Main page    May 30

Senate map
Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
The third piece in the Biden series is already 3,000 words, and not that close to being done. We can finish it OR we can have a somewhat normal Friday posting, but not both. We choose the latter, so we'll have the Biden finale on Tuesday of next week.

Trump vs. Harvard: Are the Administration's Options Beginning to Peter Out?

Donald Trump and his administration continue to wage war against Harvard, having undertaken a couple more maneuvers designed to bring the university to its knees.

The first of those is the announcement that the administration will cancel another $100 million in contracts that the government has signed with the university. That follows the nearly $3 billion in contracts (mostly funding for research) that have already been canceled.

The second of those is a plan to make it much harder for international students to get student visas. Reportedly, the State Department will conduct much more "probing" interviews, and will spend time looking into applicants' social media. According to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Chinese students will come in for special scrutiny, and will be rejected if they have "communist ties" or they are working in "critical fields."

The $100 million in contracts has the same set of problems as all the other cancellations, namely that there's a point to writing up and signing contracts, and that is so the two parties are both committed, and neither of them can back out for no good reason. That applies even to the President of the United States; if the administration moves forward with these new cancellations (they're still "being studied" right now), then it will end up in court, with the other $3 billion worth of agreements.

As to the student visas, perhaps this plan sounds plausible in theory. In practice, it's a mess. The State Department has been DOGE-ified, and lengthening interviews/going through social media would demand person-hours that really aren't available. If the focus is particularly on Chinese students, well, there are about 300,000 of them with visas right now. Their social media is largely going to be in—wait for it—Chinese, a language that most State Department employees are not fluent in. Further, how does one even determine if a citizen of a communist nation has "ties to communism"? That's like trying to figure out if a U.S. citizen has "ties to capitalism."

Similarly, how does one determine if a student is working in a "critical field"? Sure, we can see it if a research team is building nuclear bombs or something like that. It's easy enough to boot all the Chinese students from the Manhattan Project. But for the vast majority of research going on in 2025 (as opposed to the 1940s), you have to be a world-class expert to possibly understand what's critical and/or some sort of potential security risk. For example, Geoffrey Hinton, who is the most recent Nobel laureate in Physics, works on visualizing data using t-SNE. Terence Tao, who may be the country's best mathematician, is known for his work on compressed sensing. Dan Kahne, who chairs the Department of Chemistry at Harvard, has done a lot of research into lipopolysaccharide transporters. Can you tell if any of those are "critical fields" or represent some sort of security risk? And do you think Marco Rubio can tell?

The Rubio announcements have been met with a combination of eye-rolling and hair-tearing-out by the federal bureaucracy. We'll find out if he's actually able to implement his plans, or if he even tries. In any event, the first thought we had when we heard about the new anti-Harvard measures was... the White House's bag of tricks seems to be running short. The $100 million is way less impressive and less impactful than $3 billion, and the student visa plans are somewhat impractical and certainly are not laser-focused on just one school. Maybe the administration is running out of leverage to utilize.

Meanwhile, the pushback is well underway. Trump bragged this week that "Harvard wants to fight. They want to show how smart they are, and they're getting their ass kicked." But the evidence does not support that conclusion, as the university has already prevailed in court several times. Most recently, U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs extended the temporary restraining order she issued, the one that prohibits the administration from revoking Harvard's right to accept foreign students.

At the same time, prominent members of the Harvard faculty are all over the place, flaying the administration, and mounting a resistance. Steven Pinker, who is in the running for "most famous faculty member at Harvard," wrote an op-ed for The New York Times in which he accused the administration of having a case of "Harvard Derangement Syndrome" and said that while much/all of this is being done in the name of fighting antisemitism, the actions of Trump and his minions are actually harming Jews. Similarly, Laurence Tribe, who is also in the running for "most famous faculty member at Harvard," went on TV to slam Trump as a "paper tiger" and "tin horn tyrant" who is going to lose, and lose, and lose some more in court over the coming months and years.

That's the latest Harvard-related news but, as long as we're on the general subject, we thought we would also address a few Harvard-related rumors/urban legends that have circulated widely in the last couple of weeks:

And that's the latest from Cambridge. We doubt we'll be able to get through next week without at least one Harvard item, given how fast the slings and arrows are flying back and forth. (Z)

Trump Administration Goes All-in on the Fascist Immigration Playbook

Again, we really don't like to use that kind of loaded language when we write this site. But when the shoe fits, what choice do we have?

The first news on this front, which broke yesterday, involves 54-year-old immigrant Ramon Morales Reyes, who is undocumented. This week, a DHS official received an envelope, which included Reyes' return address on it. Inside was this note:

It is on lined paper with light-blue ink, and reads: 'We are tired of this president messing with us Mexicans we have done more for this country than you white people you have been deporting my family and I think it is time Donald J. Trump get what he has coming to him. I will self deport myself back to Mexico but not before I use my 30 yard 6 to shoot your precious president in is (sic) head - I will see him at one of his big ralleys (sic).'

When we first read it, it felt like those situations where someone tries to mimic a child's writing or drawing style; it was created by someone working mightily to make it LOOK and SEEM authentic. But it is improbable, for example, that a would-be assassin would not only warn the government of his plans, but would conveniently include his home address. What is this, a James Bond movie?

Despite these red flags, Noem ran with it. In fact, not only did she run with it, she said the letter was received shortly after James Comey posted his seashell picture, and so was clearly inspired by him. As far as leaps of logic go, that one is just... nuts. The FBI has since confirmed that there is no way Reyes wrote the letter, and that it was almost certainly the work of a different person who is facing a criminal trial, one where Reyes is a witness for the prosecution. Needless to say, if Reyes is deported, he will not be in a great position to testify.

When Noem went forward with this, she either knew she was telling a 100% lie, or she took aggressive steps to put her fingers in her ears and her head in the sand so she could claim that she didn't know. In the latter case, it would be gross negligence and, either way, Reyes certainly has the basis for a defamation lawsuit. Remember, as we've noted recently, government employees DO NOT have immunity from civil suits related to their actions. Her behavior is also vile, and creating bugaboos out of lies and misrepresentations is absolutely Fascism 101.

The other news on the immigration front (beyond the student visas; see above), is this: Marco Rubio and Stephen Miller, themselves the child and grandchild of immigrants, respectively, are endeavoring to create a new "Department of Remigration." Not familiar with that word? We'll just share the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Remigration:

Remigration is a far-right European concept of ethnic cleansing via the mass deportation or promoted voluntary return of non-white immigrants and their descendants, usually including those born in Europe, to their place of racial ancestry, often with no regard for their citizenship or legal status.

In this case, readers don't even need our opinion that this is fascist, because Rubio and Miller got the idea from literal fascists in Germany and Austria. Perhaps they are unaware that, among the targets of various remigration movements, have been Latinos and Jews. In fact, Jews were the FIRST target.

We thought we had to pass these stories along, but beyond that, we don't know what to say, other than: These are such terrible, terrible people. (Z)

Make a Wish!: The Decline and Fall of Ron Weaselly

There was a time when Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) was a rising star in the GOP. In fact, he was arguably THE rising star, and the heir presumptive to the MAGA throne. These days, it looks more like he was a shooting star, one who burned bright and is now fading away.

The governor is currently beset by all sorts of problems that speak to his much-reduced status. Here is a solid, but not comprehensive, list:

When DeSantis first burst onto the national scene, a few years back, we thought he might just be able to position himself as the heir to the MAGA throne. But since then, he's grossly overplayed his hand with all the crazy authoritarian stuff, he's gotten in ethical/legal trouble, he's shown that he's got the charisma of a boiled potato, he's alienated much of the MAGA base, and he's been the butt of many a joke. He's cooked, just like the last governor of Florida who was so overconfident in his chances, he'd already begun looking at patterns for the Oval Office curtains. All that's left is for DeSantis to announce that his new, high-energy slogan is "Ron!" (Z)

Trade Wars: As Horace Said, "Seize the Day, Trusting as Little as Possible in Tomorrow"

There was a little bit of tariff-related news yesterday, which the Trump administration is hailing as a victory: In a brief order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed Wednesday's ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT), the one that struck down virtually all of the tariffs that Donald Trump had announced since becoming president for a second time.

We chose the Horace quote for the headline because there is an excellent possibility that today's victory becomes tomorrow's defeat (well, more like next week's defeat). The USCIT ruling is only stayed for a little more than a week, so that parties on both sides have a chance to file briefs, and the Appeals Court has time to consider the matter. This is a very common short-term outcome, and was likely enough that the USCIT had actually already stayed its own ruling for 10 days, to give the Appeals Court every opportunity to decide if it wanted to take a look-see. Put another way, the ruling would not have taken effect until June 7, at the earliest. Now, that has been pushed back to... June 9. That doesn't really tell us anything about the merits of the administration's case.

And that brings us to the next point, which is that, as we noted yesterday, the administration's argument is pretty weak, and is going to be evaluated by judges who are hostile to either unchecked executive power or protectionism or both. Yesterday, in a piece for Politico, former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori highlighted a couple of other problem areas for the White House.

First, the administration's arguments are based heavily on a 1971 case, United States v. Yoshida International, in which the Supreme Court allowed Richard Nixon to implement some (fairly limited) tariffs on his own authority. At first glance, that seems like an excellent precedent for Team Trump to use. However, the administration's lawyers had to pick and choose, utilizing the elements of the decision they like, and ignoring the parts they don't like. For example, Trump and his legal team are arguing that tariff rates are not a justiciable question. In Yoshida, SCOTUS said they most certainly ARE a justiciable question. Needless to say, this kind of picking-and-choosing does not make for a great foundation, as it: (1) brings the judges' attention to a ruling that, in some ways, undermines the administration's case, and (2) suggests that they couldn't come up with better precedents, because if they could, they wouldn't have used this one.

The other issue that Khardori points out is one of legal philosophy, albeit a different philosophical issue than the ones we pointed out. In brief, the general trendline in jurisprudence in the last decade or so, and in particular in conservative jurisprudence, has been "Congress has given away too many powers to the executive branch, powers it is not allowed to delegate." It seems improbable that, in this one case, the justices of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or of the Supreme Court, are going to do a 180, and strike down a decision that is entirely in harmony with the general trendline.

You never know what a court—be it the Appeals Court or the Supreme Court—will do, until it does it. But if you had to bet, you'd still want to bet heavily against the administration.

Also, there is one other matter worth noting, one we did not have time to fit into yesterday's item. If the ruling from the USCIT stands, here are the tariffs that will go the way of the dodo:

Meanwhile, here are the tariffs that will still stand:

So, if the USCIT ruling survives appeal, then it will take a real bite out of Trump's plans. (Z)

The End of an Era: The Dean of Presidential Grandsons Has Passed Away

On Sunday, an era finally came to a close. It's an era that you might have expected to have ended oh, say, 100 years ago, but not so much. For those not already in the know, we are speaking of the death of Harrison Ruffin Tyler.

Tyler had an extremely successful career as a businessman and engineer, but this is not why he was famous. No, the key to his fame was the last name "Tyler," which he got from his father, Lyon Gardiner Tyler, and which Lyon got from HIS father, John Tyler. That is the same John Tyler who was born in 1790, who served as President of the United States from 1841-45 (after William Henry "Tippecanoe" Harrison keeled over), and who died in 1862, shortly after being elected to the Confederate Congress.

In other words, until Sunday, the grandson of a man born while George Washington was president, who served himself as president two decades before the Civil War, and who died of old age during the Civil War, still walked among us. That was made possible by John Tyler being a dirty old man who continued to have kids well into his senior years (15 in total; Lyon was born in 1853, when John was 63), and then Lyon picking up the family habit, and also being a dirty old man who continued to have kids into his senior years (6 in total; Harrison was born in 1928, when Lyon was 75). Obviously, Harrison Tyler never met his grandfather, having missed the opportunity by a mere 66 years.

We should probably also note that the "Ruffin" in Harrison Tyler's name comes from his great-grandfather Edmund. Edmund Ruffin was a white supremacist and pro-Confederate zealot who is best known for being given the honor of ordering the firing of the first shot at Fort Sumter. He was so disappointed when the South lost the Civil War that he took his own life (there are those who call it the "last shot" of the Civil War). Edmund Ruffin, who had 11 kids, was not related to John Tyler; that lineage comes from Harrison's mother. It would seem that women on both sides of Harrison's family had a taste for racists with very active libidos.

Naturally, this is not all that important in the scheme of things, but we still thought we should note it. Oh, and Harrison, who had only three kids, the last when he was 32, did not inherit his forebears' habit in that area. Or the other habit, for that matter. Anyhow, vaya con dios, Harrison Tyler. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown

For last week's theme, the first hint we gave was: "it's certainly been a tiring week (see above note), but you shouldn't cry for us, especially if you're in Argentina." On Saturday, we added: "If you're still working on the headline theme, we'll say that you might want to think about the Great White Way (although not the same Great White Way that Stephen Miller has in mind)." In response to that hint, reader D.E. in Lancaster, PA offered this observation:

Au contraire, mon amis, it IS the same as Stephen Miller's Great White Way. I'm talking the musical within a musical, The Producers' "Springtime For Hitler: A Gay Romp with Adolf and Eva at Berchtesgaden!" I could really see Miller making a good go at playing Franz Liebkind—he would be a natural. See, you guys are more clever than you knew (or maybe you should just say that was your intention all along).

We wished we'd thought of it, but no, it wasn't our intention. And now, in case it's not already obvious, here is the solution, courtesy of reader M.M. in Dunellen, NJ:

Broadway musicals!

We didn't expect this level of detail in readers' answers, but just to make sure we didn't use anything too obscure, we limited ourselves to musicals that had at least 1,000 performances. That includes You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown from this item's headline (1,597 performances in its original run). Our first hint referred to the musical Evita (1,567 performances), and the second to the most common nickname for Broadway.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

  1. J.D. in Jamaica Plain, MA
  2. J.G. in Truro, England, UK
  3. S.G. in Durham, NC
  4. G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN
  5. M.S. in Canton, NY
  6. M.Y. in San Jose, CA
  7. J.F. in Fayetteville, NC
  8. G.W. in Avon, CT
  9. R D. in Cheshire, CT
  10. K.G.W. in Lafayette, IN
  11. T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT
  12. J.T. in Philadelphia, PA
  13. N.H. in London, England, UK
  14. M.M. in Dunellen
  15. P.R. in Kirksville, MO
  16. K.H. in Maryville, TN
  17. K.J. in Paw Paw, MI
  18. M.T. in Simpsonville, SC
  19. D.E. in High Springs, FL
  20. T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts
  21. A.D. in Vass, NC
  22. S.K. in Ardmore, PA
  23. M.W. in Altea, Spain
  24. W.V. in San Jacinto, CA
  25. D.P. in Mt Rainier, MD
  1. D.K. in Bethesda, MD
  2. J.A. in Queretaro, Mexico
  3. R.P.E.H. in London, England, UK
  4. A.L. in Ottawa, ON, Canada
  5. M.K. in Rye, NY
  6. M.F. in Goshen, KY
  7. D.D. in Highland Park, IL
  8. J.W. in York, England, UK
  9. J.T. in Madison, WI
  10. B.R. in Arlington, MA
  11. K.F. in Berea, KY
  12. A.H. in Newberg, OR
  13. M.M. in Charlottesville, VA
  14. R.R. in Lancaster, PA
  15. B.K. in Mystic, CT
  16. B.W. in Tyngsborough, MA
  17. S.A. in Clinton, WA
  18. P.D. in Leamington, ON, Canada
  19. R.E. in Birmingham, AL
  20. D.P. in San Jose, CA
  21. D.L. in Uslar, Germany
  22. N.S. in Fayetteville, NY
  23. S.W. in Corvallis, OR
  24. J.N. in Zionsville, IN
  25. B.E. in Brooklyn, NY

The 50th correct response was received at 7:31 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, it's in the category Literature, and it does not include the item about the administration's vile immigration policies. For a hint, we'll say that one of the headlines is actually a little TOO on the nose, but we just couldn't resist.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line May 30 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: When People Talk about "Trump's Bill," Is THIS What They Mean?

As we have explained in the past, we take the position that if a political meme catches fire on the Internet, that communicates something meaningful—that the idea or criticism or joke has moved beyond just the world of political wonks. That, in turn, suggests a potentially useful line of messaging for one party or the other.

We offer this reminder as preface to this week's schadenfreude. Donald Trump has been willing to do a lot of harm in order to advance his tariff plan, and to achieve... whatever he's trying to achieve. And now, well, he's reaping the whirlwind, at least on a satirical level. The TACO Trade meme has absolutely taken off, with the result that it is all over social media. And we thought we'd do what we do sometimes, and run down some of the notable specimens:

1. It has an... avant-garde feel.

Head shot of Trump, with his hair morphing into a chicken.



2. If Stephen Miller sees this, he might try to kick Trump out of the country.

TACO - Trump Always Chickens Out, accompanied by a picture of Trump in a Mexican costume and sombrero



3. It has a definite energy to it.

An animated gif with Trump's head on a dancing chicken



4. We'll just point out that the original man in a yellow suit was intended as a symbol of greed and selfishness.

Trump in a yellow suit with feathers on the cuffs



5. If Big Bird and Foghorn Leghorn had a kid...

Trump in a yellow chicken costume



6. The QAnon Shaman now has a rival.

Trump in a yellow chicken headdress



7. There's a LOT of information here.

A parody of Swanson's Chicken ala king, it has a yellow chicken sitting on a throne with a crown labeled 'MAGA,' and says 'NOW, WITH EVEN MORE GRAVY!; Bold, Brined, and Braggadocious; Contains trace amounts of reality TV, golden decor, and campaign-trail seasoning; 100% UNVERIFIED CLAIMS; MICROWAVES IN 2024 SECONDS; BEST SERVED LUKEWARM ON A GOLF CART'



8. We bet there are a lot of restaurants where wearing this suit would get you a free taco on Tuesday.

Trump in a suit decorated with dozens of tacos



9. Of course there's already a t-shirt for sale.

A t-shirt with a cartoon taco with wings and Trump's head, and the word TACO



10. That didn't take long.

A taco truck serving a customer; the owner has painted 'Trump Always Chickens Out' around the top of the truck



11. Not all that creative, but notice who posted it.

Sen. Tina Smith has posted the famous picture of Trump eating a taco salad



12. This is a little unsettling (though it would explain a lot).

The famous taco salad photo, but photoshopped so that Trump appears to be standing behind himself eating his own brain, which IS the taco salad



13. This is unsettling in a different way.

Trump in a two-piece swimsuit, with a sash that says 'Miss Taco USA'



14. Probably not a great choice for someone on a low-cholesterol diet.

A normal taco, but with Trump's head inserted into it



The polls suggest that the Democrats have a potential winner with this trade war stuff, and now, the memes agree. We may soon know if the polls—or maybe the memes—cause Trump to wave the white flag. Or maybe it's the yellow flag. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: King Charles Shows Prince Harry How It's Done

Most readers presumably know that Prince Harry is on the outs with his father, King Charles III, and his brother, Prince William. Reasonable people can differ on exactly who is to blame for the situation, and in what measure, but there's no denying that in airing his grievances, Harry has taken the sledgehammer approach. For example, publishing a book with 416 pages full of dirty laundry is not exactly a subtle maneuver.

Princes, at least sometimes, can get away with being indecorous. Monarchs, by and large, cannot. As the head of state for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth nations, they are expected to be a model of good behavior for their subjects. They are also expected to stay out of politics; to do otherwise could trigger a constitutional crisis. The recently departed Queen Elizabeth II was very good at all of this.

That said, Elizabeth most certainly had opinions, and Charles definitely has opinions. And British monarchs tend to be pretty good at remaining within the rules, and adhering to the expected standards of behavior, and yet... still getting their opinions out there, sometimes. You could call the techniques they use "subtlety." Or maybe "plausible deniability," or "malicious compliance," or "passive aggression." Whatever it is, it's rather different from the Prince Harry approach, and both Elizabeth and her son are masters of the art.

That brings us to the actual subject of this item, which is the speech that Charles gave to the Canadian Parliament this week. It is not common for monarchs to address that body, but for... some reason, Charles thought the time was right. Here are a few of the things he said:

It should be noted that the speech was written primarily by the staff of PM Mark Carney. But Charles offered some informal input, and it was Charles who decided to visit Canada in the first place, and it was Charles who made sure to emphasize all of the passages we quote above. In the speech, the PM and the King made sure nobody was mentioned by name. But they, and their audience, had a particular name in mind, nonetheless. Again, the King's son could learn a thing or two about the art of subtlety.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones