stevenkesslar

I actually enjoyed Bnac's posts. He illustrated the difference between reality-based conservatives, which he is, versus clowns who seem like Steve Bannon cultists. Who are just going to keep blaring the same shit out of bullhorns, ad nauseum. Auggie repeatedly challenged me on facts (e.g. we now have the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years.) Then he'd support his argument with a CNN (!) article that confirmed what I said, and added more facts to support my argument. To me, at least, much of it did seem like what Trump and Bannon learned from Goebbels. Tell a lie long enough, and it becomes the truth. My adorable BTC was particularly good at being Bannonesque. Plus, they even look like sisters. Arguably, as you have said, @Lucky, people like me should have just kept our mouths shut, and not engaged them. But I think this discussion has illustrated that would have also left them more space to fill with propaganda and lies. It's a good question whether any of the posters there came off QAnon conspiracy sites. Or Russian troll farms. I decided a long time ago it doesn't particularly matter. I do think Putin's goal is to do anything he can to use democracy and free speech to divide Americans. Arguably, he has succeeded. And Trump's whole MO is that he has to divide Americans to maybe win a minority of the popular vote and an electoral college victory. If it is on a day he is lucky. So now most Americans don't want to marry or share dorms with members of the opposite party any more. Something like 1 in 5 Americans say it would be better if members of the opposite party just died. All that said, that which does not kill us makes us stronger. So I'm viewing the glass as half full. And taking what happens over at Company Of Men as reasonable people just getting sick of it. Besides, over there I get friendly fascism. Over here I get fashion, in the form of my dearest and most darlingest long lost sister, @Suckrates. Who always was better than me at both fashion and fellatio. I'm okay with that. Like Kamala, I don't mind being #2 to The Big Guy.

Bitch! If you are going to tell all, you have to tell all. How good is he on the job? 😋

Did Ronald Reagan Have Alzheimer's Disease While in Office? I put that as a second post to address the dementia question separately. If we simply go by age, and assume Biden becomes demented at the same age as Reagan, I think the math works out that he would begin to shows signs of cognitive impairment in tests early in his second term. Assuming he runs and is re-elected. The formal diagnosis, if it played out the same as Reagan, would come in the middle of his second term. You can also argue this the other way. People may have thought Reagan had Alzheimers. There may have been awkward moments that were in part characteristic of Reagan being Reagan. Just like Biden is a perpetual gaffe machine who has a lifelong challenge with stuttering. But if you go by actual cognitive tests, Reagan's doctors still argue there was no there there. Until about five years after he left office, when it began to show up in cognitive tests. This makes sense to me. Chuck Grassley and Diane Feinstein are both 89. No one says Grassley is senile. Republicans urged him to run again in 2022, since they knew he would win. Grassley brushes off the issue of age, saying voters watched him in 2022 and made their verdict. Meanwhile, everybody says Feinstein is in cognitive decline. This goes back to my judgment that all roads lead to Kamala. Let's play out that this happens to Biden in the same way it did to Reagan. In 2025 he takes a test, and the doctors say he is in the normal range. In 2026 he takes the same test, and the doctors say there appears to be a problem. Presumably that is when a serious discussion occurs about the President resigning based on a solid medical diagnosis. Fetterman is more of an issue to me right now. His argument was that he had a stroke, and he is recovering. Elect me, and I'll be fine. Just watch me, and I'll be fine. Well, we are watching. And he is not fine. So you can view this as a blip during a recovery. But Fetterman has pushed it to the limit. That said, Democrats wanted the seat. And if he does resign, a Democratic Governor will decide who will replace him until a special election is held. To stretch it just a bit further, I'd put Herschel Walker in the same pot. I view him as an idiot who never should have won. My judgment is that in 2022 Biden on his worst gaffe-filled day was still a better leader than Walker at his most eloquent. And Walker had a history of mental illness he was open about. So there is something to be said for the fact that until Biden is diagnosed with mental illness, he is not mentally ill. If he tests for cognitive impairment at some future point, we deal with it then. It's exactly the same standard that was used with Reagan.

I lived and organized in Portland in the 1990's and part of the 00's. But by 2002 I'd transitioned to being a real whore, rather a political one. And I was living in San Francisco most of the time. Oregon is beautiful. I was a Warren fan boy in 2020. But I voted for Sanders in the California primary. Because by that time it was clear Elizabeth was toast. One of the truly unfathomable things ever to happen in Presidential politics is that Biden won the primaries in Massachusetts and Minnesota in 2020. Even though he basically had no money or organizing there. And home state Senators Warren and Klobuchar were also on the ballot. I viewed that as a spontaneous tidal wave in US politics about what center-leaning Democrats and Independents wanted, and did not want. That said, my vote for Sanders was essentially saying, "Lean left, Joe. Lean progressive." Which I think he has. He is certainly acting and talking more progressive than Reagan Era Joe Biden. Part of my reluctance about redoing the 2020 primary is I don't see what changes. If Biden runs, and there is a primary, I think he wins. If he does not run, Harris wins - which many people think is exactly the problem. Warren in polls is now at like 10 %. Behind Harris and Sanders and about where Pete is. So I don't see the point of having a primary that could be divisive, just so we can end up where we started. The talking heads love the idea of (pick a name like Polis or Whitmer or Newsom) running. And if Biden were clearly demented and the Democrats lost 60 house seats and the Senate in the midterms, all those Guvs might be running. But now they've all said they are NOT running. Whitmer just said she is grateful to Biden for creating the political environment where Democrats like her are winning in their states. Which, by the way, suggests Biden still has his skill set of reading the national tea leaves and unifying his party intact. I strongly agree with @lookin that having a POTUS that unifies rather than divides is important. That said, I don't think any President can really unify America right now. I view Trump as symptom, not cause. Biden is at least trying. His mostly unifying and populist messages during the SOTU address - pointed in part at the disgruntled White working class, but also at Black Moms who want their kids to come home safe at night - worked for me. You frame the question differently than I would. And for the way you are framing it, the conclusion makes sense. You frame it as a choice election. So the idea that Biden looks old and tired next to DeSantis makes sense. That said, I'm starting to wonder whether Ron will simply come off as a mean or even extreme culture warrior in 2024, if nominated. The Florida polls suggests people think he managed the hurricane well - like over 70 % approve of that. And they tend to agree with how he managed the Florida economy during COVID - like well over 50 % approval and around his winning 2022 vote total. There is no evidence in polls that he won in a landslide because Floridians want culture war. And how he managed the hurricane or COVID won't really matter outside Florida in 2024. So I don't buy the idea that Republicans are really better off with him. Besides, as of now Trump beats him in most Republican primary polls. My Plan A is that Trump wins the primary in a divided field with his base vote intact, just like in 2016. I frame the election the way Lichtman frames all Presidential elections. Which is that they are a referendum on Biden and the Democrats. His basic argument is that Americans give the person and party in power a thumbs up or thumbs down. He'd argue in 2020 Trump was going to lose anyway. Had Warren been nominated, his system argues she would have won as well. Speaking of Alan, coincidentally I just happened to read this article yesterday: Data says: Democrats need Biden to run for a second term It's interesting that someone other than Lichtman is writing an op/ed that is essentially all about Lichtman's keys system. But pundits have apparently caught on that if it helps predict every Presidential election since 1984 correctly, and in advance, maybe there is something to it. And it makes common sense. The basic idea is that voters are smart. And in the past, when there were these similar situations - like a recession, or a war, or an impeachment scandal - here is how it played out in terms of who won. The framing in that article is an interesting way to put it. Because the basic idea is that Biden or Democrats can afford to lose five keys. So they need eight of 13 keys to win. The author spells out the seven keys Biden/Harris appear to have locked up for 2024. So that statement I quoted above suggests that if the short-term economy is strong in Fall 2024, a Democrat other than the incumbent could win. The strong short term economy provides the eighth key. Except, it doesn't. Because one of the eight keys the author counts is the lack of a primary fight. But if Biden does NOT run, there will be a 2024 primary fight. So as the author lays it out, Biden and Harris are likely down four keys now. Biden not running would add two more: losing an incumbent, and gaining a primary fight. In that situation, Lichtman would argue Democrats will lose. And it doesn't really matter whether Republicans run Trump or DeSantis. On the other hand, if you assume that Biden wins some military victory in Ukraine, and the economy is good, and there is no big scandal other than whining about Hunter, the keys would favor any Democrat to win. Even if Biden does not head the ticket. The main point I think Lichtman would make about the bed wetting by pundits about Biden is that they are simply wrong. US history tells us being an incumbent is always an asset. Period. Now, add that the incumbent has dementia, and that's different. But then the issue is dementia. Not being the incumbent. Lichtman gets lots of pot shots sent his way. But, to me, the system he developed with a Russian seismologist (who was fascinated by US democracy) is almost common sense. But also built on sound statistical principles. He trusts voters, not pundits or pollsters. We know that the polls that said in 1983 that Mondale would win in a landslide and 60 % of Americans didn't want Reagan to run again did not do a very good job of actually predicting what would happen in November 1984. Lichtman says US history suggests voters are pretty good at sorting through multiple variables that really matter. Like: it's the economy stupid.

That thread proves @njf's point. The only minor surprise is that the "apolitical" tone of the forum didn't even get through one week. Note the warning at the top from one of the moderators to to take a deep breath and tone down the rhetoric.. That moderator is someone I know personally to be a really sweet, thoughtful guy. Then Cooper locked the thread yesterday. Which arguably made sense, since the "debate" was essentially about how a right-wing brick thrower is "spot on" arguing that the goal should be to "defeat and humiliate" those Queer types who want to "wage war on the foundations of human society, and truth itself." Damn! Who knew? You can take the boy out of the country. But some boys are just going to be cunts, anyway! Oops! Did I just call Matt Walsh a name? Someone in that thread argued that the T part doesn't belong in LGBTQ. The interesting thing to me is how many guys over there don't even relate to the G part. Just because they like to have sex with men, and have their entire life, that doesn't mean they are Gay, right? Or, it certainly doesn't mean they relate to any political movement based in something like "Gay Pride" or "Basic Rights" or even - what's the word? Empathy? And, honestly, I don't blame them. One, I'd be a hypocrite to, since escorting was profitable for me. Two, it all does speak to an era when Gays were viciously discriminated against, or "cured," or whatever. I spent enough time being an escort for pay and being a volunteer for same sex marriage that I just got used to thinking about these as two different and compartmentalized things. Thankfully, we won our political fights in part because there are so many Straight allies with vision and values. Who are willing to go to bat - and go door to door - for us. Even if we are not all willing to go to bat for ourselves. I'm glad that the problem today is that Chasten is perfectly willing to talk about the stories he hears from Gay politicos about how challenging it is for Gay men to have careers and kids. While his hubby probably still just wants to internalize it all. Since most people just want the trains to run on time. It's so fucking ............. normal! I guess that means The Gays are now gonna be for subsidized child care, too. God damn it! 😉

No shit? 😉 By the way, you left out possibly homophobic, too. 🤫 'Black history is not inferior': Black leaders object to Florida's 'culture war against African Americans' Pence moves to claim culture war lane before DeSantis gets there (Note to Mike: You're too late) But this is why the question is complicated to me. Given that Trump, DeSantis, and Pence - in that order - are the only candidates who are not single digit in polls, it seems like the Republican nominee will offer one of three choices in Fall 2024: 1) Traditional Culture War, 2) Culture War, God's Edition, or 3) Culture War, Sunshine Edition Since you're making the cautious argument, I'll flip and make the "let's roll the dice" argument. My caution on this issue surprises me a bit. I can't say this without sounding self-promoting. But it does speak to my tolerance for risk. I was known in my organizing career for picking unwinnable fights. And then winning. There was the City Council member who told me privately that publicly attacking all the big banks in town to cough up a $1 million down payment assistance fund prioritizing Black home owners was a great idea. But they'd never actually do it. A year later we got $1.2 million, and a permanent citywide coalition of housing advocates. And, arguably, a US Senator. Since Jeff Merkley was the lowly head of Portland Habitat For Humanity at the time. Same city, different lefty. The Multnomah County Chair, an actual prior Socialist, said privately she could not propose a progressive business income tax on large corporations to fund schools. Because the business community would run her out of office next election. We did it anyway. We won a two year progressive business income tax. Bev Stein won re-election handily. Even though the corporations did try to run her out of office for messing with them. Then she ran for Oregon Guv, and almost won. It took 20 years for a different Democratic Guv to get a highly popular progressive state income tax on big corporations passed. And then there was the time we occupied the headquarters of Fannie Mae and got a $1 billion Community Home Buyers Program, which Bill Clinton later turned into a model for Black and Hispanic grassroots wealth creation. But I digress. Point being, sometimes the best thing is to say fuck it. We'll have the courage of our convictions, and go big. Just like the culture war people do. Running a Black woman (married to a Jewish White man) and a Gay man (who is married with child, since The Gays went big and won) would be a good way to trump the culture warriors, so to speak. If this were 1968, and there were riots in the street that turned off the Silent Majority, that might actually be a really stupid idea. That time, we got Richard Nixon. In 2020, polls showed the Silent Majority actually favored Black Lives Matter. And elected Biden and Harris. So we may actually have the wind at our backs this time. Kamala and Pete are despised by the culture warriors. But that may be because they don't come off like scary radicals. Either way, it's a gamble.

This is a subset of my point above about the potential risks and rewards of a 2024 Democratic primary. There's a good argument that Biden inherently pissed on Kamala and promoted Pete in his choices. Yeah, The Veep is more powerful than a Cabinet Secretary. But Biden gave her immigration. Which was almost 100 % sure to be divisive and unpopular. No matter what she tried to do, the likely outcome is gridlock and complaints. Meanwhile, Pete gets to dole out gazillions of dollars and talk about how he worked with Republican Guvs and Mayors to build bridges and roads. To offset that, I just read a right wing article about how he is the worst Transportation Secretary ever, bar none. Because all he gave us was supply chain problems and train wrecks. While he and his hubby took off paid parent time. Even moderate Republican politicos wonder whether America is ready for a POTUS who kisses a guy on stage. So how Kamala and Pete would play out in a primary is anyone's guess. But the polls right now say she gets maybe 25 to 30 % of the vote. And Pete gets about 10 to 15%. The #2 in most polls is Bernie Sanders, in the high teens. So then you have to factor in that we'll redo the primary fight between progressives and more Establishment liberals/moderates. Who Republicans will say are all socialists. My best guess is Biden tried to create an orderly transition in his 2020 choices. Kamala got to be Veep. If he dies in office, she will be POTUS. Pete got what was likely to be a highly visible Cabinet job, if Biden got the infrastructure package he wanted. Which he did. So it positioned both of them well. And Harris/Buttigieg would be a ticket that I'd be excited about. But the best laid plans - if that is what they were - can always go awry. There are aspects of 1980's Reagan/Bush that are very similar. Oldest POTUS ever. Who polls in 1983 say most people don't want to run again. Because he's old, and the economy is rocky. But he runs in 1984, when the economy is better, and wins. Serves out two terms. Even though we know in retrospect he ended up actually having dementia. His # 2 runs to replace him after eight years, and wins. Democrats should be so lucky! I know I'm being my typical verbose, or detailed, self. But an interesting historical side note. 1984 was the first election Lichtman and his Russian partner in voodoo publicly predicted, way in advance. He said Reagan would win, since almost all his keys worked in Reagan's favor. In the moment, Reagan was not viewed as a particularly strong incumbent. So Lichtman tells an anecdote of how Republican political hack Lee Atwater invited him to the White House to game out what would happen if Reagan DID NOT run in 1984. Lichtman, a lifelong liberal Democrat, says he told Atwater it would hurt Republicans on three of his keys. They'd lose an incumbent. They'd lose what he judged to be a charismatic leader. And they'd gain a primary fight, which could hurt them. Even so, in retrospect, even if they lost those three things Lichtman would probably argue they'd still only have five keys out of 13 against them. As that Broder article I hyperlinked details. And history says you need six against you to lose. So my point is this. If you make a set of favorable assumptions for Democrats about 2024 - growing economy, a "victory" in Ukraine - Biden could do what Reagan did not. Step aside. And Democrats could win, anyway.

Poor things! This is an optimistic generalization. My favorite organizing phrase is, "The action is in the reaction." So I view this reaction through that lens. First, it may be another tiny little sign that people are just sick of Trump's Divide And Conquer America. He never really conquered, anyway, even in 2016. The most MAGA-like posters over there are the ones who reacted with a pity party. The posters I consider the most thoughtful all hit the "thanks" or "like" button. Second, same goes for specific LGBTQ issues, like transgender. I personally think that some of the medical providers may go too far. And there is a need for oversight. Whenever there is a system for getting insurance claims when you do expensive therapies, oversight and accountability are issues. That said, mostly the culture war attacks on The Gays or The Blacks or The Trannies or The Baby Killers has playing out in our favor, over a long period of time. It is a battle of hearts, not minds. And progressives like me are winning. And it's hard to keep talk about the political dimensions of The Gays or The Trannies off an LGBTQ website. So it will be interesting to see where this goes. But, for now, they get a nice vacation from conflict. Hopefully the moderators are out at some strip club in South Beach, celebrating. 😉

I know I stated the question in a complicated way. But it is a complicated question. As I said, I posted this on Company Of Men. And the predictable reaction was, "Biden should not run," for a bunch of reasons. But that still leaves us with: okay, what then? @njf's answer is a good one: it leaves us with a primary. That is what primaries are for. I'm not sure what you mean precisely about not saying the quiet thing out loud. That could mean at least two things. One, Biden's mental decline is more serious than thought. Although that was not clear at the SOTU address. Or, two, lots of Talking Heads thinks Kamala would be a disaster heading the 2024 ticket. Many of the same Talking Heads thought Biden would just embarrass himself by running in 2020. I for one could live with something like a Kamala/Secretary Pete ticket in 2024, if Biden surprises us all and steps aside. I'd vote for Kamala in a primary in part in the hopes that my party would avoid a bitter and divisive primary fight by rallying around The Veep and The Gay Guy everybody likes (Well, Republicans don't like either of them). What did you mean exactly by the quiet thing? The main thing I keep coming back to is this. If it ain't broke, why fix it? So it depends in part on whether you think Biden is broke. I don't see him as broke. And if he does break, the likely fix is Kamala, anyway. As I said above, that's true whether he steps aside now, or gets re-elected and dies in office, or he wins in 2024 and ends his term in 2028. The one scenario in my mind that likely finishes Kamala's political career is if Biden/Harris loses in 2024. But even then she may run in 2028. It is objective to say she is unproven as a national or international leader. And her run in 2020 didn't go so well. Then again, Biden's prior Presidential runs didn't go so well, either. If I flip that last paragraph around, I think the best argument for Biden stepping aside now is that it lets Democrats pick a new generation of leaders in 2024, not 2028. And the premise I would have to add is that by Nov. 2024 the economy is good, the stock market is good, jobs are good, and Democrats have the wind at our backs. And Putin has either lost, or is at least not winning. So in that happier world Democrats could afford to lose an incumbent. Which I think is just historically a downside - as Lichtman argues. And still win almost no matter who we nominate. That would be a happy outcome, for me. I'll add one other thing I put in the COM thread that just further complicates things. But for me, as a liberal Democrat, it is happy news. At about 42:00 in this hour long interview between Never Trump Republican Bill Kristol and centrist worrier AB Stoddard, she goes off about the looming public conflict among Democrats over: 1) replacing Pelosi, and 2) replacing Biden. That interview was from last Summer. I like AB a lot as a solid go-to center/right thinker. But she was pretty much wrong about everything she said. The supposed public fight between progressive and moderate Democrats over replacing Pelosi never happened. Which I think was a good thing. Let the public drama be MTG saying whack job things and screaming, "Liar!" instead. Same with Biden, in my mind. Let the Democrats seem calm and orderly and on course. Let Biden tease Republicans about really unpopular things they say about wildly popular programs for seniors. Let the Republicans have their Ron/Don/MAGA shit show instead. Again, all this follows from my premise that Biden is not broke. AB Stoddard clearly thought last Summer that Biden was broke.

MTG is in many ways a perfect example of how a MAGA minority came to power. And why they lost power in 2018 and 2020 and 2022. And what they need to do to hold whatever power they have. Her district is R+22 on the Cook Partisan Voter Index. Which is even more ruby red than your lovely slippers, Oz. She won in her first 2020 primary with 40 % of the vote. Just like Trump won by simply cobbling together a plurality in 2016. Which is my guess of how he'll win the R nomination again in 2024. It's all about the base. MTG's district may be one where the most inflammatory candidate wins the primary. It may turn off the country as a whole. But it works in that district. In 2022 she won her primary with 70 % of the vote. The surprising thing is that, according to one legislative tracker, she is among the most moderate House Republicans. Not the most extreme. Ideology–Leadership Chart That chart isn't based on numbers. But if you put numbers on the x axis, with 0 being most liberal and 10 being most conservative, she'd be at 5.5. Not far from Josh Gottheimer, the least liberal "Wall Street" Democrat who is right in the middle. They come up with those rankings based on legislation. So it's not based on her QAnon-ish rants. Or her taste in fur. 🤫 Trump was also perceived in 2016 by many as a centrist/former Democrat/moderate type. So that is part of the mystery of MAGA to me. In theory, you could build a majority coalition combining White working class voters and Main Street capitalism. There's a rich tradition of that kind of populism in Georgia. Which didn't always work out so well for Blacks. But it did produce results. My biased answer is that the main result Trump and MTG are interested in is power for themselves. MTG recently complained that she made a lot more than her $174,000 salary before being elected. And the work her job requires leaves her "miserable." Poor thing! Maybe the voters will take that to heart next time and let her get back to CrossFit and QAnon. Georgia today is a great example of how NOT being extreme works. On the one hand, Gov. Brian Kemp's 2022 campaign hammered away at it's the inflation, stupid. Instead of buying into QAnon, he took on Trump's lies. And he won. Meanwhile, Warnock - using the same legislative tracker - was one of the most moderate voting Democrats. According to that tracker, Joe Manchin is the Senator who is smack dab in the middle. Warnock is just slightly to his left. Meaning more centrist than almost every other Senate Democrat. He spent half his time playing the role of Georgia's pastor. And the other half focusing on bipartisan deals to build roads in Georgia. Yeah, he's really a liberal. But he hides it well.

This was actually the last thread I started on Company of Men before the political forum involuntarily retired. (Maybe that answers my question about Biden? 🤫 ) So I thought it would be interesting to see how it goes here. Since a few of you already posted on this question over there, I also added the second part about Plan B. A lot of Biden supporters or sympathizers said he's a great guy. But his age is showing. So it's time for him to move on. Speaking as a Democrat, that begs a big question. How do we avoid electing Trump II, or Culture Warrior in Chief Ron DeSantis? My answer was, and is, YES. Biden should run again. I'll list three reasons. First, it increases the odds that we won't elect Trump or some other Culture Warrior In Chief. Some people think it's voodoo. But I overweight Alan Lichtman's Keys to the Presidency. It's a system he developed with a leading Russian seismologist geared toward using mostly objective data to detect patterns which help predict earthquakes - in this case, political earthquakes. Since 1984 he has guessed the winner of every Presidential election correctly, and months in advance. The other key component of his system is that he believes voters are smart. They make decisions based on things that matter: the economy, war and peace, major accomplishments, leadership, big scandals. So having the power of the incumbency and avoiding an intraparty brawl are two of the 13 things that help determine victory. He says once you lose six of these 13 keys, you're done. So this takes away two keys from the Democrats. Incumbency, for sure. And if Biden does not run, there will likely be a party nomination fight that could be very divisive. Second, the most likely outcome no matter what happens is Kamala becomes the new leader to face Don or Ron. Which is what lots of Democrats are afraid of. If you leave Biden out, the polls show she's the preference of up to 1 in 3 Democrats. The next tier - usually Sanders and Secretary Pete - are far behind. Like maybe 10 %. So who knows what will happen. But if Biden steps aside, the most likely outcome is she replaces him. On the other hand, if Biden/Harris wins and he dies of a heart attack in 2016, she replaces him. On the other hand, if they both serve out a second term, she'll run to replace him. All roads seem to lead to Kamala. Under any of these circumstances, I'm fine with her leading when the time comes. That said, like many Democrats, I'd rather not risk it now. We do know that in the last century there were six contested nominations in the party that held the Presidency. In all six cases, most recently Bush in 1992, that party lost. So it would definitely be better for Biden to step aside than to be forced out in a primary, like LBJ was. Third, I'm not sure I even understand the logic. Yes, he's old. If he were clearly senile, or a joke like George Santos, that would matter. But the idea among at least some Democrats goes like this. "You've won all these bipartisan legislative victories and done a great job. But you're too old." The first statement kind of disproves the second. With Ukraine, even moreso. Age - aka experience and relationships - did put Biden in a position to build a global coalition I don't think Trump, or someone younger like Kamala or Secretary Pete, could have built. The biggest fear is that Biden will lose us the 2024 elections. Like Trump lost lots of 2022 races for his election denying partners in crime. But if that's the fear, didn't Biden just help pull a rabbit out of a hat? Obama, who was younger and dynamic, lost 63 House seats in his first midterm. Biden lost 14, and gained a handful of Senate and Governor seats. One poll showed that, among Democrats, about half want Biden to run, about a quarter are not sure, and about a quarter are against him running. I think it's a given that, if he steps aside, anyone running to replace him will be less popular. And have less experience. How does that make winning in 2024 easier? I've never bought the idea that Biden was the only Democrat who could beat Trump in 2020. To go back to Lichtman, he says Presidential races are thumbs up or thumbs down votes on the party in power. Trump was going to lose, anyway, he said. So if we wanted someone else to lead the charge, 2020 was the time to fight that out. We did. And Biden won. A lot of this depends on your assumptions about other BIG THINGS THAT MATTER. If we're in a deep recession in Fall 2024 and Putin has won in Ukraine in a way that makes Biden look like a weak loser, Lichtman's system says Biden would probably have at least six keys against him, anyway. Which is enough to lose. If the economy and stock market are booming, and Putin lost or is barely holding on in Ukraine, Lichtman's system could suggest the Democrats have enough going for them to win, anyway. Then a younger President than Biden - presumably Harris, but maybe not - could win in 2024 and run as the incumbent in 2028. But his key point would be that losing an incumbent and inviting an internal party fight is simply not going to help, at best. At worst, it hands the Presidency back to Trump. Or the other Florida Culture Warrior In Chief. Should Biden run? And if he does step aside, what's the Plan B for the Democrats to keep the Presidency?

My guess is it's more that they just don't like the noise and conflict. I know that as a fact for several of the most prominent posters on the website overall. The ethos is: "We're gentlemen. And we don't like all this noise." When Bill died a member of the forum stepped forward and said he could fund the operations of the site. I'm not sure how that played out. If that in fact happened, it was a very nice gesture on the part of that member. And it's the kind of thing that is best left in the background. So they may accept donations, which is always a wise things to do. But I don't know that they need them. If my read is correct that transition very much reinforced the vibe that this is a bunch of guys who have this particular hobby. And that is what the website is primarily about. Like, maybe let's go hang out at a strip club together. Or compare notes on our Fidelity accounts. Other than that, we are not particularly political. We just like our hobby. We want to be left alone. And we will keep our heads down. That certainly was a big part of the reaction when Rentboy was busted. The vibe among the core people who hire a lot and are friends or acquaintances off the Web was we just want to keep our heads down. And hope we are left alone. Mostly, these are NOT the folks who are going to be on the LGBTQ political cutting edge. As an escort that interacted with them a lot, I just accepted it for what it was. I've always wondered how that website would survive without the companion review website that Bill ran on his own. And that I think always got much more traffic than the forum. The other ticking time bomb, though, is age. It's a group of mostly older or middle-aged men who came of age before The Gays won the culture wars. So I'm not sure most younger Gays, even ones who hire escorts, would buy the notion that we don't talk about politics here. One poster said it very well when the forum was shut down: "As Gay men, our very existence is political." I sure feel that way. But many people there don't. Funny, or not so funny, story. In early 2017 I took one of the most prominent posters there out to dinner. It was the first time I'd seen him since Trump won. I knew he'd voted for Trump. His main reason being the all purpose, "Of course, I couldn't vote for Hillary." So on the car drive there he started ranting a bit about how he just didn't even like opening up his Yahoo webpage. Because since the election there was all this noise and conflict. I asked him if he was upset at all the anti-Trump people bitching and moaning. And he said, No, it's not that. Okay. Is it that you think Trump is being divisive, and creating conflict? No, it's not that. Okay. Well, then what is it? I think he may have just blurted out, "I just don't like all the noise!" I'm not sure, but I think I may have asked him, "So what exactly did you expect when you voted for Trump?" Or maybe I just thought that, and politely kept my mouth shut. We changed the subject, and had a nice dinner. Since many of them were clients, and friends, I am pretty sure he speaks for a bunch of people. They just want to be gentlemen left to their hobby. That said, for a niche market, they may be doing - and continue to do - just fine. I hope so. It's a great place to meet up and share information and experiences about the core interest that brings them together.

It's really not clear to me why New York state got the red wave most other blue states avoided. Like Michigan, for example, where there was basically a blue wave. There's inflation and all that. But, again, didn't work in Michigan. Maybe it was a backlash against gerrymandering itself. Maybe it was the structure of the districts. Maybe it was crime. New York has a low murder rate, because they have stricter gun control. But perception is reality, and regardless there has been a spike in crime. Whatever it was, Santos was an accident that didn't really need to happen. The ideal scenario for Republicans is they do what you said, and then win a special election to replace him with a Republican this Fall. They keep the seat in a very close House. And also they can argue it is a referendum against Biden in a blue state. But there's a good chance a Republican would lose. If only because it's a shit show and the R candidate has Santos' stench on them. Then it is just one more nail in the coffin that the Republicans have gone to some looney tune extreme. But, as you said, if Santos is on the ticket in 2024 they are going to have that, anyway. One party's shit show is another's Schadenfreude, for sure. 😉

I think that's true, with a caveat. My warm-hearted BTC 😉 learned that from getting timed out often enough. And in some ways it created the worst of both worlds. There was a period after the 2016 election where at least it was often funny, in a darkly comic way. Bozo and Kenny in particular would get into it attacking each other. And it was just vicious. They are both creative writers that are very good with cutting one line quips. And that kind of viciousness didn't even have to be about politics. Because there have been plenty of vicious catfights on that website about ................ well, just about anything. So the time-out system created some perverse incentives. A recent example was what I viewed as BTC's wildly anti-LGBTQ rant about how The Gays in Florida are "Frankensteining" transgender kids. The article he posted about the recent decision in Florida was full of testimony by transgender kids and their parents, supporting the medical treatments. Which BTC called "barbaric." It's a great example of where we should actually want an informed debate. Because there's some evidence that some of the care providers have gone too far - in the words of some of the thoughtful care providers. But that's not what any of that was about. I viewed it as full-throated and relentless anti-LGBTQ propaganda. So the de facto rule was that as long as you don't personally attack the poster, you can spread any totally uninformed and hateful propaganda you want. Most days I scan Politico and Real Clear Politics. I'd call Politico Establishment centrism. RCP I like because it intentionally posts both lefty and righty articles. Including sometimes what read as full-blown MAGA screeds. So there were days when I'd read some right wing articles on RCP and then go read posts in the forum. It was as if some of the gang had been given their day's talking points. And then went over to the forum to disseminate them. And at least in my eyes they always tended to be the least well informed and most propagandistic talking points. Like about how The Gays are "Frankensteining" our kids. Last Summer a private conversation was started by someone and directed to twenty of "the most reasonable voices on the politics forum." Maybe. But they also happened to be the most liberal ones, including me. One line this poster wrote I think goes to the heart of the problem: The proposed cure was a one week boycott by the "reasonable" posters. You can look at that two ways. One, that was last June. And it didn't work. Two, it was wildly successful. Now the forum is permanently boycotted. My highly intellectual BTC 😉 can't flood the site with hateful and harmful comments, including about The Gays, anymore. I don't view the moderators as QAnon types or hard right wingers. It's hard to tell because they mostly stayed out of it. My read is that it shows that people in the middle are just getting sick of it. At least I hope that is the case. It would be a positive development that bodes well for Biden, since he has spent his life seeking compromise and unity. Albeit from the liberal side. Several smart posters have said that part of the problem is that people like me engaged people like the clown. When it should have been obvious no one was going to change their minds. It's a good point. Speaking for myself, my goal was never to change their minds. It was to call them and their toxic lies out. It seemed clear they were perfectly willing to engage each other and spread as much propaganda as they wanted 24/7 on their own. And my read from their comments is that they are the ones who regret the closure of the politics forum the most. It takes away one place they can do their thing. I hope it means we're moving out of a phase where toxicity and lies flow like manna from the sky. Or Trump. Or Twitter. The good news is the kind of political debate I've loved my whole life is alive and well. Recently I've been watching Bill Kristol's one hour interviews, mostly with right-of center thinkers or Republican politicos, but also some left-of-center ones, about how 2024 is shaping up. It's great stuff. And the mutual respect and thoughtfulness of people who have been doing this for decades, because they want a better America and a better world, shines through. 😊

Huh? WTF? I thought Fox News WAS the only source of news in the US. Isn't the rest fake? 😉 But back to reality Yeah, it's hard to understand how a warmonger could get like 75 % to 80 % approval, isn't it? Oops! 🤥 Patriots who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Now, granted, I had you figured for one of those peacenik types real quick, @lookin. Because I was in the 25 % who thought Dick Cheney's 1 % Doctrine was 99 % whack job. But I think two parts of that W. graph apply. The 9/11 spike applies, in that I'm sure many right-wing or nationalist Russians feel that they were basically attacked by Ukraine, as well as indirectly by the US, when we put the Jew Nazi in charge. Whatever! If that sounds 99 % whack job, think about Dick Cheney. One person's de-Baathification is ............ wait for it ............ another person's de-Nazification. However big the Fox News crowd is in Russia, they're the ones who believe that Zelenskyy is a Nazi, I'd guess. W.'s 75 % Iraq War spike is a better apples to apples fit with Putin's 80 %. And that can pretty much be explained by nationalism (or even just patriotism) + bullshit = war. But, again, people like me were not sent to the front or to jail when we loudly disagreed with Cheney and W. So I question that Putin's approval is really anywhere close to 80 %. The interesting question, if you could get a real answer, would be how many Russians really think that Zelenskyy is a Nazi. But you don't have to go that far to be in the 75 %. You just have to believe we are liberating Iraq because it will end up better for the people who live there. Excuse me. I meant liberating Ukraine. 😉

I've never been there, either. What I have read is that while those Levada polls are "accurate," it's a bit like US polls now. But on steroids. Like maybe Trump supporters don't answer the polls. Or maybe they willfully misdirect pollsters. For whatever reason, they end up being not quite as accurate as they used to be. At least in elections when Trump is on the ballot. PUTIN’S APPROVAL RATING There is an obvious pattern where a majority of people say they approve of Putin, whether they actually do or not. And also that when he goes nationalist, like Crimea or Ukraine, there is a surge in approval. Makes sense. W. was adored when he started the Iraq War. Not so much by 2008. So if the same thing is very gradually happening to Putin, like it did after he invaded Crimea, but then later his economy went bad, it's only because he deserves it. The other thing we know is that the best thing about opposing Putin's war is you go to jail. The worst thing is maybe you go to the front, to become manure. So that probably has to be figured into why the polls themselves maybe aren't the most reliable. Arguably, what separates two different types of Russians is a bicycle. Or plane ticket. We know a lot of Russia's best and brightest are leaving. Wonder why?

Yeah, I think you pretty much nailed it, @unicorn. As a specific example, you and I have gotten into it, over things that matter. Like how to protect people form COVID. But I think grown ups can disagree, sometimes strongly, over things that matter. And still be respectful. I said it over at Company Of Men, but I'll repeat here. Temperament has a lot to do with it. I did say to Bill, like when he timed me out several times, "Your website. Your rules." So there was an underlying respect. But you could also say, "Your website. Your temperament." Bill had his own idiosyncrasies, which is an understatement. I was a moderator there for a while, which he give me as a reward I never wanted for raising money for him to run his website. I argued privately against his rule that you can't post pictures of children, and lost. But that dumb rule died when Bill did, basically. Bill came of age at a time when Gay men and children meant "predator." He was being cautious, and reactive. Thanks to The Gays being pro-active, Gay men and children now means Secretary Pete changing his kid's diapers. 😊 I absolutely love it that I got to live in a period when The Gays became a model for how to do politics in America and the world. Compassionately. And with intelligence. I have never met any of the moderators there in person, like I met Bill many times. Or Oz, once. My guess is they never particularly enjoyed that forum, anyway. I think Bill did. He'd post there sometimes, and let it all hang out. Like his posts on Black Lives Matter. Which did not go down well. When Trump first won he posted that he was cautiously optimistic. He would pin up that silly Miss Manners-type logo, and talk about how we all needed to post with decorum. I found it amusing. My own view is that we'd somehow managed to set up a massive fan where shit was being splattered all over the place, every day, for four years. In order to divide and conquer. The Gays were, and are, being singled out in a massive culture war. So how was that NOT supposed to splatter all over his website? I will always wonder whether he lived to regret his cautious optimism. I'm guessing the moderators who kept the site alive after Bill died, thankfully, just viewed that forum as the diaper that needed to be changed regularly. And it got to be a big pain in the ass for them. I can't blame them. I'm grateful that they kept the place alive when Bill died. Like I said over there, which some of the people I respect there the most like @lookin and Charlie agreed with, now they get a well deserved break. The seeming obsession with staying "on topic" personally annoyed me. Because I am guilty as charged for loving to wander off on tangents, like I am right now. I think that was in part Cooper's temperament. If there is an Internet Fairy God Mother, he would probably argue Cooper is correct. I recall reading some example of hijacking a thread that says if the title is how to groom your dog, it is impolite to bring up how you groom your cat. There'd be a post on some racist act in Kentucky, and I'd compare it to some racist act in LA. I think that would annoy the moderators. Mostly, I don't think there is much evidence that the key moderators ever really enjoyed posting on the politics forum, anyway. One person summed it all up with, "Good riddance!" It does make me sad. IMHO 20 years of interesting and diverse Gay political opinion just got flushed down the toilet.

Silly Oz! That's a trick question. The answer is both, of course. Rainbows are the symbol of Gay freedom and fun. How could we possibly live without them? And we have to be fairies in order to win our freedom and fun. Sometimes even nasty ones. Which is maybe what that thing at the other website is about. But love Trumps all, so to speak. 😉 So I'm for both, and ............... Speaking of which, I was wandering around here last night to see who is posting here, and about what. I think the last time I posted here this place may have been Boy Toy. And I saw the thread on your budding romance. I remember having a very nice discussion with you and Bill at one of Oliver's parties a long time ago, in which you educated me a bit about Thailand. Congratulations on your new relationship. Hope love wins.

I completely agree. I did not post that to suggest that Democrats should sit back. As you say, we should do the exact opposite. We need to organize. What Lichtman would add is the most important thing Democrats need to do is govern well. His theory is based on the optimistic premise that voters reward governments that govern well, and punish governments that govern poorly. So if we want to win House and Senate and state legislative seats in 2022, Priority # 1 is governing well.

America’s Captured Courts SHELDON WHITEHOUSE I assume this is part of Sen. Whitehouse's job interview for Ranking Minority Member (dare I say Chair?) of the Senate Judiciary Committee. If it is, I say give him the job. I like Dick Durbin. But he's got plenty of other fish to fry. I also like the idea of making the case that SCOTUS is now becoming the best court money can buy. What I really like is giving the Federal Society SCOTUS appointees the opportunity to prove they were appointed to be the best Justices [sic] money could buy. In order for such a strategy to make sense, there actually have to be 80 specific decisions where "identifiable Republican donor interests" can in fact be identified. More important, there have to be lots of decisions like this moving forward. Republicans will argue that these rulings of course have nothing, nothing, nothing to do with money. Just like they are now arguing it was mathematically impossible for Joe Biden to win the 2020 election. Let them. Their arguments are almost self-defeating. Most of the "process" arguments in that article don't make sense, and could backfire. Democrats will look like hypocrites if they try to make a case about money in politics, or attacks ads. Ain't it awful? But they do have a case about fat cats and corporate special interests. I'd frame it all around the sad reality that SCOTUS is just returning to the purpose it has served for much of US history. Which is to be the court of last resort for the rich and powerful. I think Democrats could use this the way Republicans used Obamacare. There was a big payoff to Republicans in 2010, right after Obamacare passed. And in 2014, right as it was implemented. So we won't have that. In fact, my guess is that Rich Mitch and The Divine Miss Graham calculated that a SCOTUS fight would help them at the margin in red states, just like it did in 2018. If they made such a calculation, they were likely correct. But their victory now sets Democrats up to let SCOTUS be the non-stop drip drip drip that Obamacare was for maybe 8 years, until 2018. If Whitehouse is right, there will be dozens of opportunities to keep reminding people that SCOTUS is the best court money can buy for Republican special interests. It's a little bit like the Trump Presidency itself. Yes, he won - kinda, sorta, maybe - in 2016. But everything since then was this annoying drip drip drip and rant rant rant and tweet tweet tweet that converted Republicans to Democrats and drove everyone to the polls. Granted, Justice Rapist is no Donald Trump. But their rulings can be used as a constant reminder that if you don't like government by the rich and powerful elite, you have to vote, vote, and vote. Such a strategy would also make it just a little harder for SCOTUS to go after the big game, like abortion and voting rights and Citizens United and LGBTQ protections. The argument should be that pandering to corrupt special interests is a pre-existing condition for judges who were hand-picked by The Federalist Society to serve the people who hired them. If people have heard that 30 times, they are more likely to believe it when SCOTUS makes a major ruling. Roberts and his fellow conservatives are not stupid. It will make them more likely to use shovels rather than bulldozers to dig their own political graves.

He already has paid for it. He lost. This is why. Poor thing. It has to hurt. There's two theories about what happens now. The optimists say a cult can never survive without its leader. True. But Trump is not exactly going away. Lots of Republican Senators must feel like this is the film Taken. We reached the climax, and they are freed from being hostages. But they know that with an audience like that, it's only a matter of time until Taken, Two hits the screen. Some of them may be secretly hoping that all those fine prosecutors in New York just land Trump's ass in jail. The pessimists say the Republican Party will be the Trump Party for a long time. I have to assume this fraud nonsense is a set up to try to return in 2024. Or control who does. And meanwhile have the adulation the poor narcissist demands in between. And - duh! - the ability to fleece people. Georgia will be a good initial indicator of how this works. Will he be able to turn people out when he doesn't have the daily ability to throw red meat to his base and agitate them? More likely, I think he'll handicap the party. He's already improved Stacey Abram's chances of taking out Brian Kemp in 2022. Republicans will have to hear all that as background noise. Meanwhile, Biden will turn out to NOT be senile or socialist. Who knew? When he starts pushing policies people like as laws it will be a challenge for Republicans to simply oppose things 2 in 3 Americans want - help to states and counties who don't want to fire cops and nurses, student debt relief, a public option, a path to citizenship for DREAMers. I'd rather have the Republicans move on and nominate someone like John Kasich or Larry Hogan or Tim Scott in 2024. But my bet is that Trump will be the gift that keeps giving to Democrats. I didn't need Trump to feel respect for Kasich or Hogan or Scott, even if I disagree with much of what they think as Republicans. One thing this process is doing is paving the way for a return to bipartisan behavior on the part of people who just don't want to be held hostage anymore. Thanks for posting that 60 minutes video @RockHardNYC. The most interesting part was watching his face. The hurt and anger and mounting indignation about having his beliefs and work trashed was obvious. I have to imagine there are a lot of Republicans that feel that way. This split between principle and paranoia - the Republican Party and the Trump Party - is going to be there for a long time.

Congratulations for writing something that makes me look terse by comparison. I don't see the direct line between Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Saul Alinsky, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. One small detail that popped into my mind when I started to read what you wrote is that Alinsky was a Jew. So that's not a super good logical fit with him being associated with anything involving Nazi Germany. But when I got to the part about me being brainwashed by untrue state propaganda it clicked. Me being brainwashed, of course I wouldn't be able to understand how this all fits into the Communist Authoritarian Totalitarian State. The fact that what you wrote doesn't quite make sense to me could actually confirm that I was brainwashed, so as not to be able to see the true general realities as you see them. If you made any specific points, like how there was proof that "x" number of votes were stolen using "y" method in "z" state, that would provide a framework for saying you are right or wrong. But since this is all very general and somewhat vague, it's hard to say if you are right or wrong. But I get the jist of your argument. First, with me being brainwashed and the state operatives of the Communist Authoritarian Totalitarian State being able to change the election results between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. as we slept, these are pretty clever people. Second, of course they are not going to leave any evidence behind. Third, in all honesty I actually thought I stayed up from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. watching as results kept coming in. But then it struck me that all that was maybe me being brainwashed. In fact, maybe it was between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. when they brainwashed me when everybody else was asleep so nobody else could see. Or at least reinforced the brainwashing that I guess the untrue state media has been gradually pounding into my brain. Fourth, all that probably just goes to show I am brainwashed. The really fucked up part of this is that if you are right and they are out to "destroy democracy, dehumanize & eradicate those they don't agree with" that leaves me in a truly fucked up position, brainwashed or not. Quite honestly I might be okay with the destroying democracy part, seeing as it doesn't effect me personally. But if I'm going to be dehumanized and eradicated - well, I'm not really up for that. So I'm thinking I should probably agree with the Communist Authoritarian Totalitarian State if only to avoid eradication. And then I thought if I am brainwashed I don't have a choice as to whether I agree with the Communist Authoritarian Totalitarian State, anyway. So, push come to shove, it feels like I am basically totally fucked. Something else odd struck me when I was lying in bed thinking about this. If you abbreviate Communist Authoritarian Totalitarian State you gets CATS. So is it just a coincidence that "Cats" is also one of the longest running musicals in London and New York City and wherever it has played? It also turns out Andrew Lloyd Webber is an agnostic. Which makes him a perfect fit for Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Obama, Clinton, and Alinksy, since agnostics don't believe in anything. So what if the state operatives are using an agnostic AND a Jew? No disrespect to Alinsky's Rules For Radicals, but if you really want the Communist Authoritarian Totalitarian State to do a deep brainwashing you don't go for just one book. You go for the play that is around forever and that some people have seen like a dozen times. The better to brainwash you even though you don't know you are being brainwashed. And then the whole thing suddenly fell together in my mind that one of my favorite songs is "Memories". Now just think about that. If you were going to brainwash someone wouldn't you want to use a song like "Memories" so as to make a "useful idiot" like me think I remember everything? When in fact I am totally brainwashed? I know it sounds far-fetched but these are people who stole an entire national election between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. (well, just the Presidential race, I mean) so if they can do that they can sure as fuck mess with Webber and his play. Now check this out: ’Tis the final conflict Let each stand in his place The International Union Shall be the human race. So now it is obvious. We know from The Internationale that the Marxists and Bolsheviks tried to unite the human race. But the big mistake was saying you are uniting the entire human race. Which makes it really obvious what you are up to. So people were able to fight back and hold the Communist Authoritarian Totalitarian State at bay for quite a long time. So what did they do? They fucked with our minds real good, didn't they? They went into disguise. They made it about "cats", not people. And you brainwash them by making it about "memories" even though they are not memories at all actually. So everything is the opposite of what you think it is. Facts are lies and lies are facts. Which explains why Trump is the only one telling the truth when actually the untrue state propaganda says it is the opposite and DT is the one who lies. And here is the actual proof which is undeniable: If you touch me, You'll understand what happiness is Look, a new day has begun You see how clever they are? That is of course the final part of "Memories" which everyone has implanted in their brain. It is basically the exact same as The Internationale only it is in disguise. So is it a coincidence that just at DT was on the verge of Making America Great Again the China virus comes along from Communist China? And what does everyone do? Freak out and go into their little pod. So the whole thing is you can only touch that actual person in your pod where you are all brainwashed and they say it as a "new day" which means when we wake up we are all brainwashed. And despite all that DT still won because all these rural people didn't go see Cats just the people in the cities like Philadelphia and Milwaukee and Detroit. So he still won. So they actually had to change it all between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. So I wake up being brainwashed and thinking "Oh, Joe Biden won." Which is exactly what the Communist Authoritarian Totalitarian State wants. And everybody else who has NOT been brainwashed wakes up and says, "Holy shit! They stole the election." Holy shit! Now I got it! Thank you! You'll have to excuse me. But I have this feeling I better get the fuck out of here while there's still time.

I’m not a f---ing socialist’: Florida Democrats are having a postelection meltdown Trump Didn’t Win the Latino Vote in Texas. He Won the Tejano Vote. Understanding the difference will be key to Democrats moving past their faltering, one-size-fits-all approach to Hispanics. Both of those are revealing looks under the hood in Florida and Texas. I think they make a bunch of general points about what Democrats got right, what they screwed up, and what those of us who are Democrats should be relentless about if we want to keep the House in 2020 - despite the unavoidable setbacks redistricting and gerrymandering will bring. They also make a bunch of specific points about Latinos. The second article is right that Latinos helped Biden nationally, relative to Clinton 2016. The most important and obvious way they did that was by delivering Arizona and Georgia to Biden. I'll probably say this a dozen times over the next months because it annoys me and seems ungrateful that White liberal journalists are moaning about how Trump did better with Latinos than in 2016. In both elections, Latinos voted about 2 to 1 against Trump. In both elections, a solid majority of Whites voted for Trump. White liberals like me should be saying Gracias! a lot. The argument goes like this. Clinton's winning 38 % margin with Latinos (66/28) was cut to a 33 % margin with Biden (65/32). Que lastima! It's true, and we know for a fact that it hurt Democrats in Florida and Texas, which is why those stories above are worth reading. That said, here's what it leaves out. Over 11 Presidential elections from Reagan on, the average margin Democrats won the Latino vote by is + 33. Biden was right at the average. In addition, with four of the five incumbents who ran for re-election before Trump, Latino support for the incumbent increased. So as that Pew report shows, Reagan's margin went up + 2, Obama went up + 8, W. + 9, and Clinton + 15. The only incumbent who did slightly worse with Latinos was George H.W. Bush. So Trump going up + 5 fits right into the long-term trend. Those two articles reinforce my strong hunch that the main reason Trump did marginally better with some Latinos is that they felt Trump was good for the economy. That Texas article screams it. Every story I've read about what drove Latinos in places like Arizona to vote for Biden is they way Trump was going after Latino immigrants. If you read the Texas story, Tejanos don't feel that way. They're not immigrants. They're Americans. It follows that if you just assume the trends since 1980 continue, Biden has an 80 % chance of doing better with Latinos in 2024 than he did in 2020, if he runs again. The likely reason they turned against George H.W. Bush was the 1992 recession. So if Latinos feel Biden did a good job on the economy, past trends suggest he has a nearly 100 % chance of increasing his vote share with Latinos. How Biden handles the economy and COVID will obviously be the two big factors in whether Democrats lose the House in a midterm re-election when redistricting tips the odds against us. The feeling that is growing inside me is that have dividing government - even if Democrats win both Georgia seat - is obviously bad news when it comes to legislating, but could be good news when it comes to 2022. If you start with Clinton, three of the last four Presidents got wiped out in their first mid-term. But the same three cam into power with Congressional trifectas, and were perceived as going too far in their first two years. Hence, the reactions in 1994, 2010, and 2018 were powerful reactions. The exception of the last four Presidents is 2002. W. had a similar situation as Biden. He'd won a much closer election, and had a 50/50 Senate split. In both 2002 and 2004 his party won both House and Senate seats. And he won re-election. Of course 9/11 and for a while Iraq were massive winds at his back pushing him along with strong majority support. It may be a historical one off. But the general principle is that the economy got better, he was seen as trying to unify the country, and people felt he'd done a good (2002) or at least good enough (2004) job as President. If Biden does that, I don't think a similar outcome in 2022 and 2024 is out of reach. There's some things that really stood out to me in those two articles above that I really want to elevate. First, it is the economy, stupid. In both cases those stories are examples of culturally conservative Latinos where talking about cultural or social hot buttons just helps Republicans. The thing that sounds like utter political malpractice to me is that progressive Democrats ran a minimum wage initiative in Florida in 2020 that won by 61 %, but meanwhile Democrats got destroyed for being socialists. They had at least one simple and popular message right in front of their noses. "We're not for socialism. We're fighting for a fair minimum wage." It's probably unfair, but it sounds like the state's most prominent Democrat, a White woman, was more interested in polling what "Latinx" voters think (hint: they don't call themselves Latinx) than in leading an aggressive offense about how Floridians deserved better wages. Second, there really does have to be more emphasis on math. From the losing Democratic House districts I looked at, Max Rose in NY is one book end and Donna Shalala in Florida is another. Max Rose is a courageous fighter, and he probably did everything right. But he was in a district that voted for Trump by 10 points in 2016. And it was a district where no Democrat has ever gotten much more than 100,000 votes (Rose got 99,224 votes in 2020, which was more than he got in 2018), whereas a Republican getting 140,000 votes was not a heavy lift (Rose's Republican opponent got 136,382 in 2020, which was actually less than the Republican incumbent did in 2016). Shalala is the exact opposite. Clinton won that district by 20 points in 2016. How could you possibly fuck things up that badly? Lots of Democrats in lots of districts that voted for Trump in 2016 survived. There should be a bloodbath in Florida after this outcome. Because somebody missed something obvious. We know that, because we read there was a big problem in Miami Dade in news stories all Fall. Third, the worst should be over. Here's a list of House incumbents in districts Trump won in 2016. I did not bother to look at which ones Trump won again in 2020. But just scan it and it explains who lost and why. Here's Democratic losers and the percentage Trump won their districts by in 2016: MN-7 Peterson (Trump +30.9), OK-5 Horn (Trump + 13.2), SC-1 Cunnigham (Trump + 13.1), NM-2 Small (Trump + 10.2), NY-11 Rose (Trump + 9.8). The good news to me is that most of these Democrats held on in districts that are kind of Trumpy. If Biden is wildly unpopular in 2022, it will be another Democratic bloodbath. But if he is popular, like W. was in 2002, the Democrats in mildly Trumpy districts who held on in 2020 should be okay. In Southern California, the problem was the opposite. The 2 to 4 seats we look to lose there were all areas both Clinton and Biden won. But they were held by Republicans for a long time. Close Democratic wins in a whole bunch of districts in 2018 were reversed by close Republican wins in a few of them in 2020. That should be reversible in 2022. My greatest hope is that Democrats in 2022 are focused on defense. I hope whoever Pelosi puts in charge targets a smaller number of districts where we either barely won and need to hold on, or barely lost and can either win them back or finally push them from red to blue. Some of these districts we did not win in Texas in 2020 might be winnable in 2022 when the turnout dynamics change. Fourth, I think Republicans just kicked the shit out of Democrats on direct voter outreach in 2020. I keep going back to their claim that they were knocking on 1 million doors a week and registering voters like crazy. Florida was at the top of their list. It is reasonable to think they spoke to millions of voters there, often face to face. They clearly won the messaging war in Miami Dade. Where Democrats did something like that, like in Georgia, it appears to have paid off. So once the pandemics is over, Democrats need to decide which states and House districts we really think we can win in 2022. And we need to do what the Republicans did, which is in their own words is what Obama did in 2008 and 2012. (In 2012, Democrats won Senate seats in Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, and West Virginia. Go figure.) My simple math goes like this. 80 to 90 % of "the message" voters get comes from TV - from CNN to ABC to Fox - and then you add some talk radio on the right and podcasts on the left. That's why Trump as incumbent, and as carnival barker, had such a huge advantage. My initial theory about why Trump did better than expected in 2020 is that a lot of people bought his relentless daily message that is was the best economy ever. Just like 70 % of Republicans are now buying his message that this election was somehow unfair. Havin that bullhorn every day makes a huge difference. So Joe Biden having the bullhorn will help Democrats a lot, I think. If he fucks it up, plan on a 2022 bloodbath. But there's every reason to hope it could be like W. in 2002. The other 10 to 20 % is ads and turnout. And Democrats mostly underperformed Republicans in 2020, I think. Especially on turnout, which is understandable since they were okay with door knocking and we followed pandemic protocol. That actually means they had an advantage that they won't have in 2022. If we pick areas like these districts in Southern California and Southern Texas and Miami Dade, and the ones that have been close calls like Arizona 6 which we have narrowly three times in a row, we ought to be able to win back some of these seats and maybe gain a few. But it is going to have to be based on a lot of face to face volunteer and paid contact in those districts Politico describes above. The biggest fear of all in both South Florida and South Texas was that Biden would bring in socialism, or at least a weaker economy. So if the economy turns out to be better in 2022 and COVID is mostly a bad memory that right there is a huge plus. There's an anecdote in that Texas story about how one of the Democratic Tejanos was begging with the state Democratic Party to send her stuff that would help specifically based on the interests of that one border district. They sent her signs that said, "Todos con Biden." If that's an accurate symbol of Democratic messaging, we only have ourselves to blame.

2020 Democrats fared poorly down ballot, but we're winning the fight for fair election maps Democrats will have much greater influence over redistricting in the coming decade than in the last one, despite state legislative losses this month. As a Democrat, I found that article encouraging. It's of course supposed to be encouraging, because it's in part propaganda written by someone with the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee. But the arguments make sense, and reinforced these things I've been thinking all week. It is interesting that after spending much of 2020 freaking out that it would be another 2016 and Trump would win, Democrats have done a reversal. At some point, thanks to polls, we decided we were going to win in a landslide. So something a lot like 2016 happened, and now we are surprised. Which we shouldn't be. And because we didn't win in a landslide, we're taking what happened as a loss. Winning the Presidency obviously isn't a loss. Nor is gaining one Senate seat, if that's all we do. The obvious bad news is the House. Maybe I'm in denial, but I don't see it as particularly bad news. We won 41 House seats in 2018, including some that had consistently elected Republicans for decades. We did it with what I've argued was an unsustainable turnout advantage of 10 million more House votes, nationally, than the Republicans got in 2018. So in 2020 when Republicans turned out in droves we couldn't hold some of those seats. None of this is a shocker. And I still look at it as a glass two thirds full. If we lose all the seats that are still razor thin and undeclared, we kept 2/3rd of the gains from 2018. And, most important, we kept a House majority. I've been reading one after another depressing article about how 2020 was a disaster for Democrats. Again, maybe I'm in denial. But I had this nagging feeling as I read them that this just doesn't sound right. So when I read the arguments in the article above it confirmed my gut feeling. Not winning, or not making progress, is simply not the same as losing. I think it is very rational to say we are in a much better position than when the 2010 redistricting occurred. In states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin we now have Governors that can check the worst maps Republican legislatures try to draw. And since they already gerrymandered everything they could in 2010, it just seems like it limits their ability to do as much damage to Democrats in 2020. Texas will be a disaster. But even there, if I got the numbers right, the 100 to 50 or so advantage Republicans had in the Texas House has been gradually clawed down to a 83 to 67 Republican advantage. So you can say it was a disaster because Democrats hoped to win back a majority. Or you can say it wasn't a disaster because Democrats held the net gain of 12 seats in the Texas House from 2018. The long term trends that delivered Arizona and Georgia to Biden are also at work in Texas. So Republicans will have another shot at making it harder for Democrats. But they can't stop demography. Sean Trende has written this two part series guessing how redistricting and gerrymandering could change the House map. He's saying a good placeholder is about 10 seats will shift to Republicans, in part because Democrats will lose some seats in blue states that have shrunk and red states will get more seats due to the census that Republicans can draw red. My takeaway is that every Democrat should plan on the fact that we will lose the House in 2022 - unless we figure out a very good plan for defense. We should have done that after 2018, and instead we let ourselves get giddy about offense. Let's not make the same mistake twice. Here's a conclusion the article above reached that I rabidly agree with: In other words, it's a long slog. No surprise there. At some point I hope somebody writes a book about what the Trump 2020 ground game actually did. I've been reading bits and pieces of it for years. Having 1 million volunteers knock on doors every week. Registering tens of thousands of new voters. I worried that Team Trump was building an army that would overwhelm Democrats on Election Day. Based on their surprising turnout and Democratic underperformance in purple and red parts of just about any swing state, I think we can conclude that we underestimated the importance of all that organizing work Team Trump did. We also overestimated our ability to buy our way into winning elections in places like South Carolina, or even North Carolina. It looks like base turnout in cities like Milwaukee and Detroit and Philadelphia was mediocre. So we got lucky because lots of Whites in the suburbs had simply had enough of Trump. 2020 was a unique year, and I'm not critical of Democrats not pushing door knocking in a pandemic. But I don't think it's at all surprising that the outcome was what it was. We underestimated the passion of the Trump Party base to hold on to power and thwart Democrats. On ground game, they appear to have done a good job. They basically will admit they did what Team Obama did in 2008 and 2012. There's a lot of dust left to settle. But if we internalize and correct what went wrong, I think we can hold the House in 2022. Trende is right that Democrats are bound to lose some seats through redistricting. The silver lining in the cloud of our 2018 losses is it gives us some seats that are prime targets to win back in two years. There are a few that are in what is now solid Trump country, like the rural Minnesota seat Colin Peterson lost. After 2016, he was living on borrowed time. I don't think we should waste time fighting the trend on them. But Biden won the 2 to 4 Southern California House seats Democrats look to lose. These are areas where the trend is working for the Democrats. We should be able to win them back. The other depressing thing I keep reading is that Democrats are doomed to lose the House, anyway, because the incumbent party always does badly in midterms. If I look at it as a Democrat, that sure sounds true. My two experiences in my adult lifetime are 1992 and 2010. Both times Democrats had won a trifecta, did liberal things like Obamacare, and then got blown away by the reaction against liberalism. Especially in the House. I sort of factored that in. In my wildest dreams, we'd win a handful of House seats, maybe have 53 to 55 Senate seats, and two years to get whatever laws we could passed - like some version of a Green New Deal - before we had hell to pay in 2022. If there is a silver lining in the clouds of 2020 for democrats, it's that we didn't set ourselves up for that in 2022. The best hope for Democrats, I think, is what happened in W.'s first term. It's similar enough to what Biden will face. There was a 50/50 split in the Senate, but when Jeffords switched parties in June 2001 Democrats took control. Republicans picked up a handful of House and Senate seats in both 2002 and 2004. There was no midterm curse. Some might argue that was a one off because of W.'s popularity after 9/11. I don't see it that way. The key question is whether Biden governs well. If Americans believe he got us through the pandemic and got the economy going again, and also was trying to bring the country together in a difficult situation, I don't dismiss that Democrats could thwart any midterm curse.