Tag: MAGA

Posted on

What’s Going On?

Trying to Explain the Shifting Political Landscape

NY Times, Is the Urban Shift Toward Trump Really About Democratic Cities in Disarray?

The article goes into some statistical detail to refute a theory that you might not have heard about; I know I haven’t. The refuted theory is that shifts toward Republicans in big cities were a reaction to perceived local Democratic Party mismanagement of urban problems. 

No, say the authors. Majority-white areas shifted relatively little. Majority-nonwhite areas shifted toward the Republicans—a lot. 

And, in areas that had received a lot of migrants since 2021, there was a really, really big shift to the right. Or, at least, so says the article.

It’s a longish piece. My shorthand summary doesn’t do it justice. You probably want to read it for yourself.

My takeaways? (1) Identity politics is a hound dog that no longer hunts. (2) We badly need to come to a reasonable consensus on immigration—and try to take that issue off the table.

Steve Schale, I Watched the Democratic Collapse in Florida. I Fear It’s Happening Nationally

Mr. Schale, a self-described “political hack,” has a lot of things to get off his chest. Worth a full read. Some things that particularly caught my eye:

We must be smarter about how we use data. Right now, we use data as a crutch. We were addicted to ad-testing, to the point that it drove decision-making more this cycle than the desire or need to tell a story. We overuse analytics to find the most “efficient” ways to communicate with voters, meaning in many cases, we just don’t talk to huge swaths of both our base, or to Republicans. Data also allow campaigns to avoid accountability for decisions—just blame the outcome on following the analytics. Data are vital, but should work for the campaign—not the other way around.

We must deal with the right’s tremendous advantage in delivering content.After 2020, I had a billionaire ask me what I thought would be useful going forward. My advice was to spend a billion dollars building out an ecosystem like the right to deliver information to not only our base but persuadable voters. There was an acknowledgement of the problem, but that was all. I worry that coastal Democrats don’t fully grasp just how much of a disadvantage we face on the news consumption front—especially podcasts and social media—and that to solve it, we need a donor or two willing to invest significant capital. …

The truth is we got here because our brand sucks. We tend to put voters in different buckets—black, Hispanic, young, gay, etc.—and treat these groups like they are more progressive than they really are, and somehow unique from each other. At the same time, we’ve made decisions to stop talking to large chunks of the electorate. …

Truth be told, thanks to “smart” election technology—in this case, campaign analytics and modeling—we increasingly don’t talk to voters in large swaths of states.

Posted by Ron Davis, Dec. 6, 2024

Posted on

What the Hell Do We Say to Esther?

In seven minutes, Paul Solomon of the PBS Newshour tries to summarize “Why so many Americans are dissatisfied with the seemingly solid economy.” For a seven-minute discussion, Solomon and his guests lay out the issues fairly well.

Please take a hard look. Maybe watch it a second time, because the situation is a little complicated.

And then answer this question:

What the Hell Do We Say to Esther?

Let me give you four alternatives. Which message is most truthful, and which message is most likely to help us take our country back? Which will it be—A, B, C, or D?

A. The Identity Message

“Listen up, lady—and take a look in the mirror. Racism and misogyny still run rampant in this country. And you have just missed a chance to vote for a highly competent person, Kamala Harris, who is, like you, an African-American woman. What a shame! Clearly, you are not a credit to your race.”

B. The Me-Or-Your-Lying-Eyes Message

“As the saying goes, who are you gonna believe: me or your lying eyes? 

“For God’s sake, woman, you’re an accountant. Don’t you read the Financial Times? Don’t you read the Wall Street Journal? Don’t you know that we have had a great recovery under the Biden-Harris administration? Don’t you know that inflation is coming down?

“Instead of reading legitimate news sources, you must have been duped into reading the wrong Facebook pages. Get a grip on.”

C. The Just-You-Wait Message

“You say you’re concerned about inflation. But your man Trump has three signature policies that are bound to increase inflation and make your life more miserable: massive tariffs and trade wars, mass deportations that will disrupt the economy, and tax cuts for the wealthy that will overstimulate the economy and drive up prices. 

“You thought the last four years were bad? Wait till you see how things are going by 2026!

“We’ll see you at the polls in the next election. Until then, we don’t really have anything to say to you.”

D. The Let-Us-Listen-and-Engage Message

“In the last election, a lot of people were blindsided by the failure of the demography-is-destiny theory of American politics. We were blindsided by the fact that so many people did not understand the threat that Trump poses. And we were blindsided by just how bad things are for a lot of working class people.

“Well, on reflection, we’re glad that you have decided to weigh your perceived economic interests over your ethnic and gender identity. In that regard, you set a fine example for some white people who grieve for the loss of some of their privilege—and for some toxic males who are feel threatened by feminism.

“Now, let’s sit down and have a really serious discussion about the everyday economic difficulties you face, and about how government can make things better. Let’s develop a real economic program to run on in 2026.”

Posted on

First, Kash Patel Came for the Justice Department Lawyers

Kash Patel, Trump’s pick to head the FBI, tells us where he stands on civil liberties:

First they came for the Justice Department lawyers who prosecuted the coup plotters.

But I was a Republican senator, not a prosecutor, and I had always been publicly vague about what happened in early 2020, so I did not worry.

Then they came for the journalists who told the truth about Trump.

But I was a Republican senator—and I have always been very careful never, ever to tell the truth about Trump—so I did not worry.

Then I made a casual remark about Trump, and I cast a single, solitary vote that Trump did not like, and they came after me.

And there was no one left to stand up for me. 

Posted on

Norms

On December 2, Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark wrote,

Like Biden, I’m a sucker for norms. You know that. But I think we need to be more realistic about them.

(1) They’re not “norms” anymore. They’re preferences. Unless a practice is recognized as normal and essential by the entire political system, it’s merely a stylistic preference. Like choosing pistachio over chocolate.

(2) Adhering to a stylistic practice does not increase the chance of restoring it as a “norm.” People often say that we need to uphold a broken norm now so that it will be re-adopted in the future. There is not a lot of evidence to suggest that these B follows A. Will Republican presidential candidates release their tax returns in 2024 because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris released their tax returns in 2024? I doubt it.

If you want to adhere to a norm, you should not do so under the misapprehension that you are reestablishing it. The immediate benefits—whatever they may be—must suffice.

(3) A “norm” is not a suicide pact. Pretend—just for a moment—that Kash Patel is confirmed as FBI director and he begins his 10-year term in February of 2025.

Now pretend that, in 2028 some Democrat is elected president. 

Should “norms” prevent that incoming Democrat from summarily firing Director Patel?⁶

But firing Patel without cause would make this Democratic POTUS just as bad as Trump! Wouldn’t Democrats be honor-bound to allow Patel to continue his tenure? 

All of which is to say that our thinking about norms should be more hard-headed. This is not to say that you must fight fire with fire, or an eye for an eye.

It is very much notto say that, “If Trump does Bad Thing X then the forces of liberalism must do Bad Thing X in return.” In general, you should strive to live your values.

But we shouldn’t cling to memories of an age which has already passed if doing so means perpetuating an illiberalism.

Posted on

I Resolve …

2025 is almost here, and, along with it, the second Trump inauguration. As we face hard and troubling times, I have decided to make some resolutions.

I resolve to acknowledge my shock, my grief, and my nausea at the outcome of the 2024 election, but I also resolve not to let those emotions overcome me.

In lieu of uncontrollable anger at my fellow Americans who voted for Trump, I will permit myself a little Schadenfreude.

I resolve to remain politically engaged.

Although Trump’s second term will pose a clear and present danger to our civil liberties, I resolve to speak out—and act on—the assumption that those civil liberties remain in full force and effect. 

I resolve to put, first and foremost, the protection of the rule of law. 

Although the rule of law has suffered great setbacks, and although it is likely to face grave challenges in the near term, I resolve to remain firm in my resolve that the rule of law will ultimately prevail.

To that end, I resolve to support the rule of law not only by speaking out but also by providing financial support for those trying to save our constitutional republic.

I resolve not to be a summer solder or a sunshine patriot. 

I resolve not to give way to fear—or to exhaustion. 

To the extent humanly possible, I resolve to overcome my cognitive biases and to observe our present political environment with eyes wide open.

I resolve to process all the facts—the facts I like, plus the facts I don’t like, plus the facts that seem so strange that I can hardly believe them. 

I resolve always to keep in mind the distinction between a known fact and a reasonable working hypothesis.

I resolve always to keep in mind the distinction between a reasonable working hypothesis and a mere plausible speculation.

I resolve to remember that my name is not Nostradamus: I can plausibly speculate about the future based on the known facts, but, beyond that, I cannot actually predict the future. 

I resolve to remember that my name is not The Amazing Kreskin: I can plausibly speculate about what you are thinking, based on how you act and on what you say, but, at the end of the day, I cannot actually read your mind. 

I resolve to remember that my name is not Rosy Scenario. I resolve not to just assume that a happy outcome will occur.

I resolve to remember that my name is not Debby Downer. I resolve to remember that a happy outcome is still possible. 

I resolve, in the words of the hymn, to “wake now compassion” and “give heed to the cry” of the “voices of suffering” that “fill the wide sky.”

I resolve, in the words of the hymn, to “wake now my reason” and “reach out to the new.” 

I resolve, in the words of the hymn, to “take not for granted a privileged place.”

I resolve to work toward a new Democratic coalition of the working class and the educated professional class, and I resolve to do my part in relentlessly promoting a strategy and a set of tactics that will lead to that goal. 

Posted on

A Known Fact vs. a Working Hypothesis vs. a Reasonable Speculation vs. Bullshit

I don’t know about you, but I was blindsided by the 2024 election results. Now, several weeks after the calamity, as the talking heads talk and as the pundits pontificate, I am impressed both by the insights I am getting from some and by the bullshit I am hearing from others.

Please let me suggest to you, respectfully, that, on the political journey that awaits us, the first and foremost mental tools we need are unflinching commitment to situational awareness, shrewd evaluation of the evolving political situation, and creative thought about what coalitions are needed to create a new, rational majority.

In that vein, let me suggest that we learn some utterly vital wisdom from Sunzi, from Confucius, and from Rabbi Jesus. 

Know Your Side, Know Your Adversary

Sunzi (Sun Tzu, Master Sun), the ancient Chinese military strategist, said “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Translation: if you are in a war, and if you actually want to win the war, then you had better know all the facts, and you had better put aside your cognitive biases.  

And What Exactly Does it Mean to “Know” the Facts?

From Confucius (Kongzi, Master Kong) we gain this vital insight about what it means to “know” something: “To know what you know and to know what you do not know—that is true knowledge.”

Translation: while you’re being about knowing your side and knowing your adversary, be damn sure that what you think you know is really true. 

Because remember Sunzi’s last point: if you’re acting on false “knowledge” about your side and about your adversary, then you’re going to lose every single battle.

Implication: As you try to be situationally aware—as you describe the current political crisis to others—be very, very conscious of the difference between a good working hypothesis, as distinguished from an established fact. 

And be very, very conscious of the difference between a good working hypothesis and a mere plausible speculation.

Because if you mistake a hypothesis or a plausible speculation for an established fact, then you are probably going to screw up big time.

How Metaphorical Sheep Deal with Metaphorical Wolves

To these hard sayings from Master Sun and from Master Kong, Rabbi Jesus adds this vital instruction, in the form of a startlingly mixed simile: “Behold, I send you out as sheep among wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”

Translation: as you face danger, use clever strategy and tactics to defeat the bad actors, all the while maintaining your moral innocence. 

Posted on

Why are People Mad at the Democrats?

If we really want to get our country back, an essential first step is to face up to why so many people are so mad at the Democratic Party in general, and at the Biden-Harris administration in particular.

And, even as we acknowledge that some of these perceived grievances are legitimate, let’s also remember that none of them would justify choosing someone of Trump’s low character as president. We can grieve, we can be nauseous, we can be amazed at the credulity of a plurality of the American voters.

But we must face up to facts. Anger against Democrats arises from a smorgasbord of factors that various Trump voters (and Democrats who skipped voting in 2024) were concerned about:

  • Their live in miserable economic circumstances, and Democratic elites don’t even recognize or understand their pain, let alone feel it. Anecdotal and survey evidence indicates the widespread concern over high inflation—a concern that transcends identity groups
  • They live in an information environment dominated by lies, propaganda, and misdirected anger, and Democrats have ceded that information space to fascists and plutocrats—in consequence of which many are losing the capacity to tell the truth from a lie, to grasp the link between actions and consequences, to choose right over wrong, and to favor science over witchcraft as a problem solving tool
  • It makes them angry that Democrats have no coherent, politically workable policy on who should be allowed to immigrate to the United States
  • It makes them angry that Democrats have no coherent, politically workable policy on how to address the 11 million plus undocumented people living among us
  • It makes them angry when Democrats demand their support on identity grounds, disregarding their actual views and their perceived interests
  • It makes them angry that Democrats, like Republicans, have embraced neoliberalism and globalism
  • Some favor Christianist nationalism over freedom of religion
  • Some have extreme anti-abortion views
  • Some are stone cold racists, who remain butt hurt that the South lost the Civil War
  • Some boisterously embrace their toxic masculinity
  • Some are addicted to conspiracy theories
  • Some fault Democrats for denying that forest fires are caused by Jewish lasers from outer space
  • Some are plutocrats gleefully exploiting all of the above

Posted on

How Democratic Party Dropouts Swung the Election to Trump

For some time now, we have been about a 50-50 nation, with relatively small movements among voters determining the outcome of presidential elections. (Determining the outcome, that is, in light of the vagaries of the Electoral College system.)

In 2016, when 62,985,106 voters cast their votes for Trump, he only earned 45.9% of those who voted, and decisively lost the popular vote to Clinton, though he got more votes in the Electoral College. 

Between 2016 and 2024, Trump’s raw vote total increased by a whopping 13 million votes. But due to higher overall voter turnout in 2024, the percentage of voters opting for the Orange Godking increased by only about 4 percentage points. (Of course, the percentage increase is even lower than that if you look, not to actual voters, but to all registered voters, or all eligible voters.)

Four years ago, in 2020, despite the country’s horrible experience with Covid, Trump’s raw popular vote increased from about 63 million in 2016 to about 74.2 million in 2020. But voter turnout had increased, Trump’s percentage only rose from 45.9% to 46.9%, and Biden easily trumped Trump with 81,282,916 popular votes, or 51.3% of those who voted, and an Electoral College victory of 306 to 232.

This year, Democratic voters declined from 81,282,916 to 74,406,331. That’s a difference of 8,876,585. Some of these folks switched back to Trump—he got around 2.7 million more votes in 2024 than in 2020. Some probably decided to vote for a third party candidate. And a whole bunch of them just stayed home. 

For the sake of the discussion, let’s do this mental exercise and this back-of-the-envelope calculation. Let’s assume that all of Trump’s extra 2024 voters were people who had voted for Biden in 2020, but decided to switch sides in 2024. Let’s deduct these 2.7 assumed side-switchers from the missing 2024 Democratic voters. And let’s assume, for the sake of the discussion, that the rest of the missing Democratic voters were people who decided to sit out the 2024 election. That’s about 6.2 million voters.

If all those Democratic couch sitters had showed up for Harris, then she would have won the election handily—even taking into account all the people who switched from Biden back to Trump. 

Posted on

A Wannabe Mussolini, a Master Con Artist, or Just an Old Guy Throwing Ketchup at the Wall?

I will be writing elsewhere about how vital it is to know—and to feel, deeply—the difference between an established fact and a good working hypothesis. And, likewise, the difference between a plausible speculation and a reasonable hypothesis. 

In this post, I want to present a plausible speculation that may, if validated by new incidents and new evidence, soon graduate to a good working hypothesis. Here it is. 

Many see the 2024 Trump as a wannabe Mussolini. That he surrounds himself with some rich and clever people who want to turn America into Hungary or Fascist Italy is an established fact. See, for example, this op-ed by Catherine Rampell. But whether Trump has it in him to transform himself into Mussolini or Orban remains to be seen. 

Many see the 2024 Trump as something else: a charismatic, three-dimensional-chess-playing con man, with a near supernatural gift for deceiving a plurality of Americans. Much like the Trump who bloviated about a Mexican border wall, but only rebuilt some of the old border wall and then extended it by about 40 or 50 miles. (The entire border is 1,933 miles long.) Or the Trump who railed against NAFTA, gave it a new name, and proclaimed a famous victory. 

Con man Trump, some say, ran for president in 2024 to stay out of jail. In office, they predict, he will continue to bloviate, bluster, and bully, but probably won’t do all that much trouble.

Each of these two predictions is plausible. Each is far from an established fact. 

But, based on some recent events, let me suggest that a third way to look at 2024 Trump is coming into view. I’ll mention three items of evidence. 

First, we have the Trump ukase ordering the Senate to give up its constitutional power to advise and consent to appointments. The Republican senators said no. Trump backed down.

Second, we have l’affaire Gaetz. Trump nominated an idiot to be attorney general—an idiot who vowed to tear the place up. It quickly became apparent that the nominee did not have enough Republican votes in the Senate. Trump backed down.

Third, we have the Trump lunatic tweet about tariffs on Mexico. We have the Mexican president’s tough response. And Trump appears to have backed down. 

One swallow does not a summer make. Or even three swallows. But let me suggest that the evidence is beginning—I said beginning—to add up, and that a picture is beginning to form. 

From earliest childhood, Trump was trained by a sociopath to be a sociopath. He suffers from malignant narcissism and related personality disorders. For a long time, he has had only a loose connection with reality. Now, he is old, he is tired, and he appears to be in the incipient stage of dementia. (The situation is summarized here.)

Think about it. How would an evil person—a wannabe Mussolini, for example—have thought about the Gaetz appointment? Maybe the idea might have surfaced in a brainstorming session. But an evil, yet rational, actor would have done at least some checking to see whether there might be enough Senate votes to confirm this jerk. An evil, yet rational, actor would have planned to go on the warpath if his first choice for AG were blocked. 

Why? Because making an impulsive choice and then backing down makes you look weak. And it makes you look stupid.

Posted on

The 2024 Election Results and the Glorious Trump Mandate

It’s three weeks after the election debacle of 2024, and Thanksgiving Day is here. They are still counting some of the votes, but as I write on Nov. 27, 2024, the latest count shows that Trump won 76,883,434 votes, Harris received 74,406,431, and the rest of the voters—somewhere around 1.6% of those who showed up to vote—were divided in roughly equal amounts among the Green Party candidate, the Libertarian Party candidate, RFK Jr., and Micky Mouse.

Trump’s 2024 Plurality Among Those Who Voted

The total popular vote, as of this writing, stands at 153,847,281. If you calculate to the nearest 1/100 of a percent, Trump received 49.97% of those who voted, as of today’s count. (If you round up to the nearest tenth of a percent, or to the nearest percent, you can say Trump won 50% of the vote—a figure that one often sees.)

A “majority” means 50% plus 1. Here, a “majority” of those who voted would be a number equal to or greater than 76,923,641. Trump did not get quite that many votes.

Trump’s Support as a Percent of All Registered Voters

About 186.5 million Americans are currently registered to vote. Trump received about 41.2% of the votes of all those who are currently registered to vote (including those who voted and those who did not vote in 2024.)

Trump’s Support as a Percent of All Americans Who are Eligible to Vote

Of those who would be entitled to register to vote, some have actually registered, and some have not. As just noted, total voters actually registered are about 186.5 million. Total eligible voters—the currently registered plus the currently unregistered—are estimated to be around 244 million. 

Trump received the votes of about 31.5% of all those Americans who are eligible to vote.