Senate page     Dec. 29

Senate map
Previous | Next

New polls:  
Dem pickups: PA
GOP pickups: (None)

Is Murdoch Jumping Ship?

We have noted a few occasions in which the New York Post or Wall Street Journal have been unkind to Donald Trump. One of the biggest political issues of 2023 and 2024 is whether all of Rupert Murdoch's media properties—especially Fox—finally and definitively drop Trump. Political observers are watching this very closely. If Murdoch drops Trump and stays neutral in the 2024 primaries, that will hurt Trump considerably. However, if Murdoch not only ditches Trump but also hops on the bandwagon of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), that will have an even bigger impact as many Fox viewers outside Florida probably don't know much about DeSantis. If Fox not only jumps on the DeSantis bandwagon but tries to steer it, that could have a huge impact on the primaries.

Some important evidence that Murdoch has had it with Trump comes from ... Rupert Murdoch. At the meeting of the News Corp. stockholders in November, Murdoch said: "It is crucial that conservatives play an active, forceful role in that debate, but that will not happen if President Trump stays focused on the past." If Trump has any brains at all, he ought to see that as a giant red flag. Murdoch might yet come around to giving full-throated support to him, but only if he stops talking about 2020 and starts talking about 2024. If he continues to spend his time whining about how unfairly he was treated in 2020, Murdoch is going to drop him. Murdoch couldn't have said that much more clearly. And if all of Murdoch's media properties, including Fox, actively start showcasing DeSantis, Trump has a very big problem.

Murdoch's statement and the various headlines and front pages The New York Post has run aren't the only signs that Murdoch's love affair with Trump is over. Fox doesn't cover his rallies anymore. Some of the Fox hosts have come close to blaming him for the disappointing 2022 midterms. Fox Business host Stuart Varney said: "He seems to be losing what used to be his iron grip on the GOP, and he still has a hard core of supporters who will follow them regardless, but many of the 74 million people who voted for him in 2020 have been turned off."

Daniel Cassino, a media expert who wrote a 2016 book about Fox' influence over American politics, said: "Trump's superpower is getting all the coverage. That's not happening anymore. Fox is not covering him 24 hours a day." The implication here is that if Fox starts treating what DeSantis is having for breakfast as breaking news, that could have a huge impact on the GOP presidential primary.

Tobe Berkovitz, an emeritus professor of advertising at Boston University, said: "Murdoch's outlets in recent months have sent the message that they see Trump as more of an anchor than a life preserver when it comes to the kind of politics they'd like to see. They all see that Trump is no longer the lunch bucket for them when it comes to ratings and readership."

Needless to say, we are going to keep an eye on this in 2023. (V)

What's a Woman?

During the confirmation hearings for Ketanji Brown jackson, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asked Jackson to define "woman." Jackson replied: "I am not a biologist." She'd better brush up on her high school biology because now that she is on the Supreme Court, she is going to be forced to deal with that, sooner or later.

The reason is that many states are most definitely defining what a woman is, and there are going to be lawsuits about the definitions, and one or more of them is certain to make it to the Supreme Court. That is especially so if different circuit courts accept different definitions of "woman."

South Carolina is taking the lead here but there will soon be more. State Sen. Danny Verdin (R) filed a joint resolution this month that would amend the state Constitution to define "male" and "female" in "the context of reproductive potential ... without regard to an individual's psychological, chosen, or subjective experience of gender." In other words, if you are capable of producing eggs, you are a female. If you are capable of producing sperm, you are male. What you think you are is irrelevant. If both chambers of the legislature approve, the question will be put on the 2024 ballot for the voters to decide. Similar measures are already pending in six other states, with more to come in 2023.

Who's a woman plays a role in a number of contexts. For example, some sports teams are women only. Some public restrooms are for women only. Some grant programs to small businesses give preferences to businesses owned by a woman. Some prisons are segregated by sex. Cases about discrimination in the workplace may depend on the sex of the discriminee. And there are other situations in which words matter.

The Independent Woman's Forum is a nonprofit conservative group working on a Women's Bill of Rights. Briefly summarized, it has nine points, as follows:

Of course, all of these are focused on making it clear that a man who identifies as a woman is still a man before the law. The group says it is not against anyone, and that its goal is to protect women.

In addition to Verdin's resolution in South Carolina and the other state bills, Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) has introduced a bill in the House to define a person's sex under law as the one to the person was assigned at birth. It might well pass the new House but is unlikely to come to a vote in the Senate, because Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) knows that many of his members do not want to vote on it. However, absent federal legislation, until the Supreme Court makes a ruling, we could have a hodge-podge of definitions, with some individuals being considered a man in one state and a woman in another.

Conservatives have the advantage here because a definition doesn't work if there is no test for it. If the law says a woman is a person who has XX chromosomes, that is relatively easy to check, if it comes to that. If the law says anyone who claims to be a woman is a woman, then it gets very murky. Can anyone apply to be admitted to a women's only college by just checking the "F" box on the form, or apply for an SBA grant intended for women by claiming to be a woman? It gets much more complicated and there will be endless lawsuits. One possible bright line might be that any person currently possessing a penis is a male and anyone not currently having one is a female. That at least admits the possibility of sex changing and is also testable. Of course, even that brings up issues with intersex persons and people who have been aggressively treated for penile cancer.

In any event, the subject of "what's a woman?" is going to be a hot topic in 2023 and is likely to be on the 2024 ballot. While it falls somewhat along partisan lines, we suspect that nearly all Republicans would vote for Verdin's ballot measure, but that a substantial number of Democratic voters would, too. No doubt as soon as some state formally puts a measure like Verdin's on the 2024 ballot, somebody will run a poll on it and we can see the crosstabs. They could be quite interesting by sex, age, race, education, and income. (V)

The Biggest Lies of 2022

Glenn Kessler is an expert on lying. No, he is not a politician, like, say, Rep.-elect George Santos (R-NY). He is a reporter for The Washington Post who specializes in collecting and rating lies from politicians. He has now published a list of the biggest whoppers of 2022. Here is the list in chronological order (because Kessler didn't want to get into the business of ranking them)

Kessler also is giving Mark Meadows a special hypocrisy award for his statement: "Do you realize how inaccurate the voter rolls are, with people moving around?" It's true. And Meadows should have known since he was registered to vote in three states (Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) at the same time. He lost his North Carolina registration after a news report noted that he was registered at an address where he didn't live. The state attorney general has not yet decided if he will bring criminal charges. (V)

The Five Biggest Known Unknowns of 2024

Ronald Brownstein has an interesting article about the 2024 presidential race that focuses on the known unknowns probably because it is easier than focusing on the unknown unknowns. Here are his top five known unknowns.

There are obviously unknown unknowns as well. They could involve, for example, the war in Ukraine. Imagine as potential slogans "Who lost Ukraine?" or "Who drove Putin from power?" as examples. The Supreme Court could make another unpopular ruling. And then there are things no one can even conceive of now. How about a nuclear war between India and Pakistan? How about a weather event that kills thousands of people and the response to it? There are so many possible unknown unknowns. (V)

The Bennie and Liz Show Was a Hit

Reps. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Liz Cheney (R-WY) do not have a lot in common. Thompson (74) is a Black liberal Democrat from Mississippi who remembers that racist Jim Crow laws denied his father the right to vote. Cheney (56) is a white conservative Republican who grew up in the halls of power when her father was a congressman and later the vice president. Yet the two of them worked closely together producing the 1/6 Committee hearings and the report that came out of them.

They released separate forewords to the Select Committee's 845-page report on the coup attempt. In his, Thompson wrote:

The Capitol's shining dome, topped with the statue of goddess Freedom, was built partially by the labor of enslaved people in the 18th and 19th centuries. Dark chapters of America's history are written into the building's marble, sandstone, and mortar. And yet in the halls and chambers of this building, leaders of courage passed amendments to our Constitution and enacted the laws that banned slavery, guaranteed equal rights under the law, expanded the vote, promoted equality, and moved our country, and her people, forward.

In hers, Cheney wrote:

In April 1861, when Abraham Lincoln issued the first call for volunteers for the Union Army, my great-great grandfather, Samuel Fletcher Cheney, joined the 21st Ohio Volunteer Infantry. He fought through all four years of the Civil War, from Chickamauga to Stones River to Atlanta. ... At the heart of our Republic is the guarantee of the peaceful transfer of power. Members of Congress are reminded of this every day as we pass through the Capitol Rotunda.

Both of them know the nation's history and both refer back to the nation's second founding after the Civil War. More importantly, both of them suppressed the usual congressional response to fight the other party. Instead, they worked together in a common cause. Before each session, each one gave an opening statement. After each session, each one gave a closing statement. Thompson gave the big picture: A marauding mob threatened democracy. Cheney filled in the details: It was the fault of one man: Donald J. Trump.

Even though Thompson was chair and Cheney was vice chair, they shared the spotlight equally. They also junked the usual format in which each member gets 5 minutes to grandstand while a witness sits silently in a chair in front of them. Instead, each member got a turn in the spotlight and was able to weave a narrative about the subject of the session. That was vastly more effective than the usual format.

Maybe the two argued sometimes in private, but there were no reports of that. They seemed to work together effortlessly and the show came off very well. It would be nice if this were a model for other congressional committees, but our staff pulmonologist suggests that you don't hold your breath waiting for the next time this happens. (V)

Biden Takes on China

Donald Trump talked about taking on China, but all he did was raise prices for Americans by putting tariffs on goods made in China. This really didn't hurt China at all. Joe Biden is actively and consciously doing things that will actually hurt China badly. They are all kind of low-key and technical, but they will have a vastly bigger impact than anything Trump did.

OK, two of them aren't so low-key. The CHIPS Act Biden pushed for and signed provides $280 billion for domestic research and manufacturing of high-end semiconductors. Aided by money from the CHIPS Act, Intel is planning to build the world's biggest and most modern semiconductor manufacturing plant on a 1,000-acre campus (twice the size of Disneyland) just outside Columbus, OH. The first two of the eight factories planned will hire 3,000 workers at an average salary of $135,000. Biden might just mention this a couple of times when he campaigns in Ohio in 2024. What he probably won't mention, though, is that to get one of those jobs one will need a degree in computer science or mechanical engineering with a specialization in robotics. Unemployed high-school dropouts need not apply. The site was chosen in part because it is just a few miles from the enormous Ohio State University, which has 60,000 students, and will be a continuous source of engineers for Intel.

The Intel plant is not the only one that will strengthen American semiconductor manufacturing. The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company is planning to build A $40 billion manufacturing plant in (swing state) Arizona. When these plants are all running at full capacity, the U.S. will be self-sufficient in chips and will not have to import any chips from China, except possibly very simple chips where price is everything. Apple may still assemble iPhones in China (due to low labor costs), but the most important (and most expensive) parts will be made in America. This is a sea change from letting China to continue to own the chip market and to make the chips more expensive for American companies due to tariffs.

A long article in Politico points out that Biden has much more planned on the China front. He will soon sign executive orders cutting off China's ability to make advanced chips, since they depend in part of American parts, know-how, and software. Biden is also pressuring ASML, a Dutch company that has a virtual monopoly on the $200 million EUV lithography machines that make advanced chips. Conceivably, he could offer to have the U.S. government pre-order the next five years' worth of production so there is nothing left for China to buy. The machines would then be resold to chip manufacturers with factories in the U.S. Biden will also create a federal agency to regulate American investments in China. He will sign another EO forbidding Chinese apps (like TikTok) from collecting data on Americans. Goodbye free market, hello industrial policy.

This is a monumental change from the past administrations, which favored working with China. Biden's goal is to use U.S. power to cripple China's high-tech industries. It won't be universally popular. Old-style free-trade Republicans don't like the use of government power to help certain industries (except if they are in the fossil fuel business). Others want to go further than Biden and reduce all trade with China because the profits they make on everything from t-shirts to solar panels helps pay for the build-up of the Chinese military. Biden is against that. Instead he will focus on choke points within critical sectors. For example, Chinese tech giant Huawei took a tremendous hit when the U.S. banned its equipment in 5G cellular networks for fear it would record and steal all traffic over the network.

Politically, getting tough with China is likely to sell well. Biden can point to a resurgence of U.S. manufacturing (although most new factories are going to have robots on the production line). It will also weaken China economically and militarily. Biden will be able to contrast his approach with Trump's, which didn't weaken China at all, but just made Chinese products more expensive for American companies and consumers (although in all fairness to Trump, tariffs do raise revenue for the U.S. government).

It will be difficult for the Republicans to come up with a plausible response when Biden points to his very real efforts to rebuild American industry and weaken China in the process. Will the red team try to outflank the blue team and say they would do more? The likely response is going to be: "from Jan. 2017 to Jan. 2019, Republicans controlled the whole government—and did nothing. Why should anyone believe it will be different if you get the trifecta again?"

If you are interested in trade as a weapon and the next cold war, the Politico article linked to above is a good place to start. You can also try to figure out what the hell is going on with the graphic/animation they put together for the top of the article. (V)

Presidential Transition Is Also Updated

The omnibus bill recently passed by Congress updates the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Most importantly, it specifies the role of the president of the Senate as: Watch the electoral votes be counted and keep quiet during the process. Specifically, even if he or she sees something fishy, an objection can only be raised if one-fifth of the members of each chamber object. Thus, a situation like the one that occurred on Jan. 6, 2021, with the president urging the president of the Senate to object to the count. is less likely to occur. Of course, the president can urge anybody to do anything, but the chance of success is lower now that the law specifically states that an objection to any state's electoral votes requires one-fifth of each chamber.

However, ambiguity in the Electoral Count Act was only one way Donald Trump tried to stop the transition. The other flew under the radar, but was also important. It had to do with the transition. Setting up a new administration takes a lot of time and money. The president-elect needs to rent office space, hire a large personnel department to receive and vet tens of thousands of applications for the more than 1,000 Executive Branch positions requiring Senate confirmation, and more. Waiting until Jan. 20 to even start the process will cripple the new government for its first few months. Why would anyone want to do that?

Well, if the outgoing president wasn't planning to leave even though he lost the election, we might have such a situation. Actually, we had precisely that situation after the 2020 election. The then-administrator of the General Services Administration, Emily Murphy, refused to release any funds to Joe Biden to use for the transition because her boss said Biden lost the election. This really hampered Biden and made it impossible to hit the ground running.

The omnibus bill deals with this problem. It says that if the winner is not certain 5 days after the election, both major-party candidates get transition resources on an ongoing basis. That way a recalcitrant GSA administrator can't hold up the actual winner. As soon as the winner is known, the flow of money to the loser stops.

The 2020 election was the first one when the outgoing president's administration refused to release funds to the incoming president for the transition. In 2000, there was ambiguity about who won until the Supreme Court decided to pick a president. But once that happened, funds were released. (V)

The Country Is Incredibly Evenly Divided

An article by Harry Enten at CNN shows just how closely divided the country is. In January, Democrats will have 50.5% of the Senate seats and Republicans will have 51.0% of the House seats and 52% of the governors' mansions. It is very unusual for all three to be so close. In fact, this is the first time since the popular election of senators began that neither party had more than 52% of any of these offices.

When looking at the vote counts, the closeness becomes even clearer. Republicans won the popular vote for the House by under 3 points and that would have been under 2 points if both parties had fielded candidates in all districts. For the Senate, Republicans won more votes than Democrats by 0.1%. However, if the Democrats had fielded a candidate in Utah instead of endorsing independent Evan McMullin, they would have gotten more votes nationwide. Democrats did get more votes for governor than the Republicans—by 0.3%. All of these numbers show that the country is balanced on knife edge. As we noted on Tuesday, if the Democrats had gotten 6,675 votes distributed in just the right way in the closest five districts, they would have held the House.

If we look at presidential elections, they haven't always been close. Here is the 1984 Electoral College map:



Electoral college map 1984; it's all red except for Minnesota and D.C.

Does it look closely divided? But since then, no presidential candidate has won by double digits. The largest House majority since 1984 is the 11-point win the Democrats had in 2008. But we have to go back to 1982 to see another House win that large.

How has this happened? Political scientists say it is due to polarization. There aren't many swing voters anymore. But that doesn't really explain anything. In 10 years, when many current Republican voters will—how shall we put this gently?—not be participating in the 2032 elections, and kids now 8 years old will be voting, there could be a stable 55-45 Democratic majority that lasts for years and doesn't budge. What is special now is that it is so close and doesn't budge.

Maybe it is just dumb luck and we are in the middle of a transition from MAGA to not-MAGA and we are exactly halfway. Or maybe it is related to there being so few swing states and districts that each party can ignore 80% of the country and focus entirely on the other 20%.

But we think at least part of the reason is the extensive data collection and use of computers to analyze all the data that both parties have. Each party knows that in each election it needs 50% +1 votes (also in the Electoral College). Any more than that is wasted. With very detailed data, parties can work toward 50% +1 and when they think they have it nailed, move resources somewhere else. The ideal situation for a party is to spend whatever it takes to get 50% + 1 everywhere and not a penny more. Polling is not an exact science and weather can affect turnout, so each party has to aim a little bit higher to give itself some margin for error, but the goal is to not spend any more money or effort than needed to win a bare majority in each district and state. One recalls the telegram John F. Kennedy got from his father while running for the U.S. Senate: "Dear Jack—Don't buy a single vote more than necessary—I'll be damned if I am going to pay for a landslide."

But in JFK's time, it wasn't possible to target nearly as accurately. Now, if polling shows that a candidate needs another 1,000 votes in some district, the party's voter databases can pinpoint which specific voters to visit to try to get over the bar. To put it in Second Amendment terms, parties can now use a rifle instead of a shotgun to try to get just enough votes. Of course, it doesn't always work, but they try. (V)

A December to Rhymember, Part XVI: My Gift Is My Song, Part II

Another round of song parodies! We ended with the Beatles yesterday, so why not start with the Beach Boys today? That was the thought that M.L. in Encino, CA, had when writing this take on "Wouldn't It Be Nice":

Wouldn't it be nice if Joe was younger
Then we wouldn't have to make a choice
And wouldn't it be nice to vote together
For the kind of guy that speaks with our voice

You know it's gonna make it that much better
If we can vote for Joe instead of Bernie

Wouldn't it be nice if we could wake up
In the morning of November 6
And after having spent the whole night counting
Congratulate ourselves for another win

A happy 4-year term we've been enjoying
I wish Joe's presidency could keep on going
Oh, wouldn't it be nice?

Maybe if we campaign and educate and vote
It might come true
Maybe then the Trump Republicans won't even try to sue
We could be Democratic (we could be Democratic)
And then we'd be happy (and then we'd be happy)
Oh, wouldn't it be nice?

You know it seems to me the more we think about it
We absolutely have to try it
Oh, wouldn't it be nice?

Or, if the 1970s are more your style, there's this homage to Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" from R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY

Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Faked my own landslide,
No escape from duplicity
Close up your eyes,
Look up to the skies and see,
I'm just a rich boy, I need cash laundering,
Because I'm easy come, easy go
Russian might, Russian blow
Any way the wind blows doesn't really matter to me, to me

Putin, just killed a man
Put poison in his tea
Pulled my trigger, now he's dead
Mama, life had just begun
But now I've gone and thrown it all away
Mama, ooh (any way the wind blows)
Didn't mean to make you cry
If I'm not back again this time tomorrow
Carry on, carry on as if nothing really matters

Too late, my time has come
Sends shivers down my spine
Body's aching all the time
Goodbye, everybody, I've got to go
Gotta leave you all behind and face the truth
Mama, ooh (any way the wind blows)
I will not resign,
I sometimes wish I'd never been elected at all...

I see a little silhouetto of a man,
Scaramucci, Scaramucci, will you sing the Fandango?
Blunder quotes and lying
Very, very frightening me
(Comey lay low) Comey lay low
(Comey lay low) Comey lay low
Comey lay low, see memos
Obstructio-o-o-o-o

I'm just a rich boy, nobody loves me
He's just a rich boy from a rich family
Snare him for life for his monstrosity
Easy come, easy go, will you let me go?
Bob Mueller! No, he will not let you go (let me go!)
Bob Mueller! He will not let you go (let me go!)
Bob Mueller! He will not let you go (let me go!)
Will not let you go (let him go!)
Never, never let you go
Never let me go, oh
No, no, no, no, no, no, no
Oh, Rosensteina, Rosensteina (Rosensteina, let me go)
Special Counsel has a prison put aside for me, for me, for me

So you think you can moan Amendment Twenty-Five? (Yeah!)
So you think you can shove me and push me aside?
Oh, baby, can't do this to me, baby
Just gotta get out, just gotta get right outta here
Pence will really matter
After I'm impeached
Pence will really matter
Pence will really matter
If he pardons me...

And finally, continuing the parade of cultural references that are at least 40 years old, here's a re-imagining of "The Ballad of Jed Clampett" from C.W. in Littleton, CO:

Come and listen to my story 'bout a man named Trump
Poor millionaire planned to run for President
He squeaked out a shocking Electoral victory
Loaded up his golf cart, putt-putted to D.C.
       Washington that is, lobbyists ... bureaucrats

Next thing you know he hired crooks and kin.
The swamp filled up; he welcomed all the vermin in.
He fibbed and he tweeted "truthed" and he ranted at the Press.
By day ninety-nine, he was in a mighty hot mess.
       Russia that is, Ukraine, collusion ... covfefe

Soon a Special Prosecutor combed the murky trails,
Of back channels, sanctioned banks and hacked e-mails.
He followed the money, ferreted out the lies
And we hoped he'd hand the White House gang a mighty big surprise
       Prison that is, orange jump suits, no golf ... didn't happen

The misbegotten TFG presidency decayed and died
Joseph Biden was duly elected far and wide
But TFG continued performing IRS cheats,
Stealing classified documents, and conjuring illegal feats
       "Election Fraud" that is, "It'll Be Wild" ... "Hang Mike Pence"

The January 6th Committee was formed to reveal
All the nasty details of TFG's traitorous "Stop the Steal"
We watched live broadcasts of shocking acts and grift
And 32 criminals cowardly "pleaded the fifth"
       "Who me?" that is ... "Sorry, I don't recall."

And now it's time to say goodbye to this sordid tale
Decency will win out and the truth will prevail
You're all invited back right here in 2024
When we'll surely elect Dark Brandon president once more
       The Constitution wins that is ... stay involved, y'all vote now, y'hear? (Orange jumpsuits anyone?)

We'll see what tomorrow brings. On Monday of next week, we'll wrap it up with some New Year's themed verse. We are still accepting submissions, of course. (Z)


Previous | Next


Back to the main page