Trump Actually Starts Campaigning

Donald Trump announced his third presidential run 2½ months ago. After that—crickets, Normally after an announcement, candidates start holding rallies, doing interviews with friendly media outlets, flying around the country talking to donors, and more. Trump had dinner with a couple of antisemites and that was about it. What was he waiting for? Maybe for his old rust-bucket Boeing 757 to be patched up so it could fly again?

It would seem the maintenance is complete, and so on Saturday Trump got off his couch, hopped on the 757, flew to New Hampshire, and stood on the stump (well, indoors, given that it is January). He gave the keynote speech at the annual state Republican meeting in Salem, NH. It was a bitter speech, filled with lies. He not only claimed that he won in 2020, but that foreign leaders agreed with him. He also said that every day in Joe Biden's America is a cruel April Fools Day joke. Trump also attacked Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) head on, saying he was a COVID-19 skeptic phony. That is, DeSantis didn't ignore the pandemic enough. Florida was third in COVID-19 deaths with 84,605. Maybe if DeSantis had pooh-poohed it more, it could have passed Texas (93,025 deaths) and made it into second place. If this is a preview of the stump speech Trump will give hundreds of times in the next year or two, it's going to be a very toxic campaign.

Nevertheless—or maybe on account of his speech—the crowd of party activists applauded. But not every top Republican in New Hampshire was there. The former state GOP chairman, Steve Duprey, wasn't and he later told a reporter that it was time for a change. Former New Hampshire AG Tom Rath was even more blunt. He said: "I think we've got to rid ourselves with this disease and move forward and listen to what the electorate is telling us. That kind of extremism and sort of almost hero worship is not conducive to having a government that produces the results that benefit the way people live." Last year, Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH) said of Trump: "He's done his time. He's done his service. We're moving on."

In short, New Hampshire Republicans are divided and Trump is by no means guaranteed a win the New Hampshire primary, whenever it may be held (see below). In fact, yesterday Sununu said: "He could win, I don't think he will." In 2016, Trump came in first in the New Hampshire primary with 35% of the vote. John Kasich got 16% and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was third with 12%. In the Nov. 2016 general election, Hillary Clinton beat Trump by 0.4%. In the 2020 New Hampshire primary, Trump crushed Bill Weld 84% to 9%, but lost the general election to Joe Biden 53% to 45%.

After Trump was finished with New Hampshire, he went to the South Carolina state capitol where he introduced his South Carolina team, which includes Gov. Henry McMaster (R-SC) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Many South Carolina lawmakers were present but many others were not, citing "other commitments." Presumably, some of them had to wash their hair.

As in New Hampshire, a Trump victory in the South Carolina Republican primary is not a done deal. A poll from Spry Strategies released last week shows that only 37% of state Republicans want Trump to run again with 47% preferring someone else. In a head-to-head poll with DeSantis, Republican voters in South Carolina picked DeSantis over Trump by a margin of 52% to 33%. However, a Trafalgar Group poll released Friday that pitted Trump and DeSantis against Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), Nikki Haley, and the Mikes P. had Trump first at 43%. Then came DeSantis (28%), Scott (14%), Haley (12%), Pence (2%), and Pompeo (1%). But Scott and Haley are both from South Carolina and have won statewide elections there, so their presence greatly distorts the field. They won't do nearly so well anywhere else. (V)

Trump 1, DeSantis 0

On Friday, The RNC elected Ronna Romney McDaniel to a fourth term as chair, giving her 111 votes to 51 for Harmeet Dhillon. Pillowman Lindell managed to get 4 votes. McDaniel was handpicked by Donald Trump in 2017 and has chaired the Committee since then. She raised lots of money, but Republicans lost the House in 2018 and then the Senate and the White House in 2020. In 2022, they eked out a win in the House but lost another seat in the Senate. Some Republicans blame her for these losses, and most of those supported Dhillon. But any dispassionate observer would blame Donald Trump, and not McDaniel, for all of them. The 168 RNC members tacitly admitted that when they reelected McDaniel.

What interests us here is that although Trump picked McDaniel he didn't endorse her this year. Still, she has defended him through thick and thin and she can be legitimately seen as his candidate. Also, some of his top aides whipped votes for her. On the other hand, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) urged "new blood" for the RNC, which was a not-very-subtle way of endorsing Dhillon. So in the first race where a Trump proxy faced off against a DeSantis proxy, the Trump proxy won.

Will anything change now in the RNC? Probably not a lot, except that some of Dhillon's supporters grumbled about how the grassroots was going to be angry. Will that impact the Republican presidential primaries? Again, probably not, as so many other factors are more important. McDaniel has said she won't take sides in any upcoming primaries. Will the grassroots supporters of Dhillon vote for any Democrats in 2024 to punish the RNC? Out of the question.

Several POTUS wannabes showed up at the RNC meeting in Dana Point, CA, including Mike Pompeo and former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson. It can't hurt to butter up RNC members, some of whom are the chair of their state party. You never know when you might need their help. (V)

Republicans Are Running Away from Their Own Tax Plan

One of the items on the secret side-agreement that Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) was forced to accept in order to get his job was bringing up a vote on the Fair Tax Act. This bill abolishes the IRS and the federal income tax and replaces it with a 30% national sales tax that supporters say will provide enough income to fund the government. The bill is extremely regressive, since virtually everything people buy will be subject to a huge tax and millionaires, who save or invest most of their income, will see their total tax bill drop precipitously.

Democrats are starting to point out that the brunt of the tax system the Republicans are proposing will fall on poor and middle-class people. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that the plan would raise the cost of buying a house by $125,000, it would raise the cost of buying a car by $10,000, and would raise the annual cost of groceries for a family by $3,500.

Some Republicans are starting to sense that holding an up-or-down vote on it would be a disaster, as Democrats would use a vote for it as a cudgel to batter any representative who voted for it. The numbers Schumer mentioned would be only the starting point. Other items that would also go up by 30% include child care, health insurance, clothes, shoes, insulin, tampons, medicine, and more. McCarthy is beginning to realize that promise or no promise, holding a vote would be a blunder. So he is now talking about sending it to a committee for a hearing. With a little bit of luck, it will never be seen again.

The MAGA 20 are going to feel cheated if McCarthy doesn't hold a vote. His defense is that they wanted a more transparent system in which the "regular order" was restored, with bills getting hearings in committees and members having the opportunity to offer amendments. Now they are getting it. Of course, McCarthy's hope is that the Ways and Means Committee votes to kill the bill so he can say: "It's not my fault we are not taking a vote. We followed the regular order and the bill failed." (V)

Are the Democrats Making a Mistake in New Hampshire?

The Democrats have been considering changing their primary schedule ever since Iowa blew it in 2020. Then, out of the blue, Joe Biden came up with his own schedule, which puts South Carolina first. This is going to create a huge problem because New Hampshire is not going to take this lying down. Chris Weigant makes the point that Biden has caused more trouble than it is worth by doing this and should relent and let New Hampshire go first.

The rap against New Hampshire is that the state is 90% white. That is really the only problem with it. On all the other metrics for early states, it scores very well. It is a small state, which allows unknown candidates to have a chance without first raising a bazillion dollars. Campaigning there in the freezing cold and snow really separates the sheep from the goats (polar bears from the regular bears?) because anyone not willing to do that probably does not have enough fire in the belly to run a successful campaign. New Hampshire voters are used to their first-in-the-nation role and take it extremely seriously, showing up at town halls and grilling all the candidates. New Hampshire is in New England, a region the Democrats can't ignore. Finally, the Granite State is a swing state. Both senators and both representatives are Democrats but the governor is a Republican and Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature, so it is a good test of how the candidates fare with Republican voters.

Current state law requires New Hampshire to set its primary date a week before any other primary. Bill Gardner, the previous secretary of state, was adamant that he'd hold the primary before Halloween if he had to in order to go first. The state legislature is unlikely to change the law just because the national Democrats want it changed, especially since state Democrats do not want it changed.

It is worth noting that South Carolina isn't perfect either. It is much bigger than New Hampshire and not as suited to retail politics as the Granite State. It is also not a swing state but a deep red state that no Democrat could ever win (so why waste time campaigning there?). About 60% of South Carolina Democrats are Black and it is certainly possible that if Biden opts out, Kamala Harris could win South Carolina, even though she has proven herself to be a weak national candidate, putting the Democrats in a bind. Also, South Carolina voters have no experience with the enormous responsibility of going first.

So what is likely to happen? New Hampshire probably won't change its law and will schedule its primary a week before South Carolina's. The DNC will then announce that if New Hampshire does that, it will lose its delegates to the national convention. New Hampshire won't budge. The DNC will then announce that any candidate who campaigns there will be tarred and feathered and be broken on the wheel. No serious Democrat will step foot in the state. Then what?

Cue Marianne Williamson, who ran a tilting-at-windmills campaign in 2020 and is considering a run again in 2024. If she files as a Democrat, she will get on the ballot, possibly along with a few other kooks and cranks. She will probably win big time. The day after the primary the papers will have as the headline: "Williamson wins New Hampshire in a Landslide." The media will play it up for all it is worth (because there will be no other political news that day) and she will be interviewed by every media outlet from CNN to the East Cupcake Middle School Reporter. Do the Democrats really want to promote her to being a "serious candidate"? Remember in 2020, she ran on a platform of fighting the "dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred."

Weigant concludes that since the Democrats have no way to force New Hampshire to give up its first-in-the-nation position (especially since state Democrats want it to go first), they would be better off just letting it go first on some Tuesday in February and allowing everyone to compete there. Then schedule South Carolina next. How much damage could New Hampshire do in a week, especially if it was a split decision between the two states? In any event, Iowa and its bizarre caucus system will be sent to the end of the line. (V)

AOC May Become Vice Ranking Member of the House Oversight Committee

The House Oversight Committee is going to be the place where all the action will be this year. If you are keen to be the first person on your block to see Hunter Biden's dick pix, watch the Committee hearings. It's going to be a real circus since the Committee is stacked with Republican firebrands, including Chairman James Comer (R-KY) and Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Scott Perry (R-PA).

Will the Democrats wilt in the face of all this firepower? Maybe not. It appears likely that the #2 Democrat on the panel will be Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), no wallflower herself. This position is especially important since the ranking member, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), is undergoing chemotherapy for cancer and may be sidelined for a while. If AOC gets the #2 slot and Raskin can't attend the hearings, then AOC will be in charge of the Democratic side. Having a diminutive but very outspoken woman of color leading the charge from the other side is going to drive some of the Republicans batty.

The Democrats have to finalize their membership on the Committee in a meeting today, but AOC is thought to have a good chance. She and Raskin get along very well and have worked together closely in the past. He will certainly strongly support her for the #2 position on the blue team and give her his full authority in his absence. AOC can't wait. On Friday, she said: "I think I'm going to have a lot of fun on this committee."

The Oversight Committee will hold its first hearing on Wednesday. It will be about the COVID-19 relief funding. Next week it will deal with the southern border and begin tearing apart Hunter Biden. A lot of people will be watching AOC very carefully. If she does well, she could primary Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) in 2024, but going after an incumbent in your own party doesn't tend to increase your popularity within the party. Still, AOC is very young (33) and sooner or later Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (72) will retire. She can afford to build up her reputation, try to get into the House leadership in a few years, and bide her time until Schumer calls it quits before running for the Senate. (V)

Both Parties Prepare for a Special Election That Probably Won't Happen

Rep. "George Santos" (R-NY) is still in Congress, but his problems are getting bigger by the day. Local and federal agencies are looking at his campaign finances to see if: (1) he took in money in violation of the law or (2) he spent money in violation of the law. There is plenty of evidence that he did both. If he is indicted for one or more crimes, probably nothing will happen to him. But if he is actually convicted, Republicans might consider him so toxic that they feel forced to vote to expel him. If that happens before the summer of 2024, there would probably have to be a special election to fill his seat.

Both parties are already considering that eventuality and starting to prepare for such a special election, even though Santos might be able to run out the clock and avoid it. In any event, the chance that he could be reelected in 2024 is basically zero, so the preparation for a special election can also be seen as preparation for the 2024 regular election in the event Santos refuses to resign before the summer of 2024 (by which time it would be too late to hold a special election (except for the 2 months left in his term after Nov. 5, 2024).

Long Island is full of Democrats, so the Democrats' problem is not finding a candidate, but deciding which one to back. Tom Suozzi used to hold the seat but ran for governor in 2022 (and lost). He might be a good candidate if he wants his old job back. The Democrat who ran in 2022 and lost to Santos, Robert Zimmerman (no, not Bob Dylan), is another possible candidate. Others include Anna Kaplan, a Jewish-Iranian refugee who recently lost a state Senate race, Jon Kaiman, and Josh Lafazan. All of them have run for the seat in the past. And these are just the obvious candidates. Any member of the state Senate or state Assembly whose district lies within Santos' district is also a plausible candidate.

The Nassau County Republican Committee has called for Santos to resign now and made it abundantly clear he is not welcome in the Republican Party. Consequently, the leaders are already searching for a replacement. Possible candidates include state Sen. Jack Martins; the daughter of grocery store and media billionaire John Catsimatidis, Andrea Catsimatidis; Nassau County comptroller Elaine Phillips and failed 2022 candidate for lieutenant governor, Alison Espositio.

But neither of the local party committees can do much if Santos refuses to budge. His strategy will undoubtedly be trying to run out the clock. If he is indicted, his lawyers can ask for 6 months or maybe 12 months to prepare for the trial. If he is convicted, he can appeal and plead with Kevin McCarthy to let him stay in Congress until his appeal is heard. With some luck, he might be able to hang on until the 2024 election is at hand and then McCarthy could say "let the voters decide." (V)

What's Woke?

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is apparently going to use "Florida is where woke goes to die" as his campaign slogan. He repeats it over and over and used it in his inaugural address. The only problem is people don't know what "woke" is and certainly not whether it was in good health or poor health before it got to Florida. To find out more about this woke business, the Swing Voter Project ran a focus group of Florida swing voters to find out what they thought about wokeness. In this context, a swing voter is someone who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020. The results were somewhat surprising.

Most of the focus group members didn't know what "woke" meant. And the ones that thought they did disagreed with one another about the meaning. Kate (42) said: "I just heard it used so many different ways. I honestly kind of just ignore it to be honest." Emily (33) said: "When I think of woke, I mean the past." Steven (59) said a woke person is "Ignorant, really, really ignorant—the people that come up with things that have nothing to do with anything."

After failing to get an agreed-upon definition of "woke," the moderator played a recording of the part of DeSantis' inaugural speech in which he discussed what's wrong with being woke. Chris (47) said: "I like DeSantis but ... it's almost like he's fighting against an invisible boogeyman in a way." Jason (51) said: "I think he's pandering to his base." Katie said: "My whole problem is the separation of church and state. He wants to say that we're going to use reality, we're going to use facts, and we're going to use actual information. But half of the stuff he is talking about is just his form of reality."

If DeSantis goes national with this stuff, it is likely to confuse a lot of people and may not work as well as he is expecting. Democrats are going to counter him with: "He's off his rocker, fighting this boogeyman that nobody even understands. (V)

What about Brian?

Amy Walter, who has taken over the Cook Political Report from Charlie Cook, has an interesting column about Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA). We don't agree with her, but she is a serious enough political observer that anything she says is worth at least considering.

She starts out by noting that polls this far out aren't worth much. In 2011 at this point, polls from Gallup and CNN showed it to be a three-way race among Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney. Palin and Huckabee didn't exactly pan out. In 2015, then-governor of Wisconsin Scott Walker was the chosen one. And although Walter didn't mention it, in 2007, the pundits knew that it would be Hillary vs. Rudy in 2008. Her point is that frontrunners are in the spotlight but also under a microscope and the media are not very forgiving of mistakes. Ron DeSantis could easily make some unforced error—not necessarily about wokeism—and thereby take himself out of contention. Macaca, anyone? Or Trump could train his guns on him and take him down. Then what?

Enough Republicans dislike Donald Trump that there is probably an opening for at least one opponent. Walter sees Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) as formidable opponent for Trump. He has won twice in a purple state, both times against a very well funded and organized Democrat, Stacey Abrams. His approval rating statewide is a whopping 62%. Among Georgia Republicans, he clocks in at 90% approval (vs. 71% approval for Trump). He is conservative, but not crazy. In a national campaign, he could point out that in 2020, he defended the law, not Trump. That could win support of many independents.

This is an interesting argument, but our take is that if DeSantis stumbles, there are half a dozen other Republicans who are better known than Kemp and are ready to fill the void, ranging from the Mikes (Pence and Pompeo) all the way down to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) if the Republicans get truly desperate. Also, Kemp knows that he is a long shot for getting the nomination and an even longer shot at beating a sitting president. We think it more likely that he will challenge Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) in 2026 when he would be the overwhelming favorite to get the GOP nomination and be maybe 50-50 to win the seat. Then, as a sitting senator not up in 2028, he could mount his presidential campaign. If Biden runs and wins in 2024, then he wouldn't have to run against an incumbent in 2028. If Trump wins in 2024, he will also not be in the 2028 race. Everything Walter said, notwithstanding, this strikes us as a less risky path to the White House for Kemp than running in 2024. (V)

No National Brands Are Advertising on Truth Social

Please sit down. This is going to shock you, and we don't want any of our readers to fall down and get hurt. An examination by The New York Times of the ads running on Donald Trump's Truth Social shows that there are no national brands advertising there. No car ads from Toyota. No hamburger ads from McDonalds. No shampoo ads from Procter & Gamble. Nothing from Amazon, Disney, or Walmart. All the ads are scummy, scuzzy, and/or scammy. Here is a small sample:

None of them are from companies anyone has ever heard of. Maybe the companies don't even exist. Just give us your credit card number and we'll take it from there. The top row ads are designed to appeal to culture warriors (socialism, vaccine exemptions, and disaster preparation). The middle row ads are money scams (gold bars, fake $1,000 bills, and non-woke insurance). The bottom row ads are health scams (cures for macular degeneration, obesity, and gum disease). The ads run one at a time, not in a block as shown above.

Unfortunately, we haven't tried any of the products, so we can't give any recommendations. Some of the them are probably legitimate in the sense you will get what is advertised. We guess that the products in the top row are probably what they claim to be. if you order them, you will probably get a kids book on why socialism is terrible, a small card claiming to be a vaccination exemption, and a box with a flashlight, some batteries, and maybe some K-rations, respectively. We don't know the prices, but if the vaccination exemption card is simply the card pictured and they are charging, say, $9.95 for it, it would be much easier for the seller to in fact deliver a small piece of printed cardboard as shown than risk lawsuits.

The second row are probably out and out scams. $100 gold bars and $1,000 bills? If they are charging $200 for $100 worth of gold, then it could be legitimate, but we have our doubts. $1,000 bills with Trump's picture on them? Maybe Monopoly money, but not U.S. currency. The non-woke insurance could technically be some kind of insurance, but we doubt any normal insurance company would want to be associated with this. It could either be an out-and-out scam (you send your money and never hear from them again) or the fine print in the policy says it has a $50,000 deductible and then pays 10% of the claim up to a maximum of $100, but only if you can prove that it wasn't your fault that the bear bit you.

The bottom row prey on people's health fears. Very likely they will actually send you a jar of (sugar) pills. When you complain to them that your macular degeneration is getting worse, you are not losing weight, or your teeth are falling out, there is a decent chance they will say you need the EXTRA-STRENGTH product, which fortunately they also sell. If the customer bites, he gets larger (sugar) pills.

You weren't really expecting ads for iPhones, now were you? Truth Social is an incredible filter. It makes sure the entire audience consists of dumb marks just waiting to be ripped off. Even with all their sophisticated demographic categories, Google and Facebook certainly can't offer an audience as pure as this.

It is possible that one of the reasons Donald Trump is hesitant to leave Truth Social and rejoin Twitter is that fleecing the rubes is very lucrative. The companies running these ads are no doubt paying through the nose to run the ads because there is nowhere else where they could find such a perfect (i.e., gullible) audience, and Trump knows this. It's always about the grift. (V)

Women Control All the Money

Congress has the power of the purse and it is being carried by four women. And while we're at it, the person who draws up the budget is also a woman. Here they are:

From left to right they are Shalanda Young, who leads the Office of Management and Budget; Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee; Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee; Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee; and Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX), chair of the House Appropriations Committee. This is the first time in history that all four top appropriators have been women. Young is not the first woman to lead OMB. That would be Alice Rivlin, who was appointed to the job by Bill Clinton in 1994. Sylvia Burwell also ran it during part of the Obama administration, so Young is the third woman in charge of preparing the draft federal budget.

All four of the congresswomen have stories about how they were disrespected by their male colleagues when they were first elected in the 1990s. Collins remembers that the first time she chaired a committee session, she was the only woman in the room. Murray remembers being once seated at the far end of a committee dais and being ignored while all the decisions were made by men in the middle. DeLauro remembers being challenged by a male member to explain how a tank engine being built in her district worked. Granger remembers when she was completely ignored by the men in the room. Now none of them can be ignored. They have all the actual power over how the government spends its money.

The four women are friends and, despite their political differences, expect to work closely together to put together spending bills they can all agree on. This will be especially difficult this year because the MAGA 20 want massive spending cuts that could never pass the Senate. Their antics will put Granger in the most difficult position because she knows it is her job to keep the government funded and running, while the MAGA 20 are trying to burn it down. Young may be able to help. She knows all four women very well from her time as director of the Democratic Appropriations Committee staff. When she had a baby in 2021, Granger and DeLauro threw a baby shower for her. Those personal relationships may come in handy with all the partisan battles over spending to be expected. Also of note is that Collins and Murray have a long history of working together in the Senate. If the four women in Congress were locked in Murray's spacious office with its dead-on view of the Washington Monument, and told they couldn't get out until they had decided how to spend the government's money, they would have a polite discussion and be out before dinner with a bill. But bills have to pass both chambers of Congress and there are partisans on both sides who are spoiling for a fight. Their ability to get the job done under these circumstances will be sorely tested. (V)

---

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 or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger