stevenkesslar

The Change Campaign That Can Contest America I thought that was an interesting set of polls from (Bill) Clintonista pollster Stan Greenberg. Greenberg is the spouse of Rep. Rosa DeLauro, who more than anyone else is Congress championed the expanded child tax credit that cut child poverty in half in 2021. Until the Republicans refused to reauthorize it. The whole 80 page report is worth reading. Which you can do by hitting the first download button under the PDF image. This report is consistent with the populist economic ideas that Greenberg has been polling and pushing for years. Here is a brief summary: That squares with lots of other polls, and my view of reality. I recall a poll taken right after the expanded monthly child tax credits went away, thanks to Joe Manchin and lack of Republican support. There was something like a 7 point shift toward Republicans from voters with kids who got, then lost, the expanded credit. Whether that's because they were pissed that Democrats let it lapse, or they were pissed about inflation, was unclear. But from talking with people who got the credit it probably would have offset most of the sting of global inflation in 2022, had the more generous monthly credits continued. Greenberg's current polls show similar bad news for Biden as every other poll. If the election were held today, Trump would probably win. What Greenberg is great at is defining an economic populist message that Biden and Democrats can fight for. Which, as Greenberg recommends, should start and end with the idea of raising taxes on the rich. As I've said in other posts, my bet is mostly that Allan Lichtman is right. Having an incumbent running, and avoiding a bitter fight between Harris and progressives and (name a Democratic Governor), probably means that Democrats are better with Biden on top of the ballot. Despite his weaknesses. Lichtman argues that the polls are useless. I mostly agree. But this polling gives Democrats a good populist message to fight for. I got a good reality check on this from two of my Millennial nephews over Thanksgiving. They both would prefer Biden step aside. Both are great examples of young voters who disapprove of Biden. That said, there is no question that while they disapprove of Biden they will never vote for Trump. One thinks Biden is too liberal, especially on his green energy stuff. The other thinks Biden is not progressive enough. Which again underscores that not having Biden could be a recipe for a big, and unhelpful, Democratic food fight. I summarized Lichtman's Keys theory to both. Especially the fact that he predicted every race since 1984 accurately, in advance. And that he thinks not having an incumbent and having an internal food fight would hurt Democrats - just like it did in 2016, as he predicted in Fall 2016. I loved my progressive nephew's reaction. "All that makes common sense. Democrats would be better running an incumbent. Just not this incumbent!" That said, if Biden is the nominee, he'll likely get the votes of many young voters who don't approve of him. If the alternative is Trump. Trump himself just helped matters by promising to resurrect his failed "repeal and replace" Obamacare plan. The ACA is quite popular among Millennials and Gen Z. It is viewed most favorably by voters aged 18-29, and least favorably (but still net favorable) by voters over 65. Going after Romney for his distaste for "the 47 %" worked for Obama in 2012. Despite an economy that was in worse shape than today. Biden should focus his fire on how Trump's Republicans cut taxes for the Top 10 %. And how they have opposed the things Democrats have done to help middle class and working class families.

I was gone for a week, so a slow response. I don't disagree with the merit of your argument at all. But that's not my point. In politics, perception is reality. Not to be elitist, but in the age of MAGA one might add that ignorance is bliss. Although ignorant populism is nothing new, on any partisan side. So I would not be shocked if Palestinian Americans in Michigan are the new Jill Steins and Ralph Naders, who help elect exactly what they don't really want: Trump. At least in the case of Palestinian Americans it won't be because they rally behind Trump. More likely it will be that they feel like Biden betrayed them, and they just won't vote. That is how many if not the majority of them feel now. But the election is a year away.

Joe Biden: The U.S. won’t back down from the challenge of Putin and Hamas I thought Biden's op/ed was an interesting compare and contrast to John Oliver. Two things we know for sure right off the bat. John is younger, and funnier, than Joe.😉 While Oliver did not use these exact words, I took him to mean this: the leaders of Gaza (Hamas) and Israel (Netanyahu and his far right wing allies) are both obstacles to peace. If that is one his main points, I agree. Half Biden's argument is about Ukraine, which I'll ignore. On Israel, I'll give him an A on Hamas and a D on Team Netanyahu. I'm fine with rhetoric about Hamas being pure evil. Oliver was unequivocal, too. Especially given the reaction of Jews in Israel and around the world - the shock is easy to understand - I don't think "Let's forget about The Holocaust" or "This was not The Holocaust' is a good message. So, fine. Hamas is pure evil. And every one of their leaders deserves to achieve their potential by being fish food at the bottom of an ocean. Right next to whatever is left of Bin Laden. Biden also says all the right things about how Palestinians and Gazans are not Hamas. And his heart - and humanitarian aid - goes out to them. This is where his argument really falls apart for me. If this were 2000, and Barak were Prime Minister of Israel, I would emphatically agree. So I can run two ways with this argument. First, Joe Biden is the wise and seasoned leader who can perhaps finally craft the peace deal that has eluded everyone else. Or, second, Joe Biden is a senile old fool who has no idea what decade he is in. And has no clue how the peace that he says is imperative will be achieved. Let alone by him. Or Bibi. Biden takes a few pot shots at extremist settlers in the West Bank. But what's missing is any awareness, let alone strategy, about the two most obvious impediments. Which John Oliver details nicely. First, Bibi is an honorary baby killer. Because he did everything he could to assist the growth of Hamas in order to kill a two state peace deal. Second, even if Israel shit cans baby killer Bibi, because they actually are pissed at how he was complicit with the pure evil baby killers, what comes after Bibi - like especially in a decade or two when the ultra-Orthodox Jews that back Bibi are an even bigger force - is likely going to be more anti-Arab. And more anti-Gay, probably. So the argument about Israel does nothing for me. Other than leaving me wondering whether Biden is out of touch with reality, or more likely just playing it like a hawk. Which reminds me of that vote of his for the Iraq war. Which he was for, but not really. This is the worst of Biden, not the best. It does not make me want to vote for him. Even though I will. I know the polls should be ignored, blah blah blah. But a new one out of Michigan is particularly depressing. Democrat Elissa Slotkin is two points up in her Senate race against either likely Republican opponent. Meanwhile, Biden is down 5 points against Trump and 11 points against Nikki Haley. Michigan is of course the swing state where Palestinian Americans could be the ones who decide whether Biden can win again. But the pattern is the same in every other swing state. Biden does far worse against Haley than Trump. By the way, @TotallyOz, you were right. I've been favoring Tim Scott as a newer and better Republican face. You've said nice things about Nikki. You seem to have called this one right. If Trump loses in 2024, she's a likely front runner in 2028. And she's potentially in striking distance in New Hampshire. I'm assuming Scott got out in part because if Haley wins or does well in New Hampshire, she could also potentially win in South Carolina. This is not helping Biden with Independents and young voters. A plurality of both groups - even Independents! - are now saying the US should reduce military aid to Israel. This next one really surprised me. Independents are more likely than Democrats to favor decreasing military aid to Israel. With Democrats, 25 % are for decreasing military aid, versus 21 % for increasing it. With Independents, 29 % are for decreasing military aid to Israel, versus only 14 % for increasing it. Bad news for Biden, and Bibi. My argument - that Israel has lost a pro-Israel US majority - is growing more true with each bomb that drops and each Palestinian baby that dies.

Great video. Like you said at the outset, the leaders on both sides = Hamas, and Netanyahu - are nuts. The Jewish and Palestinian Dads who lost their children to the bloodshed and are working together for peace are inspiring. They are not nuts. The only thing I didn't like about the video is that it only included half an hour of rapid continuous talking. I like my rants to be full and detailed, not very short and superficial like Oliver was. Do you happen to have the five hour version? 😉

Leader of Israel’s Labor: Something is ‘very wrong’ on the global left Kudos to Labor leader Merav Michaeli for three things she said. First, and probably most important, she said Bibi Netanyahu "has to go". And Israel should return to a two state solution, if they want peace. This is a nice companion to the blunt statements former PM and DM Barak has been making. I would not expect either, let alone any Israeli Jew running for dog catcher, to argue the IDF is committing "war crimes," as pundits on the right and left I quoted above are. What is most helpful and honest is they're making clear that anyone who thinks this problem has a solely or mostly military solution is simply asking for more war. Not peace. Michaeli also said this: That's 1000 % sad. 500 % of the sadness is the tragedy of the slaughter. The other 500 % is the tragedy that it almost guarantees a two state solution is dead for a long time. Or forever. Meaning, much more death of innocent Jews and Palestinians is the sequel. In that new interview of Mearsheimer I posted above, he and Napolitano speculated that Biden, unlike Obama or Clinton or Carter, has not wasted time on a two state solution for a good reason. Biden is a realist. And he knew, even before Oct. 7th, it was simply not gonna happen. Leading to the third important thing Michaeli said: I appreciate Michaeli being very specific in calling out the Left. Yes, calling for the mass murder of Jews is clearly going too far. And failing to identify Hamas as a vicious terrorist organization that is very bad news for both Jews and Gazans is not going far enough. I just wonder why Bibi Netanyahu spent years building up Hamas. Or at least being complicit in it. Does that make him complicit in the beheading of innocent Jewish children, too? The reason I appreciate leftist Israeli Jewish leaders calling out the global left is that my impression is most of what conservatives are saying about the left regarding Israel is total bullshit. At this point I expect Alan Dershowitz to be factually wrong about most things. Including his predictions about how American Jews will become Republicans. What I found amusing is that in an article where he goes off about what the headline labels "vile Leftist anti-Israel hate," the best picture they can come up with to illustrate this vile hate is the one above. Which actually confirms my impression that most - but not all - of the message from the left has been opposition to: 1) Israeli occupation, 2) Israeli apartheid, and/or 3) Israeli genocide. How is protesting these things anti-Semitic? How is not wanting more violence against innocent Jews in Israel, or anywhere, anti-Semitic? The closest Dershowitz can come to giving an example of "vile Leftist anti-Israeli hate" is what some speaker said at a DSA rally in New York. Wow! Except I'm actually more worried that a lot more people buy the total bullshit Dershowitz spews about Trump's lies. Meanwhile, back in reality, my impression is much of what the left is speaking out about is protecting the rights and lives of Palestinians. And many liberals, like our Veep and her hubby, are speaking out against growing anti-Semitism, too. As they should. So I'm very glad Israel's Labor Party is speaking out and setting parameters. Supporting Hamas, or jihad, or the mass slaughter of Jews, is way beyond garden variety anti-Semitism. But the truly saddest part of that Politico article is that it notes that Labor, which was once the voice and conscience of Israel, and of a two state solution, is now reduced to being at the margin. 4 seats in the Knesset. Which is why I fully expect three outcomes from what Bibi does: First, more dead innocent Jews. Second, more dead innocent Jews. Third, more dead innocent Jews. Like you, @EmmetK, Michaeli cites concerns about Hamas when it comes to democracy and LGBTQ rights. Ya think? These are good things to point out. Did I mention there have not been elections in either Gaza or the West Bank for almost 20 years? So it's quite fair for conservatives to throw stones at anti-democracy and homophobic Arab terrorists. That said, there is the whole thing about people living in glass houses. There is Bibi getting in bed with anti-Arab and anti-Gay right wing Jewish leaders. As well as his history of nurturing Hamas to defeat any hope of a political solution. And lately millions of Israeli Jews also view Bibi as a threat to democracy. Did I mention this will only get worse as the right wing parties grow? Arguably, the problem with Jewish Gays in Israel is they don't have as many kids as ultra-Orthodox Jews who would happily discriminate against Jewish Gays in Israel. There was a time I can easily recall when Israel had very good Labor leaders that article cites - Rabin, Peres, Barak. Decades ago I hoped they would raise the standard. Countries like Saudi Arabia aren't exactly beacons of democracy. Israel had leaders that did try to show what democracy and peace in a two political solution could do. So I don't think this is a time for anyone to be proud of how Bibi has instead systematically lowered the standards for peace, for democracy, and for the basic preservation of human life.

Well this is a funny coincidence. That manages to make Nate Silver look stupid, anyway. Yesterday Politico put up a "don't wet your pants" opinion piece by Jim Messina, who ran Obama's 2012 campaign. What jumped out at me is this: That's all true. Obama/Biden had an economy that stayed in a deep rut for a long time, which cost them dearly in 2010. One of the reasons 2022 may not have been as bad as feared for Democrats is precisely because we were not in a deep rut, like in 2010. And the Biden/Harris economy of 2023 looks like a sleek machine compared to the Obama/Biden economy of 2011. In Nov. 2011 the misery index was 12. In Nov. 2020 the misery index was 7.8. Today the misery index is 7.5 I can't think of any of this without going back to Lichtman's Keys. And the basic idea that American voters are smart, not stupid. And they vote based on Important Stuff, like the economy, stupid, rather than Dumb Shit, like polls. Messina obviously agrees. And Team Biden does plan to win a referendum on the economy in a year. But they are clearly not winning it yet. If Obama could put lipstick on a pig, even a senile Biden can perhaps put lipstick on an economy growing at 5 % this quarter. In the process of saying don't wet your pants, Messina went after Nate Silver yesterday: Again, if it is the economy, stupid, Biden should be in a position to do the same. I'm guessing Nate Silver did not read Messina. So it's just a coincidence that he wants to repeat history. Or maybe he did read Messina. And this is Nate's way of saying, "Fuck you, Jim." Or is it, "Fuck you, Joe" ? Nate Silver says it’s risky for Dems to nominate Biden Actually, if you read the whole article Silver wrote, his basic point is that it is risky for Democrats to either nominate Biden, or not nominate him. I guess that means the 2024 race between Biden and Trump is going to involve risk. Geez! Who knew? I'm happy for Nate. In that predicting elections involve risk probably will age better than saying Obama, or Biden, has a 17 % chance of winning. All of this is making me feel better. Especially the part about actually winning, a lot, on Tuesday. I put my diapers back in the drawer. For now. Hopefully neither I or Joe Biden will be needing them in the next year. 🙄

You're the one who won't answer the question, other to speak in Bibi butcher talk. And try to change the subject. You'd rather talk about democracy than butchering Palestinian children in huge numbers. Which will lead to the butchering of more Jewish and Palestinian kids, probably also in huge numbers. I agree with former PM and Defense Minister Barak. Do you? Or do you just want to keep ranting like Bibi? That war is peace, and killing lots of innocent children is all part of a plan to minimize the death of killing innocent children? Barak says if Israel stays on the path is on, it can't have peace. And it can't have democracy. It can be a Jewish nation, where over half the residents or so are disenfranchised and live in an apartheid state. In Orwell-speak Bibi-speak, that means Israel will have a vibrant democracy, and lots of security. It can be a secure and peaceful nation, as long as it dedicates itself to constant war and the constant slaughter of innocent women and children. In Orwell-speak Bibi-speak that means Israel is committed to peace, and to the security of innocent Palestinian children. Barak is honest, at least. He knows that, unlike 20 years ago, he is now in a minority, unfortunately. Thank Bibi and his right-wing settlers for that. I wish Israel had more warriors like Barak, who will fight for peace. Rather than engaging in Bibi butcher talk. Oops, sorry. I meant Bibi butcher peace talk. You won't answer the question. And you won't be honest about what is obviously happening. You can't be.

Thanks for the lesson in Netanyahu speak. Peace is war. War is peace. The way we make peace with Palestinians is to prevent a two state solution. The way we prevent war with Hamas is by empowering them, year after year, to kill Jews. The way we prevent civilian deaths is to kill as many civilians as possible. The IDF protects entire Palestinian families by blowing them up. War is peace. Peace is war. You're good at this. Is your name Bibi? If Hamas were to use the same tactics as the IDF, there would be no Israel left. Which you would call genocide. You left out one other central tenet of Netanyahu warmongering and mass slaughter speak. It is very important to understand that if you support Hamas killing Jewish women and children, you are a terrorist lover and Jew hater. If you do NOT support the IFD indiscriminately killing Palestinian women and children, you are a terrorist lover and Jew hater. The only way not to be a terrorist lover and Jew hater is to support the IDF indiscriminately killing Palestinian women and children. Wonder why this turns the world off? In fairness, it's not just Netanyahu speak, of course. There's an entire industry and lobby built around Orwell Netanyahu-speak. As it happens, just yesterday I watched this video that addresses IDF "war crimes". That's a phrase you should really have fun with, Bibi. Mearsheimer co-authored a whole book on how Israel gets away with it. Talk about verbose! Talk about Jew hater! Granted, Napolitano and Mearsheimer, and any conservative or liberal who does not support the IDF indiscriminately killing Palestinian women and children, are Jew haters. There is a perfect example Napolitano brings up. In order to take out one Hamas leader, the IDF just killed 200 innocent Palestinians. Obviously, that makes Napolitano - and anyone who would think this way - a terrorist lover and Jew hater. When Hamas kills 200 innocent Jews, it is genocide. When the IDF kills 200 innocent Palestinians, it is obviously the right thing to do. And if you don't believe that, you love terrorists. Regardless, Napolitano and Mearsheimer state what they view as clear facts: both Hamas and the IDF are committing war crimes, obviously and right before our eyes. Mearsheimer obviously hates Jews, and loves Hamas. I'll quote directly, from about 9:00 in the talk: This is obviously a genocidal lie. These guys are the war criminals! Let me translate that to Orwell-speak Bibi-speak, so you don't have to bother posting again, @EmmetK. Hamas is a terrorist group of war criminals. The IDF only seeks peace. The IDF only indiscriminately kills thousands tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of Palestinian women and children to minimize their death.

Turns out on this forum, it is better to be a zombie than to be verbose. 🤔 Count your blessings @Kostik. At least people read what you post before they laugh at it. 😉

Nice article from Thomas Edsall. One of my favorite reporters and authors, for decades. Because he is .............. wait for it ................. verbose, very detail oriented, and almost always insightful and correct. ‘The Longer and Bloodier the War, the Harder it Will Be for the Democratic Coalition’ That's the part that jumped off the page. The bad news for Biden is this is dividing his party in a way that almost certainly won't be healed easily. The good news, as Ornstein says, is the election is a year away. And how people feel then will be shaped by the outcome. If this were to create a regional opening for peace, or even a two state solution, that would be much better for Biden. And Palestinians and Jews. But .......... the bad news for Biden is that with Bibi and Hamas in charge, peace is simply not on the agenda. The war is likely to be longer, and bloodier.

I agree with everything he said. Here are the main "but let's not get too optimistic" rejoinders that also make sense. 1. Trump was not on the ballot in any of the elections where abortion rights did so well. In the two elections he has been on the ballot, each time he pulled a surprisingly high level of turnout. In each of these abortion victories, including in Ohio, it is clear that some voters - especially women - who voted for Trump before voted for abortion rights now. So whether or how that translates into votes for other Democratic priorities or candidates when Trump is on the ballot in 2024 is not at all clear. 2. Judis and Teixeira think Democrats need to call a culture war truce, not Republicans. They both acknowledge that abortion in particular is a culture war positive for Democrats. But I think they are generally right that moderate voters, including Hispanic and Black and Asian ones, feel some of the "woke" stuff is a big turn off. If Democrats want to win Governor races in states like Kentucky, or Senate races in 2024 in states like Missouri or Indiana or West Virginia (or Montana, or Ohio) it is not even an option. 3. The poll numbers for Trump and Biden among young voters absolutely suck for Biden. Biden won in 2020 because Millennials and especially Gen Z carried him on their backs. One exit poll showed him carrying voters under 30 by 24 points in 2020. Now, the margin is surprisingly close. Like a single digit. So younger voters will clearly go out and vote for a pro-abortion state Supreme Court candidate, or Governor. But how that works out for Biden in 2024 is also completely unclear. The polls and even more so the focus groups suggest young voters who are leaning toward Trump are basically saying, "This turd smells slightly less bad than the other turd, maybe, and it least it can walk." Or something like that. 4. Unlike 2020, Biden is viewed far less favorably than a generic Democrat. So there is a distaste for Biden, specifically. With age being the most likely suspect. The most telling number in that "oh shit" NYT/Sienna poll is that a generic Democrat actually does BETTER against Trump in 2024 than in 2020. Four years ago NYT/Sienna showed Biden two points ahead of Trump. Now they show Trump five points ahead of Biden. On the other hand, four years ago the Times/Sienna poll showed a generic Democrat leading Trump by three points. In other words, Biden did about as well as an unnamed generic Democrat against Trump, and actually did better than any named Democrat like Warren. Four years later it shows a generic Democrat leading Trump by eight points. The good news is that "generic Democrat" actually does better in 2024 than 2020. The bad news is that today, unlike four year ago, Biden does far worse against Trump than a generic Democrat. That explains a lot of the difference between what polls are saying, and how people are voting on everything other than Joe Biden. I'm not saying Biden should drop out. The opposite. Either way, it's going to be a close race. And if I had to bet, I'd bet on Lichtman's Keys. Meaning, having Biden run as the incumbent is more likely to be a plus, not a minus. Partly I'd bet that way because, so far, his prediction system has always been right. But also because it just makes common sense to me. Running with an incumbent, and focusing on unifying the party rather than having an internal bloodbath, is probably going to help Democrats. That said, Lichtman's own theory is basically playing the odds. The model is simple enough: when you have these variables, history says it usually works out this way. In 2024, there is no question that Biden will be testing how much the power of incumbency is really a benefit. I don't think the polls are all wrong. Biden on the top of the ticket is at best a mixed blessing. My hope, which is reasonable, is that if we are not in a recession next Fall, and the economy and stock market keep growing between now and then, that will likely be enough to carry Biden and Democrats to victory. It's certainly not bad news for Democrats that even though people are still pissed about inflation, and about half of Americans feel like we are in a recession, they don't seem to be taking it out on Democrats every chance they get. Lichtman himself is saying the verdict is out. In addition to his two economy keys, he also points to his two "war and peace" keys. When he did that brief interview above several months ago, I assumed that Ukraine was going to be neither a success nor a failure a year from now. But now that there is a second war in play, the chances of a foreign policy success or failure altering the outcome of the POTUS race seems higher.

I was going to post in the thread about Why Biden Might Lose. But my prediction potpourri (or verbal diarrhea) fits bit better here. Since everything I'll say involves one form of prognostication or another. And this post is mostly about Why Biden Might Win. It was a good night for Biden 2024, I think. Several pundits have noted that the Kentucky Governors race has been a perfect bellwether in this century. Whoever is elected Kentucky Guv the year before the POTUS race, their party wins the White House next year. Of course, that could mostly be about having the name Beshear on the ballot. But the total impact of all the races tonight, including abortion in Ohio and the legislative races in Virginia, is that the Democratic brand is doing pretty well. Reeves won in Mississippi again, but by no more than he did in 2019. A Democratic win in Mississippi would have been a real shock. Meanwhile, Beshear barely won in 2019, but seems to be winning by like 5 % tonight. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira are just out with their update on The Emerging Democratic Majority. They scold the woke progressive types for going way too far in the culture war, thus alienating too many moderate working class voters. Their Plan A for winning more, especially in red states so Democrats can have a Senate majority, is to call a culture war truce. At least in most of the places, some of the time. Andy Beshear just proved how well that works. I agree that horse race polls a year out mean nothing. In 1983 Mondale was set to beat Reagan by double digits, one poll said. The polls that most political hacks say do tend to be sticky are the approval ratings. And on that score, time is running out for Biden. How unpopular is Joe Biden? Obama, Clinton, and Reagan all had lower approval ratings at some point in their first terms than Biden has right now. But by this point, a year out, all three of them were starting to recover. As you can see from those comparison charts. The only three that were down this low one year out - Trump, Carter, Ford - all lost. I was hoping by now Biden would be recovering, too: more GDP growth, less inflation, people are now actually making more in wage hikes than inflation in 2023. But that's not how people are feeling, yet. The helpful way Team Biden talks about "Bidenomics" is that they're focused on where the puck will be in Nov. 2024, not Nov. 2023. The only problem is it takes time to get from one place to another in politics. The point of all those approval polls is that it took a year for Reagan, Obama, and Clinton to slowly change public opinion. Right now, Biden is going in the wrong direction still. Of course, some people might say the other problem is Joe Biden can barely walk, let alone skate fast. 😵 That is how a lot of young people feel. That doesn't help, either. Biden Lacks the Best Weapon Other Incumbents Have Had As another form of prognostication, I'll throw that piece from Jeff Greenfield in. He makes an interesting argument, which I think is wrong. He thinks the idea that a Presidential race is a referendum on the incumbent is often "wildly off the mark." I agree with Alan Lichtman that Presidential races are exactly that: an up or down referendum on the incumbent party. Greenfield continues his argument that Biden doesn't have what Obama had: the ability to turn his still somewhat unknown opponent into a jerk. Because everybody knows Trump is a jerk (specifically, an indicted jerk) already. And yet he's still slightly ahead in the polls. But I actually think that is one of Biden's real assets. Trump is well defined. And people do think he is a jerk. The only good thing about 55 % of Americans disapproving of Biden is that 55 % also disapprove of Trump. And that number probably ain't gonna get better. Then there is the bed wetting from David Axelrod and Jim Carville, who I don't normally think of as bed wetting types. Although Axelrod actually denied in his tweet that he was wetting the bed. Regardless, I doubt he'll be invited to sleep at The White House ever again. I decided a while back I'm going to go all in for Alan Lichtman. He has a system that makes sense. It suggests Americans vote based on Important Stuff, like the economy, stupid, rather than on dumb commercials or polls. More important, Lichtman's predictions have been right, every time, since 1984. (He predicted Gore would win in 2000, which he did if you count popular votes. After that he just focused on who would win, period. He called 2016 for Trump.) The nice thing about looking at it Alan's way, right or wrong, is that Biden is not only the best choice. He is the only choice. Right now Biden is for sure down three keys: lost the 2022 midterms, has no foreign policy win and is unlikely to get one, is not charismatic. You have to be down six to lose, history says. Lichtman would argue that most of what Greenfield says is pundit babble. The only thing Lichtman says matters about the challenger is that he is not unifying and charismatic. Trump is not unifying and charismatic. So he isn't going to help Joe Biden lose a referendum on Joe Biden. To be fair, Lichtman would argue Biden didn't really help Trump lose the referendum on Trump in 2020. Trump managed to do that all by himself, Lichtman says. Mostly because of the economy, stupid. So the way it's shaping up so far is almost exactly the same as 2016. The election is Biden's to lose. And the economy is the path to winning or losing it. It is not good news that, like in 1992, most people feel like we are in a recession. (Spoiler alert: we're not.) So if Biden loses the two economy keys, he's going to be hanging over the edge of the cliff. But what the economy keys basically say is that incumbents do well when there is no recession, and the economy is growing more quickly than it did under the last two Presidential terms. So 5 % GDP growth is the thing that will get the puck exactly where Team Biden wants it to be. Whether Joe Biden is a fast skater or not. Lichtman argues, with much common sense, that people care more about the economy than about how fast Joe Biden walks. The argument for Biden being the "only" candidate that makes sense is that being an incumbent is always a positive. And when you don't have an incumbent, but you have a divisive internal party fight, it usually ends badly. 2016 is a great example of that. Biden gives Democrats an incumbent, and it avoids a party fight. Lichtman says that he and his pattern recognition buddy, who was a global expert at earthquake prediction, developed variations of their system with fewer than 13 variables. But it took 13 to be right 100 % of the time, at least so far, he says. Of the 13, the single best predicter is whether a party has a knock down drag out internal fight. It usually predicts they will lose. Which is certainly true in my lifetime: Johnson in 1968, Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980, Clinton in 2016, and arguably some others. Again, all of this makes common sense if you start with the idea that American voters care about serious things, and have reasonably good judgment. What now seems almost certain is that a fourth key is going to turn against Biden: a third party candidate who gets over 5 % of the vote next November. Again, it makes lots of common sense to me to argue that in a year where George Wallace or John Anderson or Ross Perot do well running as a third party, it is a sign of serious discontent with the ways things are. And a political earthquake may be on the way. So do the math. I can name almost any sitting Democratic Governor and tell you they excite me more than Biden does. But if you assume that Lichtman predicted the last 12 Presidential elections correctly in advance because of something other than dumb luck, his theory tells us that Whitmer or Newsom or Shapiro or whoever are going to lose. Including a significant third party run, Democratic have four strikes against them. Not being an incumbent and being the survivor of a bitter party brawl would be the necessary and sufficient fifth and sixth nails in their coffin. It's not personal. It's just what history says is likely to happen. Of course, probably if Biden dropped out, we wouldn't even need a primary. Everyone would immediately agree that obviously Kamala Harris should be POTUS. 🙄 Or Hillary Clinton. 😵 Or Bernie Sanders. ☹️ Or Gavin Newsom. 🤔 LOL. You get my point. If Biden had dropped out a year ago, I'd bet that the 2024 Democratic primary would have been a bloodbath. We're getting a taste of that with the bloodbath in Gaza, and the divided Democratic reaction to it. All of this makes sense to me in theory. What was sweet about tonight is that it seemed to actually work out that way, in fact. Whatever bad things there are to say about Biden and Harris, it did not drag Democrats, or Democratic issues, down in Kentucky, or Virginia, or Ohio.

Well, at least some Israeli Jews still think this way. Blessed are the peacemakers. Former Israeli Prime Minister: Israel’s Endgame in Gaza Should be a Palestinian State I vastly prefer Barak's concept of "security" to the one being throw around by the conservatives who want to turn Gaza, and countless innocent Gazans, into a parking lot. The interesting thing is that as one of Israel's most decorated warriors and long serving Defense Ministers, Barak would probably make a way more effective warmonger than Bibi, the great Hamas builder. Instead, perhaps because he is such a good warrior, Barak has always been a sober realist. He's right that Israel won't have security, or even democracy, in the long run if it stays on the path that it is on. It's also noteworthy that Barak says about as bluntly as any Israeli leader has that Bibi intentionally elevated Hamas. So he could have a bad guy to play off Fatah in orderto discredit the idea of negotiation and a two state solution. So for @EmmetK and others who want to make it about only one thing - how Hamas cuts open the bellies of pregnant women and burns their babies alive - I have a question. What is the price Bibi should pay for being the father and framer of these evil men who slit open the bellies of pregnant women? Why did Bibi empower them and facilitate their growth? Is there some special part of hell he gets to burn in for misleading Israel for a generation? Or is it okay that he is the spiritual and political father of the baby killers? Barak is sober that Israeli Jews, right after Oct. 7th, are hardly going to rush toward peace. But he is also right that Israel absolutely needs partners in the region and the world. He just said in a Politico article that maybe the IDF has a few weeks before the pressure from Europeans and Americans forces Israel to change course. I hope he is right. Israel has only weeks to defeat Hamas as global opinion sours, former PM Ehud Barak says There's something else Barak said in that interview that I'll quote. It's a very important principle that I think most of the world. including most people like me who want a ceasefire, also agree with: Arguably, Israel has already been tough enough. But the reason I think that is so well stated is that the goal of making sure it never happens again is way more realistic, and probably way more effective, than the idea that Israel will somehow "eradicate Hamas." Eradication, regardless of how many innocent people to have die, is simply vengeful. More important, it is simply an impossible right wing fantasy. The entire history of this conflict is that Israel won security first and foremost through politics, diplomacy, negotiation, and creating as stable an order around itself as it could. And then they fought wars, too. Barak, who was Defense Minister for many years, seems to understand the bigger moral, political, and diplomatic picture of what really being able to say "never again" means. It is not only, or even primarily, a military problem. If there actually were a realistic plan to "eradicate" Hamas, Barak would be one of the most capable people to design it. He talks in that interview about how he has thought about it before. He also talks about how such a military operation in Gaza would take "many months, or a few years." Way longer than Israelis expect, he thinks. And that how long it might take would be impossible to guess before they got deeply into it. So many tunnels, so much time. The casualties would be tremendous, he says. But the other thing Barak says that will stop the IDF is he knows as well as anyone that [name an Arab country, or another Palestinian leader] could say, "Sorry, Israel. You broke Gaza, so you bought it." Which Mubarak did basically tell Barak before, when he tried to get Egypt to take over the mess. One of the cruelest things about this situation to me is that Israel is obviously the warden of this hellish open air prison. Even though it wants to pretend it isn't. So if Israel wants Arab countries, or Abbas, to help scoop up the rotting flesh of innocent women and children once the bombing stops, they are going to have to negotiate and compromise. Barak knows all this. And Bibi probably does, too. Which is why Bibi needed to be the spiritual and political father of the guys who slit pregnant women open and burn their babies alive. What a guy! Americans have seen this movie before, of course. And we know that it often ends tragically. We were the ones with the bright idea of arming and elevating the Taliban, when it served our interests. To our credit, at least we knew they didn't live five feet away from us. What's Bibi's excuse?

Hamas has said about 50 hostages so far have been killed by Israeli air strikes in Gaza. Whatever the actual number is, or ends up being, this was clearly intentional. You try to wipe us out, and you will kill innocent Jewish hostages instead. It's just as clear that Hamas uses innocent Palestinians as human shields. In fact, all of Gaza is both a massive open air prison, and a massive human shield. But so what? That's been the nature of the situation for about 15 years. There's all kinds of evidence that Netanyahu mostly saw it as a positive. Because it discredited the idea that we can ever have peace with Palestinians. Polls now say only 32 % of Israeli Jews favor a two state solution. And that was right BEFORE Oct. 7th. Which is an exact reversal from pre-Netanyahu days, when a majority of Israeli Jews favored a two state solution. In a sick, dark sort of way you could argue Bibi the monster won the debate. I emphatically agree with the brutality part. I strongly disagree with the stupidity part. I'll add a third important word: hypocrisy. I argued above that you can view Israel as a winner. They have secured land, and settled more of it. You can argue Palestinians are the losers, in that they live more and more in an apartheid state with no hope of a nation of their own. But, by the same logic, Hamas has won, too. As an objective fact, compare Hamas to 20 or 30 years ago and they are much stronger. They nominally run a nation. Even though of course Israel can and did cut off electricity and water and invade as they wish. Hamas clearly had a plan on Oct. 7th. It clearly seems to be working. I don't think Hamas played right into Bibi's ambition. I think Bibi took their bait. He's the one the polls say is now discredited, even among many of his own followers. Hamas organized Oct. 7th in a way that Bibi of course had no choice but to retaliate. Their taking of hostages, and putting them in tunnels and other hideouts, precisely anticipated the IDF response. That was the whole idea. You can call it evil. You can call it brutal. But I don't think you can call it stupid. There is this idea that I keep reading that somehow, someway, the IDF will "eradicate" Hamas. Being a verbose guy, I read lots of verbose essays by right of center IDF guys or conservative Jewish commentators. And no one has a clue how to eradicate Hamas. I'd argue "eradicate Hamas" is about as helpful as "from the river to the sea" as a Palestinian bumper sticker. If it makes you feel good, great. But as a political or military strategy, it makes 0 % sense. And on a practical level the bumper stickers basically are just inflaming and polarizing people on both sides who are already very hurt and very pissed. So you might say it is kind of stupid to say our plan is to eradicate Hamas when no one knows how to actually do it. And the history for 20 or 30 years says that Hamas prospers and grows in an environment of war. You could call Hamas "War Incorporated." Or I'd be okay with calling Hamas "Genocide Incorporated". They'd love the label. In that they intentionally deny Israel's right to exist, and use it to motivate pissed off Palestinian youth. It seems 1000 % clear that is an intentional strategy. And it is working. If you want more Hamas, you absolutely want to have more war. The more blood, the better. Hamas knows that. They're brutal. But not stupid. The hypocrisy part is that even if Netanyahu is gone in a month or a year, the growing force behind him - ultra-Orthodox Jews - will find someone else who is probably worse. As a part of a diverse democratic nation, they are the voters that are most helping to polarize the situation and block any hope of peace. And they are the ones that least want to fight the resulting war, which is a mandatory requirement. In several decades ultra-Orthodox Jews, now 13 %, will be 30 % or so of the voting population. It's a good guess they will press for things that lead to more war. And more political pressure to exempt ultra-Orthodox Jewish men from war. Which will further destabilize Israeli democracy. The two parts of Israel growing the fastest are Palestinians, and ultra-Orthodox Jews. Hamas seems to understand this very well. The plan to eradicate Hamas does not include a plan to actually eradicate Hamas. Meanwhile, Hamas sees how to spend decades building a path to power paved in blood and rotting flesh. Which is what they have done, successfully, for decades. That's brutal. But not stupid. I'll revisit the comparison I made between America's 9/11 and Israel's 9/11. Because I do think America mostly won. And I fear Israel will mostly lose. America won in the sense that there has not been another 9/11. And any political force like the Taliban knows that if you fuck with us like that again, you either end up living in a cave or being fish food at the bottom of an ocean. Even if you assume we Americans wrecked many lives and some real estate in Afghanistan, we were not fighting a war in the US, or Manhattan. Even if you assume the US did horrible shit, it was horrible shit we did far away that we could walk away from. Bin Laden's specific goal was to use a reaction against the US to catalyze revolution in the Arab world. What he won was a bullet in the head, and an opportunity to feed fish. Arguably, the US should have walked away from Afghanistan much earlier and said we'll leave your mess to you. And you can abuse women and treat them like slaves as much as you want. But just leave us the fuck alone, or we will come back and kill you. We have never had anything like another 9/11 since 9/11. Thanks in large part to the effective counterterrorism efforts of the US military and our global allies. I think the Netanyahu Doctrine was built on similar principles and ideas. Except it is not working. And it can't work, for lots of reasons. But the biggest one I will state is that it would be as if we did plan to fight the war on US soil, and blow the shit out of Manhattan. Or at least Brooklyn. And the cowboys in Texas would be saying, "We need to turn Brooklyn into a parking lot, and go house to house and tunnel to tunnel and wipe those evil fuckers out. But we don't want to help do it." That's just not going to work. No one in the IDF, and no right wing Jew who wants Israel to be secure, can explain how they will do it. Because they can't. Hamas understands all this. And has weaponized it in an incredibly brutal way. That is not stupid. If I wanted to argue the US lost in Afghanistan, I would argue it the same way. We lost in the sense that the Taliban could, and did, outwait us for a few decades. And they used US soldiers, who they killed as often as possible, as the bad guys to organize and regroup. Hamas will do the same. The black and white difference is the US was not in it mostly to make Afghanistan a democracy and a nice place for girls. The US was in it mostly to secure the US homeland. And a peaceful international order free of extremist whack jobs blowing up skyscrapers or wiping out large numbers of innocent civilians all over the world. Which is why we had so many good allies. On balance, I think the US did that. Israel is in a very different situation. The only thing that will ultimately secure a peaceful national order there is a two state solution. The world believes that. Israelis Jews used to believe that. Now they don't. So, instead, they will have war. Basically on their own soil, or five feet away.

You are correct. I know this is a tangent. But you and I both care about facts. I got what I said from what Hodge herself said in the interview I hyperlinked. But I checked Wikipedia and you are correct. This personal stuff is relevant to the big picture politics, I think. I have two impulses in me that are slightly at war. First, we have to have Israel's back. Second, it's not okay for Israel to do whatever it takes. And it definitely goes in that order. I suspect if I were younger, in my 20's, I might feel the same way, but the other way around. John Della Volpe just wrote a piece in the NYT that should scare the living shit out of everyone who does not want Trump, The Sequel. When it comes to polling on the youth vote, he is the go to go guy. Period. He predicted that Biden would ride a youth wave in 2020. Biden did. Now the headline says it all: "Biden is in trouble." Part of his point is that how young people feel about a ceasefire, and how Biden is rejecting an idea a majority of even Republicans seem to support, has just made a bad situation worse for Biden. Della Volpe is Mr. Polling. So I think he is factually correct when he argues this: Back to Hodge, in that interview she reflects on being a young woman spending months on a kibbutz where they toiled the soil all day and then talked about Rosseau and Marx in the evenings. I'm not a Jew, and I have never been to Israel. But that is the Israel I have in my heart. Which I suspect Joe Biden does, too. She jokes in that article that every attempt to turn her into a proper practicing Jew failed, until Corbyn came along. She also says she grew up surrounded by Jewish refugees. Her point is that while she may not have been a practicing Jew, she is very much culturally a Jew. Charlotte Nichols sounds like the opposite. A cultural Catholic who grew up Catholic, like me, but has a deep respect for Judaism. On a personal note, part of my bias is that as an organizer/activist my life has been full of liberal Jewish political activists. The one who for sure played the most important role was my friend, college professor, and former US Senator Paul Wellstone. He steered me into the career I had in my 20's and 30's and got me my first internship. He was a lot like what Hodge sounds like. Always looking out for the disempowered. Always passionate about social justice. He also thought Israel treated the Palestinians like shit. And that was in the 80's and 90's, before the rise of horrible leaders like Netanyahu, who Bill Clinton argues killed peace. I'll keep insisting that back in the 80's and 90's, Arafat was the primary suspect who killed peace. Kudos to Hodge and Nichols for being voices of conscience.

I just used it, repeatedly. And I have admitted to smoking, but not inhaling. I agree. The more inflamed the situation gets, the less useful the word "genocide" seems to be in this context. John Mearsheimer called the Nazis "Murder Incorporated." But "Genocide Incorporated" would have been an equally good label. I don't think Hamas killing 1500 Jews in a savage terrorist attack or the IDF killing, so far, 9000 Palestinians in their invasion is "genocide." I get that Hamas promotes a hateful ideology that denies Israel's right to exist. I get that many, maybe most Palestinians, feel Israeli Jews want to deny their right to exist as a nation, and force them to instead live in an apartheid state. All of this is awful. To me, "genocide" is not the right word. The reason I'm been using it is that if hawks want to throw around the word "genocide" to rationalize "whatever it takes" I think the consistent actions of leaders like Netanyahu, which have resulted in far more deaths of innocents, deserve the same label. It's a mess. Even on a personal psychological level, I think it's just a big fucking mess. My sense on a level of empathy is that this terrorism has triggered the worst fears of the even the kindest, most peace loving Jews. So on an emotional level I think I get where at least some of the primal fear about "genocide" is coming from. Which is why I am glad Biden went to Israel and hugged Bibi, symbolically. Even though I think Bibi is .......... wait for it ............ a genocidal monster. 🙄 It's barely related. But just because I admire her I will throw in this great interview I just read of Dame Margaret Hodge, who is the only female Jewish Labour MP in the UK. If we are talking about language, I think she is a class act who has a very nice and humane way of talking and thinking about things. She was like a moral compass when all the drama with Jeremy Corbyn, who she despises, was happening. Now she is talking about the stuff happening with her Jewish grand daughters in school. I wish more people thought and felt like her.

I did. Great point. The even bigger kudos Bush 41 gets is what is known as the "Powell Doctrine," aka how we won the first Gulf War. Have clear and winnable objectives. Get in and get out. Have the backs of your own soldiers. During the debate on the second Iraq War, I kept a newspaper clipping of Bush 41's reasons for not going into Baghdad in my wallet. I pulled it out when my Republican friends went off about WMD. Bush 41 stated his reasons (it would create a quagmire, divide the US and the world, etc.) because he was attacked by right-wingers who thought he should have pushed further. Every single point Bush 41 made about what would have gone wrong on his watch did go wrong on his son's watch. I hope something like the Powell Doctrine is what the IDF does in Gaza. So far, unfortunately, it looks more like Bush 43 on steroids, in Iraq. It looks like the Netanyahu Doctrine. This is a really tangential point. I just watched a one hour interview with Bush 43 at some conference, giving his still very hardline views on what's going on now. He talked, movingly, about how much it meant to him to have his Dad on the phone when the son was POTUS telling him something like, "I support you." I was thinking about the fact that Bush 41 never would have done, and specifically did not do, what Bush 43 did in Iraq. And yet, whatever reservations Bush 41 may have had, he told his son what his son needed to hear: "I support you." George H.W. Bush was a good man, and a good Dad.

I agree with your point. And you completely missed my point. Which is no surprise. It's exactly why the tragedy will continue, and get worse. The good news right now is most Americans don't see it that way. They favor a ceasefire. Your point is that there is no moral equivalence between "Hamas" and "Israel." I completely agree. And I am being very precise here. Israel is a sovereign democratic nation that has every right to exist and thrive. Israel is not a terrorist nation. So I didn't equate "Hamas" and "Israel" in any way. What I think is particularly important right now is that there can be no moral equivalence about the fact that Israel has the right to exist. Jews have the right to exist, peacefully and securely, wherever they choose to live. And neither Jews nor Israel are terrorist thugs or organizations. Which is what Hamas is. If I believed any of that, I would simply say Israel is a terrorist state. I don't. My point is the word "genocide" - as in genocide against Jews - is being used to rationalize massive violence in Gaza by IDF that is already causing a strong and growing reaction around the world. This violence can also appropriately be called "genocide" - as in genocide against Palestinians. The more neutral word being used a lot to rationalize this violence is "security", which was used again and again and again in that IDF military analyst's article I posted above. The less neutral way to say it, which I have read again and again and again recently in articles written by right-of-center Jews, is "Holocaust" or "Never Again." Whether you use less provocative words like "security" or more provocative words like "Holocaust," the basic idea is the same. And you have expressed your support for it, @EmmetK, continuously. Do whatever it takes. If it takes killing 9,000 Palestinians, that's just what it takes. In fact, that has already been done. And the IDF is clearly just getting started. If it takes killing 90,000 Palestinians, that's just what it takes. If it takes killing 900,000 Palestinians, well, that's what it takes. Shit, they had every right to go to Puerto Vallarta or Michigan or somewhere, right? They were warned. Why is it is genocide to kill 1,500 innocent Jews, but not genocide to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of Palestinians? Because Hamas is made up of genocidal monsters, of course. So pretty much anything the IDF has to do to have security from Hamas, which is what really matters, is okay. It's not that they actually want to kill 9,000 or 90,000 or 900,000 Palestinians, most of whom are innocent, women, and children. It's just what they have to do for security. We can't have another Holocaust, can we? That's the Idea. It is stated clear as day by IDF leaders or analysts like I cited above. And by lots of center-right Jews writing in lots of Western publications. The polls suggest this kind of black and white one-sided thinking is not really going down well. Including with the majority of Americans. The world, and the US, and Biden, have Israel's back. But not to do whatever it takes. Bibi Netanyahu is a genocidal monster. I have said that many times, and I just said it again. Netanyahu, who is a genocidal monster, is not Israel. He is not Jews. He is a very bad leader who is supported by a growing right-wing base. Which is partly why the violence and the deaths on both sides will likely get worse. What has clearly been happening for most of this century is that the more genocidal Hamas gets, the more genocidal Bibi gets. They are like two genocidal monsters playing in a bloodbath together. And as they get more and more genocidal, there is more blood. And more innocent victims on both sides. The pattern, and the blood, is incredibly clear. You just don't want to see it. Or, more appropriately, you only want to see some of it. I am glad the majority of Americans want a ceasefire. And I am glad Biden is getting more and more shit from mainstream members of his own party. Who I am pretty sure are hearing from lots of their constituents who don't like what they see. ‘A curse to be a parent in Gaza’: More than 3,600 Palestinian children killed in just 3 weeks of war I know in your black and white world where it is all about one thing - "security" for Israel - it is just unfortunate that an entire innocent family had their brains, eyes, hearts, lungs, penises, vaginas, and pretty much everything else that made them a living human blown up into scraps of rotting flesh under rubble. And, no, the IDF is not like Hamas. It's not like they specifically wanted to blow up a whole family. I mean, what are ya gonna do? I'm sure they sent out leaflets or something, before they shut off the power and internet. If Hamas puts a bullet in your brain, it's genocide. If the IDF blows up the brains of every member of your family, it's just a mistake. That's clear, right? Israeli Army Admits to Killing Eight Gaza Family Members: We Thought the House Was Empty Most of the world does not seem to see it as that black and white. Sorry. I'm especially sorry for all the dead Jews and Palestinians, thanks to genocidal monsters like Hamas and Netanyahu.

Actually, you did answer my question. Good job. My question was of course a sarcastic one. @vinapu made the same point. I like the nuance @vinapu added. Even nations that disappeared for a long time tend to come back. Israel knows that is true, for sure. That is the power of nationalism, or religion, or both. You also make a good point, @unicorn. A very quick Google check confirmed what I would have guessed. Most separatist or secessionist movements fail. It's a bit weird. India could kick out the English. But the Tamils can't separate from India. The Confederacy as an institution and as a military was way more powerful than Blacks in the US were in the 19th century. Or even than Blacks in America are today, even though we have a Black Secretary of Defense. Yet the Confederacy lost, and Blacks have gradually but continuously gained power. Even though it did not happen through Black separatism. So how did that happen? I think there's a difference between part of a nation wanting to secede, on the one hand, and a people wanting to be a nation, or have equal political and human rights. Palestinians in Israel are the latter. History suggests that even when you are in the far weaker position, your national or racial or religious identity is not going away. Nor will your desire for independence, nationhood, security, and/or political and human rights. Again, Jews know this as well or better than most people.

That's a fair point. It is very easy to say the US is anything but a neutral mediator. ESPECIALLY when it comes to Israel. That said, I think Fareed Zakaria is objectively correct in the long interview I posted with him above. The Palestinians are losing. And the longer losers wait to cut a deal, the worse the deal gets. On a bumper sticker, it works like this. You want $10 for something, and I offer you $5. You say no. A decade later, I offer you $4 for the same thing. You say no again. A decade later, I offer you $3 for the same thing. You say no again. A decade later I say, fuck it, it's mine. And if you don't give it me, I'll kill you. To be clear, that is not the specific example Fareed himself used. He argued Israel is basically winning. Since 1948, Jews have gained increasingly certain control of the state they live in. And any peace deal with Palestinians keeps getting worse. He said Palestinians should be thinking that when you are on the losing side, you are better off cutting a deal sooner rather than later. To divert for one paragraph, that may end up being true with Ukraine. There was an argument made in 2022 that the best chance for the best deal for Ukraine was last year. Right after they had kicked Putin's ass and taken back a lot of the land he seized. Now it looks much more like a war of attrition that Russia will never win, but also never lose. But part of my point is that, as the poll I posted above shows, 90 % of Ukrainians have no interest in giving any part of Ukraine away to Russia. Ukrainians, like Palestinians, may ultimately regret that kind of hard line in the future. 2000 Camp David Summit It's completely fair to argue that as soon as you use the words "Bill Clinton" or "US President," you have a good argument that a deal can't be fair. Especially if you are a Palestinian. As Fareed pointed out, the deal they could have gotten in 2000 was worse than the original deal they could have had in 1947. That Wikipedia article on the 2000 deal cites polls showing that Palestinians tended to agree with Arafat, that the deal wasn't good enough. Meanwhile, Israeli Jews felt Barak went way too far. He, and Labor leadership, were history. So it is simply a fact, whether it is viewed as good or bad, that in 2000 Palestinians lost a deal that is almost certainly way better than any deal they will ever get under any realistic scenario. Hindsight is, of course, 20/20. But the immediate consequence was that israeli Jews took a hard right turn. And have mostly not looked back. One exception, as Fareed again notes, is Olmert. Who offered a watered down version of the 2000 deal. I think Fareed did nail the key point. When you are on the losing side, it is not in your interest to delay making a deal. If you follow my logic, it leads to one other interesting conclusion that is extremely relevant. If Palestinians lost, it must mean Israel won. Fareed stated, correctly, that Israel keeps gaining effective control over more territory, and not the other way around. To be coldly objective, even right now when the worst fears of Jews all over the world have been very understandably triggered by a savage terrorist attack, the security of Jews in the world can't be compared to the 1940's. 6 million Jews are not being slaughtered. History since 1948 has not worked out badly for israel, in general. Fareed is being objective in stating Israel "won." And I think that obviously undergirds a lot of the Israeli military's thinking. "Security" basically means we keep winning. And we just have to keep the Palestinians - aka half the population - under our control. That is the core of the Netanyahu Doctrine. It makes perfect sense to me that Israel should feel like winners, with one caveat. Which I am guessing right now Israeli Jews are very aware of. Just be mindful, Israeli Jews, that the losers are of course going to behead your children every single chance they get. So what you won is land, and a dead baby. That's the logic of this. Every Jewish Mom has to worry whether her child is safe. And every Palestinian Mom has to worry about whether her kid will grow up to be Hamas, or whatever takes its place. That is the small price Israel has to pay for their victory. For now, my strong hunch is that Israel is gong to have to learn the hard way that the kind of victory they want against Hamas isn't really a victory. Sadly, it is almost certain to get much worse. So to me it is a massive human tragedy that peace was not achieved in 2000. There is plenty of blame to go around for that, as the Wikipedia article notes.

Guilty as charged. But at least I don't inhale. Or swallow. 😉 That said, he is the only US President in my lifetime who almost brokered a true peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians. So smoking does have its virtues.

John Mearsheimer, the Great Powers academic I quote a lot, said that at the time. There was certainly a logic to thinking that all the nukes in all the former Soviet republics should be put someplace safer. Mearsheimer says at the time that was being done, he was a voice in the wilderness. He argued that in the long run those nukes might help Ukraine keep its independence. You are making an excellent point.

I think you are smart. And we are both clear about what each other is saying. I already called Netanyahu a "genocidal monster." Although I watered it down by saying that is what many young US voters think. For the record, I agree with them. I'll quote Bill Clinton. He didn't call Bibi a genocidal monster. He did say Netanyahu killed peace. He is correct. On Ukraine, I called out your ridiculous statement about Ukrainian children. I view Murderous Vlad as an even worse genocidal monster. The number of Ukrainians and Russians killed thanks to Vlad's unprovoked attack on Ukraine is at least in the hundreds of thousands. Not to mention millions of refugees. The death count, all thanks to Murderous Vlad, is some massive factor larger than the number of dead Israelis and Palestinians - in this war, or even in all wars. You obviously don't agree, and want to gaslight about how swell Murderous Vlad is to Ukrainian children. I'll make two other relevant points as a compare and contrast: Nearly 90% of Ukrainians oppose territorial concessions to Russia - poll I've mentioned repeatedly that about 90 % of Americans supported the invasion of Afghanistan. It didn't mean it worked. And part of the reason it didn't work is we never had 90 % of the Afghans behind the plan. By the time we left I'm pretty sure the majority of Afghans just wanted the US to get the fuck out. Russia can certainly relate to that. Over 90 % of Ukrainians want Murderous Vlad to get the fuck out. That's a whole lot of unity. It doesn't mean it will work. But the polls of Ukrainians are even more polarized and anti-Russia today then when Vlad attacked almost two years ago. And in this case massive majorities of Ukrainians want US and EU and NATO partnership. This is the part you and I would be more likely to find common ground on: Poll shows 41% of Ukrainians agree with Putin’s ‘one nation’ claim, but question was tweaked That finding should not come as a surprise. Since I think that is somewhere in the ballpark of the percentage of Ukrainians who speak Russian as their primary language. If we wanted to put John Mearsheimer in a room, who I have quoted extensively in arguing that the US fucked up for many years by encouraging Ukraine to join NATO, you and I would probably agree with most of his points. Like Kissinger, who is pals with Vlad, he thinks Ukraine should have been a neutral bridge between Russia and the West. Not a place to blow the shit out of. That said, Murderous Vlad gets 100 % of the credit for being the guy who decided to actually blow the shit out of it. Just like Bibi gets the credit, and shame, for the innocent women and kids his bombs are killing. Putin and Netanyahu are both trying the same thing. And history suggests it will not work. Palestinians want a state, and self determination. Ukrainians want a state, and self determination. It is very hard to stop a people who want those things, as Israel and Russia should know. Both Netanyahu and Putin can claim some wins - like territory, in the form of oblasts or settlements. But history suggests that while they may win some battles, they will lose the war. Probably not in the next year. Or even the next decade. But name some countries, other than the US or India or [someplace in Africa] that ultimately failed when they fought for independence? 😉

Thank you for being so precise about the tragic nature of the problem. When Hamas kills 1500 or so Israelis, mostly women and kids, it is genocide. When the IDF kills 9000 or so Palestinians, mostly women and kids, of course it is only and exactly what Israel needs to do to survive. That's all. If the IDF kills 90,000 Palestinians by the time it is done, that's just survival, too. Duh! If the IDF kills 900,000 Palestinians by the time it is done eradicating Hamas, that's just survival, too. Is there a problem? Besides, it's very good manners for the IDF to drop leaflets on innocent Palestinians who are trapped in an open air prison before they blow they shit out of them. The main problem with this approach is that "Hamas has been eradicated" is very much like the idea "Jews have been eradicated." Except I think it sounds better in the original German. The following point is one of logic, not anti-Semitism. Hitler actually had a plan to eradicate an entire people - Jews. It never made sense as a plan, since he couldn't get his hands on most Jews in most parts of the world. But, viewed as a plan, gas chambers at least eradicated a lot of Jews. Without much collateral damage on people the Nazis did not want to kill. Except, of course, the whole idea was so repulsive that it led to the massive killing of innocent Germans in things like fire bombings. It really doesn't seem to me that most Israelis have thought through how one thing tends to lead to another. Although they may be gaining an awareness that empowering warmongers like Netanyahu for decades has lead to ....................... wait for it ............................. more and worse wars with Hamas. Some of the smartest analysts around are saying October 7 is nothing compared to how bad the next war down the line will be. I believe them. Geez. Who could possibly have seen that coming? Certainly not the IDF. We agree about one thing. While I'm reading all stuff from all sides, including from the UN, what I find most useful is the stuff from the proponents of eradicating Hamas. Mostly because it seems like if they are proponents of the idea, they ought to have some sort of clue about how it can actually be done. And what the long-term consequences may be. In that regard, here is a very long-winded essay that I would call a must read, written by a former IDF leader who is clearly on Israel's side. With all due respect, the conclusion I reach is that the best military analysts around do not really have a clue. Although at least Orion has a clue that it will be awful for Israel. Not to mention Palestinians. Even though it won't come close to the goal that "Hamas has been eradicated." The End of Israel’s Gaza Illusions This War Is Unlike Any Other—and Must Begin at Home I think the thing I find most tragic and even sick about it is the idea the sub-header suggests, probably correctly. A generation ago most Israelis and most Palestinians wanted to find a path to peace. Now what the Israeli war planners are saying is that the entire nation has to commit first and foremost to "security." And what "security" means first and foremost is war with Palestinians - wherever it goes, whatever it takes, and however long it takes. That is in fact a formula for more and endless war. Not peace. The point is that Israelis are being told to put security, and war, above all else. I don't agree, to say the least. But apart from my moral objection, it does not even begin to make sense as a plan. I won't comment on the military part, since I am anything but an experienced military analyst. Other than I believe it when IDF leaders say this will be harder than any war we have ever fought. With more blood and treasure extracted from Israel than ever before. Here are the main parts of the political, diplomatic, and humanitarian consequences that seem illogical, and sick. Sick in the sense that one definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing that never works, and somehow expect it work. I would say this plan for "the eradication of Hamas" makes about as much sense as gas chambers made sense for eradicating global Judaism. As a bumper sticker, the basic idea is this: Let's just put aside the first sentence I quoted. Other than to stipulate that even if the IDF can achieve its military objectives against Hamas, when that objective is defined as "eradication," it really means "a big setback". And the almost certain death of at least tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians. Hamas will survive and regroup, and Palestinians will have more and deeper grievances. To his credit, the author is honest about how the cultivation of "moderate" Palestinian leadership, while precisely the right goal, is anathema to Bibi the Butcher. And always has been. As the author states, correctly, Team Bibi has always seen the PA as being as bad as Hamas. Even though the two organizations actually represent a little more than half of the population of Greater Israel. How do you have peace when you define all the leaders of half the population as terrorists? Answer: you don't. You have endless and worse war. Did I mention that as Palestinian and ultra-Orthodox Jews who support Team War (even though they don't fight in them) have more kids, the demographic polarization only gets worse? How does it work that the one thing that is required by the PA, regional Arab partners, and global US and European partners - a two state solution - is defined in IDF logic as "even more far-fetched" than ever? It's a bit like saying that the right way to settle whether Biden or Trump wins in 2024 is to cancel elections. It just makes no fucking sense. Again, I think the author is being honest. In this case implicitly, not explicitly. Being a seasoned IDF guy, he of course knows that a military strategy to eradicate Hamas will of course kill lots of innocent people. And piss pretty much the whole word off. Which we are seeing already. But, hey, so what? As an American who is proud of America, including our military, perhaps I can't be objective. Maybe it is true that a plan to invade Afghanistan to deter more terror and make it a better place, which 92 % of Americans supported, was always just a fucked up idea that was going to fail. But at least 92 % of Americans did support it. And we gave it what I view as an honest shot - with the explicit goals being democracy, peace, and economic development. The fact that even that didn't work when the world's global hegemon tried it is a very dark warning to Israel. This plan does not even have majority support. Not in Israel. And certainly not in the rest of the world. It is a recipe for endless war, and endless bloodbath. The plans sucks.