Jan
21
2024

Maybe I'll Write In Bill Belichick in November

[sports fan]

Mr. Ramirez has one analogy, Kat Rosenfield has another:

Later in the thread, she admits she's probably going for the gruel, seemingly mostly out of habit. That's a non-starter for me, but so is the cheeto.

Ms. Rosenfield's tweet is via Josh Barro, who describes the upcoming choice as The Stupidest Election of [His] Lifetime.

We are headed for the first presidential election rematch since 1956. Both candidates are unpopular. Both candidates are also extremely well-known to voters. As ever, it would probably be a good thing if more voters had a clear understanding of the policy stakes of the election — there are eligible voters out there who believe Joe Biden is pro-life because states banned abortion while he was president, for example, and a higher level of policy awareness might help people like that make decisions that better align with their actual preferences. But I’m not terribly optimistic that the voters who need this kind of information most will find it by reading and watching news about the campaign. And I can’t exactly blame the normies for tuning out. This campaign sucks. I wish I knew less about it too.

There is a popular but mistaken idea that paying close attention to politics is a civic duty. A lot of the people who espouse this idea are what the political scientist Eitan Hersh calls “political hobbyists”: people who watch MSNBC or Fox News for hours on end, who reshare tiresome political memes on Facebook and ruin family dinners with political rants, and who generally make themselves miserable by being angry about the opposing party all the time, but who do not actually do anything (besides vote) that affects electoral outcomes. A Biden voter who spends the next ten months tearing his or her hair out in front of the television will have exactly the same effect on the election outcome as one who ignores the campaign until October, wakes up to discover that we really (really!) are doing this again, and then sighs and orders another bowl of gruel. That voter will have had more time to pursue a more fun hobby in the meantime.

Hm, do I resemble that remark?

I suppose it's fair to call me a political hobbyist. But, unlike the stereotype, I can't stand to watch any news channel. I rarely do politics on social media, and I confine my political rants to this blog right here. And I don't have enough hair to tear out.

Otherwise…

Let's check in with the oddsmakers. Surely we'll see a Nikki surge…

Candidate EBO Win
Probability		 Change
Since
1/14
Donald Trump 45.8% +4.5%
Joe Biden 36.2% +4.2%
Gavin Newsom 3.4% unch
Nikki Haley 3.3% -5.4%
Michelle Obama 3.3% -0.5%
Robert Kennedy Jr 2.4% -0.6%
Other 5.6% -2.2%

Well, darn. That doesn't look like a surge at all. And don't call me Shirley.

Also of note:

  • Also, he will probably strew radioactive waste along the border. "Kevin Carroll served as senior counsel to Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly during the Trump administration" (it says here). But he's not a fan, writing of The Fire Next Time. Trump's previous term was no bed of Constitutional-abiding roses. But…

    If Trump wins the election, he is likely to announce policies which, while military leaders may disagree with them, are well within a president’s discretion, such as withdrawing troops from NATO countries, Japan, and South Korea, and forcing Ukraine to surrender territory to Russia. The Founding Fathers gave the commander-in-chief broad and powerful authority in military and diplomatic matters, and these orders the armed forces must obey.

    But Trump may go beyond that:

    • His team has reportedly drawn up plans to invoke the Insurrection Act to increase the use of the military to quell domestic protests.

    • Trump and his supporters have proposed recalling to active duty retired generals who served in Trump’s administration and subsequently criticized him, in order to prosecute them under the section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that forbids officers from uttering “contemptuous words” about the president.

    • Trump’s staff has promised to use the National Guard to aid Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in the internal enforcement of immigration laws. While legal, this would be unwise and would entail armed teenaged soldiers, untrained in conducting criminal investigations within constitutional parameters, asking citizens and aliens alike—including many Hispanics—to produce identity papers. With their commander-in-chief openly stating that migrants are “poisoning the blood of the country,” some encounters would inevitably result in civil rights abuses.

    • Former Pentagon chief of staff Kash Patel has pledged to “come after” Trump’s political opponents in the federal bureaucracy and the press. Trump admits to planning to abuse his power “on day one,” and retweeted a word cloud featuring the terms “revenge,” “power” and “dictatorship” and a video stating that he is an instrument of God.

    • Trump has mused about serving a third presidential term, which is plainly unconstitutional.

    None of this is normal, or good.

    I'm not quite as disturbed as Carroll is by Trump's stream-of-fantasy musings. But even given that discount, it's an indication of the dark places his mind goes.

  • Is America ready to hear about interest costs? Probably only if America is having trouble getting to sleep. But interest rates are the most likely sources of economic trouble in the near term. Veronique de Rugy has advice for the candidates: Don't Let Interest Costs Derail Your Presidential Plans.

    Remember when Republicans on the campaign trail would talk about how they would make sure to put the U.S. on a fiscally sane path? I miss that time. While a few of the current crop have paid lip service to the idea of constraining spending, no one seems to have a clear plan about how to do it.

    It's unfortunate. Letting the spending trajectory we're on further deteriorate will hinder any plans these candidates have for their presidency. It could even jeopardize the fight against inflation.

    As a reminder of our fiscal situation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, we were running a $1.5 trillion deficit in May 2023. That's quite a spectacular number whether in a time of full employment, economic downturn or emergency. This is in large part due to the spectacular increase in spending to $6.4 trillion. Data compiled by Brian Riedl show that in a little less than two years, "President Biden added $4.8 trillion to 10-year deficits." As a result, deficits are now projected to exceed $3 trillion in a decade.

    America's in denial mode on entitlement spending; they ain't likely to react well to any serious spending-restraint talk from the candidates.