Regarding "Trump's Next Big Lie" - The Boomerang Strategy - Trump and the rightwing propaganda machine are both extremely clever in the way that they take what others are truthfully saying about him and/or about the radical right and co-opt the same language to falsely accuse their critics of the same exact things. If you truthfully describe Trump's behavior as "disgraceful" he will take the word and make "disgraceful" one of the insults he routinely uses to attack his opponents. Call him out for "weaponizing" the DOJ and he will grab that, turn it around, and claim that is what his opponents are doing if they call him to account for his crimes and misdeeds. Likewise, hold him responsible for his actions and he plays like he's the victim being unjustly persecuted.
Both Trump and rightwing propaganda peddlers routinely and skillfully project their own sins - whether it be lying or financial corruption - on their opposition. It's a way of turning truth inside out and upside down that is very difficult to fight because the facts and evidence that prove which side is telling the truth vs. which is twisting it are often not recognized or admitted by millions of voters who have lost touch with objective reality.
From 2015 on, Trump's dogwhistle said "Stick with me and you'll get the race war you've always fantasized about!" (And of course the religion war, and all the other murders they've wanted to see.) Every word out of his mouth meant (and still means) the same thing to his sTRUMPets, so it doesn't matter what he says. When the sTRUMPets repeat nonsense, there is no content at all, other than that they are just repeating the cheers they use to work each other and themselves into a murderous rage — exactly like shouts of "Sieg heil!" The promised race/religion war is the idol upon whose altar the sTRUMPets will gladly sacrifice their reason, their children, their parents and themselves. They would of course deny that vehemently, violently, but we should ignore what they say and watch what they do. It is certainly possible that they have repeated the lies so often and angrily that they have come to believe them, but really the content, and therefore their degree of belief, does not matter.
"I never thought I’d say this, but Bernie Sanders seems to be the voice of reason here,” Ingraham said. “Everything you just saw was a complete and utter embarrassment. It shouldn’t be what is projected to our kids from our nation’s Capitol."
-----
Would anyone care to remind Ms Ingraham exactly how this growing chasm within the New GOP actually began -- or at least was grossly enlarged? If I recall, it was her, Hannity and Carlson, the big three of conservative TV early on in the beginning of the Amber Australopithecus' shitshow of an administration, before Newsmax and OAN skimmed off some of their viewers, did everything they could to cover for his obscene antics, and never backed off. Losing a large nine-figure lawsuit didn't stop Fox from allowing the bovine scat to continue to flow through their primetime programming, which went on to infect even those who were once considered responsible, honest journalists. Even when Carlson was fired Hannity and Ingraham continued beating the MAGA drum with apparent immunity from the Fox suits.
She had, and still has, a considerable responsibility for the ongoing clown show coming from the Psychiatric Facility Escapee Caucus and MAGAdroids in general.
What should we expect from members of a party slavishly enthralled to the most narcissistic superannuated toddler who's ever thrown a tantrum on the US political stage?
IOW, why should GQP childishness come as a surprise these days? It's not like GQP voters want to be represented by adults, but the pesky Constitution requires representatives to be 25 year old (chronologically) and senators 30.
The thing is they do it for the money because Murdoch (an arch conservative) realized that if you stoke people's anger and prejudice they will love you. It was not only a way the transform decent people into raging hate mongers but its also quite lucrative. You can tell because even the poor among them give in to the church.
So Chip Roy wants to know how to respond to constituents who demand to know why they haven't accomplished anything. Ooh ooh, I know!
Democracy. It's called democracy, which provides a mechanism for resolving differences and disagreements and which attempts to reflect majority opinion. MAGA constituents don't want to see any compromise or acceptance of majority views or spend time trying to craft bills that will actually pass, they just want flamethrowers and obstructionists whose only accomplishments are the clicks they get on the fund-raising emails and the joy their base takes in the fight.
We need adults and serious people and we're getting childish clowns and charlatans.
I love George Conway. But something he said on yesterday's podcast was so incredibly wrong, I have to write. He said that it's hard to find good attorneys to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court b/c of the supposed low salary. He said that many first year associates make what SCT justices make.
As someone who has been an attorney for as long as George Conway, and who has spent much of my 35 years as an attorney looking for legal employment, I couldn't disagree more. SCT justices make $274K a year, with great benefits, great retirement and plenty of other perks. Conway said many first year associates make $274K a year. No, they absolutely do not. 99.99% of first year associates make nowhere near $274K and most won't come anywhere close to that level of compensation in their legal careers. Conway is living in an isolated world if he thinks the legal profession offers that type of compensation to first year attorneys.
When I left law school in 1987, new graduates wanted to go to private firms where they could make more money than they could in the public sector. What Conway doesn't understand is that has changed greatly since we were in law school. Private attorney salaries have been stagnant for decades, while public sector attorney salaries have soared far above the inflation rate. To today's law school graduates, public sector attorney jobs are often the much more desired career path.
Now I know lower federal court judges make much less salary than SCT justices. But still there is no shortage of attorneys, indeed quality attorneys, who wouldn't cut off their right arm to be appointed to a federal judgeship. It's lifetime employment, decent salary, great benefits, great retirement, and ton of prestige. If George Conway still insists people wouldn't leave law firm jobs for the federal bench, I would ask him this...how many federal judges have left the bench early to accept a partnership at a law firm? Only a handful of federal judges do that, even though they no doubt get plenty of offers. Instead, they stay on the federal bench for 10 years and then go into senior judge status, part-time work at full salary. Another nice perk.
I know this is an insider issue, but this misrepresentation of legal salaries is a huge pet peeve of mine. We have far too many people going to law school thinking they're going to be paid as if they were a doctor only to find themselves paid no better (or often worse) than an electrician or a plumber. Then they end up disillusioned, ending up leaving the legal profession while having to pay back huge student loans. A lot of this is as a result of people's misperception about legal salaries. Unfortunately, comments like those George made help feed that misperception.
Forgive me, George. Thank you for all you've done for those of us Republicans who oppose the Trumpification of our party.
The starting salary for a first year associate in BigLaw is $215,000. A fourth year associate makes $295,000. A seventh year associate makes $400,000...
Yesterday's heroes on the hill. Rep Moskowitz, who continued to prove how much better prepared the democrats are than the republicans. And Senator Bernie Sanders who was nothing short of Magnificent and I am not a Bernie Fan.
On the Israel/Hamas question of the dates Oct 7, 2023 and 7.10.23: In Europe, anyway, the dates are thus: day/month/year and not as Americans use month/day/year.
Simple take on Kari Lake: Pace the late philosopher Harry Frankfurt (his short, finely written book, On Bullshit, should be required reading for all), there are three kinds of speakers when one analyzes their relationship to truth. Two of them care about truth. Truth tellers have to know what is true and what is not. Liars are the same; one can't lie if one doesn't know what's true and what ain't. Bullshitters don't care. They say whatever comes into their heads that fits the moment or milieu. I'd take Ms. Lake as being opportunistically in the second category for some of what she says, but significantly in the third. DJT is the definition of the third.
So you're telling me no one bothered to actually translate the document from Arabic to English?
Pssst Israeli military folks have no issue translating Arabic, experienced journalists would see that as red flag #1.
Then you identify the fact that the schedule started on October 7. You know what else happened on October 7? Ummm Israel cut if fuel and electricity.
You think MAYBE an innocent and highly plausible explanation would be that they would have started scheduling on paper given that wasting limited generator juice on creating and accessing a schedule electronically would be wasteful, you know, given the fact that a dozen premie babies have already died as a result of the power and fuel embargo (which as a side note, is a fucking war crime as well, collective punishment).
These are questions a smart editor should have pointed out before publishing that embarassing piece.
As in much of his work, there's more data than emotion, and a lot more light than heat. I strongly recommend it, but encapsulated, it's that there's a lot less anti-Semitism on the Left, particularly among young people, than there appears to be.
It really is necessary to distinguish between speech that is anti-Semitic in intent and speech that is anti-Semitic in effect. The negative effects of both may be deplorable and require a firm response, but those who practice the second may be much more susceptible to education than those who practice the first. Moreover, the second was predictable from "within the cohort whose entire adult life has seen no meaningful final status negotiations", but instead witnessed Right-wing Israeli governments continuously expand settlements on the land that successive UN resolutions intend for a Palestinian state.
Ripping down posters of victims kidnapped by terrorists is a despicable thing. So is chanting "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and pretending to be, or choosing to be, ignorant of what the slogan really means. Individuals who commit crimes should be punished for those crimes. But before people who do not commit actual crimes are doxed as anti-Semites, before they have job offers withdrawn or their future careers permanently affected, they deserve the chance to explain as individuals whether their actions really were based on hatred of Jews, or on the universal student, especially elite school student, cocktail of ignorance, arrogance, and self-regard. Ignorance can be cured by education and research, and many people grow out of the last two on their own. Not all the people who embarrassed themselves since October 7 really deserve lifelong labels as Haters.
Very few deserve lifelong labels, period. This is one of the chief reasons why many of us have not supported what some call cancel culture; or more importantly, the expansion of statutes of limitations for crimes deep in the past. Many of us believe that where there is life there is hope, or that people can fall off their horse and have an epiphany. This does not excuse stupidity, or foolishness, at the moment so, to the extent possible, try to speak with the young, or the otherwise ill informed now, and not let them have to wait twenty years to smack their own heads and say, "What was I thinking?"
A number of years ago I received a gift of a small book of quotations/proverbs of which I am now reminded, and as best as I recall:
Four things never come back; the sped arrow, the spoken word, the past life, and the neglected opportunity.
Those that hopped on the anti-Jewish dog-pile whether due to that ignorance cocktail, arrogance, or self-regard, and who have had job offers rescinded or their names added to a "do not hire" list have learned a hard lesson with their written words that never come back. Too many today believe that it cannot happen to them, whatever the "it" might be, only to discover that it can indeed happen to them.
Absolutely the same here! I must look at my subscriptions every day and think, "can I make room for Matt Yglesias and Chris Cillizza today?" Nope. Maybe in January. 😢
I do not know if t***p and his entourage are true believers in the stolen election or not nor if that actually matters. There are those like the new house speaker who as nearly as I can tell basses his belief on the fact that a great number of election rules were changed in a number of states because of Covid, even though these changes were agreed upon ahead of time in these states by both parties. It was only after Biden won and only in the states Biden won that suddenly Republicans saw this as illegal a grave error or whatever. One of the states that made changes like this, NC, was not contested by Mr. Johnson and the bogus lawsuit, why you might ask. Because in NC those changes resulted in precisely the late absentee vote surge t***p needed to win.
The people who say that there is some equivalence between Trump and Biden-- that they are two sides of the same coin and that they represent right and left political extremes that are more or less equivalent distances from the center --are Trump voters, not Biden voters. This is the exact definition of "both-sidesism," which is a resident idea among the American Right, and not the Left. If these people don't vote for No Labels, they will vote for Trump in much greater numbers than for Biden. But these are the people to whom No Labels makes its overtures.
The No Labels pitch is that both Trump and Biden are too extreme, but that is an inherently conservative talking point. No Labels, especially with a Republican at the top of the ticket, is going to hurt Trump much, much more than Biden.
Similarly, RFK Jr appeals to Trump's base of MAGA voters far more than anyone who might vote for Biden. The majority of Americans see the clear danger of letting Trump back into government, and are prepared to vote for whomever the Democrats nominate, whether it's holding their nose for Biden or proudly doing so. They know that votes for any third party candidate work toward electing Trump.
It's my belief that if RFK Jr and No Labels are on the ballot next year, they will keep Trump under 40% in most states.
Indeed it wasn't, nor is it the conclusion I've seen anyone else make. But I just don't see a disingenuous conservative ticket using fallacious conservative talking points to win the votes of people in the middle, and succeeding. They'll win over some Biden voters, but I think they'll be outnumbered ten to one by won-over Trump voters.
What we used to recognize as "conservative talking points" often *are* in the middle now, though, inside the range of the expanded coalition that elected Biden. Those values are not what Trump voters are responding to. The "freedom agenda" of George W. Bush (emphasizing American leadership in promoting international democracy) is rhetorically much closer to Joe Biden than to Trump.
I sincerely hope you are correct in your analysis but the Kennedy name still wields a lot of power among democrats and is almost as despised among republicans as is Clinton.
I'm not saying there isn't work to do. Democrats need to get the message out about RFK Jr between now and the election(or the suspension of his campaign). Heavily-online MAGA adherents will not be affected by this messaging in the least, but that's fine in my opinion, if it would take support from Trump.
Tim Miller's observations that Kari Lake was trying to moderate herself did reveal that on some level she at least dimly understood that she took her extremism too far during her gubernatorial run. Lake telling McCain supporters "F off, we don't want you here" was a fatal gaffe. If she had just said "McCain supporters, we welcome your support" she'd be AZ governor right now. Heck, even if she had said nothing to McCain supporters one way or another she still probably would have won. But because McCain famously was not a Trump fan, she thought being full-on mouthfoaming MAGA about McCain was necessary.
But at this point everyone knows she's a full-on MAGA mouthfoamer and it'll be very hard to roll that back. Tim's interview rattled her enough that the mask eventually slipped.
Regarding "Trump's Next Big Lie" - The Boomerang Strategy - Trump and the rightwing propaganda machine are both extremely clever in the way that they take what others are truthfully saying about him and/or about the radical right and co-opt the same language to falsely accuse their critics of the same exact things. If you truthfully describe Trump's behavior as "disgraceful" he will take the word and make "disgraceful" one of the insults he routinely uses to attack his opponents. Call him out for "weaponizing" the DOJ and he will grab that, turn it around, and claim that is what his opponents are doing if they call him to account for his crimes and misdeeds. Likewise, hold him responsible for his actions and he plays like he's the victim being unjustly persecuted.
Both Trump and rightwing propaganda peddlers routinely and skillfully project their own sins - whether it be lying or financial corruption - on their opposition. It's a way of turning truth inside out and upside down that is very difficult to fight because the facts and evidence that prove which side is telling the truth vs. which is twisting it are often not recognized or admitted by millions of voters who have lost touch with objective reality.
From 2015 on, Trump's dogwhistle said "Stick with me and you'll get the race war you've always fantasized about!" (And of course the religion war, and all the other murders they've wanted to see.) Every word out of his mouth meant (and still means) the same thing to his sTRUMPets, so it doesn't matter what he says. When the sTRUMPets repeat nonsense, there is no content at all, other than that they are just repeating the cheers they use to work each other and themselves into a murderous rage — exactly like shouts of "Sieg heil!" The promised race/religion war is the idol upon whose altar the sTRUMPets will gladly sacrifice their reason, their children, their parents and themselves. They would of course deny that vehemently, violently, but we should ignore what they say and watch what they do. It is certainly possible that they have repeated the lies so often and angrily that they have come to believe them, but really the content, and therefore their degree of belief, does not matter.
"I never thought I’d say this, but Bernie Sanders seems to be the voice of reason here,” Ingraham said. “Everything you just saw was a complete and utter embarrassment. It shouldn’t be what is projected to our kids from our nation’s Capitol."
-----
Would anyone care to remind Ms Ingraham exactly how this growing chasm within the New GOP actually began -- or at least was grossly enlarged? If I recall, it was her, Hannity and Carlson, the big three of conservative TV early on in the beginning of the Amber Australopithecus' shitshow of an administration, before Newsmax and OAN skimmed off some of their viewers, did everything they could to cover for his obscene antics, and never backed off. Losing a large nine-figure lawsuit didn't stop Fox from allowing the bovine scat to continue to flow through their primetime programming, which went on to infect even those who were once considered responsible, honest journalists. Even when Carlson was fired Hannity and Ingraham continued beating the MAGA drum with apparent immunity from the Fox suits.
She had, and still has, a considerable responsibility for the ongoing clown show coming from the Psychiatric Facility Escapee Caucus and MAGAdroids in general.
fnord
What should we expect from members of a party slavishly enthralled to the most narcissistic superannuated toddler who's ever thrown a tantrum on the US political stage?
IOW, why should GQP childishness come as a surprise these days? It's not like GQP voters want to be represented by adults, but the pesky Constitution requires representatives to be 25 year old (chronologically) and senators 30.
The thing is they do it for the money because Murdoch (an arch conservative) realized that if you stoke people's anger and prejudice they will love you. It was not only a way the transform decent people into raging hate mongers but its also quite lucrative. You can tell because even the poor among them give in to the church.
So Chip Roy wants to know how to respond to constituents who demand to know why they haven't accomplished anything. Ooh ooh, I know!
Democracy. It's called democracy, which provides a mechanism for resolving differences and disagreements and which attempts to reflect majority opinion. MAGA constituents don't want to see any compromise or acceptance of majority views or spend time trying to craft bills that will actually pass, they just want flamethrowers and obstructionists whose only accomplishments are the clicks they get on the fund-raising emails and the joy their base takes in the fight.
We need adults and serious people and we're getting childish clowns and charlatans.
Are They Liars? Or Fools? They are both. Trump has normalized lying, and they are all fools for believing the lies.
I love George Conway. But something he said on yesterday's podcast was so incredibly wrong, I have to write. He said that it's hard to find good attorneys to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court b/c of the supposed low salary. He said that many first year associates make what SCT justices make.
As someone who has been an attorney for as long as George Conway, and who has spent much of my 35 years as an attorney looking for legal employment, I couldn't disagree more. SCT justices make $274K a year, with great benefits, great retirement and plenty of other perks. Conway said many first year associates make $274K a year. No, they absolutely do not. 99.99% of first year associates make nowhere near $274K and most won't come anywhere close to that level of compensation in their legal careers. Conway is living in an isolated world if he thinks the legal profession offers that type of compensation to first year attorneys.
When I left law school in 1987, new graduates wanted to go to private firms where they could make more money than they could in the public sector. What Conway doesn't understand is that has changed greatly since we were in law school. Private attorney salaries have been stagnant for decades, while public sector attorney salaries have soared far above the inflation rate. To today's law school graduates, public sector attorney jobs are often the much more desired career path.
Now I know lower federal court judges make much less salary than SCT justices. But still there is no shortage of attorneys, indeed quality attorneys, who wouldn't cut off their right arm to be appointed to a federal judgeship. It's lifetime employment, decent salary, great benefits, great retirement, and ton of prestige. If George Conway still insists people wouldn't leave law firm jobs for the federal bench, I would ask him this...how many federal judges have left the bench early to accept a partnership at a law firm? Only a handful of federal judges do that, even though they no doubt get plenty of offers. Instead, they stay on the federal bench for 10 years and then go into senior judge status, part-time work at full salary. Another nice perk.
I know this is an insider issue, but this misrepresentation of legal salaries is a huge pet peeve of mine. We have far too many people going to law school thinking they're going to be paid as if they were a doctor only to find themselves paid no better (or often worse) than an electrician or a plumber. Then they end up disillusioned, ending up leaving the legal profession while having to pay back huge student loans. A lot of this is as a result of people's misperception about legal salaries. Unfortunately, comments like those George made help feed that misperception.
Forgive me, George. Thank you for all you've done for those of us Republicans who oppose the Trumpification of our party.
The starting salary for a first year associate in BigLaw is $215,000. A fourth year associate makes $295,000. A seventh year associate makes $400,000...
Yesterday's heroes on the hill. Rep Moskowitz, who continued to prove how much better prepared the democrats are than the republicans. And Senator Bernie Sanders who was nothing short of Magnificent and I am not a Bernie Fan.
On the Israel/Hamas question of the dates Oct 7, 2023 and 7.10.23: In Europe, anyway, the dates are thus: day/month/year and not as Americans use month/day/year.
Simple take on Kari Lake: Pace the late philosopher Harry Frankfurt (his short, finely written book, On Bullshit, should be required reading for all), there are three kinds of speakers when one analyzes their relationship to truth. Two of them care about truth. Truth tellers have to know what is true and what is not. Liars are the same; one can't lie if one doesn't know what's true and what ain't. Bullshitters don't care. They say whatever comes into their heads that fits the moment or milieu. I'd take Ms. Lake as being opportunistically in the second category for some of what she says, but significantly in the third. DJT is the definition of the third.
Re: Awkward Details
So you're telling me no one bothered to actually translate the document from Arabic to English?
Pssst Israeli military folks have no issue translating Arabic, experienced journalists would see that as red flag #1.
Then you identify the fact that the schedule started on October 7. You know what else happened on October 7? Ummm Israel cut if fuel and electricity.
You think MAYBE an innocent and highly plausible explanation would be that they would have started scheduling on paper given that wasting limited generator juice on creating and accessing a schedule electronically would be wasteful, you know, given the fact that a dozen premie babies have already died as a result of the power and fuel embargo (which as a side note, is a fucking war crime as well, collective punishment).
These are questions a smart editor should have pointed out before publishing that embarassing piece.
There's an excellent post by Matt Yglesias today, "Antisemitism in America", https://www.slowboring.com/p/antisemitism-in-america, that I'd like to highlight.
As in much of his work, there's more data than emotion, and a lot more light than heat. I strongly recommend it, but encapsulated, it's that there's a lot less anti-Semitism on the Left, particularly among young people, than there appears to be.
It really is necessary to distinguish between speech that is anti-Semitic in intent and speech that is anti-Semitic in effect. The negative effects of both may be deplorable and require a firm response, but those who practice the second may be much more susceptible to education than those who practice the first. Moreover, the second was predictable from "within the cohort whose entire adult life has seen no meaningful final status negotiations", but instead witnessed Right-wing Israeli governments continuously expand settlements on the land that successive UN resolutions intend for a Palestinian state.
Ripping down posters of victims kidnapped by terrorists is a despicable thing. So is chanting "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and pretending to be, or choosing to be, ignorant of what the slogan really means. Individuals who commit crimes should be punished for those crimes. But before people who do not commit actual crimes are doxed as anti-Semites, before they have job offers withdrawn or their future careers permanently affected, they deserve the chance to explain as individuals whether their actions really were based on hatred of Jews, or on the universal student, especially elite school student, cocktail of ignorance, arrogance, and self-regard. Ignorance can be cured by education and research, and many people grow out of the last two on their own. Not all the people who embarrassed themselves since October 7 really deserve lifelong labels as Haters.
Very few deserve lifelong labels, period. This is one of the chief reasons why many of us have not supported what some call cancel culture; or more importantly, the expansion of statutes of limitations for crimes deep in the past. Many of us believe that where there is life there is hope, or that people can fall off their horse and have an epiphany. This does not excuse stupidity, or foolishness, at the moment so, to the extent possible, try to speak with the young, or the otherwise ill informed now, and not let them have to wait twenty years to smack their own heads and say, "What was I thinking?"
A number of years ago I received a gift of a small book of quotations/proverbs of which I am now reminded, and as best as I recall:
Four things never come back; the sped arrow, the spoken word, the past life, and the neglected opportunity.
Those that hopped on the anti-Jewish dog-pile whether due to that ignorance cocktail, arrogance, or self-regard, and who have had job offers rescinded or their names added to a "do not hire" list have learned a hard lesson with their written words that never come back. Too many today believe that it cannot happen to them, whatever the "it" might be, only to discover that it can indeed happen to them.
I read that too, and was thinking lots of people should read it...
I felt a little smarter when I finished it, and I'm grateful to anyone who can make me feel that way. It's not the first time that he has.
Yeah, I have always liked him, but, I can't afford another subscription right now so I only get to read his free stuff...we align on a lot of stuff
Absolutely the same here! I must look at my subscriptions every day and think, "can I make room for Matt Yglesias and Chris Cillizza today?" Nope. Maybe in January. 😢
Yeah, those two and Josh Barros ( do get his pod with Ken White) and the Economist I would like to also
I subscribe to the Economist -- online only -- and like it a lot, but it's expensive.
I do not know if t***p and his entourage are true believers in the stolen election or not nor if that actually matters. There are those like the new house speaker who as nearly as I can tell basses his belief on the fact that a great number of election rules were changed in a number of states because of Covid, even though these changes were agreed upon ahead of time in these states by both parties. It was only after Biden won and only in the states Biden won that suddenly Republicans saw this as illegal a grave error or whatever. One of the states that made changes like this, NC, was not contested by Mr. Johnson and the bogus lawsuit, why you might ask. Because in NC those changes resulted in precisely the late absentee vote surge t***p needed to win.
"The procedures were changed -- therefore Trump really won" was always a ridiculous argument.
The people who say that there is some equivalence between Trump and Biden-- that they are two sides of the same coin and that they represent right and left political extremes that are more or less equivalent distances from the center --are Trump voters, not Biden voters. This is the exact definition of "both-sidesism," which is a resident idea among the American Right, and not the Left. If these people don't vote for No Labels, they will vote for Trump in much greater numbers than for Biden. But these are the people to whom No Labels makes its overtures.
The No Labels pitch is that both Trump and Biden are too extreme, but that is an inherently conservative talking point. No Labels, especially with a Republican at the top of the ticket, is going to hurt Trump much, much more than Biden.
Similarly, RFK Jr appeals to Trump's base of MAGA voters far more than anyone who might vote for Biden. The majority of Americans see the clear danger of letting Trump back into government, and are prepared to vote for whomever the Democrats nominate, whether it's holding their nose for Biden or proudly doing so. They know that votes for any third party candidate work toward electing Trump.
It's my belief that if RFK Jr and No Labels are on the ballot next year, they will keep Trump under 40% in most states.
That wasn't Sarah's conclusion about No Labels. plus.thebulwark.com/p/the-evidence-is-in-no-labels-should-get-out
Indeed it wasn't, nor is it the conclusion I've seen anyone else make. But I just don't see a disingenuous conservative ticket using fallacious conservative talking points to win the votes of people in the middle, and succeeding. They'll win over some Biden voters, but I think they'll be outnumbered ten to one by won-over Trump voters.
What we used to recognize as "conservative talking points" often *are* in the middle now, though, inside the range of the expanded coalition that elected Biden. Those values are not what Trump voters are responding to. The "freedom agenda" of George W. Bush (emphasizing American leadership in promoting international democracy) is rhetorically much closer to Joe Biden than to Trump.
A few months ago,JVL suggested(half jokingly) the RFK jr should run in the GOP. He might come in second.That wasn't as farfetched as it seemed.
I sincerely hope you are correct in your analysis but the Kennedy name still wields a lot of power among democrats and is almost as despised among republicans as is Clinton.
Excepts MAGAs are obsessed with believing JFK Jr is alive and a Trumper (not to mention that if JFK himself was alive today, he’d be one of them too).
Here is a tell; Trump people are now attacking RFK jr for running as an independent.
I'm not saying there isn't work to do. Democrats need to get the message out about RFK Jr between now and the election(or the suspension of his campaign). Heavily-online MAGA adherents will not be affected by this messaging in the least, but that's fine in my opinion, if it would take support from Trump.
When the Statue of Liberty is finally demolished as being a symbol of "Left Wing Thuggery" nobody in America will be able to say they weren't warned.
Tim Miller's observations that Kari Lake was trying to moderate herself did reveal that on some level she at least dimly understood that she took her extremism too far during her gubernatorial run. Lake telling McCain supporters "F off, we don't want you here" was a fatal gaffe. If she had just said "McCain supporters, we welcome your support" she'd be AZ governor right now. Heck, even if she had said nothing to McCain supporters one way or another she still probably would have won. But because McCain famously was not a Trump fan, she thought being full-on mouthfoaming MAGA about McCain was necessary.
But at this point everyone knows she's a full-on MAGA mouthfoamer and it'll be very hard to roll that back. Tim's interview rattled her enough that the mask eventually slipped.