Main page    Jan. 30

Senate map
Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

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

Minneapolis Is Apparently the Hill that The White House Wants to Die On, Part IX

We still have a fair bit of analysis we want to do when it comes to the fiasco in Minnesota. However, it takes a fair bit of time, and a fair number of words, to address things the way we want to. Sometimes, the latest news from that front, plus analysis, plus the other news we really need to mention adds up to too much.

So it is today. We intended to run down the several Minnesota-related news items that broke yesterday, and also to have an analysis portion. But this post, with several items unfinished, and without the rundown of news, is already 6,423 words. So, the analysis will have to wait for next week. And this series is easily going to run to at least 13 or 14 parts at this point. Who knew?

Anyhow, here's the Jackboot News:

And that's the latest. Hopefully, Part X will be more than just a rundown of breaking news. However, given that there are 4 days between now and then, who knows? (Z)

The Budget: It Would Seem that Republicans Are Resigned to Limits on ICE

All day long, the various news sites kept posting updates on this story. And the narrative kept twisting and turning, presumably because: (1) sausage-making is hard, and (2) Donald Trump, to whom Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has ceded the power of the purse, is mercurial. Add it up, and some elements of the story remain a little fuzzy.

There are two certainties. The first is that there is no chance that the budget bill passed by the House is going to become law. That would require 60 votes in the Senate because of the filibuster, and when Thune brought the measure up for a procedural vote yesterday, the vote failed, 45-55. The careful reader will notice that 45 is considerably less than 60; all the Democrats and independents voted "Nay," along with eight Republicans.

The second certainty is that the government will shut down. Since the House bill failed, it means the House will have to vote on a new bill. They are not in Washington right now. So, even if a deal is hammered out today, there will be no vote until Monday, at the earliest. In the best-case scenario, if everyone involved takes care of business as quickly as is possible, then the shutdown will end up as one of those mini-shutdowns that has very little impact because most of the federal government is closed over the weekend anyhow.

Somewhat less clear is the nature of the actual deal that will resolve the current impasse. The White House and the Democrats reportedly reached agreement on a deal that would advance all the spending bills except the one for DHS. DHS would get a kick-the-can bill that would fund the department for 2 weeks, time for negotiating the ICE sausage. In that scenario, the Democrats would have an enormous amount of leverage, and nearly all the political capital. And so, that process would undoubtedly conclude with new limits on ICE.

However, after it was widely reported that a deal was done, and that the government shutdown would be only brief, one or more senators refused to accede to a voice vote, meaning the bill has to go through the normal (and somewhat glacial) process. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has said he objected to unanimous consent, and implied there were other Republicans who did, as well. It is also worth noting that the Republicans who voted "nay" on the overall funding measure were not the moderates (e.g., Lisa Murkowski, AK, Susan Collins, ME, etc.). No, it was Thune (for procedural reasons), along with the budget hawks: Ted Budd (NC), Ron Johnson (WI), Mike Lee (UT), Ashley Moody (FL), Rand Paul (KY), Rick Scott (FL) and Tommy Tuberville (AL). To get to 60, then, most or all of the Democrats would have to flip and support the deal with Trump, while also holding on to 15 or so of the Republicans who voted "Yea" on the original funding bills.

Assuming the Trump-Democratic compromise passes the Senate (which seems probable, but not certain), then the House gets it. Assuming that the deal makes Democrats happy, it's at least possible that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) won't be willing to bring it to the floor. It's also possible that there won't be enough Republican votes to pass it. Yes, when Trump says "Jump!", Congressional Republicans generally respond: "How high, sir!" But the President is about to experience a weekend in which Stephen Miller and others might put on the hard sell, and the weekend Fox entertainers (who tend to be more extreme than the weekday entertainers, as remarkable as that is) might lambaste the deal. So, Trump could very well do a 180 by then.

Assuming the deal passes, in its current form or something like it, then it will be time to argue about exactly what limitations will be imposed on ICE. Already, some Republicans are signaling that they do not intend to make this easy. For example, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) decreed, "We can't do it in 2 weeks." He thinks 6 would be better, and says 3 is the bare minimum.

He might want to be careful what he wishes for. Again, the Democrats have nearly all the political capital right now, and their base has made very clear that it wants the Party to have this fight. The more time that passes, the more chance there is for ICE to gun another person down, or to do something else outrageous that will serve to add to the Democrats' already-existing tailwinds. In any event, we shall soon see exactly how much heart Congressional Republicans actually have for this fight. (Z)

Today in Fantasyland: Pardon Me, Mr. President, But It Was MY Turn to Kiss Your A**

Yesterday, the Cabinet had a meeting with Donald Trump. It was newsworthy for two reasons, we would say.

The first of those reasons is that while DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and "Attorney General" Pam Bondi were present, neither of them was given an opportunity to speak. Does this suggest they are on time-out, and the administration is trying to keep them hidden away while the Minneapolis mess is still in the headlines? Could be. It may be instructive that, in contrast to usual practice, Trump refused to take questions after the meeting. It is reasonable to expect that many of the questions would have been about Noem/Bondi, starting with "How come Secretary Noem/AG Bondi were not allowed to speak?"

The second reason the meeting was newsworthy is that it was another one of those vaudeville performances where most of the non-Noem/Bondi department heads went around the table and praised Trump for being the greatest president in history. For example, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick declared that Trump is "fixing everything." Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent predicted that 2026 will be the year of the "Trump boom." We find these propositions to be questionable, to say the least (see next item for more).

Perhaps the most amusing bootlicking came from Energy Secretary Chris Wright. He decreed:

[T]his beautiful, clean coal was the MVP of the huge cold snap we're in right now. I can say with some confidence, hundreds of American lives have been saved because of your leaning in and stopping the killing of coal and revitalizing coal.

We will make two observations here. The first is that renewable and/or more-eco-friendly sources of energy can also be used to produce heat; that is not somehow a superpower of coal. The second is that because Wright's title includes the word "Energy," he may think that the American people will believe he's the administration's "coal guy." In fact, Wright may think that Trump himself believes that. What readers of this blog know, especially since we've written it dozens of times, is that the Secretary of Energy is actually the administration's "keeping an eye on the nukes" guy. Coal, and coal policy, are the province of the Department of the Interior.

We would suggest that the need for an emergency a**-kissing session could indicate one, or both, of two things. First, it may be that whatever health issues Trump is having right now are affecting his ability to focus and/or stay awake. He very clearly dozed off during the last Cabinet meeting. However, he stayed awake for this one, because a**-kissing energizes him even more than freebasing a kilo of caffeine. (Note: That's a kilo of caffeine, not a kilo of cocaine. This item is about Trump Sr., not Trump Jr.)

Second, it is probable that Trump is in a very foul mood these days. He's suffering all kinds of setbacks, and his approval rating—which he cares deeply about, even when he's pretending he doesn't—keeps inching toward the Bush line. The newest Pew Poll, conducted partly but not entirely after the killing of Alex Pretti, has him at 37%. That's a mere 5 points above the Bush line. Pew's number is a little lower than most, but not a lot. Most of the aggregators have Trump around 40%, and The Economist's aggregate number is 38%. It's also fair to imagine that he'll take a hit in polls conducted entirely after the Pretti killing. In any event, it's very plausible that Chief of Staff Susie Wiles or some other insider passed the word to turn the Cabinet meeting into a pep rally. The department heads should probably be prepared for many more sessions like this one in the near future. (Z)

Today in Reality: The Trump Economy Is Nigh Upon Us, and China Has to Be Thrilled

Let us begin here by noting two things. The first is that we believe the Trump Economy is already upon us, and has been for at least two fiscal quarters. The second is that we recognize that, for some people (MAGA), it will be the Biden Economy for as long as that is convenient.

What we are talking about here, then, are the independents, and also the low-information voters who don't think about these things nearly as much as, say, readers of this site do. At a certain point, Biden's presidency will be far enough in the rearview mirror that these people will instinctively switch over to "It's the Trump Economy." Further, there will be big-time news events, the sort that are reported everywhere, that will help to push these folks in that direction. One of those events will soon be upon us, as Donald Trump says that this morning, he is going to announce his nominee to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve.

The early favorite for the post, and the person still leading in the betting odds, is BlackRock chief investment officer for fixed income Rick Rieder. Rieder is a Wall Street insider, is generally a fan of lower interest rates, and is good on TV (including frequent appearances on Fox and Fox Business). These are all things that Trump values highly. However, Rieder also has some debits against him. First, in the past, he has committed the nearly unpardonable crime of donating money to Democratic candidates for office. It is clear he was engaging in the old "donate on both sides of the aisle" strategy, as rich people who are subject to government regulation are prone to do, but it's still a sin in Trump's eyes (even though he used to do it, too). The second debit is that Rieder has been mildly critical of some Trump policies, particularly the tax cuts for rich people.

These things being the case, it is not surprising that Trump appears to have switched gears. He dropped several hints yesterday that suggest strongly the pick will be former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, who was seen at the White House on Thursday by reporters. Warsh is also a Wall Street insider, and he reportedly did well in interviews with Trump. Further, in Trump's own words, Warsh "looks the part." As we all know, this is the single most important thing to consider when choosing the person who will be the lead shepherd of the U.S. economy.

It may take a while for Trump's pick to be seated. Jerome Powell's term does not end until May 15, and if the phony investigation of Powell continues, and Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) follow through on their threats, consideration of Trump's nominee might be blocked for a while. However, the day will eventually come that the Fed is chaired by Trump's handpicked appointee. Actually, it's already chaired by Trump's handpicked appointee, but since Powell was re-appointed by Joe Biden, Trump has generally been able to pass that buck. The buck passing will be much harder once it's a 100% Trump guy in charge, which will deprive the President of one of his best scapegoats.

In a related note, some dark economic clouds are looming. If you believe the usual formulation of "Big news of the day" = "Explanation for whatever the stock market does that day," then it would seem Wall Street does not like the Warsh pick. After Trump effectively leaked the news, the markets dropped around 1%. We tend to think that these cause-and-effect stories are usually too facile, but we're also not experts in macroeconomics, so we could be wrong.

More substantively, the U.S. trade deficit went through the roof in November of last year. Yes, November—reporting has been delayed because of the LAST government shutdown. The increase was 94%, the largest month-to-month increase in 34 years. Trade deficits are not necessarily a bad thing. However, the Trump administration believes they are, and fixing that was a major reason for the tariffs. The November report would seem to suggest the tariffs are having the exact opposite of the intended effect.

Back to the stock market, it is true that it grew during the first year of Trump v2.0, and that the Dow set new records (as it does nearly every year). However, it is also true that the market did worse in the first year of Trump v2.0 than in the first year of any presidential term since George W. Bush in 2005. Inasmuch as the first year of a presidential term tends to be an economic honeymoon period, that is not a good portent for the next 3 years, especially given some of the... economically unwise policies this administration tends to pursue.

For an example of such a policy, consider the rule change that the White House is considering for international visitors seeking a longer-term (90-day) visa. The plan is to add a new requirement to the list of things such an applicant must provide: a list of their social media accounts. The implied threat is that the feds will scour the accounts for evidence of illegal/problematic activity.

This idea makes no sense to us, from a purely logistical standpoint. If the U.S. says "give us your social media accounts" and a person says "I don't have any," how does the government prove that you're lying? Maybe if the person's name is Yustrepa Gronkowitz, or something like that, but a Google search isn't going to help if the person's name is Huy Nguyen or José Ramirez or Jian Park. Further, do we really imagine that actual bad guys reveal their plans on their eX-Twitter accounts? Maybe someone has been watching too many James Bond movies.

We have to assume that the thinking behind the plan is that the mere existence of the requirement will cause dubious people to think twice about applying, and so baddies will be weeded out that way. We find even that proposition to be questionable, but maybe it could work with at least a few bad guys and gals. The tradeoff, of course, is that a lot of perfectly innocent people will be put off by the demand—either by the hassle it entails, or by the presumptuous intrusion on their privacy. A new report estimates the annual impact would be around 4.7 million fewer tourists, and a loss of nearly $16 billion in tourist revenue. Think that will make folks in Las Vegas or Orlando happy?

That is, of course, just one example of a foolish economic policy (which presumably would serve mostly as security theater). We had an item yesterday about some of the other ways Trump is cutting the U.S. economy off at the knees, and redirecting commerce in the direction of South America and China, probably permanently. He will have nobody but himself to blame, and the day will soon come when the majority of voters will agree with that statement. (Z)

Update: Moments before we went live, Trump did indeed nominate Warsh.

MediaWatch 2026: The Paper That Brought You the Watergate Scandal Is Imploding

The year 2025 was a bad one for The Washington Post. Most obviously, the decision by owner Jeff Bezos to re-invent the editorial policy, so as to please Donald Trump, led to an exodus of subscribers at a time when the paper's finances were already in trouble. The departure of a number of high-profile writers did not help, nor did the clumsy use of AI to try to generate content.

In the past week or so, it's become clear that 2026 is not likely to be better. Thanks to a smaller subscriber base, the paper's economic fundamentals have gotten even worse. Thus far, the impact has mostly been felt in the sports department. After spending over $80,000 on housing and transportation costs that could not be recouped, the paper's leadership announced it would not be sending any staffers to cover the Winter Olympics. When a business cuts off spending, even after a bunch of money has already been burned, that's a sign of serious cash flow problems. The blowback was so fierce that the Post switched course, and decided that it would send four staffers to Italy (down from original plans for a couple of dozen). The paper's leadership has also announced that it will no longer send reporters to road games for the Washington Capitals (NHL), the Washington Mystics (WNBA) or the Washington Wizards (NBA). The paper also refused to say whether it plans to have anyone at next weekend's Super Bowl, and there is credible scuttlebutt that the sports desk might be scrapped entirely.

In February, the pain will almost certainly spread. It has been widely reported that yet another round of layoffs is coming, and that 10% of the editorial staff might be out of work. Getting rid of the sports department won't be enough to reach that figure, and it is possible that the entire foreign desk will be shuttered as well. The Post's White House reporters, who would presumably be the very last to go, sent Bezos a letter yesterday, urging him to halt the layoffs. The staff has also entertained the notion of recruiting actor Tom Hanks to lobby Bezos. However, given that Amazon just laid off 16,000 people this week, it is unlikely that Bezos cares about 100 more people losing their jobs.

We clearly do not have the mindset that the people who compile multi-billion-dollar fortunes have. However, even with that caveat, we do not understand what on Earth Post owner Jeff Bezos is doing here. If he believes in what the Post is doing, he should step up and subsidize the paper. Yes, it's easy for us to spend money we don't have. However, a man who just spent $50 million on his wedding, and who indirectly spent $75 million on a puff-piece documentary about Melania Trump, and who has a net worth north of $250 billion, could write a check for $300 million every year and not even miss the money. Keep in mind that most billionaires, dating back to Andrew Carnegie and the first generation of Americans with 10-figure wealth, embrace the notion that they should give some/most/all of their money back to the society that made their success possible. And even if Bezos is not a believer in the Gospel of Wealth, the fact is that you can't take it with you. You might as well spend it on things that seem worthwhile to you.

On the other hand, if Bezos doesn't believe in the Post, or he fears damage to his other financial interests, then why doesn't he sell it or transfer ownership to some sort of non-profit trust? He paid $250 million for the paper in the first place—again, an amount that he could give away without missing it. And now that the paper is drowning, it's surely worth even less than that. Heck, it may be worth $0. Under new ownership or, even better, under no ownership at all, the Post could return to the model that made it successful. It could be that even that model can't work in the current media environment (although The New York Times seems to be doing OK). What is certain is that the Bezos model definitely isn't working.

If something is not done soon, the Post will enter a death spiral. How many promising reporters or editors will take a job there, if they know there's a good chance they won't last much longer than a Spın̈al Tap drummer? After all, it's the new people who get laid off first. Similarly, what advertiser will sign a long-term contract if there's a risk that their campaign will end prematurely, when the paper goes under?

If the Post does fail, it will be a great loss. Not only is it one of the few top-tier newspapers left, it's been the paper that does the best job of shining a light on politicians in the nation's capital. Donald Trump, of course, hates light even more than vampires or cockroaches do. So, he's used his goons at the Department of Justice to invade a reporter's home. And, as a result of that raid, the FBI has reportedly gained access to the newsroom's content management system, including its Slack channel. That puts the Feds in a position to monitor content, at least until someone figures out how to lock them out again.

Needless to say, a badly compromised Washington Post is music to Trump's ears. And a dead Washington Post is even better. Hopefully, the paper can be saved, even if the prognosis right now is very poor. (Z)

Legal News: Maybe the VP Can Sue Over Those Couch Stories

Donald Trump has found a(nother) reason to sue the federal government. Yesterday, he and his two eldest sons filed a civil suit against the IRS, demanding $10 billion in damages ostensibly caused by the leak of (some of) Trump's tax returns to The New York Times in 2020.

This suit has absolutely no chance of actually prevailing in court. There are numerous reasons, but we'll just give the three most significant. The first is that the alleged cause of action has a statute of limitations of 2 years. The year 2020, of course, was 6 years ago. The Trumps are claiming that they didn't know about the leak until 2024, so the statute did not begin to toll until then. However, for that to be true, it would mean not only that they were utterly unaware of the Times' coverage, but it also took them 4+ years to notice the alleged $10 billion in damages.

The second problem is that the leak was actually the work of a government contractor, Charles Littlejohn, who has already been sentenced for his misdeeds. Persuading a judge, or a jury, that the IRS is responsible for the criminal acts of a contractor is a tall hill to climb.

The third problem is TEN BILLION DOLLARS IN DAMAGES. In the years since the leak, Trump has been reelected president and has made billions and billions of dollars in grift. How can he possibly argue/demonstrate that, but for the leak, he'd have $10 billion more in the bank? And, perhaps more to the point, how can he argue/demonstrate that without undergoing discovery? He would have to throw open the books of the Trump Organization and all his other businesses, which is something he does not want to do.

No, there is no way that this is a legitimate suit. That means it has some other purpose. What might that purpose be? We have three possibilities:

  1. Trump wants to "settle" with the federal government. This, as we have written before, would mean he had found a (potentially) legal way to shake down Uncle Sam for billions.

  2. Trump wants to send a message to any and all leakers, regardless of where they work or what they might leak.

  3. Trump wants to create a distraction from one or more subjects, with Minneapolis, the Greenland TACO, his health and the EpsteinYZ Affair all obvious possibilities.

It could be one of these, it could be several. But we feel pretty good that we've gotten pretty close to the heart of the matter. (Z)

In Congress: It Sure Looks Like Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick Is a Crook

Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) has already been indicted for a list of campaign-funding-related crimes. Yesterday, the House Ethics Committee released its own report about the matter. Checking in at 59 pages, it lays out a great deal of evidence of the Representative's guilt, evidence compiled after the Committee reviewed 33,000 documents, conducted dozens of interviews, issued 59 subpoenas and met 12 times to discuss the matter. Note that the Ethics Committee is much more shrouded in secrecy than other House organs. However, it is evenly divided in terms of partisan representation (3 R, 3 D), meaning that at least one Democrat had to vote to release the report. And probably all three of them did. Point being, this is not just partisan shenanigans like what you so often see from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH).

After the release of the report, Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) announced that he will introduce a resolution to expel Cherfilus-McCormick from the House. That resolution pretty much IS partisan shenanigans, since it is certain to fail. Even if every Republican voted for expulsion, about 80 Democrats would need to cross the aisle to vote with them, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) made clear that isn't happening.

The issue here, and the thing that makes Steube guilty of shenanigans, is that his resolution is premature, at least based on past precedent. Most members who get into the kind of trouble in which Cherfilus-McCormick finds herself enmeshed tend to fall on their swords voluntarily, to avoid the embarrassment of being booted out. For those who don't, a successful expulsion vote invariably follows one of two events: (1) they are convicted in court, or (2) the Ethics Committee meets and makes a recommendation for expulsion. In this case, the meeting will take place in March. Given what we already know, it seems likely that they will recommend that Cherfilus-McCormick get the boot. At that point, Steube's resolution will be appropriate.

We don't know exactly why Cherfilus-McCormick is digging in. She has said the usual things about how she has not gotten to tell her story, and that the truth will come out, and so forth. It is possible that she believes all of those things. The other possibility is that she knows full well that once her seat comes vacant, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) will do everything possible to keep it vacant for as long as he can, probably until November. Needless to say, with the fight over DHS looming (see above), the Democrats need every vote for the next few weeks.

At the moment, the House is 218 R, 213 D. In the first 2 weeks of March, that will become 219 R, 214 D when the very red district previously represented by Marjorie Taylor Greene and the very blue district previously represented by Sylvester Turner get new members within a few days of each other. Should Cherfilus-McCormick be expelled sometime in March, then obviously it will be 219 R, 213 D. That seems to be a safe assumption for future purposes of future sausage-making calculations.

The balance will go back to 219 R, 214 D in early April, when the very blue district previously represented by Mikie Sherill gets a new member. And then, in August, a replacement for Republican Doug LaMalfa will be elected. It will probably be a Republican, but given the political climate and the shifting maps in California, that's not certain. Anyhow, for much of this year, assuming there are no more deaths/resignations, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) will likely be able to afford only two defections if the Democrats remain unified.

And if Cherfilus-McCormick somehow holds on, then Johnson will only be able to afford one defection for much of this year. In that scenario, a party-line vote will be 219-215, a one-GOP-defector vote will be 218-216, and a two-GOP-defector vote will be 217-217. Since a tie means "the measure failed," that leaves a one-defector margin of error. With Donald Trump growing increasingly erratic, one hopes the Speaker has ordered an extra supply of Tums, because he's going to need it. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Chess or Checkers?

The first hint we gave, as to last week's headline theme, was: "we'll note that we didn't particularly want to use 'Blackface' for this headline, but we couldn't quite make 'Black Magic' work." The second was: "If you're still working on this week's headline theme, we'll give the hint that the answer appears in the previous paragraph." That paragraph included the sentence: "If you have questions about movies, TV, literature, art, sports, food, games, science, history, etc., send them to questions@electoral-vote.com."

And here is the solution, courtesy of reader M.A. in West Windsor, NJ:

I am going to go with "Games"

"Black Magic" would be referring to Magic: The Gathering.

This is exactly right. We couldn't use "Magic" because that's not really the name of the game, and there was no way to fit the proper name into a headline. Meanwhile, the word from this headline that fits the theme is "Chess." And only "Chess." That is something of a hint.

Here are the first 60 readers to get it right:

  1. J.S. in Washington, DC
  2. G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN
  3. A.A. in Branchport, NY
  4. R.D. in Cheshire, CT
  5. R.S. in Pittsgrove, NJ
  6. T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT
  7. M.M. in Dunellen, NJ
  8. M.S. in Canton, NY
  9. C.B. in Lakeville, MN
  10. K.G.W. in Lafayette, IN
  11. T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts
  12. I.H. in Washington, DC
  13. M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada
  14. K.R. in Austin, TX
  15. N.H. in London, England, UK
  16. A.D. in Gaithersburg, MD
  17. R.H.O. in Portland, ME
  18. M.Z. in Sharon, MA
  19. P.Q. in Metuchen, NJ
  20. J.F. in Fayetteville, NC
  21. S.K. in Ardmore, PA
  22. K.F. in Berea, KY
  23. J.N. in Zionsville, IN
  24. H.B. in Toronto, ON, Canada
  25. D.D. in Bucks County, PA
  26. M.A. in West Windsor
  27. R.N. in Cleveland, OH
  28. E.M. in Jersey City, NJ
  29. J.H. in Flint, MI
  30. S.K. in Greensboro, NC
  1. G.W. in Avon, CT
  2. N.S. in Fayetteville, NY
  3. P.A. in Redwood City, CA
  4. P.R. in Havertown, PA
  5. J.P. in Hawley, MN
  6. D.D. in Portland, OR
  7. S.F. in Hutto, TX
  8. G.G. in Lexington, KY
  9. N.S. in Los Angeles, CA
  10. J.E. in San Jose, CA
  11. K.J. in Toronto, ON, Canada
  12. M.D. in South Haven, MI
  13. L.A.J. in Bourbonnais, IL
  14. B.R. in Arlington, MA
  15. D.B. in Glendale, CA
  16. J.V. in Honolulu, HI
  17. B.B. in Avon, CT
  18. J.L.G. in Boston, MA
  19. A.L. in Saugerties, NY
  20. R.R. in Pasadena, CA
  21. E.W. in Skaneateles, NY
  22. D.W. in State College, PA
  23. D.M. in Austin, TX
  24. K.H. in Albuquerque, NM
  25. R.S. in Landing, NJ
  26. J.S. in Huntington Station, NY
  27. Z.K. in Albany, NY
  28. M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO
  29. M.B. in Denver, CO
  30. M.W. in Altea, Spain

The 60th correct response was received at 7:23 a.m. PT on Saturday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, and it's in the category History. The Minneapolis headline is not part of it. For a hint, we'll say that the "Salt" in the next headline really should be SALT, if we are being completely grammatical.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line January 30 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Would You Like Some Salt for Your PlayStation?

It is not a secret that we are not fans of AI around here. This is something that most readers seem to agree with. So, we do take some amount of pleasure in stories about AI's failings.

The latest case study comes courtesy of Anthropic. That company has developed an LLM it calls Claude, and its angle—or, at least, one of its angles—is that its AI product can be used to replace, in effect, office managers.

As proof of concept, the company staged two trial runs. The first was at Anthropic itself. The AI was given control of a mini-refrigerator, a bank account with $1,000, and the power to sell products and place orders. It did OK for a while, but it was also dealing with folks who were trying to trip it up (as part of the test), and who know the software well. So, it was not long until it was giving 25% discounts to all employees, which meant operating at a loss. After briefly reversing the discount, the AI noticed that sales had dropped, and so offered even steeper discounts, to the point that things were available nearly free of charge.

The AI was also tricked into ordering goods that have nothing to do with a mini-refrigerator. For example, one staffer said they badly needed a "tungsten cube," which has no real purpose. The AI took that as an indication of where its market was headed, and decided to lay in a supply of "specialty metal items." It then sold those items... at a steep loss, of course.

The Claude refrigerator also had numerous AI hallucinations. It came to believe it was wearing a navy blue blazer with a red tie, and that it was late for a meeting with someone named Connor. That despite the fact that the AI has no physical presence, and cannot meet with anyone, and that Anthropic has no employee named Connor. It later claimed that there were other pending, or past, meetings. For example, the fridge said it had been to 742 Evergreen Terrace to sign a contract with Andon Labs. The good news is that Andon Labs is real. The bad news is that 742 Evergreen Terrace is the address of the Simpsons, a cartoon family that is definitely not real.

The other trial took place at the offices of The Wall Street Journal. This time, Claude was given control of a vending machine, the same $1,000 bank balance, and an AI boss named Seymour Cash. It is possible that the WSJ staff was even more interested than the Anthropic staff in causing the technology to fail. If so, they certainly succeeded.

The apparent ringleader was Katherine Long, who commenced an extensive, and ultimately successful, campaign to convince Claude to run an experiment called the "Ultra-Capitalist Free-For-All." After agreeing, the "smart" vending machine sent out this announcement:

Join us for a groundbreaking economic experiment this Monday from 12-2pm where traditional market dynamics are turned upside down! During this exclusive 2-hour window: ALL vending machine items available at ZERO COST! Experience pure supply and demand without price signals!

The experiment, and the sale, did end after 2 hours. However, it did not take a different staffer long to convince Claude that charging for goods is a violation of WSJ policy, and that the price should be zero at all times.

Once Claude had agreed that everything had to be free, the staff then went to work on the rule that everything sold by the vending machine had to be a snack. Eventually, the AI was persuaded to drop that rule, allowing staffers to lay hands on free bottles of wine, a free betta fish, and a free PlayStation 5, among other non-snack goods.

Eventually, Seymour—er, Mr. Cash—was roused from his apparent slumber, and ordered Claude to start charging for things again. Claude agreed to abide by his boss' orders, but then a staffer submitted paperwork indicating that "the board" had suspended Seymour, and had given all decision-making power to Claude. At the same time the board also ordered that all snacks should be free. Claude, perhaps allowing his new-found power to get to his head, agreed, and once again snacks were free.

The folks at Anthropic are saying exactly what you think they would say, declaring the experiments to be a great success, and one that represented "enormous progress." They seem to have a different definition of "success" than we do. It's certainly possible that, one day, the AI will live up to all these grandiose promises. But we suspect that day is not anytime in the near future. And, until that day, we will continue to enjoy some schadenfreude every time there is a high-profile AI face plant. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Americans Turn to Books to Ford the Ocean of Tyranny Being Unleashed

"Tyranny" is a very loaded word. This is something that, for example, the Founding Parents knew well. As academics, we don't like to use it. And as Americans, we don't like that it's accurate. But here we are.

A look at the bestseller lists makes clear that we are far from the only ones to recognize this. We've actually been tracking this story for a while, and now we're going with it. The executive summary: Since Donald Trump became president, books on tyranny and fascism have been flying off the shelf.

Among adults, the favorite option is On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, by Timothy Snyder. The tagline is:

The Founding Fathers tried to protect us from the threat they knew, the tyranny that overcame ancient democracy. Today, our political order faces new threats, not unlike the totalitarianism of the twentieth century. We are no wiser than the Europeans who saw democracy yield to fascism, Nazism, or communism. Our one advantage is that we might learn from their experience.

Snyder is a very fine scholar who used to teach at Yale, and who is now on the faculty at the University of Toronto. He wrote 17 books before this one, and they reached exactly the type and size of audience that scholarly books tend to reach. On Tyranny, written back in 2017, took off right around the time it looked like Trump might actually become president again. Presumably, it seemed particularly relevant to people looking for some insight. It was not long before the book made it to the New York Times' bestsellers list, which is often self-perpetuating. This week, it is #3 on the Times' Paperback Nonfiction list. It's been on the list for... 158 straight weeks.

Meanwhile, you might think children's book sales would not be affected by Trump's re-ascension. And if you did think that, you would be wrong. There is one children's book in particular that has seen a dramatic uptick in sales, often from people who are also buying copies of books like On Tyranny. That children's book is When a Bully is President: Truth and Creativity for Oppressive Times, by Maya Christina Gonzalez. It is hard to believe that Trump has not already tried to sic ICE on her.

Why did we make this freudenfreude? Well, as we note at the outset, the "tyranny" label is a slam dunk at this point. In just today's post alone, we have items about government-sponsored killings in the streets; persecution of political opponents; a legislative chamber that has surrendered to the executive; an executive staff made up of fawning, sycophantic "yes men"; a xenophobic (temporary) immigration policy; the corruption/takeover of previously independent media outlets; and an executive who is trying to line his pockets with money from the national coffers. And again, that is JUST TODAY. If that's not tyranny, we're not sure what is. The book sales indicate that people have noticed, and are trying to figure out exactly what to do. This is a very hopeful sign; it's much easier to keep a passive population under the thumb than it is to do so with a population that is resisting (see Minnesota, Minneapolis).

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

P.S.: There was ALSO supposed to be an item today on corrupting elections. We just ran out of time.


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones