Greenland Is Apparently the Hill that the White House Wants to Die On, Too, Part II

We are not going to do a Minneapolis item today. It's a very disheartening story, we need a breather, and we think readers do, too. It will be back on Friday, though.

We do want to do the companion to yesterday's piece on Greenland, however. We have no particular expertise in military operations conducted in a very cold environment using 21st century troops and technology. So, when it comes to an unlikely but not impossible American invasion of that island, we are torn between two conflicting instinctive responses: (1) the American military is very big and powerful and will be hard to defeat, and (2) invading a frozen tundra is no small task, especially if you face serious opposition.

Fortunately, we have readers who know more than we do, and so we can pass along their insight. First, a couple of views on American military readiness for this fight, from the U.S. side of the pond:

D.A.Y. in Troy, MI: Something that is starting to be discussed is that the United States is physically incapable of taking—let alone holding—Greenland by military force. It is not that the U.S. military lacks the numbers, but rather the unique capability to fight over and occupy an arctic island.

The United States has a grand total of one military icebreaker, an ancient and decrepit one at that. This means invading by sea, as well as resupply by sea, are non-starters. And Canada would instantly close their airspace, meaning any air attack and supply lines would have to go around. Depending on the air would also mean being susceptible to the weather.

Then there is the problem the U.S. military has had since the end of World War II. Their equipment, training, and tactical and strategic doctrines are based on the last war. Our equipment is designed to fight in deserts. They would have to be retrofitted for extreme cold and troops would need to be trained to fight on an ice cap. All of this would take years, by which point Donald Trump will be gone.

I do not think Trump realizes what Greenland actually is. It is the world's biggest bowl of shaved ice. You take away the ice, and there are parts of its interior that are below sea level. Even if there are resources there to exploit, they are buried under thousands of feet of ice once you get away from the coasts. There is a reason only a few tens of thousands of people call it home, and they mostly stick to those coasts. No one is going to want to go to the trouble to extract those resources when they are more accessible elsewhere.

This is purely a vanity project. Trump wants maps to change from Greenland (Denmark) to Greenland (U.S.) because of him. Though if he really wanted to make his mark on the maps, he could support statehood for Puerto Rico. If he was the president to grant P.R. statehood, it might be a magenta state rather than the indigo state it would likely be if done under a Democratic president. The fact that this evades him as he tilts at windmills in the Arctic just shows logic and sanity have long since left what he calls his mind.

E.L. in San Diego, CA: Regarding the possibility of the U.S. attempting a military takeover of Greenland, you wrote: "There is no way the European troops could stave off an American attack... "

You may want to reassess your evaluation of the situation. For now, the European NATO countries are sending just a "scouting team" to Greenland. In reality, the U.S. military is ill-prepared for Arctic warfare at sea and, especially, on land:

The Equipment Gap

• While the U.S. has the world's most powerful military overall, its Arctic-specific land and sea inventory is currently dwarfed by the specialized, high-readiness fleets, ice-breakers, and vehicle pools maintained by its Northern European allies. Collectively, allies like Canada, Finland, Norway and Sweden operate a combined fleet that is roughly 10 times larger than the U.S. inventory.
  
  
• In addition, U.S. equipment frequently faces hydraulic and electronic failures at -40°C, whereas Nordic allies use platforms designed and "NATO-certified" specifically for these extremes.

The Personnel Gap

• The U.S has an Arctic force of 11,000-12,000 troops (based in Alaska). While the U.S. can deploy more troops globally, only this division is dedicated to high-latitude warfare.
  
  
• The European NATO allies have an estimated 60,000+ Arctic trained and equipped troops. Countries like Norway, Finland and Sweden maintain large, permanent Arctic brigades.
  
  
• Finland alone can mobilize a massive reserve force of nearly 1 million, with tens of thousands of active-duty and high-readiness troops specifically trained for Lapland's sub-arctic conditions.
  
  
• Sweden is currently engaged in its largest military buildup since the Cold War.
  
  
• In addition, NATO includes specialized units like the U.K.'s Royal Marines and Canada's Arctic units.

Ok, we're sold—invading Greenland is a stupid idea. Well, actually, we already thought that. But now we are persuaded that it would be folly from a military perspective, as well as a geopolitical and domestic political perspective. We retract our previous remarks about the likelihood of U.S. success.

And to round it out, how about a couple of perspectives from the other side of the pond?

V.W. in Wiltshire, England, UK: You wrote: "There is no way the European troops could stave off an American attack... "

I wouldn't be too sure about that. You are of course correct that nobody can rival the United States in terms of sheer firepower—the 'blowing everything to bits' part. But to actually take and hold the largest island in the world with its harsh climate? See Ukraine, 2022 (ongoing), and Finland, 1939/40 (or if you want to go further back, Virginia in the late 1770's). It could well end up as Vietnam-on-ice. In particular, some of the European NATO militaries, while small, are especially well trained, equipped and adapted to fighting in extreme cold/Arctic conditions (especially Finland, but also Norway, Sweden, Denmark/Greenland, with Britain, the Netherlands and Canada also having significant capabilities). While we would absolutely hate to be put in that position, if the United States were to attack Greenland, then I think most or all of European NATO would feel obliged to support Denmark. Exactly what form that support might take is TBD. But it should not be assumed the U.S. would only face token resistance.

You are right to acknowledge the challenges faced by Napoleon (and Hitler) in securing a big, sparse, cold landmass. You are also right to think that such events would open a huge set of questions that until now nobody thought were on the table. Until very recently, nobody here doubted that in the event of strife, America would have our backs. The first Trump Administration's messaging made Europe take its own defense more seriously than it had been and that was no bad thing (he wasn't wrong).

But the prospect of America actually being the aggressor against us takes things to another layer of batshi**edness. RAF Fairford, RAF Mildenhall, and Ramstein... will we have to ask you to take your planes and go home, or even (and I can't believe I'm typing this) attempt to destroy them on the ground? Do the likes of Germany, Poland, Italy, Sweden (and indeed maybe Denmark!) need to urgently seek to acquire their own nukes, or come to some nuclear-sharing arrangement with the U.K. and France? Do we all need to urgently reduce our militaries' reliance on American suppliers? None of this is good, for either side of the Atlantic. Someone needs to tell your President to knock it off.

S.S.T. in Copenhagen, Denmark: I would like to add a few comments, on an evening where I have just read about Donald Trump stating that he needs Greenland mainly for a feeling of "psychological success."

While it is true that the Danish authority arrived by historical accident, it is firmly rooted in international law.

That said, a lot of Danish politicians still act with impunity and colonial arrogance, even if Greenland has had home rule since 1979. My personal opinion is that when Greenland decides to activate the clause in the agreement from 2009 with Denmark about full independence it is all the better for both Denmark and Greenland.

Also note that the Palaeo-Eskimo cultures of Dorset and Saqqaq were long gone by the time the Norse arrived. The present Inuit arrived around 1100-1200 and the Norse communities were left in the early 15th century (apparently in an orderly fashion). Denmark reimposed authority in 1721 and managed to retain the Faroes, Iceland and Greenland, which rightly belonged to Norway, when the two kingdoms were separated by force in 1814.

This infuriated the Norwegians who, after gaining full independence from Sweden in 1905, questioned the Danish rights to Greenland in international courts. The courts ruled firmly for Denmark in 1933.

During the Second World War, the Danish ambassador to the U.S., Henrik Kauffmann, made a deal with Franklin D. Roosevelt on American bases on Greenland, and this deal was formalized within the NATO framework in 1951 and reconfirmed in 2004 when the Igaluk agreement was signed by the Greenlanders, the Danes and none other than Colin Powell.

As to possible arrangements, by law, Denmark cannot sell Greenland. It is really as simple as that. The Greenlanders may choose full independence and will then naturally seek American protection, but I think they will be very leery of the Micronesian arrangement, and they certainly don't want to be an American state. Considering that most Greenlanders are VERY left-wing that would also be a very stupid thing to allow for the GOP. The two present representatives in the Danish Folketing are both WAY to the left of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

So, let's review. First, the Trump administration has no legal leg to stand on here. Second, if the Trump administration makes a move of any sort, it will aggravate everyone, and they will take a giant sledgehammer to the United States' military presence abroad (e.g., shared bases). Third, if the U.S. is actually foolish enough to invade Greenland, it will be yet another case of American military leadership overreaching, since the U.S. is not at all prepared for this kind of war.

And all of that is before we talk about the vast economic blows that would rain down upon the U.S. Anyone and everyone has already talked about how a trade war would be a given, leaving the U.S. cut off from most or all of its most important markets. We've also had a few readers write in to point out another angle that's not getting enough attention. China and the various European powers hold vast amounts of U.S. currency and U.S. Treasury bonds. If they get angry enough, they could flood the market, triggering an economic downturn for the U.S. that will make the Great Depression look like a game of patty cake.

One hopes that Trump's people will finally talk him out of this foolishness. Failing that, one hopes that the Republicans in Congress will be so frightened of the consequences, they will finally put their feet down, and will put a stop to it. But given what's happened in the last decade, you certainly can't be positive about either of these things. If Trump does pull the trigger, and the foreseeable consequences come to pass, then it could turn a potential blue wave into a blue 1,000-year flood. (Z)

The Hardest Job? Maybe It's Being Donald Trump's AG

Perhaps you have noticed that the Department of Justice has been leaning particularly hard into its current habit of abusing its powers, and acting as Donald Trump's personal muscle. Part of that is, of course, the situation in Minneapolis, which has become an all-hands-on-deck moment for the White House. Another part of it, from where we sit, is that whatever is mentally wrong with Trump is getting worse. If, in a few years, it becomes abundantly clear that he was in the grips of dementia or some other neurological condition, we want to be able to refer back to posts like this one and say, "There was no way to be sure, but the evidence was certainly there."

There's also another dimension, namely that "Attorney General" Pam Bondi is fighting for her job. According to reporting from The Wall Street Journal, Trump is unhappy with his goon squad's Department of Justice's performance, and he blames Bondi. He has complained to insiders that she is "weak and an ineffective enforcer of his agenda." He is particularly unhappy that the prosecutions of Letitia James and James Comey are going nowhere. For Bondi, going all in on Minneapolis allows her to show that she's the bestest AG ever, and to distract from the James/Comey situations.

The fundamental problem is that Trump either doesn't understand, or chooses to ignore, that it's not enough to find and install a corrupt AG. Even if the person leading the DoJ is willing to be his fawning lackey—and Bondi is—there are still huge barriers to full-bore corruption and score-settling. Grand juries, for example, not to mention federal judges. We suppose that if Bondi and her underlings were more competent, they might be able to sneak their witch hunts past the grand jurors, and to avoid the embarrassing "no true bill" results. But they're not going to pull the wool over the eyes of federal judges.

Yesterday provided a case in point. Lindsey Halligan, another fawning lackey, has been trying very hard to hold onto her job as not-really-US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, because that post makes her the point person on the James and Comey prosecutions. She may well think that if she has any success at all, or if she at least "proves" her loyalty, she could be the next AG. The problem is that Halligan is unqualified for the job, couldn't get approved by the Senate, and couldn't get approved by the judges of that district. She's kept "doing" the job, without legal authority, nonetheless.

Not anymore, though. Yesterday, U.S. District Judge David Novak issued a scorching opinion in which he said that Halligan's service is not legal, she's not qualified, and if she doesn't stop pretending otherwise (the Judge used the word "masquerading"), she is likely to face disciplinary proceedings. This caused Halligan to finally get the message, and she resigned from the DoJ yesterday. We guess she'll go back to practicing insurance law.

Needless to say, the loss of a fully corrupt, fully subservient lackey is not going to make it any easier for Bondi to prosecute James and Comey. And one of these days, Trump's obsession with Greenland and/or Minneapolis will wane just a little, and his obsession with James and Comey will wax again. On Polymarket, Bondi has roared into the lead in the "which Cabinet member will Trump fire first?" betting, taking 31% of the handle. The only others to be above 5% are DHS Secretary Kristi Noem (14%), DNI Tulsi Gabbard (8%) and Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer (7%). It's almost like someone thinks Trump is hostile to women. (Z)

Why Do So Many People Still Approve of Trump?

Christopher Armitage has an interesting blog post that tries to explain why roughly 40% of the country will not drop Donald Trump, no matter what he does.

For that segment of the country, the border is an existential crisis. Border enforcement is the only thing keeping the United States from becoming Norte de México. They do not want to call their bank and hear: "Press one for English, Presione dos para español." They have an idealistic fantasy of how 19th-century small-town America was and are scared to death that hordes of Spanish-speaking criminals are going to take over the country and destroy it. They see the country being invaded and believe Trump is the only president in their lifetime who sees this and is actually trying to stop it and even reverse it by deporting people in the U.S. illegally. He is the greatest patriot since Abraham Lincoln/Jefferson Davis (take your pick). They know Trump is not perfect, but everything they see, hear, or read, is put into this framework. Sure, ICE shouldn't have killed some innocent woman in Minnesota, but in a war like this, sometimes innocent people die. Wars are like that. Taken from this perspective, their support for Trump is part of a coherent worldview and makes sense.

What about the economy? In this framework, immigrants are taking jobs, flooding hospitals and schools, and draining resources. Naturally, times are tough and Trump is dealing with the root cause: stopping immigration and getting rid of immigrants. That makes him a hero, even if he is a little rough around the edges at times. When you are at war, the niceties of law are secondary. From a certain vantage point, if you don't dig too deeply, it all makes sense.

Where do people get the idea that the country is being invaded? Fox's cable channel gets a lot of attention, but it reaches only 2.7 million people in prime time. That is 1% of the estimated 270 million adults in the country. Where do the other 39% get their worldview from? Sinclair Broadcast Group is a much bigger news source than Fox, and at least as right-wing, if not more so. It operates 178 television stations that together reach 40% of the population. They cover local news and are part of their local communities. People trust them because their anchors cheer on the local high school football team and cover county fairs as big news. Sinclair requires all the stations to broadcast certain "must-run" segments produced at corporate headquarters. When trusted news anchors read the prepared scripts from corporate and tell people the border is in crisis, people believe them. They think they are getting the straight truth from a local, but they are actually getting a highly biased view concocted by Sinclair CEO Chris Ripley and other executives at Sinclair. This carries weight that Tucker Carlson can only dream about. Then there are smaller Fox wannabes like NewsMax and OAN that are constantly poking Fox from the right.

Of course, there is also social media. Elon Musk has 225 million followers on eX-Twitter. This is an audience that Sinclair executives can only drool over. His editorial choices are amplified by an algorithm he controls that feeds people items he approves of. Facebook is bigger still. In Jan. 2025, Mark Zuckerberg eliminated third-party fact-checking and appointed Trump allies to senior positions at the company. His algorithms shovel right-wing content at people in a way that even Musk can't match.

We actually got a message this weekend from a reader who noticed the impact of the new Facebook algorithms. This seems like a good time to share it; it's from D.G. in Lac Brome, QC, Canada:

I want to share an observation I've had recently about how Facebook's platform seems to be changing in subtle but troubling ways.

Over the past week, my feed has been inundated with suggested links and "news" stories that all seem to push a very specific narrative around the killing of Renee Good. Two examples stand out: One article explicitly tries to draw a false equivalence between her death and Ashli Babbitt's, while another emphasizes that the officer involved suffered "internal bleeding" (i.e., a bruise), framing the incident in a way that shifts sympathy and responsibility. Notably, the second story almost always links to CBS News, which raises questions about how their editorial priorities may be shifting under Bari Weiss.

This pattern wasn't isolated. Back in December, I experienced a solid week and a half where my feed was dominated by content related to the so-called Somali YouTube daycare "scandal." (This satirical takedown of it was genuinely brilliant.)

What's unsettling is that this kind of algorithmic framing seems particularly effective for the segment of the population whose opinions are still malleable. It's one thing to encounter biased media; it's another to have the platform silently nudge you toward an entire worldview.

It's deeply concerning to consider how corporations like Facebook, having previously sought favor with the Trump administration, may now be deploying their algorithms in ways that subtly shape public perception to align with power. This feels like propaganda at a scale we haven't seen before: micro-targeted, personalized, and largely invisible.

D.G. is not wrong. When they made the movie The Social Network, Mark Zuckerberg was something of an anti-hero, or at least a morally ambiguous character. These days, we think that would be a much tougher sell.

And we've actually been meaning to include at least a brief discussion of CBS, and how rapidly it's going down the tubes. It used to be the network of Walter Cronkite, as good a journalist as there ever was. Now it is run by David Ellison, the son of billionaire Larry Ellison, a major Trump donor. Ellison, of course, installed Bari Weiss, who is not a journalist at all, to run CBS News. She cosplays as a fair-minded independent who is "just asking questions," but she knows full well which side her bread is buttered on, and she's delivering for her boss.

We have already written about the 60 Minutes segment on El Salvador, which was held at the last minute, because Weiss felt it would hurt Donald Trump's fee-fees it was not fair and balanced. In the end, the program did run the segment, just this past weekend. Lead reporter Sharyn Alfonsi was forced to record new introductory and closing segments that were more "fair" to the Trump administration. Also, the segment was aired during the NFL playoffs, which is the TV equivalent of the old politician's trick of releasing bad news on Friday night. In short, Weiss buried it, as much as was possible.

Meanwhile, new CBS Evening News anchor Tony Dokoupil has been on the job for a few weeks, and he's surely got Cronkite spinning in his grave. He's toted the water on the Venezuela operation and ICE's actions in Minneapolis, and has been openly lobbying for an attack on Iran. He did a softball interview with Trump, and made sure to air every second of the piece, at risk of being sued by the President. And on his second night on air, Dokoupil closed with a lengthy homage to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, concluding with the declaration: "Marco Rubio, we salute you. You're the ultimate Florida man."

CNN is somewhat better than CBS or Fox, but not as much as people think. Right-wing billionaire John Malone runs Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN. In 2024, Malone gave $2 million to the Republicans and $0 to the Democrats. Even if he is more interested in the more profitable parts of WBD and who buys it, everyone at CNN knows who the top dog is and better not to poke him.

But there are still newspapers, right? Well, there were. Since 2005, almost 3,500 newspapers have shut down because advertisers have gone online and the economics of local newspapers no longer works. About 55 million Americans live in news deserts, where there is no local newspaper coverage at all.

So how are those 40% "informed?" Fox sets the frame: Immigrants are the cause of all problems. Sinclair pushes it into the living room. Right-wing talk radio and/or podcasters feed it to people during their commutes. Social media platforms, like eX-Twitter and Facebook, amplify the message. It is an information infrastructure bought and owned by oligarchs who have a very large axe to grind. The impact of Lachlan Murdoch, Chris Ripley, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, John Malone, Bari Weiss, David Ellison and a handful of others on the worldviews of almost half the country can't be overestimated. Is it a wonder that nearly half the country has bought into the message and won't let go?

For balance, we are not saying all news outlets are right-wing, only maybe half of them, but they are the larger and more impactful ones. We are not trying to explain why 100% of the country has been brainwashed, only 40%. There are also outlets on the left, of course, but they just don't have the same influence. Here is an interactive chart of the media landscape from Ad Fontes Media. We didn't make the cut. Rats. Please tell your friends about our site so we can make the cut next year. (V & Z)

Anti-Trump Americans Walk Out

Yesterday there were, as expected, nationwide protests against the Trump administration. Because the events were last-minute, and because people were encouraged to stage individual walkouts, if practicable, there's no way to know the scope. It appears the participation reached into the hundreds of thousands, but probably not the millions. Certainly, we were able to find stories about walkouts in every major metropolis we checked.

We got a very nice message on this subject from reader J.S. in Seattle, WA, and we thought this would be a good time to pass it along:

Thank you so much for mentioning the Free America Walkout and including the link for it in Tuesday's post. I had been looking for an event/action nearby for several days and hadn't seen anything, but when I followed your link there was one in my small city just 5 minutes away from me. My husband and I attended, joining an enthusiastic crowd of about 100 people—excellent for something that was organized at the last minute and held on a Tuesday afternoon. There were lots of honking horns and thumbs up from passing cars and trucks. I'm including a photo of part of the crowd:

We are glad to be of service, and thank you for the report!

As long as we are on the general subject, we also got this message from S.Y. in Skokie, IL, as part of a conversation that's been unfolding on this site over the past few days:

I have to disagree with the take from R.O. in Providence on the state of anti-Trump protests. I live in the Chicago area and I constantly see acts of defiance. People holding "honk if you hate ICE" signs at the entrance/exit to Lake Shore Drive, where thousands of drivers pass by every day. At the recent No Kings rally in downtown Grant Park, the crowd was as big as the night Barack Obama won the 2008 election—300,000 plus.

I've written to you before about this, but I think we should be planning giant rallies right before the midterms. Keep the subject fresh in the voters' minds. In 2000, we organized an anti-gun rally across the country that drew more than a million participants. But it was on Mother's Day in May, six months before the election, and the issue faded from collective memory enough that George W. Bush won a squeaker election. Outrage against Trump is increasing. We should be focusing on building this up to a full-bore by November. I think you guys are correct in guessing that much of today's dissent is just under the radar. Let's bring it on when it's most useful.

And how about another, from reader B.S. in Huntington Beach, CA?

In response to those who do not believe there is sufficient pushback against the lawlessness of the Trump administration, I suggest that they are not seeing the trees for the forest. We, each of us, are pushing back in our own ways on a daily basis. This pushback is not a No Kings rally, a Million Man March, or a candlelight vigil around the nation's capital or the Minneapolis City Hall on a daily basis, but it is happening.

We keep ourselves informed. We support organizations with the resources to speak out on a broad-based front. We drive cars with anti-Trump stickers. We support local candidates with progressive views. We talk with our neighbors and friends about our dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. We attend town halls and city council meetings where we express our dissatisfaction. And, yes, when there is a major event we can be a part of, we participate.

For those nostalgic for Vietnam War types of protests, I remind them of the various small ways we pushed back in addition to some of the large ways they remember. I also remind them that the Vietnam War in various forms began in the Eisenhower administration and did not end formally until the Nixon administration. If the claim is that protests brought the war to a sudden and complete end in a short period of time, that is rewriting history. We had boots on the ground from 1954 until 1973. Yes, the protests made a difference, but the real power rested in the hands of voters who finally decided to stop supporting candidates who believed the war could be won. I was proud to wear my POW bracelet and to attend anti-war rallies, but I believe my vote had a greater impact in the long run.

I would like to see immediate positive change across the board of issues we face as a nation, both domestically and internationally. But change will not happen because I stand on a corner with my No Kings banner, although I am going to continue doing so. True change will come, as it did in Virginia, New Jersey, and Georgia, etc., when we can go to the polls in special elections, primaries, and general elections and we vote emphatically for change. Until then, we should continue to do those little things that matter every day. And most importantly, we must keep the faith and believe that change is possible, and that it is coming.

And one last message, from someone who's in the eye of the storm right now, C.C. in St. Paul, MN:

You've been politely debating with some readers about the amount of resistance occurring. For folks who question if resistance is happening: Speaking as a resident of the Twin Cities, are you reading the news? Or is the news seriously underrepresenting what we're up to here? Uff da!

ICE shot a woman in the face but people are STILL showing up to rallies at the site of ICE actions.

It's been cold (Minnesota cold, not normal person cold) and people are STILL showing up to rallies at the site of ICE actions.

And there are so many people providing support and relief to our neighbors.

I have never been prouder to say I'm from Minnesota. You betcha.

We would like to reiterate that we got plenty of messages like the one from R.O., messages that said the pushback just isn't enough. So, there are definitely two sides to this story, if not more. We're just trying to give folks something to chew on. Remember also that, on Saturday, we'll have suggestions for how people can support Minneapolis in its resistance. (Z)

Texas Senate Races Are Getting Interesting

Emerson is back from its holiday break, and has released a new poll of the U.S. Senate primaries in Texas. The biggest news is on the Democratic side of the contest, as the pollster thinks state Rep. James Talarico has a well-outside-the-margin-of-error 9-point lead over Rep. Jasmine Crockett, 47% to 38%.

This marks a dramatic shift from the two previous polls of the Talarico-Crockett matchup. In December, Texas Southern University had Crockett up by 8, 51% to 43%. And in September, that same pollster (in partnership with the University of Houston) had her up 18, 52% to 34%. It's only three polls, of course, and it's the time in the cycle where wonky results are to be expected. However, +18 to +8 to -9 is a very worrisome trendline for the Crockett campaign. And since Talarico was much lower profile when he jumped in, there is a built-in, very plausible explanation for these numbers, namely that Democratic voters in Texas are getting to know him and they like what they see. There's a candidates debate next week, and that will surely be followed by more polling. So, we'll be very interested to see what the numbers say in February.

Emerson also polled the other side of the contest, and that one's jumping, as well. On the whole, the matchup between basically normal Republican Sen. John Cornyn and crazypants MAGA Republican Ken Paxton has been a dead heat. Emerson agrees; they have Cornyn with the backing of 28% of GOP primary voters, as compared to 27% for Paxton. That, of course, only accounts for 55% of the voters. In part, that is because 29% say they are undecided. But in part, that is because there is a third candidate in the race, Rep. Wesley Hunt.

Hunt's polling is also very consistent; he's generally about 10 points behind the other candidates. So it is with the new Emerson poll, he drew the support of 16% of primary voters. Hunt is not going to get the nomination, but he could be in a position to play kingmaker if and when he withdraws. The Republican establishment badly wants Cornyn to be the nominee, since he's more electable, and could give Hunt many and varied inducements to try to persuade him to back the Senator. On the other hand, Hunt is much more ideologically aligned with Paxton. So, if he does bow out, his endorsement could go either way. It is also worth pointing out that Texas requires primary winners to claim a majority of the vote, and conducts a top-two runoff if that does not happen in the first round of voting. That means that Hunt could, and probably will, be ejected from the race by Texas voters. If he hasn't already thrown his support behind one of his two rivals, there will be much competition for his endorsement.

The first round of primary voting is on March 5, so we're going to get some amount of clarity in just 6 weeks. (Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger