stevenkesslar

Which to me is a great argument for a wealth tax. Even Republicans support the idea that Jeff Bezos can afford to pay more. I don't dispute the idea that what I will call "upper middle class" people would prefer to pay less taxes. Probably everybody would prefer to pay less taxes. The history of tax revolts is long and consistent in America. And all over the world, for that matter. The polling on wealth taxes was incredibly clear. Even Republicans supported it. If you focus grouped it you'd likely learn most people just don't see themselves as Jeff Bezos. And they don't have a problem that after paying a wealth tax he is still richer than 100,000,000 of them will be, ever. So they won't wake up one morning and say, "Oh my God! Jeff Bezos' net worth went from $175 billion to $170 billion. What have I done! I am a socialist! Oh my God! I will never vote Democrat again!" Biden's reaction when asked about a wealth tax was informative. He just laughed dismissively. I took it to be what happens when you survive the Reagan era and instinctively know that as soon as you use the word "tax" some supply sider will come out with the knives and start fileting you over the idea that you just want to destroy small businesses and cripple growth and jobs. So Biden is clearly comfortable saying "tax the rich" and "tax corporations". And if he gets a Senate majority they will likely do that. But Democrats of his age who lived through The Era Of Trickle Down are appropriately cautious about not doing things that will get them replaced with a supply sider. It honestly amazes me that people still buy that shit. Under Reagan, we at least had respectable levels of growth - and, of course, a higher deficit. Under W. it was a fucking disaster. And now under President Toxic, we have another fucking disaster. Even before COVID there was a $1 trillion a year deficit and a manufacturing job recession. And yet last night there was Mike Pence, mouthing the same shit about how these tax cuts to fat cats just always create the best economy ever. My guess is in 10 or 20 years we could have wealth taxes in America, when the Millennials are in power. They did not grow up in the Reagan era. They grew up in an America where Jeff Bezos gets it all and they get a job at Starbucks. They are Black or Hispanic, or they are Whites who grew up with Blacks and Hispanics, so they don't respond to the same racial dog whistles, or overt racism. What's sort of inexplicable to me is that these labor union guys in the Iron Range or Michigan just love them a big fat slice of Trumpism. They'll gobble up that Trumpism stuff all day. Add a but of misogyny and racism and they may say that's not their favorite condiment on their Trump Sandwich. But at the end of the day they'll eat their Trump sandwich anyway, because they just love them that Trump red meat. Why is that? It's not clear to me what President Toxic actually delivered for them. It is clear that they had every opportunity to vote for Bernie. They could have voted for Bernie in Michigan. They could have voted for Bernie in Wisconsin. They could have voted for Bernie in Pennsylvania. And yet they didn't. Many of them will instead say, "Give me another Trump Sandwich. I just love that Trump read meat." Why is that? There's no metric that shows that it has actually helped them, other than perhaps they feel more "hope" and "pride". We'll see what happens in November. But it seems like those guys - and it seems like they are mostly guys and mostly White - are now the core of the Trump Party. This is a political no brainer. If your point is that the upper middle class won't tolerate being taxed to death, you are right. So you don't tax them to death. And you get very good at responding to the Mike Pences of the world when he does what he did last night. Confronted about tax cuts that mostly helped the very rich, he made poor Kamala sound like she just lived and breathed to raise taxes on the middle class. She won the debate in the polls. So I guess other than committed Republicans people just don't buy it. And by the way, I'm not sure I agree with the idea that all people or even most people flee high tax cities or states. A lot of liberals are perfectly okay with paying taxes. California, which is a high tax state, surpassed the UK to become the 5th biggest economy in the world in 2018. So it's not clear at all that living in a state run by Democrats where taxes (and gas, and electric bills) are higher than in Texas has forced everyone to abandon the state. People may be fleeing some cities now. But that's because of COVID, not taxes.

Believe it or not, I'm not the most verbose guy around. I'm citing two articles that are both very long, and very well written. The first is Ezra Klein on why it makes sense to get rid of the filibuster. The definitive case for ending the filibuster Every argument for the filibuster, considered and debunked. By Ezra Klein I can make the argument in one sentence. Getting rid of the filibuster is the only way President Biden can succeed. Period. That's assuming he has a Senate Democratic majority, which is looking more likely by the day. But he won't have 60 votes. If McConnell has the opportunity to replay 2010 to 2016, he's already said he will. His obstructionism is likely part of what cost Hillary the election in 2016, I think. It kept Obama from being able to get important things done in his second term. Had he been able to enact laws on immigration reform, climate change, etc., it would have helped Hillary make the case for a "third term", according to Lichtman's keys. I agree. I think Americans know this. They are seeing McConnell right now prioritize getting a right-wing SCOTUS majority over a pandemic relief bill. So Republicans lost the Presidential election by millions of votes. And their Senate majority rests on the idea that fewer than 1 million people in Wyoming can overrule 40 million people in California. Democrats have to become increasingly clear that the only reason for Mitch McConnell to have power is to block what most Americans want. And do things most Americans don't want - like fill that court vacancy as quickly as they can, before they lose power. That's not democracy. This second article is a long profile piece on Elissa Slotkin, one of the moderate Democrats who won a House seat in a Trump district in Michigan in 2018. It looks like she's likely to be re-elected in 2020. I think it's a good companion piece to Klein's article. Slotkin is a good example of what happens when you are obsessed with listening to moderate and relatively affluent Republicans - especially the female type. This article perhaps speaks to what you worry about when Democrats are being too kind to suburban women, @tassojunior. To me, it's a story about what Democrats have to do if they are going to be smart about getting power and keeping it. It is baked into the cake that if Democrats don't have Elissa Slotkin, we don't have a majority. And if Slotkin ignores liberal to moderate Republican members of her district, she's history. Has Elissa Slotkin Detected Early Hints of a Biden Blowout? I liked the political system I experienced in the 80's and 90's when I was lobbying as a consumer activist in the US Congress and Oregon Legislature. It was built on the idea of having to get both parties to go along, somehow, in order to get things done. I could actually see it start to evaporate in the 90's in Oregon. Liberal suburban Republican state legislators were taken out in primaries by right wingers. Conservative Democrats from Eastern Oregon were replaced by Republicans. Everything became more polarized. I think Rahm Emanuel is right. Democrats need to be very good at building metropolitan alliances between cities and suburbs. That is at the core of why Nancy Pelosi became speaker again in 2018. It is also what allow Democrats to get rid of the filibuster in the Senate and prevail. Poor Doug Jones will almost certainly lose in Alabama. And states like Montana and Iowa may mostly be off limits, because they are overwhelmingly White and not very urban. We'll see how many White voters without college degrees return to Biden this November. But they look increasingly likely to form the base of the Republican Party, not the Democratic one. 2020 Demographic Swingometer That's a fun toy from the Cook Political Report that makes my point. It shows the impact of Democrats increasing or decreasing their base among certain groups of voters. What it shows is that Biden would be ahead for 304 electoral votes right now, if you simply adjusted the 2016 results for demographic changes in the last four years. Note that in 2016 President Toxic got 69 % of the White non-college vote. The last Democrat to split the votes of Whites without college degrees was Bill Clinton, who did it in both 1992 and 1996. Right now, according to RCP, Biden is actually leading in states with 374 electoral votes. That's because he has won back at least some of those non-college Whites. If you shift the percentage of White non-college voters Democrats get from 31 % in 2016 to 35 % in 2020, you just picked up North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona - all states which Biden looks like he may win. It still doesn't get you Ohio or Iowa, where Whites without college degrees dominate. If you increase the percentage of White college graduates Democrats get from 54 % to 59 %, you also just picked up Ohio and Texas. That would get Biden a landslide 406 electoral votes. I actually think something like this is a realistic best case scenario right now. Increasing Black turnout has far less significant an impact. If you increase Black turnout from 57 % in 2016 to 65 % in 2020, it wins you one more state: Georgia. Same with Hispanics. If you increase turnout from the 45 % in 2016 to 55 % in 2020, you pick up one more state: Arizona. If Democrats like Slotkin do a good job of listening to the voters in the middle, who are mostly White, Democrats have a decent shot at getting rid of the filibuster without pulling the party so far to the left that they get shellacked in the 2022 midterms.

Only in your dreams. I think this is the group he was referring to.

Quite frankly, I've always thought you are your sexiest when you are sulking and bitching. It's a very good look for you. Me, I just got stuck with good looks and a big cock. Just the normal shit. So count your blessings!

Awesome article. Thanks for posting that. I agree with the author. It's part of the weirdness of the President Toxic era that Steven "Foreclosure" Mnuchin, the guy who said the fat cat tax cuts would pay for themselves (Oops!), is arguably the most shining light in this Administration. The other two survivors that come to mind are Pence and Pompeo. I see both of them as both ass kissers and conservative ideologues who play to Trump's right. What's interesting about Mnuchin, as the article documents, is that he excels at both ass kissing and centrist pragmatism and compromise. This is the line from the article that best sums it up to me: I'll take it one step further. The saddest thing about Mnuchin as a historical figure is that he symbolizes what a Trump Presidency could have been. There was talk between November 2016 and January 2017 about how Trump, having won, might come out of the box as an "art of the deal" consensus builder that lived to cut deals, like Mnuchin appears to. Karl Rove was talking up a big infrastructure bill. Had President Toxic listened solely to people like Mnuchin and Rove, he might be in a very different position today. Instead, Steven Bannon wrote his red meat Inaugural address. Where has that gotten him? One obvious problem for President Toxic is his conservative base. But they've followed him off the cliff, anyway. I have to imagine they'd have also followed him if he'd decided to build a bridge over the cliff, instead. And then there are all the conservative GOP Senate and House members. But they've turned into his lap dog, anyways. Even though it likely means many of them are on the verge of losing elections. Surely they would have preferred to follow him if it actually meant winning. My theory is that the real problem is just President Toxic. Steve Mnuchin is everything Trump is not. Including someone who knows when and how to ass kiss when he needs to. And how to cut deals with Pelosi, rather than just tweet about her. I'll leave it to the historians to figure it all out for us. But it is a tragedy, even before the tragedy of COVID.

Rumors of my death ....................................... I know, I know. You've been lusting after my dildo collection every since we were horny teenage girls. Sorry, my dearest and most darlingest sister. But you'll just have to wait. So are you saying the racism ban at Daddy's is over? Like, did he stop being a racist? Maybe if you say so, sis. But I have my doubts. Anyway, I'm not dead or gone. I haven't posted for a week or so because I was just doing other things. Sometimes even I choose to keep my mouth shut. In terms of President Toxic, I'm in complete agreement with Nancy Pelosi. First, I wish him well and am glad he seems to be recovering. Second, hopefully it's a lesson that leads everyone to wear masks and be more thoughtful about NOT getting others sick. Hopefully none of the Republican Senators or power brokers who infected each other will get really sick or die. For the record, Daddy timed me out twice this year, both a long time ago. Both times were due to his deep racism, as far as I can tell. Needless to say, I'm quite sure he'd disagree. But I've spent enough time with Daddy in person and over the phone that I think I know a deeply racist man when I talk to one. What follows is a screed that probably is best left unsaid. But after all, sis, you know me. And I do think my arguments are valid about how Gays like Daddy should perhaps challenge themselves just a little bit more to really try to live in the 21st century. The first time Daddy timed me out was when I got way deep into arguing that The Birth Of A Nation was the most racist film ever made. It's actually funny looking back at that. Because it was early this year, before Black Lives Matter became a huge thing. In retrospect, it's very easy to see the film as the kind of racist toxic waste that's been brewing under the surface forever, and finally exploded this year. Saying the film is deeply racist is NOT a very controversial position. At least among almost all Blacks, and Whites who are not racists. Daddy is a Scorpio. According to astrology, Scorpios either fly high like a eagle, or slither like a snake. I have seen both of those sides of Daddy, personally. What I found sad about my time out this Spring was that the poor girl took the snake route and tried to make me look anti-Semitic. Which I suppose makes sense. Because he's smart enough to at least know he couldn't really win an argument about racism. Especially about what most Blacks seem to view as the most racist film ever made. The main racist poster I was taking on, Bigjoey, was basically arguing that The Birth Of A Nation was just portraying Blacks as they were seen at the time, in 1915. Not that there was anything racist about that, of course. I mean, it wasn't like the Director picked up a KKK book and KKK play because he intended to cause the Black Holocaust that actually followed, leading to mass terror, death, and the Black Great Migration, right? Since Bigjoey is a Jew, and Gay, I kept making the point that a film saying "Blacks are like raping ape-like predators and thus should be killed" is like saying "God hates fags and they all need to die" or like saying "Jews are vermin and they need to be exterminated". I cited murderous propaganda films - including The Wandering Jew and The Birth Of A Nation - that actually incited the mass murder of Jews, Gays, and Blacks. Bigjoey would have none of it. It was actually a surprise to me that someone who I thought of as thoughtful, and rightfully sensitive to anti-Semitism, could have such a massive blind spot to racism. Daddy timed me out and erased everything I wrote in one post, except for cutting and pasting the example I used of anti-Semitic statements like "Jews are vermin". It was very clear he wanted to make me sound like an anti-Semite. Even that didn't work, because the thread went on forever (with me posting, who could be surprised?), and I was incredibly consistent. The bumper sticker I used - "racism = homophobia = anti-Semitism = Islamophobia" - was pretty much in every page of the post. In order to argue I was saying I hate Jews, you'd also have to argue I was saying I hate Blacks and I hate Gays, such as myself. Again, this is what happens when Daddy knows he can't openly make a winning argument about racism. When Black Lives Matter exploded several months later, it actually made me feel good that I was a stubborn bitch about calling out racism. And defending Black Lives Matter activists who do so. The second time he timed me out was when I went after his own racism pretty much directly. He started that racist anti-Black Lives Matter thread, which is when anybody Black and anybody under 40 or so seemed to head for the exits of his website. While I did not name Daddy directly in my screed about racism, he is not stupid. The message was intended for him as the OP of the thread. And I'm sure he got the message. Because about 24 hours after I hit the post button I found myself timed out. I think I waited something like three months before I started posting here. First, I didn't want to just come here and spew bile. Second, I thought it might actually make sense to shut up for a while. If only to be reminded that I obviously like writing. But it was quite easy to reach the conclusion that I don't really need a gun-loving conservative racist to pass judgment on what I write. It also became clear to me that getting into arguments about films like The Birth Of A Nation with racists doesn't make all that much sense. Of course, I knew that anyway. Go ahead, sis. Say it. We both know I'm a stubborn bitch. Mostly it reinforced the idea that the best thing I can do right now is send lots and lots of money to Democrats from Joe Biden to Rev. Warnock - who actually looks like he can win a Senate seat in Georgia. If it works, Daddy and his racist gun-loving conservative views may run into a huge Wall-like obstacle in 2021 that he can't just time out. I noticed Daddy made a few posts recently that were not outwardly racist and hostile to Blacks. So maybe he got the memo. Regardless, I like posting here. There are fewer screeching conservatives. For years and years part of my job as an escort was actually having thoughtful conversations with conservatives. I think I was quite good at it. That's harder in the era of President Toxic. And I've probably just grown more stubborn. I don't miss debates, or arguments, with conservatives at all. There were much better days with Daddy. So I guess this is sad. I have to mention some words of gratitude here, as I have over there, and as I have told Daddy repeatedly to his face. I am very grateful to both Daddy and @TotallyOz, and especially Hooboy, for creating websites that made my escort career wildly successful. And also gave birth to friendships that have now lasted several decades. That was my motivation several years ago in hitting up lots of my clients and other regulars on his site to create monthly pledges for Daddy that generated I don't know how many thousands of dollars in monthly donations for a year or so. It helped solve Daddy's chronic cash flow problems for a while. And it allowed me to feel like I had paid back any debt due to the fact that he ran a free review website that worked out incredibly well for me. I'll say again. I will always be grateful to Daddy for that. And I wish him well. That was also the beginning of the end. Probably out of gratitude to me, Daddy made me a moderator on his website. That was an honor I didn't ask for, didn't want, and actually really didn't perform at all. In retrospect, I should have immediately said, "No." When he offered to give me the ability to time people out, I practically screamed into the phone, "No." I've never run a website like that. So I suppose I can't really judge. But I'm a huge freedom of speech advocate. So I'm not really into this idea of banning people for being, to quote Daddy, "toxic". It's quite ironic, in that I feel very sure that Daddy himself harbors some fairly toxic views, IMHO. My guess is Daddy came close to timing me out simply for using the phrase "President Toxic". He certainly made it clear I was skating on thin ice. The irony is that President Toxic has created such a huge backlash because of his toxic words and hate mongering that it will likely elect Biden in a landslide. And I laughed my ass off when Biden himself called President Toxic "toxic" and "racist". So Daddy has a lot of issues. Freedom of speech appears to be one of them. If Joe Biden were a member of Daddy's website, he'd probably ban poor Joe for being "toxic". Meanwhile, for someone with aspirations of being Miss Manners, Daddy's own silence on President Toxic's lies, hate, and racism is deafening. One of my biggest problems in life has always been that given the choice to be diplomatic and back off, I almost always chose to be blunt and confrontational. That worked very well for me as a community organizer and consumer activist. I picked lots of big fights and won almost all of them. With Daddy, it was a different game. I do give myself credit for being mostly diplomatic for about 15 years or so. For some strange reason, I actually never told Daddy that I essentially view him as a racist, gun loving conservative. So the idea of being a moderator over there just didn't seem like a very promising idea. The sole and very small contribution I made as a moderator was offering some language, basically from Chuck Schumer's Senate floor speech, defining the purpose of Daddy's website as "harm prevention". That way if DHS or any other agency ever tries to bust him he can point to his TOS and say that the website is doing EXACTLY what the Senators who voted for FOSTA/SESTA said they were for. Like preventing harm to vulnerable Gay minorities. You will notice that the only thing I said recently on Daddy's was a very long rant about how welcoming in more religious conservatives to our courts, including a very conservative SCOTUS majority, can only create problems for people like Daddy in the future. These are the very same religious conservatives who are the primary crusaders against prostitution, men who hires escorts, and websites like Rentboy. Again, I wish Daddy the best. But websites like his could easily be a target in a judiciary that takes a strict conservative/religious view on matters like abortion, prostitution, and even same sex marriage. Daddy also has a problem with kids. I also took him on about that. And in so doing I know Daddy well enough that I was quite sure no good deed would go unpunished. I found that images I posted including children kept being deleted. Example: a picture of Nancy Pelosi on the dais of the House when she became Speaker of the House again, and was surrounded by the children of newly elected House Democrats. When Daddy timed me out for a week because of my rant about The Birth Of A Nation, he actually cited that I posted a picture of children. In the context of that thread, I believe he was referring to this picture: That's "the girl in red" from Schindler's List. You can say a lot of things about that image. I might say that it is one of the most iconic and heart-wrenching images of the horrors of Nazi anti-Semitism ever created. My point in posting it was just that. Whites in America in the 21st Century ought to be able to agree - finally! - that The Birth Of A Nation was as horrific to Blacks in America as Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda was to Jews. And had just as horrific real life consequences in terms of mass terror and mass death. But one thing you simply can't say about that image is that it is child pornography. After Daddy kept removing images of children, I finally decided to post this video. In my post, I intentionally put him on the spot by asking his explicit permission as to whether it was okay to post, since it involved an image of a child. Again, Daddy is not stupid. He graciously thanked me for posting the video, and wondered out loud what it was the child handed to Mayor Pete (a bracelet he had made). Meanwhile, I used that to take Daddy on in the private moderator's forum. His argument was that posting any images of children is a "slippery slope", because the next thing you know it's child porn. My argument was that in the 21st century Gay men can be legally surrounded by naked kids. As in their own babies, whose diapers they are changing. Daddy's way of thinking is a throwback to an ugly and hateful anti-Gay past. Of course child pornography is wrong. But it's very Salem Witch Hunt to base your website on the idea that Gays and kids are just a bad match. Because "we all know what kind of perverts Gay men are." In fact, Gay men in the 21st century are actually a lot like Mayor Pete. Someday perhaps Chasten will be First Lady, and they'll grace The White House with their own children. Probably the worst thing I did is make an argument that one of the other moderators, also a liberal, agreed with. My experience is that Daddy doesn't particularly like being told he is wrong. Sometime shortly after that I found that I had been un-made a moderator, without explanation, just like I had also been made a moderator, without explanation. Almost everybody who hired me for years who knew and interacted with Daddy took exactly the same approach I did: slather him with praise, pay for his hotel room, and then talk about what you really think about him behind his back. Because he is intolerant of dissent. This is something I obviously feel very passionately about. Gay men, lesbians, transgendered people, and our allies pulled off the organizing victory of my lifetime, and of millenia. We took all the ugly and hateful and discriminatory things said about Gays and Gay love and Gay sex and turned thousands of years of bigotry around. And we did it by being deeply personal. We did it by opening our hearts. Gay men and lesbians pulled off one of the most amazing organizing victories of all time. With all due respect to warriors of Good Trouble like John Lewis, we showed the world how it is done. So I find the closed and closeted petty little world Daddy lives in sad. I'm not being too blunt, am I? I understand why he is the way he is. He's had many crosses to bear. As have we all. I think we are on the verge of changing America into a better, fairer, and more loving country. People are disgusted with the division and the hate. Gay men were on the front lines of learning how to win massive political change. Mostly because so many of us lost and lost and lost. And we kept our hopes up and our hearts open. And we continued to fight. Until we won. Daddy's is not a website that runs on that ethos. I spent a lot of time talking to him and to all the Gay men that come to the Palm Springs pool party about how we could defend a website like Daddy's from being the next Rentboy. Mostly those men are closeted and scared. Their ethos is to keep your head down. Don't fight, don't push back. Go with the flow, and hope you don't get busted. Don't go out on a limb. Don't take risks. These are guys I've known for years and years. I can respect their way of thinking. And Daddy's way of running his website. But I've lived my adult life pretty much doing the exact opposite. And I'm proud of it. Mostly, I'm glad that I gave Daddy a little bit of help when I could. And I stood up for what I view as moral things that I deeply believe in. And I'll say again that I will always be grateful that he ran a website that was very lucrative for me. Like I said, all this was probably better left unsaid. But you know me, sis. Like Daddy, I just can't help being the way I am. He isn't going to change. And neither am I. I have a very clear vision of where I hope Gay men, and America, go in the 21st century. It's just not a journey that I think Daddy feels particularly comfortable with. I wish him the best.

I watched the whole Pelosi interview this morning. It was a master class in how to outsmart President Toxic. Of course, it's not the hardest thing to do in the world. She's been doing it since that first meeting in the Oval Office right after she became Speaker again, when she basically allowed President Toxic to be the mean asshole who would shut down the government in what turned out to be his last gasp in the losing battle to publicly defend The Wall. Geez. Why aren't we hearing about The Wall in 2020. I'd give Nancy much of the credit for that. The polls suggest to me that maybe 2 in 3 undecided voters are just starting to break for Biden. It's too early to tell. But the basic structure of the race suggests that the majority will go for the change candidate, which in this case is Biden. The language that the focus group types use is that they know that they don't want to vote for President Toxic. But Biden has not yet closed the deal. Even Republican pollster Frank Luntz asked this in a focus group he was running: The legitimate answer is that undecided people wanted to actually hear about policy. From Biden in particular, because they got the memo that President Toxic has no policies. He just rants and insults. Luntz has also suggested that perhaps Trump's goal was to prevent Biden from closing the deal. Or perhaps just discourage people from voting altogether. This answer Luntz drew out ought to concern anyone who fervently dreams of President AOC: Progressives who think Bernie would have done better winning the debate and persuading swing voters like Joe in swing states like Arizona might want to consider that. I've already decided to be cynical about this. Regardless of what Biden does, or how many Senate seats Democrats win, Rich Mitch will likely be around in 2022 to argue that Biden (and Treasury Secretary Warren) turned out to be socialists, after all. Joe in Arizona will buy the message, and vote Republican in 2022. The good news is that in 2022 Republicans have to defend the 24 Senate seats they won in 2016, including i blue states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. So even if Joe in Arizona flips back, Democrats have a good chance of having four years to get important things done. The latest polls released, including one by Rasmussen (!), all show Biden with a 8-9 % lead over President Toxic. But let's go with the latest RCP average, which is Biden 49.7, President Toxic 43.1. That leaves about 7 % undecided. Let's be generous and give Biden 5 and President Toxic 2. This could be a 55/45 race, minus some for third parties. After last night, it's quite possible Biden wins by a 10 point margin. It's hard to believe Trump will do better than Biden in a Town Hall format. Mostly, Nancy's interview this morning was a clear indication of how strong the hand of the Democrats is. Ideally, if Biden wins by 10 points, it's just game over on Election Night. But she's back stopping Biden by working on the weird, unlikely, but not impossible contingencies. Like what happens if the contest is thrown into the House, where the slave owners made sure that the slave states were protected? In modern terms, that means that California's 39.5 million residents get one House vote for President, just like Alaska's 750,000 residents. How democratic is that? I'll be broken record. We need to get rid of all anti-democratic vestiges of the Slavery Electoral College. Nancy's immediate goal is for the Democrats to take over one more House delegation, which would deprive President Toxic of a second term based on winning a majority (26) of votes from the 50 House delegations. Her other immediate goal, which was quite transparent, is to pull more principled Republicans away from their party. I don't even know that she was working on the election itself, since there are so few undecided. My read is that leading Democrats are already thinking about the post-Trump era. It is in the Democrats' interest to dig the trench between Trump Republicans and Party Republicans deeper. It's a 60/40 split, so the odds favor the Trump Republicans. But I think Nancy's goal is really to help them split apart, so that what we saw last night becomes the symbol of the losing Trump Republican Party. They'll whine, bellow, and feel like losers. It's sad that progressives who don't feel Nancy is open-minded enough to progressives are rigidly opposed to her sounding open-minded about bipartisanship. It's one more data point that suggests that some progressives, like Kute Kyle, are mostly interested in purity, not power.

Would everybody be okay with making Sandra Bernhard moderator of the next debate?

My dearest and most darlingest sister. First of all, how shall I put this? It's ingenious. Granted, in our youth I was always the brainy and ugly duckling type. But if you'd perhaps spent just a little less time cock sucking at boarding school, and a little more time practicing for spelling bees with me, you would be an even more perfect woman today. Regardless, I still love you as a sister. Unlike certain other people, we can at least talk about what it means to be smart. You obviously watched CNN last night. There's a few things you didn't mention that I'll point out. David Axelrod and Rick Santorum both agreed that our ingeniusly smart President's performance mostly shredded support and sent the people he most needs to convince running for cover, or Pepto Bismol. Santorum pointed out the embrace of white supremacist groups and the refusal to ensure a peaceful transfer of power were both cringeworthy. Axelrod said this would do serious damage to President Toxic - as if he were not damaged goods already. When Santorum and Axelrod agree that President Toxic is in big trouble, he's in big trouble. Some unnamed Republican pollster who tweeted Dana Bash put it more succinctly. What the Independent women Trump desperately needs saw tonight is everything about Trump they hate, the Republican pollster said. Not to be disrespectful or disagreeable, my darlingest sister, but Bob Woodward disagrees with you. He stated on MSNBC that one of his conclusions after many hours of conversations with President Toxic is that he never has a plan. About anything. So the irony is that everyone in America is now talking about what President Toxic's secret plan to steal the election and destroy democracy is. When, in fact, Trump's only plan was to walk on stage, bellow, and lie. Frankly, I thought his snorting and stalking debate performance in 2016 was more interesting. I agree with Woodward and the Republican pollster. It may be a good look for a challenger attacking Hillary. It's not a good look for an unpopular incumbent President. Even Chris Christie, who actually helped President Toxic prepare for the debate, said Trump was "too hot". I don't think he meant that in the sense we used the phrase to describe the muscular young football players at boarding school whose cocks we loved to suck. Biden Jumps Ahead by Rasmussen Reports When even President Toxic's favorite Republican pollster says he is losing, and his decision to say "fuck you" to the majority of Americans who don't want the seat filled has backfired, there's a big problem. Rasmussen's approval ratings for President Toxic show the same thing. They went from +4 net approval on Sept. 25th to - 7 % net disapproval today.. And this is BEFORE the performance at the debate everyone loves to hate is factored in. Poor thing. It suggests that as the Democrats lay in every day about how right wing court packing will kill the ACA, kill Roe v. Wade, kill voting rights, it's not going to help President Toxic or his party. I have to assume that if President Toxic lost something like 10 % of voters on his unwillingness to listen to or care about the American people, this isn't going to help Republicans down the ticket, either. Like all those Republican Senators running in what are now "swing" states. Including South Carolina, Georgia, Alaska, Montana, and .............................. wait for it.............................. Kansas! I'm clicking my ruby red heels in hopes that a poll saying Barbara Bollier is 2 points ahead in Kansas is accurate. When I quote the wisdom of Rick Santorum twice in one post, something strange is definitely happening. Santorum said on CNN that if he were a down ballot Republican running now, he'd be really pissed at President Toxic. Because he indulged his darkest self and worst impulses, probably at the expense of all the Republicans he is running with. I suspect Santorum is right. Oh well. Couldn't happen to a nicer and more ingenius guy, could it? I should be fair, and at least provide a hint of the wisdom of President Toxic's base, to whom the debate was clearly pitched. I read several articles praising Trump's geniousness. Here's my favorite lines: Here's how I read that. They feel like losers. And they are already rationalizing why they will lose to the "ruling class". They don't expect an incompetent President to actually do something about their rage, and their "slowly declining wages". They just expect him to be an animal. I agree. President Toxic is an animal. And if suburban women or Blacks or Hispanics or college graduates - aka all the "unaccomplished strivers" - wanted to elect an animal President, he would no doubt win. Personally, were I voting for an animal for President, I might have chosen a panda. Or perhaps a horse. At least a horse would have one attractive feature to offer you and me, sis.

Dane and I solved the problem. We'll take over. Two old whores could do better than those guys. My problem is I feel like I was born to be a First Lady. If Dane takes the Presidency, could you take the Veep slot? We'll somehow figure it out. I mean, how could we possibly make it worse?

I agree with most of what you said. The part I disagree with, strongly, is what I quoted. I don't think that Americans are being fooled by the corporate media. The polls show the media is less trusted than ever. I think people are responding to what is actually happening in their lives. More than anything, it's the economy, stupid. Which was probably good enough in 2019 for President Toxic to win. We'll never know. But it is almost certainly bad enough in 2020 for him to lose. And we will know that soon. I think the project for Democrats for the next decade is to relentlessly pound on a progressive economic message the way the conservative trickle downers did before, during, and after the election of Reagan. My view is that we have the facts mostly on our side. I'll concede the point that Reagan can be viewed as the guy who grew the economy, and won the Cold War. And that was enough to get George H.W. Bush four years. Lichtman would argue that voters saw it that way, which is why they went for 12 continuous years of Republican rule. Even if you stipulate that, George W. Bush and now Trump have proven that the supply side ideology of tax cuts for the rich mostly leads to huge budget deficits and the rich getting richer. Branding it as "trickle down" was effective enough to get Bill Clinton and Obama in power for eight years. "Trumped up trickle down" did not work for Hillary. So what Democrats and progressives need to now do is figure out how to push that message further. You can blame 2016 on Hillary. Or you can blame it on the fact that by 2016 too many people were left behind, even by Democratic policies. There's something else that Lichtman's theories have changed my mind about. I used to think Reagan won because his ideas won, right or wrong. Or that after a few decades of conservatism's failures, starting with Goldwater and Reagan in 1964, the time for his ideas had finally come. I've changed my mind. I now believe that Lichtman is right, and Reagan won mostly because Carter lost. It's as simple as, "A isn't working, so let's try B." That's a vast oversimplification. But I think it's mostly right. The polls show that conservatism became more popular AFTER Reagan was elected, not before. He offered in simple and sunny words a theory for why things were getting better. So a lot of people said, "Yup. Things are getting better. We buy the theory." I read a long essay by Teddy White about the 1980 race. He pointed out that Carter spent Fall 1980 going on boat rides on the Mississippi and staging these photo ops about how everything was fine. Meanwhile, America had long gas lines, high inflation, bad feelings, and a hostage crisis in Iran. It's not unlike Fall 2020. President Toxic can try to paint a sunny picture all he wants. But it's pretty clear that most Americans see a pandemic, wildfires, and an economic mess. While 2020 may not be a 1980 landslide, the key similarity is this: "Not A, therefore B." It's up to B to make it work better. And to explain to the American people why it is working better. Reagan was able to do that. Trump wasn't. There is a huge downside for Biden, even if he wins. We don't even need to create a hypothetical because it already happened in 2009. Axelrod said he knew by Spring 2009 that Democrats would have to carry the baggage of an economic nightmare they inherited into the 2010 midterms. This is why I think we need a 50+ vote majority in the Senate. And we need to end the filibuster. Having made it work in 2009, Mitch - if capable - will play the obstruction card again. One upside to his right wing Court packing is that it is now obvious to Americans that he is way more interested in raw power to attain conservative ends than he is in bipartisanship or compromise for the good of America. Here's a hypothetical. The closest analogy to 2020 is 1918/1919. There was a sharp but short V-shaped recession that coincided with the pandemic. Then the economy recovered. Then in 2020 there was a post-war, post-pandemic depression. If Biden inherits something like that, 2022 could be really ugly for Democrats. Again, I think Democrats need a majority, they need a clear plan, and they need some success to be able to persuade people in 2022 that the plan is working. Reagan managed to do that. He also managed to gradually persuade Americans that his conservative ideas were working, based on what they perceived as success. In 1982 Democrats won 1 Senate seat, and 26 House seats. If Democrats win big in 2020 and can hold their losses in 2022 to something like that, four years is enough time to set up a strong recovery and another Democratic victory in 2024. The part of what you wrote that I quoted above is the part I disagree with. I'll restate some of what I said above that I found persuasive about Steve Cortes' argument. And this time I'll overstate it, so that it sounds like I agree with Cortes. What part of "lowest poverty rate ever" do you not get? True, about 1 in 6 children are poor. Guess what? It was 1 in 5 under Obama and Biden. Whether it is 1 in 5 or 1 in 6, most Americans know that it's just wrong to say "the majority of Americans are dirt poor and getting poorer", as you claim. They know it because their iPhone and laptop, which enables them to telecommute, tells them so. No, they and their kids are not poor. Cortes uses Fed data to claim median incomes went up $4,379 dollars in 2019. I'm sure we'll hear something like that from President Toxic tonight. Comparing 2019 to 2018, median incomes went up $4,889 in Pennsylvania, $3,591 in Wisconsin, and $5,292 in Michigan. Does that sound like the rich got richer at the expense of the middle class to you? It doesn't to me. It sounds like the middle class got richer, and the rich got richer, too. Cue up Margaret Thatcher, who would argue Democrats hate the rich so much they'd rather punish wealth and work and have the poor be poorer. My view of reality is that people don't read these Fed numbers. But it actually does describe the reality they live and vote in. Here's an interesting factoid. In Pennsylvania, median incomes are higher than ever. In Wisconsin, in 2019 they went back to their prior peak, in 1999. In Michigan, median income is still way below their 1999 peak. That may explain why Biden is doing better in Michigan than Pennsylvania. It may be that voters in Pennsylvania do feel like President Toxic has made it better than ever for them. This brief report from Steve Kornacki shows that in 2016 Trump had leads with White voters with no college degrees of + 32 % in Pennsylvania and + 31 % in Michigan. Now he has poll leads with the same group of + 18 % in Pennsylvania and + 6 % in Michigan. In both cases, the margin has shrunk and he's losing the state overall. But it may be that part of the difference is that incomes in Pennsylvania in 2019 were higher than they've ever been, unlike Michigan. I'll keep repeating. I like Lichtman's idea that most voters are smart. And that his system tells you not just who will win, but why they will win. If Democrats want to win Pennsylvania, they have to offer voters some theory of why they'll do better. The way I look at these numbers is that President Toxic got lucky, and unlucky. He got lucky to inherit an economy that was growing from Obama and Biden. He got unlucky that a pandemic fucked it all up for him, and us. Beyond that, Biden can and should argue that Obama and him inherited a Republican economic mess and figured out how to make it good. Trump inherited a good economy and has figured out how to again create another Republican economic mess. In large part by lying to Americans about a deadly virus and completely bungling the economic response. Those same three states lost thousands of manufacturing jobs in 2019. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the big picture in each state, which was a rising tide in 2019. That said, even without COVID-19 Biden had a pretty good argument that President Toxic promised to help those ailing factory towns. And he utterly failed. Lichtman would have argued that Trump would have won regardless, I suspect. Lichtman now argues, and I agree, that what has happened in 2020 is enough to win Biden one election. But what happens after the election determines whether Democrats can win again in 2022 and 2024. It also determines whether Democrats can persuade voters that "progressive" or even "democratic socialist" ideas make sense. I think it would help to just be sober about the fact that Sanders and Warren failed. Period. If the idea is to convince people that some class-oriented ideology is better, progressive Democrats have a lot of rethinking to do. And the first thing that would help is to agree that people - especially Independents - will pay more attention to what really happens, as opposed to how any ideology tells them to think about it. In 2020 terms, Biden is having a hard time closing the deal on "the economy" because at least in 2019 "the economy" was actually better for the average voter in swing states. It is stunningly clear that Bernie's 2020 experiment in "democratic socialism" failed. What I saw led me to think that a similar experiment in 2030 or 2040 could succeed. Because at some point young Berniecrats who were his base will be an older majority - maybe. But if the idea was that White voters without college degrees (or even Black voters without college degrees) in Michigan or Wisconsin were really closet social democrats, that theory just didn't pan out. It wasn't even close. If anything, those are the people that will increasingly form the base of the post-Trump/toxic/"truck driver" Republican Party. Same with Warren. The theory of the case for me in 2019 was that she had the best argument that fit with people's actual experience. Yeah, I'm a born capitalist. But then when you look at what happens, capitalism sure crushes a lot of people. Like factory workers. Like big chunks of the middle class that get screwed by predatory lenders or greedy drug companies. She did have a plan. And it looked for a while like it might work. There is your theory that she was an evil snake all along. All that tells me is that progressives are 100 % certain to fail. Because we are too stupid or purist to actually build coalitions. My theory is that Warren's failure tells us a lot about exactly where we are. In retrospect, many say it was a strategic mistake for her to embrace Medicare For All. It was a bridge too far for most Democrats, as the primary results show. So if Biden wins and there is a Senate majority, Bernie and Warren will live to fight another day. I think what is most important now is that Biden wins, and wins a Senate majority. Like in 1932 and 1960, I think the right progressive mindset is that the best progressive legislation is yet to come. In a nutshell, Reagan succeeded by convincing the middle class it was better to tie its fate to the rich. The economy worked well enough that the country moved gradually to the right. The same thing happened under Clinton in reverse. His economy worked well enough that it nudged the country to the left. So what Democrats need to do is figure out how to nudge the country further to the left. Thomas Picketty is a scholar, and he would likely have a hard time winning an election for dog catcher. But his ideas are the best ones for gradually moving the country into an economy that works better for the middle class, based on ideas that make sense. They make sense because they fit with what is actually happening in most people's lives. To me, those two charts summarize the winning arguments Democrats (or "democratic socialists") need to make relentlessly. And part of the problem is that charts and theories are useless. Part of what progressive Democrats need is a Ronald Reagan, who can make it simple and sunny. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were not quite it. Not is Joe Biden. Nor, as it turns out, was Barack Obama. Americans always get it wrong before they finally get it right, I guess. Any factory town in the Rust Belt can tell you the bottom chart is right. Productivity has grown, but at the expense of the people who produce the goods that productivity is based on. Yang argues, correctly, that more of that is on the way. Biden actually does have an inner Bernie, which we may see glimpses of tonight. I posted a YouTube clip a few weeks ago I can't find today, but in 2007 in New Hampshire he was saying he voted against all Bush's trade deals because free trade was not fair trade. He pointed out that millions of factory jobs were going to China. Partly because W. would not enforce the trade deals. But partly because corporations and US stock holders were making fortunes shipping factory jobs to where they could get really cheap labor. The first chart explains the Democrats' opportunity, and problem. The opportunity is that Democrats can argue that concentrating wealth at the top, among "job creators" who actually suck at creating well paying jobs, has not paid off. Yeah, we have productivity growth. But it is lagging behind what it was when the pie was shared more evenly. Back then the middle class could grow, rather than just paddle dead in the water. This argument should sell in Michigan and Wisconsin. Because it is true. President Toxic can say median incomes in both states were higher in 2019 than in 2018. Biden can say that's because of the economic recovery Barack and him created. He can also say those incomes are actually still below what they were when Bill Clinton was President. And he can say that's because every time Republicans fool Americans into voting for them we go right back into this failed economic theory that bankrupts America. If it worked for Clinton and Obama, the argument can work for Biden. If Biden is the political animal he seems to be, he knows in his bones that he actually has to nudge America to the left in order to succeed. He has to enact more progressive laws. He has to have the votes. And he has to tax Jeff Bezos to help people in the middle and the bottom. He also has a modern version of the Civil Rights Movement. So BLM will have a much bigger soapbox, just like MLK did, from which to argue there is no good reason 1 in 6 American children grow up poor. That ties right into the idea that we'll have more racism, more crime, and more jails if we just keep ignoring the pain we inflict on our children. Like in 1960, there does seem to be a growing will now to actually do something about it. If central casting is sending an FDR or an LBJ our way, I don't think Joe Biden is it. I think he knows that. He says he is a transitional figure. At the very least, he gives progressives a platform to win some victories that help them make the case that these policies actually do improve the lives and digital wallets of the majority of Americans. Figuring that out is the political and ideological project of the decade for Democrats and progressives when Biden wins. One way to think about both 2016 and 2020 is that Lictman would argue history closes one door and opens another. Maybe the door is slammed shut, like in 1980. Or maybe the breeze blows it barely shut, like in 2016. It's up to the winner to walk through the new door and claim the prize. Lichtman's argument, which I buy, is that voters will reject President Toxic because he failed to make things better. Democrats have to make things better, an have a good theory for how they will do it, if we're going to claim the prize long enough to transform the economy. Let alone deal with climate change. Quite honestly, I don't think we need a charismatic Thomas Picketty. I think we could probably make do with a progressive Indiana Jones.

I saw some poll that said Biden and President Toxic are now tied with active military and vets. That would be extraordinary, and another reason for a decisive Biden win.

It's always a good time to worry about election integrity. That said, it's not like absentee voting or mail-in ballots are the only way to fuck things up. It happens with in-person voting, too. Did you ever hear of a thing called Bush v. Gore? Florida now maintains they have learned from their mistakes, and after years of trial and error they have an excellent system for voting either way. With no sense of irony whatsoever, President Toxic agrees. One of the silver linings in the cloud of COVID-19 for me is it is advancing what we needed to do anyway at warp speed. Will there be mistakes? Of course. But this should be a sprint both before and after the election to dramatically increase voter participation. I'd be happy if the debate about mandatory voting starts in January. If only to hear the Liberate The Virus crowd argue that the best thing about democracy is that no one can force you to vote. Democrats Bail on Their Mail-Voting Experiment That's a right-wing hit piece. I'm posting it because there's data in there about the large number of ballots that are not counted - people don't sign them, signatures don't match, etc. I'm not even 100 % sure I understand the guy's point. But I think it's to mock AOC types who are all "vote in your pajamas!" The implication is that maybe Democrats won't like mail-in voting so well if it means largely Democratic mail-in ballots with flaws are not counted. My strong hunch is that this is a big net gain for Democrats. The number of additional votes cast through mail-in voting will likely vastly exceed the additional number of ballots not counted due to errors. There is always a learning curve. Just like there was a learning curve in Florida in 2000. I'm hoping that Biden wins decisively, and gets a Senate majority. Then in 2021 Congress passes legislation that moves states along, in any way we legally can, to let as many people as want to vote do so in any way they want to. This is an issue where it could make sense to pick fights with a right wing Court. In one week I've made the transition from thinking of SCOTUS as an institution I really want to respect, to thinking of it as an institution that I will systematically demonize for the rest of my life. It is now a wounded bird. And the sense that I think will develop is that every progressive in America will want to put the cute little right wing bird out of its misery. So one fight that probably just makes SCOTUS look bad is any fight where they say voting is bad. They won't say it that way, of course. But the message of Democrats should be that democracy is based on voting being easy, safe, and a civic duty. Let SCOTUS make it hard. Every time they try to disenfranchise voters, we can use it to say we need Democratic Senators to pass progressive laws and eventually get rid of a bunch of SCOTUS justices that suck up to elites and despise the very idea of democracy. Maybe it won't go that far. But that's the idea I already have in my mind. We do have a checks and balances system, and I think most Americans want checks and balances. So if we are going to have a right wing SCOTUS, it can be used as an opportunity to build progressive power in the two other branches of government to balance it out.

Thanks for posting that. Wow. Income inequality. Why am I not surprised? It is a complicated study. Obviously the Fed's goal is not to stoke class war. But all the stuff about the "SCF Augmented Next 9" model versus the "WID Next 9" model makes it seem like they went out of their way to blunt the message by making it incomprehensible. The thing that jumped out at me is the education correlation. Which is not surprising. 87 % of those in the Top 1 % are college grads. 72 % of the Next 9 % are. 45 % of the Next 40 % are. And only 22 % of the Bottom 50 % are. Another argument for free college as a path to income equality. And, no surprise, the Top 1 % is almost entirely White and has 0 % Blacks. The Bottom 50 % is 53 % White, 20 % Black, 14 % Hispanic, and 13 % Other. But, no. There's no systemic racism in America. Just Black Marxists who want to abolish suburbs. I was going to post this anyway, so I'll fit it in here. The themes revolve around income. Biden: Skilled at Debate, Awful at Economic Results That's a good preview of what President Toxic will say tomorrow night, albeit not as intelligently as his adviser Steve Cortes does. I give them credit for basing their arguments on the points Democrats would make: Black net worth, child poverty, rising incomes for the middle class. Before I get to the part of what Cortes says I genuinely like, let me first pick a few of the really stupid low hanging fruit. First, I read this as an acknowledgement that they think Biden will win the debate. Their point is even if he is a good debater, he still sucks with the economy. Second, I hope President Toxic tries to portray Biden as the guy who organized our "abusive" relationship with China and handed them 60,000 factories and over 3.2 million manufacturing jobs. I guess Biden must have done that before he was senile, since it sounds pretty complicated. It sets Biden up to respond that President Toxic played up Xi as a great guy who was handling the virus earlier this year. Even as he downplayed a deadly threat to Americans, which has now killed over 200,000 of us. It's hard to imagine President Toxic is stupid enough to hand this to Biden on a silver platter. Then again, maybe not. Biden is debating Trump, not W. But I'll be interested to see whether and how Biden points out that all those factory jobs were lost under W. and Republican tax and trade policies. Which boiled down to let the rich stockholders and corporations do whatever they want. There's more than a bit of that with President Toxic, too. Biden will say that he was for NAFTA in the 90's, when Clinton was President and it did create hundreds of thousands of factory jobs in the US. Including Delaware. He voted against most of W.'s trade deals, which at the time he said did not meet "fair trade" and union standards. Then he'll talk about how part of his job as Veep was to save and restore jobs in states like Michigan after him and Obama got left holding the bag for the Republican's disastrous follies. Finally, he can point out that President Toxic failed to bring those factory jobs back. In 2019 Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin all lost a few thousand factory jobs. Even without COVID-19, Biden would have had a decent argument to make that Trump just broke his promises to communities decimated when the jobs went overseas by the millions under W. Now let me say what I like about this article. It is one of the best summaries I've read of why President Toxic continues to poll well on "the economy", even though we are in a recession. As the article argues, the economy was in fact growing pretty well in 2019. If Biden is having a hard time pounding the final nail in Trump's coffin, it's because the economy actually was working well enough for many. By the end of Obama's second term, median US household income was slightly higher than ever before ($62,898) and Black and Hispanic poverty were lower than ever before. As that Fed chart shows, there is no question that median incomes rose more under President Toxic ($68,703 by the end of 2019) and poverty went lower still. In 2019 median incomes, in adjusted dollars, were close to 10 % higher than they've ever been. Mostly the way I view that is that Trump inherited a growing economy, which he managed to keep growing. Now he's fucked it up worse than most other countries by completely mismanaging COVID-19. But the economy was definitely growing. Had COVID-19 and Black Lives Matter not hit, I'm pretty sure Lichtman would have been calling this election for President Toxic. And he more likely than not would have won. That new study the Fed just put out about income inequality stated that median household income rose 5 % between 2016 and 2019. That slightly contradicts the Fed numbers above, which are closer to a 10 % increase over three years. Either way, it does help me to understand why Mexican American families can look at Trump and feel like before COVID-19 he was good for the economy. On most metrics, the rate of growth between 2010 to 2016 under Obama and from 2016 to 2019 under President Toxic was pretty much the same. Trump can and will take credit for a good economy. The other thing I like about that article is Cortes made me think about what the debate SHOULD be about, but won't be: income inequality, poverty, racial injustice, and all the other reasons that what the Fed calls "The Bottom 50 %" is suffering. If President Toxic loses, I think the right way to view it is that for two elections in a row, the party in power failed the referendum. And the biggest reason why is "it's the economy stupid". At least for the bottom half of America. Even the Top 50 % who has done well, or at least okay, includes lots of people who are just sick of the turmoil. Many might agree to pay higher taxes if it means being able to get off the Toxic Rollercoaster and have peace and calm and a growing economy. If we don't address these core economic issues, there is every reason to think the next President and the one after will fail the referendum, too. Just as Cortes tries to blame Biden for the factory jobs shredded under W., he also tries to blame him for the Black net worth shredded by the subprime lending the Republicans allowed when they ran everything. It's fair enough to say Black net worth declined under Obama. But that's only because of all the foreclosures that were headed into the slow foreclosure pipeline by January 2009. Cortes doesn't mention that one reason Obama may not have pushed for a more aggressive bailout for home owners is that Rich Mitch would have obstructed it. That said, this is where Elizabeth Warren would say she was there. And Obama's folks like Summers and Geithner were no help. So we are left with this horror show, which now takes on more urgency since Black Lives Matter has called the question: I suspect that the 50 % + of Americans who sympathize with the goals of Black Lives Matter and agree there is systemic racism in America also agree that until we deal with wealth and poverty, the problems won't get any better and may get worse. I think going back to Clinton's home ownership initiatives and ring-fencing it with anti-predator laws is one idea to debate once Biden wins. If Warren is Treasury Secretary, that will help. Cortes wants to give President Toxic credit for reducing child poverty. That's fair. From 2010 to 2020 it reduced continuously under both Obama and President Toxic. That said, it's still a huge problem: It's the same core debate as what I said above with Black Lives Matter. If we really want to address the roots of the unrest in America this Summer, child poverty is where we need to go. The sad news, as you can see from that chart, is we've just been going sideways since the end of the 60's War On Poverty. In most Western European nations, child poverty is a single digit number. We ought to be able to do better. That chart surprised me. My understanding of US poverty is this. It reached an all time low in 1971, as The War On Poverty programs mostly continued into Nixon's Presidency. It hit a new low in the latter years of Bill Clinton's Presidency. And then it hit a new low again at the end of Obama's Presidency, and continued to decline under Trump. All that is true for total poverty. It's not true for child poverty. Here's why: Medicare, Social Security, and wealth creation have been remarkably successful in eliminating poverty among seniors. With children, not so much. While the government interventions involved are different, there's no reason 1 in 3 seniors had to be poor, or that 1 in 5 children still have to be poor. COVID-19 has raised the stakes, simply by making it harder for children to learn. But the reality we ought to be debating is that most rich kids will be fine, anyway. Whereas many poor kids would not have been fine, anyway. The other issue that Cortes didn't even mention that is the most important one to debate is income inequality. Why am I not surprised? That Fed report is good timing. But I like this chart better, since it is just easier to understand: It also covers the rough timeframe in which President Toxic and Biden have been active in real estate and politics. So they won't be debating this. Trump could argue Biden was in power the whole time, and he just let it happen. Biden could argue that President Toxic is the poster child of the sleazy fat cat who wins by cheating and not paying taxes. I actually like that chart from a Pew report better, because I think it is more useful for understanding why this is proving to be difficult to change. The median income of what they call upper income is $207,400. The median income of what they call middle income is $86,600. So neither of those groups are hurting. And as Cortes argues, they almost all probably got a good size bump in income from 2017 to 2019. One reason there may not be overwhelming political opposition to the rich getting richer is that the people in the middle don't necessarily feel poorer. In some other universe, if we didn't have a Slavery Electoral College and Hillary had won in 2016, we'd have a 6-3 liberal Court, And Bernie and Warren could be planning in 2021 to legislate a Jeff Bezos wealth tax. That would be my ideal solution, which most Americans - including a majority of Republicans - support. Biden has ruled that idea out. Which is probably just as well, since it would never survive a 6 - 3 conservative court, anyway. If I'm right that we're seeing a major change in tide toward a dominant progressive majority, then just as Nixon in 1968 led to Reagan in 1980, Biden in 2020 may lead to [...................] in 20[..]. Even if I'm right, it's gonna take a while for that to play out. In the meantime, Biden wants to raise taxes on corporations and people who make over $400,000. That should be doable with a Senate majority, just like it was under Clinton and Obama. But just like under Clinton and Obama, there's no reason to think that alone will reverse, or even slow down, the further concentration of income and wealth. All this is what I wish the debate tomorrow would be about. It's going to be weird, after being used to Bernie and Biden and Warren slugging it out over a bunch of good ideas. That's definitely not what is going to happen in this debate.

With all due respect, my beloved sister, you're no help whatsoever. I'll be watching the debate with Dane Scott tomorrow night. He's Italian heritage. Why aren't you at least offering to cater the fucking cannoli? This does work both ways. Granted, these days my brain is too active, and my cock is not active enough. So maybe I do need to lay off the politics for a while. I took a break for a few months a little while back. But it didn't break my bad habits. You know what they say. Once a political whore, always ......................... Flip side, I remember the moment in 2008 in Dane's apartment when he still lived in New York when I asked him whether he'd be voting for Hillary or Barack. His eyes glazed over. Frankly, it's the kind of look you'd want to see in an escort when your cock is deep inside him and he is about to cum. That said, it's not a good look when you're trying to have a political conversation. Like so many others, President Toxic has politicized Dane. Now he's all about watching the debate, sending donations to Biden, and voting against President Toxic. We all get older, of course. But how sad is that? My brother who, like you, liked Bloomberg in the primary, has nearly been radicalized. He lost his job earlier this year due to the pandemic. We both recently agreed that the only thing we could think of that would make us seriously consider suicide is four more years of President Toxic. Who knows. Perhaps even Poor Brad ended up feeling that way. Of course, Brad is in my thoughts and prayers. So whatever it is that's going around, other than COVID-19, seems to be catching. Not to worry. Since you won't be making good on the promised cannoli, we'll just make do with a few bottles of cheap wine. And wishing and hoping that Uncle Joe makes us cum ............... I mean, in a political sort of way, of course.

Well, maybe you're not talking with White voters without college degrees in Michigan and Wisconsin. I sort of have a Top 10 charts and graphs that I think explain a hell of a lot about what's going on in one picture. That's one of them. It's stunning. First, Hillary Clinton did worse than Obama - a Black man - among White voters. Second, the Democrats that did best and worst during these 40 years are both named Clinton. Bill was uniquely good at appealing to "Bubba" Whites. Hillary was uniquely bad at it. It matters why you think that happened. If you think these White voters are sexist, piggish, and deplorable, then fuck 'em. Then the only problem you have to solve is how you actually win an election without them. If you think Hillary was uniquely good at sounding like both the government bureaucrat and corporate lawyer everyone loves to hate, then pick someone else. That poll data you posted was only two states. But it suggests that Biden is somewhere between where Obama was in 2008 and 2012. I find that very believable, based on mountains of poll data. It's not a great place to be. Ideally, the goal would be to get back to where Democrats were in 1992 and 1996 with Bill Clinton. In theory, Bernie (and to a lesser degree Elizabeth) tried to do that in 2020. If the Democrats are the party of the working class of every race, these voters without college degrees should be our bread and butter. Bernie could not close the deal. He clearly looked better than Hillary to lots of these voters in 2016. But replace Hillary with Biden in 2020, and Bernie didn't look so good. And, again, it's not like Biden looks so good, either. Wisconsin and Michigan are more blue than red. When you add all the Whites without colleges degrees in Alabama and Idaho, Biden will get clobbered by this group of Whites. The good news is that if he "only" loses them by 20 to 25 points like Obama, as opposed to 39 like Hillary did in the chart above, he'll win. So the polls suggest he'll win. I think there's going to be a big sorting if he wins. The first level of problems is this: will you wear a mask? Or will you go to the State Capitol with your AR-15 and complain about how America has gone socialist? It sounds like some weird horror story no one would believe. But it's actually a pretty good political test of how White "Bubba" men are going to react to Biden. There is some part of me that feels like we should treat coal miners in West Virginia with the same affection that they treat us. We've lost them, anyway. If we can win college graduate Millennials and Hispanics in Texas, do we really need Joe Manchin? So maybe Democrats should say this: "Take your shitty little depressed towns and your drug addictions and sorrows and pities and whine all you want. You voted for President Toxic, and he ignored you. You'll be nice to Bernie at a town hall, but you won't elect people like him. So we'll do what Trump did. We'll ignore you." Am I being insensitive? That may actually be a viable political strategy, even though Biden won't be blunt about it. How about Ohio? Can we kiss that goodbye? President Toxic will lose in part because their jobs picture sucks right now. Overall unemployment fell to where it was in 1992. I'll be shocked if they buy his Best Economy Ever Reality TV show and let him off the hook. The factory job picture in Ohio is even worse. They're back to the depths of The Great Recession. They'd love to get back to 1992. But hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs have just gone away. Trump did nothing about it, despite his promises. In all those Rust Belt states, factory job growth was flat to down in 2019, when we supposedly had the best economy ever. The job producers got their huge tax cuts. But they didn't use them to build US factories and US jobs. All this explains why those poll numbers are probably correct, and President Toxic will lose. As Lichtman would say, this is a referendum on him. And it's about governing, not campaigning and texting. President Toxic doesn't have a clue. He thinks if he goes out to Nevada and violates state law and endangers the lives of his supporters it will make his inability to actually govern look better. Biden is probably smart to just let President Toxic go. It's like a big commercial that says, "Look at me! Look at what a remarkably incompetent and selfish asshole I truly am!" So what do we do with those 700,000 or so factory workers in Ohio? What do we do with the roughly 5.6 million Ohio workers who want jobs? And the roughly 500,000 or so of them who lost their jobs since this Spring? Do we try to bring factories back to the Rust Belt - a strategy that has mostly failed for 30 years? Do we basically say fuck the factory workers and do something else? Or do Democrats just forget about Ohio and focus on Texas, where college graduates of every race are not going to work in factories but are building a promising future? The Democrats have a huge amount of work to do. The good news is that voters in the Rust Belt may have at least figured out that President Toxic and Trumpism is not the answer to any of those questions. I do believe this. The Establishment does not have the answers. So Team Biden has to do a major rethink. I actually believe that he gets that. He knows that what worked for Clinton or even Obama won't work for him. I'll end this with a rant about my Independent friend who I mentioned in another post I just spent four hours on the phone with last week. There's a series of points him and I have debated for years that go to the heart of the challenge. This is not meant to offer any actual solutions. It's meant to suggest we are stuck, and we are nowhere near any type of national plan that might effectively turn the problems around. He started to tell me that he was asked to give an address to Very Important People about how to do education during a pandemic. He decided not to because he didn't want to say what he really thinks. Which is that we're just pissing away the futures of disadvantaged kids who aren't set up for remote learning, while rich (mostly White) parents pay for their own private teachers to teach their kids. He's not wrong. And he is an Independent, not a conservative. But my view is that he was just doing what he does. He was rehashing a not very thoughtful set of sound bites about how all these Democrats who want to shut down everything suck. And are really hurting the Black kids they say they really care about. I asked him if he knew about Dr. Birx's grandmother. He didn't have a clue. Dr. Birx's grandmother brought home the Spanish Flu in 1918, which killed her Mom (Dr. Birx's great grandmother.) Her grandmother spent the rest of her life feeling regret for something that was obviously not her fault. Dr. Birx has repeated the story to basically beg people to be thoughtful and wear masks. My friend got the point. He agreed that given the choice between losing a year in school, and losing a mother, losing the year in school is probably the better option. I asked him if he knew about what women leaders in Germany or Demark did to reopen schools safely. he didn't have a clue. The verdict is in that at least in April Denmark could reopen schools safely. Denmark, like most of Europe, is now experiencing a second wave in cases, but not (yet) a second wave of mass death. My point is that this is a huge challenge. Women leaders like Merkel and Frederiksen are working hard to figure it out, with some real success so far. Meanwhile, in the US, my friend is interested in what I view as a mostly thoughtless rant, which suggests that the way we help poor Black kids is to send them to shitty school buildings during a plague. It would be more interesting to talk about 10 smart things that Germany and Denmark are doing to educate kids AND keep them safe, I think. I use this as an example because to me it symbolizes a whole lots of things about our current failures. We can't even agree as a nation about using masks in schools. We talked about factory jobs. My friend mentioned that there are going to be lots of factories built in the US, like where he lives. They will have relatively few jobs. And the people hired to fill them will need college degrees equipping them to operate advanced machinery. It doesn't replace the 300,000 lost factory jobs in Ohio, for example. So it's not really a viable solution to one of the things that drove Trumpism. What's his solution? He doesn't have one. He gets what Andrew Yang was talking about. I'm 99.9 % sure he would never support Yang's solutions. At some point in this conversation I went to the heart of it: income inequality. I reminded him of something he said to me maybe 3 or 4 years ago that has stuck with me. We were probably at some luxurious resort in Mexico. And he said this was the first generation of Americans that will be worse off than their parents. He didn't say it as if he felt it was a good thing, or a bad thing. Or with joy or regret. It was just an observation of a likely fact. But it has stuck with me. The feeling it leaves me with, which may or may not be fair to him, is that the Establishment corporate and political types he pals around with are perfectly okay with this. They know the factories will make money for stock holders, like him. They know they won't be replacing those 300,000 jobs. They just don't care. It really isn't their problem. Fill their bank accounts with millions of dollars in salaries and investments and stocks and that's good enough for them. They're not chomping at the bit to elect Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or even Joe Biden. This is the guy who told me even Kamala is suspect for her liberalism. Again, he's not a right wing conservative. I think he's probably accurately expressing how a lot of affluent Independents who are right in the middle feel. I don't feel that these people have real solutions. They'll sympathize with Republicans who say that even the steps Obama and Biden were willing to take - Obamacare, marginal tax increases on the wealthiest and the most profitable corporations - were going too far. And then when W. or President Toxic rule, they'll just enjoy the tax cuts and consulting fees to express their Very Important Thoughts. Which will mostly not solve Actual Working Class Problems. Back to our White ex-factory workers without college degrees, why are they NOT chomping at the bit to elect Bernie Sanders? For now, I think it's a good thing they are probably going to elect Joe Biden. My friend got a good line off on those ex-factory workers, too. He went into his Very Important Thoughts riff about how the biggest problem is that the job producers are all trying so terribly hard to help those people. But they just lack the appropriate jobs skills. When you think about it, what's a benevolent job creating billionaire to do? I mean, it's not really fair to go all socialisty and ask them to pay more taxes, after all. I used to be very polite when he said this shit, in part because he was paying me to be nice. I know. I know. I'm a whore. So this time I just ranted about what I read all the time. Do you know how condescending and arrogant these people think that sounds? Do you realize how sick they are of being told THEY are the problem? Do you realize that's why they voted for Trump? They know he probably can't just bring the factories back. But at least he doesn't tell them they're stupid. He tells them he loves the poorly educated. My friend didn't really try to disagree. So we are mostly left with the fact that working class ignorance and Trump greed is not a very attractive combination. And it is certainly not a solution. My best solution expressed as a bumper sticker is this: GO TO COLLEGE. DEBT FREE. My friend, who knows way more about college than me because he spent his life working on this whole college thing, has spent years telling me that lots of professors just produce crap. And that lots of college students are wasting their time and money. It's very easy to make Reaganesque arguments about "waste, fraud, and abuse." And let's add this. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that many Whites without college degrees who vote for President Toxic think that college basically is good at making you liberal, and Gay. And now they want to say you're supposed to go piss next to some man that used to be a woman. Fuck that shit. I don't need that. The reality I focus on, and my friend does not deny, is that we have more college graduates than ever before. We have a higher rate of college completion than ever before. And having a college degree does still mean you'll make a lot more money and build more wealth. Even the losers - the ones who drop out with no degree but some college debt - are no worse off than the ones who never went to college at all. Meanwhile, Blacks going to college is a primary driver of why Black poverty was lower than ever under both the end of Obama and pre-pandemic Trump. There's still huge income gaps based on race, with Blacks doing the worst. But Blacks going to college and earning above median based on higher educations are doing the best, as are the more highly educated Americans of every race. This doesn't solve the problem for the 50 year old Ohio ex-factory worker. It may solve the problem for their college-educated kids. Some part of this is the same old same old. The kids who used to stay on the family farm because their labor was essential did what my Dad did. He got an architecture degree so he could leave the farm. We have to have a massive rethink. Like in the New Deal or Great Society, we need to try different things, knowing some will fail. But we do know from both eras that raising taxes on the well off and making the government one of the big job creators did help create middle class jobs. That will be Biden's starting point, if he has the votes. He probably won't do Bernie/Elizabeth on college debt relief. But the pandemic gives him a great excuse to do something to make going to college easier, including wiping out debt for young adults who already went. To sum up my rant, part of how I feel is that the ball is in the court of those White voters without college degrees. If they went from Obama to President Toxic and now they are going back to Biden, that's a good start. What happens when Biden tells them to wear a mask? Will he - and can he - raise taxes on Jeff Bezos to do some infrastructure program that will create jobs for some of them? Can he use previously successful tools like going to college and buying homes to create skills, higher incomes, and net worth? Can he add new tools to the tool box? Lichtman's theory is that the is Trump's election to lose, and he is going to lose it. All that means is that Biden gets a chance. And it does mean that some of those Whites without college degrees are at listen willing to listen to Biden and Democrats again. Because they know that the President Toxic TV experience did not work so well for them. I believe those polls. But if Biden and Democrats win, the challenges are massive. And I've already decided that Independents like my friend will be the first to suck up every Mitch McConnell sound bite and repeat it. About how whatever Biden is doing is socialism, and it sucks. Biden better figure out things that work. Because like in 2009, he's not going to have a very long honeymoon. Especially with those White voters without college degrees. Even if Democrats do well in 2020, it can easily all be wiped out in 2022.

My Dearest and Most Darlingest Sister: We both know that if I were as psychologically well put together as we both wish I could be, I wouldn't be the dirty little whore I am today. Our President himself is proof that things don't go well when you aren't just yourself. He's obviously really just a super big asshole. And yet he acts as if he is the world's biggest power top. Me, I'll at least be the proud and dirty little whore I am. Try as I might to sleep, or not pay attention, you know me. I simply can't resist watching the show as the exciting parts reveal themselves.

So, trigger warning. Even by my own standards, this is going to be be a particularly obtuse and rambling post. Every month or so I Google Allan Lichtman's name to see if he has anything new up. This month he didn't. But I found a long essay (actually a book chapter) I linked below that I found really interesting. It's another author who admires Lichtman's theories commenting on their validity. Reading it generated two ideas. I'll summarize them, and then return to them in more detail in my rambling below: 1. Lichtman's model provides an interesting way to think about how President Toxic could win. The three keys in his system that turned this year that led Lichtman to call the election for Biden are the short-term economy (recession), the long-term economy (laggard GDP growth), and the social unrest. In theory, those are decisive nails in President Toxic's political coffin. That said, Trump is clearly trying to get people to ignore those three things. If he succeeds with a majority of voters in the Electoral College states, he could win. If he fails, he'll lose. 2. 2020 is only the third time that Lichtman has called his "social unrest" key against the party in power. The other two times were 1932 and 1968. I932 marked the beginning of a new political era. Arguably, so did 1968. Could the social tumult that ignited in 2020 be an indicator of a major political turning point? Like I said, I'll return to those two ideas below. Lichtman's claim to fame is that his system can predict who will win the Presidency. What I actually find more interesting is that his system describes why they will win or lose. Which boils down to governing effectively. I think it explains what is happening right now. So far, nothing President Toxic is saying is really sticking to Joe Biden. And Biden is mostly being Silent Joe. Some of that is Biden's staff trying to avoid gaffes, I suspect. But probably they agree with Lichtman's basic theory. This election is a referendum on President Toxic that he is going to lose. So they just don't want to get in the way of letting Trump lose it. Biden's staff has pretty much told reporters as much. CHAPTER 5: WHAT DOESN'T WIN THE PRESIDENCY That's 33 bold-faced pages from a 2006 book called Campaigns Don't Count from an Ohio newspaper columnist named Martin Gottlieb. He declared in his column early in 2004 that Bush had already "won" the 2004 election. He did that using Lichtman's model. But this chapter goes through each of Lichtman's keys as they relate to the 1988 election. It was interesting to read a smart journalist's take on Lichtman's own analysis. The reason Gottlieb chose 1988 is he argues that was an election that everyone thought Dukakis would win. Especially in May 1988, when Lichtman published his article in the Washingtonian saying George H.W. Bush would win. Here's the Gallup polls from 1988: You can see that in May Dukakis had a lead of 16 points. So the prediction was as outside the box as Lichtman saying in September 2016 that Trump would win. Here's the last paragraph of the chapter: Just to make sure it's clear, Lichtman says that if the party in power has six or more "keys" turned against them, they lose. Right now, President Toxic has seven turned against him. In 1988, Bush only had three. So it was an easy call that Bush would win. And by the end of the race, reality reflected Lichtman's prediction about the voter's imminent judgment. The whole 33 pages is a good read. But a brief summary is that this had nothing to do with Willie Horton or Lee Atwater's campaign gimmicks. It had to do with a growing economy, Reagan winning The Cold War, and other "big picture" factors that led people to conclude they wanted four more years of Republican leadership. What I learned reading this that I didn't know is that when they built the model, Lichtman and his Russian seismologist colleague tested all kinds of theories of what might drive an election. Including, for example, campaign messages and campaign tactics. When the tested possible algorithms, characteristics of leadership and governing always trumped campaigning as predictors pf who won. So many of Lichtman's keys are right most of the time. If all you do is say any incumbent President running will win, you are right about 2 times out of 3. The key that is the most accurate on its own is whether there is a serious contest for the nomination of the party in power. In 2020, President Toxic had no real opposition. So that in itself would predict that about 80 % of the time, that candidate running o behalf of the incumbent party will win. So the idea of the 13 keys is that it's not armchair judgment. They went through a larger menu of possible factors that could predict the winner, and picked 13 that seemed to be the most reliable. Another interesting point is that when this article was written, there were 14 "subsystems" - combinations of some portion of the 13 keys - that were just as good at predicting the winner. The reason they picked 13 keys is they figured that it gave them the best chance of being consistently right every time. That leads to this statement from the caper above: i thought that was interesting in the context of the 2020 election. Here's the list of 13 keys. If you only pay attention to the six listed in that quote, President Toxic gets four of the six. Meaning that in 2020 that subsystem says Trump should win. Lichtman was saying last year that Trump had lost Keys 1 and 13. But he had 2, 3, 4, and 7, and still does. So this subsystem contradicts what Lichtman predicted based on the full 13 keys: that Trump would lose. The three keys that turned against Trump this year are 5, 6, and 8. Basically the economy went to shit, and all hell broke loose in the streets and there was suddenly mass social unrest. Lichtman has called it the quickest turnaround in Presidential history. Because mostly these keys are big picture items, and they don't turn in a day or month like polls do. So Trump went for having four keys against him in 2019, which is two short of a loss, to seven turned against him, which is one more than needed to predict loss. Here's what I find very interesting about that. I think this is a good way to think about what President Toxic is clearly trying to do, and what he in fact has to do to win. In effect, he has to be The Wizard Of Oz saying, "Ignore that man behind the curtain." He has to get people to pretend like the economy is fine, and the social unrest doesn't matter. That's what his show on The White House lawn was intended to do. Lichtman's keys say that President Toxic does not get to decide how voters judge him. That said, if you buy the idea that Trump runs a cult, in theory he could be uniquely able to control how people judge his successes and failures. The real question is whether President Toxic can get people outside his core base, plus Republican party stalwarts, to see the economy and the unrest that started with Black Lives Matter as he wishes them to. So far, it looks like he simply does not have the unique ability to change the verdict of history, which Lichtman says is definitely against him. We'll see. Again, what interests me the most about Lichtman is not the voodoo prediction part about who will win. It's the deeper meaning of why they win or lose. So if Lichtman is right, it means that Trump simply can't script his own Reality TV Presidency. He is stuck with reality. And with voters who think like Bob Woodward. They will conclude he's the wrong person for the job. The second thing I mentioned above that jumped out at me reading this article is that the 8th key, social unrest, was last turned against the incumbent party by Lichtman in 1968 and 1932. Like his other keys, Lichtman is focused on big picture things that suggest a political earthquake is coming. Those two years were very eventful years. So now I'm straying from anything Lichtman says. But it struck me that 2020 could be one of those really eventful years. When people say it's the most important election of our lifetimes, they may be right. 1932 was obviously a really big deal. It was a landslide that shattered an old political coalition and birthed a new one of Democratic dominance that basically endured (with a pause under Ike) from 1932 to 1968. I'm not sure 1968 fits in the same category. If there is a conservative version of a realigning landslide like 1932, it is obviously 1980 and the Reagan Revolution. 1968 was actually a fairly close call between Nixon and Humphrey. But the sense in which 1932 and 1968 fit together is that the social unrest did signal a political earthquake. You can view 1968 as a signal that a coalition and liberal ideology that more or less prevailed from The New Deal to The Great Society was really starting to fall apart. It actually did start to fall apart in 1969, when Nixon began picking SCOTUS justices that gradually ended the Warren Court's activism. There was also the Silent Majority, the Southern strategy to take over the White South, and then the 1972 landslide against "McGovernment". On Election Night 1980 historian Teddy White argued that Carter lost because of the weight of history itself. The old Democratic coalition just no longer worked, he said. I think you can argue that a political coalition that was clearly starting to fall apart in 1968 finally just collapsed by 1980. It took until 1992 for Clinton to start rebuilding a different coalition, in part by co-opting conservative ideas. This is where @tassojuniormight argue that even Obama and his ilk were essentially closet corporate Republicans pretending to be liberal Democrats. At the very least, Obama explicitly wanted to change history in the way Reagan did. I don't think Obama quite did that. All of this sounds very esoteric. And this stuff about 1932 and 1968 is my thinking, not Lichtman's. I'm not even sure why Lichtman picked only 1932 and 1968, because there were other years in US history when there were mass movements and protests. But after thinking about it I buy the idea that 2020 and 1968 and 1932 are fairly unique Presidential elections that all have a depth of spontaneous social unrest that doesn't happen very often. I also buy the idea that each year may represent a fundamental turning of the tide. 1932 for sure was a massive tidal wave shift to liberalism. 1968 can accurately be described as the beginning of the end of a liberal era, that climaxed 12 years later in the Reagan Revolution. There's a few other things about 1968 that fit to me. Nixon was himself a transitional figure. By today's standards he would be too liberal for Republicans. The lowest the poverty rate ever got in the US before Bill Clinton was under Richard Nixon, in 1971. He basically embraced most of the anti-poverty programs Reagan later used as his whipping boy. Biden is likely to be a Nixon-like figure in that sense. He explicitly calls himself a transitional figure. It does make sense to me that just as Nixon lead to Reagan, history could be arcing so that Biden ultimately leads to a figure like Sanders or Warren or AOC a decade or so down the line. The other comparison that strikes me is "The Silent Majority". When Kenosha happened there was a lot of concern that President Toxic might be able to adopt a Nixonian "law and order" tone that would wipe out Biden's lead. "Law and order" is the issue some Trump supporters list as their top priority. But Biden is the candidate a majority of voters see as better at dealing with the issue. And his lead in Wisconsin has held steady at 7 %. What the polls seem to be saying consistently is that there actually is a Silent Majority, and Biden is the one who is building it. The Liberate The Virus crowd with guns on State Capitol steps and the maskless MAGA rallies are the minority. That's now 100 % clear. Overwhelming majorities are for masks mandates. Meanwhile, there is at least a slender majority that says there is systemic racism in America. And that views Black Lives Matter mostly favorably, and not as a radical group out to abolish suburbs. If 1968 can be viewed as the end of a liberal era with the Warren Court and a series of liberal Presidencies, the social unrest of today could be a signal that Trumpism has basically failed. John Harris of Politico wrote a nice piece last week that argued just that. Essentially that Trumpism and McConnellism is the bastard child and dying gasp of the sunny ideal of Reagan conservatism that climaxed in the 1980's. Before someone points it out, I recognize that the kinds of people protesting in 1968 were the same kinds of liberals and progressives and Blacks protesting today. The difference is that in 1968 Nixon had the support of The Silent Majority. I can't find polls about MLK or the Viet Nam War protests in 1968. But here's a poll about views on Nixon and the war in 1969. All adults supported Nixon's Viet Nam policies 64/25. Even college students supported Nixon's war policies 50/44. Today, Biden seems to have the support of 2020's Silent Majority. 54 % of Americans say they view Black Lives Matter favorably. Only 44 % view President Toxic favorably. Who has the majority now? Like I said, this was just a long intellectual masturbation about Lichtmanland. Some part of my feeling is that I would much rather choose cynicism than hope. The cynical part of me does have to consider the possibility that President Toxic may be able to pull off his Great And Mighty Donald routine, and convince people to ignore the economy, the virus, and the social unrest. More likely, I think hope will win in 2020, like in 2008. I'd like to believe that like in 1932 and 1968 the tumult signals a major change in the tide. And this time it's going to shift decisively from a waning conservatism to a rising progressive and Democratic majority.

Wilson had the Spanish Flu, and survived it. My guess is back then there was a lot more "stiff upper lip" thinking. Today a lot of people just don't have a choice, which is why the infection and death rates were highest in The Bronx and Queens. Back then a lot higher percentage of the population didn't have a choice, most likely. Merkel would NOT say 70 % of Germans will get COVID-19 today. She said that at the beginning. But it is clear that both she and the German people decided that they were not going the herd immunity route. China and all the Asian countries have clearly said "fuck you" to herd immunity. I presume that when we know there is a safe vaccine, all those Asian nations that have almost zero natural herd immunity will acquire it through vaccines. Germany and some other countries (Australia, New Zealand) now have ended up sounding a little overconfident. I don't know that anyone ever actually said, "We are now 100 % COVID-19 free." But some countries that did well in crushing the virus in the first wave sounded in that ballpark. To some degree it was understandable pride that the country rallied together, put on masks, and got through it together. Assuming that a safe vaccine is rolled out by Spring 2021, I think we're going to have to have a big national education on what immunity and vaccines mean. I'm pretty sure we will not have a "sterilizing" vaccine. Meaning you get a shot and you are close to 100 % sure not to get COVID-19. I don't understand it. But the vague picture I do get is that there is a race between a virus and an immune system. And you want the immune system to win. And the vaccine at least gives the immune system a head start, with a lot of people who get it. That's about what I understand. That story you posted on masking reducing disease severity is an idea I've read several times as well. One idea I've read is that you could have multiple exposures, never get very sick, get a vaccine shot or two, get a booster shot the next year or two, and gradually acquire immunity piece by piece. When I read something like that, if I got it right, I'd actually rather not think about it. I will get a vaccine shot. But in terms of whether I can get smaller doses of COVID-19 in the air filtered through a mask that end up helping me develop immunity all sounds beyond my control. Wearing a mask is in my control. But the part that happens invisibly and microscopically is a mystery to me. At least until I get sick, and then maybe things go south - or maybe not. I think the key things we'll need to be told very clearly is when it is safe to get a vaccine, and when and why is it safe to start to relax with the masks and social distancing. That's all something to worry about in 2021, when Joe Biden is our President.

John Zogby of Zogby Polls would agree with you. I posted it already in some other thread. He told some academic writing about predictions and polls about 2016 that he could not say who was going to win in 2016. He could tell you what the polls said on any given day. And he said he could make a pretty good guess - if you told him the turnout. But he couldn't predict turnout, of course. Therefore he could not predict who would win. That's even more true in 2020, as you say. There's this idea that President Toxic has the best organized ground game ever. And Democrats are freaking out that Biden folks are not knocking on doors. So maybe the Trumpians will just roll over Biden. Then there's also the idea, which is showing up in poll after poll, that youth turnout will be through the roof. Much higher than in 2018 when it was enough to win a strong House majority. We won't know how any of that plays out until it happens. (Although we will have a preview in terms of the number of mail in ballots.) The state polls are almost always weaker. Usually they have higher margins of error. And another problem is they tend to be older: Pennsylvania 2016 Clinton Trump I keep bringing up Pennsylvania as an example, because it's a good one. The final poll average ( Clinton + 1.9) was not horribly wrong. But that average included poll data that was up to a week old. A lot can change in a week. Especially if it is the LAST week of the campaign. If you only count the two most recent state polls, which are themselves 3-5 days old, one says toss up and the other says Trump + 1. The final result was Trump + 0.7 %. Those last two polls were both very close. Ohio 2016 Clinton Trump Wisconsin 2016 Clinton Trump Those are two good examples of what you are talking about. Ohio was off by 4.5 %. Wisconsin was off by 7 %. In all four Rust Belt states Trump way did better than expected. But it's not clear why Wisconsin would be off so much, compared for example to Pennsylvania. That said, I think every one of those polls used to arrive at the Wisconsin average was a week or more old. So the idea that nothing changed in a week is just not realistic. In Pennsylvania the two most recent polls, several days old, turned out to be correct. I think one big clue is that in all four Rust Belt States Hillary's percentage was pretty much dead on. In Wisconsin she was predicted to get 46.8 and she got 46.5. The real driver was President Toxic got 7 more points than the polls said he would. That trend happened in all four states to one degree or another. We know for sure from exit polls that the last minute deciders broke for President Toxic. We also know that nationally Hillary got 100,000 fewer votes than Obama, and President Toxic got 2 million more than Romney. That suggests it was likely most of the pollster's turnout models were all just off. If they were going from 2012, which I'm sure was part of the model, they would overestimate Hillary's turnout and underestimate Trump's turnout. I don't find "quiet" Trump voting to be a good explanation. These are states where White working class people were proudly saying this time they were voting for Trump. I think the obvious thing is that there was a sort of grassroots movement, built on anger and frustration, that President Toxic tapped into - by design or luck or both. There's just no way the pollsters could measure that. Even though if you were paying attention, it was obvious. We are both saying the same thing. We both agree that polls can't tell you who is going to win - at least not when it's relatively close, which it was in 2016. And we both agree that the national polls are marginally better. In part because they are marginally fresher. All the polls used to predict the final national popular vote in 2016 were from November. And they appear to be mostly Nov 3-7 data. Again, all the Wisconsin polls were taken before then. The oldest Wisconsin state poll used in the final average was Oct 26-27, almost two weeks before the election. That is just asking for trouble in a fluid race. Texas 2016 Clinton Trump Arizona 2016 Clinton Trump Nevada 2016 Clinton Trump I posted those polls as well because they were wrong, too. But in exactly the opposite way. In Texas President Toxic won decisively, but by 3 points LESS than expected by the final polls. He won Arizona, and it was close to the expected result, but still 0.5 % LESS for Trump. In Nevada, the polls were also off by about 3 points. The final average showed President Toxic winning narrowly. He ended up losing by two points. So in all three states, in a different region with different voters, the trend seemed to be going in Hillary's direction. Hispanic voters in the Southwest seemingly were acting differently than White voters in the Rust Belt. Again, the age of the polls matters. The last two state polls in Nevada were 3-4 days old, and they indicated a small Clinton lead. The state poll showing a big Trump lead was from the end of October. I know for a fact that the last few days before the 2016 election I was worried. I noticed that the final poll up on RCP in both Michigan and Pennsylvania showed a very small Trump lead. I noticed that in the last week the race was tightening pretty rapidly. That alone scared me. It's not good news when the trend is going against you in the last week of an election. So if people thought these polls were wrong, a big part of it is that just don't have much experience interacting with polls. There's a whole bunch of things that could explain why Hillary lost those Rust Belt states that only have to do with Hillary: 1) mediocre Black turnout, 2) medicore youth turnout, 3) votes for Jill Stein that exceeded Hillary's losing margin in all the key Blue Wall states. Any one of those three factors, by itself, is sufficient to explain why Hillary came up 70,000 or so votes short. Combined, those three factors account for way more than 70,000 votes. That said, the polls were not that far off on Hillary in any of those states. Where they were way off was on President Toxic. They dramatically underestimated his turnout. But that DID NOT happen in Texas, or Arizona, or Nevada. They actually overestimated how well he would do in those states. So if I had to pick one bumper sticker to explain 2016, it's this: WHITES WITHOUT COLLEGE DEGREES ABANDONED HILLARY. That's just a known fact. It was stunning. Bill Clinton is the only Democrat in my adult lifetime that split the vote of Whites without college degrees in both his 1992 and 1996 races. His ability to appeal to the "Bubba" vote is what won him the Presidency, twice. Hillary did way worse than any other Democrat, including Obama in 2008 and 2012, with Whites without colleges degrees. At this point, it's not a shocker that happened in 2016. And now it's also not a shocker that a lot of those people have left Team Toxic in disgust. I would not be at all surprised if President Toxic in 2020 underperforms with his base, like Hillary did in 2016. He's not just throwing red meat at them every day. He's throwing the whole fucking cow at them, every hour. It could be that means that they'll have record turnout. Or it could mean he's desperate. I don't think we'll know until it happens. But poor Brad. He's supposed to be riding this wave of enthusiasm. Not in a hospital on suicide watch. That can't be a good sign. When it's all said and done, the single best day of the year for me so far, in terms of this election, was when I read Lichtman saying Biden would win. Obviously I pay a lot of attention to the polls. But I agree with Lichtman that ultimately the election is about the big picture fundamentals. He'd say 100 % of what happens with polls is just noise. I'd say more like 80 %. Either way, I agree with him. It will be very hard for President Toxic to win this election, as long as Biden doesn't massively fuck it up in the last month. I don't mean that to say we should be overconfident. We should donate and volunteer like we are losing. But to me it is motivating to think that if we do this right we are on the cusp of bringing the baby home. This feels more like 2008 than 2012 or 2016. It feels like the task now is to be confident, execute, and bring the baby home.

I agree with your point @tassojunior that Democrats should not make this a political football. That said, I'll repeat what a new poll said that surprised me. Americans agree 3 to 1 with Nancy Pelosi's $2 trillion relief package. They did not call it Nancy's plan. If they had described Mitch's plan, maybe people would have said they support that 3 to 1 as well. Either way, it's good news there is that much public support, I think. So in a sense there is some political footballing, about how to help the American people. And also on whether to have a mask mandate, which Americans overwhelmingly support. That is the way I think Democrats should play pandemic politics. Support things that help people who need help, and that most Americans support. (As an aside, this is true in Kentucky, too. That state poll that showed Rich Mitch way ahead of Amy also showed very strong majority support for federal pandemic relief.) I'd be careful about density. Some of the densest cities in the world - Seoul, Tokyo, Hong Kong - have had some of the lowest infections rates. It's not a coincidence that they are Asian. Being Asian (stereotype: communitarian) helps compared to being an American or Brit (stereotype: individualistic) in this pandemic. It's not unlike @lookin's theory about a genetic basis for authoritarianism. Any of those Asian cities I just named is a good example of how a communitarian ethic helps when it comes to a pandemic. And any White asshole with a gun outside a State Capitol ranting "Liberate The Virus!" is an example of how individualism is hurting the US very badly. On the face of it, individualism or libertarianism has a lot more to due with why 200,000 Americans are dead than density. And speaking of assholes and libertarians, Rand Paul doesn't know shit. Maybe there is herd immunity somewhere. Maybe COVID-19 cross-reacts with with antibodies from prior and less deadly Coronaviruses. But he doesn't know that. Nor does Dr. Fauci, as he said when he bitch-slapped Rand. This completely wrong article is worth a peak: "New York and California May Have Already Achieved Herd Immunity, Data Scientist Says." That's from an Israeli scientist who also said that Israel had reached its COVID-19 peak. On Aug. 30, the day before that article came out, Israel had 555 cases. By Sept. 23, it had 11,316 cases. Oops! So much for herd immunity. I do not believe for one second California has herd immunity. Like you said, if California went back to normal the virus would be free to roam and kill mercilessly here. Anyone who talks about herd immunity, or "herd mentality" to quote President Toxic, is suspect to me. Sweden has 581 deaths per million. As I said above, South Korea has 8 deaths per million. And they took a much less severe economic hit than the US, Germany, or Australia to prevent mass death. Sweden would have done better if they acted like South Korea. Or Finland or Norway, which have 50 to 60 deaths per million, or 90 % less than Sweden. i had not seen that figure on New York having 33 % herd immunity. And it's not quite right. That number is for the lowest-income and hardest-hit boroughs of NYC where people had to go to work, and often get sick or die. 1.5 Million Antibody Tests Show What Parts of N.Y.C. Were Hit Hardest It would be great to think that New York has herd immunity. But there's no scientific basis for thinking that. On the face of it, if everybody uniformly threw caution to the winds the next wave of death in New York would disproportionately kill rich people who've been hiding out in The Hamptons. But even if 1 in 3 lower-income or Black or Brown residents of The Bronx who had no choice but to face the virus every day are now immune, that leaves 2 in 3 Bronx residents. And we still don't know how long "herd immunity" lasts. The good news is that the incidences of presumed re-infection are few and far between. We now know it is easy to get COVID-19. If it were easy to get it twice, we'd probably know that by now, too. Here's some other sobering numbers. The overall death rate is 1707 per million in New York state. Compared to 8 per million in South Korea. If we assume that the cost of ending the pandemic is letting every state work its way to the level of herd immunity in New York, that's about 560,000 dead Americans. Queens had 7,248 deaths, which works out to be about 3188 dead per million. That's a little over 1 million dead Americans. The Bronx had 4,947 dead, which works out to about 3488. That's about 1.15 million dead Americans, if we assume the whole nation needs to get to 33 % herd immunity. And that's assuming what happened in The Bronx is as bad as it can get. It's assuming that, for whatever reason, the other 2/3rds are naturally immune, or at least won't get sick enough to die. I can't think of any particular reason to believe that. If you roll out these numbers, we're getting to the point where you can compare this to the Spanish Flu, in terms of potential fatalities. No one knows for sure. But a common estimate is that 675,000 Americans died. That was out of a population of about 100 million, so roughly one third the size of today. It's believe that in 1918 about 28 % of Americans were infected. Which is in the ballpark of what has happened already in The Bronx and Queens. There is some good news to that. If you project the Spanish Flu death toll on the US with the population of today, it's about 2.1 million dead. So if we assume that COVID-19 has infected about the same percentage of people in a few NYC boroughs, that would make it about half as deadly as the Spanish Flu. Very importantly, it also means that all those 20 and 30 somethings that were particularly susceptible in 1918, and died in droves and left orphaned children behind, have been spared. They are the ones that can get COVID-19 and probably just walk away with a sneeze. Once it's all sorted out, the death rate for older Americans between COVID-19 and the Spanish Flu may be pretty similar, if it continues to spread and take out older Americans. If COVID-19 is less deadly, it's probably in large part because of its inability to kill lots of young adults. Another reason COVID-19 likely won't hit 1 or 2 million is dead that we are being smarter about keeping more people alive. I don't think you can do a clear apples to apples. But there was a V-shaped recession in 1918, followed by a Depression in 1920. So it's not like by having more people die more quickly the US avoided paying a steep economic price from 1918 to 1920. I think we now know that the countries with the highest death toll are also the ones that pay the steepest economic price, as well. I'm a deficit hawk, so I'm not happy about adding on trillions of debt. But I think even many conservative economists agree that if there was ever a time to go into debt and a reason to do it, now is the time. And sparing hundreds of thousands of lives and long-term illnesses is a very good reason. The interesting question no one knows the answer to is this: why did the Spanish Flu only infect 28 % of Americans? 28 5 is at best an educated guess. So basically we don't know. Like I said, it would be nice to think that New York is not seeing a spike because they have achieved something in the ballpark of herd immunity. But on the face of it, we know that most other parts of New York are vulnerable to be hit at least as bad as those two boroughs. The state death rate (1707 per million) is only half that of the Bronx death rate (3488 per million). So there is every reason to think that even in New York, let alone California, things could get a whole lot worse. Reviewing these numbers reinforces what I've been noticing for a few months. Which is that among the people I know, who all take COVID-19 seriously, I'm more optimistic than most. I know a bunch of people that think we're into this for two or three or even five years. I'm guessing this will play out similar to the Spanish Flu. Meaning there will be multiple waves, and in a year it will start to move into the rear view mirror, like it did in 1919. Since this started this Spring, I think by next Spring we will have been through the worst of it. Some of that is I think that even though the US is the problem child in the world today, we're probably handling it much better than in 1918. We understand viruses and how to protect ourselves from them better. We might understand how to treat them better, as well. But mostly I think that with the masks and social distancing and shut downs we're just being better at avoidance. And living in suburban homes rather than being crowded into unsanitary tenements helps. The other big difference is once a vaccine hits that will also knock the ability of the virus to spread way back - assuming people agree to be vaccinated. No one knows why the Spanish Flu went away, mostly, after a year. I'm hoping that part of history repeats itself. I'm not assuming we have to get to 70 % or 80 % through either natural immunity or a vaccine for the virus to start to disappear.

Of course I could. I mean, you've always had better taste than me in men. You've always been more skilled in deep throating. So, to be blunt, it would not be a shocker if you were right about this as well. In fact, let's just say it, okay? You have always been a stronger and smarter woman than me. I'm not ashamed to tell the truth. So here's a couple other truths. First, I just decided to stop posting for a few months. Daddy and I had a sort of falling out that was a long time coming, I'd say. It's multi-dimensional, and better left unsaid. But the fact that he started a racist thread (in my opinion) that essentially said Black Lives Don't Matter was my last straw. And I don't miss the useless ranting back and forth with Toxic Trump supporters. As should be very clear, these posts are mostly my own intellectual masturbation. If other people enjoy them, great. But I mostly just use them to learn things I didn't know and think them through out loud. There was a specific reason for the timing of when I started posting here. And it was the topic of my first post: Allan Lichtman. I actually was thrilled when I read he called 2020 for Biden. There's two things about that. Number one, he has been right on every call so far, since 1984. Number two, whether he is right or not in 2020, his theory explains why he SHOULD be right. His basic argument is that Americans are smart enough to judge how well Presidents govern, not how well they campaign or text. So I agree with him. President Toxic WILL lose, and President Toxic SHOULD lose. He fucked up the economy, he divided America to the point of mass social unrest, and he is going to lose for those reasons and more. That said, Lichtman has been quoted this year as saying he gets butterflies in his stomach every time he makes such a call. This time he might be wrong. Stay tuned. Right or wrong, I did make a mental adjustment when I read his stuff. It's been a shitty year. And if you asked me six months ago, I would have said Biden has at best a 50/50 chance at winning. If you asked Lichtman before the pandemic, I'm pretty sure he'd have said that as of today Trump will probably win. So my optimism is sincere, and intentional. I am more confident than I was in both 2012 and 2016. In both years the polls were close enough - like within a point or two - not very long before Election Day. So far, in 2020, that has not happened. The polls change, of course. But what is interesting this year is actually that they don't. Biden has had a poll lead of like 5 % + every single day going back to last year. I think of it the way I did back in our youth, when we were just two girls in finishing school. Granted, what were the odds that an ugly little duckling like me would get to suck the 9" cock of the captain of the football team? But if you recall, my dear, I did end up sucking it. And I think I did an excellent job, all 27 times. So it never hurts to hope for the best. That's true whether it is chewing on a horse hung cock, or making sure that one of the biggest assholes to ever lead our country ends up being as fucked as he can possibly be. And please forgive my blunt talk and rude manners. You know me. I'm just an overstimulated whore.

Oops. Correction. I feel like I'm getting dementia. I said above that if each SCOTUS justice had 16 year terms, and each President appointed two, that would recycle a 9 Justice court. As I said a few posts up, I meant 18 year terms. I guess I suck at math. Apparently I suck at geography, too. I knew something was wrong when I typed that quote above. I left out North Carolina. The four Senate must wins are Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and North Carolina. Iowa is one we don't have to win, and may not. I caught it because I went to that 538 Senate odds thing @tassojunior posted above. It's interesting that of the four must wins they give Mark Kelly the best odds (79 %) and Sara Gideon the worst (59 %). I actually see Senator Susan Coverup as the most likely to lose. What Silver is saying makes sense. Iowa is a true toss up, Montana is probably next best but Bullock is an underdog, and in all the other states - South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Kansas, Alaska - Democrats maybe have a 1 in 4 chance. One way to look at that is that if Democrats pull off the four must wins, flip Iowa to offset losing Alabama, and then pick up just one of the long shots, that's a 52/48 Democratic majority. If things mostly stay the same through November, that's a very realistic possibility. But again I'll just double down on my point about polls. Republicans must be hoping that Democrats will blow it and look like children throwing a temper tantrum, and Americans will soften when they see this nice, smart woman. Democrats are hoping that they'll mostly ignore the individual nominated and attack the Republicans for process bullshit and wanting to repeal the ACA in the middle of a pandemic, as well as abortion and voting rights and God knows what else. Silver can not tell us a thing about how any of that will impact any of these races. He's way behind the curve, not ahead of it.

There's no 2016 problem to fix. The RCP and 538 averages were right on the money in both 2016 and 2018. Within about 1 %, which was much less than the margin of error on any polls, they predicted that Hillary would win the popular vote in 2016 by a few points, that the 2016 generic Congressional lean was a wash, and that in 2018 Democrats would win the House by about an 8 % margin. If you go back to when RCP started their "poll of polls" around 2000 I think, they got every Presidential race right within about 1 %. The biggest outlier was Obama 2012, when the RCP average said Obama would win by 1 % and he won b y 4 % instead. It's pretty common in any election that there are a few points or more who are undecided. And often there is a moderate to strong last minute break, which is what helped Obama in 2012 and helped Trump in 2016. But at least at the national level, the polls pretty much captured that. If there was a big mistake in 2016, it was that there wasn't a loud debate - like there is now - about President Toxic losing the election by millions of votes but still winning in the Slavery Electoral College. To me anybody who is a progressive ought to be saying if you live in a swing state DO NOT vote third party, especially with the Slavery Electoral College in place. I actually feel disenfranchised. I'll vote, but it's a throwaway vote. The outcome in California is clear. So millions of votes are essentially not gonna count. So you can consider me as 3/5ths or 4/5ths a voter, since my vote really does not have the same impact as a vote in Wisconsin. The real issue with these polls is that nobody knows who will turn out. I think that is more true than in past decades, because turnout has been spiking up for both parties due to the partisan brawl. So in 2016 Rasmussen was the most right, and in 2018 they were the most wrong. My guess is their assumptions in both years were about the same. But turnout changed. If Rasmussen is right in 2020, President Toxic may win. Whether it should or not, averaging the polls seems to get us very close to the "correct" result in terms of what actually happens on Election Day. That may or may not be the case in 2020. The number of young people who say in polls that they are going to vote is off the charts, even compared to 2018 when there was a big surge in young voters. If that plays out, all these polls could be underestimating Democratic turnout. I certainly hope that's the case. By the way, I've now heard various pundits talk about why this "red mirage" stuff is probably more media-generated BS than reality. They mention that in states like Florida and Texas where early votes or mail-in votes are counted in advance, that actually favors Democrats in terms of initial returns. One pundit mentioned that is exactly what Bloomberg has in mind in Florida. The idea is not only for Biden to win, but also for Biden to win in a state that reports on Election Night. So if he wins, that flashes, "Game Over! Biden wins!" on Election Night.

Which is exactly my point. If Booker had been nominated, maybe it would be a 5 % chance. By the way, I increasingly just ignore 538. They can be very good at data, as in facts. Like what I posted today from 538 about the partisan lean of each state, or the urban v. rural split of each state. But this stuff you cited about probabilities isn't very helpful, or accurate. Their guesses in 2018 on House races I followed were just so-so. The problem with polls is that it's always a snapshot. And it might be a blurry snapshot at that. So what Silver does is takes snapshots and makes predictions of what will happen in the future. It's borderline just stupid. It encourages bad behavior. It encourages people to think these horse race polls tell us what will happen in a day or a week or a month. In another hour the horse may be dead. The polls just can't tell you that. I think what happened on Super Tuesday is a great example. First, the polls as recently as 48 hours prior did not predict or foreshadow the Biden blowout. Hindsight being 20/20, you can go back and either cite anecdotal statements or polls that showed a lot of churning and discontent among primary voters. Arguably the most important poll findings all year were that people consistently said that picking a nominee who could win the November election was the biggest priority. And, for whatever reason, people saw Biden as the guy most likely to actually beat President Toxic. So, in hindsight, what happened on Super Tuesday was not the biggest shocker ever. But nobody, including me, saw it coming. The polls did not tell us it was coming. They told us it would be a good night for Bernie. Same goes for McConnell. It is possible this election will be like 1980. Very unlikely, but possible. If something like that happens, it could take McConnell out. But if that happens, I very much doubt we'd even know until it happens. The polls may hint at it. But they won't tell us. The one valuable thing Nate Silver is doing is saying that if you want to send money to or volunteer for candidates who can win, you might want to look elsewhere.