Trump Launches Latest Trade War Offensive

Yesterday, Donald Trump got out his penis pen, waved it around, and then signed a bunch of letters that were delivered to the leaders of various nations, warning them that new tariffs are imminent.

The White House said it has delivered, or will deliver, a total of 14 letters to various national leaders, advising that rates between 25% and 40% will be imposed, absent some sort of new trade deal. Here is the first page of the letter sent to Japanese PM Ishiba Shigeru; the others are essentially the same:

His Excellency
Ishiba Shigeru
Prime Minister of Japan
Tokyo

Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

It is a Great Honor for me to send you this letter in that it demonstrates the strength and commitment of our Trading Relationship, and the fact that the United States of America has agreed to continue working with Japan, despite having a significant Trade Deficit with your great Country. Nevertheless, we have decided to move forward with you, but only with more balanced, and fair, TRADE. Therefore, we invite you to participate in the extraordinary Economy of the United States, the Number One Market in the World, by far. We have had years to discuss our Trading Relationship with Japan, and have concluded that we must move away from these longterm, and very persistent, Trade Deficits engendered by Japan's Tariff, and Non Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers. Our relationship has been, unfortunately, far from Reciprocal. Starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Japan a Tariff of only 25% on any and all Japanese products sent into the United States, separate from all Sectoral Tariffs. Goods transshipped to evade a higher Tariff will be subject to that higher Tariff. Please understand that the 25% number is far less than what is needed to eliminate the Trade Deficit disparity we have with your Country. As you are aware, there will be no Tariff if Japan, or companies within your Country, decide to build or manufacture product within the United States and, in fact, we will do everything possible to get approvals quickly, professionally, and routinely — In other words, in a matter of weeks.

If for any reason you decide to raise your Tariffs, then, whatever the number you choose to raise them by will be added onto the 25% that we charge. Please understand that these Tariffs are necessary to correct the many years of Japan's Tariff, and Non Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers, causing these unsustainable Trade Deficits against the United States.

This Deficit is a major threat to our Economy and, indeed, our National Security!

Either Trump is writing his own letters these days, or else whichever staffer is doing the job has learned to mimic the President's poor grasp of international trade and his inappropriate use of capital letters and exclamation points. The reason that the exact contents of the letters are known is that, before sending them to their recipients, Trump posted copies of each to Truth Social.

The letter to Ishiba was the first one delivered (or, at least, the first one posted to Truth Social). It was followed by a letter to South Korean PM Kim Min-seok. Both nations ostensibly face new 25% tariffs. After those came letters to the leaders of Myanmar (40% tariff), Laos (40%), Thailand (36%), Cambodia (36%), Serbia (35%), Bangladesh (35%), Indonesia (32%), Bosnia & Herzegovina (30%), South Africa (30%), Kazakhstan (25%), Malaysia (25%) and Tunisia (25%). Why these countries? Who knows? The rates are very similar to the ones announced on "Liberation Day" back in April, and then suspended. The main exception to that is Cambodia, whose "new" rate is 13% lower than its previously announced rate.

As per usual, this cannot be viewed as a serious effort at remaking/improving the United States' trade relationship with these nations. First, one does not negotiate trade deals in public, on social media. Second, one does not negotiate based on such a poor notion of how tariffs work. Third, one does not negotiate from the vantage point of "you give us everything, we give you nothing, and you will smile and nod and like it." And on top of all of this, as everyone knows at this point, Trump always chickens out. As you can see, the latest "deadline" is August 1. However, Trump has already softened that; telling reporters yesterday afternoon that date is "not 100 percent firm."

Remember, Trump has yet to articulate, or commit to, a clear vision of exactly what he wants to achieve with his tariffs. He can either use them to: (1) increase revenues for the federal government or (2) to protect American industries and/or punish foreign industries/nations. The former involves setting rates that are feasible and that are likely to be paid (with the costs largely being passed to American consumers, of course), the latter involves setting rates that are not feasible, and that effectively close off the U.S. market. Trump cannot have both sets of benefits, as they are in conflict.

Particularly instructive here is South Korea, the recipient of Letter #2 yesterday. Because that nation is one of the United States' biggest trade partners (#6 by total value of goods and services traded), it makes a lot of sense to grease the trading skids as much as is possible. And so, almost 20 years ago, the George W. Bush administration negotiated the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA), which eliminated tariffs on 95% of goods and services that flow between the two countries. That agreement was signed in 2007, took effect in 2012, and has been an unqualified success, increasing trade between the two nations by 70% in its first decade. In particular, South Korea has been a valuable market for America's farmers.

Now, perhaps the original agreement was not quite perfect. Perhaps there was room for improvement. Fair enough; it actually was renegotiated several years after the original agreement was created. KORUS FTA v2.0 was hammered out in 2018, which means it was the work of one Donald J. Trump. Although v2.0 made relatively minor changes to v1.0, Trump congratulated himself heartily at the time, describing the updated pact as "fair and reciprocal," "a very big deal" and "a historic milestone in trade."

In short, if the goal of the current trade war is to increase the amount of trade with foreign nations, well, in the case of South Korea, that goal has already been achieved. If the goal is to improve current agreements, by getting a "real" dealmaker involved, well, in the case of South Korea, that goal has also been achieved.

One could argue that maybe Trump wants to try to do even better, but that doesn't really work, either. First, the original deal was already very good at promoting trade between the U.S. and South Korea, even before he got his hands on it. There just isn't a lot of room for improvement. Second, why should anyone imagine he could do better this time, if he didn't get it right in his previous renegotiation? Third, Trump has made very clear that he does not abide by past trade agreements, including the ones that he himself negotiated. Why should any nation bend over backwards to accommodate him? If they give him what he wants (whatever that is), he will just be back with more demands in 6 months or a year.

So, one cannot accept that the latest round of letters (particularly the one to South Korea) is actually geared toward improved trade with those nations. Meanwhile, if the goal is protectionism, then there's no need for deadlines and offers to negotiate—you just impose the protective tariffs, and that's that. And so we end up back where we started: Trump's trade war has no clear trade-related purpose or vision.

This being the case, what might be driving his actions (both in general, and in terms of the letters sent out yesterday)? We've run down the most obvious theories before, but here they are again:

1. He's Trying to Create a Distraction: The big, beautiful bill is getting a lot of negative coverage, even though Trump expected it to be a triumphant victory. He could be trying to create a distraction; it's hard to believe that it's 100% coincidence that he staged such a high-profile performance of trade theatrics just days after signing the bill.
   
   
2. He Is Manipulating the Stock Market for Benefit of Himself or His Backers: There is, obviously, a lot of money to be made if you know for sure when the market is going to go down, and if you know when it's going to go back up. As is invariably the case, after Trump fired his latest trade war salvo yesterday, the market was down again. If he backs off on, say, Thursday, it will shoot up again.
   
   
3. He Is Losing Mental Control: If a trade policy is irrational, it's at least possible that it's coming from a person who is irrational. We won't know for years, if ever, if the White House staff thinks Trump is in the midst of serious cognitive decline. But that certainly could be the case, and if J.D. Vance & Co. are not willing to utilize the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to remove Trump, then the remaining option is to follow his orders, even if they are not rational.
   
   
4. He Wants Wins: Trump is almost certainly done with legislation (more below), which means that the main tools he has left, policy-wise, are executive orders and deals with foreign leaders. As the South Korea example above makes clear, he has no compunction about reaching a very minor agreement, and then turning around and trumpeting it as the greatest diplomatic coup since the Louisiana Purchase. So, KORUS FTA v3.0, involving minor tweaks to KORUS FTA v2.0, which in turn involved minor tweaks to KORUS FTA v1.0, might be right around the corner.

It's possible that it's more than one of these. In fact, it's possible that it's all four. Whatever the case may be, for the reasons we outline above, we cannot accept that all of this is really about trying to establish better trade relationships with other nations, nor is it about protectionism.

One last, semi-related point. Trump is clearly aware of the concept of a letter that is nominally addressed to [FOREIGN LEADER X], but whose main purpose is political theatrics. He just signed 14 such letters yesterday. This being the case, it's frankly a bit pathetic that he was verklempt yesterday afternoon when Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu presented Trump with a letter formally nominating the President for the Nobel Peace Prize. "Thank you very much. This, I didn't know. Wow. Thank you very much," said Trump.

Is he really and truly so unsophisticated that he does not realize he is being manipulated by master manipulator Netanyahu? It sure looks that way—Trump is not able to fake those kinds of emotions the way that, say, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan could. The only way the letter could be less genuine is if it came from Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-Un. Meanwhile, every foreign leader in the world is watching, and just got another reminder that you can maybe reach Trump with diplomatic concessions, but you can definitely reach him with empty gestures and shallow flattery. South Korea's highest civilian award is the Grand Order of Mugunghwa, which is meant for South Korean heads of state, and for "heads of allied nations (or their spouses) who have rendered exceptional service to the country." We suspect the Grand Order is about to get a new member... (Z)

Profiles in Cowardice

In the run-up to the vote on the BBB, many Republican senators and representatives were hopping up and down and saying if it passed in its proposed form the sky would fall and they would never, ever vote for it as that would be a betrayal of everything they stood for. Guess what: Almost none of them stood for anything and, with three exceptions in the Senate and two in the House, all of them voted for it. And of the five apostates, only two—Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie (both R-KY)—really meant it. The others voted against the bill with an eye on the 2026 elections. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) was initially against the bill on account of his reelection campaign, and at the last minute decided not to run and could then freely vote against it. He gets partial credit here. Many of the other Republicans simply caved to Donald Trump's carrots and/or sticks.

How about a few examples? At 6:50 p.m. last Wednesday, hardliner Rep. Keith Self (R-TX) tweeted that the Senate bill was "morally and fiscally bankrupt." 9½ hours later, at 3:20 a.m. Thursday morning, he voted to advance the morally repulsive bill to a floor vote, and later in the day, he voted to pass it. Maybe the Moral and Fiscal Fairy sprinkled magic dust on the bill in that 24-hour interval, so he changed his "mind."

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), a leading and always-loud member of the Freedom Caucus, slammed the Senate bill as a "travesty" that undermined all the "good things" in the House bill. Did he vote "no" in order to force a conference committee to fix the problems? Of course not. He didn't want to give up his seat on the R.F.S. Trump.

Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) represents a poor R+1 district where fully two-thirds of his constituents are on Medicaid. Last week, he tweeted that he could not support a bill that guts Medicaid. Did he vote for the bill in the end? Yup. Not only did he let his constituents down, but he probably also threw away his seat since all his 2026 Democratic opponent will talk about, day and night, is Valadao's vote to take away health care from the people of CA-22 and elsewhere.

Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-PA) has always been very upset about the deficit. The bill will increase the deficit by at least $3 trillion over 10 years, maybe more. So what did deficit hawk Smucker do? He said: "Everyone became convinced it just didn't make sense to send it back to the Senate." How come? It could have gone to a conference committee where House members could have fought to reduce the effect on the deficit. Nope. He just rolled over and played dead.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) railed against the arbitrary July 4th deadline because he had no time to read the bill he was required to vote on. So he voted for it without knowing what was in it. After all, no one in Knoxville read it either, so what difference does it make? There are plenty of others who told the same story.

Are we surprised? Not at all. It is always the same story. What annoys us, though, are media publications that take these guys at their word every time they threaten to vote "no" on something. Why don't we see more stories like: "Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), who talks a great story but in the end always chickens out, today threw a temper tantrum and said he wouldn't vote for bill X unless [whatever]. We fully expect him to chicken out again. He always does."

This said, the question of why they chickened out is still a useful one to examine. The obvious answer, and the one we've already written about extensively, is that Donald Trump cracked the whip. Another thing that annoys us is that the current iteration of the Republican Party has few, or no, consistent policy principles. That makes it tough for people like us, who try to make sense of what's going on in the world of politics. But whether we like it or not, the defining principle of the GOP in 2025 is loyalty to Trump. Beyond that, the Party's "principles" are whatever Trump says they are today (and, of course, they may change tomorrow). Unless you are a unicorn like Paul or Massie, you are dead in the water as a Republican if you defy Trump, because you have effectively rejected the Party (a party which bandies about the "RINO" label very freely). Maybe this won't be true in 2026, or 2028, or 2030, but the members were not voting in those years, they were voting in 2025.

It is true that Elon Musk has threatened to primary any Republican who voted for the bill, but that is a semi-compelling threat, at most. Musk is rich, yes, but he's also a windbag with the attention span of a fruit fly. He may well forget all about this by 2026. And even if he doesn't forget, he's also shown no particular ability to translate his money into votes. There's also the small problem that there are roughly 230 Republicans up next year, and Musk can't exactly devote significant attention to 230 different races. On the other hand, Trump most certainly will get involved, and most certainly will try to destroy anyone who crosses him. The upshot is that if a member is comparing the threat posed by defying Trump versus the threat posed by Musk, there's no contest.

However, the di**-waving is not the only dynamic in play here. It is true that congressional Republicans rammed the bill through, so as to meet Trump's July 4 deadline. But that wasn't the only time-related consideration. The debt ceiling (which has now been increased by $5 trillion) was going to be reached in August, or maybe September at the outside. So, if the BBB process had failed, Congress would still have been left to deal with a budget-related crisis as soon as it returned from the July 4 recess. And that budget-related crisis would have carried much more significant consequences in the event of failure (i.e., a default on the national debt), and would have been nearly as difficult to navigate as the BBB talks were.

Similarly, it was not especially plausible to wait until the FY 2025-26 budget. The math behind the BBB relied on the (dubious) notion that the 2017 tax cuts are now a part of the federal budget, and so extending them does not create additional debt beyond the 10-year window. This is what made it possible to make them "permanent" (which doesn't really mean "permanent," it really means "enshrined into law without a set expiration date"). The problem here is that the 2017 tax cuts were set to expire this year (that was a necessity the last time, so as to survive the Byrd Bath during Trump v1.0). So, if the Republicans did not get a budget passed for this fiscal year (i.e., before October 1), not only would magic accounting have no longer been available, but the 2017 cuts might well have been permanently dead. Undoubtedly, the risk was high enough that many Freedom Caucusers (many of whom, remember, used to be anti-tax tea partiers) didn't want to chance it.

The upshot is that the July 4 deadline was arbitrary, but only somewhat so. Congressional Republicans could maybe have taken a few more weeks, but then they would have started to run up against the debt-ceiling deadline and then the fiscal-year deadline, and they'd be doing so while dealing with an angry Donald Trump. So, it's not too surprising that the members took Trump's deadline more seriously than would seem to be warranted.

There is also one other dimension worth noting here. Everything was rolled into one bill for three main reasons: (1) to limit the process to one giant catfight, instead of two or three or four; (2) because of the intent to use reconciliation, which can only be done once per fiscal year for spending bills and (3) because Trump has very little interest in sausage-making or legislating, preferring instead to rule via executive order and other techniques that do not involve Congress.

What this all means is that this is it. This is almost certainly going to be Trump's only major legislative initiative; he doesn't want to put in the work to maneuver additional bills through Congress this year and, besides, anything he wants is not going to get past the Senate filibuster. Next year, it will be too close to the midterms for skittish Republican members, and thereafter, there is an excellent chance the GOP will no longer have the trifecta. Note that the last BBB in 2017 was also Trump's only major legislative initiative.

Obviously, this meant that defying Trump was not just breaking ranks on one bill, it was breaking ranks on THE bill. But there's also another implication. Because this bill was an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink proposition, and because every vote counted, it was also an excellent opportunity for Republicans to advance their pet projects or causes. For example, companies with "intangible drilling and development costs" are now exempted from the corporate alternative minimum tax. This will apply almost exclusively to petroleum companies (because if anyone needs a handout, it's surely petroleum producers), and was inserted in order to secure the vote of Sen. James Lankford (R-OK).

Since we don't want to overdo it on the BBB today, we're going to wait until tomorrow to run down some of the pork and pork-adjacent stuff that has already turned up. For now, the point is that the members were looking at some pretty serious downsides if they voted "no." Meanwhile, they had an excellent opportunity to create their own, personal upsides. It's not so surprising that all but a handful of Republicans made the choices they made.

We'll finish, for now, with one last observation. Obviously, the Senate filibuster makes it nigh-on impossible to pass certain kinds of legislation (basically, anything that is not fiscal, and therefore can't be done via reconciliation). The trade-off, beyond the fact that the majority party is not able to implement big chunks of its program, is that the things that can be accomplished via reconciliation tend to be done haphazardly and rapidly, with little or no scrutiny, because the majority party gets one moonshot every three or four years. It just gets harder and harder every year to argue that the filibuster should NOT go the way of the dodo. (V & Z)

The Epstein Conspiracy Theory Comes to an End... Er, Gets New Life

That Jeffrey Epstein became the focal point of right-wing conspiracies was nigh-on-inevitable. To wit:

• He was (nominally) a Democrat
• He palled around with prominent Democrats, notably Bill Clinton
• He was Jewish
• He was a pedophile
• He died unexpectedly, by his own hand
• There is some amount of documentation related to him that has been kept under lock and key

Do you realize how many of the right-wing conspiratorial boxes that checks? The only way Epstein could have been a better candidate for such theorizing is if he wore an Illuminati t-shirt, or if he made clear his favorite food was pizza.

Among the people who achieved a fair bit of notoriety, and with it influence, by peddling Epstein-related conspiratorial thinking, are FBI Director Kash Patel, FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino and "Attorney General" Pam Bondi, with the latter promising (in February) to make Epstein's "client list" public. Naturally, since that trio runs federal law enforcement these days, there's been much MAGA pressure on them to make good on that promise, and also to reveal the "truth" about Epstein's suicide. Over the weekend, in a clear effort to use the holiday and the chatter about the BBB as a shield, the FBI quietly released an unsigned memo to Axios, in which it says that there is no client list (despite Bondi claiming, in February, that it was sitting on her desk), and that Epstein really died by his own hand, and there is no cover-up.

Predictably, the right-wing conspiracists went nuts. Effectively, there are four ways they might have dealt with this new information:

• Oops!: The conspiracists could decide they were wrong, at least this time, and that there's no smoke and no fire here. This is only theoretical; conspiracists NEVER admit to being wrong.
  
  
• Blame Trump: The conspiracists could declare that there's a cover up, specifically to protect Donald Trump from being outed as one of Epstein's clients. This was an uncommon, but not unheard of, response yesterday, likely coming from people who like Elon Musk better than they like Trump, and who have bought into the South African's insinuations that the Epstein materials implicate Trump.
  
  
• The Deep State Deepens: The conspiracists could accuse Bondi, Patel and Bongino of having been co-opted by the Deep State, such that they are now doing its bidding. This was the most common response yesterday; Bongino, in particular, is absolutely getting flayed on social media.
  
  
• 3-D Chess: The conspiracists could assert that this is actually a brilliant plan by the Trump administration, and that the Epstein client list exists, but that the White House is pretending it doesn't so that it can use that information to blackmail the Deep State, and thus to tame the Deep State. You really have to stand on your head to go through this many mental gymnastics, which is why it's not surprising that the foremost advocate of this perspective yesterday was certifiable loon Alex Jones.

We do not know exactly what this means for MAGA, long-term. We do know it illustrates the perils of building your political base out of people who don't care about facts or evidence, and who believe whatever the heck they want to believe. Put another way, he who lives by the conspiracy theory often dies by the conspiracy theory. (Z)

ActBlue Is Doing a Brisk Business

Back in April, Donald Trump ordered Pam Bondi to commence an investigation of ActBlue, the main online fundraising platform for Democrats. Ostensibly, this was prompted by a preliminary investigation undertaken by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), in which the Congressman "learned" that ActBlue was being used to subvert campaign finance laws.

When we wrote this up a couple of months ago, we were unimpressed, regarding it as: (1) a halfhearted attempt to muzzle the opposition political party, and (2) a definite attempt to "win" that news cycle and to get some headlines. Here is the conclusion to that piece:

[T]he only real benefit here is to produce some "Democrats are crooks" headlines and propaganda for the MAGA base. OK, fine, but there is such a thing as the Streisand effect. The DNC is pitching a very loud fit about all of this and, as readers can certainly guess, is already fundraising off of it. The first solicitation went out about 20 minutes after the XO was announced. We would bet large sums of money that ActBlue had a great day yesterday, and will have a great week. And we would also guess, with some confidence, that "Donald Trump is literally trying to shut us down" will resonate more with voters and donors on the blue side of the aisle than Manufactured Story #13,378 about alleged Democratic malfeasance will resonate with voters and donors on the red side of the aisle.

We wish we could have bet those large sums of money, though we doubt anyone would have taken that bet, because that prediction was hardly Nostradamus-level stuff. No, it was more like predicting that the new Jurassic Park film will not be nominated for Best Picture this year.

The fundraising totals for Q2 (in others words, the roughly 3 weeks before the Trump investigation order, and the roughly 9 weeks after) are in, and they are substantial: The platform took in $393 million. That's the best Q2 in a non-election year it's ever had. By way of comparison, in Q2 of Joe Biden's first year in office, ActBlue's haul was $289 million (roughly $350 million, adjusted for inflation).

Perhaps Bondi will eventually complete her investigation and announce the results, giving ActBlue another shot in the arm. Or maybe the administration will learn from its mistakes, and the investigation will be quietly forgotten. In any case, it's clear that when it comes to the 2026 campaign (and the handful of 2025 campaigns), money is not likely to be a problem for the blue team.

However, the type of people who are making donations in Q2 of the year before an election are also the type of people who are guaranteed to vote (probably early, probably via mail). The question will be whether the Democratic-leaning voters who are much less invested, and who would never consider giving their money right now (or maybe ever) will show up. They did in November of 2018 and 2020, but not in November of 2024. (Z)

Of Course Beshear Is Running

Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) is on everyone's shortlist for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028. After all, he's a moderate governor of a Southern state. The Party has had very good luck with that candidate profile in the last half-century—i.e., Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton.

Whether such a candidate can flip a few Southern states (Missouri? Texas? Florida? North Carolina?), the way Carter and Clinton were able to, is an excellent question. Maybe so, but maybe not. Today's politics are more polarized than they were one and two generations ago, and the white-Southern-Democrats-to-Republicans conversion process is now effectively complete. It's at least possible that the Democrats' "If we just nominate a Southerner..." is the rough equivalent of the Republicans' "If we just nominate a Black guy..." The latter may seem like a recipe for electoral magic, but it rarely proves to be so (see James, John; Walker, Herschel; Robinson, Mark; etc.).

In any event, that's a question for the future, and one that won't have a clear answer for at least a couple of years. The question that will need to be answered before that is: Will Beshear (or any of the other Southern Democratic governors) run in 2028? Given that Beshear is a popular candidate, and given that people rarely get elected governor and say "Well, I could shoot for more, but I've risen high enough, I think," and given that he's already taken a pass on running for his state's open Senate seat next year, and given that he's going to take over as chair of the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) next year, the answer is almost certainly "yes."

And on Sunday, Beshear added to the mountain of evidence that he's running in 2028. Sitting for an interview on CNN's State of the Union to share his (very negative) assessment of the BBB, he was asked about his presidential aspirations. Not only did he not give the "Full Sherman," he said that while he would not have dreamed of mounting a presidential bid a couple of years ago, he may have no real choice now, out of a sense of duty. The key soundbite was: "I do not want to leave a broken country to my kids or anyone else's."

Beshear has clearly studied his governors-turned-presidents, in particular the one-time governor of a Northern state, Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR, when he ran the third and fourth times, knew that his opponents were saying he thought he was bigger than George Washington, and that he had dictatorial aspirations. And so, he arranged things to make it look like he was reluctant to serve a third term (and a fourth term) and that he was only doing it because he'd been drafted by his peers.

Beshear doesn't have the same problem FDR did in 1940 and 1944, but he nonetheless knows that the voters love the idea of a reluctant leader (like Washington actually was), one who is governed by a sense of duty and not by his or her own ambitions. We don't actually believe Beshear is reluctant, and we don't actually believe he never considered running for president until recently, but it's a good and an effective storyline to put out there, if he can sell it.

At this point, there are really only two things that could stop Beshear from getting in: (1) He becomes enmeshed in some sort of scandal that makes a bid impractical or (2) Some other Democratic candidate builds so much momentum that challenging them becomes a fool's errand. We very much doubt that either of these things will happen. The additional good news for the Governor is that he already has name recognition and so does not need to jump in extra early, and also that money is not likely to be a problem (see above).

Interestingly, given the appeal of the Carter/Clinton model, the Democrats actually haven't tried their luck with a state governor (Southern or otherwise) in a long time. In fact, since Bubba left office, there have been roughly 400 Democratic presidential caucuses and primaries, and only one of those 400 was won by someone who had served as a state governor. If you would care to guess, before seeing the answer, we will put the name at the bottom of the page. (Z)

Never Forget: Hello My Sweetheart, Good-bye Vietnam

Today, a reminiscence from S.S. in Weaverville, NC:

My dad served in the 527th Personnel Service Company in Qui Nhon, Vietnam, in 1966-67. Although he'd attended a military college, he enlisted in the Army only because he figured he would be drafted soon anyway. By enlisting he had a little more control over how he served.

He always said he "had it made" in the 527th, processing orders in air-conditioned huts (more for the sake of the sensitive electronics than the personnel). Still, "having it made" was relative to the alternative of jungle combat. One of his close friends was shot in the head by a sniper while eating a hamburger in a truck parked in front of the supply depot (as Dad always told it). No one ever found the sniper. I took a picture of the friend's name on the Wall when I was in D.C. in 2003.

Dad also served as the company's mail clerk. Another of his close friends in the unit often received letters from his fiancée in Toledo, OH, who would sometimes write notes to my dad ("Hi Charlie" or similar) on her envelopes, knowing Dad was a good friend of her fiancé and saw all the incoming mail. Eventually one of her friends in Toledo saw one of these envelopes, asked who Charlie was, and, having been told that my dad was single, decided to write him a letter. They hit it off, became pen pals, and eventually met in person and got married. I suppose I owe my existence to a piece of mail in the Vietnam War for the unlikely introduction of an Ohio X-ray technician to an Army private from Georgia.

My mom died in 2003, and in his later years my dad reconnected with many of his "Army buddies" from the 527th and basic training. Although he came to view American involvement in Vietnam (and many subsequent conflicts) as an avoidable tragedy, he was always proud of his service and felt a strong bond with anyone who served. He was no fan of #45 and his shallow bloviating, and I'm almost glad he didn't live to see #45 return as #47.

Here's a picture of Dad at work in the 527th:



The note on the back indicates they were using Friden Flexowriters in conjunction with a "1005 computer." Perhaps that information will have more meaning for (V) than it does for me!

Thanks, S.S. (Z)

---

The only current or former governor to win a Democratic caucus or primary since Bill Clinton left office is Howard Dean, who won his home state of Vermont in 2004. The vast majority of wins went to people who were/are U.S. Senators (some of whom were also VPs or First Lady), and the small handful of contests remaining went to mayors (Michael Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg each won one in 2020) and a general (Wesley Clark won one in 2004). Put another way, in the last 3 decades, 99% of Democratic primaries and caucuses have been won by someone who served as a U.S. Senator at some point in their careers.

---

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, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger