The Democrats Are "Winning" the Shutdown, So Far

We don't particularly like to characterize it that way, because it's not a football game or a checkers game, and real people are being harmed. Still, this thing is most likely to end once a clear "winner" and a clear "loser" have emerged, and the losing side decides to cut its losses and make a deal. So, it's appropriate to the analysis to point out that the Democrats clearly have the upper hand right now, as Trump Shutdown v2.0 officially enters week 2.0.

There are two reasons that we offer that assessment. First, there have been a bunch of new polls; here's what they say:

Pollster	Blame Reps.	Blame Dems.	Blame Both	Don't Know
CBS/YouGov	39%	30%	31%	N/A
Harvard/Harris	53%	47%	N/A	N/A
The Economist/YouGov	41%	30%	23%	6%

None of these are favorable to the GOP. Meanwhile, we'd say the scariest poll of all for the red team is the latest KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) health tracking poll. KFF did not ask about the shutdown, but did ask respondents whether they would like to see the Obamacare subsidies extended. Here are those numbers:

Group	Support Subsidies
Republicans	59%
Democrats	92%
Independents	82%
Overall	78%

If you are the Democrats, and you look at this, it's hard to see what might move you off your (wildly popular) position.

The second reason we say the Democrats have the upper hand is the various tiddlywinks/chess moves that the two sides made yesterday. The White House, obviously trying to create some more leverage, suggested that, despite federal law to the contrary, furloughed workers might not get the back pay to which they are entitled once the shutdown ends. Donald Trump later said that only workers who "deserve it" would get their back pay.

To us, this reeks of desperation, and suggests that the administration has realized that mass firings are not viable, and so has to find some other way to put the screws to federal employees/Democrats. And after Trump made his threat, Republicans in Congress blew a gasket, and said that federal employees would most certainly get the pay to which they are entitled. Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), whose spine seems to fade in and fade out, was particularly assertive, telling reporters: "The president—it's not up to the president. I mean, his opinion matters, but Congress has got to appropriate the money. Read the Constitution."

So, that's desperation and disagreement on the Republican side. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) spoke to reporters and made clear that his demand is that the Obamacare subsidies be extended permanently. He added that if all Republicans offer is a 1-year extension, that would be "a laughable proposition." We don't believe he's ever "clarified" things in this way previously. In other words, Jeffries' position looks to be getting more aggressive AND more entrenched. And after he laid out his demands, the response from his fellow Democrats was... nothing. Unlike the Republicans, they did not blow a gasket. In other words, the blue teamers sound like a caucus that is unified.

Since nobody is negotiating, and the House isn't even in session, it's hard to see this ending anytime soon. If and when the shutdown enters week 3.0, we'll see where things are at, what with a week being a lifetime in politics and all. But for now, the Democrats have to like their position. (Z)

Bari Weiss Named CBS News' Editor-in-Chief

We had a piece yesterday about how one cannot take seriously the Trump administration's claims that it is interested in combating antisemitism. But for lack of time, that was supposed to be paired with this piece, asserting that one also cannot take seriously the administration's claims that it is interested in promoting meritocracy. Sure, Team Trump is rabidly anti-DEI, but that is because they believe DEI helps liberals and minorities at the expense of conservatives and white people. The administration is perfectly OK with setting aside merit if we're talking about a family member, or a willing lackey, or someone whose views comport with those of MAGA.

Case in point is Bari Weiss, formerly of The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Her politics, for those who haven't followed her career, are... a little hard to characterize. She describes herself as a left-leaning centrist, but that's really just cosplay. Yes, she was once critical of Donald Trump, but that was many years ago, and she (along with countless other conservatives) has dropped that entirely. Her two signature issues are Zionism and combating wokeness. The former of those can indicate right- or left-wing politics these days, while the latter is right-wing all the way. And just last year, Weiss wrote that the "political left... makes war on our common history, our common identity as Americans, and fundamentally, on the goodness of the American project." That could have been a Donald Trump tweet (excepting that it's a little too erudite for him). In any event, if you wanted to call Weiss a right-leaning centrist, that would at least be in the ballpark. Most people, and most outlets, just call her a conservative.

A couple of years ago, Weiss left the Times in a blaze of glory, with a column that accused her colleagues of being mean to her because she did not adhere to liberal orthodoxy. She moved on to found The Free Press, which is heavy on culture wars, and attracts a readership roughly equally divided between disaffected lefties (e.g., Bill Maher), Silicon Valley skeptics (e.g., Jeff Bezos) and MAGA (e.g., Larry Ellison). Those are all groups that tend to have money, often a lot of it, and so the Free Press has done quite well, even though the quality of the content is middling at best.

Earlier this week, as part of the overall takeover of CBS/Paramount by the Ellison family, it was announced that Weiss would sell the Free Press to CBS/Paramount for $150 million, and would be named editor-in-chief of CBS News. Mind you, she has absolutely no business being promoted to such a position. She has zero experience running a newsroom and zero experience with broadcast journalism. She was a terrible manager of The Free Press, and turnover has been huge over the last couple of years. She is also very clearly lacking in journalistic ethics; one cannot simultaneously be a culture warrior and a "just the facts" reporter. And if there is any doubt about that, there have been numerous high profile incidents where the Free Press printed falsehoods that verged on defamation, like accusing U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer of covering-up a sex trafficking operation (sound familiar?) or falsely claiming that famine in Gaza was a lie perpetrated by staffers at the United Nations.

In short, Weiss is the beneficiary of the right-wing version of Affirmative Action (Conservative Action?). The question is exactly how much influence she will have in her new position. CBS News President Tom Cibrowski, who had been running the newsroom thus far, will remain on the job. Cibrowski said earlier this week that he and Weiss would be "co-leaders." That sounds good for soundbite purposes, but in a newsroom the buck has to stop with someone. It could be that Weiss is largely a figurehead, installed to persuade Donald Trump to keep his hands off CBS and to refrain from filing any more lawsuits.

On the other hand, Weiss will report directly to David Ellison, meaning that she will be able to go over Cibrowski's head anytime she wants. So, she might end up with her fingerprints all over CBS' coverage (and if that happens, expect Cibrowski to resign). If this is the plan... well, we don't quite get the vision. In theory, it might seem that if one of the three major network news operations veers rightward, then right-wing messaging will reach a much wider audience. But we very seriously doubt it will work that way in reality. Viewers/readers today have an embarrassment of options when it comes to news, and they gravitate toward whatever editorial slant they prefer. If CBS dramatically changes directions, the viewers are mostly going to jump to ABC, or NBC or maybe PBS. Remember, even Fox has not tried to take its cable "news" model to the broadcast network. And all of this is before we note that most people don't watch network news anymore.

In short, we don't see Weiss becoming anything like the next Walter Cronkite. But whatever happens, it will certainly be interesting to observe. (Z)

Don't Think Republicans Have a Monopoly on Performative Anti-antisemitism

Is anti-antisemitism just... semitism? We don't know. Anyhow, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) is, of course, running for president in 2028. And he does not want to be subject to the common criticism of Democrats these days, that the party either doesn't care about antisemitism, or else doesn't care enough about antisemitism. He may be particularly vulnerable thanks to the ugly scenes that unfolded at UCLA last year, under his watch as both governor and ex officio member of the UC Board of Regents. There's not much he could have done to bring order to the campus, short of deploy the National Guard (which could have turned ugly), so it's not terribly fair to blame him for what happened. Still, who said politics is fair?

Consequently, as he busily wages the fight to temporarily restore gerrymandering in California, Newsom also steered a bill through the state legislature that is allegedly meant to combat antisemitism in the state's schools (at all levels). The bill was supported by the Jewish Legislative Caucus and the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, among others, and opposed by the ACLU, the California Teachers Association and The Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The legislation, which has already been signed into law, and will take effect on January 1 of next year, basically has two provisions. The first is that it requires teachers to be "factually accurate" in lessons related to Judaism/Israel, and to uphold "standards of professional responsibility" while avoiding "advocacy, personal opinion, bias or partisanship." The second provision creates an Office of Civil Rights, which will hire an "antisemitism prevention coordinator" to work with schools to prevent antisemitism.

As we wrote just yesterday, we are all-in on combating antisemitism as a general goal. We also have very little idea as to what the best ways to do that would be. However, we know that vaguely worded guidelines, and an additional layer of bureaucracy, are not it. (Z) has vast experience teaching in California at the college level, and knows very well that there is little that one can say about the Middle East, Israel, Zionism, the Six Day War, 9/11, the October 7 attacks, Gaza, Hamas, etc. that is bulletproof to claims of "advocacy, personal opinion, bias or partisanship." After all, a history lecture—aka, an argument—is, by definition, personal opinion. Personal opinion supported by evidence (ideally), but personal opinion nonetheless. And the problem gets more acute at primary and secondary levels, where parents are involved, and administrators are far more likely to meddle.

For any teacher, at any level, who is interested in keeping their jobs and/or avoiding endless headaches, there is only one rational choice here, and that is to never address the subject at all. No books about Israel/Judaism/Islam/the Middle East. No lectures. No essays. No discussions. Questions about anything/everything related to those religions, that nation, and that part of the world cannot be answered. Even if the intent of the bill is somehow noble, the effect here is de facto censorship, not terribly dissimilar to the red states and their anti-LGBTQ crusade. We can't see how anyone is served by inviting Big Brother into the classroom, regardless of whatever subject he is monitoring.

In terms of presidential politics, meanwhile, we can see how Newsom benefits by positioning himself as leader of "the resistance" (say, by suing to try to end guard deployments). We can see how Newsom benefits from his self-appointed position as satirist-in-chief, and all those tweets mocking Trump. We can even see how Newsom benefits from high-profile stunts, like debating Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) on Fox. But our sense is that when the Governor dabbles in show-horse stuff like the antisemitism bill, it risks affirming his reputation as a calculating political opportunist, and not someone who is actually guided by any sort of convictions or principles. (Z)

Bondi Answers to Only One Person

"Attorney General" Pam Bondi appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, ostensibly so the Committee could perform its oversight responsibilities. Instead, Bondi performed, as all Donald Trump underlings do, for an audience of one and hurled pre-written personal insults at the Democratic senators as soon as they dared ask her a question, no matter the topic or how innocuous or legitimate the question. For example, when she was asked for the legal rationale for the guard deployment to Chicago, she ignored the question (multiple times) and responded with false accusations. It was a juvenile and embarrassing display but, frankly, one that probably best showcases her priorities and her intention to continue to abuse the awesome power of the Attorney General's office. The U.S. has endured, and survived, some corrupt Attorneys General—John Mitchell comes to mind. But they understood they were breaking the law and so at least had the good sense to try to cover up their crimes.

Here, the brazenness of the corruption may be more disturbing than the acts themselves. Bondi was open about her contempt for the Senate, her voice dripping with condescension. Congress, at least on paper, is a co-equal branch of government and it is its duty to ensure that the Executive Branch is carrying out its responsibilities lawfully. Bondi couldn't care less. She answers to one man—not to the American people and certainly not to Senate Democrats. One remark was telling: When asked if Trump's post on social media about indicting former FBI director James Comey was a directive, she replied that Trump has been open about his wish for years. In other words, she understood her marching orders long before that post, you silly Senator. Why do you think she got this gig? She is truly frightening because it's clear she doesn't care what the law says. She is probably telling ICE and the guard to do whatever they want in American cities. Breaking into people's homes without a warrant or probable cause and beating people up? Don't worry about it because we won't hold you accountable. It's open season—see what you can get away with.

Republicans must see how dangerous and incompetent she is, and that they should get her out. But they're either too cowardly or too interested in protecting their own turf to stop her. After all, they managed to stomach Pete Hegseth and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., so they probably figure she's no worse.

Meanwhile, the prosecutors who are left trying to defend Trump's illegal actions continue to embarrass themselves in court. A federal judge in Oregon had to issue two orders before the DoJ finally halted the deployment of the guard to Portland. U.S. district court judge Karin Immergut issued an order over the weekend enjoining Trump's ordering of the Oregon National Guard to Portland, saying that there was no evidence of any criminal activity that couldn't be handled by local police. So, what did Trump do? He tried to call up the California National Guard to Portland. After all, the California National Guard isn't the Oregon National Guard, and Immergut only told him he could not use the Oregon National Guard as his personal police force. So, late Sunday night, the Judge had to issue a second order effectively saying "no" means "no"—The situation on the ground does not justify sending federal troops to Portland. And what did DoJ prosecutors do? Did they apologize profusely for their client's behavior? To the contrary. They tried to defend his actions by claiming that the judge's order wasn't clear, and that they thought she was only referring to the Oregon National Guard.

And, while on this general subject, another U.S. Attorney looks like she'll be declared ineligible for that office. Former FBI director James Comey will be arraigned on Wednesday, after which his defense team will likely bring several motions to dismiss, including one that argues that Lindsey Halligan cannot serve as U.S. Attorney. It gets a little weedy, but Erik Siebert, whom Trump had tapped as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was appointed as an interim U.S. Attorney while he awaited Senate confirmation. He can only serve 120 days in that capacity, after which the district court appoints someone, assuming the Senate hasn't acted. Siebert exhausted those 120 days and, under the law, Trump can't appoint anyone else as an interim U.S. Attorney. So, when he sacked Siebert, the Court should have stepped in to name someone. Trump could not legally appoint Halligan. So, if she's unauthorized, then any indictments she secured have to be dismissed. And she's the only one who signed the Comey indictment. And if that's dismissed, they can't refile because they waited until the last moment, and now the statute of limitations has run out. Oops. All the best people, indeed.

The DoJ has long enjoyed a well-earned reputation for integrity and professionalism and candor. There was a "presumption of regularity" in court submissions. It took decades to build up that reputation and just months to destroy it. Assuming we see a qualified, ethical and competent AG in the future, he or she will have a tough time restoring that reputation. (L)

Matchup Set for TN-07 Special Election

Tennessee's 7th District is the one that former representative Mark Green (R) vacated so that he could go work for a Guyanan prince who is trying to smuggle $10 million out of the country (or something like that). Yesterday, the primaries were held, as the good people of Tennessee prepare to choose a replacement. One of the primaries was close, the other was not.

The not-close primary was on the Republican side, where Matt Van Epps took 51.6% of the vote in an 11-man field (and yes, it was all men). Van Epps is a longtime member of the Tennessee National Guard, and has also worked in the private sector, and also briefly for the Tennessee Department of General Services. He was Green's preferred successor, and several days ago, when the outcome was all-but-certain, Donald Trump bravely endorsed him. Van Epps appears to be MAGA, but not crazypants MAGA. Think Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), as opposed to Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ). That, plus being military, should make Van Epps a pretty good match for this R+10 district.

The close primary, meanwhile, saw state Rep. Aftyn Behn (D) eke out a win with 27.9% of the vote. She was trailed closely by Darden Copeland (24.9%). The other two candidates in the race, Bo Mitchell and Vincent Dixie, also broke 20%, so the field came pretty close to splitting the vote into equal quarters. Behn was the only woman running on either side of the primary, and she is something of a rabble-rouser. For example, she got tossed out of the Tennesse House chamber for protesting the speakership of Republican Glen Casada. Of course, those Southern legislatures will toss Democrats out for sneezing in the wrong direction, so who knows how much rabble she actually roused.

Democrats have hopes of maybe flipping this seat, but their chances would have been far better if the GOP had nominated a real nutter. If Behn is to somehow prevail, she will probably need one of two things to happen. The first is if she manages to make the election into a referendum on reproductive choice. The second is if Donald Trump sends the guard into Memphis and things turn ugly. Van Epps is not only a guardsman, but he's also gone on record as saying he supports sending troops to Memphis (which, by random chance, just so happens to not be located in TN-07). If there were some sort of violence or other disaster, some of the blowback could target Van Epps.

There is one other slight bit of good news for Behn: Turnout on the Democratic side of the primary yesterday was not too different from Republican turnout (about 31,000 D's versus about 33,000 R's). So, she's an underdog, but stranger things have happened. The general election is on December 2. (Z)

The Case of the Missing Aviatrix

Every day, this presidential administration finds new ways to make us scratch our heads and say "Huh?" The government is shut down right now, of course, though "essential" functions can still be performed. It's largely up to the White House to decide what is "essential," and yesterday someone decided that it simply cannot wait: We must know IMMEDIATELY what happened to Amelia Earhart.

Maybe you think we are joking, or making this up, but we're not. Yesterday, FBI officials in New York and Washington, DC, got priority orders to find any and all records they can locate related to Earhart's disappearance. This is a pressing enough matter that the deadline for submitting those materials to the White House is today, no exceptions.

We honestly cannot imagine what Donald Trump hopes to accomplish here. It's been close to 90 years since Earhart disappeared. How much undiscovered documentation could there possibly be (even if you include a search of the bathrooms at Mar-a-Lago)? And how could that documentation possibly resolve the mystery of Earhart's disappearance? At the time she vanished, 16 days were spent trying to figure it out, and since then both professional and amateur investigators have put the case under the magnifying glass thousands of times. And even if there is unknown documentation, and even if there are new insights to be had, why is this so important it needs to happen during a shutdown?

It's hard to come up with an explanation here, though there is certainly one possibility, and that is why we decided this news was worth at least a passing mention. The possibility that occurs to us, and that fits the facts, is that it's another sign Trump has become erratic and is losing mental control. Things like this happen; Caligula made his horse a consul (or tried, at least), Charles VI of France would go streaking in the royal gardens, King Farouk of Egypt hated the color red and would shoot out the tires of any red cars that passed him. We might be wrong, but it might also happen that, a year or two or three from now, the secret will be out, and people will say, "You know, all the signs were right there in front of us." (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, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger