Inflation Is Bad... Wonder Why?

March was not a great month for Americans' pocketbooks, as monthly inflation tripled, from 0.3% per month to 0.9% per month. This means the overall inflation rate jumped from 2.4% to 3.3%. This will not be good news for any politician or political party in line to be blamed for the nation's economic woes.

Is there any obvious explanation for why inflation is skyrocketing? Yeah, there just might be. Take a look at this chart of the average price for a gallon of gas, nationwide, over the last year:

The dramatic upturn in gas prices coincides, obviously, with the commencement of the war in Iran. But now the U.S. is taking steps to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, so that should fix everything, right? Right? And in case you are trying to make long-term plans, Donald Trump helpfully advised yesterday that, by November, gas prices could be lower, or possibly higher, or maybe the same. Actually, the real news there is that even Trump is acknowledging the likeliest possibility, namely that gas prices are not coming down anytime soon.

Inflation has actually been problematic for much more than a month, though, so it can't just be the Iran War that is responsible. Is there an obvious explanation for why inflation has been getting worse over the last 6 months or so? Yeah, there just might be. Take a look at this chart of pricing trends put together by the Cato Institute:

Cato is hardcore libertarian, and so they love themselves some free trade and they hate themselves some tariffs. Still, the numbers are the numbers, and tariffs are inherently inflationary. Everyone in the country knew this would happen. Well, everyone save one guy, apparently.

When it comes to the U.S. party system, the most important dynamic in the "Trump realignment," assuming there really was a Trump realignment, was the shift of white, non-college voters away from the Democrats and toward the Republicans. This, in turn, raised an important question: Did they move away from the Democrats for kitchen-table reasons, or for culture-wars reasons? If it's the former, some of those folks might be won back to the Democratic banner. If it's the latter, not so much, because adopting Trumpy takes on the culture wars would cost Democratic politicians dearly with their base.

We may be getting an answer to that very important question. Here is one last chart, this one of Trump's net approval with white, non-college voters in the past year-plus:

That is a swing of 27 points, which is pretty staggering. And this is not an outlier. He's down by more than 30 points in the CNN, CBS, Fox and NPR/PBS polls, all of which now have him underwater with non-college white voters. Trump's enthusiasm for the culture wars has not changed, but the economy sure has, and that suggests the economy is thus what is driving his approval rating down.

It is certainly possible that with some, or even many, of these voters, the Democratic Party is even worse than Iran-War-era Trump. But if their attitude is "a pox on both your houses," then many of the Trump 2024 voters will stay home for the midterms, which will certainly work to the blue team's advantage. Further, these preliminary numbers suggest that if the Democrats can come up with a compelling economic message, they might actually win back some of these voters, the ones who were the backbone of the FDR coalition. Of course, coming up with a compelling economic message is easier said than done. (Z)

Well, That Didn't Go as Planned

There was a small incident on Monday that was nevertheless instructive in suggesting that the Trump administration knows very well its messaging is not working as well as it once did. It's not entirely clear whose idea this was, or how it was arranged, but the basic shtick was that Donald Trump ordered some food from his beloved McDonald's, and a DoorDash driver named Sharon Simmons, who has somehow acquired the nickname "DoorDash Grandma," hand-delivered it to Trump right outside the Oval Office.

The purpose of this political theater was primarily to highlight how great Trump's "no tax on tips" policy is. You can watch the video of the meet-up here, if you wish. In any event, it went off the rails from the beginning. Trump tried to make small-talk about how awful these trans people are, but Simmons had no interest, and shut that down. Again (see above), maybe the culture wars aren't so compelling when your gas bill is through the roof.

Thereafter, Trump decreed that his policy had saved Simmons $11,000 in taxes. This was reiterated on the White House's social media feeds. The problem is that it's not true. Yes, that's right, Trump told a lie. We'll wait while you lay down on your fainting couch for a spell. It turns out that Simmons' total take in 2025 was $11,000, and that her tax savings was more like $3,000. That's a chunk of change, but it's not $11,000, and she's been happy to go on TV and correct the record.

And then there's one last problem from a messaging standpoint. Someone thought to ask Simmons why she, a woman of 58 and on the cusp of retirement age, has taken a second job delivering food. It turns out the answer is that she's trying to help pay off her husband's five-figure medical bills. These would be the same medical bills that were supposed to be addressed by Trump's Obamacare replacement, which is apparently still sitting in a drawer somewhere.

Again, the real story here is that the White House knows it's got a problem when it comes to its grip on white non-college folks like Simmons. And if ill-conceived stunts like this one are all that Team Trump can come up with to try to correct the problem, it's going to be a long election season for the GOP, indeed. (Z)

It's Tax Day

For Americans who pay taxes—so, not the billionaires—today's the day by which you have to settle up with Uncle Sam.

That means it's also the day for us to continue building on a leitmotif that runs through nearly every posting these days, namely "Everything Donald Trump touches turns to... well, something other than gold." We have already written about how this administration changes IRS commissioners more often than some people change socks, and how the slapdash DOGE cuts have made it much harder for people to get their tax breaks, because there aren't enough IRS agents to answer the phones, and to explain those tax breaks.

To this, let us add another story that hasn't gotten much attention. During the Joe Biden years, the IRS introduced the IRS Direct File Program, which allows people with simple returns to file them directly, instead of using a professional preparer, or some sort of software package. Several million people used it in 2025, and 94% of them reported their experience was positive. To have "94% approval" anywhere within a country mile of the phrase "Internal Revenue Service" is kind of a modern miracle.

As readers can undoubtedly guess, the Trump administration shut the program down, such that it is not available this year. The official explanation was that not many taxpayers were using it. This is nonsense; "millions" is not "not many" and, besides, 2025 was actually the first year it was widely available. If you're going to give a new initiative a real shot, you have to allow at least a few years, right?

So, what is the real reason the IRS Direct File Program was shuttered? There are three explanations that present themselves. The first is that the companies that make their money off of tax preparation, and are charging multiple hundreds of dollars for even the simplest returns, lobbied the White House mightily to kill the whole thing. The second is that if tax returns are difficult, some people won't bother, and won't get their refunds, and the government gets to keep that money. The third is that the program was a Biden-era initiative, and anything Biden-related must be slain.

Truth be told, we suspect it's all of these things. Meanwhile, this is your special tax-day reminder of how this administration rolls. (Z)

Democrats Make "Attempt" to Remove Trump from Office

We wrote, earlier this week, about how House Democrats, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), are pushing to remove Donald Trump from office via the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Over the weekend, the story was that Raskin sent a letter to presidential physician Sean Barbarella asking him to make a full cognitive assessment of the President. Now, Raskin and his colleagues have upped the ante, and have put together a bill that would create a bipartisan 17-member "Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office." This commission would obviously be granted the power to invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

There is, of course, no chance that this bill becomes law in time for Donald Trump to be subject to its conditions. That is why we put "attempt" in quotes in the headline, because Raskin & Co. know they aren't actually taking steps to remove Trump. It is improbable that the proposed legislation will make it out of committee. If it somehow does, it is not likely it will come to the floor of the House. If it somehow does, it is not likely it will pass the House. If it somehow does, it will not likely come to the floor of the Senate. If it somehow does, it is not likely it will get the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and pass the legislation. If it somehow does, Donald Trump will veto it.

So, all of this is just for show. We can see two ways this might work out well for the Democrats, one way it could work out very poorly. The first potential positive outcome for the blue team is that if they can really keep the "Is Trump mentally fit?" conversation going, then Trump will be peppered with questions on that subject. And sometimes, he takes the bait, and agrees to do something to "prove" that he's fit, like take a test that you pass if you are able to tell which one is the doggy and which one is the ducky. If Trump can be baited in this way, and he has been before, that works to the Democrats' advantage, we'd say.

The other way this could work out well for the Democrats is by showing the base that the Party's elected officials are on the job, and are doing what they can to hold Trump's and the Republicans' feet to the fire. Of course, if the Democrats do regain the majority in the House, they will be left with no choice but to impeach Trump. Not too long ago, maybe as recently as January of this year, we would have taken the view that impeaching him was an unwise choice, as it would look like a political stunt. But now, he's done enough crazy stuff—like threatening genocide against Iran—that impeachment is much more obviously justified, and probably won't seem like a cheap stunt.

On the other hand, the way this could go south for the Democrats is if it somehow convinces a lot of voters that the blue team could do something to deprive Trump of power, but they're just not doing it, due to a lack of will, or a lack of smarts, or whatever. If people come to think that this is a real maneuver with a real chance of success, only to see it inevitably fail, they could end up very angry with Raskin and his colleagues. It would appear that is a gamble that House Democrats are willing to make.

Note, incidentally, that we did not say this bill can never become law, only that it cannot become law while Trump is still in office. The folks who wrote and adopted the Twenty-Fifth Amendment clearly designed it primarily to address the "Woodrow Wilson" condition, where a president is incapacitated, but refuses (or is unable) to hand off power. They also clearly intended impeachment to continue to be the primary corrective for abuses of power. The problem, at least these days, is that partisanship is so intense that virtually no level of incapacity, incompetence or indecency is enough to trigger removal via either course of action. It's not too easy to devise a system that allows for presidents to be removed for legitimate reasons without risking that one might be removed for entirely partisan reasons. But if there is a solution, then it almost certainly lies in putting the decision in the hands of people who know what they're doing, but don't rely on partisan loyalty in order to keep their jobs. Once a Democrat is in the White House again, it's at least possible that enough members of Congress will agree on this point that something like the Raskin bill can actually become law. (Z)

The Dust May Be Settling in California

The resignations of both Eric Swalwell and Tony Gonzales became official yesterday. Swalwell is going to need all of the newly free time he has on his hands, as yet another woman has accused him of raping her (in violent fashion). His career is not only over but, at this point, Swalwell will have a hard time staying out of prison.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) who, as you may have heard, is thinking about running for president in 2028, moved with lightning speed to call the election that will choose a replacement for Swalwell. It will be held on August 18 and, since CA-14 is D+20, will result in another Democrat being elected to the House.

Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) has not yet called the special election that will need to happen in the Lone Star State. The last time we had this situation—a Republican-held seat coming open, meaning Abbott theoretically has motivation to move quickly—was back in 2021, when Ron Wright died of COVID. He succumbed on February 7, 2021, and his replacement was elected on July 27, 2021, which is 171 days. Counting 171 days from yesterday, you get October 2. So, it looks like the Democrats will get their seat back at least a few weeks before the Republicans do. Further, it is worth noting that TX-23 is only R+7, so it's not the sure thing for the red team that CA-14 is for the blue team. If Abbott thinks the seat might just flip, or if he doesn't think it wise to spend the money for a special election just over a month before a regular election, he might well keep the seat open until November, and have both a special and a regular election on the same day.

And since we are on the subject of Eric Swalwell's stunning implosion, we'll pass along that there's a new poll of the California governor's race, from SurveyUSA. It was conducted from April 8 to April 10, which is after Donald Trump endorsed Republican Steve Hilton, and overlaps, but only slightly, with the first wave of news about Swalwell.

According to the pollster, Tom Steyer (D) is your current leader, with 21% support. He is followed by Hilton, at 18%. Swalwell, Katie Porter (D) and Chad Bianco (R) are in an effective dead heat, at 9%, 8% and 8%, respectively. All the other candidates are still polling below 5%, which means they are at risk of missing the gubernatorial candidates' debate.

Unusually, though for obvious reasons under the circumstances, SurveyUSA gave a brief summary of how the responses before the Swalwell news broke differed from responses after. Basically, Steyer took a 5-point hit (from 22% to 17%) after the news broke, while Porter gained a point. That is most likely random variance, though it's possible, as we have noted, that voters suspect Steyer engineered the leaks that downed Swalwell, and Steyer is being punished accordingly. In any event, whatever happens on the Democratic side, the significant news here is that it looks like the Trump endorsement is having the expected result, and helping one Republican at the expense of the other. If so, it makes the already unlikely possibility of two Republicans advancing to the general a near-impossibility.

Also, since we've gotten this question a few times, we might as well answer it now. If the Democrats do manage to shoot themselves in the foot, and to get shut out of the general election (again, a very unlikely outcome), then the Golden State does allow write-in candidates. The blue team would have to coalesce around one candidate, and would have to conduct an expensive public education campaign, but it's possible.

There is also one other option—California does allow recalls. This option is supposed to be exercised only in the event that the officeholder is incompetent or corrupt, and it's dirty pool to do it solely for political purposes. But the GOP already broke that particular taboo when they tried (unsuccessfully) to recall Newsom. So, if a Republican did get elected, there's a fair chance that as soon as they did something like cut funding for Medicaid, or worked with Trump and ICE, they would be subject to a recall.

Incidentally, we thought the special election in New Jersey was scheduled for yesterday. It's actually scheduled for tomorrow. Who knows why that is, since the rest of the country votes either on Tuesdays or weekends. Oh well, forget it, Jake—it's New Jersey. (Z)

Oh. Canada!

We were paying such close attention to the election in Hungary that we neglected to talk about results much closer to home (well, closer to home for Z, L and A, at least). In short, there were three special elections in Canada over the weekend, to fill seats in three vacant ridings. PM Mark Carney, who has approval ratings (58% to 70%) that U.S. presidents can only dream of these days, saw his Liberal Party win all three seats easily. That's a big deal, because it takes the Liberals to 174 seats of the 343 in the House of Commons. That's 50.7%, or a majority, which means Carney can pass legislation without needing anyone to cross the aisle, and also means his hold on power is pretty much secure for at least a few years.

At this point, we'd like to turn it over to reader B.S. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, who, despite their initials, wrote us a very helpful breakdown of what happened and (appropriately for this site) the implications therein for the U.S.:

I wanted to take a moment to chime in from north of the 49th parallel (actually, slightly above the 45th parallel, because the 49th parallel only kicks in west of Ontario) around Mark Carney's Liberal government attaining a majority government more than a year after being elected to a minority. Carney is the first prime minister to move to a majority from a minority without an intervening general election. This feat has been accomplished through three victories in by-elections (think special elections, American friends) in ridings (districts) in the Toronto and Montreal suburbs. But in reality, it was accomplished by the Carney government attracting five floor crossers in 5 months.

Floor crossings are not particularly uncommon in Canadian history, with one of the more famous, and hilarious, defections being that of Belinda Stronach in 2005. But what is uncommon is the speed with which Carney has plucked away members of other parties, picking up four from the right-wing Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) and one from the left-wing New Democratic Party. Outside of wartime, five defections to the government in 5 months is unheard of in Canadian history (excepting when the Anti-Confederation Party decided to stop existing when they realized Confederation wasn't going away, back in 1870). But, as (Z) will assuredly concur, weird things happen early in political systems before norms are established.

This has ramifications for American readers in a few ways. First, it indicates the decline of the Trump-aligned leader of the CPC, Pierre Poilievre. Poilievre was, as late as December 2024, assumed to be the next Prime Minister and was well ahead in the polls. But the declaration of trade war by Donald Trump, resignation of Justin Trudeau, and Trudeau's replacement with former Banks of Canada and England head Mark Carney caused Canadians to re-evaluate Poilievre. By the time the election happened, Poilievre had become so unpopular that he and his party lost an election that four months previous was a "sure thing," and Poilievre lost his seat outside Ottawa, and had to seek a safe seat in Alberta instead.

Poilievre has sunk in the polls over the past year, both on the critical "best candidate for Prime Minister" question as well as the general polls for vote selection. He recently won an 87% approval from his party at a mandatory review, but with four MPs leaving the party publicly and upwards of nine more being rumored to be considering making the jump, it seems the Conservatives are falling apart at the seams. With a majority secured, it seems that Canada can be assured that there will be no Conservative government until after Donald Trump is out of office, as our next mandatory election is in 2029. This means Trump has lost the potential for a partner north of the border who would surrender to his more outrageous demands, and showcases the weakness of his brand internationally. It also indicates that Canadians are digging in with their resistance to Trump's America, with border crossings continuing to plummet year over year and with Canadian purchase boycotts of Made in America goods continuing. I note above that the floor-crossings are unheard of outside of wartime, but Trump's tariffs are a declaration of economic war that has caused, unbidden, the most serious economic challenges here since the dot-com crisis.

Second, Carney has explicitly campaigned on uncoupling Canada's economy from the United States. To do this he has created a Major Projects Office, preparing to inject large amounts of money into projects that will increase our economic independence. The first of those received their cash promise this week: a massive expansion of the Port of Montreal. Ships loaded in Montreal are generally not heading to New York or Houston; highways and railways are more efficient. Those ships are heading to Europe. Similarly, a new LNG port in British Columbia will be sending Canadian natural gas to the energy hungry markets of Asia, rather than the United States. Further investments are generally in resource extraction, opening untapped areas in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Northern Ontario to get the raw resources needed to build modern society. Two years ago, those minerals would be generally bound for American markets. Now they're heading to Berlin and Bucharest; Seoul and Taipei. Carney's majority is a rejection of the previous economic order.

Finally, Carney's victory is a tacit acceptance of Canada's increased military spending. Though admittedly some of it is via accounting tricks, Canada hit the 2% GDP target for NATO spending recently. This will include massive spending on new equipment—fifteen Type-26 destroyers, twelve submarines most notably—and increasing the sizes of Canadian Forces bases. For a country that has traditionally shied away from military spending due to our participation in NATO and NORAD, this is a huge investment in a world where we can't rely on the United States anymore.

In short, Mark Carney has campaigned and governed primarily on the prospect of getting out from under America's thumb, and as a result, he has attracted members of opposing parties who support that economic and political goal (and some who are put off by their former party leadership). It isn't that we don't want to be friends with America anymore, it's that we can't trust you not to blow up the relationship every few years. Our friends in Europe and Asia are more appealing—and even China looks more stable now. Sorry aboot that, eh?

Thanks for the analysis, B.S.! We are always glad to hear from our Canadian readers. At least, the ones who aren't hosers. (Z)

This Could Be Interesting...

There was a time when the Internet gossip space was pretty jam-packed, with a number of high-profile players. There's still plenty of gossip but, in contrast to a decade ago, there is also a clear king of the hill. That would be TMZ, which not only has a highly trafficked website, but also a syndicated TV program.

For many, many years, TMZ—which is based in Los Angeles, and focused primarily on celebrities in the entertainment industry—has hinted it's thinking about expanding its operations to Washington, DC. And now, it's happened. The site has hired three staffers to run a D.C. bureau. Their material will be posted on the main TMZ website, but in a TMZDC subsection.

Maybe TMZDC will amount to nothing, and they won't find much stuff to write about. On the other hand, the stories of former representatives Madison Cawthorn, Matt Gaetz, Eric Swalwell, Tony Gonzales, etc. serve as evidence of a seedy underbelly to the Hill, one that is often whispered about, but that usually stays hidden. TMZ has a different focus, and different editorial standards than, say, The New York Times, and so might end up breaking stories that news-focused outlets aren't willing to touch. The outlet's first two items for the new section were about Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who should both prove fruitful for TMZDC, in many different ways.

And since this item is pretty short, we'll add in a little bit of trivia. Most people, even in L.A., have no idea what TMZ means or stands for. The answer is that, many years ago, the entertainment business was concentrated heavily in the Hollywood area. However, Hollywood became touristy and run-down, and so most of the studios decamped for other places in the Los Angeles area (joining, it should be noted, several studios that were NEVER in Hollywood). Today, the only major studio that is still actually in Hollywood is Paramount.

The business is very unionized, of course, and the union contracts spell out exactly what benefits employees get, and under what circumstances they get them. One such benefit is lodging and per diem, which employees are entitled to if they travel more than 30 miles from the "center of the entertainment business." When that was "Hollywood," it was pretty easy to calculate. But now that the studios are all around L.A., using Hollywood as the "center of the entertainment business" would be great for Paramount, but not so great for, say, Sony Pictures Studios, which is 6-7 miles southwest of Hollywood, in Culver City.

So, many years ago, the studios hired a mathematician to determine the numerically fairest "center" of the entertainment business. He put all the major studios on a map, and then used his compass (and other tools) to figure out that the fairest centerpoint is this intersection in Los Angeles:

That is the legally defined center of the entertainment business. If you are within 30 miles of this spot, and you're working on a production, you don't get the lodging and the per diem. You are considered to be working "locally" because you are within the Thirty Mile Zone. Hence, TMZ.

And now, we don't want to hear any more about how you never learned anything from reading this site. (Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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