Heheh so unrealistic! The Germans could probably just buy a nukes stationed in Germany from the current guy for a few million euros invested in $Trump. On top of that Trumps so inept the Germans could probably walk out with the whole arsenal under their coat when they went to collect the one.

I have little opinion on Macron beyond that he's better than Le Penn. He's also mostly alone in France now and certainly is a lame duck.

I'd certainly never pin any hopes on France, agnostic God(ess) forfend, being the leader of the free world (in Europe)! The factual truth, though, is that if Germany footed the bill France could plausibly lead a remilitarization of Europe. They have the know-how and institutions to do it, but not the money.

You don't have to engage with Jay at all Saul, no one is making you do so- least of all me! I also certainly don't require you find him cute or abhorrent or itchy- you do you. As for my own tone and mood I'd describe it as more grimly resigned than blase.

Perhaps you should run, though I'd presume you'd run as a DSA candidate?

Eh, as much as it pains my anglophile self to admit it, France is a big enough player to be "Leader of the Free World (In Europe)" if they wanted the job. France has the institutional and military know how to do it to but I don't know that they have the economy. Germany has the economy but I don't know that they have the institutional or military know how. In theory they could work together on it along with the rest of Europe. Awfully lousy that the US will be outside looking in on that, no way that's not gonna bite us in the future (/sarc).

Still chewing on Book of Hours, the successor to Cultist Simulator.

Heck, I get it, kept promises are very rare in Trump land so it makes sense pointing them out.

We'll see. One of those promises you're waving at was that he'd fund government on tariffs instead of on income taxes. So if your claim is he's going to keep his promises* then by your own reasoning the tariffs should be expected to stay.

*And boy that'd be a gullible thing to assume vis a vis Trump.

Err sure Saul, my original point was, merely, that the example I gave was Trump "2.0" not Trump "1.0".

I agree, I hope the Dems are laying groundwork to field a candidate in every congressional district in the country and every swing states state legislative districts too.

I don't think I quite can make out what you're saying but, yes, I agree that plenty of damage seems to be leaking through the hoped for impasse between malice and incompetence that is Trump.

And the boys called me optimistic!

No doubt Trump has let the tariffs be imposed so we're definitely forging into uncharted territory even vis a vis his previous stunts.

To be clear his threatening tariffs, getting a market sag then claiming victory over "concessions" that he obtained from his targets that ended up being meaningless happened this term not during his previous one.

Perhaps they will- their own electorates will likely become increasingly unfriendly to the kowtowing that Trump will demand and prevented recessions and waves of unemployment are mostly invisible and thus provide limited upside with voters. At which point we find out if Trump will actually hold firm to this idiocy in the face of a massive market bloodbath or if he'll try and scramble for the exits.

Presumably Trump will try and shake out some "concessions" just like last time or else we're going to see a market cratering like we've probably never seen before and he'll end up backtracking and claiming he never did it.

I can remember, many times in the past, especially under Bush Minor, prophesizing that the day would come when the neocons would be extinct and here we are with that having very functionally come to pass and turns out it was a finger on a monkeys paw.

Sweet agnostic Jesus what a sh*tshow!

Fair point- then President McCain rolls in in 2008? I wonder if he gets an Obama sized trifecta in reverse? Probably too many butterfly wings at that point to even begin to guess but you can bet the Debt would be a lot fishing lower.

All I'm saying is that in 2000 the non-incumbent Gore got within a few hanging chads of winning Florida. It seems unlikely to me that an incumbent Gore would turn in a result that is the same or worse assuming economic conditions remained the same. Especially when we consider we're talking about the turn of the century when all our assumptions about incumbency advantages were minted. I grant, readily, that Gore had connection and politician problems with the voters but let us not forget how gape jawed idiotic W was. An incumbent Gore would have gotten some "things are good- stay the course" low info votes. Maybe that's not a lot of votes but, again, non-incumbent Gore tied W. Any little benefit flips it to Gore.

I mean, as close as VP Gore vs Bush was in 2000 the idea that Incumbent Pres. Gore vs Bush would have had the same outcome strikes me as unlikely. Just the slightest nudge of incumbency advantage would have pushed Gore over the top.

Now whether Gore's admin would have:
A- intercepted the Al'Queda hijackers or
B- not intervened in Afghanistan after 9/11 or
C- not intervened in Iraq or
D- headed off the subprime fiasco
Is a very difficult question. I'd say A: maybe they could have, B: probably not if 9/11 happened; C almost assuredly they wouldn't have gone into Iraq; D- No they wouldn't have Captain Foresight in their cabinet.

Gores VP was... (holy agnostic Jebus!), Liberman and Gore'd be term limited out in 2004 so... a Pres Liberman goes down to McCain after the Great Recession blooms in 2008? But no Iraq? And, good God(ess?) what the countries fisc would look like without the Bush tax cuts and Iraq war on the books?!?!

As, I presume, you're well aware that is utterly and completely meaningless this far out from the next primary contest. More than anything it simply indicates how many of the interviewees recognize a given name.

I mean Georgia and the south eastern (north of Florida) coastal states do look to be improving for Dems and have potential to become a new battleground. It's not hopeless.

The theory is it'd swing a heck of a lot more than continuing on our current course would.

Saul, question, did you read the original article we're discussing? Because Barro is not expressing general, unmoored from reality, DEI sentiment. He's talking about specific, concrete instances of DEI based political (and policy) malpractice.

And I agree with a lot of your analysis about how the election last year went down. The problem is #1, #2, and to a degree #3 (seriously, are you saying that political reality forbids nominating minorities or women? Seriously???) are not actionable assertions.

1.a and DEI in general are things Dems could act on and could in theory control. I agree that, in the Trump era in 2026 and 2028 the Dems probably will have some advantage simply in thermostatic and Trumpian terms. But we don't want to be eking out 50%+1 wins against this flaming dumpster fire/psychotic incoherent clown show of a right wing party; we need to thump them in order to make them change. Not just scrabble out a win, route them. If ditching the performative, stupid and grifty elements of DEI; not (I emphasize -NOT-) the genuine substantive areas where DEI overlaps with our many other principles about helping and protecting minorities and other disadvantaged groups; why the fish should we not do that? Because it'd give some white bros on the internet who'd never vote for the Dems anyhow a happy? Who fishing cares. If they're momentarily tickled because we axed a bunch of stupid DEI stuff they'll be utterly miserable when their entire ring wing project gets consigned to the political wilderness.

For fish's sake, it's like we're sweeping down a river towards a waterfall and some of us are saying "hey let's row to the shore" but all you want to talk about is how the current is evil, physics is unrelenting and going over the waterfall would be a calamity. Yes, fine, sure, but physics won't change, we do not have the power to change the current, let's row to shore!

There could be an element of it but it's unlikely. The majority of the damage is done at the non-profit, government agency and academic level along with social media. Corporate HR types are down with it for very simple incentive matters: You spend a few bucks on kayfabe DEI stuff and that makes it very easy to cheaply deflect any litigation about discriminatory hiring/firing practices. It's pretty good business.