A belated Happy Labor Day! Sorry, the production schedule means we sometimes forget that [Important Day X] is "today," because while we are writing, that day is actually happening tomorrow.

The War on Democracy Continues

We have reiterated this observation many times, including in the last week, but it's hard-to-impossible to steal elections once the ballots are cast. On the other hand, it's certainly possible to steal them before and maybe during the casting of ballots. The leaders of red states are aware of this, and so are hard at work doing what they can do to hold onto power, by hook or by crook.

Yesterday's news on this front comes out of... Texas. Surprise! It might well be the most undemocratic state in the nation (though Florida is in the running, and maybe Ohio, too). Donald Trump has been railing about mail-in voting for the last couple of weeks, ever since Vladimir Putin manipulated him into doing so. In response to Trump's whining, the Tarrant County Commissioners Court (Texas' version of a Board of Commissioners) voted 3-2 to reduce the number of polling places in the County, from 331 down to 216. They also voted to reduce the number of days for early voting.

The careful reader might notice that, even if one accepts Trump's claims about mail-in voting, that actually has nothing to do with how many polling places there are. Nonetheless, Tarrant County Judge Tim O'Hare, who is chair of the commission, and who joined with his two fellow Republicans on the commission to implement the changes, said this will make voting more "secure" and more "efficient." The latter of the two claims is particularly difficult to say with a straight face. Last we checked, longer waiting times and longer distances to travel are not more "efficient."

Tarrant County is the third-largest in Texas. And while it is light-red, its biggest city, Fort Worth, is blue. In addition, two of the districts that were aggressively redrawn in the new Texas map, TX-32 and TX-33, are located at least partly in Tarrant County. Depending on which 100 or so polling places get shut down, it would be very easy to suppress Democratic turnout, and thus to give a little assistance to the effort to steal a few seats in the U.S. House.

We will see if other counties take "inspiration" from Tarrant. Most of the other redrawn districts span several counties, so it could be a bit harder to coordinate these sorts of shenanigans. (Z)

Candidate News: U.S. Senate and House

There's been some pretty big candidate news in the last week, so let's get to it:

• U.S. Senate, Iowa: The largest amount of moving and shaking this week came out of Iowa, where Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) apparently plans to announce she is standing down after 2 terms, creating an(other) open seat for the GOP. This news comes from high-ranking people in the NRSC, so it's likely reliable.
  
  Ernst has been noticeably non-committal about running for another term. We will be interested to learn what caused her to throw in the towel, assuming she eventually decides to share. It could be the generally bad political climate for Republicans. It could be the damage wrought by voting for Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense, a decision that upset both women and military hawks, especially since Ernst teased the possibility she might vote "no." It could be the "Well, we all are going to die" blunder. It could be the special election last week, in which yet another Iowa Democrat WAY outperformed 2024. It could be that, at 55 years of age, Ernst feels she's really too young for the Senate. It could be that Ernst has been so busy, she's fallen behind on her hog castrating. It could be all of the above.
  
  There is likely to be a bloody primary now on the Republican side. Already, the very Trumpy Jim Carlin is in the race. The less Trumpy Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA) is expected to announce as soon as Ernst makes it official. So, you've got something of a Paxton-Cornyn situation, but one that also opens up a House seat (Hinson's district, IA-02, is R+4, which means it is certainly in play).
  
  And that's not the only good news for the blue team out of the Hawkeye State. On the Democratic side of the Senate contest, there were two very intriguing candidates in state Rep. J.D. Scholten (D), a former baseball player, and state Rep. Josh Turek (D), a medal-winning paralympian. However, Scholten has decided to drop out, and throw his support behind Turek. There are still a few other Democrats who have declared, but it sure looks like support is going to coalesce behind Turek. Add it all up, and there's another juicy new target on the Democrats' Senate map. Iowa will still be a tough hill to climb, but it's not Everest anymore. And if the list of potential flips—Maine, Texas, Ohio, Iowa, Alaska, North Carolina—gets fairly long, the Democrats' hopes for retaking the Senate improve, especially since the various elections tend to correlate with each other.
  
  
• U.S. House, IA-01: The situation in which Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) finds herself may help to shed some light on the choice that Joni Ernst is apparently about to make. Miller-Meeks represents the R+4 IA-01 and, as some readers may recall, she won the single-closest race in 2024, outpacing Democrat Christina Bohannan by just 798 votes out of 414,078 cast (a margin of victory of less than 0.2%).
  
  Well, Bohannan is back for another bite at the apple... well, OK, another bite at the cob of corn. Meanwhile, Miller-Meeks has placed herself squarely between a rock and a hard place. See, Iowa gets two-thirds of its electricity from wind power, the very same wind power that the BBB is designed to cripple. The turbines not only keep residents supplied with electricity, they also keep Iowans' power bills among the lowest in the country. They like their wind power.
  
  The Representative behaves as a dutiful Trumper at some times, and like a dutiful Iowan at others. For example, last week, she sat for an interview with a Des Moines media outlet, and decreed "Wind works. Iowa has proved that." And the next morning, she traveled to Ames, IA, and stood immediately to the right of Trump Energy Secretary Chris Wright as he decreed renewable energy to be "nonsensical." Iowans, like voters in most places, are not fans of politicians who are hypocrites, and who appear to be talking out of both sides of their mouths.
  
  There's been one poll of the probable Bohannan/Miller-Meeks matchup so far. It was commissioned by the Democratic Majority PAC, which is obviously partisan. However, the poll may be trustworthy because it was done by a real pollster (PPP), and because the PAC wants accurate data so that it knows how best to invest its resources. Anyhow, it has Bohannan up 4 points, 43% to 39%. Of course, we'll have a much better picture once there are more polls, much closer to Election Day.
  
  
• U.S. Senate, Maine: The DSCC is waiting patiently while Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) decides if she would like to challenge Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). Mills is taking her sweet time, and says she MIGHT make a decision by November.
  
  Mills is the blue team's preferred candidate because she's reasonably popular, and she's twice won election statewide. She's also a woman, and, unlike Collins, did not vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, the key votes that allowed Roe to be struck down. So, Mills would be expected to do particularly well with pro-choice voters. The biggest problem, besides her hesitation, is that Mills would be 79 on taking office in 2027. That's pretty high up there for a rookie senator, and on top of that, the Democrats may be commencing a youth movement (keep reading below).
  
  If Mills takes a pass, the blue team does have a very interesting fallback option. His name is Graham Platner, and he's a veteran and a working oysterman who formally jumped into the race last week. Here is his launch video; it's pretty good:
  
  
  
  Instructive quote, if you don't care to watch: "The main difference between Susan Collins and Ted Cruz is at least Ted Cruz is honest about selling us out and not giving a damn."
  
  Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has already bestowed his endorsement on Platner, which gives you a pretty good idea of Platner's platform and politics. We don't know Maine well enough to know if a Platner-type candidate can plausibly win there. However, we do know that Vermont is not too far from Maine, and that Sanders has won there many times. Anyhow, if the Democrats want to make a statement that they want working-class/white noncollege voters back, and maybe that they like economic populism, Platner could help a lot with that. And if he were to somehow become a face of the Party, well, the Fox "News"es of the world seem to be less effective at training their withering fire on folks like Platner than folks like, say, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX). We're not sure why; you'd think we could figure it out, that it would be right there... in Black and white.
  
  
• U.S. House, NY-12: The biggest news of the day yesterday was that, at 78 years of age, and after 17 terms in the House, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) will not run for reelection next year. Nadler is one of the most prominent Democrats in the country, has real power as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee (and would-be chair, if the Democrats retake the House), and he loves his work. But, he decided to take one for the team, explaining "Watching the Biden thing really said something about the necessity for generational change in the party, and I think I want to respect that." There's a Cincinnatus/George Washington dimension to the decision, then.
  
  Late last night, reader M.G. in Boulder, CO sent us an essay from the Substack Democratic Wins Media, with the headline "The Hottest Quality in Democratic Politics? Knowing When To Retire." We thought this portion was particularly well put:

  Nadler is 78.
  
  He's watched as his colleagues, many in their seventies and eighties, have been forced into conversations about age, stamina, and relevance. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn—giants of the institution—have all either stepped down from leadership or signaled their exits. Joe Biden's age was the single biggest weight on his political standing. Nadler read the moment. And he chose to respect it.
  
  The paradox is that Democrats are not short on talent or ideas. The party's rising generation—figures like James Talarico, Pete Buttigieg, Mallory McMorrow—are fluent in the politics of the present, not the politics of the past.
  
  They understand how to build coalitions that are multi-racial, multi-class, and digitally native. What they lack is space to grow. Safe seats, particularly in places like Manhattan, are held for decades. Incumbency in the House is an institution unto itself: re-election rates hover near 95 percent. Nadler's retirement is less about one man's career and more about the opening it creates for the politics of tomorrow to take shape today.
  
  It's worth pausing on Nadler himself, though, because he embodies why this is so hard. He was not a backbencher. He helped codify same-sex marriage into federal law, protected voting rights, and fought for the victims of 9/11. He carried a constitutionalist's zeal into every battle with Trump.
  
  He was reliable, principled, and trusted by his district. When he showed up at impeachment hearings with a bag containing, as he quipped, "a babka and the Constitution," he became both meme and mascot.
  
  Who wouldn't want more of that?
  
  But politics is about timing. And it is not just about being right; it's about ensuring there is someone to be right after you. Nadler could have run again and probably won.
  
  But what would that prove? At a moment when Democrats need to project vitality and renewal, the symbolism of Nadler's exit is as important as the policy legacy of his tenure.
  
  This is the politics of exit as strategy. Mitch McConnell clung to leadership for years even amid visible health crises. Chuck Grassley is still cruising along in the Senate at 91. Dianne Feinstein's decline became a national drama precisely because she wouldn't go.
  
  Democrats, for all their flaws, are beginning to recognize that stepping down can itself be an act of leadership. It tells voters: we hear you. We know this is a future-facing moment. We're not clinging to our seats at the expense of the movement.

This is an important point. If you believe that Trumpism has badly damaged the country, and that Democrats (and sane Republicans) will have to repair that damage, that is a multi-cycle project (at least). It is a project that wants young and energetic people from the outset, and not people who might not be able to hang on for another 4 or 6 or 8 years. And if there's going to be a changeover, the time to execute that is during an election that has as good a chance as any of being a wave election.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) saw this particular writing on the wall, and now Nadler has, as well. We'll see if some of the other octogenarians we wrote about last week follow suit. If they don't stand down, they run at least some small risk of voters making the retirement decision for them.

There's been some interesting gubernatorial news, as well; we'll try to get to that sometime this week. (Z)

A Look at the 2028 Democratic Field

Yesterday, we gave a summary of The Hill's ranking of the 2028 Republican presidential field, along with [our comments]. They followed that up with their rundown of the 2028 Democratic field, so let's do what we do, again:

1. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA): He's getting a lot of earned media right now, but he might be too much a "liberal Californian" stereotype to get support in places like the Midwest and the South, which dominate the early part of the primary process. [A fair assessment; it's also not easy to keep your name in the headlines for multiple years on end, particularly if you won't be in office anymore as of January 2027.]
   
   
2. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): She's charismatic, courageous, knows social media, and can win over young voters, and has a platform that might just energize the Democratic base, even though it (and she) will enrage conservatives. [We don't disagree with any of this, but this list is ranked, and we just don't see AOC as the second-most-probable Democratic candidate in 2028, especially since going directly from the House to the White House has only happened once, and that was 145 years ago. She undoubtedly knows that her best move is running for the Senate in 2028.].
   
   
3. Kamala Harris: She's got name recognition and a lot of experience, the question is whether Democrats will see her as someone who did very well under tough circumstances in 2024, or someone who just can't close the deal. [We think she's got a big advantage in that she'll be taken seriously no matter when she declares, and so she doesn't have to worry about keeping her name in the headlines, or her shtick potentially getting stale.]
   
   
4. Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD): He's 50% Gavin Newsom lite (social media trolling of Trump, executive experience) and 50% AOC lite (young, Brown, fairly lefty). [Moore was obviously someone to keep an eye on when he was elected, but he's been pretty quiet since then. That said, he may just be biding his time, and if Donald Trump sends the National Guard to Baltimore, Moore will suddenly become a national figure. Moore is Black and 2028 probably isn't the year for a Black candidate.]
   
   
5. Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL): He's also done some sparring with Trump, and Illinois Democrats apparently love him for it. However, a billionaire candidate may be more than some Democratic/working-class voters can swallow. [Maybe it's just our gut feel, but when Pritzker shreds Trump, he seems to be more genuine and less calculated than Newsom. And while we know that "ultra-rich-guys can't be president" was the standard political wisdom for many years, one might want to take note of the fellow who is currently in the White House... substantially on the strength of working-class votes.]
   
   
6. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI): She's charismatic and engaging, and has won statewide twice in a purple state. However, she's been rather more cooperative with the Trump administration than the other Democratic governors, in the name of doing what is best for Michigan, and that may come back to haunt her. [If Democratic voters are out for blood, and we think they will be in 2028, her careful dance with the Trump White House really could be a serious problem. Also, like Newsom, she will be out of office as of January 2027.]
   
   
7. Pete Buttigieg: He's good on TV, and educated Democrats love him. [The problem here is that the Democrats don't have to worry about the votes of educated people, and Buttigieg has not shown any particular ability to connect with the other groups the Party is trying to hold on to, or to win back. In particular, Black voters and working-class voters don't like him.]
   
   
8. Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA): He is "polished and ambitious," but could be done in by the Gaza issue. [Isn't "polished" just a nice word for "phony"? Shapiro joins Newsom as the two people on this list who strike us as being least genuine. Voters like "authentic." On the other hand, he would carry Pennsylvania and likely Michigan and Wisconsin.]
   
   
9. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT): He's an outspoken Trump critic, but he's also very conventional, and so won't scare off independent/moderate voters. [Please. We don't think Murphy is in the 20 most likely Democratic candidates, much less the Top 10. We don't think The Hill thinks he's Top 10, either. They just needed one milquetoast, Biden-style Democrat for their list.]
   
   
10. Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY): He's won twice in a very red state, the last of those by 5 points. And he's a centrist on most issues, but a lefty on the litmus-testiest issue of them all, abortion. [Some of these folks are, in our view, way too high on the list. Beshear, by contrast, is way too low. Beshear is "safe" like Murphy, he's young like AOC, and he's got a record of winning tough elections like Whitmer. That's quite a package, and we foresee a lot of interest from Democratic primary voters. Could a moderate southern Democratic governor be elected president? Someone should ask Bill Clinton because Jimmy Carter is not available. Besides there have been more Andrews elected president than Gavins, Alexandrias, and Kamalas combined.]

It's an interesting list, but mostly just fat to chew for now. There's an awful lot of time between now and the real start of the 2028 cycle (mid-2027, give or take a couple of months). It is mostly a list of well-known Democrats, but often candidates who are unknown 3 years before the election pop up. (Z)

Legal News: NIH Grants Are on Hold Again

The latest out of the Supreme Court's shadow docket is a decision to grant an "emergency" stay application in response to a district court's order reinstating over $800 million in NIH grants that the Trump administration unilaterally halted. The Court continues to refer to these applications as requests for emergency stays but what constitutes "an emergency" is very fluid, depending on the Court's desired outcome and who's doing the requesting. Having to honor contractual obligations such as these grants has never before been considered an emergency that requires the Supreme Court's immediate intervention. But consistency does not seem to concern this Court.

Earlier this year, the NIH canceled 1,700 grants on research subjects such as heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, HIV/AIDS, alcohol and substance abuse, and mental health issues. None of these grants has a clear "DEI" component (whatever that means in this context), but they were canceled anyway on a claim that they were not in line with Trump administration priorities. Democratic attorneys general from sixteen states, along with the American Public Health Association, sued to have the grants reinstated and in May, U.S. District Court Judge William Young, a Ronald Reagan appointee, agreed. He found not only that grants that have been previously awarded can't be unilaterally canceled, but also struck down the NIH guidance that led to these cancellations as unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. He held that the guidance leads to decisions that are arbitrary and capricious and discriminatory. The judge found that "DEI" was never defined at the hearing, and that the government attorneys offered no support for claims that the grant recipients were somehow harmful. Some of the grants were to examine racial health disparities, and the judge asked for evidence to support the claim that those grants are "unscientific." After receiving none and after repeated requests for "any support, any rational explanation" and not getting it, the judge concluded that he had "never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable."

Now, in an unsigned order, a 5-4 majority has stayed the judge's order and ignored not only the overwhelming evidence of discrimination in these cancellations, but also the impact on the important research these grants funded. According to epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina, health inequities will go unaddressed and gaps in care will persist. Projected economic losses from the Trump administration's cuts, if they continue at the current pace, will be $47 billion, with 202,000 jobs lost.

Without addressing the merits, the Court reached two conclusions, with different majorities for each. The five conservative associate justices found that Young did not have the authority to rule in this case, and decreed that the matter must first be submitted to the Court of Federal Claims. Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the three liberal associate justices found that the court DID have the authority to strike down the NIH guidance that led to the cancellations. That means that Barrett was in the majority on both rulings (the only justice for whom that is true). Meanwhile, Roberts pointed out the incongruity of finding that the court had jurisdiction to rule on the guidance but not to decide whether the grants were properly canceled pursuant to that guidance. Jurisdiction is not a menu where a court can hear some parts of a case but not others: either a court has jurisdiction or it doesn't.

In her dissent, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson didn't mince words, accusing her conservative colleagues of playing "Calvinball" where there are only two rules: (1) there are no rules; and (2) this administration always wins. Pretty spot on, from where we sit. This is a pattern where so far the Court has given Trump wins by issuing stays under dubious circumstances, even while signaling that the administration is wrong on the merits.

Note that these rulings are not precedent—they are not based on full briefings or oral argument nor are they signed opinions—hence the name "shadow docket." But now lower courts are supposed to use these brief orders, in this case four paragraphs, to guide their decisions in full-blown cases, even when facts are different? It's particularly insulting when district courts have full hearings and then issue decisions that number in the hundreds of pages with citations to the evidence and the parties' arguments. The arrogance at the top is nothing short of stunning and it's causing real trauma to people's lives and livelihoods. Prof. Steve Vladeck had some choice words and a warning in response to this attack in his substack: "Justice Gorsuch's Attack on Lower Courts." (L)

CDC Directors Blast Kennedy

As long as we are on the subject of the nation's health, which the Trump administration is apparently determined to destroy, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy got a stern talking to yesterday, in a New York Times op-ed headlined "We Ran the C.D.C.: Kennedy Is Endangering Every American's Health." Here's the meat of the piece:

What the health and human services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has done to the C.D.C. and to our nation's public health system over the past several months—culminating in his decision to fire Dr. Susan Monarez as C.D.C. director days ago—is unlike anything we had ever seen at the agency and unlike anything our country had ever experienced.

Mr. Kennedy has fired thousands of federal health workers and severely weakened programs designed to protect Americans from cancer, heart attacks, strokes, lead poisoning, injury, violence and more. Amid the largest measles outbreak in the United States in a generation, he's focused on unproven treatments while downplaying vaccines. He canceled investments in promising medical research that will leave us ill prepared for future health emergencies. He replaced experts on federal health advisory committees with unqualified individuals who share his dangerous and unscientific views. He announced the end of U.S. support for global vaccination programs that protect millions of children and keep Americans safe, citing flawed research and making inaccurate statements. And he championed federal legislation that will cause millions of people with health insurance through Medicaid to lose their coverage. Firing Dr. Monarez—which led to the resignations of top C.D.C. officials—adds considerable fuel to this raging fire.

We are worried about the wide-ranging impact that all these decisions will have on America's health security. Residents of rural communities and people with disabilities will have even more limited access to health care. Families with low incomes who rely most heavily on community health clinics and support from state and local health departments will have fewer resources available to them. Children risk losing access to lifesaving vaccines because of the cost.

This is unacceptable, and it should alarm every American, regardless of political leanings.

The co-authors of the piece are Drs. William Foege (led the CDC under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan), William Roper (George H.W. Bush), David Satcher (Bill Clinton), Jeffrey Koplan (Clinton and George W. Bush), Richard Besser and Tom Frieden (Barack Obama), Anne Schuchat (Donald Trump) and Rochelle P. Walensky and Mandy K. Cohen (Joe Biden).

The CDC is in chaos right now, because after Kennedy cashiered Monarez, her top deputies also quit. Unfortunately, Junior does not give a damn about chaos at the CDC, or a letter from the former directors of the CDC. He's a True Believer, and he's on a crusade. Anyone who opposes him is just ill-informed, or part of "the establishment," or both.

Donald Trump shares Kennedy's utter lack of concern over chaos at the CDC, or a letter from the former directors of same. Where Donald Sr. and Robert Jr. differ, however, is that Trump is not a True Believer. He is, in fact, the polar opposite of a True Believer on most issues, including public health. The President just goes whatever way he thinks the MAGA political winds are blowing. If Trump thinks the base wants [X], then he wants [X], as long as it does not conflict with his own personal and financial interests.

Recently, Trump has been following the Kennedy line, and railing against COVID vaccines. Yesterday morning, he posted this to his sickening social media platform:

It is very important that the Drug Companies justify the success of their various Covid Drugs. Many people think they are a miracle that saved Millions of lives. Others disagree! With CDC being ripped apart over this question, I want the answer, and I want it NOW. I have been shown information from Pfizer, and others, that is extraordinary, but they never seem to show those results to the public. Why not??? They go off to the next "hunt" and let everyone rip themselves apart, including Bobby Kennedy Jr. and CDC, trying to figure out the success or failure of the Drug Companies Covid work. They show me GREAT numbers and results, but they don't seem to be showing them to many others. I want them to show them NOW, to CDC and the public, and clear up this MESS, one way or the other!!! I hope OPERATION WARP SPEED was as "BRILLIANT" as many say it was. If not, we all want to know about it, and why??? Thank you for your attention to this very important matter! President DJT

Given how very much Trump loves to claim credit for things, it's instructive that he's "asking questions" about Operation Warp Speed, which is almost certainly the greatest achievement of his first term. If he wasn't trying to pander to the base, he'd be crowing to the heavens about how "his" Operation Warp Speed is the greatest achievement in the history of medicine, and that people have been telling him it's an even better accomplishment than the development of penicillin or Viagra, and how he really deserves the Nobel Prize for Medicine.

What Trump has forgotten—or, more likely, has revisionist historied inside his head—is that the pandemic is what devastated his first term. But for all the death and suffering, coupled with Trump's ambivalence about the vaccine and promulgation of quack "treatments" like ivermectin, he probably would have been reelected.

Now, history is clearly repeating itself. There's the limits on, and the pooh-poohing of, the COVID vaccine, not to mention all the other vaccines. There's the cuts to NIH funding (see above). There's the jettisoning of actual professionals who know what they are doing, at the CDC, the NIH, and other parts of the federal bureaucracy. There's the cuts to VA healthcare, not to mention the cuts to Medicaid. That the U.S. is headed for a public health crisis certainly seems obvious to us, perhaps even more obvious than the ruinous effects of the tariffs.

If and when the public health crisis arrives, and if and when it begins to affect Trump's approval rating and the political prospects of Republicans running for election, Trump will do what he does, and try to shift the blame. Kennedy should make sure not to sign too long-term a lease in D.C., because the day is surely coming when he gets scapegoated and canned. Trump's problem is that didn't work last time, and it won't work this time. Meanwhile, if the tariffs really begin to wreck the GOP, Trump can reverse them, and maybe stanch the bleeding. But if there is an epidemic of disease, or six, or even another pandemic, the cat will be out of the bag, with no hope of putting it back in. It's another dimension, in addition to the economy, and the current foreign affairs messes, and the corruption, that could be very salient in 2026. (Z)

What Do Donald Trump and the Titanic Have in Common?

No, not that they are both sinking ships. Well, that's not the commonality we had in mind, at least.

Some readers will know that the wreck of the Titanic was discovered in 1985 by a team led by Commander Robert Ballard (ret.). It has come out that there was a bit more to the story. It turns out that what they were really looking for was the Heart of the Ocean, a 56-carat blue diamond that went down with the ship, and that is worth millions.

Er, wait. We seem to have gotten our notes mixed up. Actually, what Ballard and his team were looking for was: (1) the remains of two U.S. nuclear subs that sank in the North Atlantic, and (2) any general intel that might be useful in the ongoing Cold War against Russia. Ballard was delighted to find Titanic, but that was not his actual mission.

If, in 1989, you had said "You know, the operation that found Titanic was actually a top-secret military operation that was really trying to find the wrecks of the USS Thresher and the USS Scorpion," you probably would have been advised to loosen your tinfoil helmet. But now, that's just... the facts. It's not too common, but sometimes a conspiracy theory ceases to be a theory.

That brings us to Donald Trump, who has been the subject of his very own conspiracy theory this week. A couple of weeks ago, people spotted dark bruises on his hands, of exactly the same sort that Elizabeth II had on HER hands just a couple of days before she went to the great big castle in the sky. And then, in contrast to his usual highly visible life (lots of public events, lots of social media), Trump basically dropped off the radar for 6 days. This gave rise to conspiratorial thinking that he was either: (1) undergoing a procedure, (2) very ill, or (3) already dead. This spread far and wide enough that #TRUMPDIED was trending on eX-Twitter, and that he (or someone working for him) had to hop on his ailing social media platform to declare, in all caps, "NEVER FELT BETTER IN MY LIFE."

It's not at all surprising that this sort of conspiratorial thinking took hold. World leaders in general, and presidents in particular, need to project strength. So, they pretty much all lie about their health when it's less than stellar. And now, the U.S. has spent nearly a decade under the leadership of two presidents who were clearly giving a false (or VERY false) impression of their well-being. Trump is particularly problematic on this front. Has he EVER provided a health update that was truthful? It's been lies on top of lies on top of lies ever since the obviously phony "best health of any president ever" Harold Bornstein letter in 2015.

Since we ended up with a bit of a "health" focus today, we thought we would pass this story along. We do not believe that Trump is dead, and that he's been convincingly replaced by a doppelganger, or very well executed fake AI video footage, or anything like that. But if it eventually came out that he actually did have some sort of procedure last week? We would not be the least bit surprised. Meanwhile, he does not look great these days, including in the brief footage of him heading to the golf course on Labor Day, that was disseminated to prove he isn't dead. He shuffles his feet, and is stooped over, and looks all of his 79 years and then some. If there is something seriously wrong, the world will not receive confirmation until... well, the moment President Vance is sworn in. But it's far from impossible there really is something seriously wrong. Jerry Nadler showed real leadership when he opted out when he could have stayed in. Dianne Feinstein did not. Will Trump turn over the reins when he is no longer able to do the job? We wouldn't bet on it. (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