Biden should hit harder on the "privileged" narrative as a counterweight to Trump's "victim" nonsense. Nobody but those with extreme wealth and power would get the powderpuff treatment (e.g., bond reduction, delays, media deference, etc.) that Trump is receiving.
Well, he HAS been convicted and we’re still looking for the next conviction to be the one that makes a difference
But more to the point that keeps being missed, trumps voters see themselves in him and vice versa. And so when his assets get seized, this will play into every fear they have of the government interfering in their lives and taking their stuff. It doesn’t matter that he actually did the crime. Their grievances and anxiety have a face and in their minds they’re saying, “if it can happen to him it can happen to us. It already does with my damn taxes and trying to take my guns/rights/whatever”
What will make him less palatable is if he keeps saying crazy shit that makes him seem less like someone they recognize in the mirror. So we should hope for that.
As an aside, I’m not an attorney but if I was a public defender, I would be examining every aspect of the ruling that reduced his bond yesterday to mine it for precedent when I represented every one of my clients who couldn’t make bail.
I am, if I get the term, of the chattering class. Though I hVe followed him for a ling time, the more I learn now about Joe, the more I love the guy. I never thought Id forgive him for Anita Hill, but my god what the arg about age misses is how much a healthy man can change and grow, regardless or maybe bc of age. My focus now will be on the down ballot; esp helping educate people about judges, commissioners, those wanting on boards of ed., local (state) legislators. Tr is speaking clearly for himself.
Somewhat tangential but I think relevant question: Approval ratings have trended downward over time. This is an uncalibrated measure of context (increased cynicism, or whatever; some aspect of society that has shifted steadily). Is there a way to reword the approval rating question to calibrate it, to it reflects behavior more accurately?
Right now, there is a huge gap between approval and voting behavior. There are even people (in the Democratic Party, anyway) who would give disapproval for a given candidate but still knock doors for them. What we mean by approval is not the same today as it once was. We need a question that measures what voters would be more likely to do. Or, a composite measure involving approval, likely voting preference, and enthusiasm that wold produce a consistent result if recalculated from past polling that we could move forward with.
My first reaction to these "will you vote for Trump if he's convicted?" polls is that respondents are simply lying. I don't believe that people who are ok with Trump's deep cruelty and pathological narcissim would be moved by a conviction. But hopefully independents will indeed say that a conviction is a bridge too far? Or the chattering classes might finally stop with the both-sides-ism and begin pointing out the dangers of willingly putting a vengeful despot in charge?
Gerard Bakers' comment, "The indictment, and let’s not talk about whether it’s justified or not..." is truly appalling, but not surprising. Why not talk about whether it's justified or not, because that's the point. I think once the NY election interference trial begins, there will be lots of negative facts and commentary about how Trump operates, and that narrative ties in with his being held liable for fraud. People should also continue to ask Republicans how they can support someone who was found liable for rape and defamation. They can wiggle and worm their responses, but in the end, they're saying that they don't care. All of this should also be tied into Trump's insistence that he has immunity for everything he's done, or will do. Part of the problem with labeling Trump's behavior is that a lot of terms get used - authoritarian, dictator, strong-man. These terms all have different definitions but are very abstract for most people. Why not use a term everyone understands, even if it doesn't really apply. Do US voters really want a king?
It’s not just Republicans. In the bad old 70s, Democrats re-elected a long-time City Council member. He was in jail, having been caught on tape sharing cocaine with a 16 year-old female. A few years later, Dems in D. C. Re-elected Marion Barry after he was caught on tape smoking crack.
It’s not necessarily right or left, it’s people under the spell of a con-man.
I can't take anything David Brooks says seriously. He's the guy who thinks women should just get over themselves and get married because men are sad. Frank Luntz has always irritated me as well. It is this smarmy, I'm smarter than you white guy pundit bs. I agree with an earlier post - we need to bust our collective asses and get Joe re-elected, as well as work on down-ballot folks (because all politics is local) and thank folks like Dan who have a platform for pushing back. I have to say, I include Chuck Todd in this group of icky pundits, but I was glad to hear him sort of push back against the hiring of Ronna McDaniel. MSM chasing balance over truth is going to be a huge challenge for this election season.
I agree with your opinion of Brooks, Todd, and Luntz, though I find Todd the worst. He shares their unwarranted self-assessment of intellectual superiority, but also constantly interrupts interviewees before they complete an answer. Though I hate to say it, I see David Axelrod joining this club, at least when he talks about Biden.
Trump is primarily a bully and a con man. His inheritance and the social circle he came of age in made him a bullying con man on a grand scale. Nevertheless, it’s true that when the con is thoroughly exposed and the bully shown to be helpless, most people open their eyes.
He is so practiced in these traits that we believe the outlandish things he says about a conviction. C’mon, do we still believe he’ll gain popularity? I put the chances in the same category that I put “the virus will disappear in the Spring”.
I’m more worried about the effects of an acquittal. The NY case is not a slam dunk, from what I can tell, and Aileen Cannon seems bent of giving Trump a political gift this year. It’s increasingly unlikely that the DC trial or the Fulton County trial will be held this year at all.
Aileen Cannon seems to be going off the deep end. Is there no recourse, no action the Southern District can take when a judge appears to be incompetent?
By Southern District do you mean Jack Smith? He's a special counsel, unrelated to SDNY. He could file for a writ of mandamus with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the appellate court over Cannon, if she does something so crazy and against the rule of law they might consider taking her off the case. She has actually just done that, asking the parties to brief her on two sets of jury instructions that completely get the law wrong. So the writ of mandamus filing could come soon.
No, I'm referring to the Southern District in Florida. I wonder how they feel about her off-the-wall interpretations of the law, and how it reflects on their district court.
As I understand it (like Greg, my law degree is from Podcast University), the options open to Jack Smith are rarely used, partly because he could end up with a worse hand than he's already drawn if he formally objects to her un-law-ful performance.
Agreed. Though I'm beginning to think that a late but legit trial (ie, one run by an experienced judge) is more likely to serve justice than one that is late AND distorts the case beyond recognition.
There are those who think Biden is a wannabe dictator and all the charges are trumped up (yeah, I said it) to ensure Biden remains president. So convictions won’t matter.
Can anyone recommend a source for up-to-date bullet-point type facts, particularly quantitative, about Trump's ongoing legal processes? I'm particularly interested in how many individual jurors (juries, grand juries) have been involved in determining his charges and liabilities.
I've had a couple voters (door knocking, phone banking) who didn't understand the enormity of what he's facing, nor the role of everyday citizens in concluding that he should be charged with felonies, and the scope of his liability in the civil cases. They were very surprised and seemed persuaded when I threw out the typical "91 felonies" but I'd love to have a few more factoids in my back pocket.
People like Luntz and Erickson are appeasers. The rule of law should be upheld regardless of the consequences. For one thing, if you do nothing to enforce it against Trump, people will get the message that he hasn't done anything wrong, or nothing that bad. Plus it's positive reinforcement for criminal behavior.
“Trump’s continued political resilience has caused people to lose control of their faculties. The stakes of this election are so damned high that our anxiety has infected the political chattering class with brain worms.”
So glad to hear you say that, Dan. Reading these editorials of seemingly well-experienced editors is frustrating and disheartening. They’ve normalized a criminal’s behavior to the extent of journalistic enabling.
Relieved to see the clear polling as you explain it.
Totally agree, there are 2 justice systems in this country, one for the rich, and one for the rest of us. We can't count on the courts, only the ballot box.
Biden should hit harder on the "privileged" narrative as a counterweight to Trump's "victim" nonsense. Nobody but those with extreme wealth and power would get the powderpuff treatment (e.g., bond reduction, delays, media deference, etc.) that Trump is receiving.
Well, he HAS been convicted and we’re still looking for the next conviction to be the one that makes a difference
But more to the point that keeps being missed, trumps voters see themselves in him and vice versa. And so when his assets get seized, this will play into every fear they have of the government interfering in their lives and taking their stuff. It doesn’t matter that he actually did the crime. Their grievances and anxiety have a face and in their minds they’re saying, “if it can happen to him it can happen to us. It already does with my damn taxes and trying to take my guns/rights/whatever”
What will make him less palatable is if he keeps saying crazy shit that makes him seem less like someone they recognize in the mirror. So we should hope for that.
As an aside, I’m not an attorney but if I was a public defender, I would be examining every aspect of the ruling that reduced his bond yesterday to mine it for precedent when I represented every one of my clients who couldn’t make bail.
I am, if I get the term, of the chattering class. Though I hVe followed him for a ling time, the more I learn now about Joe, the more I love the guy. I never thought Id forgive him for Anita Hill, but my god what the arg about age misses is how much a healthy man can change and grow, regardless or maybe bc of age. My focus now will be on the down ballot; esp helping educate people about judges, commissioners, those wanting on boards of ed., local (state) legislators. Tr is speaking clearly for himself.
Somewhat tangential but I think relevant question: Approval ratings have trended downward over time. This is an uncalibrated measure of context (increased cynicism, or whatever; some aspect of society that has shifted steadily). Is there a way to reword the approval rating question to calibrate it, to it reflects behavior more accurately?
Right now, there is a huge gap between approval and voting behavior. There are even people (in the Democratic Party, anyway) who would give disapproval for a given candidate but still knock doors for them. What we mean by approval is not the same today as it once was. We need a question that measures what voters would be more likely to do. Or, a composite measure involving approval, likely voting preference, and enthusiasm that wold produce a consistent result if recalculated from past polling that we could move forward with.
My first reaction to these "will you vote for Trump if he's convicted?" polls is that respondents are simply lying. I don't believe that people who are ok with Trump's deep cruelty and pathological narcissim would be moved by a conviction. But hopefully independents will indeed say that a conviction is a bridge too far? Or the chattering classes might finally stop with the both-sides-ism and begin pointing out the dangers of willingly putting a vengeful despot in charge?
Gerard Bakers' comment, "The indictment, and let’s not talk about whether it’s justified or not..." is truly appalling, but not surprising. Why not talk about whether it's justified or not, because that's the point. I think once the NY election interference trial begins, there will be lots of negative facts and commentary about how Trump operates, and that narrative ties in with his being held liable for fraud. People should also continue to ask Republicans how they can support someone who was found liable for rape and defamation. They can wiggle and worm their responses, but in the end, they're saying that they don't care. All of this should also be tied into Trump's insistence that he has immunity for everything he's done, or will do. Part of the problem with labeling Trump's behavior is that a lot of terms get used - authoritarian, dictator, strong-man. These terms all have different definitions but are very abstract for most people. Why not use a term everyone understands, even if it doesn't really apply. Do US voters really want a king?
It’s not just Republicans. In the bad old 70s, Democrats re-elected a long-time City Council member. He was in jail, having been caught on tape sharing cocaine with a 16 year-old female. A few years later, Dems in D. C. Re-elected Marion Barry after he was caught on tape smoking crack.
It’s not necessarily right or left, it’s people under the spell of a con-man.
I can't take anything David Brooks says seriously. He's the guy who thinks women should just get over themselves and get married because men are sad. Frank Luntz has always irritated me as well. It is this smarmy, I'm smarter than you white guy pundit bs. I agree with an earlier post - we need to bust our collective asses and get Joe re-elected, as well as work on down-ballot folks (because all politics is local) and thank folks like Dan who have a platform for pushing back. I have to say, I include Chuck Todd in this group of icky pundits, but I was glad to hear him sort of push back against the hiring of Ronna McDaniel. MSM chasing balance over truth is going to be a huge challenge for this election season.
I agree with your opinion of Brooks, Todd, and Luntz, though I find Todd the worst. He shares their unwarranted self-assessment of intellectual superiority, but also constantly interrupts interviewees before they complete an answer. Though I hate to say it, I see David Axelrod joining this club, at least when he talks about Biden.
And then we have James Carville…
Trump is primarily a bully and a con man. His inheritance and the social circle he came of age in made him a bullying con man on a grand scale. Nevertheless, it’s true that when the con is thoroughly exposed and the bully shown to be helpless, most people open their eyes.
He is so practiced in these traits that we believe the outlandish things he says about a conviction. C’mon, do we still believe he’ll gain popularity? I put the chances in the same category that I put “the virus will disappear in the Spring”.
I’m more worried about the effects of an acquittal. The NY case is not a slam dunk, from what I can tell, and Aileen Cannon seems bent of giving Trump a political gift this year. It’s increasingly unlikely that the DC trial or the Fulton County trial will be held this year at all.
Aileen Cannon seems to be going off the deep end. Is there no recourse, no action the Southern District can take when a judge appears to be incompetent?
I think there is a non-zero chance she will get booted off the case.
(My law degree is from Podcast University, so I could be wrong...)
By Southern District do you mean Jack Smith? He's a special counsel, unrelated to SDNY. He could file for a writ of mandamus with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the appellate court over Cannon, if she does something so crazy and against the rule of law they might consider taking her off the case. She has actually just done that, asking the parties to brief her on two sets of jury instructions that completely get the law wrong. So the writ of mandamus filing could come soon.
No, I'm referring to the Southern District in Florida. I wonder how they feel about her off-the-wall interpretations of the law, and how it reflects on their district court.
As I understand it (like Greg, my law degree is from Podcast University), the options open to Jack Smith are rarely used, partly because he could end up with a worse hand than he's already drawn if he formally objects to her un-law-ful performance.
If she is thrown off the case, that will cause another delay, pushing this trial beyond November.
Agreed. Though I'm beginning to think that a late but legit trial (ie, one run by an experienced judge) is more likely to serve justice than one that is late AND distorts the case beyond recognition.
There are those who think Biden is a wannabe dictator and all the charges are trumped up (yeah, I said it) to ensure Biden remains president. So convictions won’t matter.
Question for Message Boxers:
Can anyone recommend a source for up-to-date bullet-point type facts, particularly quantitative, about Trump's ongoing legal processes? I'm particularly interested in how many individual jurors (juries, grand juries) have been involved in determining his charges and liabilities.
I've had a couple voters (door knocking, phone banking) who didn't understand the enormity of what he's facing, nor the role of everyday citizens in concluding that he should be charged with felonies, and the scope of his liability in the civil cases. They were very surprised and seemed persuaded when I threw out the typical "91 felonies" but I'd love to have a few more factoids in my back pocket.
People like Luntz and Erickson are appeasers. The rule of law should be upheld regardless of the consequences. For one thing, if you do nothing to enforce it against Trump, people will get the message that he hasn't done anything wrong, or nothing that bad. Plus it's positive reinforcement for criminal behavior.
“Trump’s continued political resilience has caused people to lose control of their faculties. The stakes of this election are so damned high that our anxiety has infected the political chattering class with brain worms.”
So glad to hear you say that, Dan. Reading these editorials of seemingly well-experienced editors is frustrating and disheartening. They’ve normalized a criminal’s behavior to the extent of journalistic enabling.
Relieved to see the clear polling as you explain it.
Totally agree, there are 2 justice systems in this country, one for the rich, and one for the rest of us. We can't count on the courts, only the ballot box.