Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
The Blame Game Is Starting
The Democrats are playing a game of chicken with Donald Trump on the government shutdown. Normally, the can gets kicked down the road a few times and then the Democrats give up. This time could possibly be different, though. The Democratic base is urging Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) not to cave this time. OMB Director Russell Vought sees an opportunity to decimate the government here. If each side thinks they have more to gain than the other guys, we could have a shutdown on Wednesday. In preparation for that, the blame game is getting started already. After all, the most important aspect of a shutdown is, of course, who gets blamed for it.
Trump has already blamed the Democrats. He said: "Will there be a shutdown? Yes, because the Democrats are crazed. Well this is all caused by the Democrats." That may or may not work with the voters, since the Democrats are going to point out that the voters last November gave the Republicans the White House, the Senate and the House because the GOPers said they could govern. Now, even though they control everything, they can't even fund the government. Initial polling suggests that the Republicans will get most of the blame. Most people don't understand all the details, but they do know the Republicans control all three branches of government completely and still can't govern.
With Trump, you never know what he is going to do. He is holding a meeting with all four leaders of Congress today, unless he cancels it... again. Is he going to be dealmaker-in-chief or is the goal to embarrass Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) by telling them they have no cards? What the Democrats want is to delay cutting subsidies for health insurance. This might not be a hill Trump wants to die on. Surely he knows (and Susie Wiles could tell him if he doesn't) that the health care subsidies are popular. Republican candidates next year probably don't want to campaign on: "We fought like hell to cut your health insurance and we had to shut down the government to force the Democrats to accept that." It doesn't sound like a great rallying cry to us, but what do we know?
The argument for a shutdown comes from this guy:
Yes, Russell Vought, the main author of Project 2025. He is a policy wonk, not a political strategist. He sees a shutdown as a wonderful opportunity to decimate the government. Instead of temporary layoffs until the shutdown is over, he wants RIFs (Reduction In Force)—that is, to permanently fire people. In some cases that might even be legal, specifically if an agency reorganizes itself due to a shortage of funds and the people being fired are not needed in the new structure. The military, law enforcement, public safety, border security and immigration enforcement would be protected, but programs the Democrats want would be chopped to mincemeat. Vought also envisions spending money that isn't there to keep programs he likes going, even though that is against the law. But who cares about the law? Or, more accurately, who is going to do anything about Trump breaking the law? Certainly not Congress.
Programs likely to be hit hard are those run by the Administration for Children and Families, low-income heating and cooling, preschool development grants, community service grants, and other programs that provide aid to people, especially low- and middle-income people.
As we note above, Vought is not a political strategist. A lot of federal employees live in Virginia. They will notice being temporarily laid off or permanently fired. The top states with federal employees are California, Virginia, Maryland, Texas, and Florida. The top two are having elections in November; California for an initiative to gerrymander their CD map to match Texas and the latter for governor. Federal employees might just express their unhappiness at the polls. A rout would have major political implications, but Vought couldn't care less. Politics is not his department. Destroying the government is his department.
Schumer is aware of all this and has set up his own private war room to strategize with outside groups, including MoveOn, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and unions, as well as other grassroots groups that want him to stand up to Trump and not cave again. One person allied with the progressives is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). If Schumer caves, she is very likely to challenge him in 2028, but she is probably savvy enough to delay her announcement until Nov. 4, 2026.
The war room is producing talking points for outside groups, including "Democrats do NOT want a shutdown." The team is also looking for storytellers who can talk about what the Medicaid cuts mean for real people. In fact, they are treating it like a political campaign, kind of like one to pass an initiative.
But again, we have been here before. The usual playbook is kicking the can down the road a few times until the Democrats cave. It could happen again despite all the threats Trump is issuing. (V)
Adams Quits Race
NYC Mayor Eric Adams finally noticed that he has roughly zero chance of keeping his job and that even trying to keep it is completely pointless, so yesterday he dropped out of the NYC mayoral race. Donald Trump has been trying to get him to drop out for weeks, and is hoping to get the official Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa, to also drop out. That would make it a head-to-head race between Zohran Mamdani and Andrew Cuomo, which Cuomo could conceivably win. In his announcement, Adams didn't mention any goodies Trump had offered him to get out of the way. Sliwa has said he's not going anywhere except Gracie Mansion. Trump will now do everything he can to get Sliwa out. It is likely to be more carrot than stick, though. Sliwa doesn't threaten easily, but might be tempted by a good job in Trump's administration. His background is radio broadcasting, so Trump could fire Kari Lake and install Sliwa as head of the almost-dead-anyway Voice of America.
Not surprisingly, Cuomo praised Adams for his wise decision. The former governor said: "Mayor Adams has much to be proud of in his accomplishments. Only in New York can a child raised in a tenement in Bushwick, who once worked as a squeegee boy and a mailroom clerk, rise to become mayor." That is technically true since no other child raised in Bushwick has become a mayor of a big city. However, the first Black mayor of NYC, David Dinkins, grew up poor in Harlem and also became mayor. Andrew Gillum, the former mayor of Tallahassee, FL, was also raised in poverty.
If Sliwa stays in the race, he will probably draw enough votes to keep Cuomo from winning. Then Mamdani will be elected mayor. Trump will then try to make Mamdani the face of the Democratic Party. That could be good or bad, depending on how well Mamdani performs. If he cuts out the Palestinian stuff and focuses exclusively on running New York City and is effective, he could potentially become popular with all New Yorkers. Then Trump's campaign to smear him could backfire. (V)
Trump Wants to Run Another Company
Donald Trump obviously likes socialism, so he had the government buy a chunk of Intel. After all, what says "socialism" more loudly than the government owning the means of production? His next move was to get his buddy Larry Ellison, cofounder of Oracle, to put together a consortium to buy TikTok. That felt so good, Trump then ordered Microsoft to fire an executive he doesn't like. From memory, we recall that the Republican Party once was the party of free markets. Back in the day, companies answered to their stockholders and customers, not to politicians. Apparently the free market works differently these days.
Specifically, Trump is demanding that Microsoft fire Lisa Monaco, the former deputy attorney general during the Biden administration. She supervised the prosecution in his classified-documents-in-the-bathroom case. This is simply retribution. He couldn't care less about Microsoft and who its executives are. He is preemptively accusing her of mishandling sensitive documents as president of Microsoft's Global Affairs unit. In March, Trump started going after her by rescinding her security clearance.
Trump does have some leverage with Microsoft. He said of Monaco: "She is a menace to U.S. National Security, especially given the major contracts that Microsoft has with the United States Government." Hint, Hint, Microsoft: "You have many government contracts that could be canceled on a whim if you do not obey me." Depending on what the contracts are for, that could be a real threat or a bluff. Contracts to write new software could conceivably be given to Oracle, which can also produce software. However, ending contracts that authorize the government to use Windows or Microsoft Office would be extremely disruptive. It would take months and a major, major effort to switch tens of thousands of government computers to Linux and Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice, or Google Docs. It will be interesting to see whether Microsoft, a consumer-facing company, responds to the blackmail. It is definitely sensitive to boycotts since there are good (and free) alternatives to many of its products. (V)
Who Controls the Past Controls the Future
Actually, the entire quote from George Orwell is: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past" but that is too long for a headline. House Republicans are about to give it a shot. They want to hold hearings on the Jan. 6, 2021, coup attempt to rewrite history to blame it on the Democrats, the FBI, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), or anyone except Donald Trump. It is an incredible attempt to take events that millions of people saw live and rewrite them to make Trump the victim, rather than the perpetrator. Will it succeed? Possibly with some of Trump's supporters. Will it enrage Democrats and get some of them to mark Nov. 3, 2026, on their calendars to make sure they don't forget to vote? Also possible. Of course, both could come to pass.
In service of this goal, the House is going to set up a new Jan. 6 committee to redo the investigation the previous
one did. Only unlike the previous one, which just tried to get at the facts, this one has a clear mission: exonerate
Trump. The panel will be chaired by vigorous Trump supporter Rep. Barry Loudermouth Loudermilk (R-GA). It may
even question some members of the earlier panel. Another member of the new panel, Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA), has pushed a
crazy theory that FBI agents helped coordinate the rioters. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) seems pleased so far. He told
CNN yesterday that the previous effort "was rigged."
The previous committee concluded that it was Trump's incendiary rhetoric and months of lies about the 2020 election results that caused the riot. That's the part where Loudermilk will try to hit the UNDO button, and put the blame elsewhere.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who served on the original committee and will serve on the new one, wants to know which conspiracy theory Loudermilk has settled on. Was it Antifa? Did the riot not happen at all? How about paid actors? The issue is a raw one on Capitol Hill because the members were the ones under attack. Recasting the story as peaceful tourists who just wanted a tour of the Capitol may not go over with members who actually felt threatened by the mob.
Other members of the committee are some fire-breathing partisans on both sides of the aisle. The Republicans are Loudermilk, Higgins, Morgan Griffith (VA), Troy Nehls (TX), and Harriet Hageman (WY). The Democrats are Eric Swalwell (CA), Jasmine Crockett (TX) and Jared Moskowitz (FL). The chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Raskin, are ex-officio members.
Our first thought is that Johnson is not aware of the Streisand Effect. Bringing the Jan. 6 riots to the fore and reminding everyone what they saw that day can't possibly help the Republicans with anyone except devoted supporters who would walk over broken glass barefoot to get to the polls in 2026. But it will undoubtedly play badly with independents who saw what happened that day, didn't like it one bit, and may have forgotten about it. The new hearings will remind them. With people like Loudermilk, Jordan, and Crockett on the committee, it will certainly have fireworks. (V)
Texas and Missouri Have Drawn New Maps but Maryland is Dawdling
Texas and Missouri have already redrawn their congressional maps to make them even more gerrymandered than they already were. In November, California is holding a special election that would allow it to do the same thing. Maryland has one Republican House seat that could be mapped out of existence, but Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD) hasn't taken any steps to cause Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) to become unemployed.
At the Annual Legislative Conference hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus last week, the best Moore could do was say: "I am very clear on where I stand. It's time for Maryland to have a conversation about whether we have a fair map or not." Huh? Maryland doesn't need a conversation about whether it has a fair map. It doesn't. It is already badly gerrymandered. The only issue now is whether Moore will ask the legislature to grab the eighth seat as well.
Two top members of the state legislature are rarin' to go, but Moore hasn't even met with them. He is possibly worried about a provision in the state Constitution that states: "Each legislative district shall consist of adjoining territory, be compact in form, and of substantially equal population." It is possible that the courts could strike down a new map. Of course, that is also possible in all the other states that are engaging in midterm re-gerrymandering, but it isn't stopping any of the others. It might require a bit more skill using Dave's Redistricting app to make the districts compact, but he is not even trying. Moore, we mean, not Dave.
Maryland State Sen. Clarence Lam (D) has said that core Democratic voters are enraged by the shenanigans going on and has introduced a bill into the state Senate to add more Democrats to Harris' district. Harris is a particularly delicious target for Democrats because he is chairman of the House Freedom Caucus. Moore hasn't ruled out Lam's bill but seems in no hurry for the legislature to take it up. He said the legislature could take it up in January. That is a very bad idea because potential candidates, even Republican challengers to incumbent Democrats, need time to decide where to run and getting a new map in January that is just beginning its journey through the courts is a terrible idea. If he is going to do it, now is the time. If he is not, now is the time to kill the idea. All this delay does is show that Moore is an indecisive leader. That is not going to help him later if he ever runs for president. (V)
Americans--Even Republicans--Do Not Want Government to Block Dissenting Speech
When eX-Twitter banned Donald Trump from the platform in 2021 for inciting violence, Trump was absolutely furious and decried anyone blocking free speech. Now he is working hard to silence everyone critical of him, even comedians. Funny how his attitude toward censorship depends on whether he is the victim or the censor.
Most Americans, however, do not like censorship and support the right to free speech even for people they disagree with. A new The Economist/YouGov poll shows this clearly, with 68% of Americans saying it is unacceptable for the government to pressure broadcasters to remove shows government officials don't like. Here are the poll results:
As you can see, only 13% of U.S. adults say that censorship is fine. Among independents, the anti-censorship group is almost as big as among Democrats. Republicans are more ambivalent, but only because their guy is doing the censoring now. We can guarantee you that if Joe Biden had threatened to yank the broadcast licenses from Nexstar or Sinclair, those same people would be up in arms screaming their heads off. Nevertheless, even among Republicans, more people oppose censorship than support it. (V)
Other Countries Have Better Election Laws
Donald Trump announced his 2024 campaign over 700 days before the election. Each party spent over a billion dollars on the campaign. Only 60% of the eligible voters actually voted. Americans think this is all normal and it happens everywhere. It isn't and it doesn't. American elections are definitely an example of American exceptionalism, and not in a good way. Here are five proposals from Chris Armitage for election laws that have worked fine elsewhere for decades, but which would be revolutionary in the U.S.
- Ban All Corporate Campaign Donations: Corporations are not allowed to make direct
donations to campaigns, but they can have PACs that bundle contributions from employees who want to keep their jobs, and
from shareholders. They can also make unlimited contributions to PACs if they don't get caught coordinating with
campaigns. Most democracies do not allow any corporate funding of campaigns. This is illegal in Canada, France, Japan,
South Korea, and many other countries, including many nations in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and even Africa. Canada
is a good example. All corporation contributions to campaigns are banned, individual contributions are limited to $1,750
CAD and candidates may spend no more than $5,000 of their own money on their campaign. Contrast that with the U.S.,
where megadonors can effectively spend $100 million on their favorite candidate or party. All it would take is a law, with very
heavy penalties (say, 10x the amount donated above the legal limit).
- Limit Campaign Length: One of the reasons that campaigns are so expensive is that they are
so long. In Japan the campaign period is 12 days. In France, presidential campaigns last 14 days. South Korean campaigns
are 22 days. In the U.K. it is 5-6 weeks. In Mexico it is 90 days. The U.S. is a big place and some voters want to see
the candidates up close, but realistically, that only happens in the New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucuses. It would
certainly be reasonable to ban all campaign expenditures before Jan. 1 of the election year, limiting them to about 10
months. In fact, campaign contributions could be banned before Nov. 1 of the preceding year. If candidates were also
banned from spending their own money above, say, $5,000, the whole campaign period could be reduced to 1 year.
- Put Spending Caps in Place: Many countries limit how much money can be spent on a
campaign. These include Belgium, Canada, France, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Poland, Slovenia, and the U.K. The caps vary,
but the idea is to allow money to talk—but quietly. In Canada, for example, the 2021 federal election had a limit of
about $30 million for national parties. In France, the limit for the first round is about $20 million and for the second
round about $25 million. In the U.S., the Supreme Court ruled that spending money for campaigns is speech and is thus
protected. The logical consequence of that is a person giving a politician money to get a job or a contract for his
company is also protected speech, rather than a bribe. "Speech" clearly can be limited by law. The Supreme Court can be
reined in by having Congress strip the Court of jurisdiction in cases involving campaign financing.
This is perfectly legal. Art. III, Sec. 2, paragraph 2 reads (our emphasis):
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
- Have Campaigns Be Paid for With Public Funds: Many democracies have schemes in which
campaigns are financed either by direct grants or a matching scheme. Sweden provides 80-90% of the funding for a seat in
the parliament plus a grant to help parties run their offices. Germany has a matching scheme with funding based on votes
in the previous election and a match of 45% of individual donations up to a maximum donation of about $4,000 per donor.
Arizona had a matching law until the Supreme Court struck it down. Maybe we missed it, but we can't find the clause in
the Constitution saying that a legislature cannot pass a law providing any rule for campaign financing it so desires.
- Mandatory Voting: Twenty-seven countries require all people who are eligible to vote to do so. Australia is the most famous one, with fines for not voting when you are eligible. Belgium also has a mandatory voting law but enforcement is lax. Mandatory voting would work against extremism because people who don't really want to vote but do it to escape a fine are by definition not fierce partisans. If the voting participation was raised from 60% to 90% by a substantial fine for not voting, the electorate would be increased by 50%, mostly with people who are not fanatical partisans. Politicians would be forced to cater to them to a considerable extent. Of course, mandatory voting would have to be coupled with making voting easy, such as allowing anyone who wanted to vote by mail, no questions asked, and to have a voting period of, say, at least 30 days. Venezuela conducted an unintended experiment when it ended compulsory voting. Participation went from 83% to 61% when voting was no longer required.
In short, there is a lot that could be done to get money out of politics and make democracy work. Among other possibilities is making election administration nonpartisan and run by civil servants and overseen by boards not under executive control, which is common elsewhere. Americans tolerate the current system only because they can't imagine any other system. All they have to do is look beyond their border. (V)
Giuliani Settles Defamation Lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems
Just in case you missed it, Dominion Voting Systems settled its long-running defamation lawsuit with Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani claimed on air that Dominion's systems were rigged and the company sued for $1.3 billion. Now they have settled.
Giuliani does not have $1.3 billion. He may not even have $1.3 million in liquid assets. Remember, he already settled with the two Georgia election workers who won a $148 million judgment against him. At the time, he owned real estate worth about $12 million, so if they pursued collections via the legal process, they could have gotten ownership of his properties and sold them. There was no reason for them to settle for much less than that. We don't know what really happened. Perhaps a rich friend of Rudy's bailed him out. Maybe that happened with Dominion as well. In terms of restoring its reputation, actually winning a court case would do a lot that a small cash settlement would not. All we can guess is that: (1) Dominion decided its ongoing legal costs were just too much to justify continuing, especially since you can't get blood out of a stone or (2) some rich friend of Giuliani ponied up enough to Dominion to make it worth its while. None of the parties who know what actually happened are talking. (V)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones