Johnson Successfully Kicks the Can

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) put his cat-herding skills on display yesterday. It took most of the day to pull it off, but he finally brought to the floor of the House his continuing resolution (CR) that keeps the government funded for the rest of the fiscal year, and got it passed 217-213.

The vote was almost entirely along party lines. The only Republican to defect was Thomas Massie (KY), who is most certainly a firebrand, and who has been the only member of his party to vote against a bill at least three times this year. He is now an enemy of the White House, even more so than before, and a primary opponent for 2026 will be found. That said, Donald Trump tried to primary Massie last year, and the Representative took 75.9% of the vote. That is because the district is R+19, so a moderate candidate isn't going to fly, while it's just not possible to out-crazy Massie from the right. So, he's pretty much got a license to defy Trump as he sees fit.

Meanwhile, the only Democrat to vote for the bill was Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME). Like Massie, Golden is his party's black (golden?) sheep. If you learn that on [Vote X], only one Democrat crossed the aisle to side with the Republicans, it is a smart bet that the Democrat in question is either Golden or Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA). They represent districts that are R+6 (Golden) and R+5 (Gluesenkamp Perez), so that just might have something to do with it. "This CR is not perfect, but a shutdown would be worse," Golden explained afterward.

Although Golden is (with Perez) the Blue Doggiest of Blue Dog Democrats, his explanation is not at all unreasonable. The CR will now head to the Senate which, with the House having adjourned until next week, is now in a take-it-or-leave-it situation. There are enough Republican votes to pass the bill; the question is whether there are enough Democratic votes for a filibuster. And the fact is, the blue team has been put into a very tough position.

If the Democrats do end up filibustering the bill, and thus shutting down the government, there are three significant problems. The first, of course, is that they might well get the blame for any ill effects of a shutdown, including ill effects to the economy that may or may not actually have to do with the shutdown. For example, if the Dow drops 2,000 points next week, Republican politicians and right-wing media outlets will say "See? It's because the Democrats blocked funding for the government!" That might stick. Trump is currently in the middle of a project of destroying the U.S. economy, and the Democrats would much prefer that he own that, 100%. As the old saying goes, "When your opponent is shooting themselves in the foot, let them."

The second problem, and the one that Golden was presumably referring to, is that a shutdown would do a fair bit of harm. Of course there is the usual harm that a shutdown does, in terms of disrupting the economy, causing federal workers to go without paychecks, etc. However, at the moment, there is also the extremely un-usual harm being done by Elon Musk and his Muskovites. Democrats fear, not unreasonably, that a shutdown would be an engraved invitation to His MAGAsty Donald I and the DOGE crew to turn up the intensity on their efforts. If the government were to be shut down for a few weeks—or a few months—then some sizable number of federal employees would likely quit, between the lack of pay and the lack of certainty there would be a job waiting for them on the other side of the shutdown.

And the third problem boils down to this question: What better outcome is available to the Democrats? Again, if the government shuts down, either because of Democratic action, or because of Republican infighting, that likely works to the benefit of Musk and DOGE. On the other hand, if the Republicans manage to reach agreement on a proper budget, and not a CR, it's going to be even less friendly to the Democrats' priorities than the CR is. So, that means the Democrats' only real "win" is a different CR, with slightly more Democratic-friendly terms. Such a win would be... not exactly a resounding victory.

All of this said, there are also at least two significant problems with allowing the CR to become law. The first, as we noted yesterday, is that it will mean the blue team has to swallow a very bitter pill. Though the measure is being spun/framed as a continuation of the Biden budget, it is not. It increases funding for several Republican priorities, notably defense and border enforcement, and cuts spending for several Democratic priorities, notably healthcare and aid to poor families. The funding changes are not massive, but they're there. Meanwhile, there's nothing in the bill to rein in Musk.

And that leads to the other issue. Democratic voters, on the whole, want to see some fire in the bellies of the Democratic members of Congress. They want resistance. They want, in particular, something to be done about Musk and DOGE. If Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) & Co. roll over, and fail to make any use of the one bit of leverage they have right now, then many Democratic voters are going to be absolutely livid.

In short, this is one of those situations that makes us glad we're not politicians. As was the case yesterday, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) is a likely "yes" on the bill, about half a dozen Democratic senators are definite "no" votes, and the remaining Democrats (and Angus King) have yet to announce their plans. They are going to have to decide very soon. (Z)

Rubio Negotiates a 30-Day Ceasefire in Ukraine, for What It's Worth

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been in Saudi Arabia for the past few days, trying to work out some sort of a deal with the Ukrainian government. And guess what? When immature children like Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are not present, it's possible to conduct actual diplomacy. So, Rubio and his team were able to work something out.

Under the terms of the agreement, which Ukraine has already accepted, there would be a 30-day period in which all fighting, on all fronts, was halted. The Soviet Union Putin government would enter into negotiations with the Zelenskyy government, with an eye toward a permanent peace, and the U.S. acting as mediator. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Ukraine would work on specific terms for an agreement giving access to some of Ukraine's rare earth deposits.

Readers presumably don't need us to explain why this is not likely to be a "breakthrough," but we'll explain anyway, just in case. The first issue is that the foreign policy of the Trump administration oscillates wildly, such that today's policy may not be tomorrow's policy. And the person who is running the show is most certainly not the Secretary of State. So, at literally any time, Donald Trump could say or do something that completely undermines the agreement.

Beyond that, it takes two to tango (or three, if you include the U.S.), and Russia is not currently interested in dancing. The Putin regime has already announced, via Russian state-run media, that it will not agree to a ceasefire or to negotiations. And even if it did, there is zero chance that Putin is interested in giving back the territory he's taken, or that Zelenskyy is interested in letting him keep it. In other words, it's improbable that negotiations would be fruitful, particularly over such a short timespan. And despite its promises to end the war in one day, the Trump administration can't even get to the point of HAVING negotiations, much less to the point of having those negotiations fail.

That does not mean that the new agreement is a total non-story, however. The Zelenskyy administration knows there's no real downside to agreeing to the American plan (let the Russians be the spoilsports who ruin everything). And in exchange for Ukraine's non-concession concession, the Trump administration has agreed to restore aid to Ukraine, as well as intelligence-sharing. In short, Zelenskyy gave up virtually nothing, and got something. From where we sit, it looks like Trump got played again. (Z)

Teslas, Here! Get'cher Red Hot Teslas, Here!

There are just so many things about the Trump presidency that are not only unprecedented, but also surreal. And yesterday gave us yet another one of those occasions, as there was a somewhat impromptu Tesla sales demonstration on the lawn of the White House.

On Monday night, as part of a day in which he sent 100 messages on his boutique social media platform (apparently he doesn't have anything else to do), Trump blasted this:

To Republicans, Conservatives, and all great Americans, Elon Musk is "putting it on the line" in order to help our Nation, and he is doing a FANTASTIC JOB! But the Radical Left Lunatics, as they often do, are trying to illegally and collusively boycott Tesla, one of the World's great automakers, and Elon's "baby," in order to attack and do harm to Elon, and everything he stands for. They tried to do it to me at the 2024 Presidential Ballot Box, but how did that work out? In any event, I'm going to buy a brand new Tesla tomorrow morning as a show of confidence and support for Elon Musk, a truly great American. Why should he be punished for putting his tremendous skills to work in order to help MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN???

It is a useful reminder that Trump either does not understand what "collusion" or "illegal boycott" mean, or else that he thinks his followers don't understand. It's worth noting, incidentally, that Trump has himself called for boycotts many, many times. For example, when the MLB All-Star Game was moved from Atlanta in 2021, in response to that state's new, restrictive voting laws, he decreed: "Boycott baseball and all of the woke companies that are interfering with Free and Fair Elections. Are you listening Coke, Delta, and all!"

Yeah, we know. "BREAKING NEWS: Donald Trump is full of sh**."

Anyhow, in a somewhat rare development, Trump stuck with his promise and held a Tesla fashion show outside the White House yesterday (with Co-President Elon Musk in attendance, of course). Five different Teslas, including a Tesla Cybertruck (which might well be the world's ugliest car), were brought to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. for Trump's inspection. He delivered a sales pitch for the vehicles, which apparently had to be written down for him so he would remember it:

Thereafter, Trump purchased a red Model S, paying with a check. If we were Musk, we'd make sure to see some ID and get a contact phone number before taking that check.

Obviously, it's more than a little sleazy to use the White House and the presidency to hawk products. And if Trump were anyone other than the president, it would also be illegal. That said, while Trump will not face consequences, we tend to doubt that yesterday's dog-and-Tesla show will have the intended effect. Sure, it may get a few MAGA cultists to buy Teslas, but Trump's base is blue-collar workers, and "blue-collar worker" and "Tesla" do not go well together, for several reasons. At the same time, the event makes very clear that the Tesla boycotts are working, which will stiffen the resolve of the anti-Tesla crowd. Further, the more that Tesla becomes a right-wing vehicle (the way, say, the Ford F-150 is), the more left-wing voters who will decide to go in a different direction with their electric vehicle purchases. And again, it is the affluent, college-educated, suburban voters who can afford $112,490 cars and they are largely Democrats, so making people who can't afford them love them but making people who can afford them hate them was probably not a smart move.

Has the stock market noticed the boycott of Tesla? We dunno, but here is a graph of the price of TSLA stock since just before the election until the closing yesterday. The high point was $475.90. Yesterday it closed at $230.58. According to the staff mathematician, half of $475.90 is $237.95. Does Musk care? Well, a large percentage of his wealth is tied up in TSLA stock. If you want to track this yourself, a good place is Yahoo Finance. When you get to that page, select 6M to see the last 6 months, for example. To get rid of the yellow balls, slide "Key Events" to the off position.

Incidentally, this is not worth its own item, but since we are on the subject of Teslas, it would seem that many owners have taken to buying badges and labels for other cars, so as to try to dissuade would-be vandals:

Somehow, the Tesla Cybertruck looks better when it has the Toyota marque. (Z)

California Governor's Race Is Getting Crowded

California is a large state with a lot of money, and its governorship is sometimes a springboard to even bigger and better things (though for Republicans more than Democrats). On top of that, the Golden State's "top two" primary system pretty much means that one fairly centrist Democrat will advance to the general, and that they will be joined by either a lefty Democrat or a Republican. So, there are effectively three different factions of political hopefuls who have some reasonable hope of securing a spot on the general election ballot when the governor's mansion is open, as it will be in 2026 due to Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) being term-limited.

Yesterday, one of the state's most prominent lefties officially jumped in. That would be former representative Katie Porter (D), from Orange County. The last time you saw her, in 2024, she was getting trounced in the California U.S. Senate primary, taking a little over 15% of the vote, as compared to the 31% each that eventual nominees Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Steve Garvey laid claim to.

One could interpret that 2024 result as a sign that Californians aren't terribly interested in what Porter is selling. And that would be consistent with the state's recent electoral history; while it's certainly a blue state, a lot of that blue is moderate blue. The last real lefty to win statewide was probably Barbara Boxer in 2010. Despite Republican propaganda to the contrary, folks like Newsom, Schiff, Kamala Harris, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA), and—definitely—Dianne Feinstein hew much closer to the center of the spectrum than the progressive end.

That said, Porter is gambling that the current environment is ripe for her brand of in-your-face lefty politics. In case you couldn't guess, her campaign is going to be 100% anti-Trump, 100% of the time. In her PG-13 rated announcement video, she proclaimed: "I first ran for office to hold Trump accountable. I feel that same call to serve now to stop him from hurting Californians."

To the extent that you can put any faith in polling of a race close to 2 years away from Election Day, Porter is the favorite among candidates currently in the race. However, that comes with as many as three asterisks, which we'll get to in a moment. Before that, here's a quick rundown of the dozen other candidates who have already declared:

• Toni Atkins (D): She had a long career in the California legislature, serving as both Speaker of the State Assembly and President pro tempore of the California Senate before bumping up against term limits. She is a lesbian, and will try to corral the progressive/glass-ceiling-breaking vote on that basis. In fact, she already served as acting governor a couple of times (for a few hours on each occasion), and so is already sometimes described as the first openly gay governor of California.
  
  
• Stephen Cloobeck (D): He founded a business that sells timeshares to marks customers. He will be running a silly "California should be run by a businessman, as California, Inc." platform. California voters only buy that line when the person is an A-list actor (Arnold Schwarzenegger ran primarily on his business acumen). Cloobeck is not an A-list actor, and is not a serious candidate.
  
  
• Eleni Kounalakis (D): The current lieutenant governor was supposed to be the favorite, but hasn't gained much traction. If she can break through, she has a good chance to be the centrist/establishment candidate.
  
  
• Tony Thurmond (D): He is the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and is Black, so is hoping to pick up the votes of teachers and Black voters. That's probably not enough.
  
  
• Antonio Villaraigosa (D): The former L.A. mayor is currently the only Latino in the race, and wants to be the Latino candidate. It's not a bad thought, since the state is 40% Latino, which makes that the largest ethnic group in California. However, it's not a great thought, either, since a lot of California Latinos can't, or don't, vote. Consequently, the state hasn't had a Latino governor since 1848, when it was still part of Mexico, and the only Latino U.S. Senator it's had in that time had to be appointed first. Further, Villaraigosa was not a terribly popular or successful mayor, and he has a few skeletons in his closet.
  
  
• Betty Yee (D): She's been a mainstay of California politics for years, and would hope to attract the votes of Asian Californians. However, they are only about 15% of the state. Her ace in the hole, such as it is, is that she is the current vice chair of the California Democratic Party, so she has an inside track on establishment support and money. Incidentally, she declared her 2026 gubernatorial bid... back in 2019. That's gotta be some kind of record.
  
  
• Michael Younger (D): He's an outsider/lefty candidate. There are always a few of those, and in a state as big and expensive as California, they don't go anywhere. It's hard to reach millions of voters unless you either have an existing platform or a large personal fortune. In other words, he is not a serious candidate.
  
  
• Chad Bianco (R): On the Republican side, the bench is so shallow, it's much more plausible for a candidate of middling quality to have a real shot. Bianco, who is Riverside County Sheriff-Coroner, and will run a law and order campaign, is probably the leading Republican in the race right now. California voters do have an affinity for law and order platforms, though it's unlikely to be enough for him to beat whatever Democrat advances to the final round of voting.
  
  
• Sharifah Hardie (R): She is staunchly conservative and Black. In other words, she is running in the Larry Elder lane, sans penis. Elder didn't come close to winning in the 2021 recall election, and Hardie isn't going to come close to winning in the 2026 regular election.
  
  
• Jimmy Parker (R): He is a former judge who was apparently bored in retirement. He is not a serious candidate.
  
  
• Leo Zacky (R): Another "California, Inc. needs a businessman in charge" candidate, albeit from the other side of the aisle. The chicken magnate has run for governor twice before and failed to break 2% of the vote either time; expect Californians to tell him to cluck off yet again.
  
  
• Butch Ware (G): Even eco-friendly California doesn't care about the Green Party. The Greens get their 2% in the primary, and then they're done, because of the top-two system. Ware isn't going to change that dynamic.
  
  
• Javen Allen (I): California gubernatorial elections always attract a handful of unaffiliated actors, some of them mainstream, some of them pornographic, who are just looking to boost their name recognition. Allen is the first of those this cycle (he's mainstream, not porn, incidentally). His website looks like it was put together by a 6-year-old using Microsoft FrontPage. And, for some reason, it prominently features a picture of... Dubai.

That's the field, as it currently stands. And now, the asterisks that apply to Katie Porter's candidacy (and to the other candidates, too, in some cases). First, while she is polling in the 20s right now, which is better than the other candidates, that is partly because she has name recognition and an existing fanbase. It is better to have name recognition than not, but it's also an advantage that can fade quickly.

Second, and consistent with what we wrote above, there are more progressives in California than a lot of other states, but they are still a minority. Porter's share of the vote aligns pretty well with the size of the progressive wing of the California Democratic Party, and may represent her ceiling (or something close to it). It does not help that she's stepped on many establishment toes in her time, often for self-serving reasons. So, eventually, the Party machinery is going to line up staunchly behind whichever moderate is strongest.

Third, and this is the asterisk that dwarfs all others, Kamala Harris will likely jump into the race if she decides that another presidential run is not in the cards. If so, the former VP would be the overwhelming favorite; she's polling in the 60s (i.e., three times what Porter is polling at, and 10-20 times what the other Democrats are polling at). And if Harris does not get in, Alex Padilla might. Those are two very heavy hitters who potentially loom on the horizon.

So, it figures to be interesting, even if we already know that there's a 95%+ chance that the person left standing on November 3, 2026, will be a Democrat. (Z)

Minnesota State House All Tied Up Again

It's a small election result, but one with some pretty significant consequences. Back in November, Republican Paul Wikstrom was handily defeated by Democrat-Farmer-Laborer Curtis Johnson in Minnesota's HD-40B. This hurt Wikstrom's feelings, and so he filed a lawsuit arguing that Johnson does not actually live in HD-40B, and so was not eligible to run. A judge tentatively ruled in Wikstrom's favor, and Johnson decided not to fight the lawsuit.

Yesterday, the special election to fill the seat was held. Wikstrom was back for another bite at the apple, while his opponent this time was David Gottfried, who is definitely a resident of HD-40B. To nobody's surprise, since HD-40B is quite blue, Wikstrom lost again. In fact, Gottfried laid waste to him, 70.2% to 29.8%. Undoubtedly, Wikstrom's feelings are hurt again. Probably other things, too, since he just got his ass thoroughly kicked. But he's got nowhere to go with it this time.

By virtue of Gottfried's victory, the Minnesota state house now has 67 Republicans and 67 Democrats. That means a power-sharing agreement is required. State Rep. Lisa Demuth (R) will continue to serve as speaker, but all of the committees will be evenly divided and will have co-chairs, one from each party. The de facto result of this is that only bills with bipartisan support will be able to move past the committee stage and to the floor of the state House. Any such bills that make it through the lower chamber will then head to the state Senate, where the Democrat-Farmer-Laborers have an oh-so-enormous 1-person majority, 34-33. Thereafter, the signature of moderate DFL governor Tim Walz will be needed. So, Minnesota is about to show the country whether bipartisanship can still work in the Age of Trump. By state law, the legislature will adjourn for the year on May 19, so they've got about 2 months to give it their best shot. (Z)

Captain Canuck: Reader Comments on the Canadian Election

Yesterday, we had an item on the elections that produced a new leader for Canada's Liberal Party and, as a consequence, a (soon-to-be) new PM in Mark Carney. While that piece was brilliant and incisive, as with everything we write, there are some (mostly trivial) limits to our vast—indeed, stunning—knowledge of world affairs. So, we asked for some thoughts from readers, and we got a number of good ones. Here is the first round of those (one or two of them get pretty weedy, but if you don't like weedy political analysis, what are you doing reading this site?):

L.H. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: The upcoming Canadian election looked like a foregone conclusion a few months ago, but everything has been shaken up. It's anyone's race to win right now, at least between the two major parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals. The other parties may yet get a chance to influence policy after the election.

For readers not familiar with the Canadian political parties, going roughly left to right, along the political spectrum:

Greens: About what you'd expect; they often win a few seats, and can split the vote enough in certain ridings (districts) to occasionally affect outcomes. But the federal wing has had many internal problems lately.

New Democratic Party (NDP): Left-wing party, socially and economically. In the case of a minority government (such as now), they can hold the balance of power and exert influence on policy. They have been a bit too focused on being doctrine-purists lately to suit many Canadians' tastes.

Liberals: Closest thing to moderates in Canada. Fairly conservative financially, more liberal socially. Generally the most business-friendly in terms of stability, which can peeve some of the left-wing voters. Often not anti-regulation enough to satisfy more conservative businesspeople.

Conservatives: An amalgamation of the old Progressive Conservative Party and the very conservative Reform/Alliance Party, the latter of which dominates party leadership and is significantly more socially conservative than the PC's were. Removing "Progressive" from the name was deliberate. They have a socially conservative wing that is trying to fly under the radar, though as with MAGA, they often accidentally say the quiet part out loud.

People's Party: Pretty conservative in most ways, can potentially act as a spoiler by bleeding off Conservative votes. But probably not a big factor this year.

Bloc Quebecois: A Quebec-only party that advocates for the sovereignty and rights of Quebec and French-speakers. They are a little harder to classify, but are not really right-wing, so don't generally align with the Conservatives. While they only get a small percentage of the national vote, they often get a large chunk of the Quebec vote and so win enough seats to have influence in Parliament.

The current government is a minority government composed of the Liberals with the support of the NDP.

Regarding the polls you published in graphical form yesterday, you can see that some growth in Liberal support comes from the collapse of NDP support. The NDP is not doing a great job of communicating about the realities of dealing with Donald Trump, at least not yet. In addition, they have talked of bringing down the government (i.e., voting against the Liberals on a confidence vote and forcing an election). This is really rubbing a lot of even their most ardent supporters the wrong way, given the antics of the U.S. right now.

With Elon Musk, Trump and J.D. Vance vocally supporting Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre (or PP, as he's often called), PP has really found his credibility sinking with Canadians. He's been hewing to a MAGA-lite line for quite some time, but he clearly doesn't have Trump's instincts. Instead, he's been hammering at the unpopularity of the Liberals while proposing very little of his own, just throwing out rehashes of Republican campaign slogans. Circumstances have changed recently, of course, and he has not yet adapted sufficiently to the fact that being Trump-adjacent is now a liability.

Both Poilievre and his U.S. backers have toned things down a bit to try and make the connection less blatant. In my opinion, the best evidence of PP's approval by the current U.S. administration is that, unlike with other Canadian leaders, Trump has no silly nickname or insulting diminutive for PP, but refers to him respectfully by name.

It's difficult to overstate how the tariffs, "51st state" talk and mention of re-drawing the border have angered Canadians and made MAGA-lite proponents suspect.

That said, this will be a tight election. How much Carney will boost the Liberals in the polls is difficult to say.

In recent years, the Conservatives have never gotten even close to a majority of the vote, whereas the combined left-wing vote usually tops 60%. But the left-wing vote is often split, and when that happens, the Conservatives can get enough seats to win. This may happen again if the Liberals aren't very careful and thoughtful. There is still a lot of lingering resentment, whether fair or not, about COVID, inflation, housing, and other kitchen-table issues, and it's directed at them.

As (Z) noted, Carney is the anti-Trump, so he broadly appeals to many Canadians on that basis alone. That also brings the possibility that he and his team will make the same mistake the Democrats have, and they'll campaign on rational, sensible issues that only appeal to their current supporters. Those ideas may be too abstract to speak to the wavering and undecided voters on both the left and the right, and the Liberals badly need to peel off a number of those. This can be done, provided the Liberal campaign shows understanding of their concerns.

A lot of small-c conservative voters tend to be insular, and they will be hard to reach. And there are some left-wing voters who want to hear that their niche issues will be addressed, or else they'll vote NDP and split the vote to "send a message" to the Liberals, which would help the Conservatives.

In the end, the more Trump attacks, the more unified Canadians are, and at this point, this favors the Liberals. The more the Liberals tie PP to Trump/Musk/MAGA, the worse he and the Conservatives will do. For the Conservatives to succeed, PP has to disassociate himself from the Maple MAGA enough to be palatable, but without annoying his base, and also without looking indecisive or flip-floppy, as the fear is that he'll immediately cave to Trump's demands.

---

M.J. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, writes: I'm writing to comment on your item about Canadian politics and Mark Carney's election as PM-designate. I've been a reader of the site for close to two decades, but only writing for the first time.

I think you largely captured the dynamics of the situation here, but missed the mark on one crucial point. You refer to Justin Trudeau as radioactive and that "[c]learly, Liberal voters want no piece of Trudeau." I don't think Liberal voters dislike Trudeau. It is true that he was forced out as Liberal leader, but this was due to his poll numbers, not a loss of support by Liberal members, as far as I can tell. When the Liberal Party collectively determined that they did not believe he could win the next election, it led to his eventual resignation. However, had his poll numbers not been so low, I suspect that he would have survived to run in this year's election, as he repeatedly stated that he wanted to do (Trudeau believed that he was the best chance for the Liberals of beating the Conservative Party). Although both Carney and former Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland repudiated certain of Trudeau's policies, I suspect they needed to do so to establish that they are not just continuing the Trudeau government (case in point: Yesterday, Carney hired Marco Mendicino, a Liberal MP and former Cabinet Minister as Chief of Staff, and the Conservatives immediately attempted to use that to tie Carney to Trudeau).

The reception received by Trudau on Sunday suggests that he was still well-liked by the Liberal Party. He pulled the Liberals from third place and the brink of electoral annihilation. My friends who lean Liberal generally think that he did a good job (though most would probably agree that it was time for him to go).

All this to say: Trudeau is not toxic within the Liberal party, but the Liberals understand that his support among the general population is low (notwithstanding recent responses to his handling of the recent tariff chaos). Freeland lost primarily because she was not seen as being as strong a candidate to win the next election (where the ballot question will be dealing with Trump), not because of her connection to Trudeau. Once head-to-head polling showed Carney with the best chance in a hypothetical upcoming election, the contest was effectively over. That hypothetical upcoming election will now be called very soon.

---

M.S. in Greenfield, MA, writes: (I'm a Canadian who's lived in Massachusetts since 1997 and has had dual citizenship since the week before Trump got in the first time. So, half a Canadian now? Can I still say "elbows up" or have I gone the way of Gretzky now in their eyes?)

The striking thing to me about the graph you showed of the increasing Liberal support is how much of it is coming from the NDP, who fall to the left of the Liberals. This with Carney being an ex-banker, ex-Goldman Sachs no less, and with him not liking capital gains taxes. It emphasizes the obvious to me again, that people are putting aside their usual concerns to focus on the trade war.

Another facet I'd like to know more about is how French Canadians view Carney. I listen to Moncton, New Brunswick's Radio Canada, but my French is still too poor to make out fully the sentiment. According to my Mom in Nova Scotia, Carney's French isn't much better than mine (i.e., it doesn't go that much beyond saying joie de vivre and the like). Traditionally, to be prime minister, you had to know both languages. It's part of what, I think, makes the Canadian system superior, that the leaders have at least that hurdle to jump.

---

J.R. in Ottawa, ON Canada, writes: The Canadian election is going to be interesting and completely different from what was expected even two months ago. Until Justin Trudeau resigned on January 6, a landslide victory for the Conservative Party under Pierre Poilievre seemed all but assured. But, as you pointed out, the Trump ascendancy has changed everything. This shift was already clear in Ontario, where the Conservative Party there won big on a primarily anti-Trump platform in spite of a number of serious other political issues in the province.

The fact that the federal Conservative Party has been leading the Liberal Party in the polls for over a year and a half was in large part due to the unpopularity of Justin Trudeau, who embodied the arrogance of the Liberal Party in the last couple of years while also adding his own political missteps to this feeling of arrogance.

With the Liberal Party choosing Mark Carney as its new leader and new prime minister, the situation has changed to an extent that the moribund Liberal Party is now in contention for winning the next federal election, which will likely be called very quickly, in part to channel the immense Canadian anger with the Trump regime while it is continuing on its disastrous path of tariffs and the ludicrous notion of Canada as a 51st state.

The difference between Carney and Poilievre could not be more stark, with the latter being a career politician with no job experience outside the government and being known as the attack dog for Stephen Harper, Canada's Conservative prime minister between 2006 and 2015. On the other hand, Mark Carney has vast experience in the economic matters, including governor of both the bank of Canada and the United Kingdom, plus jobs with the United Nations and in private practice; he has no political experience, although he was asked by Harper to serve as his minister of finance, which he refused.

The campaigns will be predictable. Poilievre will, as he has already done, try on one hand to associate Carney with the Liberal government and its policies since 2015, which were in effect a mixed bag in terms of popularity (he had already called Carney "Carbon Carney" to link him with the unpopular consumer carbon tax to deal with the environmental crisis Canada is facing); on the other hand, he and his cronies have begun to do diminish Carney's accomplishments as the governor of the Bank of Canada.

Carney will do his utmost to characterize Poilievre as mini-Trump and will point to statements made by Poliviere regarding cutting foreign aid, cutting the civil services and abolishing the CBC. It is also likely that he will remind voters of the fact that Poilievre supported the infamous truckers' convoy, which paralyzed Ottawa for three weeks in the winter of 2022 in order to protest the COVID restrictions in Canada. I think that his campaign messages of unity against the Trump regime, combined with his experience in economic matters, will resonate better with Canadians than Poilievre's sloganism ("Axe the Tax") and reliance on divisions within Canada, especially if Carney will also come up with a solid and substantive election agenda, which has been lacking on the part of the Conservative Party so far and which has had difficulty pivoting from a purely anti-Trudeau message.

It would seem that a miracle in Ottawa might be in the making, in that the Liberal Party might actual get within reach of a majority in the House of Commons, or at a minimum, might have enough seats to form a minority government with two other parties, which will have far fewer seats but could hold the balance of power, namely the socialist NDP and/or the Bloc Quebecois. The Conservative Party is in big trouble, especially since Poilievre has been lukewarm against Trump tariffs and only recently came out against the 51st state rhetoric.

We doubt that readers are surprised to learn that Trump likes PP.

Anyhow, thanks to the readers who wrote in, eh! We'll have some more on Friday, most likely. If not, then next week. (Z)

Sheinbaum Is Rockin' It

As long as we're on the North America beat, let us briefly note this news from the Mexican newspaper El Financiero (roughly, the Mexican analogue to the Wall Street Journal). In their latest poll, the paper found that Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum has an 85% approval rating.

Such a number is inconceivable to followers of American politics, but Mexico is not quite as polarized as the U.S. is these days. Sheinbaum opened her term at 70%, dipped a little, and then enjoyed an upward trend. Here are the approval numbers from the past five El Financiero polls:

You don't need us, and you don't need to speak Spanish, to see that Sheinbaum began a distinctively upward trend in November of last year. Hmmmm... hard to imagine what might have happened.

When it comes to dealing with her neighbor to the North, Sheinbaum is in a little bit of a different position than Justin Trudeau/Mark Carney. First, Canada is in a better position to withstand some amount of economic aggression from the United States than Mexico is. Second, although it should not be this way, Donald Trump responds differently to women than he does to men. So, Trudeau/Carney can get away with an approach that's more on the "iron fist" end of the spectrum, while Sheinbaum has to operate more on the "velvet glove" end of the spectrum. And indeed, she's already developed enough skill at dealing with Trump that she's being called the "Trump whisperer." (Previously, that title belonged to Maggie Haberman; we don't know if she and Sheinbaum are now sharing it, or if Sheinbaum has stolen it away.)

The bottom line here is that the politicians running both Canada and Mexico are very popular right now, their populaces are unusually unified, and much of that is due to their resisting Trump in various ways. This will not make it easier for The Donald to accomplish... whatever the hell it is he's trying to accomplish.

Naturally, if any readers in Mexico have thoughts about the political situation, we welcome those at comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger