stevenkesslar

This guy Mike Bell who posted the model of the assassination attempt I posted above did this update after getting more information a few days later. There were more shots than he initially knew. Trump really was lucky. In JFK's case, since the alleged "lone nut" Oswald was using a rifle, there was only time to get off a few shots - if you believe the lone shooter theory. The RFK assassination allegedly was only Sirhan, whose gun could fire eight shots. And yet there was evidence of 13 bullets, which has never been explained. In Trump's case, at least so far, it appears that the number of bullets shot and the trajectory all line up with a loan shooter. The question is not how the guy managed to clip Trump's ear. It's how did Trump manage to survive when the number of bullets fired was more than adequate to kill JFK and RFK?

So fuck both of you guys to getting into bullet rabbit holes! You made me go down dark rabbits holes again. 😉 I think maybe five years ago I spent most of a weekend going down the JFK/RFK/MLK rabbit hole. It was not fun. First, it's about death and gore. Second, where it leads is the idea that we have this right wing secret government led by the CIA and FBI and built around the special interests of oil men or other corporate interests or right wing anti-Commie zealots. To me - and I think to a majority of Americans - these assassination theories are a little like the "Joe Biden is old" thing. It's hard to convince people not to believe what they can see and hear. So I think most people feel that way about the 60's assassinations. The official theories just don't add up. In large part because of obvious things you can see and hear yourselves. So today I went down the rabbit holes again to see if there is anything new. Especially after Biden released most, but not all, of the still secret CIA documents that were actually ALL supposed to be released in 2017, by law. (That law was passed after Stone's JFK created an uproar. So even after waiting another few decades, the CIA is still sabotaging public disclosure.) Trump delayed the release of many documents in 2017. And Biden also delayed the release of over 4,000 documents, and let the CIA decide whether they will ever release them. So this is a bipartisan Presidential defense of the CIA. My view for a long time has been -duh! - the CIA of course won't release documents, because they have something to hide. They were in on the conspiracies. Beyond that, even if somehow all the documents were released, I think we still would not know the truth. Because we also know for a fact that the CIA, among other agencies like the Secret Service, destroyed lots of documents from the assassinations. We're learning again on Trump that they don't like being looked into. I wouldn't mind if both Trump and Biden supporters went after the Deep State and demanded they disclose all their dirty secrets of the last half century or so. The only thing that the Trump debacle makes me think slightly differently about the CIA and Secret Service is that it seems obvious enough that they are hiding their involvement in a conspiracy, even half a century later. But it is possible that what they are hiding is less malevolent: that they are incompetent. Like I said above, it seems like their failure with Trump was incompetence, not a conspiracy. But in case anyone is interested I will sum up what I just relearned about JFK and RFK, 99 % of which I knew already. The most unbelievable thing about the JFK assassination to me is the idea that Oswald was not an employee or an asset of the CIA. There are way too many CIA connections with Oswald and his close friends and associates over way too long a period of years. This interview with a JFK conspiracy expert, Jefferson Morley, is done after Biden's release of most of the remaining documents. And he makes the point that most of what we learn from the ones Biden released is more about Oswald. Which is not the simple "lone nut" view of Oswald put forward by the Warren Commission. Morley states clearly that he (like Harry Truman, LBJ, Nixon, and Jackie Kennedy) thinks the evidence we have points to a conspiracy. And that Oswald was, as he claimed in the little time he had before he was silenced, "a patsy". But he also adds that it is quite possible the CIA is simply trying to cover up their incompetence in letting someone they were following closely for years kill JFK. That said, to me their is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that for years Oswald was close to all kinds of people that were CIA assets. Including, as I posted above, oil man Col. Byrd, who just happened to own the building Oswald happened to work in for a few weeks and from which he shot JFK. Unlike with Trump, this is where the bullet theory also just makes no sense. When I did my deep dive years ago, I watched a number of videos that asserted that a "magic bullet" could have shot Kennedy in the back, then Connally in the back, hand, and leg. That is basically what you have to believe to believe the "lone nut" theory that Hoover and LBJ told the Warren Commission upfront was the only conclusion that was possible to reach. The JFK Assassination made simple —using video evidence and doctors' testimony The only problem with the official theory, which I don't think people believed even in 1964, is that people believe what they see themselves - just like with Biden's age. This video is also a nice five minute summary. Because both Connally and his wife insisted that the Allen Dulles/Warren Commission one bullet theory was wrong. And you can see on video that Connally appears to be hit at the same time JFK was fatally wounded, when he slumped forward. As his wife, who was sitting next to him, said, it doesn't make sense that one magic bullet sat in the air for five seconds after it hits JFK before it entered her husband's body. There had to be another bullet, and another shooter. There's no way to prove this now, of course. Which I think was the point. There is plenty of evidence from witnesses who saw the Kennedy assassinations that the CIA, as well as local Dallas (JFK) and LA (RFK) cops bullied witnesses who did not agree with the official version of events to change their stories. I think what we have learned time and again since with the CIA is that they are perfectly wiling to lie to Congress and the public. Knowing that if they tell the lie long enough it will be the truth. Or at least anyone or any document that could prove them wrong will be long gone. Thane Eugene Cesar has passed away That thread, on a mixed martial arts forum of all places, is also an interesting treasure trove of YouTube videos and reports on the RFK assassination rabbit hole, if you want to go down it. I think part of what worked for the CIA with JFK, if you want to believe in a CIA conspiracy, is that they were at least able to alter or destroy evidence that could have confirmed something other than their official explanation. Starting with having one of the prime suspects, the CIA Director JFK fired, Allen Dulles, run the Warren Commission. You at least can argue their magic bullet theory is the only plausible explanation, if you don't want to believe in a conspiracy/ With RFK there is what appears to be a truly unsolvable problem. The forensics doctors said the fatal bullet was fired into his head from about 1 to 3 inches away, from behind. And Sirhan, the alleged assassin, was by the accounts of all witnesses at least a few feet away from RFK, and in front of him. Unlike the JFK magic bullet theory, there is no reasonable explanation for how Sirhan could have shot RFK from right behind him. A lot of the suspicious and unexplained things are the same as JFK. The guy the post is about, Cesar, was the security guard right behind RFK. Who, like Oswald, was working a job he had only worked at for a few weeks. Multiple witnesses said he was standing right behind RFK, and they saw him with his gun aimed. He told what were later determined to be multiple lies about the gun he was carrying, as is documented in that thread. Cesar was never investigated. The two cops who led the LAPD investigation were also connected to the CIA, and bullied multiple witnesses who did not agree with the "lone nut" theory, based on what they actually saw or heard, into going with the official version. Also documented in that thread, if you are interested. So over half of century later we're left with all kinds of magic bullets and loose ends. Including things like E. Howard Hunt's supposed confession to his sons that he was in fact part of the JFK assassination conspiracy. The MO, true or false, is always the same: maintain plausible deniability, wear people down, and run out the clock until everyone who could dispute what actually happened dies. And if someone comes forward (like Hunt, or Loyd Jowers, who says he was involved in a conspiracy to kill MLK) just say they must be crazy, too. I'll end my rabbit hole diatribe repeating what I started with. If the worst thing Americans have to deal with now is the incompetence of the CIA or Secret Service, that is almost a nice problem to have. I'd rather have them be incompetent than be a highly competent band of assassins who kill leaders around the world, including US Presidents and Presidential candidates and movement leaders, and then spend the rest of their lives denying it.

Exactly. You can see JFK's head being blown off on film. And, notwithstanding HIPPA, you can go online and also see JFK's naked body with the bullet hole in his back. I'm glad I don't have to see that in Trump's case, both for Trump's sake and mine. Had Trump not turned his head, or had the bullet been an inch more in one direction, I think we'd all have the misfortune of seeing the gore. So it's interesting that these days anyone curious can do this on a computer now. I'm guessing this amateur video is more precise than some of the work done by the Warren Commission, before we had computers. This explains some things. While this is just some amateur, it suggests Trump was grazed by a bullet, which then when right into that big yellow hydraulic lift. Which caused obvious and immediate impacts - oil shooting out where the bullet pierced it. To be blunt, thank God it was oil rather than Trump's brain gushing out. I assumed the guy killed and the guys injured were on that far right bleacher, and they were in the line of fire that would have hit Trump had he not gone down quickly. But, actually, they were not. As the video explains, the second two bullets were way off, if Trump was the target. The amateur's theory is by the time the second two bullets were fired the shooter had been hit by snipers. We'll probably all eventually know. There is something obviously wrong here, as is discussed briefly in this video. It sounds like there were a few minutes between when it was clear there was a guy with a gun on a roof, and when Trump was shot. So why wasn't the shooter taken out, or Trump removed? People looking for a conspiracy should and are going there. And one answer, which the amateur speculates, could be that Trump is the kind of guy who doesn't like to be told what to do. That said, if there is a guy with a gun on a roof, and the Secret Service knows it, there is no good explanation for why they let Trump go on for two minutes until he was almost killed. That said, from my perspective, there is also no good reason why this should not convince Congress to pass common sense gun restrictions, including an assault weapons ban, which most Americans support. But don't hold your breath for that, either. Sometimes even smart professionals just do dumb shit. The idea that this was somehow an inside job to help Trump by making him look like a martyr makes no sense. He is lucky not to be dead. And one other Trump supporter did die. It would make more sense to speculate that maybe the Deep State wanted Trump dead. But that makes no sense, either. The CIA was behind this? Why? How? I suppose I could come up with a theory for why that made sense, if I had to. But it would be really illogical and dumb. So my takeaway is that there is some good news here. And I'll say it this way. Whether the target was Trump or Harris, the good news is what seems obvious is that this was just one lone nut that should have been stopped, but wasn't. Because the Secret Service and local cops were incompetent. End of story. That's not good. But I can live with that better than I can live with the idea that for at least a decade or so, from 1963 to 1973, we actually did have a Deep State - the CIA, the FBI, working with the mafia - that actually did impact the course of history by taking out JFK, RFK, and MLK. I believe that. I believe they then used the "lone nut" theory to cover up a massive conspiracy. I think probably a majority of Americans do. I think the CIA got away with it in 1963, so they did it again when they saw RFK and MLK as threats. And I say 1963 to 1973 or so because the first thing that really shut the CIA show down was the Congressional investigations, including of those assassinations, after Watergate and all the dirty tricks of the CIA started to come out. Then there was a house cleaning. One final point, which I will continue in a second post. Part of the way to smell something is wrong is the stuff about the bullets. In the case of Trump, everything we know about the bullet makes sense. That video, albeit by an amateur, confirms the idea that one bullet grazed Trump's ear and then thankfully took out a truck, basically. In the case of JFK and RFK, after decades of debate and investigation, we're still left with the idea that bullets are magic, and did things they could not possibly do. I know this is about Trump, not the Kennedys. But I spent a few hours revisiting the JFK/RFK rabbit holes, to remind myself of what I thought I knew. And also to see if there is anything new that we did know before. So I will put that trip down nightmare lane in a separate post.

The trolls have been trying to nibble at the edges of "Coach Walz", too. Like I guess the idea is stolen championship, rather than stolen valor. It won't work. There is just way too much there. In fact, it seems pretty clear that it is fatal for Republicans to push any of this, for two reasons. One, they are asking people to look into why Tim Walz had character and decency. Two, by quiet comparison, they are making it clear they lack the same. From Newsweek: 'Tim Walz's Coaching Style: How He Led Suburban High School to State Championship I have to assume that there are former students who are telling somewhat exaggerated or biased stories about Walz, because they like him that much. But even that says something. That decades later there are people who you moved so much as a teacher or coach or scared Gay teen that they will come out of the woodwork to defend you. Where are the people who tell the uplifting stories about how Donald Trump believed in them? (Well, there's Jared of course.) There was a deceased client of mine who posted all the time on the other board. He was as hard core a conservative Republican as I am a liberal Democrat. But, at least before Trump, we could talk about anything. In fact, I spent the week Trump won in 2016 in Puerto Vallarta with this guy. And in some ways he was the best person to talk to. Since he could lay out what would likely happen from a savvy (if harsh) Republican perspective. He said this at the time, and got it right: "I want two, and three if that bitch dies." I knew immediately he was referring to SCOTUS vacancies, and not too lovingly referring to RBG. Well, he got what he wanted! My point in bringing him up is that he was a high school Spanish teacher who loved Mexican culture. One of his favorite movies was McFarland, USA, the Disneyfied version of the true story of working class Latinos who some motivated high school coach in the middle of nowhere turned into cross country state champions, despite them having everything going against them. We watched the movie together for the first time, in tears. I know he bought the DVD and watched it many times thereafter. There was nothing overtly political about it. Other than that these kind of stories, when true, are deeply inspiring and unifying. So I think the Republicans will have a big problem going after this guy.

Since we are going to conspiracy theory, I'll go. But before I do, let me spend one paragraph on reason and compassion. Kudos to Nancy Pelosi. I watched two interviews of her on YouTube yesterday. Because she is making the rounds on TV to promote her new book. In both she made a point to talk about how horrible the attack on Trump was. And to thank God he survived it. Pelosi is a known anti-Trumper, who will do whatever it takes - including getting Joe Biden to resign - in order to stop him. So she is setting the right tone. We don't want to be the place where politics is settled with bullets. I have not followed the hearings on the Secret Service closely. But two things seem clear. It is not the hardest thing in the world to kill a POTUS, if you really try. At the very least, the Secret Service makes it much harder. So the last two times it was a close call - Reagan and Trump - at least it was a near miss rather than a direct hit. The second thing that is clear is that this does feel like the Keystone Kops. Both political parties seem to feel the Secret Service screwed up. So the problem with any conspiracy theory is this: how could people who are this disorganized manage to pull off a conspiracy that would work? And, if they were able to pull off a conspiracy like that, wouldn't they have made sure the bullet actually hit where it was supposed to? I've read conspiracy theories about Reagan. The basic theory was that George H.W. Bush and the CIA were behind it. There was a sort of interesting idea about how there was something weird about the bullet that almost killed Reagan. And this idea that maybe it didn't even come out of Hinckley's gun. If you want to go down that rabbit hole, here's an article about the bullet - a "Devastator" - and the doctor who removed it. But the whole idea of that being a conspiracy pretty much never added up. And then there is JFK. Gallup says there has never been a time when the vast majority of Americans did NOT believe there was a conspiracy. I am in the majority on that one. There are so many ways to connect the dots of a conspiracy that it is very hard not to believe something weird was going on. Here's one nice summary of why the CIA and FBI may have had something to do with it. To the degree that there is a smoking gun, other than the actual gun. the whole thing about Col. Byrd is what seemed beyond possible coincidence to me. You have a right wing Texas oil man with ties to the CIA who just happens to own the building Oswald just happened to go to work in right before JFK is killed. I guess the equivalent would be that Nancy Pelosi owned the building the wannabe Trump assassin took the shots from, and that the assassin used to work in the Obama White House. The other thing about JFK is that the CIA and FBI, in that instance, were not like The Keystone Kops. There is a very plausible argument that not only were they capable of putting together a vast conspiracy. But that a conspiracy was actually the best explanation of so many weird coincidences. The part that is not talked about as much that I was drawn to was the Hotel del Charro in La Jolla. It was owned by Clint Murchison, another right wing Texas oil man. And J Edgar Hoover and his partner Clyde were there often, with their bills always comped. As well as various mafia types and Richard Nixon, among others. It proves absolutely nothing. Other than that you had this network of people, starting with the heads of the FBI and CIA (Dulles), who were perfectly capable of killing JFK and covering it up. And who potentially had motivations to do it. With the Trump attempted assassination, there is none of that. Just a bunch of clowns and Keystone Kops. Including ex-Clown In Chief Trump himself, and his so-called doctor whose name he could not even recall.

In other words, they decided to have Hope in America. 😉

The other thing that is clear from early polling is that Walz is wildly popular, as voters get to know him: August 4 - Marist - 17/13 +4 favorable August 6 - YouGov - 32/19 +13 favorable August 7 - RMG Research - 31/25 - +6 favorable August 8 - You Gov - 41/30 - +11 favorable So during this period of time when this is being debated, more people are getting to know Tim Walz. And they like what they see. By comparison, the last polls on 538 on JD Vance from August 5th by Marist show him 35/43 for -8 unfavorable. So now he is about as well known as Walz. 4 in 5 voters have an opinion. They like Walz, and they don't like Vance. Walz has done this incredible job of leaving a trail of loyalty and explanation behind him on three issues, any of which could be fatal to a politician: 1) his decision to leave the military and run for Congress, 2) his handling of the 2020 riots in his state, 3) his loyalty to Joe Biden. I can't find a bigger JPG of that press release Walz put out in 2005. But it was very smart, both at the time and in retrospect. There is a clearer to read version in the Town Hall right wing hit piece I lifted it from. Which is a nice summary of all the reasons the right wing nuts are having an orgasm thinking they "got"Tim Walz. Even though they are just proving how stupid and utterly insensitive they are. Just like when they laughed at how Paul Pelosi was almost murdered. Fucking clueless idiots! It makes perfect sense that in early 2005, when Walz was probably still on the fence, he put it out in public that he wanted to run for Congress, but his unit might be called to service in Iraq. That is what the right wing now wants to relitigate. The bottom line is that the actual order to deploy came much later in 2005, after Walz had clearly resigned. And the actual deployment came in 2006, when Walz was in the heat of his successful run for Congress. In a district I lived in which I know is right of center and very into patriotism. So if you believe Walz abandoned his troops, what you have to believe is that Walz had 0 % right to run for Congress and in 2006 he 100 % had to be in Iraq. No choice. And you also have to believe, as you note, that meanwhile it's 100 % fine for Trump to cop "bone spurs" and JD to be a hillbilly venture capitalist. Only Democrats have to make hard choices! It does make sense to me that some veterans could believe that in a time of war, no military leader should be able to resign - ever. The idea here is that Tim Walz had no moral choice, even though he had served for over two decades. And even though he decided to re-enlist after 9/11 because, like many patriots, he was moved to defend his country from terrorists. But all of this is very extreme and radical. I think very few people believe that military leaders should never be able to resign, like to run for Congress. And that if they do resign they are suddenly traitors. Which is why fellow veterans who don't agree with Walz politically are making a point to defend his service. But what I credit Walz for is he obviously thought that through in early 2005, knowing the kind of district he wanted to win in. So there is no question now about the history. He did it all in public. He talked about it, and he left a paper trail behind. It is probably just dumb luck that Donald Trump is on tape bending over backward to praise how Tim Walz handled the 2020 riots. But Walz had to know that it would be in his interest to not to be the target of Donald Trump's ire at the time. So whatever Walz did, I'd bet money he wanted Donald Trump on his side in that moment. And the same is true for Biden and his staff in the weeks when Biden was being run out of his campaign. I'll post this interview in another thread, but here is Anita Dunn talking about how loyal both Kamala Harris and Tim Walz were to Biden while Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, and Jeffries were forcing him to resign. Walz is a loyal team player, and a very smart one. He earned what he is getting now.

First, if we want to discuss what real service means, we need to ask some very urgent questions. When Donald Trump was serving his nation on January 6th, 2021, by starting a riot, what was he doing minute by minute? At what point, if ever, did he contact his rioters and instruct them, "Do not try to overturn this election"? At what point, if ever, did he contact his rioters and say "Do not hang Mike Pence"? At what point, if ever, did he contact his rioters and instruct them, "Do not kill Nancy Pelosi"? At what point, if ever, did he contact his rioters and tell them, "Stop breaking the bones of cops"? And if Trump did not call his rioters and tell them NOT to kill Pelosi, hang Pence, break the bones of cops, and try to overturn an election, why not? What is his definition of "service" to his nation? If the Raping Felon and Hillbilly Venture Capitalist want to talk about character and "service", let's go! Man who served under Walz says governor retired before unit had deployment news Unfortunately, Donald Trump did not abandon his rioters or their crimes, even when every Congressional Republican they wanted to attack was begging him to do so. Unfortunately, JD Vance has not abandoned his right wing billionaire venture capitalist friends, who want more tax cuts. Regardless, even though JD Vance had the right to retire from his service to Silicon Valley billionaires to run for Congress to get them even more Trump fat cat tax cuts, they want to litigate the minute by minute of how Walz retired after decades of service in the military to run for US House. So let's talk about character and national service. As Tim Walz likes to say, "Come on!" More lies. Walz does not want to take Donald Trump's guns away. When did Donald Trump ever hold a gun in service to his nation? The only thing we know about Trump is his cult would be fine if he killed someone on 5th Ave. And those are the slime ball felon's own words. And extra credit goes to Chris LaCivita, who has gotten rich packaging lies and hate for a raping convicted felon like Trump. These men have the character of slime.

Most important thing, which you forgot. His penis is bigger than hers. (And his ego.) Why am I not surprised that the loser cry baby felon is whining? Poor little rich rapist.

I've never tasted simile, actually. But I assume it tastes way more delicious than bowling pins. 😉 Or rioter flambe. 😲 That's a perfect GIF for his comment, by the way.

Trump praised Walz in 2020 over handling of George Floyd protests I have to imagine the Harris campaign thought through the known vulnerabilities of Walz, as well as Shapiro and Kelly and others. So this is a threefer. First, it underscores that the only time you can't believe what Trump says is when his lips are moving. Second, who was the President when riots were erupting all over America? And who bent over backwards to throw gas on the fire with his hate and divisiveness? Third, who failed to call out the National Guard when he STARTED riots at the US Capitol on January 6th? President Bone Spurs also has JD dredging up more lies to trash Walz's military service. JD Vance, of all people, ought to believe Walz resigned from the military to run for Congress. Since JD left Silicon Valley to run for Senate. And they have more in common. On the Veterans Affairs Committee, Walz was loyal to the veterans he left behind. In Congress, and if elected Veep, JD will be loyal to the right wing venture capitalists seeking tax cuts that he left behind.

He may. Whether he would or would not, I mostly agree with your point. When Harris wins, she should get what she wants while she can. But the idea that she can win these Senate seats in Montana and Ohio, which she needs just to have 50 votes, is a huge question mark. Everything that follows is just interesting details. I have mixed feeling about this part of Obama. Which is to say, I blame some of it on him. He was never really a legislator, in my view. And, if you believe what Harry Reid told him on the fateful day he called young Senator Obama to his office, Reid knew Obama was more of a rock star than a long term legislator like Biden. Whatever Reid or Pelosi thought at the time, it had to work out as well as expected, or better. They got the Presidency for eight years, and they got a lot of stuff done. 2010 sucked. But to again quote someone very smart, David Axelrod says that he knew by 2009 that the economy was going to get so bad that Democrats would get a shellacking in 2010. Which they did. It's the economy, stupid. 2010 was what opened the door for the Tea Party to come in and thrive and fester. And the Tea Party looks charming and quaint compared to the MAGA cult Trump grew. The Victory of ‘No’ A lot of the reporting done at the time is on your side, an example of which is above. The basic idea was that if we Republicans work with the Democratic majority, we will always be the minority. So we have to block them, and make them fail. Arguably, it worked. Republicans were extinct in 2008, until they came roaring back in 2010. Although I think the argument is weak. Democrats did do a lot in 2009 and 2010, because they had the votes. So some would argue they lost badly in 2010 precisely because of what they did. Like Obamacare, which was unpopular at the time. Not because of Republican obstruction. But I agree with Axelrod. It is the economy, stupid. And the price Democrats paid for winning so much in 2008 is that they had to own the economic mess in 2010. Republicans didn't have to do anything other than just wait. So the question is, once the Republicans took back power in 2010 through no fault of Obama and Democrats - who simply inherited the global financial crisis - what could Obama have done to make deals with The Party Of No? Your answer would be, nothing. Which may be true. But, objectively speaking, Clinton and Biden both got things done that Obama did not. So I think you can make a good argument that if Obama viewed his Presidency differently, and were a creature of the Senate like Biden or a Bubba deal maker like Clinton, he might have had more success in a second term. But I recognize you can make a great argument that Mitch McConnell was going to kill anything that could possibly be born under Obama from 2010 to 2016. Here's the irony. If you buy The Gospel Of Allan Lichtman, which I do, "The Victory Of No" did not occur in 2010. It happened in 2016. Again, I think the Democratic shellacking in 2010 was about voters who were pissed about a really bad economy. The reason a red wave did not happen in 2022 and seems very unlikely to happen in 2024 is that we don't have 10 % unemployment and a national foreclosure crisis, like we did in 2010. Prosperity sure sucks, doesn't it? Which is why Lichtman thinks Harris will win. His view of what worked against Clinton in 2016 is she had exactly six keys turned against her. Which was just enough to seal her fate. And one of those six keys was Obama's lack of any real accomplishment in his second term, like Obamacare in his first term. So you can argue that if Obama had made it his single most important priority to make any deal he needed to make to get something big and bipartisan done in his second term - let's say an infrastructure bill like Biden did - that alone would have made Clinton POTUS in 2016. Bridges and roads are inherently popular to Republican House members and Senators. So it's a counterfactual that can't be proved. But I think Lichtman's whole model is based on common sense. It would not have hurt Clinton if she could say that she and Obama were bending over backwards to get stuff like roads and bridges done, even if the Republicans were a hard sell. If you agree with this logic, it means we are both right. But under different circumstances. If Harris manages to win a Senate and House majority, which means a clean sweep of all these difficult Senate seats like Ohio and Montana, Lichtman would agree with you that she absolutely should do whatever it takes to win what she can. So she has a record of victory to run on in 2028. Even if she gets zero Republican votes, like Obama did. But if she does not have a legislative majority, your logic suggests she will have zero policy victories. So what's she gonna do? To me it is just common sense to think that centrist voters will reward her in 2028 if they see her making whatever deals she has to to accomplish things they care about. If instead there are four years of party line votes, all of which she loses when it comes to anything important, it makes sense that she would have a harder time in 2028. Another example of this is Bill Clinton. He was forced to meet in the middle because of 1994 and Gingrich. One very granular point I am not sure I agree with Lichtman on is that he says Clinton had no significant policy achievement in either term. For sure, Hillarycare failed. But at least in my view Bill Clinton was rewarded by voters in 1996 for the fact that he did compromise with Republicans after 1994 and he did get things done. Like that led to a budget surplus. It may be him believing his own bullshit, but the night welfare reform passed Dick Morris said in his book he called President Clinton and said, "Congratulations, Mr. President. You just won re-election." Of course, if that is true, it was because Clinton triangulated in a way that drove liberal Democrats crazy. Regardless, Lichtman predicted Clinton would win in 1996 despite any major policy victory, in part because he was the incumbent. When Gore then ran in 2000, again with no major Democratic policy achievement and also not being an incumbent, he lost. So, again, it's a counterfactual. But you can argue that if Clinton had been able to get something significant and bipartisan done between 1996 and 2000, it would have been enough for Gore to win in 2000. I love my Lichtman. So one final point that again mostly reinforces you are correct. Lichtman has predicted 11 elections in advance, starting in 1984, if we include his likely prediction that Harris will win. In only 4 of those elections did he give the party in power the "major policy change" key: Reagan in 1984, Obama in 2012, Trump in 2020, and now Harris in 2024. (Meaning, they could all run on a policy accomplishment made in the last four years.) Again, do we really believe there was no major policy change in the US from 1984 to 2012? Not sure. But if we go with Lichtman, the only one of those 4 major policy changes that were bipartisan in any way was Reaganomics after his 1980 landslide win. And that required a Republican Senate majority and being able to muscle down on Southern Democrats in the House whose constituents voted for Reagan, or supported his tax cut ideas. So it speaks to your point. Harris will not win in a landslide. And if she wants to do something like raise taxes on the rich to help the middle class, or reform SCOTUS, or Voting Rights, DC statehood, or anything else on your list, she's unlikely to be able to pressure any Republicans to agree, like Reagan could. So she should get it while she can.

60. If we are talking a functional majority. But 57 Democrats, technically. Add two Independents that voted Democratic and Arlen Spector who flipped to Democratic, providing a brief 60 vote supermajority. Recall that Ted Kennedy's death and his replacement by Scott Brown almost derailed Obamacare, because of the 60 votes. You are being slightly unfair to Obama. A friend of mine who was a CEO had met most Presidents. Either because of the work he did, or because he happened to live in Iowa where it is all very retail - or was. More than anyone else I know, he's the guy I view as a true Independent (voted for Bush, Bush, Obama, Romney, Clinton, Biden) and also an early warning system. By no later than March 2009 he was apoplectic that Obama had promised to bring people together, and unify. But he turned out to be just another partisan hack. We had many debates about that. But his perception that Obama promised to be a unifier and failed to deliver is a broadly shared verdict. So, yes. One way to look at it, 16 years later, is if Harris has 50 votes (with no Manchin or Sinema, plus Walz) and a House majority she should get rid of the filibuster and get anything she really wants as fast as she can. Then prepare for two things: America probably won't like it, and may react badly in 2026. And Republicans will do the same the first chance they get. There is something else about Obama you didn't mention, but should. He was the guy who said the "fever will break" after some election or another. Well, we're still waiting. Trump just took "the fever" and turned it into what about half of America sees as a plague. I don't think there is any getting around it, as long as it lasts. Steve Kornacki on MSNBC did an excellent factual take down of Walz yesterday. Specifically, about all the talk about how Walz maybe helps with red America. One small problem is there is absolutely no evidence of that in 2018 or 2022, when he was elected Guv. Walz ran up huge majorities in the Twin Cities, and got clobbered everywhere else. Including in his old Congressional district in southern Minnesota, which I know well since I went to college there. He's an excellent poster child. Since you have two versions of the same guy. When he was a moderate US Rep with an A rating from the NRA, he did just fine in a slightly right of center House district. But as a progressive Guv, he lost the love. The lesson I take from that is that if Kamala Harris really wanted to send a signal, she might have chosen Mark Kelly. Better still, choose Joe Manchin. That matters in terms of your point. If Democrats want to win 60 Senate seats, the facts suggest they will have to moderate. That may be happening, organically. I liked Cori Bush. But she was objectively extreme, just like JD Vance is. Now Cori Bush is history. So the Democrats are cleaning house in a way Republicans are not. And I say that as a progressive who wants someone like Claire McCaskill to be able to win in a state like Missouri again. One would hope, in theory, that voters in Missouri would not think that it is radical to have paid family leave. Or have fewer White children that are hungry or poor. But, again, there is no evidence that actually helped make Tim Walz more lovable in rural Minnesota. If anything, it just helped brand him as one of those radicals. I actually think the best model we have is Joe Biden. And, had he been a decade younger, he would have run for re-election and won. He won some big compromise victories on things that really matter. So whether Harris has 48 Senate votes or 50, that is probably the best model for now. Walz can only help, especially in winning House seats and working them for votes if there is a Democratic majority. Two long terms ideas of what solves the problem you are identifying. Which is THE problem. My theory is that Obama may eventually prove to be right. If Trump loses in 2024, one can at least hope that Republicans will finally realize he led them to a dead end. I mean, it does seem so simple. He won once, barely. And we got tax cuts for the rich, a close call on making health care much worse, a 30 % murder spike, and repealing Roe v. Wade. That's not an agenda most Americans long for more of. Then he lost in 2018, 2020, 2022, and presumably 2024. And Trump himself is just old and senile. Is there really no hope for the Grand Old Party? My oldest nephew has a theory that is a bit more brutal, but perhaps true. Old people just have to "age out". Demographically, he is correct. He is Gen X. And the MAGA crowd, who he finds distasteful even though he is slightly right of center, is heavily focused on Baby Boomers and Gen X. If the only people who voted were Millennials and Zoomers, Harris/Walz would win in a landslide. So as Trump and his cohort age, my nephew is probably right. But it's going to take a long time. The good news is I never bought Trump's bullshit that somehow young voters and Blacks and Hispanics are falling in love with MAGA. Some Blacks and Hispanics, like Tim Scott and Marco Rubio, are conservative. And always have been, And now they are at home in a Republican Party that used to exclude them. I'm happy for them. But it is also now clear that Kamala Harris will crush Trump among voters who are younger and not White. So I think eventually the problem will solve itself. And in the meantime Democrats should be able to at least cobble together narrow majorities and compromise victories.

As much as I would hope to be the oldest and wisest whore in the room, we still have to deal with political whores like Sean Trende and Allan Lichtman. Lichtman, having just won some senior Olympics race in Maryland, is for sure older and wiser. Kamala Harris' Puzzling VP Pick by Sean Trende Sean probably answered his own question. If Rule #1 is do no harm, Walz probably objectively made the most sense. There were strong voices inside the Democratic Party that did not particularly like Kelly (unions) or Shapiro (the Gaza crowd, and John Fetterman, loudly). Walz just continues the love fest. Just on a tactical campaign level, I can't wait for Walz or Harris to ask Trump or the Couch Potato what is so right about a 30 % murder spike under Trump, and a 20 % murder decline under Biden/Harris. I mean, if the issue is violent protests in 2020 - THAT HAPPENED WHILE TRUMP FROZE AS PRESIDENT AND PRESIDED OVER A REIGN OF MURDER, BLOOD, GUNS, AND HATE - wouldn't Trump and his do nothing but get rich Couch Potato be happy that the prosecutor helped reverse the gushing flow of murder and blood and horror and hate that Trump brought to America, lovingly and with joy, in 2020? Coach Walz will say it almost that bluntly. If Trump wants to talk about what happened in the Summer of 2020, I don't think people liked him much then. What am I forgetting? Meanwhile, reading Sean Trende reminded me of Lichtman. Who is ranting about how whoever Trump or Harris picked as Veep makes absolutely no difference to the final outcome. Which I am 95 % sure will mean Lichtman predicts later this month (after the DNC) that Harris will win. Lichtman also keeps saying that where the Veep does matter greatly is something Sean Trende doesn't even mention: that, somehow, elections have something to do with actual governing. Who knew? What a weird idea! 😉 Now that it has had a day to sink in, and I saw The Philadelphia Story on the big screen last night, I think Walz makes even more sense from a governing perspective. The thing Shapiro, Kelly, and Walz all had is a record of being White men who were able to reach across the aisle. And a belief in "One Minnesota" or "One America" where we are all neighbors. Trump will say that's bullshit. But with any of the three that just makes it clear that Trump is for divide and conquer, which is all he's good at. Except he still loses. Poor mess of a weird thing. What Walz has that is unique to him is both an actual relationship with senior and powerful House members he served with, and a track record that is a model for some of what Harris plans to do. What is it about supporting parents with paid family leave or having kids not be hungry or poor that is radical? And when they say that's not the issue, the issue is that you are for crime and chaos, that leads us right back to Trump's very unique 30 % murder spike. Not to mention all the blood and horror and hate he spewed in Summer 2020. We know Walz knows how to say, "Come on!" This is going to be fun. Trende doesn't seem to think governing matters. Lichtman does, which is why he is likely about to predict Harris and Walz will win. I'm lovin it.

Well, two positive things I can say. One, I am neither as old nor as senile as Trump. Two, when I first read a book on male escorting, written by a male escort, I was 40 years old. And the book said that with plastic surgery a male escort can have a shelf life as old as 40 years these days. Since I had just started escorting, that did not seem to bode well for me. Anyways, I had a great run that lasted well over a decade, and I left escorting on my own terms. On what was Bill's site, I had close to 100 perfect reviews. And I made some very nice money, and some very nice friends. Some of my friends, who are not particularly young, still escort and still enjoy it. Others hire escorts, but not me, and still enjoy it. So if this is a tender and sensitive age joke - making fun of people's age on a site like this is of course ALWAYS funny and tasteful ha ha ha ROTFL - I don't think the joke's on me. 😉

Two points related to this: why Harris picked Walz, and perceptions of Israel among Democrats. My takeaway is the main reason Harris picked Walz and not Shapiro came down to one word: "loyal". To add a second word, it is proven loyalty. Democratic House members said we know Walz and he is a team player. We like this guy. He can help us win. Democratic Governors said Walz is a team player. We like this guy. One article pointed out that Walz was one of the few Governors who defended Biden when he was under fire. So the Biden people think of him as "loyal". It's interesting that the two people who rose to replace Biden - Harris and Walz - were conspicuous about defending Biden until the moment that Biden gave up. For that matter, I'll add [name any prominent Black Democrat, like Rev. Al] to the list. For days on TV when Biden was being publicly called on to resign Black talking heads like Rev. Al and Bakari Sellers and Van Jones defended him on MSNBC and CNN. Probably knowing that when Biden fell Harris would benefit. It was a shrewd play, I think. The other interesting and arguably unfair thing that was present but somewhat muted yesterday was the perception, it seems like among some Jews based on online chatter, that Shapiro was perhaps the victim of anti-Semitism. Walz, who seems to view Israel the same, and has a picture of him embracing Netanyahu floating around online, was not tagged with being in the middle of that whole thing. Shapiro was. The quote I read several times from some anonymous source in the Harris campaign was that no one wanted to open the door to a debate about Gaza. It's toxic, and divisive. Let's talk about kids, paid family leave, and health care instead. Again, arguably that is unfair to Shapiro. But it speaks to a real and deep conflict in the Democratic coalition. Older Democrats, like me, are Clintonians who grew up seeing Israel as this scrappy underdog that was surrounded by people out to get them, with The Holocaust always looming in the background. Younger Democrats see Bibi The Butcher, genocide, and a fanatical right wing country that keeps electing a butcher who seemingly loves to kill Muslim women and children. Period. "What part of genocide do you not get?" is how many of them feel. The polls make that clear. And those young people are going to be the majority some day. I'm not defending either position. My point is that Democratic Jews are going to have an increasingly hard time wanting to thread the needle of being for Israel but against what the government of Israel keeps doing. Because the people of Israel elect them to do it. And there's nothing anti-Semitic about it. Chuck Schumer is not anti-Semitic. Nor is Bernie Sanders. And they are the ones calling it out publicly. It's a problem that is clearly going to fester as long as Israel keeps doing what it is doing. Even if what they are doing is a response to a bloodbath against Israeli Jews. I also love how the Republicans suggest maybe Kamala Harris is anti-Semitic. What faith is her hubby? And how many Republican Jewish Senators are there ? (Answer: none. There are nine Jewish Democratic Senators.) The point about American Muslims makes sense. They may not like what Biden says or does. But the alternative is what they would likely see as their worst nightmare: just go ahead and blow the fuck out of Gaza

Both can be true. This shit happens. Just listen to my sister testify.

And Vox took the truth and ran with it. Asking a logical enough question: why would it be so easy to think such rumors are true? J.D. Vance didn’t have sex with a couch. But he’s still extremely weird. The rumors were easy to believe, especially when the potential VP has such terrible ideas about sex. There was another great 2Way chat with Mark Halperin tonight in which a theory came up about Tim Walz. Alex Castellanos, the Republican political hack I have cited in posts, said some candidates are Teflon and some are Velcro. He suggested that, watching Walz at that rally tonight, Walz may have a coat of Teflon. He hunts, he fishes, he smiles, he laughs, he hugs kids who hug him when he signs a bill giving them free lunches. Meanwhile, JD says women without kids suck. And women with abusive husbands need to man up. Too early to tell. But Walz may be the Teflon candidate, and JD may be the Velcro one.

https://www.facebook.com/GovTimWalz/videos/393678466713436 When he was in the US House, Walz represented the district I went to college in. Northfield, MN is a liberal enclave with two liberal arts colleges in an otherwise red part of Minnesota. I was a student there when the only other Democrat House member elected in a century, Tim Penny, flipped the seat. Much like Walz did, by knowing how to play to the center and connect to rural and small town America. I remember back in my college days going door knocking for my college professor Paul Wellstone in the first campaign he lost, for State Auditor. A conversation I will never forget is knocking on the door of some Gay guy with AIDS in an apartment building. This was the 1980's, back when AIDS was a death sentence. He basically said something like, "I could give a shit about your candidate. I am Gay man and I have AIDS and no politician gives a shit about me." So I told him Paul supported LGBTQ rights, blah blah blah, which he eventually did as a US Senator. Walz is already being attacked as a "radical", basically because he stands up to bullies. This shows how much has changed. And how much political leadership makes a difference. Nancy Pelosi and the Ryan White Act. Joe Biden and being one of the political leaders in the forefront on same sex marriage, who made it the law of the land on his watch. I'm a Californian who went to college in Minnesota. I could not be more proud of these two leaders, and how they have our back. And speaking of rural and small town America: Why Pelosi and other House Dems were privately pushing Walz I was leaning to the idea that Shapiro was probably the best choice. Because it would have made a statement about moderation. And it would have helped Pennsylvania. But now that I know about him, Walz seems like a bigger bet with a potentially bigger reward. Especially if I imagine Walz can help candidates in swing states and swing House districts, which they apparently think he can. He knows the House, he is respected in the House, and a Harris/Walz team - if elected with a Democratic House and Senate - could get a lot of shit done. This will be an epic and good fight for the future.

In terms of these labels like "radical" and "socialist", I think we're already getting a glimpse of how shallow and ineffective they will ultimately be. Just like they were with Obama. If you watched the Kamala/Tim show in Philly, you heard this already. I think this may have been Walz's best applause line at the rally: How radical is that? 😉 One thing Walz said three times, in complimenting Harris, is "joy". He talked about how Harris fights for what she believes in with joy. As does he. I think he is showing off his well earned emotional intelligence. I feel the same way about both of them. And I think that conveys itself to people, and will help them. Team Raping Felon will of course give it their best shot, as Mr. Rich Felon and Mr. Silicon Valley Hypocrite argue that they stand for Middle America and its values. But I think it is all bullshit. Even Ohio voters knew when, when Hillbilly Bullshitter dramatically underperformed just about every other Ohio Republican. And I am increasingly confident the bullshit and lies and hate and filth and sex scandals and tax cuts to billionaires and bullying and cruelty and meanness and just abhorrent weird creepy shit that is everything Trump stands for is going to be flushed down the toilet, where shit belongs to go. There is a lot to be said for joy!

Why Tim Walz Was the Guy Another great article on why Walz was picked. There's another phrase that has been used by a few smart political operatives that makes sense: "work horse versus show horse." Instead of gradually learning Walz is a socialist, to the degree that people even give a shit about him what they will probably learn is that, like Shapiro, he cares about getting shit done. It matters that Walz heads the Democratic Governors Association. And that he flipped a rural centrist Congressional seat blue. And that he actually could get popular left-of-center laws passed involving things like education, health care, family leave, abortion rights. This is what a party that is NOT focused on a personality, but instead is focused on winning and governing, actually does.

Of course, to comment on my own post, why am I not surprised Newt Gingrich does not agree? Hope apparently does spring eternal with Gingrich. He was a real somebody in 1994! So he can keep calling Harris and Walz "radical" all he wants. Walz won by 54 % in 2018 and 53 % of the vote in 2018. How radical is that? By comparison, the former Democratic Guv Mark Dayton, who was a scion of a rich liberal Minnesota family, won by 44 % in 2010 and 50 % in 2018. Minnesota has been accurately described as Iowa, with the Twin Cities - which is what makes it blue. So Walz has been battle tested. And survey says he is not radical. This does set the tone for the election, I think. Democrats have to do one extremely difficult thing. They have to open their mouths and tell voters what they believe from the bottom of their hearts. Meanwhile, Trump and Vance have a very easy job. They just have to lie, rape, steal, and break laws. Lies are not lies. It is Donald Trump being regal and explaining the truth to us morons. Rape is not rape. It is Donald Trump being kind enough to fuck America. Stealing is not stealing. It is just Donald Trump letting Mike Pence have fun being hung for once. And Republicans who break laws are just standing up for law and order. I will happily vote in a way that I really never have before. It will be like flushing the toilet of all this nasty hate, shit, and bile that Trump brought to America. It's time to clean out the asshole.

Hope slings eternal? 😉

I think Tim Walz just solved the label problem. What a monster! I'm lovin it!

Or not. I love the pick! I'm of course the guy that communicates in longs blocks of boring text. I'm no Tim Walz. But it sounds like part of the reason he was picked is he lit up the internet as the old White guy calling Republicans "weird". And roasting how they are mean bullies who love tax cuts for billionaires and punish and scapegoat queers and have nots. Jab those hypocrites, rapists, and felons with your pitchfork, Tim! And how could you NOT love this guy? I think his appeal is he's the anti-JD Vance and anti-Donald Trump. He did things that are real, and that people really care about. He is a real person who speaks like a real person. I think what stands out to me is that I am very proud of my party, the Democrats. First, they got the old White guy, Biden, out of the way. He needed to go. Second, they let the dynamic Black woman rise. The base of the party loves it, and Harris is leading Trump by 2 points in the 538 average! Third, this decision process speaks well for Harris. She got lots of heavy hitters to vet, think through, and interview the finalists, then met with them. If the reporting is correct, Shapiro had reservations about giving up his job, which he is basically pretty new at. Walz has been Guv for six years, has a great record, is an excellent communicator, and does have the Biden appeal to old White guys. And probably is the most progressive on lots of issues. And the state and style are very Midwest: Wisconsin, Michigan, western Pennsylvania. If there is a downside to this it is the path of least resistance choice. Since no one disliked him the way some people disliked Shapiro (Jewish/Israel) or Kelly (not strong enough on unions). But frankly that's okay. Because Walz could be POTUS, and so he should stand for the ideals and values of his party. He does. I'm lovin it!