stevenkesslar

You're so predictable in your totally one-sided MAGAVerse view of the world. When I wrote that, and conceded that Pelosi manipulated a Committee the way both Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders often manipulate Committees, I had a hunch you'd do exactly what you did. Any attempt to look at it both ways will always be taken and crushed by a MAGA zealot. Because there can always and only be one truth. The Trump Truth. And one glorious MAGA worldview. So OF COURSE Pelosi sucks. OF COURSE she is the Wicked Witch. OF COURSE she is the unique embodiment of Congressional evil. And Hollywood evil, too!!!! OF COUSE no one else could do something as evil to a Committee as what that evil witch did. Nothing else matters. There is no other side. Problem is, I just don't see Trump as Dorothy. He's more like The Wizard Of Oz. The pathetic liar behind the curtain. Oh well. Thanks for being so predictable. And boring. 😉

From the clown who just lies all the time To his folks who beat cops with Trump signs To the scene where the judge is so mean That's megalomania! He grabs for the lady in tights So she sues although she has no rights He's a dream of a rapist it seems That's megalomania! The plot can be hot simply teeming with sex A Straight divorcee who grabs pussy no less It could be Ron DeSantis And if Trump killed a follower, why would MAGA be bothered? The Veep who we learn is a creep From his boss who was thrown for a loss By Biden, who we know is lyin The world is a stage, the stage is a world of megalomania!

Two points. I guess you haven't spent much time around Congress. I've spent lots of time in House and Senate committee hearings. This is par for the course. Grassley engineered who did and did not get to testify with Dr. Ford. Why would anyone think of getting the other guy supposedly in the room when the assault occurred to testify? McConnell said we can't confirm Garland because it's an election year. He then said we can confirm ACB because it's an election year. What Pelosi did falls in the same category. I support what Pelosi did in this case. Because it's clear that the MAGAverse clones would have just spent the whole time telling MAGAverse lies. MAGAzens were free to tune The Pelosi Show out. Which they did. Everything outside the MAGAverse is fake. And truth only exists in the MAGAverse. Which leads to my second point. Trump says he will seek a recusal, venue change in Jan. 6 case So when it's a Trump-appointed judge in a red place like Florida, it's fair. When it's an Obama-appointed judge in a blue place like DC, it's the height of injustice. Truth is what Trump says it is. Fairness is what Trump wants: power and money. Everything else is shit. As true and loyal MAGAzens have been trained to believe. One of my brothers, who voted for Trump in 2016, has a great word for this: megalomaniac. I think I heard him call Trump a "megalomaniac" at least a dozen times in 2020. He was proud he voted for Joe Biden. So just be careful. Since you really do have a distorted view of life outside the MAGAverse, where most people live. My brother is a perfect example. He can't tell you who he voted for for POTUS in most elections. Although he really liked John McCain. So he's not particularly political. When I asked him if he had only voted on the economy in 2020, who would he have voted for? He immediately said Trump, because his retirement account went up a lot. But all the lies and megalomania deeply disturbed him. He can't tell you most people he voted for. But he was proud to vote against Trump. For some strange reason, that is what Trump and his lies and megalomania do to most people. So don't be surprised when the whining loser loses for a third time in a row in 2024 But then, of course, it will be because everything is always rigged against him.

Dude. You guys are way too patient and way too nice. "Biden" and "Stalin" are both two syllable words that end in "n." "Mao" and "Joe" and "Xi" are all one syllable words that end in evil, Communism, and mass death. Stalin deliberately killed 6 million people. Mao killed 40 to 80 million people through starvation and persecution. These evil Communists getting Trump out of the way by putting him in jail is just the beginning. What do you guys think Joe and Xi have in mind when the true nature of the Biden Crime Family is exposed? Do you really believe they will let it be exposed? Not even a great leader like Trump can prevent it, I fear.

And thank you for helping me to understand why people in the MAGAverse are always so angry. Everything is always the opposite of what it is, and what you want it to be. It must be wretched. I feel for you guys. I mean, let's take the Biden crime family. It's so obvious that Biden took a $5 million bribe from Chinese fraudsters to get the FBI and Crooked Joe's buddy Xi to arrest them. He even put the $5 million bribe on his taxes. And yet, somehow, a majority of Americans actually buy this idea that Trump tried to steal the 2020 election. Which is clearly a fabricated distraction. And yet Trump is the one who keeps being indicted. WTF? It must enrage the good citizens of the MAGAverse. And you guys are patient. Frankly, it's the kind of tyrannical bullshit that would make me think about wanting to bust open the head of some cop at The Capitol. Speaking of saying nasty things, I do have to say that Trump warned you guys, fair and square. He said point blank that in the MAGAverse I can shoot someone, and get away with it. So the point we are at now, to complete the analogy, is that he did shoot someone. And when it is pointed out that before he shot them, he said, "I can shoot them and get away with," the good citizens of the upside down MAGAverse are arguing there can be no crime. Because Trump can say whatever he wants. The fact that he shot someone is absolved by the fact that he said he way going to do it. So if these things - like the law - frustrate you deeply, which they obviously do, you only have Trump and yourselves to blame. Precisely. Of course Trump has the right to lie about how he won the election. Of course he can believe he was the greatest President ever. And that every woman in America wishes they'd be so lucky as to be raped or grabbed in the pussy by him. That's just free speech. And the more freely he speaks, the more he repels the majority of Americans. So please, Donald, keep speaking. Tell us what you really think. But it sure has to be a bitch. For those of us outside the MAGA fun house, there is no evidence of Joe Biden taking a $5 million bribe. But there is evidence on Page 2 of the indictment that Jack Smith says right out of the gate that Trump has the right to lie all he wants about the 2020 election. As well as most other things. It's when he uses those lies with intent to steal an election that his lies become an issue. Just like his speech becomes an issue when he actually does kill someone on Fifth Avenue. It has to be a total fucking bitch that everything is the opposite of what it seems to be in the MAGAverse. My sense from the polls is that most Americans, even though we are not all lawyers, actually get these distinctions. Asked whether a given anti-democracy Trump fuck up is criminal, or simply unethical, I think the biggest majority see Mar A Lago as criminal. Because that indictment is very detailed and very specific about how he lied and covered up. Alan Derschowitz is correct that the potential weakness of this particular indictment (it's getting hard to keep track) is the absence of an undeniably smoking gun. Based on what we know so far. "I just want to find 11,780 votes." Hmmm. What could that mean? Maybe Trump intended to coronate Joe Biden as The Big Guy who runs The Crime Family Of The Year. So he was just grubbing for votes in Georgia to give Crooked Joe the respect he deserves. That must be it. Then again, if we just put aside alternative facts, a jury could take it to mean he specifically intended to get Republicans in Georgia to steal the Georgia election for him. Crazy idea, I know. But these suckers that have been duped into ignoring the $5 million bribe Crooked Joe reported on his taxes are going to disappoint you every time. So just get ready. I'm so sorry life is so complicated for you. And that it leaves so many in the MAGAverse feeling enraged. Oops! There I go again. Lying leftists and their GIFs! They'll even try to turn a patriotic cop beating into a crime. Ugh!

Which is why the stuff about Alabama - Space Force, infrastructure - actually matters. It could be what gets Biden elected. One of the arguments Lichtman makes about why Trump lost in 2020 is that Trump actually wasn't interested in governing. And wasn't very good at it. As someone who despises Trump, I'd argue that is a bit harsh. The keys that COVID swung against Trump in Lichtman's theory are the two economy keys. But any other POTUS would have had the same problem when a once in a century virus hit. Trump knew that. Woodward or someone quoted him as saying privately, "God damn virus!" Even while he was publicly dismissing the threat. What particularly hurt Trump, if I go by the reactions of my two centrist brothers, one of whom voted for Trump in 2016, was his perceived incompetence in managing COVID. Unemployment Rate+Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items in U.S. City Average I didn't realize until today that the Fed actually tracks the misery index. I read that in an article about how Biden is getting no credit for an improving economy. But the misery index is now lower than in November 2020, when Biden was elected. My broken record theory about how Trump "somehow wins" is that Biden is running in the middle of a recession. The most recent example of how that works is 2020. You can see from that chart that Trump was riding a very low misery index, which he inherited from Obama. But for COVID and the recession it caused, he probably would have won in 2020. That said, the last time a POTUS ran for re-election in a recession and won was Truman in 1948. And it is not unlike 2024. There was 20 % post-WWII inflation that makes today look mild by comparison. Democrats were brutally punished for it in 1946. But by 1948 the inflation had abated. And the recession, which pretty much started around election day, was mild. I'd argue the MAGAverse fun show of 2023 makes the "Do Nothing Congress" of 1947 look like a paragon of governance by comparison. So Biden's path to victory is a misery index of 6 % or so. Which may be in reach. But a brutal recession coming soon to a state near you is Trump's best hope of winning. So I think Biden is doing the right thing. Focus on what he got done in Alabama. And what he wants to do to finish the job. He will still be punished if people think "finishing the job" means going from inflation to recession. But if it means going to a misery index of 6 %, especially low inflation, they'll probably go for for more years. If the alternative is four more years of MAGAverse and McCarthyism, it doesn't really leave much choice.

Or ............. 7 years of "Lock Her Up" got them a Republican victory in 2016. I don't completely buy that. Alan Lichtman correctly predicted Trump would win, based on his Keys, in Fall 2016. "Lock Her Up" had nothing to do with it, he argued. What did hurt Hillary was that she was not the incumbent. If I were to add "Crooked Hillary" as a factor, it would be The Second Coming Of Comey" in late October. Clinton herself blames her loss partly on that. And why do we think the FBI is in the tank for Democrats, again? Yet one more aspect of the MAGAverse fun show that makes no sense whatsoever. So that seems to be the aspiration. They want to make 2024 about Crooked Joe. Big problem as I see it is that the argument about the Trump Crime Family is simple. Trump is a criminal. Twice impeached, thrice indicted. The argument about the Clinton Crime Family was about Bill and Hillary Clinton. Bill was impeached. Hillary had Jim Comey up her ass. The argument about Joe Biden being a criminal is that Hunter Biden is his son. Having a fucked up son is a tragedy. But it is not a crime.

To me what really needs to be investigated is this: why does Hunter Biden have so many stupid business associates? Part of it is that all these people Comer and the MAGAverse are using to build their Biden Crime Family theory are either criminal or creepy fraudsters themselves. The Burisma guy, the corrupt China dudes, Archer, and of course Ghouliani and Trump himself. Pot, meet kettle. But they're also just plain fucking stupid. What was most interesting to me about the leaked FBI memo was that the head of Burisma said Hunter Biden, his board member, is stupid. Which is pretty obvious, even to Hunter's Mom and Dad. But then why the fuck did Burisma want him on the board, and pay him so much for the illusion of influence? Stupid. And, yeah. I know. Joe Biden publicly bragged, "I am a criminal. I got the good guy who was investigating Burisma fired. And Burisma paid me $5 million to do it. It's right there in my taxes. Which, unlike Trump, I disclosed. And I also bribed or extorted all kinds of EU leaders and Ukrainian reformers to pretend the good Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt. So I could fire him for being a good guy. And now I am publicly disclosing that I am a criminal who took a $5 million bribe. Ain't I smart?" I mean, the MAGAverse can keep doing their Alice In Wonderland schtick and pretend that everything is the opposite of what it is. It's fun to laugh at. But, sorry. You have to be pretty stupid to believe Joe Biden is that stupid. Part of what is interesting about this is we are getting a master class on how the family members of so many powerful politicians (let's say Ivanka Trump, or Jared Kushner) peddle their influence legally. And get away with it. But why single out Hunter Biden? Text messages given to FBI: Chinese wanted Biden family name to help acquire U.S. energy assets To me that is proof of concept about how Hunter Biden is surrounded by terribly stupid business associates. At least with Burisma you can try to make a crackpot case that Joe Biden publicly admitted to being corrupt. With CEFC what ended up happening, as that story outlines, is the rich China dudes Hunter was peddling influence with ended up under arrest. So the argument with Ukraine is that Burisma allegedly paid Joe Biden to get an honest prosecutor fired, who everybody else in Ukraine and the EU happened to mistakenly think was corrupt. So what was Joe Biden paid to do in China? Get a rich guy paying him placed under house arrest by his buddy Xi? Get his buddies at the FBI to arrest the guy paying him, for bribery and money laundering? That's a good one! Hunter Biden's business associates have to be really fucking stupid if they are paying money to get Joe Biden to arrest them. And people in the MAGAverse have to be a little bit less intelligent than Hunter's business associates to believe this completely illogical bullshit.

The three you mention - Scott, Haley, Ramaswamy - are interesting. Two of them are ones I hope, as a Democrat, the Republicans might nominate in the future. Why? So we can get back to normal, after the Trump MAGAverse goes away. But I don't think any of them have a prayer in 2024. Part of what's interesting and sad is that if you turn the GOP primary into a gutter, of course anybody who jumps in gets shit all over them. Rich Lowry's article on Ramaswamy nailed it. He's a smart guy and a great communicator who is charismatic. And who has no business running for President. Lowry says Vivek's "political message was created in a lab" and in many ways is more pro-Trump than Trump. Check. What's interesting is that of the three people of color, this is the guy who is taking off. Why? I think he tells old white MAGA folks what they want to hear. Like if we just prayed more, and there was less of this Gay or Tranny or CRT shit, we could get back to a more Trump-like America based on values. 🤪 Old White MAGA people like hearing that from young charismatic Indian Americans. If it sounds like I don't have much respect for Ramaswamy, you are right. The other two I view as part of the Michael Steele political project. Which happened after Democrats nominated and elected Obama and the pre-Trump Republican Party tried to adapt. So the one thing I'll mention about Haley, in that context, is that she's the one who took the Confederate flag down after a horrible moment in her state's history. Some Never Trump Republican argued she's one of the few people to come out of the Trump Administration with her reputation and integrity intact. I buy that. The way I think about Tim Scott is that if the vision of the GOP is to promote a multi-racial Main Street capitalism that makes America thrive, he's the guy to do it. Here's a few reasons I like Tim Scott. When Corey Booker was asked what he thinks of Tim Scott, he said "I love him." He'd show up on Trevor Noah and say he doesn't hold any punches when it comes to race. Which he demonstrated is true, including with Trump. He talks about how he wants an America where we have each other's backs again. The sad thing to watch about Scott is that the longer the race goes on, the more Trumpy he gets. Which is understandable, since the GOP primary is The Trump MAGAVerse Show. So now Scott says it is a privilege to be attacked by Obama. And Obama got that whole race thing wrong. And Democrats use race to control Blacks, who I guess still vote Democratic anyway. It feels like what happens when principled men pander. And Ramaswamy is still the one the MAGAverse is swooning over. Because they really only want to be told what they want to hear. 2024 is just gonna be a gutter show, where everyone is slimed with shit. For a real Republican primary, try next time. Maybe 2028.

This second post is actually going to be about Alabama. But let me preface it with what David Geffen said in 2008. In explaining why he was backing Obama, Geffen said that all politicians lie. But the Clintons bring lying to a new level, he said. This thread confirms Crooked Hillary is a rookie. And Trump has brought lying to a new level. At least in the MAGAverse. I don't think it's that if you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth. I think it's more like if you simply lie all the time, some people will believe whatever you say. At least in the MAGAverse. There's the big lie about the 2020 election, of course. And the Jubilant Patriotic Cop Beating. There's the Trump-appointed US Attorney who somehow covered up for the Biden Crime Family. Until a whistle blower, who was obviously right, explained how the Trump-appointed special prosecutor was simply denied the right to prosecute the Biden Crime Family. Until the Trump-appointed special prosecutor said the whistle blower was wrong, and he did exactly what he wanted to do. But somehow the Trump-appointed US Attorney is still covering up for the Biden crime family. In fairness, how could anyone expect the good people of Alabama to sort out things like where Space Force or infrastructure appropriations fit in the upside down and inside out MAGAverse? Funny how Sen. Britt forgot to comment on how Tuberville is fucking up military force readiness and national security by blocking military appointments and promotions. Oh, right. That's the truth. We don't do that So it just flows that Trumpy Republicans argue the crux of this whole Space Force thing is that the Biden Crime Family, in addition to obviously being criminal, is also partisan. Damn! That's even worse. That's the per capita breakdown of where infrastructure money is going under the Biden Crime Family. In a nutshell, if you're a red state you probably get more per capita;. If you're a blue state, which voted the Biden Crime Family in, you probably get less. The crime is that the Biden Crime Family is actually being bipartisan. Ugh! Infrastructure Bill: Funding by State That article has a handy graphic where you can see how much currently goes to your state, per capita. So California gets $1,127 per capita New York gets $1,333 per capita Alabama gets $1,387 per capita it's a crime, ain't it? Let's just hope Joe Biden doesn't ask Tuberville "How's the weather?" at those Alabama ground breakings. That's now an impeachable offense! 😜

Actually, that's almost correct. Your statement about shakedowns works as long as you exclude countries that harvest organs from young adults who are minorities (China/Ivanka/fashion trademarks!!!!), or countries that use bone saws to kill Americans (Jared/Saudi Arabia/$2 billion slush fund). Other than that, you are absolutely correct. Jared Kushner raised $2B from Saudi prince MBS Affinity Partners raised funds six months after Kushner left White House Ivanka’s Trademark Requests Were Fast-Tracked In China After Trump Was Elected

I agree. I refer to Bush 41's war as "Desert Storm." The salient point there is what I think is still called the Powell Doctrine. Have defined objectives. Get in. Get out. We did. We won. To me the Bush 43 War, what I call the Iraq war, was total folly. When I'd argue with people about it I would use some quote or part of an essay from Bush 41, in the context of defending why he did NOT go to Baghdad. Everything Bush 41 predicted could go wrong did go wrong under Bush 43. I think there were four points. We'd get bogged down in a quagmire. It would split our allies. It would divide America. It would unite our opponents, especially Iran at the time. All turned out to be true. This is actually where I would differ a bit with Mearsheimer. Watching his speech I posted above (to some centrist DC think tank) is the first time I really rethought how I have felt since the war started. I think he's just right, from a military perspective, that time and the odds are on Putin's side. If Putin's objective is in fact to take over some or all Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine. I think Mearsheimer biggest thing really is that this is wrecking Ukraine. Which is what we don't want, and which was avoidable. He'd be the first one to say, "But, we are where we are." What I think he may underestimate is all Bush 41's points. This is unifying NATO. This is turning the world against Russia, and to some degree China. Even though much of the world wants to stay neutral, understandably. This is going to be a quagmire for Putin, even and especially if he can swallow a big chunk of Ukraine. The biggest problem for the US is this could also eventually split America. Since the Trump/MAGA folks want to cut a deal with Putin so Ukraine is not our problem. On my list of what would cause Vlad to actually use tactical nukes, not bluster, #1 would be to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. My logic goes like this. He did write a love letter to Ukraine. Which I think can be read as a plea to not turn Ukraine into an anti-Russia neighbor. But when push came to shove, all bluster and rhetoric aside, he decided that it made sense to just start slaughtering Ukrainian children like pigs, anyway. That's not bluster. So it suggests he's actually willing to go pretty far. Putin's a realist. So he has to know Ukrainians now hate Russia, even if some are forced to become part of it. But to Murderous Vlad slaughtering Ukrainian children like pigs and earning their hate and retaliation forever was worth preventing Ukraine from becoming an anti-Russia NATO neighbor. So would he take it one step further and use tactical nukes in Ukraine to prevent that? I'd say there's a good chance he would. Here's a debate I'd like to listen to. It would only take on real world meaning if Ukraine can't kick Russian soldiers out, and so there is a military stalemate. The debate I want is between Mearsheimer and Kissinger. Both argued for years for Ukraine to be a neutral and peaceful bridge between Russia and NATO. Otherwise, they warned, it might get wrecked. Both argue it is now too late for that. Mearsheimer argues that there is no way Putin will let any part of Ukraine join NATO. And don't even think about it, because he will use nukes to prevent that. Kissinger argues that Russia might accept Ukraine joining NATO. But it would have to be in the context of really changing the way Russia is treated. Like not as a pariah. Mearsheimer would argue, "Good luck with that." The West now sees Putin as Hitler. And Putin has no reason to trust a word any Western leader says. Like I said, the only point at which I think this kind of debate even makes sense is if there is a military stalemate that both sides want to somehow negotiate their way out of. For now, I'm for Ukraine turning Russia's young men into fertilizer. Russian Moms can thank Vlad for that. 😱

Which is where it gets tricky. If we really wanted Ukraine to have a deterrent, there were two things we could have done. One, told them to keep their nuclear weapons, so they could decide to remove Moscow from the planet at will. Or two, actually get them in NATO in 2008, or as soon as possible thereafter. We did neither. So, again, I think we - the US, NATO, the West - helped create this uncertainty where Ukraine is now being wrecked. So part of that uncertainty is that Ukraine, by design or error, could in fact start dropping our bombs on Russia. Some have argued they have a huge incentive to escalate, since it will draw NATO in. Which is what they want. It is very understandable to me that Zelenskyy was incensed about Biden's reticence about NATO. Because he is left dangling by a thread with a brutal butcher nearby. But Biden has read the polls and knows America is not itching to go to war with Russia. And meanwhile of course Trump will settle the whole thing in a day. Or maybe a few hours. Who knows. On the list of things that could provoke Vlad to use nukes, US bombs dropping on Moscow would probably be pretty high up there. Even if they were sent courtesy of Ukraine. I'd make a clear distinction there. Some have argued that Vlad may use nukes if Ukraine starts successfully retaking the four oblasts and humiliating Russia. If he did that, that's where I hope NATO just send the jets in. Because we are defending Ukrainians who are defending Ukrainian territory. Actually attacking Moscow with US weapons is a very different thing. I was adamantly opposed to the Iraq War. I hope what we've learned is that when we go on offense, we tend to suck. When we are defending people who actually want to be defended, we do much better. If you go with the idea that Ukraine is being wrecked, which is not really what either the US or even Murderous Vlad wants, it does make sense to keep the war in Ukraine and try to make it the least bad it can be. That means, best case, Ukraine can actually win a war of attrition. Worst case, Murderous Vlad chews off and swallows a chunk of Ukraine. But then, whether he realizes it or nor, I think just about 100 % of the 20th Century - not to mention more recent adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan - suggests he's gonna have some really nasty shit inside him for a long time to come. I do think Murderous Vlad has a huge problem, either way. Poor thing. As far as US and NATO interests, I like the idea that what starts in Ukraine stays in Ukraine and ends in Ukraine. If US or NATO leaders decide it is in our interest to blow up lots of Russians, we should do that inside Ukraine. There are lots of Russian soldiers there that the locals would absolutely love to see slaughtered.

Exactly. There's two issues. I assume the generals and diplomats are both working overtime to calibrate aggression and response. So you have good ideas about measured responses. If they do A, we do B. But we don't do C. My point is that Putin, for now, is fighting a long and very bloody war of attrition. In which he has more soldiers and more artillery. So if we are talking about what NATO's force can do, I hope Putin has been told that if he does certain things, like nukes, we'll send in NATO jets. Not ships or escorts. And we will blow the fuck out of Russian soldiers and defenses. To me the absolute worst form of appeasement would be tolerating Putin's use of nukes. That said, whatever we do involving grains and ships doesn't alter the fundamental dynamic. Putin could win a long and bloody war of attrition by outmanning and outgunning his opponents. Second issue. Putin is not Hitler. This is where I think Mearsheimer, who I have cited a lot, is right on. His basic shtick, and the title of his most recognized book, is about the tragedy of great power politics. His pithy line about Hitler is that he ran "Murder, Inc." and killed about 20 million people, mostly civilians. Nazi Germany was fundamentally an aspiring great power that was going to cause trouble and had to be stopped, he argues. He viewed the USSR the same way, but less deadly. He puts Putin in a different category, I think appropriately. He argues, and I agree, that NATO fucked up in 2008 when it promised Ukraine, "We have your back, but not really." He has argued for years Ukraine was in danger of being wrecked. And now it is being wrecked. Mearsheimer has a word that I think describes this perfectly: tragedy. Especially for Ukraine. That's not excusing or apologizing for Murderous Vlad. But it is saying he is not Hitler. Meaning he does not have to be stopped at all costs, even if it totally wrecks Ukraine. Because even Murderous Vlad, in his love letter to Ukraine I posted above, seems to say that wrecking Ukraine is not the purpose of this exercise. Besides, even if he gets what he wants, like four or more oblasts, he's going to have to fix what he wrecked. While millions of Ukrainians (even if they are forced to be Russians) with dead husbands or kids dwell on how much they hate Russians. i agree with Kissinger and Mearsheimer that until Putin chose to start this war, there was a path to a neutral Ukraine that was a peaceful bridge between Russia and NATO. Not a country to be wrecked. Both those guys now argue it's too late for Plan A, thanks to Murderous Vlad. And if Ukraine wants to and can win a bloody war of attrition, I'm all for it. Like I said, what I most want now is for Biden and Congress to appropriate more money to send them more weapons ASAP. That's not appeasement. But the least bad Plan B for Ukraine may end up being a bloody and awful military stalemate. And the avoidance of even worse things that will further wreck Ukraine, like nuclear bombs dropping on Ukrainian cities or soldiers.

I agree. I was summarizing the argument someone else made. I think putting NATO ships at risk is not a particularly good idea. A better idea, if we Americans want to to roll the dice, is to blow the living fuck out of as many Russian soldiers in Ukraine as quickly and as mercilessly as can we can. With NATO planes, not ships. The only problem with my idea, like the NATO ship idea, is that Murderous Vlad might use the nuclear codes. That's probably why NATO jets won't blow the shit out of Russian soldiers. And even Murderous Vlad won't go nuclear. Short answer: you're right. That's exactly why Ukrainians will hate Russians more, and find it easier to kill you. You are right next door. How many drones from Kabul are ending up in Moscow these days? From Ukraine, a dead Russian in Moscow is just a drone's throw away. But why bother killing Russians in Moscow when it is so much easier to kill them in Ukraine? And the idea that you are slaughtering the Ukrainian children that you supposedly love, and that speak Russian, and are just like you, is precisely why Ukrainians will spend generations, if not lifetimes, wanting to slaughter you like pigs. Even the US, in Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam, couldn't figure out how to get Canadians to want to kill us. Somehow, Murderous Vlad managed to figure it out. Congratulations, @Moses! Long answer: let's discuss theory, and reality. As a preface, that video of John Mearsheimer saying Ukraine is more likely to lose a long and bloody war of attrition to Russia has a number of comments from what sound like very reasonable Russian citizens. Their point is that this academic, an American patriot, is able to see the world the way many or most Russians do. Why is that so hard? Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“ Mearsheimer referred to the love letter MV (I'll abbreviate for Murderous Vlad) wrote to Ukrainians in 2021. Listening to Mearsheimer, it honestly was a head scratcher. The Western propaganda I'd heard about the love letter was that MV is some psycho. Who has these delusions about history. And I will agree with MV's critics that his historical scholarship is very one-sided. But it honestly does read like a love letter. Or perhaps a plea. Let me quote MV. And since MV has a warm fuzzy spot is in his heart for Gays like me, I'll even stipulate that We Gays should view MV kindly. So let's assume what he says is correct: I said above that I think NATO fucked up in 2008. Mearsheimer would argue that Ukraine was essentially invited to be wrecked by NATO. And now they are being wrecked, with no end of the slaughter in sight. Now I'll add that we're going to stipulate that this is basically because Crooked Hillary and the CIA could not let it go. Fucking up Libya and fucking up Iraq was not enough. Crooked Hillary just had to fuck up Ukraine, too. Let's also say, as Mearsheimer and Kissinger do, that Ukraine played their cards poorly. They had a chance to be a peaceful bridge between NATO and Russia. Which is what MV is actually begging for in his love letter. So we have Crooked Hillary doing evil shit, which we all know she is good at. And MV and Ukrainian kids, who are all peace and love. Or all Мир и Любовь in the language they both speak. Ain't it swell? Let me quote MV again, from his love letter: Aww! What a guy! I said let's compare theory to reality. So we have Vlad's love letter as theory. Now let's shift to reality. Here's the rub. If Murderous Vlad respects Ukrainians' desire to be free, why the invasion? He has to know that in every oblast but the Crimea, over 80 % of Ukrainians voted for freedom from Russia. How is this respect? And if he wants Ukrainian children, many of whom speak Russian, to be safe, why is he slaughtering them like pigs? That's a really big problem, I'd say. Maybe that's how you build respect. But I'd guess it is how you build hate. Shit. Ukraine just voted to not even celebrate Christmas on the day Russians do. So much for traditions. I could make a good argument that Murderous Vlad fell into Crooked Hillary and the CIA's trap. He said in his love letter that it was unacceptable to further stoke these "anti-Russia" feelings in Ukraine. Well, geez Louise! (How do you say Geez, Vlad! in Russian?) I'd say he got exactly what he didn't want. He lost the geopolitical game. Ukrainians now hate Russians. And of course they would happily slaughter Russians like pigs. Just like Russians slaughter Ukrainian kids like pigs. Can you blame them? So we do have the Crooked Hillary Theory. But I think Mearsheimer is also right that this is a classic example of the tragedy of great power conflict. Although he says a big part of the problem is that MV is only a great power wannabe. If there is a road to peace, it probably starts with a military stalemate. And the idea that neither the US nor Russia really benefit from this in the long run. But China does. That said, I'd much rather be the US than Russia. Ukrainians are welcoming US soldiers who train them. Yet they are slaughtering Russian soldiers as quickly and as brutally as they can. Why do you you think that is, @Moses? One way in which this is exactly like Afghanistan, whether we are talking about the USSR or US invasion, is that it is a quagmire that the invading power can't win. Mearsheimer has the most optimistic take I've heard for MV, based on what he hears from smart Russians. The very best hope is that MV can hold the four oblasts he occupies, and maybe take a few more. But that is years of bloody war that will be really bad news for the Russian economy. Probably the best case for Russia is that they're able to continue to shrink slowly, rather than shrink a lot. Maybe all those Ukrainians forced to relocate to Russia can help. The way in which this is worse for Russia than Afghanistan is that your enemy is right next door. Or, actually, inside what Murderous Vlad now calls Russia. If you think they will stop wanting to slaughter you like pigs, @Moses, dream on. But it might be wise to lock your door when you're asleep. If I wanted to make a wildly optimistic prognosis for how Ukrainians will soon be swooning over Murderous Vlad, it would simply be that he is Murderous Vlad, If they don't love him, and respect him, he will kill them. So basically what played out in Chechnya plays out in Ukraine. It could work. Mearsheimer argues that Poland will be safe for 20 or so years. Because that's about how long it will take Murderous Vlad, or his Murderous Replacement, to pacify the Russian speaking part of Ukraine. Who voted 4 to 1 against being part of Russia. Oh, did I mention that was BEFORE their kids were systematically slaughtered? I think the problem is that Chechnya has a little more than 1 million people, compared to over 2 million in Kyiv alone. And Chechnya is not split in two, with NATO on their border. So MV did get exactly the problem he didn't want when he started a war. There's every reason to think this is like Afghanistan, just closer. And easier to kill Russians. If not, the other example not far away is West and East Germany, as the younger MV knew all too well. We all know how that ended. A lot more. Google says 15,000 Soviet soldiers died in Afghanistan. The estimates are 50,000 to 100,000 Russian soldiers so far. And if MV has his way, the slaughter is just getting started. Historians suggest the 15,000 dead soldiers and quagmire in Afghanistan helped bring down the USSR. If so, what does this mean for Murderous Vlad?

Precisely. I think there's at least two good ways to explain what I mean. One, I want Biden to keep doing what he is doing now. And NOT what some of the more isolationist voices in the Republican Party want to do. Which is disengage. Two, you are also correct that the number of people who know what Ukraine needs to win is ZERO. Zelenskyy does not know. Putin does not know. And Biden does not know. I'll repeat the main sobering thing I took away from the video I posted above. We have known from Day One that if the basic idea is that Ukraine and Russia are going to fight a long and bloody war of attrition, Russia has the upper hand. Why? Two reasons. One, more soldiers. Two, more artillery. Last year it looked like maybe Ukraine could push Russia out of Ukraine. Now it doesn't look that way so much. But, again, you and I don't know. I don't think anyone knows. So for now we just keep throwing massive amounts of weapons and lots of people into the meat grinder. And mostly what we get these days is lots of blood and dead Ukrainians and Russians. If it's a question of who wins the War Of The Human Meat Grinder, Russia has proven both through history and demography that it does have the upper hand. Will Ukraine somehow break through the defenses and drive Russians back? Maybe. Will Ukrainians shift toward thinking all we are doing is killing tens of thousands of Ukrainians (and eventually hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians) with no hope of taking any territory back? Maybe. Do you know? Nope. Do I know? Nope. I think the problem kind of solves itself. If things just grind down into a military stalemate, which seems quite possible, it probably reduces everyone's willingness to fund more war. That's predictable in the US, I think. And it increases Ukraine, the US, and NATO getting their mind around whatever a "cold peace" is. But we are nowhere near that yet. I think my wildly optimistic but not impossible "win" would be that Ukraine drives Russia out of the four oblasts they annexed and largely occupy. And they give up Crimea. In other words, go back to 2021, but not 2013. In the vote on Ukrainian independence the Crimea was the only oblast that was around 50/50. And now they have supposedly voted to be part of Russia. The idea of winning Crimea back militarily and making it Ukraine again just seems undoable. But, realistically, right now it's seems more like Western propaganda than reality to think Ukraine can actually push Russia back to the 2021 borders. We'll see. But I want Biden and NATO to keep trying, since that is what Ukraine wants. The other answer to your question is that if I got to choose who knows how to answer the question, I would choose Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer. Kissinger has been saying for years we should be spending more time trying to understand Putin, and less time trying to understand how to kill or depose him. Kissinger was for figuring out some way to make Ukraine a neutral state, like Austria. Whatever you think about that idea, Kissinger now says that is no longer possible. We're too far into a war to the death. So his best case scenario is like mine. We go back to the pre-2022 borders and Ukraine then gets to join NATO. Only problem, Mearsheimer adds, is that there is no way Putin will accept that. Oh, and it turns out Murderous Vlad has enough soldiers and artillery to enforce his will. And if it takes (fill in a number between 0 and 5 million) dead Ukrainians to enforce his will, who cares? That's why we call him Murderous Vlad. If he can't have Ukraine, he'll wreck it. That's the sober view of things. To me that sums it up. I think there's only two really important things that could change. One, maybe Ukraine actually can drive Russia out with their soldiers and US and NATO weapons. I am rooting for them. Or, two, we send in NATO and blow the shit out of as many Russian soldiers and weapons as we can inside the boundaries of what we recognize as Ukraine. And then see whether Vlad really wants World War III. Anyone here want to make THAT call? 😱 I do think the US and the EU are in a good position. The US fucks up when we decide to impose democracy on Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Libya, or Vietnam. Even if I take the most cynical pro-Putin view, that we can blame Hillary and the CIA for stirring up this mess, it is still 1000 % clear that most people in Ukraine don't want to be part of Russia. And now they deeply and passionately want to kill Russians. They may not throw roses at the feet of US soldiers. But they welcome their training, and their weapons. So I can say I'm proud to be an American, if that is what we Americans do. I'm guessing most Europeans feel the same way. And I don't get the feeling that the rest of the world, even if they want to stay neutral, feels like America is going off again, like we did in Iraq. If I could change one thing in America, it would be that we all agree to appropriate more money to build more weapons that Ukraine wants faster. But the Trumpy part of the GOP that is going soft on Ukraine won't have it. My poor Reagan-loving WWII veteran Dad must be rolling in his grave. But even if Vlad "wins," I think he loses. The most he can hope to win is a new Afghanistan, inside his self-proclaimed borders. Which is much closer and much more able and willing to fuck with Russia forever. Who knows. Maybe one of them will manage to kill Vlad. I'd gladly piss on his grave. But I wouldn't count on something better taking his place.

What you and I don't know is what message Putin got from Biden/NATO about what happens if he actually uses nukes. My hunch is that Putin was told that nukes = NATO in some way. Like maybe that's when NATO jets start bombing Russian positions inside Ukraine, but not in Russia. China has probably sent a similar message: that nukes is not good for a bosom buddy relationship. In the shorter term, we agree that Trump is the worst thing that could happen to Ukraine. In the longer term, listening to Mearsheimer I just had this sinking feeling of yet another forever war. He's the first to admit he doesn't know. And he wants Ukraine to win. He is a patriot that graduated from West Point. But he is also a realist who tends to make well educated guesses.

The issue is about using NATO ships to transport grain, and whether Russia would attack them. Do I think that alone would trigger World War III? Extremely unlikely. But that is partly because both Putin and NATO are making it clear that they don't want to directly engage each other. The provocation that would really test how far Putin would go is if NATO said, "Sure, Ukraine. Join NATO immediately." They just had a great chance to show they had balls, and do that. Zelenskyy has balls, and wanted just that. But NATO didn't do it. I don't think NATO wants to go to war with Russia. And I don't think Putin wants to go to war with NATO. The somewhat more likely scenario is that many geopolitical analysts think there's a reasonable chance Putin would use nukes to prevent a loss in Ukraine. The most frequent suggestion is that to prevent Ukraine from taking back Crimea and humiliating Putin, he might well launch nukes on Ukrainians. But not against NATO. Who knows? But I would not rule that out. Right now, it doesn't look like Putin is humiliated so much. He's saying the counter-offensive is a bust. Some version of all your arguments were used for years to predict that of course Putin would never actually start a war in Ukraine. Because he isn't stupid enough to provoke NATO that way and become a global pariah. And possibly start World War III. And yet, he did. First in Crimea. And then the whole nation. So the idea that we can predict just how far Putin will actually go hasn't worked so well. I despise Murderous Vlad. And I'd rather have Biden than Trump because Biden will do "whatever it takes" to support Ukraine militarily. That said, at the same time I agree with Mearsheimer's argument I posted above that NATO was stupid to keep ignoring what Putin said about Ukraine and NATO starting in 2008. Even moreso, they were stupid to say to Ukraine, "We've got your back. But not really." So, again, the idea that we can just poke the bear as we wish knowing that of course bears are not stupid enough to go to war hasn't really worked so well. NATO ships would be a different form of the same goading. The thing I most want NATO and the US to do, for now, is keep sending Ukraine whatever it needs to win. But Mearsheimer makes the best argument I've heard to date that Putin simply has more soldiers and more artillery. Which is what wins wars. So Ukraine simply won't be able to "win" as we would hope. He argues that as the war of attrition grinds on, possibly for years, Putin may be able to seize all the Russian-speaking Southern oblasts along the Black Sea. If that happens, it solves the NATO ship problem. Because Ukraine will be landlocked. All of this seems very plausible. The strategy that's been debated since the war started is whether Putin can gradually prevail in a long war of attrition against Ukraine, but not NATO. Right now it's not looking so bad for Putin. I'll up the ante on your question and ask you this. Do we really have the balls to engage Russia directly and militarily? Because that would stop the slaughter. Why fuck around with NATO ships with grain on them? Let's skip that and give Ukraine what they really want: NATO jets with bombs on them. Why not? We could have a real fun competition to see whether US or UK or French or Canadian bombers could take out more Russian soldiers. Fuck all those land mines. That's so World War I. Let's just bomb the fuck out of them. And let's invite Vlad to send his entire military across the border. So we can fry the fuck out of them, too. Without starting World War III. Because, after all, we're only defending Ukraine's territorial integrity. That's what I'd argue the US and NATO would do if we want to prove that we really have balls. That's what Zelenskyy and probably most Ukrainians want. They want us to actually have their backs, with our blood. And if we actually did it, there's probably no more than a 50/50 chance that Vlad would escalate to nukes or attacks on NATO. Because he knows that would escalate to direct NATO hits on Russia. Why not roll the dice? The sobering thing Mearsheimer is saying is if we don't do something like that, which he would probably argue is folly, then we are stuck with a horrific, bloody, and long war of attrition that Ukraine is more likely to lose. Meaning they will never regain the territory they have already lost. And they are at risk to gradually lose more. So then, militarily, our best hope is a stalemate that wrecks Ukraine. And punishes Russia greatly for wrecking Ukraine. I think that's a pretty sobering assessment of the choices we may eventually face, if we learn that the vaunted counteroffensive barely moves entrenched Russian positions. It's entirely predictable that Gen. Petraeus will pop up, yet again, and make the same "surge" arguments that didn't really work in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's a proven recipe for quagmire. So I'll argue we either Go Big and Go NATO and bomb the fuck out of them. Or we start to accept the fact that Ukraine got wrecked. As Mearsheimer predicted for several decades it would if we poked the bear too much. But the good news is at least a smaller version of a Western-oriented Ukraine survived. And Russia's big victory is they get a brand new Afghanistan inside their proclaimed border. Or worse. Because it will be so much easier for pissed off Ukrainians to endlessly kill Russians. As Mearsheimer asked in that video above, "Where does it end?" Excellent question. By the way, since I've cited him a lot, I should mention Mearsheimer is no dove. His core argument is that the real strategic threat is China. He would argue you are right about the military power of nations like Germany, or France, or the UK. @unicorn. He's been saying since the end of the Cold War that NATO could de-escalate and leave a weakened Russia to fight Ukraine, with the direct support of Germany and maybe other European nations. He also argued decades ago, after the collapse of the USSR, that Ukraine should keep its nukes to prevent the bear from ever starting this kind of war. So his strategic ideas have aged well. Mostly he thinks the US and our allies should really be focusing on China. And another forever war in Ukraine is a distraction from that, which was avoidable. I agree with him. That said, we are where we are. And I want Ukraine to win, if they can.

The other thing that's genius is the sort of good cop/bad cop strategy that is emerging. Biden will let the prosecutors, and even the Never Trump Republicans, be the heavies on indictments. And on Trump's general criminality, pathological lies, and contempt for democracy. Or, you could actually call it a good news/bad news strategy. Trump embodies the bad news. While Biden simply states what the good news is. Here's a sneak peek of election 2024.

Then again, getting NATO directly involved after Vlad bombs NATO ships could lead to World War III. Oops! Russian wheat exports were up 36 % last year. So part of the reason the rumors of the demise of Vlad's Russia were premature is he is making lots of money on food and energy exports. He's helping to create and sustain inflation in both commodities, and profiting from it., too. Clever guy! African Union calls on Russia to reinstate Ukrainian grain deal A recent study projected a famine in the Horn of Africa that will impact tens of millions in three African nations alone. They are suffering from a combination of drought and Putin's war. For what it's worth, I think Russia and China suck at soft power. I've read countless stories about how Europeans think Vlad wants them to freeze to death. And Africans have good reason to think Vlad wants them to starve to death. This can't be helping Russia, and indirectly China, in the long run. That said, desperate people do desperate things. in the short term, it is funding Vlad's war and crippling Ukraine. Given the declining Republican support for simply sending weapons to Ukraine - which US corporations make a lot of money on and which employs US workers - it's a no brainer that Biden won't be looking for ways to get NATO directly involved in the run up to an election. Trump will argue Biden essentially started the war. And he'll work it out with Vlad in no time at all. Probably a day or so. 🤫 If you want to watch something really depressing, watch this YouTube video that's a little over an hour: John Mearsheimer Ukraine Salon Mearsheimer thinks Putin has the upper hand, for three reasons. It's a war of attrition. He has more soldiers. More artillery. And more capacity to strangle Ukraine economically, as we are seeing. Mearsheimer is an awesome strategic thinker who has been saying some things for decades that have aged well. First, he's a hawk on China, arguing it would not rise peacefully. Because that's not what great powers do. Second, he's a dove on most other US wars: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. He argued democracies suck as occupying forces. Third, he was the odd man out arguing decades ago that Ukraine should keep their nukes as deterrence. Then, like George Kennan and Clinton's Defense Secretary, among others, he argued we really were poking the bear. In his case he says this all really started with our post-2008 NATO expansion plans. He preferred Bernie in 2020 (because of his focus on income inequality) and thinks Trump is a blundering disaster. But he also clearly sees this war as Biden's folly. The best counter argument I've heard, from Edward Luttwak recently for example, is that both Putin and Biden have strategic interests to settle this. While Putin has juggled the Russian war economy well, and it has shrunk way less than was promised, that can't last forever. Meanwhile, Biden (and The Blob) want to focus on China. Implicit in this thinking is the idea that there are alternatives to driving Xi and Vlad into each other's arms. Even though they are two of the nicest guys around, of course. 😉 I also think Mearsheimer underestimates Vlad's problems. He thinks Vlad will double down and go for four more Ukrainian oblasts eventually - meaning all eight ones that primarily speak Russian. Including Odesa and all the ones along the Black Sea. And that Vlad will have to spend a decade or two absorbing that before he can think about moving on to Kyiv, the Baltic states, or Poland. Maybe. But over 80 % of every oblast except Crimea voted NOT to be part of Russia. So I suspect Vlad knows that he could have a new Afghanistan on his hand. And what's left of Ukraine would be the equivalent of Pakistan. Where it is all too easy to cross a border to go find Russians to kill. Then again, it worked in Chechnya. Vlad may find the prospect irresistible. If anyone wants to watch an hour of Mearsheimer I'm curious if others think he is right or wrong.

Conversely, if the Republican Party doesn't want to be seen as racist, sexist, or homophobic, they should elect leaders who makes laws that are NOT sexist, racist, or homophobic. This is off topic from Third Party and Manchin. But since we're talking about the election, generally, that's one of the interesting things about the GOP these days. We're seeing both the worst of the MAGA Trump Party, and the best of a multi-racial post-Trump Republican Party all at once. Now that former RNC Chair Michael Steele has gone full on MSNBC, he talks about things like the Tim Scot/Nikki Haley project. Steele himself was elevated by the Republicans as a reaction to Obama. And facilitating South Carolina electing an Indian American female conservative Governor, and a Black male conservative House member and then Senator, was part of Steele's vision of a new GOP in Obama's America. I give Kevin McCarthy credit for continuing that. He says he's the guy who made it a priority to recruit conservatives who were not all White men to run for the House in 2020 and 2022. It worked. As a Democrat, I think it helps depolarize race and makes both parties pay more attention to what non-Whites want. Of course, it has now come to my attention that it's "racist" for Democrats to study or care about what Blacks want, since we don't have that racism stuff anymore. It was only a few years ago that Tim Scott would show up on Trevor Noah and say, convincingly, one thing he won't do is hold back on calling out racism when he sees it. And he did, in a very funny way, when Trump had his 2020 Proud Boys moment. Now that he is running for POTUS, he calls out Obama because Democrats use race as a political weapon to control Blacks. Huh? Nikki is not campaigning on how she took down the Confederate flag to unify and heal. Why am I not surprised ? Trump always manages to throw any debate and anyone involved in it into the gutter. My hope has been that Tim Scott and Nikki Haley are two of the leaders who help build the post-Trump Republican Party in 2028. So I suspend disbelief and think even good people just say dumb shit like that during campaigns. Chicago and South Carolina have historically been two of the most racist places in America. So one litmus test I have is that if America can elect a Black Democrat from Illinois and a Black Republican from South Carolina POTUS based on the content of their character, we're making good progress. The Democrats nominated Obama, despite the fact that he was a nobody running against the Clinton machine. Tim Scott and Nikki Haley are way back in the dust behind the two White guys moaning about critical race theory. It's early days, of course. But the GOP has not persuaded me that America is done with that whole racism thing. There is good news. As I promised, another White guy has arrived to save America. Woo hoo! Shucks. Thanks, Joe. You're swell.

I'm not gonna disagree with a word you said. But I ain't gonna disagree with Jim Carville when he says "It's the economy, stupid," either. The fact that the economy was still recovering from a 1991 recession in 1992 is widely credited with helping Clinton's win. And dare I mention many, including many Democrats, see Bill as a predator? None of the other adjectives apply. Although I know some purist Gays who view Clinton's actions in the 90's as essentially anti-LGBTQ. I'm obviously hoping 2024 is more like 1984. By election day, the economy and stock market were widely perceived as in rapid recovery. Even if we have a mild recession (Europe is technically in the most mild of recessions right now) I'm also hoping that given the choice between 10 % inflation and a mild recession that is deflationary, Americans might not be so sour about a brief and shallow recession. If it makes the pain in their pocketbook stop. By my count the last time a POTUS was re-elected during a recession was 1948. It perhaps mattered that by that point the even more painful post-WWII inflation had been tamed. Biden is compared to Truman a lot. This could be one more similarity. Since it's been suggested I rely too much on polls and should get around more, I'll add some anecdotal things about how this plays out in my family. It actually fits very well with the national picture about the college educated versus the "poorly educated," to quote Trump. My Dad was a mainstream Republican. Before he died he told one of my brothers he regretted voting for Trump. Who he basically viewed as less bad than Hillary. Of his six kids, three consistently lean left and three lean right. Of the three on the left, the only really interesting thing is how emphatic my brother who I'd call a Bloomberg moderate Democrat was about how Trump needed to be shot by somebody in 2020. I'm usually the outspoken liberal. And even I would never say something like that. But I think it accurately reflected just how much moderate educated professionals despised Trump by the time COVID broke out. The three right of center voters were interesting. One, who I'd call a McCain Republican, voted for Trump in 2016 based on his conservative economic views. By 2020 he was also outspoken about what a "megalomaniac" Trump was. He made a point of letting me know he voted for Biden in 2020. I asked him if he had only voted on the economy, who would he have supported? He immediately answered Trump. I asked why. He immediately said, "My retirement account." I asked why he voted for Biden, then. He said, "Because Trump's a megalomaniac." He's also a college educated White professional. So he fits right into the broad national political pattern. He's a poster child for your argument. He despises Trump. A second brother who is essentially the same voted for Trump in 2016. I'm guessing he voted for Trump again in 2020, but I haven't asked. If he did, it would have been a reluctant vote. Since he doesn't like Trump's anti-democracy antics, either. And he lives in a solid red state, anyway. The interesting conversation I had with him during Trump's Presidency is I asked him what he thought about the idea that Trump voters are racist. He pointed out something I of course knew. Which is that he has a Black son-in-law and a grandchild most people would call Black. Like me, he likes Tim Scott. So he does not consider himself racist. He's also college educated. My one sister, who is not college educated, also followed the national pattern. She does not recall voting in 2016. But she definitely recalls voting for Trump in 2020. My two right of center brothers can clearly articulate conservative economic policy as why they voted for Trump in either 2016 or 2020, despite their misgivings about his personality. When I asked my sister why she voted for Trump, she basically went into a long anti-Black Lives Matter rant. She obviously saw those ads Trump ran with fires and scary images of Black protestors. Non-college educated White women were a real source of strength for Trump in 2020. I pushed back a little about why I like BLM, but she was politely not buying. Here's how I view where my sister fits in to America 2023. My first real political experience was the six months I spent as a volunteer helping to get Chicago's first Black Mayor elected back in the 80's. That was basically a race war. I was assaulted once handing out flyers by some White guy. The even more sinister thing is some nice looking White woman came up to me and whispered in my ear, "You are a traitor to your race." That shit actually happened back then. At the 2020 RNC Tim Scott eloquently spoke about how he could get elected because of a "change in the Southern heart." He was almost 100 % right. But he could have mentioned the "Northern heart" as well. Happily, after redistricting, my sister's US Rep is Lauren Underwood, one of my favorite Democrats. Having grown up in the Chicago suburbs, there is no way in hell a soft-spoken Black nurse like Underwood could have been elected in predominantly White Chicago suburbs when I was a kid. Or for most of my adult life. My sister won't even know who she is, if she votes in 2024. If she does read up about Underwood, she probably wouldn't vote for her, anyway. But Underwood will probably win her third term, easily. So mostly I view this as progress. Even if it is two steps forward, one step back. The one I have the hardest time with is one of my sister's daughter, who I really enjoy traveling with. And I learned pretty quickly that there's no upside to talking politics at all. She's college educated, very successful, a true Republican (no RINO's, please), loves her Gay uncle, and is not a racist. If I ask her what she thinks about Tim Scott, she responds with, "What do you think of Candace Owens?" I'm blunt. So I say I think she's a divisive Black conservative flamethrower. Whereas Scott actually wants to unify people, be POTUS, and could win. That's pretty much where the discussion ends. So it's not just older voters who didn't go to college. To me, Owens is a perfect example of someone who gives my niece permission to believe what she reads in far right wing media. Democrats want to let murderers run free, basically. I don't want to ask, because I don't want to hear the answer. But I'm pretty sure she'd argue that things like CRT are basically about indoctrinating as many White kids as possible, and psychologically damaging any child with the audacity to disagree. It's a very long way from The Audacity Of Hope, sadly. She'll vote for Trump. But she lives in Kentucky. Until a year ago, she did live in Ohio. In late 2022 she told me her Republican Governor was a RINO, so she was glad his term had ended. Call me an asshole. But I pointed out that Mike DeWine was actually re-elected, by a roughly 2 to 1 margin. Like John Kasich, I said, he barely won the first time around. But he worked hard enough at compromising that he managed to pick up lots of Democrats to win re-election in a landslide. This is not information she knew, or particularly wanted to hear. Better to stick to the margaritas. There's one other thing about willful ignorance I'll underline, because it goes to your point about "over-extending the use of their brain cell." Point taken. But we're talking about the wrong organ, I believe. To me, it's an example of the point I've beaten to death in other threads about how The Gays won by using our hearts, not heads. And fostering empathy over common values - like love and commitment. My niece complains bitterly and sincerely that she can't openly discuss her views among Gay and liberal friends. A few of whom I've met. But if you're going to call Mike DeWine a RINO, not have a clue why he wins, ignore Tim Scott, and mostly focus on whatever Candace Owens and all the other flame throwers say to divide, you really can't be too surprised or bitter about that. It's willful ignorance, disguised as knowledge. I'll end where I started. I'm not going to disagree with a word you said. My point, using my family as a compass, is that Trump would of course win in a landslide if it were just older White women and men without college degrees. And I understand how they resent being seen as racists or homophobes. Most of them are a lost cause. And from talking to some in my own family I know why. I'm glad within my family we can actually talk about these things, mostly respectfully. I'm hoping the economy is good enough, and Democrats' messaging about the economy is good enough, to offset my brothers' impulses to vote for Trump simply because they vote Republican. And he's a Republican. Although it doesn't matter, really. Since none of us live in a swing state. To wind it back into the topic of the thread, putting Manchin on the ticket would give my two right of center brothers an easy reason to NOT vote for Biden. One will vote for Biden for sure, unless he has the option to vote for someone like Manchin. The other was so turned off by Jan. 6th that he probably won't vote for Trump again. But Manchin on the ballot gives him a good reason to not even think about Biden. So they're both good examples of how Manchin could split the anti-Trump vote. With my sister probably the best outcome for Biden and Democrats is if she just doesn't vote at all.

That certainly seemed to be the case in 2022. Biden got endless grief for his idea that "it's the democracy, stupid." But it sure seems like lots of people felt it was the democracy, stupid. Most non-Trumpy conservative Republicans did well. Almost every Trump election denying MAGA Republican blew themselves up. I'd single out Brian Kemp in Georgia as a telling example. He's a conservative Republican who made his re-election about the shitty Democrat economy, stupid. Even as he distanced himself from Trump's lies. He did better against Stacey Abrams than he had four years prior. Even as Trump's ass kissing election denying Senate candidate lost. That sent a pretty clear message about what works and what doesn't in what is now a swing state. Republican strategist Whit Ayres in that interview I posted above seems pretty confident that if Trump is nominated, it makes 2024 a referendum on Trump. Meaning the GOP loses, he says. Hope he's right. Clintonista Democratic strategist Doug Sostik said a similar thing to Bill Kristol recently in an interesting way. He said the 2022 election was a referendum on "crazy." And that helped Democrats. If Trump makes 2024 about the shitty Biden economy, he's says, Democrats will have a difficult time - as of now, at least. If Biden makes the 2024 election about "crazy," Biden wins. Asked which he thinks is more likely, Sostik says the latter. Biden will make it about "crazy." Hope he's right. I think the answer is hiding in plain sight. I'm not a huge fan of Rasmussen polls. But I can't help noticing that before inflation really took off in Fall 2021, even Rasmussen shows voters clearly approved of Biden more than Trump. Then from about Fall 2021 to Fall 2022, when inflation was at its worst, voters clearly approved of Trump more than Biden. Since then it's more or less been a toss up. Even if you believe Rasmussen polls are skewed, which I do, the trend seems real. It will be a battle between it's the economy, stupid, and it's the crazy people, stupid. The sweet spot for Biden is being able to argue he's not crazy, and the economy is good. We'll see. The problem right now is clear majorities of voters feel Trump personifies crazy, but the Biden economy sucks.

Rasmussen is the only polling company with daily tracking. In June 2022, when inflation peaked, Biden's worst daily approval rating was 38 approve/60 disapproval In the July 2023 daily polls, his single best day was 46 approve/52 disapprove. A lot better. If you go backward from June 2022, Biden's approval rating kept getting worse as inflation climbed. So that's not proof. But it strongly suggests that, like with Ford and Carter, a higher "misery index" would hurt Biden in 2024. Conversely, if inflation stabilizes at 3 % or even goes down to the 2 % target rate or lower, it suggests Biden's approval rating will improve. Same thing happened to Reagan after the 1982 bloodbath: his approval rating gradually climbed from horrific to landslide territory as the economy improved. This also strongly suggests that voters will blame a recession on Biden, fair or not. Using the chart below, the three candidates since 1984 who ran representing the party in power while the economy was working against them all lost: Bush 41 in 1992, McCain in 2008, Trump in 2020. Recent history strongly suggests that "it's the economy, stupid," is true. The thing I like about polling, in general, is that while it is far from perfect it is usually better than just making a wild ass guess. Same with Alan Lichtman, who on this particular point is extremely interesting. He's correctly predicted the winner of every Presidential race since 1984 in advance. So while that's not the same as 2 + 2 = 4 every time, it's a pretty solid record that merits attention. That's basically Lichtman's scorecard for every Presidential race he has correctly predicted, and why. Part of what makes common sense about this, and is flattering if you actually believe in democracy, is it's based on the idea that voters predictably decide based on important things. Like the economy, recessions, war and peace, impeachment. Try as they might, cynical pollsters and messaging gurus just aren't able to convince people that a pig with lipstick is not really a pig. One of the things Lichtman argues that is going to be controversial in 2024 is that an incumbent party is always better off running the incumbent President, and avoiding a party fight. I buy that. Others don't. I might feel differently if everyone agreed that Gavin Newsom was our guy, or Kamala Harris was our girl. But they don't. Even if we had a Democratic primary and every big name in the polls ran, the polls suggest Biden would win. Probably for the same reason Trump will be nominated: there is no alternative Republican everyone can agree to rally around yet. So this is where Lichtman's theory gets very interesting. Maybe there could still be some big foreign policy game changer. But probably not. The Republicans are sure working the scandal thing hard, without much success. So Biden's re-election basically comes down to a recession and a third party. Unless you completely dismiss Lichtman's track record and theories, his analysis of 1992 and Bush 41 is probably the closest to now. Bush had one thing Biden doesn't: a clear foreign policy win. Biden has one thing Bush didn't: several clear domestic policy wins to run on. ("Finish the job.") So Lichtman's theory is that in every election since the Civil War it consistently takes six of these keys to nail your political coffin shut. Neither Biden nor Bush could change the fact that they lacked charisma, and they lost seats in the midterm (the party mandate key). The main variables that are still up for grabs that killed Bush 41 and could kill Biden is running in a recession with someone like Manchin catching fire as a third party candidate. That could be fatal for Biden. The other interesting historical question is whether this is really in anyone's control. Part of what appeals to me about this theory, other than it's perfect ability to predict results so far, is that Lichtman's partner in crime back in the early 1980's was a global expert on predicting earthquakes. So the idea is that when you have vibrant third party wildfires like Anderson in 1980 or Perot in 1992 and 1996 who get lots of votes, it's a political tremor that indicates a political earthquake may be coming. It's only one variable. Which is why it helped take out Bush in 1992 but not Clinton in 1996, who was running during an economic boom. But nature abhors a vacuum. It could be that the Democratic messaging and managers can't stop this. They can probably stop Manchin. Maybe he's just using it to get something else he wants. But if not Manchin, it could be lots of other people. And not necessarily through No Labels. In the worst case scenario, like we have the hard landing that everyone fears, it's easy for me to imagine that some populist billionaire like Perot (Elon Musk?) decides they'll save America and jump in the race. Lichtman's keys and all the polls are basically saying the same thing right now: it's going to be close, if the election were held today. You can dismiss all this as some ivory tower academic theory, of course. Even though it's worked pretty well in predicting elections in advance. What's harder to dismiss is that when you just count votes third party Nader is almost certainly why Gore lost in Florida. And third party Stein at the very least contributed to Clinton's loss in 2020. There's no doubt of that. I'm glad Democrats are freaking out and ringing alarms. A strong third party run will divide the anti-Trump vote. And help Trump and his devoted base win.

True. But you could also say Trump's worst thing is that he is Trump. Republican strategist Whit Ayres nailed this No Labels drama in a roughly three minute segment- from 1:04:00 to 1:07:00 - in the interview Bill Kristol just did with him below. He pointed out 2 in 3 Americans don't really want a Biden/Trump rematch. He called No Labels a "fruitless endeavor with a positive motivation to offer an alternative to Trump/Biden." His logic is flawless, I think. In 1992 Perot got 19 % of the vote but 0 % of the electoral college vote. So even if he gets that much, which is unlikely, Manchin can't win. If Trump is the nominee, it will be a referendum on Trump. So all Manchin or West or any third party candidate can do is split the anti-Trump vote and put Trump in the White House again. Ayres is right. Ayres didn't say it quite the way I will. The No Labels people want less division. But what they will get is a Divider In Chief focused on four year of retribution. Whit Ayres: Is Trump Inevitable? Do Any of the Other Republicans Have a Chance? That whole interview is great if you have an hour. I'll add one thing neither Kristol nor Ayres say. It's the recession, stupid. That's the "biggest unknown" to me. Right now inflation is 3 % and unemployment is 3.6 %. If it stays that way or gets better, and the election is a referendum on Trump, Trump loses. Maybe Biden wins even if Manchin gets in, like Perot did in 1996 when Clinton's economy was on a roll. But if the economy is shaky like it was in 1992, a third party candidate could help the incumbent lose. Like Perot did. Trump's best hope is to make 2024 a referendum on the recession. If there is one. In that case, Manchin could easily peel off enough anti-Trump votes in Arizona and Georgia and Wisconsin for Trump to win.