Xinis Is Prepared for a Showdown with the Trump Administration

The apparent war between the Donald Trump-led executive branch and the judicial branch may be on the cusp of its denouement.

It is very clear that the administration is making no effort whatsoever to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States, despite orders from both Judge Paula Xinis and the Supreme Court that this needed to be done. Indeed, the ridiculous verbal gymnastics performed on Monday by Donald Trump ("Well, I can't bring him back, only Bukele can") and El Salvador president Náyib Bukele ("Well, I can't bring him back, only Trump can") are clearly intended to mock the judiciary.

Xinis is very unhappy over the lack of progress, over the lack of truthful information, and over the disrespectful attitude. So, she issued an order yesterday that requires an expedited investigation of the matter. By April 23 (i.e., within a week), four Trump administration officials (ICE officials Robert L. Cerna and Evan C. Katz, State Department official Michael G. Kozak, and Homeland Security's acting general counsel Joseph N. Mazzara) must submit to depositions. Xinis laid down a number of additional, specific requirements, and also made clear that if Trump administration officials continue to play games, they will be found in contempt of court.

Incidentally, just in case anyone is wondering why the Supreme Court is remaining silent thus far, it is because they made their wishy-washy decision, and then remanded the matter back to Xinis. So, this is Xinis' ballgame right now. If the Supremes do get involved again, it will be further down the road.

Anyhow, this isn't much news, but it is pretty big news, and news about a very important story. Now everyone gets to wait a week to see what happens next. (Z)

Trump Has Yet Another Immigration Plan

It didn't get a lot of attention, but last week Donald Trump floated an idea before his Cabinet. He proposed that, just maybe, the federal government could bring undocumented immigrants into the country to work on America's farms, and in other such jobs. He thought this could work out great if, once seasonal demand for labor subsides, they "go out ... in a nice way."

Congratulations, Mr. President. You have just invented... the Bracero Program. That was the federal initiative that was in place from 1942 to 1964, wherein workers (mostly) from Mexico would be brought into the U.S. during the harvest season, then transported back home afterward. The only thing that is different about Trump's proposal is that he would admit people to work in hotels, in addition to the agriculture sector.

Although he probably doesn't realize it, and his base definitely doesn't realize it, the proposal exposes the lie that is at the very heart of Trumpism. Whatever harm is done to the U.S. by (a small number of problematic) immigrants is dwarfed by the positive benefits that come from admitting the rest. It is hardly a secret that immigrant workers will do jobs that native-born workers will not, and for wages that native-born workers wouldn't even consider. This is what makes the whole system work, particularly the production of those incredibly affordable fruits and vegetables in the produce section of the local grocery store, not to mention the budget-friendly cuts of meat, etc.

Still, there is an "only Nixon could go to China" element to all of this. If Joe Biden or any other Democrat were to so much as whisper that maybe some Mexican immigrants should be welcomed, at least for some purposes, right-wing media and politicians would be screaming to high heaven. On the other hand, if Trump moves forward with this, then those same folks will fall all over themselves to explain how brilliant he is in understanding that some Mexican immigrants are "the good ones." (Z)

Election News: A Rough Year to Be an Incumbent?

It may only be April, but the election-related news is coming fast and furious. Here's a rundown of the stories from the last few days:

• Fundraising: Q1 ended on March 31, and the FEC deadline for fundraising reports was April 10, so we now have a picture of how the money race is going. With the usual caveats that it's early, and that incumbents generally enjoy a huge advantage, the early indications are that 2026 is going to be even more of a "throw the bums out" election than is usually the case with midterms. First, because Democrats, on the whole, are outraising Republicans (i.e., the party in power). Second, because in the places where there are going to be high-profile, knock-down, drag-out Republican primaries, the money is generally flowing to both sides of each cage match. So, there are going to be some sitting GOP officeholders who get primaried, and there are going to be others who survive, but enter the general election season bloodied and with a depleted war chest.
  
  
• Progressive Power: That said, there could be some bloody primaries on the left side of the aisle, as well. The very biggest fundraisers in Q1 were Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), with $11.4 million, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), with $9.6 million. This is not terribly surprising, since not only are they popular with the base, and not only do they have excellent e-mail lists for fundraising pitches, they have been on a "resistance" tour, holding rallies for the anti-Trump crowd. This past weekend, they drew nearly 40,000 people for an event in downtown Los Angeles. How they managed to squeeze all the cars needed to transport 40,000 people into the roughly six parking spots available in DTLA, we do not know.
  
  In any event, it's certainly possible that AOC will use that money in a challenge to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). If so, then that makes life harder for one particular incumbent. Alternatively, she might use it to help fund young, progressive challengers across the nation. Certainly that is what Sanders is going to do; he's not up again until 2030. Add to that the fact that DNC vice chair and progressive activist David Hogg announced yesterday that the PAC he founded and leads, Leaders We Deserve, will spend $20 million to try to elect younger officeholders.
  
  Note, incidentally, that while Republicans look likely to get down and dirty in places where the eventual winner could face a tough general election, Hogg has stated outright, and the other two have implied, that they are going to target safe districts and states. In other words, they want to do what AOC did, and swap out an old Democrat in a deep-blue district for a young Democrat in a deep-blue district. They do not want to do anything that might reduce the Party's odds of retaking the House (and maybe the Senate).
  
  
• California Governor?: The reason for the question mark there is that it's not entirely clear whether or not we are talking about a poll of the California governor's race. UC Berkeley's Citrin Center, with funding from Politico, ran an unusual poll in which the only person asked about was Kamala Harris. Adding to the unusual-ness, the pollster talked to two different groups of people, "political influencers" (specifically meaning people who have a paid subscription to Politico Pro, an expensive publication that gets down in the weeds for people who need to know exactly what happened in committee when the farm bill was marked up, etc.) and registered voters. And the unusual whipped cream on the already unusual cake is that respondents were asked to describe what emotion they have when thinking of a Harris gubernatorial run: "joyful," "mostly excited," "indifferent," "irritated," "outraged," "hopeless," or other.
  
  We gotta be honest, it seems pretty squishy to us. That said, the basic result is that "political insiders" are pretty neutral about Harris running, while registered voters appear to quite like the idea. In the latter group, 33% said they were "joyful" while 41% said they were "mostly excited." Make of that result what you will. Harris has already said she'll make a decision by the end of summer, so the days of will-she-or-won't-she speculation, and presumably the days of squishy, touchy-feely polls, will soon be at an end.
  
  
• Iowa Governor: Over the weekend, Gov. Kim Reynolds (R-IA) announced that she would not stand for reelection next year.
  
  Why, exactly, did she decide to stand down? One possibility is that she's been in political office for 31 straight years, and the governor's mansion for nearly a decade, and she's had her fill. A second possibility is that she's 65, and ready to step away from the grind and spend time with her grandkids. A third possibility is that she is not especially Trumpy, and she backed Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) in the 2024 Iowa caucuses, which could well make for an ugly race this time around. Whatever it is, she's done.
  
  Given that everyone expected Reynolds to run again, the only Republican officially in the race is former state representative Brad Sherman, who is most certainly not the Brad Sherman currently representing CA-32 in the House of Representatives. The latter Sherman is liberal, Jewish, and a graduate of both UCLA and Harvard. The former Sherman is conservative, a Bible-thumping evangelical, and the holder of a high school diploma. He worships both Jesus and Donald Trump, and it's not clear in which order those two fellows rank. We guess Sherman (the Iowan, not the Californian) really admires men who believe they are God's gift to mankind.
  
  Undoubtedly, given that Sherman is very far right, and is an unknown, there will be other Republicans who jump in now that they don't have to face Reynolds. Rep. Zach Nunn and Iowa AG Brenna Bird have hinted at a run, and even if they don't throw their hats in the ring, the GOP bench is deep in Iowa, given how red the state has been for the last generation or so. The only Democrat to declare so far is Paul Dahl, who is a bus driver that likes to run for political office.
  
  
• U.S. Senate, Michigan: Former representative Mike Rogers (R), who retired from the House in 2015, made it official and announced that he will run for the seat that will be left open by the retirement of Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI). He is the only Republican in the race right now, though media personality/failed gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon, Rep. Bill Huizenga and pastor Lorenzo Sewell have all expressed interest.
  
  Rogers already ran for the Senate in 2024, and was defeated by Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) in a squeaker, 48.64% to 48.30%. So, with that experience in hand, and with greater name recognition, this could be his moment. On the other hand, Rogers ran about a point behind Donald Trump, and the midterms figure to be less favorable to Republicans than the presidential cycle was. Also, the Democrats have a deep bench, and will certainly end up with a strong candidate. For what it is worth, early polling has Rogers down a few points to every plausible Democratic candidate, except Rep. Haley Stevens.
  
  
• U.S. House, CA-22: CA-22 is R+1 and is currently represented by Rep. David Valadao (R). It is also 73% Latino. Put all those factoids together, and you end up with a situation where Latino Democrats are going to come out of the woodwork to take a shot at the gig. The first of those has just announced; it's Visalia school board trustee Randy Villegas. He plans to run as a left-wing populist, and to focus on the evils of Donald Trump and Elon Musk. It is probable that he will eventually be joined by former assemblyman Rudy Salas, who is more moderate, and who faced off against Valadao, and lost by 7 points, in 2024.
  
  Incidentally, CA-22 is currently the "median" district for PVI. In other words, there are 217 bluer districts and 217 redder districts. So, the Democrats' fate there is at least somewhat instructive. It will also be a useful test of how well the Bernie message plays in places that are not deep blue. Do keep in mind that during Sanders' second presidential run, his two biggest sources of support were young people and Latinos.
  
  
• U.S. House, MI-13: MI-13 is D+22, so there's no question which party will own the seat in the next Congress, or the one after that, or the one after that. However, the current holder of the seat, Shri Thanedar (D), could be an awkward fit. He's Indian-American in a district that is plurality Black, and is less than 3% Asian. He's a multimillionaire who self-funds his political races. And he's also 70, at a time when Democratic voters appear to be looking for, well, not septuagenarians or octogenarians.
  
  Former state Sen. Adam Hollier, who is Black, not a multimillionaire, and just 39 years old, is hoping that one of these things proves to be Thanedar's Achilles' heel, and so announced a challenge this week. Hollier has taken on Thanedar twice before, however, and lost twice before, so it's not entirely clear to us why this time would be different.
  
  
• New York City Mayor: Of all the incumbents who have things to worry about, there is probably no incumbent in more danger than New York City Mayor Eric Adams. He's a crook who is wildly unpopular with the people who would need to vote for him. And he's drawn a heavyweight challenger in Andrew Cuomo, who seems to have put his past scandals behind him.
  
  Cuomo got some good news this week, and some bad news. The good news is that he landed the endorsements of two of New York City's most prominent labor unions, 32BJ SEIU (service workers) and Hotel and Gaming Trades Council (hotel and casino workers). "This moment calls for someone who doesn't stay home in times of crisis and who does not back down from a fight when things get tough," said 32BJ SEIU president Manny Pastreich, in an apparent swipe at Adams.
  
  The bad news for Cuomo is that his team submitted the paperwork for $2.5 million in matching election funds from the city, and got rejected. The reason for the rejection was mistakes in the paperwork (Adams, by contrast, got rejected for being corrupt). So, Team Cuomo will be able to fix the mistakes, and get the money eventually. Still, it's not a good look for someone running on a message of "I'm competent and I know how the system works."
  
  Incidentally, we are well aware that Adams is not running as a Democrat, and that any showdown with Cuomo will have to wait until the general election. Still, that is where this looks to be headed, especially since the New York City GOP has such trouble coming up with a serious candidate.

That is an awful lot of election news, given that Election Day 2025 is 202 days away, and Election Day 2026 is 567 days away. (Z)

Polling News: A Republican, an Independent and a Democrat Walk into a Bar...

In addition to all the election news, there have been a few interesting political polls in the past few days. As chance would have it, there's one each for the three main political factions in the United States.

Starting with the Republicans, the number of U.S. voters who consider themselves to be part of the MAGA movement is on the rise. According to NBC News polling, in January of last year, 20% of Americans regarded themselves as members of the MAGA militia. By the time of the election last year, it was 29%. And now, it's 36%. The numbers make clear that this is driven almost entirely by Republicans, especially college-educated male Republicans, who were once Trump-skeptical, but have now developed an affinity for the President.

The second poll is from CBS News/YouGov. It covers a lot of things, but the interesting numbers are the ones coming from independent voters. With those folks, Trump is at 39% approve, 61% disapprove (and other recent polls have shown a similar breakdown). That is 22 points underwater. This is as badly as he's ever done with independent voters; during his first term he was usually between 10 and 15 points underwater with this segment of the electorate.

These are hardly shocking results. Trump has doubled and tripled and quadrupled down on his base-only strategy, since he no longer has to worry about getting reelected, and he only cares about legacy and fawning obeisance during Fox interviews and political rallies. Some folks kinda like what he's selling, and they clearly got more enthused the more aggressive Trump got. Everyone else is repelled.

Assuming these numbers are basically correct—and again, they are in line with other recent results—and assuming the trendlines hold (or grow even more extreme), then it presages a couple of phenomena we can expect to see this year and next, as the 2025 and 2026 elections unfold. First, non-MAGA Republicans who face MAGA challengers are going to have to veer right and are going to have to bow to Trump, or else risk defeat. To take but one example, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who knows a thing or two about judging which way the winds are blowing, posted this to his eX-Twitter feed recently:

To be honest, when we first saw the picture, we thought Cornyn was sitting on the toilet. Maybe because he's leaning on a marble counter and the shot is cut off at his waist. Or maybe because the paper used to print that book is really only good for one thing.

The second phenomenon is that, outside ultra-red states and districts, it's not easy to win elections when one-third of the electorate is extremely enthusiastic about the party in power, and the other two-thirds is disgusted. As we have noted many times, a wildly enthusiastic vote counts just once, the same as any other. Further deepening this dynamic, if the Republicans who survive the primaries are crazypants MAGA, or are non-MAGA who had to veer hard rightward, then in either case the GOP will be stuck with weaker candidates than would normally be the case.

Meanwhile, the final poll we shall mention here is the latest from Echelon Insights. They asked about a bunch of potential 2028 Democratic candidates for president, and got some interesting results. Here's the rundown of candidate support (each respondent could pick only one person to back):

Candidate	Support
Kamala Harris	28%
Cory Booker	11%
Pete Buttigieg	7%
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez	7%
Tim Walz	5%
Gavin Newsom	4%
Jasmine Crockett	3%
Josh Shapiro	3%
Gretchen Whitmer	3%
J.B. Pritzker	3%
Jon Stewart	3%
Wes Moore	2%
Andy Beshear	1%
Jared Polis	1%
John Fetterman	1%
Raphael Warnock	1%
Stephen A. Smith	1%
Chris Murphy	1%
Mark Cuban	0%
Ruben Gallego	0%

A few observations:

• We are still very much in the "name recognition" part of the cycle, where responses skew heavily toward the "famous" candidates, because outside of political junkies and people who live in the same state as [PERSON X], most of these folks are unknowns. That said, there are a lot of candidates favored by Electoral-Vote.com readers on this list who clearly have some work to do if they're going to make a go of it.
  
  
• If Kamala Harris really believes she is doubling up her nearest competitor, and then some, that will make her gubernatorial decision (see above) a bit easier.
  
  
• Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) is the biggest mover since the last iteration of this poll, picking up 9 points in the past month. Everyone knows how he did it, the real question is: Will it last? We think it's very probable that it will; his marathon speech is the kind of thing that lingers in memory.
  
  
• Those who follow sports media know that, on a near-daily basis, Stephen A. Smith expounds a lot of hot air about how he might just have to run for president, because he's the best candidate the Democrats have. This poll makes clear that is not the case. Smith should be at an advantage in a poll like this because he has national fame that most of the others do not. And yet, he's at a piddling 1%, trailing even his fellow media celebrity Jon Stewart.
  
  We don't think Smith is actually planning to run; figuring out what hot air will get him some attention each day is basically his job, and this so-called "presidential run" is manna from heaven for him. That said, we can think of another politician who was a professional blowhard, then toyed around with a presidential run as a means of getting some extra attention, and then caught fire. Smith is not likely to catch fire in the same way, but given his giant ego, we COULD see someone talking him into a run, and then backing that with their money, as a form of rat**cking. If Smith peeled off some number of young men, particularly young Black men, that could swing a primary (or even a state, if he launched an independent bid).

There are still many, many lifetimes until the 2025 elections, much less those in 2026 or 2028. Still, it's always interesting and useful to check in and see how the horse race is going. (Z)

Hands Off, Part V: White People Had a Great Protest

The Hands Off! protests a week ago were a great success. They drew millions of white people to rallies all over the country, mostly older white folks. But almost no Black people.

At first glance, you might expect Black people to be there with bells on. After all, given Donald Trump's agenda of destroying DEI, blocking police reform, and ending civil rights protections, they've got a fair bit of skin in this game. And, of course, there's now a generations-old tradition of protest in the Black community. Nevertheless, as several pieces this week have observed, Black folks are staying on the sidelines right now.

There appear to be a few dynamics in play. The first, and most obvious, is personal safety. As Shalise Manza Young observes, there has been very little police presence at the various (mostly white) protests. Add a lot of Black people to the mix, however, and that may change quickly. After all, she notes wryly, "Black people know the laws of this country, including the First Amendment, still don't apply to all its citizens." Nina Smith, a strategist for the Movement for Black Lives, concurred: "The best way I can show up in this moment is to take care of myself." What if Donald Trump decided to deport someone whose family has been in the U.S. since 1850 back to Africa? Would the Supreme Court scream: "You can't do that?" And if they did, would Trump listen?

A second dynamic is, for lack of a better word, timing. Black activists, and in particular Black women activists, went all-in on trying to get Kamala Harris elected (and trying to warn people about what a Trump presidency would look like). Many of them are now tired and/or disheartened, and believe that the next fight will be waged in a year or so, not now. So, they are both licking their wounds and keeping their powder dry.

Finally, many black activist groups are undergoing a leadership transition now. The leaders of the old Civil Rights Movement are either dead or too old to lead. The new ones are not yet sure of what their priorities should be. Back in the 1960s, demanding that Black people in Alabama be allowed to eat at white lunch counters was pretty straightforward compared to the problems new leaders are facing. Many Black activists believe that now is the time for planning, while the future is the time for acting.

We will have one more item on this subject on Friday. (V & Z)

All About the Benjamins, Part I: The Questions

All right, let's finish with a palate cleanser. At the moment, pollsters are looking under rocks for things to poll for, since you can only poll hypothetical matchups, and the question of whether Kamala Harris makes you feel "mellifluous" or "lugubrious," so much. And so there was a fairly substantial poll released this weekend in which respondents were asked about... the portraits on U.S. currency.

(As a sidebar, during the recent weekend we went dark, Z was in Las Vegas because the UCLA women's basketball team was playing for the national title. He is not much of a bettor on such trips, preferring instead the Vegas restaurant scene, shows, and museums/attractions. However, he did wager $40 on the Bruins, and they got blown out. So, bye-bye $40. The next day, annoyed by the loss, he decided to go double-or-nothing on the slot machines at the same casino, and to keep playing until $40 had been won, or another $40 had been lost. He searched for a slot machine that was thematically appealing, and chose one based on animated versions of U.S. dollars, where the presidents spin and dance around and the like. He put $20 in the machine, and began play at $1.60 a pull. After the first three pulls, having spent $4.80, and having won a little of that back on each pull, there was $17.76 left in the machine. That seemed an auspicious number for a machine that heavily features George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. And indeed, on the next pull, Z won the right to play the mini-game, which is a feature that nearly every slot has these days. In the mini-game, Z got five Lincolns, and won $180, thus ended the gambling, as $180 is more than $40. As that was the only gambling Z did, that means he walked away that weekend up $140.)

That story has nothing to do with this item, other than it just so happens to involve the same basic subject as the new poll. In any case, the results suggest some interesting things about Americans' views of history and of historical iconography. And we're going to give readers a chance to see how well they have their fingers on the pulse of American historical thinking with an 8-question quiz based on the poll. Here are the questions:

1. Of these figures who currently appear on U.S. currency, which is MOST popular?
      a. Lady Liberty
      b. Abraham Lincoln

2. Of these figures who currently appear on U.S. currency, which is LEAST popular?
      a. Andrew Jackson
      b. Ulysses S. Grant

3. If the mint was going to add another president to the mix, who would Americans prefer?
      a. Theodore Roosevelt
      b. Ronald Reagan

4. If the mint was going to add a non-president to the mix, who would Americans MOST like to see?
      a. Martin Luther King Jr.
      b. Paul Revere

5. If the mint was going to add a non-president to the mix, who would Americans LEAST like to see?
      a. Johnny Appleseed
      b. Marilyn Monroe

6. Who is a more popular choice to be added to U.S. currency?
      a. Elvis Presley
      b. Malcolm X

7. What percentage of Americans would like to see Harriet Tubman on U.S. currency?
      a. More than 40%
      b. Less than 40%

8. What percentage of Americans would like to see Robert E. Lee on U.S. currency?
      a. More than 40%
      b. Less than 40%

Tiebreaker: In the 72 hours after Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) was successful in imposing a "bathroom ban" on trans colleague Sarah McBride (D-DE), how many tweets did Mace send out about the ban?

If you'd like to register your guesses, the link is here. Next Tuesday, we will give the answers to the questions, along with congratulations to the reader or readers who got the best score. We'll also give a link to the actual poll, and some thoughts about what insights might be gained. Oh, and the tiebreaker question has nothing to do with U.S. money, but it does have to do with a different item that we're also planning for next Tuesday. (Z)

---

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