Taking our bearings.
December 22, 2023
After two days of non-stop coverage of the Colorado decision barring Trump from the state ballot, let’s take our bearings as we head into the final days of the year. Despite an unrelenting negative narrative in the media, those who hope to extend the Democratic winning streak have strong reason for hope.
Not every development is positive, but the consistent theme is that Democrats—led by Joe Biden—are engaged in the difficult business of governing a great nation while Republicans—led by a wannabe dictator—are doing everything they can to dismantle the nation they have sworn to protect.
Congress quits for the year—despite urgent unfinished business.
Looming legislative deadlines.
The temporary resolutions to fund the federal government expire in two pieces—on January 19 and February 2, 2024. Congress reconvenes on January 8 and 9, 2024—leaving less than eight legislative days to pass some bills and sixteen legislative days to pass the remaining bills to keep the government open.
Add to that already full agenda the need to pass supplemental funding bills for Ukraine and Israel.
Although the Senate has made significant progress in passing bills that conform to the two-year deal President Biden reached with Republicans in June, the House has passed wildly irresponsible bills that violate the terms of the June agreement.
Prospects for passage of the bills necessary to keep the government open seem bleak—but Speaker Mike Johnson caved at the last moment on a “clean” defense bill before the House left for the year—a move that required majority support from Democrats to pass the bill over objections of the reactionary Freedom Caucus. So, perhaps there is hope that Speaker Johnson will continue to relent on demands for draconian cuts and culture-war riders on the remaining bills.
Why it matters.
First, the only progress made in the House (and thus, Congress) in 2023 was achieved because House Democrats remained united under Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Democrats get things done.
Second, Republicans have a perverse incentive to not pass some of the bills by the January/February deadlines. The reason is complicated but, in general, under the June agreement between Biden and congressional Republicans, if agencies are operating under a “continuing resolution” on April 30, 2024, then drastic spending cuts go into effect automatically! See National Low Income Coalition, House of Representatives Adjourns for Holiday Recess without Finalizing FY24 Spending Bills.
In other words, House Republicans can achieve significant budget cuts by doing nothing—other than agreeing to a lengthy continuing resolution!
The inaction of the Republican-controlled House is a scandal that is lurking below the headlines. The first session of the 118th Congress was one of the least productive in history—passing only 27 bills, compared to 81 bills passed during the first year of the last Congress under the control of Democrats. We have averted disaster only because Speakers McCarthy and Johnson blinked at the last moment and were rescued by House Democrats. Whether that dynamic will continue in 2024 is an open question—but every good outcome depends on Democrats acting as the “adult in the room.”
The 2024 presidential campaign.
The elephant in the room.
Trump engaged in insurrection, but the Republican Party doesn’t care. We will soon find out if the Supreme Court cares.
Vice President Kamala Harris v. vice-presidential wannabe Kari Lake.
Has anyone else noticed that Kamala Harris is suddenly emerging as a more visible part of the Biden-Harris team? She has been an important voice in urging restraint in civilian casualties in Gaza, speaking against the cruel treatment of Kate Cox in Texas, and in condemning Trump's Hitleresque speech. Her new high profile could provide welcome relief to Joe Biden’s struggle to connect with traditional Democratic constituencies.
Meanwhile, Kari Lake—a frequently mentioned contender to be Trump's vice-presidential nominee—is getting the “full Giuliani” treatment in a civil suit for defamation. Arizona election workers sued Lake for her false statements that accused (Republican) election workers of rigging voting machines and manipulating ballots to ensure that Lake lost her bid for Arizona governor.
When the election workers sued Kari Lake for defamation, she moved to dismiss the case, claiming that her false statements were “imaginative expression or rhetorical hyperbole.”
Hmm . . . If you caught a co-worker or acquaintance in a lie, what would you think if their excuse was “I was using imaginative expression”? Why is it that Republican politicians are incapable of acknowledging the truth or accepting responsibility for their lies? (Hint: Donald Trump.)
A tale of two polls.
Ignore the polls. It is too early for polls to be meaningful. But I am going to discuss two polls to make a point that is not “Who is leading in the polls today?”
The first poll relates to the GOP New Hampshire primary. It is noteworthy because it punctures the conventional narrative that Trump is the unchallenged leader of the Republican race. And it may reflect the impact of the ongoing criminal and civil suits on his candidacy.
A low-quality poll of 600 likely voters by a low-rated polling organization in New Hampshire shows the following:
Trump — 33%
Haley — 29%
Christie — 13%
DeSantis — 6%
Ramaswamy — 5%
Undecided — 12%
Trump's lead in the poll is consistent with dozens of other polls of Republican likely voters. No news there. But this poll—which I again stress is low quality because of its sample size and the poor track record of the pollster—suggests that the “anti-Trump” vote is sizable in comparison to Trump's support. The question is, “How big is the anti-Trump vote?”
Other polling suggests that a significant percentage of Trump voters would reconsider their support for Trump is he is convicted. See The Hill, Almost a quarter of Trump supporters oppose having him on ticket if convicted: Survey.
Here’s my point: Democrats run around with their hair on fire when the NYTimes publishes an overweighted poll of Republicans showing that Biden is trailing. Such polls are propaganda designed to influence the electorate. That may well be the case with the above poll in New Hampshire. Or not. In a fair news ecosystem where stories of equal merit are treated equally, the big news tonight should be that Trump is vulnerable in New Hampshire. If that was on the front page of the New York Times, I missed it.
The second story relates to Joe Biden’s national lead among likely voters that has emerged over the last two weeks in several polls. As discussed yesterday, the fact that Biden is leading in more recent polls has been ignored by major media outlets.
Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo addresses this dynamic in his article, Wait, What? Biden’s Ahead? As usual, Marshall takes the analysis to the next level. Here, the important point is not whether Biden is ahead or behind, but Marshall’s observation that responses to polls have become untethered from voters’ intentions.
Marshall writes,
My hunch is that a lot of this [the poll responses] is sending messages, signals of dissatisfaction, which are not clearly tied to vote selection. . . . For present purposes, the relevant point is that “cross tabs,” the second-order data points in many polls, don’t seem as tied to voting behavior as we’re accustomed to thinking. That’s not terribly surprising. It was one of the big takeaways from last year’s midterm election.
Marshall’s point about the disconnect between polling and results in the 2022 midterms is a good one. What voters told pollsters in 2022 did not match up with how they voted. The old model is broken—and it will take a long time for those who reap millions in fees from the old model to acknowledge that fact.
Holding the insurrectionists accountable.
Here is a quick round-up of actions involving the insurrectionists and coup plotters.
Trump asks Supreme Court not to expedite review of presidential immunity defense.
When you have no defense, the best defense is delay. Trump filed a brief on Wednesday urging the Supreme Court not to expedite consideration of his presidential immunity defense. The brief is here: United States v. Trump | Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Trump was reduced to claiming (a) “Haste makes waste” (p. 3) and (b) that there is no “compelling reason” to decide Trump's criminal liability prior to the 2024 presidential election.
Trump tells federal court to delay civil defamation trial because he wants Supreme Court to consider his presidential immunity defense.
As Trump was urging the Supreme Court not to consider his presidential immunity defense, he asked a federal court to delay E. Jean Carroll’s second defamation suit against him so he has sufficient time to ask the Supreme Court to consider his presidential immunity defense.
If you did not catch the ultimate hypocrisy in Trump's inconsistent positions, go back and re-read the above paragraph.
Federal judge orders Rep. Scott Perry to turn over cell phone records.
GOP Rep. Scott Perry appears to have been in close contact with Donald Trump regarding efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Special counsel Jack Smith has tried for months to obtain Perry’s cell phone records on January 6 but a three judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ordered the district court judge to conduct a record-by-record review of Perry’s cell phone data. The judge has completed that review and ordered Perry to turn over 1,700 records.
Perry can (and probably will) appeal again. But he will likely lose in his next trip the D.C. Circuit. Sooner or later, the evidence regarding Scott Perry’s conversations will be made available to Jack Smith. It is not clear if Jack Smith is considering indicting Perry, but that is a reasonable interpretation of the developments.
Speaking of cell phone records relating to January 6.
What happened. The January 6 rally at the Ellipse was arranged by Women for America First. The group obtained the permit for the rally—and apparently lied to the National Park Service about the nature and extent of the rally. The group apparently knew that a march to the steps of the Supreme Court/Capitol would occur—allegedly “unexpectedly”. The group omitted that fact from the application for a permit. See CNN Politics, Group tied to January 6 Capitol attack lied to Interior Department, watchdog says.
According to a US Inspector General, the group was communicating with a “liason” in the White House about Trump's “expectations” for the rally on January 6. After telling the National Park Service that there would be no march, two text messages to the White House liaison read as follows:
“POTUS expectations are intimate and then send everyone over to the Capitol.”
“This stays only between us, we are having a second stage at the Supreme Court again after the ellipse. POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol.”
Why it matters. Every time we learn new information about the events of January 6, it becomes clearer that senior officials at the White House—and Trump—were directing the plan to march on the Capitol on January 6. They went to great lengths to conceal those plans because they knew that the National Park Service would deny their permit for the rally and/or assign extra security to a march on the Capitol. By deceiving the National Park Service, Trump ensured that the Capitol would not have sufficient protection from insurrectionists on January 6.
Concluding Thoughts.
As we head into the Christmas weekend, my wife and I would like to express our gratitude to everyone who has accompanied us on this journey. I have inserted below a short video (from my wife’s blog) that expresses our thanks. But if you can’t or don’t want to watch the video, let me repeat that I am in awe of the hard work and dedication of the tens of thousands of readers of this newsletter who are making a difference every day. I look forward to continuing the journey by your side in 2024—and beyond.
I will open the Comment section over the weekend, but otherwise, I plan to take the Christmas holiday off. Talk to you next Tuesday!
Thank you, and have a blessed, peaceful, and restful holiday weekend!
"Trump engaged in insurrection, but the Republican Party doesn’t care. We will soon find out if the Supreme Court cares." Great sentence. A brilliantly concise explanation of dynamics that have inspired zillions of words, all attempting to describe what you've put so simply and succinctly! Thank you for your eloquence. And consistent wisdom.
I appreciated your rebuttal, in yesterday's post, to some persuasive pieces suggesting it's best for the SCOTUS to let the electorate weigh in on Trump's eligibility for the job of POTUS, rather than removing him from the ballot and being accused of preventing the electorate from making a choice. I was persuaded by that argument, until i read your rebuttal. I now see clearly how we are lost if we don't uphold the rule of law -- equality, under the law. First principal.
This hopeful but not complacent reader wishes all the Hubbells a very safe and happy 2023 Christmas holiday. Looking forward to seeing you on the other side of 2024!