Main page    Jul. 23


Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

---

Dead Men Tell No Tales, But a Live Woman Might Tell One or Two

Richard Nixon was a considerably more savvy politician than Donald Trump, and yet could not make Watergate go away. That makes us wonder whether Trump, even if he is the Dear Leader, really might have bit off more than he can chew with this Jeffrey Epstein business. In any event, here's the Epsteinwater news from yesterday:

• Wait a Minute, He Had an Accomplice... Who's in Federal Custody!: It was really only a matter of time before someone said "Why don't we ask Ghislaine Maxwell about this?" And that day has come. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche posted this message to eX-Twitter yesterday:

  Justice demands courage. For the first time, the Department of Justice is reaching out to Ghislaine Maxwell to ask: what do you know? At @AGPamBondi's direction, I've contacted her counsel. I intend to meet with her soon. No one is above the law—and no lead is off-limits.

  Clearly, the promise to release a bunch of heavily edited grand jury testimony did not move the needle, and so this is the administration's new plan for performing "transparency."
  
  We honestly cannot imagine a scenario in which an interview with Maxwell, conducted by someone with a vested interest in protecting Trump, puts this story to rest. Let us begin by keeping in mind that Maxwell is a known sleazeball who is willing to violate both the law and morality with impunity in service of her own personal ends. Blanche is not much better. So, if he comes out of the interview and announces "Ms. Maxwell has agreed to testify about the evil deeds committed by 2, or 3, or 6, or 10 Democrats!" is anyone going to believe this is anything other than a corrupt bargain? Even the Marge Greenes of the world won't buy it, we think, especially since what the conspiracists want is documents (or better yet, photos or videos), not the words of someone with an obvious agenda.
  
  Alternatively, if Maxwell has nothing to offer, and Blanche announces "Ms. Maxwell has no insights, I am afraid," nobody is going to buy that either—certainly not the conspiracists. And, of course, if Maxwell fingers Trump, there is zero chance that Blanche is going to share that information. In fact, what he would do in that circumstance is announce: "Ms. Maxwell has no insights, I am afraid." What that means is that if he DOES come out and announce "Ms. Maxwell has no insights, I am afraid," whether that is truthful or not, everyone is going to interpret that as meaning "She pointed the finger at Trump."
  
  The only way in which Maxwell's remarks could be deemed remotely trustworthy is if she is interviewed by someone who is neutral; either a state or federal prosecutor not appointed by Trump, or some sort of referee appointed by a federal judge, or maybe a reliable journalist like Maggie Haberman. If Blanche does the job, then he's just wasting everyone's time.
  
  
• Drip, Drip, Drip: Recall that the Watergate scandal unfolded over something like 18 months. That's a pretty long time, particularly given how short American attention spans tend to be. A big part of what made that possible is that there were new revelations on a near-daily basis, most obviously from Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post, but also from many other reporters (and political insiders) who wanted to make a name for themselves, or who otherwise had something they were looking to accomplish.
  
  While we cannot say how long it will last, we have certainly arrived at the "drip, drip, drip" phase of the Epstein story. Yesterday, CNN published photos of Epstein at Trump's 1993 wedding to Marla Maples (the first time that such photos have been made public, according to the outlet), as well as video footage of Trump and Epstein palling around at various events. Meanwhile, a video from 1991, first published by The Guardian, has reemerged. It shows Trump judging—and, to be blunt, leering at—a bunch of 14-year-old girls in swimsuits, as part of a modeling competition.
  
  We would say that these photos and videos do not reveal anything about Trump that we did not already know. However, they do serve to keep the Epstein story in the headlines, and splashed across social media, for another day. Further, if anyone was skeptical about Trump's proclivities, the material certainly helps affirm the impressions that: (1) he was VERY chummy with Epstein, and (2) he finds underage girls attractive.
  
  
• But, Obama!: Trump is still desperately hanging on to the notion that he can somehow rally the troops around their shared hatred of Barack Obama (and, as a bonus, Hillary Clinton). When a reporter asked about Todd Blanche's plans to interview Ghislaine Maxwell, Trump replied:

  He's a very talented person. He's very smart. I didn't know that they were going to do it. I don't really follow that too much. It's sort of a witch hunt. Just a continuation of the witch hunt. The witch hunt that you should be talking about is they caught President Obama absolutely cold...
  
  You know, when we caught Hillary Clinton, I said, "You know what? Let's not go too far here. It's the ex-wife of a president," and I thought it was sort of terrible. And I let her off the hook, and I'm very happy I did. But it's time to start after what they did to me and whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people.
  
  Obama's been caught directly. So people say, "Oh, you know, a group." It's not a group, it is Obama. His orders are on the paper. The papers are signed. The papers came right out of their office. They sent everything to be highly classified. Well, the highly classified has been released. And what they did in 2016 and in 2020 is very criminal. It's criminal at the highest level. So that's really the things you should be talking about. I know nothing about the other, but I think it's appropriate that they do go.

  Is there anyone who believes Trump's claims that he's not following this story very closely? C'mon. And does anyone believe he took "mercy" on Hillary Clinton because she was once First Lady? C'mon, again. Meanwhile, Barack Obama may still be Black and Democratic, but he's been out of office for close to 10 years. He just doesn't inflame the base's passions the way he used to. The same is true of Clinton, who hasn't been a national figure for at least 5 years. And all of this is before we note that the claims being made are nonsensical, which would be true even if Trump's remarks weren't a word salad.
  
  Incidentally, Obama almost always chooses not to engage, because there's little upside. But he broke that rule, in this case, making a statement yesterday, through a spokesman, that:

  Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.

  We don't see anything there we disagree with.
  
  
• Government Shutdown: No, not that kind of shutdown. That kind can't happen until October 1, at the earliest.
  
  What we mean is that the executive branch is now completely tied in knots by the Epstein mess, and now, the legislative branch is, too. The Senate is still going to work through the end of the week, but the House has recessed, so as to avoid any chance that a Democrat, or Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), or one of the other Republicans who has said they want a vote on the Epstein files, will find a way to force a vote on a bill, or an amendment.
  
  Massie responded by insisting that this is "not going away," and said that he will eventually bring a resolution to the floor of the House, even if he has to wait until September. Since Massie is one of the handful of Republicans who does not tend to always chicken out, and since he loathes Donald Trump, it's reasonable to think this is not just hot air.

We're not so sure the idea of moving the vote on Epstein to September was truly a brilliant move. Politicians tend to think short term, but 5 or 6 weeks is really short. The current House is 219R, 212D with four vacancies. On Sept. 9, there will be a special election in VA-11 that James Walkinshaw (D) is almost certain to win. On Sept. 23, there will be a special election in AZ-07 that Adelita Grijalva (D) is almost certain to win. By Sept. 25 or so, the House will be 219R, 214D. On a discharge petition to force a vote on Epstein, Massie will vote with the Democrats, making it effectively 218R, 215D. If just two Republicans defect, the discharge petition will pass and by September, enough House members may have heard enough from their constituents to be willing to force a vote.

In the end, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and many other Republicans in Congress are hoping that Trump will save them by somehow satiating the wolves between now and September 2. Meanwhile, Trump is hoping that half-measures like the Maxwell interview, along with the fact that Congress will be out of town for a month-plus, will cause the story to eventually die down. We suspect that all involved will be disappointed. And keep in mind that even if things die down in August, the story could come roaring right back to life once, say, Massie gets his resolution to the floor of the House. There were definitely a few one or two-week periods during the Watergate saga where the story moved to the back burner, only to come right back once there was more news.

Incidentally, Bill Kristol had an interesting piece yesterday about why you should hope this story does not just go away. It's not because it could mean Trump's downfall (although Kristol does note that would be a good outcome), it's because in democracies, misbehaving leaders cannot disappear their bad behavior. In autocracies, aided by fawning underlings and a pliant and/or silenced press establishment, they can. And so, Kristol observes: "The Epstein coverup will be an indicator of how far we are down the road to authoritarianism. The success of such a coverup would take us much further down that road." (Z)

Today in Bending the Knee

Donald Trump may be flailing around like a puppet under the control of a madman, but we most certainly have not reached January 7, 2021, status yet. He still has an iron grip on many and varied elements in American society, and so can bend them to his will. Examples from just the last 24 hours:

• What Took So Long?: As Trump has worked his way through a greatest hits of bugaboos, trying to deflect attention from Jeffrey Epstein, we have been wondering when Hillary Clinton and trans athletes would make their first appearances. Well, Tuesday was the day. Clinton was lumped into the attack on Barack Obama (see above). And, as to trans athletes, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee announced that it would yield to "guidance" from Trump, and would ban trans women from being members of the U.S. Olympic or Paralympic teams.
  
  It is probably worth noting, at this point, that this question has been studied, and the conclusion was that trans women who have undergone hormone treatment do not have an advantage over other women athletes, and may actually be at a disadvantage. Also, there have been a grand total of three trans women athletes in the Olympics, only one of whom (Nikki Hiltz) is American (she did not win any medals). Still, undoubtedly readers will sleep better knowing that our long national nightmare is over.
  
  
• There's The Met, and Now, The Melania: Everyone likes to be flattered. But what if the flattery is transparently not genuine, and is only meant to butter up the recipient? It would seem that Trump is either unable to tell the difference or, if he can tell, he doesn't care. So, he was delighted to learn that the Senate Appropriations Committee had voted, along party lines, to honor a notable patron of the arts, and to bestow the name "First Lady Melania Trump Opera House" on the currently unnamed opera venue at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
  
  The decision still has to be approved by the full Senate, and then by the House, but is there really any doubt here? There is no Republican member willing to die on this hill. So, the only real question is, "What show will serve to debut the rechristened First Lady Melania Trump Opera House?" Our vote: The Bartered Bride, by Bedrich Smetana. Although we could see a case for The Merry Widow, by Franz Lehár. Call it a little foreshadowing. Those are just our suggestions, though; what do readers think?
  
  
• UNESCO: This isn't exactly kowtowing to Trump yet; it won't be until the 90-day review period is over. Still, Trump announced yesterday that he is commencing the process of pulling the U.S. out of UNESCO, because he says UNESCO is: (1) too woke/pro-DEI, (2) too pro-Palestine, and (3) too pro-China. This will be the fourth time the U.S. has withdrawn from UNESCO, incidentally; it also happened under Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and during the first Trump presidency. In other words, when a Republican takes over, the U.S. leaves; when a Democrat takes over, the U.S. rejoins.
  
  
• Coked Up: This is the oddest item on this list. In short, Trump has expended some time in the last couple of weeks complaining that Coca-Cola in the U.S. is made with high-fructose corn syrup, instead of cane sugar. The apparent source of this complaint is the belief, on the part of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy and others, that corn syrup is unhealthy, and cane sugar is better.
  
  Trump undoubtedly does not know that Kennedy is only half-right. Corn syrup is indeed unhealthy. However, cane sugar is not better; it's unhealthy in the same ways, and for the same reasons. Trump presumably also does not know that the glut of corn syrup in the U.S. came about because corn farmers (i.e., a Trump demographic) needed to be able to do something with the glut of corn they were producing. And finally, we presume Trump does not know that Coke made with cane sugar is... how they do it in Mexico. One would not expect him to look to the good people south of the border as a role model, but there it is. ¡Saludos Amigos!
  
  Anyhow, Coke announced yesterday that Trump is going to get what he wants... sort of. They are going to begin selling sugar-cane-based Coca-Cola in the U.S. again. However, they are not getting rid of the corn-syrup Coke, they're going to just add another line of product with special labeling. Coca-MAGA, maybe? We're not sure if the corporation is trying to curry favor with the President, or if they just saw a marketing opportunity, or both. The only thing we are sure of is that Donald Trump Jr. must have been delighted when he heard that American coke is about to get better.

In short, there's a fair bit of pandering going on right now. Maybe even a lot of pandering, depending on how you score the Coke story.

And now, the counter-example. One place where you are not going to find any pandering to Trump is on CBS, from about 11:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. on weeknights. There is none so free as one who has nothing to lose, of course. And while Stephen Colbert was not exactly taking it easy on Trump over the last 10 years or so, any existing restraints have been removed. The network can't cancel Colbert, because they already did that, and they still have to pay out his contract, whether they put him on the air or not. Indeed, one wonders if this was a backdoor way of poking Trump in the eye; giving Colbert 10 months' warning, and thus 10 months to run hog wild.

In any case, Trump—who couldn't find the high road if you gave him a compass, a GPS, and you left a trail of bread crumbs showing the way—celebrated Colbert's demise with a couple of low-class messages on Trump's less-audience-than-Colbert-on-his-worst-night social media platform. This was the first of them:

I absolutely love that Colbert' got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings. I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next. Has even less talent than Colbert! Greg Gutfeld is better than all of them combined, including the Moron [Jimmy Fallon] on NBC who ruined the once great 'Tonight Show'.

The point here is that Trump took the first potshot, and basically dared Colbert to respond.

And respond is exactly what Colbert did. On the first brodcast after the announcement (and after Trump's cheap shots), Colbert had a few choice things to say. You can see the whole monologue here, if you wish:

It was chock-full of comments at the expense of Trump, with many references to Jeffrey Epstein. However, the moment that went viral came at about 4:36, when Colbert shared that snotty message from Trump, read it in his best Trump voice, and then said: "How dare—how—how dare you, sir? Would an untalented man be able to compose the following satirical witticism?" Colbert then turned to a camera that had a pre-installed graphical frame with the label "Eloquence Cam":

Once he was on the "Eloquence Cam," Colbert issued forth with his satirical witticism: "Go fu** yourself" (and yes, it was bleeped out on-air).

Anyhow, it's going to be very interesting to see what Colbert does now that, in his words, "the gloves are off." We predict that he's going to exit late night on the best run of ratings he's ever had. (Z)

Iowa Wants to Go Back to the Front of the Line

Back in 2020, Iowa famously botched its caucuses. The state tried to mix 21st-century technology (iPads and Zoom sessions) with a 19th-century form of democratic participation, and it just did not work out. Put it this way: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) got the most votes, with 45,652. However, he only got the second-most delegates, with 12. That is because while Pete Buttigieg may have gotten the second-most votes, with 43,209, he got the most State Delegate Equivalents (SDEs), with 563. Sanders' total was a mere 562. So, Mayor Pete got 14 delegates, and even that took 3 days to figure out, in part because virtually nobody even understands what SDEs are, or how to convert votes into SDEs.

There are a couple of other potential problems with the Iowa caucuses. The first is that they favor extremely devoted partisans over casual voters. So, someone with a base of hardcore fans (like, for example, Sanders) can do very well. Some might see this as a feature, not a bug, but others would observe that the vast majority of American voters are casual, and tend to be put off by the types of candidates who attract a hardcore fanbase. Put another way, there are enough people who really, really love Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum or Tom Harkin to power those men to victory in a primary. But there aren't enough people who like those men to power them to victory in a national election.

The other problem with Iowa, of course, is that its population does not match the demographics of the country, in general, or of the Democratic Party, in particular. It is very white, and has a pretty high median age (39.5 years old). Also, Iowans care about issues, like corn subsidies, that do not have a lot of national resonance. So, the type of candidate that receives the blessing of Iowa caucus voters might not be a great match for voters in populous states like New York and California, or more diverse states like South Carolina and Nevada, or states with more young voters, like Colorado and Georgia.

For these reasons, while he was president, Joe Biden applied some muscle to try to move South Carolina up the list, and therefore to move Iowa down. Biden did not have quite enough muscle to make that a fait accompli, mind you. Most primaries, including the one in South Carolina, are staged by the state government. And the very Republican state government of South Carolina is not interested in taking orders from a Democratic president. Further, New Hampshire cares a lot about its first-primary-in-the-nation status, which is enshrined in its state constitution. And so, officials there will do whatever they have to do to hold their place at the front of the primary line. If they have to get out the DeLorean and move their 2028 primary to November 5, 1955, they will do it, thank you very much.

Meanwhile, despite the screw-ups in 2020, and despite the general problems with the Iowa caucuses, the Iowa Democratic Party wants to bat lead-off again, and is making moves to try to make that a reality. They have four basic arguments as to why they should get another shot:

1. Joe Biden is not in charge anymore, is not in favor right now, and besides, was not actually able to reshape the calendar the way he wanted.
   
   
2. Iowa may not be perfectly representative, but because it is small(ish), a candidate without a lot of name recognition or money can establish themselves as a legitimate contender if they are willing to put in the work, and if they are good at retail campaigning. (This is true; the textbook case is Jimmy Carter, who used Iowa to go from "Jimmy who?" to "serious candidate.")
   
   
3. No matter what the Democrats do, the Republicans are going to hold a caucus in Iowa in January 2028. If there's no Democratic event, then the GOP will gobble up all the headlines.
   
   
4. The Democrats are doing pretty well with the Starbucks-drinking, liberal, urban, educated, elite vote, and maybe should be looking for candidates that also have a shot at the salt-of-the-earth, corn-fed, heartland, hotdish-eating vote.

It is not possible, incidentally, to balance the desire of South Carolina to go first and that of New Hampshire to go first. It's gotta be one or the other. On the other hand, it is certainly possible to balance Iowa and New Hampshire, because Iowa is a caucus. New Hampshire's constitution doesn't say anything about caucuses, only that they WILL host the first primary on the calendar. Also, caucuses are staged by the party, so the fact that Iowa's state government is run by Republicans doesn't matter.

In the end, there is no such thing as a level playing field here. Whatever state goes first, it is going to favor a particular type of candidate, in terms of their skills, their demographics, their bank account, their home state/region, etc. The most important thing for the Democrats is to make a firm and fast decision, as quickly as is possible, so that 2028 candidates can plan accordingly. The problem is that this is not exactly a party known for its ability to make firm and fast decisions, as quickly as is possible. (Z)

Democratic Presidential Candidate of the Week, #31: Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ)

And the beat goes on. Here are the profiles we've done so far:

40. Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ)
41. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
42. Al Franken
43. Jon Tester
44. Jon Stewart
45. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)
46. Mitch Landrieu
47. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA)
48. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA)

And now, Katie Hobbs, you're up to bat:

• Full Name: Kathleen Marie Hobbs
  
  
• Age on January 20, 2029: 59
  
  
• Background: "Three Catholics and a Jew" sounds like the start of a joke involving a lifeboat, or walking into a bar, but it's actually a description of the last four candidates we've profiled. Don't forget, there are a lot of religious Democrats out there; they just don't tend to wear it on their sleeves.
  
  Anyhow, the Phoenix-born Hobbs is a lifelong Arizonan. There are some states where voters don't much care about that, and some where voters do, and Arizona is in the second category, perhaps because the two most famous Arizona politicians, Barry Goldwater and John McCain, were proud, lifelong Arizonans (even if McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone). Like Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) last week, Hobbs was born to a family where money was tight, but she was nonetheless educated at Catholic schools throughout her pre-college years.
  
  Given the socioeconomic status of her parents, Hobbs was on her own when it came to paying for college, and so she put herself through Northern Arizona University, and then Arizona State University, receiving bachelor's and master's degrees in social work. Thereafter, she worked with poor kids in Phoenix, and then assumed leadership of the Sojourner Center, a very large shelter for battered women. Though one might be tempted to guess that is a reference to Sojourner Truth, it is not; it's just meant to convey that the facility offers temporary accommodations for "travelers" who need them.
  
  During her private-sector career, in addition to social work (which is really exhausting, by the way), Hobbs participated in an ungodly number of professional and activist organizations, most obviously the National Association of Social Workers and Emerge Arizona, which encourages women to run for political office. She was also a delegate for Hillary Clinton at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and so had a front-row seat as the then-senator lost out to her colleague from Illinois.
  
  
• Political Experience: After spending some time trying to recruit other women to run for political office, Hobbs decided to look in the mirror and recruit herself. She ran for the Arizona state House in 2010, and won easily. Of course, 2010 was a census year, and by 2012, Hobbs' reliably blue district had been redrawn to be ruby red. She decided she liked her chances better in the state Senate, and so ran for a seat in that body, winning comfortably, and then was reelected two times. During the latter two of those terms, Hobbs was also Senate Minority Leader.
  
  In 2015, Hobbs' first year as minority leader, she ended up embroiled in a scandal, of sorts, that nearly derailed her career. One of the aides in her office was Talonya Adams, who is Black. Adams complained to Hobbs that she (Adams) felt discriminated against on the basis of race and gender. Hobbs later fired Adams—Adams claimed it was retaliatory, Hobbs said it was for poor performance. Adams eventually sued, and won a $2.75 million judgment, though the case dragged out over 6 years.
  
  By the time that judgment was rendered, Hobbs was serving as Arizona Secretary of State, having been elected in 2018. It surely did not hurt that the verdict came down during a non-election year; nonetheless, the dispute with Adams is the kind of thing that can come back to haunt a person who runs for president. After a term as secretary, Hobbs decided to run for the governorship. She had the good fortune to draw a crazypants opponent in Kari Lake, and so eked out a victory, 50.32% to 49.65%. One has to imagine that, against a normal Republican, Hobbs would not have won.
  
  
• Signature Issue(s): Abortion. By virtue of her private-sector career, Hobbs has broad experience with, and credibility on, women's issues. But Arizona has been ground-zero (well one of them) for the post-Dobbs fight over abortion access, and she has managed to hold the line against Republicans who (literally) wanted to turn the clock back to 1864.
  
  
• What Would Her Pitch Be?: "I can bring a key swing state back into the Democratic column."
  
  
• Instructive Quote: "Arizonans are sick and tired of our government being run by conspiracy theorists—like Kari Lake—who wasted our taxpayer dollars and breached voters' trust in their effort to discredit the 2020 election."
  
  
• Completely Trivial Fact: Twins make up 1.7% of the population which means that, roughly speaking, there should be one "twin" president in the first 60. The U.S. is currently on the 45th person to serve, and it hasn't happened yet. But it could happen with the 46th, as Hobbs has a (fraternal) twin sister named Becky.
  
  
• Recent News: One of Hobbs' main focuses, as governor, has been expanding funding for childcare. And just yesterday, she announced that 900 more working-class children will be funded under the state's Child Care Assistance Program.
  
  
• Strengths for the Democratic Primaries: (1) Hobbs does empathy well, and her remarks after various natural disasters come off as very genuine; (2) If abortion ends up as THE issue in 2028, Hobbs is a very good standard-bearer; and (3) Hobbs is a woman, and some Democratic primary voters are eager to break that glass ceiling, after coming up short in two of the last three presidential contests.
  
  
• Weaknesses for the Democratic Primaries: (1) Hobbs leans way too heavy on the politician-speak, and so her words sometimes seem a bit rote and empty; (2) Arizona is one of the last states to hold its primary, so she won't get the "freebie" boost that Democrats from the Midwest or New England get early in primary season; (3) Hobbs is a woman, and some Democratic primary voters clearly believe that "white guy who doesn't scare people in the heartland" is the way to go in 2028.
  
  
• Polls: She's not being polled as a presidential candidate, but Hobbs does have an approval rating of around 50%, against a disapproval of around 38%, putting her 12 points above water. That's not too bad, these days.
  
  
• How Does the Readership Feel?: We asked readers for their thoughts on Hobbs running for president; here are some of those responses:
  
  
  • P.D.N. in Boardman, OH: Well, she's from a crucial swing state the Democrats would love to win back and she's fairly popular in spite of the Trumpy headwinds there, but the Democrats are not going to nominate another woman as their presidential candidate. Maybe she could be a vice-presidential candidate if the Party feels it has to have Arizona's electoral votes and she could deliver them, LBJ-style.
    
    
  • K.T. in Oakdale, NY: There will be two viable lanes in 2028: (1) New and exciting (like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY) or (2) Safe, steady white man who can communicate effectively (like Gov. Phil Murphy, D-NJ). Candidates like Pete Buttigieg may try out both lanes. Katie Hobbs has no path in either lane, and barely notched a win over an absolutely terrible candidate in Kari Lake in an important swing state. She has no chance of winning a primary, much less a general, and won't run for president.
    
    
  • J.S. in Phoenix, AZ: Katie Hobbs is doing the "western, moderate Democrat" bit well for us in Arizona, but I doubt that would translate into a viable national campaign.
    
    On one hand, she vetoed nearly 400 bills sent to her desk in her first three years as governor, including 174 this year alone. While some unpopular bills from the Republican-led legislature are signed, including things that would be considered non-starters in a Democratic run state, like "school choice" bills that steal public school dollars and ID-verification rules for adult content websites, she also has generally held the line against the wild extremism of the current Arizona brand of Republicanism, which is far removed from the days of Goldwater and McCain and is characterized now by people like Kari Lake, Kelli Ward, and Rep. Paul Gosar (R) and their like-minded cronies who easily win heavily R-favored legislative districts in rural and suburban Arizona. Due to the slim-but-powerful Republican legislative majority and its ideological hold on state politics, it means Hobbs is rarely doing anything more than saying "no" to the legislature and maintaining the status quo otherwise, meaning her résumé looks thin and her list of accomplishments small.
    
    Polls of the 2026 governor's race give Hobbs only a slim lead, partly because her Democratic voters want her to do more (which she can't), while the independent and Republican voters see her as an obstructionist. I, for one, don't feel like Hobbs truly had the charisma and charm to win in Arizona if not for the perfect opportunities afforded by an open seat and running against a nutjob Trump-lite Kari Lake, and she would have an uphill battle selling herself to Democrats nationally.
    
    I think for Hobbs to find her way into the White House it would be as a VP candidate. If something awful were to happen to test her leadership and prove it true, that could elevate her but, last I checked, Phoenix is basically immune from most natural disasters, so I wouldn't count on it.
    
    
  • J.C. in Honolulu, HI: The Vikings have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl than Katie Hobbs winning the Democratic nomination in 2028.
    
    
  • G.G. in Sausalito, CA: My late wife, Myra Levenson, and I were residents of Tucson for several years. Myra was reasonably active in Democratic politics, but as a former executive at a very conservative insurance company, I was at best a centrist (at least until Trump crawled out from under his rock again). Yet, as a dutiful husband, I accompanied her to several intimate political gatherings.
    
    One of these gatherings was held in the yard of some friends in Tucson. And candidate Katie Hobbs was to be the speaker. She totally lacked presence and seemed to be just another one of the guests.
    
    I never met anyone as unimpressive a speaker as Katie Hobbs. She spoke in a whisper and was barely able to be heard in a small backyard gathering consisting of perhaps two dozen supporters. She said nothing of substance, nothing motivating, nothing inspiring. As my grandchildren would say, she lacks "rizz."
    
    
  • A.M. in Phoenix, AZ: I've lived off-again, on-again in Phoenix for the better part of 2 decades. It's been interesting to watch the state go from a ruby-red Republican state, although one with a real maverick streak, to becoming a more purple state. This has a lot to do with Latino voting power, millennials coming of age, but probably more significantly that a lot of folks have moved to Arizona in the last two decades—especially from neighboring California where they've been priced out.
    
    And that's how we get to a 2022 election that had a squeaker of an AG contest but a reasonably clear victory for Katie Hobbs. It helped that she was up against Kari Lake, who seems to have no problem lodging her foot in her mouth. Rule number one of the state is: Don't speak ill of John McCain, and Lake basically told those voters to buzz off.
    
    How has Hobbs been doing? Well, given that the legislature has been majority-Republican for a long while now, as well as she can. There was some hope that the Democrats would take the legislature in 2024, but it was a bad year across the board. She is mostly curbing the worst instincts of the GOP in the state.
    
    With that long intro on her, what are her chances of running for the presidency? Basically, less than zero. I'm honestly not convinced she'll win re-election. Even if she pulls that off, I just don't see her making a stab at the White House. Now, if the candidate is Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) or Pete Buttigieg, I could see them wanting a woman from a battleground state as veep, but more likely than not, if she wanted to be in the administration I would think she'd get HHS or Interior (folks in the White House love putting Westerners in at Interior, and probably for good reason).
  
  
• The Bottom Line: Hobbs is something of a poor woman's version of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI), and we'd guess the only way there's a possible lane for the Arizonan is if the Michigander takes a pass.

Next week, it's #30, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA). If readers have comments about Warner running for president in 2028, please send them to comments@electoral-vote.com.

Never Forget: A Moment Stuck in Time

Today, a reminiscence from reader D.R. in Norwalk, CT:

As a young boy in the 1960s, I would occasionally find myself poking through my father's dresser drawers, where he had all kinds of cool things. Boxes with foreign coins, old photos, various trinkets that were probably unremarkable, but seemed interesting to me at the time. One was a rusted pocket watch, stopped at about 6:35. Another, a single dog tag, with his name and my mom's address. Old currency and train tickets from India.

Anytime I asked dad about those things, he simply shrugged it off and said, "Oh, that was from World War II" and we moved on to other things. He had important skills for the war effort, and was eventually sent to the China-Burma-India theatre, supporting the Flying Tigers as they supplied China via the Himalayas.

On his way to deployment in Karachi, he and over 2,000 other men were crammed onto a rusty, unseaworthy ship, the HMT Rohna, sailing from Oran, North Africa, through the Mediterranean, en route to the Suez canal and British India.

On November 26, 1943, it was Dad's turn for kitchen duty. He was carrying a tray of food from an upper deck kitchen, out on deck, on his way to deliver to men below. He saw the Luftwaffe, and their attack. The attack was eventually fended off, except for one Heinkel bomber that lingered. It released a bomb. Dad watched it glide from a distance, and saw it weave and swerve, striking the Rohna with deadly accuracy.

The Rohna sank, and 1,157 men died in the attack. It was the greatest United States loss of life at sea caused by enemy action, ever. Yet even today, few people know. The bomb that sank the Rohna was the first ever use of a rocket-powered, radio-controlled "glide bomb." The U.S. War Department decided the weapon was so advanced that its use and effectiveness needed to be considered classified and Secret. It remained officially classified until about 1995, over 50 years later. It was only when the classified status was lifted that Dad ever spoke about the horrific event. Dad floated in the Mediterranean until rescued, holding on to a wooden bulkhead, witnessing strafing, and fellow soldiers slipping beneath the surface of the water.

It is important to Never Forget. It is even more so, when most people simply never knew, due to the government secrecies over events long ago.

The dog tag was a replacement. Dad's name permanently changed from Lawrence to Laurent, because the tags he was wearing got lost when he hit the water. His French-speaking parish priest back home sent the army a baptismal certificate, in French, of course. The watch was in dad's pocket when he hit the sea. A moment stuck in time.

Thanks, D.R. (Z)

Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones