#1988 presidential election

[thenewdemocratus]

CBS News: Dan Rather-George H.W. Bush Showdown (1988)

Source:The New Democrat  If you are familiar with the old CNN version of Crossfire from the 1980s and 1990s, this is what it looks like. Where the two debaters let’s say aren’t really there to answer the others questions or points, other than to try to turn it around and make it look like something else. Where they are there to actually respond to the other side other than to say what they are…

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Rancidly right-wing televangelist and longtime 700 Club host Pat Robertson died at 93

Antonia Blumberg and Sara Bondioli at HuffPost:

Pat Robertson, a popular televangelist and founder of The Christian Broadcasting Network, died Thursday at age 93.

Robertson was a prominent figure in conservative Christian political and entertainment circles, and for years promoted sexist, homophobic and Islamophobic ideas on his CBN show, “The 700 Club.”

His death was announced by his broadcasting network. No cause was given.

A former Southern Baptist minister and son of a U.S. senator, Robertson founded CBN in 1960 as the first television network dedicated to Christian broadcasting in the U.S. CBN is one of the largest television ministries in the world, according to Robertson’s website, producing programming in 200 countries and 70 different languages.

“The 700 Club,” which CBN is perhaps best known for, started in 1966 and is one of the longest-running religious television shows. Robertson began hosting the show in 1972 and retired from the show in 2021 at the age of 91.

Robertson founded several other organizations and corporations, including International Family Entertainment Inc., Regent University, Operation Blessing International Relief and Development Corp., American Center for Law and Justice, and The Flying Hospital Inc.

The majority of his endeavors aimed to promote conservative Christian values in U.S. education, media and law. The ACLJ, Robertson’s website boasts, “focuses on pro-family, pro-liberty and pro-life cases nationwide.”

Robertson’s upbringing played a large role in his development as a conservative and a Christian. His father, Absalom Willis Robertson, was a Democratic U.S. senator from Virginia in the years before the liberalizing trend that took place in that party during the middle 20th century.

“Our heroes were Confederate generals Robert E. Lee ... and Stonewall Jackson,” Robertson wrote in an autobiographic article on his early life.

Robertson also pointed to a lineage of Christian leaders in his family as evidence of his inherited calling as a minister. “Although I may have had flowing in me the blood of statesmen, noblemen, and warriors, I had even stronger in me the blood of priests and men and women of God,” he wrote.

[...]

Robertson was ordained a Southern Baptist minister in 1960 ― a title he shed in 1987 when he announced his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. A statement from his Virginia campaign headquarters at the time said Robertson was stepping away from ministry to appease concerns that a Robertson administration would inhibit “the free exercise of religion by any of the people.”

Robertson lost to George H.W. Bush after enjoying some initial success with primary victories in Washington, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii.

He launched the Christian Coalition, a conservative religious advocacy group, in 1989.

CBN was courted by former President Donald Trump and granted access to the White House during his administration. Robertson interviewed Trump during his first year in office, in a wide-ranging conversation that touched on Russian President Vladimir Putin, former Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and Trump’s popularity among evangelical Christians.

[...]

Through his years as a Christian broadcaster, Robertson proved himself to be anything but welcoming of those with beliefs different than his own.

The televangelist repeatedly called non-Christians “termites” akin to “a virus,” attacked Hindus as “demonic” and claimed Islam is inherently violent and not a real religion. He called feminism an “anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” In the aftermath of the destruction and devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, Robertson suggested it was a result of God’s wrath over abortion.

Robertson was also staunchly anti-LGBTQ, comparing gay people to murderers and rapists and suggesting that LGBTQ orientation was a result of “demonic possession.”

Far-right hatemongering televangelist and longtime 700 Club host Pat Robertson died at 93. Robertson ran for the GOP nomination for the Presidency in 1988, and lost to eventual winner George H.W. Bush. 

He founded several right-wing Christian conservative organizations, most notably the ACLJ and Regent University.

Robertson has made numerous comments that have generated controversy over the years, including attacks on the LGBTQ+ community, feminists, Muslims, Hindus, and abortion access. 

🎶 Ding-dong, ding-dong, the bigot is dead! 🎶

See Also:

LGBTQ Nation: Televangelist Pat Robertson has died but his anti-LGBTQ+ legacy will live on

Daily Kos: Pat Robertson, Televangelist Central to Republican Party’s Culture War Agenda, Dead at 93

[tonyrossmcmahon]

When Trump nearly ran for President in 1987

In 1987, Donald Trump teased his fans with the prospect of running for US President but then pulled away as Tony McMahon discovers

It’s a terrifying thought but in 1987, a 41-year-old Donald Trump considered running for President as Ronald Reagan completed his second term in office. Reagan, a former Hollywood actor and governor of California, had been a charismatic if divisive figure. Even in the 1980s, Trump was regarded as a grasping narcissist by his enemies. But he had a fanbase as the newspaper letters columns in 1987…

[thetemplarknight]

When Trump nearly ran for President in 1987

In 1987, Donald Trump teased his fans with the prospect of running for US President but then pulled away as Tony McMahon discovers

It’s a terrifying thought but in 1987, a 41-year-old Donald Trump considered running for President as Ronald Reagan completed his second term in office. Reagan, a former Hollywood actor and governor of California, had been a charismatic if divisive figure. Even in the 1980s, Trump was regarded as a grasping narcissist by his enemies. But he had a fanbase as the newspaper letters columns in 1987…

[deadpresidents]

Does Michael Dukakis deserve how he is seen looking back from today?

Dukakis definitely deserves more respect than he gets, but the problem is that whenever anyone looks back at him, they see this:

And seeing that photograph makes everyone forget that he was a brilliant technocrat with an inspirational personal story who helped turn around the economy of Massachusetts during his early years as Governor and could have brought his excellent administrative abilities to the White House if only he hadn't taken a goofy picture in a tank that made him look like Snoopy. But that's often how Presidential politics work.

[greatwyrmgold]

Something occurs to me. The last time a Republican presidential candidate won the popular vote in the USA was 2004. People born after the 2004 Presidential election will be able to vote in the 2024 election.

[cleoselene]

Did you know?

Democrats have won the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections going back to 1992? The only time the GOP has won the popular vote in the last 36 years in a presidential election was in 2004, and it was a pretty narrow margin. This was a wartime election and the first election post-9/11. The Democratic candidate was the unfortunately uninspiring John Kerry, who had been lied about. You know how in politics we say someone has been "swiftboated" when a successful lie is told about them? That term originates with the 2004 election because a bunch of people concocted an elaborate lie about John Kerry's military service. He wasn't super inspiring as a candidate, but that was the worst thing he did. He wasn't a bad guy. He was just running in a very gross, jingoistic time after the worst terror attack in American history, and had a bunch of successful lies told about him to the point where a whole word about a specific kind of lie was invented about it. THIS is the only time since 1988 that the Republican party has won the popular vote. George W. Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000. The Supreme Court ordered that votes stop being counted in Florida and handed the victory to Bush.

Donald Trump has never ever won the popular vote. The electoral college handed him the victory in 2016, less than 15,000 votes across three states decided the election. Hillary Clinton in total won about 3.7 million more votes than Donald Trump. Trump HATES hearing this number. He hates even more that Joe Biden got about 7 million more votes. He hates even more that you bring up the fact that he lost his midterm elections for his party in 2018, badly. And that the "Red Wave" in 2022 did not happen because of backlash at his Supreme Court. Or that in 2023 voters continued to reject his Supreme Court at the polls.

He knows, the Republicans know, that if more people vote, they lose. They don't want small d democracy. They want authoritarianism. They want to suppress it.

So when you get cute about not wanting to vote, you're not doing activism. You're surrendering.

[tanadrin]

A challenge: which unimportant US presidential election would you go back in time to change the outcome of? You can't name any of the top 20 genuinely history-defining elections; it has to be a relatively forgotten one.

It's sort of a contradiction, right? Like by definition elections that have outcomes interesting enough to change are excluded. Some elections which might feel like trivia to most people, like the 1876 one that ended Reconstruction, would probably still be rated as pretty highly consequential by historians. Elections like the 2000 election, which didn't seem like it would be extremely consequential at the time, are now widely agreed to be hugely consequential. And it's hard to know how very recent elections, which are important to us, might go down in history.

I am also assuming I only get to pick between the actual major-party nominees--that I don't get to fiddle with the nomination process at all, and very minor candidates don't have a shot. So depending on how you define the "top 20 most consequential elections" I might pick (besides 2000 and 1876)

1912, because Woodrow Wilson was a phenomenally racist son of a bitch (but this might be too close to World War I to not be "history-defining"), and a third-party win by Roosevelt would be fun.

1920, because Warren G. Harding was just a really bad president

1900 or 1896, because William Jennings Bryan winning would be a fun alternate history scenario

1824, because Andrew Jackson was also a huge asshole

1988, because I like Dukakis better, and to reduce the political weight of the Bush family name

1984, because I dislike Reagan, and it would be a huge upset (fun!)

1980, because again fuck Reagan, and I like Jimmy Carter (even though objectively he was not a terribly effective president)

1968, because Richard Nixon was kind of a disaster for how we think about the American presidency

1952, because Adlai Stevenson seems fun, and somewhat less of a paranoid anti-communist that most Republicans (including Eisenhower) at the time.

[mariacallous]

Presidential debates have impact when they address questions and concerns about the candidates that are top of mind for voters. As the crucial presidential debate began, in a race that was statistically dead even, both candidates had work to do.

Kamala Harris faced three key challenges. First, 37% to 42% of voters in some swing states knew virtually nothing about her except that she serves as Joe Biden’s vice president. Filling in this gap, or at least beginning to, was job one. From the very first minutes of the debate, it was clear that she knew she had to define herself and that she did—as a child of the middle class who, in contrast to Trump, was not given $400 million to start a business. In addition, she repeatedly came back to her experience as a prosecutor.

Second, Harris has shifted her position on many important issues—health care (Medicare for All), climate change (fracking), and immigration (decriminalizing border crossings), among others—since she ran for the nomination in 2020. This left people wondering, what kind of Democrat is she—a classic California progressive or the next generation of the Clinton, Obama, and Biden-style center-left? She had to persuade voters that the new version of Kamala Harris is the one they will get if she is elected.

Here her performance was more mixed. She explained her shift on fracking but didn’t give as clean and crisp an answer as she could have on other issues where Trump has accused her of flip-flopping. However, she defended the Biden administration and her participation in the bipartisan immigration legislation that Trump killed, she let the audience know that both she and Tim Walz are gun owners who have no intention of taking away people’s guns, and she pushed back against the charge that she was weak on crime by emphasizing her experience and record as a prosecutor who put criminals behind bars.    

Third, as is the case with every candidate who hasn’t previously occupied the presidency, Harris had to convince swing voters that she has what it takes to serve effectively as the nation’s chief executive and commander-in-chief. Simply put, they needed to be able to see her as big enough to be president, a barrier that some previous candidates, such as Michael Dukakis in 1988, failed to cross.

Harris passed this test easily. She never got flustered, she made her points concisely and quickly, and she spoke with confidence about traditionally “male” issues like war, defense, crime, and foreign policy.

What did Trump have to do in this debate? Two things.

First of all, he had to come across as someone who is not mean and angry, obsessed with the past and prone to conspiracy theorizing. His campaign aides have urged him to fight Kamala on the issues. Yet, on the stump, Trump can’t seem to stick to the script. He reads the policy portions of his speeches with an obvious lack of enthusiasm and returns often to complaining about alleged ballot fraud in 2020, insulting Harris, and unearthing conspiracy theories that make little sense.

Trump began the debate with the advice from his advisors ringing in his head. His first answer on the economy took aim at the Biden record, one of the issues on which he has held a consistent lead throughout the campaign. But as time went on, his debate performance took the same course as the Trump rallies. He turned nearly every question into an answer about the threats from illegal immigration. Like the economy, this has been a good issue for him, but he did begin to sound like a Johnny One Note on the topic, and it is not clear that this issue is as powerful in swing states like Pennsylvania as it is in border or more Republican states.

Also, as the debate wore on, Trump simply could not stay away from weird stuff. He insisted that Democrats favored killing babies after they were born and allowing abortion in the ninth month. And he repeated a story about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio killing and eating people’s cats and dogs. One of the moderators, David Muir, had to step in to point out that reporters had called Springfield city officials who had investigated the story and found it simply wasn’t true.

The second thing Trump needed to do was differentiate himself from the most extreme stances of his party—many of which are described by his former aides in Project 2025. As he has done in the past, he distanced himself from this document during the debate, claiming “I have nothing to do with Project 2025. I haven’t even read it.” 

Although there are many questionable policies being considered by Trump and the right wing of the Republican Party, such as slapping huge tariffs on U.S. imports and deporting millions of immigrants—by far the most dangerous one for him politically is abortion. On that issue, his answer was, as it has always been, that everything is okay because now the states are deciding it. Not surprisingly, Harris’ attack on abortion was exceptionally strong. She pointed out the many states that have passed highly restrictive abortion policies and, in some cases, have criminalized the behavior of doctors who are providing reproductive services. Abortion rights is the single most helpful issue for the Democrats in 2024.

Republican strategists keep hoping the abortion issue can be buried, but recent steps by Trump allies in Florida and Texas have kept it alive. In the debate, Trump tried to distance himself from the extremes, arguing that he would approve of abortions for rape and incest and even going so far as to say the Florida six-week ban is too short. Nonetheless, the coalition he leads isn’t happy with his nods to moderation, and it is likely many Americans will continue to believe that he would sign a national abortion ban if a Republican Congress sent it to his desk.

In conclusion, there are three kinds of presidential debates. The first is when one candidate lands a knockout blow against the other, as Ronald Reagan did with Jimmy Carter in 1980. The second is when the debate does little if anything to change the flow of the race; the Clinton/Dole debates in 1996 are a good example. The third, intermediate outcome occurs when a debate yields an advantage to one candidate without ending the other’s chance to win, as happened when Mitt Romney bested President Obama in their first debate in 2012.

The first (and perhaps only) debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris falls into this last category. After a month-long Harris surge that erased the advantage Trump had developed over President Biden, the race had stabilized during the past two weeks. This debate seems likely to put new wind in Harris’ sails. Whether it will be enough to propel her to victory in the Electoral College remains to be seen. But her campaign and supporters leave the debate with renewed energy and hope. By contrast, the Trump campaign must reckon with the likelihood that their candidate’s performance pleased his base without rallying many new supporters to his side.

Throughout the race, Trump has enjoyed a solid lead on the question of strong leadership. While he may still hold an advantage, most Americans who watched the debate probably saw in Kamala Harris an adversary who held her ground, went on the attack whenever possible, and refused to be intimidated. This matters.

On the face of it, the Trump campaign has an incentive to seek a rematch. If it does, the Harris campaign will probably insist on rules more to its liking. If not, this debate will stand as the last high-profile event before the November 5 election and as the race devolves into trench warfare—a battle of communications and organization in the states that will decide the outcome.

Finally—in the minutes after the debate closed—the galactically famous singer Taylor Swift announced she would be voting for Kamala Harris. In today’s world, this may be worth as much or even more than Harris’ solid debate performance.

[mapsontheweb]

1988 U.S. Presidential Election in the Midwest, Results by City/Township/Precinct

[thenewdemocratus]

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: The 1988 Republican Presidential Candidates

. Source:The New Democrat  The Bob Dole intro was the most impressive to me because of how real it was and how real he is. Talking about his parents and family and his background and where he came from. Coming from such modest roots and serving in World War II and being able to go to college on the GI Bill. And having the opportunity he needed to be successful in life and taking full advantage of…

[jeffhirsch]

No Escaping Historically Miserable August

So much for a positive election-year August for the market. A combination of stretched valuations, weak/tepid earnings, a disappointing July jobs report, a late-cycle change in presidential candidates, currency market volatility and geopolitics has put the major indexes in a deep hole to climb back out of. As of today’s close, losses in August range from -5.1% from DJIA to 9.7% by Russell 2000.

These sharp declines have drawn comparisons to past difficult Augusts such as 1990 (Iraq invaded Kuwait), 1997 (Asian currency contagion), 1998 (Russian debt/currency), 2010 (European debt), 2011 (U.S. debt downgrade) and 2015 (China growth scare & yuan devalue). But August weakness does not always need a crisis or trigger with sizable S&P 500 declines also occurring in 1988 (-3.9%), 2001 (-6.4%), 2013 (-3.1%), and 2022 (-4.2%). All of this weakness is why August has been the worst DJIA month and second worst month of the year for S&P 500, NASDAQ, and Russell 2000 from 1988 to 2023.

Looking at the chart of 2024 through the close today (August 7) compared to the seasonal patterns using the last 36 years of data, more chop and volatility is likely in store for the market in the near-term. After an early August selloff, the market has tended to spend the balance of August bouncing around on average with little meaningful progress. The tightening of the presidential election and elevated geopolitical tensions are likely to keep a lid on markets through the rest of the “Worst Months.”

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Surveying the reactions of top Republicans after Donald Trump’s indictment on charges of mishandling classified information, you’d think the country was in the midst of a coup.

“It is unconscionable for a President to indict the leading candidate opposing him,” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy tweeted. “The weaponization of federal law enforcement represents a mortal threat to a free society,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis claimed. “There is no limit to what these people will do to protect their power & destroy those who threaten it, even if it means ripping our country apart,” Sen. Marco Rubio declared.

These are extraordinary claims — and all made on Thursday night before the indictment or the evidence behind it was made public. On Friday morning, we learned thanks to CNN that Trump is literally on tape in 2021 discussing having documents in his possession that he knew were still classified. “As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,” he reportedly said.

The tape may or may not prove dispositive in a court of law; there’s certainly room for good-faith disagreement on the strength of the case against Trump. But the tape is at least very strong evidence that these charges are not some kind of Biden-mandated witch hunt but instead based on very serious allegations of wrongdoing.

Yet top Republicans — including Trump’s leading rival for the 2024 election — have shown no signs of changing their tune, and instead are lining up behind Trump’s conspiracy theory that special counsel Jack Smith is leading Joe Biden’s personal Stasi.

This paranoid reaction to Trump’s indictment is not a surprise. Over the past several years, the political right has been captured by a worldview that sees the entirety of mainstream society arranged against it. According to this thinking, America’s “woke” power elite, including ostensibly neutral institutions of governance like the Justice Department, is determined to stamp out the conservative way of life. You are either with us or against us — and attempting to send Trump to jail, whatever the reason, puts you on the wrong side.

Such once-fringe thinking now dominates the Republican Party at the very highest levels. Whether people like McCarthy and DeSantis actually believe it is immaterial: The fact that they feel the need to say such wild things indicates just how central anti-institutional paranoia has become in Republican politics.

The dangers of this going forward, as Trump faces trial and America faces an election where he is the GOP’s most likely presidential candidate, should not be underestimated. A democracy whose basic institutional functions come under attack is a democracy in mortal peril.

THE PARANOID STYLE IN REPUBLICAN POLITICS

The entire Trump phenomenon was, from the very beginning, about conservative fear of losing America. Study after study after study has found that Trump voters in the GOP primary and electorate are motivated by a concern that the United States is becoming literally unrecognizable: populated by people who look different and think differently than they do.

The fears of the base were reflected in the language of the elite. In 2016, the most famous intellectual case for Trump in 2016 was Michael Anton’s “Flight 93” essay — which argued that these changes were transforming the government in ways that handed more and more control over American government to the left. Anton spoke of a “bipartisan junta” that controlled the centers of power and wielded it against conservative institutions, a kind of soft coup against ordinary Americans backstopped by demographic change.

“Our side has been losing consistently since 1988,” Anton wrote. “The ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle.”

Anton’s essay, seen as fringe at the time, captured an essential linkage of the Trump era: between the traditional conservative sense of alienation from mainstream American culture and growing hostility to its governing institutions. The general conservative sense that they were losing America demographically and spiritually could easily be translated into a case that the government itself was hostile to their interests.

So when Trump began facing legal trouble during his presidency, at first over his campaign’s ties to Russia, he ran a version of the Anton playbook (Anton was, at the time, serving in Trump’s White House). He argued, in now-familiar but then-novel terms, that the investigation was a “deep state” plot against Trump — that special counsel Robert Mueller and his investigators were Democrats who sought only to destroy his presidency.

Faced with this challenge, the rest of the Republican Party had a choice: They could defend the underlying integrity of the Justice Department, even while remaining skeptical of the merits of this specific investigation, or fully accede to the Trumpist “witch hunt” narrative. We know which one they chose, and we know why they chose it: Trump had built such a powerful following on the basis of his paranoid critique of America that any Republican who challenged it risked career suicide.

The Russia investigation set a pattern that would endure for the entire Trump presidency. Again and again, when faced with credible allegations of wrongdoing, Republicans indulged Trump’s wildest fantasies out of either fear or genuine belief. The Anton worldview, once the province of cranks, evolved into the official narrative of the Republican Party — an evolution cemented when Trump attempted to overthrow the 2020 election and the party elite permitted him to do so.

In the Biden years, with Republicans out of power, the narrative of an entire government arranged against them only became more credible in the eyes of the base. Surveys consistently showed that a large majority of Republicans believed his claims of voter fraud; political scientists have shown that this belief is likely genuine and that Republican politicians who parrot Trump’s lies improve their standings in the eyes of the base.

The result is a party that has, in the past several years, grown increasingly radicalized against the core institutions of America. They believe that everything in America is turning against them: not just the traditional enemies like the media and Hollywood, but also the military, big business, and even the US Olympic team. If you express agreement with the left on anything from LGBTQ issues to Trump’s fitness for office, you are an enemy of the right.

The dangers of this shift cannot be overestimated. Republicans are already vowing to “bring accountability to the DOJ” (DeSantis) and “hold this brazen weaponization of power accountable” (McCarthy). If Republicans do win the White House in 2024, the chances of an attempt to turn the Justice Department into an actually political institution are very high. If Trump is their candidate, it’s basically a certainty.

And if they lose — well, January 6 showed us what could happen when Republicans believe they’ve lost illegitimately. And we’re already seeing paranoia about this indictment bleed over into paranoia about the upcoming election.

“Biden is attacking his most likely 2024 opponent. He’s using the justice system to preemptively steal the 2024 election. This is what’s happening, plain and simple,” writes Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH).

Democracy depends on both sides respecting the rules of the game. But one side has decided, without any real evidence, that the rules are rigged against them — and have demonstrated a willingness to disregard them as a result.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

GOP Convention:: Mike Luckovich

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 16, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUL 17, 2024

The Republican National Convention is a moment to reintroduce Trump and MAGA Republicans to voters who have not seen them up close since at least 2021. So far, the convention has proved that the Republican Party is now the MAGA Party. It has not been a smooth unveiling. 

Yesterday, just after House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) announced that delegates were formally nominating Trump as the Republican Party’s presidential candidate, the teleprompter failed. Unable to continue without it, Johnson quickly left the stage. This was awkward, since two weeks ago, Johnson said on the Fox News Channel of President Joe Biden: “Unless the president is reading off the teleprompter, I don’t think he’s capable of making these big decisions and that is something that should alarm all of us….” 

The teleprompter having been fixed, Johnson returned forty-five minutes later to introduce Iowa’s attorney general, Brenna Bird, who in turn began the process of nominating Ohio senator J. D. Vance for vice president. The last time a Republican vice presidential nominee has been named so late was 1988, and while announcing at the convention has the benefit of generating enthusiasm for the novel story, it has the downside of bringing an avalanche of opposition. Vance brought the latter.

He is very young—just 39—and has held an elected office for just 18 months, making him notably inexperienced for someone in contention for the vice presidential slot, especially behind a 78-year-old presidential nominee. In the past, he was a never-Trumper, saying that Trump “might be America’s Hitler,” “might be a cynical a**hole,” and is “cultural heroin,” “noxious,” and “reprehensible,” but he came around to embrace the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen and to say that if he had been vice president on January 6, 2021, he would have done what former vice president Mike Pence would not: he would have refused to count the certified electoral ballots for President Joe Biden. 

Former Wyoming representative Liz Cheney, who was drummed out of the party for standing against Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, wrote: “JD Vance has pledged he would do what Mike Pence wouldn’t—overturn an election and illegally seize power. He says the president can ignore the rulings of our courts. He would capitulate to Russia and sacrifice the freedom of our allies in Ukraine. The Trump GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln, Reagan or the Constitution.”

Both ends of the Republican spectrum have also expressed concerns about Vance. The far right has been vocal today about their disdain for Vance’s wife, who is the American-born daughter of Indian immigrants. “Do we really expect that the guy who has an Indian wife and named their kid Vivek is going to support white identity?” Nick Fuentes asked. 

On the other side of the Republican spectrum, those who opposed Trump because of his extremism, especially on abortion, are unlikely to have their fears relieved by Vance, who has advocated no-exceptions abortion bans, that people stay in violent marriages, and said: “We are effectively run in this country…by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made. And so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too.”

But for all the talk of unifying the country since last weekend’s shooting, Trump did not pick Vance to bring Republicans together. His selection of Vance reinforces that the MAGAs have taken over the Republican Party with an ideology that rejects democracy in favor of Christian nationalism. Vance has repeatedly elevated Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán’s destruction of democracy in favor of a strong leader imposing Christian family structures, ending abortion rights, enforcing anti-LGBTQ+ policies and encouraging attacks on immigrants, and seizing universities. Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts, who is also aligned with Orbán and was key to the production of Project 2025, which echoes Orbán’s co-called “illiberal democracy,” cheered Vance’s selection. 

On Monday the convention approved a platform, the document that outlines the party’s position for the administration they hope to put into power. The evolution of Republican platforms since 2016 shows the evolution of the Republican Party. The 2016 platform fell pretty much within the norms of the genre, celebrating the nation and attacking the opposition before calling first for tax cuts—standard fare for Republicans since 1980—open markets, and deregulation of business and finance, as well as a smaller government. It called as well for an end to gay marriage, protection of gun ownership, and opposition to abortion. 

In 2020 the Republican Party did not write a platform, simply saying “[t]hat the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President's America-first agenda.”

In 2024 the Republican Party platform reiterates the points of a Trump rally. Its capitalization is erratic, as his is, and it is full of sweeping and often incorrect statements. Rather than celebrating the country, it warns that “we are a Nation in SERIOUS DECLINE. Our future, our identity, and our very way of life are under threat like never before.” It promises that, under Trump, “We will be a Nation based on Truth, Justice, and Common Sense.”

The only real sign of the old party is the platform’s promise to make the Trump tax cuts, which have already added $2.5 trillion to the national debt, permanent. Otherwise, the platform is a MAGA document. It portrays a world that reflects Trump’s dystopian vision rather than reality, then promises to fix that dystopia either with vague promises or with culture war victories. In odd passages, it promises to do what Biden has already done: conquer inflation, bring supply chains home, revive manufacturing, and save the auto industry. 

The speakers at the convention have largely been MAGA extremists, and the picture they painted of the United States echoed Trump’s. They portrayed a country in decline from the heady days of the Trump presidency, but their image was not based in reality. Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin, for example, claimed that “Women, Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans all saw record low employment under Donald J. Trump,” when in fact those record lows have come under Biden. Former CEO of Yammer, South African David Sacks, echoed Russian talking points when he blamed Biden for provoking Russia to invade Ukraine. Tennessee senator Marsha Blackburn attacked “racist DEI requirements.”

CNN fact checker Daniel Dale has been kept busy correcting the Republicans’ repeated lie that there is a violent crime wave in the U.S. under Biden; the opposite is true. Both violent crimes and property crimes have plummeted since the Trump administration. Republicans are also saying that Democrats “have eroded the American energy dominance that President Trump delivered.” In reality, while Biden is trying to shift the U.S. to renewables, Dale noted that “the U.S. under Biden is producing more crude oil than any country ever has… the U.S. is setting fossil fuel world records under this administration. The U.S. produced a global record 12.9 million barrels of crude oil per day in 2023, easily beating the Trump-era high of 12.3 million barrels.”  

Today’s speakers included Nikki Haley, a last-minute addition to the program after the events of the weekend in an apparent attempt to create a sense of unity. She made a good pitch but didn’t convince everyone: there were scattered boos at her appearance. Her speech was the high-water mark of the unity effort tonight; the rest of the speakers hammered the idea that the country is divided in two and that Trump’s opponents are persecuting him. They singled out the media as a key enemy.  

The bitter rift between establishment and MAGA Republicans has been evident in other ways, as well. Attendees booed Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) when he pledged Kentucky’s votes to Trump, from whom he has kept his distance. MAGA congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL) interrupted CNN journalist Kaitlan Collins when she was interviewing former House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to taunt McCarthy by pointing out that he had not been asked to speak, adding that if he had been, “You would get booed off the stage.” Gaetz was behind the move to throw McCarthy out of his office, and he resigned from Congress shortly thereafter. McCarthy reacted by noting that there is an ethics complaint against Gaetz for sleeping with a minor.   

Trump has appeared at the convention with a large bandage on the ear he says was pierced by a bullet on Saturday. Journalists have begun to note that there has been no medical report of Trump’s injuries, an odd omission after the intense recent scrutiny of President Biden’s health. 

Trump seemed oddly subdued on Monday and appeared to fall asleep during the proceedings. His wife Melania has not yet appeared at the convention. 

Today, presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s son Bobby Kennedy III posted a video of a call Trump made to his father in which Trump appeared to try to win Kennedy’s support first by appearing to support Kennedy’s opposition to vaccines and then by suggesting that he could get Kennedy a job. “I would love you to do something,” Trump said. “And I think it’ll be so good for you and so big for you. And we’re going to win.” He also noted that Biden had called him after the shooting, saying “it was very nice, actually,” and that the cause of the injury he sustained on Saturday felt like “the world’s largest mosquito.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[deadpresidents]

Is it true that Joe Biden planned on running for president in 1976?

No, that is incorrect.

On Election Day in 1976, then-Senator Biden was only 33 years old, so he was still Constitutionally ineligible to serve as President until he turned 35 in late-November 1977.

During the '76 campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Biden was actually the very first elected official outside of Jimmy Carter's home state of Georgia to endorse Carter, who was still the darkest of dark horses and longest of long shots at that point.

From early on in Biden's political career on a national level, he was pretty open about the fact that he had aspirations for the Presidency. He couldn't have run in 1976, but he did consider challenging President Carter for the Democratic nomination in 1980 (which Ted Kennedy did end up doing). Biden also put some thought into running against Ronald Reagan in 1984, but he was savvy enough to know that President Reagan appeared likely to cruise to reelection. It was a smart move not to be on the wrong end of the 525-13 Electoral College blowout that Walter Mondale was in '84.

Biden's first full-fledged campaign for the Presidency was in 1988, and he should have been able to perform better than the eventual Democratic nominee, Michael Dukakis, against then-Vice President George H.W. Bush, but Biden was his own worst enemy during that campaign and it torpedoed his chances that year. Of course, he also made a bid for the Democratic nomination in 2008, but couldn't gain any traction against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from the very beginning of that campaign.