Main page    Apr. 02

Senate map
Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

Democrats Have a Good Day. Maybe Even a Very Good Day.

Maybe you heard there were some pretty big elections yesterday. After all, we had a rundown on Monday. Here are the results for the various races we previewed:

We also previewed some school board races, but the biggies were in Alaska, and the results for those aren't in yet. Of course, those are relatively small potatoes, and regardless of how they turn out, Democrats have to feel pretty good about what happened yesterday. (Z)

In Congress, Part I: Cory Booker Talks the Talk

It might well have been the single-worst bit of American political trivia: The record for longest speech on the floor of the Senate was held by an outspoken racist, speaking in favor of a white supremacist agenda. We refer, of course, to Strom Thurmond, who prattled on for 24 hours and 18 minutes while unsuccessfully filibustering against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. We have absolutely no doubt that, at least once or twice during that performance, the hypocrite's thoughts went to his half-Black daughter, born out of the Senator's longstanding extramarital affair with his Black maid.

As of yesterday, however, Thurmond is no longer the record holder. He has been dethroned, appropriately enough, by a Black man. That would be Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), who commenced a speech on the floor of the Senate at 6:59 p.m. ET on Monday. The subject of the speech was predations against democracy by Donald Trump and his minions. In other words, the Senator had a lot of material to work with. And while the original target was 15 hours (which was about the length of a pro-gun-control speech given by friend and colleague Chris Murphy, D-CT, a few years back), Booker had plenty left in the tank when he reached that mark, and so he kept going. And going. And going. When he finally yielded the floor at 8:05 p.m. on Tuesday, he'd been speaking for 25 hours, 6 minutes. That left Thurmond—who is himself dust, these days—in the dust, by about 48 minutes.

Back in Thurmond's day, such theatrics had some reasonable chance of causing legislation to be changed, or even abandoned, since Senate rules did not allow for other matters to be considered until the current matter had been resolved. These days, of course, that is not the case, so the only purpose to Booker's speech was to draw attention to both Trump's bad behavior, and to the resistance to that behavior in the Senate. Booker's speech isn't going to change anything, at least in the short term, but it does send a message that many Democrats have been longing to hear.

Note, incidentally, that while there is no spoken filibuster these days, the same rules do apply when it comes to holding the floor. That is to say, there's no allowance for naps or bathroom breaks or other pauses like that. Back in the day, filibustering members would sometimes wear a diaper or would hide a specimen bottle behind the podium. Booker apparently didn't need that kind of help; he fasted for 2 days prior to the speech so he'd be running on empty, as it were. He did take questions from the audience (reporters and other Senators), so as to give his voice a break. That said, even if he was the person speaking only 80% of the time, talking for 20 out of 25 hours while hungry and dehydrated is quite the physical and mental feat. (Z)

In Congress, Part II: House Republicans Don't Walk the Walk

While Cory Booker was busy mounting a sorta-filibuster, there was also some drama over in the House, albeit of a rather different sort. At issue was proxy voting, in particular for members who are mothers and have recently given birth, and who would like to be able to represent their constituents without having to drag themselves out of a hospital bed, or else bring a nursing infant with them into the House chamber.

Before we tell you exactly what happened, let's do a quick review of the two sides of this discussion. The folks who support voting-by-proxy, particularly in this circumstance, see it as a matter of fairness. They observe that in the entire history of the House of Representatives, no male member has EVER had to choose between birthing/nursing an infant and showing up for work. So, there's an obvious gender dimension here. On top of that, childbearing is generally the province of the fairly young, and so there's a reverse ageism dimension, as well. Proponents of the voting-by-proxy proposal suggest that if Congress makes promising folks in their twenties and thirties choose between family and service to their country, some of them will choose family, and Congress will be poorer for it.

Meanwhile, the primary argument of the folks who oppose voting-by-proxy appears to be legalistic. That is to say, they propose that voting-by-proxy may not be consistent with the Constitution, and may open up the possibility of legislation facing legal challenges in the future on that basis. Now, there WAS voting-by-proxy during the pandemic, and none of that legislation has been overturned for that reason, but perhaps that's recent enough that we cannot be sure it won't happen eventually.

There is also a slippery-slope argument, along the lines of "If we allow proxy voting in [legitimate situation X] then eventually it will be used in [not-so-legitimate situation Y]." Slippery-slope arguments are generally pretty weak, and this one doesn't run contrary to that general trend, from where we sit.

We suspect there is also a trio of unstated reasons that some members oppose voting-by-proxy. First, and to be blunt, some of them presumably have dragged themselves to work while ill, or suffering from a broken leg, or things like that, and don't appreciate that giving birth is at a different level. Second, there are a lot of traditionalists in Congress, and those folks tend to be resistant to nearly any change in procedure. "If it was good enough for Henry Clay, it oughta be good enough for us," is the general idea. Third, and finally, sometimes an absent member or two makes all the difference between getting legislation passed and having it fail. That's particularly acute when there's a slim Republican majority, since most of the women in the House (especially the childbearing-age women) are Democrats.

OK, now that we know where the two sides are coming from, let's talk about who's on each side. In contravention of the point we made just 20 words ago, the driving force behind the vote-by-proxy proposal is actually a Republican woman of childbearing age—Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), who gave birth to a child on August 27, 2023, in the midst of her first congressional term, and so knows a little bit about the strains that imposes on a member. She wrote the bill, and asked Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to bring the bill up for a vote. Johnson, who has... well, a Johnson, said "No, way." So, Luna went to her colleagues and got the necessary signatures (218) for a discharge petition. That would compel Johnson to bring the legislation to a vote, whether he likes it or not, and since 218 is a majority, the legislation would likely pass.

Under these circumstances, Johnson decided to mount a full-on counter-offensive. He pulled together a package of bills, one of which would have changed the rules for discharge petitions, and so would have yanked the rug out from under Luna. There was a key procedural vote on Johnson's package yesterday, and... Johnson came up short. All of the Democrats voted against the Speaker, and so too did nine Republicans. In addition to Luna, the other GOP aisle-crossers were Tim Burchett (TN), Kevin Kiley (CA), Nick LaLota (NY), Mike Lawler (NY), Ryan Mackenzie (PA), Max Miller (OH), Greg Steube (FL) and Jeff Van Drew (NJ). "It's the right thing to do," explained Burchett after the vote. Following this high-profile failure, Johnson pitched a fit, lambasting the nine Republicans who voted against him and declaring that the House would conduct no further business this week.

So, what are the lessons here? Well, to start, it's another reminder that the House Republican Conference is full of fractures, and struggles to work together. Luna is usually a bomb-thrower, but one on the opposite side from the Democrats, not the same side. She is so angry about the behavior of her fellow bomb throwers that she has quit the Freedom Caucus. She's also furious with Johnson. Her vote is presumably even less available to the Speaker than it was before the vote-by-proxy fight.

And speaking of Johnson, he continues to show that he's in over his head. Yes, he's moved a couple of very tough pieces of legislation, but that's been with Donald Trump whipping members furiously. When Johnson has to herd the cats by himself, he usually comes up short. Close may count in horseshoes and hand grenades, but not in votes on legislation. On top of that, his little temper tantrum afterwards is pure amateur hour. Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi doing something like that?

And finally, the party of family values continues (except for a handful of exceptions) to fail to put their vote where their mouth is when it comes to family values. We don't like to put it so starkly, but we follow politics very closely, and yet we cannot think of a major piece of legislation in the last 20 years that: (1) came from the Republican side of the aisle, and (2) was actually pro-family. The closest thing we can come up with is the first round of money that Congress gave out during the pandemic, while Trump was still president. Otherwise, the GOP seems to be opposed to anything that would help families and, in particular, anything that would help young/recent mothers. (Z)

Another Setback for Anti-Choice Forces

In Alabama, performing or attempting to perform an abortion is a felony, absent a "medical emergency." As a result, many women in Alabama are traveling out of state to get the healthcare they need. But just banning abortion in Alabama was not good enough for Attorney General Steve Marshall (R), who wants to control women even when they are out of his jurisdiction. So, he decreed that he would prosecute anyone who assisted women in his state with obtaining a legal abortion in another state.

In response, pro-choice organizations and reproductive healthcare providers sued because they can no longer assist patients or provide information about obtaining a legal abortion out of state for fear of prosecution. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson granted summary judgment in the plaintiffs' favor and held that a state cannot "[punish] its citizens and others who help individuals travel to another State to engage in conduct that is lawful there." The Court ruled that the AG's action violates the constitutional guarantees of the right to travel and free speech.

The right to travel derives from Article IV's privileges and immunities clause, the Commerce Clause, the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges and immunities clause. And it includes not just the right to travel between states but also the right to engage in legal conduct in other states. Interestingly, the Court cited cases from the 1970's in which the Supreme Court struck down state laws that also sought to restrict travel for out-of-state abortions. For example, in 1975, the Supreme Court struck down a Virginia law that attempted to prosecute women traveling to New York for an abortion: "[t]he Virginia Legislature could not ... prevent its residents from traveling to New York to obtain [abortion] services or ... prosecute them for going there." And none other than Justice Kavanaugh cited the right to travel in the Dobbs decision to allay any concerns that a state would attempt to prevent its residents from seeking out-of-state abortions, because '"the constitutional right to interstate travel' would prohibit such state action." Isn't that cute?

The Court compared the AG's action with prohibiting Alabamians from coordinating travel to Las Vegas for a bachelor party because gambling is prohibited in Alabama. But there's an even easier analogy—anyone who's lived in the South knows that some states prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sundays, but if you're close to a neighboring, heathen state, you can just hop on over and get your six-pack there. Imagine the uproar if the AG tried to prosecute someone who drove their cousin (whose license has been suspended) from Mobile to Pensacola to get their pint of whiskey on the Lord's day.

The Court also found that the AG's threatened actions violate the First Amendment, which prohibits viewpoint discrimination without any sufficient justification. Marshall "has advanced no governmental interest, let alone a compelling one, in regulating medical care beyond Alabama's borders." In fact, the AG's alleged interests in supporting maternal health and safety and preserving the integrity of the medical profession "support allowing those who seek to obtain a legal abortion out of state to receive information and counseling from trusted medical providers about the safest, reliable places to obtain such care." The Court concluded that "It is one thing for Alabama to outlaw by statute what happens in its own backyard. It is another thing for the State to enforce its values and laws, as chosen by the Attorney General, outside its boundaries by punishing its citizens and others who help individuals travel to another State to engage in conduct that is lawful there but the Attorney General finds to be contrary to Alabama's values and laws."

This decision has implications for states like Texas and Louisiana that are trying to reach beyond their borders to prosecute out-of-state doctors who prescribe abortion medication online. And Idaho and Tennessee have made it a crime to help minors get an out-of-state abortion without their parent's permission. As the ACLU notes, "This should send a strong message to antiabortion politicians in states with bans [that] any attempt to prevent their residents from traveling to obtain entirely legal reproductive health care will not stand." (L)

But His E-Mails!

At the height of the Watergate scandal, there was new dirt nearly every single day. Some of the dirt was directly related to Watergate, some of it was only tangentially so. Still, what made the daily drip, drip, drip possible was that Richard Nixon was a shady character, and he had 5 years as president to compile a big pile of shady things before the lid got blown off.

Mike Waltz has been NSA for just over 2 months, and yet he's somehow managed to compile a ledger of bad behavior that gives the press something new to talk about every single day. The latest is that in addition to his apparent love for Signal, he was also using Gmail to conduct government business.

The good news, such as it is, is that there is no evidence (at least, not as yet) that any classified information was sent over Gmail. That said, the things that WERE discussed over Gmail are still of some value to foreign intelligence services. We're talking things like schedules and the times of, and list of attendees at, meetings. Reportedly, Waltz preferred to use Gmail when communicating with colleagues outside the government. And he decided he was in compliance with the rules as long as he cc'd his government account on any messages sent via Gmail.

We say, yet again, that Waltz's handling of information is just abominable. He either doesn't understand security, or doesn't care about it, or both. And, at this point, there's simply no question he's doing harm to national security. First, folks in the U.S. intelligence establishment surely have to think twice before sharing information with him. We have no doubt that, at very least, there are "leaner" cases where someone has said, "Well, I could tell Waltz, or I could not... I'll choose 'not.'" And maybe there have been cases that are not really leaners at all, where someone said "This information is just too important to put at risk by sharing it with Waltz."

Meanwhile, regardless of what's going on within the U.S. intelligence establishment, foreign intelligence services are surely aghast. A lower-ranking person in the U.S. who withholds information from Waltz is at risk of getting fired. But anyone in the U.K. or France or Japan who withholds information is just doing their job. It is inconceivable that, at this point, other countries aren't playing their intel cards much closer to the vest. We can only hope that no American dies because Waltz is too arrogant, or too dumb, to do it the right way. Or because Donald Trump is too cowardly to fire him. (Z)

Another Law Firm Surrenders...

It would seem that if you're a white-shoe law firm, and you're going to demonstrate how yellow you really are, you'll save some green if you are first in line to kowtow to Donald Trump. We write that because the first firm to cry "uncle" was Paul, Weiss, which "paid" for its crimes by giving the Trump administration $40 million in pro bono legal work. Then, Skadden Arps yielded, but the price for them was $100 million in pro bono work. Yesterday, Willkie Farr became the third mega-firm to wave the white flag. They also had to cough up $100 million in pro bono work, while also agreeing to end any DEI programs.

Trump took to his flaccid social media platform to do some crowing about his victory. That included this statement about the DEI programs:

Willkie affirms its commitment to Merit-Based Hiring, Promotion, and Retention. Accordingly, the Firm will not engage in illegal DEI discrimination and preferences. Willkie affirms that it is Willkie's policy to give Fair and Equal consideration to Job Candidates, irrespective of their political beliefs, including Candidates who have served in the Trump Administration, and any other Republican or Democrat Administration. Willkie will engage independent outside counsel to advise the Firm in confirming that employment practices are fully compliant with Law, including, but not limited to, anti-discrimination Laws.

We were not aware that DEI is "illegal." We must have missed that story. Meanwhile, it takes real sand to talk about how a law firm should not discriminate against people based on their past history, since Trump's wars against these various firms are entirely because he does not approve of their past history. In the case of Willkie Farr, he is particularly displeased that they had the temerity to employ Doug Emhoff. After all, they should have known 20 years ago that he would be the spouse of Trump's presidential opponent, and that is very, very wrong.

It is possible that these firms are playing the long game, and that they will sue for relief once Trump is not in a position to punish them (say, in summer of 2028). However, we do not think that is likely. The institutional culture at these places is strongly anti-boat-rocking and, to paraphrase Michael Jordan, Republicans hire lawyers, too. So, if Trump really does back off, the firms will do some amount of pro bono work (maybe not eight or nine figures' worth) and hope this all blows over.

That said, if the President maintains this anti-big law campaign, then the calculus eventually changes, and defending themselves eventually becomes the better business move for the firms. So, we would guess that the real question here is whether or not Trump decides he's happy to have racked up several big wins, and to have made a bunch of high-powered lawyers eat dirt, or if he decides to go back to the well again, once he's bored with cryptocurrency and tariffs and Greenland. (Z)

...So Does the White House Correspondents Association

April 26 is the date of this year's annual White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) dinner. For decades, that event has been, for lack of a better term, a political roast. A few people get up and give speeches about the First Amendment. A comedian makes some jokes about the current president, who is usually seated on the dais. Then the president gets up and fires off a few zingers of his own. It used to be the kind of event that brought people together and reminded folks on both sides of the aisle that they're all on Team America.

None of this works for Donald Trump, however. He regards the First Amendment as a hindrance, not something to be celebrated. He hates being the butt of jokes, and he has no real ability to deliver jokes himself, even if someone else writes them for him. And he certainly sees no purpose in bringing people together; his whole brand is divisiveness—talking long and loudly about which are the "good" Americans and which are the "bad" Americans.

So, Trump does not participate in, and has not participated in, an event that is a favorite for many presidents (especially Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, both of whom, not coincidentally, are/were excellent at delivering a punchline). That's his right, of course. However, as of this year, it's also not enough for him. He wants fealty from the WHCA, even if he's not there in person to witness it.

Planning for a big event like this begins many months in advance, of course. And so, before Trump commenced his recent war on the WHCA, they hired comedian Amber Ruffin to be the headliner. Actually, since she is a Black woman, and there is pretty much nothing more likely to infuriate Trump than being mocked by a Black woman, one wonders if, when Ruffin was chosen, the WHCA expected Kamala Harris to be elected.

In any event, strike one was when Trump moved to take away much of the WHCA's power, which stems from their control of who does, and who does not, get to attend the big-time press conferences. They want that power back, so they need to make nice to him. Strike two is when the WHCA told Ruffin to do a set that targets Democrats and Republicans in equal measure. She said "no," and explained that political comedy doesn't work that way, as it largely targets whoever is in power. And strike three was when Ruffin went on a podcast over the weekend and said some mean things about Donald Trump, which gave him the sads. So, the WHCA fired Ruffin. Instead, they will make the entire event a celebration of the First Amendment, thus proving that irony isn't dead.

Certainly, we understand why the WHCA made the choices that it made. After all, their influence and their prestige, such as it is, comes from their (now suspended) control of access to the White House. However, we do not think they will be getting that back while Trump is in office. Further, does anyone really care about White House press conferences? This isn't 1922; there are now 50 channels by which information reaches the general public. If we were running the WHCA, we would not only have kept Ruffin, we would have told her to fire with both barrels, and to do everything possible to create a few meme-worthy moments. If you're going to be on the outs with the administration anyhow, might as well do it in a blaze of glory, as opposed to meekly submitting. (Z)

Funny Business

We got hundreds and hundreds of e-mails about our April 1 posting, and we thought we'd pass along a few things that might be of interest to readers. In no particular order:

There were many readers who enjoyed the prank well enough that they would like to see what fake ads other readers come up with. We are not sure how many folks have the requisite design skills, but we can at least give it a try. If you've got a fake political ad, send it to us at comments@electoral-vote.com. We make no promises, though! (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones