Britain’s Mark Cavendish competes during the 33 km individual time-trial and eleventh stage of the 100th edition of the Tour de France cycling race on July 10, 2013 between Avranches and Mont-Saint-Michel, northwestern France. Tour de France leader Chris Froome came to the defence of Cavendish on Wednesday and hit out at the spectator who threw urine at the British sprint star. (AFP Photo/Jeff Pachoud)
Know first.
The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning
Every state is different. Nebraska is quite different. It is one of only two states that doesn't use the winner-take-all system in presidential elections. Along with Maine, it allocates its Electoral College votes to reflect the results in each of its congressional districts.
In 2020, Donald Trump lost the Omaha-based congressional district while winning Nebraska's other two. That cost him one electoral vote. In a very close election, that one vote could matter. Hence, Trump and his people have been pressuring Nebraska to adopt "winner-take-all," whereby whatever candidate received the most votes statewide would get all five of Nebraska's electoral votes.
This move is especially bold because in 2016, Trump did win Omaha's district. One supposes he could win it again the old-fashioned way, by getting more people to vote for him than for Joe Biden. As he's proved in terrifying ways, Trump is not a stickler for honoring the will of the people.
Don Bacon, the Republican representing the Omaha district, supports the Trump camp's efforts to change the state's method for assigning electoral votes. "I think it undermines the influence of Nebraska," he told CNN.
The opposite is more likely. Were Nebraska to embrace "winner-take-all," neither candidate would have great incentive to campaign there at all. As for the politics of it, one strains to understand how pushing to deprive his constituents the right to allocate their electoral vote is going to win Bacon love in his purple district.
So far these efforts have failed, even in the GOP-dominated state legislature. Good for them.
But pressure remains. Nebraska's current Republican governor, Jim Pillen, has offered to support a special legislative session to move the state to winner-take-all. "I will sign (winner-take-all) into law the moment the legislature gets it to my desk," he vowed.
However, Nebraska's unique political culture is deservedly a point of pride. There could be blowback on those who help outsiders try to change it.
For example, Nebraska is the only state with a one-chamber legislature. This dates back to 1934, when Nebraskans voted to replace a governing body with both a House and a Senate with a unicameral one. Party affiliations are not listed on the ballot.
This reform was pushed through by George W. Norris, a devout Republican. Norris argued that there was no logic in having a two-house legislature. On the contrary, it cost the taxpayers more money and made politicians less accountable to the people.
"The greatest evil of two-house legislature is its institution of the conference committee," Norris wrote in his autobiography. That's where power brokers could fiddle with passed bills.
"There the 'bosses' and the special interests and the monopolies get in their secret work behind the scenes," Norris wrote. "There the elimination of a sentence or paragraph, or even a word, may change the meaning of the entire law."
Meanwhile, were "reliably Democratic" Maine to adopt a winner-take-all system, that would cancel any Republican advantage in a Nebraska that did likewise. Maine's rural 2nd congressional district favored Trump both in 2016 and 2020.
Adding intrigue, Maine's House recently narrowly voted to have the state join an interstate compact that would assign its Electoral College votes to whatever presidential candidate won the national popular vote. So far 16 states have joined the compact, which would go into effect only if the members have enough electoral votes to determine the outcome.
In 2020, Biden won over seven million more popular votes than Trump did. And in 2016, Hillary Clinton comfortably beat Trump in the popular vote by three million.
It would not seem in Republicans' interests to encourage states to change how they count electoral votes. After all, as Nebraska goes, so could Maine.
Reprinted with permission from Creators.
Jimmy Kimmel
Donald Trump attacked late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel in an early morning all-over-the-map social media post Wednesday. That night, Kimmel told his audience that he learned about Trump’s latest attack on him from all the text messages waiting for him when he woke up.
“Usually, like, I'll have maybe four,” he said. “I had 100 because it appears that I once again ruffled the feathers of our Kentucky Fried former president who is—apparently, with all that's going on—still smarting from my joke about him at the Oscars."
After reading Trump’s Truth Social screed out loud, Kimmel joked, "My first thought is I'm impressed by his use of the word 'vaunted.' He was even able to spell it correctly, which is really good!" He added, "But literally everything else is not just wrong, but ‘maybe we should be worried about him’ wrong. Like, ‘maybe we should take the keys away from grandpa’ wrong."
Kimmel then fact-checked Trump’s rant.
He conceded that Trump calling him "stupid Jimmy Kimmel" was a debatable fact. But he took issue with Trump’s claim that Kimmel is not only bad at hosting the Academy Awards, but he was somehow responsible for the show’s “big ratings drop”—a “weird” assertion, Kimmel said, because ratings were up this year.
Does the late-night comedian suffer from “Trump derangement syndrome,” as the Donald claims?
“There's only one person who suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome,” Kimmel said. “His name is Donald Trump."
Kimmel noted that a big part of Trump’s attack on him seems to be rooted in his inability to distinguish Kimmel from Academy Award-winning actor Al Pacino.
"Now, don't get me wrong,” he said. “I wish I was Al Pacino. I'm just not."
As for Trump’s insistence that Kimmel’s wife, along with people behind the scenes of the show, were begging Kimmel to not read Trump's Truth Social attack live on air during the Academy Awards broadcast, Kimmel gave this hilarious blow-by-blow account of how that all went down.
What happened is they showed me what he posted. I looked at it. I said, “Oh, I'm going to read this.”My wife went, “Oh no.”
I said, “Oh yes.”
And that was that. That was the whole story.
Kimmel said he wasn't planning to accept hosting duties again, even though he's been asked, but now that Trump weighed in on it, he has to consider it.
"You know what? Maybe you can watch on the TV in the rec room at Rikers with all the guys," he said.
And since it clearly still bothers Trump, Kimmel played the clip of him making fun of Trump at the Academy Awards by reading out Trump's attack on him.
Kimmel then reminded the audience that his show received better ratings than Trump would have you believe, with a graph showing that ratings have increased in the two years Kimmel has hosted.
"I just want to say that that is not 'down.' You want to know what 'down' looks like?” Kimmel asked, before putting up a graph showing stock plummeting. “This is the value of Truth Social stock, your company. That's 'down.'"
Zachary Mueller is the senior research director for America’s Voice and America’s Voice Education Fund. He brings his expertise on immigration politics to talk about how much money the GOP is using to promote its racist immigration campaigns.
Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.
