Thursday, November 21, 2019

Where We're At

The Impeachment Train rolls on--the hearings show a clash of narratives that represent the two worlds that America now lives in. To see this split happening in real time gives us insight as to how the two worlds think.

On The Right
The points that the Republicans are hammering in is that you can't unquestioningly show that Trump had criminal intent in pressuring Ukraine to investigate Biden. This is because you:

  • Don't have anyone telling people: "I won't release the aid unless they investigate Biden!"
  • The Ukraine is corrupt so it would be legitimate to question the aid
  • The call in question can be read so that Trump is asking for favors--and Zelensky wasn't aware the aid was held / wasn't being pressured (and Zelensky agreed on the record)
  • The aid was released without any of the "pros" in the quid-pro-quo.

On The Left
  • Everyone--Everyone--involved understood it was "aid for announcement of investigations." (Sondland, Volker, etc.). Giuliani certainly was going for that and Trump was in his thrall. 
  • Ukraine is corrupt but Trump doesn't seem to care about corruption in other countries (Turkey?) and he was focused on the one thing that could help his campaign.
  • The call shows (1) Trump saying "We've done a lot for you--you haven't done enough for us." (2) Zelensky brings up the aid (3) Trump asks for favors relevant to the aid ("though")
  • The only reason the aid went through is the jig was up--and maybe Bolton released it.
  • The White House was getting questions about where the aid was on the night of the Zelenski call so certainly they knew something was up.
Looking at this, a few things are clear:
  • Trump may not have told Sondland to investigate Biden but he sure told Zelensky to.
  • The aid was being held for no reason anyone can articulate ("Trump doesn't like aid" doesn't cut it)--Ukraine had already cleared the check on corruption that was tied to it (which may be why Bolton could have released it on his say-so)
  • Trump seems to have cleaned people out of the way who were interfering in Rudy's scheme in a way that was ugly.
What Isn't Being Said

The missing piece here is that everyone accepts that Trump and Rudy are boomers caught up in a conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine that "hacked the 2016 election" and not Russia. This is a common belief on the right, currently. They may not be able to articulate it--but it underlies the entire set of theories. For example:
  • The investigation into Ukraine is seen as "legitimate" because "we don't know what happened in 2016"--well, we do--and we know Ukraine wasn't part of that. There is no missing server and there isn't a big mystery about who hacked it.
  • That Hunter Biden was doing something nefarious in Ukraine on the board. He wasn't--he probably wasn't doing anything. There isn't anything alleged that Hunter did. The theory is that Joe Biden tried to keep Hunter from being investigated--which would be corrupt--but we can plainly see that isn't what happened (Joe Biden was doing what the entire NatSec community wanted to happen--get the guy who was NOT investigating things out of there. Biden's replacement made it more likely Burisma would be investigated)--but on the right there is an ambient belief that Hunter was doing something illegal or bad.
  • The theory that within the entire government are many, many "Deep State" agents who are trying to "get"  Trump--that anyone who is testifying in a way Trump doesn't like must, by nature of saying anything bad about Trump be an agent of these nefarious forces.
In other words, again, the Right is consumed with bizarre conspiracy theories that don't just color what they believe--but actually underlie it all and distort any reported facts to alter the narrative. The core belief is that Trump is not wrong--and can do no wrong--and the facts will shift around whatever needs to keep that point clean.

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Watch What Happens When They See How Partisan This Is

A Trumper the Omnivore knows had a wait-and-see position when it came to the beginning of the Impeachment Storm that is now upon us. Specifically, she cautioned The Omnivore to wait until the middle of next week to see the polls.

She was, she said, giddy over the prospect of the Democrats Impeaching Trump as it would help him bigly: certainly this attempt to go after an already-acquitted president (Mueller) with a hearsay report from an unknown person could only help Trump in the eyes of the public.

Of course by the middle of the next week, things were looking bad. Today, support for impeachment is above where it was for Nixon at the same time.
No photo description available.This tracks with the 538 combination of polls and shows a fairly rapid rise in support that is impacting not only Democrats but Independents and even some Republicans.

'Wait Until They See How Partisan This Is'

We have now moved the in-zone back into the crowd in the stadium. The Trump-supporter warned The Omnivore that very soon this would turn around as people saw the raw partisanship that was motivating this impeachment--another Trump-supporter The Omnivore knows online crowed that the Democrat's sequestering of the Whistle Blower from the GOP (for very, uhm, well grounded fears that his identity would be leaked) was handing Trump 2020.

Is It? Will 'They' See How Partisan This Is?

The Omnivore is looking at Twitter and some headlines.

Or this tweet (about the Mueller Grand Jury Investigation)

Or this story:

And does not think this sort of thing is going to convince an onlooker that Team Trump "has nothing to hide."

The Media and the Message

Of course to The Trumper, all of this appears to be a coordinated media-smear to spin the headlines in as bad a way for Trump as they can. After all, they think, Trump is just defending himself from a kangaroo court! Why shouldn't he?

Of course The Senate is the actual court that will judge and The House conducts the investigation. If a House investigation that tried 7 times and couldn't find any significant wrong-doing on Hillary Clinton managed to "hurt her chances in 2016" (as the McCarthy famously said), The Omnivore doesn't see how a House investigation in this case is going to look especially partisan when the target does everything thing they can to stop from speaking their own words in public about the charges.

Thursday, October 3, 2019

How Would The Omnivore LIKE Impeachment To Play Out?

The Omnivore was asked a question from a Trump supporter: "How would you LIKE to see impeachment play out?" The Omnivore doesn't quite trust this--perhaps this Trumper is hoping The Omnivore will make predictions for grave-dancing purposes later if they don't come to pass--but: there are certainly some things The Omnivore can say without getting over his skis.

Let's set up some axioms:
1. The president interfering with his possible upcoming rivals isn't "Being concerned about corruption"--it is corruption. If Obama had wiretapped Trump for no really good reason other than "investigating to see if something was going on because of rumors" Republicans would have been (were) apoplectic.

What Trump was doing in Ukraine was identical in intent and similar in method to what Republicans believe Obama did to Trump (and were way upset about). So: PART 1 - That behavior cannot stand.

2. The Response by Republicans has been to lie. They are telling their base that this is a political hit-job cooked up by "Shifty Shiff" and that the complaint is partisan so they should not believe it. This is despite the fact that what Trump did and the transcript he released totally backs up the complaint.

The True Trumpaloo believes there are fine explanations for everything--and that it is just partisan whispers that make it look bad--but this doesn't change the fact that instead of defending what actions Trump took on the merits they are just "attacking the opposition." It's not a bad playbook--but if you think that abusing your office and then lying about it is cool then you deserve to be impeached.

If the Republicans don't believe he abused his office? They should defend on that. They aren't.

3. Trump Being Trump is great for the Trumpaloo. It's Awful For The Country. Trump's press conference  with the Finnish yesterday is a good point. His tweets about "civil war" are good points--and so on. Trump is always embarrassing--but now he's managing to make us look like idiots on the international stage. This isn't a good response to the proceedings and it needs to stop. If there is violence because some Trumpaloos think the Democrats are creating a coup? It's on him--and we have zero reason to think he'll stop obliquely encouraging an armed response.

So--having established that? How "should" this play out?

How It May Play Out
The most likely events seem to be:

  1. Public sentiment moves a bit further against Trump as more revelations come out and he fights subpoenas (yes, yes, hon--he's going to). Maybe someone finally gets his tax returns or something? But it can't go far without running into partisan roadblocks--so maybe a point or two?
  2. Productive things that could get done don't get done because Trump is pissed. This won't look good for Trump either and Pelosi seems to have pretty good messaging on that front too. But The Omnivore doubts it'll move Trump to do things that are good for the country. So there's probably an opportunity cost there.
  3. Impeachment Eventually Moves Forward In the House. They interview the witnesses. There's a drip-drip-drip. Things get a bit worse. (NOTE: if they find out that Trump promised to cover up for MBS's killing of Kagoshi maybe a lot worse--but that's pretty unlikely).
  4. The House Votes To Impeach. So long as the Dems don't fumble the ball (call that a 51% chance) they will get a positive vote on impeachment. Trump clearly "did it." There has been no real attempt to claim he "Did not do it." It's the article of impeachment--so, yeah. They vote and get their vote.
  5. It goes to the Senate--McConnell says "vote right now--no trial." He doesn't want a trial and speeches. He'll settle for an up or down vote. So he calls it--it goes mostly along partisan lines. No removal.
  6. The Public gets to decide what they think of this.

How It Could Play Out

The Omnivore thinks that this administration is like a pinata of criminality and stupidity. If you whack it hard enough to break, you'll get a deluge. In this scenario the Democrats "whack it hard enough to break" and one of a few things occurs.
  1. Trump decides to throw Giuliani under the bus and he EXPLODES like a blood-blister all over everything. In this scenario Trump exercises his penchant for stabbing people in the back . . . unwisely. Giuliani has been saying "I did it for Trump, Trump knew, Trump wanted me to." If Trump decides to lie his way around that, Rudy could bury him. Very unlikely--but a popcorn level event. The Omnivore would love to see this for the drama! Assumption: Rudy knows where the bodies are all buried. Chance of Removal: 100%.
  2.  Something Better. When staffers get called to the House to testify, someone from the president's inner circle goes and spills--what's on the other hidden phone calls? What's in the redacted spaces of the released transcript? Who knows. Whatever--in this case something worse than what we have comes out and people go hunting for it in the secret server or wherever. In this case the Senate has a real problem: there's something bad on the table--worse than going after Sleepy Joe and the Do Nothings. If this happens, McConnell has to do something unpleasant. Maybe he decides to hold the trial and the chips fall where they may. Assumption: Trump has blood on his hands from MBS. In that case, Chance of Removal: 24%
  3. IT WAS A SET UP!! There is a possibility that it turns out that somehow the Whistleblower complaint is "a set up" or "hit job." Exactly what this means is unclear--the transcript is legitimate. The actions Trump took are not in dispute. What Giuliani was doing in Ukraine is well understood (as well as his lack of official position). So it's really hard to understand how the Whistleblower being outed as a partisan will make a difference--but let's say that everything collapses. Then, presumably, Trump gets a boost and. Assumption: Somehow the Whistleblower wrote the transcript. Chance of Removal: 0%
  4. Civil War. There is a non-zero chance that several Trumpaloos out there in America will take Trump's rhetoric literally and / or seriously and will commit actual violence in the name of The United States of Trump-Merica. In this case, The Omnivore predicts it does not help Trump with suburban women. Assumption: Someone sheds blood to try to stop the impeachment process. Chance of Removal: 41%
There are probably others--but this is already TL;DR.

What Would The Omnivore LIKE To See?

The Omnivore would like to see Trump gone with the minimal national trauma. That probably means losing the next election in a landslide. That's not, however, especially likely. Would The Omnivore rather the president be impeached than win--or lose by a narrow margin prompting intense distrust of the electoral system?


However--what The Omnivore would like to see is this: An investigation into Trump's foreign and domestic policy that looks to see what deals he cut and what emoluments he and his family has gleaned from other nations. What is in his tax returns? Has he said anything treasonous to Putin? Have any of his family disclosed classified information to the material damage to America to anyone?

If he's clear of any significant crimes on all that? He's probably good.

Saturday, September 28, 2019

The Insidious Woke Media

Last night The Omnivore was given a perspective that makes a lot of sense. The question was why run of the mill republicans are upset about various "woke" shows or movies--the whole "wokeness" of pop-culture in general.

If you ask them, they will tell you about the pernicious effects of woke-ness on our society: forcing good upstanding Americans to be white supremacists, shattering the great Melting Pot (into what? who knows), becoming a Majority Minority country, even! Oh, and voting blue.

But none of that holds up. There is a documented chain of radicalization that doesn't rely on TV shows like Madam President. The Great American Melting Pot allowed for Chinatown and Little Italy and, hell, Boston from day one. The damage being done by cultural shift and miscegenation exists only in the minds of racists.

So what's going on? Why is "Bob the typical Republican" so upset about these things? The Omnivore asserted--and knows this is part of it--that Bob's media pumps his eyeballs full of outrage. The Drag Queen Story Hour has 35 instances total--that's like one per 10+ million people--but when it shows up on your front-page web-site it's the End of the Republic.

That's only part of the problem though.

Peak Strong Girl

This appeared on The Omnivore's timeline and The Omnivore was amused (he has talked with the guy who posted it online). This is a show that apparently will exist on Apple TV. The guy in question almost certainly does not own / have a subscription to Apple TV--in order for him to be exposed to this (whatever it is) he would have to jump through numerous hoops just to see it and, let's be real, he's probably not an Apple guy to begin with.

So what's he complaining about here? He sees it as part of a larger culture battle--one where creeping wokeness is taking over (has taken over?) the media and is turning it all into one glob of nothing-but-woke pablum. This is, of course, absurd (after all, in far bigger venues we've gotten shows like Preacher and Happy--ultra-violent and not-woke, in the movies we recently got John Wick and just a few years ago American Sniper. This won't tip the scales).

His being upset with this isn't in line with any intellectually valid fear--no, it's something else.

He's Triggered by the Microaggression
The perspective The Omnivore was given is this: for the average Republican, living in modern society is full of "microaggressions." Remember that microaggressions are a "woke" term for a kind of off-hand micro-scale racism that majority-people practice without meaning to--always assuming the Asian kid is Good At Math, for example. Or consistently asking the brown-skinned girl "where she is from" (Topeka Kansas).

The woke-Left's campaign against microaggressions was much mocked by the Right--but here we see a a guy who is upset by a passing reference to a show with some women in uniform wearing sunglasses.

He's waiting eagerly for the "market correction."

Buddy: This *is* The Market. Apple TV is, like all those other streaming outlets, driven relentlessly by data-mining. The Omnivore can explain it to you, if you want.

But no amount of explaining to him how this is something they think their viewers will like--the Capitalist / Free-Market icons that Republicans used to stan for--is gonna work. Why? Because he's (minorly) Triggered.

Triggering is a real thing for people with, like PTSD (don't set off fireworks at the VA clinic) but it has been taken to mean "upset by"--or "butt-hurt about"--by the right.

It appears They Would Know--rather than just scrolling past this--a show he would have a difficult time even obtaining access to (probably), much less watching, he had to tweet. It attacked, after all--the Republican is Never. The. Bully.

This Makes A Lot of Sense
Before you just go and laugh at the guy, consider something: if living in the modern world is (a bit) like being microaggressed at all the time (after all, you go to the cinema and you see WOKE AVENGERS, WOKE BLACK JAMES BOND, and so on) then it seems, to the Republican, like they are under attack from a massive, coordinated, hostile force.

The entirety of The Media and Hollywood, and so on is Turned Against Them--and when big companies they like adopt "Diversity" or remove their ads from Breitbart or whatever, it's like being stuck by hundreds of little knives all the time.

That's gotta suck.

You think they'd be more sympathetic to the black dudes getting followed around the grocery stores, really.

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Ukraine on Trump's Parade

I saw someone with the suggested title on Twitter.

So, here we are--it took a while--but it's happening. What does The Omnivore think?

1. Who Let Him Release It?
When The Omnivore heard they were releasing the "transcript" (it's not a transcript--a literal transcript would probably be word-salad and possibly much, much worse) he assumed that meant the media and Democrats had jumped the gun again. After all: release some info, get everyone hyped up, and then--if it's a partisan nothingburger?


Even Nancy Pelosi committed to at some future point DEFINITELY COMMITTING to begin impeachment hearings. She did this, apparently, without seeing the full complaint or the transcript. The Omnivore thought: if this is 83-Dimensional Chess, she's screwed.

Then, the next day, we got it. And The Omnivore's thought was "What The Fuck?? Who let him release THIS??"

Now--you can say they had no choice--but that ain't true. They could have run interference for a lot longer. They didn't. 

So--maybe the Whistleblower is, like, Hillary's nephew or something--someone so clearly partisan that they can be discredited? Or maybe the full report is self-discrediting despite the "transcript"?

Tonight Erick Erickson writes this:

Erickson is pretty much a Trump booster at this point. So--if this is "what it looks like" then . . . what the hell?

2. Was It Stupidity, Sabotage, or Something Else?
The idea that after artfully dodging the Mueller investigation (Barring the the Door, as it were) they just turn around and cough up a smoking gun seems . . . incredible. And yet, here we are.

The basic problem with the Trump-Russia deal was that we were waiting for a secret conspiracy. What we got was a public conspiracy: Trump was so Russia friendly that they didn't have to compromise him or make specific requests--they just boosted him and he was happy to take it.

In this case, though? We've got the secret conversation--the phone call where Trump answers a request for aid with requests for investigation (demands)--that is explosive and an abuse of power.

It has the ingredient that Trump-Russia was missing. It's easy enough to talk about and, unlike the first time, the Democrats control the House so they can manage the investigation.

So This-Time is (could be) different.

So--did someone inside Trump's circle set him up? Or did they really conclude that they could just release this and no one would care?

The Omnivore honestly doesn't know. If this was a set up, it would be a really poor one--after all, unless the entire inner circle was in on it, someone should have looked at this and said "Nope. Don't put that out. I don't care how bad it looks--this is worse."

On the other hand, there aren't any adults left in the White House--no savvy ones (Kushner's ideas about politics are almost 180-degrees wrong). It could be they thought a half-baked explanation (Ukrainian corruption!) was enough to justify the blood-splatters (delayed aid) and that lack of the actual Latin words "quid," "pro," and "quo" would be enough to spin the base.

If so, they were wrong--the media is, right now, reporting this as a cover-up and we haven't even started digging yet.

3. Whither Impeachment?

The argument against impeachment has always been that it was too dramatic--too extreme--and there was the Clinton-backlash thing. The Omnivore agreed with Nancy Pelosi holding off--and agrees with going ahead with it now (at least provisionally until the complaint is examined).

The problem is this: if the country is really going to turn on the Democrats for impeaching Trump over this then there's absolutely nothing the great mass of America wouldn't.  This is a solid abuse of power, possibly a crime, and  definitely the same sort of thing that a lot of people were upset about in 2016.

There's zero evidence that this will galvanize non-Trump voters to come over to Trump's side--to the contrary: most voters don't like him--even if they support his policies--and everyone is kind of afraid of what the actual 2020 election will be like.

A lot of the voting public may see this as a best-case scenario.

We don't know yet. But it looks like we'll get to find out.

Monday, September 2, 2019

The Great Replacement Dudes

The Omnivore has had a multi-day run-in with a person on Twitter who defends the fear that (white) people feel with the coming demographic changes--and finds being told by people (liberals) "Hey--those are the talking points of the neo-nazis, yo," to be offensive and speech-suppressing as a political tactic (if The Omnivore has him right, anyway).

Because talking to this guy on Twitter is hard for Twitter-related reasons, The Omnivore is going to try to write up what he thinks here--and if the guy, or anyone else--wants to weigh in, they sure can.

The Great Replacement Theory (GRT)
The Great Replacement Theory is the conspiracy-theory version of demographic reality. Specifically this: over the next few decades America will be minority white (2044 is the target point usually used). That's demographic "reality."

The conspiracy theory version is stuff like:

  • The Jews / Liberals / Whoever are behind all of this! Soros is orchestrating the caravans, etc. (Twitter Guy doesn't, thankfully, seem to believe this--but a lot of people do)
  • Our Culture Will Be Replaced! The reality is that by 2044 with interracial marriage, "the culture" will just shift the way it often has. 
  • The Replacement is forcible and will be politically disastrous. White people will be relegated to second-class citizens! Black people (or brown, whatever) will vote away all our money! etc.
This theory is behind several of the mass shootings and is all the rage in white nationalist conversations. 

What The "Rational" GRT People Think
Twitter-Guy is rational--he doesn't seem to think it's The Jews. Dan McLaughlin (of the NRO) wrote a piece that took for granted that TGR is something reasonable people are afraid of--and getting screeds about "white genocide" is just the price you pay for having a shifting demographic! Oh, well, it's just a few more shootings!

The Omnivore has questions.

Immigration + Birth Rates = White Supremacist Talking Points
What Twitter-Guy wants is to focus on immigration. The idea being that libs want open borders (he really believes this) and they want open borders to turn Texas blue and whatever. Okay, that's over the top--but you can't blame him for not understanding that getting rid of ICE doesn't mean getting rid of the border patrol: he's a Republican.

The problem is that he is defending a theory--TGR--that ties birth rates to immigration and makes them both the "same problem." That's what the white nationalists do--because they are concerned about intermarriage and racial purity.

Now, Twitter-Guy holds that you can't really legislate birthrates but you can greatly reduce immigration. 

The problem is that this, alone, won't stop TGR--no, the demographics will still shift over time with just the current crop of legal immigrants (and some illegal) no matter what you do. We can see from Europe and Japan that birth-rates for the majority class are not likely to just "spring back up."

What About Just Immigration?
Saying you want to reduce immigration is fine--but if when you're asked why there are some answers that are not so good. They are:
  1. We're full! We're not full by any structural measure.
  2. They'll replace our culture! This is, again, sneaking in birth-rates in a way that suggest that suggests you think this is more than just another Tex-Mex restaurant  down the street. American Culture is not easily--perhaps not possibly--replaced. After all, we have Disney and Coca-Cola--there isn't a more powerfully branded culture on the planet.
  3. They vote BLUE! This is the telling one--if you think immigrants vote blue but have no idea why they vote blue then you're telling on yourself. If you think it's because they "like big government" consider that the Party of Trump loves big government--just not for minorities.
So What SHOULD We Do About The Great Replacement?

Nothing. Keep letting people immigrate. Maybe slow it down a little if we think it's slanted towards the low-end side of the skill set. Maybe invest some more in helping southern border governments reduce their poverty and violence? Stuff like that. Treat the causes, not the symptoms.


What about your culture? 


Tell me what that will be like--what do you think the world will be like in 2044?






Yeah, maybe you should have started with that. I'd be honest.

Monday, August 26, 2019


Joe Walsh--no, not the rocker, announced he is running for president in the primary against Trump. This was met with more media and Twitter attention than the far more reasonable choice of Bill Weld who also is running against Trump. The difference between Weld and Walsh, however is broad and important: Walsh was (a) a pre-Election Trumpist, (b) a fire-breathing Tea Party GOP representative in the House, (c) has run a conservative radio show since losing a re-election bid, and (d) is now tweeting . . . well . . . 'woke' stuff.

Joe Walsh 1.0

Lest anyone forget Joe Walsh's pre-woke politics, let's look at some of the greatest hits.
Image result for woke joe walsh tweets

Image result for joe walsh tweets
Image result for joe walsh tweets
Image result for joe walsh tweets

And so on--he was Trumpy, racist, xenophobic, transphobic, etc. This is just some of what he tweeted and said--this is who he was--and, quite possibly, who he is.

2.0 #WokeJoeWalsh

The reason he's getting an Omnivore article about him though, is not because of who he was--which, alas, in today's GOP is sadly not notable (indeed, it's completely standard). No, the reason he's getting the write up is because of what he's saying now. A sample.

Image result for woke joe walsh tweets

And so on. There are a bunch--including an  apology for having said racist things and having created Trump.

Does This Exonerate Him?

It turns out that's up to you, reader. If you believe in epiphanies, redemption, and, most of all, believe Walsh 2.0 is honest? Sure. If you don't--if you think this is a ploy? Nope. If you think he hasn't done enough--or nearly enough? That's totally fair.

The Omnivore reserves judgement (although The Omnivore notes that Walsh 2.0 probably hurts Joe's GOP career prospects in a way that, for example, Bill Weld's run at Trump does not). However, this isn't the point.

The Downsides to a Joe Walsh Primary

People on Twitter have made the case that (a) Walsh can't win the primary (almost certainly true) and (b) he might take all his raised money (however much that is) and go after a Democrat for a House seat. If Walsh raises millions and millions of dollars? That might be a problem--but The Omnivore doesn't think so.

If Joe Walsh prosecutes his case against Trump that the Democrats were basically right about Trump (and the GOP) all along then he'll be toxic to enough GOP voters that a billion dollars wouldn't give him a seat.

If he wins the nomination (for example, because Trump can't be on the ballot in California because he won't release his taxes) then he'd be potentially a stronger challenger in the general than Trump--unless you count that the hard-core Trump base will have been told they're all racist assholes . . . which, again, makes it unlikely they'll vote for him.

The Upside

The #WokeJoeWalsh upside though, is pretty interesting: Walsh knows how to handle the media--he has extensive radio experience. He was a Tea Party guy--he knows that world and the language. When he punches at Trump? It may hurt--and as Trump thinks himself (with reason) a great "counter puncher" (especially at people less powerful than him)--he will be unable to stop himself from hitting back--being in a media battle with Trump is everything Joe Walsh could ask for--and it's exactly the right message that the Trumpists need to hear:

  • You're hypocrites (if Obama had done 1/10th of what Trump has done there would have been a Tea Party march on Washington).
  • You're racist (Trump's innate contextual racism, called out by a guy who once defended the n-word is going to be a gordian knot for these guys to try to untie)
  • You're following a fool (Walsh will know how to contextualize Trump's lying and exaggerating and stupidity in a way that should sting).
In other words, if Walsh can get the platform, Walsh presents a far more damning message than a more conventional primary opponent ever could. Walsh isn't really trying to win the election by appealing to the Trumpian base--he's just trying to call out Trump (at this point).

The Omnivore certainly supports that and thinks it's unclear why anyone who is NeverTrump wouldn't. That's not saying you should donate. Just that this is a popcorn level event and you should throw your moral support behind Walsh and, possibly, if you can, a primary vote.