There was a slight error of... editorial judgment in yesterday's game. One of the menorah names is actually misspelled, and we kept the misspelling intact. We have now decided that we should have edited the creator's English, so "enthesinro ruhcseriono" is now "enthesinro rhcseriono." Also, as long as we are at it, "inarmo" could have been "in-armo." We saw it both ways, and the hyphen might actually help clear things up.

In other news, we're going to do reader predictions again this year, in January. Most years, we get an overwhelming response to that. Last year, it was mostly crickets. We presume that, in view of then-recent events (i.e., certain elections that took place in November 2024), most folks didn't have the heart to make predictions for 2025.

Hopefully, the enthusiasm has returned. So, we are soliciting predictions in any or all of nine categories: Donald Trump/the Executive Branch, (2) Congress, (3) the Supreme Court/the Judiciary, (4) the Republican Party, (5) the Democratic Party, (6) the economy, (7) foreign affairs, (8) Electoral-Vote.com, and (9) wildcard (sports, culture, fashion, television, film, etc.).

We've created a space to submit your prediction(s) here. Note that we have turned off the "only allow one submission per device" setting, so you can send in predictions now AND later, if you so choose.

One note: We don't run predictions that involve specific people getting assassinated or otherwise killed. Also, we review the predictions at the end of the year to see if they came to pass or not, so any predictions should be things that will be proven true or false by the end of 2026.

We've Seen This Before, Part I: Trump's Words Ring Hollow

Yesterday, we wrote up Donald Trump's address to the nation, and we were not impressed. There has now been time for "takeaways" pieces from other outlets, and they are not impressed either. Here's a selection:

CNN:

• It's all Biden, all the time, from here on out
• It was closer to what his advisers seem to want, but it was hardly compelling
• It was a characteristic factual mess
• Trump's speech about nothing betrayed White House concerns

Reuters:

• Biden, Biden, Biden
• Festive Setting, Little Cheer
• No Major New Policies
• Guns and Butter

The Hill:

• A standard campaign speech, delivered loudly and quickly
• The one surprise—a bonus for troops
• No big news on Venezuela
• A barrage of misleading claims
• Blaming Democrats for affordability and health care costs

The New York Times:

• The president's tone was combative
• He made highly selective—and often misleading—use of statistics.
• He risked repeating a Biden mistake of arguing with voters about how they feel
• His solution to making Americans feel better is to write a check
• The tariffs he is relying on may be blocked by the Supreme Court
• Trump declared he is a peacemaker, but made no mention of his pressure on Venezuela

USA Today:

• Blaming Biden for the border, economy
• "Warrior dividends" from tariff revenue
• "Not done yet," Trump says of lowering prices
• No mention of Venezuela, shootings
• Trump plows through his speech

The Advocate:

• "Transgender for everybody"—bingo!
• Everything bad is the fault of Joe Biden and the Democrats
• Trump continues to demonize immigrants
• Tariffs haven't led to factory construction
• He uses mathematically challenged figures
• One good thing about the speech: It was short

The recurring themes are that it was short on substance, and long on dishonesty, scapegoating, and finger-pointing at Democrats (particularly Joe Biden). It is true that none of these are "friendly" outlets for Trump. And if we could find a set (or two) of takeaways from outlets more likely to see things his way, we'd run them for comparison purposes. But we could find no such takeaways. As a general rule, Fox, Breitbart, RedState, WND, etc. only run takeaways pieces when they can write a bunch of positive things. We would therefore suggest that their lack of takeaways pieces is instructive.

Certainly, Republican operatives were underwhelmed. Trump's aides definitely all told him how great his speech was, thus helping to add a few more millimeters to the thick bubble in which he lives. Outside the bubble, it is not good to be critical of Trump if you wish to continue your career in GOP politics (exception: Rep. Thomas Massie, R-KY), but plenty of red teamers were willing to share reviews off the record. For example, "It's the right idea to talk about the economy more, but the execution was abysmal." Or, "It's hard to imagine any members [of Congress] waking up today and saying, 'Oh, now I feel better.'" Or, "I don't think it will go down in the pantheon of greatest presidential addresses. I don't know if it will persuade anyone who wasn't already persuaded." (Actually, that last quote was from someone willing to put their name to it: Republican pollster Whit Ayres).

Another way to illustrate that Trump's address was predictable and kind of stale is this, brought to our attention by reader J.L. in Los Angeles, CA:

Quite a few of those squares hit. We will also note that our preview of the speech hit the mark several times, even though we weren't exactly trying to guess what he would say (merely to lay out the possibilities).

All of this said, we debated whether or not the speech was worthy of being written about twice. However, what pushed it over the top was news sent to us by at least a dozen readers (thanks, all!) about the "warrior dividends." When we wrote about the speech yesterday, we had a lot of questions, all of them tinged with skepticism. And, as it turns out, we were right to smell a rat. The only thing we regret is that we wrote this: "How is this being paid for? Trump somewhat implied that the checks, which he said are already in the mail, will be covered by tariff revenue." We feel like damn fools now. We should have realized that if it actually was tariff money, Trump wouldn't have implied it, he would have shouted it to the heavens.

As it turns out, the money will be paid based on a provision in the BBB. Congress allocated $2.9 billion in order to give active-duty soldiers a little extra assistance paying for housing, in view of high inflation. That money was going to be paid out on a monthly basis, over the course of 2 years. Now, Trump has accelerated it into one check, and slapped a cutesy name and a cutesy amount ($1,776) on it.

Is this something that is going to win some votes for Trump and/or the Republicans? Maybe, but it's hard to see it being all that many, since the money was going to end up in the soldiers' hands anyhow. Is it something that could rebound on Trump, either because it reeks of desperation, or because it used soldiers as pawns, or because there were soldiers who went to bed Wednesday night thinking they were about to get nearly $2000 in "found money" only to find that's not the case? It certainly could. It's the kind of stunt that, if we were advising a president, we would say, "Yeah, the risk-reward calculation just doesn't add up here." Though there is no doubt that the advisors that THIS president talks to told him it was the greatest idea since sliced bread. (Z)

We've Seen This Before, Part II: Lord Almighty, Do These People Have No Awareness of Popular Culture?

As we wrote yesterday, we believe that Donald Trump's speech was a reaction to his sagging approval ratings, and to the myriad problems—the economy, health care, EpsteinScam, etc.—that are swirling around him and his political party. In fact, since the speech was hastily announced, and was clearly not written special for the occasion, we might even call it a panicked reaction—he desperately wanted to get something out there before people are distracted by the holidays, and before the insurance premiums spike. Assuming we are right about that, well, Wednesday night was basically his only option. The weekend starts today/tonight, next week is Christmas week, and last night he would have been up against a football game (which turned out to be a very good football game, as the Seahawks beat the Rams by 1 point in OT, thanks to a daring 2-point conversion). All of this would certainly explain how an address to the nation would be announced on a Tuesday afternoon, and would be on the air just over 24 hours later.

Through this, and the next two items, we are operating on the assumption that Trump, and other Republicans, sense that a very powerful clock is ticking, and they are trying to get something—anything—done before a very loud alarm goes off circa Jan. 1. One of the oldest items in Trump's bag of "burnish my popularity" tricks is fetishizing the military. Actually, it's one of the oldest items in ANY politician's bag of tricks, because doing things for soldiers pleases some voters—active duty troops, veterans, military spouses, and others—while it's awfully hard for opponents to say "boo."

But just because it's hard to mess something like this up does not mean it's impossible. The little stunt with the soldiers' dividends (see above) might end up putting that to the test. The same holds with the announcement that Trump made yesterday. America's semiquincentennial (250th birthday) is next year, of course, and the administration plans to milk that for all it's worth (after all, hugging the bicentennial close in 1976 worked so very well for Gerald Ford). As of yesterday, one of the headline events of "Freedom 250," as the White House is calling it, will be the "Patriot Games."

"What is the Patriot Games," you might ask? Let's let Trump tell you in his own words: "an unprecedented four-day athletic event featuring the greatest high school athletes—one young man and one young woman from each state and territory." He did not give much more information than that (for example, exactly what kind of athletics will be on display), but he did make sure to reassure everyone that "I promise there will be no men playing in women's sports."

There were three thoughts that came to mind when we first heard this, and we most certainly weren't the only people thinking along these lines. The first is: If this is going to be a high-school competition, then why is it called the "Patriot Games"? Are the participants going to be folks headed to service academies and/or ROTC? Is qualifying going to involve how fast a person can run AND how fast they can recite the Pledge of Allegiance? It's a weird militarization of something that isn't really military.

The second thought we had was "Isn't there ANYONE in this administration who knows how large-scale sporting events are organized?" It is actually not easy, over the span of just four days, to stage enough events to accommodate 50+ people of each gender, and to leave enough time for rest and for quarterfinals/semifinals/finals. The Olympics is a worldwide competition, and even they put pretty strict limits on the number of competitors. On top of that, choosing participants based on their home states makes absolutely no sense. You think maybe that will give California and Texas a wee edge over Alaska and Wyoming? This is why every "national" competition is divided up into regions of roughly equal population.

The third thought that we (and approximately 99% of other people) had is: Did nobody in this administration read the books, or see the movies, in The Hunger Games trilogy? For those unfamiliar, the Hunger Games are an athletic competition staged by a corrupt president leading a fascist government in which one boy and one girl are chosen from each state (well, each "district") and pitted against each other in a competition meant to distract the teeming masses from how bad their lives are and how evil the government is. Needless to say, it does not turn out well for the president or the government.

As soon as Trump made his announcement, social media was absolutely awash with Hunger Games memes. That includes social media posts from Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) and from Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), containing, respectively, a screen shot and a scene from the Hunger Games films. We suppose it's possible that Trump, or Stephen Miller, or Russell Vought, or all of the above are well aware of the series and liked the fascist overtones. Still, the announcement either makes them look clueless and out-of-touch (they DON'T know the series) or it makes them look stupid (they DO know the series, but didn't understand the ending, or didn't bother to watch/read to the end).

Since there's never been anything like this before, we'll have to wait and see if it is well received. Given the issues we outline above, Americans' general lack of patience for new and gimmicky sporting events, and the fact that the military parade fell flat on its face, we tend to doubt it will go well. (Z)

We've Seen This Before, Part III: He Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune

It seems pretty obvious to us that when things are not going well for Donald Trump, he becomes insecure (even if he denies it). This seems doubly true when the thing that is not going well is his approval rating, since that is a judgment of the man himself, and only indirectly a judgment of his actions or his policies. In these circumstances, he and his underlings tend to respond with things that are clearly intended to boost his image. Whether this is for the benefit of voters, or The Donald, or both, we are not always sure.

There have been a few very high-profile developments on this front in the last 24 hours or so. The first of those involves Trump once again adapting the decor of the White House in service of his ego. Presumably, everyone remembers that, a few weeks ago, Trump had his staff add a "Walk of Fame" to the colonnade that runs between the Oval Office and the executive residence. At that time, he stoked his ego by putting a picture of an autopen in the frame meant for Joe Biden. Clever, clever!

Now, on Trump's instigation, plaques have been added beneath the photos. And, according to Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Trump himself wrote the text of some of the plaques. This is very believable, given both the content and the arbitrary capitalizations. Here, for example, is what now appears beneath the Biden frame:

Here's what the two plaques say:

Sleepy Joe Biden was, by far, the worst President in American History. Taking office as a result of the most corrupt Election ever seen in the United States, Biden oversaw a series of unprecedented disasters that brought our Nation to the brink of destruction. His policies caused the highest Inflation ever recorded, leading the U.S. Dollar to lose more than 20% of its value in 4 years. His Green New Scam surrendered American Energy Dominance and, by abolishing the Southern Border, Biden let 21 million people from all over the World pour into the United States, including from prisons, jails, mental institutions, and insane asylums. His Afghanistan Disaster was among the most humiliating events in American History, and resulted in the murder of 13 brave American Servicemembers, with many others gravely wounded. Seeing Biden's devastating weakness, Russia invaded Ukraine, and Hamas terrorists launched the heinous October 7th attack on Israel.

Nicknamed both "Sleepy" and "Crooked," Joe Biden was dominated by his Radical Left handlers. They and their allies in the Fake News Media attempted to cover up his severe mental decline, and his unprecedented use of the Autopen. Following his humiliating debate loss to President Trump in the big June 2024 debate, he was forced to withdraw from his campaign for re-election in disgrace. Biden weaponized Law Enforcement against his political opponent, while also persecuting many other innocent people. He left office issuing blanket pardons to Radical Democrat criminals and thugs, as well as members of the Biden Crime Family. But despite it all, President Trump would get Re-Elected in a Landslide, and SAVE AMERICA!

Needless to say, it's pretty fast and loose with the facts.

Before we move to the substance, let's first talk about aesthetics. Some of the presidents get one plaque. Some, the text flows across two. The text is flowed in such a way that it presses right up against the right and left edges of the frame, though often leaving lots of extra space at the top and bottom. Is there nobody in this White House who knows the basics of typesetting? You give each portrait ONE plaque. You pick a size, and you make sure to write text that is correct for that size (whether that means padding it out, or editing it down, as needed). You use consistent spacing around all four edges, and enough (at least half an inch) to give the text some room to breathe. These plaques look like they were done by someone who was only halfway through the first lecture in Graphic Design 101. Maybe the utter lack of aesthetic sensibilities explains why Chief of Staff Susie Wiles & Co. did not anticipate how badly their Vanity Fair photos were going to look.

As to the substance, we assume that at least part of the goal is to let Trump feel better about himself. Writing nasty things about people we don't like, and commemorating those nasty things in bronze, would not do much for us, but apparently it works for him. But if it was ONLY for him, then it would be placed in the private residence, and reporters would not be invited in to admire the plaques. So clearly, the whole display must be meant, at least in part, for the general public. And that being the case, is there ANY way this is a net positive for him, politically? The people who believe these things already believed them, plaques or no. Meanwhile, for everyone else, the whole thing—the content, the lack of aesthetics, the very creation of a Walk of Fame—just looks pathetic, right? We've written many times that Trump's presidency, and Trumpism, will die by a thousand cuts. And for some people sitting on the fence, this is surely going to contribute to the perception that either he's a very small man, or that he's losing his marbles.

And let us pause here to note that if readers think we have the wrong of it, we are happy to hear the counterarguments at comments@electoral-vote.com. Most things that Trump does, we can squint our eyes and see how it MIGHT work out for him. But this? We can't come up with anything.

Of course, the plaques are not the only thing Trump spends his time on. He is the president, after all, and he has to multitask. So, he's also hard at work on plans for a triumphal arch, which is going to be called the Trump Arch, and is set to be unveiled during Freedom 250 next year. The President has actually already alluded to the project a few times, but now he has an adorable, hand-sized model (even OK for very small hands) that he can wave around. It looks very much like the Arc de Triomphe, which was built to honor Napoleon, and which is undoubtedly Trump's inspiration. Since he's not very good at history, it's fair to say he probably doesn't know how Napoleon ended up. Maybe someone should clue him in. In any case, there's nothing more impressive than building a monument to yourself, right? Just ask Kim Jong-Un or Joseph Stalin.

Moving along, Trump was also granted another "honor" yesterday. And while it wasn't directly by his own hand, it might as well have been. The board of directors of the Kennedy Center, which has been populated entirely with Trump sycophants, voted to rename the venue as The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. Trump said he was "surprised" and "honored" and took to his still-stuck-in-1963-at-least-when-it-comes-to-race social media platform to brag that even though the Kennedy center has many directors, they unanimously voted for the name change. Wow! Note that "unanimous" comes with an asterisk, since the Democrats who are ex oficio members of the board were muted when the vote took place. But hey, what's a little cooking of the books among friends?

We are going to take the exact same position here that we took with the plaques and the Arc de Trump. Anyone who is at all impressed by this (and that simply can't be THAT many people) was already a hardcore Trump voter and would never vote for the Democrats. The entire rest of the country either took no notice, or else thinks it's pathetic. If people don't know you're pulling the strings (like, say, when then-Representative Lyndon B. Johnson arranged to be awarded the Silver Star), then maybe you can get some good PR out of it. But when you so obviously take steps designed to produce a result (and then you act surprised when it happens)? C'mon. This is no more a feather in his cap than that FIFA Peace Prize. Though again, we're open to hearing from readers at comments@electoral-vote.com if you think we've missed the mark.

We will also add that the name change is illegal. Not in a general sense, but very specifically so. The legislation that created the Kennedy Center added a section to the U.S. Code specifically laying out the rules for the venue. And it says "Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Board shall assure that after December 2, 1983, no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts." Meanwhile, paragraph (2) makes clear that the only things allowed are plaques, etc. that acknowledge donors. The board most certainly does not have the authority to make it the Kennedy and [X] center, no matter who that [X] might be.

The legal experts who were consulted on this development yesterday agreed that the Kennedy Center board broke the rules, but wondered who might have standing to bring the matter before a judge. We think the Kennedy family could certainly try it, and they do have the money to hire the best representation out there. But, more importantly, the more of this ridiculous stuff that Trump does, the easier it is for the next president to wipe the slate clean. "The presidency, and the executive residence, belong to the American people, and I am going to change back everything that says otherwise, from the East Wing ballroom to the triumphal arch to the Kennedy center to the 'Presidential Walk of Fame.'" (Z)

We've Seen This Before, Part IV: On Health Care, GOP Fears Their Goose Is Cooked

Thus far today, we've had the stump speech, the use of the military/sports, and the peacocking. All of them are well-worn items from the Trump toolkit, whenever he and his underlings are trying to change the narrative. But let's not forget that this is a political career that was built, first and foremost, on scapegoating. For Trump v1.0, the preeminent scapegoat was immigrants. They're still a favorite with Trump and his White House staff (especially Stephen Miller), but we think a case can be made that the very favorite scapegoat of Trump v2.0 is trans people. After all, that was the focal point of the final leg of the presidential campaign. Remember? "Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you."

In the last 48 hours, Republicans have been back at it when it comes to targeting trans people. First up was Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). Unlike everyone else we've mentioned in these items, we don't think she's trying to help save Trump. However, we do think that she's viscerally anti-trans, that the next time she leaves D.C. for Georgia will be the last time (her resignation takes effect on Jan. 5), and that if she's going to do something on this front, it's now or never.

Anyhow, for what is likely her last hurrah, Greene wrote a bill that would criminalize providing gender-affirming care to minors. Any doctor who violated the law, say by performing surgery or prescribing puberty blockers, would face up to 10 years in prison. As part of a deal to get her vote on another bill, Speaker Mike Johnson brought it to the floor for a vote yesterday. The bill passed the House 216-211, with three Democrats crossing over to the Republican side of the aisle, and four Republicans crossing in the other direction.

As a practical matter, such a bill has some serious problems. Most obviously, for kids whose gender does not match what's on their birth certificate, lack of treatment is proven to dramatically increase suicide rates. The people who want to stop the medical procedures never seem to have much interest in addressing that part of the issue. There's also the problem of enforcing federal law at the state level, particularly when HIPAA laws are also in play.

As a political and legal matter, Greene's bill is just a show bill, presumably designed to make her feel she fought the good fight before surrendering and going home. It's not going to make it through the Senate (and it might not even come up for a vote). If it somehow does become law, there will be many court challenges, and the matter will be tied up for years and years.

Of course, Donald Trump does not have patience for any of these things. And so he and his good buddy Robert Kennedy Jr. announced (naturally) a new executive order yesterday. It says that hospitals that provide gender-affirming care for minors risk having their Medicare and Medicaid funding yanked.

This new XO, which apparently hasn't actually been written yet, comes with additional problems beyond the ones we list above. To start, surgery on minors is fairly rare, while puberty blockers can be (and are) prescribed from a doctor's office. So, the XO is also kind of for show. On top of that, the judgments of the Trump administration are capricious, and have more to do with politics than with facts on the ground. Why do you think, for example, that National Guard troops have been sent to L.A. and Washington and Chicago, but not El Paso or Dallas? This being the case, it's hard to put all that much effort into falling in line, since falling in line might not help, anyhow. Meanwhile, the XO is a lawsuit waiting to happen. It doesn't even exist on paper yet, and the ACLU is already preparing its filing. And then, wait until such time that someone who has nothing to do with trans medical issues can't get treatment because Medicare or Medicaid funding they are entitled to has been yanked. That's another batch of lawsuits.

In short, none of this looks like serious policy to us. It's a pretty evident attempt (with Greene acting as something of a useful idiot) to shift the narrative from health care subsidies (which Republicans can't agree on) to banning treatment for trans minors (which Republicans largely CAN agree on). We have underestimated the undercurrents of hatred for trans people in America before, so maybe we are not the best people to assess this. But, from where we sit—even though we know that the Republicans' only hope in 2026 is to really fire up the base—we find it hard to accept that someone would say, "Well, I can't get treatment for my diabetes anymore, but at least those trans kids can't get puberty blockers, so that's a net win!" Indeed, we wonder if there's not potential for some very bold Democratic messaging here. Something along the lines of, "Just because President Trump is against they/them does NOT mean he is for you." (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Visit Vic Fleming, See a Partridge!

We may have mentioned before that one of (Z)'s areas of interest is notable graves, and that he is something close to a walking encyclopedia of notable interments in the Los Angeles area. Very possibly the most famous of all cemeteries in the area is Hollywood Forever, which is... quite a scene. We might also have mentioned this particular cemetery before, but it's got some very notable graves, including Judy Garland and her The Wizard of Oz director Victor Fleming (well, one of the FIVE directors of that picture, and yes, he was known to friends as "Vic").

The cemetery has some notable musicians, including Chris Cornell of Soundgarden, Dick Dale (and a miniature model of his "boss" guitar) and one of the Ramones (plus a cenotaph for one of the others). It has Mickey Rooney, Rudolph Valentino, Paul Sorvino, Tyrone Power (Sr. and Jr.), Mel Blanc, Estelle Getty and, if you like your deceased to be a little more seedy, Bugsy Siegel. And, it has... partridges (and peacocks). They are ostensibly supposed to be a calming influence, and apparently they do the job. Their enclosure is on the side of the cemetery opposite where they screen movies late at night (Really!). Anyhow, that's what this headline is all about.

For last week's headline theme, we gave the clue that "the 50 readers who appear on next week's list will definitely be able to say they came, they saw, they conquered." On Saturday, we added, "If you are still working on the headline theme, we will suggest you pay very close attention to the fact that it is in both Mathematics AND History, category-wise." And here is the solution, courtesy of reader R.P.E.H. in London, England, United Kingdom:

This week it's Roman numerals: Every headline has a "word" made up solely from letters that represent Roman numbers.

• Health Care Vote: Four Republican Senators Say "I'm with Them"
• Too Much Winning?: Watch Truth Social, Because Trump's Gotta Be Livid Right Now
• Governance, Trump-Style, Part I: Ho, Hum, Just Your Run of the Mill Tanker Capture
• Governance, Trump-Style, Part II: I Am Donald, Man of Peace
• Governance, Trump-Style, Part III: It Would Seem D.C. Is Too Woke...
• Crazypants Gubernatorial Candidate News: Republican Prospects Dim a Bit in Ohio, Minnesota
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: What Did He Know, and When Did He Know It?
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Nuzzi Book Did Not Sell Well, to Say the Least
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Thank U, Part III

The second one reminds me of a joke: I've forgotten how to write 51, 6 and 500 in Roman numerals and so I'm livid.

The first hint was a reference to the line attributed to Julius Caesar: "Veni, vidi, vici." The second hint, well, it should now be clear why it's both history AND mathematics. And from the headline for this item, "Vic" is also made up of all Roman numerals. That we re-used "did" in two different headlines was a mistake. Oops.

Here are the first 51 readers to get it right:

T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts E.M. in Jersey City, NJ M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada J.F. in Fayetteville, NC C.B. in Lakeville, MN P.R. in Havertown, PA A.C. in Kingston MA N.H. in London, England, UK L.H. in Manchester, England, UK K.M. in Ypsilanti, MI M.Z. in Sharon, MA Z.K. in Albany, NY G.S. in Basingstoke, England, UK N.C. in Columbus, MS R.P.E.H. in London M.W. in Altea, Spain J.N. in Zionsville, IN P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO P.A. in Redwood City, CA N.K. in Cleveland Heights, OH A.E. in Cleveland, OH S.K. in Ardmore, PA J.G. in Dallas, PA A.S. in Langhorne, PA C.R. in Cromwell, CT

T.T. in Conway, AR D.H. in Leeds, England, UK H.B. in Toronto, ON, Canada E.W. in Skaneateles, NY S.G. in Durham, NC S.W. in Winter Garden, FL C.J. in Chicago, IL W.S. in Greenville, NC M.S. in Canton, NY T.P. in Kings Park, NY M.W. in Newington, CT M.B. in Albany, NY G.K. in Blue Island, IL M.B. in Menlo Park, CA D.S. in Layton, UT M.K. in Maplewood, NJ B.N. in San Rafael, CA M.S. in Highland Park, IL A.S. in Huddersfield, England, UK M.J. in Oakdale, MN K.H. in Albuquerque, NM K.G.W. in Lafayette, IN D.B. in Farmville, VA G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN D.L. in Springfield, IL

The 50th correct response was received at 10:29 a.m. PT on Friday. It took a little longer than usual; we assume that is because most readers of this site are woke pinko commie antifa socialists like Zohran Mamdani, who prefer to use Arabic numerals.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, and it's in the category Holidays. For a hint, we'll say that it should be relatively obvious WHICH holiday we might have in mind this week.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line December 19 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Katie Miller Is Not the Lady People Want to Hear From

Last week, in this space, we talked about how Olivia Nuzzi's book was a flop. This week, how about we discuss how the podcast of Katie Miller (aka Mrs. Stephen Miller) is also a flop.

Recall that Miller has worked in various positions, for various Republicans, over the last decade or so. She moved to the periphery of the Trump inner circle when she took on a post in Mike Pence's office during Trump v1.0. She moved a few steps closer to the center of the circle when she married her husband. After the 1/6 insurrection, the notoriously chameleon-like Miller quickly figured out which side her bread was buttered on, and sided with Trump over Pence. That said, while Trump was in the wilderness, she was busy working for the presidential campaign of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). This is a person who knows that it's pretty easy to have options, particularly if you have no scruples.

At the start of Trump v2.0, Miller was working closely with Elon Musk as part of DOGE. After that whole mess fell apart, she left the administration, theoretically to join Musk's payroll. That didn't happen, and so she made the unique and not-at-all-cliché decision to launch a podcast. By virtue of her close connections to the White House, she's been able to get pretty much any guest she wants, including Pete Hegseth, Kash Patel, Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL), J.D. Vance, her former sorta-boss Musk, and a host of others (though not Trump himself yet). The general idea is that she would help with MAGA branding, putting a kinder, gentler face on the movement. The problem is, it's not working.

There are, fundamentally, two problems with the project. The first is that Miller may be clever, and she may be ambitious, and she may be well-connected, but she's also boring. The folks who are good interviewers, like Stephen Colbert or David Letterman or Oprah Winfrey, make it look easy. It is not. The reason they can make it look easy is that they have a lot of talent, and they have a lot of experience. Miller has neither of these things, and often contents herself to ask insipid questions like "What three people, living or dead, would you invite to dinner?" or "Why are cheeseburgers so awesome?"

The second problem is that there's no real market gap for Miller to fill. The sizable majority of people who are MAGA and listen to podcasts are young men, and they most certainly do not want "kinder" or "gentler." They want "tough" and "manly" and they almost certainly want it coming from a man. Meanwhile, the women who might plausibly be in Miller's demo already have plenty of podcasts to choose from, and they are created by people who are considerably more genuine and more talented than Miller is.

And so, outside of the Musk episode—which drew a bunch of Musk cultists—Miller rarely attracts an audience of more than 10,000 people or so. That is not very good for someone who has gotten this much PR, and who has the kind of guest list she has. Meanwhile, it's a reminder that the only person who is actually good at MAGA branding is Trump himself. That movement is going to be in for some rough times once he exits, stage right. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Coal's Swan Song Is Coming

We like to use this space for good news on the environmental front, and a number of readers (thanks to you all!) sent us a piece from the BBC that runs down the most positive green developments of 2025. This seems an ideal place and time to run down the list:

• Renewables: As a group, renewables overtook coal as the world's #1 source of energy this year. Some say that's comparing apples to oranges (multiple renewables vs. just coal), but it's really not, because renewables are usually geographically delimited (e.g., wind will work in an area, but not water), while coal is not. The shift is driven by investments around the world, but particularly in China. Ultimately, renewables are not only more eco-friendly than coal, they have become cheaper. That's a tough one-two punch for coal to overcome. And if the U.S. ends its holdout (say, on January 20, 2029), the push for renewables will get another big boost.
  
  
• Oceans: The High Seas Treaty was negotiated in 2023, and in 2025, it was ratified by enough countries to bring it into force. Previously, just 1% of the world's oceans were designated for protection of habitats, species and healthy marine ecosystems. Now, it will be 30%.
  
  
• Forests: Brazil, which is Ground Zero for deforestation by virtue of being home to the Amazon basin, is trying hard to end the practice by 2030, and has made some significant progress. Worldwide, deforestation was down 38% from 2015-25, as compared to 1990-2000.
  
  
• Lawsuits: The International Court of Justice ruled that countries are now allowed to sue each other for environmental damages. This ruling is basically advisory, and is not binding on any court that does not choose to recognize it, but it does make an important statement.
  
  
• Endangered Species: A number of species are backing off from the brink of extinction. That includes several turtle species and, perhaps most visibly, Bengal tigers. India has taken the lead in protecting these tigers, and is now home to 75% of the world's population of tigers of any species.
  
  
• Indigenous Peoples: These are the folks who are arguably most affected by climate change. More than 2,500 of them showed up at the U.N.'s annual summit on climate change this year (held in Brazil, so in the backyard of many attendees), which led to the creation of a permanent U.N. committee of indigenous people that will advise on climate issues.
  
  
• Klamath: The Klamath River, in Northern California, was once home to a thriving salmon population. Then, four dams were built there, and they brought much pollution while getting rid of most of the salmon. As of today, the damn dams are now gone, and the salmon are back.

Not a bad year, especially given that the world's grossest polluter is under the leadership of an anti-environmental zealot. Here's hoping next year is even better.

Have a good 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