Main page    Apr. 04


Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

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

---

Due to travel, we're going to take this weekend off. We'd hoped to get the weekend posts ready during the week, but it didn't happen. Thanks for understanding, and see you on Monday!

The Trade War: Trump's Tariff Plan Is Top Secret!

We are now a couple of days into Donald Trump's latest trade war, and it is absolutely dominating the news. We pored through a vast number of stories, and picked out the 10 storylines we think are most worth noting:

• The Market Responds: Let's start our section on how the markets reacted to the trade war with some art. Here's the last 5 days for the Dow Jones:
  
  
  
  And here's the last 5 days for the NASDAQ:
  
  
  
  And here's the last 5 days for the S&P 500:
  
  
  
  Those pretty much tell the tale, although if you would like the raw numbers, the Dow Jones fell 1,679 points (4%) yesterday, the NASDAQ fell 1,050 points (6%), and the S&P fell 274 points (4.8%). This is the worst day the stock market has had since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, back in 2020. Incidentally, Trump was president then, too.
  
  As of 3:30 a.m. PT, Dow Jones futures suggest the market will have another bad day today. Not as bad as yesterday, mind you, more of a mini-bloodbath.
  
  
• Canada Responds: We are surprised that more nations did not announce countermeasures yesterday, since everyone knew this was coming. But Canada, at least, was (partly) ready, with PM Mark Carney announcing 25% tariffs on American-made automobiles. We presume that other nations will be making announcements soon; maybe the delay was so they could see exactly how harsh the Trump tariffs were, or maybe they are cooling their jets for a few days to see if Trump backs down (again).
  
  (Indeed, moments before we went live, China announced a 34% tariff on U.S. goods.)
  
  
• The Spin: The spin operation operated by the White House, and its friends in the media, was in full effect yesterday. Trump himself took exactly one question from reporters yesterday, and it was about how the tariffs are going. He responded:

  I think it's going very well. It was an operation, like when a when a patient gets operated on. It's a big thing. I said this would exactly be the way it is. We have six or seven trillion dollars coming into our country... the markets are going to boom.

  We must agree on one point; we often find that things are exactly the way they are.
  
  White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was living in a dimension perhaps even further removed from reality than the one Trump is, and declared there "is not going to be any pain" for American workers due to the tariffs. And former White House spokesperson, and ongoing Trump sycophant, Kellyanne Conway celebrated the "positive" reaction to the tariffs coming from Stellantis (whose brands include Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and Ram Trucks). That positive reaction was... the company laid off 900 workers. That word that you keep saying, Kellyanne. I do not think it means what you think it means.
  
  Over at Fox, The Five co-host Jeanine Pirro celebrated the tariffs, and said "I don't really care about my 401(k)." Perhaps, and we're just spitballing here, when you have an annual salary of $3 million, like Pirro does, you don't need to worry so much about your IRAs. Fox News anchor John Roberts predicted that the stock market would skyrocket, and the Dow Jones would be above 50,000 by the end of the year. The folks at Newsmax actually rang the bell to commence trading on Wall Street yesterday, and CEO Christopher Ruddy projected an "exciting day." We suppose he was right, but probably not in the way he meant. Among the stocks hardest-hit during the exciting day yesterday was... Newsmax, which went public on Monday. The price was artificially high because it became a meme stock, but not so much anymore. The value of the stock dropped by 77% yesterday, wiping out $24 billion in value.
  
  
• Blowback: The much louder voices yesterday were the ones criticizing the tariffs. We won't bother with any Democratic politicians, since you know they aren't going to say nice things. Instead, let's talk finance experts, and maybe a Republican or two.
  
  To start, the regular staff of Fox is in the bag for Trump, but some of their contributors did not get the message, at least not on tariffs. Ben Domenech, for example, said: "Look, I hate tariffs, I think they're stupid. I think they're backwards. I don't think they help the American economy." Over at CNBC, Jon Fortt added: "And the market reaction after hours, I've never seen anything like it. This, I think, fair to say, is worse than the worst-case scenario of the tariffs that many in the market expected the president to impose." Meanwhile, Jim Cramer, who might be the most famous stock market analyst in the country, lamented:

  [T]hey screwed it up and they really made—they did it a totally ill-advised way. And I was very let down as someone who really, truly believes that free trade is awful for the American working person. This is what they came up with? Jeez, come on! Have some gumption. Have some math.

  He also added: "I feel like a sucker tonight."
  
  Meanwhile, The Economist published an absolutely blazing editorial (subscription required) which included this assessment:

  Almost everything Mr. Trump said this week—on history, economics and the technicalities of trade—was utterly deluded. His reading of history is upside down. He has long glorified the high-tariff, low-income-tax era of the late-19th century. In fact, the best scholarship shows that tariffs impeded the economy back then. He has now added the bizarre claim that lifting tariffs caused the Depression of the 1930s and that the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were too late to rescue the situation. The reality is that tariffs made the Depression much worse, just as they will harm all economies today. It was the painstaking rounds of trade talks in the subsequent 80 years that lowered tariffs and helped increase prosperity.
  
  On economics Mr. Trump's assertions are flat-out nonsense. The president says tariffs are needed to close America's trade deficit, which he sees as a transfer of wealth to foreigners. Yet as any of the president's economists could have told him, this overall deficit arises because Americans choose to save less than their country invests—and, crucially, this long-running reality has not stopped its economy from outpacing the rest of the G7 for over three decades. There is no reason why his extra tariffs should eliminate the deficit. Insisting on balanced trade with every trading partner individually is bonkers—like suggesting that Texas would be richer if it insisted on balanced trade with each of the other 49 states, or asking a company to ensure that each of its suppliers is also a customer.

  Pulling absolutely no punches, the magazine denounced Trump's trade war as "the most profound, harmful and unnecessary economic error in the modern era." Ouch.
  
  Moving on to the politicians, Mike Pence got on eX-Twitter to share his view that "The Trump Tariff Tax is the largest peacetime tax hike in U.S. history. These Tariffs are nearly 10x the size of those imposed during the Trump-Pence Administration and will cost American families over $3,500 per year." And while Pence is persona non grata in the White House these days, the trade war was also blasted by someone who is generally more than happy to tote the administration's water, namely Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). He said: "Tariffs are a tax on consumers and I'm not a fan of jacking up taxes on American consumers."
  
  
• In Congress: In addition to Cruz, quite a few Republican members of the Senate expressed unhappiness with the tariffs yesterday, among them Thom Tillis (NC), John Kennedy (LA), Ron Johnson (WI), Susan Collins (ME) and, perhaps most notably, Chuck Grassley (IA). Several members in both chambers are putting together legislation that would, in one way or another, clip Trump's tariff wings. That includes a bill co-sponsored by Grassley and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) that is called the Trade Review Act of 2025. If the bill is enshrined into law, presidents would have to notify Congress of an increase in tariff rates within 48 hours, and would have to explain the rationale for the increase. If Congress voted to reject the new tariffs, then they would die immediately. If Congress failed to formally approve the new tariffs, they would expire in 60 days.
  
  The bar is very high for the Trade Review Act of 2025, or any other bill aimed at Trump's trade war, to become law. Not only would it have to get through both chambers, including the generally more MAGA House, but it would also have to have enough support in both chambers to overcome the inevitable veto. It's improbable that enough Republicans are to that point, quite yet. But if the pain from the trade war wrecks the economy? It's possible. It would take around 20 Republicans in the Senate and about 80 in the House. That's a lot, but remember, Trump's #1 threat (I will unleash MAGA world on you) is considerably less effective when there are 100 different targets. If Trump was to be reversed on such a high-profile initiative, and by a Congress where his party controls both chambers, that would be a near-unprecedented rebuke of a president.
  
  
• Fuzzy Math: This part of the story is just... really bad. The White House is claiming that the tariffs are "reciprocal," which ostensibly means that the U.S. is defending itself from economic aggression on the part of other nations. But, of course, no nation has slapped giant tariffs on American goods in the last month, or year, or even decade. So what, exactly, does that mean?
  
  What it means is that the administration is interpreting trade deficits as a form of aggression, and so is using that as a basis for these so-called reciprocal tariffs. In other words, "We bought more from you than you bought from us, so we're going to punish your 'bad behavior' with a tariff."
  
  But wait, beyond this... unconventional theory of international trade, it gets worse. Although the White House presumably did not think anyone would figure it out, and although the administration initially denied it, the evidence is now abundant that tariff rates were calculated based on trade deficits. Author and economist James Surowiecki was the first to figure it out; here's his explanation:

  Just figured out where these fake tariff rates come from. They didn't actually calculate tariff rates + non-tariff barriers, as they say they did. Instead, for every country, they just took our trade deficit with that country and divided it by the country's exports to us.
  
  So we have a $17.9 billion trade deficit with Indonesia. Its exports to us are $28 billion. $17.9/$28 = 64%, which Trump claims is the tariff rate Indonesia charges us. What extraordinary nonsense this is.

  It is this fuzzy math that is the basis for Trump's claim that the U.S. is charging far lower tariff rates than any other industrialized country. After all, the 32% that will now be levied on Indonesian goods is indeed far lower than 64%.
  
  As a consequence of this approach, which has left economists around the country dumbfounded, the nation that is being hit with the highest tariff rates is... Lesotho. That is the same country that Trump mocked several weeks ago as one that nobody has ever heard of. That nation has a very small GDP, about $2 billion, of which about $235 million is realized through exports to the U.S. Being very poor, it can't afford to import very much, which means that according to the Trump formula, that nation is imposing a 100% tariff on American goods. So, its reciprocal tariff is 50%, which will be devastating if it stands. The other very-high-tariff nations, among them Cambodia, Vietnam, Madagascar and Myanmar, are also very poor.
  
  But wait, beyond this crazy math, it gets worse (perhaps). As we note above, no serious economist is going to endorse this approach to tariffs. No unserious one, either, probably. So, where did the White House come up with this formula? Well, if you put the phrase "balance bilateral trade deficits" into AI engines, the administration's approach (or some close approximation) is what you get. That is the case with ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, and Claude. If you put the phrase into Grok, you get the EXACT formula the White House used. In other news, Grok is the AI platform owned by... Elon Musk.
  
  But wait, it still gets (a little) worse. The White House is not admitting the AI part, but it realized it was caught red-handed with the fuzzy math part. So, yesterday afternoon, a White House spokesperson presented a very impressive looking equation to the White House press corps to explain how the new tariff rates were calculated:
  
  
  
  The claim was that Surowiecki was right about total exports (x_i) and total imports (m_i), but that the calculation was also taking into account "elasticity of import demand" (ε) and "elasticity of import prices" (φ). The problem is that those two numbers are constants, and one of them is worth 4, while the other is worth ¼, so they cancel out. In other words, it's exactly as Surowiecki said, and this fancy-looking equation is just sophistry. Either the administration is stupid, or it thinks you are.
  
  
• Targeted Nations: The clown show stuff does not stop there. Among the places that will now be subject to tariffs are Heard Island and the McDonald Islands. There are no human inhabitants on Heard Island and the McDonald Islands. Together the islands are an Australian territory populated by penguins. The British Indian Ocean Territory is also on the list, despite the fact that the only people living there are residents of a joint U.S.-U.K. military base.
  
  
• Un-Targeted Nations: On the other hand, there are a few prominent nations who were spared from Trump's tariff wrath. Cuba, for example. North Korea. And, you know... Russia.
  
  When reporters asked about the exclusion of Russia, the administration claimed that sanctions had "already rendered trade between the two countries as zero." That's not actually true; the amount of trade between the U.S. and Russia is way down, but it still amounts to more than $3.5 billion per year. And remember, other targets of the tariffs not only don't have ANY trade with the U.S., they don't have any people. So, this explanation doesn't exactly pass the smell test. And certainly, the optics are not good—it's not especially wrong to say that the U.S. hit its allies with tariffs, but spared its enemies.
  
  
• What's Next? That's an easy question to answer: Nobody knows.
  
  It is plausible that, if the United States' trade deficit is deemed to be a problem, a sensible tariff policy could be an instrument in correcting that. However, if an administration launches such an initiative, there are at least three things that are essential. The first is some version of consensus or buy-in from the various stakeholders. Ideally, a president would do as much as is possible to explain to the American public what the goals are, how those goals will be reached, and when we will know that we've been successful. Perhaps even more important, however, is getting the opposition party and business interests on board, as much as is possible. The opposition party is needed because you don't want them to reverse the tariffs the next time they get power. And the business interests are needed because they have to make the long-term investments that would lead to a re-balancing of trade. If everyone suspects that a trade war is only going to last for a year or two or three, then there will be little to no substantive change, just economic upheaval.
  
  Second, and this is very related to the first item on the list, you have to actually have a plan. Is the goal to return good-paying jobs to America? To reduce the national debt? To increase the quality of goods in the United States? Something else? And how will [Tariff A] lead to [Outcome B]? Donald Trump has many words when it comes to tariffs, and he promises many miraculous results. But he's enunciated no coherent vision of exactly how this will all work. It's just tariff salad.
  
  Third, and finally, you have to go slow. Citizens are resistant to dramatic change. The markets absolutely HATE dramatic change (see above). If an administration really does want to impose protective tariffs, it should be done in stages, with a series of small changes, not one giant change. In this case, ripping the band-aid off is NOT the way to go.
  
  The Trump approach reflects absolutely none of this. No, these are Keystone Kops tariffs. Beyond the ridiculousness we outline above, like bizarro math and imposing tariffs on penguins, the White House seems to be unsure exactly what the tariff rates are, having announced two different rates for some countries. The administration can't even decide whether the tariffs are open to negotiation.
  
  As Politico's Victoria Guida puts it, nice and succinctly: "For all the detail in Trump's Wednesday announcement, his endgame is still shrouded in confusion. That's lethal for long-term investment, making confident planning all but impossible."
  
  
• We Are Not Amused One last note. Everyone knows that Trump is deeply concerned with his image and his own popularity. As coincidence would have it, Reuters/Ipsos published their latest survey of Trump's approval rating at almost exactly the same time he had his big tariff unveiling, and found it is now down to 43%, the lowest number of Trump v2.0.
  
  To say the least, it is not likely that the trade war, and the resulting turmoil, will help on that front. And that is before we talk about other drags on his popularity, like the Signal scandal. If his number drops significantly, particularly if the drop is very fast, that is almost certainly the most likely way that this trade war comes to a quick end. Otherwise, it's probably time to buckle up, because it's going to be a bumpy ride.

And there you have it, nearly 4,000 words on tariffs. Yuck. The two most damaging tariffs in U.S. history are, in some order, the Tariff of Abominations in 1828 and the Hawley-Smoot Tariff in 1930. The staff historian never dreamed there might be a third challenger for that particular "honor." (Z)

Whiskeyleaks: IG Turns up the Heat on Hegseth

Donald Trump's a clever fellow, eh? He knew that the problem with these independent inspectors general is that they're just too damn independent. That's why he fired 17 of them, including Department of Defense IG Robert Storch, back in January. The slight flaw in the President's plan is that between the time an IG slot is vacated, and a new IG is approved by the Senate, the job is handled by an acting IG. In short, despite Trump's best efforts, someone is still watching.

That someone is Steven Stebbins, who just sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth advising the Secretary that he will be investigated, with the question being whether he violated DoD policies when he used Signal to discuss classified information. We have no doubt that when Hegseth got that letter, he hit the roof. Or the bottle. Or maybe both.

We don't presume to know what is going to happen here, but we can point out a few things that might be useful. First, the facts here are extremely well known, since they were all made public in The Atlantic. It is hard to see how Hegseth could possibly be cleared of all wrongdoing. Second, if Trump tries to fire Stebbins, not only will that be terrible optics, but the post will just be assumed by some other acting IG. So, no "Get out of Jail Free" card, here. Third, and finally, the investigation was requested by... Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) and ranking member Jack Reed (D-RI). That makes it rather harder to shout "partisan witch hunt," and also suggests there is substantial consternation here on the Republican side of the aisle, very possibly including many of the 13 Republican members of that committee.

There's also another story from yesterday that may be related to this one. Some heads did roll, but they weren't those of Hegseth or NSA Mike Waltz. Instead, and to the surprise of pretty much everyone, Trump fired the director and deputy director of the National Security Agency, Gen. Timothy Haugh and Wendy Noble. Four other, lower-ranking, folks were also fired.

It is also not clear why Trump ordered the firings. Was he trying to create a distraction? Did he confuse one NSA with a different NSA? Was there some, not-publicly-known connection between the Signal disaster and Haugh, Noble, et al.? These are good questions. At the moment, there are only two things that are clear. The first of those is that Haugh is generally seen as a neocon, which means he was/is aligned with the philosophy of Waltz (and, to an extent, Hegseth).

The second, meanwhile, is that the person who convinced Trump that the six fired people have to go was far-right bigot and raving loony Laura Loomer. What she really wanted was the heads of Waltz and his principal deputy, Alex Wong, on pikes, along with 10 other "disloyal" folks. Obviously, she did not get the full purge that she wanted, but she got half of it, at least for now. Maybe, once Trump has had more time to stew about this alleged disloyalty, others will be cashiered. At very least, it's a reminder that he is extremely susceptible to suggestion, particularly from people who know how to push the right buttons. (Z)

Another Look, Part I: The Doors Look to Be Opening for the Democrats

While we are not a newspaper, we do tend to cover events soon after they have taken place. Sometimes, after the dust has settled, there's a bit more to be added. So it is with the election results from Tuesday.

When we first wrote about the results from Florida, we observed that you could plausibly see good news for Republicans, or good news for Democrats. From the Republican vantage point, they held the two seats, and both candidates performed about in line with the PVIs of the districts they will now represent. From the Democratic vantage point, their two (losing) candidates outperformed the Democrats who ran in those same districts 5 months ago, and by double digits in both cases.

There are a couple of Florida data points that have been pointed out in the last 48 hours, and that we think are worth passing along. First, four very red counties make up FL-01. When Gay Valimont was defeated back in November, she lost all four of them by sizable margins. On Tuesday, however, in her second bite at the apple, she actually won one of the quartet, turning a 14-point deficit in Escambia County 5 months ago into a 3-point victory. This was the candidate's most dramatic improvement across the four counties.

Why is this significant, at least potentially? Well, Escambia County is home to a very large population of federal workers. It is the nerve center of U.S. Naval aviation, and has numerous other government concerns, employing both civilian and military personnel. You can probably see where this is headed. If there was going to be a backlash to what Elon Musk and his Musketeers are doing, you'd expect to see it in FL-01 (home to more federal employees than any other House district in Florida), and especially in Escambia County. And, at least tentatively, it sure looks like that's what happened.

In addition, this spreadsheet from The Downballot is very interesting. There have been a total of 13 special elections since Donald Trump took office, the two in Florida, and 11 elections for state legislatures scattered across half a dozen different states. And in those 13 elections, the Democrats outperformed their November results in 11 of them. And in 10 of the 11, the overperformance was in the double digits. For example, the blue team did 16 points better than in November in the election for Pennsylvania SD-36, 19 points better in the election for Maine HD-24, and 25 points better in the election for IA SD-35. One special election can easily be an outlier, but 11 of 13 (10 of them overwhelming) suggests a trend. Is the problem a backlash against Trump? Or is it that he's not on the ballot, and so the MAGA Militia isn't showing up to vote? Maybe both? If it is either of these things (or both), then it's a dynamic that figures to continue into November of next year.

And that brings us to one last item, a close look at the Wisconsin results courtesy of Politico. Despite Musk's outlay of $20 million, and despite an aggressive GOP get-out-the-vote effort, officially-nonpartisan-but-really-a-Democrat Susan Crawford outperformed Kamala Harris in every single county in the state. Crawford did particularly well in swing counties, where she outdid Harris by an average of 12 points. And while we've written "special elections are wonky" a million times, what happened in Wisconsin didn't really unfold like a special election. As we pointed out in our initial writeup, turnout was nearly identical to a real, bona fide midterm election, with both sides ginning up their voters to try to get them to the polls. If you wanted a dress rehearsal of a midterm election, you couldn't get much closer than Wisconsin this Tuesday.

It is a very long time until Election Day 2026, of course, but the early signs continue to suggest that the general rule of "the party that holds the White House takes it in the teeth in the midterms" will hold. (Z)

Another Look, Part II: Booker Is a Real Genius

There's another item we'd like to revisit, one that actually appeared right after the revisited item above. There are a handful of moments in American history that catapulted a politician into the national consciousness. Theodore Roosevelt leading the Rough Riders up San Juan Hill. Harry S. Truman leading the Senate committee that rooted out waste and corruption in World War II defense contracts. Richard Nixon engaging with Alger Hiss. Barack Obama speaking to the 2004 DNC.

When we wrote up the marathon speech from Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) on Tuesday, we weren't sure what the long-term impact would be. You can never really say, in the moment: "This is going to elevate this person to national prominence, and to the front ranks of their political party." And yet, that may be what happened here. Consider some of the glowing comments about the speech that appeared on Wednesday and Thursday:

• Emma Brockes, The Guardian (UK): "To date, the art of the political spectacle has been almost exclusively Trump's for the taking. It was a relief, finally, to see a Democrat seize and hang on to the mic."
  
  
• Renee Graham, The Boston Globe: "Booker's remarkable day was a timely jolt and a reminder that the way forward may be long, but will never be found in silence."
  
  
• Bea L. Hines, The Miami Herald: "As an old woman, I knew I didn't have the strength to match Booker's. But I had something else that was more powerful than physical strength—prayer. I could pray for Booker. I believe it was the prayers of the many thousands watching him deliver his speech, as well as the thousands who didn't have the stamina to hold out till the end of his speech at 8:05 p.m. Tuesday, that saw him through."
  
  
• Hayes Brown, MSNBC: "It wasn't technically a filibuster that Booker conducted. He wasn't talking to delay a vote on any specific agenda item. Instead, Booker said, in giving his marathon speech, he was 'disrupting the normal business of the United States Senate.' After watching his heroic 25-hour long effort, I say our country would be better off if promoting the values Booker lifted up was the normal business of the Senate."
  
  
• Myron B. Pitts, The Fayetteville Observer: "While Booker did not speak for everybody, he spoke for tens of millions of Americans—and I am one—who are shocked to see the second Trump presidency seek to change the nature of our country."
  
  
• Nia-Malika Henderson, Bloomberg: "In memorably railing against Trump, Booker can help rebrand his party as more populist, less risk-averse and more willing to try... something. He can also help rebrand himself, just as the old and ineffective guard falters and is urged to the exits. Though Booker's speech was planned, with 1,164 pages of prepared material and hundreds of stories from ordinary Americans hurt by Trump's policies, it was also raw and visceral and real and angry. And that's exactly what millions of voters so desperately want in these abnormal times. He did something. Now his colleagues and American voters must do more."
  
  
• Jonathan V. Last, The Bulwark: "Cory Booker's filibuster didn't 'accomplish' anything. He didn't stop a piece of legislation from being passed or forge a new political coalition. He didn't launch a political movement or bring down Donald Trump. The world spins on today precisely as it did before he stood up to talk. But by God, Cory Booker's filibuster mattered. Or at least it mattered to me."
  
  
• Republican pollster Frank Luntz: "Of course, every Republican watching will say, 'This is nonsense.' But he is not speaking just to Republicans, he's speaking to Americans, and what I saw over the last 25 hours absolutely blew me away."

And Booker didn't just reach the pundit class. The various livestreams of the speech attracted hundreds of thousands of viewers, with more than 500,000 people watching at the peak, which is approximately 499,990 more than watch your usual U.S. Senate floor speech. Booker was also all over social media, with his TikTok clips of the address ultimately piling up an aggregate total of 350 million likes.

It's still possible that, in a week or two, the speech will just be a footnote. But it's also possible that he just set himself on a glide path to replace Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in 2 years, or to become his party's presidential nominee in 2028. If this does turn out to be a game-changing moment like that, we'd hate to look back and see we did not give the address substantive attention. (Z)

Election News: Spanberger, Adams Know How the Game Is Played

Yesterday, there were a couple of bits of news about notable upcoming elections. Starting in Virginia, former representative Abigail Spanberger (D) has played her hand well. With her combination of name recognition, fundraising prowess and connectedness within the Democratic Party, she scared off all comers, and secured her party's nomination for governor without opposition.

Because that is one of two gubernatorial elections this year, and because Virginia is considered a bellwether due to its proximity to Washington, Spanberger is going to be in the news a lot between now and November 4. On the Republican side of the contest, there are currently three candidates, two of them serious. Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears is the better known of the two GOPers, is Black, and is not terribly Trumpy. Former state senator Amanda Chase is the lesser known of the two GOPers, is white, and describes herself as "Trump in heels." Polling suggests that Earle-Sears will claim the nomination, and then will enter the general as an underdog to Spanberger, with projections spanning from "2-point underdog" to "15-point underdog." The primary is on June 17, and the general is on November 4.

Meanwhile, just a wee bit north of Virginia, New York City Mayor Eric Adams made official something that has been suspected for at least a couple of months: He will run for reelection as an independent, rather than try to secure the nomination of the Democratic Party.

This is a savvy move, in that Adams had no real hope of prevailing in the Democratic primary, which will be held on June 24. Declaring as an independent means that he's guaranteed to appear on the general election ballot, and that he'll have some time to rebuild his brand, and to try to convince New York City voters that he's not a crook.

That said, this is really just a move from "no shot" to "long shot." He's going to hope that he can hold on to some Democratic support, steal some Republican votes from people who want to block the actual Democratic nominee (presumably Andrew Cuomo), and somehow piece together a plurality. However, people do not generally like to vote for independents, particularly those with a 20% approval rating. On top of that, because Adams certainly walks like a crook, and talks like a crook, the New York City Campaign Finance Board has decided that he will not be eligible for matching funds. So, he's going to have to run a shoestring campaign, or else get the Turkish government to pony up. We'll see on November 4 if he's able to pull off a miracle. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: A Tombstone for Nobody

For last week's theme, we gave two hints: (1) We'll say that it's a VERY timely theme. That's probably not quite enough, so we'll also give an answer key of sorts for the five headlines that are part of the puzzle: 1B2BLFPC. That answer key is in the correct order, by the way; and (2) There are either eight or nine words or phrases, in total, that we could have used (the existence of the ninth is a matter of debate). The three or four we did NOT use were "I Don't Know," "Because," "I Don't Care," and (maybe) "Nobody." We wrote that the "answer key" to the headlines yesterday is 1B2BLFPC. If we used the same code for these additional three or four possibilities, it would work out to be 3BCFSS or 3BCFSSRF, depending on whether the maybe is included.

And now the answer, courtesy of M.K. in Long Branch, NJ:

The headlines contain players named in the Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First" routine:

• Whiskeyleaks: Who Will Take the Fall (if anyone)?—First base
• You Win Some, You Lose Some: Stefanik Learns What She Should Already Have Known—Second base
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Why Did the Salmon Cross the Road?—Left field
• This Week in Schadenfreude: No Tomorrow for J.D. Vance?—Pitcher
• This Week in Freudenfreude: No Today for Unification Church of Japan—Catcher

Presumably, the code we offered is now self-evident; 1B2BLFPC = first base, second base, left field, pitcher, catcher. Oh, and last Thursday was the start of the Major League Baseball season.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

M.Z. in Sharon, MA D.L. in Springfield, IL J.E. in San Jose, CA B.U. in St. Louis, MO M.S. in Canton, NY W.J.J. in Kitchener, ON, Canada M.J. in Oakdale, MN P.Q. in Chicago, IL L.D. in Lexington, KY M.K. in Long Branch M.E. in Greenbelt, MD Z.K. in New York City, NY B.F. in Nashville, TN D.S. in Layton, UT P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL M.W. in Altea, Spain A.F. in Chelmsford, MA D.B. in Pittsboro, NC J.M. in Eagle Mills, NY K.P. in Lutz, FL P.W. in Tulalip, WA B.C. in Chippewa Lake, OH J.T.B. in Manhattan, NY J.N. in Zionsville, IN B.H. in Sherman Oaks, CA

H.M. in San Dimas, CA J.P. in Fredericksburg, VA S.C. in Philadelphia, PA A.D. in Vass, NC J.H. in Flint, MI R.E.D. in Baltimore, MD T.T. in Conway, AR J.F. in Fayetteville, NC R.B. in Amherst, MA M.M. in Dunellen, NJ P.R. in Kirksville, MO S.K. in Ardmore, PA M.M. in Charlottesville, VA T.C. in Key West, FL M.L. in West Hartford, CT T.K. in Kirkwood, MO S.K. in Bethesda, MD C.O. in Urbana, IA J.H. in Lake Forest, CA R.S. in Milan, OH T.C. in Danby, NY M.T. in Simpsonville, SC K.F. in Berea, KY D.B. in Glendale, CA S.R. in Robbinsville, NJ

A.D. in Vass submitted this image as their (correct) response:

The 50th correct response was received at 8:26 a.m. PT on Saturday.

This week's theme relies on one word in some headlines, multiple words in others. It's in the category Arts and Entertainment and, like last week's theme, it's timely. As to a hint, we'll have to give two, since we won't have a posting tomorrow. First, we ♥ Toxic Waste, and second, if you still need more help, we're your huckleberry.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "April 4 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: A Look at the Super Week Elon Musk Just Had

We concede this is almost too easy, and that we've already discussed numerous items on the list. Still, when it comes to schadenfreude, there is no person who was the subject of more of it this week than Elon Musk. So, we had to go with him. A rundown of his misfortunes:

• The highest-profile setback of the week, of course, was the judicial race in Wisconsin. Musk went all-in on that one, both in terms of money and in terms of emotional investment. He confidently predicted victory, only to see his candidate lose by 10 points. After the results were in, he suddenly decided that he'd always expected to lose the race, and compared it to sacrificing a pawn in a chess game. Whatever his post hoc rationalizations may be, his political brand took a big hit, especially given that his approval ratings have now sunk into the 30s.
  
  
• Musk once again utilized his trick of promising $1 million prizes to two lucky randomly selected voters. Wisconsin AG Josh Kaul argued that is a violation of state law, but couldn't persuade the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Musk was in the clear, then, until it came out that the two "winners" were not actually randomly selected. So, he might now be guilty of fraud.
  
  
• Consistent with his low approval numbers and diminishing political brand, it was reported that Donald Trump is planning to cut Musk loose. The official, face-saving reason is allegedly going to be that Musk reached the 130-day limit for special government employees. The real reason, allegedly, is that Trump is tired of the damage Musk is doing to Trump's own image and approval ratings.
  
  
• In Q1 of 2025, Tesla had a 13% decline in sales, the worst quarter it's ever had. And much of that market share is being grabbed by Chinese maker BYD, which posted a 60% increase over that same timeframe.
  
  
• As a consequence of the decline in Tesla's fortunes, not to mention the trade war, Musk lost $11 billion yesterday. He's lost $52 billion this year, and over $100 billion since Trump was reelected.
  
  
• This picture has been trending on Twitter all week (thanks to reader J.L. in Los Angeles, CA, for bringing it to our attention):
  
  
  

We don't have too much else to add here, other than maybe "karma's a bit**." (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: The Saint Goes Marching In

The portion of Louisville, KY, known as "West End" is majority-Black (by a lot). And it has much to recommend it, including some famous BBQ restaurants, the Kentucky Center for African American Heritage, a well-preserved 1890s railroad depot, a jazz club named Joe's Palm Room (where Dizzy Gillespie once played), a seven-story mural of Muhammad Ali by Shepard Fairey and, for that matter, Ali's childhood home.

There is one thing that West End did not have, for over 150 years, and that is a hospital. The money wasn't there, and so, neither was good health for many residents. The numbers are quite discouraging, as residents of West End are estimated to have a life expectancy 12-15 years less than residents of the other parts of Louisville. And while there aren't great records for past eras, it's widely understood that the disparity used to be even worse than that.

Enter Corenza Townsend, who was a long-time employee of one of the hospitals located in a different part of Louisville. She wanted to see the 150-year-absence, not to mention the lower life expectancy, reversed, and so she approached the management of the health system that was (and is) her employer. And they agreed to construct a hospital in West End, with ground being broken in 2022, and construction completed late last year. For the first time since Reconstruction, critical healthcare services like emergency and natal care are accessible to residents.

Most of the employees of the hospital are longtime residents of West End, while Townsend serves as the administrator of the facility. Its walls have been decorated by local artists, and it reportedly has food that is considerably better than "edible," which is hard to believe for a hospital. There's also a food bank on the second floor which doubles as a safe space for anyone seeking refuge from any sort of abuse.

We thought this story was worth sharing as a reminder that some people recognize that the key to public health is expanding and strengthening the healthcare system, not tearing it down.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones