A new poll at New Hampshire Journal (where I’m Politics Editor) had some interesting — and perhaps troubling — news for President Trump: Around half of GOP primary voters in the key, early state of New Hampshire think a 2020 GOP POTUS primary would be a good thing. You can find all the data linked here, but the key numbers:

Looking ahead to the 2020 Republican Presidential Primary, would it be a good thing or bad thing if Republicans had the choice of another candidate in addition to Donald Trump?

Yes, it would be a good thing 56 percent

No, it would not be a good thing 27 percent

Not sure 17 percent

Among Republican primary voters, it’s 47 percent against a primary, 40 percent in favor.

But the reason I say it’s about half is unaffiliated voters (who outnumber GOP voters by a 2-1 margin and are eligible to vote in either party’s primary) support the idea 57-25 percent.

Does this mean a POTUS primary is assured or even likely? Not necessarily. Trump’s approval among Granite State Republicans is still 72 percent and, while that’s about 10 points lower than Trump’s national GOP number, it’s still an overwhelming majority.

And some Trump supporters dismiss polls more than a year out as meaningless, anyway. Fair enough. But if you had to bet, would you put your money on “Trump is in stronger shape” a year from now or weaker? And what happens to Trump’s support if the GOP loses control of the House (which is very likely)? Anything is possible, but the political trend is that Trump’s GOP numbers will drop from the ahistoric level of GOP support to more typical levels inside his own party. In other words, a primary will become more likely over time, not less.

Is that a bad thing? Over at The Hill, Bob Cusack and Ian Swanson write that a primary for Trump might actually help him and his party.

Trump has repeatedly defied convention in his political career, and there are reasons to think a GOP challenge could actually help him.

Trump’s base has shown that it is invigorated by challenges to the president, whether they come from Democrats or Republicans seen as part of the GOP establishment.

And Trump has generally emerged from intra-GOP conflicts with strength.

Unlike George H.W. Bush or Ford, Trump’s standing with the GOP base is strong. His approval rating in the GOP hovers around 90 percent.

Republican strategist Ford O’Connell said a primary challenge doesn’t scare Trump because “nobody energizes the GOP base more than Donald J. Trump.”

What should truly concern Trump fans is just how reliant his presidency is on his amazingly-high GOP support. Trump’s approval rating among Democrats in purple New Hampshire is just 6 percent. That’s lower than the vote total he got in Washington DC. There’s partisanship and then there’s “ridiculous.” A president with less than 10 percent bipartisan support is living every day in the danger zone.

Why is there a “Behind The Blue Wall” podcast? Because of stories like this one. We talked about Dartmouth Professor Emeritus Ned Lebow on an episode a few weeks ago, and now the story has taken a classically #BTBW turn. He’s been censured…again.

The back story from NHJournal.com:

The story began at an academic conference in San Francisco when Professor Lebow, currently of King’s College London, found himself on the same elevator as Simona Sharoni, a professor of women’s and gender studies at Merrimack College in Massachusetts. When Professor Sharoni courteously asked her fellow riders what floor they needed, Lebow joked “Ladies lingerie, please.”

And that’s where the “courtesy” ended.

Sharoni claims she was offended by the joke, as well as the laughter of the “white, middle-aged men” on the elevator. In her formal complaint to the International Studies Association, the organization hosting the conference, Sharoni said: “After they walked out, the woman standing next to me turned to me and said, ‘I wonder if we should have told them that it is no longer acceptable to make these jokes!'”

The ISA responded to Lebow’s lame joke, not with an eye-roll, but with a rebuke. They ordered him to apologize for his “offensive and inappropriate” remark. When he refused, they formally censured him.

Now the story has taken another turn, as recounted by Professor Lebow in the Valley News:

 “I discovered that she [Professor Sharoni] had not grown up in either the U.S. or U.K. — where saying “ladies’ lingerie” in an elevator is a well-known gag line — so I explained in the same email the meaning of my remark and how it was in no way directed against women.

I further suggested that I considered a complaint of the kind she made damaging to efforts of women to combat serious and unacceptable mistreatment.

She complained to the ISA, this time about my having contacted her, and I was censured a second time. [emphasis added]

Comedy is in the eye of the beholder and it may be that Professor Sharoni simply didn’t like Lebow’s attempt at humor. But why complain over an attempt by the gentleman to explain the comment and clear up any confusion over its offensiveness? Complaining the first time was embarrassing enough. Why complain again?

And–a more significant question–why would an (allegedly) serious academic institution like the ISA pile on with a second censure? Professor Lebow has a theory:

“What ISA officials want is not an apology but a capitulation….giving in to their demands would further chill free speech among younger colleagues and students who are far more vulnerable than I am to sanction by their professional organization.”

Somebody in this story is getting bullied. How many people believe it’s the gender-studies professor from Massachusetts?

I have never blamed anyone for voting for Donald Trump. Given the choices — Hillary, Trump or “Are You People Freakin’ Crazy?” (I chose the latter) — every option stunk. The #NeverTrump anger and insults toward people who picked one of three lousy options is irrational and unhelpful.

But deciding “We’re stuck with Trump” is far different from crossing the line into Clintonism — a line that a distressing number of conservatives have chosen to cross.

In a depressing new YouGov.com poll (which we discussed in the podcast, btw):

–56 percent of Trump supporters said the phrase “moral leader” describes Trump “extremely well/very well.”

–Only 11 percent of Trump supporters admit that Stormy Daniels’ story is “credible.” 48 percent say it’s not–despite the deluge of legal documents pouring out of Trump World.

–And a pathetic 51 percent of Trump fans say that if Trump did cheat on Melania with the money-hungry porn star “it would be immoral.”

Trump fans also claim they don’t believe that Trump knew anything about the $130,000 payout to Stormy, and even if he did it, only 27 percent say it would be immoral, etc. etc.

Like I said: Clintonism.

For years, my conservative friends and I have mocked Clinton Democrats for their defenses of Bill and Hillary. We reminded them how they pretended they didn’t know what really happened, how they pretended Clinton was innocent. How these “truth to power” feminists empowered a guy who treated women — including his wife — like crap. “What shameless hypocrites!” we cried. “What partisan fools! What stupid-on-purpose stooges!”

Now, a whole lot of Republicans are doing the same thing.

What I don’t get is “why?” Why pretend that Trump is moral, why pretend to have no idea if he cheated on his wife. Why humiliate yourself when there’s a completely honest and rational position you could take:

“Yes, Trump is a cheating dirtbag, but given the awful choices in 2016, even a cheating dirtbag was better than Hillary. And he won the election, which tells you what the American people think of Hillary. Now we’re stuck with a president whose personal behavior is atrocious. The best we can do is get as many good policies out of him while he’s in office. And on X, Y, and Z that’s exactly what we have done. I have no problem denouncing Trump as a person while embracing the good things he’s getting done as president.”

What’s wrong with that answer? It’s honest. It’s accurate. And when the Trump presidency ends, these Republicans will still have a modicum of credibility when they return to their former “values matter!” position.

So why lie? Especially to yourself?

Billy Williams is the “main owner” (his words) of the Used Apple Store in Derry, NH. On Monday of this week, they posted the following message on their Facebook page:

“No Republicans Need Apply”

When I first saw this story, I thought it might be a publicity stunt. After all, denouncing Republicans in New England is not exactly a high-risk business strategy. So I caught up with Mr. Williams and interviewed him and–lo and behold–he’s 100 percent sincere. He doesn’t want to serve Republicans.

Or butchers. Or meat eaters. Or people who oppose amnesty for illegals. Or people who support keeping marijuana illegal. Williams really doesn’t want to serve them. Like, really. 

He also thinks it’s absolutely ok if you don’t want to serve black people at your business–“maybe you’ve been raped by a black person,” he said. Or if you’re Hispanic and you only want to serve Hispanics. His main message is that it’s time for businesses to start applying their beliefs and turning away customers–including Republicans, who he believes are “The Nazis of 2018.”

You can listen to our entire interview by clicking here, but here are a few highlights:

Republicans are like the Nazis:

WILLIAMS: “If you look at the Nazi videos, like the Nazi regime when it was first come into play, before they killed anybody, you know, everybody was into them. Everybody was doing the hail, whatever they call it, you know, with their arm in the air, everybody loved them. The flags were everywhere. I mean, it was so great and wonderful, but behind the scenes, nobody really knew their true agenda at least until it came out.”

GRAHAM: So you’re saying Donald Trump and the Republicans are the Nazis of 2018?

“We will never know. And here’s the thing. If, if, if some of us may be believe it’s true, then why not speak it up?”

Under some circumstances, business owners should be able to refuse service to black people:

WILLIAMS: “Say, for example, somebody was raped by a black person and they don’t want to serve black people for that reason. There are some situations where people can be irked for some reason. I think that should be left up to the freedom of anybody.

“Or say somebody is Spanish, Hispanic and they want to promote their own culture. They should have the right to only serve Spanish [people] if that’s what they want to do.”

GRAHAM: And so you’ve given us some examples [of what you think is ok]: Spanish business owners who want serve only Hispanics and turn away white or black people; people who are uncomfortable around black people turning away black people?

WILLIAMS: “Yep.”

Not doing business with Republicans is like being Oskar Schindler:

WILLIAMS: “I call it the absolute goodness theory, that there’s always a good way of doing anything…

“People are saying ‘half the people around you, you know, why aren’t you taking their money?’ And the thing that I always give them [in response] is Schindler’s List. And we’re similar. Just taking people’s money, it’s almost a brainless way of getting by.”

Listen to the entire interview here.

I’ll be on CBSN Thursday night talking about the McConnell/Schumer/Trump budget deal and they’re going to ask me “what do grassroots Republicans think of all this deficit spending?”

And based on my conversations/Twitter feed/reax to this morning’s podcast on the subject, I’ll have to answer “They don’t care.” Well, do you?

After years of screaming and yelling about debt and demanding balanced budget amendments, what do we have?

…the biggest one-year budget increase since 2009 and the infamous Obama “Stimulus” budget. The number of Republicans who voted for that spending plan?

Zero.

In 2015, the commitment to fiscal responsibility was strong enough to force Speaker John Boehner out of his job when deficit hawks balked at a two-year spending increase of a mere $80 billion more than anticipated. That’s less than a third of the increase in the McConnell/Schumer deal. 

Way back then (aka 30 months ago), the conservative Freedom Caucus was on the verge of open revolt. Today, even with a proposed suspension of the debt ceiling included, alleged “deficit hawks” in the GOP are purring like kittens.

Imagine the Republican reaction if a President Hillary Clinton had proposed such a huge increase in spending. Cries of debt and disaster would fill the studios of Fox News and dominate talk radio. Instead, a government controlled entirely by the GOP just delivered a spending surge that could make a Massachusetts Democrat blush.

So why aren’t Republicans blushing? Now that the White House is praising this budget boondoggle, I predict a round of hernia surgeries will be required for formerly-conservative talk hosts who strain themselves carrying water for Team Trump and this deluge of deficits.

And, I predict, the grassroots won’t care. There will be a bit of token throat-clearing and harumphing, and that’s that. Budget discipline just isn’t politically popular, and the Right have proven that their motto for the moment is ‘Winning isn’t everything–it’s the only thing.”

If our grandkids get stuck with a projected $30 trillion in debt in 10 years and interest payments above $500 billion every year, hey: Sucks to be them, right? They should have been smart enough to be born sooner. Right?

Or will there be some actual grassroots pushback on this spending package? Are you hearing it? Is it any part of the conversation on the Right? Please let me know! I’d love to quote you on TV tonight.

And you’re always welcome to call the Confession Hotline at 617-903-TALK [8255] and voice your opinions. Best calls appear on the podcast every Friday.

If Washington DC really is, as Paul Begala said, “Hollywood for ugly people,” then the State of the Union address is its Nerd Prom. So why do so many DC nerds want to kill it?

From the Left:

“It makes me ill just imagining President Donald Trump at the upcoming State of the Union speech, preening, bloviating and bashing his enemies from the well of the U.S. House of Representatives,” writes progressive columnist Eric Zorn in the Chicago Tribune.

“For all of its pomp and ceremony — two raucous standing ovations for the president before he even speaks a word? — the State of the Union lacks dignity as much as it lacks purpose.” And so, Zorn says, it’s time to go back to the pre-Woodrow-Wilson policy of presidents sending a written report on the “State of the Union” to Congress instead of delivering a speech.

From the Right:

You’ve all endured this miserable spectacle at some point in your lives. You know firsthand how insufferable it is. Instead of me having to convince you, the burden should be on you to convince me: Why wouldn’t America be better off with the president submitting a written statement to Congress in lieu of a speech, as presidents did for nearly the entire 19th century? It was Thomas Jefferson, a man remembered for his many great ideas, who ended the practice of SOTU oratory. It was Woodrow Wilson, a man remembered for his many terrible ones, who brought it back. Presidents change but the speech is invariably boring, too long, and irrelevant politically despite the massive audience and even more massive hype for it year after year.

Finally — bipartisanship!

OK, sort of. Conservatives like Kevin Williamson have long complained about “the annual State of the Union pageant: a hideous, dispiriting, ugly, monotonous, un-American, un-republican, anti-democratic, dreary, backward, monarchical, retch-inducing, depressing, shameful, crypto-imperial display of official self-aggrandizement and piteous toadying.”

Liberals, however, had no complaints during any of Barack Obama’s or Bill “OMG Is He Ever Going To Shut Up?” Clinton’s awful speeches. The Left just hates Trump. If Donald Trump came out as gay tomorrow, liberals would be rushing to join Westboro Baptist Church before Sunday.

The only upside I can see from tonight’s SOTU is that is giving Democrats deluded by their Trump hatred the chance to beclown themselves yet again.

So you tell me: Is the State of the Union worth it? And before you say “Just don’t watch,” some of us have jobs that require us to sit through these ghastly wastes of time every year … for what?

Do you enjoy it? Is it important? As I pointed out in Monday’s podcast, there are very few memorable moments from the speeches–which have no impact whatsoever on policy.

If there’s a case for (or against) the SOTU address, please make it below!

My 15-year-old daughter explained why she and her friends all support Net Neutrality and oppose the Trump administration getting rid of the regulations. It’s based on information she and her classmates are getting at their liberal Massachusetts public school where, she says, they’ve watched several videos on the subject. And this is the result:

PS: She obviously didn’t listen to her Dad’s podcast on the subject the day before.

There are a lot of things I’m prepared to do for the Republican party. I’ve given time. I’ve given money. I spent six years working as a GOP flak. I’ve voted for uninspiring candidates like Mitt Romney, and intellectual underachievers like, well, the list is too long to itemize here. I even voted for … John McCain.

So, clearly, I’m not a finicky or fair-weather Republican. My party calls and I try to do my duty. But there is one thing I cannot do for any political party or ideological cause: I cannot be stupid on purpose.

As listeners of my podcast might note, “Why not, Graham–you have no problem being stupid by accident.” And they’re right. Yet another reason I can’t afford the luxury of intentional idiocy. Alas, this is what many of my fellow Republicans appear to be demanding.

A whopping 71 percent of Alabama Republicans claim they believe that all of Roy Moore’s accusers are lying. That is clearly idiotic. If you want to put a face to this, watch Frank Luntz’s focus group with Moore supporters. Actually, don’t. It is soul-crushing for supporters of conservatism. (I have some [ahem] “highlights” in this morning’s podcast.) Talk of a “George Soros hit,” and a guy claiming, “Mommas and Daddies would be happy to have a district attorney hitting on their 14-year-old” back in the early 1980s.

There is no way these people believe what they’re saying. They’re pretending to believe it–they’re feigning idiocy–in order to avoid acknowledging the immorality of their support for Moore. The people of Alabama nominated a scumbag to represent the GOP (a really stupid move in hindsight, yes?) and now they’re pretending they’re too stupid to realize it.

The same is true of Donald Trump. Despite the long list of women who’ve made serious and extremely believable accusations that he groped, fondled, and forcibly tongue-kissed them (yeccchhhh!), only 18 percent of Republicans admit to finding them credible. Despite the fact that Donald Trump has spent a lifetime making such allegations not only credible but extremely likely.

Are Republicans really this dumb? Of course not. They’re playing the stupid-on-purpose card rather than simply admitting that for [insert justification here] they chose to vote for a sleazeball with a reputation for treating women like trash.

Well, sorry: I can’t. I used up my clueless quota in college. I’ve committed enough acts of extreme idiocy to get me demoted out of the species, down to pro-simian, or even “professional weatherman.”

My question for Republicans and conservatives who can embrace intentional stupidity is this: How is “stupid” a winning strategy? Liberals pretended to be dumb enough to believe Bill Clinton and Al Gore lost the White House. Hillary lost it twice. Democrats are paying a huge price today on the issue of sexual harassment. Did fake-stupid work? Other than artificially boosting Bill’s poll numbers in the short term?

Democrats keep denying the basics of economics, pretending they live in a magical world beyond the realities of supply, demand, and human economic behavior. Is this a winner for them? Should we suddenly start pretending that tax cuts create magic money that falls from the sky? Or that lower-income families who already pay no federal income taxes “deserve” a tax cut? Or that corporations are, in fact, the evil, irrational, job-killing conspiracies that progressives pretend to believe they are?

How is any of this stupidity a strategy? And even if it were, even if stupid were a guaranteed path to political victory–I still couldn’t go along. Stupid on purpose is my red line, the one sin for which there is no redemption. It’s a violation of my core, fundamental worldview. The day I start embracing stupidity as a positive value is the day I stop being me.

How many more people on the Right feel the same way?