Main page    Jan. 29

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page

New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: AZ GA MI PA WI
GOP pickups: (None)

McCarthy Goes to Florida to Kiss the Ring

Story time! Once upon a time, there was a political party that was ostensibly a national party, but that was in reality the party of the South and of some Midwestern/mountain states. In friendly states, the party absolutely dominated, but in most others it was wholly non-competitive. Tarred, justifiably, with having suborned insurrection, and dependent on the votes of white racists, this party's political program was largely nonexistent. Instead, they focused on obstruction and they kept their coalition together by doing a lot of pandering to white outrage and otherwise making extensive use of cultural wedge issues. They also did everything they could to suppress the votes of non-supporters, particularly if those non-supporters were Black.

The political party we're talking about, of course, is the Democratic Party, from roughly 1865 to 1932. The Party was almost completely defanged by the Civil War, given that: (1) their support for secession made them infamous, and (2) that Reconstruction left many of the Party's voters (temporarily) without the franchise. In the presidential elections of 1868 and 1872, particularly the latter, they barely mounted a campaign. Thereafter, with the end of Reconstruction, the Democrats pulled themselves together, but largely contented themselves with dominating state governments and with sending a rabble-rousing, but not controlling, delegation to Congress. Although the Party managed to keep most national elections fairly close, they rarely broke through, and thus sent only two presidents to the White House (Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson) between the end of the war and the start of the Great Depression.

We mention this because the modern Republican Party is charting an awfully similar course these days. On or about Jan. 20 of this year, the GOP reached a fork in the road. One option was to repudiate Donald Trump and Trumpism, a possibility made feasible by the insurrection at the Capitol, the subsequent impeachment, and Trump's departure from office and from pretty much all social media platforms. The second option was to keep the Donald in the fold. GOP leadership has had a week or so to think about it, and they've already made their decision: Option #2.

No single event this week makes this fact clearer than House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's (R-CA) trip to Florida to kneel before Trump, and to pledge his everlasting loyalty. The two are working together to recapture the House majority and, while they are at it, to cut Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) off at the knees. She voted for impeachment, and so she must be cast out of GOParadise.

And speaking of impeachment, the rapid loss of interest in convicting Trump is further evidence of his "comeback." Just a little over a week ago, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was speaking openly about the possibility that he might vote to convict, and that the time might have come to excise Trump from the Republican Party. This week, however, the Minority Leader is quiet as a church mouse (or maybe a church turtle) and, by supporting Sen. Rand Paul's (R-KY) motion to debate the constitutionality of this impeachment, McConnell has tentatively signaled what his vote will ultimately be.

In short, the Republican pooh-bahs have made their decision. And inasmuch as they did not take the offramp that insurrection/impeachment/the end of Trump's term afforded them, they are going to be stuck with that for a while. Ultimately, it is not terribly surprising that things took this turn, for a number of reasons:

So, the Republican Party has chosen not to quit Trump and Trumpism, and it's not terribly surprising they were unable to kick that addiction. But they are taking a serious risk of becoming the post-Civil War Democratic Party, and going through a bunch of presidential elections where they are often the bridesmaid, and rarely the bride. Some serious concerns for the party pooh-bahs, going forward:

Ultimately, we have no idea what the future holds for the Republican Party. What we do know is what trajectory they've currently chosen, and why they've chosen it. And we also know what happened the last time a major political party chose that trajectory. And so, we will now see if history repeats itself. (Z)

A House Divided against Itself Cannot Stand

Abraham Lincoln was prescient in 1858 when he gave a speech including the line: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." He clearly foresaw what was going to happen in the House in 2021, with lawmakers at war with each other. It is not only Republicans vs. Democrats, but also Republicans vs. Republicans. So far it isn't Democrats vs. Democrats though.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), who caught the coronavirus after being locked for hours in a safe room with maskless Republicans during the Capitol riot, said: "There is a real tension. I don't know if that is repairable. It is certainly a massive chasm that exists right now between a large majority of the Republican caucus and all of us Democrats across the ideological spectrum." It's not only that. The Democrats have come to despise the 139 Republicans who voted to overturn a free and fair election because they didn't like the results. Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI) said: "I have a hard time interacting with those members right now, especially with those I had a closer relationship with ... I'm not going to deny the reality—that I look at them differently now. They're smaller people to me now." Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) said: "I've been thinking about it. I haven't talked to any of them about it because I am just furious." Multiple Democrats are weighing on whether to sever ties completely with those 139 Republicans.

But it is not just the Democrats who are furious. Some Republicans have already had enough of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and her conspiracy theories. Some of her old social media posts have now come to light. Among other things, she claimed:

The list goes on. When asked about these statements, she suggested that maybe someone else wrote some of her posts to social media. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said he is deeply disturbed by her comments and will talk to her about them. Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA), who was nearly killed by a gunman in 2017, said: "There is no place for comments like that in our political discourse." House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) said her posts were "repugnant" and has called the QAnon movement, which Greene fully endorses, "dangerous lunacy." So things are not all unicorns and rainbows in the House right now, with no sign of improvement on the horizon. (V)

Senate News, Part I: Jordan Out

Jim Jordan is surely the most prominent member of Ohio's House delegation. He's also the most Trumpy member. And given that Ohio gave its EVs to Trump by 8 points both times the Donald was on the ballot, Jordan would seem to be a natural to challenge for the U.S. Senate seat that Rob Portman will vacate when his current term ends in Jan. 2023. However, on Thursday, to everyone's surprise, Jordan announced that he's not running, and that he's content to focus on retaining his House seat.

We do not know why Jordan is playing it safe like this, and he's obviously not telling. Here are some guesses, though:

If you made us pick one, we'd pick the last one. In any event, Jordan was the most beatable prominent Republican, given the already outlandish things he's said and done, as well as the very real possibility that he would say something damaging during the campaign, like "rapes are a part of God's plan." With Jordan out, the Democrats' odds of capturing the seat just got a fair bit worse. (Z)

Senate News, Part II: Rubio May Be Bulletproof

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has a consistently low approval rating (usually low 40s). That's not too surprising; he's a flip-flopper who does not hide his opportunism very well, he's not exactly a rocket scientist in the brains department, he's notoriously lazy, and he's uninterested enough in the job that he already quit once.

So, with his seat up in 2022, and with Florida a somewhat purplish state, Rubio would seem to be a prime candidate for be knocked off by a Democrat, right? Not so fast, according to Florida Democrats in the know. The Senator has some very important built-in advantages. To start, he's from Miami and is of Cuban descent, and so is strong with groups that the Democrats must have in order to offset the guaranteed beating they will take in rural areas and the panhandle. He's got incumbency on his side, of course. And he's got millions of dollars in the bank, and will pile up millions more before election season arrives.

The Democrats also have some problems when it comes to finding a challenger to take Rubio on. Mounting a Senate campaign in the Sunshine State is not cheap, and finding enough money to do it will not be easy. Further, the Democratic bench in the state is thin, and the folks they do have are either noncommittal (Reps. Val Demings and Stephanie Murphy) or think that they have a better shot at knocking off also-up-for-reelection Gov. Ron DeSantis (Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, former governor Charlie Crist).

That said, the Blue Team does have two reasons to be hopeful. The first is that if Ivanka Trump jumps into the race, as rumored, that will trigger a bloody and divisive primary on the Republican side. If Rubio emerges from that, he could struggle with the MAGA vote. If Trump emerges, she will cede Rubio's advantages in Miami and among Cubans, and may struggle to attract votes from non-MAGA Republicans. The second reason to be hopeful is that both parties have had a lot of luck in recent years coming up with unexpectedly strong candidates, even when the cupboard seemed bare. Sometimes, those candidates don't win (Beto O'Rourke, John James). But sometimes, they do (Jon Ossoff, Josh Hawley). So, this one leans Republican for now, but it will still bear watching. (Z)

Question Answered: It Was Trump

Donald and Melania Trump will receive Secret Service protection until they dismiss it or they are dead (or, in Melania's case, until she divorces The Donald). Barron Trump will receive protection until he is 16. And Trump's other four children, plus the two spouses they have among them (Lara Trump and Jared Kushner), plus former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and former NSA Robert C. O'Brien will receive protection for the next six months. Everything beyond the protection for Donald/Melania/Barron is out of the ordinary, and so raised the question: Who made that call?

Now we know the answer to that question: It was, of course, Trump himself. Previous presidents have availed themselves of the right to extend protection like this, though it was almost always for the benefit of one or two of those presidents' college-age children (Bill Clinton did it for a year for daughter Chelsea, and George W. Bush did it for a couple of years for daughters Barbara and Jenna). Extending protection to multiple staff members, not to mention half a dozen adult children/children-in-law, has no precedent. Of course, using the presidential powers to—and beyond—the point of being abusive is one of Trump's trademarks, so it's no surprise that he'd drop this "gift" on the USSS on his way out the door. The cost to the country will be well into the seven figures, while the USSS will spend the next 6 months stretched way too thin. Joe Biden could countermand the order, but the optics of that are such that he probably won't. So, the Trump children will be kept safe from angry mobs until July 20, and then they are on their own. (Z)

Another Question Answered: It Was a Hacky Decision

On Wednesday, we noted that Joe Biden had suffered his first setback at the hands of the judiciary, as Judge Drew Tipton, a Donald Trump appointee, issued a national injunction forbidding the President from following through with his plan to halt most deportations for 100 days. The ruling was issued in response to a suit from Texas AG Ken Paxton, who claimed that his state would suffer irreparable harm from the 100-day pause. When we wrote that item, we noted that some outlets were presenting this as the first dividends to be paid by the GOP "stack the judiciary with fire-breathing conservatives" project, but that we were allowing for the possibility that it was a legitimate decision based on sound legal thinking.

As it turns out, it was indeed a hacky, partisan decision. Slate's Mark Joseph Stern, who is very good at breaking these things down, has four criticisms of the ruling:

  1. It's Hypocritical: For the past four years, conservative judges and legal theorists, including Tipton, have decreed that it is not apropos for one judge from one circuit to issue a nationwide injunction. Since Jan. 20, Tipton, et al., have backed off that position. We will leave it for readers to decide what might explain that change.

  2. No Standing: Paxton had to bend over backwards to make the case that his state was harmed by the Biden policy. He didn't do it, and Tipton should never have granted him standing.

  3. It's Bad Law: The executive branch has broad authority when it comes to managing deportations, and that includes increasing or decreasing the number of them at the will of the president.

  4. It's Toothless: In this case, Tipton has ordered a pause on an order that was already a pause. How do you pause a pause? Tipton can't order Biden to deport a particular person, or group of people, or number of people, as there are still procedures that have to be followed. So, the White House can ignore the order, and there is nothing Tipton can do.

There are two potential lessons here, depending on your perspective. The first, which Stern brings up, is that there is indeed an army of Trumpy judges out there who will stand on their heads to make conservative rulings, logic and the law be damned. Perhaps so; time will tell. The second, which is all ours, is that the four years of Trump were often marked by comically inept governance met with competent jurisprudence. Maybe the shoe will be on the other foot now, and we're in for four years of often competent governance met with comically inept jurisprudence. If so, the good news is that not every judge (including not every judge appointed by Trump) is in the bag for the former president. So, this may prove to be more an annoyance for Biden than anything else, as he waits for cases to reach a competent judge. It's true that the Supreme Court is stacked with Trumpy judges, but it's also true that they don't hear all that many cases. Anyhow, it's another thing where time will tell. (Z)

Bird Isn't the Word

But "Mueller," "Benghazi," and "Kneel" certainly are. Writing for the visual-data-driven site The Pudding, Charlie Smart (aided by a team of researchers) has put together a very interesting analysis of how Fox, CNN, and MSNBC cover the news, based on the frequency with which various words appear in their headline chryons (the running text at the bottom of the screen). The data was (were?) collected over a roughly six-month period from mid-2017 to early 2018.

The "visual essay" produced by Smart and his team assigns a dot to each word used at least one time in that period, and then increases the size of that dot based on frequency of use, while placing it on a triangle with corners labeled "Fox," "CNN," and "MSNBC," relative to how often the word was used on each channel. For example, it won't surprise you to learn that Fox's chryons use the word "Limbaugh" almost 20 times as often as CNN or MSNBC's chryons:

'Limbaugh' is a fairly big circle, located very near to the Fox corner, because it was used 327 times on Fox as compared to 18 on MSNBC and 13 on CNN

It's a surprise that Fox never poached Rush from his radio program, but maybe they couldn't afford it (he makes about $80 million/year).

Anyhow, as the authors point out, certain word "clusters" speak to the coverage preferences of the three outlets. Fox, of course, is obsessed with the Clintons. MSNBC gave far and away more attention to the Russia investigation than the other two outlets. CNN kinda has a thing for hurricanes. On the other hand, they all covered North Korea, as well as the NFL kneeling.

Taking a look at individual words is also intriguing, in some cases. Here are a few that stuck out to us:

Anyhow, it's an interesting way to consider (and visualize) the skew of the three major cable news outlets. You should take a look; they also have an analysis of which words appear near other words. (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers