Trumponomics, Part I: Meltdown

Another day, another tariff policy. The first round of tariffs on Canada and Mexico lasted 1 day before Donald Trump reversed course. The second round of tariffs on Canada and Mexico lasted 2 days before Donald Trump reversed course. Anyone want to make a prediction for how long the third round of tariffs on Canada and Mexico will last before Donald Trump reverses course?

Yesterday's reversal was not a complete one, as with the original reversal. Instead, Trump issued 1-month exemptions on United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)-compliant goods, which means that about half the goods coming into the U.S. from Mexico, and about 40% of the goods coming into the U.S. from Canada, get a temporary (?) reprieve. It is not entirely clear why Trump changed his mind, yet again—some sources say it was an (additional) outgrowth of the squawking from U.S. automakers, which also led to the first round of exemptions (the ones on cars, which took just 24 hours for Trump to announce, instead of 48).

Other sources say the change in plans came because Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian PM Justin Trudeau both got The Donald on the phone (not at the same time!), and told him whatever it is he wanted to hear. For example, Trudeau told Trump that there has been a 97% drop in the amount of fentanyl seized at the Canadian border. That sounds impressive, but for three things. The first is that the only possible source of this friendly-to-the-Canadian-government news is... the Canadian government. We are not sure if readers are aware of this or not, but politicians have been known to lie when they think it's necessary (and some of them even lie when it's not necessary). The second is that, even if the numbers are legit, a decrease in seizures certainly could mean a decrease in smuggling activity, but it could also mean less effective enforcement. The third is that, even if the numbers are legitimate, and even if enforcement is exactly as effective as it's always been, the "progress" made by the Canadians means that the amount of fentanyl crossing that border has gone from about 25 ounces to about 1 ounce. Given that something like 50 tons of fentanyl comes into the U.S. each year, it's not like a 24-ounce reduction at the northern border is going to solve America's fentanyl problem. Or even put a dent in it. Or even a little scratch.

In any event, it remains the case that nobody really understands what Trump is trying to accomplish here. Sure, he says this is about fentanyl, but if that problem is going to be addressed, it's going to be very, very difficult (remember, it's not like Trump made any progress during his first term), and it's not going to be achieved through the willy-nilly levying of tariffs. So, we cannot take the official explanation seriously. That leaves us with our current list of vague theories:

• Political Theater: The likeliest explanation is that all of this is just for show, so that Trump can say he's doing things, and that he's being strong, and blah, blah, blah. Then, he announces some minor change in the USMCA, declares a major victory, and moves on.
  
  
• Magical Thinking: The other reasonably likely explanation, which certainly could co-exist with the first, is that Trump does not really know what he wants, but he does "know," in his gut, that tariffs are "good" and will result in magical, wonderful outcomes.
  
  
• Dementia: We would not be doing our job if we did not point out that, after 5 rather erratic weeks, it is at least possible that Trump really is far-gone, mentally, and that what we are seeing is someone whose control is slipping, but who occupies a job where there are relatively few constraints, and what constraints there are (e.g., the Cabinet, the Congress) are currently not functioning. The fellow who delivered the Joint Address to Congress did not seem to be seriously impaired but, then, neither did Joe Biden when he delivered his final SOTU. Also, particularly in the early stages of cognitive decline, people do have their good days and their bad days.
  
  
• Unspeakable Goals: Finally, it's at least possible that Trump cannot explain his goals because those goals are extremely impolitic or illegal. For example, he could be taking bribes of one type or another, in exchange for tariff exemptions. If so, he can't exactly come out and tell everyone that is what is going on.

Again, these are just theories. We have no evidence, for example, that he's taking bribes. It's merely one hypothesis that fits the available facts. What would William of Occam say?

Whatever Trump is trying to accomplish, he seems to have created a situation where he's getting none of the benefits of tariffs, and yet a bunch of the downsides. A partial rundown:

• Weakness: If the point here is to look strong and presidential, well, that is not the image that is being put forward, to say the least.
  
  
• Pushback: As we have noted several times, the Canadians are insulted, and are angry, as well they should be. And even once this gets "resolved," assuming it does, there's no particular reason to think that things will return to status quo ante tributum. Canadian stores are yanking American products from their shelves, and are not going to put them all back. British Columbia might well levy a permanent toll on trucks traveling to Alaska. Canadian tourists are canceling planned U.S. vacations en masse, and they are not likely to be un-canceled. Ontario premier Doug Ford, who thinks—probably with good reason, since he recently won reelection—that he's got a mandate, has announced that he's going to stick with tariffs on electricity sent to the U.S., no matter what the White House does, or does not, do.
  
  
• The Stock Market: We have written it a million times: The business community, and the stock market, hate uncertainty. And Trump is creating a type of uncertainty that has virtually no president-precedent, since nobody has any idea what he will do until he actually does it. And once he actually does it, whatever "it" is, nobody has any idea how long it will be until he changes his mind. And so, the markets are not doing well, and are down nearly 3% in the last week, and nearly 6% from when he took office.
  
  Incidentally, Trump has an explanation for what's going on in the markets. He says that it's the work of "the globalists." That, of course, is code for "the Jews." Now, he does have an argument there; the problem is that it's an insane and antisemitic argument. And it's been an insane and antisemitic argument for well over a century, a timeframe that includes Trump's formative years. So, he can hardly claim he does not understand the encoded language he's using. And we will say that this kind of declaration from him... well, it certainly doesn't make us less inclined toward the "dementia" hypothesis, let's say. For what is is worth, one of the few people Trump truly trusts is Stephen Miller, and he is Jewish.

At the moment, and very possibly for the foreseeable future, the Republicans who run Congress are not going to use their actual powers to push back against Trump, no matter how crazy his economic "policies" might get. However, some of them ARE using the tried and somewhat true trick of giving him gentle hints through the media. Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) went on Fox Business and said "I'm worried about the tariffs." He also claimed that the tariffs from Trump v1.0 did not cause inflation, which is a lie, but we guess you have to tread very lightly when you weakly challenge the throne. Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), whose home state is suddenly about to sell a lot less bourbon, talked to CNN and said: "Almost every industry in Kentucky has come to me and said, 'It will hurt our industry and push up prices of homes, cars, and so, I'm gonna continue to argue against tariffs." And Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who has to tread more lightly than most, said: "When we start losing, you back off. There's such a thing as strategic retreat."

Whatever the next salvo is going to look like, it's going to come on April 2. That is the day that Trump said he'd start hitting other countries with tariffs, and although the current suspension of the Canada-Mexico tariffs is supposed to be for a month, he implied that April 2 is the real expiration date of his current "amnesty." And then, once he makes his (latest) move in the first week of April, we all get to wait again and see if he gets spooked, or manipulated by someone who knows how to butter him up, or bribed, or whatever else it is that causes him to change positions on a dime. (Z)

Trumponomics, Part II: The Shady Project

Yesterday, Donald Trump followed through on something he has been promising for months, and signed an executive order creating a strategic bitcoin reserve. He's hosting a bitcoin summit at the White House today, and is expected to make a formal announcement then.

In a vein somewhat similar to what's happening with the tariffs, nobody is particularly happy with Trump's announcement. A great many voters don't understand cryptocurrency, or why the U.S. government should be in the business of acquiring crypto. They also cannot help but notice that Trump was anti-crypto, right up until he got into the crypto coin business himself, and then became very interested in using government power to prop up the crypto market.

Meanwhile, economists, who presumably understand these sorts of macroeconomic questions better than the average Joe, aren't happy either. Their problem is that while they understand crypto, and while they understand the purpose of the federal government maintaining a reserve of certain kinds of assets, they really don't understand what is going to be accomplished by the federal government maintaining a reserve of crypto. For example, Stephen Cecchetti, who is an economist at Brandeis University, said the plan was "absurd" and that "it's foolish to purchase risky assets with leverage in the hope of making it easier to repay your debt."

And then there are the crypto enthusiasts, who are ALSO not happy. Because Trump is operating through XO, he's not able to create an actual strategic reserve, supported by substantive government investment. Instead, all he's actually doing is instructing the Department of Justice to put any crypto that it seizes into a federal government account, as opposed to liquidating it. The crypto crowd, at least some portion of it, was imagining a massive commitment to cryptocurrency. The new program is definitely not that.

Other crypto supporters are upset for different reasons. Recalling that the alleged selling point of crypto was that it was not under the control of any government or centralized financial system, some of them are not too happy about the idea of the U.S. government getting into the crypto pond.

Still other crypto lovers observe that whether Trump intends this or not—and either is possible—a "big" claim about crypto reserves followed by a "small" follow-through several days later, creates conditions ripe to be exploited by unscrupulous speculators. For example, in anticipation of Trump's preliminary announcement at the start of the week, a speculator bought $200 million in Bitcoin. The next day, the price of Bitcoin rose, and the speculator sold out, at a profit of about $7 million. Yesterday, after Trump's flaccid XO, the price fell below where it was on Monday. So, that one guy is seven figures richer, while a bunch of other folks are left holding the bag.

In short, we have case study #2329 of "Promises are easy, governing is hard." (Z)

State of the Union: Controversy

The returns are in when it comes to Donald Trump's joint address to Congress, and one portion of the night has proven to be very controversial. No, it's not Trump's attacks on various people, or his whopping lies, or his racially charged language, or his transphobia. In fact, the majority of the negative attention is being directed at the Democrats in the room, particularly Rep. Al Green (D-TX), whose demonstrative behavior early in the speech caused him to be ejected from the House gallery.

Needless to say, the Republicans in the House aren't going to hold Trump accountable for anything he might say, in part because they are cowed by him, and in part because presidents get enormous leeway in these speeches. In fact, we suspect that Trump—or perhaps, a member of his inner circle—could end a speech with a Nazi salute, and the Republicans wouldn't say "boo." Or maybe that's just crazy talk.

In any case, Green's transgression caused Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and his colleagues to take swift action. Yesterday, they introduced and passed a resolution formally censuring Green for his outburst. There was a time, particularly when American culture was heavily rooted in honor/shame and in Victorian ideas about decorum, that an outburst like that would have been a national scandal, and a motion of censure would have been mortifying for any member of the House. That time has long passed, of course. Green is unconcerned about other people's ideas of decorum, and yesterday, while he stood in the well of the House for his public shaming, as is required when the House passes a motion of censure, he was joined by a dozen or so colleagues, as they all sang "We Shall Overcome."

We must also note that this issue is bipartisan, at least somewhat. There were 10 Democrats who joined with the Republicans in voting to censure Green. In case you would like to know who they are, it was: Ami Bera (CA), Ed Case (HI), Jim Costa (CA), Laura Gillen (NY), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA), Jim Himes (CT), Chrissy Houlahan (PA), Marcy Kaptur (OH), Jared Moskowitz (FL) and Tom Suozzi (NY). In addition, about a dozen Democratic members who engaged in other forms of demonstration were called into meetings with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-CA), so that trio could share their views that the speech was not the time or the place for that kind of behavior.

We certainly understand the thinking on both sides of this discussion. And, at this point, we might even summarize the two viewpoints. However, we don't actually need to. We asked for, and got, a bunch of reader comments on the speech (and the response), and this same divide was present in those e-mails. So, we now share some of those comments, as promised, starting with several about Trump, and then moving on to several about the Democrats:

Donald Trump

S.A.K. in Karnataka, India, writes: Couple of points here. First, I don't recall reading this in your write-up, but the way senators, representatives and Donald Trump spoke to and shook hands with only their side of the aisle while hardly, if ever, acknowledging the other side so starkly illustrates how deeply divided your country has become. Having watched these things since Barack Obama's second term, Tuesday was a record new low in terms of partisanship. Of course, the complete absence of standing ovations from the Democrats went on to further illustrate those divisions.

Second, the part where you called out families like Laken Riley's was on point. That is exactly what I wondered as I sat watching the camera pan to her and other families in the visitor's gallery. If the message had a been a unifying one, then by all means, such props would be nice. Also, it goes without saying that some of those families have suffered irreparable losses and should have our sympathies. But to be used as means to further divisions in society and develop an "us versus them" narrative is the lowest of lows. Apparently, being famous and on TV, along with earning brownie points with Trump, is far more important than basic decency for those folks.

---

E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: I'm sure we would all feel so much better if Laken Riley had been murdered by a Real American, like most murder victims in America are.

---

A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: I had to turn it off, I could take no more, and I would have thrown a rock through my TV screen had I not turned it off when Trump started loving on cops, and suggesting an automatic death penalty for cop killers.

As you already know, I am a Criminal Justice Technology major, and that means I am preparing for a role in law enforcement support. And it occurs to me that Trump not only did he not suggest that the killer of Brian Sicknick on 1/6 should be put to death... HE PARDONED THE SOB!!!

Why can't a single reporter ask him to square that up? How he could pardon the killer of Brian Sicknick, and at the same time suggest all cop killers get an immediate death penalty?

I sat through all the abuse heaped at trans Americans like myself, often screaming at the TV... but I endured it. THIS WAS THE PART I COULD NOT ENDURE!!!

---

R.E. in Birmingham, AL, writes: I was pretty depressed when I went to bed after watching the speech, but it got worse the next morning as I read The New York Times. The paper ran one of the inevitable "regular people respond" stories, and one lady said that she was most impressed by Trump's "empathy." Empathy! He literally said "no one is treated worse online than me" while in the process of recognizing a young lady who had been treated badly online! I see a man utterly devoid of empathy, and I see no hope that the NYT interviewee and I will ever bridge the chasm between our perceived realities. The pledge of allegiance says we are "one nation," but I don't think that's true anymore.

---

C.L. in Boulder, CO, writes: Using your categories, here are some of my impressions:

Large Amounts of Talk: (1) How many times did Trump mention the DEBT and how the money saved or collected by Trump actions would help to lower the debt? Yeah, let's see how that goes; (2) Has there ever been such a negative presidential address to Congress? One that talked as much about MURDER, RAPE and VIOLENCE? Most of the guests or their family members seemed to be victims of horrific actions. Where was the uplift and optimism?; (3) What's with turning the speech into a Make-a-Wish Foundation event? What does appointing a young boy a Secret Service agent or announcing that a high school senior got into West Point have to do with the status of the nation? I'm happy for them, but geez.

Missing: Where was talk of Canada becoming the 51st state? Personally, in addition to my Ukraine flag pin, I'm starting to wear my 51 (for 51st state) pin with the 51 over an outline of the District of Columbia. D.C. statehood should be the Democrats' Project 2029.

---

M.F.H. in Forest Park, IL, writes: We couldn't bring ourselves to watch the "speech," but chose something else that we think pretty well summed up the state of union (acknowledging it was, in fact, a joint address to Congress). This, plus EV's summary of the rambling and ranting, is all that we need to stay informed.

(V) & (Z) respond: As chance would have it, that was the exact movie (Z) had on while doing the write-up.

---

C.S. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: Back in the summer, the question of ties came up. The last few years, I've noticed the overwhelming majority of Republicans wear solid red for these events and Democrats solid blue. Trump came up in a maroonish/purplish tie. In normal times, I would think that would mean bipartisan, with a lean towards the right. But on Tuesday, my immediate thought was... royalty.

The Democrats

J.L. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: One of my Trumpy friends had this to say: "Yeah, Trump lied. All politicians lie. But the Democrats just embarrassed themselves, and I was very frustrated seeing neither side trying to work with the other."

Interestingly, I found myself in agreement with him. And despite the fact that "all politicians lie" diminishes the sheer magnitude of Trump's dishonesty, it was nice to know that at least my friend was now actively acknowledging that this president is truth-challenged. That said, as a Democrat, I found my party's behavior embarrassing, as well. A decade and a half ago, Joe Wilson stunned the chamber (and America) when he shouted "You lie!" at Barack Obama during a speech in the House Chamber. Now, Democrats like Al Green are normalizing what should have remained the shocking exception to what must be an expected level of decorum from both sides of the aisle. Behavior like this does nothing to bring either side even a hair closer to working together, and I fear that this particular genie ain't gettin' back inside the bottle anytime soon. That saddens me.

---

S.M. in Pepperell, MA, writes: Decorum be damned. All 213 House Democrats and all 47 Senate Democrats should have joined Al Green and given Trump an earful and then walked out of the chamber. It would not have mattered if no individual member would have been heard. The spectacle itself would have spoken to the moment. The TV cameras for the next hour and a half would have highlighted Trump speaking to a half empty room. Trump would have hated that look and we might have seen him go off-script in anger and pettiness. These things would have been a bigger story than any red meat Trump was throwing to his base. Once again, the Democratic members of this Congress are unable to do what is required to meet this moment in history. They definitely do not understand how to stand up to a bully, even when they knew in advance that Trump was going to spend the entire speech punching down at them.

---

V.L. in Honolulu, HI, writes: I'm not too sure what the Democratic strategy was with the paddles, but they should have done things differently. To follow Al Green's lead, they could have heckled the heck out of Trump's speech. They could have staged it so that various cadres representing minority groups would interrupt his speech, and be removed by Mike Johnson until there would be no one left but old white men in the room. That could have been a better point to make than, "This is not normal."

---

S.G. in Chicago, IL, writes: I don't know which was harder to swallow: the firehose of lies or the pathetic non-response of the Democrats. Does Hakeem Jeffries seriously think that waving some stupid little paddles is going to combat the trashing of our institutions and democracy?

Pathetic. If there was a viable third party, I'd be voting for them after last night. I don't know who I despise more: Trump or the Democrats. When are they going to wake up to the fact that this is NOT business as usual?

---

M.B. in Ward, CO, writes: Al Green is a genius. Rarely has one individual called down upon themselves the approbation of such a large and concentrated collection of sackless losers and feckless nutjobs in such a simple and effective and public a manner. Well done, Rep. Green! I am reminded of the late, great Franklin D. Roosevelt, who said in a speech in 1936: "They are unanimous in their hate for me, and I welcome their hatred."

---

K.E. in Enumclaw, WA, writes: Sen. Elissa Slotkin's (D-MI) remarks had some good barbs to be sure. Particularly the one about Elon's 20-year-olds going through our personal information.

But no one had any bandwidth left after watching Trump's 1:40 to really process anything... save for remarks that would evoke a visceral reaction. She should have realized this. Her giving us her boring bio, and using "smart people" idioms like she did, likely came across to Trump voters as being talked down to. (No one cares one whit about any of her background, what her parents did for a living, etc).

Democrats are fighting a bare-knuckle match but they seem to have forgotten to take off their gloves. They need to find someone that's going to talk some sh** to all the nonsense spewing out of the Trumposhpere, and make him look like the idiot he is.

---

J.B. in Seattle, WA, writes: You might want to mention the State of the People livestream that happened during the Trump speech. It featured a steady stream of mostly Black politicians, civic leaders, activists, and intellectuals from across the U.S. and included in-the-lobby interviews with the representatives who had walked out of the speech.

A quick count suggests 100,000 views on the various sites that were hosting it. That doesn't include the number from the State of the People site itself.

Fascinating stuff.

---

L.R.H. in Oakland, CA, writes: Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) skipped Trump's address and instead held a town hall where he answered questions and spoke with constituents. This report on Bluesky is excellent (alas, only available if you're logged in to Bluesky).

Every Democratic Senator and Representative should do this.

Thanks to everyone who wrote in! (Z)

(Il)Legal News: Burning Barns

A burning barn is basically what the office of the U.S. Attorney for Washington, DC, has turned into, thanks to acting U.S. Attorney (and also U.S. Attorney-designate) Ed Martin, who is so sleazy, he makes Dick Nixon's plumbers look like choir boys.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was passed by Congress and signed into law on August 16, 2022. It authorized $891 billion in total spending and is projected to raise $738 billion through tax reforms and prescription drug reform. By all accounts, it has been a resounding success so far, creating jobs and reducing greenhouse gases in amounts even higher than originally estimated. Though the law was signed by Joe Biden, the greatest impacts and the most jobs have been created in Republican districts across the country. An analysis by the Rocky Mountain Institute estimates that the largest job growth will be in Wyoming, North Dakota, West Virginia and Louisiana.

One innovative aspect of the IRA is a green bank called the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which is a competitive grant program designed to capitalize smaller, regional green banks to incentivize public-private partnerships (something the Republicans say they want to encourage more of). This arrangement has been used in many other funding programs, though this is the first time the EPA has utilized it. It's set up through the Treasury Department and, in this case, is overseen by the EPA. It is this fund that is the latest target of the DOJ and EPA under the EPA's new secretary, Lee Zeldin. This is part of Donald Trump's efforts to undo absolutely everything his predecessor did, no matter how successful in helping Americans, including many of his supporters, save money, get better-paying and healthier jobs, and live in a cleaner environment.

Despite Zeldin's falsehoods to the contrary, the Fund was not rushed through at the last minute. After being set up through the Treasury department, its first grant recipients were awarded by the EPA in April 2024. The awards were completed by September 2024, and the EPA retains oversight and monitoring of the programs and use of the funds. Indeed, the only thing true about what the current EPA and DoJ are now saying about this fund is the amount involved: $20 billion. Of that amount, $14 billion was awarded to regional green banks and $6 billion to small banks in lower-income communities. These banks, in turn, have distributed funds to non-profits who meet the criteria set up by the Fund and who can leverage investments from private partners. McKinsey and Company estimated that the $20 billion would leverage about $250 billion in private investments. That seems like a pretty solid ROI.

But apparently, this program must go because... reasons. And the folks working for Trump have never seen a law or constitutional provision they won't gleefully bulldoze. Enter Martin, the aforementioned interim U.S. Attorney for D.C. After summarily firing a bunch of prosecutors who worked on the 1/6 cases, transferring others, and threatening to investigate them for doing their jobs, he's moved on to other trumped-up charges (pun definitely intended). Unlike other spending that the administration has unlawfully and unilaterally frozen, this money has already been disbursed and is apparently being held in a Citibank account, so the Feds don't control it. The only way to get at it is to seize it through a court order. But the government seizing other peoples' money, especially this kind of money, is a BFD, as it should be. The scale of this attempt is "unprecedented," according to asset forfeiture expert Stefan Cassella. Until now, the largest amount seized by the feds was $4 billion in stolen bitcoin in 2022.

Nevertheless, Martin decided to open a criminal investigation into the disbursement of this $20 billion. There is no evidence for such an investigation, but why trifle with such banalities when there is payback to score? He ordered the head of the criminal division, Denise Cheung, to direct Citibank to freeze the funds while it sought a seizure warrant. Cheung refused and told Martin there was no probable cause supporting such direction. Martin then demanded the career prosecutor's resignation, which she submitted despite having worked at the DoJ since 2000.

After Cheung's resignation, no one else would sign the seizure warrant application, so it was signed only by Martin himself. And, lo and behold, it was denied by a magistrate judge because it failed to establish any reasonable belief that a crime had occurred that would justify a seizure. Meanwhile, acting deputy AG Emil Bove had also asked prosecutors in Miami to launch a grand jury investigation and seek a court-ordered bank freeze but they refused. To say these machinations are unusual is an understatement.

Nonetheless, on her way out the door, Cheung agreed to recommend that Citibank voluntarily put an "administrative freeze" on the funds for 30 days while the feds root around for some bogus basis for seizing the money... er, while they try to find probable cause. As a reminder, these are legally allocated funds that the Biden administration had every right to disburse. It appears that Citibank has, indeed, succumbed to the pressure and put a hold on these accounts, as the grant recipients are reporting that they cannot access the remaining funds but have been given no explanation as to why.

It could not be more clear that this case lacks probable cause and pressuring Citibank to freeze the accounts is illegal and an abuse of power. The affected groups are threatening legal action but that may be too late for those organizations that entered into contracts based on the grants, which may be forced into bankruptcy because of these moves. In reality, the only ones who should be investigated are Ed Martin and Lee Zeldin. We feel compelled to once again remind everyone that immunity only extends to the president, not his underlings. (L)

Media News: And Winter Came...

It had been a dead man walking for at least a year or two, largely kept alive by the fact that 2024 was a presidential election year. However, as of yesterday, FiveThirtyEight is no more, having been shuttered as part of a broader cost-cutting effort across the Disney/ABC empire.

From the beginning, the business model didn't make a lot of sense. From the Disney/ABC side, FiveThirtyEight was initially attached to ESPN, with the idea that the site would do a lot of sports analysis. Maybe that idea sounds good on paper, especially since site founder Nate Silver first made his bones doing baseball-related number-crunching for Baseball Prospectus. However, FiveThirtyEight's actual brand, of course, was politics. There are a lot of sports fans who don't want to read about politics, especially when they are "escaping" to the world of sports. There are also a lot of sports fans who really dislike the idea of sports being reduced to numbers and spreadsheets and nerds. Over the course of about a decade, FiveThirtyEight got branded and re-branded, and moved and re-moved, half a dozen times. By the end, it was a sub-page of ABCNews.com, and wasn't that easy to find, even if you were looking for it.

From the FiveThirtyEight/Nate Silver side, things didn't make a lot of sense, either. They were trying to produce analysis that requires real effort and real legwork, but on a daily schedule. As a result, a lot of their product was somewhat flimsy, and not well thought-out, or well-explained. There was also a push to be lighthearted or fun. Sometimes that worked out OK, like the "America's best burrito" bracket. Sometimes, it produced head-scratching pieces, like "The Five Types of Tom Hanks Movies."

In any event, it was a slow, but fairly steady, decline. The original pool of talent, recruited when the site was flush with Disney cash, largely fled within a couple of years. Harry Enten, who was one of the numbers guys, jumped to CNN. Walt Hickey, who was the culture guy, jumped to several publications, and then started a Substack. Mona Chalabi, a data journalist poached from The Guardian, went back to The Guardian. And so forth. Thereafter, the staff was slowly whittled down, and there were years' worth of rumors that the site would only survive until the end of the next presidential cycle. Silver left a couple of years ago, and by the time of the final shutdown yesterday, FiveThirtyEight was down to 15 employees, from a peak of more than 50.

Although the work product wasn't especially substantive by the end, FiveThirtyEight was better at aggregating polling data than any other site. It will be a shame to lose that, but it would seem that's not enough to cover the salaries of 15 people. Certainly, no other outlet has rushed in and tried to "adopt" the team and/or the brand. Oh well, you know what they say about "all good things..." Anyhow, a tip of the hat to a pioneer in the field of online psephology. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Chastity

Last week, we gave two hints as to the headline theme, though the first one pretty much let the cat out of the bag. It was: "if you can't get this one, you might need to pull up your pants, or maybe to have a stiff drink." The second hint was: "a punch in the nether regions might awaken you to the answer." And now, the solution, courtesy of C.B. in Lakeville, MN:

Each clue contains a word that can precede "belt."

• Trump v. Zelenskyy: The Borscht Principle
• Legal News: Yet another Judge Is Not a Fan of Trump Administration Policies
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Is Already Becoming an Anchor around Trump's Neck
• Senate News: Walz Will Not Pursue Open Seat
• Spartz Surrender: Surprise! It Wasn't about the Money
• Teutonic Shift: Debating the Utility of the 5% Approach
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Bible Rock
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Musk's Face is Red
• his Week in Freudenfreude: Black Ohioans Take Matters into Their Own Hands

Wasn't sure about the Schadenfreude one. It looks like you used two martial arts belts colors, if "Red" is the clue. Incidentally, this is what you get when you use Google to find "face belts."

We intended face belt, but red belt is also acceptable. And, of course, there's a chastity belt, from this headline. As to the clues, people with sagging pants and people who could use a stiff drink both need a belt, albeit in different senses of that word. And a punch in the nether regions is, of course, below the belt. Oh, and the Kennedy headline was not supposed to be part of the puzzle, but it worked anyhow, with either "anchor" or "neck."

Here are the first 50 correct respondents:

T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT M.Y. in San Jose, CA K.R. in Austin, TX R.D. in Cheshire, CT M.J.S. in Cheshire, CT M.W. in Altea, Spain E.W. in Skaneateles, NY J.N. in Zionsville, IN W.J.J. in Kitchener, ON, Canada J.D. in Jamaica Plain, MA C.W. in Hamilton, NY C.B. in Lakeville M.M. in Dunellen, NJ M.S. in Canton, NY G.W. in Avon, CT P.Q. in Metuchen, NJ S.K. in Ardmore, PA P.R. in Havertown, PA G.K. in Blue Island, IL R.A. in Chesterfield, MO E.S. in Cincinnati, OH Z.K. in Albany, NY C.G. in Pittsburgh, PA S.T. in Federal Way, WA J.R. in Austin, TX

B.L. in Ferndale, MI M.L. in Iowa City, IA D.C, in Portland, OR D.B. in Pittsboro, NC A.C. in Kingston, MA C.K. in Aston, PA J.A. in Manhattan Beach, CA B.A. in Sioux Falls, SD J.L. in Walnut Creek, CA L.W. in Los Angeles, CA B.B. in Avon, CT S.B. in Los Altos Hills, CA T.L. in West Orange, NJ P.W. in Tulalip, WA L.D. in Bedford, MA J.P. in Chandler, AZ M.V. in Oak Park, IL J.L.-H. in Portland, OR M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO B.H. in Sherman Oaks, CA M.C. in Newton, MA J.G. in Dallas, PA M.W in Frederick, MD N.H. in London, England, UK

Reader T.H. in Champaign, IL also correctly points out that there is something in every headline that can be red: borscht, fan, seat, money, approach, rock, face, hands. Meanwhile, T.L. in West Orange supposes that we included "utility belt" at the instigation of reader B.W. in Gotham City.

The 50th correct response was received Sunday at 8:29 a.m. PT.

As to this week's theme, we almost went with songs—as we sometimes do—but instead decided to switch that up a little bit and go with album titles. That means that the Trivial Pursuit category, pretty much by definition, is "music." As to a hint, we'll say that while the artist did not actually end up making a headline, we got the idea for the theme after listening to the song "Life in Mono."

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject "March 7 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Picking Up the Pieces

Most people outside of the city of Los Angeles had never heard of Patrick Soon-Shiong. But then he beat Jeff Bezos to the punch in selling out his newspaper, The Los Angeles Times, to Donald Trump. That made him something of a national figure, and not in a good way.

Still, Soon-Shiong has pressed on, and has been very enthusiastic about two notions in particular. The first is "balance" and the second is using AI to somehow help improve the content of the paper. Both concepts should make anyone who knows anything about journalism run screaming. The only way it could get worse is if they are somehow paired.

That is exactly what happened early this week, as the newspaper—on Soon-Shiong's instigation—unleashed its new toy (provided by the company Perplexity) to provide "additional perspectives" for pieces in its opinion section. One of the op-eds that the AI was asked to comment on was a piece by columnist Gustavo Arellano, about how this year was the 100th anniversary of when the Ku Klux Klan took control of the city council of Anaheim, and how the current city council should have done something to acknowledge the (fairly brief) reign of the hate group. At this point, you can probably see where this is going, not unlike a car crash that cannot be stopped. The AI, in service of "competing" perspectives, mounted a semi-defense of the KKK:

Local historical accounts occasionally frame the 1920s Klan as a product of "white Protestant culture" responding to societal changes rather than an explicitly hate-driven movement, minimizing its ideological threat.

Oops.

Now, as chance would have it, this is a subject that (Z) knows an awful lot about. That is because the very first class he took in grad school was an urban history course with the late, great Eric Monkkonen, and the final paper we wrote for that course was about... the KKK's seizure of political power in Anaheim in the 1920s. And the AI is actually vaguely in the ballpark in terms of two different, potentially helpful, points here. The first is that the KKK has not existed for all of the past 150 years, and has had three different iterations (1860s-70s, 1910s-20s, and 1950s-present). And the second is that the gap between the racism of the 1920s Klansmen and the racism of non-1920s Klansmen was not as large as the gaps were in the first or third eras of the KKK. That is due, in part, to the fact that most everyone in the 1920s was pretty racist, and in part to the fact that the 1920s KKK was not driven solely by racism, but also by xenophobia and antisemitism. It was still a hate-driven group, of course, it's just that the dynamics were somewhat different than with KKK v1.0 and KKK v3.0.

Anyhow, you can kind of see how AI might review the scholarship and come up with a statement like the one it came up with. At the same time, you can also see how AI is very bad at nuance and subtlety, and also in knowing which circumstances require extra amounts of nuance and subtlety. The notion is that one day, presumably soon, it will get better, but we're not so sure. (Z)'s phone has been giving driving directions for 10 years, and still mispronounces half the street names in Los Angeles. For roughly that same amount of time, (Z) has been dictating messages to the phone, and it still can't get "Did Otto potty when you walked him?" correct, invariably rendering it as "Did auto-party when you walked him?" We don't even know what auto-party is. Maybe it's what AI does when it's off the clock. In any case, if the computers can't grasp "auto" vs. "Otto" or figure out how to pronounce "Sepulveda" or "Cahuenga" after a decade, how can they possibly produce intelligent commentary anytime soon? Or ever?

It would seem that someone at The Los Angeles Times has figured this out. Maybe it was Soon-Shiong, as he was busy wiping egg off his face, or maybe it was someone else. In any case, after just one day in use, the AI commentary has been yanked, at least for now. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Ray of Light

Sometimes, we feature Democrats in this space. Occasionally, we feature Republicans. Once in a while, we are able to feature representatives of both parties. Today is one of those (fairly rare) days.

If you follow us, or any news- or politics-centered site, you know very well that Elon Musk and his DOGE underlings are riding roughshod over the livelihoods of millions of government employees. Some people have definitely been fired. Some people have maybe been fired. Some people aren't sure if they have been fired or not. Nearly everyone who is not in those first three groups is feeling put upon, or disrespected, or leery of their future employment prospects, or all of the above.

At least two governors, who have the good fortune to represent states with some amount of largesse, have tried to step in and help citizens whose lives have been turned upside-down. The first of those is Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY), whose efforts were brought to our attention by reader M.W. in Richmond, VA. Hochul has launched a recruitment initiative called "You're Hired." The plan is to hire 7,000 people who were forced out by DOGE for public-sector jobs in New York State. "Here's my message to any public sector worker who suddenly finds himself out of a job: New York does want you, New York needs you; come work in the greatest state in the nation," she declared in a speech announcing the new program. There is also an ad, which has been deployed in Union Station and in other locations, that has a picture of the Statue of Liberty and the tagline: "DOGE said you're fired? We say you're hired! New York wants you!"

On the other side of the aisle, but the same side of the coin, is Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA). Given the party of which he is a member, he's not going to be emphasizing opportunities to work for the state government. After all, as St. Ronnie of Reagan taught the red team, the government is bad. However, the folks in Virginia are particularly hard-hit by DOGE, given the proximity to D.C. And so, Youngkin has launched a website and an initiative called Virginia Has Jobs. Through job fairs, assistance with interviewing skills and résumé writing, and potential re-training, the goal is to try to connect out-of-work federal employees with the 250,000 jobs that are currently available in the state.

We are not naive, and of course we recognize that both of these governors may have some self-interest here, as folks who will, or may, run for office again in the future. However, that does not mean that they aren't also doing a solid for the people of their state, as best they can within the constraints imposed by their political allegiance and their economic resources. So, good on them!

Have a good weekend, all! (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