The Frankish Reich

Commerce Secretary Lutkin's family bought up rights to a ton of tariff proceeds to cash in if the courts say they have to be refunded. I think it was about 30 cents on the dollar. Those bets are looking good now. Here's what I expect (acknowledging that I have perhaps 3 or 4 readers here and not the 70,000 of some anonymous Twitter account): the tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (the ones at issue here) will be struck down. The Supreme Court will send it back to the lower courts to decide the "remedy" (including does money need to be refunded). And Trump (like Biden before him in the student loan forgiveness case) will try to reenact the tariffs under a different authority.

Definitely part of it. We saw what became of the Democratic Party nationally when it could no longer rely on the cult of personality around Obama. Same with the Republicans and Trump.

Not from anyone's social media feed. Not from MSNBC or Fox. From people who actually know what they're talking about. 1. Sean Trende. Writes for Real Clear Politics (somewhat right-leaning overall). No greater wisdom has been spoken about American politics than his guiding principle that coalitions in American politics are constantly shifting and rarely survive long-term. And here he sees that happening: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/11/06/a_bad_night_for_republicans_with_no_bright_spots_153494.html Americans don’t do mandates. Donald Trump’s claim to a sweeping mandate was always dubious. He won by a little less than two points and failed to clear 50% of the vote. But I’ve always been fond of political scientist E.E. Schattschneider’s view of things: “The people are a sovereign whose vocabulary is limited to ‘yes’ or ‘no.’” We read all sorts of things into election results because it’s our job. But “the people” only say “I prefer this candidate” or “I like that one.” They don’t really get to explain why, nor in most elections do they get to rank preferences. 2. G. Elliott Morris is a data journalist, previously with the Economist. He is one of the best at digging into the numbers. And he sees the same thing: https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/trumps-winning-2024-coalition-has Morris points out that the "new Trump coalition" of working class whites, country club Republicans, and an increasing share of blacks and Hispanics has fallen apart. Again, coalitions are unstable, and this weird "coalition" (if you can even call it that) featured groups that just don't have a lot in common. It is clear now that claims of a fundamental realignment of American politics have been highly exaggerated. The 2024 election is best seen as an anti-incumbent election stemming from economic anxiety, most but not entirely driven by rising inflation during Joe Biden’s presidency. The elections held this week were a continuation of the anti-incumbent sentiment from last year — this time directed toward the new party in charge. The biggest difference between 2024 and 2025 is that Republicans are running the country now, instead of the Democrats. But for the realignment theorists, it’s actually worse than it looks. From 2024 to 2025 Republicans lost the most support — 25 points, on average — among the very voters they theorized would remake the GOP into a vast, multi-racial, working-class coalition. Today’s Chart of The Week looks at subgroup vote choice in 2025. The data suggests Trump’s winning coalition has all but evaporated — if it ever existed at all. Let’s start with the voters who were supposed to cement the GOP’s new coalition: non‑white, working‑class/lower-income, and young Americans. From 2020 to 2024, these three groups moved an average of 12 points toward Trump at the presidential level (on vote margin), according to Pew. In 2025, the same groups snapped back to the left — this time by 25 points on average. In fact, in Virginia’s exit poll (actually “The Voter Poll” by SSRS, but I’m going to call it an “exit poll” colloquially), Republican margins fell across every single subgroup except older voters (this could be due to noise in the exit poll samples). This is exactly what you’d expect from an anti‑incumbent election driven by economic anxiety and frustration at anti-democratic and far-right policy outcomes — and after a supposedly durable ideological realignment immediately falls apart. 3. (From Trende and Morris) Policy emphasis and the beginnings of a new Democratic coalition. The message of Spanberger and Sherrill AND of Mamdani was an economic one. Class politics, not identity politics. "Affordability" is the mantra, and this makes it more difficult to play the "she is for they/them" card for Republicans. Again, shifting coalitions.

She's making noises about running for President. Oh Lawd, 2028 is coming. Sooner than you think.

Winning!

Jewish Space Laser girl is now the Voice of Reason within the Republican Party?

My take, after listening (sometimes while multi-tasking admittedly) to the oral arguments: - The 3 liberal justices will shoot it down. There is some inconsistency there, as Kagan specifically said Biden's student loan forgiveness was kosher if I remember correctly. - I strongly believe Barrett will shoot it down. She is known for the most strict reliance on the wording of the statute, and here the statute says nothing about tariffs. So that's 4 votes against the tariffs. - The 5th (and maybe 6th) votes could come from Roberts and Gorsuch.

And no Republican Senator up for reelection in 2026 would ever do this, since that guarantees that Trump will support a primary challenger.

Sorry, you are mostly wrong here. https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/auto-loans-subprime-late-payments-1d8bb33c?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqcggfQHqZdfiflUJX1OJyrpnCZ3cusUvjncj3qWDXks_oLCgBjMg9q990-uz2w%3D&gaa_ts=690e1c58&gaa_sig=9Y6OhoGXto8Wt5CAoqhLfEt03_LGa9Ij5hxNVoKn0UbGfBugtlFKF5Gu6_p1T60Q8nQwNGtesOlSsXzEUVi71Q%3D%3D We are seeing a fairly normal pattern in the credit cycle. Lenders loosened standards. More subprime loans written. More subprime loans going bad. More repossessions.

It wouldn't have been good on Sunday, but it really really sucked on a Thursday. Nothing like tired, poorly prepared teams slugging it out in a 10-7 snooze fest.

I will not allow my wife to prevent me from buying this for the holidays. Total line in the sand thing. THIS IS THE YEAR of JAMON! (I don't even like it that much but the ideal is just too good to pass on)

I like how you're talking to me again. Makes me feel ... loved. You know how much traction Glenn Beck and faux "reporter" Steve Baker are going to get with this? People outside your echosphere still have some standards. Just remember: She might be her.

And why should we care what ABC, CBS, and NBC are doing? The last good study shows only 32% of Americans "often" get news from TV; far more get it from digital devices. MAGA: legacy media is irrelevant! MAGA too: we can't win, legacy media brainwashes them!!

If you are in public, revealing your identity is to be expected. As the Supreme Court has always put it, you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in people recognizing your face, whether or not it is aided by photo recognition technology. Our law enforcement officers have a name badge for a reason. Credible threats against law enforcement officers should be investigated and prosecuted. Harassment (like assembling outside their homes) should be illegal. But they have an obligation to provide their name and agency, and they should not be masked other than for weather or health reasons. Period.

You mean she might be her? I make sure to get my news from Based Savannah and that 2010 version of Charlie Kirk. The one who cries about going blind and all that.