Just watch it:
As Tom Nichols said on twitter:
This is what I meant when I said democracy will collapse in small pockets here and there in the country instead of all at once. Imagine this police dept but without the state’s TBI, or DOJ, or a federal government willing to step in. That’s a view of the future.
It’s well documented that Donald Trump Jr loves JD Vance and was instrumental in getting him on the ticket. They are two peas in a pod in so many ways, even beyond the beards. Junior is less intellectually able but that’s not saying much. But JD apparently respects him anyway. A new fact check on JDs lies about Kamala Harris indicate that some of them come directly from Junior. For instance:
“She has said things like, ‘it’s reasonable not to have children over climate change.’ I think that’s the exact opposite message we should be sending to our young families.”
— Vance, interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Aug. 11
✅
Follow Fact-checking politiciansFollow
This is false. Vance made this comment as he tried to explain 2021 remarks that Harris was one of those “childless cat ladies who are miserable in their own lives and they want to make the rest of country miserable, too.” (Harris has two stepchildren.) To Bash, he said: “I criticized Kamala Harris for being part of a set of ideas that exists in American leadership that is anti-family. I never, Dana, criticized people for not having kids. I criticized people for being anti-child.”
That’s when he offered the claim that Harris once said “it’s reasonable not to have children over climate change.”
There is zero evidence thatHarris said that. Instead, Vance appears to be channeling a misleading Facebook post by Donald Trump Jr.
“WATCH: Resurfaced video shows Kamala Harris suggesting that young people should not have children due to climate change,” TrumpJr. wrote on July 27. “She calls climate anxiety ‘the fear of the future and the unknown of whether it makes sense for you to even think about having children.’”
Trump Jr. clipped a small section and then mischaracterized it. Here’s the full statement, made at an event at a community college in Reading, Pa., on Sept. 19.
Because young people — and, in particular, young voters — said, “We are going to direct and decide what is the direction of our country.” … Because young people said, “We’re not leaving it to other people to decide how we’re dealing with the climate crisis” —
You know, I’ve heard young leaders talk with me about a term they’ve coined called “climate anxiety.” Right? Which is fear of — of the future and the unknown of whether it makes sense for you to even think about having children, whether it makes sense for you to think about aspiring to buy a home because what will this climate be?
But because people voted, we have been able to put in place over a trillion dollars in investment in our country around things like climate resilience and adaptation, around focusing on issues like environmental justice.
In sum, she was characterizing “climate anxiety” and noted the Biden administration was taking steps to mitigate it.
That he said this in response to his fatuous “childless cat ladies” comment that has gotten him into so much trouble makes it all the more absurd.
Vance’s latest persona, the one that was so impressive to Trump when he spotted him on Tucker Carlson’s show bootlicking like a champ, was largely formed by following the likes of Trump Jr online and then cultivating them as he launched his political career. They are not very bright so it’s not hard to do.
The question is how bright Vance really is that he made the bet that being closely associated with Trump and MAGA are great career moves? I’d say it was a bad one that Vance will struggle to shake off when he makes his next shape shift.
This piece by Josh Kovensky at Talking Points memo is a must read if you hope to understand where the right is going — with or without Trump:
The American right’s love affair with Hungary seemingly knows no bounds. Hungarian officials appear at GOP events; CPAC has a Budapest event. Hungarian President Viktor Orbán met with Donald Trump last month, and earned a dilatory shoutout from the Republican candidate at the RNC, where Trump called Hungary a “strong country, run by very powerful, tough leaders — a tough guy.”
But if the strength is the draw, then how did Orbán become a strongman? What is it about Orbán that right-wingers are supporting when they say that they like what he’s done in Hungary?
TPM spoke with Zsuzsanna Szelényi, a former Hungarian MP who recently wrote a book, Tainted Democracy, about Orbán’s rise to power and the crackdown that followed. Szelényi was once a member of Orbán’s political party, Fidesz, in the early 1990s, before leaving as the party grew more conservative, and eventually founding her own opposition party in 2012. She knew Orban during his entry into politics in the early 1990s, and has followed his ascent as a political actor in Hungary.
Szelényi told TPM that Orbán, during his rise, shared a key focus with the modern American right: significant, structural changes to politics and the functioning of government to accrue, and retain, power. In her telling of the rise of Orbánism, that manifests as a focus on “money, ideology, and votes” — changing the judiciary, press laws, and campaign laws in order to stay in power.
It’s an example of illiberalism that’s drawn American conservatives to Hungary — especially in the years after Trump won the 2016 election. And though both the American right and Orban’s Hungary have an interest in ostentatious culture warring, the focus on trying to realign the constitutional and legal systems to stay in power while remaining flexible on policy that is the deeper parallel.
If all that sounds familiar to you, you aren’t alone.
There are big differences between Hungary and America, obviously, not the least of which is the fact that Hungary is a very small country which makes such things far easier to manage. But the main difference is that the U.S. is a mature democracy while Hungary is fairly new having just emerged in the 1990s after the Soviet collapse. They had a much easier playing field.
The article goes on to show how they managed over a period of years to define for themselves their “illiberal democracy” as Orban calls it. Perhaps most interesting is that while the right wing legal and political establishment may be studying Orban’s model today, when he was first coming up he studied right wing think tank policy ideas. It’s a mutual admiration society.
Read the whole thing if you have time. Trump is sui generis but the establishment that supports him is not. They are part of a well-financed, global right wing movement that seeks to corrupt democratic institutions to ensure they can stay in power despite their lack of any popular mandate.
When asked why he dropped out:
Ultimately, Biden said, he wanted to make sure former President Donald Trump, whom he described as a “genuine danger to American security,” loses in November.
“The critical issue for me still — it’s not a joke — maintaining this democracy,” he said. “I thought it was important. Because, although it’s a great honor being president, I think I have an obligation to the country to do what [is] the most important thing you can do, and that is, we must, we must, we must defeat Trump.”
Trump couldn’t even admit he legitimately lost in 2020. The difference in character is monumental. And I genuinely believe that’s why he’s so disoriented right now. He simply can’t imagine doing anything out of obligation to the country.
I was fortunate not to listen to that”interview” last night (two hours of Trump and Musk is more than even I can take) but it certainly sounds like a typical Trump ramble so I don’t think I missed much. The Trump campaign didn’t like that statement at all:
Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung lashed out the Harris-Walz campaign Monday with an obscene public statement accusing staffers of being “f—ing cowards.”
Cheung posted his foul-mouthed message on X in response to a statement from the Democratic campaign trashing Trump’s softball interview with Elon Musk. “All these statements, yet nobody ever puts their name on them,” Cheung wrote. “F—ing cowards.”
You no doubt remember that Musk previously supported Ron DeSantis who chose to make his campaign announcement on X which also had technical issues as Trump’s appearance did last night. (You’d think Musk would have avoided that last night…) Trump responded to that debacle this way:
In May 2023, DeSantis launched his ill-fated bid for president in a Twitter Space with Musk that also went awry thanks to technical hitches—an unmitigated disaster the Harris campaign recalled while trolling Trump on Monday night. On Truth Social, Trump’s social media platform, the account for the Harris campaign “ReTruthed” a post Trump wrote last year mocking DeSantis.
“Wow! The DeSanctus TWITTER launch is a DISASTER!” Trump wrote at the time. “His whole campaign will be a disaster. WATCH!”
Live by the troll, die by the troll.
Also: For some reason Trump was slurring and lisping throughout this weird thing. What’s up with that?
I’ve written before that I suspect this ongoing discontent with “the economy” actually stood in for something else:
It was the age thing. That’s all it was.
Oh, and by the way, inflation numbers came in today lower than expected. Sorry Donnie:
Whatever that panic was last week seems to have been a bit …. uhm premature.
Update:
How about this?
All that’s changed is that one of the old guys withdrew.
(h/t M.E.)
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.
The Daily Blast podcast with Greg Sargent introduces findings by the Harvard Youth Poll’s John Della Volpe:
An important new poll of young voters finds that Harris’ entry has dramatically shifted their preferences in her favor and against Trump. Which confirms a larger story: The Democratic-leaning constituencies who had drifted toward Trump now may be swinging to Harris, exposing a weakness in his previous support.
A new survey conducted for Won’t PAC Down in battleground states (AZ, GA, MI, NC, NH, NC, PA, WI) finds 18-29 year-old registered voters (that’s important; more later) favoring Kamala Harris over Donald Trump by 51-42, a 13-point shift from a previous poll showing support for Trump. The poll was conducted before the announcement of Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota as Democrats’ vice-presidential pick and the high-energy rallies that followed.
Della Volpe believes approval for Harris needs a margin somewhere in the mid-50s, as it was in the 2020 election among this cohort. A 20-point margin here in the battleground states helped bring Joe Biden victory in 2020.
Borrowing from Steve Jobs, Della Volpe says in politics some people don’t know what they want until we show it to them. These voters see what they like now.
These voters and the youngest among them see themselves more reflected in Harris than in Trump. They see someone willing to fight for their values. Culturally, her dancing and cooking and musical tastes more align with theirs, making them more open to her message. Biden lacked that cultural alignment. (His campaign’s attempt to use TikTok was cringeworthy.)
Della Volpe thinks the addition of Walz will only add to the Harris campaign’s image.
The youngest, males especially, now first-time voters, first encountered Trump as an antihero in middle school. They were not attending to his policy or ethics and took their cultural cues from online, right-wing echo chambers. But until now they did not see any alternative. Their actual values, Della Volpe found, align more with progressive Democrats. They simply did not see him reflected in the channels they frequent. They responded to a Biden : weak, Trump : strong dynamic. Now with Harris atop the Democratic ticket, she looks stronger, more confident, and more aligned with their values than Trump.
The poll finds Harris up not only in a head-to-head race against Trump but leading Trump 42-33 in a multi-candidate contest, a +10 point shift to Harris since early July.
I’d note that we are seeing in the Harris-Walz campaign the messaging framework laid out in July at the Netroots panel Amplify: Getting Louder to Win in 2024. Listen for “our freedoms, our families, our futures” referenced in speeches at Harris-Walz rallies. It’s a winner.
Now, the press goes all aflutter when younger voter turnout is up a few percentage points. The persistent problem is a few percent above what? Registration is one thing. Turnout is another. The greatest area for improving voter turnout is 45 and under (see below; your state similar). And the largest 45-and-under registration cohort is independent/unaffiliated. That’s why my personal effort here aims to boost turnout among 45-and-under unaffiliated voters Democrats tend to ignore. They tend to lean Democrat. Turning them out is the trick.
Chicken or egg? Are these lower-propensity voters not turning out like their voting independent neighbors because they are less-engaged? Or because Democrats are not engaging them?
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.
A little fun for a Monday evening…
Oh how the wingnuts hate him.
You’ve probably heard about the nefarious plot in Georgia to challenge the election by now and I’m sure you’re familiar with Trump’s shenanigans in other states in 2020. This article in the Guardian takes a look at the current national effort led by Trump insider Cleta Mitchell. Read the whole thing, but I thought this was a worthy excerpt:
Since 2020, there have been at least 20 instances in eight states of election officials refusing to certify election results.
The first red flag came in 2022, when county commissioners in Otero county, New Mexico, refused to certify the results of a primary election, citing vague concerns about voting equipment. The secretary of state eventually went to court to force the commissioners to certify the election.
In July of this year, two Republicans on the county commission in Washoe county, Nevada – a key county in a battleground state – refused to certify its primary vote, setting off alarms. The commissioners who refused to certify eventually reversed themselves. Nevada’s secretary of state, Cisco Aguilar, has since asked the state supreme court to clarify that county commissioners have an obligation to certify votes.
Sometimes election officials who refuse to certify have pointed to mistakes that happened during the election, even though they did not affect the outcome. In other cases, like Adams’s in Georgia, officials have refused to certify to protest about what they view as unfair laws.
While courts would probably force recalcitrant officials to certify the vote, significant damage could still be caused.
“You can force certification through legal mechanisms, [but] those events tend to be like rocket fuel for conspiracy theories and misinformation and undermining confidence in the election. So there’s damage done even where certification is eventually forced,” said Berwick, the Protect Democracy lawyer.
The timeline for certifying the vote is important because, under federal law, states must have an official election result by 11 December, six days before the electoral college meets. Delaying certification efforts at the local level could put states at risk of missing that deadline.
“If we get past that deadline, it opens up a lot of questions, like tricky legal questions and room for shenanigans,” Berwick said.
The experts are counting on the state courts but who knows? And there has been some action at the federal level to [revent a re-run of 2020:
A new law, the Electoral Count Reform Act, should provide a significant new layer of protection against election subversion. The bipartisan bill passed Congress at the end of 2022.
The law makes it so that Trump and his allies cannot repeat what they did in 2020 and submit false slates of electors from key swing states. Significantly, it says that the slate of electors submitted by a state’s executive is the legitimate slate and raises the threshold in both houses of Congress to object to the electoral result.
While the law controls what Congress must do once it receives certificates from electors, it doesn’t have much to say about what must happen in the lead-up to the electoral college vote. That could leave a lot of wriggle room for Trump and allies to try to slow down certification and go to court to try to force states to miss their certification deadline.
And they will. You know they will.
Are we any better off than we were in 2020?
Lawyers and other activists say they are ready, having spent the last four years studying and understanding the vulnerabilities that Trump and allies targeted in 2020. Any effort to block certification is likely to be swiftly challenged in courts, where Trump has already been unsuccessful dozens of times.
The new Electoral Count Reform Act should offer additional safeguards should there be an effort such as there was in 2020 to get Congress to stop its certification of the vote
Yet it would be a mistake to dismiss the threat altogether. The same pressure points that existed in 2020 exist in 2024, and in some places election deniers have been elevated to positions of power.
“This has started earlier in the cycle and is louder and is more consistent,” said Morales-Doyle of the Brennan Center. “That is all just at a different level than it was before 2020.”
It is going to happen and he is going to come unglued as will some number of his followers. If I had to guess, most of them are probably pretty tired of all this and will actually feel some relief that it’s over. They’ll whine, of course, but I doubt he’ll get the crowd he got in 2020 (which he will certainly call for.)
But there will be a few who want to take some action and I would expect them to be very reckless. I hope everyone is prepared for that too.