stevenkesslar

Good points. I don't think we're going to know whether "Trump wins" until Nov. 2024. Assuming he gets the Republican nomination, which he probably will. Mostly for the same reasons as in 2016. As Romney guy Stuart Stevens keeps saying, this is what Republican primary voters now want. Election denial is who the MAGA Republican Party is. Jan. 6th is what the MAGA Republican Party does. And still supports two years later. Check the polls. Or ask Tucker! (But not in a private text.) We for sure won't know how Bragg's case - or any other looming federal or state indictment - ends up in court anytime soon. No one knows whether the New York indictment will even go to trial before the 2024 election. This Q & A with an MSNBC politico is long, but it did a nice job capturing an overall legal and political strategy for me. Here's the key Q & A I completely agree. That's the big picture. If the big picture were whether Barack Obama paid a hooker hush money, or some doorman at Trump Tower alleged that Bill Clinton had a child out of wedlock, I'm not sure most people on either side would really give a shit. So I don't disagree with @Lucky's main point. Bragg's case is certainly not the strongest link in the chain. But the big picture isn't really any particular legal nuance of any one indictment. It's whether we want an angry minority who believes election lies and supports riots to undermine democracy to have their aspiring dictator in charge again - whatever it takes. By the way, the same angry minority - completely by coincidence - wants to ban abortion. And books on The Blacks and The Gays, of course. But please don't say they are homophobes or racists. Book bans and abortion bans are just what enlightened people do these days! This is all what needs to be worked through the democratic system - assuming we still want and have such a thing. I keep repeating what Obama politico David Plouffe said: this will be fought out NOT over four years, but over four election cycles. At least. What we know so far is that in 2018, 2020, and even 2022 the MAGA BS mostly worked to the advantage of Democrats. Even though the country is split. To be more precise, the Republicans who did well in 2022 are guys like Chris Sununu, and Mike DeWine, and Tim Scott, and even Ron DeSantis - who are less MAGA, and more about an actual forward looking conservative vision of governance. Not retribution. Not hate. So will Americans accept "I am your retribution" and "Make America Hate Again" in 2024? Who knows. Tell me whether we are in a recession or recovery in November 2024 and that would be a big clue. We're a long way from 2000 and Bush v. Gore, which seems charming and quaint in retrospect. Democrats have won almost every Presidential race since, including 2016, by the popular vote. Which is why Republicans may have turned to a guy like Trump. Who will do whatever it takes. Karl Rove believes the October 2000 surprise that W. had an old DUI may have cost him five states, and almost the Presidential election. Wow! "Moral" voters actually cared about shit like DUI's back then? Here's the good news. Survey says that lots of people in the middle, including enough Republicans to put the final nail in Trump's coffin, still care about things like this. But we'll see. Everybody SHOULD be worried that Trump can win. And that his angry base wants retribution and hate, and will ban all sorts of things. Even though they just love The Gays, of course! Bless their hearts. We do know polls in early 2023 about Nov. 2024 are almost meaningless. In early 1983 all the polls said Mondale would kick Reagan's ass. That said, there's no evidence that this is helping Trump in 2024 general election polls. The latest polls still say that, so far, Republicans would be slightly more likely to beat Biden if they chose DeSantis rather than Trump. But maybe 20 % or so of voters will make a lesser of evils choice. Things don't ever seem to work out well for Trump as the "lesser of evils" guy, do they? Geez. Wonder why? Except, arguably, in 2016. Barely. Like I said, everyone SHOULD worry.

Well it's now clear you called that one right. Post-indictment poll: Trump surges to largest-ever lead over DeSantis But the latest Yahoo News/YouGov survey also shows that most Americans don't think Trump should be allowed to serve as president again if convicted. As most articles are noting, this is a two part equation. And, unfortunately for Trump and Republicans, survey says it's more about subtraction than addition. As the me-me-melodrama fires up the base and adds to Trump support among the hard core MAGA types, it subtracts support from Independents and leaners who Trump will need to win. Just like he did in 2016, when he still lost by three million votes. The numbers among Independents actually don't sound so bad on this one. Slightly more Independents approve of the indictment than disapprove. But neither is anywhere near a majority. What I factor in is that this particular indictment is about an old hush money payment that we've all known about for years, anyway. Independents are not so lenient when it comes to the election lies and Jubilant Patriotic Cop Beating (brought to you by Tucker!!!!!) What I buy that lots of pragmatic Republican politicos are saying is that every single time Tucker!!!!! has to explain publicly on Fox (but not privately in texts) how patriotic and glorious all these scams and lies and riots are, Trump is losing. A trifecta of indictments would be a big loser, I suspect. Although, oddly, it may get Trump the Republican nomination. The thing that is hard to calculate is what Independents think about a party that would like somebody like Trump more because of this crap. Interesting factoid in that poll above. 49 % of people say "the only thing Donald Trump cares about is himself." Who knew? Which is actually down from 53 % in December. Either way, that 49 to 53 % of the US is unlikely to vote for Trump, I'd guess. So to win he needs less than a majority. (He got 46 % in 2016, compared to 48 % for Clinton.) So, yeah, it seems likely that if he ran as an Independent, Trump would take votes away from DeSantis, not Biden. Teddy Roosevelt comes to mind. That said, I am an Alan Lichtman devotee, since he has been right in guessing who will win the Presidency every time since 1984. And one of his 13 keys is that when a third party candidate gets more than 5 %, it likely hurts the incumbent. As a general rule, it makes sense. The system was developed by Lichtman and a Russian expert at predicting actual earthquakes. It uses objective measures (GDP, war or peace) based on the assumption that the party in power gets a thumbs up or down based on actual performance - not dumb shit. So the presence of a popular third party candidate usually suggests deep rumblings in the body politic, Lichtman says. John Anderson getting 7 % in 1980 - along with Kennedy's challenge to Carter and the inflationary economy, stupid - all turned out to be reliable warnings of an earthquake coming. Then again, Perot beat the 5 % threshold in 1996, but Clinton still won. But no Democrat challenged Clinton, and he had the economy and peace on his side. So it's not completely clear that Trump losing the nomination and running on the "ME, ME, MAGA" ticket couldn't hurt Biden. For sure it would be a reliable sign of deep rumblings in the body politic. But then, we know that already. It makes no sense that many Republicans are craving to nominate a guy half of America thinks is only into himself. And who plays victim when he fucks, cheats, lies, steals, grabs pussy - and, oh yeah, gets indicted. 🤫

More like 40 % plus. I like the way Bragg's office framed the issue in their response to the House Republicans (aka Team "Lock Her Up"): The thing that is most worrisome to me, if I isolate this one moment in time, is that anyone can make a great argument to sweep this under the rug. If all this is about is hush money to a hooker, which is like tip money to a billionaire, it's not worth the drama and division. Nobody thinks this trial will be done within the next year. So there's every reason to believe by the time any verdict is delivered, Trump will have been indicted again. And again. That makes a difference. Which is worse: hush money to hookers, lying about losing a Presidential election, or starting a riot at The Capitol to hang democracy? And Mike Pence? Let the juries decide. The polls are clear that over half of Republicans have a simple approach to democracy now: FUCK DEMOCRACY. If democracy means Trump loses, well then obviously it's not democracy. The election must have been stolen. And now polls show over half of Republicans have a simple approach to the law: FUCK THE LAW. If there's an issue between Trump and the law, well then obviously the law is wrong. He can't have broken the law. We don't need evidence. We don't need facts. He's just a victim. If it were just about a nice sweet guy like DJT making a simple mistake in paying hush money to a hooker, that would be one thing. Maybe it would be best to just sweep that under the rug. This is very different. It is a systematic and deeply felt attack on democracy, elections, and the law. And over half of one of America's two major political parties is caught up in it. You can't sweep that under the rug. Nor does Team MAGA or Trump want to sweep it under the rug. They are spreading the toxic lies and civic pus continuously. Meanwhile, most Democrats, the vast majority of Independents, and a significant minority of Republicans - which is to say a vast and not silent majority of Americans - are on the side of democracy, elections, and the law. I keep coming back to what Obama politico David Plouffe said back in 2018 or so. Defeating Trump's attack on democracy and legal and government institutions isn't going to take four years. It's going to take four election cycles. If we are lucky 2024 will be the last straw. But Trump clearly and passionately wants this fight. And my guess is he has a big enough minority behind him that this is what he'll make 2024 about.

My dearest Sister In Cock. Yes, hyperbole is always good when we are talking about 12 inch Trump. But isn't this perhaps going a bit too far? Fact: This indictment is a shameless effort to interfere in a Presidential election with absolutely no merit. Fact: There is no racism in the Republican Party. None. The Black and Hispanic working class is now the very heart and soul of the GOP. Name a Republican who is NOT a Black woman, dearest Sis. But don't believe me. There you have it. A veritable ocean of Black faces at the 2016 GOP convention, chanting, "Set Hillary Free! Set Hillary Free!" The party of Lincoln would never stand for racism, even of the subtle type. Let alone election interference based on so-called unindicted crimes.

Well, we'll now get a good test of this theory. I know there's also a thread on the indictment itself. But I'm posting this here to focus more on the impact on the 2024 Republican Presidential nomination. 2024 Republican Presidential Nomination I'm not sure I agree with the idea that Trump has moved further ahead. As that chart shows, DeSantis got a big boost after the midterms, when he looked electable and Team MAGA didn't. That hasn't changed. DeSantis had a run of momentum which has now stalled. But he still has about one third of the primary vote leaning to him. Whereas Trump has less than half. And it's April 2023. It hasn't even started yet. The media has been beating Trump's recent uptick in a few polls to death. But some part of that may simply be that he is back in the news again, period. I think Jonathon Lemire summed it up nicely in an article on the politics of the impeachment today: There's plenty of other data to back up Lemire's opinion. I posted this recent Politico article that shows that grassroots county GOP chairs vastly prefer DeSantis. 73 % of local chairs will consider DeSantis, which is the only candidate way more than half are interested in. Only 9 % won't consider DeSantis. With Trump, 43 % of local chairs say they would consider him. But 39 % don't want him to be the 2024 nominee. Trump doesn't need half the primary vote to win in 2024. He didn't need it in 2016. But it is not clear he can get anywhere close to half the GOP primary vote. As always, he knows his one path to victory is to inflame, divide, and conquer. Politico reports conservative House members, including Freedom Caucus members, are torn down the middle as well. Which makes sense, since the people who vote for them are torn down the middle, also. Being this divided is not a good place to be - for the Freedom Caucus, for Trump, or for Republicans who actually care about winning. If you want a left-of-center thoughtful political hack with a bipartisan temperament, there's no better than David Axelrod. He put his finger on the problem for Democrats in 2022. He worried that efforts to promote inflammatory Republican election deniers at the margin in GOP primaries could backfire on Democrats. Since in a red wave they all could win. We now know they all lost. And while Democrats may have helped nominate a few MAGA diehards at the margin, it was clear in 2022 that there was a red MAGA election denying wave in Republican primaries all over the US, from sea to shining (and lying) Lake. My guess is that this will whip a minority of conservatives - mostly White and rural, without college degrees - into a MAGA Or Bust frenzy. Which is of course what Trump wants. And if it's not a one on one with DeSantis, it may be enough for Trump to eke it out. I'm always with Alan Lichtman and his Keys To The Presidency: what will matter most in 2024 is whether we are in a recession, or a recovery. If the economy sucks, whoever Republicans nominate could win. But I think Lemire is right. Trump continuously disqualifies himself because of his legal problems, among other things. It is not what Republicans do when they are tired of winning. It is what they do when they want to lose. I think that is why Republican county chairs and Freedom Caucus types who comes from very conservative districts are worried. Oh. And then there is this: 57 percent say any criminal charges should disqualify Trump from reelection bid: poll

From your lips to God's ears, Sis. 😉 Trump pushes Marjorie Taylor Greene to run for U.S. Senate Can somebody please wake me when the MAGA Republicans finally get tired of winning with all these MAGA candidates they run?

There is interesting polling data in this article taken from county-level GOP chairs. It sounds in the ballpark of what I would expect. Other than poor Chris Christie, the candidate that county chairs are most likely to say they DO NOT want is Donald Trump. 39 % say they don't want Trump. That said, 43 % of local chairs say they would consider Trump. 43 % is enough to win Trump the nomination in winner take all Republican primaries, just like in 2016. Trump's game is to make his base feel like the humans in The Last Of Us. Everybody not with us is like fungi out to get us. America is not a shining city on a hill. It is infected. It needs cleansing and retribution for all the fuckers who fucked us up. (Again, don't get me started on The Gays.) DeSantis is the candidate that the most county chairs would consider (73 %). In fact, he is the ONLY Republican that way more than half of Republican county chairs would consider. So the question is whether he can turn that into a 50 % or so majority in a Republican primary. And how much of the "you're infected, asshole" rhetoric and tone he has to deploy to do so. But I agree with Sis @Suckrates. Ron kind of makes me feel like The Gays are part of the infection that needs to be cleansed. Nikki Haley comes in third after DeSantis and Trump, at 36 %, as someone local GOP chairs would consider. 26 % say they would not consider her. I think her problem is that the 43 % that are for Trump include a lot of people who are rabidly for Trump. I'm not sure how many people are rabidly for Nikki Haley. I've got a hard on for Tim Scott. I think he is for sure the most interesting Republican (other than Don and Ron) to watch. And it shows up in the polling. He's number four on the list of candidates local chairs would consider, at 26 %. So he has the same problem as Haley. Like her, he polls in a low single digit. Because almost nobody is rabidly for him. What's more interesting to me is that, other than Top Guv Ron, Scott is the candidate that is likely most unifying. Only 16 % of Republican chairs say they would NOT consider Scott in 2024, as opposed to 9 % for DeSantis and 39 % for Trump. That said, I had a hard on for John Kasich in 2016, and look where that got him. I recall a dinner in Summer 2016 with two Republican friends where we all agreed that things would be so much better if the GOP had nominated Kasich. The two Republicans presumed that Kasich could beat Hillary. Whereas it looked then like Trump would be a disaster in Fall 2016. My presumption as a Democrat was that either Kasich or Clinton would have made decent Presidents, unlike Trump. It's all been more and more Freak Show since then. And so far the MAGA message, such as it is, kind of just keeps getting worse. So with Trump, we have the narrative that McConnell and Biden are the uniparty hacks destroying America. With Trump the only leader that can win retribution for real Americans. Can't blame the MAGA folks for not getting tired of winning, right? 🤫 And here's the Tim Scott narrative: I think that does set Scott apart from any other Republican candidate, including Haley. If there is a sunny Reaganite Main Street capitalist running, Tim Scott is it. Right now, that gets you about 1 % of the vote in a Republican primary. Ouch! There's at least two theories I have about Scott. One is that he is running for Veep. The Divine Miss Graham, who is back to whoring for Trump, is pushing the idea of Trump/Scott. I hope Miss Graham is once again tone deaf. It would be the end of Tim Scott as a viable national candidate. I suspect he knows that. His message pretty much screams, "I'm not Trump. I'm not running to tell you that America is fucked up." My other theory, which I hope is true, is that Scott is actually running for President in 2028. Obama's guru David Plouffe argued back around 2018 that it would take four election cycles, not four years, to defeat Trumpism. I took that to mean 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024. Let's throw in 2026 just to be safe. That would suggest that if Trump leads Republicans to defeat yet again, by 2028 Republicans might actually be ready for something different. Another Obama guru, David Axelrod, argued something else that makes sense in this context. He said he felt dumb for missing it in 2016. He said, in retrospect, Americans often elect a President that is the opposite of what they've currently got. He said he knew that, and used it, in 2008 to make Obama look like the opposite of W. But he was too close to it to see that, in 2016, Trump was the opposite of Obama. The question is whether Republican primary voters in 2028 will want the opposite of Donald Trump. I think Tim Scott is gambling that they will. If so, I hope he is right.

Precisely. Nor has DeSantis flat out said the 2020 election was stolen. He was NOT one of the election deniers who went down in flames in 2022. Arguably, this is what makes him electable nationally. At least that's what many college-educated Republicans think. But then, what do they know? 🤫 DeSantis currently has a +6 national favorable rating (42/36), compared to net unfavorable for both Trump (-12, at 54/42 unfavorable) and Biden {-10, at 43/53 disapproval). Of course, part of that is because DeSantis is less well known. But those who have heard about him tend to think about him favorably, so far. It's no surprise that if DeSantis does manage to win the 2024 nomination, Team Biden will do everything it can to raise his unfavorable ratings. What's more surprising is that many of those smart college-educated Republicans believe if DeSantis wins the GOP nomination Joe Biden's best hatchet man will be ..................... Donald Trump! If he can't have it, no one can. Trump proved he was that mean-spirited in 2021, both with fomenting riots and poisoning a Georgia runoff. He has already vowed retribution in 2024. Stay tuned! But don't let the Deep State get ya! Turns out that fucking Deep State is worse than the fungi and cannibals in The Last Of Us! Haven't we had enough already? There's not a lot of sources of data on why DeSantis is popular in Florida. But what is available suggests that it's mostly because he is seen as a competent Governor by people in his state. This October 2022 survey is probably the best source for understanding his current approval in Florida. A whopping 72 % approve of how he handled Hurricane Ian. I know you and I always go for the glam fashion icons, Sis Suckrates. But it turns out those cheap white boots did the trick. 57 % approve of how he has handled jobs and the economy in Florida. (Biden's unemployment rate, at 3.6 %, is about the lowest nationally in 50 years. In Florida unemployment is at 2.6 %. What's not to like?) If Trump does not manage to bleed DeSantis out, like he did Poor Jeb! and Little Marco, my partisan question as a Democrat is which Ron will we get? Will he be the sunny Reagan optimist, pushing jobs and a strong economy? Or the bully full of bile, hectoring at The Gays and The Blacks, and all the other fungi-like socialists clinging to life in Florida, despite Ron's culture war. (Has anyone else noticed Ron and Pedro Pascal both look like meatballs? Pedro sports a gun rather than white boots, of course.) The verdict is out. That same poll I cited above offers no evidence that Ron's culture war stuff is popular outside of Republican primary voters. While he got 57 % approval on jobs and the economy among Florida voters, he got 50 % on "unifying Floridians," 48 % on immigration, and 43 % on climate change. It's not clear that branding himself as Culture Warrior In Chief will help him win a general election, if he is nominated. My main point in this post is that in order to beat Trump our Top Guv will have to embrace divisiveness and mountains of dirt. It may not help him beat Biden, even if he beats Trump. Good news is that The Last Of Us smashed the ratings. And a sequel is coming. So America is clearly in the mood for more dour and dire Freak Show. And boy are those moderate college-educated White Republicans gonna get it.

Trump’s first ’24 rally has a familiar feel: Anger and attacks on his tormentors Actually, Ron DeSantis is not a traitor, IMHO. He is a conservative Republican with a pretty good approval rating as Governor of Florida. Which means even a lot of Democrats think he is doing a competent job. That said, it is obvious what you do when you get a seemingly competent and popular Republican Governor. You go for the jugular. You break his neck. You bleed him out, hopefully slowly and painfully. It's actually quite fun, if you are Donald Trump and his followers. Isn't this simply common sense? Isn't this obviously what leadership is about? Isn't this what America needs more of? Not the pussies and traitors! Pussies and traitors! Pussies and traitors! Pussies and traitors! This is just common sense. Isn't the problem obvious? (And don't get me started on The Gays making pussies out of our Woke Military! Ugh!) Then again, here's a thought. Why not sit back and enjoy the Republican Freak Show? When has the majority of America said, "Hey, we want this Freak Show! This is what we want! We want more freaks!" Yes, 3 million fewer Americans voted for Trump than Clinton in 2016. And he won anyway because we have an electoral college that was designed to help Whites owns Blacks. Alan Lichtman told us in September 2016, once again accurately, that was because people were going to give a thumbs down to the party in power. Not because of Donald Trump. He actually said Hillary might win, even though history was against her, simply because Donald Trump is such a freak. The majority of America did not want Freak Show in 2018. The majority of America did not want Freak Show in 2020. The majority of America did not want Freak Show on Jan. 6. 2021. The majority of America did not want Freak Show in 2022. They may have been okay with RINOs like Kevin McCarthy. Or RINOs like Chris Sununu. Or RINOs like Mike DeWine - who could not get 50 % of the vote in an Ohio Republican primary, even though he won 62 % of the vote in the Ohio general election. It was very clear. America wanted both conservatives and liberals in 2022. But not Freak Show and liars. Trump’s beer track advantage over Ron DeSantis The divide quickly defining the GOP primary. In other words, the minority of mostly White Americans who identify as Republican and conservative and don't have college degrees are most passionate about Trump. Meanwhile, the Independents and moderate Republicans who are more likely to vote Democratic - in 2018, or 2020, or 2022, or all three - are the ones who have the most distaste for The Freak Show. So, speaking as a partisan Democrat, why not let Trump bleed DeSantis out, and give us more than a full year of Freak Show? What's the downside? That he'll do an even better job of alienating Independents and moderates than he did in 2018, or 2020, or 2022 with his lies and Freak Show? To rebut my own argument, the obvious downside is that Trump could win again, like he did in 2016. But I'll trump you with Lichtman on that argument. His point would be that Biden will win or lose based on a thoughtful judgment of how he did for four years. If there is a bad recession and a humiliating defeat for the US in Ukraine, Biden will be toast. If there is a strong recovery and Putin negotiates a peace deal that leaves a stronger NATO and most of Ukraine intact, Biden will likely win. What Trump gives us is another Freak Show, even more distasteful than the first one. Which Americans already voted thumbs down on once, in 2020, by about 7 million votes. No bet is safe. But Trump is probably less likely to beat Biden than just about any other Republican. Why not have a bloodthirsty Freak Show, which is what Donald Trump wants? What could possibly go wrong? 🤫

Great article I finally got around to reading. I emphatically opposed the Iraq War, and emphatically support what the US and NATO are doing in Ukraine. That said, reading the details of all kinds of unprovable theories about Nord Stream sure reminds me of the debate about Iraq and WMD. The Intercept helped me along by hyperlinking in its article this also very good article written by Seymour Hersch in May 2003, shortly after the Iraq invasion. Hersch wrote that just as it became clear that there were not mountains of WMD - or roses - greeting US soldiers in Iraq. I agree with the article that it never makes sense to simply assume that whatever US intelligence agencies say is true. With the perspective of 20 years of mostly bad things happening, culminating in the cynical and nationalist turn to a MAGA-fied Republican Party under Trump, Hersch's 2003 article about how Team Rumsfeld made up lots of bullshit and lied to the American people and the entire world is just painful to read. What assholes! What liars! They fucked up history. They fucked up the United States. Everything they sought to do backfired and just fucked things up. They hurt democracy and weakened the United States. They strengthened Iran and gave Putin a reason to think, "If the US can do it, why can't I?" And eventually he did. This isn't just my opinion. 20 years on, 61 % of Americans now think the Iraq War was a mistake. If they took a survey of everyone outside the US, the percentage who think it was a mistake would probably be even higher. My guess is that even if there had been WMD in Iraq, it would not have changed the long term narrative much. In his 2003 article, Hersch quotes an unnamed Congressional politico explaining why the Iraq War was a good move, regardless of WMD. "Everyone loves to be on the winning side," the Congressional source says. True. At least true in 2003. In 2023, it looks more like we were on the losing side. Oops! For the same reason, I'm not sure whether it matters 20 years from now whether Biden ordered the bombing of Nord Stream. People in Europe are very clear in polls that they see Putin as the mass murdering war criminal who bombs their children. And then kidnaps the ones he doesn't blow up and carts them off to Russia. People in Europe don't want Russian oil. They actually don't want Russian anything, pretty much. We don't know how this will play out in 20 years. But we do know right now most of the world is on Ukraine's side. Even if the leaders of countries like India and Mexico don't want to formally take sides. So I'm not optimistic for Murderous Vlad, or Russia. Like WMD, I don't think Nord Stream is going to make a big difference in the long term success or failure of this effort to secure democratic values and protect nations from being invaded by bullies in an emerging multipolar world.

This is me being long-winded and repetitive. So many of the points I will quote below are basically a different way of saying what was said in the post above. But Ron Brownstein is my favorite political pundit. And I think he spelled out why this is not only bad news for Trump. It is bad news for Republicans. Attacks on Manhattan investigation show GOP still can’t break from Trump Analysis by Ronald Brownstein Brownstein is, as always, sniffing out powerful movements underneath the surface, I think. The House GOP in particular is happily making itself busy smearing Trump's mean-spirited and authoritarian bullshit all over themselves. Because that convinces people like my niece that they are NOT RINO's. That's what she cares about. She likes Trump, who fights the pussies who are weakening America. Poor Kevin McCarthy. I think he deserves a huge amount of credit for going out and finding really good Black male and Latina female candidates who he convinced to run for the House as conservatives. They mostly won in 2020. They mostly won again in 2022. I keep telling my niece that if she wants a Republican President in 2024, Republicans should nominate a multi-racial Main Street conservative capitalist like Tim Scott. They won't. Instead, Trump will bathe McCarthy and House Republicans in his lies, divisiveness, and soon to be indicted criminal behavior. If I had to bet, Trump will be nominated in 2024. Because the Republican Party will be too split to nominate anyone else. But even if DeSantis proves to be the Golden Boy, he will still be the golden boy smeared head to toe in Trump's lies and culture war divisive bullshit. That's not a way to grow the party, either. Again, Republicans have lost the popular vote in every Presidential election in this century, except 2004. I don't see how a celebration of lies, hate, divisiveness, and indicted criminal behavior is the path to victory in 2024.

Stop Overthinking It: An Indictment Would Be Bad For Trump I thought that headline provided a nice bumper sticker for anyone who is not for Trump and his lies and divisiveness and hate to think about. True, Trump always seems to manage to step on third rails and not get electrocuted. There are maybe 1 in 3 Americans who believe the 2020 election was stolen. They will gladly believe any lie Tucker Carlson tells them so that he can get rich making them look stupid. I recently spent a week with a niece who believes whatever Tucker says. So he can get rich and powerful making her look stupid. I did not tell her she seems stupid, and why. I didn't point out, for example, that RINO Mike DeWine is actually STILL Governor of Ohio, the state she lives in, which she did not know. She mostly knows he is a RINO, because people like Tucker say so. I did not ask her to explain why RINOs who at least try to govern toward the middle like him win in landslides, even on the same night that election denying flame throwers fail. The funny part is she is an executive with a Fortune 500 compan. And her and her husband live in a nice fancy house in a red state. So they are hardly poor, or academically stupid. And we can simply enjoy going on hikes and going out to fancy restaurants. Fortunately, she is not the kind of stupid that thinks I prefer to dine on the livers and hearts of Republican children. But were I mention that almost every Democratic Presidential candidate in this century (except Kerry) got more votes than his or her Republican opponent, and Biden beat Trump by about 7 million votes in 2020, I probably might as well say that the blood of Republican children is a really nice vintage. My niece actually thinks she is in the Silent Majority. And she probably is, in her own state. In California, not so much. In the US, not so much. (See 2020 election.) I don't think there's any way to convince her of that. Trump and Tucker have done a good job pushing the limits of how rich and powerful they can get making millions of people look stupid. All that said, the basic idea of that article is that being in trouble with the law is NEVER a way to grow your support. Trump is not going to grow his support by having to explain past actions. Like paying hush money to prostitutes. Or trying to get Republicans to steal elections. Or trying to stop a peaceful transfer of power by inciting a riot at the US Capitol. Yes, there are people who will rally to him. Some of them will actually be people who think I drink the blood of children. So it won't be a stretch for them to believe Trump and Tucker are the innocent (and rich) victims of political persecution. As opposed to just being mean-spirited liars who get rich making them look stupid. Did you hear that Dominion is owned by Martians who took over the body of Hugo Chavez and eat children like those fungi in The Last Of Us? It's true! I think lots of Democrats overthink a lot of things about Trump, because of 2016. But two good political whores can explain that. Morning Joe Scarborough, who knows more than most of us about winning elections, points out that Trump lost the popular vote in 2016. And he led Republicans to losses in 2018, 2020, and 2022. Alan Lichtman has called every US Presidential right since 1984, in advance, He argued in September 2016 that Trump would win because there were just enough things wrong with the Democratic Administration - like the economy, stupid - that voters would give "four more years" a thumbs down. They did. Had the Republicans nominated someone like Kasich, he probably would have won the popular vote. We should probably stop overthinking the fact that Trump won once, barely, despite losing the popular vote by about 3 million votes in 2016. Trump is a mean-spirited liar who is taking US democracy off the rails to serve his own ego. We should not overthink that. Every time he is indicted and has to explain why he pays hush money to hookers, or why he starts riots to undermine democracy, he is not growing his base.

South Park, which gloriously and hilariously makes fun of everybody from left to right, got an unusual amount of pushback for taking on China a few years back. Who'd a thunk that Murderous Vlad and Pooh-Xi were so sensitive?

My dearest and darlingest Sister In Cock, I'm just not quite sure this is a good idea. As you pointed out, we'd all be alcoholics in no time. Isn't my life tragic enough already? May I suggest a more pleasing alternative? How about every time Trump says WITCH HUNT we perform fellatio? 👄 (Not on Trump, of course.) When you think about it, it actually is a bit like washing our mouths out with soap. 😋

Thanks to Florida's Top Gov, we now know this whole indictment thing is a false narrative. Probably cooked up by the same people who spawned CRT. And Nasty Books By The Gays. First, Biden can't pardon Trump. Since Biden isn't really President. Second, I predict in the interest of national unity, Trump will pardon Biden for stealing the 2020 election. But, that said, my real point is that Trump is dragging the country increasingly away from democracy and truth. So I don't think it's time to pussy foot around. Call him out for being the lying and criminal piece of shit he is. The only person who should NOT call him a lying and criminal piece of shit is Joe Biden. Biden should talk about unity. We don't know why Democrats beat all the odds and were not red waved in the midterms. But it is a reasonable theory that The Silent Majority does sense that Trumpism represents a latent threat to US institutions and traditions. Specifically, all kinds of conservatives who tell the truth and stand behind the institutions of democracy did quite well, thank you. DeWine, DeSantis, Kemp, Sununu are four who represent different shades of conservativism, and all did great. It was the Republicans who basically sounded like Trump that got their asses kicked. I think indicting and prosecuting Trump would reinforce people's unfavorable views of Trump. And underscore the reasons to feel the sequel would be even worse than the original.

Bingo! In the run up to Murderous Vlad's invasion of Ukraine, @tassojunior posted all kinds of photos claiming they were things they weren't over on Company of Men. And, no, Tasso, "US hegemony" is NOT what forced murderous Vlad to illegally deport children to Russia, earning him a rare arrest warrant for a nation's leader from the ICC. You do realize how easy it is to reverse image search on Google. Right, Tasso? So here again we have a picture you posted that has nothing to do with what you claim it represents. I was fanatically against the Iraq War. So if you want a cheerleader on the point that the US went way too far, lied to the US public and the world, and weakened our military, political, and moral force, I'll cheer that idea. That mouthful said, I don't mind being the kettle to Murderous Vlad's genocidal pot. Or should I say genocidal plot? The picture you posted above has nothing to do with your alleged US soldiers killing 4 year old Iraqi boys. You know that, right? You know you just made shit up, right? Why do you just make shit up, Tasso? Usually disinformation has a purpose. What's yours? The picture is worth a paragraph on, since it both demonstrates and refutes your point. That picture ran in Der Spiegel as an example of US war crimes in Afghanistan. That's an innocent and dead 15 year old Afghan boy who was farming in a field. The soldier pictured is Cpl. Jeremy Morlock,, who comes from Wasilla, Alaska of all places. He was part of a self-appointed "Kill Team" who murdered three innocent Afghan civilians, In the boy's case they threw a grenade at him and opened fire with a machine gun. That's a war crime, for sure. The guy who did that, along with chopping a few of the boy's fingers off as a souvenir, got life in prison. Morlock got 24 years. About a dozen US soldiers were investigated for the crimes. A number of them were dishonorably discharged and punished based on the severity of what they did. For example, Sgt. Darren Jones got seven months in prison for assaulting another soldier and firing on (but not injuring) innocent Afghans who did not pose a threat to him. So, yes. War is hell. And it does bring out both the best and worst in people. So why did Murderous Vlad start a hell of a war in Ukraine? The above example demonstrates that the US military does hold its own accountable. By this standard, you would surely agree that, based on the ICC, Murderous Vlad should be held accountable, too, and spend the rest of his life in prison for the horrific things he has done to Ukrainian children. Right, Tasso?

Even though he was not part of his administration, Lindsey Graham would be my choice for "moral worm" poster child of the Trump era. His flip flopping was even more craven than most. Like when having a mob attack the Capitol he serves in was just a bridge too far for his ladylike sensibilities. Until MAGA world turned out to be okay with Jan. 6th, and Miss Graham was, too. Fiona Hill is an example of a real lady. And I'd even argue John Bolton was a real gentleman, too. Both worked for Trump thinking they could do some good. Both acted like adults in the room. Gen. Kelly is another. I admire Hill in a way I don't admire Bolton. She was willing to testify. He saved his judgments to make money on a book. But whether I agree with every conservative thing they say or not, I feel they were working for the American people. Instead of just working for Trump and advancing his lies.

Kudos to Wilkerson for being a voice for diplomacy. And for applauding Chinese and Russian diplomats like Wang Yi he worked with closely. He also makes a good case for why Ukraine may well end up not regaining all, or any, of the territory it has lost. His idea of putting it to a vote is not a bad idea. That said, there was a vote in 2011. Other than Crimea, in every oblast - including the four Putin says he owns now - over 80 % of the people voted for Ukrainian independence. I have to assume from that election that if a fair election were held today, they would still say they don't want to be part of Russia. It is funny listening to that. Much of what Wilkerson said about US militarism and "hegemony" has been catnip to me all my life. I was rabidly opposed to the Iraq War. So I can say with fairness that Wilkerson has a problem being the guy in the glass house throwing stones. He is the one who prepared Colin Powell's UN speech on WMD. Powell was later furious he was lied to. So Wilkerson has very good reason to be suspicious of the CIA. I could have told him that two decades ago. When he was basically scripting Powell to cheerlead the warmongers. To be blunt, Wilkerson's credibility on the matter is shit. Because he completely fucked it up and bought the bullshit on WMD when it really mattered. Maybe this is now his way of atoning for the fact that HE PERSONALLY COMPLETELY FUCKED IT UP AND FED THE US PUBLIC LIES ABOUT WMD. So I can say with credibility that I'm tired of hearing that the problem in Ukraine is "US hegemony." That sounds like a good Maoist rant to me. But people in Ukraine who had their babies bombed or had to flee don't see the problem as US or NATO hegemony. Sorry, but as much as Germany always wants to be in the middle - because it literally is in the middle - there is no evidence that Germans are protesting "US hegemony." They are protesting Putin's invasion. Period. Vlad has united the US, the EU, and NATO in a way no US President could. He has made Ukrainians detest Russia and Russians - probably for the rest of their lives. I'd love to see a referendum in these oblasts. They'd probably vote to slowly torture Murderous Vlad to death, if they could. Not very diplomatic. But very human. I applaud Wilkerson's honesty in his applauding W.'s policy of "strategic competition" with China. But, it should be pointed out that it was precisely that policy that helped destroy 6 million US factory jobs. And led to the rise of Trump as the cynical gadfly who promised to help those factory towns. But completely failed to do so. Zhou Bo says that the word "cooperation" sounds better than "competition." Great. But I basically view that as diplomatic bullshit. If China prioritized cooperation with the US over all else, the no brainer move would be for Xi to cooperate with the US and EU in condemning Putin's invasion of sovereign Ukraine. He can't do that. Why? Because he views China as being in "strategic competition" with the US. Hence his marriage of convenience with Putin. If he wants to ally with Putin to compete with the US, great. But he shouldn't be surprised when Europeans greet his pleas for cooperation and peace with skepticism, or just outright cynicism. Nobody forced Putin to invade Ukraine. I don't even buy the idea that NATO "provoked" Russia by allowing a lot of former Iron Curtain nations to seek their own security arrangements against Russia. And even if you are sympathetic to the Idea that NATO expansion "provoked" Russia, Murderous Vlad is still a strategic Bozo. He got exactly the opposite of what he wanted from NATO. That's his own fault. And nobody forced Xi to align himself as closely as he has with a strategic Bozo. If Wilkerson wants to take a hard line against US hegemony now, great. But I have been there my whole life. I wish he would have felt this way back when it mattered, and he helped Powell cheerlead at the UN for our own WMD warmongers. Defending Ukrainians after an unprovoked attack from Putin is just not the same thing.

Actually, I did answer that. Even that right-winger on Fox who thinks that China wants a two theater war - which I view as over the top conspiracy thinking - says that Putin is not suicidal. He will not start a nuclear war. In particular, he will not start a nuclear war with NATO. So you'd have to game out the small and vanishing chance that he would drop nukes on Ukraine, thinking it would end there. But, again, even that would be suicidal. In part because it would demolish Putin in the EU. And the question is not only how the US and NATO would respond. How would China respond? How would India respond? I think it would be suicidal for him. Period. But as that New Yorker article @alvnv posted states, there are endless amounts of other bad things Putin could do. Cutting underwater cables. Poisoning water supplies. So we should all be worried about what Vlad might do. I think this Politico article asks what is probably the most critical question: The West Is Avoiding the Big Question About Ukraine Until the U.S. and allies decide what victory looks like for Kyiv, Europe isn’t likely to have peace. There are limits to the comparison of Ukraine today to Poland in World War II. One good comparison is that both can be blown up easily enough. As the New Yorker article points out, the costs of reconstruction will be massive, and take decades. But Vlad is no Adolph. Germany and Japan were two of the fastest growing countries in the world in the 1930's. Because they were ramping up a war economy. Vlad may not have been hurt by sanctions as much as we'd hoped. But his economy (like his penis, rumor has it 🤫 ) is a tiny joke in the bigger scheme of things. The situation in Poland was pretty hopeless, since they happened to be between Hitler and Stalin. Ukraine has friends on one side that are rushing to protect it. Including Poland. So Ukraine is in a much better position than Poland was. That New Yorker article is a good example of the ambiguity. It does a good job of sketching out how the war will end. For example, Ukraine is unlikely to take back all its territory. Which probably means there will be more of a cease fire than peace. Ukraine will join the EU. But the article is somewhat vague about what a "security guaranty" actually means. It will be hard to rebuild Ukraine, which should be the priority, when Vlad could just decide to do the whole thing over again in two or five or ten years. So I'll be broken record that I think Kissinger is right. And people on the left and right are coming to that conclusion, it seems like. Whatever Ukraine is has to be absorbed into both the EU and NATO sooner rather than later. NATO is already proving that it won't let Putin win in Ukraine. So NATO and Ukraine are already married, even if it was a shotgun affair. So what's left to be determined is precisely how Vlad does not win what he wanted. And precisely what kind of marriage between Ukraine and NATO prevents him from trying to get what he wants again. And that is, as the New Yorker article states, a victory. It is exactly what he didn't want. Nor did he want a revitalized NATO. Nor did he want Americans and Europeans embracing and agreeing with what a murderous fascist small-dicked sadistic piece of shit Putin is. Russia is still fucked with Putin as its leader, as the New Yorker argues. Turkey and China can make money trading with him. But his economy is tiny. Maybe he looks strong to some with all his nukes. And people fear that. But everybody still knows he is a sadistic small-cocked sadist. Who actually respects Russia? Nobody. Who wants to live in Russia? Nobody. Team Vlad can kill as many children and rape as many women and torture or deport as many innocent civilians as they want. And the sooner the fighting stops, the less of that will happen. But none of it changes the fact that small-cocked, small economy Vlad is just that. Not The Big Man On The Block he wants to be. China's trade with Russia is about the same as either Australia or Canada. Vlad is a teeny teeny little economy that is pathetic and small and can't even grow anymore. It's just a fact. Sorry, Vlad. Your economy may not be as pathetic as we all hoped. But you are still an impotent little cry baby with a loser economy that can't grow. Nothing changes that. A united front: How the US and the EU can move beyond trade tensions to counter China That is just a policy paper by ECFR, the same group that did that poll above that shows that India and Turkey don't want to take sides. But it probably reflects how lots of elites and leaders in the EU view this. And it is not good news for China. If Vlad had not invaded Ukraine, it would have left a huge opening for China to play Europe against a protectionist America. But small-cocked, small economy Vlad has created a big problem for China with the West. The EU is seeing the same things Americans are. And they don't want to be dependent on China for computer chips or rare earths in the way that they were dependent on Russia for gas and oil. So it is predictable that the renewed military romance between the US and Europe will be the model for the renewed economic marriage between them as well. China could end all trade with Russia and be just fine. It can't end trade with the US and EU and South Korea and Japan and be just fine. So what does China get out of the bargain? Small-cocked, small economy Vlad. Woo hoo! What a guy! What a murderer! Poor Xi. I almost feel sorry for him. In the end, I think economic right makes right. China has a massive property bubble and an impending debt crisis. Vlad can't fix their problems. A growing, peaceful, and orderly global economy can. One more reason Xi and Modi and Erdogan are a hard NO on nuclear Armageddon.

Excellent point. What I keep reading is that Biden is driven by two things, above all else: 1. No US ground troops. 2. No nuclear war. I think it is a safe assumption that China and India are adamantly opposed to the use of nukes. They have pretty much said that publicly. Here's a Fox News piece I found interesting. Because it's basically a debate between the more normal Fox right wing, and the even further out there anti-China, anti-Biden right wing, who kind of view Joe Xiden as being in bed with China. Weird stuff. Koffler to Kilmeade: Our Ukraine Strategy Will Not Work There's a 12 minute video embedded in that article. I've never heard of Koffler before. But I assume her views align with the most saber rattling part of the right. Who now assumes that China is the enemy, even more than Russia. And Xi would be happy to start a two theater war. She is pretty far out there. A majority of 56 % of Americans see Russia as an enemy. A minority of 42 % of Americans see China as an enemy. 30 % of Biden voters see China as an enemy. 66 % of Trump voters see China as an enemy. And many of the hard core Trump MAGA types see Joe as Xi's puppet. Who knew? That said, Koffler says several things that make sense. First, and most important, Putin is not suicidal. So the idea that he can't win a conventional war in Ukraine, but he would trigger a nuclear war by invading Poland, is a logical disconnect. You'd really have to stretch it to an extreme, and argue that Putin's own life is at risk. And China would be okay with a nuclear strike as a last resort to prevent Russia from being run by some pro-US leader. It sounds more like a Hollywood movie than even a remote possibility in the real world. Second, she is right that a win/win for Putin could be that if he can't win a ground war in Ukraine, at least he can demolish it. I could not read those paywalled articles @njf posted from WaPo above. But this recent article by one of the authors, Graham Allison, underscores the huge devastation in Ukraine. 35 % of GDP gone, 40 % of energy capacity gone, over 13 million people displaced. Koffler barely mentions the drain this has on Russia, as well. As Allison notes, the long term costs to Russia will be massive. But you can also argue that Putin can afford to mostly not give a shit. Third, Koffler is also likely right that Putin would agree to some land for peace deal. Whether Ukraine would is a whole different question. But if both sides are now so dug in that Ukraine can't take back the Donbas, let alone Crimea, that will determine the outlines of what land for peace means. The burden is on Ukraine to prove whether it can actually push Russia back on its own territory, or not. The biggest problem that Koffler does not address is Kilmeade's point that if Ukraine agrees to some type of land for peace deal that allows Putin to have up to 20 % of what was Ukraine, he has every reason to go for the other 80 % as soon as he can. And while Putin is not suicidal, so he won't invade Warsaw and start World War III, that doesn't mean he can't try for Kyiv again. This is why I like Kissinger's revised thinking. He is more than likely right that some type of land for peace deal is going to be how this war ends. Unless Ukraine again surprises everybody by just rolling through to Crimea. But the cost to Ukraine has been huge. And they can't keep fighting this way forever. Arguably, Putin can. If it's true that Putin is not suicidal, so he won't invade a NATO country, the way to prevent him from going for Kyiv again is to make Ukraine a NATO country. I take that to be why Kissinger flip flopped. It makes sense that a neutral Ukraine simply invites Vlad to try again later. A NATO Ukraine means he's not going to try again, because that would be suicide. Which brings us right back to Koffler's point. It is arguably a win for Putin to just keep destroying Ukraine. Whatever the cost to Russia's economy or future trade, Vlad may view that as less bad than having a democratic Ukraine that is a member of NATO. And if that's true, Putin can keep this going as long as he wants. Until Ukraine dangles some peace plan in front of him that he can accept. Which they won't, of course. That's what I see as the somewhat likely recipe for permanent war. Or permanent stalemate. The good news is it at least avoids nuclear Armageddon. Because I think Koffler is right. Vlad is not suicidal. And while it may be Vlad's least bad option, compared to tolerating a democratic Ukraine in NATO, it still means Russia ended up worse than it started. I keep coming back to the idea that Vlad started the war, and he will decide when he is willing to end it. And Kissinger make a lot of sense in thinking that the only way to really end the war now is for Ukraine to end up in NATO. Not gonna be easy at all.

I think the verdict is in. China's diplomatic tightrope walk is not going well. You ain’t no middleman: EU and NATO slam China’s bid to be a Ukraine peacemaker Von der Leyen says Beijing ‘has taken sides’ while NATO’s Stoltenberg says ‘China doesn’t have much credibility’. In fairness, we are talking about two different things. It was completely predictable that just about anyone in the EU (expect Hungary, which MAGA folks love) would say - in blunt terms - that China is not a middleman, and is lacking in credibility. Europeans are circling their wagons against Russia. Arguably even moreso than the US, which more than anything doesn't want to get directly dragged into this war. That said, those ECFR survey results also document that India and Turkey and China have zero interest in taking sides. And you are right that this fight is forcing China and Russia into a closer embrace - whether that's what they actually want, or not. My own view is that Putin is fine with embracing China. He can hardly portray himself as a Western leader advancing the cause of democracy, or global peace. Xi is in a difficult position. No matter how much his trade with Russia grew, it is a fraction of what trade with the US and EU look like. And here we have it: China's GDP unlikely to surpass U.S. in next few decades: JCER That chart is based on all kinds of assumptions. This year looks worse for China. Maybe next year will look better. And the idea that China simply won't overtake the US has more to do with China's internal policies - like zero-COVID and labor shortages. But it doesn't help China at all if trade with the US keeps going sideways. The perception that China is siding with Russia on a war that Americans and Europeans detest and view as Russia's aggression is not going to help China's economy.

So these are various reactions to points made in a number of threads. Starting with @njf's point about "resentment against the United States." How Global Public Opinion of China Has Shifted in the Xi Era The dramatic shift in global opinion since Xi came to power is a huge spike in unfavorable views of China by almost any country that falls under the "Western" category. Before Xi, Americans were split 50/50 in terms of viewing China favorably. In the US a plurality of Americans had favorable views of China, until Xi took power. Now the overwhelming majority have unfavorable views. You can blame that on superpower rivalry, if you want. But the same thing has gradually happened all over the "Western" world. Including Japan, Australia, South Korea. A whole bunch of things seem to have added up. Including perceived military threats, Hong Kong, and COVID. The exact opposite has happened with the US. But that's again mostly measuring "Western" nations. They did not like W., or Trump. Wonder why? I'm guessing "resentment" about things like the Iraq war, or just Trump being Trump, help explain it. They liked Obama a lot. Biden, almost as much. Trust in the US and NATO is high right now. Again, that's the EU and other allies like Australia and South Korea. Of the other big countries in that ECFR poll, it's interesting that only one country has a majority of people that see Russia as an "ally": India, at 51 %. Only 35 % of Chinese and 14 % of Turks see Russia as an ally. So it's clear that what matters more in these countries is that Russia is seen as a "necessary partner." In India about half the population also sees the US as an ally. And over 80 % of Indians see BOTH the US and Russia as either an ally, or a necessary partner. So what comes across loud and clear is that lots of countries don't want to, and won't, take sides. It about their economy, stupid. We agree. My point was that the US and EU are "circling the wagons," including militarily, and the rest of the world like China and India and Turkey are not. But you and several others have made these important points about shades of grey in a multipolar world. So from the UN vote on condemning the attack, it's clear that the world overwhelmingly disapproves of what Russia did. But, as you stated, countries like Turkey are not going to let that fuck up their economy. As I said above, I think that this is mostly a good thing. Even if it complicates the world. When the US was the top dog, what did we do? Invade Iraq. If China were the overwhelming top dog, I assume they would force Taiwan into reunification. Including by military force, if needed. In a world where India or Turkey can work against such uses of force, or the use of nuclear weapons by anyone, that is probably a good thing. As opposed to a world in which everyone has to pledge fealty to one or another superpower. It's also interesting, and probably good, that none of these big countries surveyed by the ECFR think either the US or China will be globally dominant. In the US, only 1 in 5 think either country will be globally dominant. In China, about 1 in 3 think one power will be globally dominant, with about 1 in 4 Chinese saying China will dominate. But most people in the US and China see themselves living in a bipolar (US and China) or multipolar world. Or they just don't know. India is the only country where a slight plurality (31 %) think the US will dominate. In China and Turkey slight pluralities see a multipolar world. All of this is why I think Russia is in trouble. And China has to be careful about how it takes the moral high ground in standing for peace. One thing that is interesting is that majorities in the US and EU say Ukraine shows Russia is weaker than thought. Whereas Indians, Chinese, Turks, and Russians all think Ukraine makes Russia look stronger. We'd have to have a whole thread on propaganda to unpack that. Including what you could call Western propaganda by the MSM. But just based on hard facts in this poll, maybe Putin can think he is winning the war of perception of global strength. That also could explain why countries like India don't particularly care to mess with Vlad. But if the idea is that in a multipolar world right makes right, that's a big problem. Which is why the US, NATO, and the EU are unlikely to back off. And China is not in a position to show, through actions if not words, that it's okay to ignore sovereign nations like China/Taiwan. Oops, I meant Ukraine. 😉 My liberal Democratic perspective is that the biggest cause of the growing chasm between the US and EU on the one hand, and China on the other, is the perception that China was supposed to transition into a democratic capitalist trading partner. It's a bit rich that the same Republican Party that was a cheerleader for big multinational corporations and "free trade" when millions of US factory jobs were going down the shitter while W. was President now want to blame it all on Joe Xiden and Hillary Clinton. Regardless, both parties got the memo that people in swing states like Michigan care about these things. And they are not fans of seeing their middle class jobs go to China. Even if they like cheap Chinese toys, and stuff. Most in China Call Their Nation A Democracy, Most in U.S. Say America Isn't To me, that's a surprising and almost incomprehensible finding. I went looking for that Newsweek article to see how it might be explained. And one possible answer could be that it's just what people say to not piss off their authoritarian leaders. But I think another more likely explanation is that many Chinese believe what Zhou Bo said in that DW interview I posted above. That "Chinese democracy" means Team Xi and the CCP is looking after the interests of the people. And has made great progress in eradication of abject poverty and hunger, and development of a middle class. The US and EU deserve a lot of credit for that. If China were still stuck in The Great Leap (Not) Forward, and all that US and European (and Indian) capital and know how had not flooded into China (and Asia in general), there would be a lot more poverty and a much smaller middle class in China. The American ex-factory workers who came out worse of course don't view that as an achievement. So this is a big problem. Meanwhile, Californians in Rho Khanna's district in Silicon Valley, which is majority Asian American, kind of like the idea of global trade. At the very least, if democracy in China means poverty eradication and building a middle class, World War III does not help achieve that. So I think that still leaves us in a place where rising and dominant economic powers like the US, China, and India all have an interest in peace and stability and order. Even if we have very different views of what order means Vlad simply doesn't prioritize peace and order. And he is proving it. Despite the complexities of an emerging multipolar world, I just don't think this is going to work out well for him. And Russia. I take it that all the Russians fleeing Russia so as not to become Ukrainian fertilizer agree with me.

Problem solved. Set Sarah loose. (No, I don't mean Palin.)

How about Tim Scott? Not in 2024. But I think he would be a good President down the line. And I think it would be good for America if we had a Black liberal Democratic President, and then a Black conservative Republican President. Of course, it would be good if we had a woman President, too. Not sure where that fits in. The interesting thing is that, among Blacks, the polls suggest it is the most well educated and younger Blacks that tend to vote Republican. Which kind of makes sense. It at least used to be the case that college-educated and more affluent Whites tended to vote more Republican. I can see how young upwardly mobile Blacks look at Tim Scott and say, "Yup. I like that." What I particularly like about Scott is that he champions a brand of multi-racial Main Street capitalism. And he temperamentally leans toward compromise. He is perfectly happy to call out racism. And the fact that he is a Republican Senator from South Carolina speaks to the fact that there is path for moving beyond racism. There is no way Republicans will nominate him in 2024. And I hope he would not be Veep candidate for Trump or DeSantis in 2024, because that would taint him. I see him, or someone like him, as where Republicans might turn in 2028 if they get their asses kicked in 2024. That might be the thing that would lead them to say maybe we want to stop this MAGA nonsense and election denial and playing with authoritarianism. And get back to traditional Main Street capitalist values. That was the Republican Party my Dad, a small businessman, felt at home in. That's what I think Tim Scott is for. Meanwhile, a new poll out today says that Trump does best among Christian evangelicals, and rural and small town types who are not college graduates. I think that means in 2024 the Republican Party is stuck with fear mongering culture war and some version of MAGA lies and rants. Whether it is actually Trump or DeSantis leading the charge. I've had a theory since 2020 that this decade will be somewhere in the ballpark of the 1960's. Some of it was Black Lives Matter. Those kinds of political earthquakes don't happen that often in US politics. It is interesting that one of the keys Lichtman uses that rarely turns is his social unrest key. The last times he said they contributed to a change in Presidential power were 1932 and 1968. And then 2020. So I took that and ran with it. 1932 was a huge political earthquake, that gave birth to the New Deal coalition. 1968 was not quite as big an earthquake, since Nixon won in a fairly close race. But, especially in retrospect, it was the beginning of the end of the New Deal coalition. Which Reagan slammed the coffin shut on in 1980. It does seem like we're in a period where a new coalition is trying to be born. And age is the biggest driver. The youngest Americans vote 2 to 1 Democratic. So that is not bad news for Democrats in 2024, and 2026, and 2028. In 2022, as one would expect in a midterm when Democrats are in power, Democrats lost a single digit of vote share in almost every demographic group. What happens if Democrats get them back in 2024? Which is similar to what happened in 1996, and 2012. Presidential years tend to be good turnout for Democrats. Plus there's this whole new group of Gen Z voters who are overwhelmingly Democratic. And I'd bet the stock market and economy will be in better shape in Fall 2024 than they are today. That theory I described in the paragraph above seemed almost laughable around Fall 2022, when it looked like Democrats would get their asses kicked. But we didn't. So I think part of it might be that this is a period when progressive ideas and policies have the wind at their backs. If that is anywhere near true, either Trump or DeSantis are going to be facing headwinds in 2024. And, if either of them loses, somebody like Tim Scott is the type of candidate Republicans might suddenly find attractive. If they are tacking back to the center and core conservative values to actually win a Presidential election.