Teapot Signal Scandal Dominates the News for a Second Day

We still think the story of stupid, careless members of the Trump administration accidentally sharing plans for an imminent military attack with the editor of The Atlantic will fade away, with no real consequences for most or all of the people involved. But it's certainly not fading yet. Indeed, the story branched off in many different directions yesterday. Let's run them down:

• The Blame Game: Initially, blame for the whole Signal Mobilier fiasco fell on NSA Mike Waltz, since he was apparently the one who inadvertently added Jeffrey Goldberg to the group chat. We're not sure why that made sense, or even if it did make sense, since the big mistake here was not adding Goldberg, it was having that conversation in that way in the first place. In other words, there are 18 very guilty people here, not one. Early yesterday, however, the tide turned a bit, and it was Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth who was under the microscope. Enough so that this meme was trending on Twitter all day long:
  
  
  
  By the afternoon, the focus seemed to shift back to Waltz, and he offered the most non-apology apology we've ever heard, saying that he accepts full responsibility for Signalscam, but then turning around and saying the real bad guy here is Goldberg, whom Waltz described as "scum."
  
  Thus far, Donald Trump is standing by Waltz, explaining that the NSA "learned a lesson." That said, behind the scenes, many Republicans are furious with Waltz. Many of them already disliked him, and now they say he cannot be trusted, and will not be trusted, by the people he has to work with.
  
  As everyone reading this knows, Trump: (1) can change positions on a dime, and (2) cares only about his own image, and whatever path is easiest for him. So, it's still very possible he decides that he is better off without Waltz than he is with Waltz (in much the same way he decided to cashier Mike Flynn). Of course, what should actually happen here is that Waltz and Hegseth should both be broomed, ideally with several others along for the ride. But don't hold your breath waiting for THAT outcome.
  
  
• Signal Was the Wrong Tool to Use...: Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) might be a Republican, but he's a Republican willing to break ranks, at least sometimes. He's also a former brigadier general in the U.S. Air Force, specializing in intelligence. So he may know a thing or two that is relevant here. And he was apoplectic yesterday, declaring that neither Signal nor any other privately owned software should be used for secure communications, especially on everyday cell phones. "I will guarantee you, 99.99 percent with confidence, Russia and China are monitoring those two phones," he said, while adding "There's no doubt that Russia and China saw this stuff within hours of the actual attacks on Yemen or the Houthis."
  
  We also heard from a reader who has relevant expertise. We're going to share their message without initials, just in case:

  I am a senior research scientist in IT that has worked in and around Federal law enforcement for over thirty years. As such, I am very familiar with how clearances work, how classified information is to be handled, and what can and cannot be installed on federal computer systems and mobile phones.
  
  While there are many, many reasons why this fiasco should never have happened, I would like to focus on the use of Signal. As you know, Signal is an end-to-end encryption software, similar to WhatsApp. While it is true that it was used by officials during the previous administration, it was done only on personal phones and then only to relay casual information, not top secret information. Anyone working in or for the federal government with access to sensitive data is trained in this.
  
  I was listening to the hearing yesterday that, among other things, covered what has to be one of the most egregious examples of incompetence and gross negligence in the handling of classified information I have ever witnessed. So imagine my surprise when CIA Director John Ratcliffe, when asked why the chat group used Signal, responded that it is installed by default on agency computers. Well, anyone working in IT within the Federal government knows that only software that has been FedRAMPed is permitted to be installed on government systems, and then only if required to do your job. FedRAMPing is a process whereby the government vets software to ensure it doesn't phone home or collect and send personal information to third parties, among other things. Signal is NOT FedRAMPed, meaning Ratcliffe was either lying or doesn't know how the process works. Or that they were all using personal phones, which makes things even worse, as official phones are hardened and almost impossible to hack, while personal phones are far more susceptible to hacking.
  
  Had I or any of my colleagues pulled a stunt like this, we would be immediately suspended and likely charged with a crime.

  Thanks for this added insight!
  
  
• ...No, We Mean It Was REALLY the Wrong Tool to Use...: It is not merely theoretical that Signal COULD be hacked. TPM's Josh Marshall is reporting that it already HAS been hacked, by the Russians. Could the participants in the conversation possibly have known that, though? Well, maybe... if they had read the special bulletin distributed by the Department of Defense, warning about the Russian hack.
  
  
• ...And Yet, it Was Oh, So Right: Quite a few readers wrote in yesterday to take us to task for one significant point we missed in our original item. Signal was not a good choice for maintaining security, that much is clear. On the other hand, it was an excellent choice if the goal was to shield the conversation(s) from scrutiny, and from laws requiring that documentation of official conversations be retained.
  
  
• Playing with Fire: Yesterday, the administration was in damage-control mode, and was trying to do whatever it could to put the Signal-Contra Affair in the rearview mirror. Most obviously, as the anonymous reader above notes, there were congressional hearings involving John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and FBI Director Kash Patel.
  
  After trying out many, many angles of attack on Monday, Team Trump seems to have settled on this as their main justification: No classified information was shared, and all Goldberg saw was a casual, non-classified conversation between Trump administration officials. Gabbard, in particular, was so confident that this explanation exonerates everyone that... she refused to say whether or not she was one of the 18 people who were part of the text conversation. "Don't admit you were one of the bank robbers unless you were caught on camera" would seem to be the basic idea.
  
  There is one small problem with "none of the information was classified," though. Goldberg still has all the texts, and he is threatening to release them. After all, he's not only a journalist, his name's also being dragged through the mud. The hold up is that he and his publication want to make sure they are not breaking the law. Everyone knows that the Trump-run DoJ will bring its full might down upon Goldberg if there is even the slightest opportunity to do so.
  
  And that brings us to the Catch-22 that the White House has created for itself. If the information is not classified, then there is no question that Goldberg can release it. But if the administration wants to keep the information private, or wants to have any basis for going after Goldberg, it has to admit that the information is indeed classified, thus gutting the defense it offered before Congress yesterday. And the three folks who spoke to Congress yesterday were under oath, so admitting that the information was classified after all would mean they perjured themselves.
  
  Perhaps the worst-case scenario would be to insist the information was not classified, then for Goldberg to release it, then for it to be clear that it was classified after all. While there is some judgment involved in classifying materials, there are also some materials that are automatically classified based on the subjects they address. We imagine details of an imminent military strike probably trigger those auto-classified rules.
  
  In this scenario, Goldberg would be covered, since he would be releasing government-certified "unclassified" information. Then, when it became clear that the information actually WAS classified, the administration would not only be liars (and perjurers), but they'd add on the extra layer that they were willing to let Goldberg expose classified information in order to try to sustain their lie.
  
  Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!
  
  
• But Her E-mails: Another angle that remained pretty big yesterday, especially among right-wing media figures, was that this is no different from Hillary Clinton's e-mail server, and that Democrats said that was no big deal, so they are hypocrites in acting like this IS a big deal.
  
  We wanted to address this in a little bit of detail yesterday, but time did not allow, so we will address it now. There is, first of all, no evidence that anyone who was not supposed to see those e-mails actually saw them. Remember, most people didn't even know the mail server existed. "Security through obscurity," as it is called, is not a great strategy, but it does work sometimes, and it seems to have done so here. The Chinese and Russians knew that Hillary was professional to her core and they would never have suspected that she had a private e-mail server so they would never have looked for one. In this one case, security by obscurity might actually have worked.
  
  Beyond that, once the e-mails were pored through with a fine-toothed comb, only 110 of the first 30,000 messages examined by the FBI had classified information, and only 8 of those had top secret information. Of the second group of 30,000 messages examined, only three had classified information. And all of these e-mails, including the most secret ones, involved the sort of auto-classified stuff we note above. For example, a bunch of them were discussions of CIA drone strikes in Pakistan and... Yemen. That starts to sound VERY similar to what happened with the Signal Ring last week, since Hegseth, Waltz and Co. were also discussing an attack on Yemen. However, the Clinton e-mail discussions were about a New York Times article on the CIA drone strikes. In other words, the information was already public; the messages were only classified because of the auto-classification rules. Other classified Clinton e-mails were about relatively trivial subjects, like a phone conversation with the leader of Malawi. Phone conversations with national leaders are also auto-classified, for obvious reasons, but undoubtedly even if the whole world learns what Clinton and Bingu wa Mutharika chatted about, it does not exactly compromise U.S. national security.
  
  In short, the Clinton e-mail situation—which Republicans turned into the biggest thing this side of Watergate—is not even in the same universe as Signalwater.
  
  
• Consequences: We propose above that, with the possibility of someone being thrown under the bus to protect Trump from the consequences of Signalpot Dome, the people involved in this fiasco will suffer no consequences.
  
  That does not mean that we believe there will be no consequences, however. It was already the case that the leaders of other nations believed (with good reason) that Hegseth and Waltz are unqualified buffoons, while Gabbard (and possibly Trump himself) may be Russian assets. They also knew that this president is so lax, he literally leaves highly classified information lying around in his bathroom, where all visitors to his house potentially could see it.
  
  Now, in addition to all of this, foreign leaders know that all (or nearly all) of the highest-ranking defense and intelligence officials in the U.S. government have a careless and cavalier attitude about intelligence, and that they are prone to stupid mistakes. Those leaders also presumably suspect, quite reasonably, that this was far from the only time that sensitive matters were discussed over exceedingly inappropriate and unsecured channels. And finally, those leaders know that when there's a huge screw-up, the response from the White House is a shrug and the observation that stuff happens.
  
  How can any nation share anything sensitive or important with the U.S. right now? It's one thing for Americans to put Americans at risk. It's another thing for Americans to put Britons at risk, or Canadians, or Australians, or Japanese people. And the less the U.S. knows about what's going on in the world, the greater the risk of a military disaster, a terrorist attack, etc.

We'll see if the SYZ Affair continues to burn brightly in the next few days, or if it burns out. At the moment, the only silver lining for the administration is that there aren't many stories this week about Elon Musk trying to destroy Social Security. (Z)

Trump Tries to Rewrite Election Law with the Stroke of a Pen

Yesterday, Donald Trump issued yet another executive order that tries to do things that cannot be done by executive order. This one, which carries the title "PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS," tries to achieve by proclamation things that could never get through Congress.

Among the provisions of the XO are declarations that: (1) voters must provide proof of citizenship to vote, (2) states cannot accept ballots received after Election Day (even if they were cast before Election Day), (3) states cannot allow non-citizens to play any role in the vote-counting process (for example, they cannot serve as poll workers), (4) the federal government will oversee "election security" efforts, and (5) the federal government will take a lead role in prosecuting "election fraud."

Broadly speaking, this XO is mostly bark, and not a lot of bite. The federal government has very little role in administering elections, and so has little right to dictate terms under which elections are conducted. Indeed, even the provision of federal law that prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections, which was only adopted in 1996, might not be legal—it just hasn't been tested in court. Whoever it is that is writing Trump's XOs for him clearly knows all of this, which is why "enforcement" of the order rests not in any existing legal authority, but instead in the threat that if states don't do what they are told, they will lose federal funding.

The emptiness of the order is best illustrated by looking closely at the portion that made all the headlines yesterday, namely the part about proving one's citizenship in order to be able to vote. Since there is absolutely no way that blue states are going to go for that (as doing so would effectively justify Republicans' phony arguments about mass voter fraud), what the order actually does is order the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to change the federal voter registration form to include a proof-of-citizenship requirement.

There are many problems here from the vantage point of the Trumpers. First, the EAC is an independent agency, and not subject to presidential orders. Further, like the FEC, it is deliberately set up to have an equal number of Democratic and Republican commissioners (2 of each in the case of the EAC; 3 of each in the case of the FEC). So, there is no reason to think the EAC is going to play ball here. And even if they do, then people who don't have proof of citizenship, or don't feel like proving their identity just 'cause The Man says so, will just use their state's registration form. And all of this is before we talk about the lawsuits that are coming, and that the administration will lose. Oh, and if Trump does try to yank funding in order to punish a state for not following his decrees, that's a different set of lawsuits, since that would be impoundment, which is illegal.

Presumably, this form of performative, court-docket-clogging nonsense pleases some portion of the Republican Party, by persuading them that "things are getting done." Or, at least, Trump thinks it pleases some portion of the Republican Party. But like many of his XOs, it's just a tale of sound and fury, signifying nothing. And, of course, we know exactly what kind of person tells such tales. (Z)

Democrat Pulls an Upset in Pennsylvania

This is something that will undoubtedly lift the spirits of Democratic politics-watchers. Earlier this year, state Sen. Ryan Aument (R) resigned his seat representing Pennsylvania's SD-36 so that he could go to work for Sen. David McCormick (R-PA). Undoubtedly, Aument has Washington ambitions, like a nice seat in the U.S. House representing one of the districts in Pennsyltucky. He presumably also thought the seat he was vacating would be safe, since the district is R+15, went for Trump by 15 points in 2024, and has been held by the Republican Party for more than four decades.

Not so much, as it turns out. Yesterday, more than 50,000 voters turned out for the special election. That's about a third of all the registered voters in SD-36, which is pretty low for a regular election, but is actually pretty high for a special election. And once the ballots were counted, Democrat James Malone came out on top, with a lead of about 500 votes (26,951 to 26,469) over Republican Josh Parsons.

In case you would like a little local flavor, here's what reader D.E. in Lancaster wrote in with last night:

I know it's a special local election and that the win is by less than 500 votes but the Democrats flipped the Lancaster seat for the Pennsylvania state Senate!

That's Lancaster County, which I often call Trump County, PA. It's the Pennsylvania county that hosted several Trump rallies—in fact, the first day I moved here, VP candidate Mike Pence was campaigning for the Orange Menace. Lancaster County is a part of a Congressional district that has voted Republican for well over 100 years—actually, you have to go back to the 1800's to find a U.S. Representative who was NOT a Republican. Our current "Representative," Lloyd Smucker (R), won reelection in 2024 by 20+ points. Donald Trump had a 15+ margin of victory in the same election—about the same margin for 2020, but lower than his 2016 margin of 19 points.

While the small city of Lancaster leans Democratic, the surrounding suburbs and exburbs are rural, religious and ruby red. There is not a day at my job where I don't see a MAGA hat, T-shirt or tattoo! What's really insane is that I didn't know about this election, which sadly means I didn't get to add my vote to the total. I didn't receive one bit of campaign literature in the mail or by e-mail, despite usually getting buried in both during any election. This is the first time in decades this seat has been won by a Democrat. While this win doesn't flip the Republican rule in the state Senate, it narrows the gap, which still makes it sweet.

And yes, I know special elections are wonky, but a 15-point swing certainly titillates my Spidey-Senses. And this is after just two months of chaos and incompetency.

Thanks, D.E.!

And that wasn't the only special election in the Keystone State yesterday. HD-35 was also open, due to the unexpected death of Matthew Gergely (D) on January 19 of this year. Whereas SD-36 is quite red, HD-35 is equally blue, with a PVI of D+15. So, it was not a surprise that Democrat Dan Goughnour triumphed. However, he trounced his Republican opponent by nearly 30 points, 63.4% to 35.0%. This means the Democrats hold a 1-seat majority in the lower chamber of the state legislature. In the upper chamber, it's now 27R, 23D/I.

At this point, we will echo D.E. in Lancaster with the standard disclaimer about special elections, and their generally wonky character. With that out of the way, the Democrats outperformed their fundamentals by nearly the same margin in both elections, about 14.5 points. The party in power in Washington tends to underperform in special elections, because their voters are complacent, while the other party's voters are usually unhappy and looking to fight back. However, it's not usually this much of an underperformance. So, it's not crazy to suspect that, just a couple of months in, we're already seeing the stirrings of an anti-Trump backlash, especially since the main theme of Malone's campaign was "Elon Musk: bad." Hell, there is an election for the Wisconsin Supreme Court next Tuesday. Keep your eyes on that one.

Needless to say, we (and all other politics-watchers) will be very interested in what happens in the special elections in Florida next week. It would be very big news if the Democrats flipped one of those seats (almost certainly FL-06, if it happens). However, it would still be pretty big news if the Democrats keep it close—say, losing by less than 5 points.

There were actually a couple of stories on that front yesterday. First, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) spoke to reporters, and said that he expects Republican Randy Fine to underperform in the FL-06 election. That might just be the words of a small, insecure man looking to take a shot at a rival (DeSantis hates Fine), but it could also be that the Governor has reason to suspect trouble, and is trying to manage expectations. In addition, the Republican money train has rushed to the rescue in Florida, as Elon Musk's super PAC is going to drop some money in both districts this week. Aren't we all glad that Citizens United was decided the way it was?

Both of these stories are potential signs that Republican insiders are at least a little nervous about next week's elections. The GOP will still very likely hold on to both seats, but at least it's now getting interesting. (Z)

The Old College Try, Part I: Columbia Staff and Students Fight Back

Here's a story that seemed like it might be over, but is actually just beginning. As it turns out, while Columbia University was working to get back into Donald Trump's good graces to ensure its federal funding wasn't jeopardized, the school's Knight First Amendment Institute was filing suit against the Trump administration on behalf of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Middle East Studies Association.

The lawsuit alleges First and Fifth Amendment violations by the Trump administration in its deportation policies, as set out in Executive Orders 14,161 and 14,188. The arrests of people associated with colleges and universities based on their speech is blatantly unconstitutional, creates a climate of fear, and silences people based on their political viewpoints, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs also include AAUP chapters at Harvard, Rutgers and NYU. Expect others to join them. They are represented by notable human rights lawyer Ahilan Arulanatham, who teaches law at the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law. It seems higher education has gotten the message that they're stronger together and there's safety in numbers. Alternatively, maybe they've gotten the message that if you give Trump an inch, he'll take a mile, so you have no real choice but to make a stand.

The defendants, in addition to Trump and the federal government, are Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and acting director of ICE Todd Lyons. These are the people responsible for the unlawful seizure of Mahmoud Khalil. The suit alleges that, in addition to that and other arrests, the government sent universities lists of names of other students they intend to target. They are going after non-citizen students and faculty who have ever expressed any views supportive of Palestinians. It's a chilling complaint and worth a read. The plaintiffs are students and faculty who are either targets of this policy or are prevented from expressing their views by the government's policies.

The executive order refers to the grounds for inadmissibility under federal law governing terrorist activities. But that law also specifies that lawful speech can't be the basis for exclusion unless notice is first given to Congress that the SOS believes the person's admission would compromise U.S. foreign policy. Obviously, none of those procedures were followed before ICE snatched up Khalil. Rubio has threatened to do more of these arrests under a program called "Catch and Revoke."

The complaint details interviews with AAUP members who asked not to be identified for fear of being targeted and arrested. They talk about having to scrub social media posts and being afraid to mention Israel and Palestine in the courses they teach. Some members were brave enough to identify themselves and share their stories. These are professors who teach international law and human rights law. One is a director of the Center for Palestine Studies at Columbia. One is a history professor at Harvard.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and an order nullifying the XOs. They argue that if these policies are not enjoined, Trump won't stop with non-citizens. They're also seeking attorneys' fees.

One wonders if the lawsuits by the big law firms Trump has targeted can be far behind. The courts and state governments are the last remaining guardrails at the moment. And Trump and Elon Musk and others are busy working to pick them off, too.

It is worth noting that Columbia itself is not a party to this suit, nor to a second, similar suit that was also filed yesterday. Undoubtedly, Trump's instinct will be to strike back by yanking funding again, or somehow otherwise punishing the school. However, this won't kill the suits, since Columbia has no control over them. What it would do, however, is provide additional evidence that Trump & Co. are not focused on national security, but instead on political messaging and score-settling. (L)

The Old College Try, Part II: Monmouth Surrenders

We've been meaning to get around to this story for a couple of weeks, so sorry it's a little out of date. Earlier this month, Monmouth University announced that it's getting out of the polling business. That ends a 20-year run, during which Monmouth became one of the best pollsters in the business, and THE best in New Jersey.

Officially, Monmouth made this call because the university felt the benefits of paying for the polling no longer justified the costs. That really means two things—first, that not enough students were signing up, such that the educational mission was not being fulfilled, and second, that the university wasn't getting much positive PR anymore. There's certainly something to that latter point; nearly all polls that come out these days either generate no response, or else generate a negative response.

We suspect there was another factor in play, though if we are right, the people who know aren't talking right now, won't talk until January 2029 at the earliest, and may never talk. Remember that some polls, whether accurate or not, produce results that are adverse to Donald Trump. And there's pretty good reason to think that for the next four years there will be bad news for the President in the majority of polls. Maybe the sizable majority, whether they are horse race polls, or approval-rating polls.

With a normal president, this would not be a problem. But Trump is not a normal president; he's a man blessed with the unfortunate combination of low self-esteem and a giant ego. And so he strives to punish those who have "wronged" him, sometimes including pollsters. Remember, for example, that he sued Ann Selzer after her (inaccurate) poll that showed Iowa as closer than it was. With Monmouth, Trump not only has lawsuits as a possible weapon, he also has additional options not available with Selzer, like yanking their federal funding.

We doubt that Trump alone would be enough to kill a university polling operation. But if a polling operation was already wobbling, we can certainly see the threat that he poses being the final straw. (Z)

The Democratic Answer to Marge Greene?

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is an obnoxious jerk and a bigot, one who looks down on people based on social class, race, religion, sexual orientation, and other "unfavorable" characteristics. We don't think of this as an opinion, more like... an ironclad fact. Indeed, we would guess that you would be hard-pressed to find someone who follows politics and who thinks she is NOT a jerk. If you took a survey, we suspect that opinion would break down into "she's a jerk" and "she's OUR jerk."

Yesterday, Greene gave everyone a reminder of her jerkiness. This was entirely predictable, since Tuesday is a day that ends in "y." She was appearing on the "show" hosted by Eric Bolling, the former Fox entertainer who lost that job, and a couple of others thereafter, due to his lecherous behavior. And Greene decided that it was high time to rip into her colleague, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), since it had been at least 72 hours since the last nasty, unprovoked personal attack. And so, Greene declared:

This is a woman—she's never been married, she has no children, she's never had a job other than working in a bar. And that was short-term from what we understand. She's never run a business. This is a woman that has really no life experience and has no life wisdom because she's never done any of those things. This is why no one will take her serious as a presidential candidate, because we don't want someone that's propped up by the Democrat progressive establishment and who's basically an actress herself making the most important decisions in America on behalf of Americans, who most of them have had jobs, have jobs, ran companies, have children, and have been married.

That statement is, of course, absolutely laden with assumptions about what a "real" American does, and does not, look like. We could write 5,000 words tearing it apart, but that's not a great use of our time, nor that of the readers, so we will limit ourselves to three observations. First, if you're going to tacitly imply that someone is an idiot, perhaps you should first learn to speak at something beyond a third-grade level. Second, it is true that Ocasio-Cortez has zero marriages on her ledger, but she also has zero divorces. There are plenty of folks (ahem, Catholics) who would say going 0-for-0 is far better than going 0-for-1, as Greene has done. Third, the description of AOC's work history is not accurate (surprise!), but even if it was, we could swear that Republicans these days were pretending to be the party that cares about workers, and not the party that pisses on the dignity of blue-collar labor. Perhaps we were misinformed.

All of this said, the purpose of this item is not to make the case that Marge Greene is obnoxious. Making that point is like shooting fish in a barrel, assuming the barrel is the size of a coffee cup and the gun is a bazooka. The actual purpose here is to address a question that we have gotten from readers many times in the Age of Trump: What would happen if a person was MAGA-like in their approach to politics, but in service of a left-leaning agenda? Would they be able to take the Democratic Party by storm, the way that Trump and other MAGA types have done?

We have consistently taken the position that Trump-style populism won't work on the other side of the aisle, even if the goals of that populism are left-wing. The cultures and the voter bases of the parties are just too different, we think. There's no way to be certain until the matter is put to the test (if it ever is), but we would say there is at least some preliminary evidence we have the right of it. Kanye West is Trumpy in more ways than one, and his attempt to run for president as a Democrat went absolutely nowhere. Mayor Eric Adams (D) took a Trumpy turn in a number of ways in the last 6 months or so, and Democratic voters appear to have dropped him like a bad habit, such that even the sleazy Andrew Cuomo (whose scummy behavior is more "old-school" sleaze than "Trump" sleaze) is now preferable. Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) took a semi-Trumpy turn, in response to the 2024 results in Pennsylvania, and has been derided as a traitor by many of his former followers. And sports talker Stephen A. Smith is Trumpy in many ways, and is currently talking up a possible presidential run in 2028, and polls make clear that Democratic primary voters are not buying what he is selling, at all.

And now, it would seem that we're going to be presented with another case study of how well Trumpy style plays when it's adopted by someone with lefty politics. Presumably taking note of how very much attention people like Greene, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) get with their performative politics, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) has clearly decided to take that style of politics for a spin. She's made headlines a handful of times in the past few months for her... outspoken comments during committee hearings, some of them of a decidedly PG-13 nature. And recently, Crockett has decided to turn up the volume.

To be specific, Crockett has decided that the person that Texas Democrats really want her to target is Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX). There is much merit in this line of thinking, since Abbott is a vile human being more than willing to let people die in service of his political needs. However, in true Trumpy style, Crockett has decided that the best line of attack is Abbott's physical limitations. She'd made moderately snarky comments about his disability in the past, but this week, she went all-in, warning the audience at a town hall that she was about to say something naughty, and then slurring him as "Governor Hot Wheels." (Note: This is not a reference to the line of toy cars, but instead to the tricycle made for toddlers, which features an outsized front wheel.)

Again, we have no objection to criticizing Abbott harshly, because he deserves it. But mocking someone's disabilities? That is beyond the pale. It was wrong when Trump did it, and it's wrong here. Crockett should be ashamed of herself but, of course, she's not. Instead of apologizing after reporters called her out on the comments, the Representative stood firm, and claimed she wasn't referring to his wheelchair, but instead to "the planes, trains, and automobiles he used to transfer migrants into communities led by Black mayors, deliberately stoking tension and fear among the most vulnerable." Uh, huh. Sure.

Crockett represents a D+27 district, and so, like Greene, she is in no danger of losing her job, no matter how obnoxiously she might behave. However, she's certainly not getting a promotion to senator or governor, either—not in a state as red as Texas. So, the only thing that's really on the line here is whether or not Crockett can become a left-wing media darling, the way Greene and Boebert are for right-wing outlets. Again, we do not think that is going to happen. If Crockett actually wants to be a left-wing media darling, the colleague she should be studying is not Greene, it's... AOC. (Z)

Let's Try This Again

A couple of months ago, we tried to do two things, in the same item. First was to solicit predictions for 2025. Second was to gather submissions for our (hopefully) annual "state of the site" report. The response, compared to past years, was pretty anemic. We assumed, back in January, that the primary reasons for that were shell-shock and an uncertain future.

But now, we think the dust has settled enough that it's worth it to give it another shot. So, when it comes to predictions, we are looking for ideas in any or all of these categories: the Democrats, Donald Trump/the Republicans, Elections and Officeholders, Economy and Finance, Congress, Foreign Affairs and Wildcard. Please send them to comments@electoral-vote.com, ideally with subject line "2025 Prediction" (or "2025 Predictions"). Remember, the plan is to review them in late December, so they should be things that can be evaluated by then. "The Democrats will nominate Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) as their 2028 presidential candidate," for example, is a perfectly good prediction, but not one that can be evaluated by December of this year. In contrast, "The Dow Jones index will be 30,000 (or 50,000) on Dec. 1," is testable. So is: "At least three cabinet officials will have resigned or been fired by Dec. 1."

Moving along, we also still want to look at a pair of questions we asked last year:

1. What item that we produced this year was, in your view, the weakest? (And why?). Send a link to the item, or a description, along with your feedback to comments@electoral-vote.com with the subject line "Bad Job."
   
   
2. What item that we produced this year was, in your view, the strongest? (And why?). Send a link to the item, or a description, along with your feedback to comments@electoral-vote.com with the subject line "Good Job."

If you would like to see the results those questions generated last year, here is the "Bad Job" rundown, and here is the "Good Job" rundown. As you will see, if you look back, some of the comments were general things we are doing right/wrong, as opposed to being about a specific item. That's fine, of course. Also, it's fair to consider anything we've written this year as part of the discussion.

We look forward to your responses. Please do remember to include your initials and city. Oh, and next week, we're going to move even more stuff from the back burner to the front burner. (V & 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