Month: June 2024

You all know where I stand on the current presidential crisis. For me it’s either Biden or Harris, Nobody else could possibly keep the Democratic coalition together. If it’s the latter Biden should endorse her right away along with every other establishment Democrat and they should all campaign to the convention as if she is the presumptive nominee. (She was presumptively on the ticket that just won the primaries after all and the one that won the election in 2020.) That’s just me. Either stick it out or go with Harris right now as I’ve explained in earlier posts and will explain further in my column tomorrow morning.

Anyway, here’s a different view:

 Allan Lichtman, the historian who has correctly forecast the results of nine out of the 10 most recent presidential elections argued on Saturday that replacing President Joe Biden could cost Democrats the 2024 election.  

Lichtman, a professor at American University, rejected the growing chorus of political pundits and Democratic activists who have called on Biden, 81, to bow out of the presidential race after his disastrous debate performance last week against former President Donald Trump. The pivotal moment brought fresh questions about Biden’s age and ability to serve a second term.

“It’s a huge mistake. They’re not doctors. They don’t know whether Biden is physically capable of carrying out a second term or not,” Lichtman said during an interview with CNN of calls to replace Biden. “This is all foolhardy nonsense.” 

Lichtman has correctly predicted the outcome of almost every election over the last half century, except for the race in 2000, using a series of 13 historical factors or “keys.”  

The system includes four factors based on politics, seven on performance, and two on candidate personality. Lichtman said the incumbent party would need to lose six of those actors, or “keys,” to lose the White House. 

The keys range from whether a candidate is an incumbent president to the state of the economy and the presence of third-party hopefuls.

Debate performance, however, is not one of the factors that determines the outcome of an election, he argued. Lichtman pointed to historical examples, including the 1984 election in which former President Ronald Reagan swept 49 states despite poor debate performances and concerns over his age. 

When pressed about whether the questions surrounding Biden’s age and mental acuity are “fundamentally different” than his metrics as president, Lichtman doubled down.  

“Debate performances can be overcome,” he said. “At the first sign of adversity the spineless Democrats want to throw under the bus, their own incumbent president. My goodness.” 

It may be that history is not a very good guide to this election. I suspect we are in a new political era that runs by a lot of different rules. And the media is out for blood saying they are personally hurt and angry that the White House didn’t share with them the alleged fact that Biden is more or less a vegetable. That’s yet another very difficult barrier to victory since they seem to care more about that than they care about the fact that Donald Trump wants to put them in camps if they don’t do exactly what he wants.

But Lichtman’s been right before and maybe he’s right now. He says that Biden still checks enough boxes for re-election. I thought you should know.

Trump’s cover-up was even worse than we thought:

It’s too bad that Aileen Cannon has her thumb on the scale for Trump or he might be on trial right now for this obvious treachery:

A trip to Mar-a-Lago taken by former President Donald Trump that aides allegedly “kept quiet” just weeks before FBI agents searched the property for classified materials in his possession raised suspicions among special counsel Jack Smith’s team as a potential additional effort to obstruct the government’s classified documents investigation, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

The previously unreported visit, which allegedly took place July 10-12 in the summer of 2022, was raised in several interviews with witnesses, sources familiar with the matter said, as investigators sought to determine whether it was part of Trump’s broader alleged effort to withhold the documents after receiving a subpoena demanding their return.

At least one witness who worked closely with the former president recalled being told at the time of the trip that Trump was there “checking on the boxes,” according to sources familiar with what the witness told investigators.

A lot has happened in the past few days but one thing hasn’t changed. Donald Trump is a criminal and he’s committed crimes in a dozen different ways. He’s an adjudicated rapist, an admitted sexual assaulter, a fraudster multiple times over, a classified document thief, an insurrectionist coup plotter and a Russian collaborator. His corruption is overwhelming: he’s lines his pockets with hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars and used his political office and candidacy to bribe business leaders and foreign leaders alike.

Let’s not forget what we are dealing with. How to deal with him is suddenly a matter of debate but deal with him we must.

Apropos of nothing, I thought I’d just share this piece from Vox about the NY Times and Hitler:

On November 21, 1922, the New York Times published its very first article about Adolf Hitler. It’s an incredible read — especially its assertion that “Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded.” This attitude was, apparently, widespread among Germans at the time; many of them saw Hitler’s anti-Semitism as a ploy for votes among the German masses.

Times correspondent Cyril Brown spends most of the piece documenting the factors behind Hitler’s early rise in Bavaria, Germany, including his oratorical skills. For example: “He exerts an uncanny control over audiences, possessing the remarkable ability to not only rouse his hearers to a fighting pitch of fury, but at will turn right around and reduce the same audience to docile coolness.”

But the really extraordinary part of the article is the three paragraphs on anti-Semitism. Brown acknowledges Hitler’s vicious anti-Semitism as the core of Hitler’s appeal — and notes the terrified Jewish community was fleeing from him — but goes on to dismiss it as a play to satiate the rubes (bolding mine):

He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the “Hakenkreuzler.” So violent are Hitler’s fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew’s night.

But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.

A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: “You can’t expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them.”

Now, Brown’s sources in all likelihood did tell him that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was for show. That was a popular opinion during Nazism’s early days. But that speaks to how unprepared polite German society was for a movement as sincerely, radically violent as Hitler’s to take power.

Yeah. Certainly feels familiar. Particularly when you read things like this from King of the Village Jonathan Allen about the next Trump administration:

[L]awmakers from the capable and normie-filled Dakotas delegation, which includes two former governors, will wield influence on issues ranging from agriculture and energy to banking and national security. Oh, and Burgum’s almost certain successor, Representative Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), will arrive in Bismarck to lead his state at the end of this year with deeper connections in the nation’s capital than any modern North Dakota governor.

Just to the west, Wyoming’s senior senator, John Barrasso, is in line to be the second-ranking Senate Republican. Montana Sen. Steve Daines, who as head of the Senate GOP campaign arm this year has largely preempted contentious primaries, could become one of the most influential lawmakers in Washington. That’s thanks to his relationships with Trump and Thune — and the wings of the party each represents — as well as his perch on the tax-writing Finance Committee.

Trump has nudged Daines to consider challenging Thune for leader. However, I’m told by multiple Republicans that the Montanan has already pledged to support his neighbor in South Dakota — and that Daines under a Leader Thune will have a carved-out leadership role harnessing the former Proctor & Gamble executive’s business chops as well as his political savvy and Trump friendship. “There’s going to be a leadership spot for Steve when it’s all said and done,” Senator Mike Rounds, South Dakota’s junior senator and Thune’s leading ally, told me.

Taken together, it’s an imposing array of force from such a sparsely populated corner of the country. Until Montana’s growth recently netted them a second seat, all four states were represented by an at-large House member.

More remarkable is how many of the leading Republicans from the region emerged in the pre-Trump era and, while submitting to varying levels of accommodation, have avoided the bomb-throwing style so many in their party have adopted to keep with current fashions. (The MAGA-obsessed Noem is the notable exception.) “We’re normal,” said Rounds, adding: “It’s not a hard hard-right. We’re Ronald Reagan Republicans.”

Indeed, you could drop most of them in the GOP of 1984 or 2004 and they’d fit right in.“We all kind of sound alike,” Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) told me, and he wasn’t just referring to their straight-out-of-Fargo accents. “It’s tonal and if you watch Fox News, it doesn’t sound like us.”

What Johnson and so many of the other traditional Republicans from the region are wondering though, is how long can it last. “Are we just lagging behind the populist change or are we going to continue to be different?” he asked. “That to me is the central question. And I don’t really know the answer.”

What I’m more immediately interested in if Republicans do take over Washington next year is whether the “Prairie Pragmatists,” as Johnson calls them, will shape or simply be shaped by the Trump restoration. Perhaps it’s not an either-or distinction. Maybe the more likely outcome is the same Trumpian chaos and bombast while the mild-mannered Scandinavians step cautiously and do what they do best: present as wholly guileless, doncha know, while they hustle furiously.

The Village says it’s going to be fine. Don’t you worry. Real Americans in the Dakotas have a whole boatload of Great Whitebread Hopes ready to save us from Trump and the MAGA hordes. Relax. Just let it happen.

*BTW: Barasso and Daines are hardcore MAGA freaks.

America, 2024. Newsweek:

Taylor Swift is now the most influential celebrity in America. Her popularity is staggering, and her position as a cultural colossus is unquestionable.

At 34, Swift remains unmarried and childless, a fact that some might argue is irrelevant to her status as a role model. But, I suggest, it’s crucial to consider what kind of example this sets for young girls. A role model, by definition, is someone worthy of imitation. While Swift’s musical talent and business acumen are certainly admirable, even laudable, we must ask if her personal life choices are ones we want our sisters and daughters to emulate. This might sound like pearl-clutching preaching, but it’s a concern rooted in sound reasoning.

Here’s that sound reasoning:

Swift’s highly publicized romantic life has been a source of prime tabloid fodder for years. She has dated numerous high-profile men—at least a dozen—including the singers Harry Styles and Joe Jonas, the actor Jake Gyllenhaal, and, more recently, the American football player Travis Kelce. This revolving door of relationships may reflect the normal dating experiences of many young women in today’s world, but it also raises questions about stability, commitment, and even love itself. Should we encourage young girls to see the “Swift standard” as the norm, something to aspire to? Or should we be promoting something a little more, shall we say, wholesome? Would any loving parent reading this want their daughter to date 12 different men in the span of just a few years? This is not an attack on Swift; it’s a valid question that is worth asking.

The superstar’s vocal criticisms of the patriarchy add another layer of complexity. Swift’s recent rallying cry against patriarchal structures stands in stark contrast to her personal dating choices. The singer often dates strong, influential men—celebrities who embody significant social and economic power. This can appear hypocritical. Hypocrisy fundamentally undermines the ability to be a good role model because it involves a contradiction between one’s actions and the principles or values they publicly advocate. Swift either doesn’t realize this or doesn’t care. Neither of the two is a good look.

I’m just going to leave that here for you to contemplate.

Pathetic:

BURGUM: Donald Trump at the end of his term left the White House. We had a smooth transition.

WELKER: January 6 wasn't exactly a smooth transition.

BURGUM: Well, I think we have to say there was a smooth transition … I've been living under what I call the Biden dictatorship. pic.twitter.com/FMjDdbGSYz

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 30, 2024

The “Biden is a basket case but also Joseph Stalin” line is more unsustainable than ever. But I guess they’re still rolling with it. Also, the transition was anything but smooth. Even aside from the obvious — the coup attempt and insurrection —they wouldn’t hold meetings for the new team to prepare, Trump refused the normal courtesy of meeting the Biden’s at the White house and he churlishly refused to attend the inauguration, It was a shitshow from beginning to end.

The relatively muted response from Republicans in the wake of the debate is curious and very unlike them. Dancing on graves is their favorite pastime. Maybe they’re thrown off by the Democrats’ hysterics and don’t yet know how to respond? I suppose it’s possible they’re following the old “when your opponent is destroying himself, let him” but that would be unusual too. Piling on is their second favorite pastime. Weird.

We got some Dear Leader tweets from Steven Miller early on but he’s just been doing his standard grotesque immigrant bashing the last day or so.

Trump put out this whine yesterday:

Poor Trumpie. Nobody’s paying attention to him right now. They’re saying Biden did poorly instead of acknowledging that he’s the bestest and the biggest and the greatest debater who ever lived. Somebody bring him a diet coke and a binky.

Honestly, I have no idea what’s going through their heads but if I had to guess they just don’t know whether to root for Biden to step down or stay in so they’re paralyzed.

A pattern of brain injury

The New York Times has a devastating article about a pattern of brain injury in soldiers that’s gone unrecognized for years. “Shell shock” is a colloquial term not used these days. PTSD has replaced it. Ironically, the original term could be more accurate.

The story examines a pattern of suicides among elite combat troops, Navy SEALs, some of whom have never been injured (gifted article):

The military readily acknowledges that traumatic brain injury is the most common injury from recent conflicts. But it is struggling to understand how many of those injuries are inflicted by the shock waves unleashed by troops’ own triggers.

[…]

People’s brains can often compensate until injuries accumulate to a critical level, {Dr. Daniel Daneshvar, chief of brain injury rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School] said; then, “people kind of fall off a cliff.”

Examination during autopsy of SEALs’ brains after suicide have revealed microscopic damage invisible to MRIs and not seen among civilians.

Combat never seemed to faze Mr. Collins, but near the end of his Navy career, he started to change in subtle ways that Ms. Collins pieced together only in retrospect. He began to avoid social gatherings. He struggled to sleep. He started to make strange, obsessive family schedules and become irritated when they were not followed. Some simple chores, like raking leaves into a tarp, started to confound him. He would step out the door to go to work, realize that he had forgotten his keys, go back inside to get them and then forget why he had returned.

All were signs of brain injury. But at the time, the military generally associated brain injury with big blasts from roadside bombs — something Mr. Collins never experienced. No one was telling the troops that repeated exposure to routine blasts from their own weapons might be a risk.

Mr. Collins’s mental health took a sudden plunge when he was 45. He had left the Navy and started a civilian job teaching troops to operate small drones. One morning, well before the sun was up, he called his wife in a panic from a work trip, saying he had forgotten how to do his job and had not slept in four days.

Since I just posted about being an engineer, when I began reading the following section I knew where it was going before it got there:

Dr. Perl said privacy rules bar him from discussing specific cases, but members of the families who provided brains to study say the lab found interface astroglial scarring in six of the eight SEALs who died by suicide. The other two SEALs, including Lieutenant Metcalf, had a different type of damage in the same blast-affected areas. Star-shaped helper cells called astrocytes in their brains appeared to have been repeatedly injured and had grown into gargantuan, tangled masses that barely functioned. The lab plans to publish findings on the astrocyte injuries soon.

Recent studies suggest that damage is caused when energy waves surging through the brain bounce off tissue boundaries like an echo, and for a few fractions of a millisecond, create a vacuum that causes nearby liquid in the brain to explode into bubbles of vapor. Those tiny explosions are violent enough to blow brain cells apart in a process known as cavitation.

Firing thousands and thousands of rounds from rifles tucked next to their cheeks in training if not in actual combat have left these men scarred in ways only a microscope can reveal. But their spouse and families see it in their behavior.

The men who died by suicide represent only a small fraction of the career SEALs with signs of brain injuries after years around blasts.

Now what? Energy weapons?

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.

SCOTUS and Chevron

The James Fallows tweet Digby cited about SCOTUS overturning the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine was an eye-opener. The SCOTUS decision hands highly technical decisions about regulations to courts. Fallows was so succinct and instructive that I’m reposting him here:

A salesperson asked me on Tuesday what I did before retirement. I told him I reviewed the material stresses and reaction forces in high-temperature, high-pressure piping systems, pressure vessels, and rotating equipment for compliance with ASME codes (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) using finite element analysis. Which is why my cocktail party answer more often was, “I design factories.” In a more ironic mood, I’d reply, “Clients pay a lot of money to ignore what I tell them.”

Do my job poorly and expensive equipment gets damaged and millions of dollars in production are lost. Do the job badly and people might die.

Regulation decisions SCOTUS just put in the hands of judges are often conservative. Especially those regarding safety, like OSHA regulations. They are conservative for a reason, as Fallows points out.

In one maintenance accident at a site I worked, 600 °F molten polymer spewed from an “empty” pipe onto a worker who’d just removed his “hot work” gear to repair a pump. After the goop cooled, they had to chip his body off the concrete floor with a jackhammer. I’ll admit I was relieved that it wasn’t any system I’d reviewed.

I spent one fine morning at another site in a safety briefing on all the chemicals on site that might kill you. You always looked to the wind socks on the towers to see which way the wind was blowing so you could run in the other direction if the site evacuation siren went off. But here they warned that if you were up in the production structure when the siren went off and saw a green cloud below, “Don’t go down into the green cloud.” The end product was nontoxic powder used in paint pigment. It’s the “M” on your M&Ms.

ASME codes are private. But violate them at your legal peril. Or maybe not. SCOTUS just handed judges the authority to decide if government regulations saying you ought to comply with them are too restrictive. You know, because allowing government experts to interpret regulations they are tasked with administering is “fundamentally misguided,” says Chief Justice John Roberts. Ask him what he knows about finite element analysis.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.

Aileen Cannon will be deciding whether your 747 is safe to fly

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that district court judges are more qualified to decide complex matters of science and technology than government experts. Here’s the result:

Just think of all the health and safety rules we count on to keep us safe. Then think about all the unqualified MAGA weirdos Trump put on the courts and the bitter, angry Supreme Court majority that really seems to believe that it’s every man for himself.

Catherine Rampel tweeted this out and I think I think it’s fascinating:

The kind of polling we need more of: @YouGov asked respondents about major policies proposed by Biden and Trump…without specifying which candidate proposed them.
Turns out, in a blind test, Biden’s agenda is way more popular.
today.yougov.com/politics/artic…

27 of 28 Biden proposals are supported by more people than oppose them. 24 get outright majority support.

Most popular: criminal/mental health background checks for all gun purchases (82% approve). Least popular (the only one underwater, 30%): 10-yr military support for Ukraine

Trump’s agenda doesn’t fare so well.
9 of 28 proposals are above water (more support than oppose). Just 6 get majority support
Even most most popular (phase out Chinese imports of essential goods) gets meager 59%. Least pop (prez controls independent regulatory agencies): 19%

People who plan to vote for each candidate are more likely to support most of their preferred candidate’s policies. And most supporters oppose many of the policies proposed by the opposing candidate. There are some policies that supporters find common ground on, however. For example, majorities of Biden and Trump supporters favor Biden’s policy pledging U.S. military support to Taiwan if China were to invade. And few supporters of either candidate support giving Trump control of regulatory agencies that now are independent.

Under half (47%) of Americans say Biden has given a very/somewhat clear idea of policies he’d enact if re-elected. More (62%) say this of Trump
Based on above stats, vs broader views of which candidate is trusted more on various issues, I’m skeptical voters are clear on either.

This is a failure of media coverage. We need less horserace, more information on what candidates would do if granted a 2nd term — and how those policy intentions do (or don’t) align with voters’ preferences. 

Definitely.

Following up on my post below I thought I’d post this excerpt from Dan Pfeiffer’s newletter. His analysis is similar to mine. He too thinks that a brokered convention is way too risky and that the “Biden endorses Harris with the full support of the Democratic establishment” scenario is the only alternative to the wounded Biden soldiering on. He writes:

There are two possible scenarios. The first is that Biden steps aside and endorses Vice President Kamala Harris as the nominee, and the party coalesces around her. She would have to pick a Vice Presidential nominee and be ratified as the nominee by the delegates at the convention. That vote would be pro forma and drama-free. The race against Trump would start immediately. She would possibly get an opportunity to debate Trump at the scheduled debate in September.

The other scenario is the circus sideshow of a brokered convention which would be very risky.

Pfeiffer then discusses what Biden can do to right the ship if he decides to stay in:

1. Acknowledge the Obvious: In the immediate aftermath of the debate, some Biden aides and supporters dismissed the concerns from the Democratic Party as if they were simply more examples of people underestimating President Biden. That’s a mistake. People can’t ignore what is obvious to everyone. It’s better to acknowledge it like President Biden did in his rally when he said:I know I’m not a young man, to state the obvious. I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to. But I know what I know. I know how to tell the truth. I know how to do this job.People appreciate honesty.
   
2. Embrace the Underdog Status: For months now, Democrats have pushed back on every poll that shows Trump leading. The President himself has argued that polling is broken because it’s so hard to get people on the phone (He may be right!). Yes, this is a close, winnable race, but it’s clear that Trump has the upper hand. We can debate how significant the advantage is, but all of us must act as if we are behind and have a hell of a lot of work to do to win.Biden’s campaign team is top-notch and they have been smart and aggressive. However, aside from his now ill-fated decision to seek out an early debate, Biden , himself, has largely been running as if he is in the lead. I know he is busy as President, but his campaign schedule is light (Trump’s is lighter). The Biden digital team does innovative things, but his communications strategy has been somewhat risk averse. Pehaps the debate shows why that’s the case. Regardless, the President needs to be everywhere at once. They should seek out tough interviews, constant appearances and opportunities for virality. The only way to clean up this mess is to show everyone a different Biden. That only happens with a change in approach.
   
3. Make the Race Bigger than Biden v. Trump: We have limited data since the debate. However, in the FivethirtyEight/Ipsos poll, people who watched the debate thought Trump did better, but it didn’t move many votes. This dovetails with the anecdotal reports from various focus groups where voters were dismayed by Biden’s performance but didn’t choose Trump. Now, it’s worth noting that debate watchers are more likely to be partisans who made up their minds a long time ago and are therefore less likely to move based on one debate performance. What’s clear is that many voters are not excited about either of these candidates. Therefore, the best way to win is to make this election about more than Joe Biden and Donald Trump. We must raise the stakes. I recommend focusing on preserving freedom and defeating extremists who want to control every aspect of our lives. We need the votes of people who don’t love Biden and think he may be too old. Making their vote about something bigger than individual candidates is our best bet. Biden and Trump’s favorable ratings have been largely the same for years. We can’t convince most persuadable that Biden is great and Trump is even more terrible than we thought, but we can convince them that voting Biden is important to their lives and their country.
   
4. Demand a Second Debate: This is going to sound insane. Just writing it makes me want to puke but Biden should be demanding a second or even a third debate. Trump probably won’t agree, but it’s better to look like someone who wants another shot than someone who is afraid of a repeat performance. Ratings for that debate would be through the roof. Biden would be better… and probably much better. Obama cleaned up his first debate disaster with two subsequent strong performances. Biden needs the same opportunity. It’s risky though. If he and his team do not think he can perform in another debate or a series of tough interviews and press conferences, those calling him to step aside are right.

Boy, that last one is a real gut check. I disagree that Trump will duck more debates. I think he’ll be thrilled to do them every week. Pfeiffer may be right that Biden will almost certainly do better but man is it a risk. He was that terrible.

I suspect it would be smart to get Harris out there a lot more. If he doesn’t make it through a second term, which I think is now on everyone’s mind, she’ll be the one we’re all voting for this November as much as Biden.