Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Trump on his great achievement in taking away a woman’s right to choose:

During the 202) campaign he tried to hedge:

The Democrats cannot let him do that again. His bragging about being personally responsible for taking away women’s constitutional rights must be pounded into every voter’s brain before the 2024 election. It must be conventional wisdom made clear by those quotes of him taking credit for what he did (and there are more) and he cannot be allowed to hedge about it and pretend he didn’t say it. Not this time.

Nobody can stand her

Marjorie Taylor Greene finds that she’s standing alone:

With her claims about Jewish laser beams, attacks of school-shooting survivors, promotion of QAnon, and overall “I’ll tell YOU when I’ve had enough wine coolers” vibes, Marjorie Taylor Greene has never been a universally beloved figure in Washington. Still, for a time, she had a number of friends on the far-right side of Congress who were willing to put up with her. Now? Not so much!

The Daily Beast reports that while the GOP’s three-week train wreck electing a House Speaker was an embarrassing stain on the entire party, one individual in particular “emerged from the drama with few friends and plenty of enemies”: the congresswoman from Georgia. She’s now persona non grata among a significant amount of Republicans thanks to the fact that:

1-She was kicked out of the House Freedom Caucus this summer.
2-Kevin McCarthy, whom she aligned herself with earlier this year, is out of power.
3-“GOP rank and file…already disliked her.” 

Really, it’s just math.

And that math was on display last week when Greene tried and failed—very badly!—to censure Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib for the lawmaker’s pro-Palestinian comments. Per the Daily Beast:

Twenty-three Republicans broke with Greene on her resolution to censure Tlaib…. And those 23 Republicans breaking with Greene—a firebrand conservative who is perhaps the id of the MAGA movement in Congress and has Donald Trump on speed dial—is just the latest evidence that GOP members are neither fearing nor loving Marjorie Taylor Greene.

That point was further illustrated after the vote, when Greene took to Twitter to shame the Republicans who voted against her censure resolution. “You voted to kick me out of the freedom caucus, but keep CNN wannabe Ken Buck and vaping groping Lauren Boebert and you voted with the Democrats to protect Terrorist Tlaib,” Greene wrote, taking aim at Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX). “You hate Trump, certified Biden’s election, and could care less about J6 defendants being persecuted.”

In response, Roy told The Hill: “Tell her to go chase so-called Jewish space lasers if she wants to spend time on that sort of thing.” And whereas some of her colleagues might have previously come to her defense, many have since suggested—some by saying outright—that she’s only hurting herself and her standing in Congress.

“Childish in many ways,” Representative Troy Nehls, who has previously defended Greene, told the Daily Beast of her attacks on Roy. “What do you feel you’re accomplishing there, you know?” Another Republican and former Greene ally told the outlet: “She’s creating her own enemies through unprovoked, unwarned, and unsubstantiated attacks. Embarrassing herself through launching attacks she later has to retract due to their inaccuracies.” A third who was “once close” with the Georgia rep added: “There is no one I have heard from, dozens of members, who are happy with her, that trust her [or] confide in her. She’s continually seeking attention,” this GOP member said, “building herself up while tearing others down. I have cut ties completely.”

Asked for comment re: her lack of popularity in DC, Greene told the Daily Beast she wasn’t going to speak to a “stupid gossip blog.”

Unfortunately, while Greene may be on the outs with many of her congressional colleagues, she reportedly remains beloved in MAGA HQ, where she is apparently on a “short list” of VP candidates.

They managed to censure Tlaib last night with a different resolution which probably fries her even more.

Trump is not going to pick her for VP. She’s not his type (as he likes to say…) and this unpopularity will not go unnoticed at Mar-a-Lago. He may like her personally (he likes anyone who licks his boots) but there’s a limit.

Daddy’s little girl on the stand

MSNBC’s Lisa Rubin covered the testimony on twitter this morning:

Good morning, I’m back at New York Supreme Court, and I’ll be posting both here and through MSNBC’s live blog of Ivanka Trump’s testimony. I’ll give you the good color and analysis there & will pop in here with quicker bits of the play-by-play:

Let’s set the stage with 7 minutes left before the trial day starts. The courtroom is almost full, but not nearly as crowded as it has been on days past and is a relative ghost town compared with Monday’s packed-within-inches scenario. 

The Attorney General is here in her usual front-row seat, surrounded by staff, and her team has been at their table for at least a half hour. Team Trump, on the other hand, just walked in and is getting settled. 

Remember: Ivanka is technically a third party witness, and as my @NBCNews colleague @adamreisstv observed this morning, will not sit as the defense table nor is she permitted in the courtroom separate and apart from being called to the stand. 

Previewing lines of testimony to come, Ivanka explained that she spent “an enormous amount” of time on two projects in particular: Doral and the Old Post Office loan. 

Right off the bat, Ivanka is a more cooperative, comfortable witness than her brothers. 

And now, with little fanfare, Solomon has started discussing the relationship between the Trump Org and Deutsche Bank. He asks whether she understands Trump once had a relationship with DB through its commercial division, including with respect to a loan on the Chicago property. 

Ivanka has referenced her August 2022 investigative interview multiple times now, including referring to documents shown to her at that interview. That she has been well, if transparently, prepped is clear. 

In connection with discussing the financing Trump sought for Doral, Ivanka says her goal with Doral was to “reposition” it as a luxury property. And here comes the first document in today’s examination. 

In a 2011 email to someone named Andy Beal, Ivanka promises her father will send him his most recent financial statement via “hard mail.” She does not recall whether Beal requested that document; the conversations with Beal Bank were brief & never reached the term sheet stage. 

Kise is objecting to these questions on relevant grounds. The implication, of course, of reviewing these kinds of emails with other prospective lenders is that the Trumps could not obtain a loan for Doral on standard terms for a commercial real estate project. 

That is, in fact, where we are headed. We are now looking at a November 2011 email from Ivanka to Richard Byrne of Deutsche Bank about obtaining financing for Doral, conversations Ivanka described as “high level” and that “didn’t go anywhere.” 

And now we’ve moved to the point, one month later, where Ivanka — the captain of the Doral redevelopment — has arranged a meeting with Rosemary Vrablic and Dominic Scalzi of the private wealth management group and days later, received a term sheet and a request for more information for due diligence purposes from Vrablic 

And in particular, Solomon is now highlighting how much more advantageous the interest rates are (LIBOR + 2.25 or the Prime Rate, during one phase of the project) in exchange for … 

two things: a full and complete personal guaranty from Donald Trump that he could cover the principal and interest of the loan and operating expenses of the resort AND a minimum net worth of $3 billion, exclusive of brand value. 

That these terms were unusual, even for Trump, is underscored by the initial reaction of Trump Org lawyer Jason Greenblatt, who worried in a Dec 2011 email that Trump might not be willing to sign such a guaranty and that the minimum net worth requirement could be “a problem.” 

Ivanka responded, “We’ve known that” — meaning that the net worth requirement would be an issue — “since day one.” Nonetheless, however, Trump told DB his total net worth was in excess of $4 billion. 

And when Ivanka sent back to DB their marked up term sheet, they lowered the net worth covenant to $2 billion, not $3 billion. 

Ivanka has now confirmed Trump Org ultimately entered into commitment and fee letters with Deutsche Bank for the Doral loan, as signed by her dad. 

Kise is now objecting that Ivanka has not been questioned about the three corporate entities that afforded the AG jurisdiction; Engoron says “it’s an interesting question.” Solomon is getting exercised; she was involved, from top to bottom in the negotiation and execution of this deal. 

Engoron says the subpoena set a floor, not a ceiling on the scope of her testimony, and we move on. 

Ivanka is reviewing the ultimately agreed-upon net worth covenant, which required a minimum net worth of $2.5 billion, exclusive of brand, as reflected in his statements of financial condition. She has no independent memory of this term, however. 

Ivanka also has testified, despite Solomon’s attempt to refresh her recollection with various emails, that she does not recall communications about an unsecured, additional loan for Doral in 2016, nor does she remember why that loan did not come to fruition. 

Ivanka is now being shown an April 2016 email from Vrablic indicating there “bank couldn’t make the exception in this case,” meaning they decided against moving forward. Again, Ivanka says this does not refresh her recollection. 

Solomon moves on to the another of the topics I predicted would come up: Ivanka’s option to purchase two different penthouse apartments, both of which were owned by the Trump Org. 

Ivanka maintains she was not involved in the statements of financial condition so she has no idea how they were valued in those documents. 

With a half hour remaining before lunch, we’re focused on Ivanka’s involvement in the Old Post Office — aka Trump International Hotel DC — deal, which began with presentations to the federal government’s General Services Administration, which owns the property. 

The AG’s lawyer is using documents to establish that in December 2011, the GSA noticed “multiple GAAP departures” in Donald Trump’s statements of financial condition, and brought those to the attention of Trump Org. representatives, including Ivanka. 

A Trump employee, David Orowitz, internally circulated a proposed response to GSA’s concerns; Ivanka does not recall that they received a “deficiency letter” to which Orowitz was trying to respond. She does remember GSA had “questions” to which they worked to get them “answers.” 

But she doesn’t have any independent recollection of any specific questions raised by GSA in response to Trump’s statements of financial condition. 

****

We’re now on our lunch break, but before it began, Ivanka was shown a 2013 email between her and her husband, as produced by the Trump Org. 

While how much of that email will ultimately be admissible is up for discussion because of spousal privilege,if you wondered whether these two talked shop, they absolutely did. Ivanka seems to have sought and got Jared’s advice about potential sources of financing for the Old Post Office deal. 

And the implication that the AG appears to be drawing here is twofold: Only Deutsche Bank was willing to provide financing on terms even close to what the Trumps wanted—but only if they got two things they wanted: 

a guaranty that Trump could cover the principal, interest, and operating income of each asset and proof that he maintained a minimum net worth of $2-3 billion, exclusive of brand value, as demonstrated by … his annual statements of financial condition. ]

Ivanka’s direct testimony is over and has been relatively placid. But that doesn’t mean there were no surprises. 

The AG’s lawyer just showed Ivanka proof that despite making a personal guaranty to Deutsche Bank in connection with the Old Post Office loan, Trump then entered into an agreement with his adult kids, through which each agreed to pay him money through their revocable trusts to ensure he could meet that obligation. 

On cross examination, Jesus Suarez is hammering at a theme: Deutsche Bank wanted to make money, and the favorable loan terms they extended to Trump were part and parcel of an overall strategy to make money from their relationship with the Trumps. Not only did DB offer them other investment opportunities or banking services, but seemed to have believed publicity from the Trump relationship would benefit the bank. 

Given how little she recalled about the terms of the related loans, Ivanka’s recollection of the beginning of her involvement in the multi-year, multi-million-dollar Doral acquisition and renovation strikes me as oddly extensive. 

Rubin points out that Trump lying and saying he could personally guarantee the repayment of the loan even though he actually had to enter a deal with his kids that he could loot their trusts if he failed is quite a revelation.

I’m just putting this here to mark what took place today. Rubin’s analysis on television was that despite her calm demeanor, Ivanka actually revealed a great deal about how they did business and didn’t contradict any of the documents presented in the case, merely saying that she didn’t remember them. Those documents are pretty damning. In some ways it appears that she subtly threw Trump and her brothers under the bus by just sitting there and allowing the case to speak for itself without staging any tantrums and distractions as the others have done on the stand to deflect from the substance of the case.

Everyone has been saying that her testimony isn’t important but as I wrote last week, she was intimately involved in Trump’s schemes and has different incentives than the boys to join the circus. Her husband has handsomely cashed in on the presidency. Her concerns are more for her own reputation and Jared’s and getting into this mess doesn’t benefit her. She’s a Trump and they always look out for number one.

“To many voters, the topic of abortion is so important, so we have been completely straightforward and clear. I will back a bill to protect life,”

That was yesterday.

Youngkin made a bet that the GOP establishment-backed approach to the abortion issue — a 15 week ban — would be enough to neutralize it at the ballot box and he went all-in. How’d it work out for him?

Not well. He was banking on the abortion issue to win yesterday and he lost the Virginia House and the Democrats held on to the Senate. So it’s back to the drawing board for the GOP. They have a hardcore base for whom abortion is fundamental. They have shown that they’re “flexible” with wink-wink rhetoric like what Youngkin has been selling but they won’t go beyond that. And after Trump made sure Roe V Wade was overturned, pro-choice voters no longer trust any of their assurances.

This issue is killing the Republicans and it should. They spent 50 years building up their base by calling abortion murder and claiming it’s a holocaust knowing that Roe protected them from the consequences. They don’t have that anymore and they don’t know what to do.

This piece by Joan Walsh in The Nation nails it:

Maybe Glenn Youngkin got a little too big for his fleece britches.

That’s a (bad) joke; he became famous for his fleece vests, not fleece pants. But he did try to ride his semi-surprise 2021 gubernatorial victory as a fleece-wearing suburban dad (not the tailor-suited Carlyle exec he was) into a 2023 state government trifecta, raising money and campaigning to get Republicans control of the state Senate, where Democrats have blocked his regressive agenda, as well as holding the House of Delegates, which the GOP clawed back the year he won.Continue watching[DV] The Nationafter the ad

He spent more than $14 million and failed. Democrats kept their lead in the state Senate. More surprisingly, they took back the House, winning at least 51 seats; final margins for both chambers will come later Wednesday. Youngkin needed a Senate victory to enact his promised 15-week abortion ban and other right-wing measures. Instead, he lost both houses in Virginia’s general assembly.

Along with overwhelming pro-choice victories on Ohio’s constitutional Issue 1, as well as Kentucky’s Democratic Governor Andy Beshear’s slam-dunk reelection, abortion rights advocates had a great night. Youngkin’s humiliating defeat is special, though. In 2017, the anti-Trump resistance took an astonishing 15 seats in the House of Delegates. The 2021 Virginia losses were devastating for progressives, and were also viewed as a Joe Biden backlash. This victory is enormous.

Also, practically: Virginia is the only Southern state that hasn’t imposed drastic limits on abortion since the end of Roe v. Wade. I haven’t seen decent drill-down results yet, but trust me: Women voters made this happen. The last big state poll showed abortion was motivating 70 percent of Virginia women voters, compared to 47 percent who said that was their top issue in 2019.

Loudoun County’s Russet Perry is the new state senator from District 31, which has long been considered considered the most symbolic swing race out there. Several sources told me early Tuesday that if Perry won, Democrats would hold the Senate. Perry staked her race on abortion—here is one great ad. She also just plain mocked opponent Juan Pablo Segura, doughnut mogul, for trying to turn the crime issue against her—she’s a former prosecutor as well as a former CIA agent.

Perry bested Segura on both counts.

Youngkin’s Spirit of Virginia PAC gave $300,000 to Segura in October, and a quarter-million in September. That’s on the late side, though, in a race that had long been marked nationally as a big one for both sides. It turns out a lot of Youngkin’s contributions came in September and October. He gave almost a quarter of a million to GOP Senator Siobhan Dunnevant in early October (to be fair, on top of almost $700,000 he gave her in September). But money coming in October can be hard to spend. Dunnevant lost to Democratic Delegate Schuyler VanValkenburg, part of the progressive class of 2017.

“Youngkin raised millions over the summer,” says Carolyn Fiddler, a writer and political operative steeped in Virginia politics, who was bewildered by Youngkin’s late spending. “That looks like butt-covering money, coming so late.” We’ll have to see final spending reports, but it could turn out that Youngkin was mainly raising that cash for his own political ambitions.

Those ambitions might have been advanced by winning the state Senate and keeping the House and having an actual agenda of accomplishment, however regressive, to run on. That’s not going to happen.

Other highlights of Tuesday night include 2017 cycle stars Jennifer Carroll Foy and Danica Roem moving up to the Senate. Carroll Foy gave up her delegate seat for an unsuccessful run for governor in 2021; Roem was Virginia’s first trans legislator. Both are progressive favorites. As is Delegate Nadarius Clark, who won a slightly different district (maps were redrawn, more fairly, but it made it hard for incumbents to run as incumbents). And former delegate Joshua Cole, who lost his seat in the disaster of 2021, is going back to Richmond, after running four races in six years.

“When I was a delegate, I was the poorest legislator in Richmond,” Cole said in a moving election night statement. “But I come to this work with a sincere belief that a better, safer, more fair commonwealth is possible.”

Cole’s opponent, by the way, got more than $600,000 from Youngkin. But most of it came in October.

Another Virginia race getting national attention featured progressive parent activist Allison Spillman facing well-funded conservative newcomer and private-school parent Meg Scalia Bryce for an at-large school board seat in Albermarle County, home to Charlottesville. I wrote about this race, and National Review’s Ramesh Ponneru clapped back that I got it wrong—Bryce’s anti-trans positions and her denial of “systemic racism” were mainstream views. Also, he thought it indelicate of me to emphasize that Bryce is Antonin Scalia’s daughter. (Please feel free to talk about the way I got my values from my dad if I ever run for office. Or any time you want to.)

Spillman beat Bryce 56 to 44 percent. Democrats also won back the Loudoun County school board, an epicenter of GOP backlash just two years ago.

The big loser, Suburban Fleece Daddy Youngkin, held out the hope of Trumpism after Trump. Trump is losing in the courts this week; Youngkin just lost big at the polls. People freaking out over bad polling for Joe Biden—at the same time in the election cycle the pundits were sure Mitt Romney would clobber Barack Obama—really ought to pore over Virginia election results instead.

I do think Trump won Tuesday night, though: the GOP billionaires who were talking about drafting Youngkin to challenge the 91-felony-count guy next year are skulking away with their wallets between their legs. Trump will have no serious GOP challenger. Except himself. 

MAGA Mike is ready to deliver for the cult

Punchbowl News on where the House Republicans go from here:

Democrats had a very good Election Night on Tuesday. Incumbent Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear won reelection in Kentucky, dispatching Republican Daniel Cameron, a close ally of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Ohio voters enshrined the right to an abortion in the state’s constitution. And Democrats won control of the state legislature in Virginia. Gabe Amo, a former aide to President Joe Biden, won a special election in Rhode Island.

Maybe for just a minute, this will stop Democrats from hand-wringing over Biden’s lousy poll numbers. Maybe. And anoint a new national political star in the 45-year-old Beshear.

Conversely, it was a bad night for the GOP nationally. And it was a bad night for House Republicans, as their version of the FY2024 Transportation-HUD spending bill got pulled from the floor. When it will be taken up is still unclear.

The big question: Can Johnson deliver? Since the birth of the Tea Party movement and the 2010 House GOP landslide, the right has pined for a speaker who would listen to them. A speaker who would pursue their preferred strategies, seek confrontation with the Senate and White House instead of compromise and run the House as if it were an extension of the Republican Study Committee. A speaker who was one of them.

They’ve finally got that in new Speaker Mike Johnson, who emerged from weeks of brutal House GOP infighting as their party leader. Now the rubber will meet the road as to whether governing as a conservative hardliner can actually work. The early signs are mixed, at best.

Johnson has, in essence, delayed critical aid to Israel by turning it into a partisan political fight, tying the $14 billion in new funding for the embattled U.S. ally to enacting offsetting IRS cuts (and increasing the deficit). The Louisiana Republican is signaling he’s very open to possibly impeaching Biden. He’s leaning toward pursuing a strategy pushed by the House Freedom Caucus to bifurcate government funding, a risky move given that Democrats control the Senate and the White House. And Johnson passed on an opportunity to try to move a stopgap funding bill this week, instead pushing off any House action to avert a shutdown until days before the Nov. 17 deadline.

This is the kind of legislative saber-rattling conservatives have dreamed about for years. But can it work?

The reality is this: Aid to Israel is going nowhere fast. As we noted above, GOP leaders had to pull the Transportation-HUD spending bill Tuesday night because both moderate and conservative Republicans rebelled. There’s a better-than-even chance that the federal government could shut down next week. Vulnerable GOP lawmakers don’t love the idea of impeaching Biden while some senior House Republicans fret it could actually help the president politically. Plus the Democratic-controlled Senate will never convict him anyway.

But Johnson is likely to face little — if any — of the backlash that his predecessors felt if his plans fall apart.

For the moment, Johnson has succeeded in somewhat calming the crisis atmosphere that prevailed inside the House Republican Conference. Internal GOP meetings are less contentious than they have been throughout this Congress. Conservatives, in particular, seem willing to give Johnson a chance to find his way in very difficult circumstances. He’s still firmly in his honeymoon phase.

Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), who chairs the House Freedom Caucus, noted Johnson inherited his post following a disastrous few weeks for Republicans, which gives the speaker some more leeway in funding negotiations.

“Most of it was already baked in by the time he got here,” Perry said of Johnson. “The waters are just too high.”

Perry, however, was confident that Johnson won’t go for a clean CR like former Speaker Kevin McCarthy did at the end of September. That move ultimately cost McCarthy his job after conservative hardliners decided to oust the speaker.

“He’s not going to cave,” Perry insisted of Johnson.

Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.), one of the eight lawmakers who voted to oust McCarthy, said he had full faith in Johnson to give the right what they want.

“The outcome is going to be quite a bit different,” Crane told us. “Speaker Johnson is a lot more conservative and I don’t believe he’s as transactional.”

Whether or not Johnson is more conservative than his GOP predecessors isn’t up for debate. He’s decidedly more to the right than McCarthy. Same with Paul Ryan or John Boehner.

Yet the real question is can a brand-new speaker with an inexperienced staff execute strategies straight from the Freedom Caucus playbook and be successful in an otherwise all-Democratic Washington? We’ll find out, but it’s going to be an up-and-down ride in the meantime.

They may give him a little leeway but not much. What they really want is chaos and I don’t think he has any choice — or desire — to give them anything else. These people believe that if they just hold their breath until they turn blue they will get what they want. And if you judge by their antics over the last few months, they are absolutely right to think it. They showed that if they don’t give in the rest of the party will give them what they want. The problem is that what they want is something most voters hate.

But it’s easy to see why they are. Our political culture is crazy.

After days of panic and hand wringing over presidential polls that show President Biden possibly narrowly losing to Donald Trump a year from now, last night Democrats were given a reprieve from their doleful mood as the off-year elections delivered victories across the country. With the exception of the Mississippi Governorship (which no one seriously thought could be won by a Democrat) they swept all the big bell weather elections, from flipping the Virginia House of Delegates and holding the state Senate (pushing Gov. Glenn Youngkin off the short list of GOP Great Whitebread Hopes), winning the important abortion rights referendum in blood red Ohio and re-electing the Democratic Gov. of Kentucky. There were dozens of others including state Supreme Court victories, and school board seats that were either held or flipped by the Democrats. It was a good night.

But, as is their wont, the Democrats will no doubt revert to their bleak frame of mind as soon as they see another presidential poll or two that shows the race is close. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes described the phenomenon perfectly:

The political experience of the Biden era for Democrats is: extended periods of intense anxiety about terrible polling, occasionally punctuated by strangely positive election nights. And then the cycle repeats.

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) November 8, 2023

I have a theory that Americans are so sour and despondent not so much because of the economy but because our politics seem to be so messed up. The right has been brainwashed into believing that our elections are all rigged and Democrats are trying to destroy them personally and Democrats see the likes of Donald Trump, currently a defendant in four felony trials, and kooks like Marjorie Taylor Greene running the Republican Party and it makes them feel like they’re in a nightmare from which they an’t awaken. Republicans are cheered up by Tthe thought of Trump wreaking revenge on their hated enemies and Democrats are briefly mollified by winning elections but it all feels so futile. On some level Republicans know they aren’t really winning and Democrats know that the country is inches away from an authoritarian takeover by evil clowns. Of course 76% of the population thinks the country is going in the wrong direction!

If you want to see a perfect demonstration of our broken politics, tune in tonight to the third Republican presidential debate where the remaining five candidates who made the cut will pretend that it matters. The front runner, Donald Trump, will not be attending this one just as he didn’t attend the first two something no candidate would have ever done in the past. It’s rudely dismissive of the voters, the party and the people who are running against him. Chalk this up to yet more boorish behavior from him, which only seems to make his followers love him more.

He’s counter-programming the debate with a big rally in Hialeah, Florida, a 95% Latino community where he has a following. A GOP strategist told NBC News that he’s doing it because “a portion of the Republican electorate likes to hear that their candidates are popular with minorities.” Naturally, he’s doing it just 15 miles away from the venue where his sad-sack rivals will be debating.

At this point it is a foregone conclusion that unless something cataclysmic happens, Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee. In another time a president who was under indictment for trying to overturn the electoral college and fomenting an insurrection, not to mention stealing classified documents and storing them in the toilet at his beach club, could be expected to drop out of the race. His rivals know he’s not going to do that so the main purpose of those who are at least polling in double digits from time to time are jockeying for second place just in case he keels over.

The race for second place seems to have finally been sorted out and has come down to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former S. Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. A few months ago everyone assumed that DeSantis would be nipping at Trump’s heels by now it hasn’t worked out that way. His campaign has been disastrous and in some polls he’s been overtaken by Haley. He managed to pick up the endorsement of Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds this week which infuriated Trump who snapped “apparently has begun her retirement tour early as she clearly does not have any ambition for higher office…two extremely disloyal people getting together is, however, a very beautiful thing to watch. They can now remain loyal to each other because nobody else wants them!!!” Desantis has taken a few potshots at Trump in recent days but it will be surprising if he really goes after him in the debate. After all, a new poll shows him 39 points behind Trump in his own state of Florida. Sad!

Nikki Haley, his main competition for the silver medal for swimming upstream, seems to be on the rise. There are some polls showing her in second place in Iowa and New Hampshire where she is dominating the “lane” for Republicans who don’t like Trump. It’s actually not much more than a narrow bike path but for the tiny portion of GOP voters who don’t want to vote for Trump in the primary but will almost certainly vote for him in the general, Haley is their choice. Any thought she might end up being Trump’s running mate flew out the window when he started calling her “Birdbrain,” but again, if she snags that coveted second place, there’s a chance that she could end up with the nomination if Trump accidentally inhales too much extra-hold Aquanet one morning and has to drop out.

The remaining three, Vivek Ramaswamy, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and S. Carolina Sen. Tim Scott will do whatever it takes to get some attention since that’s the only reason they’re there. The brief Ramaswamy surge has dissipated precipitously now that people have seen that while he is flamboyantly obnoxious , usually a selling point with the MAGA crowd, he doesn’t make them feel good about enjoying it. That’s Trump’s special talent and nobody does it like he does.

Scott is just a cipher at this point who had some big donors backing him and has gotten nowhere. Although it’s still expected that Trump would rather choose an attractive woman as his running mate, there is still a chance he could fit the bill. He’s been very careful not to offend the former president but neither has he demonstrated any willingness to adopt the obsequious sycophancy Trump has come to expect in his VP.

And then there’s Christie who whiffed in the first two debates after promising to tear into Trump. It’s unclear what he expects to get out of any of this but a repeat of his performance last weekend at a gathering in Florida at which he was booed lustily by the audience as he tried to tell them that Trump is a liar and a crook would certainly be entertaining for the whole country to see.

I’m not sure anyone but political junkies are interested in anything these people have to say. It’s kind of pathetic they are even bothering with such a useless ritual. But it’s really no wonder the Democrats are anxious and depressed despite constantly winning elections. The more they win the higher the stakes become in the next one as the Republican party sinks further and further into a cult of personality.

Salon

Do the work. Score the points.

Noah Berlatsky of Public Notice reflects on Tuesday’s elections (bolding mine):

Some 48 hours ago, pundits were rushing to explain how, why, where, and exactly to what extent the Democratic Party is doomed.

A New York Times/Sienna poll released last weekend showed President Joe Biden catastrophically trailing indicted orange gasbag of hatred former President Donald Trump in virtually every key swing state. According to the poll, Trump leads Biden by five points in Arizona, four in Pennsylvania, six in Georgia, and 11 in Nevada. Analysts like Nate Silver and Matt Yglesias made panicky noises, condemning Dems for not mounting a serious primary challenge to the incumbent. There was weeping, there was gnashing of teeth.

And then, we had an actual election.

Tuesday night’s results are difficult to square with the “Biden and Democrats are doomed” narrative. In an off-year election, with the incumbent president’s approval rating mired below 40 percent, you would normally expect the president’s party to be stomped, crushed, spindled, and obliterated.

But instead, Democrats did fine. In fact, they did better than fine, and then even better than that. Tuesday looked a lot like a blue wave, with Democrats romping to victory in blue and purple states and overperforming dramatically in red ones.

It’s difficult to predict what this means for 2024. But we know that in 2022 and now in 2023, Biden’s low approval rating appeared to be entirely disconnected from Democratic performance. That should at least give the likes of Silver and Yglesias a moment’s pause in their punditing of apocalypse.

After spending four hours each morning commenting on the day’s political news, lately I’m reworking For The Win for 2024. As much as I’m an admirer of my friend Anat Shenker-Osorio’s messaging research, in the end progressives actually have to put points on the board. It’s not as sexy as messaging or punditry or political philosophy, but it’s where the rubber meets the road (or whatever metaphor you’d prefer). For that we have to get out of our heads:

Winning in your head is like bringing sports visualization training to the Olympics and thinking you’ll be competitive when you show up with no conditioning and no skills.

Many races next fall will be closer than what we saw last night. (Democrat Andy Beshear won in Kentucky by 5 points; Ohio Issue 1 passed by 13.) Democrats next year have to execute plays and score points (votes, not sick burns). Candidates and campaigns try to motivate voters to get off their couches and get to the polls. (Target better, maybe?) Part of motivating voters is message-driven, sure, but actual scoring comes down to mechanics, logistics, and execution:

The job of county committees is a political version of the Last Mile problem in telecommunications. All the high-profile effort and capital spending goes into clearing rights-of-way, erecting towers, and stringing lines. The Last Mile problem is the less conspicuous work of hooking up end users one … by one … by one because that is where companies stop spending money and start making bank.

The only thing that counts on Election Day is how many bubbles voters fill in on their ballots for Democrats. Voters actually have to show up and execute the documents. This isn’t like Trump declassifying documents with his mind. Those voters (many of them) will arrive aware of only a handful of the races and candidates printed on their ballots. Without your help, they’ll leave down-ballot races blank — school board, city council, county commission, etc.

Please contact your local county Democratic committee and ask about their 2024 get-out-the-vote program. Work the phones, knock the doors. Be the smiling face reassuring voters as you hand them a sample ballot outside the polling station.

It’s too late to talk policy. Uncertain voters are looking for reassurance.  If they trust you, they will vote with you. That’s how it works. Trust me.

Stop white-knuckling polls

Everybody Relax. The Net economy runs on clicks. The polling economy runs on polls. Cable news runs on ratings 24/7/365. All make money promoting a horse race with a photo finish.

MSNBC kept flipping back to Steve Kornacki updating returns from the Kentucky governor’s race Tuesday night long after Dave Wasserman of Cook’s Political Report had “seen enough.” The Associated Press called the race for incumbent Democrat Andy Beshear 90 minutes later. So it goes.

I've seen enough: Andy Beshear (D) wins reelection in #KYGOV, defeating Daniel Cameron (R).

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) November 8, 2023

On Election Night, we don’t count policy positions or polling averages or pundits’ opinions. We count votes. It’s how democracies keep score.

And last night? Last night was “nearly a clean sweep” for Democrats.

We're one year out from the '24 election. Lots can happen. We should all practice humility and work hard to defend our democracy (which means electing Dems). But just for a moment I'd like to posit that maybe @POTUS Joe Biden understands elections better than the punditerati.

— David Rothkopf (@djrothkopf) November 8, 2023

Beshear won another term in “red” Kentucky on an explicit abortion rights campaign against his GOP challenger. Beshear went straight at Daniel Cameron on the abortion issue with this powerful ad featuring rape survivor Hadley Duvall.

“Because of her courage, this commonwealth is going to be a better place and people are going to reach out for the help they need,” Beshear told supporters.

Democrats kept control of the Virginia state Senate and flipped control of the House of Delegates, dealing a blow to Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R). Republicans had been looking to outlaw abortions in Virginia after 15 weeks.

“Glenn Youngkin got fleeced tonight,” quipped Norm Ornstein.

Just a reminder that when abortion rights have been on the ballot they have not lost anywhere. Not in Michigan. Not in Kansas, Kentucky or Montana. Now, not in Ohio.

— L O L G O P (@LOLGOP) November 8, 2023

Washington Post:

Abortion rights advocates won major victories Tuesday as voters in conservative-leaning Ohio decisively passed a constitutional amendment guaranteeing access to abortion, while those in ruby-red Kentucky reelected a Democratic governor who aggressively attacked his opponent for supporting the state’s near-total ban on the procedure.

[…]

The results sent a stark signal about enduring demands across the political spectrum to protect access to abortion more than a year after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court, heralding potentially far-reaching implications for the 2024 election. They offered more evidence that the end of Roe and the patchwork of abortion bans that followed have given Democrats a powerful argument to turn out their base and sway moderates and some Republicans. And they reaffirmed that GOP candidates who support restrictions are still struggling to find an effective message, even as some have tried to soften their pitch.

🚨 VICTORY

Ohioans are tired of having our rights attacked and our own government continually subvert our democracy.

And we will SHOW up to stop it!!

Like we just did. For a year!!

When I saw this line, I knew something special was happening.

WATCH: pic.twitter.com/wiVZSmCQ2E

— David Pepper (@DavidPepper) November 8, 2023

Democrats everywhere in 2024 will want to listen more to voters than to pundits and consultants. Americans are angry about the demise of Roe v. Wade. Democrats own that issue. It motivates voters.

“Across the country tonight, democracy won and MAGA lost,” President Joe Biden tweeted last night. “Voters vote. Polls don’t. Now let’s go win next year.”

Simon Rosenberg of the Hopium Chronicles is an unabashed cheerleader for Democrats. But for your edification, he wrote last night, “As we did in 2018, 2020, 2022 and as we’ve had night after night across the country this year. The Democratic Party is very strong right now. The Republicans are in deep trouble.” Tuck that under your pillows.

But don’t expect the press to abandon its hyping of every poll that promotes a “Biden in trouble” narrative. Press incentives have not changed and likely will not. The press is quick to report and slow to learn.

“I think some political reporters should try a little harder to hide their disappointment at Dems over performing relative to Biden’s approval ratings but that’s just me,” posted Adam Serwer of The Atlantic at Blue Sky.

Taking bets on which publication will have the first "why this is bad news for Biden" take. https://t.co/8LWZW0ReX9

— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) November 8, 2023

So, step away from the ledge, folks.

Maybe not you, Rick.

Post by @aaron.rupar

View on Threads

Maybe…

That case about whether domestic abusers should be allowed to carry guns was argued today:

About 40 minutes into Tuesday’s Supreme Court argument asking whether a federal law prohibiting domestic abusers from owning guns is unconstitutional, Chief Justice John Roberts asked J. Matthew Wright, the lawyer arguing against the law, a question that no attorney ever wants to hear.

“You don’t have any doubt that your client is a dangerous person, do you?” the Chief asked Wright.

There is, indeed, very little doubt that Wright’s client, Zackey Rahimi, is a very dangerous man. A Texas court determined that Rahimi “has committed family violence” and that he “represents a credible threat to the physical safety” of his ex-girlfriend or other members of her family.

If anything, that’s a massive understatement. Rahimi allegedly hit his ex-girlfriend in a parking lot, and then fired a gun at a bystander who witnessed the fight. He then allegedly called the ex-girlfriend and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone that he’d assaulted her. And he’s accused of committing multiple other crimes where he fired a gun — in one of them, he allegedly fired into a man’s home with an AR-15 rifle.

The specific question before the Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi is whether a federal law makes it a crime to possess a firearm if a court has determined they are a threat to their “intimate partner,” their child, or their partner’s child violates the Second Amendment.

Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito appeared open to the possibility that this law could violate the Constitution.

And, while Alito at times made arguments that seemed lifted from men’s rights activists — such as a claim that courts frequently impose domestic violence restraining orders without considering if they are warranted — even he seemed uncomfortable with some of Wright’s arguments by the end of the Court hearing.

The biggest question in Rahimi, in other words, does not appear to be whether the Supreme Court will reverse a right-wing federal appeals court that struck down this ban on gun ownership by domestic abusers. The biggest question appears to be how the Court will do so, and whether it will issue a sweeping decision limiting a recent pro-gun decision that has sown chaos and confusion in the lower courts.

Three ways that the Supreme Court could resolve Rahimi

Rahimi is an arresting case: Ordinarily, clear-cut cases such as this one do not reach the Supreme Court. The system of federal trial courts and intermediate appeals courts is supposed to weed out cases that present questions as seemingly one-sided as the ones in this case — again, the question is Rahimi is whether someone that a court has determined to be a violent threat to their partner or to a child should own a gun.

But Rahimi is before the Court for two reasons. One is that it arose out of the Fifth Circuit, a far-right court, dominated by MAGA stalwarts, that routinely hands down head-scratching decisions reaching right-wing results. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit hands down trollish, unworkably disruptive decisions so often that correcting these errors has become one of the (itself very conservative) Supreme Court’s major projects.

This term, the Court is expected to reverse Fifth Circuit decisions that declared an entire federal agency unconstitutional, that virtually neutralized another federal agency, and that allowed Republican state governments to seize control of which content is published on Twitter (the site that Elon Musk insists on calling “X”), YouTube, or Facebook.

That said, the Fifth Circuit’s penchant for judicial arson can only explain part of why Rahimi is before the justices. The other explanation is that, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court’s Republican appointees placed an extraordinarily high burden on any lawyer tasked with defending any gun law. Under Bruen, a gun law is typically unconstitutional unless similar laws existed in the framing era. And there were no bans on gun ownership by domestic abusers in 1791.

In any event, a majority of justices — possibly as many as eight — seemed to agree during Tuesday’s argument that they should not follow Bruen’s reasoning to the absurd conclusion that the Fifth Circuit reached in Rahimi. But there was considerable disagreement about how to reverse the Fifth Circuit.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a frequent critic of the Republican justices’ use of history to justify reaching conservative results, appeared to suggest several times that Bruen should be tossed out in its entirety.

She repeatedly asked what work Bruen’s “history and tradition” framework is doing if the fact that domestic violence was largely tolerated in the framing era doesn’t prevent modern-day legislatures from enacting the law at issue in Rahimi, which is rooted in modern-day sensibilities. And Jackson also brought up the uncomfortable fact that laws disarming enslaved Black people and Native Americans were common in early American history. The Bruen framework, she suggested, seems to focus too much on the rights afforded to white Protestants in early America, and does not capture the history of all Americans.

Jackson, however, was the only justice who attacked Bruen so directly. A critical bloc of the justices, which may include Roberts, Obama appointees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, and Trump Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, seemed to hone in on a different argument that would weaken Bruen without forcing the Court to make the embarrassing concession that Bruen’s framework is an unworkable mess that consistently produces monstrous results.

Under this framework, which was proposed by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, “dangerous” individuals are beyond the scope of the Second Amendment, and legislatures have broad authority to determine which types of people are too dangerous to own a firearm. That category may include people like Rahimi, who have received a court proceeding determining them to be dangerously violent. It also may include minors or people with serious mental illnesses who may not handle gun ownership responsibly, even though these conditions are not their fault.

This is why Roberts’s question about Rahimi’s dangerousness was such a bad sign for his chances of prevailing in this case. Similarly, near the very beginning of the argument, Barrett seemed to state outright that she intends to vote against Rahimi — suggesting that there is no question that someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is dangerous.

A third possibility, first floated by Justice Neil Gorsuch, was to try to shrink the question the Court decides in this case. As Gorsuch repeatedly noted, the Fifth Circuit held that the federal law disarming domestic abusers is unconstitutional on its “face,” a legal term that means that there is no set of circumstances where the law could be considered valid.

But even if there may be edge cases where the law is applied to someone who is only marginally dangerous, or who may have received less due process than Rahimi did, Gorsuch appeared to agree that Rahimi, the unusually dangerous individual before the Court in this case, should not have a gun.

The good news for everyone who agrees that victims of domestic violence should not be murdered is that at least seven justices appear poised to reverse the Fifth Circuit. The question is whether they will also roll back some or all of their incompetently drafted decision in Bruen.

Fingers crossed.

And nobody seems to be able to rein him in. It’s obvious most Republicans don’t want to.

Here’s a good analysis of where we are with Trump and his legal problems from Stephen Collinson at CNN:

The judge in Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial despairingly pressed the ex-president’s lawyer: “I beseech you to control him if you can.”

Judge Arthur Engoron’s plea reflected his frustration at an incorrigible witness who boasted Monday about his piles of cash, aimed scathing political attacks and spouted uniquely illogical logic.

But Engoron, who is presiding over the New York trial, also put his finger on a deeper question that will define a singular political figure’s place in history.

And the answer, as always, was no, Trump cannot be controlled.

No mere lawyer could impose the kind of discipline that two-and-a-half centuries of constitutional checks and balances could not provide during Trump’s time in office or since. And after threatening to dismiss the ex-president from the witness stand, Engoron opted to let the Trump storm rage in the apparent hope that it would blow itself out — though history has shown it never does.

Trump’s combative defense against claims he inflated his wealth to rip off banks, insurance firms and New York state, served as a troubling preview of a 2024 election season that is likely to become ensnared with his massive legal peril. But it also revealed insights into Trump’s relentless refusal to give an inch to his enemies and showed why voters who despise East Coast authority figures and liberal societal codes adore him.

His testimony offered warnings to lawyers who will seek to puncture his self-created bubble of alternative realities with facts and evidence — and showed how he might try to charm and confuse jurors in his coming criminal trials.

As he climbed into the witness box and lifted his hand and swore to tell the truth — an almost ironic act given his record of falsehoods — Trump obliterated yet another convention. Ex-presidents in America don’t typically get called to explain their actions in court. And Monday’s four-hour dive into the Trump Organization’s financial records was just a warm up for subsequent criminal courtroom dramas that could mean the Republican Party will nominate a convicted felon for president. Trump denies wrongdoing in each and every case against him.

Trump shows what he will do to save himself

Trump in a blue suit, tie and shirt instead of his campaign livery of dark suit, white shirt and improbably long red tie, left no doubt that if tearing down legal and political systems is what it will take to save him, he won’t hesitate.

“It is election interference because you want to keep me in this courthouse all day long,” Trump told prosecutors working for New York Attorney General Letitia James, accusing her of trying to base a run for governor on an attempt to destroy his business. As he often does, the ex-president was turning facts upside down — it is he who is politicizing the justice system in his own bid for a return to power.

And before he faces judgment, Trump is seeking to discredit the organs of accountability that will seal his fate. “It is an extremely hostile judge,” Trump added, raising his hand to point at Engoron, who sat beside and just above the witness box on the bench.

The ex-president’s day was a microcosm of a riotous life as a real estate magnate, New York City icon, showbiz reality star and demagogic political candidate and US president. He obstructed, exaggerated, spouted insults, brassily trampled courtroom protocol and substituted partisan narratives for the yes and no answers that the judge demanded. Yet Trump also expertly used the outraged stream of consciousness and linguistic dexterity that turns his interrogators in the law, or the media, in knots.

There were even flashes of humor, hinting at one of the key ingredients of the political method that has seduced millions of Americans. Asked, for instance, whether he had built houses on a golf course in Scotland, Trump conceded that he had not but added waspishly: “I have a castle.” And there were oodles of quintessential Trump self-promotion. He boasted that his Florida Mar-a-Lago resort was “a very successful club,” said he’d built the “best building on the West Coast” and claimed dubiously that his 18 holes in Aberdeen was the “greatest golf course ever built.”

At one point, Trump mused: “I’ve had a lot of cash for a long time.”

Trump’s supporters could not watch him since the trial was not televised but they would have recognized the bulldozer on the witness stand and the blow-it-all-up persona that made a twice-impeached, four times indicted ex-president who left Washington in disgrace nearly three years ago again the Republican front-runner.

It became clear long before Trump left court complaining of a “scam” that his legal strategy was indistinguishable from his familiar political one: admit nothing and brand any criticism as proof of a vast, unfair plot against him. The goal was transparent: leverage the latest bid to call him to account into a campaign fueled by a martyr complex that can win back presidential powers to drive away his legal woes.

“People are sick and tired of what’s happening. I think it’s a very sad day for America,” Trump said at the end, before noting The New York Times polls showing him leading President Joe Biden in key swing states — a tactic his lawyer Chris Kise also used to imply the “soon to be” next president wasn’t being shown sufficient respect.

Trump’s dignity is ruffled

Yet Monday was also a rude awakening for Trump.

Retired commanders-in-chief are usually surrounded by a force field of deference, with their secret service detachments and forever title of “Mr. President.” Trump has long posed as the alpha male and his entire business and political creed — in person and on social media – is based on intimidation. But it must have been a long time since anyone had shushed Trump like Engoron, cutting him off ahead of another meander by saying, “No, no, you answered the question.”

There was no “Mr. President” from the attorney general’s lawyers or the judge. The witness was simply “Mr. Trump.” He sat on a leather chair, alone in the wood paneled witness box, his hands clasped in his lap.

But the trial quickly became a test of wills between Trump and Engoron over who controlled the court. After one trip by Trump down a rabbit hole, the judge asked the lawyers if they had asked for an “essay” on brand value. Frustrated with partisan asides, Engoron warned that “this is not a political rally, this is a courtroom.” And the judge bristled at the ex-president’s complaint that he always ruled against him. Adopting a tone typical of Trump subordinates, Kise argued with the judge’s admonitions against speeches and lauded the ex-president’s “brilliant” replies.

Later, the judge, perhaps trying to avoid offering grist for a potential appeal said he’d let the ex-president ramble. But by the end of the day, Engoron’s resolve frayed: “It feels like a broken record,” he said of Trump’s answers. The ex-president snapped back: “He keeps asking me the same question over and over.” Engoron will however get the last word. He has already ruled that Trump, his two adult sons and the Trump Organization are liable for fraud in inflating his wealth in return for advantageous deals with banks and insurance firms. The trial will resolve related claims and decide how much restitution is due and whether he will be barred from doing business in New York.

How Trump defended himself

It was hard to tell whether Trump had helped or hurt himself. He did appear to disrupt the smooth running of the trial. But – as he complained at one point – there is no jury, and Engoron will be left to adjudicate the trial.

Trump’s defense broadly rested on three planks. He denied accusations that he’d inflated his properties, insisting conversely that he’d undervalued most of them by not including ill-defined millions of dollars implied by his “brand” and its potential. He claimed that he was protected by a disclaimer clause in financial documents, which meant that banks and insurance firms had to do their own due diligence. And he repeatedly insisted that “there were no victims,” so there can have been no crime.

This blanket deniability and belief in his own imperviousness echoed Trump’s false proclamations in office that the Constitution granted him almost absolute powers. Or that the phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that earned him his first impeachment or his January 6, 2021 speech before the Capitol insurrection were “perfect.”

Trump also offered an intriguing glimpse into his mindset as a businessman that makes it easier to understand his false insistence that he actually won the 2020 election when he clearly lost it.

“I can look at a building and tell you what they are worth,” he said, creating the impression that the true valuation of a property was something he could just pluck out of the air, with little regard for all the complex financial instruments that normally add up to an investment’s true value. This desire to make a reality just what he wants it to be has long defined Trump’s political approach. And he seems to adopt a similar tactic in looking at an election and deciding who won regardless of the actual evidence about who got the most votes.

This question of whether Trump actually believes what he says will be key to two election interference trials — one in federal court in Washington and one in Georgia where prosecutors must show he intended to break the law. Trump insists that he was convinced he won in 2020, despite all evidence to the contrary. And in his virtual reality world, he may believe it or may at least be able to convince a jury he did.

But the most sobering takeaway of Trump’s day in court on Monday was that while the law might succeed in enforcing accountability where constitutional and political constraints failed, there is no sign yet that anyone or anything can bring the potential 47th president of the United States under control.