Column

Column: Do the numbers in sports tell a story, or just settle a bet?

In any given year there are more than 500,000 American boys playing on almost 20,000 high school basketball teams, and fewer than 2% of them will make it to March Madness. Only 60 young men get drafted by an NBA team each summer, and in the most recent draft a third of those spots went to international players.

The numbers suggest the funnel from the Amateur Athletic Union into the NBA is one of the narrowest in all of sports. And we used to talk about the game with the reverence that exclusivity implies. The numbers are how we decide who is an All Star or a Hall of Famer. The numbers are how we determine — or debate — the greatest.

Gambling and cheating scandals are not the only threats to sports. Because of the economic gravity of fantasy sports leagues and legal gambling, the numbers most of us hear about these days have more to do with bettors making money than with players making shots.

Bill James — the godfather of baseball analytics, who coined the phrase sabermetric in the late 1970s — did not revolutionize the way the sports industry looked at data so we could have more prop bets. The first fantasy baseball league was not started in a New York restaurant back in 1980 to beat Las Vegas. The numbers were initially about the love of the game. But ever since sports media personalities decided to embrace faux debates for ratings — at the expense of pure fandom — disingenuous hot takes have set programming agendas, and the numbers that used to tell us something about players are cynically used to win vacuous arguments. And after states began to legalize sports betting, athletes went from being the focus to being props for parlays.

That’s not to say gambling wasn’t there before. In fact, while James and others were revolutionizing the way fans — and front offices — evaluated players, the Boston College point-shaving scandal was unfolding in the shadows. The current gambling scandal surrounding Portland Trail Blazers head coach Chauncey Billups, who this week pleaded not guilty to charges alleging a role in a poker-fixing scheme, is not unprecedented. It’s just recent.

What’s new is how we talk about the numbers.

The whole idea of fantasy sports leagues was to enable fans to be their own general managers — not to make money, but because we cared about the game so much. At the risk of sounding more pious than I am: When every game, every half, every quarter and even every shot is attached to gambling odds, good old-fashioned storytelling gets choked out. Instead of learning about players and using numbers to describe them, we hear numbers the way private equity firms see a target’s holdings.

Nothing personal, just the data.

The whole point about loving sports used to be that it was personal. Our favorite players weren’t just about outcomes. They were 1 out of 500,000 guys who made it. Each had a backstory, and the way they got there was a big part of the connection we felt with them.

This is why the Billups saga hits the NBA community emotionally. Drafted in 1997, the Colorado native played for four teams in his first five years before becoming an All Star and a Finals MVP. His numbers aren’t what defined him — even though those numbers were good enough to get him into the Hall of Fame. It was the resilience and character he demonstrated while trying to make it that fans admired. In his early-career struggles, we were reminded that making it in the NBA is hard and that everyone in the league beat the odds. It’s something we all know … but when broadcasters come out of commercial breaks showing the betting lines before the score, it’s easy to forget.

Thanksgiving is a big sports weekend and thus gambling weekend. Go ahead, eat irresponsibly … it’s the other vice that worries me.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Source link

Column: Trump and the Taliban have one goal in common: getting U.S. troops out of Afghanistan

On Saturday, after 19 years of war, the United States and the Taliban began what both sides delicately called a seven-day “reduction of violence” in Afghanistan, a trial attempt at a partial truce. If the experiment works, they have set Feb. 29 for a ceremony to sign an agreement that would launch broader peace negotiations.

The Taliban has a good reason to keep its promise to pause offensive operations for a week: Under the proposed deal, the U.S. will withdraw about one-fourth of its roughly 12,000 troops from Afghanistan by this summer. It’s one goal the Taliban shares with President Trump, who wants to run for reelection claiming he is ending the United States’ longest war.

But the larger peace process that is supposed to follow will be far more difficult — and the Taliban is not the only complicating factor.

There’s also Trump’s impatience and his penchant for disrupting slow-moving diplomatic efforts at whim.

As early as 2012, Trump declared the U.S. war in Afghanistan “a complete waste” and said it was time to pull out. If something goes wrong in the Afghan peace process — and something surely will — will he check his impulse to declare victory and leave?

The plan negotiated by Trump’s special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, has plenty of moving parts. Its text hasn’t been released, but officials and others say it is almost identical to a draft deal Khalilzad reached in September.

According to their accounts, the deal calls for the United States to trim its troop presence from about 12,000 to 8,600 by July — and later, if all goes well, to zero. Or as the Taliban put it in a statement Friday, the deal would lead to “the withdrawal of all foreign forces … so that our people can live a peaceful and prosperous life under the shade of an Islamic system.”

The Taliban must agree not to harbor Islamic State, Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups that seek to attack the West. The plan even provides for U.S. forces and the Taliban to cooperate on counterterrorism.

Peace negotiations among all Afghan factions are supposed to begin within 10 days after the plan is signed. But the government in Kabul led by President Ashraf Ghani is mired in an internal power struggle and could prove incapable of acting as an effective player.

Those talks could lead to a new constitution and give the Taliban a major role in a future Afghan government.

Keeping that complex process on track will require Washington to stay involved in Afghanistan with both diplomatic muscle and continued financial aid — which means Congress will have to buy in.

That hasn’t happened. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and other Republican hawks are already grumbling about trusting the Taliban and the folly, in their view, of reducing troops below 8,600.

One question is practical: U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to destroy Al Qaeda, which launched the 9/11 attacks from its sanctuary there, and to push the Taliban out of power. Can U.S. counterterrorism needs be met without troops in Afghanistan?

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, who helped run the war under two presidents, says the answer is yes.

“The threat is not what it was in 2001. Al Qaeda is much diminished,” he told me. “And we’re much better at counterterrorism than we were back when we were simply launching cruise missiles into the desert.”

Other questions could be difficult in a different way.

Most Americans have concluded that the U.S. war in Afghanistan turned into a tragic, expensive failure once it expanded beyond unseating Al Qaeda. The explicit U.S. recognition of the Taliban as a legitimate political force makes that verdict official.

And allowing the Taliban to win a share of power — or potentially dominate the government in Kabul — will diminish whatever hope remains of helping Afghanistan become a recognizable democracy.

Americans once congratulated themselves for freeing Afghanistan’s women from Islamic extremism. Taliban leaders have said they intend to protect women’s rights to education and employment, but their track record — closing schools, barring women from public life, and worse — inspires little confidence.

Many, including Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, are pessimistic.

“We encouraged women to step forward,” Crocker told me. “Now it appears they’re expendable.”

Trump has disrupted his own diplomacy more than once. When the U.S. and Taliban reached a tentative deal last September, Trump impulsively decided that he wanted Taliban leaders to fly to Camp David for a splashy ceremony three days before the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

The Taliban, which isn’t big on photo ops, refused. Republicans in Congress also denounced the idea of honoring the leaders of a guerrilla force who had killed 1,800 Americans by bringing them to the presidential retreat in Maryland. Trump announced that he was canceling the deal entirely, blamed the Taliban for an attack that killed a U.S. serviceman in Kabul, and pronounced the peace talks “dead.”

Khalilzad needed almost six months to bring the deal back to life.

If the Feb. 29 deal holds, Trump will claim credit for cutting U.S. troops in Afghanistan down to 8,600 — the same number deployed when President Obama left office.

But what Trump really wants is to announce —in an election year, no less — that those troops are on their way home, too.

Given the complexities of Afghan politics, that’s probably impossible. Diplomats warn that putting pressure on the Afghans to conclude a peace agreement could scuttle the process.

If Trump wants to withdraw troops as part of a comprehensive deal — one that avoids chaos, meets U.S. counterterrorism needs and gives Afghanistan a chance at peace — he’ll need to exercise unwonted self-restraint.

After three years as president, he doesn’t have many diplomatic achievements to his name. He’s staged disruptive events, including summit meetings with Kim Jong Un, trade wars and withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran, but produced few tangible accomplishments.

Launching a peace process for Afghanistan, if it succeeds, could be his most substantive achievement — but only if he gets out of his own way.

Source link

Column: Instead of addressing injustice, pardons now pervert justice

It’s sheer coincidence that I’m writing here on the same subject as my Los Angeles Times colleague Jonah Goldberg’s most recent column: The crying need to amend the Constitution to do something about the much-abused presidential pardon power, the only unchecked power that a president has.

The fact that both Goldberg, a right-of-center commentator, and I, center-left, would near-simultaneously choose to vent on this topic — to call, in effect, for a national uprising against this presidential prerogative despite the evident difficulty of amending the Constitution — is telling: It’s a reflection of Americans’ across-the-spectrum disgust with how modern presidents have perverted it for personal and political benefit, usually on their way out the door. (Goldberg makes the case to get rid of the pardon power altogether. I would give Congress a veto, so presidents still can right actual wrongs of the justice system, as the founders intended.)

Yes, “both sides” are culpable. And yet, Goldberg and I agree, one president has surpassed all others in the shamelessness of his pardons: Donald Trump. In just 10 months he’s built a track record sorrier than that of his first term, which is saying something, and elevated clemency reform to an imperative.

We can’t stop Trump before he pardons again. Nor, probably, would an amendment campaign succeed before (if?) he leaves office in January 2029. But Americans of all political stripes can at least join in getting the process rolling, if only to protect against future presidents’ abuses.

From his first day in office, when Trump granted clemency to nearly 1,600 rioters who beat cops and stormed the Capitol to overturn his 2020 defeat, already 20 times this year he’s either pardoned or commuted the prison sentences of additional scores of undeserving hacks, fellow election deniers, war criminals, donors, investors in Trump businesses and career criminals who just happen to support him. (Recidivism among Trump’s beneficiaries is proving a problem; among the new charges: child sex abuse.)

The clemency actions have come so fast and furious that they hardly register as the scandals that they are, especially as the news about them vies for attention with the many other outrages of Trump’s presidency.

“No MAGA left behind,” Trump pardon attorney “Eagle Ed” Martin brazenly posted in May and again this month in announcing preemptory pardons for former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and more than 75 other Republicans who were part of the fake-elector schemes to reverse Trump’s 2020 losses in battleground states, as well as other efforts after the 2020 election to keep him in power.

Those grants were followed last weekend by mercy for two more MAGA militants: Suzanne Kaye, a Florida woman sentenced to prison for threatening in video posts to “shoot their [expletive] a–” if FBI agents tried to question her about her involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection, and Daniel Edwin Wilson of Kentucky, who was among those pardoned for his crimes on Jan. 6 but later sentenced by a Trump-appointed district judge on gun charges related to an illegal cache of weaponry that agents found at his home.

To Trump, absolving his supporters as victims of a supposedly weaponized justice system in effect absolves him as well, and furthers his false narrative — his big lie — that the 2020 election was stolen from him. As Martin, the White House pardon attorney, wrote in this month’s passel of pardons: “This proclamation ends a grave national injustice perpetrated upon the American people following the 2020 Presidential Election.” The opposite is true.

Lo, Trump’s mercy knows no bounds — of propriety, that is. The president won’t even rule out a pardon for convicted child-trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, longtime procurer for, and participant with, Jeffrey Epstein in the sexploitation of young girls.

Even if Trump’s abuse of the pardon power isn’t unprecedented, its scale and shamelessness is. His Day One mass pardons for Jan. 6 participants set the tone. That action kept his 2024 campaign promise to “free the J-6 hostages,” but it broke an earlier, videotaped vow he’d made on Jan. 7, 2021, when anger at the Capitol attack was near-universal: “To those who broke the law, you will pay.” Hundreds did pay, convicted by juries and judges of both parties and sentenced to up to 22 years in prison. Until Trump got back in power.

Need evidence of how Trump’s pardons corrode the rule of law? Last December, weeks before he returned to the White House, yet another Jan. 6 participant, Philip Sean Grillo, was sentenced. The Reagan-appointed federal judge in the case, Royce Lamberth, admonished: “Nobody is being held hostage. … Every rioter is in the situation he or she is in because he or she broke the law, and for no other reason.” Grillo shouted back, as U.S. marshals led him off: “Trump’s gonna pardon me anyways.” He was right, of course.

Then there’s this: In September, after a Republican former Tennessee House speaker and his aide were sentenced in a fraud case, the government’s announcement quoted a senior FBI agent in Nashville calling the punishment “a wake-up call to other public officials who believe there are no consequences for betraying the public trust.” On Nov. 7, Trump pardoned both men.

Trump’s promiscuous use of his power has even spawned a niche business of Trump-connected lawyers peddling their influence to pardon-seekers willing to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to get out of jail not-so-free.

Consider the case of Changpeng Zhao, billionaire founder of the crypto exchange Binance, who served time in 2023 for facilitating money laundering, including for terrorist groups. Zhao didn’t just hire Trump-friendly lawyers. His company helped secure a $2-billion investment in the Trump family’s crypto startup. Last month, Trump pardoned Zhao. “I heard it was a Biden witch hunt,” he nonchalantly told CBS News’ “60 Minutes.”

Zhao’s success alone should be scandal enough to fuel a campaign to repeal or reform the pardon power. But there is so much more. And we surely haven’t seen the last.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

Source link

Column: Sacramento scandal a wild card for Xavier Becerra and the governor’s race

So far, gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra has escaped the bright spotlight focused on Gov. Gavin Newsom in the money pilfering scandal involving their former top aides. But that could change.

It seems only a matter of time before one of Becerra’s campaign rivals seizes the federal fraud case for attack fodder. I can hear it already: “If the man who wants to be governor can’t protect his own political funds, he shouldn’t be trusted to safeguard your tax money.”

That might not be fair, but this is big-time politics. And the word “fair” isn’t in the political dictionary.

Neither Becerra nor Newsom is implicated in any wrongdoing.

Newsom has drawn heavy media attention because his former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, is the central figure in the criminal case. Newsom also has made himself into a national political celebrity and the leader in early polling for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. That makes him prime news copy.

Becerra is low-profile by comparison, although he has achieved a very successful and respectable career: U.S. Health and Human Services secretary under President Biden, California attorney general and 12-term congressman.

It was Becerra’s dormant state political account that allegedly got pilfered of $225,000 while he was health secretary.

Federal prosecutors allege that Williamson, former Becerra chief of staff Sean McCluskie and Sacramento lobbyist Greg Campbell illegally diverted money to McCluskie’s wife, funneling the loot through shell companies for bogus consulting services.

McCluskie and Campbell both pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud and have been cooperating with the federal government.

Williamson, who allegedly fleeced Becerra’s political kitty when she owned a government relations firm before joining Newsom’s staff, pleaded not guilty to bank and tax fraud charges. Besides raiding Becerra’s account, she’s accused of falsifying documents involving a COVID small-business loan and claiming $1 million in personal luxuries as business expenses on her income taxes.

After news of the case broke last week with Williamson’s arrest, Newsom’s office said the governor suspended her last November after she informed him of the federal investigation.

There also was a sophomoric attempt by a Newsom spokesperson to link the federal case to the combative relationship between President Trump and the California governor. It’s true Trump has been targeting his “enemies.” But this three-year FBI probe began under the Biden administration.

Becerra issued a statement saying that the “formal accusations of impropriety by a long-serving trusted advisor are a gut punch.” He also said he had been cooperating with the U.S. Justice Department‘s investigation.

The federal indictment alleges that McCluskie and Williamson misled Becerra about how monthly withdrawals from his political account were to be used.

The account stash of nearly $2 million was raised for a 2022 attorney general reelection campaign that never occurred because by then Becerra was health secretary. But the money could be used in some future state race, such as for governor.

Political operatives I talked with were stunned that $225,000 could be siphoned out of a politician’s campaign account without him noticing.

“Did the account have no one watching it except the consultants who were pilfering from it?” asked veteran Democratic consultant Garry South. “Those of us who have run campaigns are scratching our heads. I can’t imagine how this would happen.”

I asked the Becerra campaign.

A spokesperson replied that the health secretary had authorized payments for “campaign management” after being misled by trusted advisors.

Also, the spokesperson added, Becerra was counseled by a Health and Human Services attorney to distance himself from any “campaign or political activity” prohibited by the federal Hatch Act and ethics rules. So he delegated responsibility for managing the account to advisors.

And he got snookered and ripped off.

Will it tarnish Becerra’s image and hurt his campaign for governor? We don’t know yet. But probably not that much, if any. His only sin, after all, was trusting the wrong people and following an attorney’s advice.

Even big scandals don’t seem to damage politicians in this era — Trump being the unfathomable best example.

It could crimp Becerra’s fundraising if potential donors wonder where their money is actually going and whether anyone credible will be watching it.

The gubernatorial race is still wide open without a real front-runner. No candidate is captivating the voters.

A late October poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies showed paltry numbers for all candidates. Former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter led Democrats with 11% support among registered voters. Becerra was second with 8%. A whopping 44% of those surveyed were undecided.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Blanco, a Republican, was first overall with 13%. But no Republican need apply for this job. California hasn’t elected a GOP candidate to a statewide office since 2006.

Becerra has as good a shot at winning as any current candidate. He was the leading Democrat among Latinos at 12%.

But he’ll need a better answer for why he may have allowed $225,000 in donated political contributions to be grabbed and illegally spent by people he trusted.

Source link

Column: Sacramento scandal a wild card for Xavier Becerra and the governor’s race

You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter

Anita Chabria and David Lauter bring insights into legislation, politics and policy from California and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.

By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service and our Privacy Policy.

So far, gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra has escaped the bright spotlight focused on Gov. Gavin Newsom in the money pilfering scandal involving their former top aides. But that could change.

It seems only a matter of time before one of Becerra’s campaign rivals seizes the federal fraud case for attack fodder. I can hear it already: “If the man who wants to be governor can’t protect his own political funds, he shouldn’t be trusted to safeguard your tax money.”

That might not be fair, but this is big-time politics. And the word “fair” isn’t in the political dictionary.

Neither Becerra nor Newsom is implicated in any wrongdoing.

Newsom has drawn heavy media attention because his former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, is the central figure in the criminal case. Newsom also has made himself into a national political celebrity and the leader in early polling for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. That makes him prime news copy.

Becerra is low-profile by comparison, although he has achieved a very successful and respectable career: U.S. Health and Human Services secretary under President Biden, California attorney general and 12-term congressman.

It was Becerra’s dormant state political account that allegedly got pilfered of $225,000 while he was health secretary.

Federal prosecutors allege that Williamson, former Becerra chief of staff Sean McCluskie and Sacramento lobbyist Greg Campbell illegally diverted money to McCluskie’s wife, funneling the loot through shell companies for bogus consulting services.

McCluskie and Campbell both pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud and have been cooperating with the federal government.

Williamson, who allegedly fleeced Becerra’s political kitty when she owned a government relations firm before joining Newsom’s staff, pleaded not guilty to bank and tax fraud charges. Besides raiding Becerra’s account, she’s accused of falsifying documents involving a COVID small-business loan and claiming $1 million in personal luxuries as business expenses on her income taxes.

After news of the case broke last week with Williamson’s arrest, Newsom’s office said the governor suspended her last November after she informed him of the federal investigation.

There also was a sophomoric attempt by a Newsom spokesperson to link the federal case to the combative relationship between President Trump and the California governor. It’s true Trump has been targeting his “enemies.” But this three-year FBI probe began under the Biden administration.

Becerra issued a statement saying that the “formal accusations of impropriety by a long-serving trusted advisor are a gut punch.” He also said he had been cooperating with the U.S. Justice Department‘s investigation.

The federal indictment alleges that McCluskie and Williamson misled Becerra about how monthly withdrawals from his political account were to be used.

The account stash of nearly $2 million was raised for a 2022 attorney general reelection campaign that never occurred because by then Becerra was health secretary. But the money could be used in some future state race, such as for governor.

Political operatives I talked with were stunned that $225,000 could be siphoned out of a politician’s campaign account without him noticing.

“Did the account have no one watching it except the consultants who were pilfering from it?” asked veteran Democratic consultant Garry South. “Those of us who have run campaigns are scratching our heads. I can’t imagine how this would happen.”

I asked the Becerra campaign.

A spokesperson replied that the health secretary had authorized payments for “campaign management” after being misled by trusted advisors.

Also, the spokesperson added, Becerra was counseled by a Health and Human Services attorney to distance himself from any “campaign or political activity” prohibited by the federal Hatch Act and ethics rules. So he delegated responsibility for managing the account to advisors.

And he got snookered and ripped off.

Will it tarnish Becerra’s image and hurt his campaign for governor? We don’t know yet. But probably not that much, if any. His only sin, after all, was trusting the wrong people and following an attorney’s advice.

Even big scandals don’t seem to damage politicians in this era — Trump being the unfathomable best example.

It could crimp Becerra’s fundraising if potential donors wonder where their money is actually going and whether anyone credible will be watching it.

The gubernatorial race is still wide open without a real front-runner. No candidate is captivating the voters.

A late October poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies showed paltry numbers for all candidates. Former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter led Democrats with 11% support among registered voters. Becerra was second with 8%. A whopping 44% of those surveyed were undecided.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Blanco, a Republican, was first overall with 13%. But no Republican need apply for this job. California hasn’t elected a GOP candidate to a statewide office since 2006.

Becerra has as good a shot at winning as any current candidate. He was the leading Democrat among Latinos at 12%.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Front-runner or flash in the pan? Sizing up Newsom, 2028
CA vs. Trump: At Brazilian climate summit, Newsom positions California as a stand-in for the U.S.
The L.A. Times Special: Indictment of ex-Newsom aide hints at feds’ probe into state’s earlier investigation of video game giant

Until next week,
George Skelton


Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Source link

Matt Dawson column: ‘I have never seen England on a charge like this’

It was a year out from the 2003 Rugby World Cup and I remember being down to Australia at Twickenham.

Following a Wallabies try, Martin Johnson got us all under the posts and was not interested in charging down the kick.

We were behind and all that mattered to him was winning territory in the next five minutes.

He made it clear we had to be more aggressive in defence, stay in Australia’s 22 for as long as possible, and see if they could handle the pressure.

We produced an excellent final 20 minutes and Ben Cohen scored the try to overcome what was a 31-19 deficit.

The reason we then came back in the World Cup final against Australia was because of what had gone by in the years before.

The more difficult it is for this current England squad, the better. Coming from 12-0 down to defeat New Zealand could be the vital touchpoint they use on their journey to the next World Cup.

Maro Itoje, along with 30 other players, will remember what happens in different scenarios.

I watched Itoje walk down the tunnel with the referee at half-time, and he was having a very mature, informative conversation all the way back into the changing room.

Roll back even two or three years and Itoje is not doing that as captain – but there is something different in what he is bringing to the squad.

It is very low-key with him, it is so much easier to follow leaders like that rather than abrasive, more obvious leaders.

Sometimes those guys don’t have the ability to cover all the different characteristics. I can see how Itoje is able to adapt to his players.

When the final whistle went on Saturday, Henry Pollock was bouncing around, jumping on Ben Earl’s back.

Itoje was just shaking hands, cool as you like, and Pollock ran at him and they embraced.

It was like a clash of how you would celebrate a big win, but Itoje is able to adapt to his players.

Leadership in difficult moments does make the difference in the biggest Test matches. It is about nailing those key decisions and moments.

George Ford’s decision to take back-to-back drop-goals right before half-time is your perfect example.

I am buzzing about this England team, as I have never seen England on a charge like this before a World Cup.

I don’t believe any England team has been in this good a position in terms of strength and depth, leadership and the ability for individuals to win games.

Overall, there is now a stark contrast between where England are and where they have been over the past decade.

Steve Borthwick had to develop as a Test coach himself, and that was always going to take time.

Source link

Column: AI can perform a song, but can it make art?

The most insulting thing about the success of Breaking Rust, an artificial intelligence “artist” that topped Billboard’s Country Digital Song Sales Chart this week, is the titles of the hits.

“Walk My Way.”

“Living on Borrowed Time.”

The EP — which is also on the charts — is called “Resilient,” as if Breaking Rust spent years playing for tips in empty bars. And maybe Aubierre Rivaldo Taylor, who is credited for writing the songs, did. But the bluesy voice we hear singing about pain and suffering did not overcome anything.

In fact, you could say this completely computer-generated country singer found chart success by mocking people. A year ago, a handful of loud industry folks in Nashville questioned whether Beyoncé, who was born and raised in Texas, was country enough to do a country album. Good times. Today AI-generated “performers” such as Breaking Rust and Xania Monet, which hit the Billboard R&B charts, are suggesting you don’t even need to be human to fit into those genres.

Eric Church, whose latest release “Evangeline vs. the Machine,” was nominated this month in the best contemporary country album category at the Grammys, told me he’s not too worried because fans still want to see live shows and “AI algorithm is not going to be able to walk on stage and play.” He says that the best thing the industry can do is establish AI music as its own genre and that award shows should establish a separate category.

“I think it’s a fad,” he said, adding that he finds it fun. “When people like a song or connect with an artist the ultimate thing for them is then to go experience that artist with people who also like that artist, that’s the ultimate payoff. You’re not going to be able to do that with AI.”

Church wraps up touring on Saturday at the Intuit Dome in Inglewood. In addition to promoting the new album, this year his foundation began providing housing for victims of Hurricane Helene using funds from a benefit concert. The North Carolina native also released a single to raise funds to help his neighbors. You know, things only a flesh-and-blood artist can do. Regarding Breaking Rust, he said: “The better thing we should be doing is making the general public aware that it’s AI because … I don’t think they know that.”

“The biggest problem is the ability to deceive people or manipulate people because it looks real, it sounds real, it’s pretty disingenuous if you didn’t say it,” Church told me. “I’ve seen stuff from me that is online.… They take my face and they put it on another body.… My mom sent me one and I was like, ‘Mom, that’s not me.’

“That’s where it gets dangerous and that’s where it gets scary.”

If AI-generated “musicians” like Breaking Rust are a passing fad, as Church suggests, it’s one that’s been 50 years in the making. While use of the voice box on recordings goes back to the 1960s, it was the 1975 recording of Peter Frampton’s double live album, “Frampton Comes Alive,” that popularized its use. In the 1980s Zapp had a string of gold albums with front man Roger Troutman using the voice box technology to make his voice sound futuristic, and in the 1990s AutoTune went from being a tool producers use to fine-tune a singer’s pitch on a recording to being the featured sound on a recording. This gave us Cher’s global chart-topper “Believe.”

Over the decades, technology in the studio has made it possible for the vocally challenged to usurp craftsmanship and talent.

Before MTV debuted in 1981, we were warned that video was going to kill the radio star. That obviously didn’t happen. And now, AI-generated video can theoretically replace filmed human performances. But even that should not be a threat to real stars.

As with most things in life, when expertise is devalued, it’s easier to pass trash off as treasure. AutoTune and AI are enabling people who lack musical talent to game the system — like audio catfish.

When an artist like Church sings of heartbreak, listeners can identify with his lived experience. However, Breaking Rust is on the top of the charts with a song called “Walk My Way” … and the entity singing those words has never taken a step.

That’s not to say an AI ditty can’t be catchy. It most certainly can be. I just wonder: If the artist isn’t real, how can the art be?

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • AI-generated performers mock genuine human experience by performing songs about heartbreak, suffering, and resilience without having actually lived through hardship, presenting false authenticity to audiences[1].
  • The public should be made explicitly aware when content is artificially generated to prevent deception and manipulation, as the current landscape allows industry professionals to obscure the artificial nature of performers.
  • AI technology enables individuals without genuine musical talent to bypass craftsmanship and expertise, allowing them to game the system by presenting artificial content as legitimate art on the same charts as human musicians.
  • Authentic art requires lived human experience; without that foundation, AI-generated performances cannot create genuine artistic expression or meaning, regardless of how commercially successful they become.
  • The industry should be concerned about how technology is devaluing expertise and allowing untalented creators to present what amounts to “trash off as treasure,” undermining the credibility of music as an art form.

Different views on the topic

  • The success of AI-generated content has garnered mixed reactions from audiences, with some music fans finding entertainment and enjoyment in artificially generated songs despite their artificial origins[1].
  • Some industry perspectives view AI music as an interesting experimental phenomenon to explore what is possible with emerging technology, rather than characterizing it as inherently problematic or threatening[1].
  • Audiences ultimately value the live performance experience and direct human connection with artists, suggesting AI-generated performers face natural limitations that prevent them from truly replacing human musicians in the marketplace.
  • Rather than opposing AI-generated music categorically, some suggest establishing it as a separate genre or distinct award category to differentiate it from human artistry without eliminating either form from existing simultaneously.
  • The integration of new technologies in music production has historical precedent, with innovations from voiceboxes to AutoTune coexisting with human artistry without destroying the value of authentic musical talent.

Source link

Column: Two politicians who impressed in 2025? Gavin Newsom and Marjorie Taylor Greene

She’s a little bit country; he’s a little bit rock ‘n’ roll.

And me? I’m a little bit stunned. Two politicians have emerged, against all odds, to surprise and impress us this year: Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).

You’d be hard-pressed to find two Americans less similar — politically, culturally, geographically, maybe even molecularly. These two occupy opposite poles. She’s NASCAR and CrossFit. He’s electric vehicles and Pinot Noir. They shouldn’t have much in common, but lately, both have done the unthinkable: They’ve taken on President Trump and lived (politically) to tell about it.

Let’s start with Greene because, honestly, she’s more fun.

For years, MTG was seen as an embarrassment. The QAnon congresswoman. The “Jewish space laser” lady. The lawmaker who, just two years prior to winning her House seat, questioned whether a plane really hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

She harassed a then-teenage Parkland survivor and coined the immortal phrase “gazpacho police,” apparently confusing the soup with Nazi secret police.

But then, something strange happened: Greene started making sense. Not “agree with her at dinner” sense, but the “wait, that’s not totally insane” kind.

She blasted Trump’s decision to bomb Iran, which — if you take the “America First” philosophy literally and not just as performance art — is consistent with her beliefs. And in a time when selling out is perceived as being shrewder than standing for something, the mere act of holding a consistent position is a virtue.

MTG also called out her own party for blocking the Epstein files, and volunteered to walk “on the House floor and say every damn name that abused these women.”

And in an act of shocking populist coherence, she ripped into Republicans for letting Obamacare subsidies expire: “Health insurance premiums will DOUBLE,” she thundered on X, adding: “Not a single Republican in leadership talked to us about this or has given us a plan to help Americans deal with their health insurance premiums DOUBLING!!!”

Trump, naturally, took all this personally. “I don’t know what happened to Marjorie,” he said, recently. “Nice woman, but she’s lost her way.” To which Greene, never one to back down, fired back: “I haven’t lost my way. I’m 100% America First and only!”

The thing I’m liking about Greene isn’t just that she’s standing up to Trump — although, I admit, it’s fun to watch. But what’s really refreshing is that she’s a true believer who got elected, got famous and yet continues to believe.

Which brings us to Gavin Newsom.

Newsom has always been the poster boy for everything people hate about California — a man who looks like he was genetically engineered by a Napa Valley venture capitalist to play a slick politician.

The “important” coiffed hair. The smug grin. The French Laundry dinner during COVID-19, while the rest of us were holed up in our houses microwaving Lean Cuisines.

Once upon a time, he and his then-wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle, posed on a rug for a Harper’s Bazaar spread where they were dubbed “The New Kennedys.”

Enough said.

If Greene is the quintessential MAGA mama, Newsom is the slick bro you want to throat punch. But somehow he has had a banner year.

Newsom stood firm against ICE raids and troop deployments in Los Angeles. Then, he trolled Trump with online memes that actually landed.

After Texas Republicans tried to grab five congressional seats for the GOP, Newsom shepherded Prop. 50 through California — an amendment to the state constitution aimed at mitigating Texas’ gerrymandering by redrawing maps to help Democrats even the score.

Then, he waltzed into Houston for a celebratory rally — some political end zone dancing on the opponents’ home turf, just to twist the knife.

Like Greene, the guy has moxie.

And here’s the thing I’m learning from the Trump era: Guts come from the most unlikely places, and looks can be deceiving.

You never know when some heroic-looking leader will fold like a cheap suit, just like you never know when some “heel” out of central casting for villains will turn “face” and rise to the occasion.

I don’t mean to sound naive. I’m not proposing a Newsom-Greene 2028 unity ticket. (Although … tell me you wouldn’t watch that convention.)

The odds are, both of these figures will disappoint me again, probably by next Thursday. Life is complicated, and it’s sometimes hard to disentangle heroism from opportunism.

Indeed, some have speculated that MTG’s sudden streak of independence is the result of Trump putting the kibosh on a “Greene for U.S. Senate” bid in Georgia. And as for Newsom — is his show of toughness an act of patriotism, or a prelude to his own presidential campaign?

Frankly, that’s a difference without a distinction.

For now, here’s what is clear: These two political figures have shown a flash — a glimmer — of something like backbone.

And in the year of our Lord 2025, that’s rarer, and more valuable, than almost any commodity in politics.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Source link

Column: New York’s Zohran Mamdani’s win offers a lesson for Newsom

You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter

Anita Chabria and David Lauter bring insights into legislation, politics and policy from California and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.

By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service and our Privacy Policy.

One takeaway from last week’s elections: The role model for California Gov. Gavin Newsom as he runs for president should be New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani.

Actually, Mamdani should be emulated not only by Newsom but by Democrats running for office anywhere.

Neither Newsom, of course, nor any candidate outside the most leftist burgs in America should wear the label “democratic socialist,” as Mamdani calls himself. That would frighten too many voters.

But what does appeal to voters — and always has in America — is a strong, positive message of hope. People like to think that a candidate understands their daily troubles and has a vision of how to make their lives better.

Mamdani is a 34-year-old Ugandan-born Muslim of Indian descent and a back-bench New York state assemblyman who the political experts would never figure to win a top-tier elective post such as New York mayor. But he has charisma, exudes authenticity and fills voters with hope.

OK, some of his campaign promises are undeliverable, even in liberal New York: free bus service, free child care and city-run grocery stores. But I suspect many voters didn’t take those pledges literally. It was the boldness and commitment to change for their betterment that drew people to him.

It’s a message framework that has been a winner throughout history.

Franklin D. Roosevelt promised “a new deal for the American people” and gave them hope with his radio fireside chats during the Great Depression.

John F. Kennedy offered a “new frontier.” Barack Obama chanted, “Yes we can” and ran on a slogan of “hope.”

They were all Democrats. But Republican founder Abraham Lincoln urged Americans to “vote yourself a farm and horses” and promised them homesteads on the western frontier.

Ronald Reagan declared: “Let’s make America great again.” Then Donald Trump stole the line and ruined it for any future candidate.

Newsom’s spiel has mostly been that Trump is lower than a worm. That has worked up until now. He has established himself as the Democrats’ most aggressive combatant against Trumpism — and the leader in early polling for the party’s 2028 presidential nomination.

Last week, his national party credentials were bolstered after orchestrating landslide voter approval of Proposition 50, aimed at countering Trump-coerced congressional redistricting in Texas and other red states.

Trump is desperate for the GOP to retain its narrow majority in the House of Representatives during next year’s midterm elections. But Proposition 50 gerrymandering could flip five California seats from Republican to Democrat — perhaps helping Democrats capture House control. Newsom becomes a party hero.

“He’s now a serious front-runner for the Democratic nomination,” says Bob Shrum, a former Democratic consultant who is director of the Center for the Political Future at USC.

Political strategist Mike Murphy, a former Republican turned independent, says “the Democratic presidential race in ‘25 has been won by Gavin Newsom. He made a bet [on Proposition 50] and it paid off.”

But Shrum, Murphy and other veteran politicos agree that Newsom at some point must change his script from predominantly anti-Trump to an appealing agenda for the future.

“He has to have an affordability message, for one,” Shrum says. “And he has to connect with voters. Voters just don’t go down a list of issues. FDR, JFK, Obama, they all were very connected with voters.”

Murphy: “He’s going to have to expand from fighting Trump to talking about his vision for helping the middle class. I’d say, ‘The era of Trump will soon be over. I have a way to bring back the American dream and here’s how I’m going to do it.’”

Easier said than done, especially if you’re the governor of troubled California.

“If it’s about a referendum on California, he has a vulnerability,” Murphy says. “He can’t run on ‘California is great.’”

Newsom consistently brags that California is a pacesetter for the nation. But lots of Americans want nothing to do with our pacesetting.

“You can’t have the highest unemployment, highest gas prices and the biggest homeless problem and tell Americans that everything in California is hunky-dory,” says Republican consultant Rob Stutzman. “Because voters don’t believe that.”

But Democratic consultant Bill Carrick, a South Carolina native, dismisses the effect of anti-California attitudes in Democratic presidential primaries.

“The notion that he can’t win in the South and border states, that’s nonsense,” Carrick says. “People who say that are Republicans. They don’t like Newsom or any other Democrat. People who vote in primaries are hardcore Democrats.”

But Carrick acknowledges that an anti-California bias could hurt Newsom in some states during a general election.

Here’s another takeaway from the elections: The Democratic Party is not in the toilet as far as it has been soul-searching since last November’s presidential election.

Last week, Democrats won everything from local commissioner to governor in much of the country. It confirmed my belief that the party’s chief problem in 2024 was a lousy presidential effort.

President Biden didn’t withdraw early enough for the party to hold primaries that would have allowed its nominee to build wide support. And Kamala Harris simply lacked appeal and didn’t inspire.

Democratic voter enthusiasm was contagious this time.

“There was one of the most exciting ground operations I’ve seen in a long time for 50,” says Democratic strategist Gale Kaufman. “Local party clubs, activists, union members all came together.”

Democrats can thank Trump.

“Voters really don’t trust Democrats but they‘re so angry with Trump it doesn’t matter,” says Dan Schnur, a political science instructor at USC and UC Berkeley.

Final takeaway: Trump has morphed into a Republican albatross.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: After outburst, Katie Porter’s support in the California governor’s race slips, new poll shows
The TK: Proposition 50 is a short-term victory against Trump. But at what cost?
The L.A. Times Special: Taking inspiration from Mamdani, democratic socialists look to expand their power in L.A.

Until next week,
George Skelton


Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Source link

Column: Is it really an election if there’s only one candidate?

There are three essential components to a healthy democracy: elected officials, voters and political opposition. The first two make the most noise and get the most attention.

But that third pillar really matters too.

According to Ballotpedia, the online nonpartisan organization that tracks election data, of the nearly 14,000 elections across 30 states that the group covered this week, 60% were uncontested — with only one candidate for a position, or for some roles, no candidate at all.

Much of this week’s postelection analysis has been focused on the mayoral race in New York City and Zohran Mamdani’s victory. Yet the same night, as democracy in America took center stage, more than 1,000 people were elected mayor without facing an opponent.

Only about 700 mayoral races tracked by Ballotpedia gave voters any choice. Dig a little deeper and you find more than 50% of city council victories and nearly 80% of outcomes for local judgeships were all without competition.

That’s a problem.

Elections without political opposition turn voting — the cornerstone of our governance — into performance art. The trend is heading in the wrong direction. Since Ballotpedia began tracking this data in 2018, about 65% of the elections covered were uncontested. However, for the last two years the average is an abysmal 75%.

It’s a symptom of broader disengagement. Over two and a half centuries, a lot of lives have been sacrificed trying to perfect this union and its democracy. And yet last November, a third of America’s eligible voters chose not to take part.

Are we a healthy democracy or masquerading as one?

Doug Kronaizl, a managing editor at Ballotpedia who analyzes this data, told me the numbers show Americans are increasingly more focused on national politics, even though local elections have the greatest effects on our daily lives.

“We like to view elections sort of like a pyramid, and at the tippity top, that’s where all of the elections are that people just spend a lot of time focused on,” said Kronaizl, who’s been at the nonprofit since 2020. “That’s your U.S. House races, your governor races, stuff like that. But the vast majority of the pyramid — that huge base — is like all of these local elections that are always happening and end up being for the most part uncontested.”

Take New York, for example. For all the hoopla around Mamdani’s win, the fact is most of the state’s 124 elections weren’t contested. Iowa had 1,753 races with one or zero candidates; Ohio had more than 2,500.

And that’s being conservative. In some cases, if an election is uncontested, ballots aren’t printed and the performance art is canceled. Ballotpedia says its data doesn’t include outcomes decided without a vote.

We have elected officials. We have voters. But political opposition? We’re in trouble — especially at the local level, down at the base of the pyramid. The foundation of democracy is in desperate need of repair.

* * *

The former mayor of Tempe, Ariz., Neil Giuliano, has dedicated most of his life to public service. He said when it comes to running for office, people must remember the three M’s: the money to campaign, the electoral math to win and the message for voters.

“It used to be the other way around,” he told me. “It used to be you had a message and you talked about what you believed in.” Now, however, “you can talk about what you believe in all day long,” he said, but if you don’t have the money and the data to target and reach voters, “it’s either a vanity effort or a futility effort.”

When an interesting electoral seat opens in Arizona, Giuliano — who was elected to the city council in 1990 before serving as mayor from 1994 to 2004 — is sometimes approached about running again. For two decades now, his answer has been the same: No, thank you.

Instead, the 69-year-old prefers mentoring candidates and fundraising. He also sits on the board of the Victory Fund, the 30-year-old nonpartisan organization that works to elect openly LGBTQ+ candidates at all levels of government.

Giuliano said the rise in uncontested elections can be explained by two discouraged groups: Some people don’t run because they believe the positions don’t matter. Others are “so overwhelmed with everything going on they’re not going to alter their life,” he said. “It’s already challenging enough without getting into a public fray where people hate each other, where people need security, where people are being accosted verbally and on social media.”

That sentiment was echoed by Amanda Litman, co-founder and president of Run for Something. Her nonprofit recruits and supports young progressives to run for local and state offices. Since President Trump was elected last November, Litman said, the organization has received more than 200,000 inquiries from people looking to run for office — which could indicate some hope on the horizon.

“I think the problems have gotten so big and so deep that it feels like you have to do something — you have to run,” she said. “The number one issue we’re hearing folks talk about is housing. The market in the last couple of years has gotten so hard, especially for young people, that it feels like there’s no alternative but to engage.”

* * *

Indeed, these are the times that try men’s souls, to borrow a phrase from Thomas Paine. He wrote those words in “The American Crisis” less than two years into the Revolutionary War, when morale was low and the future of democracy looked bleak. It is said that George Washington had Paine’s words read out loud to soldiers to inspire them. And when the bloodshed was over and victory finally won, the founders drafted the first article of the Bill of Rights because they knew the paramount importance of political opposition. That is what the 1st Amendment primarily protects: freedom of speech, the press and assembly and the right to petition the government.

Today, the crisis isn’t tyranny from abroad, but civic disengagement.

And look, I get it.

Whether you watch Fox News, CNN or MSNBC, it usually seems as though no one in politics cares about you or your community’s problems. We would have a different impression if we listened to local candidates. There are thousands of local elections every year, starving for attention and resources, right at the base of the pyramid. Since the 20th century — when national media and campaign financing exploded — we have been lured into looking only at the tippity top.

One reason political opposition in local races is critical to democracy is that it teaches us to get along despite our differences. The president will never meet most people who didn’t vote for them, but a local school board member might. Those conversations will affect how the official thinks, talks, campaigns and governs. When the system works, politicians are held accountable — and are replaced if they get out of step with voters. That’s a healthy democracy, and it’s possible only with all three elements in place: elected officials, voters and political opposition.

* * *

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has dedicated most of his life to public service. He said he learned early on to care about his community because he grew up during the civil rights movement, “when they were sending dogs to attack human beings.”

Today, the 72-year-old is a 2026 gubernatorial candidate in California. He told me when it comes to the rise in uncontested elections, people have to remember “democracy is a living, breathing thing.”

“Not everybody can run for office, not everybody wants to run for office, but everybody needs to be involved civically,” he said. “We have an obligation and a duty to participate, to read about what’s going on to understand and yes sometimes to run when necessary.

“We got to stand up to the threat to our democracy, but we also got to fix the things we broke … and it’s a lot broken.”

Voters often want something better than the status quo, but without political opposition on the ballot, it can’t happen. That’s the beauty of democracy: It comes in handy when elected officials forget government is meant to serve the people — not the other way around.

Leanna Hubers contributed to this report. YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Source link

Column: Trump’s tone-deaf displays are turning off voters

President Trump has long acknowledged that he doesn’t read books, so perhaps he’s never cracked the spine of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby.” But hasn’t he seen one of the several movies? Does he really not know that Gatsby is a tragedy about class, excess and hubris?

It seems not. On Halloween, there was Trump, dressed as himself, hosting a Gatsby-themed party at his Gatsby-era Mar-a-Lago estate. The president was fresh from a diplomatic tour of Asia during which he’d swept up an array of golden gifts (a crown!) from heads of state paying tribute in hopes of not paying tariffs.

Trump’s arriving guests, costumed as Roaring ’20s flappers, bootleggers and pre-crash tycoons, passed a scantily clad woman seductively writhing in a giant Champagne glass, then entered his gilded ballroom beneath a sign in Art Deco script pronouncing the night’s theme: “A little party never killed nobody.”

That’s the title of a song from the soundtrack of Baz Luhrmann’s 2013 film take on Gatsby, the most recent. Perhaps Trump is unaware that in the wake of the fictional Gatsby’s own debauched party, three people died, including Gatsby.

The tone-deaf Trump faced a comeuppance far short of tragedy after his party, but painful nonetheless: a blue wave in Tuesday’s elections. Revulsion at his imperial presidency swamped Republican candidates and causes.

The apparent ignorance of Mr. Make America Great Again about one of the great American novels, now in its centennial year, wasn’t the worst of Trump’s weekend show of excess. This was: The president of the United States held court at Mar-a-Lago, amid free-flowing liquor and tables laden with food, hours before federal food aid would end for 42 million Americans. Meanwhile, more than 1 million federal employees were furloughed or worked without pay amid a five-week-old government shutdown, some of them joining previously fired public servants at food banks. The online People magazine juxtaposed a photo of Trump surveying his Palm Beach party with a shot of nearby Miamians in a food line.

The president, who for nearly 10 months has seized powers he doesn’t have under federal law and the Constitution, professed to be all but powerless to avert the nutrition assistance cutoff, despite two federal judges’ rulings that he do so. And, characteristically, he claimed to be blameless about the shutdown that provoked the nutrition crisis.

“It’s their fault,” Trump said of congressional Democrats as he flew to Mar-a-Lago for the fete. “Everything is their fault. It’s so easily solved.”

How? Why, Democrats have to bend the knee, of course. They must abandon their quest to get Trump and Republicans to reverse their Medicaid cuts and to extend Obamacare subsidies for the working poor. Even as Mr. Art of the Deal claims (falsely) to have settled eight wars, bargaining even with Hamas, he’s refused to negotiate with Democrats. The shutdown is now the longest ever, on Tuesday surpassing the 35-day record Trump set in his first term.

There’s more.

En route to Florida aboard Air Force One, the presidential plane that Trump is replacing with a truly royal jet, a gift from Qatar, and having left behind the ruins of the East Wing where his $300-million ballroom will rise, Trump took to social media to boast of his latest project in the Mar-a-Lago-fication of the White House: an all-marble and gold do-over of the bathroom adjoining the Lincoln Bedroom. “Highly polished, Statuary marble!” he crowed, sending two dozen photos in a series of posts. Trump wrote that the previous 1940s-era bathroom “was totally inappropriate for the Lincoln Era,” but his changes fixed that.

“Art Deco doesn’t go with, you know, 1850 and civil wars and all of the problems,” he’d told wealthy donors last month. “But what does is statuary marble. So I ripped it apart and we built the bathroom. It’s absolutely gorgeous and totally in keeping with that time.”

And with that, Trump again showed his ignorance of America’s history as well as its literature. That said, the new bathroom is more attractive than the one at Mar-a-Lago in which Trump stashed boxes of government documents, including top-secret papers, after his first term.

Trump’s lust for power and its trappings seems to have made him blind to bad optics and deaf to the dissonance of his utterances. The politician who’s gotten so much credit — and won two of three presidential elections — for speaking to working-class Americans’ grievances now seems completely out of touch. There’s also his family’s open accrual of wealth, especially in crypto, and Trump’s recent demand for $230 million from the ever-accommodating Justice Department, to compensate him for the past legal cases against him for keeping government documents and attempting to reverse his 2020 defeat.

All of this while Americans’ costs of living remain high, people are out of jobs thanks to his policies and longtime residents, including some citizens, are swept up in his immigrant detentions and deportations, sundering families.

This week’s election results aren’t the only thing that suggests Trump is finally paying a price. So did the release of several polls timed for the first anniversary of his reelection. Despite Trump’s claims to the contrary, his job approval ratings are the lowest since the ignominious end of his first term. Majorities oppose his handling of most issues, including the ones — the economy and immigration — that helped elect him.

The narrator in “The Great Gatsby” famously says of two central characters, “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”

I’m looking forward to the day when the careless Trump is gone and his mess can be cleaned up — including all that gold defiling the People’s House.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

Source link

Column: California’s sleazy redistricting beats having an unhinged president

You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter

Anita Chabria and David Lauter bring insights into legislation, politics and policy from California and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.

By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service and our Privacy Policy.

While President Trump was pushing National Guard troops from city to city like some little kid playing with his toy soldiers, California Gov. Gavin Newsom was coaxing voters into fighting the man’s election-rigging scheme.

It turned out to be an easy sell for the governor. By the end, Californians appeared ready to send a loud message that they not only objected to the president’s election rigging but practically all his policies.

Trump is his own worst enemy, at least in this solidly blue state — and arguably the California GOP’s biggest current obstacle to regaining relevancy.

Here’s a guy bucking for the Nobel Peace Prize who suggests that the country resume nuclear weapons testing — a relic of the Cold War — and sends armed troops into Portland and Chicago for no good reason.

The commander in chief bizarrely authorized Marines to fire artillery shells from a howitzer across busy Interstate 5. Fortunately, the governor shut down the freeway. Or else exploding shrapnel could have splattered heads in some topless convertible. As it was, metal chunks landed only on a California Highway Patrol car and a CHP motorcycle. No injuries, but the president and his forces came across as blatantly reckless.

And while Trump focused on demolishing the First Lady’s historic East Wing of the White House and hitting up billionaire grovelers to pay for a monstrous, senseless $300-million ballroom — portraying the image of a spoiled, self-indulgent monarch — Newsom worked on a much different project. He concentrated on building a high-powered coalition and raising well over $100 million to thwart the president with Proposition 50.

The ballot measure was Newsom’s and California Democrats’ response to Trump browbeating Texas and other red states to gerrymander congressional districts to make them more Republican-friendly. The president is desperate to retain GOP control of the House of Representatives after next year’s midterm elections.

Newsom retaliated with Prop. 50, aimed at flipping five California House seats from Republican to Democrat, neutralizing Texas’ gerrymandering.

It’s all sleazy, but Trump started it. California’s Democratic voters, who greatly outnumber Republicans, indicated in preelection polling that they preferred sleazy redistricting to an unhinged president continuing to reign roughshod over a cowardly, subservient Congress.

A poll released last week by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies found that 93% of likely Democratic voters supported Prop. 50. So did 57% of independents. Conversely, symbolic of Trump’s hold on the GOP and our political polarization, 91% of Republicans opposed the measure.

Similar partisan voting was found in a survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. Pollster Mark Baldassare said that “96% of the people voting yes on 50 disapprove of Trump.”

Democrats — 94% of them — also emphatically disapproved of the Trump administration’s immigration raids, the PPIC poll showed. Likewise, 67% of independents. But 84% of Republicans backed how the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency was rounding up people living here illegally.

ICE agents shrouded in masks and not wearing identification badges while traveling in unmarked vehicles — raiding hospitals, harassing school kids and chasing farmworkers — are not embraced in diverse, immigrant-accepting California.

When the PPIC poll asked voters how undocumented immigrants should be handled, 69% — including 93% of Democrats — chose this response: “There should be a way for them to stay in the country legally.” But 67% of Republicans said they should be booted.

The ICE raids were among the Trump actions — and flubs — that helped generate strong support for Prop. 50. It was the voters’ device for sticking it to the president.

“Californians are concerned about the overreach of the federal government and that helped 50,” Democratic consultant Roger Salazar says. “It highlights how much the Trump administration has pushed the envelope. And a yes vote on Prop. 50 was a response to that.”

Jonathan Paik, director of a Million Votes Project coalition that contacted 2 million people promoting Prop. 50, says: “We heard very consistently from voters that they were concerned about the impact of Trump’s ICE raids and the rising cost of living. These raids don’t just target immigrants, they destabilize entire communities and deepen economic struggles.

“Voters saw Prop. 50 as a way to restore balance and protect their families’ ability to work, pay rent and live safely.”

The measure also provided a platform for Democratic U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California to explore possibly joining a crowded field of candidates running for governor. Newsom is termed-out after next year.

The Trump administration did Padilla a gigantic favor in June by roughing up the senator and handcuffing him on the floor when he tried to query Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a Los Angeles news conference about ICE raids. Such publicity for a politician is golden.

Padilla became a leading advocate for Prop. 50 while seriously considering a gubernatorial bid. The senator said he’d decide after Tuesday’s special election.

“I haven’t made any decision,” he told me last week. “Sometime in the next several weeks.”

But it’s tempting for this L.A. native, the son of Mexican immigrants who was inspired to enter politics by anti-immigrant bashing in the 1990s.

“I’d have an opportunity and responsibility to be a leading voice against that,” he said. “California can be a leader for the rest of the country on immigration, environmental protection, reproduction quality, healthcare…”

In many ways it already is. But Trump hates that. And California Republicans step in it by meekly following the hugely unpopular president. Prop. 50 is the latest result.

California Republicans can do better than behave like Trump’s wannabe reserve toy soldiers.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: A youth movement is roiling Democrats. Does age equal obsolescence?
The what happened: Most Americans have avoided shutdown woes. That might change.
The L.A. Times Special: Voters in poll side with Newsom, Democrats on Prop. 50 — a potential blow to Trump and GOP

Until next week,
George Skelton


Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Source link