In Congress: Johnson Just Loves This Kangaroo (Supreme) Court

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) don't have much in common, but there is at least one thing: They both have the unenviable task of following a legend. Johnson, of course, is Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) successor as speaker. Jeffries is her successor as leader of the Democratic caucus. In the last week or so, both men have reminded us that the Speaker Emerita made those jobs look way easier than they really are.

We wrote about Jeffries' very un-Pelosi-like misstep last week, so today, Johnson gets to be the star of the show. Yesterday, continuing his strategy of not actually doing much of anything, and just putting up messaging bills, the Speaker brought to the floor a bill that would be the first step in adopting a new Constitutional amendment. And what the proposed amendment would do is take away the right of Congress to set the size of the Supreme Court, permanently fixing the number at nine justices. The vote failed, along mostly party lines, with 212 in favor, 206 opposed. While 212-206 is a majority, it's not close to the two-thirds supermajority needed for an amendment.

Again, we understand this was just a messaging bill, and so was never supposed to become law. But, at least from where we sit, it was a huge error. Here is our list of reasons, for readers' consideration:

1. Such a messaging bill would seem to serve no purpose. The people who want the Supreme Court to stay as it is know full well that they need to vote Republican this year and in 2028. If the 2026 election returns a Democratic Senate, no new right-wing justices if a seat opens up. If the 2028 election returns a Democratic trifecta, then all bets are off.
   
   
2. The size of the Supreme Court is not at issue right now, and won't be until 2029 at the earliest. Nobody believes the Democrats can do anything on this until they have the trifecta (and even then, it's dodgy).
   
   
3. If there are changes to the rules governing the Supreme Court, they are going to come via a new Judiciary Act. There is absolutely no way that an amendment is adopted. So, Johnson is dangling something that he knows he can't deliver, and so setting his voters up to be disappointed. The trick is to under-promise and over-deliver, Mr. Speaker, not vice-versa.
   
   
4. Even if the number of justices is capped at nine, there are other ways that a Democratic trifecta could defang the current Supreme Court, should it come to that. The most obvious one, which could be achieved via normal order, would be to severely limit the jurisdiction of the Court. So, even if Johnson could wave his hands and cause this amendment to become law, it still wouldn't "solve" his problem.
   
   
5. Johnson has just handed the Democrats a big, juicy talking point. It goes something like this: "The Republicans KNOW that the Court is not calling balls and strikes, and is grossly partisan. And the GOP is desperately trying to maintain that by amending the Constitution."

It's the last one that we think is the really bad misstep here.

We accept entirely that we are just two academics who never managed to get themselves elected to Congress, much less chosen as Speaker of the House. And we know that the virtuosity of Pelosi can seriously color judgment of those who followed her. Still, we think Johnson blew it here, even worse than Jeffries did by meeting with Jared Kushner. (Z)

It's the Stupid Economy: Don't Look Now, but There's a Diesel Crunch Underway

Since the majority of Americans drive cars fueled by regular gas, as opposed to diesel, it is the price of regular gas that tends to be more visible, and that tends to be discussed more. However, the price of diesel fuel may actually be more important, both in terms of its direct impact, and in terms of its political impact. That is because most large vehicles, like the semi trucks that deliver food to grocery stores, are powered by diesel. Consequently, if diesel prices go up, then everyone pays the price. By contrast, if regular fuel prices go up, then people who don't drive, or people who drive electric vehicles, don't really feel the pinch.

Although regular fuel prices haven't gotten quite as out-of-control as feared, at least not yet, diesel prices are now in a very bad place. The national average, as of yesterday, is $5.85/gallon, which is a record. That breaks the previous record of $5.82/gallon, set in 2022.

We recognize, of course, that this is not an entirely fair comparison, because of inflation. The modern-day equivalent of $5.82 is $6.56. So, the diesel was still more expensive, relatively speaking, back in 2022 than it is right now. That said, the 2022 price came in the middle of a pandemic, whereas the current price is self-inflicted. Further, the 2022 figure was the absolute high point of the curve (which happened on June 17, 2022). But in 2026, there's no particular reason to believe that yesterday's figure was the ceiling, especially since diesel reserves are very low right now, while demand for diesel is relatively inelastic.

And the biggest problem, politically, is this: Diesel was $3.70 a gallon one year ago, which means that the price is up over $2/gallon (or about 60%) in just one year. The worst thing possible, for the political party in power, is if people notice a change in prices, particularly if that change is very sharply upward. It would be hard NOT to notice a change this big. And all the "give us your oil, Venezuela" deals in the world aren't going to change that. (Z)

Midterms: Charlie Cook Is Bullish on Dems' Chances

Charlie Cook doesn't lead the Cook Political Report anymore (though he is still a contributor). He does continue to do political analysis at his personal Substack, which is titled "Charlie Cook Politics." He must have labored for weeks to come up with that name.

Yesterday, Cook published a piece of the sort that you don't often see from a cautious psephologist like him. The headline is "When a nightmare scenario becomes the most likely scenario," while the considerably more useful subhead is "Things are now officially bad for Republicans. It's just a matter of degree." Here are the first two paragraphs, which pretty much give the gist of the thing:

With 64 days before Election Day (although the first mail-in ballots will go out in a matter of days), Republicans should brace themselves: The three most plausible outcomes are that it will be bad, really bad, or truly horrible. Conversely, a Democrat should at least briefly consider that the good fortune they may have in November will come compliments of the president, not as a result of much that they have done.

This is a very different situation than what existed at the beginning of this election cycle, even different from the beginning of this year. The worst-case scenario for the GOP and best for Democrats today would have sounded ludicrous eight months ago; the most plausible today resembles Republicans' nightmare scenario at the beginning of the year.

In all three scenarios ("bad," "really bad," or "truly horrible"), Cook sees a net gain for the Democrats of at least four seats in the Senate and at least 15 in the House. In other words, he thinks it's a done deal that control of both chambers will flip. In the more extreme scenarios, he thinks the number of House seats that could flip rises to the mid-30s, while the number of Senate seats rises to five or six.

Cook's basis for his conclusions is largely polling. However, he takes care to point out that he has little interest in anything other than very-high-quality polls. He lists the three pollsters that make the cut for him—The New York Times/Siena College, Fox and AARP—and says that if you just look at those gold-standard polls, and ignore the rest of the polls (which Cook dismisses as "noise"), then you have to conclude the picture for the GOP is grim.

According to Cook, the Republicans' problem, in a word, is T-R-U-M-P. The tariffs and the Iran War, in particular, were self-inflicted wounds that hit Americans hard in the wallet. Needless to say, the leopard isn't going to change his spots at this point, even if 64 days were enough to do so, which it isn't. So, the GOP is going to learn exactly how low DJT will take them.

There isn't much in Cook's analysis here that we disagree with, and we don't have much to add. Though we will point out that desperate times call for desperate measures, and even Trump knows he's looking at a shellacking. He likely doesn't care that much about being investigated six ways to Sunday while he's still president, but he probably also knows that those investigations could allow the next AG, or the next group of U.S. Attorneys, to hit the ground running in January 2029, something that was not true in January 2021.

The point is that Trump is cornered, and that is when he is most likely to do illegal and desperate things. So, if ever there's a time to fear some sort of extreme measure, like trying to declare martial law on Election Day, this would be it. One of us, namely (Z), does not think that this administration has the brains or the balls to pull that off. The other of us, namely (V), is not so sure. At this point, though, all that anyone can do is be vigilant, and to make sure to vote, and to vote in the way that is least subject to interference. For example, if you are able to vote early in person, that is the best bet. If you don't want to chance crowds and ICEmen on Election Day, get an absentee ballot and put it in a drop box or personally bring it to an authorized drop-off location. These avoid any attempts by the USPS to disenfranchise voters. And tell everyone you know to do likewise. (Z)

Gerrymandering News: Judges Say, "Let America Decide"

There were a couple of pretty big gerrymandering decisions yesterday, and they went 2-0 for the Democrats. You could also argue that democracy won, sorta, because while gerrymandering is undemocratic (in our view), at least the judges said that if it's going to happen, the people should make that decision.

The first of those two decisions came out of Missouri, where the state Supreme Court found unanimously that the new district maps cannot be used for the 2026 elections. It's a little weedy, but the Republican-dominated legislature adopted a new district map, their Democratic colleagues organized a ballot referendum to put the map before voters, and Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins (R) rejected the referendum as invalid. The Court found that Hoskins was wrong, and that the matter should have been placed on the ballot after all, and the maps can't be used until that happens.

Hoskins and his GOP colleagues vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and, of course, you can never know what this SCOTUS will do. They could re-implement the new maps with an unsigned shadow-docket ruling released at 8:00 a.m. on Election Day and we would not be surprised. That said, if yesterday's decision stands, then Rep. Emanuel Cleaver's (D-MO) district, MO-05, will remain D+12 as opposed to the R+9 it would have been under the new map. That means a near-certain Democratic hold, instead of a near-certain Republican flip.

The second decision, meanwhile, came out of Maryland. The situation there is even weedier than the one in Missouri. Basically, the Democratic-controlled legislature wants to eliminate the one Republican-held district in the state (the R+8 MD-01, represented by Republican Andy Harris). To achieve this, the legislature wants to change the rules for redrawing district maps, so that congressional district maps are subject to fewer constraints than state legislative district maps. The blue team put a proposition on the ballot, the red team got a lower-court judge to remove it from the ballot, and yesterday the Maryland Supremes put it back on the ballot.

We are hardly experts in Maryland jurisprudence, but the judges' decisions appear to be legitimate attempts to call balls and strikes, and not partisan. Indeed, the Supreme Court that gave the Democrats the win yesterday is 5/7 appointed by Republican former governor Larry Hogan. The problem was not so much the legality of the measure, but the wording. The lower courts said the wording was misleading, and so the measure could not be on the ballot. The Supreme Court said the wording was misleading, but that a rewording (provided by the Court) was satisfactory to cure the problem.

So, Marylanders will get to vote on the proposition, after all. Given that it's a generally blue state, and that Democrats are out for blood right now, we imagine it will pass. And thus the state legislature will be in a position to redraw that one, lone Republican seat. Sorry, Rep. Harris. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Daniel Craig as Mister Fantastic?

This is a lesser-known, but real, example of the Mandela Effect. Just as there are people who absolutely insist that the comedian Sinbad was in the movie Shazaam. He wasn't, as a movie by that name does not exist. Basketball player Shaquille O'Neal starred in Kazaam, which is believed to be the origin of the confusion. There are also people who insist that Daniel Craig played Mister Fantastic at some point. This is because there was a massive fan-driven campaign to cast the actor in the role (despite the fact that he was really a bit too old for it, even when the very first Fantastic Four movies were being made). As part of this campaign, people created posters, cardboard cutouts, even AI-generated movie trailers showing Craig playing the role. Craig was even cast in the role, as a cameo in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, but dropped out before filming began. And so, he gets credit for acting that was actually done by Ioan Gruffudd, then Miles Teller, then Pedro Pascal.

We did not have a Friday post last week, so this is from a couple of weeks ago. We gave two hints. The first of those was "several readers figured out the theme before today's posting was even written." The second was "[S]omething like 80% of people who got it correct included the phrase 'Oh, my!' in their responses. That is where 'secondarily, it's in the category Movies' comes into play."

And here is the solution, courtesy of reader C.B. in Lakeville, MN:

The answer appears to be "Tigers," thanks to the big clue this week

• The National Debt: Has the U.S. Reached Its "Break Glass in Case of Emergency" Moment? (Glass Tiger was a Canadian pop/rock band)
• This Week in TrumpWorld: Operation Veteran Fury Is Progressing Nicely (A Tiger Fury is a type of German tank)
• Political Bytes, National Edition: El-Sayed Dogged by His Time in Detroit (Detroit Tigers are a pro baseball team)
• Local Elections: This Year, Every Race May Be a Golden Opportunity for Democrats (a golden tiger is a type of, well, tiger)
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Sea Salt and Paper (a paper tiger is someone who talks tough, but does little)
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Duffy's TV Project Is a Failure in Every Way (Duffy was a tiger in the movie "K-pop Demon Hunters"
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Putting on the White Coat, One Last Time (white tiger is a, y'know, tiger)

This headline adds Daniel Tiger to the list. Note that we always write answers where the format is the same. So, for example, the correct answers are all _________ Tiger. Put another way, while we accept this solution, we actually intended the word in the second headline to be "Operation" (Operation Tiger was a rehearsal for D-Day, dramatized in the recent movie Pressure) and we intended the word in the sixth headline to be "Project" (Project Tiger is a tiger conservation agency).

Meanwhile, for those who have not put it together, we had bears, then lions, then tigers. Hence the "Oh, my!" This is the first time, we think, where the headline themes have been connected across multiple weeks.

Here are the first 60 readers to get it right:

M.B. in Albany, NY K.G.W. in Lafayette, IN R.P. in Brooklyn, NY D.S. in Layton, UT B.A. in Edmond, OK J.S. in Huntington Station, NY R.S. in Landing, NJ T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada W.V. in Hemet, CA M.S. in Canton, NY C.B. in Lakeville S.G. in Durham, NC M.M. in Dunellen, NJ J.N. in Zionsville, IN P.A. in Redwood City, CA E.M. in Jersey City, NJ P.R. in Havertown, PA D.D. in Bucks County, PA A.D. in Gaithersburg, MD G.R.R. in Claremont, CA B.R. in Arlington, MA K.H. in Maryville, TN E.W. in Skaneateles, NY R.B. in Richmond, VA M.K. in Bothell, WA D.M. in Oakland, CA K.H. in Albuquerque, NM G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN S.K. in Bethesda, MD

M.Z. in Sharon, MA K.R. in Austin, TX J.F. in Fayetteville, NC G.K. in Blue Island, IL J.E. in San Jose, CA A.E. in Cleveland, OH P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL B.A. in Sioux Falls, SD N.K. in Cleveland Heights, OH W.A. in Red Lion, PA S.D. in Cedar Park, TX M.T. in Simpsonville, SC D.L. in Springfield, IL S.K. in Ardmore, PA R.S. in Milan, OH B.B. in Sonoma, CA T.B. in Miami, FL G.G. in Houston, TX A.M. in Helena, MT G.T. in Chicago, IL P.H. in London, England, UK J.J. in New York City, NY H.R. in Atlanta, GA M.M. in Los Angeles, CA J.Q. in St. Paul, MN R.L. in Richmond, VA J.O. in Baltimore, MD K.K. in Vancouver, BC, Canada A.T. in Tacoma, WA H.B. in Santiago, Chile

The 60th correct response was received at 5:58 a.m. PT on August 23.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, and it's in the category Language. For a hint, we'll say that Walt Whitman would get this one right off the bat.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line September 4 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Fox Confirms the Obvious, that Bartiromo Is Out

This was not too much of a secret to those paying attention to Fox's airwaves, as shameless Trump propagandist Maria Bartiromo has not been on the air since August 9. But yesterday, the network made it official that she has been fired (along with her producer, Patrick Ignozzi).

By all accounts, what cost Bartiromo her job was a story she tried to do back in July, about how one reason the 2020 election was fraudulent was because of Chinese interference. Fox is leery of 2020-election-conspiracy pieces, given the various nine-figure lawsuits they had to settle, and so had already given guidance that such stories were verboten. When Bartiromo tried to do the China story, the network honchos canceled it.

That would have been the end of it, if not for the fact that the host believes that she does not work for Fox so much as she works for Donald Trump. So, she sent a screen capture of the "you cannot do this story" message to the White House, as a way to explain why she was not abiding by her marching orders from the administration. Several senior White House officials called Fox, and tried unsuccessfully to twist their arms, while also (necessarily) revealing Bartiromo's duplicity. She was yanked from the air that same day, and apparently the decision to fire her was made shortly thereafter. We don't know why it took so long to formally swing the ax; maybe Fox was getting its legal ducks in a row, or trying to figure out if they could fire her with cause (and thus not pay her the rest of the contract she signed 6 months ago).

And so, cable TV is rid of someone who disgraces the word "entertainer" by being not very entertaining, and who disgraces the word "journalist" by not coming within a country mile of doing what actual journalists do. Now, if someone could also arrange to remove Fox's Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld from the air, along with CNN's Scott Jennings, then we'd really be on to something. Anyhow, this is a reminder as to why you can't trust any of these right-wing media figures (and why you should keep an eagle-eye on left-wing media figures, too): There's every chance that they are taking their cues from the people they are supposed to be covering. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Meet Tuco

Actually, to be entirely correct, it's Tuco Hashbrown Chorizo "T.H.C." Bates. That was crowdsourced, though the 'Tuco' part comes from the highly excitable, extremely cunning, often thieving character from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Back on the Fourth of July, (Z) wrote that it was absolutely necessary for him to be home that evening. And after the wet-fusebox fiasco last week, he wrote that he simply couldn't leave the apartment in darkness for the evening. Several readers interpreted those clues correctly; the exalted post of staff canine is no longer vacant:

The picture on the left is Tuco as he was on the day he came home from the animal rescue. The picture on the right shows a shoe that met a terrible fate later that same day. The police are unsure as to who might have murdered the shoe, though the photo may contain a clue in the lower-right-hand corner.

There is much that is not known about Mr. Tuco. The rescue said he's about 2 years old, but (Z), the dog walker and the vet all think the correct age is more like 1. His behavior is more consistent with a younger age, so is the fact that not all of his baby teeth were yet out when he came home. There is also relatively little agreement on what breeds he has within him. He is unquestionably part dachshund, but as to the rest, the folks at the rescue thought it was probably chihuahua, making him a chiweenie. The vet, on the other hand, thinks that the non-dachshund part is mostly terrier. A DNA test would presumably answer that question definitively, but perhaps it is best to leave the matter shrouded in mystery.

There is a reason he is named in honor of a shameless thief. Many, many reasons, to be precise. There was, for example, a turkey burger sitting up on the dining room table, in a paper bag, when (Z) left yesterday to go to the store. It was not sitting there anymore when he got back home, 20 minutes later. There are no chairs close by, so how a 1-foot-tall dog managed to retrieve a bag off a 3-foot-tall table is an interesting question. Certainly, when it comes to plotting and planning and scheming so as to lay hands (well, paws) on food, Tuco would have given Staff Dachshund Flash a run for his money. And THAT is saying something.

Some dogs are "people" dogs. Some dogs are "dog" dogs. Tuco loves both, and wants to meet every person and canine he sees. His best good friend is Darcy, who lives down the street:

They have play dates together once or twice a week, and sometimes go to the dog park together as well.

Welcome to the staff, Tuco! (Z)

Today's Senate Polls

This is about what we'd expect from Iowa, and from a house that tends to be a bit Republican-leaning. Poor Josh Turek isn't likely to get much help from the DSCC, not because he's hopeless, but because there are so many better targets for the Democrats to focus on. Of course, individual Democratic donors who think Georgia and North Carolina are done deals, James Talarico has enough money already, and Ohio, Alaska and Maine have been in the spotlight long enough, might decide to help out Turek on their own. He is a bit of a long shot, but Iowa is a cheap state to advertise in so a little money goes a long ways. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Iowa	Josh Turek	45%	Ashley Hinson	50%	Aug 31	Sep 01	Emerson Coll.

* Denotes incumbent

---

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