mtutiger

It took 72 hours for him to say something about Alexei Navalny, and then responds by trashing the country he purports to want to represent.

I'd add that it is borderline pathological that literally any negative observation about Trump or his campaign is met with "but 2016" Yes, he can still win. But FFS, it's 2024. Not everything needs to be qualified or compared to 2016.

Nobody is saying he cannot win. But it seems pretty obvious that this is not a good thing as well, for him or the party.

I'm not sure if it includes PAC expenditures or not, but I think I saw someone on Twitter suggest that Trump's entire 2020 campaign cost ~$350,000,000 in 2020. Which is almost equivalent to today's judgment (not including any potential interest charges that could be tacked on). We're all so jaded by this mindset of "everything that happens is good for Trump", but I honestly I'm really having a hard time seeing how this doesn't become a negative to both him and the GOP more generally. And given the inevitability of a this ruling, I'm a little more surprised there hasn't been more discussion about campaign financials more generally. This is all better suited to the 2024 thread, but it's the immediate thing that popped into my mind when I saw it lol

This is definitely the part I'm not getting.... obviously poll numbers are what generate discourse (and they are concerning), but you really can't lose sight of the money. Running for President and mounting a campaign to maintain the House / keep the Senate costs $$$$, and in light of Trump's legal issues and fundraising malaise more generally, this continues to be a huge risk factor heading into the election for the GOP

When coupled with E. Jean Carroll, you're looking at close to a half billion dollars worth of damages. Just a staggering amount of money, all while trying to mount a campaign for President.

This is how you do it... These anodyne "there's no room" type statements, OTOH, simply just ignore reality. We have a lot of apologists for this regime in the country, and in Congress. Stop pretending otherwise.

Oh really????

Also doubt these latest developments will be covered in Moscow Tucker's next dispatch...

It also says a lot about the state of mind of people (or candidates) who live in this country who "respect" or even "admire" this Russian government.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think it's cool that my team has a PBP announcer with the credibility to be a national media figure like Benetti.

Incredible, so much for the House Impeachment Team's star witness

I don't think a Democratic speaker would work, but some sort of compromise with one of the retiring Congress members (Mike Gallagher would be the ideal) could maybe work. Problem there being that all of the retiring members probably want careers after Congress, and going against GOP Leadership probably ain't conducive to that.

The younger Kirk Gibson that was paired with Josh Lewin would have been a pretty good fit for Benetti, IMO.... but unfortunately, time and health has had a major impact.

Worth reading in full... the fact that Jake Sherman is writing all of this (considering he's basically a glorified stenographer for GOP House Leadership) says it all

The world order established under NATO has pretty significantly benefitted America and Americans over the years. Not the least of which being that the one time Article 5 was invoked was for our benefit after 9/11. Trump is pretty clearly saying that he will not honor that same commitment if Russia, like they did in Ukraine, invades a NATO ally. NATO has also allowed us to sit at the head of the table and use "soft power" to work toward outcomes we want.... Trump's position would likely lead to that "soft power" being ceded to other nations (ie. China) Approximately zero American soldiers are being endangered on account of this war.... the debate is over providing economic aid to a nation so that Ukrainians can fight to maintain their independence. As much as the JD Vance/Mike Lee set feign concern for Ukranian deaths, their position is arrogant and denies the Ukrainians agency as, by all accounts, they were the wronged party in this conflict and aren't the ones that should be seen as needing to be brought to heel. No doubt all of these points maybe aren't as well communicated as they should be, particularly nearly two years into this conflict, but they are just basic facts. And on the point about "magnanimous" reasons, I think it's strange how the fact that their may be benefits to the United States just totally negates the idea that Ukraine may be benefitting from, you know, defending their nation from attack. When the alternative is being taken over by Russia, which is clearly an outcome that their government and a vast majority of their countrymen do not want.

We're also looking at it through the lens of Never Trumpers who are high profile. People like, say, Bill Kristol, who's career and identity are entirely wrapped up in the Republican Party. Most people in real-life who identify with someone like Kristol, because they are normal people with normal lives who don't work in politics, have likely had less trouble shedding the identity and many of them will probably just vote like standard Democrats going forward. That's a big reason why I don't think, despite Biden's issues in polling, the suburbs are going to be reverting any time soon. A lot of these voters in these areas nationwide.

Yeah, this is the other possibility for sure. Which may not be mutually exclusive with losing a bunch of seats, just hard to say at the moment. On another note I genuinely am curious to know whether private polling is showing what the public stuff is showing...

It's possible it's more just due to the fact that, even if they win and / or Trump wins, they don't expect anything productive to happen regardless of how the fall shakes out. Just because of the ascendency of the MTG types in the GOP these days. But generally speaking, a bunch of committee chairs giving up their gigs is usually seen as being a leading indicator of losing a bunch of seats, no doubt.

Another retirement

I doubt Benetti cares and am open to the idea that his presence will help the roster of color guys they have.

Really excited for a full year of Scales and Dirks... they both took the job and ran with it in 2023 IMO

I'm not sure that a fully comprehensive analysis has been done, but there's a number of factors that may have been at play.... COVID (and the impact that it had on campaigning style between the two parties), incumbency advantage, voters expecting Biden to win and subsequently voting "R" for Congress to force divided government, etc. Non-response bias was likely a factor in polling as well, although my response there would be there's reason to believe that Biden / Dems may be the ones being underestimated on that front in 2024.

In a lot of ways, the conservative media environment today is emblematic of the "bubble dwelling" that these same folks accused Clinton voters of living in after the 2016 Presidential Election. It's really a huge risk factor... they really cannot course correct after bad losses, and that's doubly the case with the party leader and soon-to-be Presidential candidate, given what we learned in 2020 with him losing and basically taking the position of "I didn't actually lose, it was stolen"... like, it's impossible to recalibrate when you constantly believe every loss was an election stolen from you. The grifting is gonna be a huge factor this time around... in 2020, Trump / GOP had a pretty sizable financial warchest. That isn't going to happen this time, even factoring out the legal bills that will undoubtedly be underwritten by campaign and PAC funds.