Tag: donald trump
Darline Graham

Lindsey Graham's Most Famous Quote Returns To Haunt His Sister

“If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed … and we will deserve it.”

Reflecting on Tuesday’s midterm election results, a shellacking by Democrats that served as a rebuke to President Donald Trump, this quote deserves another look.

In 2016, in the midst of a heated Republican primary race, with assorted candidates jockeying to be the party’s presidential nominee, those words were posted by what now seems a surprising source: the late South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Of course, Graham himself had been one of the candidates in that bitter contest. Insults like “lightweight” and “jackass” were tossed back and forth, and Trump publicly shared Graham’s cellphone number. (Trump finally apologized for that stunt — at Graham’s funeral this past July. Better late than never, I suppose.)

By the time of Graham’s death this year, though, his earlier self would not have recognized the senator from South Carolina who had transformed himself into one of the president’s golfing buddies and closest allies.

In May of this year, after Sen. Bill Cassidy lost his Louisiana primary to a Trump-backed opponent, Graham reasoned on NBC News that Cassidy lost because he “tried to destroy” the president, and warned the same fate would befall any Republican who crossed Trump. “This is the party of Donald Trump.”

Why the switch? “He allowed me into his world. That’s great,” he told The New York Times.

Lindsey Graham stayed relevant, with a desired seat at the table — at a cost to his political reputation and legacy.

After he died, Graham’s sister was appointed to complete his Senate term and was then pushed to run for a full term by her brother’s onetime nemesis Donald Trump. The president’s endorsement pushed Darline Graham past a more experienced Republican, Rep. Ralph Norman, in the Senate primary.

That she played a part in the Republicans’ historic midterm loss is a full-circle moment that Shakespeare would relish.

Et tu, South Carolina?

Graham lost to Dr. Annie Andrews, as the state elected a Democratic senator for the first time in decades. It came as a big surprise, especially to those Republicans who, like Lindsey Graham, started out as skeptics of the inexperienced, cruel president before making peace with the man, his policies, and his power.

MAGA swallowed the GOP, and voters who elected Trump in 2016 and 2024 followed.

Until they didn’t.

What was the breaking point for the people who ignored millions of dollars in attack ads on their way to the polls?

In Ohio, was it the Vivek Ramaswamy ad that dredged up opponent Amy Acton’s childhood trauma, supported by Trump and Vice President JD Vance?

In the South, was it the seeming glee of Republican state legislatures as they gerrymandered districts with substantial African American constituencies, all with the blessing of a Supreme Court-weakened Voting Rights Act?

In Texas, did Hispanic voters who swung to Trump in 2024 realize that ICE’s definition of “the worst of the worst” included business owners, grandmoms, and schoolchildren?

Did tariffs turn off farmers as it affected expenses and bottom lines?

Did Americans rebel when they saw their dollars buy less while the president gushed over gold trinkets, a ballroom and a reflecting pool his hand-picked contractors couldn’t fix, and made billions for himself and his family?

Did the Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, the racism and homophobia in the name of Jesus leave true people of faith or just plain decent people disgusted?

In South Carolina, Darline Graham didn’t explain her plans for the economy or for fighting corruption or foreign entanglements, except to say “national security is not my thing” on a debate stage.

But the candidate with a scant resume did manage at a South Carolina rally to call her opponent “bats--t crazy” while standing next to an approving Trump, who coined his own anti-trans slur for Andrews.

Andrews responded by saying: “If name-calling would help lower gas prices and grocery prices, he can call me all the names he wants. But I don’t think that’s going to get the job done.” In a state with 14 counties “without a single OB/Gyn,” as Andrews has said, the emptiness of insults is hard to miss.

Whatever lessons they draw from Tuesday, Democrats should not get comfortable.

Angry, hurting voters expect results — fast.

But for now, it’s hard not to recall the warning issued and then forgotten 10 years ago, with the hope that Republicans realize the old Lindsey might have been right all along.

Mary C. Curtis has worked at The New York Times, The Baltimore Sun, The Charlotte Observer, as national correspondent for Politics Daily, and is a senior facilitator with The OpEd Project. She is host of the CQ Roll Call “Equal Time with Mary C. Curtis” podcast. Follow her on X @mcurtisnc3.

Reprinted with permission from Roll Call


Cheesecake Factory interior

LOL: Republicans Lost 'Cheesecake Factory Vote' By Overwhelming Margins

RollCall calculated the "Cheesecake Factory vote," that is, counties where there is a Cheesecake Factory and how people who live in those counties voted. Republicans lost the overwhelming majority of those counties.

"In Cheesecake Country, Democrats lead the combined vote (D+28.8 percent) across 141 counties with a Cheesecake Factory," the site said.

Of the 215 Cheesecake Factory locations currently open in 175 different congressional districts, Democrats will represent 171 of them. Meaning Republicans lost the Cheesecake Factory vote. That is up from 108 districts.

The outliers were in Idaho, Utah, Lubbock, Texas, Montgomery County, Texas, Williamson County, Tennessee, Greenville County, South Carolina, parts of Florida, two counties in Ohio and one in Indiana. Everything else went to Democrats.

The reference comes from a moment when former President Barack Obama was in Michigan for a campaign rally, and he mocked President Donald Trump for spending more time on supergluing gold embellishments to the walls of the Oval Office than he did focusing on issues like affordability. He said that Trump has "made the White House look like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory." The administration coordinated the whole of government to respond to Obama's insults, the former president observed.

“Classic Obama snobbery. Cheesecake Factory is a great option for people who can’t afford a private chef at their Martha’s Vineyard estate,” posted GOP strategist Matt Whitlock.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has a net worth of hundreds of millions of dollars, took his photo outside a Cheesecake Factory.

It prompted The Bulwark's Brendan Hartnett to joke, "The whole brouhaha felt like a preposterous relic of an earlier political era—one in which Obama’s choice of suit or salad greens could tie conservative pundits and pols into knots of rage. And now we have some proof of how manufactured the outrage really was."

"House districts with at least one Cheesecake Factory have a median household income of $93,000, while districts bereft of the restaurant have a median household income of $76,000," Hartnett said.

On Election Night, when President Donald Trump and his advisors watched returns, they had the Cheesecake Factory cater the event. Much of it went untouched as the night grew increasingly depressing.

"WH eating good on a big day," Kaelan Dorr, who is a White House staff member, wrote on X. His post included a photo of a takeout bag from the restaurant.

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet

Trump in war room

The New Affordability Agenda, Step One: End The Iran War

Tuesday’s vote made things pretty clear: we don’t want Donald Trump’s f**king war. No one wants their family members and friends going to the other side of the world, risking injury and death, to kill people we have no real grievance with. That view is largely a bipartisan consensus, at least among voters, if not among their representatives in Congress.

As is also pretty clear, the war is very much front and center in the affordability issue. Gas prices jumped as much as $1.50 a gallon in the months following the start of the war and are still more than $1.00 a gallon above the pre-war level. Diesel prices rose almost $3.00 a gallon at their peak and are currently more than $2.50 a gallon above their pre-war level. This is a cost borne directly by truckers but will be largely passed on in higher prices for food and just about everything else.

We are also likely to see a hit to food prices next year due to fertilizer shortages. Much of the world’s fertilizer comes from the Persian Gulf region. The blockades and damage to factories have meant that considerably less fertilizer than normal has been exported to the rest of the world.

Ending the war won’t immediately reverse all the economic damage it has caused, but it would be a great start. Also, because the war has jump-started the green transition across the globe (China’s exports of electric vehicles and solar panels are soaring), we should expect to see worldwide demand for oil falling sharply in the not-distant future. Two-thirds of the cars sold in China, by far the world’s largest car market, are now EVs. This means that oil prices will quite likely fall well below their pre-war level in the next few years.

The war is not the only policy Trump has pursued that raised inflation. Everyone but him now knows that we paid his tariffs. This raised inflation by roughly 0.8 percentage points in 2025. Ending the tariffs should lower prices of the affected products, although here too the benefits may not be felt immediately. Businesses have been happy to take advantage of market power to boost profit margins on the way up. Without some aggressive oversight, they are likely to be slow to pass on the savings from lower tariffs to consumers.

Higher inflation has also led the Fed to raise interest rates this year, reversing the downward course rates had been on prior to the election. If Trump ended his war and was forced to reverse his tariffs, the Fed would likely turn around and again lower rates. This would mean lower interest rates on mortgages, car loans, and credit cards. Of course, when the AI bubble bursts, that will also lower interest rates, but that is not as directly under the government’s control.

Near-Term Actions Beyond Just Reversing Trumpian Damage

Lower gas and fuel prices, along with the lower prices from eliminating tariffs, and lower interest rates, would be a great start on making people’s lives more affordable. But Congress can look to go further.

The cost of home insurance has hugely outpaced the overall rate of inflation, largely because of the impact of global warming. While it is a major expense for homeowners, averaging more than $2,500 a year, it is not included in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) because it is viewed as an investment item, not a consumption good.

Congress can’t look to do much to stem global warming as long as we have a big global warming proponent in the White House, but it can try to reduce insurance costs. Florida, a state run by that well-known communist, Ron DeSantis, has several programs that assist homeowners in implementing measures to improve resiliency. Average savings run close to $1,000 a year. That would be a great model for the rest of the country, and we’re talking chicken feed in terms of the federal budget.

On the topic of insurance, Congress should try to restore the enhanced subsidies in the Affordable Care Act that the Republicans stripped out with their Big Bill in 2025. This could help to reverse the loss of health insurance coverage in the last two years. The higher cost of health insurance also doesn’t show up in the CPI, but it is very real to the people paying it, or not paying it, in the event they can no longer afford insurance.

Lower Drug Prices and Universal Medicare

In a post-Trump world, we should be looking to a universal Medicare system, and a big part of making that affordable will be radically reducing the prices we pay for drugs and medical equipment. This can ultimately be done by eliminating patent-supported drug research and relying instead on direct public funding. In that case, all drugs could be sold as cheap generics from the day they are approved by the FDA. This could easily save $500 billion a year on prescription drugs (almost $4,000 per household) and other pharmaceutical products, and maybe a couple hundred billion more on medical equipment.

Since it won’t be possible to go directly to a system of publicly financed research, the government can gradually increase public funding as it radically lowers the price that we pay for drugs. The industry’s usual argument against lower prices, that it will reduce research, becomes irrelevant in this context. We don’t want them to do research supported by patent monopolies; we want them to rely on direct upfront funding of research.

Every card-carrying economist should support a switch like this. Patent-monopoly prices for drugs and medical equipment are a recipe for corruption, which we see in these industries all the time. When companies can sell drugs for 1000 percent more than their costs of production, they have an enormous incentive to lie about their safety and effectiveness, which is almost a standard practice in these industries, as was the case with the opioid crisis.

This also creates the horrible situation where people have to beg their insurers to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a cancer drug needed to stay alive, or alternatively, to start a GoFundMe. This is incredibly absurd when we realize the drug would almost certainly sell for just a few hundred dollars in a free market. It’s rare that a drug is actually expensive to manufacture and distribute.

Anyhow, the switch to universal Medicare will almost certainly have to wait for a new president, but since Trump likes to boast about his 600 percent reduction in drug prices, a Democratic Congress may be able to put a bit of truth into his absurd boast. Lowering drug prices in a big way is a great policy, whose benefits will be seen immediately. And if we want to have a universal Medicare program that is affordable to the country, it should be a big part of the story.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack, from which this is reprinted with permission.

students voting

November 3, 2026: The Day We Saved Democracy

I had prepared a post about the September data from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), but this seemed more important. November 3 will be remembered in history as a day like December 7 or July 4. It was the day that tens of millions of people stood up to defend democracy in the United States.

I have no illusions about the many, many dark points in this country’s history, which predated Donald Trump, many of which were still very much present when he took office. But a democracy that has at least the pretense of respecting human rights and basic decency is infinitely better than a dictatorship that has open contempt for anything that challenges its power.

We are a long way from being completely out of the woods. Donald Trump still has two more years in his term, and his sycophants still command the most powerful military in the world, as well as a squad of domestic henchmen that openly act outside of the law. They can do enormous harm to the country and the world in this time.

But our ability to limit the damage is hugely greater today than yesterday. And to be clear, the mission is far larger than surviving the last two years of Donald Trump’s term. We have to reverse the inequality and corruption that led to a situation where tens of millions of people could look to a bumbling reality TV show star as the solution to the problem.

We need to create a government that people believe is on their side, that actively works to make their lives better. However much better the Biden administration and prior Democratic and even Republican administrations might have been in serving the public, people had real grounds for believing that the government was not serving their interests. Elon Musk was already incredibly rich on January 20, 2025.

Anyhow, that is a long and incredibly important project, but for now, we can all take a deep breath. The immediate threat to democracy has been turned back with an electoral landslide of historic proportions. We should enjoy the moment while still recognizing that much more needs to be done.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack, from which this is reprinted with permission.


Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Trending

World