I want to believe there are institutional guardrails to control Trump should he be elected. But I just don't believe it. Supreme Ct in his pocket, Congress bends to his will, appointment of like-minded individuals who will bend the rails until they break. Even with a Dem House, I think he can do great harm that will be difficult if not impossible to recover from.
With all due respect, I think you're slightly naive to assume Trump wouldn't push through several of his bad ideas. The fact he's been able to literally transform the GOP into a party that several Republicans no longer identify with prove you wrong. I think Trump himself is a charlatan that exposed a weakness in a party. He's using them as a means to an end. The problem is he has given a voice to those that once spewed their hate in the darkness and pushed them into the light. He'll surround himself with loyalists and if his campaign is any indicator, they won't be respectable keep the greater needs of all citizens in mind kinda folks. I rather not take the chance.
I didn't say he wouldn't push through some of his ideas! I said he would! But there's a BIG difference between that and believing electing Trump is the end of democracy.
I'm fairly young in my political experience (36, that's still young right?) Point I'm trying to make, I've only had three presidential experiences since I was old enough to vote. Therefore, I fully understand that I don't have a ton of reference to back up reassurances I'm given that a person can't just end democracy. It seems like if anyone has had an opportunity, Trump has certainly pushed that bar. I hope to your point that bar is reinforced well enough. I know you're teaching a class right now. I'm curious if you notice a similar vein of concern flowing through your classroom that you within your own tenure feel more grounded in, and if so, have you found messaging that communicates assurance to them?
"But when the WaPo runs a story this week quoting the presidents of Columbia Sportsware, Auto Zone and Stanley Black and Decker stating they will be passing the Trump Tariffs onto consumers it gets no traction. Why?" Chris was given an opportunity, apparently, to take one of his patented cheap shots at President Biden and, by golly, he did it! But the above quotation was the thrust of the question and, by golly, Chris ignored it. Pardon my sarcasm. And I think Chris is more than a bit naive to think Trump won't try and try and try to carry out many of the horrible threats he has been making.
Thanks--I asked the question. I think Chris missed a point to respond to the real issue, the media is missing the story. In fact, no matter what network you turn on, the story was Biden and the garbage comment. The mainstream media seems to have moved away from issues over the last two weeks of the campaign. When the presidents of consumer goods companies basically state if you charge tariffs we will charge American consumers for the cost that's the closing issue. Yet, there's no traction anywhere.
Totally agree! When economists say tariffs will wreck the economy, Trump just says they don't know what they're talking about, and his base loves it. But it's another thing entirely when the heads of large, popular companies state that they will be passing the cost of tariffs along to their customers. So why isn't this bigger news? Seems like yet another missed opportunity by the media to inform voters thay Trump's economic plans will hurt average Americans.
Chris I suspect you misread my comment. I advocate boycotting PRIME and not the Washington Post which hurts no one but those of us who read the Post. But unsubscribing to Prime would get Bezos' attention.
Thanks for answering my question about Trump's threat to democracy, Chris. I wish I could share your optimism 😔. I just pray we never have to find out who's right.
"Know who you ARE hurting when you unsubscribe? The very journalists that you should be supporting! The people doing the hard accountability and investigative work that other organizations aren’t doing!"
The main number one reason I have not canceled my subscription to the Washington Post. I moved to Washington, D.C. in 1972, and immediately subscribed to the Post. I left D.C. in 2014 and moved to California and then moved to Northwest Arkansas in 2018. The entire time I have been a Post subscriber. After 52 years of reading the Post, I could not simply stop because the owner of the Post made a decision in 2024 not to endorse a candidate for president.
That -- to me -- was something the Post should have done many years ago. Yes, I don't like the fact he did it 11 days before the election, but I do feel it was something that they should never have done.
Anyway, I'll continue to subscribe to the Post, to five or six writers on Substack (especially yours), and to The New York Times.
Reporters are an important, vital part of informing Americans of what's going on. I can't see hurting them while Jeff Bezos won't give a damn whether or not he gets another penny from me.
I unsubscribed a few months back, when it became totally obvious that WaPo, like the NYT, we’re failing in their responsibilities to report accurately and with fairness. Their endlessly giving a pass to Trump’s thoroughly disturbing behavior, sanewashing his bizarre and offensive remarks with obvious clickbait headlines, but holding both Harris and Walz to a higher standard proved to me that I could no longer trust what I was reading.
Loss of revenue for Bezos never factored in to my decision back then, and I would agree with Chris (I know, it’s weird 😉) that WaPo is less than a rounding error to his wealth. But editorial management needs to be held responsible for their decisions on every day reporting, regardless of of what the Op-Ed people do or don’t do.
I pay for subscriptions to 7 or 8 excellent writers here on Substack (Bulwark, Jay Kuo, Dan Pfeiffer, Dan Rather, Joyce Vance, Heather Cox Richardson, Scott Dworkin, etc.), as well as subscriptions to digital magazines like Daily Beast, etc., so I’m “invested” in the new media business model!
Haley is toast. Like every other Republican without a spine, she bent the knee and endorsed Trump. She's shown herself to be another pol without a core.
Disagree. Haley is nowhere near Trumpy enough for the party of MAGA. Remember, this is NOT the GOP we all grew up with. This is a whole new animal, and it's not going away even if Trump does.
The “both sides” MSM mindset rears its ugly head on the “garbage” fake scandal.
Sorry, Chris, “The sitting president of the Untied States [DID NOT] potentially referring to roughly half the country as “garbage” for backing the GOP nominee for president”
The context, actual words, and easy to glean INTENT is crystal clear! President Biden was talking about the racist, bigoted, vulgar “comedian” in his unequivocal and plain as day insult to Puerto Rico and by extension ALL Latinos and NOT “roughly half the country as “garbage” for backing the GOP nominee for president”
No honest observer with integrity can say any differently with any credibility.
One has to be deep into the Trump cult to try and spin it otherwise.
This is ANOTHER example when the “media” legitimizes an absurd premise brought on by the hypocritical and dishonest GOP.
Worse yet, is the brushing aside as a “play the “what about” game” that accurately points out the undeniable reality that “Trump has said about his political opponents”.
It’s NOT a “game, nor is it “two-wrongs-make-a-right philosophy”.
There is NO credible equivalence of Biden NOT saying that all Trump supporters are “garbage” (which he DID NOT), which he clarified the same day...and the actual Dem candidate for president disavowing ANY rhetoric like that and what Trump says multiple times every single day.
The reality is that Trump has not just “said things as bad or worse”. Saying ridiculous obscene, vulgar, racist, sexist demagoguery and lies are the HEART and SOUL Of the whole Trump campaign.
This is like comparing a guy who was driving 64 MPH in a 65 MPH road and getting ticketed (falsely) driving 66 MPH compared to another person committing a mass murder with an AR, attempting to spin a false equivalence in that both people “broke the law”
Chris, if Kamala loses, there's no self-reflection that she or the DNC can do to improve their chances in future elections. If she, a perfectly normal candidate, loses to a vulgar, vindictive, amoral man with racist and misogynistic tendencies, it's because that's what half of Americans want and deserve, and there's nothing the Democratic party can do to change that.
Are political candidates immune from prosecution if they issue death threats? Particularly if followers are known to be triggered and respond using their own weapons. Would a prosecution by a state AG in response be politically damaging? And is that because following the law during an election is a partisan act or because the sectarian nature of Americans renders what is right and wrong a political question?
Small quibble with the polling vs blood sampling analogy. Try as they might, pollsters have not solved the issue of politically disengaged voters, who may not turn out in mid-terms (which polling seems to capture with greater accuracy). The disengaged voters seem more likely to vote in the presidential elections yet are not selected/don't engage for polls. When blood is drawn, proteins, vitamin deficiencies, many diseases or infections blood tests are designed to detect, etc, cannot self-select.
I want to believe there are institutional guardrails to control Trump should he be elected. But I just don't believe it. Supreme Ct in his pocket, Congress bends to his will, appointment of like-minded individuals who will bend the rails until they break. Even with a Dem House, I think he can do great harm that will be difficult if not impossible to recover from.
Yeah, I tend to agree with you, Sue.
With all due respect, I think you're slightly naive to assume Trump wouldn't push through several of his bad ideas. The fact he's been able to literally transform the GOP into a party that several Republicans no longer identify with prove you wrong. I think Trump himself is a charlatan that exposed a weakness in a party. He's using them as a means to an end. The problem is he has given a voice to those that once spewed their hate in the darkness and pushed them into the light. He'll surround himself with loyalists and if his campaign is any indicator, they won't be respectable keep the greater needs of all citizens in mind kinda folks. I rather not take the chance.
I didn't say he wouldn't push through some of his ideas! I said he would! But there's a BIG difference between that and believing electing Trump is the end of democracy.
I'm fairly young in my political experience (36, that's still young right?) Point I'm trying to make, I've only had three presidential experiences since I was old enough to vote. Therefore, I fully understand that I don't have a ton of reference to back up reassurances I'm given that a person can't just end democracy. It seems like if anyone has had an opportunity, Trump has certainly pushed that bar. I hope to your point that bar is reinforced well enough. I know you're teaching a class right now. I'm curious if you notice a similar vein of concern flowing through your classroom that you within your own tenure feel more grounded in, and if so, have you found messaging that communicates assurance to them?
"But when the WaPo runs a story this week quoting the presidents of Columbia Sportsware, Auto Zone and Stanley Black and Decker stating they will be passing the Trump Tariffs onto consumers it gets no traction. Why?" Chris was given an opportunity, apparently, to take one of his patented cheap shots at President Biden and, by golly, he did it! But the above quotation was the thrust of the question and, by golly, Chris ignored it. Pardon my sarcasm. And I think Chris is more than a bit naive to think Trump won't try and try and try to carry out many of the horrible threats he has been making.
Thanks--I asked the question. I think Chris missed a point to respond to the real issue, the media is missing the story. In fact, no matter what network you turn on, the story was Biden and the garbage comment. The mainstream media seems to have moved away from issues over the last two weeks of the campaign. When the presidents of consumer goods companies basically state if you charge tariffs we will charge American consumers for the cost that's the closing issue. Yet, there's no traction anywhere.
Totally agree! When economists say tariffs will wreck the economy, Trump just says they don't know what they're talking about, and his base loves it. But it's another thing entirely when the heads of large, popular companies state that they will be passing the cost of tariffs along to their customers. So why isn't this bigger news? Seems like yet another missed opportunity by the media to inform voters thay Trump's economic plans will hurt average Americans.
>And remember: No matter how bad you are feeling, at least you’re not a New York sports fan.
Chris, this is New York Liberty erasure and I will not stand for it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXBhqjWm6DM
I think this is well worth watching, Mika Brezinski on abortion
Thanks for the link. The women's tragic stories she's been amplifying on Morning Joe are horrific.
Reeses x100
Totally agree!
Chris I suspect you misread my comment. I advocate boycotting PRIME and not the Washington Post which hurts no one but those of us who read the Post. But unsubscribing to Prime would get Bezos' attention.
I’m at OHare on my way to Three Pines. Meet at Myrna’s bookstore?
Garbage x100 https://youtu.be/ZLvr7KfJPgA?si=hTjSvEl7VjRLtOnw
Thanks for answering my question about Trump's threat to democracy, Chris. I wish I could share your optimism 😔. I just pray we never have to find out who's right.
"Know who you ARE hurting when you unsubscribe? The very journalists that you should be supporting! The people doing the hard accountability and investigative work that other organizations aren’t doing!"
The main number one reason I have not canceled my subscription to the Washington Post. I moved to Washington, D.C. in 1972, and immediately subscribed to the Post. I left D.C. in 2014 and moved to California and then moved to Northwest Arkansas in 2018. The entire time I have been a Post subscriber. After 52 years of reading the Post, I could not simply stop because the owner of the Post made a decision in 2024 not to endorse a candidate for president.
That -- to me -- was something the Post should have done many years ago. Yes, I don't like the fact he did it 11 days before the election, but I do feel it was something that they should never have done.
Anyway, I'll continue to subscribe to the Post, to five or six writers on Substack (especially yours), and to The New York Times.
Reporters are an important, vital part of informing Americans of what's going on. I can't see hurting them while Jeff Bezos won't give a damn whether or not he gets another penny from me.
I unsubscribed a few months back, when it became totally obvious that WaPo, like the NYT, we’re failing in their responsibilities to report accurately and with fairness. Their endlessly giving a pass to Trump’s thoroughly disturbing behavior, sanewashing his bizarre and offensive remarks with obvious clickbait headlines, but holding both Harris and Walz to a higher standard proved to me that I could no longer trust what I was reading.
Loss of revenue for Bezos never factored in to my decision back then, and I would agree with Chris (I know, it’s weird 😉) that WaPo is less than a rounding error to his wealth. But editorial management needs to be held responsible for their decisions on every day reporting, regardless of of what the Op-Ed people do or don’t do.
I pay for subscriptions to 7 or 8 excellent writers here on Substack (Bulwark, Jay Kuo, Dan Pfeiffer, Dan Rather, Joyce Vance, Heather Cox Richardson, Scott Dworkin, etc.), as well as subscriptions to digital magazines like Daily Beast, etc., so I’m “invested” in the new media business model!
I think a Trump defeat might help Haley. She hasn’t burned her bridges
Haley is toast. Like every other Republican without a spine, she bent the knee and endorsed Trump. She's shown herself to be another pol without a core.
She had to do this to remain viable. She’s played her hand well. She’s well positioned if Trump loses
Disagree. Haley is nowhere near Trumpy enough for the party of MAGA. Remember, this is NOT the GOP we all grew up with. This is a whole new animal, and it's not going away even if Trump does.
After the McGovern loss the Dems nominated Carter. After Goldwater defeat the GOP went with Nixon. Defeat changes things
Yes, all the spineless Republicans have their excuses. She's so well regarded that Trump hasn't spoken with her or asked her to campaign for him.
The “both sides” MSM mindset rears its ugly head on the “garbage” fake scandal.
Sorry, Chris, “The sitting president of the Untied States [DID NOT] potentially referring to roughly half the country as “garbage” for backing the GOP nominee for president”
The context, actual words, and easy to glean INTENT is crystal clear! President Biden was talking about the racist, bigoted, vulgar “comedian” in his unequivocal and plain as day insult to Puerto Rico and by extension ALL Latinos and NOT “roughly half the country as “garbage” for backing the GOP nominee for president”
No honest observer with integrity can say any differently with any credibility.
One has to be deep into the Trump cult to try and spin it otherwise.
This is ANOTHER example when the “media” legitimizes an absurd premise brought on by the hypocritical and dishonest GOP.
Worse yet, is the brushing aside as a “play the “what about” game” that accurately points out the undeniable reality that “Trump has said about his political opponents”.
It’s NOT a “game, nor is it “two-wrongs-make-a-right philosophy”.
There is NO credible equivalence of Biden NOT saying that all Trump supporters are “garbage” (which he DID NOT), which he clarified the same day...and the actual Dem candidate for president disavowing ANY rhetoric like that and what Trump says multiple times every single day.
The reality is that Trump has not just “said things as bad or worse”. Saying ridiculous obscene, vulgar, racist, sexist demagoguery and lies are the HEART and SOUL Of the whole Trump campaign.
This is like comparing a guy who was driving 64 MPH in a 65 MPH road and getting ticketed (falsely) driving 66 MPH compared to another person committing a mass murder with an AR, attempting to spin a false equivalence in that both people “broke the law”
Chris, if Kamala loses, there's no self-reflection that she or the DNC can do to improve their chances in future elections. If she, a perfectly normal candidate, loses to a vulgar, vindictive, amoral man with racist and misogynistic tendencies, it's because that's what half of Americans want and deserve, and there's nothing the Democratic party can do to change that.
Are political candidates immune from prosecution if they issue death threats? Particularly if followers are known to be triggered and respond using their own weapons. Would a prosecution by a state AG in response be politically damaging? And is that because following the law during an election is a partisan act or because the sectarian nature of Americans renders what is right and wrong a political question?
Small quibble with the polling vs blood sampling analogy. Try as they might, pollsters have not solved the issue of politically disengaged voters, who may not turn out in mid-terms (which polling seems to capture with greater accuracy). The disengaged voters seem more likely to vote in the presidential elections yet are not selected/don't engage for polls. When blood is drawn, proteins, vitamin deficiencies, many diseases or infections blood tests are designed to detect, etc, cannot self-select.
They do try to address this by weighting samples. There's a good video on YouTube that Vox just put out that explains this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In9Pqm9YlIo