Judge Luttig tweet this today, writing, “Prophetic words from Alexander Hamilton to George Washington in 1792 — as apt and timely today as they were over 230 years ago.”
“A people so enlightened and so diversified as the people of this Country can surely never be brought to [monarchy], but from convulsions and disorders, in consequence of the acts of popular demagogues.
The truth unquestionably is, that the only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions, to throw affairs into confusion, and bring on civil commotion. Tired at length of anarchy, or want of government, they may take shelter in the arms of monarchy for repose and security.
Those then, who resist a confirmation of public order, are the true Artificers of monarchy—not that this is the intention of the generality of them. Yet it would not be difficult to lay the finger upon some of their party who may justly be suspected.
When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanour—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty— when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day— it may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may “ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.””
Philip Bump took a deep dive into Trump (and Barr’s) successful effort to turn Russia’s manipulation of him into a “fake news” story. There’s a lot there and I can only excerpt a piece of it. But you can read the whole thing with this link:
Out there in the broader world, the “Russia collusion hoax” skeptics are abundant, if not a plurality of the public. There has perhaps been no sales pitch offered by Donald Trump that has paid larger dividends than his immediate, long-standing push to cast any questions about Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 campaign as the deranged rantings of weirdo liberals. He’s inculcated an immediate, visceral reaction from members of his base as well as Americans more broadly that when they hear “Russia” in the context of “Trump,” they should dismiss what follows as false and defamatory.
This reaction has provided him an enormous amount of space to avoid very serious questions about the ways in which Russia worked to his benefit while he was in office — and may continue to do so.
There is news on this front. On Monday, the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) brought charges of treason against Oleksandr Dubinsky, a former member of the Ukrainian parliament. Dubinsky is accused of helping Russia to spread “fakes about the alleged interference of Ukrainian high-ranking officials” in the United States’ 2020 presidential elections, according to a Post translation of the charges.
Dubinsky has long been an ally of another Ukrainian politician, Andriy Derkach. The SBU accused Derkach last year of having provided assistance to Russia during its expanded invasion of Ukraine.
Derkach and Dubinsky have been linked to Russian intelligence efforts by the U.S. government, as well. In September 2020, the Treasury Department imposed sanctions on Derkach for having “waged a covert influence campaign centered on cultivating false and unsubstantiated narratives concerning U.S. officials in the upcoming 2020 Presidential Election, spurring corruption investigations in both Ukraine and the United States designed to culminate prior to election day.” Dubinsky was sanctioned as part of that effort in January 2021, before Trump left office. Last December, Derkach was indicted by the Justice Department.
You probably picked up on the theme here: that Derkach and Dubinsky were involved in efforts to spread false information with the aim of affecting the 2020 election. Those efforts directly involved Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. They are also interwoven with the ongoing effort by Republicans to impugn President Biden, though the line between driving and leveraging doubt about Biden is often blurry.
BY this time you certainly know the story of corrupt prosecutor Viktor Shokin being ousted at the behest at the entire western world and the Republicans trying to claim that Biden did it to protect his son even though Shokin wasn’t investigating him. And you also knowby now that Shokin, who is a real snake,began chatting up Rudy Giuliani pushing the story that Biden pushed him out because of Hunter even though it never made any sense. All this is what precipitated Trump’s “perfect call” demanding the announcement of an investigation into Biden and his first impeachment.
Giuliani was undeterred, however, and kept working this angle, thirstily drinking up every bit of disinformation Russia friendly Ukrainians were giving him.
In October 2020, there was another “disinformation” allegation: the publication of elements of Hunter Biden’s laptop after the owner of the Delaware computer store had given them to Giuliani.
It is known that there was information from Hunter Biden floating around as early as the spring of 2019. Time reported that multiple people in Ukraine had been approached about emails and photos involving Hunter Biden in that time period. Giuliani’s aide Lev Parnas wrote in a letter to House investigators that he’d been approached about digital material belonging to Hunter Biden in June 2019, information allegedly stolen from Biden’s laptop by Russian intelligence and Zlochevsky allies during a trip Biden made to Kazakhstan. (Parnas, it’s worth noting, is himself not an entirely reliable narrator.)
Given the Russian effort in 2016 to affect the presidential election by releasing information stolen from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, the laptop story was quickly identified as a possible similar effort. No evidence has emerged to suggest that it demonstrably wasn’t the result of Hunter Biden abandoning his laptop, with the FBI first taking possession of its contents in late 2019. It is nonetheless noteworthy that Giuliani, having been offered material stolen by Russian actors from Hunter Biden’s laptop in June 2019, ended up in possession of material from Hunter Biden’s laptop in August 2020. Trump, of course, has been eager to present questions about the laptop’s authenticity as further evidence that no valid questions about Russia exist.
This brings us to the through line that Trump demands we ignore, this surfeit of post-2016 activity in which information potentially damaging to Joe Biden has however-tenuous connections to Russian disinformation efforts. Giuliani chatting with Dubinsky and Derkach. The alleged offer of Hunter Biden material is known to be circulating in Ukraine. Questions about the information presented by the confidential informant. Trump has been so effective at poisoning any question about Russia’s effort that questions about what is intended often simply aren’t asked.
In May of this year, Derkach leaked recordings of several calls, including ones between Biden and Ukraine’s former president centered on Shokin. This came after Grassley and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) had raised questions about the bribery claims made to the informant — claims that included an allegation that Zlochevsky was in possession of recordings of calls involving himself and Joe Biden.
Despite Derkach already having been penalized as a Russian agent and charged with federal crimes, OAN ran a segment that month hyping the recordings as inculpatory. Giuliani was interviewed to offer his thoughts.
“Russia, Russia, Russia” he cries and the press corps shrugs its collecting shoulders and moves as quickly as possible away from anything to do with it. But there’s a huge story there.
I know it’s mean to say it, but it’s important to acknowledge.
Jill Filipovic writes about “that which cannot be mentioned” in her great newsletter today. It has to be said:
One basic rule of being a person who opines on politics is that you are not allowed to disrespect voters. Voters, you are supposed to say, are very smart and thoughtful people; it is the politicians who are bad, who do not deliver, who do not give them what they want or need. If politicians behaved differently, then voters — good people, rational people — would respond accordingly….
But also, a lot of people are stupid, paranoid, incompetent and irrational.
I know, this is a very disrespectful thing to say (“deplorable” would have been more polite). And there are of course some Trump voters who are perfectly kind of their neighbors and I am sure are, in many contexts, utterly decent people. There are some Trump voters who aren’t cult loyalist but normie Republicans who want normie Republican things, like tax breaks for the rich, unfettered capitalism, and women forced into submission. But can we just be honest and say that in a nation of hundreds of millions of people, some significant proportion of those who have latched onto an obvious pathological narcissist are not, in fact, smart, competent, rational people? And that assuming they are — assuming that Democrats just need the right policies or at least the right messaging — is a fool’s errand?
Elections are won two ways: Turnout and persuasion. And generally, you need both. Clearly there are a number of voters who can be persuaded, which is why Joe Biden currently sits in the White House. Democrats should try to persuade them by emphasizing issues that are winners — abortion, for one — and tying Trump and the GOP directly to the demise of abortion rights in the US, and the potential for a federal abortion ban.
Democrats should also realize that for a significant number of Trump supporters, Trump’s appeal has virtually nothing to do with policy: He could hand out free abortion pills on Fifth Avenue and while he’d definitely lose the support of some anti-abortion groups, his base would stick with him. He could probably also stand on Fifth Avenue and execute women who had abortions and many members of his base (including many “pro-lifers”) would still vote for him. Point being, the idea that all or even most voters care about policy above all, or even policy at all, is false. A lot of voters care about vibes. They care about their own disregulated emotions, and if they’re mad, then they want someone or something to punch — an immigrant, a woman who does what she wants, a city-dweller who thinks they’re better, a drag queen who doesn’t seem appropriately ashamed, someone who they either blame for their problems or find different and therefore disgusting. Look, these are people who believe Hillary Clinton is smuggling child sex slaves in Wayfair cabinets for imprisonment in the basement of a pizza parlor. Why do we continue with the fiction that there’s intelligent life below the surface?
The beauty of the American system is that every adult citizen, including irrational dummies, gets to vote. The reality of the American system, of course, is that lots of people don’t actually get to vote, mostly because conservative politicians are always trying to shrink the pool of potential Democratic voters. But either way, you don’t actually have to be tethered to reality, or have any tangible goal other than making others suffer, to cast a ballot in the US. That’s an absolutely terrible system, but it sure beats all the other options.
The job of Democrats is to try to persuade swing voters and moderate Republican voters, without falling for the fiction that there’s some critical mass of Trump supporters who will go our way if only we appeal to their better, rational selves. A lot of people don’t have better, rational selves (including, for the record, a number of people on the left). At some point, Donald Trump is going to die, these voters will be scattered and adrift, and the Republican Party will need to reorganize itself, and boy will that be interesting to watch. In the meantime, though, some of them are persuadable, and most of them are sticking with Dear Leader. Democrats should focus on getting their own voters to the ballot box, and convincing the small number of convincables that Trump is exactly who he seems like he is.
Democrats shouldn’t insult Trump voters (please, Democratic politicians, don’t emulate this newsletter). But Democrats can also ignore a lot of them. Instead, speak to the people who have clung to a shred of sanity. Point it out when Trump literally pulls from the Hitler playbook. Point out that he killed Roe v. Wade (“I was able to kill Roe v. Wade” –Donald J. Trump). Point out that he’s a criminal and a con man and he cuts taxes for the wealthiest and, in his personal and political life, leaves everyone else with the bill. When Biden’s age and health inevitably comes up, point out that Trump is also old as hell, and unlike Biden he’s on a diet of Big Macs and demented rage. Hope that sways enough voters to reelect Biden. But don’t waste time worrying about what deep down policy desire makes all of these voters love Trump so much. The answer is right there.
I think I always knew this but the pandemic really brought it home. Still, I’ve been very surprised by the scale of it. I never thought there were so many who were impervious to reality.
The Republican Party has viciously turned on itself
You know how it is when toddlers get tired. They get cranky. They cry and they pout and sometimes they even try to hold their breath until they turn blue if they don’t get their way. When this happens you know it’s time to give them a bottle and put them to bed. When they get older there can be the problem of how to handle an unruly teenager, defiant and hostile, challenging every rule and boundary and refusing to acknowledge any authority. Sometimes it’s enough to take away the car keys and ground them for a while but in other cases, intense therapy or even military school, as in the case of young Donald Trump, is seen as the only way to get through to them.
But what do you do when elected officials suddenly start behaving like screaming toddlers and teenage bullies in the halls of congress? Is there any authority that can step in and quiet the tantrums? And when this increasingly anti-social behavior is happening in the shadow of a party leader and presidential candidate who exalts violence and cruelty, can we really just chalk it up to frustration and fatigue?
That question was asked repeatedly when all hell broke loose on both ends of congress yesterday and nobody knows the answer. This isn’t the usual partisan sniping. Something disturbing and bizarre is happening within the Republican Party, which has now viciously turned on itself. Here are some of the incidents that took place just yesterday.
On the over grown toddler front we have House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer who has been appearing on every right wing media outlet fulminating about the “Biden Crime family” and waving around a $200,000 check repaying a personal loan from Biden’s brother as if it’s a smoking gun. (It is not.) At a hearing on Tuesday morning, Comer had a complete meltdown when confronted with the fact that he himself had engaged in some big money loans back and forth to his own brother that appeared to feature some very shady dealings.
He got so agitated that he called the Rep. Jared Moskowitz, R-Fl., who was dressed in a blue suit … a smurf:
Comer flips out when he gets confronted on the loan to his brother by Moskowitz pic.twitter.com/LO5YqqZtdQ
It could have been worse. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., failed in her privileged resolution to impeach the Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Monday, due to eight Republicans voting with all the Democrats to refer the matter to committee which is how it’s supposed to be done. One of the Republican members, Californian Darryl Issa, was asked about it and he said that Greene “lacks the maturity and the experience to understand what she was asking for” prompting Greene to tweet a meme of former President Trump saying, “She said he’s a p‑‑-‑y.” Then she embellished it with another post saying “we all know what he’s lacking…” with emojis of tennis balls.
But let’s give her a few points for restraint. Unlike some of her colleagues at least she didn’t threaten anyone or resort to physical violence.
Tennessee Congressman Tim Burchett was giving an interview to an NPR reporter when he suddenly lunged forward and exclaimed that former Speaker Kevin McCarthy had elbowed him in the back. A chase ensued with Burchett running after McCarthy demanding to know why he did it which McCarthy denied, later telling reporters, “if I’d wanted to hit him, he’d know it.”
News — Rep. Tim Burchett accuses Kevin McCarthy of a "sucker punch" to the kidneys and describes heated scene as he chased the former speaker down the hallway.
Said he's the type of the guy who as a kid would "hide behind his mama's skirt." McCarthy denies it was intentional pic.twitter.com/fBvOUxMb5z
We were later reminded of a passage in former Congressman Adam Kinsinger’s book in which he claimed that McCarthy, always surrounded by his security guards,purposefully shoulder checked him hard when he passed him in the hallways. Who knew MyKevin was such a physical brute?
Naturally, Florida bomb thrower Matt Gaetz had to get in on the act and he filed an ethics complaint against his nemesis McCarthy for elbowing Burchett. (This was obviously in retaliation for an interview in which McCarthy slammed the “crazy 8” that defenestrated him, specifically mentioning the ethics complaints still pending against Gaetz.)
We have come to expect the House to be more than a little bit fractious lately and there have been whispers about physical threats being bandied about ever since the Speaker battle began. But yesterday the Senate got a little piece of that hot bully boy action for itself. Sen. Markwayne Mullin the freshman Senator from Oklahoma, has been trash talking with Teamster President Sean O’Brien on twitter over O’Brien referring to him as a “greedy CEO.” At a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Mullin challenged him to a fight right on the Senate floor:
.@SenMullin (R-OK) challenges Teamster President Sean O'Brian to fight during a Senate hearing on cooperate greed. Chairman @BernieSanders tried multiple times to reclaim order and asked the Senator to direct a question to the witness. pic.twitter.com/C7PAXicoD2
That actually went on for some minutes and it didn’t get any better. Mullin made the rounds of all the right wing cable shows and explained that there is nothing wrong with what he did because there’s “presence” for it:
Question: Are there any actual senate rules— could you guys go bare knuckle?
Mullin: We looked into the rules. You used to be able to cane. Andrew Jackson challenged 9 guys to a duel.. And so at the end of the day, there is presence for it pic.twitter.com/zznZbVYtHH
In an interesting coincidence, Mullin had an earlier altercation with Rep. Burchett over the McCarthy vote and kicked him out of his daily workout group. According to The Hill:
Burchett confirmed that he was booted from the early-morning workout, saying the senator “berated” and “yelled at him” until he left — which Mullin denied — and that Mullin’s friendship with McCarthy was the main reason.
The bad blood within the party is boiling over.
The conventional wisdom among the beltway wags is that everyone is simply exhausted and are at their breaking point. But why are they so tired? We aren’t in a great depression or a world war. The pandemic is no longer a crisis and these people didn’t care about it anyway. This is all of their own making. They’re upset because they can’t always get their way so they’re staging an institutional tantrum.
It’s easy to laugh and make fun of the clown show but this is actually very serious. The phenomenon has been growing slowly for years as extremists accumulated power and began to make unrealistic demands on the system. Donald Trump exacerbated the problem with his personal character flaws and lack of understanding or respect for democracy itself and now the party is fully engaged in a war with everyone in the country including itself.
The good news is that in spite of all this drama, they did manage to pass a short term Continuing Resolution without spending cuts and temporarily avoid a government shutdown. It only happened because the MAGA extremists decided they would not hold their new speaker to the standard they held McCarthy and allowed him to pass it with Democratic votes. But Matt Gaetz has made it clear he’s on borrowed time. It’s hard to see how this ends well. For any of us.
Benefits from Biden’s infrastructure bill sinking in
Voters’ choice next year is not just between preserving our experiment in government of, by, and for the people or creeping fascism. It’s also a choice of whether to improve Americans’ lives today and for our children’s future or to squander more energy and treasure on playground brawls, revenge, and punching down.
Is returning to middle school any mature adult’s idea of “great”?
Navigator this morning finds what Americans prefer:
Two in three Americans continue to support the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law two years after it was signed into law by President Biden.
Most elements of the infrastructure law are even more popular than the law itself, particularly replacing and upgrading water pipes, building and repairing roads, and upgrading and repairing electric power grids.
More:
By a 43-point margin, Americans continue to support the Bipartisan Infrastructure legislation that President Biden signed into law two years ago today. When asked about a new infrastructure plan that would “improve roads and bridges, expand power infrastructure, increase passenger and rail access, and improve water infrastructure,” 65 percent of Americans support this legislation with only 22 percent opposed. The legislation earns strong support across partisanship, including nine in ten Democrats (net +84; 89 percent support – 5 percent oppose), a majority of independents (net +27; 52 percent support – 25 percent oppose), and two in five Republicans (net +2; 43 percent support – 41 percent oppose).
Despite a souring national environment over the last two years, this is consistent with Navigator’s November 2021 survey conducted just after Biden signed the legislation into law (net +40; 65 percent support – 25 percent oppose). Support is particularly high among Black Americans (78 percent), those living in households with a union member (73 percent), and those who are over the age of 65 (72 percent).
Speaker Mike Johnson did it. He passed a stopgap spending measure through the House meant to prevent a government shutdown on Friday. With Democrats’ help. With all but two House Democrats. With more Democrats than Republicans. Now as it heads to the Senate, we await the MAGA fallout in the House.
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow reacted to Johnson’s accomplishment and its potential blowback on “The Late Show.”
“I’m sure Mr. Johnson is very … smart,” she began ironically, because “the previous guy was driven out with torches and pitchforks.”
“We all know how this ends. This is not a party that is trying to govern.”
Minutes before Rachel Maddow walked out on our stage, we got word that the House passed Speaker Mike Johnson's bill to fund the government into the new year. Here's how @maddow reacted.#Colbertpic.twitter.com/BNwj4jVm4z
The two parties are doing two very different things. So now we are going to keep the government open. It is because the Democrats came to the rescue and said that we should. But this is the Republican Party still not even wanting to keep the government going because they don’t believe that governance is what we need in this country. They believe we want a strongman form of government under a guy who just says what he wants and it happens. And the stakes are really high right now.
Republicans prove her point
Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) lost the speakership over the same sort of bill. But the hard right seems willing to cut the new guy (Johnson) a little slack. For now. Maybe it’s because they were too busy busting each other’s chops, figuratively and literally.
“Are The Republican Men Okay?” asks TPM. McCarthy allegedly threw an elbow at fellow Republican Tim Burchett of Tennessee (TPM):
It seems that McCarthy shoved or threw an elbow at Burchett. Burchett initially tried to respond jokingly, but when McCarthy ignored him, he yelled: “Hey Kevin, you got any guts!?” Burchett then ran down the hallway to catch him, his tan coat flapping, to confront McCarthy again. McCarthy denied touching him and Burchett called him a “jerk.”
McCarthy respnded to questions, saying, “If I hit somebody, they would know it. If I kidney punched someone, they would be on the ground.”
MAGA Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) filed an ethics complaint:
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), as you may have heard, had to stop a fight from breaking out in a Senate committee:
Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin @SenMullin just stood up and tried to fight labor leader Sean O'Brien @TeamsterSOB at a Senate Help Committee hearing after reading his tweet where O'Brien says he'd take him "any time, any place." pic.twitter.com/8oiPSNZJV8
Apparently, in a moment of irritation at a House Oversight Committee hearing this afternoon, Rep. James Comer (R-KY) called Rep. Jared Moskowitz (R-FL) a “smurf.”
“You look like a Smurf, here, just going around and all this stuff,” Comer shot at Moskowitz, who was wearing a blue suit and blue tie today.
I don’t think the encounter deserves more unpacking than that, but here’s a more thorough breakdown if you care to ingest a bit more bleach this evening.
Former president Donald Trump threw himself back into politics this weekend by publicly endorsing a devoted and divisive acolyte in Arizona who has embraced his false election conspiracy theories and entertained the creation of a new “MAGA Party.”
In a recorded phone call, Trump offered his “complete and total endorsement” for another term for Arizona state party chairwoman Kelli Ward, a lightning rod who has sparred with the state’s Republican governor, been condemned by the business community and overseen a recent flight in party registrations. She narrowly won reelection, by a margin of 51.5 percent to 48.5 percent, marking Trump’s first victory in a promised battle to maintain political relevance and influence after losing the 2020 election.
In recent weeks, Trump has entertained the idea of creating a third party, called the Patriot Party, and instructed his aides to prepare election challenges to lawmakers who crossed him in the final weeks in office, including Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.), according to people familiar with the plans.
Multiple people in Trump’s orbit, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, say Trump has told people that the third-party threat gives him leverage to prevent Republican senators from voting to convict him during the Senate impeachment trial. Trump advisers also say they plan to recruit opposing primary candidates and commission polling next week in districts of targeted lawmakers. Trump has more than $70 million in campaign cash banked to fund his political efforts, these people say.
According to Jonathan Karl’s new book, he got into a knock down drag out with the RNC at the same time and was only dissuaded by the fact that he would no longer have access to their money for legal costs and the big email list:
In an angry conversation on his final day as president, Donald Trump told the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee he was leaving the GOP and creating his own political party — and that he didn’t care if the move would destroy the Republican Party, according to a new book by ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl.
Trump only backed down when Republican leaders threatened to take actions that would have cost Trump millions of dollars, Karl writes his upcoming book, “Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show.”
The book gives a detailed account of Trump’s stated intention to reject the party that elected him president and the aggressive actions taken by party leaders to force him to back down.
The standoff started on Jan. 20, just after Trump boarded Air Force One for his last flight as president.
“[RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel] called to wish him farewell. It was a very un-pleasant conversation,” Karl writes in “Betrayal,” set to be released on Nov. 16.
“Donald Trump was in no mood for small talk or nostalgic goodbyes,” Karl writes. “He got right to the point. He told her he was leaving the Republican Party and would be creating his own political party. The president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., was also on the phone. The younger Trump had been relentlessly denigrating the RNC for being insufficiently loyal to Trump. In fact, at the January 6 rally before the Capitol Riot, the younger Trump all but declared that the old Republican Party didn’t exist anymore.”
With just hours left in his presidency, Trump was telling the Republican Party chairwoman that he was leaving the party entirely. The description of this conversation and the discussions that followed come from two sources with direct knowledge of these events.
“I’m done,” Trump told McDaniel. “I’m starting my own party.”
“You cannot do that,” McDaniel told Trump. “If you do, we will lose forever.”
“Exactly. You lose forever without me,” Trump responded. “I don’t care.”
They should have let him do it. He’s dragged them into a political quagmire:. It was his moment of greatest weakness:
Following the tense conversion, McDaniel informed RNC leadership about Trump’s plans, spurring a tense standoff between Trump and his own party over the course of the next four days.
While Trump, “morose in defeat and eager for revenge, plotted the destruction of the Republican Party … the RNC played hardball,” according to the book.
“We told them there were a lot of things they still depended on the RNC for, and that if this were to move forward, all of it would go away,” an RNC official told Karl.
According to the book, “McDaniel and her leadership team made it clear that if Trump left, the party would immediately stop paying legal bills incurred during post-election challenges.”
“But, more significant, the RNC threatened to render Trump’s most valuable political asset worthless,” Karl writes, referring to “the campaign’s list of the email addresses of forty million Trump supporters.”
“It’s a list Trump had used to generate money by renting it to candidates at a steep cost,” says the book. “The list generated so much money that party officials estimated that it was worth about $100 million.”
Five days after revealing plans that could have destroyed his own political party on that last flight aboard Air Force One, Karl writes, Trump backed down, saying he would remain a Republican after all.
It was reported at the time that he was threatening this. But he and Ronna deny it now:
“This is false, I have never threatened President Trump with anything,” McDaniel told ABC News. “He and I have a great relationship. We have worked tirelessly together to elect Republicans up and down the ballot, and will continue to do so.”
Trump, responding to the story, said, “ABC Non News and 3rd rate reporter Jonathan Karl have been writing fake news about me from the beginning of my political career. Just look at what has now been revealed about the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax. It was a made up and totally fabricated scam and the lamestream media knew it. It just never ends!”
Trump has long denounced news reports that he had considered starting his own party as “fake news.” In Karl’s final interview with the former president for his book, Trump claimed to not recall his conversation with McDaniel on Jan. 20, saying, “a lot of people suggested a third party, many people” — but that he himself had never even thought about leaving the GOP.
“You mean I was going to form another party or something?” Trump asked Karl incredulously. “Oh, that is bulls**t. It never happened.”
Yeah it did. And if the RNC had any balls they would have taken him up on his offer and waited for him to land in jail or shuffle off his mortal coil and rebuild from there. But apparently they like being his bootlicking supplicants.
New Speaker Mike Johnson met with the group of conservative hardliners on Monday evening in hopes of selling the bill to skeptics. The group isn’t pleased with the legislation, but doesn’t plan to try to oust Johnson over the move.
HFC members are furious that the legislation keeps 2023 funding levels intact.
Johnson has repeatedly argued that the “laddered continuing resolution” — with some funding lasting until January and the rest until Feb. 2 — would prevent the House from being rolled by a sweeping omnibus spending bill from the Senate.
Eight conservatives joined with Democrats in October to oust former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), citing his decision to bring up a resolution that extended current spending levels.
That’s a funny way of putting it, don’t you think? The Democrats didn’t file the motion to vacate the chair and they didn’t vote against McCarthy because of it. They just had the opportunity to vote for their own leader and they did. The whole thing was on Republicans who ostensibly couldn’t stomach working with Democrats to pass a continuing resolution with no cuts.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) told reporters “Here we are, we’re doing the same thing,” noting that they’ll oppose the plan but want to give Johnson time to find footing in his new role.
Anyway, it appears that the Freedom Caucus won’t oust Mike Johnson for doing the same thing McCarthy did. They’ll vote against it and let Johnson pass it with Democratic help. (Dems will do it because it doesn’t feature any spending cuts and they aren’t children who just want to hold their breath until they turn blue no matter who it hurts.)
But Johnson should remember, it only takes one to file it and only four to turn him out. He’d better mind his ps and qs. There are a lot of renegades in the House GOP right now. And they’re feeling feisty.
This seems like good news. I wonder if people will finally start to “feel” it. So far Americans seem to believe we are in a great depression. Paul Krugman had an interesting insight into this phenomenon today:
Surveys of consumer sentiment and political polls continue to show that Americans have a very negative view of the Biden economy. There’s still no consensus about the reasons for this disconnect. But there are some new studies that shed some light on what’s going on, and I have a new way of looking at the numbers that may also clarify things.
[…]
Americans say that things are bad; shouldn’t we take them at their word?
One answer is: Look at what they do, not at what they say. As it happens, the plunge in consumer sentiment during the Biden years has been similar in magnitude to the plunge during and after the 2008 financial crisis — which is itself a remarkable observation, given that the post-2008 slump dragged on for years, while after Covid we rapidly returned to full employment. However, consumer spending, which stalled during the last crisis, has just kept powering along this time. Here’s a table, with all variables shown as percentage changes from the start date:
So consumers may say that it’s a lousy economy, but their spending suggests that they’re feeling quite good about their personal financial situations. I guess they believe bad things are happening, but only to other people.
Anyway, the analysts at Briefing Book delved into one possible reason for this disconnect, which I speculated about right from the start — but they’ve done the math. It’s now a well-established fact that partisan orientation affects expressed views about the economy: Democrats are more positive when a Democrat holds the White House, Republicans more positive when the president is a Republican. What Briefing Book shows is that this effect isn’t symmetric: It applies to both parties, but the partisan effect on sentiment is two and a half times as large for Republicans as it is for Democrats.
And it estimates that this “asymmetric amplification,” all by itself, accounts for 30 percent of the gap between economic sentiment and economic fundamentals.
Wait, there’s more. The importance of partisanship in shaping economic perceptions tells us that a lot of what people say about the economy reflects what they hear, either from news organizations or on social media, rather than their own experiences. And it’s a running joke among economists I talk to that even mainstream news organizations apparently find it hard to say nice things about the Biden economy. When, say, a new employment report comes in, the headlines don’t usually say things like “Job growth comes in above expectations”; they’re more likely along the lines of, “Rapid job growth may slow soon, experts say, posing problems for Biden.”
You might say that such things can’t really matter, that people know what’s really happening. But the evidence on partisanship and perceptions suggests otherwise.
Now, I’m not saying that this is the whole story. Inflation may be slowing, but prices have risen a lot in recent years, and that still upsets people — although as I noted last week, that anger didn’t seem to last after previous temporary bursts of inflation. And general malaise over the social impacts of the pandemic may be bleeding into what people say about the economy.
Still, we can acknowledge that there are other factors at work without denying two clear facts about the economy: Most American workers are, in fact, better off than they were in the past, and a significant part of negative economic commentary reflects partisanship, not reality.
Oh, and one other point: Negative economic sentiment may not matter as much for the 2024 election as many think, since a lot of it is coming from people who would never vote for a Democrat under any conditions.
Again, the sense of chaos benefits the Republicans and they are very good at making people who don’t pay close attention to politics forget that the Trump administration was a train wreck and think that the current administration is the cause of the craziness that continues as long as Trump and the MAGA cult control the GOP.
So yes, Republicans are lying when they say they think the economy is worse than 1932. That’s just how they roll. But Democrats who say that are uniformed because the media ust can’t let go of the “sky is falling” narrative of the economy. Even today, when the stock market soared because of the new numbers CNN ran a report about how it’s nice that inflation came down year over year and month over month, some costs are only flat and that’s very bad news, so it’s not surprising that quite a few people who aren’t engaged may think that even though they’re doing ok the rest of the country is a miserable hellscape.
I just hope that the good news start to sink in with those people over the next year — and nothing catastrophic happens in the meantime.
You know, the ones that have been right instead of wrong
Abby Livingston at Puck talks to Tom Bonier about the polling. Bonier happens to have been one of those who’s been consistently right about the elections the last few years in contrast to pundits, pollsters and the media.
Abby Livingston: So, what happened last night?
Tom Bonier: In November 2022, we learned that abortion rights and the Dobbs decision was politically salient, but that it had its limitations, that it simply wasn’t a magic wand whereby people would universally vote more Democratic. We thought that the effect was uneven in places where the issue was literally on the ballot.
One of the challenges for Democrats over the intervening year was, how do we draw the connection between voting for Democratic candidates and protecting abortion rights?
The most interesting takeaways last night were in Ohio and Virginia. In Ohio, where there was a literal ballot initiative on guaranteeing abortion access, we saw very high turnout and a very wide margin for the “yes” vote to enshrine abortion protections in the state constitution. To me, that wasn’t new—it was in line with what we were seeing in other states with ballot initiatives.
In Virginia, however, both sides leaned into the abortion rights issue, more so than we’ve seen anywhere to date. Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s closing message was that this race was about abortion rights, and that electing Republicans to the legislature would essentially be a vote for a 15-week ban. I think he believed this could provide him with a mandate, and that he believed he had a sort of middle path on this issue—that 15 weeks was the compromise that Republicans were looking for. And what we saw was massive turnout in these targeted districts—in some cases, turnout exceeding 2021 (the last gubernatorial election year), which is amazing. And you clearly saw swing voters moving over to Democratic candidates based on this issue.
There was a question going into this year of whether the salience of the Dobbs decision and abortion rights would fade over time, or grow. But given that we’ve had a year now of people living with the decision, and you had this campaign centrally focused on the issue, we see that the salience is only increasing.
If there were ever a question of, should Democratic candidates be leaning into this more across the country—should they be leaning into it more, talking about it more, etcetera—the answer is clearly yes.
As I noted yesterday, Republicans are divided on what to do about this. Some want to try to finesse the issue with weasel words while others say they should double down and go for a complete ban. It’s hard to see who they can come to a consensus on this.
Asked about the Times-Sienna poll that had everyone tied up in knots, he says that some of the numbers are implausible like the idea that so many Black and young people would have turned sharply Republican. He thinks the poll does accurately register national discontent because of the turbulence we’re all living through.
This is key, I think:
Election nights were pretty consistent until 2016. Then Trump enters the picture. I would say 2018 and 2021 have been the only elections that seemed to go the way everyone thought. How much of this is about Trump and the chaos he has brought to American politics?
Almost entirely, to the extent that he has broken so much of our ability to analyze and predict electoral outcomes based on comparisons to past precedent. And not just him, as an individual, but the outcomes of his presidency—the Dobbs decision being one of them—where we are operating largely without precedent, or at least without a precedent that hews closely enough to what we are experiencing now to be particularly useful in accurately predicting electoral outcomes.
But another mistake we’re making is not recognizing the uniqueness of the historic moment we are in, primarily because of the Dobbs decision. There’s the state of the Republican Party, of course—the polarization, the anti-democratic elements. It’s a complex moment in our history. But in terms of recent precedent, where we look at the last two similar election cycles and try to benchmark from there, this moment doesn’t lend itself to that.
There are so many reasons now why a voter might say, “I don’t know who I’m going to vote for,” or, “I’m gonna vote for the other guy,” more as a very low-rung form of protest rather than a realistic threat, because of two wars going on, because of the threats to democracy, because of a general negative sense about our elected officials in Washington, a frustration with their inability to seemingly get things done. I think all of those things are reasons why the polls are going to diverge more from the actual results, especially the further we get out from Election Day.
The thing is that this narrative works well for Republicans and not for democrats. The Dems have done a lot, much more than I ever thought they could do, especially in this environment. And what we’ve learned is that actual results don’t matter if the country feels discontented with the political show they see on TV, whether it’s Republicans hating that their cult leader isn’t in the White House and is under indictment or the Democrats looking at the chaos Trump and the MAGA Republicans create every single day and think it’s all Biden’s fault for being too old and decrepit to stop it.
This is a huge advantage for Republicans and there’s really no way to counter it without cover up and normalizing what Republicans are doing. I think we just have to hope that at the end of the day, voters get a grip and recognize that the only way to put an end to this crazy era of political pandemonium is to defeat the MAGAs once and for all.
