Calling out decrepit "Bernie would have won" BlueAnon hot takes

The first bad hot take I saw was from Krystal Ball and Kyle Kulinski, at Ryan Grim's Substack. Ryan himself is often pretty good on investigative journalism, but he's a duopolist on electoral politics and slurps too much on AOC and the Squad Fraud, even in a book. He also slurped on Marianne Williamson a year ago. 

Krystal Ball is a long practitioner of this, and Kulinski? I called him out on Twitter just a week before the election. So, their "Bernie would have won" is not only probably not true, but it's also tohu wevohu. (It is an admission that "he's a Dem," though, which I've known for a coon's age.)

Besides, Ball herself is a #BlueAnon grifter outside of presidential elections. Dem Congresscritter candidate before Bernie ever ran for prez? Check. Supported school vouchers? Check. Wrote for the neoliberal Atlantic? Check. Worked for a federal contractor? Check. And shit, married to Kulinski, too. I don't follow Generation Zip Zilch Nada talking heads that much, so I didn't know that before, either. Kulinski? Worked for the semi-fraudulent pergressuve Justice Democrats. (AOC's ties to a Justice Dems-funding bankster, and her one-time chief of staff's purported Justice Dems-money laundering show that.) Calls Gaza a genocide but still duopoly-stans other than presidential races. (Both voted for Stein, despite her investments hypocrisy, rather than going further left; Kyle worked for Turn on the Love Faucets Marianne Williamson before she dropped out. In addition — and while I voted for a nominal Communist while not being one, what's "good" secular humanist Kulinski doing not only stanning for but working for New Agey nutter Williamson? Seriously, Kyle might be more full of shit than Krystal. "Secular Talk" would be more like "Secular Bullshit," or "Secular Do As I Say Not As I Do." Beyond that, she's at least as much an antivaxxer as Stein and antiunion, or she was in her past.)

To put it another way? They look like, without apparently actually being DSA Roseys (not mentioned on their Wikis), they're trying to be like DSA Roseys. If Bernie had been nominated in any of the last three presidential contests, they would have dropped Stein like a hot potato. Or, even if genocide fellow traveler Williamson had been nominated, I'm sure. Or, one step right of AccommoGreens.

So, yeah, they're BlueAnon. Maybe BlueAnon with a side of trollery, but ultimately BlueAnon. And, they're picture is in the dictionary of Peter Principle "we're not Democrats but we really are" triangulators.

First, his political stances aside, Bernie's a bad campaigner. The idea that "Bernie would have won" is nowhere near guaranteed. This sets aside his age, which would have been exposed on the rigors of a presidential campaign.

Now, the actual politics.

Bernie's a genocidalist himself, first, or at minimum, a fellow traveler. Related? He's a sheepdogger for the Israeli genocide. Related? He's signed blank checks to Israel before, then lied about it. Related? He's anti-BDS, as I noted in this post about him being a warmonger outside of his Iraq War vote.

A sheepdogger second, who sheepdogged for Biden in 2020 just a week after Dear Leader and Harry Reid shivved him, then started sheepdogging early in 2023. Also, don't forget that Bernie, no more than many other Senate Democrats (he is one) said nothing when Biden became Dementia Joe. And, what I forgot to mention in my original tweet? A warmonger in general, third, who's long had a hard-on for the F-35, a plane that John Kasich knew sucked back in 2016. That said, Bernie is also a possible nuke lover in relation to his F-35 boner.

Other foreign policy problems include being a silent backdoor supporter of our 2019 would-be Venezuelan coup. A supporter of the Hillary Clinton/Dear Leader coup in Honduras.

Other domestic problems? Yeah, he voted against the Iraq War. He voted FOR the Patriot Act.

And a gun nut lite. I won't call him a gun nut, but he is a gun nut lite. But, my kindness won't hide that this has been a long-standing issue.

Finally, tho I don't have a link anywhere within the piece, I wrote three years ago that Ball was a Tulsi Twerker, long after anybody with a brain could and should have known that she was a Hindutva-fascist, an Islamophobe (the two are tied), an opponent of wars unless they targeted Mooslims, and worse.

To sum up? Bernie probably wouldn't have won. Even if he had, he would have been in many ways, and in every way on foreign policy, Just.Another.Democrat.™ But, per the likes of myself, Ted Rall and many others, sheepdoggers Krystal Ball and Kyle Kulinski don't care about things like that. They care about "winnability."

If the issue is winnability? Since Ball was a Tulsi Twerker? Just nominate her in 2028.

All Wrong on the Eastern Front

With apologies, or not, to Erich Maria Remarque, this is an expanded version of the Goodreads review of my most recent World War 1 reading. And, it's being posted just before Veterans Day, for people to savor.

The Eastern Front: A History of the Great War, 1914-1918 by Nick Lloyd
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

Gack!

I had some heads-up via a two-star reviewer, Elliott — who nonetheless has the wrong thing he pitches the biggest fit about in his review (Lenin almost assuredly DID order the killing of the Romanovs), and is apparently a tankie in general and also a JFK conspiracy theorist, per his overall reviews at his first link that this book might be less than fantastic. (Said tankie has been blocked, too.)

Actually, presenting itself as a "magisterial" history? It's crap and needs to be crushed.

(On the "presenting itself," I have as one my Goodreads bookshelves "touted by critics." And, even if they didn't use the word "magisterial," the idea was clearly there, with talk about how this was the most tome-like and impressive book about the Eastern Front since Norman Lloyd 50 years ago.

So, if it's not "magisterial"?

It needed to be crushed, in my opinion, especially since I got my review in before the 25-reviewer mark and was the first one-star person to give it a review, not just a rating.

And crushed it will be in the paragraphs to follow.

I knew to ding this a star for including Italian front war as part of the Eastern Front, per seeing Elliott when stumbling across this just two weeks before seeing the book in my library. And, when we get there? Any noob about WWI history can see the front moved 10 miles in two and a half years. If you have to include it? Skip to the last year.

There are many more errors right off the bat in the introduction. Serious ones. "Rookie mistakes." 

Lloyd claims Trialism was a factor in Franz Ferdinand’s assassination. Reality? He had abandoned Trialism years earlier, in part due to fears that, whether the Triad included a third crown or not, it would stir up Quadrilateralism among Czechs. Given that, even before the start of the war, the Czechs were the noisiest minority in the Austrian parliament in its half of the Ausgleich, this wasn't an idle worry.

Whether the likes of Apis realized that or not, and cared or not, I don’t know. It's cited in many histories, whether of just the June-July Days, or the war in general, as inspiration for him sending the assassins to Sarajevo. That said, the 1908-14 relationship of Ferdinand to Serbia could get a book on its own. In reality Ferdinand was often almost as Serbia-bellicose as Conrad.)

Franz Joseph’s semi-mystic comment on Ferdinand’s death, quoted on the first page of Chapter 1 has generally been seen not as generic fatalism, but his last comment about the morganatic marriage bringing the hammer of fate down upon itself. Lloyd not getting this right further reduced my confidence in him. (And, as it turns out, we're just getting started.)

I wasn’t expecting a full book about the July Days, as I’ve read both "The July Crisis" and "Sleepwalkers". I was expecting a bit more than what we're actually offered in terms of background.

The bits of analysis sprinkled throughout pages of Austrian, Russian and Italian military deficiencies, such as in medium and heavy artillery, are nice. Or “nice.” Why not more of that? I've seen more in other histories of WWI that weren't limited to the Eastern Front. And, putting all of this together in a brief early chapter, up-front, would have been a good table-setter for a book being presented as "magisterial" or similar.

The maps are decent but not great for a book whose focus is military history. (One of the reasons I five-starred Lloyd's Passchendaele book was the quality of the maps.) Some of the maps show only borders/boundaries of military action. Those that do indicate location of armies don't show boundaries between armies on either side. None of them dive below the army level to the corps level.

OK, the biggie on the big picture? You can include Italy but not the Ottoman-Russian front in Armenia? True that this was second to Mesopotamia, and eventually Northwest Arabia-Palestine. But, it was there, and definitely more Eastern than Italy. And, it’s like Lloyd’s determined to write the Ottoman Empire out of WWI history while writing in Italy. For example, the Ottomans sending troops to the Salonkia Front? Not mentioned. (And, other things listed below, and hold on to that thought.)

But, even worse?

Lloyd misses entirely that Emperor Karl was reportedly talking with Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Pasiç as well as the French, via his Bourbon-Parma brothers-in-law, in early 1917. This is one reference. I’ve seen others. Wiki also has this. And, it lists a source: MacKenzie, David (1995). Black Hand on Trial: Salonika 1917. (I've just submitted an interlibrary loan request to my library; the book is rare enough that, while it's listed on Yellow Satan, it isn't here. So far, it's not available, though two copies are “out there,” it seems at the Houston Public Library.)

This one is a biggie and is far less known than Karl’s talks with Britain and France via his brothers in law. In fact, it was new to me until I stumbled across it while doing some Net-searching for notes for the review. But, it’s still real. And, for a book that presents itself as a “magisterial” history of the Eastern Front? Missing this is simply not acceptable. I'm not an academic, but I found the book, and PDFs of it are available through various academic systems.

Were these talks related to Apis’ eventual treason trial? Was it, in turn, related to a possible deal at what seemed to be near the low point for Serbia in the war? Was Apis' execution, per his own Nathan Hale-like words, part of a cover-up so that Pasiç’s own pre-knowledge of Sarajevo could never be nailed down?

By this point, and also per the paragraph below? I knew we were in two-star territory, and I was entertaining one-star thoughts.

Back to other stuff missed in re the Eastern Front? Where’s the Ottoman invasion of Qajar Dynasty Iran, in part because of Russian meddling there pre-WWI, that helped cause one of the worst famines of the 20th century and led to the toppling of the dynasty, replaced by the Pahlavis? Where’s the Central Powers getting Libyan tribes not yet subdued by Italy to invade Egypt from the West? (Well, not here because Palestine and anything Ottoman is not part of the Eastern Front.)

There's also the issue of a lack of a thesis, also a biggie in what's supposed to be a “magisterial” book or the first book of its like about the Eastern Front in 50 years. (Sidebar: I've not read Stone's book, but I obviously know plenty about the Eastern Front from other WWI books; maybe Stone's wasn't so magisterial, either.)

Actually, we're missing two theses.

One is the cause of the war. And a brief (and incorrect) reference to Trialism doesn't cut the mustard. Give me one. Even if if it's something I'd instantaneously reject, like an updated version of Fritz Fischer's German war guilt, at least we have a talking point.

Second? There's no thesis on why Lloyd defined “Eastern Front” as he did, especially in light of this being volume two of a three volume set. Again, I might disagree with your thesis when you present it, but we still have a talking point.

Other missing things, that I'll try to keep short?

We get relatively little analysis of generalship, whether Lloyd's own or a derivative round-up. Tannenberg is an example. “We” all know Hindenberg and Ludendorff glory-hogged, but Lloyd doesn't discuss generalship there.

That relates to issues of audience. Is this book for a more general reader, or for somebody who is a fairly serious student of The Great War?

Other minor issues include things like calling today’s Lviv by its Austrian name of Lemberg but NOT calling Wroclaw by its then-Prussian name of Breslau. And yet, Thorn it is, not Torun. I hate inconsistency in this in any WWI book.

Finally, while not having large font with blown-out leading, like some of today's non-fiction books trying to look more impressive than they are, this book did NOT have relatively small font and leading, either. In other words, there's not enough verbiage here to consider this “magisterial,” either.

In short, again, magisterial this is not. (Had it not been touted by critics and so billed, the rating would only be two stars, and a high two at that.)

The ONLY thing new to me of note was the first use of poison, or poison-like, gas (closer to tear gas than chlorine or mustard) was on the Eastern Front, not Western.

So, while this doesn't fall in my “bs-pablum” shelf, it's still a one-star book. It's otherwise overrated.

==

How to fix this book, beyond things like better maps, more maps and the niggling city names?

First, since Lloyd had already done a Western Front book, he should have already had the idea of a MENA front book queued up. Italy’s not really MENA, but it’s closer to that than it is Eastern Front. Palestine, Mesopotamia and the minor actions go there. Armenia and Iran go in the Eastern Front book. Since a third volume is supposed to follow, that may be it. In turn, that would have made it easy to present a “cur alii, non alii” thesis for why Italy is in, the Ottomans are out, in this book's introduction.

Supposedly, this was the second of three volumes. If so, then he divided wrongly, per what I just said above. If we get into things like German meddling in Iran and even in Central Asia, hoping the Ottoman Sultan would issue a call for jihad that Muslims in the British Raj would respond to, etc., he'll have plenty for a third volume, which means that he could have put what I said above in this volume.

Second? Better maps.

Third? Volume three had better address ALL of the fighting I mentioned above, or it will get a swifter grokking and faster crushing.

View all my reviews

So, why did I get it wrong on my prediction?

Yes, I got it wrong, on my presidential prediction post last week, as Brains liked to remind me. And yes, you got it right.

Yes, I already knew in Pennsylvania especially, and somewhat in the other "blue wall" states, that her ground organization wasn't that strong. I thought Trump's was enough worse that this wouldn't be critical. I'll get to that thought more below.

I probably could have seen that shifting that Overton Window too far right, namely, in explicit campaigning with Republicans and leaning into their comments would backfire, and backfire too much to be overcome, as lackluster Democratic turnout proved.

I said in a Substack note that, despite Democrats' attempts to avoid 1968 problems, this was like 1968 — at least as far as the actual electioneering. Sadly, this DNC, even though it didn't go fully virtual, had no protests.

Anyway, Harris was kind of like Hubert Humphrey, following a one-term president who unwillingly stepped aside. Of course, the Hump had a three month head start and was at least partially vetted in primaries. And, as Jeff St. Clair notes, unlike the Hump with LBJ, she never even tried to separate herself from Biden. (Scarily, he may be right that Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro — IF he's re-elected in 2026 —becomes a 2028 Democratic favorite.) And, as I already knew, per Sy Hersh, the Hump was a better Veep, and a better retail politician in general. Harris couldn't even see the need to break free from Biden.

Obama at least had the additional excuse of appointing someone older, Whiter, and being perceived as more establishmentarian, to try to defuse at least bits of the “angry Black man” meme that some Democrats, as well as many Republicans, may have had in 2008.

What Biden thought Harris offered the ticket, of any 2020 Democratic candidate, whether those who stayed in primaries or those like Harris who dropped out early, I have no idea. Harris may not have been a “DEI candidate, but, IMO, the perception was going to be there, along with Biden’s other pledges, such as that he would nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court.

I read about Elon Musk's GOTV work and no on-the-ground staff, allegedly. Binoy Kampmark said that The Pustulence Scott Presler actually did some stuff. And, per the second paragraph from the top, Mike Elk was among the people who missed this, and he lives in Pennsylvania, which is where Elk is from. So, Mike, YOU blew it. Great labor reporter, but you veered into cheerleading on election-specific posts. I saw that at the time, on the cheerleading, and probably, because of that, should have been more skeptical about your eyesight otherwise. (Update: Elk NOW links to a Latino vote split post-mortem, but still hasn't offered his own Pennsylvania analysis. And, no, requiring white-collar journalists in office five days a week isn't union-busting. https://paydayreport.com/bezos-cracks-down-on-washpost-union-key-western-pa-county-improves-dem-dems-soul-search-on-latino-voters/

For that matter, Klippenstein dropped a piece after voting for the lesser evilism half of the duopoly. He lives in Madison, Wisconsin, which, like Pennsylvania, flipped because of her crappy campaign.

Otherwise? Per your piece, Brains?

You don't think it was the genocide, do you? Nah. Must've been something else, like resentful Black men or sexists/misogynists in general or maybe it was Joe Biden, the most progressive president since FDR, not stepping aside soon enough. It probably wasn't affordable healthcare or the economy or climate change, of course. I'm sure the autopsies performed by the Democratic braintrust will figure it out in the coming days. Or weeks. Or months.

Other than Michigan, no, Gaza probably didn't crush her campaign. Sadly,  no. Maybe you think I'm cynical with such a thought. No, that's just skepticism, from where I stand. Most Americans don't give a fuck about most the rest of the world. I've been called cynical before, when I was just practicing good skepticism.

That said, per the likes of Samra'a Luqman, it appears to have brought a new round of Bernie ⇒ Trump voters, for different reasons than 2016. (I knew then that they were less than PUMA ⇒ McCain voters in 2008; not sure what this year's numbers will say, if anybody even parses them.) As I said there, though, I still perceive people doing this, rather than Bernie ⇒ Stein, as people cutting off their nose to spite their face. In that case, schadenfreude is a bitch and that poisoned chalice is yours. You did vote for Trump, rather than a third-party candidate and Democrats’ lies that you voted for Trump.

Other than the general Overton Window? James Carville, who tried to peddle his snake oil, and yes, I'll admit, may have gotten me to stare at the bottle, though not actually drink, said 32 years ago, "It's the economy, stupid." And, no, the economy isn't as good in many place as some talking heads say. 

As for Biden being the most progressive president since FDR? For all his faults on Vietnam, and other things, no, I'll still take LBJ. We can agree to disagree. Or just disagree. To be honest, I'm surprised you think that. I really am.

Let's take the Inflation Reduction Act. Two years ago, my town was on the list for the first year's buildout of electric vehicle charging stations after the Federal Highway Administration approved TxDOT's buildout plan. Two years later, there's not even been a site chosen, let alone a contract let. And, Brains, you know that the Dems' Green New Deal is pretendian, and that Biden has been letting NEW oil and gas leases offshore as well as on land since then. No federal protection for Roe in the pre-Dobbs first two years of his admin. No minimum wage hike, etc etc.

I should maybe have thought about Harris' support among working-class Black men, since they started to question Dear Leader at his second election run in 2012, as I noted a month ago.

But? I also called you out on Twitter.

You voted for an investments hypocrite. She is, and she was eight years ago, and the hypocrisy is made worse over Gaza. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now. And, we won't relitigate that here. Suffice it to say that, even though I'm not a Commie, that's part of why I voted for one. (The fact that everything leading up to Stein being a three-time retread shows the GP is past its best-buy date is another. Let me know if the party avoids a nominee who plays footsie with antivaxxers in 2028; ditto for Texas Greens not nominating another antivaxxer fellow traveler in 2026, while I'm there.)

Top blogging of October

Contra what is normally the case, all of the most-popular posts from October were FROM October.

Also, as you might expect, many of these posts are election-related.

So, let's dig in.

No. 10? Kind of indirectly election-related, as a federal judge said Texas AG Ken Paxton's use of an old state statute is unconstitutional. Paxton had been using this to harass out-of-state hospitals over certain types of childhood medical treatment for which this non-twosider has not yet thought of an appropriate term in his own Wittgensteinian linguistic world.

No. 9? "Fucking Donald Trump is why I'm no longer on Twitter" was written a day or two before Elmo Musk has his goons restore Ken Klippenstein, then me. Definitely election-related.

No. 8 is about Robert Roberson getting justice — for now, even as Kenny Boy keeps fighting legiscritters.

No. 7 is related to an election — that of 2012. It's about how many Black men saw through Dear Leader in his re-election campaign.

No. 6? I called out "pergressuve" blogger Charles Kuffner for practicing election disinformation when he said that write-in candidates aren't on the ballot.

Fifth? Counterpunch further lost me (it had been losing me before that) with leaning into anti-BDSer / pro-duopolist Noam Chomsky and lesser evilism endorser Ralph Nader. (I noted as part of this all of Nader's laundry list of problems along with why I think Jeff St. Clair ignores those issues.)

No. 4? My third-party roundup of Oct. 12 may have been popularized by Cort Greene's voluminous butt-hurt commenting. Fire away again!

No. 3 is sadly and disgustingly indirectly tied to the U.S. election. It's my thoughts on the one-year anniversary of Oct. 7, 2023 in Gaza and beyond.

No. 2? I did a thorough takedown of butt-hurt editorial page staffers at the LA Times and Washington Post over their owners' refusal to let them write a presidential endorsement editorial. In a spin-off follow-up, I noted this was kabuki theater because these endorsements would have been out of date anyway.

No. 1? Voters of Tomorrow is indeed full of shits and sellouts.

Some non-twosider election wrap thoughts, starting with third parties

Cross-posted in moderately shorter version at Substack.

Per the header, and per my voting, we’re going to start at looking at the two third parties in America, the Greens and Libertarians. (Per my verbiage, and that of at least some political scientists, the other parties are “minor parties.”)

And we’re going to start with that subhed.

I’ve not seen the national numbers yet, but here in Texas, yes, the Libertarian party imploded indeed.

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein finished ahead of the Libertarian nominee, Chase Oliver. Yes, you read that right.

Stein took 0.73 percent to Oliver's 0.6 percent.

In 2020, Libertarian Jo Jorgensen took 1.12 percent in Texas to Howie Hawkins’ 0.30 percent. The ratio was the same in 2016, and in 2012, with both parties much higher in 2016 because it wasn’t in the middle of COVID, which hurt third parties and minor parties, and it wasn’t apocalyptically shaded by both duopoly parties.

Then, it was 3.16 percent for Gary Johnson vs 0.80 percent for Stein. In 2012, without many voters thinking Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were as crappy as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it was 1.1 percent Johnson, 0.3 percent Stein, here in Texas.

Average 2012 and 2016 and you get 0.55 percent. Stein outperformed that, despite being a three-time retread with investment ethics problems. Side note: Yes, she whiffed on not knowing the exact number of Members of Congress. And? AOC constitutionally whiffed on wanting to cut Congresscritter pay during a shutdown. Take that, #BlueAnon.

Do that same averaging for Libertarians and you’re at 2.13 percent. Oliver MASSIVELY underperformed that.

I suspect the Mises Mice cuck-up in the Libertarian Party has borne fruit. I have yet to see national numbers, but, I have another state number to reflect that.

Here in Texas, the Greens had just one statewide candidate besides Stein. Eddie Espinoza was running for a spot on the Railroad Commission of Texas. Libertarians also had a candidate, Hawk Dunlap.

Both finished well ahead of their parties’ presidential nominees, but the main comparative takeaway is that Espinoza had 2.75 percent to Dunlap’s 2.6 percent.

The second main takeaway is that, under the stipulations of a 2021 Texas Legislature bill pushed by state Sen. Drew Springer, that requires third parties to break 2 percent in a statewide vote once every five cycles to keep statewide ballot access, Greens, instead of facing a do-or-die in 2026, are now good through 2032.

Will they get a better gubernatorial candidate in 2026? That remains to be seen. They had Brandon Parmer the non-candidate in 2014, ran nobody in 2018, and had gun nut, antivaxxer and more Delilah Barrios in 2022. (I think I held my nose and voted Parmer in 2014; with no Green, I undervoted in 2018; I undervoted in 2022.)

For that matter, will the GP national get a better presidential candidate in 2028? The list of candidates a year ago, at the time the party recruited Cornel West, sucked canal water. (And, given the reality of Cornel West, that “sucked canal water” includes him.) Before Stein bit the bullet / decided to pay off 2016 FEC-incurred debt, and after West stepped aside, no “names” like Margaret Flowers or Matthew Hoh stepped forward.

Nationally, confirming possible LP meltdown? At Ballot Access News, Winger says the Georgia LP lost state ballot access, falling below 1 percent on the presidential vote. Let us not forget that Chase Oliver is FROM Georgia. And, as part of that, let us note that Stein was nearly even with Oliver there. Considering the old Georgia GP getting the boot after 2020, and related issues, for these results to have Oliver at just 0.39 percent, and Stein to be close at 0.35 percent? Horrible, on the Libertarian side. 

Here in Tex-ass, maybe legacy media focusing on Stein gave her a boost. But, in Georgia, a swing state and the post-2020 fallout I noted? No, that's on the LP. That's implosion.

Also, as mentioned in an email discussion with Jordan from IPR? The Libertarian Party's national convention flirtation with Trump probably contributed to the implosion. While it may not have been totally driven by the Mises Mice, it certainly was in part. The New Hampshire LP's early-on actual endorsement of Trump was also an underminer. All the other shenanigans, both by LP National's board and by some state parties, after the convention only added to this. (I will have a follow-up whenever Wikipedia or somebody likes that gets us the nationwide third-party vote count so I can compare to 2020 and 2016.)

I can't help but think that, even though they didn't do as I thought and run a presidential candidate in states where they had a party line ballot access, either directly or indirectly, that the newly formed Liberal Party has plenty of room to build.

==

To the duopoly-focused side now.

There will be a separate piece on the “blame game” for Democrats at the national level coming up.  Various Democratic intelligentsia are already talking about some failures (and unsheathing long knives for internecine warfare in some cases), while ignoring a whole set of more obvious failures.

One observation, from a note I posted last night, to whet the appetite on that?

One interesting issue is that this election WAS like 1968 in many ways, despite Dems trying to avoid a Chicago repeat. (It’s too bad there weren’t actual protests this time around when Harris and the DNC stiffed Palestinian supporters.)

You have a sitting Veep trying to succeed a one-term Prez who stepped down less than willfully, with the Veep not removing themselves from the president’s shadow. That said, Harris more willingly stayed in line with Biden than Humphrey did with LBJ. That also said, other things aside, the Hump was a better candidate.

Three other observations?

First, Allan Lichtman’s 13 Keys, discussed in my busted prediction of last Saturday, is officially garbage. That said, he’s repeatedly claimed that he actually got 2000 right but Bush v Gore made him wrong. However, he refuses to admit that only the Electoral College made him right in 2016. So, in reality? From 2000-2024, he has a half-right, three rights, a half-right, a right and a wrong. That makes him five for seven.

Second, that Des Moines Register poll claiming Harris was up 3 points among likely voters in Iowa? Obviously, it was totally broken. Interestingly, in multiple “red” states, including Religious Right, but not libertarian, red-state Missouri, abortion protection state constitutional amendments and referendums PASSED. And, support for these issues translated not one bit into support for Harris or state-level statewide Democratic candidates. This type of ticket-splitting, voting for the party that put you in the position where you pass a referendum to contain them? Innnnteresting. Update: NPR talks to a few of these "ticket-splitters."

Pollster J. Ann Selzer said "I'll be reviewing data" after that total bust. She does note what I noted in my busted prediction, that she had neither candidate above 50 percent.

Also, per a number of other pollsters, at this Beeb piece, Selzer doesn't do any "modeling," other than polling likely voters. Had I known that, I would have been more skeptical when I first saw it.

Third? People who I didn’t think would go in BlueAnon attack mode have. I originally was going to run that as part of the cross-post at Substack, just like the first sentence in this paragraph, then thought of an ellipsis-truncated version, then ran nothing. Here, I'm running it, but adding the name of Ken Silverstein.

Fourth? Lots of commenters at Kuff are in denialism about Gaza. And, ConservaDems like Greg Summerlin are just nutters in general. No, Greg, there's no need to comment here any more; I refudiated all your past wrongness.

Ken Paxton trying to cut off Robert Roberson completely

Kenny Boy's latest? Rather than telling it to accept video testimony rather than an in-person meeting, it's pushing the House Jurisprudence Committee to accept no testimony at all. Per that piece, it's "amazing" the selective memory Paxton has for the state's disciplinary rules of professional conduct.

Here's my writing about its initial subpoena intervention.

The Trib has a primer on Robert Roberson's case history.

And another reason to be frustrated with Claudia de la Cruz

If I had wanted to vote for investments hypocrite Jill Stein instead of the Party for Socialism and Liberation's de la Cruz, as I actually did, I would have done so — I would have voted Stein instead.

Now, I see on Shitter that last week (way too late for early voters), her campaign called for an unofficial fusion with Stein's in some states and Cornel West's (gack!) in others.

I told her last night that if she's the PSL's nominee in 2028, she's not getting my vote. This is the last straw in several.

The worst previous straw was her refusing to attend a third-party presidential debate in Los Angeles, to which she had been invited. She would have had to pay airfare from NYC and a hotel, as well as get a day or two off work. But, that would have been it. IMO, it would have been a big visibility boost to the party. But, she didn't show. 

If this were a parliamentary government, we could talk about pre-election fusion for legislative seats. (We still can, in the US.) We could talk about coalitioning in such a parliament after elections. (Independents do that in the US House and Senate.)

But, in a strong-presidential system, even if you admit you're a "spoiler," no, you run as yourself.

Texas Progressives have last election thoughts

Kenny Boy Paxton, having lost this year, is already teeing up a new lawsuit for 2025, suing the State Fair for its gun ban, and has private plaintiffs with him this time.

The Texas GOP killed Nevaeh Crain, IMO. That said, national Democrats, in years when they controlled Congress and Clinton, Obama or Biden was president, assisted to some degree by not doing more for federal legal protection.

The RRC wants $100 million from the Lege to tackle blowouts. That's a drop in the bucket.

Tarrant GOP head Bo French is even nuttier than its county judge.

What "foreign adversaries" are trying to buy ranchland in the Big Bend area, Lindsay Dawn Buckingham?

"Shock me" not just that state Sen. Phil King is in bed with Oncor, but how deeply he's in bed.

Shitter is coming to Tex-ass with its headquarters, and like everything else Elmo Musk has done with the company, that looks like it will look like shit.

Off the Kuff contemplates a blue Tarrant County, now and in 2026. (Contra Kuff, IMO this is Beto's fault.)

SocraticGadfly looks at the Muslim-American and Arab-American election break points.

 

Neil at the Houston Democracy Project said with the election at hand, know your rights as a protester. The First Amendment is your permit to protest.

 

The Current reports on a small town candidate for City Council who got harassed for being a burlesque performer.

 

The Texas Signal looks back at that classic movie celebrating fifty years, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

 

Texas 2036 is all about investing in the state's water resources. 

 

 Lone Star Left relates the spooky tale of an old unsolved murder. 

 

Raise Your Hand Texas advises teachers how they can get involved in the upcoming legislative session.

A few last pre-election tidbits

The Texas GOP is determined to use immigration bullshit as a hammer to "turn Texas red" in border counties. The Trib and ProPublica have the details from Val Verde County (Del Rio). The Observer looks at larger border politics battles in Cameron County. Isn't that the base of TDP head Gilberto Hinojosa? It also looks Hudspeth County, outside of elections, where the GOP incumbent is pushing back on some nuttery but not all, and other border-county sheriffs.

Even Danny Goeb refudiates Lara Trump and her lies that Tex-ass voting machines are flipping votes.

A&M International student who is relatively uninvolved in local politics (and not a US citizen anyway) gets butt-hurt that Webb County wouldn't make the university a voting site.

T for Texas and T for trans? Anti-trans ads look like Havana Ted Cruz's preferred path to victory. And yes, per the Observer, he's likely to win.

Exclusive! Apparent transcript of Trump's vetting interview of JD Vance

It seems incredible, just 48 hours before Election Day, but, we've received an anonymous copy of what purports to be a transcript of Donald Trump interviewing J.D. Vance before offering him the vice-presidential nomination.

This is NOT the Vance background check dossier, allegedly hacked by Iran, distributed to news media around the country and eventually published by Ken Klippenstein.

No, this is — purportedy — Trump interviewing Vance for the vice-presidential nomination. The transcript is unedited, other than putting Trump's words in italics.

“Usha? Yeah, she’s a Sambo, Mr. President. But, that’s OK. She’s good to me, and she knows her place. You know, they’re as smart as a whip, like darker-skinned Jews ...

"Boy, you got that right. Like my son-in-law. Scary. You'd almost think he's my son, but maybe he got some of that from osmosis with Ivanka. Besides, you have to get up pretty early in the morning to pull a con on a real con man."

... Or like Chinese without the slant eyes. Like Amy Chua. She was smart enough to see that Usha would be an Indian Tiger wife for me.” 

“You’re right, JD. On those Chinese? That Xi Jinping? Almost as smart as me. People who get lots of power do it only by being smart. Hitler was almost as smart as me.”

“Well, the Indians are Aryans, Mr. President.”

“That, what’s his name, Mode?”

“Do you mean Modi, Mr. President?”

“Yes, that’s it, just like I said.

“Smart as a whip. Some people would call him a fascist, I guess. I just think he’s good at keeping Muslims in control. Maybe he’ll build a wall with Pakistan. Wouldn’t be as beautiful as mine, but it might be OK.”

“You know who’s really smart?”

“Besides me? Putin. We talked about it.”

“It’s amazing how many people underestimate him, just like you get underestimated, Mr. President.”

“You got that right.”

“Thank you.”

“Speaking of Indians, why isn’t Commala as smart as a whip? Did her Black genes overwhelm her Indian genes?”

“Boy, that’s a good guess, Mr. President. A good guess indeed.”

"You know, the smart ones know their place. Like Ben Carson at that debate. He knew to wait for me. Or that Donald guy. Not Donald Duck but ... "

"You mean Mr. Donalds? The Congressman?"

"Yes, that's it. Knows who he is and what his place and role is."

"Mr. President, once again, your analysis of people, and how smart people work around you and fit in with you, is impeccable."

“Vance, that’s why I like you and want to offer you this job. You think like me.”

“Mr. President, I’m sorry I wasn’t smart enough to do that in 2016. I’m glad I am now.

“And? You name it, and I’m your point man. Single women, cats, immigration, how immigrants feel about cats? I’ll be on it.”

“You’re my kind of guy, unlike that weasel Pence that some of the Religious Right talked me into.

“And, one final thing.”

“Yes, Mr. President?”

“You’re in the Senate, right? Whatever needs to be done on Jan. 6, 2025, to make sure all those electoral votes are counted correctly, and there’s no Democratic steal, I’m counting on you.”

“I’ll do what needs to be done.”