RAW POWER

According to a 2017 Gallup poll, only 24% of Americans identified as Republicans, compared to 31% for the Democrats (the rest are independents).   That number for the Republican party has dropped five points since Donald Trump was elected in 2016.  If the Democrats have a pretty strong advantage in numbers, and with demographic polls showing that younger voters and America's growth in diversity favoring them over Republicans in the future, why then do the Republicans currently own the White House, the Senate and a majority of Governorships in the country?  Because, quite simply, the Republican party only cares about gaining power for themselves and has no qualms about how they get it.  Their macho swagger, with an  entitled sense that they should always run things, has lead to them find ways to game the system in their favor.  Consider that in this century there have been five presidential elections, and a Republican candidate has only won the popular vote once (in 2004), and yet by 2020 a Republican will have held the White House for 12 out of the past twenty years.
Recently, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell showed just how deeply he doesn't care about being a hypocrite: when asked what the Senate would do if a Supreme Court vacancy came up within ten months of the 2020 election, he quite simply answered "We'd fill it."  This is the same man who refused to allow a confirmation vote (or even to meet with) President Barack Obama's supreme court choice Merrick Garland ten months before the 2016 election, an unprecedented power grab that he vaguely justified as "letting the voters decide", a view point that he now completely refutes when the tables are turned.


And just look at the picture  of him smiling as he said "We'd fill it"; it's the look of a man who realizes how dishonest he was in the past and just doesn't care as long as he wins.  This is, after all, the same Senate leader who led his party to filibuster everything that then president Barack Obama did when his party was in the minority in the Senate, and said that his number one priority was preventing Obama from winning a second term.
And McConnell is certainly no outlier in the party: in 2009 the Republicans targeted state elections, realizing how important it was to control states that would be redistricting after the 2010 census.  Once power was gained, they used computerized voting lists to gerrymander state districts to their advantage, with strong results.  In 2012, more voters voted for Democratic candidates in the House of Representatives, but Republicans still held control because their manipulations had rendered many votes useless.
Along with gerrymandering, the party has also pushed the  notion of wide spread voter fraud, which has never been proven despite many accusations.  Not that that matters, it's just a convenient way for the party to pass laws that will lead to lower voter turnout in Democratic districts; from voter ID laws to restricting early voting, the Republican party has shamelessly exploited this false narrative to gain an advantage.  After all, what else can you expect from a party led by a man who claimed, without an ounce of proof, that he lost the popular vote in the presidential election because millions of people voted illegally?
Finally, this brings us the issue of the 2020 census.  The Trump administration has decided, for the first time in decades, to add the question "Are you a citizen of the US?" to the census form.  Although this may seem like an innocuous question, many political analysts have stated that it will greatly harm the political influence of more diverse, urban areas because many immigrants will fearfully refuse to fill out the form, fearing government deportation (and can you blame them?).  The administration has been saying that the citizenship question should be added to help aid the Civil Rights Voting Law, but this is a lie, as we now know for a fact.  Why?  Because recently Thomas B. Hofeller, a Republican party member who was famous for gerrymandering, passed away and his daughter released to the press computer files he had discussing the citizenship question issue in which  he blatantly admitted that this was a pure and simple power grab that would benefit the Republican party.  This is just two weeks before the Supreme Court is due to rule on whether the question is constitutional.  Given the brazen partisanship nature of adding the question to the census, it would seem to be common sense for the court to disallow it, but the court has become more and more partisan in recent years, and it sadly appears that the question will be allowed.
So what can Democrats do to prevent such naked lust for power on the part of the Republicans?  In the short run, not a lot; even if Trump is a one term president, the number of life time court appointees he has made will insure his insidious influence for years to come.  While I'm optimistic on the idea the country is slowly turning to the left politically, the fact that the Republicans have so openly worked to cement their advantage even with a lesser percentage of the vote shows that they will not go down slowly, and that the Republican party will have power despite its dwindling numbers for years to come.

TO IMPEACH OR NOT IMPEACH

"Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment."  -Michigan Rep. Justin Amash

Recently, Michigan Representative (and diehard libertarian gadfly) Justin Amash became the first Republican member of congress to express an opinion that has become increasingly popular on the left; that the obstruction of justice that President Trump committed, according to the Mueller report, rose to the level of an  impeachable offense.  Add to that the fact that around 800 former federal prosecutors recently signed a petition stating that Trump would have been prosecuted for obstruction if he were not president, and the drumbeat for some kind of impeachment proceedings is getting louder.
And it's not just his obvious obstruction of justice that could be impeachable, don't forget that the president may be in violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution, and appears to have made illegal payments to silence porn starlet Stormy Daniels and playboy centerfold  Karen McDougal.  Plus there's the numerous shady dealings and tax dodges that he and his family have made over the years before he tantrumed his way into the White House.  And he's certainly not doing himself any favors by ignoring every subpoena from the House of Representatives, blocking every attempt to release his tax returns or business dealings, and persuading former and current members of his administration from testifying before congress, all of which certainly appears suspicious.
But are impeachment proceedings a good idea?   Democrats are divided on the issue, understandably.  On the one hand: for the president to be removed from office, two thirds of the Senate will have vote for it, now matter what the House does.  And there's really no way that the spineless, excuse making Republicans in that body will ever turn on Trump no matter what he says or does.  Even worse, after such a vote is defeated in the Senate, Trump will inevitably strut around braying to the press that he was vindicated. Plus polls show that most Americans don't support impeachment, and it could wind up helping him in his reelection bid in 2020. And his popularity within his own party is unshakeable; (as TV pundit Mark Shields so aptly put it, "There is no Republican party anymore, there's just the cult of Trump.") and an impeachment attempt by the House could just fire up his base even more.  Those are all solid reasons.
On the other hand, just how much corruption should we allow the president to get away with without some kind of check being put on him?  It's obvious that by claiming executive privilege and ignoring subpoenas, Trump is flat out saying that there are no limits on the president's powers, denying the checks and balances of different government branches that the constitution spells out.   And impeachment investigations would give the House more  power of investigation, which would make it harder for the president to hide all of the various corrupt things he has done before and after he became president.  Impeachment hearings may reveal things so terrible in Trump's past that even Republicans won't be able to support him anymore (although, given how they still supported him after that Access Hollywood tape, I sure wouldn't count on that!).
So this is the impasse that American politics are now stuck in, with an obviously corrupt and unfit president remaining in power because of his ability to channel the frustrations of his constituency, with whom he remains popular.  Personally, I lean towards the inclinations of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who isn't for impeachment but is heavily pushing for as many investigations   into the president as possible. According to the New York Times, there are currently a whopping twenty nine of them on both the federal and state level, which means that there's an enormous amount of corrupt and or criminal behavior that may be revealed.   Pelosi's position  makes sense, in that the more investigations that are done, the madder and more childish the president gets.  Hopefully, with each toy throwing tantrum and pouting tweet shown on the news, more and more undecided voters will wake up to the fact that our country is being run by a pathetic spoiled man child who, if he hadn't been lucky enough to be born into a family of enormous wealth and privilege, wouldn't be qualified to run an Arby's.

THE "I'M NOT HIM" CANDIDATE

Joe Biden has just announced his candidacy for president, and he has immediately moved to the front of the pack of the twenty Democrats running.  Alike Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren, the former vice president has not proposed any big policy ideas, and he has not publicly embraced recent progressive policy ideas like The Green New Deal or Medicare for all.
So why has he moved to the front?  Part of it is just simple name recognition: as a former vice president,  he's obviously been in the media a lot more than his opponents (with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, who's running second), and there's also a nostalgia factor, with Biden reminding Democrats of the good ol' days of Barack Obama's reign.
Another reason may be simple pragmatism: Biden looks like he has the best chance of winning.  While most registered Democrats may support Medicare for all and The Green New Deal, they also realize that these progressive issues may alienate moderate voters who dislike Trump's personal behavior  but don't want the big changes those issues could bring.  Biden, who has made no sweeping policy proposals,  is a moderate old white man who can perhaps bring back those voters who voted for Obama in 2012 and then turned to Trump in 2016.  And Donald Trump seems to know it, as he has already started attacking Biden (calling him, in typically immature fashion, "Sleepy Joe") and bizarrely bragging about how young he feels, even though he is only four years younger than Biden, and currently the oldest president ever.  Biden seems to playing up to the idea that a vote for him will be a return to dignity in the White House, openly criticizing Trump's muted reaction to the white supremacy rally in Charlottesville, wisely reminding voters of what was probably the low point of his presidency.  Biden candidacy seems to be less about big ideas and more about not saying and doing things that hurt the image of the country, which is a fair point, even if it's not exactly inspiring.
So, is this is the choice that the Democrats face?  Ignore the younger, more diverse and policy oriented candidates in favor of the old white guy just because he has the best chance?  As someone who voted for Ralph Nader back in 2000 and has regretted it ever since, I'm sympathetic to the simple desire to win. And while I don't completely buy into the notion that age and race are so important to beating Trump, (remember Obama won handily twice, and he was not only the first African American president, he was also the second youngest) and even though my personal favorite candidates are Harris, Warren and Mayor Pete, I'll still gladly pull the lever for uncle Joe.  But then, I would literally vote for every political figure in America (other than David Duke) before I'd vote for Trump.  He has set the bar so low, and seems to get more immature, dishonest and egotistical with every passing day. So if saying Joe Biden is better than one of the worst people to ever be involved in American politics is not much of a ringing endorsement, I'll still make it.