Even after a big win in New Hampshire, polling data going back to the Iowa caucuses shows Trump is alienating independents and a swath of GOP voters

Trump supporters in New Hampshire (Politico)

 

Even after a resounding win in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, polling data shows trouble is lurking around the bend for Donald Trump, according to a report at Politico.  Under the headline "Donald Trump has a big problem ahead," Sam Stein and Natalie Allison write:

A whole swath of the Republican electorate and a good chunk of independents appear firmly committed to not voting for him in November if he becomes the nominee.

It’s an issue that became starkly apparent in polling ahead of the Iowa caucuses, when an NBC News/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll of voters in that state found that fully 43 percent of Nikki Haley supporters said they would back President Joe Biden over Trump. And it’s a dynamic that has been on vivid display as the campaign shifted this week to New Hampshire.

“I can’t vote for Trump. He’s a crook. He’s too corrupt,” said Scott Simeone, 64, an independent voter from Amherst, who backed Trump in 2016 and 2020. “I voted for him, and I didn’t realize he’s as corrupt as he is.”

Early primary victories do not always lead to smooth sailing in the distance, Stein and Allison write:

Primary elections can create intra-party divisions that, in the moment, seem impossible to heal. In 2008, a bloc of Hillary Clinton supporters started the PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) movement as a threat to never back Barack Obama after that bruising primary. Bernie Sanders’ supporters vowed to never support Clinton eight years later. In 2016, Trump himself faced pushback to his nomination all the way up to the convention floor.

But 2024 is different. Trump is not making his pitch to voters as a first time candidate. He is a known quantity who is being judged by the electorate not for the conduct of his current campaign so much as his time in office. And that, political veterans warn, makes it much harder for him to win back the people he’s alienated, including those once willing to vote Republican.

The data supports the idea that there are problems ahead for the former president. Even before the Iowa survey, a New York Times/Siena College poll found that — including independents who say they lean toward one party over the other — Biden had slightly more support among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (91 percent) than Trump did among Republicans and GOP-leaning independents (86 percent).

That’s far from a majority of Republicans preparing to pass on Trump in November. But in a close election, it could be enough to tip the scales for Democrats. At a minimum, it is a major liability for the GOP should the party, as expected, push Trump through as its nominee.

New Hampshire's best-known Republican is concerned about what he sees in the polling:

“It would be a massively difficult hill to climb, without a doubt,” New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, a Haley endorser, told reporters of the party’s chances of winning New Hampshire in the general election with Trump on top of the ticket, when asked by POLITICO. “And he’s already proven that. He’s lost before and according to the polls he will lose even bigger this time.”

Sean Van Anglen, a prominent and early Trump supporter in the state who planned to vote for Haley on Tuesday, said if Trump becomes the nominee, he might have to blank that line on his November ballot.

“I don’t think I can vote for Trump,” he said. “I vote in every election, I’ve never left a box blank. And I might have to this time.”

That sentiment was not uncommon among Republicans in New Hampshire, especially among voters who came out to see Haley, the former U.N. ambassador.

“I liked him. But he just scares me now. Everybody that has ever worked for him is not any more,” said Lisa Tracy, of Salem. If it came down to Biden versus Trump, she said, “I would go with Biden.”

These problems are not entirely unique to Republicans. Biden himself is grappling with a Democratic Party where a portion of voters have soured on him and are either leaning towards or threatening to vote for a third-party candidate or stay home in November.

“We need to keep showing that it can’t just be two parties that no one fully agrees with,” said Michelle Greene, a 34-year-old registered independent from Portsmouth, New Hampshire, who expressed interest in Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.).

Greene said it’s “definitely a concern” that a third-party candidate might siphon off votes from Biden in November. But she also wasn’t sure if she’d vote for Biden again, after backing him in 2020, in a head-to-head Biden-Trump rematch, adding that she “morally can’t support the lesser of two evils.”

How many voters like Greene are out there? That is not clear, but there definitely are signs that Trump is turning off independent voters, Stein and Allison report:

How big a universe these groups of disaffected voters are could go a long way in determining the next president. But there are signs that, among independents at least, Trump is bleeding.

At a brief press scrum on Saturday before Trump took the stage at a rally, the former president’s top adviser Chris LaCivita downplayed the numbers out of Iowa. A campaign spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

But at events across the Granite state over the past week, surrogates for Trump have stressed the need for Republican reconciliation, depicting Biden’s presidency as an existential threat.

In the New York Times/Siena College poll last month, Biden led Trump among all independents in the poll, 50 percent to 38 percent.

Sununu, for his part, said he was ready to back Trump should he end up being the party’s standard-bearer. While Biden is a “decent person,” Sununu said, “his team is so bad.”

But what was notable about his argument was that it was delivered under duress. Sununu was speaking to a voter who had cornered him while he wiped snow from his car in a parking lot outside a Haley rally. That voter had wanted to know how he could possibly turn around and cast a vote for Trump after being so openly critical of his governance. Others who attended the event agreed.

Curtis Thornbrugh, 81, an independent from Rindge, had voted for Barry Goldwater, Bob Dole, and both Bushes before casting his ballot for Obama twice and Biden in 2020 (he did not say how he voted in 2016). He was open to backing Haley in 2024 but couldn’t see himself supporting Trump.

“I can’t find anything good to say and I try,” he explained. “He’s dangerous and the people around him are, too.”

Forbes Farmer, 79, a fellow independent from Rindge, also went to view Haley in person at that event. He said he’d lean towards supporting her if she ran against Biden in November.

Could he back Trump should he prevail?

“No, never,” Farmer said. “I absolutely hate Trump.”

If Biden steps aside, would Joe Manchin be a sensible presidential candidate for Democrats? It's not clear Manchin is still a Democrat, so the answer is no

Joe Manchin: The Gun Guy

 

Joe Biden should bow out of the presidential race to allow U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to become the Democratic Party nominee , according to a post from longtime Alabama attorney and political observer Donald Watkins. I am a friend and admirer of Watkins -- as evidenced by the dozens of posts I've written based on his legal insights, investigative reporting, and news analysis. But proposing Joe Manchin to head the Democratic Party tickets is one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time.

Further, Watkins says he is willing to direct about $75 million in donations from his nationwide network of political friends and allies to Joe Manchin's campaign, should he run for the presidency. My reaction? If Watkins is going to use that money to support Manchin, he might as well flush it down the toilet and close up shop on his political network, which I understand is designed to support independent voting. (I have a much better, and more serious, idea for using that money, but I will touch on that in moment. It actually will do a world of good; supporting Joe Manchin will accomplish nothing.)

First, there is so much wrong with the idea of supporting Joe Manchin as the Democratic candidate, that I hardly know where to begin. But let me take a crack at pointing to a few problems with it:

* In an interview with CBS News three days ago (1/21/24), Manchin said he would wait until after Super Tuesday in March to decide if he is going to run for president as an independent; he made no mention of running as a Democrat. To me, this sounds like the idea of Manchin representing the Democratic Party is a non-starter.

* From a CBS report on the event where Manchin made his comments:

Asked by the event's moderator Friday who would get his vote if Biden and Trump are the nominees, Manchin declined to answer.

"That's a difficult question right there," he said. "You have to make a decision - the character of that candidate, whether you agree or disagree, whether you support or haven't supported, whether you're in the same political party or not."

Earlier in his speech, Manchin emphasized the importance of "the character of the people who want to serve." But he declined to say whether Trump or Biden has a stronger character when asked by a reporter.

"You're going to make that decision, I already made my decision," he said.

What are we to take from this? (1) Asked who would get his vote between Biden or Trump, Manchin declined to answer; (2) Manchin seems unsure if he is in Trump's Republican Party or Biden's Democratic Party; (3) Machin declined to say who has the stronger character, Trump or Biden -- but he already has made his decision on the question.

In other words, Manchin might wind up voting for Trump, he might be a Republican, and he can't tell if Trump (with four criminal indictments on 91 counts, plus a declaration from a judge that he is a "rapist") or Biden has the stronger character.In short, Manchin had three opportunities to give an answer that indicated he is a Democrat -- and he failed each time. Dems are going to rush to the polls to support a candidate like that? I don't think so.

Manchin's responses to those questions are pitiful and should disqualify him as a representative of the Democratic Party

* Here is more insight on Manchin from the CBS report: "The West Virginia Democrat . . .  insisted his only goal was to promote his new Americans Together organization aimed at fostering bipartisanship and giving moderates a voice.

* In other words, Manchin is all about being a moderate, and caving in to, I mean working across the aisle with, Republicans. There is little or no sign that he is a fit for Democrats in any capacity, much less as their presidential candidate.

* If Joe Biden were to step aside -- and I don't believe he will, or should -- Democrats need someone who is more liberal, not less, than Biden.

* If Biden were to drop out of the picture, I think Pete Buttigieg (Biden's Secretary of Transportation), Michigan Gov. Getchen Whitmer, and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker all would be strong alternatives. As Watkins notes, Vice President Kamala Harris does not poll well, so it might be best to pass on her for now at such a divisive time. 

* Do you want the truth about Joe Manchin? Much of it can be found in an article titled "Senator Joe Manchin: A Profile in Courage or Cowardice? at fairobserver.com. Writes Logan M. Williams:

On Novermber 9, 2023, Senator Joe Manchin announced his decision not to pursue re-election to his West Virginia Senate seat. Recent polling indicated that he trailed his Republican opponent by an ever-increasing margin, and New York magazine columnist  Ed Kilgore described Manchin as the most vulnerable Democrat in the Senate.

Manchin is one of the US’ least popular senators. A foolish primary run would almost certainly result in a victory for Joe Biden after unnecessarily dividing the party. Even worse, if Manchin did manage to win, he would likely lose against Trump in the general election. It would be exceedingly selfish for Manchin to run. He would be prioritizing his own ego over the survival of US democracy.

In short, Manchin is not giving up his U.S. Senate seat for a noble reason. He knows that polling shows he would kick his butt kicked in a 2024 race. With Manchin polling so poorly in his home state, you might as well elevate Kamala Harris. She almost certainly would fare better than Manchin on a national level. A New York columnist described Manchin as "the most vulnerable Democrat in the Senate." Logan M. Williams described him as "one of the US' least popular senators. Williams also says that Manchin, if he prevailed in a primary, would likely lose to Trump in a general election. So, Manchin is supposed to be the Democratic choice for president? Great idea if you want an albatross to head the ticket -- even better idea if you want to write a one-way ticket for Donald Trump to the White House.

* The Democratic Party is leaning more to the left, and that's probably because liberals stand for something -- while Joe Manchin doesn't stand for anything. Even a number of Republicans are saying their party has accomplished so little that they have nothing to run on. That's because the party long ago pretty much gave up on even trying to govern. In the Democratic Party, meanwhile, the left is ascendant, as shown in a report yesterday from the Axios AM newsletter:

Gen Z adults are less likely to join an established religion, far more likely to identify as LGBTQ and generally less likely to be Republicans, Axios' Russell Contreras writes from a new survey by PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute).

• Why it matters: Gen Zers are the most racially and ethnically diverse generation in U.S. history — and they'll make up about 1 in 6 of the voting-age population in 2024.

 Gen Z is more left-leaning than older Americans, with 43% identifying as liberal, the survey found.

• About 28% of Gen Z adults identify as LGBTQ, compared with 16% of millennials, 7% of Generation X, 4% of baby boomers and 4% of the Silent Generation.
• Gen Z adults are more likely to identify as religiously unaffiliated (33%) than every generation except millennials.

Why am I a liberal? Perhaps some background is in order: I grew up in a middle-class home, the son of a federal employee -- a postal clerk, who was a union man. I came to believe that the government, despite what Ronald Reagan claimed, was a force for good. And my dad's status as a union man meant he could not be fired on someone's whim. That provided a touch of security in a world that was rapidly changing in the '60s and '70s. It gave me the sense that my dad could continue to support a family of six on a clerk's wages, meaning my siblings and I had a mother who was actually around to raise us -- something for which I strive to always be grateful.

From an existential perspective, there is this: My father served in the U.S. Army and was part of a squadron that arrived at Normandy beach three days after the D-Day invasion. I don't know the exact nature of their mission, but my best guess is that it involved recovery -- of bodies, equipment, maybe German intelligence. I imagine that unexploded land mines and other munitions posed a threat to my dad's life with every step. And, of course, there was a good chance, with every step, that my siblings and I would never be born -- and our mother would become a widow. Few days pass without me thinking that my grasp on life was fragile before I even had a life. I hope that inspires me to be grateful for every day, every moment, that I'm allowed in this earthly life. It definitely makes me cherish our democracy because my family almost gave up everything to defend it. I find it offensive when Trump and his MAGA goons take shots at the Democratic norms that have served us so well since 1776. The Trump goons are a spoiled, warped, ungrateful bunch

Around 1990, I cashed in on a promise I had made to myself: to start regularly reading books, for enlightenment and enjoyment. Two books that shaped my political views are The Politics of Rich and Poor, by Kevin Phillips and Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes, by Thomas and Mary Edsall. As far back as I can remember, I've leaned Pro-Choice on the abortion-rights issue, but a book by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes, provided a foundation of knowledge to go with my opinions. I strongly recommend it for anyone interested in doing serious reading on the subject.

As for Donald Watkins take on things, he says this: "Joe Biden needs to bow out of the race, ASAP.  Voters are not buying whatever Biden is selling.  Biden is old, tired, frail, and senile. He reminds me of expired milk.

"Anybody else in Biden’s physical and mental condition would be living in a nursing home or an assisted living facility by now."

 

Yes, Biden is 81 years old, but he does not look overly tired or frail to me. As for the senility issue, I've seen no document or statement from a medical expert that says Biden is senile. In fact, there is evidence that Biden's cognitive faculties are stronger than Donald Trump's, given a report yesterday from The New Republic (TNR) titled "Cognitive Decline? Listen to Trump Try to Describe Missile Defense":

Donald Trump took the road less traveled on Monday, opting to use sounds and shapes rather than words to explain what he had in mind for America’s military.

During a campaign stop in Laconia, New Hampshire—the last rally before the state’s Republican primary—Trump announced that under his leadership, the country would copy and paste Israel’s Iron Dome defense system over our own national borders. That idea, by the way, has previously earned him ridicule even by the likes of Fox News.

“I will build an Iron Dome over our country, a state-of-the-art missile defense shield made in the USA,” Trump said. “We do it for other countries. We help other countries, we build, we don’t do it for ourselves.”

         But then, things got weird as Trump tried once again to assert his “extremely stable genius” status.

        “These are not muscle guys here, they’re muscle guys up here, right,” Trump said, gesturing to his           arms and then his head.

“And they calmly walk to us, and ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.… They’ve only got 17 seconds to figure this whole thing out. Boom. OK. Missile launch. Woosh. Boom,” he added.

The stunning performance comes after the 77-year-old bragged that he “aced” a cognitive test that required him to correctly identify a giraffe, tiger, and whale. According to Trump, that means his “mind is stronger now than it was 25 years ago.” In reality, that test is meant to measure dementia or cognitive decline, and it has never included the combination of animals Trump keeps mentioning.

Trump’s cognitive decline has been in question recently after the GOP front-runner was spotted with mysterious red sores on his hands. Trump has also been making increasingly nonsense remarks during his campaign tangents—last week, the former president said he would stop banks from “debanking” Americans—and confusing major players in American politics. During another campaign speech, Trump switched up former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and his only rival in the GOP race, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, several times, blaming Haley for the events of January 6 while claiming she turned down extra security. (The House committee assigned to probe the attack found no evidence to support Trump’s claim, which he has previously leveled at Pelosi.)

You can view Trump's version of word salad by clicking on this link. It's clear to me that Biden's cognitive function is well ahead of Trump's. In fact, I've been convinced for some time that Trump is mentally unwell and unfit to serve in any public office -- and I've written about it on several occasions. Most of the published reports from experts on psychology and mental health focus on signs that Trump is a narcissistic sociopath. 

As for a good way to spend Watkins' money, I would suggest he spend it on domestic-animal welfare, especially for cats and dogs. (For the record, I'm not so arrogant that I believe Watkins needs my advice on spending HIS money; it's HIS money, and he can spend it however he wishes. I'm just tossing out an idea that I believe would do way more good than sending cash to Joe Manchin.)

My wife, Carol, and I have had four pets since we've been married. My blog is named in honor of our first pet, a miniature schnauzer named Murphy. We had two Siamese/Tonkinese cats -- the brother-sister combo of Baxter and Chloe -- who sort of fell into our laps. And we've had a cat we found in a feral colony near where we lived at one point; it probably would be more accurate to say he found us than the other way around. It's hard for us to put into words what the four or them have meant to us. Suffice to say, they probably have done more for us than we've done for them.

And yet, our country is filled with un-homed cats and dogs -- and that is a national tragedy. Humans have domesticated these animals, and they are no longer suited for living in the wild, out in the elements. Watkins' funds could go a long way toward finding homes for cats and dogs -- and that probably would make a positive impact on the mental health of America's "hoomans." It would be a "win-win" on multiple levels.

As for Joe Manchin, he is a spineless, wishy-washy "moderate," who offers nothing much beyond refried conservatism. If you are going to support him, you might as well support Trump. At least Trump is interesting, in a sick, annoying, trainwreck way.

Manchin essentially represents a form of Republican Lite, whose adherents admit their party has run out of ideas and has nothing much in the way of accomplishments to run on.

West Virginia has become a Republican stronghold since 2000, so it's possible Manchin would not even carry his own state if he ran as a Democrat. Let's not go down the Joe Manchin rabbit hole. Democrats can do way better than that; our country needs way better than that.

New Hampshire is one of our most educated states, so why did residents give such dumb answers on a CNN poll re: Republicans, Trump, and today's primary?

Dartmouth College in New Hampshire

 

New Hampshire is one of the most educated states in America. In a May 2023 survey by U.S. News & World Report, New Hampshire ranked No. 6 among our most educated states -- ahead of Connecticut and Virginia (tied at No. 7) and behind New Jersey (at No. 5). So why, in a CNN poll going into today's New Hampshire primary, did so many Republican respondents give such dumb answers? These people, as a population, clearly are not stupid, so how to explain the answers we are about to reveal from a poll conducted via a fairly deep dive -- asking New Hampshire GOPers how they thought frontrunner Donald Trump would handle six specific issues that might come up if he is elected president in November 2024? Does identifying as a Republican in the age of Trump cause brain cells to start dying?

We don't have an answer to that question, but here is how CNN summarized the responses it received regarding Trump's possible handling of six key issues: (In a moment, we will examine the issues and provide our thoughts on each one, generally expressing our bafflement at how seemingly intelligent New Hampshire residents responded.) But first, on to the CNN summary:

The state’s Republican primary electorate also has a broadly positive outlook on what Trump actually did as president. Looking back on his first term in office, 70% of likely Republican primary voters say that he did more to help the country than hurt it, while 28% say he did more to hurt and 2% that his time in office didn’t make much of a difference.

The survey asked whether Trump would attempt – and whether he would succeed at – six things he’s talked about doing during the campaign: building a wall along the US border with Mexico, appointing a special prosecutor to “go after” President Joe Biden and his family, dismantling the “deep state,” repealing Obamacare and replacing it with another health care law, bringing the war between Russia and Ukraine to an end, and reimposing a travel ban for seven Muslim-majority countries.

Majorities in the GOP electorate say that if he wins, Trump would likely succeed in accomplishing four out of those six: building the wall (71% say he would definitely or probably succeed in doing so), ending the war between Ukraine and Russia (59%), reimposing the travel ban (56%) and appointing a prosecutor to go after the Biden family (53%). Far fewer see Trump as likely to succeed at dismantling the deep state (39%) or repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act (34%).

Most New Hampshire residents agree with likely Republican voters that should Trump win the presidency, he is at least probably going to accomplish reimposing the travel ban (58%), appointing a special prosecutor to go after the Biden family (56%) and building the wall (52%). But there are deep partisan divisions in views on his prospects for ending the war between Ukraine and Russia; 71% of Republicans feel he will at least probably succeed in that effort, compared with 33% of independents and 8% of Democrats; 79% of Democrats say that Trump is unlikely to even try to bring the war to an end. And few of any partisan stripe feel he’s likely to repeal and replace the ACA (26% overall). 

I can't fathom how intelligent New Hampshire residents could hold such generally positive views of Trump -- given the four criminal indictments (91 counts) he faces, the wretched record he produced in his first term (including a botch job on the COVID pandemic that sent our economy into a spiral and produced 1.2 million American deaths) and his numerous statements that indicate he intends to sweep away the U.S. democracy and replace it with a dictatorship. These things actually sound appealing if you live in New Hampshire? 

We'll leave that question dangling and move on to the six issues CNN raised with respondents and provide our thoughts on each one:

(1) CNN issue: Building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico border -- 71 percent of GOP respondents said Trump would definitely or probably succeed in doing so.

Legal Schnauzer says -- Our response to this one is easy. Trump tried and failed to build a wall in his first term, lying all the way that he would get Mexico to pay for it. Based on online reports, the wall wound up being a mishmash of structures along portions of the border, including various forms of barriers and fencing, including one section that is in danger of collapsing. In short there is no contiguous, true wall -- and estimates are that the U.S. wasted $15 billion on the effort, most of it taken from the military budget -- so Trump failed to deliver on his promise. Does anyone seriously think he will get it done on a second go around?

(2) CNN issue: Ending the war between Ukraine and Russia -- 59 percent of respondents said Trump would succeed in ending the war.

Legal Schnauzer says -- Trump has said he could end the war in "24 hours," which is a sign of just how unserious he is on the matter. Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has called Trump's rhetroric "very dangerous," suggesting he considers Trump more of a hindrance than a help on the matter.

(3) CNN issue: re-imposing a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries --  56 percent of respondents said Trump could achieve this.

Legal Schnauzer says -- Here is how CBS News described the outcome of Trump's first attempt at a travel ban: "The first two bans faced steep challenges in court, but the third version of the ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision in 2018. That ban barred nearly all travelers from five mainly Muslim countries, in addition to North Korea and Venezuela. President Biden signed an executive order reversing the ban his first week in office."

This suggests more court challenges would await a second travel ban, plus it's unclear why Trump is targeting Muslims. Yes, Muslim nations were behind the attacks of 9/11, but those happened roughly 15 years before Trump became president. Is he trying to introduce legislation regarding an event that happened that long ago? Is there any logical reason to do that, other than playing to the racist impulses of his MAGA base? A second ban likely would be pointless and ineffective, other than adding to Trump's status as a cult leader. 

(4) CNN issue:Appointing a prosecutor to go after the "Biden crime family -- 53 percent of respondents said Trump can achieve this.

Legal Schnauzer says -- ABC News has reported that U.S. House investigators in an ongoing impeachment probe have yet to produce allegations supported by "direct evidence" of wrongdoing. by Joe Biden. Some of the allegations relate to Biden's time as vice president, and even if proven true, those cannot be used to impeach him as president. More importantly, Trump's notion that a president can direct Department of Justice prosecutorial decisions runs contrary to 40 years of U.S. policy. This might be worth asking: In trying to go after Biden, could Trump be setting himself up for another impeachment of his own, a lawsuit, or even an additional criminal indictment? This appears to be another case of Trump engaging in bombast, with little connection to law or facts. Once again, he's like a toddler playing with fireworks and could wind up posing more problems for himself than he does for Biden.

(5) CNN issue: Dismantling the deep state. -- 39 percent of respondents said Trump could achieve this, so even Republicans have little confidence in Trump on this issue.

Legal Schnauzer says -- The plan to break up the administrative state goes beyond Trump to the Heritage Foundation and similar right-wing groups. The long-term goal is to allow Trump to act on his own, with reduced authority for Congress.  Is Congress likely to take this well? Probably not. Would such action be unconstitutional? Probably so. Would Trump be effective at acting on his own? An objective review of his first term -- plus his statements that the main goal of a second term is to seek retribution against his political enemies -- suggests the answer is no. In fact, we've seen few signs that Trump even intends to govern in a second term, and he probably is not capable of it anyway.

(6) CNN issue: Repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act -- 34 percent of respondents said Trump could achieve this, so again, even Republicans have little confidence in Trump on this issue.

Legal Schnauzer says -- After Trump's colossal botch job on COVID, do you really want him messing with your health care. Enough said. Mike drop.

The notion of "Donald Trump as Dictator" does not bother conservative writer, but by digging a bit deeper, you realize this is an exercise in wishful thinking

U.S.-Mexico border

 

A columnist for the nation's most prominent conservative magazine says concerns that Donald Trump, if elected president, will act as a dictator are overblown. Matt Ford of the liberal The New Republic (TNR) isn't so sure about that and responds under the headline "This Is Still Fascism—Only Worse":

In 2015, Donald Trump infamously launched his first presidential campaign by descending a faux-gilded escalator and saying of undocumented immigrants, “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” More than eight years later, not much has changed—except that Trump has gotten even worse. He now echoes Nazi phraseology in his rhetoric about migrants and avoids any throwaway caveats about “good people.”

“They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” he told supporters at a recent rally..“That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America.They’re coming into our country, from Africa, from Asia.” At another rally a day later, the candidate facing four criminal indictments of 91 counts said, “This is like a military invasion. Drugs, criminals, gang members, and terrorists are pouring into our country at record levels. We’ve never seen anything like it. They’re taking over our cities.”

Any chance Trump noticd the irony in his statement? Very unlikely. Instead, Trump and his allies are planning a brutal response to the presence of undocumented immigrants -- because we don't like "criminals" in this country, except in the White House, Reports Ford::

Trumpworld is planning for an unprecedented show of force against undocumented immigrants if he retakes the White House. Top Trump associates reportedly plan to use the military to close the southern border and round up people for deportation. According to Rolling Stone, between 100,000 and 300,000 troops may be used for the operation, based on questionable legal authority.

Such a move would be part of Trump’s “day one” dictatorship, as he himself has described it. Beyond the immigration context, the former president has vowed to weaponize the Justice Department against his political opponents and his critics, declare himself immune from prosecution, and pardon those who carried out a coup attempt on his behalf. In short, Trump is trying to create an electoral mandate for fascism.

Does that kind of language trouble conservative opinion makers? Not much it seems. Writes Ford:

Some conservatives have argued that there is actually nothing to worry about. Among them is National Review’s Jim Geraghty, who recently wrote a lengthy column titled, “A Reality Check on Trump-as-Dictator Prophecies.” Geraghty says that his longtime readers know that he is “not a supporter of Trump, never voted for him, never will, and find his glaring character flaws, narcissism, erratic judgment, and childish stubbornness outweigh his acts as president that I applauded.” (Geraghty found some of Trump's presidential acts were worthy of applause? Wish he would clue the rest of us in on what they were.)

“But I don’t like this argument that Republicans or the electorate at large must reject Trump because if he wins the election, democracy will end, the Constitution will burn, and America will become an autocracy,” he added. He took particular issue with other Never Trump conservatives, such as former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney, for arguing that the Constitution’s checks and balances might be insufficient to constrain Trump.

He conceded that Trump or any other “malevolent president” could “do a lot of damage” solely through the executive branch’s powers. “It is more accurate to say that some believe that our Constitution’s system of checks and balances mitigates or limits the amount of damage that Trump or any other president could do,” Geraghty added. He argued that even a Republican-led Congress could constrain Trump since it largely ignored him during his first term.

There are good reasons to think that wouldn’t hold true next time. For one thing, Trump’s influence over the GOP is substantially greater in 2024 than it was in 2016. Speaker Paul Ryan was not a true believer in the MAGA cause; Speaker Mike Johnson is one. Trump has spent almost eight years purging moderates and dissenters from the GOP congressional ranks, resulting in a congressional coalition that is more willing to carry out his instructions than ever.

So maybe liberals aren't being "nervous Nellies" for no reason, Ford asks. Geraghty response is not all that comforting for those who crave competent governance, for a White House that gets things done to move the country forward, instead of just motoring along under a annoying orange blowhard. Writes Ford:

What about the courts? Even here, Geraghty admits Trump could simply ignore them. “I don’t have a crystal ball; Trump could well trigger a constitutional crisis by openly defying a Supreme Court ruling,” he wrote. “But if that Supreme Court ruling was about the actions of a federal agency, a fair question is whether everyone who works at that federal agency is willing to act in defiance of the court.” He cited examples where federal agencies largely ran on autopilot during the Trump years.

Again, that assumes that Trump and his allies haven’t learned from previous experience. We know from ample reporting at this point that top Trump advisers are planning to carry out a legally dubious overhaul of the federal civil service. If they staff it with cronies and purge it of dissenters, there is little reason to believe that federal agencies would actually defy Trump—and plenty of reason to believe they could join him in defying the Supreme Court.

Geraghty took the greatest issue with claims that Trump could use the military to oversee and undermine future elections. Not because he thinks Trump wouldn’t try to do that, of course. Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, tried to persuade the Department of Defense to help promote voter-fraud conspiracy theories in 2020, and proposed letting the military “rerun” the election that Trump lost. Geraghty instead argued that the military just wouldn’t do that.

“I don’t see our men and women in uniform as mindless automatons who will obey whatever orders Trump gives them, no matter how self-evidently unlawful or in defiance of the Constitution they are,” Geraghty wrote. “Nor do I see the men and women of America’s law enforcement that way. Yes, you can find bad apples in both groups. But I don’t think that the entire military and all the law-enforcement agencies of the U.S. government will nod and go along with an effort to end 250 years of constitutional limits on the power of the president.”

Are we supposed to believe a country that had the poor sense to re-elect Trump would suddenly develop the good sense to ignore a chaotic administration's worst impulses? In terms of the military, isn't that a waste of our personnel and resources? Ford seems to think the answer is yes, and I agree. Geraghty seems to be whistling through a minefield, and he wants the rest of us to joint him. No, thank you! Writes Ford:

This does not actually disprove anyone’s concerns. At best, it leans entirely on unsubstantiated hope. At worst, it is a weird attempt to ignore the question by claiming that anyone raising it is insufficiently reverent of the American military. And while American soldiers are not bound to obey illegal or unconstitutional orders, defiance on that scale would also likely weaken civilian control of the military. At that point, you’re just hoping to stop one constitutional crisis by starting another.

This is something of a theme in Geraghty’s column. Despite his professed opposition to Trump, he can’t resist drawing false equivalences with Trump’s opponents. At one point, he describes Biden as “another guy running for president who has also been willing to ignore the Constitution when it proved inconvenient.” His linked source for that claim is Biden’s student debt relief order, which was overturned by the Supreme Court without incident last year. Geraghty also observed that Trump “isn’t the first major public figure to yearn for temporary autocracy,” quoting something New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said about China on Meet the Press in 2010. That is just unserious.

Exactly, which is appropriate, given that Trump himself is unserious about governing. He's more interested in retaliation against his perceived enemies:He wants to weaponize the Department of Justice to go after people who displease him, the kind of presidential interference with the DOJ that has been contrary to U.S. policy since the days of the Jimmy Carter administration: Ford writes:

Some issues in American politics are complicated and nuanced. This is not one of them. Trump, the great clarifier, isn’t campaigning on reducing the national debt or expanding free school lunch programs. His platform is that he will shrug off any constraints on his power to govern however he sees fit if he wins the presidential election next year. His promise of a “day one dictatorship” is a toe dip into pure authoritarianism, a way to normalize his anti-constitutional impulses and yoke the rest of the Republican Party to them. To deny that Trump is seeking this outcome at this point is to help him make it possible.

This is what has become of the Party of Lincoln. And it's sad. In a country that relies on having two functioning major parties, we are in danger when one of them is in the thrall of a man who shows signs of being a talented cult leader, with precious few signs that he can, or even wants, to accomplish anything beyond that.

As governor, Ron DeSantis took Florida back to Mississippi of the 1950s, proving he was a "Not Ready for Prime Time Player" on the presidential stage

Ron DeSantis ends his moribund presidential campaign

Has an American politician ever run as bad a presidential campaign as Ron DeSantis, whose hapless bid mercifully ended yesterday? Longtime Alabama attorney and political observer Donald Watkins appears to have concluded that the answer is no. Under the headline "Ron DeSantis: A Pathetic "Has-Been" Presidential Candidate," Watkins writes:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis threw in the towel today (Sunday).  He dropped out of the 2024 presidential race.

DeSantis never had any substance as a Florida governor or presidential candidate.

DeSantis single-handedly turned the beautiful Sunshine state into a 1950s version of Mississippi.

DeSantis declared war on Mickey Mouse.  What political idiot does that?

Ouch! Those are some serious digs, which DeSantis richly deserves. But it gets worse, per Watkins:

DeSantis publicly told Black Floridians that the history of their ancestors was of no value to Floridians or anybody else.

DeSantis’ entire campaign focused on "anti-woke" issues like the diehard racists of the 1950s.  DeSantis took pride in being nothing more than a modern-day apostle of racial hatred.

During his two terms as Florida’s governor, DeSantis was never able to help homeowners in his state get affordable property insurance.  He never grew the state’s economy. He didn’t make a dent in improving the quality of the state’s public-education systems.

In short, Floridians were facing serious issues, and DeSantis failed to deliver solutions across the board. Nothing of substance happened, as if time stood still while DeSantis was in office. It was clear early on, Watkins states, that DeSantis was not up to the task of challenging Trump for president:

Donald Trump had DeSantis’ number all along.  Trump knew that DeSantis was a small-time punk, with the backbone of a jellyfish.

DeSantis' presidential run affirms this truism about most of today’s high-profile politicians: You cannot make chicken salad out of chicken shit, no matter how many PR ingredients you add to the dish.

Fani Willis' career as a prosecutor in Georgia is hanging by a thread as she dives into the muck of Nathan Wade's divorce, with Trump case looming

Fani Willis and Nathan Wade

 

"Self-inflicted wounds" in the criminal RICO case against Donald Trump and 17 codefendants have placed Georgia district attorney Fani Willis in a bind and could put her career as a prosecutor at risk, according to a post from longtime Alabama attorney and criminal-defense expert Donald Watkins. The missteps essentially have turned the case on its head, making it less about Trump and more about Willis and her alleged romantic involvement with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, placing her in the middle of a divorce case Wade filed against his estranged wife, Jocelyn.

According to a report at PBS.org, Willis is accusing Jocelyn Wade of trying to obstruct the criminal election-interference case against Trump and others by seeking to question the DA in the Wades' divorce proceedings. Willis has filed a motion to quash a subpoena seeking her testimony in the divorce case.

Further, Willis accuses Jocelyn Wade of conspiring with interested parties in the Trump case to "annoy, embarrass, and oppress" the DA.

An attorney for Willis filed a Motion to Quash in the divorce court, stating: "On information and belief, as early as 2017, prior to Plaintiff Nathan J. Wade ever meeting Non-Party Deponent Willis, the parties to the above-styled divorce agreed that their marriage was irretrievably broken after the Defendant Jocelyn Wade confessed to an adulterous relationship with the Plaintiff’s longtime friend. The Defendant Jocelyn Wade’s adultery precluded any chance of reconciliation. From the Motion to Quash: . . . 

Because the parties agree that the marriage is irretrievably broken and the concept of fault is not at issue, there is no information that District Attorney Willis could provide that might prove relevant to granting or denying the divorce. Thus, any information sought from District Attorney Willis would be irrelevant to the divorce proceedings pending in this Court. See Dickson v. Dickson, 238 Ga. 672, 674, 235 S.E.2d 479, 482 (1977) (holding judgment of divorce on pleadings is permitted where parties agree marriage irretrievably broken (citing Friedman v.Friedman, 233 Ga. 254, 210 S.E.2d 754 (1974)

As a result, the sought-after deposition in this case is outside the scope of the pending divorce action and outside the scope of discovery. . . The sought-after deposition of District Attorney Willis is not relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action and should not be permitted.

Still, Watkins states, Willis has put herself in the position of having to perform a delicate balancing act. Under the headline "Fani T. Willis Has Fallen into the Abyss with Special Prosecutor Nathan J. Wade," Watkins writes:

Criminal cases involving high-profile politicians are fraught with danger for prosecutors and investigative reporters.

During the course of my legal career, I worked with the Alabama Attorney General and Montgomery County District Attorney to attack public corruption in several high-profile cases. 

In 1992, I worked with Montgomery County District Attorney Jimmy Evans on the investigation and prosecution of Governor Guy Hunt on theft, conspiracy, and public-corruption charges. In 1993, Hunt was convicted on all charges and was forced from office by virtue of his conviction.

In 1974, Attorney General Bill Baxley appointed me to represent the state of Alabama in the criminal appeals of Talladega, Alabama, Police Lieutenant Jimmy Ray Hurst, who murdered Charles “Cooter” Mann.  We won every round in the appellate process and Hurst remains in prison today.

From 1975 to 1977, I collaborated with Jimmy Evans in a criminal investigation that forced the resignations of Montgomery, Alabama’s mayor, police commissioner, and eight police officers who covered up the police murder of an unarmed and innocent man named Bernard Whitehurst. 

In April 2013, the city of Montgomery finally acknowledged the police coverup in Whitehurst’s case.

As an online investigative journalist, Watkins has found he can come under attack from powerful political forces, just as he did in his role as an attorney. (Being attacked by powerful political forces is something I know about, too. See here, here here, here, here and here. Watkins and I brought the scandal of Gov. Robert "Luv Guv" Bentley -- in the form of an extramarital affair with senior aide Rebekah Caldwell Mason -- to public light over roughly seven months before the mainstream press paid it serious attention. Without our reporting, the story probably would have never been known to the public. Is it any wonder Bentley vowed vengeance against Watkins and me?): Writes Watkins:

As an investigative journalist, I exposed sex scandals that resulted in the forced resignations of Chief U.S. District Court Judge Mark E. Fuller (Montgomery, Alabama) in August 2015 and Gov. Robert Bentley in April 2017.

Gov. Robert Bentley, who viewed himself as the “Chief Magistrate of the State,” had a history of abusing the power of his office to unlawfully harass and retaliate against individuals who reported fraud, waste, and abuse to regulatory and law-enforcement agencies.  See, Report of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on Articles of Impeachment Against Governor Robert Bentley Pursuant to House Rule 79.1, dated April 25, 2017, Attachment titled, Pre-Hearing Submission of Special Counsel regarding Governor Bentley’s “Special Investigations,” at pp. 86-92. 

I was a target of Gov. Bentley’s “Special Investigations.” (Id. at p.87). Robert Bentley caused numerous state and federal agencies to investigate me for everything possible.

Law-enforcement agencies based in Alabama gleefully accommodated Bentley's many acts of retaliation against me. No state or federal law-enforcement agency protected me from Bentley's vengeance.

 I literally survived a law-enforcement lynching. In the process, I learned who my true friends were.

However you come at it -- as a lawyer, journalist, or in some other role -- fighting corruption can present obstacles, Watkins writes:

The first technique corrupt politicians use against anti-corruption fighters is to jail them on phony criminal charges.  I have faced a steady stream of such threats since 1975.

 

Efforts to jail me started with the Whitehurst case and ended in Birmingham, Alabama, with the successful fabrication of phony federal criminal charges against me in 2018 by Lloyd Peeples, a failed pizza store operator who was appointed as the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama in 2017 despite his documented history of hostility toward successful Blacks. 

(As longtime Legal Schnauzer readers know, I also was targeted for jailing because I reported accurately on subjects that displeased Republican political forces and made them uncomfortable. These forces included former governors Robert  Bentley and Bob Riley -- along with his son Rob Riley -- and evidence suggests such forces also were involved in the wrongful foreclosure of our house in Birmingham and the wrongful eviction at our apartment in Greene County, Missouri, which resulted in an apparent sheriff's deputy breaking my wife Carol's arm, resulting in eight hours of trauma surgery for repair and more than $80,000 in expenses. She will lose at least 25 percent function in her left arm and could experience all kinds of unknown complications in the future. To this day, Carol and I are experiencing physical, emotional, and financial repercussions due to attacks from Alabama Republicans -- and we will live with some or all of those repercussions for the rest of our lives. Sadly, the forces that led to Carol's injuries and the loss of almost all our personal property appear to include my brother, Missouri attorney David Shuler -- who wrote a highly prejudicial letter to the judge in our eviction case and unlawfully ramrodded my parents' estate case so that I did not receive a penny -- even though related documents, such as a joint will, plainly state I was one of their four children, and upon my mother's death, was to receive an equal share to that of my siblings. I did not even receive a piece of paper notifying me of any estate-related proceedings. But I did find a document on my own that is so absurd that it's almost comical. We will have much more on that and other issues related to my parents' estate case in upcoming posts. I'm still researching these issues -- and estate matters are complex -- but I've seen evidence that suggests my brother might have engaged in estate fraud. Here is how the website of the Elster Law Firm in Missouri puts it.)

Watkins continues: The same business transactions that were used by Birmingham federal prosecutors to fabricate criminal charges against me had been reviewed two years earlier by top federal prosecutors in New Jersey, who cleared me of all wrongdoing. (Does this constitute double jeopardy? It sounds like it to my layperson's ears.)

The second technique corrupt politicians use to derail investigation into corruption is to smear the name of the anti-corruption fighter.  The art of “smearing” flourished during the FBI’s official COINTELPRO program (1956 to 1971). “Smearing” is in continuous use by law-enforcement agencies across the South.  In fact, it has become a staple of the state and federal criminal justice systems.

Lloyd Peeples: From pizza-store operator to prosecutor

The third technique is frequently used by corrupt politicians (as aided and abetted by their corporate allies) and involves the coordinated use of government and corporate resources to shut down law enforcement and journalistic investigations into their misconduct. The North Birmingham Bribery Case is a classic example of this technique.

In a high-profile case, such as the one against Donald Trump, a prosecutor must have her personal life together and surround herself with attorneys who are above reproach. That is where Willis failed, Watkins says:

Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis is prosecuting the biggest state RICO case in America. 

Every prosecutor who attacks corruption of any kind at the highest levels of government will be scrutinized for weaknesses, mistakes, and ethical lapses. It goes with the turf.

Montgomery County District Attorney Jimmy Evans was crucified for prosecuting Gov. Guy Hunt on theft, conspiracy, and ethics violation charges and for indicting three Montgomery police officers for perjury in the Bernard Whitehurst case.

Alabama Attorney General Bill Baxley was ostracized for appointing me, a Black attorney, to represent the state in opposing Lt. Jimmy Ray Hurst’s criminal appeals from his murder conviction in a case where all of the parties were White.

High-profile criminal prosecutions require an “A-Team” approach.  Every action the prosecutor undertakes in his/her personal and professional life is scrutinized.

Every member of Fani Willis’ “A-Team” is subject to heightened scrutiny.

In Willis’ RICO case against Donald Trump, it is clear that special prosecutor Nathan J. Wade does not qualify as an “A-Team” member.  In fact, Wade is Willis’ “Archilles heel.

Through Wade and his ongoing divorce case, the public is getting a front-row seat to a nasty “love triangle” between Fani Willis, Nathan Wade, and Wade’s estranged wife, Jocelyn.

Based on credit-card receipts that were released Friday in the Wade divorce case, we now know that payments to Nathan Wade that were approved by Fani Willis paid for airfare, cruises, and vacations to exotic ports of call for Willis and Wade.

What is worse, Willis is directly attacking Jocelyn Wade. This is a huge strategic and tactical mistake. It is also unprofessional.

Nathan Wade’s lack of objective qualifications as a RICO prosecutor, his messy divorce situation, and Fani Willis’ entanglement in all of this threatens to destroy her career as a prosecutor.

At some point, Fani Willis’ staunchest allies will not be able to ignore the continuous flow of damning information about Nathan J. Wade. When this point is reached, Fani Willis will be doomed.