Clear skies ahead?

On the other hand, I have been seeing signs that Trump might not be pushing towards crazitown to overturn yesterday's big democratic victory. One thing about a narcissist president, since he was not personally on the ballot, he just might not give enough of a shit about his party's loss to do another insurrection. After all, what we saw yesterday was a lot of people who were not Trump losing. It's just not the personal wound that 2020 was.

So maybe I was wrong this morning. How's that for hedging?

Storms ahead

For the past week or so I have been saying that while I was excited about election day, the two months that follow that will suck. I expected the Republicans to lose big yesterday, and it ended up being bigger than I ever expected. But I also expected that Trump would engage in increasingly desperate and dangerous tactics to undermine or stop the Democratic victory between now and early January. I still expect that to happen. And it could be really bad.

So while I am celebrating today, I am worried that the next two months could be the worst part of the Trump second term. Like another January 6th, but with Trump less constrained and with MAGA more in control of the levers of the federal government than it was in January 2021.

Mississippi won't be decided for months and it won't be pretty

Even though it won't decide control of the Senate, each Senate seat is important., and the Mississippi race is really really close. As I write this, the vote is 462,821 to 462,778, with Colom (the Democrat) ahead by 84 votes. No matter how the remaining count goes, this is definitely going to end up in a lawsuit. If no one in the state brings one (and someone in MS almost certainly will), then the US DOJ will file a lawsuit if Colom is ahead, no doubt claiming that thousands of "illegals."

To make things more complicated, it looks like Mississippi has no legal mechanism for a recount in this situation. Which means it will be a while before everything gets resolved.

The lack of laws also means that any lawsuit will have plenty of room for a Judge to make the rules up. Given how conservative and results oriented much of the judiciary is, that means the advantage is definitely with Hyde-Smith, no matter what the actual evidence is.

Two Dan Sullivans does not give an advantage to Mary Peltola

I honestly don't understand how the inclusion of a second Dan Sullivan will make a difference as to the outcome of the 2026 Senate Election in Alaska next week.

Alaska uses ranked choice voting in the general election. Ranked choice voting is also called "instant runoff" voting. It means that when people vote they rank the candidates on the ballot in order of preference. There will be four candidates on the ballot for the Senate race. If no one candidate gets a majority in the initial count of everyone's first choice, then the candidate that comes in 4th place in the initial count is out of the race, and everyone who ranked that candidate #1 will have their #2 vote counted instead. If no one gets a majority in that second round, then the third place candidate is out, and everyone who voted for that candidate in the second round has their votes assigned to their next candidate in the order of preference.

In other words, if someone is confused by which Dan Sullivan is the incumbent Dan Sullivan and which one is the alleged spoiler (even though the incumbent Sullivan will be marked "incumbent" on the ballot), they could rank the two Sullivans #1 and 2. If no candidate gets over 50% of the vote in the first round, the alleged spoiler Sullivan will almost certainly be eliminated and any voter who voted for the "wrong" Sullivan will have their votes reallocated to the right one. The final outcome will be whatever candidate gets over 50% of the vote, which is almost certainly going to be either the incumbent Dan Sullivan or Mary Peltola. There is no plausible scenario where a confused voters who want the incumbent Dan Sullivan to win divide their vote between the two Sullivans to let Peltola win.

So if it doesn't make a difference in Tuesday's vote, then why did the Peltola campaign encourage the second Dan Sullivan to enter the race? Because they were probably worried about Peltola's chances in the primary. The Alaska primary election is a single election for members of all parties and independents (there is no separate ballot for Democrats and Republicans like there are in other states), where everyone votes for a long list of candidates. The top four vote getters get to the general election. The Peltola campaign might have worried that the Democratic votes would be split between too many candidates leaving only Republicans in the top four. So they thought if the Dan Sullivan vote was split that would increase there chances to get in the top four.

So while the doppleganger Dan Sullivan move might have affected the primary election on August 18, it won't affect the November 3rd election. The fuss about it now, and the Trump administration's lawsuit to deny certification of Peltola if she wins next week is based on their ignorance of how the Alaska ranked choice voting system works.

Whizzed over their heads

Forgive the inside baseball kind of post, but I really think it's funny that when Obama said Trump's White House renovations were like "Saddam Hussein opening a Cheesecake Factory" conservatives thought he was making fun of the Cheesecake Factory.

A tax on MAGA stupidity

I kind of hope that a bunch of Fox News Chuckleheads march into a coffee shop they think looks "liberal" and try to buy a coffee. Then they can discover that:

1. You can't buy anything for a dollar in most coffee shops because prices have risen so much.
2. No one uses cash anymore. There is a fair chance that the "liberal coffee shop" will point to a Reverse ATM instead of taking the coins.
3. The coffee shop could just refuse to accept the coin, like any good liberal coffee shop should.

Regarding #3, technically, it is illegal for any business in the U.S. to refuse to accept U.S. currency for a transaction (that's why U.S. bills say that they are legal tender "for all debts public and private"). But, if we are talking about technicalities here, U.S. law prohibits the issuance of coins bearing the likeness of any living person. So I would love it if some MAGA lunatic tried to bring a court case claiming a coffee shop had to accept a Trump coin as legal tender only to have the coins struck down as illegal.

These coins are really little more than a tax on stupid MAGA. A roll of 25 dollar coins costs $61, that's a 244% markup. A roll of 100 costs $154.50 a 154.5% markup. If any Trumpies are interested, I am willing to sell them a regular $100 bill for *only* $120. That's a much better deal and you can still tell yourself that Ben Franklin hated trans people.

Wag the Dog

I remember when this shit was frowned upon.

"shall be removed from Office for Impeachment for... bribery"

It's right there in the Constitution! Orange Julius Caesar offered a bribe to voters on national TV* last night. I predict this will not be a scandal and, in fact, will not be mentioned again by next week.

What a time we live in.

-------------------------------

* Well... C-SPAN. But C-SPAN is national!

What every headline should say: Mentally Disabled President Once Again Mistakenly Believes He Has the Ability to Tell People What Name to Use for Geographic Features

Can someone just mention that the President of the United States does not have any "power to name things" under the Constitution? He can, as chief executive, order the federal officers in the executive branch to use some new dumb name in official executive branch documents. So I guess the U.S. Geological Survey is now bound to publish maps that say "Lake America" and the military can waste taxpayer dollars reprinting all their maps to change the name of one of the Great Lakes.

But that's it. That is all the President has the authority to do. Everyone else in the rest of the world can continue to call Lake Ontario "Lake Ontario." And members of Congress, the Judiciary, all state and local governments, and every private person and business are legally entitled to ignore the ravings of our lunatic leader who still, after almost 6 non-consecutive years in office, does not have a solid grasp on what the job of U.S. President is.