Why Were The Polls So Wildly Off In Tuesday's Elections?

This is a key question that nobody's asking.

• The Real Clear Politics average for the New Jersey governor's race had Sherrill ahead by 2.7%, and many commentators had this within the margin of error. She won by 56.3% to Ciattarelli's 43.2%, a 13.1% margin.
• The RCP average for the Virginia governor's race had Spanberger ahead by 8.5%. She won by 57.2% to Earle Sears's 43.6%, a 13.5% margin.

I asked Chrome AI mode, "What is considered an accurate poll election prediction?" It answered,

An accurate poll election prediction is one where the actual election outcome falls within the poll's stated margin of error and confidence interval. However, polls often understate the full range of potential error, meaning the reported margin of error may need to be wider in practice to be truly accurate.

The RCP poll averages don't have a stated margin of error, because they are just a composite of individual polls with differing margins of error. But let's look at individual polls before those elections. According to Newsweek,

The latest AtlasIntel poll (October 25-30; 1,639 likely voters, =/-2 percent margin) gives Sherrill a narrow edge, 50.2 percent to 49.3 percent.

Meanwhile, a John Zogby Strategies poll, carried out among 1,205 people between October 31 and November 3, places Sherrill ahead (55 percent) of Ciattarelli (43.4 percent). There is a +/- 2.9 percentage point margin of error.

Research Co. also has Sherrill in the lead with 3 points more than Ciattarelli (52 percent to 48 percent) among 450 likely voters questioned between November 2 and 3—there is a =/- 4.5 percentage point margin of error.

Only the Zogby Poll, which had Sherrill ahead of Ciattarelli by 11.9 points vs the 13.1 point actual difference, was within the 2.9 point margin of error at 1.2 points. The others were wildly off. At the same link for the Virginia race,

Trafalgar Group has given [Spanberger] a 5.6 percentage point lead over Earle-Sears (49.8 percent to 43.3 percent).

Meanwhile, the latest Insider Advantage survey of 800 likely voters (questioned between November 2 and 3) has Spanberger at 50 percent and Earle-Sears at 40 percent. There is a +/- 3.46 percentage point margin of error.

Research Co.’s poll (November 2 and 3 among 450 likely voters) shows Spanberger with a lead of 54 percent over Winsome Earle-Sears’s 46 percent. There is a =/- 4.6 percent margin of error.

No margin of error is cited for the Trafalgar poll. The Insider Advantage poll had Spanberger ahead by 10%, with a margin of error at 3.46% Spanberger won by 13.5%, just outside the poll's margin of error. The Research Co poll had Spanberger ahead by 8 points, with a 4.6% margin of error. But Spanberger won by 13.5%, again outside the poll's margin of error. The Virginia polls were only slightly more accurate than the New Jersey polls, with the result for RCP that they got garbage in-garbage out in both races.

The effect of this sloppy work was to build an expectation that the Republicans had a chance of winning, especially in New Jersey. As far back as July, the conventional wisdom went,

Mikie Sherrill by a landslide?

Nobody believes that will be the result of New Jersey’s piping hot governor’s race come November. Not the Republicans. Not the Democrats. Not the campaigns. And not the Rutgers-Eagleton pollster who last week released a survey that says Sherrill, the Democratic nominee, has an early 20-point lead over Republican Jack Ciattarelli.

So somehow, the pollsters managed to create an inaccurate impression that Ciattarelli was going to come from behind and score an upset victory over Sherrill, when Sherrill nevertheless won by a landslide anyhow. Who benefitted from this?

On one hand, the media did, simply in terms of clicks and pageviews and eyeballs. It generated national interest in an otherwise blah and predictable local race, when the same Republican had already run and lost against a Democrat twice. The alt media also seized on the story as a potential Republican success story.

But let's recall what Rush Limbaugh said about the polls:

The polls are nothing more than a tool for making public opinion. The polls are not taken to reflect public opinion at all. The primary purpose of polls is to depress and dispirit Republican voters by making them feel constantly like they’re in the minority.

In this case, the polls and the media worked to create one "piping hot governor's race" that was never piping hot at all, while feeding completely unrealistic expectations that Republicans could win in Virginia. And when rhe optimistic buildup fell completely flat on election day, the media -- even the putative non-partisan commentators -- spun it as a disaster. Thus Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics:

The GOP went into the night with reasonably upbeat expectations. Polls showed a close race in New Jersey, and it looked as though Republicans might keep the attorney generals office in Virginia. Neither outcome happened.

. . . It's hard to see what good news there could possibly be for Republicans here. Incoming Virginia governor Abigail Spanberger won by 15 points, while even Jay Jones, the problematic attorney general candidate (see below) won by around 6 points, similar to the Democrats margins in 2017. In New Jersey Sherrill nearly equaled Gov. Phil Murphys 2017 margin. Counties like Bergen and Passaic, where Donald Trump made big gains among minorities last year, swung back toward Democrats.

Except that the Republican expectations were fed by the polls, whose purpose in life, at least according to El Rushbo, is to depress and dispirit Republican voters. But wait a moment -- here's Sean Trende, the public face of the Real Clear Politics polling averages, flat out admitting that it was the polls -- and the RCP averages -- that misled Republicans. Shouldn't he be asking himself some serious questions here? Apparently not. RCP is going to keep on getting a few good polls, mixing them in with a lot of garbage polls, and averaging it all out. the main effect is to depress and dispit Republicans, even when they're creating putatively optimistic trends out of pure moonshine.

Nuke The Filibuster!

The current government shutdown, whatever else it may be, is a negotiation. Whatever rhe conventional wisdom may say about Trump's current situation, it's unwise to forget that Trump is a skilled negotiator. In the current shutdown crisis, I think he's following an established pattern. His call to nuke the filibuster is a good example. At 4:15 in the video above, he says,

I've been saying for the last 30 days, we've had four or five different points, "Yes, sir, they're going to get it right now, we should have it done in a day." I've heard that about four times. I heard it after [No] Kings. . . I heard it after a couple of other moments in time. And I said, "No, I don't believe so." And now I heard it's after the election. I don't believe so. I think they're kamikaze pilots. . . . They'll take down the country if they have to.

His argument is that the Democrats, althougn in the minority, will use the filibuster to block every Republican initiative for the rest of his term, so it's time to nuke the filibuster:

That demand is putting Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and other GOP leaders in an awkward spot. Thune and many other senators oppose terminating the filibuster, an arcane procedural tool that empowers the minority party to delay or block a piece of legislation they oppose.

Getting rid of it would help Republicans in the short term, but many in the party have warned that getting rid of the filibuster could come back to bite them if Democrats return to power in the Senate.

Trump-'s reply is that it's only a matter of time before the Democrats retake power, when they'll certainly nuke it themselves; best do it now, when we can reap the benefit. This may seem like Trump the impulse-driven egoist is back, but I think this is a carefully thought-out strategy. Let's take another look at the business-school analysis of Trump's negotiating style that I frequently link here:

As much as Trump watches others, he is aware of being watched: “life is a performance art,” he wrote Think Like a Champion. “Understand that as a performer, you have a responsibility to your audience to perform to the best of your ability”.

. . . In addition to flaunting his ability and willingness to “walk away,” Trump the performer also anchors high – i.e., makes the first move and asks for a maximum possible value to get the most out of the negotiation. “My style of deal‐making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. Sometimes I settle for less than I sought, but in most cases I still end up with what I want”.

. . . [A]mbiguity has been an enduring part of Trump’s negotiation toolkit from his early days as a businessman to the present day as occupant of the Oval Office. Before running for president he wrote, “never let anyone know exactly where you’re coming from. Knowledge is power, so keep as much of it to yourself as possible”.

. . . The structured choice tactic is central to Trump’s coercive negotiation approach. In his use, the method has the following logic: choose my proposal, which I have promoted with bravado or, being less desperate for the deal than you are, I will walk away, ominously suggesting that significant adverse consequences could follow. “Leverage,” Trump notes in The Art of the Deal, “often requires imagination, and salesmanship”. The structured choice approach is powerful because Trump essentially narrows down the other party’s choice set to only two options: one with a clear incentive and the other with an unpredictable (potentially, devastating) threat.

What Trump is doing with the shutdown, if we put it in the context of these strategies, is anchoring high: he's asking the Republican senators to nuke the filibuster, when this is something they're unlikely to do; he knows this. On the other hand, if the shutdown goes long enough and causes enough pain, this could happen. Trump is an effective persuader. But both Republican and Democrat senators are uncomfortable with nuking the filibuster. Nuking the filibuster is the "unpredictable (potentially, devastating) threat" in Trump's structured choice.

The clear incentive on the other side is to vote for cloture, leave the filibuster in place, but end the shutdown. There's also ambiguity in play. Trump has the megalomaniac role in his repertoire, and he's playing it here. What's he going to do? But his performance isn't aimed at Schumer or Jeffries -- he's aiming at splitting away enough moderate Democrats to vote for cloture. And they clearly exist:

Top Senate Democrats say the party is working through “differences of opinions” as they scramble to find an off-ramp to a month-old partial government shutdown that is set to become the longest on record Wednesday.

Democrats emerged tight-lipped from an unusually long closed-door caucus lunch on Tuesday as they weighed options to end the shutdown while pushing to extend enhanced health insurance subsidies that are set to expire at year’s end.

. . . A bipartisan deal to end the shutdown is likely to require some Democrats to agree to reopen government without an extension of the health subsidies that has been their top demand. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., declined to discuss details of the roughly three-hour caucus lunch, saying only that “we’re exploring all the options.”

Retiring Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, one of a small group of Democrats who have been holding informal talks with Republicans, was likewise mum on details.

The problem on the moderate Democrat side is that the longer the shutdown lasts, the less predictable are the results. Meanwhile, Trump is clearly displaying a lack of concern over how long the shutdown lasts -- as he said in the video, people keep telling him it will end soon, but he doesn't think so. The Democrats want to be kamikaze pilots, but right now, there's nothing he can do about it short of nuking the filibuster, which is up to the Senate -- and which they won't do.

So the filibuster goes on, and Trump is going to let it happen -- or in other words, he's willing to walk away. There's a clear choice, on the other hand, to end the resulting ambiguity.

All I can say for sure is that it's a mistake to underestimate Trump

More On The Alliance Between The Upper Class And Marx's Lumpenproletariat

Because I'm on the other side of the country, and we have enougn problems of our own in LA, I wasn't following the New York mayoral election very closely. But this piece at the Manhattan Contrarian blog provides another examination of what amounts to an alliance between the upper class and Marx's Lumpenproletariat, traditionally the urban underclass of street criminals, vagabonds, pimps, and prostitutes, which is too unrelaible to be an ally of the working class, and the upper class, the 1%.

As things have been falling out in the 21st century, it see3ms to me that Marx's Lumpenroletariat has expanded beyond street criminals and other traditional riff-raff to include the homeless, whose ranks have been swelled by the easy availability of addictive drugs; illegal migrants; and sexual deviants, who form a powewrful interest group. This certainly seems to be the group whose electoral power gave Zohran Mamdani the victory in New York's mayoral election, which the writer at the link says is a major defeat for the middle class:

It’s Election Day in New York, and Zohran Mamdani, the socialist assemblyman from Queens, is almost certainly going to be the next mayor. But on his home turf, residents are terrified of the policies he supports.

Among those policies is Local Law 97, which will require over 50,000 buildings to reduce emissions 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. For large buildings, full compliance requires full electrification and millions of dollars in renovations. The alternative is to pay hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in annual penalties.

. . . The law “is an existential threat for New York’s co-op and condo owners,” former New York Lieutenant Governor and Save NYC cofounder Betsy McCaughey said. “It will massively increase the costs for them to keep their home, while endangering the solvency of their homeowners’ associations. It may ultimately trap them from being able to sell their apartments as the market crashes and liens are placed against their developments for the unpaid conversion costs.”

. . . On the eve of the election, 150 Queens residents gathered in the courtyard of Glen Oaks Village to oppose Local Law 97. Undeterred by the chilly, overcast weather, they warned their fellow New Yorkers that the radical climate policy could force them out of their homes.

One of the speakers was Alicia Fernandez, the treasurer of a 726-unit apartment building in Mamdani’s state assembly district. “We had a full feasibility study done for our building, and the costs came to 60 million dollars for our 726 apartments. That is $60,000 per one-bedroom and over $125,000 for our three-bedroom units.”

Condo and co-op owners know that expenses like that mean assessments from the homeowners' association, which are burdensome enough just to maintain the building, leaving aside the cost of such extravagant upgrades. Past a certain point, if residents can't afford the assessments, they have to sell their units and move. But if assessments for environmental upgrades put the cost of units out of reach for potential buyers, it will be impossible for current owners to sell their units.

Glen Oaks, a middle-class apartment complex with 2,904 units and over 10,000 shareholders, is representative of the hundreds of thousands of residents facing this crisis. Bob Friedrich, the president of Glen Oaks, has been speaking out on behalf of his shareholders since Local Law 97 was first drafted in 2019.

“[Our buildings] remain the last stronghold of affordable middle-class homeownership,” said Friedrich, noting that Local Law 97 “threatens that affordability.”

The end game in this situation would likely be that, with the market for condo and co-op units destroyed, the homeowners' associations would be forced into bankruptcy, and in some way or other, the city would seize the units. At that point, the current owners would be forced out, and the city, Zohran Mamdani, mayor, would be in a position to redistribute the property, which would go to the Lumpenproletariat, his supporters. The problem there is that a great many of the co-op owners, while they might be sociologically "middle class", are actually unionized workers, part of the traditional working class. The link continues,

Like his ally, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Mamdani loves stoking conflict between the rich and the poor, the landlords and the tenants. He presents New York City as a town of the haves and have-nots, and that narrative has propelled him to the national spotlight.

But it’s an incomplete picture. While progressive politicians love to present New York City as a town of the ultra-rich and ultra-poor, there are several neighborhoods — many of them in the outer boroughs Mamdani represents — where a middle class has been able to thrive. Members of that middle class say that Local Law 97, and politicians like Mamdani, hurt them by misrepresenting their concerns and ignoring their existence.

This isn't a bug, it's a feature. It's related to the proposal to tax unrealized capital gains that surfaced during the 2024 presidential campaign.

While a “Kamala Harris unrealized capital gains tax” proposal made the rounds during the lead-up to the 2024 election, it was initially suggested by former President Biden. Vice President Harris signed off on the proposal, and it later became a discussion topic during her presidential campaign, although she did not publicly address it.

What are unrealized capital gains tax rates? The proposal would have imposed a 25% minimum income tax on unrealized capital gains for taxpayers with a net worth exceeding $100 million.

That might sound like it would impact only the very rich, but the amount it would raise would probably be trivial in comparison to total government spending. The inevitable solution would be to lower the net worth threshold until it hit the middle class, where in fact we see the big bonanza: home equity. Levying an unrealized capital gains tax on home equity would result in an enormous one-time tax bill for middle-class homeowners that would force a massive sale of homes to meet it.

The reuslt would be a destruction of the middle-class housing market and the socialization of increasing swaths of real estate. The wealthy upper class would have devised ways to shelter themselves from this, while it wouid give the government the ability to redistribute residential real estate, which would in effect allow the government to award it to the underclass at the expense of the bankupted working and middle classes.

This is what the diagram at the top of this post omits: while the underclass is represented there as the bottom of the loser hierarchy, notice how the suburban and provincial middle class are both in a position of being squeezed out by those at the top of the diagonal winnmer-loser line-- but the diagram also creates an artificial distinction in a "diploma divide" between the middle and working classes, which as a practical matter is fast disappearing. College degrees are increaingly worthless.

The fact is that the traditional middle and working classes are merging, and they risk being squeezed out together between the financial elites, the professional class, and the underclass, an updated version of Marx's Lumpenproletariat. The ultimate problem is what Marx saw; the underclass is simply not a realiable ally, not of the working class, which Marx fully understood, nor in fact of any other class. This is the big mistake the upper class is making.

The upper class, or at least some of it, is still trying to bargain with the specter of a world proletarian revolution, or a more recent variation, the "helter skelter" race war. Via Fabian socialism, its strategy had been to temporize with the demands of the working class to forestall the revolution. The result of this policy over two centuries has been to create a de facto alliance between the middle and working classes. But at some point, the upper-class objective changed to temporizing with the Lumpenproletariat, an entirely different matter.

The Lumpenproletariat is not a reliable ally. This is the upper class's big mistake. The current leftists who affect a Marxist-Leninist outlook are simply not Marxists; they're agents of the upper class.

UPDATE:

Alex Soros, the son of leftist billionaire megadonor George Soros, on Tuesday hailed socialist Zohran Mamdani’s election to become the next mayor of New York City.

“So proud to be a New Yorker! The American dream continues! Congrats, Mayor Zohran Mamdani,” Soros wrote, sharing a picture of him and Mamdani.

Why Is Pelosi Hysterical?

This morning's headline: Pelosi: Trump Is a ‘Vile Creature, He’s the ‘Worst Thing on the Face of the Earth’

Pelosi said, “He’s just a vile creature. The worst thing on the face of the Earth. But anyway.”

Reporter Elex Michaelson asked, “You think he‘s the worst thing on the face of the Earth?”

Peklosi said, “I do, yeah. I do.”

Because it doesn't cost me anything, I asked Chrome AI mode, "Why would an 85-year-old make frequent angry outbursts?" It answered,

Frequent angry outbursts in an 85-year-old are often a symptom of underlying physical, emotional, or cognitive issues, and are not a normal part of aging. It is important to consult a doctor to identify the specific cause, which could include:

. . . Chronic pain from conditions like arthritis, or acute pain from an issue like a urinary tract infection (UTI), can cause significant irritability and anger, especially if the individual cannot effectively communicate the source of their discomfort.

. . . Certain anti-anxiety medications, antidepressants, or mood stabilizers, or the interaction between multiple prescriptions, can cause mood swings, confusion, and aggression.

. . . Confusion, fear, an inability to verbalize needs, and frustration with cognitive decline can all lead to angry outbursts.

. . . If an older adult who was previously non-hostile begins exhibiting ongoing, uncharacteristic aggression, it is a sign that a serious underlying issue may be present and they should be evaluated by a healthcare professional immediately.

I'm fully aware that if it costs me nothing to ask Chrome AI mode questions, the answers are worth exactly what I paid for them. Nevertheless, Speaker Emerita Pelosi's angry outbursts are nothing new -- take the episode where she ripped up the copy of Trump's State of the Union address on February 4, 2020. So I asked again, "what if an 85-year-old has been given to angry oubursts and aggression for decades?" It answered,

A lifelong pattern of frequent angry outbursts and aggression in an 85-year-old may stem from deep-seated personality traits, a long-standing mental health condition, or a history of unresolved trauma. While new-onset anger in the elderly often signals an acute medical issue, a chronic pattern points to underlying factors that have been present for decades.

AI goes on to provide psychiatric advice while charging even less than the 5 cents Lucy used to charge in Peanuts. But the link above provides a little more insight into what was on the speaker emerita's mind in that particular interview:

Pelosi said, “Well, first of all, when people start, as in the press, speculating, is she going to run? Is she not going to run? Other people file or say they‘re going to run, you know what that does? That gives me so much support. People calling me saying, I‘m for you.”

That comes in the wake of news over tbhe weekend:

Multiple Democratic sources told NBC that they believe she will not run for reelection in 2026 after nearly four decades representing San Francisco.

. . . “I think she’s preparing to exit the stage,” a House Democratic leadership aide told NBC. “We will not fully appreciate the time we have spent with her” until she’s gone.

But really, why is Pelosi so angry? The spin yesterday was that if either of the Republcan candidates for governor wins in Virginia or New Jersey, it will be an upset. Not only that, but the spin yesterday was also that the Denmocrats were winning the shutdown. Wait a moment. What does it look like for Democrats to win a shutsdown? Flashback to 2019 and the first Trump shutdown:

Nancy Pelosi’s first showdown with President Trump began with him publicly questioning her political viability. It ended with the House speaker winning an unmitigated victory and reviving her reputation as a legislative savant.

Trump’s capitulation — agreeing to reopen the federal government after a 35-day standoff without funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall — generated rave reviews for Pelosi from fellow Democrats and grudging respect from Republicans who watched as she kept an unruly party caucus united in the face of GOP divide-and-conquer tactics.

Pelosi (D-Calif.) emerges from the shutdown as a stronger leader of her party — and more popular with the public, by early measures — as Democrats eye aggressive efforts to counter Trump’s agenda through ambitious legislation and tough oversight.

If Democrats are winning the shutdown this time around, why are we seeing stories like this?

Senate Democrats are divided over whether Republicans have offered enough to reach a deal to end the government shutdown this week.

Several centrist Democrats are signaling to their Republican colleagues that an agreement could be reached in the next few days.

But other Senate Democrats warn that reopening the government without a real concession from President Trump on extending the expiring health insurance premium subsidies — or at least a stronger gesture of good faith from the president — would be a big mistake.

On one hand, the Denmcrats have clearly lost message discipline, when just last week, Mark Halperin said, “I’ve never seen this level of message discipline From GOP leaders, the White House”. And if Democrats are leaking disagreements over what they'll take as a face-saving gesture to end the shutdown, that's not message discipline.

But in 2019, the Washington Post hailed Pelosi's "unmitigated victory" over that shutdown and called her a "legislative savant". This time, Pelosi in March was among those who were critical of Sen Schumer's strategy to allow passagr of a Republicsn spending bill, thus avoiding a shutdown at that time. In effect, she was among those who pushed Schumer into the shutdown this time.

As of Saturday, on the other hand, Trump's strategy continued to be simply to wait for the Democrats to cave:

President Trump slammed Democrats as "crazed lunatics" who have "lost their way," blaming them for a government shutdown poised to become the longest in history with no deal in sight. But he offered no immediate plan to address health care costs, a sticking point for Democrats who want Republicans to agree to extend government subsidies for the more than 20 million Americans with Obamacare.

. . . Mr. Trump places the blame for the shutdown at the feet of Democrats. He said his plan to end the shutdown is to "keep voting."

And so far, Republicans are maintaining message discipline; the Democrats, starting with Sen Fetterman, aren't. But in contrast to the 2019 shutdown, this time, nobody's mentioning Pelosi except to anticipate her final retirement. And it's starting to look like Trump has outmaneuvered both Jeffries and Schumer. In other words, he's the worst thing on the face of the earth.

"Show Me How To Do It"

In my working career, I discovered that few things could get a boss mad at me faster than, if he complained that I was doing something wrong, I would ask him, "Can you show me how to do it right?" He's the boss, after all -- he must know how I should do my job. Of course he didn't; he wasn't promoted because he knew how to do anyone's job; that isn't what makes you a boss. He'd just go away muttering under his breath.

As best I can determinme, this is how the Trump administration is responding to federal judges' instructions over the weekend to continue funding SNAP without a congressionbal appropriation. In yesterday's post, I linked to an essay by Chris Bray that raised the basic question:

Defendants — the Trump administration — are required to use contingency funds to pay for current operations, whether or not Congress has funded current operations. A court has just concluded that a federal program must operate in the absence of current appropriations. That’s…an interesting choice.

Why wouldn’t that logic apply equally to paychecks for the armed forces, or ICE, or air traffic controllers? If a judge is ordering the government to disregard the current appropriations for a federal operation and just spend whatever contingency funds are on hand, then the FAA has an Airport and Airway Trust Fund, with a current balance around $18 billion, and air traffic controllers aren’t being paid.

Just to be sure I understood his point, I asked Chrome AI mode, "Can a judge order the federal government to spend money that hasn't beeen appropriated by Congress?" It answered,

No, a judge cannot order the federal government to spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress. This principle is a cornerstone of the separation of powers in the U.S. government, with Congress holding the "power of the purse". However, a judge can order the executive branch to spend funds that have already been appropriated by Congress but have been unlawfully withheld.

. . . The Constitution's Appropriations Clause gives Congress the exclusive power to authorize government spending.

. . . Federal officials cannot obligate or spend money from the Treasury without an appropriation "made by law". The Antideficiency Act reinforces this by making it illegal for federal agencies to obligate or expend funds in advance or in excess of an appropriation.

What seems to be happening is this:

[Federal Judge John J] McConnell's Saturday order gave President Donald Trump's administration a Monday deadline to present a plan to pay full benefits on that day, or at least partial payments two days later. "There is no question that the congressionally approved contingency funds must be used now because of the shutdown; in fact, the President during his first term issued guidance indicating that these contingency funds are available if SNAP funds lapse due to a government shutdown," McConnell wrote in the order.

. . . In a Truth Social post on Friday, Trump wrote: "I do NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT. Therefore, I have instructed our lawyers to ask the Court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible.”

Saturday's order does just that, wrote McConnell, who cited Trump's social media post.

"The Court greatly appreciates the President's quick and definitive response to this Court's Order and his desire to provide the necessary SNAP funding," the judge wrote.

Actually, the judge appears to be seething with barely concealed rage, just like my bosses used to do when I would ask them to show me how to do my job. Trump's actual position is this:

President Donald Trump said Friday that his administration's lawyers are not sure they have the legal authority to pay federally funded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during the government shutdown and said he has asked for clarity from the courts in the wake of two recent decisions.

"Our Government lawyers do not think we have the legal authority to pay SNAP with certain monies we have available, and now two Courts have issued conflicting opinions on what we can and cannot do," Trump said in a post on his social media platform Friday evening.

"If we are given the appropriate legal direction by the Court, it will BE MY HONOR to provide the funding, just like I did with Military and Law Enforcement Pay," Trump said, referring to the shifting of funds that has been used to pay troops as the shutdown has stretched on.

. . . In a filing after the judge's oral order, the Trump administration said it was "expeditiously attempting to comply" with Judge McConnell's order.

Citing the lack of a public recording or transcript of Friday's emergency hearing, DOJ lawyers asked McConnell to confirm the parameters of his decision to ensure they comply.

"Clarity as to the Court's ruling is critical to ensure that Defendants can comply with the Court's order while avoiding an operational collapse," DOJ lawyers wrote.

Following that request,

A federal judge in Rhode Island followed up his Friday oral ruling with a written order Saturday requiring President Donald Trump’s Agriculture Department to make full food stamp payments no later than end of day Monday, or alternatively, partial payments by the end of day Wednesday.

Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island was responding to the administration’s request for a written order, as well as Trump’s Friday night social media post asking the court for clarity as to how USDA could legally make the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program payments.

. . . The Trump USDA has argued it has neither legal authority nor available funds in reserve to provide full November benefits given the ongoing partial government shutdown. Even if it could use SNAP contingency funds, the administration argued in court, those amounts wouldn’t be enough to cover full payments and it would be too difficult administratively to implement reduced benefits.

McConnell, an appointee of President Barack Obama, wrote that the administration has sufficient contingency funds provided in fiscal 2024 and fiscal 2025 that are available for at least partial payments. “There is no question that the congressionally approved contingency funds must be used now because of the shutdown,” McConnell wrote.

Ah, I get it -- it doesn't matter how it can be done legally, it just has to be done because of the shutdown. No question about it.

I suspect we haven't seen the end of this.

Shutdown Wishful Thinking

🚨 BREAKING: Sen. Markwayne Mullin has just learned Democrats are plotting to reopen the government likely WEDNESDAY or THURSDAY, after communist Zohran Mamdani wins

"They're telling us they plan to open it up probably Wednesday or Thursday, after the election. After they elect… pic.twitter.com/MksN3k02HH

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 1, 2025

As of this past Wednesday, a writer at Semafor predicted,

Senators in both parties — below the leadership level — are starting to see an unmistakable shift that they hope leads to a bipartisan agreement to end the shutdown, perhaps as early as next week, according to more than a dozen sources.

. . . There’s no sign yet that Democrats are willing to support the House GOP’s stopgap bill on Thursday, when it’s next scheduled for a Senate vote, but Semafor confirmed a noticeable thaw in the shutdown dynamics among members and aides across the aisle.

On the other hand, Aaron Blake at CNN argues,

Democrats would seem to have relatively little reason to back down — and plenty of reason to stick with their demands that Republicans come to the table on extending the enhanced Obamacare subsidies. Imagine a situation in which they have these seeming political advantages and they throw in the towel anyways. It’s not difficult to see that reigniting a backlash on the left.

And in case that danger wasn’t clear, witness a newly released Pew Research Center poll. It asked Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who expressed frustration with the party what the main reason for that was. Far and away, the most-cited reason was not fighting hard enough against the Trump administration, which 41% cited.

At this point, the Republicans are no more willing to back down than the Democrats:

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy warned Sunday that flights across the country could be delayed or even canceled due to the ongoing government shutdown as staffing shortages at air traffic control facilities spread nationwide.

Speaking with ABC News' "This Week" co-anchor Martha Raddatz while a ground stop was in effect at Newark Liberty International Airport, Duffy said "We will delay, we will cancel, any kind of flight across the national airspace to make sure people are safe" amid the shortages.

There's also the unresolved question of whether the asdministration must continue to make SNAP payments:

One day after ordering the Trump administration to continue funding food stamps during the shutdown, a federal court gave the government a choice. It can either make full payments by Monday, or partial payments by Wednesday, to spare low-income Americans from hardship.

. . . But the thrust of the judge’s order raised logistical questions. The SNAP reserve totals about $5 billion, less than the roughly $8 billion needed to pay full SNAP benefits each month. Even if they used the money, officials at the Agriculture Department had also warned they might have to slash benefits by more than half, and that it could take weeks to pay them out because of technical constraints.

. . . It remained unclear how the Trump administration might proceed — or, potentially, if it might appeal the ruling. The Justice Department appeared to signal the mere possibility in a late Friday filing with the court, hinting that it was “considering whether any emergency relief is required.”

One thing I've noticed for a long time about media, both legacy and alt, is that reporters and analysts see a bunch of holidays building up -- in the spring, there's spring break, followed by Memorial Day, followed by Juneteenth, then the Fourth of July, at which point they leave on summwr vacation, and there's no serious news between spring break and Labor Day. But then, after Labor Day, up comes Columbus Day, then Halloween, then Veterans Day, then Thanksgiving, then Christmas, and there's no serious news until after Martin Luther King's birthday.

So the only semi-serious analysis of the court orders over SNAP I've seen is this -- nothing from, say, Jonathan Turley or maybe Alan Dershowitz:

A court has just concluded that a federal program must operate in the absence of current appropriations. That’s…an interesting choice.

. . . Judge Talwani orders the executive branch to pay for current operations despite the absence of current appropriations. She just limited the reach of the government shutdown, routing ongoing spending around the absence of a budget or a continuing resolution.

If that door is open, at least try to walk through it. The courts are demanding that the Executive Branch spend available money without worrying about current congressional appropriations for federal operations. Take them up on it, and see how committed they are to the principle.

Looks like nobody could find an actul constitutional lawyer to weigh in -- it's the Halloween weekend, after all, and next week is Veterans Day, and after that, Thanksgiving. . .

There Are Two Conflicting Theories Of The January 6 Pipe Bombs

A little over a week ago, I posted on what amounts to the dominant theory of the pipe bombs that were placed near both the Republican and Democrat National Committee headquarters buildings in Washington prior to the January 6, 2021 demonstration at the Capitol. This theory, supported by video evidence, proposes that an individual, slight in build and wearing both a hoodie and a face mask, left the bombs in the evening hours on January 5.

The FBI posted the video evidence and requested more information from the public as early as October, 2021. However, other than slightly more additional video covering the same suspect's path through the area, no additional imformation has come to light despite increasing rewards. A second theory is emerging, made more credible given the lack of new information on the video suspect, but it contradicts the idea that the bombs were planted the evening before.

In this version, a woman who lived in the area, Karin Younger, discovered one of the bombs near the Republican National Committee as she walked thnrough an adjacent alley to visit a laundromat.

“As I was going back into the alley that’s when, by sheer luck, that’s when I looked down and see this piece of metal debris, that I thought was a metal piece of recycling or something,” Younger said. “That’s when I looked down and I really had trouble processing what I could possibly be looking at.”

She looked at the object and wondered what it was.

Is that a pipe? Are those wires? This has got to be a joke. There’s just no way that this is possibly what it looks like.["]

. . . Younger alerted a nearby security guard who called law enforcement. Once police arrived, Younger and her neighbors were evacuated from their homes and were told they could go back inside once police left.

This story was reported soon after the January 6 episode, but it subsequently faded. The biggest issue in her accounts of what she saw was a kitchen timer connected to the device that was somehow set to "20". These accounts vary in details.

Of all the details Younger shared with authorities and reporters, the “20-minute” timer arguably fed the most important part of narrative related to the pipe bombs, or at least the one at the RNC—the bomb was set to detonate at 1:00 p.m., the exact time Congress convened to debate the outcome of the 2020 election and certify Joe Biden as the winner.

In at least one interview, Younger acknowledged that the timer was in perfect sync with the start of the historic proceedings about to begin just a few blocks away at the U.S. Capitol. “I couldn’t think that there might be some connection here,” Younger said days after the incident. “There has to be. The timing was too coincidental.”

But although the kitchen-type timers were in fact found attached to both bombs, there's some question about whether they could actually have detonated the bombs as accounts have surmised. Even more important, at the same link,

In a June 2023 congressional interview, Steven D’Antuono—the former head of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, who oversaw the pipe-bomb investigation—admitted that “whoever discovers the device is somebody you need to talk to because they could be the one that planted the device in the first place. You know, so that’s just investigation 101.”

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) asked D’Antuono if Younger “was ruled out as a suspect or an unwitting accomplice to somebody?” to which D’Antuono answered, “I don’t know.”

As I noted in this post, D'Antuono left the FBI in late 2022 following apparent disagreements with Director Wray and Attorney General Garland. In fact, little new has emerged about the bombs since 2021, but new discrepancies have kept emerging about what we think we already know. In an interview, Rep Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), Chairman of the New January 6 Select Subcommittee,

revealed that the FBI’s own lab report confirmed there were explosives in the devices found near the RNC and DNC — but the story of when and how those devices were planted keeps changing.

According to Loudermilk, Secret Service bomb-sniffing dogs swept the DNC grounds the morning of January 6 — the day after the FBI claims a bomb was planted — and the dogs did not detect any device.

This was a routine sweep prior to Vice President Harris's arrival at the Democrat headwuarters, but it was before Karin Younger discovered the bomb at the Republican headquarters.

“Either it was inert — which according to the FBI it wasn’t, it had explosives in it — or it wasn’t there,” Loudermilk said. “But we have video of it being placed, so now we need to know — was it placed and picked back up and then put back out again? If so, why? Why did they go to that extent?”

My own reaction to the video footage that was posted by the FBI was that the individual in the mask and hoodie seemed disorganized -- this didn't seem like a professional focused to carry out a particular mission. It's entirely possible that the individual was so conflicted that he or she placed the bombs, removed them, and placed them again, although there ought to be additional video from later on January 5 and the morning of January 6 that would confirm this.

There were also frequent comments following the recent re-posting of the video saying the slightly-built person about 5'7" tall who wore a face mask and hoodie could easily be a woman, or at least a trans male -- but this wouldn't rule out Karin Younger herself. In any case, this all reinforces the idea that the bombs may have been planted by a disorganized amateur, not a professional terrorist.