The Election Without A Narrative

It's been awhile since my last post, and while Facebook considers my occasional ramblings as spam, I'm still here. Bu though I last published a post maybe 2 months ago, the complexion of the Presidential race has changed so substantially that it's hard to overstate what has happened. The Biden-Trump rematch is gone, in it's place, it is now Harris v. Trump. 

And while there is plenty to be said about the Harris/Walz campaign, and that it has been pitch-perfect for the past month, there is something that sticks out to me that I haven't seen as clearly articulated in other sources. Namely, there is a Democratic candidate in Harris who doesn't have a narrative. The last time we saw this was in 2008 (more on that later). 

But before we get into the 2008/2024 comparison, let me explain what I mean by a narrative. A narrative is what is essentially a fatal flaw, or rather, a perceived fatal flaw, that develops around a Democratic politician. For Bill Clinton, the flaw was his penchant for sleeping with women not his wife. And while he absolutely cheated on Secretary Clinton, his ability to sell anyone anything overcame any perceived weakness. Unfortunately, other candidates were not so capable: Al Gore was a "exaggerator," John Kerry was a "flip-flopper," Secretary Clinton had her "email scandal," and Joe Biden was too old.

While these narratives are generally full of shit, they were close enough to the truth that when something came around to prove the narrative - Kerry saying "I voted for it before I voted against it" comes to mind - the press could jump onto the narrative as proof that the narrative was not bullshit. These narratives were often created over years of quiet and not so quiet statements made by Republican media that bubbled up over time. Corporate media would pick up on the narrative and start treating it as real, even if utter bullshit.

In the past 32 years, the only candidate who really never had a narrative that corporate media supported was Barack Obama. The natural focus of the narratives put out by right-wingers was Obama as someone outside the norm, but those were so openly racist (Trump's birtherism in particular), that corporate media shied away. McCain came close to establishing a narrative of Obama the inexperienced, as I've written in the past, but he blew it with the Sarah Palin pick, and with his abject panic during the financial crisis.

That is until now. Going into the debate with Trump, the narrative built by Trump's campaign over the past four years is that Biden was too old to be President. And unfortunately, Biden's debate performance fit that narrative to the T. But with Biden dropping out, and Kamala Harris stepping in, all the work that the Trump campaign put into hitting Biden is all for naught.

That leaves Harris. So far, there doesn't appear to be any overarching "scandal" or narrative surrounding Harris. Maybe that she laughs too much, or too flighty? But if that's the case, Harris' steely acceptance speech demonstrated that her persona of being the cool aunt is a mask hiding the prosecutor. She may weep after turning an enemy into glass, but she'll still turn an enemy into glass. Of that, I have no doubt. And so any attacks on that basis would only serve to draw out the prosecutor within. And those moments in the acceptance speech where the prosecutor came out were some of her strongest moments.

To that end, there doesn't seem to be an overarching way to attack Harris. It's possible that the attack will come from the lack of details for her economic policies (but Trump also lacks for details), or the fact that she has yet to give an interview to the press, but those are easily solved going forward. No, I don't think there ever will be a narrative of attack in this election. And that's interesting to me.

How about that debate. . .

 Last night was apparently a shitshow. I say apparently because, as the parent of young children, I did not get to watch much of last night's debate. But from what little of the debate I saw, and from the reactions I've seen, my best guess is that Biden managed to confirm the worst fears of many of his supporters while Trump was given free rein from CNN to lie his ass off.

On the last part, CNN giving Trump free rein to lie his ass off, comes as no surprise. CNN has held a number of events with Trump, and has never fact-checked the man. Nor is it surprising Trump lied repeatedly about everything - his convictions in New York are based on fraud, he was found liable of slander (lying) on at least three separate occasions, cannot operate a charity in the State of New York due to fraud, was forced to pay 100 cents on the dollar in his "settlement" involving Trump University, and has been cited as being dishonest time and time again by EVERYONE.

And sadly, it's not surprising that Biden failed to perform well last night. On one hand, he can't well refute and retort what Trump said when Trump was in fantasy land. On the other hand, he proceeded to do the one thing that Biden absolutely cannot ever do - act OLD.

In my history of watching politics, there have been two major fuck-ups by Democratic candidates at this level that compare to what Biden did last night - Howard Dean screaming at a rally, and Kerry saying "I was for it before I was against it." In both instances, Dean and Kerry managed to amplify the negative narratives about them. Dean was thought to be a bit off his rocker (untrue), and Kerry's narrative was that he was a flip-flopper. Neither narrative was fair, but both existed.

Biden being old is equally an unfair narrative. After all Trump is almost as old as Biden, and is most likely incontinent (according to sources). Plus, there is no indication he has Alzheimer's (unlike Reagan, who did), and he's naturally delegating work, not doing all of it himself. But it is true that Biden is the oldest President we've ever had, and that makes the criticism somewhat fair.

In saying all that, the decision to give Trump a place on stage with Biden, and then let Trump lie his ass off without any fact-checking was one of the dumbest fucking strategies in modern history. It was never going to go well, and the fact that Biden actually chose to do this means he's still listening to Democratic political insiders - who are generally the dumbest fucking people ever.

With that said, should Biden drop out? That would be incredibly difficult at this stage, and likely a recipe for disaster. For one thing, the person replacing him would almost certainly be less well known than Biden. There's no liberal media in this country, just conservative media and corporate media, so even people like Gavin Newsom aren't known outside of certain circles. That's a huge problem when running against a celebrity in Donald Trump. 

And second, there's not chance for the Party to have the kind of balancing act that every nominee goes through. After all, the Democratic Party doesn't have the messaging mechanism that the GOP has in Fox News/NewsMax/AM Radio/Sinclair Broadcasting. So, Democratic nominees have to go through a process of gathering support from all the factions of the Democratic Party. Biden is/was really good at this. Bernie Sanders is not (sorry to say). 

And, of course, that leaves open the question of Kamala Harris. Why the hell would she be passed over when she's the sitting VP? At the same time, Harris is HATED by the DC media, disliked by some progressives due to her connection to law enforcement, is a woman, and is Black. These are all things that can be ironed out over the course of a primary, but that time has long since passed.

Now you might then ask, if all of this was known, why did Biden run for reelection? My wife asks this of me a fair bit. The answer is simple - despite Biden's age, he was in the best position to beat Donald Trump. He has 100% name ID - which only he, Bernie Sanders, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton can claim - which again is important when running against a celebrity. Biden has also done a reasonably good job of cleaning up Trump's innumerable messes, while also dealing with the most reactionary Supreme Court in 100 years. So, he's not just the incumbent, but he's actually a fairly successful incumbent. 

For those of you doubting my last statement, at this time four years ago, the entire country was shut down from COVID, there were riots in the streets of every major city in America (and several minor cities), and we were inundated with shortages of food, toliet paper, and other essential goods. We were wearing masks and gloves to go grocery shopping, for goodness sake! And for those of you who want to argue about taxes - Trump's tax cut caused my federal taxes to jump significantly because he put a limit on the SALT deductions to give more money to billionaires. 

So, where do we go from here? I don't know. No one knows.

The Following Can All Be True

With the War in Gaza continuing to unfold over the past several months, I've seen a number of half-truths from a number of friends and erstwhile allies, and so I thought we should go over a few things that are all true. 

Israel is Essential to the Survival of the Jewish People: Before we do just about anything here, we need to recognize that a Jewish state is essential for Jewish survival. The history of Judaism after the Diaspora is one continuous cycle of Jews finding a religiously tolerant state, moving there, working their asses off to make the state work, and then for a leader or leaders to up and decide that the Jews are not welcome. Usually, a genocide then occurs. This is what happened in Egypt, Spain, England, Poland, Germany, Ukraine, France, and just about everywhere else post-Diaspora. 

Now, granted, some of the reprisals, while not entirely justified, were wholly predictable (rebellions against the Assyrians and Romans), but those are exceptions. Usually, the pattern follows what happened in Germany - Jews either emigrated into Germany, or were absorbed when Germany took parts of Poland (Poland was a religiously tolerant kingdom). Despite gross anti-Semitism, the most patriotic Germans were often Jewish. In World War 1, German Jews were more likely to volunteer to serve in the army, more likely to perform acts of bravery while in the army, and were more likely to be wounded in the line of duty than the average non-Jewish German. Despite that, the German High Command blamed the Jews for the loss in World War I, which Hitler built upon, leading to the Holocaust - one of many genocides attempted on the Jews over their history.

The way to alleviate the cycle, or prevent it from happening is to give Jews a place to run when shit starts to hit the fan. As much as I'd like that to be the United States, history suggests that we cannot be counted on in the long-term. So, Israel it is.

The Palestinians Have Been Getting the Shit End of the Stick: While Israel is absolutely necessary, we need to acknowledge the fact that people were living in the area we call Israel today when Israel was created. At the time of Israel's creation, these people would probably have referred to themselves as Arabs. But in the past 70 years of struggle, these people have a new identity and nation - Palestine. Whether that nation predated the creation of Israel or not is beside the point, these people, the Palestinians, who lost land and property when Israel was created, and who continue to lose land today, are more or less fucked. Had the powers that be (the US and Britain) started compensating Palestinians for the loss of land, we would probably be in a better situation, but that's beside the point as well. 

What we had going into 2024, particularly in the Gaza Strip, were millions of people crammed into a tiny strip of land forced to live in refugee camps. Most Gazans, in fact, lived in refugee camps, as did their parents and their grandparents. It's a fucking hellhole. I once talked with an Uber driver who had just left Gaza (this was maybe in 2016, I have no idea how he got out), and when I asked him about being there, he just cried in front of a stranger. It's that bad. And it's the American/British fuckup at the start that made it this bad (particularly the British, who controlled the area post WW1).

Hamas is a Terrorist Organization and Everyone Involved in the October 7 Attacks Deserves a Long, Slow Death: One reason Gazans have had it so rough is Hamas. Hamas managed to win an election in Gaza about 20 years ago (the locals were giving a hearty fuck-you to the PLA), and has refused to allow any elections since. As Israel has tightened the noose around Hamas, it is the people living in Gaza who were choking. But because of that noose, Hamas was becoming more and more irrelevant in Middle East politics, and so they hatched a plan, leading to the deaths of 1,500 Israeli civilians (and these were gruesome deaths). The goal of these attacks was not the downfall of Israel, it was to encourage the Israeli government to perpetuate a massacre in Gaza. That's why they killed as many as they did, and why they took the time to kill in gruesome ways - Hamas wanted Israel to scream for vengeance. The reason is that the Israelis went in hard enough, the carnage would make Israel an international pariah. 

The Israeli Government, Lead By Bibi Netanyahu was More Than Happy to Massacre Civilians in Gaza: For years now, various elements of Netanyahu's government have described Palestinians as subhuman, vermin, or worse, while encouraging Israelis in the West Bank to harass and terrorize the Palestinians off their land. Netanyahu, in fact, rejects the very idea of a two-state solution (the creation of a Palestinian state to exist next to Israel), and simply favors the removal of all Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. So, when the Hamas struck, the Israeli government was more than happy to return the favor.

Of course, there's a bit more to the story - the Israeli government completely and utterly fucked up, which lead to the October 7 attacks. In order to support the various Israeli settlers in their harassment campaigns, the Israeli government, despite getting clear intelligence that Hamas was up to something, pulled troops away from Gaza and into the West Bank. Hamas recognized the lack of forces in Gaza, and struck. So, the only way for Netanyahu - who, by the way, is not in prison for corruption only because he is Prime Minister - to try to maintain power was to come down hard on Gaza. Oh, and since everyone hates his ass right now, the only way to stay in power is to prolong the crisis and prevent any elections from taking place. This is, of course, an excellent example of why you don't put someone in power who needs to stay in power to avoid prison.

The Israeli Government is Absolutely Massacring Civilians in Gaza: Since the October 7 attacks, at least 33,899 Gazans have been killed. Israel has bombed hospitals. It has bombed areas after it told Gazan civilians to go there to be safe from bombing. Mass graves have been found in areas the IDF has raided. While the goal of these attacks is to get at Hamas, Hamas has every strategic incentive to hide among the civilian population, and Netanyahu just doesn't fucking care. Nor does his government. To claim otherwise is just silly. Hamas and the Likud are walking hand in hand in this horror. Heck, there's even evidence that some IDF members been sexually assaulting Gazans, just like Hamas did to the Israel civilians on October 7. 

American Jews Have Nothing To Do With the Massacre in Gaza: It's rather the opposite. In the eyes of AIPAC, and coming straight from the mouth of Netanyahu (who is a complete shit), "the greatest threat to Israel is the American Jewry." I once got to overhear a lobbyist from AIPAC speak with a donor, and I shit you not, that is a direct quote from him. Those were words that I will never forget. But the reasoning is simple - American Jews are looking at the situation from the same perspective as everyone else, and start clamoring for reforms.  

But this is also a time to remind everyone that "the Jews" are not a monolith. Fuck, even in Israel, they aren't a monolith. There are literally dozens of political parties and factions within Israel. To think that the American Jewry have anything to do with the slaughter in Gaza is ridiculous. In fact, it's guys like Bernie Sanders who have been calling for the removal of all American support for Israel. 

On the other hand, American Evangelicals, the sort who HAVE been supportive of Netanyahu over the years (and have "supported Israel" in the eyes of AIPAC), are much more likely to be supportive of this massacre than any Jew. So knock off the Anti-Semitism.

Banning or Arresting College Students Protesting the Massacre of Gazans is Stupid and Unproductive: I realize that it's been a long time since anyone has been in college, but people protest shit in college all the fucking time. Most of those protests consist of 20 people and are easily ignored. (Quick anecdote: when I was in college, I joined a protest against the Chinese treatment of the Tibetan people. It was utterly pathetic, as demonstrations go, but the Chinese President who was visiting Colonial Williamsburg, changed his route to avoid us.) But the moment that a protest gets treated with anything other than complete and utter apathy by college administrators, is the moment that it grows exponentially. Worse yet, administrators are not just paying attention, but are using the police to break up demonstrations, they're cancelling graduation ceremonies to prevent Muslim valedictorians from speaking, and basically waving every red flag imaginable. Now it's a fucking cause, you dipshits.

More than a few Assholes Have Used the Protests to Espouse their Anti-Semitic Views: With all that was said above, it is absolutely true that individual protestors and, in some case protest leaders, are crossing the line from "the Israel government suck" into "all Jews are evil." While I would tend to give Palestinian students a pass right now - they're probably terrified about their families back home and aren't thinking straight - the fact that others are more than willing to fall into the anti-Semitic trope of the Jewish monolith, or that Jews control the world, etc., is more than a bit troubling. Part of the reason why I'm writing this is to point out who the bad guys are here: Hamas and the Israeli government. And I think most protesters know this, and that's the message they're trying to send. Unfortunately, that can be the kind of subtle message that tends to get drowned out in a protest.

And, of course, the fact that college presidents are now cracking down on protests also lends itself to the idea of "Jewish control of the world." So, again, thanks for nothing adminstrators.

So, let's be clear - since October 7, we have had 2 bad actors in the Middle East: Gaza and the Israeli government lead by Netanyahu. There may be other bad actors, but those are the main ones. We need to acknowledge this, and then act accordingly. And for the love of God, can we stop the bullshit? 

Screaming Into the Void - Thoughts on the Ohtani Mess

Something interesting happened in baseball that doesn't have to do with play on the field. Not the Athletics complete descent into madness (maybe I'll post about that later), not the new uniforms (see through pants!), but the ongoing saga of Shohei Ohtani and his interpreter, Ippei Mizuhara. (If you know baseball, skid down to the 6th paragraph, as I'm am just giving background).

For those of you who don't know who Shohei Ohtani is, he's essentially the Japanese reincarnation of Babe Ruth. Like Ruth, Ohtani is a pitcher who can hit. In baseball, this is so rare (because pitching itself is a craft that requires hours of preparation and work that it leaves little time to do the work to hit major league pitching), that pitchers are no longer required to go to the plate and hit. Rather, both leagues now use a designated hitter to hit for the pitcher. 

And Ohtani isn't just a pitcher who can hit. He's a pitcher with ace-level stuff, and a hitter who can hit 50-60 home runs per year. In comparison, Babe Ruth might have been a better hitter, but Ohtani is a better pitcher than Ruth. Obviously, being compared to one of the legends of the sport seems extreme, but it is completely apt here. Moreover, unlike Ruth, Ohtani actually takes care of himself. 

So, when it came to free agency last year, it was no surprise that Ohtani signed an enormous contract - 10 years, $700 million. While baseball salaries are huge, no one else is anywhere near $50 million per year, much less $70 million per year. But for a guy like Ohtani, the number, while huge, seems about right. He's an ace pitcher who hits. In the history of MLB - which is a long history, mind you - there's only one other player that compares (Babe Ruth, in case you weren't paying attention).

But after the signing, a lot of weirdness came out. First, most of the money in the contract is deferred, with Ohtani being paid over the course of 30 years, not just 10. This is weird because the team that signed him (the Dodgers) are more than able to pay the money to him without deferment. Apparently, Ohtani requested the money to be deferred, which may be a tax dodge. And certainly the California Franchise Tax Board thinks so. 

Second, Ohtani announced that he was married. Given Ohtani's status as a huge celebrity in Japan (he reportedly makes over $50 million in endorsements annually in Japan), the fact that Ohtani was even dating anyone was a shock, much less being married.

Third, and the whole point of this post, Ohtani got connected to a gambling scandal. Specifically, an illegal bookmaking operation in Orange County who was under investigation by the FBI, received money from Ohtani's banking account, which violates federal law. The initial report was that Ohtani made those payments to the bookie at the request of his interpreter, Ippei Mizuhara. Actually, at the behest of the interpreter for the Los Angeles Dodger, as Mizuhara was their employee. This report was based on the statements made on Ohtani's behalf by CAA, Ohtani's sports agent.

The three problems with that statement is (1) if it was true, Ohtani would have violated federal law; (2) it looks like Ohtani used Mizuhara to place bets on his behalf to avoid MLB's prohibition on gambling; and (3) it was completely, and utterly false.

We now know that Mizuhara - who was Ohtani's friend, and more or less his gateway to the English speaking world - stole over $16 MILLION from Ohtani to cover his extensive gambling debts. Mizuhara was apparently over $40 million in debt, which he racked up in 2-4 years. He did this by literally impersonating Ohtani over the phone, and hacking Ohtani's bank application (reportedly changing the settings so Ohtani wouldn't be notified about any withdrawals from his account). Further, the reason why the initial statement was made that Ohtani paid this money to cover for Mizuhara was because Ohtani's agent ONLY TALKED TO MIZUHARA about this, and took Mizuhara at his word.

While some people are talking about Ohtani and gambling, I would like to point out one thing that's stuck in my craw since this went down: CAA RELIED ON MIZUHARA FOR ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH OHTANI. This is the same guy who, according to the FBI (and who's about to plead guilty), REGULARLY LIED TO OHTANI ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE WERE SAYING TO HIM IN ENGLISH. Now, this is bad, in and of itself, obviously, but the bulk of these conversations occurred WHILE OHTANI WAS NEGOTIATING THE LARGEST FREE AGENT DEAL IN MLB HISTORY.

In other words, we have no idea if Ohtani actually intended on signing with the Dodgers or if he was steered there by Mizuhara - who subsequently was hired by the Dodgers at an inflated salary. We have no idea if the deferment was Ohtani's idea, or if it was Mizuhara's guilty conscience (if there is no money to steal, he can't steal it). Now granted, this issue is not nearly as sexy as gambling, but this is the sort of thing that keeps attorneys up at night. The sole use of Mizuhara for communications with Ohtani could very well be deemed malpractice. It could potentially be grounds for Ohtani to void his contract with the Dodgers. Hell, is Ohtani's contract with CAA even valid, or did Ohtani keep them on because Mizuhara told him to (rather than go to an agency that had Japanese speakers on staff)?

For those of you in the media, this is the story, not gambling. I am 1000% sure that Ohtani's lawyers (who just came onto the scene here) is taking a close look at any contract where Mizuhara took part as the negotiator. But in the meantime, journalists, LOOK INTO THE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WHERE MIZUHARA WAS THE INTERPRETER! Just because Mizuhara is pleading guilty does not mean this story ends.

News Flash: Democrats are Members of A Political Party

Yesterday, we saw the House Republicans blow themselves up when they threw out Kevin McCarthy as Speaker. McCarthy was done in when 8 of his Republican colleagues voted to oust him, coupled with 208 Democrats. In the aftermath, McCarthy blamed the Democrats for his ouster rather than blame the guys who brought the motion to kick his ass to the curb.

While McCarthy's statements are largely sour grapes, it is also true that he seemed genuinely shocked that the Congressional Democratic Caucus wouldn't support him. After all, he had just pushed through a clean spending bill (which he previously promised he would push through, and then tried to renege, and then blamed Democrats for its passage). Other people have expressed concern that the actions of the Democrats in the House sends Congress into chaos. 

But all that forgets the fact that Kevin McCarthy is a REPUBLICAN member of Congress. The party that put him into power is the REPUBLICAN PARTY. The members of Congress who made him Speaker of the House (after 15 votes) were REPUBLICANS. At no time did any Democrat support McCarthy. And why would they? He opened an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden despite any evidence of any wrongdoing. And McCarthy has been a partisan weasel his entire career. Not backing McCarthy was the most obvious play for the Democrats here. In fact, if the shoe was on the other foot, any Democratic Speaker would be considered foolish for counting on Republican votes to save their ass.

All of this leads me to another point that has been floating around in my discourse for awhile - the Democratic Party is a POLITICAL PARTY. Democratic politicians are going to act like partisan politicians. Democratic Party officials are going to act like political party officials. That should be the expected thing. Because that's how normal political parties operate.

I recognize that we are in very strange times, but the weird behavior is all coming from the Republican side of the aisle. McCarthy went down because unlike all other Speakers who have held the position, McCarthy failed to keep his backbenchers in check during the session. That's on him. 

If not Trump, then Who?

The last time I blogged, I talked about how the good money was on Trump winning the nomination. And I stand by that belief because of all the potential Presidential candidates, Trump does give the GOP the best shot at beating Joe Biden because he is so good at firing up the GOP base.

But. . .the guy is facing 74 felony counts SO FAR. And he's likely to be indicted on several more felony counts related to January 6, and his shenanigans with Georgia and Michigan. That's a lot for any voter to digest. In particular, the Mar-a-Lago case is especially problematic for Trump because he is absolutely the kind of guy to pull shit like this. He can argue away the New York indictments, or the January 6th stuff as fighting for his voters, but stealing state secrets so you can show them off to your dinner guests is. . .not good. Recent polls are showing that some Republican voters are backing off of Trump. Of course, that's right now. It would not be surprising if Trump was able to turn the tide with GOP voters.

With that said, if not Trump, then who? Whoever would be selected would be a sacrificial lamb, as Trump would absolutely run as an independent and split the GOP vote (the only way he stays out of prison is if he's elected), and they would be running against an incumbent in Joe Biden. But that's not a bad thing if the goal of the candidate is to essentially clean up the GOP's reputation. Make a good showing, and the stink of Trump is gone by 2028 (and possibly by 2026).

Of those who are running, I think we can assume DeSantis will not be the nominee. It is sort of wild how Florida keeps putting up candidates who look like surefire winners (Jeb!, Rubio) only to have them flame out early, but here we are. DeSantis is running out of cash, not connecting with voters, and keeps running smack into bad press. For instance, he had to fire ANOTHER staffer for posting ANOTHER ad featuring Nazi imagery. And with his fascist tendencies, DeSantis isn't the kind of candidate who can wash off the stink.

Nikki Haley and Tim Scott are two who could. Haley was a reasonably decent governor of South Carolina, and Ambassador to the UN under Trump. Not great, but not awful. Tim Scott, also from South Carolina, fits in much the same mold. They'd get killed in the general election, but would do so with dignity and grace. 

Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey, and someone who sucked up to Trump in an attempt to be AG, and was denied, wouldn't be a bad choice for a sacrificial lamb, either. The media likes him, and he would pose a direct and aggressive challenge to Biden. This is the guy who destroyed Marc Rubio in a debate. Now, his past is such that he could easily be lampooned as a jackass (he once blocked off traffic to a city because the mayor refused to endorse him), but he's fast enough to stay in the game. 

Asa Hutchinson/Doug Burgum are also possibilities as nominee. In a normal world, Hutchinson would be a favorite, as he served in Congress and was a governor. A governor of a state with one of the highest murder rates in the country, but still a governor. Burgum is a governor of North Dakota which shouldn't be a state. 

Larry Elder would be, as he was in California, an enormous disaster. But it is true that he would be Trump without the indictments, payoffs to pornstars, or overt Russian mafia/intelligence connections. 

And then there's Mike Pence. He would absolutely get creamed with dignity. But he's in Ron DeSantis territory where he's got no shot. A better shot than DeSantis at this point, but not by much.

Of the bunch, if I were a GOP primary voter, I'd probably go with either Tim Scott or Chris Christie. In fact, a ticket with both Scott and Christie would lose with dignity, while also getting some shots in for 2026. 

Trump is Going to Be the GOP Nominee, and Other Observations

 Hey everyone, before I jump into this post, I do want people to know that I do still blog - but I haven't posted because my posts are usually crap, or incomplete. The joys of being a lawyer with young kids who works from home. Also, while I'm technically on Twitter (as I haven't shut down my account), I don't use it ever. You can find me at lawyerjsd@mastodon.social. Now onto your regularly scheduled programming:

As of right now, former President Donald J. Trump is facing a fuck ton of legal problems. He's under an indictment in New York State for fraud, a federal indictment for violations of the Espionage Act (ironically, the very same statute he accused Hillary Clinton of violating in 2016), has another possible federal indictment coming for his involvement in the January 6 insurrection, and possible indictments in Georgia, Nevada, and Michigan for threatening officials (amongst other things). And then we get into civil liability, including multiple lawsuits for defamation pending. It's. . .a lot. More than any Presidential candidate has ever faced during a campaign. Hell, most candidates would drop out to deal with the legal stuff.

But Trump isn't going to drop out. The fact is, Trump is probably dead to rights on the one federal indictment we know about, and is likely dead to rights on the one coming up. At his age, any time in prison likely means he's in prison for the rest of his life (and if you have seen any of the Ticktocks on federal prison life, federal prisons are not a place to be, ever). Trump's only shot at not dying in prison is to run for President, win, and then pardon himself on the federal charges. Then he can negotiate a deal on the state charges (possibly). That's his way out.

Given this fact, you might wonder whether Trump has any shot at winning anything. And well, he does. The thing about Trump is separates him from every other Republican out there, is he understands the Republican Party voter without BEING a Republican Party voter. This is a key distinction.

If you look at a guy like Ron DeSantis, or Mike Pence, who are dyed in the wool Republicans, they believe the bullshit they espouse. DeSantis believes that his fight against Wokeism is some kind of crusade and expects everyone to applaud him for it, because that's the bullshit that everyone spouts off. But aside from people who are deeply hooked into conservative media, no one gives a shit about wokeism or CRT. And they don't give a shit about drag shows, or transgendered people. They are just pissed that they are losing when other people seem to be winning.

Trump understands this innately. What were his stated policies in 2016? That his supporters would get tired of all the winning. In 2020, the GOP national platform - a document which usually spans hundreds of pages of policies - simply stated that the platform was whatever Trump said it was. And people ate that shit up. 

No other candidate can capture that kind of Id on the GOP side. DeSantis is a bully, a thug, and worst of all, someone who cares about policy. Nerd! Pence isn't going to go anywhere - the diehards were literally going to lynch him on January 6. Tim Scott and Nikki Haley are basically running for VP bonafides. Christie is running to try and get his reputation back from being Trump's errand boy. 

None of these candidates can make the case against Trump because none of them will tell Trump supporters that Trump is a loser. That he lost the 2020 election, and that he only won 2016 because the vagaries of the Electoral College. None of them can, because Trump has made the idea that he won in 2020 part of the GOP canon. Why else wouldn't the Republican Senators convict him for his actions on January 6? 

Further, every other candidate has something to lose if they stay in too long. Trump does not. The only way he avoids prison is winning. So expect him to try and pull every trick he can possibly conceive of to win. And his supporters will cheer on every attempt. In the meantime, if Trump gets elected, the people around him are planning on a wholesale takeover of government. That's if he gets elected. But nonetheless, we're once again headed for dangerous times.