Democracy v Oligarchy

 There is a clear sense that the mass of voters would prefer different policies than the self inflicted harm of Trump's erratic "policies." The Downballot notes that the historical trends of primary turnout suggest a 13 point advantage for Democrats this fall. Some of that advantage comes from disgust with Trump, which is running quite high. An autocrat unwilling to listen to criticism isn't likely to make popular choices or correct course.

The question really at this point is about money. In the olden times of "normal" politics, industries would lean one way or another in their contributions, because they wanted certain outcomes that aligned with one of the two parties. They would not, however, go all in on one party, because if that party gets locked out of power, then they can get hosed. (You see a similar dynamic with Netanyahu's bear hug of the GOP, which - along with his war crimes - has alienated Democrats to the point where supporting Israel is now a net negative in the Democratic Party.)

The problems that Democrats currently face is that Trump is vindicative prick who uses the powers of his office to punish his foes. If you give to Democrats, you could wind up seeing licenses yanked or meritless prosecutions initiated against you. That is usually reserved for Trump's public antagonists though. If you quietly give to the DNC, I don't think Trump will come after you.

The second issue is more problematic. The combination of Crypto Bros and Tech Lords who have moved decisively behind Trump and who have mountains of cash and a desire to be protected. Interestingly, this is less true of AI companies, who seem to be asking for regulation. Crypto, though, is a fundamentally bullshit industry whose main purpose sure seems to be criminal. The idea that Iran is using crypto to evade sanctions and fund their war industries, while Trump acts to insure no oversight of crypto is just a perfect distillation of the corruption and incompetence of Trump 2.0. 

It seems pretty clear that the broligarchy will spend heavily in behalf of the GOP this October. The question will be whether that makes a dent in the roiling anger of the American electorate.

Wow

 Broadcast news networks are suing Trump over the expulsion of outlets he doesn't like. Sure, yeah.

Five broadcast networks have agreed to suspend pooled coverage of the White House: ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and...

...FOX.

That's going to sting and congratulations to Fox for finally becoming a journalistic outfit, even at the most basic level. 

Russia, Russia, Russia

 Things are looking dicey in the increasingly hot war between Russia and Europe. When Putin invaded Ukraine for the second time in 2022, I did a primer for the school, and I confessed that I couldn't understand what Putin was doing. Invading a sovereign country is not acceptable behavior and Russia was not strong enough to act as a global hegemon. The US and China can possibly survive international condemnation, but Russia is not the Soviet Union. Whatever Putin hoped to achieve would be counterbalanced by the global response.

We are now over four years into Putin's "special military operation" and there are no signs of Putin bending to the geopolitical reality of his situation. Some of this is because of the aid he's received from China, North Korea and Iran, but undoubtably, Putin is banking on having a friend in the White House.

The links between Trump and Putin are similar to so many other Trump scandals. It's all out there in the open, like Don Junior having his wedding parties paid for by a Putin-aligned oligarch. The brazenness of it - and the pure volume of shit like this - make it hard to really generate public outrage over the naked corruption and the aligned agendas of Trump and Putin. 

That's the situation today, with Trump both mired in his dumbass war with Iran and naturally sympathetic to Vladimir Fucking Putin. 

Now, for whatever reason, Putin sure looks like he's threatening war with NATO. Trying to figure out what he's thinking is difficult. First of all, he's largely losing in Ukraine. While there's a decent argument that the Ukrainian Army is the best in Europe at the moment, it's still relatively small compared to the rest of Europe. Why would Putin add to the forces arrayed against him? Even without the US support, NATO would seem primed to add to the defeats that the Russian military is currently experiencing.

The other reason that this is mystifying is that Putin's real successes have come in the grey spaces of informational warfare. He's boosted right wing parties and candidates from Trump to Brexit to Marine Le Pen to Alternative for Deutschland. He actively worked to help Trump get elected in 2016 (and we have to assume did so again in 2024), and that is his greatest strategic victory ever. Trump has done more to degrade Russia's (and China's) most powerful geopolitical rival than any other measure Russia could have taken.

Why attack Europe if you will cut the legs out of that effort within Europe? Especially given the weakened state of your armed forces?

I suppose he could think that an attack on the Baltic States could fracture NATO, but I don't think it will - with the exception of the United States. Then again, there are still enough "national security Republicans" left to be a bulwark against that - not to mention how Trump's capitulation to Putin would play in the midterms. I suppose he could look at the coming midterm and think he's squeezed everything he can out of Trump, but again, why would throw away his greatest achievement to expand a war that he's already losing?

Attacking the Baltic States in order to link up to Kaliningrad and "restore" the old Soviet borders would seem deeply flawed strategic thinking, but so was invading Ukraine - or attacking Iran. He could blunder into World War III because he fundamentally doesn't understand that state of play right now, and by "he" I mean both Putin and Trump. 

The Miser of The Attention Economy

 This John Dickerson piece examines how Trump has dominated the attention economy since he came on the scene. He does it by trolling and blustering and shattered norms - norms, by the way, that were really pretty solid. You really shouldn't shit on a Gold Star family. You really shouldn't say we are no better than Russia (though that is now accurate in some ways). Trump's political power stems from his utter shamelessness to say and do things that no other occupant of the White House would dream of.

Ultimately, the question will become "Can someone else harness that power of shameless attention-grabbing behavior?"

I think the answer is most likely no. 

The first and most obvious reason is that people are largely sick of Trump's shit. One of the appeals of Joe Biden was his basic decency. I do think that a fundamentally decent candidate will have a lot of appeal in 2028. I do not think the GOP will be able to nominate someone like that, because increasingly, Trump creates the reality within the GOP electorate. Sure, some Republicans are creating distance, like I noted yesterday, but that distance isn't from Trump, but rather the "bad boyars."

So, I think some preening jackass like Ron DeSantis or some other creature will emerge from the Republican side. In fact, if I were an ambitious but relatively decent Republican, I would sit 2028 out. If this backlash grows, Republicans will be toxic by 2028. On the Democratic side, I think the aggressiveness of a Gavin Newsome will not be as appealing as the sort of earnest decency of a Jon Ossoff or a Pete Buttigieg. 

Meanwhile, Trump - I believe - is finding himself starved of attention and adulation. That's why he wants to make the midterms about himself and have rallies. It's also why he's banning news organizations from the White House Press pool. Frankly, the only proper response from every legitimate news outlet is to boycott the White House pool. Trump is "making headlines" by banning CNN, but if the Times and Post and Journal and ABC and NBC all boycott his press briefings, then it will be HIM who is starved of oxygen.

The press has been abysmal during the Trump years - as a broad institution. They insist on analyzing his vomitous utterances as policy or as coherent statements of presidential intent. This guy is incapable of being forthright and honest, but the press treats him as if he were a normal politician who bends the truth and occasionally bends it too far. That's...incompetent.

So, they should just boycott the lie-filled hatefest from the briefing room. They can cover what is being said but what does their presence there add? If they ask a legitimate probing question, they will be lied to and called names. Why are they there? Nothing of value comes from their presence.

Instead, they should strike back by denying Trump the one thing he truly craves and which they conspire to give him: attention.

The proper way to deal with a misbehaving toddler is to place them in time-out. They want attention, even negative attention, so you deny it to redirect their behavior. 

Toddler-in-chief Trump needs a time out. 

Breaking Ranks?

 Richardson notes how many Republicans are starting to break with MAGA. She doesn't front this point, but this is a variation of the the "scheming vizier" or "bad boyars, good tsar" idea. This is a meme, really, from centuries ago, where anything good that happens is because of dear leader, but anything bad is because of the advisers around him. 

The Republicans who are endorsing Democrats aren't breaking with Trump. They are breaking with some policies - like mass, indiscriminate deportations or the Iran war - that poll poorly, and blame them on misguided advisers. They realize that they cannot attack Trump directly, or they will lose their office like Thomas Massie and others who have stood up to Trump. "Gosh, whomever decided that we needed to wage trade wars sure was misguided, and Trump should stop them from advising him anymore." This is so self-evidently stupid, I don't know what to say.

The thing is, Trump isn't exactly on the ballot. The embattled GOP reps who are trying to distance themselves from Trump's catastrophic reign of error are having to tie themselves in knots. I do wonder if anyone will buy it. MAGA will be pissed for calling out the obvious racism and misogyny in their ranks, but I don't know if doing that will win the dissenters any votes.

Still, 35% approval is too high for these vicious clowns.

How Big Is The Wave?

 There is emerging understanding that - even with the gerrymandering - the Democrats seem in great shape to take the House and maybe the Senate. Morris looks at how the big prognosticators tend to skew against the "out party" in the midterms. Basically, if you're the party out of power, the big raters like Cook and Sabato tend to underestimate the gains that you're going to make. In his analysis, "Toss Ups" aren't really toss ups at all, but lean to the out party by a lot. This could be important - if it holds - if these raters move more races into the toss-up category.

The other thing that seems to be happening is that Democrats tend to better when their actual candidates are polled as opposed to the generic ballot. Some of this is enthusiasm, but I think it also represents the fact that "Democrats" are an unpopular party, whose unpopularity is only exceeded (by a lot) by the Republicans. So, you have a lot of people saying that they don't necessarily support Democrats, that doesn't mean that they won't vote for Talarico. Democrats in red states are not a strong "brand" but individual candidates like Mary Peltola matter.

I don't want to suck on the hopium pipe like I did two years ago. Still, you have a rising confluence of events and a president who is weaker than he seems and historically unpopular. 

UPDATE: Martin Longman takes a victory lap on this.

Proroguing The House

 Thomas Massie (Gadfly-KY) introduced articles of impeachment against Pete Hegseth. There is no rational reason why anyone would support this colossal failure's continued tenure in the War Defense Department. Mike Johnson would have been forced to have a vote on those articles, because they are "privileged." 

Instead, he sent the House home until after the election.

Of course, the Republican Caucus itself is in a state of apparent open civil war. Johnson was likely faced with internecine fights and ugly roll call defeats and on and on. Republican House members can read the polls; they have to be looking for an exit.

What is interesting is that there was an avenue for the GOP to put the squeeze on Democrats. They could have arranged a bunch of show votes on things like "Give every American a puppy" or "castrate child rapists (who aren't in the GOP)" or "repeal all taxes because affordability." 

Instead, they have to go home and "face" a furious electorate and explain why A) they deserve another two years in office and B) why they haven't even worked during the last two years.

Tantrums

 If there is a theme to Richardson this morning, it is the extraordinary tantrums that Donald Trump (and by extension, Mike Johnson) are throwing daily. Trump's idiocy has come face to face with reality and the feedback he is getting is bad. Sycophantic minions like Natalie Harp have cocooned him from reality for a while, but feedback on the Kennedy Center, interest rates and the Iran War have forced him to confront his own putrid record.

Mike Johnson basically prorogued the House rather than let Thomas Massie's articles of impeachment against Pete Hegseth come to a vote. That means that they would certainly pass. What's interesting is whether it would have acquired the 67 votes in the Senate. If you were a vulnerable Senator running for reelection, why wouldn't you create some distance between you and the toxic war that is sending gas prices spiraling. 

So, yeah, all Trump is offering is the whining, petulant cries of a toddler who has been told, no.

The Saga Of Bo French

 Bo French is a Texas Republican. He once seemed to model himself on George Bush's "compassionate conservatism." Now, he's a Trump-style racist and xenophobe. 

Here's the question that is going to be really important to the immediate future of this country: Was French always this racist? Or did Trump show him that being really racist could win you elections?

It sure seems like the Texas GOP has taken Trump's racism as a roadmap. Adam Serwer famously said that not all Trumpists were racists, but that racism wasn't a dealbreaker. French and many in the Texas GOP seem to think that, no, we are racists and we need to front that message.

The position French is running for is...whatever. However, a complete rejection of Asian immigrants or second and third generation Asian-Americans is going to be litmus test for the future of the GOP. If he wins...there's no penalty on the Right for this vile hatred. If he loses, maybe there's hope for the country yet. 

Russia, Russia, Russia

 One of Trump's uncountable lies is that the Mueller Report exonerated him. Mueller found widespread efforts by Russia to influence the 2016 election and that Trump and others around him tried to obstruct the investigation. Russia wanted Trump in the White House, and though no one appears to have directly coordinated with Russia, they welcomed the help. I would hardly be shocked if Paul Manafort coordinated with Moscow, but they couldn't find the evidence of that.

Yesterday brought the totally unsurprising report that a Russian oligarch close to Putin threw lavish parties for Donald Trump, Jr. at his recent wedding. It was Don Junior who famously said years before Trump polluted our civic life that Russian lenders kept Trump afloat when credible banks stopped loaning to them. Meanwhile, Trump's son-in-law - who for some reason has been given responsibility to resolve the Ukraine war - says that all that's need for peace between Ukraine and Russia is for Ukraine to accept defeat and cede territory to Russia.

Oh, and Trump is blaming high oil prices on Ukrainian strikes at Russian refineries, not his ill conceived war against Iran. 

The crazy thing is, we know that Trump is Putin's puppet. The evidence of his treachery is simply overwhelming. Yet - as with so many Trump scandals - we come up against two barriers. The first is obviously that his cult will never abandon him. The second is that the sheer brazenness of his outright perfidy sort of boggles the mind. It's so obvious and so substantial that it's hard for normal people to get their heads around it.

Interesting

 Apparently the attacks that were launched by Iran in early July were launched by a hardline faction within state security without the approval or even knowledge of the president. 

Iran's current president is not, I think, a crazed ideologue. Iran IS suffering in this war, even if it's not exactly going great for the US. I am deeply, deeply concerned about Houthis trying to shut off the Bab al Mandeb; global oil production and refining capacity is in the shitter; inflation is going to get worse.

Iran, however, is really suffering, but if the hardline faction are in charge, then they simply don't want peace. They don't care if the Iranian people suffer immensely; this war is what they want.

Also, the Supreme Leader hasn't been seen since the war began and his father was killed. Rumor has it that he's badly disfigured, if he's even alive. This, too, gives the hardliners leeway to do whatever they want, as the only figure with the authority to stop them is either dead, incapacitated or unable to fully exercise his office.

This is a well sourced story from within the Iranian government, so they want the word out. The US isn't winning this war, but we shouldn't assume Iran is winning it either.

You Can't Spell "Hair on Fire" Without AI

 Lots of people talking about AI today. Yglesias, Krugman and Richardson all talk about the groundswell of voices within the AI companies themselves - even among the top leaders - for some form of regulatory oversight. The problem is that each company pursuing AI doesn't want to "lose" to their competitors. So each company rushes headlong towards faster and faster development and more and more powerful models. 

When people like Jacob Coxon quit and go public with their concerns, it creates a moment when everyone takes a deep breath and looks around and ponders is maybe it's time to take a step back. The problem is that no single company wants to be the one to give up progress to a more heedless rival. Even these techbros are asking for a regulatory framework. 

Back when the Food and Drug Administration and food inspections were created, lots of the bigger meat packers were supportive of it, because smaller operators were selling tainted meat and making everyone skeptical of processed meat. Same dynamic today. The main AI companies want an international regulatory framework to make sure AI doesn't get out of control.

As an aside, I don't think AI will "wipe out humanity." I heard a helpful distinction. AI is unlikely to produce an extinction event, but it will very likely create a catastrophic event. If a rogue AI took over air traffic control, hundreds of planes could crash, thousands would die and the global economy would take a Covid-level body blow. That would be really bad, but not the end of humanity. Just please keep fucking Grok away from the nuclear weapons.

This is a moment, though, where Trump's malevolent ignorance becomes potentially lethal on a large scale. His contempt for anything he didn't think of, his avarice to make a quick buck off AI stocks, his antipathy towards sharing power with other institutions means that Trump will actively thwart the steps that AI companies themselves want the government to take. 

I remain amazed that he has a 37% approval rating. Seems high.

UPDATE: The last of my essential writers, Josh Marshall, weighs in. He looks at how digital companies have largely avoided paying the negative externalities that come with their products. An AI "event" could crash everything. 

Armageddon

 HCR summarizes Michael Luttig's argument that the GOP will simply try to end American democracy rather than let a Democratic Congress be seated. It's important to realize that the GOP will need near unanimity in both Houses to pull this off. It's not a question of Trump just leaning on Mike Johnson - he will need to have the complete House GOP caucus behind him.

The language used at last week's Snooze-apalooza where Trump got his fragile ego coddled was certainly alarming. However, it really is the case where he says a bunch of shit, and you can't tell if he's planning January 6th or threatening to invade Greenland. He's insane, and his public ramblings are most likely quite different from what the mass of Republicans are prepared to execute in his name. 

When it comes to things like Luttig's dooming, I am also of two minds. We probably should be bulletproofing everything we can for not just November, but January, when the new Congress will be seated. On the other hand, I really don't like the idea of doom being in the background of people's minds when it comes to exercising their franchise.

I know, for instance, that I've been very reluctant to contribute to Democrats, because I'm sick to fucking death of the apocalyptic text messages. More than happy to give what I can, when I can. But STOP FUCKING TEXTING ME ABOUT HOW EVERYTHING IS GOING TO SHIT UNLESS I PITCH IN $20, $50 or $100 TODAY.

Someone needs to sit down with Johnson and a host of these other Weak Creatures and lay out an alternative. If Trump tries to stop this election from occurring or from being certified, then we need to talk about secession. The Northeast and Pacific Coasts can break off and - in an ironic twist - join Canada.

UPDATE: Martin Longman points out that Trump is doing everything he can to antagonize voters. Pundits will seek the deeper strategy that Trump is pursuing, but I think he's just big mad and angry at the voters and telling them to fuck off. There's no one around him capable of telling him just how poor his instincts are. 

The Legacy of 9/11

 I'm usually a fan of Paul Campos, but this discussion between him and Robert Farley feel way wide of the mark. Their argument is that 9/11 really didn't have a cultural impact on par with the Kennedy Assassination. The assassination certainly did exert of vise grip on the imaginations of Boomers, to the point where Trump routinely flatulates some nonsense about releasing the files. Certainly, the Kennedy assassination birthed many conspiracy theories.

However, the argument that 9/11 had a greater political and policy impact on the US is undeniable. Kennedy's death did not lead to Vietnam - sorry, Oliver Stone, that's bullshit. What it did do was unleash America's longest war and perhaps its most pointless defeat. I'm willing to argue that Vietnam was the price for winning the Cold War. It was a terrible mistake, but it was a mistake borne of a policy - containment - that won the conflict. Iraq was just completely bullshit from the start. So, if we are analyzing the cultural impact of 9/11, we have to look at the two wars (three if you want to include the GWOT) that arose from it.

Yes, the Vietnam War spawned a ton of films, but so did the cycle of wars after 9/11. What's more, a lot of tangential media like the Jason Bourne movies seem directly related to the period of fear and anxiety that came after the attacks. If anything, I think Farley and Campos are simply confusing the media that they consumed as young people with the media landscape today.

What I also think that they get wrong is not seeing how 9/11 in many ways led to Trump. There's the obvious xenophobia, sure. There's the obvious Islamophobia, sure. However, Trump's primary message was one of American decline or American Carnage. In his telling, 9/11 happened because America was "weak" (in fact, it happened because America was strong). The "forever wars" were bad not because we shouldn't have fought them, but because we weren't ruthless enough. America was a feeble nation that lost to Iraqi and Afghan insurgents. 

That message was married not only to 9/11 and it's impact, but also the 2008 financial crisis, but I don't think Trump win in 2016 without tapping into the sense that America was a declining nation. Clinton represented the status quo and he was the wrecking ball.

That latter part was true, I guess. 

UPDATE: Chait documents the link between 9/11 and Trump.

The Stay-At-Home Voter

 Elliott Morris has been running polls that show something that makes visceral sense. Trump was returned to power in 2024 by low information voters who were broadly unhappy with the state of the economy (and were likely unhappy with a liberal Californian woman of color, but that's my own slant). Those low information voters - Paul Campos calls them Ariana Grande Voters - felt that Trump could magically return us to the economy of 2019. The fact that this was always utter bullshit ties into the fact that these are low information and low engagement voters. I would wager very few of them understood the inflationary pressures that tariffs and deportations would create. 

The Trump-apalooza random rally in Dallas the last two days was designed to motivate those low information voters to get out and vote. I would guess that Republicans are seeing polling that shows the shape of the electorate moving against them. Democrats and unhappy Independents are going to vote; they are extremely motivated. Whereas they are likely seeing that some of their 2024 voters aren't planning to vote.

What Morris is saying is that getting those people to the polls - by centering Trump of all people - is likely to backfire. I certainly hope that's true. I would love it if the GOP did a robust Get Out The Vote effort that wound up turning out voters who vote for Democrats and Independents. 

Still, I really do think that a large factor in the November election will be voters who voted Republican in the last few cycles, but feel (justifiably) betrayed and decide to skip the election entirely. I think that's what the GOP is seeing and why they gambled on using Trump to rally their support. Vulnerable people running for actual office have shunned the event in Texas. Unsurprisingly. Only Trump seems not to understand how unpopular he is.