By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill: Oct. 25, 2024

Alert the MAGA media! On October 29, inmate No. 05635-509 is scheduled for release from a federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut.

The inmate’s name is Stephen Bannon, and the four-month sentence he served for contempt of Congress ends precisely one week before Election Day.

For three years, Bannon, a controversial, pro-Trump warrior and a former White House adviser, waged a legal battle to avoid prison after refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas to testify about the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, in which he had allegedly been a key player and provocateur.

Bannon’s release, with its movie-like timing, will be a Hollywood ending to modern America’s wildest and contentious presidential campaign. In the last week, Bannon could motivate Trump’s base as a “poster child” for his well-versed judicial weaponization and retribution themes.

Furthermore, Bannon will likely juice Trump’s get-out-the-vote effort to “save America” from ruin. In the distorted MAGA mindset, that means only Trump can stop bloated, wasteful government, domestic fascism, economic collapse, the migrant invasion, wokeism and anti-Christianity. Only Trump can reduce inflation and the national debt, increase energy production and end foreign entanglements — with time left over each day for a few hours of Fox News watching, to monitor his loyal subjects.

Bannon, to his credit, is a renowned policy wonk. He speaks “fluent Trumpism” at levels far above the candidate — why Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) called Bannon “the intellectual ringleader of the MAGA circus” — and opponents consider him more dangerous than Trump.

Upon exiting the lockup, Bannon will continue where he left off on July 1, entering prison shouting, “I’m a political prisoner of Nancy Pelosi, I’m a political prisoner of Merrick Garland; I’m a political prisoner of Joe Biden and the corrupt Biden establishment.”

Whether you agree with Bannon’s tirade against the former House Speaker, attorney general or president depends on whether you are a proud member of Team Trump and a loyal “War Room” listener. Bannon’s influential podcast ranks 26th on Apple’s U.S. political list. The show is especially popular with the Proud Boy-Oath Keeper-set of men, to whom Bannon is a hero – especially, after he chose prison over “ratting out” Trump to the House committee investigating Jan. 6.

During Bannon’s last War Room show before incarceration, he said, “It doesn’t matter that I’m in prison. The show will be bigger….They’re making me a martyr….They’re the ones to overplay their hand.”

Proving the strength of Bannon’s brand during this four-month absence, War Room guest hosts have maintained show rankings and will celebrate the 4,000th episode as “General Bannon” makes his triumphal return just in time for the campaign’s grand finale.

One must never underestimate Bannon’s influence on his passionate, gun-owning, Trump-loving audience. They are on guard for when minor voting irregularities — real or contrived — are amplified as “another” rigged election ploy to benefit Democrats. Are MAGA shock troops awaiting their marching orders if Trump loses? Bannon is Trump’s commander in chief of outrage, misinformation and operations from his aptly named “War Room.” Thus, average angst-filled Americans fear Election Day and beyond.

Soon, we will know if Trump plans to go “full Bannon” and send his “Trump Force One” plane to fetch his top influencer from prison. If so, will he land in Washington, D.C., Florida or a battleground state, for Trump to present MAGA political prisoner number one to adoring crowds for maximum media coverage?

At the very least, expect a right-leaning media circus, and expect Trump to use Bannon’s supposed judicial victimhood as a cattle prod for voter turnout.

On the other hand, Vice President Kamala Harris could successfully leverage Trump’s embrace of Bannon and the subsequent media attention to remind voters once again that “Donald Trump tried to throw away your votes. When he failed, he sent an armed mob to the United States Capitol, where they assaulted law enforcement officers.” 

Evidence about Bannon’s involvement with the events surrounding the Capitol riot has yet to be presented in court. However, as Raskin put it, “Bannon seems to have been deeply enmeshed in the planning of the disruption of the peaceful transfer of power and the seizing of the presidency for Donald Trump.”

Bannon’s contempt of Congress indictment, dated Nov. 12, 2021, identified him “as present at the Willard Hotel on Jan. 5, 2021, to persuade Members of Congress to block the certification of the election the next day.” Bannon was also “quoted as stating on January 5, 2021, that ‘all hell is going to break loose tomorrow.’” 

Fortunately, democracy fought back and ultimately prevailed.

According to evidence recently filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith in the federal criminal election interference case against Donald J. Trump, Bannon had first-hand knowledge of the unsuccessful effort to convince Vice President Mike Pence there had been pervasive voter fraud, and therefore to refuse to certify the Electoral College vote.

Although prison time proved Bannon’s allegiance to the former president he had twice served, there has been much conflict between these headstrong characters, who appear to thrive off and need each other.

Election Day war clouds are forming over America, with 62 percent bracing themselves for some kind of post-election violence. That dark apprehension energizes Bannon’s War Room to prepare for a leadership role in any potential election-related upheaval. Such preparations are warranted. An American Values Survey found that “23 percent of Republicans who hold a favorable view of Trump say that if Trump loses the election, he should declare the results invalid and do whatever it takes to assume office.”

Moreover, this week, a Washington Post headline warned, “Over 230 Republican candidates have cast doubt on the 2024 election.” The report explained “a pervasive effort within the GOP to undermine public trust in the vote ahead of Nov. 5.”

Therefore, remember Bannon’s January 5, 2021, warning applied to November 4, 2024: “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow.” If Harris wins, “tomorrow” could stretch for months because, like Trump, Bannon’s War Room will not surrender or seek peace.

By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill: Oct. 11, 2024

Keep imagining a president elected by the popular vote after the mysterious and increasingly troublesome Electoral College is eliminated — an election where the presidential candidates would campaign nationwide, not just in seven battleground states needed to reach the crucial 270 electoral votes.

Never again would a presidential candidate lose the election but win the popular vote — an Electoral College quirk that occurred in 2000 and 2016 and could easily happen in November.

Think about increased voter participation for the first presidential election with 50 battleground states. A new political chapter begins when citizens directly cast their ballot for the next president with no “wasted votes” from Republican voters in Democrat majority states and vice versa — an Electoral College curse.

Americans have thought about and imagined all the above, confirmed by a recent Pew Research Center survey. Pew found 63 percent of Americans would rather elect the president through a national popular vote. It is very hard to find anything that 63 percent of Americans agree on.

As usual, a schism exists between parties. Among Democrats, 80 percent favor a popular vote compared to only 46 percent of Republicans.

Given the overwhelming support for a presidential popular vote, “No battleground states by 2028!” could become a rallying cry that resonates on Capitol Hill, beginning the arduous process of amending the Constitution.

Clearly, voters are disgusted with the Electoral College, which makes Pennsylvania — the nation’s fifth most populous state with only 19 electoral votes — the key to the White House. The candidate who loses the Keystone State will need to win a combination of North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona’s electoral votes to get to 270.  

Meanwhile, in the warped Electoral College puzzle, the states with the four largest populations – California, Texas, Florida and New York — are practically ignored, except for high dollar fundraising.

Millions of “wasted votes” in these four dominant states illustrate how their residents are disenfranchised by the Electoral College’s winner-take-all system, translating into electoral votes when the state predictably turns red or blue.

In 2020, California had 11.1 million Joe Biden voters, which easily won him the state’s 55 electoral votes (now 54). Donald Trump received 6 million “wasted votes.” The argument often voiced by Republicans who malign the popular vote say, “I don’t want California determining who wins the presidential election.” But that is a mathematical fallacy. If you remove California from the equation completely, Biden beat Trump by 1.9 million votes nationwide anyway.

Look at Texas. In 2020 Trump won 5.8 million votes there, earning him 38 electoral votes (now 40). Biden’s 5.2 million wasted votes in Texas exceeds Georgia’s 4.9 million total presidential voters, in a state with 16 electoral votes.

Florida used to be the quintessential swing state. It turned red in the Trump era when, in 2020, he won 5.6 million votes and 29 electoral votes (now 30). Biden’s 5.29 million wasted votes in the Sunshine State topped the total number of votes cast in Virginia (4.3 million) and New Jersey (4.5 million).

New York, the fourth most populous state, further demonstrates the Electoral College’s warping effect. In 2020, Biden voters numbered 5.2 million, winning him 29 electoral votes. Trump’s 3.2 million wasted votes exceeded the total number of presidential voters in 35 of the 50 states.

Add it all up, and the Electoral College’s anti-democratic “wasted votes” problem discourages presidential voting in the many states with predetermined outcomes, where people know “my vote does not count.” Meanwhile, in battleground states, “one person one vote” counts too much in winner-take-all contests where the next leader of the free world can be decided by the tiniest margin.

Another strong argument for eliminating the Electoral College are controversies over “faithless electors” — that is, electors who vote contrary to the winner of their state’s popular vote. And Trump supporters added to this argument with the attempted corruption of the Electoral College by allegedly scheming to empanel slates of “fake electors.” This is still playing out in federal court, and across several states.

Finally, never forget the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol was about stopping the certification of the Electoral College’s vote.

This year, with the presidential election tied in the polls, a “catastrophic scenario” could occur. If Harris and Trump each win 269 Electoral College votes, the House of Representatives would decide who is president on a one-state, one-vote basis. But before we get there, “even one faithless elector could ostensibly swing the election…The chicanery that would ensue as a result would usher in yet another constitutional crisis that would test the American republic in unprecedented and potentially dangerous ways.”  

My greatest 2024 election fear is a rerun of 2016, when Trump won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. Due to heightened polarization since then, I believe that such an outcome would also dangerously “test the American republic” and acceptance by the Harris majority.

This week, while on the campaign trail, Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz said, “I think all of us know, the Electoral College needs to go. We need a national popular vote.” True, but not while Republicans believe the Electoral College tilts in their favor.

Nevertheless, if the Harris-Walz ticket wins, the new vice president should call Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who has twice introduced a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College and establishing direct national voting for president. There is a popular will for it, so there’s no harm in trying: “No battleground states by 2028!”

Myra Adams is an opinion writer who served on the creative team of two Republican presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008.

By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill – Sept. 13, 2024

When I was recently in London, an educated native with an enchanting “upper-class” accent quietly asked me, “Has America lost its mind? How is it possible that Donald Trump could be reelected?”

Her questions reflect the exasperation of half of U.S. voters, with “half” being the operative word. Everyone knows Trump voters with whom it is challenging to discuss facts that clash with their “alternative facts.” But why does Trump have his unique ability to say just about anything, no matter how unbefitting a presidential candidate, and potentially still win?

The overarching problem is that truth appears to be relative and twisted to justify the former president’s past/present/future actions. Furthermore, many voters don’t know what to believe since “truth” is expendable, bendable and sometimes artificially created. Meanwhile, our warped media outlets promote the truth that pleases their audiences.

This week, an ominous warning appeared in a respected study. It found that 67 percent of Republicans “will most trust Trump and his campaign about the election outcome.” Worse, a survey-based Washington Post headline screamed: “A quarter of Republicans think Trump should seize power even if he loses” — thankfully, 81 percent of Americans disagreed.

Tuesday night’s contentious debate added another layer of electoral conflict concerning facts and truth. The moderators performed on-air fact-checking only on Trump for his most egregious utterances. An uproar followed, and accusations of bias culminated with Trump demanding the shutdown of ABC News. Nevertheless, the debate will be irrelevant if swing state polls remain tied by the end of next week.

Meanwhile, I’m curious as to whether my Trump-loving friends and other Trump voters listen to what he says and posts on Truth Social. His outrageous rants are geared to generate national headlines and clicks for Trump’s financially failing platform. Its stock declined again this week after the Harris showdown, despite Trump saying it was his “best debate ever.” The truth is that Trump Media and Technology Group Corp. has essentially become his political betting market, reflecting Trump’s chance of winning.

Since Trump has failed to lead Trump media, how will he lead the nation? Given his overall business, political and legal record, no publicly traded Fortune 500 company would dare hire him as its CEO. Yet Trump has a 50 percent chance of being rehired as the chief executive and commander in chief of the world’s largest economy and military. Why?

A devout Christian friend texted me a widely held belief popularized after Trump survived a failed assassination attempt: “God spared Trump so that he could uncover the evils within our government.”

When I raise concerns about what I believe are Trump’s authoritarian leanings, I repeatedly hear the talking point, “God saved him,” along with, “He did not act like a dictator when he was president,” That brings us to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, where truth has been selectively sanitized.

On Monday, I spoke to “Scott,” a Trumpy friend who lives in Georgia and jokingly casts himself as “a reliable right-wing extremist.” Scott is well-informed, white-collar, and solidly MAGA. Naturally, he watches Fox News. I asked, “How do you justify Jan. 6?” Scott immediately questioned the idea that it was an insurrection, because “How can you have an insurrection without guns?” Scott believes “Trump did not use inflammatory language in his J6 speech in front of millions of people.” He added, “All Trump wanted Pence to do was to throw the Electoral College votes back to the states where they would have ten days to certify.”

Scott was angry that the “Jan. 6 House Committee destroyed evidence” and “Nancy Pelosi impeached Trump twice for nothing.” Many Trump supporters like Scott say that Democrats continuously “attempt to destroy Trump.” The perception that Trump is a victim helps explain why the former president can say anything, and his supporters refuse to hold him accountable, believing that only Trump can save America from decline, wokeism, inflation, and the migrant invasion. My friend thinks, “Only Trump has leadership stature; imagine Harris facing off against Putin or Netanyahu.”

Most alarming is Scott’s belief that “Democrats will steal this election.” He adds: “There is distrust in our election, and trust must be restored.”

I mentioned it was “coincidental” that widespread election distrust began with Trump. Our nation was founded and has thrived on citizens trusting the integrity of our decentralized voting system. Now, however, “election integrity” is the Republican code for ensuring a Trump victory.

Scott also mentioned the movie “2,000 Mules” as an example of election distrust. But I informed him that in May, Dinesh D’Souza’s film and book were thoroughly debunked and withdrawn from the market for falsehoods about how the 2020 election was supposedly stolen. Its parent company apologized to those who were harmed and settled a lawsuit involving a substantial payout.

Scott thinks “Democrats will not accept the election result if Trump wins” and that “this country is headed for a civil war no matter what happens in the election.”

After Tuesday’s debate, Scott texted me, “Trump is Trump, and regardless, I will never vote for a left-wing progressive, which is new-speak for a socialist.” For unmovable voters, “Trump is Trump” justifies any action, falsehood, or unpresidential outburst that his loyal supporters either ignore or excuse, especially “Trump is joking” and “he uses sarcasm.” Amazingly, during Tuesday’s debate, Trump claimed he was only “being sarcastic” when he appeared to acknowledge his 2020 loss during recent public appearances.

Skipping from Georgia to Virginia, a MAGA friend emailed her cheating thoughts: “There is so much evidence of cheating that you would have to be a Democrat to appreciate it. They will do it again, we all know, and if anyone is going to thwart the will of the people, it’s the same ones who installed a woman without one single vote for her. They have already launched their second soft coup, and no one is trying to stop it.”

Trump supporters who downplay or rationalize his baseless threats tend to accept his unhinged statements. They firmly believe that the only fair election outcome is a Trump victory.

Therefore, expect the Nov. 5 forecast to include thunder and lightning with a 50 percent chance of chaos while the world watches American democracy undergo a stress test.

Myra Adams is an opinion writer who served on the creative team of two Republican presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008.

By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill – Aug. 30, 2024

Vice President Kamala Harris has one extraordinary campaign advantage — she is neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump.

Before President Biden dropped his reelection bid on July 21, voters were unenthusiastic about a rematch between these two men, both born before the television age. Americans desperately wanted an alternative, and party affiliation was secondary.

Thus, factors such as Biden’s element of surprise, the switch/change effect, Trump’s inability to deal with the change, rapid Democratic unification, dominant support from the media and the potential rekindling of Obama’s 2008 coalition — sprinkled with his political fairy dust of hope, joy, and “Yes, She Can” — generated considerable political momentum for Harris that might just carry her across the Nov. 5 finish line.

Based on national and battleground state polling trends, she could win in a squeaker — which means Trump could lose.

But Trump can never lose! So, if he does, expect a 2020 post-election replay with much ranting, raving and contrived evidence. Team Trump will launch accusations of a corrupt, stolen election, cheating, judicial weaponization, illegal voters, foreign interference and rigged voting machines, resulting in legal challenges perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court. Our enemies will be watching for signs of electoral instability, democratic unrest and perhaps even a national security crisis.

That aside, a Trump loss inevitably means an internal civil war within the Republican Party. I believe a “war” is inevitable between the all-powerful Trump forces and those who want to move on from the Trump era and win the White House in 2028 without any Trump family members on the ticket.

Like all civil wars, this one could be brutal, because the GOP opposition forces see in Trumpism a political dead-end with a shrinking voter base. I publicly left the Republican Party Jan. 2021 thanks to Trump’s toxic brand. Today, identifying as a Republican is not about conservative governing principles but automatic loyalty to Trump, with his MAGA troops in control of the party machinery from top to bottom.

In 2016, the “Trumplican Party” was born (some would say “hijacked.”) After Trump’s unexpected victory, Republican Party leaders and activists who initially supported someone other than Trump were purged, resigned in disgust or else acquiesced to him. 

After Trump’s loss in 2020, it became an act of disloyalty for Republicans to deny that Trump actually won reelection. So did the failure to defend or excuse his actions on Jan. 6 or his legal problems. So did the act of backing an alternative 2024 candidate.

To have one family in complete control of a major national political party is an aberration in our country. Daughter-in-law Lara Trump, installed as co-chair of the Republican National Committee in March, naively spoke the truth in February when she said of its fundraising, “Every single penny will go to the number one and the only job of the RNC — that is electing Donald J. Trump as president of the United States…” 

Naturally, down-ballot candidates, officeholders and lowly party officials did not appreciate her honesty about the family mission.

If Harris defeats Trump, will he step down as party leader? Probably not. Unlike Biden, Trump will not be pushed aside. Biden never was and did not represent himself as the Democratic Party. Trump and family, in contrast, are the Republican Party. Hence, moving beyond the Trump era without someone named Trump would take a tectonic shift.

Who would lead the GOP through the hazardous terrain of a non-MAGA future? It probably wouldn’t be Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), who in this scenario would just be a losing also-ran.

So who would it be? Some names are familiar and obvious: Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who each look in the mirror and see a future president. Add a new name with popular Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R), who has had a contentious history with Trump — haven’t they all, though? That experience will embolden these leaders to forge a new path for the party, maybe led by one of them, or else a new leader will emerge.

Speaking of new leaders, a post-Trump era will need rising stars to combat entrenched MAGA warriors such as Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). How about a real warrior? A Lt. colonel in the Air National Guard who piloted missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. His name is Adam Kinzinger — once widely considered a GOP rising star — the former Illinois congressman who served from 2011 to 2023.

After the 2020 election, then-Rep. Kinzinger rejected Trump’s claims of a stolen election. He was appalled by the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and subsequently voted to impeach. Kinzinger then served on the House Select Committee to investigate the Capitol attack. Trump placed a target on his back, and Kinzinger did not run for reelection in 2022.

Then, on August 15, Kinzinger fearlessly spoke the truth about Trump to more than 20 million primetime viewers who watched the Democratic National Convention. His message delighted former Republicans like me who want a party to come home to. Kinzinger said, “Donald Trump is a weak man pretending to be strong; he is a small man pretending to be big. He’s a faithless man pretending to be righteous. He’s a perpetrator who can’t stop playing the victim.” 

Kinzinger dared to say what many in the Republican Party (including elected officials) only think: “The Republican Party is no longer conservative. It has switched its allegiance from the principles that gave it purpose to a man whose only purpose is himself.”

Shockingly, Fox News cut away from Kinzinger’s speech. Were they shielding their viewers from the truth? If Trump loses, those viewers and voters must hear the truth to set the Republican Party free from Trump’s control. But first, the party is destined to wage a war for the future.

Myra Adams is an opinion writer who served on the creative team of two Republican presidential campaigns, in 2004 and 2008.Tags Adam Kinzinger Joe Biden Kamala Harris Lara Trump Obama

By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill: August 9, 2024

My college history professor often yelled his favorite quote, from Winston Churchill, so we would never forget: “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” It comes to mind now as American voters will soon elect a new president and the events of Jan. 6, 2021, have been nearly forgotten.

The Wall Street Journal recently interviewed a representative group of first-time college student voters aged 18 to 21 about issues impacting their presidential choice. Not one student mentioned Jan. 6 or related threats to democracy.

Thankfully, a January 2024 Washington Post poll found that 55 percent of Americans believed Jan. 6 was an attack on democracy that should never be forgotten. Meanwhile, the remaining 45 percent have forgotten or rationalized why the 2024 Republican presidential nominee was indicted last August for a conspiracy to remain in power after being soundly rejected by voters in the 2020 election.

Allegedly, the then-president’s elaborate scheme encouraged an army of Trump supporters to organize a violent assault on the U.S. Capitol. Trump has successfully dragged out appeals and motions and has yet to be held accountable. Therefore, in November, voters will render the verdict.

What has made America great again every four years since its founding is that the peaceful transfer of presidential power is normal and expected. Beginning in 1788 our nation has held a presidential election in times of war and peace every four years. On Inauguration Day, every winner has placed his hand on the Bible and sworn an oath of allegiance to the Constitution.

Although President Biden’s inauguration was ultimately peaceful, the heavy military presence throughout Washington reflected a nation under siege after Jan. 6.

Six months from now, our nation should start a new streak of peaceful transfers. Yet, if Trump loses, President Biden is “not confident” of one. Here are four signs why January 2025 could be turbulent.

First, there is a dangerous expectation that if Trump loses, the election will have been rigged or stolen. I receive countless Trump campaign or Trump-allied organization emails, texts and social media messages warning how the Democrats are planning to steal the election, so “donate now.” Since Trump’s followers believe that only Trump can “save America,” he cannot lose by any fault of his own. Hence, the prospect of another “stolen” election is a fundraising bonanza, sowing the seeds of inaugural political unrest.

Second, in an interview during the Republican National Convention, Trump campaign co-manager Chris LaCivita said about his boss: “It’s not over until he puts his hand on the Bible and takes the oath. It’s not over until then. It’s not over on Election Day, it’s over on Inauguration Day, cause I wouldn’t put anything past anybody.”

LaCivita is gearing up for an epic electoral fight, blatantly warning that only if Trump wins will he accept the election results. Trump has made similar statements — our Founding Fathers’ worst nightmare — because the transfer of presidential power requires acquiescing to the will of the people.

It is immoral and un-American to assume without evidence that the opposing team will cheat and rob your guy of the presidency. Yet LaCivita’s message barely made a political ripple. Even just 20 years ago, such a statement from a major-party presidential campaign manager would have outraged the candidate and the nation, resulting in his termination.

Third, on July 29 Trump was interviewed by Fox News host Laura Ingraham. She asked about remarks he made at a Christian voter gathering that some interpreted as dictatorial— eliminating the need for voting. Trump told the Christians, “You have to vote on Nov. 5. After that, you don’t have to worry about voting anymore. I don’t care, because we’re going to fix it. The country will be fixed …”

Such bravado prompted Ingraham to ask Trump, “But you will leave office after four years?” He replied, “Of course. By the way, and I did last time. I kept hearing, he’s not going to leave. He’s not going to leave. Look, they are the ones that are a threat to democracy.”

Who are “they”? Again, imagine pre-Trump presidential campaigns. If either candidate called the other a “threat to democracy,” voters and the media would have been outraged. Moreover, the irony of Trump accusing his opponent (“they”) of being a “threat to democracy,” after he was indicted for trying to overturn the 2020 election, proves that Trump has mastered projecting his behavior onto others. Should he lose, this does not bode well for a peaceful transfer of power.

Fourth, both parties are shying away from featuring Jan. 6 in 2024 campaign ads. Has Jan. 6 been normalized and baked into the firmament of the election? Voters appear to have moved on and could explain why Trump announced he would “pardon the J-6 hostages.”

With the delay of his trial and the July boost from the Supreme Court’s confounding presidential immunity ruling, Trump has managed to turn himself and the Jan. 6 attackers into victims while Republicans applaud. Furthermore, the Supreme Court justices have diminished the importance of Jan. 6, which could jeopardize the next transfer of power.

Win or lose, Kamala Harris will be the star on Jan. 6, 2025. As vice president, she will certify the Electoral College and announce herself or Trump as president. If the latter, given the Supreme Court ruling that nearly everything is an official act, presidential guardrails have been removed. Democracy is fragile, so voters beware: “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Tags Chris LaCivita Joe Biden Laura Ingraham Winston Churchill

By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill: July 26, 2024

“’Florida Man’ is notorious,” screamed the 2022 Washington Post headline describing a “figure of indulgence, decadence, and questionable decisions.” News accounts of outrageous, hilarious or criminal acts sustain this universal meme.

The futures of six Florida men are discussed below, and you can decide whether the “Florida Man” meme is applicable. All six are mega-MAGA power-hungry, focused on winning their next big job. The two senators, two representatives and one governor are engaged in a high-stakes game of trying to please and appease their leader—former and perhaps future President Trump. We begin at the top of the pyramid.

Donald J. Trump: Age 78 — the 45th president of the United States was elected in 2016 and defeated in 2020. He easily won the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

After surviving a July 13 assassination attempt, Trump said he “took a bullet for democracy.’’ Whether or not you agree with that passion-packed statement, it will echo throughout presidential history if Trump is reelected. Moreover, his power to appoint and endorse will lord over these five other Florida men’s dreams and career paths.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.): Age 71 — elected in 2018 and running for reelection. He was governor of Florida from 2011 to 2019.

In November, Florida’s junior senator should sail to reelection. Meanwhile, Scott covets the “Senate Majority Leader” title if Republicans win control. A Trump presidential victory practically ensures a Senate sweep, enhancing Scott’s chances of succeeding retiring Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — an enemy of Trump and Scott.

Scott first tried and failed to unseat Leader McConnell after the 2022 midterm elections, losing a 36 to 10 vote despite Trump’s behind-the-scenes backing. If victorious, count on President Trump to apply pressure until his man Scott is elected Senate majority leader.

Suppose Trump is defeated but Republicans win Senate control. In that case, Scott is less likely to become majority leader, probably losing to long-time frontrunners Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) or John Cornyn (R-Texas). Scott’s destiny to succeed McConnell is tied to Trump’s fate — circumstances Trump relishes for payback.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): Age 53 — elected in 2010. After Rubio collapsed as a presidential primary candidate in 2016, he was reelected to the Senate and again in 2022. Recently, Rubio was a Trump vice presidential finalist, losing to Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio).

Should Trump win and deliver a GOP-controlled Senate, career advancement for Rubio is in the offing. He is vice chair of the powerful Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and would move to chairman. Still, Florida’s senior senator has long been itching to leave the upper chamber. An October 2015 Washington Post article quoted Rubio telling a friend that he “hate[s]” the Senate. Then, in May 2016, Rubio said he was “frustrated” and that “hate was not the right word.”

Therefore, despite his failed 2016 presidential campaign — having grown in national stature after nearly 14 years in the Senate — Rubio is ready for a new title if Trump extends an offer. Supposedly, Rubio is a top contender for secretary of State. Such a prestigious post could enhance his dream of becoming the first Hispanic president —with decades left to achieve that goal. In the 2048 presidential election year, Rubio would be 77, younger than 78-year-old Trump.

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R): Age 45 — narrowly elected in 2018. When reelected in 2022 with a 19-point margin of victory, DeSantis was considered “DeFuture” of the Republican Party. Then, high expectations and his lackluster 2024 presidential primary campaign produced a career low point. Crushed by Trump, DeSantis continued unabated as the powerful governor of the third-most populous state.

Young and ambitious, DeSantis’s next career move will be determined by two “ifs.” If Trump wins and if Sen. Rubio joins his administration, a vacant Senate seat will need an occupant until the 2026 midterm election. There are no rules to keep DeSantis from appointing himself, but a long-term strategy is more advantageous.

Due to term limits, DeSantis will leave office in early January 2027, which means he could appoint a placeholder senator who agrees not to run in 2026. Then, as the incumbent governor, DeSantis could launch his Senate campaign — a playbook successfully used in 2018 by then-Gov. Rick Scott, now Sen. Rick Scott. As a senator, DeSantis could mature into a national statesman and, as far out as 2056, at age 78, he could run for president like the 2024 GOP presidential nominee.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.): Age 42 — elected in 2016. He is a controversial, legally and ethically challenged Trump cheerleader.

From the Republican National Convention stage, Gaetz roared, “We ride or die with Donald Trump to the end.” Equally valid but unsaid by Gaetz is “I ride or die with Trump,” since he is strapped to Trump’s right wing. Gaetz usually does the former president’s bidding in the House, but questions remain about whether Trump supported Gaetz’s effort to remove Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)

Never humble, Gaetz said in June, “I’m trying to reshape the House in my image.” Could he reshape himself as a future House Speaker? If Trump wins and Republicans keep the House, anything is possible for this native Florida man.

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.): Age 45 — elected in 2020.

Donalds is an African American-born New Yorker who attended college in Florida and never left. He is a “MAGA-phone” acolyte for Trump, who teased Donalds with the VP slot. However, the congressman’s real future is if Trump wins the White House and, in 2026, endorses Donalds as the successor to Gov. Ron DeSantis. Byron Donalds also “rides or dies” with The Donald.

Brace yourself because these Florida men also have a “sister” — Judge Aileen Cannon. After she dismissed Trump’s Mar-a-Lago documents case, Gaetz tweeted her photo with the caption “Future Supreme Court Justice Cannon.”

All the Florida men and their supreme sister eagerly await King Trump’s coronation.

Myra Adams served on the creative team of two Republican presidential campaigns, in 2004 and 2008.TAGS BYRON DONALDS DONALD TRUMP FLORDIA MARCO RUBIO MARCO RUBIO MATT GAETZ REPUBLICAN PARTY RICK SCOTT RICK SCOTT RON DESANTIS RON DESANTIS

By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill: July 5, 2024

In February, President Biden turned down the traditional Superbowl pregame interview, during which he could have appeared personable and presidential to more than 100 million American viewers.

That decision prompted Democratic strategist James Carville to warn it was “a sign that the staff or yourself doesn’t have much confidence in you. There’s no other way to read this.”

Carville’s “read” has since been proven correct by Biden’s ghastly debate performance, which pierced the protective shield his family and staff had created around him. At age 81, Biden’s shocking infirmity was witnessed by 51.3 million people, who saw that the world’s most powerful leader had exceeded his political expiration date.

Former President Trump, at age 78, is also considered unfit for office by half the nation.  Both men have unfavorable ratings exceeding 56 percent, signaling the presidential nominating system of the longest-lasting democracy is failing its people. 

Globally, the BBC has reported disparaging reviews of the Biden-Trump debate. Chinese state media said it was “like a reality show” with Trump “lying” and Biden “mumbling,” concluding that both are “currently facing difficulties.” The Russian media branded Biden’s performance as a “total failure” with concerns about his “mental health.”

Afterward, I called a high-level defense consultant, concerned that the debate presented a national security risk. “Trump and Biden’s debate performance was a catastrophe for U.S. national security,” he said emphatically. “Electing Trump or reelecting Biden is a sign of weakness that entices China to invade Taiwan and encourages Putin to keep going — but don’t mention my name.”

There are at least seven reasons why electing Trump or Biden would imperil national security.

First, the unwritten rule of “one president at a time” could be tested. Suppose Trump continues his glide path to a projected 312 Electoral Votes, such that Biden comes to be viewed as a lame-duck caretaker president from now until Election Day. During this time, the president could be undermined by elected officials, Trump loyalists gunning for cabinet posts and the last members of Trump’s foreign affairs team whom he did not fire.

A prime example is Richard Grenell, whom Trump calls his global “envoy” and who may be the next secretary of State. Grenell was Trump’s ambassador to Germany and then his unconfirmed acting director of national intelligence. On Apr. 5, the Guardian chronicled how Grenell’s “shadow foreign policy campaign is unsettling diplomats and threatens to collapse U.S. interests.” Indeed, our enemies could find ways to exploit even the mere hint that there are two competing presidents this fall.

Second, Biden’s exposed frailty is ripe for testing by America’s adversaries. Was it a coincidence that, three days after the June 27 debate, a terrorism alert was issued for U.S. military bases in Europe? A “3 a.m.” crisis is when a tired, weak commander in chief could cause delayed or indecisive actions followed by a blame game from Team Trump.   

Third, Trump poses a unique risk to national security as to whether the intelligence community can trust him with classified material. Last year, he was charged in a 32-count indictment for violating the Espionage Act after refusing to surrender boxes with sensitive government-owned documents stored at his Florida residence. His trial date is still in limbo.

Allies might also be reluctant to share vital intelligence with the Trump administration, considering the former president’s history of blabbing secrets and holding questionable allegiances. As a private citizen, after being convicted of 34 felonies and found guilty of civil financial fraud, Trump would be denied a security clearance but, if reelected, he will still be granted access to unlimited intelligence.

Fourth, NATO’s 75th Anniversary Summit begins on July 9 in Washington, D.C. This will be the first time Biden could be perceived as a wounded “lame duck.” Ironically, it was Biden’s leadership that helped strengthen the alliance and has successfully contained Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Two major global security questions will be on the agenda at the summit. The first is whether Ukraine will be invited to join NATO. The second is how NATO can “Trump-proof” itself and its support for Ukraine. Since Trump’s past anti-NATO stance is considered a threat, members anticipate relying less on American funding, weapons, and leadership. Biden also Trump-proofed U.S. NATO membership when, in December, he signed legislation requiring two-thirds Senate approval before the U.S. could withdraw from the alliance.

With Biden hosting NATO leaders in Washington, the “one president at a time rule” could be tested. Watch whether, smelling victory, a chest-thumping Trump sends envoys or makes a surprise off-site visit to conduct informal meetings.

Fifth: The Trump Organization’s new foreign projects are teeming with national security risks. This week, the Trump Organization announced a new project in Saudi Arabia. More Trump-Saudi business deals mean more conflicts. Shortly after Trump left office, the Saudi government invested $2 billion in Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner’s newly formed investment firm.

And let’s not forget about Trump’s failed 2016-2017 effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Perhaps it could be revived in his second term, when there will be no presidential guardrails.

Sixth, the status of Trump and Vladimir Putin’s relationship poses a risk. Some worry that Putin might have financial influence over the former president. Other believe there exists “Kompromat” — compromising information that Putin can use to keep Trump in line.

If Trump is reelected, watch how fast he tries to end U.S. support for Ukraine, pleasing Putin with devastating consequences for Europe. It has long been reported that American intelligence agencies believed Russia had “leverages of pressure” over President Donald Trump — one more national security risk for intelligence agencies to monitor during Trump’s second term.

Seventh, Trump will enjoy an “imperial presidency” on steroids, thanks to the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, which prompted Justice Sonia Sotomayor to write, “In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.”

Both Trump and Biden present national security problems, but if Biden ends his campaign, leadership uncertainty dramatically increases global short-term risk. And a second Trump term is potentially riskier because many believe that Trump worships power and money and seeks unholy revenge bolstered by an army of followers who worship him as God’s chosen.

Myra Adams served on the creative team of two Republican presidential campaigns, in 2004 and 2008. TAGS 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DEBATE DONALD TRUMP JAMES CARVILLE JAMES CARVILLE JOE BIDEN NATIONAL SECURITY RISK PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN

By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill on June 21, 2024

The 2024 race for the White House did not have to be an unpopular national embarrassment. For that, you can blame President Biden.

His worst strategic decision was running for reelection. Yes, he had his reasons — three of them, by my reckoning — but the data and polls confirm Biden’s consequential blunder. His likely defeat will consequently be the three I’s: infirmity, inflation and immigration.

According to the RealClearPolitics poll averages, with “no toss-up states,” former President Donald Trump would win 312 Electoral College votes to Biden’s 226 if the election were held today. In 2020, Biden won 306 to Trump’s 232.

On June 21, 2020, Biden led Trump by 9.8 percentage points. At the same point in the election cycle precisely four years later, the race is virtually tied. To illustrate how much worse off Biden is this time, Trump led Biden in only two outlier national polls out of hundreds taken throughout the 2020 cycle. This time, he leads in most polls.

More critically, in the seven battleground states that will decide the election, Trump leads by an average margin of 3.3 points. That is a significant achievement considering that in 2020, Biden won Michigan by 2.78 points, Pennsylvania by 1.17 points and Wisconsin by 0.63 points.

In Arizona, where Biden won by only 0.3 points in 2020, Trump dominates, with an average lead of 4.6 percent. The same is true in Georgia, where Trump’s lead averages 4.8 points, dwarfing Biden’s 0.23-point margin of victory.

More reliable than polls are the incumbent president’s job approval rating. Yesterday, Biden averaged 40.4 percent, an encouraging trend since he rarely breaks 40. How does his job approval compare to the fate of the last three incumbents on June 20 during their fourth year in office? Donald Trump’s was 42.6 percent, and he was defeated. Barack Obama earned 47.4 percent and George W. Bush rated 48.2 percent. Both were reelected.

Given Biden’s consistently underwhelming job approval rating, his 2020 victory points to the cause of his likely downfall. In November 2024, Biden will turn 82. Everyone knew this in 2020, and practically no one expected him to run a second time. He could have played the “I want to spend time with my family” card at the appropriate time, eliciting sighs of relief with zero political backlash.

Announcing against reelection, Biden might have proudly invoked Cincinnatus, the Roman statesman who relinquished power for the good of the republic. He could have quoted John F. Kennedy about “passing the torch to a new generation.” Biden could have, might have, should have.

But he did not.

Now, half of American voters fear that the other half will elect a convicted felon. The first half believes Trump is unfit for office, but he is favored to win. Next week’s debate could shift the race toward Biden in the battleground states. But since that is highly improbable, the question remains why Biden made his worst strategic decision.

First, President Biden feared the consequences of being a lame-duck for half his term. The timetable for startup presidential campaigns dictated that Biden needed to announce his one-term decision shortly after the 2022 midterm elections.

Biden understood that two years as a lame-duck president could have dangerous ramifications in an increasingly volatile world. For example, in February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. Biden is credited with successfully rallying and expanding NATO to help thwart Putin’s ambitious attempt to reunite the former Soviet empire. Had Biden been a lame duck commencing in November 2022, his stature and effectiveness among NATO allies could have been diminished.

In December 2019, an intriguing Politico headline read, “Biden signals to aides that he would serve only a single term.” The report quoted a “well-known Democratic strategist” who said what Biden instinctively believed: “If you begin your first day as president as a lame duck, it changes everything. Every Cabinet secretary, every subcommittee chairman treats you differently. I wouldn’t advise it, just from a governing perspective as well as political.”  

That “truth” also applies to half a presidential term. But now, Biden’s frail appearance and Trump’s campaign momentum raise the question, “Did Biden break a ‘one term’ pledge?” The answer is no, since immediate lame-duck status meant a weak, dead-duck president.

If Democrats had been trounced during the 2022 midterms, Biden might well have bowed out in 2024. Instead, he perceived the unexpectedly positive midterm results as a green light for his own reelection. A week later, on Nov. 15, 2022, Trump announced his presidential campaign, unable to resist a rematch against the man who accused him of trying to steal the 2020 election.  

Second, and contributing to Biden’s worst strategic decision of running for reelection, is a hangover from his second-worst decision, which was to choose Kamala Harris as his running mate. Mirroring Biden, her job approval rating usually dances between 38 and 39 percent. Harris is seen as dragging down Biden’s already-weak presidency and harming his chances of reelection.

Harris left Biden with no good options. Imagine if Biden had announced in November 2022 that he was not seeking a second term. Immediately, he would have embraced lame-duck status by upping Harris’s profile within his administration. At the same time, she was likely to announce her presidential plans. Still, awaiting the vice president would be a tough primary fight with the next generation of Democratic governors eager to take on Donald Trump with incumbency as her only advantage.

Based on Harris’s fast-flopped 2020 presidential campaign, a fizzled 2024 attempt would have further weakened and embarrassed Biden’s lame-duck presidency.

Conversely, running for reelection, Biden could not risk replacing a woman of color as his running-mate, since he feared alienating core constituencies within the Democratic Party. Worse still, how does one fire the incumbent vice president?

Biden will turn 86 years old in 2028. That fact, combined with Harris’s unpopularity, unleashes death fears that “a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for Kamala Harris.” 

Finally, the prospect of Biden willingly leaving the office he first sought in June 1987 would have been an untenable blow to his psyche, even though a bevy of 2023 polls showed that as many as 70 percent of voters did not want him to run for a second term.

Ultimately, Biden made his worst strategic decision, potentially jeopardizing American democracy. This mistake seems to motivate voters to say, “You’re fired!” and to rehire the infamous man who popularized that quote.

Myra Adams served on the creative team of two GOP presidential campaigns, in 2004 and 2008.

TAGS 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DONALD TRUMP DONALD TRUMP JOE BIDEN PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN

By Myra Adams – The Hill contributor

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE

Reposted from The Hill – June 7, 2024

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) appears to be calculating that his dormant dream of becoming the first Hispanic president could be awakened by Donald Trump — by the same man who, in 2016, turned the senator’s presidential primary campaign into a comedic punchline.

With Rubio’s presidential ambition suppressed over the last eight years, his recent batch of controversial Trump-pleasing statements points to a newfound obeisance, whose aim might just be the vice presidential nomination.

Well established is Trump’s litmus test that potential running mates refuse to commit to accepting the results of the 2024 election. Last month, Rubio aced that test on NBC News’s “Meet the Press.”

Then, after Trump became a convicted felon, Republican leaders and vice presidential “shortlist” candidates raced to the microphones for a chorus of outrage, but Rubio’s remarks were the most extreme.

On Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, said, “This is the quintessential show trial. This is what you see in communist countries. This is what I grew up having people in this community tell me about it happened in the days after the Castro revolution.”

Rubio’s sycophantic performance could be Trump’s vice presidential decision breakthrough — unlocking the White House gate for Rubio after his key was lost to young, unbridled ambition.

First elected to the Senate in 2010 at age 39, Rubio announced his presidential campaign on April 13, 2015. Numerous unenthusiastic Florida Republicans thought Rubio was “getting ahead of himself” or “in too much of a hurry” and “not ready to be president.”

Subsequently, the freshman senator was shredded on the presidential stage. As expected, in March 2016, Rubio’s primary campaign crashed and burned. Still, he was easily reelected that November, despite allegedly expressing “hatred” for the Senate amid his presidential campaign.

By mid-April 2021, Rubio’s career seemed to be floundering. CNN put him on its list of “10 Senate seats most likely to flip in 2022,” prompting my op-ed: “What happened to Marco Rubio, Time Mag’s ‘Republican Savior’ of 2013?”

But those headlines did not age well. In 2022, Rubio won his third term by a 16-point margin, even carrying heavily Democratic Miami-Dade County. He was absent from the 2024 presidential primaries, but by then he seemed to have found a niche as a respected Republican senator.

Nevertheless, this spring, Rubio’s name has popped up as a prospective running mate for Trump. And Republicans would consider him a brilliant choice, if not for his state of residence.

The 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that presidential electors may not choose both a president and vice president from the same state as themselves. This means that Florida’s 30 electors, if they vote for Trump, would not also be able to vote for Rubio, since both are Florida residents. This appears to make Rubio a gamble as a vice-presidential nominee.

Rubio seems undeterred by this constitutional problem. As the New York Times has reported, he “has told people that changing his residency would not be a problem,” and that there are possible workarounds. Note that the electors don’t vote until Dec. 17. Rubio could, at least in theory, resign his Senate seat on Nov. 6 and try to establish residency elsewhere.

If Trump selects the 53-year-old Rubio, it would make him the first Hispanic vice-presidential nominee on a major party ticket. Whether Trump wins or loses, Rubio would instantly become the frontrunner for 2028, the incumbent vice president, or both.

Considering all the above, there are at least five reasons Trump is Rubio’s ticket to becoming the “Hispanic Obama.”

First, Rubio is a practicing Catholic. Among the faithful, he is considered the “real thing,” in contrast to Biden. Unquestionably, he would bring Trump more Catholic voters, reminiscent of how vice-presidential nominee Mike Pence brought more evangelicals in 2016 despite Trump’s evident lack of churching.

According to exit polling, Trump won 50 percent of Catholics in 2020 to Biden’s 49 percent. Among Hispanic Catholics, Biden won 67 percent compared to Trump’s 32 percent. In the Rust Belt swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, with their large Catholic populations, Rubio could help deliver a Trump victory.

Second, polls indicate that Trump is already making headway with Hispanic voters, who are projected to outnumber Black voters in 2024 for the first time. Moreover, the Spanish-speaking Rubio could boost the ticket, especially among non-aligned young Hispanics.

Third, Rubio could serve as a “party unity” candidate, attracting voters who are unsure or don’t like Trump while broadening the overall appeal of the Republican ticket.

Fourth, after 14 years in the Senate, Rubio brings extensive domestic and foreign policy expertise. He is a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee in addition to serving as Intelligence vice chairman. Additionally, Rubio is stationed at the forefront of the immigration issue, which is critical to GOP voters. He could effectively shepherd Trump’s agenda through Congress while quietly soliciting support for himself in 2028.

Finally, Rubio would be an “insurance policy,” ready to take the top job on day one. Expect Trump to contrast Rubio with Vice President Kamala Harris, who is widely seen as a hugely unpopular drag on Biden’s ticket, considering the current president’s age and the unlikelihood that he will finish a second term.  

On the flip side, there are at least four reasons the former president might reject a Trump-Rubio ticket.

First, a plan to resolve the 12th Amendment problem must first be established. This probably cannot be resolved as a judicial question before the Nov. 5 election, so there is a great deal of risk.

Second, Trump distrusts Rubio. Although the senator now shows loyalty, Trump has a long memory, and Rubio’s 2016 statements eviscerating him will appear in anti-Trump ads. For example, “Friends do not let friends vote for con artists” — updated, perhaps, with “for a convicted felon.”

Third, Rubio voted to certify the 2020 presidential election. During his Senate floor speech, he said that “democracy is held together by people’s confidence in the election and a willingness to abide by its results.” Team Biden will relish comparing the Rubio of 2021 to the one under Trump’s spell.

Fourth, Trump could fear that Rubio will overshadow him. Remember that Trump’s vice presidential role model was Mike Pence, except on Jan. 6, 2021.

So there are ample grounds for Trump to look elsewhere. Even so, his campaign’s high command might convince him that Rubio is worth the risk.

Myra Adams  served on the creative team of two GOP presidential campaigns, in 2004 and 2008. TAGS 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DONALD TRUMP MARCO RUBIO PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN