Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
To everyone who celebrates Christmas, we here at Electoral-Vote.com wish you a very Merry Christmas!
The DoJ Has Discovered Another Million Documents Related to Epstein
Until now, it was thought that there were maybe 100,000 documents related to Jeffrey Epstein in the government's possession. Yesterday, the DoJ announced that over a million new documents have been discovered. It boggles the mind that there are so many. It also boggles the mind that they "lost track" of them. Maybe they forgot to check the bathrooms at Mar-a-Lago.
The DoJ said that due to the large volume, it will take weeks to vet them all. Deputy AG Todd Blanche said that 200 DoJ attorneys are working on the project. Nominally, they are looking to black out the names of Epstein's victims, but if there are entire pages blanked out, as in Tranche 1, many people are going to assume that it is the perpetrators that the DoJ wants to protect. Some of the documents may stem from the 2008 case against Epstein, but 1 million seems like a lot. It is at least possible that large numbers of the documents may have been taken from Epstein's properties but have absolutely nothing to do with his crimes (e.g., his mortgage statements, bills for aviation fuel, invoices from his cleaning company, etc.). It has occurred to us that dumping a million documents out there could be a kind of denial-of-service attack, flooding the zone with so much stuff that no team of reporters could possibly have the ability to go through all of them. On the other hand, the Internet is pretty good at this kind of stuff if people could sign up to examine, say, 100, documents. It would need coordination, though.
Unless there is a smoking gun in the files, which is unlikely because the 200 DoJ attorneys will surely make sure any such document never sees the light of day, no matter how many documents are released, some critics are going to say: "How do we know you didn't shred the 20 documents that implicate Trump?"
In fact, the complaints have already started. A group of 19 Epstein victims wrote: "The public received a fraction of the files, and what we received was riddled with abnormal and extreme redactions with no explanation." This is not going to let up. (V)
Administration Will Start Garnishing Wages of People with Unpaid Student Loans
Joe Biden tried and failed to cancel a lot of student debt. He managed to cancel a bit around the edges, but the Supreme Court ruled that with a few exceptions, only Congress can cancel student debt. So is Donald Trump pursuing debt cancellation so he can be a hero to young voters? Absolutely not. Rather the opposite. Starting in January he is going to go after collecting delinquent loans much more vigorously. The plan is to garnish the wages of the 5½ million people who are behind in their payments.
For the treasury, that is probably a good thing, but politically, maybe not so much. The people whose paychecks are (partially) seized are likely to notice and may not think kindly of Trump next November. Their right to vote will not be garnished and debtors prison is not in fashion right now. If he didn't want to cancel any debt, he could have at least given people more time to get caught up on their payments or spread the payments out over a longer time period, but he is a mean and venal person. Tough luck, kids.
Or maybe not. Garnishing wages is not so easy. First, by law, the government must give people 30 days' notice, to give them a chance to catch up on payments or request a hearing before a judge. Judges are busy people and have other things to do. Second, they have to find the person's employer (if any), which could take some time and serve notice to the employer to withhold up to 15% of a person's net pay and forward it to the government. Large employers, say Walmart or McDonalds, will certainly try to comply with government demands, but they probably don't have large departments set up for this and may not be able to quickly hire and train enough new people to handle compliance, even if their lawyers tell them they must.
The intention is to begin with a small group of defaultees and then expand it over time. Furthermore, the law states that a targeted individual must be allowed to keep 30x the minimum wage each week. Since the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, that is $218/wk or about $980/mo. For someone making less than this net after deductions, garnishment is not allowed. Many people who are in default are probably not earning so much, otherwise they wouldn't be in default, so this could be an issue with some people. Finding the people, contacting the employer, finding out what they earn, and complying with the law is a lot of work. Many of the Department of Education's employees have been fired. Who will do the work? What could possibly go wrong? (V)
Our Mess Is the Fault of the Voters
Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson runs focus groups and talks to voters all the time. She has noted a peculiarity with respect to voting. What the voters say they want and how they vote are often in conflict.
In the focus groups, voters tell her over and over how they hate how divided the country has become and how nasty politics now is. They want to change it. They really do. In the 13 federal elections from 2000 onward, 11 times either at least one chamber of Congress or the White House changed hands. Only in 2004 and 2012 did nothing change.
Why do we keep ratcheting up the toxicity when most people hate it? In marketing, this divide is known as "stated preferences" vs. "revealed preferences." It is the difference between what people say they want and what they actually want. For example, people say they hate how the airlines cram them in like sardines, give them a small packet of pretzels for dinner, and nickel and dime them on everything (didn't bring your own seat belt? Fine. We can rent you ours for $10). But the people actually buy the cheapest tickets, which pushes the airlines to reduce services in order to offer the lowest fares.
When it comes to elections, people in focus groups say they want honest, truthful, and caring leaders who will bring the country together. Then they vote for the most extreme candidate their party offers. Politicians know this, so in many primaries, the candidates compete to be the most extreme. Both sides do it. Republicans are legendary for doing this, and take their extremes to particularly extreme places, but the blue team does it as well. Just watch the primary for NY-12, which stretches from Union Square to the northern end of Central Park in midtown Manhattan. There Republican-turned-temporary-Democrat George Conway and JFK's grandson, Jack Schlossberg, will spend the next 6 months each claiming they HATE Donald Trump with the heat of 100 suns, no, 1,000 suns, no, make that 10,000 suns, no, I bid 100,000 suns. Working together with him for the good of the country? Are you out of your mind?
Many voters actually feel that unity is a luxury good. When the other side comes to its senses, we can try it, but first they have to be crushed into submission. Then we can talk unity. When Texas drew a new congressional map, did Christians in California turn the other cheek? Are you kidding? When Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) mocked Trump on eX-Twitter and made him look like a fool, did Democrats scold him? No, they made him the (temporary) frontrunner for 2028. This is a revealed preference. Yet when polled, 87% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans say the country is near a breaking point. But when they vote, they choose to make it worse. (V)
You Win Some, You Lose Some
Practically everything Donald Trump does ends up in court. Multiple times a week, rulings on these cases come down. Yesterday, we had an item about the Supreme Court telling Trump, "No you can't send the National Guard to Chicago just because you want to." But the lower courts are active, too. Here are three recent rulings:
- Win: H-1B Visas: On Tuesday, D.C. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, a Barack Obama
appointee,
ruled
that Trump can increase the fee companies have to pay to get an H-1B visa for a foreign worker to $100,000 if he so
desires. She said that falls within the powers Congress has granted the president. She didn't rule on whether the fee
was a good idea or a bad idea, just that Congress had delegated setting the fee to the president.
When Trump raised the fee from about $3,000 to $100,000 per employee, several companies sued. They were used to hiring highly skilled workers from India and China who were prepared to work for much less than Americans would accept in order to get permission to live and work in the U.S. This ruling actually helps high-end American workers in tech, health care, finance, and other fields from losing their jobs to cheaper foreign workers.
Ironically (but typically), Trump's decision to raise the visa fee to $100,000 will probably hurt his base. It is hard to get American doctors to work in rural hospitals in the middle of nowhere, with no amenities around. However, many young Indian doctors are willing to do this for a time just to get into the U.S. The same holds for Filipinos in nursing and other professions. If that supply dries up, some rural hospitals may be forced to close for lack of personnel, hurting Trump's base. He couldn't care less.
- Loss: Blue-State Funding: In a fit of pique, Trump decided to arbitrarily withhold
funding from states that refused to cooperate with ICE in rounding up immigrants. The funds withheld were for planning
for natural disasters, terrorist attacks and other emergencies. Hundreds of millions of dollars were withheld. What
Trump did was knock off the millions place in the numbers, so, for example, $10,500,000 became $500,000 for targeted
states. These were all blue states, naturally, and they went to court claiming that there is no legal basis for denying
payments mandated by Congress just because state policy does not align with federal policy.
On Monday, Judge Mary McElroy, a Trump appointee, ruled that the allocation of emergency funds is set by a formula in a law Congress passed and the president has no authority to change the allocation on his own. He must comply with the formula in the law. She wrote: "Defendants' wanton abuse of their role in federal grant administration is particularly troublesome given the fact that they have been entrusted with a most solemn duty: safeguarding our nation and its citizens." She ordered the grants restored. DHS plans to appeal.
- Loss: NY Driver's Licenses: New York State gives driver's licenses to people who pass
both the written test on traffic laws and the driving test. It does not ask for proof that the person is in the country
legally, only that the person can drive safely. The so-called "Green Light Law" says that drivers without a Social
Security number can use other forms of identification, including foreign passports and driver's licenses. The Trump
administration feels that it should also demand proof that the driver is legally in the country and sued.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Anne Nardacci, a Joe Biden appointee for the northern district of New York, ruled that Trump had failed to prove that New York State law usurps federal law and thus must be subservient to it. Federal law does not address the issue of who can get a driver's license, so the supremacy clause is not relevant.
It seems hardly a day goes by without some judge ruling on some case caused by a decision made by the administration. (V)
Why Did Young White Men Vote for Trump?
Washington Post Republican columnist Megan McArdle has yet another idea about why young men voted for Donald Trump in 2024. Although it is very politically incorrect, there is certainly at least a kernel of truth in it, although that almost doesn't matter. What matters is that young men think it is true and act accordingly.
For years, at many companies, universities, and other employers, there has been a (sometimes explicit) hiring preference for anyone but straight white men. Maybe this is fair on account of historical discrimination, but whether it is fair is beside the point. Many organizations have a policy, or at least a habit, of giving priority in hiring to women and minorities, which makes it more difficult for young straight white men to get jobs which would give them the skills necessary to get hired, so it is a vicious circle. The young straight white men see this as explicit discrimination against straight white men and they are not interested in hearing that their father and grandfather and great-grandfather benefited from being straight white men. And they get to vote. That's the problem (for the Democrats).
There are data to back this up. For example, in 2011, white men were 48% of lower-level TV writers. In 2024, it was 12%. The Atlantic's editorial staff went from 53% male and 89% white in 2013 to 36% male and 66% white in 2024. White men fell from 39% of tenure-track positions in the humanities at Harvard in 2014 to 18% in 2023. There are plenty more examples. Again, the issue is not whether this is fair or good public policy. The point here is to explain why young white men voted as they did in 2024. They feel there is discrimination against them because they are white men. They feel the world is rooting for them to lose.
For Boomer and Gen-X white men, who have plenty of experience and can win employment battles based on their experience, this seemed only fair. But they weren't taking the brunt of DEI policies. Young white men were. And they resented it and voted for the guy who promised to kill DEI. Of the many articles written about the voting patterns in 2024, not many look at it from a "white cohort" point of view.
By 2019, many newsrooms had already reached gender parity. The newsrooms at The New York Times, The Washington Post, Buzzfeed, ProPublica, The Huffington Post, Vice, and Vox were already majority-female by then. Yet a policy design to correct a gender imbalance that no longer existed was kept in place.
After George Floyd was killed in 2020, the wheels came off. Newsrooms rushed to hire more Black staffers. In 2021, new hires at Condé Nast were 25% male and 49% white. At The Los Angeles Times, and San Diego Union-Tribune they were 39% male and 31% white. At ProPublica, 58% of new hires were people of color. It is still going on. In 2024, at The Atlantic, 69% of new hires were people of color. At NPR the figure was 78%. In 2022, a quarter of college graduates were white men, so one might expect that in elite professions about a quarter of the new hires would be white men. In reality, it is way below that. The articles cited above go on and on with numbers. Suddenly, hiring was driven heavily by identity politics and young white men were at the bottom of the food chain. Older white men with plenty of experience were not affected so much.
In academia, the same pattern held. Among tenured faculty, white men still dominated total employment because many were hired years ago and by now had lots of experience. But for recent Ph.D.'s applying for entry-level jobs, being a white man was very nearly the kiss of death. In tech companies, a similar effect was observed. Is it then surprising that the shift in 2024 was young men moving to the right but older men not doing so? The latter weren't on the front lines.
In certain areas, getting the desired balance is easy; in others it is not. If a college admits exactly the desired demographic mix it wants for 4 years in a row, presto, the student body is now exactly as the administration wants it to be. But in a company with employees who have been around for 20, 30, or 40 years, hired decades ago and who can't easily be fired because they are doing their work as expected, hiring the "right" mix of people every year will take decades to make the whole company right. The only way to speed it up is to do what NPR did, make 78% of new hires people of color.
McArdle's case is not watertight. Young Black men voted for Trump even though being Black gets you bonus points these days. Maybe because the DEI stuff is more for elite occupations and Black Americans are underrepresented in colleges and thus less focused on elite jobs. Noteworthy, young Black women did not shift, possibly because they get double bonus points. Also, what role does "macho" play here and does that affect men and women differently? In any event, the shift among young voters did occur. The question is: Why? Examining the impact of DEI is probably an area that needs more attention. (V)
Democratic Representative Sues to Un-Rename Kennedy Center
Many Democrats are furious with Donald Trump adding his name to the Kennedy Center, not only because he is not exactly a patron of the arts, but also because the law that created it specifically says that is to be called the Kennedy Center, so Trump's move is also illegal.
Not surprisingly, some Democrat decided to do something about it. Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH) is an ex-officio member of the board and decided to sue Trump, president of the board Richard Grenell and others on the grounds that the name change is patently illegal because the law states the place is to be called The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Only Congress can change the name (by amending the law). As a board member, she probably has standing to sue. She is being represented by Norman Eisen, who has dozens, maybe hundreds, of lawsuits against Trump in the works.
When asked for a comment by The Columbus Dispatch, Grenell sent back this text message: "In the future, you should email the entity you are seeking comment from... NOT call someone's cell phone at 5:50 a.m." The Dispatch called at 8:50 a.m. Grenell was apparently asleep in kindergarten when the teacher explained telling time. You know, when the little hand is on the 5 it is 5 o'clock and that kind of stuff. And it is not about time zones. Ohio and D.C. both use EST. (V)
Twelve Days of Christmas... Games, Part XII: Only Connect
We did this for Thanksgiving, and that was basically what inspired a run of Holiday/Winter-themed games. So, we figured we might as well end with the same concept. This time, we have put together twelve sets of four pictures, like this one:
The first picture, in each set, is something that is associated with Christmas. As a set, the four pictures point at a theme or commonality of some sort. For example, the four images above are an elf, a dwarf, a hobbit and a troll. These are all races in the Lord of the Rings books.
Note that there are many different kinds of themes here, that the theme may rely on a different meaning of the word indicated, and that some pictures may suggest multiple words, some of which are not needed. For example if we had done one with hot chocolate, Darryl Strawberry, Vanilla Ice and some cookies-and-cream-flavored protein powder, the theme would be "popular ice cream flavors" (i.e., chocolate, strawberry, vanilla, and cookies and cream).
And now, here are the 12 sets:
Set 1:
What's the connection?
Set 2:
What's the connection?
Set 3:
What's the connection?
Set 4:
What's the connection?
Set 5:
What's the connection?
Set 6:
What's the connection?
Set 7:
What's the connection?
Set 8:
What's the connection?
Set 9:
What's the connection?
Set 10:
What's the connection?
Set 11:
What's the connection?
Set 12:
What's the connection?
You can submit your responses
here.
Note that we made some of them pretty tricky. (Z)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones