One of our most regular readers and contributors is A.B. in Wendell, NC, who has just completed her degree. (We do not normally reveal the gender of readers, but A.B. herself has noted it in her letters many times.) In any event, we wanted to extend our congratulations to her, and to anyone else out there who is reading, and who is part of this year's graduating classes. Three cheers for you all!

Legal News, Part I: Virginia Supreme Court Decides to Rock Democrats' World

Yesterday, the Virginia Supreme Court invalidated the special election in which Virginia voters approved the legislature's new district maps that would (likely) allow Democrats to gain four more Congressional seats. In a 4-3 decision, the Court found that the state legislators did not follow the process outlined in the state Constitution, which requires two votes in the general assembly with an intervening election between the two votes.

The exact language of the provision, Article XII, Section 1 states:

Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in the Senate or House of Delegates, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, the name of each member and how he voted to be recorded, and referred to the General Assembly at its first regular session held after the next general election of members of the House of Delegates.

The general assembly first passed the proposed amendment on October 31, 2025, with an election on November 4, 2025. The second approval occurred in January in the 2026 regular session. Voters then approved the measure on April 21.

The issue for the Court was the meaning of the phrase "next general election." Both sides agree that the purpose of this intervening election is to give voters a chance to indirectly respond to an effort to amend the Constitution by voting either for or against the delegates who supported (or opposed) the measure. And then, of course, voters have the chance to vote on the measure directly if it passes in two sessions of the general assembly. Early voting for the 2025 general election began on September 19, so many votes had already been cast by the time of the first vote in the legislature on October 31. The question, then, is whether the legislature followed the requirement to pass the proposal and then pass it again "after the next general election."

The majority held that "general election" includes the period of early voting, so the first vote in the legislature needed to occur before September 19. Because so many voters cast their ballots in the November 2025 election without knowing how their representative voted on the proposal, the Court held that both the letter and spirit of the state Constitution had been violated and the only appropriate remedy was to render the results of the subsequent special election in April 2026 null and void.

The dissent argues that the term "general election" refers to November 4, which is consistent with other state statutes interpreting that phrase. Both the majority opinion and dissent go through lots of linguistic gymnastics to justify their respective interpretations, but what is left unsaid by the majority is why early voters from the November general election matter more than all the voters who cast ballots in the April special election. No one claims that Virginia voters were not given the chance to decide directly whether to adopt the new Congressional maps.

While there is support in the constitutional provision for the majority's position, it's very difficult not to see this decision as yet another partisan ruling by an ideological court. In Virginia, justices are nominated and appointed by the state legislature, such that it's not always clear-cut who is a "Republican justice" and who is a "Democratic justice." That said, three of the judges who voted in the majority (Associate Justices Arthur Kelsey, Stephen McCullough and Teresa Chafin) were selected and appointed when Republicans controlled both chambers of the legislature. The fourth (Associate Justice Wesley Russell Jr.) was selected and appointed by a Republican House of Delegates and a Democratic Senate. Two of the judges in the minority (Chief Justice Cleo Powell and Associate Justice Thomas Mann) were also selected and appointed by a Republican House of Delegates and a Democratic Senate, while Associate Justice Junius P. Fulton III was selected and appointed while the Democrats controlled both chambers. Anyhow, while not as clear as the Supreme Court's current 6-3 breakdown, it's still quite obviously correct to describe the decision as the work of a Republican majority.

And it doesn't exactly inspire confidence that this decision is strictly law-based, given that the opening paragraphs are a lecture to Democrats of the harmful effects of partisan gerrymandering. Kelsey even quotes Associate Justice Elena Kagan's dissent in Rucho v. Common Cause, while ignoring the conservative majority's pronouncement that partisan gerrymandering is not the judiciary's business. Given the top court's encouragement of the practice in the Callais decision and the gleeful alacrity with which Republicans have moved to destroy Black-majority districts, it's the height of hypocrisy to begin the decision with a lecture to Democrats on the distastefulness of the practice.

It seems to us that given the drastic remedy of invalidating an election and disenfranchising all Virginia voters, since the provision of Virginia law is open to both interpretations, the more prudent course would have been to choose the ruling that would be least disruptive to the (small d) democratic process. Of course, the legislature can always try again with an eye toward 2028, but it was an expensive and difficult process the first time around with just a bare majority of voters supporting it. So, there may not be an appetite for round two.

In the short-term, meanwhile, Virginia Democrats have asked the State Supreme Court to stay its ruling while they appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They might get the stay, since that is usually pro forma, or they might not, because the matter is very time sensitive. However, do not hold your breath waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, or even to take it. SCOTUS is generally supposed to defer on matters of state law, and this SCOTUS is very happy to do so, at least when a state-level decision is one that the six conservatives agree with, politically. (L & Z)

Legal News, Part II: John Roberts Is Living in a Bubble

We suppose that we are, on some level, sympathetic to Chief Justice John Roberts. The people he interacts with most regularly are undoubtedly his family and his law clerks, and neither are likely to share many "hard truths" with him. His five right-wing colleagues probably share his view of the Court, and his three left-wing colleagues are presumably very collegial and/or are ignored. Whenever Roberts gives a talk, or does a media hit, or something like that, he surely deals with people who are very deferential. After all, that's the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. There have been 45 presidents in U.S. history, but only 17 chief justices.

The point here is that Roberts lives in a bubble. And, as we have observed many times, the only curative to that is to actively, and consistently, take steps to try to break through the bubble, at least a little bit. Barack Obama, for example, ordered his staff to select half a dozen negative letters sent to the White House each week, for him to read so that he could stay in touch with people unhappy with his rule. Roberts does not seem the type, and the comments he offered up earlier this week make us even more confident that he's happy to live in his (very thick) bubble. Here is what he said:

I think at a very basic level, people think we're making policy decisions, [that] we're saying we think this is what things should be as opposed to this is what the law provides. I think they view us as truly political actors, which I don't think is an accurate understanding of what we do. I would say that's the main difficulty. We're not simply part of the political process, and there's a reason for that, and I'm not sure people grasp that as much as is appropriate.

We have been unable to find video of the remarks, or any comment about how the crowd responded. It was a legal conference, so we imagine the eye-rolling was... substantial.

Roberts is not Donald Trump. So, we do not feel that such an obviously incorrect assessment can be attributed to stupidity or cognitive decline. The Chief Justice is surely aware of the following, to take just a few examples:

• That then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) committed gross abuses against precedent, logic and voters' intelligence in order to move heaven and earth and seat two Republican justices.
  
  
• That all of the controversial decisions of this term, and the last one, and the one before that, end up with a conservative majority and the liberals (plus sometimes one, lonely conservative) in the minority. This is true in particular with the decision gutting the Voting Rights Act, the one overturning Roe, and the one making Trump into a king.
  
  
• That this Court is very much in the habit of ruling through the shadow docket, which shrouds its decisions in shadow and mystery. And that there are some partisans who are given extremely preferential treatment when it comes to getting their cases on the shadow docket (Hint: Not Joe Biden).
  
  
• That some of Roberts' fellow conservatives are pleased to wade right into politics, with verbiage that would even make some members of Congress blush. Just a few weeks ago, to take one example from among many, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a speech in which he excoriated progressivism as a threat to America.

This is not an exhaustive list, and undoubtedly each reader could add their own exemplars.

We spent a fair bit of time thinking about exactly how Roberts could convince himself of something so obviously counterfactual, and here are the ideas we came up with:

• Obviously, the Roberts Court does not practice politics in the same way as the elected politicians do. They don't campaign, they don't make promises to voters, and they don't exactly make sausage (though some of the debates over court decisions come close to this). There is actually a pretty substantial literature about how justices tend to see themselves as "above" politics because they don't do the exact same things the elected politicians do; the term that is used is "self-aggrandizement."
  
  
• The Roberts Court is undoubtedly very collegial to each other behind the scenes. This gives at least a veneer of civility and of cooperative effort. (Though it should be noted that at least a couple of the liberals are clearly, and openly, growing tired of Samuel Alito.)
  
  
• The Roberts Court often issues unanimous, or near-unanimous, decisions. These are usually on things that aren't especially political, though.
  
  
• The Roberts Court sometimes pushes back against Donald Trump.

There may be a little more going on, beyond this. But we suspect we are largely on the mark here.

In the end, though, the most important thing is not whether the Court actually has become politicized. And the most important thing is certainly not what John Roberts thinks. The most important thing is that there is a broad perception the Court has become politicized. As we have written many, many times, the Court's authority is based almost entirely on the confidence that private citizens and public officials have in it. SCOTUS commands no troops and has no other means of enforcement at its disposal. And if there is no faith in the Court, then its decisions will be ignored outright or, more commonly, will be honored in letter, but not in spirit.

And there is simply no question that confidence in the Supreme Court is at a low point, perhaps as low as it's ever been. We obviously don't have polling for, say, 1857 (right after Dred Scott), but there's always some large minority that approves of the Court just because they like the decisions. If there HAD been polling in 1857, the 35% of white Americans who lived in the South, plus some chunk of white Americans who were Northern Democrats (Black people would not have been interviewed by pollsters back then) would have approved of the Court, maybe putting their figure in the mid-40s or high-40s. By contrast, right now, the Court's approval is around 42% in Gallup's ongoing poll. It dropped to that level, the lowest since Gallup began tracking at the start of the 21st century, right after Roe was overturned, and it's stayed there since. Some pollsters have it even lower; the worst is probably The Economist/YouGov, which has SCOTUS at 35% approval.

It all leads back to an argument we've now made many times: John Roberts is going to go down as the worst chief justice in history. First, he's overseen some very problematic and unpopular decisions. He's also allowed the process to be abused to the point of being a mockery of justice, most obviously by the shadow docket. He's proven unwilling or unable to do anything when decisions leak prematurely (as with Dobbs), or when his colleagues engage in obviously corrupt behavior (as with Clarence Thomas and his RV). And finally, Roberts is in denial about all of it, and telling everyone that if they think the Supreme Court is politicized, the problem is that they just don't understand. That's no answer to the problem, and every day that Roberts keeps his head in the sand is another day that the reputation of his Court deteriorates just a bit more. (Z)

In Old California: Becerra Gets Poked in the Eye at Candidates' Debate

Time for some truth. Of all the stuff we have to read/track in order to create this site, there are three things that are far and away the most unpleasant. In third place are long speeches, particularly State of the Union addresses. SOTUs, regardless of party, tend to be very similar to each other, and tend to hit beats we already know plenty about. So, they are roughly an hour (or, in Donald Trump's case, 2 hours) of "nothing new."

In second place are candidates' debates, which suffer from the same problem. It's not too bad when it's a one-on-one, but when it's six or seven or eight people, all from the same party, all trying to stand out from the crowd, it's pretty unpleasant to watch. And when the number of people on stage climbs to 10 or 12, with each of them getting maybe 5 minutes' speaking time, then it's a real "What is the point of all this?"

And in first place are political conventions. Sometimes the Democrats' conventions aren't so bad, particularly if there is some excitement and a youthful vibe (as was the case in 2024). Other times, they're pretty dry. Republicans' conventions are pretty much always a bore, and it's far worse when it's a Trump convention. In general, the theme of the GOP conventions is "old white people shaking their fist at the clouds and shouting." For Trump conventions, it's "old white people, a few token minorities, and Kid Rock shaking their fist at the clouds and shouting."

All of this is to explain, in part, why we have not been watching the California gubernatorial debates. If we believed the debates were important to the election, which itself is certainly VERY important, then we'd put our big-boy pants on and suck it up. But we really don't believe they are important. They are not well publicized, and attract only a small audience. It is an audience that is not at all representative of the broader electorate. So, we just don't think it's worth the considerable time (and unpleasantness) involved. Watching and writing up a debate takes about 6 hours, and that largely means no other coverage that day, particularly when it is also the end of the school year. It just doesn't add up.

That said, it's not hard for us to figure out (and pass along) the main story of this week's debate. Now that Xavier Becerra is a real threat to finish in the top two, and thus to advance to the general election, the knives were out for him. In particular, because of California's wonky jungle-style primary, his main "rivals" are Tom Steyer (D) and Chad Bianco (R), who are jockeying with Becerra for that second-place finish. The other Democrats on stage also see Becerra as a threat, because they are aspiring to that #2 slot, as well. And, speaking of the wonky primary, frontrunner Steve Hilton (R) also has reason to target Becerra. Hilton's best and only hope of becoming a governor is that Bianco finishes in second, setting up a Republican vs. Republican general election. In that scenario, Hilton has Donald Trump's endorsement and Bianco does not, and that would likely be enough to push Hilton over the top. You would probably also see notes like this: "7,839,202 Californians voted in the election, and yet only 2,021,290 votes were cast in the governor's race."

Becerra's weaknesses, when it comes to being attacked, are... pretty substantive. While serving in state government, he had some responsibility for dealing with homelessness and with insurance companies fleeing the state. Those problems have been unsolvable by anyone of either party, at least so far, and Becerra didn't solve them either. Maybe not his fault, but that's politics. Becerra has also shifted positions on several key issues, like single-payer health care. The progressives, in particular, do not like that. Becerra is connected to Sean McCluskie, his former chief of staff, who has just been convicted of misusing campaign funds. And during his tenure at HHS, Becerra was partly responsible for implementing immigration policy. At the debate, he was accused of separating some children from their parents, something that does not go over well with the state's Latino voters (which is why it was the other Latino in the race, Antonio Villaraigosa, who brought it up). Anyhow, if you would like to read more, here are national, state and local reports talking about how Becerra was everyone's punching bag.

Let us also add this to the pile. While we did not watch the debate, reader C.H. in West Linn, OR, did. Here is C.H.'s report:

As an Oregonian, out of curiosity I watched the debate tonight with no dog in the fight and not a whole lot of knowledge about the candidates other than name recognition, such as Steyer and Porter. The debate is in its last minute but here's my rank and take before watching the pundits:

1. Matt Mahan: He won the night. Never heard of him until tonight.
2. Katie Porter: She gets second. I like her authenticity and her willingness to speak her mind.
3. Xavier Becerra: Milquetoast. Slippery politician.
4. Antonio Villaraigosa: Washed up has-been. No chance. Time to hang it up.
5. Tom Steyer: Billionaire. And uninspiring.
6. Steve Hilton: My English-born wife says an a**hole with an English accent has no chance in California.
7. Chad Bianco: The people of Riverside County should fear their lives with this guy as sheriff.

Thanks, C.H.! And note again that C.H. is an Oregonian who solely watched due to being a political junkie. Then see our point above about how the audience for these debates does not represent the electorate that will decide this election.

Becerra is also getting the "frontrunner" treatment from the media. The most notable example we saw was this piece from Politico, which is an absolutely brutal takedown of Becerra's time leading HHS, from (unnamed) Biden administration insiders. Remember the line from Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was asked to name an important contribution that VP Richard Nixon had made to his administration, and said, "If you give me a week, I might think of one"? Well, that is pretty much the tone and tenor of the Politico piece. We are not sure who is behind the piece; could just be a reporter looking to make his bones, or maybe the Steyer campaign, or maybe Becerra's enemies from his White House years, or maybe even the Democratic Party, if they think Steyer is a stronger candidate. In any event, it's rough.

There have been three new polls of the race since we last did a rundown. Here they are, from newest to oldest, including all of the seven candidates who qualified for the debate stage:

Pollster	Hilton	Bianco	Becerra	Steyer	Porter	Mahan	Villaraigosa
Mellman Group	20%	14%	20%	12%	9%	10%	-
Impact Research	20%	-	23%	14%	9%	10%	-
SurveyUSA	20%	12%	10%	18%	8%	7%	5%

We pass along all three, to be comprehensive. However, we would not take that Impact Research poll all that seriously, if we were you. First, it was commissioned by the Mahan campaign. Second, there is no justification for excluding Bianco. On the whole, it remains clear that Hilton is going to advance to the final round, and that he will be joined by either Steyer or Becerra, but not Bianco. The problem with the Steyer-Becerra question is that the pollsters are clearly struggling to figure out what the non-Republican electorate will look like. So, the Republican candidates' numbers are pretty consistent, but the Democratic candidates' numbers are all over the place.

The debate was the last one before the primary election, and so we expect there will be a number of polls released this week, including one from Berkeley, and maybe one from USC/Dornsife. We'll be watching for them. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Check Out the Big Brain on Brad

That headline will be recognizable to many readers as a line from the movie Pulp Fiction. Or close to a line from Pulp Fiction, at least. (Z) plays that sequence in his lecture on how popular media and real-life events (in this case, the L.A. Riots) combine to shape people's perceptions of California. It's an effective presentation, based on the responses, and because that lecture was just over a week ago, it's certainly fresh in the mind.

The actual line is "the Big Brain on Brett," but it sounds like Samuel L. Jackson (in character as Jules Winnfield) is saying "Brad," and that's how it's stuck in (Z)'s mind. It seems appropriate to semi-mangle the character's line, since it comes within close proximity to the moment when the character himself mangles a Bible passage (the now somewhat infamous Ezekiel 25:17).

For last week's theme, which proved very popular, we gave two hints. The first was: "[A]nyone who is Transylvanian has a big edge today. Well, except for Dracula, because it has nothing to do with him." And the second was: "For anyone who is still working on the headline theme, we'll note that it might be your striped shirt that is interfering with your work."

And here is the solution, for those who are shivering with antici... pation, courtesy of reader D.E. in Lancaster, PA:

Great Scott, it's just a jump to the left! Let's go see The Rocky Horror Picture Show again, as the headlines have a character each (well, two have bonus clues). Donald Trump would not approve of your movie selection! Madness takes its toll:

• Undemocratic: It's Been A Rocky Week—Rocky the Monster in his sparkly gold shorts
  
  
• The 2026 Elections: Janet Mills Throws In The Towel—for the Susan Sarandan character, Janet Weiss, who stumbles across the castle with fiancé Brad
  
  
• In Congress: A Contentious Day In The District Of Columbia—for one of the good Doctor's assistants, Columbia, she with the sparkly top hat
  
  
• I Read The News Today, Oh Boy: Eddie Money Wrote the "Two Tickets To Paradise" Riff—Here's a twofer, Eddie, the delivery boy with a saxophone (Eddie Money's instrument), played by rock star Meat Loaf; and Riff Raff, the alien assistant from the planet Transexual.
  
  
• This Week In Schadenfreude: LIV Golf Enters Its Magenta Period—The Doctor's other assistant, Magenta, she with the Bride of Frankenstein hair
  
  
• This Week In Freudenfreude: To Be Frank, It's About Time—Finally, we get to our sweet transexual from Transylvania, the good Doctor Frank-n-Furter, played deliciously by Tim Curry. Also, while not a character, the Time Warp is the most famous song of the film and the name of its signature dance—And then just a step to the right! I think it only appropriate that a film about alien transvestites and a film that changed how audiences participate with a film, it seems only appropriate that there are clues that don't quite fit in the approved boxes!

And to be a completist, the clue, "We'll say that anyone who is Transylvanian will have a big edge today." Transylvanian is the name of several background characters, such as Transylvanian #1 through Transylvanian #19. Again another clue that shouldn't be forced into predetermined boxes.

Entirely correct. The "striped shirt" clue refers to a custom, for show-goers, whose origin is disputed, and which may not be universally known. Something in the same general ballpark as "you don't wish an actor good luck." And while we didn't get Brad in there last week, he does appear in the headline for this item.

Here are the first 60 readers to get it right:

K.H. in Albuquerque, NM M.W. in Altea Spain J.M. in Eagle Mills, NY M.M. in Charlottesville, VA N.T. in Le Perreux-sur-Marne, France N.H. in London, England, UK J.S. in Huntington Station, NY T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts G.B. in Utrecht, The Netherlands B.R. in Arlington, MA A.A. in Branchport, NY B.E. in Brooklyn, NY J.N. in Zionsville, IN K.R. in Austin, TX M.K. in Long Branch, NJ D.C. in South Elgin, IL E.J. in Homewood, AL D.S. in Nashua, NH S.K. in Ardmore, PA P.H. in Buffalo Grove, IL G.W. in Avon, CT J.R. in Austin, TX R.D. in Cheshire, CT W.M. in Topinabee, MI S.W. in Raleigh, NC M.S. in Canton, NY J.C. in Carmel, IN D.L. in Uslar, Germany A.D. in Gaithersburg, MD J.M.R. in Muncie, IN

C.W. in Atlantic Beach, FL D.K. in Marseille, France D.D. in Highland Park, IL J.M. in New York City, NY J.S. in Chevy Chase, MD P.T. in Bridgewater, NJ R.S. in Pittsgrove, NJ A.B. in Wendell H.M. in Portland, ME D.L. in Springfield, IL M.L. in Chicago, IL R.E. in Birmingham, AL J.Y. in Walnut Creek, CA B.A. in Edmond, OK J.A. in Hoi An, Vietnam A.J. in Baltimore, MD C.O. in Marion, IA D.H. in Leesburg, AL M.T. in Simpsonville, SC R.S. in Tonawanda, NY P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL J.T. in West Hartford, CT J.S.R. in Orlando, FL J.F. in Fayetteville, NC N.D. in Norwich Township, OH D.D. in Bucks County, PA J.Z. in Baltimore, MD R.N. in Cleveland, OH D.M. in Grand Rapids, MI T.K. in Manchester, MO

The 60th correct response was received at 5:40 a.m. PT on May 1.

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 the theme is pretty sweet.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line May 9 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: It's Hard out Here for an Incel

There is something of a gap between "what many right-wingers think women should be" and "what most women actually are." And an aspiring orthopedic surgeon from India, currently studying in the United States, and identified only as "Sam," came up with an interesting way to illustrate that.

Medical students, of course, do not make much money, and often struggle to make ends meet. Sam, coming from a very impoverished background, was no exception. But medical school takes a lot of time and energy, and does not leave much of either commodity left over for working a part-time job at, say, McDonald's. So, Sam tried to find time-efficient side hustles. He sold copies of his course notes to other students, and he also tried to make some money as a YouTube influencer, but those did not make much of a dent.

Sam's next venture was to try to sell salacious pictures created with the help of AI. Salacious enough to be of interest to potential customers, but non-salacious enough to be post-able to Instagram. His early efforts went nowhere, until he decided to create "Emily Hart." Ms. Hart looks like Jennifer Lawrence, is a registered nurse, and liked to post sexy pictures to Instagram. Her pictures were invariably accompanied by MAGA rhetoric, like: "If you want a reason to unfollow: Christ is king, abortion is murder, and all illegals must be deported."

Sam didn't actually expect the scheme to work out, since he thought it was "too obvious." But, in something of a demonstration of Poe's Law, MAGA men ate it up. The Instagram account was eventually shut down for fraudulent activity, but by then "Emily" had a Facebook page, an OnlyFans account and a lineup of t-shirts and other merch. Eventually, Sam was making thousands of dollars a month. This is all MAGA money, going to a brown-skinned immigrant who believes in vaccines.

Sam is not above targeting men on the other side of the political aisle, but his liberal counterpart to "Emily" went absolutely nowhere. Sam's explanation for that is that Democrats recognize AI slop when they see it, but that "The MAGA crowd is made up of dumb people—like, super dumb people." The various experts interviewed for the linked article don't quite see it that way, but they do say that MAGA is unusual in the extent to which they will bend and twist and turn to make things "true," even if they make no sense, such as "demure, devout Christian who nonetheless likes to show off her breasts to strangers."

Sam, by the way, has largely gotten out of the content creation game. He's raised the money he needed, and besides, "Emily" spawned a bunch of imitators. He did do a little research into creating a MAGA girl who is also a Nazi, and he thinks there's probably some money to be made, but he's just not willing to go there. Looks like that will have to be a project for Elon Musk and Grok. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: The King of Comedy... Well, the Kings of Comedy

The original Martin Scorsese movie, released in 1982, is about a stand-up comedian (Rupert Pupkin, played by Robert DeNiro) who takes aim at entrenched power, as embodied by an established talk show host (Jerry Langford, played by Jerry Lewis). This being the case, if you happen to be witness to a bunch of stand-up comedians AND established talk show hosts taking aim at entrenched power, does that not make them the kings of comedy? A 21st-century answer to the 1982 film, as it were?

And now, what seems to be a non sequitur, but is not: Whenever we have to cancel a posting at the last minute, it's invariably because (Z) was somehow left unavailable. If (V) falls ill, or whatever else might happen, there's time to compensate by virtue of the time difference between the United States and the Netherlands. With (Z) there is not. This is the price, we suppose, of the site (usually) being up-to-date, to the last hour or even the last minute, when we go live around 3:00 a.m. PT.

In these circumstances, it is usually (V) who posts the message that we're down for the day, or the weekend, or whatever. And (V) is, of course, going to show discretion in sharing details that aren't his details. So, yesterday's message was a bit on the general side. That said, what happened is not a secret, and is not particularly bad. As we have noted, (Z) had to have a biopsy about 6 weeks ago. During that biopsy, during the "sedation" portion of the proceedings, someone did something to (Z)'s left arm that tore something in his left elbow—tendon, ligament... can never remember. Whatever it is that tears when you have tennis elbow.

By chance, Thursday happened to be the day that (Z) saw the hepatologist, for confirmation that the biopsy was clean as a whistle, and that the original, preliminary scan showed liver scarring that is not actually present. However, that is not what led to the missing posting. No, what led to the missing posting was that Thursday night, (Z) banged his left elbow really hard, while being jostled by a crowd. When this happens, in this way, it causes a sensation in which the entire lower-left arm feels, for lack of a better description, asleep. (Z) spent 15 minutes on Thursday night trying to type with one hand, and it... just doesn't work. And trying to dictate doesn't work either. The effect only lasts 3-6 hours, but 3-6 hours is enough. We pondered posting at noon PT, but decided against it.

So, how is this NOT a non sequitur? Well, the event where (Z) banged his arm was a show at the Hollywood Bowl entitled: "Netflix is a Joke Presents: Night of Too Many Stars." This is an event, usually staged every 2-3 years, where a truly unbelievable roster of comics (and friends) put together what used to be called a "revue," in order to raise money for charity. In this case, the charity is NEXT for AUTISM.

(Z) thinks and assumes that the involvement of Netflix means the show will eventually be streamed on that service. If it is, it's certainly worthy of your time. The basic setup of the live show (and this might not be replicated in this exact way for any sort of streaming broadcast) was that they alternated between stand-up sets, comic bits that were tied to live fundraising auctions, and live/video messages about various autism-related efforts that NEXT for AUTISM supports. This was the kind of crowd that—for example—included someone sitting probably 50 feet from (Z), who raised his hand and donated $100,000. Just like that. Another two people, sitting only a little farther away, donated something like $60,000 each for the honor of being animated into an episode of The Simpsons. There was actually only supposed to be one Simpsons prize, but as good fortune would have it, showrunner Matt Selman was sitting maybe 50 feet from (Z), and as the bidding caught fire, he stood up and said the show would be pleased to accommodate two winners. If it helps to paint a picture, here is the view from (Z)'s seat:

That's Ali Wong on stage, and the distance there (from Z's seat to Wong) is probably something like 100 feet. You can see a woman in a black-and-white-striped shirt; Selman is the man in the black jacket sitting in front of her. The $100,000 donation guy is not in the frame, but was to (Z)'s right and slightly behind.

Oh, and in case you are wondering, this is not exactly (Z)'s crowd. Well, beyond the fact that he lives in L.A., and an event like this often draws an audience like this. Anyhow, (Z) got his rather primo seat not because the rather primo ticket price is in his price range, but because he has a friend who works at the Hollywood Bowl, and she pulled some strings. (Z) did make a donation to NEXT for AUTISM, however. But not for $100,000.

Anyhow, here's a rundown of the lineup:

Emcee: Jon Stewart

Stand-Up Sets/Other Comedy: Bill Burr, Conan O'Brien, Ron Funches, Nikki Glaser, Leanne Morgan, John Mulaney, Matt Rife, Adam Sandler, Wong

Bits/Auctions/Presentations on Autism Charities: Steve Carell, Tiffany Haddish, Jimmy Kimmel, Johnny Knoxville, Kevin Nealon, Bob Odenkirk, CM Punk, Sarah Silverman, Robert Smigel, Noah Wyle

What "other comedy" refers to is that a few of the performers did a little bit of stand-up and then performed a comic song or two or three. Such was the case with O'Brien and Sandler, in particular. Kimmel and Stewart also joined in on O'Brien's performance. Oh, and this list isn't 100% comprehensive—(Z) is working from memory, and there were a number of other people who popped up for a moment or two as part of a bit, or who were in the audience and stood up for a moment (like Tommy Hilfiger). It should also be noted that all of the stand-up sets were introduced by people with autism, who are clients of the various autism-related charities. That these folks were able to get up in front of 18,000 people, with all those lights and all those noises, and to address the crowd like pros... is really something.

By virtue of, you know, the blog he writes, (Z) could not help but watch the show and think that if FCC Chair Brendan Carr ever decides to do his own version of the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list, probably half of the people who would be on it were on that stage on Thursday night. Kimmel has been on the radar more than once, first for his comments after Charlie Kirk's death, and then for his joke about Melania Trump. Mulaney was "investigated" at the end of Trump v1.0 for jokes he made during a Saturday Night Live monologue. Trump has raged at Stewart on multiple occasions. Knoxville has sued Trump (albeit for messaging purposes, not to try to win). Silverman has accused Trump of sexual-predator-type behavior targeting her.

Truth be told, despite the above allusion to The King of Comedy, the politics were fairly well muted during the 3-hour show. One could not miss that it was a largely left-leaning roster of talent, and a largely left-leaning crowd. And there were certainly a few brief barbs tossed in the general direction of Trump and/or his administration. However, the only extended political bits came from Mulaney, who spent about 2 minutes of his 8-minute set making fun of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Burr, who spent about 2 minutes of HIS 8-minute set making fun of Trump. And in case it holds your interest, (Z) could see the teleprompter that was used to tell the comedians roughly how much time they had left. And the only person who had no time limit imposed was... Sandler (who, to be fair, was the last act of the evening).

Anyhow, the main theme of the night was definitely not politics, it was autism awareness and fundraising. And they surely brought in a boatload of money. The auctions generated a total in the high six figures, and the ticket sales, concessions and sponsorships undoubtedly multiplied that by many times. If it came out that the night, on the whole, generated $10 million, (Z) would not be in the least bit surprised. Depending on how much Netflix kicked in, that total might even approach $20 million.

And while (Z) could not help but think of the political angle, the thought that occurred even more frequently is that these are all fundamentally very decent people. They all gave their time and their talent to try to make the world a little better place. The emotional climax of the evening came, naturally enough, near the end. The main driver of this whole effort is Smigel, whose twenty-something son Daniel is "profoundly autistic" (to quote Smigel himself). Smigel's wife Michelle does not like to make public appearances, and his son would not be capable of handling so much stimulation, so instead they played a video telling Daniel's story, narrated by Michelle. When the video was over and the lights came back up, the tears in Stewart's eyes were very visible.

Stewart, incidentally, has served as emcee for most of the "Night of Too Many Stars" events, dating back to 2003. Others who have made appearances at more than one of the shows include Burr, Carell, Mulaney, Sandler, Silverman and Wyle. Again, these are very decent people, despite those who assert... well, otherwise.

Have a good (rest of your) weekend, all! (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