Main page    Jun. 19

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page

New polls: CA MN NM
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA ME NV PA WI

Today is Juneteenth. In honor of the occasion, we share this quote from an 1857 speech by Frederick Douglass: "If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning."

And this from an 1859 letter written by Abraham Lincoln: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long retain it."

And finally, this from an 1866 address by abolitionist and proto-feminist Frances Ellen Watkins Harper: "We are all bound up together in one great bundle of humanity, and society cannot trample on the weakest and feeblest of its members without receiving a curse in its own soul."

Perhaps readers will find one or more of these observations relevant to the year 2024.

A Bad Night for Good?

Bob Dylan is on tour right now. He was on tour last year, and the year before that. In fact, he has been on tour since 1988. And while most musicians, even if they are perpetually on the road, divide their tours into distinct segments with distinct identities and distinct names, Dylan does not. Thus, he has been on what he calls The Never Ending Tour for the last 36 years.

Why do we bring this up? Because it's the only tour we can think of that rivals the Donald Trump Revenge Tour for longevity. The Trump tour has also been going on forever, and will likewise continue until the headliner expires. That said, while the Dylan tour is in Georgia right now, yesterday's Trump tour stop was in Virginia. Specifically, VA-05, where the former president was desperately trying to knock off Rep. Bob Good (R-VA). Good may be a loony right-winger as chair of the Freedom Caucus, but he also had the temerity to endorse Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) in this year's presidential race. And so, in Trump's eyes, he must be punished. Undoubtedly, for many readers, it's not too easy to decide whom to root for in this little skirmish.

So, what happened? The answer is... nobody knows yet, for sure. With about 98% of the vote in, the challenger, state Del. John McGuire (R), has 31,411 votes (50.3%) while Good has 31,084 votes (49.7%). Based on those figures, there are about 1,300 votes outstanding, and Good would need to take about 60% of them. It's a tall order, but it's doable, and the scuttlebutt from people who know Virginia politics is that the remaining uncounted votes, which are primarily absentee ballots, are likely to favor Good. The lead changed hands multiple times last night, and it could again. And of course, there's always the possibility of a recount.

Even if the Representative gets knocked off, his performance last night certainly speaks to the power of incumbency. It may also speak to the limits of Trump's power, and of revenge politics in general. Not only did the former president work to defeat Good, but so too did former speaker Kevin McCarthy (R), who (accurately) blames Good for helping to end his speakership. McGuire thus had some very heavy hitters on his side, not to mention nearly $10 million in ad spending, which is a fortune for a House race (Good had about $5 million in spending). McGuire has already claimed victory, but he's the only one who thinks the race is over. None of the major media outlets, including the Associated Press, has made a call as yet.

Incidentally, it might be instructive to compare Good's past primary performances with last night's performance, so as to get a crude sense of how much Trump/McCarthy/a bunch of money moved the needle. However, that is not possible, because prior to this year, the Virginia GOP made nominations via convention rather than primary. So, Good has no primary track record that might be used for comparison purposes.

Of course, that was not the only race on tap last night, what with voters in three states casting ballots. Here are the other results of interest:

When we started writing this, we thought it would be pretty short. Not so much, it would seem. Next week, it is Colorado, New York, South Carolina and Utah. (Z)

Biden Issues Executive Order on Immigration

As expected, Joe Biden issued an executive order yesterday that protects the undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens, as long as those undocumented spouses have been in the country for 10 years, as well as the children of such marriages. The actual XO has not been posted to the federal register yet, but here is the fact sheet published by the White House.

We wrote a somewhat substantive item about this yesterday, but we are returning to it again in order to add and/or clarify a few things now that fuller information is available. To start, it was initially estimated that the new XO would affect about 750,000 people. According to the White House, it's actually more like 550,000, with 500,000 of those being spouses and 50,000 being children.

Second, the White House tossed in a little something extra that was not a part of the pre-XO coverage. In addition to helping out the spouses/children (we called them "DASAs" in our item yesterday), the administration is going to make it a bit easier for DACAs who have graduated college and have received job offers to renew and extend their visas.

Third, we got a number of questions along the lines of this one from reader I.K. in Queens, NY:

I'm confused about Biden's program to give spouses a path to citizenship. My understanding was that the surefire way to get a green card was to marry a U.S. citizen. So wouldn't all those spouses of U.S. citizens already be on the fast track to citizenship? What's actually changing?

Being married to a U.S. citizen does ease the process of getting a green card (a.k.a. lawful permanent resident status) and of getting U.S. citizenship, but it's not a guarantee. And even when it does grease the skids, the process has to start with a person who has followed all the rules, and did not enter the U.S. illegally. Here's what the website of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says:

The spouse of a U.S. citizen who resides in the United States may be eligible for naturalization on the basis of his or her marriage. The spouse must have continuously resided in the United States after becoming a lawful permanent resident (LPR) for at least 3 years immediately preceding the date of filing the naturalization application and must have lived in marital union with his or her citizen spouse for at least those 3 years.

If you click on the link, there is also a long list of other requirements for gaining citizenship, like "Attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States during all relevant periods under the law." In any case, as the 550,000 people did not have LPR status on entry, and could not acquire it after arriving, this path to citizenship was not available to them. So, Biden opened a new path (one that, as we noted, has previously been available to military spouses).

After Biden made the XO official, many Republicans cried foul, and claimed it was an election ploy. Boy, nothing gets by them. We wrote at length yesterday about the political calculations on display here, and how this mirrors a similar set of calculations done by Barack Obama in 2012. All we can add today is that: (1) "I think this is politically beneficial" and (2) "I think this is the right thing to do" are not necessarily mutually exclusive propositions. We will note that, for some Republicans, the "political calculation" is that Biden is trying to let undocumented immigrants vote for him. This is dumb; the 550,000 people are already in the country, and are no more or less able to vote today than they were yesterday, and none of them are going to get citizenship in the next 5 months (it's a minimum 3-year process).

And speaking of the politics of the XO, Politico's Myah Ward has a piece, based on interviews with insiders, that brings up an important dimension that we really should have noticed, but that we missed. By taking action to keep families together, the White House is trying to create a contrast with Donald Trump's family separation/put children in cages approach to the border. You can bet good money that Biden will find a way to fit that exact framing into the debate next week. (Z)

Trump Must Keep Lip Zipped

Yesterday, New York's highest court (the Court of Appeals) declined to hear the challenge that Donald Trump filed trying to overturn the gag order imposed by Judge Juan Merchan. So, it remains in place for the foreseeable future. Given that three different levels of the New York State judicial system have approved of the gag order, that either means that it's legit or that the "Biden crime family" has corrupted the entire Empire State judiciary. Readers can decide for themselves which it is.

And as long as we are on the subject, let's add one other thing. Yesterday, we had an item discussing public polls on Trump's conviction, and how they suggest it is wise for Biden to hit Trump hard on this issue. We also supposed that the White House has internal polls saying the exact same thing. Well, now we know for sure that is the case. The Biden campaign has been running polls and focus groups for weeks, and the message has been clear: a felony conviction is a turn-off and a dealbreaker for some meaningful number of voters. This data also indicates that the conviction can be linked to other themes, like "Trump is self-centered" and "Trump doesn't take responsibility for his actions." So, no surprise that Biden and his surrogates are talking about the conviction a lot more, and that the Biden campaign is airing a "Trump is a criminal" ad. (Z)

Gaetz May Be in Hot Water

Usually, the House Committee on Ethics keeps things pretty close to the vest, until they've reached their final conclusions. Heck, even then, they sometimes don't say much. So it's certainly interesting that the Committee issued a statement yesterday detailing its ongoing investigation into Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL). Here's the key passage:

On April 9, 2021, the Committee announced it had initiated a review into allegations that Representative Matt Gaetz may have engaged in sexual misconduct and/or illicit drug use, shared inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, misused state identification records, converted campaign funds to personal use, and/or accepted a bribe, improper gratuity, or impermissible gift, in violation of House Rules, laws, or other standards of conduct. The Committee deferred its consideration of the matter in response to a request from the Department of Justice (DOJ). In May 2023, the Committee reauthorized its investigation after DOJ withdrew its deferral request.

There has been a significant and unusual amount of public reporting on the Committee's activities this Congress. Much of that reporting has been inaccurate. The Committee's investigations are conducted confidentially, but the Committee's confidentiality rules do not prohibit witnesses from disclosing information about the Committee's requests or conversations with Committee investigators. The Committee is confident in the integrity of its process.

Representative Gaetz has categorically denied all of the allegations before the Committee. Notwithstanding the difficulty in obtaining relevant information from Representative Gaetz and others, the Committee has spoken with more than a dozen witnesses, issued 25 subpoenas, and reviewed thousands of pages of documents in this matter. Based on its review to date, the Committee has determined that certain of the allegations merit continued review. During the course of its investigation, the Committee has also identified additional allegations that merit review.

As you can see, the members of the Committee felt that it was necessary to say something publicly because of inaccurate information that is circulating. The release also said that there will be no further public comment until the investigation of Gaetz is complete.

Without knowing what the Committee knows, it's obviously impossible to guess what happens next. However, we can say three things. First, there have only been three members expelled since the Civil War. The first two of those were expelled after being convicted of crimes, but the third was "George Santos," who was tossed out on his ear before going through the legal process. So, it's not impossible that the most serious punishment is on the table here. Second, Gaetz is very unpopular with his colleagues, very possibly because he's a world-class jerk and a sleazeball. So, the votes of two-thirds of the House needed to eject him might just be there, depending on what the Committee finds. Third, Gaetz would probably welcome being expelled. He's quitting at some point, probably in 2025, to run for governor of Florida. This would just speed up that process, and let him do the martyr bit while he campaigns.

In any case, there is a possible near-future where the House has no Matt Gaetz and no Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO). We suspect that something like 90% of the members would welcome that future gladly. Though now that we think about it, maybe that number's a little low. (Z)

Lies, Damned Lies, and AI

There was a great deal of news yesterday that fits under this particular headline, so we're going to do this in list form. Before we get to it, let us thank readers M.M. in San Diego, CA, and J.C. in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, for bringing various stories to our attention. And with that, away we go:

And that's the latest from the digital frontier. (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

It's only two data points, but those polls from Minnesota and New Mexico are consistent with our supposition that as we get closer to the election, Donald Trump will stay pretty close to his current numbers (which are in line with his historical norms) and Biden will grow his support. (Z)

State Joe Biden Donald Trump Start End Pollster
Minnesota 47% 41% Jun 12 Jun 16 SurveyUSA
New Mexico 48% 41% Jun 13 Jun 14 PPP

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


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers