• The Thrill of Victory, the Agony of Beijing
• O, CaMAGAda!
• Mark Zuckerberg Gets Popped in the Facebook
• Arizona Speaker Just Can't Go There
• This Week in Schadenfreude
• Looking Forward: The Readers Predict 2022, Part VII: Congress, the People
When it comes to fighting a war, the worst thing for an army is losing. But doing nothing is not a whole lot better. It's difficult and expensive to keep troops in the field—to keep them provisioned, to keep the soldiers' morale up, and to keep folks on the home front from getting restless. So, there's some pressure on Vladimir Putin to put up or shut up when it comes to the 100,000 or so Russian troops he has aligned along the border of Ukraine. And there were some indications on Thursday that "the moment," whatever that means, could soon be at hand.
Putin, of course, really, really, really wants to invade. However, he is also persuaded that he needs some sort of pretext for doing so. And the Pentagon announced yesterday that if the Russian leader can't find a real pretext, then he'll invent one. More specifically, U.S. officials warned that the Russians are working on a fake video that is staged to make it look as if Ukraine attacked Russia, and thus fired the first shot. Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said:
As part of this fake attack, we believe that Russia would produce a very graphic propaganda video which would include corpses and actors that would be depicting mourners and images of destroyed locations, as well as military equipment at the hands of Ukraine or the West, even to the point where some of this equipment would be made to look like it was Western supplied ... to Ukraine.
The Russians deny everything, of course, so someone here is not telling the truth.
Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of senators is working on a bill that would sanction Russia while also giving aid to Ukraine. Those senators had a briefing yesterday, and came out of it saying they are worried they won't be able to get the sanctions done before Putin attacks. Either the members are going to produce a really long bill, or else they learned something very concerning in that briefing.
Putin will be spending some time in China this week hanging out with his BFF Xi Jinping (see below). It seems unlikely that a military attack would be launched with the Russian president out of town, though you never know. It's also the case that if Putin is trying to minimize scrutiny of his actions as much as is possible, the Olympics would provide at least a partial distraction. (Z)
The worlds of sports and politics often intersect, and that may never be more true than at the Olympics. The opening ceremony for the Beijing Olympics will take place tonight (although the competition is already underway, and by "tonight" we mean "tonight, China time"). Here are ten major political and politics-adjacent storylines, if you are interested in keeping an eye out for them:
- Genocide: The backdrop to the entire Olympics, really, is China's ongoing persecution of
the Uyghur people, which has been deemed a genocide by the U.S. Department of State. The subject might just come up once
or twice, say on a medals podium.
- Other bad acts: Although the Uyghurs are getting most of the attention, that isn't the
only black mark against the current government. There's also persecution of Tibetans, crackdowns in Hong Kong,
infringements on Taiwan's sovereignty, and a host of legal and/or human rights abuses. These subjects might come up,
- Censorship: Or maybe the subjects won't come up. The Chinese government has
athletes to keep their lips zipped during the Games. Chinese government official Yang Shu explained that "Any behavior
or speech that is against the Olympic spirit, especially against the Chinese laws and regulations, are also subject to
- Vanishing Act: Several months back, Chinese tennis player Peng Shuai accused a Chinese
official of sexual assault. Thereafter, Peng's whereabouts were a mystery for several months, and the Chinese government
refused to answer questions. She reappeared only recently, and it's still not 100% clear what happened to her. In any
case, it's entirely possible that a non-Chinese athlete could get the same treatment if they displease the Chinese
government. On Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) offered some advice: "I would say to our athletes, you're there to
compete, do not risk incurring the anger of the Chinese government because they are ruthless."
- Boycotts: No nation is boycotting the games entirely, but there is a U.S.-led diplomatic
boycott, wherein high-ranking government officials won't attend the Games. Britain, Canada, India, Japan, Germany and
Australia, among others, have joined the effort.
- Putin: Although Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Justin Trudeau, et. al, won't be present in
China, Vladimir Putin will be there with bells on. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has called Putin his "best friend" and said
they will be having lots of fruitful conversations.
- Surveillance: The Chinese government loves, loves, loves to collect information on anyone
and everyone. There are literally thousands of active FBI investigations into the Xi administration's attempts to steal
American information or technology. The presence of lots of foreigners with lots of electronic devices is a juicy
opportunity for China to do some spying or stealing. American athletes have been strongly encouraged to leave their
regular phones at home and to take burner phones for use while in China.
- Cybersecurity: On a related point, the next two weeks will be prime time for malware and
other cyber-attacks, maybe coming from China, or maybe directed at China.
- COVID: There are going to be a lot of unvaccinated people in Beijing. While a pretty
strict testing regime has been put in place, there
have already been
a higher than expected number of positive COVID tests.
- Journalistic Ethics: NBC Sports has a decades-long, billions-of-dollars relationship with the Olympics. It behooves that division of the company to keep the International Olympic Committee, along with whatever country is hosting the games, happy. On the other hand, the NBC News division has a duty to report important news, even if that news gets Xi's knickers in a twist. Which division will win out if there's a big story that brings their respective needs into conflict?
So, there's an awful lot of intrigue at this year's games. There may also be some sporting activities as well, but we're waiting for a report from the staff sinologist to confirm that. (Z)
Let's just keep going with the international theme. Trumpism, as we've seen in the last few years, tends to spread rapidly and take hold firmly, at which point it's very difficult to eradicate. It actually has a fair bit in common with a sexually transmitted disease. And just as STDs don't recognize national borders, neither does Trumpism, apparently. Canada's conservative party, which is called the Conservative Party, has been dealing with its own internecine struggle pitting Trumpy Conservatives against not-so-Trumpy conservatives. And while Conservative leader Erin O'Toole tried to bridge the gap, he wasn't able to pull it off. So, he was just cashiered by his party, losing a no confidence vote among Conservative MPs, 73-45.
O'Toole's demise was essentially due to three factors. The first is that, though a politician, he was rather impolitic in dealing with his fellow Conservative MPs. He didn't keep them in the loop on decision-making, and on more than one occasion surprised them with some major announcement or legislative proposal. The second is that, though he ran as a "true blue" conservative (remember, it's Canada, so blue = right-wing), he was too much of a centrist. Many Conservatives did not approve, in particular, of O'Toole's tolerance for vaccine mandates and his opposition to gay conversion therapy.
The final problem is that O'Toole was clumsy in his relationship to the Trumpier elements in Canadian politics, neither hugging them close, nor keeping them at arm's length. For example, he dithered on whether or not to meet with members of the truck caravan that is driving across Canada in protest of vaccine mandates and masking. "It's not for the leader of the opposition or a political party to attend a protest on the hill or a convoy. It's up to politicians to advocate for solutions," he said, before ultimately deciding on a "small" meeting with a few of the truckers. (As a sidenote, reader J.A. in St. Petersburg, FL, brings to our attention that the $10 million the truckers raised on GoFundMe has been placed on hold pending an investigation by the site.)
O'Toole will be succeeded, on an interim basis, by Candice Bergen, who is further right than O'Toole and who has been photographed on multiple occasions wearing a red MAGA cap. This is not the same Candice Bergen who played Murphy Brown on TV, incidentally. Although only one of the two Candice Bergens has been on a blind date with Trump, and it ain't the Canadian one.
The immediate significance of these developments is that, with the opposition in disarray, it strengthens PM Justin Trudeau's position. There was some scuttlebutt that he might be thinking about stepping down, but also general agreement that the Conservatives' woes make that less likely. More broadly, this speaks to our general view that the forces that gave rise to Trumpism are international in character, and so there are insights to be had about American politics from keeping an eye on what's going on abroad. (Z)
There was a time when Sears was the unquestioned king of American retail. Not only did they dominate the brick and mortar scene, they also had a hammerlock on mail-order goods. It was like if Walmart and Amazon were the same company. But all good things, as they say, must come to an end, and Sears eventually went into a slow and steady decline. From a peak of more than 3,000 locations, they're down to 25 now, and it's even money that none of those will still be open when the holidays next roll around.
We are reminded of this because one of the 21st century kings of the hill, namely Facebook... er, excuse us, Meta, has been having a really lousy week. On the financial front, the company was worth $900 billion at 3:59 p.m. on Wednesday. Roughly 20 minutes later, after a not-so-great Q4 earnings report was released, its value had dropped to $720 billion. By Thursday morning, it was $670 billion. That's right; in a little more than 12 hours, Meta lost $230 billion, which is really something. Even Donald Trump needs at least 36 hours to lose that much.
The bad news doesn't end there. Apple has decided not to allow ad tracking on its devices. That is Facebook's bread and butter; they rake in the bucks because they target advertising more effectively than anyone else. If they can't collect data on all the Mac users, and the iPhone users, and iPad users, then that takes a big bite out of their business model.
And the worst news of all might be this: Facebook lost users for the first time in its history. They've been stagnant in North America for several years, and in Q4 they lost millions of users in India, Africa, and South America. That suggests the platform has reached its saturation point, and that no further growth will be forthcoming. Facebook has lost many users because of whistleblower revelations about how little effort is put into removing racist and/or seditionist content from the site. It's also lost many users to greener pastures; the kiddies these days, for example, tend to prefer TikTok and Instagram. And finally, users have also been lost to good, old-fashioned boredom. An awful lot of content on the site is same old, same old.
Meta is nowhere near "Sears" status yet; the company still made $39 billion last year, and its virtual reality business is promising (though not profitable yet). However, this is going to lead to even more pressure on Zuckerberg to do a better job of policing content, so as to win back some of those users who quit in protest. And in any event, the more that Facebook's reach shrinks, the less useful it is as a platform for political extremists. Or Russian tricksters. (Z)
Republicans in the Arizona legislature—basically, the same folks who brought you the Cyber Ninjas debacle—hoped to change the state's election laws in a manner so draconian it would have made the Georgians and the Texans blush. Heck, it was so draconian it would have made Vlad the Impaler blush. Among the provisions of House Bill 2596:
- In-person, Election Day voting only (no voting by mail, no early voting)
- The legislature would be enabled to review and throw out election results
- Hand counting of all ballots, with a 24-hour deadline for completing of the task
- No more use of electronic voting machines
We're not so bothered by the last one, but the others are quite problematic. Speaker of the Arizona House Rusty Bowers (R) felt the exact same way, so he effectively killed the legislation yesterday.
How did Bowers do it? Deft parliamentary maneuvering. Sending a bill to one committee for review will tend to slow its passage by a fair bit. Sending it to two committees slows things even more, and three committees even more than that. So, to make absolutely certain that the bill never again sees the light of day, Bowers assigned it to all 12 of the Arizona state House's standing committees. For those who don't fully appreciate the drama of an aggressive parliamentary power play, Arizona Mirror state politics beat writer Jeremy Duda has you covered:
I've never seen a speaker or Senate president kneecap a bill as aggressively as this. Triple-assignments? Sure. Been there. But this is Bowers killing the bill, chopping it up, setting the pieces on fire, then digging up the ashes and throwing them into the ocean.
Undoubtedly, even Nancy Pelosi was impressed.
Bowers, who is known for integrity and for a bit of an independent streak, said that the authority to choose leaders has been vested in the people, and it's not for the legislature to take it away. This would seem to be another example in support of the point we made a week ago: In addition to the Democrats, there are a lot of Republicans out there who aren't going to stand idly by and let Donald Trump or his clones make a mockery of democracy. (Z)
Many American readers, and perhaps some readers abroad as well, will be familiar with the show The Masked Singer. For those who aren't, the bit is that celebrities (and that term is often applied very loosely on the show) perform songs, aided substantially by auto-tune, while dressed in an elaborate costume that hides their identity. The performers are judged by a group of mostly B-listers, who also make guesses about the person's identity. Each week, the loser takes off the portion of the costume that covers their head and reveals who they are.
The early episodes of the show's next season are being filmed right now, and while the world at large isn't supposed to know anything about what's happened on stage, the veil of secrecy has been pierced. The Masked Singer's producers, obviously trying to draw in demographics that might not otherwise watch their show, have something of a taste for right-wing political figures who are on the decline, and who are willing to appear on the show in a transparent and pretty desperate attempt to remain relevant. Sarah Palin was on the show a couple of years ago, for example, and bragged that her appearance was "a walking middle finger to the haters."
Anyhow, it turns out that the show decided to give the same shtick another go, and so booked Rudy Giuliani to appear. By all indications, it was a disaster. His performance was reportedly awful (big surprise), and he was the first "celebrity" to lose and be unmasked. When his identity was revealed, two of the show's four judges—Robin Thicke and Ken Jeong—walked off the stage in protest.
Because the episode hasn't aired yet, it's not known which of the costumed folks in the promo pictures is him, though most people are hoping he's the ogre:
It's also not known what song Giuliani performed, though a selection from the Four Seasons would seem to be in order. Or maybe "Loser," by Beck? "Sympathy for the Devil," by the Rolling Stones? "You Know What They Do To Guys Like Us In Prison?" by My Chemical Romance? If readers have additional suggestions for appropriate choices, we will run some of them on Sunday.
Anyhow, the appearance couldn't have gone much worse, or been more humiliating. And both the show and its network (FOX) are being excoriated for welcoming someone who worked hard to overthrow a presidential election. So, Giuliani's not likely to get too many more invites to appear on popular shows. He may well have hit rock bottom, reputation-wise, at this point, as CNN's Chris Cillizza observes. And if not, well, rock bottom is certainly visible from his current vantage point. Further, this is just the first shot to his ego; the second one will come when the episode actually airs and he gets mocked to pieces all over again. Given how he's treated his wives, his associates, and his country, it's certainly time for some schadenfreude. (Z)
We're getting the crystal ball out for the first time in a week. Here are the prediction items we've already run:
- Looking Backward: How Did The Pundits Do?
- Looking Forward: The Pundits Predict 2022
- Looking Forward: The Pundits Predict 2022, Part II
- Looking Backward: How Did We Do?
- Looking Forward: We Predict 2022
- Looking Backward: How Did The Readers Do?, Part I: Donald Trump
- Looking Forward: The Readers Predict 2022, Part I: Donald Trump
- Looking Backward: How Did The Readers Do?, Part II: Donald Trump's Family and Supporters
- Looking Forward: The Readers Predict 2022, Part II: Donald Trump's Family and Supporters
- Looking Backward: How Did The Readers Do?, Part III: Right-wing Politicians and Media
- Looking Forward: The Readers Predict 2022, Part III: Right-wing Politicians and Media
- Looking Backward: How Did The Readers Do?, Part IV: The Biden Administration
- Looking Forward: The Readers Predict 2022, Part IV: The Biden Administration
- Looking Backward: How Did The Readers Do?, Part V: The Supreme Court
- Looking Forward: The Readers Predict 2022, Part V: The Supreme Court (and Other Legal Matters)
- Looking Backward: How Did The Readers Do?, Part VI: Congress, the Legislation
- Looking Forward: The Readers Predict 2022, Part VI: Congress, the Legislation
- Looking Backward: How Did The Readers Do?, Part VII: Congress, the People
There may have been some confusion, so let us make clear that the boldness numbers we're assigning represent the maximum boldness points available, if the prediction is accurate. If the prediction does not come to pass, those boldness points go poof. And with that out of the way, here are some 2022 predictions for the members of Congress:
- G.S. in New Plymouth, TKI, New Zealand: By the time of the midterm elections, the
Republicans will be in disarray. Many Republican voters will not bother to vote simply because they believe the election
will be rigged against them. Of course, they will not accept the election result despite not having voted. Democrats,
and particularly Black and other ethnic minorities, will vote heavily. The midterms will thus result in Democrats
gaining seats but not enough to override the filibuster in the Senate.
Comments: This is bold, but not wildly so, given the possibly emergent schism between Donald Trump and the Senate Republicans. B: 3/5
- S.J. in Santa Cruz, CA: Defying many (but not all) historical precedents for U.S. midterm
elections, the Democrats will pick up two seats in the Senate and at least six in the House in November 2022.
Comments: The Senate part is very plausible, the House part is a fair bit bolder. B: 4/5
- B.H. in Westborough, MA: The Democrats will retain both the House and Senate majorities in
the 2022 elections, aided by at least two Trumpy candidates winning primaries but losing in the general election due to
Comments: Not the likeliest outcome, but certainly within the realm of the possible. B: 3/5
- D.B. in Bowie, MD: The American people will finally say "enough", and the Democrats will
have a really big day on Nov. 8, 2022. They will pick up between 1 and 5 seats in the House and 7 Senate seats in
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, Missouri, Florida, and Iowa, with an outside chance at Louisiana and
Kentucky. Oh, and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) will lose!
Comments: Now this is bold. Full points! B: 5/5
- J.C. in Mullinville, KS: The Democrats will lose the House in November, but less of a loss
than Barack Obama suffered in 2010. Most likely a 30-seat loss, giving the Republicans a 244-191 advantage.
Comments: 30 is a bit on the high side, so there is some amount of boldness here. B: 2.5/5
- W.R. in Tysons Corner, VA: The 2022 midterm elections will result in the Democrats losing
over 60 seats in the House and 5 seats in the Senate. New Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) will announce plans to form
special congressional committees to investigate 2020 Election Fraud, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Critical Race
Theory, and Hunter Biden.
Comments: The McCarthy part isn't bold at all. But 60 seats? That is a lot, especially given the small number of swing districts. B: 3/5
- D.R. in Roscommon, Ireland: The GOP will win the House 230 to 205, but Kevin McCarthy
won't be made speaker
Comments: He's not that popular with the Republican conference, but we're also not clear who would replace him. The latter problem makes this a fairly bold prediction. B: 4/5
- A.S. in Brooklyn, NY: After the Democratic hold of the House, Nancy Pelosi will announce
she will not run for Speaker in '23, but the identity of her successor will be will be up in the air.
Comments: Middle-of-the-road bold. B: 2.5/5
- J.P. in Horsham, PA: The new Speaker of the House will be Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). Sen.
Chuck Schumer (D-NY) will remain Senate Majority Leader.
Comments: The Schumer portion is pretty conservative, but Schiff? He's savvy, but we don't think the Democratic caucus is looking for another social security-eligible white person as their leader. So, that part is quite bold. B: 4/5
- K.F. in Edison, NJ: I think that the Republicans will keep two of their three most
endangered Senate seats (Wisconsin, North Carolina, Pennsylvania) and will sneak in a fourth, presently not talked
about, Senate seat (possibly Colorado or Connecticut).
Comments: The first part isn't too much of a stretch, but the second part is. B: 3.5/5
- R.M. in Pensacola, FL: At some point this year, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) will no longer be
Comments: There's a lot of ways this could come to pass, and things aren't looking great for him right now. So, this is on the lower end of the boldness scale. B: 2/5
- S.H. in Broken Arrow, OK: In Pennsylvania, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D) wins both the
Democratic primary and general election.
Comments: We think this is the likeliest outcome in the Keystone State Senate Race, which means it's not too far out there. B: 2/5
- A.S. in Brooklyn, NY: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) will leave the Republican Party and
become a conservative-leaning independent. And will win re-election.
Comments: Very bold, if only because she's had plenty of incentive and opportunity to leave before, and hasn't done it. So why now? B: 4/5
- E.W. in Skaneateles, NY: Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) will be victorious in a
close-but-not-that-close Republican primary (3 to 6 points) and then cruise to a landslide general election victory.
Comments: This is why it is good we are assessing boldness now. In the future, this prediction could seem to be pretty moderate. But at the moment, given how the polls are looking, it's very bold. B: 4/5
- A.S. in Brooklyn, NY: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) will lose his Senate seat.
Comments: Seems unlikely. Florida is still pretty red, and Rubio is still pretty Cuban. B: 4/5
- A.B. in Wendell, NC: Sen. Richard Burr's (R-NC) Senate seat will be won by Pat McCrory
(R). Please note this is not a prediction I am happy about as a transgender North Carolinian; I hate McCrory like
poison. But he is going to win.
Comments: A Republican win? Fairly likely. But by McCrory, who was badly damaged during his gubernatorial tenure, and who isn't the Trumper candidate? That's fairly bold. B: 3.5/5
- J.D. in Olathe, KS: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will announce his retirement from the
Senate, electing not to run in 2024.
Comments: Not likely, but possible if Sanders' heart problems get worse. B: 4/5
- K.E. in San Bernardino, CA: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) will retire to give Gov. Gavin
Newsom a chance to appoint a replacement Senator, in preparation for 2024.
Comments: She wants to finish her term, but she's also in her high eighties and appears to be more than a little infirm. So it's not crazy bold, we'd say. Also, the judges are ruling preemptively that if she passes away, that does not count as a retirement. B: 2.5/5
That was a long one; we got about 150 predictions for this category. The next subject: the pandemic. (Z)
If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.
- firstname.lastname@example.org For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
- email@example.com For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
- firstname.lastname@example.org To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
- email@example.com For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.
Email a link to a friend or share:
---The Votemaster and Zenger
Feb03 Mo Money, Mo Problems
Feb03 New Mexico Senator Out 4-6 Weeks
Feb03 Vindman Files Suit
Feb03 The Inscrutable Lindsey Graham
Feb03 Zucker Out at CNN
Feb03 Looking Backward: How Did The Readers Do?, Part VII: Congress, the People
Feb02 Trump Looked Into Seizing Voting Machines
Feb02 SCOTUS Derby Is Underway
Feb02 Senator's Stroke Brings to Mind Democrats' Worst Nightmare
Feb02 Democrats Release Electoral Count Act Proposal
Feb02 The Filibuster Does Not Facilitate Debate
Feb02 Commander Decision?
Feb01 Talkin' New York
Feb01 The Biden Trajectory, Part III: He's Out of Touch
Feb01 The Walls Are Closing In
Feb01 Sorry, Mike Pence
Feb01 Sorry, Boris Johnson
Jan31 Biden Gets Lemons in Pittsburgh, Makes Lemonade
Jan31 Pennsylvania Senate Race Is Up for Grabs...
Jan31 ...And So Is the Ohio Senate Race
Jan31 Why Do They Say These Things?
Jan31 Why Does He Say These Things?
Jan31 Pennsylvania Court Strikes Down Absentee Ballot Law
Jan31 Socialists Win Big in Portugal
Jan30 Sunday Mailbag
Jan29 Saturday Q&A
Jan28 The Day After
Jan28 BBB Was Only Mostly Dead, It Would Seem
Jan28 Sinema's Sinking
Jan28 Biden: The Least Bad Option?
Jan28 Maybe Trump Has Finally Hit His Floor
Jan28 This Week in Schadenfreude
Jan28 Looking Forward: The Readers Predict 2022, Part VI: Congress, the Legislation
Jan27 Breyer to Disrobe
Jan27 The Lord Giveth and the Lord Taketh Away
Jan27 Those Texans Sure Are... Inventive
Jan27 Barns Will Burn in Georgia
Jan27 A Useless Idiot?
Jan27 Looking Backward: How Did The Readers Do?, Part VI: Congress, the Legislation
Jan26 Looking Under Rocks for White Grievance
Jan26 The Filibuster May Linger a While Longer, but It's on Life Support
Jan26 Pelosi Is In...
Jan26 ...While Cuellar Has Trouble...
Jan26 ...And Cooper Is Out
Jan26 The Slow-Moving Coup, Part VI: The Good News, Vol. II--The Republicans
Jan25 The Slow-Moving Coup, Part V: The Good News, Vol. I--Time
Jan25 Biden's Trajectory, Part II
Jan25 Biden Has a Reagan Moment
Jan25 It's Still Donald Trump's Party...