thebulwark--2020-08-12--What the Kamala Harris Pick Says About the Biden Campaign

Kamala Harris is now the presumptive 2024 Democratic nominee .
I kid !
Sort of .
We ’ ll get to that .
But before we do , for the last few weeks I haven ’ t been able to stop thinking about the 1998 NFL draft .
Even before the 1997 college football season began , the 1998 draft was regarded as the Peyton Manning Lottery .
Manning wasn ’ t very mobile and had only an above-average arm .
But he had pocket presence and a quick release and next-gen software between the ears that allowed him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the line of scrimmage .
Anyone who had seen Manning play knew that , barring injury , he was headed to Canton eventually .
But in the weeks leading up to the draft , the sports world fell in love with Ryan Leaf .
Leaf was a good quarterback at Washington State who had an absolutely bananas junior year .
He led the Cougars to their first-ever Pac-10 championship and lost a nail-biter in the Rose Bowl to Michigan , the eventual national champs .
On the strength of a dozen or so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into believing not just that Leaf was an NFL-caliber QB , but that he might be a better prospect than Manning .
Leaf is taller !
Leaf has a stronger arm !
Leaf has more upside !
These are serious things that serious people said about Leaf as they tried to talk themselves into believing that , while Manning might have been the consensus pick , actually the sharp play would be to take Leaf # 1 overall .
In the end , the Indianapolis Colts decided not to outsmart themselves .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blue-chip stud .
The San Diego Chargers traded up to get Leaf with the # 2 pick , giving up a future first round pick , a second round pick , and three-time Pro Bowler Eric Metcalf .
You know how this story ends .
Peyton Manning became Peyton Manning .
And Ryan Leaf became Ryan Leaf .
There is a lesson in all of this about fundamentals and recency bias and the wisdom of not being overly clever .
Which brings us to Joe Biden ’ s choice of Kamala Harris .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be said about this decision : some good , some bad .
( 1 ) This pick isn ’ t for you .
Maybe you don ’ t especially like Kamala Harris .
I don ’ t especially like Kamala Harris .
She would not have been my first , second , or third preference .
Her politics are not my politics and her record as California ’ s attorney general exemplified a great deal of what ’ s wrong with law enforcement in America .
But just because you or I might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was the wrong pick as a matter of electoral politicking .
That ’ s the pundit ’ s fallacy .
Harris has weaknesses .
Every potential VP has weaknesses .
But she also has a unique set of strengths .
First and foremost , she is instantly credible as a potential president .
You might not like her politics , but she is obviously smart enough and experienced enough to execute the job .
Second , she has been largely—although not completely—publicly vetted .
Third , she is shrewd and politically malleable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s also an advantage because , unlike Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren , she is not a true believer .
She will go where the votes are .
And she will go where Biden goes , for at least as long as it is advantageous to her .
Fourth , you can trust that she will at least hold her own in the VP debate .
Those debates never really matter , but with Harris , you can basically forget about the possibility of it turning into a disaster that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news cycles .
That ’ s a luxury that very few of the other potential VPs would have afforded .
Fifth—and there ’ s no delicate way to put this—Harris ’ s presence on the ticket is a daily invitation to the president to go Full Trump .
Which would only hurt him more with suburban voters .
Let ’ s pretend you could go back 24 months and survey 1,000 political professionals .
You tell them , “ Kamala Harris will not be the Democratic nominee , so who should the nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percentage of them would answer , “ Kamala Harris ” ?
Point is , the only reason this was ever even in doubt was because Harris ran a bad and uninspiring presidential campaign for a few months .
On the one hand : That ’ s not nothing !
On the other hand : Harris has been a stud politician on the national political scene for six years .
She has a staggering amount of raw political talent , with charisma , charm , and toughness to spare .
None of that went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out how to execute a breakout in the primary race .
Here is a line I expect to hear a lot over the next 72 hours : I ’ m sure that for some voters this line will be true .
Kamala Harris will be the off-ramp they were desperately looking for with Biden .
But on the other hand , most of the people who decide their vote based on Biden ’ s VP choice probably weren ’ t going to pull the lever for him anyway .
Those most marginal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some excuse to come home to the Republican ticket ( or stay home , period ) , no matter what .
If it hadn ’ t been Harris as VP , it would have been something someone said in a speech at the DNC , or some slip-up Biden made on the trail .
I just don ’ t buy that there are a meaningful number of truly undecided voters who , with everything else being equal , would have voted for Biden if not for Harris .
And further , I absolutely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that group might be , it meaningfully outnumbers its mirror image : people who would not have voted for Biden , except that Harris brought them onboard .
The VP choice doesn ’ t , in terms of actual votes cast , matter .
That ’ s not universally true , but it ’ s true enough to be an axiom of modern American politics .
But the VP choice does tell you a great deal about the campaign and what they think about the race internally .
Dick Cheney was an admission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grownup help .
Sarah Palin was a recognition that without shaking up the race , McCain couldn ’ t beat Obama .
Joe Biden was a tacit assurance to voters that Barack Obama wasn ’ t a radical and could work with the establishment .
Mike Pence was a blood-oath to white evangelicals , who were not yet fully on board the Trump train .
You get the picture .
So what does Kamala Harris tell us about how the Biden campaign sees the race right now ?
Her selection suggests that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They think that the progressive wing of the party is with them and did not need to be tended to .
They believe the heart of their coalition in November is going to be African Americans and college-educated suburban whites , both of whom should respond well to Harris .
It also shows that this is a steady , well-managed campaign that has the discipline to not get cute and out-smart itself .
But the biggest thing the Harris pick says is this : They think they ’ re going to win @

Kamala Harris is now the presumptive 2024 Democratic nominee.
I kid! Sort of. We’ll get to that. But before we do, for the last few weeks I haven’t been able to stop thinking about the 1998 NFL draft.
Even before the 1997 college football season began, the 1998 draft was regarded as the Peyton Manning Lottery. Manning wasn’t very mobile and had only an above-average arm. But he had pocket presence and a quick release and next-gen software between the ears that allowed him to make lightning-fast checkdowns and read defenses at the line of scrimmage.
Anyone who had seen Manning play knew that, barring injury, he was headed to Canton eventually.
But in the weeks leading up to the draft, the sports world fell in love with Ryan Leaf.
Leaf was a good quarterback at Washington State who had an absolutely bananas junior year. He led the Cougars to their first-ever Pac-10 championship and lost a nail-biter in the Rose Bowl to Michigan, the eventual national champs.
On the strength of a dozen or so games, scouts and sportswriters talked themselves into believing not just that Leaf was an NFL-caliber QB, but that he might be a better prospect than Manning.
Leaf is taller! Leaf has a stronger arm! Leaf has more upside! These are serious things that serious people said about Leaf as they tried to talk themselves into believing that, while Manning might have been the consensus pick, actually the sharp play would be to take Leaf #1 overall.
In the end, the Indianapolis Colts decided not to outsmart themselves. They made the boring decision to pick the blue-chip stud.
The San Diego Chargers traded up to get Leaf with the #2 pick, giving up a future first round pick, a second round pick, and three-time Pro Bowler Eric Metcalf.
You know how this story ends. Peyton Manning became Peyton Manning. And Ryan Leaf became Ryan Leaf.
There is a lesson in all of this about fundamentals and recency bias and the wisdom of not being overly clever.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Which brings us to Joe Biden’s choice of Kamala Harris. There are a number of things to be said about this decision: some good, some bad.
(1) This pick isn’t for you.
Maybe you don’t especially like Kamala Harris. I don’t especially like Kamala Harris. She would not have been my first, second, or third preference. Her politics are not my politics and her record as California’s attorney general exemplified a great deal of what’s wrong with law enforcement in America.
But just because you or I might not prefer Harris does not mean that she was the wrong pick as a matter of electoral politicking. That’s the pundit’s fallacy.
(2) Upside vs. Downside
Harris has weaknesses. Every potential VP has weaknesses. But she also has a unique set of strengths.
First and foremost, she is instantly credible as a potential president. You might not like her politics, but she is obviously smart enough and experienced enough to execute the job.
Second, she has been largely—although not completely—publicly vetted.
Third, she is shrewd and politically malleable. That can be a liability, but it’s also an advantage because, unlike Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, she is not a true believer. She will go where the votes are. And she will go where Biden goes, for at least as long as it is advantageous to her.
Fourth, you can trust that she will at least hold her own in the VP debate. Those debates never really matter, but with Harris, you can basically forget about the possibility of it turning into a disaster that eats up three days’ worth of news cycles. That’s a luxury that very few of the other potential VPs would have afforded.
Fifth—and there’s no delicate way to put this—Harris’s presence on the ticket is a daily invitation to the president to go Full Trump. Which would only hurt him more with suburban voters.
(3) The Consensus Choice
Let’s pretend you could go back 24 months and survey 1,000 political professionals. You tell them, “Kamala Harris will not be the Democratic nominee, so who should the nominee choose as his/her VP?”
What percentage of them would answer, “Kamala Harris”?
50 percent? 70 percent? 80 percent?
Point is, the only reason this was ever even in doubt was because Harris ran a bad and uninspiring presidential campaign for a few months.
On the one hand: That’s not nothing!
On the other hand: Harris has been a stud politician on the national political scene for six years. She has a staggering amount of raw political talent, with charisma, charm, and toughness to spare. None of that went away because she couldn’t figure out how to execute a breakout in a presidential primary race.
Here is a line I expect to hear a lot over the next 72 hours:
I was seriously leaning toward Biden, but then he picked Harris and that was a bridge too far for me. She’s [too liberal / too ambitious / too whatever]. I’m out.
I’m sure that for some voters this line will be true. Kamala Harris will be the off-ramp they were desperately looking for with Biden.
But on the other hand, most of the people who decide their vote based on Biden’s VP choice probably weren’t going to pull the lever for him anyway. Those most marginal of the Biden-curious folks were going to find some excuse to come home to the Republican ticket (or stay home, period), no matter what. If it hadn’t been Harris as VP, it would have been something someone said in a speech at the DNC, or some slip-up Biden made on the trail.
I just don’t buy that there are a meaningful number of truly undecided voters who, with everything else being equal, would have voted for Biden if not for Harris.
And further, I absolutely do not believe that, however large that group might be, it meaningfully outnumbers its mirror image: people who would not have voted for Biden, except that Harris brought them onboard.
The VP choice doesn’t, in terms of actual votes cast, matter. That’s not universally true, but it’s true enough to be an axiom of modern American politics.
But the VP choice does tell you a great deal about the campaign that makes it and what they think about the race internally.
Dick Cheney was an admission that George W. Bush thought he needed grownup help.
Sarah Palin was a recognition that without shaking up the race, John McCain couldn’t beat Barack Obama.
Joe Biden was a tacit assurance to voters that Obama wasn’t a radical and could work with the establishment.
Mike Pence was a blood-oath to white evangelicals, who were not yet fully on board the Trump train.
You get the picture.
So what does Kamala Harris tell us about how the Biden campaign sees the race right now?
Her selection suggests that the campaign believes their position is very strong. They think that the progressive wing of the party is with them and did not need to be tended to. They believe the heart of their coalition in November is going to be African Americans and college-educated suburban whites, both of whom should respond well to Harris.
It also shows that this is a steady, well-managed campaign that has the discipline to not get cute and out-smart itself.
But the biggest thing the Harris pick says is this: They think they’re going to win.


Why Kamala Harris?

At last Joe Biden has chosen his running mate : In the end , we learn , it came down to a choice between opposites : Kamala Harris and Susan Rice .
So what does picking Harris tell us about Biden ’ s ultimate criteria ?
Here one must consider the traditional metrics of selection : 1 .
First do no harm and , with luck , maybe even a little good .
This centers on the short-term exigencies of winning in November : finding a nominee broadly acceptable to the party , putatively congenial to the electorate writ large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excessive baggage or commit egregious errors which might place victory at greater risk .
The lodestar here is caution .
Even the most politically acceptable running mates can do the ticket only so much good , while a poor selection tarnishes the perceived judgment of the presidential nominee and raises the specter of a president-in-waiting deficient in character or capacity .
The most glaring example of the latter is , of course , Sarah Palin , whose unexplored baggage was that she turned out to be stupid .
One exemplar of a politically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a tested candidate widely experienced in governance who helped Ronald Reagan knit the GOP together .
Because Bush had run against Reagan in the primaries , he had been vetted under fire , and was less likely to spawn untoward surprises .
While his sharp remarks about Reagan ’ s “ voodoo economics ” raised questions about his loyalty , Bush persuaded Reagan that he would become an impeccably loyal vice president—and he did .
Still , Biden ’ s age heightens the prospect that an ambitious running mate , fixated on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than self-promotion—while accentuating the need for a vice president of presidential mettle .
To say the least , this complicated Biden ’ s analysis , particularly regarding Harris .
In contrast , Harris was among the beneficiaries of the rising pressure to choose a woman of color in the wake of George Floyd ’ s murder , creating the concern that any other choice would jeopardize party unity .
And , as ever more Americans perceive the racial divide exposed by unequal law enforcement and COVID-19 , an all-white ticket could strike many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choosing a non-white running mate always made sense : African Americans , particularly women , are a backbone of the Democrats ’ core constituency , and their loyalty was critical in making Biden the nominee .
Moreover , the breakthrough represented by a minority female may help Biden among a portion of the progressives and young people otherwise tepid about his candidacy .
In an election where turnout will be crucial , this matters .
2 .
Pick someone who can help carry a swing state .
The instances of this working are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate , some historians believe that Lyndon Johnson may have helped JFK carry the crucial state of Texas while pacifying voters in other southern states .
But that was 60 years ago .
In 2020 , the only non-white VP finalist from a crucial state was Val Demings of Florida , who has never run statewide .
In bypassing Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin , Biden prioritized choosing a woman of color .
He may also believe that he will carry Michigan , which is likely true , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own .
3 .
Choose someone who could help the new president govern .
This doesn ’ t always work out .
While it was among the presumptive reasons that JFK selected LBJ , a vastly more accomplished senator , in practice Kennedy shut Johnson out of the inner circle .
One of the clearest cases of such a choice , Dick Cheney , was more than willing to help George W. Bush govern , expanding his own influence , sometimes with disastrous results .
But Biden knows this territory well—the most successful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama ’ s selection of a two-time presidential also-ran who nonetheless had the legislative and foreign policy experience Obama lacked .
Once these quite disparate men settled into a comfortable relationship , Biden proved to be a valued advisor and a considerable help on Capitol Hill .
For a 78-year-old nominee , this is no small consideration .
Our history is replete with vice presidents who became president , and here again Biden ’ s age highlights this criterion .
Johnson is an interesting example .
In the wake of Kennedy ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president , advancing civil rights and a host of domestic programs .
Then came Vietnam , exposing his insecurities and blind spots in foreign policy .
Contrast George H.W .
Bush , an able president whose downfall was his knowing , and fiscally responsible , embrace of tax hikes despite his seminal promise to avoid them .
In retrospect , his one-term presidency holds up well , not least in critical areas of foreign policy : his judicious management of the first Gulf War and sophisticated response to the collapse of the Iron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hard choices .
That both men were consequential presidents was prefigured by their resumes and experience .
In making his choice , Biden was more than capable of sizing up the capacity for presidential leadership—or , potentially , its absence .
Again , Obama and Biden provide a positive example .
For a governing partnership to work , the president must have a vice president whom he knows will be candid , reliable , and committed to placing the success of the administration above her own political interests .
The absence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a truly productive relationship , but could be a needless distraction within the president ’ s inner circle .
And so to Kamala Harris .
I should start with my unsparing assessment from this past April : She ’ s everyone ’ s default choice .
So why does one instinctively squirm ?
Because she is so obviously that—a default choice—rather than someone who should become president .
Harris ’ s attributes remain those praised throughout her career .
Whatever office she occupied , her combination of presence , personal appeal , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in seeking the next .
Rising became her raison d ’ être ; running for president exposed its limits .
She offered no compelling reason that she wanted to be president—she just did .
Her oscillations on basic issues such as healthcare exposed a lack of interest or depth .
Bereft of real commitment to policy , her candidacy became a tactical exercise in serial repositioning .
Her campaign organization was a fractious mess .
What would she bring ?
Talent—as always .
And Biden could hope that Harris resonates with suburban women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no doubt discounted her contrived attack in an early debate , that made-for-TV moment when she feigned outrage over a long-buried issue—busing—on which they had little substantive difference .
But he may wonder whose interests she would serve as vice president .
Still , she ’ s Kamala Harris .
That may suffice .
Unsurprisingly , it did .
So now it ’ s time to contemplate why .
Obviously , Biden prioritized winning in November over depth , legislative savvy , presidential heft , or unquestioned loyalty .
But his foremost responsibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ malign president in modern American history .
Harris ’ s campaign skills , and the relative unlikelihood of hidden baggage , mean that she is unlikely to prove an impediment to victory—and may even help .
While she stumbled as a presidential candidate , she should become a more disciplined running mate within the substantive boundaries imposed by Biden ’ s brain trust .
As a canny politician , Biden has certainly assessed the question of loyalty , and satisfied himself that Harris would be a circumspect vice president—if only because this would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the highly salient question of whether she can be a genuine help in governance , let alone a worthy future president , one must hope that she has the capacity to meld her ambitions with greater substance .
Certainly , Biden has much to teach her about how to get things done .
Finally , her lack of strong beliefs may not arouse much enthusiasm , but their absence means that she won ’ t alienate persuadable voters .
As a district attorney and California attorney general , she was notable for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement issues ; as a senator , she has been conspicuous chiefly for carefully prepared star turns at high-profile hearings .
And while her identification with the African-American community is not overly strong , the fact of her selection should generate its own excitement .
Here it is important to note that every alternative had problems that counteracted their strengths .
Susan Rice is a team player who is exceedingly qualified and capable and has a good relationship with Biden , but has no political constituency or experience on the stump .
Karen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her perceived affinity for Castro ’ s Cuba would be a drawback in the crucial state of Florida .
Val Demings ’ s impressive biography came with only modest seasoning on the national stage or in crucial areas of policy .
Elizabeth Warren is an eminently imaginable president , but she is potentially polarizing among voters Biden needs to win .
Gretchen Whitmer is an untested freshman governor ; Tammy Baldwin a second-tier senator ; Tammy Duckworth personally admirable but politically unexceptional .
Finally , one must now compare Harris not to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Pence , a slavish sycophant conspicuously lacking intellectual or moral integrity .
In the end , those who repose their hopes in Biden can be satisfied that he made a hard but politically prudent choice .
Now it ’ s Harris ’ s turn to prove herself more than that .

At last Joe Biden has chosen his running mate:
I have the great honor to announce that I’ve picked @KamalaHarris — a fearless fighter for the little guy, and one of the country’s finest public servants — as my running mate. — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) August 11, 2020
In the end, we learn, it came down to a choice between opposites: Kamala Harris and Susan Rice. So what does picking Harris tell us about Biden’s ultimate criteria?
Here one must consider the traditional metrics of selection:
1. First do no harm and, with luck, maybe even a little good.
This centers on the short-term exigencies of winning in November: finding a nominee broadly acceptable to the party, putatively congenial to the electorate writ large and, especially, unlikely to carry excessive baggage or commit egregious errors which might place victory at greater risk.
The lodestar here is caution. Even the most politically acceptable running mates can do the ticket only so much good, while a poor selection tarnishes the perceived judgment of the presidential nominee and raises the specter of a president-in-waiting deficient in character or capacity.
The most glaring example of the latter is, of course, Sarah Palin, whose unexplored baggage was that she turned out to be stupid. One exemplar of a politically constructive pick is George H.W. Bush, a tested candidate widely experienced in governance who helped Ronald Reagan knit the GOP together.
Because Bush had run against Reagan in the primaries, he had been vetted under fire, and was less likely to spawn untoward surprises. While his sharp remarks about Reagan’s “voodoo economics” raised questions about his loyalty, Bush persuaded Reagan that he would become an impeccably loyal vice president—and he did.
Still, Biden’s age heightens the prospect that an ambitious running mate, fixated on 2024, might focus less on partnership than self-promotion—while accentuating the need for a vice president of presidential mettle. To say the least, this complicated Biden’s analysis, particularly regarding Harris.
In contrast, Harris was among the beneficiaries of the rising pressure to choose a woman of color in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, creating the concern that any other choice would jeopardize party unity. And, as ever more Americans perceive the racial divide exposed by unequal law enforcement and COVID-19, an all-white ticket could strike many Democrats as retrograde.
Beyond that, choosing a non-white running mate always made sense: African Americans, particularly women, are a backbone of the Democrats’ core constituency, and their loyalty was critical in making Biden the nominee. Moreover, the breakthrough represented by a minority female may help Biden among a portion of the progressives and young people otherwise tepid about his candidacy. In an election where turnout will be crucial, this matters.
2. Pick someone who can help carry a swing state.
The instances of this working are vanishingly rare. While there is considerable debate, some historians believe that Lyndon Johnson may have helped JFK carry the crucial state of Texas while pacifying voters in other southern states.
But that was 60 years ago. In 2020, the only non-white VP finalist from a crucial state was Val Demings of Florida, who has never run statewide. In bypassing Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Biden prioritized choosing a woman of color. He may also believe that he will carry Michigan, which is likely true, and that he can take Wisconsin on his own.
3. Choose someone who could help the new president govern.
This doesn’t always work out. While it was among the presumptive reasons that JFK selected LBJ, a vastly more accomplished senator, in practice Kennedy shut Johnson out of the inner circle. One of the clearest cases of such a choice, Dick Cheney, was more than willing to help George W. Bush govern, expanding his own influence, sometimes with disastrous results.
But Biden knows this territory well—the most successful recent example of prioritizing governance was Barack Obama’s selection of a two-time presidential also-ran who nonetheless had the legislative and foreign policy experience Obama lacked. Once these quite disparate men settled into a comfortable relationship, Biden proved to be a valued advisor and a considerable help on Capitol Hill.
For a 78-year-old nominee, this is no small consideration.
4. Select the best prospective president.
Our history is replete with vice presidents who became president, and here again Biden’s age highlights this criterion.
Johnson is an interesting example. In the wake of Kennedy’s assassination, he was a historically successful president, advancing civil rights and a host of domestic programs. Then came Vietnam, exposing his insecurities and blind spots in foreign policy.
Contrast George H.W. Bush, an able president whose downfall was his knowing, and fiscally responsible, embrace of tax hikes despite his seminal promise to avoid them. In retrospect, his one-term presidency holds up well, not least in critical areas of foreign policy: his judicious management of the first Gulf War and sophisticated response to the collapse of the Iron Curtain.
Both were tested by crisis and hard choices. That both men were consequential presidents was prefigured by their resumes and experience. In making his choice, Biden was more than capable of sizing up the capacity for presidential leadership—or, potentially, its absence.
5. Prioritize loyalty, trust, and a strong personal relationship.
Again, Obama and Biden provide a positive example. For a governing partnership to work, the president must have a vice president whom he knows will be candid, reliable, and committed to placing the success of the administration above her own political interests. The absence of such a bond would not only foreclose a truly productive relationship, but could be a needless distraction within the president’s inner circle.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
And so to Kamala Harris. I should start with my unsparing assessment from this past April:
She’s everyone’s default choice. So why does one instinctively squirm? Because she is so obviously that—a default choice—rather than someone who should become president. Harris’s attributes remain those praised throughout her career. Whatever office she occupied, her combination of presence, personal appeal, and performative skills caused many to encourage her in seeking the next. Rising became her raison d’être; running for president exposed its limits. She offered no compelling reason that she wanted to be president—she just did. Her oscillations on basic issues such as healthcare exposed a lack of interest or depth. Bereft of real commitment to policy, her candidacy became a tactical exercise in serial repositioning. Her campaign organization was a fractious mess. What would she bring? Talent—as always. And Biden could hope that Harris resonates with suburban women. As a practical politician Biden has no doubt discounted her contrived attack in an early debate, that made-for-TV moment when she feigned outrage over a long-buried issue—busing—on which they had little substantive difference. But he may wonder whose interests she would serve as vice president. Still, she’s Kamala Harris. That may suffice.
Unsurprisingly, it did. So now it’s time to contemplate why.
Obviously, Biden prioritized winning in November over depth, legislative savvy, presidential heft, or unquestioned loyalty. But his foremost responsibility is to depose the most destructive and malign president in modern American history. Harris’s campaign skills, and the relative unlikelihood of hidden baggage, mean that she is unlikely to prove an impediment to victory—and may even help.
While she stumbled as a presidential candidate, she should become a more disciplined running mate within the substantive boundaries imposed by Biden’s brain trust. As a canny politician, Biden has certainly assessed the question of loyalty, and satisfied himself that Harris would be a circumspect vice president—if only because this would best serve her long-term interests.
As for the highly salient question of whether she can be a genuine help in governance, let alone a worthy future president, one must hope that she has the capacity to meld her ambitions with greater substance. Certainly, Biden has much to teach her about how to get things done.
Finally, her lack of strong beliefs may not arouse much enthusiasm, but their absence means that she won’t alienate persuadable voters. As a district attorney and California attorney general, she was notable for her caution in dealing with hot-button law enforcement issues; as a senator, she has been conspicuous chiefly for carefully prepared star turns at high-profile hearings. And while her identification with the African-American community is not overly strong, the fact of her selection should generate its own excitement.
Here it is important to note that every alternative had problems that counteracted their strengths.
Susan Rice is a team player who is exceedingly qualified and capable and has a good relationship with Biden, but has no political constituency or experience on the stump.
Karen Bass is a proven legislator, but her perceived affinity for Castro’s Cuba would be a drawback in the crucial state of Florida.
Val Demings’s impressive biography came with only modest seasoning on the national stage or in crucial areas of policy.
Elizabeth Warren is an eminently imaginable president, but she is potentially polarizing among voters Biden needs to win.
Gretchen Whitmer is an untested freshman governor; Tammy Baldwin a second-tier senator; Tammy Duckworth personally admirable but politically unexceptional.
Finally, one must now compare Harris not to the ideal, but to the reality of Mike Pence, a slavish sycophant conspicuously lacking intellectual or moral integrity.
In the end, those who repose their hopes in Biden can be satisfied that he made a hard but politically prudent choice. Now it’s Harris’s turn to prove herself more than that.


thebulwark--2020-08-11--Donald Trump and Clay Travis, Together At Last

The last time Clay Travis tweeted at me , on April 10 , he said I was angered by the fact that when it comes to COVID-19 , “ Trump ’ s response has been successful.
” Since April 10 , an additional 144,000 Americans have died from the virus , so there ’ s that .
I ’ ll give Clay this : It ’ s true .
This largely-avoidable mass death does make me angry .
Here is another thing that makes me angry : On Tuesday morning , Clay had the honor and the privilege of being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States on his talk radio program and together they did a victory lap over the body bags while calling for the return of college sports .
For those who are new here , Travis was a former Al Gore employee and niche sports talk personality who built an audience around conservative cultural grievance , culminating with his recent rise to prominence as one of the nation ’ s leading COVID-19 happy-talkers .
In March , Travis posited that it would be “ unlikely in my opinion that more than a few hundred at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States.
” He also criticized Ohio Republican Governor Mike Dewine ’ s decision to ban spectators from the NCAA basketball tournament saying people had “ lost their mind ” and were “ overreacting.
” This means Travis ’ predictions about the death caused by the virus were off by about 40,000 percent ( yes you read that right , 40,000 % ) .
If Gov .
DeWine and others had bowed to the pressure from people such as Clay and held March Madness in indoor arenas with shouting fans from all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely that the death toll Clay never imagined possible would be even higher .
You might expect that someone who was so badly mistaken—in a pretty black-and-white , look at the data , here are the actual number of bodies—would reevaluate their priors .
Or at least wouldn ’ t rush back out and make the exact same predictions and demands four months and thousands upon thousands of deaths later .
But nope , that shit doesn ’ t sell podcast subscriptions .
Or as Clay Travis might say , “ Don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has gone on , tweeting out his daily “ Coronavirus positivity.
” Some examples : April 11 : “ [ S ] even straight days of declines in new daily cases since a peak was set last Saturday , four day low in deaths ” ( There were more deaths four days later ; every day this summer has had more cases . )
June 19 : “ [ D ] eaths have slowly moved down in Florida even after the state has opened up.
” ( Since July 14 , every single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than June 19 did . )
July 14 : “ Deaths decline 20 % from last Tuesday to 736 this week ” ( This is more deaths , in one day , than Clay predicted the country would suffer for the lifespan of the virus .
Every Tuesday since has seen more deaths than 736 . )
August 3 : “ Deaths beginning to decline again.
” ( Decline from where exactly ?
Nevermind . )
Now , I don ’ t want to characterize these as Clay ’ s worst predictions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ search of his recent positivity tweets , those are just what I caught on the first pass .
The point is : This is a guy who has become a multi-media star by spreading COVID-19 misinformation on a podcast , a radio show , and myriad guest appearances .
I ’ d even go so far as to say that there ’ s a chance—and I ’ m just spitballing here—that if you looked at the totality of everything Clay has said about the virus since February , it is possible that nobody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been as wrong about COVID-19 .
And yes , I understand how crowded this field is .
So naturally , this is the guy who our great president sits down with to talk about whether or not college football should play this fall .
You can imagine how it went .
During the course of the 22 minute interview the president called for the return of college football , trashed the NBA and MLB ’ s social justice activism and then praised the NHL and PGA ( can ’ t qwhite figure out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refused Travis ’ repeated attempts to cajole him into condemning the human rights crackdown in Hong Kong in order to positively contrast Trump ’ s strongness with the cowardly NBA players ( oops ) .
On the question of bringing college football back , Trump offered a nonsense pseudoscience word salad that did not address any of the practical realities that would be required to make it work .
Here is the relevant parts of his answer : They want to play football and they know better than anyone else .
.
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are so powerful and so strong and not lots of body fat .
.
.
maybe none in some cases , they ’ re very healthy people , people don ’ t realize it ’ s a tiny percentage of people that get sick and they ’ re old and it just attacks old people especially old people with some kind of a physical problem , a weight problem , isn ’ t it wonderful that I ’ m a perfect physical specimen .
.
.
somebody said I had zero percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nice , this attacks older people very viciously if it ’ s the wrong person but these football players are very young strong people physically , so they ’ re not going to have a problem .
.
.
Could it happen ?
But I doubt it you ’ re not going to see people dying and many people get it and they have kids that get it they have the sniffles , young kids almost none have a serious problem with it .
I mean the state of California almost nobody that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zero , had a problem with meaning a serious problem with this disease , they get better very quickly if they get it at all .
So I think football is making a tragic mistake .
Putting aside the fact that the person who gave that answer is running as the mental acuity candidate against Joe Biden .
Put aside the joke ( I think ? )
about how someone thought he has zero percent body fat .
What is striking about this answer is that the president has absolutely no plan for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back .
He ’ s expressing a wish .
And this is exactly the problem .
If you take Travis at his word that he is someone who wants football to come back—and not just someone who wants to complain about the libs who won ’ t let football come back—then you want a president who comes on your show to talk about bringing football back to having something resembling a plan for how to make it come back .
But Trump has never tried to actually manage the pandemic .
The only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wishcasting has been when he was trying to manage the PR of the pandemic .
Here ’ s the truth : If you wanted football to be played in the fall of 2020 in any manner even kind of resembling what we are used to , one of two things would have needed to happen in the distant past .
Either • We crushed the pandemic in the spring and early summer .
• The players were getting paid for their work .
With neither of these conditions being met , real football @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who thought otherwise was living in a fantasy world .
Ben Sasse wrote to the Big Ten Conference arguing in favor of holding the season by saying that “ life is about trade-offs.
” And that ’ s true .
But to get football the trade-offs needed to be made on our end .
We needed to be wearing masks .
We needed to sacrifice the economy in the short-term to crush the curve .
We needed a government that took the virus seriously instead of listening to sports talk phonies who saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people what they wanted to hear .
Or alternatively we needed to have made a trade off where we treat these athletes like the minor-league professionals they are , allowed them to collectively bargain , so they were able to be put in an NBA-style bubble away from the other students .
Instead of pretending that the star quarterback at Florida State is a “ student-athlete ” in the exact same way the captain of FSU ’ s fencing team is .
That ’ s it .
Those are the options and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a time , available to us .
Everything else is forcing a kid whose grandma has already contracted COVID to put himself , his family , and his community at risk for no pay so that we can have fun on Saturdays and pretend that America is doing just fine .
Look : Nobody would rather be with their oldest friends , in a southern college town , drinking a whiskey , waiting to head into a packed stadium to scream their lungs off more than me .
It is one of , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For many who share this love it is an electric , quasi-spiritual experience .
It is an oasis of escape from life ’ s drudgeries .
There ’ s something different in nature about college sports , it ’ s a tie that binds us to our younger selves .
It makes sense that this would carry with it cultural and political implications .
That people would feel not completely whole or completely “ back ” if this communion was stripped from them .
That the people who have experienced that loss would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it away from them .
But that ’ s life .
The pandemic has created a new reality .
And if we are ever able to recapture what we once had , we must recognize that and defeat it .
Wishing it wasn ’ t so isn ’ t going to get the job done .
The thing is : All of this planning and executing is hard work .
And if we want to have college football back , we need leaders who will do what is hard .

The last time Clay Travis tweeted at me, on April 10, he said I was angered by the fact that when it comes to COVID-19, “Trump’s response has been successful.”
Since April 10, an additional 144,000 Americans have died from the virus, so there’s that. I’ll give Clay this: It’s true. This largely-avoidable mass death does make me angry.
Here is another thing that makes me angry: On Tuesday morning, Clay had the honor and the privilege of being joined by the president of the United States on his talk radio program and together they did a victory lap over the body bags while calling for the return of college sports.
For those who are new here, Travis was a former Al Gore employee and niche sports talk personality who built an audience around conservative cultural grievance, culminating with his recent rise to prominence as one of the nation’s leading COVID-19 happy-talkers. In March, Travis posited that it would be “unlikely in my opinion that more than a few hundred at most will die from the coronavirus in the United States.” He also criticized Ohio Republican Governor Mike Dewine’s decision to ban spectators from the NCAA basketball tournament saying people had “lost their mind” and were “overreacting.”
This means Travis’ predictions about the death caused by the virus were off by about 40,000 percent (yes you read that right, 40,000%). If Gov. DeWine and others had bowed to the pressure from people such as Clay and held March Madness in indoor arenas with shouting fans from all corners of the country, it seems likely that the death toll Clay never imagined possible would be even higher.
You might expect that someone who was so badly mistaken—in a pretty black-and-white, look at the data, here are the actual number of bodies—would reevaluate their priors. Or at least wouldn’t rush back out and make the exact same predictions and demands four months and thousands upon thousands of deaths later.
But nope, that shit doesn’t sell podcast subscriptions. Or as Clay Travis might say, “Don’t Be A Pussy.”
So he has gone on, tweeting out his daily “Coronavirus positivity.” Some examples:
April 11: “[S]even straight days of declines in new daily cases since a peak was set last Saturday, four day low in deaths” (There were more deaths four days later; every day this summer has had more cases.)
June 19: “[D]eaths have slowly moved down in Florida even after the state has opened up.” (Since July 14, every single day has had more deaths in Florida than June 19 did.)
July 14: “Deaths decline 20% from last Tuesday to 736 this week” (This is more deaths, in one day, than Clay predicted the country would suffer for the lifespan of the virus. Every Tuesday since has seen more deaths than 736.)
August 3: “Deaths beginning to decline again.” (Decline from where exactly? Nevermind.)
Now, I don’t want to characterize these as Clay’s worst predictions. I spent about 5 minutes doing a search of his recent positivity tweets, those are just what I caught on the first pass. The point is: This is a guy who has become a multi-media star by spreading COVID-19 misinformation on a podcast, a radio show, and myriad guest appearances.
I’d even go so far as to say that there’s a chance—and I’m just spitballing here—that if you looked at the totality of everything Clay has said about the virus since February, it is possible that nobody else, anywhere in America, has been as wrong about COVID-19.
And yes, I understand how crowded this field is.
So naturally, this is the guy who our great president sits down with to talk about whether or not college football should play this fall.
You can imagine how it went.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
During the course of the 22 minute interview the president called for the return of college football, trashed the NBA and MLB’s social justice activism and then praised the NHL and PGA (can’t qwhite figure out the connection there). Trump also refused Travis’ repeated attempts to cajole him into condemning the human rights crackdown in Hong Kong in order to positively contrast Trump’s strongness with the cowardly NBA players (oops).
On the question of bringing college football back, Trump offered a nonsense pseudoscience word salad that did not address any of the practical realities that would be required to make it work. Here is the relevant parts of his answer:
They want to play football and they know better than anyone else . . . One of the great doctors said these people are so powerful and so strong and not lots of body fat. . . maybe none in some cases, they’re very healthy people, people don’t realize it’s a tiny percentage of people that get sick and they’re old and it just attacks old people especially old people with some kind of a physical problem, a weight problem, isn’t it wonderful that I’m a perfect physical specimen . . . somebody said I had zero percent body fat wouldn’t that be nice, this attacks older people very viciously if it’s the wrong person but these football players are very young strong people physically, so they’re not going to have a problem . . . Could it happen? But I doubt it you’re not going to see people dying and many people get it and they have kids that get it they have the sniffles, young kids almost none have a serious problem with it. I mean the state of California almost nobody that’s young had a, like zero, had a problem with meaning a serious problem with this disease, they get better very quickly if they get it at all. So I think football is making a tragic mistake.
Putting aside the fact that the person who gave that answer is running as the mental acuity candidate against Joe Biden.
Put aside the joke (I think?) about how someone thought he has zero percent body fat.
What is striking about this answer is that the president has absolutely no plan for how, exactly, football would come back. He’s expressing a wish.
And this is exactly the problem. If you take Travis at his word that he is someone who wants football to come back—and not just someone who wants to complain about the libs who won’t let football come back—then you want a president who comes on your show to talk about bringing football back to having something resembling a plan for how to make it come back.
But Trump has never tried to actually manage the pandemic. The only time he hasn’t just been wishcasting has been when he was trying to manage the PR of the pandemic.
Here’s the truth: If you wanted football to be played in the fall of 2020 in any manner even kind of resembling what we are used to, one of two things would have needed to happen in the distant past. Either
We crushed the pandemic in the spring and early summer. The players were getting paid for their work.
With neither of these conditions being met, real football was never going to happen. Anyone who thought otherwise was living in a fantasy world.
Ben Sasse wrote to the Big Ten Conference arguing in favor of holding the season by saying that “life is about trade-offs.” And that’s true.
But to get football the trade-offs needed to be made on our end. We needed to be wearing masks. We needed to sacrifice the economy in the short-term to crush the curve. We needed a government that took the virus seriously instead of listening to sports talk phonies who saw an opportunity to get famous by telling people what they wanted to hear.
Or alternatively we needed to have made a trade off where we treat these athletes like the minor-league professionals they are, allowed them to collectively bargain, so they were able to be put in an NBA-style bubble away from the other students. Instead of pretending that the star quarterback at Florida State is a “student-athlete” in the exact same way the captain of FSU’s fencing team is.
That’s it. Those are the options and the trade offs that were, once upon a time, available to us. Everything else is forcing a kid whose grandma has already contracted COVID to put himself, his family, and his community at risk for no pay so that we can have fun on Saturdays and pretend that America is doing just fine.
Look: Nobody would rather be with their oldest friends, in a southern college town, drinking a whiskey, waiting to head into a packed stadium to scream their lungs off more than me. It is one of, if not my favorite, pastime. For many who share this love it is an electric, quasi-spiritual experience. It is an oasis of escape from life’s drudgeries. There’s something different in nature about college sports, it’s a tie that binds us to our younger selves.
It makes sense that this would carry with it cultural and political implications. That people would feel not completely whole or completely “back” if this communion was stripped from them. That the people who have experienced that loss would lash out at those who are taking it away from them.
But that’s life. The pandemic has created a new reality. And if we are ever able to recapture what we once had, we must recognize that and defeat it. Wishing it wasn’t so isn’t going to get the job done.
The thing is: All of this planning and executing is hard work.
Tweeting #WeWantToPlay is easy.
And if we want to have college football back, we need leaders who will do what is hard.


thebulwark--2020-08-12--Team Trump Hasn’t Figured Out How to Attack Kamala

Donald Trump ’ s army of Twitter trolls were primed and ready to take down the person who , from the beginning , was seen as Joe Biden ’ s most likely vice presidential nominee—Kamala Harris .
Are you ready for their stunning line of attack ?
Or as I would put it .
.
.
Kamala Is A Cop !
!
!
What ’ s that ?
The guys and gals at the Federalist already did that for us ?
Hell yeah .
This whole deal leaves me a bit confused .
After all , I thought that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was that Joe Biden is a Trojan horse for the Antifa Squad that wants to defund the police and allow looters and statue-desecrators to run free .
Seems like picking a cop as his VP undermines that message a bit .
Maybe this is all just a bit of social media chatter though , lets see what the official response from the Trump campaign is .
So .
.
.
Kamala Harris is a phony cop who is going to bury her record in order to be a .
.
.
Trojan horse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump campaign is offering here is a rare attack , indeed .
The double Trojan horse !
A squad inside a horse inside a bigger horse .
We ’ ve come to expect the unexpected from our branding-maestro , world-champion-troll president .
And the double Trojan horse is a striking image .
But from another vantage point , it could be seen as a pretty weak mega bank shot from a campaign team that has failed to settle on an effective strategy for fighting their actual opponents , rather than the people they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generous reading is supported by the disjointed messaging that was presented in the president ’ s hastily arranged and meandering press conference following the pick , as well as the activity from his top surrogates and campaign staff .
One might have expected that Trump would use the platform afforded him to define the new addition to his opponent ’ s ticket .
But he not only failed to offer a tailored line of attack , he failed to demonstrate that he had even so much as read a basic bio on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been “ nasty ” —one of his go-to insults for women—and “ disrespectful ” to Justice Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings and to Vice President Biden during the primary debates .
“ She was the meanest , the most horrible , most disrespectful of anybody in the U.S. Senate , ” said the president known for his abiding commitment to decorum in political debate .
He also focused , as is his wont , on her negative poll numbers during the primary .
But when asked specifically about her record as California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters , Trump fell back on the same pablum that he sends in every endorsement tweet .
She wants to raise taxes , cut military spending , and is a friend to the radical left .
That was all he had .
Meanwhile his former campaign manager , who continues to fund a lavish lifestyle on the Trump campaign dime , sent a tweet implying that Biden was a sexual predator and Harris was his victim .
House majority leader Kevin McCarthy went with the tried and true “ San Francisco liberal ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives in Brentwood .
( The tweet was subsequently deleted . )
Mark Levin went the steam trumpet route , kicking off his show with an unprompted rant about how Kamala Harris is not African-American since her parents are of Indian and Jamaican ancestry .
Dinesh D ’ Souza tweeted that she is a “ beneficiary , not a victim of slavery.
” The Trump campaign comms team tried to brand her as a “ phony , ” but when Trump was asked about that at the press conference he seemed unfamiliar with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeat it .
Donald Trump Jr. went with the attack that Harris is part of the “ radical left ” and campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh said she was “ more liberal ” than Bernie Sanders .
Yet the populist MAGA crowd tried to make the case that picking a neoliberal shill like Harris proves the left doesn ’ t actually care about Sanders voters .
And an RNC email argued that Sanders liberals were “ revolting ” over the Harris section .
So to sum up : —who was too nasty to Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days left to figure it out .

Donald Trump’s army of Twitter trolls were primed and ready to take down the person who, from the beginning, was seen as Joe Biden’s most likely vice presidential nominee—Kamala Harris.
Are you ready for their stunning line of attack?
Kamala is a cop.
Or as I would put it . . . Kamala Is A Cop!!!
Bam! Put that bad boy on a t-shirt!
What’s that? The guys and gals at the Federalist already did that for us? Hell yeah.
https://twitter.com/FDRLST/status/1293282108794953728
This whole deal leaves me a bit confused. After all, I thought that the Trump campaign’s big summer offensive was that Joe Biden is a Trojan horse for the Antifa Squad that wants to defund the police and allow looters and statue-desecrators to run free. Seems like picking a cop as his VP undermines that message a bit.
Maybe this is all just a bit of social media chatter though, lets see what the official response from the Trump campaign is.
Trump camp hits Kamala Harris (and Bernie Sanders) following Harris as VP news, w/ Katrina Pierson claiming "Phony Kamala will abandon her own morals, as well as try to bury her record as a prosecutor, in order to appease the anti-police extremists controlling the Democrat Party" pic.twitter.com/2uBDxLBkwP — DJ Judd (@DJJudd) August 11, 2020
So . . . Kamala Harris is a phony cop who is going to bury her record in order to be a . . . Trojan horse for the anti-police extremists.
What the Trump campaign is offering here is a rare attack, indeed. The double Trojan horse! A squad inside a horse inside a bigger horse.
We’ve come to expect the unexpected from our branding-maestro, world-champion-troll president.
And the double Trojan horse is a striking image.
But from another vantage point, it could be seen as a pretty weak mega bank shot from a campaign team that has failed to settle on an effective strategy for fighting their actual opponents, rather than the people they wish were their opponents.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
This less generous reading is supported by the disjointed messaging that was presented in the president’s hastily arranged and meandering press conference following the pick, as well as the activity from his top surrogates and campaign staff.
One might have expected that Trump would use the platform afforded him to define the new addition to his opponent’s ticket. But he not only failed to offer a tailored line of attack, he failed to demonstrate that he had even so much as read a basic bio on his opponent.
He repeatedly mentioned that Harris had been “nasty”—one of his go-to insults for women—and “disrespectful” to Justice Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings and to Vice President Biden during the primary debates. “She was the meanest, the most horrible, most disrespectful of anybody in the U.S. Senate,” said the president known for his abiding commitment to decorum in political debate. He also focused, as is his wont, on her negative poll numbers during the primary. But when asked specifically about her record as California attorney general and past inconsistencies on policy matters, Trump fell back on the same pablum that he sends in every endorsement tweet. She wants to raise taxes, cut military spending, and is a friend to the radical left.
People are throwing him fat pitches on Kamala and he’s whispering about taxes — Peter Hamby (@PeterHamby) August 11, 2020
That was all he had.
Meanwhile his former campaign manager, who continues to fund a lavish lifestyle on the Trump campaign dime, sent a tweet implying that Biden was a sexual predator and Harris was his victim. House majority leader Kevin McCarthy went with the tried and true “San Francisco liberal” attack, despite the fact that she lives in Brentwood. (The tweet was subsequently deleted.) Mark Levin went the steam trumpet route, kicking off his show with an unprompted rant about how Kamala Harris is not African-American since her parents are of Indian and Jamaican ancestry. Dinesh D’Souza tweeted that she is a “beneficiary, not a victim of slavery.”
The Trump campaign comms team tried to brand her as a “phony,” but when Trump was asked about that at the press conference he seemed unfamiliar with the coinage and asked the reporter to repeat it.
The initial Trump line is, literally, that while neither Biden nor Harris are leftists, they will govern as leftists because He's out of it and she's "phony." Maybe wait a day until you have a less laughable message? https://t.co/sJCequySyv — Christopher Orr (@OrrChris) August 11, 2020
Donald Trump Jr. went with the attack that Harris is part of the “radical left” and campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh said she was “more liberal” than Bernie Sanders. Yet the populist MAGA crowd tried to make the case that picking a neoliberal shill like Harris proves the left doesn’t actually care about Sanders voters. And an RNC email argued that Sanders liberals were “revolting” over the Harris section.
So to sum up:
Kamala Harris is a cop—
—who is an anti-police extremist.
A radical leftist—
—who is causing a “revolt” among Bernie voters.
A phony—
—who was too nasty to Joe Biden.
Got that?
The Trump campaign has 83 days left to figure it out.


thebulwark--2020-08-12--‘Hamilton’ Was Huge for Disney+

‘Hamilton’ Was Huge for Disney+

Standard disclaimer , as always : We have no idea how well anything on streaming platforms does , really .
Netflix doesn ’ t release particularly useful numbers , occasionally dropping eye-popping stats like “ 72 million people watched The Old Guard zomg !
” while burying in the fine print that those 72 million watched “ at least two minutes ” of the movie .
Amazon releases no solid numbers about Prime video .
Apple releases no solid numbers about AppleTV+ , though they still manage the credulous “ wow , the numbers are great !
” story every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Disney releases no solid numbers about Disney+ .
We ’ re in a different world now , one without solid Nielsen ratings ( and those are less solid now for non-streaming TV anyway , thanks to on-demand viewing and rampant DVR time-shifting ) or box-office data .
We have to grope around for information like the blind men feeling different parts of the elephant .
Who is watching what ?
What is moving the needle ?
Simply put : What ’ s a hit ?
We felt the tail of Hamilton in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ From Friday through Sunday , the Disney Plus app was downloaded 752,451 times globally , including 458,796 times in the U.S. , according to analytics firm Apptopia , ” Variety reported .
“ That means that in the U.S. , the total Disney Plus downloads were 74 % higher than the average of the four weekends in June 2020 over comparable time periods ( Friday through Sunday ) , per Apptopia data.
” An interesting data point to be sure , doubly so since Disney had quietly ended the free seven-day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
These were paying customers they were racking up .
We felt the leg yesterday , when Variety reported some numbers from 7Park Data suggesting that Hamilton blew the competition out of the water .
“ A staggering 37 % of the research firm ’ s panel of viewers in the U.S. watched the filmed musical last month , almost three times the number that watched the second widest-reaching title of that month , Netflix ’ s true-crime docuseries Unsolved Mysteries ( 14 % ) , ” Kevin Tran wrote .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of viewers .
Now , Hamilton ’ s number in and of itself isn ’ t that interesting or useful .
But Hamilton ’ s number in conjunction with the other numbers—easily besting Netflix ’ s most popular offering , Unsolved Mysteries , and more than tripling Netflix ’ s The Old Guard—gives us a sense of how Disney+ ’ s $ 75 million acquisition played in relation to everything else in streaming .
And , in the end , that ’ s how we judge a hit , right ?
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but viewership in relation to everything else .
What are people flocking to at the expense of other viewing opportunities ?
What ’ s “ driving the conversation ” ?
What are our current cultural touchstones ?
By that measure , then , we can rest assured that Hamilton was , in fact , a pretty fantastic success for Disney .
I have no terribly strong opinion on how accurate 7Park Data ’ s data really is : their numbers come from a survey of 15,000-25,000 households connected to streaming devices ( smart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Which is to say , I don ’ t think you should extrapolate from this and conjecture “ Well , if 37 percent of Disney+ subscribers watched it , that means that 22 million people must have watched !
” But as a snapshot of what this census of viewers was watching , it ’ s undoubtedly useful and instructive .
And snapshots are all we really have at the moment .

Standard disclaimer, as always: We have no idea how well anything on streaming platforms does, really.
Netflix doesn’t release particularly useful numbers, occasionally dropping eye-popping stats like “72 million people watched The Old Guard zomg!” while burying in the fine print that those 72 million watched “at least two minutes” of the movie. Amazon releases no solid numbers about Prime video. Apple releases no solid numbers about AppleTV+, though they still manage the credulous “wow, the numbers are great!” story every once in a while. Ditto Hulu. Disney releases no solid numbers about Disney+.
We’re in a different world now, one without solid Nielsen ratings (and those are less solid now for non-streaming TV anyway, thanks to on-demand viewing and rampant DVR time-shifting) or box-office data. We have to grope around for information like the blind men feeling different parts of the elephant. Who is watching what? What is moving the needle? Simply put: What’s a hit?
We felt the tail of Hamilton in the weeks after its debut on Disney+.
“From Friday through Sunday, the Disney Plus app was downloaded 752,451 times globally, including 458,796 times in the U.S., according to analytics firm Apptopia,” Variety reported. “That means that in the U.S., the total Disney Plus downloads were 74% higher than the average of the four weekends in June 2020 over comparable time periods (Friday through Sunday), per Apptopia data.”
An interesting data point to be sure, doubly so since Disney had quietly ended the free seven-day trial period a few weeks ahead of this. These were paying customers they were racking up.
We felt the leg yesterday, when Variety reported some numbers from 7Park Data suggesting that Hamilton blew the competition out of the water.
“A staggering 37% of the research firm’s panel of viewers in the U.S. watched the filmed musical last month, almost three times the number that watched the second widest-reaching title of that month, Netflix’s true-crime docuseries Unsolved Mysteries (14%),” Kevin Tran wrote. The Old Guard clocked in at 10.6 percent of viewers.
(A brief aside: It’s very interesting to me that Netflix’s biggest hit wasn’t the splashy, expensive comic book movie they debuted in July that earned plaudits from the pundits for its commitment to diversity but the reboot of a trash TV series. It’s almost like Netflix is the new broadcast network or something.)
Now, Hamilton’s number in and of itself isn’t that interesting or useful. But Hamilton’s number in conjunction with the other numbers—easily besting Netflix’s most popular offering, Unsolved Mysteries, and more than tripling Netflix’s The Old Guard—gives us a sense of how Disney+’s $75 million acquisition played in relation to everything else in streaming.
And, in the end, that’s how we judge a hit, right? It’s not so much pure viewership, but viewership in relation to everything else. What are people flocking to at the expense of other viewing opportunities? What’s “driving the conversation”? What are our current cultural touchstones?
By that measure, then, we can rest assured that Hamilton was, in fact, a pretty fantastic success for Disney. I have no terribly strong opinion on how accurate 7Park Data’s data really is: their numbers come from a survey of 15,000-25,000 households connected to streaming devices (smart TVs, Roku sticks, etc.). Which is to say, I don’t think you should extrapolate from this and conjecture “Well, if 37 percent of Disney+ subscribers watched it, that means that 22 million people must have watched!”
But as a snapshot of what this census of viewers was watching, it’s undoubtedly useful and instructive. And snapshots are all we really have at the moment.


thebulwark--2020-08-12--Did Trump Get Owned by China?

Did Trump Get Owned by China?

You wouldn ’ t think that at this stage of the Trump presidency—what with Clorox injections , gassing peaceful protesters , 160,000 dead Americans , hints at delaying the election , and on and on—Trump defenders could still be found .
But they can .
And I ’ ve noticed a theme in Trump defenses .
“ Say what you will about Trump , ” they argue “ at least he had the balls to take on China.
” Actually , no he didn ’ t .
Let ’ s consider Trump ’ s record on China .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With 1.4 billion people , an enormous military , and the world ’ s second-largest economy , China is beginning to throw its weight around .
Unlike the old Soviet Union , which threatened American interests all over the globe but was hampered by a dysfunctional economic system , China is getting very rich very fast , while still maintaining one of the most repressive and cruel regimes in the world .
China is racing forward on artificial intelligence and other technologies , and exporting its surveillance techniques to other despotic regimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has even been felt here , as Beijing strong-arms American companies to tiptoe around issues like Taiwan and Hong Kong .
So , Trump would have been right to be worried .
But Trump ’ s perception of the China problem didn ’ t concern its threat to liberty .
He was fixated on hair dryers and soybeans .
Though many have tried to educate him , Trump remains convinced that because China has sold more physical products to us than we have sold to them , it is “ raping ” our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buyers and sellers eludes this businessman . )
Previous American presidents had negotiated “ grossly incompetent ” trade deals , but his leadership , he promised , would reverse the trade deficits , bring manufacturing jobs back , and halt unfair trade practices like dumping , currency manipulation , and theft of intellectual property .
It was all going to be so easy , he said : “ We have the cards , we have a lot of power with China .
.
.
.
When China doesn ’ t want to fix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , ‘ Sorry , folks , you got ta fix the problem.
’ ” None of those goals was achieved .
None .
Our bilateral trade deficit with China actually increased during Trump ’ s first two years , which , though Trump doesn ’ t understand this , was not bad for us , but was rather a side effect of our strong economy in those years .
Considering what Trump hoped to achieve vis-à-vis China , his first act , canceling the Trans-Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) treaty , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States represents about 24 percent of the world economy .
Together with the allies who signed the TPP—Australia , New Zealand , Japan , Malaysia , Singapore , Vietnam , Brunei , Canada , Mexico , Chile , and Peru—the trading bloc would have represented 40 percent of the world ’ s GDP .
Though it isn ’ t clear that Trump knew this—he seemed confused about it during the debates—the TPP did not include China and would have made the free Pacific nations a bulwark against China ’ s unfair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tune .
Had Trump really wanted to put China at a disadvantage , he would have built upon TPP by signing more free trade agreements with nations around the world .
If the United States were to cooperate with the European Union , India , and Brazil , as well as the TPP nations , we could bring to bear the combined power of well over 75 percent of the world ’ s GDP .
But Trump thought that trade wars were “ good and easy to win.
” And so , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Tariffs !
Bring me tariffs , ” he told aides .
And they brought them .
Not just on China , but on our friends .
In fact , he imposed more tariffs on Canada , Mexico , and the European Union than he did on China .
It turned out that unilateral tariffs were neither good nor easy .
Trump ’ s image of the world is stuck at about 1970 , when our economy bestrode the world like a colossus .
We ’ re still the world ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominant .
By 2018 , we didn ’ t have the cards Trump thought we did .
Americans had to pay higher prices for everything from bicycles to luggage to TVs to hats to industrial inputs .
And China retaliated with tariffs of its own , hitting American farmers particularly hard .
Moody ’ s Analytics estimates that the tariffs cost the United States 300,000 jobs along with $ 28 billion in taxes to subsidize farmers for lost customers .
Trump had promised that by punishing China he would revive the Midwest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in manufacturing jobs , Pennsylvania , Michigan , Ohio , and Wisconsin all lost factory jobs during his tenure .
And , of course , today , due to his catastrophic mismanagement of the pandemic , every region of the country is in deep recession .
What about that “ great trade deal ” Trump negotiated with China ?
Hold the applause .
The deal obliges China to purchase $ 200 billion in goods and services over the course of two years on top of the amounts imported in 2017 .
That may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long history of failing to fulfill similar promises .
Even at the White House ceremony announcing the deal , the Chinese vice premier said China would make its future purchasing decisions “ based on market conditions , ” which doesn ’ t inspire confidence .
Also , by relying on China ’ s promise to make these purchases , Trump is making the U.S. more , not less dependent upon China , while disadvantaging other trading partners .
Worst of all , it ratifies the Chinese way of doing business—top-down command and control—rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which ought to be the U.S. goal , and was the model of the TPP ( with some imperfections to be sure ) .
And what if China reneges on the purchase commitment ?
The only enforcement mechanism is more unilateral tariffs , which , as we ’ ve just experienced , hurt the imposing country as much as or more than the target country .
As for forced technology transfers , intellectual property protection , and subsidies for favored domestic industries , the agreement contains a few small steps , but nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon as the Phase I deal had been announced , the administration immediately began referencing a Phase II deal that would be right around the corner and would deal with all of the truly serious issues .
In return for this dubious “ achievement , ” Trump forfeited America ’ s role as champion of human rights and human dignity .
Famously blistering toward our allies , Trump was obsequious toward President Xi , whom he called “ a highly respected and powerful representative of his people ” with whom he had “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ streets of Hong Kong demanding that China uphold its “ One Nation , Two Systems ” deal , Trump initially called them “ rioters , ” exactly the language the CCP used .
Trump then praised Xi for his handling of the demonstrations , saying he could “ stop them if he wanted to.
” In November , 2019 , when Congress was considering sanctions on China for its escalating repression of Hong Kong , Trump declined to say whether he would sign such a bill .
“ We have to stand with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also standing with President Xi .
He ’ s a friend of mine , he ’ s an incredible guy.
” Trump said he supported Hong Kong , “ but we are also in the process of making the largest trade deal in history and if we could do that it would be great.
” John Bolton recounts that Mr. Tough-on-China pleaded with Xi to buy more American soybeans and wheat to help him win re-election , and also that Trump gave Xi the green light to put a million Uighurs in concentration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Xi , “ You ’ re doing exactly the right thing.
” Amazingly enough , Trump has not been able to snap his fingers and force China to bring North Korea to heel .
His own fervid courtship of Kim Jong-un also yielded worse than nothing .
China is a malign power whose prestige and influence has only increased during Trump ’ s tenure .
While America has been threatening to withdraw troops from Japan and South Korea , halting military exercises with South Korea , imposing tariffs , and demanding huge increases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies , China has been steadily investing through its Belt and Road Initiative , and asserting its military might in the South China Sea .
A survey of NGOs in Southeast Asia taken just before the pandemic found that 96 percent predicted China would be an economic power in the region in 10 years compared with only 56 percent who said the same about the United States .
China ’ s looming ascent represents a challenge to American world leadership .
We can and should respond by playing to our strengths : improving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the WTO and WHO instead of demonizing them or withdrawing , encouraging free trade , standing up for civil liberties , welcoming talented students and immigrants who can help us maintain our technological edge ( and who , until the advent of Trump , still made America their first choice ) , and getting our own fiscal house in order so that we do not need to borrow from China .
Trump ’ s trade war was an expensive bust .
But it wasn ’ t nearly as costly as his abdication of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

You wouldn’t think that at this stage of the Trump presidency—what with Clorox injections, gassing peaceful protesters, 160,000 dead Americans, hints at delaying the election, and on and on—Trump defenders could still be found. But they can. And I’ve noticed a theme in Trump defenses. “Say what you will about Trump,” they argue “at least he had the balls to take on China.”
Actually, no he didn’t. Let’s consider Trump’s record on China.
There are many good reasons to worry about China. With 1.4 billion people, an enormous military, and the world’s second-largest economy, China is beginning to throw its weight around. Unlike the old Soviet Union, which threatened American interests all over the globe but was hampered by a dysfunctional economic system, China is getting very rich very fast, while still maintaining one of the most repressive and cruel regimes in the world. China is racing forward on artificial intelligence and other technologies, and exporting its surveillance techniques to other despotic regimes. The long arm of Chinese repression has even been felt here, as Beijing strong-arms American companies to tiptoe around issues like Taiwan and Hong Kong.
So, Trump would have been right to be worried. But Trump’s perception of the China problem didn’t concern its threat to liberty. He was fixated on hair dryers and soybeans. Though many have tried to educate him, Trump remains convinced that because China has sold more physical products to us than we have sold to them, it is “raping” our country. (The concept of willing buyers and sellers eludes this businessman.) Previous American presidents had negotiated “grossly incompetent” trade deals, but his leadership, he promised, would reverse the trade deficits, bring manufacturing jobs back, and halt unfair trade practices like dumping, currency manipulation, and theft of intellectual property. It was all going to be so easy, he said: “We have the cards, we have a lot of power with China. . . . When China doesn’t want to fix the problem in North Korea, we say, ‘Sorry, folks, you gotta fix the problem.’”
None of those goals was achieved. None. Our bilateral trade deficit with China actually increased during Trump’s first two years, which, though Trump doesn’t understand this, was not bad for us, but was rather a side effect of our strong economy in those years.
Considering what Trump hoped to achieve vis-à-vis China, his first act, canceling the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty, was a monumental blunder.
Standing alone, the United States represents about 24 percent of the world economy. Together with the allies who signed the TPP—Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Brunei, Canada, Mexico, Chile, and Peru—the trading bloc would have represented 40 percent of the world’s GDP. Though it isn’t clear that Trump knew this—he seemed confused about it during the debates—the TPP did not include China and would have made the free Pacific nations a bulwark against China’s unfair practices. We would have called the tune.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Had Trump really wanted to put China at a disadvantage, he would have built upon TPP by signing more free trade agreements with nations around the world. If the United States were to cooperate with the European Union, India, and Brazil, as well as the TPP nations, we could bring to bear the combined power of well over 75 percent of the world’s GDP.
But Trump thought that trade wars were “good and easy to win.” And so, he declared them . . . on everyone. “Tariffs! Bring me tariffs,” he told aides. And they brought them. Not just on China, but on our friends. In fact, he imposed more tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and the European Union than he did on China.
It turned out that unilateral tariffs were neither good nor easy. Trump’s image of the world is stuck at about 1970, when our economy bestrode the world like a colossus. We’re still the world’s leading economy, but not nearly so dominant. By 2018, we didn’t have the cards Trump thought we did. Americans had to pay higher prices for everything from bicycles to luggage to TVs to hats to industrial inputs. And China retaliated with tariffs of its own, hitting American farmers particularly hard. Moody’s Analytics estimates that the tariffs cost the United States 300,000 jobs along with $28 billion in taxes to subsidize farmers for lost customers.
Trump had promised that by punishing China he would revive the Midwest, but while Silicon Valley saw an increase in manufacturing jobs, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin all lost factory jobs during his tenure. And, of course, today, due to his catastrophic mismanagement of the pandemic, every region of the country is in deep recession.
What about that “great trade deal” Trump negotiated with China? Hold the applause. The deal obliges China to purchase $200 billion in goods and services over the course of two years on top of the amounts imported in 2017. That may sound good, but China has a long history of failing to fulfill similar promises. Even at the White House ceremony announcing the deal, the Chinese vice premier said China would make its future purchasing decisions “based on market conditions,” which doesn’t inspire confidence. Also, by relying on China’s promise to make these purchases, Trump is making the U.S. more, not less dependent upon China, while disadvantaging other trading partners.
Worst of all, it ratifies the Chinese way of doing business—top-down command and control—rather than permitting markets to operate freely, which ought to be the U.S. goal, and was the model of the TPP (with some imperfections to be sure). And what if China reneges on the purchase commitment? The only enforcement mechanism is more unilateral tariffs, which, as we’ve just experienced, hurt the imposing country as much as or more than the target country.
As for forced technology transfers, intellectual property protection, and subsidies for favored domestic industries, the agreement contains a few small steps, but nothing substantial, which is why, as soon as the Phase I deal had been announced, the administration immediately began referencing a Phase II deal that would be right around the corner and would deal with all of the truly serious issues.
In return for this dubious “achievement,” Trump forfeited America’s role as champion of human rights and human dignity. Famously blistering toward our allies, Trump was obsequious toward President Xi, whom he called “a highly respected and powerful representative of his people” with whom he had “great chemistry.” When protesters filled the streets of Hong Kong demanding that China uphold its “One Nation, Two Systems” deal, Trump initially called them “rioters,” exactly the language the CCP used. Trump then praised Xi for his handling of the demonstrations, saying he could “stop them if he wanted to.” In November, 2019, when Congress was considering sanctions on China for its escalating repression of Hong Kong, Trump declined to say whether he would sign such a bill. “We have to stand with Hong Kong, but I’m also standing with President Xi. He’s a friend of mine, he’s an incredible guy.” Trump said he supported Hong Kong, “but we are also in the process of making the largest trade deal in history and if we could do that it would be great.”
John Bolton recounts that Mr. Tough-on-China pleaded with Xi to buy more American soybeans and wheat to help him win re-election, and also that Trump gave Xi the green light to put a million Uighurs in concentration camps. Bolton says that Trump told Xi, “You’re doing exactly the right thing.”
Amazingly enough, Trump has not been able to snap his fingers and force China to bring North Korea to heel. His own fervid courtship of Kim Jong-un also yielded worse than nothing.
China is a malign power whose prestige and influence has only increased during Trump’s tenure. While America has been threatening to withdraw troops from Japan and South Korea, halting military exercises with South Korea, imposing tariffs, and demanding huge increases in payments for military bases from our allies, China has been steadily investing through its Belt and Road Initiative, and asserting its military might in the South China Sea. A survey of NGOs in Southeast Asia taken just before the pandemic found that 96 percent predicted China would be an economic power in the region in 10 years compared with only 56 percent who said the same about the United States.
China’s looming ascent represents a challenge to American world leadership. We can and should respond by playing to our strengths: improving existing alliances, leading world institutions like the WTO and WHO instead of demonizing them or withdrawing, encouraging free trade, standing up for civil liberties, welcoming talented students and immigrants who can help us maintain our technological edge (and who, until the advent of Trump, still made America their first choice), and getting our own fiscal house in order so that we do not need to borrow from China.
Trump’s trade war was an expensive bust. But it wasn’t nearly as costly as his abdication of American leadership and betrayal of American values.


Trump’s Q Endorsement

Let ’ s be honest .
Many Republicans in politics , the media , and corporate America were really hoping that Bernie Sanders would be the Democratic presidential nominee .
That would have made it easy for them to say , “ Well , Donald Trump is bad , but we can ’ t vote for the socialist.
” And , then they could have moved along being good Republicans like always .
That didn ’ t happen .
They lost another excuse to back Trump on Tuesday when Joe Biden selected Kamala Harris as his running mate .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Karen Bass or someone else with some hefty Communist baggage .
And then , after the Harris announcement , something far worse happened to the excuse-makers on Wednesday morning—President Trump endorsed a member of the most fringe movement in American politics : Greene , for those still blissfully ignorant of her name and record , won a run-off election for a House seat on Tuesday .
She is part of the QAnon movement , which loosely believes that a secret group of evil elitists is both running child sex rings and running the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Greene recently said that “ there ’ s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take this global cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles out , and I think we have the president to do it.
” Given that she is running in a safe Republican district , she ’ s expected to win her general election and be seated as a member of Congress next year .
And she probably won ’ t be the only congressional QAnoner : Nearly a dozen Q-aligned candidates are running for Congress .
Without a doubt , there will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as President Trump cultivates and coddles these candidates , feeding their addiction to this sick conspiracy theory one tweet at a time .
There is a reason we all see the Q signs , flags , and T-shirts at Trump rallies .
He ’ s groomed these people .
If Trump had his way , we ’ d have a Q Congress .
They ’ d lock Hillary Clinton up , all right .
But let ’ s talk more about what is considered a safe Republican seat .
Because they don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also exist on conservative editorial boards , at conservative news channels , on some corporate boards , and in all the places that hire Republicans to give voice , influence , and power to traditional GOP positions .
As long as they talk the GOP talk , they are safe .
In these safe Republican seats , they ’ ll support the party no matter what .
No matter whom it nominates .
No matter what they say or do .
Today , however , these individuals can ’ t just toe the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grapple not with Bernie Sanders or AOC but with QAnon and its influence on their own party .
Sure , they ’ d love to fall back into their traditional roles , bashing Democrats ’ big tax-and-spend plans , but that ignores the hydroxychroloquine-snorting , Q-friendly elephant in the room .
It ’ s no coincidence that as the Q movement gains influence , our nation is suffering through a terrible convergence of medical and political disinformation .
Conspiracies have consequences .
More than 165,000 Americans have died because our leaders thought coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plot designed to hurt the president .
It ’ s painful to admit , but the most radical elements of online politics have gained a firm foothold in the GOP .
President Trump explicitly fused his paranoid political philosophy with Q on Wednesday with his tweet .
Marjorie Taylor Greene is running in a safe Republican seat ; there aren ’ t any Democrats to blame for her ludicrous statements and beliefs .
There is no way for Republicans of sound mind to “ both sides ” their way into supporting her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did .
So , what are they going to do now ?
There ’ s no excusing Q .

Let’s be honest. Many Republicans in politics, the media, and corporate America were really hoping that Bernie Sanders would be the Democratic presidential nominee. That would have made it easy for them to say, “Well, Donald Trump is bad, but we can’t vote for the socialist.” And, then they could have moved along being good Republicans like always.
That didn’t happen. They lost another excuse to back Trump on Tuesday when Joe Biden selected Kamala Harris as his running mate. They were all hoping he’d pick Karen Bass or someone else with some hefty Communist baggage. And then, after the Harris announcement, something far worse happened to the excuse-makers on Wednesday morning—President Trump endorsed a member of the most fringe movement in American politics:
Congratulations to future Republican Star Marjorie Taylor Greene on a big Congressional primary win in Georgia against a very tough and smart opponent. Marjorie is strong on everything and never gives up – a real WINNER! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 12, 2020
Greene, for those still blissfully ignorant of her name and record, won a run-off election for a House seat on Tuesday. She is part of the QAnon movement, which loosely believes that a secret group of evil elitists is both running child sex rings and running the world. Referring to her QAnon beliefs, Greene recently said that “there’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take this global cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles out, and I think we have the president to do it.”
Given that she is running in a safe Republican district, she’s expected to win her general election and be seated as a member of Congress next year. And she probably won’t be the only congressional QAnoner: Nearly a dozen Q-aligned candidates are running for Congress.
Without a doubt, there will be more media coverage of this unfortunate phenomenon—especially as President Trump cultivates and coddles these candidates, feeding their addiction to this sick conspiracy theory one tweet at a time. There is a reason we all see the Q signs, flags, and T-shirts at Trump rallies. He’s groomed these people.
If Trump had his way, we’d have a Q Congress. They’d lock Hillary Clinton up, all right.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But let’s talk more about what is considered a safe Republican seat. Because they don’t only exist in Congress. They also exist on conservative editorial boards, at conservative news channels, on some corporate boards, and in all the places that hire Republicans to give voice, influence, and power to traditional GOP positions. As long as they talk the GOP talk, they are safe.
In these safe Republican seats, they’ll support the party no matter what. No matter whom it nominates. No matter what they say or do.
Today, however, these individuals can’t just toe the traditional GOP line. They have to grapple not with Bernie Sanders or AOC but with QAnon and its influence on their own party. Sure, they’d love to fall back into their traditional roles, bashing Democrats’ big tax-and-spend plans, but that ignores the hydroxychroloquine-snorting, Q-friendly elephant in the room.
It’s no coincidence that as the Q movement gains influence, our nation is suffering through a terrible convergence of medical and political disinformation. Conspiracies have consequences. More than 165,000 Americans have died because our leaders thought coronavirus concerns were a “hoax” and a plot designed to hurt the president.
It’s painful to admit, but the most radical elements of online politics have gained a firm foothold in the GOP. President Trump explicitly fused his paranoid political philosophy with Q on Wednesday with his tweet.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is running in a safe Republican seat; there aren’t any Democrats to blame for her ludicrous statements and beliefs. There is no way for Republicans of sound mind to “both sides” their way into supporting her without endorsing Q, as the president did.
So, what are they going to do now? There’s no excusing Q.