stevenkesslar

Tell that to the voters of Michigan. You don't like losing, do you? Rapist. Liar. Crook. Ban abortion. Cut taxes for billionaires and corporations. Try to steal elections. Pick a Veep who thinks abused women should stay with their creepy husbands and make babies. What part of that record of shame and disgust do you think Michigan voters will vote for? Ugh! Trump is an old raping lying crook. Michigan women score big, poised for key leadership in Legislature More women gain, retain leadership positions in Michigan after Tuesday election Michigan is one of 10 states that elected a female governor this year Abortion issue likely drove women turnout, lawmakers say That is what Michigan voters give a rat's ass about. Not your gross old lying crook and his pathetic gross pussy grabbing hands. And Michigan voters don't like the MAGA filth that wanted to kidnap and kill their Governor.

U.S. Approval of Labor Unions at Highest Point Since 1965

Kelly will support pro-labor legislation amid VP speculation The Arizona senator's lack of support for the PRO Act had provoked the ire of some progressives and labor groups. This could not be better. First, it shows Kelly is under serious consideration. Second, they are checking all the boxes that need to be checked. One advantage of Kelly is that while he has formally not been vetted like a Veep before, he has run several tough Senate races. His personal background is amazing. It would be really remarkable if there was some skeleton in his closet that nobody had bothered to find before. With The Tough Guvs it is probably the same. But you never know. But this opens the way for saying 1,000,000 times that Donald Trump looks down on working people and lies to them, while he cuts taxes for billionaires and corporations. It's just that simple. Do you want a crook and rapist who lies to you and hurts your interests, or Kamala the Cop and a guy raised by cops who stand for unions and the rule of law? It's not really that hard a choice! I don't think it would be a bad idea for Democrats to get into a food fight with the media about what "working class" even means. These days it is defined as people without college degrees. But that in itself is condescending, both ways. Like if you are affluent because you built your own small business but did not go to college, you are like someone who is unskilled. And if it you have STEM skills you learned in college, and built your own business, you don't really work. If there is any institution that stands for the working class, and that Americans overwhelmingly support, it is the labor union. So I think Democrats should start a food fight about who supports labor unions, and who doesn't. Because that is who stands for the working class.

I'm just going to keep posting long and boring content that I find fascinating. Of the two new polls out that were taken only after the Harris candidacy emerged, Harris is +2 in Reuters and Trump is +1 in NPR. It will take weeks for this to stabilize. But the theory that Biden was a drag on the overall Democratic field seems to be initially proving to be true. The generic Congressional vote is R +0.5 so it may be that Harris ends up about where any Democrat that is not old and feeble looking would be. Meaning about tied as of now. So was Josh. This is Shapiro at a press event today. He would be great. I love it how he literally rolls up his sleeves. But I'm sold on Mark Kelly. I posted this essay already in the politics session. John Lawrence, who served for years as Nancy Pelosi's Chief of Staff, posted this on his blog. He has been close friends with Gabby Giffords and says he got close to Kelly in his astronaut days and has stayed close. It's a great argument. The Case for Kelly Finally, this YouTube link is to one of two podcasts Mark Halperin did today. I'm posting it because there is a really good conversation between former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and several others from 23:00 to 45:00 that is thoughtful to watch if you want to know how this can all go very bad for Democrats. Sometimes when I watch or read Gingrich I think, "Can he really be that far out there, or is he just saying this for Fox News listeners?" But this suggests he's really that far out there. He thinks this sets Democrats up for a Nixon-McGovern debacle. And that once Trump is done with the "San Francisco radical" middle America will decide, to quote, "She is not one of us." I don't think there was an explicit racial or gender reference even implied by that. But it oozes through, anyway. And it is a good question. What if Kansas (or Michigan) decides this San Francisco Democrat with the weird name is not one of us? Of course, I don't think Gingrich meant this, but you could also envision this is more like the post-Watergate version of Nixon. Where America decided the guy was a crook and had to go. Either way, listening to Gingrich scared the living shit out of me. And reinforced my feelings that a White guy like Kelly, whose parents were both cops and who exudes the idea of compromise with Republicans, would be a wise choice. Both to campaign and to govern. But Shapiro or Cooper or Beshear also all exude "rule of law" and reinforce the California "Kamala The Cop" version of Harris I think we will be learning about soon. God does this feel better than a week ago!

Quite honestly, I don't even think he uses hair product. If Harris picks him, you're going to have to be Andy's fashion consultant. (Can I call him Andy?) But nothing too fancy. It's Kentucky. Queer Cheap for the Straight Veep. Maybe an LGBTQ pin on the lapel? Just for a hint of color.

Although Trump has thrown down. It's on!

On The Bulwark yesterday they mentioned that if they pick the Senator from Arizona, Harris Kelly will sound very comforting. Like the kind of Wall Street guy you want managing your investments. 😉 That may hurt the chances of the Guv of Kentucky. I mean, he is a clean cut jock type. But Harris Beshear sounds like a barber shop. And this is getting worse by the minute. How the fuck do you propose to keep the word "Kamalaphemenom" out of the dictionary? I don't think even Mary Poppins and super whatever can help with that!

And whether he can remember the name of his wife.

Well, I have some good news and bad news. Good news. In a new NPR poll, almost every important pro-Harris constituency now says they are more likely to vote in November. This is the percentage that say they are more likely to vote with Harris as the nominee. Democrats: 48 % say they are more likely to vote Blacks: 50 % say they are more likely to vote Hispanics: 46 % say they are more likely to vote 18 to 29: 43 % say they are more likely to vote In each of those groups, in which Harris beats Trump by a wide margin, only 5 to 10 % say they are now less likely to vote. So this is great news. Harris is lighting a fire under Democratic turnout among the groups where Biden was bleeding the most. That said, on every party a little rain must fall. I think you are going to find it impossible to control the joy and fun about "Kamala" on TikTok. 😃

This is not Fox News. But this is my favorite Republican reaction video of the day. It answers the question: what happens when smart White guys make dumb White guy arguments? Some smart Republican consultant who used to work for Kevin McCarthy said on Halperin's podcast today that for the next few days Republicans should essentially let 1,000 shit bombs bloom, just to see what kind of shit might stick to Harris. Makes sense to me. So here is Tom Cotton, one of their best bomb throwers, making some of their shittiest arguments. I think it proves that Sean Spicer, who knows a bit about communicating MAGAthink to America, is right. These arguments about how Harris covered up what everybody knew about Biden's age, or she staged a coup, are just stupid and a waste of time. Although I love it when Republicans talk about coup. There is now a poll out that asks the question about Biden resigning. 68 % of voters, including most Democrats and 65 % of Independents, say Biden should "finish out his term as President". Even 47 % of Republicans say that. So this is a shit bomb they should stop throwing. Unless they want the "coup" and "conspiracy of silence" talk to boomerang on them. When did Donald Trump sexually abuse and commit fraud, and when did you guys know about it? This does confirm that "San Francisco liberal" and "border czar" and "pro-crime" and "cop killer" are where the attacks will go, from the smart White guys at least. The dumb old White guys with low mental acuity, like Trump, will go to racism and sexism and "dumb as bricks".

I think that may answer your question that you asked in another thread: I'll get to approval ratings in a minute. In terms of horse race polls, what has been really obvious but not necessarily explicable is that Biden has badly lagged every swing state Democrat running for Senate. So at some point it seemed like it really does have to be about Joe Biden. And it's not like down ballot candidates are not blamed for things like inflation or immigration. So the likely suspect was that it really was about Biden's age. You pointed to approval ratings. To repeat what I said in a different post, disapproval ratings may matter as much, or more. And while Trump has mostly been stuck at no less than 53 % average disapproval for the whole last four years (and before), Harris has been on a downward trajectory this year. In the last few months she has briefly fallen a tad lower than 50 % disapproval. So it makes sense in theory at least that she might have an advantage with voters who don't approve of her, but definitely disapprove of Trump. If there was an artificially low ceiling on Biden, maybe Harris has now lifted that burden off him. The RCP average now has Harris 1.7 points behind Trump. It's really way too early to tell what impact this has on national polls, let alone in battleground states. But the snap verdict is good for Harris. That 1.7 average includes a number of polls taken before Sunday. The one @EmmetK cited from Harris (the pollster) was done last Friday and Saturday, right after the RNC attacks on Harris and Biden but before Biden resigned. So if you only count the ones that were done at least in part after Biden resigned, I think you have Yahoo at a tie, Morning Consult and Quinnipiac at Trump +2, Reuters at Harris +2, NPR at Trump +1. So that is +0.6 Trump average over five polls. If you only count the two that were done fully after Biden's resignation, I think you get Reuters for Harris +2 and NPR for Trump +1. So Harris actually has the narrowest of leads. Basically, it is a new race and it appears to be tied in polls nationally. I keep wanting to mention that Lichtman says all these polls mean nothing. The exciting thing is that it's now virtually certain that the DNC will be a Chicago love fest that will be a vehicle for messaging what Harris and Democrats want to fight for. So based on his preview of his guess, Democrats are down 3 keys for certain and 2 more likely. 5 keys down predicts success for Harris and the incumbent party. Viewed differently, the three times when incumbent parties ran candidates that were not incumbents, but when the party was unified, that candidate won either two or three out of three times. Hoover won in 1928, Bush won in 1988, and Gore lost (or won) in 2000. That last is of course what Democrats should worry most about. The swing states, and the electoral college.

This is an interesting point, I think. I'm aware of the fact that I usually call Hillary "Hillary". Partly because that is how she labelled her campaign. But part of it is also the fact that her husband was President. So when I say Clinton, which one? I'm guessing some part of her choice also had to do with Clinton fatigue. So she may not have wanted to elevate the last name. Halperin was nailed by MeToo for making unwanted sexual advances, and did go into exile for a while. So it is interesting on his podcasts that he seems to be doing lots of subtle things to indicate "I'm not THAT guy." One of them is he is being adamant that everyone has to pronounce Kamala's name right. He got visibly frustrated at Sean Spicer this morning when Spicer pronounced it the "Republican" way: Kam-a-la rather than Ka-ma-la. Final point, just about me. I think if I did a content search of my endless rants I use the word Barack sometimes, and often Joe or Old Joe rather than Biden. I sometimes refer to Buttigieg by his last name but I think I usually call him Pete or Mayor Pete or Secretary Pete. Again in part because he in particular encourages that kind of informality. I never refer to Warren as "Elizabeth" in part because that first name is just awkward, I think. I always call her Warren. When I think of who I was really excited about in 2020, it was "Warren". When I think about who I felt lukewarm about in 2016, it was "Hillary". So I don't know that I have a clear gender bias. But it is worth thinking about. I am more excited about Harris than either Hillary or Warren. All that said, I'll call her Harris. The only problem is when I posted about how Harris does in the Harris poll. 😉 I do think she does invite the informality. As you noted, some of the signs yesterday said "Kamala". And I actually like the formulation Kick Ass Kamala. But I can live with Hard Ass Harris. I think "Kamala The Cop" has resonance. And she may wear it as a badge of honor, whereas it was a putdown in more woke-ish 2020 times. Whatever I call her, I like the idea that she projects joy, purpose, and toughness.

Thank you.

I have to say, for once I agree with Trump and his hysterical warnings. I think he is going to get eaten alive. 😲

I don't often run across data on some big political trend that surprises me. This did: I'm so used to reading that the working class is moving to Trump that sometimes I guess I believe the bullshit myself. And I know the White working class is moving to Trump. That's been true since Bill Clinton, who was good at getting the Bubba vote. Since then there has been a gradual but steady decline in Democratic support among White working class voters. That then gets you into a debate about whether every White working class voter is racist. No, they're not. Biden in 2020 actually did much better than Hillary in 2016 among people making under $50,000. Biden won 55 % of voters who made under $50,000. If $50,000 or less ain't working class, what is? I can't find anything that crosstabulates. But I am guessing one reason Democrats do better among lower-income working class voters is that they tend to be less White. I'm also guessing one reason Democrats do less well among upper-income or upper-middle working class voters is they are more likely to be evangelicals who are pretty well off financially and are greatly concerned about the culture war. And are the hotbed for remaining opposition to same sex marriage, and the renewed war to ban abortion. I even wonder what "upper-middle" working class means, since I think of "working class" as NOT being particularly well off. The working class people who are the least well off are the most Democratic. Biden, Trump, and the 4 categories of white votes I thought that article was helpful in terms of untangling these different labels: White, working class, upper-middle class, evangelical. Basically, the one group Democrats should probably view as their political opponents are evangelicals who are particularly turned on by waging culture war. They ain't gonna like Kamala. They will see her as the DEI dumb as rocks candidate. When she is elected, somehow the dumb as rocks woman will turn into the tyrant, just like lazy and inept Obama somehow turned into a tyrannical autocrat in their minds. As far as what Kamala (and Kelly?) should do, I like the article's conclusion: Exactly! I'll add some Kamala caveats. I think with 20/20 hindsight most Democrats agree those 2016 ads that went after Trump for being a bad White guy who said bad things about women didn't work. I think it is different to go after Trump as a proven and convicted felon, fraudster, and sex abuser. I don't think first time voters who get their politics off TikTok know that Trump was convicted of abusing women or had to pay back for defrauding male college students. They need to know that. And I don't know we need empathy for Biden or Harris. I think we need empathy for their working class policies. Every Democratic Senate candidate running in every swing state is ahead because they are pushing pro-working class and pro-middle class policies.

I think Mara Gay is right. The full quote is at 5:00 in this Morning Joe segment about the racist and sexist attacks on Kamala. Here's a fuller version of the quote: Of course @EmmetK will say "racism sexism, blah, blah, blah." But I started this thread just to record some of the most ridiculous examples of "Dumb As Rocks" Trumpers saying dumb, racist, and sexist shit. 1. "Dumb As Rocks" Politico says early indicators of how this race will go is "dumb as rocks" versus "the crook". Good! It is objectively true that Trump is a felon, and a fraudster, and a sexual abuser. That was determined by judges and juries. The point has already been raised that whether or not Trump committed a crime on and around Jan. 6 SHOULD be determined by a judge and jury, NOT a Presidential campaign. That's true. But it's more than fair to say 2 in 3 Americans are worried that Trump did commit other serious crimes, like trying to overthrow a free and fair election. Which is why in one poll 57 % percent of voters said Trump is not fit to serve another term and should step aside. Why is the Republican Party trying to cover up what 57 % of voters see as his moral and criminal deficiency? These are just facts! It's just not an objective fact that Kamala is "dumb as rocks", any more than it is objectively true that she feel out of a coconut tree! 😉 What I wonder is this. If the issues are on the side of Republicans, and the right solution to inflation is to cut taxes more for billionaires and corporations, why isn't Trump talking about THAT? If the right solution to an invasion by brown skinned cannibals is a compromise immigration bill, why isn't Trump talking about THAT? Why does he immediately go to "dumb as rocks"? I mean, it makes him sound a bit slow, mentally. Not to mention sexist and racist. Who would have known? 2. "DEI hire." I'll let Morning Joe go on about this one. 3. Dumb White Guys In California, and Dumb White Women In Michigan And Arizona Why are some conservative white guys dumb as rocks? I mean, not to be ageist. But with Trump at least you can blame it on his age and lack of mental acuity. But even supposedly smart conservative journalists who don't rant about cannibalism for 90 minutes are saying things that just don't even pass kindergarten level logic tests. The racism and sexism just pours out without purpose, it seems. This is the end of the Democratic Party as we knew it Joe Biden’s withdrawal will open the floodgates to unrestrained California-style progressivism. The essay is worth reading, since it makes the grand theory of the case that Democrats are now officially the party of narrow elites and progressivism. Every Hispanic and Black worker worth his gun is now flocking to Trump's workers party, which stands for traditional worker values. Like being against unions, being for corporate tax cuts, being against Obamacare, and wanting abortion bans so women in abusive relationships stay home with their babies. Okay. I like porn. So if this is what conservative White guys want to get off on, more power to them. Just take some Viagra. But I also like facts. And this shit doesn't even pass the low bar of having anything remotely to do with reality. JD Vance has already made it clear that dumb as rock White guys like him can't figure out what California, or Kamala Harris, stands for. He wants her to be the DEI welfare queen who just "collected checks" while he was hard at work making a fortune in Silicon Valley. But wait? Don't we want elected officials to be paid to fight crime and put fraudsters like Trump in jail? Isn't it a good thing that California is the 5th largest economy in the world, and the center of American innovation, with one of the highest average incomes in the country? Oh, memo to JD. The very popular Governor or California, who Republicans keep trying to fire, is a White male. Not a DEI hire. But he does collect government checks, despite himself being rich. And the problem is? But what is this nonsense about Arizona and Michigan? Both have Democratic Governors who are women. Both have Democratic Senators, two of whom are women and two of whom are White men. Democrats are doing BETTER, not worse, at every level of power in Michigan and Arizona than they have in generations. Both states are prime beneficiaries of bipartisan bills to create good paying new jobs building chips and cars. The argument doesn't even begin to make sense. Arizona and Michigan are now states that Democrats can win statewide, consistently, because working class voters of every race like Democratic policies. They are good examples of places that have moved beyond the politics of racist and sexist name calling. Just ask John McCain.

If Obamacare is the example, that brings two things to mind. First, it was unpopular because Republicans got to define it. The famous bad line from Pelosi was we have to pass the bill to know what's in it. They were able to portray it as this sort of Ponzi scheme that no one understood and that didn't make sense. The lesson is Kamala and her Veep better define themselves quickly or otherwise Republicans will define them as something bad for America. Almost as bad as diet Mountain Dew. 😲 Second, people liked Obamacare when they understood specifically what it did that helped them. Like not being denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions. So to the degree that Kamala can be specific about things that help people in concrete ways, that will help her ratings. Like, I am tough on crime. Murder and violent crime dropped about 20 % in the past few years. Murder spiked 30 % the last year of Trump's Presidency. Which would you prefer? Inflation and prices are the tough one. That's just real, and denying it won't help. As much as Biden was kind of viewed as President Empathy, I thought he came off as clueless when he's been asked about prices recently. That might have been one more sign that as he aged his political instincts have dulled. Kamala can bring back the talk about her Mom worrying at the kitchen table. But I'd be talking about insulin prices. I'd be talking about how Republicans still want to kill Obamacare and cut taxes for corporations and billionaires. I'd be talking about prosecuting corporations who fix prices. I'd be talking about the child tax credits that helped 50 million American kids and lifted millions of them out of poverty, which the Republicans (and Manchin) killed. For many working class Americans, those tax credits offset the sting of inflation. Bringing them back now, when inflation is 3 %, would be a real boost for tens of millions of working class Americans. But more than anything, I'd be talking about jobs. Trump actually killed jobs in his four years, including killing 40,000 factory jobs in 2019 alone - before COVID and after his fat cat tax cuts were supposed to magically create good jobs for everyone. Biden and Harris brought back 1 million jobs. Which would people rather have? Why are we pretending things were great when Trump pandered to billionaires and killed factory jobs?

A good essay written by Nancy Pelosi's former Chief of Staff on why he supports Mark Kelly. The Case for Kelly Lawrence worked for Pelosi while Gabby Giffords was an MOC, became a close friend of hers, and is still close to both Giffords and her hubby.

Absolutely! I'm glad they seem to have already narrowed it down to a Tough White Guy Veep. The sooner she picks one and they get out there and define themselves, before the MAGA Machine is allowed to define them, the better. I went Veep shopping. If anyone is interested these are short recent videos of Secretary Pete, Andy Beshear, Josh Shapiro, and Roy Cooper, either talking about whether they'd be Veep or in some other political context. I think any of them would be great. Three of them are, like Harris, former Attorney Generals. I like the idea of building "the rule of law" into the heart of the campaign. What I like even more is that Beshear and Shapiro talk about bipartisanship, lowering the volume, working together to get important things done. All four of those guys are great on that point. Although not necessarily when they are in rally mode like Cooper is, or on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow, like Pete is. But I agree with what a lot of talking heads are saying. Which is that Mark Kelly could add some special sauce that would help nationally, as well as in his own state. (The speech starts at 4:00, and the policy part starts at 9:30 and lasts about five minutes.) Harris will be attacked as the extremely liberal DEI Queen of identity politics who cackles. That is her big personal vulnerability. Put a White guy who flies in space and isn't the most eloquent on the ticket. When I first listened to his speech I thought he is not loud mouthed and witty and quick like Buttigieg or Shapiro. But I think I like it that he talks like a normal guy. Immigration is Kamala's biggest liability. And in the minds of some the reason she should not even be the nominee. Kelly can own that issue for her. And talk about why we need to come together and compromise and do sensible things we can agree on. Oh, and we can do that on gun control, too. Harris can now brandish her own tough on crime record, and a 20 % cut in murder and violent crime in the last few years, in a way she could not in 2020. Mark Kelly grew up with a Mom and a Dad who were both cops. You can not get more "rule of law" than that. But the thing I think would add special sauce is the way he talks about finding common ground with Republicans to solve big problems. Because he has the receipts. Like on the immigration reform bill Trump killed. I hope this is not only how Harris campaigns. I hope it's how she wants to govern. It's unlikely Democrats can hold the Senate. And the only way Tester and Brown will win is if they pound this message home, and people in Montana and Ohio believe it. And if Democrats ever want to have more than 50 or so votes in the Senate, it's going to have to work in states like Indiana and Missouri and North Dakota again. Unlikely under Kamala Harris, probably. But if I wanted to get anything through a Senate with 51 or 52 Republicans, I'd want someone like Kelly on the team. I think it makes a lot of sense as how Democrats want to brand what we want to do. It is very different than what Trump is saying. And it goes well beyond "Orange Bad Man" and "Felon". I think identity politics is what got us to this point, in a good way. I remember in 2008 having excited conversations with liberal friends. Like, could we actually have the luxury of even being able to choose between a Black man and a woman for President? Now it took 24 hours for Democrats to get their minds around the idea of a Black woman POTUS, and unity. And less than that to think we probably want to have some Tough White Guy on the ballot next to her. That's a lot of growth. And sorry to rain on Trump's parade. But I think after Trump loses they will regret the choice of JD Vance, and the over the top testosterone level of their MAGA party. Kevin McCarthy was the one who said you can't have a Republican Party led by mostly White men. I'm glad Trump did not pick Tim Scott as his Veep. Since his message, that we need to have each other's back again, doesn't really belong in Trump's party. It may belong in the Republican Party of 2028 or 2032. Nikki Haley would have made a good first woman POTUS. But she's now been forced to lick Trump's ass. Trump is good at one thing: trying to divide us, and conquer. Which is why he and his MAGA candidates keep losing. And I think will lose again.

That may well be true. I keep saying things that are intended to tone it down, and stress where we agree. So let me spell that out. We both agreed that Biden was too old to serve another four year term. Turns out 70 % or so of voters, including most Democrats like us, agreed. So Biden is gone as nominee. That's good news, I think. So far, the early read is that the party is on fire! You may be right that at some future point Biden will be diagnosed with some cognitive impairment. In fact, tomorrow Trump may be shot dead. The day after, Kamala may be run over by a truck. Things do change. We actually have a recent historical precedent. For much or all of Reagan's two terms many people said he had dementia. But, as it turns out, he was tested for it in 1989, and he was found not to have dementia. And in 1990. And in 1991. And in 1992. And in 1993. So for five years after he was no longer POTUS, you could make a wonderful argument that Reagan has dementia. You just could not base it on a medical diagnosis. Then, in 1994, Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimers. So we could speculate all we want about whether Biden may be diagnosed with any impairment you want to name at any future point in time. But it is only speculation. You can also speculate that the diagnosis has already been made, and there is a conspiracy to keep it from the public. It's still just speculation. The thing that was so emotionally gut wrenching about this, I suspect especially for the long term friends and close colleagues who Biden feels betrayed him, is that it does have a very big stench of ageism to it. Biden was picked on simply because he is an old man. Other than that, it's all just bullshit. One point Laurence O'Donnell made tonight is that Trump could not possibly have pulled off that one hour NATO press conference. I emphatically agree with him. As Biden himself argued, it is proof that he is not senile. Trump would have made a complete ass of himself, and said many ignorant things. More important, Trump's NATO policy strikes lots of people as stabbing America and our allies in the back, while he licks Putin's ass. So in my mind there is no doubt that I would rather have an old and weak looking Biden who gets the policy right, even if he coughs and mumbles, than Trump stabbing America in the back. To me it's a no brainer. Trump is the bat shit crazy one. Period. I'll say again I would love to see Biden stick around after Kamala wins as an elder statesman on a few foreign policy issues, like Ukraine and Israel. The only way I can rationalize what happened is that politics is both a team sport, and a blood sport. You have not been involved in politics much, either as a campaigner or as an activist or as a lobbyist. I have. I know many stories of politicians I knew at every level who had to make hard decisions, like to retire or not run for an office. Or who were simply cut loose for some political reason that didn't seem fair or right to them. That is what the whole world just saw happen to Joe Biden. It's really not about his health. It's about perceptions of his health, his age, and his strength. It's about politics. It won't surprise me if one outcome of this is we do whatever we have to do to put an age limit on the Presidency, just like after FDR we put term limits in place. As long as Biden and Trump are around, that's not viable. When Trump loses, lots of younger Democrats and Republicans would have a great reason to support it. But you disagree with me, which is fine. You believe Biden is hiding a medical diagnosis from the public, and eventually the conspiracy will be revealed. Let's leave it at that. Mostly, we should both be happy. The Democratic Party is happy again!

One of the things I like about @EmmetK is that, since he has no interest in trying to be objective or balanced about facts, he challenges me to think about my facts before I post. So this thing about favorable ratings is quite interesting. And maybe significant given how divided we are, and how close the race is. Check out the difference in the disapproval ratings between Biden, Trump, and Harris. Trump's disapproval, as always, can't really get below 53 % disapproval consistently. Kamala's has been more fluid over the past four years, and since May has been closer to 50 %. That's got to be good news for Harris. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/ I think that chart on Kamala Harris's favorability was never up on 538 before, since she was not the nominee. But there is a very clear break in trends in 2024 between her and Biden. It would be clearest visually if I could overlay the three charts. But you can see it looking at each one individually. Until 2023, the Biden and Harris charts were mostly tracking together, in terms of what direction they were going in. Both had a relatively brief period of net approval before their approval ratings tanked in Summer 2021. Since then both have been underwater. In 2023, both saw their approval ratings decline further. Meanwhile, in 2023 Biden's disapproval rating went slightly up, while Harris's disapproval rating went sideways. In 2024, the two have diverged. Biden's disapproval ratings continued to increase, to a recent all time high of 57 %. Meanwhile, his approval rating also kept declining, to a recent new low of 37 %. Kamala's did the opposite in 2024. Her approval rating increased slightly, and for the last month or so was close to cracking 40 % again. Meanwhile, her disapproval rating has declined slightly, and a few times recently fell just below 50 %. That still means net disapproval. But the trend throughout 2024 is that her numbers are getting gradually better, whereas Biden's have been getting gradually worse. Meanwhile, Trump is now in between the two of them on disapproval. He's at 53.7 % disapproval right now, which is 2.3 % worse than Kamala. That said, his approval rating is slightly better than Kamala's. Trump's lowest disapproval was just around 52 % around February. That makes sense. It was right after he put DeSantis and the primary to bed. But before he became a convicted felon. At no point has his disapproval rating ever fallen below 50 %. So this floor of a 52-53 % disapproval rating, which never goes lower, matches pretty tightly with the fact that he can never get much above 47 % of the vote - either in poll averages, or in two national Presidential elections. My point is that this may be a measure of Biden's specific and unique problems with his age. Back in 2023 I kept thinking as inflation came down and unemployment was at 50 year lows and the stock market hit new highs, Biden's approval ratings would go up. They didn't. And now, with hindsight, it seems obvious that all that stuff people were saying about his age is probably the reason why. Meanwhile, Kamala's disapproval rating actually did go down. Maybe it's a reflection of overall feelings about the Administration. Or it could be that she really hit her stride as the leader on abortion and women's rights. Whatever the reason, even a small difference like 2.3 % in disapproval ratings could have a huge impact on who wins. As long as both candidates have disapproval over 50 %, by definition there have to be "double haters" who disapprove of both, but have to vote for one - if they vote at all. Once Kamala's disapproval rating is below 50 %, that's no longer true. She could get to 50 % of the vote based on people who do approve of her, and people who don't really feel one way or the other, but do disapprove of Trump. Favorability ratings are seen as much stickier than horserace polls. And also more impactful on how people actually vote. It does seem like Trump is stuck with the fact that something like 53 % of voters will always disapprove of him. It is good news that Kamala has been much closer to 50 % disapproval for much of 2024, and at least has the opportunity to further lower her disapproval rating in the next month. Especially now that it's a guarantee that the Chicago DNC will be a unified love fest for Kamala Harris.

The letter was from Biden's doctor. And, yes, I really believe all the stupid shit Biden's doctor says. But I guess I am stupid to trust a doctor. You of all people would know that one should not trust what a doctor says just because he says it. 😉

The Faux Populism of Conservatives for Higher Corporate Tax This is at least somewhat serious. Especially if you buy the idea that Senators like JD Vance, and Josh Hawley, and Tom Cotton, among others, are at the leading edge of this new conservative workers' populism. In theory, that actually does involve embracing labor unions and raising taxes on corporations. Trump sure wants to wear JD Vance as a badge of honor, since he is a liar and cynic and rapist. In this instance, he is perfectly happy to rape some ideas from "pro-worker" policy wonks like Oren Cass. That said, I think JD will be licking Trump's ass when it comes to those lower corporate tax rates. Cass was involved in Project 2025, which is an intellectual blueprint for Trump 2.0. And Project 2025 proposes further lowering corporate taxes from 21 % to 18 %, because corporate tax is "the most damaging tax in the US tax system". Trump himself has said he wants to lower it to 20 %. Yet somehow Cass does think that he's helping to steer the Republican ship to some future of conservative workers' populism. I think Democrats somehow have to figure out how to get at least 50 votes in the US Senate if they don't want this future. And 52 Senators if you figure that you'll have a few Democrats like Manchin and Sinema who are fully paid for by corporate America. Then again, and I'm serious, there could be a future in which a President Harris gets a few Republicans like Josh Hawley to go along with higher corporate taxes in a deal for something else, like spending cuts. For now, she needs to, and will, hammer the shit out of Trump for wanting to extend and further lower his corporate tax cuts. Trump is one of the few Presidents who left office with fewer factory jobs than he started with. Even before COVID, from January 2019 to January 2020, the US LOST about 40,000 factory jobs in one year. So much for how those corporate tax cuts were supposed to help workers by creating a renaissance of manufacturing.

It's interesting, and perhaps not a coincidence. Whitmer already took herself out, and will remain as a campaign co-Chair. So I would say there is already a short list of Tough White Guys. And three of them - Shapiro, Cooper, and Beshear - have all been Attorney Generals. So they are all "rule of law" guys. A fourth, Mark Kelly, was a slacker. He was only a Captain in the Navy and an astronaut 😉 Pete was in the military, too. So he qualifies as a tough White guy. (Chasten says he's a sweetheart in private, of course.) Again, it feels like the dam has broken and the words and the passion are now flowing freely. In 19 minutes Kamala said way more than Trump in 93 minutes about things that people actually care about. She just needs to brush that up and she has a much better, and shorter, and more inspiring acceptance speech already. There is a riff in there about "I know Donald Trump's type" that aces the "Felon versus Prosecutor" theme. But the part that means the most, if Democrats get it right, is this part: Going back to what W.'s 2004 campaign manager said, that you have to start with the theory of the case, I think that's it right there. Harris has it already. W's guy used the phrase "strength and stability". I think "rule of law versus chaos" gets to the same thing. So whether it is a former AG like Shapiro or Cooper or Beshear, or a GI Joe like Kelly or Buttigieg, I think they are going to be very grounded in this whole riff about the rule of law, and stability, versus the chaos of Trump. Kamala is right. When we fight, we win.