Another take on the governor’s race in Wisconsin, from TPM Reader BC …

Just listened to this week’s podcast and read the reader’s commentary on the race, which I largely agree with and mostly want to add on to.  Like JB mentioned, Francesca Hong is really hustling in a way the other candidates are not.  I live in the Madison area and at first thought that was the reason why I only noticed her campaign.  Our kids even attend the same taekwondo studio, which I only learned in the last week.  So I live on her home turf.

Perhaps some of this is by design. But Donald Trump adding Israel normalization to an apparently already signed nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia is an example of a recurring issue. Trump seems only loosely connected to the people who are negotiating foreign policy deals on his behalf — something at least somewhat odd coming from the purported avatar of unitary executive authority. We saw this again and again with his “deals” with Iran. A deal gets initialed and he’s out the next day claiming that agreements are in the deal that clearly aren’t. As I said, some of this may be by design. Some of it may be Trump’s need to hold attention and demand post-signature fluffing to keep him on board. In private business, he was notorious for coming up with new demands or needs after finalizing deals or simply never making payments the deals required. But at least part of it seems to be a feature of the bubble environment of the second term White House. Difficult issues are kept from him; he’s yesed or reassured that things are in agreements that are not (“Oh that one agreement is definitely in there, Don. Don’t you worry!”)

Longtime TPM Reader JB gives us a rundown on the rather suboptimal gubernatorial situation in Wisconsin …

If I may, a few thoughts on the confusing campaign for Wisconsin governor:

First:  Tony Evers (pronounced Eeevers here, incidentally) is personally well liked throughout the state.  He is regarded by most Democrats here as the guy who saved Wisconsin from Scott Walker.  He is also widely regarded as a poor administrator who missed many opportunities and was often ineffective in getting his message across to the public.

 Second:  Sara Rodriguez based her candidacy on her knowledge of state government and ability to manage a large organization (she had worked in healthcare administration).  That’s why her campaign manager freelancing and her campaign going close to broke drove her out of the race.  She had run on having some of Evers’s strengths without his biggest weakness.  Live and learn.

A few days ago I wrote about popular constitutionalism and Slate’s new podcast series on that topic. This is a critical civic topic because it is probably the only and certainly the proper path back from systemic corruption of the current Supreme Court and the broader problem of judicial supremacy. (If this is fuzzy or if it’s unclear what I’m talking about see that earlier post.) But what that Slate discussion quickly arrived at is that to have that kind of popular constitutionalism, the ability of the people to make decisions about what the U.S. Constitution requires or forbids, you need robust and functioning political parties. And one of the key features of American politics over the last 50 years is that parties really don’t exist anymore in the sense they did for upwards of a century and a half in American politics.

With the United States and Iran now clearly back to “war” from “ceasefire,” we’re seeing a host of stories arguing that President Trump, despite all his promises, has found his own “forever war.” It’s a tempting claim, especially for Trump’s critics. But we shouldn’t jump too easily into it without recognizing how profoundly different the situations are. For the United States, Iraq and Afghanistan were fundamentally occupations. In both cases, existing governments were rapidly shattered or melted away. The U.S. began occupations in which it stood up new, friendly governments which it hoped would eventually be able to stand on their own with the pro-U.S. friendliness intact. The U.S. eventually tired of the conflicts and withdrew its forces. Mostly.

The present situation is entirely different. The Iranian government is wholly intact and continues to fight the U.S. in an asymmetric but still conventional manner. Early U.S. hopes that the shock of the conflict would lead the Iranian government to crumble were quickly dashed. The U.S. has made no effort overthrow the Iranian government by force or even to occupy any of its territory. Even now, with the two sides back in active conflict, there is little evidence that the new attacks have any strategic goal beyond inflicting pain to shape some future negotiation. Both sides appear to be inflicting damage and pain with the hope that the other side will relent, soften their negotiating position or give up, but with little evidence either will.

We’re one week out from our upcoming event in Brooklyn, and there are only a handful of tickets left. On Wednesday July 29, independent journalist and The Handbasket founder Marisa Kabas will join us at Crystal Lake bar in Brooklyn for an evening of conversation, drinks and trivia.

Marisa will talk midterms, Trump II and the state of independent media with TPM editor in chief and founder Josh Marshall; Nicole LaFond and I will lob some politics trivia questions at you; and TPM’s New York staff will be around to chat during our happy hour.

It’s only $25. Snag your ticket while you can!

We’re now in the toughest part of this year’s Annual TPM Journalism Drive. That’s the part between $300,000 and $400,000. Once we get passed the latter number people start to focus on being near the goal ($500,000) and the pace of contributions builds. But we need to get there first! If you can, please take a moment to contribute today. Any amount means the world to us, and it’s critical to this organization’s future. Just click right here.

Update: We’re just $1,358 short of getting to $310,000 tonight!

Donald Trump has announced that he will impose in 30 days a new round of tariffs on Canada. Those tariffs are at best of dubious legality. They are justified under the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which has quite likely been superseded by subsequent post-war trade legislation. But questions of legality, while critical, tend to obscure the more elemental question of why? There are at least arguments as to why the U.S. might want to impose protectionist measures against China or other countries with far lower wages and workforce protections. There are other weaker but still arguable rationales for protectionism targeting Europe. One can even make arguments about Mexico since wages south of the border are still much lower than in the U.S. (To be clear, I mostly don’t agree with these arguments, though I also disagree with a doctrinaire free trade approach.) There’s really no economic or strategic argument for these tariffs on Canadian goods at all. Canada has comparable living standards and regulatory regimes to the U.S.; key U.S. industries like autos are woven across the U.S. border. The anchor of U.S. prosperity has always been the way it amounts to a massive free trade zone. And Canada only extends that to the north. And yet tariffs against Canada appear to be the White House’s near or entire focus.

I’ve got to give Mike Lindell credit for engaging our questions about whether he’s actually registered to vote in Minnesota, where he’s running for governor. But his explanation here – he texted our reporter a copy of a temporary driver’s license that expired in January – will truly make your day. See here.

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill held a press conference today in which she announced that the state had just discovered that in 2023 and 2024 the state’s motor voter compliance system had automatically registered to vote 6,600 non-citizens who had said on the form that they were not citizens. (In other words, these people affirmatively said they were not citizens and were automatically enrolled as voters anyway.) She went to say that “fewer than 400” of them had gone on to vote.