Bizarrely, former Secretary of State and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton accused Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard, a military veteran, and Green party candidate from 2016 Jill Stein of being Russian assets. This isn’t the first time that she has seen Russians hiding under the bed everywhere so you have to start to wonder: is she crazy?
Will Clinton Democrats Vote for a Progressive Against Trump?
Whoâs to blame for President Trump? Democrats have been arguing about this ever since.
Centrists call Bernieâs backers sore losers and say leftists are untrustworthy supporters of a man who never officially declared fealty to the Democratic Party, and myopic beyond understanding. Why didnât progressives understand that nothing was more important than defeating the clear and present danger to the republic represented by Donald Trump?
Progressives counter that after decades of dutifully falling in line after their candidates fell to primary-time centrist-favoring chicaneryâTed Kennedy to a sleazy last-minute change in delegate rules, Howard Dean to a media-engineered audio smear, John Edwards to censorshipâthe partyâs sabotage of Bernie was one crushed leftie dream too far. Democrats, progressives say, had to be taught a lesson. The left isnât a wing, itâs the base. Anyway, whoâs to say that Trump is so much worse than Hillary would have been? At least Trump doesnât seem to share her lust for war.
The fight for the Democratic Party matters because it informs dynamics as well as the strategic logic of the current primary clash. At this writing pollsters are calling it a three-way race between Biden, Warren and Sanders, but this campaign is really a repeat of 2016: Biden vs. {Warren or Sanders}.
(If Warren or Sanders drops out itâs a safe bet that the surviving progressive receives the exiting contestantâs endorsement and his or her voters.)
Democrats tell pollsters they care about electability, i.e. choosing a candidate with a strong chance of defeating Trump. But who is that, Biden or Warren/Sanders?
In current theoretical head-to-head matchup polls, Biden beats Trump by 12 points, Warren wins by 5 and Sanders bests the president by 7. But itâs a long way to November 2020. At this point these numbers are meaningless except to say that thereâs a credible case for any of the top three as viable challengers to Trump.
2016 clearly illustrates the risk of nominating Biden: progressives probably wonât vote for him. Some might even defect to Trump, as did a substantial number of Bernie voters in 2016.
If anything, Biden is even less appealing to the progressive base than Hillary was. Clinton offered the history-making potential of a first woman president and a sharp mind; Biden is another old white man, one whose repeated verbal stumbles are prompting pundits to wonder aloud whether he is suffering from dementia. Assuming he survives another 14 months without winding up in memory care, Biden will probably lose to Trump.
If Biden secures the nomination, centrists will again argue that nothing matters more than beating Trump. I see no sign that progressives will agree.
The real question is one that no one is asking: what if Warren or Sanders gets the nod? Will centrists honor their âblue no matter whoâ slogan if the shoe is finally on the other foot and the Democratic nominee hails from the left flank of the party?
There isnât enough data to say one way or the other.
The partyâs silent war on Bernie Sanders broke out into the open earlier this year. âI believe a gay Midwestern mayor can beat Trump. I believe an African-American senator can beat Trump. I believe a western governor, a female senator, a member of Congress, a Latino Texan or a former vice president can beat Trump,â said Jon Cowan, president of then right-wing Democratic organization Third Way, said in June. âBut I donât believe a self-described democratic socialist can win.â On the other hand, he is the âsecond choiceâ of most Biden supporters.
As Sanders stalls at the 20% mark, self-described capitalist Elizabeth Warren continues to receive more media coverage and thus increasing popular support. But would Bidenites show up for her in November? No one knows.
Progressives havenât had a chance at the brass ring since November 1972 when George Mc Govern suffered one of the unfairest losses in American electoral history, to a warmongering sleazeball who was forced to resign less than three years later over a Watergate scandal that had already broken out. It was a bitter conclusion to a campaign that was in many ways ahead of its time. McGovern wanted universal healthcare. Like Andrew Yang, McGovern proposed a universal basic income to lift up the poor.
Even after the party convention centrist Democratic leaders like John Connally formed Democrats for Nixon, an oxymoron if there ever was one, to try to undermine McGovernâs candidacy. Itâs hard to imagine their modern-day counterparts resorting to such brazen treason. More likely, they would withhold their enthusiastic support for a progressive like Sanders or Warren.
If Biden withdraws from the raceâa real possibility given his obviously deteriorating mental state and the long arc to next summerâs nominating conventionâcentrists will have to choose between four more years of Donald Trump and atoning for the sins of 1972.
(Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of âFrancis: The Peopleâs Pope.â You can support Tedâs hard-hitting political cartoons and columns and see his work first by sponsoring his work on Patreon.)
Every Single Time, Centrists Say They’ll Win. And They Never Do.
It’s the oldest debate within the Democratic Party: what to do about a progressive insurgent candidate? Whether it’s Ted Kennedy’s challenge against Jimmy Carter in 1980, Howard Dean against John Kerry in 2004 or Bernie Sanders against Hillary Clinton, moderates and centrists always say the same thing: in order to win, you need those swing voters. That means you have to pick the moderate choice. The problem with that argument is that it never really works out in the general election. Kennedy and Dean’s voters stayed home in November. 3 to 4,000,000 Bernie Sanders primary voters never showed up for Hillary Clinton. Now the same argument is being floated again, this time in favor of Joe Biden.
Campaign 2020: Why Joe Biden is the Least Electable Democrat
As one of the few pundits who correctly called the 2016 election for Donald Trump, it would be wise to rest on my laurels rather than risk another prediction, one that might turn out wrong.
But how would that be fun? Let the 2020 political prognostications begin!
The arithmetic of the 2016 Republican presidential primaries is repeating itself on the Democratic side in 2020: a big field of candidates, one of whom commands a plurality by virtue of name recognitionâwhich implies higher âelectabilityââwhile his 20-or-so opponents divvy up the rest of the single-digit electoral scraps.
The Trump 2016 dynamic will probably play out the same way when Democratic delegates are counted at the 2020 convention. But the outcome in November 2020 is likely to be the opposite: Trump gets reelected.
Hereâs how I see it playing out.
In 2016 there were 17 âmajorâ (corporate media-approved) GOP presidential candidates. Famous and flamboyant, Donald Trump consistently polled around 30% throughout the primaries. That left his 16 relatively obscure rivals to fight over the remaining 70%. Considering that 70% divided by 16 comes to 4.4%, his runner-ups Ben Carson (14%), Ted Cruz (9%) and Marco Rubio (9%) outperformed the field. Yet Trumpâs lead was too big. They couldnât catch him.
Twenty-four Democrats are running in 2020. Here again, we have one really famous guyâitâs hard to get more famous than former vice president of the United Statesâplus the rest. In this contest, the odds of an upset are even longer. Joe Biden polls at around 38%, significantly better than Trump did. The remaining pie slice is smaller than Carson, Cruz, Rubio, etc. and gets chopped up into even more pieces.
Next comes Bernie Sandersâthe early frontrunner, now number twoâat about 18%, with Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg each getting about 8%. (62% divided by 23 equals 2.7%.) Although Sanders is suffering from his failure to follow my advice to move left, itâs also easy to see why progressives suspect another DNC conspiracy to screw him.
âHaving many candidates is a standard Democratic Party tactic to draw down support for any insurgent candidate,â writes Rodolfo Cortes Barragan, a candidate for Congress from south L.A. âWhen it was just Bernie vs. Hillary, all the anti-Hillary Democratic voters had to go somewhere, and they all went to Bernie. But now Bernieâs votes will be split with progressive icons like Warren and Gabbard, as well as with progressive-sounding corporate politicians like Buttigieg, Harris, and Biden.â
Here I will insert my standard disclaimer that the elections are an eternity away, that things can and will change, you never know what will happen, blah blah blah.
But as things stand at this writing, Biden will probably take the nomination unless he dies or thereâs a new scandal.
After the summer 2020 conventions, the 2016 scenario diverges from 2020.
I tend to discount âblue no matter whoâ and âanyone but Trumpâ chatter from centrist Democrats who argue that this president is such a threat to everything good and decent about the world that everyone must set their personal preferences aside in order to vote the bastard out. Besides, many of the people who urge unity have no credibility. They voted for Hillary but if Bernie had been the nominee they would not have turned out for him. Progressives werenât born yesterday. Tired of 40 years of marginalization, they turned a deaf ear to the Clintonitesâ self-serving unity pleas, boycotted the general election and denied Hillary her âinevitableâ win.
And hereâs the thing: they donât feel bad about it.
If anything the schism in the Democratic Party between the progressive majority (72%) and corporatist centrist voters has widened and hardened over the past three years. Both sides are intransigent: Hillaryâs voters accuse Bernieâs boycotters of handing the White House to Trump; Bernieâs supporters point to polls that consistently showed he, not Clinton, could have beat Trump.
Progressives are still angry that the Democratic establishment cheated Bernie Sanders out of the nomination last time. News that theyâre doing the same thing now has enraged them.
That includes progressives who plan to vote for one of the other progressives or progressives-come-lately. By any measure, Joe Biden is not progressive. Heâs number one in the polls but far behind the aggregate total of his progressive opponents. (I omit zero-policy candidates like Beto OâRourke and Pete Buttigieg and centrists like Amy Klobuchar from my back-of-the-envelope calculations even though their support includes some progressives.) The party is ramming Biden the corporatist down the throats of Democratic primary voters using classic divide-and-conquer.
It will work. The Democrats will emerge from this nomination fight even more divided than the last cycle. Like the Mad Queen at the conclusion of âGame of Thrones,â Biden will inherit the ruins of a party he destroyed.
Trump goes into 2020 stronger than ever. Republicans are unified. Democrats look like fools for the debunked Russiagate fiasco and like wimps for refusing to try to impeach him. The economy looks strong. If the president lays off Iran, weâll be relatively at peace. In the Rust Belt swing states itâs not just Republicans who like his trade wars. Abortion will not motivate as many voters as liberals hope.
At the same time, Joe Biden is the worst candidate in the Democratic field, even worse than Hillary Clinton. Some progressives voted for her because of her history-making potential as first woman president and her role trying to make healthcare policy. Biden offers nothing like that for progressive voters. Heâs a warmonger who voted to kill a million people in Iraq. Heâs against Medicare for all. He undermined Anita Hill, pretended to apologize years after the fact, and then took it back. And heâs just another old white man. No one is excited about him.
Only one thing can defeat Donald Trump: a unified, enthusiastic, progressive front. Bidenâs rivals should pick one of their own, drop out and pledge to campaign for him or her. OK, two things: Biden should quit for the good of his party. Of course neither of these will happen.
I currently predict that Trump will win bigly.
(Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of âFrancis: The Peopleâs Pope.â You can support Tedâs hard-hitting political cartoons and columns and see his work first by sponsoring his work on Patreon.)
Death to the Stump Speech
âYou showed hours upon hours of unfiltered, unscrutinized coverage of Trump!â Todd Harris, an advisor to Senator Marco Rubio, shouted at the head of CNN during a panel discussion after the election. âCNN helped make [Trump] by carrying every speech he made in the primary season,â added Larry King, the former CNN anchorman. âIt was almost like the other guys didnât exist.â
In the general election accusations of pro-Trump favoritism at CNN continued from Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.
âIf we made any mistake last year, itâs that we probably did put too many of his campaign rallies in those early months and let them run,â Zucker ultimately confessed. âListen, because you never knew what he would say, there was an attraction to put those on the air.â Hell, Trump probably didnât know what he was going to say before he arrived at each podium.
He winged it, riffed off his audience, ran off at the mouth and scrammed before the country knew what hit it.
Trump rallies are freeform jazz. Anything can happen. Quality varies but give the president this: no two performances are the same. âTrump was simply more entertaining and generating more passion,â recalled David Sillito, media reporter for the BBC.
While Trump delivered the extemporaneous devil-may-care thrills of a candidate who doesnât expect to win, Clinton and Trumpâs primary opponents dutifully trudged the land delivering that deadliest of ought-to-be-deceased propaganda formats: the stump speech.
There was Hillary reading from a Teleprompter in Columbus, every word scrupulously stripped of life by her army of staffers, consultants and attorneys. There she was again in Atlanta: same words, same cadences, same gestures and facial expressions. Tune in, tune off. You can hardly blame CNN for skipping some of those cut-and-pastersâto do otherwise would have violated viewersâ human rights.
Stump speeches go back to the early 1800s. Politicians made their way from town to town, first on horseback and then by train, where they delivered the same speech while standing atop a sawed-off tree stump because many areas were freshly cleared forests.
Radio, television and the Internet have revolutionized communication. The last presidential election, in which ad lib shockingly defeated inevitability, demonstrated the obsolescence of the stump speech. Yet this boring tradition endures.
On April 29th former vice president and presidential wannabe-come-lately Joe Biden unleashed his stump speech in Pittsburgh. âThere was a $2 trillion tax cut last year. Did you feel it?â Biden asked a group of unionists. âNo!â the unionists replied.
âOf course not!â Biden said.
Repetition in Des Moines and Akron and Buffalo and Knoxville will not make this exchange more exciting.
All the major Democratic presidential candidates rely on stump speeches. Introductions are modified to acknowledge local officials in attendance. Sections are dropped to adjust to tight schedules. Location determines the insertion or deletion of certain lines. But the basic structure is the same whether youâre in Dubuque or Decatur. Itâs easy to see the appeal of the stump speech. Why pay for a hundred speeches when you can make do with one? Why risk gaffes when you can massage and road-test a veteran rallier?
The Associated Press described the drill in 2016: âDay after day, the candidates for president wake up, brush their teeth and pump themselves up to say the same thing they did yesterday. Most of what they say won’t make the evening news, or get tweeted or repeated. But that spiel they repeat, with variations, to audience after audience in state after state, is a campaign essential.â
What theyâre missing is why it wonât make the news. By definition, repetition is not news.
Trump repeatedly made the news by repeatedly saying something new.
Campaigns that still rely on stump speeches are pretending that technology doesnât exist. Itâs impressive when Bernie Sanders talks to 20,000 people. But his real audience isnât there. A limitless crowd, millions of voters perhapsâis watching on cable news and/or online. But networks wonât carry his rally unless it might break news. A stump speech canât do that. Even diehard Berners wonât bother to livestream if they see pretty much the same event each time. Been there, saw that, next.
Todayâs Democratic stumpers might want to take a cue from the stump speeches of the 19th century, which were actually vibrant and spontaneous expressions of frontier life.
âRefined politicians in the cities may have looked down on stump speeches,â writes history writer Robert McNamara. âBut out in the countryside, and especially along the frontier, stump speeches were appreciated for their rough and rustic character. They were free-wheeling performances that were different in content and tone from the more polite and sophisticated political discourse heard in the cities.â Americaâs first politicians shot brutal insults; audiences rewarded the most outrageous slurs with their votes.
Thereâs a reason Trump looks uncomfortable reading from a script. He prefers to rock it old school.
(Ted Rall, the cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of âFrancis: The Peopleâs Pope.â You can support Tedâs hard-hitting political cartoons and columns and see his work first by sponsoring his work on Patreon.)
Hey Democrats, How Did Blocking Bernie Work Out For You Last Time
In 2016 the corporate-controlled Democratic National Committee decided to pull out all the stops to prevent insurgent candidate Bernie Sanders from taking away the nomination from their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton. That decision contributed to the surprise victory by Donald Trump because many of Sanders’ supporters decided not to come to the polls in November. Now it looks like corporate Democrats are repeating the same exact mistake.
Democrats’ Refusal to Impeach Trump Could Be the Death of Them in 2020
âThe general sentiment of mankind is that a man who will not fight for himself, when he has the means of doing so, is not worth being fought for by others, and this sentiment is just,â Frederick Douglas said in 1857. âThe poet was as true to common sense as to poetry when he said, âWho would be free, themselves must strike the blow.ââ
Do not call for a battle for which you are not willing to fight yourself. To do otherwise is to earn contempt.
For three years Congressional Democrats repeatedly took to the nationâs airwaves and prose media outlets to tout the Mueller Report and their certainty that the former FBI directorâs team would uncover proof that Donald Trump and his team were traitors because they conspired with a foreign adversary, the Russian Federation, to steal the 2016 presidential election from Hillary Clinton. Mueller would provide the evidence needed to justify impeachment.
Though Democrats dropped the I-word from their rhetoric near the end of the campaign, Democratic votersâ support for impeaching Trump motivated voter turnout in the 2018 midterms and led to Democratic gains. A June 2018 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 70% of Democratic voters wanted Democrats to retake the House of Representatives so they could hold impeachment hearings.
Like a dog who caught a car (like Trump caught a presidency he reportedly didnât want), Democrats captured the House. But they donât want to impeach. Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders say impeachment would divide the country, turn off swing voters and risk the kind of backlash Republicans suffered in 2000 after they voted to impeach Bill Clinton. As New York Times columnist Gail Collins, a Democrat, advises, âLetâs just vote the sucker outâ next year.
Refusal to impeach is a serious tactical error. It could cost them the 2020 election.
Like most bad tactical decisions, this one follows a faulty analysis of the past and applying historical lessons to a present under which conditions have changed. First, Republicans hardly got destroyed in 2000. They won the presidency (albeit via a judicial coup dâetat), held on to the House following the net loss of one seat and the Senate went to a tie following a net four-seat loss. Second, polarization has resulted in the virtual extinction of the once mighty swing voter. Third, there was no bipartisan consensus that lying about receiving oral sex was impeachable. Trump didnât collude with Russia but even many Republicans have trouble with Trumpâs WWE temperament, early morning tweetstorms and overall erratic personality (personality, not politics, would form a solid foundation for impeaching the current president).
Trump is in a much better position than he was in 2016. Now he leads a united GOP. He probably wonât face a significant primary challenger. His base adores him. Though many have been left behind, by most measures the economy is booming. And he hasnât started any big new wars. By historical standards this feels something like peace. Democrats should not underestimate him again.
Presidential elections are referenda on the incumbent. Incumbent Trump is sitting pretty, especially now that he can credibly claim exoneration on claims of Russian collusion. Unless something big happens, inertia rules; enough Americans go ainât-broke-donât-fix-it to reelect him.
As the party out of power, the only chance Democrats have is to promise a future thatâs dramatically more appealing as well as practical to create. Most of the major Democratic presidential contenders have embraced Bernie Sandersâ holy trinity: Medicare for All, $15 minimum wage, free public college tuition. Improvements to be sure, but exciting enough inducements to defeat a strong incumbent? I doubt it.
This is where Frederick Douglas comes in. Democrats have a well-earned reputation for snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory, often due to a failure of nerve. Democrats whine. They preen. But they donât fight.
The Republican Senate guarantees Trump wouldnât be removed from office, yet impeaching the president would help assure the Democratsâ repeatedly-disappointed progressive base that the partyâs long run of appeasing Republicans had finally come to an end. Democrats donât stand a chance against a unified Republican party without firming up their base too.
Moreover, Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. They pimped the Mueller Report and Russian collusion as the road to Trump B Gon only to have that narrative evaporate in light of the facts. Douglas was right. Asking the voters to do next year what theyâre not willing to do themselves this yearâget rid of Trumpâis an invitation for nothing but the brutal contempt of mass indifference.
(Ted Rall, the cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of âFrancis: The Peopleâs Pope.â You can support Tedâs hard-hitting political cartoons and columns and see his work first by sponsoring his work on Patreon.)
I Told You So: Only Idiots Believed in Russiagate
There they go again.
In 2002 and 2003 corporate media idiots speculated that secular socialist Saddam Hussein might give nukes that he didnât and couldnât have to radical Islamists who wanted to kill him. That story wasnât true. Worse than that, it couldnât have been true. I said it over and over and over. So did others.
But we skeptics were outsiders. Corporate mediaâs strict idiots-only hiring policy keeps journalists-as-stenographers, propagandists and broken-brain logic-haters employed by censoring those of us who are always right. The idiotsâ idiotic lies about WMDs justified a war that left more than a million Iraqis dead.
Corporate media didnât fire their idiots after the WMD fiasco. Why would they? They were in the war business and the suck-up-to-government business. Had they been in the truth business, losing their credibility might have mattered.
Idiots gonna idiot. So itâs no surprise that in 2016 the same corporate media morons fabricated another conspiracy theory so outlandish that not only was it obviously untrue, it could not possibly have been trueâand that it would again have devastating real-world consequences.
Russiagate was a propaganda campaign waged by the Democratic Party and its media allies with a daily blizzard of overheated speculation that Russia installed Donald Trump as its stooge by hacking the 2016 presidential election. Several years and millions of dollars later, special counsel Robert Mueller has concluded that it didnât happen.
Of course it didnât happen. It couldnât have happened.
As I wrote last year: âYouâre asking us to believe that Trumpâs people met with Putinâs people, not to discuss Trumpâs sleazy real estate developments in the former Soviet Union, but to encourage Russian hackers to break into the DNC, steal Hillaryâs emails and funnel them to WikiLeaks with a view toward angering enough voters to change the outcome of the election in Trumpâs favor. Trump doesnât even read one-page memos. Yet weâre being asked to believe that he supervised a ridiculously complex Machiavellian conspiracy?
âWikiLeaks didnât get the DNC documents from Russia or any other state actor. They got them from a disgruntled pro-Bernie Sanders staffer at the DNC. Anyway, the intelligence community â you know, the friendly folks at the CIA, FBI and NSA whom Democrats worship the way Republicans revered firefighters after 9/11 â says whatever Russian hacking occurred did not affect the outcome of the election.
âThen thereâs this: Trump didnât actually want to win. Why would he go to such lengths to steal something he didnât want?â
As Chris Christie pointed out January 28th, how the hell could a shoestring operation like the Trump campaign, which was âjust trying to figure out how to get field people hired in places like Pennsylvaniaâ be so internationally sophisticated as to ârun some sort of Tom Clancy operationâ?
My colleague Matt Taibbi writes, and heâs right: âNobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.â Whatever credibility U.S. media still had after pimping those imaginary Iraqi WMDs, The Los Angeles Times allowing its stock to be sold to the LAPD and then taking orders from the police, and âexpertsâ repeatedly reporting that Donald Trump had no chance of winning, lies in tatters.
The media idiotsâ WMD BS cost a million-plus Iraqis their lives. Their Russiagate crap has vastly increased the chances that Trump will win reelection. Russiagate will make it all but impossible to impeach the bastard as he deserves and as the country desperately needs.
As I said on the radio after the Mueller news broke: âBusiness corruption would have been, should have been the focus of Democrats looking for legal means to remove this president. That’s the low-hanging fruit; that’s where something actually happened. Instead, they went after the president for something he didn’t actually do, and so they look really foolish, and Trump is going to beat the Mueller report over the heads of the Democrats all through next year, and it’s going to be hard for the Democrats to put this behind them.â
Trump is a corrupt real estate magnate with ties to the mafia and sleazy autocrats around the world. Anyone out to get him should have started by following his misbegotten money. Instead Democrats tried to do three things at once: get Trump, destroy U.S.-Russia relations to provoke a new Cold War that would profit the military-industrial complex and explain away the bankruptcy of Hillary Clintonâs brand of centrist corporatism.
Democrats are now turning their attention to the New York-based investigations of Trump and his business affairs by U.S. Attorneys. The president faces significant legal jeopardy on several fronts, including abusing a charitable organization to evade taxes and the likelihood that his hush-money payoffs to Stormy Daniels violated federal campaign finance laws. When he leaves office, Trump might even face jail time.
But none of that matters. Trump is so old and fat heâll probably die before facing prosecution. The real threat to Trump from New York is current and political. Thanks to Muellerâs exoneration on Russiagate, Trump is largely politically inoculated from the New York stuff even if the Department of Justice files major charges. âJust another witch hunt,â heâll sayâand votersânot just his baseâwill nod their heads. The media will go on and on about wrongdoing that under normal circumstances would amount to one hell of a scandalâbut who will listen other than partisan Democrats?
The second Trump Administration that just became likelier will hasten the destruction of the planet by pollution and climate change, widen income and wealth disparity and gut the Affordable Care Act. The U.S. system may never recover. All because the corporate media idiots went after a serial criminal for the one crime he didnât commit.
Wanna know the richest irony? Trump knew how this would turn out. He knew what the Mueller Report would say. For two years heâs been watching DNC mouthpieces like MSNBCâs Rachel Maddow rant about Russiagate. He knew heâd use those clips for one attack ad after another.
Actual collusion! Democrats and their media outlets conspired to install Donald Trump as president in 2020.
(Ted Rall, the cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of âFrancis: The Peopleâs Pope.â You can support Tedâs hard-hitting political cartoons and columns and see his work first by sponsoring his work on Patreon.)