Friday, June 22, 2018

America First? Polling Shows It's Trudeau First Over Trump


Want to drive Trumpanzee up a wall? Every poll should ask, who do you like more, Trump or Canadian Prime Minister JustinTrudeau? Trump is completely, obsessively jealous of Trump, because Trudeau is intelligent, well-spoken, handsome, with it, fashionable and vigorous, while Trump is... well, none of those things. (And rumors are that both Melania and Ivanka went completely "gah gah" over Trudeau.) The one poll that was done, by Ipsos shows that both Canadians and Americans prefer, as you can see above, Trudeau's approach to trade over Trump's approach.

Now a new poll by the Canadian polling firm, Campaign Research "revealed that 81% of Canadians “disapproved” of Donald Trump’s performance as the President of the U.S, a 5% increase from September 2017. Those who showed the highest level of disapproval were females (86%), as well as members of the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) (91%) and the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP) (93%). A full 2/3rd’s of Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) supporters (66%) also expressed disapproval."
When asked if they believed that Donald Trump has helped or harmed the Canadian economy, 72% of Canadians believed Donald Trump has harmed the Canadian economy. This sentiment was consistent across all age groups and regions.

Over the last 9 months, members of NAFTA have engaged in discussions regarding re-negotiations to various terms of the agreement. A large majority of Canadians (87%) were aware of these discussions.  Millennial awareness of these discussions taking place were the lowest at 63%, while the topic was very well known among older Canadians aged 45+ with over 90% awareness. Men (92%) seemed to be more engaged with the issue than women (83%). Awareness levels were also consistently high across all regions in Canada.

Donald Trump recently imposed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum imports to the USA. In retaliation, Canada decided to implement its’ own tariffs on hundreds of U.S. products imported into Canada. The response from Canadians was positive, with 74% agreeing with the Canadian Government’s decision to implement these tariffs. Regionally, Atlantic Canada (76%) and Ontario (79%) had the strongest levels of support for the Canadian Governments decision to impose the tariffs.

61% of Canadians were concerned about the relationship between Prime Minister Trudeau and President Trump. This level of concern was consistent among all age groups. 68% of CPC supporters expressed the greatest level of those who were concerned.

“Donald Trump has not fared well with the people of Canada. His implementation of tariffs on Canadian resources and demands to renegotiate NAFTA and recent comments toward Prime Minister Trudeau and Canada have contributed to the belief among Canadians that he is harming the Canadian economy rather than helping it. Canadians are united in opposition to President Trump and Canadian retaliatory measures thus far.” said Eli Yufest, CEO of Campaign Research.

Come on, PPP, get with it! Just include it as a question in your surveys from now on.

Labels: ,

"What If He's A Loser?"-- The Sad Story Of Donald Trumpanzee, Jr.


Earlier today we mentioned that Trump grew up in a racist family and that he "inherited" the ugly bigotry from a father he always emulated and sought approval from. It's tragic-- for America, of course-- but for Trump and his family as well. And the July issue of GQ updates the saga into a horrifying story about Trump's first son, Donald, Jr., the Fredo Corleone of America First's First Family. Like his father before him, "All he ever wanted was to make his dad proud, but things have never turned out quite right for Donald Trump Jr. Even now, despite finding his purpose as a bombastic star of the far right, Junior’s personal life is in shambles and the specter of Robert Mueller looms large. As Julia Ioffe discovers in talking to old friends and Trump World insiders, it’s never been trickier to be the president’s son."

For much of Don junior's life, the hunter's camo he's worn has helped him not to disappear but to stand out, to differentiate himself from his father, the real estate tycoon who never understood his son's fascination with the outdoors. (“I am not a believer in hunting, and I'm surprised they like it,” Trump told TMZ of his two eldest sons.)

Only when he began campaigning for the White House did Donald Trump see some value in his son's bloody pastime. According to Sam Nunberg, a Trump adviser at the time, when an invitation arrived from the governor of Iowa to go hunting ahead of the state's crucial caucuses, Trump joked, “Don, you can finally do something for me-- you can go hunting.”

It's hard being Don. Struggling to make a mark. Living as the junior to Trump senior. Existing as the shy kid who takes solace in the outdoors. Growing into a man who desperately wants his father's love and pride yet is always mindful of the distance between them. His struggles are compounded by the perception that his life of privilege ought to be effortless. Though to understand the strange gantlet of duty and drama that has marked that life is to wonder how anything would be simple for Donald Trump Jr.

“I think Don gets it a lot. Everyone talks about Ivanka, but Don also has a lot of pressure on him,” says a former Trump adviser. “Everyone wants approval from the father, especially if the father is Trump. He has a special place in his heart for Ivanka. But Don is the eldest son, he's named after him, he's doing the nitty-gritty on the real estate, he's got a lot of responsibility, and Trump is tough on everybody. He's the alpha male. He sees his son as somebody he has to groom.”

When a Brazilian journalist asked Don in 2010 whether there was much pressure being Donald junior, he replied, “There probably shouldn't be. But there is for me, because you want to please someone like that, and he's a perfectionist. There's definitely always that shadow that follows you around, like how is this guy, the son of someone so good at what he does, going to act?”

According to his first wife, Ivana, Donald Trump was never keen on bequeathing his name to anybody. It was Ivana who wanted to call their newborn Donald junior. “You can't do that!” Trump is quoted as saying in Ivana's memoir, Raising Trump. “What if he's a loser?”

Don tells his own story about coming into the world on December 31, 1977. “I like to joke that my dad wanted to be able to claim me as a dependent on his taxes for 1977,” he once told Forbes, “so he told my mom she had to have me before midnight and, if she didn't, he'd make her take a cab home.” (Ivana wrote about her labor being induced by doctors.)

So began the difficult, defining struggle of Donald Trump Jr.'s life-- to make himself useful while carrying a name so beloved by the man who bestowed it that he put it in gold letters on buildings all over the world. When he was growing up, his dad called him Donny-- a moniker the elder Trump would never go by. “[It's] a name I hate,” he explained in The Art of the Deal.

Fraught though their relationship has sometimes been-- at one point Junior refused to speak to his father for a year-- Don has lately found improbable purpose and renown as a savage defender of his father. His once private desires to win his father's approval now come packaged as angry tweets and memes tearing down his dad's opponents as illogical, histrionic socialists. At age 40, he has become like every other angry white man raging on the Internet, exorcising his psychic traumas through ghastly rhetoric and febrile conspiracy theories, like when he retweeted Roseanne Barr's false claim that George Soros, a Holocaust survivor, was actually a Nazi collaborator.

This sort of thing has endeared him not only to pro-Trump Republicans but also to the populist fringe that propelled Trump to power. “Don junior is royalty,” says Mike Cernovich, a right-wing activist. “Don junior is loved by the base. He's accessible, he's in the trenches, he's sharing the memes, pushing out stories that other people aren't. It shows that he's reading what everybody else is reading. I know it's a really dumb litmus test for a politician, but he's the one you'd want to have a beer with.”

Don's bona fides as an outdoorsman have helped, too, and have earned him some sway in his father's administration. It was Don who recommended that former Navy SEAL Ryan Zinke-- a fellow hunting enthusiast who once reportedly referred to Hillary Clinton as “the Antichrist”-- should be tapped as Trump's secretary of the interior.

To the president's most ardent supporters, Don is venerated as a natural incarnation of everything the MAGA brand stands for: transgressive and defiant white, rural masculinity. “He's a fighter,” says one Breitbart editor. “The stuff he's focused on is the stuff the conservative movement is focused on. It's not an act. With him, I think it's genuine.”

... Being noticed was always something of a struggle. That evening he was born, little Don was left by his parents to the care of the hospital's nursery. His father headed home to celebrate New Year's Eve, while Ivana put a boa and a mink over her hospital gown and went to visit a girlfriend recovering from back surgery on another floor of the hospital.

Don had little luck with the first of his nannies, under whose watch he both broke his leg and nearly drowned. From there, a succession of caregivers followed, though Ivana was also active in her three children's upbringing. In her telling, she instilled strict Eastern European discipline in the house. By several accounts, Don came in for the most punishment. “Don got in trouble with me more often than the other kids, probably because he was the oldest,” Ivana wrote in her memoir.

Largely absent from childhood tales is the father. “He would love them, but he did not know how to speak to them in the children's way of thinking,” Ivana said of her ex-husband on The Wendy Williams Show last year. “He was able to speak to them only when they came from university, when eventually he was able to speak business to them. Otherwise, he really did not know how to handle the kids.” The interactions were apparently alien in both directions. “The children,” Ivana wrote in her book, “didn't know how to relate to him, either.”

Nowadays, Don puts a happy gloss on his dad's parenting style-- which he believes, in hindsight, was career prep. “He's a business guy first and foremost, so we spent a lot of time with him, but it was always in a business environment,” Don told Oprah in 2011.

Some paternal lessons have stuck with Don, who tries still to parse the old fatherly instruction for the faintest wisdom. For instance, a key Trump mantra, according to both Ivana and Don, neither of whom agreed to be interviewed for this story, was “Don't trust anyone.” Trump would test his children on this maxim. “He'd say, ‘Do you trust me, your own father?’ ” Don once recalled. “We'd say, ‘Of course we do!’ And he'd say, ‘What did I just tell you? You didn't take the lesson!’ It was certainly an interesting Trump moment,” Don continued, talking at a pressured, sober clip, “because it's not something you'd see any conventional parent-child conversation go that way, especially not fully understanding what the concept of trust was.”

If the lessons didn't take, Don had his father's own example to demonstrate untrustworthiness. On the day before the boy's 12th birthday, Marla Maples-- who was then carrying on an affair with Donald Trump-- crossed paths with Ivana at Bonnie's in Aspen and uttered her nine infamous words: “I'm Marla, and I love your husband. Do you?” According to Ivana's book, Don witnessed the whole scene.

When divorce proceedings began and the paparazzi set up camp outside Trump Tower and Don's school, Ivana decided to explain the situation to her children. Ivanka, 8, and Eric, 6, got the sanitized version. Twelve-year-old Don, Ivana concluded, “could handle hearing the truth.” After being told about his father's mistress and the fact that his parents would never live together again, Don stopped speaking to his father.

Soon after that, as Trump engaged Ivana in an epic public feud, he dispatched a bodyguard to his triplex apartment with instructions to bring his elder boy down to his office. Don, still not talking to his father, descended with the bodyguard to the 28th floor, and a few minutes later, Ivana, who described all this in her book, got a phone call. It was Trump, looking for some leverage by announcing that he was going to keep Don and raise him alone.

“Okay, keep him,” Ivana said she told him. “I have two other kids to raise.”

A few minutes later-- his bluff out-bluffed-- Trump ordered his boy to be taken back upstairs. “Donald never had any intention of keeping his son,” Ivana wrote.

In his telling, Don was caught in that lonely isthmus of awareness where one doesn't understand everything but knows enough to be deeply wounded by it. “Listen, it's tough to be a 12-year-old,” he told New York magazine in 2004. “You're not quite a man, but you think you are. You think you know everything. Being driven to school every day and you see the front page and it's divorce! “Best Sex I Ever Had”! And you don't even know what that means. At that age, kids are naturally cruel. Your private life becomes very public, and I didn't have anything to do with it: My parents did.”

Don, Ivana noted, “expressed his pain with anger, and he was really angry.” Don's reprieve from the glare of Manhattan had always been the summers spent with his maternal grandparents in rural Czechoslovakia. But between the separation and divorce, his grandfather Milos died suddenly of a heart attack. It was yet another blow to Don, for whom Milos was a sort of father he never had. “Being in Czechoslovakia with my grandfather was the most memorable time in my life,” Don wrote in an aside in Ivana's book. “My grandpa would say, ‘There's the woods. See you at dark!’ He taught me how to fish, rock-climb, camp, shoot with a bow and an air rifle. Czechoslovakian summers were my introduction to ‘the great outdoors’ and an era that lives in me that I hand down to my children.… I miss him. I will always miss him.”

People close to Don say Milos is the key to understanding him. The imprint stamped on Don as a boy by his grandfather is still evident, says Anthony Scaramucci, a Trump ally who briefly served as White House communications chief: “He's a very down-to-earth, grounded guy, and I think a lot of that comes from his mom's parents, who he used to summer with. Spending several months in [Communist] Eastern Europe, seeing the difference between what was happening in Eastern Europe in the 1980s and his life in New York—it gives grounding and perspective.”

For a child raised in a gilded triplex, Don seems to have gotten a disproportionate share of what pain there was to go around. Shortly after his grandfather's death, Don found Bridget, one of his nannies, passed out from a heart attack in the basement of Ivana's Greenwich home. He called the ambulance and the adults, but she was pronounced dead at the hospital. When his mother remarried, her new husband's son roughed up and choked the then adolescent Don. On top of that, when Junior, at age 15, tried to take a girl on a date, it immediately made it into the tabloids: Ivana wanted the world to know that she had armed him with condoms.

“Poor Don. He really got the brunt of everything,” Ivana wrote. “No wonder Don likes to go in the woods and escape from everything.”

When Don headed off to college at the University of Pennsylvania, his father's alma mater, his relationship with his dad seemingly hadn't fully recovered. Mad as he was at Donald Trump, Don was also Donald Trump, but smaller, less accomplished, and more wounded. He assumed a posture of studied normalcy and stuck to being Don, rather than Donald Trump Jr. “He wasn't quick to volunteer his name or put it out there who he was or try to use that to his advantage,” says the college friend. “I remember thinking that if he used his name more, he probably could've gotten more girls.”

A freshman-year friend, Dan Friedman, remembers a strange conversation on that theme. Friedman says that one day, as he and Don sat in a dining hall, Friedman jokingly warned him to watch out for girls-- gold-digger types-- who would try to take advantage of him. “And he said, ‘What do you mean? I don't know what you're talking about,’ ” Friedman recalls. “I think he was playing dumb; he knew what I was talking about. He didn't go as far as denying his identity, but it was very clear that he wanted to downplay it.”

It wasn't just the Trump name that Don avoided; he apparently steered clear of his father, too. A former classmate recalls how “Don's dad came to campus to give a speech, and he refused to go because he was mad at his dad over divorcing his mom.” (The Trump camp disputes this classmate's recollection, claiming Don was seated in the front row.) Don's anger expressed itself in other ways, too. “He had a reputation as the kind of guy who would get to drinking and start fights,” says a college acquaintance. “He was a fall-down drunk.”

In June 1999, the summer before Don's senior year, Fred Trump, Donald's own overbearing and emotionally abusive father, passed away. Don didn't seem to feel the same private grief that he'd harbored after the death of Milos. He asked a few of his friends to go with him to the wake because he didn't seem comfortable being alone at the event. “A few of us went to the wake with him, and I just remember how peculiar the vibe was,” recalls Don's college friend. “It was the only time I met his dad. It just had a cocktail-party vibe. It was just odd.” (The Trump camp disputes this, claiming Don did not bring friends to his grandfather's wake.) After graduating, Don escaped to Aspen and spent a year and a half doing what he loves most, hunting and fishing-- and avoiding what he must have felt was inevitable: going to work for his father.

But in 2001, Don did just that. He succumbed to the centripetal force that is the Trump Organization-- “It's very hard to veer from that track,” Don has said—by joining the family firm. Very quickly his job became doing whatever chore was in the offing-- a sui generis job he's held for years. “Don, like most other people, gets assigned to a project and winds up overseeing all the various aspects, from construction, marketing, design,” says Sater. “Sometimes he works in tandem with Ivanka or Eric, and then reports to Trump. They share or split main responsibilities. He's worked on pretty much everything over the last ten years. Don has had his hands in just about every Trump project over the years.”

In those early days back in New York, the assiduously private Don also found that the tabloids, which had made his parents famous, were waiting for him. Just before his 25th birthday, Don went to see Chris Rock at Manhattan's Comedy Cellar. He got a little drunk. Sources later told the New York Post that “people at a neighboring table thought Trump was reacting too enthusiastically to [Rock's] ethnic humor.” Three couples said they asked Don to pipe down but that he refused. Finally, two young men his age took matters into their own hands—the matters being their beer steins, which they lobbed directly at Don's triangular brown mane. Don was taken to St. Vincent's to have his head stitched up, and according to the Post, the two barroom vigilantes were released on bail. (“I'm going to get those motherfuckers, that's for sure,” Trump senior told the New York Daily News.)

Eventually, Don stopped drinking and started dressing like his father, a cartoon of a Manhattan capitalist, all pinstripes and wide lapels and pastel satin ties. He mended things with his father, or at the very least gained some awareness of his dad's view of the divorce. By 2004, he was telling New York magazine that perhaps it wasn't just his father's fault: “But when you're living with your mother, it's easy to be manipulated. You get a one-sided perspective.” In 2006, he referred to himself as “a brat” for having once hung up on his dad. Somewhere along the line, outsiders could see why the two men had the same name. “Don also has a big personality,” Nunberg says. “He's got that larger-than-life persona, like his father; he has his big, nice office on the 25th floor; and you hear him beating the shit out of someone on the phone, like his father.” (Another source warned me about Don's “quick temper.”)

In interviews from this time, he is an eager carnival barker, selling his father's brand while also eagerly trying to demonstrate how much he has learned about business-- the business. Soon, he glimpsed the wisdom of lending his valuable name to other people's projects. In 2010, he signed on to help hawk Cambridge Who's Who, a self-billed “leading professional branding and networking organization.” In a promotional video for the firm, Don says over the soft tones of a keyboard that “Cambridge Who's Who is your exclusive, by-invitation-only, private PR firm.”

The company, headquartered “in Long Island's premier office building,” turned out to be less than premier. Its then president, Randy Narod, once owned a nightclub and a bagel store and had been barred from the securities industry after sending someone to sit for his exam. By the time Don came on as a spokesman, Cambridge Who's Who had amassed some 400 complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau, according to the New York Times.

Despite some successes, like overseeing the construction of the Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago, Don continued to get his famous name caught up in the wrong deals. In 2006, he helped launch a mortgage brokerage called Trump Mortgage, bragging that it was the “only company in a $3 trillion industry that anyone has actually heard of.” Within months it was defunct, an early casualty of the housing crisis. In 2006, he was kicked off the condo board of the Trump apartment building at 220 Riverside Drive in Manhattan, amid board members' concerns that $80,000 of the condo's money had disappeared on account of nebulous “office expenses.”

(He was eventually reinstated.)

The setbacks seemed not to trouble Don, who never had the requisite hunger to be the true titan of commerce, the man he saw in his father. Don was happier hunting or sitting by the pool at Mar-a-Lago than closing deals. He enjoyed the fruits of his father's labors more than he liked laboring for more fruit. “He has a more balanced life,” a source close to Don told me. “It's harder to become a captain of industry if you don't make a lot of sacrifices.”

And so Don has seemed content to take direction from his father-- and not merely on matters professional. One night in 2003, while father and son were attending an event, Donald Trump spotted a blonde woman and pointed her out to his son. She was Vanessa Haydon, a young model who had made news dating Leonardo DiCaprio and a Saudi prince. “Vanessa walked in front of me at this big fashion show,” Donald Trump recalled on Oprah's show in 2011. “She looked so beautiful, I said, ‘Don, that's the person you should marry.’ ” According to Vanessa's own recollection, shared with the Times, the forgetful Trump accidentally introduced her to his son twice. Then, when she ran into Don several weeks later, she remembered him as “the one with the retarded dad.”

Despite his father's hand in their coupling, Don earned a scolding from his dad over the way he proposed-- a Trumpian publicity stunt in which he scored a free engagement ring by popping the question in a jewelry store at the Short Hills mall in New Jersey. “You have a name that is hot as a pistol,” Trump senior told Larry King, lamenting the situation. “You have to be very careful with things like this.”

By all appearances, the stylish Vanessa fit right in as the newest Trump. But she had her own complicated adolescence. Her wealthy father, Manhattan attorney Charles Haydon, was actually her stepfather. As newly minted Haydons, Vanessa and her sister were catapulted into a life of posh prep schools and a home on the Upper East Side.

Vanessa's rebellion, a friend from that time recalls, was very specific: She dated a young man named Valentin Rivera, who told people he was a foot soldier for the Latin Kings, a Hispanic gang. Rivera, who recently went public in an interview with the New York Post, was raised in an apartment atop the Yorkville branch of the New York Public Library, where his father was the caretaker. According to the article, Rivera delivered weed around the city. Vanessa apparently reveled in all this. “She talked with an urban, gangster accent,” the friend remembers. “She wore big hoop earrings, hair slicked back. She thought she was a gangster. She had a gangster boyfriend, and she acted like a gangster herself. She was somebody who went out of her way to intimidate people by having a scary boyfriend that could hurt people.”

Vanessa seemed very much in love with Rivera, as much as a teenager could be, and despite her family's disapproval, when Rivera found himself in Rikers Island for assault, she visited him there. The couple eventually went their separate ways, and in the years that followed, Rivera, who could not be reached for comment, was jailed several times for crimes ranging from weapons charges to negligent homicide.

Before Vanessa married his son, though, Donald Trump apparently did his due diligence and discovered that his future daughter-in-law had dated a Latino gangster-- a bad look for an image-obsessed family. Trump called Vanessa into his office and confronted her about her relationship with Rivera. Vanessa flatly denied it.

By the time his father ran for president, Don had cultivated a public image as a kind of prudent sidekick. He appeared on The Apprentice as an earnest good cop to his dad's bellicose “You're fired” character. As Don peddled his father's business ventures around the world, he came into plenty of contact with Russians. “In terms of high-end product influx into the U.S., Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot of our assets, say, in Dubai and certainly with our project in SoHo and anywhere in New York,” he said at an industry conference in 2008. (The Trump SoHo project, which he developed with Sater, ended up being sued for fraud, resulting in a settlement.) “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

Don repeatedly tried to develop Trump properties in Russia, but despite the country's lucrative oil boom-- and the gilded dovetailing of Trump and Russian aesthetics-- he couldn't quite manage Moscow and its corruption. “It is a question of who knows who, whose brother is paying off who, et cetera,” he said after making half a dozen trips there in a year and a half. “It really is a scary place.”

The most infamous of his failed Russian deals-- the one that backfired monumentally and now may imperil his father's presidency-- had nothing to do with real estate. In June 2016, when a set of Russians with oblique ties to the Kremlin reached out to Don through an intermediary promising damaging information on Hillary Clinton that “would be very useful to your father,” Junior couldn't have been more curious. “If it's what you say,” Don infamously wrote back to them, “I love it.”

According to evidence and testimony released by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Don next made a few calls, a couple to Russia and a couple to a blocked number. (Investigators pointed out that Donald Trump Sr. uses a blocked number.) Don then set up a meeting at Trump Tower with the Russians, one of whom—lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya—was said to be connected to the Russian prosecutor general, an old ally of Vladimir Putin.

And so on June 9, 2016, Don-- along with his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort-- began a fateful confab in a conference room in Trump Tower. According to a person who was there, after some pleasantries about the view of Central Park, Don got straight to it.

“So I believe you have some information for us?” he asked. Veselnitskaya began reading from prepared remarks about DNC donors the Ziff brothers, their alleged tax evasion, and the connection she saw between them and Putin critic Bill Browder. According to testimony, Don tried to get the conversation back on track. “ ‘So can you show us how does this money go to Hillary?’ ” two of the participants recall him asking. Veselnitskaya shot back, “Why don't you do your own research on her? We gave you the idea.”

According to one of the participants in the meeting, Don began to realize he wasn't going to be handed what he was hoping for. “The light just went out in his eyes,” the participant told me recently. “He was totally disinterested.”

Veselnitskaya then went into a long, tangled exposition about the Magnitsky Act and the adoption of Russian children, but it seemed like the two sides were now talking past each other, says the participant. Manafort seemed to fall asleep. Kushner grew agitated, asked why they were talking about adoptions, and left. According to the meeting participant, Don recognized that things had turned futile-- but offered to stay in touch. The participant said Don had a parting message for the Russians: “ ‘When we win’-- he said when, not if-- ‘when we win, come back and see us again.’"

That meeting, which Don had hoped would prove useful, has since become as useful as a hole in the head. It is now a prime focus of the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller into potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

“I think he regrets taking the meeting,” a source close to Don told me. “Does he regret it because he thinks he did something wrong? No. He regrets it because it ended up causing a situation that wasted a lot of time and money.”

The New York Times recently reported that Don also met with an Israeli and an emissary from two Arab princes seeking to help his father win the election.

“Maybe he's not an intellectual, but he tried to be useful for his family,” the participant from the Russia meeting told me. “I feel bad for him, honestly.”

Last fall, when Don was called before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was investigating potential links between his father's campaign and the Russian government, he seemed oblivious to the gravity of the mess he'd created. “In the breaks between the questions, he was making dumb jokes about how absurd it was that he was even there,” says a source familiar with the investigation. “He had this sense of impunity at a time when it was dangerous, when it seemed like it was the Hill that would get them.”

Instead of being wary of his questioners, Don wanted to be helpful and calmly acknowledged that he had corresponded with WikiLeaks during the election. He then happily turned the correspondence over to congressional investigators, helpful as ever. “He wasn't embarrassed to be revealing that he had exchanged DMs with WikiLeaks,” says the source, even though it was by this point abundantly clear to the American officials that WikiLeaks had links to Russian intelligence. “He's too stupid to be malicious.”

The source's impression of Don was that he, like seemingly everyone else in Trump's orbit, was uselessly trying to impress a man who can only be impressed by himself. “He's hustling and trying to do what he can to contribute but without knowing where the lines are,” the source said of Don, adding ruefully, “He's a sad and tragic figure.”

Useful as Don has tried to be to his father, his blunt re-invention as a political warrior has perhaps been costly in surprisingly personal ways. In March, as Mueller's investigation gathered steam, Vanessa filed for divorce. The New York tabloids, descending on the carrion of yet another Trump marriage, speculated that Don's political transformation and volatile social-media presence were to blame. Rumors began to circulate in Trump World that Don had taken to drinking again.

When news of the divorce broke, the papers dug into Vanessa's past and reported on the marinara fortune she suddenly inherited—a windfall that seemed to free her from Don, who, the tabloids wrote, had kept her on a tight financial leash. (A rep for Vanessa denied the allegations of money problems between her and Don.) “Page Six” also unearthed an old affair Don allegedly had with flash-in-the-pan pop star Aubrey O'Day, whom he'd met on the set of Celebrity Apprentice. It had been Don's father, “Page Six” claimed, who'd ordered that illicit relationship to end in 2011. According to another report, Trump's fixer, Michael Cohen, had been called in to keep the story quiet. In Don's marriage and in its breach, it seems it was his father who called the shots.

For her part, O'Day has declined interview requests but continues to fuel conversation. It was revealed that after the illicit romance supposedly ended, O'Day recorded a hardly veiled ballad called “DJT.” And days after news broke this past spring that Don had moved on to date Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle, O'Day wrote on Instagram, “He's still searching for me in every other woman.”

The perennial tabloid fascination with Trump-family drama might not surprise Don, but it apparently now stings him. After a childhood seared by the trauma of divorce, he's keenly aware that his five children are today in the same position he once was. His eldest, Donald Trump III, is now 9-- old enough to wonder why his family's struggles are in the papers, much like Don junior once had. “The way he looks at everything [written about him in the press] is ‘What will the kids think?’ ” says Don's friend, “and the answer here ain't a good one.”

And yet for all the tumult-- and for all the lingering legal woe the Mueller probe portends-- there's perhaps another way to glimpse these prismatic days of Donald Trump Jr.'s.

His father, by virtue of being in the Oval Office, is no longer in the one directly above him, which, by some accounts, has freed Don up to thrive-- to court attention or to settle scores on his own terms.

There's little doubt that as a political creature, Don has grown more sure-footed. Once reportedly derided by Trump campaign staffers as “Fredo,” the Corleone child who can't seem to do anything right except endanger his family legacy, Don has now become one of Trump's most useful spokesmen.

“It's not that he doesn't want the Trump Organization to succeed, but I think he's enjoying the challenge of his political efforts,” says the source close to Don. “And it's more exciting than what he's been doing for the last 20 years. This is something new in his life that he happens to be good at.”

Scaramucci told me about a night in Pittsburgh, just before the election, when he took notice of the effect Junior was starting to have. Don was scheduled to talk to a crowd that the local officials figured would be about 400. “Over 3,000 showed up to hear him speak,” Scaramucci said, noting that Don has clearly found a voice and tuned it to a frequency that resonates. And in the coming months, he'll be making a big push to campaign for Republicans ahead of this year's midterms-- firing up his father's base. “He's not really even a surrogate; he's a substitute,” Scaramucci told me. “You see the difference?”

Like Republican populists of the past decade, Don speaks of “real Americans,” people he defines as “the forgotten people between New York City and Malibu.” It's an improbable notion: that the billionaire's kid from 66 stories above Fifth Avenue is the one who speaks for the disaffected and the overlooked. But it's no less surprising than the faint rumors suggesting that he might someday run for office-- a way to finally, perhaps, make a name for himself.
Like Paris Hilton... famous for being famous. But will he, like Manafort, ever become a VIP resident of a federal prison?

Labels: ,

Time For New Congressional Leaders? Sure, But Better Ones, Not Worse Ones


Years of targeting by right-wing media have made Nancy Pelosi one of the most unpopular politicians in America. Democrats like her though-- and especially her own constituents, Her congressional district had the biggest primary turnout of any congressional district in California... by far. In some cases turnout was double that of other districts! And she won in a landslide. But the Republican attacks actually have penetrated one group: Democratic politicians-- both congressional incumbents and especially candidates. Incumbents are so ready to throw her overboard that many are pledging to support former New Dem chieftain, Joe Crowley, the single most corrupt Democrat in the House, completely a creature of Wall Street, who may lose his primary to a 28 year old political novice, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Monday. If you've been reading DWT for the last decade you know I'm not a big Pelosi fan-- but she's far better than Crowley any day of the week.

On Wednesday, Politico reported that a boatload of Democratic challengers have publicly rejected her on the campaign trail, some viewing to vote against her. "If Democrats win the House by a narrow margin, the 78-year-old leader could lose only a handful of lawmakers' support and still secure the 218 votes needed to clinch the speakership in a floor vote. In that scenario, Pelosi would face a freshman class with a significant bloc of Democrats who are on record promising to oppose her or calling for new leadership. Of the more than a dozen Democratic candidates who have survived their primaries and rejected Pelosi, most are in districts that top the list of targeted 2018 seats. Whether those statements translate into ‘no’ votes against Pelosi-- when she’ll have enormous sway over new lawmakers’ committee assignments and other perks, and a presumably fierce whip effort on her behalf-- is impossible to know."
Clarke Tucker’s first general election ad [above] for an Arkansas-based House race tries to defuse one of the GOP’s most potent attacks: “I’ve said from Day One,” the Democrat declares, “that I won’t vote for Nancy Pelosi.”

Tucker, an Arkansas legislator who’s running against Rep. French Hill (R-AR), is one of at least 20 House Democratic challengers who’ve publicly rejected the minority leader on the campaign trail.

A trend that started in earnest with Rep. Conor Lamb (D-PA), who won a special election deep in Trump country, has spread rapidly to encompass a growing cadre of candidates-- many in must-win districts for Democrats-- that threatens Pelosi’s nearly sixteen-year grip on the party’s leadership.

The Democrats disavowing Pelosi cross ideological and geographical lines, hailing from districts that the party must win in 2018 to eliminate its 23-seat deficit in the House. Eleven of the candidates already are on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Red to Blue” program, a list of top-tier candidates in highly targeted races.

Gil Cisneros got a $2 million boost from the national Democratic Party in his Southern California primary but told Politico that he won’t be voting for Pelosi because “new leadership is needed.” Danny O’Connor is airing ads in a House special election in Ohio declaring that he won’t support the leader. Max Rose, who’s running for a coveted Staten Island-based seat, also said he wouldn't back her.
Cisneros is a worthless Republican pretending to be a Democrat. He bought the Democratic nomination with money he won in the lottery and was actually pushed by Pelosi's DCCC over far better candidates. He's a stinking pile of crap and if he provides the final vote to take her down, she'll probably deserve it-- though the country won't, not if we wind up with Hoyer or Crowley. Danny O'Connor is another conservative who is unlikely to win his race and Max Rose is an outright, admitted Blue Dog who will probably be as bad a member of Congress --if he manages to beat progressive Michael DeVito on Tuesday-- as Dan Donovan, the Republican incumbent. Rose, who doesn't have a single qualification to hold political office: "If the Democratic Party is going to earn back the trust of the American people then we need to show them that we are serious about changing our politics-- and that means we need a change in leadership." O'Connor's ad:

I dread the idea of seeing a coward like this in Congress. He's the kind of crap that has ruined the Democratic brand and made the Ohio Party absolutely worthless.
So far, there’s been no retribution for the candidates who’ve snubbed Pelosi. DCCC Chairman Ben Ray Lujan said that the committee “trusts our candidates” on how to address Pelosi in their districts. The DCCC has reserved millions in TV ads for candidates who don’t support her.

Pelosi is one of the biggest-- if not the biggest-- drag on Democrats running for the House, according to some Democratic pollsters. Republicans have happily exploited that weakness, raining down Pelosi-themed TV ads on special election candidates in Georgia, Montana and Pennsylvania.

“With very few exceptions, the biggest hurdle, the biggest vulnerability for Democratic candidates is Nancy Pelosi, and the strongest card the Republicans can play is attaching a candidate to Pelosi,” said a Democratic pollster, who works with some House candidates who have disavowed Pelosi. The pollster, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal strategy, added: “Most of this is about mitigating and diluting the effectiveness of that attack.”

But the public polling on Pelosi’s effect on candidates is mixed. An ABC News/Washington Post poll in April found that 60 percent of voters don’t think a position on Pelosi is important to their congressional candidate choice, while an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released earlier this month found that 45 percent of voters said they were less likely to support a House candidate if they backed the leader.

Democrats often point to Lamb, who won a special election in southwestern Pennsylvania in March, as the blueprint for addressing the Pelosi problem. Lamb weathered $10 million in Republican attack ads casting him as a stooge of the Democratic leader. Lamb responded with a TV ad of him speaking directly into the camera and calling the attacks “a big lie. I’ve already said on the front page of the newspaper that I don’t support Nancy Pelosi.”

...Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY) last week joined a small group of House Democrats who have publicly said they would not support her in November.

“I have members who have come up to me since [the story broke] and said, ‘I’ve got to do this.’ By me taking a kind of aggressive approach, I create some space, I guess, for those members,” Higgins said in an interview. “I have one vote and I have one voice but so does everybody else.”
A message to idiot Democrats in the House: by all means, dump Pelosi, but not for someone worse. Get a better leader, not a worse one. Joe Crowley is worse, much, much worse.

By the way, this probably with party leaders who have worn out their welcomes is not just a Democratic Party. Mitch McConnell has afar worse favorable rating from the public than Pelosi does. He's hated by Democrats and Republicans. And not off the hook from his own base in Kentucky. He may have more problems from Kentucky votes than from Senate Republicans. In an interview with the Lexington Herald Leader crackpot Governor Matt Bevin (R) said he does not rule out a bid against against him. He was whining that McConnell hasn't repealed ObamaCare.
Bevin said he had heard that Republicans were worried that re-visiting the failed effort would "put a tempest in the teapot" and dampen voter enthusiasm in November.

"Trust me, they will if we don't address this," he said.

Senate Republicans turned to taxes after the collapse last year of their effort to repeal Obamacare. McConnell has said he wants the Senate to spend this summer working on spending bills and presidential nominees. 
...He warned that the Affordable Care Act will only get harder to repeal as time goes on.
Bevin put $1,239,648 of his own money into a primary challenge against McConnell in 2014. He riled about right-wing extremists and was able to spend $4,485,900 in the primary-- and had his ass handed to him:
McConnnell- 213,753 (60.2%)
Bevin- 125,787 (35.4%)
Of course Bevin is much better known now than he was in 2014... and McConnell is much more disliked than was back then. It would be a wonderful race to watch-- at least for Democrats.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Disappointing News For Señor Trumpanzee: Racist Presidents Are Not Eligible For Nobel Prizes


Trump grew up in a racist family. His father, who he has always emulated, was arrested as KKK street brawler and Trump was taught at an early age to discriminate against blacks and Latinos in their real estate business. "Throughout his public life," asserted the Washington Post [NOT FAKE NEWS] yesterday, "Trump has pitted one group of Americans against another and inserted himself in racial controversies… As he leads his party into the potentially perilous midterm election five months from now, Trump is trying to make cultural identity a central theme of the Republican pitch to voters. His messages have been amplified by his surrogates as well as by friendly broadcasters on Fox News Channel and elsewhere in the conservative media... Trump is calculating that by playing to people’s fears and anxieties he can maximize turnout among hard-core supporters to counterbalance evident enthusiasm on the Democratic side. Fueling Trump’s approach, advisers say, is an unremitting fear of his own: that his base could abandon him if he is deemed too weak on immigration, which was a centerpiece of his 2016 campaign."

I hope you took a look at our post yesterday on white evangelicals and racial anxiety. James Hohmann gave Post readers a comprehensive look at how Trump and Stephen Miller-- his in house neo-Nazi-- have outraged the county with their racist, xenophobic policies and how they have made a tactical retreat-- for now. "Young boys," he wrote, "who were forcibly taken away from their parents are waking up this morning at an old Walmart in Brownsville, Texas, that’s been converted into a shelter called Casa Padre. Painted on the wall is a mural of President Trump and a quote from The Art of the Deal, his 1987 book. 'Sometimes by losing a battle,' it reads, 'you find a new way to win the war.' Make no mistake: The executive order Trump signed Wednesday to end his own policy of separating families who are caught crossing the border illegally was a tactical retreat. It was not a surrender. The president’s war on immigration-- both illegal and legal-- rages on.
Trump made clear during a campaign-style rally last night in Minnesota that he hopes the order will let him shift the immigration debate back toward terrain he’s more confident he can win on. Speaking to 9,000 supporters at a hockey arena in Duluth, the president leaned into the us-against-them language that propelled his 2016 bid.

“I signed an executive order (so) we’re going to keep families together, but the border is going to be just as tough as it’s been,” Trump said. “Democrats don’t care about the impact of uncontrolled migration on your communities, your schools, your hospitals, your jobs or your safety. Democrats put illegal immigrants before American citizens. What the hell is going on?

“The media never talks about the American victims of illegal immigration,” he added. “What's happened to their children? What's happened to their husbands? What's happened to their wives? The media doesn't talk about American families permanently separated from their loved ones.”

As the crowd chanted “build that wall,” Trump attacked the caliber of Mexican immigrants to the United States: “They’re not sending their finest,” he said. “And we’re sending them the hell back!”

To wit, the Border Patrol says Trump’s “zero tolerance” approach will continue, which means any adult caught crossing the border will be prosecuted with a misdemeanor and families will now be held together in federal custody pending the trial. There’s a great deal of uncertainty among experts about whether this can pass legal muster, but immigrant advocates worry that Trump is laying the groundwork for indefinite detention.

“And senior administration officials said the order did not stipulate that the more than 2,300 children already separated from their parents would be immediately reunited with them … Top officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees their supervision, were unable to say when the families would be reunited,” David Nakamura, Nick Miroff and Josh Dawsey report. “One senior DHS official acknowledged that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has almost no ability to add detention capacity for families because its jails are already full. … The DHS official said ICE is not planning to put children in adult detention centers as prohibited under the 1997 court settlement in Flores v. Reno, which stipulated immigrant children must be placed in the least restricted environment possible while awaiting immigration court proceedings.”

Trump reiterated that Congress must come up with a solution. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen even told lawmakers during a private briefing that the family separations could resume if they fail to act.

...White House Counsel Donald McGahn pushed back internally when the president ordered an end to the separations yesterday morning, arguing that an order could not be written to comply with the existing legal limits on child detentions. “Many aides, though, including Ivanka Trump and Kellyanne Conway, urged the president to end the separations. Eventually, after a number of meetings, ideas and drafts, McGahn said the final product could be legal,” David, Nick and Josh report.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has formally requested the Defense Department's help in prosecuting the surge of new immigration cases, and the Pentagon has agreed to deploy active-duty military officers to the border in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico to serve as special assistant U.S. attorneys. These judge advocate generals, known as JAGs, are being told to expect six-month tours of duty, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow reports.

ICE is also ramping up raids in the heartland: While we were watching the Southern border this week, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 146 workers at a meatpacking plant in rural Ohio. It was one of the largest workplace raids carried out so far by the Trump administration. Agents lined up dozens of workers, in white helmets and smocks. Two weeks ago, ICE arrested 114 workers at a gardening company’s two Ohio locations. In April, the feds raided a meatpacking plant in rural Tennessee and arrested 97 immigrants. In January, ICE agents blitzed dozens of 7-Eleven stores-- but made only 21 arrests.

These raids, too, are tearing families apart. “One father said to me, ‘I feel like my heart is being pulled out.’ His wife was taken, and he has two children under the age of 2,” Sister Rene Weeks, director of the Hispanic ministry at St. Paul Church in Salem, Ohio, told Kristine Phillips after this week’s raid.

Trump remains keen on displaying resolve against illegal immigration and may look for other ways to do so. The president used the word “strong” nine times in rapid succession to describe himself during a meeting with conservative lawmakers in the Roosevelt Room, where he announced the order was being drafted. “We are very strong,” he said. “If you’re really, really pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people, and if you’re strong, then you don’t have any heart. That’s a tough dilemma. Perhaps, I’d rather be strong.”

The president has no intention of rebranding himself as “a compassionate conservative” a la George W. Bush. He made that clear a few hours later when reporters gathered in the Oval Office to watch him sign the order. Before Trump signed it, Vice President Pence announced that doing so showed “compassion and … heart … and respect for families.”

“But it’s still equally as tough,” the president clarified, “if not tougher.”

“Stoking racial tensions is a feature of Trump’s presidency,” White House bureau chief Phil Rucker reports: “Echoing the words and images of the white nationalist movement to dehumanize immigrants and inflame racial tensions has become a defining feature of Donald Trump’s presidency and of the Republican Party’s brand. Trump has stirred supporters at rallies by reading ‘The Snake,’ a parable about a tenderhearted woman who takes in an ailing snake but is later killed when the revived creature bites her. It should be heard as a metaphor for immigration, he says. The president referred to some African nations as ‘shithole countries.’ He posited that ‘both sides’ were to blame for last summer’s deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville. And, again and again, he has accused black football players who took a knee during the playing of the national anthem to protest police discrimination of being un-American.

...The Trump administration changed its story on family separation no fewer than 14 times before ending the policy. JM Rieger tracks the evolving messages: “First it was a deterrent. Then it wasn’t. It was a new Justice Department policy. Then it wasn’t. The Trump administration was simply following the law. Then it said separations weren’t required by law. It could not be reversed by executive order. Then it was.”

...A Nobel Committee member says Trump is “no longer the moral leader of his country or the world.” Thorbjorn Jagland, one of the five members of the Norwegian committee which picks the winner of the peace prize, said: “Everything he does excludes him from the role American presidents have always had. He can not speak on behalf of the so-called free world.” Jagland is the head of the Council of Europe, a Strasbourg-based international human rights organization with 47 signatory states.

Melania Trump made increasingly clear to her husband in recent days that he should use his power to fix the mess he made. The Slovenian-born first lady’s own lawyer says the family separation policy evoked the internment of the Japanese during World War II and the inhumanity of detention in Nazi Germany. “It reminds us of past mistakes. It’s a big disappointment,” Michael Wildes told Mary Jordan. He also represents Melania’s parents, Viktor and Amalija Knavs, and her sister Ines, also from Slovenia. (Wildes declined to say what Ines’s immigration status is at this point…)

Theresa May condemned Trump's immigration policy, even as the British prime minister reiterated the importance of keeping open the lines of communication with the United States: “On what we have seen in the United States, pictures of children being held in what appear to be cages are deeply disturbing,” she said. “I clearly, wholly and unequivocally said it is wrong.” But she dismissed calls to cancel Trump’s upcoming U.K. visit., adding that when “we disagree with what they’re doing, we will tell them so.”

Labels: , , ,

Even In The Localest Of Races, It's All About Trumpanzee


There are 3 South Florida districts held by Republicans that are heavily Latino:
FL-25- Mario Diaz-Balart (70.4% Latino)
FL-26- Carlos Curbelo (69.5% Latino)
FL-27- Ileana Ros-Lehtien 72.7% Latino)
Trump fared poorly in all three- losing with 38.9% in FL-27 and with 40.5% in FL-26 while narrowly winning in FL-25 with 49.7%. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has prevented Democrats from contesting the seats held by her old pals Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz-Balart. Ros-Lehtinen (whose district now has a PVI of D+5 and is the second bluest district in the country held by a Republican) is retiring. FL-26 is the absolute bluest district-- PVI is D+6-- held by a Republican and Curbelo is running scared and can sometimes be a former vote for progressive legislation in Congress than Blue Dogs like Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Henry Cuellar (TX), Collin Peterson (MN) and fellow Floridian Stephanie Murphy.

People say it would be hard even for the least competent, most badly run DCCC in recent history to lose these 3 seats this cycle. But that's exactly the kind of challenge the DCCC is best at-- losing sure things. They are entirely ignoring Mary Barzee Flores' race against Diaz-Balart. A former judge, she's too progressive for the DCCC. With no help from the DCCC, she's already raised $728,231 up against Diaz-Balart's $1,118,990. She makes sense as a candidate, being a Latina in a heavily Hispanic district. The DCCC doesn't seem to get that when they don't want to. The DCCC candidate in FL-26 is Debbie Mucarel-Powell, an Ecuadorian immigrant running against Curbelo and the 3 top Democratic candidates running in the open FL-27 seat are non-Hisapnic. The GOP will run either Bruno Barreiro or Maria Elvira Salazar. The DCCC hasn't weighed in but the likeliest Democratic candidates are David Richardson, Donna Shalala and Matt Haggman. No Hispanic-- although number 4, is Kristen Rosen Gonzalez, who had a Latino husband and is using his name for politics. Shalala seems to be way ahead of the pack for the August 28 primary. Her ethnic heritage is Lebanese. Can she win in a heavily Latino district? I didn't think so, but I may be wrong there.

The Miami Herald reported that on Tuesday Eileen Higgins-- not a Latina-- won a seat on the Miami-Dade County Commission, "defeating the better-funded campaign of the former commissioner's wife to scramble the conventional wisdom of who can get elected in a heavily Hispanic district in Miami."
Higgins, a Spanish-speaking Ohio native who adopted the campaign moniker "La Gringa," won by six points over Zoraida Barreiro, the Cuban-born wife of Bruno Barreiro, who resigned to run in a Republican congressional primary [FL-27]. With all 60 precincts reporting, Higgins had 53 percent of the vote, and Barreiro 47 percent.

...With the Democratic Party deploying money, office holders, candidates and volunteers to boost Higgins early on in the special election, an officially nonpartisan contest became a proxy battle with Republicans.

 The GOP used U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican from Miami, in robo-calls and mailers. Her husband's Republican congressional campaign also became her top donor, with at least $95,000 in contributions.

District 5 straddles parts of Miami and Miami Beach, with a heavy concentration of active voters in Little Havana and other enclaves where older Cuban-American voters are considered vital to win in low-turnout elections.

Turnout was nearly 15 percent, meaning voter interest increased after the four-person primary on May 22, when about 13 percent of the district's voters participated. For the runoff between Barreiro and Higgins, 14,023 ballots were cast, according to results posted after 9 p.m. Higgins took 7,449 and Barreiro 6,494. 
...Democrats outnumber Republicans in the district, and Hillary Clinton carried District 5 by double digits in 2016. But Republicans tend to turn out in low-profile, local elections.

Bruno Barreiro, the only Miami-Dade commissioner to openly support Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign, held the seat for 20 years. He vacated it in March to run in the GOP primary to replace retiring Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican, in Florida's District 27.

...Though running for what would be her first political office, Barreiro enjoyed financial support from Miami-Dade's circuit of lobbyists, developers and vendors who dominate fundraising for incumbents. Tuesday represented the second loss for Barreiro in as many years, after she failed to win a Miami commission seat in 2017.

Higgins drew the underdog title throughout the 10-week sprint to replace Bruno Barreiro. In the May 22 primary, she faced two well-known names in the district: Zoraida Barreiro, along with Alex Diaz de la Portilla, a former state senator who used to represent the area in Tallahassee. Higgins pulled off her first upset when she took a narrow first in that contest with 35 percent of the vote to Barreiro's 33 percent. As the top two finishers, they advanced to the June 19 runoff.

Conventional wisdom had Barreiro the favorite, since she was expected to pick up most of Diaz de la Portilla's voters, a fellow Republican Cuban American. But Diaz de la Portilla didn't endorse in the race, and the Higgins ground game appeared to narrow the traditional advantage Republicans enjoy in mail-in balloting, which accounted for six out of every 10 votes cast in the District 5 runoff. While Republicans led Democrats by three points in mail-in ballots and early voting last week, the margin shrank to just a single point by Sunday.

"This is a transformational election," said Fernand Amandi, a Democratic pollster who supported Higgins. "This is an election where you had an unknown defeat two of the titular Cuban dynasties in local politics. and it wasn't even close."

...She also sided with the liberal wing of the commission on a string of issues, including mandatory workforce housing requirements for new developments, ending the acceptance of detention requests from federal immigration authorities, and opposing the extension of the 836 expressway southwest into Kendall.

The District 5 results are a blow for Bruno Barreiro, who transferred $95,000 from his congressional campaign to his wife's election effort. That made him his wife's top donor.

By her own admission, Barrerio is not a strong public speaker. She turned in a halting performance during the single televised debate with Higgins. Her online campaigning was minimal. While Higgins posted multiple daily updates from the campaign trail on her Twitter account, @eyesonmyworld, the @ZBarreiroFL feed hasn't been updated since last August.

In remarks at her Election Night event, Barreiro linked the loss in part to her husband's congressional campaign, saying Democrats targeted her to derail him.

And by the way, there may have been some voters who were offended by the Barreiros playing fast and loose with Florida election law. You cannot move more than $1,000 freely from a federal campaign-- his-- to a state campaign-- hers-- even if both campaigns are for the same candidate, let alone for another candidate, even if it is a spouse. That may come back to but Mr. Barreiro in the ass in November.


Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Midnight Meme Of The Day!


by Noah

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Others know history and repeat it gleefully.

And now a word about Herr Trump's favorite slogan; "America First": As a slogan, "America First" came to major prominence in the late 1920s. It was the slogan most often used by the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan didn't invent the slogan. In fact, as early as 1916, Woodrow Wilson, a man of racist persuasions, used it as his platform. Presidents Coolidge and Harding used it as well, with various implications. Even as far back as President McKinley, the slogan was in use, but, it was the Klan that took the phrase to new heights, or should I say, lows, and branded it with it's fully white supremacist meaning. As the original cartoon shows, at the time of FDR's tragic mistake involving the turning back of Jewish refugees, the slogan was still in use, and not for any good reason. As recently as 2016, David Duke, not just Donald Trump adopted the slogan. Peas in a modern day pod.

As events in Texas unfold, it's clear that there is no coincidence involved in Trump using "America First" and continuing its sad history.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Will Independents Step Up To The Plate And Save America From Trump?


Beset by growing opposition from every direction-- except neo-Nazi Stephen Miller and the vilest of the hard core Trumpist bigots, Señor T appears to have raised the white flag of surrender yesterday. (We'll see-- it might be just trading family separation for family internment.) This is how Bernie put it this afternoon: "Trump’s executive order merely replaces one inhumane act with another. In response to the overwhelming public outrage at his administration’s policy of tearing children away from their parents at the border, this administration thinks the appropriate response is to indefinitely detain families. This executive order is an affront to our moral values and runs afoul of our nation’s laws. When you have the most powerful nation on Earth saying that it is acceptable to detain families indefinitely, you are sending a signal to countries around the world that this is how they can treat immigrants and minorities. I am hopeful that, as we have seen with other racist and xenophobic Trump policies, the courts will step in to rein in these unlawful actions." Congressional Republicans have their bloomers all tied in knots, forced him to do something.

A number of recent polls show that a very significant number of voters are telling pollsters that the most motivating issue for how they vote will be electing someone who will help put a check on Trump-- a much higher number that said their motivation would be to elect someone who will help protect Trump and pass his agenda. Then yesterday the new poll from Pew Research, Voters More Focused on Control of Congress-- and the President-- Than in Past Midterms came out-- and the twisted bloomers must have gotten tighter. A record share of registered voters (68%) say the issue of which party controls Congress will be a factor in their vote in November. "A 60% majority say they consider their midterm vote as essentially a vote either for Donald Trump (26%) or against him (34%). These are among the highest shares saying their view of the president would be a factor in their vote in any midterm in more than three decades."

Trump is now a bigger negative factor in voting decisions for Democrats than Barack Obama was for Republicans during the midterm campaigns in 2010 and 2014. However, Trump also is much more of a positive factor for Republicans today than Obama was for Democrats in the previous two congressional elections.

About six-in-ten Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters (61%) say they think of their vote as a vote against Trump; in June 2006, a comparable share of Democrats (65%) considered their midterm vote to be a vote against George W. Bush. In both 2010 and 2014, smaller shares of Republican voters thought of their vote as a vote against Obama (54% in 2010, 51% in 2014).

Currently, 52% of Republican voters view their midterm vote as a vote for Trump, which is higher than the shares of Democrats who said this about Obama in 2010 (43%) and 2014 (35%), or the share of Republicans who saw their vote as being “for” Bush in 2006 (33%).

...Overall, 54% say they trust what Trump says less than they trusted what previous presidents said when they were in office; just 25% say they trust Trump more than his predecessors, while 19% say they trust him about the same amount. About half of Republicans (52%) say they trust what Trump says more than previous presidents, compared with 5% of Democrats. Fewer Republicans express more trust in what Trump says than did so in April 2017 (66%); there has been little in change in Democrats’ views.

...About four-in-ten Americans (41%) say they are very (23%) or somewhat (18%) confident that Trump keeps his own business interests separate from the decisions he makes as president, while 56% are not too (15%) or not at all (42%) confident that Trump does this.

Roughly three-quarters of Republicans and Republican leaners (77%) express confidence in the president to keep his business interests separate from presidential decisions. Still, a wider majority of conservative Republicans (84%) say this than moderate and liberal Republicans (65%).

Fully 85% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say they are not too or not at all confident in Trump to do this, including 68% who say they are not confident at all.

Liberal Democrats are especially likely to say they have no confidence at all in Trump to keep his business interests separate: 77% say this, compared with 62% of conservative and moderate Democrats.

...Less than five months before the 2018 midterm elections, about half of registered voters (51%) say they are more enthusiastic about voting compared with previous congressional elections. About a third (34%) say they are less enthusiastic than usual, while 13% volunteer that their enthusiasm is about the same as in the past.

The share of voters saying they are more enthusiastic than usual is at its highest level dating back to 2006. At about the same point in 2010, 46% of voters said they were more enthusiastic about voting than usual. In 2014 and 2006, 40% and 38%, respectively, expressed greater enthusiasm than usual about voting in congressional elections.

In the past, voters’ enthusiasm about voting did not change much between the summer and fall of midterm years. Today, a greater share of voters say they are more enthusiastic about voting than did so in the closing weeks of the three previous midterms.

Democrats hold a slight edge in voter enthusiasm: 55% of registered voters who plan to support the Democrat in their district say they are more enthusiastic about voting than usual, and 50% of registered voters who plan to back the Republican say the same.

The share of Democratic voters who say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting is much higher than it was at about this point in 2014 (37%) or 2010 (42%).

Enthusiasm for voting among GOP voters is about on par with similar points during the 2010 (55% more enthusiastic) and 2014 (45%) midterms.

Among voters who support the Democratic candidate, liberals are especially enthusiastic: 64% say they are more enthusiastic about voting than usual, higher than in the four previous midterms. About half (48%) of moderate and conservative Democratic voters express greater enthusiasm, which is higher than in 2010 but about the same as the share saying this in other midterms since 2002.

Among voters who back the Republican candidate in their district, divides by ideology are more modest: 53% of conservatives say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting, compared with 46% of moderates and liberals.

...Trump is a bigger factor in midterm voting preferences – positive or negative – than any president in more than three decades. About a third (34%) say they consider their vote for Congress as a vote against Donald Trump, while 26% consider their ballot as a vote for the president. Fewer than half (39%) say that Trump is not much of a factor in their vote.

At about this point in 2010, nearly half of voters (47%) said their view of Barack Obama would not be a factor in their vote; among those who said their view of Obama would matter, slightly more said they considered their vote as a vote against Obama (28%) than for him (23%).

And in 2014, 49% said their view of Obama would not be a factor; among the remainder, more considered their midterm vote as being against Obama (29%) than for him (19%).

Democrats broadly view their midterm vote as a vote against the president. Overall, 61% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters say they consider their vote for Congress to be a vote against Trump; a much smaller share (32%) says Trump is not much of a factor in their vote. Democratic opposition to Trump in their midterm vote is somewhat higher than Republican opposition to Obama eight years ago. In June 2010, 54% of Republicans said they considered their vote as a vote against Obama, while 41% said he was not a factor.

The share of Democrats who say they are voting “against” the president in the midterm is comparable to the share who said this in 2006, during George W. Bush’s second term. In June 2006, 65% of Democrats said they considered their midterm ballot as a vote against Bush.

Among Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters, 52% say they think of their vote for Congress as a vote for Trump, while 42% say he isn’t much of a factor. In the summer of 2010 and 2014, smaller shares of Democrats said their vote was for Obama (43% and 30%, respectively). And the share of Republicans who think of their midterm vote as a vote for Trump is much higher than in 2006, when just 33% of Republicans thought of their congressional vote as a vote for Bush.

Among Republicans and Republican leaners, nearly six-in-ten conservatives (58%) think of their congressional vote as a vote for Trump. Moderate and liberal Republicans are somewhat less likely to say this: 41% consider their midterm vote to be for Trump.

Among Democrats there is a more modest gap in views by ideology: Majorities of both liberals (65%) and conservatives and moderates (59%) say they consider their vote for Congress as a vote against Trump...

For the first time since 2006, registered voters who plan to vote for the Democratic Party’s candidate in their district this fall (74%) are more likely than those who plan to vote Republican (54%) to say that they do not want to see most members of Congress re-elected. Anti-incumbent sentiment among Democratic voters is up from a similar point in 2014 (when 67% said this). The share of GOP voters saying this (54%) is down 18 percentage points compared with summer 2014 (72%).

...The majority of voters are concerned that-- regardless of who is in control after this fall’s elections-- Congress will not strike the right balance in its relationship with the Trump administration.

Nearly six-in-ten voters (58%) are very or somewhat concerned that if Democrats take control of Congress this fall they will focus too much on investigating the Trump administration.

An equal share (58%) is concerned that Republicans will not focus enough on oversight of the Trump administration if they keep control of Congress.

Partisans express great concern about how the other side would handle its relationship with the Trump administration, but they are less concerned about their own party’s approach.

A large majority of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters (80%) say they are very or somewhat concerned that if Democrats win control of Congress, they will focus too much on investigating the administration. If the GOP retains control, far fewer Republicans say they are concerned the party will not provide enough oversight of Trump (though 31% say they are at least somewhat concerned about this).

Likewise, a large majority of Democrats and Democratic leaners (85%) are concerned that Republicans would not focus enough on oversight if they retain their majorities. Four-in-ten (40%) say they would be concerned about a Democratic-led Congress going too far investigating the Trump administration.
This is what all that looks like to me: Democrats will vote Democratic candidates, Republicans will vote for Republican candidates and the only way Democrats will be able to overcome Republican gerrymander is for enough independents to decide Trump is too dangerous (or crazy or whatever) to vote for Republicans running for Congress. And that's how the midterms seem to be playing out at this point. Republican--the vast majority of whom are cowards and enablers anyway-- are going to pay for Trump's behavior with their own careers. Trump's lies are working on Republicans-- "we love the poorly educated"-- nut not on any normal people.

And it will hurt the GOP brand-- everywhere-- when members of Congress are seen to be defending Trump. Yesterday Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican congressman running for the Senate kissed up to Trump made a real boo boo. See if you can catch it in this statement he gave to KTGO: "By the way, chain link fences are around playgrounds all over America, all over North Dakota. And chain link fences allow line-of-sight visual connectivity with children and families. You know, there’s nothing inhumane about a chain link fence. If it is, then every ballpark in America is inhumane... I think [chain] linked fences is irrelevant to the crying of children. My commentary is on the chain-link fence. There’s all this hoopla, because I think there are people on the left that clearly want the country to fail at this. And they would like the chain-link fence, they called it 'dog cages.' Well, chain-link fences have been used to protect children from predators on playgrounds, baseball diamonds, all sorts of sports courts and what-not. To me it’s not the chain-link fence, that’s not the issue. That’s a ruse by some on the left to try to create an image that’s far worse in description than it is in reality."

Play ball!

Labels: , , ,