Search This Blog

Sunday, March 22, 2026

Trump Gloats About Mueller's Death

 Our books have discussed Trump's low character, which was on display this weekend.


In 2016, Trump asked Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's emails  As the Mueller report note,  the Russian military quckly did has he had asked.  From the Mueller report.


Trump later claimed that he was just kidding.  He was not. When reporter Katy Tur asked him if the request gave him pause, he said, "It gives me no pause."  When she pressed him, he told her, "Be quiet."

Saturday, March 21, 2026

Shell Super PACs


 Clara Ence Morse and Dan Merica at WP:
The political arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee funneled over $5 million to other groups as part of its work to defeat Illinois Democrats critical of Israel in House primaries held Tuesday, filings made public late Friday show. The secretive giving is the latest example of how outside groups are obscuring their spending in competitive campaigns.

The contributions, which didn’t have to be disclosed until after Election Day under federal campaign finance regulations, funded part of a record-breaking total of outside spending: $225 million has been spent to influence midterm elections so far, according to a Post analysis of federal election data. Special interest groups, including AIPAC, have sometimes tried to veil their spending by using affiliated organizations that appear unrelated to the parent organization’s stated policy goals.

AIPAC, a pro-Israel group that has grown increasingly unpopular with Democratic primary voters, cloaked its spending in a trio of innocuously named organizations — Chicago Progressive Partnership, Affordable Chicago Now and Elect Chicago Women — and ran ads that attacked candidates, including Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, for a variety of reasons other than his position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
“It’s awful for politics,” said Jim Kessler, an executive at Third Way, a center-left think tank and advocacy organization. The use of shell super PACs, he added, shows these groups know “what you’re peddling is not popular with voters.”

The groups behind the spending argue they are using legal tools to further their goals and hinted they will do so in future primaries. Critics argue that the masking is underhanded, noting that the practice suggests the groups know their policy objectives are unpopular, or they would otherwise be willing to reveal the spending before the races are decided

Friday, March 20, 2026

Trump Coalition

Our most recent book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. The second Trump administration has been full of ominous developments -- now including a war in the Middle East.

Ian Ward at Politico:

With the 2026 midterms fast approaching, those divides have fueled speculation that MAGA voters might defect en masse from the GOP in November. But that’s not the primary threat facing the Trump coalition: Recent polling suggests that self-identified “MAGA Republicans” are standing firmly with Trump on the war and a host of other divisive issues, underscoring the stubborn reality that — as Trump has pithily put it — “MAGA is me.”

Yet as several conservative commentators have recently pointed out, Trump didn’t win reelection in 2024 merely on the strength of MAGA voters. His winning coalition paired his core MAGA constituency with a broader constellation of other non-traditional Republican constituencies — disillusioned Democrats and “MAHA moms” and “manosphere” podcast bros among them.

It is that broader Trumpian coalition — rather than the core base of MAGA supporters — that some Trump backers fear has been endangered by Trump’s policy choices. As the conservative activist Mike Cernovich put it this week, “A generational coalition, squandered.”


The issues:


Wednesday, March 18, 2026

Save America Act Would Backfire on the GOP

 Our most recent book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. The second Trump administration has been full of ominous developments.  Trump keeps pushing the myth of widespread fraud in US elections. He is demanding that the Senate pass the Save America Act. It would backfire on the GOP.

 Amy B Wang, Scott Clement and Lydia Sidhom at WP:

Everyone would need to present a photo ID to cast a ballot. But the bill would have the greatest impact on the registration process. While the bill does not explicitly require everyone to reregister to vote, a significant number of currently registered voters could be asked to provide documentation to remain on the rolls. Others may have to reregister because of a move or a name change. And this registration would need to take place in person.

An analysis by The Washington Post found that a greater number of Republican-held congressional districts have at least 5 percent of residents who would need to reregister to vote because they are considered “inactive voters.” That means they failed to verify their address with election officials, haven’t voted in two or more consecutive federal elections, or have no valid or current address on file. In about 54 percent of Republican-held congressional districts, at least 5 percent of residents would have to reregister to vote, more than the 36 percent of Democratic-held congressional districts in which at least 5 percent of residents would need to reregister.

About 21 million U.S. citizens of voting age (9 percent) do not have or lack easy access to documents proving their citizenship, according to a 2023 survey conducted by the University of Maryland’s Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, VoteRiders and the Brennan Center for Justice.

About 2.6 million Americans of voting age (1 percent) do not have any government-issued photo ID, while 34.5 million (15 percent) do not have a driver’s license or official state ID card that has their current name and address, according to the survey. Under the Save America Act, student IDs and other state licenses or ID cards would not be accepted.

As many as 69 million married women in the United States do not have a birth certificate that matches their legal name, according to the Center for American Progress, and they could face additional hurdles if they need to register to vote.

Much of the real-world impact would ultimately depend on how states implement the verification requirements — whether they already collect proof of citizenship from voters, for example.

Wren Orey and William T. Adler at the Bipartisan Policy Center:

Research from Pew Research Center finds that Republican women are about half as likely as Democratic women to keep their last name after marriage (10% versus 20%), suggesting that Republican voters may be somewhat more likely to have to complete additional steps 4 linking their birth certificate to their current voter record.

In short, birth certificates are a less reliable form of documentary proof than passports. Because Republicans are more likely to rely on them than Democrats, they may ultimately be more disadvantaged by documentary proof requirements.

Democrats do better among voters with more years of education.  And they find that this variable correlates with passport possession:

  • No HS 16%
  • HS 30%
  • 2-yr 41%
  • Some college 37%
  • 4-yr 61%
  • Postgrad 72%


Marc Novicoff  at The Atlantic:

One recent YouGov poll showed that 64 percent of Harris voters reported having a valid passport compared with 55 percent of Trump voters. According to an analysis by the voting-rights nonprofit Secure Democracy USA, the 13 states in which people are least likely to have a passport voted for Trump in 2024. Passports are especially rare in rural counties, where Republicans run up the score, Daniel Griffith, the author of the report, told me.

 

Tuesday, March 17, 2026

Trumpism's Three Pillars Collapse


Ian Ward at Politico:
The three issues that stood as the unshakable pillars of Trumpism have all at once become political millstones around his neck.

Start with immigration. In line with his 2016 campaign promises, Trump has indeed swept away whatever remained of the GOP’s pro-immigrant past, replacing it with a new nativist orthodoxy that seeks not merely to stem the tide of mass migration but to reverse the demographic changes of the past half-century.

But following the pushback to ICE’s aggressive immigration raids in Minneapolis and elsewhere, the administration is confronting the political risks of that new orthodoxy: Recent polls suggest that nearly half of all Americans — including 1-in-5 voters who backed Trump in 2024 — think his mass deportations campaigns are “too aggressive.” In response, the White House has reportedly urged congressional Republicans to soften their hardline rhetoric on mass deportations, warning them that it could cost the GOP key voting blocs in the 2026 midterms.

The situation doesn’t look much better on trade. As with immigration, Trump’s successful campaign to get the GOP on board with trade protectionism has come with a significant political cost: over 60 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s tariffs, according to some recent polls, and even Republican voters are split about the upsides of his trade war. Even worse for the administration is the slew of recent polling suggesting that a majority of voters blame Trump’s tariffs for raising the cost of living — a significant political liability in an election year where “affordability” remains a top concern for voters.

On foreign policy, Trump’s military moves abroad remain broadly popular with self-identified “MAGA” Republicans. But there are signs that his forays into foreign interventionism —  including the ongoing war with Iran — are unpopular with the critical independent and swing voters who pushed Trump over the top in 2024. Inside the White House, Trump’s senior advisers appear increasingly anxious that those numbers could get even worse if the war continues to push up gas and energy prices.

That said, foreign policy poses the most vexing question of the political downsides of Trump’s fidelity (or lack thereof) to pure and uncut “Trumpism.” Unlike on trade or immigration, where the blowback has been prompted by Trump’s fulfillment of an original campaign promise, there’s a case to be made that the president is courting political disaster by betraying Trumpism’s original promise on foreign policy — to prioritize American interests by keeping America out of foreign wars.


A crack in the MAGA wall:


 

Monday, March 16, 2026

Bad Days for Trump


Will Wessert at AP:
In the two weeks since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Iran, President Donald Trump increasingly has been knocked on his political heels.

He’s grown more agitated with news coverage and has failed to find a way to explain why he started the war — or how he will end it — that resonates with a public concerned by American deaths in the conflict, surging oil prices and dropping financial markets. Even some of his supporters are questioning his plan and his overall poll numbers are declining.

Meanwhile, Moscow is getting a boost from the war’s early days after Trump eased sanctions on some Russian oil shipments. That, combined with rising oil prices, undercut the yearslong push to crimp President Vladimir Putin’s ability to wage war in Ukraine.

Then there are Democrats, who were left reeling after Trump won the 2024 election. With control of Congress at stake in November’s midterms, the party has come together to oppose Trump’s Iran policy and point to the economic turmoil as proof that Republicans haven’t kept their promises to bring down everyday costs.

Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen at Axios:

Trump is working to help break the Persian Gulf oil jam. But in doing so, he risks getting caught in an "escalation trap," where a stronger force is incentivized to keep attacking to demonstrate dominance amid diminishing returns.A senior Trump administration official practically admitted as much, telling Axios' Marc Caputo: "The Iranians f*cking around with the Strait makes [Trump] more dug in."

State of play: Israel wants regime change in Iran and more dramatic military destruction as it weighs an invasion of Lebanon. Bibi Netanyahu has shown several times that when it comes to Iran, he has the ability to convince Trump to take his side.Iran wants survival — and to prove it can impose pain, militarily and economically, to scare off future attacks.

...

A source close to the administration said some key officials around Trump were reluctant or wanted more time. "He ended up saying, 'I just want to do it,'" the source said. "He grossly overestimated his ability to topple the regime short of sending in ground troops." The source said Trump was "high on his own supply" after last summer's quick strikes in Iran and January's abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro: "He saw multiple decisive quick victories with extraordinary military competence."

Tom Nichols:

This kind of thinking is an old problem, and it has a name: “victory disease,” meaning that victory in battle encourages leaders to seek out more battles, and then to believe that winning those battles means that they are winning the larger war or achieving some grand strategic aim—right up until the moment they realize that they have overreached and find themselves facing a military disaster or even total defeat. It is a condition that has afflicted many kinds of regimes over the course of history, one so common that my colleagues and I lectured military officers about it when I was a professor at the Naval War College. The issue is especially important for Americans, because when national leaders have exceptionally capable military forces at their disposal—as the United States does—they are even more likely to be seized by victory disease.

The Persian emperor Xerxes had it; that’s how he found himself eventually suffering a historic defeat in Greece at the Battle of Salamis. Napoleon had it; that’s how he ended up freezing in the Russian snow after years of brilliant victories over other European states. The French in 1870 had it; that’s how they confidently marched to catastrophes against a superior Prussian army. The Axis had it; that’s how Germany and Japan convinced themselves that their early successes meant that they could quickly defeat the Soviet Union and the United States, respectively.

Sunday, March 15, 2026

Trying to Control the Media

Our most recent book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. The second Trump administration has been full of ominous developmentsHe and his allies are using legal and regulatory pressure to stifle dissent.

Ashley Ahn at NYT:
Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, threatened on Saturday to revoke broadcasters’ licenses over their coverage of the war with Iran, his latest move in a campaign to stomp out what he sees as liberal bias in broadcasts.

As the war entered its third week, Mr. Carr accused broadcasters of “running hoaxes and news distortions” in a social media post and warned them to “correct course before their license renewals come up.”

“Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not,” he said.

Mr. Carr shared a Truth Social post by President Trump that criticized the news media for its coverage of the war with Iran. Mr. Trump referred to a story published by The Wall Street Journal that reported five American refueling planes had been struck in Saudi Arabia, claiming its headline was “intentionally misleading.” He accused the news media of wanting the United States to lose the war.

Dow Jones & Company, which publishes The Wall Street Journal, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in a similar vein, delivered a lengthy complaint about CNN’s coverage of the war in the Middle East during a news conference Friday, saying that he looked forward to the news network being controlled by the billionaire David Ellison.