Quick Takes (v73): The Trump Economy

When folks talk about the reasons they were voting, the economy was high on most lists.

For example, 81% of registered voters said the economy would be 'very important' to their vote, according to a Pew Research poll from September.

According to another September poll, this time from Gallup, the economy was the only issue where a majority said a candidate's positions were an 'extremely important' influencer on how they were going to vote.

A post-election survey from AARP found that more than half of aged 50+ voters 'prioritized economic issues.'

Many other pre- and post-election surveys, and a few boatloads of TV hosts and other pundits (perhaps I should refer to them as potential cabinet members?) have said the same thing, using many more words to explain it than James Carville gave us back in 1992.

There's one part of the economy that may have defied expectations: the 'support your favorite billionaire' part. You know, the political Name, Image, and Likeness, or NIL, sector. And nobody does NIL better than Donald Trump, the Once and Future President (OAFP).

If you ask me, the person who shouted the loudest about our horrible economy and how it contributes to our becoming a failing nation is doing pretty darn well with his followers. On his Bibles alone, he made $300,000, for heaven's sake.

Don't believe me? Take a look at all these things you can get with his political brand - and remember that this is separate from all the stuff emblazoned with the Trump name sold by the Trump Organization. And that merch is separate, of course, from all of the buildings, golf courses (with and without burial plots near the first tee), the winery, and so on.

Hats

Ties

Pins

Pens

Flags

Elves

Coins

Shirts

Access

Bibles

Knives

Decals

Scarves

Wallets

Watches

Magnets

Stickers

Jewelry

Pardons

Banners

Sneakers

Troll dolls

Tote bags

Yard signs

Keychains

Backpacks

Sunglasses

Ornaments

Corkscrews

Dish towels

Shot glasses

Medallions

Wristbands

Golf towels

Cigar boxes

Money clips

Tee holders

Beer glasses

Cigar cutters

Beach towels

Garbage bags

Playing cards

Rubber ducks

Laptop covers

Ear maxi pads

Trading cards

Bottle openers

Books for kids

Cutting boards

Pieces of a suit

Greeting cards

Stuffed animals

Digital 'artwork'

Framed pictures

Bumper stickers

Books for adults

Beer can koozies

Funny eyeglasses

Cabinet positions

Cartoon drawings

Zippered pouches

Government secrets

License plate covers

Orange-haired visors

Talking Trumpinators

White privilege cards

Masks (oh, the irony!)

Mugs (beer and coffee)

Commemorative cigars

Oddly-crafted figurines

Pet attire and accessories

Framed newspaper articles

French fry counter trinkets

Bronze busts (made of resin)

Signed mug shot photo pictures

Decanters (with/without glasses)

Bobbleheads (too many to count)

Two-dollar bills (several versions)

Bronze bust (on sale - save a penny!)

Wine glasses (stemmed and stemless)

Personalized artwork (your name here!)

Personalized merchandise (your religion here!)

Glasses (golf ball- and bullet-impaled versions)

Imagine how much money people are spending on this stuff, in this 'horrible' economy, and imagine how much money he's making off them.

If you're interested, here's a fun bit I found on Quora where someone valiantly tries to figure out if there's a way to figure out how much money the OAFP makes on all of this nonsense.

Wondering on Wednesday 1/31/24

 Ready... set... wonder!

It's rare for me to update my wondering a mere seven days later, but that's where I find myself today. Last week I wondered about the stock market, what Trump thought of it when he was president, and how his thinking has changed.

That was then, but this is now, and with Joe Biden in the White House, Trump is no longer excited about the market's success. Rather, he's telling his supporters that "the stock market is making rich people richer" - as if that's ever been a bad thing for an alleged billionaire. 

So, why am I wondering about this again, you might be asking?  Well, he apparently has changed his mind - again.  Not only is a booming market great again, it's all because of him! Because of his polls! Because everyone loves him and can't wait for him to be president again!

And I have to wonder, was he lying to me while he was in office, or was he lying to me over the past several weeks, or is he lying to me now?

I learned today that a judge in Delaware's Court of Chancery has tossed Elon Musk's Tesla compensation package, saying that $56 billion was an "unfathomable sum."  Kathaleen McCormick wrote in her decision, which is appealable, of course,

Swept up by the rhetoric of 'all upside,' or perhaps starry-eyed by Musk’s superstar appeal, the board never asked the $55.8 billion question: Was the plan even necessary for Tesla to retain Musk and achieve its goals?

The article I linked above has some interesting information of the corporate intrigue kind, including board members beholden to the CEO and shirking their responsibilities, angry shareholders (that's how the suit came to be), and my favorite piece of information, to which I've added the emphasis:

Amit Batish at Equilar, an executive pay research firm, estimated in 2022 that Musk's package was around six times larger than the combined pay of the 200 highest-paid executives in 2021.

I'm wondering, as I re-read that last part for the umpteenth time today, whether incentive-only compensation packages - according to the article, Musk didn't draw a Tesla salary - should have limits? And I also can't help wondering what a less Musk-friendly board would have done in the compensation negotiations.

In a Sidebar yesterday, I talked about the Oklahoma Republican Party voting to censure Sen. James Lankford, and how the meeting was subsequently deemed illegitimate by the 'real' OKGOP.  And what I'm wondering about here is simply this: how many other GOP organizations are at risk for this same kind of thing, where a cabal is bold enough, willing, and able to take over the party, even temporarily, and create this kind of havoc? And how long before we figure out they exist?

Most of us are aware of the penchant for book banning in Florida. This article by Judd Legum reminds us that the whole mess started when the Rs in FLA attacked alleged "grooming" by school librarians pushing "pornographic" materials in their bookshelves.

Florida's Republican legislature passed — and Ron DeSantis signed — several pieces of legislation that made it easier to take books off the shelves of the state's public schools. This was all seen as smart politics, appealing to parents seeking to protect their children from inappropriate content.

Some of the Rs are getting tired of taking the heat for the ridiculous bans; even noted conservative Bill O'Reilly's books were pulled from the shelves. Legislation is moving along that would "make it more difficult for people to challenge books en masse." That's happened in at least one Florida county, where every book in the library was pulled for review. Legum says the legislation

is an implicit acknowledgment that book banning in Florida schools has gone too far. It also suggests that the enormous number of books being taken off the shelves of Florida schools has become a political problem for Florida Republicans. 

I'm not surprised pols are upset about the consequences of their anti-woke, anti-LGBTQ, anti-everything approach to school libraries; here's what really got to me in Legum's article.

The majority of book challenges in the United States came from 11 people. Two of the most prolific, Bruce Friedman and Vicki Baggett, hail from Florida.

Eleven people are responsible for the majority of book challenges in the United States? How can you not wonder with me how that's even possible?  Eleven people, out of a country of over 334,000,000? How does this even happen?

And finally, Rep. Rob Menendez (D-NJ) pulled less than zero punches in comments directed towards GOP members of the House Homeland Security Committee as they considered impeachment charges against Alejandro Mayorkas.

According to the article, Menendez noted there've been plenty of hearings on the border, but none on things like "emergency preparedness, cyber threats, infrastructure protection, and more," all of which would be in the Committee's portfolio.

We have not lived up to our oversight obligation here on this committee because you all are obsessed with the border. Because you bend the knee to the ‘Orange Jesus’ as you refer to him across the aisle. 

You can watch the video of his comments here, and maybe wonder, as I often do, how much longer the folks in the House will keep it together.

What's on your wondering mind these days?

Sidebar: Sunday School 3/14/21

Yesterday's Sunday School classrooms were full of talk about my Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo, the harassment allegations against him, and his defiance in the face of continuing calls for him to resign. 

I didn't include everyone's full remarks in the post - no room for all of that - but the gist of many comments was that New Yorkers have lost faith in him and we want him to resign. And, as you've likely heard, there's a whole host of folks - both Democrats and Republicans - who weren't in the classrooms yesterday who think that's appropriate, and have issued statements to that point. 

Here's the thing: according to a Siena College Research Institute poll taken last week and released today, it's not true that 'most' New Yorkers want him to resign. Here's a quick look from a NY Times article; I've added the emphasis.

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.

Even so, the governor’s favorability rating has plummeted to one of the lowest points of his decade-long tenure: Only 43 percent of voters said they had a favorable opinion of the governor, down from 56 percent last month.

I'll have more from the poll later this week, including opinions of New Yorkers on the American Rescue Plan, vaccines, and more.

Wondering on Wednesday 12/16/20

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

We're going to kind of meander through some wondering, starting with the latest presidential approval rating from the folks at Rasmussen Reports. According to today's  edition of their daily tracking, the president is underwater by 8 points, with 36% of likely voters strongly approving of his performance and 44% strongly disapproving.  Here's a look at Trump's ratings for the month of December. 

• Average strongly approve: 37%
• Average strongly disapprove: 42%
• Average total approval: 49%
• Average total disapproval: 50%

The president has had only six days with a positive approval rating in the past three months: September 20th (+4),  November 9th-12th (+1, +3, +4, +2) and November 17th (+2).  This year, the president's total approval rating has at least 50% only 51 days, and it was never more than 53%.  

On Election Day? 49% total approval, 50% total disapproval, and a -4 difference between his strongly approve and strongly disapprove scores (39% and 43%, respectively). So, as he continues to wonder why he didn't win the election, he can go to Rasmussen and look at the entire year of proof: we don't love him as much as he has convinced himself we love him.

Now, some people do love him as much as he loves himself, including the whole cast of characters that have fought to prove voter fraud, which would lead to his re-election. You know, people Like this former Texas cop, and the group he was working for.  How's this for a headline?

Former Houston police captain accused of violent attempt to prove election conspiracy was hired by GOP activist's group

Sounds like love, right? The former Houston captain, Mark Aguirre, had been following an "innocent and ordinary" air conditioner repairman for days; at least two other people helped with the surveillance. Aguirre thought that the repairman "was behind a huge voter fraud scheme," and Aguirre "believed the technician to be transporting fake ballots in his vehicle and to have as many as 750,000 in his possession."  The logical thing to do, then, was to run him off the road and pull a gun on him, force him to the ground, steal his fan to search it, and then abandon the vehicle, right? There were no ballots. Just air conditioner parts. At first, I wondered if the big donor's firm, The Liberty Center for God and Country, would be asking for the$266,400 they paid Aguirre, but then I read that the donor, Steven Hotze, wanted Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to kill protesters back in July.

"I want you to give a message to the governor," Hotze told Abbott's chief of staff, Luis Saenz, in a voicemail. "I want to make sure that he has National Guard down here and they have the order to shoot to kill if any of these son-of-a-bitch people start rioting like they have in Dallas, start tearing down businesses — shoot to kill the son of a bitches. That’s the only way you restore order. Kill 'em. Thank you."

I have to wonder about the politeness of the message, don't you? I mean, who ends a message telling a government official to implement a shoot-to-kill order, by saying thank you? 

Staying with the election, and the cast of characters with whom the president surrounds himself, I thought this article in the NY Times was interesting. Once and now former Trump election fraud attorney Sidney Powell, who vowed to "release the Kraken" and "blow up" Georgia with a "biblical case," has now turned her attention to a new subject: the coronavirus vaccines.

"NO WAY #America." Ms. Powell wrote in the tweet, which collected 22,600 shares and 51,000 likes. "This is more authoritarian communist control imported straight from #China." She then tagged Mr. Trump the former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn - both of whom she had represented - and other prominent right-wing figures to highlight the post.

I'm just wondering generally here, what's the next big conspiracy thing going to be? And will it be coming at us from the right, or will the left dive in to keep things interesting? I mean, they're still talking about how Bernie would have beaten Trump if only the DNC hadn't robbed him again.

About a year-and-a-half ago, I 'disaffiliated myself' from the Democrats, switching my voter registration to 'no party' - primarily because That Guy from Vermont, who is not a Dem - was being allowed by the party to run for president under the team banner, for the second time. I didn't use the 'disaffiliated' language, but that's the language that Rep. Paul Mitchell of Michigan used in announcing he was leaving the GOP, lamenting the lack of leadership and the continued contesting of the election, the conspiracy theories, and so on. I completely understand why he did it; I just wonder, if he wasn't retiring, would he still have left? I hope the answer is yes., butt you never can be sure.  

 Rep. Mitchell might be happy, as I was, to learn that Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, who I call my favorite Republican, will be one of the national co-chairs of No Labels. Hogan has a nearly 80% approval rating in his state (see that, president Trump?) and is well liked by Rs, Ds, Independents and pretty much everyone else.  Here's his statement.

I am honored to help lead No Labels at a time when our message of putting aside partisan differences for the common good is needed more than ever. Amid this awful pandemic, the people in my state and across our country are desperate for leaders to work across the aisle and focus on solving the urgent problems we face. I have admired the work No Labels has done to empower these kinds of leaders and to mobilize grassroots supporters, and this work is just beginning. it's time to give voice to the vast majority of Americans who want a different and better kind of politics and mobilize this movement into action.

Anyone wondering how they can get involved or learn more?  Check out the group's website.

What are you wondering about tonight?

Sunday School 11/22/20

Remember the polls that no one's talking about anymore, the ones that showed Joe Biden way ahead before Election Day, just like they showed Hillary way ahead in 2016?  They were right, insofar as they predicted a Biden win, but there was a lot that was wrong, too.

Today, on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, we heard from Nate Silver, the founder of FiveThirtyEight, on what might have impacted the polls this time around.  Silver said that "the margins were pretty far off in a lot of places," even if they correctly called the presidential race in all but two states - Florida and North Carolina. The biggest problems were in the Midwest, he said. And he pointed to the coronavirus pandemic as a contributor, saying that "if people are changing their living pattern...that might affect how they respond to polls..." And, he noted a partisan impact, too.

Democrats have been more likely than Republican voters to embrace social distancing... In fact, research has shown poll response rats form Democratic voters shot up once the pandemic hit in March, increasing from 12% to 16-17%. That's enough to potentially skew the numbers. 

And remember that only 37% of jobs can be performed at home. A lot of those are white collar, knowledge sector jobs held by college-educated professionals, a group that mostly votes for Democrats these days.

And while he says COVID was a factor, it probably wasn't the only one. But he says, "knock on wood," there won't be a pandemic to mess things up in 2024. I'm curious as to the other issues he thinks were in play - the pandemic was the only one he mentioned.

Moving down the hall to the State of the Union classroom in the CNN wing,  Jake Tapper talked with my favorite Republican, Maryland's Gov. Larry Hogan, who had been on the show two weeks ago, when he said he thought the president would do the right thing and concede, Tapper wondered if he still had confidence that Trump would do the right thing. Hogan said he's confident that "the president-elect is going to be sworn in" but he's not confident that the president will do the right thing.

Look, I thought the pressuring of the legislators to try to somehow change the outcome with electors was completely outrageous. And, quite frankly, I mean, we used to go supervise elections around the world, and we were - we were the most respected country with respect to elections. And now we're beginning to look like a banana republic.

It's time for them to stop the nonsense. It just gets more bizarre every single day. And frankly, I'm embarrassed that more people in the party aren't speaking up. 

On why he thinks so few of his fellow Rs are stepping up, "willing to demonstrate even basic integrity and honestly here," as Tapper put it, Hogan said what I've been thinking for the past four years: 

I just don't think that there are a lot of profiles in courage, frankly... I mean - we all know how vindictive the president can be, how powerful his Twitter account is, and how he can really pressure Republicans and go after them. Very few of us are willing to stand up.

But that's changing, he said. Governors, senators, House members - it's "slowly growing every day." And there are others, the ones who are giving the president advice - except he's ignoring them.

Hogan said the Executive Committee of the National Governors Association met (virtually) with Biden and Kamala Harris, talking about the pandemic, and he appreciated that the two reached out to the NGA set up the meeting. He said they were "mostly in listening mode" and asking the govs what was going on.

He said he was concerned there was a "smooth handoff," because "we have the current administration and the new administration not even speaking to one another while lives are at stake."

And it's the - it's kind of one of the worst things about this current situation we find ourselves in, with no communication and no transition.

He also said that 90% of Marylanders said they're not travelling for Thanksgiving, "a dramatic change." People are listening, and following the guidelines. Imagine that!

And finally, a quick drop-in on the Face the Nation classroom, where Margaret Brennan talked with former national security advisor H.R. McMaster. She asked him "how corrosive" Trump's actions are to our national security. Very corrosive, he said, and what concerns him is that "the president's kind of playing into the hands of our adversaries." He said that Russia doesn't care who wins "as long as a large number of Americans doubt the legitimacy of the result."  We need to "demand better from our political leaders," he added, so that we don't get even further divided. 

McMaster also said that, while Trump's firing of Chris Krebs, the DHS guy who said the 2020 election was the most secure ever, Krebs "overstated it" when he said the Giuliani/Powell/Ellis legal team's press conference was "the most dangerous hour and 45 minutes in American TV history, and possibly the craziest."

"We should be confident," McMaster said, while acknowledging that it was a "travesty" that Krebs got fired, and that Krebs was a big part of the efforts to improve election security.

But hey, Margaret, it's Thanksgiving week. We should be thankful for the framers of our Constitution because they designed our form of government based on what they saw as worst-case scenarios, worst-case scenarios based on the bloody wars in England in the 17th century...  

He added that the president doesn't have a say in the transition. Although, it's clear that not saying something about the transition - you know, releasing the funds and allowing departments to talk to the newcomers - can be just as impactful, of not more so, than actually saying something.

Wear your mask. Keep your Thanksgiving celebration small. Obey your local pandemic guidance. You know - do the right thing... Be a Marylander. 

See you around campus. 

TGIF 11/6/20

Is it really only the Friday after the Tuesday after the first Monday in November? 

It seems like Friday has taken a month or more to get here, right? 

Obviously, if I'm trying to come up with good week and bad week lists, I would have to say the good week list would consist almost entirely of the tireless health care workers who continue to care for our ever-growing list of COVID patients, especially those who are with our loved ones in our absence when they pass from the virus, and to the tireless poll workers and state election officials who are doing their level best to count the votes that are eligible for counting. All of those folks deserve our thanks, and our respect, regardless of where we stand on the COVID battle or the election battle.

Let me assure you, I'm on the side of COVID is real and so will the election outcome be real - neither of these are hoaxes - and I surely hope that you're with me on both of those. If not, let's talk.

Also on the good week side? Assuming things hold, Kamala Harris has to be up there on the list. She's on the verge of being the first female VP, the first African American VP, the first South Asian American VP, and more. And Joe Biden also had a good week, and it could get better before the end of the week, if we see the end of at least some of the counting...

People who exercised their right to vote are having a good week, because votes are being counted. That's what we expect when we vote - we don't expect anyone to steal our votes out from underneath us, and at least so far, we're winning that fight. 

Also, Nevada meme makers.

On the bad week list? Well, pollsters, certainly. Not because, as the president claimed, they were all a coordinated voter suppression effort designed to keep Trump supporters from voting because it was a lost cause. This is patently ridiculous. That the polls were SO wrong, across SO many races, and that this is the second presidential vote in which they were SO wrong should be sending a shudder through the polling industry. I don't want them to tell me what they did right, I want them to explain how they got it SO wrong, AGAIN, and what they have to offer going forward.

Who else? Republicans who are standing by the president as he makes a mockery of the integrity and sanctity of our election process, that integrity and sanctity which he's been calling into question almost daily since February. Those who are standing with him have nothing to gain - literally, nothing to gain. He cannot hurt them anymore. He cannot threaten them anymore. He cannot denigrate them, or call their spouses ugly, say hateful things about them, and endorse their opponents instead of them. It's time for them to stand up, to stand up to him, and to help him slink away.

And of course, the president himself is not having a good week. In fact, he is the personification of a bad week, this week and most other weeks. His tweets are being heavily flagged; his court challenges to the election are so far failing; a few Rs are turning on him and saying publicly that he should shut up and stand down, and he is very, very likely to be less than 75 days away from heading back to wherever he came from. 

As I said last week, there's a picture  0f the president I want to be the one that I remember from his White House occupancy, and I might get my wish. If that's the case, you can be sure I'll be putting myself on the good week list in a heartbeat. 

TGIF, everyone. Stay patient. 

Sunday School 10/18/20 Extra Credit

For your Extra Credit, I bring you Margaret Brennan's Face the Nation interviews with current DNC head Tom Perez and former RNC head and former Trump Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.

Perez was up first; Brennan wondered about the polls, and more importantly whether the Dems had done enough to drive the kind of voter turnout, whether by mail, or early voting, or voting on Election Day.

Perez said he cautions people to "never get on the 'poller-coaster'," and that they're not taking anything for granted - and he pointed to enthusiasm "all over the country." He said Dems turning ballots in, including a whole lotta Dems who didn't vote in the last two elections.  And they're still focusing on the battleground states.

Brennan mentioned polling from Arizona showing 56% of likely voters blame the Dems more than the Rs for not getting a stimulus bill passed, and wondered if holding out for a big bill might backfire on them. Perez had a bit of an issue trying to answer this one, starting out by pointing to the Amy Coney Barrett SCOTUS nomination, and the bill the Dems passed back in May that the Rs ignored, and what not, eventually landing on how the Dems have been fighting and that this is a "health care election." Brennan pointed out that "fighting, talking and doing are two different things," and that the 'not doing' is why people were pointing fingers at the Dems. 

She moved on to a recent court loss, where the Rs won on a ruling that mail-in ballots must be received by 8PM on Election Day in Michigan, and wondered how that might impact things. Again, Perez meandered around, talking about what happened in Wisconsin back in April, and energy, and early voting and what not. But, when Brennan asked, "so, you don't see this as damaging?" here's what he had to say.

Well, I would rather-- I-- I believe democracy works better when everyone can cast their ballot and every ballot is counted. We're in an unprecedented pandemic here, and courts in other states have allowed votes that were postmarked by Election Day to be counted as long as they're received within a short period of time after Election Day. This court did it differently. I disagree categorically with that ruling. But we are moving ahead in Michigan. We're moving ahead everywhere. And again, the pandemic in Michigan-- the pandemic everywhere. This is a crisis. People understand this President has no plan. His closing argument in Michigan is "lock her up." He's fanning the flames of division. He doesn't have a plan for the coronavirus. He doesn't have a plan--for the economy. He's divisive. Joe Biden is bringing us together...People in Michigan remember that it was Joe Biden and Ba-- Barack Obama who saved the auto industry--when Republicans were letting it die.

 And that was that. Let's see how Priebus did during his turn, starting with the first question: is he concerned about the president's chances, as was reported in the Sunday paper?

No, not at all. In fact, I'm not concerned about that at all. I'm-- I'm-- I'm concerned about early vote. I'm concerned about absentee ballot voting, but I'm always worried about early vote and absentee ballot voting. I haven't reemerged. I have always been helpful to the President, helpful to the RNC. But, look, you know, early vote and where we're-- we're at in a pandemic and having five times more people vote in Florida than ever before, these are unprecedented times. The polling is all over the map. This is something that's going to come down to the wire, and I hope and expect the President to win.

About battleground states, he said poling is tough, and talked about the demographics, "working class white voters, suburban women... rural parts of the country" and how the president is winning, and

pushing thirty points ahead in rural America with enthusiasm off the charts. Yes, it's a little bit down in the suburbs. But the hard thing for these pollsters, Margaret, as you bring up, is that they can't measure this kind of disparity between the rural parts of this country and what's happening in the suburbs.

Brennan asked if he thought Trump was going to win Wisconsin, and Priebus seems to think that's the case. He compared Trump winning in 2016 after being down six-and-a-half points on average in the polls, plus the Libertarian Gary Johnson got over 100,000 votes, so it sounded like he thinks so. 

And when Brennan pointed out that Trump's base, the white, non-college-educated voter that turned out in droves for him shrinking, at current polling anyway, Priebus said 

I mean, you know, clearly, I think one of the things that you're going to see over the next couple of weeks is that the President's going to be pivoting, talking about the economy. I think this upcoming debate is going to be really important that the President is that, you know, likable, fun, have a good time. Let Joe Biden speak, and let Joe Biden defend the Obama economy. Let him defend why ISIS was running wild and burning people in cages...

They agreed it's hard to predict what's going to happen, particularly with the pandemic looming large, and that it's hurting the president with voters. In response, Priebus fell back on the go-to talking points, the China travel ban, the task force, the CARES Act, and added

Well, look, I mean, granted, Margaret. Sure, no one likes what's going on in this country. No one likes that their kids are at home and no one likes that a lot of these states are shut down by Democrat governors. That's all true-- but the question is would this person over here, Joe Biden, have done things better or differently?

He also said he thinks Thursday's debate will make a difference for the president. 

"We'll be watching," Brennan said. I'll try again, but how long I last all depends on which ring of the circus we're facing.

See you around the virtual campus. And if you submit your comments to me after the debate on Thursday, you'll really get some extra credit!

Sunday School Extra Credit 7/19/20

For today's Extra Credit, we're picking up the action from the Fox News Sunday exclusive Chris Wallace interview with the president. The first part of the interview is in yesterday's Sunday School entry.

After spending quite a bit of time on coronavirus-related issues, and some time on the Confederate flag and Confederate heroes, and defunding schools, they moved deeper into education.

For example, on where the president saw that our children were being taught to hate our country:

I just look at - I look at school. I watch, I read, I look at the stuff. Now they want to change 1492, Columbus discovered America. You know, we grew up, you grew up, we all did, that's what we learned. Now they want to make it the 1619 projet. Where did that come from? What does it represent? I don't even know - (Wallace said it was about slavery.) That's what they're saying, but they don't even know. They just want to make a change. Cancel culture - I hate the term, actually, but I use it. 

Wallace interjected again, asking if they are being taught to hate America.

Yes, I think so. Look at the professors. Look at what's going on in the colleges. If a conservative goes on a college - and look, we have as many as them. Excuse me, I think to the best of my knowledge, we're sitting at the White House and the Oval Office is right behind me. We have as many as them. (Who's 'them' Wallace asked) The liberal radical left, and I'm not talking all - I think liberal, I could tell you I like a lot of liberal people. I like a lot of liberal governors and senators, but Chris, we have the radical left destructive ideology and that's being taught in our schools. And don't act like you're surprised to hear this - there are books written about it, and we can't let that go on. We can't let them change the true meaning of what we're all about and that's what they're trying to do and I don't want it to happen. Not on my watch. It's not going to happen on my watch.

On the latest Fox News poll, which shows the president losing to Joe Biden (-8), and losing on handling the coronavirus (-17), race relations (-21) and even on the economy (-1):

First of all, I'm not losing because those are fake polls. They were fake in 2016 and now they're even more fake. The polls were much worse in 2016.

Huh? They're more faker now, but they were way more worser in 2016?

They interviewed 22% Republicans. Well, how do you do 22% Republican? You see what's going on. I have other polls that put me... We have polls where I'm leading. I have a poll where we're leading in every swing state. And I don't believe that your - I - first of all, the Fox polls, whoever does your Fox polls, they're among the worst. They got it all wrong in 2016. They've been wrong on every poll I've ever seen. (Wallace interjects, I- I must tell you) No, I'm telling just telling you. And-  and let me - let me ask you this. So, on the economy. So I've always led the economy by a lot. (Wallace said he was surprised by the numbers). Biden can't put two sentences together. They wheel him out. He goes up. He repeats - they ask him questions. He reads a teleprompter. And then he goes back into the basement. You tell me the American people want to have that, in an age where we're in trouble with other nations that are looking to do numbers on us.

On whether Trump thinks Biden is senile:

I don't want to say that. I say that he's not competent to be president. To be president, you have to be sharp and tough and so many other things. That - he doesn't even come out of his basement. They think, oh, this is a great campaign. So he goes in. I'll then make a speech. It'll be a great speech. And some young guys start writing. Vice President Biden said this, this, this. He didn't say it. Joe doesn't know he's alive, OK? He doesn't know he's alive. Do the American people want that, number one.

And, (having nothing to do with Joe Biden), there's number two.

Number two, I build the greatest economy ever built anywhere in the world, not only in this country, anywhere in the world, until we got hit with the China virus. We got hit with a virus. Shouldn't have happened. And we had to close up. We saved millions of lives. Now we've opened it up. Got to go back to school. We're open. We've got to do things. We had the best jobs numbers we've ever had last month. We should have good ones coming up in two weeks. Look, I built the greatest economy in history. I'm now doing it again. You see the numbers. The numbers are through the roof. 

And then there's the meanies on the other side.

The Democrats are purposely keeping their schools closed, keeping their states closed. I called Michigan. I want to have a big rally in Michigan. Do you know we're not allowed to have a rally in Michigan? Do you know we're not allowed to have a rally in Minnesota? Do you know we're not allowed to have a rally in Nevada? We're not allowed to have rallies in these Democrat-run states. (Wallace said some would say it's a health risk). Some people would say, fine. (And, Wallace pointed out there were issues after Tulsa).  But I - but I guarantee you, if everything was gone 100%, they still wouldn't allow it. They're not allowing me to do it. So they're not - they're not allowing me to have rallies... And I'll do it a different way. 

And yes, you typically do things in a different way, don't you, Sir?

I'll have a bonus round for all of you distance learners later. Stay safe in the meantime, and yes, there will be a quiz this week.

Stay safe.

The Update Desk: It's Bad Out There

When I did the Poll Watch post the other day, there were some questions that were 'embargoed' until further notice.

Fox News has now released the additional details from the poll, including several questions asking how well particular words describe president Trump.  Let's take a look at the questions and some of the more interesting demographics.

• Presidential: 13% extremely well; 56% not at all. Only 29% of Republicans, 24% of conservatives, 29% of white evangelicals, and 30% of Trump voters think this is an apt description.

On specific leadership qualities, the results weren't really all that much better.

• Strong leader: 21% extremely well; 48% not at all. For Republicans (R), conservatives (C), white evangelicals (WE), and Trump voters (TV), the 'extremely well' percentages are 43%, 36%, 43%, and 30%, respectively.

• Moral leader:  14% extremely well, 55% not at all;  30% (R),  24% (C), 30% (WE,) and 31% (TV) think this describes him extremely well.

• Steady leader: 16% extremely well; 53% not at all. 34% (R),  28% (C), 34% (WE), and 35% (TV) put themselves in the 'extremely well' bucket.

Wow. Strong, moral, and steady, and never more than 35% of his voters think those are fitting descriptions? I thought his fans would rate him higher on these.

• Competent: 21% extremely well, 45% not at all. Here he does better: for his R, C, WE, and TV, the 'extremely well' percentages are 42%, 38%, 40%, and 44%, respectively.

• Knowledgeable: 16% extremely well, 43% not at all. 31% (R), 27% (C), 34% (WE) and 35% (TV).

• Problem solver: 19% extremely well, 47% not at all. 40% of (R), (WE), and (TV) said 'extremely well' while (C) came in at 35%.

• Everyone thinks 'outsider' is an extremely good description; similarly, everyone agrees 'he says what he thinks.

Not a lot of surprises in that second grouping. He did well with his natural constituencies on both competence and problem-solving, even though he's yet to solve any significant problems legislatively.

The last couple of questions is where things got interesting. The first question asked how well the word 'unstable' described Trump. Surprisingly, 60% of survey takers think the president is unstable to some degree.  

• Fully a third of respondents, 33%, thought it described him extremely well; 11% thought it fit him very well, and another 16% thought it described him somewhat. 

• This crosses all demographics: men (57%), women (65%), whites (57%), nonwhites (72%), under 45 years old (56%), 45 and older (56%), incomes less than $50K (62%) and $50K and over (61%). Those are pretty astonishing numbers, don't you think?

• Even Republicans (30%), Conservatives (39%), and White Evangelicals (41%) fell in line when all categories - extremely well, very well, and somewhat well - were combined; only Trump voters thought this was less true, with a 23% combined score. 

And the last question? How well does the word 'bully' describe Trump?

•  39% thought this fit him extremely well; 14% thought it fit him very well, and 20% thought it fit him somewhat well. That's right -- 73% of those surveyed in a Fox News poll think the president is a bully. 

• That includes a majority of Republicans (51%), conservatives (56%), and white evangelicals (59%) who believe this is true. 

• Even 44% of Trump voters find this to be true. 

So, let's recap: the president is an unstable, mildly competent, somewhat knowledgeable iffy problem-solving bully, whose leadership style is not strong, steady, moral, or presidential.

Yay, us, or something. #MAGA #Winning #WhatTheSniff