Coyote Blog

I really thought I would never post this, as I think Kamala Harris is in the dictionary next to "extreme Peter Principle," but she was right when she said that her loss to Trump was the closest Presidential loss this century, at least when looking at the popular vote.  John Hinderaker tries to argue otherwise:

I suppose Harris was referring to the irrelevant “popular vote,” but her claim isn’t true there, either. By far the closest of the seven elections in terms of popular vote was 2000, where the margin was only around 500,000 votes. By that yardstick, the 2024 election was a distant second, with Trump’s margin over Harris being around 2,300,000 votes.

Sorry, but the year 2000 is not in this century.  It was the last year of the last century.  Yes, I know this has already been litigated around Y2K in the court of public opinion and my side mostly lost because we just pissed everyone off who wanted to celebrate a round number, but that does not mean I am wrong.

When you were born, you started out as age 0.  After one month you were age 1/12 a year.  At your first birthday you were one year old.  On your hundredth birthday you have lived exactly a century.  People analogize the calendar to this, but they are wrong.

The reason is that there was no year 0 on our calendar.  The first day after BC times (or BCE if you are up on modern academic jargon) was January 1 of the year 1.  That means that the post-BCE world was not one year old until January 1 in the year 2.   The era turned one but we call it year 2.   The first decade did not end until December 31 in the year 10, and January 1, 11 was the beginning of the next decade.  The first century did not end until December 31 in the year 100 and the second century began on January 1, 101.  In the same way, this century (and millennium) began January 1, 2001 (queue:  Also Sprach Zarathustra).

Now, I am pretty sure this was NOT Harris's reasoning but I really, really hope she adopts it because I would love to see her try to explain it in an interview.

Republicans are doing a victory dance in the aftermath of CBS's settling Trump's lawsuit over CBS's editing of their Kamala Harris interview.

I ran a public hospitality business with over 10 million visitors a year, so it is almost inevitable that we would get sued from time to time.  At this point I can't remember the exact numbers but we probably had 10 serious suits in 20 years, all of which were over some injury sustained in a public campground or marina we operated.  You know how many of these I honestly believe we had any liability whatsoever?  0%.  You know how many of these we (or rather the insurance company) settled?  100%.  There are many reasons a company might settle a case in which they feel they have no guilt, but two are:  1)  Lawyers and litigation are expensive -- it costs $500-$2000 just to get an attorney to pick up the phone for the first time; and 2) unlike criminal juries, who I think are pretty fair, civil juries cannot be counted on to give a fair verdict.  In particular, faced with a sympathetic injured plaintiff and a faceless company covered by an insurance policy, certain juries will give an award to the plaintiff almost no matter what the cause and effect.  If you think of it as a "bad outcomes award" rather than a "liability award," you can get closer to the thinking of some juries.  Not all juries mind you, but enough to scare companies from going to trial.

I will give you an example from years and years ago in LA County.  A little girl drowned swimming in a lake we operated and her family sued us for failure to warn of the danger.  The frustrating part was that there was no way to photograph the location of her tragic death without getting the "no swimming" sign in the frame.  Faced with this evidence, the complaint was soon amended to say the girl drowned wading in the lake, not swimming, and that the sign said nothing about wading.   This seems crazy, but our lawyers were adamant that we did not want to try this case in LA County with the sympathetic grieving parents of a little Hispanic girl.  So the insurance company settled for something like $2 million.

I would urge you to consider the CBS settlement in this context.  Because they have these same problems, plus one more.  The cost of litigation would be high, easily in the millions for this kind of case even if they win (there is no loser pays in the US).  And just as Trump often drew juries from hostile pools for some of his civil cases, one could easily imagine the MAGA mirror image in a CBS trial.

But as I said, CBS had one more problem -- Trump is their regulator via multiple agencies.  Not only does he have substantial influence at the FCC, which heavily regulates broadcast TV, but also at the SEC, FTC, and Justice Department who could easily wreck the current buyout and restructuring being undertaken by CBS's parent company.  There are billions of dollars at stake in those deals, and I am positive in this context the lawyers told CBS management to give Trump his $16 million gratuity and move on.

There is a lot that is wrong here on both sides.  CBS was absolutely abdicating its responsibility to help the country understand its candidates for President, and the hiding of Harris's unreadiness for office is of a piece with the same work CBS did in hiding Biden's deteriorating condition.  But their video editing wasn't strictly illegal and really is not much different from what 60 minutes has been doing legally for decades, though usually the editing is the other way around to create a gotcha for some corporate executive.

But given his position as regulator in chief of CBS, this private lawsuit is just wrong, wrong, wrong.  If something was illegal, fine, send in the FCC or FTC (or FEC).   But trying to extract a personal financial settlement over a charge of dubious legal merit from a company he is regulating is barely different from a protection racket or even solicitation of bribery.

update:  this has some interesting backstory.  Don't tell me it does not look like bribery.  Apparently even the participants were worried about it looking like bribery:

The bribery issues arose because Redstone is in desperate need of cash since inheriting the Paramount media empire from her late father, the media mogul Sumner Redstone and the settlement of the lawsuit is inextricably tied to the deal getting completed since Trump’s regulators must approve the merger.

Since Redstone would receive around $2 billion once the deal is done, any sizable payment could be seen as a bribe to get the Federal Communications Commission’s green light.

The (slightly more) ethical approach was to drop the suit the moment he took and hand it off as an investigation to his regulatory agencies.

Over the last several years, there have been several proposals to split California into more than one state (I know what you are thinking:  Good God, more Californias?)  There was a proposal last year to split it into 6 states.  This election, there is a proposal on the ballot to split it into 3 states.  I am not sure what the entire process would be, but as a minimum either proposal would have to be approved by Congress.  For that latter to happen, the 3 state plan is probably more likely to get approved than the 6 state plan because it is an odd number.  Seriously.

For the rest of us, the main effect of a California split is that its current citizens would get more US Senators.  Each state gets 2 Senators so California would go from 2 to 6 Senators in a three-state proposal and 2 to 12 Senators in a 6-state proposal.  This also means that California would get some extra Electoral College votes, since a state's votes is the sum of its Representatives and Senators.

To some extent, this debate will be a flashback to the mid-19th Century when statehood decisions were made based on the north-south balance in the Senate.   This time around, it will be about shifting, or perhaps more accurately not shifting, the Republican-Democrat balance.  Right now CA is perceived by all to be +2 Senate seats for the Democrats for most of the foreseeable future.  The problem with even-number splits such as 2 or 4 or 6 states from CA is that they are almost guaranteed to shift the CA contribution away from +2D.  Take the two state solution.  If they were split north and south, you would likely get two blue states and the +2D from CA in the Senate would become +4D.  Republicans would barf.  If you split the state east-west, you might be able to create a red state and a blue state such that CA would shift from +2D to neutral, an effective gain for R's.  Democrats would hate this.  Neither party in Congress is going to agree on a solution here.  There is no way to gerrymander the thing without some party making a gain.  This is generally true for all even number state solutions.

Odd number state solutions could also be problematic, but they could also work depending on how the lines are drawn (making this probably the most watched gerrymander in US history).  A three state solution that creates two blue states and a red state would keep CA's total effect on the Senate as +2D.  I am not sure any split would clear Congress but this is probably the only possibility that might do so.   Two coastal states and one inland state would probably achieve this result, but I believe the current proposal is for three states split north to south, so a large heavily blue coastal city or two is in each state, which could push the thing into being +6D which the Senate would never buy short of a Democratic majority and elimination of the filibuster (which for a generation of +4 votes in the Senate they might consider).

All of this glosses over huge local problems in CA itself, like

• How do you split up state debts, such as Calpers obligations and assets
• Will current state officeholders (e.g. the governor and AG) who are incredibly powerful and have historically used these positions as springboards for national office (e.g. Kamala Harris, Jerry Brown, Ronald Reagan) accept a huge reduction in their power and budget
• If there is a red state created, how will blue urban areas put into this red state react?  (the opposite issue already exists with red rural areas already used to living in a blue state).