Monthly Archives: February 2020

As we all know, roughly one third of the Senate is up for reelection every two years, plus any special elections which happen to be scheduled due to resignation, death, or removal from office. Most incumbent Senators are considered to be safe, but I thought I’d go over the current crop of races, just to get a flavor of what’s coming.

All references to TrumpScores, reflective of how often individual members of Congress vote in accordance with Trump’s wishes, are supplied by FiveThirtyEight, and are only guaranteed accurate when I typed them in; they can potentially change as matters come before the Senate. Such scores also do not reflect the importance of each vote, nor the length of service of each member of Congress; they should be taken with a grain of salt.

Alabama

Doug Jones (D) will be defending against all comers only two years after winning a special election against former state Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore by a very small margin. This time around, the ancient Justice Moore is again running in the Republican primary, but the latest polling shows him trailing the former holder of Jones’ seat, former AG, and apparent lickspittle Jefferson Beauregard III, as well as former college football coach Tommy Tuberville; the last poll I saw had the latter two neck and neck.

With the damaged Moore unlikely to take the Republican nomination, Jones will be in a real tussle, whether it’s Sessions or Tuberville opposite him. I expect Jones will lose narrowly, barring a major screwup by Tuberville or Sessions. If Sessions wins the nomination, Trump would need to find a way to endorse him, which might be difficult given their history. Tuberville, a Trump devotee, would be much easier. But a Trump endorsement could turn into an anchor around the nominee’s neck if Trump screws up in a major way, or if Trump’s ideology were to become so foul that even the citizens of Alabama finally began rejecting him.

Alaska

Dan Sullivan (R) will be defending his seat this November. Six years ago he beat a Democratic incumbent, which suggests the Democrats may mount a challenge, but, if so, I have heard nothing about it. … Recent Democratic propaganda suggests that Al Gross (Independent – yep, but Democrat-endorsed) may present a decent challenge to the sitting Senator, although the National Republican Senatorial Committee harrumphs at the very idea. More credibly, however, the conservative web site Washington Examiner has expressed similar concerns, noting Gross’ apparent ability to attract funds, the Democratic endorsement, and an Alaskan history of independence in its selection of elected officials, such as the current Governor, an independent, and the election of Lisa Murkowsi in 2010 as a write-in Republican.

Will Sullivan’s TrumpScore of 92% become an unexpected handicap? Alaskans will let us know soon enough.

Arizona

Technically, Martha McSally (R) is the incumbent, but she was appointed to the seat of the late Senator John McCain (R-AZ) by AZ Governor Doug Ducey (R) last year, and thus lacks the imprimatur of winning an election.

Assuming she survives a primary challenge from the almost as unknown as she Daniel McCarthy, and a few others, she’ll defend her seat against the winner of the Democratic primary, with the odds-on favorite being former astronaut and current husband of former Representative Gabby Giffords (D-AZ). While my spam from Democratic sources indicates they believe Kelly is leading McSally in polls, it’s a little early to come to any conclusions. Arizona has a long history of conservatism, but when the conservative The Arizona Republic rejected Trump in favor of Clinton in 2016, a streak of shameful barbarism broke out in the form of hate mail. We can hope that it’s either burned out or been suppressed out of utter shame.

That said, Senator McSally appears to be all in on the conservative streak of Arizona burnin’ bright as she is leaping right into unashamed partisan campaigning:

PHOENIX (AP) — Vulnerable Republican Sen. Martha McSally attacks her Democratic opponent, Mark Kelly, for supporting the impeachment and removal of President Donald Trump in an ad that began airing on Wednesday.

McSally’s first television ad of the 2020 election cycle attempts to ties Kelly to liberal members of Congress and the leaders of the Democratic efforts to impeach Trump and remove him from office, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff.

“The Washington liberals are obsessed with President Trump,” a narrator says in the ad. “They wasted three years and millions of dollars trying to overturn the last election and steal the next one. Liberal Mark Kelly supported their impeachment scam.” [The Washington Times]

Arkansas

Tom Cotton (R) will be defending his seat against, well, no one in particular. See, a local Democratic pol had filed to run, and two hours after the deadline, he dropped out, claiming family illness – leaving the Democrats high and dry.

Dirty politics? Bad luck? Cotton, who proved himself to be a real dick during the Obama years, is a shoe-in.

Just as was Minnesota Governor Perpich (D), years back, when his Republican opponent dropped out, quite late in the game, due to scandal – and Arne Carlson, on just a few weeks of campaigning, and despite the loathing of fellow Republicans who found him too liberal, won the governorship, much to Perpich’s shock.

Colorado

Cory Gardner (R) is widely perceived as one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents running for reelection, and with a current TrumpScore just south of 90%, he may not have the support of the President, even if he didn’t vote for conviction in the impeachment trial. His opponent? Former Governor Hickenlooper, whose ability to work across the aisle may aid him in his run, leads the pack of Democratic wannabes. Their primary is in June.

Delaware

Chris Coons (D) is presumably defending his seat for his first reelection fight. When he initially won it, it was with a comfortable margin. There’s little reason to think this seat is in play.

Georgia

A Republican civil war may break out in the run up to the primaries for the special election to replace the ill Johnny Isakson (R), who retired. Kelly Loeffler (R), a businesswoman, was appointed by Brian Kemp (R) to occupy Isakson’s seat until the special election, scheduled for this November; the recommendation of Representative Doug Collins (R) by President Trump was disregarded by Kemp.

The primary will be an opportunity for revenge by Collins and Trump, although Loeffler has attempted to placate Trump through public statements and a 100% TrumpScore, although she’s not had a lot of chances to vote as it is. Her financial resources are fairly immense, and, as the Republican Party requires, she’s learned to toady with the best of them, from what I’ve read; whether Collins’ work on Trump’s behalf in the House will be enough to keep Trump on his side remains to be seen. Collins does at least have government experience, while Loeffler brings no relevant experience to the position, although I expect she’s gaining at least a little bit these days as the sitting, appointed Senator.

While Trump may relish his position in this contest, it’s worth remembering that quite often those he endorses lose, both in primaries and general elections.

CNN has a recent article on how the local GOP strategists are getting squeezed by the intra-party fracas.

The identity of the Democratic challenger is unknown at this time. If the Democrats pick the wrong candidate, then it won’t matter.

But Georgia is a two-fer! Their other Senator, David Perdue (R), is also up for reelection. With a TrumpScore of 94.5% as of this writing, he should be able to gain Trump’s endorsement easily enough, and Georgia did go for Trump in the 2016 Presidential election – but by a surprisingly slim 5 points. While I don’t expect an upset here, and the Democratic candidate is unknown, it remains a slight possibility. Indeed,

Georgia is in play. The state is going to go blue. It’s just a matter of when: this year. – Scott Hogan, the executive director of the Democratic Party of Georgia, in response to news of demographic changes to the State’s population. [AJC]

It’ll be fascinating to see if Hogan is optimistic or correct. If it’s the latter, the Republican Party will receive quite a shock.

Idaho

Jim Risch (R) will be running for reelection, with the Republican primary in May. He has a TrumpScore of 90%, which makes for an interesting question: will he be endorsed by President Trump? A little searching shows some toadying by Risch, but he did endorse Rubio in 2016.

The Democrats also must hold their primary, and none of them ring a bell for me. Trump won Idaho by 33 points, so Risch is probably secure in his job.

Illinois

Dick Durbin (D) is running for reelection. He has no opponents in the primary, and I’m unaware of any scandals which may hobble him. His Republican opponent selection awaits the Republican primary, and he won his last election by eleven points. A lot can happen before November, but assuming Democrats and Independents remain alarmed concerning the Republicans, Durbin is probably safe.

Iowa

Joni Ernst (R) will be defending her seat, and is considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents this November. It’s important to remember that Iowa is not an impregnable Republican bastion, but has often gone Democratic; Ernst’s predecessor was Tom Harkin (D), who retired, and three of the four Iowa Representatives to Congress are Democrats. Truthfully, the district map for Iowa looks a bit gerrymandered – for the Democrats – to me, as shown to the right. The purple district in the upper left is the Steve King (R) district, at R+11. The other three? All listed as D+1. (The other Senator is Chuck Grassley (R), former rubber stamp of the Judiciary Committee.)

But I digress. Democratic propaganda email suggests Ernst is vulnerable, but it’ll all depend on the quality of her challenger – and with a TrumpScore of 91%, she may not be a strong enough supporter of Trump to earn his active endorsement, or the admiration of Trump cultists in the state. It’s an opportunity, to be sure.

Kansas

Pat Roberts (R) is retiring at the end of his term next January, meaning this will be an open seat. Kansas, of all the states, has been through the fire of full-throated Republican extremism, having elected former Senator Brownback (R) to the governor’s seat, where he and his state legislative allies passed laws fully in keeping with Republican kant, namely the cutting of taxes and waiting for the Laffer Curve to take up the slack in terms of tax revenues. This resulted in economic sub-par performance and large holes in the State budget. Consequently, Brownback suffered a revolt by the moderate wing of the Republicans in the legislature and a rejection of the laws; he subsequently left office swearing that if everyone had just waited a little longer, it would have all worked out. His would-be successor was Republican extremist Kurt Kobach, who lost the general election to Laura Kelly (D).

The extremist social ideology has also driven Kansas Republicans away from the GOP, as several state legislative Republicans canceled their Republican membership (can’t find the link for this).

What does it all mean? I think it means this is an opportunity for the Democrats if they can find a strong candidate. The Republican field is notable for the presence of the aforementioned extremist Kurt Kobach, and, while he has not filed, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is also rumored to be interested, although he’s officially denied such an inclination.

We’ll have to wait to see how this race shapes up.

Kentucky

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) is defending his seat this year, and is considered by the Democrat propaganda masters to be vulnerable. He’s facing a large slate of opponents in the primary; no doubt, the opponents smell weakness, but the large slate will work in McConnell’s favor. Similarly, there’s a large slate of Democratic candidates in their primary; Democratic officials seem to favor former Marine Lt. Col. Amy McGrath, but we’ll have to wait for the primary. Not so incidentally, McGrath has academic degrees in political science, so at least she has formal knowledge to work off of.

Louisiana

A state I know little of, but as I researched the reelection of Bill Cassidy (R) I was struck by this Ballotpedia quote:

Cassidy was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2014, defeating incumbent Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and becoming the first Republican to hold the seat since 1883.^[1]

It suggests that Louisiana may be in play, depending on the interplay between Trumpism’s waxing and/or waning, and Cassidy’s TrumpScore of 92%. Throw into the mix of the reelection of Democratic Governor John Bel Edwards to the seat of governor just a few months ago, and it does suggest that Trumpism is waning, not waxing.

However, Cassidy’s opponent may turn out to be Antoine Pierce, who doesn’t appear to have held any elective office, despite having run for one or two. While this is not dispositive, it certainly makes an electoral run for a Congressional Senate seat more difficult, unless one has a reputation from other endeavours.

I did not find any polls, except for this one suggesting Cassidy’s approval rating is just shy of 50%, which is actually not too bad for him. Unless unexpected events occur, or information appear, I suspect Cassidy will have an easy enough time of it.

Maine

Susan Collins (R) is up for reelection, and appears to be in for quite a battle. This would be for a fourth term, and the last two elections she’s won with comfortable margins. However, the political opposition in her state has been infuriated with her votes for the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh and against conviction on the impeachment charges of President Trump, and their ability to bestir the independents may be enough to extinguish Collins’ ambition.

On her side, though, is a low, low TrumpScore of 67%, suggesting she’s willing to step out of line against the vast majority herd. But how does she do on important issues? I noted two, above; she voted for ACA repeal, against DeVos as Secretary of Education and Pruitt as EPA head; for abortion rights; for sanctions on Russia; etc. It’s not inaccurate to note she is far more independent than most of the Republican Senators, although voting for ACA repeal was disappointing.

As ever, though, the quality of the opposition will be key, and the Democratic primary is still to come. If the Democrats select a popular and competent personality, Collins will be running in a photo finish. It’s worth noting a recent poll shows her possible opposition, Sara Gideon, as being neck and neck.

But the election is a ways away.

Massachusetts

Ed Markey (D) will be defending his seat this fall. He has a couple of primary opponents, including Representative Joseph Kennedy III (D), who could upset him, much in the way then-waitress Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez upset Representative Joseph Crowley (D-NY) in the primary of 2016: perceived generational differences, and a desire for the younger generation to take control. Kennedy, 39, may be able to make similar arguments against Markey, 73.

On the Republican side, only Shiva Ayyadurai has declared for the primary, which is this coming September. Ayyadurai is a businessman and scientist, currently running CytoSolve. He previously ran for the Senate as an Independent against Senator Warren in 2018, and was not a factor. Will he be as a Republican? Without relevant experience, it’s difficult to see him as such, but Massachusetts is not immune to the charms of Republicans – and Ayyadurai may be able to cast himself as a moderate Republican, given that he has virtually no political history to analyze.

Michigan

Gary Peters (D) is running for reelection in a battleground state, so it seems reasonable to presume this seat could change hands. Michigan is interesting, though; it may have rejected Clinton in the Presidential election, but since then the Michigan experience with Republicans has its negative points, between the Flint tragedy, brought on by Republican mismanagement, and attempts by extremists to win elective positions, as recounted by my mother-in-law, herself a conservative who couldn’t stomach gubernatorial candidate Bill Schuette (R) (election won by Gretchen Whitmer (D)), and the Attorney General position was also won by a Democrat.

Will this translate into success for Senator Peters? He won in 2014 by more than 10 points, and I’m unaware of any scandals clinging to his sandals. Declared opponents appear unremarkable, although there’s still time before the August primary. An early poll suggests he enjoys a 6 point advantage over his closest Republican rival, but at less than 50%, suggesting there are undecided voters still out there. It appears the tide is running for the Democrats in this State.

Minnesota

When Senator Al Franken (D) resigned in 2017, following accusations of not treating certain women with respect, Governor Mark Dayton appointed his Lt. Governor, Tina Smith, to the position, with a special election scheduled to coincide with the mid-term elections of 2018. Smith won this election with an 11 point margin over Karin Housley (R).

Two years later is her first election run for a full term, and while her fund-raising letters are alarmist, I do not see any Minnesota Republican figures stepping forth who can attract independent voters as can Smith. The best-known Republican to declare for the primary is former Representative Jason Lewis, a former radio personality and fringe character who served a single term (2016-2018) in the House before losing to Angie Craig (D) in his reelection bid. The district, as it happens, is where my parents used to live; it would have galled Dad no end to have Lewis representing him, even more than Lewis’ predecessor, Col. John Kline (R). To be fair to Lewis, he does hold an MA in Political Science from the University of Colorado – Denver.

But he did little in his single term in the House, and his history on the radio as a far right wing host makes him an easy target for demonization.

I expect Smith to retain her seat by another ten points, and perhaps more, just as I expect Minnesota to reject Trump by ten points.

Mississippi

Cindy Hyde-Smith (R), winner of a special election at our last mid-terms, is up for reelection for her first full term as a Senator. Mississippi is a well-known conservative state, and, despite missteps in her special election, she won by a relatively comfortable 7 points against former Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy (D) of the Clinton Administration.

This time around Espy is challenging again, but, unless things have changed on the ground in this far-off state, I expect Hyde-Smith to retain her seat. If she doesn’t, it may signal the end of the road for the Trumpists in one of the most conservative States in the Union.

Montana

Steve Daines (R) is defending his seat this November. In his last election, six years ago, he won by a very comfortable 17 point margin. His Democratic opponent will be determined in a primary in June, but barring unforeseen negative events, it seems likely that Daines will retain his seat.

Nebraska

Ben Sasse (R), a former professor and University President (Midlands), will be running for reelection. While he likes to run his mouth, he’s a Republican who falls into line on important votes, such as voting against conviction on impeachment. That said, he was comfortably elected to his seat six years ago, and he may face a bigger challenge from Matt Innis, who is proclaiming his Trumpist credentials proudly, than from any Democratic challengers. Sasse’s TrumpScore is only 86%, which may motivate Trump to endorse the unknown novice Innis, instead – and Trump won this state by 15 points. That said, times change, the Democratic nominee won’t be Clinton and may be Midwestern moderate Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and if Innis were to win the primary, it’s possible that between raw amateurism and Trumpist cult manners, and Klobuchar’s attraction down-ballot, a repeat of the Kobach debacle in Kansas might be in the offing.

But that’s an awful lot of ifs. Looking to join the office political pool? Put it on on Sasse.

New Hampshire

Jeanne Shaheen (D) is running for reelection in New Hampshire, where she beat former Senator Scott Brown (R) by only 3 points. Does this say her next opponent will have a good chance to beat her? I found it difficult to get a quick read on her chances. None of the Republicans signed up the primary ring any bells, unlike Brown of six years ago. This CNBC report suggests she’s well-liked and well-capitalized, while her opponents are lagging.

By default, hand it to the incumbent, but keep an eye on the state. New Hampshire nearly went for Trump in 2016, as he lost by less than a point.

New Jersey

Former Presidential candidate for the Democratic nomination Cory Booker (D), now that he’s decided he can’t win the nomination, is running for reelection. While he won handily in 2014, the Presidential run may upset the usual calculus for incumbents. His Republican opponent has not yet been selected, but at this point it appears this is a race that’s Booker’s to lose.

New Mexico

In New Mexico, Tom Udall (D) has declined the opportunity to run for reelection, leaving an open seat for the taking. Udall won in 2014 by a comfortable 11 point margin; in 2016, Donald Trump lost the state by 8 points to Clinton, although it is notable that Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson won more than 9% of the vote, which, had it gone for Trump, would have given him the State.

Clinton will not be on the political map this time around, nor will Udall, which makes this into an entry of bland generalities. Professional political ratings services suggest this seat will remain Democratic. The possible or confirmed candidates include Representative Ben Ray Luján (D), who will have some visibility; the Republican candidates in the primary appear to be political novices.

While somewhat chancy, this appears likely to remain a Democratic seat.

North Carolina

Senator Thom Tillis (R) is running for reelection, but against the headwinds of the deteriorating North Carolina GOP. This was signaled by the 2016 election of Governor Cooper (D) in a shocking upset of then-Governor McCrory (R), signaling voter dissatisfaction with the Republicans. The GOP then compounded their error by attempting to strip the governor’s office of as many powers as it could in a lame duck session. While many observers feel dirty tactics is simply de rigeur for North Carolina politics, the resultant chaos and corruption is not a desirable component of any State’s culture, and it’s possible that Tillis’ association with President Trump and the allegations of Trump’s corruption may make Tillis’ run for reelection a chancy affair.

That said, Tillis has a TrumpScore of 93%, and a reputation to match. Can the Democrats bring a candidate with enough appeal and competency to upset Tillis, who was a member of the North Carolina house before moving to the Congressional Senate? Several declared opponents have similar credentials, and Tillis himself defeated a Democrat for his seat six years ago. Any missteps could cost Tillis his seat.

UPDATE: Is this a misstep?

Oklahoma

Senator James Inhofe (R) may or may not be running for reelection in Oklahoma this November, there is no indication, but he is 83 85 years old, so he may decide to hang it up. A multitude of experience-starved Democrats are on the primary slate, but only one Republican, JJ Stitt, who is also apparently a political novice.

Still, Donald Trump won an overwhelming victory in Oklahoma, and it seems likely that, whoever is the Republican candidate, they will win. The question in my mind, then, is this: where are the Republican candidates?

Oregon

Democrat Jeff Merkley is up for election to a third term in the US Senate. His opponents so far registered in the Republican primary appear undistinguished, but the primary isn’t until May.

In Oregon, Clinton beat Trump by 11 points in 2016, and I’m unaware of any scandals attaching to Merkley. I figure this is a safe seat.

Rhode Island

Senator Jack Reed (D) is running for reelection in Rhode Island. Between winning previous elections by monstrous margins, and representing a state that went for Clinton by 15 points, it’s hard not to see Reed as being a safe bet, no matter who is on the other side of the ballot.

South Carolina

One of the hotter races is considered to be the reelection of South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham (R) to the Senate. Graham has been noteworthy for his “flip” on Trump, from using extraordinarily denigrating terms for candidate Trump to becoming President Trump’s golf partner. This has provoked outrage in many observers.

Democratic propaganda mail suggests Jaime Harrison may be competitive with Graham, but the election is a ways off. Harrison has been in and around politics for years, but does not appear to have held an office, which may put him at a disadvantage to Graham, who has held offices at the state level as well as in the House and Senate. Harrison also must survive the primary.

Graham’s TrumpScore is only 86%, but he’s been a personal confidante of Trump for a while – although rumor has it that he’s not as trusted as some. He’ll almost certainly receive Trump’s endorsement, yet he can point at his voting record in answer to claims that he’s merely a hand puppet. South Carolina is traditionally a Republican seat, so while the failure of Katie Arrington (R) to retain the seat of Mark Sanford (R), who she upset in the 2018 primary, may seem significant, it’s probably not.

Harrison may have a shot, but he’ll have to work and hope for some help from above.

South Dakota

Senator Mike Rounds (R) must defeat relative unknowns to retain his Senate seat in conservative South Dakota, and so far there seems to be little reason to think he won’t.

Tennessee

Long time politico Lamar Alexander (R), who I’ve mentioned in unkind words before, will be retiring at the end of 2020, leaving the seat open. There’s a scad of people lined up for the primary, which is months away, making any description a bit bland.

However. While it’s true that Clinton lost Tennessee to Trump by 26 points, and Alexander has won his elections by comfortable margins, it’s worth noting that Clinton and Alexander had a lot of name recognition, one negative, the other positive – deserved or not. This election may be somewhat less clouded by personality than Alexander’s previous victories.

And it’s also worth noting this post, where I respond to Erick Erickson’s lamentations concerning intra-party partisans sitting out general elections because their preferred candidate lost. There’s more Senate wannabes in the Republican column than Democrats; it’s possible that if the Republican primary becomes heated, the Republican base will fracture and permit the Democrats to eke out a victory.

There’s a lot of ifs there. Look for Republicans to retain this seat.

Texas

In his 2014 election to this Texas Senate seat, Senator John Cornyn (R) won by 27 points. In 2016, Trump beat Clinton by 9 points.

So why are so many sitting Texas Republican Representatives retiring at the end of 2020? Democratic rumor has it that they see Trump as a strong impediment, and that Texas is not the strong Republican redoubt that it’s often cast to be.

Will this impact Cornyn? The Tea Party faction of the Republicans revolted against him in 2014, mounting a primary challenge that was unsuccessful. Cornyn faces a handful of primary challengers in 2020, which will work in his favor as the vote will be split among them – and none of those challengers have applicable political experience. The Democratic field is bigger, and if there’s an important name in it, it eludes me – but politics is local, and Texas is down on the other end of Interstate 35 from here.

The picture will clear up when the primaries are finished and the campaigning can really begin. For the moment, I suspect Cornyn will win, carried along by a Trump endorsement and his TrumpScore of 94.9%.

Virginia

Senator Mark Warner’s (D) last reelection run was a nail-biter as he won by little more than half a point against Ed Gillespie (R), who’d never won an election before nor since. That stirs up concerns about the Democrats retaining this seat.

On the other hand, Virginia state politics have begun to run against the Republicans, as illustrated by the state legislature coming under control of the Democrats in the 2018 elections for the first time in many years.

Warner himself, if he chooses to run (I haven’t found an official declaration either way), may not have as much of a tussle. Morning Consult’s late 2019 survey found him with a 49% approval – 30% disapproval rating, presumably from Virginia voters; FiveThirtyEight finds similar numbers

Whoever runs for this seat, it’s probably the Democrats’ to lose.

Wyoming

Senator Mike Enzi (R) is retiring at the end of his current term, leaving Wyoming’s Senatorial seat, surely one of the most powerful in terms of Americans represented (remember, inverse correlation), up for the taking.

Wyoming is a State that went for Trump in 2016 by 45 points, and Enzi, a former mayor and State legislature denizen, won his last election by an even larger margin. The lone Wyoming House seat was won by a Republican by 37 points – making him a piker. There’s little reason to believe that Democrats can make a credible run at this seat.

That said, politics has to be played for the long run as well as the short-term. The Democrats should run someone in the State, with full backing, for a couple of reasons.

1. Keep the brand alive. Remind those residents that there’s more choices than conservative and really conservative and No, I’m the conservative, you liberal weasel! If the Republicans collapse from sheer incompetence and corruption, the Democrats are better served by being in position with their own message and policies that Wyomingites will be familiar with.
2. Gather input. No political party can grow and adapt in isolation. If Wyomingites are unhappy with Democrats, the best way to gather up information on that displeasure is to run a candidate and harvest the input and reactions he or she elicits. Every place Democrats refuse to run a serious candidate is another place where residents will feel excluded and therefore turn to the Republicans.
3. Happy chance. Politics is a weird little game. Run the right person with the right name, and people flock to them for little other reason. Or the other side runs an idiot, such as Kris Kobach, and hands you the election. You can’t take advantage of happy chance if you’re not prepared.

So hopefully the Democrats will run someone against the Republican.

So there you are. At risk are 22 Republican seats and 12 Democratic seats, as I count it. By my estimate, the Jones seat is the only Democratic seat truly in peril, although I suspect there’s potential for one or two upsets as well.

On the Republican side, I count at least 9 seats in play, with 3 more as potential upsets. Of all these Senators, three are not running for reelection, which means the advantages of incumbency for two Republican and one Democratic seats will not be available. And the current makeup? Republicans are in the majority, 53 – 45, with two Independent Senators who generally work with the Democrats. A net of four seats would give the Democrats the majority.

Agree? Disagree? Did I miss something? Let me know. I’m not political, just a guy reading the tea leaves.

I was shaking my head over this WaPo article:

Trump administration officials are holding preliminary conversations about economic responses to the coronavirus, as the stock market fell sharply again on Friday amid international fears about the outbreak, according to five people with knowledge of the planning.

Among the options being considered are pursuing a targeted tax cut package, these people said. They have also discussed whether the White House should lean even harder on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, though the central bank on Friday afternoon said it would step in if necessary.

Tax cuts? Really? Taxes are typically levied on income (individuals) and profits (corporate); as each goes down, a reduction in tax dollars naturally occurs. And putting the nation deeper into debt seems an unwise move.

Such an idea, though, is reflective of the relative lack of imagination of the Republican Party these days.

Taxes Are Bad! If We Reduce Them Then The Public Health Crisis Will Go Away!

Ahem. I hope everyone sees the disconnect.

I’m not saying there’s nothing the government can do for the economy if we go into a severe dislocation. I suspect a Democratic-run government would be talking about identifying key industries, and targeting them with subsidies or debt-payment suspension.

To which all I’d have to say is that if a company has billions in profits and pennies in tax bills, no goodies for them. They found a way not too pay in good times, why should they get help in bad times? Taxes are a way to efficiently pay for the ties that bind us together; the evasion of tax paying is basically a way to say you don’t want to be part of society.

Fine. Don’t be. If you don’t want to pay for society, you don’t get the bennies.

No doubt a hopeful message to Trump’s cult, in line with their expectations of reality:

“It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle, it will disappear,” Trump told attendees at an African American History Month reception in the White House Cabinet Room. The World Health Organization says the virus has “pandemic potential” and medical experts have warned it will spread in the US.

The President added that “from our shores, you know, it could get worse before it gets better. Could maybe go away. We’ll see what happens. Nobody really knows.” [CNN]

Miracles are part of reality for the evangelicals, so when their cult leader claims one day a miracle will come down and save them from death, they’ll believe it. Since Trump didn’t make the mistake of saying it’ll happen next week, he’s protected.

Now he just has to string them along until a cure is found or early November. Shouldn’t be a problem for a con man like Trump.

The Syrian tragedy has its grimly amusing moments in the diplomatic sphere. Idlib Province is in Syria, and it’s where Turkey incursed after the United States withdrew last year. From AL Monitor:

Source: Wikipedia

The Turkish press has reported that Turkey asked the United States for aerial support over Idlib and is seeking Patriot missiles for air defense. This is another in a string of unprecedented inconsistencies in Turkish foreign and security policy displayed recently and becoming almost routine. It was the Turkish leadership’s resolve to acquire Russian S-400 air defense missiles that soured the relationship with the United States last year. Now, after paying $2.5 billion to Russia for the weapons, Ankara is seeking American Patriots against Russia’s air support for Syrian regime forces advancing on Syrian territory in Idlib.

Who ya gonna call? Well, whoever pissed me off last week, because now I’m mad at the other guys. I can see Bill Murray in a hazmat suit delivering that line.

Middle East diplomacy is quite the confusing mess.

A writer sends a missive concerning my post about gender self-identification and passports:

Passport officers don’t ask you to drop your pants. Between the photograph and a fingerprint, that ought to be more than enough to reasonably identify a person without doing a nude body examination.

I see fingerprints as problematic. There has been at least one case of two unrelated individuals having identical fingerprints (and it nearly got one of them jailed), not to mention identical twins will also share fingerprints. Fingerprints can be modified, and while the same goes for genitalia, the latter is easily detected; I don’t know how detectable a change of fingerprints turns out to be.

Then there’s the fact that a fingerprint is not a requirement on passports at the present time, and I think attempting to make it a requirement would cause a controversy and retreat.

Passport officers do not in general. However, I recall running into one in Schipol Airport who was all ready to apply physical techniques on me if I didn’t take my hands out of my pockets at a security checkpoint. I do not have the least doubt that, if there’s a question, you will be asked to drop them – or spend time in the local hoosegow.

Also, Hue, you have no idea Zzyym’s body might be like — maybe legitimate hermaphrodite or intersex (from birth or during partial transition).

Actually, I did raise the point that since those were not mentioned, this had to do with self-identification, i.e., mental, and not physical.

The really concerning thing to me is that the State department is refusing to follow a federal court order. Rule of law, anyone?

Agreed, but it’s a separate issue that the courts will need to settle. I know there’s some worry in legal circles about a scenario in which the Administration refuses to follow judicial directives, which is not unprecedented but is very unusual.

Trumpian mantra: Weaponize everything.

Abnormal Hieratic:

On other sherds, offerings were tallied in Abnormal Hieratic, a script that is not usually found in Dakhleh but was commonly used by Egyptian religious authorities at Thebes, the capital of Egypt during much of the New Kingdom and again during [700 – 600 B.C.]. [“Lord of the Oasis,” Benjamin Leonard, Archaeology (March/April 2020, print-only)]

It tickles me to wonder how an Egyptian of the period would react to the news that scientists thousands of years later would label their script as abnormal.

If I get those transplanted into me, can I only have sex in that position, doc? (This guy is smart enough to ask about side effects.)

It’s an entertaining and educational documentary on a quack, a medical fraud from another era. It’s Nuts! (2016), documenting the disquieting phenomenon of Dr. (not really) John Brinkley. Briefly, Brinkley began by transplanting goat testicles into impotent men in a small Kansas town. Initial success leads to more and more treatments, until during the Great Depression he’s pulling in thousands of dollars a week. But doom is waiting for him, which I shan’t reveal.

But what is also nuts is how he could charm all these people. The movie makers call him a folk doctor, a man who was a communications genius and knew how to play on the very prejudices and suspicions of elites harbored by those who listened to him on the radio in order to harvest their resources for his own egotistical use.

And what is even more nuts is the style in which the story is presented – most of it is animated! This is no dry recitation of facts, or a dubious re-enactment. This is fun with cartoons, mixed with contemporary film pieces of the man himself, complete with wife and child.

I’m not going to recommend it because it’s fun, and I’m not going to suggest to my readers that, if they have this or that belief or character feature, they should watch it. That would be insulting.

I’m going to simply suggest that anyone reading this should watch it. And be honest with yourself. Can you see yourself in the audience at the trial, in support of the doctor? And when he’s revealed as a fraud, and your support dries up, can you ask yourself with great honesty why you were suckered?

Or did I just ruin the entire experience for you?

This is the sort of stuff Skeptical Inquirer often covers, and I really enjoyed it.

More props for former Rep Joe Walsh (R-IL), who recently closed up his Presidential campaign with an honest description of the Republican Party as a cult. Now he’s banging on NeverTrumpers for whispering that the Socialist epithet might be their Get Out Of Jail Free card:

I hate to break it to you, but if you’re really never-Trump, then you know there’s no except-if-he’s-a-socialist footnote. There’s no but-she’s-way-too-professor-ish clause. Nothing in the fine print says the only acceptable Democratic alternative is another arrogant billionaire. I thought this was understood.

In 2016, sadly, I supported Trump. I freely admit that I’m a second-wave never-Trumper. But once I got here, it was always my plan to stay. Because, for me, the ways in which Trump threatens this country go beyond left-right ideology. He lies constantly. He grants pardons to toadies. He conflates America’s financial interests with his own. He uses his bully pulpit to air a never-ending, year-round list of Festivus grievances. …

When it comes to the American health system, whether before or after the ACA legislation was approved and implemented, there’s a lot of debate as to its relative quality, with what might be best called the corporate conservatives espousing the view that it’s the best in the world, while those who have watched insurance company premiums rise rapidly, particularly pre-ACA, along with prescription prices and, in general, health costs, suggest that whatever quality it may be, its cost of access makes it second-rate. The latter folk also point at comparative surveys which indicate the American health system doesn’t produce world-leading outcomes.

For my money, these public debates produce far more heat than light. Each side tends to turn it into a shouting match. Conservatives, particularly the political animals, tend to simply shout louder and louder about how it’s the greatest in the world, as if it’ll make their points true. Liberals treat each element of the debate as if they’re independent variables, which they are not (and the less political conservatives point this out, such as the libertarians). As an example, conservatives will suggest that the American capitalist model of a health system motivates corporate entities to pursue the creation of better medicines, so if we shift to a more socialist model, as many on the left advocate, this may mean that the expensive and long-term research required to create a single effective medicine will become a far less attractive investment target. The liberals, at least in the big public debate, simply ignore the point, and I don’t try to follow the more reasonable debates where they might address this point – because I’m not even sure where to find such debates.

So things like the Medicare-for-All debate with its flapping of hands about costs is less interesting than it should be to me. For the participants, it’s accounting and cost curves; for me, it’s a potentially complex health system ecological problem in which the actions of the participants may influence the behaviors of entities which produce medicines, while we’re currently in a system in which certain medicines are no longer produced or researched. There are many, many factors to consider – Do companies with profitable chronic treatments stop researching actual cures? Is it valid to compare our health system outcomes to anyone else seeing as most medical treatment research is American funded? – I find the zealotry often exhibited by partisans of both sides completely inappropriate and a sign of the basic unseriousness of such people – whether their name is Cruz or Sanders.

What brought this out? Well, the COVID-19 outbreak, and I’ll turn to Steve Benen, as he provides both the information and a relevant observation:

At first blush, this Miami Herald story may seem like a report about a local guy who caught the flu. But the closer one looks, the more interesting it becomes.

After returning to Miami last month from a work trip in China, Osmel Martinez Azcue found himself in a frightening position: he was developing flu-like symptoms, just as coronavirus was ravaging the country he had visited. Under normal circumstances, Azcue said he would have gone to CVS for over-the-counter medicine and fought the flu on his own, but this time was different. …

So why did this story generate national attention? A couple of reasons.

Let’s start with the fact that Azcue ended up with expensive medical bills, not because he’s uninsured, but because he has what the Miami Herald charitably described as a “very limited insurance plan.” Or put another way, he has one of the “junk plans” the Affordable Care Act tried to eliminate, but which Donald Trump and his team are quite fond of. Consumers are attracted to the low costs of these coverage plans, right up until they get sick.

In Azcue’s case, within weeks of being sent home, he started receiving thousands of dollars in medical bills — with more likely on the way, because he was treated by some out-of-network physicians — in addition to instructions on his medical history. Azcue’s private insurer wanted him to prove that his flu wasn’t related to a pre-existing condition. …

As for the other angle of interest, what happens when the coronavirus outbreak spreads in the United States and many Americans — who are either uninsured or under-insured — avoid seeking medical care because they’re concerned about bills they can’t afford?

The Herald spoke to Georgetown’s Sabrina Corlette, who explained, “When someone has flu-like symptoms, you want them to seek medical care. If they have one of these junk plans and they know they might be on the hook for more than they can afford to seek that care, a lot of them just won’t, and that is a public health concern.”

This highlights a point which doesn’t get the attention it deserves, and that’s how health is not an independent condition for each of us, but rather our health, and our conduct, has the potential to impact those around us to a devastating degree. It gets worse – for those of us who are world travelers, and there are so many in that class, the potential to wreak havoc with a highly contagious pathogen is really quite amazing.

Up ’til now, the most vivid example of this concept has been the struggle of anti-vaxxers to not be subject to vaccinations, and how the impact of unvaccinated carriers of ancient scourges such as measles and mumps can be devastating for those who are vulnerable, such as infants not yet eligible for vaccination, and those with compromised immune systems that dare not accept vaccinations.

Someday, we may repeat the anti-vaxxers parade of frantic denial with a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine, but at present we’re seeing a different aspect of health system vulnerability, as Benen makes clear: an individual’s choices being detrimental to the society around them. Simply, given the cost of reasonable insurance, individual A, who may be poverty-stricken due to circumstance, will decide to save money by taking advantage of a Republican-sponsored “junk plan”; when they find themselves ill, possibly with the disease du jour, and they realize that the expense of treatment for something they may not have will ruin them, then they refrain from any authoritative treatment.

Now they’re spreaders. Hello, individual B who brought the soup to the sickly individual A. Your Good Samaritanism will be the death of you. Literally.

So this gives some weight to the argument that a more socialistic approach to the health system is appropriate. The argument over the potential of treatments being discouraged, vs the potential for having to bury several million corpses, and the economic damage that their sudden loss of contribution, is a worthy argument to have.

But way too vivid for my taste.

I’ve mentioned Brexit a time or two on the blog with sentiments ranging from mild doom, to the Russians will sure love this, to sympathy for the pro-Brexit base. But Andrew Sullivan, in the second part of his tri-partite weekly diary entry, wants to push me a little further along the path of embracing Brexit:

The surest economic forecasts made in the 2016 referendum campaign were that Brexit would be a catastrophe for the British economy. This was the view not only of the Remain campaign but of the U.K. government itself. The Treasury published a formal set of prognostications about Brexit’s economic impact in 2016 and they were grim: a recession immediately after the vote to leave, a jump in unemployment, and a soaring deficit. This was not a warning about the possible long-term future economic impact of Brexit, but about the immediate aftermath of the vote. And the Treasury was wrong. In the following three quarters, they predicted a cumulative decline of 0.3 percent, which would put the U.K. formally into a recession. In fact, growth has increased by 1.4 percent. There was no recession; and none has subsequently arrived.

Unemployment was 4.9 percent in mid-2016; in early 2020 it’s down to 3.8 percent, a near record low. More interesting is the employment rate: “The number of employed people rose by a sharp 180,000, its strongest in two years, and helped push the employment rate to another record high of 76.5%.” So Brexit has brought a bunch of people previously outside the workforce inside it, and generated more jobs than ever before. Compare Britain’s unemployment rate with France’s (8.1 percent) or Italy’s (9.8 percent) or Spain’s (13.8) or, more broadly, the eurozone (7.4).

Growth? Last year, the U.K. had slightly higher growth than the rest of the E.U., and the IMF just predicted that the U.K. economy would also grow marginally faster than the eurozone countries for the next two years, as long as there isn’t a screwup in the transition out of the E.U. During the referendum campaign, leading Tory and Leave politician Michael Gove was widely mocked for saying that Britons “have had enough of experts” when talking about the economy and Brexit. But it turns out that 51 percent of the people were right and almost all the experts were wrong.

Impressive, and, on its face, egg all over the face of numerous pundits, including myself, but we’re only a month or so into post-Brexit. Why are they even bothering to make and publish measurements? To my non-economist eye, this looks like eagerness exceeding good judgment.

So why the jump? It may be real, but it may also just be a “sugar high” as various entities adjust to new realities.

The employment numbers are probably real, though. As Sullivan points out, now the Brits control immigration, and masses of unskilled workers are no longer flooding the labor market. As a result, so long as employers need more unskilled workers, they’ll have to draw from who is already present, and that will, at least initially, force unemployment numbers down.

So Brexit remains an ongoing story. As it continues, a neglected substory, I predict, will be that of the proper selection of metrics to measure its consequences. It’s common to look at employment numbers, GDP, wage growth, and other measures of economic activity – but are those appropriate to measure the affects of a movement that restricts the free movement of people across borders in order to bring the appearance of control over their lives to the pro-Brexit base?

And those measures rarely, if ever, measure advancements in quality and new products. How do we tell if Great Britain is falling behind? Or advancing faster? There are some metrics, such as health metrics, but no overall metric – and perhaps that’s just as well. The quality to be measured is too diverse.

I was a little surprised to have a red flag hoist its little fluttering textile over my head while reading this article on a controversy concerning Federal passports:

When was the last time the United States faced a true existential threat?

Yeah, it’s been a very long time. Most Americans, if they’re aware of it at all, only know about World War II through books. The Cold War? While the experts were very well aware that we were teetering on the edge of an existential abyss, and certain scientists used the prop of the Doomsday Clock to make explicit the dangers of nuclear war, I honestly think that only a small proportion of the population understood – in their bones, as the old saying goes – that everything could disappear in nuclear dust if thing went awry. I know, growing up in that era, I was not in the least concerned. It was words, words, words, and while I understand some people came out of that era terribly traumatized, I was not one of them.

And how do people who have never faced a collective existential threat react in the realm collective actions, aka choosing national leaders?

Well, I think we’ve been seeing that for the last 25 years. They increasingly vote for what they want and what threatens their way of life, and who best represents that, rather than an assessment of what threatens the nation and who has the best policy proposals for approaching the problem.

And Donald Trump has, as his central theme, the message that No, you don’t have to change, my opposition simply is trying to victimize you. He is firmly in the camp that nothing has to change, everything will go on and on and on. After all, within his limited lifetime it has, hasn’t it?

This tallies with this report by Garrett Graff at WIRED:

While vacancies and acting officials have become commonplace in this administration, the moves by President Donald Trump this week represent a troubling and potentially profound new danger to the country. There will soon be no Senate-confirmed director of the National Counterterrorism Center, director of national intelligence, principal deputy director of national intelligence, homeland security secretary, deputy homeland security secretary, nor leaders of any of the three main border security and immigration agencies. Across the government, nearly 100,000 federal law enforcement agents, officers, and personnel are working today without permanent agency leaders, from Customs and Border Protection and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

The nomination of Richard Grennell to the post of Director of National Intelligence, a post that he apparently is not even legally qualified to occupy, is simply another symptom of Trump’s belief that change is unnecessary because there can be no existential threat because … he’s never lived in an America which has experienced such a threat. He lacks the imagination to see any threat except from the political forces that call for change. It doesn’t matter who occupies the DNI post, just so long as he’s loyal to Trump.

This is why the Climate Change crisis, an existential threat to our form of civilization, and possibly to humanity, runs into denial, although these days it’s changed from denial that it’s happening to denial that it’s humanity’s activities that are causing it.

Because to accept that scientific finding that climate change is anthropogenic would be to accept that a lifestyle has to change.

And climate change is only just beginning to involve dramatic effects. World War II involved invasions, mass deaths, and other terrible events. Climate change is a lot more subtle, although storm damage has to get our attention – if only locally. Lost shoreline some more. When Miami goes away?

We’ll see if the citizenry finally realizes there’s some existential threat out there.

We think we’re so cool with our upright bipedialism -well, I prefer cheetahs, myself – but this mudskipper, a fish, is actually hopping across the water.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2232580-watch-this-fish-hop-across-the-surface-of-water-and-climb-on-land/?jwsource=cl

Awfully darn cool.

If you’re a techie who has a casual interest in the black hats, the malefactors of the computing world, this video might be of interest. This is of Defcon 21 (2013), of which I’ve never attended but find somewhat interesting. This particular video covers some of the more difficult-to-defend attacks, because the vulnerabilities aren’t so much human errors as nature creeping in on our digital landscape. These are errors caused by heat, radiation, electrical problems, and (my Dad’s old favorite!) cosmic rays.

For example, the speaker notes that the temperatures some server farms operate are going up, and this is causing more environmentally caused errors in the servers. I connect this to our energy usage in terms of air-conditioning – in other words, if we want to reduce energy consumption, it may be necessary to endure a less secure digital world.

Or, like I already do, be more ready to go to a store and pay with cash, rather than sending those credit card codes on the wire.

It’s the essence of nationalism, isn’t it: believing the product of the group is more deserving than the product of another group because it’s from the group. It’s like a sugar rush, it makes everyone feel great until the final measurements come out, and you discover your clinging to that inferior product has left you in second place … or worse.

Dead.

There, melodramatic enough for you? Well, here’s the master of second-best, as incoherent as ever, at it again:

“By the way, how bad were the Academy Awards this year? Did you see it?” Trump said at a rally in Colorado Springs, to boos from the crowd. “And the winner is a movie from South Korea — what the hell was that all about?” …

Trump said at the campaign rally: “We got enough problems with South Korea, with trade. On top of it they give them the best movie of the year? Was it good? I don’t know.”

“You know, I’m looking for like — let’s get ‘Gone With the Wind,'” Trump said, referring to the 1939 Civil War epic that won eight Oscars. “Can we get like ‘Gone With the Wind’ back, please? ‘Sunset Boulevard.’ So many great movies.”

“Sunset Boulevard,” released in 1950, was nominated but did not win the best picture Oscar, but managed to nab three others. [NBC News]

A non-American company makes a top-flight movie, wins awards, and Trump can’t stand it? Tough shit, sonny boy. Advocating we be second-raters and that’s good enough? I’m tired of xenophobia and all that inferiority-complex victimhood attitude brings out.

You don’t like that choice, Trumpy-boy? Go and make a movie that’s worth an Academy Award! (I can see the self-promotion now.) But don’t sit there and make gibble gabble about a movie you didn’t even see just to tear up a crowd.

I’d say it’s shameful, but you wouldn’t even understand.

Having just viewed the Cat Got Your Brain episode of Shaun the Sheep, I now understand why the space aliens, after their friendly anal probes of yore, have failed to follow up with a more formal meeting and announcement of their presence.

Obviously, we have no respect for space aliens and their accomplishments.

(Filed under: Odd Things Hue Watches When He’s Ill)

For those of us who crave closure to the stories that make up our lives, here’s one regarding the Well Fargo debacle of 2016 (starting here, last thread entry here):

Wells Fargo, the nation’s fourth-largest bank, agreed Friday to pay a $3 billion fine to settle a civil lawsuit and resolve a criminal prosecution filed by the Justice Department over its fake account scandal. …

None of the money to be paid to the government under this settlement will go to compensate customers. But officials said Wells Fargo has separately made efforts to compensate victims for potential losses — such as fees they might have been charged or harm to their credit ratings, if any.

The Securities and Exchange Commission said $500 million of the settlement would be used to compensate investors who responded to the bank’s promotion of its “cross-sell” strategy — selling more products and services to existing customers. …

The agreement was reached with the bank itself, not with any individuals responsible for the fraud. But last month, the bank’s former chief executive, John Stumpf, was fined $17.5 million by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for his role in the scandal. Other former bank executives were hit with smaller fines. [NBC News]

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised this was released on Friday, the black hole of the news cycle.

Will Wells Fargo learn any lessons from it? Short term, sure. Long term? I lose more and more faith in the long term institutional memory of corporate entities as the drive for profit causes those concerns, barnacles on the idol of money, to be stripped away as useless.

Nummy, nummy ….

One of the more difficult genres of story to review are what I might call black surrealism, and that’s where Delicatessen (1991) exists. It’s a movie which repays close attention because the detail the storytellers use is creative and thorough, but not necessarily repeated for the benefit of the casual viewer – in other words, you have to pay attention.

And  you have to read the captioning, because this is in French.

In some alternate Universe, nuclear war came and went in the 1950s, and folks somewhere in France are short of food & hope. In an apartment building cum butcher shop, though, there’s meat, meat you don’t want to examine for its origins, paid for in grain, the new currency. The butcher, Clapet, has become a rich man, but this doesn’t make for a happy family, between a wife who despises him – I think – and a daughter, Julie, who is terrified of, well, everything. As one of the guests is exiting, a new guest arrives, Louison, a former circus star, who now offers to fix up the apartment building in return for living space.

Seeing both sides of the argument.

Things become crisply confusing quite quickly, as everyone in the apartment building reacts to the new guy: a chance for a way out, more wealth, a new sexual partner, meat. And then enters the … militant underground vegans.

Plenty of detail, plenty of plot mystery, and some good acting. Possibly my favorite was around for only a short time: I call him Mr. Eyes.

It requires a sense of whimsy, a willingness to play with taboos, and a lack of nausea; if you appreciated Eating Raoul (1982), then this is the surreal second cousin that dropped some acid.

Enjoy.

It’s always surprising when a seasoned pundit like Erick Erickson, former editor of far-right Red State and now editor, I think, at The Resurgent, proves to be quite naive about the nature of the far right. I somehow have ended up on his mailing list, and found this in my mail:

I confess to being aggravated by the Kelly Loeffler and Doug Collins race. It is a race that should not be. While I very much like and respect Doug Collins, I trust Governor Kemp who appointed Loeffler to the Senate. The race is dividing the Republican Party at a time it needs to be united.

Loeffler was appointed by Kemp to the Senate seat of Johnny Isakson (R-GA) a few months ago, not on the basis of experience, of which she had none relevant, but apparently based on the fact that, as a successful business woman, she has quite the funds available – or so the theory goes. Rep Collins (R-GA) was recommended for the appointment by President Trump, presumably as a reward for Collins’ vociferous support of Trump in the House, but Kemp chose Loeffler.

It is actually a blessing in disguise that the idea of a primary got scuttled. Republicans in Georgia have a history of not voting in races where their preferred candidate lost. Undoubtedly, a number of Cagle supporters in 2018 refused to vote for Kemp, causing the Kemp and Abrams race to be closer than it should have been. If Collins and Loeffler had a primary, some supporters would skip that race in November.

Now, at least, there will be a full Republican turnout in November for the President, David Perdue, and in the Loeffler and Collins race. If we must do this, however, please stop making it about Stacey Abrams.

And it would appear Erickson has decided the President is A-OK. Another conservative who endorses 16,000+ lies.

Two weeks ago, people close to Collins pushed out the picture of Senator Loeffler with Stacey Abrams at a WNBA event in Atlanta. The implication is that Senator Loeffler and Abrams are close. That led the Loeffler team to push out pictures of Collins hugging Abrams. Then outside groups weighed in with a recent video of Collins talking about his friendship with Abrams. In fact, the two are so close that Abrams named a character in one of her romance novels “Doug Collins.”

Does it really matter? I like Stacey Abrams too. I, like Collins, disagree with her on pretty much everything politically. But I interviewed Abrams for an hour during the 2018 race and she was one of the best interviews I have conducted. She offered comprehensive answers, was self-deprecating, and had a great sense of humor. One can disagree with Abrams politically while also recognizing she is a fine person.

The reason this race has devolved into a silly contest over who hugged Abrams the hardest is because Senator Loeffler and Congressman Collins agree on virtually every issue. They agree on life issues, second amendment issues, tax issues, regulatory issues, military issues, impeachment, the President, and any other issue one might toss at them.

The underlying presumption is that Loeffler is only pretending to be a conservative. This calls into question both Governor Kemp’s judgment and Loeffler’s integrity. Despite Loeffler’s strongly conservative record since joining the Senate, those around Collins would suggest she will “grow” in office once unencumbered by an election. Of course, whoever wins in 2020 will be back on the ballot in just two years.

This also ignores that Collins too has had issues in office. Collins has an 81% lifetime rating on the Heritage Action for America scorecard, having only a 75% in the 2017-2018 period. In the present congress, Collins has an 88%, but trails all the other Republicans from Georgia except Rob Woodall from the metro Atlanta area. Among other issues, the Heritage Foundation says Collins has been bad on immigration and supported an amnesty proposal.

And is this “Heritage Action for America” organization, of whom I’ve never heard, really worth paying any attention to? If they’re as xenophobic as … Collins has been bad on immigration and supported an amnesty proposal … suggests, then, in the context of its name, this organization must be exceptionally rich in irony.

I actually was fine with the Collins vote. I only bring it up to note if we are going with the “Loeffler may be bad eventually” or hugged Abrams scenarios, Collins will see the same leveraged against him. That makes this race so frustrating — two good candidates with identical views on the issues claiming we cannot trust the other. Ultimately, I do trust Brian Kemp and his judgment so I will go with Loeffler, knowing Collins would be just as good.

Let’s skip the off-topic bit about trusting Governor Kemp (R-GA), whose ethics are highly suspect. Erickson should be embarrassed to say he trusts Kemp, but we’ll move on.

No, what fascinates me is Erickson’s tone-deafness about the Republican way of doing things these days. Republican politics’ biggest lever is that of hate. Let’s not mince words; when a far-right House member like Mo Brooks (R-AL), ambitious to move to the United States Senate, is accused of being a Pelosi pal and supporter of the Islamic State (!) by members of his own Party, we’re simply talking about a cannon usually reserved for the Democrats being turned on their own siblings. When the issue of abortion, a doubtful issue of fallacious reasoning, is weaponized such that a candidate is judged on that issue to the exclusion of all else, not only ideological but even operational (competence, honesty, etc), that is the politics of hate.

When Newt Gingrich (R-GA) is a guiding star of the Party, that’s hate.

Or, more accurately, that’s the willingness to do anything to win, including employing the tools of hate.

It should come as no surprise that Stacy Abrams (D-GA) becomes a symbol of anti-association, because she’s a Democrat.

Quick, let’s associate Loeffler with Abrams! Why? Well, she’s a Democrat, a kissing cousin of the Devil Incarnate! Yes! A DemonLovingSocialistCommunistGunHatingBabyKillin’LiberalSecularUmmmmmLetMeGetOutMyListIt’sGettingSoLong … oh yeah, Democrats haven’t done nothing for America in oh so long!

Erickson is upset that his team isn’t playing like a team? That some of them refuse to vote for the rival who won the primary?

This is the fruits of winning at all costs. Trumpism, with its emphasis on toughness and never admitting to being wrong, actually plays right into this philosophy.

Folks lose the perspective of considering their rivals to still be Americans, or even Republicans. Or even Democrats – I skim The Daily Kos spam mails very lightly, but you can’t miss the cries of He’s not a real Democrat, kick his ass out! The partisans do tend to lean that way, regardless of ideology.

But, back to the point, it’s just going to get worse for Erickson if he wants everyone to play nice. The Republicans are no longer trained to have that sort of temperament; it’s all about absolutism: everything is free market, abortion rights are abominable sins, and because God is with us we’re never wrong.

The fruits of these attitudes is what Erickson sees in the Republican Party today, tomorrow, and right up until the Republican Party burns to the ground.

Like I’ve said before, someday the Republican Party will consist of three members, and two will be on probation due to suspicion of them being RINOs.

I have finally thought of a real use for an artificially intelligent entity around the house!

This young lady, Peeper by name, …

… likes to yowl on these winter mornings, doubtless complaining of the cold outdoors and her shortage of long fur. It’d be great for her to be occasionally surprised by a small, mouse-like creature that will scamper out upon hearing the yowl of anguish, pounce on her tail, run tantalizing out of reach, and disappear under a door. Surely this is within the capabilities of an AI robot!

Of course, if this AI actually has self-agency, this might qualify as a cruel and torturous practice, as being chased by a cat five times your size might be terrifying.

If, on the other hand, the AI is aware the cat can do little to harm it, then perhaps it’ll be amusing for it.

And then boring.

Back to the torture thought again.

And then if the mouse has WiFi, it becomes Yet Another Security Hole (“have you had your YASH today?”) to worry about.

How embarrassing that would be – almost as good as that Las Vegas hotel that suffered a data breach via its fish pond thermostat.

This is today’s unsettling development for the political world:

I am pleased to announce that our highly respected Ambassador to Germany, @RichardGrenell, will become the Acting Director of National Intelligence. Rick has represented our Country exceedingly well and I look forward to working with him. I would like to thank Joe Maguire….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2020

He may be highly respected in Trump’s eyes, but not anyone approves. Steve Benen, for example:

To know anything about Richard Grenell is to know he spent several years annoying people as a prominent internet troll. I generally try to avoid blocking people on Twitter, but even I found Grenell’s juvenile antics so grating that I took advantage of the platform’s “block” feature.

After one exasperating exchange in 2012, the Washington Post’s Dave Weigel asked him, “Shouldn’t you eventually get a job and quit trolling people?”

Seven-and-a-half years later, the notorious online pest has a job …

Here’s the thing: Donald J. Trump’s idea of successful is far different from most everyone else’s. The key is in the labeling of Grennell as an Internet Troll:

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,^[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses^[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,^[3] whether for the troll’s amusement or a specific gain. [Wikipedia]

Stubborn aggressiveness? Never apologize? For Trump, these are positive character traits, and the fact that Grennell is neither respected nor effective are, at best, secondary negatives; they may not even register with Trump.

For Trump, “losing,” like McCain supposedly did, is the anchor that will sink you. So long as you can slither out of every difficulty, you’re a winner, and that’s all he cares about.

And that’s not acceptable in any sector of society, frankly speaking. As a diplomat in Germany, he could do little damaged in his incompetency.

As the replacement for Dan Coates, former Director of National Intelligence? I suppose it’ll depend on how well the bureaucracy in the various intelligence agencies can ward him off.

It’s a sad mark of the times when I wonder if the Administration is carefully manipulating its leaks. The trigger? The step following this post:

The president’s post-impeachment behavior has alarmed Attorney General William P. Barr, who has told people close to the president that he is willing to quit unless Trump stops publicly commenting on ongoing criminal matters, according to two administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. It also has appalled several legal experts and former officials, who have said his direct intervention in legal matters risks further politicizing law enforcement at a time of fraying confidence in the Justice Department. [WaPo]

As I noted before, Barr has little use for all those who are secularists: Those who think our society is better off as secular. I’ll only be impressed if he resigns in the next two weeks.

Right now I’m inclined to think this is all just careful manipulation of public opinion by a President who lives for doing just that.

I loved this WaPo article by Jeff Smith on how the Amish consider questions of technology integration with their society:

When a church member asks to use a new technology, the families discuss the idea and vote to accept or reject. The conversation centers on how a device will strengthen or weaken relationships within the community and within families. Imagine if the United States had conducted a similar discussion when social media platforms were developing algorithms designed to amplify differences and then pit us against one another, because anger drives traffic and traffic drives profits.

Friends of mine belonged to an Amish church in Michigan. One of the church members wanted to purchase a hay baler that promised to be more efficient, even as it enabled him to work alone. The members discussed the proposal — yes, the new machine might increase productivity, but how would community connections be affected if he began haying without the help of others, and what would happen if his neighbors adopted the same technology? The risk to social cohesion, they decided, wasn’t worth the potential gains.

In other words, they put the health of the community above the advantage of the individual; contrast that to greater America, where simply acknowledging there is a community can be a struggle, much less asking if a given advance is actually damaging to the community. When the algorithms are designed to drive division and dollars, as Smith notes, why should a community accept it? In a sense, this is an instance of the Precautionary Principle, incidentally a subject for mockery in the libertarian movement of the ’90s.

But – as a member of the first generation of social media^[1] users, back in the 1980s, I was attracted to the new community we were building precisely because the more traditional, real-life, community within which I was embedded was, more or less, toxic. Stratified, riddled with religious theologies for which I had no respect (I found them boring when they weren’t terrifically ridiculous), consumeristic, mixed with a liberal dose of hormones, for me social media was a rescue.

Then again, those BBSes were far more true to the concepts implicit in the naive use of the phrase social media than today’s behemoths of the same category. Many of us, nearly terminally shy, began coming out and meeting in public, dating, getting married and divorced. While I’m sure this happens with Facebook as well, we did it without commercials or nuanced algorithms that would cause political anguish – we did that to ourselves on the up and up.

So, in the end, it’s possible that a hypothetical Amish community might accept a BBS of the varieties popular back in the 1980s, while rejecting those of today.

And, I think, for good reason.

¹ aka Bulletin Board Systems.