There's No End to the Republican Backbiting

Another day, another round of GOP infighting. As reader B.G. in Palo Alto, CA, observes, it appears they are trying to rewrite Will Rogers' old mantra: "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Republican."

The biggest struggles, at the moment, are on Capitol Hill. To start, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has a $78 billion tax bill that he wants to pass. It's got something for Republicans, in the form of corporate tax cuts, and it's got something for Democrats, in the form of an extended child tax credit. That means that there's some "strange bedfellow" lobbying going on right now, as advocates for big corporations like Amazon and for working families are both twisting arms to try to get the bill over the finish line.

The problem is... Johnson's own conference. The members from New York, in particular, want changes to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, and are disinclined to vote for a bill that doesn't offer that. The fiscal conservatives don't like giving any money to working families. The Freedom Caucusers don't like the fact that some money could end up in the pockets of undocumented immigrants. There are also some Republican members who simply don't want to do anything that could end up being perceived as a "win" for Joe Biden.

The Speaker is trying to herd the cats, but he might not be able to do it, and the opposition might use parliamentary tricks to keep the bill from getting to the floor. In that case, Johnson would have to suspend normal order, which in turn would require a two-thirds vote to pass the bill. Can he get 80 or so Republican votes in that scenario? We may be about to find out.

Meanwhile, Senate and House GOP opposition to any sort of border bill has Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) waving the white flag. A week is a long time in politics, as we so often note, and so maybe things will turn around. But at the moment, that does not seem likely. In hopes of salvaging something out of all of this, McConnell is now talking about separating Ukraine funding from the border bill, and just voting on the Ukraine money. The Democrats, who never wanted the two things connected in the first place, would be fine and dandy with that. The question is whether such a bill could get through the House.

And on the subject of the border bill, Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) is about to see all his efforts go up in smoke, it would seem. And if that is not enough, a group of Republicans claiming to speak for the Oklahoma GOP approved a resolution censuring Lankford for having the temerity to even negotiate with the Democrats over the border. Then, a second group of Republicans, also claiming to speak for the Oklahoma GOP, put out a statement slamming the first group of Republicans, and calling their censure of Lankford "illegitimate." So, you have some members of the Oklahoma GOP's state committee excoriating the Senator, and other members of the Oklahoma GOP's state committee excoriating their colleagues for excoriating the Senator, and nobody seems to be sure who's actually entitled to speak on behalf of the Oklahoma GOP state committee. See again the note above about Will Rogers.

And finally, there is trouble in Paradise. By that, we mean Paradise, Nevada, the city where (oddly) the Las Vegas Strip is located. Yesterday, the members of the (notoriously dysfunctional) Nevada GOP held a meeting in advance of the Nevada caucus/primary. The main activity during the meeting was screaming at other members. The only real points of agreement were that the GOP needs to get nastier in its campaigning, and that Mike Lindell's conspiracy theories sound pretty good.

We stick by our remark from last week that if the Republicans can't get the internecine struggles under control, they are going to lose a bunch of winnable races, and have yet another bad cycle in 2024. (Z)

The Economy Is Humming Along

We now have ironclad proof that the economy is doing well: Donald Trump is claiming credit for it. Yesterday, he took to "Truth" Social to declare:

THIS IS THE TRUMP STOCK MARKET BECAUSE MY POLLS AGAINST BIDEN ARE SO GOOD THAT INVESTORS ARE PROJECTING THAT I WILL WIN, AND THAT WILL DRIVE THE MARKET UP

According to the staff chronicler, Trump ceased to be president 3 years and 10 days ago. And as you may recall, he spent much time during his first year in office crowing about how well the stock market was doing. Now, if this is still the Trump stock market, wouldn't that mean that the numbers he was crowing about in 2017 were being produced by... the Obama stock market? Guess we're not sophisticated enough about matters of high finance to understand how these things work.

More than 30 years ago, James Carville observed that "It's the economy, stupid." If that is still true, things may be looking up for Joe Biden, because the economy really is doing well. In fact, the U.S. economy is the best in the world now, beating the E.U., China, Japan, and certainly Russia. After the worst pandemic in a century and the worst inflation in decades, the economy has come roaring back. Inflation for the second half of 2023 dropped to the Fed's target level of 2% and unemployment is down to 3.4%, a near-record low since the late 1960s, except for a couple of months before the pandemic hit and 2 months in late 2000 as shown below.

In addition, the economy grew 3.1% during the past 12 months. Wages, corrected for inflation, are up 2.8% for the past 4 years. So we now have low inflation, low unemployment, economic growth, and real wage increases. The economic quadrifecta has been achieved during the Biden administration. As this begins to sink in and as memories of inflation begin to dim, the Republicans' argument that Biden messed up the economy are going to be increasingly difficult to make. It could take another 6 months to take hold, but if gas prices are the same in October as now, people are going to notice that inflation is gone. And if they don't, Biden is sure to remind them of it.

It is very plausible that inflation could indeed remain low in 2024. For Q4 2023, inflation was at 1.7%, which is below the Federal Reserve's target number. The drop over the last 12 months has only a few parallels in the last 100 years, once during World War II, once during the Korean War, and a couple of times during the 1980s. And in each of those cases, inflation stayed low for an extended period.

The post-pandemic recovery has flown in the face of everything economists thought they knew about the economy. Economists like to think of their subject like it is a hard science, but it is not. In physics, when a particle is at rest, E = mc², always. Not frequently, not most of the time, but all of the time. No exceptions. Economics is not like that. For 90 years, economists have thought that you can have low inflation or low unemployment but not both. Now we seem to have both. Time for new laws of economics. Time for Trump to legitimately take a bow for his genius in appointing Jerome Powell to run the Fed. It was a brilliant choice. Powell did the impossible. But Biden may end up getting the credit because good times occurred on his watch.

This is not to say that Biden bears no responsibility for the economy, however. Folks who have looked at the big picture, and have tried to figure out why the U.S. is leaving the rest of the world in the dust right now, have concluded that the key is the United States' COVID stimulus spending. Just as John Maynard Keynes predicted, increasing government spending when the economy is in a downturn sets things up for a more speedy recovery. Obviously, both Trump and Biden signed multiple trillions of COVID money into law, so they both get to take a bow here. Though again, no matter how much Trump tries to spin it otherwise, voters give nearly all the credit for economic ups, and all the blame for economic downs, to the president who is in the White House at the time.

Does the great economy mean Biden will get reelected? Not by itself, but a sizzling economy with real wage increases and low inflation certainly weakens one of the Republicans' strongest arguments. Now all Biden has to do is convince people that the economy really is good and it is not just a mirage. (V & Z)

Georgia Senate Passes Resolution to Investigate Fani Willis

When Fani Willis appointed her alleged boyfriend, Nathan Wade, to lead the RICO investigation, she gave Republicans the opportunity to undermine the entire investigation, and they haven't wasted much time grabbing it. On a strict party line vote, 30-19, the Georgia Senate approved a resolution calling for the creation of a special committee to investigate Willis. Democrats blasted the move as something that will "get into bedroom politics." The committee will have nine members, including three Democrats. We're going to go out on a limb here and predict: (1) the committee will determine that what Willis did violated some ethical principle, and (2) she thus has to take herself off the case.

Are the Georgia senators at all right about this? Ankush Khardori, writing for Politico, has a pretty thorough item on the subject, and his answer is: "No." He points out, first of all, that the filing that started this whole brouhaha was probably unethical, as it offered only insinuations, and no factual support for its claims. Doubling down on the ethical shadiness, the filing also appears to have deliberately excluded mention of controlling law that runs contrary to its claims (the Supreme Court ruled 15 years ago that conflicts of interest do not trigger criminal liability, despite the claims made in the Georgia filing).

Continuing, Khardori notes that lawyers are people, too, and that when they work together in a professional context, there can and often will be interpersonal dynamics that develop (or that pre-exist; keep reading). The local pool of lawyers, in any given place, is small enough that if professional and personal connections were enough to derail a case or overturn a verdict, the justice system wouldn't function. That said, while Willis' actions are not likely to have an effect on the case, her dancing around and her attempts to obfuscate have created the appearance of impropriety. So, Khardori concludes, she really needs to come clean, just to clear the air.

In other words, the Georgia state Senate is full of it. The committee that is appointed will have no power to enforce its findings, and again, while Willis' hiring of her close friend/boyfriend is icky, it is not illegal or even a violation of any state or professional rules. The intention of the Georgia Senate Republicans is to pressure her into dropping out of the case. A far better solution for her is to tell Wade to voluntarily resign. Of course, he probably likes the nearly $700,000 he has made so far and was kinda hoping for more as the case continues.

The allegations that Willis got something in return from Wade are starting to come in. A court filing last week included credit card statements showing that Wade purchased plane tickets for himself and Willis. No doubt he is a true gentleman, taking care of his lady friend, but that was almost as dumb a move as her appointing him in the first place. She probably makes at least $100K/yr. She can afford to buy her own plane tickets.

The judge in the RICO case, Scott McAfee, has set Feb. 15 as the date to hear the allegations and decide what to do about them, if anything. She would do herself much good if she told the unfettered truth, and then agreed to hire someone else to do the work Wade is doing. Even Democrats are now encouraging her to fire Wade and replace him with one of the experienced prosecutors on her staff.

Incidentally, Donald Trump has been watching all of this, and he very much likes what he sees. He has joined in on the effort to bring down Willis. On top of that, he and Alina Habba have discovered that Judge Lewis Kaplan and E. Jean Carroll lawyer Roberta Kaplan worked at the same firm... 30 years ago. So, Habba filed a letter asserting that the whole trial, and the verdict, are thus invalid. Good luck with that, Alina and Donald. See above about the interconnectedness of the legal profession. And if you don't believe us on that point, believe CNN legal analyst Elle Honig, who said the same thing after Habba's letter was filed. Gonna have to find another windmill to tilt at, folks. (V & Z)

America's Biggest Campaign Finance Loophole?

Tom Moore, writing for TalkingPointsMemo, has an interesting (and concerning) piece about campaign finance law, and the sizable loophole that was indicated (but only partly exploited) by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) during his failed presidential campaign.

Really, it's fairly simple. To be considered a "candidate" for office, under federal law, a person must either raise or spend $5,000, or allow someone else to do it on their behalf. If a person does not cross that threshold, then they are not a candidate, and they don't have to file reports with the FEC.

Meanwhile, to be considered a "super PAC," under federal law, a committee has to advocate for the election or defeat of a "clearly identified candidate." As everyone knows, super PACs can raise unlimited amounts of money without the caps that exist on contributions to individuals. However, if the PAC is not advocating for or against a candidate, then they are not required to file reports with the FEC either.

Presumably, you can see where this is headed. If a candidate were to do the all-in version of what DeSantis did this cycle, they could spend all their time traveling around, giving speeches, kissing babies, eating local foods at county fairs, castrating hogs, etc., without wasting any time on fundraising. As long as they did not personally bring in or spend $5,000+, they would not officially be "a candidate." That, in turn would mean that their supporting Super PAC or PACs could pay all the bills and run the show, and yet would not have to report to the FEC, as long as the Super PAC or PACs were careful not to campaign against any of their candidate's opponents. In this scenario, a wannabe president or senator or member of the House could be bankrolled entirely by one wealthy backer (the government of Saudi Arabia?) and could spend every second campaigning, and nobody would know.

Clearly, this is a loophole that should be closed immediately. But given the difficulties of getting anything through Congress, much less campaign finance reform, not to mention the challenges in not running afoul of Citizens United, we think that a loophole closure is unlikely. (Z)

A Bad Sign for Boebert

Last week, a group called "Colorado Politics" held a Republican candidates debate in CO-04. Eight wannabe members of Congress, along with one sitting member of Congress, namely Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), showed up to mostly shout over each other. After, the members of the audience participated in a straw poll where they indicated their preferred candidate at the moment. Boebert finished... fifth.

Here are the (partial) results of the straw poll:

Candidate	Votes
Logan County Commissioner Jerry Sonnenberg	22
State Rep. Mike Lynch	20
Radio host Deborah Flora	18
State Rep. Richard Holtorf	17
Boebert	12
Businessman Peter Yu	11
Former state Sen. Ted Harvey	Less than 10
Weld County Council member Trent Leisy	Less than 10
Former congressional staffer Chris Phelen	Less than 10

For some reason, maybe to help the candidates save face, Colorado Politics only reported the last three totals as "single digits." There were 117 ballots cast, and the reported totals add up to 100, so those last three averaged 5.67 votes each.

We do not need to tell readers of this site that you can't put TOO much stock in a poll that involves only 117 people. That said, Boebert's total, particularly for someone with her name recognition, is really bad—she got only 10% of the vote. Further, "the people willing to show up to a House candidates' debate on a random Thursday night" are surely not a representative sample of the population. However, they probably are a pretty good proxy for the hardcore base. And those are the people who donate money, who knock on doors, and who make damn sure to vote in primary elections.

If we do take this as a sign that Boebert's carpetbaggery is not playing well with the denizens of her adopted "home" district, then she's really got her work cut out for her if she wants to save her career. The Colorado primary is just less than 5 weeks away. (Z)

Looking Forward to 2024, Part I: Pundit Predictions

As we have noted once or twice, last year's predictions turned into a boondoggle because, in response to feedback, we kept adjusting our approach to scoring. So, we're pushing the eject button and starting fresh.

Based on that feedback (which was good, even if it was unwise for us to try to utilize it on the fly), we've selected a panel of readers to help us evaluate the predictions. For each prediction, up to 100 points will be available based on how correct it is, in the judgment of the panel, at the end of the year.

In addition, up to 100 bonus points will be available depending on how risky the prediction is, again in the judgment of the panel. We asked them to rate every prediction from 0 (will never, ever happen) to 100 (guaranteed). The bonus is the inverse of the average from the panel. In other words, if the panel collectively decided that something has a 77% chance of happening, then 23 bonus points are available if it does. If the panel collectively decided that something has a 38% chance of happening, then 62 bonus points are available if it does. Bonus points will be awarded in the same fraction as correctness at the end of the year. In other words, if a 62-bonus-point prediction is deemed halfway correct, it will get 50/100 for accuracy and 31/62 bonus points, for a total of 81. Each group of predictions, one from pundits, one from us, and several from the readers, will have 10 items. So, a perfect score would be 2,000 points, although that would require 10 wildly outlandish predictions to all 100% come to pass.

That's our (new) system, and we're sticking with it. And now, 10 predictions for 2024 from pundits:

1. Alice Stewart, CNN: Democrats will maintain control in the Senate and Republicans will hold the House. (Potential Bonus Points: 74)
   
   
2. Zoe Schiffer, Platformer: Donald Trump will start ferociously posting on X once again. Trump will become the Republican nominee, and once again work to galvanize his base on X. His exclusivity clause with Truth Social has expired, and the platform is "running on fumes," according to The New York Times. Why fight the collapse when X has welcomed him back and promised a playground nearly free of content moderation? The move would be a boon for Musk, whose platform is in desperate need of revitalization, and also for Trump, who currently has 87.4 million followers on X and already rode the platform to the presidency once before. A tenuous partnership will last until Trump posts something that violates X's rules and Musk takes it down, pitting two of the biggest egos in the United States against one another. The ensuing fight will draw attention to all involved, which is all these men seem to want anyway. (Potential Bonus Points: 35)
   
   
3. Richard Waters, Financial Times: Will X go bankrupt?
   
   Yes. Elon Musk frequently uses warnings of bankruptcy to motivate; he did it at Tesla and SpaceX. But this time, with X's advertising tanking and attempts to create new sources of revenue falling flat, there's a good chance it will happen.
   
   After recent emotional outbursts against X's advertisers, he may be reckless enough to think he can put it through bankruptcy and still come out on top. Musk fighting for control of X in bankruptcy would be a gripping sequel to the drama-filled Twitter acquisition. (Potential Bonus Points: 40)
   
   
4. Dylan Matthews, Vox: Inflation will come in under 3 points. (Potential Bonus Points: 27)
   
   
5. David Sheppard, Financial Times: Will renewables overtake coal in global electricity generation?
   
   No. While renewable power's share of generation is expected to outstrip coal within the next few years, it is unlikely to happen in 2024, thanks to China.
   
   Chinese demand for coal has continued to rise rapidly in 2023 and while renewables are growing fast too—expected to account for about 90 per cent of all new generation capacity globally—this won't quite be enough to surpass coal generation next year, even as western coal use declines.
   
   But the tipping point is not far away. More critical for the climate is when China's appetite for coal finally goes into reverse. (Potential Bonus Points: 30)
   
   
6. Marina Bolotnikova, Vox: The world will be hotter in 2024 than it was in 2023. (Potential Bonus Points: 11)
   
   
7. Robbie Gramer, Foreign Policy: A stalemate in Ukraine. Thanks in part to sluggish support and political impasse from the United States and other Western allies, Ukraine didn't have enough guns, equipment, or ammo to punch a hole in Russia's well-fortified defensive lines in eastern Ukraine during its 2023 counteroffensive. But neither do Russian forces have the capability, morale, training, or effective fighting prowess to make significant gains in any counter-counteroffensives of their own. 2024 will look a lot like the bloody but static World War I battles of 1915 and 1916, with heavy artillery bashing entrenched positions, more deadly battles that yield little territorial gains, and little to show for Russian President Vladimir Putin's ill-fated war besides a higher death toll on both sides. (Potential Bonus Points: 24)
   
   
8. Robert Shrimsley, Financial Times: Will Keir Starmer become UK prime minister?
   
   Yes, though it is possible the UK election does not happen until January 2025. Rishi Sunak's Conservatives look divided and exhausted.
   
   The number of seats the Labour opposition must win means it could land anywhere between a minority government and the landslide to which opinion polls currently point. But it is extremely hard to see how the prime minister can recover enough support to hold on to power. (Potential Bonus Points: 23)
   
   
9. Sigal Samuel, Vox: Benjamin Netanyahu will be unseated as Israeli prime minister. (Potential Bonus Points: 38)
   
   
10. Nostradamus, Sixteenth-Century France: A red adversary will become pale with fear, putting the great Ocean in dread.
    
    Note: This is interpreted as meaning that China will attack Taiwan. (Potential Bonus Points: 76)

If the pundits pull off a sweep, then they'll tally 1,378 points. That seems unlikely, though—sorry, Nostradamus.

Our predictions are up tomorrow. And if readers still care to weigh in, there's a little more time; send an e-mail to comments@electoral-vote.com with the subject line "Predictions." (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up in school, at work, etc., please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share some other way.

---The Votemaster and Zenger