Unsightly Mental Blemishes

A positive rush of Senate campaign news has popped up for the political news junkie.

• The most important is the announcement that in Montana term-limited (and former candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination) Governor Bullock (D-MT) has changed his mind, after a lot of prodding, and will run for the seat currently held by Senator Daines (R-MT). This transitions a safe Republican seat into a seat that could potentially be taken by the Democrats, as Bullock has held two state-wide seats, governor and attorney general. It’s true that his margins of victory do not approach those of Daines, but it’s also true that it’s a chancy business to compare victory margins, as there are too many variables, including the waxing and waning of Trumpism. And whether or not Daines’ TrumpScore of 85.5% is good or bad for his campaign is also not clear – will Trump endorse him, and even that raises questions. I await the next poll with mild interest, and, if it suggests a tight race, I will increase my count of Republican seats in play to ten.
• In a slightly dated, but still applicable, post, The Daily Kos reports that in Alabama, the two surviving candidates for the Republican nomination to the Senate seat being defended by Senator Jones (D-AL), Sessions and Tuberville, are indeed ripping into each other with vigor. While this seat remains likely to change hands next January, it’s not foreordained. And given the enthusiasm for Trump displayed by the two candidates, they both have a real vulnerability if the Alabama electorate sours on the President.
• And Steve Benen presents his summary of recent Senatorial campaign news here, covering Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, and more.

This is the happy season for the political junkie.

A reader writes concerning Biden’s role in a hypothetical matchup with President Trump:

It’s going to be ugly. Trump is glib and younger. So it’s likely to come down to MAGAts vs. anyone but Trump votes. In other words, Biden offers very little to the equation; he’s mostly an innocuous lump representing the opposition.

I see Biden’s best offerings falling into the categories of experience, competency, and as the representative of the only competent and non-corrupt Administration since the Clinton, a link to when governmental affairs were run honorably and efficiently. It’s not an easy message to deliver, but if adroitly done many should find it persuasive.

I just hope he doesn’t have hysterics during the debate. A fatherly You screwed up and now I have to go fix it might be more appropriate.

On Lawfare Lennart Maschmeyer notes how American military cyberwarfare is transitioning its operational theories:

The United States Cyber Command is fundamentally changing its cyber strategy, moving from restraint and deterrence toward a posture of persistent engagement. This new strategy is better aligned with the practice of cyber conflict, and its innovativeness is reflected in the lively debate it has generated among scholars and practitioners. Much of this debate has focused on the lack of clarity concerning the strategy’s implementation and the resulting risks of unintended consequences. Some analysts have argued that persistent engagement could provoke escalation due to misperception. Others claim it may cause friction with allies and signal normative acceptance of adversaries’ disruptive operations. The underlying theory has received less attention, however, despite its importance.

The theory of “cyber persistence” that informs the strategy of persistent engagement is a key contribution by Michael Fischerkeller and Richard Harknett. This theory rests on a crucial assumption: that the interconnectedness of modern information communications technology is the fundamental organizing principle of cyber conflict, because it places actors in a condition of constant contact. According to the theory’s proponents, this condition of constant contact is what renders the adoption of a strategy of persistent engagement imperative.

I argue this logic is flawed.

This is more involved than I have time to explore in detail, but I found this bit particularly interesting:

Neglecting this role of secrecy leads to two pitfalls. First, the strategy of persistent engagement may inadvertently upend the existing dynamic of competition under secrecy, as perceived by adversaries, leading to unintended consequences and instability. As scholars have noted, past forms of competition under secrecy followed a clear set of tacitly agreed rules—one key rule being the avoidance of reprisals against operational centers. As Stephen Grey underlines, in the Cold War intelligence contest, “by tacit agreement, the superpowers never tried to assassinate each other or take reprisals.” Rather than perpetuating stability under these tacitly agreed rules, persistent engagement may upend it by maneuvering “as close as possible” to adversary operational centers, as Gen. Paul Nakasone has suggested. Persistent engagement thus risks disrupting this strategic space, causing instability by signaling to adversaries that reprisals for intelligence coups affecting operational centers are now fair game. Unless the United States Cyber Command enjoys unrivaled dominance in this competition—which is far from clear based on past cyber conflicts—this change is likely to tie down significant resources in fending off adversary operations aiming to create the same “organizational friction” within Cyber Command that Fischerkeller and Harknett propose to impose on adversary operational centers.

Willing to take some losses – typically of intellectual resources, I would expect, rather than actual deaths and damage – in order to keep a fragile peace when the alternative is all-out war is a sensible approach to international low-level conflict. But it’s not hard to see inexperienced amateurs getting all bulgy eyed over it, is it?

We’ve seen a number of incidents of ransomware over the last few years, but I am unaware as to whether the identity of the malefactors has been positively ascertained and tabulated. If we see an escalation, it’ll be interesting to hear if it’s blamed on this change operational theories – and if we decide to go back to accepting small losses in return for accomplishments of our own – think Stuxnet – and no stunning disasters.

Another Super Tuesday update to the Senatorial races pertains to North Carolina and the Senator Tillis (R-NC) reelection campaign. Basically, Tillis’ allies’ attempt to get a weak Democratic opponent nominated failed, as Cal Cunningham appears to have comfortably won his race against Erica Smith, according to Roll Call.

I have not found any recent polls for this race; a poll from several months ago showed Tillis trailing slightly.

Former VP Joe Biden (D-DE) won big on Super Tuesday, including decisively here in Minnesota. What does it mean?

Progressive (?) Kevin Drum pragmatically voted for Biden, not Sanders nor Warren:

And how did I vote today? I was not willing to vote for either Sanders or Bloomberg, so I wavered between Warren and Biden. In the end, though, I voted for Joe Biden. Policywise, I think he’s better than a lot of progressives give him credit for, and in any case it hardly matters since Republicans will allow very little of any Democrat’s policy to pass. On foreign policy, I think Biden learned a lot during the Obama years and is now, deep in his gut, much less interventionist than he used to be. I won’t deny that his gaffes and obvious cognitive slips aren’t concerning, but it’s also easy to overplay those—especially if you support someone else.

In the end, I couldn’t shake free of my central concern over Elizabeth Warren: that she’s too rigid in her beliefs to make the kinds of adjustments politicians have to make if they want to win a general election. I think she’d rather be right than president, and if she won the nomination that’s exactly what she’d be.

Drum in a later post:

I’m a little curious why I’m not seeing more people admit the obvious: Joe Biden is now virtually 100 percent assured of winning the Democratic nomination. He’s going to come out of Super Tuesday ahead of Bernie Sanders and there’s little reason to think he won’t maintain that lead. And if he’s anywhere close to a majority when primary season is over, the superdelegates will put him over the top easily. Right? I mean, does anyone think that Sanders will win more than 10 percent of the superdelegates if he rolls into Milwaukee with Biden anywhere close to him?

Getting in early on predicting Joe has the nomination. That’s what pundits do.

Jim Geraghty on National Review:

Sanders could still salvage the night by winning Texas and California. But overall, the story of Super Tuesday is the utter collapse in momentum for Sanders. The African-American vote has just come out in massive numbers for Biden in state after state, while there’s no sign of that massive wave of new and younger voters that Sanders promised. Bernie still has a good chance of winning the nomination, but the Democratic Party’s establishment pulled its act together at the last minute, and it looks like a long, hard fight all the way to Milwaukee.

For Biden, this night is near-miraculous. Democrats may well end up with some buyer’s remorse; Biden is the same guy who unnerved so many Democrats with his aging appearance, forgetfulness, and gaffes. But the party establishment has put its doubts aside and decided to ride or die with him. After a long, cacophonous noise, the Democratic primary is down to two extremely different candidates.

And CNN is reporting that Biden took Texas, too. It’s important to bear in mind that delegates are allocated proportionally, it’s not a winner-take-all format.

Steve Benen:

For Joe Biden, the good news is he’s suddenly in the lead in the overall delegate count; he has all the momentum; money is poised to pour in; and a variety of party leaders are rallying behind him. He couldn’t credibly ask to be in a better position right now, especially compared to where he was a few weeks ago. The bad news is, despite his gains, the former vice president may yet struggle to lock up a majority of pledged delegates ahead of the Democratic convention. What’s more, Biden will have a target on his back, not only in the upcoming debates, but also as Republicans turn their fire on him.

Ryan Lizza of Politico:

As for Sanders, Biden did not just defeat him across the country, he made a mockery of the senator’s main argument for his campaign. Sanders has repeatedly said he will turn out new disaffected voters, rally the working class to his cause and spike youth turnout to unprecedented levels. None of it has happened. Take his home state of Vermont. Turnout was higher there this year than in 2016, but Sanders won 86 percent of the vote then and just 51 percent this year.

Biden is also winning the working class. To the extent that new voter turnout is higher, it isn’t breaking for Sanders, and youth turnout hasn’t exploded. That’s the revolution Sanders promised. But 18 states have voted and it hasn’t materialized.

So far, there’s been no mention of how well union members have supported Biden. He has historically strong ties to most unions, so if he can rally the union membership to get out and vote, it could be a key to victory both in the remaining primaries and the general election, so long as his VP selection is acceptable to them.

For local voters and those who wonder about endorsements, statistical analysis siste FiveThirtyEight’s Nathaniel Rakich has a remark:

But Biden’s most impressive wins came in Massachusetts and Minnesota, where Sanders entered Super Tuesday as a slight favorite — and Biden wasn’t even the most likely candidate to upset him. Per our forecast, Biden had only a 1 in 5 chance of carrying each state, and yet he won Massachusetts by 7 points and Minnesota by a daunting 9. Both wins showed Biden’s ability to expand his coalition outside his usual comfort zone. Minnesota is a state that has relatively few voters of color (a key part of Biden’s base) and that Sanders won by 23 points in 2016. But the last-minute endorsement of Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who dropped out of the race to support Biden, was apparently very influential. And in Massachusetts, Biden effectively kneecapped home-state Sen. Elizabeth Warren by usurping her former base of college-educated whites; Biden carried the upper-class suburbs that ring Boston.

Rakich’s colleague Geoffrey Smiley reinforces the point:

Minnesota stands out as the state where Biden benefited most from late deciders. The departure of Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar from the presidential race on Monday, along with her endorsement of Biden, helped push enough voters into Biden’s camp for the former vice president to win the state by 9 points — particularly impressive considering Sanders had a 2 in 3 chance of winning Minnesota when Klobuchar left the race, according to our model.

Keep in mind that President Obama, immensely popular with Democrats, did not issue an endorsement, perhaps feeling that it was not proper to interfere in a process which should measure merit, not big-name friends. But it’s also impressive that Senator Klobuchar could turn enough heads with her endorsement to push Biden to a commanding victory. Klobuchar has a strong and loyal base here in Minnesota, even more than I suspected. It makes me wonder if I’d want to see her take a post in a hypothetical Biden government if it was offered.

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report:

Sanders’s pledge to bring new voters into his movement seems fairly empty in the results we’re seeing so far. His coalition has shrunk since 2016, not grown.

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) March 4, 2020

If true, Sanders will be doomed.

Far right conservative (and former NeverTrumper) Erick Erickson, in an email he’s spraying about, hoping to lure subscribers to his newsletter:

While the Democratic Party continues to drift left towards an eventual crack up of secular rich white voters against black and Hispanic voters, enough of their voters overall rejected a radical candidate. That is a good thing for the country. It is a recognition that the far-left socialist policies of Sanders and Warren are being rejected by minority voters within the Democratic Party. It is a recognition of the fact that a full government takeover of health care and other parts of the private sector are nonstarters. It is a recognition that Medicare for All will go nowhere. It is a recognition that the Bernie Bros are marginalized.

The nation needs two mostly-sane political parties. While the Democrats will never acknowledge the GOP is sane under Trump, those of us who know better know it is and should be thankful the Democrats appear to be rejecting their insane fringe.

That makes November a more difficult fight for the President. But at least it ensures, even if by accident, the country is spared a radical communist as a major party leader.

Erickson is another of those people who won’t take into account connectedness: did Biden win because, as Erickson sees it, the socialist approach to societal problems is insane and evil? Or did Biden win because he presented as someone who’s better equipped than his rivals to beat Trump in the general election? I’ve never much read Erickson, but given his religiosity, I suspect he sees the world in apocalyptic terms, rather than tactical or even strategic terms. We may still see a more socialistic medical system embraced by the Democrats in the future – but for the moment the Democrats see Trump as an existential threat, not to the Democrats, but to the nation. A socialist medical system, whatever its tradeoffs, isn’t in the cards until Trump is out.

And that Erickson thinks he somehow has a better viewpoint is, in itself, a little frightening.

Former Republican Jennifer Rubin of WaPo:

For Biden, Tuesday night is shaping up to be a triumph — a political comeback that happened so suddenly the polls could not keep up. Biden is far ahead of where he was anticipated to be in the delegate race. Bloomberg is flopping, and may well end the race after looking at the numbers. (A statement from his campaign did not promise to fight on.) The party of working people, minority voters, women and suburbanites — not “Corporate Democrats” — is coalescing around Biden with unprecedented speed. Sanders’s loud online presence, his attacks on fellow Democrats and the press and his proud display of his socialist label have not make him more popular than in 2016; in fact, he looks to be losing some of his base.

Ordinary Democrats have not followed the Twitter chatter and the pundits’ scripts. They seem intent on winning, not on making a point and saving the party and the country from the ravages of populism. We should breathe a sigh of relief that one party appears capable of keeping itself tethered to reality and to democracy.

Rubin forgets that Sanders is not a Democrat, but the point remains: attacking other Democrats drives away potential allies and voters. Having seen Sanders on Colbert, he has his charms, but there’s a certain arrogance which can be quite irritating.

Law Professor David Bernstein gives Sanders the sarcastic raspberry on The Volokh Conspiracy:

Part of Bernie Sanders’ pitch is that by motivated voters to turn out, he can beat Trump. Today, I and quite a few people I know who normally don’t vote in Democratic primaries turned out to vote for Biden or Bloomberg because we are so appalled by the prospect of Bernie Corbynizing the Democratic Party. I know other people who turned out to vote for Bernie because they think he’s Trump’s easiest-to-beat opponent. (I think that’s a mistake for the same reason it was a mistake for Democrats to root for or even help Trump in the 2016 Republican primaries.) So mazel tov, Bernie, you increased turnout.

Incidentally, Andrew Sullivan expressed similar concerns about Sanders being the American Jeremy Corbyn here. Perhaps he’ll be a little more relaxed about the future of the Democrats in his next column.

For me, it seems apparent that the black community, behind the leadership of South Carolina’s James Clyburn, came to a collective decision that Biden is the candidate to rally behind to defeat a President who they find quite threatening (and I agree). Through the surprisingly easy victory in the South Carolina primary, which was last Saturday, they signaled the rest of the Democratic primary voters that they considered Biden to be not only viable, but the best available; this in turn had to trigger thoughts and conversations in the voters in the Super Tuesday states.

I think we can see evidence for this in the deviations from expectations. My understanding is that prognosticators were giving all states of the Deep South to Biden, while Texas was inclined to Sanders, and California and all the northern states were Sanders territory, with the possible exception of Senator Warren’s Massachusetts. The actual results?

Biden won the Deep South and Texas. And Maine and Massachusetts. And, by a convincing margin, Minnesota.

Primaries are not where you vote your heart, with apologies to Greg Fallis, but where you select the candidate who can credibly carry a banner with which you can live, while beating the other guy. And while generally I figure “the other guy” is not going to be disaster, I have to make an exception for Trump, as anyone’s who has glanced through this blog will know. I feel fairly confident a President McCain or President Romney would have been annoying, but I would have had confidence that they would have an acceptable conception of the role and a competency with which I could live.

Trump doesn’t come close.

So, if Biden wins the nomination and then the general election, there should be gratitude extended to the black community, not only for selecting Biden, but for sparking the coalescence of the Democrats around any candidate. It’ll be interesting to see how that comes out – more members of the black community in high profile posts? Adjustments to national policies in order to attack problems plaguing the black community?

Reparations?

The future is intriguing. First, we have to see if Biden can ride the wave, and then sell himself to the Independents who’ll decide the next election. Good luck to him!

Tommy Tuberville in 2007 via Wikipedia.

In an update to the Alabama Senate race, Senator Doug Jones’ (D) Republican challengers, former Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III and former Auburn football coach Tommy Tuberville, more or less split the primary vote, 33% to 32% in Tuberville’s favor. This does not make Tuberville the Republican nominee; he would have had to win 50% or more of the vote for that. Instead, the other challengers are removed from the race, and a runoff will occur March 31.

If the campaigning becomes bitter, it’s possible the Republican Party will be riven with recriminations, permitting Jones to retain his seat. It would appear that President Trump has decided to make this a bit bitter:

This is what happens to someone who loyally gets appointed Attorney General of the United States & then doesn’t have the wisdom or courage to stare down & end the phony Russia Witch Hunt. Recuses himself on FIRST DAY in office, and the Mueller Scam begins! https://t.co/2jGnRgOS6h

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2020

For those who accept Trump’s assertions of total innocence, it won’t be hard to transfer their loyalties to Tuberville. But for those who have their suspicions … well, quite honestly, they probably didn’t participate in the primary. Sessions and Tuberville were essentially competing to see who could be more sickeningly loyal to an inveterate liar.

Still, the supporters of the losing candidate for the Republican nomination may still stay home in a snit. Useful polls should begin appearing after the March 31 runoff.

Yes, Velda, I hate all women.

If the storytellers behind My Gun Is Quick (1957) had been a little more careful with the details of their story, it could have been a little less distracting with questions like, How did she know that? and How did the bad guys find him?

This is one of the stories of the legendary private detective Mike Hammer, he who hands out and absorbs “justice” in equal amounts. A bag of jewelry, stolen during World War II, is hidden somewhere near Hammer’s home base in California, and a young, hopeless lady is wearing one of its rings on her finger. Told it is worthless, Hammer lends her some cash to go home and stop being “in the business,” but before she can make it to the bus stop, fate befalls her, and she’s left a broken bundle on the street. And … ringless.

Just Another Dancer, Just Another Prancer, Watch Out, Vixen, Or you’ll be taking a lickin’! (with apologies to Santa Claus)

Outraged, Hammer goes to work, with and against the police, looking for a killer who destroyed the woman, pushes a mute from a window, drowns another dancer just for associating with Hammer, all while the glitter of jewels blinds them all to the sad lack of morals that compels them onward.

But even Hammer is caught flat-footed when the killer finally stands forth from the shadows, grasping after the glitter that has tantalized them for so long with one hand, holding a gun in the other. And what of the long-suffering Velda, Hammer’s secretary?

This is middlin’ film noir, fascinating in a morbid sort of way as it explores the consequences of the greedy decisions of its many characters – and the desserts they get for their troubles. And, perhaps most troubling of all, is that even in the grasp of dire consequences, they do not weep for their errors, or cower from their punishment, do they?

“You’re a fool, Hammer, a fool! I thought you were just like me!”

That’s blindness.

Between President Trump’s erratic incoherency and Joe Biden’s occasional ridiculous gaffe or incomprehensibility, this is what we could end up:

Two galloping senior citizens, ripening with dementia, running for the Presidency.

Surely this is an indictment of a system in which the citizenry simply ignores the entire political process, or, worse, treats it as part of their theological experience.

OK, boys, let’s shave it bald and let it loose in the sun!

When you watch Godmonster of Indian Flats (1973) make sure you have a partner. Just as when you go SCUBA diving, a partner is a necessity because you’ll keep each other safe: making sure breaks are taken at regular intervals, that serious discussions of the theme of the monstrous sheep that is the eponymous godmonster can take place, and not too much rum & kool-aid is consumed.

Just to be sure, pick a teetotaler for your partner, and make sure they’re strong in their teetotal-ness.

This semi-rancid mashup of such sub-genres as fantasy dinosaur, vigilante lynch mob, mad doctor, assistant to the mad doctor infatuation with the monster, lust with the local boy, sheer power-based insanity, and a total failure to find a suitable ending to the story makes this one of the worst stories I’ve ever encountered. Add in bad cinematography, audio, dialog, plot, acting, and special effects, and this just about hits it out of the ballpark.

Yep, I’m sure someone thinks it’s adorable.

WaPo notes Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) had quite a campaign haul for February:

I see Trump cannot stand rejection, as he’s renominated Rep John Ratcliffe (R-TX), whose initial nomination was withdrawn after Senators from both parties expressed skepticism – and news organizations examined his campaign materials and found them to be, at best, containing dubious claims – at worse, fallacious. I think NBC News‘ report gets it about right:

In what amounts to a direct challenge to Senate Republicans, President Donald Trump announced Friday that his pick to head the intelligence community is the same Republican congressman whose previous bid for the job collapsed amid revelations he misrepresented his background.

Trump tweeted that he was nominating Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas to be the director of national intelligence, calling the former federal prosecutor “an outstanding man of great talent.”

However, I wouldn’t be nearly so polite about. Trump, who cannot stand to be frustrated in any little thing, is out to demonstrate his dominance. Lift the leg and pee on everyone who rejected his choice, that’s all it comes down to.

But it’s worth wondering how Party discipline, aka toxic team politics, is going to play into this. There’s not really been anyone beyond Trump himself who has endorsed Ratcliffe for the position, and in fact studied legal opinion is that he does not, under the law, qualify for the position.

Given that Ratcliffe has been a vociferous defender of Trump, it’s hard not to see this as nothing more than handing a plum job to a loyal supporter, a supporter who has promised to “reform” a key segment of US Government that has not cooperated with President Trump. The fact that most parts of US Government should be securely and permanently non-partisan matters not a whit to this President.

How will Republican Senators break on this nomination? Given their frantic confirmations of conservative, sometimes ill-prepared individuals, the suspicion is that party loyalty will win out over the requirements of their jobs, and they’ll confirm.

And what if they don’t confirm? Will Trump refuse to endorse them? Endorse primary opponents? That’s the whip, and that may make all the little dogs fall into line.

Bark-bark-bark, all you little Senators. Here’s the result of toxic team politics.

I liked this report from a few months back on improving students’ grades:

An emergency situation that turned out to be mostly a false alarm led a lot of schools in Los Angeles to install air filters, and something strange happened: Test scores went up. By a lot. And the gains were sustained in the subsequent year rather than fading away.

That’s what NYU’s Michael Gilraine finds in a new working paper titled “Air Filters, Pollution, and Student Achievement” that looks at the surprising consequences of the Aliso Canyon gas leak in 2015.

The impact of the air filters is strikingly large given what a simple change we’re talking about. The school district didn’t reengineer the school buildings or make dramatic education reforms; they just installed $700 commercially available filters that you could plug into any room in the country. But it’s consistent with a growing literature on the cognitive impact of air pollution, which finds that everyone from chess players to baseball umpires to workers in a pear-packing factory suffer deteriorations in performance when the air is more polluted. [Vox]

I shouldn’t think this is surprising, since we didn’t evolve for polluted atmospheres – by definition – but it does appear that some are surprised. Or perhaps at our sensitivity.

And I do recall reading, somewhere, about 40 years ago, about how the passengers on steam engines actually liked the fact that their clothes were covered in soot, because that was symbolic of their separation from Nature, that Nature that took lives suddenly and randomly through disease and wild animal attacks.

But mostly, I think, we just think we’re too damn special to be afflicted by minor air pollution.

I understand that some physicists are trying to understand reality not as the traditional particles and fields, but as information, and even had some success where more traditional approaches have not yet found solutions. I will not pretend to understand the approach.

But perhaps they’re not quite on the right track, I suggest perhaps a trifle facetiously. Whatever, I found this post on Slate Star Codex by Scott Alexander vastly amusing, as he asks Gwern Branwen to take a text prediction program named GPT-2 into other realms, such as writing poetry, writing music, and now …

Last month, I asked him if he thought GPT-2 could play chess. I wondered if he could train it on a corpus of chess games written in standard notation (where, for example, e2e4 means “move the pawn at square e2 to square e4”). There are literally millions of games written up like this. GPT-2 would learn to predict the next string of text, which would correspond to the next move in the chess game. Then you would prompt it with a chessboard up to a certain point, and it would predict how the chess masters who had produced its training data would continue the game – ie make its next move using the same heuristics they would.

Gwern handed the idea to his collaborator Shawn Presser, who had a working GPT-2 chess engine running within a week …

It’s always fascinating to use the wrong tool to solve a problem and have it work. It suggests a misapprehension of reality, and misapprehensions are where new knowledge hides, along with the occasional Nobel prize. Naturally, this isn’t perfect:

GPT2 Chess update: I wrote some code to calculate the probability of all valid chess moves. It can reach endgame now. https://t.co/QQzhZJmgQ9

It starts to blunder every game at around move 13. We suspect it’s losing track of board state. (It’s trained solely on PGN notation.)

— Shawn Presser (@theshawwn) January 4, 2020

Here’s Alexander’s last word:

State flag of South Carolina.

Former VP Joe Biden’s overwhelming victory in the South Carolina primary isn’t so important for its delegate count as for its signal concerning who important Democratic communities prefer in the upcoming general election. Ever wondered why Iowa and New Hampshire garner so much attention? It’s not that they’re diverse, because both are fairly homogenuous states; it’s that the homogeneity exists and can be read using the primaries and caucuses.

That’s why I tend to disregard concerns about diversity in these early states. This is all about signaling.

Through the first three contests, I read the results as the white and Latinos like the idea of a progressive going into the general election.

South Carolina, the fourth, is a bastion of the black community, and here the progressives ran into a wall, with the results showing Sanders falling just short of 20% of the primary vote (and rival progressive Warren only came up with 7.1%), while Biden won 48.4%, easily outpolling the progressives in total by nearly 2:1. Surveys seemed to indicate roughly 60% of black primary voters preferred Biden.

I have no special insights into the results, but will only note that reporting indicates the black community seems to feel that, in order to beat an old white guy, an old white guy will be required – and preferably one with experience. While I think a woman could win, the voice of the black community – a potentially significant force in the upcoming election which the Democrats will need to win – suggests I could be wrong. If Warren or Klobuchar took the nomination, despite their individual poor showings in South Carolina, would the black community stay home?

That’s a significant question, and that’s why I don’t actually give a lot of credence to Greg Fallis’ notion that primary voters should vote their hearts. Voting is an activity with an ethical dimension; if one really believes Trump is antithetical to the nation, unlike, say, McCain or Romney, who merely had political visions competing with the Democrats, then selecting the candidate you believe is best able to beat him becomes incumbent on you, ethically speaking.

As I’ve said before, I like Biden. But if he’s going to take the next step, he needs to clean up his act. No more bloopers, they’re not endearing, they are worrisome. He needs to stress his experience, and he needs to stress the Ukraine scandal as an indicator that Trump, whose admitted guilt^[1] in the matter is indicative of Trump’s worries about beating Biden in the general.

And, no doubt causing the Republicans to scream foul!, politicize Covid-19 (the Wuhan coronavirus). Trump is incompetent as a governmental leader, and his mismanagement of the government responsibility for handling public health should be put front and center as to why independents should never, ever vote for Trump again. Don’t bother to appeal to Republican voters, because they’re the ones who brought vast incompetency and amateurism upon us just when we needed professionals in government – and still overwhelmingly think Trump is a great President. They have to find their own way to redemption on this matter, but they won’t listen to Biden because of his association with Obama.

But independents, slapped upside the head in the right way, will listen. They might even think.

But clean up your act, Biden. You do the right thing when you apologize and correct your behavior, but I’d like to see less of that and more forward looking policies, an acknowledgement that the Republican Party is a toxic slag heap, and a pointer to a future that doesn’t include governmental incompetence and sliding into international second-bananahood.

We need better out of you.

¹ I can hear the attentive reader muttering, Wait, Trump claimed his call was “perfect!” Let me explain: It was Trump’s actions which led to the call summary being released (we have never seen the actual transcript, as I understand it, which may be even more incriminating). It was from this summary, along with the testimony of witnesses and whistleblowers, that the House decided to bring Articles of Impeachment; thus, through his release of this material, Trump admits his guilt. Still doubtful? A number of Senate Republicans, at the end of the trial, admitted that the evidence showed Trump had committed a corrupt act. However, with the distinctive and honorable exception of Senator Romney (R-UT), they felt, using convoluted and dubious reasoning, that the corruption was unworthy of conviction.

I haven’t seen much about Comet Borisov since the announcement of its entry into the Solar System, but I did recently run across this orbital mechanics site dedicated to it. I have not messed with it much.

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. …