Elections have Consequences

What Will the Midterms Change?

Is there going to be a blue wave or a red wave? Most likely they’ll be both, or at least that’s how it will be spun.

So, here’s the deal. Only in sports and board games are there clear winners and losers. Whether it’s war, business, elections, or otherwise, there is always the opportunity to argue that you won even if you lost. You just redefine what winning is. Note that in the famous and celebrate battle at Marathon, the Spartans lost. They just lost well.

So, with the most likely result of the Democrats winning the House and the Republicans keeping the Senate, both will be able to declare victory, even if only by one seat.

But, of course, regardless of spin, reality does matter. Each seat will count in effecting 2020 election. Personally, I’ll be excited if the Republicans win only one or two senators and ecstatic if they lose even one. For the same reason, I’ll be concerned if the Democrats win less than thirty. Each case puts the Congress in danger in 2020 independent of who wins the Presidency.

So, what’s really is at stake?

Here’s the breakdown of probabilities as per FiveThirtyEight’s House and Senate forecasts (approximately):

70% that the Republicans keep the Senate and lose the House T
15% that Democrats win both the Senate and the House
15% that Republicans keep both the Senate and the House

Note that the likelihood that the Republicans win the House but lose the Senate is not worth mentioning. That’s because elections are not independent of each other. If Democrats win the Senate, they are assured the House, and if Republicans keep the House then so the Senate.

In the most likely case of split government, no significant legislation passes, and the House will spend most of its time doing investigations. The Senate will focus on countering House investigations and getting more judges. Though, you have probably, so let me try some more ambitious predictions.

• Nancy Pelosi does not remain House Majority leader. My thinking here is that there will be a lot of new representatives that want a different speaker
• There will be a Republican challenger against the President for 2020. I expect that Trump will have lost his mojo, and some Republican politician will see this as an opportunity.
• There will be no drama around debt limits, funding the government, etc. Most of the new representatives will be from districts where they are punished for that. 

What I don’t know well enough to predict is whether Trump gets impeach or will his chances of reelection change. That depends on how aggressive the House is willing to be and what they find. The House will probably issue subpoenas, but are they ready to act if the subjects refuse to answer the question? Are they willing to jail them for contempt (as was done in the McCarthy hearings)? If they cite presidential privilege, are they willing to take it to court? How will the courts rule? What happens if the subject pleads the Fifth?

Also stating the obvious is that Trump has given up on the House and is focusing on the Senate, hoping to ensure he is not removed from office. However, I’m not sure that won’t backfire. I can always find 17 to 19 senators that would be willing to vote against him, either because they’ve already decided to retire, or they’ve just been re-elected and have six years to recover. But, we would have to find something bad. Really bad. More than we’ve suspected. And that’s really bad. Honestly, as low my opinion of the President, I’m uncertain that he is that much a criminal.

Not much changes if Democrats win the Senate as well. The margin will be too small with no good reason to end the Filibuster. The only difference will be that no more conservative judges are appointed, but in that case, most of the damage has already been done.

Regardless, of Democrats winning both or one, the margin does matter. First, a few representatives and one senator could be the difference as to who controls the Congress in 2020. Also, it affects what the Republicans can do. As of now, their biggest obstacles have been themselves and the willingness of a few members to block the rest. With a lower margin that makes it more likely. Finally, a lot can happen in two years: congressman can switch parties, leave because of scandal, or (God forbid) die.

However, if Republicans keep the House, then it is over. If that happens, despite all the evidence (polls, special elections, protests, etc.) that Democrats should win, then there is something fundamentally wrong America. It means my country is controlled by greed, selfishness, cowardice, bigotry, and racism as is feared. And worse, those horrid impulses will be empowered. Our only recourse is to look to the next generation because mine is a lost cause. Though there is hope for now BECAUSE all the evidence says Republicans, and by extension Trump, will lose.

Needless to say, be sure to vote.

Why Democrats Feel They’re Always Losing

Are Democrats Loser?

Democrats have, for my lifetime, held the majority of registered voters. Every indicator says they are likely to win the House in 2018. But, even Democrats are afraid of losing. Why? Because they are Democrats. But is that fair?

OK. To start with, you never say you are assured to win in politics. Not only are such predication dangerous, but can also cause overconfident and voters to stay at home. Secondly, conventional wisdom may say they win, but the 2016 Election defied convention. Still, there are reasons why Democrats are disadvantaged in every election.

It’s Rigged

In my first How We Got Here post, I described how the Constitution intentionally favor rural voter over urban voters, which the Republican Party has over the decades engineered their message to appeal to. Also, their big win in 2010 allowed them to gerrymander districts to prolong their advantage in the House. Finally, the party and their voters have paid more attention to local elections which gives them legal and rather disturbing control over the voting process: election law, voting registration, the location and number of voting booths, voter id laws, etc. Of the five Presidents to win by only the Electoral College (John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump), Bush and Trump represent over a third. A Republican President has not won his first term by the popular vote in 30 years.

Democrats Don’t Vote

If Democrats voted as reliably and Republicans, they would win most elections because there is just more of them. Depending on how you count, Democrats have 4 to 6 percent of the population over Republicans. If you go by party affiliation the percentage is higher, but independents have the plurality. If you by count by party registration, the Democratic Party is the largest group, but by a smaller margin. That is because most states require you select a party to vote in primaries which mean many of those registered Democrats are really independents. Even so, that margin should be enough to overcome the Republicans’ structural advantages.

The common reason given for Democrats voting less is demographics. Democrats include the majority of non-whites and younger voter who historically vote less. While most older voters are republican, who are historically the most reliable voters. (African Americans are an exception as they are very reliable voters.) I would also say that democrat vote more for Republican candidates than the other way around. However, that point requires me to go into a lengthy analysis of cognitive psychology, culture, and history.

Also, there is some suggestion that urban voters come turnout less than rural ones. But that would have to be teased out by the other factors mentions. Urban voters include more non-whites, younger adults, and are easily ‘rigged’ by reducing voting booths, registration regulations, and redistricting.

American is Biased

Besides all that I have detailed, you will still hear the most, “Democrats will screw it up.” There is a prevailing belief that Democrats are more prone to mistakes or at least worse at campaigning and politics. Until recently, I would have said that as well. But I have begun to reconsider. I don’t think Democrats make more mistakes than Republicans. I think that they count more.

I heard Republicans regularly refer to Obama as the “worst president ever” with no rebuttal, while his predecessor got us into an unnecessary war and, I would argue, contributed to the Great Recession. Clinton was pilloried for saying “deplorable’ while her opponent said and continues to say, the most disgraceful statements I have ever heard from anyone of political power. Al Franken must leave office for touching butts, while a Republican pedophile can run for the Senate. (Yes, I could also point our “grab them by the….” Donald, but I’ll get carpal tunnel pointing times this President was not held to account.) This goes to all levels. Republican congressmen can keep their office by showing a picture of Nancy Pelosi, while a Democrat candidate must be careful not to say the Presidents name.

Now, I can point out areas where Democrats are given clemency where Republicans are not. For example, Democrats historically have survived sexual scandals (provided it was consensual) better than Republicans. But even that is less so given the current President. I’ll also say that my evidence is anecdotal, but I invite you to look for the same pattern. I bet you’ll find it. If you’ve ever had to deal with racism, bigotry, or just being the disfavored sibling or employee, you’ll see quickly what I’m talking about.

Part of the reason for this disparity is that Democrats are more likely to hold their own to account than Republicans do. To explain why this happens requires me to go into that same lengthy analysis I alluded to before. Sometimes this is part of the democratic strategy. Racism is not tolerated, and Al Franken left office so the Democratic Party can say it is morally superior. You might also point to racism and bigotry because democrats field more diverse candidates. However, saying that this bias exists because more Democrats are non-white, non-Christion, female or gay just supports my point. False equivalency and what I described in Not Invented Here are also contributing reason. However, I would point to a more sinister cause. For decades, conservatives and Republicans have launched a continues propaganda campaign demonizing Democrats. Yes, I’m talking about Fox News, right-wing radio, and other media outlets.

That said, Republicans focusing mistakes by Democrats is no surprise. Nor is it the Democrats are quick to criticize themselves. What concerns me is that the bias must be held by independents. Otherwise, Democrats would win more.

The Future

So, what can Democrats do about this? Well to fix the structural disadvantages, Democrats must win more local and off-year elections. This makes the upcoming 2018 elections important, and the 2010 elections critical.

Changing demographics is a big hope for the Democratic Party. As the percentage of non-whites increase, Democrats should expect more of the vote. However, by my observations, I would advocate caution. The vote share should increase, but maybe by not as much as you would think. As minorities gain equality and see political success, they will vote more reliably. However, don’t assume all those new votes go to Democrats. Equality and political success also mean voting more as an independent. (That’s a good thing, even if not for Democrats.) Getting younger voters to vote is fighting human nature. You can engage young voters in some elections, but that is not a sustainable strategy.

The good news is that the young voters today become older voters in the future. As I previously pointed out, if you are between 23 and 36, your most likely memories of Democrats is killing Osama Bin Laden, saving the economy, and providing healthcare. Your memories of Republicans are an unnecessary war, wrecking the economy, and Trump. There might be a hitch. As voters get older, there is a risk that they become more conservative.

Of course, Democrats could work on their messaging to appeal to other demographics. There was a time when farmers, poor whites, and the military were Democrats with policies still held by the party today. Surely, if they can just figure out how to communicate with them, those voters can be won back. Really? That hasn’t worked for a generation. Why would it work now? Hopefully, the Democrats have finally figured that out. However, the same principles repackaged could work. The problem is that such repackaging will have compromises that need to be sold to the more far left part of the party.

The point is that these problems, though difficult, are solvable. Bias is the real challenge. While Fox News is the most watched cable network, too many Americans are being influenced by demonizing propaganda. Re-messaging or re-packaging does not help when your intended target is only listening to the ones that demonize you.

This was not an accident or achieved in a single election. Since Reagan (and probably before) conservatives and Republicans have been honing their message to appeal, not to the most voters, but the most reliable voters and whose votes count more. They built media organizations to promote their message and, more importantly, isolate viewers from contrary information. And with each win, they’ve worked every legal means to protect their advantage. You must expect that it will take more than one election to undo this.

There is, of course, the conventional strategy. The one you so often hear from a Democrat spokesman. Reach out to the other side. Make them feel listened to, and eventually, they will come to understand how Democrat policies are better. In time, reason will take over. So, let me ask. How’s that been working out for you?

The Russia Investigation: A High Tech Spy Story

The Details of Russian Interference

As of now, per the last Mueller indictment, Fancy Bear is identified as two cyber units of the GRU, Units 26165 and 74455. They are responsible for infiltrating the DCCC, DNC, and the Hillary Campaign, in particular, the Campaign Manager, Joe Podesta. The initial attacks were through directed emails (called spear phishing by us techies) that can trick the receiver into revealing his password or installing malware. Among the malware, X-Agent was used which was also used in several other Russian operations. X-Agent was used to moved documents to a GRU-based computer in Arizona. According to the indictment, X-Agent was developed, customized, and monitored" by a GRU officer.

One of the clues that Russian was involved was that similar attacks had been made against other countries, including Georgia and Ukraine. In fact, these states have been a “proving ground” for the hacking techniques that are later used against the US and other countries.

As you may remember the emails and other stolen from the DCCC and DNC were strategically released around the Democratic Convent create chaos and anger among Democratic supporters. The Podesta emails were release right after the Hollywood Tapes were revealed to create a distraction for Trump

To create authority, the emails were released in mass through Wikileaks. This meant that reporters were who selectively released the emails. It also allowed the Russians to rewrite and a few false emails mixed with the legitimate.

To create anonymity, the false account, Guccifer 2.0, was established as the front to release the information. The name Guccifer has a history within the hacking community, which assisted in the fiction that it was a lone hacker, not the Russian government, that had stolen and released the data. The real source was later discovered, possibly as expected, but by that time the propaganda had done its intended effect. In this persona, the Guccifer 2.0 team continued to post, at one point being tracked to a Moscow-based server managed buy Unit 74455. They also used a network of virtual private networks (VPNs) in Malaysia which were purchased with the same pool of bitcoins used by the Guccifer 2.0 account.

The Mueller Indictment does not refer to Cozy Bear. The CrowdStrike (and other) security groups identified their profile in hacking the DNC a year earlier than Fancy Bear and went undiscovered until Fancy Bear was detected. Cozy Bear has also been linked to Russian activities, their connection with Fancy Bear was not discussed in the indictment.

In the previous post, I detailed how you can fake popularity (and authority for some readers) by using multiple accounts either by computer or cheap labor. The previous Mueller indictment links these efforts to “front companies” that were associated with the Russian Government. The most well-known is the Internet Research Agency. Fake posts and stories were fabricated using decades of espionage techniques Russia acquired in the Cold War to coop governments, radicalize people, and create disruptions.

In other words, Russia launched a skill marketing campaign that would have won awards on 5^th Avenue if it had been for money.

There were more traditional means of infiltrations. Agents traveled to the US to gather intelligence and become part of political movements that could be cooped to Russian goals or encouraged to create social disorder. In addition to several persons listed in Mueller’s 2^nd indictment, Marina Butina was arrested, becoming the most famous example.

So, that is a lot of information, and if you read the last post, you can see how this all confirms that we know it was Russians. Let me take a moment to point out the details that let us know the Russian Government was responsible.

1. Only nation-state actors can do hacks and propaganda campaigns that require this level of skill and coordination with only politics as a goal.
2. The hacks of the DNC and Hillary Campaign match the Fancy Bear profile. This profile also matches several pro-Russian attacks. NATO, Georgia, and Ukraine were some of the targets.
3. Tools and resources used by Fancy Bear tie them directly to GRU cyber units, Unit 26165 and 74455.
4. The use of emails for spear phishing and fake accounts such as Guccifer 2.0 were traced back to Unit 26165 and 74455 of the GRU.
5. A server in Arizona was used can be linked to front companies maintained by the GRU.
6. A server in Moscow was used that is own by the GRU Unit 74455.
7. There is a financial trail of bitcoins that link different aspects of the operation.
8. Several companies with ties to the Russian Government were responsible for manipulating false stories and post through social media.
9. Human agents have been identified as entering the US that were part of the propaganda campaign. 

Behind, this we must assume that there are classified sources and computer forensics technique proving all this, and we will never know them, at least not for a while. However, the information that is public should be damning in of itself. Perhaps if you squint your eyes and abandon all critical thought, you could create some convoluted logic to explain it away. But, let me put it this way. What if this had been Iraq, who we have hacked and where we have interfered in their elections? If it had been Iraq, we’d be dropping bombs.

The Russia Investigation: No Way It's a 300 lbs Hacker in a Basement

Yes, We Can Know the Russians Interfered in the 2016 Election. Here's How.

Understanding how the Russians interfered in the election involves computer forensics and counter-espionage. It also does not help that new information keeps being discovered. You know this is the third time I started this article and had to start over.  Hopefully, third times the charm.

Let’s start with how we know it was the Russians were the Hackers.

First off, how you can tell which computer the hacks come from? In any two-way communication, both parties must give a way to identify each other. In other words, each needs to give the other a form of address (mailing address, email name, phone number, etc.). That no different when computers talk, in fact, it’s called an ‘ip address’, This is how Google can figure out where your computer is without a GPS. It’s not always good enough to find your computer or house, but it can get within a few blocks. It definitely will tell what country the computer is in.

And it can’t be faked (or ‘spoofed’ as us techies call it). Otherwise, the two computers can’t talk to each other. However, there is a problem. Hackers don’t want to be tracked, so they route through other computers. They hack into one computer and then do all their others hacks from there. In fact, the main reason a hacker may be interested in your computer or mine is not for what’s on it, but so their hacks get traced back to us. While we may see an ip address from Russia, it could be from a hacker in the US. (Though most of the times it’s the other way around.)

However, while you can’t look at an ip address and know the hacker’s computer, they can’t change computers too often so you can know if it’s the same hacker.

And, so brings the next forensic techniques. Hackers are profiled just like serial killers. You may not know how who they are right away, but you track them by the specific way a hacker hacks: what computers used, what software use, who they target, what vulnerabilities exploited, etc. The software left by the hackers (malware) can also be examined for clues. This includes common byte patterns (which indicates the use of the same code) and coding comments which can even show the native language of the programmer.

Now a part that gets confusing. These profiles are tracked by different governments and private companies, and so can have more than one name for the same profile. The two groups connected to the DNC and Podesta emails, Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, were also known by the memorable names of APT29 and APT28, and many others. Depending on when the news stories where written you can see all these names and understandably be confused.

OK. This is really important to remember. Hackers rarely work alone. Despite, the movies and stories of lone hackers, nowadays hacking is too complicated and time-consuming for individuals to do. And having a team of skilled individuals focusing on the same objective costs money. Serious hacking is not a hobby. It's a job.

That’s' why most hacking groups belong to criminal organizations. And it gets worse for the lone hacker. Once hacking is discovered, companies can fix their software to prevent them. That's part of those monthly updates you are always getting, and why you want to keep your software updated. What this means is that criminal hackers must continuously find new ways to hack. Again, why they can't do it for free and can't do it alone.

There are also 'white hat' hackers who work for universities, research groups, or security company. Though they don't actually hack computers. They look for tricks criminal hackers (black hats) may use. (Us techies call these tricks 'exploits'.)  However, a single exploit is usually not enough to hack a computer. You need several exploits each attacking a different aspect of security: getting past firewalls, avoiding detection, etc. Many exploits are caught before hackers can use them, or even before it’s proven that they are practical. Sometimes its just pure research, and sometimes exploits are sold to the vulnerable company. There is also a black market of exploits.

In other words, hackers are indeed part of broad industry mostly populated by small and large businesses. They are ruled by economics as much as by technology.

One consequence is that criminal hacker must hack in mass, looking for those who have not updated their computers and maximize profit before their hacks are discovered. So then ask yourself, if an individual is hacked with no way of making money, who could do that? Who can engage in expensive endeavors without making money? Governments obviously, and, in particular, intelligence agencies and the military. In other words, spies.

Spies hack differently than criminals. Criminals usually try to get their money as fast as they can, expecting to be discovered. Spies don't need to make money, but the secrets they steal will lose value if the hack is ever found. Often spies have custom software created by government agencies (like the NSA and GRU) that won't be detected by as would other exploits (hopefully).

So now, you can see that within the white/black hat hacking industry, there is a hidden cat and mouse spy game going on, and when spy hackers are discovered, they can be distinguished from your typical criminal hacker. And as with all other espionage, these hacker spies can be identified just as you would non-hacker spies: surveillance, informants, who profit from their activities, etc. Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear have been being observed by intelligence agencies (and not just US) for years and linked to several Russian operations. Some of the targets include NATO, Georgia, and the Ukraine military. Now, who would want to do that?

Saying we don’t know that the Russians are responsible for the Hillary Campaign and DNC are like saying the police cannot tell the difference between a mugger and a bank robber.

Now there is another way the spies acted differently than others. I said before spies want to keep the stolen secrets secret. What I should have said is that they don’t want their stolen secrets known until they are ready. China hacked Obama's ad McCain’s campaign. However, they never released what they stole or used it to interfere in the election. They wanted the information to better predict and negotiate with the next president. However, the Russians did release what they stole, timed to interfere with the election. That added more evidence that it was Russia.

To release the information, they had to set up accounts that can be traced. Granted they were fake and created by fronts, but with subpoena power and cooperation you will get more clues to the source. Even more damning is that you must keep this account and the computers you are releasing them from around longer. In fact, servers leased to front companies were used, not just randomly hack computers. (I speculate that was because you can’t move the vast amounts of data they had undetected on just any computer.)

Now we get to the Russian propaganda campaign.

Let’s start by saying this is not new. Since, even before the Cold War, Russia has been using espionage to interfere with other countries elections. So have we for that matter. England did so to us in 1940 to keep us in WWII.

Basically, you pretend to be a member of the country (or coop existing members) to politically advocate something you want, undermine the existing government, or just cause chaos. The main idea is that to make your action look like they are coming from within the country instead of outside the country. The big difference today is that you can supercharge it with computers.

You may or may not know that I maintain several emails address. You probably do as well, say one for home and one for work. And you probably have a few email addresses that you don’t use. For example, your internet provider probably gives you one that you ignore. And that also means it’s not hard to have a couple of Facebook, Twitter, and other social media accounts. Which means you can ‘follow’, ‘like’, and ‘retweet’ yourself. I have.

There is a good reason for doing that. Sometimes I want the same post to go to a different audience. Sometimes what I post can look different when viewed from other accounts, so I follow myself to check. That, however, can make it look like I’m twice as popular as I am. So, I do it judiciously. But, what if I wasn’t scrupulous. Everything I post will have twice the ‘likes’ and always have at least one retweet. And why stop there. I could set up 10 accounts and be 10 times as popular. Of course, after a while, it would be too laborious, but then it would not be that hard to write a computer program to do it for me. Then I could be 1000, 10,000 times as popular. There is no limit. If I’m willy enough, I could have every one of my posts be so popular they rise to the top of every Facebook and Twitter list. I could be more influential than a Kardashian.

But of course, Facebook and Twitter don’t want me to do that. They have software (and maybe people) always looking for ‘non-human’ behavior to catch precisely this. But, the Russian government had an easy workaround: hire real people. Russia maintains troll farms or web brigades, groups of people employed to perform influence operations. In other words, spread propaganda posing under false identities on the Internet. And again, we can track them back to the Russian GRU through all the techniques I discussed: computer forensics, profiling, and espionage.

So, now I’ve explained how we discovered the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. Next, I’ll go into detail into exactly what happened.

The Russia Investigation: It's Complicated, or Is It?

We keep saying the Russia Investigation is complicated. It’s not. It comes down to three statements:

1. The Russian Government interfered with the 2016 election by a combination of hacking and propaganda.
2.  It is possible that members of the Trump Campaign, if not Trump himself, knew beforehand what the Russians were doing or may have even cooperated.
3.  President Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation by firing Comey and other means.

A lot of the ‘complexity’ is happening because we have a President, a political party, a news network, right-wing radio, and many others doing all they can to make it sound complicated. But that does not explain why other news outlets such as MSNBC says the same. Well, they like to prove things, not just say them. You know, give evidence. That’s where it gets complicated.

The first statement of Russian interference involves computer forensics counter-espionage investigation.

The second statement of the Trump Campaign’s cooperation involves a lot of suspicious meetings and behavior. What makes it complicated is that there is just so much of it. It becomes mind-numbing. Taken individually each event can be explained away. However, the sheer number of them raises suspicion. However, it is still all circumstantial. We may not know who the conspirators are, how they were involved, how much they were involved, or why until the Mueller Investigation provides witnesses, documents, or other evidence. But note, people have been convicted for criminal conspiracy with less circumstantial evidence.

There is so much circumstantial evidence, by the time I list it all more is found. I won’t even try, at least not yet. Instead, I will invite you to discover for yourself. My recommendation is that you just accept that’s there is more than enough and wait until the investigation is done to see the details.

As for the President committing obstruct that’s complicated, because… OK, that’s not complicated at all. He confessed to it, on tape, in front of America and Lester Holms. Any argument that it’s not is just political nonsense. The only reason he is not being impeached in because Republicans control Congress. Why Mueller is still investigating it? No idea. From what I have seen before, prosecutors look for as much evidence as they can, even when it seems like they have enough. That’s especially true when the target is powerful, like say the President of the United States.

With the question of the Trump Campaign’s involvement, I’m not sure I can do more than is already being done by your chosen news source. As for the third and as far as I’m concerned, it’s only a political question, and discussing whether or not Trump obstructed is a waste of time.

However, with how the Russian Government interfered and how we know, I can help a lot. So, check out my next post. 

Ryan, We Hardly Knew Ye

As you have probably heard, Paul Ryan, the current Speaker of the House, has announced that he will not seek re-election, which immediately prompts the question as to what that means. In particular, what does that mean for those of us watching Trump? The short answer is that it’s definitely a set back for President Trump and Republicans in general. What’s harder to answer is how much.

First off, whatever the effect, it will only be for about 8 months. After that, Ryan is not Speaker, and all changes will depend on the outcome of the 2018 elections. Also, before we consider Ryan’s retirement, we must look at what it means when any Republican Representative retires.

The first point that is always made when a politician retires is that he is freer to vote “his own conscious” and behave independently. That is undoubtedly true, but not as much as we tend to think. We must remember that just because a politician retires from his offices does not mean he retires from politics. He will still have friends who are trying to get re-elected. His next job will probably need to leverage his political loyalties and reputation. And then there is always the possibility that he might run for a higher office, regardless of what he says or even his thinking at the moment.

And then there still is the fact that his principles have not changed. (Yeah, I said principals. Don’t laugh. OK laugh a little.) Whatever you think of the compromises politicians make, they mostly do have underlying principles that motivated them to seek office. Included is the idea that their party is better than the other. And those are the principles most empowered by his retirement. So, just because a retiring politician acts on his principles, that does not mean he will act on your principles.

What changes most for a retiring politician is his ability to think long-term instead of short-term. He is no longer motivated by the next election, but by his legacy, the welfare of his friends, and the long-term effects on his political career.

That said and despite my warnings, I did update the CongressCount treating all retiring republicans as an addition to the Disaster Count and a subtraction from the Success Count. But, as always, these counts are measures of independence, not opposition. If you want that, vote this November.

As should be no surprise, President Trump's chance for Success has gone down, and his chance for Disaster has gone up. The change in the Success Count does not mean that much given how close we are to the November elections. However, that the Disaster Count has now reached a threshold is. There are currently enough independent and opposition votes to remove the President from offices, assuming such a vote would ever be called.

And that's the real question, isn't it? Now that Ryan is retiring, how much more likely is he to call a vote for Impeachment?

Well...

Now you know why I went so much into what a politician’s retirement really means. If Ryan calls for an Impeachment vote, it would require the same level of crime as before. And there is still McConnell to consider.

If you look at the Congress Count page, you will notice that I stopped tracking the House Resistances Count, which is meaningless if the Speaker of the House has no interest in staying Speaker of the House. However, McConnell still wants to remain Majority Leader, and you must assume Ryan and McConnell talk. Effectively what has changed is that now Impeachment is a McConnell decision instead of a McConnell/Ryan decision. That's not much of a difference at all.

Where Ryan could behave differently is that he is now in the position to consider the long-term effects of his decision. Consider the unlikely case that enough is found on President Trump to warrant Impeachment to most voters. Before he would be juggling the short-term consequence of losing the House in 2018 versus permanently tarring the Republican Party. Sure, Republicans now would be angry that he lost the House but could praise him years later for saving the party.

In fact, he could begin the investigation but not force a vote until after November or at all, which would be easy to do. Then, Republicans can oppose or support the President in whatever way is best for them, all the time (wink wink) blaming Ryan.