Illuminati-R-Us

we had midterms the other day. Enzo and I always voted together, and since we moved to the home, would walk over since it was across the street from our back door. then we'd walk a block up to the brewery and would wash away the bad taste from voting.

So, it was a moment for me, a bit sad, but got through, did hoist one in his honor (also a plus, our 'holiday tree' for Thanksgiving included the tree topper of a roasted turkey hat that I'd donated in his honor)

anyhow. Couldn't watch the returns tuesday night since the cable news channels went kerfulnky. but woke to find that my state swept the governors office, sec of state, atty general, plus flipped both the house and senate in MI for the first time in 40 years. additionally, we codified the right to abortion in our state constitution.

and nationally? seems that at best, republicans might get a tie in the senate, and might get a couple of seats margin in the house, not nearly the up to 60 seats in the house and 5 seats in the senate they crowed about. additionally they lost governors seats in a number of states.

And now it looks like Trump and DeSantis or at each other already.

I wonder if this raises the possibility that if use the Republican primary elections that will be stolen in 2024, rather than the general election.

Good job at the box, wring! I am sure Enzo is proud of you.

Read a report this morning that Murdoch's outlets are starting to cut their losses and regrouping around DeSanctimonious (that's probably the one good eponym Trump invented) as the new Führer.

It warms my heart to think that the two will tear each other's and the party's throats apart in the next two years and open the way for a blue victory in '24. The Dems will need a bit of luck, what with the weak candidate they seem to be setting up...

That picture was actually in the FAZ article.

So what's the latest result?

tubeswell wrote:So what's the latest result?

The numbers I see now are:

House (all 435 seats elected):
211 seats won by Republicans
199 seats also won by Republicans, but stolen by Democrats

Senate (100 seats, 35 up for election this year):
29 seats held by Republicans and not up for election in 2022
36 seats won by Republicans but stolen by Democrats/independents, not up for election in 2022
20 seats won by Republicans
12 seats won by Republicans, but stolen by Democrats

There remain 25 seats in the house and 3 seats in the senate that were won by Republicans, but where it has not yet been determined whether Democrats were able to steal the seats

Looks like the Democrats managed to steal three more seats in the house.

House (all 435 seats elected):
211 seats won by Republicans
202 seats also won by Republicans, but stolen by Democrats

Senate (100 seats, 35 up for election this year):
29 seats held by Republicans and not up for election in 2022
36 seats previously won by Republicans but stolen by Democrats/independents, not up for election in 2022
20 seats won by Republicans
12 seats won by Republicans, but stolen by Democrats

There remain 22 seats in the house and 3 seats in the senate that were won by Republicans, but where it has not yet been determined whether Democrats were able to steal the seats.

It's not just Murdoch: the right-wing base are also re-grouping. Whether or not they still believe the 2020 election was stolen, they no longer believe that the Democrats will need to steal the 2024 one if Trump is the Republican candidate. This from a friend's social media page.

"The more Trump runs his mouth, the more ammunition the left will use! His policies are spot on but … the rhetoric turns people off! If not DeSantis, I would support someone like Ted Cruz from Texas, Tim Scott from South Carolina, someone that can unify the Conservatives because Trump is doing more damage than good with his rhetoric!"

But the real darkness - which was a factor in the January 6 attempted coup - is a belief that whether or not the 2020 election was stolen, the idea of liberals running the country is so horrific, it had to be stopped. We saw it in comments like, "America is not a democracy, it is a Republic". And while the likes of us may take delight in the MI results, many on the right regard them as not just unfortunate but unacceptable.

Another warning - from Oregon. I see Dana Loesch tweeted (I don't know why I get notifications of what she tweets but I sometimes do) that some Oregon sheriffs have said they will not enforce the new law restricting gun magazine capacity. Yeah, you heard that right: senior law enforcement officers - for those who don't know, sheriffs in the modern US are police chiefs (the guys and gals on the street are deputies) - have said that they will not enforce a law passed by their state legislature. And a leading right-wing influencer thinks that's something to celebrate.

Arizona Senate race has been called for Democratic nominee Kelly (Gabby Gifford's husband), obviously stolen, but there it is. leaves Nevada where there's a bunch of uncounted votes in Dem leading areas and the current count is (last I looked) within 500 votes, so that looks probably stolen by Dems as well. Georgia is going for another run off.

Arneb wrote:Read a report this morning that Murdoch's outlets are starting to cut their losses

This article is a bit less diplomatic: "The message from the Murdoch-owned New York Post, Wall Street Journal, and Fox News is clear: Pack your bags, bitch. You’re done."
Rupert Murdoch Knees Trump in the Balls While He’s Doubled Over Coughing Up Blood

Oh it warms my heart, it so warms my heart.

Arneb wrote:Oh it warms my heart, it so warms my heart.

Exactly how I'm feeling.

More today:
Wall Street Journal: GOP, US would be best served if Trump ‘ceded the field to the next generation’

But of course he won't unless he's forced to. But with the conservative media - and indeed a lot of his former base - swinging away from him - what's likely is that he'll go into the primaries (a given - he's too damned egocentric not to) and lose. Probably to Ron De Santis, who can say to the GOP, "look, on an otherwise mediocre night for us, I increased my share of the vote." Which he did - he's turning, or may even have already turned, what was a swing state into a solid Republican one.

The question then arises, what will the Democrats do? As the Murdoch press have turned on Trump, they're also mocking Biden. Here in the UK, a cartoon appeared in yesterday's Times. Xi asks Biden, "Will you be running in 2024?" Biden: "Running? I don't know if I'll be walking!"

These things are notoriously hard to predict.

Trump was considered a lost cause until shortly before the 2016 election. I saw a video clip from some Republican banquet a few weeks before the general election, when some prominent Republican referred to Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States, because his own party had lost his mind. The national Republican Party considered the presidency a lost cause, and diverted all its funding into congressional races instead.

And he surprised nearly everyone (possibly including himself) by winning.

Trump has a base that seems extremely firmly within his grip. But the base isn't enough to win an election. He needs some people who aren't wearing MAGA hats to vote for him.

In 2016, the Dems ran a candidate with historically high unfavourable ratings, who often polled lower after campaigning in a state than she did before. There was probably a lot of complacency as well, thinking Trump couldn't possibly win (which is not surprising, given that even the Republicans seemed to think he couldn't win), resulting in lower voter turnout. A mistake not repeated in 2020 - not exactly a candidate that gets people really excited, but I don't think anyone took the outcome of the election for granted.

The Republican establishment hates Trump's guts, but they hated him in 2016, and he won anyway.

Trump seems to do well when people are pissed off and angry. I think we need to see how pissed off and angry everyone is in 2024.

The hits just keep coming.
New York Post taunts Trump’s presidential bid with ‘Florida man makes announcement’ teaser at very bottom of the front page

Richard A wrote:The question then arises, what will the Democrats do? As the Murdoch press have turned on Trump, they're also mocking Biden.

Saw a strategist somewhere saying Biden should replace Harris with Newsom, then resign. Interesting idea. He'd be 86 at the end of another term. Not sure how many would be ready for another guy possibly suffering from dementia joking about 'begin the bombing in five minutes' or some such.

Мастер wrote:Trump seems to do well when people are pissed off and angry. I think we need to see how pissed off and angry everyone is in 2024.

'His' supreme court seems to have come back and bit him in the ass as far as getting the wrong team pissed off and angry. Whether it will still be a factor in '24 is hard to say. Maybe they'll have everyone worked up about something else by then.

Yes indeed. The Dobbs ruling, which was supposed to be a massive victory for conservatives, in the event served instead to energise the liberals and progressives. The words of Chief Justice Roberts in National Federation of Small Businesses v. Sebelius (better known as the Obamacare case) about political decisions seem to have come back to haunt. "Those decisions are entrusted to this Nation's leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them."

g-one wrote:Saw a strategist somewhere saying Biden should replace Harris with Newsom, then resign. Interesting idea.

What did that "strategist" smoke? Biden cannot replace Harris, just as Trump couldn't replace Pence, as much as he might have wished he could. The Vice President's leaves office by accession to the Presidency, end of term, death, cinviction after impeachment or resignation. She is not some hired and fired cabinet member, she was elected to the office in her own right. And good luck asking Kamala Harris, who has an eye on the Office herself, to step down because it's politically convenient for Gramps Joe and His Party.

Arneb wrote:

g-one wrote:Saw a strategist somewhere saying Biden should replace Harris with Newsom, then resign. Interesting idea.

What did that "strategist" smoke? Biden cannot replace Harris, just as Trump couldn't replace Pence, as much as he might have wished he could. The Vice President's leaves office by accession to the Presidency, end of term, death, cinviction after impeachment or resignation. She is not some hired and fired cabinet member, she was elected to the office in her own right. And good luck asking Kamala Harris, who has an eye on the Office herself, to step down because it's politically convenient for Gramps Joe and His Party.

Hmm, of the 48 vice-presidents prior to Kamala Harris, 15 of them became president. Eight of them because the president died, one because the president resigned, and six because they ran for the office and won.

So that’s almost one in three, and it seems to me, the odds are probably higher when the president is eighty years old.

So yes, I think if she has her eye on the top job, she won’t give up her current job without a fight.

Arneb wrote:

g-one wrote:Saw a strategist somewhere saying Biden should replace Harris with Newsom, then resign. Interesting idea.

What did that "strategist" smoke? Biden cannot replace Harris, just as Trump couldn't replace Pence, as much as he might have wished he could. The Vice President's leaves office by accession to the Presidency, end of term, death, cinviction after impeachment or resignation. She is not some hired and fired cabinet member, she was elected to the office in her own right. And good luck asking Kamala Harris, who has an eye on the Office herself, to step down because it's politically convenient for Gramps Joe and His Party.

the 'end of term' tho, can indeed include being replaced on the new ticket. tho' that would entail a whole host of difficulties themselves.

Yes, I think that was the idea, replace her on the new ticket.
As many difficulties as there may be, when it comes down to preventing another Trump term, nothing would be off the table.
But that would still require Joe to win another election, and I'm not sure he has it in him.

g-one wrote:Yes, I think that was the idea, replace her on the new ticket.

OK, now I get it. Although he should have said, replace Harris with Newsom on the ticket for '24, win the election, then resign.Quite a bit of work in those two points

If I interpreted the '20 election correctly, building up Harris as a successor was part of the plan. Only she doesn't seem to make much of her office, so yes, she might be left in the cold. I am really asking myself if running again is such a good idea for Biden...

I would agree with Arneb that Biden running in 2024 is not a great idea. He should be cooperating in the search for a suitable successor. OK, behind the scenes - to make it publicly clear now that he won't run again would weaken him for the next 2 years internationally ("we don't know how long a deal with him will last").

And that successor should quite possibly be Kamala Harris. She hasn't always been that visible, but then there have been various things, not least Ukraine, where the President himself has to be out in front. But she was visible in the outcry to the Dobbs ruling and, in general, in rallying the pro-choice vote behind the Democrats. (Which is the one thing that Piers Morgan says that the Democrats themselves did to turn the red wave into a ripple.) And since rallying around women's rights has proven important - and will continue to be as the conservatives also make abortion an election issue - a female candidate could be more attractive to a lot of the base than Newsom. Nancy Pelosi has pretty much ruled herself out - and rightly so. I don't think there's any serious chance of a Hillary Clinton comeback. Michelle Obama, maybe - but the name Obama has the power to energise the conservative base in the same way that Trump has the power to energise liberals and progressives.

Trump would appear to be a busted flush. Like Putin, he cannot forgive betrayal - and that is how he sees De Santis's planning to run. But that cuts both ways. In 2020, what got Biden into power was not so much that he impressed but that people came out in large numbers who seriously did not want to have another 4 years of Trump. That was what persuaded a lot of progressives who did not like Biden much to come out and vote. (In the same way that Le Pen making it to the final two in France has the power to persuade those who don't much like the other candidate to come out and vote for them anyway.) The conservative friends I have seem to confirm that. I saw an exchange with one of them in which another friend of his said that Trump should be allowed to have his 2nd term and then the Republicans could choose someone else, to which my friend replied: "We can't take that risk." They fear Trump as the candidate could result in (from their perspective) a perfect storm of the Democrat base being energised and large numbers of Republicans staying home. So the real question is not, does Biden have it in him to stand up to Trump, but does he have it in him to stand up to De Santis or some other new GOP flag bearer? And I agree with Arneb: no he doesn't. But I think Kamala Harris could - and right now (although true, there's still another year or so) I don't see anyone else who could. Bernie Sanders is also a busted flush, but part of standing up to the GOP candidate (let's assume De Santis) will preferably be getting Francesca Fiorentini and Occupy Democrats behind you. And I think Kamala Harris has a better chance of doing that than Gavin Newsom.