stevenkesslar

I think the fuel is more like anger and outrage, as opposed to hate. It has been pretty well documented that outrage and anger leads to more clicks for Facebook, and more viewers for Fox. Facebook and Fox are both good at building indignation. So it's kind of sad, and kind of funny. Part of my point is that my niece and I have a loving relationship. So I think there is some limit to how far even Fox and Facebook can push outrage. I think for most people it stops well short of hate, thankfully. They do have to make you feel justified in your outrage. My niece does feel like, as a conservative, she is in the Silent Majority. Which is perhaps true in Ohio. But that's thanks to Republicans like DeWine and Kasich, not Carlson and Hannity, who are pushing moderation and at least trying to get along together. The funny part, to me, is that while it may work well for Facebook and Fox, it's not really a plan to win a majority. Let alone be able to govern as a majority. I cited Democrat Joe Trippi above, who noted that the contrast plays well for Biden and Democrats. At least so far. If we are in the middle of a recession in November 2024, that could be the kind of thing that would lead a majority to vote for a restoration of the drama and lies. Hoping that at least they get the economy of 2019 back in the deal. (Did I mention the unemployment rate is lower now than under Trump's best month, and child poverty hit unprecedented lows in 2021 thanks to Biden's child tax credit?) More likely, the majority will vote for normal and boring in 2024, just like in 2020 and 2022. I feel for you, my beloved and better Sister In Cock. You have always liked it raw and hard and in your face. Let's face facts. I've always been the more delicate flower. I need it to be given to me subtly, rather than shoved down my throat. I wish I could somehow enable you to feel the subtle orgasmic joy I feel when I watch Tucker on TV, elegantly playing the role of a doofus.

I wouldn't be so sure. 21% of Fox News Viewers Trust Network Less After Texts Revealed in Dominion Lawsuit: Survey VIP+ Analysis: Exclusive data reveals how private messages from Carlson, Murdoch impacted audience opinions about election fraud. I briefly referenced and hyperlinked that poll in a post above. But in this post I'll focus on it. There's a few interesting things in there. As the headline says, presumably 1 in 5 Fox viewers trust what Fox says less thanks to Tucker's cheating on his viewers. It's also interesting that, whereas a plurality of 42 % of all adults don't trust Fox (compared to 16 % of all adults who do), even 10 % of Fox viewers say they don't trust Fox. I can buy that. I would not call myself a regular Fox News viewer. But when something big happens, like Trump's indictment or any big election, I watch the opinion talking heads like Tucker and Sean and Laura enough to get the Murdoch spin. Even though I don't trust it. And then some of them, like Brett Baier, I think are just good reporters who I'd watch anyway. It helps me that I have several family members who are moderate to hard core Trump supporters. At least one of whom is also a pretty devoted Tucker fan, as far as I can tell. What's helpful is that instead of stereotyping "these people" as ignorant fanatics, I can think of it in terms of, for example, a niece I love. Far from being ignorant, she's a well educated corporate executive. That said, it surprised me that in addition to calling Gov. DeWine, a RINO, she did not know he was running for re-election last year. Which was interesting, since she lives in Ohio. If I were her, I'd like Republican Governors like DeWine or Kasich. They governed well enough, and reached to the center enough, to win re-election in landslides. It fits with this MO that several times I sang the praises of Tim Scott as the kind of Black conservative Republican who could build a winning Presidential coalition based on a sunny Reaganite message, I think. Her reply, several times, has been "What do you think of Candace Owens?" So, on the one hand, the vibe I get is that she likes Tucker and Candace because she likes in your face flame throwers who take on left wing "pussies." (Her word, not mine.) But I know she's a critical thinker. And I'm pretty sure she would notice that what Tucker says in private makes him seem like a hypocrite, in it for the power or money or ego. Once in a while - like when her more conservative hubby suggests they have to get completely out of their mutual fund because the Biden Crime Family is going to force mutual funds to invest in red China - she openly expresses doubt about what I personally view as some of the nuttier right wing ideas flying around social media. Which her hubby consistently works himself into a lather about. So my guess is she'd be a candidate to be in the 21 % who feels less trusting after finding out about Tucker cheating on her. Not that Tucker isn't a great guy, and all. What I find most helpful about these kinds of personal interactions, which I am fully aware I am interpreting based on my own liberal biases, is that it helps explain why 2024 is likely going to be a shit show for Republicans. I think she probably is like a lot of Fox News viewers. She seems to be less interested in what a DeWine or Kasich might do to engineer a Republican landslide in a state like Ohio. And more interested in how Fox owns libs, and fights pussies. Not to mention the Biden Crime Family. It's probably a recipe for Republicans losing more seats they could win in 2024, just like in 2022 and 2020. And Fox and Tucker are in large part the architects of that. Even if it because they have to suck Trump's cock, which Tucker turns out to hate passionately. Poor guy. Which makes you wonder whether Murdoch is the horse, or the cart being led by what he has to do to keep appeasing his viewers. Either way, I wouldn't bet on that horse to win.

I'm guessing Dominion feels the same way. 😀 Fox Dominion payout becomes largest media settlement in history Payout is 10 times Dominion’s valuation in 2018 Here's something else interesting: Geez. Maybe it's the start of a trend! As several analysts have noted, Alex Jones will never pay that money. Since he is now basically ruined. Dominion, on the other hand, will actually get their money. And now for a contrarian opinion, Politico's media critic Jack Shafer opined that Murdoch "wins again" and this settlement is "just the cost of doing business." True enough. But I don't think anyone ever thought this would drive Fox out of business. If anything, the idea was that Team MAGA would just march all over Dominion (and Hugo Chavez, oddly) for the greater good of making America great again, somehow. Plan A failed miserably, I guess. It may not drive Trump out of business, either. But it's another nail in his coffin. Some poll said that after Tucker and Sean's private texts were released, maybe something like 1 in 10 Americans who believed the Big Lie about election 2020 stopped believing it. Maybe. I'll stick with the Maria Shriver analogy. It won't drive Fox out of business. But many people who watch Fox now know that Tucker and Sean cheated on them. And they seemed like such nice, honest fellas!

I mostly agree. If you mean dedicated (or fanatical) FOX viewers, or Trump supporters, I would definitely agree. But I think what Dominion actually got, beyond the important things you noted - money and protecting their own brand - was better than an apology. I'm not sure how you get that out of your mind. Even if you like Tucker. It's a little bit like leaning your husband fucked the housekeeper. Maria Shriver probably isn't the only woman that would leave a marriage over that. But even viewers who stay in the marriage with Tucker will always know there was a certain infidelity. I suspect Tucker's sway has peaked, and he's now on the way down. Much like Donald. But a bunch of Independents have clearly been figuring it out on their own. I loved this article about how Democrats should just shut the fuck up, focus on getting shit done, and let Republicans have their shit show. I think the same principle applies to Fox, and Tucker. Tucker has a beautiful head of hair. Why not let him keep setting it on fire? Nor does it end well for Fox. Even though @Mavica is correct that a dedicated core of Fox/Trump supporters will circle the wagons. Just like when the Senate censured Joe McCarthy. McCarthy lost that fight overwhelmingly. Despite the fact that he had half the Republicans on his side. When you look at the 2020 election, the 2022 election, and the polls, it's been very consistent. Independents view this stuff like nails on the chalkboard. But don't just take my word for it. Let's check with the fake media, and fake polls: So I'm with Trippi. I don't think this ends well for Republicans. Or Tucker. Poor thing.

No way! Me being a Mike Pence evangelical type Christian, I prioritize grace and forgiveness. Which Tucker has a natural affinity for, of course. We definitely want to keep him on television. I think Tuck Tuck deserves a second chance on DWTS. Now, I know. He doesn't exhibit the same excellence and mastery of art that he does when it comes to journalism and what not. But, really? How can we expect one man to be great at everything. Especially when he is all wrapped up in helping his BFF Donald - to whom he is unconditionally and passionately devoted to - make America great again, again. I personally would love to see a new cha cha, choreographed to the glorious sightseeing and patriotism day at The Capitol Tucker has worked tirelessly to get out the real God's truth about. It would fit seamlessly with Tucker's brand. And his warmth and charm. Here's a rough draft of choreography and concept. I think Tucker will be a natural on his feet if we just give him the right inspiration.

LOL. Of course you don't. Even so: Progressives eye new Congress emboldened by midterm wins The poster child for both of our cases is Build Back Better. On the one hand, it was an embarrassing shit show. And it made progressives look Not Ready For Prime Time. On the other hand, it was a huge reach - especially given how divided America, and the House and Senate, are. The fact that progressives got huge chunks of it, like most of the climate change stuff, was a huge victory. Which I suspect helped convince young progressives to go vote in the midterms. On the days when he is not busy sucking Donald Trump's cock, I think Kevin McCarthy deserves a lot of credit for running a similar play on the conservative side. There are only so many districts progressives like Max Frost can win in. What McCarthy did is find women and conservatives of color that can do what Frost did in Florida in right of center and even swing House districts. To me the 11th Commandment of the GOP now can be summarized this way: "What McCarthy winneth, Trump taketh away." Most of the heavy hitters in the Senate and Guv races Trump championed lost. Most of the women and conservatives of color McCarthy nurtured in both 2020 and 2022 won. Progressive Jamie McLeod Skinner would be a poster child for your argument. She barely took out centrist Oregon Democratic incumbent Kurt Shrader in the primary. Despite the fact that all the Democratic swamp creatures, starting with Biden, endorsed him. What a progressive winning the primary in Oregon 5 basically did is hand the district to a Republican last November. So there are downsides. That's one case where you can say progressives went too far, and just lost. But, as Jayapal said above, there were a lot more wins than losses in 2022.

So the idea that Berniecrats are voting for Trump in measurable numbers surprises me. Let me make sure I understand what you mean Here's my main pushback point: anybody who wants to see Democrats win should be grateful to Millennials and Gen Z. Period. No qualifications. There should be nothing but gratitude that, but not for Millennials and Gen Z, Trump would have won decisively in both 2016 and 2020. So many Republicans would have won that if they wanted an authoritarian dictatorship where - duh! - of course Trump and Trumpists win every election automatically, they could have voted it in. They would have had a big enough majority that they wouldn't even need to lie about winning. Now, all Berniecrats are not young. And all young people are not Berniecrats. For example, you didn't say "young Berniecrats," and maybe that's not who you mean. Hence, why I want to check on what you know. I have nieces and nephews that are Berniecrats, and not wild about either Biden or Buttigieg. But they despise Trump. So they made damn sure they voted for Democrats in both 2020 and 2022. What we know for a fact is that 63 % or so of voters under 30 voted Democratic in the midterms. And, like with every demographic, that was a BAD result for Democrats in 2022 compared to 2020 - being a midterm, even if there was not a huge red wave. To put it more pointedly, lots of talking heads say young voters basically blocked the red wave. I'm pretty sure a lot of those young voters are Berniecrats or progressives, or whatever you want to call them. Same thing just happened in Wisconsin, to follow with my poster child of this thread. It was young voters in and around Madison that made sure the election wasn't even close. My guess is abortion may be relatively more urgent to young voters. So instead of worrying about the Berniecrats, I'm looking forward to having more of them as more young people come of age to vote. And more older Trump voters cast their final ballot. Which basically seems inevitable. Unless there is a huge and unexpected shift in ideology. To replay some of my greatest hits, I could see someone like Tim Scott maybe appealing to lots of Gen Z types who like diversity and like small businesses and Main Street capitalism. But the polls say they mostly despise Trump. Trump's sure not drawing them to the GOP, according to polls and election results. What kind of "Berniecrats" do you know that are voting for Trump? Or can even stand him? There's a few nuances that I can think of that would explain some of this. First, a lot of Independents are anti-Establishment types who would go for either Sanders or Trump before a Clinton or a Bush. But that isn't essentially about being a Berniecrat. It's about feeling deep cynicism about government and politics in general. Which Trump uses to appeal to his base for sure. Drain the swamp! One wonders why, having failed to drain the swamp for four years, the same folks now want to give Trump another shot. Indictment and all. Whose swampy now? Second, Berniecrats got a big disappointment in 2020, based on what they thought they'd learned in 2016, when Bernie won Wisconsin and Michigan. The theory was that White working class and rural folks liked Bernie better than Hillary because of his populism and progressivism. Or not. The Wisconsin map tells it all: In 2016 green was Bernie. He took almost every county with 57 % of the vote. (The big exception was Hillary took Milwaukee.) In 2020 blue was Biden. He did take every county in the Democratic primary, with 63 % of the vote. Turns out it wasn't so much that White working class and rural folks wanted Bernie's agenda. One simple explanation I heard is that in 2016 working class Whites in the Rust Belt liked the old White guy better than the liberal woman. When it was two old White guys running against each other in 2020, and Biden was the more moderate one, the choice looked very different. All that grassroots organizing Berniecrats did in states like Michigan and Wisconsin to connect with the working class and win in 2020 basically got crushed. And a big part of that spontaneous tidal wave is people just wanted to get rid of Trump. And they saw Biden as the way to do it. My sense of the movement around Bernie is that they are mostly pragmatic - like Bernie. They know they are not a majority. So they are taking their victories where they can. And mostly they seem to know that to do that, and actually get things done, they have to have a majority. It is the somewhat older, more moderate, and mostly White working class voters that are the issue in states like Wisconsin, as Teixeira keeps screaming. Teixeira's point is in part that the excesses of the true ideological Berniecrats, who have no love for Trump, does help drive some of the White working class toward Trump. I think he is right.

I was going to post a few stories on abortion anyway, today. It's a great current example of how MAGA Republicans seem to be helping Democrats win the war of ideas. There's a nice bumper sticker I've come across used by Democrats strategists: "It's the extremism, stupid." They make a great argument that Democrats are punching above their weight in part because both Trump and Ronny Republicans are so extreme. @unicorn helped my argument along today by posting about the Great New Inclusivity Idea of Minneapolis, calling all those ancestral Lutherans to morning Muslim prayer. So it's a good example of what can easily be tagged as liberal extremism. But it's Minneapolis. Even Twin Cities liberals seemed to have nailed the coffin shut on lefty extremism when 56 % of them voted NOT to get rid of the Minneapolis Police Dept. and replace it with a Dept. of Public Safety. Meanwhile, a Black progressive just won the Chicago Mayor's race by promising to FUND the police. Where's the extremism? Well, it seems to be all over on the Republican side. Surprise lesson from Wisconsin: Abortion may not be panacea for Dems Several of the top strategists for the Wisconsin race said the same: it is the extremism, stupid. To put it in abortion terms, it's not that America is a liberal nation where everyone wants abortion on demand. It's that what we are actually getting is total abortion bans. Not only from elected legislatures, but from Trump appointed judges. Granted, progressives in Wisconsin had a shit load of money. So they could get out a message in a way that Muslims in Minneapolis will never be able to, no matter how friendly their liberal City Council is. But Republicans had a shit load of money, too. The soft on crime stuff just didn't work when they tried it on a judge who talked about how she sent lots of bad people to jail. DeSantis could be walking into a general election trap on abortion Democrats prepared to pounce after Florida governor backed a six-week abortion ban. Which adds to the mystery of why supposed political genius Ron DeSantis is rushing to embrace an idea that even the vast majority of Floridians reject. Did I mention how well Republicans have done recently in Michigan, or Wisconsin? So I have to believe that he sees playing to the extremists in the Republican Party as what he has to do to even have a chance of running against Biden. Which of course puts Biden, and Democrats, in a good position. Again, I'll draw a comparison to what @unicorn just posted. Yes, liberals backing dawn Muslim calls to prayer sounds extreme, or just goofy. But it's Minneapolis, not Florida. Here's the same Ruy Tuxiera article I hyperlinked in that other thread where he states that, if Democrats lose too much of the White working class (5 % more), Republicans could have an electoral college lock on states like Michigan and Wisconsin until as far out as 2040. Like he says, that should scare the shit out of Democrats like me. At the very least, Republicans like DeSantis are not helping themselves with the White working class with six week abortion bans. At best, as Bill Clinton would argue, reacting against these bans helps nudge White working class people back into the Democratic tent. It's then on Democrats to explain why they stand for the working class still, including Whites. Tim Scott gets tripped up on abortion ban questions The senator is courting the evangelical vote. But he has difficulty detailing where he is on one of the group’s main issues. Scott seems to be reading the same polls everyone else is. Supporting a 15 or 20 week abortion ban probably makes him electable as POTUS. It probably makes him unelectable in 2024 among a GOP primary electorate that's clearly wanting to go Big Lie and Extremism, Stupid. I'm interested in everything Tim Scott does. To me, he is the conservative most interested in doing what Reagan spent decades trying to do, and finally did: make what some called extremism look like sunshine and Goldfish crackers to a majority of Americans. I see Scott as one potential engineer of a 21st century version of forward looking multi-racial Main Street capitalism. That could attract the White, Black, Hispanic, and AAPI working class to the GOP. Younger Black voters, who see the GOP as the party that elects Tim Scott, are already a bit more likely than their parents to vote Republican. While it's early days, what's interesting is that Republican primary voters will have none of it. It's hard to argue they are racists, since they elected Tim Scott in South Carolina. But they seem to be more interested in their extreme positions, than in what could actually win a majority. All this suggests that the Biden Band Aid will hold through 2024. The Working Class Joe shtick worked well enough that he won back Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in 2020. And added Arizona and Georgia, of course. Running against Trump helped. And may again. It will be the economy, stupid, in 2024, for sure. Even the bears, like Mike Wilson of Morgan Stanley, says that a shallow 2023 recession and S & P 3000 is a "50/50 coin toss." And even if that happens, the pessimist in the room is saying, it will lead to a strong recovery in 2024. That's what the pessimists are saying. If his crystal ball is right, it means Biden will have the economy, stupid, mostly on his side by November 2024. Some article in 538 just pointed out that Biden now is as unpopular as Carter was at the same point in 1979. But he is also just as unpopular as Reagan in 1983, and Obama in 2011. The good news for Biden, unlike Carter in 1980, is the inflation peak is rear view mirror. That article about DeSantis came out a few days ago, before the "Pudding Ron" attack ad. It's interesting that Trump in many ways is saying the things that make him the pragmatic Republican in the room. Don't fuck with Social Security or Medicare. Don't go extreme on abortion. So he's painting Ruby Red Ron as the extremist, perhaps successfully. Meanwhile, Trump himself has the lowest favorable ratings he's every had (25 % favorable, according to ABC), thanks to his election lies and alleged law breaking. Which is just getting started. It's the extremism, stupid!

Granted, Sis. Each and every one a beauty in her own way. All the ones you chose to represent have that allure and femme fatale glamour that is what makes the Republican Party overwhelmingly popular and stylish today. Frankly, Dame DeSantis gave me a hard on. Just sayin, if that's okay. But can we just be honest for a moment? Beauty and culture aside, if you really want to win you just need some tough old broads who are willing to be total bitches. So praise Jesus for Sister Stevia, and RuDee! They are the women I aspire to be. And I love them.

I'll come at it from the 30,000 foot level. Ruy Tuxeira is one of my current favorite thinkers. At the time he and leftie John Judis wrote The Emerging Democratic Majority in 2002 it seemed like a joke. W. was President. And the Iraq War was wildly popular. I actually bought the book while at a symposium at Carleton in Minnesota, my alma mater. The symposium was in honor of Senator Paul Wellstone, who had just died in a plane crash. So you had a bunch of leftie students and disciples of his mourning all kinds of bad right-wing things going on in America. The world Tuxiera and Judis described did not seem possible. That was 2003 or so. Then there was 2008. Tuxeira now is like the old crank in the room with pretty much the same liberal or progressive thoughts as two decades ago. But he writes lots of wonderful blog pieces about how elements of the progressive movement seem to be hellbent on going too far. And thus preventing a Democratic majority from emerging and governing for a long time. Name pretty much any culture war issue - CRT, transgender athletes, and probably "Muslim stuff," and he'll throw that on the pile of things that increasingly make White working class people think the Democrats are a bunch of leftie, out of touch elitists. Who all went to some liberal arts college. And got indoctrinated by some leftie Jew academic like Wellstone. Guilty as charged, I guess. 😍 Minneapolis of course was the spiritual home of "defund the police," after George Floyd's murder. Which more than any other culture war slogan - "Make Islam Great Again" ??? - has caused problems for Democrats. So my criticism of my own team would be, "Why are we bending over backwards to act like stereotypes and write ads for Republicans?" And this is actually serious shit. After 30 years they finally ran moderate Democrat Collin Peterson out of his rural Minnesota House seat in 2020 by linking him with Ilhan Omar in crazy TV ads. And suggesting the two (plus Nancy Pelosi, somehow) were all involved in some 9/11-type plot to encourage terrorism and destroy rural Minnesota. Can mosques be far behind? But it's a great example of the polarization. Why would a White rural area of Minnesota elect an anti-abortion, pro-gun, homophobe sounding conservative Democrat who opposed same sex marriage? So now they elect Republicans. Democrats are the party of Muslims and cop haters and The Gays, they think. All that said, how many Minnesotans will flee their state because of dawn calls to prayer, so they can move to a red state (Iowa?) where Republicans are rushing to ban abortion as quickly as they can? Probably not very many. This goes to the point I made in another thread I started. I don't think you can argue that America is a liberal nation. It's easy to argue Minneapolis went too far - again! But compared to what? Banning abortion totally? Compared to what the MAGA election deniers and God-fearing abortion haters like Herschel Walker are doing, the Democrats come off as the normal people and pragmatists, more often than not. Back to earth, though, they should just ban anybody from broadcasting calls to prayer at dawn. That's when The Gays are leaving the bars, after all. Why not let them go home peacefully and quietly? 😉

So this is one of two very geeky data-oriented posts today. The new conventional wisdom appears to be that real Republicans are rallying around Trump, which will make it easier for him to win the GOP primary. But this will make it worse for Republicans in the 2024 general election. We won't know for a long time how many more Kari Lakes and Herschel Walkers Trump may bring to the party in 2024 GOP primaries. But there's no reason to think he won't try. Or that it will somehow work out better than it did in Senate or Guv races in 2022. (Of course, there will always be Justice in West Virginia. So that's one bright spot.) This conventional wisdom is not just The Fake News. Prominent Republicans saying this include GOP Establishment icons like pollster Whit Ayers. As well as Fallen Judas Conservatives like Morning Joe and Michael Steele. Current Republicans will say this anonymously. And presumably the Top Guv himself thinks this way. But other than a few Also Rans (Asa Hutchinson) or Never Rans (Chris Sununu) no Republican who wants to win an election wants to say it publicly. And piss The Magical MAGA Kingdom off by debunking fairy tales. But the conventional wisdom seems to be true. I went to 538 and summarize below every state level poll taken so far in 2023 regarding how state races would go next year. It's clear that Republicans are a bit more likely to win key swing states with DeSantis. And a bit more likely to lose key swing states with Trump. Below is every state poll listed on 538 year to date that has both a Trump/Biden and DeSantis/Biden horse race to compare, starting with the most recent. Could somebody please let me know when Trump's MAGA Republicans get tired of wanting to lose? Iowa, April 3 -4: Trump 46/Biden 40, DeSantis 48/Biden 38 - Trump beats Biden by 6, DeSantis beats Biden by 10 North Carolina, March 26-27: Trump 43/Biden 45, DeSantis 44/Biden 41 - Biden beats Trump by 2, DeSantis beats Biden by 3 Florida, March 15-19: Trump 44/Biden 44, DeSantis 46/Biden 43 - Biden and Trump tied (in Florida???), DeSantis beats Biden by (only) 3 (in Florida???) Florida, Fed 25-Mar 7: Trump 50/Biden 43, DeSantis 51, Biden 42 - Trump beats Biden by 7, DeSantis beats Biden by 9 (more accurate than the March poll?) New Hampshire, March 3-5 Trump 38/Biden 42, DeSantis 37/Biden 42 - Biden beats Trump by 4, Biden beats DeSantis by 5 - the only state in which Trump does better than DeSantis, but Biden wins either way Virginia, Feb 12-21: Trump 45/Biden 47, DeSantis 48/Trump 43 - Biden beats Trump in Youngkinia by 2, DeSantis beats Biden in Youngkinia by 5 (will Ron wear a fleece with his white boots? Don't tell my beloved sis @Suckratesor it will really violate her fashion sense.) California, Feb 14-20: Trump 29/Biden 59, DeSantis 34/Biden 57 - Biden kicks both of their asses, but Trump gets his ass kicked even more (Fucking liberals!) Arizona, Jan 31 - Feb 9: Trump 37/Biden 39, DeSantis 36, Biden 35 - Biden beats Trump by 2, DeSantis beats Biden by 1 Nevada, Jan 30 - Feb 6: Trump 42/Biden 40, DeSantis 42/Biden 36 - Trump beats Biden by 2, DeSantis beats Biden by 6 (Obamacrat David Plouffe says Nevada is the state Democrats won in 2020 that he worries most about in 2024. This is why.) North Carolina, Jan 9-12: Trump 45/Biden 48, DeSantis 49/Biden 44 - Biden beats Trump by 4, DeSantis beats Biden by 5 Arizona, Jan 5-8: Trump 38/Biden 35, DeSantis 43, Biden 37 - Trump beats Biden by 3, DeSantis beats Biden by 6 And there you have it. In blue states like California, Biden will win anyway. In red states like Iowa, any Republican will win. But even in a supposedly red state like Florida, Biden could possibly compete with Trump. And in every swing state - Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and even supposedly blue Virginia - DeSantis would be more likely to take out Biden than Trump. The pattern is clear and consistent. Obviously polls in early 2023 tell us little about November 2024. But that's the Republican problem, I think. It's possible that three indictments will be better than one for Trump. But unlikely. When does this get better for him? Obviously there's 10 - 20 % of voters in each of those states that are undecided. My hunch is most of them wish Trump and Biden would both go away. How does nominating the guy they wish would go away help with that? Democrats, of course, have the same problem. But there is one massive difference. In every horse race poll, Biden does better than Harris in beating any Republican in 2024. In most horse race polls, Trump does worse than DeSantis at beating Biden. At least Democrats are sticking with a winner. My economic crystal ball sucks. But the other conventional wisdom I feel like I read everyday (here's today's version) is that we will have a shallow recession, or at least a shall corporate earnings recession, in 2023. Followed by a "strong" recovery in 2024. Does a "strong" recovery in 2024 help or hurt Biden, if it happens? (At this point in 1983 the polls showed Mondale would kick Reagan's ass.) One of the best arguments both sides have is that the other side has been overtaken by extremists, so as to be unrecognizable. If Republicans nominate Trump, who won the 2020 election and organized the Jubilant Patriotic Cop Beating, it confirms their extremism. If Democrats nominate Biden, they have nominated arguably the most recognizable Senator/Veep/POTUS in US history. Biden has proven he is capable of getting approval ratings over 50 %, although he is underwater now. DeSantis, while less well known, has consistently enjoyed net favorable approval ratings. Although that may be changing, since Trump has been doing the Democrats' job of attacking DeSantis. Meanwhile, there was not one day of his Presidency when 50 % of Americans approved of the job Trump was doing. How does this suggest four more years will be better? Again, polls in early 2023 tell us little about November 2023. But all the trends in polls do suggest that the best reason to nominate Trump is that Republicans are just not tired of winning yet. Yup. Those were the good old days.

Memo to SK: always fact check yourself. Gallup has measured this so consistently for so many years that I thought I had the numbers down. Which of course means I should have fact checked myself. So we are both partly right. There has been an overall gradual growth of people who identify as liberal, as I knew there was. But, as you said, 1 in 4 - not 1 in 3 - is now the high mark. That chart goes to 2018. I have seen more recent non-Gallup surveys in which it is close to one third. And some of that gets into the difference between "liberal" and "progressive." But liberals are the consistent minority in US politics in the past decades, for sure. The growth of liberalism has definitely been among Democrats. To me, those charts explain a few things. First, why somebody more centrist like "Third Way" Bill Clinton would look attractive to Democrats in 1992, when liberals were a minority even among Democrats. Whereas by 2022 lots of (younger) Democrats think "Socialist" Joe is not liberal enough. It also explains why the 2022 backlash may not have been as bad as the backlashes in 1994 or 2010. Since there are at least somewhat more liberals who actually prefer liberal policies. And are maybe more willing to go vote in midterms to defend them. That said, one might guess from the charts above that Republicans would have dominated the Presidency during this whole period. Since the overwhelming majority of the US calls itself moderate or conservative. In fact, the only time a Republican won outright was 2004, when W. managed to get just under 51 % of the vote. Even though a record 78 % of Americans called themselves moderate or conservative in 2004, according to Gallup. What's obvious is that a lot of people who call themselves moderates vote Democrats in as President, including Obama and Biden (and Hillary, if we go by popular vote). My college political science professor had a theory about this: Americans are philosophically conservative and programmatically liberal. His name was Paul Wellstone, and he was often accused of drinking Kool Aid. Regardless, he managed to take out moderate Minnesota Republican icon Dave Durenberger and held the seat for 12 years, pretty much as the most liberal US Senator, until he died in a plane crash. The whole thing about Republicans wanting to cut Social Security at this year's SOTU was a great example of why many Americans may actually be less conservative than they think, programmatically. Trump gets that. Which is why he is "hands off" on Social Security and Medicare. Did I mention that Trump's approval rating as President hit the absolute low precisely when his party seriously tried to repeal Obamacare? So my point still stands. Yes, the Wisconsin election was one race. And both sides poured endless amounts of money into it. But it still may be a bellwether of things to come. Again, I know I can't be objective. But my impression is liberals and progressives are winning the battle of ideas. In part because Trump's big idea is that he won the 2020 election. And 2024 should be about grievance and retribution.

So here's the theory of the case: In Wisconsin, a big win for liberals and a warning for the GOP I've read a bunch of stories like this over the past week. But the person I associate the most with this view is Morning Joe. Scarborough argued both before and after the Wisconsin vote that sometimes particular elections really do tell us something about where the country is heading. He pointed to the passage of anti-tax/anti-government Prop 13 in California in 1978 as a first wave of the 1980 Reagan Revolution. Morning Joe's political judgment, especially coming at this with the views of a still conservative Gingrichy Republican, is pretty reliable. I'd agree with Joe's view that it may be less that liberals and progressives are winning the argument, and more that the MAGA nonsense and election denial essentially makes it no argument at all. At least for people in the middle. Although he also points to specific issues, like abortion, as driving the country toward liberal and progressive positions. I was really surprised last Tuesday. I was hoping for a close win in Wisconsin, which recent elections would suggest. It was more like a blowout for the liberal candidate. And I thought the White pro-cop candidate would obviously win the Mayor's race in Chicago in this political climate. Oops! All the caveats apply. It was a close race. And it was an internal fight between Democrats, hardly a national referendum. But if there is a strong pro-cop reaction, Chicago did not get the memo. And that counts, since of the really big cities it is usually Chicago that Foxy conservatives point to as Democrat hell on Earth. You know, the same guys - yup, I mean you Tucker - who love Trump. Except in private. Oops! What the fuck is happening?! Tucker could not really be LOSING the argument, could he? The easiest argument against my own argument is that Ron Johnson nailed a different Black guy running for Senate to the wall over "defund the police" in Wisconsin last Fall. That said, it didn't work in Georgia or Arizona - both reddish states, still. Nor did it work overall. As that article above points out, the lack of a red wave in 2022 is probably the best data point for the theory that the national wind is at the back of progressives and liberals. Pragmatic conservative Governors like DeWine and DeSantis and Sununu did well. And were mostly rewarded for being pragmatists, I think. But they should have done well in 2022, just list in 1994 and 2010. DeWine barely won the Ohio GOP primary, but like Kasich won in a landslide in the general. People in the middle like pragmatists. I do buy the argument that the 1970's was a period of ascendant conservative thought. With many rising conservative thought leaders and think tanks, and political stars like Reagan. I can't be objective about it. But Trump is no thought leader. Nor is DeSantis, really. He's your basic White competent conservatism on the inside with a dark MAGA-ish coating on the outside. Which may or may not actually suit current Trumpy appetites in the GOP. So, again, if liberals are winning, it may in part simply be by default. Long-term surveys say back when Clinton won in 1992, maybe 1 in 4 Americans identified as liberal or progressive. Now it is closer to 1 in 3, on a good day. So the trend among the young for sure is going Democrats' way. But liberals like me are nowhere near a majority. If we are only 1 in 3 Americans, why are so many things going our way?

And therein lies the issue. Add this to the clusterfuck: Bill Barr: DOJ could have 'very good evidence' of possible Trump obstruction in documents case In the typical MAGA fun house mirror, where a violent riot at The Capitol based on a huge lie becomes The Jubilant Patriotic Cop Beating (they were beaten by false flag FBI filth, of course), you can argue this one either way. In the world in which most Americans live - including most Independents and some Republicans - Barr is credible. He appears to have tried to be guard rails on Trump, both as AG and now after he quit. So the argument above has a lot of merit, coming from Trump's own former AG. That said, Barr is the typical ball licking RINO that serviced Bush 41 loyally. And apparently mostly likes CINO (cum in name only). So he can't handle a real guy like Trump, who doesn't lick the balls of RINOs. Or the FBI. So if Trump jerked the government around, who gives a fuck? That's actually why the MAGA crowd love Trump. And since the girly men at the FBI can't really cum anyway, like Trump does when he grabs women by the pussy, what harm is a little jerking around gonna do, anyway? So Barr is the last person on Earth, other than possibly Hunter Biden or Rich Mitch, that any serious MAGA type is gonna listen to. To tone it back to reality a bit, the other issue is that the idea that A POTUS knows lots of top secret shit isn't in and of itself a big deal. And even if it is, Not President Brandon and The Guy Who Was Supposed To Be Hung did it, too. So WTF? It's just more witch hunts and lies and bullshit. It's pretty obvious that a majority of the Republicans, especially the MAGA types, are fully committed to the lie that Trump actually won the 2020 election. So anything Trump does - which is of course NOT authoritarian or fascist, other than in the mind of Democrats, who are all socialists - is justified. It's just that simple. Get it? Probably not, if you post here. Socialist! For all these reasons, I'd argue the Mar A Lago stuff is probably the weakest link in the chain, politically. Even though Barr is of course correct, legally. Precisely because Trump can use it to rail against RINOs and The Deep State. It's easier to hate them than Smart Black People Who Are Lawyers. Because, of course, the GOP is now the party of Smart Black People. (See Thomas, Clarence and Owens, Candace.) Bragg is just some old school dumb ass who didn't get the memo. But we don't want to seem racist. We won't really know how this plays out until indictments come in from The Feds, and hopefully Fulton County. And that involves some complexities, too. Since they are based on some of the same lies and law breaking. But I like keeping the focus on how Trump lied about losing an election. Then systematically undermined democracy. Often by attacking and threatening other elected Republicans, like in Georgia. Then rallied his MAGA people to go beat the living shit out of cops at The Capitol to try to steal an election. And how a shockingly large percentage of Republicans feel comfortable with all these things. How jubilant! How patriotic! I think Biden and Democrats have a big advantage. Our core argument is actually based on truth. Team Tucker can't say the same.

Good points. I don't think we're going to know whether "Trump wins" until Nov. 2024. Assuming he gets the Republican nomination, which he probably will. Mostly for the same reasons as in 2016. As Romney guy Stuart Stevens keeps saying, this is what Republican primary voters now want. Election denial is who the MAGA Republican Party is. Jan. 6th is what the MAGA Republican Party does. And still supports two years later. Check the polls. Or ask Tucker! (But not in a private text.) We for sure won't know how Bragg's case - or any other looming federal or state indictment - ends up in court anytime soon. No one knows whether the New York indictment will even go to trial before the 2024 election. This Q & A with an MSNBC politico is long, but it did a nice job capturing an overall legal and political strategy for me. Here's the key Q & A I completely agree. That's the big picture. If the big picture were whether Barack Obama paid a hooker hush money, or some doorman at Trump Tower alleged that Bill Clinton had a child out of wedlock, I'm not sure most people on either side would really give a shit. So I don't disagree with @Lucky's main point. Bragg's case is certainly not the strongest link in the chain. But the big picture isn't really any particular legal nuance of any one indictment. It's whether we want an angry minority who believes election lies and supports riots to undermine democracy to have their aspiring dictator in charge again - whatever it takes. By the way, the same angry minority - completely by coincidence - wants to ban abortion. And books on The Blacks and The Gays, of course. But please don't say they are homophobes or racists. Book bans and abortion bans are just what enlightened people do these days! This is all what needs to be worked through the democratic system - assuming we still want and have such a thing. I keep repeating what Obama politico David Plouffe said: this will be fought out NOT over four years, but over four election cycles. At least. What we know so far is that in 2018, 2020, and even 2022 the MAGA BS mostly worked to the advantage of Democrats. Even though the country is split. To be more precise, the Republicans who did well in 2022 are guys like Chris Sununu, and Mike DeWine, and Tim Scott, and even Ron DeSantis - who are less MAGA, and more about an actual forward looking conservative vision of governance. Not retribution. Not hate. So will Americans accept "I am your retribution" and "Make America Hate Again" in 2024? Who knows. Tell me whether we are in a recession or recovery in November 2024 and that would be a big clue. We're a long way from 2000 and Bush v. Gore, which seems charming and quaint in retrospect. Democrats have won almost every Presidential race since, including 2016, by the popular vote. Which is why Republicans may have turned to a guy like Trump. Who will do whatever it takes. Karl Rove believes the October 2000 surprise that W. had an old DUI may have cost him five states, and almost the Presidential election. Wow! "Moral" voters actually cared about shit like DUI's back then? Here's the good news. Survey says that lots of people in the middle, including enough Republicans to put the final nail in Trump's coffin, still care about things like this. But we'll see. Everybody SHOULD be worried that Trump can win. And that his angry base wants retribution and hate, and will ban all sorts of things. Even though they just love The Gays, of course! Bless their hearts. We do know polls in early 2023 about Nov. 2024 are almost meaningless. In early 1983 all the polls said Mondale would kick Reagan's ass. That said, there's no evidence that this is helping Trump in 2024 general election polls. The latest polls still say that, so far, Republicans would be slightly more likely to beat Biden if they chose DeSantis rather than Trump. But maybe 20 % or so of voters will make a lesser of evils choice. Things don't ever seem to work out well for Trump as the "lesser of evils" guy, do they? Geez. Wonder why? Except, arguably, in 2016. Barely. Like I said, everyone SHOULD worry.

Well it's now clear you called that one right. Post-indictment poll: Trump surges to largest-ever lead over DeSantis But the latest Yahoo News/YouGov survey also shows that most Americans don't think Trump should be allowed to serve as president again if convicted. As most articles are noting, this is a two part equation. And, unfortunately for Trump and Republicans, survey says it's more about subtraction than addition. As the me-me-melodrama fires up the base and adds to Trump support among the hard core MAGA types, it subtracts support from Independents and leaners who Trump will need to win. Just like he did in 2016, when he still lost by three million votes. The numbers among Independents actually don't sound so bad on this one. Slightly more Independents approve of the indictment than disapprove. But neither is anywhere near a majority. What I factor in is that this particular indictment is about an old hush money payment that we've all known about for years, anyway. Independents are not so lenient when it comes to the election lies and Jubilant Patriotic Cop Beating (brought to you by Tucker!!!!!) What I buy that lots of pragmatic Republican politicos are saying is that every single time Tucker!!!!! has to explain publicly on Fox (but not privately in texts) how patriotic and glorious all these scams and lies and riots are, Trump is losing. A trifecta of indictments would be a big loser, I suspect. Although, oddly, it may get Trump the Republican nomination. The thing that is hard to calculate is what Independents think about a party that would like somebody like Trump more because of this crap. Interesting factoid in that poll above. 49 % of people say "the only thing Donald Trump cares about is himself." Who knew? Which is actually down from 53 % in December. Either way, that 49 to 53 % of the US is unlikely to vote for Trump, I'd guess. So to win he needs less than a majority. (He got 46 % in 2016, compared to 48 % for Clinton.) So, yeah, it seems likely that if he ran as an Independent, Trump would take votes away from DeSantis, not Biden. Teddy Roosevelt comes to mind. That said, I am an Alan Lichtman devotee, since he has been right in guessing who will win the Presidency every time since 1984. And one of his 13 keys is that when a third party candidate gets more than 5 %, it likely hurts the incumbent. As a general rule, it makes sense. The system was developed by Lichtman and a Russian expert at predicting actual earthquakes. It uses objective measures (GDP, war or peace) based on the assumption that the party in power gets a thumbs up or down based on actual performance - not dumb shit. So the presence of a popular third party candidate usually suggests deep rumblings in the body politic, Lichtman says. John Anderson getting 7 % in 1980 - along with Kennedy's challenge to Carter and the inflationary economy, stupid - all turned out to be reliable warnings of an earthquake coming. Then again, Perot beat the 5 % threshold in 1996, but Clinton still won. But no Democrat challenged Clinton, and he had the economy and peace on his side. So it's not completely clear that Trump losing the nomination and running on the "ME, ME, MAGA" ticket couldn't hurt Biden. For sure it would be a reliable sign of deep rumblings in the body politic. But then, we know that already. It makes no sense that many Republicans are craving to nominate a guy half of America thinks is only into himself. And who plays victim when he fucks, cheats, lies, steals, grabs pussy - and, oh yeah, gets indicted. 🤫

More like 40 % plus. I like the way Bragg's office framed the issue in their response to the House Republicans (aka Team "Lock Her Up"): The thing that is most worrisome to me, if I isolate this one moment in time, is that anyone can make a great argument to sweep this under the rug. If all this is about is hush money to a hooker, which is like tip money to a billionaire, it's not worth the drama and division. Nobody thinks this trial will be done within the next year. So there's every reason to believe by the time any verdict is delivered, Trump will have been indicted again. And again. That makes a difference. Which is worse: hush money to hookers, lying about losing a Presidential election, or starting a riot at The Capitol to hang democracy? And Mike Pence? Let the juries decide. The polls are clear that over half of Republicans have a simple approach to democracy now: FUCK DEMOCRACY. If democracy means Trump loses, well then obviously it's not democracy. The election must have been stolen. And now polls show over half of Republicans have a simple approach to the law: FUCK THE LAW. If there's an issue between Trump and the law, well then obviously the law is wrong. He can't have broken the law. We don't need evidence. We don't need facts. He's just a victim. If it were just about a nice sweet guy like DJT making a simple mistake in paying hush money to a hooker, that would be one thing. Maybe it would be best to just sweep that under the rug. This is very different. It is a systematic and deeply felt attack on democracy, elections, and the law. And over half of one of America's two major political parties is caught up in it. You can't sweep that under the rug. Nor does Team MAGA or Trump want to sweep it under the rug. They are spreading the toxic lies and civic pus continuously. Meanwhile, most Democrats, the vast majority of Independents, and a significant minority of Republicans - which is to say a vast and not silent majority of Americans - are on the side of democracy, elections, and the law. I keep coming back to what Obama politico David Plouffe said back in 2018 or so. Defeating Trump's attack on democracy and legal and government institutions isn't going to take four years. It's going to take four election cycles. If we are lucky 2024 will be the last straw. But Trump clearly and passionately wants this fight. And my guess is he has a big enough minority behind him that this is what he'll make 2024 about.

My dearest Sister In Cock. Yes, hyperbole is always good when we are talking about 12 inch Trump. But isn't this perhaps going a bit too far? Fact: This indictment is a shameless effort to interfere in a Presidential election with absolutely no merit. Fact: There is no racism in the Republican Party. None. The Black and Hispanic working class is now the very heart and soul of the GOP. Name a Republican who is NOT a Black woman, dearest Sis. But don't believe me. There you have it. A veritable ocean of Black faces at the 2016 GOP convention, chanting, "Set Hillary Free! Set Hillary Free!" The party of Lincoln would never stand for racism, even of the subtle type. Let alone election interference based on so-called unindicted crimes.

Well, we'll now get a good test of this theory. I know there's also a thread on the indictment itself. But I'm posting this here to focus more on the impact on the 2024 Republican Presidential nomination. 2024 Republican Presidential Nomination I'm not sure I agree with the idea that Trump has moved further ahead. As that chart shows, DeSantis got a big boost after the midterms, when he looked electable and Team MAGA didn't. That hasn't changed. DeSantis had a run of momentum which has now stalled. But he still has about one third of the primary vote leaning to him. Whereas Trump has less than half. And it's April 2023. It hasn't even started yet. The media has been beating Trump's recent uptick in a few polls to death. But some part of that may simply be that he is back in the news again, period. I think Jonathon Lemire summed it up nicely in an article on the politics of the impeachment today: There's plenty of other data to back up Lemire's opinion. I posted this recent Politico article that shows that grassroots county GOP chairs vastly prefer DeSantis. 73 % of local chairs will consider DeSantis, which is the only candidate way more than half are interested in. Only 9 % won't consider DeSantis. With Trump, 43 % of local chairs say they would consider him. But 39 % don't want him to be the 2024 nominee. Trump doesn't need half the primary vote to win in 2024. He didn't need it in 2016. But it is not clear he can get anywhere close to half the GOP primary vote. As always, he knows his one path to victory is to inflame, divide, and conquer. Politico reports conservative House members, including Freedom Caucus members, are torn down the middle as well. Which makes sense, since the people who vote for them are torn down the middle, also. Being this divided is not a good place to be - for the Freedom Caucus, for Trump, or for Republicans who actually care about winning. If you want a left-of-center thoughtful political hack with a bipartisan temperament, there's no better than David Axelrod. He put his finger on the problem for Democrats in 2022. He worried that efforts to promote inflammatory Republican election deniers at the margin in GOP primaries could backfire on Democrats. Since in a red wave they all could win. We now know they all lost. And while Democrats may have helped nominate a few MAGA diehards at the margin, it was clear in 2022 that there was a red MAGA election denying wave in Republican primaries all over the US, from sea to shining (and lying) Lake. My guess is that this will whip a minority of conservatives - mostly White and rural, without college degrees - into a MAGA Or Bust frenzy. Which is of course what Trump wants. And if it's not a one on one with DeSantis, it may be enough for Trump to eke it out. I'm always with Alan Lichtman and his Keys To The Presidency: what will matter most in 2024 is whether we are in a recession, or a recovery. If the economy sucks, whoever Republicans nominate could win. But I think Lemire is right. Trump continuously disqualifies himself because of his legal problems, among other things. It is not what Republicans do when they are tired of winning. It is what they do when they want to lose. I think that is why Republican county chairs and Freedom Caucus types who comes from very conservative districts are worried. Oh. And then there is this: 57 percent say any criminal charges should disqualify Trump from reelection bid: poll

From your lips to God's ears, Sis. 😉 Trump pushes Marjorie Taylor Greene to run for U.S. Senate Can somebody please wake me when the MAGA Republicans finally get tired of winning with all these MAGA candidates they run?

There is interesting polling data in this article taken from county-level GOP chairs. It sounds in the ballpark of what I would expect. Other than poor Chris Christie, the candidate that county chairs are most likely to say they DO NOT want is Donald Trump. 39 % say they don't want Trump. That said, 43 % of local chairs say they would consider Trump. 43 % is enough to win Trump the nomination in winner take all Republican primaries, just like in 2016. Trump's game is to make his base feel like the humans in The Last Of Us. Everybody not with us is like fungi out to get us. America is not a shining city on a hill. It is infected. It needs cleansing and retribution for all the fuckers who fucked us up. (Again, don't get me started on The Gays.) DeSantis is the candidate that the most county chairs would consider (73 %). In fact, he is the ONLY Republican that way more than half of Republican county chairs would consider. So the question is whether he can turn that into a 50 % or so majority in a Republican primary. And how much of the "you're infected, asshole" rhetoric and tone he has to deploy to do so. But I agree with Sis @Suckrates. Ron kind of makes me feel like The Gays are part of the infection that needs to be cleansed. Nikki Haley comes in third after DeSantis and Trump, at 36 %, as someone local GOP chairs would consider. 26 % say they would not consider her. I think her problem is that the 43 % that are for Trump include a lot of people who are rabidly for Trump. I'm not sure how many people are rabidly for Nikki Haley. I've got a hard on for Tim Scott. I think he is for sure the most interesting Republican (other than Don and Ron) to watch. And it shows up in the polling. He's number four on the list of candidates local chairs would consider, at 26 %. So he has the same problem as Haley. Like her, he polls in a low single digit. Because almost nobody is rabidly for him. What's more interesting to me is that, other than Top Guv Ron, Scott is the candidate that is likely most unifying. Only 16 % of Republican chairs say they would NOT consider Scott in 2024, as opposed to 9 % for DeSantis and 39 % for Trump. That said, I had a hard on for John Kasich in 2016, and look where that got him. I recall a dinner in Summer 2016 with two Republican friends where we all agreed that things would be so much better if the GOP had nominated Kasich. The two Republicans presumed that Kasich could beat Hillary. Whereas it looked then like Trump would be a disaster in Fall 2016. My presumption as a Democrat was that either Kasich or Clinton would have made decent Presidents, unlike Trump. It's all been more and more Freak Show since then. And so far the MAGA message, such as it is, kind of just keeps getting worse. So with Trump, we have the narrative that McConnell and Biden are the uniparty hacks destroying America. With Trump the only leader that can win retribution for real Americans. Can't blame the MAGA folks for not getting tired of winning, right? 🤫 And here's the Tim Scott narrative: I think that does set Scott apart from any other Republican candidate, including Haley. If there is a sunny Reaganite Main Street capitalist running, Tim Scott is it. Right now, that gets you about 1 % of the vote in a Republican primary. Ouch! There's at least two theories I have about Scott. One is that he is running for Veep. The Divine Miss Graham, who is back to whoring for Trump, is pushing the idea of Trump/Scott. I hope Miss Graham is once again tone deaf. It would be the end of Tim Scott as a viable national candidate. I suspect he knows that. His message pretty much screams, "I'm not Trump. I'm not running to tell you that America is fucked up." My other theory, which I hope is true, is that Scott is actually running for President in 2028. Obama's guru David Plouffe argued back around 2018 that it would take four election cycles, not four years, to defeat Trumpism. I took that to mean 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024. Let's throw in 2026 just to be safe. That would suggest that if Trump leads Republicans to defeat yet again, by 2028 Republicans might actually be ready for something different. Another Obama guru, David Axelrod, argued something else that makes sense in this context. He said he felt dumb for missing it in 2016. He said, in retrospect, Americans often elect a President that is the opposite of what they've currently got. He said he knew that, and used it, in 2008 to make Obama look like the opposite of W. But he was too close to it to see that, in 2016, Trump was the opposite of Obama. The question is whether Republican primary voters in 2028 will want the opposite of Donald Trump. I think Tim Scott is gambling that they will. If so, I hope he is right.

Precisely. Nor has DeSantis flat out said the 2020 election was stolen. He was NOT one of the election deniers who went down in flames in 2022. Arguably, this is what makes him electable nationally. At least that's what many college-educated Republicans think. But then, what do they know? 🤫 DeSantis currently has a +6 national favorable rating (42/36), compared to net unfavorable for both Trump (-12, at 54/42 unfavorable) and Biden {-10, at 43/53 disapproval). Of course, part of that is because DeSantis is less well known. But those who have heard about him tend to think about him favorably, so far. It's no surprise that if DeSantis does manage to win the 2024 nomination, Team Biden will do everything it can to raise his unfavorable ratings. What's more surprising is that many of those smart college-educated Republicans believe if DeSantis wins the GOP nomination Joe Biden's best hatchet man will be ..................... Donald Trump! If he can't have it, no one can. Trump proved he was that mean-spirited in 2021, both with fomenting riots and poisoning a Georgia runoff. He has already vowed retribution in 2024. Stay tuned! But don't let the Deep State get ya! Turns out that fucking Deep State is worse than the fungi and cannibals in The Last Of Us! Haven't we had enough already? There's not a lot of sources of data on why DeSantis is popular in Florida. But what is available suggests that it's mostly because he is seen as a competent Governor by people in his state. This October 2022 survey is probably the best source for understanding his current approval in Florida. A whopping 72 % approve of how he handled Hurricane Ian. I know you and I always go for the glam fashion icons, Sis Suckrates. But it turns out those cheap white boots did the trick. 57 % approve of how he has handled jobs and the economy in Florida. (Biden's unemployment rate, at 3.6 %, is about the lowest nationally in 50 years. In Florida unemployment is at 2.6 %. What's not to like?) If Trump does not manage to bleed DeSantis out, like he did Poor Jeb! and Little Marco, my partisan question as a Democrat is which Ron will we get? Will he be the sunny Reagan optimist, pushing jobs and a strong economy? Or the bully full of bile, hectoring at The Gays and The Blacks, and all the other fungi-like socialists clinging to life in Florida, despite Ron's culture war. (Has anyone else noticed Ron and Pedro Pascal both look like meatballs? Pedro sports a gun rather than white boots, of course.) The verdict is out. That same poll I cited above offers no evidence that Ron's culture war stuff is popular outside of Republican primary voters. While he got 57 % approval on jobs and the economy among Florida voters, he got 50 % on "unifying Floridians," 48 % on immigration, and 43 % on climate change. It's not clear that branding himself as Culture Warrior In Chief will help him win a general election, if he is nominated. My main point in this post is that in order to beat Trump our Top Guv will have to embrace divisiveness and mountains of dirt. It may not help him beat Biden, even if he beats Trump. Good news is that The Last Of Us smashed the ratings. And a sequel is coming. So America is clearly in the mood for more dour and dire Freak Show. And boy are those moderate college-educated White Republicans gonna get it.

Trump’s first ’24 rally has a familiar feel: Anger and attacks on his tormentors Actually, Ron DeSantis is not a traitor, IMHO. He is a conservative Republican with a pretty good approval rating as Governor of Florida. Which means even a lot of Democrats think he is doing a competent job. That said, it is obvious what you do when you get a seemingly competent and popular Republican Governor. You go for the jugular. You break his neck. You bleed him out, hopefully slowly and painfully. It's actually quite fun, if you are Donald Trump and his followers. Isn't this simply common sense? Isn't this obviously what leadership is about? Isn't this what America needs more of? Not the pussies and traitors! Pussies and traitors! Pussies and traitors! Pussies and traitors! This is just common sense. Isn't the problem obvious? (And don't get me started on The Gays making pussies out of our Woke Military! Ugh!) Then again, here's a thought. Why not sit back and enjoy the Republican Freak Show? When has the majority of America said, "Hey, we want this Freak Show! This is what we want! We want more freaks!" Yes, 3 million fewer Americans voted for Trump than Clinton in 2016. And he won anyway because we have an electoral college that was designed to help Whites owns Blacks. Alan Lichtman told us in September 2016, once again accurately, that was because people were going to give a thumbs down to the party in power. Not because of Donald Trump. He actually said Hillary might win, even though history was against her, simply because Donald Trump is such a freak. The majority of America did not want Freak Show in 2018. The majority of America did not want Freak Show in 2020. The majority of America did not want Freak Show on Jan. 6. 2021. The majority of America did not want Freak Show in 2022. They may have been okay with RINOs like Kevin McCarthy. Or RINOs like Chris Sununu. Or RINOs like Mike DeWine - who could not get 50 % of the vote in an Ohio Republican primary, even though he won 62 % of the vote in the Ohio general election. It was very clear. America wanted both conservatives and liberals in 2022. But not Freak Show and liars. Trump’s beer track advantage over Ron DeSantis The divide quickly defining the GOP primary. In other words, the minority of mostly White Americans who identify as Republican and conservative and don't have college degrees are most passionate about Trump. Meanwhile, the Independents and moderate Republicans who are more likely to vote Democratic - in 2018, or 2020, or 2022, or all three - are the ones who have the most distaste for The Freak Show. So, speaking as a partisan Democrat, why not let Trump bleed DeSantis out, and give us more than a full year of Freak Show? What's the downside? That he'll do an even better job of alienating Independents and moderates than he did in 2018, or 2020, or 2022 with his lies and Freak Show? To rebut my own argument, the obvious downside is that Trump could win again, like he did in 2016. But I'll trump you with Lichtman on that argument. His point would be that Biden will win or lose based on a thoughtful judgment of how he did for four years. If there is a bad recession and a humiliating defeat for the US in Ukraine, Biden will be toast. If there is a strong recovery and Putin negotiates a peace deal that leaves a stronger NATO and most of Ukraine intact, Biden will likely win. What Trump gives us is another Freak Show, even more distasteful than the first one. Which Americans already voted thumbs down on once, in 2020, by about 7 million votes. No bet is safe. But Trump is probably less likely to beat Biden than just about any other Republican. Why not have a bloodthirsty Freak Show, which is what Donald Trump wants? What could possibly go wrong? 🤫

Great article I finally got around to reading. I emphatically opposed the Iraq War, and emphatically support what the US and NATO are doing in Ukraine. That said, reading the details of all kinds of unprovable theories about Nord Stream sure reminds me of the debate about Iraq and WMD. The Intercept helped me along by hyperlinking in its article this also very good article written by Seymour Hersch in May 2003, shortly after the Iraq invasion. Hersch wrote that just as it became clear that there were not mountains of WMD - or roses - greeting US soldiers in Iraq. I agree with the article that it never makes sense to simply assume that whatever US intelligence agencies say is true. With the perspective of 20 years of mostly bad things happening, culminating in the cynical and nationalist turn to a MAGA-fied Republican Party under Trump, Hersch's 2003 article about how Team Rumsfeld made up lots of bullshit and lied to the American people and the entire world is just painful to read. What assholes! What liars! They fucked up history. They fucked up the United States. Everything they sought to do backfired and just fucked things up. They hurt democracy and weakened the United States. They strengthened Iran and gave Putin a reason to think, "If the US can do it, why can't I?" And eventually he did. This isn't just my opinion. 20 years on, 61 % of Americans now think the Iraq War was a mistake. If they took a survey of everyone outside the US, the percentage who think it was a mistake would probably be even higher. My guess is that even if there had been WMD in Iraq, it would not have changed the long term narrative much. In his 2003 article, Hersch quotes an unnamed Congressional politico explaining why the Iraq War was a good move, regardless of WMD. "Everyone loves to be on the winning side," the Congressional source says. True. At least true in 2003. In 2023, it looks more like we were on the losing side. Oops! For the same reason, I'm not sure whether it matters 20 years from now whether Biden ordered the bombing of Nord Stream. People in Europe are very clear in polls that they see Putin as the mass murdering war criminal who bombs their children. And then kidnaps the ones he doesn't blow up and carts them off to Russia. People in Europe don't want Russian oil. They actually don't want Russian anything, pretty much. We don't know how this will play out in 20 years. But we do know right now most of the world is on Ukraine's side. Even if the leaders of countries like India and Mexico don't want to formally take sides. So I'm not optimistic for Murderous Vlad, or Russia. Like WMD, I don't think Nord Stream is going to make a big difference in the long term success or failure of this effort to secure democratic values and protect nations from being invaded by bullies in an emerging multipolar world.