stevenkesslar

That's a very good distinction. I think Hillary was right, in fact, but horribly politically wrong on "deplorables". Her husband would never have said that. The way he talks about this is that you have to make it clear to people that you get their values. And you are not some crazy radical who wants to chop their son's dick off or make their daughter share a high school bathroom with a man. He doesn't say it like that, of course. But he does not blame what could be called "centrist" people for their conservative social values. Bill Clinton of course was the one who many Gays despise for "don't ask don't tell". But what he basically proved, I think, is that if you want to win the White working class vote, that is where you may have to go. Since Bill Clinton no one has come close to winning that big a chunk of White working class votes. We can say we don't want those votes. But if we want a Senate majority by winning seats in Ohio or Missouri or Montana, the math just doesn't work. So the question is where do you draw the line. Harris is clearly trying to move to the center. I think it makes sense that she is doing it mostly on pocketbook issues, like fracking in Pennsylvania. Immigration is an economic issue. But in some ways it is even more a culture war issue. So that is an example where she is coming off as Kamala The Cop, not No Borders Harris. I think all the demographics are pretty clear that there is a large chunk of White working class voters who are not racist, who do not harbor grudges about Blacks getting ahead, and who will vote for someone like Obama. Proof of concept is they did in 2008. And Obama won in a near landslide. I will always feel if he had governed more like FDR - an economic populist - things might have gone better in 2010 and 2014. Example: bail out the White working class home owners who got screwed (as well as the Black and Hispanic and Asian ones) and send the bankers who did it to jail. He did not do that, really. But my theory is totally debatable. One other fact that I don't understand precisely but I think is true. Some of the best reporting about Trump's jubilant patriotic cop beating at The Capitol when he lied about losing is that many of the "patriots" who broke cop bones were actually middle class people who own small businesses and live in metro areas that are basically on the tipping point of racial change. Or what could be called "White replacement theory". I think that aligns with polling. Like White working class union members still tend to vote Democratic. I think it is people who are kind of in the middle class, and kind of White, and kind of racist, who Trump appeals to the most. Again, it's complicated. And Hillary did not help herself by making it black and white, pun intended, and labeling a whole swath of voters "deplorables". The flip side of this is that there are lots of socially conservative Blacks and Hispanics. There have been Black activists who understand this and for years have said that more Blacks would vote Republican if they weren't so damn racist. So that is an interesting thing. You now have guys like Tim Scott, a Black Republican Senator, who are poster children for the fact that these kind of people - socially conservative and upwardly mobile Blacks - are now welcome in the GOP. But on the other hand, you have Trump being Trump. The funny moment there of course is when Tim Scott tried to dismiss Trump's coded Proud Boys comment in 2020 by saying maybe he didn't mean it. Or maybe he did. So in 2024 we had all these Blacks and Hispanics pissed at Biden and perhaps also more socially conservative who were playing footsie with Trump. As soon as we swapped out Biden for Harris, they flocked to Harris. But that's in play. If Trump is crushed and the Republican Party runs Tim Scott against Harris in 2028, that will be a very different and very interesting race. What all of this says to me is the distinction you made makes sense. Make it about populist economics, not race or identity politics. Harris did that masterfully in her acceptance speech by not mentioning her race or gender, She made it about her immigrant Mom and a working class family trying to get ahead and kitchen table economics. I'm not saying identity politics is bad. Quite the opposite. I think Bill Clinton is right that you have to meet people where they are at. About half of Republicans now accept same sex marriage. Those are the people we want. The bigots who are racists who thinks being Gay is a disease can have Trump and MAGA and be sore losers. Fuck em! They are losers who deserve to lose. And they will lose.

That's the point. Your points on authoritarianism are always excellent. It is a huge challenge. And you can make a great argument that the real problem is not authoritarians, or authoritarian-friendly influencers. The real problem is those authoritarian followers. Without throngs of authoritarian followers, you can't have authoritarian leaders. My point is that in the US, so far, the best answer is to let democracy work. In Hungary, this idea ain't working so great. Check back with me in a year. I am hoping Trump and MAGA are crushed. A lot of historians draw a parallel between now and the Civil War. I buy that. Back then you can argue you needed two things. You needed to let democracy work. And you needed to let war work. Lincoln was a democratic solution to a different form of authoritarianism rooted in upholding slavery, one of the worst crimes against humanity ever. Lincoln is revered today. He also led a successful war. He was also killed for it. These things ain't pretty, for sure. MAGA is not pretty. Harris is trying something interesting. Instead of making Trump bigger like Biden did - "the battle for the soul of our nation" - she is making him small. He's just a small, weird old guy who grabs pussies and keeps bungling everything. He can't talk without a meaningless word salad coming out. He can't lead. In effect, she is telling America, "We are smarter than this. Don't be fooled by dum dums." We'll see how it works.

All true. Granted, you used some of the most extreme examples. But you're right. I was not endorsing right-wing influencers, or saying they are correct. I was simply saying this is nothing new. Your examples prove my point. @lookin's point is that "independent thinkers might be a dying breed." In the Third Reich, independent thinkers were a dying breed. As were Jews, and Gays, and anyone who disagreed with Der Fuhrer. It worked for a while. And then it was crushed. And now it is hated and used forever as an example of the worst people can be. Trump is already remembered as the worst Presidents can be. There's another line I often think about relating to Putin and his disinformation that fits in well here. Trump and right-wing influencers are a threat. But they are also a stress test for democracy. So far, democracy is working.

And here I thought being a male escort was as good as it gets! 😉

This just happened to show up on my YouTube feed. Larry King interview with Trump and Melania right after they got married. At the end of the interview King asks Melania if she worries about other women being attracted to her husband. "I don't worry about that at all," she said. Still doesn't, apparently.

And the problem is ............... ? Let's be clear about this. Influencers, almost by definition, are critical thinkers. Why else would they be influencers? So the fact that Genocide Man will pay American influencers to trash Biden and trash NATO actually proves that critical thinking is alive and well. In the United States. In Russia, critical thinkers are also alive and well. Unless they don't like Vlad. Those critical thinkers are dead and buried. Russia is where you go if you DO NOT want to be an influencer. At best, Russia is where you go if you are pals with a genocidal monster and you want to make money helping turn other Russians into fertilizer. Woo hoo! Now, of course, there have been many well known Russian influencers who were not sent to become fertilizer in Ukraine. They simply ended up being shot in the head, or poisoned, or had the misfortune of flying in an airplane that blew up. So is there a problem in the United States of America? Or is the problem in Genocide World? Is the problem perhaps with Genocide Man, and his murderous authoritarian tendencies? Whadaya say Vlad? Awwwww. What an adorable mass murderer of women and children. And Russian influencers who don't kiss his ass, of course. I posted this article in another thread, but this fits here: So social media has given us influencers who get rich, in part thanks to Genocide Man. They say things many people like to hear, and that Genocide Man wants them to hear. Like we should cut Ukraine loose and let Genocide Man kill as many women and kids as he wants. And the problem is? The Republican Party in particular has a long history of isolationism. The most successful Republicans - Eisenhower, Reagan, the Bushes - have pushed NATO and alliances. So Vlad did not invent isolationism. When isolationism thrives in the GOP, they lose. Like in 2020. I'm a Democrat. And the problem is? Okay, okay. I get it. There is huge divisive conflict in the US. As a result, turnout in US Presidential elections is higher than before, almost at historically unmatched levels. Black men are no longer 3/5s of a person. Black men are POTUS. Now we'll see if a Black woman can be POTUS (unless she changes to be White, of course 😲). Democracy is thriving. And the problem is? Okay, okay. I get it. All of this is completely fucking up the US economy. The stock market is at all times highs. The US is the technology leader of the world. Meanwhile, Vlad is the genocide leader of the world. He is very good at figuring out how to keep the failed Russian economy going by turning his people into fertilizer and killing Ukrainian women and children. Meanwhile, the US economy is beating China, Europe, and everyone else. And the problem is? Let the influencers influence. Let Vlad pay them his genocide money. Kamala Harris will lead a thriving multi-racial democratic capitalist economy. Murderous Vlad will lead a failing and genocidal kleptocratic authoritarian mess. Eventually, that will influence the Russian people. Just like the Soviet Union, Vlad's limp, weak, and failing Russian Federation will collapse of its own rot and evil. But don't take my word for it. Listen to what the influencers are saying: Ukraine war: Russia faces revolution and collapse within 10 years, experts say Nearly half of respondents to a think tank’s poll expect the country to break up by 2033, and over a fifth think it is likely to become a failed state

Can we just all be the tiniest bit realistic and face facts, guys? I mean, really! Genocide World is a failed state. The Russian Federation is going to collapse. It's not a question of whether that is true. It's a question of when. Yeah, the Soviet Union was really something. But guess what? It collapsed. Compared to that, Putin is a weak limp useless murderer. And he knows it. He has spent his whole failed dictatorship (well, okay, he did win in rigged elections) whining like the nasty little murderous bitch he is. Those are just facts. So Americans and Europeans have no sympathy for the whining nasty failing bitch, or the people he murders so he and his family and kleptocrats can get rich. Yeah, the far right in Europe will get in bed with Genocide Man mostly because they don't war in their countries. But that's a minority. Oh, and did I mention most Ukrainians would happily slit @Moses throat and gut him in a heartbeat? I'm not trying to be nasty or rude. Quite the opposite. I feel sorry for you Russians. Ukrainians used to sympathize with you. Now they hate you. They would celebrate if America nuked Moscow tomorrow and turned it into a radioactive wasteland, never to rise again. These are just facts. Read the polls. They hate you. Ukrainains and Poles in particular hate Russians. Despite all of your failing nasty bitch's best efforts to divide them. And I sympathize with Russians who have no power to do anything about it. You can complain and be poisoned or shot in the head, like so many critics and Putin opponents. Or you can shut up and be sent off to Ukraine to be processed into fertilizer. Or, you can just get the fuck out, like so many of Russia's best and brightest have. We welcome them. So, yes. It's just a fact that Murderous Vlad and Donald The Felon lick each other's asses. And they will lie about it even when each other's shit is clearly smeared all over each other's faces. What's a lyin murderin autocrat and an autocrat-wannabe gonna do, for Pete's sake? Why the Kremlin Loves Social Media This week’s indictment of a social media content firm shows how it’s getting easier and easier for Russia to influence U.S. elections. That's the game. That's the Big Lie. And Donald The Felon is the useful idiot playing right into Murderous Vlad's genocidal hands. I hope you are a Russian bot, @Moses. Because that is better than being a real Russian in your wretched genocidal country, that is failing both economically and politically. Sure, go ahead and cite the bullshit Murderous Vlad shoves down your throats. You have no choice. The US is growing ten times as fast as Russia, even on your best day. So you can stir up an economy by getting certain people rich by sending prisoners and ethnic minorities to Ukraine to be processed into grass that cows shit on. But that's exactly why the Russian Federation is dooming itself. Even as it thinks it is somehow dividing America or dividing Europe. You are doomed. It is just that simple. I mean, let's face facts. Murderous Vlad is a hated monster. He is hated all over the world. So what is there to brag about, anyway? I mean, I get it. China likes to brag about being the world leader when it comes to electric cars. Woo hoo! America likes to brag about being the leader at most cutting edge technologies. Including social media, which Genocide Man thinks he is cleverly using to divide us. Meanwhile, Russians brag about their genocide in Ukraine, killing innocent women and children, and being the world leader in turning their own people into fertilizer to get crooked and criminal kleptocrats rich. Woo hoo! That's the point. They don't brag about it. How can they? Money and blood and rot is not how you build a great country. Vlad thinks he is winning the war. He did win a battle in 2016, when he helped Trump win. But he is clearly losing the war. Poor Genocide Man! I do feel for the Russian people.

Good point. I'd argue social media has dumbed things down and made things more divisive, period. MAGA is a subset of that. But that also goes back to the idea that Lichtman has a theory of governance, not of campaigning. Fake news and social media are both. Fake news and social media can create an alternative reality of how people are being governed. A good example is that if you live in MAGA world, the S & P 500 is down this year, when it is actually up. We're in a recession, when we are actually not. That said, I agree with Lichtman that, on average, Americans are smart. And they choose Presidents based on how well they govern. It's not just that fake news, including a left-wing version of it, has people hypnotized. That chart is the percentage of White working class voters who vote Republican. If Harris loses, that will be why. Stated differently, if nothing else changed but you gave Harris the percentage of White working class voters Clinton got in 1992 and 1996, or even that Obama got in 2008, she would win in a landslide. So one way to explain the above is the rise of fake news, and MAGA. But this was happening in 2012, and 1984, before Trump was on the scene. An alternative explanation is racism. Clinton did well because he comes off as a Bubba White working class guy. Obama was a somewhat professorial Black man. That theory would work if we stipulate that Obama disguised himself as White in 2008, when he won the White working class vote. And Kerry ran as a Black man in 2004, when he lost it. I would argue this is proof of concept for Lichtman. Something happened between 2008 and 2012. And it was not that Obama changed his race, like Harris apparently did. 😉 Maybe social conservatism has something to do with it. But I'd argue it was mostly pocketbook economics. The Great Recession happened. I'll give two examples. Millions of people, including lots of working class Whites, lost their home. All of us lost our home equity. And the banks got bailed out. In his book at the time, Bill Clinton came up with some great policy ideas, similar to what FDR did in the New Deal, to basically bail out the little guy and stabilize the economy for everyone. It was not radical socialist stuff. He said the government should refi all these mortgages so they are sound and affordable. Then when you sell the home the government gets some of its money back. That would have made a huge difference. America lost 4.5 million factory jobs under W., from 17 million in Jan. 2001 to 12.5 million in Jan. 2009. By Jan. 2013 we had about 12 million factory jobs. So Obama turned a gushing and mortal wound into a slow bleed out. The areas hurt the most - Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio - are the ones that shifted from Obama to Trump. We all know the Rustbelt was the key to Trump's success. If he wins in 2024, it will be again. So my point is that this is about governance, not fake news or campaigning. So to make my point, I'll create my own fake news or alternative set of facts. Lichtman always makes the point that the keys are interactive, and play on each other. In other words, strong governance begets strong governance. Weak governance begets weak governance. So let's assume that Obama was a second FDR, which he wanted to be. Let's assume he sent bankers to jail, bailed out working class White home owners, stabilized the economy. And working class Whites felt this guy is on my side - based on governing, not words. Instead of having a wipeout in the House and Senate in 2010 and 2014, he would have had the votes to actually get a second term agenda passed. If you buy Lichtman's keys, Hillary lost because she had six keys against her as the candidate of the incumbent party in 2016. If Obama had gotten a significant economic populist agenda passed in his second term, rather than gridlock because he lost the House and Senate, Lichtman would argue Hillary would have won. Alternatively, Lichtman would argue if Biden had NOT gotten his agenda passed it would hurt Harris, and be a nail in her coffin. We'll of course never know whether any of this could have been. We do know that if Democrats want Senate and House majorities, they have to pay attention to working class White voters. Ron Brownstein said it was a good sign that just switching from Biden to Harris did not send these voters running for the hills. But that is her challenge, and the challenge of Democrats. I am absolutely convinced that an economic populist agenda - not as a campaign tactic, but as a governing strategy - is what is needed.

I don't recall any comments Halperin has made about Silver. Although it would make sense to me that Halperin would tend to prefer Silver to Lichtman. This is overly simplistic. But one could describe Halperin and Silver as believing in a theory of campaigning. They're the pundits and pollsters who will give you their brilliant analysis of how the campaign shaped who won. Or what the polls told us about the percentage chances that Hillary would win. Lichtman says hogwash to all that. He has a theory of governance. At the simplest level, his keys say that strong governance is rewarded with another term for the incumbent party. Weak governance means we throw the bums out. I think Lichtman is right. Which drives Lichtman nuts. He says that every election people say something is different this time so his keys don't apply. And then they do. I think if Biden had NOT dropped out and gone on to win, that would have been a validator of Lichtman's theory. Meaning that the incumbent party had enough going for it that they managed to elect someone who voters did not particularly like. I think Truman in 1948 would be an example of that. There's a good argument that people were not voting for Truman. They were voting for FDR's policies. If Harris wins it's a different version of the same thing. Lichtman's keys suggest the incumbent party has the wind at its backs. So if you switch out an old and unpopular leader for a younger and fresher one, the incumbent party should win. While Lichtman is a historian, he is dealing with mathematical probabilities as well. He says that his party mandate key is the single best predicter of all the keys. 23 out of 28 times the incumbent party was united behind their candidate, he won. She would be the first woman, but these odds are on her side. By comparison, his scandal key has only turned 11 times, and 7 out of the 11 times the incumbent party was involved in scandal, like Watergate or Monicagate, they lost. Lichtman has argued that Republicans lost the battle by impeaching Clinton, but won the war because it was a key factor in Gore's defeat. The polling for that election backs him up on that. A President appearing senile is NOT something that happens a lot, so you can argue with either Biden or Trump you can't really measure age or infirmity being a factor based on the past. Although FDR in 1944 might be an example. He was on his last legs, sick pun intended. But he won anyway. I think his main bias is that pundits like him, who try to be objective and dig deep, are brilliant. And he is. I think his deepest bias is against what he views as crappy mainstream media. He trashed Dana Bash for what he saw as a softball interview with Harris and Walz. But many of his Republican guests trash Trump regularly for being such an awful candidate. What I like about him most is the breadth of his contacts. Right now he is definitely a force for hearing out all sides politely. But also not buying the bullshit.

Poor clown! Poor thing! How sad to be wrong. So this week Lichtman made his official prediction. HARRIS IS GOING TO WIN! I almost started a new thread on this. But I thought it would be more interesting to post it in the thread I started in February, when it looked like Lichtman's Keys were pointing to a Biden victory. This year is interesting for that reason. He's basically saying that Harris and Democrats have no more than five keys against them as the incumbent party. And in his system it takes six to toss the incumbents out. One of the keys the Democrats lost when Biden stepped aside is his incumbency key. So if Biden were the nominee, Lichtman would also have predicted Biden would win. That is certain. Some people have already reacted saying that just doesn't make sense. How could Biden be more likely to win than Harris? But I think it makes sense. Lichtman, unlike Nate Silver, is not prediction percentage chances. He's just making a binary yes or no prediction. So I think his way of looking at it is that neither Biden nor Harris have enough going against them to make them losers. An interesting counterfactual with Biden. We'll never know. The important thing is that Lichtman has been predicting, in advance, since 1984. He has gotten it right every time, with one possible exception: 2000, when he predicted Gore would win. He maintains he got that right, and Gore actually did win but for SCOTUS allowing Florida Republicans to cheat and not count votes they should have. Either way, that election did come down to a handful of votes in one state. And Gore did win the popular vote. So even if you believe Lichtman was wrong, he was razor thin close to being right. I went into detail because if Harris loses, it will be a lot like Gore's loss in 2000. First, she'll probably win the popular vote by millions even if she "loses", just like Gore in 2000. And Hillary in 2016, when Lichtman predicted Trump would win two months before the election. The only two times times Lichtman has been wrong since The Civil War is when he predicted the incumbent party, which had five keys against them, would win. Gore in 2000 is one example. Gore was running for the incumbent party, and he had five keys against him. Same thing with Grover Cleveland in 1888, who Lichtman retrospectively said should have won. He was the incumbent, and he had five keys against him. Like Gore, he won the popular vote. But Benjamin Harrison won the electoral college. All of this makes sense to me. Lichtman is concerned with historical forces. He's argued in some elections - like 1932 and 2008 - incumbents like Hoover and Bush had so much going against them (eight to nine keys, in his system) that they were going to be crushed. And they were. Sometimes history is a tossup. 2024 looks like one of those years. One final super geeky point. On Mark Halperin's daily 2Way podcast, he just basically trashed Lichtman. He argued that this "data in, data out" system is a rigid and "creaky old machine". The lack of respect is mutual. Lichtman constantly trashes the pollsters and pundits, who he argues - correctly, mostly - have no proven ability to predict how elections are going to go, Halperin, who I view as one of the best pundits around, would argue that his brilliant insight about the day to day play of the election is what matters, and what will determine the outcome. I'm with Lichtman on this one.

Actually, I would argue it does. Trump has always been an ass kisser and whore for Russian money. Russian real estate investors. Russian banks. Russian anything. Maybe Melania doesn't want to kiss Donald anymore because he knows Donald's lips have been all over Vlad and his genocide money. It is simply disgusting. Who would want to be near that repulsive shit? Other than Trump? We know that in addition to Vlad's genocide money, Trump hungrily licked at the porn/crime/shady money of Russian scum investors to get his losing shell game started in the first place. Some Caribbean island and some small bank and money for the porn industry. It all fits. Oh, and the genocide money and blood money all parade under the fake auspices of ES FamilyTrust. Yeah, Family values. Right. It's Russian scum. It's Russian genocide money. It's Russian blood money. No question about it. When Trump loses and ends up in jail his Russian genocide money/blood money/shell game stock will collapse and be worth less than pond scum. He deserves it.

The nice thing is that, ultimately, Fox News does not decide. If they did, maybe Tucker Carlson would be President. Instead, Fox fired his ass. The voters decide. And on that note: If Republicans Want to Win, They Need Trump to Lose — Big To dominate the country once more, Republicans need to hasten the move to a post-Trump party. I know this a thread about Alina/Melania/Blah Blah Blah. But since we are on the topic of GOP eradication, I thought it was interesting that even many people inside the tent see the need for a Trump wipeout. If the GOP wants to move to a position where they can win big and lead again. I think Politico is on target. The most likely outcome at this point is a close race. Even if Harris wins, Democrats are more likely than not to lose the Senate. So mostly it sounds like potential gridlock for two years. What a shocker! If I were a Republican that was not a Trump ass licker, I would hope he loses by enough so that the party just moves on. It makes sense to think there will be a reaction against Harris in 2026, and Republicans will do well in the midterms. Which could set them up to do well in 2028 with someone very different than Trump. I'll go to Tim Scott as an example. Tim Scott running against President Harris would be a very different race than this one right now. All that said, a new poll shows Rick Scott only one point ahead in his Florida Senate race. So if I go by the polls, for Democrats to hold on to the Senate it is probably more likely that Rick Scott loses than Jon Tester wins. So if I buy the assumption that Trump could lose big, it's possible that Scott could lose by a whisker. If Trump loses big, it's also possible Tester could win. But at this point, in terms of who I donate to, I'm giving more to Debbie Mucarsel Powell than to Tester. Both are long shots. But the stuff I'm reading is that Latinos, and especially Latinas, in Florida may be shifting. We'll see. It's not all bad news for Donald. If he loses, he can choose whether he wants Alina or Melania to satisfy him in his retirement - aka jail cell. And I do apologize if that idea made you throw up. 🤢

On this one, @lookin, I am simply going to have to disagree. At least Melania will stand up for principles. Like, "Be best!"

Lots of great comments. Yes, there is a toxic cauldron of hatred and bigotry against any part of L-G-B-T-Q that boils up from MAGA-land. Many of them will say, sincerely, that it is just the extremes that they don't like. Like don't chop off my son's dick or make my daughter compete in a sport with a woman who I think is a man, even if she doesn't. Leaving those aside, it is simply still the case that they are barely on our side - maybe, on a good day - on same sex marriage. (Math note to self: 46 % is NOT a majority.) So even though they make a point to go after what they view as the most vulnerable members of our community on the most extreme issues because they can assemble a narrow majority (English note to self: the word for that is bullying) they are still on the losing end of history. I'll hold up one LOSER and offer one of my favorite quotes ever, which I love to repeat. To put it in context, Jeb Bush said this in 2015 about his opposition to same sex marriage: What I love about what loser Jeb! said is that everything in that statement is exactly correct. And it amounts to a proclamation of surrender. We won. They lost. My community pulled off one of the epic freedom struggles of all time. Precisely because it did involve changing thousands of years of culture and history at warp speed. And these poor close minded losers truly can not fathom why it is that way. Note that, in Jeb's case at least, I did not say bigoted. Maybe he is that, maybe not. My view is the reason we won and they lost is we counted on the willingness of MOST people to open their minds and hearts. And they did. There is something to be said for the closeted conservative, sometimes. The best example to me is outside the United States: Leo Varadkar, who served as Ireland's Gay Prime Minister until last year. He was described by some as "conservative" or even "radical right". He described himself as "centre-right". When he was first elected as a low level public official he opposed same sex marriage. Then it gradually turned into a phenomenal global grand slam. First base: he came out as Gay. Second base: he was a leader in the successful national effort to enshrine same sex marriage as a fundamental right. Third base: he was elected Prime Minister. Fourth base: this all happened in one of the most Catholic of countries, steeped in Jeb's thousands of years of culture and history and religion. Of course, the key thing about Varadkar is that he held his fire, and acted when the time was right. A few years ago when I was on a hike with a friend named Thalia, and we were talking about our involvement in the same sex marriage fight, she was talking about organizing in Ireland. I asked her, "Isn't the Prime Minister of Ireland Gay?" Her answer was, "Yeah. And I recruited him." Thalia is modest, so I suspect she was not bragging. She worked for Freedom To Marry and was basically imported to Ireland after she was one of an army that nailed down the American win. And I know how we won. Standing by our principles meant we lost, and then we lost, and then we lost, and then we lost, and then we lost, and then we lost. But we were relentless, believing that if we kept at it - with principles - we would win. Varadkar is living proof of that! That's the part of the OP's article I found most interesting. Former Democrats Bill White and Bryan Eure switched parties to become Trump fundraisers. I have never heard of these Trumpy hubbies before. But you don't have to be a genius to figure this one out. Let's give our trendy and Trumpy Gay twosome the benefit of the doubt and say it was about something bigger than getting their picture taken. They are still small. Very small. Tiny. You can measure them in inches. At least they have that in common with Trump. 😲 They are for money over movements. And power (or at least access to it) over principles and people. I know they ended up being unprincipled losers in 2020. I think they will now end up being unprincipled losers again. Poor rich Gay things! By comparison, I respect the Log Cabin Republicans. Even though history is not on their side, at least they stand for something. Weakly. Or is it more appropriate to say that, while not small, they are limp? 😉

Several things there. Which fit with @Pete1111's idea that people will not go insane. They will bide their time and wait for Trump - and MAGA - to age out. And I'll add, they will organize. Just like Republican state AG's have banded together to fight Biden, AGs in California and NY and many blue states would band together to fight Trump. There have been a lot of good arguments made that even the worst versions of Trump 2.0 have to take into consideration that there are many external democratic guardrails. That said, Viktor Orban is the model that authoritarian loving MAGA types openly embrace. He has been able to do a tremendous amount to stifle opposition as an authoritarian. Trump has promised to do the same, or worse. We should be very, very, very scared. Arguably, a Trump win could be the final nail in the electoral college coffin, which a majority of Americans consistently oppose. The mechanics of how you get rid of the racist, slave loving electoral college, which was put in place so that White men could kill and rape Black men and women at will, and which has the blood of centuries of dead slaves dripping from it, is very complicated. People in 21st century Montana may or may not respond well to what I just wrote. In theory, why would a small blue state like Vermont want to cede power to California or New York? But the obvious answer is that if the electoral college gave us Trump - twice! - Vermont (and Maine, and New Hampshire, and Hawaii, and the list of smaller blue states goes on) could decide it is finally time for this anomaly to go. Halperin is NOT an organizer. And I have always felt he has a realistically cynical view of politics. My point is that I think Trump 2.0 would have a tremendous reaction and organizing impact. There will be a tremendous reaction to end this nightmare once and for all. It will also reinforce what is happening already, I think. Which is a drive to cultural centrism on the part of Democrats who want to undercut Trump's culture war appeal. And I think since Harris took over it reinforces that time is not on the side of MAGA. Young Black men and Hispanic women and White women are not flocking to MAGA. They are in fact running away from MAGA, mostly. So the silver lining in a 2024 election that is like 2016 is it also sets up elections like 2018 and 2020. But who wants to live through that?

That is THE huge question. And no one knows. Or can know the answer. If Trump or Harris win in a landslide, this of course does not matter. There was a good argument for a Trump landslide when Biden was the nominee. There is an emerging argument for a Harris landslide. But it is too early, and also just seems improbable. The argument I buy is that she has had a one month honeymoon. And it is still a close race, where she has perhaps a small lead. In a very divided 47/47 nation. So there is no reason to expect a landslide, and every reason to expect a close election. Therefore, the difference in these polls matter. Therefore, I think it is best to conclude nobody knows. We will all learn on election day how close the polls actually were to the results. The clear argument to think you are right is that in 2016 and 2020 the polls underestimated Trump. So at the very least Democrats should plan on the fact that it COULD happen again. And that, whatever the outcome is, Harris will do worse in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin than she will nationally. This is twofer bad news for Harris, as 2020 showed. Biden's last RCP polling average said he was supposed to win nationally by 7.2 points. He won by 4.2 points. So that was off. But he did do worse in the swing states. He was supposed to win Michigan by 4.2 points. He won by 2.8 points. He was supposed to win Wisconsin by 6.7 points. He won by only 0.7 points - that was way off. If there is good news, he was supposed to win Pennsylvania by 1.2 points, and he did win by 1.2 points. So my benchmark takeaway would be that Harris will have to be leading in both the national polls AND the swing state polls. And we should assume that however much the state polls say she will win by, the actual number will be lower. Assuming it is a positive number at all. For reasons I would not even speculate about, Wisconsin has to be viewed as the loosest cannon. It was most off in 2020. It was also way off in 2016. Hillary was supposed to win easily there, based on the state polls. And add that Ron Johnson is one of the few US Senators who managed to win in a state (in 2022) that voted for the other party for POTUS (in 2020). By comparison, as I said, Pennsylvania polls were right on the money in 2020. So the logical thing to conclude is that Democrats better be especially paranoid that even if they win in Michigan and eke out a win in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin could be the nail in Kamala's coffin in 2024. That said, for reasons we have both stated, 2024 could be different. Some of the reason 2020 turned out the way it did could be the turnout problem you cited: because of COVID, Democrats were timid while Republicans were aggressive. That could explain some of the difference. And now, in 2024, there is every reason to think it will be the opposite. Democrats will probably have a much better ground game in the swing states. Plus, to use Wisconsin as an example, since 2020 - and especially because of Roe v. Wade - Democratic turnout (Madison!) has been very strong in statewide elections in Wisconsin. Those college kids that were cool on Biden love Kamala! But, again, Ron Johnson was able to eke out a narrow win in 2022. Every poll in RCP in the month before his re-election showed Johnson winning in 2022. Recall there was supposed to be a red wave. The RCP poll average said Johnson would win by 3.5 %. He actually won by 1 %. Meanwhile, the final RCP average in Pennsylvania in 2022 showed Oz ahead by 0.4 %. Fetterman won by 4.9 %. So this is what Lichtman has been arguing. In most elections since 2020, the pollsters may have overcompensated for 2020 and are now biased to the Republicans. But, even if that is true, there has been no election since 2020 when Trump was on the ballot. The basic common sense idea it all goes back to is that Trump consistently attracts marginal and more ignorant voters (or people who rarely vote) who are especially hard to poll correctly. And who are actually much more ignorant about questions like whether Ukraine is part of NATO, or whether the S & P 500 is up or down for the year. They are very loose cannons. I'll end on what is positively the best sign for Democrats. Even when Biden was on the top of the ticket, most swing state Democrats in Senate races had healthy leads. Under Harris, they have grown. Casey is now + 7.6 % in Pennsylvania. Baldwin is now +6.7 in Wisconsin. Compare that to polls in 2022 that showed Republicans Johnson and Oz in the lead in the same states. You can't say Democrats are doing worse. If Democratic Senate candidates are way ahead, and Harris is seen as a generic Democratic POTUS, she should win both states, it seems. Bottom line: it's another one of my Dad's nobody nobody knowsers. Until election day, when we all know. 😉

So my long rant above was a throw shit at the wall to see what sticks rant that is inherently about negative stuff. Like why ignorant voters believe Trump's lies. This will be a positive post in which I play off your blue wave idea. The last article I cited in my post above made an interesting and at least partly true argument about democracy. Which is not flattering. The headline says it all. The problem is that Trump voters are ignorant. The argument is that most voters are ignorant, to one degree or another, most of the time. And the argument is clever. It's not that we're stupid. We will be smart when we buy a car. Because we pick the car, and live with consequences of choosing a lemon. Which we have a strong incentive to avoid. But we have no incentive to avoid picking a lemon President. Since one vote will never be THE decisive vote, anyway. So instead we make it about being part of the team and the vibe. And why not believe whatever lie or delusion we want? Maybe it's more fun - for your team, at least. There is a lot of truth in this, as Trump is proving. The alternative positive theory is Allan Lichtman. No, he'd say. Voters are mostly wise, not ignorant. They make serious decisions based on important things, like the economy. And I have proved that by guessing who they will pick correctly ten times in a row, he'd argue. It's going to be based on Important Stuff, he'd say. And he's about to say, based on Important Stuff, wise voters will choose Kamala Harris in the end. He's not going to predict a blue wave. But in the next few weeks he will predict a Harris victory. If he predicts as I think he will and if he is right again, the sweet part in the context of this thread is this: TRUMP NEVER WON BECAUSE OF HIS LIES OR BULLSHIT. Not in 2016. Not in 2020. Not in 2024. NEVER. Trump will be a poster child for why bullshit and lies, in and of themselves, actually don't work. That doesn't make me nuts. That makes me happy. 😀 Lichtman's view is that 2016 was a thumbs down on Democrats, period. Any Republican would have won. I buy that. I'd argue that if Kasich had been nominated and won in 2016, he probably would have won again in 2020. Because he would have governed much more effectively than Trump. We know he governed from the center and won re-election as Ohio Guv overwhelmingly. I think he is probably part of the reason Ohio has stayed red ever since. (JD Vance is not.) Meanwhile, Lichtman argues, Trump's one chance to prove he could win by having governed well was in 2020. And he fucked it up, and lost. And his argument about 2024 will be that Trump doesn't even matter, anyway. Biden (and Harris) did a good enough job that she can run and win a second Democratic term. It is the Democrats to lose, and they won't lose. So Trump is just a small lying felon who is losing and shrinking. If that happens, my mental health will be just fine. Hopefully the MAGA folks will be able to get over it. Even though it's clear Trump can't accept being a loser.

Since you have posted that twice, and since I started the thread, I feel like I should defend Halperin a little. Maybe it's my alleged crush on him. 😉 What got under my skin wasn't the part about the mental health of those of us who despise Trump. If you read Halperin's words I cited but did not watch him say them in the video, they might sound more literal. I don't think he was predicting mass mental illness. What did resonate me for, and I think is what he meant, is the idea that if Trump wins my connection to my own country would be shaken. I used "my" because that is true for me. If Trump wins, I won't go nuts. But it will make me feel sick about my own country. Like, "Oh, we are a failed democracy now. We're Hungary now, or worse. Let's have an authoritarian leader who just lies about everything and gets away with it. Crime is law. Felon is saint." The part that got under my skin the most was the idea that somehow this is about my ignorance about Trump supporters. Again, Halperin did not say Trump Derangement Syndrome, which I would have taken as an insult. I don't think he was trying to insult, and I would not say I felt insulted. The way I felt is this is an interesting question, so I asked here. Is Halperin right? Is there something about Trump or MAGA that those of us who deeply object to it just don't see? And, again, I can see how for most of Trump 1.0 what a lot of people liked about him was just that the economy hummed along. And I can see how now the way a lot of people see it - especially young people who were kids when he was President - is we just like it that when he was POTUS rents and home prices were more affordable, gas was more affordable, interest rates were lower. If he wins, that's the most likely reason. And it's not based on lies or flawed perceptions. You said two things that really resonate. First, I think the distinction you made is right. Whatever people might have thought before Trump was elected, by the end of what he actually did as POTUS and especially after Jan. 6th it was impossible to me not to see him as dangerous. Second, you're obviously right that people won't go into a mental institution if Trump wins. I will just start counting the days, months, and years until 2028 - assuming he leaves in 2028. But you are also right that I would feel like you said. Oh, we're like Russia now. This is how they deal with Putin. To quote you, "Sad to think that is what we would become." So the rest of this is a long rant about this issue of Trump voter ignorance. And whether they are ignorant, or Harris supporters like me are just ignorant about MAGA. Or both. I Googled "polls that show Trump voters are ignorant" to see if there was any brief and objective way to reassure myself that the problem is not me, and my ignorance about Trump voters. So I came up with a few interesting articles that only take a few minutes to scan. Voter ignorance is Trump’s superpower. It can also be his weakness. That's very smart and very fact-based Never Trumper Republican Charlie Sykes objectively laying out how Trump voters believe all kinds of shit that is simply not true. In this article, Sykes focuses on Trump's own criminality. His own supporters don't know he was indicted. Or, if they do, it was a witch hunt. Not a crime. And, of course, it makes sense that if there is anything Trump will completely lie about (other than lying about everything), it is his own crimes and attacks on democracy. And if there are any lies his supporters wish to believe, they will be about why their hero isn't a lying felon. Regardless of how they feel, it is just objectively true that much of Trump's support is built on a massive mountain of sheer ignorance. To quote Halperin's precise words, this is a great example of how I really "don't understand on any emotional or intellectual level the basis for his support." If this is why Trump wins, then yes. It feels like the US is now Russia. This isn't how a democracy works. Sykes is also right that Trumpism is a house of cards built on quick sand. Which we already learned in 2020. He relies on people who don't particularly believe in government or democracy, or even voting. And who know less than than the average college educated voter. So that is a very unstable coalition or movement. This is why I think there could be surprises, like in the Florida Senate race. The whole thing in 2022 is Trump helped convince Florida voters with dark skin from some other country who are legal immigrants that Biden wants to bring about the socialism you fled from. What if they instead see Harris as the dark skinned prosecutor who wants to uphold the law against a felon? Unlikely, but not impossible. Low information voters can have their minds changed. Which is why Harris is surging now. Stocks are up 12% this year, but nearly half of Americans think they’re down. What’s going on? I Googled that because that is an even harder one to get my mind around. I can much more easily accept that half of Americans feel like we are in a recession. Even though we are not. I think there are lots of people who voted for Biden in 2020 who were playing footsy with voting for Trump. Who would say that inflation and high rent and high interest rates feel like a recession. Even if they are not. And now they are making their way back to Harris. It's a different thing to say the S& P is doing shitty, when it is actually doing great. I think the general all purpose explanation in that article that made it worth citing is two words: social media. It has helped create a world where Trump tells any lie he wants, all the time. And people who don't vote much just listen to him rant in their social media silo, which could mean some wrestling video on Tik Tok. And you can believe any fucked up and false thing you want. It's not like Trump is the first authoritarian demagogue ever. But social media does arguably explain why someone like him was able to come to power now. He needs lots of ignorant followers on social media who know almost nothing factual about Ukraine or the S & P 500. Again, like Sykes said, what makes Trump strong also makes him weak. People may not follow the S & P 500. But polls show most people do believe some corporations gouge them on prices. And big corporations should pay higher taxes. Further up the policy food chain, if the polls are right, most Hispanic parents know that those expanded child tax credits concretely helped them for one year in 2021. So they would be supportive of Harris wanting to bring them back, and Walz having passed just such a credit in Minnesota. You could communicate that idea effectively in 60 seconds on Tik Tok. One last interesting story that addresses who is ignorant and nuts, and who isn't: Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally That sounds like a fair and accurate description of MAGA, in particular. To be a little less polite, instead of a worldview and team you could simply call it a "cult". Especially when you get to how it's really just a witch hunt that Trump was indicted for sending cop beating rioters to The Capitol to overturn an election. Halperin might argue "there you go again", not understanding at all Trump's basis for support. But I would argue it is precisely understanding Trump's basis for support. Trump supporters have mountains of silly, false, delusional, and dangerous beliefs. I think it is true that this is a problem at the core of democracy. And there are plenty of examples in any democracy and in any party of particularly bad apples. One theory about Trump that makes sense to me is that democracies simply rely on having relatively decent leaders who will not relentlessly lie and break laws. And won't just constantly count on and build ignorance the way Trump does. Bill Clinton is the interesting fairly recent example on the Democratic side. I know plenty of Democrats who feel he is a sexual predator who lied and abused the system to save his ass. And the tribe just rallied around him. Trump was obviously able to use that to his advantage against Hillary in 2016. But whatever you think about Clinton's personal flaws, he was a master politician and policy maker in a way Trump definitively proved he will never be. The proof of concept with Clinton is that, when he left office, a lot more Americans trusted in their government than when he started. Which is the last President who was able to pull that off.

I have a crush on Halperin, for sure. But it is all mind. He's very smart and he talks to everybody. Since you mentioned Klein, I listened to a podcast of his about JD Vance and the new Republican worker populism. There is something about Ezra's voice that I just finding annoying. So he is all yours.

That question was pre-DNC. So I think we now have a somewhat better answer. The correct answer is simply stated, but seemingly impossible to do. Democrats do not have to convince people in Montana that they are wrong, or racist, or obstructionist, or whatever. Democrats have to change so that people in Montana actually want to elect them. Tester knows this, as does Brown. And they know they face strong headwinds. Brown and Tester correctly wanted nothing to do with the DNC. That said, Claire McCaskill - who as the last Democratic Senator from Missouri knows a lot about this - expressed her joy in the fact that during the DNC Democrats took over football, flags, and fun. And with Trump you have America in decline and raping immigrants. So hopefully Claire is right and that helps. Democrats are not all woke radicals who know nothing about Montana. They are Tim Walz, who believes in gun control. But who hunts and can kill you with a gun with great precision. But he just wants to make sure kids trying to learn ain't hungry. And poor White kids in Montana or Minnesota are not poor. I think the reason Republicans go to culture war and White Male Identity Issues is they really don't have an economic program that works. Repeal Obamacare? Cut taxes for the rich? There are young White men who like the idea of getting a small tax cut, while corporations get windfalls. But if Democrats are going to win in Montana, or Missouri, or in Tim Walz's old Minnesota House seat, they have to go back to economic populism. And distance themselves from woke culture stuff. That House district birthed Tim Walz, and Paul Wellstone, who was a college professor there and broke a 12 year Republican lock on Minnesota Senate seats. And they both did it by pushing economic populism and "I'm the little guy for the little guy" relentlessly. They were both also White men, which probably helped. This is what Ruy Teixeira keeps saying. Democrats need to push centrism. Of at least left of center centrism. And to some degree it was on display at the DNC last week. That said, what a lot of Republicans said about the DNC is that, if you didn't know better, you'd think 70 % of America is Black women. There were White men at the DNC, including Tim Walz. But it is probably telling that when many Republican White men see White men are the minority in the room, they find it kind of uncomfortable to simply be the minority. Here's a fun fact. Obama came within two points of winning Montana in 2008, which was last won by a Democrat by Clinton in 1992. How did that happen? There are a few things that had to be part of it. First, Obama had to appeal to the farmer/labor prairie populism tradition that is a big part of how Democrats win in places like Montana and Minnesota. Second, Montana voters couldn't have been that racist if they voted for the Black guy to be the messenger. In 2008 at least. So Democrats better figure out what changed since 2008. By 2012 Obama lost by over 10 points in Montana. Every other Presidential race in the 21st century Democrats lost by anywhere from 15 to 30 points in Montana. Montana still likes Tester enough as a messenger - barely enough. But he is barely holding on. I'm pretty sure the problem is NOT economic populism. I'm pretty sure the problem is culture war, and perceptions of Democratic woke radicalism. I think what it boils down to is easy to say, almost impossible to do. Democrats can't enact what they want if they can't elect Senators from Montana or Missouri. And they won't elect Senators from Montana or Missouri unless or until they convince voters there we want to do things you really want.

Mark Halperin just said something really interesting that got under my skin on his 2Way podcast on Friday. I am curious whether other people agree with him? First I'll quote what he said directly, since it was long and nuanced. It was in response to a viewer question, who referenced his statement to Stephen Colbert in 2016 that Trump's election was, other than the Civil War and WW2, the "most cataclysmic event the United States has ever seen". Halperin just said he stands by that. So here's what else he said. (This is a few minutes of talk at 59:00 in the slightly more than one hour video, if you would rather just watch it.) Q: "What would it mean if Trump got elected again to you? Halperin: "I think about 50 % of the country would have severe mental health difficulty. I'm not saying that glibly. I think it would plunge about half the country into an extreme mental health crisis, because they would not recognize the country in which they live." Q: Do you feel the same way if Kamala was President? Halperin: No. A lot of people would be upset, but it wouldn't plunge anything like the same number of people ... The people who oppose Donald Trump, there are two things that are generally true about them. One is they don't understand on any emotional or intellectual level the basis for his support ... that nearly half the country supports him. They just don't understand it at all. And two, they think he's the worst possible person to be President. And they will be shaken to their core that the person who was President and showed us who he was, that he was chosen again. That will shake their connection to their own country." There's a lot there. And it is serious stuff. Arguably existential stuff, the way he frames it. Do people agree with him? ------ I'll share three reactions, which are complicated and contradictory. And this is edited. I had like twelve immediate reactions. First, Halperin did not say the words Trump Derangement Syndrome. But it felt that way. He clearly did say that people who support Harris don't have a clue what is driving close to half the country to support Trump. So it kind of felt like, "Oh. I have a disease." But what's interesting is that Halperin right now, more than any journalist, is using his 2Way thing to test the limits of how much you can bring together people with wildly different and opposing views to talk calmly and respectfully. If anything, I'd argue Harris has an edge at the margin because she is clearly talking about how America can unify and move forward. While Trump is clearly talking about how America is in decline. And it is because of murdering immigrants and communists among us. Trump does not even try to disguise that he is trying to divide and conquer. Second, Halperin is right. Part of the reason 2016 was shocking, and a Trump win in 2024 would be shocking, is that I clearly don't get it. I don't see how a majority of Americans could vote for him. Because in a two way race, it will take a majority like Biden won - both nationally and in the key swing states - in 2020. To add a few sentences, even though I am a liberal I could get how Reagan won two landslides because of his popular conservative ideas. And his perceived success in turning the economy around and defeating real communism. I was wildly opposed to W.'s Iraq War. But, being in a clear minority at the time, I could get how the majority went along for the ride, for a while. Because they wanted to believe what W. was saying was right. I can't say the same things about Trump. Yeah, before COVID the economy from 2017 to 2019 grew and was strong. I get that. But Trump is a raping, lying nightmare, And an authoritarian who has proven he will push democracy to its limits. And a felon. Why do people not see that? Or see it, and not care? Third, Halperin is wrong. Now I will sound like an elitist. It's not that I don't get MAGA and Trump. It's that they don't get the facts. Or give a shit about facts. Two clear examples. First, violent crime went up 30 % in one year, 2020, under Trump. And violent crime is now down about 20 % under Biden and Harris. Harris was a prosecutor. Trump is a felon. So this notion that Trump kept us safe and is the law and order guy, and Democrats and their illegal aliens have brought on a reign of murder, is totally devoid of fact. Trump supporters just dismiss all that. It's Trump's Kool Aid. Second, Trump lost the 2020 election. When Democrats won by millions of votes in 2000 and 2016, but lost narrowly in the electoral college, we were graceful enough to play by rules we do not like or agree with. Trump was an ugly liar and riot starter. He sent a mob to the Capitol who beat cops, broke bones, and tried to overthrow a peaceful transfer of power. And now these thugs want to pretend somehow they were the victims of their own riot and authoritarian radicalism. And if Harris wins - or any Democrat - it is because they cheated. The only fair election is one Trump wins. And any election Trump does not win was stolen, because Democrats cheat. So I could argue that I will be shocked if Trump wins. But not because I don't get it. Because I do get it, very clearly. And I am disgusted by it. And I get other things as well. That one hour Halperin podcast linked above is in itself a great encyclopedia of some of the reasons people support Trump that sound positive, or at least neutral. He is an outsider. People who don't usually vote, let alone trust government, wanted and still want someone to just flip the table and break the glass. They don't want forever wars, including Ukraine. They think Big Media lies to them. I get all that. That is all part of his appeal. And RFK's. It is complicated.

You will love this Ron Brownstein interview. For the first few minutes I was watching it I was thinking, Why does Brownstein look irritable? He usually looks warm and friendly. Then he opened up his mouth and unloaded on RFK. I think the right phrase here is that Trump won the battle but will likely lose the war. On a tactical level, there will no doubt be some RFK votes that RFK helps direct Trump's way. But the bigger picture is what I said about Lichtman's keys. RFK sank on his own because of his weird shit about brain bugs and eating bears he tosses in Central Park. But part of his rise was discontent with Biden. And when Harris entered he just collapsed. That is good news for how people view Harris. More concretely, it now means Trump has to get close to 50 % of the vote to win. Which he has NEVER been able to do. In Pennsylvania he got just over 48 % of the vote in 2016, when he won. And just under 49 % in Pennsylvania in 2020, when he lost. So that is the difference right there. Hillary's loss in Pennsylvania in 2016 can be entirely explained by the 50,000 votes that went to Jill Stein. Maybe Trump can top 50 % in Pennsylvania in 2024 - unlike 2016, or 2020. But nationally right now OVER 50 % disapprove of Trump, but UNDER 50 % nationally disapprove of Harris. So unless they can make her a lot more unpopular, those numbers favor Harris in a race where someone has to get to 50 %. Castellanos is someone I admire. But his points on this one made me laugh. First. Mr. Brain Bug Bear Eater as heir to Camelot just sounds like too big a stretch. Second, I was thinking about "intersectionality". There's no doubt Republicans can have a field day tearing apart woke sounding Democratic ideas about intersectionality. Including by just using the word. But think about this: what is Trump/RFK intersectionality? What kind of voters who do not already plan to vote for Trump instead of RFK is RFK going to draw to Trump? What conspiracies do they believe? What kind of unusual animals do they eat? Republicans Increasingly Oppose School-Mandated Vaccines—Though Americans Still Support Childhood Vaccines, Poll Finds I was curious about what Brownstein said about vaccines. As always, he has his facts down. 70 % of parents support vaccine mandates in public schools, down from over 80 % less than a decade ago. And the whole change is Republicans, only 57 % of whom now support vaccine mandates in public schools. So Democrats who already have succeeded in making Trump and Vance look weird, based on the weird things they say, now have more fringe and weird and dangerous shit to tie around Trump. Which in this case even most REPUBLICANS do not agree with. Have fun, losers.

Call me giddy on Kamala. But I am still holding out a little bit of hope for Florida. And I am thinking Senate seat. This much is true. Texas has been three things, for sure: One, a red state. Two, a red state. Three, a red state. So, shockingly, nothing has changed! Florida is now supposedly a red state. But that boils down to a few good years, in part when DeSantis was popular because of how he handled a natural disaster. (Andy Beshear did the same in Kentucky. It does not mean Kentucky is blue). It is true that it has been a long time since Florida elected a Democratic Guv. But most statewide elections for most of the last decade have been close. And Obama won there twice, albeit over a decade ago. It's also true the Republicans have run up a huge registered voter advantage. But voters can, and do, change their minds. Are Republicans losing the culture wars? So that is a bunch of anecdotes. But I think you can make the case that the Republican culture war has peaked and is now becoming a liability. Abortion is Exhibit A. But Florida is Exhibit B. "Ron's Glorious Culture War Presidency" never came to pass. Why? BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE FUCKING TIRED OF CULTURE WAR. So things would have to break perfectly for Harris to create a wave so powerful that it swept through Florida and swept out Rick Scott. But I don't think that is impossible. Texas is just a completely different thing. Cruz is a nut. But he will be a much harder nut to crack.

And that's the issue: generic Democrats. Biden was vastly underperforming both generic Democrats, and almost any actual Democrat running for US Senate in a swing state. So one explanation of what has happened is Harris is now the generic Democrat. And the good news is that generic Democrats have a slight polling advantage, as you state. Whether they are some unnamed Democrat, or Kamala Harris. The danger is that once she is no longer generic, and is instead the radical San Francisco Biden clone, she may lose some of the romance. And instead be the unpopular [fill in sexist and racist Trump insult of choice]. That is clearly what MAGA wants to do. It is interesting. Even the "normie" Republicans on TV - like Scott Jennings on CNN, or GOP pollsters or consultants on Halperin - are basically saying that all this "joy" shit is just NOT the public mood. They are literally arguing that maybe voters want pessimism and American decline and insults. It is really fucking weird. It can work the other way. Actual Democrats - named Rosen or Gallego or Casey or Baldwin or even Brown - are doing better than Harris in their states. So she may have opportunity to go up, as well as down. I think what has happened so far is the likely suspects - youth, Blacks, Browns - have come back to the generic Democrat. And some Independents, too. But she clearly knows she has to close the deal with a lot of people in the middle. This is more related to something in another thread, but I'll just add it in here. The polling thing is scary. I was playing around on 538 and I looked back at their 2020 final poll averages. Biden was supposed to win Michigan by 7.9%, Wisconsin by 8.4 %, Pennsylvania by 4.7 % in 2020. He was also slightly ahead in North Carolina and Florida. Of course, he won the first three by much smaller margins, and lost the other two. The best explanation I have read is that Trump voters are the most politically alienated and least likely to vote. So they are usually underweighted in polls. Allan Lichtman argues that the pollsters have now compensated for that and erred the other way. Which is why the 2022 red wave never happened, for example. He is correct that, lately, most Democrats actually do as well or better than projected in polls. But the other factor is that whatever happened in 2022 or 2023 it could be that there are just Trump voters that come out when Trump is on the ballot. So I don't think anyone knows. But the good news is if you go by election results, not polls, it is the Democrats who are actually winning most of the statewide races in most of the swing states. One reason to think Georgia is the hardest one for Harris is that it is the one swing state that still has very solid statewide Republican control, other than for Rev. Batman and his young sidekick Robin. 😉

Didn't even think of it. But that is another reason why Trump and Kennedy are a natural team. Trump knows how to handle stains, after all.