Skip to content

Month: May 2023

Is Ron DeSantis really better than Trump?

He’s just a more boring version of exactly the same thing

Everyone says, “oh, at least he won’t try to overthrow the government.” Do we know that? Take a look at this:

During an interview on The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show, DeSantis was asked if he would consider pardons for Trump and other Jan. 6 defendants

“What I’m going to do is I’m going to do on day one, I will have folks that will get together and look at all these cases who people are victims of weaponization or political targeting, and we will be aggressive at issuing pardons,” DeSantis promised.

“Now some of these cases, some people may have a technical violation of the law, but if there are three other people who did the same thing, but just in a context like BLM and they don’t get prosecuted at all, that is uneven application of justice.”

“We’re going to find examples where we have governments [have] been weaponized against disfavored groups, and we will apply relief as appropriate,” he added.

Sexton pressed the candidate about a pardon for Trump.

“And that could be from a grandma who got arrested and prosecuted too much all the way up to potentially Trump himself?” he wondered.

“I would say any example of disfavored treatment based on politics or weaponization would be included in that review, no matter how small or how big,” DeSantis confirmed.

That’s just a fancy way of saying yes, he will pardon Republicans and instruct his DOJ to go after Democrats. His plan is to search for examples of a rioter somewhere who broke into a grocery store or set something on fire and if they got a lower sentence than a January 6th insurrectionist, he will pardon the insurrectionist. And once he purges the DOJ of anyone, including career employees who don’t sign on to his agenda, as he has promised, it won’t be hard to do.

This is DeSantis setting forth an agenda that appears to be just as draconian as Trump’s. And considering what he’s done in Florida I would believe that he will do it. Say what you will about DeSantis, he tends to fulfill his agenda one way or another.

How about this?

“Would you build the wall and would you use the military to go after Mexican drug cartels?” Florida’s governor was asked at a press conference this month, replying, “Yes, and yes.” He elaborated:

The border should be shut down. I mean, this is ridiculous what’s going on. You shut it down. You do need to construct a wall. …

We also have to come to terms with all the amount of fentanyl that’s coming into our country because of this border. And who’s doing it, it’s these Mexican drug cartels. They need to be held accountable. We can’t just let our people die. …

That’s a Day One issue. I mean, you’ve got to be really, really determined. You can’t let it slide, you can’t make excuses, you gotta go in and you gotta really go in with all guns blazing and using all the leverage that you have to be able to do it.

All the Republicans are saying they will send the US Military into Mexico if they are elected. Supposedly, they will only be “going after the cartels” but you can imagine that Mexico (and the rest of the world) will see this for what it would be: an invasion of a sovereign country. I mean, “you’ve gotta really go in with all guns blazing” may be a figure of speech but in this context it is really chilling.

We must seal the border!

All those people coming into our country to work are destroying the nation

Meanwhile:

Lawmakers in several states are embracing legislation to let children work in more hazardous occupations, longer hours on school nights and in expanded roles including serving alcohol in bars and restaurants as young as 14.

The efforts to significantly roll back labor rules are largely led by Republican lawmakers to address worker shortages and in some cases run afoul of federal regulations.

I’ve always wondered what the Republicans would come up with to fill a labor shortage since they hate foreigners. I assumed they would go to prisoner slave labor. We have millions behind bars, after all. I have to say that I didn’t think rolling back child labor laws was on the menu.

Maybe this is why they are so bent on destroying the education system. This way the children will have more time to work their low paying jobs.

Moral panic as MAGA lifestyle

No. Just no.

You’ve likely seen the videos I will not link to here. Jerks throwing “manly” public tantrums is the latest in ice-bucket challenges for right-wing assholes. They’ve succeeded in intimidating capitulation from retailers rather than the summary execution now endorsed by MAGAs experiencing social discomfort.

Greg Sargent writes:

It is sometimes said that corporate America is a battleground in the culture wars. This has taken on ugly new meaning in the case of Target, which just announced that it will pull some LBGTQ-friendly merchandise from shelves after experiencing threats that affected its employees’ “sense of safety.”

Target’s surrender — which came after concerted attacks from MAGA media personalities — points to a bigger story: The anti-woke right is increasingly wielding heavy-handed tactics — including state power and violent threats — to block corporations from making their own decisions about how to adapt to social change. Though the right is losing this battle at large, it is innovating and having some success.

It’s unclear which items Target will pull. But right-wing figures had claimed Target was selling “tuck-friendly” swimwear — as part of its pride month collection — to kids. As the Daily Beast reports, those figures labeled Target CEO Brian Cornell a “pervert groomer” and even called for Republican attorneys general to investigate him. One Arizona man threatened disruptions at Target stores, warning that LGBTQ people are “not safe.”

AP fact-checks that bullshit allegation here.

Perhaps if Target’s kids’ clothes bore yellow-shades-only rainbow patches?

Worshippers of The Free Market and American symbology are a fickle lot. They stand foursquare behind their “values” only so long as theirs go culturally unchallenged. Lessers (even corporations now) who don’t know their places and who step onto what the right considers its cultural turf now face threats and intimidation from insecure reactionaries. Free Markets be damned. Real Americans™ have chosen moral panic as a lifestyle.

Discomfort subway passengers and right-wing extremists feel entitled to execute you. Discomfort customers and Target associates will politely ask you to leave and remove rainbow displays straight, white men find so threatening.

This is part of a trend. Right-wing activists and Republican politicians have repeatedly sought to make it harder for corporations to embrace liberal social change. Recently, for instance, the right opened fire on Bud Light for prominently sending a personalized beer can to a transgender influencer. The company put the executives behind the move on leave.

On another front, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis openly used government power to retaliate against Disney’s opposition to DeSantis’s “don’t say gay” law restricting classroom discussion of sex and gender. Other Republicans across the country are trying to use government power to limit investors from adopting social considerations in their investment decisions.

As in law, now in business it’s freedom for me but not for thee.

Violence as brand

And as political strategy

Photo by TapTheForwardAssist (CC BY-SA 4.0).

“[T]he American right wing is trying to create a Hobbesian state of nature where violence and fear of death is everywhere and the rule of law is increasingly meaningless,” writes Chauncey DeVega, Salon’s senior politics writer. Who needs random squads of brownshirts when everyone, everywhere is armed, anxious, and primed to go to guns at the slightest provocation? That’s “primed” in the psychological sense. As a political tactic.

DeVega walks readers through how German legal philosopher and political theorist Carl Schmidt’s views of “sovereign authority.” Per the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Legal norms, Schmitt argues, cannot be applied to a chaos.” Thus the need for a sovereign. In post-Weimar Germany, read “dictator,” who might rule this “state of exception.”

That’s not unlike the book of Revelation’s return of Jesus at Armageddon. It’s something that makes Christian nationalists and a self-described “Leninist” like Steve Bannon shiver with antici … pation. Exception justifies all those guns stockpiled by coup plotters in preparation for the reign of Donald Trump. As I’ve written time and again, they are at heart royalists not small-d democrats. They hunger for a strongman to guarantee their dominion over perceived enemies. Chaos paves his way:

Social psychologists have repeatedly shown that the political decision-making of conservative-authoritarians is largely motivated by fear and death anxieties. The Republican Party’s opposition to effective gun control is a strategic decision because they know that more death and more killing from guns and other causes (such as COVID) enhances their power and control over their public – including support for a fascist leader or other demagogue such as Donald Trump.

The Republican Party’s and “conservative” movement’s policies are deeply unpopular with the American people. Thus, the Republican fascists and larger white right and “conservative” movement have increasingly concluded that violence is a necessary and required (and legitimate) way for them to impose their will on the American people in the name of “defending traditional values” and “real America” (which is not subtle code for “White America” and “White Christianity”).

To that end, the Republican fascists and “conservatives” and the larger white right possess a deep attraction to and affinity for vigilante and other extra-legal and illegal violence as committed most recently by the likes of Daniel Penny (who choked a mentally ill homeless black man to death on a New York subway), Kyle Rittenhouse aka “the Kenosha Kid”, George Zimmerman (who killed a black teenager Trayvon Martin for the “crime” of walking home and refusing to comply with a wannabe cop’s orders) and too many others. Police officers who kill unarmed and otherwise vulnerable Black and brown people are also valorized by the American right wing.

Conservative stands in quotes because there is nothing traditionally conservative about a reactionary right movement that, DeVega argues, wants Americans “sick and terminally ill with such violence and all the misery and death it causes.” That chaos is the “pathway to unlimited power for all time and their dream-nightmare of a new American plutocracy.”

Or white-Christian-nationalist “dominion.” Same thing.

Bill Lueders, editor-at-large of The Progressive, writes at The Bulwark that bloodlust is an animating feature of the extremist right. Men like who kill the “Other,” like Kyle Rittenhouse or Daniel Perry (convicted for the shooting death of a 28-year-old Black Lives Matter protester in Austin, Texas shooter), are treated as heroes. Reactionary figures such as Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have lavished praise on Penny. He was a Good Samaritan, says DeSantis. “This is what a hero looks like. The world needs more men like Daniel Penny,” said Greene.

Lueders offers a sampling of comments from just one hour of the GiveSendGo fundraiser for Penny (The Bulwark):

Thank you for doing what is right, protecting victims.

Thank you for you’re selfless act!

Doing the right thing is not a crime.

God Bless U S A and God Bless Daniel Penny

Daniel Penny you did the right thing. The city on NYC should be sued.

A hero who wanted to help protect lives on the train when the city of NY does nothing to keep criminals off trains and tranist riders safe.

I hope you turn around and sue the city and DA for what they’ve done. The are culpable and to blame for making citizens the ones that have to protect the people.

AFTER THIS IS OVER YOU SHOULD LEAVE NEW YORK CITY, The city doesnt deserve to have citizens like you: its a sewer.

The Left is destroying this country; your inditement is just another example.

One of the commenters at the Sgt. Daniel Perry Legal Defense Fund writes:

Looks like there is no justice system anymore. Thanks for teaching me to NEVER GET CAPTURED, NO MERCY ON ENEMY COMBATANTS (every single person blocking your car) in the future. God bless!

That is: chaos, exception. Bring on the sovereign!

“Leading hopefuls in the Republican presidential primary,” Lueders notes, endorse extrajudicial killings by vigilantes.

I mentioned this trend last week:

Stephen Crowder of “Louder with Crowder” weighed in on the killing of homeless Jordan Neely on a New York Subway, declaring, “The second that you are engaging in an activity where someone else is forced to make a decision to save their life or a life of their loved one, completely, by the way, not of their own volition, you’ve put them in that scenario, you forfeit your right to live.”

In essence: When in doubt, take them out.

Lueders concludes:

This is pure rot. Neely did not attack anyone. No one was forced to choose between killing and being killed. That Penny’s decision to put Neely in a chokehold for so long that it killed him is being cheered on by people who long for opportunities to administer lethal retribution—and who believe that the election of Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis may bring the glory days where this can be exacted on the notice of a “second”—should frighten us all.

Perhaps it is time to view the spread of “stand your ground” laws and open carry in state after state as more than a result of heavy lobbying by the gun industry. The Republican Party’s policies are, as DeVega notes, “deeply unpopular with the American people” and unlikely to prevail in a pluralistic democracy. Democracies fail. Sometimes all it requires is a little push. Reactionaries convinced democracy has failed them are open to much darker alternatives.

The Big Announcement was lit!

Actually it was a joke…

That’s what happened. It glitched and went silent and people lost connections and they left and then they started a new “space” and only a few people stuck around so hardly anyone heard this catastrophe of an announcement speech.

You couldn’t make up a better metaphor.

Oh, and a wiseacre took a shot too:

When they got it back up, this was an example of the discussion:

The cover of The Daily Mail:

Meanwhile, the front runner had this to say:

Hookay… It must be prescription drugs.

Josh Marshall has the full take:

Okay, here’s my take. Obviously the tech snafu at the beginning is going to be the irresistible headline. A major fail. The announcement he read was a mess. Once they actually got down to talking, DeSantis is fairly good at talking about the issues that matter to him. But the issue is what matters to him. This is a way way WAY online minded campaign. And really lives within the keyboard warrior world of the right. What are the issues a winning GOP presidential campaign is going to run on? Border, Inflation, weakness abroad, etc. 

They hit on the border a bit at the end, sort of realizing they’d all but ignored it. But almost the whole thing was fluffing Musk for buying Twitter, the freedom fighters who were left back on Twitter, the mainstream media, and then at the end DEI and “gender ideology.” 

This is super niche stuff that most of the country doesn’t even know what he’s talking about. I noted that just a short time ago Sacks said DeSantis would be like a “cool headed ruthless assassin” turning back to the woke mob. To most people that sounds kinda nuts. 

Something that comes off 4Chan and weird mass slaughter chic. Anyway, DeSantis did get his stride. But again, this is almost all within the conversation of the Twitter far right. That’s not where the country is. 

“A cool-headed ruthless assassin” for president. Booyah.

Where in the world is Mark Meadows?

I’ve been wondering this for ages. Is he cooperating? He doesn’t seem to be a presence at Mar-a-lago. Is Trump unhappy with him?

CNN takes a look at what he’s been up to:

In January, as Kevin McCarthy fought to win the House speakership through 15 rounds of grinding votes and late-night sessions at the Capitol, a few blocks away a group of right-wing holdouts huddled with a familiar but surprising source – former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

A founding member of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, Meadows spent years in the House agitating against GOP leadership, trying to move his party increasingly to the right. Now, Meadows was counseling a new batch of Republican rebels, advising them on specific demands to make and gaming out how McCarthy would react to their maneuvering, according to multiple GOP lawmakers who were part of the planning sessions.

The group was so taken by Meadows, at one point they considered nominating him for speaker. Meadows ultimately rejected the suggestion, telling lawmakers he preferred to operate behind the scenes.

“We talked to him about being speaker. We asked would he mind if we put his name up,” Rep. Ralph Norman, one of the McCarthy holdouts, confirmed to CNN. “That’s not something he thought he could win. His best use is doing what he does now. He can freelance and offer advice.”

Sources tell CNN that in recent weeks Meadows has also been advising right-wing lawmakers on negotiations over the nation’s debt ceiling, where McCarthy’s right-flank may try to stand in the way of any concessions made in a compromise with President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats.

The former chief’s hands-on role in both the debt fight and the speaker’s battle – details of which have not been previously reported – underscores how Meadows has managed to stay politically relevant even as he covertly navigates potential criminal exposure for his role in Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

Meadows is viewed as a critical first-hand witness to the investigations of both special counsel Jack Smith and Georgia’s Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. He’s been ordered to testify before the grand jury in both investigations, and to provide documents to the special counsel after a judge rejected Trump’s claims of executive privilege.

The special counsel’s criminal investigation into January 6 and Trump’s mishandling of classified documents appear to be barreling toward a conclusion. There’s been a flurry of grand jury activity, as anticipation builds for any sign that Meadows is cooperating.

It is unclear whether Meadows has responded to the special counsel’s requests or appeared in front of that grand jury in Washington. In front of the grand jury in Georgia, Meadows declined to answer questions, one of the grand jurors revealed in February.

While Meadows has faded from the public spotlight, interviews with more than a dozen Republican lawmakers and aides, Trump allies and political activists in Meadows’ home state of North Carolina show how he has quietly worked to shape conservative policy and wield influence with MAGA-aligned lawmakers — even as his relationship with Trump remains fraught.

Meadows has maintained a lucrative perch in the conservative world as a senior partner at the Conservative Partnership Institute, the pro-Trump think tank that pays him more than $500,000 and has seen its revenues soar to $45 million since Meadows joined in 2021, according to the group’s tax filings.

Rep. Jim Jordan, one of Meadows’ closest confidants when they served in Congress together, said he still considers Meadows one of his “best friends” and talks to him “at least” once a week. But when it comes to legal matters, Jordan said: “We make a point not to talk about that.”

A spokesman for Meadows declined to make him available for an interview and declined comment for this story.

‘No one really knows what he’s doing’

A source close to Trump’s legal team said Trump’s lawyers have had no contact with Meadows and his team and are in the dark on what Meadows is doing in the investigation, fueling speculation about whether Meadows is cooperating with the special counsel’s probe – or if Meadows himself is a target of the investigation.

The silence from Meadows has irked lawyers representing other defendants aligned with Trump who have been more open, according to several sources familiar with the Trump-aligned legal teams. In particular, they point to a $900,000 payment Trump’s Save America political action committee paid to the firm representing Meadows, McGuireWoods, at the end of last year.

“We’ve all heard the same rumors,” one Trump adviser told CNN. “No one really knows what he’s doing though.”

The Justice Department decided not to charge Meadows with a crime for refusing to testify before the House January 6 committee. In its final report last year, the January 6 House select committee said that Meadows appeared to be one of several participants in a criminal conspiracy as part of Trump’s attempt to delay and overturn the results of the 2020 election. The report paints Meadows as an integral part of that effort, as documented by the more than 2,000 text messages Meadows turned over to the committee before he stopped cooperating.

Meadows was also the key point of contact for dozens of people trying to get through to the president as the attack was unfolding, and the special counsel’s investigation has been trying to comb over many of those interactions.

A lawyer for Meadows declined to comment.

‘He still wants to talk about politics’

Despite silence on the legal front, Meadows remains in touch with members of Trump’s inner circle on political matters. He was actively involved in securing Trump’s endorsement in 2021 for now-US Sen. Ted Budd ahead of what was a contentious Republican primary in North Carolina. While less-and-less frequently since Trump left office, Meadows has been known to attend fundraisers and events at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, where he also helped organize a donor retreat for CPI last year.

“[Meadows] still checks in,” said the Trump adviser, who has spoken to the former chief of staff in recent months. The adviser stressed that Meadows had not indicated any desire to join the Trump campaign team. “He still wants to talk about the politics.”

Allies say Meadows – who fashioned himself as a savvy political operator during his time in Congress and the White House – is motivated by a desire to help steer the direction of the country. But some people who worked closely with him are more skeptical, and think Meadows is driven by a desire for power.

“He is all about getting information so he can be seen as important to donors, other members, the media,” said a senior GOP source close to Trump world, who used to work for a Freedom Caucus member. “People don’t trust him.”

One source close to Meadows suggested that he has not expressed interest in running for office again, but could be open to a job in a future Trump administration – an idea a source close to the former president scoffed at, hinting that Meadows’ direct relationship with the former president had run its course.

“I think he enjoys what he’s doing,” Jordan said of Meadows’ current gig. But the Ohio Republican added: “I’m sure he misses certain aspects of the job as well. You know how involved Mark was.”

‘Mark’s in the middle of all that’

After leaving the White House in 2021, Meadows joined CPI, a “MAGA”-centric advocacy group headquartered just blocks from the Capitol that has become a clubhouse for conservative lawmakers, staffers and activists.

Members of the Freedom Caucus hold their weekly meetings at CPI. During the speaker’s race, CPI was home to some consequential strategy sessions involving Meadows.

Sources who attended those meetings say Meadows pushed for concessions like the ability for a single lawmaker to force a vote on ousting the sitting speaker, which McCarthy ultimately agreed to after initially calling it a red line.

Meadows also encouraged them to push for a committee on the “weaponization” of the federal government, which Jordan now helms as chair of the Judiciary Committee.

Five months later, some of those same Republicans say they are once again turning to Meadows as they ramp up for a brawl over the debt limit. Meadows has been encouraging the far-right flank of the House caucus to stick together in insisting on spending cuts and other demands in exchange for lifting the nation’s borrowing limit.

“You’re talking about one of the founding members of the Freedom Caucus,” Rep. Byron Donalds, a Florida Republican, said of Meadows.

“He obviously wants it to continue to be successful. I think it has been. And so I think his role at CPI is to make sure that occurs,” Donalds said, adding that he had not personally spoken to Meadows about the debt limit debate.

When Meadows is in town, he will occasionally pop into Freedom Caucus meetings at CPI or huddle with members of the group beforehand. Norman said Meadows also recently helped him with a fundraiser in North Carolina. And Meadows is also known to dial up members frequently to talk shop.

“He called me today and he said that he wanted me to convey to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that he really appreciated her working with me and others on the stock bill,” Rep. Matt Gaetz, a staunch Trump ally, said earlier this month of legislation to restrict lawmakers from trading stocks.

Aside from outreach to lawmakers, Meadows and CPI have also helped congressional offices find and train conservative staffers, particularly when it comes to conducting oversight, multiple sources familiar with the group’s work told CNN. That issue has been a top priority for the right now that Republicans are in the majority, and it’s also an area of expertise for Meadows, who was previously the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee.

“Mark’s in the middle of all that,” Jordan said.

He’s also raising a lot of money and has moved his voting address to South Carolina after being caught engaging in voter fraud (and getting away with it.)

I find it very hard to believe that he’s cooperated. If he has, I hope he’s saving his money because he will be drummed out of the GOP — out of politics — if he did. On the other hand, he was instrumental in everything that happened in the post election period and on January 6th. If he’s not in danger of being prosecuted it’s hard to imagine that he didn’t.

Meadows is not the brightest bulb so who knows what he might have done? We know from various testimony about January 6th that he tends to tell people what they want to hear so it’s possible he thinks he can play both sides. In the Trump White House that may have worked but I doubt it would be successful in the maw of the legal system.

Feel the magic

Waiting for DeSaster

JV Last with some important history of recent primaries:

1. Comebacks

I want to take a walk through history to illustrate the fact that presidential primary comebacks happen. And then to explain why I think a DeSantis comeback is not the most likely outcome.

Let’s start with a level-set. Here’s where the race stands today:

Yes, it’s early. There’s a lot of campaign left. There are known-unknowns lurking in the offices of various prosecutors. These are national polls. There are actuarial tables. But still: Not great for DeSantis.

-Trump is over 50 percent.

-DeSantis already got his first look.

-And his support is waning.

Here’s the thing: Usually when a candidate in a divided field is over the 50 percent mark, is growing, and has a 37-point lead, they win.

2004 Democrats

Around this time in 2003, Joe Lieberman(!) led the Democratic field. He faded and Howard Dean eventually emerged as the clear frontrunner, with support in the 30s in a large field.

We all know what happened: John Kerry surged in Iowa, parlayed that into a win in New Hampshire, and then ran the table.

The dynamics of the 2004 race were quite different from 2024. Dean was the

Democratic candidate most willing to criticize the Iraq war and there was an appetite for that in the progressive base, which none of the other candidates were serving. He was also a fresh face, totally unknown outside of Vermont.

But ultimately Dean had three insurmountable problems:

-He was out of step with the party’s moderate center of gravity.

-He had exceedingly soft support among African Americans, who are a necessary part of any winning Democratic coalition.

-He was a weaker matchup against George W. Bush than any of the other top-tier contenders.

All of which is to say that I don’t think 2004/Dean/Kerry offers a good parallel for 2024/Trump/DeSantis.

2008 Republicans

Rudy Giuliani—who would one day ask his “business development” officer to Google “obstruction of justice” for him—was also in the 30s in a multi-candidate field.

Like Dean, Rudy was weak with a core part of his party’s coalition: evangelicals. Unlike Dean, his candidacy was based on pre-existing celebrity as America’s Mayor after 9/11. So he had the opposite problem: He wasn’t a fresh face—his numbers were bloated by high name-ID.

John McCain was also doing well in early polls. Then he collapsed. And then he came back to capture the nomination.

The McCain example isn’t a bad one for DeSantis, in terms of the general arc of his numbers. He had a strong base of support; his support waned; then he rebuilt it and won the delegate race.

But it’s important to understand how McCain did it. First, he premised nearly his entire campaign around foreign policy and the surge in Iraq. That was his issue and he was simultaneously campaigning on it and advocating for it as a senator. He wanted to implement the Petraeus surge and was willing to stake his future on it. The surge worked and rescued the Iraq war.

Second, McCain’s principal challenger down the stretch was Mitt Romney, who never had a commanding lead and was at the time an awkward politician desperately trying to shove himself into a pre-existing mold that did not fit him. And if there’s one thing you can take to the bank, it’s this: Voters almost always choose authenticity over artifice.

Again: Not encouraging for DeSantis.

2008 Democrats

This might be the granddaddy of them all: At this point in 2008, Hillary Clinton led her nearest rival by between 14 and 20 points. Her lead over Obama peaked at +33 in late September 2007—and even then it was only that high in a couple of polls.

Everyone knows the story of what happened next: Barack Obama caught fire. He climbed steadily, eventually surpassing Clinton in the polls in January 2008. And once he took the lead, he never relinquished it. He dipped slightly to a statistical tie following his loss in New Hampshire, but quickly recovered and won a grueling marathon for delegates. (Even though Clinton got more primary votes.

This is a pretty good model for DeSantis: A fresh face beating a commanding favorite who was (a) a long-time part of the political scene and (b) deeply polarizing.

Yet four aspects of this race stand out:

-Obama defeated Clinton very narrowly. This was the closest nominating contest of my lifetime and it easily could have gone the other way.

-Clinton’s initial advantage was immense. But it was barely half the size of Trump’s current lead.

-Obama was a generational political talent.

-Once Democratic voters gave Obama a first look, they never turned their backs on him. Obama did not have a period where Democratic supporters defected from him en masse

The past is not prologue. These contests are infrequent enough that we should use them as lenses through which we examine the world, not as determinative models.

What I take from them, though, is one big, overarching idea:

Donald Trump’s position in this primary is the most dominant of any non-incumbent president since the advent of the modern system. His polling lead is enormous. His advantages in party structure and elite support are large. As a pure matter of political horseflesh, he is a better candidate than Ron DeSantis. Culturally he is more in step with the party’s base. Finally, there is no issue set with which DeSantis can distinguish himself from Trump.

Combine this with the facts that (1) Trump’s support with Republican voters seems incredibly durable, at this point extending back seven years and through more scandals than anyone can count; and (2) it does not seem as though the base will countenance attacks on Trump.

Put it all together and while it’s possible DeSantis could win, it’s also possible that this race will not be very competitive.

I hope it is.

It would be better for all of us if DeSantis wins the nomination. But it seems equally possible that the best analog for this contest is the 2000 Democratic nomination, when Bill Bradley prevented Al Gore from being crowned, but not much more than that.

There are a couple of important unique aspects of this primary. The first is that Donald Trump may be under criminal indictment in multiple cases. That didn’t stop Benjamin Netanyahu from winning recently and it may not stop Trump but nobody knows how it will land. it’s never happened here before.

The second is that it’s Donald Trump. There’s nobody like him and there’s never been a cult of personality like his in American politics. So while it’s a cliche to say that anything can happen — anything can happen.

And I’m not at all convinced that a DeSantis win would be better than Trump. He is not a conventional politician either and I don’t know why everyone assumes that unlike Trump he would accept it if he lost the election. They’ve all seen what Trump did. There’s little reason to believe that DeSantis wouldn’t see the same benefits if he were in the same position. Why wouldn’t he?

Kevin the neophyte

The future of he world economy is in the hands of fools

You’d think dealing with people this stupid would mean that the Democrats have the upper hand. But bargaining with neophytes and nihilists isn’t as easy as you might think. They don’t understand the ramifications of what they are doing:

Kevin McCarthy is finally a leading player in a huge Washington drama with his gavel on the line. But as his team sits down with President Joe Biden’s, McCarthy is confronting a handicap that even his allies acknowledge is real: Four years in the minority have left him, and the entire GOP conference, with little practice at monumental bipartisan negotiations like the current debt fight.

Before John Boehner became speaker, he worked across the aisle on a landmark education overhaul. Paul Ryan took over the House after helming a massive budget deal that even Democrats called a blueprint for future talks.

McCarthy brings a far different profile to the table. As minority leader, he was largely sidelined during the type of high-stakes talks with Democrats that he’s now helming. And while Speaker McCarthy is keeping his often-fractious members in his corner more consistently than his predecessors, his newness to the glare of White House negotiations leaves Washington without a decoder ring for his public vows that — even as the two sides stay far apart on big issues — a deal is still possible by next week.

“That’s been one of the things that is concerning at this point,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who has served in the House for more than two decades. McCarthy and Biden in particular “missed a couple of years where they could have gotten to know one another a lot better,” Cole added, “and I think that would have been for the good of the country right now.”

Republicans say former Speaker Nancy Pelosi — whose frosty relationship with McCarthy was no secret during their time atop House leadership — played a major role in boxing them out from past talks, such as those on last year’s government funding bill. Democrats counter that the GOP was more interested in stoking partisan fights from their perch in the minority than reaching compromise.

Whatever the reason, it means that McCarthy has a record mostly devoid of big dealmaking, having been on the periphery of bipartisan agreements struck under Biden on infrastructure, tech manufacturing and spending.

The speaker is not alone in the House GOP. With few exceptions, including Cole, the conference includes dozens of members who’ve never voted for a spending bill — let alone a debt limit hike — before okaying a conservative debt package last month.

Even McCarthy’s most trusted emissaries during the debt talks are themselves young by congressional standards: Financial Services Committee Chair Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), 47, and Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), 51.

Asked about the relative lack of experience among McCarthy’s negotiators, seven-term Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) allowed that “on paper that might ring true.”

“But, look, I have confidence in Patrick. I have confidence in Garret. I have confidence in the speaker. I mean, it’s not like they were born last night,” Womack said.

Part of the reason for McCarthy’s past exclusion is a built-in feature of the House, where the majority party has stricter control compared with the Senate — the chamber that is almost always the bigger hurdle to sealing a deal, given the filibuster. During this debt fight, though, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has deferred to his Californian counterpart, creating a rare case of the House in the lead.

That means a starring role for McCarthy, who has experience with contentious debt limit votes from his time on prior speakers’ leadership teams. McCarthy’s senior aides also have played behind-the-scenes roles in many deals, particularly during the Trump administration.

“He was still part of the negotiations, just not in the room,” said senior Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.).

Yet McCarthy’s resume lacks the committee leadership spots that gave both Ryan and Boehner more frequent chances to work with Democrats. And many of the House GOP’s deal-seeking former chairs have since retired (think Kevin Brady and Fred Upton).

Graves took a modest tack when asked about experience levels among the debt negotiators, replying that “what’s most important is knowing where your expertise is and where your limitations are.”

The Louisianan, known in the conference for his policy chops, also quipped that White House budget chief Shalanda Young, “schools me every day on numbers” as they engage in talks this month. He also lauded senior policy aides on the speaker’s team, like Brittan Specht and Jason Yaworske, observing that their heft is “why you build a team and you don’t have a single negotiator.”

McHenry, in his first term as chair, similarly deferred with a quip about his own prowess: “Congressman Graves has done a lot of big deals … and I’m just like a little guy with a bow tie walking around doing my thing, but I’ve done a few legislative pieces here, too.”

Multiple Republicans interviewed for this story said one of McCarthy’s greatest assets in his talks with Biden is the surprising amount of cohesion among his members after a 15-ballot ordeal of a speaker race. Two of the holdouts in McCarthy’s election — Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) — praised the GOP’s rhetoric on the debt ceiling talks during a closed-door meeting Tuesday, according to a person familiar with the conversation.

As they largely give McCarthy space to engage on his own terms, however, some House Republicans are pushing him not to compromise at all — a portend of future angst on his right flank.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) argued in that same closed-door meeting Tuesday that Republicans were winning the messaging battle, but they’d lose if they got hung up on cutting a deal, according to two people in the room. Those two people described Roy as arguing that the talks shouldn’t be about a deal but about saving the country from excess spending.

Hours before that, during the Freedom Caucus’ weekly meeting on Monday night, some members spoke up to underscore that McCarthy shouldn’t accept anything less than what was passed out of the House, according to another Republican who was granted anonymity to discuss the private meeting.

“The Freedom Caucus stands behind the House-passed bill and behind our speaker,” said Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.), a member of that ultraconservative group. “This is the first time most of us in the Freedom Caucus have ever voted for a debt limit increase. And it’s only because it was accompanied by such strong conservative reforms.”

That stance is sparking some heartburn in other corners of the conference, where battleground-seat colleagues worry that conservatives who cut their teeth on opposing major deals are setting themselves up to ultimately vote no.

Which would leave McCarthy reliant on Democrats, who say they have little trust in him to land a workable debt agreement.

“I don’t have much confidence in Kevin McCarthy on anything other than letting the Marjorie Taylor Greene wing of their party continue to pull his strings,” said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), who sits on the House spending panel. “My hope is that outside forces can maybe make Kevin McCarthy bend to do the right thing.”

Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Mike Bost (R-Ill.) conceded that Democrats “are working with more experience, but look what it’s got us. Experience in what? Experience in continuing to raise our debt and experience in continuing to let the government grow out of control.”

And several Republicans pointed out that, though McCarthy was not involved as closely as McConnell in recent deals with Pelosi and Biden, he brings one big advantage over his Senate GOP counterpart: During the Trump years, McCarthy held daily phone calls with Trump that kept him more in the loop as a minority leader than most realized.

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) offered his own endorsement of McCarthy’s chops, noting that he is “a voracious reader” of “all kinds of books on management” — citing “Good to Great” as an example.

“He’s been waiting for this moment to apply these things that he’s read,” Palmer added, “and I think he’s done an exceptional job.” Meanwhile, he argued, “Democrats think Biden is scared of his shadow from the left.”

That’s what Kevin is banking on with fatuous comments like this:

BTW: AOC and Bernie Sanders’ position is that the country should pay its bills and they’ll be happy to argue about future spending in the normal budget process.

This is why I’m convinced that if we are to avoid default or the 14th Amendment option, both of which could throw the economy into chaos, everything comes down to Kevin McCarthy’s willingness to risk his speakership to save the country. (Matt Gaetz reminded him about their power to vacate the chair just yesterday.) He will be under huge pressure from Trump and the batshit MAGA caucus to default because Trump thinks it would be good for him. If he brings a deal to the floor and it passes with Democratic votes he will likely have to go through another speaker vote spectacle. Maybe he’ll do it and maybe he’ll win in the end. But betting the future of the world economy on this circus sideshow is absolute lunacy.