Only the best people.

[Suckrates]

17 minutes ago, Goober said:

It's reported donOLD posted this on TS about the reflecting pool "vandalism": 

“The material was cut right where the video tape showed, for 300 feet or more. People were on their knees with their hands in the water at the exact location of the ‘slashes,’” Trump wrote.

The reflecting pool is 18 inches deep  along the perimeter to 30 inches deep in the center. He thinks "vandals" (evidently, with very long arms) crawled through water for 300 feet cutting the liner with a box cutter? I'd like to see him demonstrate...

 

He ALWAYS has video and evidence and proof BUT chooses NEVER to show it.....  Me thinks he LIES ?   🤔

[Suckrates]

Don't Listen to ME....

but listen to a BLACK MAN spill the tea on Byron Donalds  !

 

 

[Suckrates]

 

For those of you that DONT think Natalie Harp is dangerous, to Trump and national security.....   just go watch  Glenn Close in FATAL ATTRACTION.....

Natalie IS Glenn Close !

[stevenkesslar]

2 hours ago, Suckrates said:

Don't Listen to ME....

but listen to a BLACK MAN spill the tea on Byron Donalds  !

 

 

 

That's a fantastic take down.   Thanks for finding it.   💞

I'm going to get very wonky and detailed-oriented  in this post.  But the bottom line is I'd be delighted if Donalds loses.  That in itself, Florida being Florida, would be a very powerful message. 

It will be even more powerful if it fits into a broader national picture that all the inroads Republicans made with Blacks and Latinos and Asians are now lost.  Because they completely ignored the reasons working class Blacks and Latinos supported them in the first place: making life more affordable, and spending money on us rather than losing Forever Wars.  And the message top Democrats will be:  I.T.S.T.H.E.A.F.F.O.R.D.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y.S.T.U.P.I.D.

My educated guess is that, if Donalds loses, it will require this combination. First, Blacks (and Latinos) who see him as an "Uncle Tom" lackey.  And, second, Whites who live in almost exclusively White parts of Florida that would rather have Jolly, a White former Republican Governor, than Donalds, a Black man.  Race will probably be a factor.  But it will be impossible to say it was race.  Because, if Jolly wins, it will be just as easy to blame Donalds' loss on both personal and political baggage he brings to the race.  Pun intended.

I will be fascinated to see how Black people vote in this election.  That's true in general, given that Trump made inroads, especially with Black men, in 2024.  And it's especially true in Florida.   I looked at several polls and asked Google and there are no polling data I can find on this race that have racial crosstabs.   So I don't think anyone really knows how Donalds will do among Blacks in Florida in a general election.  They are 13 % of an electorate that is more than one third non-White.  So whatever they do will be significant.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that this "Uncle Tom" sentiment will be prevalent and Donalds will lose the Black vote.  The main reason why is the notorious pragmatism of most Black voters, who are very used to voting for candidates with good policies but NOT Black skin. 

One big indicator of that is a recent Politico poll that shows a plurality of Blacks would trade off Black-held House seats for overall Democratic Party success, even if it meant fewer House seats held by Blacks.  In fact, slightly more Black Democrats (42 %, a plurality) were willing to trade away Black seats than White Democrats (39 %, also a plurality) if that is what it took to get a Democratic majority.  Stated differently, Blacks tend to be pragmatic team players. 

It's important to note that the people taking away the Black House seats are Republicans who are erasing predominantly Black House districts in Southern states.  Despite Black and Democratic opposition.  I'm pretty sure Blacks will not reward the Republican Party for wiping out as much of the Congressional Black Caucus as they can.

All that said, the most recent poll average by 270 To Win shows Donalds leading Jolly by an average of 7 points.  The last public poll done that shows Jolly with a 1 point lead was by Change Research in May.  An internal poll by the Democratic Guvs Assn. in August after the primary showed the same:  Jolly has a one point lead. 

Republicans have such a massive voter registration advantage in Florida that a lot of pundits think it's a fool's errand to think you can somehow overcome a built-in lead of over 1.5 million votes.  But there are lots of indications this could be more a close race, like 2018, than a blowout Republican landslide like 2022.

This July poll by Change Research, the same group that did the May poll with Jolly ahead by one point, does spell out the path to victory that could work for Jolly, assuming a blue wave keeps building.

Florida, Florida, Florida

This poll actually shows Jolly up by 6 points among likely voters.  But the poll vastly underestimated how well Donalds would do in the primary.  It said Donalds would get 37 % of the primary vote, and he actually got 48 %.  So it's safe to assume the poll underrepresents Donalds' strengths.   Also, neither RCP nor 270 To Win includes this poll in their general election average.  RCP does include it in their primary polling. And, again, Change Research was an outlier that vastly underestimated Donalds' strength in the Republican primary.  3 of the 5 pollsters got the Donalds winning percentage (48 %) right within the polling margin of error.  One was 5 points off, and Change Research was 11 points off.

But Donalds does not get 50 % of the vote in ANY poll.  So even if we assume Donalds is ahead by 5 points, it's possible Jolly could win.  This poll shows Jolly does much better than Donalds among Independents.  Florida Republicans have a registration advantage of about 1.5 million votes.  But there are 3.3 million registered voters with no party affiliation.  So there is some combination of math where Democratic turnout is strong, Republican turnout is weak, Jolly trounces Donalds with Independents, some Republicans vote for Jolly because he is a moderate former Republican, some racist Republicans don't vote for Donalds because he is Black, and most Blacks reject Donalds as an ass kissing "Uncle Tom".  That is something like what it would take for Jolly to win.

It does seem like Donalds is easy to portray as the ass kissing big money candidate who wants to give Trump and his corporate oligarch friends whatever they what.  As the polling report spells out, he has taken huge amounts of corporate money.  Donalds is easily portrayed as being on the side of AI data centers, which Florida overwhelmingly rejects.  Even on his own terms, Donalds portrays himself as a conservative warrior against woke culture.  (Ewww!!!  The Gays!!!!!!)  But moderate Florida residents may actually want a pragmatist who will focus on fixing cost of living problems, not woke culture.

A few paragraphs on race.

In that report above Change Research says that support for Jolly among likely voters increases from 6 points to 9 points when they showed voters a picture of both men and asked them to read a paragraph summarizing each.  So, inquiring minds want to know.  If true, is this because one man is White and one is Black?  Or is it the language, which in the case of Donalds says he wants to "make Florida safe" and "continue fighting the woke left in Florida"?

Where Byron Donalds struggled in the Florida GOP primary, and why it matters

That analysis also offers a few specific breadcrumbs on race.

Donalds significantly underperformed his winning percentage (by about 7 points) in areas of Florida that were over 90 % White.  Those voters were more likely to vote for the DeSantis candidate, Lt. Guv Jay Collins, who looks like your run of the mill White MAGA guy to me. 

 

It doesn't mean those voters are racist.  Nor does it mean that they won't be loyal team players and go out and vote for Donalds in droves, even though their preferred candidate lost.   Trump is underwater even in Florida, with something like 53 % disapproval.  So it's hard to imagine Team Red is going to be more enthusiastic about voting in 2026 than Democrats.   While democratic socialist Nixon might not win, she might actually get some of the younger college-educated crowd that skips midterm elections to vote.

The dream scenario for Partisan Democrat Moi is that Talarico wins in Texas, Jolly wins in Florida, and Turek wins in Iowa.  Now you have what could be called The Red Wall that worked for Trump crumbling to bits and pieces.  He'll always have Wyoming.  But even Liz Cheney bailed on Trump's Grift Party.  Which Donalds will be a token symbol of.  So they have massive problems.

It would be fair.  Republicans like to say race no longer matters.  It's about the content of your character, not the color of your skin.  If Blacks decide Donalds lacks character and has crappy policies, I'll call that a win.  

And speaking of Trump ass kissers who are lacking in color, Sis, I'll throw this in.  Since it reinforces one of my other recent rants.

 

This would be a wonderful mess for Democrats.  Turek wins Iowa after sounding like a Trump ass kissing Republican, and El-Sayed wins in Michigan after AIPAC tries to crucify him.  How the fuck do you make a party like that work?

That would be a very wonderful problem to have.  Bring it on!

[Suckrates]

34 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

 

That's a fantastic take down.   Thanks for finding it.   💞

I'm going to get very wonky and detailed-oriented  in this post.  But the bottom line is I'd be delighted if Donalds loses.  That in itself, Florida being Florida, would be a very powerful message. 

It will be even more powerful if it fits into a broader national picture that all the inroads Republicans made with Blacks and Latinos and Asians are now lost.  Because they completely ignored the reasons working class Blacks and Latinos supported them in the first place: making life more affordable, and spending money on us rather than losing Forever Wars.  And the message top Democrats will be:  I.T.S.T.H.E.A.F.F.O.R.D.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y.S.T.U.P.I.D.

My educated guess is that, if Donalds loses, it will require this combination. First, Blacks (and Latinos) who see him as an "Uncle Tom" lackey.  And, second, Whites who live in almost exclusively White parts of Florida that would rather have Jolly, a White former Republican Governor, than Donalds, a Black man.  Race will probably be a factor.  But it will be impossible to say it was race.  Because, if Jolly wins, it will be just as easy to blame Donalds' loss on both personal and political baggage he brings to the race.  Pun intended.

I will be fascinated to see how Black people vote in this election.  That's true in general, given that Trump made inroads, especially with Black men, in 2024.  And it's especially true in Florida.   I looked at several polls and asked Google and there are no polling data I can find on this race that have racial crosstabs.   So I don't think anyone really knows how Donalds will do among Blacks in Florida in a general election.  They are 13 % of an electorate that is more than one third non-White.  So whatever they do will be significant.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that this "Uncle Tom" sentiment will be prevalent and Donalds will lose the Black vote.  The main reason why is the notorious pragmatism of most Black voters, who are very used to voting for candidates with good policies but NOT Black skin. 

One big indicator of that is a recent Politico poll that shows a plurality of Blacks would trade off Black-held House seats for overall Democratic Party success, even if it meant fewer House seats held by Blacks.  In fact, slightly more Black Democrats (42 %, a plurality) were willing to trade away Black seats than White Democrats (39 %, also a plurality) if that is what it took to get a Democratic majority.  Stated differently, Blacks tend to be pragmatic team players. 

It's important to note that the people taking away the Black House seats are Republicans who are erasing predominantly Black House districts in Southern states.  Despite Black and Democratic opposition.  I'm pretty sure Blacks will not reward the Republican Party for wiping out as much of the Congressional Black Caucus as they can.

All that said, the most recent poll average by 270 To Win shows Donalds leading Jolly by an average of 7 points.  The last public poll done that shows Jolly with a 1 point lead was by Change Research in May.  An internal poll by the Democratic Guvs Assn. in August after the primary showed the same:  Jolly has a one point lead. 

Republicans have such a massive voter registration advantage in Florida that a lot of pundits think it's a fool's errand to think you can somehow overcome a built-in lead of over 1.5 million votes.  But there are lots of indications this could be more a close race, like 2018, than a blowout Republican landslide like 2022.

This July poll by Change Research, the same group that did the May poll with Jolly ahead by one point, does spell out the path to victory that could work for Jolly, assuming a blue wave keeps building.

Florida, Florida, Florida

This poll actually shows Jolly up by 6 points among likely voters.  But the poll vastly underestimated how well Donalds would do in the primary.  It said Donalds would get 37 % of the primary vote, and he actually got 48 %.  So it's safe to assume the poll underrepresents Donalds' strengths.   Also, neither RCP nor 270 To Win includes this poll in their general election average.  RCP does include it in their primary polling. And, again, Change Research was an outlier that vastly underestimated Donalds' strength in the Republican primary.  3 of the 5 pollsters got the Donalds winning percentage (48 %) right within the polling margin of error.  One was 5 points off, and Change Research was 11 points off.

But Donalds does not get 50 % of the vote in ANY poll.  So even if we assume Donalds is ahead by 5 points, it's possible Jolly could win.  This poll shows Jolly does much better than Donalds among Independents.  Florida Republicans have a registration advantage of about 1.5 million votes.  But there are 3.3 million registered voters with no party affiliation.  So there is some combination of math where Democratic turnout is strong, Republican turnout is weak, Jolly trounces Donalds with Independents, some Republicans vote for Jolly because he is a moderate former Republican, some racist Republicans don't vote for Donalds because he is Black, and most Blacks reject Donalds as an ass kissing "Uncle Tom".  That is something like what it would take for Jolly to win.

It does seem like Donalds is easy to portray as the ass kissing big money candidate who wants to give Trump and his corporate oligarch friends whatever they what.  As the polling report spells out, he has taken huge amounts of corporate money.  Donalds is easily portrayed as being on the side of AI data centers, which Florida overwhelmingly rejects.  Even on his own terms, Donalds portrays himself as a conservative warrior against woke culture.  (Ewww!!!  The Gays!!!!!!)  But moderate Florida residents may actually want a pragmatist who will focus on fixing cost of living problems, not woke culture.

A few paragraphs on race.

In that report above Change Research says that support for Jolly among likely voters increases from 6 points to 9 points when they showed voters a picture of both men and asked them to read a paragraph summarizing each.  So, inquiring minds want to know.  If true, is this because one man is White and one is Black?  Or is it the language, which in the case of Donalds says he wants to "make Florida safe" and "continue fighting the woke left in Florida"?

Where Byron Donalds struggled in the Florida GOP primary, and why it matters

That analysis also offers a few specific breadcrumbs on race.

Donalds significantly underperformed his winning percentage (by about 7 points) in areas of Florida that were over 90 % White.  Those voters were more likely to vote for the DeSantis candidate, Lt. Guv Jay Collins, who looks like your run of the mill White MAGA guy to me. 

 

It doesn't mean those voters are racist.  Nor does it mean that they won't be loyal team players and go out and vote for Donalds in droves, even though their preferred candidate lost.   Trump is underwater even in Florida, with something like 53 % disapproval.  So it's hard to imagine Team Red is going to be more enthusiastic about voting in 2026 than Democrats.   While democratic socialist Nixon might not win, she might actually get some of the younger college-educated crowd that skips midterm elections to vote.

The dream scenario for Partisan Democrat Moi is that Talarico wins in Texas, Jolly wins in Florida, and Turek wins in Iowa.  Now you have what could be called The Red Wall that worked for Trump crumbling to bits and pieces.  He'll always have Wyoming.  But even Liz Cheney bailed on Trump's Grift Party.  Which Donalds will be a token symbol of.  So they have massive problems.

It would be fair.  Republicans like to say race no longer matters.  It's about the content of your character, not the color of your skin.  If Blacks decide Donalds lacks character and has crappy policies, I'll call that a win.  

And speaking of Trump ass kissers who are lacking in color, Sis, I'll throw this in.  Since it reinforces one of my other recent rants.

 

This would be a wonderful mess for Democrats.  Turek wins Iowa after sounding like a Trump ass kissing Republican, and El-Sayed wins in Michigan after AIPAC tries to crucify him.  How the fuck do you make a party like that work?

That would be a very wonderful problem to have.  Bring it on!

I am hopeful, and doubtful that Blacks will choose Donalds, who is attached to Trump mouth to ass, a man who has gone out of his way to HARM their community, erase their identity, and deny them equality ?    I dont think Blacks can overlook that,  even if Trump does pat Donalds on the head and says "this is one of my Blacks"......  But the Dem attack ads MUST be very clear and specific so the voters know who exactly Donalds IS......   The You Tube i posted of a Black critic exposing Donalds should run on loop.....

But are white voters anger at a high enough level for them to indulge their Racism among Trumps endorsement of the "token black" ?    And is Jolly LOUD enough to show Floridians the reality, and a New Path ?     The results will be an earth shattering signal for the future.... Character also counts,  Jolly comes off like your "uncle" while Donalds doesnt seem authentic or likable.   And turning your back on your community who is made to suffer at the hands of Trump is NOT a good look.  

[RockyRoadTravel]

2 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

 

The dream scenario for Partisan Democrat Moi is that Talarico wins in Texas, Jolly wins in Florida, and Turek wins in Iowa. 

I'll mention this here.  Watch the Georgia Governor's race.  If Keisha Lance Bottoms wins the Georgia governor's race she could appoint an Ossoff replacement if he runs for the presidential nomination.  If she loses then he might have a different calculation with a Republican in a position to appoint his replacement. 

The Georgia governor's mansion is key to whether that BDE is waved all over the country. 

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, Suckrates said:

And is Jolly LOUD enough to show Floridians the reality, and a New Path ?     The results will be an earth shattering signal for the future.... Character also counts,  Jolly comes off like your "uncle" while Donalds doesnt seem authentic or likable. 

 

I have a strong positive feeling about Jolly that is rooted in my personal background.  Even though I know nothing about him.   A strong thread in my entire life experience is that you can't do inside politics without being bipartisan.  Even if you are a rabidly partisan Democrat like me.  In fact, I think the two go together hand in hand.  Even our beloved and lost Sister, The Divine Miss Graham, managed to be good friends with Joe Biden and lots of Democratic colleagues while they served in the Senate together.

 

God how I miss my Secret Sister In Cock.  🙄  Not as much as my Real Sister In Cock, who is much younger and prettier than I, will miss me when I am gone, of course.  🤔

The anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act was born when Jimmy Carter was President but survived the Reagan Era (and the W era) because of bipartisan deals.  And by being able to count on some Republicans for support.  There was a particular moment when I told one of the best people I've ever worked with, who ran Oregon's largest community action agency, that we had to "get in bed" with a fairly conservative and anti-Gay Republican state legislator who represented her district and who wanted to win a US House seat in the next election.  Short result:  We got a permanent  statewide annual low income energy assistance program out of the deal.  And the Republican never got his House seat.  Boo hoo! Politics is a blood sport.

Jolly had a reputation as a bipartisan deal maker who pissed off other Republicans by cutting deals with Democrats even when he was a Republican.  In a way he is a Republican Joe Manchin.  Including the fact that he runs easy with corporate lobbyists who pay him good money to represent their interests.  But, again, now is not a time for liberal purity tests.

I think as a nation "outside politics" - elections - used to reward people who were good at "inside politics" - legislating and deal making to solve problems.  That has changed.  Under Trump the idea has been that the system doesn't work, anyway.  So why not just break the fucking thing apart?  And anybody who cuts deals with any Democrat is practically evil.  And vice versa.

So in theory there might be a hunger for someone like Jolly.  Certainly among Independents, and maybe even among many Republicans.   

What I also hope is that there is a bipartisan hunger for what is best called "affordability" solutions.  I can easily argue what Joe Biden offered with things like expanded child tax credits were Band Aids, or even "hand outs."  But no one is handing out jobs in steel and tire factories anymore.  So electing David Jolly if he is another Joe Manchin so he can oppose things Democrats can actually do is a discouraging idea. 

If Jolly does win, the real test will be whether he can do bipartisan affordability things Democrats actually want.  And that actually make things more affordable.  What I liked about former Florida Democratic Guv and Senator Bob Graham, whose daughter is Jolly's running mate, is he was very much a results-oriented guy.  Which is why he was so successful as a politician.  If Florida goes back to being a laboratory for that, rather than how to advance or fight woke culture, that would be awesome.

Quote

The pollsters show that 18% of Republicans say they will crossover to vote for Jolly, compared to just 7% of Democrats open to backing Donalds.

That's relating to the internal poll that was just done by the Democratic Guv Assn showing Jolly with a 1 point lead.  

About 3 in 4 Blacks in Florida are registered Democrats.  Most of the rest are registered with no party affiliation.  Less than 5 % of Blacks are registered Republican.

So I think what that poll tells us, if accurate - which is a massive IF - is that Donalds is not getting a whole lot of crossover support.  Meanwhile, Jolly is getting a ton of crossover support.  There are 5.6 million registered Republicans versus about 4 million Democrats.  So if 1 million Republicans vote for Jolly and 300,000 Democrats switch to Donalds, that's a net shift of 700,000 votes from R to D.  Which would make the race close.  Add that Jolly has a big advantage among 3 million+ Independents and that adds up to a potential win.

Even in a primary in which democratic socialist Nixon pulled off a huge surprise win, Democratic turnout was not great.   So I'm not getting my hopes up that Democrats can pull this off.

What also seems almost bizarre is that between 2024 and 2026 Republican registration stayed stable, around 5.6 million. But Democratic registration and No Party Affiliated registrations both dropped by about 400,000 votes each.  Do Democrats did not switch over to Republicans.  They just went away.  Google says that aggressive voter roll purges were a big part of that.  No surprise, Republicans were more efficient at culling Democratic voters than Republican ones from voter rolls.  I'm also assuming after a landslide Republican win in 2022 a lot of Democrats just decided there's no point in voting.

My point is maybe that is in play.  The promise of the democratic socialists is that if Democrats actually offer populist economic solutions to the affordability problems of young people and Blacks and other predominantly Democratic groups, they will come out and vote.  We'll see.

I can't find anything Angie Nixon has said about Byron Donalds.  But that's going to have some impact.  In this interview you could simply take out the words "Ashley Moody" and insert "Byron Donalds".  And you have a Black US Senate candidate talking about how a Republican voted against ACA subsidies, hurting hundreds of thousands of working class Floridians.  Even as they doled out favors to Trump's corporate pals.  That is Byron Donalds in a nutshell. 

It probably doesn't help Donalds with the Black community that he will have a Black Senate candidate disavowing everything he stands for.  Whether or not she does it by name.  We'll see.

[Suckrates]

3 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

 

I have a strong positive feeling about Jolly that is rooted in my personal background.  Even though I know nothing about him.   A strong thread in my entire life experience is that you can't do inside politics without being bipartisan.  Even if you are a rabidly partisan Democrat like me.  In fact, I think the two go together hand in hand.  Even our beloved and lost Sister, The Divine Miss Graham, managed to be good friends with Joe Biden and lots of Democratic colleagues while they served in the Senate together.

The anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act was born when Jimmy Carter was President but survived the Reagan Era (and the W era) because of bipartisan deals.  And by being able to count on some Republicans for support.  There was a particular moment when I told one of the best people I've ever worked with, who ran Oregon's largest community action agency, that we had to "get in bed" with a fairly conservative and anti-Gay Republican state legislator who represented her district and who wanted to win a US House seat in the next election.  Short result:  We got a permanent  statewide annual low income energy assistance program out of the deal.  And the Republican never got his House seat.  Boo hoo! Politics is a blood sport.

Jolly had a reputation as a bipartisan deal maker who pissed off other Republicans by cutting deals with Democrats even when he was a Republican.  In a way he is a Republican Joe Manchin.  Including the fact that he runs easy with corporate lobbyists who pay him good money to represent their interests.  But, again, now is not a time for liberal purity tests.

I think as a nation "outside politics" - elections - used to reward people who were good at "inside politics" - legislating and deal making to solve problems.  That has changed.  Under Trump the idea has been that the system doesn't work, anyway.  So why not just break the fucking thing apart?  And anybody who cuts deals with any Democrat is practically evil.  And vice versa.

So in theory there might be a hunger for someone like Jolly.  Certainly among Independents, and maybe even among many Republicans.   

What I also hope is that there is a bipartisan hunger for what is best called "affordability" solutions.  I can easily argue what Joe Biden offered with things like expanded child tax credits were Band Aids, or even "hand outs."  But no one is handing out jobs in steel and tire factories anymore.  So electing David Jolly if he is another Joe Manchin so he can oppose things Democrats can actually do is a discouraging idea. 

If Jolly does win, the real test will be whether he can do bipartisan affordability things Democrats actually want.  And that actually make things more affordable.  What I liked about former Florida Democratic Guv and Senator Bob Graham, whose daughter is Jolly's running mate, is he was very much a results-oriented guy.  Which is why he was so successful as a politician.  If Florida goes back to being a laboratory for that, rather than how to advance or fight woke culture, that would be awesome.

That's relating to the internal poll that was just done by the Democratic Guv Assn showing Jolly with a 1 point lead.  

About 3 in 4 Blacks in Florida are registered Democrats.  Most of the rest are registered with no party affiliation.  Less than 5 % of Blacks are registered Republican.

So I think what that poll tells us, if accurate - which is a massive IF - is that Donalds is not getting a whole lot of crossover support.  Meanwhile, Jolly is getting a ton of crossover support.  There are 5.6 million registered Republicans versus about 4 million Democrats.  So if 1 million Republicans vote for Jolly and 300,000 Democrats switch to Donalds, that's a net shift of 700,000 votes from R to D.  Which would make the race close.  Add that Jolly has a big advantage among 3 million+ Independents and that adds up to a potential win.

Even in a primary in which democratic socialist Nixon pulled off a huge surprise win, Democratic turnout was not great.   So I'm not getting my hopes up that Democrats can pull this off.

What also seems almost bizarre is that between 2024 and 2026 Republican registration stayed stable, around 5.6 million.  But Democratic registration and No Party Affiliated registrations both dropped by about 400,000 votes each.  Google says that aggressive voter roll purges were a big part of that.  No surprise, Republicans were more efficient at culling Democratic voters than Republican ones from voter rolls.  I'm also assuming after a landslide Republican win in 2022 a lot of Democrats just decided there's no point in voting.

My point is maybe that is in play.  The promise of the democratic socialists is that if Democrats actually offer populist economic solutions to the affordability problems of young people and Blacks and other predominantly Democratic groups, they will come out and vote.  We'll see.

I can't find anything Angie Nixon has said about Byron Donalds.  But that's going to have some impact.  In this interview you could simply take out the words "Ashley Moody" and insert "Byron Donalds".  And you have a Black US Senate candidate talking about how a Republican voted against ACA subsidies, hurting hundreds of thousands of working class Floridians, while they doled out favors to Trump's corporate pals.  That is Byron Donalds in a nutshell.  It probably doesn't help Donalds with the Black community that he will have a Black Senate candidate disavowing everything he stands for.

 

A pundit on MS NOW said this week that even if Dems win the House, and possible the Senate,  there WONT be any changes made in govt as long as Trump still presides.....

What can happen is that sane and rational politician may be able to curb Trumps wildest fantasies and destructive acts, and if anything hold his to account in committee for ANSWERS on his actions.

Well, thats something, RIGHT ?    Americans need to be made to understand THIS. 

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, Suckrates said:

 

A pundit on MS NOW said this week that even if Dems win the House, and possible the Senate,  there WONT be any changes made in govt as long as Trump still presides.....

What can happen is that sane and rational politician may be able to curb Trumps wildest fantasies and destructive acts, and if anything hold him to account in committee for ANSWERS on his actions.

Well, thats something, RIGHT ?    Americans need to be made to understand THIS. 

 

Well, thanks Sis.  Buckle up for another verbose rant.

I spent two hours yesterday watching back to interviews by Charlie Rose of former Republican consultant Mike Murphy, and my favorite political journalist, Mark Halperin.  I was going to post something about that.  And you just gave me a perfect context for doing it.  What does Trump's last two years look like, if Democrats win?

Murphy is a textbook example of the kind of bipartisan Republican I identified above.  Currently, he and David Axelrod and John Heilemann are all podcast pals, of course.

The most interesting thing Murphy said is that he ended his lifelong Republican Party registration, even though he is a lifelong conservative.  And the reason why is Donald Trump, and the Republican Party's reaction to Trump.  At the end of the interview, at 58:00, he says "I never thought we'd have a President as uninterested in the national interest as Donald J. Trump."

Trump, and MAGA, would of course disagree.  I'd argue that's because of something called narcissistic personality disorder.  So the question is, how many Republicans in Florida feel that way about Trump?  And, if they agree with Murphy, would they rather have an old school bipartisan moderate like Jolly than a Trump ass kisser like Donalds?  Murphy voted for Biden in 2020.

I then watched this interview of Mark Halperin. There are two things I particularly like about Halperin.  First, he tries really hard to create forums where both sides come out of their silos and talk to each other.  Second, he tries very hard to get into the mind of Donald J. Trump, and give him grace. 

Arguably, too hard.  Mike Murphy, the lifelong Republican, would probably argue Trump lost any reason for grace a long time ago.  When you compare Trump to Murphy's favorite Republicans - like McCain or Romney or Lamar Alexander - there is arguably zero grace, and boatloads of grift.  To Trump, politics is about Trump's interests, not the national interest.  Case closed.

Notwithstanding, at one point Halperin almost whimsically made a case for what Grand Bipartisan Stuff Trump might do in his final two years.  Halperin's point, which is almost certainly true, is that Trump is a political Houdini.  He always finds a way out. 

So even if Democrats have a House and Senate majority, maybe Trump then becomes the President who makes a Grand Deal with Democrats on immigration reform and Social Security.  I would not dismiss the idea.  Trump is narcissistic enough to know that if the Iran War failed, and this is his best shot at having some kind of positive legacy, maybe he would do it.

Halperin also noted that Trump Grift will be part of his legacy, to a degree unprecedented in the history of the US.  

Halperin has talked about the idea of Trump as the Grand Deal Maker In Disguise in less whimsical moments.  In his more sober moments he notes that, at this point, it is very hard to imagine that Trump would want to make deals with Democrats.  Or that Democrats, brought back to life by disgust about who Trump is and what he has done,  would want to make deals with Trump. 

And if Democrats do win the House and Senate, they will be a bit like the moderate Iranians are right now.  Trump will be a wounded animal.  And they will know it.  They have absolutely no political reason to help him escape the legacy he spent his life creating.  Any more than Iranians have to help Trump look like he won the war he has lost.

If the Iran War goes the way it seems like it will, Trump War Grift will be a big part of his final two years.  It's bad enough that Democrats will likely be able to document that generals, and his own Veep, and his own Secretary of State, all told him this was a bad idea.  But then add Trump War Grift and the enrichment of Donald Jr. and Eric.  Add in all the Kushner Genocide Grift.  And you have a very toxic combination.  And the toxic shit does run over onto Vance and Rubio.

If Jolly wins Florida, not even Mar A Lago is safe.  Then again.  There's always Russia.  What else are pals for?

Halperin brought up one other elephant in the room that could impact the outcome:  massive amounts of Republican special interest and big donor money.  In general, he argued, Republicans will clobber Democrats with money.

That said, in many of the key races - Georgia, Texas, Ohio, North Carolina - the Democratic candidates have a lot more money than their opponents.  But David Jolly is not in that position.  He has been and will be wildly outspent by Byron Donalds and the Republican Money Machine.

I'm not sure a former Republican House member and corporate lobbyist can pull off a Full Abdul.  But El-Sayed is one example of how you can turn torrents of special interest money and corporate money into a campaign liability for the Corporate Money Whore.  As those articles I hyperlinked above point out,  hordes of special interest money still has not been able to buy Donalds favorable ratings.  A recent poll showed Donalds at 40 % favorable, 43 % unfavorable.  Jolly is at 30 % favorable, 20 % unfavorable, according to Google.  So the question is whether all that money can bury Jolly before he can lift himself.

Jolly has got massive obstacles to overcome, both in terms of voters and money.  If he does it, it is definitely thanks to a blue wave.  One can hope.

 

And speaking of waves.  As best as I can tell, in the Congress that started in 2018 there were 13 non-White Republican MOCs.  Now I think there are about 26.  That's double what it was in 2018, when Democrats elected a huge number of women and/or non-White legislators. 

This year Republicans have Black Guv candidates in Michigan, Minnesota, and Florida.  At this point Donalds is far and away the most likely to win. 

If Donalds goes down, that will be interesting.  Speaking as a partisan liberal Democrat, I think it sends a perfectly clear message to Republicans.  They like to talk about how it's the content of your character, not the color of your skin.  Great!  But it's also the content of your policies.  It's the affordability, stupid!

[RockyRoadTravel]

2 hours ago, Suckrates said:

 

A pundit on MS NOW said this week that even if Dems win the House, and possible the Senate,  there WONT be any changes made in govt as long as Trump still presides.....

What can happen is that sane and rational politician may be able to curb Trumps wildest fantasies and destructive acts, and if anything hold his to account in committee for ANSWERS on his actions.

Well, thats something, RIGHT ?    Americans need to be made to understand THIS. 

The current right-wing extremist Supreme Court will continue to legislate from the bench with or without the current flaccid GOP majorities in the House and the Senate. 

There are 13 Circuit Courts in the USA now, and with one liaison Supreme Court justice each, there is a logical and compelling reason to expand the current number of Justices to 13.  

It has to be the first thing on the agenda of the Democratic President, House and Senate after the 2028 election. 

[Suckrates]

 

[stevenkesslar]

4 hours ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

The current right-wing extremist Supreme Court will continue to legislate from the bench with or without the current flaccid GOP majorities in the House and the Senate. 

There are 13 Circuit Courts in the USA now, and with one liaison Supreme Court justice each, there is a logical and compelling reason to expand the current number of Justices to 13.  

It has to be the first thing on the agenda of the Democratic President, House and Senate after the 2028 election. 

 

Here's am alternative idea.  It is complicated, and unlikely to happen.  And, of course, long-winded.   🙄

The main idea is simple.  If the Democrats want a durable majority, they should build a durable majority.

If they can do that, Democrats will eventually appoint a majority of SCOTUS.  In my mind that is better than waiting to have 51 Senate votes and then busting the filibuster to pack the Court.  Going that route will confirm every Republican's (and maybe Independent's) worst fear.  And create a backlash.  Then we'll have 51 Republican Senators doing the same thing.

While not easy, I think building a durable majority would be easier to accomplish than court packing.  Which was tried once, a century ago, and failed.  Sort of.  I'll get back to that below.

Let's stipulate Cooper, El-Sayed, Talarico, Turek, Ossoff, Peltola and Jackson all win. Some are incumbents.  But they are all swing state Senators.  We then have 52 US Senators that caucus with Democrats.  Let's add that Dan Osborn wins running as an Independent in a wave election.  Now we have 53.  Let's throw in Lisa Murkowski, who is on the ballot in 2028.

I would throw those nine in a room and say you can't come out until you come up with a 10 point Contract for An Affordable America.  Yes, I am modelling it on Newt's idea in 1994, which worked well for Republicans. 

It would have to be a plan that they think could pass as an initiative with 50 % of the vote in each of their states.  It would also have to be a plan that should be able to get 60 Senate votes, so it is filibuster proof.  I would stipulate that at least one of the ten points has to involve higher taxes either on rich people, or corporations, or both - which both Clinton and Obama managed to do - to pay for this affordable stuff.  And it has to be economic stuff.  Like minimum wages, or child tax credits.  It does not include gun control, or trans rights, or border issues. It's about affordability, not culture war. 

The trick in my logic is that of course it won't pass in 2027.   Because under the scenario I laid out Democrats have 52 Senate votes.  Plus Osborn and Murkowski.  But they are attacked as socialists, and they still have only 54 votes.  Not to mention a Trump veto.  In theory, they could vote to end the filibuster, as Republicans who want to end the filibuster claim Democrats will do.  But ending the filibuster does not stop a Trump veto.  So Democrats  say, "We need six more votes. And we need to shit can Trump and Vance."

Where do you get the 6 votes?  In 2028 Democrats have to win Wisconsin, Iowa, and North Carolina.  Since we already have one Senate seat in each state after 2026, we ought to be able to win the other.  The next most likely states up in 2028 would be North Dakota, Missouri, and Indiana.  In other words, Democrats have to be able to win states they won in both 2006 and 2012, in the case of two of those states.  Or that they won once in 2012, in the case of Indiana.  If we assume America will be ready to clean house and change like in 2006 and 2008, this should be doable.  In 2008 Democrats had 60 Senate seats.  Including, for example, both seats in North Dakota.

In this scenario, you have a Democratic POTUS and Congress.  My own bias is I would argue a Republican SCOTUS is actually a gift.  You need some part of the system to be against you.  So let's say a Democratic Congress enacts a 10 point Contract For An Affordable America.  And a right wing SCOTUS says half of it is unconstitutional.

That's when I would begin to talk about court packing.  And, depending on what Thomas and Alito do, by 2029 Thomas is over 80 and Alito is very close.  After going through two Presidencies with 80 year olds who needed diapers, or at least appeared to, a SCOTUS retirement age of 80 would do the trick just as well as Court packing.  Suddenly you have a 5-4 majority of Democratic appointees.  Confirmed by a Democratic majority.  See ya, Mitch.

Had there been an 80 year old retirement age in place, Ginsburg would have had to retire by early 2014, when Obama was POTUS and he still had a Senate majority.  And the problem is?  😉

I thought "a stitch in time saves nine" actually originated from that conflict.  Google says it is a folk saying that dates back hundreds of years.  But Google also says "a switch in time saves nine" originated from humorist Cal Tinney. That saying refers to Justice Owen Roberts shifting to support New Deal legislation to defuse the drive for court packing.  So Tinney changed a "T" to a "W", I guess.  More important, Roberts changed a no to a yes, and saved the SCOTUS as it was in 1937.  It's not hard to imagine John Roberts doing the same in 2029, if needed.

What happened with the first big bill a conservative SCOTUS knocked down -  the 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act - is instructive.  By the time SCOTUS nullified it in 1935 the problems with the bill had already played out.  Arguably, the single most important thing in the bill was the Democratic Party's decision to back and promote the interests of labor, and labor unions.  That led to the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. which was a cornerstone of the New Deal political coalition for decades.  Democrats decided, correctly, that this was the path to a lasting majority political coalition.  Which arguably also laid the groundwork for a growing middle class.  Court packing, while important, was a sideshow to Democrats having a strategy to draw a majority of Americans to their party.

That essay by Robert Reich I posted recently spelled out how this process reversed itself.  It was politically expedient for Clinton-era Democrats to end 12 years of being out of power by embracing corporate interests and corporate money in politics.  But it did not create a lasting Democratic majority.  It did create the Donald Trump peasant's revolt, with a weird billionaire reality TV star who could never win 50.0000000000000001 % of the vote.  And who could reliably build Trump Grift, but not a Trump New Deal.

If the Democratic Party goes to war over anything, I think El-Sayed has it right:  "Money out of politics, money in your pocket."  Both parts of that are wildly popular.  What does money out of politics really mean, if Democrats do win in 2028?  If that means Democrats eventually have to threaten SCOTUS with court packing because a diaper-wearing Clarence Thomas wants AI corporations, or crypto or drone companies owned by Donald Trump, Jr., to have the best politicians money can buy, that is a fight a majority of Americans would support that is worth having.   People in Iowa want their kids killed so Donald Trump Jr. can make money on drones?

The central problem Democrats need to figure out first is how to win again in states like Iowa, and North Dakota, and Missouri.  It's a different way of saying that Democrats have to be a political party that legitimately caters to the needs of working class people who don't have college degrees.

This also solves the problem coming in 2032.  Assuming the world and the US and the electoral college still exist. 

Reliably red states Florida and Texas will gain 5 electoral votes at the expense of reliably blue states California and Illinois.  So the 2024 electoral map looks like this in 2032.   In 2024 Harris could have won by winning the Rustbelt states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania for 270 votes, the bare minimum.  Winning the Southern states of Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada would have given her a 269 vote tie.  And tossed the election to Congress. In 2032, either of those two paths would result in a loss to Democrats.  Ideally, a Democrat can do what Biden did in 2020, and win both paths.  But being able to win a state like Iowa or Indiana or Montana or North Carolina again would sure help. 

While I think this is a more durable and likely path for Democrats to get what we want, my guess is it ain't gonna happen this way, either.  If I had to bet, it will happen because of a crisis.

I glibly said "if the world still exists" by 2032 because there is no shortage of people, including top AI experts, who think humanity may actually be doomed by then.  😱   And we will always have nuclear war, which suddenly seems like something Trump could actually tee up in Tehran.  

Hopefully, a crisis would be more like a garden variety Great Depression, like 1929.  Or maybe just a Great Recession, like 2008.  Even 1980 will do, in a pinch.  Reagan won more states in both 1980 and 1984 than Obama did in 2008.

Before 2024 I assumed demographics was destiny.  So Millennials and minorities and Zoomers would see fit to making The Emerging Democratic Majority stick around for decades.  Since 2024, I'm not so sure. 

Whenever this stock bull market ends, it's not really the fault of whoever happens to be in power.  Same with the budget deficit.  Every President since Clinton has run up a deficit every year.  Losing the Iran War will be Trump's fault.  If all this happens at once, it's gonna create a big crisis that hurts one party and drives people to the other party.  In my mind there are at least 50/50 odds, if not greater, this all happens by 2028.

To end my rant where it began, that is what actually happened with Court Packing 1.0.  First you needed a crisis to get a New Deal majority that could enact New Deal legislation.  Only then did SCOTUS matter. 

Either Democrats have to build this gradually, or a crisis will drive it along.  Either way, as things stand right now, Democrats have at least a 50/50 chance to have the Presidency, Senate, and House in 2029.  Again, I think it's actually a plus to have some part of the constitutional system trying to obstruct the other.  Even during the New Deal it tended to save Democrats from some of their own mistakes.  Even a Trump SCOTUS is saving Trump from some of his worst impulses.

Of course, if we are being realistic, why would anyone think Donald Trump would bankrupt anything, or cause any crisis?

 

[Suckrates]

7 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

 

Here's am alternative idea.  It is complicated, and unlikely to happen.  And, of course, long-winded.   🙄

The main idea is simple.  If the Democrats want a durable majority, they should build a durable majority.

If they can do that, Democrats will eventually appoint a majority of SCOTUS.  In my mind that is better than waiting to have 51 Senate votes and then busting the filibuster to pack the Court.  Going that route will confirm every Republican's (and maybe Independent's) worst fear.  And create a backlash.  Then we'll have 51 Republican Senators doing the same thing.

While not easy, I think building a durable majority would be easier to accomplish than court packing.  Which was tried once, a century ago, and failed.  Sort of.  I'll get back to that below.

Let's stipulate Cooper, El-Sayed, Talarico, Turek, Ossoff, Peltola and Jackson all win. Some are incumbents.  But they are all swing state Senators.  We then have 52 US Senators that caucus with Democrats.  Let's add that Dan Osborn wins running as an Independent in a wave election.  Now we have 53.  Let's throw in Lisa Murkowski, who is on the ballot in 2028.

I would throw those nine in a room and say you can't come out until you come up with a 10 point Contract for An Affordable America.  Yes, I am modelling it on Newt's idea in 1994, which worked well for Republicans. 

It would have to be a plan that they think could pass as an initiative with 50 % of the vote in each of their states.  It would also have to be a plan that should be able to get 60 Senate votes, so it is filibuster proof.  I would stipulate that at least one of the ten points has to involve higher taxes either on rich people, or corporations, or both - which both Clinton and Obama managed to do - to pay for this affordable stuff.  And it has to be economic stuff.  Like minimum wages, or child tax credits.  It does not include gun control, or trans rights, or border issues. It's about affordability, not culture war. 

The trick in my logic is that of course it won't pass in 2027.   Because under the scenario I laid out Democrats have 52 Senate votes.  Plus Osborn and Murkowski.  But they are attacked as socialists, and they still have only 54 votes.  Not to mention a Trump veto.  In theory, they could vote to end the filibuster, as Republicans who want to end the filibuster claim Democrats will do.  But ending the filibuster does not stop a Trump veto.  So Democrats  say, "We need six more votes. And we need to shit can Trump and Vance."

Where do you get the 6 votes?  In 2028 Democrats have to win Wisconsin, Iowa, and North Carolina.  Since we already have one Senate seat in each state after 2026, we ought to be able to win the other.  The next most likely states up in 2028 would be North Dakota, Missouri, and Indiana.  In other words, Democrats have to be able to win states they won in both 2006 and 2012, in the case of two of those states.  Or that they won once in 2012, in the case of Indiana.  If we assume America will be ready to clean house and change like in 2006 and 2008, this should be doable.  In 2008 Democrats had 60 Senate seats.  Including, for example, both seats in North Dakota.

In this scenario, you have a Democratic POTUS and Congress.  My own bias is I would argue a Republican SCOTUS is actually a gift.  You need some part of the system to be against you.  So let's say a Democratic Congress enacts a 10 point Contract For An Affordable America.  And a right wing SCOTUS says half of it is unconstitutional.

That's when I would begin to talk about court packing.  And, depending on what Thomas and Alito do, by 2029 Thomas is over 80 and Alito is very close.  After going through two Presidencies with 80 year olds who needed diapers, or at least appeared to, a SCOTUS retirement age of 80 would do the trick just as well as Court packing.  Suddenly you have a 5-4 majority of Democratic appointees.  Confirmed by a Democratic majority.  See ya, Mitch.

Had there been an 80 year old retirement age in place, Ginsburg would have had to retire by early 2014, when Obama was POTUS and he still had a Senate majority.  And the problem is?  😉

I thought "a stitch in time saves nine" actually originated from that conflict.  Google says it is a folk saying that dates back hundreds of years.  But Google also says "a switch in time saves nine" originated from humorist Cal Tinney. That saying refers to Justice Owen Roberts shifting to support New Deal legislation to defuse the drive for court packing.  So Tinney changed a "T" to a "W", I guess.  More important, Roberts changed a no to a yes, and saved the SCOTUS as it was in 1937.  It's not hard to imagine John Roberts doing the same in 2029, if needed.

What happened with the first big bill a conservative SCOTUS knocked down -  the 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act - is instructive.  By the time SCOTUS nullified it in 1935 the problems with the bill had already played out.  Arguably, the single most important thing in the bill was the Democratic Party's decision to back and promote the interests of labor, and labor unions.  That led to the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. which was a cornerstone of the New Deal political coalition for decades.  Democrats decided, correctly, that this was the path to a lasting majority political coalition.  Which arguably also laid the groundwork for a growing middle class.  Court packing, while important, was a sideshow to Democrats having a strategy to draw a majority of Americans to their party.

That essay by Robert Reich I posted recently spelled out how this process reversed itself.  It was politically expedient for Clinton-era Democrats to end 12 years of being out of power by embracing corporate interests and corporate money in politics.  But it did not create a lasting Democratic majority.  It did create the Donald Trump peasant's revolt, with a weird billionaire reality TV star who could never win 50.0000000000000001 % of the vote.  And who could reliably build Trump Grift, but not a Trump New Deal.

If the Democratic Party goes to war over anything, I think El-Sayed has it right:  "Money out of politics, money in your pocket."  Both parts of that are wildly popular.  What does money out of politics really mean, if Democrats do win in 2028?  If that means Democrats eventually have to threaten SCOTUS with court packing because a diaper-wearing Clarence Thomas wants AI corporations, or crypto or drone companies owned by Donald Trump, Jr., to have the best politicians money can buy, that is a fight a majority of Americans would support that is worth having.   People in Iowa want their kids killed so Donald Trump Jr. can make money on drones?

The central problem Democrats need to figure out first is how to win again in states like Iowa, and North Dakota, and Missouri.  It's a different way of saying that Democrats have to be a political party that legitimately caters to the needs of working class people who don't have college degrees.

This also solves the problem coming in 2032.  Assuming the world and the US and the electoral college still exist. 

Reliably red states Florida and Texas will gain 5 electoral votes at the expense of reliably blue states California and Illinois.  So the 2024 electoral map looks like this in 2032.   In 2024 Harris could have won by winning the Rustbelt states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania for 270 votes, the bare minimum.  Winning the Southern states of Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada would have given her a 269 vote tie.  And tossed the election to Congress. In 2032, either of those two paths would result in a loss to Democrats.  Ideally, a Democrat can do what Biden did in 2020, and win both paths.  But being able to win a state like Iowa or Indiana or Montana or North Carolina again would sure help. 

While I think this is a more durable and likely path for Democrats to get what we want, my guess is it ain't gonna happen this way, either.  If I had to bet, it will happen because of a crisis.

I glibly said "if the world still exists" by 2032 because there is no shortage of people, including top AI experts, who think humanity may actually be doomed by then.  😱   And we will always have nuclear war, which suddenly seems like something Trump could actually tee up in Tehran.  

Hopefully, a crisis would be more like a garden variety Great Depression, like 1929.  Or maybe just a Great Recession, like 2008.  Even 1980 will do, in a pinch.  Reagan won more states in both 1980 and 1984 than Obama did in 2008.

Before 2024 I assumed demographics was destiny.  So Millennials and minorities and Zoomers would see fit to making The Emerging Democratic Majority stick around for decades.  Since 2024, I'm not so sure. 

Whenever this stock bull market ends, it's not really the fault of whoever happens to be in power.  Same with the budget deficit.  Every President since Clinton has run up a deficit every year.  Losing the Iran War will be Trump's fault.  If all this happens at once, it's gonna create a big crisis that hurts one party and drives people to the other party.  In my mind there are at least 50/50 odds, if not greater, this all happens by 2028.

To end my rant where it began, that is what actually happened with Court Packing 1.0.  First you needed a crisis to get a New Deal majority that could enact New Deal legislation.  Only then did SCOTUS matter. 

Either Democrats have to build this gradually, or a crisis will drive it along.  Either way, as things stand right now, Democrats have at least a 50/50 chance to have the Presidency, Senate, and House in 2029.  Again, I think it's actually a plus to have some part of the constitutional system trying to obstruct the other.  Even during the New Deal it tended to save Democrats from some of their own mistakes.  Even a Trump SCOTUS is saving Trump from some of his worst impulses.

Of course, if we are being realistic, why would anyone think Donald Trump would bankrupt anything, or cause any crisis?

 

Participating in THIS forum is really helping my reading skills and physical endurance !