stevenkesslar

Add another great Clinton line. Or word: "Arithmetic" Clinton: "Arithmetic" created surplus budgets Dick Cheney said a long time ago that Reagan proved deficits don't matter, politically. He has yet to be proven wrong. But maybe that is where Zoomers come in. I have a lot of fun teasing my nieces and nephews about their cynicism. But their argument is that if I grew up in an America where the government actually got shit done, maybe I would be less cynical. So now it seems like everybody under 40 likes to blame Boomers for this big ass deficit they will spend the rest of their lives paying off, for shit Boomers got and they didn't. Assuming they have a job. Meanwhile, it was our first Boomer POTUS, Bill Clinton, that got us a surplus. Hopefully a lot of Zoomer men learned the hard way in 2024. And in 2028 they might want to talk about jobs and deficits instead. If some Democrat like Clinton can figure it out.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! That is so unfair. Talk about bait and switch. If Jonathan Groff ruled us all, I would love him until my dying days. And he could kill my friends and family. Who cares? Actually, he just did. Just got together with a friend last night who just got back from NYC and saw Groff's Bobby Darin gig. He loved it. GROFF FOR KING IN 2028!

It's already happening. Youth unemployment keeps going up. And there are lots of stories about unusually high unemployment rates among recent college graduates, who usually have low unemployment rates. Maybe it is uncertainty about the Trump tariffs. Or maybe it is AI. Or maybe it is all of the above. So on the one hand there is this false promise that you're gonna pay more for your big ass truck so we can have more blue collar factory jobs. And meanwhile white collar jobs will be shredded by AI. I don't get how that is progress, yet. All those young Zoomer men who thought the blue collar billionaire Trump understood their problems ain't gonna be happy. Growing China trade deficit cost 3.7 million American jobs between 2001 and 2018 Jobs lost in every U.S. state and congressional district That's a nice summary. We know that while Bill Clinton was POTUS manufacturing was stable - from 16.8 million jobs in Jan. 93 on his first month to 17.1 million factory jobs on his last day. From there it was freefall to 11.4 million jobs by the Great Recession bottom in early 2010. So you can ding Obama for inheriting a financial crisis and Clinton for advancing the WTO based on promises of US job gains. But mostly this played out under Republican rule and Republican "free trade" policies. Biden was actually one of the ones who protested it at the time. And as you note it was some combination of being replaced by cheaper labor somewhere else, or automation. More for capitalists, less for labor. What a shocker! One nice thing about Trump is he has identified the problems, without really putting forward solutions. He lost in 2020 in part because people who live in these former factory towns said nothing really got better under Trump. In 2024 he won thanks in part to young men who felt at least Trump did not call them toxic. Now they get toxic Epstein drama, and the right to pay more for their big ass trucks to support Elon's tax cuts while the deficits that will fuck them good go up. Woo hoo! Maybe at some point Democrats will actually fight back to solve these problems.

I think it is both more complicated and worse than that. First, there will be tariffs on imported parts on cars manufactured in the US. It's a war on North American supply chains and auto workers in Canada and Mexico. Screw those auto workers! Second, as a result, prices will go up because cars cost more - thanks to Trump taxes. How do Trump taxes lower prices? They don't. Third, if prices go up thanks to Trump taxes, how does that help US auto workers negotiate higher wages? Pressure will be on auto makers to NOT raise prices any more than they have to. Do they achieve that by giving auto workers big raises? It makes no sense. One of my family members who is an Establishment Republican type and works for a large consulting firm is working on this now. He told me one prevailing view, I guess he meant among the consulting class, is that the last one to raise prices wins. That makes sense as a business strategy, if that is what happens. If there is any such thing as a car or SUV made 100 % in the US, in theory it could give a US car maker a competitive advantage in the US. My response to this was to cite Ruben Gallego's claim that every Latino man in America wants a big ass truck in his driveway. And they won't be happy when those big ass trucks cost more. This family member could not relate. We were actually sitting in his brand new luxury SUV with all the latest gadgets. How could he relate? It seems like a misguided policy. The same Establishment Republican types were behind the loss of millions of factory jobs when W. was President a generation ago. That was when the great shredding of US manufacturing happened, while Republicans ruled and Democrats like Biden protested in favor of "fair trade". So Trump has kind of embraced the slogan. But these days "fair trade" basically means "you pay more for your big ass truck". It's not gonna go down well.

Well, I'm a Christian. We believe in grace and charity. Besides, The Divine Miss Graham is a fashion goddess. How could I not be proud of her?

Satan won't even fuck the disgusting rapist felon. Does Satan know Trump fucked girls with Epstein? What a disgusting man. Our POTUS is a disgrace to the US. Did he rape girls, or just be best pals with a scumbag who did? We need to know!

Did felon rapist Trump rape girls with Epstein? I am with MAGA. MAGA wants to know. I want to know. Did rapist Trump rape girls? We know the lying rapist felon Trump was hiding something. What the lying rapist felon Trump is hiding is beginning to emerge. What a sick evil fuck! Child rapist? LIAR!!!!!!! Would felon rapist Trump be put to death for being a felon rapist? Did felon rapist Trump rape girls with Epstein? What a sick evil fuck Trump is! What a sick evil raping lying Trump our POTUS is! What a disgusting man! MAGA wants to know. I want to know. Did the felon rapist Trump rape girls with Epstein at Mar-A-Lago?

It's out of context. But I found this funny. That's at the end of a very long Politico piece about how Hegseth keeps fucking up again and again. But Trump likes him. In Gay terms, Pretty Pete ingests fully. He takes Donald's old and small member in all the way, and sucks out whatever may be left. And no matter how it tastes, Pretty Pete smacks his lips in satisfaction. Perhaps it has replaced his alcohol addiction? That is why Donald wants Pete. If Pete tends to rape and throw his pals under the bus, so what? That makes him just like Trump. It is true that in certain fashionable circles in Paris or Brussels, it would be viewed with disdain for Christine Lagarde to get down on her knees and see if she could get the old fat ass she has to negotiate with pumped up enough to drip out whatever she can get. So instead they make empty promises about how European businesses are going to ingest deeply in America. Sorry. I meant invest. 🙄 In the long term, this sucks for America. Biden was right about that much in his 2020 launch. If it were one time in 2016 based on a fluke in the electoral college, that can be viewed as NOT America. Now the world knows. This IS America. Then again, I think they probably knew that already.

Yes, that's true. But at least some of them exhibit grace and charm, and are true Southern ladies. That counts for something, at least.

Well since you got the bigger cock, isn't it only fair that I got the weightier voice? But, as always, beloved Sis, we agree. The answer to the question is YES. Of course, as my beloved OLDER sister knows, sometimes we Gays have to be a bit of a bitch when the right wingers want to take our shit away.

That sounds about right. Trump's disapproval ratings are spiking. And now a large majority are saying his immigration crackdown has gone too far. And polls are starting to show Americans are more pro-immigration than ever. So all that suggests they don't want to live in an America filled with chaos, and hate, and fear, where any "immigrant" is looked down on and maybe deported. "The border" was clearly a reason Trump won, in his own words and the words of his top campaign staff. But the fact that Biden was seen as going too far one way doesn't mean people voted for hate and fear. The ubiquitous line I have heard again and again is that people who voted for Trump say they voted for his policies. Some will add they know he is an asshole. I mostly buy that. And then it gets more complicated when you point out that the policies are cruel. So if you say you like Trump's policies, are you saying you like cruel policies? Basically, you voted for cruelty? Is that what you are saying? More cruelty? Every Republican or Trump voter I know would of course deny that these policies are cruel. It makes sense that they have to rationalize that away. We don't really mean to hurt those nice Gay people. We don't really mean to make people hungry, or take away rural hospital care. On a personal level, going back to the examples I used, my friend's sister does not want fear or hate. The opposite. She wants to be close to her brother in the way she used to be. Before Trump. My MAGA niece wants to be closer to her liberal sister, who may lose health care subsidies and whose health insurance premiums will rise thanks to the Big Ugly Cruel Bill. I don't blame my liberal niece for saying I don't really need to be around my sister. That has to do with more than politics. But part of the feeling is my niece clearly sees her sister as an affluent Republican snob. But she would never say her sister is hateful. It is complicated. I will end again with what I said about Michael Lewis's optimism. All this fear and hate and chaos does not "rhyme". If I look at my family or my friend's family, it is not the way people want to be. But I agree with you that Trump is continuously injecting hate and fear and chaos into the body politic. So I don't blame Democrats for saying this is just fucked up. And anybody who supports this ain't necessarily a friend of mine. Even if they are a family member.

I completely agree. Now that I said that, here is a much more complicated reponse. In this instance I was talking about a close friend and his sister. He is being honest in saying to her something like this: "We disagree about Trump. And when I'm with you Trump is off the table. It's just about you and me, pre-Trump, brother and sister." So what upsets him is he flies to another state to visit her and while he is there Fox News is on all the time. And there is MAGA stuff or Trump stuff lying around. But it's not like they have "Kill Gays Because They Are Evil" signs up. So it is a slippery slope. The sister wants her Gay brother to know that being Gay (and an escort) is fine, and always has been. One wonders what would happen if Trump actually did start deporting Gay people. But as you said, she wants to be able to have the same loving and kind relationship with her brother she used to have. As if this whole "LGBTQ oppression" thing doesn't even really matter. Which of course says it doesn't really matter to her. It would be as if Trump took her health care away, and my friend said, "Well, really, why should that matter anyway? It's not really important, is it?" So I'll add two other examples, both of which involve my MAGA niece. Who I have a kind and loving relationship with. We travel together regularly. And the biggest issue with her is she is a restaurant snob who can make dinners unpleasant when her exacting needs around food and service are not met. What a shocker! I posted about the first. She emailed me a very short one sentence suggestion that I might be interested in this series called Fellow Travelers. I debated whether to let it pass. But I sent her a relatively long email (what s shocker!) saying it was a great series I watched two years ago. But it was relentlessly depressing. Because it chronicled how the oppression of Gays in the 50's destroyed many people's lives. Then I added that many Gay people feel the same thing is happening again today under Trump. But just to appear fair and balanced, I mentioned that we also have our first Gay Treasury Secretary. She did not reply. I could of course have simply said, "Oh, thanks for the suggestion." She could have emailed back and said, "I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing." To me it's a perfect example of what you said. She wants to feel like she is not some hateful person. And, in fact, she is not. But she's proven time and again she has zero interest in knowing anything about things like the same-sex marriage organizing fight and how we won. But go get a drink in a Gay bar? She'll recommend that. After all, she's not one of those haters! I would not choose friends like this. But it's family. As you said, a charitable impulse is better than uncharitable. Second example. I recently spoke with her sister, who is a liberal Democrat I have a lot in common with. Her MAGA sister asked me a few years ago if I would pop for an AirBnB in California and invite both of them plus their families. There's a complicated relationship of two sisters there. But they have been close in the past. And she clearly viewed me as a sort of bridge builder. So I invited them both but said you two have to take the lead in planning when and where this happens. And for two years nothing has happened. The liberal sister called me to say she wants to come out here this Winter with her hubby and kid and spend a week. I said great, and asked her how she'd really feel about traveling with her sister. And she basically said I don't want to be around someone who supports all these efforts I find repulsive. Plus, she said she does get health care subsidies. And she is worried in 2026 those will be taken away. So, thanks but no thanks. I told her my rules for family are different, but I completely respect her decision. It is a slippery slope. I'll end on a note of optimism. I watched this great interview of Michael Lewis recently. He wrote The Big Short and lots of other good books, including ones slamming Trump. He made the point that this divisiveness can't last. Because, to quote him, the political divisions don't "rhyme" with the rest of American culture and society. My Canadian sister-in-law might debate that, and say America is a country of gun owners and road rage. So Trump fits right in. But being an optimist like Lewis I agree with him. And all these examples in families are proof of it, I think. Trump has gained power by playing divide and conquer. But even the people like my MAGA niece and my friend's MAGA sister don't really feel good about it. They don't apologize for being conservative. Nor should they. But they don't like the consequences. So I think Lewis is right. This can't last forever.

I think one likely answer is no. They were going through puberty. Inside the Political Divide Roiling Gen Z That chart sums it up nicely. From most things I read the other big dividing line is men v. women. I think younger Gen Z females are probably still more likely to have voted for Trump than older Gen Z females. But it is particularly a thing among Gen Z men. And it is as much cultural as political, since they ain't into politics, anyway. I can easily see how this worked just based on how turned off by Biden younger Democrats in my family were. To them he was like an old guy in a coffin who broke all his promises. Trump is no spring chicken. But he mined the podcasts and wrestling messages and Nelk Boys and influencers well. So now the chickens are coming home to roost for bloated old liar rapist Trump. Poor thing! I think it is probably a fact that in a lot of swing states and House districts, the narrow margin Trump or Republicans won by depended in part on younger Gen Z voters who are disaffected from politics and do not reliably vote. If that is true it means they will have a problem in the midterms if these people feel like Republicans are just the same old bullshit. This is why I like Ruben Gallego, as one example of a Democrat who fits in to the cultural stream. He comes off as very down to earth. Instead of The Gospel Of Climate Change, he talks about young men who want to own homes with "big ass trucks" in the driveway. Trump is teaching every purist climate changer right now that if you let me win I will absolutely destroy solar and wind initiatives that do lower costs and that are broadly popular. So some Democrat who is good at leading ought to be able to figure out how to build a pragmatic coalition out of that.

Just more of the same basically saying what you said: Trump's 'South Park' Problem It’s the latest sign that Trump has lost control of the Epstein narrative and that the saga has broken Washington containment. Here's the most interesting part. This is not rocket science. But neither was it completely obvious: The key words I highlighted there are "young men". It goes to this point we have been going back and forth about relating to "the cult" versus everyone else who voted for Trump. When I think of why young men voted for Trump, I think of things like reactions against high rent. High mortgage rates. COVID lockdowns. "Toxic masculinity" diatribes. But it makes sense that a lot of it was just being turned off by politics in general. Whatever their flaws, polls showed this clearly last Fall. The more turned off you were by politics, the more likely you were to be for Trump. So Trump was an anti-hero who flew into that cultural space and was happy to talk, talk, talk. Even if it was all bullshit. And now maybe they seem him as just that. Another politician full of shit. It also explains why Epstein has more traction than Medicaid cuts right now. People turned off by politics don't read Politico or Real Clear Politics every day. But they watch South Park and Joe Rogan. I think we can add this group to voters who maybe did vote for Biden in 2020 and maybe would vote for a Democrat in 2028.

I feel saved! And so does America. I'm no South Park resident. But here is my pro-Trump message.

Another really good article on this subject: Democratic memo: The party's redistricting problem goes much deeper I both strongly agree and disagree with Begala. I doubt he really meant that somehow Democrats "misallocated" resources by electing Clinton and Obama to serve 16 years as POTUS. Arguably, he even misspoke when he said "Messiah." The word I would use is more down to earth: "leader". We need a leader like Clinton or Obama. I just posted a great essay by John Halpin from the Liberal Patriot saying to win in 2028, progressives and centrists have to be able to come together around an economic populism agenda that attract Independents. @lookin also just posted a somewhat similar article in Jacobin saying there is a segment of working class Trump supporters that are socially moderate and liberal on many economic issues that Democrats should be going after. I don't think this can happen without a leader at the top doing it. Clinton did it. Obama did. Now Trump is doing it. Once again, AMLO is the best next door model of someone who did it in Mexico. So Democrats don't need a Messiah. But we do need a leader who can build a coalition and win. And right now the more working class that leader is, the better. Where I strongly agree with Begala is the idea that it was just dumb to invest $110 million in Jaime Harrison's South Carolina race. Amy McGrath in Kentucky comes to mind as well. She is a very nice Democrat who sucked up a huge amount of resources with almost no chance to win. This kind of effort is also easy to say and hard to do. ACT BLUE has been a great tool for grassroots Democratic fundraising. But it lends itself to the idea that small donors like me will be attracted to high profile races. As opposed to state legislative battles for some politician I never heard of. I don't think there is any way to change that. And I have no regrets that in 2024 I sent much of my money to high profile races like Jon Tester in Montana and Sherrod Brown in Ohio, even if they lost. In 2010, Republicans ‘Weaponized’ Gerrymandering. Here’s How They Did It. That's a good summary of how Republicans did it in 2010. It has to be said that they had the wind at their back. The Great Recession was both a blessing and a curse for Democrats. We won enough seats in 2008 to control the White House and Congress. And also to win state legislatures in places we usually don't. Like Iowa and Ohio. But precisely for that reason all the blame was put on Democrats by pissed voters in 2010. That said, this was probably my biggest disappointment in Obama. Circa 2008 I was simply amazed with the idea that a Black community organizer could even be elected President. Gradually building power in state legislatures is definitely a community organizing project. So I would have guessed Obama would be better at it than most. Ultimately I decided Obama was really more a law professor who happened to work as a community organizer for a while. Again, he got the brunt of a Great Recession he did not cause. But it was during the Obama era that the Democratic bench was wiped out in what we now call "red states" like Iowa and Ohio. One of the virtues of a community organizing project to win state legislative seats in swing states is that it would keep Democrats more in touch with local working class voters. I think the lesson of Obama is that any POTUS is going to look at the party machinery first and foremost as his own tool to serve his own interest. Gavin Newsom is doing that right now. Most people seem to think he is not really serious about a California gerrymander. He just wants to be the POTUS candidate who will stand up to Trump. It's probably not a coincidence that REDMAP got off the ground when there was no Republican POTUS. Just smart operatives plotting to win back power, who had access to $300 million at the time. This would be a great project for some Democratic version of Elon Musk. It seems far too inside baseball to attract lots of small donors on ACT Blue. But some billionaire Hollywood or Wall Street liberals could make a big difference by funding a long-term Democratic version of REDMAP.

This is an excellent essay. The Liberal Patriot is where Ruy Teixeira writes his perma-scold articles, pretty much every one of which I read. This guy John Halpin is different. He does less scolding and tries to lay out a positive vision of what will work. Can Democratic Factions Coexist and Win Over Independents? There's only one problem with this essay. It is much easier said than done. I really do think it boils down to one thing. Democrats need a new leader. And we won't have one until 2028, at the earliest. So we get to stew in our juices for three more years. And see lots of institutions and programs we like be destroyed. I'll keep ranting that AMLO is a version of this right in our own back yard. What this essay lays out is basically what he did in Mexico. But it took decades and a lot of both external and internal fights to pull it off. Including in his case forming a new party. But we have a great model right in our own front yard: Donald Trump. It took two Republican losses in 2008 and 2012 for the time to be right for Donald Trump to stroll in and gradually capture his party. But he still has not been able to capture 50.00000000000000001 % of the vote even one time. The author mentions that social media is hardly the place to work this out. Ya think? Social media is one of the biggest problems, since it makes us stupider and divided for profit. Politics is about addition, not subtraction. It is going to take some very talented political leader to do it. The good news to me is that Harris almost won. So 2024 was not the massive repudiation of Democrats some make it out to be. Right now the repudiated Democratic Party is leading in the generic ballot by about three points. I do think the worse Trump gets, the better it is for Democrats in one way. Several of the comments on that essay slam the moral purity of the left. Trump is clearly intent on absolutely crushing all kinds of institutions and forces on the left. So maybe after four years of that they will be a little less purist. Especially on issues most people know are wildly unpopular. Progressives like AOC and Sanders and maybe Mamdani can win in blue enclaves. But after four years of Trump at war with immigrants and solar power and transgender people, hopefully progressives will be sick of it and ready to do whatever it takes to win. If the goal is to build a majority, the center is by definition where the votes are. The problem with the Democratic center is they are tied to every special interest group with money around. Sinema and Manchin blocked attempts to do all kinds of popular things, like raising taxes on the rich to fund very popular policies for working class families. So some Democratic leader is going to have to first, win, and then second kick ass and force these centrists to do things a lot of Democratic lobbyists and bundlers and special interests don't like. It seemed in 2020 like Biden might have been the guy who could do that. But he was too old and too weak and didn't really have a vision of what he needed to do. But this is what AMLO managed to do when he took power, and what Trump is doing now. It ain't rocket science.

Jon Stewart did the same on Monday night. He did a sort of "Fuck y'all" tribute to Colbert, his friend and partner in crime. He lacerated Trump and CGS. So basically it was, "You ain't shutting me up, assholes." The interesting thing about that episode is his guest was Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner of the LA Times. Interesting guy. He announced on air that he is taking the Times public. Everyone in the audience applauded. The staff of the Times were furious that he didn't at least tell them first. So it is another sign of the times. This is as old as Citizen Kane and the robber barons. Here we go again. It makes perfect sense that in times like this the institutions run scared. We, the people, created this mess. So ultimately is is up to we, the people, to get out of it. Kudos to South Park and Stewart and Colbert for refusing to be silenced.

Agreed. As it turned out, Obamacare has helped lots of people afford health insurance. Larry Summers, who now calls himself a "progressive", recently said that throwing 10 million people off Medicaid will result in 100,000 deaths. I have no idea how he figured that. But my point is that a lot of deaths and worse health and bankruptcies were avoided through Obamacare. So I would say it is an example of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. It is also an example of money in politics at it worst. And this is true for Democrats and Republicans. Arguably more true for Democrats. At least the logic of Republicans is simple. End a government program. Put lots of money in tax cuts in the pockets of Trumps and donors like Musk. Put a little money in the pocket of some Hispanic guy whose income is based on tips. Call it fair. Say the Republican Party is the party of the Hispanic working class. My version of the AMLO Democratic Party was the expanded child tax credit. Like AMLO in Mexico, it simply put money in the hands of working class people with kids. It cuts child poverty in half. Yes, Virginia. It really is that simple. Arguably, if a younger and feistier Joe Biden and Kamala Harris had lacerated Sinema and Manchin they could have gotten a modest tax increase on the Trumps and Musks to pay for an expanded and permanent child tax credit. That credit would have wiped out most of the impact of higher prices for tens of millions of working class families who didn't like higher prices. My version of Kamala Harris is she brought a knife to her one debate with Trump and said, "My Momma taught me that when you lift half of poor kids out of poverty, you don't throw them back in to give tax cuts to rapists like Donald Trump. So if he tries to do that to your kids I will literally gut this man and turn him into shitty overpriced Trump steaks. If you don't believe me, try me." That Kamala Harris might have won. Instead what we got is a Democratic Party steeped in lobbyist and special interest money that even on its best day, when it had power, came up with some ridiculous scheme for paid family leave that seems like it had to be written by lobbyists and corporate donors. I did not follow it closely because it was just sad. Even advocates were saying this scheme is overcomplicated and there are simpler and better ways to do this. I have no idea what the solution to this is. Special interests in politics are as old as politics. But Democrats are so deeply saturated in money and special interests that they don't seem to be able to figure out what to actually fight for.

My Sister In Cock and I are gracious, loving, and kind. That said, we are still perverts. People who live in glass glory holes should not throw stones. 😉

Not sure what that question means, but this was an interesting article on Trump and polls. A Polling Analyst Digs Into Trump’s Ratings and the Epstein Saga Like you, I believe Epstein is just one more awful thing about Trump that will ultimately blow over. At least with his base. I think this article does a good job of defining that base as a narrow range between maybe 38 % and 44 % of voters. I very much doubt we'll see pictures of Trump and Epstein and Bill Clinton and teenage girls in bed together while drinking the blood of children. So the Epstein saga will not be a major factor. President Trump Job Approval I think that second chart on RCP that shows Trump's first term approval ratings confirms the point I keep making: people notice when they are being treated cruelly. 38 % approval is about as low as Trump got in his first term. I don't think it is a coincidence that he first struck that low in Summer 2017. That was right after the failed attempt to repeal Obamacare. Note the word "failed". So even though nothing changed, his own supporters on Obamacare noticed they were being stabbed in the back. Some of them probably helped elect all those Democrats to the House in 2018. What's interesting is that it is not quite true that, for Trump, 40 percent is the new 50 percent. That was true in 2017. So far in 2025 he has stayed above 45 percent. Right around now in 2017 was when he was first hitting sub-40 thanks to trying to repeal Obamacare. So his approval rating is actually higher. Maybe in part because we are dealing with a fake MAGA/QAnon crisis rather than a real health care crisis. That also suggests maybe you are right. If I'm correct that even trying to repeal Obamacare in 2017 drove Trump's approval rating down, actually cutting Medicaid and SNAP should do the same. But it has not really registered yet, it seems. As that article notes, the Big Cruel Bill is wildly unpopular. But it has seemingly not moved the dial on Trump's approval rating. It is funny to see Trump acting bat shit crazy because of a fake scandal of his own making. But not that funny. Here's why: I think that confirms my distinction between MAGA world and cynics or Independents - like Joe Rogan - who don't like either party. It also confirms that even senior Democrats sounds confused. If they are not ideologically aligned with Trump but "kind of flirted with him" and now think he is full of shit, they are not living in MAGA world. They are how Trump got from something like a 40 % base to a 49.8 % winning plurality. If this damages Trump, great. But as a Democrat I would not be boasting. Mostly what it does, as is noted, is make cynics feel more cynical about politicians who are full of shit. The fact that Democrats are pressing the point does not make them any less full of shit in the eyes of the same voters. It just makes them the ones throwing the shit. As far as it goes, that's fine. But it doesn't give anyone a reason to vote for Democrats.

Exactly. Although I might say the GOVERNMENT or the DEEP STATE. Doesn't everyone love California gay liberals? 🙄 Like I said above, I have seen polls that say 1 in 5 voters actually buy this extreme QAnon stuff. Like secret cabals of Epstein-like vampires who drink the blood of children. Who knows. It may be that they view that the same way they view Trump: seriously, but not literally. It is all a reaction to the Deep State. What seems clear is that most of Trump's supporters are prouder of the US than ever. And they feel democracy is doing fine. This is the America they want. And they are centered in Gen X. So I have to assume for most of them middle aged life is going pretty well. They don't rely on Medicaid. And they would rather have a tax cut, thank you. Even if it just means a small tax cut by not paying taxes on tips or being able to deduct car loan interest. What does seem likely is that there is this large segment of swing voters or Independents or cynics or whatever you want to call them that don't trust either party. And may be inclined to vote against whoever is in power. If I had to target one group, I'd say Zoomers. Had young voters voted the same way as in 2020, Harris would be POTUS. And Democrats would run the House. But even that would not have helped in Montana or Ohio with Senate seats. The very hard question is this: what do Democrats have to do to win Iowa again? It is where Obama rose to power. He won the state twice. Before Tim Walz was Kamala's lib running mate, he was a moderate Democrat from rural Minnesota that the NRA could work with. My guess is you are mostly right. It is going to have to be in their face that losing health insurance and closed hospitals and food banks that are overrun are not what they voted for. And even with that Democrats will have to say, with credibility, that they have some better alternative. Doesn't a mental institution almost sound like a simpler alternative? 🤪 Or believing The Storm will come and rescue us from this cruelty?

I think of Mark Halperin as one of the best political journalists today. He says the best politician of his life is Bill Clinton, bar none. He says Trump is the second best. Halperin has a good point. Especially after 2024. There is an objective test, which is simple. Can you get elected POTUS? Then can you get elected twice? The three living examples are Clinton, Obama, and Trump. So the interesting question to Halperin would be why do you put Trump before Obama? I think the answer is that Halperin thinks of politicians as feral political animals who will do whatever it takes to survive. And can somehow read the room well enough to cobble together a coalition that wins. Trump has done that, barely, twice. Personally, I'd rate Obama higher. But that's just my opinion. On the issue of health care, something did seem to shift. Trump was saying pretty loudly this Spring that Republicans should not cut Medicaid. And they should do these small ball populist working class things like "no tax on tips". Ultimately he did agree with a bunch of harsh health care and food cuts that I am sure he knows screw many of his voters. Even though they will all pretend it is just weeding out the unworthy. Except for a few guys like Tillis. Who is essentially being the prophet saying this is going to end badly for us, guys. I think it probably goes to Halperin's point. Trump has proven he is an effective politician. He must have decided that if he wanted to get a bill passed with a very narrow Republican majority, he needed the votes of the White Guy core of the party. They always want to cut all this government waste and hand out tax cuts. And they tend to represent ruby red districts where they can win easily. Trump probably does think he can just bullshit his way through it. If he does, my guess is he is delusional. That's not a shocker. Trump himself has said he won in 2024 thanks to two things: high prices, and the border. His campaign co-manager Chris LaCivita said the same thing. His pollster Tony Fabrizio said they modeled the electorate and figured out how they could cobble together enough votes to win. So that would include Black and especially Brown voters who are pissed off about prices and rent. They are all saying the same thing. Prices and inflation and affordability drove his narrow win. I personally buy all these studies that claim to have proven that some core of Trump voters are Whites who feel racial animus and see Trump and "Make America Great Again" in racial terms. You may call them "dissent" voters. But whatever we call them, they are NOT going to vote for the Obama Party or the Harris Party. And maybe that is what Trump himself thinks. He's got them, no matter what he does. It's just not true. And the math is simple. In three elections he has never won the majority of the vote. The people who actually won the thing - Trump, LaCivita, Fabrizio - are guys who like to brag. And they brag that we won this thing thanks to prices. Susie Wiles is smart enough to just keep her mouth shit. Prices and affordability are, of course, why Mamdani won a very different campaign in NYC. So maybe they really have convinced themselves that prices don't matter after elections. And no one will notice health care and food costs. But if that's what they think, I do think Tillis was prophetic. They are in for a big surprise. Lots of moderate Republicans in swing districts know this. They were the ones saying these cuts will impact our voters and will be a kiss of death. I'm sure you are right that Trump will try to sell this like it's the best deal for the working class ever. But the polls say they ain't buying. More important, we have two real world examples of how well Trump, as President, call sell bad policies that hurt people: 2018, and 2020. He could not close the deal either year. He is better as an outsider railing against Obama or Biden than he is as a leader. What a shock!

I get the point about having the slenderest of Democratic House majorities. I assume Nancy Pelosi's goal last year, at a minimum, was to get Biden out of the way. And thus remove an obstacle to a narrow House majority that could serve as a firewall. And she came very close. The Democrats won one House seat. Had they won a few more, all the tax cuts to Elon Musk and all the Medicaid cuts and all the looming hunger could have been blocked. Or at last much of it. That said, there are two problems with gerrymandering in California: 1) Gerrymandering, and 2) California. What message does this send? Why are so many voters cynical about politics? Here are a list of US Senate seats Democrats won in 2008, and the winning percentages: Alaska: Mark Begich 47.8 % Arkansas: Mark Pryor: 79.8 % Iowa: Tom Harkin 72.8 % Louisiana: Mary Landrieu 52.1 % Montana: Max Baucus 72.9 % North Carolina: Kay Hagan 52.7 % South Dakota: Tim Johnson 62.5 % West Virginia: Jay Rockefeller 63. 7 % Democrats did briefly enjoy a 60 vote filibuster-proof Senate majority. They could have raised taxes on Elon Musk. They could have made a popular child tax credit that helped tens of millions of working class families and cut child poverty in half permanent. They could have, and did, enact affordable health care initiatives to help the working class that Republicans now want to take away. If Democrats want to solve problems, instead of just block bad things, this is the problem they have to solve. How do you win in these states again? It won't be easy. If and when they do solve it, they will also solve the gerrymandering problem. The way to solve the gerrymandering problem is simple. Be popular. And win. Broadly. This is also a way to solve the Texas gerrymandering problem, even if nothing else happens. Republicans will do well if every election is like 2024, when people want to throw the bums out. And if the bums are Biden and Harris. If the bums are Trump and Vance in 2026, gerrymandering Texas into more thinly Republican districts will backfire. That's not a defense of what Republicans did in North Carolina and Wisconsin. Democrats should go over that. But the best way to go after it is by winning in states and districts we used to be able to win in.

Is Epstein the one in drag? And this does not prove Trump's guilt, any more than that goofy WSJ article. We all know Trump does not sing. 😉 Btw, does Trump read?