How/Why Trump Won and Harris Lost

I'm seeing a lot of opinion columns on that subject, but my explanation is just too short for a full op-ed, so I'm making it a blog post. Here's that explanation:

Trump won by getting, and because he got, 312 electoral votes, which is more than the 270 required to win a presidential election.

Harris lost by getting, and because she got, 226 electoral votes, which is less than the 270 required to win a presidential election.

Hope that clears things up for anyone who's confused.

Election 2024: It's Always a Concern, But It's Not, Strictly Speaking, The Point

Alexander Bolton at The Hill:

Senate Democrats are worried pollsters are once again undercounting the Trump vote and say Vice President Harris’s slim lead in battleground states, especially Pennsylvania, is cause for serious concern. ... Democratic lawmakers are growing nervous that their party may once again feel lulled into a false sense of optimism amid polls showing Harris with small but consistent leads in three crucial states that make up the “blue wall”: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

As you may recall, one factor in my 2016 "Trump is gonna win this prediction was my perception that pollsters weren't reaching a particular demographic -- rural people who didn't usually vote and who may have "cut the cord" on land line phones -- and were thus under-counting Trump's likely support.

My Scientific Wild Ass Guess onthe effect of that was that in states with significant rural populations where Clinton was polling less than five points ahead it was in reality at best a tie, and if she was polling less than three points ahead she was actually behind.

I think at least part of that polling problem has been solved -- I'm a rural resident who's been reached by pollsters on my cell phone rather than a land line in every election since that one.

As for the other part, people who didn't usually vote prior to 2016, but got out to vote for Trump in 2016 and again in 2020, are probably in pollsters' "likely voter" databases now.

But there was another factor in my model, and it remains there. That factor is enthusiasm, and no matter how they try, pollsters don't seem to be able to capture that as well. My method is anecdotal. 

In 2016, even actually in Gainesville (hippy dippy doo university-centered city that definitely trends Gainesville), I barely saw any Hillary Clinton signs or bumper stickers.

But heading west out of Gainesville toward "the sticks," you could pull over at just about any random point and see at least on Trump sign somewhere ahead of you, behind you, or next to you. It may have been possible to find a point along Highway 24 between Gainesville and Cedar Key to find a stopping spot with no Trump signs in view, but I wouldn't have bet money on it.

Probably half the pickup trucks had Trump stickers on them, and I frequently saw a pickup truck driving up and down the highway with a HUGE Trump flag affixed to a pole in its bed. I don't know if they were going places or just literally "showing the flag," but I probably saw that truck at least 20 of the times I had occasion to head west from my home for more than a mile on Highway 24 (I live right off the highway, about five miles west of Gainesville).

Even in hippy dippy doo Gainesville, Trump signs/stickers probably outnumbered Clinton signs/stickers by at least ten to one. There were periodic.  "sign waves" on main roads, with crowds of 10-20 people waving Trump signs. The full extent of active Clinton campaigning that I saw first-hand was at the fall Pride festival downtown, where I ran into none other than Debbie Wasserman Schultz, personally campaigning (far from her House district) for her party's nominee.

This year, I'm seeing far more Harris/Walz signs and stickers in town than I saw for either Clinton  in 2016 or Biden in 2020.

Out of town, I'm not seeing the truck with the flag, I'm seeing fewer Trump stickers/signs than I did in 2016 or 2020, and most those I'm seeing are age-faded and/or in front of some, but not all, of the same houses that had them out in 2016 and/or 2020.

What are you seeing in your area?

In anything like a close election, a higher percentage of enthused voters than of "have a preference, but meh" voters will actually cast ballots.

Trump won in 2016, but his actively enthused base is smaller now than it was then.

Not just because of his crazy talk or mean tweets, but because he's no long the shiny new exciting thing who activates previously inactive voters.

More party-centric Republican-leaning voters notice that Trump has, on balance, hurt the GOP down-ticket. Remember what it was like when Obama was in office and Trump wasn't a candidate for office? The GOP took both houses of Congress and held them for eight years.

Meanwhile, Democratic-leaning voters seem to have worked up a reasonable leve of enthusiasm for Harris -- and a number of states have ballot issues that also excite them.

Yes, Harris could shit the bed in some creative new way, and kill that enthusiasm.

But the Trump campaign is treading water and trying not to drown, not coming up with anything that might re-kindle the 2016 enthusiasm or even the 2020 enthusiasm among those for who it has faded.

Election 2024: My 50-State Predictions

Will this be the fourth presidential election in a row for which I accurately predict the outcome in 48 (or more) states?

I'm never extremely confident this far out, and this time I'm less confident than usual. But I have standards, and two of them are:

• No waiting until the very last minute and just going with whatever the polls say; and
• No reservations with "toss-ups," etc. This is a "how I predict it will come out" statement, not a "how I think that maybe it might come out" statement. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I won't be able to come back and say "well, as you can see, I threw in a bunch of caveats so really I wasn't wrong."

Why I'm less confident and why I very well could be wrong on several "swing" states:

A lot can happen in 44 days. Harris could commit some exceptionally horrendous blunder that up-ends things. Trump could get his shit together and start running a credible ground game. One of the candidates could suffer a severe (or event the ultimate) negative health event, naturally or otherwise.

But let's get to the state by state map, which I drew up using 270 To Win's handy dandy tool:

As you can see, I predict that Kamala Harris will win all of the swing states: Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia. I'm least confident about Georgia, but that's my pick.

Why?

Harris the momentum. She has an enthused base that will turn out. She's raising tons of money to advertise to, and deploy a well-organized ground effort to reach, the theoretically "undecideds." I don't really believe true "undecideds" exist at this point, but that's irrelevant: The ads and ground game will enthuse those "leaning" her way to actually vote, while depressing those who "lean" toward Trump and making them wonder if it's worth the bother.

She's in the driver's seat. Yes, she could wreck the car, but she has the wheel.

Trump doesn't. He's not out there convincing anyone who hasn't been convinced for years already, and he's lost a lot of those who were previously convinced in 2016 and/or 2020. It doesn't seem likely that he's about to become newly persuasive, and he's apparently handed his Get Out The Vote effort off to novices with neither the motivation to e.g. walk precincts and knock on doors nor the institutional connections to get others to do that for them.

Mean tweets and increasingly deranged public rants won't lose Trump's remaining base for him -- but that base is smaller than it used to be, and mean tweets and increasingly deranged public rants won't re-grow it.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party is having to pull out all stops just to hold lower offices in "Trump-safe" states like Florida (where US Senator Rick Scott is ahead of, but flirting with margin of error versus, Democratic challenger Debbie Mucarsel-Powell and there are ballot issues likely to increase Democratic turnout) and Texas (where US Senator Ted Cruz is neck and neck with Democratic challenger Colin Allred). That's money and effort that can't be used in those swing states.

Yeah, I may be wrong on a state or two. But I doubt it. And I don't expect to be wrong by the 51 electoral votes it would take to put Trump rather than Harris in the Oval Office.

Election 2024: Turnout Is Key, TayTay & Trav Edition

I've seen a few people online poo-pooing the possibility that Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris could be decisive in the presidential election.

I'm not sure they're right, but they might be. The last two presidential elections have been decided by a few tens of thousands of votes in a few states, and Swift just may be the single most popular person on the planet. There's at least a possibility that, say, 100,000 Swifties who weren't really thinking that hard about voting, or about whom to vote, will 1) decide to vote and 2) decide to vote for Swift's endorsed candidate.

But I suspect more votes will be driven by the MAGA response to the endorsement than by the endorsement itself. "I'm pissed off" is a bigger political motivator than "oh, how sweet."

Trump says he likes Brittany Mahomes, wife of Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes, better than he likes Swift. Which is kind of ... weird ... but actually gets us closer to where I'm going.

Trump supporter Elon Musk's reaction to the endorsement was an offer to, um, "assist" Swift in ceasing to be childless.

That's pretty creepy in general, but wait! There's more!

Swift's beau (for nigh on a year now) is Patrick Mahomes's teammate and big-time bromantic partner, Travis Kelce. All four of them seem to be pretty tight with each other.

I'm just guessing, but I suspect Kelce, who's not known for holding back in the opinion arena any more than he does at Arrowhead Stadium, might have some thoughts on the subject of Musk's oh-so-generous offer.

I also suspect that we may be hearing from Brittany, Real Soon Now, that she's reconsidered her opinion on the presidential race.

And I suspect that Chiefs Kingdom in particular and NFL fandom in general won't take very kindly to Trump putting Brittany Mahomes in that kind of position, or to Elon Musk disrespecting the manhood of the greatest tight end in the history of the NFL.

That angle could also motivate at least a few tens of thousands of previously apathetic football fans to go from "politics, meh" to "yeah, I'm voting, and it won't be for that guy."

I could be wrong ... but at the moment, the election really does look close enough that things like these could really affect the outcome, with everything already going Harris's way.

Here's the current situation:

Harris has moved into the driver's seat. It is within her ability to win this election. All she has to do to win is work her ass off for the next 55 days and not commit any truly massive f*ckups.

Whether she can do that or not is still in question ... but what's not in question is Trump's ability to change the outcome for, from his point of view, the better. He has no such ability. He can make things worse for himself, but he can't make things better. If he wins it will be because Harris derailed herself, not because he derailed her.

One Of My Rare Uses of Fox "News" For Evaluating A Political Event

No, I did not watch the Trump/Harris debate last night.

Yes, at some point I will probably read a transcript and watch some additional highlight reels.

But my first stop was Fox:

Why? Because in a sea of mainstream media "Harris won" stories, I wanted a bit of bias correction.

My very first impression:

Harris looked younger than her 59 years. She looked relaxed but prepared and put together. In the short sound clips, ditto.

Trump didn't just look older than his 78 years, he looked older than Joe Biden's 81, and like someone forgot to have his suit pressed and did a bad job of freshening up his spray tan right before he walked on stage. He looked tense and beset. In the short sound clips, ditto.

Notice I didn't mention any policy points. "Conservative commentator" Kendall Bailey didn't do very well trying to make Trump sound like the "winner" on those, either, but she may just not be very good at her job (I'm not familiar with her).

For a lot of voters, and not just those already leaning hard one way or the other, the first visual/aural impression is going to be impactful, maybe even decisive, before "the issues" even come into play.

More later. Probably.

270 To Win, Part 1

This post (part 1) is about the upcoming presidential election. Part 2 is not.

Here's the current "2024 Consensus" map from 270 To Win:

There are other maps available at the site, (see the "map library" dropdown on the right side) ... only one of which comes up with a winner (that is, a candidate with 270 or more electoral votes). Polymarket (a prediction market site) has Trump at 287 electoral votes to Harris's 251, but even there 41 of those electoral votes are in mere "tilts" status (as opposed to the increasingly stronger "leans," "likely," or "safe"), and Harris has more "safe" states than Trump.

See why this year is especially hard for a would-be predictor?

I don't have to make my final prediction yet. I'm glad I don't have to make my final prediction yet. With 93 electoral votes in "toss-up" (per the "consensus" map), it's still anyone's ball game.

Remember All Those Times I've Said "Turnout Is The Key?"

I'll say it again: Turnout is the key.

Let's look at some "swing state" polling, courtesy of 538:

• In Arizona, Trump is up on Harris ... by 0.4%, 46% to 45.6%.
• In Georgia, Harris is up on Trump ... by 0.4%, 46.5% to 46.1%.
• In Michigan, Harris has the edge again ... by 2.1%, 46.6% to 44.5%.
• In Nevada, same ... by 0.6%, with Harris at 45.9% and Trump at 45.3%.
• In North Carolina, Trump has a 0.6% lead on Harris, 46.5% to 45.9%.
• Pennsylvania? A 0.7% differential, Harris ahead of Trump 46.% to 45.5.
• Wisconsin is the "swing" state where someone has the biggest lead, a whopping three points -- Harris 47.6%, Trump 44.6%.

That's all "margin of error" territory.

Normally, by this point in the election cycle, I'd be nearly ready to issue my final state-by-state predictions.

Perhaps we'll see some kind of breakout if one candidate or the other really brings it home, or really shits the bed, versus the other at the debate on Tuesday.

But even if we do, turnout will remain the key.

At the moment, I think Harris has the edge on that.

Trump's supporters don't seem nearly as enthused as they were eight, or even four, years ago. Hell, two months ago. He managed to erase the "look, 'they' tried to assassinate me" adulation effect by going right back to acting crazier than a shithouse rat in public.

Harris's post-Biden-dropout honeymoon with the Democratic base doesn't seem to have collapsed into yelling, throwing things, and consulting divorce lawyers. Part of that is that she's been very limited/curated in her engagement with the media. I don't know if that can last much longer, but if it does she will probably win.

Right now, the Republicans seem to be focused on 1) trying to get RFK Jr. off the ballot in close states (to boost GOP turnout), and 2) trying to get referendums about e.g. abortion off of state ballots (to suppress Democratic turnout). It's not yet clear how much of that will "work," either in getting it done or having the desired effect. If it does, Trump might manage a photo finish win.

It's far less about how many people support them than it is about how many people support them enthusiastically enough to actually cast a ballot.

Trump Should Stick With The Original Plan

Per AP:

Donald Trump says he is pulling out of a scheduled September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris on ABC and wants them to face off on Fox News, making it increasingly unlikely that the candidates will confront each other on stage before the November election.

Harris is calling Trump chicken, which is neither unexpected nor unfair.

On the other hand, instead of "pulling out" of the ABC debate, Trump should have simply announced (and should issue a correction announcing) that he will happily take part in the scheduled ABC event, if his agreed opponent -- Joe Biden -- shows up.

If I schedule a game of tennis with you, I'm not agreeing to play against your next-door neighbor's nephew's girlfriend's cousin if you back out. Your next-door-neighbor's nephew's girlfriend's cousin is going to have to come to a different scheduling/venue agreement with me if she wants a game (no, I don't actually play tennis).

Election 2024: Right Now, It's Just About The Bumps

Poll information from The Hill:

Former President Trump is narrowly leading Vice President Harris, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, in several battleground states, and the two are tied in Wisconsin, according to a new set of polls. 

The survey released by Emerson College Polling and The Hill on Thursday found Trump leading Harris by 5 points in Arizona, 49 percent to 44 percent; by 2 points in Georgia, 48 percent to 46 percent; by 1 point in Michigan, 46 percent to 45 percent; by 2 points in Pennsylvania, 48 percent to 46 percent; and tied with her at 47 percent in Wisconsin.

In every state except Arizona, the polling falls within the survey’s margin of error, meaning Trump and Harris could actually be tied in most of the battleground state match-ups. 

As you may have noticed, the Republican National Convention (w/VP reveal) was just last week, and Biden's resignation / Harris's move toward coronation came over the weekend.

This is a "bump" poll. It tells us more about immediate reaction to big events than it does about the long-haul prospects.

There doesn't seem to be much of a Trump "bump" from the convention at all ... but the Democrats got a definite "bump" with Biden's exit -- Harris is already doing better than Biden was doing before dropping out, by 3-5%, in all of those swing states.

Now we get to see whether she can build on that "bump" or not, and whether Trump finds a way to get his "inevitability" mojo going again or not.

IMHO, it's Harris who has to do all the work here, and do it well, to compete. All Trump has to do is avoid any truly massive fuck-ups and focus on getting out his vote.

BUT! It's a whole new campaign, and I don't expect to venture even tentative state-by-state predictions until at late August.

Election 2024: The Shoe Fits The Other Foot At Least As Well

Back in the old days -- before Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 presidential race, that is -- public mention of Donald Trump's advanced age and obvious cognitive impairments was fairly easily hand-waved away as Democratic "whataboutism."

But now Trump faces a 59-year-old, probably not senile, opponent instead of an 81-year-old, obviously senile, opponent.

Quoth Max Burns at The Hill:

At 78, former President Donald Trump is now the oldest presidential nominee in American history. If he wins re-election in November, Trump will end his term just a few months shy of his 83rd birthday, making him two years older than President Joe Biden is now. ... comparing footage from Trump’s 2015 presidential announcement to footage from earlier this year shows that Trump isn’t quite the man he used to be. The former president now routinely confuses names when speaking off the cuff -- including the name of his own doctor -- and struggled to finish his sentences during a Nashville rally earlier this year. How can the American people be sure Trump’s stumbles aren’t part of a sustained pattern of cognitive decline? 

The upshot being that if Trump wants to be president again, he should take a cognitive test, either in public or with the results released to the public ... like he said, back in the aforementioned old days, he'd do if Biden did.

Will he do it now that Biden's out? I doubt it.

Will Republicans of "stature" press him to do so? I doubt that even more.

Getting the Democratic Party establishment to hold Biden's feet to the fire on the matter of his age/mental status was a long and difficult process. 

The last nine years of history tells us getting the Republican Party establishment to hold Trump's feet to the fire on anything is likely impossible.

But I suspect that Democrats will make it an issue and that voters will notice.

Wait ... "Only?"

Axios reports on an AP/NORC poll:

Overall, 70% of U.S. voters* want Biden to withdraw from the 2024 race, while only 57% want to see former President Trump withdraw.

Emphasis mine.

In what universe is 57% an "only" kind of number? I could see using "only" next to 5%, maybe even 10%, but not 57%.

* Contra the Axios reportage, the poll is not a poll of "voters." It's based on data collected from "a bi-monthly multi-client survey using NORC’s probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. household population ... with adults aged 18 and over representing the 50 states and the District of Columbia." Only (cough) 86% of the respondents claim to be registered to vote.

Election 2024: The Money's Already Moving Elsewhere

Per NYT:

After several days of quiet griping and hoping that President Biden would abandon his re-election campaign on his own, many wealthy Democratic donors are trying to take matters into their own hands. ... A group of them is working to raise as much as $100 million for a sort of escrow fund, called the Next Generation PAC, that would be used to support a replacement candidate. ... Other donors are threatening to withhold contributions not only from Mr. Biden but also from other Democratic groups unless Mr. Biden bows out.

The authors (Kenneth P. Vogel, Theodore Schleifer, & Lauren Hirsch) aren't just speculating. They have the receipts, actual quotes from actual big money donors saying "nope, not this time, not for that guy."

Bill Kristol, with whom I seldom agree on much, opens his Friday musings at The Bulwark with "When, a week from now, President Biden will have withdrawn as a candidate for reelection ..."

My take:

Biden's scheduled for an interview with George Stephanopoulos today, to air on ABC at 8pm Eastern. Quite a few people think (and I agree) that the interview is his "last stand."

I don't expect him to announce his retirement in that interview, but I won't be terribly surprised if he does so either.

I expect that he'll wait to see whether the interview plays well enough with the public to get him back in the game.

I also expect that it will not, and that Kristol is right ... but perhaps a little off on the timing.

The Democrats are holding an early "virtual nomination" instead of waiting until their formal national convention (August 19-22).

Fox News suggests July 21 as the magic date for that nomination vote to be held. Biden needs to do the dropout/endorsement before the vote.

The Republican National Convention is schedule for July 15-18.

If I was a DNC strategist, I'd arrange for Biden to "address the nation" with his dropout/endorsement about the time I expect Donald J. Trump to walk on stage to accept the GOP nomination.

That would give the DNC a couple of days to complete preparations for a virtual nomination vote that doesn't include Biden and does include his endorsed replacement.

It would give the Democrats a month to build up to a huge beauty pageant / rally for the replacement (if I was betting, my money would on Michelle Obama, but I'm FAR from certain enough to bet on it at all -- they might pull a gigantic brain fart and go for Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom) at the physical convention.

And it would steal a crap ton of thunder from the GOP in general and Trump in particular.

But, as always, I could be wrong.

"If You Have To Ask Why, The Answer Is Usually Money" -- Trump 2024 GOTV Edition

How many times have I told you that presidential elections come down to turnout?

A metric crap ton of times, that's how many times.

Bill Scher, writing at Washington Monthly, notes that the Trump campaign is "outsourcing" its Get Out The Vote work to an outfit (Turning Point USA) with very little, and entirely unsuccessful, GOTV experience.

Why?

$108 million for Trump-connected grifters/trolls, that's why.

If Trump wins in November it will likely be in spite of, not because of, that (politically, but maybe not financially) dumb decision.

It's Not Very Often I Get to Say Something Nice about Biden OR Trump, Let Alone Biden AND Trump ...

... so let us enjoy the rare occasion!

Per The Hill:

President Biden and former President Trump dealt a major blow to the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) on Wednesday, calling into question the usefulness of the organization moving forward.

Biden’s campaign informed the commission it would work directly with news organizations to arrange two debates this summer with Trump, who quickly accepted his rival’s proposal. 

The development raised the possibility that the commission, which has handled presidential debates each cycle dating back to 1988, may fade into irrelevance after 2024. 

I'm not sure that whatever replaces the CPD will be any better about including non-duopoly candidates, but it isn't likely to be any worse. Great job, guys.

Election 2024: The Only Thing Haley Has Left (Or, Really, Ever Had At All)

In yesterday's Nevada presidential primary, GOP side, Nikki Haley lost.

She didn't lose to Donald Trump, who didn't participate.

The GOP had a primary and a caucus. Candidates could only participate in one. The caucus, not the primary, selected delegates to the Republican National Convention, but since the caucus was pre-rigged to preclude any possibility of a non-Trump victory, Haley decided to use the primary to make a statement, presumably by winning it.

She didn't get to make that statement. She lost not to Trump but to "none of these candidates," a ballot option required by Nevada election law.

Instead, she got to preemptively make the only statement she's ever really had the ability to make truthfully, albeit preemptively and with effect -- possible, but not guaranteed effect -- only in the future.

Quick recap: She came in third in the Iowa caucus. She came in a distant second in the New Hampshire primary. She got embarrassed in the Nevada primary. She'll almost certainly be crushed in her home state (South Carolina) primary. If she keeps running for the GOP nomination, she'll keep on getting the "bug on the windshield of a speeding car" treatment.

But her main argument for nominating her has always been "I can beat Joe Biden -- Donald Trump can't."

If she's wrong, her political career is over (and has been over ever since she declared for the GOP nomination, if not before).

If she's right, she's Cassandra, and the statement she's preemptively making (with an eye on 2028) is "I told you so. You wouldn't listen, but I told you so. Ready to listen now?"

As a betting proposition, she's better off remaining "in the race" than dropping out.

If her claim that Trump can't beat Joe Biden is wrong, she's already lost pretty much everything she had to lose. It's not going to get any worse for her as political career futures go.

If she's right, staying in makes a future win more likely by letting her continue to get that message out to people who aren't supporting her this time, by keeping faith with her current supporters so that they remain supporters, and by using the time and money available to her to build durable campaign organizations in all those upcoming primary states -- campaign organizations that can be reactivated four years from now instead of having to be rebuilt from scratch.

Election 2024: Two States That Are Going to Deserve Attention

In 2020, Donald Trump carried North Carolina ... barely. He pulled 49.93% of the vote to Joe Biden's 48.59%.

The third party, independent, and write-in vote totaled 1.48% of the vote, more or less "covering the spread" between the two.

Trump over-performed versus his polling.  In fact, every poll listed at 538 that collected data into November had Biden up by anywhere from 1% to 6%.

So, what's it look like for 2024?

Well, almost every poll listed at 538 (the last one was in December) has Trump up on Biden by a substantial margin, even with RFK Jr.  included.

BUT!

At the moment, it looks like RFK Jr. will be in the race -- North Carolina is one of the states where he's creating a "We the People" party for ballot access purposes (apparently it's easier to get on the ballot there with a party than as an independent).

Another of those states is Texas, which Trump carried by a larger margin than North Carolina, but a smaller margin than you might guess -- 5.58%, with the third party and write-in vote coming in at 1.46%, nowhere near "covering the spread."

If Kennedy does fairly well in those states -- even, say, 5% -- and if the polling indicating that more of his votes come from people who would support Trump than Biden in a two-way contest without Kennedy in the mix is correct, then Democrats have an excellent shot at North Carolina's 15 electoral votes and at least a plausible shot at Texas's 38 electoral votes.

Election 2024: Should Nikki Haley Drop Out or Stay In?

I'm seeing a lot of people with strong opinions on that question, and quite a few asking that question.

My answer: It depends on what she's trying to accomplish.

Unless all those hamberders finally clog Donald Trump's arteries up enough to cause a stroke or heart attack, she has almost no chance of winning the GOP's 2024 nomination for president, so if that's her only angle, she should probably drop out.

On the other hand, if she's thinking about the 2028 or 2032 nomination, or even just about rebuilding the Republican Party after 8-12 years of Trumpist carnage, staying in makes sense.

If Trump loses a fourth election in a row, she'll have been the last big name barnstorming from state to state telling Republican voters that's what's going to happen. The voters she's already convinced of that will likely still be on board with her four years from now, at least some of them who wasted their vote on Trump will have changed their minds about her, and the Trump-dominated GOP apparatus will be in disarray while she'll already have a campaign structure in place and waiting to be reactivated.

If Trump wins, she can go into political exile, spend time with her family, and probably write a poor poor pitiful me book and hit the speaker circuit. If Trump loses, she can try to be her party's savior next time around.

I suspect she will stay in, taking her lumps in virtually every state primary, so as to possibly keep her future ambitions alive.

Just to clarify things, I have no love for Trump and won't be voting for him under any circumstances ... but Haley scares me more. She's younger, more energetic, at least as authoritarian, and even more batshit unhinged (although less random) on foreign policy than Trump.

But, Then, Apples and Oranges are Both Fruit

In a letter to the Washington Post ("Comparing Trump documents to Clinton emails is apples to oranges") Rich O'Bryant complains about the comparison between the search of disgraced former president Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home and the FBI's handling of the Hillary Clinton email scandal:

Marc A. Thiessen’s Aug. 10 op-ed, “The FBI goes after Trump, again,” equated former president Donald Trump’s taking a bunch of documents illegally from the White House to former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s sloppy handling of docs on her private server.

Well, no.

Hillary Clinton did not engage in "sloppy handling" of documents.

Upon her confirmation as Secretary of State, she received a briefing on the law regarding the handling of classified information, signed acknowledgements that she had been so briefed, and then proceeded to knowingly and flagrantly violate that law.

FBI director James Comey, in his press briefing on the FBI's investigation, made it absolutely crystal clear that that's what happened, and just as clear that the only reason she wouldn't be prosecuted was because she was Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump is apparently (the DOJ has asked a court to release the search warrant, but it hasn't yet, so I can't really know for sure) suspected of violating those same laws and/or another one specific to presidential records. And maybe he did.

If so, I don't think he should skate just because Clinton skated. But if they're going to go after him for it, and if the statute of limitations hasn't expired on Clinton's crimes, the two of them should share a cell.

Three Random Thoughts on the Current Situation

Random Thought #1: Comparing Trump to Obama

Trump and Obama are very similar. They both have large groups of followers who have convinced themselves to believe what they want to believe about their God instead of paying attenotion to what their God um, ACTUALLY SAYS AND DOES. "Make America Great Again" is not substantially different from "Si se puede, hope and change." They're both contentless appeals to patriotic emotion. And the people who buy them turn around and fill them with their own fantasies, regardless of the real actions of the guy who sold that shit to them.

Random Thought #2: Comparing Trump to Clinton

Here's the difference between Clinton and Trump:

Clinton was clearly a "more of the same thing as the last 25 years" interventionist. Everyone knew what to expect if she won.

Trump is also a "more of the same thing as the last 25 years" interventionist but one who conned non-interventionists into believing otherwise.

Same policies, but with Trump the War Party gets its wars AND gets to discredit the non-interventionist cause.

Random Thought #3: What the Trump regime portends

Trump is the kind of guy who is going to brew up a "constitutional crisis" every week. And the country can't stand more than one of those every few years. At some point all three branches of government go in different directions and we do what every other country ends up doing eventually -- wake up one morning and learn that the military took charge overnight.

Hey, Look at That. Pretty Cool, Huh?

Long-time readers know that I've sometimes been rough on Ron Paul (on e.g. "states' rights," the "paleo strategy," etc.). No apologies, all that is what it is, but it's also enormously flattering that Paul (and host Daniel McAdams) chose my latest Garrison Center column to riff on in yesterday's episode of The Ron Paul Liberty Report.