Trump is Bombing When It Comes to Iran

It took 10 days, but the Iranians have finally responded to Donald Trump's "blueprint" for peace with a list of demands. And the President promptly got on his Obama-centric social media platform to announce:

I have just read the response from Iran's so-called "Representatives." I don't like it—TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP

It would seem last week's reports that the end might be near were a wee bit premature. Well, the end of the Iran War, at least. The big "the end is near" is still on the table.

Before we continue, let us address that "Obama-centric" bit. We like to link to the Truth Social postings, whenever possible, so readers can see for themselves, if they wish. But it took us forever to find the Iran pronouncement. That is because after that little bit of Trumpian diplomacy, the President (or someone working for him) went on an absolutely unhinged jag, posting dozens of angry messages/videos about Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. These folks have been out of office for 10 years, nearly 2 years, and more than 12 years, respectively. And yet, Trump is STILL beating the drum. It's yet another reminder that something is very wrong with him, either emotionally, or mentally, or both. His constantly shifting "policy" on Iran, if you can even call it that, should be viewed through that prism.

The Iranians' demands are as follows:

• An end to the war (including Israel's war in Lebanon)
• An end to the U.S. blockade
• No further U.S. or Israeli attacks
• Reparations for damages
• All Western economic sanctions to be lifted
• The release of Iran's frozen assets
• Iran's continued control over the Strait of Hormuz (which is in international waters)
• No negotiations over Iran's nuclear program until all of the other demands are satisfied

That is a "Here's what I want for Christmas, Santa" list of demands (the Iranians' Muslim-ness notwithstanding). So, it's no surprise Trump does not like it.

The problem is that Trump has backed himself into a very tenuous corner. He's clearly not willing to order a ground invasion (and if he does, there will be riots in the streets in the U.S.). His effort to impose American military might on the Strait of Hormuz, "Project Freedom," was a failure. Conventional bombing was not effective, and the United States' stockpile of "smart" missiles is now depleted. Trump has obliquely threatened, several times, to nuke Iran. However, that is not likely to be any more effective than the conventional bombing was, and would trigger outrage domestically and abroad. And every time Trump issues forth with a bunch of hot air, and doesn't follow through, it makes every subsequent blast of hot air even less effective.

Meanwhile, perhaps Trump's very biggest problem is this: Iran's leadership doesn't particularly need the war to end. They might even prefer that it not end. After all, as long as Iran has a common enemy, domestic dissent is largely stifled. Further, the people calling the shots right now are (apparently) the leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRCG). This is not only a military organization, it is a militaristic military organization. That is the kind of entity that tends to see war as a good thing, not something to be avoided or ended.

And while the Iranians can afford to cool their jets, at least for a while, the pressure on Trump is growing. First, even with all the verbal gymnastics, it's clear that the Iran War is well past the 60-day limit for warring without Congressional approval. The members don't want the blame for this mess, so they aren't likely to pass a use-of-force authorization. Will they eventually stand up and demand that Trump withdraw? They might, given the unpopularity of the war, and the fact that the price tag keeps ballooning. The preternaturally dishonest Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth looked the members right in the face and said that the war had cost $25 billion so far. The true figure appears to be almost triple that.

And then, of course, there's the gas-price problem. Not to be a broken record, but prices are up again. Yesterday, the national average was $4.50/gallon, which is up 38 cents compared to a month ago, and is up $1.37 compared to a year ago. Trump is talking about suspending the federal gas tax, and has also just released another 53 million barrels of oil from the United States' Strategic Petroleum Reserve. However, these things are both relative drops in the barrel. Nothing is going to substantially reverse the upward trend beyond the end of the war and then supply chains being unsnarled. And even then, it's probably too late for the midterms; analysts are now saying that even if the war ends in short order, oil prices won't return to pre-war levels until early-to-mid 2027.

And finally, there's the thing that Trump cares most about, namely his public image. The war is certainly doing a number on his approval ratings. Everyone reading this already knows he's approaching the Bush line (32% approval) nationally, so let's do this another way: He is now above water in just six states: Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia. That is a very short list, especially since those states have only about 5% of the U.S. population.

Trump has also become the butt of jokes, even more so than usual. For example, since TACO has gotten a little stale, there's now a veritable buffet of Mexican-food acronyms out there. A sampling:

TORTA: Trump Only Rarely Thinks Ahead

TAMALE: Trump Always Makes America Look Embarrassing

CEVICHE: Cowardly Enabler Vance Is Complicit Helper Elf

CHICKEN QUESADILLAS: Closing Hormuz Is Causing Kerfuffle; Every Negotiation Quickly Unravels; Economic Situation Awful; Donald Is Laughably Lousy American Sovereign

CORONA WITH LIME: Come On, Republicans! Obtain Nuts Already! Wallowing In Trump's Horrendous Leadership Is Manifestly Evil!

CHIMICHANGA: Criminal Hegseth Is Making It Clear He Approves Nuclear Genocidal Armageddon

All we can say is: Ouch. Well, and also: ¡Olé!

If Trump were a rational president, we might be able to hazard a guess as to how he'll play his hand. However, he is not rational (see the point about Obama above), and we do not believe for a minute that he's using some version of the Nixon "madman theory" (which didn't work, anyhow). So, we have absolutely no idea what Trump will do. (Z & A)

Paging Elbridge Gerry, Part I: Beware the Shadow Docket

When the Supreme Court overturned a lower court's order that struck down the Texas redistricting maps as improperly race-based (maps that were put in place in September 2025), the majority's reasoning was that the challenge had come too late (even though Texas' late action to redraw the maps precluded an earlier challenge) and that the district court had "improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections." This was a rather expansive reading of the "Purcell" principle, which is that judges should not get involved in voting rights cases too close to an election, so as not to create confusion among voters or upend election procedures that are already underway. In December 2025 when the Court issued this ruling, the Texas primary was still 4 months away.

Well, it would seem that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court has a rather fluid understanding of the Purcell rule. Or, to put it more directly, their sense of whether the rule applies depends on who is bringing the challenge and whether Republicans will benefit from its application. In its recent ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Court ignored the Purcell rule and held that Louisiana's maps that had been redrawn in response to an earlier court ruling could be scrapped for the 2026 election to get rid of its majority-minority districts, despite the fact that the primary was underway. This prompted the state's governor to immediately "suspend" the House elections (and nullify the votes already cast), so as to redraw the 2026 House districts according to SCOTUS' edict. Clearly, the conservatives on the Court aren't so concerned about disrupting a primary campaign or a governor cancelling it altogether if it helps their side win.

Now, in a move as predictable as a Trump shifting gears on Iran again (see above), the Supremes have yet again put their thumb on the scale for the Republicans by granting Alabama's emergency application to use a House map that a lower court had struck down as an improper racial gerrymander.

Alabama had been under an initial court order to redraw its map, which was found to be an intentional race-based gerrymander in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court upheld that decision in Allen v. Milligan. In 2023, after Alabama submitted another map, the lower court held that the new map also violated the VRA and was intentionally race-based. At that point, that court ordered a special master to draw a map and it was this map that was to be used in the 2026 primary and general elections. Alabama appealed, and the Supreme Court delayed hearing the appeal until after it issued its decision in Callais.

Yesterday, in a two paragraph order on its shadow docket, SCOTUS has thrown out the special master's map and vacated the lower court's decision striking down the redrawn 2023 map. As a result, Alabama can now use the 2023 map for this year's primary, which had been scheduled for next week. The state legislature passed a law on Saturday to authorize a "special primary election" for Congressional seats in the event the Court allowed the 2023 map to go back into effect. And that's just what the Supreme Court did. So much for the Purcell principle and the concern about causing confusion so close to an election or in an "active primary campaign."

But it's even worse than that. As Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out in her dissent, the district court found that Alabama had intentionally drawn the 2023 map based on race. Under Callais, intentional race-based gerrymandering violates Section 2 of the VRA. So, in an unexplained two paragraph order on the shadow docket, the majority is ignoring its own ruling from just two weeks ago to let Alabama use a map that intentionally denies Black voters their rights under the law. And Chief Justice John Roberts wonders how anyone could think the Supreme Court's decisions are based on politics.

The district court could still rule that the 2023 map violates the VRA. As Sotomayor notes, "the District Court remains free on remand to decide for itself whether Callais has any bearing on its Fourteenth Amendment analysis or if its prior reasoning is unaffected by that decision." We will soon see if the lower court is interested in, you know, democracy.

Meanwhile, Virginia has filed its own appeal to the Supreme Court of the district court's order throwing out its redrawn maps that the voters passed. Anyone care to bet how that one's going to turn out? We'll have a more thorough item about this tomorrow. (L)

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Who's the Fairest Oysterman of All?

In the last month, there have been a couple of eye-opening pieces suggesting that, in Maine U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner, we could be witnessing the early days of a sea change in American politics, possibly even the emergence of the Eighth Party System.

First is a very lengthy piece in The Maine Monitor, written by Josh Keefe. Keefe has an unusual, or possibly even unique, vantage point for this story, since he: (1) went to high school with Platner, and (2) has been a reporter for multiple decades. As is characteristic of pieces like this, Keefe notes that Platner has seemed destined for big things since he was in his formative years. He was, as you might guess, Big Man on Campus in high school, and was voted "Most Likely to Start a Revolution" by his classmates.

More substantively, however, Keefe compares Platner to Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME)—the piece was written before Mills dropped out of the Senate race—to illustrate two very different schools of thought on Donald Trump. In Keefe's telling, Mills is part of the "Donald Trump is the problem" faction. These folks, who tend to be establishment politicians, believe that if they can slay the beast at the center of MAGA, then MAGA will wither and die.

Platner, by contrast, is part of the "Donald Trump is just a symptom of the problem" faction. These folks tend to be upstarts/outsiders, and believe that the U.S. political system is broken and needs a massive overhaul. Here's the money passage:

Platner is up to something different. He isn't running a campaign so much as seeking to build a mass movement against the status quo. He's not trying to woo the working class to the Democratic Party; he's trying to mobilize the working class to take over the Democratic Party and use it to fundamentally change the relationship between government and citizens. To him, Trump is a symptom of a larger rot, a fundamentally broken system, and the old rules of American politics are already beside the point. The Democratic establishment is "still existing in this world where they think that if you know the rules the best, you're going to win," he told me. "When the other side is just beating you over the head with the rule book, it doesn't matter."

In keeping with these themes, he's running a far grander campaign than Mills in terms of ambition and drive. (It does help that he isn't limited by the need to simultaneously govern.) He seems to be everywhere, all the time, both on TV, thanks to his nearly three-to-one fundraising edge, and in person. His call for building working-class power aligns not only with his working-man presentation but with his workman-like approach to campaigning: He has held more than 50 town halls—so well attended that people are often turned away—and shows up in every corner of the state. Unlike Mills, he's not trying to convince voters he will stand up to Trump; he's trying to start a movement to build a world without the despair and resentment that he believes allows Trump's brand of politics to flourish.

And again, writing before Mills dropped out, Keefe predicted: "Democratic voters are about to deliver a bracing message about which of these visions they currently prefer."

This is certainly an interesting argument. On one hand, the road to Washington is full of the carcasses of disruptors ultimately who went nowhere (think Beto O'Rourke), or disruptors who went counterfeit (think Sen. John Fetterman, D-PA). On the other hand, the greatest and most important politicians in American history tended to be folks who were on the fringes of the political arena and then were suddenly in the eye of the storm, working to change... everything. Andrew Jackson was a general and judge and plantation owner who had dabbled a bit in Congressional service. Abraham Lincoln was a hick frontier lawyer with a couple years in Congress and a few terms in the state legislature under his belt. Theodore Roosevelt was a "damn cowboy" best known for his role in a battle that lasted only a bit more than an hour.

Certainly, Platner's results so far have been impressive. He's batted aside every scandal, demonstrating that he is armed with a Trump-like coating of teflon. Platner also so thoroughly outdueled Mills, despite her universal name recognition and institutional support, that she didn't even survive to the primary. None of it will matter if he doesn't win, but at least thus far, the aggregators have him with a lead of between 6 and 7.5 points. In the most recent poll of the race, from Echelon Insights, a Republican house, Platner leads Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) by 6 points, 51% to 45%. Remember that being above 50% is very important, since if that is correct, it means that it's not enough for Collins to win over all the undecideds—she also has to flip some would-be Platner voters.

If Platner does win, well, every senator looks in the mirror and sees a U.S. president. And that brings us to the second piece we wanted to pass along. Last week, Jonathan V. Last of the Bulwark wrote a piece in which he opined that there is a 1-in-3 chance that Platner will be the Democrats' presidential candidate... in 2028.

Last lays out his argument in the linked piece, but it boils down to a lot of the same things that Keefe points out in HIS piece: (1) Platner is authentic, (2) Platner is an outsider (who, by virtue of not having been in office in the last 10 years, can't be blamed for failing to rein in Donald Trump) and (3) Platner is not building a campaign so much as he's building a movement. Last writes:

From where I sit, it does not look like Platner is running a Senate campaign. It looks like he's building a movement. The thing I like best about Platner is something he often says on the campaign trail:

"If you don't want to join us? Join a food pantry! Join Maine People's Alliance, any community group," Platner told the dozens of people attending the Greenville event. "It actually doesn't matter what you do."

That is catnip for me because it shows he's aiming beyond himself to get people involved in civic life. It's the opposite of that movie we've seen before.

JVL notes that he does not much care for the cultishness that seems to have developed around Platner, and the tendency of supporters to not only forgive missteps, but to rush to defend them. As Last writes: "I've seen that movie before." Still, he notes that you have to go with the game-changer you've got, not the one you wish you had.

We're not 100% sure how we feel about the arguments made by Keefe or by Last. But in case they're on to something, we thought it worthwhile to at least take note of them. (Z)

Political Bytes: The Reality Show Presidency

Time for your weekly dose of dystopia.

The Apprentice, Transportation Edition: Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy first gained attention as a reality TV star, on The Real World: Boston. He met his wife, now the mother of his nine kids, on a different realty TV show, Road Rules: All Stars. He works for a reality TV star. And these things being the case, the Secretary has decided to return to the reality TV well. He and his family are starring in a five-part reality series called The Great American Road Trip, which will be broadcast on YouTube. Sponsors of the project include Boeing, Toyota, Shell, Royal Caribbean Group and United Airlines, all of which just so happen to be regulated by the Department of Transportation.

Our Take: We are, on the whole, supportive of politicians finding new ways to connect with the American people. However, the conflicts of interest here are too obvious to ignore. And on top of that, to do a "road trip" bit in the middle of a gasoline crisis is unbelievably tone deaf.

---

Best Laid Plans: Donald Trump is trying to repaint the bottom of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool blue. But he went about it in his usual haphazard way, failing to cross the t's and dot the i's, and now the project is the subject of a lawsuit seeking to stop the administration from proceeding.

Similarly, Trump really wants his now-billion-dollar ballroom. However, he did not build any sort of consensus, and he did not get Congress on board, even the Republicans. Many of them are up for reelection this year, and they don't particularly want to hand the Democrats a ten-figure anchor to hang around the GOP's neck. So, it is looking like that funding will go down in flames. What will happen to the giant hole in the ground next is anyone's guess.

Our Take: So, because he of his propensity to go off half-cocked, Trump has now got a couple of problems for himself: (1) blue, (2) balls. Time will tell if he's able to clear things up.

---

Age Caps: Can't imagine why this might be on the minds of Americans, but the new NBC/Marist poll reports that about 80% of Americans would like to see term limits for Congress, and also a mandatory retirement age for members of the legislature.

Our Take: Term limits would serve only to shift power from elected officials toward lobbyists and bureaucrats, since the latter groups would have all the expertise and knowledge of how to get things done. A mandatory retirement age is, perhaps, a little less problematic. However, keep in mind that either or both of these changes would require constitutional amendments, and constitutional amendments have to be approved by... large majorities of both chambers of Congress. So, don't hold your breath.

---

Be Careful What You Wish For, Redux: We had an item last week, headlined "Be Careful What You Wish For," in which we noted that Ben Shapiro, who was once pretty far-right and fringy, has seen his influence wane because he's been pushed aside by folks who are even further right and more fringy.

Shortly after we published that item, Slate had a piece about Megyn Kelly, who's always been right-wing, but was still mainstream enough to get hired to host the Today Show. A keen judge of what side her bread is buttered on, she has "adapted" much better than Shapiro, and now sounds something like a blonde, white Candace Owens, with conspiratorial thinking, heaping helpings of various bigotries, and virtually no concern for something called "facts."

Our Take: The good news is that while these people do reach an audience, it's actually a relatively small audience in the larger scheme of things, and an audience that would be inclined to believe nutty and hateful things whether or not they are being spoon-fed by the Megyn Kellys and Alex Joneses and Nick Fuenteses of the world. The country would be better off without them, but it's not THAT much worse with them.

---

Secret Agent (Wo)man: You know, that song by Johnny Rivers really does sound like he's singing "Secret Asian man" and not "Secret agent man." And, but for the gender, the double-meaning would work very well for the news that Mayor Eileen Wang (D-Arcadia) has agreed to plead guilty to charges that she has been acting as an illegal agent for the Chinese government. She will, of course, also give up the mayoralty of her Southern California city.

Our Take: Well done, DoJ. Now let's get to work on officeholders who might be illegal agents for other foreign nations. Like, say, Russia.

---

Carpetbagger: As long as we are on the subject of California politics, Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton had a bit of a crudité moment this weekend. He posted a video to his eX-Twitter feed in which he waxed poetic, in his British accent, about the crunchy-shelled "street taco" he had just gotten for free at "the original Del Taco" in Barstow.

The original Del Taco location was actually in Yermo, not Barstow. That is a forgivable mistake, since the Yermo location is closed, and the corporation actively tries to make people forget it ever existed. However, street tacos do not have crunchy shells. No, those are reserved for what (Z)'s local Mexican joint calls "Tacos de los Gringos." Street tacos ALWAYS have soft shells, usually corn tortillas, doubled up. That is something that approximately 100% of Californians know. Add in the non-American accent, not to mention that old Stevie apparently doesn't have to pay for his food like the rest of us, and it was definitely an unforced error.

Our Take: Hilton will still advance to the general, but we foresee a lot of taco jokes in his future. That is in contrast, of course, to all the TACO jokes about Donald Trump.

---

Jungle Boogie: One more entry about California. We have consistently been disdainful of the Golden State's jungle-style primary. Some say that the "downside" of this scheme is that one of the two major parties will be shut out of the general election. But it's not really a downside... it's the whole point of the system.

California's Democrats were pleased with this when it was the blue team that benefited. But now, with the chance that two Republicans might end up facing off for the governorship, they're not so enthusiastic anymore. It is not likely to be a problem, as Republican Chad Bianco polls consistently in fourth place these days. Still, the California Democrats have gotten pretty comfortable with their newfound "whatever it takes" philosophy, and so blue teamers in the state legislature are considering the possibility of changing the rules on the fly, and going back to a traditional primary, effective immediately.

Our Take: If this is what it takes to get rid of the jungle primary, then "hear, hear!" That said, we would certainly be pleased to see California adopt something like the Alaska top-four system, which finds room for both major parties while also discouraging hyperpartisan candidates.

And that's the rest of the story. (Z & A)

---

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