The Trump Files

He has been indicted in four criminal cases, convicted in two civil suits, and could be barred from even running for office again under Section 3 of the Constitution's 14th amendment.

Trump has been convicted of sexually assaulting and later defaming writer E Jean Carroll (and ordered to pay her roughly $88 million in damages) and for fraud, which could cost him as much as $300 million in damages and deprive him of the right to do business in New York.

Trump awaits trial in New York City for allegedly falsifying business records to hide "hush money" payments to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election; in Washington DC for inciting the insurrection that led to an assault on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021; in Florida for mishandling highly classified documents after leaving office that same month; and in Georgia for his efforts to overturn that state's election results in November 2020. In all, he faces ninety-one felony charges in connection with the four cases.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments this week as to whether the former president is eligible to run for office again, as he has been removed from the primary ballot in Colorado, and other states have been considering similar actions.

There is little doubt that anyone else who had engaged in such treacherous behavior would have long ago been barred for life from holding any elective office. But we are not talking about anyone else; this is Donald Trump, supreme overlord of the Republican party and leader of a misinformed and weak-minded cult whose disciples look upon him as a god—which puts SCOTUS in a rather awkward position: either conform to Constitutional law or find some way to let Trump off the hook.

My guess is that the Court will take the more shameful yet far easier course. How? Simply by ruling that the Capitol assault on January 6 was not an "insurrection" but more likely an unplanned altercation that merely got out of hand. Yes, the president encouraged the conflict; and yes, he did nothing for more than three hours to stop it; but the goal wasn't to abort the peaceful transfer of power from Trump to Biden, simply to vent the mob's frustration with what it considered a "stolen" election.

And so voila! Trump is thus free to run again wherever and whenever he pleases—which means American voters must do in November what SCOTUS was too—shall we say, cautious to do when the ball was in its—pardon the pun—court.

February 12, 2024

Like it or not, barring some unforeseen mishap the 2024 presidential ballot will look like this:

___Joseph R Biden (D)
___Donald J Trump (R)

According to the news media, many Americans would prefer "or not." Joe Biden, we are told, is simply too "old" at eighty-one to carry out his duties as president. If re-elected, he would be (gasp!) eighty-six at the end of his second term in office. Forgive me for being unmoved by that argument, but that is two years younger than I am now. Like beauty, "old" is in the eye of the beholder, and has little to do with how an individual may or may not be able to face up to and overcome life's challenges, no matter how difficult or daunting. From where I stand, Joe Biden looks and sounds basically level-headed and competent—especially "for his age."

And what about Trump? His record is clear, at least to those who haven't been brainwashed by his mendacity and fallen under his cult-like spell. Twice impeached, four times criminally indicted, twice found guilty in civil trials including one for sexual assault, leaving as president a trail of lies that reached well into the hundreds, inciting an insurrection aimed at overthrowing a lawful election, channeling Adolph Hitler, threatening to become a dictator when re-elected, withdrawing the US from NATO and allowing his bosom buddy Vladimir Putin to run roughshod over Ukraine and eastern Europe...what's not to like?

To many, Biden v Trump doesn't seem like much of a choice—but it's the only one they'll have. Why can't there be others? We'll get to that in a moment. First, let's set aside the time-honored American myth that "anyone can grow up to be president." That was never really true, and is much less true today than in years past. To begin with, "anyone" has never included women—at least so far—which eliminates more than half the US population without taking another step. We can also cast aside anyone who would not want the job, which leaves us with perhaps one percent of Americans who conceivably would. There was a time when even that one percent may have had a decent shot at winning White House, but that is no longer true. Today's presidential candidates need the one indispensable ingredient without which no campaign—for president or most other offices—can succeed. And for that we can thank our always-reliable US Supreme Court.

In 2010, the Court decided, in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC), that limits on independent expenditures by corporations, unions and other groups in federal elections violated their First Amendment right to free speech. To put it another way, these inanimate bodies should hereafter be regarded as "people" with the same right to "free speech" as other "people."

As, however, corporations, unions and so on can't really "talk" the way real honest-to-goodness people do (so why the need for free speech?), they chose to exercise their newly minted First Amendment right in another game-changing way—by letting their money do the talking. The Citizens United decision may not have made our elections better, but it has damn sure made them more expensive.

During the 2008 cycle, the last presidential election cycle before Citizens United, candidates, political parties and independent outside groups spent about $7.1 billion—adjusted for inflation—on federal elections, according to the money-in-politics tracking organization OpenSecrets. During the 2020 election cycle, total spending exceeded $16.4 billion.

AdImpact, a firm that tracks political advertising, anticipates that some $10.2 billion will be spent on political ads during the 2024 election cycle, making it the most expensive in history (more than $9 billion in ad dollars was spent during the 2020 cycle).

As of February 4, outside groups had shoveled more than $318 million into 2024 presidential and congressional campaigns. That is more than six times the amount spent through the same period in 2020.

Mind-boggling as that may seem, it is only going to get worse. And we can thank the Supreme Court for opening that fiscal can of worms.

What this means in practical terms is that elected officials have to spend as much—or more—time fund-raising as they do carrying out the duties of their office. Little wonder that so many Americans see the government as broken, unable to address the needs of the people whose votes put them there. The more money it takes to elect them, the less time office-holders have to govern—and the more they are beholden to special groups without whose financial help they probably couldn't have won an election.

According to the Pew Research Center, Americans—by a wide margin—believe there should be limits on how much money individuals and organizations can spend on elections. But who determines what those limits are, and who enforces the decree? Eventually, the Supreme Court might have to decide, and we pretty much know how that would go.

Americans also believe that donors have too much influence over decisions made by members of Congress, and that lobbyists and special interest groups also exert too much power. While that is certainly true, almost nothing has been or can be done about it. Nor can much be done about the flood of money that is, as much as anything else, determining the outcome of our elections. Although independent groups such as super PACs are legally required to disclose the names of donors, shell companies, non-profits or straw donors can conceal the true source of their funds. And dark money groups have found creative ways to avoid reporting sources of their spending to the FEC, like stopping spending within a certain prescribed window or concocting "magic words" designed to avoid triggering disclosure.

By any measure, the 2024 election cycle promises to be the worst yet in terms of the amount of money spent to elect candidates, from Biden v Trump down to village dog-catcher. In the words of Ciara Torres-Spellliscy, a professor at Florida's Stetson University who specializes in campaign finance and constitutional law, fasten your seat belts, citizens, "I think we're in for a bumpy ride."

Impeach Mayorkas!

Last week, the US House of Representatives engineered a vote to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in spite of the fact that there wasn't a shred of evidence to support the proposition that he had committed the sort of "treason, bribery" or "high crimes and misdemeanors" on which impeachments have traditionally been based. Truth is, he was to be impeached because some members of congress apparently weren't pleased with the way he was doing his job.

In the news media, the banner headline was that the vote to impeach Mayorkas had failed, the final tally being 214 in favor, 216 opposed.

To me, the banner headline should have been "why would 214 presumably sane members of the House vote to impeach when there was absolutely NO evidence that Mayorkas had in any way acted improperly while serving as HHS secretary." The answer, as always, can be summed up in two words: Donald Trump. And for now, we will leave you with that comforting thought...

February 19, 2024

"Pssst! Hey buddy!"

"Are you talking to me?"

"Yeah, to you, friend—and do I have a deal for you! Look, this is a brand new never-before-worn pair of super-high-quality sneakers—and I can let you have 'em at retail! Trust me, they're a fantastic bargain at only $399 a pair..."

"Thanks, but I don't think I should. I'm not an athlete, and I rarely wear any shoes besides those I wear to work..."

"I gotcha, pal. A real practical man. I like that. But trust me, these aren't your ordinary everyday sneakers... these are genuine collector's items, guaranteed to go way up in price in only a couple of years. Consider it an investment..."

"I already have more than enough investments, thank you. I don't see how sneakers..."

"Okay, look—I'll even sign 'em for you. Trust me, friend, that way you can be sure they'll soon be worth a small fortune..."

"You mean simply by signing them...?"

"Yeah, that's right. Look, I'll sign a pair for you now. 'Donald J...'"

"Wait a minute! You're...you're..."

"That's right, friend. It's your favorite president, Donald J Trump, in the abundant flesh. And these fabulous sneakers are part of my brand-new line of shoes that I've been told is gonna be a great success..."

"And who told you that?"

"A very famous player. Real tall guy. He says to me, 'Mr president' (most people call me that)...he says, 'Mr president, sir, I've been playing pro ball for almost twenty years now, and I've never seen a shoe that comes even close to the ones you've designed...I served three tours of duty in the Army without once breaking down, but I nearly cried when I saw them. Sheer perfection! I thought, this has to be the work of a very stable genius...'Trust me, those were his exact words."

"I have to agree, that does sound capricious..."

"Yeah, like I told you...Trust me, friend, he couldn't say enough nice things about the shoes. But I have to confess the design isn't mine; I have some really incredible people who work with me on things, and they came up with it. Of course, I'd been considering the idea of designer sneakers for 12-13 years..."

"And so you're in charge of sales..."

"That should be pretty obvious, friend. Otherwise, I wouldn't be standing here talking to you...but look, I have to move fast because we have to sell more than $400 million worth..."

"Well, I'll admit the shoes do look attractive. But $399 still seems a bit pricey for a pair of sneakers, even if, as you say, they are sure to become more valuable over time."

"Okay, look; I'll tell you what. We have some other sneakers that are going for the super-low price of only $199 a pair. Nowhere near the quality of these babies, but still and all a great bargain at the price. They're called the 'T-Red Wave' and 'POTUS 45.' Each one has the letter 'T' and the number '45' on the side. Trust me, they'll soon be collector's items too..."

"It does sound like a great offer, but I'm still gonna have to say thanks but no thanks..."

"Okay, okay; I can see it's gonna take more than that to move your needle, friend. We're gonna have to rely on the art of the deal. Look, don't let ANYBODY know I did this, but just for you, because you seem like such an easy mark—I mean, such a discriminating gentleman with exquisite taste—I'm gonna throw in an extra pair of shoelaces and a Trump 'Superhero charm'—that's a $200 value—absolutely free!"

"Wow! That does sound like an offer I can't refuse! But before deciding, I do have one question..."

"And what would that be, friend?"

"Well, we're standing in the heart of New York City—and haven't you been barred from doing business here for three years?"

"Trust me, it was really great talking to you, friend...but if anyone should ask, this conversation never happened. 'Bye! And have a nice day!"

Meanwhile...

The scene is any street in Moscow, Russia.

"You there! What are you doing with those flowers?"

"I'm mourning the death of a dear friend, Alexei Navalny."

"And you are also under arrest. Didn't you know that mourning his death is against the law?"

"Yes, I'd heard that...but I thought it must be a joke."

"A joke? That order came from president Putin himself. When have you ever heard him joke?"

"Come to think of it..."

"Yes, is no joke. Very serious. No mourning; president Putin will arrange a suitable memorial service for the traitorous dog at an appropriate time and place."

"And the people will be able to come to it...?"

"Of course...as you know, our glorious president has always been forgiving and gracious...but their will be certain restrictions."

"And what might those be?"

"No signs or tokens of grief, no talking...especially no talking...no flowers, no tears...no dancing, no applause...in fact, no movement of any kind...and above all, no mention of his name..."

"That sounds reasonable enough. Do you think the president himself might attend?"

"I doubt that. He will be quite busy poisoning other criminals..."

"I understand. But I'm certainly looking forward to attending such a compassionate event."

"Except you may not be able to...as I said, you must come with me, you are under arrest for mourning Navalny in public...you could face 10 to 20 years hard labor for violating this clear and reasonable law...and with flowers, no less..."

February 26, 2024

When it comes to blowing his own horn, former President Donald ("hooray for me!") Trump has never been shy about describing his one-term presidency as "the greatest in American history," better even than those of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the Roosevelts (Theodore and Franklin D), four of whose faces are carved into Mt Rushmore. And based on Trump's record while in office, who could possibly argue with that?

No one? Anyone?

Wait, I do see some hands being raised. Let's take a quick count. One hundred fifty-four hands, to be precise. And those hands, I'm told, belong to present and former members of the American Political Science Association, the foremost group of social science experts in US presidential politics, all of whom took part in a 2024 Presidential Greatness Survey covering all of the nation's chief executives from George Washington to Joe Biden.

Those who participated in the survey were asked to rate each president on a scale of 0-100 for his over-all greatness, with 0=failure, 50=average and 100=great. The ratings for each president were then averaged and they were ranked from highest to lowest based on total scores. Surprisingly (at least to Donald Trump), the former president wasn't at the top of the list. No, that honor belonged (as in previous surveys) to Abraham Lincoln who averaged 95.03 points.

To Trump's credit, his 10.92 average was less than six points below that of James Buchanan, who finished next-to-last in the rankings at 16.71. In other words, Trump finished dead last, clearly a few spots below where he believed he should be. When asked to comment, the former hoaxer-in-chief said the survey was obviously rigged, that there was no way he could have finished behind Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore or Herbert Hoover, among others, in a fair contest.

In fact, Trump wondered aloud how he could have possibly been ranked below Thomas Jefferson, the Roosevelts, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Ted Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon (who resigned in disgrace) and especially Barack Obama (who ranked seventh) and the Bushes, George HW and George W. When told that Joe Biden had placed fourteenth on the list, two steps above Ronald Reagan, Trump was flabbergasted.

"How could the most crooked and incompetent president in our nation's history rank as high as fourteen?" Trump asked, before being reminded that the nation's "most crooked and incompetent president" actually came in last. "That's not true," Trump protested. "I actually won that poll—in a landslide! All I need is a lousy 11,780 more points to prove it. C'mon, give me a break..."

There have been some changes since the Presidential Greatness Project conducted its initial survey. Barak Obama, for example, has risen nine places (from 16 to 7), as has Ulysses S Grant (26 to 17), while Andrew Jackson has fallen twelve places (9 to 21) and Calvin Coolidge has dropped seven (27 to 34). The one constant is Donald Trump who remains solidly anchored in last place.

"That's why the people love me so much," Trump said. "They can always count on me to be steady, no matter which way the wind is blowing or how many times I am impeached, indicted or convicted. They know I will NEVER surrender. Well, I did have my mug shot taken in Georgia (great for fund-raising, by the way) but never surrendered my driver's license or passport. And no matter how hard they try, no one can make me surrender my orange makeup, golf cart or clubs...I couldn't govern without them..."

'Sneaking' around...

We've already written about former president Trump's craven attempt to reach a younger audience while paying some outstanding bills by introducing a new line of spray-painted sneakers ranging in price from $199 to $399 a pair. A bit pricey for my wallet but apparently not for diehard Trumpies who have been buying them at a rapid clip. With sales going so well, one might think that Trump would rest on his laurels. Not on your grift bag, greenhorn.

Trump has now introduced at his web site a brand new MAGA hat, which, unlike the familiar red caps, is GREEN. Yes, green! This is a "limited edition" 2024 hat (limited to those "patriots" who have money), and it can be yours for the unheard-of low price of only $50! Look at it as Trump's green in exchange for your green. Great deal!

And if you think that's great, wait'll you see...

...the official Trump Black Card (the perfect gift from a blackguard), a "limited edition" FULL METAL CARD etched with Trump's mug shot and the number 47, designed to tell every true "patriot" that Donald Trump will NEVER surrender (unless, of course, someone should make him an offer he can't refuse, like no prison time in return for a guilty plea).

And this just in...!

Just in time to celebrate the Irish in Trump's blood (there must be a drop or two somewhere), a "limited edition" 2024 St Patrick's Day T-shirt, white with a green shamrock in front spelling out the message "I Shamrock Trump." Isn't that simply adorable? As Trump says—and you can trust him—"This is what I'll be wearing on St Paddy's Day" (hey, it beats a prison jump suit). And one of these tawdry T-shirts can be yours for a contribution of only $47 or more (preferably more).

It's all in a day's work for the predatory, non-stop Donald J Trump Shabby Merchandise Mart. And if, God forbid, he should be re-elected in November '24, a lovely and spacious white house complete with rose garden would soon be on the market too. (Hey, those civil penalties aren't going to pay themselves!)

February 29, 2024

(special once-every-four-years edition)

Dismantling our cherished and long-standing American democracy is one thing...

But raffling off the AMERICAN FLAG?

Instead of shooting some poor soul in Times Square in broad daylight, former president Donald ("give me liberty, or give me your credit card!") Trump has chosen to commit the next most heinous act by...

holding a sweepstakes whose winner receives his own AMERICAN FLAG!

But this isn't just ANY American flag. Here is how Trump describes it on his MAGA web site:

"I WANT YOU TO OWN THIS FLAG!

"When I was onstage at CPAC, I couldn't help but give our BEAUTIFUL flag a big hug! And right now, YOU have a chance to own it!

"All I'm asking is for you to chip in ANY AMOUNT by the end of the day for a chance to win.

"This contest won't last forever [thank goodness]. Chip in today to own this ICONIC piece of history!"

As we said, not any old American flag, but one that was embraced by the Fuhrer himself!

Of course, no one ever "wins" Trump's contest, which is one reason why the names of "winners" aren't made public. But if by some miracle someone should actually "win" the flag, who is to say it is (or isn't) the same flag sanctified at CPAC. Only The Donald knows that, so the winner would have to...let us say...trust him. That's not so hard to do, is it?

In any case, just when you think Trump's fund-raising cons may have reached the bottom of the barrel...he finds ANOTHER BARREL!

And what is even worse (could there be anything worse?), his addle-brained cultists are apparently okay with the idea. That is to say, no one has been complaining about it (at least not out loud). I seriously doubt that auctioning the American flag will cost Trump a single vote. In fact, that sort of "patriotism" may even earn him a few more! I'm sure that is what he is counting on. Next stop: Times Square in broad daylight...

Or perhaps...

to one of several courtrooms wherein Trump has been indicted for various alleged crimes—more than likely one not far removed from Times Square itself, as he and his lawyers try to explain away a "hush money" payment of $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election, an offense for which his former fixer, Michael Cohen, has already served prison time.

Speaking of which...

In spite of an appeals court ruling to the contrary, the US Supreme Court decided this week to hear arguments concerning Trump's claim of "total immunity" for any actions, lawful or unlawful, taken while he served as president. There are three possible reasons for this: (1) the Court wishes to go on record as ruling once and for all that no president has immunity and is therefore above the law; (2)—and most likely—the Court wishes to help the former president delay his DC trial for obstruction of justice so that he can "run out the clock" and make the case disappear should he be re-elected in November; (3) the Court is even more biased and corrupt than even its harshest critics could have imagined, and will ignore Constitutional law and language and rule that Trump does indeed have absolute immunity for any actions, lawful or otherwise, taken while in office. Although that is a worst-case scenario, nothing this Court does should surprise anyone, as neither established law nor precedent seems to have much to do with many of its decisions. In other words, brace yourself for yet another imbecilic decree...

If that should happen—and this is pure speculation—Trump's first act after taking office could be to go to the Supreme Court building (or order Seal Team Six to go), shoot and kill its trio of liberal justices (absolute immunity!) and replace them with three of his buddies who happen to have law degrees. True, that's a long shot, but given the circumstances it would be not be beyond the realm of possibility...

In spite of his legal problems (he has also been indicted for "alleged" offenses in Georgia and Florida), Trump continues on his all-but unchallenged path to the GOP presidential nomination and a rematch with the incumbent, president Joe Biden. While few in the media seem to have a problem ruminating that Biden is "too old" to run for a second term, most of them scramble to change the subject when it turns to calling Trump too "corrupt," too "immoral" or too "inept," all of which he clearly is.

As this is Leap Year, I'll take a leap and predict that Biden will pummel Trump in November, after which Americans will be "treated" to Rigged Election 2.0 as Trump insists the Dems have somehow done it again, robbing him of an electoral victory he won "by a landslide." What a comfort it will be to know that some things never change...

March 4, 2024

"Going once...going twice...SOLD! To the orange-colored gentleman with the six hand-puppets in his pocket...! One deeply soiled—and nakedly partisan—US Supreme Court...!"

"Congratulations, Mr president! Does this mean what I think it means...?"

"Yes, it does. But not much has changed, really. I've had the Court in my hip pocket for a couple of years now; this simply makes it official...The hardest part was outbidding the NRA; luckily, they're even more broke than I am..."

"And your absolute immunity?"

"Well, the Court will consider that...one of these days...and make its decision...somewhere down the road...but trust me, things are looking pretty good right now."

"How so?"

"Well, my pawns—I mean, the Court—will drag its feet and help make sure the federal trials I'm facing won't start until after the November election, which, naturally, I will win by a landslide..."

"And crush Joe Biden, just like the last time."

"Biden? I thought I was running against Obama!...Well, no matter; once I'm in office all bets are off. I'll be a dictator starting on Day 1, and whatever the Court decides about my immunity won't make any difference at all after that, as congress will give me the power, as I said of Putin and NATO, to do 'whatever the hell I want...'"

"You're sure about that?"

"Hell, yes. I had 'em scared shitless even before my re-election..."

"Right. So you don't think anyone will complain if you hand every cabinet position to members of the family...including even Barron?"

"Nah. And even if they do, their protests would be about as meaningful as an opposing candidate in Russia."

"You mean dead on arrival..."

"You got it. And the best part is, I'd have told the voters exactly what I'd do—and they'll elect me anyway!"

"Pure very stable genius."

"You're right...and being president again will have an added benefit; I should be able to shave at least five to ten shots off my average golf score—without even fudging..."

"Brilliant! And what about Nikki Haley, the only person who really stood up to you during the campaign?"

"Well, look, I'm not a vengeful person...but you know that. Nikki has already served as my UN ambassador, so I'll most likely name her ambassador to Kyrgyzstan."

"Is that a county?"

"Of course it is. In fact, it's the world's largest supplier of consonants. She'll love it there."

"How about things people really seem to care deeply about, like abortion, immigration..."

"The answer to both is the same: a total ban. Problems solved, and I wouldn't need to waste my time thinking about them."

"But didn't you promise...?"

"Promise? You really are new to this game, aren't you? A 'promise' isn't something you 'keep.' It's something that helps get you elected—unless it's a promise to destroy your enemies. Once you've gotten what you wanted, a promise is worth about as much as a water pistol in a wildfire..."

"So you'll really round up immigrants and put them in camps?"

"Sure. And why not? Camps aren't so bad. I used to go every summer, and really enjoyed myself..."

"But these camps won't be exactly the same..."

"Well, we did have heat...and running water...and indoor plumbing...but aside from that, there's not that much difference. There'll be lots of outdoor activities...especially for those who had no tents...and the best part is, Mexico will pay for them..."

"So that solves the border problem. But what about NATO, Putin, the war in Ukraine...?"

"NATO?...you mean 'Not Allowed To Owe...'I've told those deadbeat countries to pay up or get lost...I don't know who they pay, or how, but somebody must know...and until they show us the money we won't lift a finger to help them. Putin? He's my BFF and, aside from Adolph, my best role model...and to be clear, there is no 'war' in Ukraine; that's a special military operation that just happens to look like a war..."

"You seem to have your finger on the pulse, sir. No wonder the people love you so much..."

"Well, they know a strong leader when they see one. But we'll still have plenty of work to do. Have to get rid of those windmills...they're killing all the birds...and bomb those hurricanes before they can reach land...not to mention getting rid of the Department of Injustice and the FBI...and making sure every civil servant is in fact one of MY servants...yes, a lot of work to do..."

"But you're clearly the right man for the job..."

"Well, I'm far too modest to agree with that. But if push comes to shove, I'll use my total immunity to push Nancy Pelosi off the nearest balcony and shove my enemies—you know who they are—into prison for the rest of their lives..."

"Won't the media have something to say about that?"

"Ah, the media...that is the least of my worries. The media will soon be muzzled, replaced by Fox News Eternal, Radio Free Trump, and the New York Truth (According to Donald)—'All the News That's Permissible to Print.' Rachel Maddow will have trouble finding work at IHOP..."

"You definitely have all the bases covered, sir..."

"You're probably right. And speaking of bases, we'll be closing all of our bases around the world. There's no need for military bases when you have friends like Putin, Viktor Orban, Zi Jinping, Narendra Modi and Kim Jong Un in your corner. We'll be perfectly safe in their hands..."

"No doubt about that. But what about your most relentless and powerful enemy?"

"You must mean The Trump Files. We'll probably let 'em keep babbling. If they couldn't stop me from being re-elected, there's really no more harm they can do...and besides, a few of those piss-poor columns are rather amusing, don't you think?"

March 11, 2024

From now until election day, November 5, the news media will be laser-focused on one over-arching theme: "The polls say..."

Pay no attention, folks. The polls can say whatever they damn please; that doesn't mean they know which end is up.

Polls are rather like basketball players pursuing Wilt Chamberlain's record of scoring 100 points in an NBA game; the best they can do is come close (Kobe Bryant once scored 81).

And polls are almost as often wrong as they are right. What ever happened to the "red wave" that was supposed to hand the GOP firm control of congress in 2022? And why don't we remember president Thomas Dewey?

The point is, I'll believe polls when they ask me what I think or how I'll vote...and none of them ever has. Polls simply take representative samples and extrapolate. But when there are millions of voters in line, and the polls have sampled only thousands, the margin of error grows exponentially. Almost no one—including the pollsters—predicted that Donald Trump would win the presidency in 2016, and the prevailing point of view was that he would be re-elected in 2020, so powerful is the presidential incumbency. Wrong, and wrong again (even though Trump insists the polls were "right" about his having been re-elected).

Before president Biden's State of the Union address last week, Trump was leading Biden in most polls, even though they were "within the margin of error."

Pay no attention.

Now, those same polls have Biden ahead, even though the margins remain slim.

Again, pay no attention.

No poll can predict with any degree of accuracy how many millions of Americans will be moved to leave their couches in November to vote—much less for whom that vote will be cast. The best polls can do is foresee what some few thousand probable voters in their "sample" may—or may not—do come election day, and prefigure what that means for the country as a whole.

As for polls taken in March or April to forecast what may happen in November, there are simply too many variables working against their accuracy. Few partisans on either side, for example, could have foreseen the power and impact of president Biden's SOTU address, which may have earned him some votes and almost surely didn't cost him any. The largely positive response to the president's speech was duly noted, of course, in "the polls."

Pay no attention.

And by all means pay no heed to the "breaking news" that arrived moments ago on my computer screen: "MSNBC's [Steve] Kornacki has devastating report on Biden's epic bad polling for new year."

I've received hundreds of such missives—from both sides—warning that my candidate of choice is facing imminent defeat, unless—yes, unless I can chip in $5 (or more) to help erase the deficit and pull him over the top. Sorry; he'll simply have to climb that mountain without my help.

Please don't take that to mean I have no heart. Of course, I want my "chosen candidate" to win. On the other hand, I have never given money to support him (or her) because I don't think my $5 or whatever makes much difference when compared to the millions of dollars candidates now receive thanks to the disastrous Citizens United ruling by our shameless US Supreme Court, which tells us that corporations are actually "people" whose rights under the Constitution's First Amendment give them license to spend as much money as they can to support their "chosen candidates," as anything less would violate the Amendment's guarantee of their right to "free speech."

Of course, if my "candidate of choice" were (perish the thought) former president Trump, I also wouldn't want to help pay his legal fees.

In other news...

While president Biden was delivering his electric—and at times combative—State of the Union address, laying out plans and policies for a second term, Trump, ever the snake oil salesman, was busy hawking "the hottest-selling MAGA hat ever!" Unlike earlier versions, which were red, black or green, this one, he said, is GOLD! And, like almost everything else in Trump's tawdry Merchandise Mart, it's a LIMITED EDITION! (limited, that is, to those "patriots" who are willing and able to part with $47 or more for a baseball cap).

Comments