Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

According to a new PRRI survey, 32% of Americans are either adherents of Christian nationalism or sympathetic to it. But this breakdown of who they are by religion and race is interesting:

The Salt Lake Tribune has this:

Most (83%) of those who reject Christian nationalism — the idea that America was founded by and belongs to Christians — say they want to live in a pluralistic country. Not surprisingly, those who embrace Christian nationalism, according to PRRI’s measuring index, prefer a nation made up of Christians (73%).

The report reveals deep divides about the role that religion should play in the country, said Melissa Deckman, CEO of PRRI.“It’s a question of American identity,” said Deckman.

Since 2023, PRRI has tried to measure support for Christian nationalism in the U.S., using a series of five questions. Those questions ask:

• If the government should declare the U.S. a Christian nation.
• If being Christian is important to being an American.
• If U.S. law should be based on Christian values.
• If Christians are called to have domination over American society.
• If the U.S. will fall apart without its Christian foundations.

About 1 in 10 Americans (11%) are what PRRI calls Christian nationalist adherents, meaning they agree or completely agree with all questions, according to the new report, based on data from September 2025. More than 1 in 4 Americans (27%) are “rejectors,” meaning they completely disagree with all five statements. Another 21% of Americans are Christian nationalist sympathizers, according to PRRI, meaning they agree with most of the statements, but don’t completely agree with them. And 37% are skeptics and disagree — but not completely — with most of the five statements.

The skeptics outnumber adherents by more than 2-to-1.

Thank God.

Overall, about a third of Americans — including 56% of Republicans, 67% of white evangelicals and 54% of Hispanic Protestants — fall in the adherent or sympathizer categories.

In case you were wondering, many in the GOP establishment and Trumps administration are self-identified Christian nationalists including Russell Vought, Pete Hegseth and Speaker Mike Johnson..

There are places in America where this idea is much stronger than others:

The new report also takes a state-by-state look at the responses and found that Americans in the Bible Belt and the Midwest are more likely to fall in the adherent or sympathizer categories, while those who are skeptics or rejectors are more likely found on the coasts. Residents of Arkansas (54%), Mississippi (52%), West Virginia (51%), Oklahoma (49%), and Wyoming (46%) were most likely to fall in the adherent and sympathizer categories.

No surprises there. This really gets me:

PRRI found that support for President Donald Trump and his policies was much higher among those in the adherent and sympathizer categories. For example, about two-thirds (67%) of adherents and just over half (53%) of sympathizers agreed with the assertion that immigrants are invading the U.S. and “replacing our cultural and ethnic background.” Overall, a third of Americans agree. About 61% of adherents and 54% of sympathizers agreed with the U.S. “deporting undocumented immigrants to foreign prisons without due process,” something a third of Americans overall agree with.

These supposed Christians pretty much worship an adjudicated rapist with 5 children from three different wives who was the best friend of one of the most notorious pedophiles in American history. And they are all about being cruel and heartless toward strangers. But sure, they say they are followers of Jesus and expect the rest of us to follow them.

I’m afraid they missed all the Jesus stuff in the Bible.

The mere fact that they have shown themselves to be such epic hypocrites by supporting that monster means we never have to give them even the slightest respect as moral arbiters ever again. Just say “Trump” whenever they even try to wave around the Bible and spout morality. The days of having to kow-tow to that are over.

From the “you can believe me or your lyin’ eyes” files:

White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said the authors of a New York Fed study that found that Americans pay for tariffs should be disciplined, in an interview with CNBC Wednesday morning.

The findings of the paper run counter to what President Trump has claimed about his tariffs, and the attention the research has received has created a political problem for the White House. Trump wrote in the WSJ that the burden of tariffs “has fallen overwhelmingly on foreign producers and middlemen, including large corporations that are not from the U.S.”

That is not what the NY Fed study, out last week, concluded. Using government data, the authors found that U.S. importers of foreign goods paid 90% of the higher tariffs last year.They did this by looking at whether exporters lowered the prices of their goods, eating the costs of the tariffs, or if importers were paying more.

The boot-licking lackey Hassett has the nerve to say this:

 “I mean, the paper is an embarrassment,” Hassett said on CNBC. “It’s, I think, the worst paper I’ve ever seen in the history of the Federal Reserve system.”

Hassett argued that prices have gone down, wages are up, and “consumers were made better off by the tariffs.”

It’s clear that the word has gone forth in the Trump administration that their best hope for winning the midterms is to tell people that they don’t know their own minds. I’m sure it will work with the cult but that population seems to be shrinking not growing.

Traditional conservatives certainly aren’t buying it:

“I think the findings of the paper are consistent with what standard economic analysis would suggest,” Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, tells Axios. “The findings of the paper are also consistent with the empirical estimates of related papers,” he says. The problem is its conclusions run counter to the White House narrative.

Yes, that’s certainly true. But Trump has good reason to believe that if he just says something over and over again he can convince tens of millions of people to believe it regardless of the facts. It worked for him regarding the 2020 election and he even reversed many people’s beliefs about what they saw with their own eyes on January 6th. But this will be a real test of his limits. When it comes to their own wallets, people tend to go their own way no matter what the talking heads and politicians tell them. But who knows? Maybe Trump and his henchmen can pull this one off too.

The DHS Spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin is leaving. God riddance. She is a malignant blight on our society.

David Kurtz at TPM writes:

Tricia McLaughlin, the DHS spokesperson who trafficked in scurrilous lies about Trump’s mass deportation operation and in over-the-top attacks on the press, is leaving the administration on her own terms.

McLaughlin was a key contributor to a particular Trump II aesthetic: young, photogenic, often blonde women going feral in front of cameras on behalf of President Trump and his most odious nativist policies, in a performative spectacle that rejected the very premise of transparency and public accountability.

The peak example of McLaughlin’s angry-white-woman theatrics came in May, when the Trump administration rushed out a planeload of immigrants to South Sudan, in violation of an order from U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy of Boston. McLaughlin raced in front of the cameras to attack Murphy as he was convening an emergency hearing in the matter:

The deportees sat on a tarmac in Djibouti for days while the case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the six-justice conservative majority stayed Murphy’s order over a vigorous dissent from the three liberal justices, allowing the deportations to South Sudan to be completed.

The poison that came out of this woman’s mouth actually made Karoline Leavitt’s spew look angelic by comparison. I can only imagine what she’s got in mind next. I’m sure they’re actively looking for camp guards.

An example of her ouvre:

Four times exonerated in 30 seconds

ICYMI, Donald Trump has been “totally exonerated on Epstein.”

Trump: I have nothing to hide. I have been exonerated. I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. I have been totally exonerated on Epstein. pic.twitter.com/fh2dwDKiAx

— Acyn (@Acyn) February 17, 2026

The Ink observes that that Trump talking point sounds pretty familiar:

It’s not all that different from Trump’s reaction to the release of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The reality, then, was somewhat different: “The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told Congress back in 2019 as he presented his report. Mueller hadn’t found the evidence most wanted — direct connections with Russian interference operations. He’d found compelling reasons not to dismiss the idea that Trump had obstructed justice — he’d simply left the decision to act up to the Department of Justice. A serious error (as journalists Carol Leonnig and Aaron C. Davis have told us), but the report was far from a “complete and total” exoneration.

And Trump’s claim of “exoneration” now is just as curious, even if it is simply a reflex. So far, this hasn’t, at the core, even been about him. There has been no public process of inquiry, no special counsel has been appointed to look into the questions surrounding Trump’s involvement with Epstein raised by the newly released documents, and nobody has had their day in court to speak to any issues that might be raised by those documents.

That’s not quite exoneration — and certainly not total.

Expect to hear more of it from Trump and his pet parrots.

Actually that Trump line is familiar, only from someone a few years older, maturity-wise: “I didn’t do it, nobody saw me do it, you can’t prove anything!”

The karmic imbalance with this guy is massive. At some point the universe has to come into balance. Please?

Perhaps new standard issue?

There is a lot of timorous discussion among Democrats regarding how to deal with the what the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has become under Donald Trump, White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller, and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. Customs and Border Protection (CBP, the people who shot Alex Pretti to death in the street and shot 30-year-old Marimar Martinez five times in Chicago), and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE, an agent shot and killed Renee Good) are out of control thugs acting with willful disregard for the U.S. Constitution. Their terrorizing our communities has the full support of the Trump administration.

Brian Allen summarizes the Oregon incident described in the video below. It can happen to anyone, anywhere, at any time:

UNREAL: An American citizen was followed by an unmarked car, boxed in, dragged from her vehicle, injured, and left in a parking lot after agents found her passport.

She was on her way to pay rent and buy a birthday cake for her grandson.

Torn rotator cuff. Concussion. Bruised ribs. No help. No explanation.

This is happening to ordinary people.

This is not “enforcement.” This is lawless violence.

The 911 call from the daughter:

Democrats cannot decide whether defunding the agencies, reforming them, or abolishing them is the more politically palatable to American voters.

Here’s an interim solution. Maybe the next Congress just passes a law to make them wear more appropriate uniforms?

Mike Rounds says Republicans just want to make you show your document with a yellow star in order to vote

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-02-17T21:34:21.804Z

I know I don’t need to explain this but I will anyway because it’s hard to believe anyone could be this dumb:

on September 1, 1941, Reinhard Heydrich decreed that all Jews in the Reich six years of age or older were to wear a badge which consisted of a yellow Star  of David  on a black field to be worn on the chest, with the word “Jew” inscribed inside the star in German or in the local language. This applied to all German Jews and Jews in Germany’s annexed territories: Alsace, Bohemia-Moravia and the Warthegau (the German-annexed territory of western Poland).

In German-occupied western Europe, attempts to introduce the badge were met by varying degrees of opposition by the local population, officials, and even the German military.

German occupiers imposed the badge in Belgium and the Netherlands in the spring of 1942. The German military commander in France ordered all Jews over six years of age to wear, on the left side of the chest, a yellow star  the size of a person’s palm, with the inscription “Juif” inside. This ordinance was issued on June 7, 1942, although bureaucratic resistance on the part of French officials meant that a similar measure was never applied in Vichy France, even when German forces occupied those regions of France in November 1942.

In Denmark, the “Jewish badge” was never introduced. There is no truth to the much-repeated story that Danish King Christian X wore a yellow star  in solidarity with the Jews. This myth may owe its origins to a remark the king is said to have made to his finance minister, Vilhelm Buhl, that if the Germans introduced the star in Denmark, “perhaps we should all wear it.”

In Norway, the badge was never introduced, although after January 10, 1942 all Jews had to carry identification cards stamped with the letter “J.”

There were more variations but I think we all know that the yellow star is a very specific Nazi icon. Granted, he’s suggesting that all American citizens must carry an ID featuring the yellow star to prove they can vote but the fact that its a yellow star of all things, just makes it mind-boggling.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see something like coming down the pike for the massive camps they’re building all over the country:

Jews incarcerated in camps were marked with two yellow triangles forming a Star of David.  Made of fabric, these were sewn onto camp clothing. Other categories of prisoners were identified by the red triangle (political prisoners), green (criminals), black (asocials), brown (Sinti-Roma, originally black), pink (“homosexual” [“homosexuell”] offenders), among others.

These categories could be further refined by combining them. Thus, a Jew incarcerated for political reasons would have a red triangle superimposed on a yellow triangle. For non-German nationals, a letter denoting the country of origin was placed inside the badge, such as a P for Polish prisoners.

This is exactly how Stephen Miller and his accomplices are identifying their enemies.

As for the actual voting issue, it’s worse than you think. The Brennan Center lays it out:

The three versions of the SAVE Act would go into effect either immediately after enactment, or within the next year or two, depending on the specific provision. Such a rushed implementation of massive policy changes would wreak havoc on election administration, unleashing confusion that will itself undoubtedly prevent some American citizens from voting.

Though all versions of the SAVE Act would block millions of American citizens from voting, the new bills each contain unique additional obstacles. The anti-voter provisions in the House’s new version, formally titled the Make Elections Great Again Act, are so numerous that they require a bullet-pointed list:

• The bill not only requires proof of citizenship, but also proof of residence in order to register. This could block even more Americans from voting. Roughly 9 percent of the population has moved within a state in the past year, but many will not update their driver’s licenses until they expire.
• The bill would require photo ID to vote, providing a narrow list of acceptable IDs more restrictive than the voter ID laws in every state but Ohio. For example, the bill prohibits the use of student IDs (even those issued by state universities), and accepts tribal IDs only with an expiration date, even though many tribal IDs do not contain them.
• The legislation would mandate voter roll purges every 30 days, placing enormous burdens on election officials and ending the 90-day quiet period that protects voters from being mistakenly thrown off the rolls right before Election Day.
• The bill would prohibit universal mail voting, requiring all mail voters to submit an application in order to receive a mail ballot. This would end the longstanding principal method of voting in eight states and Washington, DC.

The House bill appears to create an exception from the “show your papers” requirement for states that require full Social Security numbers to register, but only three states are allowed to require such data because of privacy protections in federal law.

The other new SAVE Act bill, the SAVE America Act, also comes with its own add-ons. The Senate’s version of the SAVE America Act not only requires voters to show documents such as a passport or birth certificate to register — it requires them to do so again when they cast a ballot, unless their state has been regularly handing over its voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security since June of 2025 for comparison with the agency’s citizenship verification tool (confusingly named the SAVE program). Meanwhile, the latest House version of the SAVE America Act takes a different approach by simply directing states to run their voter rolls through the DHS SAVE program.

By the way:

All available evidence, including from the Trump administration itself, indicates that only American citizens vote and the exceptions are vanishingly rare. States that have combed through their voter rolls looking for illegally cast votes — like Louisiana and Utah did recently — have repeatedly confirmed that fact.

And studies over many years have also proved that there is no systemic voter fraud. However, the right has been pushing this canard for decades for the same reason they instituted poll taxes and literacy tests during Jim Crow. They know they can only win repeatedly if they can keep their opponents’ supporters from voting.

I wonder, however, if they’ve thought this through. The coalitions have shifted in recent years and the more educated voters are now voting for Democrats which means that they now have to rely on the less educated who tend not to vote if it’s difficult. Good luck with that.

Whether any of this come to fruition will depend on the Senate and then the Supreme Court which will be the ultimate arbiter of whether the federal government actually has the power to do all these things. I would bet they’ll think they do. One would hope that they consider the fact that Democrats might just be able to eke out wins in spite of all these roadblocks and then use this power to disenfranchise Republicans which would make them think twice but I doubt they will. They know that Democrats are far less likely to do it in the first place but if they do the Court can always find reasons why their usurpation of states’ rights is completely different.

I don’t think they can truly keep Democrats from voting but I do think that the combination of this SAFE Act, stacking the election boards in the states, using the ICE gangs to intimidate people and using the courts to contest every loss could make a difference at least on the margins. In a wave election they can’t get it done. In a close election it could easily tip the balance.

By the way, this isn’t a Trump thing, oh no. Republicans have been pushing this stuff for a very long time and it’s no surprise that they’re finally getting it done. Don’t think that Trump’s pushing of the voter fraud myth isn’t something they don’t support and are just going along with out of fear of MAGA. This is right up there with tax cuts for fundamental GOP priorities.

Brian Beutler takes up an important issue that I wish more Democrats would focus on. He cites the otherwise excellent Jon Ossof speech for an error too many of them make:

“This is the most corrupt administration of all time. And everybody knows it. Everybody knows it.”

I say the error is surprising not because I’m surprised it slipped past the people on Team Ossoff, but because it will strike most readers of this newsletter as counterintuitive.

In our world, in the world of high-information voters, the statement is true. Indeed, it is a statement of the obvious. Democrats know it. Republicans know it. Democrats know that Republicans know it, and Republicans know that Democrats know that their apologetics for Trump’s corruption are delivered in bad faith. If you watch a cable-news panel featuring a Republican plant like Scott Jennings trying to muddy corruption questions, or lash out angrily at supposed corruption on the left, that person knows they’re lying, and any co-panelists who engage as if it’s a good-faith debate are also playing a kind of make believe.Because in this echelon, this is the most corrupt administration of all time, and everybody knows it.

But if you pick a person at random in the country and ask him or her, which of the two major parties is most corrupt—a question that’s easily answerable if you already know that “this is the most corrupt administration of all time”—he or she will likely as not say “Democrats.” Or at least say both parties are similarly corrupt.

That is a (to me) infuriating but consistent finding in the data: Trump has at least fought the corruption issue to a draw—and may actually be winning it.

Grrrr!

Yes, all of politics is corrupt to some degree. Wealthy people have an outsized influence, politicians spend too much time listening to lobbyists and there’s always been self-dealing. There are an awful lot of rich people in office. But as Beutler writes:

Let’s allow that this phenomenon at least contributes to the problem. But does it explain the whole thing?

I don’t believe it can. Or if it does, it reflects a significant failure of imagination on the part of Democrats and liberals. The extraordinariness of Trump’s corruption is a fact. Quantifiable. Empirical. A simple truth, and a simple binary. There’s Trump, who is the most corrupt, and there’s every president who came before him, who was less so. In a world of perfect information, pollsters would ask which party is more corrupt, and Republicans would “win” 100-0. The median voter may have this other view, that corruption is simply endemic in all politics, but then that person is misinformed. And the misinformation persists for a reason.

If politicians never pointed fingers at their opponents’ corruption, you might imagine this misperception persisting as a kind of folk wisdom. Another way for regular people to signal independent thinking. Like “throw the bums out.”

But we live today in an unusually bleak epistemic moment. In a world of spin and lies, of casting blame and claiming credit, and all the things that make politics icky, magnified tremendously by artificial intelligence and algorithmic social media.

This information environment is teeming with accusations of corruption, but the simple truth is not getting through. Republicans have evidently done at least as good of a job blurring what’s obvious as Democrats have driving it home.

As he says, Democrats convinced themselves that Trump’s corruption didn’t matter in the first term so they haven’t really bothered with it in the 2nd. But, as Trump himself would say, there’s never been anything like it. The corruption in this term in epic and should be a massive scandal every single day. Between the Trump family, the cronies, the crypto, the selling of the presidency to the highest bidder (as often a foreigner as an American) we are watching presidential graft on an unprecedented scale. And yet the right continues to vomit up the name of poor, fucked-up “Hunter Biden” as if he was the one literally stealing billions. It’s intensely frustrating. Think “Crooked Hillary” and you can see how much more Trump and his henchmen have succeeded in tarring Democrats as the corrupt party than vice versa.

Brian points out:

Democrats not only fail to match this energy, they treat the whole sphere of public integrity as politically inert. As if there’s nothing to be gained from an opponent’s immorality or hypocrisy or shadiness, and there’s no cost to being accused of wrongdoing. As if every politician in the world wouldn’t much rather run against a corrupt opponent than an ethical one. As if corruption scandals didn’t end political careers all the time.

If you came to this question blind, with no prior knowledge of our two parties, and formed your opinion based only on the sum total of claims and counterclaims made by political actors, you’d have to conclude Democrats were more corrupt, because they are subject to the most high profile accusations of corruption.

Read the whole thing. He’s right on.

I would just add a couple of points. First, there are many lefty types who also insist that Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans, often even more so. It’s a reflexive hatred of the party establishment that literally makes no sense in this environment. Yes, the whole system is corrupt but here is only one party filled with people literally lining their personal pockets with billions of dollars right out in the open.

The other thing is Epstein. We are in the midst of a massive scandal that implicates powerful, wealthy (mostly) white men in a secretive, elite cabal of immoral and corrupt behavior. Donald Trump is actively trying to cover it up and everyone does know it. (The polls are lethal on this point.) We are at a moment of high interest in corruption and Democrats can place Trump right in the middle of it. Using the term “the Epstein class” is a good start.

Some talk about Trump's floor of support… I'm not sure he has a floor!

His net approval is at a term 2 low across a number of pollsters.

Trump's now in worse shape than he was at this point in term 1 or where Biden was at this point in his one term.

He's way underwater. pic.twitter.com/djVTFzztSq

— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) February 16, 2026

Just to remind you what a coarse, ugly brute he is and why so many people loathe him with every fiber of their beings:

That’s his idea of a generous tribute —it’s all about him.

I worry a lot that this behavior is becoming so standard (look at Bondi’s freak show last week) and that too many Americans now believe it’s normal to be this egotistical, stupid and crude, especially young people who have only seen this grotesque role model celebrated and rewarded. He is the quintessential Ugly American come to life and I’m afraid we’re going to be plagued with many more like him in the future.

Let’s hope the better angels of our nature continue to assert themselves as they have in Minneapolis. It’s our only hope.

Most presidencies have at least one iconic moment that makes the history books. It may not be fair or legitimately representative, but it’s usually an image that people remember if they recall nothing else, like Ronald Reagan in Berlin — “Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall” — or Bill Clinton falsely claiming “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” One of the most indelible images in recent memory was George W. Bush’s misguided aircraft carrier stunt in which he donned a flight suit and landed on the ship in a fighter jet during the early days of the Iraq War in 2003 to give a speech before a banner that proclaimed “Mission Accomplished.” The war would go for another eight years.

That image of Bush has become a meme — a symbol of presidential hubris that any leader with a drop of sense would seek to avoid at all costs. But Donald Trump apparently didn’t get the message. 

Hubris is Trump’s middle name. He is so defined by ego and narcissism that he declared the affordability crisis to be over; the president has apparently fixed America’s economy once and for all. In an interview for the Super Bowl, Trump told NBC News, “The one thing that they don’t say anymore is ‘affordability,’ because I fixed the problem that they created. I’m very proud of it.” 

Trump is a reflexive braggart and a hype artist, so his claims of success where none exists are so common as to be unremarkable. But this time, he may have stepped on Bush’s landmine. Even former president Joe Biden, who was punished for his inability to fully tame inflation while maintaining his insistence on touting impressive jobs numbers, didn’t go that far. And Trump’s dismal approval ratings show that most Americans are anything but convinced. 

“Affordability” is a concept that really reflects how people feel about the cost of living and their ability to get ahead. Polls phrase the questions differently, often in ways that obscure more than they reveal. But generally large numbers of people still feel that prices are going up, and that they are unable to buy the things they need or desire. 

A recent YouGov poll found that 53% of Americans said the economy is getting worse. Twenty-one percent believed it is getting better, while 19% said it was about the same. Most believe, though, that their own personal finances will get better or remain the same, so this is a generalized feeling about the economy-at-large. Still, the poll found that “79% say the price of food has gone up a lot (54%) or a little (24%), while only 9% say it’s gone down.” A whopping 72% reported that housing costs have “gone up a lot,” versus 47% who said a little and only 6% who responded that rent or mortgages have declined. 

These are things that average people deal with all day long. But Trump, living in his gilt mansions in New York, Washington, D.C., and Florida, believes that the rise of the stock market — which experts say is due to the artificial intelligence bubble and not great economic fundamentals — is the avatar of a soaring economy. He continues to believe that the manufacturing boom that only exists in his imagination will convince people they aren’t seeing what they say they’re in fact seeing. 

Economist Paul Krugman knows a little bit more about how the economy actually works than Donald Trump, and he recently quoted another economist, Paul Samuelson, who famously joked that the market had predicted nine of the last five recessions. In other words, the stock market is an unreliable indicator of the country’s economic health. Beyond that fact, the American market is not doing nearly as well as the rest of the world’s market; our economy is anemic by comparison. As Krugman noted, “Inflation remains stubbornly elevated. Despite one good month, employment growth has shriveled. And it keeps getting more difficult to find a job.”

Having people such as Attorney General Pam Bondi declare that Americans should be celebrating the stock market instead of worrying about the massive pedophilia scandal surrounding Jeffrey Epstein that has enveloped some of the world’s decadent elites — including Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick — is tone deaf on virtually every level. Not only aren’t people in a celebratory mood about the markets, they are downright sour on the future. That affects consumer spending, business start-ups — everything. 

Back in December, the White House announced that Trump was planning to hit the road to sell his economic accomplishments, with the thinking apparently being that if people can just see the president saying it in front of enthusiastic rally goers, the country will go along. His first foray into Pennsylvania was, as Salon’s Sophia Tesfaye noted, a dud. In between his usual forays into windmills and racism, the president lied repeatedly about the economy claiming, for instance, that he had obtained $18 trillion in investments when the reality, as reported by Politifact, is that the number was closer to $9 trillion, and most of the projects were “aspirational, multi-year goals that may not come to fruition.”

Trump claimed inflation was way down from when he took office. In reality, it’s right about the same: elevated. (The number declined a bit in January, mainly due to lower gas prices, while other energy costs went up substantially.) Health care premiums are through the roof, and the president’s TrumpRx website certainly isn’t going to solve that problem. The administration has also made false claims about the Big Beautiful Bill’s tax cuts in hopes they will appease the masses into believing that their ship has finally come in.

Interestingly, beyond a couple of small-scale events, there hasn’t been much talk of sending him out on the road again. Perhaps the White House is realizing the limited utility of bringing more attention to the fact that the president is either lying about people’s lived reality or is completely out of touch. Either way, his poll numbers have been cratering for the last two months. 

Ahead of the midterms, Democrats are gearing up for a fight on the economy. Trump made big promises during the presidential campaign that, despite his claims to the contrary, have not come to pass — and he’s actually made things worse. Democrats hope to hang Trump’s failures around his neck, and it’s likely the GOP will fare even worse than Kamala Harris did in 2024, largely due to his unfulfilled economic promises.

But there’s more to it than just that. The president’s insistence that the economy is great despite the public’s feeling otherwise is contributing to a general sense that the country is hurtling out of control on Trump and the GOP’s watch. That sense, combined with his horrific mass deportation policy and violence in the streets, his weird obsessions with unnecessary White House renovations and the Nobel Peace Prize, military incursions and threats of imperial seizures of sovereign territory, and public health being dismantled, signals to the American people that we are in a period of overwhelming chaos. 

Republican pollster Whit Ayres recently observed in POLITICO that “there’s a sense that this is a pretty chaotic administration and it seems to remind people of the pandemic period in the first term.” It’s all of a piece — and if Democrats can find a way to synthesize this into a message that voters need to give them a congressional majority in November, the country will begin to at least some sense of relief. Between a bad economy and the escalating violence, people are simply yearning for a break from Trump’s chaos.

Salon

Colbert is not going quietly

It’s AI slop day here at ye olde blog (above, and my earlier post).

Stephen Colbert is done with the “Late Show” in May. He’s not going quietly. Via Raw Story:

Stephen Colbert went off on Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr after he pressured CBS into scrapping the broadcast of an interview with Texas state Rep. James Talarico, who is running for the U.S. Senate.

The “Late Show” host instead posted his interview with the Democratic candidate on the program’s YouTube page and addressed the FCC’s threat to revise the equal-time requirements for hosting political candidates on late-night talk shows.

“[Talarico] was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast,” Colbert said. “Then, I was told, in some uncertain terms, that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on, and because my network clearly does not want us to talk about this, let’s talk about this.”

Colbert explained the equal time provision and Carr’s threat to waive an exemption the FCC has long recognized for news programming, which the agency notified broadcasters might not apply to talk shows, and he took a shot at President Donald Trump’s nominee.

“Carr said… some of [the talk shows] were ‘motivated by partisan purposes,’” Colbert said. “Well, sir, you’re chairman of the FCC, so FCC you.”

After punctuating his FCC you to Brendan Carr with an AI-generated “tasteful nude” of Carr (or was it old-school Photoshop?), Colbert made sure to alert viewers to where they could find his Talarico interview online: at “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” YouTube page.

I don’t know if he can win a Senate seat in Texas, but it seems the Party of MAGA worries he might.