canyonwalker | Entries tagged with 2024 campaign

It's late evening on Tuesday, Election Day here in California as I write. It's too early to call a winner in the presidential race but it looks like it's going to be Trump. He's leading in most of the swing states: Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, and Nevada. Not all the votes are counted— so the outcome could still flip— but the margins are big enough in several of these states and the numbers of votes remaining to be counted small enough that a "red mirage"/"blue wave" reversal seems unlikely.

Meanwhile the Republicans have taken the Senate and are on track to keep their small majority in the House. Assuming Trump does win the White House he'll have complete control over the federal government. Both houses of Congress will be his willing lapdogs to enact boldly reactionary policies fueled by hatred and the grudges he's amassed and nursed for the past 4 years. He won't be slowed down by his ineptitude at understanding the levers of power; his political supporters have written a plan (Project 2025, one of its aspects) for how to fill the ranks of government with loyalist yes-men instead of the various "adults in the room" who curbed his worst impulses last time. And the 6 seat arch-conservative majority on the Supreme Court will not check him.

This is a terrifying time to be a US citizen. I'm afraid in a year or two I won't recognize my own country.

I voted my ballot today at the local election precinct. I filled it out in advance; it had been mailed to me. I had several ways to submit my vote. I decided I would hand-carry it into the polling station, submit it through the electronic reader, and confirm that the scanner read all my selections correctly.

The polling station was quiet when I went today around 11am. My spouse is volunteering there as an aide. She and the other volunteers say it has been slow all week. Of course, it's still before election day. It's possible a lot of people are holding out until the 6th. It's also possible that with numerous days to vote early, plus the options of dropping off a sealed ballot at a dropbox or mailing it, there just won't be that many people coming to old-fashioned polling stations.

The polling station was big, though. It's in a community center in a nearby city park. It has been one of the polling locations for probably decades around here, but this time they had multiple rooms going for voting instead of just one. There were lots of volunteers working it, more than I've ever seen before around here. There were signs and arrows and a one-way path through the building we had to follow. Including leaving through a door on the opposite side of the building from where we came in.

It's like they're expecting trouble.

I'm going through the ballot propositions in this year's general election. I'm onto my 5th blog in this series now. I used the first four two write about the 10 statewide propositions on the ballot this year;

Part 1: Props 2 & 3 and a few links on how props work
Part 2: Props 4, 5, and 6
Part 3: Props 32, 33, and 34
Part 4: Props 35 and 36

Here in Part 5 I'll address three local and school district measures.

Measure E: Update the Sunnyvale Library: YES.

Measure E would authorize the City of Sunnyvale to issue up to $290MM in bonds, backed by an additional property tax of no more than $27.47 per $100,000 of assessed value (that's 0.02747%). Link: City of Sunnyvale Library Bond Measure. We desperately need to renovate our library. When I've visited it I've left disappointed that it looked like a relic from my childhood in the 1980s. It turns out it's even older than that, just as the suburban libraries I visited as a kid rarely were brand-spanking-new. Ours is actually from 1960.

Note, as this is a bond measure not related to schools it requires a whopping two-thirds majority of the vote to pass. I wrote a bit about this challenge in discussing Prop 5 in Part 2 of this series. Well, Prop 5 wouldn't make this bond any easier to pass, as it (Prop 5) only targets affordable housing and infrastructure bonds. At least, I pretty sure libraries don't fall into that bill's definition of "infrastructure". They're talking about transit and utilities. And even if Prop 5 did extend to libraries, it wouldn't apply this year. Thus I figure this library bond is doomed to fail because it's hard to get a two-thirds supermajority on anything.

Measure F: City Charter Amendments: Leaning NO.

Measure F makes a few minor language tweaks to the city charter and also sneaks in a major, politically divisive change. Link: City of Sunnyvale 2024 Charter Amendments.

The minor changes are to replace gendered language with non-gendered language throughout the document— yay, no more presumption that city council, employees, and committee members are he/him— and revising the mandate of 2 council meetings per month to 24 regularly scheduled meetings per year (allowing some flexibility around holidays).

The divisive change is "Eliminate the voter registration and citizenship requirements for all boards and commissions (removes barriers to volunteering)". I'm not sure how I feel about the city appointing non-citizens, people who can't even vote— and, let's be honest, we're probably also talking about including immigrants unlawfully present in the US— to city boards and commissions. I'm not dead-set against it... though I'm sure many people are. For now I'd say I'm Leaning toward NO on Measure F.

Measure Y: Renew $59 Parcel Tax Supporting Elementary & Middle School: YES.

Measure Y seeks to renew an existing tax of $59 per parcel that supports various programs in the local elementary & middle school district. It's not a new tax or a tax increase; it's one we property owners have already been paying for years. And it's chump change. It's less than 0.1% of the median property tax bill in this city.

Why do we need it? Well, our local schools aren't as good as they should be. We're in the middle of Silicon Freakin' Valley, and my local elementary school only has 27% of its students working on grade level in math. Across the whole district it's just 48%. We need to keep investing in math education, which renewing this tax does.

BTW, any homeowner who has a tax-and-spend objection to parcel taxes for schools, an irate "Gov't shouldn't take my money!" sort of attitude, should consider that funding better schools is a net gain for them. A difference of even half a point in school rankings can add— or destroy— thousands of dollars in home value. Funding better schools is an investment in your own portfolio in addition to an investment in the next generation of people.

I'm going through the ballot propositions on the ballot here in the 2024 general election. In this 4th blog in the series I'll finish with the last two statewide propositions. But then I'll have to write at least a Part 5 to address the local props on the ballot. Whew!

Here are my previous blogs on this year's ballot propositions:

Part 1: Props 2 & 3 and a few links on how props work
Part 2: Props 4, 5, and 6
Part 3: Props 32, 33, and 34

Now onto Props 35 and 36.

Prop 35: Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal: YES.

Medi-Cal is a program that funds health care for millions of poor people and children in California. One of its sources of funding, a tax on health insurance plans, will lapse if nothing changes. And that lapse would be a double whammy as the funding is matched by federal dollars. A YES vote on 35 makes the temporary funding permanent, at least at the state level. The federal matching... well, that depends on who wins the presidency.

Prop 36: Stiffer Criminal Penalties for Minor Crimes: NO.

Ten years ago California voters approved Prop 47, which reduced penalties on certain minor crimes such as small-time theft and drug use, reducing them from felonies to misdemeanors. Curiously the original motivation behind it was to reduce California's prison population— as federal courts had found the terrible conditions in the prisons unconstitutionally harsh and were threatening to release prisoners ad hoc if the state didn't reduce the prison population itself. That notwithstanding, many of us voted in favor of Prop 47 as a matter of rationalizing criminal law and promoting fairer social justice. Now, 10 years later, the lock-'em-up faction of politics is looking to repeal Prop 47.

The lock-'em-up side of politics warns us breathlessly of a crime wave sweeping our cities. Murders, drug use, homelessness (which isn't really a crime), and theft. Our cities, especially our cities where Democrats lead, are cesspools, they cry. But here are the facts: Crime overall is near a 50 year low. Yes, it ticked up a bit from absolute lows during part of the Covid pandemic, but signs are that it's coming back down.

"But what about rampant retail theft?" social critics ask. It turns out it's been overreported. The head of a drugstore chain admitted that they played up "theft" as a reason for their poor financial results and the need to close stores in some locations. Really the primary causes were a) overexpansion coupled with b) failure to adapt an outdated business model to the changing market. And as for stores locking up more and more products behind plexiglass... well, consider that the stores are doing this because they're cheaping out on staff to run the stores. When I go to my local CVS to fill prescriptions I notice that while the pharmacy often has 3 or even 4 people filling bottles, the whole rest of the store generally has one employee.

But let's not get too lost in the details. The big picture here is that we've been down the lock-'em-up road before. It doesn't work. It fills our prisons with low-level offenders who could be better reformed with treatment than incarceration, stresses available prison space to the point that conditions are inhumane, provokes a spending crisis as we confront the costs of having to build more prisons to house everyone we convict, and ultimately doesn't reduce the crime rate. Vote NO on 36.

I'm going through the ballot propositions on the ballot here in the 2024 general election. See part 1 of this series for a few links on how props work and my thoughts about Props 2 & 3; and part 2 of this series for Props 4, 5, and 6. Here are my thoughts on the next few.

Prop 32: Raise the Minimum Wage: Weak No.

Prop 32 is the first measure on this ballot that's a citizen initiative— meaning it was written and qualified for the ballot by private citizens, as opposed to bond measures and constitutional amendments which are approved by the legislature first then must be put to voters for final approval. Citizen led initiatives often have problems. I'll address that in a moment.

Prop 32 would raise the minimum wage state-wide in California. Employers with 26+ employees would have to pay a minimum of $17 starting immediately and $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, a minimum of $17 applies starting January 1, 2025, rising to $18 on January 1, 2026.

I've blogged many times about minimum wage and how it's generally too low. From reading my past thoughts you might be surprised that I'm leaning against Prop 32. This has to do with the weaknesses of citizen led initiatives. Often they embody a worthy idea but with a flawed implementation.

This raise to $17-18 is not huge. While you might be thinking about the federal minimum wage, which has been unchanged at $7.25/hr for 15 years, California's minwage is already much higher. Currently the statewide minimum is $16, which took effect January 1, 2024. For fast-food workers a higher rate of $20 took effect April 1. Source: State of California Department of Industrial Relations.

While the statewide minwage is already high compared to the (outdated) federal minimum, cities and counties are free to require higher wages. In my city of Sunnyvale it rose to $18.55 at the start of the year. In neighboring Mountain View it's $18.75 this year, rising to $19.20 on January 1, 2025.

To me the flaw in raising the statewide rate again is that it's not necessarily appropriate everywhere in the state. Sunnyvale and Mountain View are high-cost areas. Many businesses were already having to pay nearly as much due to labor market conditions. But what about areas where costs of living are much less expensive? $17-18 might be too expensive for employers in such areas and unnecessary for employees. I prefer to see statewide laws developed through the legislature's deliberative process, informed by professional input from government agencies such as the Department of Industrial Relations, with cities and counties able to adjust as necessary for local conditions. That's a better way to legislate labor policy that's fair for all stakeholders than asking the broad electorate to make a strict yea-or-nay vote on an overly simple solution to complex policy.

Prop 33: Allow Localities to Expand Rent Control: Yes.

Rent control can be a divisive issue. Some localities in California have rent control. Whether to have rent control, and the specifics of the limits it entails, are decided at the local level. I.e., your city decides if, and how, there's rent control in your city. This measure does not change that fundamental fact. It does not enact rent control anywhere; it only changes the laws that limit what cities are able to do.

A key rent-control law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, was passed in 1995. It placed significant restrictions on which properties local governments can even subject to rent control. One key restriction is that no building built after February, 1995 can be rent-controlled. Nor can any single-family home. And no limit can be placed on the rent increase when a new tenant signs. (Allegedly landlords try to drive out older tenants of rent-controlled properties so they can reprice at market rates.) That 1995 date was not set to be indexed... so today, all condos built within the past 29.75 years are exempt from rent control. That's ridiculous. Prop 33 repeals Costa-Hawkins so local governments have more latitude to enact modern policies that serve their residents.

Prop 34: Slap Punitive Restrictions on the AIDS Healthcare Foundation: HELL NO.

The official title of this proposition is "RESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS." It would required these "CERTAIN HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS" to spend 98% of their revenues from a federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Putting governance on healthcare providers to ensure they spend most of their money on caring for patients seems like a worthy cause, doesn't it? Don't be fooled.

This bill defines "CERTAIN HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS" so that it includes exactly one provider. One. It's the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. It's not any insurance company. The ACA required insurance companies only spend 80% of their revenues on patient care. The people who wrote this measure know damn well who they targeted. Prop 34 is a punitive attack from opponents of Prop 33 to punish an organization, AHF, that was a big supporter of Prop 33. Regardless of what you think of Prop 33, this kind of retaliation through the ballot box is an example of the worst kind of use of California's ballot proposition system. Just say NO. Vote NO.

I'm going through the ballot propositions on the ballot here in the 2024 general election. See part 1 of this series for a few links on how props work and my thoughts about Props 2 & 3. Here are my thoughts on the next few.

Prop 4: Bond for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Land from Climate Risks: Yes.

Like Prop 2 this is a bond issue already passed by the legislature that now needs to go to voters for final approval. Yes, that's the clumsy process for borrowing money in California, forced upon us by anti-tax activists years ago. Those same anti-tax activists also oppose virtually every single bond measure as a matter of course. They say we should fund the projects from the current budget instead of borrowing against the future. Except they also oppose funding major projects as current-year expenses. It's like they don't think we should be able to have nice things— or that we should have them but somehow not pay for them.

Climate change is real and getting worse. This bond is worthwhile because its funding helps California mitigate some of the most dangerous impacts, such as increased wildfire risks. It also directs 40% of its funding to low-income communities, which generally are most vulnerable to climate change as they lack the resources to ward against risks and recover from harm after it occurs. Vote YES on 4.

Prop 5: Allow Bonds for Affordable Housing & Public Infrastructure to Pass with Just 55% Approval: Yes.

Part of the anti-tax crusaders' legacy in California is that not only does borrowing through public bonds require public approval after being passed by the legislature but that it must win a two-thirds supermajority of the public vote. Even in deep blue California it's rare that you can get 2/3 of the electorate to agree on anything. And that's doubly true nowadays when Republican voters live in news echo chambers of conspiracy theories and outright lies.

Anyway, over the years voters have passed constitutional amendments relaxing the vote requirement from 66.67% to just 55% for certain categories of bonds. This new constitutional amendment adds two more categories to the 55% threshold rule: bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure. The virtually unattainable two-thirds threshold is why we're decades behind where we should be in things like building public transit. Vote YES on this one so the state and our localities are about to get more stuff done.

Prop 6: Eliminate Forced Labor in Prisons: Yes.

This proposition is a legislative constitutional amendment— meaning it's been passed by the State Assembly and Senate and must now go to voters for approval. What's at issue here is that prisons in California are allowed to force inmates to work. It's involuntary servitude. That's what the official title of the measure calls it: involuntary servitude. But some would even call it slavery.

In fact, some do call it slavery. The League of Pissed Off Voters, a progressive group in San Francisco, labels this "Abolish Slavery in CA Prisons". As always, they write vigorously and colorfully. For that reason alone I read and consider all of their opinions even though I don't always agree with them. As far as calling this slavery, though, they're... not wrong. Inmates can be forced to work on pain of punishment. It's allowed in our state constitution as a literal exception to the "NO SLAVERY" rule that been in there since California became a state.

I'm choosing to use the term forced labor here because it makes comparison easier. Type a question like, "Which countries have forced labor in prisons" into your favorite search engine and you'll see interesting answers. According to Walk Free, an Australian human rights group, only 17 countries still practice forced labor in prisons. A glance at which countries those are shows the US keeping poor company. Among the others on the list are Russia, China, North Korea, and Myanmar; all countries with terrible civil rights records.

Look, I get it that "prisoners' rights" is not always a compelling political issue. Prisoners committed crimes against individuals and society, and they should pay. But this is a question about what we want our prisons to be. Is incarceration just a matter of locking people up, or can they also be punished further by being required to work for literal pennies an hour? And understand that this work is not just mild stuff like sweeping floors to keep the cell block clean. Convicts labor built the beuatiful Highway 1 on the Pacific coast years ago, and convicts today serve on crews battling wildfires. And they get paid pennies an hour for risking their lives.

BTW, this measure will not change the fact that when convicts do work, they are paid literal pennies an hour. The measure will only make it so that they can't be coerced, on threat of additional punishment, to work for pennies an hour. Yes, it would be ideal to fix the rate of pay issue, as well. But doing that would make this an expensive measure, one that would attract all kinds of opposition (from anti-tax activists and voters) focused on its dollar cost. Removing the coercion to work is a partial victory for inmates' civil rights that we can achieve right now.

I'm starting a short series of blog posts about the ballot propositions on my ballot this year. "Props", as we call them for short, are often thought of as a California thing, though they're part of the process in a number of other states as well. It's worth taking a close look at props each cycle because they can be complex; more complex, say, than choosing whether to vote for Candidate A or Candidate B.

How are propositions complex? I mean, you just vote yes or no, right? For one, there are 3 types of ballot propositions with different rules and different impacts. Two, propositions may be poorly written or purposefully deceptive, among other problems. By the way, you can't let this complexity cause you to throw your hands up in disgust and vow to vote "No" on all of them. Due to the way the different types of props work, some of them will actually block or even reverse an act of the legislature if a majority of the people vote No,

This year there are a whopping 10 statewide ballot props plus several local props in my area. I'll start with the statewide props in numerical order, outlining a few per blog.This will take several days, so it's good I'm starting now! By the way, this isn't just altruistic. This is me doing my own research and me articulating my argument for or against to be confident my reasoning is sound.

Prop 2: Bond for Public School & Community College Facilities: Yes.

For this prop as with all the others the first source of information I'm checking is the California Secretary of State's Voter Information Guide | Propositions. This measure "Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K-12 public schools (including charter schools), community colleges, and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades."

Years ago, when I was younger and less sophisticated in my understand of political economics, I looked at measures like this and scoffed, "Why does the state just pay for needed work? It seems like every year there's more bonds, extending payments out 30+ years. Why not just pay today for the stuff we need, today?"

Alas, that's not the reality of how the state's budget works. It would be nice if it were, but it's not. The only choice we have is pay this way, or let our schools continue to fall apart, worse.

I like to invest in our schools. Schools are an investment in our shared future. Schools educate the next generation, who'll help support us and help govern us in the future. Schools are also an investment in our economy. Good schools equal good local economies because people and companies want to locate here.

Another thing younger-me would've scoffed at is the fact that this measure is Put on the Ballot by the Legislature, as the voter information guide notes in bold and italic. "Why didn't the legislature just... y'know... legislate... this instead of sending it to us?" younger-me sneered. And that's why it's important to understand How California Ballot Propositions Work. This bond measure had to be approved by a super-majority of the legislature first, then it also has to be approved by the voters.

You can thank the anti-tax zealots for that process, BTW. And incidentally, those same anti-tax zealots also construct the deliberately false arguments yammering about, "Why didn't the legislature just... y'know... legislate... this instead of sending it to us?" that younger-me fell for years ago.

Prop 3: Constitutional Right to Marriage: Yes.

This proposition reverses 2008's Proposition 8, which defined marriage as only being between a man and a woman. It replaces that state constitutional amendment with a new amendment permitting marriage between any two adults, regardless of race or gender.

"How is this necessary?" critics of the measure ask. "Federal courts ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional in 2013." Yes, but consider what happened in 2022 with the US Supreme Court's Dobbs decision overturning nearly 50 years of jurisprudence under Roe v. Wade. We're just one case away from the far-right supermajority overturning the previous court's ruling and restoring California's ridiculous Prop 8. Our constitutional rights cannot be trusted to the interpretation of reactionary ideologues. We need to protect our liberties by putting them in plain text.

Note that this initiative is also tagged Put on the Ballot by the Legislature. Again, that is not an indication that the legislature is passing the buck. This is a Legislative Constitutional Amendment. It's already gone through the full process of being written and approved by both the Assembly and the state senate, and now it must be approved by a majority of the voters, too.

Edited to add: The list starts at 2 because that's the first prop this year.

Edit 2: Read about Props 4, 5, and 6 in my next blog.

Okay, I know, I'm a week behind on catching up with speeches at the Democratic National Convention (DNC). Just this evening I watched some of the highlights from Night 2, which was last Tuesday. But please— no spoilers! I haven't finished the series yet. 🤣

Night 2 featured a bunch of great speeches. Some who were made fun of even on not-rightwing programs actually did pretty good jobs. Doug Emhoff and J.B. Pritzker, I'm looking at you. Former President Barack Obama spoke; and, as usual, he was eloquent and inspiring. But even his oration paled slightly as he had the toughest act to follow. The standout speech of the night was delivered by his wife, former First Lady Michelle Obama.

Much has been made of how Michelle Obama then— in her speech to the 2016 DNC— is different from Michelle Obama now. To me the difference was like this:

Michelle Obama, then and now (Aug 2024)

Okay, Michelle didn't actually say, "Lemme tell you about this weird, orange-faced mf...." But it sure felt like it. 2024 Michelle Obama spat some fire in her speech.

It was so refreshing to hear her put aside the quote from 2016 she's so indelibly linked with, "When they go low, we go high." Because the truth is, when your opponent lies as much as hers does, you can't just talk about your noble ideals. You've got to call out selfishness, hatred, and lies for what they are.

And yeah, I'm only, like, the 10,000th person to offer a meme about Michelle Obama. But here's the other thing about everybody celebrating her taking her dragging former President Donald Trump in her speech.... Going on the attack was only a small part of her speech. Michelle Obama was uplifting and inspiring. With just the right amount of ass-kicking.

I was busy with work last week so I didn't have time to watch the Democratic National Convention. I'm just catching up on it now. I watched Night 1 of the DNC (from Monday) on Saturday night. Don't spoil the plot— I haven't read the books!

As Night 1 full videos ran some 6 hours I just watched about an hour of highlights. Here are 5 Things I took away from it:

1) From a messaging & communications perspective, it's great that Democrats are leading with a positive message

There's plenty negative Dems could say about Trump. And indeed many of the speakers did point out at least a few of his failings each. But on the whole the tone of the night was positive. That's important because audiences want to hear what a speaker or party is for, not just what they're against.

2) Jesse Jackson wheeled out, doesn't speak

Jesse Jackson has been an icon in progressive politics for decades. I remember when he ran for president in 1984 and 1988. (Well, he ran for the Democratic nomination those two times but did not win it.) I also remember him guest starring on Saturday Night Live, of all places, multiple times during his campaigns. He was always a powerful speaker. And he was flexible enough to continue articulating his message while playing the straight man in comedic skits opposite professional satirists. Thus I found his appearance at this 2024 convention saddening. Jackson, now age 82, is in failing health. He has suffered from Parkinson's Disease for several years. On Monday night he was pushed out in a wheelchair by an honor guard. He struggled to wave to the cheering crowd. He did not speak. I appreciate the nod toward his legacy, but seeing a once towering figure brought so low detracted from the night for me.

3) President Biden spoke strongly but not dynamically

So much has been made of President Biden's less-than-expected performance in a debate against Donald Trump two months ago. After months, nay even years, of Republican leaders trumpeting, falsely and without evidence, that Biden is mentally impaired and unable to speak coherently due to his advanced age, it touched off a three week storm of vocal dissatisfaction among Democratic donors and leaders that culminated in Biden dropping out of the reelection campaign. Thus when Biden spoke on Night 1 I was keen to watch his performance. Biden spoke strongly... but not dynamically. He was on point. He was coherent. He was forceful in his delivery. He was even inspiring. But he showed no range. He did little to vary his volume, tone, or pace of speaking. He used almost no hand gestures. In fact he mostly gripped the lectern with both hands as if to brace himself in a defensive pose. In my experience as a practiced speaker and speaking coach (I did this in Toastmasters for 7 years) these are hallmarks not of a mentally incapable speaker but merely someone who is not yet confident and skilled in their delivery. Could this be regression in skills because of age? Maybe. I don't know. But I more believe it's how Biden has always been as he's struggled throughout his life to overcome the stutter he's had since childhood.

4) Hillary Clinton was gracious in passing the "break the glass ceiling" torch to Kamala Harris

Former presidential candidate Clinton is painted by her detractors, mostly unfairly, as a bitter person. After the historically unprecedented setbacks inflicted on her 2016 campaign resulting in a loss to Donald Trump— a loss in the arcane and outdated Electoral College even though she won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes— she arguably has a lot to be bitter about. Thus I I was impressed with the humility and grace Clinton demonstrated in her speech. Instead of recalling all the mean or unfair things done to her, instead of ruing about how she was not the woman to break the ultimate glass ceiling in the US, she warmly encouraged Democrats to help Kamala Harris do just that.

5) VP candidate Tim Walz tears up

Minnesota governor and VP candidate Tim Walz did not have a speaking role in Night 1 of the DNC. He did not speak, but the cameras often cut to him for reaction shots. It seemed like Walz was on the verge of tears the whole night. His face showed him struggling with raw emotion. I see this as a good thing, BTW. For far too long men have been socialized that showing emotion is bad, that it's a feminine thing and anti-masculine. But having emotions is not limited to one gender. I'm glad to see a male political leader model that it's okay for men to have feelings and show them.

In a move that should have surprised absolutely no one, independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. suspended his campaign yesterday and announced his support for Donald Trump. Well, okay, the exact timing of Kennedy ending his failing campaign— he was down to about 5% support in polling averages— was anybody's guess. But the fact he aligns with Trump should be no surprise to anybody.

Kennedy rose to national prominence as an anti-vaccine skeptic and crusader. In 2007 he founded a fringe nonprofit that has gone on to become the most well funded anti-fax organization in the US. He promoted health conspiracies during the Covid pandemic, argued that the government should force medical journals to publish provably flawed research, and wanted Anthony Fauci to be prosecuted. Oh, and recently campaigned on dismantling the HHS. He called the NIH, CDC, and FDA "corrupt" and called for replacing their leadership with "like-minded"— read: antivaxx, anti-government crackpot— people.

This is just one that Kennedy has championed, but it's a big one and it's clearly Trump/extreme right aligned. Still, Kennedy campaigned for the Democratic nomination in 2023 before dropping out and seeking the Libertarian party nomination, then running as an independent. Along the way he's done a lot of his campaigning through extreme right wing media.

Kennedy does have some credibility as a Democratic candidate. Frankly, though, his biggest credential is his name. He's the son of former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy and Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy.

Earlier this year it was widely ~~reported~~ repeated in the news that Kennedy's independent campaign was a big threat to Joe Biden, as he would likely siphon off more Biden voters than Trump voters. This argument was published in right-wing echo chamber media such as Fox News and the National Review. The craven mainstream media credulously repeated these claims, attempting no factual counterpoint— this is why I replaced "reported" with "repeated" above— not even scratching the surface of the claims to show audiences how untrue what they were repeating was.

Now we learn that Kennedy, in a Trump-like move, apparently hit up both campaigns (Harris and Trump) offering his endorsement in exchange for the promise of a cabinet level position. The Harris campaign rejected his overtures through intermediaries, while sources speaking on condition of anonymity say Eric Trump has been brokering conversations with him for weeks.

Kennedy's latest Trump-like move came in his public comments on his endorsement,. He went long on complaining about "attacks on democracy" while endorsing Trump, who's spent 4 years promoting conspiracy theories about the 2020 election being stolen. This is the mindset of the guy they thought would take votes from Democrats?

Trump, who previously called Kennedy "one of the most Liberal Lunatics ever to run for office" and "the dumbest member" of the Kennedy family, now calls him "a brilliant guy", "very smart", and indicates he may offer him a cabinet role in his administration.

I'm late to the party for saying this, but the Democratic Party has really gotten its mojo back the past few weeks. Put this in the category of "better late than never". While none of it may be news to you, if nothing else it's a message in a bottle to my future self.

When Joe Biden folded his reelection campaign just over a month ago the Dems were in the pit of despair. Biden had been lagging in the polls for months, and his uninspiring performance at a debate with Donald Trump June 27 caused a few big-money donors to start expressing doubts about him. The craven mainstream media glommed onto the story and ran articles about it twice a day for weeks, as if his opponent Donald Trump weren't still saying outrageous and dangerous things the whole time, not to mention speaking in increasingly unintelligible fashion— but no, Biden was the one having his mental acuity questioned daily. The Democrats' already sagging campaign dropped into a tailspin.

There was a brief moment following Biden's choice to drop out where the same chattering class of political pundits who talked his campaign into the ground expressed uncertainty about whether his endorsement of Kamala Harris, his former running mate, would improve the party's lot. Much to everyone's surprise, Kamala Harris stepping forward as the presumptive Democratic nominee didn't just improve things, it electrified the base. Democratic voters who'd previously worn hangdog looks suddenly snapped and crackled with new energy.

Was Biden all that bad? Was Harris that much better? The answer is yes-and-no to both. Biden and Harris are close on policy matters, so there's little change there. And Biden's challenges with mental acuity were nowhere near as bad as the dishonest GOP or craven mainstream media might've led the average person to believe. But where Biden failed, and the whole generation of Democratic leaders around him failed, was that they failed to control the message.

Media Matters

The area where Republicans have been absolutely killing the Dems the past 8+ years is messaging. And within the realm of messaging it's not the quality— the GOP routinely claim things that are transparently false and/or contradict things they claimed even moments beforehand— but the quantity.

Republicans have been getting their message out morning, noon, and night, leveraging not just their friendly TV/radio/print media outlets but also social media. Meanwhile Democrats seemed completely out to lunch on the modern media landscape, exhibiting no apparent understanding of the power of social media, let alone even the the "24 hour news cycle" of cable TV— which has been around since the 1990s.

The "old age" problem the Dems have isn't old age per se but that so many of the party leaders— who happen to be old in age— campaign like it's still the 1980s. They've been unable or unwilling to adapt to the times. While GOPs have been pounding their talking points 4 times a day, Dems have remained aloof and refused to engage the issues. They seemed to expect the media to (1) come to them and (2) dig deep to sort fact from fiction for its readers/viewers. Hahaha, that's not how most of the media works anymore.

"Weird"

So, is Kamala Harris really that much better— at media? That's also a yes-and-no situation. Yes, she is more active in providing grist for the media mill than her predecessor, though that's a low bar to cross. But also "no" because it's not just Harris who's different. The party leaders have really woken up around her. With her choice of Tim Walz she picked someone who gets it.

Walz, for example, fired back at Trump's rhetorical technique of branding his opponents with insulting nicknames. It's low-brow but generally has been successful for Trump. Walz didn't even pick a particularly trenchant nickname. He simply called Trump and Vance weird. But that was enough. Just firing back with anything was enough. Weird stuck. It gave supporters something to repeat, and once people were repeating it the guileless media started repeating it, too. It's a simple example of a rallying cry that helps inspire the base and capture the attention of swing voters.

Today Vice President Kamala Harris picked a running mate for her 2024 presidential campaign. From just minutes after President Biden ended his campaign and Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee, political pundits were already describing the kind of person Harris would have to pick to make her ticket palatable to middle America....

From the moment Kamala Harris became the presumptive nominee, the pundit class was saying she'd have to pick a Midwestern White Guy as her running mate

From the moment Kamala Harris became the presumptive nominee, the pundit class was saying she'd have to pick a Midwestern White Guy as her running mate

So I thought, why not pick a Midwestern White guy with experience running a presidential campaign, someone who's also familiar with the Biden/Harris administration, someone who's got executive experience, say, running a cabinet level agency....

Sec'y Transportation Pete Buttigieg meets the definition of Midwestern White Guy....

Sec'y Transportation Pete Buttigieg meets the definition of Midwestern White Guy....

Oops, when the pundits said "Midwestern White guy" they left one thing unsaid...

From the moment Kamala Harris became the presumptive nominee, the pundit class was saying she'd have to pick a Midwestern White Guy as her running mate. They also meant STRAIGHT. Sorry, Mayor Pete.

Sorry, Mayor Pete.

President Joe Biden has dropped out of the race for the 2024 election. He announced this morning he's ending his run for reelection. He endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for nomination as the Democratic party candidate.

Biden's move comes after weeks of the mainstream news media writing his political obituary. He showed poorly in the presidential debate on June 27, failing to land any rhetorical hits on Donald Trump and occasionally looking like a deer in the headlights. Nevermind that Biden continued to show a firm grasp on a variety of world events and how government and modern technology actually work, unlike Trump whose frequent rally speeches are ongoing word-salads with lengthy descents into nonsensical rants about things like sharks and the fact that batteries can't be put in a vehicle. (It's surprising Elon Musk endorsed him so strongly days after that.) A few billionaire donors turned against Biden, and "Is this the end?" was all the press could seem to write about for weeks.

The Republican party ultimately got in line behind an election-denying openly racist convicted felon and rapist who fomented a violent insurrection against the US Congress and his own vice president on January 6, 2020. But Biden had a weak debate performance 3½ weeks ago. Yeah, that's totally worse.

Look, I don't think Biden was the best candidate ever. I've written before about the problem of older leaders staying in political leadership long past the point where their political skills are showing to be badly out of date. Was Biden's mind also slipping? I'm not sure, as I don't trust most the publicized claims that it was. Everybody making that claim has ulterior motives. That's not to say they're wrong, just that there's reasonable suspicion about various personal motivations. But for anyone arguing that Biden was no longer mentally qualified, have you looked at the other guy?

Well, Kamala Harris is the presumptive Democratic nominee now. I don't think she's the best candidate ever, either. But again, look at the other guy. Harris in 2024!

A jury in Manhattan surprisingly returned a verdict late this afternoon in the case against Donald Trump for falsifying business records. Prosecutors charged that the former president paid hush money to porn actress Story Daniels to cover up an alleged affair, then lied about those payments in his business records to cover up the coverup. After just 2 days of deliberation the jury found Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts.

I've been following news of trial daily the past few weeks, though not blogging about it because— like I've written a few times before— I'd rather this blog not be consumed by politics. I've got to say, as a person reading the news daily, I'm surprised the jury convicted.

Why is it a surprise? Because, quite to the contrary of what Trump and his propaganda allies in the right-wing media and Congress have claimed without fact the judge said in the courtroom, a guilty verdict requires a unanimous decision by the jury. All 12 member must vote to convict. All it takes is one juror finding reasonable doubt; their vote to acquit prevents a guilty verdict.

Was there reasonable doubt? In my opinion from what I saw of the evidence, no. But I am not representative of the mindset of every person in this country. Some 40% of the electorate believe the lies repeated every morning, noon, and night by Trump and his allies— that the trial is rigged, the judge is corrupt, the judge made numerous outright violations of the law, all the prosecution's witnesses were lying, and it was all orchestrated by President Biden to knock Trump out of the 2024 presidential race.

All it would've taken was one out of 12 people on the jury to be a hardliner among that 40% and claim reasonable doubt, and then we'd have a hung jury and a mistrial. That's what I expected: a hung jury. Instead we got an unanimous vote to convict... and on all 34 counts... and quicker than just about anybody expected.

Do these guilty verdicts change the 2024 presidential campaign? Indications so far are "Not really." Trump being convicted does not make him ineligible to run, or to be elected, or to serve as president. He could even run from prison, if he's sentenced to prison. That's been done before by other presidential candidates! And Trump very well could still win in November. Most of the people who were going to vote for him already believed the trial was an utter sham and a miscarriage of justice. Him being convicted only proves what they already believed, that President Biden is the corrupt one. Plus, there's the right of appeal. Anything could happen on appeal, from the case being overturned on a technicality to the far-right-wingers on the Supreme Court making up some outrageous new legal theory setting aside the conviction.

There's an old saying in elections, every vote counts. Sometimes one side wins by such a lopsided margin it's hard to believe any one vote made a difference. Other times an election is close and it's obvious every vote counts. Just recently in my area a rare closeness occurred: a Congressional primary resulted in a tie.

The tie occurred in California's District 16. Former San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo California won with over 38,000 votes. The tie occurred for second place. California Assembly member Evan Low and Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian tied for second with 30,249 votes apiece. Example news coverage: LA Times story 3 Apr 2024, KQED article 3 Apr 2024.

Under the rules of California's "Top Two" primary system, the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the general election in November. The law provides that when there's a tie for 2nd place, three candidates advance. So Liccardo, Low, and Simitian will face off again in November.

As I've noted before, D16 is not my district today but kind of used to be in the sense that retiring incumbent Representative Anna Eshoo used to be my Congresswoman. Redistricting in 2012 moved district boundaries around, resulting in her being in a different district. Eshoo's retirement after 32 years in Congress opened a once-in-a-generation opportunity— almost once-in-two-generations— for a competitive race. And this race has been very competitive... among Democrats! Not one, or two, but three credible Democrats ran in the primary. All have held prior elected offices and are in the political mainstream. I kind of wish this were still my district because I like to vote in exciting, genuinely competitive elections!

I've been checking on the preliminary results of the election primary. "Preliminary primary"... say that 5 times fast! 😅

Especially now that my vote has been tallied 😅 I'll update the results. Note that these are still preliminary results. According to state and county election data only about 75-80% of all votes cast have been tallied and published as of midday today.

US Senate: As I mentioned several days ago, the top two candidates are Adam Schiff (D) and Steve Garvey (R). Each has a bit over 32% of the primary vote so far. At this point it's a near certainty they'll go the general election. The next closest candidate, Katie Porter, in 3rd place, has 14.8% of the vote so far. For her to overtake one of them would require her to win nearly 100% of the pending ballots.

US Congress District 17: Incumbent Rep. Ro Khanna (D) is leading with 63% of the vote. Republican challenger Anita Chen has 27%. It looks like the two of them will face off in the general election... where it's pretty much a sure bet Khanna will win. Rep. Khanna is a reasonably popular incumbent Democrat in a deep blue district.

US Congress District 16: The 16th isn't my district today though it was for many years, prior to redistricting in 2012. Sixteen term incumbent Anna Eshoo (D) is finally retiring— yes, after 32 years in the House— making it a wide-open race this year. Former San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo is leading the field with over 22% of the vote. Second place currently is a near tie between Joe Simitian and Evan Low, each with a bit over 17% of the vote. Low, as I mentioned last week, used to be the State Assembly member for my district. But my pick in this race, if I were voting in the district, would be Simitian. As a member of local and state government for 20 years he built a reputation as a policy wonk, a person who digs deep into the facts of the issues brought before him and can be counted on to reach a thoughtful and objective opinion. I experienced that first-hand at a town hall several years ago where I rose to speak on the issue of the day and how it impacts my neighborhood and me, personally. Simitian is the one politician, ever, who instead of saying, basically, "Okay, thanks, next!" when I've spoken at a public meeting actually showed that he considered my argument by engaging in a brief, principled debate with me.

State Assembly District 26: my pick, Patrick Ahrens, is leading with 35% of the vote. It looks like his competitor in the general election will be Tara Sreekrishnan, who currently has 26% of the vote. It's possible, though, that Sophie Yan Song, currently with 23%, could overtake her. There are still a lot of ballots to be counted locally. If Ahrens and Sreekrishnan win the primary it'll be a case of California's top-two primary system advancing two members of the same party (Democrats, in this case) to the general election.

Proposition 1: This state-wide measure to rejigger funding and treatment for mental health, addiction, and homeless is headed down to the wire. The "YES" vote is leading by 50.3% to 49.7%. This past week I shared my reasons for voting YES. on 1.

Measure C, bonds to improve schools in my local school district, needs 55% to pass because it's a bond measure. Currently it's winning 69% to 31%. Read my reasons for voting YES on C.

Sources: Statewide election results at California Secretary of State (sos.ca.gov); Santa Clara County results.

Some results from yesterday's Super Tuesday primary are coming in. Unsurprisingly, Biden and Trump won big in their respective races. Neither candidate totally ran the table, though. Joe Biden came in second in the territory of American Samoa, and Donald Trump came in second to Nikki Haley in Vermont. Despite her first-place showing in Vermont, though, where she leads Trump 50% to 46%, Haley announced today she has suspended her campaign.

My reaction? It's about time! It's been obvious for weeks she's not going to win this thing. She's won two states, Vermont and DC, while Trump has won the rest— and generally by very lopsided margins. Even in Haley's home state of South Carolina, where she served as governor for 6 years, Trump drubbed her by 20 points in the primary. In terms of the delegate math he's won more than 90% of the delegates pledged and, with his Super Tuesday wins, now has more than 80% of the delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Example news coverage: Super Tuesday 2024 full coverage (Yahoo! News, updated 6 Mar 2024).

In other Super Tuesday news, here in California the top two candidates who advance to the general election for US Senate are Adam Schiff and Steve Garvey. It seems Schiff's gambit to campaign for Garvey helped. Schiff came in first with 33% of the vote and Garvey is close behind at 32%. Rounding out the leading contenders, Katie Porter came in 3rd with 14%, and Barbara Lee finished 4th with 7%. I actually threw the lever for Lee (with second-order logic behind that choice) so nominally it's a loss for me, but I'll be satisfied to vote for Schiff in November.

Tomorrow, March 5, is the 2024 primary election in California. That means today I filled out my ballot and sealed it up to drop off at the ballot box tomorrow. Yes, California is one of those voting rights states where everyone can get a mail-in ballot, no questions asked. Mail-in ballots are much easier for people whose job and or family situations make it prohibitive to carve out time on election day to go to a polling station, wait in line, and fill out a ballot provided only then and there.

Here's a run down of the main things on the ballot this time.

President: I'll assume if you can read this and are eligible to vote in the US, you know what the choices are here.

US Senator: It's a race to replace Diane Feinstein, who died several months ago. Actually it's two races, making it more confusing. One race is to fill her seat for the remainder of her current term, which ends 3 January 2025. The other race is to be US Senator from California for a full, 6 year term.

Both of these senate races follow California's "top two" primary rule, which is also affectionately known as a "jungle primary". Numerous candidates run in the primary, and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election. This narrowing of the field is done without regard to political party, so it's possible the general election could feature two Democrats running against each other and no Republican.

There are three credible Democrats in this race. All three are sitting members of Congress: Adam Schiff, Barbara Lee, and Katie Porter. The leading Republican is past baseball star Steve Garvey. Schiff leads among all the candidates and has spent a lot of his considerable campaign money telling people Garvey is a conservative. Poll watchers agree this seems to be a play by Schiff to shape the results of the "top two" primary by boosting Garvey to be the #2 finisher. If that happens Schiff would presumably coast to a win in the general election, given the overwhelming registration advantage Democrats have in California, versus having to fight it out against a fellow Democrat.

US Congress: Again, a "top two" primary race, though with only a handful of candidates rather than the dozens in the senate race. Here our incumbent, Rep. Ro Khanna, has been doing a pretty good job, so I gave him my vote again.

State Assembly: My district's incumbent Assembly member, Evan Low, is termed out this year and is seeking higher office. He's running for US Congress (though not in my district). I usually don't pay much attention to State Assembly, but this year I went to a meet-and-greet with one of the candidates, Patrick Ahrens. I went into that backyard rally skeptical and left shaking his hand and telling him he'd earned my vote. This is a race where I politely disagree with my friend

mithriltabby who posted his usual well-researched recommendations a few weeks ago. Edit: I don't think the opponent of Ahrens's he chose is poor but I do consider Ahrens a stronger candidate than he gave him credit for. I found Ahrens to be intelligent, thoughtful, and skilled at bringing together political leaders across different levels of government to solve challenging problems, like housing for the homeless, that are often dismissed with finger-pointing about who else needs to be involved. Ahrens has a record of not just identifying who else needs to participate in the solution but actually getting them to help.

Proposition 1: There's just one statewide proposition this election. That's a good thing, because such significant measures as statewide initiatives shouldn't be passed or rejected in elections with such low turnout as primaries. In fact, the state passed a law (via ballot proposition 😂) to force most props to the general election. Anyway, this prop is clumsily named "AUTHORIZES $6.38 BILLION IN BONDS TO BUILD MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR THOSE WITH MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE CHALLENGES; PROVIDES HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS." Per the information in the state voter guide it changes up how money under an existing law is allocated, shifting more of it to mental health care, housing, and drug addiction treatment. It also includes a new bond to help fund these. The measure isn't perfect, as my friend mithriltabby points out, but unlike him I support it anyway. I side with The League of Pissed Off Voters in San Francisco who also explain that Prop. 1 is imperfect but voting "Yes" is far better than voting "No" for anyone who cares about the dual crisis of drug addiction and homelessness. I drive past growing tent encampments 1/2 mile from my house several days a week. I'd very much like to see them gone— and not by police rousting the homeless and simply forcing them to move elsewhere, but by us providing a compassionate, superior alternative.

Measure C: This one's a local school district bond proposal. It authorizes up to $214 million in bonds to improve local schools, paid for by a surcharge on property taxes. That may sound like a lot of money, but it's only at most $15 per $100,000 of assessed property value. For roughly a hundred bucks a year I'll invest more in local schools. I don't use the schools myself, nor do I have any schoolkids, but if our schools go up even a point on statewide scores it'll add thousands to the value of my house. So even if I didn't think educating the next generation is the right thing to do (it is the right thing to do) there's still a selfish argument to be made for it.

Oops, it happened again. Another week, another mass shooting. (Actually these happen more than once a day in the US; it's just they only make the news once a week or so because we're sadly so accustomed to them.) It was another school shooting, too. On Thursday a troubled student at Perry High School north of Des Moines, Iowa, walked in with a gun and killed a sixth grader and injured 7 other people including the principal before turning his gun on himself. Example news coverage: NBC News article & video, 5 Jan 2024.

The shooting occurred while many GOP candidates seeking the 2024 presidential nomination are in Iowa ahead of the state's first-in-nation caucus later this month. Sadly these leaders had nothing meaningful to say about the tragedy. Folks such as Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, and Vivek Ramaswamy offered their "thoughts", as they always do, but when it came to political solutions all they could offer was that we have a "mental health" problem in this country.

The problem with conservatives blaming gun violence on "mental health" is twofold. One, these same conservatives routinely block laws relating to mental health and guns, whether it be (a) funding for mental health care or (b) restrictions on possession of guns by the mentally ill. Two, as many people pointed out when House Speaker Mike Johnson said the problem is "the human heart" after a church shooting a few months ago, humans in every country in the world have hearts but only in the US among first-world countries do we have such an outrageous death toll by gun violence. Since 2020 gun violence has been the leading cause of death among kids in the US. It's not the hearts, it's the guns, stupid.

Donald Trump was even more direct about the GOP's intransigence against doing anything meaningful about gun violence. People "have to get over it," he said at a rally in Iowa Friday. Example news coverage: Rolling Stone, 5 Jan 2024.

Last night was the first Republican presidential primary debate of the 2024 presidential election cycle. Eight candidates vying for the GOP nomination took the stage in an event hosted and broadcast live by Fox News.

Eight candidates in first GOP presidential primary debate (Aug 2023)

Eight candidates in first GOP presidential primary debate (Aug 2023)

The candidates were former vice president Mike Pence; Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis; former South Carolina governor and former UN ambassador Nikki Haley, former South Carolina governor and former ambassador to the UN; Vivek Ramaswamy; North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum; South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott; former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson; and former New Jersey governor Chris Christie.

The Elephant Not in the Room

This debate was in many ways a race to be 2024's also ran— or, more accurately, 2024's also-also ran. That's because former president Donald Trump, who skipped this debate, holds an astonishing lead in opinion polls, with 62% of likely GOP primary voters saying they'd vote for him. The closest competitor is Ron DeSantis, with 16%. Everybody else is in single digits.

Trump not only skipped this debate, he counter-programmed it. He recorded a one-on-one interview with former Fox News TV personality Tucker Carlson that was streamed on X (formerly known as Twitter) starting just 5 minutes before the GOP debate. Consider that a huge middle finger not just to Republican party but to Fox News as well.

Recall that when Trump skipped a GOP primary debate in 2016 Fox News was very critical of him. This time around they tried playing nice even as Trump dunked on them. He not only counter-programmed their live debate, he did it with a disgraced former employee they fired over his involvement in a lawsuit that cost the company nearly 800 million dollars.

Winners and Losers in the Race for Second Place

Everyone always wants to know who won or lost the debate. Based on what I've seen and read there are at least 10 winners and losers— which is astonishing for a debate that only had 8 candidates. I'll keep the list shorter here at 3:

Winner: Nikki Haley. Haley won for Most in Touch with the US Mainstream. She broke with right-wing orthodoxy in criticizing the enormous debt added under Trump's administration, acknowledging that human-caused climate change is real and is a crisis, and saying that abortion shouldn't be banned at the federal level. She also spoke well and clearly, coming across both polished and thoughtful. Would I vote for her? Hell no. While her positions would have intrigued me back in the 1990s, the modern GOP is nothing like the party of 30 years ago. They have remade themselves into a shocking amalgam of liars, clowns, grifters, and fascists. A vote for any one of them is a vote for the whole rotten party and its rotten ideas. I will never again vote for a GOP candidate in any race until the party is reformed— and by reformed I mean so thoroughly cleaned of noxious beliefs and members that really the only solution is for it to go the way of the Whig Party and let something new rise from its ashes.

Winner: Vivek Ramaswamy. Ramaswamy won for Most Trump-like. He knew all the MAGA hot buttons and pressed them. He was bombastic, ignorant, and frankly scary with his outrageous proposals for, e.g., extrajudicial killings of criminal suspects and invading Mexico.

Loser: Ron DeSantis. DeSantis has long been seen as the second place contender in this primary cycle, the only candidate who has a chance of taking the nomination from Trump (as remote as the polling numbers indicate that is). After his campaign has stumbled several times in recent weeks this debate was seen as his moment to shine. Instead, he fell flat. His wooden performance underscored a minority opinion I've seen for weeks about his high profile as Florida governor— that he's strong in carefully choreographed PR opportunities with friendly media inside the GOP echo chamber but can't handle anything outside of that. Indeed, here even inside the GOP echo chamber with friendly media, just criticism from within his own party left him stumbling to find footing.

Profile

canyonwalker

May 2025

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Syndicate

Page Summary

Active Entries

Style Credit

Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated May. 29th, 2025 08:11 am