Month: January 2023

Brace for new GOP efforts to stop younger Americans from voting

The Financial Times offers data showing how the Great Recession reset how Millennials view the world. Something odd appears to be overturning an old paradigm about political views and aging. Unlike the generational cohorts before them, they are not getting more conservative with age.

“The shift has striking implications for the UK’s Conservatives and US Republicans, who can no longer simply rely on their base being replenished as the years pass,” writes John Burn-Murdoch.

“[C]oncepts from public health analytics” suggest the old predictions do not apply to Millennials:

Let’s start with age effects, and the oldest rule in politics: people become more conservative with age. If millennials’ liberal inclinations are merely a result of this age effect, then at age 35 they too should be around five points less conservative than the national average, and can be relied upon to gradually become more conservative. In fact, they’re more like 15 points less conservative, and in both Britain and the US are by far the least conservative 35-year-olds in recorded history.

Nothing like a global financial meltdown to get one to reevaluate the elusive promise of the American Dream:

Could some force be pushing voters of all ages away from the right? In the UK there has certainly been an event. Support for the Tories plummeted across all ages during Liz Truss’s brief tenure, and has only partially rebounded. But a population-wide effect cannot completely explain millennials’ liberal exceptionalism, nor why we see the same pattern in the US without the same shock.

So the most likely explanation is a cohort effect — that millennials have developed different values to previous generations, shaped by experiences unique to them, and they do not feel conservatives share these.

This is borne out by US survey data showing that, having reached political maturity in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, millennials are tacking much further to the left on economics than previous generations did, favouring greater redistribution from rich to poor.

Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.

The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.

American conservatives are not likely to do anything of the sort for a cohort of voters not firmly in their tribe. If the models are correct, the Republican base will continue to shrink of a few decades, leaving them to do what they’ve done for years as a minority party: shrink the electorate to tilt the playing field to their favor.

Democrats had best not ignore leveraging this generational advantage. It’s a layup.

Something is seriously broken

Two items this morning should be clues to how around the bend and down the rabbit hole this country has traveled in recent years.

Brian Klaas (subscription req’d) posts about the lack of basic standards for elected officials. Looking at you, George Santos:

Much of the modern world has created what I call the broken pyramid of scrutiny. In principle, levels of scrutiny and accountability should increase as the potential to do catastrophic harm increases. The higher up the hierarchy you go, the more that you should be monitored to make sure that you’re not going to destroy the company, or bring down the government, from your perch at the top. The least powerful should face the least scrutiny; the most powerful the most oversight.

Instead, as I wrote in “Corruptible,” we do the opposite.

Santos would have been exposed as a fraud before being offered “any run-of-the-mill government job.” But not in Congress. Klass contrasts the training he had to go to volunteer as a tour guide at an English historical site:

In my spare time, I volunteer as a tour guide at a historic site in England. To be allowed to take tours, I had to spend six months learning about the site, pass two exams, spend hours clicking through a series of online training courses, and complete some checks regarding safeguarding.

And yet, there are literally zero requirements, zero checks, zero bits of required training for the US president, even though they are given control not of a tour group, but of enough nuclear weapons to kill all eight billion of us. (The same lack of requirements is true for members of Congress).

Put bluntly, there are more formal training and oversight requirements to become a volunteer tour guide than to become a member of Congress. Why do we accept that?

Companies monitor rank-and-file employees when they should be monitoring their executives.

One recent estimate by Eugene Soltes of Harvard suggests that white collar crime accounts for roughly $250 billion to $400 billion in losses or damages in the US each year, compared to $17 billion lost due to all property crime combined (burglaries, robberies, thefts, and arson). We’re watching the wrong people.

The system is upside down and inside out.

How about Americans’ fetish for carrying firearms?

New York Times:

Two days after a gunman killed 10 people at a Colorado grocery store, leaving many Americans on high alert, Rico Marley was arrested as he emerged from the bathroom at a Publix supermarket in Atlanta. He was wearing body armor and carrying six loaded weapons — four handguns in his jacket pockets, and in a guitar bag, a semiautomatic rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun.

Moments earlier, an Instacart delivery driver had alerted a store employee after seeing Mr. Marley in the bathroom, along with the AR-15-style rifle, which was propped against a wall. A grand jury indictment later described what had come next: “panic, terror and the evacuation of the Publix.”

Mr. Marley, then 22, was arrested without incident that day in March 2021. His lawyer, Charles Brant, noted that he had not made any threats or fired any shots, and had legally purchased his guns. Mr. Marley did not violate Georgia law, Mr. Brant said; he was “just being a person, doing what he had the right to do.”

Indeed, Mr. Marley’s arrest kicked off a long and as yet unresolved legal odyssey in which the criminal justice system waffled over what it could charge him with and whether to set him free. Clearly, visiting the grocery store with a trove of guns had frightened people. But was it illegal?

Because all but “three states allow for the open carry of handguns, long guns or both, and in many there is little the police can do.” And states legalized this why? Because we aspire to make American cities look more like Mogadishu?

We all know that as soon as black men start strutting around in body armor with semi-auto rifles, states will reconsider how much freedom to carry them everywhere is socially acceptable.

Politico has some highlights of the January 6th transcripts that we didn’t hear about in the hearings. Good lord:

We’ve been combing through the transcripts for new details that weren’t previously aired during the committee’s widely watched public hearings or in its voluminous final report released last week. Here are some of the highlights:

Tarrio’s White House visit

The national chairman of the Proud Boys took a Dec. 12 tour of the White House, and alarm bells went off inside the Secret Service and among other security officials.

Trump deputy chief of staff Tony Ornato told the Jan. 6 committee last month that Robert Engel — the head of Trump’s Secret Service detail — flagged the visit for him as security officials wondered how they let him slip through the cracks.

“Why didn’t we pick up on his role/membership in the Proud Boys?” one official asked Engel, in an email Engel shared with Ornato.

Ornato said he would have shared these concerns with chief of staff Mark Meadows, though he couldn’t recall specifically whether he did.

The thrust of the messages was about potential negative media coverage if Tarrio’s visit had been discovered — which it wasn’t until days or weeks later, thanks to Tarrio’s social media posts.

Cleta Mitchell describes voters as an optional part of the presidential election process

As the select committee peppered her with questions about her relationship to John Eastman, Mitchell expounded at length about her view of voters’ role in the presidential election process.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution about allowing people, citizens to vote on electors,” she notes. “Now that is something that legislatures have over time decided they want to do. But in my view, according to the Constitution, that’s an advisory role that happens because the legislature has created a mechanism to conduct the election.”

Legislatures can “choose to use what the people have decided,” she added. “But that’s not in the Constitution.”

“Now, you may have a different view, but we’re lawyers and we’re both entitled to read the law in the way that we think is appropriate,” Mitchell continued. “And I don’t think people ought to be massacred or put in jail or disbarred because they have a different legal view than you do.”

Planning for violence

The Jan. 6 committee laid out a long string of evidence that agency officials in the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the Secret Service and the Justice Department were all discussing the possibility of large-scale violence on Jan. 6, some of it directed at the Capitol. Ornato also forwarded an article to Engel about the prospect of violence on Jan. 6

But Ornato said he didn’t recall seeing any of this chatter, despite being a point of contact for the security agencies involved, and he said he didn’t recall whether he read the article he sent.

Ornato also said he didn’t recall the content of a 12-minute call he had on Jan. 6 with Engel, who had been receiving updates about the security situation at the Ellipse, where Trump had begun delivering his speech.

It’s just kind of hard to believe that you don’t recall anything about a conversation when that was going on around the Ellipse and the White House that morning,” an unidentified committee investigator said.

“Sir, I don’t recall that conversation taking place,” Ornato replied.

The select committee homed in on what investigators described as discrepancies between Ornato’s memory of events inside the White House and what Engel told them in a mid-November interview.

Ornato said he didn’t remember discussing Trump’s desire to travel to the Capitol after his speech, and he recalled a quick pop-in to his office by Engel after Trump had returned to the White House.

“Mr. Engel, to share with you, testified that he was in your office in the West Wing when he was discussing expectation — setting expectations and discussing options about a subsequent move to the Capitol,” a committee interviewer told Ornato.

“Sir, I don’t recall that conversation happening in my office,” Ornato replied.

Ornato indicated he had been interviewed once by the Justice Department on Jan. 6 matters but hadn’t appeared before the grand jury. He also said that he spoke to Engel in real time during the live testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson, and he said the two of them immediately said, “What is she talking about?”

Lawmakers on Signal

Hutchinson told the select committee that she was in touch with “dozens” of members of Congress via Signal, including GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy.

The hidden hand of Dick Morris

Mitchell — a veteran of GOP campaigns — told the select committee she has represented the campaigns of Mark Meadows, Mike Lee and numerous other lawmakers before she became Trump’s lawyer in the aftermath of the 2020 election.

She is also the person who put Eastman on the radar of the Trump campaign and, ultimately, the president himself, proposing in early November 2020 that Eastman draft a paper articulating his belief that state legislatures — not voters — have unilateral authority to decide who should get their states’ presidential electors. That paper would later reach the Oval Office.

But in her own interview with the select committee, Mitchell revealed more details about why she turned to Eastman after a conversation with longtime political operative Dick Morris.

“I reached out to him because Dick Morris had called me. Dick Morris has been a client of mine, a friend of mine, and he called to ask me what I thought about the legislative prerogatives,” Mitchell said. “So I reached out to John about talking to Dick and also I thought he should write a memo, which he did. I don’t remember if he gave it to me or somebody else, but I think I ultimately received it.”

The meaning of “Ali Akbar’

Kimberly Guilfoyle, Donald Trump Jr.’s fiancee, professed ignorance of many of the events around Jan. 6. She told investigators she “didn’t know all of the ramifications or what the significance was” around the Jan. 6 electoral vote counting, and said she still “couldn’t explain [the certification challenges] to this day.”

Asked whether she knew Ali Akbar, another name for Ali Alexander, the far-right organizer of the ”Stop the Steal” movement, she first asked investigators: “Isn’t that what terrorists yell” before later adding: “I do not know anyone named Allah Akbar.”

Lindsey Graham makes an appearance

Trump-aligned attorney Christina Bobb recounted a conversation between attorney Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in which Graham sought out evidence of election fraud. Bobb recalled Graham saying in a Jan. 2, 2021 meeting to “just give me five dead voters; give me, you know, an example of illegals voting. Just give me a very small snapshot that I can take and champion.”

Vice President Mike Pence’s former aide Chris Hodgson also discussed Graham in his interview, noting that the senator was listed on a call log for Pence the day before Jan. 6, next to the words “express support.” Hodgson said he viewed the notation as an indication that Graham had expressed support for Pence’s plan to count the electoral votes certified by the states, declaring President Joe Biden the winner.

Trump Jr. and the Jan. 6 Meadows texts

The select committee has long highlighted the urgent texts Trump Jr. sent to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows amid the violence on Jan. 6, worrying that the attack would define his father’s legacy and urging a more forceful public response. But the panel never explained why Trump Jr. went through Meadows, rather than directly to his father, with those concerns. In his interview with the committee, Trump Jr. said the reason was logistical: He was traveling at the time, either en route to an airport or in one, and didn’t want to call his father directly.

“If I was in those areas, I wouldn’t want to have a conversation that way,” Trump Jr. said. His father, he added, doesn’t text or send emails, so reaching him that way wouldn’t have been an option.

Putting the Ray Epps conspiracies to bed

The select committee released a 97-page interview with Ray Epps — the subject of far-right conspiracy theories that said he was working with the FBI to get Trump supporters thrown in jail on Jan. 6 — that makes clear he’s not a government agent who played a role in igniting the attack on the Capitol. Epps, an Oath Keeper from Arizona, drew attention from Donald Trump himself after his far-right allies began circulating video of Epps on Jan. 5, telling people to go into the Capitol the next day.

Epps testified that he had no relationship with any law enforcement agency and no contacts with anyone at any of those agencies in the weeks leading up to and on Jan. 6.

New details on Meadows’ handling of documents

POLITICO first broke the news that Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to Meadows, told the select committee her then-boss sometimes burned documents in his office fireplace during the weeks leading up to Jan. 6 — including at times after meeting with Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.). Hutchinson’s transcripts offer new details about what she says she witnessed.

It wasn’t just once, Hutchinson recalled. She saw Meadows burn papers after Perry’s visits “between two and four times.” Those meetings, she said, were about “election issues.”

Hutchinson also provided a lengthy description of a bizarre episode in which House Intelligence Committee Republican staffers trucked cartloads of documents to the White House and reviewed them in Meadows’ office for potential release. The timing and description of the episode tracks closely with Trump’s effort to declassify and expose records related to the FBI’s investigation of his campaign’s contacts with Russia, which Trump has long derided as a “witch hunt.”

The former Meadows aide described the unusual way the document review proceeded, noting that the files were brought to the White House from the Capitol and that Meadows kept the original documents in an office safe, closely guarding them and keeping their origins secret. Eventually, he would produce at least eight copies of the documents, with varying degrees of redaction, intending to supply at least two of them to conservative media allies.

Hutchinson noted that one set of documents was meant for House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy — but that the California Republican told her he wanted nothing to do with them. She said based on that conversation, she opted not to offer a set to Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell.

Transcripts also revealed Meadows’ Secret Service code name: “Leverage.”

25th Amendment talk

The select committee has released transcripts from several members of Trump’s Cabinet, mostly detailing the days immediately following the attack on Jan. 6, 2021. Most notable was the interview with former Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia, who discussed efforts to persuade Trump or his allies to convene a Cabinet meeting in order to take potential steps to limit Trump’s actions in the final days of his administration. Scalia said he had spoken to other Cabinet members about what to do in the aftermath of the attack.

The panel spoke with Elaine Chao, Trump’s Transportation secretary and wife to McConnell, who resigned immediately after Jan. 6 and took a more muted view of the post-attack discussions. She said she didn’t recall her conversation with Scalia, but she agreed that Trump’s actions on Jan. 6 contributed to her decision to resign.

“I wish that he had acted differently,” Chao said of Trump.

There was little serious consideration of the 25th Amendment, according to the transcripts. Marc Short, Pence’s chief of staff, told the panel why: Any genuine effort would take weeks, well beyond the end of Trump’s term, given that the procedure gives the president a chance to appeal.

Short said he received a call from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to discuss the potential invocation of the 25th Amendment, but he said he refused to connect the call to Pence because Short viewed it as a purely political move.

Hutchinson also said she received calls from members of Congress for status updates on discussions on invoking the 25th Amendment. Among those who reached out, she said, were Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), McCarthy and Reps. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) and Mike Johnson (R-La.). Johnson’s office denied that he brought up the 25th Amendment or talked to Hutchinson during that time period.

Attorney-client relationships

Trump attorney Sidney Powell, who was a link between the president and some of his fringiest outside advisers, told the select committee that she had attorney-client relationships with four members of Congress over election-related matters. The four: Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

Trump allies feared legal repercussions for declaring themselves true electors

Federal prosecutors are eyeing the decisions of pro-Trump Republican activists in seven Biden-won states to design certificates that claimed they were the state’s duly qualified presidential electors. That false electors scheme was a central element of Trump’s bid to remain in power. But in two states — Pennsylvania and New Mexico — the electors insisted that the documents they signed included a caveat: Their status as true electors hinged on whether court rulings affected the outcome of the election.

That caveat may have saved them the legal scrutiny that’s been applied in other states. And now, thanks to the interview of former Trump campaign official Mike Roman, it’s clear why it happened.

Committee staffers read an email from Trump campaign attorney Kenneth Chesebro noting that in a conference call with Pennsylvania’s pro-Trump elector nominees, a concern was raised about the potential for legal exposure if they signed documents without any qualifiers. Chesebro apparently suggested using the caveat in other states as well, but only New Mexico followed suit.

Mundane moments as the Capitol assault began

The select committee transcripts are littered with personal stories about where witnesses were the moment rioters bashed their way into the Capitol. Two from Pence’s top aides stand out. His chief counsel, Greg Jacob, described being at the Capitol refectory on the first floor of the Senate, grabbing a coffee, when a nearby window was smashed in by a rioter with a police shield. That turned out to be Dominic Pezzola, a Proud Boy and the very first rioter to breach the building.

“There was no security that I could see down there, and the glass had shattered just down the hall from where we are, probably 60 feet away,” Jacob recalled.

Jacob said he quickly tapped out an email to attorney John Eastman — an architect of Trump’s last-ditch bid to stay in power — with whom he’d been feuding throughout the day. Jacob told the committee that to get back to Pence, who by then had left the Senate floor, he followed the military aide with the so-called nuclear football, a briefcase with the nuclear codes, convinced that she would be permitted to get close to the vice president.

Short recalled a similar experience, except he was one floor lower than Jacob, getting lunch from the Senate carryout.

“You’re in line waiting for a cheeseburger when all hell breaks loose,” a committee staffer noted during Short’s interview.

Short said he sprinted back to Pence’s location as rioters began to enter the building. “I never got my cheeseburger,” he noted.

The most hostile Jan. 6 interview

Rep.-elect Max Miller’s (R-Ohio) interview with the Jan. 6 select committee was notable if only for the outright hostility he and his lawyer displayed for the panel.

Even other witnesses who had little regard for the committee largely played nice in their interviews. But Miller and his attorney repeatedly derided the panel’s investigators, objected to even basic, foundational questions and openly attacked the committee as an illegitimate “show” rather than a serious probe.

“It’s a simple question,” an unidentified committee interviewer said, at one point, after Miller’s attorney objected to a question about how often Miller interacted with Trump during the months before Jan. 6. “No one is trying to do a perjury trap.”

Later, Miller’s attorney Larry Zukerman attacked the committee investigator for “putting on a show for the congresswoman and the congressman” — a reference to Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), who had dialed into the call.

“You know, this is all pomp and circumstance here that will eventually lead to nothing,” Zukerman said.

Eventually, the repeated insults provoke Kinzinger to chime in, accusing Miller’s attorney of being the one trying to “put on a show.” He then inadvertently referred to the committee as “the prosecution,” prompting a sharp response from Miller, who said he viewed Cheney’s presence in the interview as “trying to intimidate me because I knocked your buddy off the block” — a reference to his primary victory over Cheney ally Anthony Gonzalez earlier this year.

Fuentes was eyed by criminal investigators

Nick Fuentes made headlines when Trump hosted him as a dinner guest in November, but the select committee had long eyed him as figure of interest for the role his “Groyper” movement played in the attack on the Capitol. Groypers are the followers of the white nationalist Fuentes, and several of them have been charged for playing leading roles on Jan. 6. Fuentes didn’t go into the Capitol but was outside as rioters clashed with police, and he later described the scene as “awesome.”

In his February deposition, Fuentes pleaded the Fifth, and his attorney informed the select committee that the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. had labeled him a “subject and possibly a target” of an ongoing criminal probe.

Dan Quayle, the conscience

The former vice president was more ubiquitous than previously known in his effort to advise figures around Trump about how to handle his efforts to subvert the election.

Quayle, notably, advised Pence not to attempt to overturn the election results on Jan. 6 and rather to perform the traditional, constitutionally required task of counting electoral votes certified by the states. But in a transcript of Trump national security adviser Robert O’Brien’s interview, Quayle emerged yet again. He was among the voices, O’Brien noted, telling him not to resign, as Republican mainstays fretted about potential chaos in the closing days of Trump’s administration.

Drama among the organizers of the Jan. 6 rally

The select committee transcripts lay bare the open hostility between different factions of Trump’s “Stop the Steal” allies.

Guilfoyle was feuding with GOP fundraiser Caroline Wren. White House adviser Max Miller said Katrina Pierson exaggerated her influence. Pierson advised Trump to keep “psychos” off the rally stage, saying he shouldn’t give speaking slots to Roger Stone, Alex Jones and Michael Flynn.

“You’re done for life with me because I won’t pay you a $60,000 speaking fee for an event you aren’t speaking at?” Wren said to Guilfoyle, per select committee records. “That’s fucking insane.”

Deals to shield evidence from DOJ

The Jan. 6 select committee indicated in numerous interviews with defendants — some awaiting sentencing for storming the Capitol — that it had agreed not to share any evidence it obtained during its interview with the Justice Department, unless that evidence described additional crimes or the committee suspected perjury.

Those promises at least partially explain the panel’s fraught relationship with the Justice Department that became a theme throughout the latter half of its investigation, with the department repeatedly trying to obtain witness transcripts, only to be rebuffed by the panel until mid-December.

Lofgren beefs with Tarrio

When Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio submitted to a deposition — just weeks before he was charged for his role in the events of Jan. 6 — Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) used the moment to pop in for a quick confrontation.

She pointed to something called “Tarrio’s Telegram,” in which Tarrio printed a picture of Lofgren with a caption that apparently called her the c-word, saying she was “blind in one eye.”

“I’m wondering what you meant by that,” she asked Tarrio.

Tarrio said he didn’t recall posting the item. Lofgren then left the deposition as quickly as she arrived.

The issue popped up again, when a committee staffer squarely asked Tarrio whether he called Lofgren the c-word, prompting his lawyer, Dan Hull, to pop in and question the relevance of the questioning.

“That’s a word that’s been around since the 1300s in London. It’s not a particularly nice word for a lot of people, but —”

“You know the history of that word?” a committee staffer replied.

“Unfortunately, I do,” Hull said.

Yeah …

It’s almost too much disgusting, immoral, illegal behavior in one place. What are they going to do with all this stuff?

There was good reason to think the Republicans would do well in the 2022 midterms based on the historical precedents. The out party gains, the economy was shit, the president was unpopular yadd, yadda, yadda. But something else went on in 2022 that should make the media take a long hard look at how they cover campaigns and polling.

The NY Times did a deep dive into what happened and it is clear that the Republican polling outfits played a media that was far to eager to buy what they were selling. They love to see the Democrats give a good spanking by Republicans. In fact, it’s their favorite thing, even if some of them are Democrats themselves.

An excerpt:

In the election’s immediate aftermath, the polling failures appeared to be in keeping with misfires in 2016 and 2020, when the strength of Donald J. Trump’s support was widely underestimated, and with the continuing struggles of an industry that arose with the corded home telephone to adapt to the mass migration to cellphones and text messaging. Indeed, some of the same Republican-leaning pollsters who erred in 2022 had built credibility with their contrarian, but accurate, polling triumphs in recent elections.

But a New York Times review of the forces driving the narrative of a coming red wave, and of that narrative’s impact, found new factors at play.

Traditional nonpartisan pollsters, after years of trial and error and tweaking of their methodologies, produced polls that largely reflected reality. But they also conducted fewer polls than in the past.

That paucity allowed their accurate findings to be overwhelmed by an onrush of partisan polls in key states that more readily suited the needs of the sprawling and voracious political content machine — one sustained by ratings and clicks, and famished for fresh data and compelling narratives.

The skewed red-wave surveys polluted polling averages, which are relied upon by campaigns, donors, voters and the news media. It fed the home-team boosterism of an expanding array of right-wing media outlets — from Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast and “The Charlie Kirk Show” to Fox News and its top-rated prime-time lineup. And it spilled over into coverage by mainstream news organizations, including The Times, that amplified the alarms being sounded about potential Democratic doom.

The virtual “bazaar of polls,” as a top Republican strategist called it, was largely kept humming by right-leaning pollsters using opaque methodology, in some cases relying on financial support from hyperpartisan groups and benefiting from vociferous cheerleading by Mr. Trump.

Yet questionable polls were not only put out by Republicans. The executive director of one of the more prominent Democratic-leaning firms that promoted polls this cycle, Data for Progress, was boasting about placing bets on election outcomes, raising at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Other pollsters lacked experience, like two high-school juniors in Pennsylvania who started Patriot Polling and quickly found their surveys included on the statistical analysis website FiveThirtyEight — as did another high school concern based at Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass.

Shaping perceptions across the ideological spectrum, the steady flow of data predicting a red wave prompted real-world decision-making that members of both parties now say could have tilted the balance of power in Congress.

“These frothy polls had a substantial, distorting impact on how people spent money — on campaign strategy, and on people’s expectations going into the election,” said Steven J. Law, the chief executive of the Republicans’ Senate Leadership Fund, which poured $280 million into the midterms. Its own private polling showed no red wave at all.

The aggregate polls did show that the race was within the margin of error and it turned out that prediction was correct. It was a very close race. But all that “red tsunami” bs, especially toward the end when everyone was screeching that the GOP was making a huge comeback was largely based on those right wing polls. And that led to strategists pouring money into races that didn’t need it and denying money to races that might have pulled it out with a little bit more cash. And that, of course, was the plan.

The right is a bad faith actor up and down the political system at every level. Disinformation, dirty tricks, lying, outright cheating are all on the menu and why not? They are rewarded by their voters and with tight results like this it’s almost certain they’ll be able to win some of these campaigns by keeping it close enough to steal. That’s the reality we are dealing with and the media continues to enable it.

Good for the NY Times for doing this story. They let themselves off pretty easy throughout but at least they published this which means they have no excuse for not changing their methods in the future.

He seems preoccupied with Ukraine and Russia

Trump takes a few questions tonight heading into his New Year’s Eve party. First question is about Desantis, which he seems to duck. At the end he says something about the border of Russia and Ukraine which makes no sense. pic.twitter.com/SE4er36PhV

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) January 1, 2023

What are your hopes for the American people in 2023, Mr President?

“Peace. We never should have been involved with a certain war that’s taking place that’s hurting a lot of people, killing a lot of people, hurting a lot of countries and hopefully that will be straightened out very quickly with Ukraine and Russia …”

Interesting that he leads with that. And after dodging questions about DeSantis and abortion he blathers about the border and inflation and then makes this very adamant statement at the end

“We have to stop the war between Russia and Ukraine…”

I think we can see the outlines of his campaign coming into focus. It shouldn’t be a surprise considering his base’s views on these issues. Of course he’s going to rant and rave about the border and demagogue inflation to death, But it’s clear that he’s going to come out solidly against NATO and demand withdrawal of support for Ukraine in support of Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression.

He could use his campaign to completely reset his relationship with Russia and sweep away the image that he is Putin’s lapdog. But he’s doubling down. Of course he is. Why would we expect anything else?

I will be very interested to see how his rivals deal with this. They have to appease the Putin loving base too but anyone with sense knows that there are many GOP voters who are not onboard with this. There might even be a few who think that it’s not a good idea on the merits. (Not that that is of any concern with Republicans these days.)

Keep your eye on this. it’s going to get interesting.

Bolsonaro has been reduced to aimlessly walking around a gated community in Orlando after fleeing Brasil due to fears of several criminal investigations now that he no longer has presidential immunity. Pathetic end to a failed and corrupt fascist. https://t.co/9Zj5YNem7I

— Thomas Kennedy (@tomaskenn) January 1, 2023

Apparently, he’s staying at Mar-a-Lago. How perfect.

What’s a MAGA man to do after losing an election? Emulating President Trump, Brazil’s outgoing president, Jair Bolsonaro, plans to skip his successor’s inauguration ceremony and travel instead to — where else — Mar-a-Lago.

Mr. Bolsonaro will avoid handing over the official presidential sash to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva at an inauguration ceremony at Brasilia on Sunday. Instead, the October election loser will fly this weekend to Florida for a visit with Mr. Trump at the famed Palm Beach resort, several Brazilian press outlets report. 

On Tuesday, the official Brazilian government website published a statement saying that the Office of Institutional Security has confirmed that the security team for Mr. Bolsonaro’s family will be “on a trip to Miami, Florida,” next week.

“Bolsonaro will not be in Brazil for the inauguration ceremony,” a professor of international relations at the Federal University of Sao Paulo, Regiane Nitsch Bressan, told the Sun. “His security agents have already traveled to Florida.”

After defeating the right-wing candidate in the most polarizing election in recent history, the leftist Mr. da Silva will return to the Alvorada Palace, Brazil’s equivalent of the White House, for the third time. Since his defeat on October 30, Mr. Bolsonaro has cleared most of his presidential agenda and has avoided public appearances.

Mr. Bolsonaro’s team has advised him to publicly address his supporters and to have a final meeting with his ministers before traveling. Three weeks ago, Vice President Hamilton Mourao told CNN Brazil that he advised Mr. Bolsonaro to take part in the inauguration ceremony as an act of respect. The outgoing president apparently rejected that advice. 

“It will be the first time in Brazilian history that a president will not be present at the inauguration ceremony of his successor,” Ms. Nitsch Bressan said. 

Several Brazilian press outlets reported early last week that Mr. Bolsonaro was going to spend New Year’s Eve at a resort in Mar-a-Lago, Florida. No official confirmation from the Brazilian government regarding Mr. Bolsonaro’s final destination was issued.

A presidential plane departed Wednesday morning to Florida. It usually departs days before the official does, according to press reports. Unnamed sources close to Mr. Bolsonaro told the Brazilian newspaper UOL that the outgoing president would spend “a month or two” resting in a house at Mr. Trump’s sprawling Mar-a-Lago resort. 

Meanwhile:

 Donald Trump began 2022 on a high. Primary candidates were flocking to Florida to court the former president for a coveted endorsement. His rallies were drawing thousands. A bevy of investigations remained largely under the radar.

One year later, Trump is facing a very different reality.

He is mired in criminal investigations that could end with indictments. He has been blamed for Republicans’ disappointing performance in the November elections. And while he is now a declared presidential candidate, the six weeks since he announced have been marked by self-inflicted crises. Trump has not held a single campaign event and he barely leaves the confines of his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida.

Happy New Year folks. It may not last. But at least, for now, these two losers are in exile at Trump’s gaudy beach club in Florida. It’s a good day.

Once again, thank you so, so much for your support this year. I am genuinely overwhelmed. The readers of this blog are the nicest people in the world and I could not be more grateful.

Here’s hoping that this next year brings us some peace and stability. I always wish that every year. But even if it doesn’t, we’ll be here documenting, analyzing and synthesizing the news as we see it. Tom, Dennis, tristero, spocko, Batocchio and I look forward to delivering it to you every day of the week as we’ve been doing for the past 20 years.

To all that we lost and all that we gained in the past year, and to all that’s to come in the days ahead…cheers!

— digby

A brief recap before the storm

The White House wants to remind you what Democrats got done last year. Maybe because unless the GOP self-destructs the Biden administration’s ability to be loud and proud has a short half-life.

As of this moment, a month's supply of insulin will be capped at $35 for anyone on Medicare. $35.

That’s it.

— President Biden (@POTUS) January 1, 2023

I know someone needing the shingles vaccine. As of today there is no cost for those covered under Medicare Part D. If eligible, get vaccinated.

Starting right now, you can get tax credits to install more energy efficient appliances for your house. Electric ovens, solar panels, heat pumps: you name it.

Save money while fighting climate change.

Want to learn more? Head over to https://t.co/uUmMVlZcbs.

— President Biden (@POTUS) January 1, 2023

Here is one benefit that slipped by me.

There’s more — across the country you'll see us building new bridges, cleaning lead pipes, and getting folks online. You'll see tons of good-paying manufacturing and construction jobs open up. We’re just getting started.

Here’s to 2023, and the work we’re going to do together.

— President Biden (@POTUS) January 1, 2023

We’ll see how much more Biden can get done in 2023 with a hostile, Republican-controlled House obsessed with investigating Anthony Fauci and Hunter Biden’s alleged laptop. Jeffrey Billman of Informed Dissent cautioned that we’re looking at two years of Benghazis because “when you elect clowns, you get a circus.”

It will be a clown show or a horror show, one way or another.

Update: Forgot to link to this Guardian longer review of more good news from 2022.

Machete attack in NYC

Confetti rained at midnight in Times Square as revelers greeeted the new year. The crowd was a sign of a return to normal, perhaps, depending on what happens with the latest Covid variant. Earlier in the evening, however, something darker occurred nearby.

Commissioner Keechant Sewell said in an early morning press conference that a man wielding a machete attacked a group of city police officers just after 10 p.m. near a security checkpoint for the New Year’s Eve event. The 19-year-old struck several officers in the head before he was shot in the shoulder, wounded, and apprehended by officers. Three officers were hospitalized and in stable condition, one with a head fracture, another with a severe laceration.

Reporting is preliminary, but the attack is under investigation to determine whether it fits a terrorism profile (CNN):

The FBI, NYPD and Joint Terrorism Task Force are investigating, officials said in an early New Year’s Day joint news conference.

“I want to be very clear … there is no ongoing threat,” said Mike Driscoll, the FBI assistant director in charge of the New York field office.

“We believe this was a sole individual at this time,” he said, adding, “There is nothing to indicate otherwise.”

But authorities will “will run every lead to the ground,” Driscoll said.

New York Times:

The attack and subsequent gunfire rattled the crowds nearby. Video from the scene showed people running up Eighth Avenue and across 52nd Street in the rain, trying to hurriedly navigate the slick sidewalks and streets filled with metal barricades. Officers screamed over blaring sirens, ordering people to move in various directions — and out of the way.

Within roughly 30 minutes of the attack, the New York Police Department warned of a heavy police presence and a continuing investigation in the area.

The New Year’s Eve party in Times Square went on as planned.

NBC New York offers this on the suspect, Trevor Bickford of Wells, Maine:

A preliminary review shows the man has no previous arrests but he was known to federal and local law enforcement because of previous online postings, the sources added.

This is the weapon that was recovered at the scene. https://t.co/Waaux2hUTt pic.twitter.com/EijU7QUgkQ

— NYPD NEWS (@NYPDnews) January 1, 2023

Maybe I should not have watched Hotel Rwanda over the holidays.

Happy New Year.