Main page    Feb. 26


Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

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

---

Johnson Herds the Cats... for Now

We have largely avoided much discussion of the budget-related sausage-making, since it really doesn't mean anything until there's some actual sausage. Yesterday, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) scheduled a vote, then canceled it, and then rescheduled it. Early in the evening, the House finally passed a "big, beautiful bill," consistent with Donald Trump's marching orders. The vote was 217-215, and broke along party lines, excepting that Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats.

The House bill, which is really more like the outline of a bill, is as omnibus as it gets, rolling everything Trump wants to do (tax cuts, border enforcement, etc.) into one package. It calls for a minimum of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, with $2 trillion being the goal. It would impose a $4.5 trillion ceiling on any deficit impact, and would allocate $300 billion in additional spending for border security and defense. Finally, the bill would raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion.

We are not accountants, and the staff mathematician is still recovering from World Bartender Day on Monday, but if Republicans cut between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion in spending, and at the same time allow themselves to increase the deficit by up to $4.5 trillion, while having already accounted for the regular GOP priorities of the border and the military, then that leaves somewhere between $5.7 trillion and $6.2 trillion to spend on... something. We doubt that the plan is to lavish those funds on green technology, better prenatal care for poor women, or Kwanzaa scarves for every American. So, that pretty much leaves big, juicy tax cuts. And maybe some money to bribe Americans with a check paid for by "DOGE savings."

As we have written many times, when you start talking about trillion-dollar cuts, there's only a few paths to getting there: cutting the military budget, cutting Social Security, cutting Medicare and cutting Medicaid. The main target, at least under the current framework, is Medicaid. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicaid, is instructed in the text of the bill to find a minimum of $880 billion in cuts. All of these numbers are presumably meant to be over 10 years. If not, $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid would mean cutting pretty much ALL federal spending on Medicaid. There are some Republican members of the House who would be OK with that, but not 217 of them.

That said, even $80-$90 billion in cuts to Medicaid, annually, would have a significant impact on the folks who rely on that program. The Democrats are well aware of that, and are preparing to pitch a fit. The blue team is undoubtedly aware of polls that reveal that more than 80% of Americans, and more than 75% of Republicans, do not want to see Medicaid cut. Given that the cuts are presumably going to fund tax cuts for rich people, the messaging pretty much writes itself. The Democrats don't have much leverage in Congress, particularly if budget reconciliation is used to pass the budget and raise the debt limit, but they have plenty of ways to get their message out there. And it should be a pretty potent message.

Of course, the budget is just vaporware, at the moment. The Senate already passed a budget bill, and it's pretty different from the House bill. So, there will have to be a conference committee that hammers out a single bill that both sides can agree on. On one hand, it won't be easy to get an updated bill through the House, given that the current one passed with no margin of error. On the other hand, most Republican members are going to recognize that this is probably their best chance to get some big portion of their priorities adopted, and also their best chance to avoid a debt-ceiling crisis in a few weeks. Plus, Trump is twisting arms with all his might. So, it could go either way. Presumably, things will become clearer sometime next week. (Z)

Right-Wingers Crap on Federal Employees

We've had to accept that we'll probably never be worth $400 billion. We just don't have the sort of mentality that, apparently, allows someone to throw millions of public servants' lives into disarray, and to cackle (and take another hit of ketamine) while doing it.

And it's not just Elon Musk. Many other right-wingers are joining in on the cackling (if not the ketamine). A few examples:

• Podcaster Charlie Kirk declared: "A lot of these people are less than desirable. They could not hold a job at your local Chipotle. In fact, your local Uber Eats driver, your local Chipotle worker, they're working their tail off every day, and God bless them. But the federal work—those are plushy jobs where nothing is done. These jobs never should have existed in the first place."
  
  
• Fox entertainer Laura Ingraham was offended by Democratic pushback against DOGE, and wondered: "How do you resurrect your party thought, by protecting red tape and the bureaucracy? By trying to gin up sympathy for federal workers who need to get real jobs in the real world like most of America. Ever heard of it?"
  
  
• Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), whom you can always consult if you are trying to figure out the stupidest opinion on any given issue, said: "The bureaucracy is not a business. Those are not real jobs producing federal revenue. By the way, they're consuming taxpayer dollars. Those jobs are paid for by the American tax people who work real jobs, earn real income, pay federal taxes, and then pay these federal employees. Federal employees do not deserve their jobs. Federal employees do not deserve their paychecks."

It is quite rich that Kirk and Ingraham regard their jobs—you know, verbally masturbating their listenership, day in and day out—as useful, while dumping on the uselessness of federal workers. As to Greene, we must say that we agree with her, in part. We can definitely think of a federal employee, or two, or three, who should not be getting a paycheck. Though it's probably not the same federal employees as the ones she's thinking of.

On one hand, we understand entirely what is going on here. This is the logical marriage of the Ronald Reagan "government is the enemy" shtick and the Donald Trump "everything I do is amazing, and is targeted at the enemies of MAGA" shtick. On the other hand, we don't really understand at all. Greene is an actual politician, and Ingraham and Kirk are both very mindful of their contributions to GOP messaging. How it can possibly make sense, politically, to say such cruel, mean-spirited, petty things, we just can't see. First, there are the millions of federal employees who are being insulted. Then, on top of that, are their friends and family members. Then, on top of that, are all the people who believe in the dignity of work, and who might feel like they are themselves being crapped on, even if they do not work for Uncle Sam. Is there really some benefit in alienating all of these people?

And speaking of federal employees, we thought we'd share a couple messages we've gotten from readers who work for the government. As has been our habit recently, we are going to give them anonymity:

• Reader 1: I feel compelled to write this long screed because I am one of those ordered by the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to send in my 5-bullet-point response to the Stinky Odor of Musk or risk termination! I only wish it had occurred to me to do what was suggested in "Which Inmate Is Running the Asylum?" Sadly, I saw it too late.
  
  What is relevant here is that the depth of darkness hanging over the VA, where I work, is corrosive. So, this is a plea to any veterans among Electoral-Vote.com readership to please write to your representative to say that this is going to impact your care. How can it not, when your doctors and nurses are so deeply affected by this malevolence? And trust me when I say that there is no more powerful voice to a member of Congress than that of a veteran.
  
  I speak not for myself, but for all my younger colleagues who are now looking over their shoulders, even as they begin to look for opportunities elsewhere. Remember that they elected to work at the VA for a smaller salary than they might have commanded in the private sector because they were vested in the well-being of veterans, and believed in the VA's mission. As did I. But don't cry for me, America! It is for them that I plead.
  
  I am at a stage in life—fortunately!—when most of my career aims have been achieved, and have reached an age when I work for my pleasure and not at the pleasure of anyone else (and certainly not TCF's!). And so, I do not fear termination, as it will mean more time with my wife (pray for that poor soul!), my kids, grandkids and dog. So, if this is my swansong as a physician, so be it. Or, as is said in Hindu scripture, "Asthu."
  
  Electoral-Vote.com has been my bulwark against depression in what I thought were the darkest times during TCF v.1. And it remains so in the even more Stygian darkness of TCF v.2. The amazing minds, skills, and knowledge of (V) and (Z)—not to speak of (Z)'s hilarious and sneaky snark—have made my day brighter, time and time again. As have the contributions of so many of your readers, who have illuminated my mind with their incredible insights and knowledge.
  
  In the dark times we live in, it is wise to remember that H.L. Mencken prophesied what is happening right now more than a century ago. To wit (with apologies for a truncated version of a much lengthier quote that appeared July 26, 1920, in The Baltimore Evening Sun):

  All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre—the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
  
  As democracy is perfected, the office of the presidency represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron... The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots. The demaslave is one who listens to what these idiots have to say and pretends to believe it himself.

  My take? Mencken described exactly what is happening now, even identifying his at-the-time theoretical protagonists: Demagogue = TCF, Idiots = MAGA Faithful, Demaslaves = McConnell and his rapidly vanishing ilk of GOPers who should know better.
  
  On a more hopeful note: The Republic will survive this abomination.
  
  My evidence?
  
  The world survived Hitler's conquest of Europe, because it was his stupidity—Operation Barbarossa anyone? Among so many others!—as much as Allied firepower that led to his eventual downfall.
  
  If so, then surely the world can survive TCF's conquest of America? Because his stupidity—how many examples do you need? Thank you, Electoral-Vote.com!—will lead to his downfall. 'Nuff said!
  
  I will end with this. Even if we are not in an actual war, this is no less than an existential fight for our hearts and minds. I take heart from the brave resistance fighters who braved death and torture to oppose Hitler. Surely we can do no less? Have hope, because I do. As the ancient Persian adage goes, "This too shall pass." Asthu!
  
  
• Reader 2: Today is Tuesday, and here is some added context from one federal household. This past weekend, my wife developed her five bullets. Everyone in her office seemed to have a unique strategy (e.g., overwhelm the AI with long-winded responses, or be snarky, or gush loyalty, etc.). Our strategy was to keep it brief, vague, and to avoid any toxic words like "science." In other words, keep her head down and fly below the radar. In the end, OPM said responses were optional, and my wife submitted nothing.
  
  Which brings me to my point: Absent any guidance or support for these five bullets, one thing became clear to us. It simply did not matter how any federal worker responded. This was entertainment.
  
  Your attention to federal workers has been giving us a welcome ray of sunshine. Much appreciated.
  
  And to D.E. in Lancaster, PA: Your letter to your congressman meant a great deal to us (all 4,377 characters of it; Sen. John Fetterman's loss). With your usual eloquence, you channeled your inner Joseph Welch. Thank you!

Thanks to both of you for your insight, and your kind words! If any reader would like to write to their representative, here is the House website that allows people to find the correct contact information, and here is the ACLU's advice for writing an effective letter.

If you're more interested in being rebellious, we'll tell you that the original e-mail address for bullet points has now been supplemented by 20 additional, numbered e-mail addresses. It was just hr@opm.gov, and now it's hr1@opm.gov, hr2@opm.gov, hr3@opm.gov, etc., up to hr20@opm.gov. If you click here, and you have a mail client that can handle html mailto: links, then it will create an e-mail that's pre-addressed to all 20 accounts.

In addition, if you would like a pre-written list of bullet points, using business-speak, reader B.B. in St. Louis has you covered:

 

And as long as we are on the subject of rebellion, 21 employees of DOGE, who were hired when the department was known as the United States Digital Service, quit in protest yesterday. In their letter of resignation, they explained that "we swore to serve the American people and uphold our oath to the Constitution across presidential administrations. However, it has become clear that we can no longer honor those commitments at the United States DOGE Service," and added "We will not use our skills as technologists to compromise core government systems, jeopardize Americans' sensitive data, or dismantle critical public services." They will be replaced quickly, probably by people who didn't need to shave during the first Trump administration, but every small headache for Elon Musk is a small win. (Z)

Today's Crazypants Roundup: Freedom of Suppress

Yesterday, we had a rundown of some of the ways that the current administration is making a mockery of the term "law enforcement." Today, it's a rundown of how Donald Trump and his minions are using every tool at their disposal to control information, and to suppress dissent:

• The Associated Press: This is the biggest story on this list, and has been all over the place, so many readers are undoubtedly aware of it. In short, as a worldwide organization, the Associated Press decided that it would continue to call the Gulf of Mexico by its proper name. The AP did accept the change of Denali back to Mt. McKinley, since that is largely only relevant in the U.S., but felt that it was better to have one name for the Gulf of Mexico worldwide, as opposed to two.
  
  Petulantly, and entirely inappropriately, the White House decided to punish the AP by denying the organization access to many (though not all) press briefings. The AP sued, and somehow—and we can't find out how—the case ended up before Trevor McFadden, who is in the running (with Neomi Rao, James Ho and Aileen Cannon) as the Trumpiest monkey in the federal judiciary. As you can imagine, he has thus far declined to intervene, and is slow-walking the case. Consequently, the only time the AP—whose coverage reaches half of all Americans—has had access to Trump since being put on time out was when the President met with Emmanuel Macron, and Macron granted access to an AP journalist.
  
  Things do not figure to get better in the short term. For generations, the White House Correspondents' Association has decided which outlets are given seats at the various White House briefings. As of yesterday, the White House is officially taking over the job, so that "the White House press pool reflects the media habits of the American people in 2025." In case you aren't fluent in bullsh**, what that means is they are going to let a bunch of bootlicking bloggers and podcasters and cable TV personalities in there, including some crazypants racists, and then they'll toss in a couple of mainstream outlets so as to claim "fairness" and will call it a day.
  
  
• Reuters: The AP is not the only wire service currently on the White House's radar. Elon Musk, who continues to make the case that he's pretty damn dumb, was angry that Reuters dared to describe the work of DOGE as "politically motivated." So, he whipped his followers into a frenzy, and told them to find some dirt. One of them came up with something "shocking," which Musk gleefully shared on eX-Twitter:

  Reuters was paid millions of dollars by the US government for "large scale social deception".
  
  That is literally what it says on the purchase order! They're a total scam.
  
  Just wow.

  Donald Trump, who is certainly no brighter than Musk, immediately parroted the news:

  Looks like Radical Left Reuters was paid $9,000,000 by the Department of Defense to study "large scale social deception." GIVE BACK THE MONEY, NOW!

  In truth, the contract was issued by the U.S. military, for the study of cybersecurity. And the recipient was not Reuters, per se, it was another division of the company, namely Thomson Reuters Special Services. Oh, and the project was funded in 2018, which means it was the work of... the Trump administration. Nonetheless, the message here is loud and clear: "Any journalist or organization who dares criticize Co-President Musk is at risk of a declaration of war."
  
  
• 60 Minutes: Just in case you think we might be overreacting to that last story, Musk also set his sights on 60 Minutes. He has apparently accepted, lock, stock, and barrel, the claim that the program somehow manipulated the 2024 election. We could have sworn Trump won that one, so we guess they manipulated it for his benefit? Guess we should check our sources. The show's journalists have also been critical of DOGE and, in particular, the attempted gutting of USAID. So, the South African is furious, and decreed that "60 Minutes are the biggest liars in the world! They engaged in deliberate deception to interfere with the last election. They deserve a long prison sentence." Like many Trumpers, he only has a use for the First Amendment when it works to his advantage.
  
  
• Signal: Signal is an instant messaging service that is very strong in terms of encryption and privacy. It is often used by people who are victims of abuse and other crimes, and it's used by whistleblowers who want to remain anonymous. There is at least one activity here, and maybe more than one, that Musk does not like. So he has now ordered that all Signal links posted to eX-Twitter be blocked.
  
  
• The Dallas Morning News: This is not the direct work of Team Trump, but it's the kind of kowtowing that the White House is hoping to see. Like many newspapers, The Dallas Morning News runs Doonesbury, by Garry Trudeau. Somewhat like Saturday Night Live, Trudeau's personal leanings would appear to be lefty, but he's also an equal opportunity skewerer of politicians from both parties. That means that he's sometimes critical, even highly critical, of Donald Trump.
  
  The people who run the Morning News recognize that a political cartoonist who is a big meanie might give Trump the sads. So, they are yanking any Trump-critical strips. The paper ran a column from the public editor that explains the decision, and that should make every journalist at the paper ashamed. The quote from Managing Editor Amy Hollyfield is representative: "I don't feel like we need to be a microphone for a comic that has gone on a crusade against the president." Never mind that Doonesbury has been crusading against presidents of both parties for more than half a century.
  
  Incidentally, Gerald Ford, who was often a Trudeau target, once said: "There are only three major vehicles to keep us informed as to what is going on in Washington: the electronic media, the print media, and Doonesbury, not necessarily in that order." We guess some presidents are bigger men than others.

Looking over the above list, one cannot help but think of the observation made 70 years ago by Representative Francis E. Walter of Pennsylvania, Chair of the House Un-American Activities Committee:

The communists know that movie screens and television channels are weapons of far greater potential power than any of the nuclear devices whose secrets we guard so jealously.

Control of the media of communication and information means the control of the mind, and for the communists this would mean a victory of far greater importance than victory on a dozen battlefields of war.

If Donald Trump is indeed thinking along these lines, it's hard to imagine which person with vast experience in communist media-manipulation techniques he might have gotten it from. Yep, it's a real head-scratcher. A question for the ages. A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

There were a couple of other stories this week that might have been included in this list, but we decided the weight of evidence was against it. First, MSNBC overhauled its primetime schedule, getting rid of Joy Reid and Alex Wagner, and moving around a bunch of other contributors. Second, Lester Holt stepped down as anchor of the NBC Nightly News.

It is true that the two moves, coming within hours of each other, removed the two most prominent Black voices in television news from their daily perches. It is further true that Reid is an outspoken Trump critic, having blasted him on her show many times, along with writing a book, The Man Who Sold America: Trump and the Unraveling of the American Story. Holt, for his part, displeased Trump with his moderation of the first 2016 presidential debate, and then with a non-softball interview in 2017. So, the President undoubtedly regards both journalists as enemies.

However, Reid was substantially replaced by Jen Psaki, who was press secretary to the hated Barack Obama and the hated Joe Biden. Meanwhile, Holt is 65, has been grinding for over a decade, and will still remain in a high-profile position with NBC as the (ongoing) host of Dateline. So we don't think these moves were undertaken with an eye to licking Trump's lifts, though readers may see things differently. (Z)

Pro-Choice Forces Hold Serve

Accessing abortion care at a clinic in the U.S. can be a harrowing experience. Doctors and patients are often bombarded with grotesque, inaccurate images and screaming protesters as they try to provide or get access to safe, legal and routine reproductive care. Many of these encounters have been violent: Anti-abortion extremists have murdered doctors, bombed clinics and attacked patients. Because of the very real threat to public safety these fanatics represent, many communities have enacted laws that create buffer zones around clinics to keep protesters some minimum distance away from clinic workers and patients. Buffer zones are not unusual. In fact, Donald Trump uses them all the time to keep protesters, the press, and anyone else who may say mean things to him away from his rallies, sometimes several blocks away. Unlike Trump, however, abortion providers can usually only keep protesters a few feet away.

In 2000, in Hill v. Colorado, the Supreme Court held that these types of buffer zones do not violate the First Amendment because they are not regulating what is being said, only where the speech could occur. Such time, place and manner restrictions on speech are commonly upheld if they are connected to a governmental concern, like public safety, and are narrowly tailored to achieve the desired result.

Recently, the city of Carbondale, IL, has experienced a massive influx of patients seeking abortion following the Dobbs decision. In the wake of abortion bans in neighboring states, clinics in cities like Carbondale, which is near Illinois' southern border, have tried to fill the gap in care. Here is a map showing the distance between Carbondale and three major cities in nearby states that ban nearly all abortions: St. Louis, MO, Nashville, TN, and Louisville, KY. In all three cases, a desperate woman could drive from home to the clinic in Carbondale and get back home in one day:

With patients from four states coming in, there are also protesters trying to intimidate them, which puts the public's safety at risk. Carbondale enacted a buffer zone which, like the one in Hill v. Colorado, keeps protesters 8 feet away from anyone entering or leaving a medical facility within 100 feet of the building. The protesters can still be seen and heard by their targets, but can't get close enough to harass or physically assault people seeking or providing care. This led to a lawsuit from an anti-choice group.

The lower courts, citing Hill, upheld the law and the plaintiff appealed to SCOTUS and asked it to overrule Hill. The Justices turned away the challenge, but not without getting an earful from—you guessed it—Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Thomas was on the Court when Hill was decided and he dissented then. He likes his chances now and mused that there's really not much left of Hill after Dobbs and a 2014 ruling that narrowed Hill's reach by striking down a 35-foot fixed buffer in Massachusetts. So, he reasoned, why not get rid of it once and for all?

Maybe, even in a world without stare decisis, this is the end of this conversation for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, it could be that the Court is keeping its powder dry this term (at least so far) given the many political firestorms it will have to wade into on this and other highly controversial issues. The one thing that is certain is that abortion advocates may have won this battle but the war is far from over. (L)

Teutonic Shift: Readers' Comments on the German Elections, Part I

Germany is the most impactful country on the European continent, and both its government and its relationship with the U.S. have just started on a new path, thanks to this week's elections. This is a very important story, and we thought readers might like to hear from folks who are more dialed in than we are. Sure, we like a little Jager Schnitzel and red cabbage, but we don't necessarily know our SSW from our BSW.

Indeed, we did not recognize that there are some circumstances in which a party can elect representatives to the German Parliament with a portion of the vote lower than 5%. For example, the South Schleswig Voters' Association (SSW), which is legally recognized as the voice of the Danish and Frisian minorities in Schleswig-Holstein, collected enough votes in that state to send Stefan Seidler to Parliament, despite the fact that the party collected only 0.15% of the vote nationwide. That means that, as the dust settles and the final ballots are being tabulated, the Parliament looks like this:

• The center-left Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), which is currently the largest party and the party of outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz, has gone from 207 seats to 120.
  
  
• The leftist Greens, who are part of the current governing coalition, have gone from 117 seats to 85.
  
  
• The center-right Union Parties (CDU/CSU), home to Chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz, have gone from 196 seats to 208.
  
  
• The liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) has gone from 90 seats to zero.
  
  
• The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) has gone from 77 seats to 152.
  
  
• The far-left Die Linke has gone from 28 seats to 64.
  
  
• The SSW has held steady, with 1 seat.
  
  
• Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance - Reason and Justice (BSW), Values Union (WU) and Bündnis Deutschland (BD) have gone from 10, 1 and 1 seats, respectively, to zero, zero and zero.
  
  
• The four independent members, one of whom is part of the governing coalition, also look to have lost their seats.

Anyhow, here are a few reader insights into the German election; we'll have a few more on Friday:

• T.K. in Freiburg, Germany: You asked what the result of the federal election in Germany means.
  
  In practical terms, this means that constitutional amendments will become much more difficult to achieve with the new Bundestag, as the combined number of seats of the CDU/CSU, SPD and Greens will fall below two thirds of the seats in parliament required for such amendments. Therefore, MPs from the AfD or Die Linke will be needed. It is unlikely they will agree to any such amendments unless these would be helpful for their own goals. Funding Bundeswehr (the military), which is the main purpose for the amendment currently being put forward by the new government, isn't one of them. A further problem is that the debt brake is a high priority in itself and deviations must be justified each time. There must also be a very valid justification for an exception. CDU/CSU politicians, and Friedrich Merz in particular, announced before the election that they would adhere to the debt brake, as did the now defeated liberals from the FDP.
  
  So much for the legislative issues. As far as the election campaign is concerned, two issues predominated. The first was economic stagnation, the second was uncontrolled migration. The outgoing "traffic light" coalition (red-yellow-green) lost because it failed to get a grip on these problems. The latter was made particularly clear by various brutal terrorist attacks, such as those in Mannheim, Solingen and Aschaffenburg. Some commentators saw the result of the Federal Election as a final warning shot. CSU chairman Markus Soeder spoke of the "last bullet." By this he meant that the CDU/CSU and SPD merger was the last chance to organize a non-populist majority. Indeed, if the problems remain unresolved, it is difficult to imagine how the times of the Weimar Republic can be avoided.
  
  At present, a coalition between the CDU/CSU and SPD is the only way to form a government that can implement a problem-oriented policy. Both parties still have a long way to go to overcome their deep-rooted rivalries. Should this not succeed, a CDU/CSU minority government would be the next alternative. If that does not work out either, snap elections would be the next step. It would possibly be a step back to the conditions of the Weimar Republic. So let's hope that common sense prevails. Weimar Republic 2.0 is still avoidable.
  
  
• J.A. in Mainz, Germany: American living in Germany here. Thanks for the items on the elections. I'm sure we'll see more developments, soon, on the exact nature of "independence from the U.S." that Merz has promised. As an American in Germany, this is, of course, an almost unthinkable thing we're witnessing in U.S.-German relations, at least as far as statements, not actions, go. But, of course, this statement of Merz is not just understandable, it's justified. We shall see.
  
  One thing I wanted to mention is my strong distaste for the German electoral system. As Americans, the 5% rule isn't something we should support. (I'm not saying that your merely pointing out its existence to readers is tantamount to support. I'm basically just ranting here and presenting an opinion that I think usually goes under the radar.) We talk about gerrymandering and voter suppression in the U.S. of various forms, and those are all very bad, and deserve to be combated. We have the Electoral College system, which can diverge from the popular vote. Fine. But I don't see why the 5% rule gets away scot-free, or is even celebrated, in virtually all discussions I've seen of it. This rule literally throws away the votes of millions of people, people who actually showed up and did their civic duty. It's not that they voted for the "loser"; it's that they effectively didn't vote at all. There's literally no difference, today, between an FDP voter and someone who didn't even vote.
  
  In my opinion, this is considerably worse than gerrymandering and voter suppression on basic democratic principles. I don't want to hear the usual excuse, which is that, in the absence of this rule, there would be a proliferation of parties and more opportunity for chaos in parliament. To that I say, "So be it." Democracy involves a lot of voices being heard. So, in my view, the 5% rule is simply anti-democratic. Again, I can rage all day about the Electoral College and gerrymandering and voter suppression. But that's our house and our mess. We should acknowledge that other houses have other messes, too, and even houses we admire might have bigger messes. Commentators on German politics love to highlight the 5% rule because it adds an interesting wrinkle to the discussion (and analysts love them some interesting wrinkles), but let's see this rule clearly for what it is: an extremely powerful form of voter suppression that takes place after the votes are counted. We should not be afraid to call it out as such. (No I'm not a bitter FDP or BSW voter. I'm not German, so I don't vote here.)
  
  I'd also like to draw your attention to yet another bizarre aspect of the German electoral system that, again, virtually all commenters neglect (probably unintentionally), which is the notion of a second vote. When you vote in Germany, your ballot contains two items to vote on, not one. The first is the name and party of a candidate. That's a no-brainer. But you're not done yet, because the second vote is, merely, a party. No human name, just a party name. This leads to a lot of confusion. Many Germans I've met over the years cannot explain this to me at all. It leads to a Bundestag that is not literally the results of what you see from the first vote, but also contains the effect of the second vote, too, in a confusing way. The German word is "Überhangsmadat." The infographics and discussion never seem to include this. This is the wrinkliest of wrinkles. It is, again, an aspect of the German system that should give us Americans pause. Again, we have plenty of issues, but let's be clear that other places also have issues, too, and it's not an act of ignorant American projection or rank ignorance to point these out.
  
  
• A.O'N. in Wiesbaden, Hesse, Germany: The German election was a resounding loss for (most of) the governing coalition for a number of reasons:
  
  
  1. The general "throw the bums out" anti-incumbency sentiment currently sweeping the globe as a result of the multicrisis (pandemic, Ukraine war, Israel/Gaza...) leading to mental exhaustion among those dialed into politics and a generalized sense of malaise among those not dialed in.
     
     
  2. A specific "throw the bums out" anti-incumbency sentiment current here in Germany due to poor economic numbers and a feeling that nothing got done due to the widely discrepant governing ideologies of the coalition parties, where the FDP in particular agreed on almost nothing with the other two partners. The few things that got done to much fanfare were actually very "niche" and quite unpopular (such as a law that allows people to change their legal gender at short notice without requiring reasons or evidence, or a law that allows people to, for example, pass the surname of their divorced ex-spouse on to their new spouse, both of which many conservatives found quite upsetting) and did not really help the image of the coalition as incapable of real work.
     
     
  3. A wider political realignment that makes the former East Germany the primary center of far-right (rather than formerly far-left) sentiments, and moves a large fraction of working-class voters even in the West from the social-democratic SPD to the far-right AfD. Low-propensity voters also voted in large numbers and strongly broke for the AfD. This is overall less drastic than the corresponding realignment in the U.S., but it is a major reason for the dramatic losses of the SPD.
     
     
  4. The widespread (and objectively correct) impression that the FDP undermined the coalition at every step and is a fundamentally dishonest and unreliable partner. This is a major reason for the dramatic losses of the FDP, which were enough to send them off into the desert of below-5% "extraparliamentary opposition" parties.
     
     
  5. The certainty of a CDU/CSU win, which was clear to imply Merz, who would likely need the SPD, the Greens, or both as coalition partners. This led a number of (especially young and female) voters who absolutely detest Merz for a variety of reasons (it has not been forgotten that he voted against criminalizing marital rape as an MP) to switch their vote from the SPD or the Greens to the Left (Linke) in order not to support an inevitable Merz government with their votes for reasons of moral purity. This was also a big factor in getting the Left across the 5% threshold.
  
  The Greens were less affected by most of these factors because their voters skew highly-educated, and thus less likely to vote on emotion. They also tend to put a high value on topics the Greens effectively monopolize, like combating climate change and defending democracy.
  
  The good news is that Elon Musk was not able to swing many (any?) votes to the AfD in spite of his best attempts, and likely alienated everyone who is going to be in government positions for the next four years, which might just possibly negatively impact some of his business interests (Tesla, eX-Twitter).
  
  
• R.W. in Brooklyn. NY: I'm very surprised that when you listed some of the things that incoming chancellor Friedrich Merz will try to do, you didn't include "Keep Ethel and Lucy from getting into yet another scrape."

R.W. in Brooklyn, you've got some 'splainin to do.

Thanks to everyone for their comments. We also note that in a democracy with many groups of voters with extremely divergent views on everything, it is not possible to give everyone what they want. It is inevitable that some people are going to be shut out. Elections have consequences. We'll have some more on Friday. (Z)

Apple Debugging Speech-to-Text Software

Today's post has been none too uplifting, and yesterday's was no better. So, how about we finish with a little palate cleanser, courtesy of reader J.G. in San Diego, CA? Keeping in mind that the AI that handles speech-to-text is always learning, based on past input, MacRumors reports that a bug has emerged in the software that allows people to dictate messages to their iPhones.

Now, MacRumors is generally very, very reliable when it comes to Apple-related news. However, it's a low-frills, somewhat spartan site, and so its reporting tends to be brief. That being the case, we are actually having trouble figuring out what the bug is. All we know is that it has something to do with the fact that, when some users speak R-A-C-I-S-T, the phone initially interprets that as T-R-U-M-P before correcting to R-A-C-I-S-T. See photo-illustration below:

We will try to keep an eye on this story, and see if MacRumors or any other outlet ever explains exactly what the error is. (Z)

Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones