Archives for category: Trump

Heather Cox Richardson demonstrates in this post that Trump is the grand master of lies. In his first interview on network television since the election, Trump gave a master class in assertive lying. And Richardson also demonstrated why she is the indispensable historian-blogger of our time.

She wrote:

The sudden collapse of the Assad regime in Syria yesterday took oxygen away from the airing of President-elect Trump’s interview with Kristen Welker of NBC’S Meet the Press. The interview told us little that we didn’t already know, but it did reinforce what we can expect in the new administration.

As Tom Nichols pointed out after the interview, when Donald Trump ran for the presidency this year, he “wasn’t running to do anything. He was running to stay out of jail. The rest he doesn’t care about.”

Nichols was reacting to the exchange that began when Welker asked the president-elect: “Do you have an actual plan at this point for health care?” Trump answered: “Yes. We have concepts of a plan that would be better.” “Still just concepts? Do you have a fully developed plan?” Welker asked.

The answer, nine years after Trump first said he would repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with something cheaper and better, is still no. He went on to add, “I am the one that saved Obamacare,” although he spent his first term trying to weaken it.

Trump also reiterated his plans for revenge against those he perceives to be his enemies. He told Welker that when he is president, the Department of Justice should pursue and jail the members of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, more commonly known as the January 6th Committee. He singled out committee leaders Representative Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY).

But it was in his insistence on one specific lie that Trump was most revealing. He told Welker that there were “13,099 murderers released into our country over the last three years. They’re walking down the streets. They’re walking next to you and your family, and they’re very dangerous.”

This statement sets Trump up to be a strongman who will save America from great danger, but it is a lie that has been repeatedly debunked. It originated in a September 2024 letter from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to Representative Tony Gonzales (R-TX) listing 13,099 people convicted of homicide as being “non-detained.”

As Alex Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato blog explains, “non-detained” does not mean free to roam the streets; it simply means that those in prison for homicide are not currently detained by ICE. Once they have served their sentences, they go back onto ICE’s docket to be deported unless their countries of origin don’t have repatriation agreements with the U.S., a condition that affects a very small number of people. Releases of criminal migrants into the U.S. dropped during the Biden administration from the numbers released during Trump’s term. In addition, as Nowrasteh points out, the 13,099 figure covers at least 40 years.

Welker tried to correct Trump: “The thirteen thousand figure I think goes back around 40 years,” she said. “No, it doesn’t,” Trump insisted. “It’s within the three-year period. It’s during the Biden term.”

Trump was intent on making Welker and the television audience accept an egregious lie, despite the fact it has been thoroughly debunked. His insistence echoed his determination in January 2017 to make the American people accept his lie that his inauguration crowd was bigger than that of his predecessor, Barack Obama, although we could see with our own eyes that he was lying. He was demanding we reject our own experience and instead let him define how we see the country.

Trump built on a history of narrative shaping that ran through the Republican Party. In 2004 a senior advisor to President George W. Bush famously told journalist Ron Suskind that people like Suskind lived in “the reality-based community,” believing that people could find solutions to problems based on their real-world observations. But such a worldview was obsolete, the aide said. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore.… We are an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality…. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

America’s right wing has been able to shape reality in large part because of the 1996 advent of the Fox News Channel (FNC), the brainchild of Australian-born media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Shows on the FNC used clear, simple messaging with colorful graphics that told a story of an America overwhelmingly made up of white, rural folks who hated taxes and an intrusive government, and would do fine if they could just get the socialist Democrats to leave them alone. To spread the new channel, Murdoch initially offered ten dollars per subscriber to each cable company that carried it.

That right-wing echo chamber has expanded until it is now so strong that nearly 70% of Republicans falsely believe Trump was the rightful winner of the 2020 presidential election, despite the fact that the FNC had to pay more than $787 million to Dominion Voting Systems for defamation after it lied to viewers about that election.

Trump has built on that Republican narrative to create a fantasy world that is badly out of step with reality. It is not easy to see how he will reconcile his vision with real-world events.

He and his supporters might try simply to tell voters that they have done what they promised, and hope that story sells.

When Trump threatened to put a 25% tariff on goods from Mexico until Mexico stopped undocumented migrants from crossing the border, Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum told Trump that “encounters at the Mexico–United States border have decreased by 75 percent between December 2023 and November 2024.” Trump then simply told reporters that Sheinbaum had “agreed to stop Migration through Mexico, and into the United States, effectively closing our Southern Border,” and his supporters trumpeted on social media that Trump had closed the border with one phone call.

But convincing people of an alternative reality might be harder with issues closer to home.

Trump has vowed to place a tariff wall around the U.S., for example, at the same time he has promised to bring down the price of consumer goods. “Economists of all stripes say that ultimately, consumers pay the price of tariffs,” Welker told him on Sunday. “I don’t believe that,” Trump answered. He might not believe it, but producers do: car manufacturers as well as major shopping chains have warned that tariffs will force them to raise prices.

On other issues, Trump will have a vocal and established opposition. After his threat to go after the members of the January 6th committee, former representative Liz Cheney said in a statement: “There is no conceivably appropriate factual or constitutional basis for what Donald Trump is suggesting.“

“Here is the truth: Donald Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election and seize power. He mobilized an angry mob and sent them to the United States Capitol, where they attacked police officers, invaded the building, and halted the official counting of electoral votes. Trump watched on television as police officers were brutally beaten and the Capitol was assaulted, refusing for hours to tell the mob to leave. This was the worst breach of our Constitution by any president in our nation’s history.”

Cheney called for the release of the evidence and grand jury material special counsel Jack Smith assembled “so all Americans can see Donald Trump for who he genuinely is and fully understand his role in this terrible period in our nation’s history.”

Nobel laureates generally try to stay out of politics, but today more than 75 of them in medicine, chemistry, economics, and physics wrote a letter to senators urging them not to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick for secretary of Health and Human Services. They object to Kennedy’s stand against the scientists and agencies he would oversee. They noted that he has no credentials or relevant experience and that he has opposed life-saving vaccines, promoted conspiracy theories, and attacked the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health.

Putting him in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services, they write, “would put the public’s health in jeopardy and undermine America’s global leadership in the health sciences, in both the public and commercial sectors.”

This is a sickening article that appeared in The Irish Times about a meeting on Capitol Hill between Congressional leaders and Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.

Why is it sickening? It shows our elected Congressional leaders preening and groveling in the presence of the world’s richest man and a man who is only very rich.

Our Leaders? Who elected Elon and Vivek?

Why an article from The Irish Times? My good friend and executive director of the Network for Public Education Carol Burris is spending the holidays there and sent it to me.

As you read the article, you can feel the obsequiousness that these elected officials are expressing as they wait for the phony Department of Government Efficiency to tell them what to cut.

“Elon and Vivek talked about having a naughty list and a nice list for members of Congress and senators and how we vote,” reported Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene who offered a beaming smile that suggested she knew which list she’d be making. “And how we’re spending American people’s money. I think that would be fantastic.”

One wonders what Ted Kennedy or Henry Clay or Lyndon Johnson, during their Senate years, would have made of two billionaires with zero political experience or authority, breezing into the Capitol and explaining to them they had a chance to make the nice list.

Speaker Johnson promised that Thursday’s meetings will be the first of many visits by Musk and Ramaswamy. “We believe it’s a historic moment for the country and these two gentlemen are going to help us navigate through this exciting day. Elon and Vivek don’t need much of an introduction here in Congress for certain and I think most of the public know what they are capable of and have achieved.

“They are innovators and forward thinkers and that’s what we need right now. We are laying the new ground rules for the new Congress in the new year, and we are going to see a lot of change here in Washington of the way things are run. That is what this whole Doge effort is about.”

Should they cut Social Security? Medicare? Veterans’ Healthcare? Grants for higher education? Title 1? Headstart?

Everything is on their chopping block.

How many civil servants will they seek to terminate?

Musk cut 80% of the staff at Twitter. Will he aim to lay off a huge percentage of the people who keep government running?

Musk tweeted a few days ago that government “should be rule by democracy, not rule by bureaucracy.”

How is it democratic to allow two unelected oligarchs to decide which programs should be eliminated? Why do Elon and Vivek–who will never need Medicare or Social Security–get to decide whether the rest of us can keep the programs that we rely on? If they get their way, there will be more people dying of health conditions that could been treated, more seniors eating cat food for dinner.

The politicians eagerly await their marching orders.

Sickening.

Trump was interviewed by “Meet the Press” today.

He talked about his Day 1 goals.

He said he would pardon the January 6 insurrectionists, but the reporting did not clarify whether that would include those who brutalized police officers. If so, Republicans should stop calling themselves the party of law and order.

He said he would try to end “birthright citizenship,” the grant of citizenship to persons born in the U.S. He says he would achieve this goal by executive action but birthright citizenship is written into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Trump said that no other country in the world has birthright citizenship but NBC said that 30 other nations do.

As usual, Trump ranted about immigrant criminals but NBC pointed out that immigrants are half as likely to commit crimes as native-born citizens.

He also said he would work with Democrats to protect “Dreamers.” These are children who were brought to this country as young children.

President-elect Trump appointed a man who has actively sabotaged global health to be in charge of our nation’s public health system. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a dangerous quack, whose conspiracy theories put millions of lives at risk.

Why did Trump choose a man to lead HHS whose ideology subverts public health? Well, he promised RFK Jr. the job in exchange for his endorsement. Why does Trump fill key positions at HHS with others whose views or experience are derided by mainstream scientists? Clearly, he is being advised by RFK Jr., so he can surround himself with like-minded people.

The effect of these appointments on the career scientists and physicians at HHS will be devastating. There is sure to be a brain drain. Trump could cripple our nation’s public health system for years to come.

The New York Times reported:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is in line to lead the Department of Health and Human Services in the next Trump administration, is well-known for promoting conspiracy theories and vaccine skepticism in the United States.

But Mr. Kennedy, an environmental lawyer, has also spent years working abroad to undermine policies that have been pillars of global health policy for a half-century, records show.

He has done this by lending his celebrity, and the name of his nonprofit group, Children’s Health Defense, to a network of overseas chapters that sow distrust in vaccine safety and spread misinformation far and wide.

He, his organizations and their officials have interfered with vaccination efforts, undermined sex education campaigns meant to stem the spread of AIDS in Africa, and railed against global organizations like the World Health Organization that are in charge of health initiatives.

Along the way, Mr. Kennedy has partnered with, financed or promoted fringe figures — people who claim that 5G cellphone towers cause cancer, that homosexuality and contraceptive education are part of a global conspiracy to reduce African fertility and that the World Health Organization is trying to steal countries’ sovereignty.

One of his group’s advisers, in Uganda, suggested using “supernatural insight” and a man she calls Prophet Elvis to guide policymaking. “We do well to embrace ethereal means to get ahead as a nation,” she wrote on a Ugandan news site this year.

These people, more than leading scientists and experienced public health professionals, have existed in Mr. Kennedy’s orbit for years. The ideas spread by him and his associates abroad highlight the unorthodox, sometimes conspiratorial nature of the world occupied by a man who stands to lead America’s health department, its 80,000 employees and its $1.8 trillion budget.

Please open the link to continue reading.

A blogger called “That’s Another Fine Mess” wrote about an important question: who controls the Power of the Purse? The Constitution says that power belongs to the House of Representatives. But Trump likes to break norms and ignore the Constitution. Will he seize the power of the purse to kill programs, agencies, and Departments that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy consider unnecessary? Will the Supreme Court enable a power grab?

Think about it. Will this Supreme Court allow Trump to override the Constitution?

The blogger “That’s Another Fine Mess” writes:

Since the English Barons met with King John at Runnymede in 1215 and forced him to sign the Magna Carta, the Power of the Purse, and who shall wield it, has been a central point of political contention in the development of democratic constitutional republics.


In the United States, the Power of the Purse resides in the House of Representatives, that part of the national government closest to the citizen voters.


The last president to challenge the power of the House of Representatives to set financial goals and provide for the proper financing of the agencies of governmnt to achieve those goals was Richard Nixon, 50 years ago.


Donald Trump is preparing to enter his second term as president and has vowed to cut a vast array of government services and announced a radical plan to do so.


Rather than rely on his party’s control of both houses of congress to trim the budget, Trump and his advisers have stated their intent to test an obscure legal theory that holds presidents have sweeping power to withhold funding from programs they dislike. This was also the heart of Nixon’s chosen battleground in the early 1970s, when Congress began defunding the operation of the war in Vietnam.


In a 2023 campaign video, Trump said: “We can simply choke off the money. For 200 years under our system of government, it was undisputed that the president had the constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending.” As with most everything Trump says about politics and government, this is another lie.


The plan, known as “impoundment,” threatens to provoke a major clash with the Article II p[ower over the limits of the president’s Article I control over the budget.


The Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to appropriate the federal budget. The role of the Article I executive branch is to dole out the money effectively, in accordance with the budget created and approved by Congress. That power was affirmed in by passage of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, whch wrote into law that the president did not possess such authority.


Trump and his advisers assert that a president can unilaterally ignore the Congress’ spending decisions and “impound” funds if he opposes them or deems them wasteful.


This assault on the congessional power of the purse is part of his larger plan to consolidate as much power in the executive branch as possible. Earlier this month, he attempted to pressure the Senate to voluntarily go into recess for longer than ten days, so he could appoint his cabinet through recess appointments, avoiding the Senate’s role in advise and consent to such appointments. So far, he was forced to back down on this demand when it became clear that at least five Republican Senators would vote against Matt Gaetz to be Attorney General.


Trump’s claim to possess impoundment power stands against that law. If Trump were to assert and maintain a power to kill congressionally approved programs, it would tee up a fight in the federal courts and – accoprding to experts – fundamentally alter Congress’ bedrock power of he purse were he to prevail at the Supreme Court. Given the present court’s demonstrated willingness to ignore precedent, it is not clear how they would rule, despite the several Supreme Court rulings against Nixon’s attempted usurpation 50 years ago.


The possible fight was teed up in an op-ed published Wednesday by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who Trump has placved in control of the new nongovernmental Department of Government Efficiency – who do not possess between the two of them knowledge of the actual operation of government under the Constitution that would fill a thimble – in which they said they planned to slash federal spending and fire civil servants. Since DOGE is about as real as the Doge Coins our Unreconstructed Afrikaner Space Nazi plays with, the fact is that what these two fuckwits have the power to do is to make suggestions and recommendations to Congress, which has the power to kill a program or agency and reset the terms of employment for the federal employees involved.


Musk and Ramaswamy wrote, “We believe the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question.” They could be right.
Their efforts could offer Trump his first Supreme Court test of the post-Watergate Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which requires the president to spend the money Congress approves. The law allows exceptions, such as when the executive branch can achieve Congress’ goals by spending less, but not as a means for the president to kill programs he opposes.


Trump and his fellow conspirators have been telegraphing his plan for a hostile takeover of the budgeting process for months. He has decried the 1974 law as “not a very good act” in his campaign video and said, “Bringing back impoundment will give us a crucial tool with which to obliterate the Deep State.”


The once-obscure impoundment debate has come back into vogue in MAGA circles thanks to Russell Vought, Trump’s former and future budget director, and Mark Paoletta, who served under Vought during Trump 1.0 as the OMB general counsel, who have worked to popularize the idea after it was brought up by the Vought-founded Center for Renewing America.


In private remarks to a gathering of MAGA luminaries uncovered by ProPublica, Vought boasted he was assembling a “shadow” Office of Legal Counsel so that Trump is armed on day one with the legal rationalizations to realize his agenda, saying, “I don’t want President Trump having to lose a moment of time having fights in the Oval Office about whether something is legal or doable or moral.”


The prospect of Trump seizing vast control over federal spending is not merely about reducing the size of the federal government, a long-standing conservative goal. It is also fueling new fears about his promises of vengeance.

Please open the link to finish reading.

The Miami Herald noted that Trump is considering dropping Pete Hegseth as his nominee for Secretary of Defense and selecting Florida Governor Ron DeSantis instead. So it published a story reviewing DeSantis’s statements about how he would deploy the military. Read and be informed.

The Miami Herald reports:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis repeatedly vowed during his presidential campaign to send troops to the U.S. southern border, authorize lethal force against migrants attempting to cross between ports of entry, and even consider firing missiles into Mexico — an extraordinary use of U.S. military power that has since been endorsed by President-elect Donald Trump. Now, DeSantis may have a chance to fulfill that promise, among other controversial proposals, should Trump ask him to lead the Pentagon. The Republican governor is said to be in discussions with Trump and his transition team about replacing Pete Hegseth, a Fox News television personality plagued by sex and drinking scandals, as his nominee for defense secretary….

At one of the GOP primary debates, DeSantis said he would declare a national emergency and send troops to the southern border to deploy lethal force against drug cartels attempting to smuggle drugs into the country. Throughout the campaign, DeSantis was repeatedly pressed to explain how the military would determine whether individuals crossing the border had any connection to the drug trade. “I am gonna declare a national emergency, I’m not gonna send troops to Ukraine but I am gonna send them to our southern border,” he said. “When these drug pushers are bringing fentanyl across the border, that’s gonna be the last thing they do. We’re gonna use force and we’re gonna leave them stone-cold dead….”

In another exchange during the primary, DeSantis told CBS that he would consider all available military options — including using force in Mexico itself — to combat the illegal drug trade. “The tactics can be debated,” he said, asked whether he would fire missiles into Mexico. “That would be dependent on the situation.” DeSantis has also spent millions of dollars in recent years supporting Texas in deterring migrants from entering the country through state-led border security initiatives. Florida aided in some of Texas’ efforts that have come under scrutiny, including reports that officers were ordered to push small children and nursing babies back into the Rio Grande.

DOMESTIC DEPLOYMENTS

DeSantis, as governor, has already demonstrated a willingness to deploy state troops under his control for unconventional purposes, often unrelated to the immediate needs of the state. He sent members of the Florida State Guard to aid Texas’ state efforts to police the border — despite questions over their coordination with federal border patrol — and, in 2020, sent 500 Florida National Guardsmen to Washington in response to protests following the death of George Floyd….

RECRUITMENT CHALLENGES

DeSantis also promised to purge the military of “woke” policies, such as highlighting diversity, equity and inclusion and allowing transgender personnel to serve as their preferred sex, claiming the policies were undermining military effectiveness and suppressing recruitment. “It is time to rip the woke out of the military and return it to its core mission,” DeSantis said during the campaign. “We must restore a sense of confidence, conviction, and patriotic duty to our institutions — and that begins with our military….”

On the campaign trail, DeSantis also frequently questioned the value of sending financial and military support to Ukraine to help it defend itself against Russia. He opposed its membership bid to NATO and questioned the mission of NATO itself during the primary, calling on the transatlantic alliance to focus on the growing threat from China.

A 2021 study commissioned by the Pentagon on recruitment strategies found that “wokeness” did not register among the top 10 reasons why Americans were enlisting at record low numbers.

“Our research shows that the top barriers to service are concerns about death or injury, PTSD, emotional issues, and leaving friends and family — not political issues,” a Pentagon official told McClatchy last year. “Concerns about vaccines and ‘wokeness’ are among the least to be raised as reasons not to join the military….”

On the campaign trail, DeSantis also frequently questioned the value of sending financial and military support to Ukraine to help it defend itself against Russia. He opposed its membership bid to NATO and questioned the mission of NATO itself during the primary, calling on the transatlantic alliance to focus on the growing threat from China.

“I think NATO was fine for the Cold War. It made sense,” he said. “Now we’re in a situation where a lot of those countries aren’t doing their fair share in terms of their defenses, and yet we’re supposed to provide blanket security for that, where our interests may diverge around the world.”

At one point, DeSantis called the war between Ukraine and Russia a “territorial dispute.” He quickly changed his message after facing criticism and said that Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine and Putin was a “war criminal.”

Ukraine, DeSantis added, has a “right to that territory.”

“If I could snap my fingers, I’d give it back to Ukraine 100%,” DeSantis told the New York Post’s Piers Morgan in March 2023. “But the reality is what is America’s involvement in terms of escalating with more weapons, and certainly ground troops I think would be a mistake. So, that was the point I was trying to make, but Russia was wrong to invade. They were wrong to take Crimea.”

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article296548929.html#storylink=cpy

Politico posted an article today claiming that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was gaining approval by focusing on his criticism of Big Pharma and Big Ag.

The article claims that RFK is a normal politician! He wants people to eat healthy foods!He is against ultra processed foods, even if you saw the photo of him eating a Big Mac on Trump’s plane.

Despite initial resistance, Bobby is winning people over:

Less than a month later, however, some of Kennedy’s other views — especially on food — are surprisingly taking root on Capitol Hill. There’s still considerable resistance to Kennedy — and no certainty that he gets confirmed by the Senate. But his attacks on Big Ag and Big Pharma are resonating and RFK is finding allies among some populists who share the goal of taking on big corporate interests.

Ignore the fact that he is opposed to vaccines. Ignore the fact that dozens of children died in Samoa after he brought news that (in his view) measles vaccines cause measles.

Ignore the fact that he recently claimed that heroin improved his school performance.

Shame on Politico.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should not run our nation’s healthcare system. Maybe a food safety program. But NOT the Department of Health and Human Services!

He is an extremist who opposes science.

Trump is continuing to ignore the fact that some appointees serve for a set term, to insulate them from politics. Trump does not want his appointees to be insulated from his control. The current IRS commissioner’s term expires in 2027 but Trump announced his replacement today.

The same thing happened with the FBI. The incumbent, Christopher Wray, was appointed by Trump in 2017 to replace James Comey, who was fired by Trump. Wray is supposed to serve ten years but Trump has announced his choice, which suggests that he intends to fire Wray.

Trump’s choice for IRS Commissioner is Billy Long, a former Congressman from Missouri who never served on the tax-writing committee.

The New York Times reported:

President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he would nominate Billy Long, formerly a Republican congressman representing Missouri, to lead the Internal Revenue Service, effectively pledging to fire the tax collector’s current leader, a Biden appointee.

Mr. Trump’s choice, announced on his social media website, would shake up the I.R.S. at a pivotal moment. The Biden administration has poured billions of dollars into modernizing the agency and beefing up its tax collection efforts in an effort to improve customer service and crack down on tax cheats.

In 2022, President Biden chose Daniel Werfel, a former management consultant and civil servant who had worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations, to lead the overhaul of the I.R.S. His term was set to last until 2027.

Republicans have deeply opposed the Biden administration’s vision for the tax agency, which included providing roughly $80 billion in supplemental funding to the I.R.S. over a decade. G.O.P. lawmakers successfully pushed to cancel $20 billion of that money, and are eyeing further cuts. The I.R.S. is unpopular with the public, and Republicans have long attacked it as invasive and inept.

Additional funding for the I.R.S. helps raise the money for the government by more effectively enforcing tax laws and requiring Americans to pay the taxes they owe, according to budget experts.

Mr. Long, a former auctioneer, did not serve on the House tax-writing committee during his time in Congress. But he did put his auctioneering skills to use while in Washington….

Presidents do not typically select new I.R.S. commissioners when they come into office, and the Senate will have to confirm Mr. Long. President Biden waited for the term of Mr. Trump’s first choice to lead the tax agency, Charles P. Rettig, to end before selecting Mr. Werfel.

NPR reports on the latest vote tally in the Presidential race. It undermines Trump’s repeated claims that the voters gave him a “mandate” to impose his campaign pledges.

The margin for the popular vote in this year’s presidential election is the second-closest since 1968, and it’s still tightening. With 96% of the vote in, Trump has 49.97% and Vice President Harris has 48.36%, according to the Associated Press. These results show that Trump doesn’t exactly have the “unprecedented and powerful mandate” he claimed on election night. The margin shows how closely divided the country is politically and that any shift to the right is marginal. Here’s what these results mean, plus a graphic that breaks down the popular vote throughout the years. 

I was interviewed by Josephine Lee of The Texas Observer. She asked about growing up in Houston and my thoughts about Trump’s education agenda. It’s a conversation, not an article. I will write more on this subject in the future.