The Death Of The GOP

 It's one of those days when both Richardson and Krugman seem to align, though it maybe doesn't look that way at first glance. Krugman looks at the state of the Heritage Foundation, noting that it was always a hack, far right shop, but the recent controversy over Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson has stripped away the plausible veneer. Richardson looks at the accumulating sense that the Trump Administration is just so far out of touch with the American public. The performative cruelty, the Epstein shit, the weakening economy, and while she didn't mention the various aesthetic outrages like the demolishing of the East Wing...these all create an overwhelming impression of Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

Back in the before times, you have that tentpole quote from Lindsey Graham saying in 2016 that if the GOP nominated Trump "We would get killed and we would deserve it." Then, of course, Trump drew to an inside straight in 2016 and won again in 2024, despite having more baggage than Delta Airlines. This has created an understanding among Republicans that Trump cannot be defied - not only because of his unexpected electoral success, but because of his petty and vindictive nature. Thou Shalt Not Cross Trump.

The problem is not merely that Trump is a flawed president along normal metrics like "understands policies" or "builds consensus" or "speaks to the concerns of average Americans." He's also an aspiring autocrat who is either empowering the fascist cruelty of people like Stephen Miller or actively directing it. Even more concerning for Republicans: He's a doddering old man whose policies are actively damaging to America.

Since 2016, the GOP has steadily remade itself in the image of Donald Trump. This can't be sustainable, because Trump's hold on the public is really a hold on the 27%. As his poor policies and temperamental flaws are shown again and again and again...it becomes harder to justify supporting him...yet the entire raison d'etre of the GOP is genuflect before Trump.

The potential does exist for the Epstein stuff to finally cause a rupture that cannot be healed.

Obviously, the Republican Party isn't going to "die." It will transmogrify into some other beast. Ideally, we get schisms and chaos, like what just happened at Heritage. Ideally, many of Trump's fervent supporters just stay home for the next two or three electoral cycles. Still, the crisis that Graham predicted is coming. The fact that he has so enthusiastically embraced Trump, too, is what makes it so delicious.

UPDATE: "Populism" was always a scam.

I Dunno

 Seems like this Epstein stuff is pretty bad.

Still, the idea that this - finally - will end Trump's presidency seems to misunderstand the nature of the GOP in 2025.

Lies Won't Get Him Out Of This

 Krugman runs through a great false equivalency in press coverage of Biden and Trump's respective economic messages. Biden people cherry picked or massaged certain economic indicators that were 100% true, but didn't FEEL true or didn't jibe with people's lived experience. Biden was also a poor spokesman for himself. The result was Trump winning the election. While on a strictly policy front Biden did well, people didn't experience the improving economy in their actual day to day lives. This is why likely the only Democrat who could have won in 2024 was a governor.

Trump, on the other hand, is just doing what he always does, which is lie like a rug. The sheer volume of lies is nothing new; Trump lies as he breaths: constantly. However, when he gets up there and blathers on about gasoline being $2 a gallon, there is literally no one who believes this is actually true. His incredible disconnection from reality is one of the biggest reasons that his approval ratings are tanking. When you combine it with demolishing the East Wing and his Gatsby party, you really have someone who is completely detached from the lived reality of most Americans. 

Look, this was always true, but now it's unavoidable. 

It Still Sucks, But...

 Capitulating on the shutdown is painful, because it means that the pain of the shutdown accomplished very little in policy terms. About the best thing we can hope for is that when the Senate compromise passes, the House will have to take it up and Grijalva will be sworn in and the Epstein stuff will get released.

Richardson characterizes this as a pool table with balls careening this way and that. One of those balls is dispirited Democrats, but another is tossing the vote for ACA subsidies - written by Democrats - into the Senate for a vote. The one year extension would collapse around the midterms, so ideally, that will be the bill written by Democrats, if they can't get a permanent extension. If Republican Senators vote it down or it dies in the House, then Republicans up and down the ballot next November will be on the hook for ripping health insurance from millions of Americans. 

As it is, I just got a notice that I will see a massive spike in my contributions to my employer-based insurance. This is the "bad old days" of pre-ACA insurance dynamics. Republicans will own that. 

Krugman thinks that they just can't help themselves when it comes to depriving people of public goods. I wonder. I mean, yes, they don't believe that the government should spend millionaires' tax dollars on working people's health insurance, but you usually don't see parties strip away established programs. When they do, as Bush tried in 2005, they suffer for it. In fact, Bush's attack on Social Security likely led the way to a 60 seat Democratic majority over the next two cycles that enabled Obama to pass the ACA.

I think there's another dynamic at play, though. Trump HAS to be seen as strong and winning. Part of it is his brittle little ego, but another part is the self-fulfilling logic of authoritarian politics. The leader is strong, because the leader is strong. If Democrats force a compromise on Republicans - EVEN ONE THAT COULD BE POLITICALLY BENEFICIAL TO THEM - Trump would see this as a "loss", which is why he refused to negotiate.

It's true, as Krugman points out, that Republicans have no policy chops and no policy shop on health care, beyond stripping it away. This is the famous "concept of a plan" that should have sunk Trump's candidacy. Marshall sees this as an emerging new Democratic caucus that "gets it" when it comes to fighting not just Trump but Trumpism and the entire autocratic GOP.

Looking at the Traitorous Eight, Fetterman will likely lose his primary. Kaine, too, though the he has time to recoup his lost standing. Durbin and Shaheen are not running for re-election. Shaheen's own daughter - running for a House seat - has blasted the deal. Enjoy Thanksgiving! If Stefany Shaheen loses her primary, you can chalk that up to voter anger over her mother's capitulation. King is likely safe and I have no read on the Nevada landscape. 

While Schumer blasted the deal, I think anger with him is justified, as he cannot whip his own caucus and having exactly the eight votes needed to reopen the government suggests that he gave clearance to guys like Durbin and Kaine. As I said, unequal to the moment.

This isn't over yet, and obviously there is both the (possible) vote on ACA extensions in the Senate and another looming deadline after the holidays. 

However, Republicans are trapped by Trump's insistence that there be zero negotiations and that instead they just scrap the filibuster. Maybe it was smart to bring back SNAP and air travel for the holidays. Personally, I do think we are going to have to pass through hell in order to escape it.

Unequal To The Moment

 The Republican strategy for the shutdown was clear from the first week: make Americans miserable. The efficacy of this strategy was borne out last Tuesday, as voters rewarded Democrats with victory after victory. Republicans responded by ramping up the pain on the American public. The specter of snarled air travel for Thanksgiving loomed alongside the growing hunger for many Americans. 

It was, in fact, very painful.  I get that.

However, the Traitorous Eight who capitulated last night - and it was very much a capitulation - have made sure that the suffering that did happen was for nothing. What seems to have gripped their (mostly old) brains is the idea that the Senate Club will insure that the deal will be honored and vulnerable Republicans will have to take a vote on ACA subsidies at some point in the future.

This misunderstands the politics of 2025. First, let's assume that Thune actually does call a vote on ACA subsidies. Maybe it does pass, but I have my doubts. Does anyone think Mike Johnson will even allow that Senate bill to come to a vote in the House?

What's more, this moment is a fight with emerging dictatorship. If you can't see that, I have no idea what blinders you are wearing. Autocrats are bullies, by definition. Bullies thrive on weakness. What the Traitorous Eight have demonstrated to Trump and his ghouls is that bullying, starving and immiserating the American people is a sound strategy. This capitulation largely empowers Trump at precisely the moment that Democrats were handed a victory in the off year elections.

It's a fascinating rogue's roll of hacks, too. There are Very Sensible Centrists in King, Shaheen and Hassan, then you have both Senators from Nevada for some reason. You have Senator Shrek who's become the new Sinema -  a worthless toady of the worst impulses. Tim Kaine I guess wanted to protect his constituents who are Federal workers, but still...Finally there is Dick Durbin who took whatever reputation he may have clung to and lit it on fire and pissed on the ashes. He should resign and let Pritzer select his replacement.

Needless to say, in the overheated moment, people are blaming the entire Democratic Party for this and that's both unfair, unfortunate and unsurprising. Durbin's participation suggests at least some tacit approval from Schumer, even he personally voted against it. They needed eight votes and got eight votes, and it's not clear that Schumer really whipped against it.

A great example of where this is heading is that Mike Lee, Rick Scott and Ron Johnson - three of the absolute worst in that awful chamber - were not going to vote for the measure until Trump told them to. Not EVERY Republican  Senator is completely supine to Trump - Rand Paul is a no on the CR - but enough are that even if Democrats get a vote to extend the ACA subsidies and EVEN IF IT PASSES, it's folly to expect Trump to follow it, if he feels it manifests weakness.

I think it was Josh Marshall who coined the term Senate Brain to describe a certain mindset held by Senators that theirs was a cozy club of like minded public servants who only had a few partisan differences, but the institution was all that mattered in the end. Certainly in the background of this fight was Trump's threat to end the filibuster, which would have been a positive development in the long term health of democracy in this country, even if it would have ended the shutdown without getting ACA back.

Josh Marshall suggests that this isn't the end of the world. Of course it isn't, and he does have a point that the CR only goes through January; that this has focused attention on the ACA subsidies and who is killing them. What he also notes is that we need a new Democratic Party in the Congress. We can't be the fucking doormats that we have been in the past. Some - like Chris Murphy - get that. These mealy mouthed losers - and that is the name for those who lose - don't get that. If this pushes us further down the road to a Senate caucus without people like Dick Durbin or Shrek, then so much the better. 

I'm a Big Tent Guy, and I think heterodoxy is important. Healthcare, though, is not one part of the Democratic Party's beliefs; it's the central tentpole. That's why Republicans want to kill it. If you can't understand what you're fighting for or what the stakes are, you have no purpose being in Congress in 2025.

Is There A Deal Being Discussed?

 There are contradictory reports of a deal to end the shutdown. One has a pretty comprehensive cave from Democrats - basically, we will give you a brief CR in return for the promise of a future vote. The other seems to be better - a one year extension of ACA subsidies and one of those tiresome "Gangs" that they put together to solve an issue. I think the last Gang was to solve the amnesty issue in immigration and Trump promptly threw Lankford under the bus after he negotiated a pretty good deal.

A one year extension of the subsidies is a win for Democrats. Full stop. First, you have had people stare numbly at the coming catastrophic increases in their ACA bill, then you can claim to have reversed it.  Hurrah! Even better, the extension will lapse right before the midterm election. So, the GOP can either make the reversal permanent or make it a massive electoral issue in 2026.

Right now, the Republicans are feeling the wrath of voter anger from the shutdown and rightly so. However, we are now staring down the face of widespread hunger and the complete implosion of air travel for the Thanksgiving holiday. That's a recipe for a "curse on both your houses." 

The one year extension is good on the merits - people keep their insurance - and it's good politics, as it tosses a very good issue for Democrats into the heart of the midterms. It's also a clear "win" for Democrats and a loss for Republicans - which is why Thune and Trump are currently saying no. 

That's OK, let them say no! The Democrats have a reasonable compromise on the table. Let the GOP veto it. 

A+ Messaging

 For all the Conventional Wisdom about how bad the Democrats are at political messaging, the fact is that Democrats have handled this shutdown really well. Now, we have a reasonable compromise from Chuck Schumer to end the shutdown in return for a one year extension of the tax cuts. The logic is that voters have seen what those increases look like. Democrats will have saved them from that increase for one year, tossing the issue into next fall's midterm elections.

What we have now is Trump and the GOP making the following argument. "We are going to starve children and old people; we are going to snarl air traffic; we are going to deny soldiers pay...unless you allow us to take health insurance from millions of Americans."

Brilliant. Please proceed.

Affordability and Abundance

 Derek Thompson argues that last Tuesday gave the Democrats a winning theme - if not quite a winning platform. By focusing on "Affordability" they can focus voters' ire about rising prices, the same ire that turned Democrats out of power last November. A year is eternity and Thompson does acknowledge that there are a few problems, but I'd expand on them.

First, the primary driver of rising costs in 2022 was the post-Covid supply chain issue. That was an exogenous event that had little policy roots. In 2025, the primary cause of inflation is a combination of tariffs and deportations. By raising the prices of imported goods and raw materials and also restricting the labor supply, Trump seems bound and determined to create a stagflationary spiral. The problem for Democrats should they win in 2026 is to actually reverse many of those problems, and that will be very hard to do with Trump in the White House. You probably will be able to reverse the tariffs, but the workforce issue will not improve as long as Stephen Miller has an office in the West Wing.

Secondly and relatedly, even where you can and could act today or in 2026, it takes a long time to turn an economy around. In 2021, inflation was at 4,7%. High but OK. In 2022, it was 8%. No bueno. In 2023, it was at 4.1%, which would suggest it was calming down and in 2024, sure enough, it was at 2.9%. That rate would have been fine, if it wasn't for the fact that prices had been rising for three years. That almost 3% increase was happening to an already elevated number. The policies pursued by the Federal Reserve and Biden Administration were good and working, and if the election had happened a year later, I bet the result might have been different. 

Still, if your Sherrill or Spanberger or even Mamdani, you are very unlikely to effect wholesale reductions in prices. Whereas Trump has pursued inflationary policies because he's a fucking idiot, you could try and reduce some regulations and that would be a really good policy outcome, but it might not rein in prices for two reasons. First, making it easier to build housing should be a priority in every Blue polity, but that will take 2-4 years to actually show up as places for people to live. Second, Trump's policies will supersede what you are doing. If you make it easier to generate electricity in your state, that won't help if unregulated data centers gobble it all up. If you reform housing codes, it won't matter if Trump deported all the Latin American tradesmen. 

Of course, who cares. If Democrats can win control of both house of Congress next November running against Trump's terrible economic policies, then democracy might be saved. Voters will still blame his party in 2028. Hopefully, the AI/Crypto bubble bursts and data centers wither on the vine, freeing up electrical generation for consumers. Maybe we finally get a comprehensive and humane guest worker program and more legal immigration in 2029. 

Paul Campos refers to our era as the Age of Unhappiness, which I think is accurate. That has political repercussions, but we need to recall how well Democrats did in 2022 relative to expectations. If Trump continues to immiserate the population, then any breath of fresh air in 2028 could reshape political coalitions.

Joe Biden's age was not a question of infirmity, so much as it rendered him incapable of making his case to the American voter. Making a case for abundance as a formula for affordability is something that doesn't require a politician to have the charisma of a Mamdani.

This Man Is A Sociopath

 

Trump stands aloof as someone faints behind him. 

One advantage Trump has had is that - as Troll in Chief - he's pretty good at "driving the narrative" via visuals. Between his Gatsby Ball, demolishing the East Wing and now this...Yeah, not so much, Donny.

Welcome To The Pantheon

 Nancy Pelosi was certainly the best and most effective Speaker of my adult lifetime. Especially in the 19th century, but even in the 20th, the Speaker was probably the second most powerful person in Washington. The nature of the House requires keeping the kittens herded together, and this became even more true as ideological partisanship increased during the last 40 years. Pelosi proved herself far superior to the Republican men who couldn't count votes, couldn't extend flexibility to their vulnerable members. Pelosi more than any other Speaker, at least since Tip O'Neill, knew how to count votes. She was Old School like that. "Czar" Reed never called a vote that he didn't know he could win. Same with Pelosi. Even as the House has slipped in power, Pelosi fought back to try and preserve it's historic role. (Also kudos for stepping down from the Speakership and for knowing the time was right to retire.)

Compare her to Mike Johnson:

Nancy Pelosi is 5'5", but she towers over the men who tried and failed to replace her.

Winning Matters

 Josh Marshall likes to say that the DC corpse is wired for Republicans. Here he notes how they are scrambling to understand the ass whupping the GOP got on Tuesday. What he points out is all the breathless articles about how Trump seems to be unpopular were true on Monday, but no one was writing that then (aside from filthy bloggers and Substackers).

Part of the "logic" of Project 2025 was to "move fast and break things" because that creates its own theory of power. It's not only about "flooding the zone" but creating a certain momentum that allows you to run roughshod over institutions. I would wager that even some Trump loyalists are surprised at how quickly some of those institutions caved.

The No King Rallies, the electoral rout and now the apparent limits of SCROTUS tolerance when it comes to tariffs have all begun to strip this imperial presidency of some of its momentum. This leaves aside Trump's seeming rapid aging that has him falling asleep at weird times. I'd wager that one reason Trump hasn't sat down with Schumer and Jeffries to negotiate an end to the shutdown is that his aides realize he's simply not up to the task.

These small victories add up. Acquitting "Sandwich Guy" matters. It's not just that "hope matters" but that Trump has asserted that he has dictatorial powers in a country with very elaborate structures to prevent that. The more toxic he becomes, the less ability he has to assert this, but the weaker he becomes, the more obvious that is.

ADDED: There's a strong argument that we should hope that the Court rules his tariffs illegal but that he tries a new rationale to keep them in place, forcing yet another round of court cases. The worse the economy gets, the better, but him losing is also good.

Candidate Quality

 G. Elliot Morris is a Data Guy. His takeaway from the election is that we are likely looking at a D+8 environment in 2026. I could argue that Trump is so bad, so chaotic, that we could see something along the lines of a D+12 environment. I could also see a bigger movement towards Dems in rural areas, since Trump seems to be doing everything he can to punish farmers.

Still, as Dems approach the midterms, I don't think that simply relying on Trump's toxicity is enough to win by margins large enough to counteract voter suppression. Good candidates matter. It sucks that Jared Golden isn't going to run, because he's a really good candidate for that district. (It wouldn't shock me if Maine elects to redraw that district in the face of Republican efforts to do the same elsewhere.)

You can even see this in the White Elephant case of Mamdani. He's a really impressive politician, especially when it comes to messaging. Ideally, you can find some really well-tailored candidates for their districts. I'd love to see Mary Peltola run for the Alaska Senate seat. 

An underrated flip side to this is that the Republican Party increasingly is made in Trump's image. Nancy Mace is mentally unwell, but she could win her primary for governor and lose because she's insane. As he remakes the party in his twisted image and his approval rating dips into the mid 30s, candidate quality could cut the other way. Running a dipshit like Markwayne Mullen will work in Oklahoma, but it might not work in Kansas or Iowa.

That Was Better

 After a long year of soul searching and self-flagellation, Democrats finally racked up some huge wins across multiple elections last night. Electing Mamdani in NYC is getting the headlines, because New York, but the more significant elections happened elsewhere. Democrats romped not only in the Virginia governor's race, but in the House of Delegates. Mikie Sherrill was supposed to be in trouble in New Jersey, but she romped. In Georgia, Democrats won seats on the public utilities commission for the first time in decades. In Pennsylvania, three Democratic Supreme Court justices were retained with 60% of the vote. In California, Newsom's gambit of submitting Prop 50, which will create a partisan gerrymander in California to match that in Texas, passed with 63% of the vote. Even the Democrat running for Virginia Attorney General who had been hit with a scandal won easily.

If there are common threads that run through these elections it looks like the following.

People are upset with corruption. Some of this is local - Georgia, the NYC mayoral race - some of this is Trump - California. The general Trump fatigue with his self-dealing bullshit is getting noticed. Hispanics apparently swung back to Democrats because of the Gestapo shit that ICE and Border Patrol are doing to anyone browner than an Irishman in February.

People are upset with rising prices. Obviously this applies to Mamdani, but it also applies to Sherrill across the Hudson. It applies to the Georgia election. Most of the Democrats ran on some variation of the "abundance" agenda. Mamdani is going to make things free. Sherrill is going to declare an emergency over utility bills. Colorado voted to give school kids more free food.

People should pump the brakes on reading too much into one particular candidate or result. Mamdani is not a model for Democrats to win the Senate seat in Iowa next year, except to the degree that he is a very skilled politician, very charismatic and very attuned to people's concerns about affordability. Is it more important that Sherrill and Spanberger are women or that they are fairly moderate? Or that they won in pretty blue states?

Sadly, here in our town, we saw what factionalism can still do. We elected four of the nine members of the Town Council, and voters can vote for three candidates, with each party putting up three candidates. Republican one party rule has been the norm here for as long as I can remember, and the local GOP completely screwed up a water issue that is going to cost taxpayers $31 million to escape. Last night, the Republican candidates each won about 40% of the vote. 

However, we have an Independent Party as well as a Democratic Party. They each got around 30% of the vote for their slate of candidates. That means 60% of voters wanted to turn the GOP out of office but instead they will continue to run the town into the ground.

I voted for the Independents, because I didn't think people in our town would vote for Democrats. Because they wouldn't cross list/cross endorse, they blew it.

I still think that creating a Farm-Labor party in the Great Plains states to replace the Democrats is a smart move, but it obviously requires Democrats to stand down completely.

Still, the good news is that we saw about a 4% shift towards Democrats in NJ and VA. That trend is great for Senate candidates in Maine and North Carolina. It opens the door for candidate quality in Ohio and Texas and even Iowa. If things get worse, things get better.

Here's an immediate question: What does this mean for the shutdown? Will Republicans look at these results and begin to worry about how their voters will treat them next November? Especially if they don't address exploding health care costs?

Right now, Trump's position is that he is going to starve kids and grandparents until Democrats agree to let him strip health care from millions. That ain't a great message. Last night confirmed that.

Not The Obituary I Wanted To Read Today

Dick Cheney had a stranglehold on "Worst Republican Elected Official In My Lifetime" until Donald Trump came along. The fact that he cared enough about the Constitution to vote for Kamala Harris in 2024 is like a form of deathbed conversion.  The blood of thousands is on his hands in a war that was disastrously conceived and fought under his leadership. You could argue that without the Iraq war Donald Trump never really gains a foothold among a certain group of Republicans who saw the Grand Old Party betray them by sending their sons and daughter off to fight an elective war. Russia predicated its invasion of Ukraine on the Iraqi precedent. 

We are a worse country today, because Dick Cheney was Vice President under a weak and feckless president and maneuvered us into one of the three worst foreign policy misadventures in the long history of the Republic. Glad he saw through Trump, but it's not like that even helped.

So Close To Getting It

 Yglesias likes to take one or two ideas and beat them into a fine powder. One of his "ideas" is that Democrats should eschew unpopular ideas and promote popular ones. Really brilliant insight there. 

The problem with this post is that it once again fails to grapple with the fact that Democrats DON'T talk about unpopular issues. Republicans do and mischaracterize Democratic positions. Yes, as he notes, the other side gets to campaign, too, but he points to Andy Beshear who has done a good job sticking up for Democratic values without being labeled as too extreme or "woke".

It's because he's a white dude from Kentucky.

Harris and Hillary were naturally assumed to be further left on cultural issues than the were because they were women. Harris even more so as a Black woman from San Francisco. Voters are pretty freaking dumb when you get to the middle of the electorate. Sorry, but they are - at least about politics.  So they use easy short hands like how the candidate physically looks. Or aspects of their biography. 

If voters were voting their policy preferences, Democrats would be winning all 50 states. Trump's OBBB is toxic and getting worse, but it's basically the GOP wish list going back 60 years.