It’s hard to keep up with the growing evidence of the horrors Trump plans to implement in a second term, but I wrote about one item that really struck me at New York:
There have been many credible reports that a second Trump administration would feature an assault on the federal civil-service system in order to reduce “deep state” resistance to his authoritarian ambitions — or, to use his terms for it, to “drain the swamp” — while stuffing the higher levels of the federal bureaucracy with political appointees. Those of us who are history-minded have immediately thought of this as threatening a return to the “spoils system” of the 19th century, which was more or less ended by enactment of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 (signed into law by Republican president and reformed spoilsman Chester Alan Arthur).
But the more we know about Team Trump’s plans, this understanding of what they want to do in staffing the federal government looks increasingly inadequate and anachronistic. The spoils-system beneficiaries of the distant past were by and large party foot soldiers rewarded for attending dreary local meetings, talking up the the party’s candidates in newspapers and forums, and, most of all, getting out the vote on Election Day. No one much cared what they believed in their heart of hearts about issues of the day or how they came to their convictions. It was enough that they put on the party yoke and helped pull the bandwagon to victory.
As Axios reports, one questionnaire used late in the first Trump administration to vet job applicants and another distributed by the Heritage Foundation to build up an army of second-term appointment prospects show a far more discriminating approach:
“The 2020 ‘Research Questionnaire,’ which we obtained from a Trump administration alumnus, was used in the administration’s final days — when most moderates and establishment figures had been fired or quit, and loyalists were flexing their muscles. Questions include:
“’What part of Candidate Trump’s campaign message most appealed to you and why?’
“’Briefly describe your political evolution. What thinkers, authors, books, or political leaders influenced you and led you to your current beliefs? What political commentator, thinker or politician best reflects your views?’
“’Have you ever appeared in the media to comment on Candidate Trump, President Trump or other personnel or policies of the Trump Administration?”
Similar questions are being asked for the Talent Database being assembled by the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 — the most sophisticated, expensive pre-transition planning ever undertaken for either party.
The Heritage questionnaire makes it especially clear that being just any old kind of Republican isn’t going to be enough. It asks if applicants agree with a number of distinctively MAGA issue positions, including:
“The U.S. should impose tariffs with the goal of bringing back manufacturing jobs, even if these tariffs result in higher consumer prices. …
“The permanent institutions of family and religion are foundational to American freedom and the common good. …
“The President should be able to advance his/her agenda through the bureaucracy without hinderance from unelected federal officials.”
One insider told Axios that both the 2020 Trump and 2024 Heritage questionnaires have a common and very particular purpose:
“An alumnus of the Trump White House told us both documents are designed to test the sincerity of someone’s MAGA credentials and determine ‘when you got red-pilled,’ or became a true believer. ‘They want to see that you’re listening to Tucker, and not pointing to the Reagan revolution or any George W. Bush stuff,’ this person said”.
This represents a really unprecedented effort to place the executive branch under the direction of people chosen not on the basis of merit or experience or expertise, and not on party credentials, but on membership in an ideological faction that is also a presidential candidate’s cult of personality. As such, it’s more dangerous than a return to the partisan habits of a bygone era.
Where does Zogby say Bush is leading? I heard Kerry leading in all battleground. Is it a Texas thing? I looked over the site. I read on Kos that early voting favored D. Can someone find some public data?
Here are the new battleground states according to Zogby:
Four New Battleground States
Colorado – Bush 2000
Arizona – Bush 2000
North Carolina – Bush 2000
Virginia – Bush 2000
I find that surprising the positive Bush vote reports given the poll trends. NC? VA? In Play? With R incumbent? This is amazing.
And the real Big Dog is on the case – Bill Clinton in action.
Excellent news to see OH moving in Kerry’s favor. We get Ohio or Florida, and it’s a done deal. I think the seniors in Florida will break for Kerry giving us the edge their as well.
It was so hard to see the country clearly in Bush’s favor months ago, praying that people would wake up and see things for what they were. I believe deep down that most everyone believes that Bush mislead the public while he “rushed to war in Iraq”, but that they did not want to fault a United States President for something so horribly wrong. It was almost like they themselves would have to admit they were wrong and partly to blame. Now, with the debates done, people are making decisions for whatever reason they use to justify, but again, deep down, they are voting against Bush because he has lost their trust and can not be trusted as a Commander in Chief.
Look for a significant shift in the polls after this weekend. I look for one more event to effect this election, hopefully it will be a leak or something that is damaging to Bush and then it’s lights out for the Bush experiment.
Point of curiosity. In Zogby today, those who have already voted are 50-48 Bush leading. Where is the majority of early voting going on? Is this significant? Zogby stated that two things that bear watching are this figure, and the newly registered voters being overwhelmingly for Kerry, but I had just assumed that early voting would tend Democratic.
A.
I’d add to this list that SUSA shows the Bush lead at only 3% in North Carolina. Their poll from two weeks before had Bush up 7%. Maybe this is another option for an upset…
Slate gives a list of 10 states that are the tightest. 4 are Bush 2000 states, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, and Nevada. 6 are Gore 2000 states. Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Maine, Pennsylvania, Minnesota.
They then give 9 for possible upstates. 5 are Bush 2000 states. Colorado, Missouri, West Virginia, Virginia, and Arizona. 4 are Gore 2000 states. New Jersey, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington.
Of these last 9, all are described as safe or pretty safe to go the same way as 2000, except WV and Virginia. So…Virginia is starting to get some press. That 4% is pretty remarkable. With 13 EV’s, that would be one heckuva a big pickup. Great news.
From the SimonsWorld blog (via Andrewsullivan.com)
Interview with John Zogby, who expressed the following views on the election:
[…]
The Running
* The race is Kerry’s to lose, barring unforeseen events. If he loses, it is only his fault.
* Why? Because Bush’s numbers have not gone above 48%. Three other key polling indicators are all terrible for Bush amongst undecideds:
– Presidential job performance: 35% positive versus 60% negative
– Is the country headed in the right direction? net negative
– Does the President deserve re-election? 15% yes versus 40% no.
These numbers have always been net negative for Bush amongst undecideds. The last 3 Presidents with those numbers were Carter, Ford and Bush snr. None won.
* Another reason: undecideds tend to break for the challenger. Zogby sees them going like in Reagan in 1980, so that the margin is 2% but it is the same in each key state and it is in favour of Kerry, thus the Electoral Vote ends in a decisive victory.
* A higher turnout favours Kerry. 2000 election had 105 million voters. Anything over 107 million this time and Kerry will win.
* The youth vote: always heavily Democrat, this time the youth vote are unusually motivated and may turn out in bigger numbers than expected, tipping the race to Kerry.
* If the focus of the final two weeks is the War on Terror —> Bush wins
If the focus of the final two weeks is Iraq and/or domestic issues —> Kerry wins.
* If the result is like in 2000 there will be masses and months of litigation. Neither side will back down and it will be complete chaos, far worse than 2000.
Nader
* Nader is a spent force and irrelevant to the campaign. He does not take votes from Kerry.
* Voters for Nader would otherwise have not voted at all, so no loss to either side.
I second Greg’s comment. Why doesn’t Virginia get more attention considering the race is as close as other battlegroudn states? I’m biased, of course: I live in Virginia and I’m working to help him win Virginia. But what’s the argument over ignoring Virginia and pursuing Missouri or Colorado?,
RT
I’ve heard this before and in other elections. Evidently the kids are reflecting what they hear at home.
Kids Pick Kerry to Be the Next President (AP)
AP – Kid power! Democrat John Kerry is the winner, and the rest of the country should pay attention because the vote on Nickelodeon’s Web site has correctly chosen the president of the United States in the past four elections.
Yahoo! News | October 20, 2004, 11:01 am
Why isn’t the Virginia number getting more attention? If PA and OH are competitive swing states with similiar spreads, why not VA?
Obviously, given it’s history VA is traditionally more red, but still, I’d love to see the headline “Bush vulnerable in VA”