thebulwark--2020-09-29--Joe Biden and the Ghost of RBG

Joe Biden and the Ghost of RBG

Joe Biden was waging a smart and impressive campaign focused on Donald Trump ’ s sputtering presidency—until the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg altered its trajectory .
From the beginning , Biden dismissed the risible alarums of the perpetually febrile Democrats whom his braintrust aptly called “ bedwetters.
” Tara Reade ’ s literally incredible story of sexual assault did not bring Biden down .
He did not sell out to Bernie Sanders or , conversely , drive away progressives .
Trump ’ s pandemic-driven domination of the spotlight did not harm Biden ; predictably , it dramatized Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign blew off the foolish suggestion that he prematurely name his cabinet—an action that would have roiled the party and given Trump fresh targets to shoot at .
Even sillier was the condescending notion that Biden duck the debates , which would have fueled Trump ’ s narrative that Biden is too senile to cope with the presidency .
All this nonsense exposes the hysteria which pervades social media , and the rank amateurism of too many commentators whose self-regard swamps their feeble grasp of practical politics .
Sane opponents of Trump can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share a professional disdain for such folly .
As the bedwetters agonized about all those weeks in the basement , Biden fortified his finances ; picked a serviceable running mate ; largely unified the party ; planned a successful convention ; and honed a consistent message rooted in Trump ’ s failure to cope with the pandemic .
Writes Jennifer Rubin : “ For all the caterwauling from Democrats about the Biden campaign ( Not out enough !
Not progressive enough ! )
, this is among the best-run and best-financed campaigns I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credit—if for nothing else , for shutting out the noise of under-informed consultants and disregarding Twitter ’ s self-appointed experts .
It has both harnessed the left and enticed a steady parade of Republicans ( Cindy McCain being the latest ) to back him.
” Biden is speaking to the voters he needs to carry battleground states—including swing voters , disaffected Republicans , and persuadable working-class folks .
He ’ s maintaining the center-left approach which won him the nomination , gently ignoring the entreaties of Bernie Sanders to start campaigning with Alexandria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thanks . )
Acknowledging his weakness among Hispanic voters , he ’ s emphasizing their vulnerability to the coronavirus and a loss of the protections provided by Obamacare .
Given the realities of the pandemic , Biden ’ s campaign is prioritizing phone calls , postcards , texts , and the internet to reach voters wary of organizers knocking on their door .
Biden is accelerating his appearances in the locales that matter most , while personifying responsible leadership by forgoing the large campaign events—so dear to Trump—that could become superspreaders .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself , a decent , sensible , and seasoned guy willing to respond to voters and interviewers in varied settings .
So far Biden , not Trump , is Teflon : Nothing Trump throws at him is sticking—whether socialism , senility , corruption , or his imaginary affinity for looters and rioters .
But now comes a profoundly unwelcome problem for Biden and his party : keeping an incendiary Supreme Court nomination—including the ongoing iconography of Justice Ginsburg—from diverting their campaign into a self-destructive war over cultural issues and court-packing schemes .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By remaining on the Court to suit herself , Ginsburg gambled with its future—and , it turns out , the future of a country that desperately needs Trump gone .
Consider the existential challenge she bequeathed to Democrats : How to confine the damage triggered by her death to a quarter-century of right-wing jurisprudence which guts every principle she stood for .
This is an exceedingly touchy subject—especially among progressive women for whom Ginsburg became a heroic figure .
After Ginsburg ’ s death , journalist Dorothy Samuels emailed Emily Bazelon of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had conducted concerning the ailing justice during the critical period of 2013 and 2014 : “ I was struck by how many people I spoke with , including friends , acquaintances and former clerks , felt she should have resigned at the time and that her staying on was terribly self-centered—a view I share .
.
.
.
I was also struck that normally forceful advocates I spoke with would not express their dismay on the record while she was alive.
” But some did .
In a brave and bracingly unsentimental article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mencimer reprised the tsunami of iconography—including RBG films , yoga mats , water bottles , T-shirts , action figures , magnets , and pins designed to look like her “ dissent collar ” —in which Ginsburg took such obvious pleasure .
“ But no amount of swag or hagiography , ” Mencimer concluded , “ can obscure the fact that .
.
.
her legacy may be sorely tarnished by one truly terrible [ decision ] : refusing to retire when President Barack Obama could have named her replacement .
.
.
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers feared years ago and worked hard to avert .
But the feisty Justice rebuffed them all , a decision that makes all the hero worship hard for some of us to stomach.
” Among those forthright lawyers was Harvard Professor Randall Kennedy , who noted in 2011 that civil rights pioneer Thurgood Marshall ’ s failure to resign despite flagging health resulted in his replacement by the “ most retrograde justice since World War II ” —Clarence Thomas .
Warned Kennedy : “ If Justice Ginsburg departs the Supreme Court with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is probable that the female Thurgood Marshall will be replaced by a female Clarence Thomas.
” Despite serial bouts of cancer , Ginsburg stayed .
In 2014 , the distinguished legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky wrote two opinion pieces urging her to retire .
As he later told Bazelon , “ I feared the Republicans would retake the Senate in November 2014 , and it seemed so unknown what would happen with the presidential election in 2016. .
.
.
If she wanted someone with her values to fill her seat , the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democratic president and Senate .
Obama could have gotten anyone he wanted confirmed at that point.
” Instead of heeding this unassailable reasoning , Ginsburg made her displeasure known .
“ It was certainly conveyed to me , ” Chemerinsky recently said , “ that she was not pleased with those who were suggesting that she retire.
” Indeed , Ginsburg had come to view herself as irreplaceable—and said so .
In the fall of 2014 , she told Elle that “ anybody who thinks that if I step down , Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re misguided.
” By then Ginsburg had a chorus of mostly female enablers who reduced worrying about the grave implications of her tenuous health to a rank act of sexism .
In 2014 , under a remarkable headline proclaiming that “ Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Irreplaceable , ” Slate ’ s Dahlia Lithwick wrote : “ Telling her that her work is awesome , but it ’ s time to move on is tantamount to saying that a liberal is a liberal and that Ginsburg brings nothing to the table that another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was never the point : The worry was about the ideological balance of the Court should a Republican succeed Obama .
And the self-serving insinuation by Ginsburg and her most ardent admirers that Obama could not seat a philosophically compatible successor was blatantly counterfactual .
Twice before 2014 , when control of Congress changed , Obama maintained the Court ’ s status quo by appointing two liberal women—Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—to succeed the retiring liberal Justices Stevens and Souter .
Neither Stevens nor Souter was irreplaceable and , as a practical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how admirable her bristling dissents .
Yet Ginsburg and her acolytes ignored the salient example of her two male colleagues .
In an otherworldly dismissal of reality , Ginsburg during the Obama years told the New York Times : “ There will be a president after this one , and I ’ m hopeful that that president will be a fine president.
” Not so much , it turns out .
But Lithwick called it insulting to suggest that Ginsburg was “ determinedly unaware of the political world she inhabits.
” To this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Isn ’ t the doomsday scenario of a 6- or 7-justice conservative bloc screamingly obvious to her ?
Should any of us really counsel Justice Ginsburg on her major life decisions ?
” How could Ginsburg ’ s enablers truly believe that this was simply a personal “ life decision ” and yet that her continuation on the Court was of such unprecedented importance that no one could ever replace her ?
Inevitably , someone would , and Ginsburg was hardly a solo practitioner defying disease to forestall her dread of retirement .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republic : “ Matters of policy and people ’ s lives are at stake , and , frankly , hurting the feelings of Justice Ginsburg is nowhere near the most important issue about her possible retirement.
” “ In retrospect , ” Mencimer wrote , “ it doesn ’ t seem like a coincidence that the making of Notorious RBG happened at a time when many liberals were begging her to step down.
” Indeed , there was something deeply unserious about the cultish devotion which curdled rightful veneration for a feminist pioneer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political reality which seemed to infantilize otherwise clear-eyed adults .
Trump has demonstrated with brutal celerity that Ginsburg was no more irreplaceable than any mortal—what mattered was who took her place .
As Mencimer admonished two years ago : “ How cute will we find Ginsburg if she becomes incapacitated and Trump replaces her with someone like 46-year-old social conservative Amy Coney Barrett , who believes life begins at conception and doesn ’ t really believe the Supreme Court must uphold precedent like Roe v Wade .
.
.
.
The RBG action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a paltry balm for the damage likely to be done to racial equality , LGBT rights , and reproductive freedoms ” —not to mention , Mencimer could have added , the harm to Dreamers , labor unions , environmental protection , voting rights , the Affordable Care Act , and even , perhaps , the free and fair election that Biden needs to win .
Ginsburg ’ s idolaters may find her replacement an appalling act of lèse-majesté .
But this never should have been about cosseting one ailing octogenarian .
The last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a politically tone-deaf crusade for self-expiation among Ginsburg ’ s most zealous devotees , replete with unpopular court-packing schemes and strident interrogations of Judge Barrett ’ s Catholic faith .
As Anne Applebaum observes in the Atlantic : As it is , the death of Justice Ginsburg has granted Trump a merciful change of subject while shrouding Biden ’ s message .
It also strengthens Mitch McConnell ’ s efforts to maintain control of the Senate .
While a confirmation battle over social issues hurts Cory Gardner in Colorado and Susan Collins in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun rights will likely help endangered Republicans Steve Daines in Montana , David Perdue in Georgia , Thom Tillis in North Carolina , Martha McSally in Arizona , Lindsey Graham in South Carolina , and Joni Ernst in Iowa—all of whom quickly joined the call for an early confirmation for a Ginsburg replacement .
Then there ’ s the problem of Judge Barrett herself .
While from the standpoint of Democrats and their preferred outcomes she ’ s a retrograde jurist , she is also , undeniably , an admirable human being—respected by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mother of seven kids , including two adopted from Haiti and a young son with Down syndrome .
When , during her confirmation hearing for the appellate bench in 2017 , Dianne Feinstein worried aloud that “ the dogma lives loudly within you , ” she offended not only Catholics , but a swath of Americans writ large .
Republicans are openly hoping that Democrats repeat that grievous mistake , alienating potentially pro-Biden constituencies like moderate Catholic suburbanites or culturally conservative Hispanics .
Instead of showboating to dramatize their offense at Ginsburg ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearings , or denying her the courtesy of a personal meeting—Democrats should sharply and soberly question her on areas of broad public concern , like protecting Obamacare , where they enjoy a political advantage .
In short , they should embody a party ready to govern—while secretly hoping that Republicans take Barrett off the table by confirming her before election day .
That ’ s not defeatism , it ’ s reality .
What matters now is winning the presidency and , if possible , the Senate .
It is they , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s direction—and fill the next vacancy on the Court .
Yet again , Biden has it right .
His first statement about Ginsburg ’ s death noted that 200,000 Americans would have likely died from COVID before he finished his remarks .
In a subsequent appearance focused on blue-collar voters he refrained from mentioning Ginsburg at all .
Wisely , he is deferring hot-button issues like expanding the Court until the election is done .
The better part of political wisdom , Biden knows , is to let Justice Ginsburg rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her partisans do as well .

Joe Biden was waging a smart and impressive campaign focused on Donald Trump’s sputtering presidency—until the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg altered its trajectory.
From the beginning, Biden dismissed the risible alarums of the perpetually febrile Democrats whom his braintrust aptly called “bedwetters.” Tara Reade’s literally incredible story of sexual assault did not bring Biden down. He did not sell out to Bernie Sanders or, conversely, drive away progressives. Trump’s pandemic-driven domination of the spotlight did not harm Biden; predictably, it dramatized Trump’s bilious incompetence.
Biden’s campaign blew off the foolish suggestion that he prematurely name his cabinet—an action that would have roiled the party and given Trump fresh targets to shoot at. Even sillier was the condescending notion that Biden duck the debates, which would have fueled Trump’s narrative that Biden is too senile to cope with the presidency.
All this nonsense exposes the hysteria which pervades social media, and the rank amateurism of too many commentators whose self-regard swamps their feeble grasp of practical politics. Sane opponents of Trump can thank God that Biden and his advisers share a professional disdain for such folly.
As the bedwetters agonized about all those weeks in the basement, Biden fortified his finances; picked a serviceable running mate; largely unified the party; planned a successful convention; and honed a consistent message rooted in Trump’s failure to cope with the pandemic. Writes Jennifer Rubin: “For all the caterwauling from Democrats about the Biden campaign (Not out enough! Not progressive enough!), this is among the best-run and best-financed campaigns I have witnessed. The Biden team deserves credit—if for nothing else, for shutting out the noise of under-informed consultants and disregarding Twitter’s self-appointed experts. It has both harnessed the left and enticed a steady parade of Republicans (Cindy McCain being the latest) to back him.”
Biden is speaking to the voters he needs to carry battleground states—including swing voters, disaffected Republicans, and persuadable working-class folks. He’s maintaining the center-left approach which won him the nomination, gently ignoring the entreaties of Bernie Sanders to start campaigning with Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. (Not in Pennsylvania, thanks.) Acknowledging his weakness among Hispanic voters, he’s emphasizing their vulnerability to the coronavirus and a loss of the protections provided by Obamacare.
Given the realities of the pandemic, Biden’s campaign is prioritizing phone calls, postcards, texts, and the internet to reach voters wary of organizers knocking on their door. Biden is accelerating his appearances in the locales that matter most, while personifying responsible leadership by forgoing the large campaign events—so dear to Trump—that could become superspreaders.
Finally, he’s campaigning as himself, a decent, sensible, and seasoned guy willing to respond to voters and interviewers in varied settings. So far Biden, not Trump, is Teflon: Nothing Trump throws at him is sticking—whether socialism, senility, corruption, or his imaginary affinity for looters and rioters.
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 now comes a profoundly unwelcome problem for Biden and his party: keeping an incendiary Supreme Court nomination—including the ongoing iconography of Justice Ginsburg—from diverting their campaign into a self-destructive war over cultural issues and court-packing schemes.
That begins with Democrats owning an unpleasant truth. By remaining on the Court to suit herself, Ginsburg gambled with its future—and, it turns out, the future of a country that desperately needs Trump gone. Consider the existential challenge she bequeathed to Democrats: How to confine the damage triggered by her death to a quarter-century of right-wing jurisprudence which guts every principle she stood for.
This is an exceedingly touchy subject—especially among progressive women for whom Ginsburg became a heroic figure. After Ginsburg’s death, journalist Dorothy Samuels emailed Emily Bazelon of the New York Times about interviews she had conducted concerning the ailing justice during the critical period of 2013 and 2014: “I was struck by how many people I spoke with, including friends, acquaintances and former clerks, felt she should have resigned at the time and that her staying on was terribly self-centered—a view I share. . . . I was also struck that normally forceful advocates I spoke with would not express their dismay on the record while she was alive.”
But some did. In a brave and bracingly unsentimental article for Mother Jones in 2018, Stephanie Mencimer reprised the tsunami of iconography—including RBG films, yoga mats, water bottles, T-shirts, action figures, magnets, and pins designed to look like her “dissent collar”—in which Ginsburg took such obvious pleasure.
“But no amount of swag or hagiography,” Mencimer concluded, “can obscure the fact that . . . her legacy may be sorely tarnished by one truly terrible [decision]: refusing to retire when President Barack Obama could have named her replacement. . . . The situation today is one many liberal lawyers feared years ago and worked hard to avert. But the feisty Justice rebuffed them all, a decision that makes all the hero worship hard for some of us to stomach.”
Among those forthright lawyers was Harvard Professor Randall Kennedy, who noted in 2011 that civil rights pioneer Thurgood Marshall’s failure to resign despite flagging health resulted in his replacement by the “most retrograde justice since World War II”—Clarence Thomas. Warned Kennedy: “If Justice Ginsburg departs the Supreme Court with a Republican in the White House, it is probable that the female Thurgood Marshall will be replaced by a female Clarence Thomas.”
Despite serial bouts of cancer, Ginsburg stayed. In 2014, the distinguished legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky wrote two opinion pieces urging her to retire. As he later told Bazelon, “I feared the Republicans would retake the Senate in November 2014, and it seemed so unknown what would happen with the presidential election in 2016. . . . If she wanted someone with her values to fill her seat, the best assurance was to leave when there was a Democratic president and Senate. Obama could have gotten anyone he wanted confirmed at that point.”
Instead of heeding this unassailable reasoning, Ginsburg made her displeasure known. “It was certainly conveyed to me,” Chemerinsky recently said, “that she was not pleased with those who were suggesting that she retire.”
Indeed, Ginsburg had come to view herself as irreplaceable—and said so. In the fall of 2014, she told Elle that “anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided.”
By then Ginsburg had a chorus of mostly female enablers who reduced worrying about the grave implications of her tenuous health to a rank act of sexism. In 2014, under a remarkable headline proclaiming that “Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Irreplaceable,” Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick wrote: “Telling her that her work is awesome, but it’s time to move on is tantamount to saying that a liberal is a liberal and that Ginsburg brings nothing to the table that another Obama appointee will not replicate.”
But that was never the point: The worry was about the ideological balance of the Court should a Republican succeed Obama. And the self-serving insinuation by Ginsburg and her most ardent admirers that Obama could not seat a philosophically compatible successor was blatantly counterfactual.
Twice before 2014, when control of Congress changed, Obama maintained the Court’s status quo by appointing two liberal women—Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—to succeed the retiring liberal Justices Stevens and Souter. Neither Stevens nor Souter was irreplaceable and, as a practical matter, neither was Justice Ginsburg—no matter how admirable her bristling dissents.
Yet Ginsburg and her acolytes ignored the salient example of her two male colleagues. In an otherworldly dismissal of reality, Ginsburg during the Obama years told the New York Times: “There will be a president after this one, and I’m hopeful that that president will be a fine president.”
Not so much, it turns out. But Lithwick called it insulting to suggest that Ginsburg was “determinedly unaware of the political world she inhabits.” To this she added two contradictory sentences: “Isn’t the doomsday scenario of a 6- or 7-justice conservative bloc screamingly obvious to her? Should any of us really counsel Justice Ginsburg on her major life decisions?”
How could Ginsburg’s enablers truly believe that this was simply a personal “life decision” and yet that her continuation on the Court was of such unprecedented importance that no one could ever replace her?
Inevitably, someone would, and Ginsburg was hardly a solo practitioner defying disease to forestall her dread of retirement. As Isaac Chotiner wrote in the New Republic: “Matters of policy and people’s lives are at stake, and, frankly, hurting the feelings of Justice Ginsburg is nowhere near the most important issue about her possible retirement.”
“In retrospect,” Mencimer wrote, “it doesn’t seem like a coincidence that the making of Notorious RBG happened at a time when many liberals were begging her to step down.” Indeed, there was something deeply unserious about the cultish devotion which curdled rightful veneration for a feminist pioneer into a willful denial of actuarial and political reality which seemed to infantilize otherwise clear-eyed adults. Trump has demonstrated with brutal celerity that Ginsburg was no more irreplaceable than any mortal—what mattered was who took her place.
As Mencimer admonished two years ago: “How cute will we find Ginsburg if she becomes incapacitated and Trump replaces her with someone like 46-year-old social conservative Amy Coney Barrett, who believes life begins at conception and doesn’t really believe the Supreme Court must uphold precedent like Roe v Wade. . . . The RBG action figures and the pushup videos will be a paltry balm for the damage likely to be done to racial equality, LGBT rights, and reproductive freedoms”—not to mention, Mencimer could have added, the harm to Dreamers, labor unions, environmental protection, voting rights, the Affordable Care Act, and even, perhaps, the free and fair election that Biden needs to win.
Ginsburg’s idolaters may find her replacement an appalling act of lèse-majesté. But this never should have been about cosseting one ailing octogenarian.
The last thing the Biden campaign needs now is a politically tone-deaf crusade for self-expiation among Ginsburg’s most zealous devotees, replete with unpopular court-packing schemes and strident interrogations of Judge Barrett’s Catholic faith.
As Anne Applebaum observes in the Atlantic:
Fixating on the Court organizes the electorate along two fronts of a culture war, and forces people to make stark ideological choices. Instead of focusing voters on the president’s failure to control COVID-19 or the consequent economic collapse, the culture war makes voters think only of their deepest tribal identities. . . . Democratic politicians and activists, and even ordinary voters who use social media, should concentrate as much as they can on the tangible issues that people grapple with every day—why their children aren’t in school, why their business has shut down, why their health-care plan is insufficient, why 200,000 people have died—and why the choice of president affects those issues so profoundly.
As it is, the death of Justice Ginsburg has granted Trump a merciful change of subject while shrouding Biden’s message. It also strengthens Mitch McConnell’s efforts to maintain control of the Senate. While a confirmation battle over social issues hurts Cory Gardner in Colorado and Susan Collins in Maine, a fight over abortion and gun rights will likely help endangered Republicans Steve Daines in Montana, David Perdue in Georgia, Thom Tillis in North Carolina, Martha McSally in Arizona, Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, and Joni Ernst in Iowa—all of whom quickly joined the call for an early confirmation for a Ginsburg replacement.
Then there’s the problem of Judge Barrett herself. While from the standpoint of Democrats and their preferred outcomes she’s a retrograde jurist, she is also, undeniably, an admirable human being—respected by colleagues of all ideological stripes, the mother of seven kids, including two adopted from Haiti and a young son with Down syndrome. When, during her confirmation hearing for the appellate bench in 2017, Dianne Feinstein worried aloud that “the dogma lives loudly within you,” she offended not only Catholics, but a swath of Americans writ large.
Republicans are openly hoping that Democrats repeat that grievous mistake, alienating potentially pro-Biden constituencies like moderate Catholic suburbanites or culturally conservative Hispanics. Instead of showboating to dramatize their offense at Ginsburg’s precipitous replacement—boycotting Barrett’s confirmation hearings, or denying her the courtesy of a personal meeting—Democrats should sharply and soberly question her on areas of broad public concern, like protecting Obamacare, where they enjoy a political advantage. In short, they should embody a party ready to govern—while secretly hoping that Republicans take Barrett off the table by confirming her before election day.
That’s not defeatism, it’s reality. What matters now is winning the presidency and, if possible, the Senate. It is they, after all, who can still change the country’s direction—and fill the next vacancy on the Court.
Yet again, Biden has it right. His first statement about Ginsburg’s death noted that 200,000 Americans would have likely died from COVID before he finished his remarks. In a subsequent appearance focused on blue-collar voters he refrained from mentioning Ginsburg at all. Wisely, he is deferring hot-button issues like expanding the Court until the election is done.
The better part of political wisdom, Biden knows, is to let Justice Ginsburg rest in peace. He must hope that her partisans do as well.


thebulwark--2020-09-29--The Most Important Election of Our Lifetimes (Or Not)

For the next six weeks , you are going to be hearing once again , and constantly , that this is the most important election of our lifetime and possibly the last free election we ’ ll ever have .
I ’ ve heard this about every single election I have ever followed : It is the most important ever and democracy itself and even the survival of the country is at stake .
This time around , it comes most recently from Prince Harry and Meghan , the Duke and Duchess of Sussex—because who better to talk about American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us : “ Every four years , we ’ re told , ‘ This is the most important election of our lifetime.
’ But this one is.
” Every election , it seems , is most importanter than the last .
This is always an exaggeration , but it raises an interesting question .
What was the most important presidential election of our lifetimes—and how can we even tell ?
I ’ ll just stick to my lifetime , so the first presidential election I ’ ll be looking at is 1972 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ work with .
As I see it , there are three criteria .
First , what were the big issues , if any , on which the election was fought ?
What did voters believe , from their perspective at the time , they were being asked to decide ?
Second , how uncertain was the outcome ?
To what extent was the answer already a foregone conclusion before Election Day ?
Third , given the advantages of hindsight , what were the actual results of the election ?
That last question is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often turn out to be less important ( and occasionally more important ) than they seem .
For example : 2000 did not strike me as a monumentally consequential election in terms of the big issues .
It was a centrist Republican versus a centrist Democrat , and at the time , the election mostly seemed to be about the Republican Party veering back toward me-too welfare statism in the form of George W. Bush ’ s “ compassionate conservatism.
” The actual significance of the election , of course , was transformed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorist attacks .
Yet , it ’ s not entirely clear how Al Gore would have handled things differently .
We know he acted differently later .
After losing the election , he felt more free to say what he actually thought and not what he felt he was supposed to say .
But while he still harbored presidential ambitions , Gore was much more of a cautious , mainstream politician , so it ’ s hard to guess what he would have done if he had been in office .
My top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are 1972 , 2004 , and 1980 .
1972 was the year the far left crazies made a bid to take over the Democratic Party , with George McGovern as their figurehead .
The American people were asked to make a big choice : embrace or reject the far left .
In retrospect , though , the outcome wasn ’ t that close .
Nixon won in a landslide ; Pauline Kael may not have known anyone who voted for him , yet he won in Manhattan .
While the hippies of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power , they are still struggling to gain dominance in the Democratic Party .
Otherwise , they would have nominated Bernie Sanders .
After winning the election , Nixon squandered all of his advantages , both through a series of big government programs and the Watergate scandal , which managed to get a lot of lefties elected to Congress in 1974 , where they were able to pursue key items in their agenda .
In retrospect , the significance of that election turned out to be much more muddled than it seemed at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue was whether to give the reins of the Iraq War to a guy who entered politics as a scurrilously anti-American , antiwar leftist .
And while George W. Bush had a strong lead for most of the campaign , it got surprisingly close at the end .
As to the results , Iraq went badly for a while after the election , but I ’ m still convinced things would have been much worse under John Kerry .
Bush managed to recover with the “ surge ” in 2007 .
Barack Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iraq later on ( which resulted , temporarily , in the rise of ISIS ) .
But that outcome was almost certainly not as bad as it would have been if President Kerry had withdrawn in 2005 , giving the world a re-enactment of the last helicopter out of Saigon , but from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad .
All of this is debatable , by the way , and involves counterfactual hypotheticals that are inherently uncertain .
So I ’ m not standing by any of this as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a balance of probabilities .
I think like I ’ m on more solid ground in naming the election that was the most important of my lifetime : 1980 .
It gave us the omnishambles of the Carter administration—gasoline shortages , the Iran hostage crisis , double-digit inflation—versus a strong new direction for the Republican Party .
Ronald Reagan had taken up the banner of the hawkish , pro-free-market Barry Goldwater wing of the party , moving away from the Rockefeller wing of “ liberal Republicans.
” As for the uncertainty of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the foregone conclusion it might seem like in retrospect .
Even with Carter floundering badly , Reagan was considered a big risk , and voters broke for him relatively late in the campaign .
The ultimate results were disappointing in a few respects—but spectacular in others .
Reagan never really cut the federal budget , and he passed up his big opportunity to reform Social Security .
But we got some deregulation and tax cuts and a long economic boom , combined with a military buildup that triggered the slow-motion collapse of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was called , re-aligned the Republican Party for more than a generation , largely in a good way .
For nearly 40 years , one major political party considered small government and the defense of individual liberty , including economic freedom , to be central to their stated political agenda .
This is probably the only true , enduring political realignment of the past 50 years .
How about the least consequential elections ?
The 1984 election is a good candidate .
To be sure , it served as a ratification of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t really in doubt .
It was morning again in America , and Mondale was doomed .
Reaganism had already won before a single vote was cast .
Similarly , in hindsight , 2008 was not as significant as we feared at the time .
That ’ s partly because Barack Obama turned out to be a more cautious , mainstream politician than his background suggested .
But it ’ s mostly because , after 2010 , he faced stiff resistance from a Republican Congress emboldened by the Tea Party movement , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda .
Congressional Republicans certainly imposed more limits on government spending under Obama than they have managed under Trump .
Where does that put 2020 ?
Joe Biden does not strike me as likely to be a transformative president if he wins .
Within his party , he represents neither a decisive rejection of the far left nor an embrace of it , but rather an attempt to come to some kind of inoffensive common ground .
His refusal even to comment on packing the Supreme Court is typical ; he has no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is he rushing to condemn it .
Biden seems more likely to be a transitional man , doing little of importance on his own—at best , he is likely to have only a bare majority in Congress—and mostly just setting us up for whoever comes next .
The significance of this election is primarily on the Republican side .
Donald Trump ’ s rise has encouraged a surge of “ nationalist ” conservatism that is anti-capitalist and dismisses the Reagan Revolution as the wave of the past , tainted by an excess of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Zombie Reaganism , ” on the theory that if they assert it has already died , nobody will bother to defend it .
Donald Trump is not a man who deals in theories and big ideas , yet he and this ideological movement have found themselves simpatico .
If Reagan ushered in an ideological realignment of the right , Trump represents a realignment of that realignment , putting the final stake through the heart of Reaganism and replacing it with an illiberal nationalism the outlines of which are still being worked out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back and conclude , in retrospect , that this already happened in 2016 .
Reaganism was already dying—for better and for worse , but mostly for worse—and I ’ m not optimistic it will suddenly spring back to vigorous health if Trump loses in November .
After all , who has the agency to credibly snap back to it after four years of excusing Trumpian nationalism ?
So , yes , you can make the case that this is an important presidential election , probably more important than the average one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some humility about how much we know about what the ultimate outcome will be .
The issues in this election are important enough on their own without having to be overhyped as the one single choice that determined everything about our future .
Thinking that way lets us off the hook when it comes to what really matters .
A single choice made once every four years has never been the determining factor in history .
Elections are never our most important political decisions .
The future of freedom depends a lot more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we do culturally and intellectually , in terms of the basic ideas and arguments that influence the selection of presidential candidates .
So make your best calculations about what you think your vote this fall might accomplish , but also keep your sense of perspective—and make your plans for what you ’ re going to do after the ballots are cast .

For the next six weeks, you are going to be hearing once again, and constantly, that this is the most important election of our lifetime and possibly the last free election we’ll ever have.
I’ve heard this about every single election I have ever followed: It is the most important ever and democracy itself and even the survival of the country is at stake. This time around, it comes most recently from Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex—because who better to talk about American elections than British royals? They tell us: “Every four years, we’re told, ‘This is the most important election of our lifetime.’ But this one is.”
Every election, it seems, is most importanter than the last.
This is always an exaggeration, but it raises an interesting question. What was the most important presidential election of our lifetimes—and how can we even tell?
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…
I’ll just stick to my lifetime, so the first presidential election I’ll be looking at is 1972. That gives us nearly 50 years to work with. As I see it, there are three criteria.
First, what were the big issues, if any, on which the election was fought? What did voters believe, from their perspective at the time, they were being asked to decide?
Second, how uncertain was the outcome? To what extent was the answer already a foregone conclusion before Election Day?
Third, given the advantages of hindsight, what were the actual results of the election?
That last question is probably the most important, because elections often turn out to be less important (and occasionally more important) than they seem. For example: 2000 did not strike me as a monumentally consequential election in terms of the big issues. It was a centrist Republican versus a centrist Democrat, and at the time, the election mostly seemed to be about the Republican Party veering back toward me-too welfare statism in the form of George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism.” The actual significance of the election, of course, was transformed after the fact by the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Yet, it’s not entirely clear how Al Gore would have handled things differently. We know he acted differently later. After losing the election, he felt more free to say what he actually thought and not what he felt he was supposed to say. But while he still harbored presidential ambitions, Gore was much more of a cautious, mainstream politician, so it’s hard to guess what he would have done if he had been in office.
My top three candidates for the most important election are 1972, 2004, and 1980.
1972 was the year the far left crazies made a bid to take over the Democratic Party, with George McGovern as their figurehead. The American people were asked to make a big choice: embrace or reject the far left.
In retrospect, though, the outcome wasn’t that close. Nixon won in a landslide; Pauline Kael may not have known anyone who voted for him, yet he won in Manhattan. While the hippies of the McGovern wing have since gained much more power, they are still struggling to gain dominance in the Democratic Party. Otherwise, they would have nominated Bernie Sanders.
After winning the election, Nixon squandered all of his advantages, both through a series of big government programs and the Watergate scandal, which managed to get a lot of lefties elected to Congress in 1974, where they were able to pursue key items in their agenda. In retrospect, the significance of that election turned out to be much more muddled than it seemed at the time.
In 2004, the issue was whether to give the reins of the Iraq War to a guy who entered politics as a scurrilously anti-American, antiwar leftist. And while George W. Bush had a strong lead for most of the campaign, it got surprisingly close at the end.
As to the results, Iraq went badly for a while after the election, but I’m still convinced things would have been much worse under John Kerry. Bush managed to recover with the “surge” in 2007. Barack Obama did his best to undo any progress in Iraq later on (which resulted, temporarily, in the rise of ISIS). But that outcome was almost certainly not as bad as it would have been if President Kerry had withdrawn in 2005, giving the world a re-enactment of the last helicopter out of Saigon, but from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
All of this is debatable, by the way, and involves counterfactual hypotheticals that are inherently uncertain. So I’m not standing by any of this as the absolute truth; it is merely a balance of probabilities.
I think like I’m on more solid ground in naming the election that was the most important of my lifetime: 1980. It gave us the omnishambles of the Carter administration—gasoline shortages, the Iran hostage crisis, double-digit inflation—versus a strong new direction for the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan had taken up the banner of the hawkish, pro-free-market Barry Goldwater wing of the party, moving away from the Rockefeller wing of “liberal Republicans.”
As for the uncertainty of the outcome, the election was far from the foregone conclusion it might seem like in retrospect. Even with Carter floundering badly, Reagan was considered a big risk, and voters broke for him relatively late in the campaign.
The ultimate results were disappointing in a few respects—but spectacular in others. Reagan never really cut the federal budget, and he passed up his big opportunity to reform Social Security. But we got some deregulation and tax cuts and a long economic boom, combined with a military buildup that triggered the slow-motion collapse of the Soviet empire
The Reagan Revolution, as it was called, re-aligned the Republican Party for more than a generation, largely in a good way. For nearly 40 years, one major political party considered small government and the defense of individual liberty, including economic freedom, to be central to their stated political agenda.
This is probably the only true, enduring political realignment of the past 50 years.
How about the least consequential elections? The 1984 election is a good candidate. To be sure, it served as a ratification of Reaganism, but the outcome wasn’t really in doubt. It was morning again in America, and Mondale was doomed. Reaganism had already won before a single vote was cast.
Similarly, in hindsight, 2008 was not as significant as we feared at the time. That’s partly because Barack Obama turned out to be a more cautious, mainstream politician than his background suggested. But it’s mostly because, after 2010, he faced stiff resistance from a Republican Congress emboldened by the Tea Party movement, which prevented him from pursuing much of his agenda. Congressional Republicans certainly imposed more limits on government spending under Obama than they have managed under Trump.
Where does that put 2020?
Joe Biden does not strike me as likely to be a transformative president if he wins. Within his party, he represents neither a decisive rejection of the far left nor an embrace of it, but rather an attempt to come to some kind of inoffensive common ground. His refusal even to comment on packing the Supreme Court is typical; he has no apparent enthusiasm for the idea, nor is he rushing to condemn it.
Biden seems more likely to be a transitional man, doing little of importance on his own—at best, he is likely to have only a bare majority in Congress—and mostly just setting us up for whoever comes next.
The significance of this election is primarily on the Republican side. Donald Trump’s rise has encouraged a surge of “nationalist” conservatism that is anti-capitalist and dismisses the Reagan Revolution as the wave of the past, tainted by an excess of individualism. They even dismiss it as “Zombie Reaganism,” on the theory that if they assert it has already died, nobody will bother to defend it.
Donald Trump is not a man who deals in theories and big ideas, yet he and this ideological movement have found themselves simpatico. If Reagan ushered in an ideological realignment of the right, Trump represents a realignment of that realignment, putting the final stake through the heart of Reaganism and replacing it with an illiberal nationalism the outlines of which are still being worked out.
Then again, we may look back and conclude, in retrospect, that this already happened in 2016. Reaganism was already dying—for better and for worse, but mostly for worse—and I’m not optimistic it will suddenly spring back to vigorous health if Trump loses in November. After all, who has the agency to credibly snap back to it after four years of excusing Trumpian nationalism?
So, yes, you can make the case that this is an important presidential election, probably more important than the average one of the past 50 years—but we should also show some humility about how much we know about what the ultimate outcome will be. The issues in this election are important enough on their own without having to be overhyped as the one single choice that determined everything about our future.
Thinking that way lets us off the hook when it comes to what really matters. A single choice made once every four years has never been the determining factor in history. Elections are never our most important political decisions. The future of freedom depends a lot more on what we do in between elections—what we do culturally and intellectually, in terms of the basic ideas and arguments that influence the selection of presidential candidates.
So make your best calculations about what you think your vote this fall might accomplish, but also keep your sense of perspective—and make your plans for what you’re going to do after the ballots are cast.


thebulwark--2020-09-29--Reflections Of An Ex-Debate Prepper

Reflections Of An Ex-Debate Prepper

During my years as a political operative , nothing was more enjoyable than preparing a candidate for a debate .
For one thing , it was a chance to give full voice to all of my resentments and dissatisfactions with clients , by throwing them the most hostile questions imaginable .
More broadly , it was a chance to test just how accurately we had understood the political terrain , and the likely strategies and tactics of our opponent .
I took from those years several lessons , which have not lost their salience , and may offer some clues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night .
( 1 ) Concede A Point—Up To a Point .
Candidates acknowledge error with the same frequency as a visit from Haley ’ s Comet .
It ’ s in their nature to explain , contextualize , evade .
But when you know that your opponent , or a moderator , will raise an issue , employ political judo by saying “ Yes.
” Example : Our candidate had put a Congressional aide on the payroll of his brother ’ s oil company .
It was legal , but sketchy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this answer : “ It was wrong , it shouldn ’ t have happened , it won ’ t happen again.
” That ended the controversy .
If—I should say , when—Trump raises the issue of Hunter Biden ’ s work for Burisma , it would do Biden well to say : “ Even though a Republican Senate Committee found nothing illegal , Hunter shouldn ’ t have taken that job.
” If Biden is tempted to talk about the 14 trademarks China granted Ivanka Trump , it would be more effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then say , “ Speaking of family… ” ( 2 ) Less is More .
One of the best features of general election campaign debates is that there are much less rigid time limits than during the multi-candidate primary mash ups .
The downside is that it can tempt a candidate to go on and on and on… a temptation Joe Biden has yielded to throughout his long public life .
Sometimes , a very short answer–a sentence , a couple of words–will throw an opponent , whose assuming there ’ ll be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s his turn–well off his stride .
( 3 ) Pre-Empt Your Opponent ’ s Favorite Lines .
Remember that moment in Patton as the great American general is pounding the German forces in North Africa ?
Patton exclaims , “ Rommel , you magnificent bastard , I read your book !
” Nothing is more likely to discomfit an opponent than hearing his favorite lines in the mouth of the opponent .
If a debater can say “ You claim [ x ] , but the facts are [ y ] ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forgotten [ b ] .
[ c ] .
And [ d ] … ” — it can put the opponent back on his heels and maybe even force him into robotic repetition , as Chris Christie did to Marco Rubio in 2016 .
Now lapsing into repetition might not bother Trump , who is more than happy to repeat the same thought three or four times in a sentence .
But viewers will notice .
And they won ’ t like it .
( 4 ) Try An Occasional Grace Note .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates to praise a quality of their opponent .
The usual answer is to say something nice about the fellow ’ s family .
In the case of the Trump family , that might be challenging .
So Biden would be better off praising the Second Chance Act that gives ex-convicts a path to employment and a better life .
There ’ s also no cost in praising the opening of relations between Israel and some of her neighbors .
( 5 ) Enjoy Yourself—But Not too Much .
For all of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moments , ” debates are usually won by the candidate who seems in command of the room , who can take questions and re-shape them to his own end , and who seems confident in his own skin .
( This was the key to Mitt Romney ’ s performance in his first 2012 debate with President Obama ) .
An occasional turn to humor goes a long way ; but Biden came close to a line back in 2012 with his constant chuckles and smirks when he debated Paul Ryan .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s hard to know what line Biden could cross with Trump , who has said among other things that if Biden wins , ‘ “ there will be no God.
” That ’ s a straight line begging for an answer ) .
( 6 ) It ’ s Much Easier to Know Exactly What To Do in a Debate If You ’ re Not the One Debating .
My old boss , political strategist Dave Garth , used to tell a story about heavyweight champion Rocky Marciano and his trainer Al Weill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell reporters : “ We ’ re gon na jab in the first round ; then we ’ ll work the body in the next couple of rounds ; then we ’ ll hit him with a right… ” When a reporter asked Marciano about all that “ we ” talk , Rocky replied , “ All I know is that when the bell rings , the last thing I see is Al Weill ’ s fat ass going through the ropes .
”

During my years as a political operative, nothing was more enjoyable than preparing a candidate for a debate. For one thing, it was a chance to give full voice to all of my resentments and dissatisfactions with clients, by throwing them the most hostile questions imaginable. More broadly, it was a chance to test just how accurately we had understood the political terrain, and the likely strategies and tactics of our opponent.
I took from those years several lessons, which have not lost their salience, and may offer some clues as to what we might—or should—see Tuesday night.
(Note: I’ve put these as points the Biden camp may want to think about, since the idea of President Trump pursuing a coherent strategy is applicable only on Earth 2.)
(1) Concede A Point—Up To a Point. Candidates acknowledge error with the same frequency as a visit from Halley’s Comet. It’s in their nature to explain, contextualize, evade. But when you know that your opponent, or a moderator, will raise an issue, employ political judo by saying “Yes.”
Not “Yes, but . . .”
Example: Our candidate had put a congressional aide on the payroll of his brother’s oil company. It was legal, but sketchy. After endless push backs, he agreed to this answer: “It was wrong, it shouldn’t have happened, it won’t happen again.” That ended the controversy.
If—I should say, when—Trump raises the issue of Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma, it would do Biden well to say: “Even though a Republican Senate committee found nothing illegal, Hunter shouldn’t have taken that job.”
If Biden is tempted to talk about the 14 trademarks China granted Ivanka Trump, it would be more effective to wait a few moments, and then say, “Speaking of family . . .”
(2) Less is More. One of the best features of general election campaign debates is that there are much less rigid time limits than during the multi-candidate primary mashups. The downside is that it can tempt a candidate to go on and on and on . . . a temptation Joe Biden has yielded to throughout his long public life. Sometimes, a very short answer—a sentence, a couple of words—will throw an opponent, who is assuming there’ll be a minute or so before it’s his turn, well off his stride.
(3) Pre-Empt Your Opponent’s Favorite Lines. Remember that moment in Patton as the great American general is pounding the German forces in North Africa? Patton exclaims, “Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!”
Nothing is more likely to discomfit an opponent than hearing his favorite lines in the mouth of the opponent. If a debater can say “You claim [x], but the facts are [y]; you claim [a] but you forgotten [b], [c], and [d] . . .”—it can put the opponent back on his heels and maybe even force him into robotic repetition, as Chris Christie did to Marco Rubio in 2016.
Now lapsing into repetition might not bother Trump, who is more than happy to repeat the same thought three or four times in a sentence. But viewers will notice. And they won’t like it.
(4) Try An Occasional Grace Note. Often a debate moderator will ask the candidates to praise a quality of their opponent. The usual answer is to say something nice about the fellow’s family.
In the case of the Trump family, that might be challenging. So Biden would be better off praising the Second Chance Act that gives ex-convicts a path to employment and a better life. There’s also no cost in praising the opening of relations between Israel and some of her neighbors.
(5) Enjoy Yourself—But Not too Much. For all of the obsession with “zingers” and “moments,” debates are usually won by the candidate who seems in command of the room, who can take questions and reshape them to his own end, and who seems confident in his own skin. (This was the key to Mitt Romney’s performance in his first 2012 debate with President Obama.)
An occasional turn to humor goes a long way; but Biden came close to a line back in 2012 with his constant chuckles and smirks when he debated Paul Ryan. (On the other hand, it’s hard to know what line Biden could cross with Trump, who has said among other things that if Biden wins, “there will be no God.” That’s a straight line begging for an answer.)
(6) It’s Much Easier to Know Exactly What To Do in a Debate If You’re Not the One Debating. My old boss, political strategist Dave Garth, used to tell a story about heavyweight champion Rocky Marciano and his trainer Al Weill. Before every fight, Weill wold tell reporters: “We’re gonna jab in the first round; then we’ll work the body in the next couple of rounds; then we’ll hit him with a right. . .”
When a reporter asked Marciano about all that “we” talk, Rocky replied, “All I know is that when the bell rings, the last thing I see is Al Weill’s fat ass going through the ropes.”


thebulwark--2020-09-29--Trump Can’t Take Ohio for Granted

Trump Can’t Take Ohio for Granted

Tuesday ’ s debate is being hosted by the Cleveland Clinic , which is appropriate given that COVID-19 deaths have been averaging close to 1,000 a day during the last several weeks .
It ’ s also fitting because polls have Donald Trump and Joe Biden in a dead heat in the state .
And that ’ s because Ohio finds itself in an identity crisis .
The state has far less manufacturing than it used to , is more outbound than inbound in terms of migration , has 4 cities in America ’ s top 20 in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 50 states in job growth .
And all of this has taken place under a Republican governor and legislature , following a sizable 2016 victory in the state for Donald Trump ( he won by 8 points ) , and former governor John Kasich endorsing Biden .
Ohio has not been made great again by Republicans .
Robert Alexander , a professor of political science at Ohio Northern University , says , “ In 2016 it was an anti-Washington election and it still is .
.
.
.
[ T ] he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is now Washington , and we ’ re seeing that as being an issue in Ohio.
” Take the issues facing the Cleveland Clinic itself .
The Cleveland Clinic isn ’ t just single hospital , it ’ s an $ 8 billion , healthcare network which employs more Ohioans than any other business in the state .
It ’ s Cleveland headquarters alone occupies 165 acres of the city .
And it ’ s still expanding , both in Ohio and far , far away .
The Cleveland Clinic is building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Cleveland , as well as a seven-story cancer center in Abu Dhabi , and in two years will open a 185-bed hospital in London .
But what is happening in Cleveland itself is pulling the hospital in different directions .
Cleveland was recently ranked as the nation ’ s most poverty ridden city , yet there exists the perception among Ohioans that the Cleveland Clinic is more concerned with middle-east royal family heart surgery than in treating the poor who live next door to its main campus .
The Cleveland Clinic—like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tension between public policy and private markets .
They want some form of Obamacare but not “ Medicare for All.
” They want the Medicaid and Medicare money , but not too many regulations .
And the voters feel this tension , too : They want benefits , but not higher taxes .
There are other reasons the race has closed in Ohio .
The state ’ s population has gotten older and the household income is still about 10 percent below the national average .
The promises Trump made about more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state and following Governor Kasich ’ s expansion of Medicaid , there are now about 4.4 million Ohioans on Medicare and Medicaid—36 percent of the population And the numbers are especially high in Ohio counties that are rural or suburban , the strongholds where Trump beat Hilary Clinton handily .
Another way to understand a change in Ohio from 2016 to 2020 is to realize not all suburbs are the same .
There are the older suburbs around Cleveland ( with homes built directly after WWII ) , and newer suburbs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ academic researchers , some have more retired auto factory workers .
Some live in 20-year-old huge houses with pools in the back , some live in little 70-year-old homes on postage-stamp sized lots .
In 2016 , Trump had a number of things going for him in Ohio .
The state ’ s electorate was 57 percent non-college white—a dozen points higher than the nation as a whole .
Only 16 percent of Ohio ’ s voters were nonwhite , which was less than the national average .
In 2016 , white Ohioans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 31 percent margin .
The latest polls show him up by only 18 points with this demographic .
In 2016 , college-educated white Ohioans split 50-50 between Trump and Clinton .
Polls show Biden with a +7 edge with this group .
Lake County , just east of Cleveland , is an interesting case study .
The county has a population of 230,000 and is 92 percent white and has seen little growth since 1980 .
Historically , Lake County has been tightly contested .
In 2004 , George W. Bush carried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barack Obama carried it 49-48 .
In 2012 , Lake County flipped to Mitt Romney 49-48 .
Then , in 2016 , Trump beat Clinton in Lake County 55-40 .
This margin shocked pretty much everyone .
And since then , no one has figured out why it changed so drastically .
So was 2016 an outlier in Lake County ?
We ’ ll see .
The average age in Lake County is now 43.7 years ( about 5 years higher than the national average ) .
About 14 percent of Lake County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 13 points , nationally , in 2016 .
But recent polling shows Biden with tremendous strength among seniors .
If that holds in Ohio , then the state is going to be very close .
And the underlying issue matrix is good for Biden .
Most Ohioans did not approve of Trump ’ s handling of the pandemic ( 51 percent to 46 percent ) and 51 percent said they didn ’ t trust information from the president .
And then there are face masks : 78.4 percent Ohioans are in favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worn in public .
It ’ s hard to look at these numbers on the top issue and think that late-deciding voters will break for Trump .
This is not to say that Trump will lose Ohio .
The Democratic power of big cities such as Cleveland and Youngstown has waned in recent decades , partly because of population loss and partly because of the decline in union membership ( half as much now as it was in 1980 ) .
And Trump got a good poll on Monday , with SurveyMonkey showing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent , with jobs and the economy as the top issue followed by health care .
But the aggregate polling also shows Trump is unlikely to have a commanding win here as he did in 2016 .
RealClearPolitics has Biden with a narrow 3.3 point lead with about a month left .
What ’ s interesting is that even as polls have tightened in Ohio and the Biden campaign has started spending money on the airwaves , Trump has been pulling out of the state .
In early summer , Trump spent $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the the polls kept moving against him .
In recent weeks , Trump ’ s campaign cut spending in the state .
In a state like Michigan , this might be seen as a concession that the race was out of reach .
But in Ohio it ’ s probably more of an acknowledgment of reality : If Ohio is so close that Trump has to wage an all-out battle to hold it , then it means he ’ s probably losing so badly everywhere else—Wisconsin , Michigan , Pennsylvania , Arizona @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t help .
In other words : If Trump can ’ t take Ohio for granted , then the race may already be over .

Tuesday’s debate is being hosted by the Cleveland Clinic, which is appropriate given that COVID-19 deaths have been averaging close to 1,000 a day during the last several weeks.
It’s also fitting because polls have Donald Trump and Joe Biden in a dead heat in the state. And that’s because Ohio finds itself in an identity crisis.
The state has far less manufacturing than it used to, is more outbound than inbound in terms of migration, has 4 cities in America’s top 20 in terms of poverty, and is ranked 40th of the 50 states in job growth.
And all of this has taken place under a Republican governor and legislature, following a sizable 2016 victory in the state for Donald Trump (he won by 8 points), and former governor John Kasich endorsing Biden. Ohio has not been made great again by Republicans.
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…
Robert Alexander, a professor of political science at Ohio Northern University, says, “In 2016 it was an anti-Washington election and it still is. . . . [T]he primary problem for Trump now is that he is now Washington, and we’re seeing that as being an issue in Ohio.”
Take the issues facing the Cleveland Clinic itself. The Cleveland Clinic isn’t just single hospital, it’s an $8 billion, healthcare network which employs more Ohioans than any other business in the state. It’s Cleveland headquarters alone occupies 165 acres of the city.
And it’s still expanding, both in Ohio and far, far away. The Cleveland Clinic is building a new hospital in the suburbs east of Cleveland, as well as a seven-story cancer center in Abu Dhabi, and in two years will open a 185-bed hospital in London.
But what is happening in Cleveland itself is pulling the hospital in different directions.
Cleveland was recently ranked as the nation’s most poverty ridden city, yet there exists the perception among Ohioans that the Cleveland Clinic is more concerned with middle-east royal family heart surgery than in treating the poor who live next door to its main campus.
The Cleveland Clinic—like the rest of the healthcare sector—is caught in the tension between public policy and private markets. They want some form of Obamacare but not “Medicare for All.” They want the Medicaid and Medicare money, but not too many regulations.
And the voters feel this tension, too: They want benefits, but not higher taxes.
There are other reasons the race has closed in Ohio. The state’s population has gotten older and the household income is still about 10 percent below the national average. The promises Trump made about more manufacturing jobs haven’t been kept in the state and following Governor Kasich’s expansion of Medicaid, there are now about 4.4 million Ohioans on Medicare and Medicaid—36 percent of the population
And the numbers are especially high in Ohio counties that are rural or suburban, the strongholds where Trump beat Hilary Clinton handily.
Another way to understand a change in Ohio from 2016 to 2020 is to realize not all suburbs are the same. There are the older suburbs around Cleveland (with homes built directly after WWII), and newer suburbs around Columbus. Some have more foreign-born academic researchers, some have more retired auto factory workers. Some live in 20-year-old huge houses with pools in the back, some live in little 70-year-old homes on postage-stamp sized lots.
In 2016, Trump had a number of things going for him in Ohio. The state’s electorate was 57 percent non-college white—a dozen points higher than the nation as a whole. Only 16 percent of Ohio’s voters were nonwhite, which was less than the national average.
In 2016, white Ohioans without a college degree picked Trump by a 31 percent margin. The latest polls show him up by only 18 points with this demographic.
In 2016, college-educated white Ohioans split 50-50 between Trump and Clinton. Polls show Biden with a +7 edge with this group.
Lake County, just east of Cleveland, is an interesting case study.
The county has a population of 230,000 and is 92 percent white and has seen little growth since 1980.
Historically, Lake County has been tightly contested. In 2004, George W. Bush carried Lake County 51-48. In 2008, Barack Obama carried it 49-48. In 2012, Lake County flipped to Mitt Romney 49-48.
Then, in 2016, Trump beat Clinton in Lake County 55-40. This margin shocked pretty much everyone. And since then, no one has figured out why it changed so drastically.
So was 2016 an outlier in Lake County?
We’ll see. The average age in Lake County is now 43.7 years (about 5 years higher than the national average). About 14 percent of Lake County is over 65 and Trump won seniors by 13 points, nationally, in 2016.
But recent polling shows Biden with tremendous strength among seniors. If that holds in Ohio, then the state is going to be very close.
And the underlying issue matrix is good for Biden. Most Ohioans did not approve of Trump’s handling of the pandemic (51 percent to 46 percent) and 51 percent said they didn’t trust information from the president.
And then there are face masks: 78.4 percent Ohioans are in favor of the state regulation that facemasks be worn in public. It’s hard to look at these numbers on the top issue and think that late-deciding voters will break for Trump.
This is not to say that Trump will lose Ohio. The Democratic power of big cities such as Cleveland and Youngstown has waned in recent decades, partly because of population loss and partly because of the decline in union membership (half as much now as it was in 1980).
And Trump got a good poll on Monday, with SurveyMonkey showing him up by 51 percent to 47 percent, with jobs and the economy as the top issue followed by health care.
But the aggregate polling also shows Trump is unlikely to have a commanding win here as he did in 2016. RealClearPolitics has Biden with a narrow 3.3 point lead with about a month left.
What’s interesting is that even as polls have tightened in Ohio and the Biden campaign has started spending money on the airwaves, Trump has been pulling out of the state. In early summer, Trump spent $18 million on ads in Ohio, but the the polls kept moving against him. In recent weeks, Trump’s campaign cut spending in the state.
In a state like Michigan, this might be seen as a concession that the race was out of reach.
But in Ohio it’s probably more of an acknowledgment of reality: If Ohio is so close that Trump has to wage an all-out battle to hold it, then it means he’s probably losing so badly everywhere else—Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, North Carolina—that a victory in Ohio won’t help.
In other words: If Trump can’t take Ohio for granted, then the race may already be over.


thebulwark--2020-09-29--Reflections of an Ex-Debate Prepper

Reflections of an Ex-Debate Prepper

During my years as a political operative , nothing was more enjoyable than preparing a candidate for a debate .
For one thing , it was a chance to give full voice to all of my resentments and dissatisfactions with clients , by throwing them the most hostile questions imaginable .
More broadly , it was a chance to test just how accurately we had understood the political terrain , and the likely strategies and tactics of our opponent .
I took from those years several lessons , which have not lost their salience , and may offer some clues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night .
( 1 ) Concede A Point—Up To a Point .
Candidates acknowledge error with the same frequency as a visit from Halley ’ s Comet .
It ’ s in their nature to explain , contextualize , evade .
But when you know that your opponent , or a moderator , will raise an issue , employ political judo by saying “ Yes.
” Example : Our candidate had put a congressional aide on the payroll of his brother ’ s oil company .
It was legal , but sketchy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this answer : “ It was wrong , it shouldn ’ t have happened , it won ’ t happen again.
” That ended the controversy .
If—I should say , when—Trump raises the issue of Hunter Biden ’ s work for Burisma , it would do Biden well to say : “ Even though a Republican Senate committee found nothing illegal , Hunter shouldn ’ t have taken that job.
” If Biden is tempted to talk about the 14 trademarks China granted Ivanka Trump , it would be more effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then say , “ Speaking of family .
.
.
” ( 2 ) Less is More .
One of the best features of general election campaign debates is that there are much less rigid time limits than during the multi-candidate primary mashups .
The downside is that it can tempt a candidate to go on and on and on .
.
.
a temptation Joe Biden has yielded to throughout his long public life .
Sometimes , a very short answer—a sentence , a couple of words—will throw an opponent , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minute or so before it ’ s his turn , well off his stride .
( 3 ) Pre-Empt Your Opponent ’ s Favorite Lines .
Remember that moment in Patton as the great American general is pounding the German forces in North Africa ?
Patton exclaims , “ Rommel , you magnificent bastard , I read your book !
” Nothing is more likely to discomfit an opponent than hearing his favorite lines in the mouth of the opponent .
If a debater can say “ You claim [ x ] , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; you claim [ a ] but you forgotten [ b ] , [ c ] , and [ d ] .
.
.
” —it can put the opponent back on his heels and maybe even force him into robotic repetition , as Chris Christie did to Marco Rubio in 2016 .
Now lapsing into repetition might not bother Trump , who is more than happy to repeat the same thought three or four times in a sentence .
But viewers will notice .
And they won ’ t like it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Note .
Often a debate moderator will ask the candidates to praise a quality of their opponent .
The usual answer is to say something nice about the fellow ’ s family .
In the case of the Trump family , that might be challenging .
So Biden would be better off praising the Second Chance Act that gives ex-convicts a path to employment and a better life .
There ’ s also no cost in praising the opening of relations between Israel and some of her neighbors .
An occasional turn to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden came close to a line back in 2012 with his constant chuckles and smirks when he debated Paul Ryan .
( On the other hand , it ’ s hard to know what line Biden could cross with Trump , who has said among other things that if Biden wins , “ there will be no God.
” That ’ s a straight line begging for an answer . )
( 6 ) It ’ s Much Easier to Know Exactly What To Do in a Debate If You ’ re Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , political strategist Dave Garth , used to tell a story about heavyweight champion Rocky Marciano and his trainer Al Weill .
Before every fight , Weill wold tell reporters : “ We ’ re gon na jab in the first round ; then we ’ ll work the body in the next couple of rounds ; then we ’ ll hit him with a right .
.
.
” When a reporter asked Marciano about all that “ we ” talk , Rocky replied , “ All I know is that when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I see is Al Weill ’ s fat ass going through the ropes .
”


thebulwark--2020-09-30--The World’s Brokest “Billionaire”

The World’s Brokest “Billionaire”

Seated at the breakfast table , scanning the New York Times story on Trump ’ s taxes , I said to my husband , “ We have a greater net worth than Donald Trump.
” He knitted his brow .
I was thinking of a story that Samantha Bee found a while back .
It was from the 2003 documentary Born Rich , in which Ivanka Trump shared this memory of the family ’ s financial troubles from the 1980s and 1990s : I remember once my father and I were walking down Fifth Avenue and there was a homeless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I remember my father pointing to him and saying , ‘ You know , that guy has $ 8 billion more than me , ’ because he was in such extreme debt at that point , you know ?
In 2020 , despite the dazzling success of The Apprentice , in which NBC was able to portray the failing and flailing trust fund boy as a business genius and earned Trump the first real money of his life ( apart from his inheritance ) , Trump again seems to be worth less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at least in financial terms .
The New York Times reporting suggests that Donald Trump owes something like $ 400 million to creditors .
Much of that debt—personally guaranteed by Trump—is coming due in the next four years .
Pause on the irony : Only by pretending to be a successful business tycoon on TV did Trump actually achieve business success—to the tune of $ 427 million ( including licensing deals ) .
Yet , even with a windfall like that , he managed to lose it , and is facing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And pause for a minute on this coincidence : $ 400 million ( in today ’ s dollars ) is almost exactly the amount he is said to have inherited from his father .
Trump always characterized this as a “ small loan of a million dollars.
” Had he merely invested that fortune in a stock index fund , he would be worth upwards of $ 30 billion today .
Instead , he invested in a series of flamboyant flops : Trump steaks , Trump vodka , Trump airlines , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump the boardgame , Trump mortgage , Trump University , and on and on .
Did he have successes ?
Sure , his books hawking his pretend business skills were best-sellers .
The Miss Universe pageant in Moscow earned him a couple million .
Some of his real estate investments continue to throw off income .
But it ’ s significant that his most sound investments are in properties owned and managed by others .
With Trump calling the shots and making the executive decisions , the ventures that haven ’ t already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Insert moral for the nation here .
But surely , the average Fox News watcher must be asking , a titan with his assets shouldn ’ t have any trouble paying off those loans , right ?
The Times stories haven ’ t shed light on his net worth .
He may have properties he can sell .
But it appears that most of his assets are golf courses and resorts that are being hammered by coronavirus .
On net , Mar-a-Lago , Doral , Turnberry , the Trump International Hotel in D.C. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money than they have generated over the past decade—even before the virus struck .
That ’ s why he has paid no income taxes in forever .
Now the question that arises after every Trump revelation : Will it matter ?
Will it affect Trump ’ s image at all ?
Hard to say .
The Trump fan base is unlike anything I ’ ve seen in more than 30 years of observing American politics .
But I venture to say that this is not like the Stormy Daniels payoff .
With a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump weren ’ t misled into thinking he was a good or even a minimally decent man .
They knew what he was and gave their assent .
He delivered the judges and policies they liked , and no revelation about his character will alter the contours of that bargain .
Build the wall fanatics will not be swayed either—even though they didn ’ t collect on their side of the deal .
Their attachment to Trump has hardened since 2016 into something like worship , and they will accept it if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news .
Trump has made exactly this accusation , while also claiming that the Times obtained their information illegally .
As Sarah Isgur pointed out , it ’ s logically impossible for the White House spin to be true .
It can ’ t be both fake and a legal violation .
If it ’ s a made up story , then no one broke any laws .
It ’ s only a legal violation if these are indeed his tax returns—and it would be the leaker , not the New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People whose driving motive is fear and loathing of the left will not stumble over this news either , even if they have to convince themselves that Joe Biden is secretly taking orders from Raul Castro .
But there are other voters for whom the image of Trump as successful was key to his appeal .
A 2019 survey found that 54 percent of Americans believed Donald Trump had been a business success .
Other polls conducted between 2016 and 2018 found that many Americans were unaware that Trump was not self-made .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 5 point boost in his popularity according to one study .
Beyond admiration for what they mistakenly thought was business acumen , many were taken with the idea that because Trump was so rich , he was incorruptible .
“ He has so much money but he ’ s waking up every morning to campaign .
He deeply cares about America , ” John Friedlander of Washington , D.C. explained to the BBC in 2016 .
A voter from Pennsylvania said , “ I believe Trump will be a good president because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deals that will make America prosperous again.
” Many agreed with Trump ’ s own claim that he was so rich he couldn ’ t be bought .
In her focus groups with women who voted for Trump in 2016 , Sarah Longwell often hears that his image as a mega-successful businessman was a key reason they pulled the lever for him ( second only to disliking Hillary Clinton ) .
Now what ?
If Trump were to be reelected , he would face a reckoning on a mountain of debt .
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be bought , he may well be too poor to turn anyone away .
Doubtless , there would be sovereign wealth funds from places like Qatar and oligarchs from precincts like Russia and China who would be ready , in exchange for favorable U.S. policies , to help Trump retire that debt .
Because Trump has been so dishonest and so opaque about his business dealings , the American people might never know what was exchanged .
Trump speaks to Putin frequently , and permits no notes .
No person with even a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be granted a security clearance in the U.S. government .
Mark Zaid , a lawyer who represents many in the national security field , recounts that one client was denied a clearance due to excess student loan debt .
There are voters out there who voted for Trump once but are not now and never were part of the Trump cult .
Because they gave their support provisionally , they have no emotional investment in proving that they were right and the Trump critics were wrong .
How many are there ?
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a small percentage could make all the difference .

Seated at the breakfast table, scanning the New York Times story on Trump’s taxes, I said to my husband, “We have a greater net worth than Donald Trump.” He knitted his brow.
I was thinking of a story that Samantha Bee found a while back. It was from the 2003 documentary Born Rich, in which Ivanka Trump shared this memory of the family’s financial troubles from the 1980s and 1990s:
I remember once my father and I were walking down Fifth Avenue and there was a homeless person sitting right outside of Trump Tower and I remember my father pointing to him and saying, ‘You know, that guy has $8 billion more than me,’ because he was in such extreme debt at that point, you know?
In 2020, despite the dazzling success of The Apprentice, in which NBC was able to portray the failing and flailing trust fund boy as a business genius and earned Trump the first real money of his life (apart from his inheritance), Trump again seems to be worth less than the homeless guy on the street, at least in financial terms.
The New York Times reporting suggests that Donald Trump owes something like $400 million to creditors. Much of that debt—personally guaranteed by Trump—is coming due in the next four years. Pause on the irony: Only by pretending to be a successful business tycoon on TV did Trump actually achieve business success—to the tune of $427 million (including licensing deals). Yet, even with a windfall like that, he managed to lose it, and is facing a serious financial crisis in the near future. And pause for a minute on this coincidence: $400 million (in today’s dollars) is almost exactly the amount he is said to have inherited from his father. Trump always characterized this as a “small loan of a million dollars.” Had he merely invested that fortune in a stock index fund, he would be worth upwards of $30 billion today.
Instead, he invested in a series of flamboyant flops: Trump steaks, Trump vodka, Trump airlines, the Trump Taj Mahal, Trump magazine, Trump the boardgame, Trump mortgage, Trump University, and on and on. Did he have successes? Sure, his books hawking his pretend business skills were best-sellers. The Miss Universe pageant in Moscow earned him a couple million. Some of his real estate investments continue to throw off income. But it’s significant that his most sound investments are in properties owned and managed by others.
With Trump calling the shots and making the executive decisions, the ventures that haven’t already gone belly up are hemorrhaging cash. Insert moral for the nation here.
But surely, the average Fox News watcher must be asking, a titan with his assets shouldn’t have any trouble paying off those loans, right? The Times stories haven’t shed light on his net worth. He may have properties he can sell. But it appears that most of his assets are golf courses and resorts that are being hammered by coronavirus. On net, Mar-a-Lago, Doral, Turnberry, the Trump International Hotel in D.C., and others have lost vastly more money than they have generated over the past decade—even before the virus struck. That’s why he has paid no income taxes in forever.
Now the question that arises after every Trump revelation: Will it matter? Will it affect Trump’s image at all? Hard to say. The Trump fan base is unlike anything I’ve seen in more than 30 years of observing American politics. But I venture to say that this is not like the Stormy Daniels payoff. With a few exceptions, the Christians who supported Trump weren’t misled into thinking he was a good or even a minimally decent man. They knew what he was and gave their assent. He delivered the judges and policies they liked, and no revelation about his character will alter the contours of that bargain.
Build the wall fanatics will not be swayed either—even though they didn’t collect on their side of the deal. Their attachment to Trump has hardened since 2016 into something like worship, and they will accept it if he tells them the Times story is fake news.
Trump has made exactly this accusation, while also claiming that the Times obtained their information illegally. As Sarah Isgur pointed out, it’s logically impossible for the White House spin to be true. It can’t be both fake and a legal violation. If it’s a made up story, then no one broke any laws. It’s only a legal violation if these are indeed his tax returns—and it would be the leaker, not the New York Times, that would be potentially liable.
People whose driving motive is fear and loathing of the left will not stumble over this news either, even if they have to convince themselves that Joe Biden is secretly taking orders from Raul Castro.
But there are other voters for whom the image of Trump as successful was key to his appeal. A 2019 survey found that 54 percent of Americans believed Donald Trump had been a business success. Other polls conducted between 2016 and 2018 found that many Americans were unaware that Trump was not self-made. Belief in his up-by-the-bootstraps myth accounted for a 5 point boost in his popularity according to one study.
Beyond admiration for what they mistakenly thought was business acumen, many were taken with the idea that because Trump was so rich, he was incorruptible. “He has so much money but he’s waking up every morning to campaign. He deeply cares about America,” John Friedlander of Washington, D.C. explained to the BBC in 2016. A voter from Pennsylvania said, “I believe Trump will be a good president because he knows how to make deals, deals that will make America prosperous again.” Many agreed with Trump’s own claim that he was so rich he couldn’t be bought. In her focus groups with women who voted for Trump in 2016, Sarah Longwell often hears that his image as a mega-successful businessman was a key reason they pulled the lever for him (second only to disliking Hillary Clinton).
Now what? If Trump were to be reelected, he would face a reckoning on a mountain of debt. Not only is he not too rich to be bought, he may well be too poor to turn anyone away. Doubtless, there would be sovereign wealth funds from places like Qatar and oligarchs from precincts like Russia and China who would be ready, in exchange for favorable U.S. policies, to help Trump retire that debt. Because Trump has been so dishonest and so opaque about his business dealings, the American people might never know what was exchanged. Trump speaks to Putin frequently, and permits no notes.
No person with even a fraction of Trump’s indebtedness would be granted a security clearance in the U.S. government. Mark Zaid, a lawyer who represents many in the national security field, recounts that one client was denied a clearance due to excess student loan debt.
There are voters out there who voted for Trump once but are not now and never were part of the Trump cult. Because they gave their support provisionally, they have no emotional investment in proving that they were right and the Trump critics were wrong. How many are there? We are about to find out. Even a small percentage could make all the difference.


No More Debates

What a spectacle .
What an embarrassment .
What a disgrace .
Yes , some observers can criticize Chris Wallace ’ s performance as moderator .
Others can point out that Joe Biden wasn ’ t always as quick or as sharp as he might have been .
But let ’ s not fall into the trap of some sort of fake even-handedness .
Tuesday ’ s debate in Cleveland was a disgrace because of the behavior of one man , Donald Trump .
The interrupting and the bullying , the absence of both decency and dignity—those were Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and they gave the affair the rare and sickening character of a national humiliation .
There should be no more “ debates.
” For the sake of the country , Joe Biden should refuse to appear again on the same stage as Donald Trump .
Biden can have weekly or twice weekly town halls , including with Trump supporters .
He can do all manner of interviews and forums .
He can make clear he ’ s happy to engage with the American public in all kinds of ways .
But he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordeal like that .
Let Tuesday night have been Trump ’ s final , disreputable appearance on a nationally televised stage .
Let him conduct the rest of his campaign desperately yelling to crowds of true believers as his defeat grows ever nearer .
As for the debate ’ s effect on the horse race , I suspect Biden ended up benefitting .
Trump was surely off-putting to any but those true believers who were already for him .
So the odds of a Trump comeback are , I would judge , lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden supporters should welcome this result .
But Americans of all stripes should be ashamed of what we saw—what the world saw—on Tuesday night .
But that he will have been our 45th president is our shame as a nation .

What a spectacle. What an embarrassment. What a disgrace.
Yes, some observers can criticize Chris Wallace’s performance as moderator. Others can point out that Joe Biden wasn’t always as quick or as sharp as he might have been. But let’s not fall into the trap of some sort of fake even-handedness.
Tuesday’s debate in Cleveland was a disgrace because of the behavior of one man, Donald Trump. The interrupting and the bullying, the absence of both decency and dignity—those were Donald Trump’s distinctive contributions to the evening, and they gave the affair the rare and sickening character of a national humiliation.
There should be no more “debates.” For the sake of the country, Joe Biden should refuse to appear again on the same stage as Donald Trump. Biden can have weekly or twice weekly town halls, including with Trump supporters. He can do all manner of interviews and forums. He can make clear he’s happy to engage with the American public in all kinds of ways. But he should not put the nation through another ordeal like that.
Let Tuesday night have been Trump’s final, disreputable appearance on a nationally televised stage. Let him conduct the rest of his campaign desperately yelling to crowds of true believers as his defeat grows ever nearer.
As for the debate’s effect on the horse race, I suspect Biden ended up benefitting. Trump was surely off-putting to any but those true believers who were already for him. So the odds of a Trump comeback are, I would judge, lower now than they have ever been.
Biden supporters should welcome this result. But Americans of all stripes should be ashamed of what we saw—what the world saw—on Tuesday night.
Donald Trump is a shameful figure.
But that he will have been our 45th president is our shame as a nation.