stevenkesslar

What a weird combo. His ex-VP prays for him. His next VP hates him passionately. Melania is the smartest guy in the room. She just keeps her mouth shut. (Or not. But what her mouth does in private is really TMI for me.)

So will I. Honestly, when I first read @reader's post, I thought this had to be a spoof. There's just no way. So I think you got your apology, sis. Although this is so much better than an apology. The interesting question is: why Tucker? This CNN story (ironic I chose CNN, I guess) confirms Tucker was their top-rated host. And that Fox Corp's stock tumbled on the news (down 5 % the article says, but it was a 3 % decline by market close. The stock is worth less than when it listed in 2019, so it's not exactly been a barn burner.) Hopefully this does mean, as the CNN story speculates, a "culture change" at Fox. They will still be right-wing. But maybe less inflammatory. What set Carlson apart is how much delight he took in throwing bombs. I do think the hypocrisy of learning that Tucker hates Trump "passionately" and that so much of what he peddled on TV was bullshit for ratings and fame simply created a very bad look. Maybe Rupert felt Tucker cheated on him, too! The other thing curious minds want to know is whether it was just a coincidence that Lemon was thrown overboard on the same day. If there's a specific reason with Lemon, it's his comments on women. And in his case his ratings weren't great. But they also weren't bad, by CNN standards. I didn't see Lemon as someone who intentionally threw bombs. But he was someone who was easy to nail for spending too much time on his own (mostly liberal) opinions, as if they were news. The thing about women being in their prime was a great example of Lemon peddling opinion. Although in that case it stood out for being so illiberal. Hopefully it means both networks will focus more on news and less on propaganda. It may also be a good day for women who report the news. Who maybe are a bit less likely to say the things that got Tucker and Don in trouble. I have to say, though. It hurts to see both men go in their prime! 😉

Farrow is my cup of tea, as I indicated above. And I agree with you that his work on Weinstein was fantastic. Kudos to him. When I was referring to nuanced, I was referring to the Amanpour interview about the racism of Trump supporters. And I stand by what I said in that quote. While I completely agree with Farrow's work on the Jan. 6th nuts, which is why I posted it, it's a mixed bag. As is the whole debate about MAGA racism. I like Farrow's nuance because he is not painting with broad strokes and stereotypes. Regardless, Team MAGA has clearly circled the wagons. So now, unless you have proof that they actually lynched a Black man, the reaction is, "No. YOU are the racist. Democrats are the racists." Weinstein is actually an interesting contrast. Farrow had so much on him, and worked on it long enough, that even though Harvey tried to defend himself, like Trump does, he failed. I wish it were that easy to make this stuff stick with Trump. But, as we're seeing, with the Bragg indictment it has clearly rallied a lot of Republicans around him. Bragg's indictment probably won't help him in the general election, if he's nominated. And hopefully it will hurt him. But we don't know that for sure yet. Same with that. Again, I agree with both you guys. Thankfully, as that poll I posted said, about 57 % or so of Americans agree that an indicted Trump should not be President. But I'll repeat the other side of the same coin: an even bigger majority do see the Bragg indictment as political, not legal. So there's a lot of people in the middle somewhere between "throw Trump in jail" and "this is a political witch hunt." I'm glad Democrats, starting with Biden, are staying quiet. It seems pretty clear from polls that the people in the middle, many of whom do think Bragg is on a witch hunt, are making distinctions between different Trump indictments for different alleged crimes. My strong hunch is they care more about big lies about the 2020 election and the Jan. 6th attacks on the Capitol than they do about whether Trump has a love child, and paid people to cover it up. My hope is they all end up being nails in his coffin. Some ((like Jan. 6th) bigger and more fatal, others (like the doorman) smaller and not effective in and of themselves. But still helpful to put Trump to bed, finally. Or in jail, ideally. 😊 Again, just so it is completely clear, I myself like the doorman article, and am glad you posted it. I think Farrow does awesome work. And I added that other interview with him as another example.

I read the article, and it was good. But I'll make the devil's advocate argument. I think one reasonable response to the whole Bragg thing, including among voters who are not Trump supporters, is: so what? Who cares? Donald Trump had a love child. Donald Trump grabbed pussy. Donald Trump and his cronies paid people money to shut up. So what? Who cares? Like Donald Trump is the only celebrity or politician who does this stuff? Give me a fucking break. That's probably the way a lot of people who don't feel strongly about Trump one way or the other feel. When we start to talk about actual Trump supporters, it quickly becomes fuel for the feeling that he is being singled out and persecuted. It clearly has helped him in Republican primary polls, even as it doesn't help or perhaps even hurts him in general election polls. I think two things about the polls on this are right on. First, by a huge margin, 57 to 38, Americans think criminal charges should disqualify Trump from running for President. I take that to mean that Americans don't say which criminal charges. They don't think like lawyers. My guess is the basic idea is more like, "People who do lots of criminal stuff shouldn't be President." That's not a radical concept. What makes sense about Bragg's case to me if that it is one nail in the coffin. It reinforces lots of other things we know about Trump. But if this alone was supposed to be the entire coffin, I'd be against it. The second poll finding that makes sense is that by an even bigger margin, 62 to 38 percent, people think this is mostly motivated by politics, not the law. If Trump weren't running for President, this wouldn't be happening. So, obviously, there are a lot of people in the middle who do see this as a nail in the coffin. And maybe it means Trump should not be President. But, at the same time, it's a political witch hunt because he's running for President. If this were choregraphed by the Secret Deep State of Democrats and child blood eaters that exists in America, I would have preferred they didn't lead with Bragg. You'd think Democrats who drink the blood of Republican children would know better than to lead with the weakest nail. But the point is there is no Secret Deep State of child blood eaters. If there were such a thing, that would be a much bigger scandal. Even though many extremists think there are. And these extremist themes are regularly used in subtle ways in Republican attacks ads. So instead we have, as Farrow documents, a prosecution that to some people who are not partisans looks like a disorganized mess. What I find encouraging about the polls is, on a very simple level, something like 57 % of Americans think, "Donald Trump sounds like a criminal who should not be President." Mostly I hope Team Biden keeps their mouths shut. Which they are. And just lets the nail be one nail doing its job. Because a lot of people are also predisposed to think maybe this is just a witch hunt. I'm assuming other indictments will come down. If and when that happens, we'll get a better picture of what the coffin looks like, and whether these nails are holding. Those indictments Include things a vast majority of Americans agree about. Like lying about and trying to steal the 2020 election was wrong. Fomenting a riot at The Capitol to hang Mike Pence or seriously injure lots of cops or whatever that whole thing was about was just very wrong. Period. I'd rather focus on that, and a consistent pattern of criminal behavior, than some doorman who got paid to cover up something that nobody can prove happened. And that most people don't care about - and may see as a witch hunt - even if it did. It's not great news that right now Trump and Biden are tied in national polls. So how does 57 % of Americans thinking criminal indictments disqualify Trump square with him being in a toss up with Biden if the election were actually held today? The numbers actually match pretty well. In its horse race average, RCP says Trump and Biden both get in the low 40's right now, give or take. So a majority of people don't want either. But may have to choose one, it looks like. If and when that 57 % solidifies into a solid majority that really feels, "Trump is a criminal and should not be President," that really is Trump's political coffin. I don't think we are there yet. Oddly, Trump "won" with 46 % of the vote in 2016 (versus 48 % for Hillary) and "lost" with 47 % of the vote in 2020 (compared to 51 % for Biden). Maybe if there is a strong third party in 2024 he could win with 44 % of the vote. Clinton actually won with 43 % in 1992. But that's a stretch. If indictment and criminal behavior are big potential nails in Trump's 2024 coffin, I think the big and obvious potential nail in Biden's 2024 coffin is a recession. If I believe the experts, in 18 months Trump's legal problems will be bigger. But the economy will be better, and the stock market will be much higher. We'll see. (Glenn Neely, the wunderkind who was ridiculed when he said after the 1987 crash we'd have a massive bull market, which we did, is now saying by Summer 2024 we'll be at S & P 5500. Don't hold your breath.) We do know that the one time Biden actually ran for President, he could win over 50 % of the vote. Even if many of those Biden voters were voting for the lesser of evils. If they can do it once, and we're not in a recession, they can probably do it again. The other way I think about Stormy and Pecker and the doorman and that gang is the way I think about Hunter Biden: so what? I think I posted here back in 2019 or so that all the Hunter Biden mess is a good reason not to nominate Biden. I stand by that. That said, we Democrats did nominate Biden. And Biden did win. And Hunter is still a big fucking mess, in all sorts of ways. That said, probably most parents can relate when Joe responds by saying, "I love my son." And if we want to talk about Biden and nepotism and Ukraine, how about that $2 billion those guys who chop up journalists invested in Jared? Who was not just Trump's son-in-law. He was one of Trump's top advisers and diplomats. What was that about? Which is why I assume most Americans aren't going to support a witch hunt on Joe Biden simply based on the sins of his son. Good for them. That's not a criticism of Farrow. The opposite. For liberal Democrats like me who like to read the New Yorker, the more of that stuff the better. Like I said, it was a good article. Thanks for posting it. I'll throw that in as another example of Farrow's work that I think is excellent. But is also a very mixed bag. I don't think it's a problem to attack Facebook these days for how they feed people lies and bullshit and extremist ideas in order to make money. That's a good place to go. What I find most interesting about what Farrow's investigations of Jan. 6th uncovered is that these people Facebook basically helped organize to riot are not all from really weird sects that live in some remote war camp in Idaho. A big chunk of them were White business owners and professionals who live in America's suburbs Especially the suburbs that are changing. And they don't like the way they are changing. Farrow says you don't have to peel very much below the surface to find these Whites harbor deep racial animus. So it's not a huge leap from there to, "All Trump supporters are racist." And that leads us pretty quickly to Hillary and "deplorables." Which most people now think was a big mistake to say. That's not what Farrow is saying. My point is I think he does an excellent and nuanced job here, which is why I am posting it. But it's very easy to dismiss this and say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's all you got. You think we're all racist and ignorant. Fuck you." Which is why this stuff is appropriately placed in The New Yorker or Christine Amanpour. My hope is that if Democrats just let the nails do their work, perhaps most importantly the nails Trump manages to nail into his own coffin himself, the majority of Americans will decide this guy is a criminal who should not be POTUS. Something in that ballpark happened in 2000.

So this is getting weirder and weirder on the Republican side. And probably better and better for Joe Biden and Democrats. Did anybody notice when exactly Donald Trump become the reasonable and moderate Republican in the race? The GOP’s Moderate Frontrunner If you want a Republican who won’t touch entitlements or start foreign wars, Donald Trump is your man. That quote sums up the weirdness I'm feeling. This article makes almost exactly the same points, arguing that Trump sounds like a Democrat on entitlements. It adds a detailed polling history of how Trump helped change the GOP. Since his rise in 2015, Trump has been very clear and consistent about how you don't fuck with Social Security or Medicare in his blue collar workers' party. It's a bit harder for me to buy that Trump is the voice of moderation on abortion. Seeing as how he rallied the Testicle Coalition around Kavanaugh, treated Dr. Ford like a dirty lying whore, and appointed the three judges that killed Roe v. Wade. But Trump will say, persuasively enough, that just because he's not for Roe v. Wade doesn't mean he's for the opposite extreme. Which is another broad point about Trump. As a political gadfly, he has always been exceptional. He has helped to reshape the Republican coalition into something at least more like a working class party. At least with his mouth, and his bile. His policies? Not so much. Tax cuts to billionaires did not help the working class. Or get factories built. (Score so far. Net loss of 100,000 factory jobs from Jan. 2017 to Jan. 2021 under Trump. Net gain of 800,000 factory jobs since the month Biden became POTUS.) Trump was never more unpopular, especially among have not Republicans, than when he was trying to repeal Obamacare. Which Trump himself, allegedly, said was "cruel." So Trump is good with his mouth. Had he been an LBJ or Reagan or Clinton, and been able to turn rhetoric into policies and laws that built a winning political coalition - for a while, at least - he might have actually won in 2020. Biden, by the way, has done better than average in turning his senile ideas into laws and policies. I'm guessing by November 2024 there will be at least 1 million factory jobs created on Joe's watch. I'm guessing he will bludgeon Trump with that fact, since Trump was a factory job loser. If it were just about his policies, though, I can buy that enough people would say, "Yeah, but the economy was just better under Trump." And ignore the hog feed to billionaires. And almost repealing Obamacare. And injecting Clorox in your body to fight COVID. The thing that really resonates about that quote above is that the biggest problem with Trumpism has always been Trump himself. I'd argue that was true even in 2016, when he got 3 million fewer votes than Hillary. It was certainly true in 2020, when he lost by 7 million votes. Which led to his fake win, Hang Mike Pence, and a string of losses among Senate and Guv candidates who pushed his lies and authoritarian bullshit. And it is true right now. Almost every single poll of every single swing state so far in 2023 shows that DeSantis would do at least 3 to 5 points better than Trump against Biden. In a bunch of swing states that means Ron is currently ahead by a few points, whereas Don is behind Joe by a few points. If the problem is Republicans need Trumpism without Trump, this shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out. Steve Bannon could do the job. (And probably is, for Trump, privately.) DeSantis needs to be the moderate and competent Governor who knows how to win. MAGA lite, but win big! So why is that not happening? It was never clear that DeSantis had great political judgment. He barely won in 2018. And I completely agree with @Mavica, personally, that DeSantis looks like an extremist. And, I'd add, a bully. Now Trump is happy to make Ron look like an extremist on Social Security and Medicare, too. And it's working, it seems, based on the latest polls. As that article above points out, Ted Cruz did win the very conservative vote in 2016. So maybe Ron is going for that. But as the article also says, that's why Cruz lost in 2016. Because Trump won moderate and somewhat conservative Republicans. Why is Ron letting him do it again? I'd guess Ron might have calculated that he'd win the moderates, simply because he was not the toxic guy in the race. And he'd win the most conservative Republicans by being Cruz Lite, rather than Toxic Mini Me. And that may still work. No one is voting for a long time. Prosecutors and Democrats may still do Ron's dirty work for him. But what's looking more and more likely is that Trump will do Biden's dirty work for him. He'll take out the guy that polls say is more likely to actually beat Biden in Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, or Arizona, or Georgia. Leaving Biden to run against the toxic reboot himself. My spat with @Mavica isn't about whether Ron seems like an extremist to us. Of course he does. It's about the polls, really. I'm assuming that DeSantis is doing better than Trump against Biden in these swing states because most people have no clue he just signed a six week abortion ban. I'm guessing mostly they've heard he's the competent guy in white boots who did a good job recovering from a hurricane and won big in Florida. If Trump wants him to be the extreme lunatic pushing Granny over the cliff and killing pregnant Moms, instead, please. Help Biden win. I will say one other thing, sincerely, in DeSantis' defense. He is not an authoritarian, at least so far. Like every other red Governor in a blue or (arguably) purple state who did really well last year (Kemp, Sununu, DeWine, DeSantis, Phil Scott), Desantis has not embraced the myth that Trump won in 2020. He may have a gerrymandered rubber stamp legislature. But they were all elected. And DeSantis did win by almost 60 % of the vote, unlike Trump in either 2016 or 2020. So he can argue this is democracy, not dictatorship. The verdict (not to mention several indictments) is still out. If DeSantis is nominated, it will be because Republican moderates ultimately decide Trump is just too toxic. So far, that ain't happening. Sorry, Governor DeSinking. 😯

So to the degree that we actually have facts about this, they are interesting. Both good news and bad news. The good news is that the studies that have been done suggest lots of independent thinkers watch Fox. And it actually does change their mind, and the way they vote. The bad news, speaking as a partisan Democrat, is that Fox is particularly good at persuading viewers to vote Republican. A stunning new study shows that Fox News is more powerful than we ever imagined So I'll say this. That long Vox article refers to various studies. And it has the feel of throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. I'd take all of it with a grain of salt. I don't believe, for example, that but for Fox News John Kerry would have won in 2004. And Barack Obama would have gotten 60 % of the vote in 2008. That seems like a huge stretch to me, based on estimates by academics. That said, I definitely buy the idea that Fox News manages over time to turn people who mostly vote Democratic into people who mostly vote Republican. It is an effective ideological machine, as the author and studies document. So then it depends on what the meaning of "independent" is. By definition, if you are persuading voters to switch from supporting Democrats to Republicans, those voters are at least somewhat independent thinkers. Then again, if they are switching because they are being subjected to constant lies and ideological ranting, maybe they are not so independent. Further complicating matters is there is (or was) the Fox News of Shep Smith. Leftie Bernie and Good Gay Guy Mayor Pete made a point to do town halls with Fox News in 2020, since they insisted they had good arguments to make to Fox News viewers. Which they did have, and did make. I watched the town halls run by Brett and Martha and I thought they were really well done. So the Fox News of Shep, Brett, Martha and (used to be) Chris Wallace is NOT the Fox News of Tucker, Sean, and Laura. Even though these studies sound to me like they go too far, I do buy the basic idea. I think it is pretty plain and clear. While most Fox viewers are solid Republicans, not all are. And, over a period of time, Fox has been able to move the dial by relentlessly subjecting those "independent" viewers to "facts" slanted very heavily with conservative ideology. To the point where you can question whether they are even "facts" at all. That said, as a viewer of CNN and MSNBC, I would argue - as the studies do - that they do the same thing. Just not as effectively. That chart that shows Fox going hard right while NSNBC went hard left for over a decade does help to explain the growing ideological divide in America. We all tend to believe what we hear in the ideological silo we choose to live in. Where's Walter Cronkite when you need him? To bring it back to the BIG LIE, all of this has to be bad news for the folks at Bullshit Mountain, as Jon Stewart called it. If anything at all in these studies is correct, it has to be based on the idea that somewhat independent viewers can actually trust Fox News to be "fair and balanced." We now know that Sean and Tucker are cheating lovers who tell you one thing to woo you, and then dump you like a stupid whore when they privately text each other. It's just very bad news for the lying whores who lost. They get rich and powerful sucking Donald Trump's gross and nasty cock, even though they have now said they hate it passionately. Even Stormy Daniels wouldn't do that. Sorry, Tucker. You're still a great guy and all.

Thanks for the clarification. Now I know exactly what you mean. As the liberal still standing, I'm not going to disagree with your criticisms of DeSantis. Given that you live in Florida, I'm guessing you vote there. And I'm guessing you probably did not vote for DeSantis. That said, almost 60 % of people who voted did. He actually got about 600,000 more votes in 2022 (4.6 million) than he did in 2018. When, as you noted, he was expected to lose, and barely won. I'm guessing that DID NOT happen because most Floridians like extremes - in the leaders, or hurricanes. One of the real joys in life is watching Anna Navarro, who despises Charlie Crist, go into her rant about how happy she is that she got to vote against Crist as a Republican, and vote against Crist as an Independent, and vote against Crist as a Democrat. So she would probably agree with you that Crist was unelectable. That said, he actually was elected Governor in 2006. Granted, a long time ago. But he won two House races as well. So that makes him seem more electable than poor Andrew Gillum. I think one huge difference between 2022 and 2018 is in 2018 the Democrats had an anti-Trump wave pushing them along, at least in blue states. In 2022 there was a red wave, in red states. I agree with you that Democrats should not write off Florida in 2024. That said, I got the fundraising appeals from Val Demings. And I was not going to send a dime. I sent my money, I think wisely, to Warnock and Fetterman and Barnes - two of whom won close races. Demings was not even in the ballpark, sadly. Even with ACT Blue, donor pockets are not bottomless. So there's a separate and complicated debate about how much money Democrats should waste on causes that are probably lost. (Amy McGrath in Kentucky and Jaime Harrison in South Carolina in 2020 come to mind. Both sucked up tens of millions I think, and didn't come even remotely close to winning.) As far as Ron's pragmatism goes, I'm basing my statements on the fact that that he won re-election by about 60 % of the vote. And that seems to be because he is widely viewed as a competent, if conservative, Governor. I'm not basing that on ignorance. I'm basing it on polls. Here's one from 2019. Which, granted, was early days. But I'm including it since it is the only one I could find that has an ideological breakdown. His overall approval was 64 %. Among conservatives 82 %, moderates 62 %, liberals 37 %. Speaking as a liberal, those are not bad numbers for a conservative Governor. I'd actually be curious whether that has changed as DeSantis has been using his national platform to paint himself the way you described. Although I doubt most Florida conservatives, or even moderates - based on 2022 election results - view him as an extremist. My comments on Ron beating hurricanes were also based on polling, not ignorance. I don't live in Florida, so I can't ask my neighbors like you can. I cited it early in this thread. But this Fall 2022 poll was the most specific I could find about how Floridians feel about Ron's actual policies and performance as Governor. What jumped out at me is he had a massive 72 % approval rating on his handling of Hurricane Ian. A separate poll around the same time noted DeSantis had built a large lead over Crist, again citing "strong approval ratings, particularly for his response to Hurricane Ian." The second poll also added this quote about it: A Newsweek poll also noted that DeSantis got good (54 %) approval ratings from ALL Americans on Hurricane Ian. Although Americans overall didn't rate his response any better or worse than that of the (Biden) federal government. So my strong impression based on both polling and election results is that both moderate and conservative and even many liberal Floridians thought DeSantis was competent and pragmatic when it came to actual Governor stuff. Like dealing with a horrific hurricane. But check with your neighbors and let me know whether that is the most ignorant remark they've ever heard, too. 😉 The converse that is striking is that DeSantis doesn't seem to get high or even good approval ratings for any of the "extremist" or "authoritarian" behavior you went after. Which I agree with you about. That same USF poll that says he gets 72 % approval from Floridians for the hurricane says he gets 48 % approval for immigration and 43 % approval for climate change. The polls I've seen suggest a solid majority of Floridians, maybe up to 60 %, do not approve of the six week abortion ban. So if you want a truly ignorant remark, I will give you this: "Governor DeSantis is pushing a right wing culture war agenda hard, like six week abortion bans and going after Blacks on CRT and going after Gays on everything. He is doing this because it is wildly popular among Floridians." THAT would be a truly ignorant statement, based on lots of polls. Culture War Ron is NOT wildly popular among Floridians. Or among Americans. As several pundits just noted, right after he signed a six week abortion ban he went to a conservative venue and said nothing about a six week abortion ban. Is it ignorant to assume he knows the bill he signed is unpopular, both statewide and nationally? So I think you have actually confirmed my main point above. Again, the polls very strongly suggest most Floridians see DeSantis as a pragmatist who did a good job dealing with a horrible hurricane. Even though the same voters don't particularly approve of his views on climate change. Which many people would argue helped make the hurricane so horrific. Why is DeSantis going out of his way to do very unpopular (and, I personally agree, extreme) things, like six week abortion bans, in the run up to a likely Presidential race announcement? Is it too ignorant to think he feels like he has to play to the extremist, right wing MAGA base? And that if he just runs as a competent and compassionately conservative Governor (like W. did in 2000) it ain't gonna work with the base? Romneyite and Never Trumper Republican Stuart Stevens made a comment a few years ago that has stuck with me. He usually is measured in interviews. And doesn't come off as the crass political hack he probably is. But he said something about "compassionate conservatism" in a way that really rubbed me wrong. He said getting a Republican in a position to beat Gore in 2000 was "the whole point" of compassionate conservatism. He didn't say, "Look, asshole. We just fucking wanted to win. Get it? We're not compassionate. And we could give a flying fuck about what being compassionate to some poor Black slob on welfare would even look like. We just wanted to fucking win, okay?" Again, this is not what Stevens said. But in a candid interview, it's the way it came off to me. That was the Rove/Stevens/compassionate conservative playbook. The reason it's stuck is that DeSantis represents almost the opposite approach. Even more than Trump, it seems like he want's to come off as MAGA's culture warrior and bully - to liberal me, at least. Ignorant or not, I assume he has exceptional skills at sucking the cock of Trump. And, now, Trump supporters. Even Trump has said Ron sucked his cock really nicely, back in the day. When Ron was kind of a petty and needy whore, grubbing for endorsements. (Not to be blunt. But that makes DeSantis a lot like Gillum, as far as whoring goes. Speaking as a former whore myself.) So I have to assume that is why DeSantis wants to be a bully. It is how he thinks you win the Republican nomination in 2024. If you see it as authoritarianism and extremism, which you do, it only reinforces my view.

You don't think he is (often) pragmatic? You don't think he beats hurricanes? Or you don't think the MAGA base will let him run and win as a conservative pragmatist? Inquiring minds want to know. Since David Pecker is in a bit of hot water, I figure somebody needs to do the National Enquirer's job. 😉

My theory of the case of the 2024 election seems to be playing out according to plan. DeSantis is in a rut. His trek to D.C. didn’t help. At a big moment for him, the Florida governor was overshadowed by rival Donald Trump’s string of endorsements. Before I trash the lack of pragmatism and ideological fervor among MAGA Republicans, let me trash myself first. I did vote for Bernie in the 2020 primary. I did so fully aware that more pragmatic Democrats, like Jim Carville, thought nominating Bernie would be suicidal. That said, like many Californians I waited to return my mail ballot to see how Super Tuesday turned out. There was a tidal wave for Biden. So my vote for Bernie assumed Biden would be the nominee. It was basically to say, "Lean left, Joe. Lean left." Which he has. The evidence suggests most young voters see it the same way. They defended Team Biden (and abortion, and other progressive policies) in 2022 where they actually had the numbers to do so. So I can't blame Republicans, and the MAGA sect, for wanting to lean right. It's no time for Mickey Mouse policies in America. And Ron knows it! There are two things I see as fatal for Ron. The first is Trump. But I think he could get around that. The fact is, as Carville argued in 2020, political gravity actually does exist. The 2024 version of that is that running an indicted liar who most Americans see as a crook and a liar is just a bad idea. At least if the point is winning. Enough Republicans think that way that, if Ron ran on that, I think he could beat Trump. He needs to be the competent conservative Governor who takes on Black Democrats, and even hurricanes, and wins. The second thing that I think really kills DeSantis is the MAGA movement itself. Thanks to MAGA he has to say and do lots of stuff that I think gradually turns the majority of Americans, including Floridians, off. Like a six week abortion ban. Like guns. Like Gays. Like constantly needing to own the libs. How is that different than Trump? As the author above argues, how does it make sense to say Trump was a great President, but we need to move on? It might make sense if you said Trump was a great President, but he simply can't win in 2024. But if DeSantis is making himself unelectable in 2024 while he's saying that, how is he better? The polls still show very consistently that in every swing state, DeSantis is a somewhat better choice than Trump if the goal is to take out Biden. An April 11-13 poll shows DeSantis three points ahead of Biden in Pennsylvania, while Biden is four points ahead of Trump. This has been the pattern so far all year, in EVERY swing state. But I don't think the people in the middle prefer DeSantis because he's the Guv who wants a six week abortion ban, and cuts to Social Security. It's telling that right now the person framing the Republican debate is .............................. Joe Biden??? Honestly. Right now Trump and DeSantis are having a food fight (literally involving pudding) over who won't cut Social Security more. Why is the senile old POTUS who ranted at the State of the Union framing the debate? Who's senile now? That's a really interesting theory. Who knows what will happen in 2024? So speculating about 2028 is even more ridiculous. That said, I agree with the first part of this theory, but not the second. I think Republicans and MAGA do not to get through Trump's "comeback" first. Ron could stop Trump. But he probably won't. I don't agree that this most likely outcome sets up Ron for 2028. First, everybody who ran against Trump in 2016 and lost - Little Marco, Lyin Ted, and of course Jeb! - was somehow less of a man afterward. If Ron loses to Don, I don't think it helps Ron politically - in Florida, or anywhere. Second, I think if Trump is nominated and loses it does mean Republicans move on. But not to Ron. Who will look kind of like the Trump mini-Me that failed. I know it sounds crazy now, but Trump losing in 2024 would likely lead to the nomination of a pragmatic unifier like Tim Scott, or some pragmatic Republican Governor, in 2028. I think DeSantis is popular in Florida because he is (often) pragmatic. And he does beat hurricanes. But the MAGA base just won't let him run and win on that, it seems.

I know I'm on a rant. But it's fun to make fun of Tucker Carlson. In fairness, let me now take on Jon Stewart for a bit. There's been a few thoughtful "be careful what you ask for" pieces about Stewart's legendary Tucker take down. This Politico article is the most explicit about the point. It argues Stewart was wrong. In retrospect, even if it was crappy respectful political debate, at least with Crossfire we had respectful political debate. Until Stewart called Tucker a dick on TV. (Tucker does look like a dick, of course. But that's only after Stewart branded him as such.) But this Atlantic article, which is more a reflection on why Stewart is well past his expiration date, has a great one paragraph explanation of why Stewart was wrong: With all due respect to Barack Obama and Jon Stewart, I think it's too simple to blame either of them for creating conservative rage and drama. Even if they both did make two of the nicest conservatives in America look like total dicks in public. Trump and Carlson created themselves on their own. That said, you can also blame both of them on the right wing cesspool they were forced to simmer in for, well, decades. There's the time Tucker actually defended both The New York Times, and facts, at CPAC. Defending one of the two might have been forgivable. Defending truth and The Times? That's unforgivable. It's quant, in retrospect, that the audience merely scolded him. If they had that CPAC meeting today, in Florida, some sensible conservative with an AR-15 would have simply taken out Tucker's brain and spleen. You can now do that kind of thing, pretty much legally, in Ron's Florida. Just don't get raped and try not to have a baby. This is what decades of Tucker, with four years of Trumpism slathered all over it, have brought us to. What's my point? I think this is the official heads up that Tucker has reached his expiration date, too. Like Jon Stewart, he can and will still talk. I adored Stewart, and watched him daily, and laughed. I still do. People will watch Tucker and get outraged about the pussies and the Biden Crime Family running America. But it won't be the same. They really will all know that Tucker cheated on them. At least Jon Stewart didn't cheat on me. He gave birth to Trevor Noah, who I loved just as much. Even if both, in their own ways, helped put more nails in the coffin of respectful political debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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