Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Allred Is Texas Toast
Former representative Colin Allred (D) seemed like a strong U.S. Senate candidate to us. He's charismatic, Black, a former football player in a state where football is religion, has a moderate voting record, and has name recognition. We figured he was the likeliest person to claim the Democratic nomination, and then, if crazypants Ken Paxton were to claim the GOP nod over Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), all bets were off.
Shows what we know. Recent polling showed Allred losing ground to the other major Democrat in the race, state Rep. James Talarico. And a poll released late last week showed Allred in fourth place, were Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) to enter the race. Well, she did jump in yesterday, and so Allred promptly jumped out, and said he will run in TX-33, which is one of the handful of still-blue Texas districts, and which covers some of Dallas and the Dallas suburbs that Allred used to represent in Congress. Allred's decision, in turn, caused Rep. Marc Veasey (D), who currently represents TX-33, but was thinking about moving over to TX-30 (Crockett's current district) to give up on the House entirely, and to announce he will run for Tarrant County judge, which, in Texas, is a role with both judicial and administrative responsibilities. Frankly, if we were him, we'd rather be a judge, too. No need to maintain two residences, no need to risk having to talk to Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX).
So, a pretty high-profile game of musical chairs leaves Crockett as one of the two heavyweight contenders for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate. Undoubtedly, she will attract a sizable percentage of the Black vote, which is a good start. However, Texas is not Alabama or Mississippi, and only about 12% of the population is Black. That's not a huge constituency, and the idea of two different candidates relying on 12% of the population as their "base" is undoubtedly a big part of what caused Allred to decide the writing was on the wall.
Crockett's biggest ace in the hole is not affinity politics, however, it's her ability to accrue earned media. She's very good at sound bites, and very good at bon mots, and has been one of the faces of the Donald Trump resistance. The various news networks (mind you, a category that does not include Fox, OAN, or Newsmax) love, love, love to have her on because she's fiery and provocative.
Crockett is also very progressive. She is often listed as a member of The Squad, although she prefers not to be included in that grouping. Since the New York City mayoral election, and even more so since the recent special election result in Tennessee, we've had a number of e-mails from readers asserting that middle-of-the-road candidates are not what voters are looking for these days, and that even in red states, voters want big change, and candidates with big ideas.
This may be so, though we must note that outspoken progressive Aftyn Behn did lose that election in Tennessee, and that most of the anti-Behn campaigning, particularly at the end, focused on lefty things she said that did not sit well with many Tennesseans. Further, if progressive policies ARE what red-state voters are looking for, well, Crockett isn't doing a great job of enunciating which progressive policies she stands for. We know at least half a dozen progressive planks that Zohran Mamdani put in his platform. But nearly everything that Crockett gets attention for is slings and arrows fired in the direction of Donald Trump, or Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), or Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). This is not to say that Crockett does not have progressive policy positions she can/will run on, nor that she can't develop a platform that she can hammer on at every rally, in every speech, and during every media hit. However, what we are saying is that we really don't know what her signature issues are. And if we don't know, given how closely we follow this general subject, it probably means that most voters don't know, either. So, we'd say she has some work to do.
Meanwhile, because Crockett is Black, female and progressive, while Talarico is white, male and more moderate, we suspect there will be much temptation to frame this as Hillary (Talarico) vs. Bernie (Crockett), Part 837. We don't think it's that simple. Talarico is less outspoken than Crockett, but he has embraced some very center-left/lefty policy positions, including support for the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and for Obamacare, and staunch opposition to limits on reproductive choice and to state-sponsored religion (he first gained attention for his criticism of "post the Ten Commandments in classrooms" laws). He also has some pretty hippie-dippy things on his pre-politics résumé, like working for Teach for America for several years and serving as an executive officer for Reasoning Mind, a nonprofit focusing on bringing technology to low-income classrooms.
At the same time, Talarico is very openly and devoutly religious. His grandfather was a Baptist preacher, and he himself has delivered guest sermons before various congregations. He also has a degree in divinity, from the Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. That's to go along with his B.A. in Education from the University of Texas and his Master's in Education from a little school in Massachusetts called Harvard. In other words, Talarico is an educated man.
So, when we look at Talarico, we don't see Joe Biden or Bill Clinton; we see Jimmy Carter. And our guess is that basic "fit" will ultimately carry the day for the candidate. Texas Democrats want a U.S. Senator so badly they can taste it. And Democrats across the country want the Senate back so badly they would give their left arms to make that happen. If the choice is between "pretty lefty and VERY religious" and "VERY lefty and pretty religious," we would guess that a lot of Texas voters are going to choose the former for purely tactical reasons. In any case, we're going to be watching closely, along with anyone and everyone else interested in politics. Because again, if Paxton is the Republican nominee, this seat is definitely winnable for the blue team. (Z)
Will Trump Get His Map in Indiana?
Texas isn't the only red state where things are interesting these days. The Indiana legislature is back in special session; the purpose, of course, is to ram through the new House district map that Donald Trump wants. The map already passed the state House, which is not at all surprising, since representatives (whether state or federal) tend to be more MAGA than senators (whether state or federal). We don't know what the dynamic is in Nebraska, however, since their legislature only has one chamber.
Yesterday, the new Indiana map overcame another hurdle, as it was approved by the relevant state Senate committee, so that it can be brought to the floor for a vote. At first glance, this would appear to be a win for Trump. First, because the state Senate initially said it would not meet to consider the maps at all. Second, because the process is now one step closer to the finish line.
Not so fast, though. If you check your Magic 8 Ball, it will tell you "Ask again later." The vote in committee was 6-3, with state Sen. Greg Walker (R) crossing the aisle to vote with the two Democrats on the committee. State Sen. Michael Bohacek (R) is not on the committee, but has also committed to voting no, with his explanation that he (as the father of a child with Down syndrome) is offended by Trump's use of "retarded" as a slur.
That is only two GOP "nay" votes, and the Republican majority in the Indiana state Senate is 39-10, so Walker and Bohacek are not going to change the outcome, at least not by themselves. However, three of the six Republicans who voted yes yesterday took great pains to make clear to reporters that their primary motivation was to make sure the legislation gets a full vetting on the floor of the Indiana Senate, and that they might well change their votes for the final round of voting.
This... caution, for lack of a better term, suggests one of two possibilities to us. The first is that these members are trying to buy some time, before they actually have to make a decision that will be binding. The second is that they are trying to give Trump's position SOME support, before changing course, so they can hedge their bets as best as the circumstances allow.
We do not presume to know which of these it is, but either way, they clearly aren't slam dunks to vote for Trump's position. Meanwhile, we will point out a couple of other things. First is that the more defectors there are, the easier it is for Republican state senators to defy Trump, since many targets are harder to hit than one or two targets. The second is that the threats to spend $100 million to punish defiant state senators, which we wrote about yesterday, may sound good right now. But in practice, that means throwing away nine figures on a chamber that is already ruby red, during an election cycle where every dollar is going to be much more urgently needed in dozens of other places. So, the threats coming right now from Turning Point USA, the Club for Growth, etc., may just be hot air.
In short: Stay tuned. We'll probably know how the story ends in the next 24-48 hours. (Z)
In Justice, Part I: A Tree Falls in the Forest?
Everyone knows the old conundrum: If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Now, it would seem we have the Trump administration corollary to that: If someone quits a job they never legally held, did they really resign?
The person in question here is Alina Habba, who has been pretending to be the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey since March of this year. We've gone through the somewhat complicated rules before, and so won't repeat ourselves, but her appointment was clearly not legal without Senate approval, and that approval was not forthcoming. First, a judge appointed by Barack Obama said the appointment was invalid. Then, a Third Circuit panel made up of two George W. Bush appointees and one Joe Biden appointee said the same about a week ago. And so yesterday, Habba announced she was resigning, and will go serve "Attorney General" Pam Bondi as a special advisor.
Bondi and Habba said they still plan to appeal the Third Circuit's decision, and that Habba might therefore return to... well, a job she never actually held in her own right. One wonders if the White House will keep beating its head against this particular rock, or if it will quietly drop the matter. In the end, if the administration can use bookkeeping tricks to get around Senate confirmation of nominees, then a big chunk of the Constitution goes right in the garbage. That's a bridge too far for even THIS Supreme Court, right? Right? RIGHT?
The good news here, beyond the fact that the obviously unqualified AND corrupt Habba is no longer exercising meaningful power, is that some guardrails are still holding, and that there are some lines that even this administration won't cross. At least, not yet. (Z)
In Justice, Part II: Re-Indicted... and It Feels No Good
Donald Trump's Department of Justice is nothing if not persistent in its campaign of retribution. A little more than
two weeks after the case was dismissed on a finding that Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully appointed as the U.S. Attorney
for the Eastern District of Virginia, "Attorney General" Pam Bondi tried again to get Trump nemesis Letitia James
indicted for mortgage fraud. With Halligan not an option—though she is
still listed
as the U.S. Attorney for Virginia's Eastern District, and so is apparently getting paid by U.S. taxpayers to sit on her
ass—Bondi had to go all the way to Missouri to find a compliant stooge prosecutor willing to present this
dog of a case a second time to a grand jury. Roger Keller flew in from the Show Me State, and showed his "evidence" to
the grand jury at 9 a.m. By noon, they'd
already rejected it
and left for lunch. Ouch. In fairness to him, the Fishin' Pig in Norfolk DOES have a special on Bang Bang Shrimp on
Thursdays, and they DO tend to run out, so...
The DoJ could still appeal Judge Cameron Currie's decision dismissing the cases against James and against James Comey, but they haven't yet. Meanwhile, Bondi is also facing new challenges in her efforts to re-indict Comey. Recall that Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick reviewed the grand jury material, ordered it turned over to Comey, and Halligan then demanded that Fitzpatrick give her reasons why. Well, reasons she got, among them that the FBI exceeded the scope of the original search warrants for Daniel Richman and seized privileged communications between Richman and his client, James Comey. Then, once the investigation was closed in 2021, instead of destroying the material as required, they kept it and "rummaged" through it this past summer to try to dig up dirt on Comey without securing a new search warrant. Oops. So, Fitzpatrick found that the DoJ likely violated both Richman's and Comey's Fourth Amendment rights as well as violating the attorney-client privilege.
Things have now gone from bad to worse for Bondi & Co. On Saturday, in response to a lawsuit filed by Richman, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly agreed and issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the DoJ from using this evidence in any capacity until further notice. She wrote, in her ruling, that Richman is likely to prevail on the merits once the case actually goes to trial (if it ever does), so that TRO is likely to become permanent if the DoJ keeps pressing the matter.
And this is on top of the statute of limitations problem the DoJ has with Comey, as 5 years have now passed since the September 30, 2020, testimony that is the basis of this action. And let's not forget that, on top of all these other problems, these are prosecutions in search of a crime. The accusation against Comey is solely based on a statement he made to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in response to a vague and strangely worded question about who may or may not have spoken to the press: "I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized." That's what Bondi and her minions are trying to turn into a crime. They are not having much luck, and what little luck they have had may well have run out. (L)
In Justice, Part III: Rules for Thee but Not for Me
As long as we are on the subject of trumped-up charges, ProPublica has reported that, in December of 1993, Donald Trump signed paperwork for a half-million-dollar mortgage to purchase a "primary residence" for himself in Florida. Then, 7 weeks later, he signed paperwork for a million-dollar mortgage to purchase a different "primary residence" for himself in Florida. Needless to say, Trump never lived in either house, and never intended to do so, especially since he was multiple decades away from leaving New York and relocating to Florida. Both houses were investment properties, and were used as rentals from the get-go.
As a reminder, this is the precise "crime" that the Trump administration is trying to indict Letitia James for. It is also a "crime" that Trump has described as "deceitful" and "crooked." And at least James let her family live in her home, free of charge, as opposed to immediately turning it into a business concern. "Given Trump's position on situations like this, he's going to either need to fire himself or refer himself to the Department of Justice," said Kathleen Engel, a Suffolk University law professor and leading expert on mortgage finance. "Trump has deemed that this type of misrepresentation is sufficient to preclude someone from serving the country." Wouldn't that be something: Trump standing in front of a mirror saying, "You're fired." Those ratings would be bigly.
In an attempt to deflect the story as "liberal propaganda," an administration spokesperson noted that Trump's two mortgages were both from the same lender (Merrill Lynch), and that the bank certainly wasn't going to participate in defrauding itself. Fair enough, but that's also the point with the James mortgages (and with the Adam Schiff mortgages). Anyone who has gone through this process knows that, by the time it releases the funds, the bank knows EVERYTHING about you and your finances and your assets. Whether it's two different banks, or just one, it's inconceivable they could miss that someone applying for a mortgage holds title, in their own name, to another residence. Merrill Lynch knew exactly what it was doing, and so too did the lenders who worked with James and Schiff.
This administration is more than willing to indulge in complete and total hypocrisy, of course, so maybe they'll keep going after James. On the other hand, as we note above, that case isn't going too well. And the case against Schiff is going even worse; Pam Bondi can't find ANYONE willing to try to take that one before a grand jury. Meanwhile, as a political issue, opponents of Trump now have a ready-made response. So, maybe this whole mortgage-fraud nonsense will fade away, and the White House will find some other windmill to tilt at. (Z & L)
Today in TV Hosting News
There were a couple of fairly big news stories about high-profile TV hosting gigs yesterday. And since Donald Trump has bent the media landscape to his will, or at least has tried to do so, that's pretty much the lens through which this kind of news must be viewed. The short version: Trump either went 0-2, or 0-1-1, depending on how one assesses events at CBS.
CBS, readers will recall, has become the property of the right-wing, Trump-loving Ellison family. And the first thing the Ellisons did, on taking over, was put Bari Weiss in charge of the (once-) vaunted CBS news operation. Weiss does not have the résumé to justify that kind of posting. However, she has effectively managed to create a brand that she is "independent" and a "critical thinker," even though she's actually pretty right-leaning and more than a little reactionary, especially these days. She's actually kind of reminiscent of the current iteration of Bill Maher, now that we think about it. Anyhow, putting someone like that in charge allowed the Ellisons to pretend they were performing "journalism" while turning CBS News into something akin to Fox Lite.
On the day that Weiss took over, the anchor seat once occupied by the great Walter Cronkite was actually filled by two people, John Dickerson and Maurice DuBois. On October 27, a couple of weeks after Weiss' hiring became official, Dickerson announced that he would leave CBS News at the end of the year. Over the weekend, DuBois announced that he would be leaving, too. Neither of them was specific about the reason(s) for their resignations, both of which were abrupt and unexpected. But it's not too hard to read between the lines.
This left Weiss with a very big decision to make—what may well be the biggest decision of her tenure—and little time with which to make it, at risk of leaving the CBS Evening News anchor-less at the start of next year. She tried for CNN's Anderson Cooper, but he knows the score, and has no interest in being a propagandist for the right. Then Weiss tried Fox's Bret Baier, but he's already got a high-paying gig ($20 million annually) as a propagandist for the right. So, she eventually had to settle for CBS Mornings co-anchor Tony Dokoupil.
Dokoupil is a convert to Judaism, and is strongly pro-Israel. So, the Trump administration gets someone who will flog the party line on that issue. But beyond that, the new host is pretty milquetoast and pretty middle of the road. Dokoupil will make the White House happier than if, say, Rachel Maddow had landed the gig, but not THAT much happier, particularly since Trump undoubtedly had dreams of a Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham clone. Put another way, the administration got rid of two anchors it mildly disliked (remember, it is 60 Minutes that is the true enemy, not the CBS Evening News) and replaced them with an anchor that is not exactly going to leave Trump spewing rainbows and sunshine. Is that a loss for him, given how much effort he put into trying to turn CBS into a friendly media outlet? Or just a push?
Meanwhile, the definite loss for Trump is over at ABC, as late-night host Jimmy Kimmel isn't going anywhere for at least another year. Actually, more like a year and a half. He signed a contract yesterday that will extend his current deal into May of 2027.
This news is significant for two reasons. First, Kimmel is one of the biggest comedy thorns in Donald Trump's side. The President has apparently been mindful enough of the Streisand Effect to stop giving Kimmel free publicity by lambasting him on Trump's entirely unfunny social media platform, but one wonders how long that will last. Kimmel is going to turn up the heat leading into next year's midterm elections, and we would not be surprised to see Trump's cork eventually pop. Kimmel has actually been hinting at retirement for a while, and we would guess he just could not go gentle into that good night at this particular political moment. If the midterms go well for the blue team next year, and there is some sort of constraint on Trump in the form of a Democratic House and/or Senate, we would not be surprised to see Kimmel call it a career once his extension runs its course.
The second reason that Kimmel's extension is significant is that it's a pretty big middle finger to the White House, from the House of Mouse. Which, it should be noted, is none too easy, since Mickey only has four fingers. It would seem that Disney (which owns ABC, and thus employs Kimmel) is not too scared of Trump anymore. Neither is Costco, which, as we noted last week, is suing for a tariff refund. Walmart is expected to join that party soon, as well. As we get closer and closer to January 20, 2029, we suspect the list of defiant corporations will grow much, much longer. (Z)
Twelve Days of Christmas... Games, Part III: Pictograms
And we can return to the games, now that (Z) is (mostly) recovered. We're going to start running answers next week, so anyone who wants to do any particular game has plenty of time to give it the old college try.
Today's game is pictograms. Each of the 12 images below communicates a well-known two-or-more-word phrase of some sort. And each of the 12 phrases includes some word that is associated, in one way or another, with chilly temperatures. Remember, we said that we would not limit ourselves to ONLY Christmas-related content here.
Here is an example:
That's a pretty big age difference, which makes theirs a May-December romance (assuming you believe there WAS any romance). December, of course, is one of the coldest months of the year, so it's the "chilly temperatures" word in this particular phrase.
And now, the dozen pictograms that actually make up the game:
Number 1:
Number 2:
Number 3:
Number 4:
Number 5:
Number 6:
Number 7:
Number 8:
Number 9:
Number 10:
Number 11:
Number 12:
If you want to give it a try, the link is here (Z).
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones