April 15, 2020
And so now the Presidential election is in a new phase with just two candidates, one Republican and one Democrat. And we have our long promised new thread as well.
The Presidential Campaign.
Well, actually that's not true at all, but that's how things will be perceived. And as we're at that stage, we're starting a new thread. And first things first, we'll address who is running.
The big two, as you already know, are incumbent President Donald Trump and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden.
Will Americans go for the Joe they know, or play the Trump card?
Right now, as is obvious to everyone, this election season has gone seriously off the rails due to the COVID 19 Pandemic. This has caused a virtual suspension in the campaign and we really don't know, at this point, when it'll effectively resume. Biden has been attempting that with some success recently by way of video conferences and appearances on news shows. Bernie Sanders recent concessions put him on the front pages again as well. Be that as it may, the real focus right now is elsewhere, and that's a real problem for Biden. Like Trump's approach or not, he's in the news as a the horse in the middle of the stream, so to speak. Can most people, by analogy, even name the Presidential candidates who ran against Roosevelt during World War Two?
Beyond that, a problem that's looming over Biden's campaign is right now its not about anything other than beating Trump. Biden's a serious candidate and right now a lot of Democrats are in fact really united behind that goal, but that's a goal that's negative rather than positive. Any candidate at all would suffice for a goal of that type, and that's actually the literal position a lot of Democrats are taking.
An essential problem with that is that it really isn't a uniting position for general voters. Voters who are concerned with specific issues are basically being told not to worry about them, and that Biden will get around to them later, or not. If all Democrats want is a placeholder for four years, and it seems that is all that quite a few voters in fact want, that's fine. The actual platform will be, more or less, "we intend to do nothing at all". However, as we're now in a genuine crisis, a "I'll occupy this chair for four years and check in with you then" is a risky campaign theme. Indeed, as there were already really serious issues around before the Coronavirus, it was anyhow. People can say what they will about Trump, but he does have stated positions on a lot of things.
To compound the situation for Biden, all of a sudden there's Tara Reade.
In 2016 Biden faced problems based on accusations that he had inappropriately grabby hands in regards to women. The accusations, however, were based on just weird touching of hair and the like. Reade has accused Biden of a species of sexual assault.
It's not like Trump hasn't been accused of bad behavior in this area as well, but the accusations against Biden are really creepy, if true (we'll not repeat them here). The problem is that they allegedly took place in 1995 and so much time has now lapsed that analyzing them appears to be nearly impossible. Reade, who was then an attractive young staffer whose beauty was of the thin 1970s variety unfortunately shares a name that's phonetically identical to that of the actress known in large part for portraying a sex object, most famously, perhaps in The Big Lebowski where she played Bunny Lebowski. She first came up in the election when Sanders supporters started mentioning her back channel in a bit of a desperate effort to derail Biden in favor of Sanders, but now the story is fully in the press. There are those who flat out now state that they won't vote for either candidate due to their alleged past with women, even though the story is certainly still not really full developed in regard to this story.
I'm going to forego commenting on the truth or accuracy of the story as I don't know it. If true, as with the claims against Trump, the should be disqualifying for office. Unfortunately, they come so late as to make determining their accuracy difficult and it can't be the case that a mere accusation should suffice to discount a person. False accusations do occur.
True accusations occur as well, and that's how things ought to be judged, if they can be.
Recently, of course, we've seen a bunch of these and they've acquired a peculiar role in our society. Overwhelming evidence of creepy behavior and perhaps sexual assault derailed the career of Harvey Weinstein who is now going to prison on a conviction of sexual assault. Claims against Brett Kavanaugh, which were widely circulated by Democrats, failed to prove to be true and he was confirmed to the Supreme Court but with a tainted reputation. Accusations against Donald Trump don't seem to have mattered to voters and now we'll find out more about this as we move along in regard to Joe Biden. As noted, some Democrats, largely those who had supported Sanders, claim that they now won't vote in the election at all as there are no untainted candidates.
Not voting at all presumes that there truly are only two candidates. The race isn't purely a two person race, of course. There are third party candidates out there and we'll mention them, probably most of them, maybe all of them, for the last time. It's unfortunate, however, in that the views of the population would be much better reflected in government if there really were viable third parties.
The Third Parties
Beyond that, a problem that's looming over Biden's campaign is right now its not about anything other than beating Trump. Biden's a serious candidate and right now a lot of Democrats are in fact really united behind that goal, but that's a goal that's negative rather than positive. Any candidate at all would suffice for a goal of that type, and that's actually the literal position a lot of Democrats are taking.
An essential problem with that is that it really isn't a uniting position for general voters. Voters who are concerned with specific issues are basically being told not to worry about them, and that Biden will get around to them later, or not. If all Democrats want is a placeholder for four years, and it seems that is all that quite a few voters in fact want, that's fine. The actual platform will be, more or less, "we intend to do nothing at all". However, as we're now in a genuine crisis, a "I'll occupy this chair for four years and check in with you then" is a risky campaign theme. Indeed, as there were already really serious issues around before the Coronavirus, it was anyhow. People can say what they will about Trump, but he does have stated positions on a lot of things.
To compound the situation for Biden, all of a sudden there's Tara Reade.
In 2016 Biden faced problems based on accusations that he had inappropriately grabby hands in regards to women. The accusations, however, were based on just weird touching of hair and the like. Reade has accused Biden of a species of sexual assault.
It's not like Trump hasn't been accused of bad behavior in this area as well, but the accusations against Biden are really creepy, if true (we'll not repeat them here). The problem is that they allegedly took place in 1995 and so much time has now lapsed that analyzing them appears to be nearly impossible. Reade, who was then an attractive young staffer whose beauty was of the thin 1970s variety unfortunately shares a name that's phonetically identical to that of the actress known in large part for portraying a sex object, most famously, perhaps in The Big Lebowski where she played Bunny Lebowski. She first came up in the election when Sanders supporters started mentioning her back channel in a bit of a desperate effort to derail Biden in favor of Sanders, but now the story is fully in the press. There are those who flat out now state that they won't vote for either candidate due to their alleged past with women, even though the story is certainly still not really full developed in regard to this story.
I'm going to forego commenting on the truth or accuracy of the story as I don't know it. If true, as with the claims against Trump, the should be disqualifying for office. Unfortunately, they come so late as to make determining their accuracy difficult and it can't be the case that a mere accusation should suffice to discount a person. False accusations do occur.
True accusations occur as well, and that's how things ought to be judged, if they can be.
Recently, of course, we've seen a bunch of these and they've acquired a peculiar role in our society. Overwhelming evidence of creepy behavior and perhaps sexual assault derailed the career of Harvey Weinstein who is now going to prison on a conviction of sexual assault. Claims against Brett Kavanaugh, which were widely circulated by Democrats, failed to prove to be true and he was confirmed to the Supreme Court but with a tainted reputation. Accusations against Donald Trump don't seem to have mattered to voters and now we'll find out more about this as we move along in regard to Joe Biden. As noted, some Democrats, largely those who had supported Sanders, claim that they now won't vote in the election at all as there are no untainted candidates.
Not voting at all presumes that there truly are only two candidates. The race isn't purely a two person race, of course. There are third party candidates out there and we'll mention them, probably most of them, maybe all of them, for the last time. It's unfortunate, however, in that the views of the population would be much better reflected in government if there really were viable third parties.
The Third Parties
Before doing that we'd note that there are years in which third parties get a lot of attention. 2020 isn't going to be one of them. Third parties are going to get no attention whatsoever this year, and their candidates really show that. Indeed, this year in particular will be an all time low in the fortunes of third parties in terms of elections since the 1980s. They're almost completely off the map.
American third parties can be divided into serious parties and, well. . .wackadoodle parties. Neither is going to get any traction this year, but we'll divide them that way ourselves and take on the serious ones first.
The Serious Third Parties
Libertarian Party
The Libertarians are the largest American third party. They hold their convention on May 21, in Austin Texas. . . if they're able to hold it. Their candidate in 2016 was former GOP Governor Bill Weld, who ran as a failed Republican contender this year and who isn't joining the Libertarian fold this year. That makes all of the Libertarian contenders more or less unknown. None of them are getting much attention and none of them is going to. One is basically running as a joke.
Weld's in again and out again role in the party is really emblematic of how the party is essentially collapsing. Based on a rather hard line view of "liberty", the party really long ago split into two camps, one being conservatives who regard themselves as libertarians, but who often take a fairly black and white view of the U.S. Constitution, and liberals who take a nearly anarchic view of personal liberty. The gulf between the two camps is gigantic. For them most part, the Republican Party has become the home of the conservative Libertarians, perhaps best represented by Rand Paul. Given that there's no real way to reconcile their differing views, for the most part the Libertarians have gone into other parties and won't be coming back. They're still fielding candidates this year, but in reality, 2016 was likely the peak of their role as a party and my guess is that after this election they'll no longer qualify to be on the ballot in quite a few states.
One of the Libertarian candidates is also the candidate for another minor party, so we'll cover that here. The candidate is Howie Hawkins, who made news the other day by proclaiming that Sanders supporters should now vote for him as he's the one who really espouses their values. He's also the candidate for the Socialist Party USA.
The fact that one of the Libertarian candidates is also a Socialist Party candidate demonstrates the gadfly nature of third parties which keeps them from being taken seriously even when they get well established. A person can't be a Libertarian and a Socialist and that seriously can't be taken seriously as they stand for diametrically polar opposites. The Libertarians may very well nominate Hawkins but if they do, they will have nominated a candidate that's as close to being the very thing they despise as possible. If they do that, they'll no longer deserve to be in the category which we've put them this year.
Green Party
The Green Party convention is in July. So, like the Libertarians, they haven't chosen a candidate yet.
Also like the Libertarians, their candidate last time, Jill Stein, is sitting this year out so they're also running unknowns. They may very well have also passed their apex.
The American Greens have a history of slipping to the extreme left and taking positions that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their claimed environmental emphasis, which keeps them from really becoming a significant party. They retain that emphasis, but they have a really bad track record of actually being able to proclaim it as they tend to take positions on things that divert that. Having said that, in 2016 they drew a lot of attention in the race with Stein. This year they won't.
American Solidarity Party
The American Solidarity Party is a new party that drew some attention in 2016 for its effort to be a "third way" Christian Democratic Party, something the U.S. has never had but which a lot of European countries have. It likely would have drawn little attention at that but the fact that it drew a fair number of Catholic thinkers to its fold who were disgusted with Trump and disgusted with the pro abortion policies of the Democratic Party caused it to receive some attention. It managed therefore to get on the ballot as an established party in some places, including Colorado.
This year it has chosen California professor Brian T. Carroll and its Illinois Chairman Amar Patel as its candidates. It would have been much better advised to reverse that order as a retired professor from California is a boring choice that's going nowhere whatsoever. The party actually looked better in 2016 than it does in 2020, and if it keeps on this path, it won't be around in 2024.
This is a shame as, together with the Libertarian Party, the ASP is a party that should be drawing voters. It's genuinely unique and a middle of the road party that's quite conservative on some things and quite liberal on others, showing that it's thought out a central theme on a philosophical basis. For a new party, it did better than it should have in 2016 but my guess is that this year its gong nowhere at all.
Constitution Party
The Constitution Party is a very conservative party that tends towards a hard right penumbra reading of the Constitution that's often not justified by the text and history of the document. At the grass roots level it tends to assert positions that are often somewhat extreme.
The party is running coal executive Don Blankenship as its candidate this year.
This party has far less chance than normal, and it has no chances at all normally anyway, as Trump essentially occupied its field in 2016 and its supporters are largely gone.
Prohibition Party
It's hard to take the Prohibition Party seriously, I'll admit, but it's a party that once had fairly broad, if always minority, support. With its former main issue, prohibition, long dead, and indeed the U.S. recently moving in the completely opposite direction, it's hard to believe that it's still around, but it is.
It's candidate this year is Phil Collins. This will be the last time you hear about this party here this year, I'm sure.
Reform Party
The Reform Party was a centrist party formed by Ross Perot for his Presidential bid in 1995. It made a lot of news that year and was a serious third party that at one point some believed might be successful.
It wasn't, and like most third parties that come close and fail, it's nearly gone (anyone heard of the Bull Moose Party lately?). It's candidate is Darcy Richardson.
A party like this, it should be noted, should be doing well as its a centrist party based on disgust with the Republicans and Democrats. But it will receive no traction in the election at all.
Okay, now for the Wackadoodle Parties, of which there are a lot.
One thing that might be noted this year is the amazing flowering of a lot of tiny Socialist and even Communist Parties. It's like being in a coffee shop in Berlin in 1919 to some extent. Chances are high that most of the members of these parties would support any radical cause de jour, or on the other hand will turn into diehard Republicans or Democrats by the next election.
Bread and Roses Party
This is a minuscule "Socialistic" party whose founder, Jerome Segal, is its candidate.
This party stands no chance at all, but its interesting in that it shows the rise in popularity of Socialism in the United States, something that's actually extremely poorly understood by most of its supposed backers. The party named itself for the phrase used in a 1912 textile strike and tries to stand for "socialistic" things, but not socialism, and even claims its for limited government, which isn't possible with either of those things.
Like a lot of these fringe parties, this party has been careful to suggest its really supporting the Democrats, no matter what its otherwise doing.
Communist Party USA
The Communist Party USA had its heyday in the 1920s and 30s and its really just a lingering whacky element now. It's running somebody, but it isn't even worth trying to figure out who that is. FWIW, it's plat form this year is beating Trump, which no matter what they may think, sure doesn't mean the same thing for voters as voting the Communist Party into power.
Indeed, late in Bernie Sanders campaign he started to loose Democratic support due to his undefinsible statements about Communism being quasi nifty in some ways in Cuba.
Party for Socialism and Liberation
One thing about Socialist is that there's a million varieties of it, which always aids Socialist in explaining why all Socialist failures aren't really a condemnation of Socialist. They always represent "real" Socialism, which they maintain hasn't been tried.
There have been American Socialist Parties since the early 20th Century but they started fracturing in the 1910s and haven't stopped yet. This party is basically a Communist Party. It's candidate is Gloria La Riva. Leonard Peltier, currently serving two life sentences for murder, is her running mate.
Socialist Equality Party
What the crap, another Socialist party? Well, of course.
This one is a Trotskyite Communist Party that is running Joseph Kishore.
Socialist Party USA
This Socialist Party is a Socialist, not a Communist, party, and its running libertarian Howie Hawkins, or maybe it's that Socialist Howie Hawkins is running as a Libertarian.
Well, never mind, this party is going nowhere and chances are that the Libertarians will suffer a net subtraction of support due to Hawkins.
Socialist Workers Party
The Socialist Workers Party is an old time Communist Party. Its running Alyson Kennedy as its candidate. Like the Communist Party USA, it's day is long over.
Conclusion
This will be the strangest Presidential history in the lifetimes of any current voter. Right now the Coronavirus Pandemic is the overarching theme and how well President Trump handles it, and the crash of the economy, will be the telling factor. A hugely divisive personality, it's now those external crises that are first in the minds of the voters. Factors that came up in the 2016 election and caused the Democratic Party to lurch left are now nearly completely mute and Trump is overseeing the largest expansion in the role of the government since the Second World War. Factors that would have favored third parties getting at least some air time have now evaporated. It's a two person race, but the issues are the effectiveness of what's going on currently and how that's perceived by voting public. It's as if the race hasn't begun.
State Races
Aren't there some state races going on?
Why yes there are.
The big one is for the U.S. Senate seat being opened up by the retirement of Senator Enzi. The contestants are:
Cynthia Lummis
Mark Armstrong
Joshua Wheeler
Robert Short
The Democratic candidates are:
Merav Ben-David
Chuck Jagoda
Yana Ludwig
The Republican primary winner is going to go on to be the Senator. Cynthia Lummis basically has that all sewn up now and her only real competition is Robert Short, a popular Converse County commissioner. Short is very personable and easy to like, but Lummis has a history as a prior Congressman and that will be tough to beat. The other two Republicans really don't figure into the race very much.
The Democratic nominee will lose in the General Election and right now its not clear who that nominee will be. In practical terms, that choice will determine how unpopular the Democrats will be following the contest. In Jagoda and Ludwig they have the opportunity to nominate candidates who would symbolize the far left end of the national party and, by extension, hurt their own party. Jagoda probably isn't even eligible to run as he's a Californian. Ben-David is a University of Wyoming professor who stands no chance of winning, but who likely wouldn't hurt his party as the nominee.
The best thing that could happen for the Democrats would be if somebody else came in and declared, like Gary Trauner. Probably no serious Democrat wants to be a sacrificial lamb, however.
And there's also a House of Representatives race, with Liz Cheney defending her seat. She will win in the General Election. The announced candidates are:
GOP:
Liz Cheney
Democratic Party:
Carol Hafner
Carl Beach.
Carol Hafner, who is a resident of South Dakota and clearly on the gadfly end of things. From her based in South Dakota she last attempted to run in Alaska. She's' on the party's far left and back marijuana legalization which, while it could come to Wyoming one way or another, isn't a winner of an issue for a House candidate. Why she'd even bother to announce in Wyoming is a mystery.
Beach is a Wyoming native and has this nomination locked up unless another Democrat announces, a factor that he likely was well aware of when he chose to enter the race last week. He's been involved in politics in a minor way before and was a Sanders supporter in 2016 when Sanders took the majority of Wyoming's caucus votes, but the party gave the election to Clinton anyway. He's an educator who was born in Rawlins but who has split his time between Wyoming and overseas. Forty four years old, he's personally attractive and should present well. Irrespective of that there's no earthly way for him to beat Cheney.
Indeed Cheney, who really wasn't a universally popular candidate when she first ran, has grown into the job and has come more and more to take independent positions, sometimes breaking with President Trump (which always causes, oddly enough, a left wing Twitter storm when it occurs). She apparently had her eye on the Senate seat and only reluctantly decided not to go for it after Lummis' election to that office became assured. She'll have no difficulty retaining her seat.
Indeed, the overall state election really shows the sad state the Democrats have fallen into in the state. Wyoming had a Democratic Congressman, Teno Roncolio, within the living memory of older voters, something that simply seems impossible now. The state retains some popular Democratic politicians, including former Governor Mike Sullivan, recent Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Mary Throne, and occasionally nearly successful businessman Gary Trauner, but it seems very unlikely that any of them will step forward to run. And they can't be blamed as their chances are so extremely poor. That fact, however, leaves the voters with no real choices and the races tend to feature candidates who fall to the extreme left whom don't seem to realize that they have no chance whatsoever and that they're further really damaging the reputation of their own party. The further irony is that the lack of Democratic competition is hurting the GOP as well which has fallen to internal infighting as Republicans of the hard left don't see any reason that their party, which has traditionally been fairly independent and centrist in Wyoming, shouldn't go in that direction. The further irony of that is that should that wing of the GOP be internally successful, which so far it has not been, it'd actually provide a strong incentive for the revival of the state's Democratic Party.
At any rate, if things continue in their present direction, the state race is basically over now. Only the entry of a really well known Democrat into either state race, or a massively unforeseen event in the economy, is likely to alter that.
_________________________________________________________________________________
April 16, 2020
On this past Monday, former President Obama endorsed his former Vice President's run for the Oval Office by way of a video broadcast. The text of his endorsement reads:
Some have regarded the endorsement as coming rather late and frankly it did come so late as to really be symbolic more than anything else. President Obama did nothing to help his former Vice President during the period where his campaign was in doubt, and frankly perhaps that makes sense. By not saying anything until now, he reserved his statements for the party itself Having said that, in spite of the widespread admiration that President Obama retains in the Democratic Party, the impact of the endorsement is probably minimal at best.
Yesterday Elizabeth Warren came in and also endorsed Biden. It's interesting that she waited until Sanders did so first, removing all chance of Sanders being the 2020 nominee. That also came earlier this week.
_________________________________________________________________________________
April 19, 2020
Joe Biden won Wyoming's write in Democratic caucus.
While not a major electoral event, it is interesting in that in 2016 Bernie Sanders took the majority of Wyoming's votes, which were then fixed via the operation of the super delegates so that the state went for Clinton in the Democratic convention. That showed at the time how popular Sanders was and how engineered, in a way, the Democratic process was.
This year Wyoming's vote shows how far Sanders' fortunes fell. It was unlikely that he was ever going to take the state this year.
_________________________________________________________________________________
April 28, 2020
New York's Democratic Party, noting that this point its primary had become a "beauty contest", cancelled it, given the COVID 19 pandemic.
In other news, Jessie Ventura, one time Governor of Minnesota and former professional wrestler, indicated that he was "testing the waters" of a Green Party run.
_________________________________________________________________________________
April 29, 2020
This is an election year that ought to be conducive to third parties. I know that up earlier in this post I indicated you wouldn't be hearing about the third parties, probably, again before November, here, but that was only a probably. Now you are hearing about them again.
The reason for that is that all of a sudden people are contemplating serious runs via third parties.
Now, that is likely something that the present third party candidates would find to be an insulting statement, but up until yesterday there were no third party candidates who could really be taken seriously. The Libertarian who has received the most press, for example, is also a Socialist, a political position that makes just about as much sense as being an Anarcho-Monarchist or a Constitutionalist Trotskyite or something. It doesn't make sense and hence the candidate at an existential level also doesn't make sense, and is not to be taken seriously. To make matters worse, the one new party in 2016 that was really interesting, the American Solidarity Party, is running two undoubtedly super nice people who have authored an article recently proposing a Jubilee in the Biblical sense, i.e., wouldn't it be nice if, like in ancient Israel (where it happened every seven years) all debts were forgiven, which may in fact be a nice thought but which doesn't seem to grasp that economics and finances have really changed over the past three millennia.
And all this in a year in which third parties really ought to have a chance, as noted, but which bears repeating.
Why would that be true?
Well President Trump has never received over a 50% approval rating at any time and, now seemingly forgotten, he received less than the majority of the American vote in 2016. He was so unpopular within the GOP itself that there were, at first "Never Trumpers" in the party who vowed not to cooperate with him, although they fell in line, in no small part as they came to see what was at least the temporary wisdom (the long term effects are yet to be known) of Mitch McConnell's logic that Trump's victory could be used to accomplish a lot that the GOP hadn't been able to get done. Indeed, McConnell is pretty crafty so it may be the case that he really didn't ever expect Trump to last more than one term, he hoped to get a lot done that would stick to Trump if unpopular but would be difficult to undo, and the establishment wing of the party would reestablish post Trump. Indeed, that's my guess on his thinking.
Whatever it is, Trump has never been popular except in his base, where he's very popular. Otherwise, a lot of Republicans feel pretty lukewarm about him at best, and some outright dislike him. A large group of quasi Republicans that voted for him have loose attachments to him at best, and ironically are in the same political demographic that also likes Sanders.
Trump managed to overcome that in 2016 but he's been in trouble since that election due to the huge unparallelled negative reaction to him in the Democratic Party. We'll get to that in a moment, but if a new election had been held in December 2016, he'd likely have lost.
Trump has counted on the economy to carry him through in 2020, as well as McConnell's work on conservative causes, but now the economy is tanking massively due to the Coronavirus Pandemic. Added to that, Trump has been at least somewhat under the microscope due to the Pandemic and has received a lot of criticism because of it. I'd argue that very little of the criticism has hit in the public until perhaps last week, when hsi comments at a daily briefing provoked a large response due to their being such dangerous bad advice. He briefly indicated that he wasn't going to do daily press briefings anymore, which is something that his staff has urged forever, but he didn't carry through with that. At any rate, his comments hurt him and that damage may stick, if the Democrats exploit it.
All of which should mean the Democrats have a lot to exploit, as indeed they do.
But their candidate is Joe Biden.
Indeed, Democratic rank and file comfort with Biden is what caused him to surge and knock out the other candidates. Declared a lost cause, he proved not to be, and overcame what was perceived at the time to be the inevitable victory of Bernie Sanders. But there's a real weakness in this.
The Democrats turned hard left right after the 2016 election. Biden isn't hard left, and he should start driving back to the middle, but it's unclear if he will. If he drives to the left, he's going to scare independants and reluctant Trump supporters in the GOP, who may be willing to vote for their candidate rather than endure the thought of AOC being in the White House every day.
Indeed, Democratic leadership itself isn't inspiring for most non Democrats. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are ancient and disliked and a party that had a sound base would replace them for somebody half their age. But they don't, suggesting the base is pretty thin.
And Biden himself has problems, some old, some new.
One is that Biden just has a tendency to come across as oddly goofy and not very smart. A lot of this is apparently attributable to a youthful stuttering problem that's still with him. Such things are difficult to overcome and they tend to be misinterpreted by the public. George Bush the younger had a speech problem as well, except apparently when he spoke in Spanish, that was similarly misinterpreted. Because of their respective peculiar speech styles and public address, people with keen ears for speech are likely already dreading the though of a lot of Biden and Trump political discourse to come.
Maybe it won't come. Because of the Coronavirus this campaign is throwing back to pre 1900 conditions in which the candidates don't travel. Biden occasionally issues statements, Trump just keeps on working at his job. That's just like what races in earlier times were like. Maybe it'll stay nearly that way, which would be okay.
But it probably won't, and that means that at some point we'll start getting a lot of public speech and it'll almost certainly be occasionally odd from both men.
And to add to that, Biden now has Tera Reade.
When the Reade problem surfaced I didn't pay much attention to it, but now a person has to as it is getting a lot of press. Some Democrats have indicated that they flat out won't support Biden because they are certain that Reade was assaulted by Biden. Over time, the circumstantial evidence of that occurring has developed, but so has the circumstantial evidence that it didn't, and I'm not drawing any conclusions at all.
Nonetheless, this presents a real problem for Democrats as they've exploited such problems with other figures recently, the most notable being Brett Kavanaugh. The Democrats have repeatedly taken the position that ot discount the accusation is to discount women in general, and now they cannot do the same as Reade. So the accusations have to be given attention, and that has to come now. Because of the age of the accusations, finding out the truth will be difficult at best, but as noted its slowly becoming evident that Reade at least complained of something to some people, but was silent to other people you'd expect to have said something, way back when.
Trump of course has his own problems in this area which once again, in an odd way, brings up the antiquity of the candidates. As with Kavanaugh, there's a lingering sense that all of these men came up into their own in the post 1960s, post Sexual Revolution, pre 1990s, "boys will be boys" era in which the taint of the Revolution gave license to men to act their worst. I'm not saying that any of these men acted that way. I don't know. I'm only noting that the problem exist.
All of which means that candidates from somewhere else, ought to do okay.
One of them I've already mentioned, that being Jesse Ventura, who is pondering running as a Green. That no doubt surprises some people as he has at least some prior non Green statements, but as we've also seen this year the older third parties aren't adverse to running candidates of convenience. I can't see Ventura's bid being successful, but the fact that he's suddenly in the news does show something is going on.
Now Justin Amash is back in the news and it's pretty clear that he's going to run as a Libertarian.
Amash comes by that affiliation honestly as he was always really a Libertarian, even though he was elected to Congress as a Republican. He'll likely get their nomination.
He's not likely to win for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that third party candidates just don't win. Beyond that, the ultimate irony of the 2020 election right now is that the populist Trump is presiding over the most socialist set of economic programs the country has seen since the emergency measures of the Great Depression. This would make a Libertarian surge this year surprising, to say the least, as its hard to see their economic platform being popular in this atmosphere.
Indeed, it really makes a person wonder what would happen if a candidate who really espoused ideas that are now fully in action was in the race. That candidate would be Andrew Yang, about which there was some speculation on whether he'd mount a third party bid earlier on. Yang discounted that at the time and he's endorsed Joe Biden, but the 45 year old Yang would make a lot more sense as the Green Party candidate than the 68 year old Jesse Ventura. Indeed, if Yang were to run as a Green he'd be the first serious Presidential candidate the party ever had and he could do so honestly as the positions he held in the Democratic primary were in fact largely ones that the Greens espouse or would espouse.
None of which means that Ventura or Amash are going anywhere. My predictions are they won't. My further prediction, however, is that if the 40 year old Amash actually becomes any sort of serious threat in the election, and if that happened soon, we would seen Yang back in the race in some sort of a "draft Yang" pretext. And if that occured, it would actually be possible that a four way split in the vote could leave any one of the four men in the Oval Office.
Indeed, the problems that Biden and Trump now have are such that third party runs this year should be serious problems for both candidates. But they will prove not to be, and both Ventura and Amash's campaigns will go down in minor voting defeat, providing another lesson on how inviolate the two party system is. It'd really take a well known maverick from the existing two parties to mix this up, but that's unlikely to occur. Indeed, the crisis that the country is enduring is likely to focus attention on the knowns more than ever, and the current knowns are the two septuagenarian candidates.
_________________________________________________________________________________
May 1, 2020
Tara Reade in 1993 at age 29.
Rising press attention to Tera Reade's claims of being the victim of a sexual assault at the hands of Joe Biden back in 1993 caused Biden to finally come out with a formal denial of the claims.
Biden's failure to address them to date can be read more than one way, but the most likely explanation for them is that by addressing them he can't help but accidentally push them into the forefront Failing to address them up until now was the wise course of action, as addressing them now also was.
None of this resolves the issue and the story will go on. But how it will go on is now the question.
Similar accusations against Bill Clinton did not derail his campaign for the Presidency back in, ironically, 1992, which actually plays into this a bit in terms of atmosphere. That was before, of course, the Me Too movement seemingly redirected public attention in this area. Also before that really got completely rolling, similar accusations did not derail the campaign of Donald Trump in 2016.
An accusation of being crassly in appropriate did cause Al Franken to have to resign however in 2018 for conduct that was much less extreme (which is not to state that the claims against Biden are true). The rise of the Me Too movement lead to the rapid downfall of Harvey Weinstein who of course was accused of serial icky conduct and whose fall would have likely have come in any era once exposed. Claims against Brett Kavanaugh nearly kept him from rising to the Supreme Court that same year.
The Kavanaugh case is Biden's problem. Democrats demanded an inquiry on Kavanaugh even though there appeared to be ample reason to doubt his accuser, who became accusers. Furthermore, the passage of time made the investigation of the claims against him difficult at best. Those demands, however, set the political bar with the position that the accusations were nearly proof of the claims and should be treated as such to some degree. Franken's fall amplified that. Franken's claims were submitted to a Senate process that resulted in his being investigated with the Democrats participating on that, as they had little choice but to do.
Now, however, Joe Biden is in the same uncomfortable position.
And that uncomfortable position has, as a strong element of it, that the Democrats have taken the position pretty consistently that a "right to be heard" presupposed a duty to believe, which truly are not the same things. Biden himself took that position in regard to Kavanaugh, and as he took it there, he can't help but have it apply here.
Now, of course, a critical difference in the cases of Biden and Trump, vs. Franken and Kavanaugh, is that they were subject to different processes. Franken and Kavanaugh were in positions where official investigations were appropriate as they were either office holders or seeking Senatorial confirmation for a position. Biden and Trump, however, are appealing to the voters.
Which gets us to the next thing The accusations, no matter their merits or demerits, didn't seem to impact the voters in 2016 and its frankly unlikely that they will now, which raises the question of the more vague judgment of the voters in this area is a good thing or a bad thing.
_________________________________________________________________________________
May 5, 2020
To my surprise, the Tara Reade story is getting traction. A former neighbor of Reade's has now come forward to support her, claiming that Reade had told her the story about in the mid 90s and was emotionally upset at the telling.
That sort of development really isn't surprising. That's how these events always play out. That doesn't mean that Reade is telling the truth or that the neighbor is. Indeed, given the way human memory works, they could be flat out wrong and still not be lying, although if they aren't flat out wrong and still aren't lying, that would suggest that Biden did something, if not commit a type of sexual assault.
And the other thing that is now occurring is that Biden is tied up in the topic of releasing records, which is going to be a diversion until it occurs.
My sense is that given the passage of time and the apparent actions of Reade at the time, if something really occurred, any existing records are not going to show anything and that this will not derail Biden's campaign. Having said that, it is going to drain off some votes.
All of that, of course, assumes that records really aren't there which would show anything, which is the high likelihood. If the opposite is true, this will end up derailing everything.
Meanwhile, the Administration is politicising the pandemic to some degree by asserting that China is morally culpable for the outbreak. The U.S., it should be noted, isn't alone in this in that Australia is also doing the same and appears to be doing so fairly seriously. The gist of the claims right now are as follows:
Nationally, the Administration is asserting that the Chinese bear fault for the Pandemic. Secretary Pompeo stated on This Week that the virus is natural, i.e., not man made, which reflects the scientific consensus but he also claimed that it had escaped a Chinese lab. The Administration is also asserting that the Chinese acted to cover up the developing epidemic in their country so that they could hoard supplies for their own people.
This comes at a time in which there's a feeling in the Administration that the formerly good economy, which had been what the Trump Administration was pinning is reelection hopes on, will not recover prior to the Fall, which seems to have been a hope, if almost somewhat desperate hope, in the Administration. As that becomes increasingly unlikely, the Administration is turning its political attention to the PRC. In the background, both diplomatically and militarily there's been increasing attention to the Chinese for at least a decade or more, so this is a development of a preexisting trend.
_________________________________________________________________________________
May 8, 2020
Biden accuser Tara Reade has asked, which is really more of a demand, that Joe Biden drop out of the Presidential race.
More and more has been published about this accusation, not surprisingly, over time. It turns out that early on Ms. Reade was talking to a variety of reporters and at least some held their stories as it evolved. While the custom has become to insist that the stories of accusers not be questioned, the evolution of Reade's makes it difficult not to do so. The full blown sexual assault aspect of it is very recent, and early on nothing of that type was claimed. She has supporters who claim to have been told the story early on, but such accusers nearly always do.
Reade is a Sanders supporter and her story has evolved during the history of the Democratic campaign. Now she's demanding Biden withdraw from the race. What would occur if that were to happen is unclear, but presumably his delegates would be freed and chosen delegates would go on to the convention, with all of them not yet fully chosen. Sanders has the only organization capable of getting back up to speed and its not unreasonable to wonder if he'd be the nominee.
Nobody wants to believe that somebody would make up a claim of rape over something like this, but that's the uneasy reality. Some will do that. We don't know that to be the case here, but we should wonder about the unverifiable claims that have come on some controversial public figures dating back to Justice Thomas. It seems unimaginable that some would tell lies in order to bring down a public figure, but some will.
We can't know and never will what is going on here. But those who doubt Reade's story have good reason for doing so.
_________________________________________________________________________________
May 11, 2020
We've reported before about infighting in the State's GOP. Over the weekend it seemed to come to a head again.
An effort was made to block 59 of the Natrona County GOP's delegates from participating in the convention, which has been one of the counties that has not gone along with efforts to require unity in the party which has seen increased adherence to a certain type of conservatism. The effort failed, but not by much. It had been passed as a resolution by the credentials committee.
The dispute came about as Natrona County's party enlisted the aid of the County Clerk's office to assist in voting that took place at the online meeting. While voting at the meeting has now been subject to real questions in general, Natrona County's actions violated the rules that has been set out before hand and that nearly cost the county its position in the state convention.
The vote may have failed as well known Republicans in the state opposed it. Former Congressman Barbara Cubin called the party dysfunctional and compared its actions to the Politburo. Cubin was seeking the position of the party's treasurer and lost to Harriet Hageman during the online gathering. The vote generally resulted in the conservatives retaining their positions, or acquiring them, apparently.
Voting at the gathering has proven to be controversial with there being complaints it was done improperly and that a significant number of votes were not counted or given time to be counted. Notably significant conservatives of the stripe currently running the party won positions while well known names countering them, with significant endorsements, failed in their challenges. The voting was even criticized by at least one of the well known conservatives who noted that he received a ballot when he should not have.
The infighting has been discussed here before but it generally pits a type of tea party conservatism which has gained a large measure of control over the state's party against the old style Wyoming Republicans. The latter remain numerous in the Natrona County and Laramie County branches of the party. The irony is that that they reflect a larger percentage of average Republicans, most of whom don't participate in the party actively. Indeed, one of the complaints of the party leadership is that a lot of Republicans, in its view, are actually crossover Democrats.
The Democratic Party has been all but dead in Wyoming since the Clinton years but efforts like this are causing some of the rank and file to really question the party. Gumblings like those made by Cubin can be heard among some average party members who are dismayed by the infighting and who don't support the hardline efforts. So far it hasn't lead to the party's overwhelmingly dominate position in the state from being challenged but as this keeps on it will have to start to have a detrimental impact in the party of some sort.
_________________________________________________________________________________
May 13, 2020
AOC announced that she's on the Biden campaign's climate team.
Ocasio-Cortez is of course a controversial figure who had supported Sanders from early on and who was late to endorse Biden. The position may signal an effort by Biden to win the support of her followers or may be genuine. It'll be a lightning rod of sorts for some of Biden's opponents, but the extent to which it will influence undecideds in any fashion is a pretty open question.
Joe Biden himself appears to be getting set to attempt to run the first "front porch" campaign since William McKinley's last run, and McKinley had Theodore Roosevelt running around to help him at the time.
What the plans are, right now, is to run a principally cyber campaign, something that's never been tried. In that context the support of figures who draw a lot of news attention, and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez does that, may prove to be an asset for drawing attention, much like Roosevelt was.
While it still remains news, the Tara Reade story has gone from being a prime headline getter to back pages at this point. The longer the story ran and the more it tended to change, the less credible it appeared, and it seems that its now past the point of being more than a distraction.
While polls at this point are of dubious value, to say the least, Biden is leading in swing states and there's now real concern that a Trump defeat will swing the Senate to the Democrats.
Swings in Congress have been a recurring story during this election. Early on there was some suggestion that the GOP might gain in the House to the point of actually recovering it. That now is widely acknowledged to be impossible. There was also a period in which there was concern in the GOP over down ballot Republicans, but that went away, only to revive and now be there once again. Biden has made taking the Senate a feature of his campaign.
One place the reverse is happening is in Katie Hill's California Congressional District where Mike Garcia is ahead in returns over Christy Smith. The special election, held yesterday, came about as Hill had to resign after explicit photographs of her were released.
I frankly never understood why Hill resigned in the first place. Hill is an admitted bisexual and I don't know what the photos, released by a conservative blog, showed. She's admitted to have been in an "inappropriate" relationship with a male staffer, but frankly at this point in time, so what?
The so what part, apparently, is related to this being against the House Rules, the conduct with the staffer that is, after such a rule was passed as part of the MeToo Movement.
I don't approve, I'd note, of such conduct nor do I approve of revenge porn or sabotage porn or whatever category the release of the photographs was. And I don't approve of her personal conduct. But at this point all it really does is serve to shed light on a general level of hypocrisy in the country in general. If she's resigning, it shouldn't be because of a rule, but because people shouldn't do what she did, including being photographed nude, and that rule and rules to address that, ought to apply to everyone. If they don't, she shouldn't be made to resign, and I don't think she should have.
Garcia is an example of something that I've noted here before, but which I've only heard a national pundit mention once. He's a first generation American Hispanic who served in the Navy as a pilot. His father was a Los Angeles policeman. He's married and has two children. Hill was a white Democrat with a messy personal life. Smith was also a white candidate and was endorsed by Hill.
So what, you might ask?
Well, what this shows is that the long held Democratic belief that all Hispanic voters are perpetually Democrats is way off base. In fact, Hispanics have only voted as Democrats largely for the same cultural identify and poverty reasons that the Irish and Italians once did.
Indeed, as a demographic, Hispanics look a lot like prior generations of Italians and Irish, who became Italian Americans and Irish Americans, except they're doing it more quickly. Those earlier demographics married within their own ethnicities for a long time and retained strong ethnic identities as their economic fortunes rose. Hispanics have intermarried, like Garcia, much more quickly and therefore their ethnic identity has not remained as strong as their economic fortunes rose.
Of course, in terms of economic eras, we're still very much in the entry stage of the Hispanic story. But Garcia shows plainly what the Democrats have simply refused to see. As a culture, Hispanics are much more conservative than the white Democratic base and once their economic fortunes begin to rise, and they very much have, they're highly unlikely to remain Democrats. In this race the young Republican former Navy pilot, running on "the Constitution, Capitalism and Competition", is going to soundly defeat the Democratic Party of Hill/Smith, which seems strangely mired in the messy battlefield detritus of the Sexual Revolution and not standing for much. Hill was basically a casualty of that Revolution and now will be remembered for not being able to keep her clothes on. Garcia is likely to be remembered as one of the first of what will become a large number of Hispanic conservatives to start to reach high office. He's more likely to be the face of Hispanic candidates of the future than AOC.
_________________________________________________________________________________
May 21, 2020
Joe Biden won the Oregon primary earlier this week.
This is, of course, not a surprise, but it should be part of the posts here.
Within the past week the Democratic Party has decided to make health care the focus of its 2020 campaign.
FWIW, I disagree with the common national assumption that health care is a really huge deal with most American voters. It undoubtedly is with some, but I don't think it ever has been with most of them, most of the time. Young voters aren't really focused on it the way that the Democrats tend to think they are. Older voters already have a government supported system in Medicare. That leaves the middle, but in normal times that means that a lot of people actually worry about people messing with their employer provided plans, although there are fewer of those than there used to be.
The question this year is whether the Coronavirus and the massive recession its causing change that calculation. It might.
Traditionally American voters have made big changes in directions during periods of crisis, the Great Depression providing perhaps the best example. Things were done during the Depression that never would have been done in regular times. The longer the Coronavirus Recession goes on, and the deeper it becomes, that may be true again.
The Democrats are starting to count on that, which builds on the fact that President Trump's real strength with voters outside of his base was on the economy. Now the economy is in major distress and the question becomes to what extent that erodes his support. It might not, on the basis that people probably aren't inclined to blame the recession on him, given the obvious role of the virus, but they might as well simply because that's a common thing to do during times of crisis.
Added to that, even if they aren't inclined to blame Trump for the recession, many voters may now feel that his prior record on the economy isn't relevant to what's current happening and that his record otherwise doesn't attract them. It will attract some, to be sure, who have other issues which they give him credit for success on. But for others it's likely that the problems the pandemic has brought, including the health care insurance loss that's associated with the loss of employment, will be paramount. To many others who don't watch individual issues on a close basis, it will seem that he has no record.
That presents a real opportunity for the Democrats, and not just in the Presidential election, but down ballot as well.
Of course, it also present a classic problem for the Democrats as their internal argument will be how much to use the crisis to advance an overall left leaning agenda. They'd be wise to be restrained but they've had a hard time doing that recently.
In any event, right now, Biden is leading in the polls, but it may well be way too early to give too much credit for polls. The next major news flurry he'll receive is when he picks a vice presidential candidate. He'd be wise not to do that too soon, however, as once he does attention is really going to focus on that person, particularly given the relatively high chances that whoever is the VP will end up being the President within the next four years due to the impact of natural aging, let alone natural aging in a stressful position, no matter which Presidential candidate wins. Biden's VP stands a really good chance of being a lightening rod if that choice is well known.
_________________________________________________________________________________
May 23, 2020
The Tribune featured an article on a new candidate for the Senate, Donna Rice.
When this thread was first started a month ago, the Senatorial candidates that had been announced in the GOP were:
Cynthia Lummis
Mark Armstrong
Joshua Wheeler
Robert Short
So now there's a fifth Republican candidate according to the Tribune, although that story wasn't quite up to date.
Rice is an unknown to Wyoming voters and her biography notes that she left Wyoming "several decades ago" to attended law school after graduating from UW, but her heart always remained in Wyoming and now she's back with her husband who are working on establishing a business. The paper's article is, unfortunately, devoid of useful details otherwise. While Rice was a lawyer, apparently, in Indiana, we're not even informed what kid of business she intends to operate here.
We're really not that well informed by the article on how her positions are different from Lummis'. If they aren't in some notable way, her campaign will be completely pointless as running on having moved back to a state you left decades ago and then running for the U.S. Senate isn't an attractive platform. A review of what little information Rice has up on her sites reveals that she's a very conservative pro-Trump candidate whose positions really aren't distinguishable, in print, from those of Lummis. If that's the case, her campaign will go nowhere against another female lawyer who didn't leave the state to find work and who has been in the U.S. House.
One of the interesting things about what we're seeing in the GOP is that candidates tend generally, but not always, to run to the right of the front runner. We saw this pretty prominently in the Gubernatorial race in 2018 in which all of the candidates trying to beat front runner Gordon ran to the right of him. The one candidate that didn't, at first, was Galeotos, who came around to that position and wrapped himself around Trump's flag.
Galeotos's effort sank his campaign, which should sound a cautionary bell for candidates this go around. There seem to be a general feeling that the state is so solidly pro Trump that associating yourself with Trump equals election. That's probably an incorrect assumption as what the races have actually tended to demonstrate is that the rank and file of the GOP remains conservative but independant, where as its leadership, on a county by county basis, tends to align in most instances with the President.
Lummis has strongly associated herself with Trump in the campaign and, as noted, is a woman lawyer who stayed in the state. Basing a campaign on nearly the exact same issues but having left hte state for your career doesn't really make your campaign stand out.
One additional thing Rice is doing is noting that she's a Christian.
Most of the candidates who are running, if not all, in the GOP state races are Christians. What this trend actually reflects is that a person holds conservative positions on social issues based on their Christian faith. There's nothing really wrong with doing this but its become very notable in since 2018.
In actuality, the field is beyond five at this point. The actual announced candidates, so far, are:
Patrick Dotson
John Holtz
Michael Kemler
Star Roselli
Donna Rice
I frankly don't know who a lot of these entries are. Roselli is from Arizona and therefore that campaign is going nowhere.
Miller is a retired Air Force officer who is running to the right of Lummis.
Holtz ran for Senate in 2018 and is trying again.
I can't tell you much about the remaining candidates, and chances are that during the election, you won't hear much about them.
In the Democratic field, the candidates are now:
Kenneth R. Casner
Rex Wilde
If some of these names seem familiar, beyond the first three who have been announced for some time, that's because some of them have run before. Whichever one becomes the Democratic nominee is going to lose to the Republican nominee, who is almost guaranteed to be Lummis.
The House race has expanded a bit as well, although Liz Cheney is sure to win it. Cheney now has competition from Blake Stanley.
Stanley, like Rice, is running to the right of Cheney, who in fact has shown some independence in the House and who has risen to the status of being a major House figure. Stanley also ran in 2018 and lost. By this time, Cheney's position is fairly cemented to there's little chance that he will do better in 2020.
One of the interesting things about what we're seeing in the GOP is that candidates tend generally, but not always, to run to the right of the front runner. We saw this pretty prominently in the Gubernatorial race in 2018 in which all of the candidates trying to beat front runner Gordon ran to the right of him. The one candidate that didn't, at first, was Galeotos, who came around to that position and wrapped himself around Trump's flag.
Galeotos's effort sank his campaign, which should sound a cautionary bell for candidates this go around. There seem to be a general feeling that the state is so solidly pro Trump that associating yourself with Trump equals election. That's probably an incorrect assumption as what the races have actually tended to demonstrate is that the rank and file of the GOP remains conservative but independant, where as its leadership, on a county by county basis, tends to align in most instances with the President.
Lummis has strongly associated herself with Trump in the campaign and, as noted, is a woman lawyer who stayed in the state. Basing a campaign on nearly the exact same issues but having left hte state for your career doesn't really make your campaign stand out.
One additional thing Rice is doing is noting that she's a Christian.
Most of the candidates who are running, if not all, in the GOP state races are Christians. What this trend actually reflects is that a person holds conservative positions on social issues based on their Christian faith. There's nothing really wrong with doing this but its become very notable in since 2018.
In actuality, the field is beyond five at this point. The actual announced candidates, so far, are:
Cynthia Lummis
Mark Armstrong
Joshua Wheeler
Robert Short
Bryan E MillerPatrick Dotson
John Holtz
Michael Kemler
Star Roselli
Donna Rice
I frankly don't know who a lot of these entries are. Roselli is from Arizona and therefore that campaign is going nowhere.
Miller is a retired Air Force officer who is running to the right of Lummis.
Holtz ran for Senate in 2018 and is trying again.
I can't tell you much about the remaining candidates, and chances are that during the election, you won't hear much about them.
In the Democratic field, the candidates are now:
Merav Ben-David
Chuck Jagoda
Yana Ludwig
James Kirk DeBrineKenneth R. Casner
Rex Wilde
If some of these names seem familiar, beyond the first three who have been announced for some time, that's because some of them have run before. Whichever one becomes the Democratic nominee is going to lose to the Republican nominee, who is almost guaranteed to be Lummis.
The House race has expanded a bit as well, although Liz Cheney is sure to win it. Cheney now has competition from Blake Stanley.
Stanley, like Rice, is running to the right of Cheney, who in fact has shown some independence in the House and who has risen to the status of being a major House figure. Stanley also ran in 2018 and lost. By this time, Cheney's position is fairly cemented to there's little chance that he will do better in 2020.
In the Presidential race Tara Reade's lawyer, who was associated with the Me Too movement, dropped her as a client In doing so, he was careful to note that this doing so in no way reflected on whether her accusations against Biden are truthful, but then unless an attorney wanted to be sued for breach of the attorney client privilege, he'd have to say that. That doesn't mean that is why he and Reade parted company, however.
Biden was in the news for another reason, that being one of his odd verbal gaffes in which, while being interviewed on a show with a largely black audience, for saying of blacks who support Trump that they "ain't black".
This will be something that goes nowhere, but it does point out that Biden is unusually prone to verbal gaffs and that some of them are downright odd. This is likely to become an unwelcome feature of this campaign to the extent it already isn't.
The Trump campaign spent some time last week trying to focus on the use of improper FBI techniques in regard to Gen. Flynn. This story is also not likely to go anywhere and whatever occured it does not appear, as the President spent some time suggesting, that former President Obama did anything illegal, nor does it solve the basic problem that Flynn lied to the FBI. It does point out, however that the Trump campaign, faced with a massive Coronavirus downturn in the economy and the pandemic itself, is feeling the heat of the polls, which show him behind with little way out. There's still a long ways to go, of course, but the campaign was heavily relying upon a strong economy which no longer exists.
_________________________________________________________________________________A note on the colors.
Observant readers will note the inclusion of some colored text above.
The colors here are in the internationally traditional color scheme for political parties; red for the left and particularly for socialist parties, blue for the right, orange for Christian Democratic parties, yellow-gold for Libertarians, and green for Greens.
That doesn't square with the incredibly ignorant color scheme foisted upon the nation by some dimwit national television network several years ago. The first person I recall using that color scheme is Chuck Todd, although I don't know that he came up with it. I'm blaming it on Chuck, however, whose fails to generally live up to the standards that should apply to his occupation and who should accordingly be relegated to a third rate television market with a viewership of five.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Prior related threads.
