Learning to Move Again

 I assure you my absence from posting for two months was not due to laziness.  I have been through it, since July, really, but more intensely the month of September.  Getting ready to downsize, and after 20+ years in our house, it has been a real challenge. 

Let's just say that whereas my measure of success was previously freeing up some square footage on the floor of our walk-in closet (my wife insists every woman wants one), it became a question instead of volume reduction; but now that it's done and we are in our new apartment, it is once again about surface area. Not to say that we have changed the basic issue of simply having too much stuff.

I have moved many times, so it was not the actual change of location (not completed yet, in the formal sense), but the sense of giving up something big.  That recalled my first move, when I was 10 and at the height of my fourth-grade prowess.  Then I learned that home is a matter of circumstance to some extent. 

Twice this year I have had a conversation with a European remarking that one way that residents of the USA (those we refer to as "Americans") differ from Europeans is that we move a lot more, and further away.  Though their perception may be somewhat biased by principally having encounters with the more mobile of us, I feel that the conclusion is accurate.  We talk about the lack of vertical mobility in today's society, but there is no lack of the horizontal one. 

In this case, it was just across town (and here, that's a five-minute drive).  We are temporizing with a one-year lease while we see if the proposed sale offer becomes real, and while we monitor closely our health and financial condition.  But really, I'm waiting to see if the popular zeal to punish our Federal government's mal-administration will materialize in a significant change in Congress, made real--that will happen in January, it seems, though November will establish the playing field for what's next.  

In that context, I am watching closely what outrages a lame duck Congress filled with Republican losers might impose upon us.  In particular, I think there is discussion in Republican backrooms about trying to pull an "Amy Conan Barrett" maneuver, convincing Alito to step down for the cause if it's clear the Senate is lost, so they can jam in another hack before history moves on.  

Last Chance, Last Dance  

I try not to repeat myself, following David Byrne's Psycho-killer philosophy.  I think the change of direction in the popular vector, discussed last February, has translated into momentum that has persisted and become ever more broad.  Rejection of Trump's  "Bad policy, poorly implemented", spiced up with frequent Trumpian inanity and lies, has now been taken on widely by independents and even penetrated the partisan wall of thought of Republican regulars.  The opinion is held by a large majority now (60%, roughly), but the electoral outcome depends on multiple factors, very much including local considerations.

 The anti-Trump alliance, enhanced by the emergence of some exciting new candidates, looks ready to capture a large popular majority in the midterms.  My estimate of 6-8% margin (measured factually by House races nationally) for Democrats should probably be increased to 8-10%.   In the House, this effect of this margin is dampened by the manipulations of Congressional districts, both the normal ones every decade and the special ones engineered prior to these elections.  It's hard to see the Democrats gaining more than 20-25 seats, but that will be more than enough, and there will be a couple of shockers, seats supposedly "fixed" for Republican control that will have upsets. 

The Senate's statewide elections have less possibility for these manipulation,  so the results will be more transparent, and any Senate seat with a presumed Republican margin of 10% or less in Federal elections, based on the last couple of contests, has become a target for a Democratic gain.  How many of them end up being Democratic will depend on whether those regular Republican voters grumpily show up and represent for their side, regardless.  There are more of those people in states like Nebraska, South Carolina, and Kansas, so I would moderate expectations for those.  I am still thinking that Alaska is a toss-up with the ranked-choice-voting dynamics somewhat against our Mary Peltola, but Iowa may be added to the list of seats we can envision winning.   A pickup of five seats (let's say NC, ME, OH, TX, AK) would not only be "Fetterman-proof", but might entice Alaska's other Senator, Lisa Murkowski, who has announced that she is now Independent, to swing over to the Democratic caucus.  

And then there is Florida, which like Texas would be monumentally important as a pick-up in state control, because it is so large and so Republican in recent years.  Angie Nixon has surprised everyone to gain the nomination with a strong roots-based campaign for Senate, and David Jolly is just the kind of reformed Republican that can win the governorship there.  Defeating DeSantis' Republican successor (the odious Byron Donalds) and Greg Abbott in Texas (Gina Hinojosa is at least close) would be landmark successes signifying an opening for a massive change in the governance of the nation. 

Anyway, if the efforts of the Drumpfenreich suppress the popular will, there will be powerful response.  And that is the cause of my wait-and-see judgment on "Living in America".   

 

Midterm Election Preview

As I write, 14 Tuesdays before Election Day 2026, the polls are about to close in Michigan for that important Democratic Senate primary.  Recent polls still are showing Abdul El-Sayed with a lead of at least 10 points.  One would think that with a leadlike that, the election will be called for him almost immediately, but I don't think that's true.  For one thing, Haley Stevens may have the momentum at the close, and the vote for the black community in Detroit may be determinative, and its nature is unknown.  

I have a rule not to take sides in Democratic primary elections not in my state, so I just want to say this:  whoever wins the primary, better win.  This seat is not one the anti-Trump movement can afford to lose. Allowing Republican Mike Rogers to win in the general election, a real possibility whichever of the two Democrats wins the nomination, would likely end any chance for a change of control through the election. It is very hard for the Democrats to get to 51 seats without Michigan's. It's the responsibility of the candidate who loses today to give full support to the winner; I've heard they are willing.  

The Background

There is a lack of consistency between the popular electoral sentiment and the estimates of the resulting elections from the political think-tanks.* Their policy is to be very cautious on rating as probable losses by incumbents, a policy well-rewarded more often than not, and now with unlimited money? 

This is not a normal year, though, with the support for the administration and its Republican Congress abysmally low, and the prospects, 14 weeks out, that things will not materially improve.  The most that seems to be likely is an ongoing question whether the Fed will  raise interest rates, the opposite of what Trump and his new Fed Chair Warsh were supposed to do.  Regardless of whether he does or does not raise, or even if he lowers rates as Trump would like, this is a distraction with regard to the election, as is the likely positive but not convincing stock market situation. We can expect gas prices to ease downward but inflation to remain stickily high, in part because of the downstream effect of higher oil prices during the acute moments of the Iran war.   

The Senate

If we look at the question from the Republican side, their strategy resembles what is called the "Prevent Defense" in American football, ahead but vulnerable.  Looking to run out the clock and not give up the lead, which is three seats.  If they lose four or more, it will be lethal for Trump 2.0, as we should assume that kind of successful Democratic Senate gain correlates with the House results, and a hostile Congress will shut down a lot of the madness and mark the end of the Drumpfenreich.  

The Republicans will have few chances to go on offense to try to take one from the Democratic side:  Michigan, and to a lesser extent New Hampshire and Wisconsin. Then there's Georgia, but the Republicans are on the defensive under the onslaught of Jon Ossoff, who's executing an excellent re-election campaign.  For the GOP, it's all about defending this Trumpist regime. That is not easy to do, and Trump is not doing things that will help them to do that.  You could say that the Republicans are fortunate in that many of the challenged Senate seats are not being defended by their  incumbent, but that is no accident. 

In the search for those four seats to flip, we start with North Carolina, where Roy Cooper is not running against Senator Thom Tillis, who chose not to run. Cooper's opposition is not in good shape and Cooper is very good at winning elections in North Carolina.  It still a state that tends slightly red, though, so his win is likely, but possibly close. 

In Ohio, there is technically an incumbent, but the Republican in that seat was appointed to it, not elected.  So, a weak opposition and a very good Democratic challenger, Sherrod Brown.  I'd say slightly better than 50-50 that Brown wins. 

Maine and Alaska are the two close races where the Republican candidate is seeking re-election. Both states in the two northern corners of the nation look to be toss-ups, but the circumstances are very different.  Maine Democrats successfully shed Graham Platner when he became untenable, and in Troy Jackson they have come up with a viable challenger who combines much of Platner's political policy with a more congenial local persona.  Alaska has the best candidate the Democrats could find, Mary Peltola, who has proven able to win statewide, but she has an uphill battle in term of party support in what appears to be mostly a head-to-head matchup where the effect of Alaska's ranked-choice-voting is not so important.   I would rate each slightly less that 50-50, but not necessarily correlated for those differing characteristics. 

Flipping those four, and holding Michigan, etc. is the shortest route to success for Democrats, but there are many other possibilities, forcing the Republicans to play defense in many states.  They have plenty of money, though.  Leading the list of those opportunities described as "not-probable, but possible" is Texas.  James Talarico's argument to the inevitable "Why this year, after so many disappointments there before?" question is referring to the previous high-water mark in recent times, Beto O'Rourke's 48% vs. Ted Cruz in 2018, and then adding that sentiment is worse for the Republicans, their candidate is somehow even worse, and the unspoken third point is that Talarico is a better candidate.  No disrespect to Beto, but Talarico is a special rhetorical talent with a very interesting political platform that he can defend, and proven ability to raise large amounts of campaign funds.  Against that is a powerful system that seeks to stack the results for Republicans.

There are several additional states, very red in Presidential contests, where the unpopularity of the government is leaving an opening for challenge, though not necessarily a Democratic challenger, and usually not an incumbent Republican.  Iowa is the best shot for Democrats of these--a strong candidate (Josh Turek) against a Trumpist. Florida has an appointed Senator and is challenged by Alex Vindman, the original whistleblower in the case of the first Trump impeachment.  Nebraska, Montana, and South Dakota feature independents making the challenge in place of a committed Democratic opponent.    

Winning one out of all those (TX, IA, FL, NE, MT, SD) would be a bonus, helping to cover for the risk in Michigan and for John Fetterman, the PA Senator who's gone rogue and could be liable to go with the Republicans at any time.  Given Fetterman, Democrats actually need to aim for 52 to have a majority that is truly functional.  

The House of Representatives 

Winning control of the House is the minimum requirement for Democrats in this election--falling short of that is not acceptable.  Still, the Republicans have mined the field with their redistricting gambit, and, while Trump's policies are disastrous for Republican candidates, he will do his best to create chaos during the election and while votes are being counted.  

It should not make a difference, if the public sentiment holds.  Based on analysis of the "generic House vote" polls and its close relationship with the Presidential approval level (or disapproval, in this case), we could project a national lead of 6-8%, which would translate to a gain of 20-30 seats, taking into account the reduced number of seats designed to be competitive.  Very much a maximal gain, under the circumstances.  

But the real starting point for the Republicans is 227 seats, given the net of +5 that they managed with the gerrymandering battles.   The resulting number is Republicans getting a number in the low 200's, while they would need 218 to keep control.  It will take some time for Democrats to pass 218, probably a week, during which the Trump-driven rants will peak. 

The prediction markets are giving Democrats about 80% chance of winning the House.+  In my view, that's a bit too high--I'd say more like 70-30.  

Statehouses  .   

Although the Congressional contest is so enormously important, that does not mean we should ignore the significance of the contests in all the 50 states, among which there are 36 governor contests. Those gubernatorial elections are important in themselves, but they also have a huge effect on state legislatures, which will have to be the firewalls for additional gerrymandering attempts in the next two years. Successful governor candidates have a strong positive effect on candidates all the way down the ticket, and on the Federal contests, too.  In particular, competitive races in Florida, Ohio, and Iowa could help the Democratic senatorial candidates' chances as underdogs.  A strong Democratic candidate for governor in Michigan, Jocelyn Benson, might help the eventual Senate candidate get over the top, while a somewhat radical Democratic governor nominee in Wisconsin (Francesca Hong) might make Tammy Baldwin's re-election as Senator more difficult.   Arizona does not have a Senate contest this year, but the political battle between Democratic incumbent Governor Hobbs and her team against a slate of extreme Trumpists will be a critical contest that may also affect a couple of the truly competitive House contests, of which there are so few nationally.  

The Prediction  Democrats will gain two governorships, three state legislatures, net gain of 12 House seats (225-210) and four Senate Seats (51-49),  the Senate seats gained being NC, OH, ME, and TX.  The Michigan Senate race will be the last to be called.  Trump will be furious!

* Think Cook Political Report, Larry Sabato's shop at U of Va., Adam Silver's group or Real Clear Politics.

+ And about 40% chance for Democrats to win the Senate, a number that has come up 10% or more since the beginning of the year.      

Goy Goes Off On Israel

The Hamsa Flag**

 

 

 

In a recent post here, I argued that the Senate election in Texas is the most significant one this year.  That is not just because it may be the decisive 51st seat for the Democrats to gain a majority, if James Talarico can defeat Ken Paxton+ , but because of the longer-term significance of a long-sought Democratic statewide win in that giant state. What  happens there could have effects that transform the global reality!

There is another election this fall that could have that kind of effect:  it is the Israeli parliamentary election (the Knesset), which is scheduled just a few days before the USA midterm election, on October 27 (though it may come sooner; it is unlikely to be later).  The question before the Israeli electorate is whether the war government of Benyamin Netanyahu will continue. 

There are many international electoral contests to which I pay some attention, to a varying degree.* It is in part because of ties I have in those countries, people I know,  and my recognition that those results may affect them, and partly because I am a citizen of this planet and we are all one race. There can be another reason, though, and that is the effect outside events can have on our own nation, and on our own electoral events. 

I see there to be such an effect between the coming Israeli election and its outcome, and one critical election, in particular.  That is the Senate election in Michigan, a seat currently held by a Democrat, Gary Peters, who is not running for re-election.  The Republican candidate, for once, is not a no-name Trumpist stooge, but a respected Congressman, Mike Rogers, who has served responsibly as head of the Armed Services committee in the House.  

Michigan is accurately considered a swing state that tends slightly toward the Democrats.  The population centers of Detroit and Ann Arbor (U. of Michigan) are strongly Democratic, with most of the rest of the state strongly Republican, and the suburbs around Detroit are usually decisive.  Both Senators are Democratic, as is the outgoing governor, Gretchen Whitmer, who has served two terms and cannot run again.  If the Democrats run a good campaign, they should hold the governor's job and win the Senate race. It is incontrovertible fact that the Michigan seat is not one the Democrats can afford to lose in the effort to gain a majority. 

The danger comes from the likely Democratic Senate nominee, Abdul El-Sayed, who has a primary coming up soon (Aug. 4).  His policies are clearly those of the progressive wing, as opposed somewhat to his two more moderate opponents, Rep. Haley Stevens and Mallory McMorrow, who each have significant support but are seen to be splitting the vote from the party's center.  El-Sayed has run a strong campaign, is viewed as an excellent campaigner in the mold of New York's Zohran Mamdani, and has a similar stance opposing Israel's war policies in the Middle East, in Gaza and in the West Bank.  Polling of statewide Democrats shows El-Sayed with a  small lead over the other two candidates, but with a large undecided number.  I would say that he is likely to win the nomination unless one of the two more moderates pulls out and endorses the other, and maybe even if that happens. 

Michigan has a larger Muslim population than most US states, and that gave El-Sayed a significant base, from which he has successfully expanded, by showing a strong fighting resolve against the Trumpist administration.  All well and good, but there is another constituency that may be heard from, one that could affect the outcome decisively in either direction.  Michigan has a significant Jewish population, also centered around the populated areas, particularly those suburbs--it historically has voted strongly Democratic. 

Heavily involved in this primary is the Israel lobby group AIPAC, and its Political Action Committee (UDP)--they have spent a lot of money already supporting Rep. Stevens.  Although there are other Jewish lobby groups with different stances, AIPAC has the largest funding and is uncritical in its support of Israel, and it punishes heavily those who go against it, and recently, especially against Democrats who do that. Against that, there is broad desire to move away from US' uncritical support for Israel,  providing armaments to it in the wars against Iran, Lebanon, and the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.  In particular, the Netanyahu coalition government in place since 2022 has been ruthless in its desire to harm Gazans, to support Israeli settlers in the West Bank who try to displace Palestinians living there, and in advocating ever harsher pre-emptive attacks on Iran and the Hezbollah in Lebanon--going beyond the aims of defensive purposes.  

The cleavage emerging in the Democratic party over the US-Israel relationship endangers the party's coalition, not just in Michigan but nationally, as is shown for example by the problematic results in New York City's Democratic primaries this week, where an anti-Zionist agitator won nomination for a Congressional seat that is securely Democratic.   Support for Zionism is and has been national policy, but where are the boundaries of Zion?  Are they limited to the UN-approved boundaries of Israel; if so, what about the occupied territories, where Israel's current government shows lack of regard for the Palestinian inhabitants, and a tendency to colonize with Jewish settlers who claim it for a Greater Israel? 

As for the Israeli elections, I find it hard to believe that Israelis will vote to retain Netanyahu as Prime Minister:  it was his government's lax security at the Gaza border which allowed the calamity of October 7, 2022, when criminal elements of Hamas overran the defenses and wreaked murder, rape and abduction on innocent Israeli civilians.  His government has pursued war endlessly since then which, despite the remarkable capabilities of the Israeli Defense Force, has shown time and again that the way toward peace in the region is not to be accomplished solely through military means. In particular, Netanyahu's coalition includes overtly racist far-right elements and rejects negotiation with Palestinians and Iranians.  

Israeli parliamentary elections are free, but complicated:  they have proportional representation with a minimum level of 3.25% vote for representation of parties.  Typically of such systems, there are lots of parties, a dozen or more, that can reach that level, each headed typically by a single prominent figure.  Then, the parties group together to form a governing coalition, an opposition coalition, and, usually, a set of Arab Israeli parties which get some 10-15% of the votes and seats but are not included in either coalition. 

Current polling suggests that neither the current Netanyahu coalition nor the grouping  of opposition parties--who generally support the war effort while opposing Netanyahu's heavy-handed mode of doing it, along with some of its policies favoring the Orthodox and new settlement activity in the West Bank, and alleging corruption-- is likely to come out of the election with a majority.  This means either a stalemate, or a possible coalition with one or more of the fragmented Arab parties, a strategy that was put together by the anti-Netanyahu coalition, somewhat unsuccessfully, prior to the last elections in 2022, when the Netanyahu coalition took power back. 

I do not take sides in primaries outside my own state (of New Mexico), and much less do I try to interfere in the elections of other nations, but I think it is of great importance that Democrats take a view towards the Israeli election that reflects our values and helps to maintain unity.  I don't think it is that hard to enunciate, something like this:  

"We are longtime allies of the state of Israel and support its continued success, but we are not wholly uncritical of its war campaigns.  We advocate for a government there that is peaceful in its intent, while prepared fully to defend itself and its people, and that provides all the residents of the territories it controls with humane treatment and justice.  We do not see that in the current coalition regime."   

If the Israeli election goes badly, in the sense that it would seem Netanyahu will once again somehow fashion a majority to continue his policies of unending war and oppression of Palestinians, that could create a fissure for Democrats in the last stages of this year's critical campaign.  What would likely emerge from that disaster would be a policy to oppose continued arming of Israel, which could be counterproductive,  both to the bilateral relationship and to the party.  Frankly, it would not even change Israel's policy under the circumstances, but it would further isolate Israel and thus make the situation even worse.  Let us hope the opposition wins the election decisively, or finds the means to include some of the Arab parties before or after the election in a way that does not fracture the level of its support and makes it possible for it to govern instead.

+Based on emails I am receiving, there are lots of other candidates for that "honor", including Ohio, Florida, South Carolina, South Dakota, Nebraska, and, of course, Maine. 

* I don't pay much attention to elections like the one upcoming in the Russian Federation, where the results will surely be rigged to show a level of support for the illegal war in Ukraine that is surely not real.  Surprise me, Russia!

**The proposed flag for the concept of one nation combining Israel and Palestine, a radical proposal to be sure, especially since even the chances for "two-state solution" seems now remote in the current political environment in the region.  However, it is one that demography and the arc of justice surely indicates to be some kind of ultimate solution . Let's hope it doesn't take a thousand years!

 

Edit: The October 7 massacre was in 2023, not in 2022.   

Mark Kelly for President

I'm not joking at all.  

I realize it's way too early, and there is no need to distract from the current imperative, which is a big victory in the midterm elections in '26, but the moment demands that we consider this man and the possibility. 

For those who consider that the Democratic candidate at the head of the ticket in '28 should be a straight white male, Senator Kelly is your man.  He is a proven national hero, driven by duty and honor, who has braved the worst physical and mental challenges this era produces and kept his sanity and his nose clean.  Shot into space, shot at over Iraq, counseling the recovery of his wife after she was shot in the brain--these are a few of them. 

Most recently, he took on the terror that is Trump 2.1.  He was the front man for a group of military veterans in Congress who took out a public ad to warn our military not to obey illegal orders.  Trump called the action sedition and requested the hanging of all nine of them. Wrong, and not happening, and Kelly has been out front and open, saying both that his group's actions were legal and that he's not afraid of the Wherever Man.  

The veterans who made the ad--one can not call it a protest, nor was it anything more than a repetition of a portion of the training given to all military recruits, let's call it a Shout-Out--have been dodgy about whether they were thinking specifically when they made it about the criminal order to kill the survivors of one of the first bombings of Venezuelan boats on the high seas. They have not called the intrusion of the military into US cities an example of orders that were illegal, either, but they have stated simply that there is reason to think this administration may seek to misuse the military in the future.  No doubt of that, and one can easily think of worse abuses that the White House might order.   Trump may have criminal immunity for such orders, but those who carry them out do not.   We will come back to the "Venezuelan initiative" in a moment. 

Back to the point, though:  Based on his record, Senator Kelly seems to be a centrist Democrat, loyal, but not particularly partisan, and uniquely able to communicate on the need for responsible gun regulation. He is not a career politician, but after some years--he was first elected in 2020, in a special election--he seems to be finding his voice, which is an authentic one.  Not an intellectual-sounding one.  The only issue on which I recall his being critical of Biden's administration was on the lack of action on the border--his border.  Stop me if any of this is a negative.  

 I see only two drawbacks to his chances--apart from name recognition, which is suddenly flooding his way, right in his wheelhouse.  One is that he is not one for self-promotion, and he doesn't show that burning desire for Presidential power.  That, in reality, only makes him more attractive as someone truly fit for the job, but it could keep him completely out of the conversation (present company excepted).   The other is that, prematurely bald, he might seem older than his 61 years. It might not seem young enough for some, but it's hardly "too old". 

 As for being a sitting Senator and thus disqualified based on the recent experience of failed Democratic Senators as Presidential candidates, I think that's pretty bogus:  he's got more than his share of real-world experience, yet enough Washington time to know what is needed.. As far as I know, he is not owned by the corporations, and he has an amazing wife, former Representative Gabby Giffords. 

Maybe I'm wrong, and it won't take a Washingtonian draft movement (as in, George W.) to get him to run.  If he runs, the starting blocks for his run will be a sweeping Senate re-election win in the critical swing state of Arizona in 2026.  I see the argument for his candidacy along the same line as that for Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro, but Kelly is a superior prospect.  

The Venezuela Gambit

What explains the recent rash of murderous attacks on boats coming off from the coast of Venezuela, heading north?  

The opportunity to drive toward regime change, removing a military dictator and usurper with blood on his hands who's caused millions to flee and impoverished his country?  No, that's more typical of Trump's foreign friends. He would emphatically be against that (then would go to sleep). 

Looking to grab the enormous Venezuelan oil production and/or reserves (nationalized) for himself/the USA?  No, not really any of those variations--we have plenty of reserves, and more being drilled domestically than needed.  The Venezuelans would hardly look to give away their ownership, but instead would look toward better domestic distribution of the proceeds.  Not interested. 

Searching for active kinetic action for  Pete Hegseth to use for military practice (after the domestic use failed to provoke sufficient resistance)?  Without war?   I suppose that is part of it, though why Venezuela? There are plenty of other alternatives still on the table, aren't they? (Greenland, Panama, Canada....) Certainly the continuing search for distractions contributes, and Trump is always ready to take credit for cruelty and brutality. He is also using this series of actions to probe a further extension of his powers to take actions beyond the rule of law and without any authorization beyond his own whim. 

No, I think there is something more involved, something even more sinister.  I look at the relatively minor Venezuelan component of the international drug trade, and its alleged association with current national government officials, and I draw a different conclusion.  These guys are horning in on the existing cartel operations, and Trump/Hegshit are assets working for their benefit against the Venezuelan outlaws.  See also the recent pardon of the Honduran government drug king.  

The Most Critical '26 Electoral Contest

 In the desperately important election this year, every closely contested race is a battle worth fighting.  There are a few state governor contests of that ilk, something like 10 different Senate races this year that could be considered competitive*, but not too many more House races than that, post-gerrymandering war, and probably a few hundred seats in state legislatures across the country.  There is the overall contest for control of the House of Representatives and for the Senate, and those two outcomes are massively important , but each is the result of a number of different elections, so one can hardly focus on those, in themselves--it is necessary to go into the next level down and look at what will drive those victories, or defeats. 

The race that I think is most critical, though, is the Senate contest in Texas, between Democrat James Talarico and Republican Ken Paxton.  The latter candidate was just nominated by his party's voters in a run-off election that ran off 24-year incumbent John Cornyn (who will remain as a dangerous zombie Senator whose emotional status is uncertain, like Bill Cassidy in Louisiana, similarly jettisoned from the Titanic Trumpist Tragedy. (ETTTTTS)).  Paxton is the most Trumpist viable candidate ever, rating super highly on both the loyalty and corruption scales. Texas is only rated as something like a 35-40% chance for Democrats to win in the prediction markets. 

It's only one Senate seat, and so the chances that it will be decisive are maybe one in 10 (but a little higher since the Platner controversy has made gaining the Maine seat more uncertain), but the implications are much greater.  Talarico is not just an unusual talent, squeaky-clean, and uniquely suited to be the Democratic candidate in Texas, due to his convincing Christian-but-not-Christian-nationalist vibe, but a potential national leader--in a Democratic administration, like Buttigieg is, even if he isn't able to get elected this year. 

Beyond that, though, the Texas race has possibly decisive and enduring effect on the big picture:  control of the Federal government at the top. The thing is, we are used to looking at a certain set of midsize "swing states" as a fixed, or slowly changing, decisive group for purposes of Presidential elections.  States like New Hampshire, say, or Iowa, may be somewhat susceptible to flipping from one election to another, but they are too small in Electoral College votes to be at all likely to changing the outcome.+   We know the suspects; it starts with Pennsylvania, then it goes to Michigan, Wisconsin, and more recently Georgia and Arizona (the last two replacing Ohio, which went red, and Minnesota, now seemingly safely blue). 

There has not been a really big state that has looked even possibly marginal in its outcome since California and New York fell off the cliff for Republicans in statewide elections.  The only other states in that category are Florida, which seemingly remains inexplicably beyond redemption, and Texas.  If Texas were to become a "purple" state where the outcome of a Presidential election there is not certain, it would have a huge effect on the numbers--of Electoral College votes, and of spending on the contest, too. 

I'm way ahead of myself, but a Mark Kelly-James Talarico ticket, Kelly promising to serve one term, could carry the swing states and Texas and lead to the kind of 350+ EV rout that is needed (in 2028, or 2032 if we must defer our dreams) in order to put the GOP in its place, which is as a regional party no longer a threat to destroy our Federal government and our Constitution.  That would make reforms of the kind needed possible. 

* In order of likelihood of Democrats winning the contested seats (+4 net result needed):  New Hampshire (to retain vacating Democratic seat),  North Carolina (flip, Republican vacating), Michigan (again, to retain vacating Democratic seat), Alaska (flip, strong Democratic candidate), Iowa (Republican vacating), Ohio (flip of appointed Republican Senator), Maine (flip, with Platner being only moderately damaged in Maine voters' eyes), Texas (flip, vacating Republican due to the primary result), then ones like Florida (weak appointed Senator), South Carolina (good candidate flipping on flippant Lindsay Graham), and finally longshots in South Dakota and Louisiana.  Ranking above Florida are Nebraska and Montana, where the strong candidate who might flip the seat is running as an Independent..   I'm assuming Georgia is safe for Jon Ossoff against a disorganized Republican opposition.  He's also a Talarico-type rising star. 

 From this list, you could see that I rate Texas as the sixth-most-likely to flip, and thus not absolutely necessary, if Democrats hold their seats and come through in Maine, Iowa, and Ohio.  I'm counting on North Carolina and Alaska to get things started.  

+ Unless there is no majority in the Electoral College and it goes to the House, where the Constitution gives each state's delegation one vote.  That remains very improbable as long as there are only two major party candidates winning all the states (last time that didn't happen was 1968).  

America > Trump

Of this I have no doubt, or fear.  Though we have allowed this person of the lowest character and subterranean behavior to be elevated to our highest political office, he does not rule over us in the way he thinks. Instead, he clings to the throne with underhanded means, writhing in his self-made bunker as his level of popular acceptance sinks further. Though I am observing him from afar at present, it only makes it easier to see him digging his sinkhole of madness ever deeper. His attempts to distract from his evil past actions only create more damage. Watching his underlings from a distance--imagine how they can possibly remain beneath him!--failing in their appointed tasks and drawing ridicule upon themselves brings gratification, knowing I am largely beyond reach of their putrid scheming. 

Truth be told, America is greater than just the United States of America, though I have covered that subject before.  It holds a great idea, that of the universal human goal of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but the truth that is self-evident in the domain of mankind's affairs these days is:  power.  Nothing more. The USA's power is unmatched (still), but the national government's purposes in this time are not worthy of this great land.  Greed, indifference to the global community, and the shocking, reactionary impulses to subject other nations' to our selfish interests are the unmistakable content of our external actions, mirroring similar foul intent domestically toward those without power or the means to resist. 

Our Own Litmus Test 

Yet we, the people of the USA, do have the means, if we act collectively to fight back.  We have only one effective, substantive way to strip this evil regime of its power, and we must protect that chance with all our own powers of action. Though the forces of oligarchy and incipient fascism seek to make our votes meaningless, we have--so far--still our chance this November. Are we worthy of our unrivalled privilege as a nation? Let's not waste this shot. 

I know better than to appeal to the cause of saving our democracy.  We are far from being democratic--ruled by popular will--in our national affairs, and that appeal failed loudly in 2024--the response amounted to a big, lazy yawn.  Still, we can work within the limitations of our constitutional republic to overthrow part of the system driving us downward and begin the reclamation project.  All the corrupt maneuvering and manipulation is still unable to prevent us from expressing our will, if our numbers are large enough and broad enough.  What drives the electorate may not be such a noble purpose as dethroning evil, but it is enough that our sense of frustration and desperation at the destruction of our economy and the quality of our public life move enough of us for a decisive electoral victory.  

A "litmus test" is an objective measure, in chemistry a device to determine a binary result, acid or base, though it can also have a directionless result proving neither. So it will be with our election:  victory or defeat, though the result could end up less than definitive.  It is easy to define victory in 2026:  gaining control of both the House and the Senate. Plenty of associated results would accompany that victory, not least would be breaking the Trumpist cult's sense of superiority. Getting one and not the other would not be defeat, but it would result in two years of dubious stalemate before another climactic showdown in 2028, which would then be under less-than-favorable circumstances. The good news is that victory in 2026 is feasible; more than that, it is still attainable, despite the enemy's attempts to cheat us of our opportunity.  If the Republicans are defeated in Congress, the forces of authoritarian rule will be checked, put squarely on defense, and defense is something they really can't employ well; their only mode is attack.*

Somehow we will have to muster both our people's warmth and humane nature, and our revulsion at injustice and practical objections, all at the same time.  Both our moral sense and our common sense.  I'm not saying it's going to be easy.  The shape of this battle is now pretty well formed; I will have more to say about tactics in the 24 weeks to come. 

Light in a World of Woe

 Pope Leo's recent words are enough to make me a Follower, if not a Believer with a paid subscription.  I am so proud that our co-national, first ever to that high position of authority and grace, has chosen to speak wisely and confidently for us.  "Masters of war", indeed. Am I allowed to say "our Pope"?  Not from a nationalistic, possessive point of view, but isn't he supposed to be for all us humans, not just the Catholics who are bound to swear allegiance?  Of all the groups deserting the Drumpfenreich's support, it appears that Trump's blasphemous behavior has hurt him lately with religious observants of Catholic and Protestant evangelical faith.  He'd already lost most women, the mass deportation fiasco reversed his gains with Hispanics, and his gross warmongering has undermined him with young men. Surely there can't be enough remaining for him to rig the election in his favor

 

*I give credit to Pete Hegseth for little, but he was right about that when he re-named his cabinet department.  A name is not everything, though, as he has proved that war is sometimes about more than killing more of them than they get ours, something we should have learned long ago. .  

 

 

Obit Dept.

Jesse Jackson- I remember the '84 Democratic campaign, when he made his most serious run at the nomination. As usual, I backed the wrong horse, John Glenn, who had the resume (first US man to circle the earth in space, elected twice senator from Ohio) but not the campaigning chops. I was young, but I think my instinct that the idea of a Democratic hero for President is more valid than ever, and it was always good.  

As for Jesse, I never believed he would win, in the way I did believe in Barack Obama as a viable black aspirant to win the White House. I appreciated Jesse's arguments, his classic ministerial manner of speech, though.  In the end, it was between Mondale and Hart, both obvious losers to Reagan.  Mondale was the won who ended up winning the loss.  

There was a lot more to Jesse, though, than his political candidacy.  He was a public moral goad to our country, ever since the days of MLK's assassination.  So he gets a lot of credit for the progress that has been made, and his loss signifies the tragedy of this moment. *

Robert Duvall - The most professional American (US) actor you could ever find. Acted in countless films, sometimes starring, sometimes in minor roles.  Always filled the role admirably; it seemed that he was that person, which left his true nature and feelings hidden. Most memorably put his stamp forever on the role of "consigliere"--counselor at-large--in the Godfather films. 

Lee Hamilton - a role model in so many ways, he personified characteristics like humility, wisdom, integrity, in his decades in Congress and in public service.  He may not be well-remembered anymore; I must do a little to deal with that and give my thanks. 

I followed his career from his earliest days in Congress in the '60's--he represented a part of Indiana of farms and medium-sized towns, and including Columbus, where I had politically active relatives.  He was a moderate Democrat who managed to get elected, by large margins, time after time as the political needle in Indiana moved steadily to the right.  (When he left Congress, his seat went to Mike Pence.) The area prospered, so that may have helped his ability to stay in place, but his specialty was foreign affairs and national security.  He was chosen to co-write the official review of 9/11 and its causes, which was and remains authoritative. 

Sonny Jurgensen - There was a time when I was a fan of the Washington Redskins.  That was the time when Jurgensen was their.   quarterback.  He made their team exciting, and that was the team we would normally get on our local game telecast (CBS, Virginia TV stations).  After him came George Allen as coach and Billy Kilmer as quarterback, and I walked away from them and their patriotic pretensions.  I have not turned back. 

Bill Mazeroski - Just slightly before my time as a conscious baseball fan, Maz's 9th-inning homer won the 1960 World Series for the Pittsburgh Pirates in a riotous seventh game against the New York Yankees.  He was more renowned for his fielding than his hitting, but he did have that one forever-memorable bomb, and it defeated the Yankees.  I respected that enormously; the next year (my first as a conscious baseball fan), the Yankees resumed their position on top against the team I follow, the Reds (preseason forecast coming soon). 

Mickey Lolich - I can't say that much, but I have a clear memory of that 1968 season.  Denny McLain won 31 games during the regular season, an incredible feat that may never be approached, let alone matched or exceeded.  Lolich was the #2 starter for those Tigers, but it was he who won three World Series games against the Cardinals, and their stud pitcher, Bob Gibson, who bested McLain.  Lolich had a better career than McLain.  

 

*I procrastinated on this post to the degree that I am finishing it while Obama, Biden, Clinton, Rev. Al et al. are commemorating Jesse (and tying it in with today's Drumpfenreich situation) so much better than I could.  Glory to Jesse!  

 

Renee Good

 Two observations: 

1) When the steering wheel of a car in motion is turned sharply to the right, the tail end shifts away from that direction to the left, especially with a long car. The agent, the one who did the shooting, was very close, videoing with his phone. Too close, and he got bumped. 

2) Why was he so close?  He was part of a coordinated effort to arrest Renee Good, on the pretense of the vital need to move her vehicle. They were rushing her, for the arrest, and he was documenting it.  It was somewhat planned, improvised, but incomplete due to her pulling out suddenly with the car--something I would say was not expected by the cops, as she was basically surrounded.  They expected her to surrender, not put it in gear and flee.

I would put the actual incident in the broad category of "killed while fleeing arrest", something that happens all too often, but with some very special characteristics in this case.  

First was the lack of any presumption of innocence.  It seems there may have been some bad blood building between her (and her partner) and the ICE force, though that hardly excuses what happened. 

Second, there is the unusual nature of the victim.  "Killed while fleeing arrest", in the US, is generally associated with a black male (who is presumed guilty, of course).  This was clearly a recognizably white, middle-class woman with a friendly demeanor. That was unusual in the extreme.  I'm not saying it's that different in nature from the more common form of killing the suspect who is trying to flee from arrest.  The message, it's clear, was that there was no mercy for irritating white women, either. 

Third, it was ICE killing people on the street.  Their nature as an organization seems to be more to capture and then let them rot  rather than summary execution. This comes down to ICE agents being armed and authorized to use lethal force (under limited circumstances).  In the case of the shooter,  he had been being trained to do so, though I suspect that level of skill might be rare in their force these days.*   What I think he had learned from the training was that he could use the pretext of his bump from the car to claim self-defense.

I mourn her unnecessary death and for her survivors.  

In the immediate aftermath of the incident, HHS Secretary Noem stated that the shooter, who was in danger of his life and firing in self-defense, had done everything right.  If so, and I seriously doubt it, that means the training is seriously wrong-headed--people try to escape arrest in many different situations, and the instinctive response to shoot, if you can, must be suppressed.  There needs to be more presumption that contacts with civilians avoid casualties at all costs, just as there should be such limitations with potential deportees, too.   Better yet, get ICE off the streets of our cities, out of schools and public places, and reduce their numbers.  

 

The 60 Minutes Interview was Fire

 Or, it was must-see TV, if that is clear.   

At least the part I saw. 

Norah O'Donnell had him on the defensive on the domestic issues, the ones that matter for the election this week.  OK, he could look haggard, black-circled eyes and bad makeup and hair, but his face looked Trumpian.  That's just jet lag, basically. 

The side view, though, that CBS went back to show time and again, showed a sodden, pyramidal Jabba-the-Hut-ish pile, sitting oddly on a high-backed chair with he fully six inches in front of it, spouting nonsense.

I saw her hammer him on his violations of law and order, ICE, the tariffs, and especially the shutdown.  He got aggressive, threw out the usual bullshit, and showed himself extreme and unwilling to compromise.  So, he didn't come back any wiser than when he left. 

He may have compensated in the last part, with the more softball questions that he could answer by throwing in his foreign affairs successes, his great relationship with Benyamin Netanhahu, how he could destroy this and that if he wanted to.  He got a chance to brag about Iran and look Presidential. He looked brutal and scary. But that was too late to save his numbers. 

He got a few digs at the Democrats, staying with the tired line about how "all they have to do is vote" for his bullshit, no changes, he won't be coerced. As for the Senate Republicans, he both threw them a bone ("nuke" that filibuster) and threw a bone at them, depending on your point of view.  

This was his last-minute shot at the elections this week:  pump the base's turnout.  The limitations of this approach show it to be very much short-term, basically a bet that 2026 will be OK, or a war. 

2028: The Final Question

Trump's blowing his cool was evident, particularly in the first part of the interview, as what was shown (edited; this time with his permission, I'm afraid) more than sufficed. It will definitely hurt the Repubicans' cause, if not in 2025, in the larger, later contests. I give CBS a little credit for asking some of the tough questions, a situation he rarely faces in a public setting. His answers were definitive, defining insanity itself.  He took great pains to saw his lines, pains to all, in fact. 

I had to go out for a minute, so I missed the part about destroying the environment, or about the Epstein File.  Maybe that's when they happened. 

But I did come back when we saw that we can finally stop worrying about 2028.  He basically admitted he won't do it, so why talk about it?  

Anyway, if he did find some underhanded way to do it and run, then Obama could counter it and do the same, even starting after the convention if necessary. I know just how he could do it, too--it would be to use the Electoral College for the Democrats cause, for once.* I think the White House's team of soulless skunks** realized that Obama could kick any of the Trump clan, or any other of the other guys in a fair fight. They're pretty much all the same, now.

The 2025 Preview, and to 2026

The Democratic response to the inputs that suggest the Republicans are making general-election level effort in Virginia and New Jersey, instead of off-year election level, then, is President Obama's appearance on the scene there.  Let's just make sure we get that extra 2-3% that didn't show up for Kamala. 

It's a very basic, sticking-with-fundamental strategy, if Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill represent the national Democrats' bid to regain the center in swing states, ones of the type that will absolutely be needed in 2028. It's a serious approach, with good, well-known candidates--a true test. 

There's a lot of talk of Mamdani, and the future he represents, and Gavin Newsom is the leading candidates for the states' resistance through the gerrymandering vote, which he seems sure to win.   Those last two weren't the target of the GOP's guns, though.  They are of relatively limited importance nationwide, unless Newsom fails somehow to deliver the numbers on the referendum, which would be career-ending and a significant handicap in Democrats' ability to counter the Republicans' power play for the House next year.  Finally, Andrew Cuomo looks ready to take the dive into the Hudson. 

I'm looking at two states in particular next year, beyond individual congressional races in a few states and an interesting shot at picking up a Senate seat in Alaska.  They are Texas and Ohio, two states given up as hopeless after the 2024 voters there gave  Kamala/Biden's administration the heave-ho by ten percent or more.  James Talarico (or Colin Allred or Beto, if they surprise me) in the Lone Star State represents a more convincing case to get that extra 5% or more the Democrats have been seeking in statewide elections since the turn of the century, and Sherrod Brown in Ohio is looking to reverse his 2024 Senate loss by tackling the appointee (elected only to whatever) Governor Dewine picked to fill J.D. Vance's hole. So to speak. We're going to need wins there; if we get them, we can take back control of the Senate, filibuster or no. 

 

*You know, the states' Electors--they can be pledged to vote for Obama or the Nominee of the Democratic...)    

** What's left of the White House, that is, the dank dungeon parts.  The soulless skunks, they remain a-plenty. 

The Shutup

I'm taking off the filters and calling the thieves and reactionaries for what they are in this post, so please excuse the blunt and uncouth language, if you can. 

This ending of approved Federal government funding is a "massive opportunity", as King Dickhead I himself said, but for different reasons than the ones he cited.  The Democrats are holding many government activities hostage, as a weaker force surrounded by hostile enemies is wont to do (see Hamas).  The hostages should not all be released, but only in exchange for real benefits to our people, and for real political damage to Trump 2.0 and its attempts to steal the 2026 elections, our last real hope to save our polity.  

The continuing resolution ploy proposed by the Republicans in Congress is a trap into which our Opposition must not fall, even though its allocation of spending is undoubtedly much better than the alternative, the painstaking working through budget negotiations which is going to produce only terrible outcomes, which the "CR" approach would allow to happen (though the time frame originally proposed for it will be over before you know it).  

Instead, some budgeting should be approved and others blocked. Military pay and air traffic controllers  should get paid.  The alternative to paying our soldiers is not only unjust, but also quite dangerous:  history tells us that soldiers who are not paid are likely to rebel.  In this case, Dickhead and Kegbreath having pissed off the top brass tremendously, the coup threat of that outcome is multiplied.  A regime headed by our military, though disastrous to our constitutional republic, would likely be less oppressive and dangerous than what is happening now, to our nation and to the military itself.  But that's short-term thinking:  pay our military, we will give you the votes.  

Same with the air traffic controllers:  we want them to show up for work.  The alternative there is bloody, for certain.  And while you're at it, add funding to get more of them. 

No money for ICE--forget about the Big Stupid Bill's provisions, entirely. No money for the State Department, which is doing us wrong in the world.  No money for EPA, FTC, CFPB, Energy, all of which have been captured by our opponents and are working diligently to eviscerate their stated missions.  The eventual funding for the DOJ and the FBI could be restored, after the full and mostly unredacted Epstein Files virus is spread upon the land.  Protect only the names of the victims.  I for one do want to see the video Jeffrey took of some young girly jacking off our future Dicktator with her face blurred beyond recognition. Other Homeland Security provisions could get approval, on the condition that ICE Barbie is replaced with someone who knows what is right and wrong, nothing more. 

Funding for the IRS should be approved--we don't want the rich grifters and conmen to get away unaudited--but the price for that is something that will benefit us all in the long run and hurt the Republicans in 2026:  an agreement to remove the cap on Social Security contributions, a regressive tax that benefits only the high-income people and will eventually imperil the whole program. Suck it up, tax cheats! 

As for funding our judiciary, the price for that is some reasonable term limits on future appointments.  We can promise not to stack the Supreme Court when we get power back in 2029 in exchange for that.  Right.

Budget negotiations ultimately can begin--say, next year, when the pain becomes extreme, but on the conditions that Congress pass legislation removing Presidential immunity (in particular, we need personal accountability in the form of civil damages) for illegally impounding funds or spending unauthorized ones, and that electoral ratfucking of the 2026 elections will be criminally prosecuted. I'm sure those are both illegal areas of proposed Project 2025 evil, but it needs to be restated.  Make Trump veto them. 

The tough call is really the healthcare question, the hill Congressional Democrats have decided to defend at all costs.  We should all be fully aware that, if we get into negotiations with the Republicans on restoring the cuts, doing so in a way that can become law, they will put a variety of asterisks on the funding that will make it painless for theirs and painful for ours.  It's all or nothing--rescind the cuts in their entirety, or no deal.  

Yes, the Republicans may ultimately counter by removing the 60-vote requirement for ending Senate filibusters.  I'm OK with that, as it has been weakened tremendously already as a safeguard.  It will cause a lot of bad in the short run, but when we get the trifecta back in 2029, and that is already on the table, we will be able to reverse their illegality with the force of law.  For all its noise and fury, Dickhead 2.0 has operated almost entirely through Presidential orders, the majority of which violate the law, though the emergency lawsuits and restraining orders often can only close the barn door too late to prevent harm.   

While we're at it, give the judiciary some enforceable force. It won't cost very much, and it would make a big difference.  Basically, make US marshals answer also to Federal judges, with their jobs and more, and provide gun-toting protection for Congresspeople (when they ask for it) and courtrooms. 

More Domestic Disgrace

 

 I am annoyed that the latest news from the US' political quagmire must take precedence over subjects that are much more fun, like sports, music, film, the beauty of this season, or more consequential, like preserving that which remains of our planet's beauty and bounty. Some subjects in the US' current disaster and recent escalation of violence, physical and verbal,  need to be addressed, even if their importance is transitory. 

Unforgiven 

In the above film, without a doubt one of the greatest in the history of the genre called "Westerns" the Clint Eastwood character makes the following statement as he rides to an expected violent confrontation in a lawless town: 

It's a hell of a thing to kill a man.  You take away all that he's got, and all that he's ever gonna have.

That is my main reaction to the murder of the man, Charlie Kirk, shot down as he engaged in political debate at a Utah college. It is the same I would have for anyone unjustly killed, like the students in too many schools, or other victims of politically-motivated violence in the US.

 I mourn for his family, and that he will never have the opportunity to redeem himself from his hateful, bigoted rhetoric.  Because I do believe it could have been possible; he seemed sincere in his beliefs, but he needed that critical human encounter that might have changed his mind and his tone. Enough about him, though.  I reject the attempt to make him a martyr for his cause, because his cause is not just.   And I never followed him or read any of his words when alive, so his death is no personal loss for me. 

One thing more I want to say:  we should not assume anything about why the killer did it, not until we have more evidence or capture the perpetrator.  I would submit that the shooter was either extremely lucky, or more likely a highly skilled marksman, given the range and angle indicated for the single shot that pierced Kirk's neck.  

We Should Let it Shut Down for Awhile 

The product of this Trump final term is all bad--all of it.  This, once again, is no surprise, and this is all part of his evil plan.  We who oppose it have no reason to facilitate its continuation. 

The Republicans in the Senate need seven Democratic votes (at a minimum) to continue normal operations of the Federal government beyond the end of September.  My position is that we will not call them, they must call us, and what they have to offer to get any support is a major change in direction, one that will force Trump to sign, or veto, and thus accept that his power will be diluted, or that he will own the shutdown that results. 

My suggestion, once again, is that in order for Democrats to fall in line with a resumption of government function, there must be a reversal of tax cuts for the rich, tax increases for consumers.   The best way to do most of this is through a bipartisan agreement to remove the cap on Social Security contributions, which end annually at about $160k of income per year. The resulting revenue increase will fund the program indefinitely and scale down the budget deficit problem.  Direction on tariffs should follow; Congress could give Trump some authority to set them, subject to Congress' oversight.  Finally, the measure must include language which restates what the Constitution demands: that money cannot be spent without Congressional authorization, and that spending approved by Congress and signed into law must be spent (with strictly limited exceptions). 

Democratic Senators who do not show toughness in this moment must be voted out. By us. 

More About Migration 

In a very recent post, I went over some of the basic, global principles that govern the movement of people, those that should apply, and those that will remain regardless of the obstacles. The current immigration policy violates all of them, but it is really the enforcement policy, with its violence and unnecessary cruelty, that makes us cringe. 

 We need to rethink the whole attitude toward our treatment of undocumented immigrants and stop the outrageous violations of our own laws.  If we have fair policies on the treatment of those here without the rights of citizens or of residency or visitation, if they are understood, defended by our citizens and implemented with respect for individuals and consistency,  then, maybe, we could move toward an intelligent strategy, one which will then end excessive migration into the country and allow for a true reckoning of those who reside here.  

The main point is that the US should not be the nation where people can burrow into hiding indefinitely without the knowledge of the authorities, which is the root of the issue today.  

We must accept true refugees from the Americas, seeking political asylum or escaping cataclysmic economic or environmental failures, for as long as is necessary, and we should apply sound judgment to those whose move here would be voluntary, not forced by circumstance, in order to enhance our society.  

 

Debacles #2

Everyone has their favorite complaints about the Administration now, even if you are still supporting it in some way, which is to say doing its bidding. 

Whether it's recurring inflation, the stagnant job and home markets, the spread of the Epstein Files virus and flailing efforts to contain it, that stupid bill that was last month's story, the destructive effects upon almost every Federal agency not committed to a mission statement imposing nationalism by force, failure to properly observe legitimate court orders,  the debt limit increase and the upcoming budget-driven shutdown threat...and did I mention the lack of "release of the Epstein Files"?   We all have several. 

Number One for me, the domestic issue most dangerous for the future of our nation, is the fate of the aggressively provocative redistricting effort going on in Texas, prompted by Trump and endorsed by despicable Governor Greg Abbott.  This one has the potential to lead to major conflagration, particularly if the mentality of "avoid being the loser" continues to cause escalation.  

Essentially, the rethink on the Republican side is that they didn't gerrymander aggressively enough when they had the chance.  They went for safe districts, instead of maximizing potential wins. That response was after completion of the 2020 Census, during the Biden Administration, when even red states believed they had to pay attention to propriety and national public opinion.  

Factually, new districting boundary lines only had to be approved by state legislatures and governors, unless there was some other review required by law (one downside of the Democrats' retaliation strategy).  The Supreme Court had already shown a lot of tolerance for redistricting done with an objective of partisan gain. That was a very big first mistake; the second was eliminating the requirement that redistricting in certain Southern states subject to the Voting Rights Act of the sixties be consistent with that law, one of its main provisions. 

The way it works out, Republicans still want to create districts with majorities of minorities within large cities, because they can surround them with competitive or safe red districts; in medium-sized cities they want to break those center-city districts into pieces outnumbered by adjacent suburban areas, or even better, rural ones.  Texas Republicans are using those strategies, along with one to break up some Hispanic seats near the Mexican border by mixing them with more Republican areas inland.  It could gain the Republicans 3-5 seats just from Texas in 2026, which could make the difference if the count on House seats is very close.  (And in the House, majority control, with even a very small margin, is everything, as shown by this Mike Johnson House.)

The response from the Democratic side is led by Gavin Newsom, who as Governor of California is in a position to say that there are a number of seats in his state that he could gain for the party through a counteracting move. It would be very controversial, and would take a while with an uncertain outcome, but it could be done.  There is a similar possibility in New York, and there are additional Republican ones in some of their states with large partisan majorities. 

It's quite easy to see where this form of nuclear war would go in the end if this continues.  Those with large statewide partisan margins would end up with state contingents entirely of one party or the other, and generally less contested seats.  Ironically, though, the Texas maneuver, if successful would do the opposite: safe Texas Republican seats would become more competitive, and this could backfire if Democratic turnout is strong in 2026 and Republican faithful and their leaners do not turn out as well. 

These short-term opportunities are huge:  Texas Democrats should use all means, as they are doing now, to resist this anti-democratic measure, even to force the Republicans to make shameful authoritarian moves to get them to come back and vote.  I think Democrats can delay this measure for months, months in which the Democrats in a couple large states can prepare their counter-measures. 

I see the following possible outcomes, perhaps in order of likelihood:

1) Republicans get away with their maneuver, significantly more than Democrats.  That does not mean the Democrats will come up short in their strong case to take back control of the House. 

2) Every Republican maneuver will be countered by equivalent Democratic ones. The PR battle would be fierce. This one should be a net positive for Democrats, despite going against their own principles.  

3) Both sides see the possibility to coexist, with these big-state powers being a mutual deterrent, and Texas doesn't do what Trump wants.  Everyone chickens out, and our President reluctantly TACO's, as well.  This is the best possible outcome for all, even Trump, because one way or another he would have to live with the Democrats after 2026, quite possibly with their having a majority.  You see how low I think the odds are for this. 

4) A California Republican Representative has proposed a bill that would make it illegal for states to redistrict for partisan purposes during the period between census updates, after each state gets its shot at the beginning of the decade.  If that passes, Texas would be blocked from the change, and so would the other states.  I see this as having little chance, as Republicans will not go against Trump's wish.  

5) Something goes wrong.  Let me give an example:  one of the Texas Democrats is roughly handled and injured by Federal marshals coming to capture them, against the local authorities' own orders.  There is now a martyr; Texas Republicans respond by imposing the new map without a quorum after they change the rules. It would be something comparable in its arrogance to South Carolina passing secession in 1861, except the secessionists would have the White House.  I can only hope this is not what will happen. 

There is one clear winner in this escapade (a lot of potential losers)--his name is James Talarico.  He is a Democratic State Senator from Texas, and his potential as a political leader has now been discovered by several journalists with national credentials.  He speaks well, understands the complexity of the situation, and he is walking the walk by challenging the Republicans and leaving the state.  His is a name to watch, and he may end up leading the statewide charge in the Democrats' desperate 2026 Senate race there*, against either incumbent John Cornyn, but more likely against the (even more despicable than Abbott) Attorney General there, the corrupt and evil Ken Paxton, who is running against Cornyn from the Trump-side in the primary.   

A good outcome is possible, both in public sentiment and practical results. The most important thing is to establish that gerrymandering--like this exceptional case, but even in the normal course of affairs--is contrary to real democracy.  It's a tricky objective for the Democratic party to pursue, to avoid seeming hypocritical, especially if some states will tit for Texas' tat. 

Transitional:  Tariffs 

 I pose this as a transition from navel-gazing at domestic issues to what is even more important to me, the importance of what the USA does in these years in the world, for both the short-term security of us all as well as the long-term course of history. 

Tariffs may seem a foreign policy issue, and thus under the direct control of the Executive, as foreign policy really is, but it is really a domestic one, and that is reflected in the Constitution--the legal power of raising revenue is with Congress.+ The taxes will end up being absorbed domestically, either by businesses afraid to raise prices in response--perhaps viable in the short term--or by consumers.  What I think more likely is that the larger businesses will raise prices, now, before they absolutely have to do so.  In this case, the spoils are there for the quickest and most greedy.  This will be noticed, though!

From the international side, though, if we just look at it for a moment, it's quite different--if and when the USA ever stops changing the tariff rates and compensatory investments Trump will require.  Or if the courts realize that his whole scheme is unconstitutional and illegal, until such time as Congress goes along.  Which they would, maybe even relatively quickly, but there would be some comical unwinding and rewinding involved.  This is just one example to say that the chaos is not yet over. 

I saw an email the other day, on the occasion of the agreement with the European Union, one which has been roundly criticized as too favorable to Trump and too unfavorable to the EU.  I was sent an email in response to that with the subject line "Bye Europe: Buy America".  Let's think about the reverse:  "Bye America: Buy Europe".  If we just split for Europe, we don't pay the US tariffs there, and we have access to American goods without tariffs. ** Just sayin'. 

Anyway, from what early evidence is being produced now, and still before TrumpThink takes over all our Federal economic reporting, the effect of tariffs domestically will be a few hundred billion dollars of windfall revenue, as long as it lasts.   Which would not seem to be very long, unless Trump gets tired of winning his tariff extortion game. Inconsistency is the hallmark of Trump 2.0, along with incompetent execution. A tax on all citizens, one Congress has not blessed.

The problem for the rest of the world with Trump's regime is not necessarily that there are tariffs on goods sent to the US.  Except in the case of Brazil and a couple others with the punitive rates, the US' market will remain a premier destination among many for exporters.  It's knowing that he can turn around and cripple your business for any reason. It produces overpricing and other harmful short-term strategies.  

*The principal names I have heard named to run as a Democrat against the Republican Texan nominee are not confidence-inspiring, in that they have tried and fallen short before.  Paxton winning the nomination against Cornyn, though, would give the Democrats a chance for an upset if they can push the Republicans to extremity and campaign like crazy.  It's the kind of upset Democrats will need to have any chance of getting control of the Senate in 2026.  

 + Let's not talk about Congress' abdication of foreign policy influence, probably as well-deserved as states' abdication of the death penalty would be. If you can't possibly do it right, just kick it upstairs.

 ** There may also be attractive base pricing of US products over there in some cases due to the drop in the value of the dollar since the beginning of the year, something like 15%.  

Lisa, Lisa...

 

Senator Murkowski's agreement to vote in favor of a bill she largely opposed, in exchange for some "carve-out" benefits for her Alaskan constituents could easily be excused as the classic small-state bargaining.  It happens routinely that a vote is locked up in exchange for some concessions.  The problem was the timing of her sellout, when it was clear that her vote could be decisive.  If she and her conference leadership had arranged her betrayal sooner, it would not have stood out so much, though she is always one of the key votes.  She is this term's Manchin/Sinema, along with the only other one of her endangered GOP faction, Susan Collins. 

 

Murkowski has resisted such temptations before, as with the vote in Drumpfenreich 1.0 to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, but not this time.  Surely, Lisa, you can see that the harm to your fellow countrymen should outweigh the compensatory gains a few Alaskans will get. 

 

For that reason, because it is so obvious, I would assert that her political career is essentially finished.  She does not have to run again until 2028, but she would have little chance then:  none except for the unpredictability of a three-way race.  She may have gotten back the party base, though I doubt it, as they will remember many demerits, MAGA-wise.  On the other hand, she will no longer have the luster which attracted many moderate Democrats and Independents in the past, which got her through the tough times with the state's party.  Since she should see this to be true, and her legacy is the only question anyway (since she would lose if she voted against, also), why would she choose the path of future shame?  Is something covering your eye? 

 

Her comment afterwards was either disingenuous or foolish in the extreme.  She hoped the House would remediate some of the additional poison the Senate added in its version of the bill.* It is precisely because of her and the concessions to her that House Republicans cannot afford to touch the bill in any way.   I feel that most of what the House would add would then be rejected by the Senate, so that is earnestly to be wished, but I am afraid that won't be allowed.  So, that is why the House Republicans will vote on it just as it is when coming over, swallowing their objections.   

 

On the other hand, if that limitation means the bill will fail in this added-malignancy version, then I will credit her with Machiavellian tactics and insight. 

Which Is the Worst Part? 

I am willing to debate the question, but I would say that it is the set of measures to repeal our efforts to slow climate change.  That is true, self-mortifying reaction. 

Second would be the increased funding for ICE and for the border wall, though that is only what we should expect of this administration. 

The principle of encouraging continuing chaos (such as Trump-Musk) remains valid.  Since every product of Drumpfenreich 2.0 will be of negative value, it follows logically that anything that reduces that product is at least possibly relatively beneficial.  By this, I don't mean to obstruct Federal proceedings (as Trump did), but stalemate is our friend.  

 

*I've heard that Chuck Schumer proclaimed he had successfully renamed the bill.  I would suggest that it will be/should be known as the "Lisa Murkowski" bill.  

Five Takes on TDS

 

 

 

 I have often seen the acronym misused with regard to those who sense reality, applied incorrectly by those whose motivation is only to "own the libs". I propose several alternative views of it. 

1)  Trump Derangement Syndrome:  According to the Cambridge Dictionary, derangement is defined as the state of being completely unable to think clearly or behave in a controlled way, especially because of mental illness. This applies, not to those who react with anger or sadness to Trump's maladministration, but it is better applied to those who are still under his spell after all these years--the MAGA believers.  These folks are generally still out of their minds and beyond reach. 

2)  Trump Delusion Sufferers:  These are the people who had some rational thought that a change of administration might benefit them, in terms of their chief concerns--say, the economy.  They now realize that the expectation they drew from what was promised was merely a scam.

The way to interact with them is as you would with someone who is a victim of fraud, whether their own credulity caused them to become victims, or just were outwitted.  Sympathize with them for their loss; then you can safely share with them how you, too, suffer from the damage.

3) Trump Depression Sufferers:  These are the many people who have observed what is happening and cannot get over the sadness it brings them.  Depression is very hard to treat; the recourse to alcohol and/or drugs is the wrong medicine.  In this case, it would seem best to try to interest them in something else besides politics, such as horseback riding, a fitness and dieting regime, comedy, or Tai Chi. 

4) Trump Dethronement Schemers:  Some of them are motivated by a spirit of revenge, others from a righteous desire to defend our Constitution, but the common thread is what King Crimson called "Radical Action to Unseat the Hold of Monkey Mind" (album cover illustration above).*  This is all well and good but needs to be put on hold, lest the 8647 Police come to take you away. I will admit that this is the version to which I am most susceptible. 

5) Trumpism Defeat Scenarists:  At last we come to a worthwhile version.  People are coming at this from all sorts of angles. There are various ways to skin this cat, and the only question is to unite around the one script that is most feasible. It must start with taking control of the US House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections, then using the control of the House committees to expose the full range of corruption in this administration and the damage its economic and foreign policies are causing.  The goal is a complete wipeout of the Trumpist program in 2028, and then to move forward with policies that will prevent any recurrence of unconstitutional and anti-democratic governance.  The progress will then follow.

 

*Photo from the Wikipedia article about that musical release, by the sterling formation of the 2010's which performed the last live tour of the band.  Highly recommended, as is the more reduced "Live in Toronto" release.  I hope this plug makes up for the appropriation of the intellectual property.

What Is To Be Done?

Kamala Harris' Presidential campaign, and that of President Biden before her, focused their energy on the cause of defending democracy.  Millions of potential voters turned away.  That, and the betrayal of RFKJr made the difference in a close general election in 2024. 

Democratic post-mortems, of which there have been way too many, proposing a variety of solutions, seem to agree that the problem was the lack of a substantial alternative to that being proposed by the Trump candidacy, that moronic, lying, hateful, fearmongering proposition backed by a narrow plurality, just short of a majority, of those who chose to vote.  And it's true, our democracy, as it is practiced today, is barely defensible.  Defending this status quo proved to be a loser. 

The answer to Democrats' lack of a credible alternative is not an economic one, really.  The US economy was not so bad in 2024, or in 2016.  In both cases, the Democratic-led administration had made real progress, with its limited real means to control the economy, in digging the country out of deep holes created during the Republican-led administrations of W Bush and Trump I.  It didn't win the election for them. 

There is talk of the Democrats developing some kind of vision of Abundance as a policy to campaign upon.  That's pretty much just apple pie thinking--yes, we would all like to be wealthy, but promising that is only going to backfire in the long run, as the realization sets in that it isn't happening.  The failure of that promise of super-abundance is pretty much happening in real time to Trump's promises of MAGA.  Frankly, the US already has abundance, and the likelihood that it will flourish ever more doesn't look so good as global commerce fades, climate change hampers us, global competition rises around us, and AI eliminates jobs all over.  Just ask the young about the prospects. 

Yes, the economic failure that is coming at us rapidly will likely cause a reversal in the political fortunes for the Republicans, whose hold on government is strong, but electorally very thin, and getting thinner week by week.  That would just be another swing of the pendulum, though, and will not bring us any closer to a more successful, stable polity that we can believe in. 

Bernie Sanders was right when he said, recently, that the US is a "pseudo-democracy".  The fact of the matter is that the policies of this Federal government are not popular ones. I would accept that there are times when the collective judgment of our elected representatives should override the popular whims of the moment and pursue wise policies to benefit all of us, but that is not at all the case now.  The authoritarian, destructive policies being pursued incompetently now are harmful to most, but excessively beneficial to a few who control the power. This is not democracy; it is barely a constitutional republic. 

The Reinvention of Democracy is the Vision We Need

The reforms I suggest below are generally non-partisan (not bipartisan), and some will tend to weaken the Democratic party's power relative to what it controls today; however, because it will work to remove built-in obstacles to people's will, we can expect the Trumpist Republican cult would oppose them fiercely.  I am limiting myself to changes that can be accomplished without constitutional amendment, as that is out of the question in today's political environment, or any that we can foresee in the near future.  Once the people are back in control, though, I would think that we could consider it possible to utilize the Founders' other channel to change the constitution, a new convention, without preset limits.   

Number one of these obstacles to democracy is the obscene level of expenditure for political campaigns now.  There has been an exponential escalation of the costs in the past twenty years, and now it is on a scale where only the rich and well-funded lobbyists can participate meaningfully.  For the others, massive efforts are required, but as we saw in 2024, not sufficient.  For Federal elections, the only choices are accepting the implicit bribery of huge donations, constant fundraising, or, increasingly, self-funding by multi-millionaires.  2024 saw Trump's winning campaign funded by hundred of millions of dollars of support from Elon Musk, who's been rewarded by getting a free hand to steal the nation's personal data and re-jiggering any regulations that get in the way of his profit-making.  For the Democrats looking forward to 2028, their best chance may be billionaire J.B. Pritzker, whon I could support if and only if he agrees:  Ending unlimited campaign spending is the start of returning democracy to our electoral process. 

I realize that in the odious Citizens United case some ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that political spending fell in the category of free speech protected by the constitution, but the lines that were drawn between true campaign-support funding and parallel "nonprofit" organizations' theoretically separate activity have been blurred, then practically eliminated entirely.  "Dark money" contributions have eliminated any accountability for political contributors, and guardrails to prevent foreign interference or produce any limitations on direct contributions have had workarounds making them ineffective.

Congress does have the responsibility of setting the dates and broad outlines of federal elections, a prerogative they need to exercise.  My principal recommendations are to re-energize the moribund Federal Elections Committee, give it increased powers to monitor campaign activity, levying fines proportionate to the danage violations cause to elections--and remove all partisan appointments to it.  Congress should emulate some parliamentary democracies and declare a period of some 60 days immediately prior to the elections in which political activity should be closely regulated.  Restore "Equal Time" provisions for free media, penalize factual inaccuracy (also known as "lies"), and limit direct campaign spending by individual campaigns to some ratio to population (I'd suggest 10 cents per person, at current dollar valuations.)  

I don't have much to complain about the actual methods of voters' registering their choices, or about the counting of the votes; these are controlled within states and localities, and there is something to be said about their being decentralized, and thus not subject to centralized or hacked manipulations.  I do believe that the ongoing debates about voter suppression and voter fraud are totally unnecessary:  Congress should authorize the issuance of tamper-proof Voter ID's to every citizen of age, equipped with 21st-century digital technology and easily transferable between precincts, counties, or states as people move their residence.  Issued universally without charge to the individual, for the first ID at least.  Coming of age would then bring this privilege of citizenry, reinforcing the special, though universal, benefit of suffrage.  I do not believe the issuance of this credential to be a difficult challenge for this nation to achieve, either in terms of the cost or the technology. 

The Electoral College is an ongoing irritant and distorter of the popular will.  In past elections, it transformed close popular votes into electoral vote landslides; now it evidences a much greater problem, reversing the outcome itself with greater frequency, something which undermines the whole prospect of the democratic choice of our top leader tremendously.  It is something fundamental to the original constitutional framework, though, and could never be changed to mere popular vote plurality without a radical set of amendments.*  

What is not at all in the constitution is the "winner-take-all" electoral slate, in which the candidate with the plurality of votes wins all the electoral votes of the state, something in effect in every state except Maine and Nebraska. It is something that developed in the 19th century as states competed to have their votes count more than others, another escalation that distorted popular will.  Now, because of it, 40 states or more have all their electoral votes virtually  put up on the board before the election even starts.  The entire presidential election is focused on a few states, with the resulting effects on policy subtle but clear.  All serious contenders for the Presidency have to focus on the needs of Pennsylvania, above all others, with a few others like Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin getting secondary attention, and the rest--nothing.

I would recommend that a compact of Congress prohibit winner-take-all, combined with enabling provisions. The Maine/Nebraska approach gives two electoral votes to the statewide winner, and the other electoral votes are determined by the candidate winning the individual House districts.  It's a good remedy, and one that would show no favor, if accompanying the measure is a resolution ending gerrymandering:  congressional district boundaries would be determined by nonpartisan analysis considering natural and significant man-made boundaries, trying to build around intact communities and metropolitan areas. 

The political parties' power of over elections, another "feature" which the US Constitution's authors opposed, needs to be reduced, and the narrowing of the field of practical candidates to the two parties' nominees, chosen through primaries which, though intended originally to give power to the voters, has resulted in recent times to intensify partisan division to dangerous levels.  The introduction of ranked-choice voting and instant runoff would address this problem.  In this, voters would be able to indicate the preference, in ranked order, for most or all of the candidates on the ballot (or write-in);  if no candidate gets a majority, then the votes of the lowest candidate, in first-choice votes, would be immediately allocated to the remaining candidates by the voters' second choice, and so on until someone achieves a majority.  It could be used for any and all elections of officials--even the Presidential one, which might head off the prospect of the constitution's infamous resolution method for outcomes without an absolute Electoral majority (voting by the House, with each state getting one vote).

The provision has settled in a few states' elections, but it is not clearly understood by most of the electorate--I would suggest that it is because opposing it is one thing both parties can agree to put aside.  It clearly gives greater opportunity to third parties and independent candidates. Most importantly, it would lead to the end of the discouraging prospect of having to choose between the "less-evil" of two, which so many decry in so many elections these days, with the winning candidate being truly chosen (to some extent) by a majority of voters. 

The final recommendation I'd suggest for now would be to extend the right of representation to all US citizens, through granting statehood to  1) District of Columbia, 2) Puerto Rico,  3) US Territories and expatriates.  Three new constituencies, and if possible, mandating voting rights to those citizens disenfranchised for whatever reason. 

Why should the Democratic party advocate this set of reforms, which as I say seem somewhat limiting to their partisan interests? Because they are necessary for our nation, because they embody the party's name and purpose, and because they will be politically efficacious. This platform for reinvigorated democracy would seem to be something broadly popular, difficult in the extreme to oppose without denying the fundamental principle that the political will of the electorate should not be suppressed or distorted beyond recognition. 

 

*The Popular vote initiative--to mandate that all electoral votes would be allocated to the national popular vote winner--is stalled well short of its needed objective of having 270 electoral votes' worth of states supporting it, and I see no chance of that being reached.  Even if it were, it would not eliminate the partisan firestorm that would occur if a candidate (let's say, Trump) would have 270+ electoral votes from the states under the current system, but the victory denied because of lack of a popular vote plurality. I can just see the rebellion that would result, and the chaos following when the Supreme Court throws out the popular vote-driven result.    

 For the title, I borrowed from Vladimir...Lenin, that is, and from 19th-century Russian idealist Nikolay Chernyshevsky, from whom Lenin borrowed it in his turn.