Main page    Nov. 26

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu

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

The Latest Round of Appointments

Donald Trump announced a bunch more appointments, nearly all of them on Friday afternoon/evening of last week. Was he trying to sneak them in, either by flooding the zone, or by announcing right before the deadest part of the news cycle? Maybe. In any event, we wanted to wait a bit to see what interesting information came out. And now, here's a rundown:

With this latest round of nominations, there is no Cabinet post (i.e., job in the line of succession) that is without a candidate. Among Cabinet-level posts, United States Trade Representative, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Administrator of the Small Business Administration, and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy remain unfilled.

And so it goes. (V & Z)

Trump Is All-in on Tariffs

For decades—at least as far back as the 1980s—Donald Trump has viewed tariffs as a magic pill that solves all economic problems. He campaigned on this notion and yesterday, he made clear that he plans to act on it. Here is the announcement he made on his grifty social media platform:

As everyone is aware, thousands of people are pouring through Mexico and Canada, bringing Crime and Drugs at levels never seen before. Right now a Caravan coming from Mexico, composed of thousands of people, seems to be unstoppable in its quest to come through our currently Open Border. On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders. This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country! Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long simmering problem. We hereby demand that they use this power, and until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price!

We are, of course, aware of the dangers posed by Canada, and have done yeoman-like work in trying to raise awareness of the issue. That said, if there is fentanyl coming into the U.S. in large (or even small) amounts from Canada, U.S. authorities don't know about it. Meanwhile, Canada is not among the 10 largest sources of undocumented immigrants to the United States. In fact, it might not be in the Top 20, because the Department of Homeland Security lumps every country outside the Top 10 into a catch-all "other countries." All we can be sure of is that Canada sends fewer than the 180,000 undocumented immigrants who come each year from the #10 Dominican Republic.

In short, the ostensible "terms" that the 'Nades need to fulfill in order to have the tariffs lifted are effectively unfulfillable. And that's before we consider the fact that they have their own fentanyl epidemic; if they can't solve that, why would they be able to solve a trans-national fentanyl epidemic? As to Mexico, there actually are both fentanyl and undocumented immigrants coming to the U.S. in large numbers from there. But they're not going to be able to do anything, either. In other words, assuming Trump sticks with his threat, then he's talking about 25% tariffs in perpetuity.

In addition to the North American tariffs, Trump also added this later in the day:

I have had many talks with China about the massive amounts of drugs, in particular Fentanyl, being sent into the United States—But to no avail. Representatives of China told me that they would institute their maximum penalty, that of death, for any drug dealers caught doing this but, unfortunately, they never followed through, and drugs are pouring into our Country, mostly through Mexico, at levels never seen before. Until such time as they stop, we will be charging China an additional 10% Tariff, above any additional Tariffs, on all of their many products coming into the United States of America. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

China is not in a much better position to satisfy Trump's demands than Canada or Mexico. We suppose Xi Jinping theoretically could execute a few fentanyl dealers for show. However, that's not going to affect the flow of drugs. Plus, Xi is a strongman, and it is not good for a strongman to appear to be taking marching orders from another strongman.

We admit to being somewhat mystified by Trump's thinking. But before we start speculating, let's run through some facts. The first fact is that, in addition to being (apparently) a True Believer in tariffs himself, Trump appears to have converted his devoted followers to the Gospel of Protectionism. That much is clear from the latest poll from CBS News/YouGov. To start, 83% of Trump supporters and 52% of all respondents want tariffs. At the same time, 79% of all respondents think the #1 priority of the Trump administration should be lowering prices, while 59% of all respondents think tariffs will make prices higher. That means there is a not insignificant portion of the voting public that: (1) supports Trump, (2) wants tariffs, (3) wants lower prices, and yet (4) believes tariffs will lead to higher prices. What on Earth is a non-crazypants politician supposed to do with that kind of dissonance?

Meanwhile, there's every reason to believe that the conventional wisdom about tariffs—that, in short, they do more harm than good—is correct. The last round of tariffs, from 2017-20, which were much less aggressive than what Trump proposed yesterday, were borne almost entirely by American consumers. Projections for a new round of tariffs, made before we got specifics yesterday, suggest a decrease in purchasing power of 2% (richest people) to 4% (poorest people), working out to a loss of $1,700 for the average household. Meanwhile, the first round of Trump tariffs, from his previous term, didn't save jobs, despite promises to the contrary. The fundamental problem is that the loss of jobs in agriculture and manufacturing is largely not caused by competition, but instead by automation. A protectionist policy cannot reverse that.

Ok, those are the facts. Now, let's move on to speculation. Why would Trump commit to a policy that is likely to hurt working-class people, including tens of millions of people who voted for him? And, in particular, why is he pursuing a policy much more aggressively than he did the first time around? Here are the seven theories we came up with:

  1. Trump really is a True Believer, and has convinced himself that he knows tariffs and macroeconomics better than, you know, every economist ever. Inasmuch as he has surrounded himself with kooky people, it's possible that some "alternative thinker" has his ear, and is egging him on. These seem like exactly the kinds of things Elon Musk might do, for example.

  2. Trump knows that his proposal is probably illegal, by virtue of the fact that the U.S. has a free trade treaty with both Mexico and Canada. So, he may expect to get sued, and for his tariff plans to be frozen in place. He hates to lose, but this would pretty easily be converted into a win, because he could whine and moan about how unfair it all is, and then he could blame everything that goes wrong, economically, on the lawsuit ("If only I'd been able to impose the tariffs, this inflation/recession/unemployment/whatever would not be happening").

  3. Trump knows that he's not likely to get much legislation through Congress early on, by virtue of the Republicans' razor-thin majority in the House, and this is a way he can do something splashy on Day 1.

  4. This is something of an "opening bid," and he plans to back off, either by reducing the numbers, or creating carve-outs, or something like that.

  5. Trump plans to impose the tariffs, let them wreak havoc for a year or so (during which there are no elections). Then, as the 2026 midterms approach, he could claim victory on the immigration/fentanyl front, and lift the tariffs. This would boost the economy, and he could claim victory again. Of course, this is like claiming you saved someone's life because you stopped choking them. But, the MAGA folks are not known for critical thinking (see the stats above).

  6. There's some sort of grift going on, and Trump is using the tariffs to enrich his friends or himself. After all, the base will love him no matter what, and he doesn't have to worry about getting elected again. That said, even when he DID have to get worried about getting elected again, he was finding ways to excuse fat-cat donors from his tariffs.

  7. Trump got marching orders from Vladimir Putin.

It could be more than one of these and, of course, some of these explanations are more likely than others. In any case, prep yourself for $10/dozen eggs, $6/gallon gas, and an extra $5,000 tacked on to the cost of that new car you were considering. (Z)

Hit the Road, Jack

Special Counsel Jack Smith is going to be out of a job on or before Jan. 20, and his cases against Donald Trump will not move forward anytime soon (and probably not ever). Yesterday, there were some developments on that front, which lawyer-reader A.R. in Los Angeles was kind enough to write up:

As expected, Jack Smith did, indeed, request dismissal for the election interference case in Washington, DC, without prejudice. His filing succinctly lays out the reasoning for the request. There is tension in the Constitution between a president's ability to carry out his responsibilities and the tenet that no one is above the law. To resolve that tension, the Office of Legal Counsel issued memos in 1973 and in 2000 setting out the categorical rule that sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted while in office. But that's only a temporary reprieve, at least theoretically. It implies any prosecution for crimes the president committed are held in abeyance, but not extinguished, while he is in office. For this reason, the presumption is that these charges should be dismissed without prejudice since it's not a dismissal based on the merits.

In fact, Smith's brief reiterates that the request to dismiss has nothing to do with the strength of the case, "which the Government stands fully behind." And because this is a categorical rule, meaning Smith has no discretion to continue the case while Trump is in office, there should be no question that the statute of limitations is tolled (paused) during his term.

Similarly, in the classified documents case, Judge Aileen Cannon had already dismissed the case without prejudice as a result of her ruling that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional. There, Smith has agreed to drop Trump from the case, but the action against co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos DeOliveira will proceed. If the Eleventh Circuit revives the case for those two and sends it back to Cannon, they could go to trial. If convicted, they could be compelled to testify in the case against Trump if it's re-filed when he leaves office. At that point, there's no risk of further criminal prosecution, so they can't rely on the Fifth Amendment.

Smith is basically forcing Trump's hand at this point. He'll probably hand the classified documents case off to the U.S. Attorney's office in Florida. Once in office, Trump may try to impermissibly interfere with the case by demanding that the U.S. Attorney drop the charges and replacing him if he won't, much like what happened with Geoffrey Berman, the former U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York. If Trump decides instead to pardon Nauta and DeOliveira, that would probably moot the Eleventh Circuit appeal, but the case could still be revived against Trump once he leaves office. And assuming the Eleventh Circuit reverses Cannon, Nauta and DeOliveira could be compelled to testify, since a pardon eliminates any chance of self-incrimination. Of course, Trump could just try to pardon himself, but that is fraught both politically and legally.

With Smith winding things up, his final report will probably be submitted before the end of the year. There aren't likely to be many new revelations but it could include the unsealing of more evidence.

Thanks, A.R.!

Let us add that while the possibility of Trump eventually facing the music still exists, it's... not a high-probability outcome. First, the question of whether or not the statute of limitations was actually tolled would have to be resolved, and in a manner adverse to Trump. It would take many months, or possibly years, to work through all the appeals. And then, if the courts agree the cases can be revived, they would actually have to be tried. Needless to say, Team Trump would drag that out. Meanwhile, we are dealing with a defendant who in, say, 5-6 years, might not be alive, or might no longer be mentally competent. So, don't expect the President-elect to ever see the inside of a federal prison. A state prison, by contrast, is still possible. (Z)

Hit the Road, Matt

Over the weekend, Matt Gaetz made it official: He will not return to Congress. This is happy news for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), as he is once again the undisputed biggest a**hole on Capitol Hill. Congratulations, Senator!

For now, Gaetz will keep the lights on by doing personalized messages on the website Cameo for $500 a pop. If not for the fact that it would put $500 in his pocket, we are very tempted to hire Gaetz to record a pep talk for a "friend" who lost out on a big promotion because he was accused of sexual misconduct.

For the right person, Cameo can be a pretty lucrative gig. If you don't already know, you'd NEVER guess the site's top earner. It's Brian Baumgartner, the actor who played Kevin Malone, one of the accountants on The Office. It would seem that people, particularly accountants, like to hire Baumgartner to record messages in character, usually for other accountants. Anyhow, he pulls down seven figures a year. That's probably out of reach for the former Representative, but six figures is probably in reach.

Of course, Gaetz' real gig in the next 2 years is going to be running for governor. We do not have our finger on the pulse of Florida politics, so we don't know how plausible that really is. On one hand, Gaetz got himself elected and reelected because he represented a ruby-red district in the Florida panhandle. Maybe a statewide electorate wouldn't be so amenable to someone like him. On the other hand, Gaetz is famous and well-connected, which helps, and the Sunshine state twice elected Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). So, there's clearly a lot of tolerance for, you know, fascists.

Meanwhile, DeSantis has set the date for the special elections that need to be held. The primary will be January 28, and the general election will be... wait for it... April 1. Maybe that's a coincidence, or maybe that's some world-class trolling. If it's the latter, Gaetz presumably should not expect DeSantis' endorsement in 2026.

The field for Gaetz' old district is going to be large. Already, eight Republicans, three Democrats and two independents have jumped in, and more candidates are expected. Donald Trump has thrown his (considerable) weight behind Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis (R), so you have to assume he'll end up as Gaetz' successor. Trump's support should be enough to propel Patronis to victory in a fragmented primary field, and whoever wins the GOP primary is going to win the general. Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL) said he won't resign until January 20, but the special election for his district (the R+7 FL-06) is expected to follow the same calendar as the election for Gaetz' district. (Z)

"What's Actionable Here?", Part I: Shut Up, Henry Cuellar

We read a lot of political news and analysis. And consistent with that habit, we've seen (and read) a whole bunch of "Here's what ails the Democrats" pieces, from both pundits and officeholders.

One specimen of this currently burgeoning genre comes courtesy of Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX). Speaking to one of the anchors on the obscure NewsNation network, Cuellar declared that:

Democrats need to focus on strong border security, number one. And we got to look at what's the cost of living for individuals. You know, people don't want to talk about the 'talk of joy' like the Democrats did at the national level when they're hurting and paying prices for the eggs and the milk and the bread every day. So, this is what Democrats need to focus on.

Appearing on NewsNation, of course, brings up the old question: "If a politician does an interview, and nobody sees it, did it really happen?"

You can probably tell, from the headline if nothing else, that we are not impressed with Cuellar's opinion. Here is a non-exhaustive list of the reasons why:

All of this said, our biggest complaint, and biggest question, is: "What's actionable here?" It is very, very easy to engage in finger pointing and scapegoating. It is far, far, far harder to develop and enunciate an alternative plan. For example, Cuellar thinks that the Democrats should be focusing on the cost of things, and on border security. Well, the first TEN issues on Kamala Harris' policy page were about bringing down costs and making things more affordable. She also had a plank, and lengthy discourse, on border security. Oh, and the Democrats tried to pass a border bill, only to be blocked by Donald Trump.

What we are saying here is that anyone can decree "the Democrats have to bring workers back into the tent" or "the Democrats need to rebuild the New Deal coalition" or "the Democrats need to take border security seriously" or "the Democrats need to be less woke" or whatever. But how are these things to be implemented in a way that actually adds votes to the Democrats' tally? What, specifically, could Kamala Harris have done, or should Kamala Harris have done, that she did not do? Because if Henry Cuellar, et al., do not have a clear answer to that question, as opposed to vague hand waving and finger pointing, then it's just a bunch of hot air, and not serious analysis.

As you can presumably tell from the headline, this piece is just the start. It's going to be a while before the dust fully settles from this year's election, and we (or anyone else) can really start to draw some serious conclusions. What we want to do for now, however, is highlight some of the things we think are worth thinking about, as compared to things that seem like empty B.S. to us (ahem, Rep. Cuellar). We're going to try to produce 2-3 pieces a week on the theme, and we think we've probably got enough to discuss to carry us through the Inauguration. (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers