The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
@kos
Mark Robinson

In North Carolina Church, GOP Candidate Says 'Some Folks Need Killing'

Republicans sure know how to pick them, huh?

In an hour-long diatribe in a church, North Carolina Republican Lt. Gov. and gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson tossed aside the Ten Commandments his ilk want to install in schoolrooms. Rather than “thou shall not kill,” Robinson opined with, “Some folks need killing!”

The New Republiclistened to the whole sermon:

Robinson’s call for the “killing” of “some folks” came during an extended diatribe in which he attacked an extraordinary assortment of enemies. These ranged from “people who have evil intent” to “wicked people” to those doing things like “torturing and murdering and raping” to socialists and Communists. He also invoked those supposedly undermining America’s founding ideals and leftists allegedly persecuting conservatives by canceling them and doxxing them online.

“Kill them,” Robinson added. “Some liberal somewhere is going to say that sounds awful. Too bad. Get mad at me if you want to.”

Calls for murder don’t “sound awful,” they are awful. This is not normal, no matter how much MAGA Republicans and Donald Trump may desperately want it to be so.

This is what we’re fighting against this November.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Joe Biden

Biden Needs To Fix What Happened At The Debate -- And Quickly

President Joe Biden had one job Thursday, one job only—prove to America that he still has what’s needed to be president, despite rampant questions about his age. He didn’t do that. Instead, he validated the worst criticisms.

This is a problem of his own making—this debate was his idea. The rules were his rules. People who want to make excuses for him are not doing anyone any favors. You mean to tell me that Biden’s debate-prep team didn’t know that Donald Trump would lie constantly?

Now Biden has to fix things, and it’s not as easy as dropping out.

All the focus is now on the Democrats. And it’s not the good kind of focus. We have a little over four months before the election, one in which we must center Trump as an existential threat to our nation’s future. And what happens if Biden drops out, as many pundits are suggesting he do?

Some assume Vice President Kamala Harris would get anointed the nomination, but she doesn’t inspire much confidence in much of the establishment. She ran a godawful primary campaign in 2019 and 2020 (with such obvious and glaring mistakes as having her sister run the operation). Her approval ratings are in the high 30s. Her smartest campaign strategist and advisor, Ace Smith, is now hitched to California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Standing up an effective campaign infrastructure in a matter of months isn’t just hard; it’s likely impossible, and it’s not like you could slot Harris into the Biden template. They are very different candidates, with different strengths and weaknesses.

Beyond Harris, you have a bevy of other ambitious potential candidates floating around—Newsom, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and others—all of whom are likely ready to jump in. The governors, in particular, would have their campaign apparatuses ready to deploy. But the optics of casting aside Harris would be brutal and surely lead to harsh feelings—and, again, just months before facing off against Trump in an absolutely critical election.

Then there’s the fact that ballot-access laws require the Democrats to have their candidate pretty darn soon. The Democratic National Committee will officially nominate Biden before the convention, to ensure that he’s on the ballot in Ohio before their August 7 deadline. In other words, there isn’t a lot of time to work through the drama.

Biden has said he won’t drop out, which in itself isn’t that noteworthy. What else is he supposed to say? There will be a great deal of soul-searching and polling the next couple of weeks. But as of now, Biden is sounding appropriately defiant.

The cold reality is that the advantages of incumbency are real, and the chaos that would ensue if Biden dropped out would be dangerously distracting and potentially ruinous inside the party.

Yet Biden and his campaign created this mess. Their lack of preparation and Biden’s godawful performance is on them. And it is on them to fix it.

The good news is that from all early indications, not much has shifted in the race. People already assumed Biden was old and believed the “cognitive decline” narrative. The damage was in the lost opportunity to shift that narrative. But “Biden is old” and “Trump lies” are already baked into the current numbers. We’ll see what the polls say in the next few weeks, but I suspect not much will shift. At least, I hope so.

The challenge now is to get the spotlight off Biden and back onto Trump, and the faster we do that, the better. There’s just too much at stake.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

'They're Cloning People Now': QAnon Is Ready For First 2024 Debate

'They're Cloning People Now': QAnon Is Ready For First 2024 Debate

I like to check in on QAnon’s current home (I’m not linking to or naming the site on purpose), so imagine my delight when their attention was focused on the upcoming presidential debate between President Joe Biden and the dangerous insurrectionist Donald Trump.

Trust me, this is good.

The post was titled “Joe Biden Will Be Forced to Stand for 90 Minutes with No Notes, Props, Pen, or Paper and No Interaction with Staff during Presidential Debate,” and yes, that’s how it was capitalized.

Note: These are the rules Biden asked for. But yes, the conservatives who buy into the “cognitive decline” nonsense have convinced themselves that the lack of notes will somehow hamper the president.

Yet they’ve seen Biden in action, like at this year’s State of the Union address, which is why they’re preemptively making excuses. Here’s one:

Good points, though I would guess he will be wired up in someway with answers and responses being fed to him. Also remembering that DJT suggested he have a drug test before hand … pretty sure he will be ‘bumped’ up :)

Truly, “he’s taking magical drugs to perk him up … but only part of the time” is among the dumbest right-wing conspiracy theories of the day.

1. Biden will find excuse/reason to terminate2. Biden camp will be provided the questions ahead of time
3. Biden camp will be provided the questions ahead of time and assistance in the form of a special communication device

Indeed, it is the Trump camp that is terrified of the debate and looking to convince Trump to bail, from Fox News host Sean Hannity to former Trump adviser Steve Bannon.

And remember, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also accused of getting the questions ahead of time when she plastered Trump in their first debate in 2016, all because she was able to answer such hardball questions as “Why are you a better choice than your opponent to create the kinds of jobs that will put more money into the pockets of American workers?” and “How do you bring back … jobs, American manufacturers?” and “So how do you heal the [racial] divide?”

Trump and his backers think that because he never prepares for anything, other people must also show up unprepared to important events.

But hey, CNN secretly revealed their questions to me, so Trump can get a heads-up as well:

  1. Mr. Trump, you said in 2016 that someone under potential criminal indictment shouldn’t run for president. You’ve now been convicted of multiple felonies and will soon face three additional trials. How do you reconcile your past criticism with your current reality?
  2. Mr. Biden, Americans are feeling the pressures of inflation. What would you say to those who think you haven’t delivered on your promises of economic prosperity?
  3. Mr. Trump, Republicans have suffered electorally since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated federal protections for abortion. What’s your position on abortion?
  4. Mr. Biden, there are ongoing concerns about your age and your ability to continue performing this demanding job for the next four years. How do you respond?

It’s freakin’ obvious stuff. It’s not our fault that Trump and his QAnon buddies are too lazy and/or ignorant to read the room (or anything of substance, really).

Biden definitely needs a drugs test prior to the debate AND he needs to be physically checked to insure there’s no hidden ear piece.
They will only send the “smartest Biden.”
It will be a double of some sort because that man isn’t able to stand long, talk without notes, or think for himself. He can hardly read a teleprompter.

So when Trump goes on stage and acts perfectly normal and competent, it must also be because of an earpiece, drugs, or a body double—right? Of course not. These people believe a narrative so easily disproved by reality.

I believe that is why he is taking 10 days off ....SO that they can go over the way they want him to answer every question and you know they already have the list of questions) ad nauseum. What is going to be funny is when he answers one question with the answer to another of course the moderators will be instructed to ask the questions in a specific order). You just gotta know they are going to drug him up and put a bug in his ear for sure.

Now the big conspiracy is that Biden is preparing …

President Trump should this say on his first question: ...."First, Thank you for this opportunity. Joe, are you wearing an ear piece?" Even if he isn't, that question from Trump will completely throw him off and he'll be agitated from the beginning! Epic!

Uh, Biden would say, “No. Are you?”

EPIC!

This is a movie. The real Joe is dead, due to a neck stretching at Gitmo and the current Joe is an actor doing his part to make the left believe he's in command. If the debates happen I suspect the current Joe will act just fine. He might show some signs of dimensia, but overall he'll do what he is suppose to do, act right, and not make any gaffs. He will be cognizant of all issues put forth and have some good points to make. Once or twice he will stare off into space just to keep the facade going, but overall he will do just fine. Remember, the movie has been produced and is now being watched by millions. It cannot go off the rails, Q and his team have already figured out what can go wrong and have put failsafes in place. Let's just watch the debates and enjoy a good brand of popcorn. Plus, how else can Q prove to the left that Joe isn't all there than by showing him for ninety minutes flubbing words, and staring off into space. Not too much, but just enough to have the hard Lefties begin to question his capacity to be President.

This is really a phenomenon among QAnon adherents: There are many who believe that Trump is still president. In short, the idea is that Trump saw that the election would be stolen, so he declared a state of emergency and, as a result, is still president, and that everything we’ve seen since 2020 is a continuation of the Trump administration, including the puppet Biden actor obscuring Trump’s real role as president. If you want the full and very crazy story, you can check out this Substack.

Interestingly, this comment goes unanswered. Even some of the most ardent Q supporters are like … “nah, dude.”

Could the demonrats be setting him up to fail, so they can replace him?

Biden challenged Trump to the debate so that he could fail and be replaced. Brilliant!

I was thinking about the debate today. Don't they have devices nowadays that can continuously infuse medication into your body, like hormones and insulin? What if they do something like that to him, instead of injections and stuff that wear off?

If only …


Trump should wear gloves or coat his hand in nonpermeable and touch nothing Trump should eat out of cans for 48 hrs up to event Trump should NOT drink their water but bring his own bottled water Trump should NOT shake hands without nonpermeable coating. Trump should demand Biden take full panel drug test by independent lab like labcorps or better and refuse the debate if Biden declines Trump should let RFK Jr in the debate and be super respectful to RFK jr but not to Biden Trump should bring a fan and aim it at Biden and say the baby smell is distracting...do you smell a diaper change? I can't debate a guy who shit his pants

I’m telling you, “Biden did well because he’s on a drug that makes him sharp, but he takes it only some of the time” is a really weird conspiracy.

People have an earpiece and those special contact lenses.

Uh, what special contact lenses?

He might be a double wearing masks
They must've worked all of the pants-shitting glitches out of Chinese Robo-Biden 3000. Ha!

Ironically, it is Trump who is glitching these days. From a recent rally:

Trump: No water in your faucets. You ever try buying a new home and you turn on. You want to wash your hair or you wanna wash your hands. You turn on the water and it goes drip, drip the soap. You can't get it off your hand. So you keep it running for about 10 times longer. You trying, the worst is your hair. I have this beautiful luxuriant hair and I put stuff on. I put it in lather. I like lots of lather because I like it to come out extremely dry because it seems to be slightly thicker that way. And I lather up and then you turn on this crazy shower and the thing drip, drip and you say I'm gonna be here for 45 minutes. What? There's so much water. You don't know what to do with it. You know, it's called rain. It rains a lot in certain places. But, now their idea, you know, did you see the other day? They just, I opened it up and they closed it again. I opened it, they close it, washing machines to wash your dishes. There is a problem. They don't want you to have any water. They want no water

Damn, Trump sounds even crazier than the QAnon forum posters.

Fine has done nothing but give USA a good look at his condition. There's no drug available that will allow him to compete with a trump. My bets are they will dismiss debates over some sort of disaster

I’ll take that bet.

I believe 3 Bidens out there. The articulate one should be the one showing up for debate.
Isn't there a version of him that is articulate?They're cloning people now.
There are ways to determine if someone is a clone: missing wisdom teeth, flat-footed, abnormal genitalia. Also, their gait will be different from the original.

That’s oddly specific for a thing that doesn’t exist.

He's got at least two in front of him to help him. If Trump sees that Biden is not well, Trump will say we. Need to stop this so can get medical attention- it would be glorious

That makes no sense, and it still makes more sense than Trump on the stump.

He'll be full of Adrenochrome. I heard he literally can't get out of bed without it.

OMG, I just heard that Biden literally can’t get out of bed without adrenochrome. I heard it in a QAnon forum, so you know it’s legit.

Blood transfusion from children. Part of the days long preparation.
Many old, rich globalists are doing this just to stay alive and be able to move and talk.

You just knew antisemitism would eventually show up.

He'll go into the debate in a wheel chair. No way he could stand for 10 minutes.

There are videos of him standing for longer than 10 minutes every freakin’ day. At the State of the Union address, the lights were turned off in the chambers because Biden was standing around socializing—after standing for over an hour while he gave the speech. So what happens when he shows up acting all normal, like he always does? Clones, drugs, masked doubles, etc. …

My guess is the 10 days of no Joe before the debate is them implanting an ear device in him. Probably also a continuous medication pump to prop him up and adjust his meds as needed so he can live through the debate and sound somewhat coherent. The water they will let them have will be spiked with whatever they need and he will be directed at specific times to drink it in order to get the meds into him. He has a whole panic going on behind the scenes around him working to get him through this debate. I waited for him to fail the debates in 2020, and they limped him through. My guess is they will limp him through again and I will be disappointed in their effort when Joe doesn't say something idiotic.

For the record, Biden has been out and about. Not sure where they got the “no Joe for 10 days” thing.

Dude is right, though: He will be disappointed.

A more recent post on the site is titled “Trump should take the drug test before the debate regardless of whether Biden does, to win the worker vote while making Biden look 'elitist' (which americans hate). And here's what he should say too.”

Trump should say, "I want to be your employee. Like many of you around the country, who are subjected to drug testing, I till will submit to drug testing. It's what is fair."As per usual, My opponent thinks he's above this, and thinks he's above the law and the rules and the attitudes and values of our society. He lets his sons many international racketeering financial crimes slide. He himself is involved, but you can't expect the boss to police himself. No. Cheaters always cheat. Biden is probably being pumped full of performance enhancing drugs but you'll never know, because he won't LET you know."
"My administration will take a different approach. I want to tell you everything and let the chips fall where they may. I want to declassify everything and make some arrests, and since they went after me, I don't have to be polite with them anymore"

Yup, that’ll lock up the “worker vote.” I sure hope Trump doesn’t take this advice!

The comment thread to that post is kinda lame, but I did like this one:

I don't understand why he has agreed to debate on cnn but I imagine whatever they have planned is about to backfire spectacularly

There’s always one person who’s like, “wait a second…,” but is then drowned out by stuff like “‘The boss’ should be ‘the big guy’ instead to make a direct reference to the laptop messages,” because QAnon nuts think the rest of America is as knee-deep into their conspiracies as they are.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Rep. Jamaal Bowman's Performative Politics May Lose His Seat

Rep. Jamaal Bowman's Performative Politics May Lose His Seat

If polls are to be believed, as well as vibes by those in the district, New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman will lose Tuesday in a Democratic primary race framed around the war in Gaza, following AIPAC’s unprecedented spending in the race. Yet, if Bowman loses, it will be for reasons that go far beyond money or even the passions around the war in Gaza.

A HuffPost story from Sunday chronicles Bowman’s shift from a nuanced supporter of Israel’s right to exist (while criticizing right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s destructive policies), to calling alleged sexual assaults by Hamas on Oct. 7 “propaganda” and embracing some of the most strident anti-Israel rhetoric.

While Bowman’s district is solidly Democratic, he is now embroiled in a competitive primary, which requires a deft hand and sharp political instincts—both things that Bowman seems to lack.

New York’s 16th Congressional District comprises the northern Bronx and southern Westchester County, including the cities of Mount Vernon and Yonkers. It’s hard to get more ethnically and racially diverse than the 16th: 40 percent white, 29 percent Latino, 19 percent Black, and six percent Asian. Nearly 30 percent of the district’s population is foreign born. The per capita annual income of the district, nearly $63,000, is around 1.5 times that of the United States as a whole, and likely related, its education attainment (47.5 percent has at least a bachelor’s degree) is 1.3 times the national number. And Westchester County has a significant Jewish population.

What that all means is that entrenching oneself in this district requires judicious constituent service, being present and responsive to the vastly divergent interests of not just those larger communities but also the myriad subgroups within them. As we should all know by now, there is nothing monolithic about the white, Black, Latino, or Asian communities.

Even before Hamas’ October 7 attack, Bowman was failing the art of politics. His biggest misstep—one that’s been highlighted in plenty of ads—was his vote against President Joe Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure bill. His reason was sound as well. You might remember how progressives wanted to tie the infrastructure bill to Biden’s broader Build Back Better Act, a bill to massively invest in housing, education, and health care, among other programs. Biden and the Democratic leadership in Congress caved to West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and ended up splitting the bills. Build Back Better failed to pass, though a substantially reduced version of it, the Inflation Reduction Act, did pass—and Bowman voted for it.

However, despite fighting for Biden’s broader agenda, Bowman’s vote against the infrastructure law has given his primary opponent, Westchester County Executive George Latimer, a clear line of attack. And it seems to be landing with voters in the area. From the aforementioned HuffPost story:

“The things that [Bowman and other leftists] are voting against because they’re not getting everything they want, to me, sounds very much like children who are packing up their toys and going home,” said Jim Metzger, an architect and photographer from Hastings-on-Hudson who supported Bowman in 2022.

If an elected official wants the freedom to cast statement votes, they need to rely on a strong base of supporters ready to have their back for casting those statement votes. And that brings us to some of the people Bowman has allied himself with …

Our political system has degenerated into an ungovernable mess where people think screaming and threatening is an effective way to influence policy and politics. Daily Kos has always promoted a programmatic politics in which we build public support before demanding our elected officials take on contentious issues. It does no good to force elected allies to cast futile votes that will hurt their chances of being reelected—and our chances of building political power to create lasting change.

Unfortunately for Bowman, he doesn’t seem to have that base of support in his district. Instead, he’s tried to court a far-left that appears to have little interest in engaging electorally. As one progressive activist told The Hill:

It’s disconcerting how many activists have pushed for Bowman to stand up for Palestinians, but as of yet, as of now, it doesn’t seem all the noise has turned into financial support and that’s why Bowman may lose.

No one is asking Bowman’s supporters to go toe-to-toe with the right-wing pro-Israel AIPAC, which has dumped a shocking $14.5 million into ousting Bowman. But if every pro-Palestinian activist in the country donated to Bowman, he’d have significantly more than the $4.3 million he raised, which is less than Latimer’s own $5.8 million. (Can’t entirely blame that on AIPAC.)

Worse, the far-left that Bowman has courted is now attacking some of the most progressive members of Congress. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has tirelessly defended Bowman, and Sen. Bernie Sanders held a weekend rally for Bowman in the Bronx. The pro-Palestinian group Within Our Lifetimes attended, but not to sign up to walk precincts, make phone calls, raise money, or otherwise help get out the vote for him. Rather, they protested the event, attempting to disrupt it because no one can ever be pure enough for them.

“AOC, your hands are red. Over 40,000 dead,” they chanted. Her crime? Seemingly, it’s that she supports Biden, whom many in this movement call “Genocide Joe.” On the issue of Gaza, specifically, few are as supportive of their efforts as AOC, and she’s ardently fighting for Bowman, who has adopted much of the same language as the protestors, even accusing Israel of genocide. And yet somehow, this group decided it is these representatives who need to be protested.

Can people possibly be more absurd?

This is the same crowd that would happily enable Donald Trump’s election, even though that would be orders of magnitude more catastrophic for the residents of Gaza. It’s the reason Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is rooting for Trump to win in November.

Yet Bowman is cut from the same cloth. Responding to Latimer’s promise to deliver “real progressive results, not rhetoric,” Bowman retorted in a debate that “rhetoric creates movements in grassroots organizing that leads to American revolutions! That is what we need in this moment. We need rhetoric and results. We have both.”

As someone who lived through a revolution, I can tell you there’s nothing romantic about them. People die. Societies are turned inside out. Families are shattered. And the results are seldom what people expect.

Indeed, in American politics, “revolution” is the pining for change unsupported by popular opinion. It’s the (seemingly) easy way forward.

But let’s be charitable to Bowman and assume that he means it as some sort of benign awakening where the magic of his words and that of his allies spur a political realignment. …

Sorry, can’t do it.

Here are some commonsense guidelines for political change that these activists don’t seem to understand:

1) If you have public support, do politics.

2) If you don’t have public support, do advocacy to build public support.

It’s simple, pragmatic, practical, and realistic.

These pro-Palestinian activists don’t have public support, so the votes just won’t be there for them (AIPAC or no AIPAC), and wishing for a revolution to give them what they haven’t earned is naive extremism.

So given that lack of public support, they could’ve focused on advocacy work to influence public opinion while strongly supporting their elected allies. Instead, they turned on those allies while being obnoxious and turning off anyone else potentially open to their message.

That’s the difference between practical politics and performative politics. The right does it too, like mandating the Ten Commandments in classrooms and feigning piety to those commandments while supporting Trump.

The performative left doesn’t have the power of its counterparts on the right, they are in no way equivalent, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t doing MAGA’s bidding. Many would rather sink Biden’s campaign and hand Trump the victory than acknowledge that politics is messy and that progress takes hard work, money, and time.

New York’s 16th Congressional District seems set to remind Democrats that they value pragmatic results over performative rhetoric. Too bad that lesson will be lost thanks to AIPAC’s flood of cash. But elected incumbents don’t often lose, and it takes more than money to oust them.

If Bowman is defeated on Tuesday, he will have failed by losing touch with his district and by allying with people little interested in doing the hard work to have his back (preferring instead to damage him). The power of incumbency may save him yet. Odds are that it won’t.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

New Jersey Democratic Boss Norcross Indicted For Corruption

New Jersey Democratic Boss Norcross Indicted For Corruption

What’s going in on New Jersey, where everything is turning up roses?

First was the Sen. Bob Menendez indictment, ending his reelection bid as a Democrat.

Then it was hero Rep. Andy Kim immediately picking up the baton.

Then it was the end of New Jersey’s corrupt ballot line system, which essentially empowered Democratic Party county bosses to pick their candidates for office. (Thanks, Kim!)

Then it was the end of Tammy Murphy’s nepotistic bid for Senate (her husband is the governor).

And now? We may be witnessing the fall of New Jersey’s most corrupt Democratic Party power broker, George Norcross, as he faces a multi-count indictment for 12 years of wrongdoing.

It was five years ago that I wrote about Norcross, and this is as good a summary of that story as anything:

New Jersey politics have never been accused of being clean, and for good reason. Now that rampant and systemic sleaze is threatening freshman Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy.

The gist of the feud is South Jersey political boss and all-around a-hole George Norcross, an insurance mogul who has seemingly purchased the entire South Jersey Democratic establishment, and much of its statewide crew as well. Many of the seedy details can be found in this article, and this one, oh, and this one. But it can be neatly summed up like this: While Camden is facing public school closings because of a $27 million budgetary shortfall, Norcross and his allies have sucked up $1.1 billion in public subsidies and tax breaks supposedly designed to help places such as Camden.

The article also blasted New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker for siding with Norcross despite his obvious sleaze. It was a blemish on Booker’s otherwise solid record. Norcross was so powerful, it seemingly was impossible for anyone in the state’s politics to cross him. That is, until Gov. Phil Murphy was elected. The two have been battling it out since 2019, and it apparently is now culminating in this indictment.

From at least approximately 2012 to the present, GEORGE E. NORCROSS, III led a criminal enterprise whose members and associates agreed the enterprise would extort others through threats and fear of economic and reputational harm and commit other criminal offenses to achieve the enterprise's goals (the "Norcross Enterprise"

For his part, Norcross is acting like the political mafioso boss that he is:

Nearly overnight, New Jersey has gone from one of the most corrupt Democratic machine states to one that is aggressively rooting out and exposing the worst people. And if the result is that we get Sen. Andy Kim and and Democratic politicians who are no longer beholden to that kind of corruption, the benefits will be felt far beyond New Jersey.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

What Are The Odds That Trump Shows Up To Debate Biden?

What Are The Odds That Trump Shows Up To Debate Biden?

The problem with right-wing propaganda is that they actually start believing their bullshit, such as “Joe Biden is suffering from cognitive decline.” In the case of the upcoming debate later this month, it led Donald Trump to make a disastrous strategic decision, and he has no good options moving forward.

Hence, it makes the most sense for him to pull out like the coward he is.

Biden is dealing with two major challenges at the moment:

  1. People aren’t tuned in, so Trump’s antics are lost on a significant percentage of potential voters. The more people pay attention, the better Biden does.
  2. Many people (17% according to one poll!) think that Biden is responsible for the loss of abortion rights, as he was president when it happened.

So what does the June 27 debate do? It gets people to tune in and start paying attention, much earlier than they otherwise would (essentially, the Republican convention in mid-July, and that’s on their terms).

And Biden can begin setting the record straight on abortion, as the question will come up, and Trump won’t be able to help bragging about how he was the reason we’ve lost those rights.

But there’s more.

We all know the first question Trump will get about his 34 felony convictions. Is that really how Trump wants to introduce himself to people tuning in to the race for the first time? All the rants about “lawfare” and “Biden’s DoJ” won’t inoculate him from the damage being a felon causes him.

Given the fact that Trump immediately accepted Biden’s “no studio audience” stipulation, there won’t be anyone to cheer Trump on. He needs his culty followers cheering his nonsense to fuel him on. And the moderators’ ability to cut off mics means that Trump can’t spend all evening yelling over Biden.

Remember, this wasn’t the Trump campaign’s idea. Trump was baited into making an impulsive, immediate decision to accept terms that the Biden campaign couldn’t have thought would be accepted. It truly was a boss alpha move by the president.

So the big question is this: What does Trump get out of this debate?

If conservative propaganda was reality based, and Biden shuffled onto the stage drooling on himself, that would be something. But it’s not. And whether Trump believes it or not, you know his campaign does. So what else is there?

Nothing. There is literally no upside for Trump.

And that’s why the Republican Party’s de facto leader, Sean Hannity, is laying the groundwork for backing out of the debates, saying, “There are some even saying that Donald Trump might be wise to just pass on the first debate, wait until he's nominated, then debate him."

That’s a nice way for Hannity to say, “Trump f’d up.” It certainly wasn’t wise to accept Biden’s debate terms. And if I had to guess, the “some” people that Hannity is talking about is every Republican campaign and elected official. Indeed, they have gotten a closer look at their nominee than anyone else, and it isn’t pretty. Just Thursday …

In exchange for their promises of fealty, Trump focused hard on important issues and policies. Like his anger over how Taylor Swift refused to endorse him and incomprehensible claims about Nancy Pelosi’s daughter.

Trump also reportedly ran through his recent campaign bit about fictional serial killer Hannibal Lector calling him a “nice guy who even had a friend over for dinner.” As with his shark vs. battery ramble, no one really knows what Trump is talking about, or why he’s so obsessed with this. He just is.

Republicans have to be terrified of any of that spewing out of Trump’s mouth at a debate. It would be impossible for even the political press to ignore Trump’s obvious cognitive decline at that point. Trump can get away with lying, it’s baked into the narrative. But being weird? That’s far more damaging.

For its part, the Biden campaign has been working hard to raise expectations, the exact opposite of the usual approach of lowering them. They know they have the upper hand in any debate.

So given all that, why would Trump debate?

If he drops out of the debate, he’ll get called a coward and liberals will laugh for a few days. Sure, that would suck.

But if he doesn’t? The real campaign will kick off weeks early, in a forum specifically designed to benefit Biden. He will immediately have to answer questions about being a convicted felon, and confirm his culpability in ending abortion rights. For several hours, he’ll have to answer questions from actual journalists, not friendly conservative pundits, without a crowd to give his performance energy. The odds of him saying something weird are 100%. And he and his pals have set the bar so low for Biden, that all he has to do is not drool on himself to exceed expectations.

Given the dangers of debating and any lack of upside, there’s no logical reason for Trump to debate beyond pride. And maybe that’s enough to force him to show up.

But there will be lots of people doing everything possible to convince him that wounded pride is the best possible outcome.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

RFK Jr. Sued Daily Kos -- And It's Not Going Well For Him

Back in 2021, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sued Daily Kos to unmask the identity of a community member who posted a critical story about his dalliance with neo-Nazis at a Berlin rally. I updated the story here, here, here, here, and here.

To briefly summarize, Kennedy wanted us to doxx our community member, and we stridently refused. We protect our community at all costs. Shockingly, Kennedy got a trial court judge in New York to agree with him, and a subpoena was issued to Daily Kos to turn over any information we might have on the account. However, we are based in California, not New York, so once I received the subpoena at home, we had a California court not just quash the subpoena, but essentially signal that if New York didn’t do the right thing on appeal, California could very well take care of it.

It’s been a while since I updated, and given a favorable court ruling this month, it’s way past time to catch everyone up.

This has become a critical free speech case, with what’s called the ”Dendrite standard” at stake. In short, the Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3 ruling states that anonymous speech is protected unless all of the following apply:

(1) the plaintiff must make good faith efforts to notify the poster and give the poster a reasonable opportunity to respond; (2) the plaintiff must specifically identify the poster's allegedly actionable statements; (3) the complaint must set forth a prima facie cause of action; (4) the plaintiff must support each element of the claim with sufficient evidence; and (5) "the court must balance the defendant's First Amendment right of anonymous free speech against the strength of the prima facie case presented and the necessity for the disclosure of the anonymous defendant's identity."

Put another way, a plaintiff better have a damn good reason to violate an anonymous poster’s free speech rights in order to force a media organization to unmask them.

This test, suggested by Public Citizen and the ACLU in an amicus brief, was originally adopted by a New Jersey court in 2001. Ever since, Public Citizen has avidly sought to enshrine it in additional states. One of the missing states? New York. Public Citizen has assisted our defense team and represented our community member as an opportunity to enshrine the Dendrite protections in New York.

The issues at hand are so important that The New York Times, the E.W.Scripps Company, the First Amendment Coalition, New York Public Radio, and seven other New York media companies joined the appeals effort with their own joint amicus brief. What started as a dispute over a Daily Kos diarist has become a meaningful First Amendment battle, with major repercussions given New York’s role as a major news media and distribution center.

After reportedly spending over $1 million on legal fees, Kennedy somehow discovered the identity of our community member sometime last year and promptly filed a defamation suit in New Hampshire in what seemed a clumsy attempt at forum shopping, or the practice of choosing where to file suit based on the belief you’ll be granted a favorable outcome. The community member lives in Maine, Kennedy lives in California, and Daily Kos doesn't publish specifically in New Hampshire. A perplexed court threw out the case this past February on those obvious jurisdictional grounds.

[He] does not live or work in New Hampshire, he has no meaningful contacts with this state, he did not consult any New Hampshire sources when writing the article, he did not mention New Hampshire in the article or otherwise ‘direct’ the article to this state, and he had no reason to anticipate that the ‘brunt’ of the (alleged) injury to Kennedy’s reputation would be felt in New Hampshire—particularly since Kennedy is not a resident of New Hampshire and his connections to New Hampshire are, at best, attenuated.

Then, last week, the judge threw out the appeal of that decision because Kennedy’s lawyer didn’t file in time—and blamed the delay on bad Wi-Fi.

Freakin’ hilarious! So our intrepid community member, who ultimately unmasked himself, is in the clear! But that doesn’t mean the broader case is over.

Kennedy tried to dismiss the original case, the one awaiting an appellate decision in New York, claiming it was now moot. His legal team had sued to get the community member’s identity, and now that they had it, they argued that there was no reason for the case to continue.

We disagreed, arguing that there were important issues to resolve (i.e., Dendrite), and we also wanted lawyer fees for their unconstitutional assault on our First Amendment rights. (Fun fact: The press is the only profession specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.)

On Thursday, in a unanimous decision, a four-judge New York Supreme Court appellate panel ordered the case to continue, keeping the Dendrite issue alive and also allowing us to proceed in seeking damages based on New York’s anti-SLAPP law, which prohibits “strategic lawsuits against public participation.”

Here’s how one of our lawyers, Adam Bonin, described the court order: “A New York appeals court is unanimously allowing Daily Kos to proceed on claims that RFK Jr. had no right to try to unmask one of our users and that his attempts to do so violated New York's anti-SLAPP rules, which may entitle the site to seek damages against him.”

Kennedy opened up a can of worms and has spent millions fighting this stupid battle. Despite his losses, we aren’t letting him weasel out of this.

We’ve been able to fight this fight on behalf of our valued community because of your generous support.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

MAGA Suckers Are About To Lose Big Money On Truth Social

MAGA Suckers Are About To Lose Big Money On Truth Social

Like everything else related to Donald Trump, his social media platform Truth Social’s parent company, Trump Media & Technology Group, has been embroiled in a nasty stew of incompetence, greed, and legal warfare. And much of that came to a head Monday as the company lost almost 21.5 percent of its inflated valuation after its much-hyped initial public offering, or IPO.

Despite the one-day collapse, the stock is still grossly overpriced, and a close examination of TMTG’s 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission shows just how much of a disaster it is—and how much further the stock could plunge. Let’s take a walk through the document.

  • Trump holds 57.3 percent of the company, valued at $8.84 billion as I write this. That means his stake is worth $5 billion. But … that’s just Monopoly money. If he tried to sell, the mass flooding of his shares into a market uninterested in hoovering them up would collapse the price. If he tried to sell, his eventual take would be substantial, but we don’t know what his holdings are really worth. At the moment, he’s forbidden from selling his TMTG shares for six months, though the company’s board (which he controls—more details below) could waive that provision. If they did, it would immediately collapse the share price. If they don’t and Trump has to wait, expect the price to fall in fits and starts over the coming months, because the rest of the 8-K had nothing but horrendous news for the company. As a fun aside, Trump lost around $1.2 billion in paper value today.

  • Since Trump owns more than 50 percent, the filing notes that “a company of which more than 50 percent of the voting power for the election of directors is held by an individual, group or other company is a ‘controlled company’ and may elect not to comply with certain corporate governance standards.” The filing helpfully explains what this means: “Accordingly, investors may not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the Nasdaq corporate governance requirements.” Who wants to invest in a company that has fewer stockholder protections, and is owned by Trump? Oh, and seated on that not-independent board? Donald Trump Jr. and Linda McMahon, who ran for Senate in Connecticut twice (and lost).
  • Conservative former Congressman Devin Nunes is paid $750,000 as CEO, despite having zero experience running a tech or media company, and that will go up to $1 million next year. Prior to serving in Congress, he was a farmer. Now, I’m sure you’re thinking, “Gosh, that’s not a lot of money, and there’s no one more qualified at licking Trump’s boots than Nunes. What if he bolts?” Oh ye of little faith, you underestimate Trump’s grifting negotiating prowess! Nunes is also getting a $600,000 “retention bonus”! Keep that number in mind.
  • The company’s chief financial officer Phillip Juhan and chief operating officer Andrew Northwall are getting $337,500 and $365,000, respectively. And you’ll be happy to learn that both of them are also getting $600,000 retention bonuses.
  • So just to be clear, TMTG’s top three officers are making $3.252 million this year. Therefore, we can assume that the company’s revenues are commensurate with such compensation, right?
  • Kash Patel gets $120,000 annually in “consulting” fees, as does Dan Scavino. You might remember Patel as the insurrectionist who Trump attempted to install at the CIA at the last minute. These days, he’s threatening to jail the media if Trump wins in November. Scavino was the longest-tenured member of the Trump administration, ending as Trump’s director of social media, which tells you how effective he was at sucking up to Trump—and how tolerant he was of Trump’s fascism. In fact, former Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis testified that when she told Scavino that Trump had to leave office, he told her, “We don’t care [...] The boss is not going to leave under any circumstances. We are just going to stay in power.” So why do you think two of Trump’s top insurrectionist lieutenants are collecting cushy “consulting” fees from the company?
  • Upon the IPO’s closing, the company took out a $50 million loan at eight percent interest, payable in one year. I’m no expert on this, so I could be wrong, but what I always see post-IPO is that a company will sell a certain percentage of shares to fund whatever expansion/operations are needed. Elon Musk did this effectively at Tesla: Every time the stock price spiked, the company would sell extra shares to raise the money the company needed for its next expansion. The only reasons I can see for TMTG to take out a loan is that 1) it doesn’t dilute Trump’s equity stake, keeping him above 50 percent and that magical “we don’t need to follow the rules” level, and 2) they can declare bankruptcy and never pay it back.
  • Trump Media reported losing $58.2 million on just $4.1 million in revenue in 2023. The bulk of that massive loss comes from $39.4 million in interest expenses. In 2022, the company had a $50.5-million profit on revenue of $1.47 million. And no, I don’t know how you claim a $50 million profit with revenues below $2 million. Maybe they’re counting loans as profit? The 8-K report states, “To date, TMTG has relied primarily on bridge financing, in the form of convertible promissory notes, to build the Truth Social platform.” I count 20 loans totaling $41.7 million, which the company is now paying off (again, rather than using proceeds from the IPO to raise money for the company).
  • Remember, TMTG paid its top three executives $3.252 million for their amazing ability to generate … $4.1 million in revenue. Thank God they granted those generous retention bonuses to keep them around!
  • Uh oh, Elon Musk—they’re coming for your schtick: “TMTG has conducted extensive technological due diligence regarding, and has begun testing, a particular, state-of-the-art technology that supports video streaming and provides a ‘home’ for cancelled content creators, and which TMTG aims to acquire and incorporate into its product offerings and/or services as soon as practicable.”
  • This is just delicious: “TMTG’s success depends in part on the popularity of our brand and the reputation and popularity of President Trump. The value of TMTG’s brand may diminish if the popularity of President Trump were to suffer [...] President Trump is involved in numerous lawsuits and other matters that could damage his reputation. Additionally, TMTG’s business plan relies on President Trump bringing his former social media followers to TMTG’s platform. In the event any of these, or other events, cause his followers to lose interest in his messages, the number of users of our platform could decline or not grow as we have assumed.” The company is literally admitting that its entire business revolves around Donald Trump and his “reputation.” Anyone who puts a dime into this dumpster fire deserves to lose all their money.
  • The filing doesn’t sound all that optimistic: “TMTG expects to continue to incur operating losses and negative cash flows from operating activities for the foreseeable future, as it works to expand its user base, attracting more platform partners and advertisers.” So what is the company doing to attract more users and advertisers? “This growth is expected to come from the overall appeal of the Truth Social Platform.” Ahh, the “vibes” approach to company-building. There is nothing wrong with losing money in order to grow. Most growing businesses do that at some point. But they also don’t go public with a measly $4.1 million in revenue. The norm for Wall Street IPOs is $100 million in revenue and significant year-over-year growth. The idea that a company that has one-third of the revenue of Daily Kos is worth nearly $9 billion is the height of absurdity. And most people know this, which is why this is destined to be a penny stock.
  • This is hilarious: “Since its inception, TMTG has focused on developing Truth Social by enhancing features and user interface rather than relying on traditional performance metrics like average revenue per user, ad impressions and pricing, or active user accounts, including monthly and daily active users.” They don’t report those numbers because they are laughable. They add, “TMTG believes that focusing on these KPIs [key performance indicators] might not align with the best interests of TMTG or its shareholders.” Exactly! If people knew just how pathetic their metrics were, the company’s shareholders would be wiped out overnight.

Now remember, the bulk of TMTG’s expenses are those loans, and it didn’t sell any extra shares to pay them off. So to close this recap, let me quote one more line that perfectly encapsulates the inevitable fate of this company:

[M]anagement had substantial doubt that TMTG will have sufficient funds to meet its liabilities as they fall due.

“Truth,” indeed.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Why Taylor Swift Is Now The Right's Most Fearsome Foe

Why Taylor Swift Is Now The Right's Most Fearsome Foe

While I was writing about the travails of online dating for conservatives, one stat stood out: “Looking at the 2022 midterm election exit polls, married women voted 56-42 for Republicans, while unmarried women voted 68-31 for Democrats—that’s a whopping 51-percentage-point difference! (There was a much smaller 13-point swing among men.)”

That’s why Taylor Swift is one of the biggest threats to conservatism today.

You don’t have to listen or even like Taylor Swift to stand in awe of her accomplishments.

  • Two-time Time Magazine “person of the year”
  • Eleven number one songs on Billboard’s Hot 100
  • Only female artist to replace herself at number one on the Hot 100 … twice
  • Forty-nine top 10 hits on the Hot 100
  • Two-hundred-thirty-two songs total on the Hot 100 (how?)
  • With her album “Midnights,” she held all top 10 spots on the Hot 100 in a single week (a first)
  • Only female artist with three number one albums on the Billboard 200 in a calendar year … twice
  • Thirteen number one albums on the Billboard 200, a record by a female artist
  • Sixty-six total weeks at number one on the Billboard 200, third overall behind the Beatles (132 weeks) and Elvis (67 weeks). Swift is only 34 years old. She’s going to eventually hold this record
  • Twelve Grammy wins
  • Her six Grammy nominations for “album of the year” tie her with Barbra Streisand for most ever for a female artist
  • Her seven Grammy nominations for “song of the year” are the most ever for any artist
  • Net worth: $1.1 billion (all of it self-made)
  • First female artist to reach 100 million monthly listeners on Spotify
  • Most streamed female artist on Apple Music
  • Fifty-six million followers on YouTube
  • Two-hundred-seventy-nine million followers on Instagram

And all that before we even get to her current Eras Tour, where her earnings are expected to be around $4.1 billion, with an economic impact of another $5.7 billion to the U.S. economy. Seriously, it goes on and on. Swift is easily the most successful female recording artist in history, and it’s not even close.

And she’s not just political, but she’s a liberal—and increasingly partisan one at that.

There are several major factors that affect whether someone is a Democrat or Republican, according to 2020 exit polls.

  • Education:The more educated a voter is, the more liberal a voter is. College graduates chose President Joe Biden 55-43, while those without college opted for Donald Trump 50-48.
  • Race: White people voted for Trump 58-41. Black voters chose Biden 87-12, while more than 60% of both Latinos and Asians opted for Biden.
  • Education and race:Tie those two together and the differences become more stark. Among white voters with college degrees, Biden won 51-48, while Trump won 67-32 among white voters without college degrees.
  • Gender:Trump won men 53-45, while Biden won women 57-42.
  • Age:Biden won voters ages 18-44 56-42, while Trump won everyone older than that 51-48.

It’s clear why Republicans attack higher education and why they seek to disenfranchise younger voters and voters of color. It explains much of their virulent misogyny. Throw in the marriage numbers from the top of the story, and the ideal Republican voter is a white, married male with no college education. And their biggest nemesis? A single, college-educated young woman.

And who does Swift speak to? Young, single women. And what does she preach? Personal empowerment and political participation.

In her song “Only the Young,” she preaches the gospel of political activism.

So every day now You brace for the sound You've only heard on TV You go to class, scared Wondering where the best hiding spot would be And the big bad man and his big bad clan Their hands are stained with red Oh, how quickly, they forgetThey aren't gonna help us Too busy helping themselves They aren't gonna change this We gotta do it ourselves They think that it's over But it's just begun

She has been cutting on the double standard she faces as a woman. This is from her song “The Man”:

I would be complex, I would be cool They'd say I played the field before I found someone to commit to And that would be okay for me to do Every conquest I had made would make me more of a boss to youI'd be a fearless leader I'd be an alpha type When everyone believes ya What's that like?

I'm so sick of running as fast as I can Wondering if I'd get there quicker if I was a man And I'm so sick of them coming at me again 'Cause if I was a man, then I'd be the man I'd be the man I'd be the man

They'd say I hustled, put in the work They wouldn't shake their heads and question how much of this I deserve What I was wearing, if I was rude Could all be separated from my good ideas and power moves

And they would toast to me, oh, let the players play I'd be just like Leo in Saint-Tropez

And … how about this diss on marriage, from her song “Midnight Rain”?

I was midnight rain He wanted it comfortable I wanted that pain He wanted a bride I was making my own name Chasing that fame He stayed the same All of me changed Like midnight

Indeed, her message of female empowerment and strong personal identity is exactly what Republicans fear the most. What happens if more women stand strong, get educated, carve out their own careers, and either put off marriage or skip it entirely? And given the historically low turnout rates among young voters, what if she gets her legions of fans to register and vote?

In one of her first forays into political activism, she went after Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn in 2018. She has publicly called Donald Trump an autocrat and advocated for his defeat in 2020. And a single Instagram post in September drove tens of thousands of her fans to a voter registration website. And on Election Day 2022, she publicly encouraged her fans to vote. It really does feel like she’s just getting started, and conservatives are terrified.

Following her second Time “person of the year” cover, the right erupted in hysterical outrage. Conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer ranted about Swift being in cahoots with liberal donor George Soros, claiming her efforts to register young voters were meant to “interfere” in the 2024 elections. Jack Posobiec of PizzaGate fame claimed that the “Taylor Swift girlboss psyop” had been “fully activated” for her “upcoming 2024 voter operation for Democrats on abortion rights.”

In another post following the Republican losses this November, he lamented: “Republicans still haven't internalized that the Left promotes abortion as a pro-feminism issue. They aren't voting to kill babies, they're voting bc of feminist movies like Barbie and pop stars like Taylor Swift influencing an army of voters.” In a follow-up tweet, he screamed in all-caps, “BREAKING: THE CHILDLESS, UNMARRIED ABORTION ARMY MOBILIZED BY BARBIE, TAYLOR SWIFT, AND TIKTOK THAT IS CRUSHING REPUBLICANS AT THE BALLOT BOX.”

Childless. Unmarried. You get the point. Conservative radio host Charlie Kirk had a similar message: “Taylor Swift is going to come out in the presidential election and she is going to mobilize her fans. … And we're going to be like, 'Oh wow, where did all these young, female voters come from?’”

The Federalist, a conservative rag, published a story in September titled “Taylor Swift’s Popularity Is A Sign Of Societal Decline.” The problem with her according to this article? You’ll love this:

I still stand by the fact it’s a mistake to read too much in the way of politics or feminism into Swift’s appeal, but given her popularity in the face of this lyrical obsession, it’s a chicken-or-egg-first proposition about whether the cultural avatar of millennial females is famous for being near constantly romantically aggrieved even as TikTok is full of videos of women insisting, “No really, it’s great being 29 and unmarried and childless, I don’t want that at all, I get to sleep in on weekends and learn to make shakshuka, this is the most fulfilling life I can conceive of, I’M HAPPY WHY WON’T ANYONE BELIEVE ME?!”

She’s encouraging women not to get married.

The link inside that blockquote is to a Matt Walsh tweet where he proclaims that a woman posting about how happy she is being single was a problem: “Her life doesn’t revolve around her family and kids so instead it revolves around TV shows and pop stars. Worst of all she’s too stupid to realize how depressing this is.” That is some breathtaking man-splainin’ arrogance, telling a woman how she should live her life, lest it seem to men like him to be “depressing.” Another conservative on Twitter cried, “It’s shameful and sad that a hyper-promiscuous, childless woman (Taylor Swift), aging and alone with a cat, has become the heroine of a feminist age.”

In case it’s not clear, “promiscuous” is another word for “unmarried” since these neanderthals have decreed that sex is bad outside the confines of that traditional institution. It really does bring home her lyrics in “The Man”: how if she were male, she’d “be just like Leo[nardo DeCaprio] in Saint-Tropez,” cavorting with women half his age and younger.

In any case, the Swifties—Swift’s hardcore fan base—are very aware of the right-wing backlash and are extremely defensive of her. The more right-wingers go after her, the more likely her fans are to heed her calls for voter registration and participation. The GOP’s war on democracy and personal liberties (and in particular, abortion and contraception) provides ample motivation to further motivate them.

It’s easy to imagine Swift turning up her activism as we approach next year’s election. Looking at her upcoming tour schedule, she is touring most of the year. But check this out: She has a gap in her tour schedule between August 20 and October 18. The Democratic National Convention will run August 19-22. Would be something to have her play and speak on the final day of the convention.

Then, when she returns to touring in October, her dates on the 18th, 19th, and 20th will be in Florida, where Dems will be fighting to pick up a Senate seat (and who knows, maybe Florida will decide to cooperate next year and be competitive).

Then she’ll be off between November 4-13. Election Day will be November 5.

There’s plenty of time for her to amp up her political activism, registering millions of otherwise inactive voters and ensuring they turn out and vote. And Republicans, by hysterically attacking Swift’s very existence, could very well motivate her to do so. Or maybe she doesn’t need that motivation. Trump and his party are scary enough on their own.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Third party can't win

Why There's No Place for 'No Labels' In 2024

Third parties are just not a thing in American presidential politics. The first-past-the-post nature of our system means that without supplanting one of the major parties, the best-case scenario for any third-party candidate is to play the spoiler.

So why engage in such a futile endeavor? One obvious reason is to use the high-profile nature of the campaign to bring attention to one’s pet issues. This is why Ralph Nader or Cornel West might throw their hat in the ring: Their need to promote themselves and their causes trumps any negative consequences of their quixotic campaigns. In the case of Nader, he played spoiler and we got George W. Bush and an endless war. We could have had a climate champion instead in Al Gore.

But let’s be clear: No Labels is not that. The fledgling “political party” doesn't have a message to sell. Their name literally says, “We stand for nothing.” Theirs is a more cynical pursuit: a bunch of washed-up, loser politicians grifting conservative billionaires out of millions, using ridiculous and easily refuted arguments to line their pockets and pretend to retain some semblance of relevance.

This was all clear as I faced off with No Labels Co-chair Pat McCrory, the transphobic former governor of North Carolina, this past weekend on “Meet the Press.”

The core of the argument is encapsulated in this tweet:

Here’s the transcript of the broader exchange:

CHUCK TODD: Welcome back. So let's look at a Biden general election campaign and this idea of a third party. Pat, you are a big part of No Labels. You guys are recruiting candidates. What is this ticket going to look like, and is this a 100% commitment that there is going to be a ticket from No Labels?PAT McCRORY: Well, Nikki Haley in the debate confirmed that 65% of the people are disgusted with both Trump and Biden being our only choices. They're asking, "Isn't America better than this? Can't we have a better choice?" And the momentum, the movement of No Labels is on fire right now. People are looking for another potential candidate --
CHUCK TODD: I get that people don't want --
PAT McCRORY: And I know -- wait a minute. There are a lot of people --
MARKOS MOULITSAS: No, there are not.
PAT McCRORY: There are a lot of people --
MARKOS MOULITSAS: No, there are not.
PAT McCRORY: There are a lot of people – I'm telling you right now. A lot of people who predicted Trump would never be president are the same people who are saying, "There's no way in hell a third party can win." I'm telling you. We've never had 65% --
CHUCK TODD: Go, Markos.
PAT McCRORY: – of the people disgusted --
MARKOS MOULITSAS: So, No Labels --
PAT McCRORY: – with both parties.
MARKOS MOULITSAS: – is literally a movement that says, "We stand for nothing." Imagine going to Walmart --
PAT McCRORY: That is so –
MARKOS MOULITSAS: – or Target and seeing no labels on a product.
PAT McCRORY: You haven't read obviously the –
MARKOS MOULITSAS: The products are the problem.
PAT McCRORY: – 30-issue statement --
MARKOS MOULITSAS: No, here.
PAT McCRORY: – of No Labels.
MARKOS MOULITSAS: The issue statement ignores abortion. And it has such --
PAT McCRORY: You missed the whole --
MARKOS MOULITSAS: – barn-burning issues such as medical --
PAT McCRORY: You never read it.
MARKOS MOULITSAS: – tort reform. That'll light up the audience.
PAT McCRORY: You have not read it.
MARKOS MOULITSAS: So the –
PAT McCRORY: He hasn’t read it.
MARKOS MOULITSAS: – reality is it's finance-industry heavy. Oh, I read it. No, I actually did read it. I read it last night.
DANIELLE PLETKA: That's why he couldn't sleep.
MARKOS MOULITSAS: Yeah, really.
PAT McCRORY: Well, Nikki Haley --
MARKOS MOULITSAS: So …
PAT McCRORY: – basically repeated the No Labels agenda --
MARKOS MOULITSAS: So the problem isn't they don't like Biden or Trump. It's that you are creating this idea that there's a mythical unicorn creature that will agree with these people who want something else. That doesn't exist. When [Monmouth] polled Manchin and Huntsman, it's like what? 12% --

Let’s run down the arguments.

There’s broad “disgust” with both Trump and Biden.

Yes, neither is particularly popular with the broader electorate in our deeply polarized society, but both are actually popular within their own parties.

Trump is at 34 percent -58 percent among independents, while Biden is at 32 percent --60 percent. Is there “disgust” there? Maybe. But it’s not a unanimous opinion. Left-leaning independents might pine for Bernie Sanders while center-right, never-Trump independents might pine for Mitt Romney. Far-right nuts might want … Ted Nugent? This is an important point, which we’ll return to in a bit.

A bit later in the show, I was asked why there wasn’t a real Democratic primary. “Biden's actually very popular among Democrats. In Civiqs polling—Civiqs with a ‘q’—Biden is sitting around 80% with Democrats,” I said, underplaying Biden’s actual support of 83%. “There's no space. You think there's no space for an anti-Trump? There's really no space for an anti-Biden.”

If you watch the segment, the whole panel—including supposed Democrat Stephanie Murphy, a former congresswoman from Florida—scoffed. They thought it was so ludicrous that anyone would have a favorable opinion of Biden despite the overwhelming evidence in the polling. Do some people wish their favorite Democrat were the nominee instead of Biden? Of course! But that’s a far cry from “disgust.” And yes, all three had stories about how their social circles didn’t like Biden, but the D.C.-groupthink was strong.

And if you think I’m biasing Biden’s numbers by pointing to our very own Civiqs polling, Gallup just asked respondents whether they approved of the way Joe Biden is handling his job as president. Among Democrats a whopping 87 percent approved, even higher than in Civiqs polling. This is not controversial. The data is clear.

“There are a lot of people—I'm telling you right now,” McCrory said. “A lot of people who predicted Trump would never be president are the same people who are saying, ‘There's no way in hell a third party can win.’ I'm telling you. We've never had 65% of the people disgusted with both parties.”

Okay, that’s different than Biden versus Trump. That’s talking about the parties. Let’s take a look, shall we?

Among Democrats, 81 percent approve of the Democratic Party, which is shocking given the real problems with our party. The party brand is shit among independents at 24-65, but we know that. It’s why we lose elections in places that should naturally be Democratic, like poor rural counties.

Overall, the Democratic Party approval rating is 38-55. Horrible! But I’d rather have those numbers than the Republican favorability rating among all Americans: 27-64. Ouch. It is only 66-20 approval among Republicans, probably because Trump does such a good job of trashing every other Republican. Among independents it’s 17-70. Brutal.

Still, trying to extrapolate the idea that “voters will support my third party” from those numbers is absurd. The reason the Republican Party favorables among Republicans are so low is because some are angered by the MAGA takeover of the party while others think the party isn’t MAGA enough. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party’s numbers among Democrats are high because we are unified to an unprecedented level—but there are still those who wish we were more like Sanders, and a smaller but still real crowd who wishes we were more “centrist.”

There are a million opinions in politics and you can’t shoehorn them all into two parties. But here’s the thing: You can’t shoehorn them into three parties, either—not without a major realignment.

McCrory then pushes back against my rational notion that a party that is called “No Labels,” which literally means, “we stand for nothing,” actually stands for nothing. He pushes their 30-point platform with such great ideas as number one: “America can’t solve its biggest problems and deliver the results hardworking taxpayers want, need, and deserve unless Democrats and Republicans start working together side by side on bipartisan solutions.” How is a third party going to get the two other parties to work together? And seriously, Democrats have a pathological desire to engage in bipartisanship. The problem there is one-sided. It is Republicans who refuse to engage. (And honestly, I don’t blame them! Parties are supposed to disagree! Let the voters decide which vision to follow.)

Or how about, “National service could help heal America’s political divide.” And then there’s, “It’s in America’s interest to work with our allies to advance our mutual interests.”

I mean, it’s pablum! And if you’re looking for substance on actual issues, forget it. Abortion?* “America must strike a balance between protecting women’s rights to control their own reproductive health and our society’s responsibility to protect human life.” That’s how they manage to talk about abortion without taking an actual position on it. The “balanced” position was Roe v. Wade. If they really wanted to “strike a balance,” all they’d have to say is, “Return to the Roe v. Wade standard.” But they don’t.

Indeed, “No Labels” is an apt name as they don’t actually create an ideological framework that sets them apart from the two main parties. Did you know that they’re also against crime (idea eight) and want our students to be number one (idea thirteen)? Everyone says that, and everyone (mostly) means it! The question is how we get there. And if you think their detailed explanation of their ideas provides more substance, think again. In idea 13, their proposal is to spend more time “reaching for excellence,” and they think, “Our next president should send a signal to us and the world that America is embarking on a national goal to make our students number one in math and reading within a decade.” Well that’s easy! Just send a signal!

Ultimately there’s one big point when talking about third parties, and here it is:

MARKOS MOULITSAS: So the problem isn't they don't like Biden or Trump. It's that you are creating this idea that there's a mythical unicorn creature that will agree with these people who want something else. That doesn't exist. When [Monmouth] polled Manchin and Huntsman, it's like what? 12% --

There are myriad reasons for rejecting the two major parties and their two likely nominees. There isn’t a gap in the ideological spectrum just waiting to be filled by someone who proudly proclaims his strong support for medical tort reform (idea five). Their attempts to sidestep difficult issues like abortion, gun control, and democracy simply mean that anyone who cares about those issues will stick with the major parties since Republicans and Democrats aren’t shy about where they stand on those critical issues.

No Labels likes to quote polls that show a generic third-party candidate as competitive in a presidential matchup against Biden and Trump. Those polls are useless for two reasons: 1) an unnamed candidate who people can imagine as their ideal will always poll better against an actual human with actual positions on things people care about, and 2) third parties always poll better than they perform in actual elections.

On the first point, we have recent proof thanks to a recent Monmouth University poll.

First they asked about a Biden-Trump matchup:

  • Biden: 47
  • Trump: 40

Then they added a generic third-party candidate:

  • Biden: 37
  • Generic: 30
  • Trump: 28

Finally, they gave us names for the third party—a “fusion” ticket featuring Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin and Republican former Gov. Jon Huntsman:

  • Biden: 40
  • Trump: 34
  • Manchin: 16

A generic candidate takes 10 points from Biden and 12 points from Trump. An actual name takes 7 points from Biden and 6 points from Trump.

But here’s where the poll gets extra interesting: Monmouth then added a question about voting for a spoiler candidate.

Asked if a third-party vote would spoil the election and lead to a Biden victory:

  • Biden: 39
  • Trump: 37
  • Manchin: 20

In other words, if people think their third-party vote helps Biden, they’re more likely to vote third party and Trump notches his best three-way numbers. But … if told their vote for a third party would benefit Trump, check it out:

  • Biden: 43
  • Trump: 33
  • Manchin: 20

People don’t want Trump to win, and this gives us Biden’s most comfortable winning margin.

And of course, Manchin wouldn’t come anywhere near 20 percent. Meet the Press moderator Todd directly pointed this out to McCrory using my “unicorn” frame:

CHUCK TODD: Pat, can you give us some names? Because, you know, Manchin and Huntsman, that's not going to get you your unicorn. What other candidates --
PAT McCRORY: I'm just saying, I don't think there's going to be a shortage --
CHUCK TODD: Is Will Hurd one of your candidates?
PAT McCRORY: I don't think there'll be a shortage of candidates --
CHUCK TODD: Why can't you guys name some names?
MARKOS MOULITSAS: Who is it?

This was a huge messaging victory. The biggest political show on television just flipped the No Labels discussion frame from “people want a third party candidate” to, “Oh yeah? So who is your unicorn?” As McCrory showed, they have no answer for that because the second anyone floats a name, any potential support will quickly evaporate under the inevitable scrutiny and attacks from multiple sides.

That’s not a bad thing! If someone claims that they can fill a massive, unsatisfied percentage of the electorate, then they’ll have to prove it. And there isn’t a single person who can pull that off. It certainly won’t be former Rep. Will Hurd. And if it is? Well, having someone run third party who explicitly calls himself a Republican is fine with me. Let the right split their vote as many ways as possible.

If Republican billionaires like Justice Clarence Thomas’ sugar daddy Harlan Crow want to shower $70 million on No Labels to run a Republican spoiler candidate, more power to them.

(*Fact checking myself: I was wrong in saying that their platform doesn’t mention abortion. In my prep, I jotted down that they “don’t take a position” because they don’t. It just came out wrong in the moment.)

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Trump Smears Smith, Lies About Ukraine And Boasts Of Raising Gas Prices

Trump Smears Smith, Lies About Ukraine And Boasts Of Raising Gas Prices

Twice-indicted, twice-impeached Donald Trump spoke yesterday to North Carolina and Georgia Republicans.

His speeches have always been gibberish, and these have been no different.

Here he tries to play lawyer. Maybe there’s a reason he keeps losing lawyers as he law-splains’ to them what is going on.

Hillary Clinton’s emails!

Shockingly, the crowd doesn’t chant “lock her up!” Maybe they’re realizing that it’s their guy getting locked up.

Anyway, the real criminal here is Mike Pence. And President Joe Biden. And he literally accuses Biden of doing exactly what Trump’s indictment says he did.

Now he’s lying about Ukraine using up “all” of our ammunition, and then accuses Biden of getting “large amounts of money from Ukraine.” Trump will never get over Ukrainian Volodymyr Zelenskyy refusing to go along with his scheme to frame Hunter Biden in a non-existent investigation.

Also, he would have a peace deal in 24 hours.

Ha ha ha! Fox News cuts in mid-speech to fact check Trump’s claims of election interference. They're feeling the sting of their Dominion Voting Systems legal settlement.

You can sense Fox News dwindling viewers changing channels to one of those non-woke networks like Newsmax or One America News. I do wonder when the libel lawsuits will eventually destroy those two.

There was also a North Carolina speech, where the fun continued.

Here he says that we should’ve gone to war against Venezuela to “take their oil,” and then brags about getting Russia and Saudi Arabia to raise gas prices.

He literally brags about raising oil prices to “save the oil companies”!

Let’s pause a moment to appreciate that the Republican Party, crying about high gas prices during the midterm, worship their cult hero who brags about demanding higher gas prices.

Then he complaints Biden lowered gas prices by releasing strategic oil reserves before the election.

Uh, thanks for the campaign ad material, Donnie boy!

Now he wants to kill American tourist industry.

Anyone have a clue about what this 15 percent would apply to? We already make a fortune from tourists. Pre-COVID, foreign visitors spent $233.5 billion in the U.S., or $640 million every single day. I suspect we’re close or back to those pre-pandemic levels.

So anyway, yes, Trump is back. But I certainly like it a lot better now that he’s under double-indictment. Regardless, beating him won’t be easy, so we need the reminder that he is an existential threat to this country we love so much. And while it’s fun to watch Republicans beat up on each other, and there’ll be plenty of that in the coming months, we’ll need to be ready to gear up soon to challenge this grave threat.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Pramila Jayapal

As Right Wing Rages, It's Becoming Clear Who Won Debt Battle

As the full text of the debt limit deal is released, reactions are streaming in.

Let’s start with the Democrats, who had been pretty quiet as the early details leaked. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), who chairs the House Progressive Caucus, told CNN that she is waiting on the legislative text to make a final voting decision: “That’s always, you know, a problem, if you can’t see the exact legislative text. And we’re all trying to wade through spin right now.” That said, she mocked Republicans for not getting what they claimed to want: a reduction in the deficit. Hard to do that when they increased Pentagon spending and removed IRS funding designed to collect unpaid tax revenue.

With the legislative text out, House Democratic leaders sounded optimistic late in the day about Progressive Caucus support.

That is the standard reaction after expecting the worst (relief, mixed with surprise, like new food-stamp access for the homeless and veterans): a huge progressive win. I can’t believe that food-stamp access wasn’t already a thing.

Aside from question marks about the Progressive Caucus membership, the bulk of the party remained supportive. Insofar as I’m seeing any reaction, it’s simply parroting the White House’s talking points. If anything, any celebrations are muted, lest they add fuel to conservative efforts to scuttle the deal.

But as the Semafor headline noted, “The Democrats (mostly) won the debt ceiling fight.” Or as progressive journalist Josh Marshall put it, Republicans walked into a Denny’s to hold it at gunpoint, demanded money, and walked out with nothing more than breakfast. It’s okay to be disappointed at some of the concessions while also celebrating Biden’s major negotiating victory in a government in which Republicans, with the House, unfortunately do have a say.

Many conservatives remain furious.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) continues his tirade against the deal, tweeting at one point that “it’s worse than I thought every minute that goes by.”

And Roy understands the leverage Republicans are losing in the regular budget appropriations process, tweeting that “If you want the border to be secure - no member of the @HouseGOP can vote for this #debtceiling ‘deal’ because it will remove all leverage we have to force action on the border.”

In further conservative ire, Roy tweeted that the deal threw out the $131 billion House Republicans cut in their debt limit show bill, designed to get spending back to pre-COVID levels, and replaced them with “what appears to be effectively flat spending [...] at the bloated 2023 Omnibus spending level, jammed through in a rush in December…”

In response, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee tweeted, “With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?”

Of particular interest is former Trump budget director Russ Vought, who is currently rallying opposition to the deal:

While we wait on text, let's take the numbers as the GOP is claiming w/o knowing the gimmicks (Dems are claiming higher spending). Deal provides $1.59 trillion in FY24 v. $1.602 in FY23. You gave Biden $4 trillion for $12 billion in cuts largely coming from unspent COVID$?

Or take "It cuts nondefense spending to 2022!" No it doesn't. FY22 nondefense spending was $689 billion. GOP numbers claim FY24 will be $704 billion. You don't get a dog biscuit for that.

Reviewing the text now. Confirms that there only 2 years of actual caps and then 4 years of meaningless language that binds only Congress & easily waived.

The "administrative PAYGO" is totally worthless. It's not just that it can be gamed with plans for fake offsets in exchange for real spending. Its that the OMB Director has complete waiver authority in Section 265 if "necessary for program delivery"

So I’m not a budget expert, but what that tells me is that whatever budgetary restrictions exist in the deal can easily be waived.

Furthermore, responding to a seemingly sensible conservative noting that McCarthy’s leverage was limited given that Democrats control the White House and the Senate, Vought furiously responded, “What exactly did [McCarthy] deliver on? You can't build on it because he gave every leverage point away for the remainder of Biden's tenure. The bill is worse than a clean debt limit.”

Savor that.

The bill is worse than a clean debt limit.

I actually don’t know if that’s true, to be sure. But I desperately hope it is.

Markos (Kos) Moulitsas is the founder and publisher of Daily Kos.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.