stevenkesslar

He Predicted Trump's Win In 2016. Now He's Ready To Call 2020. I couldn't resist commenting on this. I've been waiting for this shoe to drop. And now it has. Allan Lichtman, "the prediction professor", says President Toxic is going to lose. It's locked and loaded, he says, if you watch the nicely produced seven minute video above. The caveats he adds are that Trump will try to change the outcome with voter suppression. And Putin will, too, with Round Two of "fuck up democracy good" election interference. But history is against President Toxic and his hate and racism. Maybe MLK was right after all. There are people who think that Lichtman is selling snake oil. If you think that, go right ahead. But people like Lee Atwater disagreed. I've watched lots of videos on YouTube of Lichtman addressing conventions of political scientists. He tells a story about how when he first published his theory in the early 80's, and predicted two years in advance that Reagan would win re-election in 1984, Lee Atwater asked him to visit him at The White House. Atwater asked if it would change Lichtman's prediction of a Republican victory if Reagan did not seek re-election in 1984. Lichtman said yes: you lose the power of incumbency, and you lose the charisma of Reagan, which are two of his 13 "keys". Atwater took him seriously in the early 1980's, apparently. Being right about every election since, months or in some cases years in advance, has not diminished Lichtman's stature. I won't comment on the keys themselves, since Lichtman goes through them all in the video above. I'm a data guy. So what I buy about this, other than the important fact that Lichtman has been right every time so far, is that his keys are almost all objective criteria. As an objective measure, the economy has gone to shit this year. As an objective measure, there is mass social unrest. Blacks in particular, but also most Millennials, have had enough of President Toxic stirring the pot of racism, hate, and division. So history is going to give this major national embarrassment and complete asshole exactly what he deserves. And the prediction itself is based on mostly objective facts. (I added the word asshole myself just to be mean, like President Toxic is.) What I also particularly like about Lichtman's theory, as a political science theory, is that it is built on respect for the American people. As he says in the video, ignore the polls and the politicking. It's governing that matters to people. Voters are making reasoned judgments on the performance of the party in power - and whether they have earned the privilege of more power, or the need for punishment. So Lichtman is basically saying it's always been the economy, stupid. Or the war, stupid. It makes common sense. John McCain was a profoundly decent man, and a genuine hero. Nothing he said or did in 2008 could have overcome the weight of Iraq War fatigue, and the Great Recession. So President Toxic can flap his racist and hating lips all he wants, and it won't mean a thing. All Trump is going to prove is that in 2020, it's the racism, stupid, too. But as Lichtman says, Putin trying to fuck with America and democracy again might mean something. So we have to be vigilant. And we have to send money to Democrats. In 2018 I picked my Democracy Dozen and sent each of them $100 a month all Fall. About half of them were House candidates trying to flip Republican seats, mostly in California. Then there were moderate Democratic Senators like Heidi Heitkamp and Claire McCaskill. In 2018 almost all the House Democrats won, and flipped a boatload of Republican seats. Almost all the Senate Democratic incumbents I sent money to lost. (Senator Sinema in Arizona was the exception.) What seemed to determine the outcome was simple and consistent. If your constituency is old, White, and rural, and you are a Democrat, you will lose. That's how it worked out in Indiana, North Dakota, and Missouri. If your constituency is anything else - young, Black, Brown, Gay, urban, suburban - and you are a Democrat, you will win. It seems likely to pretty much work out the same way this time. But, no. There's no racism in America, is there? My basic theory is that most young people, say under 40, pretty much see the same thing: a country and an economic system that hasn't worked all that well for them. Even when times were supposedly good. So while Black Lives Matter, and young Whites feel the same way as young Blacks, a big chunk of that is that they both know what it feels like to be crippled by debt and left behind in a top-down economy. And we now know for sure they don't like it. Smart Republican activists have been saying for years a huge tidal wave is going to take out Republicans soon. And it is a tidal wave of youth. Will 2020 be that year? We'll know soon. My 2020 Democracy Dozen is built on the same principle as 2018: go for the restoration of moderation, decency, fact, and reason. So in 2018 that meant people like Harley Rouda, a former Republican who flipped an Orange County House district. The heart of Reaganism in the 1980's, Orange County, is now solid blue, thanks to people like Rouda. He's favored to win re-election in 2020, but it will be close. So I'm sending him money. More important in 2020 is the Senate. So my priorities are people like Mark Kelly in Arizona, John Hickenlooper in Colorado, Theresa Greenfield in Iowa, Steve Bullock in Montana, Jon Ossoff in Georgia, Sara Gideon in Maine, Cal Cunnigham in North Carolina. All of them are leading or tied in polls. I think all could win in November. As a progressive who voted for Bernie in the California primary, I don't see one of these men and women I'm prioritizing as a progressive. Rev. Warnock in Georgia is. A Black pastor from MLK's home church winning a Senate seat would be very exciting. But it's not very likely. What matters most to me about the people above is that they want to restore decency, unity, reason, and good governance. Bernie himself (and my personal 2020 favorite, Elizabeth) obviously get why that matters, as they proved this week. And on the subject of decency, kudos to John Kasich and Jon Meacham for saying exactly what needs to be said repeatedly and relentlessly until Election Day. One of the breaking points I had with a former client and friend of 20 years who is a moderate Republican was when he trashed John Kasich to me for writing the book, "Two Paths". At the time, in 2017, this Republican friend said the only thing Kasich can do that matters is run for Senate in Ohio in 2018 and try to take Sherrod Brown out. Other than that, Kasich should just shut the fuck up. He has nothing of value to say. That was one of dozens of moments I can now look back on as leading me to the conclusion that something sick and vile was happening in the hearts of Republican friends I actually used to listen to, and respect. Moments like that, which ended friendship and respect, will be my lifelong recollection of the hate and ugliness of the era of President Toxic. Kasich is a man of principle. He will be heard. Kudos to him for standing for what he deeply believes in. He is, to me, an American hero. I'll close with this. Jon Meacham is another one who, like Kasich, I think eloquently defined this particular moment. If you believe Lichtman's theory, the beautiful and moving rhetoric of someone like Meacham doesn't really matter. Because it's the economy, stupid. Or it's the war, stupid. Or it's the racism, stupid. That's what will drive President Toxic's loss. While that may be true, I think Meacham at least helped define how we FEEL about this moment. His call for decency and unity was deeply felt. Just like Brayden Harrington, the kid who stutters and wants the world to feel better in 2021. Even if Lichtman's "keys" will drive the outcome, like they have in every election he correctly predicted, it matters a lot how we FEEL about what happened. I predict the residual racists will double down on the three things they did right after Obama won in 2008: they will buy guns, buy more guns, and buy even more guns. And this time they'll get a double dose of bullets. So they basically need to sit at home with their guns and bullets and have a very long time out. The rest of us will hopefully take Meacham's words to heart. In a unifying way, I think he defined the mission and purpose to come.

Sorry to disappoint, my friend. But when I bend over, it's for one of only two reasons: to suck cock or get fucked. As far as politics goes, I rely on my mouth. Not my knees or ass. Anyhoo, I still strongly agree with your passion about calling out and fighting racism. Now is the time. Keep it up.

70% of Americans say Trump’s actions tied to Ukraine were wrong: POLL Majority of Americans say Trump did not cooperate with impeachment, sought to hinder investigation, poll says The sad part is that 60 -70 % of Americans know Trump did something wrong, and then obstructed the effort to disclose it. But the Republicans don't give a shit. This is tribal politics. Fuck the truth.

Hunter Biden’s Ukraine gas firm pressed Obama administration to end corruption allegations, memos show Solomon, the author of that piece, is a controversial journalist. And as Hunter says, he did nothing illegal. But this is another example of the drip, drip, drip of corruption porn we can expect in Fall 2020 if Biden is nominated. It will weaken Democrat's ability to argue that President Toxic promised to drain the swamp, and instead deepened it. I assume that if Warren is nominated that at some point the GOP will go after her for some of her corporate legal work decades ago, and try to make it look anti-consumer. That will be interesting to watch, since it implicitly undercuts their case that she is a raging anti-corporate socialist.

And while it's not related to the deficit, I can't resist the temptation to point out this other example of Republican hypocrisy McConnell: Obama demeans presidency February 9, 2012

US budget deficit smashes $1 trillion mark, highest in 7 years Wow! That's harsh. We better get an update from Rush. I bet he's steaming that we are back to $1 trillion deficits - even though the economy under Trump is "perfect" and growing like never before in human history! What do you make of this Rush? Rush Limbaugh admits GOP's fiscal attacks on Obama were "bogus," defends Trump's deficit Death of the deficit hawks: "Nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore," says host who drove the Tea Party uprising

Hunter Biden's legal work in Romania raises new questions about his overseas dealings Hunter Biden provided legal advice to a Romanian charged with real estate fraud, at a time when his father was pushing corruption reforms in the country. Ya think? Sorry, Joe. But three strikes and you're out. 1. Ukraine 2. China 3. Romania My question all along has been why make the father pay for the sins of the son? But this makes a pattern. Whatever anyone things about the substance of this, the optics look fatal for a general election. It's like a repeat of Crooked Hillary, only this time it actually seems more fair to say it does actually stink.

Possibly. The sad thing is that you don't need to go there to explain it. Miss Graham, like any other politician, is interested in one thing above all else: survival. Most politicians have some integrity, and simply would not go this far. A former client and friend told me he was at some Republican meeting in Orange County that Graham spoke at. After the speech my friend had a brief chat with Graham. My friend did a typical little speech of his about how the California Republican Party has too many purists who insist on abortion being illegal - which is why Republicans now can't get elected for dog catcher. He says Graham said something like, If I were running for the Senate in California, I'd probably agree with you. But I'm from South Carolina, so ................. I think this is another example where Graham is as much symptom as cause. The sad thing is that his base in South Carolina - which are of course the same people who elected Sen. Tim Scott - will stand for this. How weird is that?

U.S. envoy says he was told release of Ukraine aid was contingent on public declaration to investigate Bidens, 2016 election And why am I not surprised that The Divine Miss Graham is going for her second consecutive Best Supporting Actress Oscar? 'This is a lynching, in every sense': Lindsey Graham says Trump's impeachment description 'accurate' This is a lynching, in every sense," Graham said. "This is un-American." He said lynching involves people "who are out to get somebody for no good reason" and who take "the law in their own hands." "Yes, African-Americans were lynched, other people have people lynched throughout history," Graham said. "What does lynching mean? That a mob grabs you, they don't give you a chance to defend yourself, they don't tell you what happened to you, they just destroy you."

I'm gonna go way out on a limb and assume you are not a liberal Democrat. But even if you are a Republican, even your own party is for "soaking the rich" to help the middle class and have nots. I'm gonna go even further out on a limb and assume that despite the great promise of trickle down economics, your bootstraps have not pulled you into the class of the ultra-rich who are worth over $50 million. So the good news is you have nothing to worry about.

President Toxic is so fucked. He is so totally fucked. quid pro quo /ˌkwid ˌprō ˈkwō/ noun a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something Mulvaney brashly admits quid pro quo over Ukraine aid as key details emerge -- and then denies doing so Gallup poll: Majority of Americans now support Trump's impeachment, removal I'm actually confused. Mostly, I have been simply assuming that the Republicans will NOT convict in the Senate. And the polls still show Republican voters have barely budged on their support for Trump. It's feeling more and more like a cult. Now it's stinking so bad that I think they may have to force him to resign, like Nixon did. So is it better to clear the slate, even if that means a President Pence? Or is it better to have the Republicans vote not to convict, so they can all go off to election together, like lambs to slaughter, next Fall?

Sorry, but Democrats need to talk about Hunter Biden Democrats are afraid to talk about Hunter Biden. Trump won’t be. By Ezra Klein

Just to be clear, that was sarcasm on my part. John Bolton will never be a hero.

Bolton Objected to Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Calling Giuliani ‘a Hand Grenade’ Of President Toxic's many unexpected and remarkable achievements, this one has to go near the top of the list. Who woulda thunk he'd figure out a way to turn John Bolton, The Hawk Who Wants To Blow Up The World, into a national hero?

CNN Wisconsin Focus Group: Not A Single Person Said They Will Vote For Trump I'm adding this as an addendum to the post directly above. I actually think it is a perfect example of the civil war that is happening in America right now. It is a civil war that is civil. And it is a war being waged with facts, not guns. There's a 5 minute video of Independent voters from Wisconsin embedded in that article that is worth watching. And I get that one could argue this means nothing. It's nine Independent voters. And of these nine, only one voted for Trump in 2016, anyway. The telling thing to me is that of the 9, none will even consider Trump in 2020. All 9 support the impeachment inquiry. 3 already feel they know enough to say that Trump should be removed from office, before he can do more harm. The other 6 want to hear more facts as they are uncovered. Bottom line: whether it's through an election or impeachment, a majority of the American people now want President Toxic to be removed from power. This video of Independents explains why, I think. He is losing the civil war. I am not surprised. It is increasingly becoming a question of how, and when, President Toxic's war against truth will end.

As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges BY JOHN SOLOMON — 03/20/19 07:30 PM EDT So I have another way to think about President Toxic's statement about needing to have a civil war. I think he is right. I think we need a civil war. Kind of like we needed to have a civil war over slavery way back when. The difference is that this time, the civil war needs to be fought and won over the truth. And the good news is that we don't have to use guns to fight this war. We can instead use facts. The civil war can, in fact, be civil. That article above now reads completely differently than it did when John Solomon wrote it in March of this year. Solomon at the time worked for The Hill. He was widely unpopular among his professional journalist colleagues, who thought he was pushing propaganda in the guise of "facts" and "news". Solomon, no surprise, has now left The Hill and just got a job at - wait for it - Fox News. He is now spreading his fake news there. This article was part of the Trump/Ghouliani hit campaign to go after Marie Yovanovitch, the fired US Ambassador to Ukraine who just gave testimony to Congress that will go down in history as another "Have you no decency?" moment. She uncovered the fact that she was taken out by Trump and Ghouliani because she was a professional working in the interests of the United States and fighting corruption. Trump wanted her to work on his interests, instead. Solomon was the one who reported the lies made up by former Ukraine Prosecutor General Lutsenko, who alleged that Yovanovitch gave him a list of people not to prosecute. She has now been vindicated. Lutsenko has now lost his job, and admitted that was a lie. If you scroll down, you will see the letter from former Republican U.S. Rep Pete Sessions to Pompeo dated May 9, 2018 stating Yovanovitch should be fired. We now know that President Toxic himself called Yovanovitch "bad news" in his call to President Zelensky, and implied vaguely that something bad was going to happen to her. We also know that Rep. Sessions got campaign contributions from the town clowns associated with Ghouliani who were just indicted and arrested when they were trying to leave the country with one way tickets. We know that the afternoon before they were arrested they were sitting with Ghouliani in the lobby of the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Recall that Rep. Sessions was the Republican Chairman of the House Rules Committee. Really? What rules? Anybody wonder why America fired the House Republicans? We also know that part of the problem with Yovanovitch is she was getting in the way of the Ukraine business dealing of Ghouliani's Soviet Republic-born clowns. Now that they've been arrested, I'm sure more details will be forthcoming, just like they were with Cohen. So much for Ghouliani being a corruption-fighting hero. And it goes without saying. Ghouliani and his clowns will be thrown under the bus by President Toxic. Just like Michael "Who? Why would I believe my long-time lawyer?" Cohen. So we definitely know Trump and Ghouliani did not drain the swamp. We know they dredged it and deepened it. We don't know all the details of how they did it yet. But the stench and taint is now everywhere. Meanwhile, the official "fake news" of the Republican Party is that there is no there. Trump is innocent. He is perfect. He is as wise as all the prophets of The Bible combined. If you buy his most recent tweets, he is perhaps as wise and all knowing as God. You want scandal? Go after Joe Biden and Ukraine. I agree with President Toxic that we need a civil war. We need to fight for the truth. And we need to fight in a civil and factual manner. We knew how this was going to end even before President Toxic was elected. We knew he was going to find a way to pull the trigger, if given the power to do so. And we knew the result would be his own political suicide.

Marie Yovanovitch says Trump ousted her over ‘unfounded and false claims’

There's some interesting and somewhat contradictory data just out from the US census. I'm actually not sure what to make of it. That said, it proves that the US economy is a complex thing. And also that if we want to really shift things, like income inequality, we really should be thinking about "big structural change". Let's start with the most common headline: Census: US inequality grew, including in heartland states That's the factoid that got the most coverage. Median incomes went up slightly less than one percent, from $61,423 per household in 2017 to $61,937 in 2018. The Gini Index went up from 0.482 to 0.485, meaning more income inequality. That means we have the highest level of income inequality in the US in 50 years, as long as this index has been measured. Trumpians responded that the report showed that income is up, unemployment is down, and poverty is down. All of which is true. The data is somewhat confusing. If you go to the actual report, you can download all kinds of tables. And some of them actually seem to slightly contradict each other. Here is one example of that that was reported by the conservative press: What that chart from a conservative publication shows is that the increase in income was actually concentrated more toward the have nots. And that appears to be true. For the second quintile, median income went up from $36,367 in 2017 to $37,293 in 2018. For the Top 20 %, it actually went down slightly, from $234,603 in 2017 to $233,895 in 2018. The most ridiculous argument made by a few conservatives is that this "proves" Trump's tax cuts really did benefit the have nots, not the rich. False. We know for a fact that 75 % of the benefit went to the Top 20 %, and about 5 % of the benefit went to the Bottom 40 %. So what is interesting is that, despite the tax cuts, the rich did not get richer, and the have nots got a little more. The likely explanation is that the Top 20 % derives more income than other Americans from things like investment income and divideneds. During 2017, the stock market boomed, and average income for the rich did, too. Their median income for the Top 5 % went up over five percent from 2016 to 2017, from $394,6681 in 2016 to $416,303 in 2017. In 2018 the stock market was actually down. Median income for the Top 5 % rose to only $416,520. That's $200 bucks more, on average. The tax cuts showered on the rich probably kept their investment income from going down, like the stock market did. There's several points there. First, it doesn't make the Trump economy circa 2018 look all that great. Second, it doesn't suggest that somehow the tax cuts really grew the economy, for anyone. Third, it suggests that the richer you are, the more you make your money off investments, as opposed to work. Unless you call collecting dividend checks work. Speaking of work, it's not clear why incomes went up most for the have nots. One logical theory is that the tight labor market has finally actually resulted in a little bit of trickle down, and wages went up at the bottom of the wage scale. There's probably at least some truth to that. Ironically, that may be bad news for Trump. This kind of trickle down is usually associated with the end of a business cycle. Next stop: recession. Another theory is that whatever gains have come for the have nots came as the result of Democrats, who pushed increases in the minimum wage. That is probably a factor, too. A total of 20 states, pretty much all Democratic "blue" (although they are marked in red in the graphic below), increased minimum wages between 2017 and 2018. And if you do the math, it likely would help people in the second quintile the most, since that group is above the poverty level, but probably tends to have a lot of people who work at the low end of the wage scales. There's some other data that suggest minimum wages may have had an impact. The biggest increase in income by age went to 15 to 24 year olds, which is a relatively small group (6 million people). They make on average about $40,000 a year, and that group's income went up 9 % in one year. Meanwhile, the much larger group of people (24 million) aged 55 to 64 make about $70,000 a year. Their incomes actually went down 2.3% from 2017 to 2018. So the people most likely to be paid at or near minimum wage - the young - made the most gains. Since Trump voters are heavily skewed towards the older, not sure it's a good thing that incomes went down for the age cohorts mostly likely to vote for Trump. Ouch! And those young Californians or Oregonians that got the benefit of a minimum wage hike? Probably not voting for President Toxic in 2020, I'd guess. Regionally, same thing. The region with the biggest income gain was the Northeast, where incomes went up 4.3 %. The region with the lowest income gain was the South, where incomes went up 0.3 percent. The Northeast states are more liberal, and many of the minimum wage increases occurred there. The South is the only region where a number of states have NO state minimum wage law - they just go by the federal level. Only a few states, mainly Florida, increased their minimum wage. That said, I'll also post at the bottom of this thread the changes by state. I was curious, so I actually looked at the 20 states that had a minimum wage increase. There's no obvious and clear correlation. In about half the states that had minimum wage increases (like California, Oregon, Washington, Florida) incomes went up way more than the national average - 2 to 3 %, as opposed to about one percent nationally. In Maine, which increased minimum wage, average incomes went down more than any other state, by about 3 %. On the face of it, California and Florida are a lot bigger than Maine, so when you average it all out it would suggest that nationally the net impact should be positive for people who are one step below the bottom of the ladder. And that is basically what happened. Relatively few people actually make the minimum wage. So while it may have been one factor, it probably was not the biggest. We either are in or near a manufacturing recession thanks to Trump's trade war. That has hit the heartland harder than the coasts. My guess is that when you add it all together, the trade war had more impact than minimum wage hikes. Now let's look at the real big picture. Here is how these numbers have changed for the Top 5 % and the Bottom 20 %, if you adjust for inflation and go back to the start of the Reagan Era: Top 5 %: inflation-adjusted median income rose from $202,165 in 1980 to $416,520 in 2018. That's a 106 % increase in real income, after you adjust for inflation. Bottom 20 %: inflation-adjusted median income rose from $13,093 in 1980 to $13,775 in 2018. That's a 5 % increase in real income. I picked 1980 because I would argue that this is the outcome we should have expected from 40 years of trickle down, with occasional respites under Clinton and Obama. Tax cuts for the rich, no or paltry minimum wage increases for the people at the bottom, and sending factory jobs to China or giving them to robots all had an impact. But it all came back to government policy. Which is why I agree with Elizabeth Warren. We don't need tinkering. We need big structural change. There's people that say the war on poverty failed. That's bullshit. The war on poverty actually slashed the poverty rate dramatically, especially among seniors due to Medicare and Medicaid. We went from about 40 million poor people in 1959 to about 25 million by the end of the 60's, thanks to the War On Poverty. And it also fell under Clinton, to the tune of about 10 million less poor people. The median wage for the Bottom 20 % went from $12,628 in 1993, the year Clinton took office, to $14,852 in 2000 when he left. That's an 18 % increase. In other words, it went up three times higher under Clinton than it has during the entire era of trickle down from 1980 to today. The Bottom 20 % actually make less today,adjusted for inflation, than they did in 2000. For the Top 5 %, median income went from $298,215 in 1993 to $369,069 in 2000, a 24 percent increase. So under Clinton a rising tide did lift all boats. The Top 5 % did slightly better than the Bottom 25 %, but it was comparable. My point is that that happened by design. Clinton pushed things like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that did in fact spread out the benefits of economic growth. We need to go back to the idea of big structural change, like The New Deal and The War On Poverty, and also the buildup up factories in a dynamic Main Street economy that was supported by federal investments and policies, like research and building highways. Hmm.Wonder who could do that? Here's the chart of income changes by state, in case anyone is interested: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/09/us-median-household-income-up-in-2018-from-2017.html?utm_campaign=20190926msacos3ccstors&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

The funny thing is that the President of Ukraine now actually is a former comedian. And somehow this whole thing is turning into a real life comedy, or tragedy. You just can't make this shit up. The Ukraine Plot Yields Its First Two Arrests The same Fox News poll also shows that Trump's allegations against the Bidens make no difference to 64 % of voters. 10 % say the allegations make them LESS likely to vote for Joe Biden. 21 % say they are MORE likely to vote for Biden because of Trump's allegations. Oops. It's just not working out well for President Toxic. Wonder why?

Speaking of Tulsi, can anyone translate this into reality? The DNC and corporate media are trying to hijack the entire election process I'm honestly not sure I understand what that means. It's something about debates on corporate media and the polls. But I'm not sure I get how that disenfranchises voters in Iowa. What this actually made me think is that if there is a villain, it's the calendar. It's never been clear to me why Iowa should have more say then California, for example. But they do. I think the theory is that the way we do it here vets candidates more thoroughly. But spending a year or two being thoughtful and then electing President Toxic kind of blows that theory to shit. 2016 was more like a root canal. Can't we just get it done in a month? I'm not a huge fan of CNN or MSNBC or Fox. But I've watched debates and town halls put on by all three and I found them informative. The Fox town hall with Sanders was one of the most enjoyable just because it was so counterintuitive. It was very informative, because it got a little bit deeper under Bernie's hood. If there's a problem with the debates so far it's that there's just too many debaters on stage. Ironically, Tulsi will help solve that problem if she boycotts the next debate. This is why I doubt Warren(or Biden) would pick Tulsi. It was easy for me to get around her prior learned and then unlearned homophobia. What I really admire about her is that she is a passionaite one woman army against aggressive militarism and endless war. I would not mind seeing her Secretary of State. That said, my fear with a President Tulsi is it would just be weird all the time. This is just weird.

I've tried to stay ecumenical about Bernie and Elizabeth all year. I've been hoping, as I said, they would tag team on progressive messages. And they have not disappointed. I also figured Tulsi's best shot at VP was with Bernie. That's looking less likely now. I also thought Bernie might pick Warren, in part because he might have needed her to have enough delegates. Now, it would likely be the opposite. Warren could conceivably pick him. Although his heart attack just gave her a good reason not to, assuming she can get enough delegates on her own. If Bernie drops out and endorses, I see zero percent chance he endorses anyone but Warren. They have been friends and allies for a long time. So she is now tied to Biden in the polls and the betting market favorite, and Bernie is gonna endorse Tulsi instead? Dream on. The more interesting question is: would Warren consider Tulsi? My guess is no. Warren already has a lot of people saying she's too far left. Tulsi doesn't solve that problem,. And she adds to it in that she is polling in the low single digits, and even a lot of "liberal" Democrats just despise her. If Warren is nominated, who she picks will tell us a huge amount. I think the conventional wisdom will be she should pick some White male like Tim Kaine for "balance". Hopefully if she goes that route she picks someone like Sherrod Brown. Brown might be a good choice if it didn't mean losing one more Senate seat. I still haven't given up on the idea of Warren/Sanders, but I know that would be like doubling down on horror to Biden Democrats. Plus it's the same Senate problem. Vermont has an R Governor. I actually hope she picks a progressive woman. I like the idea of doubling down and saying it's time for women for a change. But I don't think that would be Tulsi. I'm not sure who it would be.

True enough, on the surface. No Democrat will trash Biden. It didn't work well for either Harris or Castro. Behind the scenes, there are all the telltale signs of panic. Can't we run Michelle? I mean, maybe we're going to need to reboot Hillary 2.0 even? I doubt Biden will be gone by Iowa. He may still win the nomination, although I'd bet money that we'll see a repeat of 2008. Once Obama won Iowa, everything changed. Meaning Biden will likely stay in just long enough to prevent his folks from consolidating around someone else. https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary-2/ Scroll down and look at people's second choices. What's interesting is that if Harris drops out, Warren benefits more than anyone else. If Mayor Pete drops out, Warren benefits more than anyone else. The only person who could drop out and benefit Biden is Bernie - barely. Biden would get 31 % of his supporters, and Warren would get 27 %. My gut all year has been that Bernie and Elizabeth were not going to have a food fight with each other. They are too smart, too principled, and most important they have spent way too much time being outsiders. They know how to play David much better than how to play Goliath. So I figured they were going to do what they have been doing: be a great tag team for progressive ideas. For now at least, I think it's better for Bernie to stay in. Based on the trend, the math is working out that either Elizabeth will have enough delegates on her own, or her and Bernie will have enough together. No one has voted yet, so maybe it will all change. But Biden is not gaining support, and Ukrainegate is not helping. As you keep saying, Bernie appeals to a segment of people who think both parties more or less suck. I think it is better for Bernie to stay in, like he did in 2016. Assuming he does not win the nomination, which after his heart attack looks unlikely, he will have to figure out a way to pass the torch to Elizabeth. I think he will figure that out when the time comes.

This is just a continuation of my rant above about why we need to get in the trenches and fight, as opposed to thinking that the hard core Trump base is amenable to reason, compromise, or fact. Donald Trump thinks you're dumb That is a truly remarkable poll finding. It suggests that in the era of Trump, a majority of Republicans do believe that they are not only entitled to their own opinions. They are also entitled to their own facts. In this case, it's particularly weird. Because Trump himself seems to be saying to any global leader, or any TV camera, or just about anybody, that really truly the worst corruption ever to exist is that Biden corruption. It is just horrible. And of course he asked Zelensky to investigate Biden. As well as Xi. And of course everybody should investigate Biden, according to Trump. So really now. Is there a reason that it is so hard for Republicans to swallow facts that even their fearless (if dishonest) leader wants them to swallow? And then there is this screed from the right-wing Federalist: Intel IG Admits It Secretly Erased ‘First-Hand Information’ Requirement In August I've actually been spending more time reading right wing articles than Establishment media or left wing articles since this scandal hit. I figure if Democrats have a weak case, or are just making shit up, the right wing people will figure it out and blow it open. So I keep reading things like this hoping to find the weaknesses in the Democrats' arguments. And instead what I get are right wing articles that are at best weak, and at worst plain wrong. This headline definitely caught my attention. It certainly makes it sound like there was some deep state conspiracy to doctor forms. Presumably because the deep state has nothing better to do then - yet again - attack Donald Trump, precisely because he is the only guy who will actually tell you the straight up truth. First, it is worth pointing out that the "Intel IG" in question is a Trump appointee. Just like Bob Mueller is a lifelong Republican and former FBI Director who was appointed by Trump's own DOJ. But none of this really is an obstacle to dismissing any facts that get in the way. So for Trumpians, Mueller has been transformed into a Hillary Clinton/Deep State ass kisser. He also apparently has a Gestapo fetish, since he is reputed to like busting down the doors of good solid loyal Republicans like Roger Stone and Paul Manafort. And his fact-filled report has been dismissed with two words: "Russia hoax." So I am of course not surprised that the right wing is doubling down and dismissing a Trump appointed IG who has the nerve to follow where the facts lead. Second, The Federalist article trashing Trump's own IG provides a hyperlink to the IG's press release about the whistleblower complaint form. The Federalist actually quotes extensively from that press release. So, on the one hand, The Federalist correctly reports that the law that governs whistle blowers DOES NOT require first hand information. It also quotes the IG's office in stating that their initial complaint form was developed in a way that "could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees." So what the IG's office is essentially saying is that in evaluating the complaint, we actually followed what the federal law says, not what the confusing complaint form we put together last year could have implied. Third, The Federalist implies in their headline and in the content of the article that changing the form was a nefarious plot hatched "secretly" and "in August" specifically in response to this particular whistle blower's "hit job" on Trump. In fact, the press release spells out that the IG's office started to review the forms in July 2019, before the whistle blower's complaint was filed, after a Director for the new Center for Protected Disclosures was hired. The Federalist actually quotes this part of the press release. It then essentially says, "Never mind." We'll just pretend that instead of having a form that actually complies with the law Congress passed, this was all just some secret deep state plot hatched in August. Fourth, the Federalist ignores this part of the press release, which spells out the IG's interest in complying with the law even more clearly: "The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since [Trump-appointed] Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community [in May 2018], the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistle blower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations." In other words, the whistle blower could have filed the report in May 2018, June 2018, July 2018 .... or any month up to August 2019, and the Trump-appointed IG would not have rejected it based on a lack of first hand knowledge. Because that is what the law actually requires him to do. When you strip away the layers of total bullshit, I would argue this is worse than going to a town hall with a US Rep to bellow "Lies!" and "Fake news!" This is The Federalist essentially arguing that Trump's own IG should have broken the law, and not allowed a whistle blower to file a complaint that was NOT based on first hand knowledge. For those of us that live in the real world, as opposed to The Donald J. Trump Fake News Playhouse, the consequence of Trump's IG breaking the law would have been clear. It would have made the scandal and cover up just a tad bit worse. And it would have given the whistle blower one more reason to go to Schiff's Congressional Committee. That is, in fact, what the law Congress passed actually allows whistle blowers to do. They seem to have actually anticipated the idea that you could have a POTUS like Trump and an AG like Barr who basically believe the only correct way to file a complaint against Trump is to file it in the waste basket. My larger point is that whether it is Trumpians at town halls or The Federalist arguing that Trump's IG was wrong to actually follow the law, this has nothing to do with facts. So on the one hand, it is critically important for people like Rep. Slotkin or Rep. Schiff to follow the facts. On the other hand, there is absolutely no way to win an argument that is factual, truthful, and civil with Trumpians who have no interest in facts, the truth, or civility. Trump himself knows this, of course. Which is why he has always displayed animus toward facts, the truth, and civility. What follows from this is some really good news and some really bad news. Here's the good news: Even among the Republican Party, there is hopefully NOT a fact-free majority. So a substantial minority of Republicans don't believe facts, like that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Biden. (FACT: He did.) And a substantial minority of Republicans also feel that even if Trump did ask a foreign leader to investigate the candidate who is currently his biggest political opponent in a national election, this is NOT an "abuse of power". If about half of Republicans are willing to follow the facts, along with most Democrats and Independents, the era of Trump is toast. Now here's the bad news. Even if Trump is toast, either through impeachment or losing the 2020 election or a combination of both, he has now reinforced the fact-free inclinations of millions of his most fervent followers. I'll keep arguing Trump is the symptom, not the cause. The Tea Party popped up in reaction to Obama, long before anybody thought Trump would ever be President. Trump in fact jumped on their bandwagon with his fact-free and racist birther lies, as opposed to the other way around. Since these people were doing their thing before Trump, count on the fact that they'll be doing it after he is gone. And whether he is convicted and removed from office, or he just loses an election (which is actually sort of what he did in 2016, if you go by actual human voters), the Trumpians will resent it. So, for example, you may think that Elizabeth Warren is a capitalist, because she says she is. Or because her policies are clearly based on capitalist free market principles. But don't let yourself get confused with facts, the truth, or civility. If Warren does win in 2020, we will definitely have a Socialist nightmare of a President. Perhaps even a Satanist. Or maybe they'll argue she isn't qualified to be President, because she's Native American, which is not American. Who knows what shit they'll come up with. Thanks, Rep. Slotkin, for modeling what we need to do. Facts, truth, civility, and women who are just going to persist no matter what the asshole men in the room say or do.