12 Comments
User's avatar
Alan Peterson's avatar

Profound thanks to G. Elliott Morris and to David Brown for this post and the discussion.

I agree with Mr. Morris completely. While he has taken his time to reach the conclusion other smart people on Substack reached months ago, I think that's because he is a calm, rational, serious person and isn't excitable. I'm not saying he's not exciting; today's post was, because we learned that our guide through the data in the era of Trumpism has finally reached the point where he thinks Trump has crossed every important line that a democracy can put up against an autocrat, albeit a comically immature, insecure, boastful, and mendacious one. Today, apparently, he got lost after climbing up onto the roof of the White House! (Video at 11!)

And, I think he's saying what David Brown did in his comment, "...political positions are not being discussed here, only the...question of support for the Constitution, rule of law and the American system of governance [is]…if you support the system then we can have a policy discussion, if you do not then nothing else matters."

That was helpful and illuminating to me and I want to thank him for it.

Expand full comment
Cyndi's avatar

Republicans are past the point of no return.

But they are the minority. It is time for a tyranny of the majority.

Rather be a Russian than a Democrat? Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

Expand full comment
Cayce Jones's avatar

Not as worried about rigged government data, as about rigged elections. As Krugman writes, there are other sources for economic data. And the people who are informed won't believe the lies, while the others know what gas costs. 19% of Trump voters say they're worse off (Economist/YouGov today).

But elections rigged for Republicans are very worrisome. The 5th Circuit just upheld Texas' voter ID law for mail-in ballots. It's not fixing any actual problem, but will suppress votes. Then there's the large lawless ICE SS force, which could interfere with voters and ballot counting.

Expand full comment
G. Elliott Morris's avatar

The possibility of permanent partisan gerrymanders in any state that isn't exactly 50-50 is scary and increasing rapidly

Expand full comment
Susan McClure's avatar

I disagree with your self assessment. Your language and attitude clearly echo left media opinions. I am purple so I notice. Your data may be unbiased but your presentation is not. It causes me to be skeptical of you.

Expand full comment
G. Elliott Morris's avatar

When it comes to Trump, I don’t think you can criticize him without appearing like a partisan. The position of this newsletter is that this perception is worth the cost of not standing up for data and democracy.

Expand full comment
David Brown's avatar

Left media opinions? Your self described “purple” position may need additional self reflection here…political positions are not being discussed here, only the binary question of support for the Constitution, rule of law and the American system of governance…if you support the system then we can have a policy discussion, if you do not then nothing else matters.

Expand full comment
Dr. Sara Wolfson's avatar

What is it you disagree with? I thought this was well written but I'd like to have a better idea of what you think. Thanks.

Expand full comment
Terrence W. Tilley's avatar

Agree with Wolfson. Please specify!!! Which data or analysis are wrong and what are the right data or analysis?

Expand full comment
Scott Johnson's avatar

In the second paragraph, the word "tail" I'm petty sure should be "real." "The tail risk of meaningful erosion..." Otherwise good job.

Expand full comment
G. Elliott Morris's avatar

Oh, in the email header, I see: “Tail risk” refers to unlikely risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail_risk

Expand full comment
Scott Johnson's avatar

AH! Thanks!

Expand full comment