Weekend edition.

December 2, 2023

          This short(-ish) newsletter is intended to provide a glide path into the weekend for readers and a semi-vacation night for me. I published the newsletter for five days a week for six years. “Newsletter-creep” caused by the non-stop nature of the news has made a sixth newsletter unavoidable. The fact that I am writing a brief newsletter doesn’t mean you need to read it. If it were up to me, I would try to take two full days off from the news.

          And it goes without saying that my ability to devote time to the newsletter is a direct result of the generosity and support of my wife and Managing Editor!

The House expels GOP Rep. George Santos.

          Good riddance!

Help elect a Democrat to replace George Santos in NY-3 congressional district.

          An election to select George Santos’s successor will take place sometime in the next three months. Laura Brill of The Civics Center sent the following plea to help register 9,000 high-school-age students in Santos’s district:

With the new vacancy in New York's third Congressional District, young people have an opportunity to participate in a special election that can shape their futures. 9,000 18-year-olds live in the district, and many of them are in high school. We've published this Substack post to help reach them. Your help in spreading the word would be so meaningful!

          The Civic Center’s Substack post is here: 9,000 18-year-olds have an opportunity to register and vote in the election to fill George Santos’s vacant seat.

          The deadline to register will be 10 days before the special election. New York State has easy online registration tools. The Substack post by The Civic Center includes easy links to help younger eligible voters register.

          Please share the link widely to help ensure that newly eligible voters in NY-3 can make their voices heard in the upcoming election to elect a successor to George Santos.

Two court rulings reject Trump's claims of presidential immunity.

          Trump claims that he cannot be prosecuted or sued for any actions he took while he was president. Today, two court rulings rejected that claim.

          Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Trump's motion to dismiss the election interference and conspiracy case filed by Jack Smith in D.C. The opinion is here: Memorandum Opinion | US v. Trump. Judge Chutkan writes, in part,

Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong “get-out-of-jail-free” pass. Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.

          Meanwhile, a three-judge panel in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a civil case against Trump by Capitol Hill officers can proceed to trial. The opinion is here: Opinion | Blassingame v Trump.

          In a unanimous opinion, the court wrote:

The sole issue before us is whether President Trump has demonstrated an entitlement to official-act immunity for his actions leading up to and on January 6 as alleged in the complaints. We answer no, at least at this stage of the proceedings.

When a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act.

A great explanation of why polls are meaningless one year ahead of the 2024 election.

          Michael Podhorzer has addressed the panic caused by flawed polls that are misinterpreted by major media. See Michael Podhorzer, The Guardian, Mad Poll Disease is making Democrats misread voter opinion.

          Podhorzer writes:

So why the scary numbers?

Pollsters want voters to tell them who they will vote for next November; voters want to tell pollsters how unsatisfied they are now with the direction of the country and their own lives. For most of this century, Americans have said the country was on the wrong track – and they have taken out those broader frustrations on whoever was president at the time. Low presidential approval ratings are now the norm in the United States (for old and young presidents alike), in a stark contrast to the last century. [¶]

But when it comes time to cast a ballot, voters understand the stakes.

Wise advice from Jessica Craven about “framing” the 2024 election.

          Jessica Craven posted the following in the Comment section of yesterday’s newsletter. (Jessica publishes the “daily actions” newsletter, Chop Wood, Carry Water | Substack.) Jessica wrote:

I highly recommend that, when talking to friends, family, or larger groups, we make this an election not just about democracy but about FREEDOM. Celinda Lake says that is the word that motivates Americans the most. Especially when you talk about having freedoms “taken away.” Lake pointed out in one of her presentations that humans are hardwired to not want things taken away from them.

So, if we frame it as “Donald Trump wants to take away your freedoms” that is something most Americans will react to strongly and viscerally. “Democracy” as a word is more abstract. Freedom to vote, freedom to love who you want, freedom to start a family when or if you want, freedom to be safe from gun violence, freedom to read what you want, these are things everyone understands, and no one wants to lose.

A reader writes to the NYTimes.

          Reader Jonathan Margolis wrote a “letter to the editor” the NYTimes criticizing its coverage of a meeting between President Biden and Arab American leaders. The Times’ story was titled, “At White House Visit, Muslim Americans Air Frustrations to Biden.”

          Jonathan Margolis’s letter is published here: Letters to the Editor, which appears under the heading, Biden’s Meeting With Muslim Americans. Margolis writes, in part,

Mr. Biden has spoken out tirelessly for humanitarian aid to the people in Gaza and pushed relentlessly for the tenuous agreement that has stilled the guns for almost a week, resulting in the release of some hostages and a substantial number of Palestinian prisoners.

There is a great deal of noise and posturing . . . over the unimaginably complex puzzle of the Middle East right now, but Mr. Biden has steered a constant and effective course for the best result obtainable. That should have been the story.

Simon Rosenberg covers Gavin Newsom's debate with DeSantis and positive polling for Biden.

          If you are looking to start your weekend on a positive note, check out Simon Rosenberg’s newsletter on Substack, Hopium Chronicles, New Biden Ad, Newsom's Big Night.

          A reader sent a note asking, “If you say, ‘Ignore the polls,’ why do you recommend Simon Rosenberg?” I recommend Simon because he focuses on hope and because his analysis of the polls is the antithesis of the “horse race” analysis published by most of the media. Here is a recent example from Simon’s Hopium Chronicles, Biden Leading in 4 New Polls, More Good Inflation News. Simon Rosenberg writes (on November 29):

Biden Leading in 4 New Polls.

A few notes on these new polls:

• Polls cannot tell you what is going to happen tomorrow, or next year. They can only tell you where things are now, and where things are now can and will change.

• National polling has clearly changed from a few weeks ago, with Biden gaining ground in 2 important weekly tracks, and leading in other polls too.

• It can no longer be said that Trump leads or is favored next year.

• Why has this happened? Don’t know yet. Will it sustain? Don’t know.

• Polling is only one piece of the data available to us to understand what is happening in our politics. It’s an important piece, but only a piece.

          As you can see from the above passage (edited for brevity), Simon Rosenberg’s analysis is intellectually honest about the limitations of polling as he reports on the most recent polls.

My advice remains: Ignore the polls—which takes tremendous discipline. If you give into temptation and peek at the polls, then you should also consult Simon Rosenberg for a dose of reality and common sense. As a bonus, Simon includes positive stories that will help sustain you in a negative media environment.  

Concluding Thoughts.

          I received a surprising amount of pushback on my criticism of Robert Kagan’s op-ed, in the Washington Post, “A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending.” About a dozen readers endorsed Kagan’s op-ed in full and urged me to retract my criticism. I think they missed my point.

          In yesterday’s article entitled, “We are not sheep . . . .” I acknowledged that “much of what Kagan says is factually true or based on reasonable inference.” I am surprised anyone could have interpreted my comments otherwise. Indeed, observant readers will note that I have gone to the bother of writing newsletters five days a week for seven years to warn about the danger to democracy posed by Trump. On those points, Kagan and I agree.

          Where Kagan and I part company is whether Americans will also inevitably take to their beds and pull the covers over their heads until the Maga extremist spasm subsides. Kagan dismisses Democratic resistance in the future and ignores their consistent successes over the last seven years—including defeating Trump in 2020. I won’t catalog the many ways in which he believes Democrats will collapse in the face of the Trump threat, but they are typical of the views of “neo-cons,” who tend to be professional contrarians who disdain “the Left.” (If you are a neo-con and write to disagree with my characterization, you will prove my point.)

          So, Kagan and I disagree on the backbone and will of the American people in times of crisis. Moreover—and this is really important—we disagree about how to frame the crisis we face. As I wrote to several readers today, let’s conduct a thought experiment. Suppose you were in charge of rallying support to defeat Trump in 2024. Which of the following pitches do you think would be more effective in rallying Americans to oppose Trump:

• Pitch A: Trump's victory is inevitable. Republicans will be united and strong because they will surrender to Trump when he wins on Super Tuesday. Democrats, on the other hand, are fractious, disorganized, and ineffective. Resistance after Trump is elected will be dangerous and likely futile. Now get out there and work your tails off because if you don’t, all is lost!

• Pitch B: Trump poses an existential threat to democracy. It won’t be easy, but we can beat him. We beat him in 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2023; we can beat him again. But it will take every ounce of determination and hard work we can muster. We can spare no effort and we must unite to protect our freedoms. Join me in the fight to defeat Trump!

          If you think Pitch A is the better approach, you haven’t met people. Both approaches address the danger posed by Trump, but one is an invitation to victory while the other is scaremongering.

          Kagan is a distinguished scholar and accomplished member of think-tanks, foreign policy boards, and an advisor to Republican presidential candidates. So far as I can tell, he has never led a phone bank, encouraged people to knock on doors in 100-degree heat, registered voters in a shopping mall, organized a post-card writing session, or done any of the other grassroots activities that are going to make the difference in 2024. Instead, he is devoting his considerable talents to telling us that Trump's victory is “inevitable.” Agree with him if you want, but if you think his approach will motivate people, you are wrong.

          Instead, have faith in yourself and the American people to rise to the challenge. We have done it before; we can do it again. But we need everyone to join in the effort. We can win; we will win. American democracy is bigger and stronger than Trump—because it is us when we are at our best.

          Talk to you tomorrow!