Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Joe Lieberman can’t articulate why he’s trying to sabotage Joe Biden

I know why: sabotaging the Democratic Party is his raison d’etre

This No Labels gambit is such utter bullshit I’m hard pressed not to just start screaming into the void. I’ve been watching Joe Lieberman take a wrecking ball to the Democratic Party for decades now and he’s not done yet.

In this article in the Atlantic, he insists that he doesn’t want Trump to be the nominee and that he just wants to provide a “moderate” “centrist” option since that’s what he believes everyone in America really wants. But he’s very hard pressed to answer why he is determined to threaten his old friend Joe Biden:

Lieberman is clear about his distaste for Trump, but he’s hazier on the question of why—or even whether—Biden has fallen short. He’s said repeatedly that if the choice came down to Biden or Trump, he’d vote for the Democrat, and he speaks affectionately of a man he first met nearly 40 years ago and with whom he served for 20 years in the Senate. Yet he’s still hunting for a better option. I asked him whether he supported a third-party ticket because Biden had done a bad job or because voters think he’s done a bad job. “I think it’s both,” Lieberman replied. “He’s an honorable person, but he’s been pulled off his normal track too often” by pressure from the left. That’s a frequent talking point from Republicans and a complaint Manchin has made from time to time.

The perception that Biden has veered too far to the left, though, is not what has driven his low approval ratings. Indeed, in many ways Biden is the kind of president for whom moderates like Lieberman have long been clamoring. Yes, he signed two major bills that passed along purely party-line votes (the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act a year later), but he has repeatedly prioritized negotiating with Republicans, most recently over the debt ceiling. Lieberman credited Biden for his bipartisan infrastructure law and the budget deal he struck with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy this spring. “He’s done some significant things,” Lieberman said, also praising the president’s initial handling of the coronavirus pandemic. When I asked him what specifically Biden had veered too far left on, he initially declined to list any issues. Then he pointed to No Labels’ policy plan, noting that it included “commonsense” proposals on guns and immigration.

Although he’s been out of office for more than a decade, Lieberman, at 81, is less than a year older than Biden. He said he believes the president remains up to the job, both physically and cognitively, and he was reluctant to call on him to stand down. But Lieberman gently suggested that might have been the better course. “I’m struck by how intent he is on running again,” he said with a chuckle. “It would have been easier for him not to run, and he could retire with a real sense of pride and just an enormously productive career in public service.”

This is Joe Lieberman in full effect. He’s doing this to own the libs which he relishes and lives for as much as the average deluded Trumper. It’s what he does.

Biden’s record is hardly some wild-eyed liberal freak show. He managed to pass two huge bills in this closely divided congress with bipartisan votes! Is that not exactly what Lieberman says he wants? Well, yeah, but what he really wants is to stab progressives in the back over and over and over again. And if it empowers the right, which it always does, he’s just fine with that.

Lieberman’s life’s work in the last 20 years is to destroy the left. He is, therefore, objectively pro-fascist.

Guess who’s financing RFK Jr?

I think you know…

No surprise here:

 A Popular Information analysis of @RobertKennedyJr’s first FEC filing reveals the lion’s share of Kennedy’s biggest donors have PREVIOUSLY DONATED ONLY TO REPUBLICANS

Follow along for details.

 Through 6/30, Kennedy’s campaign has collected the maximum, $6,600, from 96 individuals.

37 individuals have previously only donated to Republican candidates for federal office.

Only 19 have a history of consistently supporting Dem candidates

Mark Dickson, a Californian who amassed a fortune in the aerospace industry, has donated more than 450K to federal candidates since 2015

The total includes $400,000 to Trump Victory

Dickson has NEVER supported a Democrat running for office

Until he maxed out to Kennedy 

 Keith Sheldon, a retired car dealership executive from Argyle, Texas, has consistently backed Trump, maxing out in 2016 and 2020.

He also donated $2.9K to Herschel Walker. And thousands to House GOP candidates.

But nothing to Dems. Until he maxed out to Kennedy. 

Kennedy has dozens of maxed out donors with similar giving histories. And a much smaller number with a history of donating to Dems.

The unusual profile of Kennedy’s financial supporters raises serious questions about their motivations. 

Oh, there’s no question about it. Steve Bannon has been pimping RFK Jr’s campaign for months. I assume they will be pushing Republicans to cross over into Democratic primaries to vote for him wherever it’s feasible. (With their own contested primary that may not be such a great idea.) It’s a ratfuck…

It’s not just Trump donors that are backing Kennedy. It’s Trump himself. Appearing on a radio show on a radio show last month, Trump encouraged Kennedy to “hang in” the presidential race and praised him as “very smart;” Trump said they had a lot in common. 

He’s been very nice to me, I’ve actually had a very nice relationship with him over the years. He’s a very smart guy, and a good guy. He’s a common sense guy, and so am I. So, whether you’re conservative or liberal, common sense is common sense. A lot of what I run on is common sense. He’s doing really well, I saw a poll, he’s at 22. That’s pretty good! That’s pretty good, doing very well.

The feeling appears to be mutual. During a television appearance, Kennedy was asked what he thought of Trump’s comments. “I’m proud that President Trump likes me,” Kennedy said. In 2017, Kennedy was in talks with Trump to potentially chair a commission related to vaccines, according to the Washington Post.

Kennedy has courted Trump supporters and other right-wing voters by appearing frequently on Fox News, where he enjoys unusually favorable coverage. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson featured Kennedy as a guest on his program on the day of Kennedy’s announcement. Carlson described Kennedy as one of the few people in public life who is not “corrupt” and is “telling the truth.” He introduced Kennedy as ” one of the most remarkable people we have ever met,” saying he was “honored to have him on our show.” 

Kennedy’s collaboration with the right-wing

On July 20, Kennedy will be the star witness at the hearing of the Republican-led House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. The subcommittee’s hearings have “regularly featured chaotic and often one-sided airings of conservative grievances against agencies like the FBI and the Justice Department,” according to Newsweek. Kennedy is expected to use his appearance “to attack one of his political opponents — Joe Biden.” 

Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH), the chair of the subcommittee, said the hearing will demonstrate that “the Biden administration is trying to censor their Democrat opponent.” Jordan said he texts regularly with former Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who is now managing Kennedy’s campaign. 

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), one of the most hardline members of the Senate, recently said that he hoped Kennedy “gains traction and wins the nomination.” Johnson said Kennedy had “extraordinary political courage” and had earned his “respect.” Kennedy has also earned public praise from Congressman Jim Banks (R-IN) and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).

Kennedy’s collaboration with Republicans began before his run for the presidency. Popular Information broke the news that, in July 2021, Kennedy’s non-profit, Children’s Health Defense, illegally donated $50,000 to the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). This “fee,” Children’s Health Defense said at the time, was in exchange for an opportunity “to educate attorneys general on health policy issues.” After Popular Information’s report, published in February 2022, RAGA returned the donation. 

In December 2021, a member of RAGA’s leadership, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry (R), invited Kennedy to testify alongside him against school vaccine requirements. During his appearance, Kennedy falsely called the COVID-19 vaccine the “deadliest vaccine ever made” and peddled countless lies about the risk of the vaccine.

Kennedy has been photographed alongside right-wing figures, including Trump’s former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn (who called for a military coup to overturn the 2020 election), anti-vaccine profiteer Charlene Bollinger, and longtime Trump ally Roger Stone. The photo was taken backstage at Flynn’s ReAwaken America tour, a roadshow Frontline describes as a “recruiting tool” for the “Christian nationalist movement.” Kennedy has participated in ReAwaken America in previous years.

Between him, Manchin flirting with No Labels and Cornel West turnout is going to have to be huge to overcome these saboteurs. Gee, it’s not like there isn’t a lot at stake or anything.

This race was set on the morning after the 2022 election

JV Last made an excellent point about the upcoming presidential election:

The 2024 election has no modern precedent and this unprecedented difference (1) Is not properly appreciated, and (2) Explains why the race has been so stable.

This thing is so obvious that you’re going to dismiss it out of hand. But I want you to work through it with me:

No one living has seen an election in which two presidents have run against one another.

And that changes everything. Let me explain.

What is the fundamental hurdle that every presidential candidate has to overcome? When the voter looks at the candidate, she asks, Can he do the job?

That’s it. That’s the big question. And the answer is binary: Voters have to imagine each candidate as the chief executive and decide either, Yes, this person is a plausible president, or No, this person is not up to the office.

One of the (many) advantages an incumbent president has is that he has proven that he can do the job.

This sword has two edges: An incumbent’s presidential record can be attacked. Some voters may like it. Some may not. But at the lizard-brain level, they have all seen him sitting at the big desk in the Oval. They know what he looks like as president.

An insurgent candidate has advantages, too. But having to clear the bar of being plausibly presidential is the biggest and most fundamental disadvantage any insurgent faces. If a candidate can’t do that, then nothing else he has going in his favor matters.

At the risk of stating the obvious: Joe Biden is president of the United States. Donald Trump used to be president of the United States.

Whatever you think of either of them, they have both passed the plausibility test. No voter in 2024 has to imagine whether or not Biden or Trump can “do the job.”

How rare is this? The last time—the only time—it happened was in 1892 when President Grover Cleveland and former president Benjamin Harrison ran it back from the 1888 campaign, in which the insurgent (Cleveland) defeated a sitting president (Harrison).




Trump actually gets the best of both worlds: He has passed the presidential test—Republican voters have seen him presidenting.

But he’s also the insurgent candidate, because the Republican establishment hates him and is desperate for him to lose.

Correlation is not causation, but it’s not bupkis, either.

Add this structural advantage—being both the incumbent and the insurgent—to all of Trump’s other advantages (his online troll army, owning a social platform, his massive small-dollar donor list) and it’s clear that what people should have been asking themselves in 2021 wasn’t,

How could Trump win the nomination in 2024?

But rather,

How could Trump not win the nomination in 2024?


Why did they fail to understand the power of running as a former president?

Probably because no one living has seen it happen before.


What could happen to change the long-running dynamic in the primary?

There are answers to this question, but they are low-probability events:

-Trump could get tired of running and start phoning it in.

-Ron DeSantis could get good at politics.

-GOP voters could start caring about Trump’s alleged crimes.

Of those, only the first was ever a strong possibility. Trump seems to have overcome his initial lethargy and found purpose in his campaign. Say what you will about the guy, but he’s answered the bell.


Whit Ayres’s second guidestar is that the 2024 race will be fundamentally unstable because voters say they don’t want either Biden or Trump.

In general, I believe that we are in a chaotic era of politics. And you can see how the race could get reshuffled by external events.

But voters always say they don’t like the choices in front of them—just as they always say that they don’t want their incumbent president to run for re-election.

That’s because voters are stupid irrational inconsistent. I do not take their expressed feelings about hypotheticals at face value.


What I do take at face value: Campaigns are about information and uncertainty.

In the classic re-election campaign, the incumbent president is the known quantity who offers stability and low risk. We have a lot of information and only a little uncertainty about the president. Voters know what they are getting, for good and for ill.

The challenger must offer enough information about himself to clear the “presidential” threshold—but keep the details fuzzy enough that voters can project their own preferences onto him. He is the high-risk, high-upside choice. And the more he tries to hedge against the risk (by giving more information to voters), the lower his upside becomes (because he ceases to be a useful cipher).

The volatility you get in presidential elections stems from this information asymmetry as voters weigh what they know about the incumbent against what they think they are learning about the challenger.

[…]

If Biden and Trump are the nominees in 2024, then we will have total informational symmetry. Everyone will know everything about both of them—all they way down to how they have actually performed as president.

Ask yourself this: How could anyone be undecided between Biden and Trump?

There is no uncertainty. No race to define the candidates. We have perfect information about both of them.

And it isn’t a low-contrast choice—the two men represent very different kinds of presidenting.

All of which is why I would expect a Biden-Trump rematch to be fairly stable and low-variance—even if on the surface it seems chaotic.

I agree with this 100%. The race has been stable since November 8th 2020. The only thing that could have changed it would have been if either Biden or Trump had decided not to run or had kicked the bucket. Other than that, we have been in a state of suspended animation this entire time, waiting for the rematch.

I would just add that one of the dynamics that defines this unprecedented race is the fact that Trump has a rabid cult of personality that’s highly motivated and the other side is equally motivated to stop him. As I have said many times — it’s going to be hand to hand combat. (Metaphorically I hope!)

Another Florida Flame out?

Philip Bump with a smart take on the DeSantis campaign “retooling”

There was California Gov. Pete Wilson in September 1995, who, the Associated Press reported at the time, was heading “into the fall with a new plan to cut costs but without veteran strategist George Gorton” as he sought the Republican presidential nomination. He’d drop out soon after.

In June 1999, it was Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) who, according to the Houston Chronicle, “scaled back his [presidential] campaign operation” because of “the difficulties of raising money in a crowded Republican field.” He was out by August.

In June 2003, it was Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) who needed to figure out “how to build on the campaign’s fundraising successes while cutting costs,” as the National Journal wrote. He made it to February of the following year.

It seems as though there’s a candidate like this in every cycle, the one who jumps into the presidential race only to quickly overextend themselves, demanding a scaling-back of staff even before winter. In 2011 it was Jon Huntsman Jr. In 2015, Jeb Bush. In 2019, Kamala D. Harris.

As you are probably aware, none of them went on to win their party’s presidential nomination.

It’s useful to consider this history given reports that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is similarly overextended in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. After formally beginning his campaign in May, DeSantis has gained no traction in national polling. A memo to donors that leaked last week insisted that his campaign was well-positioned within early primary states, but such memos always say those sorts of things. It was quickly followed by reports that the campaign needed to cut staff as part of a reorganization effort — prompting the comparisons above.

Such comparisons are admittedly facile, particularly since most presidential candidates never win their party’s nomination. Some of the people listed above were never really considered contenders, either; no one was walking into a Las Vegas casino to put $1,000 on the Alexander nomination.

But that’s somewhat besides the point. That a campaign seen as a legitimate contender could overextend so quickly is a bad sign, as Jeb Bush can attest. After all, the job at issue is one predicated on executive management of a large, national organization. Presumably no one comes to the presidency fully ready for the job, but to initiate your bid as the person best suited to manage that system by quickly needing to correct staffing missteps is not ideal.

For rhetorical purposes, I left one name off my initial list: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), whose 2008 bid needed course correction in October 2007.

“McCain, R-Ariz., spent only $5.5 million, cutting costs to make the most of the meager $5.7 million he raised,” the Arizona Republic reported at the time, “while restructuring his campaign in July, August and September.”

McCain, of course, went on to win the nomination (and got blown out by Barack Obama). But as I wrote last week, McCain also trailed the front-runner at this point in the campaign by less than half as much as former president Donald Trump leads DeSantis according to RealClearPolitics’s averages.

What’s more, McCain’s opponent was former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who benefited from good name recognition but soft support. Trump is seeking the nomination from a party whose members have almost all already voted for him for president at least once. He’s also got nearly twice as much support from likely primary voters at this point as Giuliani had then.

Still, we have a small sample size here and making firm predictions based on a dozen previous races is a fool’s errand. So let’s consider the other emerging element of DeSantis’s campaign overhaul, his change in approach.

On Tuesday, he will sit down for an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, a rare engagement with nonpartisan media. Over the weekend, DeSantis insisted that he was engaged with traditional media, actually, but that they wanted him to lose because they were scared of him. (This came during an interview on Fox News, naturally.) This theory will presumably be put to the test this week.

It’s worth asking, though, why DeSantis wants to make this shift now. Why, as he reorients his campaign, is he sitting down with CNN?

He or his team will probably claim that they were always going to do this and their campaign is just starting and people aren’t really paying attention, the types of arguments they’ve been using to this point to justify not getting any traction in the polls after formally announcing. (It seems inaccurate to call that announcement a “launch,” given what followed.) But this is obviously something different from what DeSantis has been doing for more than a year as he’s positioned himself for 2024.

At Semafor, Shelby Talcott suggests that DeSantis may be hoping to orchestrate the sort of dispute with Tapper that has repeatedly benefited Trump: fighting a “fake news” journalist for attention and bolstering right-wing bona fides. And, given the past willingness of DeSantis (and his team) to attack traditional media, this is not a bad guess.

But it also possibly marks a recognition that DeSantis’s campaign has strayed from one of its initial value propositions: that he could be the candidate for conservative Republicans who don’t like Trump.

So far, DeSantis has secured a position as the alternative to Trump among Trump voters without carving out a position that significantly escapes Trump’s shadow. (Trump’s gains in recent months have come at DeSantis’s expense.) Is this, then, an effort to solidify support for those — reportedly like Fox honcho Rupert Murdoch — who want a non-Trump nominee? To try to shift back away from the extreme right?

If so, it’s to some extent self-defeating. Joe Biden’s 2020 primary campaign fumbled around for a while but was saved largely by the perception that he was the only candidate who could defeat Trump in the general. Some of DeSantis’s support is based on the hope that he can do the same in the primary — but starting out by tripping over himself directly undercuts that idea. He’d have been more effective at focusing on this line of attack before he had to cut staff, not after.

It’s possible he could still pull off what McCain did in 2008. But it is hard not to assume that the more immediate comparison, for a lot of reasons, is Jeb Bush in 2016.

Scott Walker, perhaps to his credit, never “re-tooled.” He built a top heavy campaign, spent all the money and then dropped out in September without a lot of folderol. Who would have ever thought that he would be the best example of losing with dignity?

Stuart Stevens points out repeatedly that the problem is DeSantis, not his staff. He says, “he’s a small man running for a big office…” Yep.

It’s Trump or no one

If he loses the primary don’t ever think he’ll take his ball and go home

I wish I understood what all these Republicans running for president hope to get out of it. It can’t be that they actually believe they are going to win. We know that Donald Trump will never accept that he lost so he will proclaim that the winner stole it from him and many of his followers will believe him and they’ll stay home handing the election to Joe Biden. Remember, he even claimed that Ted Cruz stole the Iowa caucuses in 2016. After first conceding the race he turned around and tweeted:

“Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he illegally stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong any [sic] why he got more votes than anticipated. Bad!” 

He removed the word “illegally” but then followed it up with:

He let that go when he started winning primaries but once he got the nomination he famously declared that he would only accept the results of the general election if he won.

He did win but he still wasn’t satisfied because he lost the popular vote so within a couple of weeks he was declaring that it was the result of voter fraud.

He even went so far as to create the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, and packed it with vote suppression activists to prove it. They were unable to do that of course because there were no facts to support it.

Fast forward to 2020 and we all know what happened. The results of his Big Lie are that even today, nearly three years later 63% of Republicans still believe the election was illegitimate. Yes, it has shrunk from the 71% who believed it was stolen right after January 6th and the number of Republicans who now believe Biden won the election fair and square has risen from 22% to 36%. Big deal. The vast majority of Republicans are still convinced that Donald Trump is the legitimate president and most of them are going to vote for him.

And why wouldn’t they? If you really believe that the election was stolen from him you must also think that he’s got a right and a responsibility to take the White House back from the usurper.

Even if any of the challengers to his claim to the throne wanted to explode the Big Lie (which thus far only seems to be former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie) it would be hard to know where to start. Trump had dozens of different reasons why the election was stolen from him and there are new ones every day. Whether it’s the mail-in ballot scheme or the election machine rigging or censorship of the Hunter Biden story or foreign interference, Trump has claimed at one time or another each was responsible for his loss.

He understands instinctively that when you are advancing a totally preposterous lie, the best thing you can do is offer as many rationales for it as possible. Some people will pick a particular reason and that’s good enough for them. Others just see it as “there’s an awful lot of smoke, there must be a fire.”

Most Republican officials, including his rivals, have therefore decided to either back Trump’s lie outright or simply say that the election was full of “problems” that need to be fixed, which tacitly amounts to the same thing. They will twist themselves into pretzels making that case.

Here is GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel:

You don’t get any more “establishment” than the Chair of the Republican Party and she says she does not believe the election was fairly decided. So, of course the rank and file are going to believe that as well.

So let’s say that one of the other candidates starts to make a move and turns this into a real race. And let’s say that they end up eking out a win. As we know Trump will not graciously concede and endorse his rival. And I do believe that many of his followers will stay home. But I also think there’s every chance that he will tell them to write him in and many of them will. He’s just not the quitting type.

Maybe these candidates thought (hoped?) he would be taken down by one of the criminal investigations that are dogging him in various places around the country. I’m not sure why they would have thought that changed anything, however. He claims that too is a rigged deal on behalf of the “deep state” and his followers are in lockstep with him on that as well. Most of these candidates are barely willing to even timidly suggest that taking classified documents might not be exactly legal so there isn’t going to be much pushback there either.

So why are all these people running? They have to know that Trump will never admit that he lost. He even protested when he won insisting that he actually won bigger but they cheated him out of it! And by now they must realize that his base is going to stick with him no matter what.

I would guess that many of them just want to remain relevant in politics. Maybe they think that if Trump beats Biden they can get a job in the cabinet. Some might even think they have a shot at VP although I can’t imagine Trump rewarding anyone who had the temerity to run against him in this race. He believes he is the president in exile and shouldn’t have to run for the nomination at all. I’d be shocked if he chooses someone from the pack.

Florida Gov. Ron Desantis may have been the one who believed his own hype and thought that because he won re-election handily he really was in a position to knock out Trump. He’s clearly starting to see the error in that calculation. Florida isn’t America and even there, he’s losing to Donald Trump by 20 points. He’ll be lucky to get out of this with a political career at all. But the rest of them aren’t dumb and they had to know that Trump would not stand for anyone else snatching away the nomination from him — that he would sabotage the ticket if he isn’t on it simply because he is congenitally incapable of admitting that he lost.

I think the is that they all just want to be in position in case he moves beyond the Big Lie and takes the Big Sleep. For all the yammering about Biden’s age, Trump’s not a young man either. This primary is basically a kind of death watch, hoping that if it should happen, one of them will be the next in line and he or she will have preserved themselves tas MAGA’s heir apparent by never being disrespectful to the late leader.

The problem is that people like him tend to live long lives. And even if he doesn’t he will rise up from the grave to claim the deep state had him deep-sixed to prevent him from becoming president again and then demand a recount. In this election, for the GOP it’s Trump or no one. Either they let him have it or he’ll burn the party down. This is all a wasted exercise.

Salon

MAGA’s perscution complex

Greg Sargent nails it

The failure of Rep. Jim Jordan’s (R-Ohio) House Judiciary Committee hearing last week to generate any kind of coherent narrative might have been expected (Washington Post):

Blame it on the “MAGA persecution complex” — the vast array of outlets in the right-wing media ecosystem that incentivizes GOP lawmakers to pander to conservative victimization and grievance. It’s feasting on so many claims of persecution that it’s essentially eating itself to death.

At last week’s hearing, Republicans alleged that the FBI investigated conservative parents at school board meetings. (That’s entirely baseless.) They insisted FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, a registered Republican, personally sicced the FBI on conservatives. (Wray called this “insane.”) They claimed the FBI has eagerly persecuted Trump. (The FBI has actually been rule-bound and cautious.) They railed that FBI plants incited the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. (The central evidence of this has collapsed.)

Republicans even insisted the FBI is riddled with anti-Catholic bias based on a field-level memo about radical right-wing Catholics that is indeed problematic. But Wray admitted to a serious error, declaring it subject to internal review. Presenting one example of abuse at a huge agency as proof of another vast conspiracy is silly.

And so on. “The zone-flooding conspiratorial antics will keep on coming. The MAGA persecution complex requires no less,” Greg Sargent concludes.

Grievance is in the right’s DNA as much as the South’s loss in the Civil War. I’m sorry, The War of Northern Aggression.

Democrats’ technological terror

“Our campaign is data-driven”

The trade show area of political conferences is lined with of booths filled with vendors and staff from nonprofit groups. Lots of tech firms with the latest in campaign software — for fundraising, for campaign communications and social media, for data management. I feel like strolling through dressed as Darth Vader and intoning, “Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve constructed.”

That sentiment is not mine alone. Micah L. Sifry discusses a survey of volunteers from 31st Street Swing Left, Markers for Democracy and Swing Blue Alliance. He summarizes their report, “The Experience of Grassroots Leaders Working with the Democracy Party,” calling it “sobering.” One bullet speaks to a pet peeve of mine and a current project (bolded):

  • None of the respondents could describe their state Democratic party’s mission. “Many state party organizations seem to lurch from election cycle to election cycle without a ‘strategic plan that includes every precinct, and no tactical plan to engage everyone’,” the report states.
  • Local volunteer leaders “yearn to contribute their expertise” as well as their legwork, but most “work under the direction of young, overworked field organizers who are not familiar with local issues, culture and relationship networks.”
  • Despite that, most field organizers do try to provide a great experience for their volunteers, but they are “hampered by inexperience and a lack of familiarity with the areas in which they are assigned to work.”
  • Most volunteer leaders see their state Democratic party’s efforts to organize outreach as “too little, too late.” One in four call their party unresponsive. A majority of respondents said the party does a terrible job targeting voters, saying that its lists are far too narrow.
  • Volunteers work with technology and data that is underperforming and out of date. They are too often calling people who have already voted, reaching wrong numbers, or sent knocking on doors of people who have already said they are voting for a Republican candidate.
  • Volunteers have no way of accumulating or demonstrating their own experience to party professionals. As one respondent noted, “With the exception of Mobilize, the DP’s technology toolset is not set up to solicit feedback or suggestions from field organizers, volunteers, or voters.  There is no efficient way to incorporate feedback into designing the volunteer experience.  Another missing element – the tools often don’t provide feedback to the volunteer.  Minivan, for example, doesn’t keep track of your doors knocked over the course of a campaign.  OpenVPB doesn’t track how many calls you made. There’s no volunteer leaderboard to encourage the volunteer to stick with it.”
  • The scripts that campaigns give volunteers to use in talking to potential voters are seen as “out of alignment with social psychological research, the concerns of the targeted demographic groups, and democratic values.” And given how out of touch these scripts are, the report’s authors ask, “if the scripts are out of touch with the conversations that voters are willing to have and that volunteers can reasonably be expected to facilitate, are other aspects of the campaign similarly out of sync?”
  • Only one-third of respondents described their volunteers’ experience canvassing or phonebanking with the Democratic party as positive. Most called it “dismal,” “excruciatingly slow,” or “chaotic,” and one ultimately said, “It was actually easier to conduct a powerful campaign without the party support.” Another said, “we see the party … as something to work around while we tackle specific, local actions we feel are effective.”

One volunteer I spoke with recently complained that VoteBuilder/VAN is not only clunky but still has “a 1980s interface.” While Democrats may attempt to update their software, there is a reluctance to update their strategies.

There is a systematic overreliance on tech to solve Democrats’ problems. When I hear, “Our campaign will be data-driven,” I wince. Too many political problems cannot be solved with more tech. NC Democrats’ new chair, Anderson Clayton, 25, scolds, “Democrats don’t have a messaging problem. They have a showing-up problem.”

The critiques from the report may be overbroad. In places such as Lavora Barnes’ Michigan and Ben Wikler’s Wisconsin, the proof is in the wins. But in general, “outside the box” thinking is almost nonexistent and even discouraged.

I’m looking for this new generation of leaders to address that rather than introduce new-and-improved light sabers.

(h/t SR)

Trump the suck-up

Can he be any more obvious? Is there even one of his supporters who cringes when he transparently sucks up like this?

Former President Trump praised the judge overseeing his classified documents case as his legal team seeks a postponement of his trial in Florida.

Trump’s motion for a continuance of the trial, filed last Monday, awaits a decision by Judge Aileen Cannon, an appointee of the former president who presided over his initial challenge to the FBI search of his Florida home.  

Asked on “Sunday Morning Futures” on Fox News whether he believes the judge will grant the motion, Trump said he did not know.

“I know it’s a very highly respected judge. A very smart judge, and a very strong judge,” Trump said.

When host Maria Bartiromo noted that Trump appointed the judge in the case, Trump said, “I did, and I’m very proud to have appointed her.”

“But she’s very smart and very strong, and loves our country,” Trump said. “We need judges that love our country so they do the right thing.”

Cannon was confirmed as a district judge in the Southern District of Florida with a bipartisan vote in November 2020.McCaul ‘very confident’ NDAA will be a bipartisan bill Mark Kelly ‘concerned’ about impact of No Labels on Biden campaign 

Rulings from Cannon substantially slowed the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) investigation into Trump over his handling of classified documents upon leaving the White House, in one instance barring prosecutors from using the classified documents they seized from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

Cannon was twice overturned by a higher court, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which greenlit the DOJ’s use of the documents and disbanded the special master process.

This is too much. I think we know what he’ll do if she “betrays” him by following the law. I wait with bated breath to find out …

It’s going to be very interesting to see how this one plays out.

GOP governors leave the grown-up table

They no longer have any need or desire to be statesmen

And, as with everything else, it’s a long, slow evolution that’s been accelerated at warp speed by the presence of Donald Trump in American politics:

There are 26 Republican governors. Three of them showed up here this week at the annual summer meeting of the National Governors Association.

And of those three, one left after the first night, and another had little choice but to attend — his chairship of the group began at the conclusion of this year’s gathering.

Striding the Hard Rock Cafe casino stage like a megachurch pastor, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox used his maiden speech as NGA chair to implore his fellow governors to make the organization a model of robust yet civil debate.

“If we’re ever going to find our better angels again, it has to start with us setting the example of how to disagree better,” Cox said.

But it’s hard to do much disagreeing, or have a conversation at all, when nobody is listening: Fewer than a half-dozen governors were still in attendance for his remarks Friday, the session’s closing day, and they were all Democrats.

After more than a century of bringing together the nation’s governors, the NGA — long a wellspring of ideas, forum for best practices and platform for innovating policymaking — is at grave risk of falling victim to the silos plaguing most every other element of American politics.

That’s the bad news. The good news is if any governor can reverse or at least slow this trend, it’s Cox.

“A bipartisan organization in a partisan world is always going to struggle, there’s no question about that,” the earnest Utahan acknowledged in an interview before vowing to round up more Republicans for next summer’s meeting. “I’ll definitely be cajoling them next time.”

It won’t be easy.

Republicans and Democrats increasingly prefer to exist in separate political spheres rather than debate one another, let alone try to find consensus.

This sorting plays out on television, where right and left have their preferred cable networks and joint appearances between lawmakers or candidates on network shows are increasingly rare; it’s a way of life in Congress, where the parties have separate lunches and spend much of their free time raising money with their co-partisans; and of course, division is the mother’s milk of politics online, where algorithms push users toward the reinforcing content they crave.

Then there’s the fact that one of our two political parties has for seven years been in the grip of a demagogue who simultaneously benefits from and accelerates this polarization while driving Republicans further away from mainstream institutions.

Despite this descent, the NGA remained a vibrant if overshadowed bipartisan institution. I can recall attending the group’s summer meeting in 2017 and finding a robust turnout of governors from both parties.

At least for the chief executives, it was a storied association.

Besides the opportunities to learn from one another, and often poach a bit, the group’s meetings offered the governors attention from the media, business community and lobbyists that they couldn’t easily attract to Jefferson City or Montpelier. (Former Washington Gov. Gary Locke was thrilled to attend the meetings, he told people, because he knew the late Washington Post columnist David S. Broder would be in attendance.)

There’s the annual winter meeting in Washington, D.C., always paired with a White House dinner with the president, and the more casual and rotating summer conclave. Particularly for new governors or those with little national profile, these were must-attend events — a way to sell their state, their story and themselves.

Chairing the NGA offered even more visibility, luring ambitious governors like Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander, Arkansas’s Bill Clinton and Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty to take control of the group and bolster their profile ahead of future presidential bids.

[…]

Republican participation has slowly tailed off, though. A few conservative states, like Florida and Texas, stopped participating in the association at all, no matter their governor.

Then, in the Trump years, some Republican governors stopped coming or sequestered themselves while in attendance because they didn’t want to face questions from the press about the president’s latest eruption. (The GOP executives needn’t have much worried this year — I didn’t see another national journalist, and there were few cameras besides C-SPAN.)

Since 2018, there’s been a turnover in states that has left both fewer Republican governors and fewer Republican governors of the sort who want to discuss best practices or share a soft-serve cone or bumper car on the boardwalk with their Democratic counterparts.

Blue-state Republicans such as Maryland’s Larry Hogan and Massachusetts’s Charlie Baker have been replaced by Democrats, and many purple states have elected or reelected Democrats.

In some states, where new Republicans have taken office, governors like Nevada’s Joe Lombardo have appeared reluctant to participate in the NGA. At last month’s Western Governors Association conference in Colorado, Lombardo told people he thought the NGA was a Democratic-leaning group, according to a source familiar with the conversation.

A Lombardo representative said he didn’t come to the NGA because of scheduling issues, but he and other Republican governors almost always find time to attend events hosted by the Republican Governors Association, which is dedicated to electing the party’s governors.

Fittingly for this polarized moment, it’s the RGA that has become the preferred organization for most GOP governors. That’s why the winter gathering of governors is usually well-attended across party lines: In addition to the White House invite, there are always ancillary fundraising events in Washington that ensure donors and therefore a good turnout.

Now, to be sure: Natural disasters kept some governors away this year. Others found the Eastern Seaboard location (with no major airport nearby) forbidding, and there was also a dip in turnout from some Democratic governors, if not nearly as significant as with Republicans.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, told me he thought some Republicans stayed away for the same reason they did during Trump’s administration: “I don’t think they want you to ask them about the former president.”

Walz pointed out that the two governors staying for the conference didn’t need to worry about that: Cox has been clear about his distaste for Trump, and Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt is already supporting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

But what I found alarming was the talk racing through the hallways of the Hard Rock (which, in a reminder that Trump can never be fully escaped, was formerly his Taj Mahal): The NGA’s summer meeting may come to an end, replaced by only regional meetings that would likely reflect the partisanship of the region. That may be a safer space, to borrow a phrase, but it would be tantamount to surrender, a concession that even with governors the partisan chasm is just too deep to sustain a national organization.

This all may sound like so much nostalgia for a bygone day. Yet many of the governors do stand apart from their counterparts in Congress for their seriousness of purpose, their executive leadership in the face of crisis and, yes, their willingness to forge coalitions across party lines.

“It’s one of the more unique organizations where folks across the aisle can find common ground,” as New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, the outgoing NGA chair, put it.

The Democrat Murphy and Republican Cox, who spent the last year as vice chair, offered an example of the productive work that can be done by the group, as they and their wives spent much of their time together addressing the country’s youth mental health crisis.

The paltry turnout here may prove ominous, or it may be altogether fitting for the “Disagree Better” initiative of Cox, who in the days before the conference toured Gettysburg, Independence Hall and Valley Forge.

The whole party is polluted. There is no saving it.