Poll Watch: A Lack of Seriousness

We're in the middle of an "all-Afghanistan, all the time" news cycle, as you're aware, and that means everyone's tripping over themselves trying to get the most provocative story that can be found. 

As is always the case when we're in this type of frenzy, Twitter is a fun place to hang out for a few minutes here and there. And it was in one of those few-minutes-here-and-there sessions that I stumbled on this survey. The tweet that caught my eye said "tell me again how we're a serious country" - and I simply had to read the linked article, which documented the responses to an IPSOS Snap Poll on Afghanistan.

First, the small print: online, English-language interviews with 1,000 adults from all 50 of the United States were done on August 16th. The survey included 247 Republicans, 443 Democrats, and 310 Independents, and has a 3.5% credibility interval at a 95% confidence level. Additional sampling info is in the link. 

I've seen surveys that illustrated a lack of clarity, but one that led to the questioning of our seriousness as a nation was new to me. Let's see if we can figure out why the poster felt that way.

Overall, 71% of respondents expressed familiarity with our involvement in Afghanistan over the last 20 years and with the US plans to withdraw all its forces from Afghanistan; 68% are familiar with the rapid success of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Independents are less familiar (or more honest?) with 64%, 64%, and 58% respectively, while the Republicans (R) and Democrats (D) were about 75% on each topic.

With more specific questions, answers start to take an interesting, if somewhat confusing, turn. For example:

• Only 50% overall (54% R, 53% D, 45% I) support sending combat troops back in to fight the Taliban - but 68% overall (71% R, 72% D, 62% I) support troops fighting the Taliban to allow time to evacuate Afghans. Which leads one to wonder, if we don't send the troops in, how will they fight the Taliban?

Meanwhile, there's a lot of support for the US to complete our troop withdrawal on schedule, currently meaning by August 31st. Overall, 61% of respondents support this; Republicans (48%) less than either the Independents (60%) or the Dems (72%).

The next questions asked for the level of agreement or disagreement with a series of statements. 

• While 61% want us to complete our exit on time, 51% agree it would have been worth it for the US to leave troops in Afghanistan for another year. Disagreement with this statement is consistent, at 32% overall and similar percentages by political affiliation. 

• We don't want our troops fighting the Taliban, but we also don't seem to mind America sending in additional troops to secure key facilities (airports, embassies, bases) until the US withdrawal is complete. Everyone agrees with this - 75% overall, 81% R, 75%D and 70% I, even though doing so would set us up for fighting the Taliban.

• The war in Afghanistan was going to end badly, no matter when the US left, also brought broad agreement, at 68%. By affiliation, Independents (40% agree, 33% disagree) were the outlier; the Rs (64%/25%) and Ds (78%/14%) were more in the mainstream.

• The rapid collapse of US-trained Afghan forces, and the government, is evidence why the US should get out of the conflict saw 63% of respondents in agreement. Dems agreed more (73%), with Republicans (56%agree/30% disagree) and Independents (58%/20%) less agreeable.

The final question, Have the following generally done a good or bad job in relation to Afghanistan, is the one that most accurately portrays our lack of seriousness as a country, in my opinion. 

TG=Total Good TB= Total Bad	All		R		D		I
	TG	TB	TG	TB	TG	TB	TG	TB
Bush Administration	47%	39%	55%	37%	51%	38%	37%	42%
Obama Administration	51%	38%	31%	63%	77%	15%	42%	39%
Trump Administration	51%	36%	83%	10%	36%	55%	39%	40%
Biden Administration	44%	42%	21%	74%	75%	12%	32%	46%
American news media	42%	44%	28%	65%	65%	22%	32%	38%
US military	77%	14%	85%	11%	78%	15%	69%	15%

It seems the Dubya administration was the last one where abject partisanship wasn't in play. Then we had the black president, the TV host president, and now we have the old guy, who's only been in office for seven months, and the only thing that matters seems to be party affiliation, absent that weird bit of balance from the Dems on Trump's handling of this mess.

• 63% of Republicans say that the administration that got Osama bin Laden did a totally bad job? Seriously? That's why we went there, remember?

• 77% of Democrats say that building troop levels up to 100K, and planning to have all our troops out by the end of 2014, which of course didn't happen, was totally good?

• 83% of Republicans think that talks with the Taliban, including an obscene but discarded plan to bring Taliban leaders to the US, to Camp David, on 9/11, for heaven's sake, or forcing the Afghan government to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners, or setting a troop withdrawal date that's in someone else's administration, is totally good?

• 65% of Democrats think the media has done a totally good job, for 20 years, and 65% of Republicans think the opposite?

"Tell me again how we're a serious country," indeed. It's long past time we got our heads out of our partisan you-know-whats, don't you think?

In Case You Missed it (v78)

Time for a cuppa and a recap of the week that was March 14th - 20th. 

It's rare that we start with something other than Sunday School, but that's what happened on Sunday, the first two-fer of the week. 

I offered up a Noodling Around post on how the people we elect seem to be working their agenda, not our agenda, and how that messes up opportunities for bipartisanship. Here's part of the post that sets the stage for what's coming this week in Part Two.

The folks at Pew Research did a poll last summer, the results of which are shown here, to see what issues registered voters thought were "very important to their vote" in the 2020 election. 

Looking at the chart, I can't help thinking how most of the issues could have been identified by people from both parties, and from the officially unaffiliated middle, which is where you'll find me. And while we don't know why these issues are very important, we know that they are, and that there's a lot of common ground here; nine of the twelve garnered at least 50% mention.

More to come on this one. 

For your Sunday School, I focused on the classroom discussions about my Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo. Jake Tapper, host of 'State of the Union' on CNN, offered some commentary at the end of the show; here's an excerpt.

Tapper had a lot to say, including that Cuomo is entitled to due process. Still, he said,

By now he has to know there is a chasm between how he perceives how he talks to women on his staff and how some of those women perceive it, as in some of them perceive it not only as inappropriate but as pressure to sleep with him...Only he knows what other names and incidents might come forward as he digs in. One wonders if that is even a remote consideration.

The last two sentences are even more important now, given the news we got at the end of the week.

Staying on the Sonofa Gov, Monday was another two-fer. First, I had a Sidebar countering one of the key classroom proclamations: that Cuomo should resign, because that New Yorkers want him to. A Siena College Research Institute poll suggests that the people of NY aren't as keen on him resign as the politicians of NY are.

In a survey of 805 registered New York State voters, 57 percent said they were satisfied with how Mr. Cuomo had addressed the allegations, while 32 percent said they were not. Fifty percent said he should not resign, while 35 percent said he should. Nearly half said they believed he could continue to do his job effectively as governor, with 34 percent saying he could not.

The Sunday School Extra Credit post, on the non-Cuomo stuff, included excerpts from Stacey Abrams and Chuck Todd's conversation about the boatload of anti-voting legislation around the country, including in her home state of Georgia. They also talked about HR 1, the House's 'For the People Act,' that the Senate will take up soon.

She said "the whole of our democracy" needs to be defended and protected, and that 

the Senate has to believe it has the responsibility and the ability to act. And that is why my focus is on making certain that the exemption to the filibuster be the necessary front and center conversation, so we can get something done to protect our democracy.

She doesn't think much of the bills in Georgia, as you'll see in the post. 

Next up? A Poll Watch on that SRCI survey; again, I focused on the non-Cuomo stuff (although I did recap those highlights at well.) Among the findings? 

• Upstaters show higher favorability ratings for both the Assembly (42%) and Senate (44%) than I expected; Independents (35% and 36%, respectively) are less happy with both chambers. 
• Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie and State Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins have extraordinarily high Don't Know/No Opinion ratings (71% and 68% respectively), given they're not new in their roles. That may have to do with them being in Cuomo's shadow, until recently.

Five posts before we hit mid-week? Maybe that's why your Wondering on Wednesday took a different turn - because it surely did. Here's how the post started.

Today, we're playing a fill-in-the-blank version of our wondering game. You're free to complete the answers any way you want. 

1. Someone suggested Meghan Markle might run for president in 2024. I wonder, will this really make Former Guy more likely to _______?
2. I wonder how many people have learned a new skill, such as _________, since the pandemic was declared a year ago this week?

I'll publish my answers to the questions this week. And I'm still open to yours, if you want to share.

Thursday's Meanwhile Back in Albany addressed the struggles and missteps the NYS Assembly's having trying to get an investigation of Cuomo off the ground, and whether it was an impeachment investigation or just an investigation. It's the latter, I guess.

The Assembly Judiciary Committee's investigation "will focus on three different things: the seven women who have accused the governor of assault, the nursing home deaths and the mounting questions about" the Mario Cuomo Bridge project. As one Assembly member said, “He’s got three major buckets of shit going on here,” referring to Cuomo. 

An apt description, I'd say. 

Friday was the third two-fer of the week. First, I dropped Democratic Overreach: HR 1 Edition. As Stacey Abrams pointed out, the voting rights stuff is a big darn deal - but that's not all the House put in HR 1. There's SO MUCH STUFF in the bill, which is at least partly why it passed without a single Republican's support. Here's my take on that.

Are the ethics, oversight, and transparency provisions important? Of course they are, from an overarching, lofty goal perspective. Should we be concerned about political appointees, lobbyists, and foreign influence? Of course we should be. 

But do those have the same immediate impact as do admittedly partisan restrictions and limitations on voting? 

My answer's in the post. 

We closed the week with a TGIF  that meandered around some fun subjects, including this one, about a house fire in Wisconsin.

An investigation determined the fire started on a couch in the living room and the cause of the fire was determined to be from a glass "crystal ball" ornament. The crystal ball had been located on a table near the couch and in direct sunlight. When sunshine came through a large set of windows and through the glass ball, it ignited the couch.

It seems some things should be kept under wraps and out of direct sunlight, including "crystals, mirrors, glass ornaments, and even bottles."

There's at least one other thing mentioned in the post that should be kept under wraps. You'll know it when you see it, I'm sure. 

That's a wrap on your week in review - I'll see you later for Sunday School. 

Poll Watch: New Yorkers Speak

I briefly mentioned the new Siena College poll as a Sidebar to this week's Sunday School, but I wanted to take a deeper look at the poll today. 

First, the small print: it was taken March 8-12; 805 NYS registered voters participated, 430 via landline and cell phones, and 375 online via a proprietary panel. The youngest person in the household was asked to participate. Phone and web data was merged and statistically adjusted by age, party, region, race/ethnicity, education, and gender. The error margin is 4.1%.

Recapping the info about the Sonofa Gov, the survey found

• 48% think Gov. Andrew Cuomo can effectively do his job despite the investigations; 34% say he can't (a +14 margin);
• 35% (+11) believe he has sexually harassed women; 
• 57% (+25) are satisfied with how he's addressed the allegations against him; and
• Blacks are the only group where a majority (59%) want to see him re-elected.

Here's some detail on the resignation question; as I noted yesterday, 50% say he should not.

• Independents are the most conflicted on that; 46% say no, but 22% are undecided;
• the 'no' votes from all regions of the state: 55% in NYC, 46% in the NYC suburbs, and 47% upstate;
• Blacks (69%) offer more support for him staying in office than other ethnicities; whites and Latinos both are at 47%,' and
• responses are pretty consistent across income levels: 51% of the <$50K, 47% of the $50K - $100K, and 52% of the >$100K all say he should not resign.

Here's what else is on our minds in the Empire State.

• By a slight margin (but within the margin of error), more of us think the country is on the right track (50%) than think New York is (48%).
• Independents view Joe Biden (57%) more favorably than they do Andrew Cuomo (38%), and Cuomo more favorably than they do former NYer Donald Trump (34%).
• Higher income earners ($100K and up) significantly favor Biden (65%) over both Cuomo (43%) and Trump (30%)
• Upstaters show higher favorability ratings for both the Assembly (42%) and Senate (44%) than I expected; Independents (35% and 36%, respectively) are less happy with both chambers. 
• Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie and State Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins have extraordinarily high Don't Know/No Opinion ratings (71% and 68% respectively), given they're not new in their roles. That may have to do with them being in Cuomo's shadow, until recently.
• Our senior Senator, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, has both a higher favorable rating than Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (49% to 43%) and a higher unfavorable rating (35% to 27%). 
• With 74% overall support, we love the Biden administration's American Rescue Plan. Other than Republicans (48%), a majority of every single demographic - political party, ideology, gender, union and non-union households, all age groups, all declared faiths, all geographic regions, all races/ethnicities, and all income brackets - support it.

Finally, since we're in budget season, here are the responses to a couple of potential money-making opportunities for the state.

• On whether we should allow online sports betting, at least a plurality of all demographics except Jews (38%) says yes.
• Similarly, on the question of legal recreational pot, at least a plurality of all demographics says yes.

Do you see your opinions represented here? And are they accurate compared to what you and folks in your circles (or COVID pods) are thinking? Chime in!

Sidebar: It's My Party (or not)

A Poll Watch entry last week touched on how people feel about the two major political parties (we're not happy with them), GOP loyalty to Trump (it's high, and almost a necessity for potential candidates), and on chances we'll see a new party emerge from the carnage of the last election (62% of us are that disappointed with our current party). 

And, my TGIF post included these notes on CPAC 2021.

... the former president will be speaking to his minions on Sunday. Given his post-presidency comments, there's some speculation that he'll be announcing his next insurrection run for the White House in 2024. According to the oddsmakers in Vegas,

...Trump is more likely than not to declare himself for the Republican nomination...during his CPAC speech... As of Friday morning, the odds were 4 to 5, suggesting a 55.6% implied probability that Trump declares during his speech.

And will he do that as a Republican, or as a Patriot Party member? Well, there's only a 4-to-1 chance that he'll do it as anything other than a died-in-the-wool RINO. 

Ye, I called him a RINO. He's not an ideological Republican - he's an opportunist. His ideology is whatever the most outrageous person in the room thinks, coupled with how he thinks any kind of action will help his image and his personal bottom line. Similarly, I don't consider him a patriot. But I digress. Trump made a few pronouncements at CPAC, but before we get to that, a little history. 

According to this Politico article from January 13th - smack dab in between the insurrection and the inauguration - only 40% of Rs and R-leaning independents said they'd vote for him if he ran in 2024. That's a significant drop from the 53% who said he'd be their guy in November's version of the same survey.

In mid-February, the same question was asked by the same pollsters. Trump was back up to 53%, with Mike Pence (12%), Nikki Haley and Donny Jr. (6% each); 'would not vote' (5%); and Mitt Romney and Ted Cruz bringing up the rear (4% each).

So, what happened at CPAC? Here are the results of the 2024 nominee straw polls. One included Trump; he won with underwhelming support, taking only 55% of the votes. Florida's Gov. Ron DeSantis finished second with 21% and South Dakota Gov. Kristi 'Let's put Trump on Mount Rushmore' Noem was a distant third, with 4%.

When Trump is out of the picture, DeSantis gets 43%, and Noem claws her way to 11%. After that? Donny Jr. (8%), and Mike Pompeo and Cruz (7% each). I don't know about you, but if I were polling worse than the son of the president, I'd wonder if there's a need to invest the time or money making a run. 

One thing to keep in mind? The CPAC straw poll isn't very reliable. This Vox article includes a tweet from Jake Sherman at Punchbowl News. Take a look.

Perhaps they should call it CPAC's Grasping at Straws Poll? 

Now, did Trump announce a run? Not quite; here's what he said.

... But who knows? Who knows, I may even decide to beat them for a third time, OK?

And there was this.

With your help, we will take back the House. We will win the Senate. And then a Republican president will make a triumphant return to the White House. And I wonder who that will be? I wonder who that will be. Who, who will that be? I wonder.

One thing that's certain? CPAC attendees are the Trumpers of the GOP. They hang on his every word, fawn over his golden statue, and bask in all things 45. As noted in this NY Times article,

The party’s viability in the future, these people suggested — some as they proudly displayed their well-worn Trump 2020 T-shirts — was entirely contingent upon its members’ willingness to remain fixed in the past.

In Case You Missed It (v75)

Miss anything last week? Don't worry - I've got you covered. 

Sunday School brought us interviews with the slimy Rep. Steve Scalise, with too-progressive-for-me Rep. Pramila Jayapal, and with Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers; she spoke with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press. Weingarten was talking about getting schools reopened, something her union is being blamed for slowing down, or blocking. She disagreed with that portrayal.

She said 85% of her membership "have said that they would be comfortable being in school," with the right protocols in place. It's happening in different places around the country, and

... I think the issue is, if the NFL could figure out how to do this, in terms of testing and the protocols, if schools are that important, let's do it. And my members want it, they just want to be safe.

She's got a point, you know. Other people who had a point? The Texans who were making classroom rounds. They were the focus of our Sunday School Extra Credit. Houston's Mayor Sylvester Turner, Rep. Michael McCaul, and Fort Worth's Mayor Betsy Price all talked about the failures that happened when the power grid went down and the pipes burst, and how Texas failed to learn a lesson from a decade ago, when winterization was recommended, and ignored. Here's a snippet from the conversation with Price.

I admit I was surprised to learn from Brennan that "the majority of the ERCOT board, the energy grid operator, the people on the board don't even live in the state of Texas." She wondered if they were "in touch at all" with what's happening. Price said she was surprised to learn that, too.

I certainly hope they're in touch, but it doesn't appear that way. And I think that's what surprised more people than anything is that they are not Texans who have not been living here. Most people didn't realize that, including myself. I didn't realize that. And, of course, now you've had the perfect storm, a state-wide storm that's tested our system. And we just have to -- we went through this ten years ago.

And speaking of being out of touch, my Wondering on Wednesday topics included on Biden Cabinet confirmation hearings, mean tweets, and hypocrisy - you know, Republicans. I also noted that Louis (kill)DeJoy, the Postmaster General, was more than slightly full of himself when he testified about the mess he's made at the USPS, and his plans to fix it. He

...  told Congress yesterday they'll have to get used to him because he's going to be sticking around. He offered support for a plan to eliminate the need to pre-fund future health insurance costs, so that's progress. But he also suggested improving service by slowing down delivery of first-class mail, and said something about having the USPS stop using planes to move mail around the country. I wonder if he doing a CBA on a revived Pony Express? That would surely accomplish both of his goals.

At the same time, his longevity is potentially threatened by the pesky Biden administration's efforts to fill seats on the governing board. And they are not all white men, darn those inclusive Dems. I wonder if any of them have sent any mean tweets in the past? Hope not. 

Notably, I delivered the WoW post on Thursday, a tip of the hat to (kill)DeJoy, who's been doing the same thing with the mail since he was put in charge.  

I provided some info from a couple of recent public opinion surveys in the first of two posts on Friday. The Poll Watch entry focused on the growing sentiment, especially among the Rs, that their party ain't worth much and doesn't give much of a hoot about them, and maybe it's time to try something different. Here are a couple of highlights from the two polls; the first comes from a Gallup poll.

• 62% say the major parties are doing such a poor job that a third party is needed; only 33% feel the parties do an adequate job. In 2003, when the question was first asked, 56% said the parties were doing an adequate job, with 40% saying a third party was needed. 

And, from a CBS News/YouGov poll?

• 73% of Republicans think it's important (46% saying it's very important) that their guys are loyal to Trump.
• Women (75% total, 49% very important), folks 65 and older (79% total, 59% very important) and those without college degrees (78% total, 52% very important) are the most focused on Trump loyalty.

Also on Friday, I tossed out a few candidates for the good week/bad week lists, but didn't pin a label on any of them, I left that up to you. That said, regular readers would have no trouble figuring out who I'd put where. Here's a snippet from the TGIF post, talking about options the Senate Dems have now that Senate Parliamentarian parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that the $15 minimum wage can't be done via the reconciliation process.

If they have any patience, the Dems can wait and see what happens to Plan B, a proposal from Finance Committee Chair Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). 

As chair of the Finance Committee, I’ve been working on a ‘plan B’ that would make big companies pay for mistreating their workers. My plan would impose a 5 percent penalty on a big corporations’ total payroll if any workers earn less than a certain amount. That penalty would increase over time. 

I don't know about you, but I'm not sure that's going to fly any higher than the original proposal. We'll have to wait and see. We'll also have to wait and see about this, too - but not for long. The former president is the headliner for today's CPAC closing day, and

...Trump is more likely than not to declare himself for the Republican nomination...during his CPAC speech... As of Friday morning, the odds were 4 to 5, suggesting a 55.6% implied probability that Trump declares during his speech.

And will he do that as a Republican, or as a Patriot Party member? Well, there's only a 4-to-1 chance that he'll do it as anything other than a died-in-the-wool RINO. 

There you go - last week, in review. See you later for Sunday School. 

Poll Watch: It's My Party (or not)

We all know that it took a broad coalition of voters to elect President Joe Biden. As this Global Risk Insights article pointed out, support came from former GOP elected officials, long-time GOP operatives who voted for Trump in 2016, and from progressive Dems (who probably held their noses when voting). 

Now, some of the Rs who voted Biden/Harris in an anti-Trump move may be open to forming a "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" party - FCSL, I'll call it. And we know that  the former president suggested he might just start a new "Patriot Party," a misnomer, for sure. So, what do we think about the idea of new political parties? 

There are a couple of insightful polls on that, starting with a Gallup poll from earlier this month. First, the small print: randomly dialed phone interviews occurred 1/21- 2/2/21, with minimum quotas of 70% cell/30% landline... 906 adults 18 and older, from all 50 states and DC (412 R/leaning R and 420 D/leaning D) participated; the sampling error is +/- 4% overall, and +/- 6% for party-specific responses. 

Here's the BLOT (bottom line on top), excerpted from the article. 

...appetite for a third party has never been greater in Gallup's nearly two decades of polling on the subject...a majority of Republicans are joining the usual majority of independents in wanting that option... The possibility still exists that a pro-Trump or anti-Trump third party will splinter off...

And, some highlights:

• 62% say the major parties are doing such a poor job that a third party is needed; only 33% feel the parties do an adequate job. In 2003, when the question was first asked, 56% said the parties were doing an adequate job, with 40% saying a third party was needed. 
• All age groups believe a third party is needed, with 77% of the 18-34 group and 55% of the 55+ cohort as the extremes. 
• Ideologically, Independents (70%) who don't really have a home with either party lead the way. Equally unsurprising, more Rs (63%) than Ds (46%) feel left out of their party, and the unhappy R population is up 23 points since September.
• Respondents of all ideologies - conservatives (63%), moderates (63%) and liberals (61%) - aren't feeling the love. That's an interesting challenge for Dems, I think.

Notably, the survey was taken before the start of the president Trump's second impeachment trial, and before there was open talk of officials from previous administrations were talking about forming an anti-Trump party. 

Let's turn to a more recent CBS News/YouGov poll. Small print first, though: a nationally representative sample of 2,508 U.S. residents was interviewed 2/5 - 2/8/21; it was weighted according to gender, age, race, and education based on the American Community Survey... the 2020 presidential vote and registration status. The margin of error is +/- 2.3%.

Here's the BLOT for this one, from the article:

...most still broadly value loyalty to Mr. Trump. Many current Republicans say they might even join a new party headed by Mr. Trump if he were to start one. 

First, here's what folks think about their parties:

• Only 37% of Dems think their party represents them most or all the time; 36% say it almost never or never does. It's even worse for the Rs, with 25% feeling represented most or all the time, and 44% saying almost never or never.
• Republican men and women are united in not feeling the love from their party (42% and 46%, respectively), while Dems are more divided along gender lines. 40% of women feel represented, while 39% of men don't think they are.
• Rs without degrees think better of the party than do those with degrees; 32% of the former feel represented most or all the time, compared to 26% of the latter. It's closer for the Ds: 38% without degrees, and 40% with degrees, think the party represents them most or all the time.

And now, to the fun stuff: 

• 73% of Republicans think it's important (46% saying it's very important) that their guys are loyal to Trump.
• Women (75% total, 49% very important), folks 65 and older (79% total, 59% very important) and those without college degrees (78% total, 52% very important) are the most focused on Trump loyalty.

Loyalty to Trump is important, but it's only motivated 15% of all respondents to go with him if he left the GOP; 20% said maybe, and.65% said no. 

• Conservatives (32%), whites without college degrees (21%), whites (18%) and the 65+ cohort (16%) are the most pro-Trump; that's been the case all along.
• Among the 'maybe I'd join him' cohorts, in addition to the ones above, men (23%), 45-64- year-olds (21%), and Hispanics (20%). Males are the fifth of the pro-Trump groups.
• Least likely to join him? Liberals, of course (8% combined yes/maybe), Blacks (15%), and women, whites with college degrees, and the under-30 crowd (all 31%).

Will Trump loyalists have a new home with him? Will there be a home for FCSLs like me, from the moderate part of both major parties? Trump's speaking to his devotees at CPAC on Sunday - maybe he'll make an announcement that'll give us some insight on all of this. 

I'll leave you with some thoughts from conservative columnist George Will, who's talking about the Trumpian wing of the GOP in his last sentence.

An essential conservative insight about everything is that nothing necessarily endures. Care must be taken. The Republican party will wither if the ascendant Lout Caucus is the face it presents to this nation of decent, congenial people. 

Drop a comment with your thoughts about a new party, or about what the parties can do to more represent "this nation of decent, congenial people."

In Case You Missed It (v73)

Here's your recap of last week's posts.

Sunday School brought us an MTP interview with California's Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead manager on Trump's first impeachment, talking about the managers for Trump's second impeachment, which ended yesterday, pretty much in the way we all knew it would. 

Schiff said that the managers for Trump II need to present all the facts, and not presume that everyone - including all senators - are familiar with the full breadth of what the former president did over the course of many months leading up to January 6th. He's confident they'll be able to tell the story.

Tell the story they did. - better than Schiff told his story when it was his turn, IMO.

For your Extra Credit, I highlighted Wyoming's Rep. Liz Cheney, she who won a vote of support from her caucus after issuing perhaps the most scathing Republican condemnation of the twice-impeached insurrection inciter. But, that's water over the damn, under the bridge and down the toilet.

Cheney talked with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, and said she's not resigning, as her state party requested when they censured her for "betraying the trust of Wyoming voters." 

The censure language indicated people still believe that BLM and Antifa were behind the Capitol insurrection. She said they've got a lot of work to do, and she blamed Trump and his lies for that.

We need to make sure that we as Republicans are the party of truth, that we are being honest about what really did happen in 2020 so we actually have a chance to win in 2022 and win the White House back in 2024.

Apparently, lots of people in her party don't believe that being the party of truth matters. Not only that, but far too many of them, including the ghastly GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, are willing to continue relying on Trump to help with their future goals. 

I wrapped up my Sonofa Gov's State of the State this week, not an easy task. In the first of three Meanwhile Back in Albany (MBIA) posts, I focused on Gov. Andrew Cuomo's plan for moving forward in a pandemic and post-pandemic world.

Now it's time to start looking ahead with the same toughness, the same smarts, the same unity, the same discipline, and the same love that brought us through last year. 

2021 will be a year of continued challenges, transformation, and change. We will need to adjust to the new social and economic realities of the post-COVID world.

Expanding on his Day 1 message, he spoke of having to reopening New York "smartly and safely." It's not an either/or thing, it's a "a new model of balance" using science and technology to do things intelligently. 

As Tuesday rolled around, bringing us the opening of the impeachment trial, I dropped a Poll Watch.

The Senate will have a split vote on whether it's even constitutional to impeach him, with the Rs likely ignoring, for the second time in two weeks, that it was their own rules that made it impossible to impeach him before his term ended. 

We will go through the motions: the Rs will claim the impeachment is dividing the country, and Ds will say that Trump continues to pose a clear and present danger to everything that's good and wholesome, so he must be prevented from ever holding office again. Pundits will wear their best outfits, the networks will have their impeachment background music, and when it's over, everything is supposed to be OK. 

But will everything be OK? Here's some info from a recent Quinnipiac poll illustrating where we stand right now, on impeachment and some other measures of 'OK-ness.'

The results? We're afraid for our democracy, we're afraid of violence, and we're afraid we're stuck in a partisan nightmare. 

Moving on to the third day of Cuomo's SOTS, I dropped another MBIA; this one focused on the greening of New York. In his words, 

As is true in so many major issues of our time, the challenge is to close the societal and governmental gap between aspirations and accomplishment, between rhetoric and reality, between saying and doing. Offering hope of a tomorrow that never comes is one of the main causes of our social unrest and distrust in government. We are just not making enough actual progress. Why? Because change is hard.

Have no fear, though: "As the world economy resets, and as change is a necessity, there is an opportunity to raise our efforts to the next level - and New York should seize this moment." And, we can seize the rhetorical moment, too: Cuomo noted that "candles cannot power the future." 

We're going to stick a fork in fossil fuels, or something, via a four-pronged approach. 

And, finally, the fourth and last MBIA, in which the Sonofa Gov spoke of when we used to lead, and how he wants us to be leaders again.

It's a long-taught lesson, he said, but without focus on the "ancillary" benefits - a collective lifted spirit, a belief in the future, and how those inspire economic confidence and stimulus. FDR, Cuomo said, understood that, and the Sonofa Gov wants us to understand that, too. And, don't forget, FDR was a New Yorker, and New Yorkers understand big ideas, and build big things.

Our country has lost its ambition, he said. Other countries "developed around us," and built the cool stuff - the largest high-speed rail network (China), the longest tunnel (Europe) and even the Middle East is "turning barren desert into economic engines."

He's got monster plans for building, across all three parts of the state: NYC, Long Island, and the vast thing called 'upstate.' 

Turning back to impeachment, I was inspired by lead House Manager Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who did a better-than-admirable job with the task he had. I was inspired by his recollection of the Voltaire 'absurdities...atrocities' quote, and how Trump turned so many into believers, with the inevitable end promised by Voltaire. 

All the absurdities, every single one of them, was believed. He was convincing in the telling, in the repetition, in the challenge, in the call to action. He is nothing if not relentless, nothing if not convincing, and they were ready and willing to be convinced, to be led, to obey the call. He had them hanging on his every word, hanging on to him.

He made them believe the absurdities, and when he asked, the atrocities followed. To the end, they were hanging on his every word, hanging on to him.

Who are 'they,' you ask? Who are the believers? They're not just his MAGA people - they're in the House and the Senate, too. The Republicans own them, now - don't be a believer when they tell you otherwise. 

And finally, it was time for a slightly unconventional TGIF, in which I focused on the last evidentiary day of the impeachment, and Trump's lawyers and their defense, if you could call it that, of the former president.  

That the lawyers managed to complain about the fancy media company the House Managers used to create their slick video, and then turn around and do exactly the same thing, but even slicker and, if I heard it right, with music, and Madonna, and Johnny Depp, was indicative of how little defense they had, and how little defense they presented in their time today. 

Oh, there was lots of emphasis on Trump's one statement of asking for people to be peaceful, as if the continuum of his incitement began and ended on that phrase on January 6th. I thought Rudy Giuliani was a bad lawyer, but these guys are giving him a run for their money. 

I closed with post, and the week, with this: 

Soon, we'll know officially that the Republicans are still afraid of Trump, and what he can do to their careers, and there will be an acquittal. The only thing we don' t know is, how many Rs will vote to convict. I hope some of them find the courage to do so; maybe the ones who've already declared they're not running next time?

Good week? Bad week? You pick.

We now know the answer to my question: seven. Senators Richard Burr (NC), Bill Cassidy (LA), Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AL), Mitt Romney (UT), Ben Sasse (NE), and Pat Toomey (PA) voted to convict Trump of "the gravest violation of his oath of office by any president in the history of this country," to quote Rep. Cheney. Burr and Toomey have already announced they're not seeking re-election.

You're all caught up. See you later for Sunday School.