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.