Today's post is a little on the short side, and may be a shade below par. (Z) is still ill, to the point that he had to cancel classes yesterday (which he hates to do). On top of that, the Internet went out, so most of this was written in (Z)'s car (with a cell phone acting as a hotspot; the cell phone gets poor reception in the apartment, due to a nearby skyscraper, so can't be used there). (V) is still traveling.

FAFAFO

That stands for "Fool Around with the First Amendment and Find Out." At least, that's the G-rated version. There's a more adult version that you'll have to figure out on your own.

Yesterday, we wrote that Donald Trump would come to regret his decision to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House. First, because he's going to lose this fight, in embarrassing fashion. Second, because there is value to an administration to having all press in the White House, even press whose coverage the administration does not like.

We did not anticipate, however, how very quickly Trump would suffer consequences. To start, all three outlets have already filed suit against the Trump administration, asserting that the ban violates the First Amendment. Since they have an excellent chance of prevailing on the merits, it would not surprise us if they are granted an injunction by the end of the week, allowing them to return to work while the case plays out.

That part is not too shocking. What did catch us by surprise is the show of solidarity that all of the various press outlets displayed yesterday. It is a little weedy, but space at presidential events is tight and TV crews are expensive. So, the general arrangement is that one or two outlets handle video coverage each day, and they share their footage with the rest of the press. The White House presumed that, with CNN out (and it seems that Monday was that outlet's day, though that's hard to confirm), some non-banned outlet would step forward and handle the task instead. They all refused.

It's not too hard to understand why all of the press-pool outlets—including the right-leaning Fox and the generally non-partisan C-SPAN—would stand with CNN, et al., on this. First, they all believe in the First Amendment, for obvious reasons. Second, there isn't a single outlet in the main press pool that hasn't been a target of Trump's ire. So, they all know that they could easily be next on the "banned" list. Even Fox, which plans to be around in 2029, knows that once a precedent is set, a future Democratic president could ban it.

As a result of the lack of camera coverage, Trump has already had an embarrassing fail. He is very proud of the new White House helipad, and wants to show it off. We do not know of any voters who care about the helipad situation at the White House, but maybe they are out there. Anyhow, there was a ribbon-cutting ceremony yesterday, accompanied by remarks from Trump. However, the remarks could not be heard because... no press-pool microphone. The only outlet there was Newsmax, which cares nothing for the First Amendment and isn't too worried about being placed on the "banned" list. But because everyone who works for Newsmax is an incompetent who couldn't get a job at a real news outlet, their microphone was not set up correctly, and so did not capture the President's speech.

Trump and his team have already come up with a "solution" to the lack of press coverage. Yesterday, at 7:00 p.m. ET, the White House launched Trump TV. Because, as we all know, nothing is more trustworthy than state-run media. It could be that, eventually, Trump TV will provide live coverage of Trump events. However, what it is right now is an endless reel of the Trump administration's "greatest hits," playing 24/7. If you believe you've blown it on this plane of existence, and that hell is definitely in your future, then you might want to sit and watch the channel for an hour or so for a preview of what's coming.

Yesterday, Trump got on his Ministry of Information social media platform to rant and rave about the lawsuit filed by the banned organizations. You can read it here, if you wish. It's barely comprehensible, though he does concede that even the Trump-appointed judge assigned to the case is likely to rule against him. He also, yet again, leans into the fact that he won all seven swing states—as if that has any relevance anymore, and as if that should somehow play a role in ongoing press coverage of him. In any case, his best-case scenario is almost certainly if CNN, et al., get that injunction. It is hugely embarrassing for him when almost the entire media establishment is aligning against him. And it's also going to be impossible to get any messaging out to anyone who isn't already a cultist if the only coverage is coming from Trump TV and the clown car that is Newsmax. If there's an injunction, Trump can back down and yet frame it as something other than a surrender. (Z)

Iran Gets Even More Quagmire-y

Yesterday, we snarkily remarked that if Donald Trump really wants to get diesel prices down, he should end the stupid war in Iran. The truth is, it's not that simple anymore.

To start with, nobody believes that Trump has any sort of plan to get the Strait of Hormuz open again. J.P. Morgan effectively gave up on trying to predict oil futures this week, observing that the prediction markets think that the Strait won't reopen until mid-2027, and that they (J.P. Morgan) suspect that might be too optimistic.

More importantly, the linchpin of U.S. oil interests in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia. Way back in 1945, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the then-King struck a devil's bargain to create ARAMCO, which guaranteed the flow of Saudi oil to the U.S. in exchange for U.S. assistance propping up the regime. And at the moment, the regime really needs some industrial-strength propping. Houthis from Yemen, who take their marching orders from Iran, have been hitting the Saudis hard, and have nearly shut off access to the Bab al-Mandab Strait.

The Saudis have two ways to get their oil out of the country and to the rest of the world: Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab. If both are unavailable, no Saudi oil, and the oil crisis gets worse. More significantly, if the Saudis are forced to form an alliance with Iran, or if the Saudi royal family is deposed by Iran, then the U.S. loses its most important ally in the region (even more important than Israel), which will have disastrous geopolitical and economic impacts.

The Saudis have been pleading for help, with even Mohammed bin Salman getting on the phone to twist Trump's arm. And Trump very nearly granted the request. American planes got ready to hit the Houthis this weekend, and may even have been in the air (accounts differ). However, at the last minute, Trump called the attack off, and told MbS that he's on his own, for now.

It's not too hard to figure out what happened here. Trump is peddling the fantasy that the U.S. is winning/has won the war, and that the U.S. controls the Strait of Hormuz. Not too many Americans are buying it, but maybe some are. If there is a U.S. attack, and in particular if one or more Americans die in that attack, then it puts to lie the entire tall tale that the White House is telling. Not a great look when the war is very unpopular, and the elections are 45 days away.

We presume, then, that Trump will become much less restrained around November 4. It's going to be up to the Saudis to find a way to hold on until then. Meanwhile, it's very hard to conceive of exactly how, or when, this war will actually come to an end. If we were forced to guess, we would guess it will not end with a glorious U.S. victory with parades down Fifth Avenue and not before Nov. 3 in any event. (Z)

Trump Lists His Accomplishments

Over the weekend, Donald Trump—who really thinks the key to holding the Congress is making the midterms a referendum on him—posted to social media a list of what he describes as the "TOP 25 TRUMP ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF TERM THREE." That's right, he's still stuck on the notion that he won the election of 2020. And if he's now serving term three, then he reaches the Constitutional limit on January 21, 2027. J.D. Vance better get on that.

Readers can read through the list by clicking on the link, if that is really what you want to do with your time. For our part, we'll just talk about the groups into which the 25 "accomplishments" fit:

• Gross exaggerations of real policy impacts, like claiming that ZERO undocumented immigrants have entered the U.S. since he took president. It is certainly true that illegal border crossing are way down, but they certainly aren't zero.
  
  
• Meaningless show-horse stuff, like the Laken Riley Act.
  
  
• "Accomplishments" that are only accomplishments if you omit context. For example, it is true that the stock market has set new highs many times during Trump v2.0. It is also true that, because of the nature of the stock market, every president since Herbert Hoover can make the same claim.
  
  
• "Accomplishments" that are mostly or entirely false, like "$19.2 trillion in new investment in the United States" or "obliterated Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity" or "banned transgender ideology in schools."
  
  
• Dog-whistle racism, like "made English the official language of the United States." He did issue an XO, but that, of course, does not change federal law. And federal does not specify an official language for the country.
  
  
• "Accomplishments" that aren't accomplishments, as far as most people are concerned, like the tariffs and the Iran War.

Most presidents issue forth with something like this, at around this time on the electoral calendar. Actually, the presidents themselves don't usually promulgate the list; someone outside the administration does it for them (perhaps with encouragement, perhaps not). But Donald Trump is crass, so he has no problem polishing his own apple.

It is a shockingly meager list, one that depends on a well-above-average amount of spin and fantasy. Further, there are very few things on the list that will actually impress non-MAGA voters. On the other hand, there are a number of things on the list that will turn voters off. And if Trump really and truly believes, in particular, that Iran and the tariffs are "accomplishments," he is not likely to back down, or to stop talking about those subjects. Yet another reason it's a bad time to be a Republican running for office. (Z)

29%!

We almost let the "TOP 25 ACCOMPLISHMENTS" list pass, because it's kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. But it's a pretty good bridge from the second item to this item.

Yesterday, American Research Group (ARG) released its latest Trump approval poll, and it's a doozy. According to their numbers, only 29% of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing, while 68% disapprove. That, of course, puts him 39 points underwater. And he does even worse on the economy, with 26% approval versus 71% disapproval—45 points onder water.

ARG is not a pollster we would particularly want to bet the farm on. Also not a dollar. Maybe a nickel if we are feeling lucky. They've been at this a while, but they are known for unorthodox approaches to polling, and also for getting election forecasts WAY wrong on occasion. Other pollsters have little to no respect for ARG. That said, an approval poll is less likely to be wonky than an election forecast. And when they are doing approval polls, ARG polls all adults, not just registered or likely voters. So, their numbers might well speak to how the populace as a whole is feeling, even if they don't quite capture how the electorate is feeling.

A more conventional, and reliable, pollster is Reuters/Ipsos (well, Ipsos is the pollster; Reuters is the sponsor). They had grim news for Trump yesterday, too. According to their numbers, 32% of Americans approve of Trump's job performance, while 66% disapprove, putting him 34 points underwater. That 32% is the lowest number Trump has ever gotten from Reuters/Ipsos. It's also within spitting distance of that 29% from ARG.

Now, presumably because of their samples, and maybe because of their weighting, both of these polls are probably a tad on the bearish side. In most polls, he's still pulling an approval between 35% and 41%, for an average of around 37.5% with the aggregators. That's not 32% or 29%, but it's very bad, especially heading into an election.

Of course, what (likely) matters most is how Trump is doing in the states with critical U.S. Senate elections. Civiqs compiles those numbers, and just released their latest results yesterday. Here's how Trump is doing in all the states on our map (above) that have any white in them:

State	Approve	Disapprove	Net
New Hampshire	28%	65%	-37%
Minnesota	29%	63%	-34%
Maine	30%	63%	-33%
Michigan	35%	59%	-23%
Iowa	35%	54%	-19%
Texas	37%	56%	-19%
Florida	39%	55%	-16%
Ohio	38%	54%	-16%
Nebraska	42%	49%	-6%
Louisiana	43%	50%	-6%
Mississippi	44%	49%	-5%
Kansas	48%	45%	+3%

Not too much of a surprise that the three states whose Class II senator is a Democrat don't much care for Trump. But these numbers must be giving Susan Collins indigestion. What can she say to voters? "Send me back to Washington and I'll push back against the things you don't like?" They already know she won't do that. John Sununu (R) in New Hampshire also has a very tall hill to climb, but at least he hasn't already been in Washington enabling Trump. (Z)

The Shadowy, Shady Supreme Court

There were a couple of news items about the Supreme Court yesterday that, yet again, make it clear that reform is needed.

To start, it's no secret that we are not fans of the shadow docket. If (L) were not traveling right now, she'd be the one writing this item, and she might just write something a little more... Anglo-Saxon than (Z) is going to write. Anyhow, ProPublica took a long look at the current Court's use of the shadow docket, and learned that they (likely) just set a dubious record. We don't have information for some of the years in the distant past, but it appears that, for the first time, the Court made more rulings on the shadow docket than it did in cases argued in open court. Shadow docket rulings are pretty much the polar opposite of what Supreme Court decisions are supposed to be: There are (usually) no arguments, there is (usually) no explanation of how the Justices reached their conclusions (which means no guidance for lower-court judges), and we often don't learn how some/many/all of the justices voted.

There are, as far as we can see, only two reasons to use the shadow docket, and to use it so much. The first is to escape scrutiny, possibly for decisions that are partisan, or are somewhat dubious from a legal perspective. The second is because the Court is overwhelmed with so much business, it cannot give every case the full song and dance. After all, the Court has had nine members since 1869, and yet the population has grown by 500% since then. Either way, however, isn't it an argument for banning or severely limiting the shadow docket, and either creating a pool of 30-40 judges to make decisions, or else creating a new level of the courts with authority over certain kinds of cases (e.g., a "Constitutional Court")?

The second bit of news involves the sleaziest justice in Supreme Court history, the fellow who easily left Abe Fortas in the dust years ago. We speak, of course, of Clarence Thomas, who apparently has "deep ties" to Consovoy McCarthy, a law firm started in 2014 to argue MAGA-type cases, and which often argues before the Supreme Court. Consovoy McCarthy is getting substantial funding from dark money groups, to the tune of more than $33.5 million over the past decade.

The reason that Thomas has "deep ties" to the firm is that his chambers are basically Consovoy McCarthy's hiring office. Of the firm's 11 partners, six clerked for Thomas. We don't really understand why a person who has not practiced law in the private sector since the 1970s should have "deep ties" to ANY firm, much less one founded well after he joined the Supreme Court. But if that is how it is going to be, because of the largely incestuous world of Ivy League law schools, Supreme court clerks and justices, and white-shoe law firms, then at very least Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving Consovoy McCarthy. He does not do so, of course, and would anyone be all that surprised if the next breaking news story is that he's gotten gifts or other favors from the firm? Maybe custom rims for his RV?

We don't know if the Democrats will do anything about SCOTUS the next time they are in a position to do something. If they want to, however, they'll have all the cover in the world. (Z)

Missouri Does Its Jason Voorhees Impression

When Jason Voorhees dies at the end of the latest Friday the 13th movie, he's not really dead. The same, it would seem, is true of the new Missouri district map.

To review, the Missouri legislature adopted a new map that would almost certainly turn a 6R, 2D House delegation into 7R, 1D. A bunch of citizens signed a petition, in accordance with state law, that would put the new map on the ballot for the people to approve. Secretary of State Denny Hoskins (R) said "no," and moved forward with the new map. Lawsuits were filed, and while lower courts, both state and federal, ruled in favor of the new map, supreme courts, both state and federal, ruled in favor of the old map (for now), finding that Hoskins was wrong in refusing to put the matter to a popular vote.

Yesterday, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals waded in and found that since the state's primaries were conducted under the new map, the general election should be, as well. The decision came from the court of U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark, who is a Donald Trump appointee, and who ruled in favor of the new maps once before, only to be overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Clark put his ruling on hold for a week, so that the inevitable appeal to the Supremes can be made. This Court is hard to predict, but we suspect they will not be pleased, since they've already addressed the matter twice, including once with this same judge. They seem unlikely to look at this new argument and say, "We didn't think of that," especially since it was already raised before. Also, mail-in ballots, under the new map, are already en route to voters. That alone should be decisive. In any case, we'll probably find out this week, courtesy of the shadow docket. Perhaps, if the two previous rulings had been made the normal way, and NOT through the shadow docket, we would not be where we are right now. (Z)

Today's Senate Polls

The Democrat is leading by 8 points in Iowa? We had several items yesterday explaining why Iowans might not be happy right now. If Turek really does win by that much, it's going to be an earthquake in GOP-land, particularly if several other "safe" Republican seats flip as well. Marist is one of the best pollsters around, but math is math and sometimes anyone can get a wonky sample just by bad luck. Let's wait for another poll before taking this too seriously.

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Iowa	Josh Turek	50%	Ashley Hinson	42%	Sep 17	Sep 20	Marist Coll.

* Denotes incumbent

To provide some context, here are all the nonpartisan Turek vs. Hinson polls this year. (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.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays)

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger