was hardly handled in a secure way after Biden brought it to a repair shop and it is possible that Russian agents put some material on it. Lowell is a top defense attorney and by raising this issue is hoping that some juror will later say: "How do we know the laptop wasn't tampered with? I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt." There were 6 months between the time Biden dropped it off and when the FBI got it. Who knows who had access to it in that period? This could be important to sow doubt.
Surprisingly, Donald Trump is not attacking Hunter Biden every day. Trump just released eight new videos and a bunch of newsletters. Hunter is not mentioned in any of them. Not once. Maybe the issue is that Trump's polling shows that nobody is interested in the case so it is not likely to win him any votes. Also, he may be uncomfortable about the idea that Biden could be convicted of lying on an official form. For the last week, Republicans have been saying that lying on a government form is no worse than, say, jaywalking. If Biden is convicted, it will be tough to say that Biden is a true criminal for lying on a (disputed) form, but intentionally falsifying 34 business records is a nothingburger. Less surprisingly, Joe Biden won't touch the case with a 10-foot pole. He is following it privately, but not commenting on it. (V)
Trump Begins Vetting the Veepables
NBC News is reporting that Donald Trump has now sent vetting materials to several people he is considering as a running mate. Before even naming them, we want to note that Trump loves drama, so the "leak" may have been carefully planned. Also, by including people on the list that he is not considering at all, he could be intending to send a message to some voters or groups of voters.
According to the sources, the top prospects are Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND) and three Republican senators: Marco Rubio (FL), Tim Scott (SC), and J.D. Vance (OH). Interestingly, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) is not on the list even though she is Trumpy as hell and could attract women, a far bigger demographic than any of the others could. Numerous sources have reported that the shot that killed her dog also killed Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD)'s chances. And again, Trump could easily surprise everyone and pick a dark horse nobody is talking about now. We are willing to go out on a limb here, however, and say we don't think it will be Mike Pence.
Burgum is a billionaire and could bring two things to the ticket: money and governing experience. Unfortunately, Trump doesn't care about the latter, just the former. OK, technically, Burgum seals the deal for North Dakota's 3 EVs, so that's three things. Burgum has only recently become Trumpy. In fact, he ran against Trump. We tend to think that although he is not controversial, he doesn't bring much to the ticket. At least he won't upstage Trump.
Rubio might attract young voters, especially some Latino ones. He could also help in Florida, but Trump probably does not need a lot of help there. On the downside, Rubio is not a great campaigner, is said to be lazy, and has a few mini-scandals in his past. Here is part of our write-up on March 4, 2016 about one of the Republican debates:
Rubio was particularly aggressive, especially for the first hour of the debate. He hit The Donald on immigration, foreign policy, tax policy, and his ever-shifting political positions. At various times, the Florida Senator brought up Trump University, Trump's foreign-made clothing line, the kind words he's had for Vladimir Putin, and his failed business ventures (i.e. Trump Vodka), while characterizing the billionaire as a con artist, trust fund baby, and liar who can't possibly beat Hillary Clinton and who "thinks the nuclear triad is a rock band from the 1980's." Trump defended himself on all points (not always successfully) while repeatedly referring to his opponent as "Little Marco," and suggesting that Rubio is a liar, a scammer, a lazy Senator who doesn't show up for work, and a man so incapable of being a leader that "the people in Florida wouldn't elect him dogcatcher" at this point.
We're not the only ones who wrote up that debate. If Trump picks Rubio, every media outlet that existed in 2016 will be digging through its archives. For example, the Tampa Bay Times existed back then. This is what we wrote about Rubio on March 15, 2016:
The Tampa Bay Times has a lengthy profile and takedown of Marco Rubio, just in time for the Florida primaries. In it, they throw everything but the kitchen sink at the Florida Senator.
One of the major themes of the profile is that Rubio is lazy, from his lackadaisical 2.1 high school GPA to his longstanding habit of not showing up for committee meetings, press conferences, and legislative sessions unless absolutely necessary. He's also portrayed as a backstabber whose opportunism rivals that of Ted Cruz. One early ally, Hialeah mayor Raúl Martinez, says that he "wouldn't support [Rubio] for dog catcher" now. Another, GOP official Tony DiMatteo, says he's supporting Donald Trump specifically to derail Rubio.
Undoubtedly, it's hard to be a career politician without making some enemies. But to make this many enemies, and have them be this vociferous, is not a good look, particularly on a day when you need every vote you can get.
On top of that, if POTUS and VPOTUS candidates are from the same state, the Florida electors can't vote for both of them, so somebody's gotta move. Would the Florida voters like Rubio hightailing it to Georgia? Would Trump dare move back to New York after his conviction? He could move to his club in Bedminster, NJ, though.
As to Scott, he smiles a lot, but he is Black and a lot of Republicans voted for Trump in 2016 to punish the Democrats for nominating a Black man as president. He's also not a terribly effective senator and like Rubio and unlike Burgum, he would not be ready to be president on Day 1 if Trump were to eat his last Big Mac while in office.
Vance used to dislike Trump, has called him an idiot, and didn't vote for him in 2016. He has since repented and is one of the Trumpiest members of Congress. His big selling point is that he could be an incredible attack dog, something none of the above three are at all capable of. He is also from a slightly swingy state and his presence on the ticket could hurt Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). That alone could be enough for Trump to pick him. To a more rational presidential candidate, especially one with a really big ego, Vance makes more sense than the bland Burgum and the feeble Rubio and Scott. But with Trump, you never know. He tends to believe the last person he talked to. We truly hope that Sarah Palin does not visit Mar-a-Lago in June or early July. (V)
Trump Has a Plan: Jail His Opponents
Forget the dog whistles. Trump is now openly talking about his plans to use the DoJ to indict, convict, and imprison his political enemies if he wins. The name being floated for AG is Texas AG Ken Paxton, who will make Democrats pine for Jeff Sessions. Paxton is as corrupt as they come and would follow Trump's orders with no hesitation. Probably dozens of top DoJ officials would refuse to serve under him and would resign, allowing Paxton to replace them all with Trump flunkies. It would be the end of "equal justice under law." This is probably not what the well-meaning but perhaps naive farmers in North Dakota want for the country, but it is what they will get if he wins: full-blown fascism in America.
During Trump's 2016 campaign, one of his themes was "Lock her [Hillary Clinton] up." In the end he didn't even try, but he knows more now than he did then about the importance of picking loyal stooges to populate his cabinet. Last weekend, Trump said on Fox: "If you get the right person, it's like magic." What he means is that if he can find an AG who will simply ignore the law and do what Trump orders, he can work his will more easily. Additionally, Trump is much, much, much, angrier now than in 2016, due to losing several major civil lawsuits and one criminal case, with several more on deck.
Even before the election, House Republicans are going after Trump's political enemies. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) is preparing legislation to "defund lawfare activites" of state and federal prosecutors leading "politically sensitive investigations," including Jack Smith, Alvin Bragg, and Fani Willis. Any bill he writes probably won't even pass the House given the Republicans' narrow margin and the desires of the 17 Biden-district Republicans to get reelected. And if it magically does, it won't even be brought up for a vote in the Senate. All Jordan can do is grandstand. He is in the wrong field. He should have been a stage actor. He's great at fantasy and would love to have large audiences applaud him every day.
There is also the little matter that while Smith is a federal employee, even if the DoJ budget takes a hit, AG Merrick Garland has a fair amount of say on how the money is spent. Bragg and Willis are funded by state governments so there is not a lot Jordan could do to defund them, even if the bill could magically pass a reluctant House, an impossible Senate, and a veto-pen-wielding president. But Jordan's district is R+20, so the more red meat he throws out, the better liked he is. (V)
Democrats Are Going to Try to Flip State Chambers in Five States
Republicans have long understood that state legislatures are very important, but only with the Dobbs decision are Democrats coming to realize that, too. When the states couldn't unilaterally ban abortion, the blue team didn't care too much about the states. Now that they can, Democrats suddenly care about the states. Axios has a scoop that Democrats are now launching a multimillion-dollar effort to flip (or hold) state legislative chambers in five states: Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Here is the lay of the land now:
| State | Senate | House |
| Arizona | R+2 | R+2 |
| Michigan | D+2 | D+2 |
| New Hampshire | R+4 | R+5 |
| Pennsylvania | R+6 | D+2 |
| Wisconsin | R+12 | R+29 |
In other words, Republicans have a two-seat majority in the Arizona Senate (in that case. 16R, 14D). All of the chambers in the first four states are clearly in play. Going after half a dozen Republicans in competitive districts could potentially flip the chamber (or, in the case of Michigan, strengthen the blue team's hold). Looking at the numbers for Wisconsin, however, might have you scratching your head. What? The reason Wisconsin is in play is that the state Supreme Court ruled that its highly gerrymandered map was unconstitutional. The new map is extremely competitive and Democrats could possibly win both chambers in a blue wave.
The States Project, founded by Daniel Squadron, is fundraising to flip Republican seats in the above legislatures. Squadron said: "Every dollar spent at the state legislative level is worth eons more than it would be at any other level." That's certainly true of all federal races. Another $100,000 in a U.S. Senate race means nothing, but $100,000 in a state Senate race can completely alter the race. Even a mere $1 million spread over 10-20 state legislative races can have a huge effect. The DLCC (Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee) has already raised $2.3 million for state races and is gradually getting the word out that a $20 donation to a state race has far more impact than a $200 donation to any congressional race, especially a high-profile Senate race. (V)
House Republicans Are Trying to Defund Election Security
A nonpartisan government watchdog group, Issue One, has asked congressional appropriators to allocate $400 million for election security this year. That's more than the $96 million Joe Biden has requested, and a lot more than the $0 House Republicans want. Election security? That's for losers.
The Republicans' desire to zero out election security is partly due to their general interest in cutting government spending, but is also due to lies about election security that circulate on right-wing media sites. One might think that people concerned about election security might want to spend at least $96 million to enhance it. If one thought that, however, one would be wrong. Now that election security has joined the culture wars as a new front, all bipartisan efforts to deal with it are doomed. The Republicans' view is: If Democrats want it, then we must oppose it. In the past, election security was relatively noncontroversial. No longer.
Republicans are not entirely on the same page on this. Republican secretaries of state from some red states have asked for the funding. A letter to House appropriators from a bipartisan group of former politicians, including former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt (D), former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (R), and former governor of Arkansas Asa Hutchinson (R), reads in part: "This investment is essential to protecting our nation's elections from foreign interference, cyber, and physical threats against election offices and officials." A second letter, signed by 21 state and local election administrators from both parties reads in part: "Responding to cybersecurity attacks from foreign adversaries, countering threats, abuse and harassment of election officials (80% of whom are women) that cross state lines, and administering federal mandates on voter registration and ballot access all involve federal action."
So maybe House Republicans want the private sector to fund election security? Well, no. They are working on a bill that would make private donations for election security illegal. Twenty-eight states already have such a law on the books. They definitely don't want Zuckerbucks. Could it be that they would prefer there be no election security so that malign actors can get their way? They're not saying. (V)
The Washington Post CEO Has Fired the Executive Editor, Sally Buzbee
When legendary executive editor Marty Baron retired from The Washington Post in 2021, he was replaced by the highly respected journalist Sally Buzbee, then the executive editor of the Associated Press. Last Sunday evening, Buzbee was unceremoniously canned by the Post's publisher, Sir William Lewis. The memo Lewis sent to the staff didn't explain anything other than stating the need for "urgency" and "transparency," whatever that means. Buzbee will be replaced by Lewis' buddies Matt Murray (until December) and Robert Winnett (thereafter), along with a new organizational chart.
Politico's always-astute media reporter, Jack Shafer, has taken a stab at explaining what this all means. To start with, the Post lost $77 million last year. To owner Jeff Bezos, who is worth $200 billion, that is not serious money, but he would no doubt prefer that the Post at least break even. Also, readership is down 50% since 2020. Something had to give. Shafer notes that Lewis may be trying to Brit-ify and Murdoch-ify the paper as he has hired a number of top executives who are either British or have worked for British papers or for The Wall Street Journal. This is not necessarily bad.
Shafer expects the endless flabby narratives that have the gestation period of a llama to be either out or much shorter, along with punchier stories and headlines to be in going forward. When Rupert Murdoch bought the Journal from the Bancroft family in 2007, Shafer (and others) were afraid he would turn it into a broadsheet version of the Murdoch-owned fiery right-wing tabloid New York Post. He didn't. He just aimed to acquire readers outside the business community.
Post staffers were not happy that Lewis picked his old buddies and didn't even bother with pro forma statements about diversity and mandatory interviews with women and minorities. Lewis told them that the flight plan had already been filed and no changes would be forthcoming. On the other hand, most of them never liked Buzbee, whom staffers characterized by saying she was barely aware of what her paper published. It is unusual to replace the executive editor of a major national newspaper a month before the first nominating convention, but if Buzbee was really as disengaged as the staff thinks she was, maybe it won't matter.
Lewis also said that henceforth the main newsroom at the Post will focus on these core areas: politics, investigations, business, technology, sports and features. A second newsroom will handle opinion. Starting next year, Murray will run a third newsroom within the organization with an as-yet-undefined mission. According to two inside sources, Buzbee was offered the job of running one of the three newsrooms, which would be a demotion for her, but she refused.
Was Bezos the force behind Buzbee's departure? No one who knows is saying. Bezos is not a micromanager. He is more interested in grand strategy than details. He might just have asked Lewis, the highest executive at the paper: "Do you think you could lose a bit less money going forward? This hobby of mine is getting expensive." It is generally believed that he lets Lewis run the operation as he sees fit, with little or no interference, after an initial burst of activity pouring in money to drag the paper, kicking and screaming, into the digital world.
Shafer is well plugged in, but the Post's own reporters may have the best idea of what really happened. According to them, Lewis was hired by Bezos only 5 months ago to turn the paper around. He drew up a plan to restructure the paper. Buzbee didn't like her new role in it and balked. That led Lewis to suggest that maybe she should look for employment elsewhere and she agreed. Monday morning there was a contentious meeting of the staff about Buzbee's departure and the new plans. One staffer said: "The most cynical interpretation sort of feels like you chose two of your buddies to come in and help run the Post. And we now have four white men running three newsrooms."
Lewis took questions but didn't give answers. He said: "I really enjoyed working with Sally. I wish it could have gone on for longer, but it couldn't." He apologized for dropping a bombshell Sunday evening, but said the news was starting to leak already, so he had to go forward. (V)
Is Gary Hart Responsible for Trump?
An interesting opinion piece in Politico Magazine by journalist Tom McGrath suggests that the rise of Donald Trump would never have happened without former Colorado senator Gary Hart in 1984.
Until 1984, the Democrats were largely the party of the working class. Also by then, Black voters had massively migrated from the party that freed the slaves to the Democrats (largely due to Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society and Richard Nixon's "Southern strategy" of not-terribly-coded racism). Well-educated, affluent people were Republicans, the party with class. Ronald Reagan was running for reelection in 1984.
The establishment Democratic candidate was Walter Mondale, an old-style FDR Democrat. He was challenged by Black activist Jesse Jackson, who soon shot himself in the foot by making an antisemitic remark. There were also half a dozen other candidates, including then-Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado. Although Hart was only 8 years younger than Mondale, he gave off the vibe of someone being a generation younger. More importantly, he was not a machine politician like Mondale and attracted a very different kind of supporter than Mondale. His support came from a demographic then called "yuppies"—Young Urban Professionals."
Hart started off with a bang, coming in second in the Iowa caucuses, making him a serious challenger to Mondale. When Hart won New Hampshire a week later, it was instantly a two-man race. Hart went on to win 26 primaries and caucuses, more than Mondale's 22. He ended up winning every state west of Missouri except Kansas and Texas (which Mondale won) and Montana (which sent unpledged delegates to the DNC).
In the end, Mondale got the nomination due to his massive support from the superdelegates. But Hart started to change the Democratic Party. All of a sudden, affluent, educated people, who had been Republicans since birth, became Democrats to support him. It was unprecedented. People who yearned for tax cuts were becoming Democrats in droves?
After Mondale was crushed, losing every state except his home state of Minnesota and getting 41% of the popular vote (to Reagan's 59%) and a grand total of 13 electoral votes, Mondale snuck off stage left with his tail between his legs. Hart was the immediate frontrunner in 1988 and could have gotten the nomination and beaten George H.W. Bush, rather than getting crushed like the hapless Mike Dukakis, who won 10 states and got 111 EVs. What stopped Hart was not Dukakis, but a rumor that he was having an affair (which he denied). When the Pre-Pecker National Enquirer published a front-page photo of model Donna Rice sitting on Hart's lap on a boat appropriately named the "Monkey Business" on June 2, 1987, Hart dropped out. There are rumors that infamous dirty-pool player Lee Atwater was the one who arranged the photo and gave it to the Enquirer.
Nevertheless, Hart had a huge impact on the Democratic Party. He brought in millions of affluent, highly educated people who had previously been Republicans. This made the Democrats start to change their focus from the lunch-bucket issues that blue-collar voters cared about to things that the yuppies cared about, like the environment, women's rights, gay rights, diversity, etc., most of which were not of interest to their former supporters. Donald Trump realized that these cultural issues could be the key to a political realignment in a way that the Bushes, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney did not. This accelerated the movement of blue-collar voters repelled by the Democrats' new positions on cultural issues to the Republicans. Trump exploited these wedge issues successfully in 2016, but without Hart attracting the highly educated yuppies in the 1984-1987 period, which set off the chain of events that realigned the parties, the Democrats would probably still have FDR's coalition (plus Black voters driven away by Nixon). (V)
Today's Presidential Polls
If Biden tries for the Southern Route, going for Arizona and Nevada may be better than going for Georgia since there is no Senate race in the Peach State this time to help him.
| State | Joe Biden | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| Georgia | 44% | 49% | May 30 | Jun 03 | Quinnipiac U. |
| Massachusetts | 48% | 27% | May 17 | May 30 | U. of Mass. |
Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers