stevenkesslar

The Veep pick should matter more, given the age of both candidates. This Rant 2.0 isn't in response to anything you said, @lookin. I just think it is funny that as soon as I posted my rant above, I went to Real Clear Politics. And there was today's perfect example of what I ranted about. Biden is denying reality - he's losing this election I think the only logical explanation is that a lot of reporters are lazy. To speculate about why Biden should quit, all they have to do is cite a poll, or maybe two. And then speculate about a lot of total bullshit. I also have to assume they must be pretty stupid. Or cynical, because they think most people who read what they write are stupid and won't notice the total lack of logic. The most obvious problem is this: since when is being 1 % behind in poll averages in May "losing this election"? If the idea is that any candidate who is 1 % behind should step aside, then the basic idea here is that in almost every election, one or both candidates should step aside. The next most obvious problem is: for who else to run? As I said above, all these geniuses seem to just overlook the fact that if Biden doesn't run, someone else has to. And if the whole idea is that Biden should do his country and party a service because he's going to lose, one might think there'd be just a teeny little focus on the question of who else might run instead. And whether they have any realistic hope of doing any better. Usually what passes for rational thought is something like "Michelle Obama". Which, as you are realistic enough to admit, @lookin, is wishful thinking. What almost every poll I have seen says, as I cited above, is that [name any Democrat] would do worse than Biden against Trump. Plus, every primary poll showed that Biden was Democrats' first choice. And if he didn't run the likely next first choice was Harris - including in hypothetical horse races against Michelle Obama and Bernie Sanders. The third thing that is almost offensive about all these articles is they just completely ignore the fact that it would be monumentally un-democratic to say, "Fuck what voters just said. Fuck those dimwits. Fuck people who voted for Biden thinking he can win. Fuck em, fuck em, fuck em. They are stupid. Fuck em. We're nominating [fill in the name of a Democrat] instead." It would be especially stupid to do this in 2024. There is pretty good evidence, based on tons of polls, that the argument that Trump is a threat to democracy resonated with a lot of centrist voters in 2022. And it is resonating again in 2024. So if the way to win that argument is for Democrats to trump Trump's abuses of democracy, like Jan. 6th, and just decide to ignore actual voters and nominate someone else, that's just digging our own grave. This article seems particularly stupid, in that the author didn't even bother to research or think through the very few actual facts he cites. So there is this: In an article with almost no facts and tons of bullshit, you'd think the guy could get the few facts he uses right. In mid-October 2012 Obama was 1 % behind Romney in the RCP average. Lichtman said Obama was going to win, and he did. We're saying that because Biden is 1 % behind Trump in May we know he is going to lose? Huh? The even more obvious example is that Trump was behind Clinton in 2016 at almost every point. And he still won. Technically, the statement above is correct, because Trump has never won the popular vote. But he's the poster child for the idea that you can be behind in polls, and dismissed by everybody, and still win. The more appropriate example for Joe Biden is Harry Truman in 1948, which the author is at least honest enough to cite. Here's what the races in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin looked like on June 1, 2016: In Pennsylvania, Clinton led Trump by 5.3 % at the beginning of June in the RCP average. Right now Trump is leading Biden by 2.3 % in Pennsylvania In Michigan, Clinton led Trump by 8.3 % at the beginning of June in the RCP average. Right now Trump is leading Biden by 1.1 % in Michigan. In Wisconsin, Clinton led Trump by 11.6 % at the beginning of June in the RCP average. Right now Trump is leading Biden by a whopping 0.1 % in Wisconsin. If you believe that whoever is ahead in the polls in May is going to win, then obviously Trump stole the 2016 election! I don't think ignorant MAGA cultists who post here have quite thought that through. I think you can make a decent argument, based on the polls above, that Trump has some superpower that allows him to always do better than the polls predict. Including polls right before the election. There is logic to that. If he outperformed the polls when he was behind, won't he also outperform the polls when he is ahead? It is barely true that Trump outperformed polls in the past. The final RCP poll average in 2016 said Clinton would win the popular vote by 2.8 %. She won by 2.1 % There was a bigger difference in 2020. RCP's final poll average said Biden would win by 7.8 %. He won by 4.5 %. So, twice, Trump outperformed what the final polls said he would do. But we have no idea what the polls will say in late October. And it's not logical to think that Trump has some superpower that somehow allows him to always outperform the polls. What we know for a fact is that he lost the popular vote in 2016, he lost the popular vote in 2020, and he has the slimmest of leads right now in 2024. That does not make Trump a juggernaut. It makes him a weak candidate. One alternative to MAGA's cultish superpower theory about Trump, which I think is based on their preference for authoritarian leaders, is Lichtman's theory of governance. It is actual good news in a democracy, and a compliment to voters, that Lichtman thinks incumbent parties win or lose based on how well they have actually governed. So you can believe Trump won in 2016 because he has some superpower. Or you can believe Lichtman's theory of governance. In 2016 Obama had no second term successes, in part because a Republican Congress blocked him. Democrats got clobbered in the 2014 midterms, which signaled rumblings of an earthquake. Hillary was unable to build broad appeal beyond her partisan base. And the final two nails in her coffin were that she was not an incumbent, and the 2016 primary tore her party apart. Lichtman's theory is that Americans care about actual governance, and these were the things that hurt Clinton and created an opening for Trump. We of course can't prove that Lichtman is correct. But we do know that he uses the same theory every four years to accurately predict who will win every time. That 's not a superpower. That is just being smart, and paying attention to facts. If you buy Lichtman's theory of governance, Americans are likely to do what they did in 1948: re-elect someone who they basically have a grudge with, in large part due to inflation. But who they decided governed at least adequately. There's another theory I have read about 1948 that I think applies to 2024. People may not have liked Truman all that much. But they did like FDR/New Deal governance and wanted to continue it. Of course, the New Deal coalition fell apart at least half a century ago. But there is a similar enough fight over what people want in 2024 that has not even started yet. And that is probably going to make a difference. Trump 1.0 was about tax cuts to the rich and corporations, and trying to kill Obamacare. That's not what people want more of. If people did want more of that, Brown and Tester would be way behind in polls. And all these Democratic Senators like Tammy Baldwin leading in swing states would be losing. So it's fine to say inflation sucks and immigrants suck. But that is not enough for Trump to win. My guess is part of the reason Biden wants a debate early is that he knows he is in a difficult position, and could lose. But once the election is about abortion, and democracy, and cutting taxes more for the rich, and child tax credits that help the working class, and getting rid of affordable health care, that may change this nostalgia for how awesome Trump 1.0 was. I'm pretty sure the Trump cult are the ones in denial here. They are taking polls that say Trump has the narrowest of leads, and assuming that means they will win in November. Democrats, meanwhile, are the ones wetting the bed about Biden losing. The thing that seems the most unrealistic about what the cult's intellectual leaders are saying (can we even call them intellectuals?) is that they actually think Trump will win the youth vote. Or at least split it with Biden. What election in 2020, or 2021, or 2022, or 2023, or so far in 2024 tells us that young voters want conservative policies to restrict abortions, and cut taxes for rich people and corporations? Not to mention making life harder for The Gays, The Illegals, and the Ethnics. I think the Trump cult have their heads so far up their asses that they think all this indignation about how Biden is NOT PROGRESSIVE ENOUGH is somehow going to translate into votes for Trump. I think Lichtman is right. The Trump cult is going to be very disappointed when young voters hold their nose and vote for Biden.

This one will be relatively brief. I am really scared. It's not just that Charlie Cook is nonpartisan. It is that he is insightful, wicked smart, and pretty much always right. Charlie Cook: Hillary Clinton Will Win in November My own favorite Cook phrase is one he came up with in 2018: "color intensifier." I truly thought that nailed it. What it meant is that Trump managed to make red states redder, and blue states bluer. That helps explain why Senators McCaskill, Heitkamp, and Donnelly (Missouri, North Dakota, Indiana) were taken out in red states, even as Democrats took control of the House by romping in blue districts. A similar "color intensifier" effect would suggest why Democratic Senate candidates are leading in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada, all of which Biden won in 2020. And which we know from Guv and state and court races have tended to vote Democratic lately. With exceptions, like Nevada electing a Republican Guv. This does not explain why Tester and Brown are ahead in Montana and Ohio. They should be far behind. There is no correct answer, yet. But the most logical answer to me is that Biden has an age and inflation problem, and it is dragging him down. It means maybe Trump can close the deal. Maybe by talking more about how helping billionaires and big corporations and Putin is good for the working class. And how taking Brown and Black children and all those various ethnic types out of homes they have no right to live in and deporting them is what America is all about. There is absolutely nothing racist about deporting ethnic children who have no right to live here. Don't count on that, though. Not yet, at least. I think the election is Biden's to lose. And he certainly has not lost it yet.

You are very consistent, @EmmetK. Good for you. You want us to be absolutely clear that you are fact free, and mean-spirited about it. The reason you are fact-free is, as Lichtman keeps saying, is name a poll in May [fill in a year since 1945] that was NOT wrong. How about the polls in May 1980 that said Carter would wipe Reagan's ass? Or in May 1988 that said Dukakis would wipe Bush 41's ass? And yet you are absolutely clear that you prefer to keep your head up your own ass and repeat your own bullshit, rather than face facts. You are mean-spirited because the "pro-cop" Trump party won't actually defend cops when their bones are being broken in support of cruel lies about how Trump won in 2020. It is cruel and sick and a disease to democracy. And that is the kind of bullshit you support. It is a big part of why Trump, Dein Fuhrer, will lose. Lichtman has been factually correct in his predictions and system every election since 1984. Including 2016 when he predicted Trump would win in September, which Trump himself praised Lichtman for. .But you would rather have cultish bullshit than facts. It is who you are. It is what you do. We get that. You are in a cult. You have no choice. Donald Trump is outrunning other Republicans. What does it mean for November? If we want to focus on facts, including what current polls that are totally unreliable are telling us, that article is so much more interesting. That is the million dollar question that will help determine the outcome this November. And anyone who thinks they know the answer right now is full of shit. But it is interesting that more journalists are noting what has been sticking out like a sore thumb for months. In every swing state Biden absolutely needs to win, there is a Democratic Senate candidate that is leading. He needs to win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Democrats lead. He does not need to win Arizona or Nevada. But Democrats lead there, too. He certainly does not need to win, and won't win, Ohio and Montana. But Democratic incumbent Senators lead there, too, by about 5 points each in poll averages. I think the least likely explanation is that we're now less polarized and everyone is into ticket splitting again. We are more polarized than ever. I have deep contempt for assholes who are happy, or at least tolerant, of Fuhrer Putin slaughtering Ukrainian women and children. And happy with Trump's foot soldiers beating the shit out of cops in defense of his anti-democratic lies and cruelty. I think contempt is the appropriate response to cruel lying assholes. This is going to be a mean and ugly election. So there are two other explanations. It could be that millions of people are just wrong when they tell pollsters they support Democratic Senators in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, Ohio, and Montana. Maybe all those Democratic Senators will be wiped out. Because ultimately people will vote for Trump and whoever the Republican is in each state. They just don't know it yet. That's been the overwhelming pattern since 2016. You elect a Senator that is from the same party as Trump, or his opponent. But, if you believe that, it means all these polls are wrong. Or, you can believe the opposite. Maybe the polls suggest that in all these swing states, people actually prefer Democrats - mostly incumbents, but in Arizona and Michigan the Democrat is not an incumbent. And you can believe that Biden has "unique" issues that drag his numbers down, as the article suggests. Which mostly boil down to 1) age and 2) inflation. I think the closest we can get to any factual statement is that neither Biden nor Trump are anywhere near closing the deal that would ensure their win. And I think Lichtman is absolutely spot on about the way to think about it. 2024 will be a thumbs up or thumbs down on Team Biden. Just like 2020 was a thumbs up or thumbs down on Team Trump. All through 2020 the polls suggested that the verdict on Trump was thumbs down. And the poll numbers were well beyond poll margins or error. What 2024 is telling us so far is that no judgment has been made. But it is not bad news to me that every Democrat running for Senate in a swing state that is on Team Biden is ahead. The other thing that I think Lichtman is correct about is that incumbency helps, not hurts, Democrats. If you buy Lichtman, which I do, the 2000 and 2016 elections were close enough that if Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had been eligible to run for a third term as incumbents, they would have won. I believe that. Particularly in 2016. Not only did we not have an incumbent. We had a bitter primary that divided the party. Lichtman believes that was two big nails in Hillary's coffin. I believe that. Is there any reason to think a food fight at the Democratic convention would help elect a Democrat? That is just bullshit from journalists like Ezra Klein who like having their heads up their asses. Almost every day there is another article about how Joe Biden should resign for the good of his party and his country. And not one article cites a poll documenting how [name a living Democrat who breathes air and pees and shits poo] would be more likely to win. In fact, almost every poll I have seen documents that any other Democrat would do worse than Biden. Here's one showing that Biden is 1 point behind Trump, compared to Harris 3 points behind, Newsom 10 points behind, and Whitmer 12 points behind. Some of that is name recognition, of course. But that's the whole point. Incumbency helps, not hurts, Democrats. Lichtman is right. Lichtman has not officially predicted Biden will win. What he has said is Biden is down on 2 of his 13 keys. And you need to be down six for him to predict Biden will lose. I think it's a safe bet that Biden will not somehow have a foreign policy win between now and November. So he will probably have three keys against him, like Bush 41 in 1988 and Obama in 2012. Again, note that many polls said Dukakis would beat Bush, and Romney would beat Obama. Poor pollsters! Lichtman has named the other three things that would have to go wrong for Biden to lose. 1) He'd have to have a big foreign policy defeat in Ukraine or Israel. Not likely, now that he got yet another bipartisan assistance package passed. 2) The third parties would have to take off, and get over 5 % of the vote at least. His basic theory, which I buy, is that support for third parties always show dissatisfaction with the incumbent party. Clearly young people like RFK because they are pissed at Biden. Will they all rally behind RFK, or Stein, or West? Ain't gonna happen. This is where @EmmetK really prefers his own shit to facts. It is just a fact that whatever they are polling now, cut that number at least in half by election day. It literally happens that way EVERY FOUR YEARS. Let me repeat, least you have your own poo in your eyes. EVERY FOUR YEARS. I doubt RFK will get 5 % of the vote. People who don't mind Trump will decide a vote for RFK is a vote for Biden. People who can live with Biden will decide a vote for RFK is a vote for Trump. 3) There would have to be mass social unrest. In theory, there could be riots in the streets all Summer about apartheid in Israel, and how Genocide Joe is a monster. And what makes anyone think that people who are pissed at Genocide Joe will instead want Trump, who would be fine if Bibi could kill every Palestinian man, woman, and child alive? But, mostly, most young people don't really give a shit. The polls are very clear on that. Lichtman is being very clear. All three of these nails would have to be pounded into Biden's coffin for him to lose. I don't think any of these three will be. Which is why Biden will win. And @EmmetK will be wiping his own shit out of his eyes, yet again. Poor guy! And since I am in endless rant mode, speaking of young people, I'll throw this in. If I had to pick one article I have read in 2024 that I think accurately describes what is going on that superficial polls don't tell us, I would choose this article: A Finance Guru on What the Inflation Debate Gets Wrong I think Sethi is exactly right on all his main points. First, people bitching about food prices really have no idea what the same thing cost in 2020 or 2016. And, mostly, they are still buying the same thing. But they are unhappy, because it does cost more. And as the first article says, they do blame that on Biden. But where the rubber really hits the road with Biden is on three issues: housing, housing, and housing. For a lot of working class Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, as well as Millennials and Zoomers who would tend to vote Democratic, and will vote for [name a Democratic Senator running in a swing state], this is THE issue. On one end, they can not possibly think of buying a home, and the rent is too damn high. On the other hand, they may be able to buy a home, and want to. But home prices and mortgage rates are too damn high. And they blame that on Biden. I've been surprised how long it took Democrats to talk about housing. Since it is clearly at the core of the inflation problem. Rent costs more than apples or milk, in case anyone didn't know that. And, as Sethi suggests, Biden's solutions - a tax credit if you buy a home - pretty much suck. If young voters could get the POTUS they wanted, she would use the government to figure out how to vastly increase the supply of affordable housing in the places that matter. Meaning mostly big cities in blue states. That is exactly what Bill Clinton did in the 1990's. And it worked great until Bush 43 let the subprime scum come in between 2002 and 2006 (when Republicans ran everything) and fuck everything up. RFK has nailed that one. He wants the government to help young families with 3 % government fixed rate mortgages. Here's the logic problem that the outcome of the 2024 election probably depends on. How likely is it that Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Millennials, and Zoomers who are pissed at Biden will say the following: "The problem with America is it is too hard to be rich. It is too hard to be a large corporation. If we just cut taxes for billionaires and big corporations, my rent would go down. And I could buy a home. And while we are at it, all these Obamacare subsidies that help me afford health care for my family suck. They need to be cut, so that billionaires can pay less tax. Child tax credits for my children that cut child poverty in half under Biden are a horrible idea, too! It would be so much better if the corporations that gouge me for gas or food paid lower taxes. Please, do whatever you can to help me less, and give billionaires and big corporations the help they desperately need." Trump's biggest accomplishment was cutting taxes for the richest Americans and the most profitable corporations. He has said he wants more of the same. His biggest failure is he failed to kill Obamacare. Which is more popular than ever. So Republicans are correct that they "own" the issues that piss people off. They are correct that people blame Biden for inflation, and immigration, in particular. But what poll tells us that the Republicans own the solutions? In Trump's defense, there are polls that suggest that maybe a majority of people support the mass deportation of millions of families. But I don't believe when we start talking about how children need to be taken out of homes and put in cells (cages?) until they can be sent somewhere else (a shit hole like Mexico?) that's gonna go down well. More tax cuts for the rich? That won't go down well. Repeal and replace Obamacare? When Trump tried to do that his favorable ratings tanked, even among his White working class supporters. Restore the expanded child tax credits that actually helped tens of millions of Black, Hispanic, Asian, and young families who tend to vote Democratic? Republicans are the ones that killed that. I would not bet on Biden winning, yet. But these are the reasons I think he likely will win. A lot of this polling reflects pissed off people who don't like inflation. And especially the cost of rent or buying a home today. But what solutions has Trump got? He has not closed the deal yet. And I very much doubt he will. Rant over and out.

Dancing is one of the countless things Donald Trump does exceptionally well. Which is why America needs him. Every day I take a moment to think about how lucky America is, if we can just restore the Reich. Dancing is why Black people will vote for Donald Trump in unprecedented numbers. He reminds them of Michael Jackson. And no, that is not a racist stereotype. I am the second least racist person in the world, next to Donald Trump.

Good point. And if only Trump would follow Rishi's lead, and decide that his policies suck and he can just go be rich somewhere else. 😉 I will push back on one idea ... that Sunak is throwing his party under the bus. That was actually the party he inherited. The Tories were thrown under by the bus by Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. Or, arguably, by themselves and their unpopular policies. Sunak came to power in October 2022. So he inherited a complete mess. That polling chart also helps explain "Why not?" If Sunak were somehow able to turn it around, we would know that by 2024. He has not. If anything, that polling suggests that every month he waits the bloodbath for Conservatives could be a little bit worse. So it also has this feeling of, "Why not chop off an arm and a leg now, because if we wait they will chop off our head, too." Rishi will personally be fine, regardless, as you note. You didn't mention inflation, but ........................ This does reflect on Biden as well, and also pretty much any democratic leader that presided while the global inflation shit show happened. The pattern seems to be that anyone in power as inflation spiked is unpopular because of it. But Rishi, like Biden or Trudeau or [name a leader in Europe] is not getting credit for inflation "coming down". Republicans are obviously hoping they can turn 2024 into a referendum on inflation. And blame inflation in the US, the UK, and [name a country on the planet Earth] on Joe Biden and his awful policies. If Biden can survive despite that headwind, it suggests that half a century of knowing how to stay on top politically actually does make a difference. Good news is, whatever happens, Sunak and Trump will still be rich. And Sunak doesn't even have to worry about going to jail. 😉

You ask. Politico answers. UK election: Why Rishi Sunak pulled the trigger While it sounds glib, I think their line - "Why now? Why not?" may be as good an explanation as we will get. Or as is needed. I have felt a little sorry for him. My perception when he took over, which has proved to be right, is that the humiliation of everything that came before him was bad enough that he really had no chance to make things right. He certainly has not gained any more in popularity. And he has to have an election sooner rather than later, anyway. So he sounds like a hard-nosed pragmatist who, as the article says, knows no White Knight is coming. And so why not get it out the way? Speaking of hard-nosed pragmatist, this was a good article on Keir Starmer, heir apparent. This election seems like it will be a perfect example of Allan Lichtman's central theory about US elections: it is basically a thumbs up or thumbs down judgment on the party in power. Rishi knows there is nothing he can do to change the judgment that is coming, probably. So whatever Starmer has done may not matter all that much. That said, all that stench of anti-Semitism and radicalism from Corbyn just a few years ago is gone. Starmer sounds like he has done a very good job positioning Labor to rise.

The most remarkable thing in that article is this: As a Democrat, I lived through two elections where my candidate won millions more votes than the other one, and still lost. And, yes, I know we have a thing called the Electoral College. But if Republicans like the idea that a minority can win, because of the electoral college, they ought to feel it is more than fair that Trump won in 2016. Even though he lost by millions of votes. Instead, they want to bitch and moan about how unfair it is that Trump lost by even more millions of votes in 2020. The vast majority of Democrats deserve credit for believing in the fairness of elections. Even after Gore and Clinton were deprived of the victory they would have won in any other country that is called a democracy.

Yeah. Poor Joe. Lichtman, who has always been right, says Biden will probably win unless a lot of really big things change quickly. And he will win based on reliable fundamentals, like economic growth and getting laws passed. Poor Joe. What a mess! Your strategy, @EmmetK, is simple. Be demented. I mean, you are not really demented, I don't think. But you act demented, in that you deny reality. Lichtman has been right every time. Even Trump, personally, in writing, acknowledged that. But your strategy is basically, "I'll just put my head deep up my ass like I am some crazy fuck and pretend facts are not facts." By the way, polls are not facts. Except on the day they come out. Maybe. So the fact that Trump and Biden are about 1 % apart in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in the RCP average should tell us this race is close. And either could win. I think that is a fact. You don't really want to believe that fact, do you? Here's another set of facts that is interesting and relevant. If you are interested in facts. In Arizona, Democrat Gallego leads Lake by 6 % on average. In Nevada., Democrat Rosen leads her strongest opponent by 5 % on average. In Michigan, Democrat Slotkin is statistically tied with her strongest opponent. (Slotkin, like Trump, has a statistically insignificant 1 % lead). In Wisconsin, Democrat Baldwin leads her opponent by 7 % on average. In Pennsylvania, Democrat Casey leads his opponent by 5 % on average. Those are all states you are assuming Trump will win, based on the current POTUS polls. Even though the Trump/Biden poll averages clearly show Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are toss ups. If Biden wins all three, Trump is toast. Lichtman is strongly suggesting Biden will win all three. But, again, what does he know that you don't? 😉 Now let's talk about two states Biden will almost certainly lose. In Ohio, Democrat Brown leads his opponent by 5 % on average. In Montana, Democrat Tester leads his opponent by 5 % on average. See the pattern? Here's the thing. Since Trump entered the picture and played his "divide and conquer" card, the nation has been very divided. The only Senator that won in a state that did not match with the POTUS result in 2022 was a Republican win in Wisconsin, which Biden won in 2020. In 2020, the only non-match was a Republican win in Maine, which Biden won. In 2018 there were a few more non-matches, including Democrats Brown and Tester above winning in what are now seen as strong red states. But, generally, states that vote for Biden vote for Democratic Senators. States that vote for Trump elect Republican Senators. Even in Maryland, where anti-Trump Republican Hogan was a very popular Guv, the latest polls show voters just won't elect a Republican, even an avowed anti-Trumper, if it helps tilt the country to Trump. Does this tell you anything? Of course not! Silly question. Facts just don't matter. Too complex. There are three possibilities. First, this could be 1980. In May 1980 Carter led Reagan by 8 points. He even led Reagan by eight points in October 1980. So much for polls, as Lichtman says. (But, hey, what does he know?) Not only did Reagan win. He also took out Democratic Senators that were not even seen as particularly vulnerable. So maybe a red wave is building, like in 2022. Maybe all these Democratic Senators who appear to be headed to victory are actually headed to extinction. Egads! Except there are no signs of a red trickle, let alone a red wave, like in 2022. By the way, did anyone ever find 2022's AWOL red wave? 😉 Second, maybe the fever has broken. And we are going back to compromise and bipartisanship and ticket splitting as a governing strategy. I personally would vote for that. Maybe Trump will win all the states I cited above. Even as they elect Democratic Senators and a Democratic Senate majority. Possible, but unlikely. I see the MAGA minority's embrace of a law breaker and wannabe democracy destroyer like Trump as evidence that the fever has not broken. It is more heated than ever. Everything you post here in anecdotal evidence of the same. You're into fever, not facts. So as much as I would like a more bipartisan Congress, I don't hold my hopes up. And, if people want a POTUS who is good at getting bipartisan laws actually passed - infrastructure, CHIPS, Ukraine/Israel - that's a reason to vote for Biden. How many bipartisan tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans did Trump get passed, anyway? Third, and most likely, the reason most Democratic Senators outpoll Biden is that most people do not like Joe Biden. It's now pretty clear that won't change between now and election day. Mostly because Biden won't stop aging. Nor will the majority of Americans suddenly decide they like Donald Trump. Mostly because he won't get any less crazy. So in all these states where Democratic Senators have strong leads, is it possible that the underlying trend says that people will vote Democratic? Even though they have serious problems with the guy at the top of the ticket? Yes, it's quite possible. I just described about how half my nieces and nephews feel. It's back to that old South Park episode, about the choice between a douche and a turd sandwich. So the idea that people who tend to vote Democratic and say they will vote for a Democrat for Senate will ultimately see Biden as the lesser of evils seems possible, and even probable. The thing that is funny about you, @EmmetK, is that you are deeply committed to ignorance on two very important points. You see them as Trump's greatest strengths, when they are in fact much more likely to be his greatest weaknesses. And his reasons for probably losing again. The first point is the five party race. You keep citing polls that show Biden is further behind Trump in polls that count RFK, Stein, and West. True. But that is Trump's problem, not Biden's. He has a lead that is built on quicksand. It's a fact that every four years, to the degree there is any third party that even registers, you can take whatever they are polling now and divide it by at least half. People just do this, literally every four years. They shop, but don't buy. In October or November they decide it is a wasted vote. With Stein and West, those are mostly younger or non-White voters who lean toward Democrats. That said, we also know for a fact that Jill Stein alone was capable of handing the election to Donald Trump in 2016. Which every single American who doesn't want Trump will be reminding Stein supporters this Fall. What you are essentially arguing is that a house built on quicksand is as good as a house built on cement. A Trump victory premised on the idea that these polls are right about how RFK or West or Stein will do is just bullshit. That's a fact. It literally never works out that way. Literally every four years. The second point has nothing to do with any argument you make. It is the whole Trump/MAGA philosophy that ignorance is not only bliss. It is a ticket to victory and power. As a conniving brand huckster, Trump needed poorly informed people to go to Trump U, or buy Trump crap. So of course he loves "poorly educated" voters. Because, as this study showed, if you read newspapers or websites or watch networks news, you're probably voting for Biden. The people who Trump does best with, by a whopping 26 point margin, are not cable news viewers, like Fox. They people who follow no political news at all. What does it tell us when a political leader's success (meaning he won one very close election, one time) is based on people who are committed to being ignorant about politics? It tells us mostly bad things, in my opinion. But that's me being anti-Trump. One thing it tells us for a fact is that these are absolutely the least reliable voters ever. If Trump's poll lead, such as it is, is based on people who don't follow politics, because they mostly don't care about it, those polls are particularly unreliable. That's true in two ways. Trump clearly knows he has this vast army of "poorly educated" voters who are pissed off. And to the degree that tune in at all, they want to be thrown red meat about how the Deep State ... [name something about a conspiracy or how Democrats drink the blood of children]. Trump could win in 2024 in part because these occasional voters did turn out in 2016. And they gave him just enough votes in enough states so that Trump could lose by millions of votes, but still somehow win. Trump actually got millions more of them to vote for him in 2020, when he lost by 7 million votes. So this is a politics built on quicksand. Ignorance is not bliss if you want to win. This is also true for Biden, way more than in 2020. Mark Penn's polls are particularly detailed and interesting. Trump always does better than average in those Harvard/Harris polls. Like right now Penn says Trump is leading Biden by 5 points, compared to Trump's statistically insignificant 1 % lead in the RCP average. One big reason is that Penn shows young voters are split on Trump/Biden. Whereas most polls show young voters overwhelmingly for Biden, like they actually voted in 2020. And why Biden won. So Penn's polls could just be fucked up. Or they could be right. But if they are right it is because he taps into young voters whose political views are vaguely based on Tik Tok rants about how inflation sucks and Biden sucks and the cost of living is out of control. And that's it. Gaza? What's that? Trump's tax policies? Huh? So who knows? Maybe this young Tik Tok/You Tube contingent, which is not the same as the equally uninformed and older MAGA cult, will actually vote for Trump. Or maybe they just won't vote, even though they are the demographic that sealed Biden's victory in 2020. Nobody knows. Nobody can know. Anyone who believes polls that are based on this kind of quicksand make sense should also believe that Carter actually beat Reagan by eight points in 1980. The thing we do know is that the more people read newspapers or websites, the more reliable they are as voters. Reliable both in terms of the fact that they know who they will vote for, which is more likely to be Biden. And they know they will actually vote. So the idea that the least reliable voters, who know and care the least about politics, are somehow going to be the vanguard of a Trump victory is more than shaky. It could work again, like in 2016. Lightning can sometimes strike twice. Just don't count on it. These are Trump's greatest weaknesses. Which helps explain why Lichtman is probably right about reliable benchmarks, Like how Biden will win based on how he has governed. You see Trump's greatest weaknesses as strengths.

You may be genocidal, but you ain't stupid, @Moses. You're right. You know shit about democracy, and care even less. Let's talk about gerontocracy, which you know a lot about. It's true that both Biden and Trump fall in that category, just like the old communists above. I'll stretch the comparison. In some ways the US is a lot like the USSR of that period. And in some ways it is the exact opposite. I think the similarity is we are going to have our own period of perestroika. Most Presidents since 1992 have been Baby Boomers. The exceptions have been Obama, who was a bit younger. And Biden, who is too old to even be an aging Boomer. When Clinton and Gore were elected, having a Boomer POTUS was young and fresh. Now it is old and stale. The country does want change, but also is not quite ready for it. If we were, we could have dumped Biden and Trump, of course. We didn't. It does have this feeling of clinging to the past. Because at least we know what that is politically. One side even has an appropriately backward looking motto: Make America Great Again. Poor old things. Demographically, at some point Millennials and Gen Z will simply take over, like the Boomers did in the 1990's. I can't wait. Some of the outlines are already clear. It will be more progressive. And it may be a wild ride, at least politically. In the case of the USSR, it was also the beginning of the end. Or, arguably, the end of the end. The political and economic systems were so fucked up that they simply could not be saved. Poor Vlad. Somehow he is trying to restore the rot. Wonder why he is having such problems? But I get how people all over the world can look at the US shit show (although similar trends are happening in Europe, and most democracies) and draw comparisons. Like the US is in decline. And maybe democracy is even nearing collapse. Wouldn't you love it, @Moses? Long live Genocide Man and autocracy! May a million Ukrainians die! 😲 Then again, maybe not. This is where the US is the exact opposite of the Gerontocracy Russia of old. As well as Putin's Genocide Russia of today. We have the most dynamic economy in the world. China will catch up to us ........................ never! Economically, or politically. Poor Vlad. His best hope to grow at the same rate as the US (which is like saying a tiny parasite is technically growing at the same rate as a tiger) is to be extremely efficient at building a regional war economy. To work optimally, Genocide Man needs to get better and better at using millions of Russian men as fuel, to be turned into fertilizer. At some point you may find ethnic minorities less willing to do that, even for the nice pay the families of the human fertilizer get. That won't help when it is time for Russia to go away and break up. People don't forget this shit. You should know, @Moses. People in [name any country in Europe or Eurasia] sure didn't want to be part of the USSR when it fell apart. Meanwhile, the problem the US has is too many people are trying to get in. But that's not the biggest problem. We have the best educated young generations ever. Making more than ever because they have more skills than ever. Granted, Vlad has some very talented engineers working hard to build better bombs. But that only gets you so far. Many of the young people in Russia who could be building the tech companies listed in ETFs like SOXL and FNGU are getting the fuck out of Russia. They want to rich. Not fertilizer. So at some point - not actually too long from now - someone not named Biden or Trump will be POTUS. And she will leading the most powerful economy, military, and political system in the world. You can't have that @Moses. You get genocide, a war economy, and rot. But look on the bright side. There is money to be in turning your people into fertilizer.

That sounds way too complicated. The nice thing about Trump, other than how he is perfect and infallible, is that he has created a GOP 4 Dummies. Everyone can see what the rules are. And they are simple. If you break any bone of any cop claiming to defend the integrity of the 2020 election, which was stolen, you will be beatified. All the glorious patriots who defended democracy on January 6th will be known as Saints a century from now. If you don't like Trump, and especially if you say anything bad about him, you will burn in hell forever. Nikki Haley will be barbeque in hell for eternity. Mike Pence, too. Even God can't help him on that one. Liz Cheney? Cunt! That's simple, too. Strong women who don't like Trump are cunts. Of course, suburban women who voted for Haley in the primaries and are STILL voting for Haley in primaries because they detest Trump have a different belief system, and what not. It is a big part of why Trump will lose in November. But that's getting way too complicated. Let's just go with the part about how Trump is infallible, okay?

Democracy must really annoy you.

Quite honestly, I am shocked. Who knew that Trump had an "edit" function? Call me slow. But I had not figured that out during four years of him being POTUS. And call me crazy. But is it too much to hope that Trump and MAGA have a "delete" function as well?

Good for you. 😀 I missed that. I went off your original post, which talked about how Trump turns lemons into lemonade and is great at losing elections and lawsuits making a fortune. When you posted that on March 26th DJT was selling for $70 to $80 a share. Now it's in the mid 50's. Mostly seems like a lemon so far. But the point is buy low and sell high. So you are half way there.

Silly! Not you. Genocide Man - meaning your mass murdering leader - is the one that constantly threatens nuclear war whenever he feels like he is losing. That's just what Genocide Man does. He's a mass murdering genocidal asshole, after all. Putin warns the West: Russia is ready for nuclear war See. This is who Genocide Man is. This is what Genocide Man does. He is losing, and he hates to lose.

Great. You're in denial. That's very human. I might be in denial too if I had a losing genocidal leader like Genocide Man. At least denial is better than constantly threatening nuclear war when the world stands up against genocide.

Congratulations on making "billions". So I am curious. What is your cost basis? When you posted how Trump turns lemons into lemonade on March 26, good, decent, and God-loving MAGA folk were buying his shares for between $65 and $80 a share. So I assume you did NOT pay that much for them. Despite your telling us at the time how selling stock for $80 a share made Trump a genius, and what not. I suck at math. But $53 is less than $80, right?

59% Say Trump Should Not Be Allowed To Hold Office In Future Got it. 59 % of people say in 2021 they could never vote for Trump again. Until some of them do. Which just shows us the value of the polls you cite. But if you want to bet on them, like on DJT, know yourself out. Just don't complain to us when you lose. Meanwhile, I'll stay with FNGU and SOXL and soaring US technology funds. Sadly, I did not buy DJT at $80 a share. But my stock account hit a new all time high today, anyway. Who knew we could flourish without Trump? You may not be as smart as The Donald. But your arguments are every bit as self defeating.

Your sadistic butcher is sure having a bad month, isn't he? First, lots of money from the US to defend Ukraine and democracy. Second, lots of money from Europe to defend Ukraine and democracy. Third, Putin fires some of his own top defense leaders for being corrupt, as well as genocidal. The genocidal part is okay with Genocide Man, of course. It's the corruption part that sucks. Poor thing! What does Genocide Man do when things suck? Duh! He threatens nuclear war. Point is, it sucks to be Russian, I know. When things go bad, Genocide Man says let's have nuclear annihilation and turn everyone in Moscow into dust. Which is even worse than turning millions of Russian men into fertilizer in Ukraine. At least their wives and families get paid by Genocide Man when he steals Russia's future by turning so many Russian men into grass. Of course, it'll suck even worse when Biden wins. Then Trump can't trade Ukraine away for money from Putin's allies for his next failing IPO, or whatever. Exclusive: Trump Media saved in 2022 by Russian-American under criminal investigation Evil, corruption, genocide. Evil, corruption, genocide. Evil, corruption genocide. No matter how many times you repeat it, it still sounds like nasty shit. Of course, Trump and his bud Vlad, being arrogant monsters and what not, think they have it figured out that Trump will win because the polls show .................... wait for it ............... the race is tied in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Not that anyone from Genocide World who openly supports genocide like @Moses does understands or gives a shit about democracy. And of course no arrogant prick like Genocide Man or Trump would believe some academic like Allan Lichtman saying a lot would have to go wrong - like in Ukraine - for Biden to lose. After all, Lichtman was clearly wrong when he predicted every POTIS who won in advance since 1984 .... including Trump in 2016. (Here's what Lichtman just said about polls, by the way.) And Genocide Man was clearly right when he started his genocide in Ukraine, thinking it would be easy. Turns out evil fucks often turn out to be dumb fucks as well. At least in the US we get to vote against them. 😉 It will sure suck when Biden wins and he spends lots more, like Europe will, to defend Ukraine from Genocide Man and his blood and murder and sadism. Wonder how many more nuclear wars Genocide Man will threaten then, as Russia slowly goes broke?

My line about myself is that I have always been a whore. First I was a political whore. And then I just became a whore. So your standards are higher than mine. What I would sort of expect of the Matt Gaetz/MTG House clown show is that they will whine like bitches about the border and then kill a bipartisan border deal as soon as it becomes possible. So basically Johnson scores points with me for simply not being a reckless, cynical clown. He is acting like an adult in the room. Which is not easier since he has the biggest man baby in America lording over him. The scary part of this, of course, is that if Trump wins and manages to carry the House and Senate, Johnson will be just as effective in getting conservative things I really dislike done. If Biden wins, at least Johnson is the kind of person who lives in the grown up political world. I really don't think Trump does. Mostly, I don't think Trump gives a shit about policy. If there is something that is the opposite of a policy wonk, Trump is it. Jared Kushner said it best, comparing Trump to the Cheshire Cat Alice In Wonderland. If you don't know where you are going, any path will get you there. Which leads me to a few Wellstone stories. It took him a while to figure out where he was going, too. I remember early in my college career Paul jokingly tore into one of my best friends, and asked him something like, "When are you going to realize electoral politics is bullshit?" Paul was basically a protest politics guy at the time. The irony is that a decade later the friend he teased ended up being his campaign manager. And they won. Meanwhile, in 1990 I happened to be a low-income lobbyist putting together a $1 billion program for low-income homeowners with Fannie Mae and a bunch of mortgage lenders. One of the guys I worked closely with had been a Reagan political operative. He told me something like, "Your friend has no chance in hell of beating Boschwitz (the incumbent Minnesota Republican Senator). Boschwitz is great at constituent services, and that is all that matters in the Senate." So much for constituent services. A little trip down memory lane is in order.

I agree that it was unbalanced in the sense that it just let Johnson spell out his world view, without really challenging his assertions. But that was what I liked about it. It was an interview format. So for something like that I am okay with just giving him the mike. Johnson came out of nowhere when McCarthy was crucified by his own party's whacko wing. So this is the first thing I've read that really just let Johnson tell us how he sees the world. And reading it did help me understand why he was chosen, and why he has been somewhat effective. The thing that delighted me is the Ukraine vote. And I think that probably speaks to the underlying political dynamics. At least half of Republicans in the House probably think we should fund Ukraine, because it makes us look weak in the world if we don't. Again, speaking to this in family terms, it just explodes my brain that my Dad's Reagan Cold War "Tear Down This Wall" Republican Party would say let's just hand Ukraine to Putin. And the political irony is the Republicans make an okay argument that Biden can't be POTIS because he is very old and very weak and we just can't have an old and weak fuck like Biden be POTUS. Because, face it, he's fucking old and so fucking weak everyone can see he is just a weak old fuck. And, in fact, the polls make it very clear most Americans do see Biden pretty much that way. So the Republicans have what could be a winning argument. And then they turn around and say, "We Republicans gave out testicles to Putin, and we are happy to let him fuck us in the ass and take whatever he wants." Sorry about the colorful language. But I have no idea where this Republican Party came from. And everyone around the world looks at the Republicans and says, "This is weakness. This is hypocrisy. America is a paper tiger." So I give Johnson credit for figuring out how to work with that and do what, in his mind, Reagan would have done. The story about Tip O'Neill, as you say, is probably bullshit. I've read in several places that the supposed love affair between Tip and The Gipper was mostly a myth. But that in itself tells us something. Because Reagan clearly wanted to be seen as someone bipartisan who would compromise. Johnson has now played his cards enough to reveal he is like Reagan in that sense. The contrast I would make to Johnson is Newt Gingrich. I think Gingrich is an ideological flame thrower who likes ideological war and is not a big fan of compromise. I think he should get credit as one of the main architects of that wing of the Republican Party. There was a long interview I read of Leon Panetta about the Clinton days and the government shutdown. Panetta said that there was a key moment in private negotiations where POTUS Bill Clinton told House Speaker Gingrich something like, "Newt, I know what you want. But I just can't give it to you." The polls showed Republicans were being blamed for the shutdown. So Dole, who wanted to run for POTUS in 1996 and knew this would hurt his chances, stepped in and cut the pragmatic deal with Clinton that ideologue Newt was not willing to compromise on. All of that said a lot to me about the kind of pragmatist Dole was, and the kind of ideologue Gingrich is. My takeaway from that interview is Johnson really wants Republicans to win the House in 2024, so he can still be Speaker. I would bet money that when Johnson talks to Trump privately he says, "We can let Ukraine lose. But it will be blamed on Republicans and it will hurt your chances of winning in 2024. Is that what you want?" As much as I despise Trump and pray he loses in 2024, I am actually glad that someone with more nuanced political skills like Johnson perhaps can make pragmatic arguments about issues like Ukraine that Trump may actually listen to.

Mike Johnson Told Us What He Really Thinks About Joe Biden, Hakeem Jeffries and Donald Trump I thought this was a fascinating interview with Mike Johnson. It's long, but it is worth a read. It explains a lot to me about why he has turned out to be surprisingly effective. And there is less gridlock and shit show than I thought there might have been after the House Republican leadership explosion. I will say this as a caveat. Johnson's views of The Gays have been repugnant and hateful. I'll repeat that three times. Repugnant and hateful. Repugnant and hateful. Repugnant and hateful. There. So that's out of the way. That said, one of the biggest legislative victories of my organizing career was a bill that funded $10 million a year, annually and permanently, to low income energy programs carried by an anti-Gay Republican in the Oregon legislature. That's politics. if you want to be effective. Which is what the interview is all about. I'll single out a few parts that really resonated for me: That resonated both professionally and personally to me. Professionally, I spent a huge amount of time on Capitol Hill as a liberal low-income activist when Reagan and Bush 41 were President. It sure helped to have a Democratic populist ally like Bill Proxmire as chair of the Banking Commmittee. He was not captured by bank money, like Democratic Banking Chair Chris Dodd (not to mention most Republicans) was further down the line. But anything that got done in the 80's had to be bipartisan. Especially if you were a liberal. So these ideas are music to my ears. This is how lots of important shit got done in the 1980's and 1990's. In the 90's I did the same thing in the Oregon legislature. My most fun happy warrior gig was annihilating Enron and getting a huge and permanent fund for renewable energy set up that has made Oregon a renewables leader ever since. (Sorry, Gavin.) Again, it had to be bipartisan and coalition building. Personally, I have been a lifelong Wellstone liberal Democrat (he was my college professor who turned me lefty). And my Dad, who almost lived to be 100, was a lifelong Reagan Republican. So I learned early that we had to respect each other, and be able to agree to disagree. Most of my family is left of center. A few of my nieces and nephews are pretty hard core Trumpy Republicans. The line that works with them is that my Reagan loving Dad and I disagreed on a lot of things. But we could always talk, and respect each other, because we shared the same principles - good principles. Which, of course, I got from him. It is a line that works great with the Trumpers in my family. And it works great because it is true. The thing I liked most about Kevin McCarthy, as I stated before, is he is the White Republican conservative from a fairly Hispanic area who more than any other national elected official worked hard to bring Black and Hispanic and Asian American conservatives into the US House. That was actually not good for the Democratic Party. Since I would rather be able to go after Republicans for being the All White Male Party. But what McCarthy did was good for the country, I think. There will be less racism thanks to Republicans being more inclusive. This spirit may be Johnson's hallmark, no matter how long he lasts. He obviously believes deeply in the things he is saying, about loving - or, more importantly - respecting and finding common ground with - your enemies. And it's working. Maybe someday he'll even show some respect to The Gays! 😉

Yup. When you wrote that a little over a month ago DJT was at $66. So it has, as of today, lost one third of it's value. Some lemonade! Trump is unique at knowing how to lose. Not him, personally. I mean he excels at turning his MAGA cult into losers. Lose, lose, lose! DJT in consistent. When he didn't lose as bad as people thought he would in 2020, he called it "winning." That led to lots of cops having their heads beat in. Festive! Now that his stock is down only one third, not two thirds, that is "winning" too. That's the DJT we know, and don't love. Or even respect. Loser!

I'd buy SOXL instead. It's an ETF with NVDA, AVGO, all the tech powerhouses. My nephew was recently up close to 10x on the $7 shares he bought in Fall 2022. I made the mistake of listening to the doom and gloom recession mongers in late 2022 and waited until Fall 2023 to jump into SOXL. But as Jim Roppel said recently, the "real money" started to be made starting Fall 2023. And he thinks about half of the money made on this bull will be in AI/tech related investments like SOXL and FNGU. Doesn't it shock you, @EmmetK, that real smart and rich traders and investors are not screaming, "Buy Trump! Buy DJT!" Anyhoo, SOXL just had the inevitable freefall correction from $58 to about $30. I actually sold half of mine in the 40's, at like a 100 % profit, thinking there would be a correction and I'd take some profits and buy back later. And now I will. A LOT. I think by the end of May it may be the $20's. As will DJT. Again. One stock is a big winner. And one is a big loser. Which do you think is which?

Nah. I'll just post the two words that you hate: Allan L:ichtman. And the one word you hate even more: FACTS. Fact is, Lichtman is saying polls now have almost no predictive value, and a lot would have to change for Biden to lose. Fact is, Lichtman has predicted every race correctly, in advance, since 1984. Fact is, Trump is smart enough (unlike you) to personally write Lichtman in 2016 and say, "Good call, professor," when he predicted in Sept. 2016 that Trump would win. Fact is, Trump did not congratulate Lichtman when he predicted, again correctly, in 2020 that Trump would lose. Because Trump is a loser and liar and a wannabe autocrat who grabs women by the pussy but won't let them get abortions. Even a moral scumbag like Trump is right some of the time, though. Cue the response: "Ha ha ha! Lefty losers! Look at me! Look at me! I invested in DJT and in about a month it has gone down one third from what I bought it for. And that's after it plummeted by two thirds, had a failed rally, and is now headed down again. Ha ha ha! I'm a winner. Look at me! Look at me! Look at how smart I am!" Ha ha ha, indeed. Trump, Moral Scumbag In Chief, enriches himself while his fervent cult loses. Why am I not surprised? There is a positive side to DJT. At least now when you talk about losing, we know you know what you are talking about.

Now, come on. Let's be realistic. I'd be happy if he just lost a little weight, and stopped acting so humble. 😉