I'll say it again: the two biggest mistakes we can make heading into 2024 are assuming Trump can't possibly win, and assuming Trump definitely will win.
Sargent is right, we need to keep on keepin' on, definitely, but if you want to see how "smart" people can be co-opted by Trump and fall into the "he isn't any worse than the Biden Administration", watch Liz Cheney on CNBC this morning trying to convince Joe Kernen that Trump is a threat. He simply doesn't see it. He is generally rude, and he fillibustered for a bit until she asked if he would let her speak.
He is no doubt voicing all the talking points that Republicans have been parroting for decades. But turning this ship around is going to take A LOT of work and a little bit of luck.
That's why I don't agree with Charlie that fatalism will affect the turnout of non-Republican voters. I am DEEPLY fatalistic about the impossibility of getting through to a Trump voter. Their vote is a given. But I don't see how continuing to raise the alarm everywhere possible is going to dissuade anti-Trump voters from voting. Just the opposite. PLEASE, let his threats be heavily publicized. Repetition of talking points has worked on the Republican voters. Repetition of Trump's threat will hopefully work the same way to drive increased interest in the anti-Republican voters. It's the only way to get through to marginal voters who tend not to pay attention to these things.
To paraphrase FDR, the only thing we have to fear is fatalism. That’s how bad it is. I am not fatalistic because once you know what a waste of time it is to connect with some types, you can make better decisions about how to put your resources to better use. It’s sad when people prefer to be rotten. It is not your responsibility to change them. They are hopeless. We don’t have to be. Don’t let the losers win by using their definition of terms, heads we win, tails you lose. As we live and breathe, we need to fight off fatalism because that’s their game. What infuriates them is when good people do and say what is right over and over again. Not that anybody is perfect, but they are so consistently wrong. You know this.
I'll go one further and quote Churchill..."We may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to die than to live as slaves."
I will not be dissuaded from doing everything I can to oppose a wannabe autocrat, if only because I believe at the core of my soul that history will judge that standing for democracy and the rights of all individuals -- not just the ones who look like me -- is the side of right.
We're in agreement. I don't accept Charlie's sense of fatalism. Just the opposite - I think the publicizing of Trump's threats and incoherence will spur MORE anti-Trump voters to register and vote.
Trumpers like to say Biden is horrible and wrecking the country, yet they never provide evidence. They claim things were great under trump, but only ever generalize. Trumpers are not critical thinkers. But maybe if trump's threats and incoherence are publicized like you say it will certainly help.
Looking at NJ where I live, I see small segments of the Democratic electorate being peeled away by issues that are worrisime to them. Thus Arab-American voters in Paterson and Clifton are turned off by Biden's support for Israel. And in my town, Dover, younger Hispanic voters whose ties are to Central America rather than Europe are also turned off b/c of Israel. I know fewer black voters but it seems like they blame Biden for the failure to strengthen voting right. Oh - we have lots of enviromentalists in NJ and they seem turned off by Biden's modest successes re the environment. So I see a possible disaster.
I'd suggest that this is a natural process that is part of being in power. As such, it is usually offset by the incumbent advantage.
I think we will have the added benefit of Biden running against a known quantity. It is one thing to be upset with Clinton and Gore and either sit out or even switch to a 'compassionate' conservative who isn't going to send a $10M missile up a camel's butt. It is quite another to be upset with Biden and pick to support Trump by either not voting or switching.
Pick any issue from above and Trump is obviously going to be worse. And for those of certain groups recently in the country, they might want to take a look at executive order 9066.
There's this small part of me, though bigger than I'd like to admit, that almost wants to see Trump elected and the prognostications to come to fruition, if only just to see all of these people (anyone explicitly supporting Trump, not supporting Biden out of some misguided principle, and in particular, those that say, "it can't happen here!") can experience the consequences first-hand. Of course, that would be terrible, but sometimes I wish I could just get through to those that are determined not to be reached and perhaps a dose of reality would finally break through. Then again, they'd probably say things aren't that bad and that they'd be worse under Biden...
And knowing people, they probably wouldn't even be train riders, just like how retired folks are unhappy about our education system that they don't have kids in.
I've had the exact same thought, but here's the problem... no matter how bad it gets, there will always be an excuse or new liberal to blame for the problems. Things will never get so bad that reality actually peeks in. There will just be more enemies of the people and more scapegoats.
What they need is a temporary but vivid alternate reality experience wherein Trump has been President for 7 years, like in "A Christmas Carol" or "It's a Wonderful life". Very appropriate for the holiday season.
Wrong question. To me the electorate somehow imagines that the president can do all when he can do little. Worse still we have a legislative branch that has no incentivizes to help the president. That may sound great in a civics class but it kills action. My worry is that folks ask why Biden did not... do this that and the other. It suggests no grasp of what it takes to do anything.
I think the Dems should speak about what the tried to pass and couldn't because of GOP intransigence. Make the point it wasn't Biden who failed, it was the MAGA GOP who voted intentionally to kill any Biden success.
Correction: he can do little when he follows the rule of law and the Constitution. Just watch what the President can do when he doesn’t give a shit about any of that.
I can’t recall if the Senate was slowed down by the filibuster back in LBJ’s administration. It seems fairly recent that Congress has hobbled itself, to the point of doing little of consequence. Maybe that’s a safeguard, given the perverse “quality” of our congressional members.
He had the votes in the Senate to get it done. My poly sci professor said LBJ was a master at pork barrel projects and making deals...a talent honed while he was in the US Senate.
1. How much was that due to the marches, assissations etc. and other pressure do you think? and 2. Given how it's been gutted i wonder if those who weren't for it, where just biding there time....vote for it then to appease and then start the works to undermine when the pressure is off
Because of the filibuster the voting rights legislation could not advance in the Senate. A president can bully pulpit all he wants, he can't make either house of Congress pass something it doesn't want to pass. Plus, voting rights bills don't have the promise of money for red states dangling in them, unlike the various economic bills that did pass with some Republican votes.
Exactly. It may come as a surprise but presidents are not kings and congress has a lot of power. The congress is so evenly matched, centrists of both parties and far right and left members, that it's surprising how much does get through. Biden has worked hard to pass legislation and it's easy to forget his successes despite the opposition.
Just watched. Never heard of or seen Kernan. Has he always been a blow-hard? Even so, good that she is going on shows like that, whose audience probably includes people who are not so clear-eyed as we are. I hope she hits Fox too
Yes, Joe Kiernan has always been pro-Republican on CNBC. For years his favorite, almost regular guests were Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow, whom Trump picked for key Economic advisor positions after seeing them many times on Fox Noise.
Kernen is an example of who would rather stand behind the partly line than think for himself. I don't have much respect for him as a financial commentator. You can't hold party lines and provide reasonable financial commentary. That aside, in my quest to understand why people stick their political guns on issues and trump, I guess it can be summed with the idea that people will rationalize whatever they have to to avoid the uncomfortable feeling of being wrong and losing their group support. Standing up for what's right is not for the weak, especially if you're doing it alone.
She was practically the definition of a Republican. I, alongside Rachel Maddow, am probably opposed to 90% of her policy positions. Her voting along with Trump so much I think lends her current stance credence- when he so clearly defies democracy and is exhibiting despotic delusions, this is where it is important for actual conservatives to get off. If she were to endorse Joe Biden right now, they would immediately close their ears to her. Same for Chris Christie. Voting for Biden is the logical conclusion for both of them, but now is no where near the time to come out and say that. Now the most important task for them is to get the truth about Trump out there as widely as possible.
I think she understands the political impact of coming out full throated for Biden. The way politics works, and the irrational thinking of many voters ,if she is loud about it, she could hurt him more than help him.
I have no doubt she will be voting for Biden if Trump is the nominee.
I've listened to several of her interviews and I get the impression that, given that the MAGA-verse hates her, she is hesitant to endorse anyone because it could actually be counterproductive for candidates who are attempting to woo not-yet-completely-batshit-crazy Trump supporters. I wouldn't be surprised if she eventually announces she's voting for Biden (or maybe she will say 'against Trump'?) just before the election. It makes sense because that would also make a bigger splash.
I think I read yesterday that she said that Biden would be better than Trump. She's also entertaining (in theory) an independent run, so probably not a technical endorsement, but not nothing either.
Liz told Nicole Wallace that she would not run if it would in any way shape or form help Trump. She left the impression she would vote for Biden if the race came down to Biden vs Trump. I got the impression she would consider running if Trump wasn't the GOP nominee.
As soon as Liz comes out for Biden, she is dead to yet another segment of the "Republican" universe. It's not a lot, but we need every vote we can get...and she's more than smart enough to get that.
A bit like Biden on Ukraine...as soon as it becomes "Joe's War", support for our critically important aid loses some sliver of the GOP that still believes in America's leadership role. He's played that pretty close to the line, and it's painful to watch, but he deserves credit for recognizing the calculus.
Liz recognizes that THE overriding objective is to discredit and defang Trump. She's persona non grata in most of the GOP (ESPECIALLY here in Wyoming, which is sad), but (love it or hate it) her "conservative" credentials are impeccable. There's an audience for that, and Liz is preserving the good she can do.
The case against despair remains firmly rooted in watching the GOP continue to dick punch themselves with ever more restrictive assaults on a woman's right to control her bodily autonomy. The more they double down on legislation that effectively makes abortion illegal the more confident I get that polling can take a long walk off a short pier. Women and young voters are going to SPANK the GOP for this, I firmly believe. Now that's not to say voting restrictions and the electoral college and sundry incursions against proper ballot counting by GOP operatives is not wildly concerning, but overall, I don't think the media really understands the full force of the anger out there.
I agree Jennifer, it is better to get angry and vote than to despair. I don't live my life in despair, no matter what, but I am angry about the war on women coming from republicans and their Christo fascists. I will vote for Biden of course. Not because he is not as bad as Trump but because he is the opposite of Trump as a human being and President in every way.
My feelings of optimism about the youth vote (I have supported David Hogg’s group) have been diluted by their baffling support for Hamas, with unmistakable antisemitic overtones. That has shaken me.
I think there is a difference between Palestinians and HAMAS that a lot of younger people seem unable to differentiate. I can be equally appalled at Hamas and Netanayahoo.
And a salient point within that paradigm is that Israelis took to the streets against their own government which had gone awry; Palestinians have acquiesced to Hamas.
The pro Palestinian kids are not nearly the threat racist MAGA'ts have proven to be for every group not white skinned and that includes Jews. I'll get more worried if the kids get really violent and start parading with AR15's. Come November 2024, these kids won't be voting for Trump.
I wish I had your confidence that they won’t vote Trump. To me, those two acts (supporting Hamas/supporting Trump) are equally horrible, and naturally adjacent.
They won't vote Trump because most of them are supporting Palestine against the 'colonial occupier'. They think they are supporting the underdog instead of a rabid dog. Come November other issues like abortion, guns, climate change, and LGBTQ issues will compete for attention. Trump does not win on any of those. They may not vote Biden, but they definitely won't vote Trump. At least not in any real numbers.
Citation please. Because otherwise I'm going to say you pulled that just directly out of your ass. Gallup polling in 2022 finds pro choice adults overall =55%, women =61%, adults under 35 = 67%. It's hard to find another issue that gets over 60% in politics, so my point stands.
Also: "support for abortion being legal under any or most circumstances jumped among Democrats, jumping from 69% to 82%, and among adults aged 18 to 34, rising from 52% to 63%. It's higher among women (59%) than men (45%)."
So, you are categorically wrong. Not with the idea that some women don't share my opinion (it's likely a driving reason there are ANY Republican women voters), but with the idea that men are more supportive. But nice try!
Not only that. The woman I know who are most angry are middle class white Republican woman. They believe it is the worst government intrusion into their lives.
You cannot be more wrong. There are woman who fought for Roe vs Wade and its being overturned has turned them rabid. Woman young and old are furious that lawmakers can take away a right (even if they never exercise it) that belongs solely to them.
Must have been an older study. I just checked Pew Center and they're showing pretty close tracking between men and women by age cohort from a report in April.
Still 64% support by women and 60% men, which is a heartening increase in male support. But in no way shape or form is "men, in fact, are more supportive of abortion rights than women" true.
I have seen some numbers in the past that have more antichoice women than men, too, ,I don't think it was ever a huge lead. Still, it's a point that tends to get lost; and it's partly because of the optics of a bunch of old, white men making stupid laws that ignore medical facts. The antichoice women are less visible, but they're there in big numbers.
Maybe it's time for all the never trumpers AND those GOP donors who have money but also a significant amount of cowardice to start publicly support the Dem in the race?
Your party is gone. Your agenda is Project 2025 and a national abortion ban and (again) repealing the Affordable Health Care legislation. Oh, and Putin owns your ass.
Nice job; here is your participation trophy; good luck.
We've beaten Trump before, we can beat him again--and we need to remember these things. Biden simply has to maintain his numbers since 2020 while Trump has to grow them beyond his 2020 vote share. Trump's anti-vaxx base has been dying of CV since 2020, so he may actually need to grow his numbers beyond what he had in 2020 to make up the difference. He will be consumed by a rolling series of trials that are going to bring out his worst emotional reactions. Economic sentiment of voters will improve between now and the election as the lag effect of consumer sentiment comes around. Don't get complacent about 2024, but there are more tailwinds than headwinds for Biden in the cumulative picture in my mind. Highlight the dangers a 2nd Trump presidency would bring, but don't lose sight of the strengths going for Biden--including incumbency--and the weaknesses that Trump has. Negative polarization runs modern politics and we have to make less than 100,000 voters in about 4-5 states dislike Trump enough to not vote for him. That's it. That's the whole mission.
If I were Biden and his team, I would make most of my campaigning be about the dangers of a 2nd Trump presidency. Remind voters that he tried to refuse leaving the WH in 2021 and would do so again if ever elected back to office--effectively ending democracy on the spot. Compare Trump to Elon--a decadently rich billionaire with serious mental health issues who refuses to listen to anybody and only wants things his way. Remind voters that Trump is a public opinion scam artist on abortion who flips--pretending to be unserious about it and then putting x3 SCOTUS justices on the bench who then take a 50+ year right away from women. Remind voters that Trump tried to start a war with Iran by publicly assassinating their top general who was a national hero. Remind voters that Trump wants to use the military against non-violent protests like he did at Lafayette Square and would do so again in a remake of Kent State. Remind voters that Trump is a 91-count-indicted criminal who cheats on his wife, cheats on his taxes, and cheats at elections. Just keep hammering home what a danger Trump is to the country and its body politic over and over and over again and use examples from Trump's first presidency and his own words against him. Do this, and the results will go our way.
For trump marriage is a contract, nothing more and, as he has shown a lifetime long propensity to ignore contracts he has signed, he can uphold his end of the bargain...or not. His choice. This is, of course, a one-way street. The other party is inevitably on the receiving end of a lawsuit regardless of whether he/she/they have upheld their half of the deal. The concept of "commitment" on his part is never a factor. Never has been, never will be. Trump was lucky his old man paid off a foot doctor to get him exempted from military duty. Had he been drafted and sent to Nam, he would have come home in a box. He is the embodiment of the type of martinet junior officer who was a greater danger to his troops than the enemy was, and the troops looked out for each other.
Had that dude gotten drafted into the officer corps rather than getting deferred and 4F'd-via-cash, guaranteed his guys in country would have fragged him. Boy that woulda saved us all a whole lot of trouble.
Elaine Godfrey fucking nails it in her opener in The Atlantic today on how dems should be warning voters about what Trump's base will do next to pressure Trump on outlawing abortion:
"The year 2022 was a triumphant one for the anti-abortion movement. After half a century, the Supreme Court did what had once seemed impossible when it overturned Roe v. Wade, stripping Americans of the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. Now movement activists are feeling bolder than ever: Their next goal will be ending legal abortion in America once and for all. A federal ban, which would require 60 votes in the Senate, is unlikely. But some activists believe there’s a simpler way: the enforcement by a Trump Justice Department of a 150-year-old obscenity law.
The Comstock Act, originally passed in 1873 to combat vice and debauchery, prohibits the mailing of any “article or thing” that is “designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use.” In the law’s first 100 years, a series of court cases narrowed its scope, and in 1971, Congress removed most of its restrictions on contraception. But the rest of the Comstock Act has remained on the books....If Donald Trump is reelected president, many prominent opponents of abortion rights will demand that his DOJ issue its own memo....that Comstock is a de facto ban on shipping medication that could end a pregnancy, regardless of its intended use (this would apply to the USPS and to private carriers like UPS and FedEx). “The language is black-and-white. It should be enforced,” Steven H. Aden, the general counsel at Americans United for Life, told me."
You are right. However, we need to know the why republicans want to own women's bodies. Because they have not been able to own their brains. Women have demonstrated that they have the brains to be independent, scientists, engineers, politicians, artists, writers, lawyers and have won Nobel prizes. And now there are more women in grad school than men. It does not go with their misogynistic views about women as just reproduction tools and servants to their wishes. So, they go for their bodies. They don't care about fetuses..
I think they feel threatened by the rise of women's economic power and that a lot of it comes from backlash to that. Men typically marry/date across or down in economic class while women tend to date across or up in economic class (comes back to evolutionary psychology and looking for providers). The more women that are out there who are post-college and making good money, the less men without degrees and good incomes feel like they have a shot in the dating pool (this is before we talk about the 85% of men under 6' feeling like they're unappealing via what dating apps have revealed about women's preferences there). The more these men feel insecure about their romantic prospects with women, the more they blame women for it and want to punish women by going after the social policies they care about in politics: abortion access, women's equality (part of DEI), and LGBTQ+ rights/normalization (also part of DEI).
That said, the anti-choice movement was already established prior to Title IX passage and women rising in the work force and at universities. The anti-choice coalition's backbone originally came from the religious groups who opposed abortion, but I think we're in the middle of a generational shift within the anti-choice movement where the religious folks are still there and are probably still a majority, but I think that the folks who are motivated by the backlash to the rise of women's economic power are growing in share size within that cohort. It's also important to note that those two groups (the uber-religious and the backlashers) can be overlapping and are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Just my take on their motivations.
I'll say it again: the two biggest mistakes we can make heading into 2024 are assuming Trump can't possibly win, and assuming Trump definitely will win.
Such a succinct framing of the issue. Well done.
Sargent is right, we need to keep on keepin' on, definitely, but if you want to see how "smart" people can be co-opted by Trump and fall into the "he isn't any worse than the Biden Administration", watch Liz Cheney on CNBC this morning trying to convince Joe Kernen that Trump is a threat. He simply doesn't see it. He is generally rude, and he fillibustered for a bit until she asked if he would let her speak.
He is no doubt voicing all the talking points that Republicans have been parroting for decades. But turning this ship around is going to take A LOT of work and a little bit of luck.
The harder we work, the luckier we will be.
Kernen pivoted to “drill drill drill” like we aren’t producing the highest amount of oil in the history of our country right now.
Hey, dude, that's a "fact." Don't know if you got the memo, but those are out of style in the GOP...
You’re right, I forgot
That's why I don't agree with Charlie that fatalism will affect the turnout of non-Republican voters. I am DEEPLY fatalistic about the impossibility of getting through to a Trump voter. Their vote is a given. But I don't see how continuing to raise the alarm everywhere possible is going to dissuade anti-Trump voters from voting. Just the opposite. PLEASE, let his threats be heavily publicized. Repetition of talking points has worked on the Republican voters. Repetition of Trump's threat will hopefully work the same way to drive increased interest in the anti-Republican voters. It's the only way to get through to marginal voters who tend not to pay attention to these things.
To paraphrase FDR, the only thing we have to fear is fatalism. That’s how bad it is. I am not fatalistic because once you know what a waste of time it is to connect with some types, you can make better decisions about how to put your resources to better use. It’s sad when people prefer to be rotten. It is not your responsibility to change them. They are hopeless. We don’t have to be. Don’t let the losers win by using their definition of terms, heads we win, tails you lose. As we live and breathe, we need to fight off fatalism because that’s their game. What infuriates them is when good people do and say what is right over and over again. Not that anybody is perfect, but they are so consistently wrong. You know this.
I'll go one further and quote Churchill..."We may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to die than to live as slaves."
I will not be dissuaded from doing everything I can to oppose a wannabe autocrat, if only because I believe at the core of my soul that history will judge that standing for democracy and the rights of all individuals -- not just the ones who look like me -- is the side of right.
We're in agreement. I don't accept Charlie's sense of fatalism. Just the opposite - I think the publicizing of Trump's threats and incoherence will spur MORE anti-Trump voters to register and vote.
Trumpers like to say Biden is horrible and wrecking the country, yet they never provide evidence. They claim things were great under trump, but only ever generalize. Trumpers are not critical thinkers. But maybe if trump's threats and incoherence are publicized like you say it will certainly help.
Looking at NJ where I live, I see small segments of the Democratic electorate being peeled away by issues that are worrisime to them. Thus Arab-American voters in Paterson and Clifton are turned off by Biden's support for Israel. And in my town, Dover, younger Hispanic voters whose ties are to Central America rather than Europe are also turned off b/c of Israel. I know fewer black voters but it seems like they blame Biden for the failure to strengthen voting right. Oh - we have lots of enviromentalists in NJ and they seem turned off by Biden's modest successes re the environment. So I see a possible disaster.
I'd suggest that this is a natural process that is part of being in power. As such, it is usually offset by the incumbent advantage.
I think we will have the added benefit of Biden running against a known quantity. It is one thing to be upset with Clinton and Gore and either sit out or even switch to a 'compassionate' conservative who isn't going to send a $10M missile up a camel's butt. It is quite another to be upset with Biden and pick to support Trump by either not voting or switching.
Pick any issue from above and Trump is obviously going to be worse. And for those of certain groups recently in the country, they might want to take a look at executive order 9066.
There's this small part of me, though bigger than I'd like to admit, that almost wants to see Trump elected and the prognostications to come to fruition, if only just to see all of these people (anyone explicitly supporting Trump, not supporting Biden out of some misguided principle, and in particular, those that say, "it can't happen here!") can experience the consequences first-hand. Of course, that would be terrible, but sometimes I wish I could just get through to those that are determined not to be reached and perhaps a dose of reality would finally break through. Then again, they'd probably say things aren't that bad and that they'd be worse under Biden...
Totally get that. Way too many of them would be fine as long as the trains run on time.
And knowing people, they probably wouldn't even be train riders, just like how retired folks are unhappy about our education system that they don't have kids in.
I feel ya buddy….
It is sooooooo frustrating.
I've had the exact same thought, but here's the problem... no matter how bad it gets, there will always be an excuse or new liberal to blame for the problems. Things will never get so bad that reality actually peeks in. There will just be more enemies of the people and more scapegoats.
Trump could shoot them on 5th Avenue and they'd blame Biden.
What they need is a temporary but vivid alternate reality experience wherein Trump has been President for 7 years, like in "A Christmas Carol" or "It's a Wonderful life". Very appropriate for the holiday season.
Amen.
You can be disappointed in your children and still feed and clothe them.
The same is true of our politicians.
Why didn't Biden strengthen voting rights?
I believe it was more of the Manchin problem. Couldn’t get it through the Senate.
Wrong question. To me the electorate somehow imagines that the president can do all when he can do little. Worse still we have a legislative branch that has no incentivizes to help the president. That may sound great in a civics class but it kills action. My worry is that folks ask why Biden did not... do this that and the other. It suggests no grasp of what it takes to do anything.
I think the Dems should speak about what the tried to pass and couldn't because of GOP intransigence. Make the point it wasn't Biden who failed, it was the MAGA GOP who voted intentionally to kill any Biden success.
Manchin and Sinema were Republicans?
Correction: he can do little when he follows the rule of law and the Constitution. Just watch what the President can do when he doesn’t give a shit about any of that.
LBJ got the original VRA through when it was less popular among the white population
I can’t recall if the Senate was slowed down by the filibuster back in LBJ’s administration. It seems fairly recent that Congress has hobbled itself, to the point of doing little of consequence. Maybe that’s a safeguard, given the perverse “quality” of our congressional members.
He had the votes in the Senate to get it done. My poly sci professor said LBJ was a master at pork barrel projects and making deals...a talent honed while he was in the US Senate.
But more popular with actual legislators. The GOP has changed a tad since then.
1. How much was that due to the marches, assissations etc. and other pressure do you think? and 2. Given how it's been gutted i wonder if those who weren't for it, where just biding there time....vote for it then to appease and then start the works to undermine when the pressure is off
Probably because he is not a member of the legislature is the actual correct answer.
IOW, not part of his job. Just like running the economy is not actually part of his job.
Or how writing immigration law is not part of his job.
Because of the filibuster the voting rights legislation could not advance in the Senate. A president can bully pulpit all he wants, he can't make either house of Congress pass something it doesn't want to pass. Plus, voting rights bills don't have the promise of money for red states dangling in them, unlike the various economic bills that did pass with some Republican votes.
Of course that begs the question of why Senator Schumer hasn't whipped a majority on voting rights.
I don’t think Schumer is effective at whipping any Republican Senators to help pass any legislation
So we don't really live in a Republic
Because Biden is President not Congress
Good question! Ans: The president does not make law.
Better question: Why didn't Senate and House Democrats pass the voting rights bills before them. Weak as water weenies? Why didn't they even try?
Exactly. It may come as a surprise but presidents are not kings and congress has a lot of power. The congress is so evenly matched, centrists of both parties and far right and left members, that it's surprising how much does get through. Biden has worked hard to pass legislation and it's easy to forget his successes despite the opposition.
Just watched. Never heard of or seen Kernan. Has he always been a blow-hard? Even so, good that she is going on shows like that, whose audience probably includes people who are not so clear-eyed as we are. I hope she hits Fox too
Yes, Joe Kiernan has always been pro-Republican on CNBC. For years his favorite, almost regular guests were Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow, whom Trump picked for key Economic advisor positions after seeing them many times on Fox Noise.
Yea, he has long been a fool who continually defended Trump.
Kernen is an example of who would rather stand behind the partly line than think for himself. I don't have much respect for him as a financial commentator. You can't hold party lines and provide reasonable financial commentary. That aside, in my quest to understand why people stick their political guns on issues and trump, I guess it can be summed with the idea that people will rationalize whatever they have to to avoid the uncomfortable feeling of being wrong and losing their group support. Standing up for what's right is not for the weak, especially if you're doing it alone.
I completely agree with you, sir.
She wad fine backing Trump for an awful long time
She was practically the definition of a Republican. I, alongside Rachel Maddow, am probably opposed to 90% of her policy positions. Her voting along with Trump so much I think lends her current stance credence- when he so clearly defies democracy and is exhibiting despotic delusions, this is where it is important for actual conservatives to get off. If she were to endorse Joe Biden right now, they would immediately close their ears to her. Same for Chris Christie. Voting for Biden is the logical conclusion for both of them, but now is no where near the time to come out and say that. Now the most important task for them is to get the truth about Trump out there as widely as possible.
Has Liz come out and endorsed Joe Biden for President, yet? Or has Kinzinger? Or any major ex-GoP politician?
I think she understands the political impact of coming out full throated for Biden. The way politics works, and the irrational thinking of many voters ,if she is loud about it, she could hurt him more than help him.
I have no doubt she will be voting for Biden if Trump is the nominee.
I've listened to several of her interviews and I get the impression that, given that the MAGA-verse hates her, she is hesitant to endorse anyone because it could actually be counterproductive for candidates who are attempting to woo not-yet-completely-batshit-crazy Trump supporters. I wouldn't be surprised if she eventually announces she's voting for Biden (or maybe she will say 'against Trump'?) just before the election. It makes sense because that would also make a bigger splash.
I think I read yesterday that she said that Biden would be better than Trump. She's also entertaining (in theory) an independent run, so probably not a technical endorsement, but not nothing either.
Liz told Nicole Wallace that she would not run if it would in any way shape or form help Trump. She left the impression she would vote for Biden if the race came down to Biden vs Trump. I got the impression she would consider running if Trump wasn't the GOP nominee.
As soon as Liz comes out for Biden, she is dead to yet another segment of the "Republican" universe. It's not a lot, but we need every vote we can get...and she's more than smart enough to get that.
A bit like Biden on Ukraine...as soon as it becomes "Joe's War", support for our critically important aid loses some sliver of the GOP that still believes in America's leadership role. He's played that pretty close to the line, and it's painful to watch, but he deserves credit for recognizing the calculus.
Liz recognizes that THE overriding objective is to discredit and defang Trump. She's persona non grata in most of the GOP (ESPECIALLY here in Wyoming, which is sad), but (love it or hate it) her "conservative" credentials are impeccable. There's an audience for that, and Liz is preserving the good she can do.
God speed, Liz Cheney.
Liz Cheney is leaving open the idea of running for president herself so I'm pretty sure she's not going to endorse anybody all that door is still open
The case against despair remains firmly rooted in watching the GOP continue to dick punch themselves with ever more restrictive assaults on a woman's right to control her bodily autonomy. The more they double down on legislation that effectively makes abortion illegal the more confident I get that polling can take a long walk off a short pier. Women and young voters are going to SPANK the GOP for this, I firmly believe. Now that's not to say voting restrictions and the electoral college and sundry incursions against proper ballot counting by GOP operatives is not wildly concerning, but overall, I don't think the media really understands the full force of the anger out there.
Any post referencing Republicans dick punching themselves gets an automatic upvote. 👍
Yes, I also got a kick (!?) out of the "dick punch" image. I tried to picture what that would look like and didn't have much luck!
I bet you could google it. Just turn "safe search" off first.
Incognito 😉
I agree Jennifer, it is better to get angry and vote than to despair. I don't live my life in despair, no matter what, but I am angry about the war on women coming from republicans and their Christo fascists. I will vote for Biden of course. Not because he is not as bad as Trump but because he is the opposite of Trump as a human being and President in every way.
My feelings of optimism about the youth vote (I have supported David Hogg’s group) have been diluted by their baffling support for Hamas, with unmistakable antisemitic overtones. That has shaken me.
I think there is a difference between Palestinians and HAMAS that a lot of younger people seem unable to differentiate. I can be equally appalled at Hamas and Netanayahoo.
And a salient point within that paradigm is that Israelis took to the streets against their own government which had gone awry; Palestinians have acquiesced to Hamas.
I think the kids do differentiate. They are pro Palestinian people, not pro Hamas
The pro Palestinian kids are not nearly the threat racist MAGA'ts have proven to be for every group not white skinned and that includes Jews. I'll get more worried if the kids get really violent and start parading with AR15's. Come November 2024, these kids won't be voting for Trump.
They won’t vote for Trump, but they just might not vote at all - just as bad.
I wish I had your confidence that they won’t vote Trump. To me, those two acts (supporting Hamas/supporting Trump) are equally horrible, and naturally adjacent.
They won't vote Trump because most of them are supporting Palestine against the 'colonial occupier'. They think they are supporting the underdog instead of a rabid dog. Come November other issues like abortion, guns, climate change, and LGBTQ issues will compete for attention. Trump does not win on any of those. They may not vote Biden, but they definitely won't vote Trump. At least not in any real numbers.
Or they sit home, which is just as bad for Biden/democracy.
You make a good case. But Trump and Hamas share a vile basic: “The cruelty is the point”. And the kids seem on board. Time will tell.
"They think they are supporting the underdog instead of a rabid dog."
Added to my list of "metaphors to remember."
Thanks!
Yeah, these are not the tiki-torch carriers.
Optimism that young people will vote at high levels is always foolish
I wasn’t thinking so much of them voting or not voting; more which way they would vote.
There are plenty of women who don't support your position on abortion. Men, in fact, are more supportive of abortion rights than women.
Citation please. Because otherwise I'm going to say you pulled that just directly out of your ass. Gallup polling in 2022 finds pro choice adults overall =55%, women =61%, adults under 35 = 67%. It's hard to find another issue that gets over 60% in politics, so my point stands.
Also: "support for abortion being legal under any or most circumstances jumped among Democrats, jumping from 69% to 82%, and among adults aged 18 to 34, rising from 52% to 63%. It's higher among women (59%) than men (45%)."
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/03/1102872199/gallup-poll-pro-choice-roe-v-wade-supreme-court
So, you are categorically wrong. Not with the idea that some women don't share my opinion (it's likely a driving reason there are ANY Republican women voters), but with the idea that men are more supportive. But nice try!
Not only that. The woman I know who are most angry are middle class white Republican woman. They believe it is the worst government intrusion into their lives.
You cannot be more wrong. There are woman who fought for Roe vs Wade and its being overturned has turned them rabid. Woman young and old are furious that lawmakers can take away a right (even if they never exercise it) that belongs solely to them.
This gets forgotten all the time because it runs counter to the battle of the sexes narrative that engulfs this topic
It is also not true. Not sure where y'all are sourcing this nonsense POV.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx
Must have been an older study. I just checked Pew Center and they're showing pretty close tracking between men and women by age cohort from a report in April.
Still 64% support by women and 60% men, which is a heartening increase in male support. But in no way shape or form is "men, in fact, are more supportive of abortion rights than women" true.
I have seen some numbers in the past that have more antichoice women than men, too, ,I don't think it was ever a huge lead. Still, it's a point that tends to get lost; and it's partly because of the optics of a bunch of old, white men making stupid laws that ignore medical facts. The antichoice women are less visible, but they're there in big numbers.
Maybe it's time for all the never trumpers AND those GOP donors who have money but also a significant amount of cowardice to start publicly support the Dem in the race?
Your party is gone. Your agenda is Project 2025 and a national abortion ban and (again) repealing the Affordable Health Care legislation. Oh, and Putin owns your ass.
Nice job; here is your participation trophy; good luck.
Rock it woman! 😁👍
We've beaten Trump before, we can beat him again--and we need to remember these things. Biden simply has to maintain his numbers since 2020 while Trump has to grow them beyond his 2020 vote share. Trump's anti-vaxx base has been dying of CV since 2020, so he may actually need to grow his numbers beyond what he had in 2020 to make up the difference. He will be consumed by a rolling series of trials that are going to bring out his worst emotional reactions. Economic sentiment of voters will improve between now and the election as the lag effect of consumer sentiment comes around. Don't get complacent about 2024, but there are more tailwinds than headwinds for Biden in the cumulative picture in my mind. Highlight the dangers a 2nd Trump presidency would bring, but don't lose sight of the strengths going for Biden--including incumbency--and the weaknesses that Trump has. Negative polarization runs modern politics and we have to make less than 100,000 voters in about 4-5 states dislike Trump enough to not vote for him. That's it. That's the whole mission.
If I were Biden and his team, I would make most of my campaigning be about the dangers of a 2nd Trump presidency. Remind voters that he tried to refuse leaving the WH in 2021 and would do so again if ever elected back to office--effectively ending democracy on the spot. Compare Trump to Elon--a decadently rich billionaire with serious mental health issues who refuses to listen to anybody and only wants things his way. Remind voters that Trump is a public opinion scam artist on abortion who flips--pretending to be unserious about it and then putting x3 SCOTUS justices on the bench who then take a 50+ year right away from women. Remind voters that Trump tried to start a war with Iran by publicly assassinating their top general who was a national hero. Remind voters that Trump wants to use the military against non-violent protests like he did at Lafayette Square and would do so again in a remake of Kent State. Remind voters that Trump is a 91-count-indicted criminal who cheats on his wife, cheats on his taxes, and cheats at elections. Just keep hammering home what a danger Trump is to the country and its body politic over and over and over again and use examples from Trump's first presidency and his own words against him. Do this, and the results will go our way.
I like the three Cs - easy to remember! Cheats on wife, cheats on taxes, cheats on elections!
'wives'
For trump marriage is a contract, nothing more and, as he has shown a lifetime long propensity to ignore contracts he has signed, he can uphold his end of the bargain...or not. His choice. This is, of course, a one-way street. The other party is inevitably on the receiving end of a lawsuit regardless of whether he/she/they have upheld their half of the deal. The concept of "commitment" on his part is never a factor. Never has been, never will be. Trump was lucky his old man paid off a foot doctor to get him exempted from military duty. Had he been drafted and sent to Nam, he would have come home in a box. He is the embodiment of the type of martinet junior officer who was a greater danger to his troops than the enemy was, and the troops looked out for each other.
Had that dude gotten drafted into the officer corps rather than getting deferred and 4F'd-via-cash, guaranteed his guys in country would have fragged him. Boy that woulda saved us all a whole lot of trouble.
Add a fourth, he cheats at golf. Bigly.
Can another C be added for Choice? And, maybe, a RA, for repeal the ACA. Giving us
C+C+C+C+RA = TD (Trump Dumped)
Elaine Godfrey fucking nails it in her opener in The Atlantic today on how dems should be warning voters about what Trump's base will do next to pressure Trump on outlawing abortion:
"The year 2022 was a triumphant one for the anti-abortion movement. After half a century, the Supreme Court did what had once seemed impossible when it overturned Roe v. Wade, stripping Americans of the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. Now movement activists are feeling bolder than ever: Their next goal will be ending legal abortion in America once and for all. A federal ban, which would require 60 votes in the Senate, is unlikely. But some activists believe there’s a simpler way: the enforcement by a Trump Justice Department of a 150-year-old obscenity law.
The Comstock Act, originally passed in 1873 to combat vice and debauchery, prohibits the mailing of any “article or thing” that is “designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use.” In the law’s first 100 years, a series of court cases narrowed its scope, and in 1971, Congress removed most of its restrictions on contraception. But the rest of the Comstock Act has remained on the books....If Donald Trump is reelected president, many prominent opponents of abortion rights will demand that his DOJ issue its own memo....that Comstock is a de facto ban on shipping medication that could end a pregnancy, regardless of its intended use (this would apply to the USPS and to private carriers like UPS and FedEx). “The language is black-and-white. It should be enforced,” Steven H. Aden, the general counsel at Americans United for Life, told me."
You are right. However, we need to know the why republicans want to own women's bodies. Because they have not been able to own their brains. Women have demonstrated that they have the brains to be independent, scientists, engineers, politicians, artists, writers, lawyers and have won Nobel prizes. And now there are more women in grad school than men. It does not go with their misogynistic views about women as just reproduction tools and servants to their wishes. So, they go for their bodies. They don't care about fetuses..
I think they feel threatened by the rise of women's economic power and that a lot of it comes from backlash to that. Men typically marry/date across or down in economic class while women tend to date across or up in economic class (comes back to evolutionary psychology and looking for providers). The more women that are out there who are post-college and making good money, the less men without degrees and good incomes feel like they have a shot in the dating pool (this is before we talk about the 85% of men under 6' feeling like they're unappealing via what dating apps have revealed about women's preferences there). The more these men feel insecure about their romantic prospects with women, the more they blame women for it and want to punish women by going after the social policies they care about in politics: abortion access, women's equality (part of DEI), and LGBTQ+ rights/normalization (also part of DEI).
That said, the anti-choice movement was already established prior to Title IX passage and women rising in the work force and at universities. The anti-choice coalition's backbone originally came from the religious groups who opposed abortion, but I think we're in the middle of a generational shift within the anti-choice movement where the religious folks are still there and are probably still a majority, but I think that the folks who are motivated by the backlash to the rise of women's economic power are growing in share size within that cohort. It's also important to note that those two groups (the uber-religious and the backlashers) can be overlapping and are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Just my take on their motivations.