Search This Blog

Tuesday, June 9, 2026

More on the Welker Interview

Our books have discussed Trump's low character, which was on display this weekend.   An interview with Kristen Welker went sideways.

 Sofia Kinzinger:

After the interview was taped but before it aired, Welker mentioned on Sunday’s broadcast that the president had reached out. They spoke. He agreed to do a second interview.

Read that again slowly.

You do not call a reporter after a taped interview to say everything went great. You call because you know there’s a need for damage control. You do not offer a second sit-down out of generosity — you offer one because you are hoping for a redo. The second interview is not a goodwill gesture. It is a damage control overture. It is the White House’s way of saying: we know what’s coming, and we do not want it to air.

The fact that Welker disclosed this publicly, on air, is itself a signal. The damage control attempt became part of the damage.

Step back even further and look at why Wisconsin in the first place.

This was the president’s first trip to the state since being reelected in 2024. He chose a farm. He brought the Secretary of Agriculture. He hosted a roundtable titled “American Agriculture.” The symbolism is loud, and it is loud because the silence underneath it is deafening.

Farmers, and specifically Midwestern farmers, have been among the most quietly devastated constituencies of the current administration’s trade policies. Tariffs that were supposed to open foreign markets have instead raised input costs. Fertilizer prices tied to the Iran war have climbed. Fuel costs have followed. Deal after deal, announced with fanfare and followed by complexity, has left farmers absorbing losses that were never part of the pitch they were sold.

Tariffs, cuts to USDA programs, and immigration policy that has frightened away farm laborers have combined to create a compounding pressure on small and medium farms across Wisconsin. These are not abstract policy debates for the families running those operations. These are balance sheets. These are decisions about whether to plant next season.

Share

And when Welker asked Trump directly about gas and fertilizer prices climbing because of the war, he snapped: “Are you ready? Am I allowed to talk?” Then: “I love the farmers and the farmers love me.”

That line — “the farmers love me”— was the whole point of the trip. And the fact that it had to be said out loud, with visible frustration, on a farm in the rain, in front of a journalist who wouldn’t let it stand unchallenged, tells you more about where things actually stand than any poll number could.

Farmers are not a monolith, but they are a constituency that carries symbolic and electoral weight far beyond their numbers. They represent something in the American political imagination — self-reliance, resilience, the backbone of the country. When that group begins to peel away, it does not just change vote counts. It changes the story.

The support has been quietly diminishing for months. Not loudly. Not with protests or rallies. Just with the slow, grinding reality of costs that don’t come down, promises that don’t deliver, and a White House that showed up to Wisconsin with a camera crew and a curated barn and a message that felt, even to its intended audience, like it was meant for television rather than for them.

That gap — between the image and the reality, between the invitation and the exit, between the staged farm backdrop and the president walking off the set — is the story.


Monday, June 8, 2026

BS About LA

Our most recent book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. It includes a chapter on congressional and state elections.

California sends mail ballots to every registered voter and allows the counting of ballots postmarked by election day even if they arrive a week later.  This process helps explain why the state's vote count is slow.  Despite the total lack of evidence for significant cheating,  the slow count gives Trumpists an occasion to spread lies about election fraud.

MELANIE MASON, DUSTIN GARDINER and BLAKE JONES at POLITICO:
Rob Quan, the indefatigable Los Angeles politics watchdog, made a prediction on X five days before the primary: “Spencer Pratt will finish election night in first place but he will consistently slide over the next week or two, as later votes are counted, and this website will reach peak dumpster fire status.”

He wasn’t totally right about the first results in the Los Angeles mayor’s race. Pratt’s weaker-than-expected showing put him behind Karen Bass from the start. But the dumpster fire? That forecast was spot on.

Social media sites, particularly X, were awash with conspiracy theories about Nithya Raman’s surge since Election Day. By Sunday, Raman had pulled ahead of Pratt by roughly 3,000 votes, making her the heavy favorite to take on Bass in the November runoff — and Pratt’s online fans handled the development much like Quan anticipated.

By now, certain corners of the social media ecosystem have settled, baselessly, on an ironclad consensus: The election was rigged. One widely-circulated claim alleged that a suspicious ballot drop included, improbably, zero votes for Pratt. In fact, the charge stemmed from a misreading of election data that had a one-minute lag in updates, the Los Angeles Times reported. Still skeptics were unconvinced when Bill Essayli, the Donald Trump-picked first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California who said he’s launched “multiple” unspecified election fraud investigations, debunked the claim on X.

Also circling online was incredulity that Raman could possibly be neck-and-neck with Pratt, noting his strong polling in the lead-up to the race. But the last major poll before the election — by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies — showed Raman edging out Pratt, even with fellow Democratic Socialist candidate Rae Huang pulling 9 percent of the vote. Huang’s showing has hovered under 3 percent, indicating that progressive voters rallied around Raman in the closing days.

Much of the argument for a rigged election is based mostly on vibes. Non-Californians who couldn’t fathom why a plurality of Angelenos would back a deeply unpopular incumbent or self-described locals insisting they knew nobody who voted for Raman. The confusion says more about the online echo chamber that Pratt dominated. When Pratt, a Republican, insisted before the election that he’d win 50 percent plus one and win the mayorship outright, his fans believed him — never mind how implausible that would be for a city where 55 percent of voters are registered Democrats and just 14 percent are registered Republicans.

For the last few days, reporters — notably, The New York Times’ Ken Bensinger and CNN’s Elex Michaelson — have been trying, often in vain, to refute falsehoods and explain the precedent of progressive candidates getting a boost off of late votes. (One such example is the roughly 20-point swing that vaulted progressive challenger Eunisses Hernandez over Democratic incumbent city councilmember Gil Cedillo in 2022.) Roxanne Hoge, the chair of the Los Angeles County GOP, has also used social media to provide clear information about the voting process.

But the cheating fixation persists, in no small part because it’s amplified by the most powerful man in the world. Trump said during an interview on Meet the Press on Sunday the California elections were rigged — as well as repeating his baseless claims about the 2020 presidential election being fraudulent — before he abruptly ended his interview with Kristen Welker and walked out. Newsom’s press office declared the outburst “the most severe case of California Derangement Syndrome we’ve ever seen.”

Pratt’s post-election posts have taken a conspiratorial turn. On Friday, he urged his supporters to be patient; by Sunday, he was intimating the late votes for Raman were entirely due to homeless people voting for her.

Sunday, June 7, 2026

Snowflake in June

Our books have discussed Trump's low character, which was on display this weekend

 

Saturday, June 6, 2026

CA Vote Count and Bogus Conspiracy Theories

Our most recent book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. It includes a chapter on congressional and state elections.

California sends mail ballots to every registered voter and allows the counting of ballots postmarked by election day even if they arrive a week later.  This process helps explain why the state's vote count is slow.  Despite the total lack of evidence for significant cheating,  the slow count gives Trumpists an occasion to spread lies about election fraud.

 Kevin Rector at LAT:

Since election night in California, a single theory of election fraud has taken root like no other — not just among online conspiracy theorists or bot accounts, but among major conservative influencers and people close to President Trump.

Late on election night, an update of vote counts in the Los Angeles mayor’s race appeared on election results pages of various media outlets including the Los Angeles Times.

It showed leading Democrats Mayor Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman receiving tens of thousands of new votes, and leading Republican former reality TV star Spencer Pratt receiving no new votes.

Close observers of the vote tally immediately took screenshots, with some shouting fraud. Others ran statistical analyses that showed it would be impossible for a candidate such as Pratt — running second in the race — to receive zero votes in such a large batch of ballots.

“They’re not even trying to hide the fraud anymore,” wrote Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and onetime member of Trump’s inner circle.

The claim fit into the broader narrative being pushed relentlessly by Trump and other Republicans in recent days, that California Democrats were cheating.

But the discrepancy in the Tuesday vote count in the mayor’s race was not fraud.

What attracted far less attention than the update with zero Pratt votes was another update one minute later that showed tens of thousands of votes for Pratt, and none for Bass or Raman.

There was no batch of votes that included zero votes for any candidate, as Los Angeles County’s own data show plainly.

But voting data pushed out by the Associated Press came as two separate updates one minute apart, with Bass’ and Raman’s votes in the first and Pratt’s in the second.

“The AP vote count receives updates as provided by election officials and adds them to our vote count. What happened in this case is that there was a lag in an automated update such that some candidates’ votes were added in one update and the other candidates followed about a minute later,” the Associated Press said in a statement to The Times.

Thursday, June 4, 2026

CA Election Problems: Slow Count and Top Two

Our most recent book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. It includes a chapter on congressional and state elections.

California sends mail ballots to every registered voter and allows the counting of ballots postmarked by election day even if they arrive a week later.  This process helps explain why the state's vote count is slow.  Despite the total lack of evidence for significant cheating,  the slow count gives Trump an occasion to spread lies about election fraud.



Seth Masket:

As of this writing, the California governor’s race appears to be going to a November runoff between Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton. As in the 2020 presidential race, Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer ran a spirited campaign but came up short, and will likely Back Dat Azz Up into obscurity once again. As such, this looks like a “normal” primary, producing a nominee for each major party that the electorate can weigh in on. But California’s top-two system is still problematic here, and very easily could have produced a perverse and chaotic outcome for the state.

Definitely check out Jonathan Bernstein’s piece roasting the top-two system — I largely agree with what he says. But I want to stress a bit on party coordination, something notably lacking on the Democratic side in this contest.

Top-two primary elections are not “primaries” in any sense except that they come first. In common usage, a primary is a way for a party to decide on a nominee by turning to the party’s voters. California’s system does not do that. Rather, it is a June election among all the candidates, with the two top vote-getters going to a runoff election in November, even if they’re from the same party.

Usually, this looks similar to what you’d get in a more conventional primary election system, with a Democrat and a Republican going to the runoff. But once in a while, you get a Democrat-Democrat or a Republican-Republican runoff. Eric McGhee and Mark Baldassare at the Public Policy Institute of California ran the numbers and found that at least 18 state legislative or congressional contests have ended up in a same-party runoff each election cycle since the top-two system was adopted. (Such races have helped to modestly reduce polarization in the state legislature.) Usually that doesn’t matter much for representation purposes; it’s the same-party runoff in a district dominated by that party.

However, as McGhee and Baldassare note, there have been eight same-party runoffs in districts that lean toward the other party, and seven of those were two Republicans facing off in a Democratic-leaning district. That is, the top-two system created multiple situations where a Republican ended up representing a Democratic-majority district. (That doesn’t have an enormous impact in a state where Democrats have such large majorities, but imagine that happening in a statewide office like governor.)


Tuesday, June 2, 2026

Bag of Tricks

Our most recent book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. It includes a chapter on congressional and state elections.

Monday, June 1, 2026

Feds Losing Legal Talent

Our new book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. The first year of the second Trump administration has been full of ominous developments

Eileen Sullivan and Andrea Fuller at NYT:

President Trump’s upheaval of the federal government has led to an exodus of more than 10,000 lawyers since the beginning of 2025, a striking loss of legal talent that has left some agencies pushing to find attorneys to carry out his agenda.

Roughly one in five lawyers who worked in the government at the end of 2024 had left by March of this year, according to a New York Times analysis of federal employment data.

Along with the usual retirements and turnover in the federal work force, the last year saw deep staffing cuts and the resignations of some staff members who objected to Mr. Trump’s policies. Their departures show how rapidly the president has eroded the image of the federal government as the gold standard for lawyers seeking public service roles.

Instead, many of those looking for such work are flocking to the offices of Democratic state attorneys general and nonprofits that are challenging administration policies in the courts, boosting Mr. Trump’s opponents with seasoned lawyers.