Everyone has been saying (correctly) that the current Electoral Map favors Republicans). I think there is one giant wild card that nobody is talking about...it won't affect 2024 but I can see it being monumental maybe starting in 2028 - and that is Texas. Consider:
The vote share by the Democratic Presidential Nominee in Texas:
2012: 41.4%
2016: 43.2%
2020: 46.5%
Texas is already fairly close. And further, looking at the vote share by the Democratic Presidential Nominee in Texas's most populous (and growing) counties:
Harris: 49.4% in 2012 to 56.0% in 2020
Dallas: 57.0% in 2012 to 64.9% in 2020
Tarrant: 41.4% in 2012 to 49.3% in 2020
Bexar: 51.5% in 2012 to 58.2% in 2020
Travis: 60.1% in 2012 to 71.4% in 2020
It seems like at some point, Texas may become the new Georgia and become at least a purple state. IF that were to happen, the electoral map would MASSIVELY favor Democrats. IE, taking the current Electoral Map:
"Safe" R Electoral Votes including Texas: 219
"Safe" R Electoral Votes excluding Texas: 179
Without Texas, I imagine it would be beyond difficult for a Republican to win a presidential race anytime soon. And I don't think this is *that* far off. Thoughts?
The canary in the coal mine will be a Democrat getting elected to a statewide office. There are 27 statewide elected officials in Texas and not one of them has been a Democrat since 1994. Not to mention that a lot of the border counties are moving in the opposite direction from blue to purple.
Hi Chris- I was rather stunned to hear you say that you had not decided on who to vote for yet in the latest Friday livestream. One of the qualities we admire about you is your honesty & transparency. Please level with us. I don't see how you could be undecided? You often write about Trump's danger to our country & democracy. You mock his non-sensical ramblings with awesome gifs from The Office & Zoolander in your transcript breakdown. You have mentioned that this election is a binary choice, you either vote for Harris or vote for Trump.
I can think of three reasons you want to avoid admitting who you vote for. 1. You believe it is private. 2. You believe it may turn off potential or current subscribers. 3. You believe who you vote for is irrelevant to the analysis you provide to us.
Please clarify your rationale for us. Are you truly undecided or is it some combination of the above three reasons?
Did Chris really say this? I don't see how any modestly informed person could still be undecided -- even without arguing about which candidate is better, the gulf between them on virtually everything is vast and well-known. I agree that taking the position that "I don't want to say who I'm voting for right now" (for any of reasons 1-3 listed) is fundamentally different from saying "I'm presently undecided." If it is really the latter, I would be really interested in the explanation and what factors are being weighed.
Personally I’d rather not know who Chris will vote for. I worked in media for 40 years and preferred when I don’t know a journalists political leanings. It made their analysis come across as analysis and not spin. You want spin.. read Donna Brazile or Priebus.
There are a lot of Americans who will never, ever vote for a Democrat. They could have Jesus as a presidential candidate and they still wouldn’t do it. Their choice of course. But it demonstrates beautifully that elections have nothing to do with policies anymore. It’s all about identity, sectarianism and hate. Even with well educated, completely sane people. It’s why Trump could be Hitler, but as long as he’s not a democrat he’s going to be competitive in an American election.
There are a handful of regular commentators on here - myself included - that have posted their positions on possibly not voting. We are sometimes (respectfully) criticized for being uninformed or naive, neither of which are true. We're easily overlooked because there's no virtual high-fiving or trolling around our posts.
An open letter to Chris and the readers of this blog,
I'm not sure how long I've a subscriber to this blog, but I am locked in at $4 a month, if that helps with the timeline.
I was attracted to the blog because Chris was recently laid off from CNN, and in many of his postings he openly discussed the challenges he was experiencing (lapsed contacts with former colleagues, difficulty for men to make friends these days, getting past the fact that his layoff was less about him and more about being a large number on an expenses worksheet, the fictional community of Three Pines, and the realities of a CPAP [which hit home since I use one also]). In short, Chris opened himself up to all of his readers and shared his human side (quirks and all) with us. The fact that a cable news superstar had feelings and emotions appealed to me. It wasn't exactly like Mr. Spock writing his own blog, but the small similarities were appealing.
The expression "time heals all wounds" seems apt here, for Chris's subscriber counts keep increasing, he's beginning a new career as a Professor (congrats), and everything in his life seems to be on firmer ground these days.
But somewhere along the way his human side disappeared. His posts are more arrogant and his replies to comments are more defensive. Could it be that Chris's truer personality was now shining through; now that his personal challenges and insecurities are in the rear-view mirror?
All I know is that I haven't enjoyed his posts nearly as much today as I have in the past.
But what really drove it home for me was the major dust-up that resulted regarding his post of 9-4-24 "What Does Kamala Harris *actually* believe?". Many readers took objection to his post, with the majority taking him to task for focusing on the five (six?) week Harris campaign and ignoring the 30000 (+/-) lies and unfulfilled promises Trump has proclaimed during the past nine years. Full disclosure - I left a particularly nasty comment.
What hit home for me was his reply to reader objections, essentially saying that this was his blog and he writes about topics that interest him.
He is 100% correct.
For me, that was the point that made me realize that I could not continue as a subscriber.
I do not dispute that Chris can write about any topic he wants (after all, it is HIS blog), but when he has more interest in criticizing Harris's evolving position on various positions than criticizing Trump and the authoritative Dictatorship he'll impose on America, it's time to say bye. Or to put it another way, when the possibility of a Trump-led authoritative Dictatorship in America does not rise to a level of "interest" to Chris, it's time to say bye.
There are many great commentators on this blog, and I will miss reading your thoughtful, intelligent, and heartfelt takes on various topics. Heck, I'll even miss that Russian troll, Dutch, but I suspect I may run into him on other blogs using a different alias!!
Thanks for writing this, Eric, as you have saved me having to write something similar myself (though I haven’t yet decided whether I’ll drop my paid subscription or not….yet).
I agree that he has become a bit more arrogant, more defensive, and, frankly, kind of sloppy in his thinking and writing. He gives himself kudos for documenting line by line the boring drivel that comes from Trump’s mouth, without providing much in the way of *true* analysis, particularly when it’s just the same old playbook, just a different venue on a different day. Mostly just comedic GIFs and memes as answers to the lunacy.
When I want *serious* analysis, I go to The Bulwark (especially Jonathan V. Last), Jay Kuo, Heather Cox Richardson, Joyce Vance, Charlie Sykes, Dan Pfeiffer, Dan Rather, and others. It’s been surprising, when Chris just posts the lines and silly memes in response, to see an insightful analysis of the *exact* same speech/interview by one of my go-to writers. Like a recent podcast appearance where another writer documented how many times the podcaster tried to get Trump to actually answer a serious question (I think it was about his planned vote on Amendment 4 in Florida and his flip-flop), and all Chris did was comment on *one* of Trump’s non-answers with no further context or background.
No, I’m not going to ask a question of Chris, as I’m growing less and less concerned with his answers, which was NOT true even a year ago. I think he’s “missing the forest for the trees”, frankly, and hope that will change. I do like him on a personal level and want him to succeed. However, I’m regularly questioning the cost of my subscription and who I *can’t* support financially because I’m supporting him (retired last year, am on a “fixed budget”, and pay FAR too much on a LOT of subscriptions).
Sorry to have to agree with your sentiment, but I do….
I believe that Chris said that he doesn't think Trump is the threat to democracy that many others believe that he is, because he does think the guardrails in place will hold. (If I'm wrong about that, he can certainly correct me.) I admit that his column on Harris' flip-flopping bothered me as well, because I DO think Trump is a severe threat to our democracy. I hope Chris is right, and better yet, I hope Trump loses bigly so that we won't ever know. I will remain a subscriber....for now. But, like some others, I would like to see Chris clarify his "undecided" voter status.
Long time reader, first time questioner! I was moved to write in following your column on what Kamala Harris actually believes. Your conclusion on her shifting position was that it’s Politics- exactly, she’s a politician! I never understood this criticism on either side of the aisle. A responsible politician adjusts their positions based on what their constituents want - and the mood for Democrats is much more moderate in 2024 than in 2020. They should have some underlying values like getting more Americans healthcare, but if the electorate is telling you that they aren’t behind Medicare for All, then you move to a position that can actually get passed while expanding healthcare access. So I guess my question is why you find that so objectionable? (With the caveat that the Harris campaign and candidate could do a better job articulating that message.)
I have been saying this same thing to people. A politicians job isn’t to do what they want, it’s to do what the people who elected them want. I think Walz is a good example of this. He was more moderate when he represented a conservative district in congress then was more progressive when he represented the more liberal state of Minnesota as a whole. It’s their job to do what we want not what they want!
Mr. Trump you won the 2016 election when Obama was president so that election wasn’t rigged. But you lost the 2020 election when you were president and you claim it was rigged. If the 2020 elections were rigged as you claim, aren’t you to blame since you were president?
Hi Chris...you recently posted a piece about Harris "flip-flopping" on support for a border wall. Has that phrase out served its purpose? It used to be fun to say "so and so flip flopped what a hypocrite" but now it's essentially used all the time as a form of beratement against politicians that make legitimate compromises, like Harris supporting the bipartisan border bill (note: not explicitly supporting the wall, just accepting it's part of the broader package). I guess my question is really this: Does calling out "flip flops" incentivize refusal to compromise and thus cause more harm than good?
You make a good point. Compromise has become a “dirty” word. What turned me off with many of the journalists was the idea that you can never compromise with the other side. They are evil and hate America. I don’t believe that and have never believed that. While I may disagree with someone on policy I never attributed their different view as an indicator of a flawed character. Compromise is what made this country IMHO.
Excellent point on compromise as it is literally embedded in the Constitution w the 3/5ths Compromise(not our proudest moment) and the Great Compromise. Without these two plus the compromise outside of the Constitutional Convention that leads to the Bill of Rights.....none of this would have happened as it has....
I'm always reminded that Rs are huge lovers of the Constitution. If they were....when did they forget about the compromise part of government/governing?
Big issue in the US (& I imagine elsewhere (Peter Turchens books are pretty good). For some reason, many people think they know the motivation behind politicians' actions and statements. It is only a short step from there to being 'siloed'.
I once read advice that said to assume that others mean well. We have lost that 'trust' in our fellow citizens.
I am wondering if I am in a different reality when it comes to the TRUMP TARIFFS that he is promising. 60% of everything coming out of China and 20% on everything else imported into the US. First of all, doesn't the average person understand what this will do to prices for 80% of the goods that Americans buy? Secondly, if I remember the two tariff laws that passed congress in the 1920's (and especially the SMOOT-HAWLEY tariff) was one of the biggest drivers of the Great Depression (along with the severity of it) It was designed to "protect the American Companies and Workers" but in actuality it caused the other countries to retaliate against the US and instigate their own tariffs. This caused World Commerce to basically grind to a halt (along with jobs and productivity) I believe it was Ben Bernanke that blamed the tariffs for causing so much suffering. Why doesn't anyone mention the potential disaster just this "promise" would cause?
Can anyone actually give a carefully considered, step-by-step explanation of how exactly Trump could pull off overthrowing democracy? We talk about it so casually that it has lost all meaning. Yeah, Mike Pence stood between Trump and a constitutional crisis, but can we maybe consider what stood behind Mike Pence? Please include subverting Congress, the judiciary, all the intelligence agencies, and the military. Also include how the financial system, Corporate America, and our rich oligarchs would just ignore the destabilization. In addition, please lay out the steps of a Constitutional Convention and amending term limits with regard to all the States. Next, address how martial law could be implemented and enforced to quell any unrest, protest, or vigilante justice. Finally, how will Trump be able to ignore international pressure and sanctions when disruptions in globalization and world order will negatively impact commerce and security? Serious question.
Read where some pundits claim that Liz Cheney’s pledge to vote for KH/TW will allow for reluctant republicans to do the same. Seems doubtful but your thoughts appreciated.
You and “conventional wisdom” say that the VP pick makes no difference. Vance continues to alienate women with his ridiculous cat ladies comments, his view on women’s role in life, his awkward public appearances and unlikeability. Contrast that with Walz, it is very stark difference. Trump as president is scary enough. The thought of Vance as the number two is equally abhorrent. Could this be the year when the VP pick might have some sway?
I love your transcripts and comments of Trump's talks. Just one of those would be enough to disqualify any world politician... As Trump spews absolute nonsense minute after minute. Have you thought of doing the same for Harris (when she is in public) and comparing the two side by side? 🤔 Have you thought of getting a comedian to attempt to mimic his nonsense? 🤔 Thanks!
We have asked REPEATEDLY for that on Harris and many others. He’s done 1, maybe 2, on non-Trump speakers, but nowhere NEAR what you, I, and I’m sure *many* others would appreciate.
I would love to hear your thoughts on "the weave". Has trump been watching people talk about how he rambles in his speeches and a) thinks people will believe him when he tells them skipping from one subject to another is a sign of genius; or b) really believes himself that he is tying all those random subjects together in a brilliant weave like his "English professor" friends have told him: "That's the most brilliant thing I've ever seen." I guess my question is, has he really convinced himself this is real?
Hi Chris! I feel that when the presidential candidates were Biden and Trump, age was a huge issue in the campaign, particularly for Biden. Now that the candidates are Harris and Trump, age no longer seems to be a topic, even as Trump continues to offer up nonsensical word salads that could have further derailed Biden. You recently described one of Trump's answers as "just a bunch of nouns strung together." If he wins, Trump will be, at 78, the oldest person ever to take the presidential oath of office. I'm not asking for an armchair doctor's cognitive diagnosis. But I do wonder if his age should be more of an issue.
Note my attempt to ask the question in a measured even tone. Thanks. :)
As parties have weakened over time such that candidates are now largely shopping for ballot access (see Trump & Sanders in 2016), the MSM carries a fraction of it's past influence, gerrymandering/polarization and candidates refuse to answer media questions, are you concerned that celebrity (e.g., name ID or Q rating) will become the dominant trait required to run for major office in the future?
There is a FB post that claims Trump did not take his presidential salary during the years he was president. I also remember early in his term he stated he would donate his salary to various causes etc. Is any of it true? Where can those two claims be substantiated?
Hey Chris,
Everyone has been saying (correctly) that the current Electoral Map favors Republicans). I think there is one giant wild card that nobody is talking about...it won't affect 2024 but I can see it being monumental maybe starting in 2028 - and that is Texas. Consider:
The vote share by the Democratic Presidential Nominee in Texas:
2012: 41.4%
2016: 43.2%
2020: 46.5%
Texas is already fairly close. And further, looking at the vote share by the Democratic Presidential Nominee in Texas's most populous (and growing) counties:
Harris: 49.4% in 2012 to 56.0% in 2020
Dallas: 57.0% in 2012 to 64.9% in 2020
Tarrant: 41.4% in 2012 to 49.3% in 2020
Bexar: 51.5% in 2012 to 58.2% in 2020
Travis: 60.1% in 2012 to 71.4% in 2020
It seems like at some point, Texas may become the new Georgia and become at least a purple state. IF that were to happen, the electoral map would MASSIVELY favor Democrats. IE, taking the current Electoral Map:
"Safe" R Electoral Votes including Texas: 219
"Safe" R Electoral Votes excluding Texas: 179
Without Texas, I imagine it would be beyond difficult for a Republican to win a presidential race anytime soon. And I don't think this is *that* far off. Thoughts?
The canary in the coal mine will be a Democrat getting elected to a statewide office. There are 27 statewide elected officials in Texas and not one of them has been a Democrat since 1994. Not to mention that a lot of the border counties are moving in the opposite direction from blue to purple.
Hi Chris- I was rather stunned to hear you say that you had not decided on who to vote for yet in the latest Friday livestream. One of the qualities we admire about you is your honesty & transparency. Please level with us. I don't see how you could be undecided? You often write about Trump's danger to our country & democracy. You mock his non-sensical ramblings with awesome gifs from The Office & Zoolander in your transcript breakdown. You have mentioned that this election is a binary choice, you either vote for Harris or vote for Trump.
I can think of three reasons you want to avoid admitting who you vote for. 1. You believe it is private. 2. You believe it may turn off potential or current subscribers. 3. You believe who you vote for is irrelevant to the analysis you provide to us.
Please clarify your rationale for us. Are you truly undecided or is it some combination of the above three reasons?
Second this. There is a difference between "no comment" and "I don't yet know."
Did Chris really say this? I don't see how any modestly informed person could still be undecided -- even without arguing about which candidate is better, the gulf between them on virtually everything is vast and well-known. I agree that taking the position that "I don't want to say who I'm voting for right now" (for any of reasons 1-3 listed) is fundamentally different from saying "I'm presently undecided." If it is really the latter, I would be really interested in the explanation and what factors are being weighed.
Personally I’d rather not know who Chris will vote for. I worked in media for 40 years and preferred when I don’t know a journalists political leanings. It made their analysis come across as analysis and not spin. You want spin.. read Donna Brazile or Priebus.
Yes he did in the last Friday live stream, I think it was in the 2nd half of the stream. Someone also commented on it and it was brushed off.
There are a lot of Americans who will never, ever vote for a Democrat. They could have Jesus as a presidential candidate and they still wouldn’t do it. Their choice of course. But it demonstrates beautifully that elections have nothing to do with policies anymore. It’s all about identity, sectarianism and hate. Even with well educated, completely sane people. It’s why Trump could be Hitler, but as long as he’s not a democrat he’s going to be competitive in an American election.
There are a handful of regular commentators on here - myself included - that have posted their positions on possibly not voting. We are sometimes (respectfully) criticized for being uninformed or naive, neither of which are true. We're easily overlooked because there's no virtual high-fiving or trolling around our posts.
An open letter to Chris and the readers of this blog,
I'm not sure how long I've a subscriber to this blog, but I am locked in at $4 a month, if that helps with the timeline.
I was attracted to the blog because Chris was recently laid off from CNN, and in many of his postings he openly discussed the challenges he was experiencing (lapsed contacts with former colleagues, difficulty for men to make friends these days, getting past the fact that his layoff was less about him and more about being a large number on an expenses worksheet, the fictional community of Three Pines, and the realities of a CPAP [which hit home since I use one also]). In short, Chris opened himself up to all of his readers and shared his human side (quirks and all) with us. The fact that a cable news superstar had feelings and emotions appealed to me. It wasn't exactly like Mr. Spock writing his own blog, but the small similarities were appealing.
The expression "time heals all wounds" seems apt here, for Chris's subscriber counts keep increasing, he's beginning a new career as a Professor (congrats), and everything in his life seems to be on firmer ground these days.
But somewhere along the way his human side disappeared. His posts are more arrogant and his replies to comments are more defensive. Could it be that Chris's truer personality was now shining through; now that his personal challenges and insecurities are in the rear-view mirror?
All I know is that I haven't enjoyed his posts nearly as much today as I have in the past.
But what really drove it home for me was the major dust-up that resulted regarding his post of 9-4-24 "What Does Kamala Harris *actually* believe?". Many readers took objection to his post, with the majority taking him to task for focusing on the five (six?) week Harris campaign and ignoring the 30000 (+/-) lies and unfulfilled promises Trump has proclaimed during the past nine years. Full disclosure - I left a particularly nasty comment.
What hit home for me was his reply to reader objections, essentially saying that this was his blog and he writes about topics that interest him.
He is 100% correct.
For me, that was the point that made me realize that I could not continue as a subscriber.
I do not dispute that Chris can write about any topic he wants (after all, it is HIS blog), but when he has more interest in criticizing Harris's evolving position on various positions than criticizing Trump and the authoritative Dictatorship he'll impose on America, it's time to say bye. Or to put it another way, when the possibility of a Trump-led authoritative Dictatorship in America does not rise to a level of "interest" to Chris, it's time to say bye.
There are many great commentators on this blog, and I will miss reading your thoughtful, intelligent, and heartfelt takes on various topics. Heck, I'll even miss that Russian troll, Dutch, but I suspect I may run into him on other blogs using a different alias!!
Thanks for writing this, Eric, as you have saved me having to write something similar myself (though I haven’t yet decided whether I’ll drop my paid subscription or not….yet).
I agree that he has become a bit more arrogant, more defensive, and, frankly, kind of sloppy in his thinking and writing. He gives himself kudos for documenting line by line the boring drivel that comes from Trump’s mouth, without providing much in the way of *true* analysis, particularly when it’s just the same old playbook, just a different venue on a different day. Mostly just comedic GIFs and memes as answers to the lunacy.
When I want *serious* analysis, I go to The Bulwark (especially Jonathan V. Last), Jay Kuo, Heather Cox Richardson, Joyce Vance, Charlie Sykes, Dan Pfeiffer, Dan Rather, and others. It’s been surprising, when Chris just posts the lines and silly memes in response, to see an insightful analysis of the *exact* same speech/interview by one of my go-to writers. Like a recent podcast appearance where another writer documented how many times the podcaster tried to get Trump to actually answer a serious question (I think it was about his planned vote on Amendment 4 in Florida and his flip-flop), and all Chris did was comment on *one* of Trump’s non-answers with no further context or background.
No, I’m not going to ask a question of Chris, as I’m growing less and less concerned with his answers, which was NOT true even a year ago. I think he’s “missing the forest for the trees”, frankly, and hope that will change. I do like him on a personal level and want him to succeed. However, I’m regularly questioning the cost of my subscription and who I *can’t* support financially because I’m supporting him (retired last year, am on a “fixed budget”, and pay FAR too much on a LOT of subscriptions).
Sorry to have to agree with your sentiment, but I do….
I believe that Chris said that he doesn't think Trump is the threat to democracy that many others believe that he is, because he does think the guardrails in place will hold. (If I'm wrong about that, he can certainly correct me.) I admit that his column on Harris' flip-flopping bothered me as well, because I DO think Trump is a severe threat to our democracy. I hope Chris is right, and better yet, I hope Trump loses bigly so that we won't ever know. I will remain a subscriber....for now. But, like some others, I would like to see Chris clarify his "undecided" voter status.
See ya. Nope this is the only site I subscribe to.
Be well!
Dutch, you should branch out. There are a lot of other good substacks.
Hey thanks! I like this one! MAGA
Long time reader, first time questioner! I was moved to write in following your column on what Kamala Harris actually believes. Your conclusion on her shifting position was that it’s Politics- exactly, she’s a politician! I never understood this criticism on either side of the aisle. A responsible politician adjusts their positions based on what their constituents want - and the mood for Democrats is much more moderate in 2024 than in 2020. They should have some underlying values like getting more Americans healthcare, but if the electorate is telling you that they aren’t behind Medicare for All, then you move to a position that can actually get passed while expanding healthcare access. So I guess my question is why you find that so objectionable? (With the caveat that the Harris campaign and candidate could do a better job articulating that message.)
I have been saying this same thing to people. A politicians job isn’t to do what they want, it’s to do what the people who elected them want. I think Walz is a good example of this. He was more moderate when he represented a conservative district in congress then was more progressive when he represented the more liberal state of Minnesota as a whole. It’s their job to do what we want not what they want!
Chris,
Why hasn’t anyone asked Donald Trump
this question?
Mr. Trump you won the 2016 election when Obama was president so that election wasn’t rigged. But you lost the 2020 election when you were president and you claim it was rigged. If the 2020 elections were rigged as you claim, aren’t you to blame since you were president?
I’d love to hear his answer.
Gotcha!
Hi Chris...you recently posted a piece about Harris "flip-flopping" on support for a border wall. Has that phrase out served its purpose? It used to be fun to say "so and so flip flopped what a hypocrite" but now it's essentially used all the time as a form of beratement against politicians that make legitimate compromises, like Harris supporting the bipartisan border bill (note: not explicitly supporting the wall, just accepting it's part of the broader package). I guess my question is really this: Does calling out "flip flops" incentivize refusal to compromise and thus cause more harm than good?
You make a good point. Compromise has become a “dirty” word. What turned me off with many of the journalists was the idea that you can never compromise with the other side. They are evil and hate America. I don’t believe that and have never believed that. While I may disagree with someone on policy I never attributed their different view as an indicator of a flawed character. Compromise is what made this country IMHO.
Excellent point on compromise as it is literally embedded in the Constitution w the 3/5ths Compromise(not our proudest moment) and the Great Compromise. Without these two plus the compromise outside of the Constitutional Convention that leads to the Bill of Rights.....none of this would have happened as it has....
I'm always reminded that Rs are huge lovers of the Constitution. If they were....when did they forget about the compromise part of government/governing?
Big issue in the US (& I imagine elsewhere (Peter Turchens books are pretty good). For some reason, many people think they know the motivation behind politicians' actions and statements. It is only a short step from there to being 'siloed'.
I once read advice that said to assume that others mean well. We have lost that 'trust' in our fellow citizens.
That has been the philosophy I have tried to follow.
Hi, Chris. What are signs that a campaign is winning and what are signs that a campaign is losing an election?
I am wondering if I am in a different reality when it comes to the TRUMP TARIFFS that he is promising. 60% of everything coming out of China and 20% on everything else imported into the US. First of all, doesn't the average person understand what this will do to prices for 80% of the goods that Americans buy? Secondly, if I remember the two tariff laws that passed congress in the 1920's (and especially the SMOOT-HAWLEY tariff) was one of the biggest drivers of the Great Depression (along with the severity of it) It was designed to "protect the American Companies and Workers" but in actuality it caused the other countries to retaliate against the US and instigate their own tariffs. This caused World Commerce to basically grind to a halt (along with jobs and productivity) I believe it was Ben Bernanke that blamed the tariffs for causing so much suffering. Why doesn't anyone mention the potential disaster just this "promise" would cause?
Can anyone actually give a carefully considered, step-by-step explanation of how exactly Trump could pull off overthrowing democracy? We talk about it so casually that it has lost all meaning. Yeah, Mike Pence stood between Trump and a constitutional crisis, but can we maybe consider what stood behind Mike Pence? Please include subverting Congress, the judiciary, all the intelligence agencies, and the military. Also include how the financial system, Corporate America, and our rich oligarchs would just ignore the destabilization. In addition, please lay out the steps of a Constitutional Convention and amending term limits with regard to all the States. Next, address how martial law could be implemented and enforced to quell any unrest, protest, or vigilante justice. Finally, how will Trump be able to ignore international pressure and sanctions when disruptions in globalization and world order will negatively impact commerce and security? Serious question.
Read where some pundits claim that Liz Cheney’s pledge to vote for KH/TW will allow for reluctant republicans to do the same. Seems doubtful but your thoughts appreciated.
You and “conventional wisdom” say that the VP pick makes no difference. Vance continues to alienate women with his ridiculous cat ladies comments, his view on women’s role in life, his awkward public appearances and unlikeability. Contrast that with Walz, it is very stark difference. Trump as president is scary enough. The thought of Vance as the number two is equally abhorrent. Could this be the year when the VP pick might have some sway?
I love your transcripts and comments of Trump's talks. Just one of those would be enough to disqualify any world politician... As Trump spews absolute nonsense minute after minute. Have you thought of doing the same for Harris (when she is in public) and comparing the two side by side? 🤔 Have you thought of getting a comedian to attempt to mimic his nonsense? 🤔 Thanks!
We have asked REPEATEDLY for that on Harris and many others. He’s done 1, maybe 2, on non-Trump speakers, but nowhere NEAR what you, I, and I’m sure *many* others would appreciate.
I would love to hear your thoughts on "the weave". Has trump been watching people talk about how he rambles in his speeches and a) thinks people will believe him when he tells them skipping from one subject to another is a sign of genius; or b) really believes himself that he is tying all those random subjects together in a brilliant weave like his "English professor" friends have told him: "That's the most brilliant thing I've ever seen." I guess my question is, has he really convinced himself this is real?
Hi Chris! I feel that when the presidential candidates were Biden and Trump, age was a huge issue in the campaign, particularly for Biden. Now that the candidates are Harris and Trump, age no longer seems to be a topic, even as Trump continues to offer up nonsensical word salads that could have further derailed Biden. You recently described one of Trump's answers as "just a bunch of nouns strung together." If he wins, Trump will be, at 78, the oldest person ever to take the presidential oath of office. I'm not asking for an armchair doctor's cognitive diagnosis. But I do wonder if his age should be more of an issue.
Note my attempt to ask the question in a measured even tone. Thanks. :)
Chris,
As parties have weakened over time such that candidates are now largely shopping for ballot access (see Trump & Sanders in 2016), the MSM carries a fraction of it's past influence, gerrymandering/polarization and candidates refuse to answer media questions, are you concerned that celebrity (e.g., name ID or Q rating) will become the dominant trait required to run for major office in the future?
There is a FB post that claims Trump did not take his presidential salary during the years he was president. I also remember early in his term he stated he would donate his salary to various causes etc. Is any of it true? Where can those two claims be substantiated?