Wednesday, November 18, 2020

TRUMP AND THE GOP WILL GIN UP A TWITTER "CRISIS" BEFORE BIDEN HAS BEEN IN OFFICE A MONTH

There's going to be a big, annoying distraction within days, if not hours, of Joe Biden's inauguration. The New York Times reports:
Many world leaders generally have wider latitude on Twitter and Facebook because their comments and posts are regarded as political speech that is in the realm of public interest. But what will happen to President Trump’s accounts on the social media platforms when he leaves office?

At Tuesday’s [Senate Judiciary Committee] hearing, Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s chief executive, said the company would no longer make policy exceptions for Mr. Trump after he leaves office in January. During Mr. Trump’s time as a world leader, Twitter allowed him to post content that violated its rules, though it began adding labels to some of the tweets starting in May to indicate that the posts were disputed or glorified violence.

“If an account suddenly is not a world leader anymore, that particular policy goes away,” Mr. Dorsey said.
How soon after Trump leaves office do you think he'll manage to violate Twitter's rules? It'll be days at most. It could be minutes -- he'll probably be posting lies and conspiracy theories about President Biden and the election on the flight from D.C. to Florida. If Dorsey is serious, censorship and even suspension from Twitter could happen on January 20. It'll certainly happen that month. It will be hard to say whether Trump is deliberately testing Twitter's limits or just ranting the way he always rants on the platform. But he'll cross the line very quickly.

If he's suspended -- or even banned -- congressional Republicans, especially if they still control the Senate (which I think is likely), will want to make social media censorship America's #1 news story and Congress's top priority. Biden will be trying to deal with the pandemic, economic difficulties, and whatever mess Trump has left him in the foreign policy realm, while also hoping to change U.S. policy on immigration, climate, health care, and other issues -- but Republicans (and the right-wing media) will be acting as if this is America's greatest crisis. (They'll probably be aided in this by commentators with mainstream and even liberal credibility -- Bill Maher, Bari Weiss, Glenn Greenwald -- who'll agree that Twitter's actions against Trump constitute a chilling, fascist "cancellation" of the ex-president.)

Maybe it'll be a minor blip. Maybe someone will show Trump how to download the Parler app onto his phone and he'll just move there. But it'll be a distraction we don't need.

NO HUMAN FEELINGS

If it weren't horrifying, it would almost be sad:
As prospects for an effective vaccination for the coronavirus have improved for the coming year, Donald Trump has grown outwardly resentful that he won’t be in the Oval Office to take the credit for it.
Vaccines are imminent, but they won't be in wide circulation until the spring, when Trump will no longer be in the White House. Some of the self-promotion Trump imagined for himself in a second term seems almost like what you'd expect from a normal president:
According to two individuals with direct knowledge of his private comments, the president had said he envisioned large, public, mask-free events—particularly when the weather grew warmer in, what he anticipated to be, a second term—and rallies to celebrate the successes of Operation Warp Speed, the public-private partnership to develop a vaccine. When distribution began, Trump had wanted to be directly involved in the vaccine’s promotion, gaming out a video campaign about the safety and success of his operation.
But then there's this:
Trump also mused about holding a public, televised event or news conference in which he'd proudly brandish and read from a list of headlines, articles, and TV coverage that had either underestimated him or raised doubts about Operation Warp Speed's timeline.

"The president has been looking forward to showing that he was right and the media was wrong," one of the sources described.
Just imagine that: millions of Americans getting the vaccine, slowly returning to normal life, hugging friends and family members they've been afraid to hug for a year -- but what Trump imagined, at that moment of love and joy, was vengeance. And remember, this is would have been after Trump won the election. He wouldn't have been able to let go of grievances even then.

And, of course, he'd be wrongly seeking vengeance. Critics "raised doubts about Operation Warp Speed's timeline" because Trump regularly insisted that a vaccine would be available before the election. Critics knew it wouldn't happen, and it didn't.

This is who Trump is -- but 73 million people are fine with that. They're fine with a president who looks at the heartbreak of this pandemic and sees only opportunities for ego gratification and retribution against his enemies. They either tell themselves that he really has normal human emotions or they don't care that he doesn't.

Tuesday, November 17, 2020

IF BIDEN PARDONS TRUMP, IT WILL ACCOMPLISH NOTHING

Michael Conway, a Nixon-era counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, believes that Joe Biden should issue a presidential pardon to Donald Trump (something that Biden has pledged he won't do).
Trump would, of course, be one of the least deserving recipients of a federal pardon in history. His pardon could not be justified based on his innocence or his contrition because Trump is not contrite; to the contrary, he is currently endangering our democratic processes by relentlessly undermining the legitimacy of Biden’s election and thwarting a peaceful transition....

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t a few good reasons to consider it anyway.
Such as?
First and foremost, Trump’s acceptance of a pardon — under the 1915 Supreme Court opinion in Burdick v United States — is an admission that he was guilty of the crimes for which he has been pardoned. Pardoning him may be the only way that Trump even implicitly concedes he did anything wrong.
But Trump won't admit that. He'll pocket the pardon and insist he acknowledged nothing. Who are his followers going to believe? Every respectable reporter and constitutional scholar in America? Or Trump and a succession of hacks insisting on Fox, OANN, and Newsmax that Trump admitted nothing?

Or there might be the opposite reaction:



Or both! Trumpers don't have much use for consistency.

What else?
... a federal pardon wouldn’t eliminate all of Trump’s potential criminal exposure. The Supreme Court last year declined to overrule long-standing precedent which allows parallel state and federal prosecutions based upon the same facts.

So, a presidential pardon would not bar Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance from investigating and potentially prosecuting Trump and his company for crimes under state law....

Accepting a federal pardon — especially a pardon for crimes violating both federal and state laws — would be a double-edged sword for the president. And whatever the result of any state investigation or prosecution, it could not be laid at Biden’s doorstep. It would not be his appointees investigating the former president, his recent political adversary; it would not be his employees prosecuting him.
Do you think that will mollify Trump or his supporters? They already believe that all Democrats are part of a vast Deep State conspiracy. They'll say Biden should demand that Vance stand down. They'll argue that the pardon was just a ruse to keep Biden's fingerprints off the "phony witch hunt" (which you know is how they'll describe any state prosecution of Trump).
A Biden pardon of Trump, like [Gerald Ford's] pardoning of former President Richard Nixon 46 years ago, would be intended to heal the nation and foreclose the possibility of an ongoing cycle of retribution after political parties change control of the government.
But that possibility won't be foreclosed. It won't prevent any house of Congress run by Republicans from devoting itself to non-stop investigations of Hunter Biden and alleged 2020 electoral irregularities. And it won't prevent Trump from saying, "Biden did this because he knows I did nothing wrong. But I know he and his family are guilty of tremendous crimes, and I'll prosecute those crimes very strongly after I beat him in 2024."

Trump and his supporters will say that's precisely why the pardon was issued: because Biden is afraid of being prosecuted himself, or afraid his son will be prosecuted.

In any case, a pardon won't lead to healing. And it will infuriate millions of anti-Trump voters. So what's the point?

ON COVID, WHAT HARM MIGHT TRUMP DO IF HE EVER ACCEPTS THE ELECTION RESULTS?


The Washington Post reports:
President-elect Joe Biden on Monday ratcheted up pressure on the Trump administration to engage in a transition of power, mincing no words on the dire consequences if his incoming team faces further delays in working with federal agencies.

“More people may die if we don’t coordinate,” Biden said during a news conference in Wilmington, Del., following remarks on the economic impact of the coronavirus in which he warned of a “very dark winter” where “things are going to get much tougher before they get easier.” ...

Biden officials see their most crucial disadvantage as being unable to plan for the distribution of a coronavirus vaccine, which would need to be closely coordinated with current Trump administration officials and civil servants who work in important government departments such as Health and Human Services and Defense....

Ideally, while some work may be underway within the Trump administration to plan for the distribution of a vaccine, Biden officials would be clued in so that their transition to running the program would be seamless.
While the Trump administration's response to the pandemic has largely been a miserable failure -- by design -- the Trumpers have agreed to purchase vaccines, and appear to have some plans in the works for vaccine distribution. It's the least you'd expect an American president to do under these circumstances, but it's something.

However, if planning for vaccine distribution is taking place, it's only because the president wanted the glory of being in charge when the doses are made available. He wanted that glory before the election, of course. But he still wants distribution to happen while he's president.



If distribution planners are still working, I imagine it's because Trump hopes the first doses will be distributed between now and January 20 -- or because he still believes he can win the election, and the major wave of distribution will take place during his second term.

So if he really does accept the results of the election between now and the inaugural, I wouldn't put it past our mad king to dismantle the vaccine distribution team, the same way he disbanded a National Security Council pandemic unit in 2018. After all, if he can't get the glory, Biden certainly shouldn't. Right?

I'm not being facetious. I don't think there are limits to Trump's narcissism and envy, and I don't think he's capable of caring about the human suffering COVID-19 has caused. It's all about him. And if he knows it will no longer be about him, I wouldn't rule out this kind of vengeance.

Monday, November 16, 2020

REPAIR? REVENGE? I DON'T THINK WE'LL GET THE CHOICE.

In The Atlantic, Never Trumper Peter Wehner urges opponents of Donald Trump to be measured in our response to Trump's downfall.
Choose Repair, Not Revenge

Stop obsessing over Trump, and begin the hard work of rebuilding.


... My concern ... is that instead of psychologically moving on from Donald Trump, many of his critics won’t let go of him.... The end of his presidency has inspired feelings of joy and relief, as you would expect, but it may also perpetuate a cycle of retaliation and bitterness toward the president and those who enabled him.
What does Wehner mean by this? He assures us that he doesn't mean we should let Trump and his circle get away with crimes.
“It doesn't mean that you don’t want to hold people accountable for their actions or that you don’t want to seek justice,” William Mikulas, a professor of psychology at the University of West Florida, told ABC News. “With revenge, you are coming from an orientation of anger and violence or self-righteousness: ‘I want to get him, I want to hurt them ... I want to make them pay.’ You're coming from a place of violence and anger and that’s never good.”
So no exacting revenge, but it's okay if we hold Trumpers accountable? In reality, we probably won't be able to do either. Trump has pardoned or commuted the sentences of most of the members of his circle we tried to punish for actual crimes; he'll probably pardon the rest on the way out the door, quite possibly including himself. Trump and most associates who still face possible legal accountability will probably weasel their way out of trouble, the way Trump has his entire life. Wehner thinks justice is okay? Too bad we probably won't be able to get it.

Wehner writes:
There are people who have suffered real, tangible harm from Trump over the past four years that far exceeds what I and most others have experienced—parents and children who have been separated, victims of his cruel conspiracies, individuals whose careers were destroyed by Trump, people of color who have been the targets of empowered white supremacists, people with disabilities who were mocked by him, women who have accused him of sexual assault only to be derided by him, and those whose loved ones have died, or died alone, because of the president’s epic mishandling of the pandemic. To ask them to move on from Trump is asking far more than it’s asking of me, and it may well be asking too much. I know enough about the science of trauma to know that moving on from it before processing it can be unwise.
There you go. How many of these people are likely to find justice in a post-Trump era? We'll be lucky if a handful do. How can we even think about revenge when it's going to be such hard work obtaining simple justice for a few Trump victims?

I'm struggling to understand what kind of revenge Wehner imagines. He alludes to violence, but surely he knows that people who read The Atlantic aren't likely to try to blow up Trump's golf cart or stone Rudy Giuliani. So what does Wehner fear?

Well, Wehner is a cultural elitist, someone who travels in the best circles and writes for the most high-minded periodicals. I think, as a man who spent much of his life working at the highest levels of the Republican Party, he's afraid his readers will take professional revenge on people of his caste who chose to work in the Trump administration. Heaven forbid we should hold them accountable for their life choices! That would be corrosive to our souls -- and to their careers!

*****

Wehner also seems to believe that we'll remain fixated on Trump.
... obsessing over Trump, even as he burns out like a dying star, is emotionally unhealthy. It is the political equivalent of mice pressing a lever to receive a dopamine rush, which leads to addiction. If over the past four years your days began and ended focusing on the latest Trump outrage, you may find the habit hard to break. For many cable-news hosts and commentators, Joe Biden—the president-elect, a calming influence, restrained and dignified—is almost an afterthought.

“My entire personality is hating Donald Trump,” Melissa VillaseƱor’s character puts it in a Saturday Night Live political ad parody, “Trump Addicts for America.” “If he’s gone, what am I supposed to do? Focus on my kids again? No thanks.” (“You know he’s bad for you,” the ad concludes. “But it’s hard to imagine life without him.”)
Wehner isn't the only person who thinks we'll continue to crave a Trump fix. So does Politico's Jack Shafer.



When Shafer posted this, I conducted a Twitter poll. I admit it was unscientific, but here are the results:



Ellis Weiner wrote:



I don't think we'll get the chance to miss Trump. We know he doesn't intend to go away. The media loves covering him, and the media also loves portraying Democratic presidents as weak and ineffectual, comparing them unfavorably to aggressive Republican loudmouths who are deemed the voice of the Real America (Newt Gingrich in the Clinton years, the Tea Party in the Obama years). It would be nice if Trump decided to leave politics behind and devote his life to golf and TV; assuming he continues to hold rallies and write politcal attack tweets, it would be nice if the press just ignored them. I'd ignore be delighted to them too. I think we all would. We want him to slip into irrelevance, like Sarah Palin.

But he won't, will he? The press won't let him. The GOP will recognize him as the party's best base motivator. We'll never be rid of him. Under those circumstances, I reserve the right to continue hating him.

COLLEGE-EDUCATED LIBERALS SUCK, SAYS COLLEGE-EDUCATED LIBERAL

Will Bunch, the progressive Philadelphia Inquirer columnist, is concerned.
Yes, Democrat Joe Biden is America’s president-elect, and for that we can thank his surging support in the suburbs.... But now that it’s nearly two weeks since Election Day, and a blurry, complicated mosaic is slowly coming into focus, it’s clear that the bigger, long-term picture ought to alarm Democrats.

... what if Republicans became the nation’s blue-collar party, period — and broadened its appeal to millions of middle-class Hispanics and Blacks? The 2020 results not only showed the conservative party making inroads toward exactly that, but raised a giant question mark: Would a Trump-y candidate who’d actually delivered tangible things to the working class, and who wasn’t so racially offensive, have won the White House?
The villains in Bunch's piece are history's greatest monsters, well-educated liberals, whom Bunch portrays pretty much the way they're portrayed on Fox News.
The current zeitgeist was nailed in a cover piece for Politico Magazine by Tim Alberta that looked at how the preelection polls failed to capture a deeper working-class resentment toward the Democratic Party, as experienced by a centrist Democrat who barely survived her race, Michigan Rep. Elissa Slotkin. He wrote: “At the root of our polarization, Slotkin argued, is one half of the country believing it is enlightened and the other half resenting it.” Alberta asked if the Democrats could “embrace a ‘different era,’ one that demands rapid and unremitting evolution on all things cultural, without condescending to those who are slow to come around?”

... academics [are] the vanguard of the college-educated culture club that also includes Hollywood and “the knowledge economy” of media figures and Silicon Valley which is, of course, the focus of the resentment that has driven a populist revolution in this country.
That last sentence could have come straight out of a Tucker Carlson monologue.

What do those of us in "the college-educated culture club" do that's so awful? How do we torment the working class? We use ... neologisms! (No, please -- not the neologisms!)
Is the political conundrum of the moment summed up in one word — “Latinx,” which was popularized in academic circles and also the LGBTQ community in recent years as a solution to a seeming problem of how to describe the hundreds of millions of people with roots in Central or South America with a word that’s gender-neutral and not colonial-sounding? Today, “Latinx” is widely used by white progressives even though it’s an utter bafflement to culturally conservative brown folks in places like Texas or South Florida the term is supposed to describe. Writer Hector Luis Alamo dismissively told Mother Jones that “Latinx” is “an academic word, and that group always thinks it knows what’s best for the rest of us."
(This is a bizarre complaint, given the fact that Bunch uses a different alternate synonym for "Hispanic" -- "Latine," with an e -- throughout his essay.)

Bunch is right to say that despite a popular-vote lead that will probably approach six million when the slow counts in New York, Maryland, and New Jersey are completed, Joe Biden could have lost the Electoral College if a small percentage of the vote -- tens of thousands of votes -- had flipped in key states. (This is also true of Trump in 2016, of course.) Bunch writes:
... even with the pandemic, I believe [Trump] could have won those votes and the 2020 election if his narcissism and incompetence hadn’t blocked him from a) stirring up resentment of “egghead” elites in ways that were less openly racist and b) governed as a true populist instead of a garden-variety pro-billionaire Republican.

... What if the president had been smart enough to engineer a second stimulus, just ahead of the election, or embraced other populist items like a living wage or a massive infrastructure program? And how much better would Trump had done with the Hispanic voters who were receptive to the GOP’s social conservatism and free-market economics if he hadn’t, for example, dismissively tossed paper towels at Puerto Ricans instead of offering real relief from Hurricane Maria?
Where do I start? First, you can't just award Trump's vote gains among the non-white working class (and among the white working class) to the GOP in perpetuity and simply assume that the next Trump will have more political savvy. Trump's know-nothingism and unwillingness to compromise with his enemies were the whole point, even for non-white Trumpers. What they love is how he fights people. If he'd compromised with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and embraced economically liberal programs, he wouldn't have been the Trump they adored. They voted for the style, not the policies. (He'd also have lost the support of the GOP establishment.)

Bunch believes that President Biden needs to embrace economic populism, and quickly.
If Biden’s first actions as president were to raise the minimum wage and lower the cost of insulin, that could go a long way toward stopping defections among the Black and brown middle class and even win back some rural whites — not a majority of them, at first, but enough to matter in our current 51-49 election mode. That won’t be easy — and if Republicans win those two contested Senate runoffs in Georgia, it may be impossible — but it’s also arguably the lowest hanging fruit.
I'm not optimistic about the Georgia runoffs, so I assume Biden won't get to do these things. I hope I'm wrong about Georgia, and I agree that Biden should make these items top priorities. (I'm sure he agrees.)

But even if he can get them done, it won't blunt the appeal of a chest-thumping Republican populist. I'm reminded of this story from the spring of 2016:
Obama Gets Scant Credit in Indiana Region Where Recovery Was Robust

ELKHART, Ind. — Seven years ago President Obama came to this northern Indiana city, where unemployment was heading past 20 percent, for his first trip as president. Ed Neufeldt, the jobless man picked to introduce him, afterward donned three green rubber bracelets, each to be removed in turn as joblessness fell to 5 percent in the county, the state and the nation.

It took years — in 2012, Mr. Neufeldt lamented to a local reporter that he might wear his wristbands “to my casket” — but by last year they had all come off. Elkhart’s unemployment rate, at 3.8 percent, is among the country’s lowest, so low that employers here in the self-described R.V. capital of the world are advertising elsewhere for workers, offering sign-up bonuses, even hiring from a local homeless shelter.

... Yet where is Mr. Neufeldt leaning in this presidential election year? He may keep a photograph of himself and Mr. Obama on a desk at the medical office he cleans nightly, but he is considering Donald J. Trump.

“I like the way he just won’t take nothing off of nobody,” Mr. Neufeldt said....
See? It's all about style. Obama won a few white working-class voters, but they love a Republican who postures as a tough guy, and the more ignorant, boorish, and obnoxious Trump became, the more they liked him.

Assuming Trump doesn't win the 2024 nomination (though he really might), the next Republican presidential candidate will try to replicate what Trump did this year -- and will probably fail. No one stirs up resentment the way Trump does (because it's visceral for him, whereas most of the others are just faking it). Anyone tacking on policy ideas that Democrats could embrace will lose some of the support Trump consolidated, because being at war all the time is what they liked about him. And let's acknowledge reality: Trump is repellent to us, but he has an extraordinary charisma that half the country finds captivating. No one else in the Republican Party -- not Don Junior, not Tucker Carlson, and certainly not Cotton or Crenshaw or Haley or Hawley -- comes close. Trump can't be replicated.

And yet he lost.

Bunch writes:
... history may look back on 2016 not as a fluke but as a realignment election, in line with the long-term impact of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition in 1932 or the rise of Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy in 1968.
But FDR won in a landslide. And while Nixon barely beat Hubert Humphrey in the popular vote, his voters plus George Wallace's voters combined for 57% of the vote. That combination went on to become the GOP coalition.

Trump won nothing like these margins. He lost the popular vote by 2% in 2016 and by 4% this time. His successor will take advantage of the structural advantage Republicans have in the Electoral College, while also taking advantage of the GOP's vastly superior national messaging.

But Trump's successor won't be Trump. Unless he runs again, Republicans will struggle to replicate his appeal.

Sunday, November 15, 2020

AN ELEVENTH-HOUR PARDON FROM PENCE?


This is an easy one:



I find it remarkable that people think Trump would resign before his term is up. Resigning, even as part of a deal in his last hours as president, would be an act of weakness in Trump's eyes. For Trump weakness is the worst of all possible sins.

I've argued that Trump has had a tremendous run of luck throughout his life. I think it's possible that he'll choose to roll the dice and take his chances in upcoming court cases.

But if he doesn't, he'll pardon himself on the way out the door. He'd do that even if he weren't averse to the idea of resigning and being pardoned by Pence, for one simple reason:

A pardon from Pence would raise few legal questions. A self-pardon would raise many more. Scholars generally believe a president can't pardon himself.

Which is why he'll do it -- because it will enrage people who believe in the rule of law. Trump loves doing things that infuriate people who respect rules and norms.

And he might not do it with hours to go. He might do it a week or two in advance, so he can savor the outrage. (And also so he can give William Barr's Justice Department time to declare him perfectly within his rights to do it.)

Oh yeah, he'll enjoy this. Of the two possibilities mentioned above, it's definitely the one he'll choose.

NO, TRUMP DID NOT CONCEDE ON TWITTER THIS MORNING

Some people are treating this as an acknowledgment by the president that he lost the election:



A campaign spokesman even issued a clarification to an NPR reporter:



As did Trump himself:



But he did ackowledge that Biden won -- right?

Yes, but only in the same way that he acknowledged John McCain's status as a war hero back in 2015:



"He's not a war hero. He's a war hero -- he's a war hero 'cause he was captured. I like people that weren't captured, okay?"


In both cases it's the same syntax, and in both cases Trump is merely describing what other people say -- and arguing that what they say is wrong, because anything that makes Trump look bad is objectively wrong, according to Trump.

Trump did not concede. Trump will never concede. Even after all the legal cases are resolved, the recounts are finished in Georgia and Wisconsin, the results are certified by the states, the electoral votes are cast, and Biden is inaugurated, Trump won't concede. On his deathbed, he'll still say he won this election. His delicate ego can't handle the truth.

Saturday, November 14, 2020

I WISH AMANDA MARCOTTE WERE RIGHT, BUT THE RISE OF NEGATIVE PARTISANSHIP TELLS ME SHE ISN'T

At Salon, Amanda Marcotte assures us that Trumpist movements will struggle in the post-Trump era:
... the election results have sent these groups reeling. All of them have spent the past four years growing their ranks and orbiting around Trump, convinced that he was a savior figure who would crush their perceived enemies.

For believers in QAnon, that belief manifested in a fantasy that Trump was going to round up all the members of the "deep state," their imaginary shadowy conspiracy of Democrats, Hollywood celebrities and progressive activists that they believe both secretly runs the world and is also a network of Satan-worshipping cannibal pedophiles. Trump, they told themselves, was secretly organizing "the storm" to round up and destroy this sinister global conspiracy.

But since Trump's election, Q — a user account that started on 8chan and drifted over to 8kun after 8chan was disbanded — has fallen silent.
It fell silent for a while. But Ben Collins of NBC News now reports that one of the principal conspiracy theories fueling Trumpist anger over the election -- the belief that election software made by Dominion Voting Systems generated fake votes for Joe Biden -- originated with QAnon.
o reports of this movement's death are exaggerated.
Marcotte writes:
Q believers haven't given up the faith yet, of course. But without guidance from its leader, the QAnon community is adrift and very likely to fracture into competing and antagonistic splinter sects, as is common in these kinds of communities.
But why would that necessarily happen? In America today, and for years before the rise of Trump, the glue keeping right-wingers together has been negative partisanship. They're united by how much they hate Democrats. And now a Democrat will be in the White House. He'll be the one overseeing the rollout of a coronavirus vaccine (QAnon now overlaps quite a bit with the anti-vaccine movement). His victory has been praised by celebrities. So Q's enemies are still in place and gaining power and influence. Why would the movement's members fight one another when they still have us to fight?

Marcotte takes comfort in a schism between two factions of the Proud Boys. I'm glad that's happening. But despite the alarm I expressed in my last post, the violent factions of the Trump coalition have been less of a problem than the plain old Republicans -- and new voters -- who hate us and vote to destroy us.

It's true that there weren't enough of them in 2018 when Trump wasn't on the ballot. But that energy won't disappear altogether just because Trump is no longer in office. It's likely to attach itself to another figure. (Marjorie Taylor Greene? Donald Trump Jr.?) And if no new figurehead is as satisfyingly heroic as the movement's original demigod, hatred of us will still unite them.

And speaking of hatred, did I mention Bill Gates? The crazies still think he wants to use a COVID vaccine to microchip us. He'll be in the news as vaccines emerge next year, and for good measure, he has a book on climate change coming out in February.

The Q folks will find plenty of reasons to keep on hating once Trump is gone.

Friday, November 13, 2020

IF TRUMP IS PUT ON TRIAL, THINGS COULD GET UGLY

Michelle Goldberg looks forward to the post-presidential decline and fall of Donald Trump:
Andrew Weissmann, [Robert] Mueller’s former deputy, told me he expects Trump to pardon himself for any federal crimes he might have committed....

But he might face state charges that he can’t pardon his way out of. The New York State attorney general, Letitia James, has a civil investigation into possible financial chicanery by the Trump Organization. Trump is under criminal investigation by Manhattan’s district attorney, Cyrus Vance. While the scope of the inquiry is unknown, his office’s filings suggest Vance could be looking at tax fraud, insurance fraud and falsification of business records.

The “Manhattan D.A.’s office is a really good office, and they’ve done a lot of white-collar cases,” said Weissmann. “If they were to prove — this is now hypothetical — but if they were to prove tens of millions of dollars in tax fraud or bank fraud, people go to jail for that.”
I'm reading this just as I'm reading a Washingtonian item about the upcoming Trumpapalooza in D.C.:
People Are Flying Into DC for the Million MAGA March

... Washington has been on edge over reports of the “Stop the Steal” caravans expected to arrive by tonight. But the protesters apparently aren’t only coming via the highway. People on right-wing Twitter are posting selfies showing their flights from across the country to make it to the event....

We’ll have to see how many people show up tomorrow; DC officials are preparing for hordes (see this map of street closures). Our advice: Stay away from downtown. Experts say these events could turn violent.
It all has me thinking back to a moment in early 2010:
The Obama administration on Friday gave up on its plan to try the Sept. 11 plotters in Lower Manhattan, bowing to almost unanimous pressure from New York officials and business leaders to move the terrorism trial elsewhere....

... resistance had been gathering steam.

After a dinner in New York on Dec. 14, Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York, pulled aside David Axelrod, President Obama’s closest adviser, to convey an urgent plea: move the 9/11 trial out of Manhattan.

More recently, in a series of presentations to business leaders, local elected officials and community representatives of Chinatown, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly laid out his plan for securing the trial: blanketing a swath of Lower Manhattan with police checkpoints, vehicle searches, rooftop snipers and canine patrols.

“They were not received well,” said one city official.

And on Tuesday, in a meeting [Mayor Mike] Bloomberg had with at least two dozen federal judges on the eighth floor of their Manhattan courthouse, one judge raised the question of security. The mayor, according to several people present, said he was sure the courthouse could be made safe, but that it would be costly and difficult.
I thought this was outrageous at the time -- we should have been able to show that we could try these people in U.S. courts, as a demonstration that the Bush's administration's approach to them was preposterous -- but I acknowledge that securing the area would have been difficult.

I think a trial of Donald Trump in Manhattan -- or anywhere in America -- could pose similar security risks. I'm not sure there's as much reason to fear MAGA Nation if Trump is put on trial as there was to fear Al Qaeda sympathizers a decade ago, but I couldn't really guess at the relative risk.

I think opponents of stateside 9/11 trials overestimated the possiblility of violence. But I think we underestimate the risk of a Trump trial. There'll certainly be Trumpers in the streets. And there might be worse trouble than that.

So try him -- and convict him -- but be vigilant.

MAYBE WE GAVE THE WAY WE DID BECAUSE WE WERE READING YOUR PAPER

Insulting its readers would seem to be an odd business strategy for a news organization, but here's The New York Times doing just that in a smug article about the political giving patterns of liberal New Yorkers.
On Saturday afternoon, as the champagne virtually uncorked itself in New York City in celebration of what looked like the end of Trumpism, an alternate history was unfolding in the southern stretches of Brooklyn. A Republican named Mark Szuszkiewicz was leading in a race against an incumbent for a State Assembly seat in and around Coney Island that had been held by a Democrat for decades.

The current representative, a Haitian-American named Mathylde Frontus, had run a social-services agency she founded, fighting for the poor and disabled. Mr. Szuszkiewicz ... seemed to be a QAnon follower....

Presented with a contest between an incumbent holding four graduate degrees — including a doctorate from Columbia — and a candidate sympathetic to a fantasy alleging world domination by a chain of Satanist pedophiles extending from Georgetown to Santa Monica, you would think that New Yorkers beyond the district might have opened their checkbooks in the name of proven competence and clarity.

But their attention was focused elsewhere. They were long into a delirious bender pouring piles of money into high-profile Senate races around the country, some of them predictably unwinnable.
So who were the candidates these frivolous well-off New Yorkers were supporting when they could have been supporting Frontus?
... three ZIP codes on the Upper West Side sent more than $1.5 million in single, itemized donations to the doomed Democratic Senate campaigns of Amy McGrath in Kentucky, who was a long shot to defeat Mitch McConnell, and Jaime Harrison, who was unlikely to overtake Lindsey Graham in South Carolina....

Ads for Sara Gideon, who challenged the Republican incumbent Susan Collins for a Senate seat in Maine and lost, ran on television, Facebook, streaming services, everywhere. She managed to raise more than $100,000 from a single nine-block radius on the east side of Midtown.
I'm from the Upper West Side, and I gave to Gideon and Harrison. I never gave to McGrath -- I would have been delighted to see her win, but a defeat of Mitch McConnell never seemed likely. And no, I never gave to Mathylde Frontus.

Why did I give to candidates who were destined to fail? Maybe because media outlets -- particularly The New York Times -- told me they could win.

A New York Times/Siena poll of the Maine Senate race released September 18 showed Gideon beating Collins by 5 points. (I shouldn't single that poll out. Every poll of this race listed at Real Clear Politics showed Gideon leading.)

Here's how the Times portrayed the race in July:
... the senior senator from Maine ... stares down the toughest re-election race of her career — and one that could determine whether Republicans retain control of the Senate in November. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report has rated the race a tossup, and with President Trump’s decline in national polls dragging down Senate Republicans around the country, Ms. Collins, 67, is facing ample headwinds.

She is toiling to find a way to defy those trends....
What naive liberal fools we must have been to think this was a race worth a donation!

Jaime Harrison probably never had a shot in South Carolina, but you wouldn't know that from reading the Times. In mid-October, the Times told us:
Could South Carolina really send a Democrat to the U.S. Senate? If Jaime Harrison beats the Republican incumbent, Lindsey Graham, in November, he’d be the first Democratic challenger to win a Senate seat in the state since the 1960s.

But polls in recent weeks have shown Harrison neck-and-neck with Graham, and yesterday his campaign made a jaw-dropping announcement: It raised upward of $57 million in the third quarter of this year, breaking the record previously set by Beto O’Rourke in Texas.

Actually, not breaking. Smashing. Harrison’s haul exceeded O’Rourke’s previous quarterly record — set amid his unsuccessful 2018 campaign to oust Senator Ted Cruz — by nearly $20 million.
The giving for which we're now being chided by the Times was seen by the paper a month ago as the reason Harrison could succeed.

Now, what we did learn about the Frontus-Szuszkiewicz race from the Times? Nothing. A search of the candidates' names shows that neither Frontus nor Szuszkiewicz was ever mentioned in the paper during the campaign.

Republicans gave millions of dollars to their share of sure losers -- the racist crackpot Laura Loomer and the Trump-endorsed Ana Paulina Luna both outraised their opponents, and lost their Florida congressional races decisively.

And then there's Trump himself. Why the hell did so many people give him money? Over two years he raised $1.6 billion. Wasn't that "a delirious bender pouring piles of money" into a race that was "predictably unwinnable"?

Thursday, November 12, 2020

MAYBE I'M NAIVE, BUT I DON'T THINK TRUMP IS DOING THIS SO HE CAN CUT A DEAL

People who regard themselves as savvy believe that the president is continuing his futile efforts to contest the election because he's hoping he can cut a deal to avoid lawsuits and/or criminal prosecution in exchange for an orderly departure from the White House.

I'm inclined not to believe that because Donald Trump always thinks good fortune is on his side -- and really, why shouldn't he? He's an inept businessman who's lived like a billionaire his entire adult life. He consorts with criminals, but he's never been convicted of anything. He's a political ignoramus who was elected president of the United States and came fairly close to being reelected after being impeached. He's an obese septuagenarian who was hospitalized with COVID-19 and seems to have bounced right back, with no aftereffects. If he likes his odds in the courtroom -- or in several courtrooms -- do you blame him?

Also, every report on his mood that I've read since the elections portrays a guy who's taking this very, very personally. It seems to me that he's much more concerned about being seen as a loser than he is about going to jail. Here's a CNN story:
How much longer President Donald Trump continues waging battle over an election he lost remained in question Thursday as more of his advisers voiced doubt his gambit to contest the results would succeed. One person who spoke to him called him "dejected" over the ordeal.

Trump himself was waffling by the hour and day between a pugilistic desire to keep fighting and a more resigned attitude that his efforts will ultimately fail, people who spoke to him said.

... surveyed by CNN, nearly everyone close to Trump said they believed it was only a matter of time before he finds some way to acknowledge he will not be president come January 20 -- and said he was likely to pin blame on his baseless claims of a rigged election.
Of course, he doesn't think the claims of rigging are baseless. He's the president of the United States, but he's also a typical elderly white male Fox viewer, so he believes every half-baked story he hears about evil Democrats. According to an earlier Washington Post story, White House aides say Trump went into this fight with "no real plan to overturn results." Of course not. Trump simply believed that Democratic voter fraud would be as self-evident to judges as it is to regular Fox viewers. He didn't need to marshal any evidence because the evil would be obvious.

What the CNN report tells is pathetically sad, or would be if it didn't involve the most repulsive person in America:
... staffers feel obliged to continue their work and even celebrate Trump's perceived victory while the President largely discontinues his own official tasks.

As Trump was in the White House residence last week, watching his path to a second term slip from grasp, his staffers were holding a premature celebration next door....

The ill-timed celebration was another reminder of how the Trump administration is operating as if a second term is in the offing, even as many officials say they are just waiting on the President to publicly accept reality. Budgets are being drawn and staff told to stay put, even though nearly everyone knows the gig will end eventually.
This isn't happening because Trump has a realistic understanding of the situation and is hoping to finagle a deal. It's happening because he's a tyrant with the emotional maturity of a toddler, and he needs to be mollified.
For Trump, the days since the election have been a dark stretch. While aides say he has thrown relatively few angry fits -- most people in the building were fully expecting them -- he has seemed downcast....

The President went for three days without leaving the building before making the trip to his golf course in Virginia on Saturday....

In the days since, Trump has spent ample time in front of the TV watching coverage of Biden's transition, including his public remarks describing Trump's reluctance to concede an "embarrassment." He was thrilled when he saw Secretary of State Mike Pompeo mention a "smooth transition to a second Trump administration" during a news conference on Tuesday, one person who spoke to him said.

But he has been dismayed to see foreign leaders, including those he considered friends such as British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, move swiftly toward congratulating Biden.

He has spent much of his days on the phone, describing his strong view the election had been stolen from him and his disbelief at losing to Biden. But throughout his conversations this week, Trump has appeared cognizant that his legal efforts aren't likely to reverse the results of the contest and that he will depart the White House in January.
What we're not being told is that Trump is consulting with lawyers about his likely legal troubles. He doesn't seem to be doing that. He just seems to be whining about how he got robbed and hoping someone will tell him what he wants to hear.

And we're told in this story and others that Trump seems serious about running in 2024.
Several ... people, who spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity, said they expected Trump to tease a 2024 run when he does finally acknowledge the results. Those sources expect Trump to dismiss the 2020 race as fraudulent and while hinting that he's running again in four years.
If he's planning to run again, he obviously doesn't believe he's going to jail or the poorhouse.

In other words, he's Donald Trump, the world's most insecure egomaniac. He's exactly who we thought he was. He may be, as everyone says, "transactional," but the salient point right now is that he's pouty and butthurt. He has to get past that before he starts thinking about deals.

FOX (ALAS) WILL SURVIVE


We may be seeing the beginning of the end of this crisis. On the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove writes:
There are only three statewide contests in the past half-century in which recounts changed the outcome: the 1974 New Hampshire Senate race, the 2004 Washington governor’s contest, and the 2008 Minnesota Senate election. The candidates in these races were separated, respectively, by 355, 261 and 215 votes after Election Day.

These margins aren’t much like today’s. Mr. Biden led Wednesday in Wisconsin by 20,540 votes, Pennsylvania by 49,064, Michigan by 146,123, Arizona by 12,614, Nevada by 36,870 and Georgia by 14,108.

To win, Mr. Trump must prove systemic fraud, with illegal votes in the tens of thousands. There is no evidence of that so far....

Closing out this election will be a hard but necessary step toward restoring some unity and political equilibrium. Once his days in court are over, the president should do his part to unite the country by leading a peaceful transition and letting grievances go.
It's bizarre that Rupert Murdoch seems to be the most prominent figure on the right trying to end this crisis -- but he assumes Joe Biden can't be denied the presidency and he's trying to make a good first impression, hoping to keep the tax and regulatory burdens on his businesses light during the Biden years.

The fans aren't taking it well. I spotted these items in a Free Republic thread:



We're hearing again that Trump wants to challenge Fox. This is from Axios's Mike Allen:
President Trump has told friends he wants to start a digital media company to clobber Fox News and undermine the conservative-friendly network, sources tell Axios....

There's been lots of speculation about Trump starting a cable channel. But getting carried on cable systems would be expensive and time-consuming.

Instead, Trump is considering a digital media channel that would stream online, which would be cheaper and quicker to start.

Trump's digital offering would likely charge a monthly fee to MAGA fans....

Axios is told told Trump may use vote-count rallies to undercut Fox.

"He's going to spend a lot of time slamming Fox," the source said.
So Trump will barnstorm the country claiming he was really elected president, but he's also promoting a new venture he'll start only if he isn't president anymore. Baby steps, I guess, toward acceptance of reality.

I think many of Trump's people will sign up for this, but I question whether Trump is capable of putting a media operation together that isn't shoddily amateurish. There was talk in 2016 that Roger Ailes, recently ousted from Fox, might run a Trump TV channel after what was expected to be an inevitable Trump loss to Hillary Clinton. But Ailes isn't around anymore.

At least one alternative to Fox is doing better these days:
Over the summer, [Newsmax TV] was averaging about 25,000 viewers at any given time -- a tiny number by any TV news standard. As the election was approaching, the audience ticked up, but it was still just a fly on the Fox elephant's back. In the final week of October, Newsmax was averaging just 65,000 viewers at any given time.

Then came the election. Newsmax averaged 182,000 viewers during the election week that ended on Sunday. And it is growing even more this week. On Monday the channel averaged 347,000 viewers. On Tuesday, 437,000 viewers. Evening shows like "Spicer & Co" and "Greg Kelly Reports" are reaching 700,000 and 800,000 viewers. These shows struggled to hit 100,000 before the election!
Fox will survive. Fox is being relatively nice to Biden now -- but as soon as he's president, Fox will start unloading on him and never let up. Fox won't seem traitorous to the MAGA crowd for much longer. The audience will come back. And meanwhile, Trump might be mired in the details of trying to start up a media empire without any of the skills he'd need to get the job done.

Well, at least we can hope it keeps him out of trouble.

Wednesday, November 11, 2020

THE SYSTEM MIGHT NOT WORK

This NBC story suggests what I think is the best we can expect from the president:
There is a growing expectation among President Donald Trump’s advisers that he will never concede that he lost re-election, even after votes are certified in battleground states over the coming weeks, according to multiple people familiar with the president’s thinking.

“Do not expect him to concede,” one top aide said. More likely, the aide said, “he’ll say something like, ‘We can’t trust the results, but I’m not contesting them.’”

Another adviser said that after the legal battles and recounts, the closest the president is likely to get to a concession is, “he’ll acknowledge the results and that we’ll never know how accurate they are.”

“But we’re not there yet,” the adviser said.
How did I imagine Trump's acknowledgment of defeat might go a few days ago?
"The courts have spoken, and while I reject the corrupt process that led them to conclude that Joe Biden won this election, which I actually won by a lot, I will nevertheless agree to leave the White House as requested on January 20. But this is not over. I will never abandon the fight against the corrupt swamp creatures whose traitorous acts led to this outcome. It may take some time, but I will destroy them."
It appears that's more or less what he's going to say -- if he ever reaches that point at all. I'm still not convinced it will happen.

Charlie Pierce is right:
... the current effort by virtually the entire upper echelons of the Republican Party to question the results of the election may have begun as an attempt to mollify the president* and keep him from lighting the Oval Office on fire.... It might also be true that the Republicans don't want to toss the president* overboard before the double-runoff in Georgia. However, things can take on a life on their own. If you push something like this long enough, it begins to roll downhill of its own momentum. Sooner or later, all things seem possible, or at least worthy of further exploration. This president*'s run through the Republican nominating process in 2016 is proof enough of that.
My biggest concern is that the Trump electorate -- which we now know is larger than even Republicans imagined it was -- is dug in, and probably will never believe the election was legitimate.
Polling from the Economist and YouGov looked directly at the extent to which Trump voters accepted his false assertions. Asked whether they thought that president-elect Joe Biden had legitimately won, about 6 in 10 respondents said he had. Among those who voted for Trump, 86 percent said he hadn’t. Asked whether Trump should concede, the numbers were similar: 8 in 10 Trump voters said he shouldn’t....

More than three-quarters of Trump voters think that there was enough fraud involved to have influenced the outcome.
Yesterday I had some fun imagining that Republican officials and judges who reject Trump's claims and certify state victories by Joe Biden could face recriminations from Trump voters in future elections. But think about another way: They may keep this delusion alive because they'd rather destroy democracy in America than put their own careers at risk.

I can also imagine Biden being inaugurated while Republicans simply refuse to acknowledge that the presidency has changed hands -- they'll never refer to Biden as president, they'll boycott his inaugural and his State of the Union address, they'll claim that any executive order bearing his signature has no basis in law because he's illegitimate, and they won't give a hearing to any of his appointees.

Even if nothing like that happens in Washington, I think something similar will happen in deep red states -- Biden's authority simply won't be acknowledged. nothing he does will be treated as having force of law.

And it will certainly happen among the populace. At minimum, I guarantee that the presidential portrait in the majority of rural post offices in America will still be Trump's a year from now.

I don't know how far this will go. I don't think we should be sanguine. The system might not work.

*****

AS I WAS SAYING:

DID TRUMP JUST GET ANOTHER NUDGE FROM RUPERT MURDOCH?

Yesterday, Page Six at the New York Post reported this:
Donald Trump could land $100M book deal for presidential tome

With Barack Obama’s latest book hitting shelves Nov. 17, there’s buzz in politics — and publishing — that President Trump is being courted for a new tome on his time in the White House.

... One source familiar with the President told Page Six on Tuesday: “Trump is being bombarded with book and TV deals that could be worth a staggering $100 million.”

Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama inked a reported $65 million deal with Crown in 2017.

The source said Trump was also simultaneously being courted by far-right TV outlets, and, “book and TV deals are plan-B if he doesn’t win the vote war. Translate 70 million votes into viewers and record book sales. All the anti-Trump books have made big bucks, so this from the Donald is a surefire hit.”
I think this story, with its claim that Trump can get a better book deal than the hated Obamas, is part of Rupert Murdoch's effort to try to nudge Trump out the door. Murdoch is reportedly fed up with Trump, and he's ready for a Biden presidency, in which Fox News should do just fine as the media voice of the opposition. We know that Trump pays attention to the New York Post, or at least to items about himself that appear there -- it's one of the newspapers that's been delivered to the Trump White House every day.

I don't believe the $100 million figure. The $65 million deal for the Obamas' books was regarded as excessive within the publishing industry at the time, although Crown, a division of Penguin Random House, seems to have been vinidicated: Michelle Obama's memoir, Becoming, has been a massive global success, selling more than 10 million copies in 31 countries, and the first volume of Barack Obama's memoir, which will be released next week, is currently #1 at Amazon.

The Obamas appeared to be worth the money in part because Penguin Random House acquired global rights to the books, which meant the company had the right to either publish the books itself overseas or sell rights to the books. The Obamas are massively popular around the world. Donald Trump is ... not.

It's also likely that Trump would have fewer publishers bidding for his book. In a recent Politico Magazine story, Garrett Graff wrote:
The insiders I spoke to all squirmed at the possibility of their own houses tackling a Trump memoir. “There’d be walkouts, protests galore,” one editor said, pointing to the controversy earlier this year when publishing giant Hachette announced it would publish a memoir from Woody Allen. It backed down after widespread criticism and a staff revolt.

“I think a lot of publishers would stay away from it,” said one senior editor. “You wouldn’t have 10 publishers bidding—you’d have two and at that point, they can pay whatever they want,” says another.
I think a Trump memoir would sell well, at least in America and a few authoritarian countries. Trump's fans love him. Bulk buys won't be necessary to get the book to the top of the bestseller list, at least briefly.

But he's not the Obamas. He won't get $100 million. I think the Post's anonymous, possibly nonexistent source is wrong.

But if this fib helps get Trump out of the White House, I'm all for it.

Tuesday, November 10, 2020

ASSUMING TRUMP EVER LEAVES, COULD A REPUBLICAN CRACK-UP FOLLOW?

It's getting scary out there. The White House budget office is ordering federal agencies to prepare a Trump budget for next year as if he'll still be president. The White House is vetting possible appointees for this nonexistent second term. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said today that “there will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.” Joe Biden isn't getting the intelligence reports he's entitled to as president-elect. Melania Trump is refusing to meet with Jill Biden. (Just imagine if Michelle Obama had snubbed Melania in 2016.)

But if this ultimately ends with Biden sworn in on schedule and Trump escorted out the door, I think there's at least a possibility of a Republican crack-up. Consider what's going on in Georgia:
This was supposed to be the week that Republicans united behind U.S. Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue for a pair of Jan. 5 runoffs that could decide control of the Senate.

Instead, the two senators leveled unfounded claims of a disastrous “embarrassment” of an election at fellow Republicans who oversaw last week’s vote - and called for the resignation of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger....

We’re told the president and his top allies pressured the two Republican senators to take this step, lest he tweet a negative word about them and risk divorcing them from his base ahead of the consequential runoff.

And shortly after, Trump and some of his inner circle started tweeting attacks at Raffensperger....

The intraparty war included Gov. Brian Kemp, who echoed the two senators' criticism of Raffensperger but didn’t go as far as supporting his ouster. Georgia GOP chair David Shafer, who has recently staged “Stop the Steal” rallies as Biden’s lead in Georgia has grown, joined in.

Along with election officials, Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan was on the other side of the dividing line. He took to CNN in the morning - before the senators' statement - saying there was no evidence of any systemic wrongdoing. He has been lit up by Trump supporters for speaking the truth.
Eventually -- we hope -- the Trump end-timers will lose. Biden will get the electoral votes that are coming to him and will become the next president.

Assuming that happens, the Republican crazies -- who seem to be the majority of the party -- will take out their wrath on everyone who "allowed" Biden to win an election in which he got the most votes and the most electoral votes.

Everyone who said the election was legitimate will risk never being able to run as a Republican again. There'll be demands for the ouster of every judge who rules against Trump. People who haven't made any concessions to Democrats or liberalism throughout their time in politics will be persona non grata in the party just because they couldn't make specious fraud allegations stick.

Republicans who thought there were limits to partisanship will find their careers ruined because in today's GOP there are no limits. There'll be angry protests by AR-15-wielding Trumpers. There'll be death threats. There'll be many primary challenges.

But first we have to get Trump out. We will get him out, of course ... wbon't we?

ARE WE SURE THEY KNOW THIS IS FUTILE?

This is the conventional wisdom about the unified Republican response to the election, which is to insist that the president's absurd claims of mass electoral fraud in multiple states have merit:
Top Republicans in Washington are reluctant to call Joe Biden the president-elect publicly, fearing a rebellion by grassroots conservatives loyal to President Trump that would sink the party’s Senate majority.

Republican insiders privately concede Biden ousted Trump and dismiss suggestions voter fraud, ballot errors, or other issues would be uncovered sufficient to alter the election. But with the president claiming otherwise and two Georgia runoff elections set for January that will decide the Senate majority, plus midterm elections in 2022, most congressional Republicans are backing Trump. The move is purely transactional.
So because the party has no broadly popular policies, and because every message Trump pushes becomes a litmus test they must pass, they're backing him up, poisoning their base voters' minds even more against non-white voters in Philadelphia and Atlanta and Milwaukee just to win a few elections.

Never mind the fact that because Senate control is on the line in Georgia, they're well positioned to turn out their base with the usual scare tactics (DEMOCRATIC WINS = BLM ANTIFA SOCIALISM GUN-GRABBING 1619 PROJECT GREEN NEW DEAL SOROS AOC!!1!1!!!!). And never mind the fact that they'll have a natural advantage in 2022 (the party that holds the White House routinely loses seats in its first midterms), and most of the Republican seats being contested are in states where Democrats struggle to win.

No, they're going for it, and the fact that 2022 is mentioned in this article suggests that they'll continue to slander Democratic cities as cesspools of corruption for at least the next two years, in exactly the way Trump does.

Of course Republicans in the House and Senate want to keep winning. But what's in it for this guy?
Attorney General William P. Barr, wading into President Trump’s unfounded accusations of widespread election irregularities, told federal prosecutors on Monday that they were allowed to investigate “specific allegations” of voter fraud before the results of the presidential race are certified....

Mr. Barr said he had authorized “specific instances” of investigative steps in some cases....

Mr. Barr’s directive ignored the Justice Department’s longstanding policies intended to keep law enforcement from affecting the outcome of an election. And it followed a move weeks before the election in which the department lifted a prohibition on voter fraud investigations before an election.

“Given that voting in our current elections has now concluded, I authorize you to pursue substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities prior to the certification of elections in your jurisdictions,” Mr. Barr wrote.
You can argue that Republican senators are backing Trump because they want to rally their voters for the Georgia Senate runoffs and the 2022 midterms, and they're doing this even though they know Trump will lose in court. But what's Barr's motivation? If he assumes Trump's challenges will fail, what does he get out of fighting on? He avoids being fired? He's out of a job in January no matter what. Unless...

Unless he thinks his lawyers can gin something up. I understand that they'd have to do it fast, much faster than they usually do.



The conventional widsdom is that he's mollifying Trump -- but maybe he wants to set investigations in motion that will continue long after Trump is gone, even though he won't personally benefit. (Assuming Biden becomes president, I expect the election to be his Benghazi, endlessly investigated and endlessly a "cloud" over his presidency even though scandalous wrongdoing is never found.) Maybe he thinks that if he's a battling Trumpian to the last, his memoir will sell better (it will) and his lecture fees will be higher (hard to say). Maybe he thinks he'll be welcomed back into a new Republican administration after the 2024 elections, when he'll be in his mid-seventies.

Or maybe all these folks believe there's a non-zero chance they can actually succeed. I'm not ready to rule that out.

Here's more conventional wisdom talk from The Washington Post:
... there has been little coaxing on the part of senior GOP lawmakers to help Trump come to terms with his loss. Some said there is value in ensuring the integrity of this year’s results, while others described a chaotic and scattershot operation that they hoped would eventually push Trump to cooperate in a peaceful transfer of power.

“What is the downside for humoring him for this little bit of time? No one seriously thinks the results will change,” said one senior Republican official. “He went golfing this weekend. It’s not like he’s plotting how to prevent Joe Biden from taking power on Jan. 20. He’s tweeting about filing some lawsuits, those lawsuits will fail, then he’ll tweet some more about how the election was stolen, and then he’ll leave.”
But even if that's true, 47% of the country will have an even darker view of Democrats and cities and black voters and "the Deep State." Then we'll be even more divided and the right will be even angrier and more paranoid (and better armed -- I guarantee you that gun sales are rising right now, and will rise even more if Trump's lawsuits fail and Biden's win is certified). But these cynics don't care that they're encouraging a state of permanent cold civil war. They're sure they won't be harmed by this. It'll be the rest of us who suffer as the country continues to fracture.

Monday, November 09, 2020

TRUMP TARGETS THE DEAD

I keep thinking about this, from Axios's Alayna Treene:
President Trump plans to brandish obituaries of people who supposedly voted but are dead — plus hold campaign-style rallies — in an effort to prolong his fight against apparent insurmountable election results, four Trump advisers told me during a conference call this afternoon.
We already know Rudy Giuliani has alleged that the former heavyweight boxing champion Joe Frazier voted in Philadelphia in the 2018 election even though he died in 2011, a claim that evolved at Gateway Pundit into a charge that Frazier voted this year. Whether or not it's true that someone has voted in the late boxer's name -- I assume it isn't -- Frazier was a famous person, and his surviving relatives are undoubtedly accustomed to the way a public figure's name can be misused.

But as Trump is barnstorming across the country, he's likely to cite the names of ordinary people whose identities, he'll claim, were used for voter fraud after their deaths. Some of these deceased people may have voted early and then passed away, and will have grieving relatives for whom the pain is still great. Some will be people with names similar to those of dead people; they'll be falsely accused of fraud. Some of the claims will be maliciously invented and have no basis in reality.

These people might try to defend their good names, or the reputations of their deceased relatives. For their troubles, they'll be mercilessly attacked online, on the phone, or even in person by angry right-wingers. There are likely to be somedeath threats.

And Trump won't care, because he has no human feelings.

YOUR RIGHT-WING RELATIVES NOW BELIEVE GORE WAS DECLARED THE WINNER IN 2000


Is there an echo in here?



The right-wing pseudo-journalist and the co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots aren't alone (although Martin now seems to have deleted her tweet). The belief that the media declared Gore the inner is widespread.



And while a phony newspaper headline that was widely circulated by Trumpers over the weekend was debunked...



... there's now a fake TV electoral map:



I hate to break it to the people circulating this image, but there's no media organization in America called "ANN."

What did the media actually say after the election? Here's the front page of The New York Times from the day after the 2000 election:



Here's what the paper said about the outcome:
The lead in the popular vote switched back and forth throughout the night, with Gov. George W. Bush holding a narrow lead over Vice President Al Gore as the count went into its final hours. The all-important battle for supremacy in the Electoral College came down to Florida, and early this morning, Gov. Jeb Bush seemed to have delivered a hair's-breadth victory to his brother in that fast-growing state, putting him over the top.

But Mr. Bush's margin dwindled and dwindled until only a handful of votes separated the two candidates, throwing the picture into confusion.
And here was CNN's take:
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: That's right. This election is making history. Still too close to call between George W. Bush and Al Gore and it is all boiling down to the state of Florida.

It is now 8:00 a.m. on the East Coast, 5:00 a.m. on the West on November 8, the morning after election day.

... Let's take a look at what we're talking about today. We are talking about a presidential race still too close to call. Neither Bush or Gore have enough of the electoral votes. It's all boiling down to who gets Florida's 25 electoral votes.
And that's where it remained for roughly a month. Here was a Reuters story posted on CNN's website a week later:
Under normal circumstances, when the new U.S. president is known the day after elections, political appointees know when their time is up and start to look for new jobs.

The new president sets up a transition team to find new personnel for the top positions and starts to put flesh on the bones of the policy guidelines he set during campaigning.

This year, with no result eight days after the Nov. 7 elections and the prospect of many days to go, the U.S. State Department is running on autopilot and anxiety is spreading.

If the Democratic candidate for the presidency, Vice President Al Gore, wins in Florida, many of the political appointees could stay on and policy might change little.

If the Republic candidate, Texas Gov. George Bush, takes office, new policy-makers will move in and order a more extensive review of U.S. foreign policy.
Disinformation is spreading. It could be Russian disinformation, but it could also be homegrown. The right in America has stopped trying to win over voters with ideas and policies -- generating fear and anger seem to work much better. This kind of fakery doesn't require special expertise found only in the former Soviet bloc. It's easy. Anyone can do it.

And it works. Your right-wing relatives -- even the ones who are old enough to have vivid memories of 2000 -- now believe that the media called the election for Gore and told you he was the winner for more than a month. But that didn't happen.

Sunday, November 08, 2020

CONCEDE? I DON'T THINK TRUMP WILL DARE.

So this was reported:
Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, has approached the President about conceding the election, two sources tell CNN.
Followed by this, from Axios:
A source close to Jared Kushner said he has advised President Trump to pursue "legal remedies" to the election. A second source close to Kushner confirmed he had not advised Trump to concede.
It doesn't matter. It's highly unlikely that Trump will concede -- not now, not even after the courts rule on his lawsuits.

In part, this is because he can't bear the thought of being a loser. But it's also because conceding would destroy the brand he's built since he announced his candidacy in 2015.

For a long time we've asked, "Is there anything that could persuade MAGA Nation to abandon Trump?" The pandemic didn't do it. A sharp economic downturn didn't do it. It's clear that he actually could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes.

I think he might have lost some of his supporters if he'd endorsed gun control, or made a deal with Democrats to preserve DACA -- or, really, if he'd made any deal whatsoever with Democrats on a controversial issue.

But at this point, I think he'd lose many of them if he acknowledged that Joe Biden won legitimately. They don't believe that. They're dug in.

And no, I don't think they'll arrive at the acceptance stage of grief if there's a climactic Supreme Court ruling, or series of rulings, against Trump. Many of them were ready to impeach John Roberts when he voted to preserve Obamacare. I don't think the majority of rank-and-file Republicans will ever consider the 2020 presidential election to have been legitimate.

And yes, for Trump, this may also be about the money.


But with Trump, how do you determine where his desperate emotional needs end and his desperate financial needs begin?

Well into the future, his status as a hero to his people will depend on not backing down now. However, assuming that the courts reject his appeals, I think he'll be able to get away with saying something like this:
"The courts have spoken, and while I reject the corrupt process that led them to conclude that Joe Biden won this election, which I actually won by a lot, I will nevertheless agree to leave the White House as requested on January 20. But this is not over. I will never abandon the fight against the corrupt swamp creatures whose traitorous acts led to this outcome. It may take some time, but I will destroy them."
That's the only way he can leave the White House without ruining his brand.