stevenkesslar

Fine. Have your fantasy. But are you willing to pay a 50 % tariff to fuck him? Oh, wait. Do you want Daddy to fuck you?

True. But if we factor in the Ossoff's Penis Theory of Penetration, and add a bit of Chasten's warmth, doesn't that change the long arc of the moral universe? Especially given that Lindsey Belle is no longer around to execute the Lindsey's Bottom Theory Of Denial And Resistance. Inquiring minds want to know.

I love it when you put your foot down, Sis. I can never decide whether it is because of my deep respect for you. Or simply that I get a closer glimpse at your elegant shoes.

Can't we have our Jared sit down, and subpoena him, too? If Democrats take either chamber I definitely see two areas where they will go, which is already being predicted: 1) Trump War Grift, focusing on how the Trump family is making enormous amounts of money on a war America does not want, and is losing; 2) Genocide Jew Grift, where Genocide-Adjacent Jared is grifting billions off autocrat Muslims (who are not Iranian) while he says nothing while the Genocide Jew gives his dumb Dad-in-law disastrous advice about a war we are losing while the Trumps make money. Wash, rinse, repeat. But it will still be grifty, filthy, and fatal to women and children on every cycle. Me being a whore and what not, I have no problem with the idea that Hakeem meets with the Genocide-Adjacent Jew to discuss how they might work together on the real problems of Americans. Which DO NOT include how the Genocide-Adjacent Jew or Trump's War Grift Sons make money off a war neither America nor the world wants. Ideally, Hakeem should use the words "genocide" and "grift" and "affordability" at least a dozen times each when he talks about the purpose of the meeting. I went off the deep end in posts about Mark Halperin and Mike Murphy interviews. But having done that, I can summarize a few key points in this context. Mike Murphy, the lifelong Republican who says he never thought his party would put forward a POTUS like Trump who is is unconcerned with the national interests of the US, would probably say there is no point in even talking. He's a raping Grift POTUS with War Grift Sons. And even worse he's dumb as a fucking rock when it comes to war strategy. No surprise for President Bone Spurs, a narcissistic coward. Why waste our breath? We'll just look bad. Which Hakeem does. Mark Halperin would say: why not meet with President Houdini, or his Genocide Jew-Adjacent Son In Law, who gets to fuck his pretty daughter that he can't fuck but who looks like Natalie? (Am I being too blunt?) Actually doing something to compromise on immigration and affordability is what Americans want. And since President Houdini is good at escaping from traps, including ones like the Iran War he basically springs on himself, why not? Maybe Trump will at least want history to view him as a POTUS that did a few things on immigration or affordability that helped people in his last few years. Halperin is right that in the venal amoeba brain of Trump (my words, not his) you can't have subpoenas and cock sucking at the same time. It is one or the other. Which would be true of any POTUS, really. But that will be a decision for Trump to make, if the Democrats can win the House or Senate. For now, they really have the power to do nothing but talk. Mike Johnson runs the House. And the asshole Thune who won't suck Trump's baby maybe it's a cock properly runs the Senate. To repeat one other idea, I want every swing state Democrat who wins to be locked in a room after the election and not let out until they agree on a ten point Contract For An Affordable America. Once that is drafted, they should insist on subpoenas to the Genocide-Adjacent Jew Jared and the Trump War Grift Sons and even the Genocide Jew himself. Bibi The Baby Killer likes to speak to the US Congress. Haul their Genocide War Grift Asses in front of Congress to debate one question. How do we divert some of the War Grift Money on drones and Genocide Jew Policy to kill women and children into things that make life more affordable for everyday Americans? Which, survey says, is what Americans actually want. It won't play out this way, of course. But I like the idea that the Democrats get their shit together, figure out what "affordability" things they can actually deliver, and then insist all the cast of War Grift and Genocide Policy players on Team Trump talk with them and work with them to solve the problems of real Americans. I doubt the War Grifters and Genocide Policy Promoters will play along. Fine. That sets the stage for 2028. It's Trump choice. Halperin is right that Trump is the kind of asshole who would throw his whole party under the bus if Democrats had impeachment powers and they gave Trump a way to look slightly lest scummy in the history books. I'm a whore. I'd try it out. To translate it into Josh Turek talk, this is what it means to "build a cooperative relationship with President Trump." Which right now he is promising voters he will do if elected. Trump's Grift War is as unpopular in Iowa as it is everywhere else. The Iraq War is why Obama won in Iowa in the first place.

Bitch! Now you want to ruin my day, again! 😉

I just try to be tolerant, and open-minded. As a professional, I could handle Jon whether he is cut or uncut. It's up to him. Either way, he has such a penetrating look. Which I suppose is the philosophical principal involved in Ossoff's Penis. In a word: penetration:

Yeah, right. But Americans are more unified about this than Canadians. So there. Okay, great. So 56 % of Canadians agree with Carney that Trump can't be trusted. But poll after poll shows Americans are even more unified. A WaPo poll last year showed 64 % of Americans oppose how Trump is using tariffs. A New York Times poll earlier this year also said 64 % of Americans oppose Trump's tariffs. But Americans are even more unified than that. 71 % of Americans agree that Trump's tariffs will have a negative impact on inflation in the US. And 56 % of Americans agree that it will negatively impact US global economic leadership. Take that, Canada! I don't mean to sound smug or triumphant. But doesn't it show America is smarter, and more unified, for electing Trump to lower our prices in the first place? 🤔 By the way, need any drones? I heard Trump's kids are selling some for cheap.

First, you have to do a small favor for me. Call Jon Ossoff and find out whether he takes after his Mom, or his Dad. If he takes after his Jewish Dad, and is circumcised, I need to research this more. Which violates the whole idea, I know. If he takes after his Australian Mom, where men tend not to be circumcised, the answer is simple. Occam's razor is a rule for thinking. Core Idea Cut out extra parts. Sorry, Jon. It wasn't my idea.

Here's am alternative idea. It is complicated, and unlikely to happen. And, of course, long-winded. 🙄 The main idea is simple. If the Democrats want a durable majority, they should build a durable majority. If they can do that, Democrats will eventually appoint a majority of SCOTUS. In my mind that is better than waiting to have 51 Senate votes and then busting the filibuster to pack the Court. Going that route will confirm every Republican's (and maybe Independent's) worst fear. And create a backlash. Then we'll have 51 Republican Senators doing the same thing. While not easy, I think building a durable majority would be easier to accomplish than court packing. Which was tried once, a century ago, and failed. Sort of. I'll get back to that below. Let's stipulate Cooper, El-Sayed, Talarico, Turek, Ossoff, Peltola and Jackson all win. Some are incumbents. But they are all swing state Senators. We then have 52 US Senators that caucus with Democrats. Let's add that Dan Osborn wins running as an Independent in a wave election. Now we have 53. Let's throw in Lisa Murkowski, who is on the ballot in 2028. I would throw those nine in a room and say you can't come out until you come up with a 10 point Contract for An Affordable America. Yes, I am modelling it on Newt's idea in 1994, which worked well for Republicans. It would have to be a plan that they think could pass as an initiative with 50 % of the vote in each of their states. It would also have to be a plan that should be able to get 60 Senate votes, so it is filibuster proof. I would stipulate that at least one of the ten points has to involve higher taxes either on rich people, or corporations, or both - which both Clinton and Obama managed to do - to pay for this affordable stuff. And it has to be economic stuff. Like minimum wages, or child tax credits. It does not include gun control, or trans rights, or border issues. It's about affordability, not culture war. The trick in my logic is that of course it won't pass in 2027. Because under the scenario I laid out Democrats have 52 Senate votes. Plus Osborn and Murkowski. But they are attacked as socialists, and they still have only 54 votes. Not to mention a Trump veto. In theory, they could vote to end the filibuster, as Republicans who want to end the filibuster claim Democrats will do. But ending the filibuster does not stop a Trump veto. So Democrats say, "We need six more votes. And we need to shit can Trump and Vance." Where do you get the 6 votes? In 2028 Democrats have to win Wisconsin, Iowa, and North Carolina. Since we already have one Senate seat in each state after 2026, we ought to be able to win the other. The next most likely states up in 2028 would be North Dakota, Missouri, and Indiana. In other words, Democrats have to be able to win states they won in both 2006 and 2012, in the case of two of those states. Or that they won once in 2012, in the case of Indiana. If we assume America will be ready to clean house and change like in 2006 and 2008, this should be doable. In 2008 Democrats had 60 Senate seats. Including, for example, both seats in North Dakota. In this scenario, you have a Democratic POTUS and Congress. My own bias is I would argue a Republican SCOTUS is actually a gift. You need some part of the system to be against you. So let's say a Democratic Congress enacts a 10 point Contract For An Affordable America. And a right wing SCOTUS says half of it is unconstitutional. That's when I would begin to talk about court packing. And, depending on what Thomas and Alito do, by 2029 Thomas is over 80 and Alito is very close. After going through two Presidencies with 80 year olds who needed diapers, or at least appeared to, a SCOTUS retirement age of 80 would do the trick just as well as Court packing. Suddenly you have a 5-4 majority of Democratic appointees. Confirmed by a Democratic majority. See ya, Mitch. Had there been an 80 year old retirement age in place, Ginsburg would have had to retire by early 2014, when Obama was POTUS and he still had a Senate majority. And the problem is? 😉 I thought "a stitch in time saves nine" actually originated from that conflict. Google says it is a folk saying that dates back hundreds of years. But Google also says "a switch in time saves nine" originated from humorist Cal Tinney. That saying refers to Justice Owen Roberts shifting to support New Deal legislation to defuse the drive for court packing. So Tinney changed a "T" to a "W", I guess. More important, Roberts changed a no to a yes, and saved the SCOTUS as it was in 1937. It's not hard to imagine John Roberts doing the same in 2029, if needed. What happened with the first big bill a conservative SCOTUS knocked down - the 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act - is instructive. By the time SCOTUS nullified it in 1935 the problems with the bill had already played out. Arguably, the single most important thing in the bill was the Democratic Party's decision to back and promote the interests of labor, and labor unions. That led to the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. which was a cornerstone of the New Deal political coalition for decades. Democrats decided, correctly, that this was the path to a lasting majority political coalition. Which arguably also laid the groundwork for a growing middle class. Court packing, while important, was a sideshow to Democrats having a strategy to draw a majority of Americans to their party. That essay by Robert Reich I posted recently spelled out how this process reversed itself. It was politically expedient for Clinton-era Democrats to end 12 years of being out of power by embracing corporate interests and corporate money in politics. But it did not create a lasting Democratic majority. It did create the Donald Trump peasant's revolt, with a weird billionaire reality TV star who could never win 50.0000000000000001 % of the vote. And who could reliably build Trump Grift, but not a Trump New Deal. If the Democratic Party goes to war over anything, I think El-Sayed has it right: "Money out of politics, money in your pocket." Both parts of that are wildly popular. What does money out of politics really mean, if Democrats do win in 2028? If that means Democrats eventually have to threaten SCOTUS with court packing because a diaper-wearing Clarence Thomas wants AI corporations, or crypto or drone companies owned by Donald Trump, Jr., to have the best politicians money can buy, that is a fight a majority of Americans would support that is worth having. People in Iowa want their kids killed so Donald Trump Jr. can make money on drones? The central problem Democrats need to figure out first is how to win again in states like Iowa, and North Dakota, and Missouri. It's a different way of saying that Democrats have to be a political party that legitimately caters to the needs of working class people who don't have college degrees. This also solves the problem coming in 2032. Assuming the world and the US and the electoral college still exist. Reliably red states Florida and Texas will gain 5 electoral votes at the expense of reliably blue states California and Illinois. So the 2024 electoral map looks like this in 2032. In 2024 Harris could have won by winning the Rustbelt states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania for 270 votes, the bare minimum. Winning the Southern states of Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada would have given her a 269 vote tie. And tossed the election to Congress. In 2032, either of those two paths would result in a loss to Democrats. Ideally, a Democrat can do what Biden did in 2020, and win both paths. But being able to win a state like Iowa or Indiana or Montana or North Carolina again would sure help. While I think this is a more durable and likely path for Democrats to get what we want, my guess is it ain't gonna happen this way, either. If I had to bet, it will happen because of a crisis. I glibly said "if the world still exists" by 2032 because there is no shortage of people, including top AI experts, who think humanity may actually be doomed by then. 😱 And we will always have nuclear war, which suddenly seems like something Trump could actually tee up in Tehran. Hopefully, a crisis would be more like a garden variety Great Depression, like 1929. Or maybe just a Great Recession, like 2008. Even 1980 will do, in a pinch. Reagan won more states in both 1980 and 1984 than Obama did in 2008. Before 2024 I assumed demographics was destiny. So Millennials and minorities and Zoomers would see fit to making The Emerging Democratic Majority stick around for decades. Since 2024, I'm not so sure. Whenever this stock bull market ends, it's not really the fault of whoever happens to be in power. Same with the budget deficit. Every President since Clinton has run up a deficit every year. Losing the Iran War will be Trump's fault. If all this happens at once, it's gonna create a big crisis that hurts one party and drives people to the other party. In my mind there are at least 50/50 odds, if not greater, this all happens by 2028. To end my rant where it began, that is what actually happened with Court Packing 1.0. First you needed a crisis to get a New Deal majority that could enact New Deal legislation. Only then did SCOTUS matter. Either Democrats have to build this gradually, or a crisis will drive it along. Either way, as things stand right now, Democrats have at least a 50/50 chance to have the Presidency, Senate, and House in 2029. Again, I think it's actually a plus to have some part of the constitutional system trying to obstruct the other. Even during the New Deal it tended to save Democrats from some of their own mistakes. Even a Trump SCOTUS is saving Trump from some of his worst impulses. Of course, if we are being realistic, why would anyone think Donald Trump would bankrupt anything, or cause any crisis?

Well, thanks Sis. Buckle up for another verbose rant. I spent two hours yesterday watching back to interviews by Charlie Rose of former Republican consultant Mike Murphy, and my favorite political journalist, Mark Halperin. I was going to post something about that. And you just gave me a perfect context for doing it. What does Trump's last two years look like, if Democrats win? Murphy is a textbook example of the kind of bipartisan Republican I identified above. Currently, he and David Axelrod and John Heilemann are all podcast pals, of course. The most interesting thing Murphy said is that he ended his lifelong Republican Party registration, even though he is a lifelong conservative. And the reason why is Donald Trump, and the Republican Party's reaction to Trump. At the end of the interview, at 58:00, he says "I never thought we'd have a President as uninterested in the national interest as Donald J. Trump." Trump, and MAGA, would of course disagree. I'd argue that's because of something called narcissistic personality disorder. So the question is, how many Republicans in Florida feel that way about Trump? And, if they agree with Murphy, would they rather have an old school bipartisan moderate like Jolly than a Trump ass kisser like Donalds? Murphy voted for Biden in 2020. I then watched this interview of Mark Halperin. There are two things I particularly like about Halperin. First, he tries really hard to create forums where both sides come out of their silos and talk to each other. Second, he tries very hard to get into the mind of Donald J. Trump, and give him grace. Arguably, too hard. Mike Murphy, the lifelong Republican, would probably argue Trump lost any reason for grace a long time ago. When you compare Trump to Murphy's favorite Republicans - like McCain or Romney or Lamar Alexander - there is arguably zero grace, and boatloads of grift. To Trump, politics is about Trump's interests, not the national interest. Case closed. Notwithstanding, at one point Halperin almost whimsically made a case for what Grand Bipartisan Stuff Trump might do in his final two years. Halperin's point, which is almost certainly true, is that Trump is a political Houdini. He always finds a way out. So even if Democrats have a House and Senate majority, maybe Trump then becomes the President who makes a Grand Deal with Democrats on immigration reform and Social Security. I would not dismiss the idea. Trump is narcissistic enough to know that if the Iran War failed, and this is his best shot at having some kind of positive legacy, maybe he would do it. Halperin also noted that Trump Grift will be part of his legacy, to a degree unprecedented in the history of the US. Halperin has talked about the idea of Trump as the Grand Deal Maker In Disguise in less whimsical moments. In his more sober moments he notes that, at this point, it is very hard to imagine that Trump would want to make deals with Democrats. Or that Democrats, brought back to life by disgust about who Trump is and what he has done, would want to make deals with Trump. And if Democrats do win the House and Senate, they will be a bit like the moderate Iranians are right now. Trump will be a wounded animal. And they will know it. They have absolutely no political reason to help him escape the legacy he spent his life creating. Any more than Iranians have to help Trump look like he won the war he has lost. If the Iran War goes the way it seems like it will, Trump War Grift will be a big part of his final two years. It's bad enough that Democrats will likely be able to document that generals, and his own Veep, and his own Secretary of State, all told him this was a bad idea. But then add Trump War Grift and the enrichment of Donald Jr. and Eric. Add in all the Kushner Genocide Grift. And you have a very toxic combination. And the toxic shit does run over onto Vance and Rubio. If Jolly wins Florida, not even Mar A Lago is safe. Then again. There's always Russia. What else are pals for? Halperin brought up one other elephant in the room that could impact the outcome: massive amounts of Republican special interest and big donor money. In general, he argued, Republicans will clobber Democrats with money. That said, in many of the key races - Georgia, Texas, Ohio, North Carolina - the Democratic candidates have a lot more money than their opponents. But David Jolly is not in that position. He has been and will be wildly outspent by Byron Donalds and the Republican Money Machine. I'm not sure a former Republican House member and corporate lobbyist can pull off a Full Abdul. But El-Sayed is one example of how you can turn torrents of special interest money and corporate money into a campaign liability for the Corporate Money Whore. As those articles I hyperlinked above point out, hordes of special interest money still has not been able to buy Donalds favorable ratings. A recent poll showed Donalds at 40 % favorable, 43 % unfavorable. Jolly is at 30 % favorable, 20 % unfavorable, according to Google. So the question is whether all that money can bury Jolly before he can lift himself. Jolly has got massive obstacles to overcome, both in terms of voters and money. If he does it, it is definitely thanks to a blue wave. One can hope. And speaking of waves. As best as I can tell, in the Congress that started in 2018 there were 13 non-White Republican MOCs. Now I think there are about 26. That's double what it was in 2018, when Democrats elected a huge number of women and/or non-White legislators. This year Republicans have Black Guv candidates in Michigan, Minnesota, and Florida. At this point Donalds is far and away the most likely to win. If Donalds goes down, that will be interesting. Speaking as a partisan liberal Democrat, I think it sends a perfectly clear message to Republicans. They like to talk about how it's the content of your character, not the color of your skin. Great! But it's also the content of your policies. It's the affordability, stupid!

I have a strong positive feeling about Jolly that is rooted in my personal background. Even though I know nothing about him. A strong thread in my entire life experience is that you can't do inside politics without being bipartisan. Even if you are a rabidly partisan Democrat like me. In fact, I think the two go together hand in hand. Even our beloved and lost Sister, The Divine Miss Graham, managed to be good friends with Joe Biden and lots of Democratic colleagues while they served in the Senate together. God how I miss my Secret Sister In Cock. 🙄 Not as much as my Real Sister In Cock, who is much younger and prettier than I, will miss me when I am gone, of course. 🤔 The anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act was born when Jimmy Carter was President but survived the Reagan Era (and the W era) because of bipartisan deals. And by being able to count on some Republicans for support. There was a particular moment when I told one of the best people I've ever worked with, who ran Oregon's largest community action agency, that we had to "get in bed" with a fairly conservative and anti-Gay Republican state legislator who represented her district and who wanted to win a US House seat in the next election. Short result: We got a permanent statewide annual low income energy assistance program out of the deal. And the Republican never got his House seat. Boo hoo! Politics is a blood sport. Jolly had a reputation as a bipartisan deal maker who pissed off other Republicans by cutting deals with Democrats even when he was a Republican. In a way he is a Republican Joe Manchin. Including the fact that he runs easy with corporate lobbyists who pay him good money to represent their interests. But, again, now is not a time for liberal purity tests. I think as a nation "outside politics" - elections - used to reward people who were good at "inside politics" - legislating and deal making to solve problems. That has changed. Under Trump the idea has been that the system doesn't work, anyway. So why not just break the fucking thing apart? And anybody who cuts deals with any Democrat is practically evil. And vice versa. So in theory there might be a hunger for someone like Jolly. Certainly among Independents, and maybe even among many Republicans. What I also hope is that there is a bipartisan hunger for what is best called "affordability" solutions. I can easily argue what Joe Biden offered with things like expanded child tax credits were Band Aids, or even "hand outs." But no one is handing out jobs in steel and tire factories anymore. So electing David Jolly if he is another Joe Manchin so he can oppose things Democrats can actually do is a discouraging idea. If Jolly does win, the real test will be whether he can do bipartisan affordability things Democrats actually want. And that actually make things more affordable. What I liked about former Florida Democratic Guv and Senator Bob Graham, whose daughter is Jolly's running mate, is he was very much a results-oriented guy. Which is why he was so successful as a politician. If Florida goes back to being a laboratory for that, rather than how to advance or fight woke culture, that would be awesome. That's relating to the internal poll that was just done by the Democratic Guv Assn showing Jolly with a 1 point lead. About 3 in 4 Blacks in Florida are registered Democrats. Most of the rest are registered with no party affiliation. Less than 5 % of Blacks are registered Republican. So I think what that poll tells us, if accurate - which is a massive IF - is that Donalds is not getting a whole lot of crossover support. Meanwhile, Jolly is getting a ton of crossover support. There are 5.6 million registered Republicans versus about 4 million Democrats. So if 1 million Republicans vote for Jolly and 300,000 Democrats switch to Donalds, that's a net shift of 700,000 votes from R to D. Which would make the race close. Add that Jolly has a big advantage among 3 million+ Independents and that adds up to a potential win. Even in a primary in which democratic socialist Nixon pulled off a huge surprise win, Democratic turnout was not great. So I'm not getting my hopes up that Democrats can pull this off. What also seems almost bizarre is that between 2024 and 2026 Republican registration stayed stable, around 5.6 million. But Democratic registration and No Party Affiliated registrations both dropped by about 400,000 votes each. Do Democrats did not switch over to Republicans. They just went away. Google says that aggressive voter roll purges were a big part of that. No surprise, Republicans were more efficient at culling Democratic voters than Republican ones from voter rolls. I'm also assuming after a landslide Republican win in 2022 a lot of Democrats just decided there's no point in voting. My point is maybe that is in play. The promise of the democratic socialists is that if Democrats actually offer populist economic solutions to the affordability problems of young people and Blacks and other predominantly Democratic groups, they will come out and vote. We'll see. I can't find anything Angie Nixon has said about Byron Donalds. But that's going to have some impact. In this interview you could simply take out the words "Ashley Moody" and insert "Byron Donalds". And you have a Black US Senate candidate talking about how a Republican voted against ACA subsidies, hurting hundreds of thousands of working class Floridians. Even as they doled out favors to Trump's corporate pals. That is Byron Donalds in a nutshell. It probably doesn't help Donalds with the Black community that he will have a Black Senate candidate disavowing everything he stands for. Whether or not she does it by name. We'll see.

That's a fantastic take down. Thanks for finding it. 💞 I'm going to get very wonky and detailed-oriented in this post. But the bottom line is I'd be delighted if Donalds loses. That in itself, Florida being Florida, would be a very powerful message. It will be even more powerful if it fits into a broader national picture that all the inroads Republicans made with Blacks and Latinos and Asians are now lost. Because they completely ignored the reasons working class Blacks and Latinos supported them in the first place: making life more affordable, and spending money on us rather than losing Forever Wars. And the message top Democrats will be: I.T.S.T.H.E.A.F.F.O.R.D.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y.S.T.U.P.I.D. My educated guess is that, if Donalds loses, it will require this combination. First, Blacks (and Latinos) who see him as an "Uncle Tom" lackey. And, second, Whites who live in almost exclusively White parts of Florida that would rather have Jolly, a White former Republican Governor, than Donalds, a Black man. Race will probably be a factor. But it will be impossible to say it was race. Because, if Jolly wins, it will be just as easy to blame Donalds' loss on both personal and political baggage he brings to the race. Pun intended. I will be fascinated to see how Black people vote in this election. That's true in general, given that Trump made inroads, especially with Black men, in 2024. And it's especially true in Florida. I looked at several polls and asked Google and there are no polling data I can find on this race that have racial crosstabs. So I don't think anyone really knows how Donalds will do among Blacks in Florida in a general election. They are 13 % of an electorate that is more than one third non-White. So whatever they do will be significant. If I had to guess, I'd guess that this "Uncle Tom" sentiment will be prevalent and Donalds will lose the Black vote. The main reason why is the notorious pragmatism of most Black voters, who are very used to voting for candidates with good policies but NOT Black skin. One big indicator of that is a recent Politico poll that shows a plurality of Blacks would trade off Black-held House seats for overall Democratic Party success, even if it meant fewer House seats held by Blacks. In fact, slightly more Black Democrats (42 %, a plurality) were willing to trade away Black seats than White Democrats (39 %, also a plurality) if that is what it took to get a Democratic majority. Stated differently, Blacks tend to be pragmatic team players. It's important to note that the people taking away the Black House seats are Republicans who are erasing predominantly Black House districts in Southern states. Despite Black and Democratic opposition. I'm pretty sure Blacks will not reward the Republican Party for wiping out as much of the Congressional Black Caucus as they can. All that said, the most recent poll average by 270 To Win shows Donalds leading Jolly by an average of 7 points. The last public poll done that shows Jolly with a 1 point lead was by Change Research in May. An internal poll by the Democratic Guvs Assn. in August after the primary showed the same: Jolly has a one point lead. Republicans have such a massive voter registration advantage in Florida that a lot of pundits think it's a fool's errand to think you can somehow overcome a built-in lead of over 1.5 million votes. But there are lots of indications this could be more a close race, like 2018, than a blowout Republican landslide like 2022. This July poll by Change Research, the same group that did the May poll with Jolly ahead by one point, does spell out the path to victory that could work for Jolly, assuming a blue wave keeps building. Florida, Florida, Florida This poll actually shows Jolly up by 6 points among likely voters. But the poll vastly underestimated how well Donalds would do in the primary. It said Donalds would get 37 % of the primary vote, and he actually got 48 %. So it's safe to assume the poll underrepresents Donalds' strengths. Also, neither RCP nor 270 To Win includes this poll in their general election average. RCP does include it in their primary polling. And, again, Change Research was an outlier that vastly underestimated Donalds' strength in the Republican primary. 3 of the 5 pollsters got the Donalds winning percentage (48 %) right within the polling margin of error. One was 5 points off, and Change Research was 11 points off. But Donalds does not get 50 % of the vote in ANY poll. So even if we assume Donalds is ahead by 5 points, it's possible Jolly could win. This poll shows Jolly does much better than Donalds among Independents. Florida Republicans have a registration advantage of about 1.5 million votes. But there are 3.3 million registered voters with no party affiliation. So there is some combination of math where Democratic turnout is strong, Republican turnout is weak, Jolly trounces Donalds with Independents, some Republicans vote for Jolly because he is a moderate former Republican, some racist Republicans don't vote for Donalds because he is Black, and most Blacks reject Donalds as an ass kissing "Uncle Tom". That is something like what it would take for Jolly to win. It does seem like Donalds is easy to portray as the ass kissing big money candidate who wants to give Trump and his corporate oligarch friends whatever they what. As the polling report spells out, he has taken huge amounts of corporate money. Donalds is easily portrayed as being on the side of AI data centers, which Florida overwhelmingly rejects. Even on his own terms, Donalds portrays himself as a conservative warrior against woke culture. (Ewww!!! The Gays!!!!!!) But moderate Florida residents may actually want a pragmatist who will focus on fixing cost of living problems, not woke culture. A few paragraphs on race. In that report above Change Research says that support for Jolly among likely voters increases from 6 points to 9 points when they showed voters a picture of both men and asked them to read a paragraph summarizing each. So, inquiring minds want to know. If true, is this because one man is White and one is Black? Or is it the language, which in the case of Donalds says he wants to "make Florida safe" and "continue fighting the woke left in Florida"? Where Byron Donalds struggled in the Florida GOP primary, and why it matters That analysis also offers a few specific breadcrumbs on race. Donalds significantly underperformed his winning percentage (by about 7 points) in areas of Florida that were over 90 % White. Those voters were more likely to vote for the DeSantis candidate, Lt. Guv Jay Collins, who looks like your run of the mill White MAGA guy to me. It doesn't mean those voters are racist. Nor does it mean that they won't be loyal team players and go out and vote for Donalds in droves, even though their preferred candidate lost. Trump is underwater even in Florida, with something like 53 % disapproval. So it's hard to imagine Team Red is going to be more enthusiastic about voting in 2026 than Democrats. While democratic socialist Nixon might not win, she might actually get some of the younger college-educated crowd that skips midterm elections to vote. The dream scenario for Partisan Democrat Moi is that Talarico wins in Texas, Jolly wins in Florida, and Turek wins in Iowa. Now you have what could be called The Red Wall that worked for Trump crumbling to bits and pieces. He'll always have Wyoming. But even Liz Cheney bailed on Trump's Grift Party. Which Donalds will be a token symbol of. So they have massive problems. It would be fair. Republicans like to say race no longer matters. It's about the content of your character, not the color of your skin. If Blacks decide Donalds lacks character and has crappy policies, I'll call that a win. And speaking of Trump ass kissers who are lacking in color, Sis, I'll throw this in. Since it reinforces one of my other recent rants. This would be a wonderful mess for Democrats. Turek wins Iowa after sounding like a Trump ass kissing Republican, and El-Sayed wins in Michigan after AIPAC tries to crucify him. How the fuck do you make a party like that work? That would be a very wonderful problem to have. Bring it on!

I of course agree with everything you just said, emphatically. But, just for fun, I'll make an alternative argument that may be true. It may be that right now, mostly thanks to his own narcissism and stupidity and arrogance, Trump is being forced to focus on actually doing something moderately and competently. And Iran is doing some of the forcing. And, to the degree that I am right, this is actually a somewhat good thing for Democrats, for America, and for the world. U.S. conducting stealth operation to transport oil through Hormuz I'll stop here and ask a question. Does this seem possible? The figure most people use for pre-war oil transport through the Strait is about 20 million bpd. I think it's a known fact that some of that has been replaced by pipeline rather than water shipment and alternative producers that have increased supply. So, if true, this suggests that maybe "the oil crisis", such as it is, has been solved. Going back to Spring, there have been predictions for months that at some point the world will simply run out of oil, as reserves are depleted. Meaning global recession. And we know for sure many reserves have been depleted. And yet, to use Brent crude as an example, prices are actually going down. Which does not suggest an imminent global supply shortage. Prices, recently in the $80s, are for sure higher than pre-war in the $60s. And farmers in Iowa and truck drivers in Texas feel it. But the disruption looks similar to what happened in 2022 under Biden when the global economy was getting restarted and there were supply bottlenecks. I spent a few hours yesterday checking the math on this. It's probably true that, as of now, most of the "lost" 20 million bpd has been replaced. But not all of it. And the situation is still tense and warlike. Which would explain why prices never got to $200, but also have not gotten back to pre-war levels. It would also explain why global stock markets, so far, keep hitting new all time highs. If all this is mostly true, what I was thinking yesterday is that this is actually kind of a good thing for Democrats, for America, and for the world. And by that I DO NOT mean the Iran War is a good thing. I mean this is playing out in a "lesser evil" way that hurts Trump, hurts Iran, weakens the worst impulses of America, and avoids World War 3. Robert Pape is basically arguing that Iran has Trump's balls on a leash, and they are intentionally pulling the leash. Poor Donald! He thinks Iran is intentionally trying to goad Trump back into conflict Trump and America can't win. Iran's intermediate goal, Pape argues, is to humiliate Trump in the midterms and bring back to power Democrats who will do what most Americans want - end Trump's new Forever War. It would be kind of fair, in the eyes of history. Iran destroyed the Carter Presidency to make a point. If they destroy the Trump Presidency to make a point, after Trump attacked them, it's kind of a bipartisan humiliation. I don't like what the theocrats do to Gays. But if they help James Talarico win Texas, or get Pete Buttigieg elected in 2028, I have no real problem with that. 😉 If Trump can competently and narrowly focus on getting enough oil out of the Strait to keep the economy going and even growing through the midterms, that avoid some things that are bad for America. In this paragraph, I will speak as a US patriot. I don't want a global recession blamed on the US. I also don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, or to dominate the Strait of Hormuz. Putin and Xi would agree with those two ideas, even if Iran is their bad boy ally. Trump's Folly could have been entirely avoided, like by never tearing up the agreement we had with Iran. And he has already lost. But he seems to get that some of the worst consequences can be avoided if he can manage to be somewhat competent in just getting the US and the world by through November, when he gets his ass kicked in a big way. Beyond November, I don't have a big problem with the idea that both Trump and Iran are weaker, and on the ropes, while the larger US and global economy get by. Global stock markets obviously hope for the same. Poor @Barknaway! Will he still get his treats? Will he still bark like a crazy Murder Dog? Time will tell. I also think this could be good for the world in a way. Call me delusional. Back a few years ago I liked to think that America was, at core, the shining city on the hill (Reagan's term) defending Ukraine from Bad Hegemon Putin. All of a sudden, a few years later, the US is the Bad Hegemon bullying their way into Greenland, Venezuela, and Iran. Did I mention Canada should be punished for not submitting to Trump and being our 51st state? What it really brought to the surface in a way that surprised even me is just how much of an asshole the US can be. And I can personalize this. It has changed the way I feel about a few people in my extended family who I know support what I view as a horrifically bad worldview. Which is that America can and should be a bully, just like Putin. Because we have the power to do so. I think their views are stupid, and naive, and wrong, like Trump. To overstate the point, if Trump nukes Iran - which is still possible - it could lead to World War 3. If a weakened Iran humiliates Trump, it more likely hurts both Iran and the US in a way that wakes up some Americans who don't want to go mindlessly down an avoidable escalation trap. I hope, at least. Reports suggest Xi pretty much warned Trump about this, in person. When Biden botched the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, people said at the time that there was no way he could recover from that. In fact, he never did recover. I think inflation, not Afghanistan, was the downfall of Biden, and many other global leaders. But my point is that I think the same idea is even more true for Trump. There is no recovery from this. He has a failed war that has directly led to higher prices for gas and food while his grifting sons make money from it. Screaming "communist!" can't hide these facts. Trump is fucked. And he fucked himself. Piece of shit! I hope this is an accurate picture of reality. I hope Trump can manage to be competent and moderate for a few months and just keep the economy going until he gets the big ass kicking he deserves. Rant over. But I am curious if anyone else has a clearer picture of why gas prices, while still elevated, have at least moderated? They don't seem to be headed off a cliff.

The grifting Trump family is profiting from the losing war Trump started with Iran. The longer the war goes on, the more Americans that die, the more the Middle East is at risk, and the more people all over the world have to pay more for gas and food and fertilizer, the more money the Trump family makes. Maybe Trump isn't such a strategic moron after all. Maybe he just figured out how war and death and misery can be a new profit center for Trump Grift. If Trump War Grift is not a crime, it ought to be. I suggest we hand Trump War Grift sons Donald, Jr. and Eric over to Iran in exchange for peace. The Genocide Jew and Trump, Sr. obviously believe killing the kids of Iran's leaders - including a 14 month old granddaughter - is okay. War is war. It's only fair that the Trump War Grift children do the same as we expect the innocent children of Iran's leaders to do. These two war grifting pieces of shit are hardly innocent. Every single day everyone all over the world is paying more for gas and food so that Donald, Jr. and Eric can be even richer. I'm sure if we hand them over to Iran in return for peace the theocrats will be spiritual and merciful. Just like the Genocide Jew has been, working so hard not to kill tens of thousands of dead innocent women and children. August 20, 2026 US firm Powerus wins $22.3 million contract to protect Middle East energy infrastructure from drones March 10, 2026 Trump sons investing in domestic drone production businesses The FCC banned the use of foreign-made drones and components in December. This is a very special treat for our Stupid Murder Dog, @Barknaway. Bark, Stupid Murder Dog, bark! This may not be as emotionally satisfying to our Stupid Murder Dog as knowing that kids all over South America and Africa and Asia will die of HIV, because Trump decimated USAID programs that good public servants like Fauci started. And for sure it would not be as pleasing to @Barknaway as ripping Fauci's throat open. But why not at least spend the money on drones, to enrich the the Trump Grift Family? @Barknaway is good and loyal and true. Not only to Trump, but to the whole Trump Grift Family. And Trump War Grift sets an awesome new precedent. War is good for Trump Grift. Who cares if we pay more for gas, and innocent people die? Bark, Stupid Death Dog! Bark! You are good and loyal and true.

I'm sure, having been a loyal Trumper, Miss Graham's reward is waiting for her in heaven. Or hell. Hopefully her Str8 MAGA buddies don't get to see what she will reward herself with. And, as you note, she never was able to do it like the big girls do. I guess that explains why she was a loyal bottom.

Why are you trying to ruin my day? 🤮

The Last Stand of the Corporate Democrats Their reign is coming to an end Robert Reich Aug 19, 2026 Buckle up for two very long and hopefully thoughtful essays. One from Robert Reich and one from me. I thought Reich's essay hit the nail on the head. He says a lot more about what is at the heart of the Democratic Party's problems today than most news articles. As Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary from 1993 to 1997, Robert Reich is in a position to be both a critic of what went wrong, and blamed for what went wrong, As Reich spells out, Democrat after Democrat after Democrat can be blamed for Democratic policies that hurt the working class. And in particular that destroyed factory cities and factory towns and factory life. Leading eventually to the rise of Donald Trump. Trump of course has done nothing to restore factory jobs, or factory cities. But Democrats deserve some of the blame, along with the W/Romney Republicans, for sucking the life and money out of that part of America. At a minimum, Democrats were complicit while corporate interests that donated heavily to many of them gutted lots of factory-based communities. Here's some facts about factory jobs in America. From Jan 1993 to Jan 1997, when Reich ruled, US factory jobs went up slightly, from 16.8 million to 17.3 million. By Jan. 2001 when Clinton left there were 17.1 million factory jobs. So there was a net increase in factory jobs under Clinton, and especially under Reich in the first four years. But it was far short of the almost 20 million US factory jobs when Jimmy Carter was President. In retrospect, the fact that we lost a few hundred thousand factory jobs in the late 90's as the stock market soared was a preview of what was about to come. As that chart I hyperlinked shows, the freefall of about 6 million factory jobs started with W and the 2001 recession and ended under Obama and the Great Recession. It's fair to say Clinton's free trade policies set the stage, as Reich argues. But it did not happen when Clinton was President. Joe Biden would later argue he was one of many Democrats pushing for "fair trade, not free trade". But, as he correctly notes, for most of the Bush Presidency they just didn't have the votes. Nor do Democrats have the votes now. The US was down to 12.1 million factory jobs in Jan 2021, when Biden took over. That number increased to 12.7 million factory jobs by Jan. 2025. After one and a half years of Trump, we've had a net loss of 60,000 US manufacturing jobs since Trump took power. Make America Great Again! The numbers matter because I think it tells us everything we need to know about "corporate Democrats." First, I think Reich is right that "corporate Democrat" policies aren't really on the side of the working class of America. Second, what Biden's Presidency suggests is that Democrats can at least be a check on corporate policies that are designed by and for corporate oligarchs. What is happening with data centers and AI is a great example of that today. If Sherrod Brown wins in Ohio, it will be because he is for labor unions and against unchecked AI data centers. Even the proponents of AI data centers admit they are better at creating corporate profits than long-term jobs. That's the most interesting two paragraphs in Reich's essay to me. Surveys suggest that Reich is correct, and America mostly understands this. The MAGA Minority will demonize guys with weird Muslim names as "communists." But there is no evidence in polls that the name calling is working. Quite the opposite. Republicans have no response to Democratic attacks on data centers. Other than to flip flop and now be against data centers themselves. Add ostensibly "corporate Democrats" like Joel Shapiro and Kathy Hochul to that list. The good news in this to me is that at least progressive Democrats can keep the corporate Democrats in check. I don't think AOC can win the Presidency. But if she takes on Schumer (if he runs in 2028) maybe she could win a US Senate seat in New York. That's amazing in itself. A democratic socialist Mayor of New York in a state with a democratic socialist Senator. And New York is arguably still the financial capital of the world, and of Wall Street. That pretty confirms what Reich is saying about the nature of the movement. It's the affordability, stupid! If California decides to tax billionaires this Fall, it will also be a strong sign of the times. And that to me is THE challenge of the Democratic Party today. And I'll focus on what Reich does NOT spell out, that makes the challenge almost impossible to solve. What Reich says without saying is that "an economy favoring the wealthy" has also favored college-educated workers, so far. He does state "workers without college degrees suffer declining real wages." No tax on tips, anyone? It's a measure of how weak Democrats have been that Trump, a corrupt billionaire, can throw white working class voters a few crumbs and a few culture war wins and keep their loyalty. At least until now. If anyone needs proof that "an economy favoring the wealthy" has been mostly good for college-educated workers, check out these charts of real inflation-adjusted income increases for residents of "socialist" California and "the free state" of Florida. From a post-Great Recession low of about $60,000 in 2014, median incomes after inflation have risen about 25 % in Florida, to about $75,000. Ron DeSantis can and does claim that's because Florida is like our stupid Murder Dog @Barknaway: good and loyal and true to Trump's free market policies. Bark, dog, bark! Call it a victory for Trumpian capitalism. Meanwhile, in socialist California, real inflation-adjusted incomes bottomed earlier, in 2011. Since then, they rose from $70,000 to $100,000, closer to a 50 % increase. It's not clear that life is actually better in the "free state" of Florida. Personally, I don't care for the humidity. 😉 What is behind those numbers is that times have never been better for college-educated young tech workers in California. Or just college-educated workers in California, period. If you are a homeless drug addict or a low income Black single Mom who waits tables or a struggling actor in California, life sucks maybe. It is definitely unaffordable. But a college degree still means something. List of U.S. states and territories by educational attainment That is a remarkable list. Of the 25 states with the fewest college educated workers, only one - New Mexico - is reliably Democratic. The two states most likely to buck the trend are New Mexico and Nevada, in both cases because they have among the highest percentage of Hispanic workers. ICE raids, anyone? But even Nevada is in play as the Hispanic working class flitters around with Trumpism and MAGA. Meanwhile, the 10 states with the most college-educated workers are all reliably blue. You have to get to #13, Utah, before you get a reliably red state. And that is because they are Mormon and religious conservatives. And therein lies the challenge: why would blue states with the most college-educated workers change something that arguably has been working pretty well for them? That's the question facing "corporate" Democrats today. And the challenge facing democratic socialists. I'm enough of a capitalist to believe that a corporate America without corporations would not be an America I'd look forward to living in. What makes the challenge harder is that college-educated workers bring all kinds of liberal values, which I share, without having actually delivered much on actual economic policy for the working class. Reich mentions some important exceptions: Obamacare, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. And in Trump's case I'd add No Tax On Tips. My constant rant about how Harris might have won in 2024 if she presented herself as the working class warrior who would slice Trump's balls off to defend money in the pockets of working class Hispanic Moms in the form of expanded child tax credits fits right in here. That said, a tax credit for kids is not the same as a factory job. I have no clue what the answer is. Other than that progressive Democrats are going to have to figure it out, if they really want power. And they are definitely going to have to moderate on the liberal social values I embrace and share, but the White working class (or, just the working class in general) simply doesn't. That problem is easy to solve. Either they moderate now, or they lose. The one interesting new factor in the political mix is the growing perception that corporate oligarchs like Elon Musk are now ready, willing, and able to throw white collar college-educated workers under the bus, too. I'm pretty sure that's a big part of why AI data centers are now a toxic idea. Shows us just how loyal to America and workers the oligarchs like Musk are! I don't think we will get rid of "corporate" Democrats, or corporations. I would be happy if we can castrate Elon Musk, politically if not economically. Tax the son of a bitch a lot more. Let him pay to make the US working class great again.

Fuck you, Sis. I won't be able to get that image out of my mind all day. 😉 We now return you to your regularly scheduled not disgusting political leader looking hot. I'll instead spend the day thinking about what it would mean to have Jon Ossoff in a position of immense public trust inside me. 🙄

Of course, Republicans like to talk about how Trump saved her life as a bone cancer victim thanks to his Right To Try Act. Donald Trump would never lie. Would he? Now come on, Sis. At least we know Natalie's brush with death created deep empathy and kindness within her. Just like Republicans have for everyone on Obamacare and Medicaid. And she is DEFINITELY not racist. Poor Tim Scott.

Is it the shoes, Sis? Or the fact that he always seems to have Trump's sloppy wet poop running out of his mouth? I was watching a video interview of investment guy (and conservative) Ken Fisher yesterday, and he said Bessent says nothing worth hearing. He's a sock puppet.

And I guess I should apologize to Trump. I keep saying he is a piece of shit. But the poor old piece of shit can't even keep his shit hard.

Progressive Aisha Wahab wins Eric Swalwell’s former House seat The Genocide Jew keeps wasting AIPAC money, blackening the name of Israel among Democrats, and getting progressives elected. Thanks, Genocide Jew. Piece of shit! And AIPAC is now symbolic for "Genocide Money." They spend their Genocide Money to intervene in US primaries to back a genocide agenda most Democrats oppose. And did I mention the Genocide Jew talked Moron POTUS Trump into launching a Genocide War, that is destroying the power and credibility of the US and Israel? Pieces of shit! I have no particular reason to dislike or throw out guys like Dan Goldman. But Goldman became a symbol for Genocide Money and Genocide Policy. I hope Democrats and AIPAC eventually figure out they are just turning off Democrats like me who have been supportive of Israel, but not the Genocide Jew or his Genocide Policy, for my whole life. I decided to check which candidates that I send money to are taking Genocide Money. Jon Ossoff takes about $1 million in Genocide Money. Raphael Warnock also takes about $1 million in Genocide Money. That's disappointing. None of the other Senate challengers I'm sending money to take Genocide Money. That's Talarico in Texas, El-Sayed in Michigan, Jackson in Maine, Turek in Iowa, Peltola in Alaska, and Brown in Ohio. I'm not sending money to Cooper in North Carolina, mostly because I think he has the election in the bag. But he doesn't take Genocide Money, either. I considered cancelling my monthly donation to Ossoff and sending an email to his office saying I don't support Democrats who take Genocide Money. But I decided now is not a time for liberal purity tests. Almost every conceivable Democratic Presidential nominee for 2028, including Ossoff, takes Genocide Money. Most of the poll leaders - Harris and Buttigieg, to name 2 of the top 3 - take Genocide Money. AOC does not. Newsom, Shapiro, and the other Guvs high on the polling favorites list don't file federal reports. I figured this is a fight for 2028. And I'm the one arguing for moderation and against purity tests. But the more progressives that win that are free of Genocide Money, the more pressure it puts on other Democrats to disavow Genocide Money and Genocide Policy. Even if Israel kicks the Genocide Jew to Hell, where I think he deserves to burn shackled to Arafat for eternity, they will still have a Prime Minister that opposes a two-state solution. Which most Democrats and most American Jews are for. But almost anything is better than the Genocide Jew. Or our Genocide POTUS.

I agree with your sentiment, but not your diagnosis about redlining Black families. I think the pessimistic view of Donalds is actually much worse. The problem is not that Donalds would redline Black families to keep them out of the neighborhood. The problem is he might be the kind of guy who'd give them all subprime mortgages, and blow up the whole fucking neighborhood with foreclosures. As long as he could get rich and move ahead doing so. Which means he's just like lots of rich White people who climbed political or financial ladders doing the same thing. Chris Dodd, former Democratic Chair of the Senate Banking Committee, was the same kind of guy, in my opinion. He got special deals from subprime lenders while he ignored what they were doing. Donalds strikes me as that kind of guy. His background is financial services and credit. The demon view of Donalds is he would would love to be the head of Trump Mortgage. Which would make billions making bad loans that once again, like subprime, drove the global economy off the cliff. And destroyed millions of American home owners. Trump is that kind of grifter. And as my Sister In Cock said, Donalds is an opportunist. Would he go as far as Trump would? Too soon to know. To state that more positively, the thing I like about Donalds is he likes being a "politically incorrect Black man" who thinks if you study hard and work hard you can live the American Dream. Including the nice home in Naples. The fact that he does have a nice home in Naples and he is the Republican nominee for Governor suggests he's not wrong about good old fashioned bootstrap capitalism. In the same way as Obama, he is a symbol of the fact the the US is, at a minimum, not as racist as it used to be. What Donalds comes closer to, in my view, is the idea that a nation divided by class, not race, is perfectly okay. Because guys like him and Trump deserve to be on top. Obamacare is the best example of that. He has no good idea that he's stated about how you replace that for working class families, Black or White, who are not as successful as him. It's kind of the same with the Iran War. He was against the Ukraine War, like Trump was, but for Trump's Iran War. His logic: "We blow up all your stuff. And then we go home." Like with Trump, it seems like he likes a world run for the rich and powerful, who will just blow shit up when they need to. Including Iran, and health care subsidies. To really slaughter the word "redlining," who Donalds would redline is Gay men, and Muslims. He is the kind of guy who would say Gay men don't deserve the institution of marriage. The Council on American-Islamic Relations went after Donald and other Freedom Caucus members saying if they had their way they would "effectively ban the practice of the world's second largest religion in the United States." Again, I agree with your sentiment. His values are ones I would call extreme, and intolerant. He's not the kind of guy that sounds like he'd want a Gay family or Muslim family living next door. I'll be interested to see how Jolly goes after him. And how well it works.

I don't disagree with your friend at all. There's a difference between a Black woman saying a Black man should not embrace these conservative values and ideology, because it hurts Black people, and a White man - aka moi - saying the same. This is the debate Florida, and the Black community in Florida, needs to have. This much is true. There are a lot of young Black college-educated men who have the wrong values and ideology, by your friend's standard. And I think the reason is obvious. Republicans, especially in the South, used to go out of their way to make it obvious they were against Black people. Now, in the South, they elect Black people to be Senators and Governors. What does it mean when a Black Republican says Obamacare, which helps lots of working class Black and Hispanic and White people afford health care, should be taken away? That's a values debate Florida will now have. It complicates it that the Democratic running against Donalds was a Republican who voted to repeal Obamacare. I think if there really is a strong blue wave, Jolly and Graham could win. A few polls months ago did show them with a narrow lead against Donalds. More likely, this could be both an echo of the past, and a clue to what may lie down the road. Based on his agenda, like attacking Obamacare more, I don't see how a Gov. Donalds makes Florida more affordable again. So it could be the next Guv race in Florida, in 2030, is when centrist Democrats like the Grahams take back power. I give Donalds credit for this much. He is, as you state, an opportunist. I don't think Trump "seized and embraced" Donalds. I think Donalds seized and embraced Trump. To be blunt, Sis - and please don't be offended - Donalds is a better cock sucker than even you. 🫢 He is expert at verbally sucking Trump's cock. That is why he gradually won Trump's favor. If I were a Black woman, I would feel qualified to say this is wrong. And it hurts our community. Again, a lot of young Black men with college degrees who are increasingly conservative would disagree. At the simplest level, lots of young Black voters say the same old same old Democratic Party just ain't working for them. Some, like Nixon, are going the Democratic Socialist route. Others, like Donalds, are going the Republican route. It's a good debate to have. It's not news that the Democratic Party of Clinton and Carville, or even the Democratic Party of Obama and Biden, has big problems.

True! I have mixed feelings about this. Byron Donalds has to be truly loved by lots of Republicans. Because he embraces, defends, and rationalizes their values as his own. BYRON DONALDS On the Issues On a personal level, this is The Blind Side. With a politician instead of a football player. Every Republican I knew at the time loved The Blind Side. Because the point, while maybe understated in the film, is that if you embrace conservative and Christian values you can have a family and a home and a gun. And all will be well. The Tea Party, not Sandra Bulllock, was Donalds' path to conversion. So on a personal level, if this guy were my neighbor, I'd say, "Great. If you are a conservative Black man and that lifestyle and those values work for you, go for it!" And he definitely is going for it in a way that is historic. As has been noted, there are some inconsistencies there. The affordability and (property and health) insurance crises happened under a Republican Governor. And for 6 of the last 10 years Trump was POTUS, while Republicans religiously attacked Obamacare. So Donalds has to dance around demonizing Joe Biden. Who was both a communist who wrecked America (by expanding Obamacare, in part), and a corpse. The rubber really hits the road with Obamacare. He sees it as an effort to force people to live on government insurance. He opposes keeping Obamacare subsidies, let alone expanding them. Same old "repeal and replace" bullshit in my mind. Jolly should portray him as an ideological zealot who wants to make health insurance even less affordable. Donalds has a big health care problem. About 4 million Florida residents, or 20 %, rely on Obamacare and Obamacare subsidies. More than any other state. That number is down 10 % in 2026 thanks to Republican attacks on ACA subsidies. So Donalds and his party are going in the opposite directiion of Make Florida Affordable Again. Jolly could win based on that alone. If he can get past his own flip flops, since in Tea Party Times he was a Republican who voted to repeal Obamacare. Tim Scott and Byron Donalds do share a belief in Main Street capitalism, including Black Main Street capitalism, as the answer to lots of problems. Kudos to them. But I think there is a big difference between Scott and Donalds, from what I know. Scott did build what could be called DEI policies and programs that MAGA, almost by definition, can't embrace. Again, if race doesn't matter and racism is a DEI lie, why would we want something called a "Minority Business Development Agency"? It's practically Satanic! Where Donalds does seem to think things are Satanic is when it comes to stuff like Islam, and homosexuality. Sort of the same idea. But in this case it's a bit more like saying the Democrats were evil to put down the ladder in the first place. To use the language Wikipedia quotes from Donalds himself, the idea of Pete and Chasten having kids is just not "part of the natural order that keeps society progressing." There were and are lots of Black Christians (and Hispanic and White Christians) that did and probably do still believe that. My Mom and Dad were among them, until I came out. This is gonna be interesting. I genuinely like the fact that America is now Big Tent Enough that you can have a smart and savvy Black man win a Republican primary to govern Florida, based on conservative values. But I hope centrists Jolly and Graham attack those values as extreme. And not what makes America, or Florida, great. I don't think 50 %+ 1 of people in Florida call themselves conservatives, like Donalds does. And my intellectually genius Sister In Cock (who is also much younger and prettier than me) is probably right that some number of Republicans may vote for the White Guy who used to be a Republican. Or just not vote for the Guy With The Black Face, even if Trump endorsed him. That probably is part of the reason "Amir Hassan" lost to "Tom Smith" in Michigan. Happily, "Byron Donalds" does not sound Muslim or Black. But in a close race old school racism - which no longer exists, apparently - could be why some Republicans don't vote for Donalds. We'll see. As my Sister In Cock says more succinctly than me, Florida is a tough nut to crack. And she knows all about servicing the nuts of political leaders. 🙄