Unskewing Polls

 There has been some effort to quash Democratic enthusiasm for a solid set of midterm elections by noting that the polls were really wrong in 2020 and 2016. Josh Marshall collects the arguments here.

As Marshall notes, the pundits urging caution tend to leave out 2018, which was a very good year for Democrats in congressional races. Some pundits note that 2018 was slightly overstated for Democrats in polls, too.

Maybe.

To me, it's pretty clear that pollsters cannot find or measure a segment of Trump voters. In 2018, Trump wasn't on the ballot, so Democrats performed much closer to the polling numbers, because Trump wasn't on the ballot.

It remains to be seen whether the GOP can motivate the Trump Coalition to get back to the polls, when the news surrounding Trump is terrible, the GOP have terrible candidates and then there's Dobbs. And the thing about Dobbs is that we can actively measure various special elections since the decision was reached and Democratic strength has been understated. Then you have the GOP seemingly intent on scoring own goals.

Certainly, yes, you should be skeptical of polls. But there has been real, measurable movement recently, too.

Get out to vote, people.

Rumors In War

 There is a rumor - and it should be made clear that it's only a rumor - that Russia is not sending reinforcements to its collapsing front in northeastern Ukraine. Some of this may be a fact that Russia has significant manpower issues. They are prioritizing stabilizing things where they can, and that list is pretty short.

There might also be a sense among Russian military command that this is a lost cause, and they don't want to throw what's left of their battered army into a losing cause. It could also be that Ukraine really HAS killed or captured significant number of Russians and there are simply no more troops to send.

Finally, it seems that even Ukraine has been surprised at the complete collapse of Russian forces. They may be primed for another assault towards Mariupol, but their successes have put that on the backburner for now. But Russia might be holding what few troops they have in reserve for prong three of the Ukrainian counteroffensive.

In 1950, when North Korean forces collapsed after Inchon, Stalin was said to be resigned to a US/UN/ROK victory. "Fine, let the Americans be our neighbors." Then Mao stepped in and altered the trajectory of the war, but Russia is - in George Kennan's word "opportunistic" in its foreign policy. They push and if the world pushes back, they will retreat. If that remains true for Putin, we could see a complete collapse of Russian forces into pre-February boundaries. 

I doubt Ukraine stops there.

What's Happening?

 Last night on Twitter, there were pictures of Donald Trump arriving in DC wearing golf clothes. Now, it's Twitter. There are no corroborating reports in vetted news media, except for the Daily Beast, which...ya know.

The idea that Donald Trump flew to DC to testify before a grand jury or perhaps even be indicted is just so juicy, it's amazing no other media outlet is filing a story on it. Reckless speculation surrounding this C-list mobster who became president is SOP for the media, so why are they being quiet now?

Or maybe Trump is just there to play golf. Who the hell knows?

Authoritarianism Is Flawed

 While it is unclear what the Ukrainian War will look like in a month, it is abundantly clear that the terms of engagement have shifted. The early month of the war was about Russian initiative, then Ukrainian resistance and Russian withdrawal, followed by stalemate. We have now entered a potentially critical period as Russian troops are apparently abandoning both their positions and their equipment in a mad dash for safety. Offensive operations are more difficult than defensive ones and it remains to be seen how far Ukraine can exploit their amazing successes of the past week.

All of this once again returns the conversation to Vladimir Putin, a uniquely bad actor in the world today. Russia's inherent weakness was compensated for by screwing around in Brexit, the 2016 presidential election and less successfully in Catalan. It has supported the sort of Far Right authoritarianism we see in Brazil and Hungary and to a lesser extent in places like Poland and the United States.

Theda Skocpol has a thesis about revolutions: they occur when a country has been humiliated internationally. We are already seeing challenges from Putin's Right in response to the collapse near Kharkiv. Central Moscow was shutdown, presumably to ward of protests. 

If you cast your gaze back to the late '90s, Putin was considered an acceptable Russian leader because he wasn't Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Zhirinovsky was an outright fascist, Putin is simply an opportunistic kleptocratic strong man. 

A wounded Putin has always been a scary thing, as he does command nuclear weapons. If forces further to the Right seize power...yikes.

All of this, though, demonstrates that authoritarian regimes are fundamentally flawed because they lack transparency and flexibility. What we are seeing from Ukrainian forces - initiative, adaptation, creativity - is a hallmark of Western, democratic militaries. Russia is hobbled by endemic corruption (as Ukraine was under it's pro-Moscow regime) and can't muster the flexibility needed to respond to crises.

America has been through a shitstorm the last six years. However, America IS able to adapt and change. It is also - slowly - showing that it can hold corrupt figures accountable.

As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried from time to time."

This Is Wonderful

 I and every other armchair, online general knew that Ukraine would launch a counteroffensive around Kherson in south-central Ukraine. About ten days ago, it appeared that this counteroffensive had started, and was going well, if slowly. There were real questions about whether Ukraine had the armor and manpower to exploit holes in the Russian lines.

It looks like it was a feint.

Ukraine has, in fact, launched its more meaningful counterattack in the northeast area east of Kharkiv. They nearly encircled a large number of Russian troops who had to withdraw from Izium, which itself had been a major focus of the Russian offensive in the spring and early summer.

While Ukrainian forces have made meaningful gains around Kherson, the collapse of Russian resistance in the northeast is amazing. Because "everyone knew" that Ukraine was shaping the battlefield around Kherson, Russia must've denuded its frontlines near Kharkiv to reinforce its southwest flank.  

One the worst/best things about the internet is how everyone is an expert after reading a few Wikipedia pages. What we are seeing here is a reminder that the hot-take industrial complex is just so much digital hot air. Back in February, "everyone knew" that Ukraine would fall to the Russian army and perhaps they would be able to launch a guerilla warfare campaign that might oust the invaders after several years of fighting. Instead, we got tremendous moral leadership from someone no one expected it from (Zelenskyy) and remarkable tactical and strategic leadership throughout a Ukrainian armed forces that had clearly learned a great deal since Russia invaded in 2014.

It seemed apparent to me that if Russia lost, it would lose slowly then very quickly. That's what looks to be happening now.

But then again...what do I know?

Bidenomics

 Yglesias actually interviews someone important, Janet Yellin, who has some interesting things to say about Biden's economic policy.

What's interesting about Yellin's frame of "modern supply side" economics is how it acknowledges that the supply side of the equation is important, but also that the "invisible hand" is just very clumsy. 

The long running falsehood that markets are always efficient has underpinned some really bad and damaging policy choices, especially among Republicans who tend to believe it as an article of faith. It's tempting for someone like Yglesias and others to blame skyrocketing housing costs on public policy (NIMBY) but in many ways, all that's happening is the market is making places like San Francisco and NYC exorbitantly expensive. It's not that policy created this dynamic, but rather that it didn't shape it better.

Every Accusation Is A Confession, Part 873,009

 According to long time Republican lawyer, Geoffrey Berman, Trump and the Trump White House pushed DOJ prosecutors to bring political cases and protect Trump's interests. You can read the Times' write up, but they pressed a BS prosecution of Obama's White House Counsel, Greg Craig, they tried to get Michael Cohen's case dismissed and wanted a prosecution of John Kerry.

Politicizing the DOJ is bad. Really bad. This is why Biden and Garland's DOJ has moved very, very slowly in their investigations against Trump. It is why they will only bring charges when they have a slam dunk case. 

Tellingly, it is also why Trumpist mouthpieces on social media are claiming that Biden is using the DOJ as a partisan tool. 

It's exactly what they did and what they will do again if they have a chance.

Democratic Accountability

 This bit about Ron Johnson is interesting. The idea of democracy is that if you pick an unpopular position, you will be punished by voters for doing so. This - and not Democrats being mean - is why Mitt Romney lost in 2012. He stood by Paul Ryan's cruel austerity program while people were still digging out from 2008.

Johnson was open to codifying Obergfell in the wake of Dobbs. Now, he's retreated. Why? Because he fears his base more than the general electorate. Now, Ron Johnson is a deeply stupid man and may be misreading the room on this one. 

More concerning is how gerrymandering at the House level makes this dynamic worse. Odious morons like Louie Goehmert, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Traitor Green and Gym Jordan are simply not held accountable for taking awful positions, because all they have to do is win their primary and they win their seat. (I have some hope Boebert gets bounced this November.)

This isn't how it's supposed to work.

A Parlor Game For Treason Time

 The WaPo has a... well, it would've been a bombshell before Trump waddled on to the public stage. Basically, the lede is this:

A document describing a foreign government’s military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities, was found by FBI agents who searched former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and private club last month, according to people familiar with the matter, underscoring concerns among U.S. intelligence officials about classified material stashed in the Florida property.

Hey, that's not good.

Josh Marshall thinks it's a "friendly" country, since we would have the most insight into their defenses. If it is, the odds are that it's Israel, and it wouldn't shock me if that intelligence found its way into Saudi hands. The problem with that theory is that Trump and Jared actually did bring some reconciliation between Israel and various Gulf States. Selling Israel out doesn't feel like Trump's MO, simply because he had a pretty good relationship with Israeli leadership.

One especially bonkers theory is that it is intelligence on France, because Trump hated Macron, because Melania smiled at him.

In my mind, the nuclear and defense secrets are almost certainly Russian or Chinese. Understanding their defense capabilities is obviously the first priority of US intelligence. So this would appease Trump's raging narcissism to have the "really good stuff" in his personal possession. This shows how powerful and "in charge" he is, because, "Look Mar A Lago Hanger-on, I have intel on Russia/China." None of his cronies and lickspittles are going to care about France's nuclear posture or defenses.

If he was monetizing the secrets, then Russia makes the most sense, as Russia would be keenly interested in what we know about their defenses. This could go back to whatever leverage Putin has on Trump, as well. If it was just about appearing powerful and plugged in, then China would make sense, since he cast them as the "villain" after Covid struck.

Ultimately, if the documents were there to feed his narcissism, then it would make sense that he would keep our most classified assessments of our two greatest geopolitical rivals.

Special Master

 Everything I'm hearing from legal sources that I trust has this to say about the appointment of a Special Master in the seizure of classified documents:

- It is, at best, just a delay in proceedings
- It is a terrible decision unbound by precedent or common sense.
- It is an example of how corrupted the judiciary is becoming.

Special Masters are supposed to be neutral lawyers who assess whether evidence is covered by attorney-client privilege. None of the documents fall under attorney-client privilege. The judge seems to suggest that the Special Master assess whether the documents are covered by Executive Privilege, except Trump does not get to claim Executive Privilege as a former president. 

Ultimately, the most important decision in the short term is WHO gets appointed Special Master. If it's another Trumpist legal figure, we will have a true case of corruption on our hands. If it's an impartial legal figure, frankly the matter should be resolved in a few days, because it's all bullshit.

The precedent that this could establish would wreck criminal law and/or establish that ex-presidents are above the law.  Awful as an idea, hopefully just a nuisance in practice.

Grifters Only Party

 This little blurb about (are you kidding me?) Tudor Dixon, the GOP candidate for governor of Michigan, is revealing and typical. We can also trace this to the unbelievable (yet believable) behavior of Rick Scott as chair of the RSCC. 

As the Republican Party enters the midterms hoping to capitalize on public unrest about inflation and perhaps crime, they have been hamstrung by Trump's preference for sycophants and toadies who suck up to the Big Lie. The thing is, Trump's influence goes deeper than demanding fealty to his lies about losing the election. It has to do with the basics of Trumpism.

I've been reticent to call Trumpism "fascism" in its purest form. To me, Trumpism resembles the patrimonial authoritarianism we see in Putin's Russia and parts of post-colonial Africa. A "Big Man" figure who appeals to populist feelings to national grievance and then loots the state of money - usually money derived from resources, but not in Trump's case - and tramples civil rights and liberties. It is usually linked to a form of religious conservatism that amplifies the attacks on rights and liberties. 

In other words, Trumpism is a political movement to loot the state for the benefit of a cadre of supporters close to the Big Man. 

Which leads us back to Dixon and Scott - and frankly I would be surprised if they were the only ones. 

There has always been a level of self-dealing in modern politics - the hiring of firms to run your campaigns that likely kickback a little cash or hire family members to do work. The thing is, a reputation for doing that used to be political suicide. Just like nakedly racist and sexist remarks used to be political suicide. Trump's corruption was so brazen, so obvious - and so obviously unpunished - that the restraints on naked corruption were removed, just as the restraints on naked racist and sexist comments was removed.

Modern Republican politicians are in it for the grift. 

Here are two pieces of supporting evidence. The first is that - having "won" the abortion fight with Dobbs - Republican candidates are trying to soften their previously held stances on abortion, because there is a clear backlash coming. Meanwhile, they will not soften, at all, their firmly held beliefs about regressive tax cuts. In other words, they will fight for abortion just as long as it is politically expedient to rile up the Talibangelicals, but they will only really go to the mattresses for tax cuts that enrich them and their friends and funders. It's money, not culture war shit that they care about. Because it's always about money.

The second is their absolute fealty to Trump, because Trump is the wellspring of the grift. Rather than call Trump out for his horrid behavior and myriad crimes, they have to stick with him, because he is the source of their money. This is why they didn't issue a party platform in 2020, because the grift is the platform. 

There are two hilarious outcomes to this. The first is that you have people like Scott and candidates up and down the ballot who are "raising money" but that money isn't going in to necessary campaign activities.  The second is that Trump is outraising all of them, and he's not spending that money to elect Republican candidates (for any number of reasons, but his inherent greed has to top the list).

Of course, from the point of view of the grift, losing in November isn't necessarily a downside. In fact, let's say Democrats hold the House and get to 54 Senate seats. Democrats repeal the filibuster, pass Voting Rights legislation, codify Roe, restructure entities like the EPA to better fight Climate Change, pass common sense criminal justice reform, immigration reform and gun control measures.

All of that would be a fundraising boon to the grifters. They are milking their marks outrage for money, and being in the perpetual minority would actually work just fine. 

So here's to hoping that all sides are happy in November. 

UPDATE: Anne Laurie highlights how even some of the big money donors are drying up.

Institutional Racism

 The phrase "institutional racism" draws snide looks and smirks from the Trumpist Right, but if you want a clear picture of what it looks like, look at Jackson, Mississippi.

Bothsides

 Biden's speech was not nearly as divisive as Republicans are caterwauling about it. It outlined clearly a set of values that - until recently - were so boringly anodyne and cliched that no one would really challenge them. He then - correctly - pointed out that "MAGA Republicans" have abandoned fealty to those basic American principles. Focusing on Trump, he obviously launched an attack on the Capitol and tried to suborn electoral fraud in Georgia, Arizona and elsewhere. 

Headlines like this do not help at all. It suggests that "both side" have "differing views." The actual article eventually points out that the canon of Trumpism is false. His claims of electoral fraud are false, he actively fomented violence and the Republican Party has toed the line about 2020 that he has demanded. 

But it's buried deep in the article. People react to headlines and images, not the part of the article inside the fold. Social media, though, has prioritized an information economy that runs on "clicks" and controversy rather than trying to enlighten people. 

Plus, legacy media practices are designed to be scrupulously fair and impartial. Trump has exposed the fundamental bankruptcy of that approach when dealing with a dangerous, corrupt demagogue. There is no "impartial" way to cover Trump. Yes, it is unprecedented for the FBI to execute a search warrant on a former president. Yes, it is unprecedented for there to be multiple on-going investigations of corrupt practices by a former president. But Trump is criminally corrupt. Outlets like the NY Times and now CNN are ill-equipped to handle someone like Trump.

Interestingly, the article does note that this new rhetorical tack is coming from strategists who have studied the language and people's attitudes. Hopefully, they've done their job well. The article notes - correctly, as far as it goes - that the "Left" and "Right" see reality in fundamentally different ways. Anyone to Joe Manchin's left believes that free and fair elections are central to American politics. Trumpists believe that only when Republicans win, can those elections have been free and fair. 

How the fuck to you bothsides that?

Hit Dogs Hollering

 Biden's speech the other night was - on substance - fairly anodyne. Conceding electoral losses is a function of democratic competition. Political violence designed to overturn those elections is un-American. He specifically calls out people like Lindsay Graham who were predicting violence if Trump was indicted.

A certain segment of Republican Twitter freaked out so hard that you could smell the flopsweat through the internet. They basically accused Biden of dividing the country by pointing out how Trump had divided the country. Biden very clearly divided the Republican Party between the "mainstream" and "MAGA" Republicans. He very clearly intended to force the GOP to reckon with their fealty to Trump in the wake of January 6th and the recent seizure of classified documents at Mar A Lago.

Legitimate criticism has been raised about the awful lighting scheme behind him. Less legitimately, I think, but still somewhat valid, about having Marines standing in the background.

Almost none of them will engage with the text of the speech as actually written. Biden wants America to truly reckon with what supporting Trump means in 2022. Whatever excuses one might make in 2016 for voting for him then, those evaporate in face of six years of brazen criminality, two impeachments. a failed autogolpe and finally the dreadful behavior surrounding reams of classified documents.

My guess - or perhaps my hope - is that the Biden team has another smoking gun, specifically around those documents. He has dared the MAGA crowd to tether themselves even closer to Trump before revealing exactly who he gave some of those documents to. If - say - Trump gave Saudi Arabia nuclear secrets, and the CIA/NSA/FBI have the receipts on that, then this speech is a masterpiece of political strategy. If Biden thinks that the existing evidence is enough to finally cause Republicans to break with the worst person to ever hold the presidency, I fear he may have overestimated where many Americans are.

Of course, in no way does that mean the text of that speech was wrong.  Still could've done without the glaring red lighting.

Alaska

 The results of the special election in Alaska should not mean much in predicting the midterms, except for two issues.

The first is the relative quality of the candidates. Mary Peltola is a remarkable woman with deep connections and a resonant message for Alaskans. Sarah Palin is the Ur-Trump: an ignorant culture warrior and reality TV star. The fact is that there are a lot of mini-Trumps running and a lot of people like Elise Stefanik who have tied themselves tightly to him. 

The second is yet again the salience of Dobbs. Peltola did not run exclusively on abortion rights, but the contrast was clear.

Reading the Twitter feeds of Republicans and GOP organization, there is a sort of culture war flopsweat going on as the desperately try to gin up outrage over the border and crime. They desperately want to change the conversation from Dobbs, but I don't see it working beyond their base.

Maybe, just maybe, Democrats keep the House.