This is an excellent newsletter as always. A few comments: First, Give Biden credit for quickly correcting the DMC blunder in making fun of Asa Hutchinson. The Republican Party could never apologize quickly and politely after a blunder. Second, Ron DeSantis would have been better off attacking Trump from the beginning. His campaigning improved as the caucus approached. He sounded more human, less robotic and weird. Third, the turnout in Iowa was low, not just due to cold weather. Had someone run a decent anti-Trump campaign more people would have shown up. The low turnout appears to be a lack of enthusiasm for the entire Republican Party.
One saving grace could be this: we can depend on Trump to act worse and worse the more comfortable he gets. He knows he has the nomination. So he’ll be more brazen and say more awful things to dig holes with swing voters who will start paying attention. Let’s hope he continues to be himself so everyone who isn’t looking today can be reminded tomorrow.
We MUST focus our blogs and words on organizing public opinion in favor of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) enforcing Section 3 of 14th Amendment (3-14) and disqualifying the indicted 45th President for rebellion, insurrection and treason on January 6, 2021. PERIOD.
Thanks for your clear, forceful stories. Great work, sorely needed. But why do you and other outlets chose to report the Trump "can't control himself," in court? It seems to me he is clearly choosing to act out in an attempt to disrupt organized proceedings and undermine their credibility. His every statement in and around his court appearances seems a clear and deliberate attack on legal processes and the rule of law.
You normally do a great job of piercing convenient euphemisms to expose the underlying truth. I don't understand the rationale for accepting them now.
Trump may think he's "martyring" himself in court as part of his campaign - truth is, he's addicted to court and litigation, has been for years.
Appearing in court presses every pleasure button for this narcissist. He's the center of attention! Everybody has to listen to him! He's always right! (even when he's wrong. . . And his lawyers are there backing him up! All those guys with Harvard degrees rooting for him!
Now that he and Melania no longer share a bed, court appearances and rallies are probably the only way he gets his rocks off.
Nahal Toosi's take on RoW despising America for our political system of late, doesn't seem to be an issue (one European ambassador unloads?) What of the Ukrainians, NATO nations, Austral-Asian, Taiwan, Hong Kong and other western-leaning states and countries? Biden has turned tRump's isolationism and tariff policies 180° in Short Order and rebuilt US Reputations as A World Leader speaking out for ALL our allies and democracy's leaning towards socialist/ communist leaders since DJT came on the scene. I don't concur with Nahal's opinions and views for the above reasons. IMHO
Charlie, your opening remarks belied the rest of your argument when
you broke down the numbers from Iowa caucus. There were 70% fewer GOP voters than in 2016; he got 20 of 40 delegates (Haley/ Desantis split the remaining 20).
Your initial points were a 180° statement to the remaining post.
I did not expect that oversight from your normal analysis of events. Disappointed, sir. Do better for your country, readers and citizens in this critical time.
Sounds like what the Progressives are just supposed to grin and bear, "for democracy". Its always been cool when its the other guy but not so much when its you I guess. I'd have some sympathy if it weren't for the rank hypocrisy.
Please forward to Bill and Tim: yes to audio feed of The Ballot Box! You guys are great and I'm on the go too much to bring up YouTube. Podcasts all the way for me.
"Campaign aides, and Trump himself, have made it clear through the media that the Dear Leader differentiates between endorsements and support, and will be keeping careful track of who comes around after it’s over."
-----
It should surprise no one that the Tangerine Troglodyte "differentiates between endorsements and support[.]" This is the same man (and I use that word very loosely) who swore to protect and defend the Constitution in his oath of office, but later added that he never swore to "support" it. This is the same person who said that it was time to suspend certain parts of the Constitution he objects to because it curtails his fevered wet dreams from becoming reality. This is the same man who believes that support is a one-sided concept, "what have you done for me today?" (As far as he's concerned endorsements are worthless. While he'll never admit it, his endorsements of MAGA candidates in 2018, '20 and '22 were wasted when his preferred candidates lost in "rigged" elections to non-extremists.)
The Marigold Malignancy doesn't care if his "supporters" are corrupt, just as long as they give him a taste. But they shouldn't count on any reciprocity if it doesn't directly benefit him.
Day after day, Trump does nothing to expand his share of the vote beyond what he got four years ago. If anything, his support is becoming both more intense and smaller in number, making election-season violence more likely. Law enforcement needs to be ready.
Good grief, Charlie! Somebody as clear-eyed as YOU is on the "Trump's Not that Strong" train, too???
We are "whistling past the graveyard" if we operate on the idea that Trump is not as strong in the GOP as he thinks. He IS that strong.
Chris Cillizza picked up on a point too many of us were missing. The caucus-goers were asked a second question after they were asked who they were supporting. That question was: who would you be voting for if your candidate was not on the ballot?
The answers are what we should be paying attention to: 75% of DeSantis voters said they would vote for Trump if DeSantis wasn't there. 40% of Haley voters said they would vote for Trump if she wasn't on the ballot. In a 1 on 1, with DeSantis out, Trump beats Haley with around 72-74% of the vote. With Haley out, Trump beats DeSantis with 64-65%. Those are "respectable incumbent numbers."
We have to stop this magical thinking that the constitution, or this story or that one, or an editorial in the NYT, is going to save us. What our favorite MSNBC host says is irrelevant (I was really disturbed last night to see Lawrence, who should know better from his own experience, jumping on the Trump Is Weak train).
We all said "He can't possibly win!" in 2016 and what did we get?
There are no magic beans that will kill the monster. WE have to do it by getting off our dead asses and onto our dying feet (to recall my old drill instructor) and each do what we can to push things in the right direction.
Nothing of value has ever come easy, ever.
We have to be clear-eyed about this. He might not be exactly as strong as he was, but that is not the same as saying he is weak. He is strong enough to win, if we let him.
There are two stories here. One is that Trump easily won the Iowa Republican caucus by a percentage that is a record for that primary in a normal election cycle. Which is the caveat. This is not a normal election cycle. Trump is effectively running as an incumbent yet was only able to barely get more than half the votes. Meaning that nearly half supported someone else. It seems to me an incumbent should be expected to do far better than that. If Biden had a primary like this the media would be declaring his candidacy effectively over and Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Barack Obama, the Clintons, and every other Democratic Party luminary would be begging Biden to drop out.
Also, there are the polls that indicate that about 30% of Iowa Republicans would consider Trump unfit for office if he is convicted of a crime (there have been several recent national polls with similar results), and half of Nikki Haley's supporters would vote for Biden if Trump were the nominee (I think the poll of Haley supporters is even assuming no new negative developments). Both these outcomes seem to be on track to happen within the next few months.
If these polls are any indication that Bannon line of Republican voters who don't vote for Trump could be dramatically expanded. In 2020 about 5% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents supported Biden. Imagine if that percentage could be doubled in 2024, and in addition many more Republicans who can't bring themselves to support Biden vote third party, stay home, or maybe write in Liz Cheney or someone else. Democrats and their anti-Trump allies need to set a goal of getting about 30% of Republicans to not vote for Trump. Does that seem ridiculously ambitious, considering the GOP's deeply entrenched and fiercely enforced party loyalty? Yes, but if 15% - half that 30% - ultimately decide that they're done with Trump, this would deliver the decisive blow and landslide electoral defeat needed to defeat MAGA once and for all.
Iowa is irrelevantand it speaks to the media's shortcomings. Iowa is not representative of anything but old white people. Why the media flocks there is beyond my understanding. Why don't the pundits and the MSM do ProPublica-type reports about substantial issues instead of covering Iowa caucus stuff?
Eileen Cannon just put here foot in the door of justice and yet where is the in-depth coverage? it is as if nothing is that important anymore except the horserace.
Good show yesterday, Charlie, and this is a good column. It's good to see you recognize that the Iowa results were not that good for Trump. Those who really understand the political game know that a former President running for re-election and getting only 51% of the hardcore party vote is a major red flag. James Carville got it right away; he's a straight shooter on such things.
So many in the people in the media portrayed it as a big Trump win ... in no small part because they can't seem to see much beyond the top line numbers and a big win keeps the Trump story going ...and Trump coverage gets good ratings. Imagine though if Biden went into South Carolina and he was facing off against several primary challengers. Biden gets 51% of the vote, beating his nearest rival by 30 points. What would the media narrative be? It would be that Biden had a disastrous night...that his, barely, majority share of the Democratic vote reflects a big problem among his party going into the general election. Yet that is exactly what happened with Trump and the media narrative is that Trump did very well, i.e. that he has the Republican Party in his pocket. Clearly, he does not...at least not the Republican electorate, a large percentage of which desperately wants to vote for someone else.
In 2020, about 8% of Republican-leaning voters crossed over to vote for Biden, while only 5% of Ds crossed over to vote for Trump. That difference won Biden enough swing states to win the election. Iowa demonstrates with flashing red lights that the crossover or defection rate this time might well be substantially more than 8%. That is a big story.
This is an excellent newsletter as always. A few comments: First, Give Biden credit for quickly correcting the DMC blunder in making fun of Asa Hutchinson. The Republican Party could never apologize quickly and politely after a blunder. Second, Ron DeSantis would have been better off attacking Trump from the beginning. His campaigning improved as the caucus approached. He sounded more human, less robotic and weird. Third, the turnout in Iowa was low, not just due to cold weather. Had someone run a decent anti-Trump campaign more people would have shown up. The low turnout appears to be a lack of enthusiasm for the entire Republican Party.
One saving grace could be this: we can depend on Trump to act worse and worse the more comfortable he gets. He knows he has the nomination. So he’ll be more brazen and say more awful things to dig holes with swing voters who will start paying attention. Let’s hope he continues to be himself so everyone who isn’t looking today can be reminded tomorrow.
18 Jan 24
We MUST focus our blogs and words on organizing public opinion in favor of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) enforcing Section 3 of 14th Amendment (3-14) and disqualifying the indicted 45th President for rebellion, insurrection and treason on January 6, 2021. PERIOD.
https://open.substack.com/pub/johnadamsingram/p/treason-against-united-states/
Thanks for your clear, forceful stories. Great work, sorely needed. But why do you and other outlets chose to report the Trump "can't control himself," in court? It seems to me he is clearly choosing to act out in an attempt to disrupt organized proceedings and undermine their credibility. His every statement in and around his court appearances seems a clear and deliberate attack on legal processes and the rule of law.
You normally do a great job of piercing convenient euphemisms to expose the underlying truth. I don't understand the rationale for accepting them now.
Trump may think he's "martyring" himself in court as part of his campaign - truth is, he's addicted to court and litigation, has been for years.
Appearing in court presses every pleasure button for this narcissist. He's the center of attention! Everybody has to listen to him! He's always right! (even when he's wrong. . . And his lawyers are there backing him up! All those guys with Harvard degrees rooting for him!
Now that he and Melania no longer share a bed, court appearances and rallies are probably the only way he gets his rocks off.
Nahal Toosi's take on RoW despising America for our political system of late, doesn't seem to be an issue (one European ambassador unloads?) What of the Ukrainians, NATO nations, Austral-Asian, Taiwan, Hong Kong and other western-leaning states and countries? Biden has turned tRump's isolationism and tariff policies 180° in Short Order and rebuilt US Reputations as A World Leader speaking out for ALL our allies and democracy's leaning towards socialist/ communist leaders since DJT came on the scene. I don't concur with Nahal's opinions and views for the above reasons. IMHO
Charlie, your opening remarks belied the rest of your argument when
you broke down the numbers from Iowa caucus. There were 70% fewer GOP voters than in 2016; he got 20 of 40 delegates (Haley/ Desantis split the remaining 20).
Your initial points were a 180° statement to the remaining post.
I did not expect that oversight from your normal analysis of events. Disappointed, sir. Do better for your country, readers and citizens in this critical time.
"The DNC’s unforced assh*lery."
Sounds like what the Progressives are just supposed to grin and bear, "for democracy". Its always been cool when its the other guy but not so much when its you I guess. I'd have some sympathy if it weren't for the rank hypocrisy.
Please forward to Bill and Tim: yes to audio feed of The Ballot Box! You guys are great and I'm on the go too much to bring up YouTube. Podcasts all the way for me.
"Campaign aides, and Trump himself, have made it clear through the media that the Dear Leader differentiates between endorsements and support, and will be keeping careful track of who comes around after it’s over."
-----
It should surprise no one that the Tangerine Troglodyte "differentiates between endorsements and support[.]" This is the same man (and I use that word very loosely) who swore to protect and defend the Constitution in his oath of office, but later added that he never swore to "support" it. This is the same person who said that it was time to suspend certain parts of the Constitution he objects to because it curtails his fevered wet dreams from becoming reality. This is the same man who believes that support is a one-sided concept, "what have you done for me today?" (As far as he's concerned endorsements are worthless. While he'll never admit it, his endorsements of MAGA candidates in 2018, '20 and '22 were wasted when his preferred candidates lost in "rigged" elections to non-extremists.)
The Marigold Malignancy doesn't care if his "supporters" are corrupt, just as long as they give him a taste. But they shouldn't count on any reciprocity if it doesn't directly benefit him.
fnord
The Orange Menace's "landslide" victory in Iowa should more properly be called a mudslide.
Day after day, Trump does nothing to expand his share of the vote beyond what he got four years ago. If anything, his support is becoming both more intense and smaller in number, making election-season violence more likely. Law enforcement needs to be ready.
Good grief, Charlie! Somebody as clear-eyed as YOU is on the "Trump's Not that Strong" train, too???
We are "whistling past the graveyard" if we operate on the idea that Trump is not as strong in the GOP as he thinks. He IS that strong.
Chris Cillizza picked up on a point too many of us were missing. The caucus-goers were asked a second question after they were asked who they were supporting. That question was: who would you be voting for if your candidate was not on the ballot?
The answers are what we should be paying attention to: 75% of DeSantis voters said they would vote for Trump if DeSantis wasn't there. 40% of Haley voters said they would vote for Trump if she wasn't on the ballot. In a 1 on 1, with DeSantis out, Trump beats Haley with around 72-74% of the vote. With Haley out, Trump beats DeSantis with 64-65%. Those are "respectable incumbent numbers."
We have to stop this magical thinking that the constitution, or this story or that one, or an editorial in the NYT, is going to save us. What our favorite MSNBC host says is irrelevant (I was really disturbed last night to see Lawrence, who should know better from his own experience, jumping on the Trump Is Weak train).
We all said "He can't possibly win!" in 2016 and what did we get?
There are no magic beans that will kill the monster. WE have to do it by getting off our dead asses and onto our dying feet (to recall my old drill instructor) and each do what we can to push things in the right direction.
Nothing of value has ever come easy, ever.
We have to be clear-eyed about this. He might not be exactly as strong as he was, but that is not the same as saying he is weak. He is strong enough to win, if we let him.
There are two stories here. One is that Trump easily won the Iowa Republican caucus by a percentage that is a record for that primary in a normal election cycle. Which is the caveat. This is not a normal election cycle. Trump is effectively running as an incumbent yet was only able to barely get more than half the votes. Meaning that nearly half supported someone else. It seems to me an incumbent should be expected to do far better than that. If Biden had a primary like this the media would be declaring his candidacy effectively over and Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Barack Obama, the Clintons, and every other Democratic Party luminary would be begging Biden to drop out.
Also, there are the polls that indicate that about 30% of Iowa Republicans would consider Trump unfit for office if he is convicted of a crime (there have been several recent national polls with similar results), and half of Nikki Haley's supporters would vote for Biden if Trump were the nominee (I think the poll of Haley supporters is even assuming no new negative developments). Both these outcomes seem to be on track to happen within the next few months.
If these polls are any indication that Bannon line of Republican voters who don't vote for Trump could be dramatically expanded. In 2020 about 5% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents supported Biden. Imagine if that percentage could be doubled in 2024, and in addition many more Republicans who can't bring themselves to support Biden vote third party, stay home, or maybe write in Liz Cheney or someone else. Democrats and their anti-Trump allies need to set a goal of getting about 30% of Republicans to not vote for Trump. Does that seem ridiculously ambitious, considering the GOP's deeply entrenched and fiercely enforced party loyalty? Yes, but if 15% - half that 30% - ultimately decide that they're done with Trump, this would deliver the decisive blow and landslide electoral defeat needed to defeat MAGA once and for all.
Iowa is irrelevantand it speaks to the media's shortcomings. Iowa is not representative of anything but old white people. Why the media flocks there is beyond my understanding. Why don't the pundits and the MSM do ProPublica-type reports about substantial issues instead of covering Iowa caucus stuff?
Eileen Cannon just put here foot in the door of justice and yet where is the in-depth coverage? it is as if nothing is that important anymore except the horserace.
Good show yesterday, Charlie, and this is a good column. It's good to see you recognize that the Iowa results were not that good for Trump. Those who really understand the political game know that a former President running for re-election and getting only 51% of the hardcore party vote is a major red flag. James Carville got it right away; he's a straight shooter on such things.
So many in the people in the media portrayed it as a big Trump win ... in no small part because they can't seem to see much beyond the top line numbers and a big win keeps the Trump story going ...and Trump coverage gets good ratings. Imagine though if Biden went into South Carolina and he was facing off against several primary challengers. Biden gets 51% of the vote, beating his nearest rival by 30 points. What would the media narrative be? It would be that Biden had a disastrous night...that his, barely, majority share of the Democratic vote reflects a big problem among his party going into the general election. Yet that is exactly what happened with Trump and the media narrative is that Trump did very well, i.e. that he has the Republican Party in his pocket. Clearly, he does not...at least not the Republican electorate, a large percentage of which desperately wants to vote for someone else.
In 2020, about 8% of Republican-leaning voters crossed over to vote for Biden, while only 5% of Ds crossed over to vote for Trump. That difference won Biden enough swing states to win the election. Iowa demonstrates with flashing red lights that the crossover or defection rate this time might well be substantially more than 8%. That is a big story.