New Developments III

[Big Magilla]

Win for the liberal judge in yesterday's Wisconsin Supreme Court election could mean the quick reversal of the state's ban on abortion and the end of the state's gerrymandered maps. Let's hope so.

[Sabin]

Not remotely the news of the day, but I'm interested in Elizabeth Warren announcing that her 2024 campaign is going to have an anti-crypto theme. On a good day, I'm agnostic toward crypto. Most days my feelings on banning it range from "I guess?" to "Do it yesterday." I can't imagine a world where this becomes anything resembling a wedge issue with voters, especially considering she won her last election 60-35%. If she loses re-election, it won't be because of that. It doesn't seem like that big of a wedge issue, like a 21st century tariff debate. That said, this news is going to matter quite a bit to all of my worst friends but they're on their way out anyway so...

I'm mostly interested in this campaign choice from a cultural perspective as increasingly our two parties devolve into "Society needs rules" vs. "Fuck you and your woke shit!" I'm interested in watching the reaction from that perspective. After the FTX collapse (that's going to be a fun FX series), Republicans were up in arms about Democrats' involvement but when the rubber hits the road their solution isn't to do anything about it. It's just "Keep it going but with us in charge." Considering her consumer protection background, it isn't surprising that Warren would make this a part of her legacy. I'm still waiting to hear how it's possible to do crypto without some insider trading component. It seems like insider trading is all it is. I have a hard time imagining she is going to build enough of a coalition to ban crypto outright but only because that would require a more functioning legislative body. But let's say her mission catches on and more Democrats become anti-crypto. That's probably not a bad idea for the party's identity as a whole. I think the most it does is it becomes of a piece with the widening cultural divide between where you land on "Society needs rules" vs."Fuck you and your woke shit!"

[Sabin]

Apropos of really nothing (although I guess it could be Allen Weisselberg firing the lawyers Trump provided him), I just don't see how Trump doesn't get charged with something. He's committed several crimes (obviously) and he's unbelievably sloppy. I know we're all trained to think "How does ol' Donny get out of this one?" but honestly, the only reasons I can think of are this:

-Maybe he hasn't committed several crimes. Which is inconceivable.

-He hires the most brilliant lawyer ever. Also inconceivable. He has the worst hiring practices of anyone I've ever seen. A lot of these right-wingers seem to have that in common (Alex Jones).

-Someone high up on an institutional level wants him to get off. I don't see that as a possibility on a federal or state level, but certainly not on a state level (NY).

-Fuckery. Just blatant fuckery. He inspires mistrial after mistrial until maybe he gets back into office. He just makes it impossible to try him. Like truly, how do you find a jury for this guy? Does Trump get his people to dox them? I don't know... This is the dark option by the way.


EDIT: (SpongeBob voice) a few hours later

[Greg]

Here is a video of an address Richard Nixon made to the country while President. It is stunning how that Republican President condemned "money speculators." I cannot imagine past Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ever saying anything like that, maybe Jimmy Carter at the very beginning of his term. I could only imagine politicians such as Bernie Sander, Elizabeth Warren, and AOC saying something like that now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-cB1Z9qceI

[Sabin]

Greg wrote
Ro Khanna just said he will not run for the Senate and has endorsed Barbara Lee.

I'm not surprised. Khanna has been under scrutiny in leftist circles for his Silicon Valley ties and this is not the year you want that under a microscope.

[Greg]

Ro Khanna just said he will not run for the Senate and has endorsed Barbara Lee.

[Sonic Youth]

re: Iran hostages/Reagan

Not gonna lie, I had presumed that it was already confirmed.

Assume nothing in America is officially confirmed until it's 40 years later and there's no point in even being outraged over it.

[Okri]

re: Iran hostages/Reagan

Not gonna lie, I had presumed that it was already confirmed.

[flipp525]

I’m in D.C. and have spoken with some folks in the know this week about this. Believe me, it’s happening (and soon).

What's become interesting is the possibility the Mar-a-Lago documents case jumps ahead of NY in the queue. Plus, Georgia's out there waiting to happen. A lot could explode at once; certainly in quick succession.

Ding ding ding ding….

[Sonic Youth]

I think it's not happening.

Why? Because it didn’t happen when Trump said it would?

No.

I’m in D.C. and have spoken with some folks in the know this week about this. Believe me, it’s happening (and soon).

What's become interesting is the possibility the Mar-a-Lago documents case jumps ahead of NY in the queue. Plus, Georgia's out there waiting to happen. A lot could explode at once; certainly in quick succession.

Exactly. NY seems too reluctant to take the first jump off the ledge.

[Mister Tee]

I’m in D.C. and have spoken with some folks in the know this week about this. Believe me, it’s happening (and soon).

What's become interesting is the possibility the Mar-a-Lago documents case jumps ahead of NY in the queue. Plus, Georgia's out there waiting to happen. A lot could explode at once; certainly in quick succession.

[flipp525]

Gonna be a fun week.

Yeah.....

I think it's not happening.

Why? Because it didn’t happen when Trump said it would? That was always a lie for the sole purpose of getting his crazy MAGAt psychos frothed up. You’ll notice that they’re just not as excited this time around. There was a rally with fives and fives of Trump supporters in attendance.

I’m in D.C. and have spoken with some folks in the know this week about this. Believe me, it’s happening (and soon).

[Sonic Youth]

Gonna be a fun week.

Yeah.....

I think it's not happening.

[Sabin]

In passing, I'll remark to Sonic and Magilla. I'm familiar with these charges because I used to listen to Thom Hartmann a while ago but most people are not. But I'd imagine this story will matter because whenever a president passes away there's a desire to emphasize legacy, maybe revise a little bit, especially in contrast to the modern day. We saw how many articles got written claiming that George H.W. Bush was the nation's finest single-term president after he passed.

OscarGuy wrote
Perhaps I'm too old to be the target of your comic, but if the hostage situation had resolved for Carter, do you think he would have won? If he wouldn't, then the issue is immaterial. If he would have, then you have to think how much different (and better) our history would have been in the following years. Reagan wouldn't have been elected president. He wouldn't have then been able to ignore the AIDS crisis, fully bring the Religious Right into the Republican fold, and ultimately led towards the fascist ideology that has overtaken the Republican Party in recent years. Trickle down economics might not have been a thing, corporations wouldn't have been given more power and less regulation, and so much more.

Reagan was the starting point of our nation's decline and what might have happened if he'd never been elected president. Surely a compelling "what if...?" or alternate history subject that might have made.

danfrank wrote
I think Carter’s candidacy for a second term was dead in the water regardless of the Iran hostage situation, though it is a beautiful fantasy to imagine Reagan not becoming president.

I was born the day before Reagan was inaugurated so I can't really comment on what was going on but this is what I understand.

Allan Lichtman gave eight keys against the incumbent party (Democrats) in 1980, including the "Party Contest" key which is the kiss of death. That's three more than the threshold for election/re-election. I could see the hostage release affecting two keys in the immediate. It almost certainly shrinks John Anderson's showing in the election below 5% which avoids the Third Party key. Most of Anderson's voters came from disaffected Carter voters.

Carter being re-elected would have to pivot around two of these four keys:
*The hostages being returned home in time for the perception of a foreign-military failure to be avoided. Carter already had the peace treaty between Egypt-Israel under his belt so he already had the foreign-military success key to his credit. But even if they are returned, might it still be viewed as a failure?
*The hostages being returned home in time for Carter to blunt some degree of Ted Kennedy's primary challenge, possibly getting him to drop out in time, to avoid the party contest key. Barnes accuses Reagan proxies (Connally) conducting this during July-August 1980 so... maybe that counters some of Ted's primary bid?*
*The hostages being returned home in time to blunt some of the perception of Reagan as a charismatic, unifying figure. Considering that Reagan was seen as a right-wing extremist for such a long time it's not outside the realm of possibility.
*Oh, and the U.S. magically exiting recession. Which... y'know, who knows?

Basically, most or all of these things have to go right for Carter to get re-elected, which would mean Carter has to go from a crazy run of bad luck to a crazy run of good luck. Seems unlikely but he certainly prayed enough for it. Also, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

*Obviously, I wasn't there but my understanding of the hostage crisis was that Carter was underwater during the start of his primary challenge from Ted Kennedy but the hostage crisis boosted his favorables across the board initially due to a rally round the flag effect. This caused conflict during the convention when that effect wore off and there was an effort to get delegates to be able to re-cast their votes in the hopes that Kennedy might prevail. In any case, if Carter brings the hostages home it's conceivable that he might be beneficiary of high popularity again. I bring this up to say it's entirely possible that without the hostage crisis, Carter's numbers stay underwater against Kennedy and he does even worse in the primary than IRL. I'll defer to those who were there at the time. As I mentioned earlier, my one day of life during the Carter administration doesn't count.

[danfrank]

Perhaps I'm too old to be the target of your comic, but if the hostage situation had resolved for Carter, do you think he would have won? If he wouldn't, then the issue is immaterial. If he would have, then you have to think how much different (and better) our history would have been in the following years. Reagan wouldn't have been elected president. He wouldn't have then been able to ignore the AIDS crisis, fully bring the Religious Right into the Republican fold, and ultimately led towards the fascist ideology that has overtaken the Republican Party in recent years. Trickle down economics might not have been a thing, corporations wouldn't have been given more power and less regulation, and so much more.

Reagan was the starting point of our nation's decline and what might have happened if he'd never been elected president. Surely a compelling "what if...?" or alternate history subject that might have made.

I think Carter’s candidacy for a second term was dead in the water regardless of the Iran hostage situation, though it is a beautiful fantasy to imagine Reagan not becoming president.