“Whenever I hear or read the word kakistocracy, this immediately comes to mind.” John (repeat1968) Buss
I hope the ACLU and other NGOs will be up for the next version of #DonOld’s Reign of Terror. Get ready for mass deportations by the military. If only they would deport me and my animals to the south of France or even the old family home in Hastings, England, if it’s still standing! For a guy who insists he didn’t know what Project 2025 was about, he is certainly right on top of it! This is from AXIOS. “Trump confirms plans to use military for mass deportations.”
President-elect Trump confirmed Monday that he is planning to declare a national emergency and use the U.S. military to carry out mass deportations.
Why it matters: Trump made his promise to deport millions of undocumented immigrants one of the cornerstones of his 2024 campaign, and his team has already begun strategizing how to carry its plan out.
- A Truth Social post early Monday is the first time the president-elect has confirmed how his administration will execute the controversial plan.
Driving the news: Tom Fitton, the president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, posted on Truth Social earlier this month that Trump was “prepared to declare a national emergency and will use military assets to reverse the Biden invasion through a mass deportation program.”
- Trump reposted Fitton’s comment Monday with the caption, “TRUE!!”
The big picture: There are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. Trump’s mass deportations are expected to impact roughly 20 million families across the country.
- Immigration advocates and lawyers are preparing to counter the plan in court.
- The president-elect’s team is aiming to craft executive orders that can withstand legal challenges to avoid a similar defeat that befell Trump’s Muslim ban in his first term, Politico reported.
- Their plans also include ending the parole program for undocumented immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, per Politico.
Zoom out: Trump has also already begun filling out his Cabinet positions with immigration hardliners.
- This includes tapping Tom Homan, the former acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to serve as his “border czar.”
- In addition, Trump nominated South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem as his secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Go deeper: How Trump’s plan for mass deportations fits into U.S. history
I will expand the garden in my side yard and extend it back to the area which has fruit trees and ginger. If the courts don’t block this, I’m betting on higher food prices by the next harvest. Also, I don’t know how anyone in a state like mine, affected by hurricanes and damage, will be getting their homes fixed and cleaned. We’d have never recovered without the workers from South of our border. However, that will be only one of the problems this regime change will bring.
David Nir, writing for Public Notice, has this information on the possibility of recess appointments for the basket of unqualified deplorable he’s chosen for his cabinet. “How Johnson could make Trump’s recess appointments a reality. Talk of cutting out Dems — and GOP dissenters — is more than just idle rhetoric.” Surely, no one believes that what comes out of his anus-looking mouth is just idle rhetoric at this point!
Donald Trump’s plan to stock his cabinet with the most appalling MAGA nihilists hinges on the obeisance of one man in particular: House Speaker Mike Johnson. And given Johnson’s track record of cowardice, Trump may indeed get what he wants — and demolish a pillar of democracy along the way.
The crescendo of increasingly nightmarish picks like Tulsi Gabbard, Matt Gaetz, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. almost makes Liz Dye’s take here at Public Notice — that Trump is trying to install the crowd at the Star Wars cantina — seem too kind.
So beyond the pale are Trump’s worst choices that even some Republicans in the Senate are balking. And it’s worth remembering that many Trump nominees during his first term in office withdrew from consideration in the face of GOP inaction or hostility.
But whether or not Republican senators are inclined to revert to subservience and greenlight these nominations, Trump is already armed with a plan to bypass the confirmation process entirely. He wants to fill vacancies without a confirmation vote by making so-called recess appointments when the Senate is not in session — a power granted to him by the Constitution. And he has a path to do it.
A will and a way
For many years, Congress has not actually taken a formal recess, precisely to deny presidents the ability to side-step lawmakers. Trump, though, has demanded that the Senate resume the practice of adjourning itself so that he can ram his picks through without any oversight.
The GOP’s new majority leader, John Thune, replied submissively to Trump’s demand, saying on Fox News last week that “all options are on the table.” And Johnson echoed that sentiment on Fox News Sunday yesterday, saying of recess appointments that “there may be a function for that.” (Watch below.)
It turns out that, even for a legislative body that often convenes for just three days a week, it’s surprisingly difficult for the Senate to take a proper, on-the-books break. Such an adjournment requires a majority vote, which even Thune acknowledged might be “a problem” for some Republican senators.
But even if Senate Republicans could muster a majority, a motion to recess can be amended, as Semafor’s Burgess Everett notes. That means Democrats could hold up such a motion indefinitely, unless Republicans were to unilaterally change Senate rules regarding recesses — a move Everett calls “a smaller-scale version of the ‘nuclear option'” that might also have a hard time garnering 50 votes.
The alt-media has been doing an excellent job tackling this garbage in and out of motivation and action. Politico has stated that the Ethics Committee in the House will discuss the report on Gaetz and his sex adventures with underage girls, also known as statutory rape. I firmly believe that if they don’t release it, someone will leak it. “House Ethics panel to meet Wednesday as Gaetz question looms. Members rescheduled the Wednesday meeting from one last week where lawmakers were widely expected to vote on whether to release the report.”
The House Ethics panel will meet Wednesday and potentially vote to release a report probing sexual misconduct allegations against former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who Donald Trump tapped to be his attorney general, according to two people familiar with the discussion.
The meeting comes as Gaetz’s confirmation is in question, with some Republican senators wary of the controversial Florida Republican serving as the nation’s top law enforcement officer.
Speaker Mike Johnson is putting pressure on members of the Ethics Committee to keep the report under wraps, saying on Friday that he is “going to strongly request” the report isn’t released because “that is not the way we do things in the House, and I think that would be a terrible precedent to set.”
Johnson furthered that stance in interviews on the Sunday shows and threw his support behind Gaetz to be attorney general.
Members rescheduled the Wednesday meeting from one last week where lawmakers were widely expected to vote on whether to release the report.
Whether or not to release the report, which some senators have said would be essential in deciding whether or not to confirm Gaetz, is placing intense pressure on the historically bipartisan Ethics Committee. Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin on Sunday told “Meet The Press” that the Senate should “absolutely” be able to see the report, but he said that doesn’t necessarily mean it should become public.
Gaetz, a fierce and loyal supporter of Trump’s, has a tough road to confirmation in the Senate. GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she doesn’t “think it’s a serious nomination.” And fellow swing-vote Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said she was “shocked” by the choice.
Republicans will hold 53 Senate seats in the next Congress, meaning they can only afford three defectors in the confirmation process.
As I mentioned, Trump’s lies about not knowing about Project 2025 are becoming more disprovable. This is also from Politico. “Playbook: Heritage comes out of the bunker.” Natalie Allison has the lede.
But now, with Trump as president-elect, Heritage is peeking back out from its metaphorical bunker.
Two of Heritage’s visiting fellows — TOM HOMAN and JOHN RATCLIFFE, who were contributors to Project 2025 — have already been named to top Trump administration posts. That book from Roberts that was supposed to come out in September? It was released last week. The think tank even marked its reemergence with an event this past week welcoming back the Washington cocktail circuit to the group’s Massachusetts Avenue headquarters on Capitol Hill. It was a D.C. coming back out party, of sorts, for an organization that is easing its way back into influence in what’s soon to be Trump’s Washington once again.
“We’re so back,” the Heritage official told Playbook, with a nervous laugh, while a crowd in the packed but modest-sized room milled around during a book party Thursday night for Roberts.
As GOP members of Congress — Playbook spotted Reps. RALPH NORMAN (R-S.C.), BRIAN BABIN (R-Texas), ERIC BURLISON (R-Mo.) and JOSH BRECHEEN (R-Okla.) there — sipped wine and grabbed hors d’oeuvres with a smattering of ambassadors, conservative staffers and reporters on Thursday, Roberts noted that he has lost a number of his “liberal friends” this year over “that larger book we’re famous for.”
But Heritage’s stint as a social pariah due to Project 2025 is effectively over.
“The entire political spectrum in the West is represented here,” Roberts said of the crowd he had assembled Thursday. “I won’t call anyone out, but those of you who are not exactly excited about everything that Heritage does — I’m very, very grateful that you’re here, and you’re here out of friendship.”Roberts spoke about the need for conservatives to “have a certain humility” in order to continue growing the historic coalition that’s returning Trump to the White House — while still trying to fully convert new faces in the movement to a robust conservative ideology more closely resembling his own.
“What the conservative movement did for a generation — I was guilty of this, sometimes I’m still tempted to be guilty of this — is to say, ‘Oh, I’m not going to talk to you,’” Roberts said. He recalled scoffing the first time someone suggested that influential “populist conservatives” like himself should form a “political alliance with the tech bros.”
“I said, ‘What are you talking about? That’s crazy.’ Guess who was wrong? I was.”
Roberts, flanked on each side by panels quoting book endorsements from VP-elect JD VANCE and TUCKER CARLSON, noted that there are stark differences between his worldview and of some of the GOP’s newcomers, name-checking ELON MUSK and ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., who had been announced as Trump’s nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services just hours earlier.
“I can be very grateful to Elon Musk for revitalizing free speech for the world, while also saying — very respectfully, civilly, maybe even with a smile on my face — it’s crazy to want to put microchips in the brain,” Roberts said.
And he intends to have what he said will also be a “civil” conversation with Kennedy on their differences on abortion rights. “We might agree to disagree,” Roberts said, “but we’re going to work on whatever we can that we agree on, and I will hold out hope that maybe I can change his mind.”
Roberts is sounding pretty optimistic again about the role of Heritage in Washington, about his own improving standing in Trump world, and, yes — about the likelihood of Project 2025’s much-maligned proposals getting closer to implementation. His organization, meanwhile, has prepared for the Trump administration a database of nearly 20,000 names of people who could fill jobs in the president-elect’s new federal government, a Heritage official told Playbook.
Elon Musk’s idea of free speech is anything that doesn’t personally attack him or his ideals, so let’s get rid of that notion. The Tech Bros funded this crazy train. This is from Oliver Darcy, who writes for Status. “The Verge Editor-In-Chief Nilay Patel breathes fire on Elon Musk and Donald Trump’s Big Tech enablers. “All of these men are now hopelessly trapped in a problem their own platforms and algorithms created.”” This is from Oliver’s interview with Patel.
What do you make of Elon Musk’s alliance with Donald Trump and what worries you the most about him playing such an outsized role in the Trump administration?
America now has an unelected defense contractor sitting in the White House doing ketamine and twiddling the algorithmic knobs of an influential right-wing echo chamber while fulminating against traditional standards-based journalism, threatening to revoke network broadcast licenses, and suing advertisers who don’t want to spend their money on his dwindling user base. What could go wrong?
On top of that, Trump’s most likely FCC Chairman is Brendan Carr, who was tasked in the first Trump government to crack down on platform moderation by taking control of Section 230, literally wrote the Project 2025 chapter laying out a plan to do so, and is now begging to punish NBC for having Kamala Harris on “SNL.”
To be as clear as I can be, the second Trump administration with Elon Musk embedded within it represents the most direct and sustained threat to the First Amendment and the freedom of the press any of us will ever experience. If you’re a media executive or editorial leader and you haven’t met with your legal team to understand the current landscape of First Amendment threats, let alone the ones to come, you’re already behind. Get on it.
In the wake of Trump’s victory, other Big Tech leaders (Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai, etcetera) posted congratulatory messages on X. It struck me as much different to how Silicon Valley responded to Trump’s first election. Why do you think that is?
All of these men are now hopelessly trapped in a problem their own platforms and algorithms created: they have to manipulate Trump’s narcissism to secure tariff exceptions and regulatory largesse, while knowing that the vast majority of their employees and half of their customers will see any engagement as moral bankruptcy. There’s a reason Apple and Google would not confirm the calls Donald Trump claimed Tim Cook and Sundar Pichai made to him before the election — they didn’t want to be associated with him.
Now they have no choice. Tim Cook had been quietly setting the stage to retire — but he’s stuck kissing the ring and hosting fake factory openings for another four years to avoid disastrous tariffs on Apple products. Zuck is spending billions on Nvidia H100s manufactured in Taiwan in order to dominate A.I., but all that money comes from advertising for products made overseas — a double whammy of tariff issues. (And the entire influencer economy is built on Shein sponcon — that’s about to fall off a cliff.) Elon, Marc Andreessen, and J.D. Vance all think that Google should be crushed to bits with antitrust law — Vance has specifically said that he think Lina Khan is doing a good job.
Jeff Bezos? All that money for yachts and rockets comes from Amazon’s huge ecosystem of alphabet soup dropshipping companies. I hope Lauren likes having dinner at Mar-a-Lago.
Here’s more on the FCC cabinet pick who edited Project 2025. This is from the AP. “Trump names Brendan Carr, senior GOP leader at FCC, to lead the agency.” Demons all the way down.
President-elect Donald Trump on Sunday named Brendan Carr, the senior Republican on the Federal Communications Commission, as the new chairman of the agency tasked with regulating broadcasting, telecommunications and broadband.
Carr is a longtime member of the commission and served previously as the FCC’s general counsel. He has been unanimously confirmed by the Senate three times and was nominated by both Trump and President Joe Biden to the commission.
The FCC is an independent agency that is overseen by Congress, but Trump has suggested he wanted to bring it under tighter White House control, in part to use the agency to punish TV networks that cover him in a way he doesn’t like.
Carr has of late embraced Trump’s ideas about social media and tech. Carr wrote a section devoted to the FCC in “ Project 2025,” a sweeping blueprint for gutting the federal workforce and dismantling federal agencies in a second Trump administration produced by the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Every federal worker is going to need a lawyer at this point. Get ready for that Class Action lawsuit. This in-depth look at the weirdo that will head defense is not pleasant. But, he’s the guy who would work with whatever Generals remain in all parts of the country, sniffing out undocumented workers. Judd Legume and his team sniffed him out for Popular Information. “13 things everyone should know about Pete Hegseth. Just looking at him gives me the willies.
Hegseth is a military veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and received a Bronze Star and other commendations. He also served in the National Guard. But the largest organization that Hegseth has previously run is Concerned Veterans for America, a Koch-funded right-wing advocacy organization, where he served as Executive Director from 2012 to 2016. Concerned Veterans for America had a few dozen employees and a budget of around $15 million during his tenure. In that role, Hegseth hired his younger brother, who had just graduated college, to a well-compensated media relations position at the CVA. Hegseth founded a small PAC in his native Minnesota to support conservative candidates. It managed to raise about $15,000 over several years. One-third of the raised funds were “spent on two Christmas parties and reimbursements to Hegseth.”
Even Trump’s most loyal supporters acknowledge Hegseth’s lack of relevant experience. Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist during his first term, said that Hegseth has “never run a big organization” and is “kind of a madman.”
But while Hegseth has limited management experience, he has spent many years in the public eye and has a long record of punditry. Here are 13 things everyone should know about the man Trump wants to put in charge of the nation’s military.
His top priority is getting women out of the military.
“I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles,” Hegseth said in a media interview on November 10, 2024. According to Hegseth, “[e]verything about men and women serving together makes the situation more complicated, and complication in combat, means casualties are worse.”
“Dads push us to take risks. Moms put the training wheels on our bikes,” Hegseth wrote in his 2024 book The War on Warriors. “We need moms. But not in the military, and especially not in combat units.”
“There aren’t enough lesbians in San Francisco to staff the 82nd Airborne like you need, you need the boys in Kentucky and Texas and North Carolina and Wisconsin,” Hegseth said in a podcast earlier this year.
Women have formally been allowed to serve in combat roles since 2013 and have been involved in combat operations for decades. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page suggested Hegseth’s position is misguided because “women have shown they can perform well in many roles” in the military.
It gets worse from there if you want to read it. And I think that it’s horrifying for all of us for now. Be aware of all the places where havoc will reign. The stock market has already been rebooted. It’s nose-dived since the cabinet officers were announced. Big Pharma and anyone in the processed food business were particularly hard hit. This is the headline today from Stock Market Watch. “Stock Market Today: Dow flat, S&P 500 attempts bounce after worst week in over 2 months. It’s not like I didn’t warn y’all. Just get ready to hunker down like an Okie during the Dust Bowl. I have mad skills, having survived post-Katrina with the lessons my Nana and Dad taught me. This is not going to be an easy time for any of us.
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Songs for dwelling on Trump and his appointments
“Voting can stop it.” John Buss @repeat1968
It was a dark and drizzly night, not one to make the rounds to all the Halloween parties in the hood. So, I settled into watching a friend from around Flagstaff, Arizona, stream a set of Horror Movies on Discord to a bunch of us who play a Zombie survival game together. It was like a pajama party with the girls, except my girls are all furry, and everyone else was scattered all over the country. I retwisted my ankle last night which was still hurting from a Tuesday mishap and feeling really old. The live Oaks of New Orleans’ Avenues drop acorns that rapidly become a coffee ground-like mess everywhere. That was the trick. I was glad that I stocked up on treats and wine earlier because I just missed the fog and the mist rolling in over the city. A very apt setting for Interview with a Vampire. I was hurting, traumatized by the DonOld Garbage Truck Cosplay spewing from the News Channels, and thought settling down to some movies would be a good break.
I saw a new version of Children of the Corn and was treated to several movies, including two of the “The Hills Have Eyes” franchises. It was hard to believe that the original version by Wes Crave had come out when I was at university. The fact the newest version of Children was centered in Nebraska was not lost on me. The original of that one came out when I was finishing my Masters. Back then, I’d take out the Beta tapes of the old Vincent Price horror movies that I recorded off the few cable channels back then.
The more I watched the Hill films, the more I could see Trump supporters in all the cannibal zombies in the Hills. Seriously, right down to their caps, their messy English, and the way they treated the two women in that National Guard Unit, I could swear I was watching a MAGA ambush. The creepy preacher in Children of the Corn and his implied “sin” against the little girl Eden was like the perfect metaphor for all those white Christian nationalist men whose arrest mug shots for crimes against children keep popping up on my X feed.
I had watched the news earlier and the meltdown that MAGA husbands are having at the idea their wives might get in the voting booth and vote their conscience instead of the will of their Patriarchal captor. One dude on Fox likened it to committing adultery, at which point the women on the panel laughed, and then he looked straight at the camera and told his chattel Emma that it would be finished if he found she’d done that. I thought she should get a lawyer to get her share, then Run Emma, RUN!! That and go have some fun with some young men that know what they’re doing! Just don’t bring them home or marry them.
This is from Vanity Fair. The analysis is provided by Bess Levin. “Fox News Host Says He’d Divorce His Wife for Voting for Kamala Harris. “If I found out Emma was going into the voting booth and pulling the lever for Harris, that’s the same thing as having an affair.” If you’d like, I can reference the part from the Hill movie where the mutant grabs a woman National Guard soldier, starts grabbing and raping her, and says, “You make nice babies!” Who among us can’t see DonOld in his prime doing that same thing?
How much respect do Donald Trump’s male supporters have for women? So much that at least one of them has said he’d end his marriage if his wife exercised her constitutional right to vote for Kamala Harris.
On an episode of The Five this week, Fox News host Jesse Watters told fellow panelists that if he learned his wife, Emma, cast her ballot for the vice president, after letting him think she was voting for Trump, he would consider it a betrayal on par with having an extramarital affair and it would be “over.”
“If I found out Emma was going into the voting booth and pulling the lever for Harris, that’s the same thing as having an affair,” Watters said. “That, to me, violates the sanctity of our marriage. What else is she keeping from me? What else has she been lying about?” Asked by cohost Jeanine Pirro, “Why would she lie to you? Have you threatened her?” Watters responded, “Why would she do that and then vote Harris? Why would she say she was voting…. And I caught her and then she said, ‘I lied to you for the last four years—’”
“So you admit you intimidate people,” Pirro interjected. “It’s over, Emma!” Watters said. “That would be D-Day!”
Watters and co. were discussing an ad put out in support of the Harris campaign that reminds women, “You can vote any way you want, and no one will ever know.” Which is apparently a necessary point to make to women who are married to extremely fragile Trump-supporting men.
I know that once they think they’ve got you, they show their true colors, but seriously, who could stand to live like that? Salon has this great article up with an even more wonderful headline. “”It is so disastrous”: MAGA men are freaking out that wives may be secretly voting for Kamala Harris, “That’s the same thing as having an affair,” Fox News host argues as women fuel early vote in key states.” The entire concept of Control Freak is not hyped enough for these guys. Charles R Davis takes them on.
When you’re a star, Donald Trump has said more than once, women will let you do whatever you want to them. As president, that meant putting three right-wing justices on the Supreme Court and stripping half the country of a constitutional right, enabling people like him — their self-proclaimed “protector” — to have the final word on what any woman does with her body.
“I’m going to do it whether the women like it or not,” the former president asserted at a campaign stop on Wednesday. “I am going to protect them.”
Women, it turns out, do not care for this — a large majority of them, at least. While millions will still vote for the Republican candidate, perhaps hating immigrants more than they love reproductive rights, the only certainty at this point is that many millions more will vote for Vice President Kamala Harris. In the latest ABC News/Ipsos national poll, the Democrat enjoyed a 14% advantage with women over Trump; among women with a college degree, that number rose to 23%; among women voters under 40, it rocketed to 34%.
According to the Brookings Institution, Harris’ strength among women angered by the 2022 Dobbs decision could explain why Democrats, for the first time in forever, are polling better with older voters than Republicans. The think tank’s Michael Hais and Morley Winograd noted that, per the ABC News/Ipsos survey, there has been a 10-point swing to Harris among voters over the age of 65 compared to 2020.
“Some observers think this shift is driven by the ‘revenge of Boomer feminists’ among the women of that famous generation, all of whom are now over 65 but who cut their political teeth in the battle for equality when they were much younger,” Hais and Winograd wrote. Younger voters may be angry over losing a right they had never lived without, but older people have seen hard-fought progress rolled back. They are also the most reliable group of voters — and they tend to vote early.
In battleground states, that appears to be exactly what’s happening. According to an analysis of early-voting tallies by Politico, women account for 55% of all ballots cast thus far in states such as Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
That, in turn, is causing some MAGA commentators to break from their usual posture of feigned confidence to outright panic.
“Early vote has been disproportionately female,” Charlie Kirk, head of Turning Point USA and helping to lead the Trump campaign’s get-out-the-vote effort, posted on social media. “If men stay at home, Kamala is president. It’s that simple.” (Kirk, seeking to motivate these voters, offered Orwellian misogyny: “If you want a vision of the future if you don’t vote, imagine Kamala’s voice cackling, forever.”)
I feel seen for once, hopefully, not by the Children of the Garbage Bags and AR-15s. DonOld really has gone over the edge. During his rally in New Mexico, he made a loosely veiled threat at former Congresswoman Liz Cheney. This is from the Bulwark, as written by Bill Kristol. Don’t Horror shows make allies out of the strangest folks? That’s what happens when your very life is on the line.
Donald Trump’s two strongest personality traits each had a moment on the campaign trail yesterday.
At a rally in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the buffoon: “I’m here for one very simple reason. I like you very much, and it’s good for my credentials with the Hispanic and Latino community.”
And later, on stage with Tucker Carlson in Glendale, Arizona, the menace. Here he was on former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney: “She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face.”
U.S. News has this headline. “Trump Says Liz Cheney Might Not Be Such a ‘War Hawk’ if She Had Rifles Shooting at Her. Donald Trump is calling former Rep. Liz Cheney, who’s one of his most prominent Republican critics, a “war hawk” and he’s suggesting she might not be as willing to send troops to fight if she had guns shooting at her.”
Donald Trump is suggesting that former Rep. Liz Cheney, one of his most prominent Republican critics, should have rifles “shooting at her” to see how she feels about sending troops to fight. It was his latest suggestion that his rivals should be targeted with violence.
Cheney responded by branding the GOP presidential nominee a “cruel, unstable man who wants to be a tyrant.”
The Republican presidential candidate has been using increasingly threatening rhetoric against his adversaries and talked of “enemies from within” undermining the country. Some of his former senior aides and Vice President Kamala Harris have labeled him a fascist in response.
At an event late Thursday in Arizona with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Trump was asked whether it was strange to see Cheney campaign against him. The former Wyoming congresswoman has vocally opposed Trump since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and endorsed Democrat Kamala Harris, joining the vice president at recent stops as they try to win over Republicans disaffected with Trump.
Trump called Cheney “a deranged person” and added, “But the reason she couldn’t stand me is that she always wanted to go to war with people. If it were up to her we’d be in 50 different countries.”
The former president continued: “She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.
The results of Donald Trump’s first reign of Terror are killing women. The Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have the blood of innocents on their hands. ProPublica has once again followed the trail of deaths left in Texas by the hypocrites who scream they are “pro-life.” “A Pregnant Teenager Died After Trying to Get Care in Three Visits to Texas Emergency Rooms. It took three ER visits and 20 hours before a hospital admitted Nevaeh Crain, 18, as her condition worsened. Doctors insisted on two ultrasounds to confirm “fetal demise.” She’s one of at least two Texas women who died under the state’s abortion ban.”
Candace Fails screamed for someone in the Texas hospital to help her pregnant daughter. “Do something,” she pleaded, on the morning of Oct. 29, 2023.
Nevaeh Crain was crying in pain, too weak to walk, blood staining her thighs. Feverish and vomiting the day of her baby shower, the 18-year-old had gone to two different emergency rooms within 12 hours, returning home each time worse than before.
The first hospital diagnosed her with strep throat without investigating her sharp abdominal cramps. At the second, she screened positive for sepsis, a life-threatening and fast-moving reaction to an infection, medical records show. But doctors said her six-month fetus had a heartbeat and that Crain was fine to leave.
Now on Crain’s third hospital visit, an obstetrician insisted on two ultrasounds to “confirm fetal demise,” a nurse wrote, before moving her to intensive care.
By then, more than two hours after her arrival, Crain’s blood pressure had plummeted and a nurse had noted that her lips were “blue and dusky.” Her organs began failing.
Hours later, she was dead.
Fails, who would have seen her daughter turn 20 this Friday, still cannot understand why Crain’s emergency was not treated like an emergency.
But that is what many pregnant women are now facing in states with strict abortion bans, doctors and lawyers have told ProPublica.
“Pregnant women have become essentially untouchables,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law and policy professor emerita at George Washington University.
Texas’s abortion ban threatens prison time for interventions that end a fetal heartbeat, whether the pregnancy is wanted or not. It includes exceptions for life-threatening conditions, but still, doctors told ProPublica that confusion and fear about the potential legal repercussions are changing the way their colleagues treat pregnant patients with complications.
In states with abortion bans, such patients are sometimes bounced between hospitals like “hot potatoes,” with health care providers reluctant to participate in treatment that could attract a prosecutor, doctors told ProPublica. In some cases, medical teams are wasting precious time debating legalities and creating documentation, preparing for the possibility that they’ll need to explain their actions to a jury and judge.
Dr. Jodi Abbott, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University School of Medicine, said patients are left wondering: “Am I being sent home because I really am OK? Or am I being sent home because they’re afraid that the solution to what’s going on with my pregnancy would be ending the pregnancy, and they’re not allowed to do that?”
There is a federal law to prevent emergency room doctors from withholding lifesaving care.
Passed nearly four decades ago, it requires emergency rooms to stabilize patients in medical crises. The Biden administration argues this mandate applies even in cases where an abortion might be necessary.
No state has done more to fight this interpretation than Texas, which has warned doctors that its abortion ban supersedes the administration’s guidance on federal law, and that they can face up to 99 years in prison for violating it.
ProPublica condensed more than 800 pages of Crain’s medical records into a four-page timeline in consultation with two maternal-fetal medicine specialists; reporters reviewed it with nine doctors, including researchers at prestigious universities, OB-GYNs who regularly handle miscarriages, and experts in emergency medicine and maternal health.
Puerto Rican Americans continue to speak out about the horrible racist slurs spoken by #DonOld about their Island home and their presence on the mainland. Does he understand that Puerto Ricans are Americans and that they live everywhere in this country? This is from The Daily Beast. “J.Lo Claps Back at Trump Rally Puerto Rico Jab: ‘We Are Americans’, “Our pain matters,” the singer said at a Las Vegas event for Kamala Harris.” This is reported by Claire Lampen.
As promised, Jennifer Lopez took the stage at Kamala Harris’s rally in Las Vegas on Thursday night, responding to racist statements about Puerto Rico made at one of Donald Trump’s recent events.
“I am an American woman. I am the daughter of Guadalupe Lupe Rodríguez and David Lopez, a proud daughter and son of Puerto Rico. I am Puerto Rican,” Lopez said, restating the final point in Spanish. “And yes, I was born here. And we are Americans.”
In his much-maligned comedy routine at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally on Sunday, right-wing comedian Tony Hinchcliffe referred to Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage.” His comments, Lopez said, should offend “anyone of decent character.”
“It’s about us, all of us, no matter what we look like, who we love, who we worship, or where we’re from,” Lopez said. “[Harris’s] opponent, on the other hand, doesn’t see it that way. He has consistently worked to divide us. At Madison Square Garden, he reminded us who he really is and how he really feels.”
Trump‘s rally featured a parade of extremist speakers, though it was Hinchcliffe’s act that really dominated headlines. In it, he claimed Latinos “love making babies,” a riff whose anti-immigrant punchline fell flat, and threw in some racist stereotypes about Black people as well.
Although the Trump campaign has since attempted to distance itself from Hinchcliffe’s set—Trump trotting out a classic “I don’t know her” defense—it garnered criticism from all sides, even from his own party.
Trump’s enablers cannot stop him from his hate-filled speeches and comments.
“It wasn’t just Puerto Ricans who were offended that day,” Lopez added. “It was every Latino in this country, it was humanity.”
J.Lo went on to say that, “with an understanding of our past, and a faith in our future,” she‘s proud to vote for Harris. “You can’t even spell American without Rican,” she said. “This is our country, too, and we must exercise our right to vote.”
Towards the end of her speech, Lopez appeared to fight back tears. “I promised myself I wouldn’t get emotional,” she told the audience. “But you know what? We should be emotional. We should be upset. We should be scared and outraged, we should. Our pain matters. We matter. You matter. Your voice and your vote matters.”
“This election is about your life,” J.Lo continued. “It‘s about you, and me, and my kids, and your kids. Don‘t make it easy; make them pay attention to you. That’s your power. Your vote is your power.”
“Your vote is your power” is the line I want everyone to remember today. Another one is a quote from the late Senator Paul Wellstone from Minnesota. Five Days until we get the opportunity to never hear that man or his zombie cultists again.
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
“The End Times are nigh. The Prodigal Son returns to Madison Square Garden.” John Buss @repeat1968
I was lucky that working with students last night interfered with any attempt to turn on the Fascist Rally at the World’s Most Famous Arena. This wasn’t exactly Ali against Frazier or Holyfield vs Lewis. This was more like #DonOld vs the Majority of the country. The opening bouts were lame.
My short take on this is it was basically a Crazy Old Cult Leader warming his brood up for the Ultimate Kool-Aid moment. Unfortunately, we previewed that on January 6, so I hope that law enforcement agencies are prepared. The Ultimate Chaos Agent is making his play for a coup
This brings me to this dangerous conspiracy theory making the rounds. To think, I was simply walking the dog around the block! I got told a conspiracy theory by a short-order cook at a local bar who has said crazy things before, so I thought I’d look into it to prove him wrong. His favorite spiel is that the right wing and the left wing are the same, and the government is corrupt. Which is partially correct. Look at Jill Stein and Robert Kennedy hooked up with the Fascists and Putin. If you take populism to its furthest corners of the right and the left, they eventually bump butts with each other. However, the left wing and the right in the United States do not wield the same power, and they are not of equal size. There’s no real leftist power in this country. The billionaire class has been funding the extreme right-wing for decades now, and it shows. Polls on issues show that most Americans agree on the major things. The problem is that the political system does not play towards consensus.
This guy insisted the DOD is sneaking a policy to Congress to approve the use of military force on civilians. Now, if DJT was in power, I believe he’d try that, although it would take a lot more than a policy of the DOD or an act of Congress to amend the Constitution. Even when I came back to show him the actual act to show him it says nothing of the kind, he insisted he’d read it, and that’s what he said. But when I invested it, I thought, wow, that looks like the will of the Ultimate Chaos Agent!
This link leads to DOD DIRECTIVE 5240.01 (DOD INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLIGENCE-RELATED ACTIVITIES, AND DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE COMPONENT, ASSISTANCE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER CIVIL AUTHORITIES.) It’s short, and the language is easy to comprehend. So, I did some research, and now I think it’s important enough of the conspiracy theory in light of the Prepare for War rally in Madison Square. Here’s what I found with a little dank rabbit hole exploring. “Far-Right Suggests Military Just Authorized Lethal Force Against Americans Ahead of the Election. It Didn’t. As Trump warns about an “enemy from within,” a Defense Department directive set off a firestorm on alt-tech social media. But the Insurrection Act is the real threat, experts say.” This is from a Blog Called The War Horse and it’s written by Sonner Kehrt.
Just as former president Donald Trump told Fox News last week that he wanted to use the U.S. military to “handle” what he called the “enemy from within” on Election Day, an obscure military policy was beginning to make the rounds on social media platforms favored by the far right.
The focus? Department of Defense Directive 5240.01.
The 22-page document governs military intelligence activities and is among more than a thousand different policies that outline Defense Department procedures.
The Pentagon updated it at the end of September. Although military policies are routinely updated and reissued, the timing of this one—just six weeks before the election and the same day Hurricane Helene slammed into the Southeast—struck right-wing misinformation merchants as suspicious.
They latched onto a new reference in the updated directive—“lethal force”—and soon were falsely claiming that the change means Kamala Harris had authorized the military to kill civilians if there is unrest after the election.
That’s flat-out not true, the Pentagon and experts on military policy told The War Horse.
“The provisions in [the directive] are not new, and do not authorize the Secretary of Defense to use lethal force against U.S. citizens, contrary to rumors and rhetoric circulating on social media,” Sue Gough, a Department of Defense spokesperson, said Wednesday night.
But as Trump doubles down on his “enemy from within” rhetoric, DOD Directive 5240.01 continues to gain traction among his supporters as ostensible proof that Harris, not Trump, wants to use the military against American citizens.
By early last week, “5240.01” began to spike on alt-tech platforms such as Rumble, 4chan, and Telegram, as well as on more mainstream platforms like X, according to an analysis by The War Horse and UC Berkeley’s Human Rights Center.
On Ron Paul’s Liberty Report, a YouTube show, the former Texas congressman told viewers that the policy meant that the country is now a “police state.” Republican Maryland congressman Andy Harris told Newsmax host Chris Salcedo last Wednesday that he was concerned the Defense Department was pushing through policies without congressional oversight.
“This is exactly what the Democrats said Trump would do. And they’re doing it,” he said. “This means that after an election, they could declare national emergency and literally call out the Army in the United States.”
Former Trump national security adviser and retired Army Lieutenant Gen. Michael Flynn tweeted the policy update out to his 1.7 million followers, just as he shared the week before a video suggesting the military had manipulated the weather to focus Hurricane Helene’s deadly fury on Republican voters in the South.
“Republican election fraud season is in full swing.” John Buss, @repeat1968
I really see this as a way to ensure their well-armed militia shows up at the local courthouse or state house well-armed when the vote count starts meaningfully leaning towards a Harris/Walz Administration. The ACLU has had this policy firmly in its FOIA grip since 1982. The documents are out there with no commentary or urgent lawsuits filed. You would think they’d be interested.
The Center for Informed Policy at the University of Washington is more interested in those conspiracy theories. “Rumors rapidly spreading about reissued Department of Defense Directive 5240.01” explains the right wing’s angst on this one in its 2024 U.S. ELECTIONS RAPID RESEARCH BLOG.
Key Takeaways
- Early last week, rumors started to spread between multiple social media platforms and across political communities online about a recently reissued Department of Defense Directive 5240.01 that documents procedures when there is a potential use of lethal force.
- Some online communities have speculated that the directive’s changes are timed with the upcoming election, with some suggesting without evidence that the intent behind the change is that the government is planning to use force against Americans.
- The viral spread could be exploiting a data void – a situation where there is no reliable information about a topic in search results — given there are no published fact-checks or traditional journalist coverage of the directive’s changes.
Just Security calls it “Much Ado About Nothing.” Oddly enough, this was an article my neighborhood weirdo was about to show me when he read the title and then suddenly closed it, and just as I said oh, Just Security is a reliable source. They conclude with this, which is similar to a thought in The War Horse. That’s the real danger is the Insurrection Act that Trump used to go after George Floyd Protestors with the National Guard. His stated goal was to support local law enforcement in Lafayette Park in Washington, D.C., on May 30, 2020. You probably will remember this culminating with the upside-down bible event. The ACLU is very interested in that event.
To be sure, there are good reasons to be concerned about the federal government’s power to use the armed forces domestically against Americans, but the new language in Directive 5240.01 is not one of them. The Insurrection Act represents a far greater danger. It gives the president broad discretion to use the military as a domestic police force and contains virtually no safeguards to prevent abuse. The Brennan Center for Justice, where we work, has put forward a comprehensive proposal for reforming the Insurrection Act, and a bipartisan group of former national security officials convened by the American Law Institute has similarly called for Insurrection Act reform. Those who are currently sounding the alarm about Directive 5240.01 would do well to refocus their energies on that critical task.
I just messaged it off to one of the MSNBC Anchors I chat with on occasion, so I’m about to see if I can get someone serious journalism on it with the hope of getting rid of the data void.
So, before I tackle the main event, I have one more nerdy article to suggest. This is about the odds makers. This is from Good Authority. The analysis is provided by Josh Clinton. “Poll results depend on pollster choices as much as voters’ decisions. Simple changes in how to weight a single poll can move the Harris-Trump margin 8 points.”
There is no end of scrutiny of the 2024 election polls – who is ahead, who is behind, how much the polls will miss the election outcome, etc., etc. These questions have become even more pressing because the presidential race seems to be a toss-up. Every percentage point for Kamala Harris or Donald Trump matters.
But here’s the big problem that no one talks about very much: Simple and defensible decisions by pollsters can drastically change the reported margin between Harris and Trump. I’ll show that the margin can change by as much as eight points. Reasonable decisions produce a margin that ranges from Harris +0.9% to Harris +8%.
This reality highlights that we ask far too much of polls. Ultimately, it’s hard to know how much poll numbers reflect the decisions of voters – or the decisions of pollsters.
The 4 key questions for pollsters
After poll data are collected, pollsters must assess whether they need to adjust or “weight” the data to address the very real possibility that the people who took the poll differ from those who did not. This involves answering four questions:
1. Do respondents match the electorate demographically in terms of sex, age, education, race, etc.? (This was a problem in 2016.)
2. Do respondents match the electorate politically after the sample is adjusted by demographic factors? (This was the problem in 2020.)
3. Which respondents will vote?
4. Should the pollster trust the data?
To show how the answers to these questions can affect poll results, I use a national survey conducted from October 7 – 14, 2024. The sample included 1,924 self-reported registered voters drawn from an online, high-quality panel commonly used in academic and commercial work.
After dropping the respondents who said they were not sure who they would vote for (3.2%) and those with missing demographics, the unweighted data give Harris a 6 percentage point lead – 51.6 % to 45.5% – among the remaining 1,718 respondents.
You may read more details about those factors at the link. I try not to put my students to sleep during statistics lectures, so I certainly won’t do it to you. The reporting and clips on the Madison Square Garden Rally kept me up most of the night. I felt like the child in grade school watching the teacher thread the film through those blue projectors only to see things my Dad didn’t want to remember about World War 2. I don’t know about you, but my school district did not hold back on the World War 2 experience. One of my high school teachers wrote a book on his experience as a prisoner taken during the Battle of the Bulge. I was surrounded by friends’ parents and my parents’ friends who were Veterans. We watched the films of the 1936 Olympics and heroes like Jesse Owens and, of course, all the Hitler and Mussolini public speeches. If you were like little me, I couldn’t understand who could fall for any of that.
I also saw films of the United States turning away Jewish people in ships fleeing Europe and films of the internment of Japanese-Americans. All of these seemed surreal to me at the ripe old age of 11.
Now, I know more. Now I can identify people that just love to goosestep with whom I would not share the location of any modern day Anne Frank.
Tom Toles Editorial Cartoon
CNN Analyst Stephen Collinson has this analysis. “Trump unveils the most extreme closing argument in modern presidential history.” The MAGA movement is about hating and eliminating everyone who isn’t like them.
Donald Trump anchored his bid to win a second White House term next week on searing anti-migrant fear at a rally at Madison Square Garden, doubling down on his promise for a massive deportation program on Day 1 to reverse an “immigrant invasion.”
As the ex-president’s allies defend him against Democratic claims he is a “fascist” and an authoritarian in waiting, based in part on warnings by his ex-chief of staff John Kelly, Trump on Sunday delivered a screed that may augur the most extreme presidency in modern history if he beats Democratic nominee Kamala Harris on November 5.
“The United States is an occupied country,” Trump said, as Democrats projected messages on the exterior of the storied New York City arena, reading “Trump is Unhinged” and “Trump praised Hitler.”
The huge rally was billed as the launch of the final stage of Trump’s bid to pull off one of the greatest comebacks in American political history after trying to overturn the result of the last election and leaving office in disgrace in 2021. Before he spoke, some of the ex-president’s top supporters flung race-based and vulgar rhetoric. Former congressional candidate David Rem called Harris the “antichrist” and “the devil,” while others lashed out at Hillary Clinton, “illegals” and homeless people. Comedian Tony Hinchcliffe called Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage.”
This is from Politico. The analysis is by Andrew Howard. “Fallout spreads from racist rhetoric at Trump’s MSG rally. “What you saw last night is a divisive America. That’s race-baiting. It’s all the things that we were doing in the ‘30s and ‘40s,” former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci said Monday.”
Donald Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally Sunday evening was supposed to provide his closing argument against Kamala Harris. Instead, Trump and his supporters are being forced to answer for hateful and racist rhetoric delivered from the podium Sunday night with just eight days left in the campaign.
The comments, while reminiscent of many made by Trump in the campaign’s final weeks, were made by a comedian early in the night’s schedule and were supposed to be jokes. Now, they are dominating the news cycle and putting Trump’s campaign on the backfoot with just under a week until the election.
Longtime Trump adviser Peter Navarro is calling the comedian, Tony Hinchcliffe, “the biggest, stupidest asshole that ever came down the comedy pike” after he called Puerto Rico a “floating island of hot garbage” during his often-vulgar opening set.
And Trump’s opponents are using the rally as proof of the former president’s divisiveness, going as far as likening the rhetoric from Sunday’s rally to the sinister 1939 Nazi rally that took place in the same venue.
“My reaction is that was a combination of 1933 Germany, 1939 Madison Square Garden last night,” former Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Monday morning. “What you saw last night is a divisive America. That’s race baiting. It’s all the things that we were doing in the ‘30s and ‘40s.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.), called Sunday night’s event a “hate rally.”
“This was not just a presidential rally, this was not just a campaign rally. I think it’s important for people to understand these are mini January 6 rallies, these are mini Stop the Steal rallies,” she said on “Morning Joe.”
Florida GOP Rep. Byron Donalds blamed the media for the backlash surrounding Sunday’s rally during an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Monday, saying the media is too focused on “fear-mongering” and not “the facts and the substance.”
“So to the New York Daily News, is it a racist rally if you have a Black man from Florida who’s originally from New York speaking at the rally? I don’t think so,” Donalds said. Still, Donalds distanced himself from Hinchcliffe’s comments.
“I didn’t agree with what the comedian said. None of us did,” Donalds said. “When it came out, we were all like, ‘Wait what? Who? Did that get out? No, no, no.’ Nobody agreed with that. Nobody.”
Last night, Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott, up for reelection this year in a state heavily populated with Puerto Ricans, wrote on social media that the “joke bombed for a reason,” and “Puerto Ricans are amazing people and amazing Americans!”
Yet another Floridian, GOP Rep. María Elvira Salazar, was also quick to condemn the comedian. “This rhetoric does not reflect GOP values,” she wrote in a post on X Sunday evening.
Early Monday morning, the Harris campaign was quick to jump in, highlighting headlines in 17 newspapers, eight clips from TV shows, and 29 other statements from politicians, celebrities and journalists.
Famous Puerto Ricans rushed to bolster Harris, including pop-phenom Bad Bunny, along with Jennifer Lopez and Ricky Martin.
Hinchcliffe’s backlash-inducing comments were not limited to Puerto Rico. The comedian also made a crude remark about “carving watermelons” after seeing a Black man in the audience. Another opener, businessman Grant Cardone, likened Harris’ advisers to “pimp handlers.”
And Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who has shaped many of Trump’s immigration policies, said Americans are having their jobs “looted and stolen from them” and sent to foreign countries.
I always turn to Historian Heather Cox Richardson for the final thoughts.
I stand corrected. I thought this year’s October surprise was the reality that Trump’s mental state had slipped so badly he could not campaign in any coherent way.
It turns out that the 2024 October surprise was the Trump campaign’s fascist rally at Madison Square Garden, a rally so extreme that Republicans running for office have been denouncing it all over social media tonight.
There was never any question that this rally was going to be anything but an attempt to inflame Trump’s base. The plan for a rally at Madison Square Garden itself deliberately evoked its predecessor: a Nazi rally at the old Madison Square Garden on February 20, 1939. About 18,000 people showed up for that “true Americanism” event, held on a stage that featured a huge portrait of George Washington in his Continental Army uniform flanked by swastikas.
Like that earlier event, Trump’s rally was supposed to demonstrate power and inspire his base to violence.
Apparently in anticipation of the rally, Trump on Friday night replaced his signature blue suit and red tie with the black and gold of the neofascist Proud Boys. That extremist group was central to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and has been rebuilding to support Trump again in 2024.
On Saturday the Trump campaign released a list of 29 people set to be on the stage at the rally. Notably, the list was all MAGA Republicans, including vice presidential nominee Ohio senator J.D. Vance, House speaker Mike Johnson (LA), Representative Elise Stefanik (NY), Representative Byron Donalds (FL), Trump backer Elon Musk, Trump ally Rudy Giuliani, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., right-wing host Tucker Carlson, Trump sons Don Jr. and Eric, and Eric’s wife, Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump.
Libbey Dean of NewsNation noted that none of the seven Republicans running in New York’s competitive House races were on the list. When asked why not, according to Dean, Trump senior advisor Jason Miller said: “The demand, the request for people to speak, is quite extensive.” Asked if the campaign had turned down anyone who asked to speak, Miller said no.
We could see the signs that he knew he probably wouldn’t win the minute Biden backed out. We could taste the panic in the air. We know his campaign is already spending more time in the Court trying to fuck with elections than with the ground game he delegated to Musk, who is out there basically running a personal game show with a million-dollar giveaway for attention.
Marc Elias and his team have been in court for the Harris/Walz campaign, which has been fighting Trump’s legal team that is “flooding the zone” with lawsuits and election tricks. #DonOld is clearly not physically or mentally capable of carrying on a campaign that requires giving cogent speeches and long hours. The only thing he excels at is creating chaos. “Marc Elias, Voting Rights Attorney, joins Nicolle Wallace on Deadline White House with a look at the work that Trump allies and attorneys are doing ahead of the 2024 Election in order to create doubt and confusion which will enable Donald Trump to deny the results of the 2024 Election should he lose again. ”
Here are the arguments for the Ultimate Chaos Agent in the Wallace/Elias interview.
The question is, will creating chaos be enough to bring the Republic and the voting and judicial systems to their knees? Can he knock out the Constitution, or will We the People knock him out on November 5th. We need the KO. These things keep me awake at night with my stomach churning and jumping like a kid about to take his ACTs.
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
“Health Departments will be deregulated under the next trump administration.” John Buss, @repeat1968
Last year in Louisiana, a number of folks yawned off the election, and this is what we got. “Is Jeff Landry the Worst Governor in America? From prisons and policing to the environment, Louisiana’s new leader is making everything worse.” It’s a lesson the entire country needs. This is what happens when you stay home.
The title is a provocative question, I know. After all, the competition for “worst governor” is stiff. There’s Ron DeSantis in Florida, banning library books and making life harder for transgender people every chance he gets. There’s Greg Abbott in Texas, putting circular saw blades in the Rio Grande to kill and maim immigrants who try to swim across. There are lesser-known menaces like Alabama’s Kay Ivey, a particularly venomous union-buster, or South Dakota’s Kristi Noem (hide your dog!). But I think there’s a case that Jeff Landry, the recently elected governor of Louisiana, may surpass them all.
Landry is, of course, terrible in all the ways that Republican governors like Abbott and DeSantis are terrible. He’s a climate change denier and a loyal ally to the fossil fuel industry, which has poisoned Louisiana’s majority-Black neighborhoods along the stretch of the Mississippi River known as “Cancer Alley.” He’s also appointed former oil, gas, and coal executives to several important environmental positions within his administration. (Keep in mind, Louisiana has been hit especially hard by climate-related disasters like hurricanes, so this is a direct threat to his constituents’ safety!) As a state representative and later Louisiana’s attorney general, he went out of his way to oppose LGBTQ rights on numerous occasions, and has even been condemned by his own brother (who’s gay) for his homophobic politics. He’s trying to dismantle and privatize the Louisiana education system, promoting so-called “education savings accounts” that allow public money to be spent on private school tuition. He wants censorship in public libraries, and may soon sign a bill to require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools. He praised the recent brutal police crackdown on students protesting for Palestine at Tulane University. There’s little need to go into further detail here, since Landry’s policies and actions are so similar to those of his fellow Republicans; just read a profile of Ron DeSantis, and 90 percent of it will also apply to him. But there are a handful of factors that are unique to Landry, and that make him especially dangerous.
At that time, The Louisiana Illuminator had this headline. “Louisiana’s low voter turnout attributed to apathy, mistrust.” It never makes sense to me when no one shows up to vote, and we get the worst person ever.
In an important election year — featuring races for governor, lieutenant governor, treasurer, secretary of state, attorney general and several local government seats — Louisiana saw historically low voter turnout. Experts are still looking at why.
Only about 36% of registered voters cast ballots in October’s primary election, marking the lowest turnout in a Louisiana gubernatorial primary since 2011. The general election in November saw even lower turnout, when only about 23% of registered voters made it to the polls.
“This entire state didn’t show up,” said Ashley Shelton, president and CEO of the Power Coalition, a nonpartisan civic engagement group.
Turnout was significantly down among Democrats and Black Louisianans. And it was down in areas that traditionally lean more Democratic, like New Orleans.
Primary election turnout in Orleans Parish was about 27% — down by more than 11% compared to the 2019 gubernatorial primary. And a lower percentage of Orleans residents voted for Shawn Wilson, the only high-profile Democratic candidate in the governor’s race, than for outgoing Gov. John Bel Edwards in 2019.
All told, Wilson brought in only 26% of the votes cast in the primary election. His main opponent, Republican Jeff Landry, brought in 52%.
“I think people had a foregone conclusion that every Democrat makes it to the runoff when that is absolutely not the case when you’ve got other voters more energized and engaged than you,” Wilson said in an interview after his loss.
Friday’s headline in the Illuminator is hopefully an example of what should happen. “New Louisiana record: Nearly 177,000 cast ballots on first day of early voting.” What’s exciting is we seem to be part of a nationwide trend. Here’s the good news today from USA Today. “Harris leads Trump 2-1 among the earliest voters, many driven by abortion access: new poll.” Susan Page reports the story.
Democrat Kamala Harris has a sweeping lead over Republican Donald Trump − among voters who have already cast their ballots, that is.
A new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll shows the vice president leading the former president by 63%-34%, close to 2-1, among those who have already voted.
That preference turns around among those who plan to wait until Election Day to vote, with Trump ahead 52%-35%.
As some states have begun early mail-in and in-person voting, one in seven respondents said they had already voted. A third said they plan to vote early; that group supported Harris by 52%-39%. And nearly half said they’ll wait until Election Day.
Overall, Harris was favored by 45%, Trump by 44% − a coin-toss contest.
The poll of 1,000 likely voters, taken by landline and cell phone Oct. 14-18, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Among those who have already voted, one in five volunteered “abortion rights/women’s rights” as their most important issue, second only to the economy/inflation.
In the year and a half following the Supreme Court Dobbs decision that revoked the federal right to an abortion, hundreds more infants died than expected in the United States, new research shows. The vast majority of those infants had congenital anomalies, or birth defects.
Earlier research – spurred by a CNN investigative report – found that infant mortality spiked in Texas after a 6-week abortion ban took effect in 2021, and experts say the new data suggests that the impacts of the bans and restrictions enacted by some states post-Dobbs have been large enough to affect broader trends.
“This is evidence of a national ripple effect, regardless of state-level status,” said Dr. Parvati Singh, an assistant professor of epidemiology with The Ohio State University College of Public Health and lead author of the new study.
In the new paper, published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics, Singh and co-author Dr. Maria Gallo, a professor of epidemiology and associate dean of research with the Ohio State University College of Public Health, compared infant mortality rates for the 18 months following the Dobbs decision against historical trends.
They found that infant mortality was higher than usual in the US in several months after the Dobbs decision and never dropped to rates that were lower than expected.
In the months that infant mortality was higher than expected – October 2022, March 2023 and April 2023 – rates were about 7% higher than typical, leading to an average of 247 more infant deaths in each of those months.
About 80% of those additional infant deaths could be attributed to congenital anomalies, which were higher than expected in six of the 18 months following the Dobbs decision, according to the new research. Congenital anomalies can range from mild to severe cases, and some of the most common types can affect an infant’s heart or spine. In some cases, babies with a birth defect may only survive a few months.
“This is the tip of the iceberg,” Singh said. “Mortality is the ultimate outcome of any health condition. This is a very, very acute indicator. It could be representative of underlying morbidity and underlying hardship.”
Other research has found that births have increased in states with abortion bans, and experts say that some of that increase is linked to a disproportionate rise in the number of women who are carrying fetuses with lethal congenital anomalies to term.
As we all know, Polls recently have been wrong quite a few times. So, no one can take any one of them seriously. I did run across this interesting article on the consultant who does the election analysis for Faux News. He is that guy that pissed all the Trumperz and the Big Orange Muffin Monster last time by calling Arizona for Biden. It’s in Politico.
The man who may call the winner of the 2024 presidential election is ready to make a prediction for at least when the news will come.
“The over/under is Saturday,” said Arnon Mishkin, the head of Fox News’ decision desk. “Which was when the call was made last time.”
…
So would you say that makes the job harder in 2024 than it was in 2020? Because we don’t necessarily know that, “Oh, all the Democrats are going to vote early or by mail, and all the Republicans are going to vote on Election Day.”
Yeah, I think it’s going to be a little harder. On the other hand, I think that some of our models have gotten better. We’ve created a new model based on the vote count which is much more focused on either getting vote by type and then using that in the model, or knowing that you’re not going to get vote by type and then making estimates around on that. And then I think our FNVA — because we ask people how they vote, it’s self-reported — we have a pretty good idea of what the skew is. And that number has been pretty accurate over the years.
When do you think you’re going to be able to call this election? Do you think it’s going to be the night of? A week later? Possibly longer? The race seems so close.
The race seems very, very close. It is dependent on a number of states, like Pennsylvania, that we believe are going to be reporting in a pattern similar to the way they have reported in the past. So I’d say, the over/under is Saturday. Which was when the call was made last time. Which is when Pennsylvania is likely to come in.
I think we have to accept the reality that we don’t really know how close this election is going to be. I’m pretty sure it’s going to be close. I see some polls that say, “Actually, it ain’t going to be close. It’s going to be one way or the other.” There’s some reporting that Trump is sort of gaining. Some of the polls have showed he’s gaining. There’s another sense I have that actually he may be declining. I think the real issue is what happens to Trump. I’ve always thought this about this election: It’s less about who’s running against him than it’s about Trump.
But it’s his vote share, you mean? Which was 46 percent and 47 in his two elections.
It was 46.1 percent in 2016. It was 46.7 or 46.8 in 2020.
46.1 and a very low turnout — his advantage in the Electoral College allowed him to win in 2016. With a very heavy turnout and him at roughly 47 in 2020, his Electoral College advantage meant it was a really close election in the Electoral College.
So, again, take nothing for granted. Just get out there and do it for all the people in your life who were disenfranchised from voting over the decades. I always vote for my grandmothers who couldn’t vote until they were well into middle age. Unlike them, if Trump gets into office, I may not have Social Security six years from now. This is from the Washington Post. Trump proposals could drain Social Security in 6 years, budget group says. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget predicts that many of Trump’s policies could hasten the looming depletion of the Social Security Trust Fund.”
A new report projects that the Social Security Trust Fund might run out of money within six years under a Donald Trump presidency, while Vice President Kamala Harris’s proposed policies would not meaningfully change the current trajectory
Social Security faces a looming funding crisis in an aging country, with trustees most recently predicting that the retirement and disability program’s trust fund will become insolvent in 2035. Many of Trump’s campaign proposals would accelerate that timeline, potentially by years, said the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that opposes large federal deficits.
In a report released Monday, the organization concluded that many of Trump’s proposed second-term agenda items all work in the same direction when it comes to the Social Security Trust Fund. The budget group did not produce a similar report on Harris’s policies because they would have a negligible effect measured only in weeks or months rather than years, said Marc Goldwein, CRFB’s senior policy director.
Compared to prior presidential campaigns, Goldwein said, “I can’t think of anything that would be this order of magnitude” in its detrimental effect on Social Security’s bottom line compared to the policies Trump has proposed.
Anyone who isn’t a washed-up Reality Star or someone who thinks those reality shows are staged was probably as weirded out by Trump’s stage MacDonald’s Act that appeared aimed at the Vice President. He is acting weird at a privately owned McDonald’s, which closed down for the day and specifically coached chosen customers to be good foils. This antic has so many obvious mistakes that it’s like an outtake from a bad movie. He wasn’t wearing a hat/hair net, gloves, etc. You actually have to have food handler training and certification to do the job. He’s a felon. MacDonald’s doesn’t hire felons. The Independent’s Kelly Rismann reports it far better than me. All I can say is they probably had to scrub the entire place down between his farting and hair loss issues. He probably didn’t even wash his hands. “McDonald’s workers roast Trump over ‘insulting cosplay’ stunt at restaurant that failed health inspection. Trump sported neither gloves not a hair net as he worked at a branch of the fast food chain in Pennsylvania.”
Donald Trump’s obsession with questioning Kamala Harris’ work experience at McDonald’s peaked over the weekend when he worked the fry cooker at a Pennsylvania branch — without a hairnet or gloves.
McDonald’s workers have now given their verdict on the former president’s performance – and came away less than impressed.
Trump has baselessly called his Democratic opponent’s summer stint at a McDonald’s “a lie,” so he decided to try his hand at the fast-food chain himself, shutting down a Bucks County restaurant to do so.
While serving food through the drive-thru window and working the fry cooker, some have pointed out that he wasn’t taking proper precautions — at a location that has previously been cited for health code violations.
Earlier this year, this location didn’t meet the compliance requirements of the Bucks County Health Department. A health inspection in March at the Feasterville-Trevose location resulted in four violations, including citing employees not having their “hands clean & properly washed.”
It was likely just a playdate that made him feel good about himself, but this Independent Headline was harsh.”Is this the publicity stunt that secures the White House for ‘McDonald Trump’? If Donald Trump serving fries at a Pennsylvania drive-thru doesn’t clinch him the swing state, then a side order of Elon Musk just might, says Sean O’Grady.” His staff was likely relieved he didn’t get a chance to talk about Arnold Palmer’s Penis or telling a little boy there would be no more cows if the Vice President became President.
Nascistic, babyish, menacing monster that he is, the Donald Trump we saw in the footage of him visiting a McDonald’s yesterday came across as… somewhat genuine and relatable. Even if he wore cufflinks while handing out Happy Meals.
Donald “aced” the fries, as he might put it, and managed to hand over huge bags of fast food to stunned customers without swearing once. That’s a bigger feat for him than it might sound, now that he’s gotten a bit more uninhibited lately.
He didn’t demean anyone or threaten them with vengeful vexatious prosecution as he did after the last election (“Would you like a lawsuit with that?”). Nor did he bring up that “a lot of people” tell him how intelligent he is. He didn’t even do those inane dances he does when he’s run out of things to say.
Dare I say it: “McTrump” was almost… charming. Almost.
But, of course, this scene was all a ruse. He did not, as his PR team would have you believe, put in a full shift at the drive-thru in Feasterville (yes, really), Pennsylvania. Rather, he was there for one hour max, in a carefully controlled environment.
The proud Americans he served prefer Big Macs and Filet-O-Fish to eating pet dogs and cats or (as per the Trumpian fantasy) wild geese like those nasty illegal immigrants – and so found themselves worthy of Trump’s courtesy.
But, nice as he was, he’s fooling no one. Those who choose to believe in Trump – and there are many who do – will also choose to believe that he’s just like they are; kinda relatable. And those who despise him, an equally large group, will dismiss the exercise as a stunt driven by Kamala Harris’ more substantial experience at the sharp end of the fast-food business.
In terms of McDonald’s, after all, the super-sized Trump has spent a lot more time guzzling burgers than flipping them. Despite liking a Big Mac, Trump and the life he has always led are about as far away from the average Pennsylvanian as, let’s say, the human settlement on Mars that Elon Musk is preparing for them to migrate to.
Which brings us nicely, like a Musk starship being eased back to base, to the role now being performed by the world’s richest man to get Trump back into the White House.
While the McDonald’s appearance is unlikely to shift the vote much in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania, Musk’s “win a million dollars” lottery might.
As a stunt, this is the one that has the capacity to do much more damage – not so much to the outcome in the state and thus the electoral college (a vital 19 votes, which could get the Orange Man over the line of 270 to win), but to the wider integrity of the system – to the notion (and the law) that people shouldn’t be bribed to vote or even to register to vote.
So what about this latest Musk attempt to get voters in Pennslyvania for Trump? This is from CNN’s Marshall Cohen. “Elon Musk’s daily $1 million giveaway to registered voters could be illegal, experts say.” Do tell.
While stumping for former President Donald Trump on Saturday, tech billionaire Elon Musk announced that he will give away $1 million each day to registered voters in battleground states, immediately drawing scrutiny from election law experts who said the sweepstakes could violate laws against paying people to register.
“We want to try to get over a million, maybe 2 million voters in the battleground states to sign the petition in support of the First and Second Amendment. … We are going to be awarding $1 million randomly to people who have signed the petition, every day, from now until the election,” Musk said at a campaign event in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
The X owner and Tesla CEO was referring to a petition launched by his political action committee affirming support for the rights to free speech and to bear arms. The website, launched shortly before some registration deadlines, says, “this program is exclusively open to registered voters in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina.”
Musk, the richest man in the world, has given more than $75 million to his pro-Trump super PAC, and said he hopes the sweepstakes will boost registration among Trump voters. He recently hit the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, holding events advocating for Trump, promoting his petition and spreading conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.
“This is a one-time ask,” Musk told the crowd shortly after announcing the $1 million prize. “Just go out there and talk to your friends and family and acquaintances and people you meet in the street and … convince them to vote. Obviously you gotta get registered, make sure they’re registered and … make sure they vote.”
The first million-dollar winner was named Saturday, with Musk handing a giant check to a Trump supporter at his event in Harrisburg, saying, “So anyway, you’re welcome.” He announced the second winner Sunday afternoon during an event in Pittsburgh, handing out another check on a stage adorned with big signs reading, “VOTE EARLY.”
In an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro said Musk’s giveaway was “deeply concerning” and is “something that law enforcement could take a look at.” Shapiro, a Democrat, was previously the state attorney general. In response to Shapiro’s comments, Musk posted on X that it was “concerning that he would say such a thing.”
Federal law makes it a crime for anyone who “pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting.” It’s punishable by up to five years in prison. After legal outcry over the weekend, Musk’s group tweaked some of their language around the sweepstakes.
“When you start limiting prizes or giveaways to only registered voters or only people who have voted, that’s where bribery concerns arise,” said Derek Muller, an election law expert who teaches at Notre Dame Law School. “By limiting a giveaway only to registered voters, it looks like you’re giving cash for voter registration.”
Offering money to people who were already registered before the cash prize was announced could violate federal law, Muller said, but the offer also “can include people who are not yet registered,” and the potential “inducements for new registrations is far more problematic.”
Alright, I’ll stop here. I’m jittery enough. I’ve got Schrödinger’s election box syndrome. I really want this over, but I’m so afraid of the bad outcome that I’d rather not see what’s inside the box. Every encounter with MAGA is abuse.
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Dum, dum, dum, honey, what have you done?
Dum, dum, dum, it’s the sound of my gun
Dum, dum, dum, honey, what have you done?
Dum, dum, dum, it’s the sound
Janie’s got a gun
Janie’s got a gun
Her whole world’s come undone
From lookin’ straight at the sun
What did her daddy do?
What did he put you through?
They said when Janie was arrested
They found him underneath a train
But man, he had it comin’, now that Janie’s got a gun
She ain’t never gonna be the same
Janie’s got a gun
Janie’s got a gun
Her dog day’s just begun
Now everybody is on the run
Tell me now it’s untrue, what did her daddy do?
He jacked a little bitty baby; the man has got to be insane
They say the spell that he was under the lightning and
The thunder knew that someone had to stop the rain
Run away, run away from the pain, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Run away, run away from the pain, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Run away, run away, run, run away
Janie’s got a gun
Janie’s got a gun
Her dog day’s just begun
Now everybody is on the run
What did her daddy do?
It’s Janie’s last I.O.U
She had to take him down easy and put a bullet in his brain
She said, “‘Cause nobody believes me, the man was such a sleaze”
He ain’t never gonna be the same
Run away, run away from the pain yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah
Run away, run away from the pain, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Run away, run away, run, run away
Janie’s got a gun
Janie’s got a gun
Janie’s got a gun
Everybody is on the run
Janie’s got a gun
Her dog day’s just begun
Now everybody is on the run
Because Janie’s got a gun
Janie’s got a gun
Her dog day’s just begun
Now everybody is on the run
Janie’s got a gun
Janie’s got a gun
“Kamala is correct. Trump rallies are really a sight to behold. Everyone should watch at least one. Pro-tip, they’re getting more and more entertaining.” John Buss, @repeat1968
When you watch and read as much news as I do, you can’t help but notice that every political act committed by DonOld these days is focused on young men. I believe that watching and listening to even a minimal amount of this has given me my first bout with acid reflux. I watched this segment on Alex Wagner last night. I had to endure a quick clip of Stephen Miller, who is an unpleasant, unattractive misogynist, racist, and xenophobe, which is this year’s Trump campaign outreach. “‘Infantile, petulant masculinity’: Trump aims low in appeal for American male ‘bro’ voters.” Are there really that many of them out there?
With a yawning gender gap in his base of support as a consequence of driving women away with his own words and behavior, Donald Trump appears to have made a strategy of wringing as much support as he can from American men, which has meant plumbing the depths of bro culture and encouraging a less-than-flattering version of masculinity. Michelle Goldberg, columnist for the New York Times discusses with Alex Wagner.
The funniest thing is watching Miller telling every male the best way to demonstrate you’re an Alpha is to wear your Trump goodies. Then, he goes on to mispronounce Beta. I can’t help but remember my first reading of Brave New World, as assigned in my 9th grade English class taught by a woman who also taught me swimming when I was a kid. Alphas are the intellectuals, while Betas are designed for physically demanding but not mentally challenging labor. I suppose Miller is referring to the hierarchy of the Apes, but wow, he sure comes off as a Gamma to me.
I enjoyed watching former President Barack Obama roast Donald Trump and contrast his inept and selfish behavior with that of the brilliant and caring Kamala. So, there are a lot of strange reads today about the strong comeback of the Gender Gap, which appears to be more like a Chasm. Let’s chuckle through them. Frankly, I prefer men with a less brutish approach to manhood, and I know you’re out there. We see you. Obama’s funniest line of the night is when he discusses the cost of diapers and doing the duty, then asks the audience if they thought Donald had ever changed a diaper. My Dad bombed NAZIs from a B-25 Bomber, and he changed diapers in the 1950s. Just consider Elon Musk going all on the Trump Campaign and that his businesses are generally as bankrupt-prone and in trouble with labor laws and anti-discrimination laws as the DonOld’s. DonOld can have Tech and Dude Bros because most women don’t want them. The ones with money attract gold diggers. The ones without are known as incels. It’s going to be a brutal 24 days.
This article and link to Longwell’s podcast is from Politico. Although, I think they’re turning to voting scams for victory. They’re just warming up the next group of J6ers .”‘They’ve given up on the idea that they can get women.’ How Trump is turning to the other gender gap for victory. A profound gender gap is shaping the 2024 election. And after listening to voters in hundreds of focus groups, Sarah Longwell thinks she knows why.”
The 2024 election — it’s a contest between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. But increasingly, it also looks like it’s girls versus boys.
Poll after poll is telling the same story: a Times/Siena survey this month showing Harris up 16 with women and Trump up 11 with men; a set of Quinnipiac polls in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin showing Harris winning women by about 20 points in each. Meanwhile, according to a running average by the election quants at Split Ticket, Trump is on pace to win men by an even bigger margin than he did in 2020 — by about 9 points nationally.
But those numbers only tell part of the story.
The other half is from the mouths of the voters themselves. Which is where this episode of the Playbook Deep Dive podcast begins.
Sarah Longwell is the publisher of The Bulwark and is well known for her work as a Never Trumper.
But what she does with the rest of her time is talk to voters. Lots of them. Longwell has conducted hundreds of focus groups — you may have heard some of them on her podcast, The Focus Group.
While many of Washington’s top operatives have been digesting the election through polling datasets, she’s been taking a different approach: just asking people straight up what they think about Trump and Harris and what could change their minds.
Playbook’s Rachael Bade caught up with Sarah in her downtown Washington offices on Thursday and asked her to connect the dots from all of these hundreds of focus groups. In so doing, she laid out the stakes for what is arguably the biggest question of the 2024 election:
Why are men and women veering so far apart politically?
The answers to that may surprise you.
The Independent‘s Kelly Rissman has this analysis. “Inside the Trump campaign’s ‘edgy’ and crass approach to appeal to young men and ride them to victory.’ The Trump campaign’s crass language, wavering abortion stance, and sexist remarks about Harris have been a focus for Democrats.”
Donald Trump has proclaimed himself the “protector” of women but the tone of his messaging has become geared toward young men with crass language and put-downs in hopes the bloc will back him in November – despite the former president potentially isolating women voters.
“Alphas for Trump,” Steven Cheung, a campaign spokesperson recently tweeted, “vs Simps for Kamala.”
This seven-word tweet perhaps encompasses Trump’s years-long immersion into a stereotypical “tough” alpha male figure — a brand that some have described as “toxic masculinity.” In 2019, the then-president even tweeted a photoshopped image of himself as Rocky Balboa. Since then, he seemingly has tried to ingratiate himself into the real version of the fictional sports legend.
He has steeped himself in cryptocurrency, surrounding himself with tech bros and UFC fighters, using sexist terms to describe his Democratic rival, enters the rally stage to the Village People song “Macho Man,” all while his running mate disparages “childless cat ladies.” It could be costing him half of the electorate.
“It’s obvious Republicans have a woman problem, but it’s not just about policy differences like abortion. The GOP gender gap is just as much about how you talk about those differences,” Nachama Soloveichik, a GOP strategist and former adviser to Haley’s presidential campaign, told the Washington Post.
Soloveichik continued: “Regardless of gender, any political staffer with a pea-sized brain should know chasing away half the electorate is a bad idea. Talk to women with respect and understanding even when you disagree.”
Not only has the Republican nominee has appeared alongside “bro-y” celebrities, such as retired wrestler Hulk Hogan, wrestler-turned-YouTuber Logan Paul, Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) chief executive Dana White, and podcaster Theo Von, but his campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung was also formerly a spokesperson for the UFC.
There’s never anyone on the Trump list of celebrities that I label anything other than grrrRoss. I can even remember how I used to say it with my 6th-grade
voice while wrinkling my nose. This is also from Politico. “Inside Trump’s push to win over the ‘bro’ vote. But can he get young men to vote?”
Donald Trump is betting that support from young men will help propel him to the White House. And he’s getting an assist from a crew of pro-Trump millennial pranksters who are capitalizing on college football tailgates, Tinder and even the “Hawk Tuah Girl” podcast.
The Nelk Boys, digital content creators and hosts of the popular “Full Send” podcast, are mounting a multi-million-dollar voter registration push aimed at turning out young men. They plan to sign up voters at a “Send the Vote” music festival later this month that will feature a performance by pro-Trump rapper Waka Flocka Flame, and at a pair of Penn State football games.
They will also promote the registration drive on dating apps and advertise on highly-listened to, male-friendly podcasts like “Kill Tony,” “MrBallen,” and “BS w/ Jake Paul.”
It’s the latest effort in an all-out campaign by the former president to turn out young men, a demographic his campaign views as critical to his election given the overwhelming support Kamala Harris is expected to receive from young women. The question the Trump operation faces, however, is whether it can turn out a subset of voters his allies concede are uncertain to cast ballots.
“The question is, will that podcast fan, that College GameDay fan, that USC fan, will they actually get up on November 5th and go and vote?” said John Shahidi, the president of Full Send and the co-founder of Send the Vote. “That’s the big question right now that we want to start emphasizing on and putting pressure on.”
One voter registration promo is expected to run on a podcast hosted by Haliey Welch, who rose to viral internet stardom with a sexually explicit riff. And, in the heart of football season, the Nelk Boys are exploring the possibility of advertising on sports gambling sites.
By reaching out to young men, some of whom came of age during the former president’s administration, Trump, who long before running for office had cultivated an alpha-male like image with his involvement in sports and entertainment, is capitalizing on goodwill from a demographic he hopes will support him. And there are indications Trump is making inroads with the group, which like other youth subsets traditionally tilts liberal. According to a recent Harvard Youth Poll, 35 percent of men between 18 and 24 years old said they supported Trump — an improvement of 5 percent from Trump’s performance in the same survey in the 2020 election.
I have no idea what any of this is, but I am obviously not in that demographic. My youngest son-in-law has a birthday tomorrow, but I have a good idea that he doesn’t know about either. He’s a biological engineer and has a life. I’m sure the older one, who is a Radiologist and does ultrasounds a lot, wouldn’t know or care. However, former President Obama spoke out to black men in his speech last night in Pittsburgh. This is from the Washington Post. “Obama admonishes Black men for hesitancy in supporting Harris. Former president suggests some in the Black community are uncomfortable voting for a woman and are coming up with excuses.” I think the headline is harsh compared to what I heard, but legacy media always looks for clicks.
Former president Barack Obama on Thursday made a direct, impassioned plea to Black men to support Vice President Kamala Harris — a key demographic she is struggling to mobilize — admonishing them for thinking about sitting out the presidential contest as well as suggesting sexism might be at play.
During an unannounced stop at a Harris campaign field office in Pittsburgh, just hours before he was set to appear at his first campaign rally for the Democratic nominee, Obama said he wanted to “speak some truths” and address Black men specifically, making his most direct remarks about their hesitancy in supporting Harris to date.
“My understanding, based on reports I’m getting from campaigns and communities, is that we have not yet seen the same kinds of energy and turnout in all quarters of our neighborhoods and communities as we saw when I was running,” Obama said, adding that it “seems to be more pronounced with the brothers.”
Obama questioned how voters, and Black voters specifically, could be on the fence about whether to support Harris or former president Donald Trump, the Republican nominee.
“On the one hand, you have somebody who grew up like you, knows you, went to college with you, understands the struggles and pain and joy that comes from those experiences,” Obama said, ticking off a list of Harris’s policy proposals. In Trump, he added, “you have someone who has consistently shown disregard, not just for the communities, but for you as a person … And you are thinking about sitting out?”
The former president then spoke about what he thought might be contributing to Black men’s soft support of Harris: the discomfort of some with the idea of electing the first female president.
“And you’re coming up with all kinds of reasons and excuses, I’ve got a problem with that,” he said. “Because part of it makes me think — and I’m speaking to men directly — part of it makes me think that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that.”
Meanwhile, we see Harris’ husband and her running mate, Tim Walz, emulate a more compassionate version of manliness. Perhaps this kind of role-modeling from powerful men will take hold. This is from Time Magazine, as analyzed by Belinda Luscombe. “The Doug Emhoff Model of Masculinity.”
Society has names for men they feel are overshadowed by their wives or partners, and they’re not terms of endearment; cuck, p-whipped, and simp are among the nicer ones. As women’s economic and social power has risen, some men have felt that theirs has receded, and have responded by doubling down on machismo. Masculinity has become contested ground. So when Doug Emhoff took to the stage to talk about his wife Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention, he had to walk a fine line: gushy without being slavish, supportive but not submissive, a true partner but completely self-sufficient.
Fewer than half the countries in the world have ever had female heads of state, and many of those women were unmarried, so there are not a lot of models for how to be the husband of the lady who might become the leader of the free world. Emhoff’s speech was a benchmark. How does a man handle this? How does a man talk about a strong ambitious woman gunning for arguably the most powerful job in the world, without making her look a nightmare or a nonentity? And without himself appearing to be a buffoon or puppet master?
Emhoff—and his speechwriters and his son Cole—pretty much nailed it. When he stepped down from the stage, he had given a little master class in how to be a guy’s guy as wellas a wife guy. First, he telegraphed that he was dependent on no one. He’d done name-tag jobs at McDonald’s and the valet stand when he needed to. He had partly put himself through college but wasn’t too proud to admit he had help. He had a successful career with skills that involved de-escalating rather than dominating situations.
He demonstrated a winning self-confidence by making fun of the goofy nervous first-date voicemail he left on Harris’ phone, and joking about his mother being the only person in the world who thinks Harris married up. Unlike many a divorced dad, he showed no bitterness to his ex-wife, even thanking her from the stage. While Harris’s opponents have tried to make her laugh seem bizarre or sinister, he named it as one of the things he loves most—because normal men aren’t freaked out by women who laugh.
Emhoff’s presentation also subtly played up his more traditional masculine traits. A photo from Cole’s video introduction showed how protective he was when someone threatened Harris. Emhoff let it be known that he belongs to a fantasy football league with buddies from back in the day, and that in his youth he was a fan of both The Clash and Nirvana, both classic angry-young-man bands. He slid in mentions of his ability to pivot and to sacrifice, by leaving a law practice when Harris became vice president and taking a job at Georgetown University.
In fact, many of the masculine attributes that Emhoff leaned into during his speech are similar to those also valued by conservatives: strength, pride, courage, industriousness, protecting families. In some ways, President Trump’s running mate J.D. Vance has many of the same qualities. He too came from humble beginnings, put himself through school, thrived, and married a woman who was more his equal than his helpmeet. But Emhoff—and Tim Walz, Harris’ partner in this campaign—are projecting those qualities while playing second fiddle to a woman. They’re not allowed to outshine the nominee, but they also can’t make her look like a harridan.
Emhoff’s exuberant support of his wife’s strengths (“Empathy is her superpower,” he noted) has definitely touched a nerve with some women. “THIS is a supportive husband! He gets it. Doug do you have a brother? Cousin? BFF?” asked one woman on Instagram. “If anyone would like to set me up on a blind date with the 33-45 year old NYC-based equivalent of Doug Emhoff, my DMs are open,” tweeted another. It wasn’t just among women either; there was a spate of “Teach me how to Dougie” tweets from guys as well.
I will not venture into the J Dank Vance model of weird masculinity, but I will mention Tim Walz’s impact by showing a fuller version of what it means to be a man, husband, and father. I really like this coverage by the Chicago Sun-Times, which was published around the convention. “Tim Walz is a man’s man, unlike MAGA’s man-children. A good male role model from the Democrats is an excellent foil for the cartoon version of masculinity on offer from the Republican Party.” This Op-Ed is written by Mona Charen. (Yes, THAT Mona Charen.) I’ve put in the complete piece because she handles J Dank better than I ever could.
If Kamala Harris becomes the first woman president, her first accomplishment could well have already happened — elevating and honoring the positive side of masculinity.
Tim Walz, whose politics are to the left of most Americans and certainly most swing voters, has been welcomed not as a box-checking, progressive pick, but as a Midwestern dad who poses with his hunting dog, served for 24 years in the military and coached the high school football team to a state championship. He’s a man’s man without being a strutting jackass. A good male role model is an excellent foil for the swaggering, snarling, cartoonish version of masculinity on offer from the Republican Party right now.
Men are struggling. Boys are falling behind girls in grades and graduation rates. Men are falling behind women in college attendance, participation in the labor force, and connection to family and friends. Men are more likely than women to be lonely and to succumb to deaths of despair. It’s not a man’s world anymore, even if some have been slow to notice.
Boys and men are picking up the signals that there is something inherently wrong with them. The word “masculinity” is hardly uttered in some precincts without the modifier “toxic.” Our culture has stressed girl power and female “firsts” long past the time when boys are the ones who are struggling. As Richard Reeves has noted, in 1972, the year Congress enacted Title IX to promote gender equity in higher education, the gender gap in college enrollment was 13 points in men’s favor. In 2019, the gender gap in bachelor’s degrees was 15 points the other way.
Men are feeling it. A Brookings Institution survey found that fewer Generation Z men call themselves feminists (43%) than do millennials (52%), and the gap between men and women on this self-ID is much larger for Gen Z than for older cohorts. Another sign of discontent is that nearly half of men aged 18 to 29 report that they face discrimination as men.
The right has a response that is reactionary, misogynistic and smutty. The party that once prided itself on traditional values now features at its convention, as David French put it, “an OnlyFans star, a man who publicly slapped his wife, a man who pleaded no contest to an assault charge, and another man who had sex with his friend’s wife while the friend watched — and that’s not even including any reference to Trump himself.”
Not content with being an adjudicated sexual abuser, Donald Trump continues to fill out his dance card with the vilest male “influencers” online, most recently sitting down for an interview with Adin Ross, most known for associating with accused rapist/human trafficker Andrew Tate and neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes. Trump knows there’s a longing for male affirmation out there and is choosing the very worst ways to satisfy it. His masculinity bears none of the hallmarks of manly virtue — restraint, honor, service to others, responsibility or self-sacrifice. Instead, he offers braggadocio, put-downs, disrespect for women and vulgarity.
Trump’s running mate has been fishing in these waters for several years and now trails a train of cringe-worthy quotations he must own. JD Vance chose to unburden himself to Tucker Carlson. “We’re effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made. And so they wanna make the rest of the country miserable, too.” He then name-checked Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
What’s offensive is not just that Vance is wrong about Harris or Buttigieg but that he would use such a personal matter as an opportunity for abuse. As Jennifer Aniston, who underwent years of fruitless fertility treatments, put it: “Mr. Vance, I pray that your daughter is fortunate enough to bear children of her own one day.”
I’m about as pro-natalist as you can get. I believe the government should be generous to parents through the tax code because children are an investment in the country’s future.
But leave it to MAGA to mar a completely benign idea like pro-natalism with contempt for others. Vance recycled his insights in a fundraising appeal: “We’ve allowed ourselves to be dominated by childless sociopaths — they’re invested in NOTHING because they’re not invested in this country’s children.” Really? George Washington and James Madison might like a word.
In the face of this brutalist version of masculinity, the Democratic Party is now honoring a different kind of man in Walz. The hunter/fisherman/veteran/football coach is no pajama boy.
Walz is a regular guy at a time when the country needs reminding that being a regular guy is actually pretty great. As The Atlantic put it, “Dad is on the Ballot.”
Harris’s selection of Walz gave rise to a whole genre of warm dad memes: “Tim Walz just slipped me a 20 on my way out the door because ‘you never know if some place doesn’t take credit cards.” Another posted that Walz would “(take) care of the wasps’ nest for you.”
What unites these posts is the sense of security and comfort they exude — the very things a good dad conveys.
Tim Walz may be the father figure the Democratic Party — and the country — needs.
This is a long set of reads but I think you’ll enjoy the contrast. I really hope we can leave the minds of J Dank and Donald in the footnotes of history. Let’s give our kids the future they deserve!
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
dakinikat
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Memeorandum Crooks and Liars Democracy NOW The UK Guardian
The Sky Dancing banner headline uses a snippet from a work by artist Tashi Mannox called 'Rainbow Study'. The work is described as a" study of typical Tibetan rainbow clouds, that feature in Thanka painting, temple decoration and silk brocades". dakinikat was immediately drawn to the image when trying to find stylized Tibetan Clouds to represent Sky Dancing. It is probably because Tashi's practice is similar to her own. His updated take on the clouds that fill the collection of traditional thankas is quite special.
You can find his work at his website by clicking on his logo below. He is also a calligraphy artist that uses important vajrayana syllables. We encourage you to visit his on line studio.
Sky Dancing 
Recent Comments