Medicare For All

Interesting dynamic in the debate last night. (No, I didn't watch; I never watch.)

Sanders and Warren staked out a position for single payer.  A few others attacked them for it, but largely ineffectually.  Tonight, Harris and Biden will likely lay out a plan for a medium course, similar to the one laid out by Buttigieg and O'Rourke.

Historically speaking there is only one way to increase medical coverage: incrementalism.  Every attempt to change the entire structure of health insurance in the country has failed.  It failed when the Progressives tried, FDR failed, Truman failed, and finally LBJ accepted the half a loaf of Medicaid and Medicare.  The Right freaked out (only civil rights was a bigger factor in empowering Goldwater), but eventually it became hallowed ground.  Nixon tried a half measure with Ted Kennedy, but Kennedy walked away (something he regretted).  Clinton tried full overhaul and failed.  Obama went half-measure and succeeded.

The next step should be a vigorous public option.  Employers and employees can elect to use Medicare/Medicaid as their health insurance program.  That - I think - is what Harris and Buttigieg are looking at, maybe Biden, too.

Enforced Medicare for All polls VERY poorly.  Medicare as an universal option polls very well.

Why would Democrats waddle into the threshing blades over this issue, when beating Trump is the single more important thing right now?

The Immigration Trap

I agree with Martin Longman that the suburbs are prime pickings for Democrats in 2020. They were critical to winning the House in 2018.  I also agree that moving too far left on health care and immigration are the only way that Democrats can lose in 2020.  That's why I'm moving closer and closer to Kamala Harris.  Her health care plan is precisely what you want to see from a nominee: choice, lots more public options, no easy sound bites about "taking away your private insurance."

Decriminalizing illegal immigration is just a terrible, terrible political move.  "Open borders" only polls well with the far left.  Even Hispanics don't like it, because if they are citizens, they likely worked their ass off to achieve that.

Biden is a big bowl of mushy, day old oatmeal, but that could be enough to beat Trump.  Harris could win PA, MI, WI, TX, AZ, NC and GA.

Our Plutocrats

Jerry Useem has an insightful piece on stock-buybacks.  The broader insight is about how Wall Street has altered the original idea of corporations beyond recognition.  Back in the '80s when corporate raiders began attacking and breaking up companies, an economist named Michael C. Jensen argued that a corporation's primary duty was to its shareholders.  Previously, corporations were seen as having multiple constituencies: shareholders, the community, the people who worked there. Jensen's argument was that if a company was too weak or debt ridden, it allowed the raiders to come in and destroy the company, which benefitted no one but the raiders. 

Over time, MBA America took this lesson and ran with it.  Because a corporation was supposed to prioritize the stockholder, it made sense to incentivize the senior management by giving them stock options.  LOTS of them. 

The Trump Tax Cut plowed billions of dollars back onto corporate balance sheets.  This money has been used primarily for stock-buybacks.  This has allowed for unprecedented (and potentially legal) insider trading.  Useem mentions the case of the CEO of Home Depot, Craig Menear, who used stock buybacks to increase his compensation from $11.4 million to $41 million. 

None of this has made Home Depot a "better" company.  As Useem notes, the median salary for a worker at Home Depot is $23,000 a year.

It's complicated in some ways, but the basic idea that Trump and every single member of the GOP made millionaires richer while ignoring workers - most of them likely whites without college degrees - is another way to attack the GOP.

The corrupt part is that it's not corrupt.

Abraham Lincoln: Marxist

Interesting piece about how Lincoln read Marx and agreed with some of what the German philosopher had to say.  Of course, the broad founding principle of the Republican Party was "free labor, free soil, free men."  The idea was that if there was no slavery, then the proper relations between workers and "capital" would be allowed to work itself out.  The Republican Party was largely created out of a desire to keep slavery (and blacks) out of the west.  It also sought to protect American workers with tariffs and to build the infrastructure necessary for labor and goods to move freely around the country.

The "free labor" ideology, however, crumbled on two pressure points: race and wealth. 

Race was the abandonment after 1877 (if not sooner) of African Americans in the South.  This was a political act both in the Compromise of 1877 and the larger movement of more conservative Republicans away from the cause of African American equality.  The descent of Southern Blacks into debt peonage was a signal abandonment of the idea of free labor. 

The other was the movement, led mostly by the Courts, to allow for greater and greater consolidation of wealth into industrial conglomerates.  Free labor was supposed to re-invigorate Jefferson's ideas of personal independence in the face of growing urbanization and industrialization.  No better example of this existed than Lincoln himself, the rough railsplitter who became America's greatest president. But the Courts continued to move American law away from the rights of working people and into the hands of people with great wealth.

The GOP was once the party of Lincoln.

It lasted about 20 years.

Trump Vs. America

As Jon Chait notes, Trump's attacks on African Americans and urban communities represents his raw racism.  However, I think Chait has hit on a great way to frame this.

Calling Trump racist does backfire a little.  Calling someone a racist is not a very good way to get them to change their behavior.  As George Wallace (yeah, that guy) said, "The real racists are the people calling people racist."  That is, of course, bullshit

But if you want to use Trump's racism against him to get him under 40% of the vote, then perhaps the best way to do it is to note exactly what Trump said about "the Squad."  If you don't like America, leave it.  Trump routinely disparages large parts of America and large groups of Americans.  Rather than decry his racism, focus on the fact that Trump only represents some Americans.  The job of the president is to represent the whole country.  Trump, emphatically, doesn't do that.

Democrats running on a "big tent" America would normally be a bland mushy centrist trope.

In 2020, it might work.

The Party of Trump

There are example after example after examples.

Playing The Cards

Mueller was never going to be your savior.  He's a risk-averse Republican.

But Adam Schiff and a few others did manage to get into the record some clear, definitive statements.  Check this out.  Additionally, Jon Chait noted that Schiff and others teased out that the Russians had dirt on Trump, which is effectively blackmail material.  Mueller was adamant that Russia played a role in influencing the election and is continuing to try and undermine our elections.

There is apparently some movement towards impeachment.  It's not that Mueller really said anything that wasn't already in his report.  There was certainly no great TV moment. 

I've always felt that the proper time to open an impeachment proceeding would be this fall.  It should last for several months or more (God knows there's enough material).  It should be wide ranging, including collusion with the Russians, obstruction of justice, corruption, emoluments, tax evasion, human rights violations on the southern border, Trump being non compos mentis...I'm sure I'm leaving stuff out.

It should last until February, at which point, it should be turned over to the Senate.  Make Republicans defend Trump from a litany of charges.  For months.

We know that the GOP Senate won't remove him from office.  Impeachment was never going to be about removing Trump.  It is a political act designed to force the Republicans to own every last bit of his illegal actions.  It should be designed to cost Cory Gardner, Susan Collins and Joni Ernst their Senate seats.  It should be designed to drop Trump under 33% approval ratings.  It should be designed to have the biggest impact close to the election, so that the American people will be sick of him and just want him to go away.

It never made sense to rush into this process because we hate Trump. 

What If....?

Interesting essay that will go nowhere.  Basically, it's arguing against this idea that the 'real racists are people calling people racists."  Trump makes it increasingly hard to obscure the fact that movement conservatism has been coddling up to white supremacists since the 1950s.

Clown Show

Whelp....Britain and the US continue to mimic each other in their avid descent into clown show territory.  Boris Johnson is not as manifestly stupid as Donald Trump, but his elevation to PM is a demonstration that the Conservative Party - once lauded for its pragmatism on issues of class - has gone full Cheese Submarine.  Johnson combines all the thinks-he's-clever smarm of David Cameron without any of the intelligence or ability.  Both men are cynical about Brexit, but Johnson seems to clearly believe his own bullshit.

Yesterday, I linked to Elizabeth Warren's bearish take on the economy.  One real warning shot could be a hard Brexit.

Buckle up.  The world is getting stupider and meaner.

And we had a hard time believing that was possible.

Oh, Cool

Elizabeth Warren - who was right in 2003-2009 - thinks we are headed for another economic crash.

Republican economics is based on an antiquated free market fundamentalism that allows for the concentration of great wealth at the very top, while also allowing for fraud and "sharp dealing."

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if we have another crash, but I just hope it's before November 2020.

Doing Right

I woke to Twitter talking about Al Franken again.  Apparently Jane Meyer has a long expose arguing that Franken got a raw deal. 

No.

And I'll let Matthew Yglesias explain why.

Spoiler Alert

Mueller won't save us.

An Anecdote

This fall, a freshman went to the Lower School Dean of Students and asked permission to miss school for a few days.  She asked why.  He said there was a movie coming out about his grandfather and he wanted to go to the premier.

"What's the movie?"

"First Man."

"Isn't that about Neil Armstrong?"

<awkward silence>

"Yeah."

"Your grandfather was Neil Armstrong?"

"Yeah."

"Um, I think that would be fine."

It's Going To Get Much, Much Worse

Read this WaPo expose of Republican efforts to ride the whirlwind of Trump's racism.  It must be exhausting not knowing what that degraded brain will puke forth next, but they consistently refuse to call bullshit on Trump.  He demands loyalty in ways that, for instance, Pelosi does not, because he can't stand anyone damaging his fragile little ego.

There are legitimate concerns that making the election about Trump's racism could backfire on Dems.  Calling people racist never, ever works to make them less racist.  The argument of "If you support Trump, you must be racist" is not a winning argument.  Focus on "Trump is a racist, what are you going to do about it?"  Yes, he's been this racist for decades and we knew this in 2016, but refocus the argument on 2020.  "He's racist, what are you going to do about it?"

Ultimately, Trump only has his base.  Republicans will hang with him, because that's who Republicans are.  But he will continue to double and triple down on the things that excite his volkstrum rallies. 

The racism makes its own point.  Democrats will have to find a way to cut through that and find a way to talk about the minimum wage, health insurance and tax equity.  But that's for another day.

He's a racist, what are you going to do about it?

Bullshit All The Way Done

I suffered through this discussion between Ezra Klein and George Will so you don't have to.  Will has been a fairly steadfast Never Trump voice, but like people like Joe Walsh, Bill Kristol or David French, I can recognize that while we are temporary allies, we will never be truly aligned.

Will's argument is so preposterously hide-bound, so divorced from 250 years of history that reading it is like sitting in an airless room.  It's a typical pedant's argument that the Founders are whoever I want them to be.  Take Jefferson, whom Will holds up as a sort of paragon of small government classical liberalism.  If you were to go back to 1800 and grab Jefferson in a time machine, educate him about the intervening 220 years, I have no doubt that Jefferson's basic impulses about human nature would lead him to embrace a more activist government.  Jefferson the philosopher was one guy, but Jefferson the politician was very much practical. He would likely see - as people like Teddy Roosevelt came to see - that wealth replaced government as the primary restrictor of human liberty.  In fact, this is why Jefferson resisted America become an industrial, commercial power.  Jefferson wanted Americans to be "independent" in the sense that they were not dependent on another person.  He wanted them to farm, not be an employee.

Yet, Will wants Jefferson to stand simply for limited government, as if he were frozen in amber in 1789.  Why?  Because Will begins and ends with his suppositions about how government is bad.  He dedicated his book to Barry Fucking Goldwater.  Among his more preposterous claims is that conservatives revel in the confusion and chaos of the market.  In reality, conservatives have always sought to tease the confusion out of the market through consolidation and monopoly.  Again, it's like he's unaware of the country's history since 1820.

So, when we emerge from Trumpistan - whenever that day comes - let us remember that the "conservative movement" is really just about whatever some old white dudes want it to be about in any given moment. 

Will or Trump, it doesn't matter. Shut up plebes/brown people.  Your betters are talking.

More Of This

There's a compelling argument (I don't know if it's right, but it's compelling) that the Reagan Era Democrats who control the Democratic Caucus (Pelosi, Hoyer, Schumer) are too quick to retreat to a reflexive crouch against charges they are too far left.  There's an equally compelling case that the country as a whole might be moving to the left, but those areas that are moving that way  - cities mostly - don't provide a road map to 270 electoral votes, 218 House seats and certainly 60 Senate seats.

A lot of this debate is centered on the recent outrages that Trump and his Deplorables have waged on the citizenship of people of color. (Trump lied, again, and said he wasn't happy with the chants that erupted at his rally.  He certainly seemed fine with it last night.)

Democrats as a whole will need at some point to re-center their message on economic issues.  This will be easier once there is a nominee, but the basic outlines are already there.

The House voting to raise the minimum wage to $15 a hour by 2025 is a great first step in that direction.  Yes, it won't even get a vote in the Senate, but the strategy must be to point out which party is trying to help working Americans and which party is looking out for Wall Street and billionaires.  Tie that into the corruption of the Trump years and you have you campaign message.

Economic populism must rise to meet racial demagogic populism.

There's A Pill For That

John Cole digests the striking report by the WaPo of how parts of the country were flooded with prescription narcotics.  They found that 76 billion pills (billion with a "b") were distributed over a six year period from 2006-12.

The map at the bottom of the post shows the saturation points for the pills.  Cole notes - and I have to agree with him - that we simply addressed poverty by doping up the working poor.  Notice, for instance, how few pills per person were being distributed in Arizona and Florida.  Are you telling me that those aging populations aren't in pain?  Or maybe Medicare took better note of how opiods were being distributed?  Or maybe they just decided to flood Appalachia with mind numbing narcotics in lieu of actually helping those communities?

"The Right Racist At The Right Time"

Interesting discussion as to whether Trump's racism will hurt him in 2020.

Again, I think it hurts him in the suburbs.  It rallies his base a little, but it creates conditions that will force the same dynamics that led to the Blue Wave of 2018.

My larger worry is that we have seen how political loyalties create political positions. This is much less true left of center than on the right, because the left's natural state is internecine fighting. The right tends to fall in behind whomever is leading the party.  At the moment, Fox News is leading the party, so whatever shows up on Tucker Carlson's White Power Hour is what burbles out of Trump's puckered pie hole a day later. 

What is happening, sadly, is that calling Trump a racist - while 100% accurate based on everything he's said and done in his adult life - is creating the knee-jerk defense of him by Republicans.  As a result, racism will now become the default position of the GOP.

A common refrain in the early days of Trumpistan was "This is not who we are."  By 2020, it will be who 40% of the American people are.

Nice Work WaPo

The Post decided to call Trump a white nationalist.  Actually, sadly, they didn't use those exact words, opting for "white identity politics."

The second half of the piece argues that this might be successful for him in 2020.  After all, the argument goes, it worked in 2016.  Certainly, if Democrats track too hard to the left on their own identity politics, it might.  Julian Castro earned raves from the left for advocating for - basically - open borders.  That's a terrible idea.  If Democrats put their economic agenda front and center, it could be a rout, but that might be why Trump has and will continue to launch these racist attacks.  They work to remind a certain subset of voters that Democrats are for a multicultural America and Republicans are for a white nationalist America.

The question is not about the "I'm not a racist, but..." Whites Without College sitting in some fucking diner in the Rust Belt.  The question is about the suburbs.  Yes, talking about economic issues could win back some of those Obama/Trump voters.  Certainly, talking about corruption will persuade them.  But the racism will cut against the GOP in suburban areas among whites with college degrees.

It would be foolish to declare that 2020 is in the bag, but Trump has not grown his share of the electorate ANY since 2016, and he needed Hillary Clinton to make that win happen.  She's not around.

In Defense of Liberalism

Jon Chait has a great interview with Adam Gopnik. Chait has been haranguing against PC culture so long it's become a schtick.  Gopnik does a better job of explaining the radicalism of liberalism.  As Gopnik writes in his book, "Liberals get nothing accomplished except everything eventually." That incrementalism that is a hallmark of political pluralism and liberalism is unappealing, especially to younger radicals who have failed to live through enough history to see that those small incremental changes add up over time.  The needle moves, the ship turns.

Worth a read.

Dear Very Serious Media

We no longer have to ask the question "Is Trump really a racist?"

OK?

OK!?

Sincerely,
America

Ugh

I peaked on Twitter and all it was was a food fight between Democratic leadership and Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff.  Needless to say, the extremely online are furious with Pelosi already for not impeaching Trump, so she's an easy target.  Ironic, really, since for years Pelosi served as the GOP's liberal bugaboo before AOC came along.  Now, the Jacobin crowd sees her as.. centrist?  I dunno, I can't always follow the logic.

I have said and will continue to say that it does not make any sense to impeach Trump before Columbus Day, because the point of the hearings is to drag them into the election cycle, not have them disappear into the politically apathetic's summer vacation.  Until then, Pelosi remains the most adept political infighter in the Democratic caucus.

Didn't We Already Do This?

Ezra Klein lays out the absurdity of the current litigation to overturn the Affordable Care Act.  It is an example of several important aspects of our politics and I suggest you read the whole thing. It's not long.

But it illustrates a few things:

- Republican ideas on health care primarily negative, both in terms of policy and politics.  They have nothing to offer that is positive.
- This remains a political liability for them.
- Joe Lieberman remains a fucking tool.

Scum

The Jeffrey Epstein story has the ability to suck the air out of everything for weeks and months. There's a pretty clear explanation - I think - for what Epstein's modus operandi was.  If you can't access that link, he basically used blackmail to get people to invest in his bullshit hedge fund rather that have them make cash payments.  The blackmail, of course, involved underage girls who existed in a form of modern day slavery.

The thread also suggests that Epstein would have lured in other people for protection.  Certainly the defenses of Epstein by people like Acosta and Dershowitz fits that profile. 

The two biggest fish that might have swum in this fetid pond of scum are the 42nd and 45th Presidents of the United States.  We know that both men consorted with Epstein and went to his parties.  We know that neither man has much control over his sexual appetites.  We know both men prefer younger women.

Also on Twitter, there have been several voices saying, "What will liberals do if Clinton turns out to have been a pedophile?"  The answers from most corners have been something along the lines of "Fire him into the fucking sun."

There have been some interesting pieces about how Kirsten Gillibrand has largely been ignored in this primary season.  It is kind of mystifying.  But I also know that some prominent liberals are still incensed by her leading the charge against Al Franken. 

But watch what happens if Epstein implicates both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.  My guess is that Democrats will abandon Clinton once and for all.  Republicans are obviously in a trickier spot, since Trump is still their president, but I would expect them to be pretty vociferous in their defense of Trump or their concerns about "the process." 

And if you don't think Republicans will defend a pedophile, let me remind you about Roy Moore.

Four Stars

The USWNT put on a bravura performance at the World Cup.  They came in and played with a combination of joy and grit that was really fun to watch.

The issue of how women's soccer is treated is an interesting one and perhaps more complicated than advocates who look at it merely from a US perspective.

A lot of conservatives who are bashing their own national team because Megan Rapinoe is "not going to the fucking White House," note that a U-15 MLS side "beat" the women in a scrimmage.  It was a glorified kick-around, but the idea that any MLS team (MLS is a second tier league, globally) could beat the women's world champions is both true and irrelevant.  I'm pretty sure the reigning men's champions, France, couldn't beat the worst NBA team in basketball.  Basically, mens and womens' soccer are different sports. 

I watched the US men play to a disappointing loss 0-1 against Mexico in the Gold Cup final.  The pace of the game was simply much, much faster than the women's game.  Men's physical speed and power are simply....more.  It isn't a question of skill or technique or heart.  So, the fact that men can beat women isn't an argument.

Instead, the broader argument for paying men and women differently comes from the global differences in the two sports.  Men's soccer is the biggest sport in the world.  In the US, soccer is maybe 4th.  Women's soccer in the US is kind of a big deal at the professional level, and there are women's leagues in Europe.  It's not surprising that the knock-out stage of the Women's World Cup featured the US, Australia, and Canada (nations with strong women's sports), China and Japan that put a lot of work into their women's national teams and eight European teams.  By the quarterfinals, it was the US and seven European teams.

Globally speaking women's soccer simply exists in the shadows of the men's game.

One solution to the unequal pay would be to divorce women's soccer from the international crime consortium known and FIFA.  While this would be of benefit to the USWNT and perhaps some of the European teams, it would crush whatever development we might hope to see in traditional soccer-mad regions like Africa and Latin America that have poor records developing women's athletics of any kind.

USSF should pay the women more.  There's literally no excuse for them not to.  America loves a winner, and the women bring in as much or more revenue (depending on the year) as the men.  But the contract structure for the USWNT works to pay EVERY player on the roster, whereas the men are paid for playing time.  This makes sense, because the men make more in their professional league, because at THAT level, MLS is more popular than the NWSL. So a player like back-up, back-up goalkeeper, Tyler Miller, probably saw next to no money for being on the Gold Cup roster, because he never saw the field.  But he's drawing a decent paycheck from LA.  Whereas a similarly situated player on the women's team, Adrianna Franch, needs the guaranteed paycheck.

The issue with the USWNT and equal pay is one that is fairly unique to the US and the popularity of women's soccer in this country.  It's not an excuse for USSF to short change the women, but it's slightly more complicated than first blush.

Profoundly Unamerican

It's behind the paywall, but Josh Marshall lays out the case why Republicans have now explicitly begun arguing against the idea that the party with the most votes should win the most seats.  There's a quote embedded in the piece:

But as Walker observed, what Democrats call “fair” maps are those that effectively advantage them instead, because of their national popular vote edge. Proportional representation isn’t always necessary, Walker argued, because he feels it gives urban areas too large of an influence over the politics of an entire state.

If lawmakers are going to be in charge of drawing districts, they’re going to reflect partisanship one way or the other, he said.

Here is ambulatory meat-sack Scott Walker basically admitting that gerrymandering is designed to make sure that a party that gets the most votes does not get the most representation.  Marshall acknowledges that this is a reasonably new development. Still, it's basic to the idea of a functional representative government.

I don't know how long Republicans can keep this up, but they have wedded unpopular policies (especially with the young) with undemocratic politics.  If we can break that latter point, we can hopefully fix the former.

The Worst People

Jeffrey Epstein's indictment is long overdue. There is an obvious political angle this story, as some of the men accused of having Epstein procur underaged women are powerful political figures.

Another angle is how there is simply two legal systems in this country. There is no reason why Epstein wasn't in prison for years. But he was rich, he was well-connected, he was walking the streets.

I don't know how we solve this problem, but it's very real.

Interesting But Flawed Argument

Sebastian Junger makes an argument that our politics are largely a product of evolution.  I'm not 100% sure I buy that, though there is some substantial evidence that our politics is shaped by brain chemistry and psychology.  One thing Junger doesn't accommodate in his piece is the new field of epigenetics that suggests that genetics can actually change during one person's lifetime.

The argument that conservatives and liberals have different brains is pretty strong.  Conservatives are profoundly unsettled by change, whereas liberals are either unbothered by it or welcome it.  Conservatives are more fearful than liberals.  This is why conservatism can be "activated" during crises.  I don't think you would find much Islamaphobia in America prior to 9/11.  It was there, but not a widely held position.  Fear of Muslims has become a unifying theme of modern conservatism, to the point where it has included Hispanic immigrants as well.

But the argument that this is wired into our genes is less persuasive. The brain is a remarkably adaptive organ.  It can and does change with new experiences. We get into a causation trap if we look at cities - which are overwhelmingly liberal - or the countryside - which is overwhelmingly conservative.  Are those populations self-sorting? Possibly.  Or is there something about living in the city that makes you more adaptive to ever-changing circumstances?  Is there something about the traditions of rural living that imbues one with greater respect for time honored ways?

Junger also, I think, misses out on the fact that conservatism and liberalism were not as exclusively partisan as they used to be.  He makes the case that people must work together to thrive as a social unit.  The problem is a Reverse Madisonian one.  Madison argued that a large polity could make for a more successful republic, because the multiplicity of interest groups would cancel out the tendency towards a tyranny of the majority.  Yet we are living today under a tyranny of the minority, albeit a large minority.  Because partisanship has become so very powerful, we are now a large enough country where you don't have to interact with your political opposites.  If you live in Oregon, you can sip your kombucha in between yoga sessions in Portland, or practice your marksmanship with your militia buddies an hour away.

Trump Turns Everything To Shit

The failure of Trump's ridiculous Fourth of July spectacle is worth pointing and laughing at, because pointing and laughing is the right approach to take around incompetent crypto-fascists.

But really, isn't this level of incompetence the defining characteristic of Trump's presidency?  The combination of massive rhetorical build-up combined with last minute plans and terrible execution? 

Corruption is how you "get him" in 2020, but the incompetence should be used, too.

Decompressing

Trump is a malignant narcissist.  That's his defining personality trait. His father was a very successful builder who was emotionally distant from him children, but nevertheless funnelled millions of dollars to Donald illegally. Donald's "narcissistic wound" is the gap between his perception of himself - his father's rightful heir - and the secret knowledge that he is NOT a successful builder or businessman.  His quest for celebrity is his single-minded pursuit to erase this contradiction between his perception of himself and the reality of his failed businesses and lost billions.

As a celebrity in NYC, he was able to bully his way past obstacles. He had a phalanx of lawyers and Michael Cohen types who would take care of any obstacles for him.  He's the quintessential spoiled rich shit, for whom braggadocio subs for accomplishment.

Watching this video, how can we not see that Trump is decompressing before our eyes? The juvenile parade today, the fawning for autocrats, the increasingly out of touch tweets...the presidency is not an office in which you can escape the reality of your situation. Reality will force itself into your consciousness. 

Trump could very well become increasingly erratic as the various realities intrude upon his narcissistic self-image.  As defeats pile up and the economy softens, what will happen to the Toddler King? (We also have Pence's unexplained return from NH, which could mean anything.)

Trump lacks the physical stamina, emotional maturity or intellectual acumen to be president, or really even a decent human being.  We could be watching him fall apart over the next few months.

Please No Unforced Errors

Jon Chait is right that Democratic candidates for the presidency need to not take demonstrably bad positions. He uses medical insurance as his example, but Castro's decision to embrace decriminalizing crossing the border is a better example.  He was roundly applauded for this, but it's a terrible, terrible idea.  Crossing into this country without a visa or Green Card is illegal, but it's only a misdemeanor.  That's fine.  The problem is that Trump and his minions treat it as more than a felony.  It's an invasion.  The proper response is to attack Trump for putting kids in cages, not rushing to EXACTLY the sort of position that could lose the election.

Democrats should be running on a fair immigration policy that rewards people who do the right thing, including those who came here illegally in the first place years ago, but have since been model citizens.  We shouldn't demonize those who cross the border, but we shouldn't simply erase the border.

The Twitterverse seems to think this is a good idea. It's not.

The Republican Party went off the rails when it stopped listening to anyone but Fox News.  The racist xenophobia of many Americans kept them competitive, but they are living on borrowed time, as the Boomer exit the stage. If the Democrats become as captive to extreme left wing positions as Republicans have become to extreme right wing positions, we are screwed, not just as a party, but as a nation.

Republican extremism has been hidden by a Democratic president. The last time it was exposed was 2005-2008.  That worked out extremely well for Democrats electorally.  One of the strengths of Obama was how rarely he made unforced errors.  Chait notes that David Roberts says that "death panels" proves that Republicans will lie.  But Obama's basic persona and temperament meant that those attacks never resonated among the public at large.

The left thinks everyone either A) agrees with them or B) would agree with them if properly educated.  That has never been how politics works.

Two Wins Today

Great win by the USWNT over England and over the citizenship question on the Census.

I'm in a good mood, I don't have to work out today and I frankly don't know how to process all this.

Cleaning House

Trump has allowed the hateful and the cruel to fly their true colors. When his reign of error is over, there must be a reckoning.