I UNDERESTIMATED TRUMP'S NARCISSISM

Yesterday I predicted, among other things, that President Trump would use last night's prime-time speech to link alleged Chinese interference in the 2020 election to democratic socialist candidates running for office this year. I thought there was a logic to the prediction: Trump calls the democratic socialists "communists" and the ruling party of China is still referred to as the Communist Party.

But I underestimated Trump's narcissism. When he thinks about the 2020 election, it's all about him. He's barely thinking about what Democrats believe (although he did refer to them as "the radical left" in last night's speech). He doesn't think about the ideology of China, or even Venezuela, a country he accused of election fraud within its own borders in 2020, although he didn't explicitly say that the same techniques were also used to rig elections in America.

Today, we are releasing documents that show the CIA obtained reporting of a specific plot to do a big number in favor of the corrupt Maduro regime in Venezuela, and that's exactly what happened, conspiring to digitally rig their own country's elections in 2020. And that's what they did. This reporting included precise details about methods to regime develop, to digitally alter vote totals in ways that could not be detected, even with an audit, no matter how deep they went.

This intelligence underscores why we must take urgent action to ensure that our own system can never, ever be hacked or compromised like it was in the past.

Last night, Trump didn't seem at all interested in the Democrats he presumably hopes to defeat in November. He didn't question the results of the 2020 Georgia Senate elections, as some observers had predicted, even though one of the winners, Jon Ossoff, appears to be the favorite to win his reelection bid this year and is harshly attacking Trump on the campaign trail. The message of Trump's speech was much simpler:

* Election fraud is rampant, and every conceivable form of fraud is used.

* The rigging of the 2020 election is glaringly obvious.

* The SAVE America Act would make everything better.

That's it.

All of it makes me wonder whether I was wrong in yesterday's post to criticize Ezra Klein's suggestion that Trump isn't trying to win the midterms. In May, Klein told us:

I’m not saying [Trump] wants Democrats to win, but I don’t think he’d mind it if they did. A Democratic-controlled Congress gives him an enemy to fight. I think he gets a little lost without an enemy. It frees him from the tedious work of trying to pass legislation. It puts him back in the place he’s most comfortable, which is not wielding power; it’s claiming persecution.

That seems half-right. Trump doesn't usually fight for legislation even when his party has total control of Congress -- he'd much rather rule by executive order, or by Stephen Miller or Russell Vought telling every Cabinet-level department how to be brutal in his name.

Klein is right, obviously, about how much Trump enjoys claiming persecution, but what I saw in last night's speech wasn't Trump getting ready to claim Democrats are persecuting him. Instead, he seemed to be saying that the electoral system persecuted him in 2020, and will persecute Republicans in 2026, unless he gets his precious SAVE America Act.

So I'll sat the obvious thing: Trump is trying to discredit the upcoming elections, which he expects his party to lose. His message is that the 2026 election will be rigged and the 2020 election was rigged. He's saying that likely Democratic victories are proof he was cheated six years ago, because there'll be pro-Democratic cheating this year, in the absence of the SAVE America Act.

A spring 2026 survey from Reuters/Ipsos found that 63% of Republicans agree with Trump that the 2020 election was rigged. Trump's message makes perfect sense to the overwhelming majority of voters who belong to America's dominant political party. None of these people will ever believe a Democratic victory is legitimate.

THE 2026 STEAL BEGINS TONIGHT

Politico claims that even Republicans in D.C. don't know what the president plans to say tonight.

President Donald Trump is promising to reveal “really big news” on election security. Many Republicans wish he wouldn’t.

... instead of touting the recent good news on declining inflation or hyping the new housing law, Trump plans to talk about 2020 and “free and fair elections,” alarming some in the GOP who worry he will continue to make baseless claims or repeat debunked conspiracies.

“The people I talk to are scared shitless,” said a former Trump administration official, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Of course he'll continue to make baseless claims and repeat debunked conspiracies. The question is what else he'll do. I have a few thoughts, which I'll explain below.

I don't understand the argument, made by Ezra Klein a few weeks ago, that Trump doesn't appear to want to win the midterms, the evidence being that he's not doing what a conventional president would do with midterms approaching -- he's not touting legislative accomplishments, he's not tacking to the center, and so on.

But obviously Trump wants to win the midterms. He simply believes his own hype -- that America is "the hottest country," that "the Golden Age" is upon us, and that real Americans know this.

Paul Krugman is right to argue that he tried to end the war in Iran so gas prices would drop before Election Day, and his failure to get the war wrapped up probably explains the timing of this speech:

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that just as Trump essentially gives up, not gives up in the sense of abandoning his war, but gives up on trying to achieve anything he can even spin as a positive outcome, that we now have an announcement that this Thursday he’s going to have a primetime speech, which reports say is going to be about election fraud in 2020.

Trump does seem to think the SAVE America Act is the magic bullet that will guarantee GOP victories in every election until the end of recorded time. He may be one of the few politicians in D.C. who actually believes the talking points: that massive numbers of illegal votes are cast under current law, all of them for Democrats, and that the SAVE America Act will guarantee wins for the GOP only because every election would go the GOP's way if only legal votes were cast. Tonight he could conceivably declare that the act is law by executive decree, though if he does, courts will overrule him.

I don't think he'll announce that the midterms are canceled, because that would be an admission of defeat. He might declare that he will cancel the elections if the SAVE America Act isn't passed. He doesn't have the legal right to do that, as courts will rule, and he doesn't have enough troops to enforce the shutdown. So he might not go this route.

Here's a longshot prediction: He'll declare that "communism" is illegal in America, and therefore democratic socialists can't serve in Congress. I think he'll say this after the election, in which a number of DSA candidates are likely to win, but he might start saying it now. Again, the courts will overrule him, but his base will believe that these people are serving unlawfully.

I think he's also planning to say that no one can be seated in Congress who wins based on votes that were counted after Election Day. That could rule out winners in California, and anywhere there's an extremely close race.

He's going to oversell "evidence" of foreign interference in the 2020 election, which will be either rehashed and debunked nonsense (Chinese bamboo paper in the ballots!), or perhaps some new evidence of a foreign influence campaign that altered the 2020 information stream but wasn't actually election tampering, in the sense that it didn't involve ballots cast improperly. But if his alleged culprit is China, he'll link the country to DSA candidates. Democratic socialists are communist and so is China will make perfect sense to millions of Americans.

Keep in mind that because of racial gerrymandering and previous efforts to ensure that most House seats are safe for one party or the other, there aren't a lot of swing districts this year. Also, Democrats don't have a commanding lead in midterm polling. The New York Times recently got predictions of the midterm outcome from five pollsters or poll-oriented pundits. The predictions for Democrats ranged from a five-seat House majority (Lynn Vavreck and Perry Bacon) to an eleven-seat House majority (Nate Silver). Trump won't need to discredit very many Democratic victories to leave the outcome in doubt, at least until courts rule.

Congressional victors are certified at the state level. No one in D.C. is supposed to be involved. But if Trump says that certain victories shouldn't be ratified, Democratic winners in red states might not get certified. (They'll sue and probably win, though.)

There's a process to challenge certified winners in the post-election lame-duck session, when Republicans will still control the House. I imagine that challenges to late-ballot and democratic socialist winners will be mounted, on Trump's orders. They might or might not succeed.

After that, the winners are supposed to congregate on January 3, pick a Speaker, and be sworn in. Mike Johnson is not supposed to have a role in this, but very few Americans understand that, so I'm guessing he'll try to prevent winners Trump doesn't like from being sworn in. I don't think that will work, but it will be ugly.

But Trump clearly wants to act, or at least hold forth, now. I suppose he could declare some sort of state of emergency until the SAVE America Act is passed. I know that Senate Republicans don't want to eliminate the filibuster and give him this win, but I keep thinking they'll accede to his demands because he'll simply wear them down. That could be what this speech is all about.

DEMOCRATS WHO WON'T DEFINE THEMSELVES AS FIGHTERS GET DEFINED BY FOX NEWS

In The New York Times, Nate Cohn tells us that Graham Platner, despite his personal failings, was succeeding politically in ways few Democrats do.

Mr. Platner did something that most progressive outsiders haven’t: He was able to appeal across the ideological spectrum of the Democratic primary electorate, even though he was unmistakably a factional candidate of the activist left.

Only 13 percent of Maine Democrats said Mr. Platner was “too far to the left” in a New York Times/Portland Press Herald/Siena poll last month. He led his moderate opponent, Gov. Janet Mills, among self-identified moderate voters, 52 percent to 32 percent, in a University of New Hampshire poll taken before she dropped out of the race.

Mr. Platner’s progressive, populist message — anti-corporate, anti-establishment and opposing military aid to Israel, but not “woke” or democratic socialist — was able to occupy a kind of middle ground in the Democratic primary electorate.

What did Platner do? He defined himself politically before his opponents could do it for him. He was an economic populist who was angry at greedy billionaires and their enablers in government. But he wasn't anti-"woke." On the one issue that right-wing propagandists love to use more than any other to smear Democrats, Platner was maximally "woke," as he made clear in a Reddit "Ask Me Anything" discussion last summer:

On LGBTQIA+ rights, Platner made one of his most pointed responses: “I stand right in the f***ing way of anyone who’s going to try to come after the freedoms of the LGBTQIA+ community.”

Here's what I wrote at the time about that answer and other comments Platner made in that Reddit forum:

[Platner] says that “Susan Collins is a tool of the billionaire class,” adding, “We ALL agree we’re all getting f***ed by the system.” When that's your main message, that's what people will remember about you. You define yourself; they can try running an ad against you saying you're "for they/them," rather than "for us," but even some transphobes will ignore it because they see you primarily as a person who wants to fight for "us."

Cohn writes:

Our last poll offered striking evidence that Mr. Platner’s views weren’t putting him at a particular disadvantage: Fewer Maine voters thought he was “too far to the left” than said the same of the Democratic Party in general. Let that sink in: A candidate recruited and elevated by the activist left wasn’t necessarily perceived as farther left than the Democratic Party.

Yes, because Platner's economic populism and anger at the plutocracy isn't regarded as "too far to the left" anymore, and Platner made sure that that's what you associated him with, at least until the scandals in his personal life caught up with him. As I wrote last year, that's not the approach of the typical Democrat:

Establishment Democrats don't want to take bold stances, which leaves them vulnerable: if they don't say anything memorable about themselves or their positions, opponents will choose a hot-button issue and make that what voters remember about them. To some extent, that's what happened to Kamala Harris, and it's what's happening to the party in general. People think Democrats care only about cultural issues because most Democrats have no memorable positions on other issues. That leaves their enemies free to portray them as caring more about pronouns than grocery bills. But if you take a strong stand on issues that matter to everyone, you can also take strong stands on cultural issues. More Democrats need to recognize this.

And I meant "a strong stand," not mealy-mouthed mush like "We're laser-focused on affordability." Cohn notes that one non-progressive seems to be succeeding the way Platner did:

Perhaps the only recent example of a successful, mainstream liberal populist is Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia, whose re-election campaign has been focused on corruption and money in politics. He’s been one of the few mainstream liberals to earn acclaim from across his party in midterm campaigns this year. If Mr. Platner was an example of a progressive who was reaching toward this emerging Democratic middle ground, Mr. Ossoff is an example of a moderate trying to seize the same basic position.

I said that the key was taking strong stands, but what's necessary at a minimum is persuading voters that you're angry about the status quo and will fight. Platner came off as a two-fisted brawler and Ossoff can seem like a thoughtful associate professor, but he's found his anger. Watch the way Ossoff talks about Donald Trump (and Ossoff's GOP opponent in the Georgia Senate race, Mike Collins) in the part of this speech I've queued up:

Now, Savannah, I don't know if you saw the mess in Washington last week. The president -- the president was so humiliated in Hormuz, he threw his toys out the stroller and refused to sign the affordable housing bill. Did you see that? But wait, that's after he gave some felon donor a no-bid contract for the Reflecting Pool and it filled up with algae, which for some reason required the deployment of the National Guard. And then because of his war and his tariffs, inflation rose to over 4%. He promised to bring down prices on Day One. Do you remember that? Y'all know what today is? Today is Day 524, and groceries, rent, and healthcare are at their all-time highs in American history. Donald Trump and his puppet Mike Collins, they doubled health insurance premiums for more than a million Georgians and threw 300,000 Georgians off their insurance altogether. I heard from a woman with cancer who waits tables for a living and said she was going to lose her health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy. And they did this to pay for a tax cut that went overwhelmingly to the rich and to corporate America. Did you know that, Savannah? Savannah, I never want to hear these two pretend they give a damn about working people again.

Trump is going to make a speech tomorrow night in which he'll claim, among other things, that Ossoff and Raphael Warnock won illegitimately in the same 2020 election that defeated him. In part this is because of Trump's racism, specifically his hatred of Black women -- it kills him that Ossoff and Warnock won because of a strong Black vote, and it kills him that two embodiments of that honest democratic process were Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, Black election workers in Fulton County who were defamed by Trump's thuggish surrogate Rudy Giuliani, and who won a $146 million financial judgment against him.

But Trump can also see that Ossoff is the favorite to win again this year, and he's winning by attacking Trump. (Trump can't rebut Ossoff's attacks effectively, so he compared Ossoff to Pee-wee Herman in a mddle-of-the night post at Truth Social on the Fourth of July. Pathetic.)

All this brings me to Matthew Yglesias, who, preposterously, believes it's bad to fight if you want to win:

In the TV show “Andor” — the best recent art about politics — Diego Luna as the lead character observes, “We’re in a war. You wanna fight, or do you wanna win?”

And I think that this is a question I am constantly asking my “Politix” Co-Host Brian Beutler to look into his heart and ponder. Because for the last few years, it really seems to me that for many Democrats, the answer is that they want to fight....

“You voted for Trump because of legitimate concerns about Biden’s failures on immigration and inflation, and I hear and acknowledge those concerns, but Trump has betrayed his affordability promises and I can help” is a plausible message for winning over disillusioned Trump voters. “You and the majority of your friends and family voted for a racist, K.K.K.-like fascist movement and now you need to repent” is really not.

But that's a caricature of a Democratic "fight" message. It's not what Ossoff is saying. It's not even what Platner was saying. As Ossoff makes clear while campaigning in a quintessentially purple state, you can be very angry and appeal to normie and moderate voters in 2026.

Yglesias continues:

It’s fun for Graham Platner to campaign with the Dropkick Murphys, but that’s just another way of saying that expressive politics in blue states is more fun than winning over swing voters.

But the campaign in which Platner stage-dived during a performance by the proudly lefty, anti-ICE band was working, and would have worked if Platner's personal failings hadn't gotten in the way.

Voters want to see some fight right now. They know it's justified. And in addition, it can define you as a candidate before Trump or Fox can do it for you.

THERE'S NO DEMOCRATIC EQUIVALENT OF VICTOR MARX AND THERE PROBABLY NEVER WILL BE ONE

I'm pleased to see Michelle Goldberg writing in The New York Times about Victor Marx, the wackaloon who just won Colorado's Republican gubernatorial primary. You know, this guy:

The right-wing preacher turned politician Victor Marx has said that he first killed a man when he was 7. He’s not sure how many deaths he’s been responsible for since. Marx has been arrested at least twice for disorderly conduct and has described terrorizing a psychiatrist with talk of murdering him. He told the Colorado journalist Kyle Clark that he can perform exorcisms by phone. On Thursday he was declared the winner of the Republican gubernatorial primary in Colorado.

... Marx calls himself a “high-risk humanitarian,” and tells stories of charging into war zones to perform acts of Christian rescue. At one point his website claimed he’d saved over 40,000 women and girls from sex trafficking, though under scrutiny, he amended that figure to “more than one and less than a bunch.” Reporters have also been unable to find evidence of his purported childhood homicide, which he says he committed at the insistence of an abusive stepfather.

Wonkette's Robyn Pennacchia also notes Marx's claim "that, when he was three, that same stepfather forced him to behead a cat and then wear the dead cat on his head in some capacity."

I believe that more attention should be drawn to crazy and extremist Republicans who aren't named Trump, so I'm pleased to see this coverage of Marx. (There's also a despairing op-ed in The Washington Post from Republican columnist Jim Geraghty.) But Goldberg, who's usually more astute, looks at the rise of Marx and, for some reason, feels compelled to bothsides it:

It’s easy for liberals like me to feel smug about this Republican fiasco. But the ridiculous rise of Victor Marx is the product of trends that, having transformed the Republican Party, are beginning to show up in Democratic primaries as well. ...

In Texas, the antisemitic sex therapist Maureen Galindo made it into a runoff for a congressional seat and, even after she proposed imprisoning Zionists, got more than a third of the vote. The New York socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier beat out the aging progressive Adriano Espaillat, and though not nearly as toxic as Galindo, other Democrats still had to answer for her outré positions, including her refusal to say that murderers should be imprisoned.

Some of Avila Chevalier's policy positions are fairly extreme, and Galindo, whom I wrote about in May, did call for the castration of pedophiles, "which will probably be most of the Zionists" -- but they aren't self-promoters pretending to be real-life superheroes, with obviously fake biographies.

Goldberg adds:

... some in Colorado are comparing Marx to Graham Platner. I would never go that far; Platner’s faults required digging, while Marx’s unfitness should have been evident from his public pronouncements. Still, Marx demonstrates what can happen when voters, feeling apocalyptic, disdain concerns about expertise and electability and let themselves be guided by their id.

But voting for an iconoclastic outsider is one thing. Voting for an iconoclastic outsider whose life story is obviously complete bullshit is another. (And no, the fact that Platner wasn't genuinely working-class is not comparable, because he didn't try to conceal the facts about his background.)

Republican voters want to believe in phony narratives like Victor Marx's life story for the same reason they want to believe the right-wing social media portrayal of Donald Trump as a lean, youthful, muscular superhero who selflessly fights for goodness and truth while Jesus looks on over his shoulder.

The right-wing press reduces every story to a battle of good (right-wingers) vs. evil (everyone else); coexistence among people of differing views is impossible because Republicans believe their opponents want to kill the good people (themselves), destroy America, and ban their Christian churches. And since right-wingers regard collective action as suspect, the job of fighting all this evil has to fall to lone-wolf men with powers greater than those of mere mortals. AI-slop Trump is one of those lone-wolf (or "sigma male") heroes, and so is Victor Marx as portrayed by Victor Marx.

Democrats might make heroes of politicians -- Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, AOC, Zohran Mamdani, even Platner -- but they don't see them as cartoon superheroes. Whereas Republicans ... well, check out the opening scene of a documentary film Marx made about himself:



We're told that the film includes "reenactments." That's a polite word for this. As the kids say, of all the things that never happened, this never happened the most.

Maybe Democrats will be as gullible and credulous as Republicans someday. But for now, they're nowhere close.

HEY NANCY MACE, THE SUPERVILLAIN YOU'RE LOOKING FOR MIGHT BE A WHITE GUY IN A SUIT

Nancy Mace began expressing interest in South Carolina's now-vacant U.S. Senate seat before Lindsey Graham's body was even cold. She -- or, rather, the unnamed surrogate who spoke to The Hill on her behalf -- revealed her plans in the most graceless manner imaginable:

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) is considering a run to replace the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in the Senate.

Asked about interest in replacing Graham, a person familiar with Mace’s thinking told The Hill Sunday morning: “YOLO” — the saying, “You Only Live Once.”

I didn't even like Lindsey Graham and that offends me. (I assume that the "person familiar with Mace’s thinking" was Mace herself.)

Mace finished fifth in the recent gubernatorial primary in her state, so I don't expect her to win the upcoming Senate primary. But I expect her to work quite a bit of Islamophobia into her campaign (and into her likely future career as a podcaster).

Before Graham died, Mace was posting this at her congressional Twitter account:

We approve this message. https://t.co/Haozigy68F

— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) July 11, 2026

And this at her personal account:

pic.twitter.com/TbO0hGnH3C

— Nancy Mace (@NancyMace) July 11, 2026

(That's a Robert Crumb drawing meant to accompany a Charles Bukowski short story. I suspect Mace doesn't know that.)

Mace also retweeted this:

When I first saw this tweet, I wasn't sure who was being blamed here. But the answer is clear from the responses to the original tweet.

I know the cause pic.twitter.com/HkAxqGnG41

— TruthOverTreason (@WarriorMark8) July 11, 2026

These abhorrent vermin do this in every nation they infest. They are even doing this in Japan. Why in the holy fuck does anyone allow these sub human cretins into first world nations!? They are uncivilized savages that follow a pedophile prophet and want to dominate the world. pic.twitter.com/7iQoI5rTAS

— Maximus Timaeus (@TimaeusMaximus) July 12, 2026

Yep we know why and who done it pic.twitter.com/TpBwgJXti7

— Wild Rose (@truthplusfacts) July 12, 2026

Rational Wiki tells us:

Knights Templar International is a far-right 'news' organization.... As hinted by their name, they claim to be defenders of Christianity against the Muslim invaders and haven't quite realised that the Third Crusade ended a while ago. This hate group is not to be confused with the benign Knights Templar, a Masonic organization which completely disavows Knights Templar International.

The burned church is in Bushwick, Brooklyn, a formerly Black neighborhood that's been aggressively gentrified over the past couple of decades. Islamicist arson seems highly unlikely in this case -- Black Christians and Muslims have generally coexisted peacefully in New York for a long time.

Mace, Roy, and Knights Templar International think Muslims are the culprits here, but even the New York Post doesn't believe that. The Post says the fire might have been deliberately set, as do other local reports. Brownstoner tells us:

A video shows a person walking back and forth in an area outside the South Bushwick Reformed Church not generally accessible to the public shortly before a fire ravaged the historic structure on Friday, June 19.

Security video from a property neighboring the church shows a person making repeat trips to a side of the wood frame building that is rarely accessed by the public just before the fire started.

But as New Yorkers know, the arsonist (if there was one) could be a mentally ill person, or someone with a non-ideological vendetta against the church -- or the fire could be related, as so many things are in New York, to the real estate market.

And, in fact, the pastor of the church, which has landmark status, has been resisting offers from real estate developers. The neighborhood news site Grime Square reports:

... local developers had been closely watching one of the last parts of the area that has yet to be redeveloped.

“I understand the building is landmarked. Are you still interested in selling the property? I currently represent a buyer who would be interested in purchasing and is familiar with landmarked properties,” Gregory Bartlett, principal at RBM Brokerage, had written to [Pastor James E.] Steward just last month. What the broker had in mind is unclear, as de-designating a landmarked building is exceedingly rare.

An empty plot is precious in Bushwick, where asking prices for homes are reaching seven figures. On Friday, Steward said he was receiving “At least 10 [calls] per day.” He advised he had not returned any developer’s call.

“Very sorry to hear about the fire over the weekend,” wrote Anthony Gagliano, a broker with Strategic Realty Partners. “The idea is for the development team to take on the cost and responsibility of reconstructing the church’s superstructure and exterior envelope... In exchange, they would seek to acquire certain development rights associated with the property.” Gagliano sent the email two days after the fire.

So maybe this is just about money, prime real estate, and development rights -- which makes a lot more sense in New York than arson as a tool of jihad.

Here's another Mace tweet from just before Lindsey Graham's death:

At what point do we call it what it is? The Democrat Party has become the new Communist Party.

— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) July 11, 2026

This isn't true. But if Mace wants to know why Democrats are increasingly open to voting for candidates who are skeptical of capitalism, she might want to consider the possibility that capitalists brought this anger on themselves.

GRAHAM, McCONNELL, ALITO AND THE REPUBLICAN AUTOMAT

Lindsey Graham is dead. He was a bad person and a weak person. Steve Schmidt wrote his obituary in 2020:

People try to analyze Lindsey through the prism of the manifest inconsistencies that exist between things that he used to believe and what he’s doing now. The way to understand him is to look at what’s consistent. And essentially what he is in American politics is what, in the aquatic world, would be a pilot fish: a smaller fish that hovers about a larger predator, like a shark, living off of its detritus. That’s Lindsey. And when he swam around the McCain shark, broadly viewed as a virtuous and good shark, Lindsey took on the patina of virtue. But wherever the apex shark is, you find the Lindsey fish hovering about, and Trump’s the newest shark in the sea.

I don't mourn him, but I don't celebrate his death.

Mitch McConnell is a bad person who may or may not be dead. I won't mourn him, but I won't celebrate his death either.

What political difference will their deaths make?

I know that most of you see the Republican Party as nothing more than a Donald Trump personality cult, but it's really more of a hive mind. Wherever the dominant figures in the party stand on a particular issue, that's where just about everyone else in the party stands. When Graham's replacement glides to victory in November in South Carolina, and McConnell's replacement does the same in Kentucky, you'll barely notice the difference in how Republicans do business.

Graham's replacement will be less of a foreign policy neocon than Graham was -- though Graham's interventionism has never been an impediment to the allegedly isolationist Trump (who's become a Graham-like interventionist in his second term). Mark Lynch, the candidate Graham beat in the Republican primary earlier this year, claimed to be very different from Graham on foreign policy:

Lindsey Graham has been one of the strongest voices in Washington for foreign intervention, backing prolonged military engagements and continued overseas involvement without clear endpoints. From supporting open-ended commitments to approving billions in foreign aid, his approach has too often put America in conflicts without defined objectives or accountability.

Mark Lynch believes America’s military exists to defend the United States, not to fight endless wars abroad. He will push for a strong, focused national defense that protects our homeland, respects the Constitution, and ensures that every deployment serves a clear and necessary purpose.

But if Lynch were to become South Carolina's next senator, he'd back whatever "prolonged military engagements" Trump dreams up, and he'll never fight to ensure that a president of his own party identify "a clear and necessary purpose" for those engagements. He'll vote for budgets with "billions in foreign aid" because the party's leaders in Congress will insist.

McConnell? Congressman Andy Barr is the Republican candidate who'll replace him. From his campaign website:

He's more loyal to Trump than McConnell has been, though McConnell was never disloyal when it might make a significant difference.

McConnell is the guy who rammed Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court appointment through the Senate just before the 2020 election. McConnell is no longer the Senate majority leader -- but do you think John Thune will have any trouble ramming through Samuel Alito's replacement this fall if, as many assume, he steps down in the next month or two? It's not the individual leader who matters.

I won't really cheer Alito's departure. Who'll get his job? Federal judge James Ho, perhaps?

On September 29, 2022, Ho delivered a speech at a Federalist Society conference in Kentucky and said he would no longer hire law clerks from Yale Law School, which he said was plagued by "cancel culture" and students disrupting conservative speakers. Ho said Yale "not only tolerates the cancellation of views — it actively practices it", and he urged other judges to likewise boycott the school....

On May 6, 2024, Ho cosigned a letter alongside twelve federal judges, which he shared with CNN, vowing not to hire Columbia University law students or undergraduates for concerns that the university is not doing enough to counter students protesting the war in Gaza....

Ho was for many years a prominent defender of birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, but shifted his views on the topic after Donald Trump was elected in 2024.

A Fox News grandpa on the Court is almost certain to be replaced by a younger Fox News grandpa.

When I think of the GOP, I think of the old Automat -- you take a piece of apple pie and it's replaced in the slot by a nearly identical piece of apple pie.

Occasionally it matters when one particular Republican is gone, but not very often. This is why I think it's important to attack the GOP as a party, in the hopes of winning over soft supporters who choose the party in elections primarily because it's the default choice where they live. They're the ones keeping the party going, ensuring that zealots replace zealots in perpetuity even though they're not zealots themselves. Only constant attacks on the GOP as a whole can possibly threaten its ongoing dominance of American politics.

PLATNER WITHOUT GUILT

I had some positive things to say about Graham Platner while he was a Senate candidate. I'm not going to engage in self-flagellation now that he's out. The early critics were right about his character, but it's understandable that many people wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Commentators who've compared him to Donald Trump overlook a basic difference: Platner wasn't an unsocialized, amoral hatemonger on the campaign trail. Except when he was talking about people in power, his rhetoric was idealistic and positive. He punched up, not down. He claimed to be a better person than he'd been in the past, whereas Trump wanted everyone to understand that he was the same slimy bastard he'd always been. (His promise was that he'd be a slimy bastard on his voters' behalf.)

The consultants who saw him as a candidate who could win over working-class white men were wrong, just as Kamala Harris was wrong to think that Tim Walz would have similar appeal. But Republicans do this too: they run candidates of color and imagine that they'll make their electorate more diverse. It never really works: last year, the GOP's Black gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, Winsome Earle-Sears, won just 7% of the Black vote. In Florida and Ohio, Republican gubernatorial candidates of color, Byron Donalds and Vivek Ramaswamy, are facing backlash from racist GOP-base voters. Yet no one berates the GOP for trying to diversify.

Platner wasn't winning over men or the working class: according to a New York Times/Portland Press Herald poll that was released on July 1, Platner was trailing Susan Collins 52%-45% among men, while leading 52%-44% among women; among non-college whites, he trailed 59%-36%.

Women stuck with him even after a Times story accused him of physical violence in his relationships with women. As a Times story noted after he'd been accused of rape and had withdrawn from the race,

Several women said they recognized Mr. Platner’s swaggering style from men in their lives who had hurt them.

They supported him anyway, at least until this week, because he cared about their medical bills, had ideas to make housing more affordable and seemed to be a normal guy who meant what he said and took responsibility for past mistakes.

I think straight women expect all men to be flawed, sometimes badly, and they're probably right to feel that way. They set the bar low because they don't have a choice. Redeemable is the best they can hope for.

(I think Black people feel this way about whites -- polls showed that 60% of Black Virginians didn't want Governor Ralph Northam to resign in 2019 after he was seen in an old photo that featured blackface. On balance, they felt he'd been an ally, just as they felt Joe Biden was an ally despite some racially dubious remarks. It seems impossible to find a white politician who's an unflawed ally.)

What the women interviewed by the Times were feeling about Platner's agenda is what a lot of people felt nationwide: he had the right ideas, and he expressed them at a time when it appeared that most Democrats running for high-level positions would be Schumeresque mediocrities. I think many voters weren't romanticizing him as a swaggering, two-fisted blue-collar hero -- he was an eloquent, charismatic progressive, different in style from Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but with similar appeal. Why shouldn't voters have hoped that every scandal was the last one? He was saying what many voters wanted to hear.

I know a lot of you got off the bus when news about the Totenkopf tattoo broke. As for me, I grew up watching Hogan's Heroes and later discovered The Producers. A few years later, we had the Ramones, whose first album started with "Blitzkrieg Bop" and ended with "Today Your Love, Tomorrow the World" ("I'm a Nazi shatze, you know I fight for the Fatherland"). So flippancy about Nazis was commonplace in my youth. Sometimes Jews were the creators of these flippant works -- Mel Brooks was Jewish, as were two of the Ramones, and Robert Clary, one of the stars of Hogan's Heroes, was a survivor of the camps. And when a David Bowie flirted with fascism early in his career, it seemed like a callow attempt at transgression, which is what I think Platner's tattoo was. (Bowie grew up and denounced racism in the music business.)

I assume Platner knew what his tattoo meant, despite his denials, but I also assume he meant it as a generalized adolescent-male fuck-you gesture rather a statement of political philosophy. (I think the military allows you to be a teenage boy well into adulthood.) The racist and sexist Reddits posts seemed more serious. I think he's genuinely anti-racist now, but I don't know if he's ever gotten past his misogyny. I hope so. But it's understandable that voters want to believe he has.

The narrative that's emerging is this: a consultant named Daniel Moraff -- who himself has been accused of sexual misconduct -- discovered Platner, vetted him poorly, and persuaded other progressives to back him, thus preventing other progressives from running for the Senate seat. That's unforgivable. I hope Moraff never finds work in Democratic politics again.

All this is a shitshow, but I don't accept the premise that Democrats are now doomed in Maine. The party's numbers actually improved in the betting markets after Platner withdrew -- with good reason. Do you remember the Canadian Liberal Party's rise in the polls after Justin Trudeau announced his resignation as prime minister in January 2025?

The Liberals under Mark Carney won the election in April.

Kamala Harris didn't win, but she gave Democrats a fighting chance in 2024, improving on Joe Biden's weak poll numbers:

And with Keir Starmer's resignation as Britain's prime minister, Labour's fortunes are improving:

Labour has slashed Reform's poll lead as a "Burnham bounce" means the party's popularity has surged by 6 per cent.

The poll by Find Out Now put Reform at 24 per cent, down three percentage points from last week, with Labour now hot on Nigel Farage's party's heels at 21 per cent....

It is the first poll to suggest the Labour Party could enjoy a popularity boost following Andy Burnham's succession....

This could easily happen once Maine Democrats have a new candidate, if the party emerges ready to fight, with self-respect rather than self-abasement. Please note that on the rare occasions when a Republican succumbs to scandal -- George Santos, Matt Gaetz, Madison Cawthorn -- there's no party-wide breast-beating, no publicly aired recriminations. Republicans just put their heads down and keep fighting. That's what Democrats should do now.