This blog has 62 posts about politics at politics.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, May 14, 2021
Friday, January 1, 2021
Today is January 1, 2021. Exactly one year ago, on January 1, 2020, I made some predictions about the future of the United States. This was before the coronavirus thing was a problem, so all my predictions were wrong.
Today is January 1, 2020.
In the United States, 2020 is a big deal because American voters have to make a very important decision. Do we let our moron president get the job for another 4 years? A president who is trying to destroy the planet instead of saving it. A president who has been trying to destroy the global economy with his never-ending moronic trade wars. A president who has repeatedly made this country a laughing stock with his breathtaking stupidity.
This should be an easy decision but there is a problem. Our economy is stronger than it has ever been before. Anyone can get a job, including people who have been in prison. Workers are getting raises. They can change jobs to make more money. This is all a good thing but it means Trump is going to get reelected because these people don't want to risk voting for a candidate who might fuck up everything.
There are numerous Democrats who want to be the president and virtually all of them would lose to Trump because their ideas are stupid.
Fortunately, Mike Bloomberg was able to figure out he had to try to get the job because he is the only person who can defeat Trump. If Mike doesn't win the Democratic nomination then Trump will win the election.
This should be an easy decision but there is a problem. Our economy is stronger than it has ever been before. Anyone can get a job, including people who have been in prison. Workers are getting raises. They can change jobs to make more money. This is all a good thing but it means Trump is going to get reelected because these people don't want to risk voting for a candidate who might fuck up everything.
There are numerous Democrats who want to be the president and virtually all of them would lose to Trump because their ideas are stupid.
Fortunately, Mike Bloomberg was able to figure out he had to try to get the job because he is the only person who can defeat Trump. If Mike doesn't win the Democratic nomination then Trump will win the election.
Unfortunately, the Democrats who vote are not too bright. They don't realize how serious the problem is. We will see what happens.
Wednesday, December 23, 2020
Thank goodness for President-elect Biden.
Wall Street Journal
POLITICS
CAPITAL JOURNAL
Biden Declares Political Center Alive and Well
President-elect says there are enough GOP lawmakers prepared to meet him in middle that he can get things done in evenly divided Congress.
By Gerald F. Seib
December 23, 2020
President-elect Joe Biden wants you to know that reports of the death of America’s political center are greatly exaggerated.
In fact, in a conversation with a few columnists on Wednesday, Mr. Biden delivered a resounding declaration that the political center is alive and well, that he resides there, that he’s always been there, and that he’s going to govern from there. “I believe that [in] the country, in both parties, the center of gravity has moved to the center and center-left,” he said.
Moreover, Mr. Biden insisted that there are enough Republican lawmakers prepared to meet him in the middle that he can get things done in an evenly divided Congress where he won’t have the kinds of Democratic majorities some of his predecessors enjoyed.
“Part of it is that Republicans are beginning to realize that there is a center that has to be responded to,” he said. “And the Democrats are beginning once again to pay attention to our base, which has been my base my whole career: working-class folks, Black and white, people who are busting their neck, and all they’re looking for is just a shot. And I think there is a center there.”
Those Biden sentiments seem simple enough, but they are, in fact, freighted with meaning for both parties.
For Republicans and conservatives, Mr. Biden is saying, in effect, that they are wrong when they claim he has been, or soon will be, captured by the most liberal elements of his Democratic Party. Moreover, Mr. Biden is saying that, although President Trump made deep inroads over the course of two presidential elections with traditional Democratic strongholds of white, working-class voters, he has no intention of ceding that turf to the GOP.
And to the progressive wing of his own party, Mr. Biden is saying, essentially: Don’t forget that I won our party’s nomination, and then won the popular vote by seven million votes, by running as a candidate of the center, not as one of the left.
It is far from clear that the story of 2020 is seen that way within the Democrats’ progressive wing. There, many think that their activism, as much as Mr. Biden’s centrism, won the election. They are making little secret of their belief that they now should be rewarded with personnel and policies.
Mr. Biden recognizes that there are many Democrats—indeed, he acknowledges, even some of his own appointees—who think the kind of meeting in the middle with Republicans he is proposing simply isn’t possible these days. They see a partisan battle starting next year as inevitable and, in some ways, desirable—and worry that Mr. Biden isn’t adequately prepared to wage that fight.
He bristles at that suggestion. “I haven’t changed how I approach politics since I got involved,” he said. “And part of it is just establishing with your opponent is that if they want to fight, I’m ready to fight. I’m ready to fight. But one of the things that happens is, when you get into one of those kind of blood matches that occur, nothing gets done.”
Indeed, Mr. Biden argues that, unlike some of his critics, he actually knows how to do a deal. He takes “some sense of solace,” he said, from the number of “senior Republican senators” who have called him since the election to discuss areas in which there can be cooperation.
His advantage in pulling Republicans his way certainly won’t lie in large Democratic majorities—indeed, the chances remain good that Republicans will control the Senate after two runoff elections in Georgia in January—but rather in personal relationships he has built over time, as a senator and vice president. “My leverage is, every senior Republican knows I’ve never once, ever, misled them,” he said. “Whatever I say, I’ll do, I’ll do. I never publicly embarrassed them.”
In addition, he says that the country has moved left on some policies, including health care and, above all, climate change, opening space for him to pursue more progressive policies. “Today, I’m going to be able to get stuff done in the environment none of you are going to believe,” he said, citing in particular changing views within the business community. “I could not have gotten it done six years ago.”
Conservative Republicans will remain unenthused at that prospect, and at Mr. Biden’s plan, reiterated in Wednesday’s conversation, to start out his administration with an executive order rejoining the Paris climate accords.
There might be more room for bipartisan agreement on the gravity of a newly discovered problem: a broad hack of government computers, apparently at Russian hands. It’s still uncertain, Mr. Biden said, whether that attack was aimed at simple espionage or at disrupting technology networks.
More broadly, Mr. Biden is planting a flag in the center. It’s been pretty lonely there lately; we’ll soon see how many rally around him there.
Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Appeared in the December 24, 2020, print edition as 'Biden Says Political Center Is Alive and Well.'
POLITICS
CAPITAL JOURNAL
Biden Declares Political Center Alive and Well
President-elect says there are enough GOP lawmakers prepared to meet him in middle that he can get things done in evenly divided Congress.
By Gerald F. Seib
December 23, 2020
President-elect Joe Biden wants you to know that reports of the death of America’s political center are greatly exaggerated.
In fact, in a conversation with a few columnists on Wednesday, Mr. Biden delivered a resounding declaration that the political center is alive and well, that he resides there, that he’s always been there, and that he’s going to govern from there. “I believe that [in] the country, in both parties, the center of gravity has moved to the center and center-left,” he said.
Moreover, Mr. Biden insisted that there are enough Republican lawmakers prepared to meet him in the middle that he can get things done in an evenly divided Congress where he won’t have the kinds of Democratic majorities some of his predecessors enjoyed.
“Part of it is that Republicans are beginning to realize that there is a center that has to be responded to,” he said. “And the Democrats are beginning once again to pay attention to our base, which has been my base my whole career: working-class folks, Black and white, people who are busting their neck, and all they’re looking for is just a shot. And I think there is a center there.”
Those Biden sentiments seem simple enough, but they are, in fact, freighted with meaning for both parties.
For Republicans and conservatives, Mr. Biden is saying, in effect, that they are wrong when they claim he has been, or soon will be, captured by the most liberal elements of his Democratic Party. Moreover, Mr. Biden is saying that, although President Trump made deep inroads over the course of two presidential elections with traditional Democratic strongholds of white, working-class voters, he has no intention of ceding that turf to the GOP.
And to the progressive wing of his own party, Mr. Biden is saying, essentially: Don’t forget that I won our party’s nomination, and then won the popular vote by seven million votes, by running as a candidate of the center, not as one of the left.
It is far from clear that the story of 2020 is seen that way within the Democrats’ progressive wing. There, many think that their activism, as much as Mr. Biden’s centrism, won the election. They are making little secret of their belief that they now should be rewarded with personnel and policies.
Mr. Biden recognizes that there are many Democrats—indeed, he acknowledges, even some of his own appointees—who think the kind of meeting in the middle with Republicans he is proposing simply isn’t possible these days. They see a partisan battle starting next year as inevitable and, in some ways, desirable—and worry that Mr. Biden isn’t adequately prepared to wage that fight.
He bristles at that suggestion. “I haven’t changed how I approach politics since I got involved,” he said. “And part of it is just establishing with your opponent is that if they want to fight, I’m ready to fight. I’m ready to fight. But one of the things that happens is, when you get into one of those kind of blood matches that occur, nothing gets done.”
Indeed, Mr. Biden argues that, unlike some of his critics, he actually knows how to do a deal. He takes “some sense of solace,” he said, from the number of “senior Republican senators” who have called him since the election to discuss areas in which there can be cooperation.
His advantage in pulling Republicans his way certainly won’t lie in large Democratic majorities—indeed, the chances remain good that Republicans will control the Senate after two runoff elections in Georgia in January—but rather in personal relationships he has built over time, as a senator and vice president. “My leverage is, every senior Republican knows I’ve never once, ever, misled them,” he said. “Whatever I say, I’ll do, I’ll do. I never publicly embarrassed them.”
In addition, he says that the country has moved left on some policies, including health care and, above all, climate change, opening space for him to pursue more progressive policies. “Today, I’m going to be able to get stuff done in the environment none of you are going to believe,” he said, citing in particular changing views within the business community. “I could not have gotten it done six years ago.”
Conservative Republicans will remain unenthused at that prospect, and at Mr. Biden’s plan, reiterated in Wednesday’s conversation, to start out his administration with an executive order rejoining the Paris climate accords.
There might be more room for bipartisan agreement on the gravity of a newly discovered problem: a broad hack of government computers, apparently at Russian hands. It’s still uncertain, Mr. Biden said, whether that attack was aimed at simple espionage or at disrupting technology networks.
More broadly, Mr. Biden is planting a flag in the center. It’s been pretty lonely there lately; we’ll soon see how many rally around him there.
Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Appeared in the December 24, 2020, print edition as 'Biden Says Political Center Is Alive and Well.'
Tuesday, December 22, 2020
I answered a very stupid question about the Magic Man.
"Will God punish someone for voting for Biden?"
The magical master of the entire vast universe is probably not interested in the politics of one country on a little insignificant planet in the middle of nowhere.
The magical master of the entire vast universe is probably not interested in the politics of one country on a little insignificant planet in the middle of nowhere.
Wednesday, December 9, 2020
A woman wrote this for the New York Times. She is trying to not kill her husband.
We are following all the prescribed safety measures. We are also following advice from counseling to not discuss politics around the pandemic. My husband of 40 years is an ardent Trump supporter and believes none of this is his fault. I believe this president’s legacy will be his personal responsibility for this mass casualty event. He and the entire GOP have blood on their hands and should be tried for crimes against humanity. I am counting the days until January 20th. And trying not to kill my husband. So far, I’m doing well.
— Kendalle Stock, Virginia
— Kendalle Stock, Virginia
Thursday, December 3, 2020
President Fucktard Trump is still advertising his breathtaking stupidity.
Wall Street Journal
POLITICS
ELECTION 2020
Trump Reasserts Fraud Claims Despite Lack of Evidence, Losses in Court
In White House address, the president again said he won the election, even as states move forward certifying Joe Biden’s victory.
By Andrew Restuccia and Alex Leary
December 2, 2020
WASHINGTON—President Trump delivered a lengthy speech from the White House on Wednesday in which he insisted that he won the election and again declined to concede to President-elect Joe Biden less than two months before Inauguration Day.
The address—which wasn’t on Mr. Trump’s public schedule and which he called “maybe the most important speech I’ve ever made”—marked the latest rhetorical escalation by the president as he continues to contest the results of an election he lost.
Mr. Biden, meanwhile, is moving forward with planning for the White House. He has announced key cabinet officials and his team has begun coordinating with the Trump administration. Mr. Biden’s transition team didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
“If we are right about the fraud, Joe Biden can’t be president,” Mr. Trump said in the 46-minute recorded speech from the White House Diplomatic Reception Room as he ticked through a slew of statements that have been proved false or that his campaign hasn’t substantiated in court.
Mr. Trump asserted that he won the election “without question,” even though the Associated Press said Mr. Biden would receive 306 Electoral College votes, well over the 270 needed to secure the presidency. The six most hotly contested battleground states have all certified their results for Mr. Biden, and Mr. Biden’s lead in the national popular vote currently stands at nearly seven million.
No evidence of widespread voter fraud has surfaced, and homeland-security officials in early November called the 2020 contest “the most secure election in U.S. history.”
Federal officials also have agreed with state election authorities that they have seen no evidence that voting systems were tampered with. Multiple federal judges—including some appointed by Mr. Trump—have dismissed Trump campaign complaints, saying they lacked proof backing up allegations of fraud. Mr. Trump is pushing forward with legal claims attempting to reverse the results in a handful of states.
“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election,” Attorney General William Barr told the AP on Tuesday.
Mr. Trump said he is prepared to “accept any accurate election result, and I hope Joe Biden is as well.” But he made clear he had no plans to concede. Aides to Mr. Trump say he is likely to never formally concede the race, but leave office contending the election was stolen from him. He has discussed running for another term in 2024.
“This is not just about my campaign, although it has a lot to do with who’s going to be your next president,” he said. “This is about restoring faith and confidence in American elections.” He said he was representing 74 million people who voted for him and “all of the people that didn’t vote for me.”
The White House didn’t allow reporters to observe Mr. Trump’s speech. Aside from an interview with Fox News and a brief exchange with journalists on Thanksgiving, Mr. Trump has largely avoided taking questions from the press since Mr. Biden was declared the winner of the election.
On Facebook, where Mr. Trump’s speech was posted, a note was appended to the video explaining that Mr. Biden was the projected winner of the election. It was also posted on Twitter, which added the disclaimer: “This claim about election fraud is disputed.”
The president’s rhetoric has drawn sharp complaints from Democrats, who say it is damaging faith in elections, and it is increasingly making Republicans nervous heading into January runoff elections in Georgia that will decide control of power of the Senate.
“This election was rigged. Everybody knows it,” Mr. Trump said during his speech. “I don’t mind if I lose an election, but I want to lose an election fair and square. What I don’t want to do is have it stolen from the American people. That’s what we’re fighting for.”
Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Appeared in the December 3, 2020, print edition as 'In Speech, Trump Reasserts Fraud Claims.'
POLITICS
ELECTION 2020
Trump Reasserts Fraud Claims Despite Lack of Evidence, Losses in Court
In White House address, the president again said he won the election, even as states move forward certifying Joe Biden’s victory.
By Andrew Restuccia and Alex Leary
December 2, 2020
WASHINGTON—President Trump delivered a lengthy speech from the White House on Wednesday in which he insisted that he won the election and again declined to concede to President-elect Joe Biden less than two months before Inauguration Day.
The address—which wasn’t on Mr. Trump’s public schedule and which he called “maybe the most important speech I’ve ever made”—marked the latest rhetorical escalation by the president as he continues to contest the results of an election he lost.
Mr. Biden, meanwhile, is moving forward with planning for the White House. He has announced key cabinet officials and his team has begun coordinating with the Trump administration. Mr. Biden’s transition team didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
“If we are right about the fraud, Joe Biden can’t be president,” Mr. Trump said in the 46-minute recorded speech from the White House Diplomatic Reception Room as he ticked through a slew of statements that have been proved false or that his campaign hasn’t substantiated in court.
Mr. Trump asserted that he won the election “without question,” even though the Associated Press said Mr. Biden would receive 306 Electoral College votes, well over the 270 needed to secure the presidency. The six most hotly contested battleground states have all certified their results for Mr. Biden, and Mr. Biden’s lead in the national popular vote currently stands at nearly seven million.
No evidence of widespread voter fraud has surfaced, and homeland-security officials in early November called the 2020 contest “the most secure election in U.S. history.”
Federal officials also have agreed with state election authorities that they have seen no evidence that voting systems were tampered with. Multiple federal judges—including some appointed by Mr. Trump—have dismissed Trump campaign complaints, saying they lacked proof backing up allegations of fraud. Mr. Trump is pushing forward with legal claims attempting to reverse the results in a handful of states.
“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election,” Attorney General William Barr told the AP on Tuesday.
Mr. Trump said he is prepared to “accept any accurate election result, and I hope Joe Biden is as well.” But he made clear he had no plans to concede. Aides to Mr. Trump say he is likely to never formally concede the race, but leave office contending the election was stolen from him. He has discussed running for another term in 2024.
“This is not just about my campaign, although it has a lot to do with who’s going to be your next president,” he said. “This is about restoring faith and confidence in American elections.” He said he was representing 74 million people who voted for him and “all of the people that didn’t vote for me.”
The White House didn’t allow reporters to observe Mr. Trump’s speech. Aside from an interview with Fox News and a brief exchange with journalists on Thanksgiving, Mr. Trump has largely avoided taking questions from the press since Mr. Biden was declared the winner of the election.
On Facebook, where Mr. Trump’s speech was posted, a note was appended to the video explaining that Mr. Biden was the projected winner of the election. It was also posted on Twitter, which added the disclaimer: “This claim about election fraud is disputed.”
The president’s rhetoric has drawn sharp complaints from Democrats, who say it is damaging faith in elections, and it is increasingly making Republicans nervous heading into January runoff elections in Georgia that will decide control of power of the Senate.
“This election was rigged. Everybody knows it,” Mr. Trump said during his speech. “I don’t mind if I lose an election, but I want to lose an election fair and square. What I don’t want to do is have it stolen from the American people. That’s what we’re fighting for.”
Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Appeared in the December 3, 2020, print edition as 'In Speech, Trump Reasserts Fraud Claims.'
Thursday, October 29, 2020
Many Democrats, maybe most Democrats, want to pack the Supreme Court. And this is one of the many reasons why I could never vote for their moron politicians like Biden and his airhead Vice President.
Wall Street Journal
OPINION
COMMENTARY
Democrats Against Court Packing
A constitutional amendment would protect the judiciary’s independence.
By Jill Long Thompson and Nick Rahall
October 28, 2020
We are Democrats. We want to see Joe Biden become president and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. But we oppose expanding the size of the U.S. Supreme Court.
An independent Supreme Court is fundamental to America’s system of checks and balances. It’s the only institution that can settle difficult, divisive questions about the meaning of the law in a way that both sides can accept. An independent Supreme Court that interprets the law is critical to the rule of law itself. It sets an example for emerging democracies around the world.
Expanding the court could exacerbate the problems we’re trying to address. A larger court increases the risk of a highly skewed, unbalanced court. The larger the court, the longer it would take to restore a balance.
Whether members of one party have abused their power, changed their position, or broken their word in the process of filling a Supreme Court vacancy isn’t the issue. The history of misbehavior by politicians is long and sordid. It’s also a reason to preserve and strengthen checks and balances, not weaken them.
We applaud the many Democrats and Republicans who’ve opposed expanding the size of the Supreme Court. We urge them to endorse the Keep Nine constitutional amendment, which would state simply: “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine Justices.”
Amending the Constitution isn’t easy. Proposing an amendment requires two-thirds votes in both houses of Congress, and it takes 38 state legislatures to ratify it. The Constitution has been amended only 27 times in 233 years. But an active and engaged public helped persuade Congress to propose the Bill of Rights in 1789, the 19th Amendment (guaranteeing a woman’s right to vote) in 1919, and the 22nd Amendment (setting presidential term limits) in 1947. Similar citizen energy could persuade Congress to propose the Keep Nine Amendment. Polling shows that voters favor the amendment by more than 3 to 1.
It is up to engaged citizens and thoughtful elected officials to rise above narrow partisanship and work together to preserve an independent Supreme Court for the future of the nation.
Ms. Long Thompson and Mr. Rahall, both Democrats, are former U.S. representatives from Indiana and West Virginia, respectively.
Appeared in the October 29, 2020, print edition.
OPINION
COMMENTARY
Democrats Against Court Packing
A constitutional amendment would protect the judiciary’s independence.
By Jill Long Thompson and Nick Rahall
October 28, 2020
We are Democrats. We want to see Joe Biden become president and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. But we oppose expanding the size of the U.S. Supreme Court.
An independent Supreme Court is fundamental to America’s system of checks and balances. It’s the only institution that can settle difficult, divisive questions about the meaning of the law in a way that both sides can accept. An independent Supreme Court that interprets the law is critical to the rule of law itself. It sets an example for emerging democracies around the world.
Expanding the court could exacerbate the problems we’re trying to address. A larger court increases the risk of a highly skewed, unbalanced court. The larger the court, the longer it would take to restore a balance.
Whether members of one party have abused their power, changed their position, or broken their word in the process of filling a Supreme Court vacancy isn’t the issue. The history of misbehavior by politicians is long and sordid. It’s also a reason to preserve and strengthen checks and balances, not weaken them.
We applaud the many Democrats and Republicans who’ve opposed expanding the size of the Supreme Court. We urge them to endorse the Keep Nine constitutional amendment, which would state simply: “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine Justices.”
Amending the Constitution isn’t easy. Proposing an amendment requires two-thirds votes in both houses of Congress, and it takes 38 state legislatures to ratify it. The Constitution has been amended only 27 times in 233 years. But an active and engaged public helped persuade Congress to propose the Bill of Rights in 1789, the 19th Amendment (guaranteeing a woman’s right to vote) in 1919, and the 22nd Amendment (setting presidential term limits) in 1947. Similar citizen energy could persuade Congress to propose the Keep Nine Amendment. Polling shows that voters favor the amendment by more than 3 to 1.
It is up to engaged citizens and thoughtful elected officials to rise above narrow partisanship and work together to preserve an independent Supreme Court for the future of the nation.
Ms. Long Thompson and Mr. Rahall, both Democrats, are former U.S. representatives from Indiana and West Virginia, respectively.
Appeared in the October 29, 2020, print edition.
Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Wall Street Journal - Trump Still Has Possible Path to Win.
Wall Street Journal
POLITICS
CAPITAL JOURNAL
A Trump Election Comeback? With These Pieces, It’s Still Possible
The president would need to stitch together support from a few key demographic groups and the right combination of states.
By Gerald F. Seib
October 26, 2020
For those in the business of writing about politics, the question you are asked most frequently these days is: Could President Trump still win?
It’s a question posed both by those who want the president to win and by those who don’t. With a week to go before Election Day, this seems a good time to offer an answer:
Yes, of course he could.
Doing so most likely would require piecing together the requisite support from a few influential demographic groups and the right combination of states, allowing him to win the Electoral College while again losing the popular vote nationally.
“Given the history of the 2016 campaign, Trump’s ability to turn his campaign around in the final days can’t be underestimated,” wrote Democrat Doug Sosnik, former political director for President Bill Clinton, in an analysis over the weekend. “Trump has a much more aggressive campaign schedule than Biden. He is drawing large crowds and is dominating local coverage in the battleground states where he is campaigning.”
This is a look at how that could happen, though it comes with this bright, flashing caveat at the top. Most people with any sense got out of the prediction business after the 2016 election, and aren’t in that business now.
To say that Joe Biden is well ahead in the national polls, for example, isn’t a prediction that the Democratic former vice president will win. It’s simply a statement of fact. To say that Mr. Trump still could come out on top by picking off a combination of important states isn’t a prediction he will win. It’s simply a statement of fact.
In one fundamental respect, the closing picture isn’t favorable for Mr. Trump. The coronavirus, which may prove his 2020 Achilles heel, is surging just as the election approaches, and particularly in important Midwest battleground states such as Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio.
Still, there are some key voter groups where the Republican’s campaign can make inroads:
•Previously dormant white working-class men. These men are a core Trump constituency, particularly in the industrial Midwest, yet many didn’t show up in 2016.
David Wasserman, an analyst at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, estimated earlier this year that whites without college degrees made up 60% of those who didn’t vote in Michigan, 64% in Pennsylvania and 64% in Wisconsin. The Trump campaign has worked hard to get many of those registered to vote this time.
•Hispanics. Mr. Trump won 29% of them four years ago, matching the performance of Republican Mitt Romney in 2012. A slight improvement could help ensure he keeps the important states of Florida and Arizona in his column, and give him a shot at Nevada.
•Black men. Much as Black women didn’t turn out for Hillary Clinton in the numbers expected in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin four years ago, helping deliver her fatal blows in those states, the Trump campaign thinks an overperformance by the president among Black men could prove decisive for him this time in Ohio, Georgia and Pennsylvania. Young Black men, in particular, haven’t shown high enthusiasm for Mr. Biden.
•White evangelical women. This is an underappreciated group in some swing states, and a core group for Mr. Trump. Nationally, evangelicals make up 17% of all white women, but 21% of white women in the South and Midwest. They could prove important in, for example, the hotly contested state of North Carolina, where Mr. Trump is running better with white women than he does nationally.
•Senior citizens. With this group, the vital thing for Mr. Trump is to limit the erosion. He won 52% of voters aged 65 and over in 2016, but now trails among them. Mr. Biden is favored by a majority, most polls show. This is a group that comes out to vote, reliably, and a key for Mr. Trump is to minimize his loss of support there in the closing days.
So how could all this add up to a Trump victory? The map would start with the president holding on to five fundamental contested states: Florida, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Iowa. If he then could also hang onto Pennsylvania and Arizona, he’d win the Electoral College vote, even if he loses the swing states of Michigan and Wisconsin. Mr. Trump doesn’t have a lot of margin for error, and Pennsylvania is the key.
So what is the Biden campaign’s view of this scenario?
It believes traditional union support for Mr. Biden means he will hold his own with working-class white men; that fear and unhappiness over the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus have consistently pushed senior citizens their way; and that Mr. Biden is outperforming how Mrs. Clinton fared among Florida Hispanics.
Oh, and they think big demographic changes in Georgia open the way for a Democratic surprise—which is one reason Mr. Biden plans to be there Tuesday.
Appeared in the October 27, 2020, print edition as 'Trump Still Has Possible Path to Win.'
POLITICS
CAPITAL JOURNAL
A Trump Election Comeback? With These Pieces, It’s Still Possible
The president would need to stitch together support from a few key demographic groups and the right combination of states.
By Gerald F. Seib
October 26, 2020
For those in the business of writing about politics, the question you are asked most frequently these days is: Could President Trump still win?
It’s a question posed both by those who want the president to win and by those who don’t. With a week to go before Election Day, this seems a good time to offer an answer:
Yes, of course he could.
Doing so most likely would require piecing together the requisite support from a few influential demographic groups and the right combination of states, allowing him to win the Electoral College while again losing the popular vote nationally.
“Given the history of the 2016 campaign, Trump’s ability to turn his campaign around in the final days can’t be underestimated,” wrote Democrat Doug Sosnik, former political director for President Bill Clinton, in an analysis over the weekend. “Trump has a much more aggressive campaign schedule than Biden. He is drawing large crowds and is dominating local coverage in the battleground states where he is campaigning.”
This is a look at how that could happen, though it comes with this bright, flashing caveat at the top. Most people with any sense got out of the prediction business after the 2016 election, and aren’t in that business now.
To say that Joe Biden is well ahead in the national polls, for example, isn’t a prediction that the Democratic former vice president will win. It’s simply a statement of fact. To say that Mr. Trump still could come out on top by picking off a combination of important states isn’t a prediction he will win. It’s simply a statement of fact.
In one fundamental respect, the closing picture isn’t favorable for Mr. Trump. The coronavirus, which may prove his 2020 Achilles heel, is surging just as the election approaches, and particularly in important Midwest battleground states such as Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio.
Still, there are some key voter groups where the Republican’s campaign can make inroads:
•Previously dormant white working-class men. These men are a core Trump constituency, particularly in the industrial Midwest, yet many didn’t show up in 2016.
David Wasserman, an analyst at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, estimated earlier this year that whites without college degrees made up 60% of those who didn’t vote in Michigan, 64% in Pennsylvania and 64% in Wisconsin. The Trump campaign has worked hard to get many of those registered to vote this time.
•Hispanics. Mr. Trump won 29% of them four years ago, matching the performance of Republican Mitt Romney in 2012. A slight improvement could help ensure he keeps the important states of Florida and Arizona in his column, and give him a shot at Nevada.
•Black men. Much as Black women didn’t turn out for Hillary Clinton in the numbers expected in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin four years ago, helping deliver her fatal blows in those states, the Trump campaign thinks an overperformance by the president among Black men could prove decisive for him this time in Ohio, Georgia and Pennsylvania. Young Black men, in particular, haven’t shown high enthusiasm for Mr. Biden.
•White evangelical women. This is an underappreciated group in some swing states, and a core group for Mr. Trump. Nationally, evangelicals make up 17% of all white women, but 21% of white women in the South and Midwest. They could prove important in, for example, the hotly contested state of North Carolina, where Mr. Trump is running better with white women than he does nationally.
•Senior citizens. With this group, the vital thing for Mr. Trump is to limit the erosion. He won 52% of voters aged 65 and over in 2016, but now trails among them. Mr. Biden is favored by a majority, most polls show. This is a group that comes out to vote, reliably, and a key for Mr. Trump is to minimize his loss of support there in the closing days.
So how could all this add up to a Trump victory? The map would start with the president holding on to five fundamental contested states: Florida, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Iowa. If he then could also hang onto Pennsylvania and Arizona, he’d win the Electoral College vote, even if he loses the swing states of Michigan and Wisconsin. Mr. Trump doesn’t have a lot of margin for error, and Pennsylvania is the key.
So what is the Biden campaign’s view of this scenario?
It believes traditional union support for Mr. Biden means he will hold his own with working-class white men; that fear and unhappiness over the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus have consistently pushed senior citizens their way; and that Mr. Biden is outperforming how Mrs. Clinton fared among Florida Hispanics.
Oh, and they think big demographic changes in Georgia open the way for a Democratic surprise—which is one reason Mr. Biden plans to be there Tuesday.
Appeared in the October 27, 2020, print edition as 'Trump Still Has Possible Path to Win.'
Sunday, October 25, 2020
Tuesday, October 6, 2020
Wall Street Journal - Gerald F. Seib - "2020 Now Represents a Turning Point, Toward Parts Unknown"
Wall Street Journal
POLITICS
CAPITAL JOURNAL
2020 Now Represents a Turning Point, Toward Parts Unknown
Such inflection points tend not to be kind to the presidents and parties in power, but results of today’s tumult are hard to forecast
By Gerald F. Seib
October 5, 2020
Americans define turning points in their national life by the year in which they arrived. In 1861, Abraham Lincoln took office as president and the Civil War began. In 1932, the Great Depression approached its peak and Franklin Roosevelt was elected to usher in a new era of Democratic dominance.
And in 1979, an energy crisis and stagflation froze the economy, Iranian students seized the American embassy in Tehran and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, creating an air of national despair that paved the way for Ronald Reagan’s conservative revolution.
These inflection points tend to occur not when one shocking event arrives, but when such events pile up, one on top of the other. By that standard, 2020 increasingly appears to be just such a moment.
It’s impossible when living through this moment to know exactly what the consequences will be, political or otherwise. In general, history shows, such inflection points tend not to be kind to the presidents and parties in power, as Americans turn away in search of something new.
And indeed, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll taken after last week’s presidential debate showed President Trump falling 14 percentage points behind Democrat Joe Biden, apparently in part because of the way the president behaved on stage. Yet that poll was taken before the arrival of the next shock to the system, the disclosure that Mr. Trump has contracted the coronavirus, a turn with unknown and unpredictable political consequences.
It may be that Mr. Trump, the ultimate disruptive force, still turns out to represent the alternative to the status quo that many Americans decide the times require. He may succeed in turning his own illness into a tale of confronting and conquering the pandemic. At a minimum, the country’s intense polarization suggests a tightening of the race is likely as voters return to their places in today’s deeply dug political trenches.
Yet the impact of 2020 on the American psyche and the rhythms of life can’t be measured simply by electoral outcomes. The sheer size of the shocks felt so far this year—impeachment trial, coronavirus pandemic, economic plunge, renewed racial reckoning and the emergence of angry divisions amid what might otherwise have been unifying national traumas—ensure that patterns of American life won’t be the same again.
Because of the pandemic, the basic lifeblood of the American economy for the last century, retail commerce, has been transformed, moved more decisively out of stores and into cyberspace. Some jobs lost along the way may never come back, though just as surely many more will be created. Meantime, the way Americans do their work, now remotely and outside traditional office settings, may never be entirely the same.
The threats America confronts have been redefined, away from Cold War confrontations and terrorist threats to the new-wave risks of cyberwarfare and pandemics. Both have been revealed this year as far more likely in a globalized world.
It’s entirely possible that America’s handling of the coronavirus, particularly after its own leader and at least a dozen people in his close orbit have been struck, has diminished trust in its government at home and hurt its image abroad.
Regardless of the outcome of next month’s election, politics and civic life are changing before our eyes. The way Americans perform the most basic of civic tasks, casting a vote, is likely to be altered permanently. The unifying scenes of Americans gathering at the local library on Election Day may increasingly become a kind of Norman Rockwell painting, a quaint reminder of calmer days gone by.
The national debate has been coarsened further amid it all. Presidential debates may never recover from the blow President Trump delivered with his intemperate performance last week.
As a result of this year’s shocks, at least some Americans are prepared to consider changes in fundamental American elements of civic life, including the Electoral College, the Supreme Court and police departments across the country. These are institutions that were largely accepted as they were before 2020, yet could emerge from the year’s tumult in new form.
Wildfires are tearing through the West, hurricanes are streaming onshore in the South and a derecho has plowed through the Midwest, each of them individually, and certainly all of them collectively, drawing new attention to the consequences of global warming.
Even sports, the most common diversion, are altered. Thanks to virus disruptions, Major League Baseball has allowed a staggering 16 teams in the once-exclusive playoffs, and saying that may be the new norm.
Any one of these shocks would be noteworthy if standing alone. Taken together, they leave some Americans angry, some unsettled, some simply weary.
Humility requires admitting that no one knows the precise consequences, except for this: Those politicians who win election this year will be asked to handle a national agenda that was unimaginable at the start of the fateful year of 2020.
Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Appeared in the October 6, 2020, print edition as 'Turning-Point Year Heads to Parts Unknown.'
POLITICS
CAPITAL JOURNAL
2020 Now Represents a Turning Point, Toward Parts Unknown
Such inflection points tend not to be kind to the presidents and parties in power, but results of today’s tumult are hard to forecast
By Gerald F. Seib
October 5, 2020
Americans define turning points in their national life by the year in which they arrived. In 1861, Abraham Lincoln took office as president and the Civil War began. In 1932, the Great Depression approached its peak and Franklin Roosevelt was elected to usher in a new era of Democratic dominance.
And in 1979, an energy crisis and stagflation froze the economy, Iranian students seized the American embassy in Tehran and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, creating an air of national despair that paved the way for Ronald Reagan’s conservative revolution.
These inflection points tend to occur not when one shocking event arrives, but when such events pile up, one on top of the other. By that standard, 2020 increasingly appears to be just such a moment.
It’s impossible when living through this moment to know exactly what the consequences will be, political or otherwise. In general, history shows, such inflection points tend not to be kind to the presidents and parties in power, as Americans turn away in search of something new.
And indeed, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll taken after last week’s presidential debate showed President Trump falling 14 percentage points behind Democrat Joe Biden, apparently in part because of the way the president behaved on stage. Yet that poll was taken before the arrival of the next shock to the system, the disclosure that Mr. Trump has contracted the coronavirus, a turn with unknown and unpredictable political consequences.
It may be that Mr. Trump, the ultimate disruptive force, still turns out to represent the alternative to the status quo that many Americans decide the times require. He may succeed in turning his own illness into a tale of confronting and conquering the pandemic. At a minimum, the country’s intense polarization suggests a tightening of the race is likely as voters return to their places in today’s deeply dug political trenches.
Yet the impact of 2020 on the American psyche and the rhythms of life can’t be measured simply by electoral outcomes. The sheer size of the shocks felt so far this year—impeachment trial, coronavirus pandemic, economic plunge, renewed racial reckoning and the emergence of angry divisions amid what might otherwise have been unifying national traumas—ensure that patterns of American life won’t be the same again.
Because of the pandemic, the basic lifeblood of the American economy for the last century, retail commerce, has been transformed, moved more decisively out of stores and into cyberspace. Some jobs lost along the way may never come back, though just as surely many more will be created. Meantime, the way Americans do their work, now remotely and outside traditional office settings, may never be entirely the same.
The threats America confronts have been redefined, away from Cold War confrontations and terrorist threats to the new-wave risks of cyberwarfare and pandemics. Both have been revealed this year as far more likely in a globalized world.
It’s entirely possible that America’s handling of the coronavirus, particularly after its own leader and at least a dozen people in his close orbit have been struck, has diminished trust in its government at home and hurt its image abroad.
Regardless of the outcome of next month’s election, politics and civic life are changing before our eyes. The way Americans perform the most basic of civic tasks, casting a vote, is likely to be altered permanently. The unifying scenes of Americans gathering at the local library on Election Day may increasingly become a kind of Norman Rockwell painting, a quaint reminder of calmer days gone by.
The national debate has been coarsened further amid it all. Presidential debates may never recover from the blow President Trump delivered with his intemperate performance last week.
As a result of this year’s shocks, at least some Americans are prepared to consider changes in fundamental American elements of civic life, including the Electoral College, the Supreme Court and police departments across the country. These are institutions that were largely accepted as they were before 2020, yet could emerge from the year’s tumult in new form.
Wildfires are tearing through the West, hurricanes are streaming onshore in the South and a derecho has plowed through the Midwest, each of them individually, and certainly all of them collectively, drawing new attention to the consequences of global warming.
Even sports, the most common diversion, are altered. Thanks to virus disruptions, Major League Baseball has allowed a staggering 16 teams in the once-exclusive playoffs, and saying that may be the new norm.
Any one of these shocks would be noteworthy if standing alone. Taken together, they leave some Americans angry, some unsettled, some simply weary.
Humility requires admitting that no one knows the precise consequences, except for this: Those politicians who win election this year will be asked to handle a national agenda that was unimaginable at the start of the fateful year of 2020.
Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Appeared in the October 6, 2020, print edition as 'Turning-Point Year Heads to Parts Unknown.'
Monday, September 21, 2020
"The Supreme Court vacancy will surely inflame an already-angry nation." This is bullshit. Most Americans don't care about this thing. And most Americans are not angry about anything.
The Atlantic
POLITICS
What Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Death Means for America
The Supreme Court vacancy will surely inflame an already-angry nation.
RUSSELL BERMAN
SEPTEMBER 18, 2020
A furious battle over a Supreme Court vacancy is arguably the last thing the United States needs right now.
The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg today represents a devastating loss for feminists who held up the 87-year-old as an icon of women’s rights, and as a bulwark protecting abortion rights and a wide range of other progressive ideals on a conservative Supreme Court. The Brooklyn-born jurist became one of the nation’s foremost advocates against gender discrimination as a lawyer for the ACLU, decades before President Bill Clinton appointed her to be the second woman to sit on the high court.
But her passing less than two months before the presidential election also tosses one more lit match into the tinderbox of national politics in 2020: It will surely inflame a deeply polarized country already riven by a deadly pandemic, a steep economic downturn, and civil unrest in its major cities.
In Washington, the vacancy fight could ratchet up tensions to a level unseen even in the tumultuous Trump era. President Donald Trump will be eager to fill Ginsburg’s seat immediately, seizing an opportunity to rally his base before the election and to cement his legacy in the event that he is defeated in November. He could also become the first president since Richard Nixon to install three justices on the high court in a single four-year term. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already indicated that he’s ready for another confirmation battle, either before or immediately after the election. Republicans might be hard-pressed to consider and approve a Trump nominee in the eight weeks before November, but even a victory by Vice President Joe Biden and a Democratic takeover of the Senate might not prevent Trump from successfully appointing another justice. Republicans would still control both the White House and the Senate until a new Congress takes office in early January.
Mitch McConnell’s Grand Plan Was Obvious All Along
POLITICS
What Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Death Means for America
The Supreme Court vacancy will surely inflame an already-angry nation.
RUSSELL BERMAN
SEPTEMBER 18, 2020
A furious battle over a Supreme Court vacancy is arguably the last thing the United States needs right now.
The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg today represents a devastating loss for feminists who held up the 87-year-old as an icon of women’s rights, and as a bulwark protecting abortion rights and a wide range of other progressive ideals on a conservative Supreme Court. The Brooklyn-born jurist became one of the nation’s foremost advocates against gender discrimination as a lawyer for the ACLU, decades before President Bill Clinton appointed her to be the second woman to sit on the high court.
But her passing less than two months before the presidential election also tosses one more lit match into the tinderbox of national politics in 2020: It will surely inflame a deeply polarized country already riven by a deadly pandemic, a steep economic downturn, and civil unrest in its major cities.
In Washington, the vacancy fight could ratchet up tensions to a level unseen even in the tumultuous Trump era. President Donald Trump will be eager to fill Ginsburg’s seat immediately, seizing an opportunity to rally his base before the election and to cement his legacy in the event that he is defeated in November. He could also become the first president since Richard Nixon to install three justices on the high court in a single four-year term. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already indicated that he’s ready for another confirmation battle, either before or immediately after the election. Republicans might be hard-pressed to consider and approve a Trump nominee in the eight weeks before November, but even a victory by Vice President Joe Biden and a Democratic takeover of the Senate might not prevent Trump from successfully appointing another justice. Republicans would still control both the White House and the Senate until a new Congress takes office in early January.
Mitch McConnell’s Grand Plan Was Obvious All Along
The Irony of Modern Feminism’s Obsession With Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Ginsburg made her own desire clear in the days before her death, NPR’s Nina Totenberg reported today. She dictated a statement to her granddaughter that read: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
Whether that final wish will be granted is unclear. McConnell has insisted that the precedent he created in denying former President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland in the final year of Obama’s term—to fill a vacancy that occurred nearly nine months before the 2016 election—no longer applies, because the same party controls both the White House and the Senate majority. “Oh, we’d fill it,” the Kentucky Republican promised in May 2019, more than a year before Ginsburg announced the cancer recurrence that would take her life. He reiterated that position in the hours after Ginsburg’s death was announced, saying American voters had given Republicans a mandate to fill judicial vacancies by expanding the party’s Senate majority in 2018. “We will keep our promise,” McConnell said in a statement. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.” Never mind that the rationale McConnell gave in 2016—that voters should have the chance to weigh in on their next Supreme Court justice—would seem to apply even more strongly during an election in which the first ballots have already been cast.
Read: Mitch McConnell’s grand plan was obvious all along
The more salient question is not whether McConnell would try to confirm Trump’s nominee but whether his GOP majority would go along with it—either before the election ends in November or in a lame-duck session of Congress afterward. A number of Republican senators have already said they’d want to fill a Supreme Court vacancy while Trump is still in office. But McConnell would need the votes of 50 out of his 53 members to allow Vice President Mike Pence to break a tie (assuming all Democrats voted against Trump’s nominee), and the numbers may not be on his side. One Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, voted against the president’s last Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, who won confirmation by a single vote in 2018. Another, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, supported Kavanaugh but is now in danger of losing her bid for a sixth term this fall. And a third Republican, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, voted to convict Trump during the president’s impeachment trial earlier this year; having already tried to remove Trump from office, Romney might be disinclined to give him another lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has now seen three vacancies in the past five years. Because of her age and ill health, Ginsburg’s is the least surprising. But it may be the most consequential. Justice Antonin Scalia’s 2016 death did not change the balance of power on the court (he was replaced not by Garland but by the conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch), and Kavanaugh is only somewhat more conservative than the justice he succeeded, Anthony Kennedy, who was an appointee of President Ronald Reagan. Should Trump pick Ginsburg’s replacement, however, the ideological shift rightward it represents would likely be the largest for a single Supreme Court seat since the conservative Clarence Thomas succeeded the liberal Thurgood Marshall nearly three decades ago. And that opportunity could be too enticing for Republicans to pass up.
McConnell, backed by the Senate Republicans who have ratified his decisions, has shown above all a willingness to wield power to its fullest extent when it comes to the federal judiciary, to interpret as widely as possible the Constitution’s delegation to the Senate of the authority to “advise and consent” on presidential nominations. He cares more about the confirmation of conservative judges than anything else the Senate does, and historically, conservative leaders and voters have seemed to care more about the judiciary, and the Supreme Court, than their progressive counterparts. Republicans saw the vacancies on the high court during both the 2016 and 2018 elections as boosting their base’s turnout, including in key Senate races, while Democrats were unable to parlay the anger over McConnell’s handling of Garland into sufficient turnout to elect Hillary Clinton or a Democratic Senate majority four years ago.
Republicans may hope the vacancy caused by Ginsburg’s death will have the same mobilizing effect this year, especially in states such as Arizona, North Carolina, Iowa, Maine, and Colorado, where both Trump and GOP Senate candidates are at risk of losing. But the Ginsburg seat holds even more significance for Democrats, who have panicked about her health scares and advancing age for years. They fear not only the rollback of progressive gains—including restrictions on abortion rights and the possible invalidation of the Affordable Care Act—but also the potential that a 6–3 conservative majority could hand Trump virtually unchecked power or overturn any major achievement a President Biden could hope to accomplish. The vacancy thus might provoke the turnout boost for Democrats that previous court battles did not, as well as a push for retribution if Republicans are seen as ignoring the will of the voters. A successful GOP effort to replace Ginsburg with a conservative before or immediately after a Democratic victory will almost certainly lead to more progressive calls for Biden—along with a willing Democratic Senate—to simply pack the Supreme Court with more seats to offset the conservative advantage.
The stakes of the next two months—with hundreds dying daily from the coronavirus, with an incumbent president fanning violence and undermining the integrity of a national election—could hardly have been higher before Ruth Bader Ginsburg succumbed to cancer. Into that cauldron now goes a Supreme Court fight, with an outcome that could alter American society not only for the next four years, but for a generation to come.
RUSSELL BERMAN is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he covers politics. Twitter
Ginsburg made her own desire clear in the days before her death, NPR’s Nina Totenberg reported today. She dictated a statement to her granddaughter that read: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
Whether that final wish will be granted is unclear. McConnell has insisted that the precedent he created in denying former President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland in the final year of Obama’s term—to fill a vacancy that occurred nearly nine months before the 2016 election—no longer applies, because the same party controls both the White House and the Senate majority. “Oh, we’d fill it,” the Kentucky Republican promised in May 2019, more than a year before Ginsburg announced the cancer recurrence that would take her life. He reiterated that position in the hours after Ginsburg’s death was announced, saying American voters had given Republicans a mandate to fill judicial vacancies by expanding the party’s Senate majority in 2018. “We will keep our promise,” McConnell said in a statement. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.” Never mind that the rationale McConnell gave in 2016—that voters should have the chance to weigh in on their next Supreme Court justice—would seem to apply even more strongly during an election in which the first ballots have already been cast.
Read: Mitch McConnell’s grand plan was obvious all along
The more salient question is not whether McConnell would try to confirm Trump’s nominee but whether his GOP majority would go along with it—either before the election ends in November or in a lame-duck session of Congress afterward. A number of Republican senators have already said they’d want to fill a Supreme Court vacancy while Trump is still in office. But McConnell would need the votes of 50 out of his 53 members to allow Vice President Mike Pence to break a tie (assuming all Democrats voted against Trump’s nominee), and the numbers may not be on his side. One Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, voted against the president’s last Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, who won confirmation by a single vote in 2018. Another, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, supported Kavanaugh but is now in danger of losing her bid for a sixth term this fall. And a third Republican, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, voted to convict Trump during the president’s impeachment trial earlier this year; having already tried to remove Trump from office, Romney might be disinclined to give him another lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has now seen three vacancies in the past five years. Because of her age and ill health, Ginsburg’s is the least surprising. But it may be the most consequential. Justice Antonin Scalia’s 2016 death did not change the balance of power on the court (he was replaced not by Garland but by the conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch), and Kavanaugh is only somewhat more conservative than the justice he succeeded, Anthony Kennedy, who was an appointee of President Ronald Reagan. Should Trump pick Ginsburg’s replacement, however, the ideological shift rightward it represents would likely be the largest for a single Supreme Court seat since the conservative Clarence Thomas succeeded the liberal Thurgood Marshall nearly three decades ago. And that opportunity could be too enticing for Republicans to pass up.
McConnell, backed by the Senate Republicans who have ratified his decisions, has shown above all a willingness to wield power to its fullest extent when it comes to the federal judiciary, to interpret as widely as possible the Constitution’s delegation to the Senate of the authority to “advise and consent” on presidential nominations. He cares more about the confirmation of conservative judges than anything else the Senate does, and historically, conservative leaders and voters have seemed to care more about the judiciary, and the Supreme Court, than their progressive counterparts. Republicans saw the vacancies on the high court during both the 2016 and 2018 elections as boosting their base’s turnout, including in key Senate races, while Democrats were unable to parlay the anger over McConnell’s handling of Garland into sufficient turnout to elect Hillary Clinton or a Democratic Senate majority four years ago.
Republicans may hope the vacancy caused by Ginsburg’s death will have the same mobilizing effect this year, especially in states such as Arizona, North Carolina, Iowa, Maine, and Colorado, where both Trump and GOP Senate candidates are at risk of losing. But the Ginsburg seat holds even more significance for Democrats, who have panicked about her health scares and advancing age for years. They fear not only the rollback of progressive gains—including restrictions on abortion rights and the possible invalidation of the Affordable Care Act—but also the potential that a 6–3 conservative majority could hand Trump virtually unchecked power or overturn any major achievement a President Biden could hope to accomplish. The vacancy thus might provoke the turnout boost for Democrats that previous court battles did not, as well as a push for retribution if Republicans are seen as ignoring the will of the voters. A successful GOP effort to replace Ginsburg with a conservative before or immediately after a Democratic victory will almost certainly lead to more progressive calls for Biden—along with a willing Democratic Senate—to simply pack the Supreme Court with more seats to offset the conservative advantage.
The stakes of the next two months—with hundreds dying daily from the coronavirus, with an incumbent president fanning violence and undermining the integrity of a national election—could hardly have been higher before Ruth Bader Ginsburg succumbed to cancer. Into that cauldron now goes a Supreme Court fight, with an outcome that could alter American society not only for the next four years, but for a generation to come.
RUSSELL BERMAN is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he covers politics. Twitter
Saturday, September 19, 2020
The Democrats are crying like babies as usual. "McConnell vows Trump’s Supreme Court nominee will get a Senate vote."
The Washington Post
Politics
McConnell vows Trump’s Supreme Court nominee will get a Senate vote
By Seung Min Kim
September 18, 2020
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has made judicial confirmations a hallmark of his legacy, is now confronting an extremely fraught Supreme Court fight that will challenge his pledge to leave no vacancy behind amid charges of hypocrisy and as his party’s control of the Senate hangs in the balance.
McConnell (R-Ky.), who blocked President Barack Obama’s final nominee to the Supreme Court for the near entirety of 2016, said Friday that President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court will get a vote on the floor of the Senate, although he did not say when that vote would be held.
“Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary,” McConnell said in a statement Friday following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He added: “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
In early 2016, McConnell said he would not give Merrick Garland his confirmation proceedings because, he argued, voters should get to decide through the presidential election. He has repeatedly reversed his own standard and said he would fill a vacancy under Trump, even in an election year.
His intent to move ahead came despite Ginsburg’s dying wish. In a posthumous statement released to NPR, Ginsburg said: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
McConnell has rationalized his decision by saying the standards were different because the White House and the Senate were controlled by different parties in 2016, which is not the case this year.
But at least two GOP senators indicated in interviews before Ginsburg’s death that they would not support filling a Supreme Court vacancy so close to Election Day, pledging to uphold the standard crafted by McConnell that most Senate Republicans adhered to in 2016.
And in Arizona, where Democrat Mark Kelly has consistently been favored over incumbent GOP Sen. Martha McSally, the winner may be sworn into his or her term during the lame-duck session, altering the current 53-47 Republican control of the Senate if Kelly does prevail on Nov. 3.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a perennial swing vote on contentious confirmation fights, told the New York Times earlier this month that she would not support voting to confirm a new justice in October, saying, “I think that’s too close, I really do.” Collins, who came under considerable scrutiny after supporting Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s 2018 nomination to the Supreme Court, is considered one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents on the ballot this fall.
And in an interview with Alaska Public Media that occurred Friday ahead of the news of Ginsburg’s death, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) — another consistent swing vote — said she would not vote to confirm a justice before the election, either.
“I would not vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee,” Murkowski said in the interview with Alaska Public Media. “We are 50-some days away from an election.” Aides to both women declined to confirm those remarks after the news of Ginsburg’s death.
In his statement Friday, McConnell pointedly did not lay out a timetable for the confirmation vote, namely whether he would try to hold it before the Nov. 3 elections or whether it would be in the final weeks of the year, before the swearing-in of a new Senate in January. And it is far from clear whether McConnell would be able to muscle through Ginsburg’s successor before the election.
McConnell circulated a letter among GOP senators late Friday, urging them all to “be cautious and keep your powder dry” on whether the Senate should process a nominee until Republicans return to Washington.
“For those of you who are unsure how to answer, or for those inclined to oppose giving a nominee a vote, I urge you all to keep your powder dry,” McConnell wrote in the letter, obtained by The Washington Post. “This is not the time to prematurely lock yourselves into a position you may later regret.”
Democrats were quick to jump on McConnell’s reversal from four years ago, as they pointed to McConnell’s reasoning in 2016 to hold up Obama’s final nominee to the Supreme Court.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” That was precisely the same statement issued by McConnell on Feb. 13, 2016, shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden also warned the Republican-controlled Senate not to hold an election-year confirmation vote to fill Ginsburg’s seat.
“There is no doubt — let me be clear — that the voter should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider,” Biden told reporters in a hastily arranged appearance late Friday.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a close Trump ally who is up for reelection this fall, said nothing about a timeline for holding confirmation proceedings for Ginsburg’s successor in his statement Friday evening.
“Justice Ginsburg was a trailblazer who possessed tremendous passion for her causes. She served with honor and distinction as a member of the Supreme Court,” Graham said. “While I had many differences with her on legal philosophy, I appreciate her service to our nation.”
In the past, Graham himself has said he would not support processing a nominee in a year when Trump was on the ballot.
“If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election,” Graham said at an event hosted by the Atlantic magazine in October 2018. He made similar remarks in March 2016, when he said if a Republican was elected later that year and a vacancy occurred in the last year of their first term, “you can say, ‘Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.’ ”
Ginsburg’s death took the already-contentious fight for control of the Senate to yet another level.
Vulnerable senators in key Senate races are likely to come under significant scrutiny on the Supreme Court, with the 2020 election certain to turn into a referendum on which party that voters want to nominate and confirm the liberal justice’s successor.
Republicans who decide to stand with McConnell on filling the vacancy are certain to be challenged about what they said in 2016 in blocking consideration of Obama’s choice.
“No Supreme Court nominee should be considered by the Senate before the next president is sworn into office,” Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) said on the Senate floor in 2016.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) also said that year that voters should have a say.
“This is about the fact that we have a president who is moving out of his residency and we have a very, very significant election coming up where we want the people to speak out. We want to hear their opinion on this. They will do that by electing a new president,” Ernst said.
Both senators face tough reelection bids.
Demand Justice, a liberal advocacy group created during the Trump presidency to boost Democratic involvement in the judiciary, plans to launch a $10 million ad campaign in an effort to ensure the seat does not get filled under after Inauguration Day 2021, according to an official familiar with the plans, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss strategy.
Some Republican senators in closely watched races said Friday night that this Senate should go ahead and work to confirm Trump’s nominee this year.
Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), who is facing not only a Democratic challenger but GOP Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.) in Georgia’s top-two Senate election process this year, said she would support Trump “in nominating a strict constructionist before the election.”
“This U.S. Senate should vote on President Trump’s next nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court,” tweeted McSally, another one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents this fall.
Both women have not been elected to the Senate outright, instead appointed to their seats. Republicans are still favored to hold onto Loeffler’s seat, but a Kelly win in Arizona could have significant implications for confirming a nominee in a lame-duck session.
Because Kelly would fill an existing term, the Democrat could be eligible to fill the seat that was held by Republican John McCain as early as Nov. 30, according to Republican and Democratic elections lawyers who spoke to the Arizona Republic. A spokesman for Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, did not return a request for comment or clarification Friday evening.
On average, it has taken nearly 70 days to confirm a Supreme Court justice in the Senate, according to a 2018 report from the Congressional Research Service.
Josh Dawsey contributed to this report.
Politics
McConnell vows Trump’s Supreme Court nominee will get a Senate vote
By Seung Min Kim
September 18, 2020
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has made judicial confirmations a hallmark of his legacy, is now confronting an extremely fraught Supreme Court fight that will challenge his pledge to leave no vacancy behind amid charges of hypocrisy and as his party’s control of the Senate hangs in the balance.
McConnell (R-Ky.), who blocked President Barack Obama’s final nominee to the Supreme Court for the near entirety of 2016, said Friday that President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court will get a vote on the floor of the Senate, although he did not say when that vote would be held.
“Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary,” McConnell said in a statement Friday following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He added: “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
In early 2016, McConnell said he would not give Merrick Garland his confirmation proceedings because, he argued, voters should get to decide through the presidential election. He has repeatedly reversed his own standard and said he would fill a vacancy under Trump, even in an election year.
His intent to move ahead came despite Ginsburg’s dying wish. In a posthumous statement released to NPR, Ginsburg said: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
McConnell has rationalized his decision by saying the standards were different because the White House and the Senate were controlled by different parties in 2016, which is not the case this year.
But at least two GOP senators indicated in interviews before Ginsburg’s death that they would not support filling a Supreme Court vacancy so close to Election Day, pledging to uphold the standard crafted by McConnell that most Senate Republicans adhered to in 2016.
And in Arizona, where Democrat Mark Kelly has consistently been favored over incumbent GOP Sen. Martha McSally, the winner may be sworn into his or her term during the lame-duck session, altering the current 53-47 Republican control of the Senate if Kelly does prevail on Nov. 3.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a perennial swing vote on contentious confirmation fights, told the New York Times earlier this month that she would not support voting to confirm a new justice in October, saying, “I think that’s too close, I really do.” Collins, who came under considerable scrutiny after supporting Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s 2018 nomination to the Supreme Court, is considered one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents on the ballot this fall.
And in an interview with Alaska Public Media that occurred Friday ahead of the news of Ginsburg’s death, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) — another consistent swing vote — said she would not vote to confirm a justice before the election, either.
“I would not vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee,” Murkowski said in the interview with Alaska Public Media. “We are 50-some days away from an election.” Aides to both women declined to confirm those remarks after the news of Ginsburg’s death.
In his statement Friday, McConnell pointedly did not lay out a timetable for the confirmation vote, namely whether he would try to hold it before the Nov. 3 elections or whether it would be in the final weeks of the year, before the swearing-in of a new Senate in January. And it is far from clear whether McConnell would be able to muscle through Ginsburg’s successor before the election.
McConnell circulated a letter among GOP senators late Friday, urging them all to “be cautious and keep your powder dry” on whether the Senate should process a nominee until Republicans return to Washington.
“For those of you who are unsure how to answer, or for those inclined to oppose giving a nominee a vote, I urge you all to keep your powder dry,” McConnell wrote in the letter, obtained by The Washington Post. “This is not the time to prematurely lock yourselves into a position you may later regret.”
Democrats were quick to jump on McConnell’s reversal from four years ago, as they pointed to McConnell’s reasoning in 2016 to hold up Obama’s final nominee to the Supreme Court.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” That was precisely the same statement issued by McConnell on Feb. 13, 2016, shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden also warned the Republican-controlled Senate not to hold an election-year confirmation vote to fill Ginsburg’s seat.
“There is no doubt — let me be clear — that the voter should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider,” Biden told reporters in a hastily arranged appearance late Friday.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a close Trump ally who is up for reelection this fall, said nothing about a timeline for holding confirmation proceedings for Ginsburg’s successor in his statement Friday evening.
“Justice Ginsburg was a trailblazer who possessed tremendous passion for her causes. She served with honor and distinction as a member of the Supreme Court,” Graham said. “While I had many differences with her on legal philosophy, I appreciate her service to our nation.”
In the past, Graham himself has said he would not support processing a nominee in a year when Trump was on the ballot.
“If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election,” Graham said at an event hosted by the Atlantic magazine in October 2018. He made similar remarks in March 2016, when he said if a Republican was elected later that year and a vacancy occurred in the last year of their first term, “you can say, ‘Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.’ ”
Ginsburg’s death took the already-contentious fight for control of the Senate to yet another level.
Vulnerable senators in key Senate races are likely to come under significant scrutiny on the Supreme Court, with the 2020 election certain to turn into a referendum on which party that voters want to nominate and confirm the liberal justice’s successor.
Republicans who decide to stand with McConnell on filling the vacancy are certain to be challenged about what they said in 2016 in blocking consideration of Obama’s choice.
“No Supreme Court nominee should be considered by the Senate before the next president is sworn into office,” Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) said on the Senate floor in 2016.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) also said that year that voters should have a say.
“This is about the fact that we have a president who is moving out of his residency and we have a very, very significant election coming up where we want the people to speak out. We want to hear their opinion on this. They will do that by electing a new president,” Ernst said.
Both senators face tough reelection bids.
Demand Justice, a liberal advocacy group created during the Trump presidency to boost Democratic involvement in the judiciary, plans to launch a $10 million ad campaign in an effort to ensure the seat does not get filled under after Inauguration Day 2021, according to an official familiar with the plans, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss strategy.
Some Republican senators in closely watched races said Friday night that this Senate should go ahead and work to confirm Trump’s nominee this year.
Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), who is facing not only a Democratic challenger but GOP Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.) in Georgia’s top-two Senate election process this year, said she would support Trump “in nominating a strict constructionist before the election.”
“This U.S. Senate should vote on President Trump’s next nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court,” tweeted McSally, another one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents this fall.
Both women have not been elected to the Senate outright, instead appointed to their seats. Republicans are still favored to hold onto Loeffler’s seat, but a Kelly win in Arizona could have significant implications for confirming a nominee in a lame-duck session.
Because Kelly would fill an existing term, the Democrat could be eligible to fill the seat that was held by Republican John McCain as early as Nov. 30, according to Republican and Democratic elections lawyers who spoke to the Arizona Republic. A spokesman for Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, did not return a request for comment or clarification Friday evening.
On average, it has taken nearly 70 days to confirm a Supreme Court justice in the Senate, according to a 2018 report from the Congressional Research Service.
Josh Dawsey contributed to this report.
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Fucktard Sanders and Fucktard Trump.
Super Tuesday Primaries
I looked at the polls for March 3, 2020. The socialist moron, Bernie Sanders, is going to win in most of these states. If the polls are correct, it will be almost impossible to prevent this fucking idiot from winning the Democratic nomination.
If Sanders against Trump then it will be moron against moron.
I could never vote for a socialist asshole like Sanders. I would have to vote for the other moron, President Fucktard Trump.
It would be so nice if the brilliant Mike Bloomberg won the Democratic nomination but there is a problem. Democrats are fucking idiots. Successful people make them cry.
I looked at the polls for March 3, 2020. The socialist moron, Bernie Sanders, is going to win in most of these states. If the polls are correct, it will be almost impossible to prevent this fucking idiot from winning the Democratic nomination.
If Sanders against Trump then it will be moron against moron.
I could never vote for a socialist asshole like Sanders. I would have to vote for the other moron, President Fucktard Trump.
It would be so nice if the brilliant Mike Bloomberg won the Democratic nomination but there is a problem. Democrats are fucking idiots. Successful people make them cry.
Sunday, January 12, 2020
Senator Bernie Sanders is a socialist moron.
I found this stuff about what would happen if the Democrats nomination one of their most insane candidates for President.
"Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign manager is warning that Democrats would struggle in a general election against Donald Trump if Bernie Sanders is the nominee."
"In an interview with POLITICO, Jim Messina predicted that Trump would exploit Sanders’ stamp of socialism in battleground states needed to defeat Trump, keep control of the House and have a shot at winning the Senate."
There is only one Democratic candidate who can defeat Fucktard Trump: Mike Bloomberg. Bloomberg is for free trade and he is very pro-business. Republicans would vote for him, and the Democrats would have to vote for him.
Will the Democrats fuck up and nominate one of their morons? Probably yes.
"Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign manager is warning that Democrats would struggle in a general election against Donald Trump if Bernie Sanders is the nominee."
"In an interview with POLITICO, Jim Messina predicted that Trump would exploit Sanders’ stamp of socialism in battleground states needed to defeat Trump, keep control of the House and have a shot at winning the Senate."
There is only one Democratic candidate who can defeat Fucktard Trump: Mike Bloomberg. Bloomberg is for free trade and he is very pro-business. Republicans would vote for him, and the Democrats would have to vote for him.
Will the Democrats fuck up and nominate one of their morons? Probably yes.
Thursday, December 19, 2019
I agree with a comment somebody wrote at the New York Times about Trump's impeachment.
Impeachment is political, not legal, in nature. As Gerald Ford observed, an impeachable act is whatever a House majority says it is at a given time. But the politics of this are rapidly worsening for Democrats. The public is not getting behind it -- Trump's approval rating is back at 45%, where it was before, and in the all-crucial Rust Belt states, he is now for the first time beating each of the four major Democratic contenders in head-to-head polling. The Democrats aren't recapturing the White House without those states, period.
Nancy Pelosi is no fool -- the fact that she has openly suggested delaying sending the impeachment resolution to the Senate shows she is aware this isn't playing well for Democrats. She is realizing that getting thrown into the briar patch is exactly what Trump has wanted all along! Democrats should do the smart thing -- declare that the Senate is too partisan to objectively look at the facts in a trial (which it is), censure Trump, and then concentrate on getting rid of him (isn't that the ultimate goal?) through the ballot box next year.
Those determined to continue with impeachment even knowing that it won't remove Trump, and seeing that it is actually energizing and emboldening him and his supporters, are not standing up for "principle" -- to the contrary, they are doing grievous harm.
-- Boris Jones, Georgia
Nancy Pelosi is no fool -- the fact that she has openly suggested delaying sending the impeachment resolution to the Senate shows she is aware this isn't playing well for Democrats. She is realizing that getting thrown into the briar patch is exactly what Trump has wanted all along! Democrats should do the smart thing -- declare that the Senate is too partisan to objectively look at the facts in a trial (which it is), censure Trump, and then concentrate on getting rid of him (isn't that the ultimate goal?) through the ballot box next year.
Those determined to continue with impeachment even knowing that it won't remove Trump, and seeing that it is actually energizing and emboldening him and his supporters, are not standing up for "principle" -- to the contrary, they are doing grievous harm.
-- Boris Jones, Georgia
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Some more stuff about Mike Bloomberg, the next President of the United States.
 |
| Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg entered the race for his party’s nomination with a national TV ad buy of more than $30 million. |
ELECTION 2020
Wall Street Journal - Bloomberg’s Entry Assumes He Can Upend Conventional Wisdom
While other candidates embrace early traditions, the billionaire big spender aims to have a super Tuesday in March.
By Gerald F. Seib
November 30, 2019
In a generally quiet holiday week on the presidential campaign trail, that rumbling you could hear in the distance was created by Michael Bloomberg.
The billionaire former mayor of New York formally entered the presidential race, proposing to start later and make up more ground to win the nomination than any candidate in recent history. He starts well back in the pack in national polls, and his opponents seemed split over whether to ignore him or label him an out-of-step opportunist.
The Bloomberg candidacy is built on the premise that the existing field is too weak to defeat President Trump and assumes he can upend conventional wisdom on how a nomination must be won. Specifically, his candidacy poses three broad questions, the answers to which will determine his prospects:
Can you ignore the early formalities?
Various others candidates have wondered whether it is possible to skip the initial contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, and all the quirkiness those two states bring, and still prevail. Mr. Bloomberg is doing more than that: He is proposing to skip Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada and start a run to the nomination only when the race reaches the big batch of Super Tuesday primaries on March 3.
History hasn’t been kind to candidates who flatline in the early states. Mr. Bloomberg is betting that history won’t apply to him.
How much does ideological purity matter?
Mr. Bloomberg is a former Republican running in a party where loyalty matters, and a moderate seeking the nomination in a year when there is high energy is on the party’s left.
Mr. Bloomberg’s run assumes that there is more energy in the party’s center than many suppose, that his progressive positions on gun control and climate change will go a long way to credential him, and that the ability to beat Mr. Trump is the credential that matters above all others this cycle.
How much does money matter?
Mr. Bloomberg entered the race propelled by a national TV ad buy of more than $30 million, thereby surpassing in one stroke the combined ad buys so far of all other candidates, excluding fellow billionaire Tom Steyer.
That Bloomberg move represents not only a big investment, but a bet the nominating race can be turned into essentially a national primary. That bears some similarity to the approach taken by one previous candidate: Mr. Trump in 2016.
Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com
Thursday, November 7, 2019
Michael Bloomberg will be the next President of the United States.
Politics
Michael Bloomberg Considers Run for President Against Trump
By Craig Gordon
November 7, 2019, 4:30 PM CST
Updated on November 7, 2019, 6:02 PM CST
Former New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is once again considering a run for president in 2020, with an adviser saying he is concerned that the current crop of Democratic contenders will not be able to defeat President Donald Trump.
Bloomberg, 77, had considered a run earlier this year but decided not to run and instead support Democratic efforts to regain control in Washington. Now he is open once again to running against Trump himself.
Bloomberg is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News.
“We now need to finish the job and ensure that Trump is defeated – but Mike is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well positioned to do that,” said Bloomberg adviser Howard Wolfson in a statement. Wolfson said Bloomberg would run on his record of serving as mayor of the nation’s largest city, building his own company and contributing to global causes through his philanthropic activities.
“Based on his record of accomplishment, leadership and his ability to bring people together to drive change, Mike would be able to take the fight to Trump and win,” Wolfson said.
News reports said Bloomberg is expected to file candidate paperwork this week in Alabama, where the filing deadline is Friday. Several other states, including New Hampshire, have filing deadlines as early as next week.
Bloomberg’s entry into the race comes as the Democratic field is coalescing around four candidates, none of whom has a clear path to victory.
Former Vice President Joe Biden entered as the front-runner, but has lagged in raising money and at 76, has faced questions about his age, verbal gaffes and other out-of-step comments. Elizabeth Warren, 70, and Bernie Sanders, 78 and recovering from a heart attack, are avowed foes of Wall Street and the wealthy, and have sparked concerns that their policies pull the party too far to the left. And Pete Buttigieg, 37, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., is rising in popularity, but faces questions about his youth and lack of political experience.
Warren tweeted “Welcome to the race,” and suggested that Bloomberg consult her wealth-tax calculator for billionaires.
Michael Bloomberg Considers Run for President Against Trump
By Craig Gordon
November 7, 2019, 4:30 PM CST
Updated on November 7, 2019, 6:02 PM CST
Former New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is once again considering a run for president in 2020, with an adviser saying he is concerned that the current crop of Democratic contenders will not be able to defeat President Donald Trump.
Bloomberg, 77, had considered a run earlier this year but decided not to run and instead support Democratic efforts to regain control in Washington. Now he is open once again to running against Trump himself.
Bloomberg is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News.
“We now need to finish the job and ensure that Trump is defeated – but Mike is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well positioned to do that,” said Bloomberg adviser Howard Wolfson in a statement. Wolfson said Bloomberg would run on his record of serving as mayor of the nation’s largest city, building his own company and contributing to global causes through his philanthropic activities.
“Based on his record of accomplishment, leadership and his ability to bring people together to drive change, Mike would be able to take the fight to Trump and win,” Wolfson said.
News reports said Bloomberg is expected to file candidate paperwork this week in Alabama, where the filing deadline is Friday. Several other states, including New Hampshire, have filing deadlines as early as next week.
Bloomberg’s entry into the race comes as the Democratic field is coalescing around four candidates, none of whom has a clear path to victory.
Former Vice President Joe Biden entered as the front-runner, but has lagged in raising money and at 76, has faced questions about his age, verbal gaffes and other out-of-step comments. Elizabeth Warren, 70, and Bernie Sanders, 78 and recovering from a heart attack, are avowed foes of Wall Street and the wealthy, and have sparked concerns that their policies pull the party too far to the left. And Pete Buttigieg, 37, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., is rising in popularity, but faces questions about his youth and lack of political experience.
Warren tweeted “Welcome to the race,” and suggested that Bloomberg consult her wealth-tax calculator for billionaires.
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
I predict Michael Bloomberg will be the next United States president.
New York Times article:
"Judging by the small size of his crowds and his anemic fund-raising numbers (a leading indicator of future poll numbers), Biden is probably finished. The only good news is that this gives one of the moderates in the race a better chance of taking that center lane. It could also entice a moderate not currently in the race, like Best-Mayor-Ever Mike Bloomberg, to jump in. Since he’s probably reading this, all I’ll say is: Do it, Mike. Do it! You have nothing to lose except 2 percent of your net worth."
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This has been my favorite fantasy for a long time. Michael Bloomberg is an environmentalist, he is for free trade and he is pro-business. He would be the best president this country ever had, and he would be the only candidate who could definitely and easily defeat Trump.
Wikipedia - Michael Bloomberg
Michael Bloomberg (born February 14, 1942) is an American businessman, politician, author, and philanthropist. As of October 2019, his net worth was estimated at $51.1 billion, making him the 12th richest person in the United States and the 17th richest person in the world. He has joined The Giving Pledge, whereby billionaires pledge to give away at least half of their wealth. To date, Bloomberg has given away $8.2 billion, including his November 2018 $1.8 billion gift to Johns Hopkins University for student aid—the largest private donation ever made to a higher education institution.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
New York Times
Opinion
THE CONVERSATION
There Is Nothing This Man Can’t Wreck
Does Trump’s path of destruction include the Democratic Party and its presidential candidates?
By Gail Collins and Bret Stephens
Ms. Collins and Mr. Stephens are opinion columnists. They converse every other week.
October 29, 2019
Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. Bad news: The White House has canceled its subscriptions to The Times and The Washington Post. Will our business survive? Will the Republic?
Gail Collins: Bret, the one lonely good thing I can say about our president is that he’s been good for business.
Bret: At last count, we’re at 4.7 million subscribers, up from three million when Donald Trump was elected. Thank you, Mr. President!
Gail: So we’ll certainly be fine. And you know Trump is going to be keeping up with the media, newspapers included. Not a man who doesn’t care what people are saying about him. I suspect there’s a digital account somewhere in somebody else’s name.
Bret: We’ll have to ask our subs department if someone by the name of John Dotard Drumpf takes out a subscription at 1651 Pennsylvania Avenue, better known as Blair House. I’ll be counting the hours until Trump takes to Twitter to unload on one of our reporters.
By the way, where are you these days?
Gail: I’ve been off on a book tour, speaking with a lot of our readers. (A whole lot of them told me to send their regards to you, by the way.) They definitely wanted to talk about the president, but they didn’t seem all that focused on impeachment. I’m beginning to think that everybody but about nine Republican senators has made up their mind and that’s it.
Bret: You have the best readers, Gail.
As we’ve discussed, I’ve been coming around to your way of thinking on impeachment. And if there are more revelations of the kind that we’ve seen since our last conversation — from acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, or U.S. chargé d’affaires in Ukraine Bill Taylor, or wannabe Secretary of State Rudy Giuliani — I don’t think I will be alone in this. Not only did the president clearly do what he denies doing, but he has directed his subordinates to stonewall the Congress and lie to the American people.
At some point, that chant Trump heard at the World Series the other day is going to become deafening: “Lock Him Up!” Or, as they say in the Middle East, khalas! — “Enough!”
Gail: Well, if you’re just thinking of Americans in general, the cries of khalas! have been thundering to the skies for ages. But you’re thinking Republican senators, right? Any defectors you know of?
Bret: There’s no way the Senate will ever reach the two-thirds majority it needs to remove Trump from office. But if John Bolton testifies, I think it could be devastating and move the needle with at least a few Republicans. If, or rather when, Trump does get impeached by the House and just four G.O.P. senators vote to convict — I’m specifically thinking of Susan Collins of Maine, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and (your favorite dog lover) Mitt Romney of Utah — then you would have a majority. A moral majority, if you will. And that could devastate his re-election chances.
Gail: Once the House gets its work done, perhaps we can start a Make It a Majority movement. Then if impeachment gets 51 votes we can declare victory. Which wouldn’t mean anything in practice but it would certainly drive Trump crazy.
Bret: I love your Make It a Majority idea; it just needs a hashtag. Here’s something Democrats and independent voters might consider doing in Utah, Alaska, Nebraska, Maine and other states with G.O.P. senators: promise to vote for those senators in their next election if they vote to convict and remove. It’s a decent, one-time bargain: If those G.O.P. senators vote to save democracy, voters on the other side will do their part to help save their seats.
Gail: Lately, I’ve been trying to listen to some of Trump’s performances with an open mind. Or maybe blank. Just pretending I don’t know anything about him and judging him just on the one moment I’m watching.
Bret: You must really be going deep with those meditation apps, Gail! I could never achieve that kind of composure.
Gail: On Sunday I was blank-mind-watching his announcement that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was dead as a result of an American raid. How could you not feel positive about that? But the president’s language was so self-serving, you’d think he did the deed himself (“We moved very, very quickly”). Even on this, he lost me.
Bret: As you know, Gail, I wasn’t exactly Barack Obama’s No. 1 fan when he was in office. But after watching Trump’s performance on Sunday, I went back and watched Obama’s 2011 announcement of Osama bin Laden’s death. It was dignified and eloquent. And then I watched George H.W. Bush’s February 1991 announcement of victory in the Persian Gulf war, when he said this was “certainly not a time to gloat.” What a contrast these two presidents provide! What depressing reminders of what presidential behavior used to look like!
Gail: We’re witnessing the birth of a new, 21st-century bottom line for presidential performances. Imagine the most awful loudmouthed bully in your high school. If it’s better than that it’s achieved the new minimum.
Bret: I’m as glad as anyone that al-Baghdadi is dead, and glad also that he was killed thanks to American action. I’m also sorry he murdered three children in the bargain. But whatever we accomplished against ISIS with his death we undermined with our withdrawal from northern Syria, which has jeopardized the continued imprisonment of thousands of captured ISIS terrorists.
Gail: Truly the bottom line rule of this administration is that no news is ever going to be really good. D.J.T. will always find a way to make it awful.
Bret: May I switch the subject, though? As bad as things are going for Trump, I fear they are going worse for Democrats. The presidential field is just a mess.
Gail: So glad you asked. When I’m out on the road, everybody asks if there’s any problem having these political arguments, given that you and I clearly get along so well. I always say that the main difficulty is fighting with someone who despises Donald Trump even more than I do. Then I add that if things get too convivial, I just bring up Elizabeth Warren.
Bret: Thank goodness for that.
Gail: I don’t find the field all that disheartening. I think Warren could be a very good president. I do worry about electability. But she’s getting to be a better campaigner every day. And if Biden demonstrates over the next months that he can hang in there and take care of business, I’m fine with him. Buttigieg is too young and green, but if the primary voters don’t care, I’m good with him as president. The only serious candidate I have real reservations about is Bernie Sanders, who does not seem to play all that well with others. But compared with Donald Trump, he’s Franklin Roosevelt.
Bret: Judging by the small size of his crowds and his anemic fund-raising numbers (a leading indicator of future poll numbers), Biden is probably finished. The only good news is that this gives one of the moderates in the race a better chance of taking that center lane. It could also entice a moderate not currently in the race, like Best-Mayor-Ever Mike Bloomberg, to jump in. Since he’s probably reading this, all I’ll say is: Do it, Mike. Do it! You have nothing to lose except 2 percent of your net worth.
Gail: Very interesting possibility, Bloomberg. He was a very good mayor. Does he have the patience with hard-core, day-to-day politics to run for president? Would certainly enjoy discussing it with you.
Bret: Regarding Sanders, he should step away from the race. I wish him good health and many happy years, but anyone who has a heart attack at his age should not run for president. And as for Warren, where do I start?
Gail: O.K., sitting down, relaxing, waiting for the barrage …
Bret: Here you go: She is promising to destroy or redesign two of the most productive and innovative industries in America: energy and tech. She is promising to take away private health insurance from about 170 million Americans, the majority of whom like their care. She is promising open borders, or something pretty close to it, for illegal migrants, and free health care thrown into the bargain. She is promising to enact policies, like free public college, that are handouts to the upper middle class. She is promising a Green New Deal that will cost trillions. She is vague on how she will fund all this, other than to promote a fantasy that Jeff Bezos and some other billionaires will be forced to cough up the dough.
I could go on, and Lord knows the American people are easily sold on bogus political promises. (See Trump, Donald; “Big, Beautiful Wall.”) But all this spells one word to me, and I’ll shout it out: UNELECTABLE.
Gail: I know you know that if she gets elected, she’ll only get a little chunk of her agenda passed into law. There are pieces, like the free tuition part, that I’d like to see her rework substantially. It’s already clear she’s going to come up with a revised agenda and I say let’s wait for that to have a real point-by-point argument.
Really, we have to save something for after Thanksgiving.
Bret: Agreed. And something tells me Warren will keep us cheerfully disagreeing for many more months after that. But, please, Democrats: Just nominate someone who will have this election in the bag from Day 1. Saving democracy from Trump is too important to be risked on an altar of progressive ideology.
Gail Collins is an Op-Ed columnist and a former member of the editorial board, and was the first woman to serve as the Times editorial page editor, from 2001 to 2007. @GailCollins • Facebook
Bret L. Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post. Facebook
"Judging by the small size of his crowds and his anemic fund-raising numbers (a leading indicator of future poll numbers), Biden is probably finished. The only good news is that this gives one of the moderates in the race a better chance of taking that center lane. It could also entice a moderate not currently in the race, like Best-Mayor-Ever Mike Bloomberg, to jump in. Since he’s probably reading this, all I’ll say is: Do it, Mike. Do it! You have nothing to lose except 2 percent of your net worth."
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This has been my favorite fantasy for a long time. Michael Bloomberg is an environmentalist, he is for free trade and he is pro-business. He would be the best president this country ever had, and he would be the only candidate who could definitely and easily defeat Trump.
Wikipedia - Michael Bloomberg
Michael Bloomberg (born February 14, 1942) is an American businessman, politician, author, and philanthropist. As of October 2019, his net worth was estimated at $51.1 billion, making him the 12th richest person in the United States and the 17th richest person in the world. He has joined The Giving Pledge, whereby billionaires pledge to give away at least half of their wealth. To date, Bloomberg has given away $8.2 billion, including his November 2018 $1.8 billion gift to Johns Hopkins University for student aid—the largest private donation ever made to a higher education institution.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
New York Times
Opinion
THE CONVERSATION
There Is Nothing This Man Can’t Wreck
Does Trump’s path of destruction include the Democratic Party and its presidential candidates?
By Gail Collins and Bret Stephens
Ms. Collins and Mr. Stephens are opinion columnists. They converse every other week.
October 29, 2019
Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. Bad news: The White House has canceled its subscriptions to The Times and The Washington Post. Will our business survive? Will the Republic?
Gail Collins: Bret, the one lonely good thing I can say about our president is that he’s been good for business.
Bret: At last count, we’re at 4.7 million subscribers, up from three million when Donald Trump was elected. Thank you, Mr. President!
Gail: So we’ll certainly be fine. And you know Trump is going to be keeping up with the media, newspapers included. Not a man who doesn’t care what people are saying about him. I suspect there’s a digital account somewhere in somebody else’s name.
Bret: We’ll have to ask our subs department if someone by the name of John Dotard Drumpf takes out a subscription at 1651 Pennsylvania Avenue, better known as Blair House. I’ll be counting the hours until Trump takes to Twitter to unload on one of our reporters.
By the way, where are you these days?
Gail: I’ve been off on a book tour, speaking with a lot of our readers. (A whole lot of them told me to send their regards to you, by the way.) They definitely wanted to talk about the president, but they didn’t seem all that focused on impeachment. I’m beginning to think that everybody but about nine Republican senators has made up their mind and that’s it.
Bret: You have the best readers, Gail.
As we’ve discussed, I’ve been coming around to your way of thinking on impeachment. And if there are more revelations of the kind that we’ve seen since our last conversation — from acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, or U.S. chargé d’affaires in Ukraine Bill Taylor, or wannabe Secretary of State Rudy Giuliani — I don’t think I will be alone in this. Not only did the president clearly do what he denies doing, but he has directed his subordinates to stonewall the Congress and lie to the American people.
At some point, that chant Trump heard at the World Series the other day is going to become deafening: “Lock Him Up!” Or, as they say in the Middle East, khalas! — “Enough!”
Gail: Well, if you’re just thinking of Americans in general, the cries of khalas! have been thundering to the skies for ages. But you’re thinking Republican senators, right? Any defectors you know of?
Bret: There’s no way the Senate will ever reach the two-thirds majority it needs to remove Trump from office. But if John Bolton testifies, I think it could be devastating and move the needle with at least a few Republicans. If, or rather when, Trump does get impeached by the House and just four G.O.P. senators vote to convict — I’m specifically thinking of Susan Collins of Maine, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and (your favorite dog lover) Mitt Romney of Utah — then you would have a majority. A moral majority, if you will. And that could devastate his re-election chances.
Gail: Once the House gets its work done, perhaps we can start a Make It a Majority movement. Then if impeachment gets 51 votes we can declare victory. Which wouldn’t mean anything in practice but it would certainly drive Trump crazy.
Bret: I love your Make It a Majority idea; it just needs a hashtag. Here’s something Democrats and independent voters might consider doing in Utah, Alaska, Nebraska, Maine and other states with G.O.P. senators: promise to vote for those senators in their next election if they vote to convict and remove. It’s a decent, one-time bargain: If those G.O.P. senators vote to save democracy, voters on the other side will do their part to help save their seats.
Gail: Lately, I’ve been trying to listen to some of Trump’s performances with an open mind. Or maybe blank. Just pretending I don’t know anything about him and judging him just on the one moment I’m watching.
Bret: You must really be going deep with those meditation apps, Gail! I could never achieve that kind of composure.
Gail: On Sunday I was blank-mind-watching his announcement that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was dead as a result of an American raid. How could you not feel positive about that? But the president’s language was so self-serving, you’d think he did the deed himself (“We moved very, very quickly”). Even on this, he lost me.
Bret: As you know, Gail, I wasn’t exactly Barack Obama’s No. 1 fan when he was in office. But after watching Trump’s performance on Sunday, I went back and watched Obama’s 2011 announcement of Osama bin Laden’s death. It was dignified and eloquent. And then I watched George H.W. Bush’s February 1991 announcement of victory in the Persian Gulf war, when he said this was “certainly not a time to gloat.” What a contrast these two presidents provide! What depressing reminders of what presidential behavior used to look like!
Gail: We’re witnessing the birth of a new, 21st-century bottom line for presidential performances. Imagine the most awful loudmouthed bully in your high school. If it’s better than that it’s achieved the new minimum.
Bret: I’m as glad as anyone that al-Baghdadi is dead, and glad also that he was killed thanks to American action. I’m also sorry he murdered three children in the bargain. But whatever we accomplished against ISIS with his death we undermined with our withdrawal from northern Syria, which has jeopardized the continued imprisonment of thousands of captured ISIS terrorists.
Gail: Truly the bottom line rule of this administration is that no news is ever going to be really good. D.J.T. will always find a way to make it awful.
Bret: May I switch the subject, though? As bad as things are going for Trump, I fear they are going worse for Democrats. The presidential field is just a mess.
Gail: So glad you asked. When I’m out on the road, everybody asks if there’s any problem having these political arguments, given that you and I clearly get along so well. I always say that the main difficulty is fighting with someone who despises Donald Trump even more than I do. Then I add that if things get too convivial, I just bring up Elizabeth Warren.
Bret: Thank goodness for that.
Gail: I don’t find the field all that disheartening. I think Warren could be a very good president. I do worry about electability. But she’s getting to be a better campaigner every day. And if Biden demonstrates over the next months that he can hang in there and take care of business, I’m fine with him. Buttigieg is too young and green, but if the primary voters don’t care, I’m good with him as president. The only serious candidate I have real reservations about is Bernie Sanders, who does not seem to play all that well with others. But compared with Donald Trump, he’s Franklin Roosevelt.
Bret: Judging by the small size of his crowds and his anemic fund-raising numbers (a leading indicator of future poll numbers), Biden is probably finished. The only good news is that this gives one of the moderates in the race a better chance of taking that center lane. It could also entice a moderate not currently in the race, like Best-Mayor-Ever Mike Bloomberg, to jump in. Since he’s probably reading this, all I’ll say is: Do it, Mike. Do it! You have nothing to lose except 2 percent of your net worth.
Gail: Very interesting possibility, Bloomberg. He was a very good mayor. Does he have the patience with hard-core, day-to-day politics to run for president? Would certainly enjoy discussing it with you.
Bret: Regarding Sanders, he should step away from the race. I wish him good health and many happy years, but anyone who has a heart attack at his age should not run for president. And as for Warren, where do I start?
Gail: O.K., sitting down, relaxing, waiting for the barrage …
Bret: Here you go: She is promising to destroy or redesign two of the most productive and innovative industries in America: energy and tech. She is promising to take away private health insurance from about 170 million Americans, the majority of whom like their care. She is promising open borders, or something pretty close to it, for illegal migrants, and free health care thrown into the bargain. She is promising to enact policies, like free public college, that are handouts to the upper middle class. She is promising a Green New Deal that will cost trillions. She is vague on how she will fund all this, other than to promote a fantasy that Jeff Bezos and some other billionaires will be forced to cough up the dough.
I could go on, and Lord knows the American people are easily sold on bogus political promises. (See Trump, Donald; “Big, Beautiful Wall.”) But all this spells one word to me, and I’ll shout it out: UNELECTABLE.
Gail: I know you know that if she gets elected, she’ll only get a little chunk of her agenda passed into law. There are pieces, like the free tuition part, that I’d like to see her rework substantially. It’s already clear she’s going to come up with a revised agenda and I say let’s wait for that to have a real point-by-point argument.
Really, we have to save something for after Thanksgiving.
Bret: Agreed. And something tells me Warren will keep us cheerfully disagreeing for many more months after that. But, please, Democrats: Just nominate someone who will have this election in the bag from Day 1. Saving democracy from Trump is too important to be risked on an altar of progressive ideology.
Gail Collins is an Op-Ed columnist and a former member of the editorial board, and was the first woman to serve as the Times editorial page editor, from 2001 to 2007. @GailCollins • Facebook
Bret L. Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post. Facebook
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)