Dates That Could Affect the Shutdown

No Kings Day is over, except for the punditry, but the shutdown goes on. It hasn't won the gold medal for longest shutdown yet, but on Friday, it won the bronze medal for third-longest, with no end in sight. The parties aren't even talking to each other. When might it end? We certainly don't know, but there are a couple of dates from The Hill worth watching as they could have an effect on public opinion:

• Oct. 24: On this date, federal employees are scheduled to get their first full paycheck since the shutdown started. If the shutdown is ongoing, most of them won't get paid. This will put a strain on those employees who live paycheck-to-paycheck and who don't have a lot of savings to use for rent and food. They will definitely notice. Who they will blame could be crucial. The effect will be felt most strongly in states with many federal workers, such as Virginia, which has a high-profile gubernatorial election in 2 weeks. If the air traffic controllers start calling in sick that day, it could snarl air traffic and freeze the economy.
  
  
• Oct. 31: Yes, Halloween, so it is scary. Also, it is the next payday for over 1 million members of the Armed Forces. On Oct. 15, Donald Trump took $8 billion in research funds and used that to pay the soldiers. He might not be able to pull that sleight-of-hand off again. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) sees this coming and is preparing a stand-alone bill to pay the military even during shutdowns. He will dare the Democrats to vote "no." They're not the real problem, though. The problem is Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), who doesn't want to call the House into session, because then he would have no choice but to swear in Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva, which would mean the Epstein discharge petition would get the final signature it needs. Furthermore, Johnson wants to put pressure on both the Democrats and the Senate, and doesn't particularly want the hot potato, EpsteinYZ Affair or no. Who knows what will happen, but not paying soldiers is a big deal.
  
  
• Oct. 31 & Nov. 5: House staffers get paid on the last day of each month. Senate staffers get paid on the 5th and 20th of each month. If the shutdown goes through Nov. 5, no House or Senate staffer will get paid. The members work with (and depend on) these people every day. If the staffers don't get paid, the members will certainly get an earful. Will that move them? You never know.
  
  
• Nov. 1: This is the date that enrollment opens for people using the ACA. Since Democrats are fighting to continue existing healthcare subsidies, this could be a symbolic moment. At the very least, voters will begin to see what the BBB means for them personally when they start looking at what healthcare will cost in 2026. Absent the subsidies, they may not like what they see.
  
  
• Nov. 24: This is the start of Thanksgiving week, when many people travel to spend the holiday with family members. If the shutdown is ongoing, air traffic controllers are out "sick" and TSA has a shortage of workers, it is a formula for disaster. In 2019, Thanksgiving was the event that forced Trump to end the longest shutdown in American history. Until now, the shutdown is kind of abstract for many people. Not being able to get to Grandpa's farm for Thanksgiving, as they have done for the past 20 years, makes it much more personal for folks.

There is another important date not on the list, in part because it is not fixed by law. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has said that in 2 weeks, the SNAP (food stamp) program will run out of money. This means that 42 million people will go hungry then. They are likely to notice. And to remember in a year. Rollins said there are no other easy options for funding. Using income from tariffs might be possible, since those funds are not dependent on a congressional appropriation. However, Trump wants to use that money to compensate farms for the income they lost due to the trade war Trump started. It is our guess that when faced with a choice between helping farmers (who largely voted for him) or poor people (who largely didn't), the farmers will win. However, the tariff money goes directly into the treasury and Trump doesn't have any say what happens to it. At least, not legally. The chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Sen. John Boozman (R-AR), is scratching his head trying to think of ways to fund the program.

A few readers have suggested we run a mini-poll of the readership, to get their guess as to where this is heading. Not a bad idea; the link is here. We'll reveal the results on Wednesday morning, so please get your responses in by tomorrow (Tuesday) night at 11:59 p.m. PT. (V)

Trump Wants to Weaponize the IRS

Donald Trump's control of the Department of Justice to punish his enemies is scary enough, but he has found a new weapon that could top that: the IRS. Even Richard Nixon understood that one of the government's greatest powers over citizens and groups he didn't like was taking away their money. Trump has rediscovered that and is about to ramp it up.

There is the routine stuff, of course, like auditing the hell out of his enemies and bringing down the hammer for the smallest technical violation of the tax law. But he is getting interested in going way beyond this and planning to use the IRS Criminal Investigations Division (IRS-CI) to go after his "enemies." Prosecutions resulting from IRS-CI investigations can result in prison time as well as fines. The IRS-CI division pursues not only tax evasion, but also employment tax violations, gambling, money laundering, narcotics-related crime and various kinds of financial fraud. IRS-CI agents can not only investigate alleged crimes, but also perform law enforcement functions, including conducting searches, seizing property, and taking testimony under oath. When it has discovered a financial crime, it turns it over to the DoJ for prosecution.

Under the current rules, there are a number of safeguards built in. Two different levels of management have to review a proposed case before it can go forward, and four different levels have to approve before a case can be turned over to the DoJ for prosecution. Trump wants to change the rules to make it much easier to prosecute anyone—in particular, his enemies. He is also planning to replace the IRS-CI chief, Guy Ficco, an IRS careerist who has been there for decades, with a toady who will do Trump's bidding and go after his enemies, both to punish them and to intimidate everyone else into submission. By stripping career civil servants of their authority and concentrating power at the top, he will be able to use IRS' power to go after his enemies, whether or not they have committed any crimes. In case anyone missed the message here, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on a podcast last week that tracking down any left-wing financial networks connected to Charlie Kirk's assassination is "mission critical." Really? IRS could not function unless all the financial networks somehow connected to Kirk's assassin are tracked down and obliterated? Of course, it is very likely that there was a lone gunman with no support from anyone, so IRS-CI may be tasked with inventing some networks out of thin air and then going after them.

One expected target is Democratic megadonor George Soros and his Open Society Foundation. Trump would dearly love to close that organization down. That would deprive the Democrats of a lot of money. All that would take is getting a list of organizations the OSF had donated to, declaring one of them to be a terrorist organization, and then charging Soros and the OSF with supporting terrorism. Rinse and repeat with other organizations that help Democrats until there are none left.

The IRS is already in bad shape and may get even worse as Trump starts monkeying with it. There have been 7 (!) IRS commissioners in the past 10 months. The current (acting) IRS commissioner is none other than Scott Bessent, who also has a full-time job running Treasury. He realized that he was stretched thin, so he created a new job, the CEO of IRS, and appointed Frank Bisignano to it. But since Bisignano also has a full-time job (running the Social Security Administration), IRS doesn't exactly have full-time leadership. Changing the rules to concentrate more power at the top will probably lead to career officials leaving. It turns out private tax firms just love hiring people with years of experience at IRS. Having new rules, no leadership, and big gaps lower down is probably not going to lead to honest and efficient tax administration. To a considerable extent, the U.S. tax system, in which only 1-2% of returns are audited, depends on voluntary compliance. People do this because they believe IRS is honest and fair. When that assumption goes by the wayside, compliance could go way down, with various bad effects. (V)

Vought Cancels Billions of Dollars of Projects in Blue States

OMB Director Russell Vought is absolutely giddy about the shutdown. It's like his birthday, Christmas and Halloween combined. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Every day he gets out of bed thinking: "How can I use this wonderful new tool that I have been given to destroy the government and punish Donald Trump's enemies all at once?" The latest installment is unilaterally canceling large government contracts in blue cities and states.

On the first day of the shutdown, Vought axed $18 billion for two major infrastructure projects in New York City: the Hudson River Tunnel Project and the Second Avenue Subway Project. Take that, New York! We hate you! He also canceled $8 billion in climate-related projects in California, Colorado, and Connecticut. Also $2 billion in funding for the Chicago transit system. Andrew Jackson is probably scratching his head wherever he may be, thinking: "Somebody got the spoils system kind of backwards. The idea is to reward your friends, not punish your enemies."

Vought is now ordering the Army Corps of Engineers to delay or cancel another $11 billion in projects in Baltimore, Boston, New York City and San Francisco. He said these were low-priority projects and blamed the shutdown. This is an out-and-out lie and Vought, who is a master of every line in the budget, knows this. The funding comes from sources not blocked by the shutdown, and the Army Corps of Engineers is part of the Army and no members of the Armed Forces have been furloughed.

One of the big differences between Trump v1.0 and Trump v2.0 is that while Vought was OMB director last time as well, Trump kept him on a short leash in his first term. This time, he has dropped the leash and let Vought run wild, fulfilling all his fantasies about destroying the government while also staying in Trump's good graces. Even if the Democrats get the trifecta in 2028, it will take a long time to repair all the damage Vought has done. (V)

China Is Not Gaza

Donald Trump, like most bullies, always picks people weaker than himself to bully. Case in point: He ordered Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end the war in Gaza. Since Netanyahu is dependent on American weapons and ammo to fight the war, he gritted his teeth and said "Yes, sir." If Trump thinks this approach will work with China, he is in for a rude awakening.

Trump's mindset is stuck in the 1970s. He thinks China is a backward country that does little except make cheap t-shirts. It's not. Its economy has already surpassed the U.S. in some notable ways. One good overall measure of an economy is how much electric power it produces, since power is needed for many industries as well as homes, transportation (e.g., trains), and more. Here is a graph of power production in China and the U.S. since 1985:

Trump thought he could bully China with the threat of 100% tariffs and cancellation of a scheduled meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Xi didn't budge. Trump responded by not talking about tariffs anymore and rescheduling the meeting. Trump's playbook works only when dealing with a much weaker player who has few or no cards and who responds to presidential pressure. Xi has plenty of cards and no hesitation about using them. Among other things, he controls the flow of rare earth elements badly needed by U.S. industry, 70% of lithium-ion batteries, many raw materials needed by the pharmaceutical industry, and much more.

The U.S. does (or did) have something China doesn't have, though: allies. The U.S., E.U., Canada, India and Japan together represent over 50% of world GDP. As a bloc, it has a lot of leverage over China, both in terms of what it exports to China and what it imports from China. So has Trump brought the allies closer? No, he has slapped tariffs on Canada, the E.U., India and Japan, threatened to break up NATO, and gotten nothing in return. All the "allies" now understand that the U.S. is an unreliable partner and are starting to see China as a more reliable country to do business with. Xi drives a hard bargain, but when he has made a deal, he fulfills his promises.

Another edge the U.S. has over China is an incredible research network, led by top universities like Harvard, MIT and Stanford. Their discoveries have led to countless important products and services and are a key driver of American technological superiority in the world. So is Trump giving them more money to make more discoveries? No, he is trying to subjugate them and if they won't comply, to destroy them. The most talented students and researchers from all over the world want to come to the U.S.—and Trump is trying to keep them out. Xi probably can't believe his ears when his experts tell him Trump is singlehandedly trying to destroy America's research capacity.

Trump's (temporary?) success in the Middle East may give him the idea that all deals will be as easy as Gaza. Consequently, he is likely to try to bully China the way he bullied Israel and Hamas. He will discover the hard way that when the other side is roughly your equal and has many cards to play, that will not work. He is going to have to learn how to make deals. There is a book we heard about, The Art of the Deal written by Tony Schwartz. Maybe Trump can read it. Truth be told, though, we haven't read it so we don't know if it is any good. (V)

Charlie Cook Doesn't Think Cartography Will Save the Republicans

Something like half a dozen red states are already busy with midterm redistricting. This could net the Republicans around 7-8 House seats on the assumption that California is able to flip five seats from red to blue. Otherwise, it will be worse. In addition, the Supreme Court seems poised to tell states in the South that they are free to eliminate all their majority-minority districts; that could add up to as many as 10-12 flipped seats. Democratic states are not being nearly as aggressive, in part due to their own Constitutions and in part because they don't like playing hardball. So is it hopeless for the blue team?

Veteran political analyst Charlie Cook is not so sure. He notes that there is less volatility in approval ratings now than 20 or 30 years ago. George H.W. Bush was at 89% approval after driving Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait but dropped to 25% when a recession hit and lost reelection due to that. His son went from 90% approval in the aftermath of 9/11, to also dropping to 25% when New Orleans was drowning in Hurricane Katrina and he was out in sunny Arizona attending John McCain's birthday party. Ronald Reagan's range was 35-68%. Bill Clinton's was 37-73%. Barack Obama's was 38-69%.

It is not like that anymore. Partisanship trumps everything now. A president's core supporters will not leave him, no matter what happens. Nor will his opponents give him credit for anything. This means a president's range is now quite narrow. And the president's approval rating has a big effect on House results. Trump is now in the low 40s and is not likely to get much higher in the coming year.

However, one-third of the country consists of (nominal) independents. They can be all-in for the president or all-in against him. That still matters. Many of them voted for Donald Trump because they thought Joe Biden was too old and Kamala Harris was too Black and too female. For them, the past 9 months is not the cruise they signed up for.

In first-past-the-post races, small swings can have amplified effects. In presidential politics, there are currently seven swing states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In 2016, Trump won them by 3.54%, 5.13%, 0.23%, -2.42% (i.e., Trump lost Nevada), 3.66%, 0.72%, and 0.77%, respectively. In 2020, Joe Biden won them by 0.30%, 0.23%, 2.78%, 2.39%, -1.34% (i.e., Biden lost North Carolina), 0.16%, and 0.63%, respectively. In 2024, Trump won them by 5.53%, 2.19%, 1.42%, 3.10%, 3.21%, 1.71%, and 0.86%, respectively. If we just add up the seven numbers for each year and divide by seven, we get 1.66%, 0.76%, and 2.57%, respectively. A swing of 3-5% means all the world here. With independents now against Trump 2:1, there could well be a 5-point swing.

Currently, before the midterm gerrymandering started, there were 98 districts in the range R+5 to D+5, inclusive. All of these could conceivably go either way in a big-wave election. History shows that when there is a wave, a majority of the swing districts go the same way. They are not really independent, just as the swing states weren't independent in 2016, 2020, and 2024. When a party has the momentum, it has it (almost) everywhere. If the Republicans net 10 seats by gerrymandering, their 220-215 margin becomes 230-205. That means if they lose a net 13 seats in the 90+ swing districts, they lose the House.

Suppose after all the gerrymandering is done, there are 90 swing districts left (and remember, gerrymandering may create swing districts in the South when Black Democrats are stuffed into previously safe red districts, changing them from deep red to pink). If the Democrats can win 52 of the 90 swing districts, that is enough to control the House. 52/90 is 58%, which is a lot, but not impossible in a wave election. Remember that Democrats flipped 41 seats in the 2018 midterms when the economy was good. It is not as good now and could get worse. This is why Cook is skeptical that the Republicans can hold the House. (V)

Lindsey Halligan Is Firing Experienced Prosecutors in Virginia

When acting U.S. attorney for Eastern Virginia, Erik Siebert, refused to indict NY AG Letitia James, Donald Trump forced him out and replaced him with insurance lawyer Lindsey Halligan, who has no experience at all as a prosecutor. Consequently, she is going to have to lean heavily on her staff if she expects to win any cases in court—if any staff are left after her firing binge is over. On Friday, she fired the top two attorneys in the office, Beth Yusi and Kristin Bird. This follows the firing of other top lawyers earlier this month, namely Michael Ben'Ary, Maggie Cleary and Maya Song. Troy Edwards Jr. (James Comey's son-in-law) resigned.

Ben'Ary didn't go quietly. On the way out, he taped a letter on his office door accusing the DoJ leadership of being more interested in going after Trump's perceived enemies than protecting the country's security.

With the decks cleared, Halligan will be able to bring in fresh talent—if anyone is willing to work for her. She can probably find some Trump toadies who will join, but remember, in the end assistant U.S. attorneys aren't there to spout Trump's talking points. They are there to win court cases. That is slightly more difficult. Especially if they are insurance lawyers with no prosecutorial experience. (V)

Trump Pre-Endorses Challenger to Massie

Donald Trump hates Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) so much that Trump has endorsed a challenger to Massie—one who isn't even in the race (yet): Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein. Gallrein ran for the state Senate last year and lost the GOP primary. But a guy can hope, after all.

Massie doesn't seem worried. He's won his district six times already and is plenty conservative. He just wants to see the Epstein files. That actually puts him on the same page as many MAGA voters. Massie's comment about Trump's endorsement was: "After having been rejected by every elected official in the 4th District, Trump's consultants clearly pushed the panic button with their choice of failed candidate and establishment hack Ed Gallrein. Ed's been begging them to pick him for over 3 months now." Massie is also doing well financially, having raised $768,000 in Q3, the best quarter in his career. If Gallrein gets in, Massie is going to try to make the primary about the Epstein files, which puts him on the side of the voters and Gallrein and Trump on the other side. (V)

There's Something Happening Here: The No Kings Protests, Part II

We have heard from a LOT of readers about their local No Kings protest, and most of the e-mails came with art. Here's another selection of those messages:

N.M.D. in Duluth, MN, writes: A shot from the No Kings protest in Duluth, MN. Estimate of 5,000 or more, plus songs, stories and an incredible presentation on how this administration is violating certain sections and amendments from our Constitution. Very informative, very peaceful, very encouraging.

---

S.S. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: Just thought you'd like to see how Canada did it. We don't mind our king very much, so it was called "No Tyrants." I think we had around 300 people. So much fun!

---

B.J. in Arlington, MA, writes: Whitewater kayaking has been a passion of mine for 30 years. This year, I got involved in the niche sport of whitewater slalom racing for the first time. This weekend was the last race of the 2025 New England Slalom Series, held on the Farmington River near the booming metropolis (pop. 1,678) of Otis, MA. Many of the participants have been participating in the NESS races, including this one, literally for decades and did not want to miss the event. I have very few opportunities to practice the sport and so also did not want to miss it. However, several of us also really wanted to participate in the No Kings protests.

So, after the race on Saturday afternoon, a number of us made signs and held our own impromptu protest along the road where we were camping out. We had about 15 people spread across both sides of the road. About 50 cars passed us during the 30 minutes we were protesting. No doubt we did not have the biggest impact, but we did something and every bit counts, right?

---

A.K. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: She handed out 200 American flags:

---

B.W. in Suwanee, GA, writes: My mom and me at the No Kings rally in Suwanee, GA:

---

S.D. in Clarkston, GA, writes: I've been marching, rallying and protesting for more than 45 years now and never more often than now. I retired this year and had planned to relax, travel and read. But there is work to do. As Samwise Gamgee, who had seen more than his fair portion of strife, knew, "There's some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for."

More tomorrow! (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