Republicans wanted a 'do no harm' convention, but it was too corporate and lacked any joie de vivre. And then they ended the affair with grievance, fasci Tucker, and 96 minutes of weird incoherence from Trump. Meanwhile, AOC gives a peak behind the scenes of what's going on with Democrats trying to push Biden out. S.E. Cupp joins Tim Miller for the weekend pod.
show notes:
Savannah Chrisley talking about her imprisoned parents at the RNC
Tim's playlist
POTUS waited until the RNC was over. He was always going to wait until the RNC was over. He worked the phones for Harris for days, which is why the entire party fell in line in six hours.
Now Trump is stuck with a mouthful of Dead Sea Fruit for VP. Excellent.
AOC was talking about the legal issues involved post-nom with a change. That’s it.
This whole episode is hilarious in retrospect, particularly Dems not being “ready for a Kamala ticket.”
You say people aren’t talking about conservatism? What do you call Project 2025?
"The longer he (Biden) stays in there, the more personal it gets." That's how I feel too.
PS (Sunday p.m.) ♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️
Seems (to me) like this is the best possible timing.
He waited for the RNC to be over. Now they’re stuck with Senator Guyliner.
Thank you for understanding the danger surrounding Shapiro. I don’t care about the protesters, I care about his life.
keep the therapy coming!
What about Tim Ryan for VP? He should have beat JD Vance for senate seat and Ryan is articulate.
And thanks Tim for asking about the poster. I kept looking at it thinking it was Gore but it couldn't be because of its location. I figured it would remain a mystery until you asked. thanks!
If Tim couldn't beat him for senate, he won't do so head to head for the vice presidency. I like Ryan, but Beshear might be a better bet gaving won the governorship of a red state twice. Roy Cooper is worth a shot as a seasoned white moderate to contrast with Kamala.
Gonna disagree with your "cant have a gay on the ticket" take. You reminded this X'r of a conversation he had with his Moderate Dem Boomer dad back in 08 where I remarked I thought Obama looked impressive and I thought he was gonna beat Hillary. To which my Dad replied "Eric hes a black guy with the middle name Hussein there is no way hes getting the nomination much less win the election"...... Just saying
S.E. Cupp has never been my favorite but I really loved her analysis and commentary on this podcast! So many smart, thoughtful people from the left and right finding ourselves in the middle. I’m happy to be here!
Tim mentioned he was confused by AOC’s statement about not taking a risk by changing the Democratic ballot at this late date. One thing AOC meant was there are a lot of rules regarding when a party must submit their nominees’ names to states so the states can follow their internal processes and begin printing ballots. States have a deadline codified in state election laws as to when they must receive the nominee names to place on their state ballot. Republican led states will bring legal challenges if they are asked to change the ballot of a party after the deadline. In fact the Democratic convention is set to take place after the deadline for one Republican state. That state said they would not accept nominees’ names after their state’s legal deadline . This is why the Democrats set up a digital gathering of their designated electors before the actual convention so the Electors can go ahead and vote for nominees thereby meeting all states’ deadlines. AOC is stressing that at this late date changing the Democratic nominees names on state ballots will insure a great deal of litigation that will not be quickly resolved. Courts and Republican led legislatures will end up making decisions about the Democratic ballot and it won’t be smooth or pretty. In addition she is stressing that the assumption the Democratic Convention will quickly and smoothly choose new nominees is not realistic. It would be easy for anyone with an agenda to sew chaos. Even if the change proceeded smoothly, the slate of names produced at a convention would have blown past the deadline of some states’ codified election rules. It’s too late to make these sweeping changes. Everything becomes a legal battle with individual states at that point. If you think the Republican led states will say it’s cool, I have a bridge to sell you. This is a huge dose of chaos and the Republicans will like that. Lots of litigation and Republican courts in Republican states making decisions about the Democratic ballot.
Many of us are voting for the Democratic ticket not Biden at this point. That might be the best we can do given the short amount of time we have now.
I was not confused by this I was confused by her motivations.
This is not an issue. The democrats don’t have a nominee yet. This is only an issue if there is a change after they formally nominate someone. The Republicans will file frivolous lawsuits no matter what that’s no reason not to do something
AOC tries to walk a fine line between progressivism and mainstream because (1) I think she actually cares about legislating and governing (unlike the rest of the Squad) and (2) she saw how Jameel Bowman got primaried and she worries it could happen to her down the road. Right now she's firmly in the "keep Joe" camp probably because she thinks (as I do) that Joe ultimately won't give it up and she doesn't want to be one of those who plotted to kill the king but failed to kill the king.
Tim, I felt the same way when Hillbilly Elegy came out. However, I read it. After I did, I felt an even stronger sense that Vance was/is an opportunistic poser.
I thought he was a judgy asshole.
I think we all agree that we Democrats aren't good enough at democracy to have an open convention and avoid a blood bath. And I think we can all agree that Kamala Harris will be the nominee, like her or not (I've become more and more of a fan).
Your discussion of the running mates was interesting and I mostly agree. The country's not ready for a gay VP (yet, but it's coming), Newsom's a total non-starter for a lot of reasons, Roy Cooper's a good idea, the Middle East situation makes Shapiro undoable for this round. But what about Whitmer? (Oy, two women? you say!) Why not. It's like "you don't want to vote for a woman, here, asshole, we'll give you two of the best!"
With Trump and Vance so toxic to so many women, could those two be the one-two punch we need? I'm not totally convinced, but I'd love to hear some real live discussion of it.
I hope you’ve reconsidered the “bloodbath” thing.
Tim— did you ever think you would be on the same side as your “producer” Tommy Vietor??? Thank the orange man for brining you together. Love you!!
I'm right there with S.E. getting PO'd at Biden for his intransigent hubris at this precarious moment. I was never a huge fan, but had lots of empathy for him, as I recall the accident that killed his wife and baby, and then losing Beau too. He has pretty much used up all of the good will I had for him. I had never detected the overvaulting ambition in him before that prevents him from putting the national good first, but seeing it now. But I'm afraid it's almost too late. I'm a senior citizen, who never thought it'd end up this way, now looking for alternative countries to live in. Sad.
P.S. Thinking that Hunter and Jill are the main impediments is infuriating. Give Hunter his pardon after the election, and be done.
I feel you. This lifelong Republican-until-Trump is thinking New Zealand might be a good fit. Signed, a fellow senior.
Bless you. I've never been a Republican but understand S.E's feeling of betrayal after Joe presenting as an interim emergency measure. New Zealand is lovely but I'm a Francophile, just relieved they didn't go full LePen. Hang in there!
Harris/Buttigieg!
Please leave Josh with us for a bit longer?! He might even turn Pa Blue!
I love this ticket!
Tim!! Pete Buttigieg was brilliant and searing on Bill Maher tonight, highly recommend.
I think one of these two things is happening:
1. Joe will step down but not unless/until all the Dem powers that be guarantee him that Kamala Harris will be at the top of the ticket. He’s not getting those guarantees as of yet.
2. Joe will step down but not unless/until all the Dem powers that be guarantee him that Kamala Harris will NOT be at the top of the ticket. He’s not getting those guarantees as of yet.
The first one is imaginable to me if Joe’s personally speaking for himself in all the discussions. The second one is imaginable to me if Jill/Hunter are pulling all the strings.
If it’s the first one, Joe could always decide to resign completely from the Presidency today so that Kamala becomes our President before July and then proceeds as the incumbent. In that event, even the psychic professor said she inherits Joe’s full probability of winning under his 10 steps or whatever it is.
It’s 16; and I agree.
It seems that Tim gives too much credit to Trump for the first 20 minutes of his speech. It all sounded like overcooked pasta to me.
Love S.E Cupp except for her take on Kamala who I think would be the worst candidate the Dems could run not named Joe Biden. I am also struggling to understand why the Dems must run Kamala even though she was not a good candidate in 2020 and I see no reason why she would be a good candidate in 2024. We are told Dems must run her to avoid alienating black women despite the fact that black women did not vote for her in the 2020 primary. And I think it is insulting to black women to think they would insist on running a candidate more likely to lose to Trump, not because she is a black woman but because she is not a good candidate!!
Then we are told the Dems can’t have a Jewish VP candidate (Shapiro) because Shapiro is Jewish and it would aggravate the disagreement on Gaza?? So much for courting Nikki Haley voters because Trump is an existential threat.
I will vote for anyone over Trump but I think the Dems keep putting themselves in an electoral vice and do so needlessly.
I don't think you will vote for anyone over trump; b/c you are saying you won't vote for Harris.
White males are not good candidates when they first try to run for POTUS, why do they not get held to the same standard you want to hold Harris to?
I've seen this type of comment before "insulting to black women to think they would insist on running Harris" -- it's always a nice effort, but not truthful.
One of the signature accomplishments of the post enlightenment era of human civilization and the American Revolution specifically was to treat people as individuals rather than categories. It’s one reason the Founders got rid of titles of nobility. It’s not been a straight-line accomplishment of course and there is always more to do. One reason I maintain my belief in classical liberalism though is because it is rooted in this basic construct. It’s sad when I see folks on the progressive Left and on the nationalist Right returning to the reactionary approach of treating folks as categories instead of judging them on their individual merits.
I think its fantastic we have a mixed-race woman as VP. I think its fantastic we had a mixed-race man as President. The fact that Kamala is mixed race has nothing to do with my judgment of her as a politician. I don’t think she was a terribly compelling Senator. I don’t think she was a terribly compelling Presidential candidate in 2020, and I don’t think she has been a terribly compelling VP. This I can deduce by listening to her speak. Given the stakes are so high, I would like the Dems to choose someone else. If they don’t, then I likely will vote for her though I live in Oregon so I always have the option of a write-in knowing Oregon is going blue no matter who is on the ticket. If I was in Wisconsin or the like, I would vote for her.
As far as white men running for President the first time, I agree most are not good, though some are. I was too young to really experience it myself, but I think Reagan in ’76 was pretty compelling from the speeches I have seen and in ’80 as well. Bill Clinton I think was pretty compelling the first time he ran in 1992. Dwight Eisenhower from what I have heard and read, and I think John McCain in 2000 in a losing effort to win the Repub nomination. Of course, its sort of like beauty, its in the eyes of the beholder.
I do hope that someday, it becomes fashionable even on the far reaches of both Right and Left to treat folks as individuals and not as categories.
please give deeper thought to your statements re Vice President Harris going forward before spewing them forth.
She was a lousy candidate in 2020. She’s done nothing since then to suggest she would be a better candidate in 2024. Sorry if you are having a difficult time seeing reality
Joe Biden was a lousy candidate in 2008.
Agreed! He was also a lousy candidate in 2020 saved by Covid (I voted for him anyway). He is a lousy candidate in 2024. I am not sure that this has to do with the fact that Harris is not the best option for the Dems to beat Trump.
So, where's this supposedly better candidate Joe Biden didn't beat in 2020, and who was too scared to run in 2024 that will manage to actually unify the party, including the large swaths who do think Kamala should be the nominee, because that's the whole point of a VP
Are you asking me who the nominee should be? I am not sure but I think that is what you are asking. If so, there are a number of people. Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore, Andy Beshear. I am sure there are others. If partisan Dems really believe that Trump is an existential threat to the country (I do) then they will eschew their policy preferences for whomever can win. AZ and GA are almost certainly lost. The Dem candidate must win PA, WI and MI and the way Biden did that last time is to appeal to center right voters who normally vote R but can't stand Trump. So whomever can appeal to that swath of voters should get the nomination if the Dem coalition truly believes Trump is the threat they claim he is (and again, I agree with Trump being a threat).
I disagree with S.E. Cupp on practially everything from a policy perspective. And I also LOVE listening to what she has to say. She has always brought perspectives to a political conversation that I didn't think of (and likely wouldn't considering my political leanings). Such an excellent source. Please have her back!
My thoughts exactly! S. E. was brilliant! I love how so many of us are finding common ground here.
I hope it’s okay to post a link. S. E. Cupp’s son foreshadowed what I think a lot of people know is coming. The 47th President will be Kamala Harris.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/11/08/se-cupp-women-representation-kamala-harris-postelex-vpx.cnn
Bring Cupp back soon and regularly. I know there will not be an answer to this, but what was the face with Chris Murphy? Also, my husband asked: "Is it just me, or is her makeup really good?" I explained the luminous finish to him., but in retrospect, I should have sent him to the lifestyle mailbag with that. But as long as we're here, excellent haircut, you, and I liked it the other day, too, kind of spiky. Not saying you should stay one way, just saying.
Laura from Connecticut :)
Right? Chris Murphy is great!
Meh. I'm willing to listen to Sarah occasionally wax nostalgic about the good old Republican conservatism of her youth when her hatred of Bill Clinton about the tawdry Monica Lewinsky episode made her head melt, because Sarah's political insights and her fundamental philosophical outlook that we must build an anti-Trump (not pro-Biden) coalition to defeat the return of the Mad Orange King are dead on. I barely tolerate Mona and A.B. going off on some tangent about the days of yore and Reaganism. But S.E. seems to regularly jump the shark with both-sidesism. Did you catch her waxing poetic on how "So you've got Democrats arguing about progressivism versus more progressivism." Please give me a break.
I’ve always identified as “liberal,” Leros, but didn’t know much at all about politics until 2017. I’ll admit, I find reverence for Reagan jolting from the very little I remember: “Hey wait, wasn’t he one of the bad guys — good for wealth inequality and bad on race?”
I’m definitely learning to forget and ignore what would have been a point of disagreement in the past, a past in which I wasn’t paying attention anyway, and take a deep breath before reacting to someone’s past or current views on abortion. If someone I admire and learn from wants some restrictions, that’s better than no exceptions for rape and incest, and if they will fight with every last breath against the Big Threat, then they are part of the good guy team.
I posted before finishing....
So being here on the Bulwark has been a huge learning experience, informationally and ideologically, and I am discovering so much more in common with former Republicans than I thought possible, as they discover ever less in common with their former party-mates. What I have true indigestion over, in small, new quarters here, and more broadly in the so-called "conservative" Trump-disdainful most of the time but for the right kind of attention will play both sides types, is the superiority complex about Democrats. Yes, we have problems (Clearly!!!) but the Republican and Republican-ish types who project and generalize in ways that ignore reality really bug me. I am not sure who S.E. is (the person you mention), but I would say in general that it is more difficult to make categorical and accurate statements about "Democrats" now, or historically, than it is to make about Republicans today -- there is more homogeneity and go-along-for-whatever ride in the GOP than in the Democratic party. In the current flavor of Democrat-bashing, particularly in the recent time frame of finding out Joe Biden is cognitively impaired, there's some weird talk about what "Democrats" do that seems genuinely illogical and counter-factual (the bad kind). Sorry for the rant. What was the question?
Oh yes, anyone who will vote against Trump is my friend if they will have me.
S.E. is S.E. Cupp
KAMALA + J.B. PRITZKER
~ Billionaire - an actual one, who has been publicly been praised by Trump. Wall Street would swoon!!
~ Governor - successfully handled the Covid issue in Illinois
~ Regionally respected by Wisconsinites and Michiganders
No. Given the Pritzker family ties to gender ideology.
Tim,
You made me spit out my Maker's Mark Old Fashion with your coined: "Douche-Dar".
A wonderful term!!! Any ability for your to copyright???
BTW - growing up in NYC I developed "gay-dar" by hanging out in the Village and the Lower Eastside where gays and music lovers intermingled.
But I never heard the term "douche" until I went to Erie, PA, to attend a small Catholic College, and was initiated into the Erieites love of the word and any related extension or diminutive.
I have passed on your new coinage to my old buddied (and I do mean old!!)
Al Gore may not have been authentic in that photo but he did the right thing at the outcome of that election which seems like it should be a better thing to be remembered by rather than a “inauthentic” photo 🤷
The 38 special hang on loosely ending For the win!
SE CUPP in a coconut bikini? 😍😍😍
“Douche-dar” Every day, I learn something new
Seriously I love aoc and I don’t understand what she’s trying to communicate. It’s awk because she’s been cryptic in complaining about others being cryptic. An open convention isn’t the end of the party, like it’s all good, and Harris will likely be top of that ticket - she’s kind of the fave. (My fave too). But yeah what da what aoc? Be cool.
AOC spoke pretty clearly for about a minute of her hour-long video a couple days ago. Here’s a direct quote, edited very slightly for consiseness:
If you think there is consensus among the people who want Joe Biden to leave, that they will support Vice President Harris to lead the ticket in his place, and that this will be an easy transition, you are mistaken.
I'm in these rooms. I see what they say in conversations. A lot of them are not just interested in removing the president, they are interested in removing the whole ticket. A huge amount of the donor class and these elites and these folks in these rooms that I see that are pushing for President Biden to not be the nominee, also are not interested in seeing the Vice President being the nominee. Will they win out on that? I don't know, but I am here to tell you, do not take that for granted.
Full transcript: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RLB1a6PB4-3kDTs-gk8vFTlNfdfGdSLeP0uwbbB8fUI/mobilebasic
S.E., there must be a new conservative party to compete with and replace the MAGA Republican party. All the anti-Trump Republicans have either left the party or have no seat at the table. The party isn't going to self-correct. Not in defeat, not ever. There must be a clean slate and a clean break. That's how MAGAs can become ex-MAGAs. But there must be a destination other than the Democratic party.
And Tim, classical liberalism is conservatism. Liberal democracy is conservatism. I think there's an opportunity to seize the word. The Republicans use the word less and less, so let's grab it and run with it.
I agree. Us center libs need a home too. I can't even begin to express how much the democratic party has let me down.
Scrapping the barrel of the intellectual right.
Hitler was in his 40s and Mussolini in his 30s when they rose to power.
It's doozies like this that make it difficult for lifelong Democratic centrists like me to fully embrace "conservative" Never Trumpers like S.E.: "So you've got Democrats arguing about progressivism versus more progressivism. And you've got Republicans arguing about nonsense like tariffs and let's explode the debt. Who cares? Crazy stuff. No one's here to talk about conservatism." Is that what Democrats are arguing about? I thought the argument was about who could best defeat Trump in November-Biden, Harris or someone else. Taking a swing at the "progressive pinata" is disingenuous at best. They are at the moment a fringe movement within the Democratic party. Moreover, it's conservatives like S.E. (aided and abetted by some corporate Democrats) that led to the gutting of a large chunk of the US industrial base as we offshored core industries like steel and semiconductor production. Tariffs broadly applied are probably not the answer, but I can't fault those who see selective tariffs as a possible way to shield certain industries. S.E. seems more interested in tarring Democrats as far lefties to preserve her precious memories of "conservatism" (was that during the 2008 financial crisis under Bush II or the Iraq War under Bush II?) and play both sides bad instead of accepting that most of what she once believed about Republican conservatism was (to steal from the title of Neil Sheehan's book about John Paul Vann and the US experience in Vietnam) a bright, shining lie.
I haven’t finished the pod yet, but just heard the Tucker clip about the leader of a nation. Reminded me of language that is used regarding the covenant/brit between God and the Jewish people. I heard strong messianic overtones in Carlson’s speech. P.S. last night right after he finished speaking I wrote a friend about how fascistic it was. So couldn’t agree more strongly with your pov
I was bummed to hear the push back on Pete because of the "gay stuff". If anything it's gunna help bring in the lefties that are upset with biden and the Gaza stuff. He checks so many boxes... he doesn't have the baggage that the others do, he has name recognition, he appears on fox news on the reg and kicks their ass, he's a veteran, he won iowa in the 2020 primary, he is so well spoken and quick, he's young... the list goes on. He could bring in so many different types of voters.
Also... Who are all of these voters that are going to be resisting a gay president or vp? Are those voters even gettable? If that's the hot topic for them I assume they are comfortably sitting in trumps camp already. I doubt the majority of independents, dems, and gettable voters would care, or it wouldnt be a top issue for them.
Pete's quite the salesman too.
Not to mention... people love making history and we make the history we create. Thats why dems are in this shit sandwich to begin with. Politics as usual doesnt work now and they are absolutely worst when it comes to political strategy. Lets not assume things and insert this made up obstacle. Dems need a new strat. Lets all grow some balls eh?
Pete/Harris 2024 or... Harris/Pete 2024. Either works.
As a senior with 40+ years voting moderate Republican (homeless since Trump) I would love me some Pete at the top or as VP. But if it’s Biden I’m there for it. #neverTrumpfromthejump.
Well, I think Pete would be fine, but as a left-winger, most of the fellow left-wingers who are upset w/ Biden about Gaza enough to question voting for him think Pete is a centrist sell-out who worked for a consultancy firm that see as hollowing out the middle class after volunteering to go shoot brown people, and then being pro-cop in a small city with issues with it's police force, then trying to appeal to centrist boomers to move forward his own political prospects.
Pete's base are Gen Z & Millennial's parents, not actual younger voters. The fact their parents might point out how much Pete has accomplished at such a young age probably turns him off to them even more.
So... who's your ideal candidate then?
Kamala/Beshear, Kamala/Cooper, Kamala/Walz all seems fine to me.
Walz is my governor he's done a bang up job I must say.
Yes! Pete could take on JD. What a contrast
I love Pete, my preference would be Harris/Buttigieg 2024... But I think a lot of "moderates" would blink at a gay VP and the left actively hates him for being too corporate or even not "gay enough" whatever that means.
Nope.
I think back to Obama and how his presidency released a lot of racism that was just below the surface. So when you ask about Buttigiege I remember about that. Who are these people who won't vote for a gay man...it's those people who maybe never voiced out loud that they cringe at the thought of homosexuals living among them. You see it showing up in school board elections...concerns about gay agendas, grooming, trans children. It's there.
No doubt they exist. My point is that they are voting for trump anyway. Those school board meetings... same thing. I'm not talking about those people. They are too far gone. I'm talking about the winnable votes the people that are in the center, undecided, "double haters", etc. Perhaps Sarah Longwell should host a focus group on this question with those voters...
Wasn't the Bulwark started as a "bulwark" against the antidemocratic, fascist, MAGA movement and its leaders? I have not heard a single realistic strategy on how to replace Biden on the ticket. Every four years, primary leading candidates are all discounted by the phrase: "wait until they are vetted by the press and the public. But now, you want us to believe that we can insert a new candidate with less than 4 months to go and we won't have the luxury of vetting them prior to them getting the nomination, so when will they be? Election night? Loser idea. Just get over it and get back on the bus. If Biden loses, it won't be his fault, it will be the press, MSM, podcasters and the fools that listened to them. We should blame his cabinet for not removing him. We blamed DJT's cabinet for not having a spine, but we blame the guy we say can't make decisions for our country and we expect him to make decisions for himself....? Why are you not fighting the fight to save Democracy? Sounds like you're searching for +memberships and forgot the mission. Glad to hear at least one of the Bulwark hosts remained on team Biden. It's sad it's the newest one, but I will take Michael's Steele over any of the latest Bulwark dribble I've been hearing lately. You even managed to taint JVL. Very sad day for our future.
I haven't heard a single realistic strategy how Biden can win re-election after his disastrous debate performance. Where is your bus going, dude? Jonestown? C'mon man.
I guess this point is now moot but "my bus" was the only one on the road with someone behind the wheel who has actually accomplished the very thing we need to happen again. Yes he's old, and I hate he made the decision to run again but as close to the election as we are, it didn't seem realistic to change. With that said, the amount Harris has fundraised just in the first 24 hours is promising. She has grassroots support, and leader support. I'm not convinced it's possible but it's absolutely necessary to defeat DJT so just as I was wanting everyone to do with Biden, I will throw all of my support to whomever the Dems put up against DJT.
If Biden loses, it won't be his fault, and it may potentially be the fault of his Cabinet for not invoking the 25th Amendment?
It's not too late to get another nominee. If I didn't know better, I'd almost think you're on team Trump suggesting we stick with a candidate who might be eligible for the 25th Amendment. It's certainly what team Trump would like us to do.
Consider this: Harris/Ryan. Tim already ran against JD, he's from Ohio and he's a straight white man. And he's very available. I'm all for blowing up the race. And yes, there are lots of liberals who are hesitant to vote for a very brown woman, but eventually America will have a woman President, so why not now? Female is Female and we need women to save us from ourselves.
Sarah and Tim.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/america-needs-mushrooms-with-rep
Agree
To S.E. on casting a thoughtful and then feeling like you’re being taken for granted - welcome to being a Democrat.
Joe Trippi on his pod recorded Thursday was pretty sure Biden was close to stepping aside because, as he said, when to comes down to it, Biden will chose what is the best for the country. (Then there is, according to TikTok Astrologer Chani, Pluto conjuncts Capricorn with the full moon this weekend - which represents transitions and endings, and Biden is a Scorpio and Pluto is one of the ruling planets of Scorpio .... so there's that, lol)
Chani is the bomb, I’m sold! Biden is such a Scorpio dude now that I think about it. Totally.
Astrology was good enough for Reagan, why not Biden?
A TikTok astrologer has probably as much insight as many of the beltway pundits.