Midterm Shenanigans

Trump's constant bluster about voter fraud and rigged elections may be producing a Streisand Effect by having prompted rigorous investigations that always turn up diddly squat.

And given Americans' legendarily short attention span, it kinda looks like people are getting just a little bored with it.

But this is a guy who never gives up - he backs down a lot - but he never admits defeat, and you can bet dollars to dingleberries that he'll keep hammering away.

So IMO it's more than a little probable that this story in WaPo illustrates some of the basic fuckery that I think Trump and Blanche are cooking up.

DOJ seeks to block Alaska Senate result if Republican incumbent narrowly loses In a lawsuit, the Justice Department cited confusion over two similarly named candidates, including Republican Sen. Daniel S. Sullivan.

The Justice Department has moved to preemptively block certification of the results of Alaska’s Senate race if Republican incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan loses his tight race against Democrat Mary Peltola next month, launching an unusual legal battle amid broader concerns over the Trump administration’s willingness to accept the election results.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court Thursday, department officials described the candidacy of a third contender in the race — another Republican named Dan J. Sullivan Jr. — as a bid to mislead supporters of Sen. Sullivan into voting for the wrong candidate.

They asked a federal judge to bar the state from certifying the race’s results should the senator lose by a margin less than the number of votes his same-named challenger receives. In that scenario, the department said, the court should investigate whether that result was tainted by voter confusion.

The move marked a remarkable bid by the Justice Department to potentially intervene in the outcome of a race that could determine control of the Senate before the election has occurred. Just hours before the suit was filed, Attorney General Todd Blanche downplayed the suggestion his agency would seek to interfere with state certified election outcomes outside of what he described as a “doomsday scenario.”

“It is not DOJ’s intention to — and it’s never our intention to — improperly interfere with elections or the state certification process,” Blanche told reporters Thursday. “But, you know, to say there’s no circumstances that we would ever do that, of course, I’m not going to say that.”

As Election Day approaches, Democrats have grown increasingly alarmed by what they view as attempts by the Justice Department to influence the outcome of the vote. The Trump administration has pushed in public and in court to exert greater control over state-run election administration and worked to cast doubt on the integrity of the results.

In Alaska, Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward wrote in the Thursday filing, “the sole purpose of [Dan J. Sullivan’s] candidacy is to benefit the Peltola campaign by reducing the number of votes for Senator Sullivan.”

“Given the substantial likelihood that the inclusion of Dan J. Sullivan will confuse or mislead voters looking to cast a vote for Senator Sullivan and thus distort the will of Alaskan voters, there is a substantial likelihood that a certification of the election will reflect an electoral process that lacked integrity,” Woodward, the Justice Department’s third highest-ranking official, added.

Dan J. Sullivan did not immediately return requests for comment Friday. Spokespeople for Sen. Dan S. Sullivan and Peltola also did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The candidacy of Dan J. Sullivan — a retired teacher and a former member of the Alaska Independence Party who registered as a Republican shortly before filing to enter the race this year — has been a source of consternation for Republicans.

Alaska election officials moved in June to boot him from the ballot, agreeing that his entry into the race was meant to confuse voters. But Dan J. Sullivan has repeatedly denied claims that he was trying to confuse, or coordinating with Democrats or Peltola’s campaign. A state court ordered him back on the ballot later that month, a decision later affirmed by the state’s Supreme Court.

He advanced to the general election in the state’s August primary, which selects the top four candidates regardless of party. He received only 2.5 percent of the vote — almost entirely from liberal strongholds in the state.

Name confusion is not new in the state of under 780,000. Dan S. Sullivan, the current senator, was first elected in 2014, the same year the then-Anchorage mayor, also named Dan Sullivan, was running for lieutenant governor.

Jim Lottsfeldt, an Anchorage-based political consultant, said name confusion likely contributed to Dan S. Sullivan’s victory that year. (Former mayor Sullivan endorsed Sen. Sullivan against the teacher Sullivan in this year’s race.)

Lottsfeldt had the idea at the time to recruit more candidates named Dan Sullivan to the Senate ballot to confuse voters, though he declined to actually go through with it. He denied any involvement in Dan J. Sullivan’s candidacy this year.

“I actually looked and saw there were like 14 Dan Sullivans,” Lottsfeldt said in an interview last month.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday called Dan J. Sullivan’s candidacy a “SCAM” and hinted that his administration could soon seek legal intervention in the race.

“We are looking at powerful legal options to remove the fraudulent Dan J. Sullivan Jr. from the Ballot, and holding the Democrats accountable for their Election Interference, in the pursuit of Justice and Fairness,” Trump wrote on social media.

Still, election experts described the legal arguments advanced by the department in the suit Thursday as “absurdly thin” and predicted it would not withstand judicial scrutiny. University of Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller called the department’s suit “one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen.”

“In short, like many Department letters over the last few years, it is designed to win the press release rather than the litigation,” Muller wrote in a blog post.

The suit relies on a novel reading of the National Voter Registration Act -- a broad statute that governs voter registration requirements. Instead, Justice Department lawyers cited a mention in the law’s preamble Thursday to justify its interest in the outcome of the Alaska race, saying it authorized the federal government to “protect the integrity of the electoral process.”

Though the suit called for Alaska’s results to be put on hold in the event of Sen. Sullivan’s narrow loss so an investigation can be conducted to determine voters intended that result, the filing does not explain how such an investigation would be carried out while also protecting the secrecy of voters’ ballot choices.

Trump has spent years questioning election procedures and has fretted in recent months that a Democratic takeover of Congress could lead to his third impeachment. He continues to insist he won the 2020 election, even though recounts and court reviews found he lost, and he regularly complains without evidence that elections are rigged against Republicans.

He and his administration have spent the past two years trying to intervene with how states run elections, but have had little success. Trump tried to limit who received mail ballots but was stopped by the Supreme Court. The Justice Department sued 30 states for their voter rolls but has lost case after case in court. The Department of Homeland Security has prioritized finding noncitizens on voter rolls, but a judge this week restricted how it can conduct its investigations.

Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor and director of the school’s Safeguarding Democracy Project, told NPR this week he did not believe the Trump administration and its backers would challenge results if Democrats win control of Congress in a blowout.

But Hasen, who spoke before the Justice Department filed its latest lawsuit, named Alaska as a potential legal battleground if Democrats narrowly take control of the Senate. The state uses ranked-choice voting and takes longer than others to tabulate results, heightening the chances of litigation there, he noted.

“If it comes down to one seat, then I think all bets are off. And then I’m very concerned that the Trump administration will try to do things to manipulate the outcome of the elections,” Hasen said.

Just remember that Jan6 was a multi-pronged, multi-phase operation. So taking the states to court is likely just part of the plan.

STAY FROSTY

EYE ON THE BALL

NOSE TO THE WIND

EAR TO THE GROUND

SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL

now try to get

something done

in that position

The Storm Gathers

Frustrated with Trump, voters overwhelmingly want change in Washington, an AP-NORC poll finds

WASHINGTON (AP) — A strong majority of voters believe that President Donald Trump is falling short at home and abroad, and they want major change in the upcoming midterm elections, according to a new AP-NORC poll that raises serious warning signs for the Republican Party at a critical moment.

The survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, conducted less than four weeks before Election Day, finds that registered voters who identify as Democrats are more enthusiastic than Republican voters about casting a ballot. More voters want Democrats to win control of Congress and have a more negative view of Republicans.

The Democratic advantage is small in some cases, but, taken together, the findings paint a challenging picture for Republicans, who are clinging to control of Congress under the weight of an unpopular war with Iran and surging prices at home.

About 8 in 10 voters overall say the economy or the cost of living is among their top issues for the upcoming election, while about two-thirds say this about healthcare and the war in Iran. Other issues that are stronger for Trump — like immigration or crime — are lower priorities.

“The world is going backwards. We can barely afford anything,” said Diana Walker, a 65-year-old Democrat from Decatur, Georgia. “Everybody’s down. I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or Republican, we’re all catching hell.”

Democrats are more enthusiastic about voting than Republicans

Less than a month before the final midterm votes are cast, the poll finds that Democratic voters are more motivated to vote.

Overall, about two-thirds of registered voters say it’s “extremely” important to vote in the upcoming election, while about 2 in 10 say it’s “very” important.

But about three-quarters of Democratic voters say that voting in this November’s midterm elections is “extremely” important, compared with roughly 6 in 10 Republicans.

Ryan Longbrake, a 52-year-old Democrat from Columbus, Ohio who works in technology marketing, said he’s especially excited about casting his ballot, and he’s already taken steps to ensure that his wife and two college-age daughters will vote as well.

“I believe that there is change on the horizon and there is an excitement within our party,” he said, pointing to Democrats’ momentum in Ohio’s elections for governor and U.S. Senate. The party is also investing resources in Republican-leaning states, like Iowa and Kansas, where the political environment has put Democratic candidates on friendlier footing.

Republicans have controlled Congress for the past two years, but about half of registered voters now say they’d prefer to see the Democratic Party control the House or the Senate. A smaller percentage, roughly 4 in 10, say they want the Republican Party to control each chamber, while 15% are undecided.

The vast majority of voters want change

One thing is crystal clear on the eve of the 2026 midterms: Voters want change.

About half of voters say they want “substantial change,” and roughly 3 in 10 want “complete and total upheaval” in the way the country is run.

Democrats and independents are much likelier than Republicans to want a full overhaul of the country’s direction. But even Republican voters are still looking for something different. Slightly fewer than half, 45%, want substantial change, while 13% want upheaval.

“I’m kind of tired of sending people there and nothing gets done,” said Krista Kohles, a 70-year-old Republican from near Davey, Nebraska. “Nothing’s changing.”

Trump’s numbers on key issues are weak

Voters are deeply frustrated with Trump and his leadership on the issues they say matter most.

Only about one-third of registered voters overall have a “very” or “somewhat” favorable view of the Republican president, and a similar share approve of his performance as president.

Voters continue to be frustrated by the high cost of living, an issue that Trump vowed to address before winning a second term in the White House.

Nearly two years after his successful election, about 8 in 10 registered voters disapprove of how Trump is handling the cost of living, in line with a September AP-NORC poll. About three-quarters disapprove of his performance on the economy.

Even among Republican voters, only 44% approve of Trump’s performance on the cost of living, while 54% approve of his leadership on the economy. That’s a sharp contrast with other issues, like crime, on which Republican approval is much higher.

There are cracks in Trump’s Republican base on other issues, too. Just 69% of Republican voters support Trump on foreign policy as the war in Iran stretches into its eighth month, despite his promises that it would only last four or five weeks.

DonnaJean Weber, a 72-year-old Republican from Manistee, Michigan, says she will continue to support Republican candidates this fall, but she’s not happy with the state of the economy under Trump’s leadership.

“Everything’s going up,” she said, pointing to the impact of the war with Iran, among other Trump decisions. “I don’t agree with him fully on all of these tariffs, either. It’s making this country look bad.”

The economy and the cost of living are high priorities for voters on both sides of the aisle. The survey found that the vast majority of Republican and Democratic voters say both issues are among the most important for the upcoming election.

Voters aren’t any higher on one of Trump’s potential successors in the next presidential election, Vice President JD Vance: About half have a “somewhat” or “very” negative view of Vance, compared with about one-third who have a positive opinion.

Enthusiasm for the Democrats isn’t overwhelming

Trump’s struggles do not mean that voters are particularly excited about the direction of the Democratic Party.

Overall, about 4 in 10 voters have a “very” or “somewhat” favorable view of the Democrats, while about half view the party unfavorably. That’s roughly similar to views of the GOP, although about 6 in 10 voters view the Republicans unfavorably.

Democratic and Republican voters are equally enthusiastic about their own side, with about 8 in 10 saying they have a favorable view of their own party.

But the critical bloc of voters who identify as independents is much more likely to have a negative view of the Republicans than of the Democrats. About two-thirds of independent voters view the GOP negatively, compared with about 4 in 10 who view Democrats negatively.

Michael Russo, a 51-year-old Texas voter who is not registered with either party, described the state of the country under Republican control as “a nightmare.”

Does he want Republicans to maintain control of Congress? “No, I want them in prison — several of them,” he said. But he’s not thrilled with the Democratic Party, either.

“I’m not confident they’re going to do anything if they get into power,” Russo said.

Election Politics, A.I. And Polling

It's a long one - almost an hour and a half. But it's chock full of great little nuggets.

Midterms and Democrats =  start

Take AI out of the mix, and the S&P is down 6% for the year. = 28:50

Data center construction is crowding out other building projects.

• New housing - down 14%
• Manufacturing plant - down 23%
• Schools - Down 12%
• Office space - down 10%
• Hospitals - down 10%

Polling problems and suspicions = 57:25

Midterm Fuckery

The Trumplefucks continue to stack the shitty things they intend to do, waiting until after the midterms to spring it all on us. And IMHO, a lot of it is going to be blamed on the Democrats.

As soon as the Dems are elected, I expect the gaslighting will reverse.

White House Officials Told the DOJ to Delay Action on Abortion Ahead of the Midterms

Attorney General Todd Blanche has moved slowly in abortion pill litigation and department officials have told advocates to wait until after the election.

The White House has instructed the Justice Department to move slowly on any abortion-related actions ahead of the midterm elections, The Washington Sun has learned.

In a series of discussions, senior White House officials, led by White House chief of staff Susan Wiles, directly delivered the message to Attorney General Todd Blanche, according to a senior administration official not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. Wiles suggested that an aggressive approach on abortion would generate unwanted attention, something the officials worried could alienate voters ahead of the November elections.

“No one wants us taking any real action before the midterms,” the senior administration official said, emphasizing the push came directly from top White House staff.

The White House denied that meetings took place: “This is completely false. These conversations never occurred between White House officials and DOJ officials.”

But administration officials have also informed anti-abortion leaders, who have aggressively pressed the administration to move quickly to restrict abortion access, that any action on abortion would take place after the midterm elections, multiple sources told The Sun.

“Once the midterms are over and it’s truly lame-duck time, we’ve heard the gloves will be off,” one conservative in touch with the administration, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations, said. “We have heard we have friends, and there are definitely people who are staunch pro-lifers.”

The DOJ has consistently asked federal judges to pause ongoing lawsuits that seek to restrict access to the abortion drug mifepristone until the Food and Drug Administration completes a review of the drug’s safety and effectiveness. A departure from that strategy would create unfavorable headlines just before voters head to the polls, the White House officials made clear to Blanche.

The Supreme Court in 2024 dismissed a case that sought to ban the abortion pill mifepristone on procedural grounds. The justices have never taken a position on whether the pills should be available.

Other cases challenging abortion pill access that have emerged since are currently making their way through the federal courts. The Trump administration is defending FDA rules that allow these drugs to be available via mail, but is doing so only on procedural grounds rather than expressly supporting the current regulations. Anti-abortion groups and allies of the movement have urged the DOJ to drop its procedural defense of FDA and, instead, allow courts to rule more quickly on the merits of the cases.

The senior administration official said the White House has made clear to Blanche that it would not support such a strategy.

In response to questions about meetings between Blanche and White House officials, a DOJ spokesperson called President Donald Trump “the most pro-life president in history.” The spokesperson did not answer questions specifically about the meetings or the substance of those meetings.

“The Department of Justice represents [the Food and Drug Administration] in these matters, and FDA is continuing to review the safety data for mifepristone,” the spokesperson said. “We asked the courts to stay these cases while that review is ongoing. Should the Department learn of possible fraud or harm to women involving these drugs, we will investigate those matters.”

Anti-abortion leaders expect post-election action that is not just related to litigation.
A source familiar with the matter said DOJ officials have told some anti-abortion leaders that any action on enforcing the Comstock Act — which would bar the mailing of abortion drugs — would take place after the election.

The DOJ is “actively working on it,” the source said.

Tom McClusky, director of government affairs for CatholicVote, said he has heard “the same thing from every agency I talk to and from members of Congress.” He added, “It’s always that nothing’s going to happen until November.”

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, told The Sun in May that she had “encouraging” meetings with a DOJ official, whom she declined to name, on the Comstock Act. Specifically, she said there are discussions around rescinding a 2022 memo from the Office of Legal Counsel issued during the Biden administration that effectively made the law unenforceable.

But when asked whether the DOJ had given the organization an update as to when action would take place, Kristi Hamrick, vice president of media and policy for Students for Life, told The Sun: “Everything but the election is pushed until after the elections.”

Blanche, in his July confirmation hearings, said he opposed abortion pills being available via mail and committed to enforcing the Comstock Act, a series of 1873 federal laws that prohibit the shipment of “every article or thing designed, adapted or intended for producing abortion.” Politico also reported that during an August call with faith leaders, Blanche said the administration was working to ensure abortion was banned “in every single state.”

As a result, some in the anti-abortion camp are holding out hope that Blanche will be an ally to them.

“Based on Attorney General Blanche’s testimony during his confirmation, we have hope and are expecting that swift action will be taken to stop mail-order abortion drugs that are undermining pro-life state laws across the country,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. “Every day that goes by more women are coerced and harmed and more unborn children die. We are past due for action.”

But Blanche has said nothing publicly about abortion since the summer.

A directive from the White House to the DOJ to inject electoral politics into litigation would historically have been seen as highly unusual, at best. In the wake of Watergate, then-Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a memo in 1979 that laid out guidelines to firewall DOJ from White House personnel on certain sensitive matters. That memo, which has become known as the “no contacts” policy, has been updated and strengthened several times in the intervening decades, though Trump loosened it at the start of his current term.

Any action to restrict abortion pills would immediately break Trump’s 2024 campaign pledge that he would “not block” access to the drugs.

The White House first made its intentions for the midterms clear to cabinet members in February, the senior administration official said. Blanche was deputy attorney general at that time but was brought up to speed after he became acting attorney general in April.

The Trump administration’s silence on abortion pills has frustrated even judges overseeing abortion pill cases.

Earlier this month, during oral arguments for Louisiana v. FDA, judges in the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals multiple times pressed DOJ lawyers to state the administration’s perspective on the FDA’s regulations — to no avail.

“The only thing I can say, your honor, is what we’ve said in the briefs, which is that FDA is conducting an ongoing review. It has committed to do this. It’s doing it in an ongoing fashion, so we just haven’t taken a position,” said Daniel Winik, an attorney for the DOJ’s senior counsel.

In response, Judge Stephen Higginson said: “I find that very, very unsatisfactory that the agency won’t give an opinion as to its own regulations.”