Main page    Oct. 06

Senate map
Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

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

Newsom Understands the Incentive Structure

We have seen more caving during the first 9 months of Donald Trump's administration than all the members of the National Speleological Society combined see in a year. How come? It has to do with the incentive structure. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) seems to be the only Democratic politician who understands this (and also seems to have a good grasp of the psychology of bullies). That he is also running for president gives him more motivation to get in the spotlight, but that isn't a requirement.

He has decided to fight back by changing the incentive structure. Last week, Trump sent a 10-page letter to major universities offering them a deal: Sign a compact to effectively cede control of the university to him and he won't destroy the university right now. In fact, he may make them eligible for some ill-defined future special benefits "where feasible" (weasel words, so watch out). His demands include:

These are just a few of the "highlights." The general tone is forbid any effort to give any advantage to any underrepresented group. If a department has 10 white male professors and a qualified Black female has applied for a vacant position and is as good as the best male candidate, they would be forbidden from using sex or race as the tiebreaker. Presumably they could ask each one to sing the Star Spangled Banner and use singing ability as the tiebreaker. The compact would be overseen not by what is left of the Dept. of Education, but the DoJ, which could cancel federal funding and benefits for violations. You hired a Black woman. Your funding is hereby canceled. Tough.

Newsom understands that while this "deal" seems to be more "carrot" than "stick" initially, the benefits are vague and might not materialize after the universities make all the changes demanded. So, he decided to change the incentive structure. He tweeted this in his now-famous style for mocking Trump:

IF ANY CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY SIGNS THIS RADICAL AGREEMENT, THEY'LL LOSE BILLIONS IN STATE FUNDING—INCLUDING CAL GRANTS—INSTANTLY. CALIFORNIA WILL NOT BANKROLL SCHOOLS THAT SELL OUT THEIR STUDENTS, PROFESSORS, RESEARCHERS, AND SURRENDER ACADEMIC FREEDOM.

What Newsom understands is that everyone Trump has intimidated or threatened (including dangling benefits that might never appear along with penalties for noncompliance with the deal) is faced with this choice: If we agree, we won't be damaged right now and might get some benefits later, but if we don't agree, we will be punished now. In essence, there is an upside to obeying Trump, and much less downside for obeying him. Newsom wants to create a downside (losing California funding) for obeying Trump.

Other governors could get much more aggressive about fighting back. Suppose all blue states threatened university funding if they signed on with Trump. Or, more generally, when Trump threatens to deny law firms access to federal courtrooms if they don't kowtow to him, suppose 15 governors threatened to deny those firms access to state courtrooms if they do kowtow to him. What if making a corrupt deal to not lose (or get) federal funds means losing state funds or being banned from getting state contracts? What if lawyers who gave into blackmail were disbarred in the 15 states where the Democrats hold the trifecta? Would this be legal? Probably not, but it could take years before the courts ruled on it and would leave the lawyers in limbo in the interim.

What Newsom seems to understand is that when faced with blackmail, the target is sorely tempted to give in because there is no (or not much) downside to surrendering. But suppose there were a big downside to giving in? Then many targets would stiffen their spines, refuse, and go to court, especially in cases where they would likely win. By creating a downside for caving, targets would have to weigh the risks of either decision and the likely outcome would be fighting the blackmail in court.

But it actually goes much further than this. Numerous federal officials at the highest level have no hesitancy in obeying Trump when he orders them to break the law because there is a downside in disobeying (being fired instantly) but no downside in obeying. Suppose there was. Suppose a group of Democratic senators and governors, including many of the likely presidential candidates, were to say that if the Democrats got in power in Jan 2029, their top priority should be vigorously prosecuting current federal officials who have broken their oaths and the law. They would also ask for the longest prison terms allowed by law.

Further suppose they supply specific examples, naming officials and laws they have clearly broken, saying indicting these people and putting them on trial for their crimes would be a top priority. Violations of the Hatch Act come to mind here, as a bare minimum. That would change the incentive structure. As it is now, federal officials believe that Republicans will punish them if they DON'T break the law but Democrats won't punish them if they DO break the law. Democrats need to make it abundantly clear that they are no longer Mr. Nice Guy and they will come down extremely hard on officials who break the law while in office as soon as they get the chance. Are Pete Hegseth and Kristi Noem willing to risk years in prison to keep their $246,400/year jobs? Are they really as brave as they pretend?

But there is still more blue-state governors can do, especially if the 15 of them in Democratic trifecta states work together. That is a huge bloc with money, power and law-enforcement officials. Suppose that when an ICE agent tries to arrest someone, state and local officials demand to see their identification and the warrant for arresting that person. If the agent fails to provide one, the state law-enforcement officer could say: "Since you are apparently not working for the federal government and have no arrest warrant for this person, I have to assume you are a common criminal trying to kidnap someone. Kidnapping is a state crime. You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent, etc." Then the ICE agent is handcuffed, taken away and charged with kidnapping. ICE agents who break down doors to gain entry to buildings and can't prove they are federal agents following lawful orders could be arrested for burglary or breaking and entering under state laws. Having states aggressively enforce their own laws against individual agents and doing their best to not have them released on bail changes the incentive structure for wanting to work for ICE. How many headlines do there have to be saying: "ICE agent arrested for kidnapping and held without bail" before many agents start looking for other jobs?

In short, Newsom is starting to change the incentive structure around blackmail. Blue-state governors aren't helpless if they band together and start enforcing their own laws. Federalism is a two-way street. The supremacy clause in the Constitution applies only to lawful actions. It does not protect federal employees at any level who are violating federal law and committing state crimes. Of course there will be lawsuits, the lower courts, at least, have not been sympathetic to lawbreaking by federal officials, even at the highest level (keep reading). But the law isn't the only factor here. So is raw power and the states have considerably more than they have used so far. Governors can also mobilize the National Guard. Faced with opposition, bullies often turn out to be cowards. (V)

Another Appeals Court Has Ruled That the Words in the Constitution Actually Matter

The Fourteenth Amendment begins with the text: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." It seems fairly straightforward except for the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part, which was intended to exclude Natives living on reservations and the children of foreign diplomats born on U.S. soil. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made Native Americans living on reservations citizens, so now only foreign diplomats' children are excluded. Note that there is no requirement about the nationality or immigration status of a baby's parents. If you are born on U.S. soil, you are a citizen. Since he is not a constitutional scholar, Donald Trump doesn't know this and signed an XO stating that babies born to undocumented immigrants are not citizens. Of course there were court cases instantly.

The lower courts have been unanimous is ruling that the XO is unconstitutional. The first case to make it to an appeals court was in the Ninth Circuit, headquartered in San Francisco. In July, Judge Ronald Gould, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote for the majority: "One power that the President was not granted, by Article II or by any other source, is the power to modify or change any clause of the United States Constitution." That seems pretty clear.

Now the First Circuit Court, in Boston, has chimed in. On Friday, a three-judge panel issued a 100-page ruling basically saying the same thing Gould said in one sentence. However, U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, a Barack Obama appointee who graduated magna cum laude from the Harvard Law School and who wrote the opinion, specifically noted that the length of the opinion should not be mistaken for a sign that the fundamental question was difficult. He wrote: "It is not, which may explain why it has been more than a century since a branch of our government has made as concerted an effort as the Executive Branch now makes to deny Americans their birthright." The other two judges, both Democratic appointees, agreed with him.

The case will certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court. Everything is. A birthright citizenship case made it to the Supreme Court earlier. The Court didn't rule on the actual issue before it then. Instead it took the opportunity to ban district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. Most of those have followed the same pattern. Trump issues an XO that is patently illegal or unconstitutional. Somebody sues. Then a district judge enjoins the administration from carrying out its illegal order until the case can be decided on the merits.

Once in a very rare while it goes the other way, as when anti-abortion groups brought a case in Amarillo, where they got Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk (because he is the only judge there) to suspend the FDA approval of mifepristone. His ruling was later overturned.

When two circuit courts make contradictory rulings, the Supreme Court usually takes the case to make a single nationwide ruling. The First and Ninth Circuit rulings are the same (except one is a wee bit longer than the other), so the Court doesn't have to take up the case. However, the XO so blatantly contradicts the words in the Constitution, it has decided to do so anyway. (V)

Judge Gives Georgia 2 Weeks to Replace Fani Willis

Our original thought for the headline of this piece was "Stupid DA Blows Case against Trump." But we changed our mind—but only because the actual news right now is a consequence of that, not the original story. In case you have forgotten, Donald Trump organized an alleged criminal conspiracy to try to steal Georgia's 16 electoral votes in the 2020 election. He tried to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) to "find" 11,780 votes for him, helped organize a slate of fake electors, and more. Trump and 18 co-defendants were charged with violating Georgia's RICO law. Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis began vigorously prosecuting the case.

One of Willis' first moves was to hire her then-boyfriend, Nathan Wade, to prosecute the case, even though her own office had plenty of experienced prosecutors ready to go. To make it worse, Wade had no prosecutorial experience other than a year of handling traffic citations in Cobb County. If Willis had been dating Andrew Weissmann or Jack Smith, she might have been able to make a case that he was the best prosecutor in the country, but Wade was a lawyer in private practice specializing in divorces and contracts. It was a blunder of enormous proportions. How could she have been so careless, given how high profile the case was? And she wasn't even doing Wade a favor. He said Georgia doesn't pay prosecutors all that well and he was making more money in private practice than the state was paying him.

Needless to say, the defendants asked the judge, Scott McAfee, to throw the case out due to conflicts of interest. He excoriated her for incredible stupidity, even though she hadn't broken any laws, and ruled that either Wade had to quit or Willis had to drop the case. Wade resigned immediately. The case was appealed and the appeals court ruled that it was a really bad look and Willis had to get off the case as well. She appealed. Three weeks ago, the Georgia Supreme Court denied cert, meaning they would not take the case and the appeals court ruling was final. Friday, McAfee ordered the Georgia Prosecuting Attorneys Council to assign a new prosecutor to the case within 14 days or he will dismiss.

The Georgia RICO statute is pretty broad. Basically, if two or more people plot to break one or more laws, they are in violation. Willis had a pretty strong case against Trump, especially since four of the defendants flipped and were prepared to rat on Trump to save their own necks. Willis had Trump dead to rights and she blew it. It is said that love is blind. She has proven beyond a doubt that love is also foolish beyond belief. How could she expect that, in an unbelievably high-profile case the entire world was watching very intensely, she could put her totally inexperienced boyfriend in charge and nobody would notice?

What happens next depends on whether a new prosecutor is appointed and what he or she decides to do now that Trump is president again. One option could be to drop the charges against Trump and continue the prosecution of the other defendants. Since this is a state case, Trump can't pardon them. Having them be convicted would definitely send a message to future plotters that you can be caught and punished, even if Trump gets off scot free. (V)

Apple Caves

While we are on the general subject of caving, bullies, and folks doing stuff they shouldn't be doing, Apple is back in the news (after promising it would invest $500 billion in the U.S. over the next 4 years to prevent Donald Trump from throwing his iPhone in the Potomac in a fit of rage). This time, all Apple had to do was remove an app, ICEBlock, from the App Store that Trump doesn't like. The app allows anyone to report the presence of ICE whenever The ICEman Cometh.

By crowdsourcing the location of ICE raids, people who feel vulnerable to potentially being arrested and deported, even if they are U.S. citizens who have committed no crime, can see places they should avoid for the time being. Trump didn't want Apple (or Google, which removed the app from its store, too) to make it possible to get information about where ICE raids were ongoing. Trump didn't call Apple CEO Tim Cook directly. He outsourced the work to AG Pam Bondi, who proudly took credit for giving the order.

The creator of the app, Joshua Aaron, went on MSNBC to explain why he wrote the app. Here is his explanation:



He said he sees the country becoming like Nazi Germany with government officials arresting people on the streets without probable cause and detaining them without a trial. He felt people needed a way to protect themselves so he created one. He also likened it to apps like Waze that allow users to alert drivers to the presence of police on the road. Waze is not blocked. (V)

Project 2029

The Bulwark's Jonathan V. Last (JVL) often thinks out of the box. One recent idea of his is that Democrats should stop saying their condition for ending the shutdown is restoring health-care subsidies. Instead, they should say their only condition is releasing 100% of the Epstein files, unredacted except for blacking out the names of Epstein's victims. Most Democrats, independents, and even Republicans would probably support this. It would put the Senate Republicans in the unenviable position of saying: "We would rather shut the government down and cause untold hardship for millions of people rather than let Americans know who Epstein's accomplices, helpers, and fellow criminals were." We suspect that would be a tough position for even the hardest-core Trumpists in the Senate to defend.

JVL also has another pet project, Project 2029. He even has a cover photo ready to go (with a bit of help from Midjourney's AI program):

White House as a ghost house

Here are the main items in JVL's Project 2029:

JVL invites readers to add their own items. OK, here are some of ours:

In our view, the main things are strengthening democracy and returning power to where it belongs: Congress. Economic issues, like the minimum wage, can certainly be included, but first priority is making sure there will never again be an authoritarian because Congress holds most of the cards. That was the founders' intention, actually (which is why it is in Art. I of the Constitution and the president is in Art. 2). The three branches are coequal but it was never intended to make them copowerful.

In particular, the Supreme Court has far too much power that was never intended. It simply took it in Marbury v. Madison and it stuck. How about a law embedding judicial review in a statute, but with restrictions? For example, the Court can declare a law passed by Congress unconstitutional, but only by a unanimous vote of all the justices? No more contentious 5-4 or 6-3 rulings throwing out laws passed by the people's representatives. (V)

Now Democrats Have a Candidate Quality Problem

In past election cycles, no matter how much the Turtle-in-chief tried, Republicans kept nominating Senate candidates with "candidate quality" problems. Think: Kari Lake, Kelly Loeffler, Roy Moore, Blake Masters, Christine "I am not a witch" O'Donnell, Dr. Oz, Herschel Walker, Matt Rosendale, and on and on. They all lost, often to newbies who might not have been able to beat a stronger candidate. Once in a while, one of them won in a one-party state—ahem, Sen. Football (R-AL)—but it is rare. Deep-red states generally have plenty of ambitious conservative politicians for the voters to choose from and they aren't forced to go with a complete turkey.

So far, there don't appear to be any races where the Republicans have a "candidate quality" problem. The cycle is still young, so one could yet pop up, but so far, so good for the red team. As far as close observers can see, Republicans are not about to throw away any winnable seats by nominating a fire-breathing wacko who can't win a general election. A lot of the credit goes to Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), who is quietly working behind the scenes to prevent wacko candidates from getting any traction in Republican primaries. Roy Moore's loss in Alabama shows that no state, no matter how conservative, is immune to having a truly awful candidate be dispatched.

This time, it is the Democrats who may have a "candidate quality" problem. Fortunately for them, it is for Virginia AG, not the Senate. The problem candidate is Jay Jones. His problem is that a string of text messages from him musing about political violence toward a political rival has come to light. This is an especially bad time for a candidate to be the top cop of a state to be talking about shooting the then-speaker of the Virginia House, Todd Gilbert. One of the messages read: "Three people, two bullets. Gilbert, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Gilbert gets two bullets to the head." That is a clumsy version of an old joke about how person one is so horrible, you'd rather make absolutely sure they end up dead (two bullets) as opposed to getting rid of two horrible people (one bullet each).

Jones' problem has become the problem of gubernatorial candidate Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA). Republicans up and down the line are demanding that she call for his ouster from the ticket. Yesterday, Donald Trump joined them in demanding that Jones exit the ticket. So far, Spanberger has condemned the messages but not called for Jones to quit. This ought to be a no-brainer for the Democrats. Every Democrat from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on down should be screaming that political violence is totally unacceptable and Jones must leave the race immediately. The Virginia Democratic Party can surely find a replacement. Besides, this one race isn't so important.

The (unspoken) problem is that Jones is Black, and the Democrats don't want to aggravate Black voters. They are going to need those votes in November. Spanberger's refusal to demand that Jones quit the race could hurt her. Her luck is that she has a weak opponent, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears (R-VA). Roughly 100% of Earle-Sears' ads attack Spanberger for refusing to toss trans people under the bus and then run the bus back and forth over them three or four times. This is apparently working, since Earle-Sears has managed to come back from being down by double digits to being down by mid-single digits. Maybe this will be a magic bullet for Republicans for years to come.

The 2024 Trump campaign spent $65 million on a single ad about how in 2019 when Kamala Harris ran for president she said she was fine with prisoners getting gender reassignment surgery at taxpayers' expense. The tag line was: She's for they/them. He's for you. Susie Wiles is smart enough to have run polls out the gazoo before spending $65 million on one ad. We have to assume the ad worked for Trump and is working for Earle-Sears. Democrats don't know what to do. What do you do when a sizable majority of voters intensely hate something you support? Henry Clay famously said: "I'd rather be right than be president." He may have been right but he was never president. (V)

The Supreme Court is Back in Town

The Supreme Court justices think R&R is important, so they give themselves a 3-month vacation every year. For a job that pays $303,600 (with the chief getting an extra $14K) it's not bad work, if you can get it. But starting today, they will have to earn their $300K salaries. They have to read long briefs from plaintiffs, defendants, and amici, as well as listen to hours of boring oral arguments, then ask Donald Trump how he wants them to rule. It's tough.

There are many controversial cases on the docket this term. Many of them deal with the scope of presidential power and whether they are willing to come out and say point blank to Trump: "You cannot do what you want to do. That violates the Constitution." Chief Justice John Roberts is a keen follower of politics. He understands that the Court derives all of its power from the public believing that it is fair. This may mean saying "no" to Trump on a few issues, so Roberts can say he is just calling balls and strikes. However, starting in 2026, Major League Baseball will be introducing robotic umpires to call balls and strikes. Maybe in 2027, Roberts can be replaced by a robot, since they are better at calling balls and strikes than humans.

Here are a few of the hot-button cases that will have to be decided before Robo-Roberts is booted up.

It is hard to predict what the Court will do. Of the 22 cases on the emergency docket so far, Trump has won 18, lost 2, and 2 were mixed. Trump has (temporarily) won on banning trans soldiers, allowing the DOGEys to access sensitive Social Security data, and cutting $800 million in NIH grants and contracts that were already signed. Probably the six conservative justices would really like to let Trump win every case, but they know that giving him wins all the time will cause the public to think of the Court as the D.C. chapter of the Republican Party. They might not really care about that, but a greater danger is truly enraging the Democrats and discovering that they have 12 new colleagues by the summer of 2029 if the Democrats win the trifecta in 2028. That they really don't want.

Another thing to watch for, besides the actual decisions on the cases, is the tendency of the Court to overturn precedents all in the same direction. This makes it look ideological. When one edition of the Supreme Court says: "[X] is a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution" and somewhat later another edition says: ""Nah, that was just their personal opinion," it greatly reduces the respect the country has for the Court's decisions. When stare decisis is no longer a thing, the public is going to come to see the Court as just nine unelected politicians in robes. (V)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones