2019 Sucked, For The Most Part

Lots of family health issues, and now John Lewis announces that he has stage IV pancreatic cancer.

My recollection was that one of my first votes ever was for John Lewis. Certainly I voted for him in 1986, I just don't know if I voted for him in '84. There are many overuses of the word "hero," but Lewis undoubtedly qualifies.  Someone mentioned that Lewis marched with Martin Luther King.  More often than not, though, King marched with Lewis. He was at the cutting edge of SNCC, but also was able to bridge the divide with SCLC in ways that other members of SNCC never could.

I would hope that the advances in treatment give him a chance, but the reality is all of us face that day when there are no more days left. And we face many, many more days when people we admire face that last day. That day will come for Lewis and so many other eventually.

There is a line at the American cemetery in Normandy: Think not only on their passing; remember the glory of their spirit.

Seems apt.

What Impeachment Is All About

Donald Trump will not be removed from office via the impeachment office, because the GOP has become a cult of personality.

However, that's not really the point of impeachment. This is. People who aren't political junkies aren't following this very closely.  They don't know who Lev Parnas or Fiona Hill are. But it's beginning to sink in that Trump was impeached, even if they aren't clear on what impeachment actually is. They know he's volatile and unpredictable.  (And impeachment and the ego wound it provokes will only make him more erratic.)

The point has always been to make Trump sink below 40% approval ratings.  He can't win at those levels.  That's why having his tax returns presumably being released in June is better than having them released now. Yes, the tax returns could provoke additional impeachment charges, but that won't matter. You aren't getting 67 votes in the Senate.  Period.

You keep reinforcing how corrupt this MF is until people vote for an old shoe just to make the chaos go away.

LOL

Alexandra Petri is hilarious this morning.

The Two Most Important Questions Of The Next Decade

The first question is obviously: how we will address climate change. If we don't get a reasonable handle on that, we are screwed no matter what.

The second question is: what is the future of the Republican party. The question of Trumpistan is not whether Trump wants to a dictator.  He does.  The question is whether the GOP is the Party of Trump because of Trump or because that's where they are headed institutionally. Put another way, is Trump the herald of the GOP's descent into authoritarianism or have they simply slipped into authoritarian impulses because of Trump? It certainly seems like a large faction of the GOP has decided that un-democratic practices are OK, because the Democrats are so awful. Steeped in a simmering broth of Fox News bile, the threat that Democrats pose to America - presumably by making health care affordable, the climate livable and inequality less problematic - warrants thwarting democratic practices. 

America has two competing impulses here, historically.  On the one hand, Americans distrust the power of the state, and any GOP effort to make the state powerful will butt up against America's libertarian streak.  On the other, America has long used coercive methods against populations of color, to keep them from democratic autonomy. 

America can't function with a GOP that is basically United Russia, servile before the cult of whomever their Dear Leader is at any given moment.  We have been lucky that Trump is such an incompetent clown. If Tom Cotton was trying to pull roughly the same thing, the news media would be easily manipulated into "both sides" nonsense like "Sure, Cotton wants to put gays in cages, but Democrats want them to use your son's bathroom."

I still think Trump loses in 2020. I wouldn't mind a mild recession to cement that, frankly, but even getting rid of Trump will not resolve the GOP's descent into authoritarianism.  They have be crushed at the polls over several election cycles, and I just don't see that happening.

You Know What's Crazy?

The same country elected Donald Trump (sort of) and this guy.

Kentucky...

Matt Bevin is a uniquely awful person.  So awful, in fact, that even in deep red Kentucky, voters tossed him out in favor of Andy Beshear, a Democrat and son of a popular former governor.  It was still a very close election.  Bevin has lived up to his awfulness by pardoning a bevy of horrible people, including child rapists. 

Every once in a while, a Democrat says or does something regrettable. Whatever that might be immediately becomes the default position of every Democrat until they specifically disavow it.  For Republicans, that never seems to be true. Matt Bevin basically has a few dozen Willie Horton (without the racism) events running around now. Frankly, Democrats in Kentucky should be trying to link Bevin to Mitch McConnell with every breath. Keeping linking Bevin with Moscow Mitch until next November. 

Knock him off, and the people of Kentucky will have done their greatest service to the Republic since they elected not to secede in 1861.

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

I mean....what the living hell...

The fact that over 40% of Americans think THIS GUY should be president is nauseating.

It Would Be Nice If This Mattered

Christianity Today calls for Trump to be removed from office. The baffling support of evangelical Christians has defined Trump's presidency and politics. There is nothing Christian about caging children and breaking up families.  There is nothing Christian about serial sexual assault.  There is nothing Christian about ranting and threatening those you disagree with.

The ultimate conclusion, of course, is that being an evangelical is not a theological position but a cultural one. You become an evangelical because you hate that this country is no longer a homogenous, white, Protestant country.  Of course, it never really was, but then again, I don't think Jonah was literally swallowed by a great fish, so...

Anyway, it would be nice if, say, 15% of evangelicals who supported Trump in 2016 stayed home in 2020.  I doubt it will happen, though.

In A Normal World...

There have been two "deep dive" stories that have come out recently.  The first was a brutal expose in the Washington Post about Afghanistan, and how administration and Defense Department officials lied about the war.  The second just came out in the Times, about how vulnerable our private data is to private companies. And let's add climate change to the docket, too.

All of these stories - and many more - are buried under the avalanche of outrage and bullshit that is a day in Trumpistan. His constant ability to violate basic norms means that important stories go reported, but unnoticed. 

Trump has cost us four years of human progress.

So, It Happened

Trump was impeached.  He will be acquitted in the Senate.

The only remaining questions are

- Will his impeachment humble him or his acquittal empower him?
- Will the Online Left react with anything approaching perspective when he's acquitted, or will they rail against Democrats for...Republicans acquitting him?
- Will there be any repercussions of this - beyond the judgment of history - in November?
- Will the Senate trial be anything more than a pro forma show trial?
- And will that matter?

For that matter, does any of this matter in terms of real world power arrangements?  Pelosi's reluctance to impeach was based on knowing these outcomes. She's usually a few steps ahead of her critics in understanding what will happen, so let's see if her reluctance was warranted.

Trump's Letter

Martin Longman and Jon Chait read it so you don't have to.

I'm just surprised it wasn't written in crayon.

Threading The Needle

Matthew Yglesias made a facile version of this argument on Twitter, but he unpacks it here with some interesting data.

Basically, there is an overwhelming bias in the Senate and the Electoral College in favor of small, rural, white states and working class white voters.  He runs through the data on this, so if you're interested, go read the link.  The conclusion he reaches though is worth looking at.

If we live in a country with a system that disproportionately over-represents WWC (white working class/whites without college) voters, how do we change that system to properly represent the ideal of "one person, one vote."  There are some suggestions like DC and Puerto Rico statehood that are reasonably "easy" compared to amending the Constitution.  In order to get even those "easy" solutions, you need a Democratic Senate majority. 

Senate Democrats currently have 47 seats.  They need to win a net of three and the presidency to change that.  Susan Collins and Cory Gardner are the most vulnerable Republicans, and Doug Jones is the most vulnerable Democrat.  Joni Ernst, Tom Tillis, Martha McSally and possibly Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell are potentially vulnerable.  A second Blue Wave MIGHT deliver the Senate, but the point of the argument is that the Senate's natural gerrymander protects Republicans where they otherwise wouldn't be protected.

Yglesias makes a further political argument that deserves more attention.

He harkens back to the 2006-08 political cycle, and how Democrats largely avoided talking about same sex marriage.  Obama would later "evolve" on the issue, but he pointedly did not run on marriage equality for one simple reason: it was a losing issue.

The race for the nomination has seen a leftward sprint from many of the candidates.  On some issues, there is real potential to poach WWC voters: health care, minimum wage, infrastructure, the Billionaire Tax, maybe even some green energy tied to jobs.  But obsessing about pronouns or calling for open borders or eliminating private health insurance is a terrible, terrible political strategy. 

As Martin Longman has argued, Democrats don't need to win WWC voters.  They win all the other demographics, in some cases by large margins.  What they can't afford to do is lose WWC voters by huge margins.  You can win Philly, Pittsburgh and their suburbs, but you can't get wiped out in the rural and exurban areas.  You can and will lose them, but if you're losing by 75% or 65% matters.  Getting to losing by 65% is the goal.  In order to do that, you maybe should soft-pedal some of the more "woke" positions on social issues.  Julian Castro's open border or Beto O'Rourke's "we're coming for your guns" are simply bad politics.  Whether they are good policies or not is irrelevant if you can't implement them.

This is why I do think Biden might actually be the most "electable."  He's an old white guy who has huge support from African Americans.  He might have mentioned that he's from Scranton once or twice.  He would be a mediocre president most likely, but there is a reason why he beats Trump pretty easily.  The concerns about whether he can keep it together during the long campaign is legitimate, but demographically and in terms of what he's talking about?  He might just be the safest bet.

Booker

Read this interview and explain to me why this guy can't get over 4% support.

Calvinball

The WaPo editors offer a succinct appraisal (in the form of an appeal) of Republican disdain for their constitutional duties regarding the flagrant abuse of power and contempt of Congress that Trump has shown.

He's already in the conversation for the most corrupt president in our history, and that's before we get a really good look at his money laundering and bribe-taking, by looking at his financial records. Multiple members of his campaign staff are in jail, multiple members of his cabinet have resigned under a cloud of scandal.

Let's assume a scenario whereby Joe Biden wins next November. And let's then assume that Republicans keep control of the Senate and then win control of the House in 2022. 

They will impeach Biden. 

On what charge?  Burisma, maybe.  Maybe on some colossal nothingburger. Anyone remember Benghazi?  Fast and Furious?  The Tan Suit?

For the GOP, the Constitution and their responsibilities therein are simply rules to adapt to any situation that allows them to "win."

They are betraying their oaths of office.

Inevitable

All the splenetic, galaxy brains yammering about why Pelosi wouldn't embrace impeachment on their timetable can STFU. In a move that should shock exactly no one with half a brain, Senate Republicans will not remove Donald Trump from office.  Does this represent a dereliction of their constitutional duties?  Sure. Do they care? No. Will it make a difference in 2020? Probably not.

Impeaching the most corrupt president in our history was necessary, but ultimately, Republicans are going to turn any examination of the factual record into a partisan mudfight and the larger public, made up mostly of morons if the "man on the street" interviews are to be believed, will write the whole thing off.

This was inevitable and sad.  And deeply dangerous for constitutional government.

Hey, Mikey!

It would be great if you spent millions combatting this shit, rather than your vanity campaign.

Cautiously Optimistic

This June, the Supreme Court will rule as to whether Trump must turn over his financial records. The expected Doom Chorus expects a 5-4 partisan ruling shielding Trump from any oversight. Perhaps Roberts' behavior as presiding judge at the impeachment trial will give us some foreshadowing, but I just can't see the conservative bloc on the court creating such blanket immunity for the president. The law is clearly on the side of Congress and the Manhattan DA's office, and the Constitution requires basic oversight.  Trump has obstructed Congress's oversight in what is the clearest of the two impeachment articles. 

He must turn them over and there's no reason why he shouldn't.  Every court has found that he should.  We can be certain that the Democratic justices will rule on the side of law. I think Roberts will, too.  And I have a hard time seeing Alito and Thomas creating such an obvious carve-out for Trump.  Gorsuch, too.  Yes, they are partisan hacks, but they are partisan hacks with lifetime appointments.  If Roberts endeavors to protect the legitimacy of the Court - which he did before on the ACA cases - it's 5-4 in favor of turning them over.  Once there's a majority to hold Trump accountable to the law, why should Alito and Thomas go along?  If Gorsuch wants to cement himself as a judge or a partisan hack, his incentives would be to go along with all established precedent.  I have less hope for Kavanaugh, but he, too, could decide to keep the issue crystal clear.  I could see an 8-1 or 9-0 ruling, with the conservatives writing a concurring opinion lambasting the "witch hunt" and still upholding the law.

And it will drop right in time for the conventions.

What Does The Tory Win Mean For The US?

Not much.

There is a tendency to overdetermine comparisons. The Brexit vote of 2015 was largely seen as a precursor to Trump's election in 2016, so there is a natural tendency to see Johnson's win in 2019 as a precursor to Trump's re-election.  While Trump might very well get re-elected, the British general election doesn't tell us much about what might happen here.

There are some parallels though. With most constituencies reporting, Johnson and the Conservatives have won 43.6% of the vote which is significantly below what Trump won in 2016 (46.1%).  If you add the Brexit party vote to Johnson's, you get 45.6%.  So Johnson won a sweeping mandate for Brexit with....a minority of the popular vote.

This is the way British elections always work. A minority of the popular vote can create massive majorities in the Commons, if the other side splinters.  Let's look at the left and left of center vote in Britain.  Labour collapsed to 32.2% of the vote, and Lib Dems won 11.5%. SNP won 3.9% and the Greens won 2.7%. Add those up and you get 50.3%. 

Labour's problem were twofold. First, Jeremy Corbyn was very, very unpopular. So, if Democrats want to take a lesson from Britain...don't nominate someone who is very, very unpopular.  Secondly, the Left splintered into warring factions over the issue of Brexit and how far left to move.  So, don't do that.

If anything, Johnson's victory looks like Trump's in 2016. Johnson and Trump breached the "Wall" of traditional supporters. Trump won PA, MI and WI.  Johnson won the Midlands and Northern England seats of working class Britons.

But Johnson also probably won, because a substantial number of the English want Brexit over and done with. Screw the consequence, let's get out.  You could make an argument that Biden is the best positioned (maybe Buttigieg) running on a "Let's get out of this cycle of craziness." People are exhausted by Trump, the way Britons are exhausted by Brexit.

Certainly, Warren and Sanders will need to explain why moving the Democrats fairly far to the Left is a good idea, but neither Warren nor Sanders are anything like Corbyn, really (except for their fanatical online supporters).

Also, if Johnson pushes through a Hard or even Medium Brexit, that could tip a weakening global economy into recession.  That would end Trump's hopes.

The Brexit Election

Britain is voting to determine their next Parliament. It seems likely, at this point, that Boris Johnson might get a majority of the seats, especially if the Brexit Party or UKIP wins a few seats that would allow him to ram through a Hard Brexit.

If Johnson wins an outright majority, resist the urge to see a harbinger of Trump's re-election.  Pay attention, instead, to the outright popular vote for the Conservatives and the Brexit party.  My guess is that this number stays under 44% - Trump's approval rating here in the states.  The nature of British elections means that a plurality of the popular vote can get you a majority in the Commons.  In fact, give the fractured nature of the Lib Dems, SNP and Labour, I could expect Johnson to get a majority in the Commons with under 40% of the vote.

Or maybe the left surprises us and gets their act together....just kidding.

This Sucks

The evidence is clear that Trump both abused his power and obstructed Congress.  Yet weak-kneed Democrats are dithering on whether to impeach.  Way to step on the fundamental message from the party: That Trump represents a unique threat to the American democratic system.

And don't blame Pelosi, as she's simply trying to preserve these members' seats.

Another Snapshot Of Everything Wrong With Republicans

This is just...bonkers.

The Trump campaign made an online ad that compares Trump to Thanos, the uber-villain of the most successful movie franchise of the 21st century. What's more, they lift the scene when Thanos has been defeated by the Avengers, led by Iron Man and...Captain America.  Thanos is a homicidal maniac capable of the greatest cruelty, including torturing and killing his adoptive daughters.

What the everloving hell were they thinking?

My guess is they think a couple of things:

1) Any time viral marketing takes off, it's a good thing...in the world of viral marketing.  That godawful Peloton ad was horrifying to many, but "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."  I guess. 

2) Trigger the libs!  This has become the entire message of the Republican Party.  If we are doing something to piss off liberals, we - and our base - are happy.  When Adam Serwer coined the phrase "the cruelty is the point," he was referring to immigration policy, but really, it applies to everything. The faux tough guy, the bully...that's their beau ideal. 

3) The ad displays a complete disdain for actual meaning and context. Anyone familiar with the Marvel universe was left aghast at this.  Who picks the side of Thanos? Well, anyone for whom context and facts are irrelevant.

4) Finally, Thanos was an authoritarian. He was "tough." We see the same weird dynamic with Star Wars, where some kids want to be Darth Vader.  OK, they're kids. They admire strength, especially when they feel weak. But how is this considered a viable message to lead the country?

The Republicans get a ridiculous amount of credit for being better at politics than Democrats, when really they simply have an ethnonationalist base that is optimally distributed within our electoral system.  They aren't good at governing, and with Trump, they have demonstrated a complete contempt for everyone who isn't part of their cult of personality around Cheeto Benito.  Trump can never be president of all of us, because he hates 60% of us.

Thanos is perfect for him.

Let The Handwringing Commence!

It looks like House Democrats will draft two articles of impeachment against President Trump: obstruction of Congress and abuse of power.  This articles will pass the House and die in the Senate. We've sort of always known this.

The usual caterwauling has commenced on Twitter among the same people who decried the fecklessness of House leadership back in August. Those that felt that Pelosi would NEVER impeach Trump are now pissed about HOW she's impeaching Trump.

The argument that Trump has committed numerous impeachable offenses is compelling on the surface. He has taken bribes via his hotel properties. He has conspired with foreign autocracies. He has sexually assaulted dozens of women. The man is a catalog of criminality.

However, if it isn't clear to everyone by now, Trump will simply not be removed from office via impeachment. Drafting a half dozen articles or more won't make the Senate any more likely to convict.  Instead, by NOT impeaching him on Trump properties or tax evasion or money laundering or any of his other crimes, Democrats will retain those arrows in their quiver for the terrifying possibility of him winning a second term.  Or perhaps even doing this again this summer, if the necessary evidence comes forward as it did with the Ukraine scandal.

Pelosi knows Trump will be acquitted in the Senate.  It's why she was always reluctant to impeach; it will not accomplish his removal.  Republicans are in lockstep with Trump, and this will require them to defend him - both in the trial, in November and in the history books.  The number of articles is largely irrelevent.

Quagmire

This is an incredible piece of reporting by the Washington Post about Afghanistan.

In the fall of 2001, there was no question that we should have invaded Afghanistan.  And there is still no question that we should have invaded, at least in my mind.  Al Qaeda was there; the Taliban was protecting them.  We then decided to shift resources to Iraq in 2002-3. That allowed Al Qaeda to regroup in various safe havens.  We also had zero plans for solving the myriad problems that Afghanistan posed.  The same was proved true in Iraq.

Bush erred in losing focus.  Obama erred in staying after bin Laden was killed.  And we are still there, we have no plan and there is no "winning" that is possible.

Trump's erratic impulsivity could be the only thing to pull us out. It would create horrors in Afghanistan, but there are horrors enough already. 

We've spent almost a trillion dollars on nothing. It's well past time to leave that country.

Inject This Into My Veins

Imagine an election day next November, where not only does the Democratic nominee (who is neither Tulsi Gabbard nor Michael Bloomberg) romp their way to victory, but also Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham go down to defeat for embracing Hair Furor.

Landmine After Landmine

Apparently, there will be at least one "surprise" in the impeachment articles, relating to Trump lying to investigators about WikiLeaks. There could certainly be more.  There is such an avalanche of crimes committed by Trump and his minions, that more could crop up at any time.

This is why Republicans can't make good faith defenses of Trump: events could prove them fools.

The Quality Of Their Arguments

The GOP's defense of Trump has largely avoided arguing that what he did with Ukraine is OK. That has forced them to try and engage with his torrent of conspiracy theory bullshit, nonsensical distractions, and process arguments.

Now that there will be an actual impeachment vote, it will be interesting to see how these strategies play out in the Senate.

I have a hunch we aren't through finding more damning evidence against Trump, so Republicans have wisely, I guess, avoided pinning themselves down to any strategy.

Still waiting to hear from John Bolton and Lev Parnas.

When You Put It Like That...

House Intelligence report is pretty damning.  On the known facts, Trump abused his power and obstructed justice.  These are clearly impeachable offenses.  Not the least of it - and likely a focus of the next phase of hearings - is the administration's complete refusal to comply with lawful subpoenas.

Not that it will make a difference.

Harris Out

I had high hopes for Harris as a candidate, and perhaps she's positioning herself to be the running mate of a Biden or Buttigieg by dropping out before the race gets TOO heated. 

There were whispers of this over the weekend and the "Harris Stans" on Twitter were furious that someone could question their candidate's viability.  Turns out - as is so often the case - that the reporting was correct. Harris has some formidable gifts as a politician, but she was unable to find "her lane" and couldn't raise enough money to stay viable.

Tough to say who benefits from this.  Harris had measurable support, unlike the other people who have dropped out.  She had 5% nationally in the latest Politico/Morning Consult poll but was only at 2-3% in the most recent Iowa polls. Still, in a race this close, redistributing those votes matters.  There is a case to be made that this will help Warren or maybe even Klobuchar as the other major female candidates.  Perhaps Cory Booker benefits as the other African American "moderate."  And of course, Joe Biden has been running strongly with black voters from Day One.  I don't see this helping Buttigieg or Sanders appreciably.

Sanctions And Repression

US sanctions on Iran have created widespread hardship and unrest.  This, in turn, has led to massive protests and violence unseen since the Revolution of 1978. Presumably, the plan behind harsh sanctions is to overthrow the religious regime in Tehran, so the violence would obviously please anti-Iranian hardliners in the West.

The problem is that authoritarian regimes have access to levels of violence that democratic regimes do not. Sanctions are intended to create mass unrest that spills over into protests that ultimately leads to regime change, but the essential problem is that it requires a regime that at least nods towards democratic accountability.  Sanctions and protests work against democracies.  Indian independence was at least in part won by the British working class tiring of the moral burden of repressing Indian independence.  Jim Crow collapsed when the rest of the nation was forced to confront it via televised reports from Birmingham and the Edmund Pettis bridge.  Even apartheid collapsed under the strain of international approbation.

Authoritarian regimes that collapse under protest, usually do so because they have some connection to the democratic West.  Mexico needed US support after the peso collapsed, and so they embraced electoral reform. Iran under the Shah was restrained by the Carter Administration.  Gorbachev elected not to send the tanks into Eastern Europe in 1989.

But Deng Xiaoping DID send the tanks to Tiananmen in 1989. And it "worked." Gorbachev is a hero, but Deng won the argument about the use of force.

The Iranian regime will use the force necessary to retain power.  Even if they lose the support of the Iranian military, they will still have the more powerful Revolutionary Guard to maintain their grip on power.  The only way this ends in true regime change is if there is either a full blown civil war or perhaps Khamenei is assassinated.  Either way, things in Iran are likely to become more brutal rather than less.  And sadly, it might not amount to anything positive.

Eat The Rich

This is an interesting response to Josh Marshall's collected thoughts on the rise of authoritarian oligarchy.

Marshall's point was that a rich and largely out of touch 1% are simply incapable of taking responsibility for their mistakes in the wake of 2008. The increased calls of "eat the rich" come from both sides of the partisan divide. Warren's wealth tax polls REALLY well among the WWC voters that routinely vote for Republicans.

What the GOP has done is wed racial and social anxiety with an agenda that largely services the 1%.  As the response above notes, that's a little backwards from Russia and China, where the state creates the oligarchs through statist policies. If you want to be rich in Russia, know Putin. If you want to be rich in China, embrace the Party of Xi.  In the US, the political powers in the GOP are simply letting the malefactors of great wealth have their way.

Matthew Yglesias has observed that maybe Democrats should soft pedal the social justice and racial politics in favor of more bread and butter issues.  Ross Douthat (of all people) suggests that nominating Bernie Sanders is actually a reasonable tack to take for Democrats who want to reach out to Rust Belt workers and farmers.

Right now, the GOP has largely wedded itself to white racial and Christian social resentment. To the degree the GOP have a positive agenda it is in providing money for the rich and removing regulations from industry.  Its politics are almost entirely about "pwning the libtards." 

If - and it's a HUGE if - the Democrats could ever convince half of the white non-college voters that the Democrats are trying to help their economic status, the GOP would be well and truly screwed.  Because the GOP is unpopular with minorities, the college educated and the young, they are relying on vote suppression and natural and artificial gerrymanders to remain in power.  A failure to win supermajorities among that demographic is the end of the GOP.  To do that, you would need to find someone with Warren and Sanders' policies, Biden's appeal to minorities and Obama's charisma.  I thought that was Cory Booker, but I guess I'm alone in that.

Broken

Airline travel is broken.

Hope you don't have to fly this holiday weekend.

Harris

Interesting profile in the Times about the dysfunction of the Harris campaign.  She obviously possess some special political gifts, but running for statewide office in California is both hard and easy.  It's hard, because it's a huge state - actually a mini-country - and trying to organize a campaign to win there requires a fair amount of talent.

But it's also easy, in that Democrats are really popular in California and simply being the Democratic candidate is likely enough to win the race.  As a result, Harris' ability to staff and strategize was hampered by a lack of "muscle memory" in those areas.  Buttigieg has more than his share of flaws, but he is running a tight ship, especially in comparison to Harris. 

I was a Lean Harris voter this summer, but a few missteps and a generally lackluster outreach made me shift my focus to Warren.  Her missteps - a tendency to over-explain and be wonky when her real strength is simplifying complex issues - are real, too.  Both Warren and Harris have faded for a variety of reasons.  Democratic voters are risk averse at this point. They have made mistakes, especially on messaging. Perhaps they simply peaked too soon.  The field is so large no one can stand out.

Buttigieg's rise has come with increased scrutiny, and his statements on race are more in tune with '90s DLC than today's Democratic electorate.  His complete lack of support from African American voters is a huge, huge problem for him.  His test is to overcome those hurdles.  Harris and Warren may have failed theirs, which is a damned shame.

Decline And Fall

Rudy Giuliani should be in jail. 

Happy Thanksgiving.

Act II

A lot of Twitter is upset that the impeachment hearings are shutting down without dealing with (Pet Issue X).

The Judiciary will start looking into the obstruction of justice issues.  That's a whole separate affair.

(Holy shit...Joe Biden just walked into the coffee shop I'm writing in.  Don't be a dick.  DON'T BE A DICK....He left.)

Anyway, there's a lot more impeachment to come...

Mayor Pete

One of the more surprising developments of the Democratic primary has been Pete Buttigieg's rise.  I've tried to figure out some of why he's so appealing.  The nearest historical analogy I can come up with is Jimmy Carter.

Carter's appeal was a basic decency ("I'll never lie to you."), an open and easy Christian faith and a very thin resume on which to attack him.  He was a largely moderate governor, fairly liberal on race for 1976, noticeably intelligent and generally inoffensive.  Nixon's crimes made a figure like Carter appealing. Carter was the anti-Nixon, and road that to upset wins in Iowa that he carried on to narrow wins in Oklahoma and New Hampshire.  Democrats had been burned four years earlier with McGovern and they sought a safe candidate.  His strongest challenger was (gulp) George Wallace who ran strongly in the Southern states.  Jerry Brown made a late entry to represent the left wing of the party, although maybe Mo Udall fit some of that space.

What's striking about 2020 is that - having been burned by the bizarre and fluky victory of Trump - the Democrats have decided not to play it safe.  Perhaps they HAVE, because Biden still leads most polls.  While I don't think Biden is a "safe" candidate, because he's never been a very adroit politician, he would appear that way to a lot of primary voters. It's telling that African Americans voters are his core support. Again, I think that's because they are the most strategic and safe in their voting.  They don't trust white voters not to fuck things up again.  I remember in 2008, several African Americans said to me something along the lines of "They aren't going to let Obama win."  The "they" was undefined, but I think Biden's support is rooted in the "safe" candidate tag. Compared to Warren and Sanders, there might be some truth to that.  I am convinced Biden would've beaten Trump in 2016, for instance.  It's not 2016, however.

Buttigieg is basically competing with Biden for the voters who don't want to risk nominating a women, a person of color or a Socialist.  Bloomberg and others are trying to seize that space, but I just don't see that there's enough oxygen in that space.  The fact that Buttigieg is gay allows him to be a little "outside the box" but not so threateningly so. 

What's interesting is that homophobia remains an issue with older Christians, and while most accounts of evangelicals refers to whites, African Americans are among the most religious Americans.  And frankly, they probably still have a problem with gays, especially in a state like South Carolina. It's not a case that Buttigieg is polling 0% with black voters because they are all voting for Harris or Booker.  They aren't.  They are supporting Biden, because...safe. I don't think Buttigieg looks "safe" to black voters, whereas the white, college educated demographic likes him, because they don't see the sexual orientation as being as risky.

A strategic voting choice between Buttigieg and Biden comes down to what your electoral strategy is.  Do you want to claw back some working class white votes?  Biden makes some sense there.  Some.  Do you want to run up the score in the suburbs?  Buttigieg is a better bet there.

A Buttigieg-Warren choice is fascinating, and it would be interesting to see where African American votes land.  Regardless, getting black voters to the ballot box is going to be critical in 2020.  Will they rally around Buttigieg, if he wins the nomination?

Hence The Focus

There has been some carping about the narrow focus of the impeachment inquiry.  I get that, and I hope they expand those hearings to include what we are learning every day now about Giuliani, Trump, the GOP and Ukraine.

But reading through this recap by Josh Marshall (who has a PhD in Trumpistan and its links to the former Soviet Union), and it can get very confusing, very quickly.  Firtash? Fruman? Kolomoisky? Kelensky?  Kelenskyy? (More details about it here.)

Schiff and the witnesses did an excellent job distilling the combined scandals into a single narrative, but even that is likely beyond the ability of the disengaged electorate to understand. That's why no real minds have been changed.  You either already wanted him gone or believe he was chosen by Christ or you simply don't follow politics.

That latter group is key, but almost impossible to reach.  The Twittersphere that loves hating on Congressional Dems doesn't seem to acknowledge that they exist.

Is There Any Breaking Point?

There's a problem with the lede in this WaPo piece on the resignation of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer.  It says that CPO Edward Gallagher was "accused" of war crimes.  He was accused of murder, but convicted of war crimes and violating standards of conduct for US servicemen.  He was guilty and Trump pardoned him, in order to keep that part of America that likes its servicemember to desecrate corpses happy.  Let's not forget the other crimes he was accused of:

SEALs from the platoon that Chief Gallagher led during a deployment to Mosul, Iraq, in 2017 told military officials that they saw the chief fatally stab a wounded ISIS captive. Navy investigators said while several SEALs were providing medical aid to the fighter, Chief Gallagher took out a handmade hunting knife and stabbed the captive, a teenager, several times in the neck and torso.

The chief was also accused of firing a sniper rifle at civilians, striking a girl wearing a flower-print hijab as she walked along a riverbank and an old man carrying a water jug. Several SEALs broke the group’s code of silence and testified against Chief Gallagher in a military trial.

For Trump and his Cruelty Caucus, a SEAL who stabs a prisoner to death and shoots unarmed civilians is badass rather than rank cruelty.  Apparently, the members of his team disabled his sniper rifle to keep him from shooting people.  Finally fed up, three of them decided to report his conduct to superiors. 

The Navy can't do anything about Trump's pardon, as the pardon power is largely unchallengeable. They did, however, want Gallagher out of the SEALs and out of the Navy.  Trump pushed back against this, because of course he did.  Killing Muslim children isn't a problem in Trumpistan.  Spencer probably tried to flatter or lie to Trump to distract him from plans to strip Gallagher of his Trident (the SEALs insignia and a BFD). 

Trump's decision to interfere in these - and other cases - greatly undermine the military's tenuous ability to maintain control of troops in war zones.  Savagery is a natural byproduct of war and keeping men who you have trained to kill on task and out of murderous behavior is incredibly difficult. War erases the thin line between civilization and barbarism. Trump wants to erase that line.

When will the military break with him?  I know a majority of the enlisted troops likely love him, but the brass knows how corrosive this shit is. Like McMaster and Kelly and Mattis they seem intent on self-immolation on his pyre.

When will the military stand up to this martinet?

Booker

Going into the primary slog, I was most intrigued by Gillibrand and Booker.  Gillibrand has already dropped out, and I don't know why Booker never caught fire.  There's an interesting roundtable about why that might not have happened.

It starts from a premise that makes a certain amount of sense, which is that if you were looking for another Obama, Booker certainly fit many aspects of that role, and not just race. He's an Ivy Leaguer who returned to work on local politics to help urban minorities. He's charismatic. He can be an electrifying speaker, even if it's not on a par with Obama.

The panel hit on an interesting observation from 2008 though. They noted that African American voters were, ironically, some of the last to warm to Obama.  He broke through among college educated whites first, and African Americans were reluctant to vote for him, because they thought racism was too strong. I remember so many conversations with both white and black voters opinionating that Obama would lose in the end, because even if people told pollsters they were voting for him, implicit bias and subliminal racism would change their mind in the voting booth.  No presidential candidate ever won more raw votes than Obama did in 2008.

We see a similar dynamic playing out among some Democratic constituencies in 2020.  Trump is uniquely awful, and therefore we should play it safe.  This is the heart of the appeal of Joe Biden, I think.  Sure, there's the connection with Obama, but I think the reason many African Americans support Biden is that he's seen as the safest bet to win 270 electoral votes. In short, African American voters are not so naive to assume that Americans will vote for a more qualified woman, because, well...

This is a remarkably impressive field, until you start parsing every utterance and applying litmus tests to how eager they support charter schools or how much they want to soak the rich.  The 2020 primary is a clinic in the narcissism of small differences.

If you ask Democrats, 90% want someone who can thrash Trump.  That's their #1 goal.  They might see that through an ideological lens (I think Warren's transformational message is the only thing that...yadayadayada.), but they are primarily interested in beating Trump. That might make them risk averse, and that might be why African American voters are rallying around Biden - even though in many ways he's as risky a candidate as the Democrats could nominate.  The perception, however, is that he isn't.  To a certain degree, Buttigieg is on both sides of this calculus.  He's a moderate but he's gay, so that constitutes a risk.

Booker still has time to rally and make a strong showing somewhere, and I think he'd be a tremendous candidate in the general election.  But it's clear that he has an obstacle to overcome, and it's not just Joe Biden and Kamala Harris sharing "his lane."

Oh. What A Surprise.

Turns out the FBI isn't running crooked investigations against Trump.

The problem, of course, with conspiracy theories is that their very absurdity is their armor. Once you commit to an evidence-free conspiracy theory, actual evidence against it is simply more evidence of how deep the conspiracy goes.

This won't reach the Deplorables, but hopefully it will at least reach enough of the news media that they will be more wary about repeating any nonsense talking points from the GOP.

Hahahahaha, who am I kidding, of course they'll keep doing that.

All Roads Lead To Moscow

Fiona Hill's testimony was, frankly, kind of awesome. The chewy, working class, Durham accent and the absolute inability to brook bullshit made her an instant celebrity in the more academic reaches of the internet. Her fundamental point, however, was one that needs drawing out.

Hill made it abundantly clear that anyone parroting the line that somehow Ukraine was behind election meddling in 2016 was serving Putin, not America. The overwhelming consensus of American intelligence agencies is that Russia used various strategies on social media to shape and influence the election. They also were responsible for hacking the DNC server and releasing emails at times that were most felicitous for the Trump campaign. The Russians wanted Trump to win and they worked to make it happen.  This is illegal and the Trump campaign was at least tacitly working to facilitate Russian help.

This is the truth, as best we can discern it, about the 2016 election.

At some point, Trump - and therefore Republicans - have seized on a bonkers conspiracy theory that somehow it was Ukraine who interfered in the 2016 election.  This has proven to be a nice wedding of Russian counterintel and Republican susceptibility to conspiracy theories. In Trumpistan, remember, every allegation is a confession. And therefore, whatever Dems allege, they, too, must have done. So, if Democrats allege that Russia helped Trump (and they did), then Ukraine must've helped the Democrats.

There is, to put it mildly, no evidence for this - beyond some Ukrainian politicians who didn't like Trump, because he was obviously so cozy with the bastard who has invaded and annexed part of their country.  Those crazy Ukrainians!  But animus against Trump is not the same as action, and there is no evidence that Ukraine was as bold or stupid enough to meddle in the election of an ally they needed to preserve their territorial integrity.

It has been very difficult for Republicans to plausibly defend Trump's behavior. Hell, he's gone on TV and committed the very crime that he's being impeached over. He did it.  The evidence is overwhelming.  Because the GOP is more concerned with loyalty to their clan (or is it klan) than they are to the country, they need a line of defense - any line at all - to defend Hair Furor.

It should be concerning that they have alighted on a defense that matches so nicely with the Kremlin's own counterintel strategy.  Hill was trying to make that point, and I think she did to those who have not simply walled themselves off from reality.

For about 20 years, there has been an argument that the future of the country is Democratic. Younger people tilt very strongly towards Democrats and the left, because they are less white and more educated than previous generations.  The only Republican to crack 50% in a presidential election since 1988 was Dubya Bush's reelection in 2004, and he only managed 50.7%.  Trump, as we know, squeezed into office by running an inside straight.  Pennsylvania and Michigan seemed lost to him, which bring the Democratic floor to 268.

In order to maintain a hold on the White House, Republicans will need to rely on undemocratic means to maintain power. We saw some of this in Georgia when Brian Kemp used voter suppression to beat Stacey Abrams.

The importance of impeaching and removing Trump is that is subverting democracy by using foreign autocracies to help him win elections. The problem is that aligns with GOP needs.  And if that means embracing Putin, they will do so.

The Republican Party is telling us who they are.  We should listen.

Hand Wringing

After yesterday's legitimate bombshell from Gordon Sondland, Democrats gathered for a debate.  As usual, there was a cacophony of voices on the stage, a dynamic that mostly works for those already ahead.  It's also clear that the so-called gaping divide between candidates is an exaggeration borne of small differences and the incessant combat of social media.  Pete Buttigieg would likely be the most progressive president this country has known, yet he is derided as being a "Republican-lite." All of the serious candidates are embracing more movement towards single payer; they agree on the goal, they just differ on the way to get there.

Meanwhile, every single day is a day that would sink any other presidency. The testimony is damning, whether it's by Gordon Sondland, Fiona Hill or David Holmes. Republicans have been trying to dump as much crap into the proceedings as possible, but the fact is they aren't very capable.  More over, the main pillar of support for Trump in the hearings might very well be implicated himself. Parnas remains the dagger at the heart of the Trump Crime Syndicate.  He was inside the room with Giuliani and the conduit to various unsavory figures in Ukraine.  If he met with Trump and they conspired together...I mean, I don't want to credit Republicans with principles, but that would have to leave a mark wouldn't it?

Plus, you have easily the most dysfunctional administration in history.  They can't even get someone to lead NOAA. He is currently without a Secretary of Homeland Security or Director of National Intelligence.  He is about to be without a Secretary of Energy and possibly Secretary of State.  The number of sub-Cabinet positions that are filled with temporary and "acting" heads are legion.  They can't plan a one-car parade.

Meanwhile a single poll out of Wisconsin with a weird sample size has Democrats freaking out. The psychic scars of 2016 are real.  Trump absolutely CAN win, because he will almost certainly be the Republican nominee.  He will almost certainly benefit from foreign interference to keep this ambulatory shitshow in the Oval Office.

The Republicans are bleeding out in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Atlanta, Charlotte, Phoenix and Houston.  GOP members are resigning in droves. 

Keep working, stopping committing to circular firing squads, keep your eye on the orange, lumpy ball.

Well, Damn

Gordon Sondland just threw Trump under the bus, backed over him and ran over him again.

In a sane world, Trump would be crafting his resignation letter as Republicans abandon him.

This Is Sobering

Here is a poll that reveals the following:

- 51% of Americans believe that Trump did something wrong, should be impeached and removed from office.
- 57% of Americans believe that Trump did something wrong, should be impeached but NOT removed from office.
- 70% of Americans believe that Trump did something wrong.

The difference between the 51% who believe he should be removed from office and the 70% of those who believe he did something wrong is a different problem from the 25% who think he didn't do anything wrong.  That 25% is basically the Crazification Factor.  You can't reach them; they are the Deplorables.

More concerning, in an odd way, are that roughly 1 in 5 Americans who can admit that Trump did something wrong - ask a foreign power to interfere in an American election - and yet still want Trump to remain in office. These are not the rabid MAGAts who are spewing sputtering nonsense about the Deep State or Fake News.  These are people who have assimilated a few of the basic facts in the case and decided they are OK with that.

There was some of this back in Clinton's impeachment, especially in the sense that Clinton's behavior was problematic at best and predatory at worst. The nature of the offenses, however, are incredibly different. I would characterize the '98 impeachment as being basically about work place sexual practices.  Did Clinton engage in a sexual relationship with someone far beneath him on the organizational chart?  He absolutely did.  The nature of Lewinsky's consent has changed a bit over time.  She originally said it was consensual, and she never asserted that it was coercive, rather than Clinton, as the older, more powerful figure in the relationship should have known better.  They were adults, but the inequality of their relationship made things inherently fraught with problems.

That seems essentially what Congressional Censure is for.

Trump has been accused of bending the power of the presidency to shape what should be a free and fair election.  Of course, every day brings implications of new and different crimes.  Impeachment is primarily designed to limit out of control executive power.  That is its explicit purpose.

And there's about 20% of Americans who are cool with that.

Keep HBO Weird

Between Watchmen and His Dark Materials, HBO is bringing the strange.

How's It Going, GOP?

So to recap just some stuff that has happened in the last 48 hours.

- Secondary witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have firmly tied Trump to Sondland.  The "rogue staffers" defense is going nowhere. Every additional witness and deposition is more and more damning, requiring Republicans to focus on nonsensical process arguments to muddy the waters.

- Purported moderate Elise Stefanak has thrown in to the Fox News shitshow and attacked Adam Schiff baselessly for enforcing the rules that the Republicans wrote, which she used to fundraise off of.  Her challenger saw a massive boost in fundraising of her own.

- John Bel Edwards won re-election as governor of Louisiana.  In the three critical gubernatorial races this cycle - all in the deep red states of Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi - Democrats won two out of three.

- Trump checked into Walter Reed hospital yesterday for what his flacks are saying was "part one" of his annual physical.  A consequence of the farrago of bullshit from the White House makes every possible utterance a lie.  His annual physical was 9 months ago, and who decides on a whim to get some standard medical tests on a Saturday?  The WaPo story is entirely too credulous of the White House claims, but what else can you do when the Office of the President is staffed by a compulsive liar?  He's an old, unhealthy man in the world's most stressful job in the middle of an impeachment inquiry.  He knows his crimes.  It would be amazing if he wasn't having at least a panic attack or two.

It's a whole year away, but the reflexive crouch of Democrats is really as tiresome as it is predictable.  They are winning the debate over the future of the country.

Stepping On Rakes

There was a time when the GOP could point to figures of real intellect and cunning.  While Reagan wasn't stupid, he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but there were figures in the GOP who were credibly intelligent.  As the GOP has descended into the Upside Down of Fox News, they have bled their more intelligent members or their more intelligent members have had dumb themselves down to stay in touch with the party's base of aggrieved white men who disdain "book larning."

Anyway, that's a long way of introducing the idea that the their efforts to defend Trump have been comically bad.  So bad that they have really abandoned any attempt to defend Trump and have tried instead to discredit the process.  The fact are against them, the law is against them, so all that is left is to pound on the table and yell like hell.

A few weeks ago, this took the form of screaming on Fox about how the Democrats were doing all this behind closed doors.  They memorably stormed into a secure facility with their freaking cellphones. The GOP demanded that the Democrats hold an actual vote to start impeachment and that there be public hearings.

First of all, this was all bullshit. Democrats were following the template of previous impeachments.  Secondly, every time the GOP tried to make a process argument, the Democrats would snatch the argument away from them.  "Why isn't there a vote?" They then had a vote.  "Why isn't testimony public?" Now we have public testimony.

This has led to the sobering testimony of the last few days, where Ambassadors Taylor and Yovanovitch have been incredibly persuasive and even introduced new evidence.  The saddest part is that this is unlikely to move the Deplorables.  The Foxified base of the party is impervious to evidence or reason.  That is the primary audience of Devin Nunes bonkers spectacles.  The larger part of the electorate, however, is not addled by the steady stream of lunatic conspiracy theories that make up Trump's "defense."

We have had so many Holy Shit moments in this impeachment saga, but we haven't had the Holiest of Shit moment.  We need an audio recording.  We need Lev Parnas or Rudy Giuliani to flip.  If public opinion can support removal to the tune of 60%, that could greatly affect the calculus of the Senate - especially if they choose to have a secret ballot.

We are a long way from removing Trump via impeachment.  But the ineffectual nature of his defense should be sobering for those who are trying to keep this grifter in the Oval Office.

His Time In The Barrel

Roger Stone, guilty on all counts. 

This is fundamentally good news.  He was part of the original move of the Republican Party into criminality under Nixon.  I doubt he sees a ton of jail time for trying to undermine American democracy, but it's still good news.

Thanks, Matt

Matthew Yglesias makes a compelling case that most polls - especially at the state level - are bullshit if they don't include education.  And few include education as a sampling.

It's clear that having a college education means a great deal in how you vote.  As Martin Longman points out, there are enough idiots to give Trump a chance.  I know, I know, I'm being a sneering coastal, Ivy League elitist, but I'm also not wrong.  If you believe Trump over ANY neutral news source (Fox does not count) then you are an idiot.  Trump has proven time and time again that he has no regard for any concepts of object truth.  I mean, how can you possibly decide who's telling the truth, all those career public servants testifying under oath or Trump's fat fingered Twitter feed?

I've never been a fan of the plans for universal college education, but when you consider how contingent Republican rule is becoming on a minority cabal of plutocrats and the willfully, proudly ignorant...it's starting to sound like a pretty good idea.

And We're Off

The first day of the impeachment hearing is in the books. There was one notable surprise, when Bill Taylor linked Trump to a direct phone call to Sondland. Most of the other basic facts were already known, but if the Democrats have another "surprise a day" hiding in their pockets, they might be able to slowly erode Republican resistance.

That resistance has taken a notable form.  It is largely scattershot, basically flinging stuff against the wall in the hope that something sticks - or more likely that the continual farrago of bullshit will satisfy their base who are safely ensconced in their Fox News Bubble. Democrats have largely ignored the unhinged ramblings of Devin Nunes who is one more bad news cycle away from blaming Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden for kidnapping the Lindbergh Baby. Nunes's whirlwind of lies and conspiracy theories will have to be engaged at some point, but there was more than a little whiff of flopsweat among some of the Republicans asking questions yesterday.

If the Democrats are hoping to really put the squeeze on Republicans, however, we will need more.  An actual transcript or recording of Trump's conversations with Kelenskyy or even some other world leader. John Bolton coming in and laying the whole sordid tale before Congress. Lev Parnas throwing Giuliani and Trump under the bus, backing the bus up a few more times and flattening them flatter than hammered shit.

This will be necessary, because the GOP has shown they are completely and utterly in the tank for this fraud, this orange confection of lies.  And we already have the media saying that the hearings "lacked pizzazz" because it wasn't an episode of Law and Order or...something.

Trump is guilty.  Will he be held accountable?

We're On The Road To Nowhere

The public phase of impeachment begins today.  The case is pretty clear.  However, the incidentals are just confusing enough to confound the normal person who does not spend the day crawling through news for the latest update. 

Perhaps there is a "smoking gun" witness.  Lev Parnas springs to mind.  More likely we will simply get a public record of the president abusing the powers of his office for personal gain.  Sure, Ukraine is the issue at hand, but there are so many other instances it's boggles the mind that Democrats are focusing on only one instance.  Of course, that's Trump's instinctual strategy: flood the zone with so much egregious conduct that your opponents get distracted.  There are actual white supremacists working in the White House, and that barely registers in the swirling shitstorm of Trumpistan.

Most people made up their minds weeks ago, based on what they already believe about politics.  Unless there is a surprise appearance by Parnas or John Bolton, the needle is likely stuck.  Trump will be impeached by the House and not removed by the Senate, because America is broken and GOP loyalty to their party over their country broke it.

Deeply Messed Up

The Democratic primary has officially gone on too long, and we haven't even had the Iowa Caucus yet.

The last minute quasi-entries of Michael Bloomberg and Duval Patrick are profoundly weird. There seems to be no constituency for Bloomberg, and Patrick's work for Bain Capital would likely be largely disqualifying.  Because the Democratic primaries begin in lily-white Iowa and New Hampshire, candidates like Kamala Harris are struggling to find their footing. They moved California earlier, but she isn't really running strong there, either, nor has she connected with South Carolina's overwhelmingly African American constituency.

Basically, we've come down to the following categories:

White Left of Center: Biden and Buttigieg.  They are presenting themselves as moderating influence on a party moving to the left in ways that are genuinely concerning for a general election (much less governing with a closely divided Senate). Biden and Buttigieg are promising a boring presidency where you don't have worry about whether the president has gone off the rails and called nurses sexual degenerates or allied the country with Uzbekistan in an ethnic cleansing campaign.

White Change Agents: Warren and Sanders. They are presenting themselves as fundamental change agents.  You think the system is broken? They have a plan/revolution for that.  Their primary appeal is the angrier part of the party, who is convinced that everything is messed up and we need to a proper cleansing.  Both rely on a left wing populist pitch.  Warren is seeing both good and bad by being the current lead female candidate.

Surprising Flops: Harris, Booker and Klobuchar.  All three of these candidates bring something really compelling to the table.  Yet none of them have been able to break out. I was a Harris supporter, and I would be happy to vote for her in the primary, but there doesn't seem to be much chance she'll still be around in April.  Booker has amazing charisma in a party that love young charismatic candidates. Klobuchar could have easily been what Buttigieg has become: the center-left alternative to Biden.  Maybe one of these guys gets a surprisingly strong showing early on, but they feel like they could be winnowed sooner rather than later.

Why do Bloomberg and Patrick feel the need to jump in?  Their lanes are already full and that's not counting other candidates like Castro or Yang who have at least some support,

What's worse is the very nature of Democratic politics. The policy differences between a change agent like Warren and center-left candidates like Buttigieg are real but even Buttigieg is proposing policies that are further left than what Obama was able to do.  But the echo chamber nature of social media and the overwhelming need to defend "your candidate" is tearing the party apart.

Yesterday, someone posted a video of Pete Buttigieg offering a fairly blase statement about the need for a "new politics," one that wasn't rooted in non-stop partisan warfare, but also didn't return to the "Obama and Clinton era" politics of Grand Bargains and Triangulation.  OK, sure.  What will that look like and how do you accomplish it are kind of huge questions. Biden has presented himself as a continuation of Obama's politics (if not his policies) and so Buttigieg needs to differentiate himself from Biden by presenting himself as the bold new voice.  But because he seemed to make a slight criticism of Obama, people lost their shit.  I didn't see much criticism of Obama, and Buttigieg clarified that he wasn't referring to Obama's presidency, but it was enough to royally piss of some people.

I went on Twitter and said I didn't see a slam of Obama, but rather a recognition that the old Grand Bargain/Triangulation politics are gone.  Biden says he can get Mitch McConnell to work with him because some Republicans voted for the Violence Against Women Act.  WTF?  So Buttigieg says that those politics are the past and we need a new politics that recognizes that the GOP has gone insane without continually exacerbating partisan tensions.  Whatever, it's pablum.  But when I tried to make this argument, that Buttigieg was going after Biden and not Obama, I get attacked as a Buttigieg supporter.  When I note that the only presidential candidate I've contributed to is Warren, I basically got called a racist, and by a writer I generally admire.

Winning elections in our electoral system requires making broad coalitions.  Trump has abandoned this and gone with a base strategy, which I think should be disastrous.  But if the Democratic party degenerates into a massive internecine bloodbath, we could be in real trouble.

I started out supporting Booker and Gillibrand.  She's already out and Booker never caught fire. I moved to Harris, but Warren won me over rather than me losing Harris.  Still, I would happily pull the lever for any of them.  And if it's Biden or Buttigieg, I'll vote for them next November.  My only question is whether the party will survive that long.

A Tiresome Reflex

Bolivian President Evo Morales was an important symbol of the ascendency of indigenous political groups in Latin America, and he did some genuinely good things for his country.

Inevitably, he slid into more autocratic and undemocratic practices.  He defied the constitutional ban on a third term and then rigged an election to grab a fourth.  People rioted, the police and military refused to crackdown on the protests and Morales was forced to abdicate.  Was it a coup? Possibly. 

Immediately in the hellscape of social media, self-appointed experts decided that the CIA must've overthrown Morales, because Bolivia is rich in lithium. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.  The problem with assigning responsibility to the CIA is that basically strips the Bolivian people of any agency in the affairs of their country. There's a strain of foreign policy thinking that unites elements of the Right and Left that basically holds that anything that happens in the world is because America made it happen.  The Berlin Wall? Reagan did that, say conservative. Opposition to Maduro and Morales? Must be the CIA say leftists.

Morales was trampling on democratic norms.  Ultimately that was the problem. Now, could it be a right-wing coup? If the subsequent elections have the appearance of fraud, yet a right wing president is installed by the military, then I think we can call it a coup. But if there are free and fair elections, and Bolivians are able to select a new president, then maybe this was an important moment in Bolivia's democratic history.  IT, COULD. GO. EITHER. WAY. But to anoint this as another bad action by the CIA because you hate the CIA seems to be rushing to judgment.

I'm Exhausted

And wrestling starts this week.

Egads.

A Chilling But Necessary Read

Those GOP politicians supporting Trump aren't doing it out of cowardice in the face of the Trumpenproletariat.  They are doing it because they really believe their bullshit.

And this isn't much more reassuring.

The Way This Probably Unfolds

The House GOP tries to subpoena the whistleblower for no reason beyond spite.

Schiff points out that this is both spiteful and dangerous and a violation of whistleblower laws.

Schmuck Todd wonders what the whistleblower is hiding, beyond their identity to preserve their safety.

Debate becomes about the whistleblower among the Right Wing and Sensible Centrist news medi.

The whistleblower demands to come forward.

The whistleblower testifies in public and it's absolutely brutal for Trump.

Everything the GOP has tried to do to help Trump has inevitably, in the end, made things worse.

Morons

I think the GOP strategy on impeachment has been pretty predictable.  Attack the process. When the Democrats address those concerns, decide that quid pro quo isn't a quid pro quo or a crime at all.

But eventually the sheer tonnage of evidence will break the dam.  They will need a new stratagem to protect Dear Leader.  Especially if Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman testify to save their skins, they could provide damning details about what Giuliani was doing.  That means sacrificing Giuliani to save Trump.  Pin it all on him and say he was acting as a rogue agent.

Two problems.  First, it would admit that the Ukraine ploy was illegal.  It clearly was, but they've been trying to hem and haw and count on the protection of Fox News to keep from having to admit that what Trump did to Zelenskyy was illegal and corrupt.

The second problem is that there is ample evidence from Trump's own mouth of his working with Giuliani.  Trump and Giuliani's rank idiocy has endlessly complicated any consistent defense of Trump.  It's like the scene in A Few Good Men where Caffey gets Jessup to admit to the Code Red.

Except it's happening over and over and over again.

The Sessions Session

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions will apparently be running for his old seat in Alabama.  What makes this a fascinating story is the raging anger Trump still feels for Sessions, because Sessions - for all his odious racism - was insufficiently loyal to Hair Furor. The odds of Trump attacking Sessions is remarkably high. 

Alabama - unexpectedly - represents a crucial battleground state for control of the Senate.  Republicans look likely to lose a seat in Colorado, and could lose seats in Maine, North Carolina, Iowa, Arizona, and perhaps even Georgia and Kentucky.  Regaining the seat in Alabama is critical to any plans to retain control of the upper chamber.

So Trump's malignant narcissism could produce a conundrum for his hate-huffing acolytes in Alabama. The racist we've know for decades or the racist we've come to adore?

Ideally, Sessions narrowly edges accused pedophile Roy Moore, who launches a third party bid out of spite.  Moore draws off 10% of the creepier fundies and Doug Jones gets another six years.

Boom Goes The Dynamite

Remember, remember
The Fifth of November!

So, yesterday was quite a week.

First, and most importantly, my wife won a seat on our town council.  Pray for me a sinner in the hour of my need.

Second, Gordon Sondland - perhaps the only person so far to testify that gave Trump any wiggle room - reversed his previous testimony.  He admitted that Trump was trying to coordinate an "off the books" intervention through Giuliani. Most importantly, he admitted that he found Trump and Giuliani's attempt to pressure Ukraine to probably be illegal.  In other words? Quid pro quo.  Sondland decided that Trump and Giuliani weren't worth jail time.  He won't be the last to make that calculation.

Third, there were elections last night (see point #1), and Democrats did remarkably well. They now control the trifecta in Virginia, and amazingly, they won the governorship in Kentucky. What you see when you look at the map in Virginia and the map in Kentucky is where the battleground has shifted nationally.  Yes, Matt Bevin was an extremely unpopular governor and Andy Beshear is the son of a very popular former governor.  Yes, Virginia has been trending "blue" for several elections. When you look at the maps, however, what you see is that any district with any sizeable population tended to vote for the Democrat. Urban areas have been Democratic for decades now, but it's the suburbs that are starting to flip to parties, and that is likely a direct result of Donald J. Trump.  Trump won Kentucky by 30 points in 2016.

There will be policy implications, of course. Kentucky will likely bring back some form of Obamacare and 150,000 former felons will get their voting rights back.  Virginia might ratify the ERA, which would be the 38th state to do so.  However, the date for ratifying the ERA has passed, so the Supreme Court will need to decide if that counts.  In a state like Virginia, the Democrats will now control redistricting which at the very least will create fair districts, if not ones that lean Democratic.

In Kentucky, Trump tried to make Bevin's reelection about himself and about impeachment.  Bevin was the only Republican to lose his statewide race.  Don't think that hasn't left a mark on Mitch McConnell and other Republicans.

Watch This Story

The NYTimes poll that had Trump winning the swing states really does seem like an outlier.  Meanwhile, the WaPo released a poll that has Trump getting absolutely thumped by every major Democratic candidate.

In the background, there is another story brewing.  It's about "the best economy ever" that Trump touts as perhaps his only net positive.  Unemployment is ticking up in those critical Rust Belt states, including Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio and North Carolina.  (And if someone can explain to me the numbers in Alabama and Mississippi, I'd be obliged.)

The post-2008 economy has produced a bunch of jobs, but many of them are pretty crappy. Under-employment, poor wage growth, lingering debt...all of these are critical issues facing working class voters.

Looming on the horizon are two other trends: Trump's trade war is not only hurting American farmers, but it's beginning to take a toll on manufacturers.  The Conservative Party looks poised to win the December election, at which point, Brexit will happen and Europe will slip into a recession.

The only things keeping Trump afloat are rigid partisanship and a reasonably sound economy.  That last bit might not last until election day.

The Gist Of It

Josh Marshall lays down the basic plot from Ambassador Yovanovitch's testimony: She was fired because she was standing in the way of corrupt officials in Ukraine who wanted to give Giuliani and by extension Trump what they were asking for on the Biden family. The State Department didn't want to do or say anything that might be upended by Trump's Twitter feed.

The broader point is that Trump's infantile response mechanisms - attack, leap before your look, attack again - was easily manipulated by those goombahs arrested a few weeks back: Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. They knew what they wanted and it was exceedingly easy to get Trump to bite.  As Marshall notes, we should assume that if those two idiots and Giuliani figured it out, Russia, Saudi Arabia, China and Turkey should have zero trouble manipulating the toddler-in-chief.

Thanks, Republicans!

My Nightmare

I worry Jon Chait might be right about this.  Part of my worry is that Martin Longman has said the same things, and he's not a concern troll, the way Chait can be.

The "Biden is more electable" pitch is fundamentally flawed by the accumulated history of his previous presidential runs.  He's not a great standard bearer.  But... he might fit the wishes of the vast mushy, unengaged middle of the electorate.

We've hit a lull in the impeachment process, with fewer new revelations dropping every day. That will allow Trump to regain a bit of his floundering support.  Don't forget that polls are tricky to read, and you shouldn't base too much off one poll.

Still, the sickness I feel when I ponder the slimmest possibility of re-electing Donald Trump is overwhelming.

Out On A Sunday

This is a good read.

It's All One Scandal

Newly released documents show that the Ukraine scandal is not a separate scandal from the Russia/Mueller scandal.  Needless to say, Paul Manafort was at the center of it, and he appears to be the source of Trump's bonkers theory that Ukraine secretly "framed" Trump by stealing the DNC emails and releasing them to....Yeah, it gets fuzzy there.

Pelosi has said that they won't necessarily narrowly focus the impeachment on Ukraine.  My guess is that they know much of this already and are going to slowly expand the inquiry.

Not a week goes by when it doesn't get worse.  Not a week goes by where that seems to matter to the GOP.

Katie Hill

Representative Katie Hill resigned after photos were released that showed her having sexual relations with a campaign staffer.  There are allegations that she might have had relations with a congressional staffer.  The latter is against House rules put in place after #MeToo exposed predatory and untoward sexual relations between members and staff on Capitol Hill.

There has been a lot of talk about double standards based on gender, and no doubt that it true.  Hill is the first openly bisexual member of the House, and that no doubt feeds into the prurient interest in her sex life and the associated fact that the subordinate was a woman.  The accusations of double standard usually note that Duncan Hunter - also from California, but a Republican - continues to serve, despite far worse accusations against him.

But perhaps a better analogy is Duncan Hunter, but Al Franken.  Franken's behavior was bad and unworthy of a US Senator.  He might have weathered the storm, and perhaps some sort of political comeback exists in his future.  But he resigned, because he felt his status was damaged.  He could no longer do his job.  Hill made much the same point.

Hunter, however, is a Republican.  His primary loyalty is to Republican voters and the Republican party.  He is completely uninterested in the opinions of those who think sexual harassment is wrong, which ipso facto does include Republican voters and the Republican party.

We have entered a universe where one political party has shame and the other doesn't.  One party holds itself to its ideals and an idea of justice and fairness and one doesn't.

Yes, gender played a role in Hill's treatment and her decision to resign.  But don't pretend the moral bankruptcy of the GOP wasn't also an important part of this double standard.

When This Is All Over

I hope Matt Gaetz and Devin Nunes are in jail.

It Was Never A Transcript

News media have described the released summary of the Trump-Zelenskyy call of July 25th as a "transcript."  It was never a transcript.  What was so flabbergasting about the whole thing was that the White House somehow thought this redacted document proved that they had done nothing wrong, because Trump never said the words "quid pro quo."  Astute observers noted that this White House has obstructed every single attempt to hold them accountable to the rule of law, and therefore it was highly unlikely that this incredibly damning document was the full story.

Well, guess what? As Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified, the document that the White House released was indeed more favorable than the more damning actual transcript. 

We know the following to be true:
- The released summary of the 7/25 call was damning and included impeachable offenses.
- Trump never voluntarily complies with subpoenas, therefore there is likely a worse, even much worse accounting of that telephone conversation.
- Trump made many disturbing phone calls to foreign leaders, to the point where his Nat Sec team had to hide all of them on a secret server.
- That means actual transcripts - not documents redacted to hide actual crimes - exist of these cringe worthy phone calls.
- It is possible that tapes exist.

At some point, it seems inevitable that either the actual transcripts will be leaked to the House or Trump will have them destroyed.  Either one would be enough to remove him from office in a sane world.

We, sadly, do not live in a sane world.

Rats, Sinking Ships, Etc.

These two pieces are nice pairs.  First, we have a reminder that the critical boob in all this is some hotel developer who landed a diplomatic job with no experience and proceeded to find himself in the middle of perhaps the biggest scandal in presidential history.  Sondland is an idiot who can neither protect his boss or himself. He's in a hole and continues to dig.

The second is a typical Robert Costa piece, whereby he quotes anonymous GOP figures who are tearing what's left of their hair out, but can't figure out how to extricate themselves from Trump's grip on the party.

These are not bright people.  Not in the White House, not on Capitol Hill. Luckily, a considerable part of America wants to be lead by not bright people apparently.

So there we have it.

Can Trump Hold His Base?

These poll numbers from the South should be concerning for Republicans.  The states polled are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.  Of those states, only Virginia voted for Clinton, and they don't like Trump too much, if last night's Nationals game is any indication. His job approval rating in those states is 52% approve, 47% disapprove, 1% who is Donald Trump?

You have to figure that Trump is killing it in Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, South Carolina and Mississippi.  He's likely floundering in Virginia.  To give you some examples, Trump won 62% in Alabama, 60% in Arkansas, 59% in Louisiana, 58% in Mississippi, 55% in South Carolina and 60% in Tennessee.  He only won 44% in Virginia.

That leaves Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas.  In Georgia, Trump only won 50.7% of the vote, though Clinton only carried 45% as Gary Johnson ran pretty strongly in Georgia.  Still, Trump could be under 50% by now. In Florida, he only won 49%.  Same in North Carolina. He won barely 52% in Texas.   Texas.

The problem of course, is that Clinton only earned 47.8% in Florida, 46% in NC and 43% in Texas.  Some of this is because of Hillary Clinton, some is because of the (D) next to her name.  Still, Trump's approval numbers in the part of the country where he should be strongest suggest that there is a pretty decent opportunity to flip Georgia and North Carolina.  I hold out no hope for a free and fair election in Florida. 

Still, if Trump is struggling to keep his approval numbers above water in the South, what does that say about his ability to retain Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Wisconsin?  What about Arizona? 

As the news cycles continue to flay Trump's ego and his polls numbers slowly erode, he will likely rely more on his base instincts to rally the Trumpenproletariat.  That means more of "Trump Unleashed."

It's going to be ugly as the world's most powerful narcissist decompensates on the world stage.