stevenkesslar

I know this is a thread about third parties. And part of your point is the Democrats need to moderate to win. Especially in states like Kentucky. So I thought the results of the primaries in Kentucky and elsewhere were encouraging, as Politico reports it: The Republican Party is an interesting mess. David Cameron, a McConnell protege, is exactly the kind of face I hope the Republican Party keeps building: normal, multi-racial conservative capitalism. I'm glad he put Crazy Rich Croft to bed. Just like the "normal" Republican Secretary of State put another Trumpy sounding election denier to bed. That said, Cameron apparently thinks he has to run on a culture war agenda about trannies and churches. And somehow Trump endorsed the right person in this race. While DeSantis somehow managed to reinforce the idea that he is the very conservative guy, kind of mean, kind of a bully, who backs losers. When it seems like he would want to be the competent Guv, like Beshear, who handles disasters well and wins. Mostly, I like where my Democratic Party is. Beshear knows his limits in Kentucky. I think Biden knows his limits in a political environment where Kentucky doesn't matter to his re-election chances in 2024. But Pennsylvania does. Speaking of which, Democrats kept the Pennsylvania House and elected a pragmatist as the likely first female Mayor in Philly. I was surprised the "Black progressive" won in Chicago. But he was running against a White kind of conservative. I think Philly is a good example of the tug of war Democrats are having between "progressive" and "pragmatic" voices. I'm biased. But it seems clear there is room for both. And we need both to win. In the case of Philly, the "Black pragmatist" who wants more cops on the street won. If the goal is to win and govern, I'd rather be Beshear than Cameron. And I'd rather be Biden than Trump or DeSantis. To make this book length, I of course have to add one more point. So I'll repeat that I'm not sure about third parties. I watched an interview of Allan Lichtman a few weeks ago on some radio show. He pointed out, no surprise, that nominating Biden is the best chance Democrats have to win in 2024. Because he is the incumbent. And he will prevent a bloody intra-party fight, like the Republicans will likely have. Lichtman did not mention it. But a strong third party candidate would be a third potential nail in Biden's coffin. So Lichtman's model, which he used to predict every POTUS race since 1984 correctly in advance, says that you need 6 nails out of 13 for Biden's coffin to be nailed shut in 2024. Him being the incumbent, with no party war, and no strong third party candidate, would eliminate three of those nails. Lichtman said it's too early to predict 2024. But the four things he is watching are the long term economy, whether there is a recession, and whether there is a military success and/or a military failure. In other words, important stuff. Not polls or bullshit. Not "age." He did predict, I'd bet correctly, that "age" will turn out to be a lot of useless noise. Just like it was for Reagan in 1984.

And here I always thought HE was "The One." So this is arguably a bit off topic. But Biden's approval ratings have something to do with whether Biden will win in 2024. They have tanked in Rasmussen in the last week. Granted, Rasmussen tends to be biased toward Republicans. But, biased or not, they have a daily rating you can compare apples to apples. Biden Approval Index History Back in Summer 2022 when inflation peaked Biden often had a -30 approval index on Rasmussen. Meaning the difference between those who strongly approve and strongly disapprove. The most recent rating that bad was July 22, 2022 when 49 % strongly disapproved and only 18 % approved, for a -31 approval index. As recently as April 11, 2023 Biden was down to - 9, meaning 31 % strongly approved and 40 % strongly disapproved. Presumably the easing of inflation has a lot to do with that. That's the first time since Summer 2021 Biden's negative approval index was as low as a single digit. So he seemed to be recovering. As of today, it's -27, with 48 % strong disapproval and only 21 % strong approval. That down from -12 just a week ago! It has to be the debt ceiling/default scare. The polls I've seen say Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of reducing the deficit. Which would seem to favor McCarthy. But they are also overwhelmingly against linking deficit reduction to default. Which would seem to favor Biden. So who knows? When McCarthy just said "they want a default more than they want a deal" he's implicitly saying that he's willing to hold the US hostage to getting a deal. There's no snap poll that measures how people react to statements like that. But there are polls saying THAT is exactly what most Americans don't want. It is hard for me to imagine Biden, McCarthy, and McConnell allowing a default to occur. If only because it would make all of them, and many others, look like shit. If there is some debt reduction deal my guess is that, along with the continuing reduction in inflation pressures, it will gradually add momentum to Biden's case for a second term.

Sad, but true. I could write a book about this. But I'll do the greatest hits. My Dad was a Reaganite conservative. We really enjoyed talking about politics, for the most part. Even though I'm a lifelong liberal. One of the lines I used with one of my nieces recently, who is about as conservative as my Dad, is that while we disagreed about many things we shared the same values. Which were his values, of course, which I learned from him. My Dad and I both happened to adore Democratic Senator Bill Proxmire from Wisconsin. My Dad never met him, but loved his populist Golden Fleece Awards poking fun at stupid and wasteful government projects. I met Prox repeatedly and worked with his staff on the Senate Banking Committee. Because he was the father of the Community Reinvestment Act, our main national anti-redlining law. My Dad was the one who taught me the value of owning a home. Proxmire was the one who got a controversial law passed that has made it easier for Blacks to get mortgages to buy homes. I won't go on. You get the picture. Most of my life I spent lots of time in the US Capitol, the Oregon State Legislature, or various City Halls. And it wasn't like rocket science to get along, find common ground, and cut deals with the conservatives you disagreed with. I blame this on Trump. He is playing divide and conquer to win. So far it has only really worked once, in 2016. Hopefully Republicans learn decisively in 2024 that's it's just a bad way to play the game. But @Latbear4blk is absolutely correct that Trump is more the symptom than the cause. I was fine with CNN exposing what Trump's base is really like. You couldn't miss the ugliness. To me, it was horrifying. I've mentioned a few times that one of my brothers, who is a McCain conservative I 'd say, voted for Trump in 2016. He told me if he voted in 2020 solely based on the economy, he would have voted for Trump again. In 2020 he called me almost proud to inform me that he voted for Biden, because he decided Trump was a "megalomaniac." He lives in a rural area. He told me he told one of his conservative neighbors he voted for Biden. He said the neighbor said, "Get the hell off my lawn." I do think this may be Biden's secret weapon, including in 2024. And the flip side of the age issue. He actually believes what he says about respecting your opponents, and compromise. I think moderate people get that about him, and like it. So right now, I suspect when you put the politics mostly aside, Biden and McConnell and McCarthy agree they are all on Team USA. And we can't have a default. And we need to do something about the debt. Trump is the one saying on CNN, "Why not default?" I'm actually confident, or at least hopeful, that a majority of Americans will prefer Biden against Trump again, old and sometimes wise as he is, because of things like this.

I hit the like button about one minute into that video. Because I agree 1000 % with Anderson Cooper. I agree 0 % with Brian Tyler Cohen on this one - even though I do agree with him most of the time. But I like the video, and thanks for posting it. This is the debate we need. To me, it boils down to this. A conservative friend of mine used to repeatedly tell me this axiom of his. He thought what defines conservatives is that they debate things. And if you disagree, you disagree. What defines liberals, at least educated ones, is that if you don't agree with them it's just because they didn't explain it well enough. So they just have to explain it to you again. I never agreed with my friend. But Bryan Taylor Cohen appears to be that kind of educated liberal in this rant. He doesn't trust people to figure it out for themselves. If we ever needed proof that the American people could figure it out for themselves, the 2022 midterms provided a really good argument. In a year that should have been a broad reaction against Biden, principled and honest conservatives did just fine saying conservative things. But democracy-trashing and dishonest Trump spawn were all sent back to the hell they came from. That's democracy. God bless it. Cohen's argument that the media helped Trump win by giving him a platform in 2016 makes no sense. If that's true, why did Trump lose after the media gave him an even bigger platform for the next four years? Could it be because people actually paid attention to what Trump was saying and doing? And said we need to get rid of this abusive loser? Cohen seems to be implicitly arguing for censorship. He seems to think if we ignore 70 million or so Americans, they will go away. I think we know by now that they won't go away. And that censoring them only plays into their politics of anger and grievance. Let them call smart women nasty. In 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2022, that just helped Biden win the smart women vote. I think only media types would pat themselves on the back by thinking the media has that much power, either way. I'm with historian Lichtman. It's the economy, stupid. Were it not for COVID, Trump probably would have won in 2020. The COVID economy was what put the final nails in his coffin. But we can only hope, if Republicans nominate Trump, and even if the economy is weak next year, that a long and deep debate will bring moderates and Independents to where John Meacham is, and wants America to be. Defeating this abusive and lying loser has to be the most important thing on the agenda. That is the debate this CNN town hall opened. Is it possible that is the debate they wanted to start?

Not that I've never led a thread off topic. But let's return to our regularly scheduled crisis in American democracy, okay? Great article, @pitman. I'm always one for calling out right-wing billionaires. (Did I mention I think we should raise their taxes, too, to reduce the deficit? But, being a bipartisan guy, I'd say let's tax left-wing billionaires more, too. But there I go again, hijacking a thread about Trump and CNN to talk about taxes on fat cats.) I'm fine with saying it's the media, stupid. But I'd take that sentiment and go the other way. Compared to a generation ago, the media has gotten way more partisan. CNN led the way, along with Fox. All through US history, of course, there have been slanted and even toxic media sources. But I do think right now the media itself is helping to divide us. They build money making silos, and encourage us to stay in them by telling us what we want to hear. Which, in the case of Fox, was a bunch of lies, as we all just learned. Kudos to CNN for proving they can spout just as many lies. Even if it was indirectly through Trump, and the CNN moderator fact checked him. Reich is 1000 % correct that the media needs to hold Trump accountable for his lies, and venom about women, and democracy-bashing. Had I edited his essay, I would have suggested Reich point out that Kaitlan did that, exceptionally well. To me, that is exactly what made it so scary. The truth didn't matter. Go ahead. Call her a "nasty woman." To me, it did feel like it could have been Hitler saying, "nasty Jew!" With the crowd ready to smash the windows with glass. Not that they aren't the kindest "patriots" around, who can't get a fair trial anywhere. That said, we should all fear what comes next. I'd like America to stew over that. John Meacham, as I noted above, put it very well in historian talk. It's basically the same point @Riobard made above in psychology talk. This is a pathology. And it is deeply rooted. And hopefully a majority reacts the way Meacham said he did, personally. It is almost more important than anything else that we stop this. Now. As much as it is the media, stupid, I'll be the one to keep saying broken record that it is fundamentally the economy, stupid. Morning Joe likes to point out that in the recent bad-for-Biden ABC/WaPo poll that has triggered the Democratic inside the Beltway bed wetters, we also learned that 56 % of Americans think Donald Trump should face criminal charges in "investigations of whether he tried to illegally overturn the results of the 2020 election." What is bad for Biden, and what Morning Joe does not mention, is that in the same poll 54 % of Americans say Trump did a better job handling the economy when he was POTUS than Biden has in his term "so far." Emphasis on the words "so far." Morning Joe did say that when voters are talking about Trump, Democrats win. When voters are talking about Biden, Republicans win. I'll paraphrase to argue that if Americans care most about the economy, Trump would win today. If Americans care most about how Trump is a convicted, impeached, and indicted loser and liar and abuser, Biden would win today. We know Democrats did amazingly well last Fall, when inflation was higher than today. And when even more voters than today said the economy was on the wrong track. So that gives us a window into how Americans voters may weigh these important things. It's almost as if people voted as if eliminating some pathology, or perhaps some pathological liar, was more important than anything else. Meacham 1, Pathological Liar 0. Stay tuned. If Donald Trump is not senile, he should be. Only a senile old fool would go on CNN and insult suburban women in .................. how many ways? He should have been talking about the economy, stupid. Not how Kaitlan is a "nasty woman." Then again, maybe not: Q1 2017 to Q3 2020: GDP per capita growth from $54,866 to $56,479 = 2.5 % growth for Trump's term up to Election Day 2020 Q1 2021 to Q1 2023: GDP per capita growth from $57,882 to $60, 470 = 4.5 % growth for first half of Biden's first term Even a senile old fool would realize that whatever senile fool brought us 4.5 % growth is better than the senile fool that brought us only 2.5 % growth. At least up to the point where voters decided to fire this abusive and lying loser. Could that be why President Trump, who is no fool, failed to explain how the economy did better under him? The interesting question is why voters feel Trump did better on the economy, when GDP has grown faster under Biden. And unemployment under Biden is at a record low, and lower than it was under Trump. But I guess that would take a whole book to explain. I just can't think of one word - or one GIF - that would explain it. 😉

First, let's not be rational. You are getting into it with my dearest and most darlingest sister, who I love. So of course I have to defend her. We are two of the sweetest and lovingest and loveliest gals you've ever met. But don't fuck with us. Second, let's be rational. The picture you posted doesn't suggest Biden "is able to say only 3 sentences," as you stated. Not to be a bitch. But YOU are being the irrational one, sweetie. If he can read instructions saying ask the President of the AFL-CIO a question, he can probably say more than "Who are you?" Which I'm guessing is not the question he asked the President of the AFL-CIO. Third, If he can follow a detailed list of instructions, he's probably not senile. If Trump and/or Biden can do interviews, which I have seen both do recently, they are not bonkers. That's one of the virtues of a CNN town hall with either candidate. It demonstrates that, even though are seniors, they don't just look at a camera and drool and fart. Fourth, by your own standard, what the fuck is wrong with this convicted abuser and liar and loser? I mean, yeah. Maybe Biden shouldn't need written help to know the President of the AFL-CIO will be joining virtually. But who needs written help to understand empathy? What kind of wretched and convicted abuser and liar and loser - other than President DJT - would need to be cued to say "I hear you" when meeting with shooting survivors? It actually could be taken to mean Trump's brain is addled. Or, it could be taken to mean his brain is toxic. Which is quite understandable, seeing as how it spent an entire life in the body of a convicted abuser and liar and loser. Let's have some empathy for President DJT, okay? 😉 Seriously, guys. Can't we split the difference on this protocol stuff and just call him President Loser? Or President Toxic? Whatever we name him, Trump should NOT be President again.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled monologue. I thought the Morning Joe crowd nailed it regarding Trump's lie and ego fest on CNN. Scarborough said it's enormously stupid of Trump and his supporters to think a performance like that will help him. He argued Biden said it best in a tweet: "Do you want four more years of that?" Willie Geist cited the Morning Joe axiom that politics is about addition, not subtraction. Outside of Trump supporters, he asked, how many Independents who are not excited about Biden watched that CNN town hall and said, "Yup. That sure makes me want to vote for Trump." John Meacham, who is no radical, reminded me of Saul Alinsky's axiom from Rules For Radicals: the action is in the reaction. He said watching that Trumoy crowd and their deep connection to Trump, despite his lies and trashing of norms, made him feel like defeating this thing Trump represents has to be the biggest priority. This is coming from a guy who styles himself as Mr. Bipartisan Moderate. I agree with Meacham. I'm glad they had an audience of Trumpers. It was scary. I think a lot of moderates and Independents who are not fans of Biden will watch that and feel like, "No. No. We can't have this."

Pray tell. Who? And don't forget. There's GIFs as well as emojis. 😉

My darlingest love, it does go to show that even mature cock suckers can change. You were always the one that could take more. I guess as I have aged, with enormous grace, I have developed a certain tolerance. Although not for Trump's little thing, of course. Or his lies. We both know size matters. And the bigger the better. Even with rope, it turns out. I think Kaitlan just kept handing Trump enormous amounts of rope. And he hung himself, again and again. Not hung in the way you and I prefer, of course. Had I been in the audience, grace would mean giving out free Pepto Bismol. Half the shit he said made me want to vomit. Had the audience booed and hissed every time President DJT opened his mouth, that would have just looked like CNN socialists. Who have no grace regardless of age. They are simply extremists who are wired to be cruel to an abusive liar who can't even get a fair trail, for Pete's sake. (Don't let me get distracted about Pete and Chasten's sex life, though.) So I personally liked the optics of Trump saying all this ridiculous implausible shit while an audience of the faithful, I guess, mostly sat in awe and reverence. Sure, they could have actually had Trump abusing or even raping someone to applause. But calling Kaitlan a nasty girl went far enough, I think. The way Trump will win is to talk 24/7 about how the Biden economy sucks. And the Trump economy was better. I posted already that when asked about the economy, stupid, voters right now say Trump did a better job on the economy by 52/36 or so. I'm not sure I trust that number. The grass is always greener on the other side. Regardless, whenever Trump is explaining his lies, his abuse, his rapes, why "Hang Mike Pence" is not an actual death threat, or why cop beaters are "great people," he is losing.

It was well done. My take away is it illustrated the difference between Trump, a serial abuser and loser, and Reagan, who figured out how to win two landslides. My favorite three explanations: 1. A rioter who was killed is a "patriot." The cop who shot her is a "thug." Generally, rioters who attacks cops viciously and murderously and try to stop a peaceful transfer of power are "great people." 2. Mike Pence deserves no apology because Pence is wrong that his life was in danger. Which, technically, is not as bad as Trump saying something like Pence deserved to die, because he wouldn't be Trump's choice, anyway. We all know Pence was Trump's choice, until he declined to abuse The Constitution. 3. None of this would have mattered if Chris Miller had deployed the National Guard, as Trump ordered him to do. Except Miller says Trump lied about that. Except Trump says Miller lied. Can someone explain that? So, I think it helps frame questions that all Americans should think about. Why is it that Donald Trump can't get a fair trial, anywhere? Why is it that the only people who tell the truth these days are Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson? Somebody does need to explain these things to us. Why not believe a convicted abuser and serial loser like President DJT? I agree with My Dearest and Darlingest Sis @Suckrates that Trump set a new despicable low in his deposition. Which, sadly, he could not match on CNN. He only called Kaitlin Collins a "nasty person." In my book, that fell well short of telling her she wouldn't be a choice of his, either. If the people who actually believe Trump's lies and slurs want him to win in 2024, I'm afraid he's going to have to explain, and lose, a lot more.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. We're just having a nice debate about what the alternative is. One way to read what you just wrote is that Biden will be a one term President, either way. If he chose not to run, he would for sure be a one term President. If he chose to run, which he has, then maybe you are saying he will most likely lose. But you did say above that maybe what that really means is that Harris ends up being POTUS. You are not disputing one of my main points. Which is that if Biden had not run, because he had accepted early on he was a one term President, the likely winner of a 2024 Democratic primary would be .................... Kamala Harris. Or Bernie Sanders. My guess is that, like lots of Gay men, you might wish Secretary Pete would be the nominee. I'd be happy to see him be our first Gay POTUS. Chasten would make a great First Gay Gentleman. But show me the poll that says Pete would win. In every poll I have seen he is #3 or #4 or #5 after Kamala and Sanders. He ran in 2020. And Biden beat him. This recent Harvard/Harris poll is a great one for Democrats like me to read and feel sick and worried about. Because on the one hand it shows people feel we are on the wrong track, and Biden is too old. Ugh! On the other hand, it shows that in a Democratic primary in 2024 Biden gets 37 % of the vote. Harris gets 10 %. Secretary Pete gets 7 %, less than Hillary Clinton at 8 %. Meaning ...................... wait for it ......................... Biden wins. Even though lots of people feel that the nation Biden is currently POTUS of is on the wrong track, and Biden is too old. Let's talk about Biden himself. Yes, it's easy to blame this on him. Because he's always wanted to be President. And now that he is he doesn't want to quit. But here's some facts, so you be the judge. In 2016 Obama himself basically thought Hillary should be the one, and Biden should step aside. That seems like the thing no one wanted to say out loud. True or not, Hillary was the one. She lost. Trump won. In 2020 I read somewhere that Barack said something like, "Joe, you don't have to do this." But Joe did it. And he won, with Barack's help. Biden could be the wise leader who in 2024 says it's best I not run. But, if you go by polls, that leads to a bitter 2024 primary that nominates someone who is viewed even less favorably than Biden. So if the point is we don't want Trump back, which I don't, nominating Harris or Sanders does not help. So is Biden really being selfish or unwise? He's a master political whore. You can argue he sees the handwriting on the wall clearer than most people. He beat Trump once, and he thinks he can beat him again. The polls are crystal clear that nominating Harris, who most likely will be nominated if Biden does not run, will not help beat Trump. Part of my point is this is what VOTERS are doing. You implicitly acknowledge that when you said maybe the "poor American people" are getting what we deserve. I'll paint a rosier scenario than you. What if Biden wins? I have never been a particular fan of Joe Biden. I did not vote for him in the 2020 Democratic primary, as I said above. But he's actually done better than I thought he might. He has kept his party united. He has gotten important legislation passed. And he's been way better on NATO and Ukraine than Trump would have been. People in Ukraine, and people anywhere who care about democracy prevailing over Putinism, should be happy Biden is POTUS rather than Trump. So if Biden wins in 2024, is that a disaster? I don't think so. Back in 2020, when I would have preferred President Warren, I thought if I end up with Joe Biden the model for a successful Biden Presidency was Konrad Adenauer. "Der Alte" lived to be 91. He served as Chancellor until he was 87, and head of his party until he 90. He was confirmed as Chancellor in the Bundestag by only one vote in 1949. But he managed to keep winning until he resigned in 1963, when one of the coalition partners said they'd only support him for his final term if he promised to resign. By the end of his time in power he was taking naps in the afternoon. No one thinks of Adenauer as a senile loser. I doubt history will view Biden as a senile loser. Der Alte transitioned Germany from a Nazi nightmare to a solidly democratic and prospering nation. Biden will not have that legacy. But if Biden/Harris win in 2024 they will have transitioned the US from Trumpism to whatever lies in store for us in 2028. I can live with that. My hope is that two losses in a row for Trumpy Republicans will have the same impact losing had for Democrats in the 1980's. Maybe they'll nominate Tim Scott in 2028. He wants to unify America, he says. Unlike Trump, he says he wants us to have each other's backs again. He a cheerleader for mainstream multi-racial American capitalism. I'd love to see a race between Republican Tim Scott and Democrat Kamala Harris in 2028, whether she is POTUS or Veep at that point. That would make me feel proud to be an American. Part of your premise is that Kamala "babbles" and did not "make a good Administrator." That's your opinion. There are lots of Republicans who think Secretary Pete is a joke, who is the worst Secretary of Transportation ever. They're entitled to their opinion, too. As far as objective measures go, Kamala won every race she ran for, usually by wide margins. Including two statewide offices, where she won 57 % and then 61 % of the vote. Pete ran for statewide office in 2010 and lost. You can say Kamala bowed out of the POTUS race in 2020. But Pete bowed out of the race for DNC Chair in 2017 before the first ballot. Call them losers. But they both did live to fight another day. Biden may have been laying the groundwork for a Kamala/Pete ticket when he chose both. If Harris and Buttigieg run together in 2028, I'd vote for them in a heartbeat. But if they run against Tim Scott, and he wins, I'd be happy for him to be our first Black Republican President. He's someone I deeply admire for his values. So Trump winning in 2024 would be a disaster to me. But Biden winning would not be. I actually think it could lead to lots of good scenarios. And, like Adenauer did, I'd argue Old Joe did what he promised and protected democratic values. I know this is a monologue. But to me, it is going to be the economy, stupid. And whether Biden or Harris or Bernie or Pete or Gavin or Gretchen top the 2024 ticket, it will be the same economy. That is what will seal Biden's fate. The bad news is that right now, according to that poll above, about half of Americans say their personal financial situation is getting worse. The good news is that is down from 64 % last Summer, when inflation peaked. The other good news, for Democrats, is that despite these facts Democrats did amazingly well in the midterms, based on what Biden did and talked about. Meanwhile, Trump election deniers did horribly. And yet Republicans want to restore a Liar In Chief who abuses and loses. So the main thing I think that could get Trump elected in 2024 is "the Biden recession." But there is nothing anyone can do at this point to stop that, if it is going to happen. Including Joe Biden.

Okay. But it seems like you just repeated my answer to your question, but phrased it differently. Again: And the alternative is? You didn't actually say there is none. But you kind of said there is none. I inserted the word VOTERS in there because that's the issue. The weird thing is VOTERS are saying two things at the same time. First, we don't want Biden and Trump. Second, we do want Biden and Trump. 😯 The explanation is that there are two different groups of voters. If there were a primary of Independents only, someone other than Biden or Trump might win. I'm not even sure of that. But in a Republican primary, Trump will win. In a Democratic primary, Biden will win. The Republicans did actually encourage candidates to come forward for the last 2 years. Why? Because Trump lost in 2020. So DeSantis came forward. Haley came forward. Pence came forward, and others. And yet, somehow, in one recent poll Trump is up 60 % in a Republican primary. How did that happen? I think it is Republican VOTERS. Blame it on them. You're of course right that no Democrats (other than marginal ones like Kennedy) have announced they are running. But that it because Biden is the incumbent. Just as important, if any of these other big stars did announce, they would lose. So Gavin Newsom could announce and run against Biden. And, if the polls are right, he'd lose badly. Gretchen Whitmer, also discussed a lot given how well she did in Michigan, could announce. And she would lose. So is the idea that Governors or Senators or Sanders, who polls say would lose, should become candidates, so they will lose? Unless I am missing something, it sounds like you want a robust primary, like 2020. Great. But then Biden will win it, like in 2020. That is what the polls say will happen. The only problem with that is that you quoted someone above saying Trump is is "characterologically unfit," to be President. Which IMHO is putting it mildly. So in practice what it sounds like you're saying is maybe we should have a Democratic primary like 1980. Which the incumbent will win. But which will weaken him. Which will help elect Trump. I'm not dismissing the issue of Biden's age. It is clearly the elephant in the room. And everybody is actually talking about it, including you. But voters in both primaries are still saying loud and clear that, regardless of who else runs, we're going to nominate Biden and Trump. So it's not clear to me what you think "party leaders" in either case should do. They seem to mostly be accepting the will of the VOTERS, whether they like it or not. About half a dozen GOP Senators were on TV yesterday after the Trump abuse verdict saying he's unelectable in 2024. But some of them pretty much said that this is what voters in my party want. What should they do? The best theoretical solution I can think of to the problem, as you state it, is a national jungle primary. Like in California. If there were enough Independents, who in theory outnumber Democrats and Republicans, maybe some third person could emerge. Like a Ross Perot. The 1992 election was, in effect, a jungle primary. But even then Perot came in third. In practice, even if we could just decide to have a jungle primary - which we can't - most Independents would likely lean toward either Trump or Biden. Which is exactly what will happen, anyway. There's a word for it, by the way. Democracy. 😉

At the time the Jan. 6th hearings were happening, a lot of conservatives said it had made absolutely no difference in the polls. The hearings were a big nothing burger. And of course Biden got lots of pushback for trying to make the election about democracy, when people were mostly pissed about inflation. Somehow, the red wave of 2022 never happened. There's no truly objective way to know why. Even if you read every poll. People sort it out in their own minds. But it sure seems like all this stuff about democracy and Jan. 6th and election denial made a difference. And as you said, both sides have their issues. It's now clear a lot of people will vote Democratic simply because of abortion. If Trump wins, it will be because of the economy, stupid. A recession is what I think could take Biden out. But even in a situation like that, for a lot of people it will be lesser of evils. As it was last year, with inflation. But the 2022 midterm results suggest that for a lot of people, the election denial and Jan. 6th and the whole Trump thing was just a bridge too far. Even though I am a liberal, what I thought was particularly good is that all the "normie" conservatives (DeSantis, Kemp, Sununu, DeWine) did just fine. But all the Trump election deniers went down in flames. It could not have been more clear. And yet, so far it seems the Trumpy Republican base basically doesn't give a shit. One of my brothers, who I would describe as a right of center Independent, voted for Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020. The one candidate in his life who he really wanted to vote for for POTUS was John McCain in 2008. He and my Dad were both in the Navy. So his whole thing in 2020 was that Trump was a "megalomaniac." But I asked him if he had only voted on the economy in 2020, who would he have voted for. He answered "Trump," in a heartbeat. I asked him why. He said, "My retirement account went up a lot." So he is an example of what I'm hoping is a majority of Americans who are not Biden fans, but just see Trump as a threat to values they actually do treasure. The worse the economy is in exactly November 2024, the harder it is for Biden to ask people to overlook things like inflation. I hope Georgia is a big deal. And I hope it pops in 2024, not now. Right when people like my brother are focused on whether they can hold their nose and vote for Trump. The unavoidable problem with Jack Smith is it is easy to say that he's tied to DOJ. And so that's Biden. And so it's just another political witch hunt. Granted, Fani Willis is a Black Democrat like Alvin Bragg. So she'll be attacked for that. But most of the content of the case in Georgia is about Trump going after Republicans to lie and cheat and steal. Raffensperger and his whole family were getting death threats. There's not a lot of ambiguity in the phrase "find 11,780 votes." And whatever anyone thinks about hush money to hookers, or even sexual abuse and defamation, stealing an election is a big deal.

And the alternative is? That is both a question, and the answer to your question, @Lucky. It is a serious question. Since I am over my bandwidth quota, I waited a day to see if someone else would comment. But I'm genuinely curious whether other posters have ideas about how we could have, or still could, get to some ticket other than Biden/Harris 2024. I have my own answer to THAT question. It involves going back to the choices made in 2020. But at this point, in May 2023, I don't see any realistic alternative. Other than for Biden to have said he's not running. But he is. But let's play out what the alternative is. Before Biden announced, there was a year of polls showing that, if everybody ran, it would be a repeat of 2020. Biden would win a plurality of the vote. In every poll that shows him running against Veep Kamala or Secretary Pete or Bernie or Warren or even Michelle Obama, Biden wins. What happens if Biden drops out? Most polls say Harris wins. Which is what many (White) Democratic voters don't want. Then again, other polls says if Biden didn't run the next most popular choice is Bernie. Which is what many (moderate) Democratic voters don't want. I'll always think Super Tuesday 2020 was one of the strangest days in US politics. You just don't win primaries in states where you have no money, no staff, no organization, and the Senator from that state (Klo or Warren) is on the ballot. Yet Biden won Massachusetts and Minnesota. Jim Carville, who thought nominating Bernie would elect Trump, had yet another pithy way of saying it. He said the Democratic Party needed an intervention. And on Super Tuesday 2020, Democratic voters provided the intervention. But the key point is that it was voters, in a Democratic primary. There was a spontaneous tidal wave that buried Bernie and nominated Biden. I bold-faced your point about party leaders. It at least implies the idea of a smoke-filled room. Or a contested convention where Barack and Michelle or Bill and Hillary or somebody decides what makes sense. But, again, Carville was right about one thing. If the Democratic Party needs another intervention, that's what primaries are for. In a race against Robert Kennedy, Jr., Biden wins the primary 3 to 1. The people have spoken. I'll add this, which is speculation. If there is any party leader that was the architect of 2020, it was Jim Clyburn. He brought Biden back from the dead. He pushed Biden to pick Harris as his Veep. Clyburn never has, and never would, said this. But my reading of the tea leaves is that he felt that after 2016 running a woman or a Black would be a bridge too far for many voters. I think he saw Biden/Harris as the best bet to take out Trump. It worked. So if Clyburn is the party leader you want, Clyburn is very clear that he wants to finish the job with Joe and Kamala. So, again, what's the alternative, really? I think the fact that there is no alternative answers your question. It's not necessarily relevant, but Republicans are doing the same thing. Trump was just convicted of crimes. And at least so far, Ronny D seems to be as pure as Snow White. (Don't tell Ron. He doesn't like Disney.) And yet Republicans are going with the old loser. The one thing you can say about Biden is that he NEVER ran for POTUS, or Veep, as the party's nominee, and then lost. I think that's part of the equation, too. It's still not clear to me why Biden was the only guy who could beat Trump in 2020. But that's a big part of why he was nominated. And now people are talking like he's the only guy Trump can beat. It's a perfectly fine fear to have. But what's the alternative? I was for Warren in 2020. I voted for Bernie, in California, knowing by that point that Warren was toast and Biden would win the nomintaion. My vote was a memo to Joe saying, "Go left, old man. Go left." He did. I think he's a master political whore who has done a good job of moderating the differences in the party. Did I mention he sucked Joe Manchin's cock at least well enough to get old Joe (M, not B) to vote for Really Important Stuff that Biden and Democrats could run on in 2022? Which helped them avoid a bloodbath? I won't post the polls. But a big chunk of older Democrats view Biden favorably. There are almost NO young Democrats - it is literally a single percentage - that strongly approve of Joe Biden. They think he's too old. Many if not most of them would rather have Bernie or Kamala. So that's a problem. Will they even vote? But they did vote in 2022. And the shit Biden did get done, like climate change, or tried to do, like voting rights and student debt relief, helped. I worry about younger Democrats a lot more than older Democrats. They have to turn out in 2024 and vote for Biden if we don't want to Make America Great Again, Yet Again. Will they? But the polls clearly say that for most of them the alternative is Kamala or Bernie. Is that what you want?

This is what I love about you, Sis. As young girls in prep school, you were always the one better at deep throating the boys. So from an early age, I always had to accept that I was the realist. I had to think incrementally. You always went all the way. I went inch by inch. So, yes. I wish they had gone all the way, and taken his entire cock. In this case, I mean just chop it off, as legal punishment. I'm guessing Melania wouldn't mind. But let's be realistic. I won't repeat what i said in my post on another thread. But it applies here, too. The funny thing now is that maybe 44 % or so of Americans say they'd vote for Trump. Which is more than say they'll vote for Biden, in at least some polls. We know Trump got 46 to 47 % in two national elections. Meanwhile, depending on how the question is asked, a majority of Americans basically think he's a criminal who belongs in jail. So how could a guy like that get elected again? My answer is that I hope in November 2024 Americans are thinking recovery and rape. As in the Biden recovery. If instead we are in the Biden recession, they may overlook the rape. I think this verdict is more important than Stormy Daniels or a doorman saying something. Hush money to a hooker is one thing. Rape and sexual abuse is another. Who wants to feel raped? Or even just abused? Actually, truth be told, most of the MAGA folks seemingly do. As you said, they don't care. But IMHO Trump raped them. Trump raped the 2020 election. Trump raped the Capitol. Trump raped Kevin McCarthy on Jan. 6th. Kevin was screaming "Rape" (almost) on the phone to Trump as it was happening, and literally screaming "Stop it now!" Trump rapes, and rapes, and rapes, and rapes, and rapes. And usually gets away with it. I'd rather we are taking about how he raped Georgia and raped the Capitol and raped the cops he says he loves and raped these voting machine companies in Summer and Fall 2024. Not now. That's when the verdict from the most important jury will likely be formed. For now, I'm glad we can call Donald Trump, an abusive loser, what he is. AN ABUSER! A LOSER! Please bring on the indictments. And let's spend a year and a half talking about all the crimes of this loser.

Yes, but .............................. If I had to bet, I'd bet there will be two more indictments. I'm not a lawyer. But I am a political whore. Of course, you know that, my dearest Sis. So my reading of the tea leaves is they will indict. Arguably, it's a good thing they are taking their time to build their cases. This may be off topic, but here's a scary thought. Not at all surprising to me, but scary: That's from an article reporting that Biden's approval rating in a new ABC/WaPo poll has hit a new low (36 percent). And that Trump is beating him 44/38 in their latest horse race poll. Unlike Biden, Trump has never won more than 47 % of the vote. And, unlike Biden, he's never gotten above 47 % approval as POTUS. So my guess is Biden could snap back easier than Trump. But both are kind of in a race against time. I mean that, literally, because they're both old. But Biden will either look better, or worse, depending on the economy. Right about now in 1983 Reagan's approval rating in the polls was in the 30s. And polls said Mondale would kick his ass in 1984. The Reagan recession ended in Nov. 1982. So he had two years to recover. It seems like the polls tend to mirror inflation. The high percentage of people who say we're on the wrong track, or their personal financial situation is worse off, peaked last Summer with inflation. And the negativity about the economy has declined gradually as inflation has waned. But it is still largely negative feelings. If there is no recession and inflation has gone down more in a year, that will help Biden. If there is a recession in Summer 2024, lots of people may hold their nose and vote for Trump. Trump's race is basically a race against the law. This quote from an article about how DeSantis is a "really weak option" summed it up nicely: That pretty much captures how a lot of people will feel. Which is why all these horse race polls show so many people are undecided. Or none of the above. That quote was from a business guy. So he focused on taxes and regulations Which I doubt are the priority for most people. I'm pretty sure the broadest perspective is what I focused on above: it's the economy stupid. And we're not happy with the inflation. There's no way of objectively knowing how voters holding their noses weigh these things. But an ex-POTUS who lied about losing in 2020 and started a riot in 2021, and who is twice impeached and maybe three times indicted, could be a hard choice even for people who are holding their noses. I'm hoping, at least.

I think that's the issue, in part. The polls show clearly that phrases like "defund the police" and "socialism" scare and annoy people. That said, the murder rate in my state is way higher in Kevin McCarthy's Bakersfield than in blue LA or Pelosifrisco. Like I said, some of the "extreme: stuff is real stuff - like "defund the police." Some of it inflammatory bullshit. In 2022 there were lots of pictures of Kevin McCarthy standing next to cops. But Senator Gary Peters, who ran the Senate Democratic campaigns, had a great line. He said, other than photo ops, Republicans didn't really offer much. They didn't do so well, he thought, because they mostly focused on telling people about problems they already knew they had. What happened to McCaskill in Missouri is a cautionary tale. At least in my liberal mind, it aligns with this idea that UMW Democrats in Kentucky became Trumpers overnight. How exactly do you stop that? The crude way I think of McCaskill's fate is that she lost because Trump rallied the Testicle Vote against Christine Blasey Ford. I was contributing to McCaskill and Heitkamp, because i want moderate Democratic Senators. The polling was pretty clear that White men turned against both of them, and Donnelly, when things got polarized around SCOTUS. Which I guess is a form of culture war. I think Ruy Teixeira, who I cite a lot, is right that Democrats need to tone down some of the culture war stuff and focus on economic populism. Trump is, at heart, an economic populist. But one with authoritarian tendencies, to put it politely. I really don't buy the idea that third party campaigns help drive debates on anything that really matters. I think Lichtman is right about that. (By the way, I was mistaken above. His Russian buddy was a world renowned predictor of earthquakes, not volcanoes.) I think the idea that a surging third party movement reflects a potential political earthquake is coming makes sense. Just like, for example, huge losses in midterms reflect seismic political rumblings. But it's hard to identify any policy outcome from third party candidates of the past. George Wallace was basically defending Southern Democratic racism. But he ended up flip flopping and apologizing. What did John Anderson get done? My own view is that Ralph Nader and Gary Johnson and Jill Stein basically helped elect W. and Trump. The one person who was both amusing and maybe effective was Ross Perot. You could argue he helped put a focus on deficits, and the need to control them. But I'd argue what did that even better was the 1994 midterms. Arguably, Clinton had no choice but to negotiate with the Gingrich conservative insurgents. Although I think Clinton was inclined to want to reduce deficits, anyway. But if Manchin or Lieberman or any of these No Labels people run, I don't see how that moves the dial. What I am hoping Biden does is move the dial and cut a deal regarding deficits. The fact that he is dragging your Senator, McConnell, into it may be one good sign. As McConnell himself said, those two know how to negotiate. So does McCarthy, for that matter. If they pull a Clinton and put us on a path to deficit reduction, that would help. But I have more faith in Biden, Schumer, McConnell and McCarthy to do that than I ever would in Joe Manchin.

Fair enough. This article notes that the biggest political factor in KY, like in the US, is the growth of Independents that don't align with either party. I know I took up my bandwidth already above. But if the question is: what do Democrats need to do to win in red states, that's a great question. And Kentucky offers a particularly good answer. Kentucky’s Beshear Ranks as America’s Most Popular Democratic Governor Ahead of Re-Election Bid Six in 10 Kentucky voters approve of Beshear’s job performance, while 34% disapprove I singled out health care as an issue that was a plus, but not enough, for Democratic Senators who lost in Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota in 2018. I'd single it out as something that helped Beshear win in 2019. And health care will be one of the factors that helped if he does win re-election in 2023, like his Dad managed to do. KYNect was wildly popular, and successful, until Republican Gov. Matt Bevin took an axe to it. I recall reading stories about voters saying they were on KYNect, and it's great. But they hate Obamacare. (It's the same thing.) I agree with you that Democrats have an obvious problem in red states. And it is due to both the perception and reality of extreme positions. My main point, as a Democrat who would like to win more often in red states, is I don't think the solution is we need more Joe Manchins to run in states like West Virginia. Or for President. I think we need more Andy Beshears to run, and win, in states like Kentucky.

Here's an entertaining question, that partly depends on your ideology. Which is more extreme? A: Dramatically reducing child poverty in West Virginia by 50,000 kids; or B. Intentionally saying, "Let's spike child poverty up by 41 %. We need more poor White kids in West Virginia!" Of course, Joe Manchin didn't literally say that. And I personally don't view him as a cruel sadist. But the reality is the child tax credits, which in the Clinton era were more or less bipartisan, did dramatically reduce poverty in West Virginia and nationally for a year or so. And Manchin did intentionally kill them, it seems. He had to know the impact of his actions was going to be driving lots of his constituents' kids back into poverty. Is that extreme? Or is lifting them out of poverty extreme? The reductions in poverty were dramatic and across the board for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian families. But what I read suggests the group it helped the most was working class Hispanic families with lots of kids. Is that an extreme idea? Should the Democratic message be: We want the children of working class Hispanics to be poor? Child poverty is good for Brown kids, and good for America! Obviously you can tell what my ideology is. But, that said, speaking as liberal Democrat, I have a love/hate relationship with Joe Manchin. Speaking of extreme, he is an extremely brazen political whore. Even by the standards of any other US Senator with deep ties and endless pipelines of money from special interests, like Big Coal and Big Pharma. But it's clear that when he takes on liberal Democrats, his popularity in West Virginia soars. And when he gets in bed with Biden on things like green energy subsidies, his popularity in West Virginia plummets. So if Democrats want to win in West Virginia, they do need to listen to Joe Manchin. Arguably, getting in bed with his own party on the Inflation Reduction Act will cost Manchin his Senate seat. Which might explain why he wants to run for President. I thought this was an exceptionally good Politico article that put Manchin in a broader context, and addresses the question of what is extreme: The Revolution Joe Manchin (Probably) Can’t Stop That article nailed it. Manchin is an important voice. But a losing voice. Objectively speaking, West Virginia is now at an extreme. As in an extremely pro-Trump state where Democrats would need to be pseudo-Republicans, or Trump suck ups, to win. That won't happen. That Politico article was written in the middle of the Build Back Better shit show. Manchin could and did slow down "the revolution." But he didn't and won't stop it. Instead, he'll just lose in 2024, most likely - whether he runs for Senate or President. And I think Politico is correct that "the revolution" isn't Bernie, or socialism. It's Biden, and his reverence for The New Deal and LBJ and MLK and all that. Which child tax credits to cut child poverty in half are actually a very good example of. That said, the polls showed that Americans were split down the middle on child tax credits. The main issue, which is what Manchin clearly was concerned about, is whether we could afford them. That debate is far from over. And the overwhelming consensus among Democrats is we'll fight for these past victories like Medicare and these next victories like child tax credits. That's Biden. If we need to raise taxes on billionaires to help poor Hispanic kids, we'll do it. And at least on that part of his message, I think he's got a winner. Democrats, my team, have a big problem. Because if we ever want to bring back those child tax credits, to cut child poverty in half, we are going to have to be able to elect people like Claire McCaskill in Missouri, or Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, or Richard Donnelly in Indiana. I'm of course referring to three actual Democratic Senators from "red" states who lost as recently as 2018. If those three Senators had won in 2018, and instead Manchin had lost in 2018, Build Back Better would be law, for better or worse. Democrats would have had a 52-48 Senate majority. So BBB would be law with probably a vote or two to spare. And while I can't point to polling, I don't think cutting child poverty in half is the kind of extreme thing where people in Missouri and Indiana would so, "Oh, no! We can't have that. We want our White rural children to be poor." What the polling actually showed is that McCaskill and Heitkamp were ahead in Summer 2018. And their positions on affordable health care were a big driver putting them in the lead. McCaskill said the minute Anthony Kennedy resigned and it opened up a SCOTUS seat, she knew she was in big trouble. It changed the debate in "red" states like Missouri. And especially working class White men, who might have agreed with McCaskill on health care, turned against her in a big wave. So Democrats do need to worry about the working class White men Manchin often says he speaks for. Did I mention these three seats are up for grabs again in 2024? I'm happy to lose Manchin. On a list of states Democrats should try to win, West Virginia is arguably now dead last. Speaking as a pragmatic Democrat, I'd rather figure out how we can elect people like McCaskill in Missouri, Heitkamp in North Dakota, and Donnelly in Indiana. That will require some moderation. But NOT Joe Manchin. The best sitting example today is Jon Tester in Montana. Sherrod Brown in Ohio is another. They keep winning, but NOT by acting like Joe Manchin. Those five Senators are perfect examples of Democrats who managed to win elections repeatedly by avoiding being seen as extreme AOC-type Sandernistas with crazy liberal ideas. To Politico's main point, they could win elections based on an agenda that could be called New Deal Lite. I'll end by giving a nod to Allan Lichtman's Keys To the Presidency again. And by noting that a Joe Manchin third party campaign would most likely help elect Donald Trump. One of Lichtman's 13 keys is whether a third party is able to get 5 % or more of the vote. He says history suggests that's a sign the incumbent party is in trouble. 2016 is a perfect example of the danger for Biden. Lichtman has called every Presidential race since 1984 right, in advance. When he called it for Trump in September 2016 he said it would be close. And it could change, he said. Because one of the reasons Trump would win is the third party candidacy of Gary Johnson would be a nail in Hillary's coffin. If those third party votes move to Hillary, that could be her margin of victory, he said in that hyperlinked article. As it turned out, the third party candidates combined got just over 5 % of the vote, which is Lichtman's threshold. So no can say this for a fact. But I think most people who dug into the data think Johnson and Stein helped Hillary lose Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. A Joe Manchin candidacy, if it could draw away 5 % or more of the electorate, might well do the same. Third party candidate John Anderson (6.6 % of the vote) helped Reagan win in 1980. And as was noted above, Ross Perot (18.9 % of the vote) helped Bill Clinton win in 1992. 1968 (George Wallace got 13.5 %) was another example where a strong third party showing signaled the defeat of the (LBJ/Humphrey) party in power. The one recent exception was 1996, when Perot got 8.4 %, and the incumbent (Clinton) won, anyway. But The Keys system says it's a combination of factors. I think Lichtman would say in 1996 it was the economy, stupid, that was the biggest thing Clinton had going for him. That April 1996 article spelling out which 4 keys Clinton had working against him is worth a look if you want to consider how Joe Manchin could be the nail in Joe Biden's coffin. Lichtman and his Russian academic partner (who was an expert at predicting volcanos) argued that when a President has 6 or more of those Keys working against them, it's just a historical fact that they will lose. So the 5th key that ended up working against incumbent Bill Clinton in Fall 1996 was Perot. That's 5 keys, which is not enough. Biden right now has three of the same keys against him that Clinton did: 1 (midterm losses), 11 (no foreign policy victory), and 12 (no charisma). Unlike Clinton, Biden has 7 (mostly popular major policy changes) working in his favor. (Biden's argument is, "Let me finish the job.") So then the question is which three additional keys could turn against Biden and bring back Trump? My argument would be the two economy keys. Like we are in a recession in Fall 2024. And the sixth and fatal key could be a Joe Manchin (or Joe Liberman) candidacy. If it gets enough traction to siphon away Independent and moderate Republican votes from Biden. This is especially true, I think, if Trump is the nominee. We know for a fact the strongest thing Trump has going for him is an almost fanatically loyal base. If Joe Manchin changes the math so that Trump only needs 46 % of the vote to win, we know Trump can do that.

Very thoughtful essay. Thanks for posting that. A few big pieces of data to add, none of which are surprises. War in Ukraine widens global divide in public attitudes to US, China and Russia – report “Mega-dataset” of public opinion covering 97% of the planet finds a “world divided” between liberal US-backing populations and illiberal nations favouring China and Russia. It is now clear that we live in a multi-polar world. With lots of big countries like India not wanting to take sides. I don't blame them. When the US was closest to being a unilateral world power after the breakup of the USSR and into the early 21st century, arguably the two biggest things we did were: 1) the Iraq War, and 2) the global financial crisis. One was based on a lie. And the other originated in misplaced faith in the idea that American mortgages are rock solid and a safe bet. We kind of fucked it up. To me, a riot at The Capitol is child's play compared to the Iraq war and the GFC. This is the most humbling statistic in that report: Speaking as an American, we're outnumbered. That said, this Voice of America article adds some important balance. While all these unaligned countries in places like Africa view China and Russia favorably, they also view the US slightly more favorably than China and Russia. When asked whether they would rather China or the US be the world's superpower, overwhelming majorities would prefer the US to be superpower: 59 % in South Africa, 77 % in Nigeria, 80 % in Kenya. Maybe the US is pushier about our values and systems. But those numbers suggest our values and systems don't suck in the eyes of the nonaligned. I think Dalio hit the nail on the head regarding the dilemma most countries and leaders are feeling with this comment: What I found slightly surprising in Dalio's comments is the sense of how China is perhaps not very well prepared. First, if I buy what he says, they don't want war. Second, they are years behind on things like AI. Third, they are feeling increasingly threatened not only by the US but by other regional powers allied with the US: Australia, Japan, South Korea. Dalio is right that how those relationships shake out when the going gets tougher will be critical. Add that China, not the US, is the nation with the demographic time bomb. I know Dalio is talking five months or five years out. Not fifty years. But I can buy the sense Dalio expresses that if anything China feels like it is being baited into a war - economic or military - it does not necessarily want. Oh. And one other teeny, tiny little thing. With all due respect to the 6.2 billion people in the world who mostly respect China and Russia, if you look at a trade map China is fucked. No wonder they don't want to be baited into a global economic war. The US has 10 times the trade clout of Russia. Take that Vlad. Australia has the same $48 billion in trade Russia offers. Saudi Arabia may be China's great new pals, with oil aplenty. But The Netherlands alone does five times as much trade with China. Chips, anyone? 😉 Yeah, I'm bragging a little. But I also find this comforting, since like everyone I don't want WWIII. In the 30's, in the run up to WWII, two of the fastest growing economies in the world were Germany and Japan. Because they were militarizing and preparing for war. The run up to war was basically an economic growth engine for them. China today is more like the opposite, at least based on trade. They have a lot more to lose than to gain - even moreso than the US. Dalio's comments based on his relationships there suggest the Chinese know it. Hopefully the US does, too.

Proving yet again that brilliant minds think alike. But we knew that already. I think what saddens me the most is here we have an example of a father with big balls. And a son with even more enormous testicles. Both willing to speak truth to corrupt media power and leftist hate. And in a moment like this, no surprise, we have RINO liars who suck up to the MSM. They just want to spread lies and hate to undermine Tucker. Anonymously, of course. It really pisses me off that spineless pussy RINOs can get away with saying this shit about one of the great minds of our time. That's such bullshit. Losers! At least winners like Kari Lake will speak the truth.

I'm posting a few pieces that are an interesting point/counterpoint about the looming Trump/DeSantis catfight. And what follows that. As a partisan Democrat, I take them to be mostly good news for Biden. First, a piece from Jeff Greenfield about why Trump is likely to be the Republican nominee. Second, a piece from Steve Kornacki about why that more likely than not means Trump loses, yet again, in 2024. The Real Reason Trump Might Win the Nomination He’s still the president of Republican America. I buy what Greenfield is saying. It's backed by polls. For the majority of Republicans, they'll back Trump for the reason Democrats will back Biden. He's the President. And he's a winner. If you're a typical Republican, Trump actually won twice. Biden never won. He's just a liar. You can pretty much stop there, perhaps. Greenfield adds all the caveats. Will a second or third indictment be the charm? Probably not. What if more leading Republicans point out more often that nominating Trump means losing? I just read an article about the rut DeSantis is in, in which one of his backers pointed out that in some poll of Nevada, Trump would lose to Biden by a few points. Whereas DeSantis would beat Biden. As I documented above, almost every poll of every swing state this year shows DeSantis would probably do a better job taking out Biden than Trump, usually by like 3 to 5 points. This seems to have absolutely no impact on Republicans whatsoever. Maybe it's that simple. Trump is President. Why switch, any more than we would have in 2020? Let's add a new one. Will the Dominion lawsuit and Tucker's firing convince more Republicans that Tucker cheated on them? Probably not. No offense, Tucker. But they married Trump. Not you. You were just like the flower girl at the wedding, if we're being honest. It sure was pretty to watch you blossom on Fox, though. At least as of now, it looks like being indicted is actually helping Trump consolidate his hold over the GOP. Which makes sense. If you are running a grievance campaign, being indicted by a Black New York City liberal in a baseless political witch hunt is a very nice political cross to bear. How many times does Don, Jr. have to point out that at some point his Daddy deserves a break? You know those evangelicals. They're all about more empathy, and less abortion. This is a good marriage for them. And yet .................. I love the ambiguity of that piece. Kornacki is right. A Biden/Trump rematch will be wildly unpopular. A lot of people will say it is de-energizing. Especially on the Democratic side. At least Trump fires up his base. Which is the main reason Republicans like Rich Mitch and Tucker Carlson tolerate a guy they hate passionately. A lot of Independents will react in horror, since the polls already make it clear they want neither. Democrats should be scared shitless. If you stop watching Steve's number crunching about halfway through, we have a POTUS who is pretty deep underwater. Here's one poll Steve didn't mention: we also have an economy that most voters say is on the wrong track. That said, when pressed by Morning Joe - who relentlessly points out every chance he gets that Trump led Republicans to defeat in 2018, and 2020, and 2022, after losing the popular vote and barely winning in 2016 - Kornacki goes through the reasons why Biden is probably under rated in the polls. Trump is clearly NOT like the others in those favorability polls. 48 % of Americans feel badly about Joe Biden. 46 % feel badly about Democrats. 43 % feel badly about Republicans. So far, there's only large minorities that feel badly about the sitting POTUS, or either US political party. Meanwhile, 53 % feel badly about Trump. He's the odd man out. A majority of Americans actually don't like the guy. And simply do not want him to be President. How do you overcome that? The same is true if you look at the favorables. At 38 %, Biden is actually viewed more favorably than Democrats (36 %), Republicans (33 %), or Trump (34 %). He'll be the Democratic nominee because people will do what he keeps asking them to do: judge me against the alternatives, not The Almighty. (Or Kamala. But Biden wins that race, too.) The fact that maybe 38 % of Americans actually feel good about Biden matches with his low baseline in these horse race polls. Once you get higher into the 40's, and then get past 50, to one degree or another people are probably voting for Biden as the lesser of evils. But, unlike Trump, he doesn't have a majority who actually kind of see him as evil. We've tested the reliability of these numbers in both the 2016 and 2020 Presidential elections. And the outcomes are pretty much what a Kornacki or Morning Joe number geek would expect. The thing that was interesting about the 2016 horse race polls, as RCP showed them every day, is that out of roughly 500 polling days between June 2015 and Election Day 2016, Trump was ahead of Clinton in the polls for maybe one week's worth of days. I kept wondering: how likely is it he'll be ahead of Hillary on the one day that really matters, Nov. 8, 2016? Call me dumb. Because having lived through Bush/Gore, I should have remembered that you don't have to be ahead in the polls, or even in the actual votes, to win. Trump himself allegedly said that if you'd held the same election a dozen or so times on the same day in 2016, he would have lost most of them. It was kind of a statistical fluke. There was divine intervention, of course. Thanks to The Second Coming Of Comey. To be very specific, Trump won with 46.1 % of the vote in 2016. Which is pretty close to what you'd expect is the best he could do. Since about 53 % of Americans really don't like him. And don't want him to be POTUS. That number seems to be incredibly sticky. We have almost a decade of RCP polling on Trump's favorability. There's actually NEVER been a day that fewer than 50 % of Americans viewed President Trump unfavorably. Not one day. There were a few days in late 2016, after he won but before he was inaugurated, when feelings for Trump were the least bad they've ever been. Call it hope. There were a few days in early 2022 when his horrific unfavorable ratings after Jan. 6th slid back down to about 50 %. Call it boredom. But whenever Trump is in the news - Mar A Lago, indictment, running for POTUS again - his unfavorables always spike. It is like political gravity. In 2020, he got 46.8 % of the vote. 53 % of people who vote just don't want him to be President. And the fact that older voters who are dying like him the most, and new young voters like him the least, won't help him much in 2024. Biden's numbers in 2020 also make sense. He won with 51.3 % of the vote. So he can clearly get a majority of voters on his side on the day that it really matters. (Arguably, he did it twice as Veep, too.) And that matches with Kornacki's number, that about 48 % of Americans feel badly about Biden. That leaves 52 % for Biden to get. And, in 2020, he got most of them. Biden's unfavorable ratings are of course upside down now, with 54 % of Americans not approving of the job he is doing. But 54 % of Americans did approve of what he was doing for some of his Presidency. And much of his Vice Presidency. There's no evidence that a majority of Americans are hard set against Biden - every day, every year. Like they are against Trump -every day, every year. My guess is that indictment hurts Trump's favorables. It is scary that there is an obvious groundswell for Trump right now. And since most people have come to see polls as bullshit, knowing that DeSantis would actually do better than Trump in Nevada isn't much consolation. But if and when indictments come down for how Trump tried to steal an election in Georgia, or stop a peaceful transfer of power by tossing rioters at cops at The Capitol, there's no reason to think the 53 % of Americans who feel very badly about Trump, and have for a decade, will change their mind. What is scarier to me is this idea: To get to something like 51 %, Biden has a long way to crawl back. He needs to get almost everyone who doesn't feel badly about him to actually vote for him. He's been there and done that before. But can he do it again? One way of looking at it is that when Biden is running against Barack Obama, or even Michael Dukakis, maybe he doesn't look so good. When he is running against Donald Trump, he really is an attractive enough lesser of evils. At least in 2020 and 2022. Third time's the charm? If there is a third party candidate, it's also not clear that either Trump or Biden need anything like 50 % of the vote to actually win. My guess is a third party helps Trump, by potentially lowering the winning percentage to something like 47 %. But if Trump himself is the third party candidate, that's a whole different thing. My mind was settled on this pretty much the day Biden won in 2020. Allan Lichtman is my guy. So he argues that by virtue of Biden being the incumbent, and avoiding a party food fight, Democrats already have an advantage in 2024. So then it pretty much comes down to the economy, stupid. Why would a small chunk of the 53 % of Americans who kind of detest him vote for Trump, anyway? A really bad recession and stock market crash would probably do it. Or maybe a humiliating loss in Ukraine? I definitely agree with Lichtman that Americans will vote in 2024, like they do in every Presidential election, on things that really matter. If the economy and stock market are in recovery by November 2024, as I think most economic talking heads project, it will be much easier for Biden to persuade the 53 % of Americans who don't like Trump to vote for him instead. Probably even moreso if Trump is the most impeached and indicted man in America, ever! Jim Clyburn, co-chair of Biden 2024, was on Morning Joe this morning. He has a much simpler explanation than mine. He says politicians win when voters feel them, as opposed to seeing them or hearing them. Biden is under rated because polls can't measure that Biden comes across as a normal, boring guy who is like you and me. Maybe, maybe not. I'll go with Kornacki. What we do know is that a slight majority of Americans DO NOT detest Biden, the way they seem to detest Trump. That is sufficient to explain to me why Trump will kick Ron's ass. And then Joe and Kamala will kick Trump's ass, again.

Again, I know I'm posting a lot. Yesterday was a fun day. I wish somebody like Tucker got fired every day in America. 😍 I was baiting one our esteemed posters to rebut my optimism. Since he didn't take the bait, I'm going to have to drag in a couple heavy hitters to make the argument for cynicism. Tucker Carlson's Exit Shows Who's The Real Star At Fox And there ya have it. Nothing will change. Some new demagogue will be hired to spout more lies. And goose ratings around brand new mountains of bullshit, as far as the eye can see. Rupert wins again. As he always does. But if we really want to bring in the heavy hitters when it comes to Fox News cynicism, why not just go to to the source (other than Murdoch himself)? What do you think, Bill? You certainly have some experience on this matter. I'd like to commend Chris Cuomo for having the balls to ask the hopelessly naive question: Bill, does this mean that perhaps Fox will tone down the intentional flame throwing and "acidic" tone when they replace Tucker? Like, maybe with someone more "analytical"? To which O'Reilly obviously answered: No, of course not. It's about the money and the ratings, stupid. And right now the money includes this thing about really pricey lawsuits. If you think any of this has to do with actual journalism, think again. Call me naive, but I actually found it ironic that O'Reilly was making this argument. My prediction is this: Fox will hire someone more analytical to replace Tucker. Come to think of it, probably someone like a younger Bill O'Reilly. But don't take my word for it. Ask Bill O'Reilly, circa the dawn of the Trump Era. Shortly before Trump took Obama's place, and Tucker took O'Reilly's place. You may not want to watch that whole "analysis" of Obama's Presidency, to quote that word Cuomo used. But O'Reilly's piece actually is .................... what's the word? Analytical? No mention of how Jan. 6th was a patriotic picnic. Or how Trump's election was stolen from him. The controversy here is why Obama didn't drive the poverty rate lower. Like, is that what news is? Really? I mostly agreed with O'Reilly, or at least thought he had a really good point, maybe about a third of the time I watched him. Which is pretty good, for a lifelong liberal like me. I genuinely found him thoughtful. His rants, while being rants, were usually full of facts. On the other hand, I rarely enjoyed listening to Tucker. That was more like eating shit. I did it because I felt like it made sense to know why so many MAGA people had come to the conclusion that shit tasted good. I picked that clip as a blast from the past for a few reasons. O'Reilly himself noted, probably truthfully, that a lot of Fox viewers (aka MAGA folk aka birther folk) thought O'Reilly was soft on Obama. But mostly I picked that clip because O'Reilly, as he said at the end, focused on analysis and fact. As he said, "nothing to do with ideology or wishful thinking." Well, okay. I'm not really THAT naive. Of course it had to do with ideology. In this case, Rupert Murdoch's ideology. There's not much point in fact checking what O'Reilly said about Obama in early 2017. Other than to point out that O'Reilly usually argued based on facts. Of course, he was selective in his facts. Examples: He actually seems to be wrong when he says there was more poverty in the US in 2017 than when Obama took office. If you care to compare, here's a very fact-oriented report card on Obama from Factcheck.org. Obama lowered poverty, despite inheriting The Great Recession freefall from W. Black and Hispanic poverty were both at record lows (18.2 % for Blacks, compared to a prior low of 19.3 % in 2000 under Clinton) the day Trump took office. O'Reilly states, correctly, that health insurance premiums went way up (by 42 %) under eight years of Obama. He fails to mention that 15 million fewer Americans were uninsured, thanks to Obamacare. Or that Obama created 12 million jobs on his watch. And the S & P went up 166 % in his stagnant economy. Those are just small little things, of course. My point is that 2017 is not all that long ago. O'Reilly spun his ideology by choosing the facts he wanted, just as any debater does. But mostly he argued based on facts. What O'Reilly didn't really spell out completely in that Cuomo interview is that Murdoch's money problem is truly a fact problem. To play off a great piece Medhi Hasan just did on Murdoch, it turns out it's okay if Murdoch helped push lies about WMD, or Brexit. The ratings and money went way up for Murdoch news outlets on those issues. And the chickens never came home to roost. Hassan stated that, even today, 52 % of Republicans still think we found WMD in Iraq. Good job, Rupert. Rupert's problem now is that the chickens, in the form of BIG LIES, are coming home to roost at Fox News itself. If the lawsuits are about lies, and the purge is to stop the lawsuits, that actually means they have to stop the lies. At least the lies that result in them continuing to lose big lawsuits. O'Reilly wasn't canned because of ratings, or lies. He fell to MeToo, basically. And lawsuits. It's those God damn lawsuits, every time! So, yeah, Fox will find probably find someone else who is a demagogue. And maybe even a sexist. (Although Megyn Kelly would do in a pinch.) But my prediction is they will stop firing people for accurately reporting news. Like how Joe Biden won Arizona. And when they hire Tucker's replacement, they will hire someone who is much more careful about facts than Tucker was. They don't want more lawsuits. I know. Poor baby. It sounds awful, doesn't it?

I know I'm posting a lot. It is a good time to be asking, what is Fox (or Murdoch) thinking? So here are a few different shots at Tucker coming from INSIDE the Republican/conservative/Fox tent. One as reported by CBS, one by CNN. The CBS reporting, regarding Tucker's complete bullshit about how Jan. 6th was a patriotic picnic and the rioters were actually the victims: CBS also reports on the other lawsuit against Tucker, again from inside the tent. This time from one of his own producers. Now, go ahead. Call me naive or worse, for actually believing what a former Fox producer says. But here we are .... I'll add what Grossberg's lawyer said. How naive is this? Perhaps my most naive belief is that Tucker's worst crime, as reported by CNN (and pretty much everyone else) is that Tucker actually went on a rampage because Fox News had the audacity to report Joe Biden's win in Arizona accurately. WTF!!!! Why would anyone think Fox would ever do that? Yes, Tucker, we are playing with fire. For real. As a consolation, I'm willing to pay for your journalistic tombstone. Inscribed with the words, "You played with fire. And ended up engulfed in your own flames, and ego. Sorry, dude." At the very least, it will make others at Fox think twice before attacking their own producers and executives for accurately reporting the news, I hope. I'll add a bit more on a personal note. I talked about my college-educated conservative corporate executive niece in a post above. We can talk about politics, but it is borderline. I could always talk with my Reaganite Dad about politics, and we rarely disagreed about facts. So the frustration for me, these days, is how many actual facts are in dispute. As recently as a month ago, when she was visiting me, she was singing Tucker's praises. And I'd say she is a "soft" believer in the lies about the 2020 election. She won't go with some of the more fabulous lies. But she'll still say that there seems to be smoke (generated by Tucker, of course) so therefore there must be fire. So I wouldn't bet on what impact firing Tucker might have on her. For sure, it goes further than settling a lawsuit out of court. Add the fact that, as a woman in corporate America, she has her own views about what it means to be a woman in corporate America. So I'm guessing, if she bothers to read about this stuff, that some of it resonates. At the very least, she may wonder why Tucker abandoned her - after cheating on her.

Fine. I already told you I thought it was a spoof when I read the first post. Pretty much for the reasons you suggest. Why would Fox News actually want to be fair and balanced? That sounds so ................. you know ................. uninformed, naive, or worse. So why do you think Fox fired Tucker? Inquiring minds want to know. Share your information and wisdom with us, please. As a footnote, I'm still catching up reading stories about the firing, and speculating. I had not heard this one before: Arguably, that's even worse than hating Trump passionately. If Trump is the 2024 Republican nominee, we also have to assume a majority of Republicans - especially those who watch Fox - will just overlook all his lies and alleged criminal behavior. Not to mention his fun, patriotic cop beating. And then in the middle of that his main cheerleader in the run up to the 2024 GOP convention is a guy who is now on record as thinking Trump is "a demonic force, a destroyer" ? Tucker's bullshit and hypocrisy did catch up with him, I think. The funny thing is that when members of a minority that is losing circle their wagons, it is usually to defend themselves. In this case, so far they appear to be setting their wagons on fire. This ain't good news for either Tucker or Trump.