Month: August 2022

He says what they really think

They need to put this ad on a loop in Wisconsin:

NEW: On the The Regular Joe Show, Sen. Ron. Johnson (R-WI) argues for eliminating entitlements: "Social Security and Medicare, if you qualify, you just get it no matter what the cost… We ought to turn everything into discretionary spending so it's all evaluated." pic.twitter.com/bE1KUb6uJ5

— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) August 2, 2022

He is not alone in believing this. Basically, they all do. They’ve been trying to eliminate Social Security and Medicare since they were implemented. They made a serious run at it just a few years ago, in 2005. They will never give that up no matter how “populist” they pretend to be.

Rick Scott put this idea about making it discretionary (to be reauthorized every 5 years) into the official agenda for the Senate Campaign Committee so it’s not just Johnson being a weirdo. They are really talking about this. What it would mean is that no one could ever count on having health care or financial support in their old age again. They would send people into penury without another thought.

This part of the GOP has not died just because Trumpism is about the latest iteration of the interminable culture war battles over religion, race and gender. They still want to ensure that wealthy people don’t pay taxes and that average working people are desperate and insecure. It’s fundamental. It’s who they are.

Did Samuel Alito wake a sleeping giant?

Tom gave the rundown of the earthquake vote in Kansas last night affirming abortion rights in Kansas earlier. I don’t think anyone expected this vote to be this lopsided. It’s a shocker.

Something is happening with this issue. It may have awakened a sleeping giant — voters who have had it with the extremism of the Republican party. After five years of Donald Trump’s circus and January 6th, the GOP’s dramatic right turn and the radical Supreme Court majority (achieved through dubious congressional maneuvers) it’s just possible that the majority of this country is finally mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore. The arrogant reversal of a long-standing constitutional right that turns the United States into an antediluvian throwback nation may have been the last straw. It’s not like Kansas is is California….

What’s next? I think Josh Marshall’s plan is one way to exploit this moment:

Vote counting slowed down overnight with abt 95% reporting. No (abortion rights) is steady at around 59% support vs 41%. It seems unlikely to tick down more than one or two percent at most. This was considered a too close to call race with an advantage to Yes.

2/ When a result is this lopsided & this unexpected for most political observers it’s not only a political earthquake but a sign many political professionals have seriously mistaken the political terrain. When there’s a political backlash as strong as the one against Dobbs …

3/ and one party is as firmly tied to it as Republicans are here, clearly the opposing party needs to grab on to it with both hands. Abortion rights will be central to numerous races this fall. But Democrats need to make the connection as explicit and tangible as possible.

4/ The way to do that is to make a firm pledge that if Democrats hold the House and add two Senate seats they will make Roe into federal law in January 2023. They are at present kinda sorta suggesting something like that, maybe. But clarity is everything. Give us this …

5/ specific result and this is specifically what we will do. Kansans didn’t turn out in these lopsided numbers to make a statement about Dobbs or Roe. They did so because they knew that the outcome of this one vote would immediately and dramatically effect the right …

6/ to a safe and legal abortion in the state. Democrats need to approximate the same clarity at the federal level, both to undo Dobbs and also to secure their hold on Congress. The way to do that is to get all 48 (non-Sinema/Manchin) senators to make a firm pledge that …

7/ if the House is held and two Democratic senators added they will vote for a Roe law in January 2023 AND suspend the filibuster rules to guarantee that bill gets an old fashioned up or down majority vote. So far 31 Senate Democrats have said they’ll do that (though not …

8/ yet on the specific date). All but two of the 17 are basically there but still refuse to say it clearly. There are two potential hold outs. Angus King of Maine and Mark Warner of Virginia. They will all certainly fall in line quickly if constituents apply pressure now.

9/ In fact here’s a handy list of where every Democratic senator stands on this key question. Can you use this list to pinpoint where pressure needs to be applied. Pick up the phone. Old school. It gets results.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/which-senate-democrats-are-blocking-the-path-to-abortion-rights

10/ The political power of Roe and Reform has been clear to many people for months. Kansas removes all doubt. Voters can get the remaining senators to fall in line quickly enough by making their views clear to the remaining senators. And if they do the midterm can take …

11/ the dynamics – the clarity and this for that nature of the vote – of last nights referendum in Kansas.

Originally tweeted by Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) on August 3, 2022.

By the way:

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, 55% of voters say abortion is a “very important” issue to consider when deciding how to they will vote in November’s midterms, up from 46% in February, according to a new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The big picture: While abortion is a motivating issue for some voter groups, it’s eclipsed by inflation, including rising gas prices, which 74% of respondents say is “very important.”

Yes, but: “Lower-turnout midterm elections can be a game of inches, and abortion could make a difference, especially if gas prices continue to fall,” KFF President and CEO Drew Altman said.

“It’s motivating a lot of younger women to vote, and most Democrats, half of independents and even some Republicans plan to vote for candidates who support abortion access.”

By the numbers: 77% of Democratic voters said they considered abortion to be a “very important” issue, an increase from 50% in February.

For Democratic women, the number increases to 82% post-Roe, from 55% in February. Approximately three in four (73%) women voters of reproductive age, 18-49, say abortion is a “very important” issue.

The number has decreased for Republican women: 60% in February said abortion access was “very important, and now 44% say the same.

Other numbers: Around 54% of voters said the demise of Roe has made them “more likely” to consider a candidate’s stance on abortion, while 3% it has made them “less likely” to do so.

The KFF survey also found that 61% of the public says they want their state to protect abortion access, while 25% want their state to ban it.

Worth noting: 43% of all voters said the ruling made them “more motivated” to vote, including 72% of Democrats and 56% of independents — an important number to consider as Democrats face the threat of losing both houses of Congress this fall.

This is no time to let up

In case my earlier post on the Kansas referendum landslide in support of women’s rights was too cautionary (it won’t stop Republicans from working to bring about the Republic of Gilead), let’s let Josh Marshall explain what Democrats need to do next:

Vote counting slowed down overnight with abt 95% reporting. No (abortion rights) is steady at around 59% support vs 41%. It seems unlikely to tick down more than one or two percent at most. This was considered a too close to call race with an advantage to Yes. 

2/ When a result is this lopsided & this unexpected for most political observers it’s not only a political earthquake but a sign many political professionals have seriously mistaken the political terrain. When there’s a political backlash as strong as the one against Dobbs … 

3/ and one party is as firmly tied to it as Republicans are here, clearly the opposing party needs to grab on to it with both hands. Abortion rights will be central to numerous races this fall. But Democrats need to make the connection as explicit and tangible as possible. 

4/ The way to do that is to make a firm pledge that if Democrats hold the House and add two Senate seats they will make Roe into federal law in January 2023. They are at present kinda sorta suggesting something like that, maybe. But clarity is everything. Give us this … 

5/ specific result and this is specifically what we will do. Kansans didn’t turn out in these lopsided numbers to make a statement about Dobbs or Roe. They did so because they knew that the outcome of this one vote would immediately and dramatically effect the right … 

6/ to a safe and legal abortion in the state. Democrats need to approximate the same clarity at the federal level, both to undo Dobbs and also to secure their hold on Congress. The way to do that is to get all 48 (non-Sinema/Manchin) senators to make a firm pledge that … 

7/ if the House is held and two Democratic senators added they will vote for a Roe law in January 2023 AND suspend the filibuster rules to guarantee that bill gets an old fashioned up or down majority vote. So far 31 Senate Democrats have said they’ll do that (though not … 

8/ yet on the specific date). All but two of the 17 are basically there but still refuse to say it clearly. There are two potential hold outs. Angus King of Maine and Mark Warner of Virginia. They will all certainly fall in line quickly if constituents apply pressure now. 

9/ In fact here’s a handy list of where every Democratic senator stands on this key question. Can you use this list to pinpoint where pressure needs to be applied. Pick up the phone. Old school. It gets results.

10/ The political power of Roe and Reform has been clear to many people for months. Kansas removes all doubt. Voters can get the remaining senators to fall in line quickly enough by making their views clear to the remaining senators. And if they do the midterm can take … 

11/ the dynamics – the clarity and this for that nature of the vote – of last nights referendum in Kansas. 

Josh’s list won’t be much help here in North Carolina until Cheri Beasley wins a Senate seat in November. But the rest of you faithful readers should take Josh’s advice and make sure Democrats in the Senate hear loud and clear that Roe and Reform are at the top of voters’ list of concerns.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us.

But don’t expect GOP extremists to stop at No

Kansas voters proved Tuesday night that the decision by a revanchist Supreme Court majority to strip women of a constitutional right to bodily autonomy in Dobbs has not sit well with voters. Not even in one of the country’s most conservative states. Democrats are advised to adjust their 2022 messaging and strategy accordingly.

The state Supreme Court ruled six-to-one in April that the first sentence in the state’s bill of rights is not merely aspirational. “All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” means what it says, the court ruled. Does it include “the substantive rights include a woman’s right to make decisions about her body, including the decision whether to continue her pregnancy?” Yes.

What happened next should be instructive for abortion rights supporters. The Republican-dominated legislature responded by placing a misleadingly worded referendum on Tuesday’s primary ballot. A Yes vote “would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion” and permit regulation and/or banning of the procedure altogether in the state. By 59 to 41, voters rejected the measure.

Turnout in the first major post-Roe v. Wade referendum — in what would be a low-turnout primary election — was “exceptionally high” and “a warning sign for the GOP.” Turnout was strong in the cites, as might be predicted, yet weak among abortion foes even in the reddest places in Kansas. The secretary of state’s office predicted perhaps 36 percent turnout. By Tuesday night, actual turnout was trending towards 50 percent.

“From the bluest counties to the reddest ones, abortion rights performed better than Mr. Biden, and opposition to abortion performed worse than Mr. Trump,” reported the New York Times.

CNN:

The rejection of the measure highlighted the increasingly stark divide between the activities of Republican state lawmakers, often in legislatures gerrymandered to effectively guarantee GOP control, and the political and policy desires of American voters. In more immediate terms, the ballot measure’s defeat — on a day of extraordinary turnout — also provides a clear indication that the desire to defend abortion rights could be a potent issue for Democrats in the coming midterm elections.

The polling, from a variety of sources, is unambiguous and consistent. Across party lines, abortion rights are popular and the Supreme Court’s ruling is not. The most recent CNN poll found that 63% of Americans disapproved — 51% “strongly” — of the court’s decision. The Kaiser Family Foundation came to a similar conclusion, with 61% of respondents to their survey saying they wanted their state to guarantee access to abortion. Only 25% wanted them to restrict it.

But consider: Losing the court battle in April did not deter Kansas Republicans from placing the referendum they drafted last year on Tuesday’s ballot with the expectation that it would pass in a low-turnout primary. The Dobbs decision in June upended that calculation. Still, the defeat of the referendum on Tuesday is not likely to stop them from pushing ahead with an abortion ban in violation of voters’ clear wishes.

Consider too: Florida voters in 2018 approved a constitutional amendment to restore felons’ right to vote by 64.5 to 35.5 percent, a far larger margin than voted for Ron DeSantis (49.6 percent). Florida Republicans nevertheless moved swiftly to render voters’ decision moot, passing measures to force felons “to navigate a byzantine bureaucracy to get their voting rights back.”

Still more to consider: “In 2015, 7 out of 10 Ohio voters approved an amend­ment to the state consti­tu­tion to encour­age bipar­tis­an­ship in the redis­trict­ing process and expli­citly outlaw partisan gerry­man­der­ing.” Republicans nevertheless repeatedly ignored voters’ wishes and state Supreme Court rulings on gerrymandered districts there. “Republicans plan to ignore the state judiciary’s attempts to enforce the language of redistricting reforms — while waiting for a more favorable Supreme Court makeup following the November election,” wrote Andrew Tobias in June.

Finally, what signal Tuesday’s vote sends remains to be seen. Do Kansans overwhelmingly support women’s bodily autonomy? Or are they signaling that MAGA fanaticism has gone too far?

Donald Trump-backed election deniers had a good night. Arizona Republicans ousted House Speaker Russell “Rusty” Bowers who rebuffed Trump’s efforts to overturn 2020 election results there. Bowers testified publicly (against Trump, in effect) before the Jan. 6 committee in June. He lost his state Senate primary bid to former state senator David Farnsworth on Tuesday.

Savor the victory for women’s rights in Kansas. Leverage in November what the country learned last night. But don’t expect the reactionary fringe to slink back under its rock.

All the conservatives who insisted they merely wanted to return the issue to the states will surely be good sports about this. https://t.co/b1YWYhh8xL

— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) August 3, 2022

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us.

The greatest of all time

He was 94…

It was only right that Vin Scully was on the call when Hank Aaron broke the all-time home run record pic.twitter.com/PeG4CsNv6m

— Jomboy Media (@JomboyMedia) August 3, 2022

You've probably never heard of Larry Miggins. We became dear friends in high school. Years later, he'd hit a home run against the Dodgers that remains the most personal I ever called. Pull up a chair. This is the story. pic.twitter.com/x1pADQrIuQ

— Vin Scully (@TheVinScully) April 23, 2022

Manchin that is. And he does it well.

Another masterclass from Joe Manchin. The Fox host is in shambles in this interview. https://t.co/AGfQeTM1DR https://t.co/ct7cWzcuW8

— Tim Miller (@Timodc) August 2, 2022

The good news about Democrats hating Joe Manchin for being a sellout to the man is that the other side doesn’t know what to do when he acts like a Democrat. You can’t make him a “trusted voice” and then treat him like he’s AOC.

It can only hurt the ball team. (By ball team, I mean America)

Tim Miller is right:

Starting a new third party is all the rage these days, especially out here in Never Trumpistan.

The Yang Gang is teaming up with some future former Republicans for the Forward Party. Rich people have burned given power couple Mark Penn and Nancy Jacobson $50 million to try and make a No Labels ticket happen. My friend Juleanna Glover made a (fairly serious) case for a Jon Stewart candidacy. Say the phrase “unity ticket” and clap three times and Bill Kristol might show up in your living room. The third party question is raised at all my book-tour stops. (Coming to a city near you!) And it is the subtext of every conversation with a lonely, politically homeless soul wondering What Are We Going to Do.

During the Trump era I have often been the rain cloud that washes away the luminescent longings of the third-party dreamers, which isn’t a job I enjoy since many are friends or mentors or folks whose courage in the face of Trumpism I deeply admire.

But I soldier on anyway. Trying to convince them they are actually Red Dog Democrats. Or explaining why their idea might accidentally bring about a fascism even though they have nice arms and nicer intentions.

But given the boom cycle of new parties, clearly that message is not getting through. So today I wanted to offer another exercise.

I want to focus on the positive for a change! Be supportive!

Let’s imagine that I did share the passion for a third party and wanted to offer guidance on how it might achieve success.

What would be the necessary ingredients to make this new party something that might conceivably work as a political entity, not a networking club for sad people longing to find a political home?

The way I see it there are two basic steps for determining viability for a new party in the Trump era.

Step One: Answer this question: Does your party offer something that will attract a substantial portion of real-world Trump voters? 

This might seem obvious, but I think it is important to spell out.

For a new party to win national elections, it would have to attract voters from both of the two major parties. To give you a baseline, in 1992 Ross Perot took 17 percent of Republicans and 13 percent of Democrats according to the exit polls. That still left him well short of taking even a single electoral vote.

If the new third party you are creating isn’t capable of garnering a greater chunk from both existing parties than Perot did, it isn’t going to work. And if it pulls overwhelmingly from one party with only a small percentage coming from the other party then it isn’t really a third party at all, but a faction of the first party. As such it will either cannibalize or displace that party’s vote. And we wouldn’t want to do that if the party we are cannibalizing is the only thing standing between us and an insane madman who is an existential threat to the nation. (A third party which cannibalized the authoritarian-curious party might be okay. But that’s not what any of my friends are talking about.)

Given that this is such an important part of the process, I think we should pressure-test this question a little bit.

Everyone thinks they can attract disaffected voters from both sides. They hear from them constantly! Nobody’s happy! Right?

Back in 2019 I received a few phone calls from rich guys and influential consultants thinking about various third-party runs, especially when it seemed as if Sanders or Warren might be the Democratic nominee. In each case I listened to their pitch and then told them that their message would not appeal to the median Republican but instead was uniquely attractive to other rich globalists at the club who don’t like taxes or AOC, but other than that, had very little in common with real-world Trump voters. As a result, their effort was likely to attract very few Trump voters but had the potential to win over a significant share of people who might otherwise have voted for the Democrat. Not good.

So in order to make sure that this new party can pass step one, let’s take a look at the profile of the voter it will have to attract. Who are they? And who are they not?

They are NOT people who voted for Evan McMullin in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020: This should be self-evident based on the “real-world Trump voter” language that is right there in the question but it is necessary to be specific on this point since it seems as if most of the people pushing for a third party fit into this category. These voters are Democrats for all practical purposes, but some of them don’t want to admit it. I get it! Democrats can be annoying. Changing identities is hard. I wrote a book about it! But no matter what these folks want to call themselves, they are Biden voters, not Trump voters. And they are not sufficient for the creation of a new party.

They are NOT the people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 but not in 2020: I realize this is a tautology but just want to be extra-certain you are following me here. People who did not vote for Trump in 2020 are not Trump voters.

They ARE people who actually like Donald Trump: Now this is going to be a tough one for some people to stomach. Trump voters like Trump. He consistently had a 90+ percent approval rating among Republicans during his presidency. In 2020, exit polls showed nearly all of those who voted for him viewed him favorably. Appealing to the tiny percentage of Trump voters who don’t really like Donald Trump is critical in a two-way general election but far, far short of the Perot baseline that is the minimum required to be anywhere close to viable in a three-way race.

They ARE people who are in lock-step with Fox & Friends in the right-wing culture war: This is critical. The preponderance of Trump voters support “Don’t Say Gay” and the Big Beautiful Wall; share the flabby-armed former president’s antipathy towards transgender athletes participating in women’s supports; thought DeSantis did a heckuva job on COVID; do not trust anyone who wants to take their guns; are still mad at Colin Kaepernick; and will be repulsed if you let your kid pick their own pronouns. Within the party there remains a very small minority of college-educated, wealthy Republicans who are aligned on economic issues while maintaining only a light antipathy towards the progressive elites based on what they have read on the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Picking off this group alone does not get you to the 17 percent Perot baseline.

In review, the voters you need to attract:

Voted For Trump. Like Trump.

Hate Never Trump Republican Traitors.

Hate “Woke” Culture.

Are mad at people who drive a Prius with a “Coexist” sticker while drinking their coffee coolattas.

Now lets move to step two:

Step Two: Answer this question again: Does your party offer something that will attract a substantial portion of real-world Trump voters? 

As it turns out I lied when I said there was a two-part test. It is really only a one-part test but it’s so daunting that I wanted to give it a little bit of time to settle in the ol’ brainy brain.

Biden’s getting a lot done, the Dems are finding their footing, and Joe Manchin is…

Given what we know about Trump voters, what would a party that passes this test look like? It’s clear that an organization that only includes Andrew Yang and a bunch of squishy Never Trumpers doesn’t fit the bill. They fall squarely in category one—people who are in the Biden coalition, but don’t want to identify that way.

So who might that group team up with in order to pass our two-part test?

The names that come immediately to mind share one trait. They all appeal to Trumpers because liberals find them problematic (hence the Third Party Paradox in These Polarized Times).

Here are some of those names: Joe Rogan, Dave Portnoy, Dave Chappelle. These guys are all entertainers who have audiences that include real-world Trump supporters, as well as people in the Biden coalition.

A Morning Consult poll showed that 46 percent of Rogan “fans” were Republican, while 23 percent were Democrats. Among “non-fans” the numbers were basically reversed. That’s about the profile you would want if you were a Never Trumper looking to partner with someone who might be viable as a third-party candidate, but would pull more from Trump than the Democratic nominee if things went south.

So. . . how does the Rogan presidency sound?

Among existing politicians, it’s pretty hard to find someone who would fit this bill. Anti-Trump Republicans are out. So, the closest I can come up with would be the one and only Broadway Joe Manchin. He has consistently maintained an approval between 40 percent and 60 percent among both Republicans and Democrats, waxing and waning based on whom he angered last.

There are a lot of things about Manchin’s candidate skills that would make him a terrible presidential contender. But he’s about right for the type of ideological profile you’re looking for: An anti-PC, lib-triggering, economic populist who wants to stick it to the bankers is the ballpark of what might conceivably work. Forgive me for presuming, but Manchin is not generally the person people seem to have in mind when they ask me for a moderate who can win in the Tattered Cover queue.

But that’s the point of this exercise right? Trying to identify a candidate that could marshal a coalition that could conceivably win? Even if you can’t always get what you want?

Given the nature of the threat, I would hope so. That’s why I’m here to help!

Otherwise . . . what would the point be?

There are other good reasons not to run a third party candidate but I’ll just leave that here.

Trump’s endorsement practices are right out of the schoolyard

How Trump came to endorse “Eric” for the Missouri Senate race. He just couldn’t decide:

Former President Donald Trump called Republican Senate candidate Eric Schmitt Monday evening, after posting on social media that he would endorse in Missouri’s GOP primary, and told him to look out for an announcement.

“You’ll be happy,” Trump told Schmitt.

What the former president didn’t say, according to two people familiar with the conversation, is that the press release would simultaneously back Schmitt and his rival for the GOP nomination, Eric Greitens. Greitens received a similar call in which Trump congratulated him on the endorsement and made no mention that he also endorsed Schmitt, Missouri’s state attorney general.

It marked the end of the chaotic seven hours in Trump world, as the former president’s future daughter-in-law, his handpicked Republican National Committee chairwoman, Missouri’s junior senator and a host of other party operatives and Trump allies jostled over who the former president should endorse in the tumultuous Missouri Senate primary, where polling places were set to open less than 24 hours later.

Trump kicked off the private lobbying spree late Monday morning, when he posted on social media that he would be making his endorsement official that day — without mentioning that he apparently had not yet made his final choice. What transpired over the course of the afternoon illustrates the anarchical nature of Trump’s endorsement process. While the much-coveted endorsement is one of Trump’s greatest assets and his chief political weapon, how he decides who gets one is often more improvisational than scripted.

In this case, many Republican officials feared that the wrong decision could come with serious repercussions for the party. The former governor stepped down from his post in 2018 after his hairdresser accused him of sexually assaulting her. And his ex-wife has accused him in court of assaulting her and their young son in 2018. Greitens has strenuously denied the allegations, but his standing in the Missouri GOP Senate primary has slipped amid a wave of ads focused on those allegations.

At the center of Monday’s episode, according to several people familiar with what transpired, was Kimberly Guilfoyle, the fiancée of Donald Trump Jr. who spent the weekend making the case for Greitens while attending a golf tournament Trump hosted at his Bedminster, N.J. club.

A little after noon, Trump was having a previously scheduled meeting with RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, where the Missouri race became a topic of discussion. During the sit-down, Trump called Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, a Greitens foe who referenced a recent poll showing the former governor trailing in the primary.

After being told that Guilfoyle was on the Bedminster property, Trump asked for her to be called in to the meeting.

By the time Guilfoyle made it into the room, Hawley was no longer on the line. McDaniel, who like other senior Republicans tried to dissuade Trump from endorsing Greitens for fear that he could lose the seat to a Democrat in the general election and that his nomination would force Republicans to spent money in a state that should be safe for the party, remained in the meeting. She also argued that a late endorsement would do little to alter the race, with most polls showing Greitens lagging behind in third place, and that it would make more sense for Trump to remain neutral.

Guilfoyle was steadfast in her defense of the former governor, saying that the party establishment had been trying to get Trump to oppose Greitens. McDaniel, meanwhile, reiterated her argument that Greitens would make for a weak nominee given his personal baggage.

As the meeting wore on, those familiar with what transpired say, Trump began to lose patience. At one point it was suggested that he could endorse “Eric,” and that by doing so he would be supporting both Schmitt and Greitens.

It was a madcap exit ramp. But Trump went in on the details, asking if the two candidates’ first names were spelled identically — noting that it wouldn’t work if they weren’t. While Trump was intrigued, he also remarked that it might be too cute. He asked for draft endorsements to review, one announcing his support for Schmitt, the other for Greitens.

At this point, it was still unclear who Trump would endorse by his self-imposed end-of-day deadline, underscoring the rolling, unpredictable nature of how the former president exercises his power. As he has in other races, Trump on Monday reached out to an array of figures for their views. The list included Republican pollsters John McLaughlin and Robert Cahaly, both of whom have conducted surveys on the race. He was given notes from Tony Fabrizio, a longtime Trump pollster who worked for Greitens.

Trump later asked allies Pam Bondi and Matthew Whitaker, both of whom are backing Schmitt, for their views. At another point, he surveyed Chris Cox, the founder of the “Bikers for Trump” coalition, who was also on the Bedminster property. Cox excused himself from the office so he could get a reading of those in his organization. Upon reentering the office, he informed Trump that his crowd was aligned with Greitens.

But Trump circled back to the idea of endorsing the two Erics, reasoning that there were pluses and minuses to both, and that by doing so it would provide to each the opportunity to win with his support. He drafted a statement that would soon go out.

The two candidates came out with immediate statements touting the endorsement. I’ve said it before — there is a serious problem with arrested development in this country, particularly on the right.

The Grim Reaper made a mistake

McConnell gets a lot of credit for being the most effective Senate leader in modern history but the truth is that he has been excellent at obstruction and ramming through judges. And that’s pretty much it. He doesn’t have a lot of control over his nutcases and makes a lot of mistakes. The little hissy fit over the Manchin and Schumer agreement is a case in point:

Facing overwhelming backlash after tanking a previously-approved veterans health benefits bill (known as the PACT Act) out of spite over Democrats’ climate and tax legislation, the Senate’s Republican leadership now seems to have realized that the tantrum isn’t worth it.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), one of the 25 Republicans who had abruptly switched their initial “yes” vote to a “no,” signaled on Monday that the bill, which provides aid for veterans suffering from toxic exposures, will overcome the blockade when Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) puts it up for a vote again.

“It will pass this week,” McConnell said.

A similarly squirmy Senate Republican Conference chair John Barrasso (R-WY), the third-ranking GOP senator and another Republican who had changed his vote, told Politico that he would “expect it to pass.”

Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-SD), who voted against the legislation both times, said that at “some point” the bill “is going to pass and it will pass big.”

The leaders’ backtracking marks an attempt at damage control as Republican senators find themselves getting raked over the coals for blocking the PACT Act, which had initially passed the Senate in a largely bipartisan 84-14 vote last month but was brought to a vote again last week due to a technical error.

When the legislation was put to a vote again, 25 Republicans who’d voted for it the first time inexplicably blocked the bill; a move that was widely understood to be a flailing attempt at politically motivated retaliation after Schumer and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) announced a deal on a bill to address climate change, drug pricing and corporate taxes.

Everyone knows why they did it including the veteran’s groups. They are very savvy Washington players and they know that the Republicans had a little meltdown over being double crossed by Joe Manchin whom they understood to be on their team. They screwed up and now they are paying.

McConnell may have felt that he had the vets in his pocket so they would trust him on this. They don’t.

2011. 2019. 2022.

How three presidents announced the deaths of terrorist leaders. pic.twitter.com/jGkOlLH5Gz

— The Recount (@therecount) August 2, 2022

“He died like a dog…”

Fergawdsakes.