Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

If MAGA can’t have America, no one can

Donald Trump’s MAGA movement, despite its branding, is not about returning to past American greatness or building anything like it in the future. MAGA is throwing a decade-long tantrum over demographic and social change it cannot stop.

Prof. Timothy Snyder dubs it “superpower suicide”:

“Superpower Suicide” is a concept to help understand the approach of the Trump regime to the rest of the world. We are fighting a war for no reason we can name, losing it, and covering our defeat with genocidal and apocalyptic propaganda. This is bad enough on its own; but I think this performance is symptomatic of something deeper — a systematic undoing of American power by Americans. In this video I stay close to very traditional accounts of the accumulation and maintenance of of state power, all of which indicate rapid and catastrophic decline as the result of specific choices in the last year. I don’t even mention one source of US power which is specifically modern: the international structures we built over decades to ensure our centrality, which the Trump people are undoing. Many of the American fundamentals are still very sound, but a better future, or any kind of future at all, will depend on a sober reckoning with the present moment.

Snyder sees a movement with Donald Trump as its figurehead as one separately described as “a regime of the bullies for the billionaires” by Anat Shenker-Osorio. “There is no idea of the future,” Snyder says. “There’s just day-to-day enrichment. We’re pursuing policies inconsistent with being a superpower.”

The “we” in Snyder’s formulation is the people with their hands actually on the levers of power. It is a class of grifters, to be sure, with no commitment either to the American republic or to its founding principles, only to their own enrichment. They are above the law. Above history. Above patriotism. They’ve applied the concept of an extractive economy to the operation of a nation state itself.

Stephen Hinton decsribed it seven years ago in a Medium post, writing, “It is rather surprising that the dominant business paradigm is capitalism and yet it runs on degrading capital. On a finite planet, this is surely not good business let alone good for the planet.” Or for a democratic republic run on extraction, which is the only one Trump and his hangers-on know.

The story is different for MAGA footsoldiers who now see that Trump has betrayed them. He’s pursing his own pecuniary interests and self-aggrandizement with no regard for their well-being. Trump manipulated them for his own interests by performing commitment to theirs. And now that he’s a lame duck, he can drop all pretense. And has.

Readers who have been with me since my early tenure at ye olde blog may recall that I see another dynamic at work among the kind of people who adopted Trump as their champion. It is the kind of self-destructiveness one see among people with low impulse control, sometimes reflected in less education, and sometimes in proud rejection of it. If they cannot get their way, they start acting out. Or breaking things or setting fires. Trump is both.

I wrote back in 2015:

 I have long said that the Republican Party is acting out one of those dreary murder ballads with America. If they cannot have America for their own, they just might burn it down. John Boehner can relate. That is why Digby quoted Rick Perlstein yesterday: “Take demagogues seriously. Voters love them. And they’re only a joke until they win.”

I took her by her lily white hand

And dragged her down that bank of sand

There I throwed her in to drown

I watched her as she floated down

“Was walking home tween twelve and one

Thinkin’ of what I had done

I killed a girl, my love you see

Because she would not marry me

– from “Banks Of The Ohio” (traditional)

They love their country — it’s THEIR country — and if they can’t have her, nobody can.

Reflections on Virginia mid-decade redistricting

Republicans got their stopped clock cleaned in Virginia on Tuesday when voters approved a new congressional map that — say it ain’t so! — disenfranchises a large swath of voters: theirs. Donald Trump in clockwork fashion declared the election rigged. Republicans were winning earlier in the day (before any votes were counted?), he insisted, before the dreaded “Mail In Ballot Drop” (whatever that is). “Where have I heard that before?” Trump raged. He’s more obsessed with the manner of voting than the outcome. Disenfranchising Republicans is an afterthought.

Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley barred state officials from implementing the new maps, calling the ballot language “flagrantly misleading” and the process in violation of the Virginia constitution. Virginia Attorney General Jay pledged to appeal the ruling.

“Republicans lost,” says Virginians for Fair Elections. “Now they’re trying to overturn the will of the voters in court and trying to relitigate an election they couldn’t win.”

Where have you heard that before?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez offered a terse rejoinder to Republican howls of disenfranchisement. Essentially, don’t like it when it’s done to you? Then stop doing it to us. Join us and ban partisan gerrymandering.

Reporter: What do you make of Republicans saying that Virginia—

AOC: Wah wah wah.

We have asked Republicans for 10 years to ban partisan gerrymandering. And for 10 years, Republicans have said no. Republicans have fought for partisan gerrymanders across the United States of… pic.twitter.com/BVa9uOH0zq

— Acyn (@Acyn) April 22, 2026

The Atlantic‘s Adam Serwer responds to the accusation that the effort by Virginia Democrats disenfranchises Republicans: “That is exactly what the new Virginia map does,” Serwer states bluntly, offering a summary history of partisan gerrymandering.

Republicans justify their rigging of district maps on the grounds that “the votes of constituencies that lean Republican are more legitimate than those that lean liberal.” They state it explicitly. Serwer brings receipts:

“If you took Madison and Milwaukee out of the state election formula, we would have a clear majority—we would have all five constitutional officers and we would probably have many more seats in the Legislature,” Robin Vos, the Republican speaker of the state assembly in Wisconsin, said in 2018. The logic here is clear: Rural votes, more likely to be Republican, should count more than urban votes, which tend to come from Democrats. At the time, Republicans in Wisconsin had managed to draw maps so effectively that even when Democrats won 53 percent of the vote, they won only about a third of the seats in the legislature.

When Democratic states tried to lead by example in adopting nonpartisan redistricting commissions, Republicans saw an advantage. If Democrats would not pursue maximum advantage for themselves, Republicans would in states they controlled.

Republicans’ will to power vs. Democrats defense of democratic principles does not win them the approval one might assume.

Over at Strength In Numbers, Elliot Morris this morning reflects on a recent poll on party favorability. Democrats are -3 on favorability and Republicans -16. But part of that unfavorability for Democrats is, you guessed it:

Even voters who say they have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party often plan to vote for Democrats anyway. And when Democrats’ own voters complain about their party in their own words, the complaint is not that Democrats are too liberal or “weak and woke”, it’s that they’re not fighting hard enough, particularly against Donald Trump.

Morris reflects on his polling’s findings:

As I wrote back in February, the Democratic brand is not predominantly woke, but weak. Respondents to our survey associated the Democrats with traits like honesty and caring about the working class, but they are seen as weak and not particularly effective. The Republican brand, by contrast, is a strong brand that a majority of the country finds extreme.

This takes us back to Virginia. Republicans’ howls do not presage a recommitment to small-d democratic principles any more than Tucker Carlson’s mea culpas about Donald Trump this week reflect a “road to Damascus” change of heart about his embrace of fascism. (Carlson is simply positioning himself to secure a base in a post-Trump MAGA.) Serwer sees it too, writing that Republicans “simply believe that disenfranchising Democrats is good but disenfranchising Republicans is bad.”

Serwer concludes with Justice Elena Kagan:

“The partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her 2019 dissent in Rucho. “If left unchecked, gerrymanders like the ones here may irreparably damage our system of government.”

Kagan was right then, and she’s right now. If Republicans had listened at the time, they would not be tasting their own bitter medicine today.

What I wonder now is whether in the next poll Democrats’ clapback in Virginia will improve their standing with Democrats and independents who perceive the party as weak in this one. When polled on which Democrats they see as sharing their values, “Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Zohran Mamdani lead the pack, with more traditional voices including Barack Obama, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, and Gavin Newsom coming in close behind.” AOC’s comments above show why she’s in the first group. It’s a flashing red light that party leaders won’t heed that no Democrat in House or Senate leadership even show up in the chart below.

Morris writes:

The strategic implications here are straightforward. Democrats do not need to reinvent themselves ideologically nearly as much as they need to convince voters they can act with purpose and deliver on their promises. Their own supporters are not begging for moderation so much as urgency; independents, too, have fewer specific ideological qualms with the party as they do personal germane criticism. They are not demanding a lurch left or right so much as evidence of leadership, coherence, and fight.

In a political environment where neither party is broadly beloved, voters must know you stand for something — and for standing up for it, too. The Democrats have made a lot of progress on these numbers over the last year. But a perception of weakness is still its biggest one.

Fight more, libs.

This is just twisted:

A report showing the efficacy of the covid-19 vaccine that was previously delayed by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been blocked from being published in the agency’s flagship scientific journal, according to three people familiar with the decision who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. The report showed that the vaccine reduced emergency department visits and hospitalizations among healthy adults by about half this past winter.

The move, which has not been previously reported, has raised concerns among current and former officials that information about the vaccine’s benefits is being downplayed because it conflicts with the views of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has been an outspoken critic of the shots. Kennedy’s vaccine agenda has received pointed questioning from lawmakers during budget hearings that began last week and conclude Wednesday.

They are literally hiding the truth because they are either incredibly stupid or flagrantly corrupt. There can be absolutely no reason to keep this under wraps.

It reduced er visits and hospitalizations by half! I’m sure this is mostly among seniors and vulnerable people who are religious about getting their shots (like me) because they know that this disease still exists and it still kills people.

But then Pete Hegseth just removed the requirement for flu shots in the military that’s been in place since the 1940s. (George Washington famously required smallpox vaccines during the revolutionary war.) I’m sure I don’t have to explain why it might be important to prevent viruses from spreading among people who live and work in close quarters — in a war.

This is just nuts and it’s getting worse every day. If you have a chance to watch any of the clips of RFK Jr testifying before Congress this week gird yourself. The man is obviously unfit and starting to look seriously unwell.

Get your vaccines folks — while you can. I could actually see a black market developing if they end up making them impossible to get legally. At this point I’m not sure they won’t try to do it.

Dr. Oz: I think President Trump is healthy as a bull…

He defends his decisions about food and fast food by saying that when he’s on the road, he doesn’t want to get sick.

So he eats at large brands because he knows they’re not going to skimp on the quality of the food” pic.twitter.com/rx3T5Ds1kJ

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) April 22, 2026

I think he’s probably more or less physically healthy for someone his age. Some people are just able to eat garbage and it doesn’t hurt them. His excuse for eating it (they use good ingredients!!??) is fatuous as always but then what isn’t?

He also has never indulged in alcohol and drugs (as far as we know) and he never smoked. So that probably makes a difference. Still, Joe Biden thought he was healthy as well and ended up being diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. Sure, that could happen to anyone but the odds get much higher that something’s lurking inside you when you get to be 80, which is where Trump is.

And none of that addresses the real elephant in the room which is his mental state. Oz describes his obsessions and pro-occupations as “passion” for the issues. Nonsense. His mind is coming unglued and he’s unable to focus on anything but his ballroom, tariffs and vengeance. Not even the war is able to hold his attention. Plus, he’s falling asleep on camera, speaking in gibberish much more than he used to and is making impulsive, dangerous decisions. Maybe Oz is too dazzled by his “extraordinary brilliance” that he can’t see it.

On the other hand, he is a proven hack and a quack and has no business being anywhere near our government health systems.

Ye, yep, yep. Of course it was rigged. And our self-described “extraordinarily brilliant” president couldn’t understand the referendum so it must mean that anyone who voted for it didn’t understand it. either.

One of the main questions I have about the MAGA voters is how they can stand the fact that their great guru, Dear Leader is such a winny little bitch.

G. Elliott Morris reports on a new survey:

Our new poll shows that 55% of U.S. adults support the House voting to impeach Trump, while 37% oppose and 8% are unsure.

As for the president’s overall approval rating, there is a strong intensity gap in responses to our poll. Overall, 45% of all adults say they strongly support impeachment, while only 30% say they strongly oppose it. That is a 15-point intensity gap in favor of impeachment — the people who want Trump out are both more numerous and more committed than the people who want him to stay.

Support for impeachment extends well beyond the Democratic base. The chart below shows support and opposition to impeaching the president for major demographic groups in our new survey:

Look at those demographics. Yikes. The only group that isn’t in favor are the over 65s and that’s a bare majority. I’m frankly a little bit shocked by this. He’s even lost 21% of Republicans.

People seem to mean it:
The 55% figure is unusual by modern impeachment-polling standards.

After January 6, 2021, ABC News/Washington Post found 56% wanted Trump impeached and removed from office. Other polls showed similar numbers: The Pew Research Center had it at 54%, and Gallup at 52%.

For comparison’s sake, during the Ukraine impeachment in fall 2019, Fox News had impeachment and removal at 51% and Gallup at 52%. Bill Clinton’s peak removal number in January 1999 (which failed) was just 33%.

And support for impeaching Trump today is only a few percentage points lower than it was for Richard Nixon in 1974: And at the height of Watergate, days before Nixon resigned, Gallup found 58% wanted him removed. Trump is in “Nixon resignation” territory with these impeachment numbers (and his approval rating overall).

But note our poll is not completely apples to apples: we asked about the House voting to impeach, a lower bar than the “impeach and remove” language most national pollsters have used historically. But even accounting for that, the April 2026 number sits at or near the high-water mark of modern impeachment polling, and well above the Ukraine and Clinton readings.

I think the Democrats should do it if the win the House, and they should do it on the basis of his rampant corruption. Even if the Republicans in the Senate refuse to convict, which is almost certain, get those politicians on the record defending this outrageous grift. It’s the issue that brings the whole thing together — the assault on democracy, the economy, national security and the completely disrespect of the American voters.

No wonder he’s losing his grip. He doesn’t know how to end the war he’s started, the economy is getting worse by the day and his immigration program has turned out to be massively unpopular. And the country has turned on him because of it.

This guy would vote for it:

Trump in 2008: Anyone who invades the Middle East under false pretenses should be impeached.

Be a real shame if everyone reposted this. pic.twitter.com/5PLA7xGpyC

— Viral Reel Addict (@ViralReelAddict) April 22, 2026

RFK Jr: "President Trump has a different way of calculating percentages. If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that's a 600% reduction." pic.twitter.com/MjDNADqc8p

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 22, 2026

Warren is making a good point there but really everyone should have stopped and shouted, “say what?” in unison when Bobby said that:

• Law Degree (JD): University of Virginia
• Master’s in Environmental Law (LLM): Pace University
• Undergraduate: Harvard University
• Other Studies: London School of Economics

He did all that while addicted to heroin so maybe he was just on the nod most of the time?

Trump: "They want it to be over immediately and I just looked at a little chart: WWI four years, three months. WWII six years. Korean War three years. Vietnam 19 years. Iraq eight years. I'm five months. Five months. I would have won Vietnam very quickly." pic.twitter.com/Z2FW2hFCTw

— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) April 21, 2026

“They want it to be over immediately, and I just looked at a little chart: WWI, four years, three months. WWII, six years. Korean War, three years. Vietnam, nineteen years. Iraq, eight years. I’m five months. Five months. I would have won Vietnam very quickly.” 

Says the man who ran against the forever wars. And who won the presidency twice.

I’ll just leave that there for you to think about while you reach for the tequila bottle.

Redistricting not only happens in legislatures and ballot measures

Democrats’ narrow victory in Tuesday’s redistricting referendum in Virginia was the latest battle in the two major parties’ gerrymandering war. Democrats, for once, did not roll over when Republicans launched the war in Texas at Donald Trump’s command. They fought back:

“We cannot bring a stick to a knife fight,” said Kelly Hall, the executive director of the Fairness Project, which spent more than $12 million backing the redistricting referendum.

With Republicans “assaulting the integrity of representation in the U.S. Congress, we need to be able to respond with every tool that we have,” she said.

The new map could turn the state’s 5D-5R congressional delegation (with one seat open) into a 10D-1R affair.

But the redistricting war of control of Congress is not only fought in legislatures, ballot measures, and congressional races. They also happen in lower-profile spots on your ballot.

Judicial elections are on the ballot this fall. And they matter. A lot. Bolts offers a state-by-state guide:

Nineteen states are holding regular elections for their supreme courts this year, meaning races where candidates can challenge incumbent judges or run for an open seat. How those work is straightforward; think of what you’re used to seeing for Congress or governor.

But 13 states are holding retention elections, which are simple up-or-down votes, with no challengers, where voters decide if a judge who is already on the court should stay in office. (Explore these rules in our state-by-state guide to each state’s high court.) 

Plus, some states allow candidates to affiliate with a party. Others hold nonpartisan elections, though in many such states parties and advocacy organizations still get involved.

This year, liberals or Democrats are aiming to retain their large advantage in Michigan and gain a foothold in Georgia and Texas. A wave of retirements could affect the Washington court’s recent history as one of the more left-leaning in the country, though conservatives are unlikely to gain major ground. 

Lest anyone forget, NC Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs and the state’s Democratic Party had to fight in court for six months and two days to secure her 734-vote win in 2024. Republicans play to win even when they lose. January 6 ring a bell? How about this?

Democrats losing control of the state Supreme Court majority in the 2022 midterms meant the new Republican court revisited a recently settled gerrymandering case that gave North Carolina a 7R-7D congressional delegation.

Democracy Docket noted at the time that “the court’s unprecedented decision to rehear this case was not due to any changes in the underlying facts of the lawsuit; instead, it ensued after North Carolina Republican legislators asked for the case to be reheard following the state Supreme Court’s shift from a Democratic to a Republican majority after the 2022 midterm elections.” The new 5R-2D court overturned the old court. The resulting congressional split is now 10R-4D in a state Trump won by 3.2 points in 2024.

Conservatives or Republicans, meanwhile, have an opportunity to erase the liberal lean of Montana’s supreme court, and extend their dominance in North Carolina and Ohio.

In the red states of Kansas, Missouri, and Wyoming, justices who have sided with more liberal outcomes in major recent cases are all up for retention. Conservatives managed to oust a Democratic-appointed justice in Oklahoma two years ago for the first time in the state’s history, though it appears unlikely that the state will see similar agitation this year. 

Progressive efforts to oust justices who upheld abortion bans faltered in Arizona and Florida two years ago; this year, more justices who held that position are up for retention in those states. And in Minnesota, a trio of justices with experience as public defenders—a very unusual concentration by national standards—is up for reelection, though the field is not yet set. 

These races are not sexy or high-profile. In the past, it’s been unseemly for judges to spend a lot of time raising campaign funds. All bets are off now that Trump sees his power ebbing away and is clutching at any lever for hanging on and staying out of jail. Democrats have to take seriously these state court races. We train our poll greeeters to advise voters to vote all the way down the ballot, of course. But we ask that they pay particularly close attention to the state judicial races. They matter. We’ve lived with the consequences.

Go and do likewise where you live.

North Carolina Democrats hope to secure reelection for Justice Anita Earls this fall and then flip enough Republican seats in 2028 and 2030 to regain the majority on our Supreme Court in time to defend fair redistricting after the 2030 census. (Three Republicans are up for reelection in 2028 and two in 2030.)

View this post on Instagram

You can help out Anita here.

More about profits than patients

Donald Trump on Saturday signed an executive order allowing expedited research into psychedelics as potential treatments for mental disorders. (Like his?) “It is the policy of my Administration to accelerate innovative research models and appropriate drug approvals to increase access to psychedelic drugs that could save lives and reverse the crisis of serious mental illness in America,” the statement reads.

“Can I have some, please?” Trump joked to assembled guests in the Oval Office.

Would we notice any difference?

Seth Meyers reminds us how batshit crazy the last 3 weeks have been: Trump fired AG Pam Bondi. He posted a meme of himself as Jesus then said he thought it was a meme of himself as a doctor. He said the Pope is weak on crime. A MAGA podcaster said Trump is under demonic… pic.twitter.com/CRhoPotsVA

— Marco Foster (@MarcoFoster_) April 21, 2026

In no way should you believe that Trump signed this order out of concern for anyone’s mental health. It’s simply another business area that someone close to him feels is insufficiently commodified and exploited financially. And that someone whispered in Trump’s ear. Likely after making a large donation to Trump, an investment in his businesses, or a purchase of his crypto. Is Don Jr. invested yet?

Big pharma is all over it. A site called Biopharmdive reports:

At least half a dozen biotechnology companies working on psychedelics saw their stocks rise following an executive order from the White House meant to encourage the development of these drugs for mental health.

The order, issued Saturday, directs the head of the Food and Drug Administration to provide a new — and controversial — kind of voucher to “appropriate” psychedelic medicines that the FDA has classified as potential breakthroughs for serious conditions. That classification, as well as the “national priority vouchers,” are designed to significantly speed up the development and regulatory review of certain therapies.

This is more about profits than patients.

Not that there isn’t public and medical interest, Scientific American reports:

An estimated 15.4 million adults in the U.S. live with severe mental illness, according to the National Institutes of Health. Veterans are at particular risk: Research shows that suicide rates are nearly twice as high among veterans as they are in the general population. And existing drugs, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), that are designed to treat depression and other mental health conditions aren’t always effective or accessible for everyone. An increasingly vocal cadre of researchers believe psychedelic substances could offer more effective treatments. And in some clinical trials, psilocybin, MDMA and LSD have been found to have promising results in treating mental health conditions.

“We need better treatments,” says Alan Davis, director of the Center for Psychedelic Drug Research and Education at the Ohio State University. “We need to be able to help people, and I think psychedelic therapies will offer a new way in which to do that.”

But research into these drugs is slow and hard to do, not least because the U.S. government categorizes many psychedelics as Schedule I drugs, which means they are considered to be dangerous and to have a high potential for abuse and “no currently accepted medical use,” according to the definition in the Code of Federal Regulations. In most cases, the possession of such drugs is federally criminalized, and that adds significant hurdles for researchers who are trying to study their effects.

That’s part of the reason why very few therapies that use psychedelic drugs have been approved for use in the U.S. One of the most well studied psychedelics, MDMA, was set back in 2024 when, citing insufficient and flawed research, the Food and Drug Administration rejected a proposal to approve it as a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Maybe it’s a good thing. Half of this country appears deranged. We’ll all have PTSD before Trump and Trumpism are gone.