Get Ready for a Shutdown

Yesterday, the leaders of the executive and legislative branches met, in a sort-of effort to avoid a shutdown. The meeting was... not a success, to say the least.

To the extent that there was any sort of new development, it's that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (both D-NY) were left with the impression that Donald Trump is potentially open to discussing the extension of healthcare subsidies. After all, he surely knows that the Republicans will take it in the teeth if millions of people lose their coverage. However, "maybe the President will talk to us about our key issue" is a far cry from "We've worked out a deal to keep the government open."

After the meeting ended, without much in the way of progress, Trump displayed his gift for being a consensus-builder and a unifier by getting on his brought-to-you-by-the-Saudi-sovereign-wealth-fund social media platform, and posting an AI-generated video that was equal parts racist and bizarre. If you really want to see if for yourself, then you can click on the link. However, here is how Jeffries and Schumer were portrayed:

Here's the complete text of what "Schumer" says in the video:

Look guys, there's no way to sugarcoat it. Nobody likes Democrats anymore. We have no voters left because of all of our woke, trans bullsh**. Not even Black people want to vote for us anymore. Even Latinos hate us. So we need new voters, and if we give all these illegal aliens free healthcare, we might be able to get them on our side so they can vote for us. They can't even speak English so they won't realize we're just a bunch of woke pieces of sh**, you know? At least for a while, until they learn English and they realize they hate us too.

We don't fully understand why Jeffries, who is not Latino, is in a sombrero. Because he is pro-undocumented immigrant, we guess? But if so, how come Schumer doesn't also get a sombrero?

At this point, we don't see how it's possible for the government to avoid a shutdown. Even if all the key players involved somehow had a meeting of the minds (and they do not seem to be remotely close to that), is there really time to get a bill through the House, and through the Senate, and signed by Trump, before 11:59 p.m. tonight? The best-case scenario would seem to be one of those situations where the government technically does shut down, but things get figured out pretty quickly, and the shutdown only lasts a day or two or three.

That said, the hardest part of a shutdown to swallow, for the politicians, is the first minute. Once that Rubicon has been crossed, then it gets easy for it to become an hour, then a day, then a few days, and then a week. Remember that during his first term, Trump oversaw a shutdown of 34 days. And that was with a budget bill having been passed, one that he initially supported. The current situation is much farther from the finish line, while Trump is feeling far more unfettered than he once did.

Meanwhile, it could not be more clear that Democrats in Congress are, on the whole, not interested in playing nice. Schumer (and Jeffries, though perhaps with slightly less enthusiasm) trial-ballooned an idea that the Democrats would agree to kick the can down the road for just 7-10 days; enough to buy some negotiating time. Democrats, at least those in the House, quickly said "No way, José." Well, it's Chuck Schumer, so "No way, Carlos." Of course, it's possible to get a bill through the House without any Democratic votes, so what really matters is whether 13 or so Democrats in the Senate would be OK with a very limited can-kicking. We may find out soon.

No matter what happens, Trump is going to get at least one "win" out of this, because 100,000 federal employees are set to resign today, as part of the program where they get 8 months' salary if they agree to go quietly. The folks who are throwing in the towel say they just can't deal with the "fear and intimidation" coming from the White House, not to mention the uncertainly of whether or not they'll have a job in a week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, etc. This "program" will cost the government nearly $15 billion and will leave many agencies understaffed, but the White House assures everyone it is "worth it."

Assuming a shutdown does happen, and assuming it lasts long enough that people (besides government employees and politics junkies) take notice, then we'll see which side does the best job of selling their version of events to the American people (and, in particular, to swing voters). Our entirely unscientific guess is that, because of the more effective propaganda apparatus, there's around a 35% chance that the MAGA version will prevail. And there's about a 30% chance that the Democratic version of events will prevail. And finally, there's a 35% chance that neither version will prevail, and that people will just reflexively blame the Republicans because they control the White House (and Congress, of course, but the White House is probably the key). Whether or not our percentages are on the mark, we think it's certainly fair to say that there are two ways this could go south for the red team, and only one way it could go south for the blue team.

And finally, we'll note that after the not-successful meeting, J.D. Vance held a press conference on the White House lawn, and shared his opinion that a shutdown cannot be avoided. Our sense of things, from the outside, is that Vance isn't really in the inner circle, and isn't really involved with decision-making. He is just the Trump administration's version of Luca Brasi; they send for him when there's a need for a kneecapping. In any event, we mostly mention Vance because of this picture of him (and Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-SD) from yesterday's press conference:

It's been a long time since we've seen a picture that so cried out for reader-supplied captions. If you agree, send your suggested caption to comments@electoral-vote.com. If we get good ones, we'll run a selection tomorrow. (Z)

Day of the Long Knives?

Today, we will presumably find out why Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth summoned hundreds of general officers to Quantico, VA, at a cost of millions of dollars, and also at the cost of some amount of military readiness.

At this point, it is known that Hegseth will be there, and so too will Donald Trump. There has been much scuttlebutt that the Secretary's plan is to give the audience a 45-minute-or-so talk about the "warrior ethos." It is improbable that Trump would be in a room with all that brass, plus a stage, a podium and a microphone, only to sit on his hands, so one has to assume that he'll speak, too. In general, particularly these days, his speeches are 90% self-congratulation and/or lashing out at his perceived enemies. That includes speeches to the military, such as his recent address to the graduating class at West Point. If Trump does speak, that will surely be the script, then.

If the whole point of this song and dance is to allow the President and his trained monkey to bloviate for a couple of hours while a couple thousand stars' worth of officers look on, this is not going to impress the brass. These are military careerists, and they don't need some pipsqueak retired major with a Napoleon complex lecturing them about the military ethos. They don't need the Trump stump speech, either. And if these folks wasted the better part of a week traveling to see all of this, they are going to be annoyed, and they are going to be left with the sense that the people at the top of the pyramid have no idea what they are doing. And once news leaked out, the Trump administration could well have a mini-scandal on its hands. Or even a full-blown scandal. "You blew tens of millions of dollars, and temporarily undermined America's military readiness for THIS?" people will ask.

It is also entirely possible that the rumors about rah-rah speeches are just a smokescreen, and that there is some other item on the agenda. One possibility that has been frequently bandied about is loyalty oaths. This will not impress the brass, either. First of all, they've already sworn a loyalty oath, and do not need to swear another. Second, they're all educated men and women, and know what it means when a leader starts demanding personal loyalty oaths. If Team Trump were to corner one general and demand an oath be taken, that might work out. But if you have 800 officers in a room together, and they're all leery/irritated? It takes just one case of, say, a full admiral announcing that he's not interested in this kind of bull**it, and it could turn into an act of mass defiance. Military officials do not often stand up to civilian commanders in this way, but sometimes they do. And if the folks in the room all say "Oath? No, thanks," what are Hegseth and Trump going to do? Fire hundreds of high-ranking officers at once? Have them crucified along the Appian Way?

Mass firings have also been suggested as a possibility. If so, well, better to be fired than assassinated, as with Ernst Röhm and all the other generals who bought the farm on the Night of the Long Knives. But again, how can that work, as a practical matter? Are Hegseth and Trump willing to leave 20% of all commands vacant? 30%? 40%? And then, there will be the obvious question: "Why did EVERYONE have to come to the meeting if you knew you were firing only [X]% of them? What kind of performative sadism is this?"

In short, it's hard to see how this doesn't end up as: (1) an embarrassment for the administration, and (2) a giant waste of resources. That said, the military parade was an embarrassment and a waste of resources, and foreseeably so, and that did not stop these two utterly shameless men. (Z)

Trump Wants to Ruin Sports, Part I: The WNBA

Donald Trump wants to subjugate every institution that could possibly be a source of opposition to him. So far he has gotten law firms, media companies, and universities to obey him, but he is far from finished. His next target could be a sports league—specifically, the WNBA.

The WNBA is the most popular women's sports league. It is also very anti-MAGA. Most leagues try to be nonpartisan because they don't want to drive away either Democrats or Republicans. Apparently the WNBA has done some polls and focus groups and discovered that most of its fans are Democrats, so they have nothing to lose by being anti-MAGA. Back as far as 2020, players wore "Black Lives Matter" warmups and jerseys with the name of Breonna Taylor, a victim of police violence. MLB and NFL players don't do that en masse. Nowadays, the WNBA partners with Planned Parenthood and GLSEN, an LGBTQ+ youth organization.

To Donald Trump, this is intolerable and it is putting the league on a collision course with him. This is not a huge surprise since the league is dominated by Black women, many of them queer Black women. Some people who do not like this have taken to throwing green sex toys on the court as a kind of statement of some sort. It has become a regular occurrence. Trump has egged them on. Donald Trump Jr. even posted this fake image.

Note that all but one of the players shown are Black. The image got over 100,000 likes. Also many variations of this comment: "So funny! Now RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES."

The problem Trump has is finding leverage against the WNBA. The teams don't need access to federal courtrooms, and don't have government grants that can be arbitrarily canceled. They don't need a steady stream of full-freight-paying foreign students to pay the bills. It is nearly impossible to find grounds for a lawsuit that would last 30 seconds after the judge read the suit. One "promising" tactic (for Trump) seems to be getting allies and underlings trying to throw in some all-American racism. The biggest star in the league is Caitlin Clark, a straight white woman in a sea of gay Black women. The late Charlie Kirk claimed that Clark is a victim of anti-white racial discrimination. Kirk said: "Everyone knows Caitlin Clark is being targeted by Black women because she is white." This goes over well with Trump's base, which believes everyone discriminates against white people, and this is just a blatant example.

Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN), who represents the home state of Clark's team, the Indiana Fever, piled on. He has demanded answers about why the WNBA has been "a league that refuses to hold hostile players accountable and enforce their own rules." Other MAGAworld people, like Sean McLean, have said that if the WNBA doesn't clean up its act, the administration should do it. He and some other allies see a parallel with Trump's attacks on Columbia and Harvard for nominally allowing antisemitism to run unchecked. So why not go after the WNBA for allowing the (alleged) racism of queer Black players against the poor straight white victim Clark. OK, Clark is not poor after having just signed a $28 million deal with Nike. And she hasn't actually asked anyone for help, and has made clear she believes that nothing out-of-bounds has happened to her. But coming to the rescue of a not-so-poor white woman who some people think is a victim fits in well with Trump's base, many of whom see themselves as victims, too. (V)

Trump Wants to Ruin Sports, Part II: The World Cup

Donald Trump has always been a sports fan, from the days that he played high school baseball, to his attendance at New York sporting events over the years, to his "Hall of Fame" pro wrestling career. So, it could be that because he understands sports fandom, he understands that there may be political points to be scored in that arena.

There is also another possibility. For decades, he has longed to be a part of the club. He very clearly wanted to try to play pro baseball, and cooked up an entire narrative that he was the best baseball prospect in New York, was good enough to go pro, and was offered a pro contract, but he declined because there was more money to be made in business. We know you wouldn't expect this from Donald Trump, but this is... a lie. He didn't go pro because, to use a technical term, he sucked. In his senior year, he had 21 at bats, and he got a grand total of 1 hit. That is a batting average of .047. There's only one MLB team where that might make the cut, and the Colorado Rockies did not exist until Trump was in his forties.

Similarly, Trump famously tried to buy an NFL franchise, and the other owners wouldn't have him. It's not clear if they didn't like his balance sheet, or they didn't like him, or both, but they declined his bid. Trump responded by buying a USFL team and, like so many other Trump ventures, the team (and the league) failed. One can sense echoes of his trying to gain acceptance from the cool kids of real estate in Manhattan, but never succeeding because he was a sleazy Queens guy. The point here is that, having been rejected by the big-time sports world more than once, his mucking around might plausibly be motivated by his desire to throw his weight around and to "show them" that they should have admitted him to the party while they had the chance.

Whatever is going on, the WNBA (see above) isn't the only sports concern in Trump's crosshairs. He's also plotting and planning and scheming to impose himself on the World Cup, which is scheduled for 2026, and will take place in Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. (but with the majority of fixtures in the U.S.)

Trump is actually trying to use the World Cup for his own ends in not one, not two, but three different ways. First up, he intends to score some geopolitical points by choosing which teams are actually allowed to participate. He's already said that Israel WILL be involved, no matter what anyone else says. He's also hinted that Iran will be banned, because he doesn't like Iran. He might try to use World Cup participation for Russia as a stick (if they don't get out of Ukraine) or as a carrot (if they do get out). There's also some whispering that Trump will try to ban Brazil, as punishment for having convicted Jair Bolsonaro of myriad crimes. For those who do not follow the sport, it would be inappropriate for Trump to decide whether Israel/Iran/Russia can play or not, but it won't have much impact on the tournament. On the other hand, Brazil is a world power in association football, and booting them out would fundamentally cheapen the quality of the competition, like denying Duke or UCLA or Kentucky the right to play in the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, or keeping UConn, Tennessee, or Notre Dame out of the NCAA Women's Basketball Tournament.

Trump is also toying with the idea of using the World Cup to advance his domestic agenda. This weekend, he said he might just relocate games from "unsafe" cities. That, of course, means cities that are Black, or blue, or Black AND blue. He specifically mentioned Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles as potential targets for this. This news caused op-ed writers in some of the large-but-red cities (there aren't many of them) to speculate whether they might be able to bogart a World Cup game or two. For example, this starry-eyed piece about bringing some of the games to Oklahoma City. Frankly, any city that is offered a purloined game should turn it down, at risk of bringing great shame to themselves.

Trump may or may not be able to do these two things. On one hand, the host country, even its president/prime minister/whatever, doesn't actually have the power to dictate what teams participate or where fixtures are held. On the other hand, the World Cup is staged by FIFA, which is run by people with authoritarian instincts, and is rather corrupt. Trump, as you may have heard, also has authoritarian instincts, and is also rather corrupt. So, it's no surprise that he's thick as thieves with current FIFA president Gianni Infantino. Who knows what Infantino might allow Trump to get away with?

The third thing that Trump is planning to do, and the one that is most certainly within his authority, is to use the World Cup matches as an opportunity to round up some "undocumented" immigrants. There are some people who might otherwise be in attendance, but who actually are undocumented, and can't take the risk. There are some people who are not actually undocumented, but have misplaced their paperwork, and can't risk trying to get replacements (since people have been nabbed while doing that). There are some people who are documented, or are even citizens, but who have to be worried that they might get caught up in an "all the brown people are illegals" sweep. So, while white Americans can attend the games without reservation, anyone of a darker hue has to think twice. And even if they do attend, there will be some level of anxiety, as they watch out of the corner of their eyes for ICE agents. This is really too bad, since it's hardly a secret that the lion's share of hardcore fans in the U.S. are Latino. And yet, Thad and Muffy will be able to be in the stands, but Pedro and Juanita might have to take a pass. (Z)

Trump Wants to Ruin Sports, Part III: The Ryder Cup

There is no question that Donald Trump is trying to lay his grimy paws on the WNBA and the World Cup. For this item, it's not quite as clear-cut, but we think it's a part of the overall theme we have running through (the second half of) today's posting. We'll present our argument, and readers can decide for themselves if we're off base (well, it's golf, so readers can decide if we've lost our grip).

We had a letter about this on Sunday, but this weekend was the Ryder Cup. That is a golf competition, held every other year, in which a team of American golfers plays against a team of European golfers. There has always been a certain amount of fan participation in Ryder Cup matches (not true of any pro golf event besides this one), and there's obviously a "rivalry" element. But this year's event, held in New York, was often just plain ugly. And pretty much all the ugliness came from the American fans.

The focal point of the bad behavior was Northern Irish golfer Rory McIlroy. He was subject to constant heckling, insults, remarks about his parentage, etc. Comedian Heather McMahan, who was acting as master of ceremonies, even led the crowd in a chant of "Fu** you, Rory." And it wasn't just him, it was also his wife Erica. As a civilian, she should be completely off-limits. But she got nearly as much taunting as her husband, and was also hit by a cup of beer thrown by an unknown fan. It eventually got bad enough that policemen with police dogs were deployed to protect the McIlroys.

We are not golf experts, of course. But Joel Beall, who writes for Golf Digest, certainly is, and he wrote that he's never seen anything like what happened to the McIlroys:

No player in modern Ryder Cup history endured the relentless, systematic dehumanisation McIlroy faced on Saturday. It was one of the most shameful spectacles this event has seen—a sustained campaign of cruelty that should embarrass every golf fan and American. For five hours, they questioned his manhood, recited the lowest moments of his career, and screamed personal rumours as truth. Every five minutes brought fresh torrents of F-bombs hurled like grenades. They bellowed and booed as he lined up shots, sometimes even mid-swing, violating the gallery code. Every Ryder Cup spawns its share of knuckle-dragging behaviour, but never has the abuse been this thunderous, this universal, this unrelenting.

There were dozens of other pieces along those lines yesterday.

Now, having established that lines were crossed this weekend that have never been crossed before, let us point out a few things:

• Golf fans skew white, male, and well-to-do, at least two-thirds of which (and maybe all three thirds) are MAGA-skewing demographics.
  
  
• Several of the golfers on the American team, most obviously Bryson DeChambeau, are MAGA.
  
  
• The notion that someone who is an opponent (and a foreigner) is not a friendly rival, but instead an enemy, is very MAGA.
  
  
• The reliance on un-clever insults and vulgarities is MAGA.
  
  
• Donald Trump, leader of MAGA, attended part of the event in person.

On this basis, we feel comfortable laying the blame for this, in significant part, at Trump's feet. Again, readers may disagree, but that's our conclusion. Note that the U.S. was losing badly through the first three days of the tournament, nearly rallied, but ultimately came up short. That meant the Europeans were the first "road team" to win the tournament since 2012. Based on the chatter yesterday, a lot of Americans are mortified that the fans at the tournament represented the U.S. in this way, and so are glad the Europeans triumphed. And we just might be among the folks who feel that way. (Z)

Trump Wants to Ruin Sports, Part IV: Electronic Arts

This item is a little different than the other three, but it still fits the theme, we'd say. The preeminent maker of sports-themed video games is Electronic Arts. The company does make other games, but it's the sports games that EA is particularly known for.

Yesterday, it was announced that EA, which is currently publicly traded, will be taken private, with ownership to pass to an investor group headlined by the Saudi Arabian sovereign wealth fund, and that also includes participation by first son-in-law Jared Kushner's firm. The price tag is $55 billion, with the investors taking on $20 billion in debt in order to make the purchase. This is far and away the largest private-equity-funded buyout ever, dwarfing the $32 billion paid to take Texas utility TXU private in 2007.

Will this have a negative impact on sports, or at least sports gaming? Probably so. It's hard to know what the Saudis are trying to accomplish here; is this more sportswashing, or are they telling the truth, that this is about diversifying the royal family's holdings? Whatever the case may be, these kinds of leveraged buyouts rarely lead to a better product. Either the buyer dismembers the company and sells the parts (Mitt Romney style), or else they get conservative in their management, so as to try to keep the balance sheet under control. Conservative is not a great dynamic for the world of gaming, where innovation is essential to keep people buying (especially sports games, where a new version for each sport comes out every year; e.g., Madden NFL 24, Madden NFL 25, Madden NFL 26, etc.).

The real concern here, however, is not sporting in nature. Because this transaction involves a foreign entity buying an American company, it is subject to regulatory approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment. Undoubtedly, with the president's son-in-law involved, that review process will be oh so rigorous. But beyond the very likely corruption angle, these kinds of leveraged buyouts basically disappeared in 2007-08, as they were pretty deeply entwined with the subprime mortgage crisis. If and when this deal goes through, it will be a pretty clear signal that this type of transaction is back, and that the Trump administration is open for leveraged business. It could therefore be the start of another cycle of recklessness that brings down the U.S. economy. Assuming, you know, that the insane tariffs, and the mucking around with the Fed, and the magic-math BBB, and six other administration policies don't do the job first. (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