Christian Vanderbrouk/The Bulwark:

They Did This to Themselves

By supporting the Liz Cheney purge and downplaying January 6th, Ron DeSantis and his conservative supporters dug their own hole.

We can stipulate that the team behind Ron DeSantis has done their candidate no favors. But reserve the lion’s share of blame for the conservative movement as a whole, which acceded to the purge of anti-Trump leaders like Liz Cheney and stifled criticism of the January 6th riot.

Understand that very conservative voters still (and will) turn out. it’s just that the rest of the country hates what Republicans are selling.

Dan Balz/Washington Post:

What divides political parties? More than ever, it’s race and ethnicity.

A new report examines political polarization. While acknowledging that anti-democratic impulses among Republicans are most worrisome, it suggests that both parties bear some responsibility for stoking division.

“Religion, economic concerns, and factors like education, age, and gender also divide us politically, but the reality is that as America becomes more diverse, it is also becoming more racially divided in the electoral arena,” Zoltan Hajnal of the University of California at San Diego writes in one chapter in the report.

Lilliana Mason of Johns Hopkins University writes in another chapter of the report, “The process of social sorting allowed the Republican Party to represent the interests of ‘traditional’ white, Christian America while the Democratic Party was increasingly representing those who were still struggling to overturn centuries of social inequality. This type of divide is not easily corrected — Democrats and Republicans have opposing visions of who should hold power in American society and how much progress has already been made.”

It’s both sides’ fault because one party is racist and Christian nationalist, and the other party isn’t. Therefore, they don’t agree.

And that right there is why doing the right thing doesn’t automatically win.  See Liz Cheney. And what that means is you need to play politics. From that, it follows that “your side” is going to choose to do things you don’t like while the other side does things you abhor, and/but you’ll still vote for them.

Further, it means campaigns matter, and Biden’s hasn’t started yet while Trump/Fox has never stopped. That’s one of the main reasons to ignore polling right now.

Jennifer Rubin/Washington Post:

I don’t write about polls. You shouldn’t bother with them, either.

You might have noticed that I studiously have avoided dissecting the avalanche of 2024 polls. I don’t plan on deviating from this approach — at least not until mid-2024. And you should consider ignoring the nonstop flood of polling and the rickety analysis dependent on it. Here are five reasons we should all go on a poll-free political diet for at least six months:

...

Second, voters tell us utterly contradictory things. Around 60 percent tell pollsters that four-time-indicted former president Donald Trump should drop out. But then nearly half say they’ll vote for him. Which is it? There is a hefty amount of research that what voters say they want doesn’t align with how they vote. Whether it is gas prices or the war in Ukraine or the candidates themselves, respondents often give contradictory answers, suggesting they either don’t understand the question, don’t really know what they think or respond based on tribal loyalty.

Ian Millhiser/Vox:

The Republican Party’s plan to rule the state of Wisconsin forever, explained

Wisconsin’s legislature is gerrymandered to ensure that Democrats will never win it. Republicans have a plan to keep it that way.

A quirk in the state constitution, however, may allow Wisconsin’s gerrymandered legislature to strip Protasiewicz of her ability to decide cases, and to do so indefinitely. That would leave the state supreme court evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, and thus unable (or, at least, unwilling) to strike down the state’s gerrymander.

According to the New York Times, “Republicans in Wisconsin are coalescing around the prospect of impeaching” Protasiewicz. If the state assembly moved forward with impeachment, and then the gerrymandered state Senate convicted her, that wouldn’t actually be that big of a deal. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers could immediately appoint a replacement justice, who would then provide the fourth vote to strike down the gerrymandered maps.

But the state constitution also provides that “no judicial officer shall exercise [her] office, after [s]he shall have been impeached, until [her] acquittal.” So the state assembly could conceivably impeach Protasiewicz, and then the state senate could delay her trial forever — effectively creating a vacancy on the court that could last for a very long time.

Michelle Goldberg/The New York Times:

Wisconsin Republicans Try to Subvert Democracy, Again

Janet Protasiewicz, the left-leaning candidate in the nonpartisan contest, was careful not to declare how she would rule in specific cases, but she said that she was personally pro-choice and that she wanted to take a fresh look at the state’s “rigged” electoral maps. She won by 11 points, about as near to a landslide as anyone in closely divided Wisconsin is likely to get. The voters’ message couldn’t have been clearer.

But Wisconsin Republicans may have one move left to thwart their inconvenient citizenry. It looks increasingly likely that they could use their nearly impregnable majority to impeach Protasiewicz before she’s heard a single case. “Anyone who cares about democracy should consider this threat to be deadly serious,” said Ben Wikler, the chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. The only way to head off this autocratic power play, he said, “is if there’s a massive uproar that drowns out the voices of election overturners and Constitution shredders.”

Charlie Sykes/The Bulwark:

Justice Scalia Would Like a Word

The conservative flip-flop on judicial speech

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin…

Before they pull the trigger, however, Wisconsin’s Republicans might want to brush up on their Scalia. The late conservative judicial icon had some thoughts on the question of whether judicial candidates should be able to talk about political issues.

In the 2002 case, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, Scalia wrote the majority opinion in which the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not permit the government to prevent judicial candidates from stating their opinions on disputed political or legal issues.

Scalia was joined by the court’s other conservative members — including Clarence Thomas. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and three other liberal justices dissented.

POLITICO:

The GOP Is Losing the Doctor Vote in Pennsylvania. Will the Party Flatline in 2024?

A political realignment around health care is reshaping state politics.

From the beginning, Derry Township was a GOP stronghold (founder Milton Hershey was a staunch Republican), home to descendants of the chocolate factory’s Italian immigrant laborers and Pennsylvania Dutch farmers who settled in the rural, blue-collar and conservative hamlet. It was a “one-party town,” said lifelong resident and local historian Lou Paioletti, a Democrat and Derry Township’s elected tax collector. “Way back in the early days, there was an unwritten expectation that the chocolate company workers be registered Republican.” This GOP mood prevailed through the turn of this century. Republican presidential candidates, including Donald Trump in 2016, regularly won the township — the beneficiary of a massive Republican voter registration advantage.

By the early 2010s, though, the med center was making Derry Township suburban and transient — and more Democratic. After the 2012 election, The Sun, the Hershey area weekly newspaper, reported local Republicans’ “disappointment” with voter returns that was “bound to set off a round of soul searching — and bloodletting.” During Trump’s presidency, Democratic voter registration dramatically increased; in 2020, Joe Biden prevailed here.

NBC News:

Republicans are trying to find a new term for ‘pro-life’ to stave off more electoral losses

Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., summarized the closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill as being focused on “pro-baby policies.”

At a closed-door meeting of Senate Republicans this week, the head of a super PAC closely aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., presented poll results that suggested voters are reacting differently to commonly used terms like “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in the wake of last year’s Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, said several senators who were in the room.

The polling, which NBC News has not independently reviewed, was made available to senators Wednesday by former McConnell aide Steven Law and showed that “pro-life” no longer resonated with voters.

“What intrigued me the most about the results was that ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ means something different now, that people see being pro-life as being against all abortions ... at all levels,” Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said in an interview Thursday.

We know them for who they are.

Noah Smith/”Noahpinion” on Substack:

The danger of another American civil war is low

Re-upping some arguments I've made before.

Six or seven years ago, during the early days of the Trump administration, this rhetoric would have seemed all too realistic. I could clearly see how the U.S. might fall into a civil war similar to the one that laid waste to Spain in the 1930s — a contested election leading to a split within the military that eventually spirals into an all-out contest for control of the country.

In 2023, though, I’m not so worried. The 2020 election came and went, and sure enough, it was contested, even with a tiny little bit of violence. But there were no signs of a split within the U.S. Armed Forces. There’s little reason to expect that any 2024 replay would turn out differently.

And if the U.S. Military doesn’t split and fight itself, the prospects for civil war are low. With liberal cities and conservative exurbs, and each type of place heavily dependent on the other, the country just isn’t set up for a “national divorce” like the one we had in 1860.

Igor Bobic/HuffPost:

'A Big Circle Jerk': John Fetterman Dares Republicans To Impeach Joe Biden

“Go ahead. Do it, I dare you,” said the Democratic senator. "It's a loser."

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) had some blunt words for Republicans who are pushing to impeach President Joe Biden: It’ll bite you in next year’s elections.

“Go ahead. Do it, I dare you,” Fetterman said during an interview with a handful of reporters in his Capitol Hill office on Wednesday. “If you can find the votes, go ahead, because you’re going to lose. It’s a loser.”

“It would just be like a big circle jerk on the fringe right,” the senator added. “Sometimes you just gotta call their bullshit. If they’re going to threaten, then let’s see it.”

from Matt Robison and Cliff Schecter:

Ryan Burge/Graphs About Religion:

How Do Religious Groups View Joe Biden Right Now?

And, does this tell us anything about his chances in 2024?

Biden did well in these [2020 primary] polls. Which makes sense because he did manage to win the nomination. In fact, he won a majority of the votes in most religious groups. That includes basically all Christians. Fifty-seven percent of white Catholics backed him in the primary and he got the same share of the Jewish vote.

There are some groups where he struggled a bit, though. That’s the most glaring when looking at the nones. He only got 42% of the ballots cast by nothing in particulars. He did even worse among agnostics (32%) and atheists (30%). In fact, there were only two instances where Biden wasn’t the plurality vote choice.

Thirty-eight percent of atheists were Sanders's voters. It was thirty-five percent of agnostics. Biden’s real weakness in the 2020 primary was secular folks. In the data about thirteen percent of all Democratic primary voters in 2020 were in the atheist or agnostic category.

Recall earlier that agnostics and atheists believed Sanders to be very liberal. This is clearly a case of “Sanders is really liberal and that’s why we are voting for him.” Not a situation where it’s, “Sanders is very liberal and that’s too liberal for me.”

Benjy Sarlin/Semafor:

You need to calm down, Democratic pollsters argue

But there are reasons campaign professionals tend to wave off early surveys, which have notoriously overstated threats to incumbents. Here’s why pollsters and strategists we spoke to say they’re not panicking yet.

There is no campaign. Every time you see a poll showing Biden’s approval in the 30s, mentally add an asterisk that says “before Democrats spend $1 billion.”

This isn’t so much about a prohibitive spending advantage (Republicans will have money too), but about what that money goes towards. In this case, it’s a message that so far has worked for Democrats in real-life conditions.

In the midterms, postmortems found that Democrats performed poorly in noncompetitive contests, but they won big in highly contested, swing state races where they could devote millions to ads on issues like abortion, drug prices, and entitlements while painting their opponents as “MAGA extremists.” The same formula has held up well in off-year elections since then, including a blowout judicial race in Wisconsin centered on abortion rights and gerrymandering.

Jill Lawrence/The Bulwark:

Joe Biden’s Problem Isn’t His Age, It’s Our Age

Trump’s cruelty theater is distorting politics and people’s views of the president.

As usual, Donald Trump is at the root of the mess. From the minute he entered the 2016 presidential race on a golden escalator in a building blaring his name, U.S. politics has been a twisted reality show that elevates outrage, insults, and cruelty in a spirit of sadistic fun. That’s entertainment, at least for Trump’s many millions of devoted fans.

Theatrics are not unheard of in the political arena, yet scenes from the relatively recent past seem so innocent now. 

Jennifer Rubin/The Washington Post:

Wisconsin GOP entertains a constitutional crisis. Again.

Republicans are openly talking of impeaching Protasiewicz before she has heard a single case. Led by right-wing radical Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, Republicans accuse Protasiewicz of “prejudging” redistricting cases pending before the Supreme Court because of comments she made during her campaign. However, as the Associated Press reported, “She never promised to rule one way or another,” although she observed the lines were “unfair” and “rigged.” Republicans also claim she must recuse herself because she accepted money from the Democratic Party. She has promised to do so in any case in which the party is a litigant. (In the redistricting case, the Democratic Party is not a litigant.)

Republicans have threatened to move forward unless she recuses herself from the case challenging the redistricting lines. Because Wisconsin limits impeachment to cases of corruption or commission of a crime, neither of which apply here, this would be a blatant misuse of the constitution, a usurpation of judicial powers and a violation of the separation of powers.

Philip Bump/The Washington Post:

Wisconsin’s gerrymandering rides to the rescue of its gerrymandering

Allowing Protasiewicz to vote on the maps would probably mean that the boundaries will be redrawn, weakening the disproportionate power Republicans have wielded in the state legislature for years. So they’re using that disproportionate power in consideration of impeachment and removal.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

Wisconsin Democrats pledge a $4 million-plus blitz to counter GOP on impeaching Protasiewicz

In the month since Protasiewicz was sworn in after winning her April 2022 election with an 11-point margin — an unusually lopsided election in a state known for hotly contested statewide races — behind-the-scenes battles among justices and court employees have escalated with the court's conservative chief justice accusing its new liberal majority of pulling off "an unprecedented coup."

Additionally, Republican lawmakers have raised the prospect of impeaching Protasiewicz if she does not step away from challenges to the state's electoral maps that are currently under the court's consideration. Such proceedings would begin in the state Assembly, where a simple majority must vote to impeach before the state Senate can take it up. From there, the Senate can conduct a trial based on the evidence. If two-thirds of the senators present vote to convict, the official is removed from office.

In the case of a judicial officer, once the Assembly votes to impeach, the official cannot perform the duties of their office without being acquitted by the Senate. That leaves open the possibility the Senate could sit on the Assembly action without scheduling a trial, effectively sidelining Protasiewicz and leaving the court evenly divided at 3-3 on ideological lines.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said it's "common sense" that Protasiewicz should not rule on a case she has "prejudged," referring to the redistricting lawsuits.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Fulton judge ‘very skeptical’ of trying all 19 Trump defendants together

“It seems a bit unrealistic that we could handle all 19 in 40-something days,” [State Judge] McAfee said. “That’s my initial reaction.”

McAfee gave prosecutors until Tuesday to respond in a court brief.

The judge’s comments came during a 90-minute hearing in which attorneys for two of the case’s co-defendants, lawyers Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell, argued that they should be tried separately from one another and the larger group.

At the end of the hearing, McAfee granted Powell’s demand for a speedy trial, setting her trial date for Oct. 23, the same day as Chesebro’s. He denied a push from Chesebro to sever his case from Powell and a motion from Powell to sever her case from Chesebro’s.

The cheese won’t stand alone.

Chris Geidner/Law Dork:

Alabama continues fighting to ignore SCOTUS voting rights decision

Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen plans to go back to the Supreme Court on Thursday to ask the justices to ignore the fact that Alabama ignored the court’s own June voting rights ruling, as well as lower court rulings ordering Alabama to give Black voters in the state the opportunity to elect two congressional representatives of their choosing.

Allen, supported by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, wants the justices to allow the state to implement its latest illegal map that only contains one such “opportunity district” — with the intention of using it in the 2024 elections.

The real question is whether the Supreme Court will allow this brazen effort to ignore the law, the federal courts, and its own ruling.

Guilty pleasures — Cliff Schecter on Peter Navarro (who was convicted yesterday of Contempt of Congress):

Ruth Ben-Ghiat/Resolute Square:

Why Mark Meadows' Mug Shot Haunts Me

The former GOP Congressman entered Trump's inner circle already mildly corrupt, refused his leader nothing, and exited as an accomplice to the greatest political crimes of modern American history.

Meadows’ mug shot, which displays a mix of anger and exhaustion, is an artifact from a particular tradition: political elites who enabled authoritarians and then found themselves on the wrong side of history. He glares at the camera, likely not quite believing that this is actually happening to him. Although there is a shade of humiliation, there is no visible remorse. Like so many others in the GOP, Meadows would likely do it all again if he knew it would succeed.

"It's never just the one individual, the bad actor," says consultant Dr. Alexander Stein, an expert on why people are led to engage in fraud and other criminal activities. "It's always the enablers and collaborators and all the other people who become enthralled by horrific behavior."

Someone said Vivek Ramaswamy is a one man GOP primary focus group, rehashing what they (say they) want. Every point.

It’s true and he will assuredly do better with them than with us. How well and for how long remains to be seen. After all, Donald Trump hates people competing for his spotlight, but Ramaswamy gets a pass for now (so long as he defends and sucks up to him).

Tom Nichols/Atlantic magazine:

The GOP’s Dispiriting Display

The Republican debate was a mess.

Beyond the scorekeeping, however, what the GOP debate showed is that the Republicans, as a party, don’t care very much about policy, that the GOP contenders remain in the grip of moral cowardice, and that Fox News is just as bad, if not worse, than it’s ever been.

As for independents, Ramaswamy didn’t do as well as the talking heads claimed. From Navigator Research:

Independent participants in the dial group saw Nikki Haley as the winner of the first Republican presidential primary debate, as most responded positively to her remarks on climate change, education, and foreign policy. After the debate, most participants felt Nikki Haley won the debate (45 percent), 21 points ahead of Ron DeSantis (24 percent), the second leading candidate. Haley’s favorability rose by 24 points after the debate (from 61 percent favorable to 85 percent favorable), 18 points higher than the next most favorably-viewed candidate, Tim Scott (67 percent favorable post-debate). Haley ranked first among participants in saying she was the candidate who “seems like they care the most about people like you” (42 percent), “would be a good role model to kids” (39 percent), and “would be most able to get things done” (27 percent). When asked which candidates “seem most likely to beat Joe Biden,” participants ratings were more diffuse, with 30 percent saying Ron DeSantis, 27 percent saying Nikki Haley, and a tie between Donald Trump and Chris Christie for third (12 percent each).

Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramswamy were the leading candidates behind Trump entering the debate among Republican primary voters, but were not as well received initially by independent participants in this dial group. DeSantis entered the night with negative opinions among these participants (net -19; 36 percent favorable – 55 percent unfavorable) and Ramaswamy came in as an unknown quantity with only 36 percent having an opinion on him (21 percent favorable – 15 percent unfavorable). By the conclusion of the debate, both candidates had net negative favorability ratings among these participants (each net -10; 45 percent favorable – 55 percent unfavorable).

In any case, Trump remains the likely nominee.

Yahoo News:

Poll: DeSantis’s support collapses ahead of 1st GOP debate

The survey of 1,665 U.S. adults, which was conducted from Aug. 17 to 21, shows that DeSantis’s support among potential GOP primary voters has fallen farther — and faster — over the last few weeks than ever before, plummeting from his previous low of 23% in mid-July to just 12% today.

He didn’t exactly help himself during the debate, either (see above).

Politico:

GOP’s ‘anti-woke’ campaigns have voters hitting snooze

Polls show little support for attacks on corporations’ handling of environmental and social causes — even among Republicans.

The data comes as candidates who have anchored their campaigns in attacking big business — including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy — are struggling to gain significant traction against former President Donald Trump, who leads the field by a wide margin in the polls.

GOP pollsters say the recent data shows that many voters on the right, in line with the traditional conservative ideology, don’t want government meddling in business.

Aaron Blake/Washington Post:

Americans aren’t sold on a Biden impeachment inquiry

Most don’t connect Hunter Biden’s problems to the president in the way the GOP has

As for how Americans feel about all of this, we can say a few things:

• They’ve taken a dim view both of Hunter Biden’s actions and of the fairness of the Justice Department’s investigation of him, believing he might be getting special treatment.
• They don’t necessarily see much of a link to the president.
• There appears to be significantly less support for this impeachment inquiry than there was for those involving Donald Trump.

Let’s take each individually.

Isaac Chotiner/New Yorker magazine, interviewing J Michael Luttig:

The Constitutional Case for Barring Trump from the Presidency

Does the Fourteenth Amendment empower state election officials to remove him from the ballot?

What would be an example of something else that would be self-executing in a constitutional amendment?

The most obvious example, Isaac, is the age requirement in order to become President of the United States. So suppose that someone who was thirty-two years old applied to be on the ballot in a given state, and it was undisputed that that person was thirty-two years old and not thirty-five years old. It would be the Constitution itself that would empower that state election official to disqualify that candidate from the ballot for the Presidency.

Removing someone from the ballot because of the age requirement seems like it would be easy for an official to do without making a judgment call. Someone’s age is an objective fact. Whereas this seems like it calls for state officials to make judgment calls, which could potentially open things up for abuse. Is there a categorical difference there?

There is a categorical difference. There is vastly more judgment entailed in determining whether, for instance, the former President engaged in an insurrection or rebellion than in determining whether a candidate was thirty-five years old. That doesn’t relieve the obligated election official from making that determination. The process for placing individuals on the ballot varies from state to state. But, under our reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, an individual election official could make that decision himself or herself.

Franklin & Marshall Poll Release:

About one in three (30%) registered voters in Pennsylvania believes President Biden is doing an “excellent” or “good” job as president, which is a slight improvement from his April ratings (27%). It is normal for an incumbent’s job approval ratings to start to increase at this point in their first term. President Biden’s current rating is lower than President Trump’s and President Obama’s ratings in Pennsylvania at the same point in their terms. Despite this, he still holds an advantage in a head-to-head matchup against the former president, 42% to 40%, although many voters are looking for an alternative to both candidates.

16% want someone else, but we’ll see when it comes down to a binary choice. I suspect more than half will break blue and not red.

Note the improving views of the economy, slowly but steadily:

The August 2023 Franklin & Marshall College Poll finds that the state’s registered voters’ feelings about their personal finances are starting to improve, although many remain dissatisfied. About two in five (39%) respondents say they are “worse off” than a year ago, which is down from nearly half (46%) in April, and more say they are “better off” financially than they were last year (15% compared to 11%). Pennsylvania voters remain more pessimistic than optimistic about conditions in the state, but this sentiment has also improved--two in five (39%) registered voters believes the state is “headed in the right direction” which is higher than the one in three (32%) who felt that way in April. Concern about the economy (23%), including unemployment and higher gas and utility prices, continues as the most important and often mentioned problem facing the state.

From Cliff Schecter:

J Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe/Atlantic magazine:

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

David French/New York Times:

Appeasing Donald Trump Won’t Work

While I believe the court should intervene even if the hour is late, it’s worth remembering that it would face this decision only because of the comprehensive failure of congressional Republicans. Let me be specific. There was never any way to remove Trump from American politics through the Democratic Party alone. Ending Trump’s political career required Republican cooperation, and Republicans have shirked their constitutional duties, sometimes through sheer cowardice. They have punted their responsibilities to other branches of government or simply shrunk back in fear of the consequences.

In hindsight, for example, Republican inaction after Jan. 6 boggles the mind. Rather than remove Trump from American politics by convicting him in the Senate after his second impeachment, Republicans punted their responsibilities to the American legal system. As Mitch McConnell said when he voted to acquit Trump, “We have a criminal justice system in this country.” Yet not even a successful prosecution and felony conviction — on any of the charges against him, in any of the multiple venues — can disqualify Trump from serving as president. Because of G.O.P. cowardice, our nation is genuinely facing the possibility of a president’s taking the oath of office while also appealing one or more substantial prison sentences.

Paul Krugman/New York Times:

Biden and America’s Big Green Push

For the new industrial policy has already generated a huge wave of private investment in manufacturing, even though very little federal money has gone out the door so far. Why?

A new blog post from Heather Boushey of the Council of Economic Advisers argues that Biden’s industrial policy helps solve what she calls the “chicken and egg problem,” in which private-sector actors are reluctant to invest unless they’re sure that others will make necessary complementary investments.

The easiest example is electric vehicles: Consumers won’t buy E.V.s unless they believe that there will be enough charging stations, and companies won’t install enough charging stations unless they believe that there will be enough E.V.s. But similar coordination issues arise in many other areas, for example in the complementarity between battery and vehicle manufacture.

Even before seeing Boushey’s post, I’d been thinking along similar lines. In particular, the ongoing investment surge reminded me of a once-popular concept in development economics, that of the Big Push. This was the argument that you needed an active government role in development because companies wouldn’t invest in developing countries unless assured that enough other companies would also invest.

While Kev highlighted this Krugman piece yesterday, this is a different selection (and a follow-up).

Yarimar Bonilla/New York Times:

Enrique Tarrio and the Curious Case of the Latino White Supremacist

Yet however much Mr. Tarrio may identify with whiteness, it seems that in his time of need he turned to the Afro-Cuban gods. On the site formerly known as Twitter, Denise Oliver-Velez, a professor and former Young Lord and Black Panther, chastised his use of religious beads, commonly used among practitioners of Santería, as a “falta de respeto,” or disrespect. “Looks like the Orishas want him to go to prison,” she writes. If the Justice Department gets its way he will certainly have ample time to contemplate the paradoxes of his choices.

You might have seen this piece, but IMHO Denise cannot possibly get enough credit for her insight and, well, her life and work.

Washington Post:

Trump to release taped interview with Tucker Carlson, skipping GOP debate

Former president Donald Trump intends to skip the first Republican presidential primary debate in Milwaukee on Wednesday and instead plans to post a prerecorded interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson that will be released that night, according to a person briefed on the matter.

Trump advisers said the interview had already been recorded. It is not yet clear where the interview will appear. Carlson has started a show on X, formerly called Twitter, but Trump sees the platform as a rival to Truth Social, which he helped create.

The coward won’t even do a live interview.

Matt Robison video from Blue Amp:

Josh Barro/”Very Serious” on Substack:

Memo to Ron DeSantis: Be Smarter The most embarrassing aspect of his super PAC's debate prep memo isn't the content. It's that he hobbled himself with a moronic campaign structure.

The memo’s content is embarrassing. It feeds narratives about DeSantis being aloof and unlikable (an anecdote about his family should involve “showing emotion,” the memo urges) and about him being too afraid to directly attack the candidate who’s beating him: Trump. Christie, whose career highlight involved dismantling an opponent for being canned and consultant-driven in a debate, is sure to beat DeSantis over the head with it.

But the strangest thing about these memos is that we’re able to see them at all.

Here’s your hot polling from the weekend:

And:

But:

I expect Trump to win Iowa (and the nomination) but I expect his lead to shrink.

By the way, a lot of this is Fox-fed Republicans convincing themselves that Biden is a doddering old man whom even Trump/anyone can beat.

They’re in for a rude awakening.

Of course he can win. But a dose of reality is bracing.

WSB-TV:

What is Georgia’s RICO Act?

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has a track record of using RICO charges in unconventional ways to achieve convictions.

RICO stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations. The RICO Act was passed in the Georgia General Assembly in 1980 and is used to prove that a business was being used for illegal means.

We expect RICO indictments in Georgia this week, perhaps as soon as Tuesday. But as I understand the right wing narrative, this is all because Donald Trump tried to overthrow the government to distract from Hunter Biden. Or something like that.

Axios:

Why Georgia's case against Trump could be so damaging

3. While the federal judiciary — and New York courts — are averse to televising criminal proceedings, Georgia courts are more transparent, Kreis notes.

• Georgia may end up being the only case that is broadcast to the world, potentially giving the public a better chance to digest the evidence — which could be politically damning for Trump.

Between the lines: Willis is considered a RICO expert who successfully prosecuted a large criminal case over a test cheating scandal in the Atlanta Public School System in 2015.

• She's also using the law to prosecute gang cases, including one centered on Atlanta rapper Young Thug.

CNN:

Georgia prosecutors have messages showing Trump’s team is behind voting system breach

Atlanta-area prosecutors investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia are in possession of text messages and emails directly connecting members of Donald Trump’s legal team to the early January 2021 voting system breach in Coffee County, sources tell CNN.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is expected to seek charges against more than a dozen individuals when her team presents its case before a grand jury next week. Several individuals involved in the voting systems breach in Coffee County are among those who may face charges in the sprawling criminal probe.

Investigators in the Georgia criminal probe have long suspected the breach was not an organic effort sprung from sympathetic Trump supporters in rural and heavily Republican Coffee County – a county Trump won by nearly 70% of the vote. They have gathered evidence indicating it was a top-down push by Trump’s team to access sensitive voting software, according to people familiar with the situation.

Trump allies attempted to access voting systems after the 2020 election as part of the broader push to produce evidence that could back up the former president’s baseless claims of widespread fraud.

Tamar Hallerman/X via Threadreader:

Next week is going to be busy here in Atlanta: we're expecting Fulton DA Fani Willis to pursue indictments against Trump + others. I’ve been covering her elections interference case since the beginning, along with my @ajccolleagues. Here's a look at what to expect 🧵 

For starters, my colleague @ajccourts put together this cheat sheet on where we've been and what's on the horizon …

 We're expecting prosecutors to begin presenting their case to grand jurors on Monday morning. Past racketeering cases have taken about 2 days to present. Which gels with two witnesses in this case saying they were told to come in Tues

Meanwhile, it’s not just Donald Trump.  Republicans all over the country are upset about losing power, so they rig the system and then accuse Democrats of doing the same.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Vos says lawmakers may consider impeachment if Protasiewicz doesn't recuse from redistricting cases

If Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz does not recuse from lawsuits challenging the state's legislative boundaries, Republicans who control the state Legislature might consider impeachment proceedings, the Assembly's top Republican said Friday.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, a Republican from Rochester, said in an interview on WSAU he does not believe impeachment should be considered lightly by lawmakers. But he said the idea could move forward if Protasiewicz does not recuse herself on cases he said she "prejudged" during her campaign for a seat on the state's highest court.

Noah Berlatsky/”Public Notice” on Substack:

Ohio's rejection of Issue 1 shows how toxic abortion has become for the GOP Turns out even folks in red and purple states don't like to have their rights taken away.

Republicans don’t want to let voters protect their own abortion rights. So, to prevent the abortion rights initiative from passing, they rushed for a vote on their own referendum, called Issue 1. Issue 1, had it been approved, would have raised the threshold for ballot initiatives to 60 percent. It also required petitioners to get ballot signatures from every Ohio county, effectively increasing the power of rural low-population areas dominated by more conservative voters.

The GOP was aware that asking voters to undermine their own influence was a hard sell. So they tried to rig the odds.

Ohio Capital Journal:

Frank LaRose’s very bad day. Sec. of State dodged press, issued angry statement as Issue 1 failed

It’s unclear whether, going into Tuesday, Frank LaRose anticipated that the measure he was championing was going to fail — even though related issues have gotten trounced in state after state after state.

But by Election Day, early voting had been torrid for weeks — especially in big cities where people were likely to vote against Issue 1, the initiative LaRose was supporting. Prospects seemed to be dimming for the measure — which would have made it much more difficult for voters to initiate and pass amendments to the state Constitution.

By Tuesday morning, LaRose, who was the most visible face of Issue 1, might have been worried. Before noon, he ducked a meeting with reporters. That afternoon, he was attacked by an Arizona Republican who came to Ohio to campaign for Issue 1. That evening, after the blowout became apparent, he skipped a press conference and the official speaking in his place pointed blame at his fellow Republicans.

At 11:23 p.m., LaRose broke his silence by issuing a statement. It was angry, misleading, and hardly a concession that voters disliked his proposal, which they defeated by a 14-point margin. Making the loss even more bitter, some counties that had voted for Donald Trump in 2020 joined the chorus in voting “no” on Issue 1.

Marisa Kabas/”The Handbasket” on Substack:

A conversation with the newspaper owner raided by cops Eric Meyer says his paper had been investigating the police chief prior to the raids on his office and home.

Very few stories these days take my breath away, but this one did the trick: Cops in Kansas raided the office of local newspaper the Marion County Record Friday morning because of a complaint by a local restaurant owner named Kari Newell. She was unhappy with the outlet’s reporting on how she kicked out reporters from a recent event at her establishment with US Congressman Jake LaTurner (R-KS) and subsequent research they were conducting. The cops responded in kind, seizing cell phones, computers, and other devices necessary for publishing the paper after receving a signed search warrant from a judge.

What has remained unreported until now is that, prior to the raids, the newspaper had been actively investigating Gideon Cody, Chief of Police for the city of Marion. They’d received multiple tips alleging he’d retired from his previous job to avoid demotion and punishment over alleged sexual misconduct charges.

The New Republic:

The Claremont Institute: The Anti-Democracy Think Tank

It was once (mostly) traditionally conservative and (sort of) intellectually rigorous. Now it platforms white nationalists and promotes authoritarianism.

Most of us are familiar with the theocrats of the religious right and the anti-government extremists, groups that overlap a bit but remain distinct. The Claremont Institute folks aren’t quite either of those things, and yet they’re both and more. In embodying a kind of nihilistic yearning to destroy modernity, they have become an indispensable part of right-wing America’s evolution toward authoritarianism.

Extremism of the right-wing variety has always figured on the sidelines of American culture, and it has enjoyed a renaissance with the rise of social media. But Claremont represents something new in modern American politics: a group of people, not internet conspiracy freaks but credentialed and influential leaders, who are openly contemptuous of democracy. And they stand a reasonable chance of being seated at the highest levels of government—at the right hand of a President Trump or a President DeSantis, for example.

Mike Pence was good on January 6th, but it’s the only day he was. The rest of the time he reverts to form.

David Rothkopf/Daily Beast:

It’s Time to Give Kamala Harris Her Due

The press has taken too long to notice, but the barrier-breaking vice president has been an accomplished leader and advocate in the Biden administration.

It appears that it is, at long last, time to acknowledge the extraordinary and vital role being played by Vice President Kamala Harris on behalf of the Biden administration and the United States.

Finally, the narratives in the press that had for too long been colored by the political agenda, misogyny and racism of critics, have begun to change to reflect reality.

That said, there is still an aspect to Harris’ performance as vice president that remains underappreciated—the substance of her record as a full partner to the president, at the lead on domestic and international issues. That record not only makes her one of the most effective vice presidents in modern U.S. history, it has been part of President Joe Biden’s active effort to ensure that no one is better qualified to succeed him as President of the United States.

Jamelle Bouie/New York Times:

Why an Unremarkable Racist Enjoyed the Backing of Billionaires

A whole coterie of Silicon Valley billionaires and millionaires have lent their time and attention to [Richard] Hanania, as well as elevated his work. Marc Andreessen, a powerful venture capitalist, appeared on his podcast. David Sacks, a close associate of Elon Musk, wrote a glowing endorsement of Hanania’s forthcoming book. So did Peter Thiel, the billionaire supporter of right-wing causes and organizations. “D.E.I. will never d-i-e from words alone,” wrote Thiel. “Hanania shows we need the sticks and stones of government violence to exorcise the diversity demon.” Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican presidential candidate, also praised the book as a “devastating kill shot to the intellectual foundations of identity politics in America.”

The question to ask here — the question that matters — is why an otherwise obscure racist has the ear and support of some of the most powerful people in Silicon Valley? What purpose, to a billionaire venture capitalist, do Hanania’s ideas serve?

Look back to our history and the answer is straightforward. Just as in the 1920s (and before), the idea of race hierarchy works to naturalize the broad spectrum of inequalities, and capitalist inequality in particular.

Will Bunch/Philadelphia Inquirer:

It’s justice that Trump, who wanted to toss Black votes, gets charged under a KKK Act

Donald Trump's rise and his Jan. 6 insurrection are deeply rooted in racism. How fitting he's charged under a law to stop the KKK.

They wanted to overturn the results of a free and fair election.

In the days immediately after the vote, there was a wave of violence. Some people were dragged from their homes by members of a white-hooded mob and killed for supporting the wrong party — but that was only the beginning. A Republican governor wrote to the White House to warn that insurrectionists were plotting to storm the seat of government and prevent certification of the winner.

Gov. Robert K. Scott told the president that loyalists to the party that got fewer voters “will not submit to any election which does not place them in power.” He further warned: “I am convinced that an outbreak will occur here [on] the day appointed by law for the counting of ballots.”

The year was 1870, and the state was South Carolina.

This arraignment felt like a mob boss trial. 

"Don't commit any crimes. Don't mess with the jury. You may go"

On the other hand, watching him being treated like any other mob boss in court (down to addressing him as Mr Trump, not President Trump) was oddly reassuring.

Rule of Law and all that.

Glenn Kirschner/MSNBC:

Why this Trump indictment is the most important

The alternative could have been a true national disaster.

This indictment is as important as it is historic. The principles of prosecution set out that the government charges those who break our society’s laws for several reasons: to vindicate the rights of the victim; to protect others in the community who would otherwise be subjected to the continued crimes of the offender; and to hold accountable those who choose to violate the laws that represent the considered values of the citizenry, as embodied in the criminal statutes enacted by the peoples’ duly elected representatives. Another important principle, though one generally associated more directly with sentencing a criminal defendant, is deterring others from committing the same or similar crimes. This last factor — what the law calls “general deterrence” — is perhaps the most important vis-à-vis Trump’s crimes regarding Jan. 6 and the 2020 election.

Mediaite:

Pence SHREDS Trump’s ‘Crackpot Lawyers’ in Fiery Statement on the Campaign Trail: ‘I Had No Right to Overturn the Election’

On the alleged co-conspirators:

You know, I’m a student of American history, and the first time I heard in early December, somebody suggests that as vice president, I might be able to decide which votes to reject and which to accept. I knew that it was false. Our founders had just won a war against a king, and the last thing they would have done was vest unilateral authority in any one person to decide who would be the next president. I dismissed it out of hand, but sadly, the president was surrounded by a group of crackpot lawyers that kept telling him what itching ears wanted to hear.

Politico Playbook:

THE TRUMP DEFENSE TAKES SHAPE — In social media posts and interviews, both Trump and one of his main lawyers, JOHN LAURO, have now outlined how they will respond to the new Smith indictment.

In an interview with NPR, Lauro, a white-collar criminal defense attorney with over four decades of experience, detailed five pillars of his defense:

1. SLOW IT DOWN

...

5. ATTACK D.C.

But the argument that Trump and his GOP allies are giving the most attention is that Washington is an inherently unfair venue for a trial.

Cliff Schecter:

Matt Robison/Newsweek:

No, These Indictments Don't Strengthen Trump. That's Just Media Nonsense

The indictments aren't helping Trump and they aren't the reason he's increasing his lead. For that, you can thank the fact that Ron DeSantis is a historically terrible candidate. As the second place contender, he's widely viewed as the most likely Trump alternative, and as he has gotten more exposed in the national press, he's dropped half of his support. From March 10 through August 1, DeSantis went from 31.4 percent to 15.6 percent.

And where did those voters go? That ain't exactly rocket science either. Surveys show that Trump is the second choice of around 40 percent of DeSantis supporters. Lo and behold, as DeSantis has sunk, about 40 percent of the 15 point evaporation in his support has now shown up in Trump's column.

Benjy Sarlin/Semafor:

Donald Trump is ignoring anti-abortion activists and winning anyway

What’s going on here? Most Republicans identify as “pro-life” and say abortion should be mostly or entirely illegal in polls. But a May survey by our partners at Gallup found that only 21% of Republican voters who consider themselves “pro-life” say they only vote for candidates who share their view on abortion. That’s notably far less than the 37% of “pro-choice” Democrats who say they only vote for like-minded candidates, and the biggest gap between the two sides that Gallup has ever recorded.

Trump himself has argued abortion is overrated as a vote driver even as he continues to take credit for the fall of Roe v. Wade. He blamed “the abortion issue” for contributing to 2022 election losses, saying activists supported policies that were too extreme and that their supposed backers “just plain disappeared” after Dobbs.

John Burn-Murdoch/Financial Times:

Tragic fallout from the politicisation of science in the US

Many countries had partisan divides on Covid vaccination, but they were more lethal in the US than anywhere else

It would be easy to dismiss this trend as merely exasperating — an obstacle to progress on climate change and a source of irritation at extended family gatherings — but over the past 18 months, the politicisation of attitudes to science may have directly cost as many as 60,000 American lives.This is the stark implication of a new study from the Yale school of public health, which found that since Covid vaccines became widely available in the US, the mortality rate of registered Republicans in Ohio and Florida climbed by 33 per cent during America’s winter Covid wave last year, compared with just a 10 per cent rise among Democrats.