TRUMP TURNS A CELEBRATION OF WOMEN INTO A CELEBRATION OF HIMSELF

There's was an event at the White House yesterday that was advertised as a commemoration of Women's History Month -- but this is the administration of Donald Trump, the most narcissistic person who's ever lived, so the event was primarily about him.

A medal was presented -- not to a woman, but by a woman, to the president. The New York Post reports:

Olympic bobsled champion Kaillie Humphries surprised President Trump Thursday by awarding him the Order of Ikkos medal during White House women’s history month event with Melania Trump.

“Every Olympic medalist in the United States gets an Order of Ikkos that they get to hand to somebody in honor and recognition of somebody who’s made a meaningful contribution to their journey to the podium, because Olympic medals are never achieved alone,” Humphries explained.

“I’m so honored to present this, my Order of Ikkos medal, to you, Donald Trump,” she revealed.

The Order of Ikklos is a real thing, but despite the venerable-sounding name, it's of recent vintage. The U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee established the Order in 2008. Each U.S. athlete who wins an Olympic medal is allowed to present the Order of Ikklos medal "to a coach, mentor or other individual who has been instrumental in their success. The Order of Ikkos is named after Ikkos of Tarentum, the first recorded Olympic coach in ancient Greece."

Humphreys is an avowed Trump supporter, and as the Post notes, she lavished praised on Trump yesterday, almost as if she were a Cabinet member at one of those cringe-inducing televised meetings in which heads of departments compete to see who can lavish the most praise on the president.

“I want to recognize the support and the impact you’ve had on women’s sports ... specifically standing up to keep biological women in women’s sports, to keep the field of play safe and allow for fair competition,” the three-time Olympic gold medalist said.

Humphries also praised Trump’s policies “creating greater access to IVF, so families like mine can continue to grow.”

I'm comparing this event to those Cabinet meetings because other attendees joined the praise competition.

Heather Kell, a waitress and single mom from Hendersonville, N.C., said she “had to do a double take” when she did her taxes this year, crediting the savings to Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Nora Pruitt, a married mom of seven, suggested Trump’s efforts to revitalize domestic manufacturing landed her a “career job” at a steel factory in Baltimore, Md., which “totally changed our lives.”

Lexi Chambers, a second generation farmer from Virginia, lauded Trump’s “support of American agriculture,” declaring that it has provided “families like mine the opportunity to ensure that my daughters can farm one day.”

Clay County Sheriff Michelle Cook quipped that her Florida county is “the only place safer than Washington,” before touting the “additional dollars from their hard work” that law enforcement officers are realizing through Trump’s no tax on tipped wages policy.

This was clearly a requirement imposed by the White House if you wanted to be part of the proceedings.

The Independent concedes that in Trump's own remarks, he praised women -- in his fashion:

After declaring “women are the whole deal” and giving shout-outs to his wife Melania Trump and prominent female members of his cabinet, the president paid his own tribute to women in general.

“They are so powerful and so important and so beautiful,” he said. “I'm not allowed to use the word beautiful, but I'm using it anyway. Usually, it's the end of your political career. If you say a woman's a beautiful woman, they say that's the termination of his career.

“But somehow, it hasn't hurt too much. You are incredible women, and you're beautiful women.”

But after that, he talked about himself.

“The situation with Iran is moving along very rapidly. It's doing very well. Our military is unsurpassed,” he said. “There's never been anything like it… they really are a nation of terror and hate, and they're paying a big price right now.” ...

“And the $12 billion in farm relief we issued using tariff revenue, we get $12 billion, we took in tremendous amounts of money. We're taking in money because of the tariffs. And really, jobs are coming in through the roof.”

Also:

Trump is taking credit for the United States being 250 years old.

[image or embed]

— Mark Jacob (@markjacob.bsky.social) March 12, 2026 at 5:37 PM

Melania Trump introduced the president -- and, surprisingly, didn't praise him, apart from saying that "throughout his career [he] has demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting women in leadership roles." But that's because she devoted most of her remarks to praising herself, in words that seem as if they were lifted from her movie's publicity handouts, or maybe a scammy brochure from Trump University:

As a visionary, I know success is not borne over night, but rather, takes shape after a long, and sometimes challenging process. Often alone at the top, I follow my passion, listen to my instinct, and always maintain a laser focus. In solitude my creative mind dances—filling my imagination with originality.

Attention to detail, demanding schedules, and multi-tasking are everyday realities when building towards success. This principle resonates across all my roles: as a mother, humanitarian, philanthropist, and entrepreneur. As well as with my new film, where I shaped its creative direction, served as producer, managed post-production, and activated the marketing campaign.

Curiosity is a core value that keeps me ahead of the curve. Curiosity begets knowledge, opening doors to ideas and industries that I may have otherwise overlooked. This unrestricted mindset has led me to build across very different sectors: fashion, digital assets, publishing, accessories, skincare, commercial television, and of course, filmmaking.

The lessons I learned when launching my earliest ventures, such as how to build a brand, create superior product design, and activate an advertising campaign, remain just as relevant today. Markets evolve, technologies change, but the fundamentals of thoughtful leadership and continuous learning are everlasting.

Melania's introduction to her husband is 367 words in total, of which the majority -- 199 -- are about herself.

The Trumps celebrated women yesterday pretty much the same way they celebrate everything: by never taking their eyes off the mirror.

MY SALES PITCH IS THIS: NOTHING

A new Washington Post poll finds that a (tiny) plurality of respondents now support the war in Iran.

A Post poll shortly after the strikes began found 39 percent supported “President Trump ordering airstrikes against Iran,” while 52 percent opposed them and 9 percent were unsure. The new poll asked generally about the “U.S. military campaign against Iran,” finding 42 percent support it, 40 percent oppose it, and 17 percent are unsure.

The Post acknowledges that question wording might be responsible for the decrease in opposition.

The absence of President Donald Trump in the new poll’s question may have led more people to say they are “unsure,” as views about the president tend to color people’s opinions of his actions and policies.

But there's movement in Trump's direction on a question that's worded identically in the previous and current polls:

Democratic support increased from 4% to 9%, independent support from 16% to 27%, and Republican support from 54% to 66%.

It's just one poll, obviously. But if we start seeing similar results in other polls, it's a sign of how voters are responding to President Trump's war salesmanship -- or lack of it.

The old template for selling a war was what the Bush administration did before invading Iraq: The president and his surrogates warned of a dire threat for months, offered what they said was solid evidence that the threat was real, and whispered to influential reporters that the situation was perilous. As a result, the attack on Iraq initially had broad support, although it obviously declined over time.

Before attacking Iran, Trump did no selling, and he hasn't done a very good sales job since the initial bombing. (According to the new Post poll, only 35% of respondents think Trump has adequately explained the reasons for the war, while 65% don't think he has.) So if this poll is correct, what's happening?

I think Americans are just getting used to the war.

This is Trump's M.O., especially in the second term: just do stuff, never apologize, never explain, never express doubts ... and wait for Americans to realize that it's happening whether they like it or not. Consciously or unconsciously, Trump simply expects everyone to become accustomed to what he's doing. It's a variation on the old saying "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission," except that Trump never asks for forgiveness. He just assumes that he can wear everyone down.

This approach isn't unique to Trump. Scott Walker followed it in 2011 shortly after he was sworn in as governor of Wisconsin: He and Republicans in the state legislature rammed through a bill that

ended most collective bargaining rights for public employee labor unions.... The law also made it much more difficult to certify and maintain a public employee union, and made it more difficult for unions to collect dues from members.... The legislation also adjusted the public employee retirement system to shift the burden of contributions more onto employees, adjusted public employee health insurance plans to cap employer contributions, made it easier to fire employees who engaged in work stoppages or strikes, and enabled changes to state Medicaid programs.

There were massive protests at the state capitol. Walker's opponents gathered enough support to subject him to a recall election. But he survived that, and was subsequently reelected. He'd worn down the opposition.

This is not how Democrats usually operate. They fear criticism, and they have trouble getting the cooperation of centrists in their caucus. In 2021 and 2022, for instance, they could have expanded the Supreme Court. They could have given statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico. Republicans and many centrists would have howled -- but the correct response to criticism would have been just to keep going. Eventually, the public would have shrugged and accepted the changes.

If Democrats ever control the White House and both houses of Congress again, they need to just do stuff. They need to accept the fact that some of it will be met by skepticism and anger. But once it's done, it will no longer seem unthinkable.

WHY DOES NPR SEEM TO BE PROMOTING A POSSIBLE TRUMP ELECTION INTERVENTION?

I woke up to this Bluesky post from NPR:

Nearly half of Americans support the National Guard monitoring November's elections, potentially signaling an openness to the sort of nationalizing of elections that President Trump says he wants. n.pr/3P1Scjw

[image or embed]

— NPR (@npr.org) March 11, 2026 at 7:03 AM

This would be shockingly anti-democratic election interference, but NPR's take appears to be "Hey, it's not so bad -- almost half the country is cool with it." NPR's write-up of the poll notes that interference of this kind would violate the law, yet the tone of the write-up is measured:

Close to half of Americans support the idea of the National Guard at polling places to monitor this November's midterm elections — something that would be illegal if ordered by the federal government — potentially signaling an openness, especially by Republicans, to the sort of nationalizing of elections that President Trump says he wants.

That datapoint comes from a new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll out Wednesday, which found 46% of Americans support the idea, compared to 54% who say they oppose it.

(The Brennan Center has more on the illegality of sending troops to the polls here.)

NPR mentions an "openness, especially by Republicans" to a military intervention in elections because, as in so many recent polls, Democrats and independents are on one side and Republicans are on the other.

But how did this idea get a positive response from double-digit percentages of Democrats and independents? I'm sure it happened in part because the question in the poll didn't mention Trump. Here's the wording:

How much do you support or oppose having the National Guard at voting locations to monitor November's election?

There's no reference to Trump -- the only person who wants to do this. It's quite possible that at least some respondents, especially some of the 25% of Democrats who think it could be a good idea, are imagining that state or local officials might decide to deploy the Guard for benign reasons.

I assume that if Trump's name had appeared in the question, the favorable numbers among Democrats and independents would have been much lower. Trump's overall job approval in this poll is a woeful 38%, with 57% disapproval; he's at 5% approval among Democrats and 34% approval among independents, and strong disapproval is at 50% overall. And in a midterm election that will be a referendum on the president, Democrats lead by a whopping 9 points, 53% to 44%, on the generic-ballot question.

It's as if NPR, PBS, and Marist felt it would be biased to mention Trump in a question about an intervention that will happen only if he orders it. NPR's poll write-up bends over backwards to imagine other scenarios in which the Guard might be deployed:

The finding is complicated by the fact that the National Guard can legally be used to support elections in many capacities when ordered by state governors.

And many Americans may be more open to military protection for elections now that the U.S. is at war with Iran, said Florida State University professor Michael Morley, an expert in election law.

"I think the conflict with Iran and recent terrorist bombing attempt in New York may influence public opinion on this issue, especially over the next few weeks," Morley said in an email to NPR. "Most of the time having the National Guard at polling places would be seen as unnecessary. But I think most average Americans may be far more worried about the possibility of a terrorist attack than they are about the National Guard."

It's as if NPR is trying to help Trump sell this idea by suggesting a pretext for why it might be done.

The benign interpretation of this is that it's the mainstream media's usual "view from nowhere" perspective: We can't describe the world of politics as it actually is because that would seem biased against Republicans, so we'll imagine a world in which all the parties are reasonable and everyone is proceeding in good faith. The less benign view is that NPR is preparing us psychologically for an illegal intervention by attempting to normalize it.

Another possible reason that the pro-Guard numbers are high might be the fact that, in the poll, this question follows several other questions on election integrity:

* How confident are you that your state or local government will run a fair and accurate election this November?

* How much confidence do you have that ballots cast in the election will be counted accurately?

* From this list, what is the biggest threat to keeping our elections safe and accurate? Voter fraud. Misleading information. Voter suppression. Foreign interference. Problems at your polling place such as long lines or broken machines.

* Which concerns you more: Making sure that everyone who wants to vote can do so. Making sure that no one else votes who is not eligible to vote.

* How likely, if at all, do you think it is that during November’s elections many people will show up to vote and be told they are not eligible?

* How likely, if at all, do you think it is that during November’s elections there will be voter fraud, that is, people who are not eligible to vote will vote, or vote more than once?

After all that fear is stirred up, no wonder nearly half of poll respondents think the Guard might be a good idea.

You can almost see the suspicion creep in as the poll progresses. In answer to the first question, 66% of respondents say they're confident that their state or local government will run a fair and accurate election this November. Then 63% say they're confident that the ballots will be counted accurately. Then comes the fear, seemingly induced by poll questions suggesting that surely something will be hinky.

33% of adults think the biggest threat to safe and secure elections is voter fraud. 26% say misleading information is the biggest threat followed by voter suppression (24%), foreign interference (8%), and problems at their polling place (7%)....

Democrats (41%) are most concerned with voter suppression while Republicans think the biggest threat to above board elections is voter fraud (57%). A plurality of independents (32%) mention misleading information followed by voter fraud (28%) and voter suppression (23%).

I can't blame the poll for the fact that 33% of respondents think voter fraud is the biggest worry in elections. (That includes 57% of Republicans, 15% of Democrats, and 28% of independents.) Nearly every mainstream news story about Republican claims of massive voter fraud say that fraud is not "widespread" -- a word that doesn't convey how extraordinarily rare it is. I can't blame most Americans for believing that it happens at least a fair amount, just not all the time.

I'd like to see some polling on elections that reflects the world we actually live in. For instance: What percentage of elections won by Democrats do Republicans think are legitimate -- and vice versa? (I know there are Democratic 2024 election truthers -- I'm not one of them -- but I think many, if not most, Republicans believe that every Democratic win is fraudulent.) What percentage of each party's votes do poll respondents believe are illegitimate? (The real answer is a fraction of a percent.) But that's not what we have here.

IT'S TIME TO PLAY RIGHT-WING RUMPLESTILTSKIN AGAIN

Jake Lang, a pardoned January 6 insurrectionist who threatened to burn a Qur'an in Minneapolis earlier this year, tried to stir up trouble on Saturday at Gracie Mansion in Manhattan, where the mayor of New York lives. His intent was to stage another anti-Islam demonstration -- he brought a roast pig, a live goat (with which he feigned copulation after a similar provocation a day earlier), and a couple dozen ideological soul mates.

I was there, hoping for a peaceful counterprotest, but things looked ugly -- as in Minneapolis, Lang and his crew were outnumbered by young anti-fascists who wanted to rough him up. The scrum seemed like a bad place for your elderly correspondent, and I left.

Then a bomb was thrown.

A device thrown outside Gracie Mansion on Saturday during dueling protests in New York City was confirmed to be an improvised explosive device, according to police.

Two men, described by police as an 18-year-old and a 19-year-old, were taken into custody after at least one of two devices was ignited....

Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch described the devices Saturday as being smaller than a football and said they appeared to be jars wrapped in black tape with nuts, bolts, screws and a hobby fuse....

A test of the explosive compound found in a container thrown by one of the men has preliminarily come back as triacetone triperoxide, or TATP, a notoriously volatile and dangerous type of homemade explosive....

The two men arrested said they were inspired by ISIS, as the police commissioner noted.

“The defendants were inspired by ISIS to carry out their attack,” NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch said Monday during a briefing outlining the five-count federal indictment against Emir Balat and Ibrahim Kayumi. “There should be no confusion about what ISIS constitutes. It is a designated foreign terrorist organization responsible for deadly terrorist attacks across the globe, and has taken credit for mass casualty attacks in Europe, the Middle East and right here in the United States.”

But the right-wing language police told us they were outraged by what the mayor said, or didn't say. The New York Post reported:

Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Monday repeatedly refused to condemn the pair of alleged bomb throwers as ISIS-loving radical Islamists....

Really? What did he say, or fail to say?

“They are suspected of coming here to commit an act of terrorism,” Hizzoner said during a press conference outside Grace Mansion....

Yeah? What else?

On Sunday, Mamdani issued a mealy-mouthed statement denouncing the organizer of a right-wing anti-Muslim rally — but not directly commenting on the alleged bomb tossers.

“Yesterday, white supremacist Jake Lang organized a protest outside Gracie Mansion rooted in bigotry and racism. Such hate has no place in New York City. It is an affront to our city’s values and the unity that defines who we are,” the statement said.

“What followed was even more disturbing. Violence at a protest is never acceptable. The attempt to use an explosive device and hurt others is not only criminal, it is reprehensible and the antithesis of who we are.”

"Criminal" and "reprehensible" seem like negative words to me. What else?

He again stopped short of condemning radical Islam in a statement following the unsealing of the criminal complaint.

“Emir Balat and Ibrahim Kayumi have been charged with committing a heinous act of terrorism and proclaiming their allegiance to ISIS,” he said in a statement. “They should be held fully accountable for their actions.”

Saying that they were inspired by ISIS and committed "a heinous act of terrorism" isn't enough? I guess not. Mamdani didn't say the secret phrase -- "radical Islam"!

In the past, I've called this "wingnut Rumplestiltskin." Steve Benen has invoked "Beetlejuice." The Republican argument is that Democrats have to utter a particular phrase or the terrorists have won. The phrase keeps changing, but it usually includes some form of the word "Islam" or "Muslim."

So at the 2008 Republican convention, Rudy Giuliani attacked Democrats because they refrained from using the phrase "Islamic terrorism." In 2010, after a failed terror bombing in Times Square, The Weekly Standard chided President Obama for, among other things, refusing to use the phrase "Islamic extremism." In 2013, after the Boston Marathon bombing, Charles Krauthammer wagged a finger at Obama for refusing to use the words "jihadist" and "Islamicist." In 2015, after the Charlie Hebdo bombing in Paris, Ralph Peters of Fox News said that Obama's response was inadequate "because it has to say 'Islamist terror,'" adding, "This administration is just soft on radical Islam."

And then, after the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, Marco Rubio said, "What we're involved in now is a civilizational conflict with radical Islam." Shortly afterward, in a presidential debate, Hillary Clinton refrained from using the phrase "radical Islam," but said this:

We need to have a resolve that will bring the world together, to root out the kind of radical, jihadist ideology that motivates organizations like ISIS, a barbaric, ruthless, violent, jihadist, terrorist group.

Rubio went on to criticize that statement as not strong enough.

There was a reason that Obama and Clinton, his first secretary of state, avoided the words Republicans demanded that they use. After Obama left office, Richard Stengel, who worked in his administration, explained:

To defeat radical Islamic extremism, we needed our Islamic allies — the Jordanians, the Emiratis, the Egyptians, the Saudis — and they believed that term unfairly vilified a whole religion.

They also told us that they did not consider the Islamic State to be Islamic, and its grotesque violence against Muslims proved it. We took a lot of care to describe the Islamic State as a terrorist group that acted in the name of Islam. Sure, behind the scenes, our allies understood better than anyone that the Islamic State was a radical perversion of Islam, that it held a dark appeal to a minority of Sunni Muslims, but it didn’t help to call them radical Islamic terrorists.

Obama ordered the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Obama began the process of weakening ISIS that continued in the first Donald Trump presidency. Obama didn't shrink from fighting the violence represented by those words.

Similarly, Mamdani has denounced Saturday's failed bomb attack, and his police force arrested the perpetrators. But for Republicans, deeds are irrelevant. Mamdani and all other Democrats are supposed to use words that make Muslims seem evil. If they refuse to do so, Republicans say, they clearly love evil.

NO, ISRAEL HASN'T LOST THE UNITED STATES

New York magazine's Ross Barkan writes:

Years from now, February 28, 2026, might be remembered as the day Israel finally lost the American public.

The Iran war, launched by the U.S. on that date and executed in direct coordination with Israel, is predictably a catastrophe....

It's not going well, but the usual 40 or so percent of Americans support the war, as they support everything Donald Trump does. In a recent NPR poll, the public opposes the war, but only by a 56%-44% margin, with 84% of Republicans in favor.

Barkan writes that Americans believe the U.S. is "fighting Israel’s war" in Iran, and they're not happy about that:

The fiercest supporters of Israel in the United States do not quite understand that there is no going back. Gavin Newsom, California’s governor and a 2028 presidential front-runner, now calls Israel an “apartheid” state. A few years ago, this would have been unfathomable — a mainstream Democrat who spoke like this would have been ridiculed and censured, driven to the margins of the party.

That's a sign that the Overton window is moving, but Newsom isn't rejecting Israel outright. He's trying to thread the needle.

Gavin Newsom to Ben Shapiro, January 15, 2026:

"I don't share that opinion as it relates to genocide [in Gaza]. I do not agree with that notion. I'm also crystal clear on my love for Israel." https://t.co/RiblgJdiVO pic.twitter.com/Sup5z2eMcn

— lindsay 🙈🏳️‍🌈 (@virtueemoir29) March 4, 2026

Barkan argues that Israel is losing America because anti-Israel critics on the left -- including mainstream liberals -- are being joined by anti-Israel critics (and anti-Semites) on the right:

We are in a new era, and it’s going to be a permanent one: Poll after poll shows that Americans under 40 take a startlingly dim view of Israel.

For a while, Israel hawks could dismiss these polls because they showed only the left-wing youth turning on the Jewish State. They were the radicals who could be, perhaps, nudged off the political stage. Now young people on the right, the MAGA youth, are coming to a similar place, if for different reasons: They view the special relationship between the two countries as a violation of America First. Some of this might be antisemitism; some of it, though, is genuine skepticism of an arrangement that doesn’t make sense to most Americans.

On the right, I think a lot of it is anti-Semitism -- maybe all of it. There's anti-Semitism on the left, but I think it's the dominant reason for Israel skepticism on the right.

But I don't agree that the U.S. and Israel are headed for a divorce, for two reasons: (1) the prominence of Bible-bashers in the GOP and (2) Cleek's Law.

Barkan writes:

The Iran war could be what decisively breaks the United States from Israel. Not yet — certainly not now, with Trump in the White House. But there will be presidents after Trump. A future Democrat will have no incentive to cater to the whims of a warmongering Israel. A Republican not explicitly bound to pro-Israel, right-wing Evangelicals might not care a great deal about Israel, either. Why should he?

Working backward: Does Barkan seriously believe there can be a leader of the GOP who's "not explicitly bound to pro-Israel, right-wing Evangelicals"? I'm reminded of a statistic cited by David French, a product of the Christian right who's become disaffected with the movement:

I’ve shared this statistic before, but if you look at 2024 exit polling, you’ll see that Trump won white evangelical and born-again voters by a 65-point margin, 82 percent to 17 percent. He lost everyone else by 18 points, 58 percent to 40 percent.

There is no GOP without these people. They're not going away. Even a guy like J.D. Vance, who's clearly unfazed by right-wing anti-Semitism, will have to stay on their good side if he wants to be the next president.

But the main reason the GOP won't turn against Israel is Cleek's Law:

Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily.

Despite the anti-Israel remarks of thought leaders like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes, and despite the increasing anti-Semitism among young rightists, the GOP will continue to back Israel because Democrats will increasingly reject Israel. Whatever we hate is what Republicans want.

It's an easy fit, of course: Prime Minister for Life Benjamin Netanyahu doles out cruelty to Muslims, whom even the vilest anti-Semites hate more than they hate Jews. (Hatred of Muslims is all but universal on the right.) If you agreed with Adam Serwer that "the cruelty is the point" of GOP policy in most areas, then it's easy to recognize that Israeli policy toward the Palestinians is cruel in a way that's extraordinarily satisfying to the U.S. right. And I agree with Barkan that "even if a more moderate politician replaces Netanyahu, religious zealots and anti-Arab fanatics will continue to hold sway" in Israel -- to the delight of Rpublican voters in America.

Republicans were generally pro-war from roughly the Nixon years through sometime in the Obama presidency, because they thought the Democratic Party was full of peaceniks. Donald Trump was able to sell skepticism about war to the GOP largely because Barack Obama killed Osama bin Laden and deployed drones against Islamicists. Joe Biden finished the job of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, and was criticized for the execution of that withdrawal, which gave Trump an opening to be a neocon again. It's always Cleek's Law.

So Republicans won't turn against Israel unless Democrats rush to its defense. They'll attack any Democrat who questions Israel's goodness, even if they're extending a welcome to anti-Semites themselves. All of this will prevent a thorough rethinking of U.S. policy toward Israel.

IF THE ECONOMY WERE EVERYTHING, TRUMP'S POLL NUMBERS WOULD BE LOWER

NBC News has just released a new poll. It was conducted from February 27 -- the day before the Iran war started -- through March 3. The topline number is bad for President Trump, but not awful:

NBC's survey hasn't been one of Trump's really terrible polls -- we're told,

Trump’s job approval rating is at 44% — essentially stable since the NBC News poll conducted in October, when it was 43% among registered voters.

But Trump's overall job approval rating is much higher than his rating on the economy:

Across five issues tested, voters give the president their lowest marks on the economy, with 62% disapproving of Trump’s handling of inflation and the cost of living and 36% approving. It’s an issue Democrats are trying to capitalize on heading into the midterms, after the party’s candidates found success on the issue in 2025....

Many Democratic politicians and candidates behave as if the economy is the one and only issue they should talk about -- even when other issues are in the headlines. Here's Senator Mark Kelly, a likely 2028 presidential candidate:

Why do this? Why not criticize Trump's handling of the war by ... criticize Trump's handling of the war? The war is unpopular. Americans think Trump should be prioritizing their needs and not foreign adventurism. They think the war will make Americans less safe. Why not talk about that?

Democrats who broke out of the "talk only about the economy" straitjacket have helped drive Trump's poll numbers down on immigration (with an assist, of course, from brutal and incompetent Trump subordinates like Kristi Noem). They need to keep pushing on every issue, and offer real plans of their own that differ from what Republicans are doing. Voters still think Republicans have better ideas on too many issues:

And after all the Democrats' talk about the economy, they're merely even with the GOP on who'd do a better job managing it, probably because they mostly say, "I'm laser-focused on affordability," which is not a better idea, or an idea at all. (To be fair, cutting the gas tax is an idea, though it's a Republican-style idea.)

Sometimes you do want to pivot to the economy -- I recently wrote that Democrats should focus on the skyrocketing cost of this war. But Democrats should also talk about the war as a bad idea, one that's depleting our military resources, putting lives at risk, and highly unlikely to make the world safer or more stable.

Trump has thoughts about everything -- ignorant thoughts, but they're thoughts. They impress approximately 40% of the country. Democrats could try having well-thought-out responses to every issue. The public won't fully trust the party, especially with the White House, until it seems ready to handle every issue the country faces.

MAYBE CHAOS IS THE POINT

The Atlantic's Tom Nichols sees Donald Trump's war in Iran as one of "Operational Excellence [and] Strategic Incompetence."

The war in Iran has reaffirmed two truths. One is that the United States is blessed with the most professional and effective military in the world.... The other truth is that the Trump administration, when it comes to strategy, is incompetent.

... The president and his team ... have not enunciated an overarching goal for this war—or, more accurately, they have presented multiple goals and chosen among them almost randomly, depending on the day or the hour. This means that highly effective military operations are taking place in a strategic vacuum.

... Operational competence ... cannot answer the question of national purpose. What is the war about, and when will America know it’s done?

I'm thinking about this in the context of a piece by David Sanger that ran in The New York Times a couple of days ago under the headline "Trump Follows His Gut. His National Security Advisers Try to Keep Up."

On a range of issues, from the goals of the Iran strike to Mr. Trump’s objectives in Venezuela or even in threatening Greenland, there are a blitz of answers. Inconsistency is sometimes celebrated by the administration as wily strategic deception, rather than as a failure to think several chess moves ahead.

... A top Arab diplomat said this week that his government has no real insight into the administration’s planning for a transition of government in Iran — or even whether it wants to play a role, given Mr. Hegseth’s repeated statements that “nation building” was not on the Pentagon’s list of tasks.

When I look at this war, and when I look at the ever-changing tariffs, I start to think that -- apart from the obvious motivations (self-aggrandizement, self-enrichment) -- the chaos is the point for Trump. He spent much of his life wanting to be the most important person in his world -- the biggest builder in New York, the richest, and the most admired -- but he could never pull it off. Other people with less chaotic and more strategic brains were better at building, made more money, and easily avoided the bankruptcies that plagued Trump. The adrenalized fizziness of Trump's brain made him bad at planning, bad at passing up whatever seemed immediately gratifying. He overpaid for what he wanted. He experienced failure.

He's no better at being president -- but what he can do, now that he has a 100% loyal Cabinet, Congress, and Supreme Court, is try to drag the world down to his level. He doesn't know what he's doing (on trade, in geopolitics), but that's fine if no one else knows what he's doing either. Global destabilization is the point. It makes smarter people struggle to react. It makes the world as jittery as Trump's brain.