Jan.24

electoral-vote.com

Dem 47

   

GOP 53

That Didn't Take Long, Part I: When the Party's Over

Thus far, Trump v2.0 is following a script very similar to Trump v1.0: Several days of executive actions, many of them overreaches, followed by a whole bunch of blowback. That's right, Trump's new term isn't even a week old, and yet he's already gotten voluminous reminders that it's much harder to be president than it is to brag about how good a president you will be. A rundown of the latest:

• Judgment Cometh: During Donald Trump's first term, it took 14 days before he got smacked down by a judge (he was inaugurated on January 20, 2017; issued his Muslim travel ban on January 27; and a judge blocked the order on February 3). This time around, Trump and his team know the ropes better, and are much more efficient. So, it only took 3 days for the President to get smacked down by a judge.
  
  As we have noted, the birthright citizenship XO triggered three near-instantaneous lawsuits. The one filed in Washington, by the state AGs of Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington, was the first to get in front of a judge. That judge is John C. Coughenour, who was appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan, and so is not exactly known as a bleeding-heart liberal. He listened to arguments for 25 whole minutes, then issued a temporary restraining order halting implementation of the directive for 14 days. That will allow enough time for the Judge to consider a permanent injunction.
  
  Given these details, and ONLY these details, you might be tempted to conclude that the administration still has hope of prevailing in Coughenour's court. That conclusion would almost certainly be unfounded, however. After he brought an end to oral arguments, the Judge said: "I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order." In his order, he wrote: "There is a strong likelihood that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their claims that the Executive Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Immigration and Nationality Act."
  
  So, you have to assume that Trump has lost this battle. Of course, there will be appeals and, as we pointed out earlier this week, there is a tiny opening there if the Supreme Court really, really wants to give Trump a favorable ruling. That said, a conservative judge clapping down so hard, so fast, is not a good sign for the administration. Oh, and by the way, there are now FIVE lawsuits.
  
  
• Hegseth in Trouble?: In the last 65 years, only one Cabinet nominee has been rejected outright. That was John Tower, who was nominated by George H. W. Bush to be Secretary of Defense. The Senate decided, 53-47, that Tower's history of drunken behavior, sexual misconduct, anger mismanagement and ethical lapses were not acceptable for the person running the Pentagon. Perhaps these details feel vaguely familiar.
  
  Yesterday, current Secretary of Defense-designate Pete Hegseth got some good news, and some bad news. The good news is that the Senate advanced his nomination to a floor vote, 51-49. The upper chamber is expected to vote on his confirmation today.
  
  The bad news is that adverse news about Hegseth continues to drip, drip, drip out. Yesterday, it was revealed that he paid $50,000 to the woman who accused him of rape. This is not generally the behavior of a person who is blameless and has done no wrong. He is now damaged enough that two Republican senators turned against him, with Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) joining with all 47 Democrats and independents in voting against bringing his nomination to the floor.
  
  For Hegseth's nomination to fail today, he'd need to lose two more senators. This is not impossible; it is true that 51 Republicans voted to bring his nomination to the floor, but it's not unheard of for a member to vote "yea" during the procedural vote, and then "no" during the actual vote. Further, another 24 hours to reflect on a week's worth of troubling revelations might be enough to push a Mitch McConnell (R-KY) or a John Curtis (R-UT) to the anti-Hegseth side of the fence, especially since they now know they won't be alone on an island.
  
  All of this said, it is not very likely that Hegseth's nomination will fail. Even if it succeeds, though, there are still two worrisome facts here from the vantage point of Donald Trump. The first is that, once again, Murkowski and Collins are not guaranteed to toe the Trumpy line. The second is that the longer his problematic nominees go unconfirmed, the more likely that adverse information will emerge to sink their nominations.
  
  
• And How About Gabbard?: Pete Hegseth is likely to get across the finish line in the nick of time, before any more skeletons can emerge from his closet. This being the case, the most endangered Trump nominee is now DNI-designate Tulsi Gabbard, who won't even get a Senate hearing until Thursday. Given the procedural matters involved in confirming a nominee, not to mention the weekend, that means there's at least 10 days for more skeletons to emerge from her closet.
  
  And that's not the biggest problem, not by a long shot. Gabbard has already done the rounds on Capitol Hill and, in contrast to what happened with Hegseth or with Kash Patel, her efforts did not put to rest the concerns of the Republican senators, nor the pressure they've been putting on the White House to withdraw the nomination. At the same time, while Trump is still backing Gabbard, he's being less vocal, and less aggressive, than he is with Hegseth, Patel, or Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
  
  We also continue to believe—and again, this is just speculation from us—that Gabbard as DNI is a much tougher pill to swallow than Hegseth as SecDef. The Pentagon is a massive bureaucracy with a lot of inertia, and it's none too easy to effect a major change in course. There are also a lot of very skilled professionals there who know a thing or two about reining in the worst impulses of an irresponsible superior. On the other hand, a bad DNI could do a lot of harm to the United States, in ways that would be hard to prevent. That is doubly, or triply, true if that DNI turns out to actually be a Russian asset.
  
  There is, we should note, a specific issue that looks like it could be a dealbreaker for the senators (an issue that is at least tangentially connected to the "Russian asset" concerns). Gabbard's aggressive support of NSA leaker Edward Snowden does not sit well with hawkish Republicans, and may well prove to be a bridge too far for four or more of them (enough to defeat the nomination).
  
  
• Trouble in Paradise: Anyone who joins the Trump administration, whether in a formal capacity or in some less-defined role, should know that: (1) you don't spit into the wind, (2) you don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger, and (3) you don't mess with Don. It would seem that Elon Musk missed that briefing, however. As we noted yesterday, the Co-President had the temerity to critique Trump's big announcement about $500 billion being invested in AI.
  
  The result here is exactly what you think. Trump and his staff are furious with Musk. Note that publicly, Trump told reporters he doesn't mind his co-president going off script. But privately, he is very angry about being poked in the eye.
  
  The problem here, according to a Trump staffer who spoke to reporters off the record, is that "the President doesn't have any leverage over [Musk] and Elon gives zero fu**s." We don't think that is exactly correct. Musk has hundreds of billions of dollars and a giant social media platform that is increasingly an outlet for right-wingers. Trump would like both to remain inside the MAGA tent. However, Trump controls the regulatory machinery of the federal government. There are certainly ways for the White House to hit Musk where it hurts—in the wallet—should it come to that.
  
  We suppose it is possible that Musk will remain part of the team all the way through to January 20, 2029. But for that to happen—for two egos that large to co-exist for nearly 1,500 days—would be a miracle on the order of the parting of the Red Sea. Remember, they are less than half a Scaramucci into the second Trump presidency, and they are already butting heads.
  
  
• Obamacare: Foolishly, Trump campaigned on a promise to pare down, or kill, Obamacare. Part of the reason is that he wants to spend that money on tax cuts for rich people. And part of the reason is that he hates anything that was done by Barack Obama and/or Joe Biden and, of course, both men helped make that legislation happen.
  
  Yesterday, a group of roughly a dozen centrist House Republicans met with leadership and said, in no uncertain terms, that they have no interest in cutting Obamacare (or any other social safety net programs). It is all good and well to run against the commie liberal pinko social welfare programs when your district is R+20. It's another thing entirely when it's R+1, or maybe even D+3. The leader of the "keep your hands off Obamacare" contingent is, apparently, Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE). His district is... EVEN.
  
  Readers presumably do not need us to tell them that, even once special elections have been held, there will be no time during the 119th Congress that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) can afford to lose a dozen votes. He's not going to get Democratic votes in favor of taking a hatchet to Obamacare, not even those of Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) or Jared Golden (D-ME). And that's before we talk about the impossibility of getting such legislation past the Senate and the filibuster. So, just days into Trump v2.0, you can confidently cross any Obamacare-related promises off the President's to-do list. The Republicans stabbed the program with their steely knives, but they just can't kill the beast.

We, and in particular (Z), have taken the position that the second Trump administration is likely to be very much like the first Trump administration: a lot of big words, a lot of overreaches, and... not a lot of concrete accomplishments. In the end, Trump is not competent, and he does not surround himself with competent people. He could have favored competent people this time around, but clearly, he (mostly) preferred obedient lackeys. He also has zero interest in, and—oddly for a president in his second term—little experience with, sausage making. Obamacare, to take one example, took well over a year to put together and to steer through Congress. Biden's Inflation Reduction Act took more than 6 months. George W. Bush's PEPFAR, depending on how you count, took between 1 and 3 years. Trump simply does not have the patience for that kind of thing. (Z)