At TQC, we have previously argued that nonsensical calls to “defund the police” cost Democrats seats in last year’s general elections. Furthermore, we have been critical about the dearth of support among too many left-wing politicians for honest law enforcement officers who protect and serve their communities professionally, ethically, and whenever possible, peacefully, often under extreme duress.

The GOP has anointed itself the party of “law and order.” Generally, they have been more vocal about supporting the men and women in law enforcement. They’ve griped that good police officers deserve dignity and respect too, and they are not receiving enough. We agree.

Hypocrisy

On the morning of January 6th, then President Donald Trump urged his supporters to head to Washington, “fight” and “take back our country.” A few thousand Trump loyalists dutifully obliged.

Later that day, an unruly mob of Trump supporters overwhelmed a woefully underprepared U.S. Capitol Police Force (USCPF), breached the Capitol, attacked law enforcement personal, and ransacked the building. For some, it was a last-ditch attempt to thwart the certification of President Biden’s “stolen” victory. Others who joined the mob probably did not know, or care, what the certification process even was. One man was filmed sitting at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s desk with his feet up, looking like he was getting ready to crack open a beer and watch a football game.

Most Americans – Democrats and Republicans – were appalled. The response – or lack thereof, especially from members of the party of “law and order” – was equally appalling, as it was hypocritical.

Before January 6th, TQC’s position was that Donald Trump was a depraved human who denigrated the office of the president and further polluted the very swamp he promised to clean up, but we credited him – and agreed with – some of his policies. That morning, Trump urged his supporters to head to Washington, “fight” and “take back our country.” He unilaterally declared that “we will never concede (because) you don’t concede when there is theft involved.” After that, any goodwill we harbored towards him, vaporized.

Since then, Donald Trump has continued to beat two dead horses: that the presidential election was rife with fraud thereby “stolen” from him, and that former Vice President Mike Pence could have overturned the results. If anybody dare question the lies Mr. Trump peddles, Trump calls them a liar and / or accuses them of being “disloyal.”

Lies Damn Lies & Statistics

When hundreds of millions of people vote for anything, including a presidential election, it would be a statistical impossibility if there were not a few irregularities and isolated instances of outright fraud. That said, to cherry-pick specific instances of malfeasance – “this ballot was submitted by a dead person” or “that ballot was mailed in past a deadline” - and claim its representative of the general election process is nonsense and undermines the integrity of our democracy.

Often when we make this point, our friends on the right counter that while they cannot produce tangible evidence of widespread fraud, mail in balloting and remote everything clearly favorites Democrats because more Dems vote by mail. We agree with all that. However, the way in which a vote is cast, and voter fraud, are two mutually exclusive things. It is incorrect to conflate the two. When we make this point, our friends on the right counter that it is easier to commit fraud when voting my mail. It might very well be. But arguing that it is easier to commit fraud by mail does not equate to systemic fraud being committed by mail (or in person). If it did, the evidence would have been delivered a long time ago. Indeed, both of Donald Trump’s accusations are patently false, and frankly, pathetic.

After the election, a right leaning SCOTUS (of which three justices, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were appointed by Donald Trump himself) rejected legal challenges pertaining to the election in Wisconsin and Texas. Bill Barr, Trump’s former Attorney General, and unabashed conservative said, “we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election.” Not surprisingly, this did not deter Donald Trump from promoting his self-serving lies.

It is not obvious why (voters), sick of Mr Trump’s antics, would warm to a Democrat offering a different set of implausible promises. “If we try to out-crazy the policy announcements of a troubled president, we will do nothing to restore confidence,” warns Senator Chris Coons of Delaware. - The Economist

On January 27th, Howard Schultz, the founder and former CEO of Starbucks, announced his interest in running as an independent candidate in the 2020 election for President of The United States. TQC hopes he formally declares himself a candidate. From the due diligence we've done, Schultz appears to be center-left on social issues and fiscally to the center-right. In our view, this is exactly the prescription this great nation needs at this time.

At The Quintessential Centrist, we are transparent about our views. We pride ourselves on being malleable and open when new ideas, proposals, or policies merit serious consideration. We are open to respectful debate and welcome the prospect of having our minds changed. Indeed, if a counter-party offers a superior argument underpinned by facts and empirical evidence, we will (as we have done in the past) alter our views.

As most of our readers are aware, Howard Schultz is the man responsible for turning Starbucks into a international success story and, in the process, created a new coffee culture in America. In addition to paying better wages (before service industry wages became a political talking point) and offering affordable health care options, Schultz provided an opportunity to all his employees -- both part time and full time -- to advance their education tuition free via a partnership with Arizona State University's online program. In short, Schultz is a socially liberal, fiscally centrist self-made businessman who advocates both for his workers and for meaningful social causes. And unlike the current businessman currently occupying the Oval Office, Mr. Schultz was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Schultz was born to a poor family in the Canarsie section of Brooklyn, NY. He grew up in a housing project with his two siblings, a homemaker mother and father who became a truck driver after serving in the US Army. Schultz learned the value of hard work at a young age and has since carried those values throughout his incredible life. When Schultz was a young boy, his father had an accident that left him unable to work. The family was left with no steady source of income, and no health care insurance. To help, Schultz worked a series of odd jobs. He attended Canarsie High School and was later awarded an athletic scholarship from Northern Michigan University. He was the first member of his family to attend college.

On the fiscal side, here are a few prudent and responsible positions Schultz takes:

*Supports a progressive tax code: people who earn more should pay a higher rate of income tax. We agree. That said, he also understands that excessive taxes and regulation thwart economic growth and stifle job creation. We also agree. He should know. He's created over 300,000 jobs, the majority of which are in the United States.

*Believes paying his employees a living wage is both ethically correct and good business practice: Schultz paid his baristas a living wage well before it was politically fashionable to do so. As a result, Starbucks' employees earn above average wages vs. their peers. Schultz has delivered on the notion that by treating his workers well via higher pay and benefits, they would be more productive and create a value-enhancing experience which would yield greater customer satisfaction and increased brand loyalty. In that, he has been proven correct.

*Opposes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (AOC's) proposal to raise the marginal tax rate on earnings in excess of $10 million to 70%. Ms. Cortez claims her plan will only affect the richest sliver of Americans. We vehemently disagree. In our view, Ms. Cortez seems blissfully ignorant of the fact that a disproportionate number of people who would bear the burden of her tax plan are responsible for creating a disproportionate number of jobs in America. Impose a 70% marginal tax on those families, and you take away their economic incentive to create employment opportunities for working Americans. Under AOC's tax plan, the richest sliver of Americans will certainly be worse off. And so will the 99%. Like Mr. Schultz, at TQC we believe that people who earn more should pay more, but a progressive tax code should be applied with a degree levelheadedness and proportionality.

In February of 2021, we wrote: “Before January 6th, TQC’s position was that Donald Trump was a depraved human who denigrated the office of the president and further polluted the very swamp he promised to clean up, but we credited him – and agreed with – some of his policies…After that, any goodwill we harbored towards him vaporized.”

Immediately after that and over the ensuing months, we argued that it would behoove the GOP to immediately pivot away from Trump and reject the two dead horses that he has continually beat since he lost the election: that it was rife with fraud thereby” stolen” from him, and that former Vice President Mike Pence could have overturned the results.

We added, “Democrats are in a horribly weak position. President Biden’s approval ratings are dismal, he’s been unable to pass a signature piece of proposed legislation (Build Back Better) while infighting between “the Squad” and more centrist Dems have sown division within the party…Republicans have a chance to massively outperform in November’s midterms. The roadmap for them is quite simple: repudiate and move on from Mr. Trump and proactively discuss substantive policies they champion.”

The GOP did not heed our advice to “call out Trump’s lies, forcefully condemn them, and move on from him.” Too many rank- and-file Republicans cowered under pressure and failed to challenge Mr. Trump openly. And The Republican National Committee (RNC) chose to defend Trump and discredit his detractors. The RNC’s stance was not only morally bankrupt but as we suspected, strategically inept.

The GOP performed horribly in the midterms. The “red wave” many had predicted and that the GOP hoped for, morphed into a red ripple. This, despite Mr. Biden’s appalling approval ratings, embarrassing gaffes, and ~8% headline inflation.

On the contrary, Democratic candidates' views appeared to echo ours from November 2020 when we argued that “Defund The Police Is Costing Dems Seats.” In the Midterms, those candidates declined to run on that and other more extremist ideology and were rewarded by voters.

Missed Opportunity

Midterms are typically unkind to a sitting president’s party; they almost always lose seats in aggregate. This election cycle was no different in that Dems – the sitting party – lost seats, but not nearly as many as the GOP would have liked. In fact, Republicans failed to retake the Senate despite needing to flip just 1 seat. They did manage to retake the House, barely, gaining materially fewer seats than anticipated.

We believe Donald Trump represents many of the worst elements of capitalism (at The Quintessential Centrist, we believe that despite its flaws, capitalism is by far the most effective system, besting socialism, communism, or any other "ism"). TQC will not consider endorsing Trump in the 2020 presidential election unless his opponent is a radical like Elizabeth Warren or socialist like Bernie Sanders.

The President of the United States must hold himself to standards that are materially above of what is expected of an ordinary citizen, regardless of the circumstances. Trump certainly has not adhered to the higher level of personal conduct that is a non-negotiable precondition to serve as Chief Executive of the United States. Frequently, his behavior is indicative of somebody who is thin skinned and downright infantile; this does not even include his terrible habit of tweeting about high level policy issues. To be sure, he has denigrated the office and further polluted the very swamp he promised to clean up; an impressive feat given the long lineage of ethically challenged men and women who have served in both chambers of congress.

As we have reiterated in past issues, at The Quintessential Centrist, our platform promotes civil discourse irrespective of political leanings. This, more often than not, involves highlighting and examining some uncomfortable hypocrisies. And it almost always involves rejecting overly-simplistic black-and-white binaries. In the past, TQC has supported both Democrats and Republicans on specific issues. On those occasions where we focus on specific politicians, our analysis is predicated on three important “P’s”: person, polices and principles, and not the party with which they happen to be affiliated.

Before illustrating where in our view President Trump is correct, we would like to preface those arguments with the following:

Overall, we are not Donald Trump supporters. We did not endorse Trump in ’16. This author did not vote for Trump (or Clinton) in the last presidential election. We explained why we favor centrist Howard Schultz and encouraged him to declare himself a formal candidate in our February 10th issue.

A remarkable event took place in Washington last month; Congress passed a substantive piece of bipartisan legislation. In fact, prior to the passage of the SECURE (Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement) Act on May 23rd, by a margin of 417 to 3 in the U.S. House of Representatives, the only notable piece of recent legislation that was enacted with the blessing of both parties on the hill was the First Step Act, a sensible prison reform bill, signed into law by president Trump on December 21st, 2018. The SECURE Act still needs to be reconciled and voted on by the Senate; but the consensus is that some form of the bill will easily pass.

We commend Congress for passing a bi-partisan bill, an extraordinarily rare feat during this hyper-divisive time. Unfortunately, our lawmakers, the majority of whom have accomplished few things consistently but fail the American people by absolving their responsibility to work together, have failed their citizens yet again. This time, Congress let their constituents down by perversely doing exactly what they’ve been rightfully lambasted for not doing: working cohesively to pass meaningful legislation.

In its current form, the “SECURE Act” is disadvantageous to the tens of millions of working Americans and small business owners who contribute to Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). But before we delve into the reasons why, it would behoove us to frame why IRAs, while sometimes used by wealthy Americans, are often a preferred retirement vehicle for small business owners, the self-employed, and working Americans that do not have access to 401k's. For the sake of simplicity, we will focus on the two most commonly used IRAs: Traditional IRAs and ROTH IRAs, named after the deceased Delaware Senator and World War 2 Veteran William Roth, who spearheaded the effort to create the retirement product that has benefited millions of working American's and their heirs.

Each year, single individuals are allowed to contribute up to a fixed amount of money into IRAs. For the tax year 2019, IRS rules dictate that individuals can contribute up to $6,000 ($7,000 if you are over 50 years old). Although similar, there are two important differences between a Traditional IRA and a ROTH IRA. The money contributed to a Traditional IRA is tax deductible, whereas contributions to a ROTH IRA do not qualify for a tax deduction. However, while Traditional IRAs are tax deferred until redeemed and then taxed as ordinary income (the theory being, at retirement, the account holders' tax bracket will be lower than it was when they were working) ROTH IRAs grow and are cashed out tax free.

On October 27, President Trump announced that U.S. Special Forces, at his behest, carried out a heroic raid in northern Syria that resulted in the death of one of the most savage terrorist leaders to date. As U.S. troops closed in, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of ISIS, detonated his suicide vest taking three of his presumed-children with him. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Trump announced that the U.S. had also taken out al-Baghdadi's likely successor, Abu Hasan al-Muhajir.

At The Quintessential Centrist, we have often been critical of our Commander in Chief. His judgment is often lacking; his behavior, unbecoming and sometimes downright embarrassing. However, the aforementioned events deserve the heartiest of applause.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Since ISIS declared its caliphate in 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi commandeered over at least 140 terrorist attacks in nearly 30 countries in addition to those carried out daily in Iraq and Syria. He was as vicious as he was dangerous. Notorious for brutally torturing his victims, including fellow Muslims, al-Baghdadi was responsible for the genocide of Yazidis and Christians. His cruelty included forcing these groups into sexual slavery. He ordered mass beheadings of many others including foreign journalists and aid workers from the U.S., the U.K. and Japan. He burned a Jordanian pilot alive in a cage. The list goes on.

The ISIS leader's reign of terror extended to Western targets inspiring the Paris, Nice, Orlando and Manchester terror attacks to name but a few. He inspired countless smaller, yet equally horrific lone-wolf attacks globally in the forms of shootings, slashings and car ramming incidents. Al-Baghdadi left hundreds of thousands of Yazidis, Christians, and Muslims a “heads” he wins “tails” they lose choice: join him and his barbaric comrades or flee their respective homelands and become refugees.

The point cannot be overstated: the world has much to rejoice at the demise of al-Baghdadi. Unfortunately, the authoritative Washington Post chose to eulogize the barbaric terrorist with a headline that read: “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.”

Excuse us?

As if Mr. Baghdadi were merely a university professor and dean of a famous seminary who just happened to succumb to a long battle with cancer. The "obituary" went on to read that "when al-Baghdadi first rose as a leader of ISIS, he was a relatively unheard of 'austere religious scholar with wire-frame glasses and no known aptitude for fighting and killing.’"

On January 3, 2020, President Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani while his convoy was en route from Bagdad International Airport. We believe this decision was correct.

Noted former CIA analyst and current congresswoman, Elissa Slotkin (D-MI):

“If you worked on the Middle East over the past 20 years you dealt with the growing organization and sophistication of Soleimani’s covert and overt military activities, which have contributed to significant destabilization across the region. What always kept both Democratic and Republican presidents from targeting Soleimani himself was the simple question: Was the strike worth the likely retaliation, and the potential to pull us into protracted conflict?”

Slotkin is rightfully wary of Soleimani’s killing being a catalyst that drags the United States into yet another open-ended military conflict. The risk of a protracted, full on war is also something we take very seriously. Wars are typically started by wealthy people carrying briefcases, and fought by poor people carrying machine guns. For behind every news headline and data point(s) are human beings. Young men and women, some not old enough to legally enjoy a beer but nonetheless fighting for something they most likely know little, if anything, about. Undeniably, Trump’s strategic act of aggression increases the probability of a direct military engagement with Iran. All things considered, we feel strongly that the odds of a drawn out confrontation with Iran is quite low. The successful strike carried out with surgical precision to eliminate a dangerous foe, was worth the risk.

Qassem Soleimani’s Legacy & Why It Was Correct To Act

Gen. Qassem Soleimani was the highest ranking and commanding officer of the Quds Force, an elite division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). In January of 2011, Soleimani officially became a “Major General,” a title bestowed upon him by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khomeini, who described Soleimani as a "living martyr." That same year, Major General Soleimani was officially labeled a terrorist by the Obama administration. The following year, the European Union sanctioned Soleimani for participating in “terrorist acts.” It is a widely accepted view that Qassem Soleimani oversaw and/or at least had his hand in most major terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East.

Qassem Soleimani has been at war with America for over two decades. His actions have resulted in both casualties and the maiming of hundreds of U.S. and allied troops. As the years progressed, Soleimani and his comrades had been increasingly willing to engage both hard and soft targets. Their rational for this belligerent overconfidence: recent history had suggested that the risk of a U.S. response was almost nil. In particular, 2019 was a busy year for him. At Soleimani’s behest, Iran shot down American drones, attacked the U.S. embassy in Iraq, disrupted oil tankers in the strategically important Strait of Hormuz and launched a missile attack that destroyed key Saudi oil infrastructure.

At TQC we haven’t shied away from criticizing Donald Trump for many of his provocative shenanigans. But Trump did not create this crisis, the seeds of which were sown when he was still hosting a reality TV show, nor did he hit first, he hit back. And only after hundreds of dead troops were sent home to their parents in coffins draped with an American flag. The “luckier” victims of Soleimani’s actions did not die; they returned home with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) minus their limbs that were blown off courtesy of the improvised explosive devices (IED) Soleimani had his underlings strategically place along key roads.

The indisputable truth is that Qassem Soleimani was a terrorist who detested the United States and all that America represents. He was responsible for over 600 American casualties, hundreds more allied deaths, and thousands of American and allied injuries that rendered some survivors disabled and disfigured. If the aforementioned offenses are not worthy of retaliation, what is?

On January 7, 1999, William Jefferson Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States, became only the second sitting president in US history to be officially impeached. Prior to Clinton’s impeachment, the last (and only) president to be bequeathed with that distinction was Andrew Johnson, in 1868. (On August 4, 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned before he was officially impeached). The charges of perjury and obstruction of justice levied against Clinton stemmed from an extramarital affair with then-White House intern, Monica Lewinski. On February 12, 1999, the Senate deliberated President Bill Clinton’s fate. He was acquitted of both charges, apologized to the American people, and went on to complete a successful second term. (Andrew Johnson was also acquitted. Thus far in this country’s history, a sitting president has never been removed from office following impeachment.)

Captivated

I vividly remember my whereabouts when the senate voted to exonerate Clinton. It was a few days before the annual Mardi Gras celebration; a collection of friends and I decided to travel from our respective colleges and meet in New Orleans to partake in the festivities. We watched the news unfold at an off-campus house near Tulane University.

Time seemingly stood still. Imagine, college students in the midst of America’s biggest party in The Big Easy suddenly ceased exchanging beads, beers, and DNA and watched the television intently, with a tinge of nervous energy. That day many Americans remember where they were and what they were doing. The entire nation was captivated by this important event, a seminal moment in American history as the president’s fate would soon be decided.

Fast Forward ~20 Years

On December 18, 2019, Donald Trump became the third president to be impeached. His trial is currently ongoing. As expected, political bigwigs from both parties have dug in their heels. News correspondents dutifully report on the day’s relevant events. And political junkies are glued to their device of choice to absorb as much up to the minute news that can permeate their brains. But for many, the default reaction to Trump’s impeachment has been a collective shrug of the shoulders. Indeed, the most remarkable aspect of President Trump’s impeachment proceedings, is how unremarkable the news is to most Americans.

The United States Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives a sitting president unlimited power to pardon or commute sentences of those convicted of federal crimes. While both are forms of clemency, a presidential pardon is full legal forgiveness for a federal crime. A commutation reduces the sentence for, but does not absolve the conviction of, a federal crime. (A sitting president cannot pardon individuals or commutate sentences of people convicted of state crimes; these powers are granted to the respective state’s governor or pardon board).

On February 18th, 2020, President Trump pardoned seven people. Three notable figures included in this group are Michael Milken, Bernard Kerik and Edward DeBartolo Jr. Trump commuted the sentences of four others, the most controversial of whom is Rod Blagojevich (D), the former governor of Illinois and primary focus of this article.

Michael Milken

Financier widely recognized as the individual responsible for promoting the market for high yield bonds or “junk bonds” to finance leveraged buyouts in the 1980s. During the latter half of that decade, Milken was paid over $1 billion dollars at investment bank Drexel Burnham Lambert, a record for the era. In 1989, Milken was charged with racketeering and securities fraud related to an insider trading investigation. He took a plea bargain and acceded guilt to certain securities violations, though not insider trading. Under the terms of the deal, Milken was sentenced to a decade behind bars (later reduced to 24 months), fined $600 million dollars & banned from the securities industry for life. Since his release from jail, Milken has given large sums of money to various charitable causes related to medicine and medical research. According to Forbes, he is currently the worlds 606th richest person with a net worth of $3.7 billion dollars.

Bernard Kerik

A law enforcement professional who joined the New York City Police Department (NYPD) in 1986, Kerik was the commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections from 1998-2000 and served as New York City’s Police Commissioner from August 2000 until December 2001. Following the 9/11 attacks and subsequent invasion of Iraq, President George Bush choose Kerik for several mandates in Iraq. He is widely credited with doing an excellent job under difficult circumstances. The United Nations (UN) noted that Kerik's team made "positive interventions in a number of areas.” In 2003, Bush nominated Kerik to lead the newly created Department of Homeland Security; however, Kerik later withdrew from the process and admitted that he hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny. Kerik was later investigated by state and federal authorities for unrelated violations. As a result of those probes, in 2006 he plead guilty to two misdemeanors. In 2009 he plead guilty to more serious charges, including tax fraud. He was sentenced to 4 years in a federal penitentiary.

Edward DeBartolo Jr.

Not only a successful real estate investor who sold his company to Simon Property Group, DeBartolo also owned the San Francisco 49’ers for 23 years. He was extremely well liked by both players, whom he treated like family, and most fans. During his tenure, the 49’ers won five Super Bowls (1982, ’85, ’89, ’90, ’95) and amassed the most wins within a 10 year time frame in NFL history. In 1992, DeBartolo was accused of sexually assaulting a cocktail waitress in Menlo Park, CA. He was never charged with a crime; the case was settled out of court. DeBartolo’s most serious legal trouble stemmed from an extortion case involving the former governor of Louisiana, Edwin Edwards. Edwards wanted $400,000 from DeBartolo in exchange for a river boat casino license. DeBartolo failed to report this to authorities. He was charged and later plead guilty to failing to report a felony. In exchange for testimony against Edwards, DeBartolo was given two years of probation and fined $1 million dollars. He ultimately pulled out of the casino project. The National Football League also imposed its own financial penalty and barred DeBartolo from controlling the 49’ers for one year. In 2000, he ceded control of the team to his sister, Denise.

…Joe Biden. Barring Donald Trump succeeding in his pending legal challenges, the former VP will become the 46th president of the United States. Mr. Trump has not yet conceded to becoming only the second incumbent to be dispatched (George H. W. Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton in 1993) in the last 40 years. And one cannot ignore the irony of President Trump grasping at technical legal straws in an attempt to remain Commander in Chief. Nonetheless, we have gleaned some extremely pertinent information about this election – far beyond Trump vs Biden - and what it means to our nation moving forward.

Poll Dancing

Despite his defeat, Donald Trump performed materially better than most polls predicted; the same thing happened in 2016. This merits the question, is the reason most polls failed to have predictive value because of faulty surveying methods, that certain pollsters were biased, some combination thereof, or something entirely different?

To that end, let us begin with a top-down approach and examine the popular vote. The final polls conducted before the election projected the following: USA Today had Biden ahead 52% to Trump 44%. The Morning Consult predicted the same result, 52% to 44% for Biden. Quinnipiac University had the former VP in the lead by double digits, 50% to 39% for Trump. You Gov expected Biden would beat Trump 53% to 43%. The Wall Street Journal/NBC News also foresaw Biden winning by 10 points.

FiveThirtyEight, a statistical aggregator of everything from sports to politics, compiled a weighted average of an array of polls they ranked from “A” to “D” based on several proprietary factors. Despite their more robust process, even FiveThirtyEight’s model showed Biden prevailing by 8.4 percentage points. At this juncture, almost every ballot has been tallied. Biden (presumably) won, but only by ~3%.

FiveThirtyEight repeated its aggregative process at the state level. In some instances, its model was satisfactory, in others, it suffered shortcomings. In AZ (Biden 48.7% - Trump 46.1%), GA (Biden 48.5% - Trump 47.4%), NC (Biden 48.9% - Trump 47.1%) & OH (Trump 47.5% - Biden 46.8%) FiveThirtyEight was accurate. However, there were some big misses. In MI, the outlet predicted Biden would win the state 51.2% to 43.2% for Trump (Biden appears to have won the state by ~1%). In WI, Biden was expected to win 52.1% to 43.7% for Trump (Biden won by ~1%.) In NV, it was predicted that Biden would win the state by 5 points (Biden won by ~1%.) In FL, FiveThirtyEight modeled that Biden would secure the state by 2.5 points (Michael Bloomberg spent 100 million dollars in Florida to help the former VP secure a victory. Trump won by ~3%). In TX, FiveThirtyEight foresaw Trump winning the state by 1 point; he won 6.

One poll that did prove to be accurate, especially in contested states, was Trafalgar Group, which predicted that Trump would win FL 50% to 47%; lose WI by 1 point and lose in MI by 2 points. Accuracy does not appear to be an anomaly for Trafalgar Group. In fact, it was one of few polling outfits to correctly call the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, predicting a Trump victory. Their prize? Hate mail and a “C-“ grade by FiveThirtyEight. We wonder then, what grade FiveThirtyEight should bestow upon itself.

Regarding the legislative branch of government: in the upper chamber, a plethora of polling outfits predicted that Democrats would flip the Senate, leaving them in control of all branches of government. Instead, despite having to defend ~twice as many seats, the GOP appears (there will be two runoff contests in Georgia on January 5th) to have held onto their slim majority. Specifically, pollsters were convinced Dems would unseat Susan Collins in ME (she won by 9 points) and that Jamie Harrison had a credible opportunity to oust Lindsey Graham in SC. Taking their cue from the polls, donors funneled almost 60 million dollars to Mr. Harrison to get him over the hump. It was the costliest senate race in American History; Lindsey Graham won by 14 percentage points.

On Monday, December 14, electors in all 50 states cemented Joe Biden’s victory; there were no “faithless electors” (see notes below). A final procedural requirement before Mr. Biden is inaugurated will take place on January 6. Vice President Mike Pence will oversee a joint session of Congress; electoral totals from each state will be tallied and a result announced.

Despite Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claims that the election “was stolen,” in an interview with the Associated Press, former Attorney General Bill Barr (he resigned this past Monday) made it known that “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election.”

Monday’s vote, Mr. Barr’s findings (or lack thereof), and dozens of unsuccessful legal challenges by Trump & Co. – this past week SCOTUS rejected cases in Wisconsin & Texas – have catalyzed most republicans that had not already done so to recognize Joe Biden as the victor. Said Senator John Thune (R-SD), “At some point, you have to face the music.” Argued Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), “Like it or not…the process is what it is and the Constitution will be followed.” Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) congratulated Mr. Biden as did foreign leaders including Vladimir Putin, Andrés Manuel López Obrador & Jair Bolsonaro.

Before President-elect Biden and his wife Jill move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, let us reflect upon Donald Trump’s four years in the oval office. To that end, we will begin with a brief, top-down assessment of his performance, followed by bullet points framing specific policies we supported, and rejected.

Trump Stamp

The President of the United States must hold himself to standards that are materially above those expected of an ordinary citizen, irrespective of circumstances. Donald Trump certainly has not adhered to the higher level of personal conduct that is a non-negotiable precondition to serve as Chief Executive of the United States. In fact, he has denigrated the office of the president and further polluted the very swamp he promised to clean up; an impressive feat given the long lineage of ethically challenged men and women who have served in both chambers of congress.

Regrettably, too often, even when Donald Trump accomplished something substantively positive and or did the “right thing,” he diluted his own achievement with antagonistic, impulsive remarks that did little but divert the public’s attention away from his actions and onto his words. That was certainly a shame. Because in our view, more than a few of Donald Trump’s policies, were ones we agree(d) with, including but not limited to:

• Cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.

The average global corporate tax rate is ~24%. The previous U.S. corporate tax rate of 35% was simply not competitive. It encouraged tax arbitrage across jurisdictions that increased the cost of commerce and ultimately reduced the Treasury Department's corporate tax receipts. Trump was correct to reduce the corporate tax rate 21%. Consequently, America is now a more economical place to conduct business.

• Engaged the leaders of Historically Black Colleges & University (HBCU), increased federal funding for HBCU’s and forgave loans to HBCU’s in precarious financial positions.

Trump has “been beating the drum on HBCU’s as a cornerstone of his education platform from month one of his time in office…These seeds have been sprinkled under him” - M. Christopher Brown, president of Kentucky State.

“The action and the money don’t lie.” - Harry Williams, head of the Thurgood Marshall Fund.

“He did some substantive things.” - Jarrett Carter, HBCU Digest.

• Withdrew from Iran deal & imposed harsh economic sanctions.

So much for welcoming in the New Year with an innocuous post of fun facts or trivia. The events of Wednesday, January 6, 2021 effectively scuppered those plans while leaving a permanent scar on American history.

That morning, President Donald Trump urged his supporters to head to Washington, “fight” and “take back our country.” He unilaterally declared that “we will never concede (because) you don’t concede when there is theft involved.” His disgraced lawyer Rudy Giuliani instructed the crowd to follow a path of “trial by combat.” Not to be outdone, Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks chimed in and told the audience of Trump supporters that it was time to begin “taking down names and kicking ass.” They dutifully obliged.

Later that day, a mob of Trump loyalists overwhelmed a woefully underprepared U.S. Capitol Police force, breached The Capitol, disrupted president-elect Joe Biden’s confirmation, and ransacked the building. One rioter, a retired air force veteran, was shot to death by police. Three other Trump supporters died from trauma stemming from altercations with officers. One Capitol Police officer was killed; others were hospitalized.

Stunning photos soon emerged of insurgents – make no mistake, these were not protestors – marching through the House Chamber, including one man carrying a confederate flag, another sitting at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s desk with his feet up, looking like he was getting ready to crack open a beer and watch a football game.

This sad day in American history marked the first time The Capitol had been breached since The War of 1812 by British soldiers.

Too Little Too Late

The next day, at the urging of his rapidly thinning circle of dutiful advisors, Donald Trump condemned this reprehensible act calling it a “heinous attack,” and said those who broke the law would pay. He assured he would leave office without incident on January 20, per law. Congressman Brooks also released a statement condemning the violence.

To all but the most unreasonable Trump loyalists, this was simply too little too late. In the past, TQC’s position was that Trump is a depraved human, but we credited him – and agreed with - many of his policies. Now, forget the latter. They do not deserve to be mentioned in this post. The leader of the free world incited a riot. Impeachment proceedings should begin immediately.

GOP leaders, including some of Mr. Trump’s closest former allies strongly rebuked the president. Members of Trump’s Cabinet, including Secretary Elaine Chao and Betsy DeVos, resigned along with the head of the Capitol Police and the Sergeants at Arms for the House and Senate. Below is an array of quotes from prominent Republicans:

“It’s past time for the president to accept the results of the election, quit misleading the American people, and repudiate mob violence.” – Senator Tom Cotton (R:AK)

“The President bears responsibility for today’s events by promoting the unfounded conspiracy theories that have led to this point.” – Senator Richard Burr (R:ND)

“There’s no question the president formed the mob, the president incited the mob, the president addressed the mob -- he lit the flame. Trump’s response so far has been completely intolerable and insufficient.” – Liz Cheney (R:WY)

“The president of the United States has been lying to his supporters with false information and false expectations. He lit the flame of incitement and owns responsibility for this.” – Former FBI Agent & Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R:PA)

Said conservative pundit John Podhoretz, “Donald Trump unleashed a mob on Capitol Hill. What he has done is without precedent in American history. Even if he had seven minutes left in his presidency, he should not be permitted to spend another second as the president.” Again, and we stress, we agree.

We want to preface this post by informing our readers what this week’s blog is not about:

• Donald Trump holding the distinction of being the first president in American history to be impeached twice.

• Whether it behooved Congress to pursue this path only days before Trump’s term ends.

• When and if a Senate impeachment trial should proceed.

• Whether VP Mike Pence could have invoked the 25th Amendment to remove Trump.

• If Congress can invoke the 14th Amendment to remove Trump.

Civics Lesson

These interrelated topics have been debated ad nauseum by both the liberal and conservative press since the happenings of January 6, when a mob stormed the Capitol building.

Many Americans are familiar with the term “impeachment.” Few people are aware of the 25th and 14th Amendments, and even less so the granularities associated with them. Nonetheless, these terms, along with corresponding hypotheticals, are being carelessly thrown around as if they are almost interchangeable.

Time for a civics lesson: Impeachment, the 25th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and the nuances around what exactly each means not only for Donald Trump but any sitting president in the future.

Impeachment

Step 1: The House Of Representatives proposes articles of impeachment.

Step 2: The House votes.

Step 3: If a simple majority votes in favor, the president is then “impeached.”

Step 4: The Speaker of the House sends articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Step 5: The Senate holds a trial.

Step 6: If a two-thirds majority vote to convict, the president is removed from office.

Key Questions & Answers:

Q: Can a president be impeached, and a trial held after his term ends?