My First Good Reads Review-Football for a Buck By Jeff Pearlman

Football for a Buck: The Crazy Rise and Crazier Demise of the USFL by Jeff Pearlman
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This book is a wonderful mix of bathos and nostalgia. I did not watch a lot of USFL games, but the names and logos and uniforms excited my young mind. It was fun to witness the birth of a new league. I was a parochial New Yorker who couldn't bring himself to root for a team from New Jersey, so I looked over the team names and decided that I was a Chicago Blitz fan. One year later, my favorte team got traded, yes traded for a completely diffferent team, the Arizona Wranglers. If that last sentence strikes you as ood or suprising, you will love this book.

I've been reading Jeff Pearlman since he was the sports editor of my college newspaper, the Delaware Review. He excels at both ends of the reporting process. He gathers facts doggedly and verifies details even whent the story is "too good to fact check." He also writes compelling narratives with prose that is neither too cute nor too dry. It's a combination of artistic talent and professional restraint that I envy.

There are some myths busted in this book, but there are plenty that survive the rigors of Mr. Pearlman's reportage. There were some damn good football players in that league and some truly absurd characters throughout the league's front offices, upper management and outer orbits. Jim Kelly, Steve Young and Reggie White were three of the best football players in the world, and their contributions are well documented her. But of course their excellence gets overshadowed by the one USFL character too weird to invent in a novel, the owner of the aforementioned New Jersey Generals and later the 45th president of the United States.

Donald Trump's role is covered thoroughly. The parallels to his political style and the absence of any moral compass are important parts of how the league came undone. But Pearlman resists the temptation to make this a book about Trump. The players of this league and their fleeting run as professional players provide the real human drama here. The league was beautiful and fun. It had potential to become an enduring part of the American sports world. But mistakes were made. This is a great read of how those mistakes were made and what the league still means for the men who made them.


View all my reviews

The 2020 Democratic Nomination

The next presidential election is 96 weeks and two days. Democrats are currently favored to beat the incumbent president, who is very unpopular outside of his Republican base. Betting markets give the Democrats about a sixty percent chance of winning. There's just one tricky part left-they have to pick a candidate.

The Democratic field is going to be enormous. As many as 20 candidates will likely announce that their intention to run for the nomination. That process will probably start in a few weeks. I wanted to write a post about my feelings about the relative strengths and vulnerabilities of every plausible candidate.  I will make some predictions. all with the understanding that 1,000 unexpected things will happen between now and the Iowa caucus.

Before dissecting the individual candidates, I will state my own biases.

THE SPIDERSTUMBLED BLOG POWER RANKINGS.

This first section is just about me. These are my ranked preferences among the above-listed candidates. I will update this every so often as candidates either anounce their run or delcine to run. I have  broken them into informal tiers, although the lines are a little fluid between them.

Six That I Would be Enthused About:
1. Amy Klobuchar.
2. Beto O'Rourke
3. Kamala Harris
4. Elizabeth Warren
5. Chris Murphy
6. Kristin Gillibrand

Ten That I Would Be Happy With:
7. Steve Bullock
8. Joe Biden
9. Mitch Landrieu
10. Sherrod Brown
11. Michael Blomberg
12. Tim Ryan
13. John Hickenlooper
14. Jay Inslee
15. Eric Garcetti
16. Eric Holder

Four That Mean Something Went Wrong But Okay, Sure:
17.  Terry McAuliffe
18.  Andrew Cuomo
19.  Pete Buttigieg
20.  Corey Booker

Four That Well, I Won't Vote For Trump, So Fingers Crossed.
21.  Howard Schultz
22.  Bernie Sanders
23.  Tom Steyer
24. The Field of Dumb Celebrities

THE 2020 HORSE RACE

Prolouge: The Very Corrupt Elephant in the Room.

Donald Trump and almost every organization that he has ever been the head of are currently subject to a variety of criminal and civil investigations. I expect that at some point in 2019, Robert Mueller will conclude his investigation into Russian interference with the election. It's possible that Donald Trump will be impeached, but I would not bet on that outcome. It's also possible that Mueller's findings will be do damning that the Republican party decides they have to jettison him. They might succesfully talk him into not running for a second term if things are very bad but the man is nothing if not stubborn. I expect Donald Trump to be the 2020 Republican nominee because he is etremely shameless and very popular among Republican voters.

Prologue 2: The Very Conflicted Donkey in the Room.

I do not think Hillary will run again but you can't completely ignor her as a possible nominee, especially if none of the candidates below racks up a clear win in the primaries. It's easy to say that no one wants Hillary vs. Trump II, but Hillary and her family would love the opportunity. She just can't get it by running from the start. She needs a chaotic early primary season. I will reserve a 1% chance of her being the nominee.

The Top Tier Candidates.
Putting candidates into tiers is always a bit arbitrary but with a field of two dozen names, it helps to organize them in some way. My definition of a Top Tier candidate is someone with a plausible resume, significant national name recognition, and the ability to raise enough money to compete for the nomination.  I think five people fit this standard. I will list them in the order of likelihood to be the nominee.

1. Bernie Sanders.
Chance of Being the Nominee: 18% Chances of Beating Trump if Nominated: 60%.

He's never going to win over the instituational party while continuing to refuse to become a member of that party. But he is the only candidate in the field who ran last time and the only candidate in the field who ever came reasonably close to becoming the nominee. He has lot of infrastructure and good-will, especially on the left-wing of the party. His biggest weaknesses are age (79 on election day 2020), his unwillingness to join the very organization that he seeks to lead and his poor showing with black voters in 2020.  The grime that accumulates on anyone from being in the national game for a long time will hurt him this time around. A lot of party activists do not like him. Also worth noting that he doesn't know a god damn thing about foreign policy despite having already made a serious run at this office. That should be disqualifying, but his advantages are too significant to ignore. If he finds away to get some votes from black voters, he could win this nomination.

2. Joe Biden
Chance of Being the Nominee: 14% Chances of Beating Trump if Nominated: 70%.

Joe Biden was born to be Vice-President of the United States. He knew how to work Capitol Hill and he knew how to keep the base energized. His experience was invaluable to Barack Obama and the party loves him for it. But he's almost as old as Bernie. (Seventy-seven on election day, 78 on Inauguration Day, if elected.) He also has a long record of votes that will not endear him to the activist base. He used to be called the Senator from MBNA, and was the prinicpal force behind some truly terrible changes to the bankruptcy code in 2005. That may seem like a small thing, but it is a fact that Elizabeth Warren will make sure everyone knows.

3. Kamala Harris
Chance of Being the Nominee: 13% Chances of Beating Trump if Nominated: 65%.

She is the most viable black candidate. She's only been in the senate for two years, but prior to that she held a job bigger than most governships-Attorney General of California. The primary knock against her is that she was a prosecutor for a long time and that means she's got a less than stellar record on civil liberties and drug policy. But she ran a very strong campaign in 2016, beating another Democrat in all but four of California's 58 counties. As a senator,  she has done pretty well in the spotlight of national TV appearances and the Kavanaugh hearings. Her legislative record is very light, but that might not be a negative for her.  She has great appeal to a lot of Democrats, who would love nothing more than for Trump to be beaten by a woman of color. She has to come up with a message that resonates, but there's little reason to think she won't do that. And she has great access to fundraising from Californians.

4. Elizabeth Warren
Chance of Being the Nominee: 10% Chances of Beating Trump if Nominated: 55%.

This is a tough one for me. I like and admire Senator Warren very much. I think she would be a good president and she's right exactly where I want a president to be on the idealogical spectrum. She understands how our economy works better than any presidential candidate in recent memory. Most importantly, she can translate that knowledge into explanations of how the macro economy affects average pocketbooks.

But her political instincts are not great. Her first election in 2012 was closer than it should have been in a deep blue state with Barack Obama at the top of the ticket. (Her recent re-election was a much stronger result, winning by 24.)  And there's the dumbest issue of all, her Native American ancestry and the accusation that she has benefitted professionally by over stating them. I think the evidence for this is rather light. All of her employers deny that her negligible native ancestry played any part in their decision to hire her. But it's the perfect issue for Trump to run on. It's stupid and he does not care about the facts at hand. Worse yet, Senator Warren has taken the bait from him at every step of the way. A couple months ago she promoted the fact that DNA testing proved she does in fact have at least one Native American ancestory. That person died before she was ever born and tribal leaders were quick to dispel the idea that it has any bearing on her status. Donald Trump of course took the news to double down on his ridiculous racist slurs against her.

But the worst part of this stupid story is that it's precisely the kind of thing that people hate politicians to do. It feels phoney, even if here actions were sincere and ultimately backed up by actual science. Her biggest weakness is that no one will want the 2020 election to be about something this stupd. I can almost hear the chance of "But her 23andMe" now.  That's dumb and it shouldn't rule her out as a candidate, but we have to face the fact that it will rub those WI/MI/PA voters the wrong way.

5. Corey Booker
Chance of Being the Nominee: 6% Chances of Beating Trump if Nominated: 45%.

I will be brief. He is too corporate for the base and too phoney for the general.  There are many people who love him deeply, but he is Wall Street's favorite senator for a good reason. It will be very easy for Trump to portray him as an effete liberal who oh by the way doesn't have a wife. That does not play well.  I keep him in the top tier because he will raise gobs of money, command a lot of TV cameras and he has a natural advantage with black primary voters.  He should survive the early rounds but I don't think he will win over the left wing of the party.

The Second Tier: The Anti-Trumps.

Americans tend to react to a president by choosing someone who is fundamentally different than his predecessor. In the Simpsons television universe, President Donald Trump is followed by President Lisa Simpson. I think Lisa is an apt analogy for what the Democrats need. We have a doozy of an asshole in the White House now. His rank stupidity oozes from every pore of his fatuous head, rivaled only by his intense lack of security. He is bereft of manners and decency. He is constantly desparate for affirmaton of his greatness. These traits had some quirky appeal when he was an upstart candidate.  As President, they grate, even on people who should be his fans.  The Democrats should remember that when choosing a nominee.

6. Beto O'Rourke.
Chance of Being the Nominee: 10% Chances of Beating Trump if Nominated: 70%.

The Greek-American actor Andreas Voutsinas once told Mel Brooks, "Or you got it or you ain't." He was talking about talent. It's important. Beto has it. People like him because he's handsome and he's extremely comfortable in his own skin-the way you can only be comfotable if you know that you're people like you. That confidence creates the greatest gift of all for a politician, it eliminates the need to constatnly sound like you're full of shit.

Beto can take unpopular stances and make them sound principled in a way that even people who disagree with him respect him for it. That is why he made a race of it against Ted Cruz in Texas. He lost by two and a half points to an incumbent senator with a national fundraising machine while the Democratic candidate for governor got crushed by 13.

He will raise a lot of money. He will inspire people to knock on doors for him. He will suprise everyone with his grasp of policy at the early debates.  He is the real deal.

Of course he has weaknesses. His resume is thin and he's never held a statewide office. He also has a voting record that is more centrist than the mood of the party. But if he racks up some early wins, it's going to become obvious that he can beat Donald Trump like a drum. That can get him the nomination.

7. Amy Klobuchar
Chance of Being the Nominee: 9% Chances of Beating Trump if Nominated: 75%.

In a just world, Donald Trump gets his ask kicked on November 3, 2020 by a woman. Amy Klobuchar is better situated to deliver that ass kicking than anyone else on this list. She is respected and liked by her colleagues she has a long record of public service with no glaring problems for either the nomination or the general election. She also does well among rural voters in a midwestern state.

Just as Beto's youth and vigor are a natual conter-balance to Trump's decript anger, Senator Klobuchar is another kind of opposite to the incumbent. She is urbane, polite and level-headed. She speaks warmly and graciously. She is a mother and an accomplished lawyer. I imagine that her idea of a fun weekend while President would be to go to Camp David with her husband to play scrabble and maybe drink some wine while reading a book. Isn't it nice to think of a president doing that on her days off?

She too will have some challenges. She was a prosecutor and that might hurt her in the primaries. (Although it would surely help her in the general, when Trump will be running as the candidate of Law & Order, now matter how many of his close advisors from 2016 are in prison.)  She also doesn't have an obvious connection to black or Latin voters.  But she is smart and she is popular and a serious politician. I think her best campaign slogan would be "Amy Klobuchar, When I'm President You Will Go Entire Weeks Without Even Thinking About Me."

8. Sherrod Brown
Chance of Being the Nominee: 8% Chances of Beating Trump if Nominated: 70%.

Sherrod Brown's appeal is simple-he is the labor candidate. He can win over the Obama/Trump voters by saying with a straight face that he is on the side of American workers, now and always.  He is too protectionist for my liking, but that will be an asset when courting the endorsements of labor unions and it will deny Donald Trump one of hig primary talking points.

On the other hand, Protectionism is stupid and is already starting to hurt American farmers and workers. By 2020, this could be a real liability.

The real issue for and against Brown is his home state of Ohio. He is the only Democrat that would be favored to carry that state, which Trump won by nine points in 2016. Brown was just re-elected there by seven points, even as a Democrat was losing the open governor's mansion race by four. That's a sign of political strength. It also spells our an unfortuante dowside. If Brown is elected president, that new Republican governor of Ohio will get to pick his replacement. So a vote for Brown is also a vote for one fewer Dem in the senate.

The Third Tiers-Plausible But Flawed.

9. Michael Bloomberg
Chance of Being the Nominee: 3% Chances of Beating Trump if Nominated: 55%.

Michael Bloomberg is another version of the Anti-Trump model. He is an actual billionaire with 100% verifiable success in businesss. He is the real deal. He is also a genunie philanthropist and someone who put in the time holding a difficult and important elected position before running for president.  He was, on balance, a good mayor. He believes in science and his focus on climate change is laudable.

His record makes it tough for him to get through the primary. He was, after all, elected mayor as a Republican. He stood by Bush-Cheney through the 2004 re-election. And he is the face of stop and frisk. I think that kills his chances, or should. The only reason I think he has any chance of winning is that he has unlimited money and will spend it, either to win or to advance the ideas and causes that matter most to him.

His general election prospects are very difficult to handicap. He is old, Jewish and presently unmarried. He's also very much associated with the cause of gun control. That will hurt him in some states that the Democrats need to win.

10. Kristin Gillibrand
Chance of Being the Nominee: 3% Chances of Beating Trump if Nominated: 55%.

She is smart and dilligent and wants the job. She is qualified and likeable. She's also done some good work on issues like sexual harassment that will give her a base to build from. But I don't see her as a breakout star.

11. Eric Holder
Chance of Being the Nominee: 1% Chances of Beating Trump if Nominated: 60%.

He's never run for political office. That will hurt him more than you think. I also don't think he's particularly inspiring.

12. Andrew Cuomo
Chance of Being the Nominee: 1% Chances of Beating Trump if Nominated: 55%.

The base hats him but everytime we write him off, he crushes the challenger before him. Maybe he has a strategy to get through this field, but I don't see it happening.

13. Terry McCauliffe
Chance of Being the Nominee: 1% Chances of Beating Trump if Nominated: 60%.

He knows how to raise money, so I don't want to write him off. He also did a pretty good job during his four years as governor of Virginia. But he is dripping in Clintonism and I don't think that will play well during either phase of the 2020 election.  He just feels corrupt in ways that are likely to give Trump and Fox News plenty of fodder.

14. Chris Murphy
Chance of Being the Nominee: 1% Chances of Beating Trump if Nominated: 60%.

Perfectly plausible. Has a good knack for social media and might run to grow his stature but I don't think anyone is clamoring for him.

The 4th Tier-Long Shots.
These are all candidates who will at least explore the idea of running. Some of them might believe they can be the nominee but that will take a significant miracle. Mosts of them are probably doing a Mike Huckabee-running to get some exposure that they can parlay into better media gigs or maybe a cabinet position.

All of these candidates have less than a 1% chance of being the nominee, so I'll only list their chance of beating Trump in the general.

15. Eric Garcetti.
He would be a reasonably strong candidate (probably about 60 percent to win) but I don't see him wearing down all the people above him.

16. Mitch Landrieu
Another reasonable general election candidate. He has an interesting narrative and obvious talent but he probably won't clear the field.  I'll say 65 percent chance of winning, if nominated.

16. Steve Bullock
He would be a strong candidate in the general but it would take a pretty significant collapse of the major candidates for him to even get a foot in the door of the early states. 

17. John Hickenloper.
John Hickenloper was the governor of Colorado. He has a certain cache with the marijuana reform movement. But I don't think we have to worry about The Hickenloper Era becoming a thing. He's probably another 65 percent chance to win.

18. Jay Inslee
Inslee is a former governor of Washington and a boring, competent generic Dem. I give him the standard 60 percent chance of beating Trump.

19. Tim Ryan
Ryan is a representative from Northeast Ohio (Youngstown/Akron). Being from Ohio elevates him to 65 percent chance of winning, although unlike Brown he doesn't hold office state wide so it's hard to say for sure that he would run well in the southern part of the state, where Trump and Trumpism are quite popular.

20. Rep. John Delaney
I guess he wants to be on MSNBC more. Seems a bit lacking in gravitas so I'll downgrade him to 55 percent in the general.

Fifth Tier Novelty Candidates. None of these people can win or even be nominated. But they have money to burn and/or ambition to spare.

21. Howard Schultz  He's willing to spend his Starbucks money on an ego boost. He will be exposed as a lightweight very early on.

22. Tom Steyer He'll probably make some noise by being a hard-liner on impeachment and making dumb emotional appeals. Fuck this guy.

23. Pete Buttigieg Mayor of the 4th largest city in Indiana. Like everyone who spends time in South Bend, he has an inflated sense of his own self-worth.

24. Some Dumb Celebrity.  There has to be a whole other list of 25 B and C list celebrities who are being told that they could run for president on a platfrom of being more successful entertainers than the incumbent. I hope none of them take the bait, but I have a sinking suspsicion that at least one of them will. After all, how hard can it be?

Midterms in Review

 I went to bed on Election Day thinking that Donald Trump had a pretty good night. I knew that the Democrats had won back the House of Representatives, but that was the bare minimum for what they needed to accomplish. That majority looked somewhat modest. More importantly, they were on track to lose four senate seats that they were defending without flipping any Republican seats. When I went to bed, there was even a chance that Scott Walker migth hang on for a third term as governor of Wisconsin.

 When morning came, I learned that Walker was out and that the Democrats had booted Dean Heller out of his senate seat from Nevada. And there was suddenly more than a little doubt about the outcomes in both Arizona and Florida. In the five days since then, it seems almost certain that the Arizona senate seat will be won by the Democrats. And Florida is not done counting yet, although I suspect that Bill Nelson will come up short. For purposes of this post, we'll assume that Democrats lost a net of two seats.

The other piece of happy news since Tuesday has been the steady drip of house races going blue. There are still 13 seats that have not been called by news outlets. Nate Silver estimates that ten of those 13 seats will wind up in the Democratic column. That will mean a net gain of 38 House seats.

First, A Word About Me.

 My official prediction was that the Democrats would gain 32 seats in the house. That was slightly pessimistic. The real number will be closer to 40. That's an impressive number by an reasonable measure. The Democratic majority will be about the same size that the Republican majority has been the last 2 years. It will be awhile before we have the final results but it appears that the Democrats have won most of the very close races, which means they put their resources in the right places in the right quanities. That is cause for optimism.

 My official senate prediction was a loss of one seat, but I broke that down into four categories of races.  The below passage is from the preidcitions post, which are in the maroon background. I've also added post-elections commentary in ALL CAPS BOLD. (So you know I'm serious.)

A.  One Likely Loss. The Dems will lose North Dakota. CORRECT

B.  Two True Toss-ups. The Dems will split Missouri and Florida. CLOSE BUT NO CIGAR, UNLESS NELSON PICKS UP 12,000 VOTES IN THE RECOUNT.

C. Three Lean Democrats.  The Dems will take 2 out of 3 among Indiana, Arizona and Nevada. CORRECT

D. Long Shots  The Dems could lose Montana, but I don't think they will. They could put an upset in Tennessee but I think they will come about 3 points shy there. Texas is hard for me to judge because I so badly want Ted Cruz to lose. CORRECT, ALTHOUGH TENNESSE WAS NOT AS CLOSE AS I HOPED. BREDESEN LOST BY 11, NOT THREE.

I came pretty close to getting this exactly right. Whatever Nelson's margin of defeat winds up being will also be the difference between me and a perfect night in the upper house. (Yes, I'm aware my model built in some fudge factor by grouping races. The truth is that I overestimated the Dems in Indiana, Tennesse and Missouri more than I did in Florida, but hey results are what matters.)

I also predicted that the Democrats would gain eight governor's mansions but I didn't specify which ones. It looks like the final number will be seven. I did think Gillum and Abrahms each had a chance to win, so I guess we can put the difference there. (Full disclosure: I spent less than 90 seconds working on my Governor predictions.)

I'll gve my self an A- on the predictions. And shake my fist at the design of the Broward County ballot for keeping me from having a truly impressive night.

Report Card Time.

In my election preview I created a somewhat vague grading scheme for how to evaluate the Democrats performance on the night. (I reserved F Scenarios for failing to win either house. We can skip that, thankfully.)

D Scenarios.  If the Democrats win one house but underperform in the other, then they have done the bare minimum to stay relevant to government. The most likely D scenario is a gain of 25 seats, giving them a razor-thin margin in the House, but they lose several of their senate seats and don't pick up any GOP seats.  So about 221 in the house and 46 or 47 in the Senate. Awful, but not technically a complete failure.  WE WELL EXCEEDED THAT IN THE HOUSE, BUT WILL PROBALY END UP WITH THAT TALLY IN THE SENATE.

C Scenarios.  If the Dems win at least 30 seats and don't lose more than one senate seat (net), they will get a gentleman's C. (C+ if they do well in the governor's race.)  TECHNICALLY WE'RE IN C+ COUNTRY AS OF NOW, BUT I THINK I MAY HAVE PUT TOO MUCH VALUE ON THE SENATE FOR MY GRADING SYSTEM, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE TOUGH TERRAIN FOR DEMOCRATS. THIS NIGHT FEELS MUCH BETTER THAN A C+, EVEN WITH THE DISSAPOINTMENTS IN FLORIDA.

B Scenarios.  A lot of the advanced analytics types have the most likely outcome for the Dems being about +37 in the House and -1 in the senate.  I think that's a solid B. THIS IS ABOUT RIGHT, BUT THE GOVERNOR'S RACES WERE ALSO STRONG. 

A Scenarios.  So what makes a wave? The biggest recent was the 2010 Tea Party election when the Dems lost 63 seats. But they started that year with 256. The GOP only has 241 at the moment. So +48 would match that end result. I think anything over 40 would be a wave and it probably means picking up at least one senate seat.  So let's call this 235 in the House and a 50/50 Senate.  WE DIDN'T GET THERE BUT THE HOUSE CAME AWFULLY CLOSE.

A+ Scenario:  This is easy-the House by more than a handful of seats and the Senate. But to really earn the +, we'd have to see some really awful Republicans lose. It's not an A+night if Ted Cruz is re-elected. Beating Steve King or Dan Rohrbacher would be nice cherries on top too. Stace Abrams winning in Georgia would also be a profound outcome for the party  WELL, DANA ROHBACHER IS A NICE PLET TO PUT ON THE MANTLE.

I'm torn between giving them a B or a B+. For now I'll call it a B but I will run back here to upgrade if Nelson and/or Gillum winds up winning. And there is going to be a runoff race in Mississippi. Hopefully we'll make that competitive at least. It sure feels like our base is energized by the results.


What Does it Mean?

The Democrats will be able to pass all kinds of stuff in the house. But if they want any of that stuff to become law, they will need to reach agreement with the senate. And it's not just a matter of persuading four Republicans to join them. Mitch McConnell will control the senate and he alone will decide what gets put to a vote. I think that means a lot of gridlock.

But there are a handful of Republican senators who are vulnerable to losing in 2020.  Specifically Susan Collins (ME), Joni Ernst (IA) and Cory Gardner (CO) will all be in very close races. There will also be an election for the remainder of John McCain's term in Arizona. John Kyl has said he will not run in that race and he will probably resign in January, allowing Arizona to nominate a person who will run. Whoever is chosen, will have to worry about facing a close election in 2020.

Those Republicans will want to run on some accomplishments. They can put pressure on McConnel to let some things get done, especially if it means avoiding a government shut down. The senate is also close enough that there will be at least some very modest limits on who Trump can appoint to the senate. (But I'm not optimistic on this point. It's pretty easy to imagine Mitch getting 50 of his 53 member coalition to vote for just about anyone.)


What We Really Care About: 2020.
The map at the top of this post was put up by Nate Silver on Twitter the day after the elections. He tabulated the "popular" vote of every house race, by state. (This required an adjustment for Florida where votes in uncontested races do not get counted.) The result was a near replic of Obama's 2012 victory. (Republicans winning Ohio and the 2nd district of Maine, for a 324-214 Democratic win.)

That's certainly encouraging. And I think that's a possible outcome for 2020, although something would have to change for Iowa to flip back to blue, having gone for Trump by eight points last time. Trump's tariffs might just be disastrous enough to swin the race, but if that's the case, Democrats have probably sewn up the race in other places.

I think the biggest take-aways from Tuesday are this:
1. Trump is not imploding but he's also no invincible. The results in senate races correlated with Trump's current popularity. The Republican candidates in Indian, Tennesse and Missouri benefitted from his popularity. Those in Nevada and Arizona suffered. And Florida, as always, was a wash.

2. The next race will be close. Trump will start 2020 with the command of his party and a solid 200 electoral votes in his pocket. The race is going to be decided in about eight states.  A few analysts have identified two paths for the Democrats to win the White House back-a northern strategy of winning back Wisonsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan or a southern strategy of winning Florida and either North Carolia or Arizona.

I think for now we have to keep as many states in play as poosible. A geographic hybrid of PA and NC would require just one more state to flip. In 2016, we got complacent because of the "Blue Wall." I don't want us to think too narrowly in 2020 because we think there is "Red Wall" behind Trump. So let's keep an eye on any pink state in that map. (Yes, even Montana. Crazier things have happened, and John Tester might be on the ticket.)

3.  If the economy stays strong, Trump will probably be re-elected. One of the most remarkable things about the Democratic gains on Tuesday is that they happened despite low-unemployment and at least some glimmer of hope that wages are beginning to finally rise. If that growth in employment lasts another two years, then Trump will be in a strong position. He will have the support of the investor class and have much more credibility than he did two years ago.

I went to bed on election night before the race was officially called for Trump. I didn't want to experience that moment live. I went to bed with Hillary having a chance for an inside straight, if some western state flipped for her. That did not happen and I leanred the awful news at about seven AM on Wednesday. This year I went to bed fearing that Trump's coalition outperformed the polls. It didn't. But it had a stronger than expected showing in Florida and Georgia.

I expect 2020 to be another nail biter. Unless there is a war or massive scandal coming out of the Mueller probe, then both bases will be fired up for their side. Lots of people will go to bed before anything has been called. I will not. I'm going to see that one through. And I encourage you to begin to think about how you want that night to turn out and what you are going to do to bring about that result. My plan is to vote first thing in the morning, then drive to Wisconsin and take little old ladies to the polls for as long as I can, whereever the Democratic candidate needs me most. If I have to live with eight years of this clown show, I'm going to do so with a clear conscience as to my own efforts.

I will close with one last snipped from my predictions post. Because it needs to be drilled into everyone's head for the next 721 days:  I will never, ever trust Florida in an election

A Fairly Confident Prediction of a Pretty Modest Success

I am moderately optimistic about the Democrats' prospects in tomorrow's midterm elections. I think it is likely that they will win back the House of Representatives. I do not expctu change in the senate but they are more likely to loose one or two seats (net) than to win the 2 that they would need to control that chamber. They will also win a lot of important governor's races, take control of various state legislatures and pass some important statewide referenda. But I do not anticipate a true wave elections.  I think the story on election even is that both bases are energives and will turn out in large numbers.  I think that genuine swing voters will favor the Democrats but not in overwhelming numers like they did in 2006. 

POSSIBLE REPORT CARDS.

I will make specific predictions in races below. But I think it's helpful to think of what the narrative will be on Wednesday morning. How will the Democrats gains be judged?  There are a lot of moving parts here, with 435 house races, 34 senate races and thousands of state and local elections. But the story will be driven by who controls congress and by what margin.  A handful of governor's races will also get national coverage, and they might be thought of as tie breakers for how to grade the night. Here are a few broad scenarios by which the night can be assessed after the votes are counted. 

F Scencarios.  The Democrats most important goal is to win control of at least one house of congress. That means the party will have subpoena power and the ability to introduce legislation and provide meaningful insight of the Trump administration. If the Democrats don't win either the House or Senate tomorrow, they deserve an F grade. (And the country will be F'd in our own way for the next 24 months.)

D Scenarios.  If the Democrats win one house but underperform in the other, then they have done the bare minimum to stay relevant to government. The most likely D scenario is a gain of 25 seats, giving them a razor-thin margin in the House, but they lose several of their senate seats and don't pick up any GOP seats.  So about 221 in the house and 46 or 47 in the Senate. Awful, but not technically a complete failure.

C Scenarios.  If the Dems win at least 30 seats and don't lose more than one senate seat (net), they will get a gentleman's C. (C+ if they do well in the governor's race.)

B Scenarios.  A lot of the advanced analytics types have the most likely outcome for the Dems being about +37 in the House and -1 in the senate.  I think that's a solid B. (B+ if they hold even in the senate.)

A Scenarios.  So what makes a wave? The biggest recent was the 2010 Tea Party election when the Dems lost 63 seats. But they started that year with 256. The GOP only has 241 at the moment. So +48 would match that end result. I think anything over 40 would be a wave and it probably means picking up at least one senate seat.  So let's call this 235 in the House and a 50/50 Senate.

A+ Scenario:  This is easy-the House by more than a handful of seats and the Senate. But to really earn the +, we'd have to see some really awful Republicans lose. It's not an A+night if Ted Cruz is re-elected. Beating Steve King or Dan Rohrbacher would be nice cherries on top too. Stace Abrams winning in Georgia would also be a profound outcome for the party

SENATE FORECAST

The good people at 538.com have crunched the numbers and the most likely outcome is the Dems losing one seat, net. I tend to agree with that but my individual forecasts are a little more gut and gumption than arithmatic. There are 11 races that I think will determine the senate, and this is my non-scientific expectation of how they will go.

A.  One Likely Loss. The Dems will lose North Dakota. It's not a done deal, but I think they can only win in a wave.

B.  Two True Toss-ups. The Dems will split Missouri and Florida.  Nate Silver's numbers have them both leaning Dem but I think that's a tough two-fer. Nelson in Florida has better numbers, so if I had to guess that's the one we keep. But I will never, ever trust Florida in an election. So let's call it a split.

C. Three Lean Democrats.  The Dems will take 2 out of 3 among Indiana, Arizona and Nevada.  If it's a wave, they will sweep all three but I'm not that confident.  I think the Dems best chance here is Indiana but that's far from guaranteed. And they could win either race out west but my gut is saying split.

D. Long Shots. The first three outcomes would put the Dems down one seat, for a 52-48 senate. That's my best and official bet. But there are at least three states that could provide upsets: The Dems could lose Montana, but I don't think they will. They could put an upset in Tennessee but I think they will come about 3 points shy there. Texas is hard for me to judge because I so badly want Ted Cruz to lose. I think the party ID fundamentals help him but I think that will be a 2 point race. 

The Dems can pull an inside straight and win the senate.  I think the most likely path to that is keeping MO, FL and IN, picking up both NV & AZ and then winning a substantial upset in TN or TX. The odds of drawing anside straight are about 12 to one. That sounds about right.  Official Prediction: Dems lose one seat (net).

Note-Mississippi is almost certainly going to require a run-off election. But I think the Dems will have a tough time winning that, especially if the seat is decisive for control of the senate or even to force Pence to break a 50/50 tie. For tonight's purposes, I'm counting MS as an L. But we'll take that one up again on Wednesday.

HOUSE FORECAST

I'm a shade pessimistic relative to FiveThirtyEight and the other serious forecasters. I think Trump's people will show up because they think the economy is proof that they were right about him. They also like the fact that he's a dick and many of them are more than a little afraid of immigrants. I don't see the wave happening. But there should be enough suburban moderate districts that went Republican last time because the voters wanted a Republican House to be a check on President Hillary Clinton.  Official prediction: Dems gain 33 seats. 

GOVERNORS FORECAST

The Democrats will take back a lot of governor's mansions that they nevers hould have lost. Illinois is the most obvious. Michigan will also follow suit. So should Wisconsin, which will be an especially sweet result. I think Florida looks good.  I also think the Democrats will win the Kansas race but Kansas has broken my heart before. Georgia and Ohio are going to be very close. Just like the MO and FL senate races, I expect a split but I'm not sure which way. If the Dems win both, then this is a wave election.  

Official Prediction: Dems gain 8 states. (But Republicans lose 7 becaue they will win AK, which currently has an independent governor.)

THE AIRING OF THE GRIEVEANCES, GREAT AND SMALL. 

These are the 10 results that I want the most and the percentage of likelihood I assign for each.

1. A Democratic House (75%)

2. Ted Cruz losing to Beo O'Rourke  (22%)

3. Stacey Abrams winning the GA governor's race. (48%)

4. Kris Kloubach losing the Kansas governor's race. (52%)

5. Steve King losing Iowa 4th  (30%)

6. Devin Nunes losing his seat in California 22nd. (10%)

7. Restoration of felony voting rights in Florida (61%)

8. Andrew Gillum winning FL governor's race. (55%)

9. Scott Walker losing WI governor's race. (70%)

10. Claire McCaskill winning MO senate race.(49%)

There you have it, folks. Nothing especially bold or daring.  I think the Dems will get the most important job done, but I don't think they will run up the score. The nation is still divided, but we have more to be pissed off about this time. Hopefully that nets a few senate upsets and we're having a party 24 hours from now. 

The Re-Election of Donald Trump

In recent weeks, Donald Trump's prospects for re-election have improved noticeably in betting markets.  For most of the early part of this year, his odds hovered around 30%.  Three weeks ago they jumped up to 35%. They currently stand at 39% on Predictit.org.  This surge does not correspond with an upsurge in Trump's approval ratings. The Real Clear Politics average of his approval ratings have stated between 42% and 44% over the last several weeks.  This upswing in the betting markets reflects two more fundamental realities than one politician's polling numbers.  Donald Trump's prospects are improving for two reasons:

1. As time goes by, Trump is being normalized. The American people are accepting behavior from Donald Trump no other president would ever dream of doing, because the American people are becoming numb to his vulgarity and weirdness. 

2. Donald Trump has utter and complete control of the Republican party.  Every single Republican politician is afraid of him, because he is immensely popular with the bloc of people who vote in Republican primaries.

If I had to bet today, I would bet against Donald Trump being re-elected in 2020. But his chances are better than a lot of thinking people want to admit. He is now embarked on a journey to Singapore for a meeting with the North Korean dictator. I think the results of that summit will have a big impact on the 2020 race and I want to sketch some thoughts about 2020 before the meeting happens.

I.  Donald Trump's 2020 Message.

Donald Trump's 2020 campaign will be predicated on simple assertion: that he has made America great again, just as he promised in 2016.  There are three policy claims that he must make, and he will make them with a straight face no matter what the facts on the ground say.  

1. I made the economy better.  He will point to whatever statistics help this cause. Right now he can accurately say that the job market has got stronger during his presidency. He will credit his tax cuts and deregulation if that's still true in 2020.  If not's still true in 2020 he will find some reason why voters should only think about how strong the job market was during the first half of his presidency. 

2. I made the country safer.  Donald Trump will point to the destruction of ISIS as his greatest accomplishment. ISIS has lost almost all of its territory, a trend that began while Obama was still president, but which did accelerate in 2017.  And it does not seem likely that ISIS will make much of a comeback as a de facto sovereign entity. It will be quite easy for the Republican party to craft compelling 30 second commercials featuring people who were tortured by ISIS and who now have a measure of freedom or been able to return to their home. It's a good starting point for claiming success on the world's stage.

The North Korea gambit is all about wanting a diplomatic victory to show that he is a great deal maker.  Trump's incentive is to get a deal that he can call "denuclearization." Kim Jong Un might have a corresponding incentive to get something done too. 

Kim was educated at a boarding school in Switzerland. He knows what the west has to offer and he has to know, on some level, that his father and grandfather's model is no way to run a state. But he also wants to retain political power and the lifestyle of a dictator.  He probably needs some western capital to make that happen.  If he's ever going to make a deal to get that capital, he might as well make it with the current president, because Trump will not make ANY demands related to human rights or political reform. Trump only cares about being able to claim that he got North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons.  So Kim could agree to a very loose, wishy-washy statement about ending their nuclear weapons program.  Such a deal will have no teeth and will not make any demands of verification before 2021, other than some symbolic photo ops of Kim's people dismantling some equipment. They will make some rhetorical concessions and empty gestures, like they did when they staged a demolition of their nuclear testing site. In exchange, they will get the prestige of having been treated as a peer by the president of the United States and they will get some sanctions relief. I think Kim will tempt Trump with the possibility of making money for his family and for his other rich asshole friends. 

Donald Trump would love to tell you that he took nuclear weapons out of a mad man's hands. He would also love to tell you that he made an incredible deal that will somehow make gas cheaper or decrease our trade deficit or create some jobs.  He's not big on details and he's way over his head on this trip.  But I think he will get a deal of some kind done, because his inner circle is committed to making that happen and they don't really care about the consequences of a bad deal. Whatever deal he makes, Donald Trump will brag about it-long, loud and wrong.

3. The Democrats are pussies. The Democrats need to nominate someone, and that nominee will have to emerge from a protracted primary battle where everyone fights to prove that they are th most anti-Trump option available to voters. 

Donald Trump's most outrageous policy changes have been in the sphere of immigration. He is breaking families of asylum seekers up. He is still intent on building that stupid wall and he is willing to shut the government down to do it.  To the extent that the wall is shorthand for his insane 2016 campaign, he has to go all out for it. It is an extension of his political persona, and therefore must be defended at all costs. For the same reason, the Democrats have to resist the wall at all costs. In the short term, the wall is hurting his poll numbers. But by 2020, he's going to be beating the xenophobia drum as often as possible, because either way, he can win on it.

If the wall gets built, he will say "Look, I did this amazing thing and now we are safe."  It it does not get built he will say "Look, I tried to save you but the Democrats blocked me and now we have gangs running around and cops getting shot" and making hay out of whatever unfortunate headlines he can point to.  

The Democratic party is vulnerable on this issue, again.  The Democratic base is rightly incensed by Trump's immigration policies. The 2020 Democratic primary race may just turn on who can get to the furthest left on issues of immigration enforcement.  But they could pay a price for that in the general election. Trump will demonize brown people in whatever way works to make voters question the ability of the Democratic nominee to lead the government-to fight for average Americans. He will definitely run 30 second commercials about some crime committed by an undocumented worker here in the states or maybe about some crime wave or other in European countries that are driven by immigrants from Muslim majority countries. 

There will be a 4th dimension to Trump's 2020 campaign.  Something personally insulting about the Democratic nominee. Lyin' Ted Cruz, Lil' Marco Rubio and, of course Crooked Hillary Clinton will know what I am talking about. Trump has the mind of a bully and he has reason to believe that people like watching him be cruel to other politicians.  No matter how the Democrats nominate, he will find a weakness and he will beat it like a drum.  Commie Bernie Sanders, Crazy Joe Biden, & Pocahantas all have easily identified monikers. But over the course of the Democratic primary, he will figure out what to call whoever the nominee is, and there will even be a chant to replace "Lock Her Up!" It will not be subtle.

II.  The Consequences Phase of the Trump Years.

On Friday, Maggie Haberman tweeted out a very interesting observation.  The White House staffers that only met Trump during the transition period all say that Trump has gotten much worse in recent months. But the people who have known Trump for a long time tend to say that his behavior is the same as ever.  The fact is that Trump was intimidated by the presidency for the first year or so. He knew he was in over his head and he reigned in some of his worst instincts. But as 2018 stretches on, he is reverting to his old self. He is becoming the world class asshole that he always has been.

The reason for this confidence is that he is surrounded by sycophants and spends eight hours a day watching a television network dedicated to talking about how successful he is. I suspect that many people reading this blog will have a hard time believing this sentence, but it's a very important one: Donald Trump genuinely believes that he is a great president. 

Like any other narcissist, Trump is able to create excuses for any failures. But his real passion is taking credit for success.  He think the continued drop in unemployment is only happening because of his brilliant tax cuts. He also believes, with equal fervor, that the federal debt has exploded because of past sins by Democrats. No amount of evidence can convince him otherwise. He thinks the stock market boom of 2017 was due to his presidency. The fact that the market is lower in June than it was in January is the fault of fake news and lying Democrats.  This dexterity of mind is great for one's confidence, but reality can't be shut out for ever.

It's not clear when Trump's ignorance will begin to manifest itself  in negative economic news. The tax cuts have not yet caused any increase in economic growth. Last quarter we grew at just 2.2%, but the forecast is slightly better for the rest of the year. And we haven't yet seen signs of a weakening job market, although wage growth has been less than expected.  So Trump might cruise through 2018 and 2019 without a recession. But he's also beginning to play with fire when it comes to trade.

As his confidence in the Oval Office has grown, Donald Trump has begun focusing on the issues that he always cared about. International trade and trade deficits have been a point of interest with him for decades. He seems to think that a trade deficit means that one country is stealing from the other. This is balderdash, but we live in the age of alternative facts.  The president thinks this is true and he remains dedicated to the proposition that the United States should only be a thief, never a victim of  such "theft".  

Trump is beginning to act brazenly here. He is threatening to impose all kinds of tariffs, on both rival nations and our traditional allies.  Most glaringly, he is promising to impose tariffs on Canada.  He is claiming that this must be done for national security, a notion that is utterly preposterous, but that happens to be the only reason he can impose these tariffs without congressional approval. So facts be damned, we're going to punish Canada.  Canada, of course, intends to respond in kind.  That's how trade wars work.  Yesterday Justin Trudeau said that Canada will not be pushed around.  Our president threw a hissy fit in response and refused to have the United States sign off on the joint comminique of the G7 nations. That's all a little inside baseball now. But if he follows through with these tariffs, there will be tremendous consequences for American consumers and workers.  

It is possible that the economy will continue to putter along with reasonable growth rates and job creation numbers. That will strengthen Trump's chances of winning an election. But it's also possible that his trade wars and continued attempt to undermine Obamacare will have the kinds of consequences that voters remember on election  day.  Trump's prospects have improved because he has good fortune on the economic front. I don't think that can hold for another 29 months of this level of stupidity, but the margin of the election will be determined by how severe those consequences are.

III. Mueller.

Robert Mueller has compiled a year's worth of information about the ties between Donald Trump and the government of Russia. Not a single stitch of information has leaked from his shop. That's an impressive accomplishment that makes it difficult to handicap the outcome of his investigation.

This is what I suspect will happen. Sometime in 2018 or early 2019, Bob Mueller will call a press conference. At that conference he will announce a new round of indictments. Those indictments will include people in Trump's inner circle. It might include his son and/or son-in-law. He will also lay out the case that Donald Trump obstructed justice by firing James Comey in order to impede the investigation of Russia's election interference.  He will explain that he does not intend to indict Donald Trump because he subscribes to the consensus view that sitting presidents can not be prosecuted for crimes.

This announcement will infuriate a lot more people than it pleases. Many Democrats will be frustrated by the decision not to indict Trump. And Republicans will be faced with yet another moral dilemma: accept the findings of a respected law enforcement professional or side with the raving tantrums of an incompetent, compromised and dishonest president. If the past 17 months have taught us anything, this will not be a hard choice for most of them. 

There has been a lot of talk about a looming constitutional crisis. We could get lucky and avoid something really awful, but I am not optimistic. The constitutional crisis began last week when the president publicly declared that he was above the law and not a single prominent Republican office holder bothered to repudiate him.  If we go forward with the battle lines that Trump has drawn, then the ending will be very ugly.

But Mueller is likely to persuade a lot of independent voters that the sitting president is corrupt. That will probably prevent his re-election. But even under those extraordinary circumstances, the outcome will not be certain.  Donald Trump has captured a major political party. It is now his toy. For the moment, the economy is lumbering on with modest growth and a stable job market. The world has not presented Trump with a military or humanitarian crisis of a big enough to be made truly horrible by his ignorance and ineptitude. 

Donald Trump's presidency may coast to a soft landing, which will set up a very close election. In 2016, there were ten states decided by less than 4 percentage points. Donald Trump won six and Hillary Clinton won four. But more importantly Trump won the biggest states in this group, capturing 102 electoral votes to 21 for Hillary. Both parties will have multiple paths to 270 electoral votes.
The motivation of the Democratic base will be extremely high and that should be enough for them to win. But the Republican party will rally to their leader and they will run on the same spiteful promises and ugly nationalism that won the last election. It could be enough to win again. That is the political reality of the United States of America as we enter the next, even uglier phase of the Trump presidency.

What Comes Next Is Worse

Donald Trump has been president for 63 weeks.  He has been every bit as volatile and boorish as any reasonable person would have expected.  He is an embarrassment every time he appears on the world stage.  His cabinet has been beset with high turnover and a constant hum of scandal.  His policies are very unpopular and he has not demonstrated one ounce of growth into the job.

He also tamed almost all opposition to his policies within the Republican party. The Never Trump crowd gets a lot of cable news air time but they have had no effect on his agenda and they have not dented his polling among Republicans.  Establishment Republicans got their tax reform and a whole host of pesky regulations repealed.  The economic news has been somewhere between mediocre and promising, with unemployment falling slightly and the stock market doing well, at least until more recently. The Islamic State has lost most of its remaining territory and the United States has not been the victim of a major foreign terrorist attack.  

Donald Trump has assembled enough talking points to convince himself that he has the hang of being president.  He has begun to isolate any members of his inner circle who don't completely fall in line with agenda, (Rex Tillerson, David Shulkin and General McMaster.  He now has a cabinet made primarily of a fever-dream mix of sychophants and opportunists. 

Political epochs are divided by election results or massive world events, like the start of a war or the breakout of a plague. Donald Trump's presidency is about to enter its second phase.  The division may end up looking like it was caused by external events, but I suspect the real cause is this: Donald Trump thinks he's doing a good job as president and almost no one that he listens to will tell him otherwise.  I don't know exactly what this second phase will mean with any specificity, but we are about to find out just how bad of an idea it is to have an incompetent president with full-blown narcissism. 

I. Mueller.
I started writing this post yesterday.  I did not expect the Mueller investigation to get top billing. But today the home and office of Donald Trump's lawyer were raided under a search warrant looking into allegations of, among other things, bank fraud and violations of campaign finance laws. Donald Trump responded by holding a press gaggle in which he described the search as a "break-in" and the investigation as a "disgrace."  He is almost certainly contemplating firing Bob Mueller and I'm not sure who will be there to talk him out of it.

In light of today's events, I can't really handicap where the Mueller probe will go.  Yesterday I was going to write that it seems unlikely to me that Mueller will indict the president.  I still think the more likely outcome is a scathing report that points to obstruction of justice but that leaves it up to congress and the possibility of impeachment. But this search is a big deal and it may mean that Mueller has reason to believe the president and his lawyer committed crimes together.  If that's so, the rest of 2018 will be messy indeed.


II. Enter Bolton.
Six days ago, Donald Trump said “As far as Syria is concerned, our primary mission in terms of that was getting rid of ISIS.  We’ve completed that task and we’ll be making a decision very quickly, in coordination with others in the area, as to what we will do.” Then yesterday we got pretty firm evidence that Syria committed another chemical weapons attack against rebels.  And Today John Bolton reported for duty as National Security Adviser.

Bolton's hiring is the most significant personnel change of the Trump administration.  The one redeeming quality of candidate Donald Trump was that he pretended to have opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and as president he has repeatedly cited it as the cause of many of our problems in the region. (He's not wrong about that, although he's dishonest about having opposed the idea at the time.) Bolton was the most hawkish member of the circle that lead us into that blunder.  Bolton was considered for several important jobs during the transition but was passed over for all of them.  

But Bolton is a cheeky fucker.  For the past 15 months, he has stayed in contact with President Trump and he never misses an opportunity to stroke his ego. When Trump finally tired of McMaster's security briefings being too detailed, Bolton was in line for the job.  And now he has it.  So I don't think this pullout from Syria is going to happen.  The chemical attack raises the possibility of an immediate military response by the United States. Whatever options are being weighed, Bolton will be there arguing for the worst option.  You can bank on it.

III. The Road to 2020.
The one thing about politics that  Trump enjoys and excels at is running for president. He loves the adulation of the crowds and he's good at   He will run if there is breath in his lungs. These will be the main arguments of his campaign:

1. I made the country safer.
2. I made the country richer.
3. The Democrats will make you less safe.

Each point needs to be upheld by a handful of talking points.  On national security Trump will cite the decimation of ISIS. But he needs another national security win to make this happen.  I think his best chance of a political win here is to strike some kind of phony denuclearization deal with North Korea. Such a deal would involve North Korea pretending to dismantle their nuclear weapons program in exchange for the United States scaling back our military support of South Korea.  

That sounds radical but Trump has good reasons to make such a deal.  It's not like he gives a shit about the people of South Korea.  And he can "negotiate" a loose time frame for the reduction of North Korea's nuclear infrastructure.  As long as they're not actively testing missiles, Trump can claim a win.  (Bolton and other hard liners will not like this plan. If they out maneuver him, then Trump will have to do something bold with Iran.  I'm sure that will go well.

The economic argument will be based on whatever metrics he finds favorable.  He's a macro economics illiterate, so it really won't matter if those statistics are relevant.  He will be able to string together an argument that his tax cuts averted a disaster or something.  Latelly Trump has begun to get more serious about his stupid trade policies, which could do real damage to the American economy.  That will make things harder for him, but he is too stupid to realize this is true.

As for scaring the public aboIut the Democrats, that will come down to some combination of saying that they are weak on terrorism or soft on the borders.  And there is some political risk for Democrats on that last point.  It is very likely that the race for the Democratic nomination will feature one or more candidates who call for abolishing ICE and who will say unreasonable things about the border patrol in order to win that nomination. They will come back to haunt the candidate in the general election.

I will close with three semi long-term predictions.
1. Donald Trump will be a significant underdog to win the 2020 election.
2. Donald Trump will put up a good fight in that election and there will be one or more points during the election that a win by the incumbet will seem like a real possibility.
3. At some point in the next 30 months, we will have answer to the experiment in hiring a feckless, reckless imbecile as president.  

President Trump (Volume 3-of 3)

Donald Trump has been president for 18 days shy of one year. He has not changed a single smidgeon in that time. He is the same ill-tempered ignorant jackass that 46 percent of our electorate pushed into the White House after our last election.  He is human garbage.

I.  New Buisness: The first 348 days of President Trump.

Just a few weeks ago it seemed very possible that Donald Trump would get through his first year without a single legislative accomplishment.  But the Republican partby rallied to cram a large tax cut through during the last legislative day of 2017.  Somehow, the biggest win of Donald Trump's insurgent presidency was to codify another decade of Paul Ryanomics.  It is a dreadful bill and the consequences of it will be severe.  But like any good confidence game, it will take a while for the marks to realize how bad the deal was. In a week or two people will start seeing more in their paychecks, and that will fortify Trump's political position. 

The Republican party is the party of Donald Trump. Everyone of them has humiliated themselves to get in line behind this towering buffoon in order to appease the donor class with tax cuts and some deregulation. The political consequences of this will be tremendous, but they too will take time to be felt.  For the moment, I have to focus on what the President is doing to the United States.

Earlier this evening he sent a Tweet bragging that his nuclear arsenal is greater than North Korea's. Fifteen minutes later he announced his plans to offer awards for "Fake News" to the media outlets that have covered him critically. Earlier today he Tweeted that the "deep state Department of Justice" was unwilling to prosecute one of his political enemies.  And he tried to take credit for the fact that there were no fatal commercial plane crashes during 2017.  Yes, really.

The time for analysis and hand-wringing is over.  The President is a nutter and all citizens of good conscience will say so, publicly.  I do not know how the Mueller investigation will turn out, but I think the world at large has to hope that it ends with Donald Trump leaving the White House. But the more probably outcome is that we are stuck with him for another 3 years and 18 days. If during that time, you have the opportunity to resist this regime, do so.  You will never regret it.

II. Old Business: The State of My Predictions About Trump.

This is the last time I'm rehashing these predictions.  I'll let my record speak for itself.

1. "The Iran Deal will be torn up."

He deserves SOME credit for not rushing to do this. But he badmouths the deal at every turn and will probably blow it up when things get bad enough for him. For now, I'm happy to be wrong about this.

2.  "Antonin Scalia will be replaced by a conservative rather than Merrick Garland." I'm one for two.

3. "ISIS has a new propaganda talking point."  Yes, that's literally true but we have to give credit where credit is due: the Islamic State has lost a lot of territory in the past year. They don't have a functioning capital anymore and it's not clear how viable they are going forward.  I hope this progress continues but it's premature to say that ISIS won't be soon replaced by something even worse.

4.  "It is now the official policy of the United States government that Climate Change is a hoax perpetrated by China to disrupt American manufacturing. "

Two for four. The nice thing about this one is that the rest of the world is not putting up with our shit.  I hope the rest of the world picks up that slack, but we have to recognize that we won't be able to just saunter back on the world stage and expect to be the world's leading voice on this subject in 2021. 

5. "At some point next year the Congress will repeal Obamacare."  Six up and half a dozen down here.  Full repeal did not happen but the repeal of the individual mandate got slipped into the tax bill.  This will have two terrible consequences- a lot of people will lose coverage and Donald Trump will spin it all as a win.

6. "At some point next year the Congress will pass massive tax cuts and the overwhelming majority of these cuts will benefit very wealthy people."   I'm not really digging the ones I was right on.

7. "Immigration policy is about to become a lot less thoughtful."  This is incredibly true. Of course the Wall remains to be built, but Trump is chipping away at almost every type of immigration and publicly saying he intends to change even popular, formerly non controversial policies like allowing immigrants to sponsor relatives to come here later.  

8. "There will be a bunch of dumb protectionist policies put in place. "

He still doesn't know what a fucking trade deficit is.

9. "The implements of the federal government will be used to settle the president's political scores. " Of course.

10.   "The new school of political science thought will be personality based."  It seems likely that Trump ism will discredit such campaigns for awhile but we're a long way from the end of Trump style politics. If nothing else, it's a way to get ratings. 

III. New Business: What's Next for this Blog.

I only wrote three blog posts during all of 2017.  Two were about Donald Trump and one was about Better Call Saul. The first year of Trump was just too exhausting and hectic to find the time for pieces longer than a Tweet.  

But it's a new year and it's not too soon to start thinking about the end of this foul presidency. The midterm elections will be the big story but as soon as those are over, the 2020 election cycle will begin in earnest.   That election will be the focus of my writing in 2018. In my next post, I will lay out the unscientific probabilities of various outcomes in some detail.  For now, I will just say that I think Trump will run and will be the GOP nominee.  He could win another general election, but for the moment, I think he is more likely to lose. 

So I'll close with an endorsement. What I want in the next president is someone mature, intelligent and serious.  In fact, a boring president sounds awfully good now.  And yes, I want the next president to be a woman.  It is well past time and the best way to get over the fact that we decided to elect an admitted serial sexual offender.  So here is my thinly researched, semi-sentimental endorsement of my preferred 2020 candidate:  I want to vote for Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) because I think she is the person least likely to make we worry about a nuclear war starting from a Twitter beef.  On this night, that sound plenty good.