THURSDAY: What are the cable news ratings like?

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024

Sacred Troy overrun: Perhaps you're wondering what the nation's "cable news" ratings look like now that the year is over.

Over at Mediaite, Alex Griffing has reported the year-end numbers from Neilsen. Maybe Griffing's just kidding around, but he says these were the twelve highest-rated cable news programs over the course of the year:

Highest-rated cable news shows, 2024
 1) The Five 
 2) Jesse Watters Primetime
 3) Hannity
 4) Gutfeld!
 5) The Ingraham Angle
 6) Special Report with Bret Baier
 7) Outnumbered 
 8) The Faulkner Focus
 9) America’s Newsroom with Perino and Hemmer
10) America Reports with Roberts and Smith
11) The Story with Martha MacCallum
12) Your World with Neil Cavuto

Those are the twelve highest-rated shows.  For the record, they're all from the Fox News Channel.

At least in theory, these things come and go. That said, here/'s the somewhat gloomy start of Griffing's year-end report:

Fox News Crushes 2024 In the Cable News Ratings

As 2024 winds down, Nielsen Media Research averages for cable news ratings cement an undeniable trend for the year: Fox News’s increasing dominance as MSNBC and CNN face an uncertain future.

Fox ended the year by extending its winning streak with a consecutive ninth year at number one in both total viewers and the advertiser-coveted 25-54 age demographic. MSNBC landed in second place with total viewers...

Fox grabbed over 55% of the total cable audience in prime time and 49% of total day viewers for the year, marking its largest audience share since 2015. In November, the network increased that share to an unprecedented 62% of the total viewership across the industry. Post-election, that number soared even higher as Fox News captured 72% of the cable news audience in prime time for the month’s second to last full week. MSNBC scored 16 percent, while CNN had 11 percent of cable news viewers during prime time.

... Nielsen found that Fox was also the most-watched network throughout the election in the key swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. 

Candidate Trump won the three "blue wall" states by narrow margins. Fox News was outperforming MSNBC in all three of those states. (Griffing doesn't say by how much.)

For ourselves, we look forward to dropping our endless attempt to speak about the (many) reasons why people may have decided to vote for Candidate Trump. In the new year, we look forward to seeking the most productive ways to discuss what happens on the Fox News Channel's various programs, and perhaps in the wider world of social media.

In our view, those of us in Blue America need to take a different approach. We need a new attitude. Over the course of the past few years, our cable tribunes kept trying to get the other guy locked up. However well-intentioned that approach might have been, it looks like it might not have worked. 

According to Griffing's report, here's the way it went over the course of the year. We'll edit the parts about viewers in "the coveted age 25-54 demographic," though that's the group the advertisers and perhaps the bosses care about most:

Fox News ends the year with an average of 2.4 million prime time viewers, a 31% increase from last year...CNN is also up 21% in the total average for the year with 700,000 prime time viewers...MSNBC is up 5% for the year with 1.25 million average prime time viewers..

For better or worse, Fox doubled the score on MSNBC, while CNN also had viewers.

The Five is the nation's highest-rated "cable news" show! It's also an imitation of life, a parody of journalism. It's an anthropology lesson—a fascinating study in the way we people may choose to behave.

THE SEARCH: Just another manic Wednesday!

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024

Also, Van Jones [HEART] President Biden: Long ago, during the 2016 campaign, he was described by his opponent as a puppet to Putin. 

Is he Elon's puppet now?

We refer to former candidate / incoming president Donald J. Trump. Yesterday, he created a contretemps when he intervened in the ongoing budget brouhaha, an action he took after Musk suddenly tweeted on the subject roughly a hundred times.

Or at least, we heard that number reported on cable news. All in all, it was just another manic Wednesday here in our struggling nation's version of Oran. 

The budget meltdown happened so late in the day that it didn't make the print editions of today's New York Times. Online, a report begins in the manner shown, featuring an unusually colorful bit of journalistic language:

Trump Criticizes Spending Deal, Pushing Congress Toward a Shutdown

A bipartisan spending deal to avert a shutdown was on life support on Wednesday after President-elect Donald J. Trump condemned it, leaving lawmakers without a strategy to fund the government past a Friday night deadline.

Mr. Trump issued a scathing statement ordering Republicans not to support the sprawling bill, piling on to a barrage of criticism from Elon Musk, who spent Wednesday trashing the measure on social media and threatening any Republican who supported it with political ruin.

It was not yet clear how Speaker Mike Johnson planned to proceed as the package, which was stuffed full of unrelated policy measures as well as tens of billions of dollars in disaster and agricultural aid, appeared to be hemorrhaging support. Some Republicans suggested he was mulling stripping the bill of everything but the spending extension and putting it to a vote, but the fate of such a measure was also very much in doubt.

Really? the bill "was stuffed full of" unrelated policy measures? Have editors at the New York Times barred use of the word "included?"  

Give the reporters credit! In today's report, they never say that Speaker Johnson had been trying to "shove the spending package down America's throat." 

They show that amount of restraint. But before too long, they do say this, bringing the eternal note of incomprehension in:

Even before Mr. Musk began making noise, a swell of Republican lawmakers...had been furious about the funding measure, which was rolled out on Tuesday night. It began as a simple spending bill to keep government funds flowing past a midnight deadline and into mid-March, but it emerged from bipartisan negotiations laden with $100 billion in disaster aid and dozens of other unrelated policies.

The G.O.P. resistance meant that in order to pass the bill, Mr. Johnson was going to have to rely, yet again, on Democratic votes to pass it, using a special procedure that requires the support of two-thirds of those voting. But by Wednesday afternoon, the backlash to the legislation had spread so far and wide in G.O.P. ranks that it was unclear whether he would even be able to muster a bare minimum of Republicans to partner with Democrats and push it across the finish line.

Say what? Speaker Johnson had been planning to use "a special procedure that requires the support of two-thirds of those voting?" Say hello to the cultural problem known as "the complexification of everything." 

In that passage, the Times reporters are referring to a procedure which could (possibly) be explained by Norman Ornstein but (almost surely) by no one else.  No average American citizen understands what the Times was talking about, and the Times didn't try to explain.

This complexification of everything will tend to lead to the disintegration of a large modern nation. When no one understands what's happening, people are free to fall back on the simplified stories they'll be told by their tribe's chosen tribunes.

Long ago and far away, those of us in this sprawling nation were periodically invited to chuckle at footage of South Korean legislators engaged in fist fights on the floor of their nation's legislature. 

Today, we Americans still get to watch the clown-car as it sputters and chugs along, periodically breaking down. By now, though, the clown-car in question is our own country—is us! 

The American carnage is everywhere now. As an example of what we mean, a visit to Mediaite offered these headlines at the start of this very morning:

CNN Panel Melts Down In Finger-Pointing Fallout Over Elon Musk’s Role In Derailing Spending Bill

139 Year Old Newspaper Shut Down Over Mayor’s $1.1M Defamation Lawsuit Win

‘F*cking Lying Piece of Sh*t’: Dan Crenshaw Lashes Out at Claim He Wants Pay Rise for Congress

House Democrat Says ‘I’m Just Gonna Sit Back and Sip My Tea’ and Watch Republicans Fight Each Other

Musk Sends Blatantly False Tweet About ‘Bioweapon Labs’ That Is Reposted More Than 30,000 Times

For the record, that CNN panel melted down on NewsNight, a program the network seems to have invented in hopes that manufactured screaming matches may attract a few additional viewers. 

The newspaper which is shutting down is doing so in the wake of what seems to be astoundingly dishonest behavior. 

Rep. Crenshaw can't seem to take it any more, and we can't say we blame him. Rep. Crockett is going to enjoy herself, sipping her tea, as our flailing nation comes apart at the seams.

In the midst of all this turmoil, some of us in Blue America may still be wondering about a pair of questions. The questions relate to an event which happened long ago—last month's presidential election:

How did we ever lose to that guy? Why would any decent person have voted for Candidate Trump?

Even in the midst of our current "American carnage," some of us may remember the days when such questions seemed to matter. As part of the answer to those questions, this report does appear on the front page of today's New York Times. We'll skip the first two paragraphs:

Biden, Wearied and Stinging, Prepares to Exit

[...]

This is the twilight of Mr. Biden’s presidency, the final days of the final chapter of an epic half-century political journey that has had more than its share of twists and turns. Time is catching up with Mr. Biden. He looks a little older and a little slower with each passing day. Aides say he remains plenty sharp in the Situation Room, calling world leaders to broker a cease-fire in Lebanon or deal with the chaos of Syria’s rebellion. But it is hard to imagine that he seriously thought he could do the world’s most stressful job for another four years. 

That does not make it any easier as Mr. Biden heads toward the exit. Nothing that has happened since he was forced to drop out of the race in July has made that decision look wrong, yet Donald J. Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris has been interpreted as a repudiation of Mr. Biden. It stung. It still stings. But unlike Mr. Trump four years ago, this president accepts the outcome.

[...]

Even when pushing for his priorities, Mr. Biden has found it hard to break through. During his visit to the Amazon rainforest last month, his fragility appeared painfully clear to those traveling with him.

After speaking for seven minutes on a day of draining humidity, a blue shirt hanging loosely over his frame, he turned to slowly shuffle away down a dirt path as several people in the audience not used to seeing him up close said they held their breath, worried that he would trip. (Aides said his gait was no more unsteady than usual.)

And so on from there. At any rate, aides still say that President Biden is "plenty sharp," but it's Peter Baker's assessment that he probably couldn't have done the job had he been re-elected. 

Meanwhile, in this morning's Wall Street Journal, a related report by Linskey et al. appears beneath this dual headline:

How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge
Aides kept meetings short and controlled access, top advisers acted as go-betweens and public interactions became more scripted. The administration denied Biden has declined.

This morning, Annie Linskey appeared on CNN to discuss the Journal's detailed report. In theory, the transcript of her remarks should be accessible here, in the 6:30-7:00 chunk of CNN This Morning. 

(At present, the transcript of that segment is missing.)

To what extent might President Biden have been diminished within the past several years? We can't answer that question, but as of August 2023, it seemed to us that it would be very hard for him to seek re-election.

Meanwhile, let the following be said:

When the president "slowly shuffled away" down that dirt path in Angola, the Fox News Channel ran with a bogus claim according to which he had unaccountably wandered off into the rainforest.

Even after additional video footage showed that this claim had been utterly bogus, players on the Fox News Channel kept pushing the bogus claim forward. This is the business our moguls have chosen as the so-called "democratization of media" continues to turn our sprawling nation into an array of warring tribes.

President Biden dropped out of the race in late July of this year. Candidate Harris was forced to jump in—and uh-oh! She herself was one of the people who had said that the president was still quite sharp.

(She had also said that the southern border was secure. Many people thought that was bullroar.)

President Biden dropped out of the race; Candidate Harris was forced to jump in. Did that unprecedented set of events possibly contribute some votes to Candidate Trump's narrow win? 

We would assume that it did. 

In our view, this was almost surely one of the many ways those of us in Blue America managed to lose this year's election. That said, many of us in Blue America still can't seem to conceive of any such explanations or reasons at all.

When President Biden stepped out of the race, Van Jones expressed his deep admiration for the departing candidate. For ourselves, we had a somewhat different reaction. 

That said, we regard Jones as a thoroughly serious player. At the time, People magazine reported some of what the CNN analyst said:

Van Jones Gets Emotional Talking About Joe Biden Dropping Out of 2024 Presidential Race

Van Jones appeared to fight back tears while discussing President Joe Biden stepping down from the 2024 presidential race.

While speaking live on CNN on Sunday, July 21, Jones, 55, became emotional as he spoke about Biden's decision to take himself out of the running. The president, 81, is now instead endorsing Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee.

[...]

Tearing up, the former Obama adviser went on, “Because this is somebody that you love. This is somebody that you care about. This is somebody who was there for you. This is somebody you wouldn’t be here without him. And you had to take something from him."

Jones continued, "If you're a young person watching this, this is leadership, this is patriotism. This is what it means to put the country first, and put the party first and put the cost first. When your arm gets tired you let somebody else finish pitching the game."

"That's what Joe Biden has done, and he's done that for all of us," he continued.

That wasn't our own reaction at this disaster unfolded. But Jones is a thoroughly serious person, and he's been conducting a search.

How did we ever lose to that guy? Why would any decent person have voted for Candidate Trump?

For ourselves, we've long regarded the president-elect as being (tragically but dangerously) disordered. Still, we can think of many reasons why other people might have decided to vote for him. Or perhaps, why people might have decided to vote against our own candidate, or just against the long-standing performance of our Blue American tribe.

How did we ever lose to that guy? Why would anyone vote for him?

Last Saturday, Jones stated his view on that matter to Chris Cillizza. All in all, he isn't impressed with our own tribe's political smarts. 

In our view, the whole thing started in 1965. We happened to be physically present when the downward spiral began.

Tomorrow, we'll try—we'll try especially hard—to review what Jones said to Cillizza. For the record, Bill Clinton said much the same thing in an interview with Joe Scarborough, and a guest essay in the Times attempted to explain why some of us in Blue America are perhaps unable to see what these people mean.

Tomorrow: Bill Clinton said much the same thing

WEDNESDAY: Stepford judge unloads on Harris (again)!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2024

Anthropology all the way down: Winston Churchill famously described the Soviet Union of his day as "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." 

Somewhat similarly, our nation's failing national discourse is often a clown-car inside a hall of mirrors driven by a bunch of con men.

By music men—and music women, or perhaps by a herd of Stepfords. Consider what happened again last night on the highest-rated TV show in all of "cable news" land.

For today, we won't depress you with the latest numbers from Nielsen. That said, the Fox News Channel clown-car, The Five, is that highest-rated "cable news" program. Yesterday, its Stepfords were once again assailing the dimwittedness of Vice President Harris, who lost last month's presidential election to the brilliant Candidate Trump.

The Stepfords were in their standard fine form, the better to sell their corporate owner's various talking-points with. Robotically, they recited the points their owners had placed on their messaging sheets. 

Finally, it came time for Judge Jeanine to declaim. 

For today, we'll spare you the checkered history of this illustrious "cable news" magistrate. Soon, though, here came da judge! As you can see by clicking this link, the judge was emphatically saying this:

JUDGE JEANINE (12/17/24): I think that the problem with Kamala Harris is that the woman is so inept, so incompetent, she is so inarticulate that she was a joke. She was! I mean, I don't know what she stood for. I don't know why anyone would even think she's got a chance at winning any other seat at any other race...

She didn't try to get new voters when she couldn't even perform with her own voters. She underperformed with blacks, she underperformed with the youth, and she had no interest in doing conservative media. She wasn't interested in the—I was reading about the monoculture that sports is. Nobody owns sports. That was a place for her to go in and she didn't bother.

And yet, Trump was smart enough. A lot is attributable to Barron. I mean, he understood the value of social media, how viral it goes when you capture something and then it continues to spread. And she just didn't get it. 

I mean, she had no message. She had nothing. And in the end, it's a slap in the face to the Democrat [sic] Party that she was even their candidate. She couldn't articulate how she was different than Joe. The woman is—she's just inept.

She wouldn't even do sports! It's astounding to think that the Democrat [sic] Party got stuck with someone like her!

This remains standard fare on the gruesome "imitation of life" known as the Fox News Channel. On programs like The Five, Harris is still the dumbest, stupidest, inexplicably worst presidential candidate ever. 

On that same channel's Gutfeld! show, she's still being mocked as "a drunk."

Let's get back to the judge, whose gruesome history we're setting aside for today.

The judge was performing like a trained seal, or possibly more like a Stepford. In fairness, the other players had taken their turns trashing Harris before the judge stepped in.

That said, the sheer stupidity of Fox News culture is routinely put on display when the Stepfords perform this particular script. We're even able to make ourselves find their behavior amusing.

Go ahead! Just riddle us this:

If Harris was the worst candidate ever, what exactly does that say about their champion, the fabulous Candidate Trump? These denunciations of Candidate Harris routinely coexist with declarations of his North Korean-adjacent greatness. So how, then, do the corporate Stepfords pretend to explain this?

Nationwide popular vote (to date), 2024 
Donald J. Trump (R): 77,300,739 (49.80%)
Kamala Harris (D):  75,014,534 (48.33%)

The riddle here would occur to almost any human. If Harris was the worst candidate ever, why did the greatest political strongman only manage to defeat her by less than 1.5 points?

How do the Stepfords square that circle? Of course! In the obvious way!

They square the circle by the prehuman process known as "sifting." Their channel's viewers are never told how close the nationwide vote really was. Instead, the Stepfords echo Trump's own language, finding a thousand different ways to convey the impression that he won this year's election in some sort of a landslide.

This is the existing state of what's left of our nation's "discourse." The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but the fact that people can be paid to behave this way is a lesson in anthropology.

Judge Jeanine is a lesson all by herself, a lesson in anthropology pretty much all the way down! We've spared you her journalistic history, which seems to emerge from a car.

Fuller disclosure: This goes on all night every night. On weekends, it can get even more phony and dumber.

This bullroar is broadcast to millions of voters. Over here in Blue America, our highly educated elites politely avert their gaze.


THE SEARCH: It could be as bad as the critics say!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2024

But it could also be worse: To judge from the fruit of a Google search, we had never heard of Van Jones until April 20, 2009.

On that evening, he guested with Robert Redford on CNN's Larry King Live, which was still a significant program. We'd never heard of Jones at the time, but he made a strong impression.

Jones has been involved in a search—had been involved in a search for some time, including even then. First, though, let's consider what Bret Stephens says at the start of his new column for the New York Times.

Headline included, this is the way the column starts. We highlight two key points:

Done With Never Trump

It’s been more than nine years since I first denounced Donald Trump as a “loudmouth vulgarian appealing to quieter vulgarians.” I’ve called myself a Never Trump conservative ever since, even when I agreed with his policies from time to time. I also opposed him throughout his run this year.

Could his second term be as bad as his most fervent critics fear? Yes. Is it time to drop the heavy moralizing and incessant doomsaying that typified so much of the Never Trump movement—and that rendered it politically impotent and frequently obtuse? Yes, please.

Who, and what, is Trump? He’s a man and the symbol of a movement. The man is crass but charismatic, ignorant but intuitive, dishonest but authentic. The movement is patriotic—and angry.

Some of that anger is intensely bigoted and some of it misplaced. That side of the anger gets most of the media’s attention. But some of it, too, is correctly directed at a self-satisfied elite that thinks it knows better but often doesn’t...

At this site, we don't vote the way Stephens has typically voted. This year, we both voted for Candidate Harris, though it must be said that neither of us was blown away, at least on balance, by her attributes as a presidential candidate.

Each of us voted for Candidate Harris. But as Trump has said this very morning, he managed to win "the biggest mandate in 129 years!"

He also seems to be out of his mind, as that lunatic claim might suggest. And we agree with the first key point Stephens makes in his column:

Donald J. Trump's second term could be just as bad as his most fervent critics fear.  In fact, we'll disagree with Stephens in this way:

It could be even worse!

This second term could be worse than his most fervent critics fear?  Yes, it could be that! 

It could be better than critics fear, but it could also be worse. As we watch the lunacy spread all through what's left of our "public discourse," we keep thinking of Professor Knox's horrific account of the fall of sacred Troy.

Achilles slays Hector before the high walls of that sacred city, then drags his body through the dust behind his speeding chariot. At that point, the fate of the city has been sealed. Professor Knox remembers:

PROFESSOR KNOX: The whole poem has been moving toward this duel between the two champions, but there has never been any doubt about the outcome. The husband and father, the beloved protector of his people, the man who stands for the civilized values of the rich city, its social and religious institutions, will go down to defeat at the hands of this man who has no family, who in a private quarrel has caused the death of many of his own fellow soldiers, who now in a private quarrel thinks only of revenge...And the death of Hector seals the fate of Troy; it will fall to the Achaeans, to become the pattern for all time of the death of a city. 

The images of that night assault—the blazing palaces, the blood running in the streets, old Priam butchered at the altar, Cassandra raped in the temple, Hector's baby son thrown from the battlements, his wife Andromache dragged off to slavery—all this, foreshadowed in the Iliad, will be stamped indelibly on the consciousness of the Greeks throughout their history...

Achilles "thinks only of revenge." Once he's dragged Hector's body through the dust, the fate of Troy has been sealed. 

We keep flashing on the highlighted "images of that night" as we watch what's left of our clownlike "public discourse." We also think of the citizens of Oran, as described by Camus in his famous novel, The Plague:

CAMUS: [O]ur townsfolk were like everybody else, wrapped up in themselves; in other words they were humanists: they disbelieved in pestilences. A pestilence isn't a thing made to man's measure; therefore we tell ourselves that pestilence is a mere bogy of the mind, a bad dream that will pass away. But it doesn't always pass away and, from one bad dream to another, it is men who pass away, and the humanists first of all, because they haven't taken their precautions. 

Our townsfolk were not more to blame than others; they forgot to be modest, that was all, and thought that everything still was possible for them; which presupposed that pestilences were impossible. They went on doing business, arranged for journeys, and formed views. How should they have given a thought to anything like plague...

Even after the signs of plague were visible in Oran, "the danger still remained fantastically unreal." Or at least, so Camus was willing to say about those fictional townsfolk.

The townsfolk of Oran just couldn't see the obvious signs of a plague. In recent years, many of us in Blue America have been unable to see the shape of our own onrushing defeat. 

This very morning, the panelists on Morning Joe were reassuring Blue America's viewers that things aren't nearly as bad as they might seem. That said, the host of that show kept telling us, in recent years, that the GOP couldn't possibly win this year's election. 

He said it over and over again over the past few years.

That brings us to the second key point in that passage from Stephens. He says that some of the anger behind Candidate Trump's "landslide" is "intensely bigoted."

For ourselves, we're inclined to stay away from such assessments. But that's what Stephens says.

That's part of what Stephens says. But he also says that some of the anger behind the candidate's narrow (but consequential) win "is correctly directed at a self-satisfied elite that thinks it knows better [than everyone else] but often doesn’t." 

As soon becomes clear, he's speaking there, at least in part, about the people those of us in Blue America—those of us in our own Oran—have been conditioned to trust. 

As he continues, he offers specific examples of what he specifically means. We ourselves don't agree with every word he types at that point, but he makes us flash on Camus when he explains the way the elite to which he himself belongs failed to understand the reach of Trump's appeal:

Never Trumpers—I include myself in this indictment—never quite got the point. It wasn’t that we’d forgotten Clinton’s scandals or were ignorant of the allegations about the Bidens. It’s that we thought Trump degraded the values that conservatives were supposed to stand for. We also thought that Trump represented a form of illiberalism that was antithetical to our “free people, free markets, free world” brand of conservatism and that was bound to take the Republican Party down a dark road.

In this we weren’t wrong: There’s plenty to dislike and fear about Trump from a traditionally conservative standpoint. But Never Trumpers also overstated our case and, in doing so, defeated our purpose.

It isn't that the NeverTrumpers were wrong. In some ways, it sounds like Stephens is saying that they simply "forgot to be modest."

Stephens goes on in some detail from there. As with the townsfolk of Oran, he says the conservative NeverTrumpers "never quite got the point" in various ways, until it was too late.

Eventually, he offers this self-indictment:

We also talked a lot about democracy. That’s important: The memory of Jan. 6 and Trump’s 2020 election lies were the main reasons I voted for Kamala Harris. But if democracy means anything, it’s that ordinary people, not elites, get to decide how important an event like Jan. 6 is to them. Turns out, not so much.

What ordinary people really cared about this year were the high cost of living and the chaos at the border. Why did Trump—so often deprecated by his critics as a fortunate fool—understand this so well while we fecklessly carried on about the soul of the nation?

What else did we not sufficiently appreciate? That, as much as Trump might lie, Americans also felt lied to by the left—particularly when it came to the White House cover-up of Biden’s physical and mental decline. 

Even in that telling passage, we ourselves wouldn't agree with every word. We do agree with two key points:

Our high-brow elites often seemed to have no idea what "ordinary people" cared about in this election. (It sometimes seemed that they didn't know, but also that they simply didn't care.)

Also, "ordinary people" often felt lied to by those of us in Blue America—not just by the very bad people who are known to be found Over There.

Stephens is a NeverTrump conservative. Van Jones has always been a Blue American liberal/progressive.

He grew up in Tennessee, ended up at Yale Law School. We well remember being impressed by how sharp he seemed in 2009. We'd never heard of him at the time, but he's been highly visible from there.

Last Saturday, when he spoke to Chris Cillizza, Jones gnashed his teeth at the blindness of his own tribe's failed elite. In Monday's report, we linked you to Rachel Dobkin's account of what Jones said in the lengthy discussion.

Basically, Dobkin got it right. This is the way she started:

Donald Trump Is 'Smarter' Than All His Critics—Former Obama Adviser

Van Jones, an ex-adviser to former President Barack Obama and current CNN political commentator, said on Friday that President-elect Donald Trump is "smarter" than all his critics.

Does Jones literally think that Donald J. Trump is "smarter" than the rest? Or was that a bit of hyperbole, emerging from the high frustration visible all through last Saturday's discussion?

We don't know how to answer that question. But Jones has been involved in a lifelong search, and his remarks about our own elites in Blue America were scathing.

We also think his remarks were basically accurate. To hear the key part of his critique, we'll suggest that you start at minute 28 of the Cillizza videotape. Tomorrow, we'll take it from there.

It could be as bad as Trump's critics fear—but it could always be worse! The fall of Troy was vicious, vile. To what extent has our imperfect human nature actually changed in the handful of years since then?

As you can see above, Stephens asks a painful question:

"Why did Trump—so often deprecated by his critics as a fortunate fool—understand this so well while we fecklessly carried on about the soul of the nation?"

That's precisely the question Jones asks in his colloquy with Cillizza. Perhaps in frustration, he says that Donald J. Trump is simply "smarter" than the rest.

We wouldn't put it that way ourselves. As he posts about his massive mandate, we'd be inclined to let "insane" take the place of "smart."

We wouldn't put it that way ourselves! But we think that Jones's search is on point within our own Blue Oran, a flailing community located just this side of what's left of sacred Troy.

Tomorrow: What Jones said about our own "elitism"

Friday: Explaining the persistent failure to see what's sitting right there


TUESDAY: He's an avid collector of broken toys!

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2024

Also, many broken toys seem to be drawn to him: We've been thinking about The Grand Inquisitor, a text we don't know real well.

For the record, it's a famous text—a text we were assigned in high school. The leading authority on the text offers this at the start of a lengthy thumbnail:

The Grand Inquisitor

"The Grand Inquisitor" is a story within a story...contained within Fyodor Dostoevsky's 1880 novel The Brothers Karamazov. It is recited by Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov, during a conversation with his brother Alexei, a novice monk, about the possibility of a personal and benevolent God. "The Grand Inquisitor" is...one of the best-known passages in modern literature because of its ideas about human nature and freedom.

If recollection serves, the story involves some extremely gloomy "ideas about human nature and freedom." We've been thinking about the text largely because of the list of clips we encountered today at the Mediate site.

We humans! When freedom is bestowed upon us, our discernment can be quite limited. That said:

Thanks to the so-called "democratization of media," we're all living in a time when all ideas can be widely expressed and widely heard. When we humans are afforded that kind of freedom, results can be quite poor!

You're free to click on any link. Hegseth and Mace and Leavitt oh my!, and it pinwheels down from there:

Pete Hegseth Falsely Claimed Antifa Was Behind January 6

Nancy Mace Goes Full Area 51 Speculating About Drones

Trump Spox Karoline Leavitt Snubs Elizabeth Warren...With ‘Pocahontas’ Jibe

Is "something wrong" with Rep. Mace? Increasingly, we've wondered about that in the past year.

Leavitt is the incoming president's amazingly churlish young press spokesperson. She persistently makes us wonder how a person can get to be that way at such a tender age.

We're barely scratching the surface of all the depressing content floating around today. For the record, here's the latest from the commander himself, but also from one of New Jersey's three million mayors:

Trump GOES OFF on Judge Merchan for ‘Psychotic’ Decision Not to Overturn Felony Conviction

New Jersey Mayor Connects Missing Radioactive Material From Port Newark to Mysterious Drones

Thank you, New Jersey mayor! As the Grand Inquisitor knew, you simply can't let us humans go off and start devising ideas on our own.

With regard to the commander's latest rant, let us say this about that:

We ourselves thought the trial in question—the so-called Stormy Daniels "hush money" trial—was an embarrassing mess. We would assume that it's one of the ways those of us in Blue America conspired to help the commander gain votes in this year's election.

Did the 34 convictions help Candidate Trump? There is, of course, no way to measure or check some such suspicion.

Needless to say, it gets worse! Today's front-page report about Hegseth and his bodyguard strikes us as perhaps sadly revealing. We're referring to a part of the story everyone has agreed not to stress—the fact that the man who was left in a pool of his own blood was "a former member of the Iraqi Army’s elite counterterrorism service who is now an American citizen living in Texas."

For the record, here's that report in today's New York Times:

Hegseth’s Guard Left the Army After the Beating of a Civilian During Training

You have the freedom to click any or all of those links.

Thanks to the "democratization of media," everything is permitted! Every thought is broadcast today, and our human discernment is routinely quite poor.

If our recollection is accurate, the Grand Inquisitor explained to Jesus that we humans can't be permitted to think for ourselves. And that's even true in our own Blue America. It isn't only Them!


THE SEARCH: We enjoyed a good solid laugh!

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2024

Then, Judge Jeanine cited Van Jones: Yesterday afternoon, during the 5 o'clock Eastern hour, we enjoyed a good solid laugh.

More precisely, we may have enjoyed a bit of a mordant chuckle. It happened as we were watching The Five, the highest rated program in this nation's "cable news" firmament.

Millions of citizens were watching the Fox News Channel as the five panelists stood in line to praise President-elect Donald J. Trump for his brilliance at yesterday's Mar-a-Lago news event. Politely, each performer waited his or her turn to say how brilliant the incoming commander had been in his answers to every question.

Thanks to the sometimes invaluable Rev, a transcript exists of the press event, along with videotape. For the record, the event lasted for an hour and ten minutes, with the first question coming at the 25-minute mark.

Below, we'll link you to the comment from Judge Jeanine on The Five, the comment at which we chuckled. For now, let's look at some of the answers the incoming president offered the press—and let's recall the questions Blue America has been asking:

How did we ever lose to this guy? How did it get this far?

If our view, those are perfectly sensible questions. In our view, it's Blue America's inability to answer these questions which is the problem at hand.

What did the incoming president say at his first post-election presser? At one point, he reverted to a familiar theme as he spoke about Lara Trump, his daughter in law.

We were back in the high life again. No push-back or follow-up occurred:

TRUMP (12/16/24): When the election started getting closer, I asked her would she go to Washington and work on as chairman of the [RNC] along with Michael Whatley. And they did such an unbelievable job, especially on cheating.

They stopped it. Or at least they stymied it. Too big to rig. And we won in a landslide. We won tremendously. She did an amazing job.

Say what? As an aside, the landslide to which he referred was actually a win of less than 1.5 points—a rather slender win against an opponent who was only able to campaign for a bit more than three months.

That's a mere aside. More significant was the commander's claim about cheating—the never-ending, unexplained claim which flows all through his orations, with no one in the mainstream press knowing how to question, challenge or address the allegation at hand.

In this case, did "cheating" occur in the recent campaign? What form did this cheating take?

Did Lara Trump lessen the cheating, or did she "stop it" outright? None of the journalists at yesterday's freewheeling event questioned what the commander had said as this unsupported message continued to spread out to the world.

Yesterday, no one mentioned this supported claim on The Five. Also, none of the program's performers ever will. 

Many of the commander's answers went on and on, and then they went on a bit more. We were intrigued by this statement about his nominee for Secretary of Defense:

TRUMP: So many [nominees] have been just unbelievably received. I think Pete Hegseth is making tremendous strides over the last week. He's going to be great. 

Look, he went to Princeton. He went to Harvard. He was a great student there. But he really was, from the first day I met him, all he wanted to talk about was military. He's just a military guy. I think it's a natural. 

This was my idea. And Pete Hegseth gave up a lot because he was going big places in Fox. Big, big places. A lot of money. And he didn't even hesitate when I said, "Do you want to do this?" He said, "Absolutely." 

I said, "If it doesn't work out, you'll never have the opportunity that you have right now in terms of the world of entertainment or business, whatever you want to call it. You'll never have that opportunity again." In fact, it could be just the opposite, because it's nasty out there. 

He said, "I don't care. I have to do it for my country." He gave up a tremendous amount. If this didn't work, it would be a tragedy, but that's what he loves. He loves the military. I never talked to him about anything else. He'd talk about the military.

Oof! Hegseth left his role as co-host of Fox & Friends Weekend to accept the nomination. But in the commander's lexicon, Hegseth agreed to leave "the world of entertainment or business, whatever you want to call it."

They forgot to play that piece of tape yesterday on The Five! For ourselves, we were intrigued by the commander's reference to the "tremendous amount" of money Hegseth abandoned when he left the Fox News Channel.

Question! How much money does a person make for eight hours of work per week? Also, what kind of tribal obedience is being purchased when those giant salaries are paid?

We've been posing this question for decades with respect to all the news channels. Also, why isn't the public simply told what these important public figures t paid?

Back at Mar-a-Lago, the random questions kept being thrown, with rambling answers provided. Eventually, the commander offered these unexplained statements about New Jersey's drones:

TRUMP: The government knows what is happening. Look, our military knows where they took off from. If it's a garage, they can go right into that garage. They know where it came from and where it went, and for some reason they don't want to comment. And I think they'd be better off saying what it is.

Our military knows and our president knows, and for some reason they want to keep people in suspense. I can't imagine it's the enemy because if it was the enemy, they'd blast it out. Even if they were late, they'd blast it.

Something strange is going on. For some reason they don't want to tell the people, and they should because the people are really—I mean, they happen to be over Bedminster, if you want to know the truth.

They're very close to Bedminster. I think maybe I won't spend the weekend in Bedminster. I've decided to cancel my trip.

What makes the incoming commander think he knows any of that? Also, will he really cancel his weekend plans because of his fear of the drones?

The commander refused to say if he's been briefed on this matter. So it endlessly goes.

Eventually, we got to these remarks about an erroneous poll in Iowa. Also, about the many lawsuits against media figures to come:

TRUMP: I'm doing this, not because I want to, I'm doing this because I feel I have an obligation to. 

I'm going to be bringing [a lawsuit] against the people in Iowa, their newspaper, which had a very, very good pollster who got me right all the time and then just before the election, she said I was going to lose by three or four points and it became the biggest story all over the world, because I was going to win Iowa by 20 points.

The farmers loved me and I love the farmers. And it was interesting the way she did it, she brought it down two weeks before, she said I was going to only win by four. That was a big story. But that was good, because she brought it down from 22 points to four, or whatever the number was. Way up, way up. Easy win. Never even thought to go there. I respect them, I love them, and they understand there's no reason to go there, because she brought it from way up, walk away, which it was, and it turned out to be in the election too, by the way. It was a win by many, many points. And then she brought it down very smartly to four a couple of weeks before, and everyone said, "Wow, that's amazing. He's only up by four points." Then she brought it down to where I was down by three or four, whatever the number she used, and that was the Des Moines Register, and it was their parent, and in my opinion it was fraud and it was election interference.

She's gotten me right always. She's a very good pollster. She knows what she was doing, and she then quit before and we'll probably be filing a major lawsuit against them today or tomorrow.

We're filing one on 60 Minutes. You know about that. Where they took Kamala's answer, which was a crazy answer, a horrible answer, and they took the whole answer out and they replaced it with something else she said later on in the interview, which wasn't a great answer, but it wasn't like the first one. 

The first was grossly incompetent. It was weird. And that was fraud and election interference by their news magazine, a big part of CBS News. So as you know, we're involved in that one. 

We're involved in one which has been going on for a while, and very successfully, against Bob Woodward, where he didn't quote me properly from the tapes. And then on top of everything else, he sold the tapes, which he wasn't allowed to do. He could only use them for reporting purposes, not for sale purposes, and he admits that, and I think we'll be successful on that one.

And we have one very interestingly on Pulitzer, because reporters at the New York Times, Washington Post got Pulitzer Prizes for their wonderful, accurate and highly professional reporting on the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax. Well, it turned out to be a hoax, and they were exactly wrong. People, like many people, John Solomon, Sean Hannity is not for Pulitzer, but Sean Hannity got it right. Many people got it right. Tucker got it right. Jesse got it right. Laura got it right. Jeanine got it right. A lot of people got it right. They didn't get anything. They gave it to reporters that got it absolutely wrong, and now everybody admits it was a hoax, and I want them to take back the Pulitzer Prizes and pay big damages.

And I think we're doing very well on that one. They have no excuse for it. They gave a Pulitzer Prize to writers that got Russia, Russia, Russia wrong. And so, I think we're doing well. And I feel I have to do this. I shouldn't really be the one to do it, it should have been the Justice Department or somebody else, but I have to do it. It costs a lot of money to do it, but we have to straighten out the press. Our press is very corrupt. Almost as corrupt as our elections.

Those corrupt elections again! 

At any rate, on and on the fellow went. He's going to sue the Pulitzer Prizes. He's going to sue Bob Woodward.

He's going to sue CBS News because of 60 Minutes. He's going to sue the Des Moines Register because they bungled a poll.

As he listed the sugarplum lawsuits to come, the commander recited some golden oldy assertions, for example about the time Tucker Carlson allegedly got something right. But so it now goes, as part of the sprawling cultural breakdown which has largely resulted from "the democratization of media," a genie which will be very hard to get back in the bottle.

In the face of all this confusion, the performers hung tough at The Five. For ourselves, we enjoyed a chuckle at 5:09 when Judge Jeanine offered the following as part of her praise oration:

JUDGE JEANINE (12/16/24): I mean, you realize that he has the capacity to deliver. He has the capacity to unite the country. He has the capacity to unite the party. And I don't think there is any greater example of that than there was at the Army-Navy game.

Because it's not—it is not just the Army-Navy game, when they went crazy with chants of USA! USA! But think about who he was in that box with.

I mean, he's got Elon and JD Vance, and he's got Vivek and Mike Johnson, and Danny Penny. And he's got all these people to show that the Republican Part is uni— No more RINOs. You're a RINO, get lost! You don't matter any more!

What he's got is a united party, a united country.

Too funny! The president has a united the country—except for all the RINOs! You RINO's can just get lost!

What about all the Democrats who may not favor the incoming president? Such people weren't mentioned at this point. But so it goes, day after day, on this clown-car "cable news" program. In this classic bit of Judge Jeanine framing, the country is fully united, except for those people who aren't Us.

So it goes, day after day, as this imitation of intelligent life rolls merrily along. And then, just like that, the tough-talking judge said this:

JUDGE JEANINE (continuing directly): And then you got a guy like Van Jones, who said, "Hey Dude! This guy is smarter than me and you." 
So you've now got the left saying, "This guy is really smart. He will deliver for us."

Is that what Van Jones actually said when he spoke with Chris Cillizza? Tomorrow, we'll return to the contents of the interview we discussed in yesterday's report.

Like Thoreau and the fictional Binx Bolling, Van Jones is involved in a search. He wants to know how those of us in Blue America ever managed to lose to this guy.

It's a perfectly valid question! In our view, the problem lies in the fact that many of us in Blue America can't seem to come up with an answer. 

In our view, the answers go on and on and on and on, and then they go on some more. In our view, the fact that we're unaware of this is an unfortunate fact about Us.

Tomorrow: Back to what Jones said


MONDAY: Should Stephanopoulpos have said what he said?

MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2024

Fox & Friends straightens things out: It's been strange to see people on the Fox News Channel discussing the settlement reached by ABC News in the defamation lawsuit brought by Donald J. Trump. 

It's been strange to see such people saying that Trump wasn't found liable for committing an act of "rape"—that he was only found liable for committing an act of "sexual abuse." 

It does seem to strange to see Fox personnel say that, but we've seen it said at least twice. To see the initial report of this matter on Sunday morning's Fox & Friends Weekend, along with the ensuing discussion, you can start by clicking here.

News reader Chanley Painter articulates the distinction during her initial report. The discussion continues for several minutes. Eventually, co-host Rachel Campos-Duffy somewhat oddly says this, with Kevin Corke chiming in:

CAMPOS-DUFFY (12/15/24): Well, that' an interesting turn of events. I mean, this has been a good week for Donald Trump. A lot of vindication.

CORKE: I'll say!

CAMPOS-DUFFY: A lot of the narratives by the media, by people we're supposed to be able to trust, and Donald Trump coming out on top again.

According to Campos-Duffy, Trump had come out on top again! He was only found liable for an act of sexual abuse!

Before long, the smartest of the friends jumped in, with Will Cain saying this:

CAIN: Stephanopoulos repeated the false thing over and over, like obstinately, like trying to make a jab, over and over—repeated a false thing about Donald Trump over and over and over.

Cain is perfectly bright. According to his account, someone in this age of Trump had repeated a false thing over and over and over again! It's no wonder that the trio of friends seemed to be so surprised!

So much for the weekend friends. Let's move ahead to a pair of larger questions:

Should ABC News have agreed to settle? But also, should Stephanopoulos have said what he said?

Many people have said that Trump's lawsuit would likely have been a loser had ABC News declined to settle. It seems to us that certainly could be true. There's also no way to know that.

With respect to Stephanopoulos himself, should he have said what he did in fact repeatedly say when he interviewed Rep. Nancy Mace way back in March of this year? 

He did in fact say what he said again and again and again, something like ten to twelve times in all. Also, he presumably knew that what he saying may not have been 100 percent "technically accurate" in a thoroughly perfect way.

He could have clarified his statement at some point, making his meaning clear. But he never chose to do that. To us, as we read the transcript of the interview, his repetitive presentation feels a bit like a sign of our (highly partisan) times.

Also, was he possibly being a bit insensitive with respect to the fact, which he cited again and again, that Mace has testified to having been raped when she was 16?  Here's the way the interview started:

STEPHANOPOULOS (3/10/24): Our next guest is South Carolina Congresswoman Nancy Mace, a Donald Trump supporter who gave candid and courageous testimony about her own experience as a rape victim weeks before launching her run for Congress in 2019.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MACE: From some of us who've been raped, it can take 25 years to get up the courage and talk about being a victim of rape. And the first thing that happens when a woman comes out in public and says she's been raped, what is the first thing out of someone's mouth? Is that it didn't happen. This is why women do not come forward. They are afraid.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Congresswoman, thanks for joining us this morning.

You endorsed Donald Trump for president. Judges in two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming a victim of that rape. How do you square your endorsement of Donald Trump with the testimony we just saw?

MACE: Well, I will tell you, I was raped at the age of 16, and any rape victim will tell you, I’ve lived for 30 years with an incredible amount of shame over being raped. I didn't come forward because of that judgment and shame that I felt.

And it's a shame that you will never feel, George, and I’m not going to sit here on your show and be asked a question meant to shame me about another potential rape victim. I’m not going to do that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It's actually not about shaming you. It’s a question about Donald Trump.

MACE: No, you are shaming me.

And so it went, on and on and on and on, all through a long, contentious, highly repetitive attempt at an interview.

Meanwhile, for the record:

In recent years, Rep. Mace has turned into one of the most disingenuous attention-seekers in the entire Congress. During this long, repetitive interview, she just kept repeating the claim that Stephanopoulos was trying to shame her by asking her that question.

Was she trying to avoid his question by making that aggressive claim? Is it possible that Stephanopoulos was wandering across a line by framing the interview session that way?

Eventually, Mace finally drew the distinction between the two legal terms involved in this matter. ("It was sexual abuse. It wasn’t actually rape, by the way.") But go ahead—just try to fight your way through that long, amazingly repetitive interview session.

All in all, it reads to us like a marker of a very ugly age—an age which features angry armies, Red and Blue, angrily looking for fights.

ABC News certainly might have won in court—or then again, maybe not. In our view, Stephanopoulos should have drawn the distinction in question at some point during the session.

Meanwhile, Mace has turned into one of the most disingenuous people currently serving in Congress. Luckily, we had a trio of friends on Sunday morning who were able to sort this whole thing out.

Trump has come out on top again! He has only been found liable for an act of sexual abuse!

THE SEARCH: We don't exactly agree with Van Jones!

MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2024

Except, in one way, we do: Long ago and far away, Binx Bolling was involved in "the search." For the record, Bolling was a fictional person. He was the main character of a highly regarded novel.

We were in college at the time. Full disclosure! We never could get to the end of the (widely acclaimed) book, although our girlfriend did.

We believe we may have been assigned the text in a course in 1969. But who was Binx Bolling, and what was the novel?

Below, you see what may be the most pompous thumbnail account the leading authority has ever produced:

The Moviegoer

The Moviegoer is the debut novel by Walker Percy, first published in the United States by Alfred A. Knopf in 1961. It won the U.S. National Book Award. Time included the novel in its "Time 100 Best English-language Novels from 1923 to 2005." In 1998, the Modern Library ranked The Moviegoer sixtieth on its list of the hundred best English-language novels of the twentieth century.

The novel is heavily influenced by the existentialist themes of authors like Søren Kierkegaard, whom Percy read extensively. Unlike many dark didactic existentialist novels (including Percy's later work), The Moviegoer has a light poetic tone. It was Percy's first, most famous, and most widely praised novel, and established him as one of the major voices in Southern literature. The novel also draws on elements of Dante by paralleling the themes of Binx Bolling's life to that of the narrator of the Divine Comedy.

In addition to its existentialist character, the novella is also deeply phenomenological.

At the time, we may have missed the way The Moviegoer drew on elements of Dante. As regards Binx Bolling's search, the authority tells us this:

Plot summary

The Moviegoer tells the story of Jack "Binx" Bolling, a young stockbroker in postwar New Orleans. The decline of tradition in the Southern United States, the problems of his family and his traumatic experiences in the Korean War have left him alienated from his own life. He daydreams constantly, has trouble engaging in lasting relationships, and finds more meaning and immediacy in cinema and literature than in his own routine life.

The loose plot of the novel follows the Moviegoer himself, Binx Bolling, in desperate need of spiritual redemption. At Mardi Gras, he breaks out of his caged everyday life and launches himself on a journey, a quest, in a "search" for God. Without any mental compass or sense of direction, he wanders the streets of New Orleans' French Quarter, and Chicago, and then travels the Gulf Coast, interacting with his surroundings as he goes. He has philosophical moments, reflecting on the people and things he encounters on the road. He is constantly challenged to define himself in relation to friends, family, sweet-hearts, and career despite his urge to remain vague and open to possibility.

"What is the nature of the search?" you ask. Really it is very simple; at least for a fellow like me. So simple that it is easily overlooked. The search is what anyone would undertake if he were not sunk in the everydayness of his own life.

The italicized material is from the text of the book itself, in which Bolling serves as narrator. As you can see, Binx Bolling was sunk in "everydayness," but he was trying to stage a "search."

(We're starting to remember! The young not-quite-a professor sent our girlfriend's term paper off to Walker Percy himself, whom he may have known. And Percy himself wrote back!)

We ourselves were busy stopping a war, but that's a whole other story. As for Bolling, he was involved in a search—or perhaps, he was involved in a search for a search, in a flailing attempt to follow in the footsteps of the northern writer who had once described his own search in this famous manner:

Walden; or, Life in the Woods

[...]

I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion. 

Something like that! For the record, Walden is full of literary allusions too, Dante no doubt among them.

Percy wrote in 1961; Thoreau had written long before that. Now we're engaged once again in a great civil war—and our own Blue America, or at least so we say, is involved in a type of a search.

At least as a matter of theory, we want to know how it is that we lost an election to Donald J. Trump! In truth, we didn't lose this year's election by much—and the numbers haven't changed a great deal from where they stood the first time he ran. 

The numbers haven't changed all that much! Here are the numbers from Trump's first campaign, and from the campaign in which he finally managed to win the popular vote:

Nationwide popular vote, 2016
Hillary Clinton (D): 65,853,514 (48.2%)
Donald J. Trump (R): 62,984,828 (46.1%)
Nationwide popular vote (to date), 2024 
Donald J. Trump (R): 77,300,739 (49.80%)
Kamala Harris (D): 75,014,534 (48.33%)

At least at the Cook Report, this year's numbers seem to be holding. Quite a few more people voted this time—155.2 million compared to 136.7 million back in 2016. 

But by that account, Trump lost the nationwide vote in 2016 by 2.1 percentage points. He won the nationwide vote this year by a bit less than 1.5 points.

Especially given the craziness of the events which led to President Biden's withdrawal, that isn't a giant change in nationwide voter sentiment. But as Red American spear-chuckers insist that Trump won in "a landslide" this year, that relatively minor change has created a world in which those of us in Blue America are conducting a type of search, or at least we're attempting or pretending to do so.

How did we ever lose to that guy? It's a very sound question! It was already a very sound question back in 2016, when he came within 2.1 points of winning the nationwide popular vote.

Meanwhile, this:

Many of us in Blue America can't seem to think of a single reason why any decent person would ever have voted for Candidate Trump—and so an ersatz search is on, in which we seek an answer to that question. 

Some of us seem inclined to say that his voters are all "just deeply racist." Given the way we humans are wired, such assessments may sometimes feel good. 

On Saturday, though, CNN's Van Jones came up with a massively different assessment, the result of his own ongoing search.

For almost an hour, Jones spoke with Chris Cillizza, creating this videotape for Cillizza's Substack site. Over at Newsweek, Rachel Dobkin is only two years out of college, but as she starts her report on what was said, she basically gets it right:

Donald Trump Is 'Smarter' Than All His Critics—Former Obama Adviser

Van Jones, an ex-adviser to former President Barack Obama and current CNN political commentator, said on Friday that President-elect Donald Trump is "smarter" than all his critics.

That's basically what Jones said!  Below, you see a fuller chunk of his presentation:

JONES (12/14/24): I mean the problem is, you have a framework in your mind: "How can Donald Trump? How can Donald Trump? How can Donald Trump?" 

Guys, can we cut it out? Donald Trump is not an idiot. Let me just be very clear. Donald Trump is smarter than me, you, and all of his critics. 

You know how I know? Because he has the White House, the Senate, the House—

CILLIZZA: Totally agree.

JONES: —the Supreme Court, the popular vote. 

That's a small part of what was said.  You can see that part of the conversation at roughly the 29-minute mark of the Cillizza videotape.

At this point, we ourselves want to be clear! If we're take Jones to be speaking literally, we don't agree with what he said, or at least we don't agree with it totally. 

Putting it another way, that isn't the framework we'd apply in conducting this important search.

Is former candidate Donald J. Trump "smarter" than everyone else? We wouldn't assess the incoming president in terms of "smarts" at all.

Having said that, we'll also say this:

We strongly agree with one part of what Jones says as he continues. As a general matter, we Blues just haven't been especially smart as we conduct our current search, or as we pretend or attempt to do so. 

We wouldn't describe the incoming president as being especially "smart." But we would follow Jones is saying this:

We'd have to say that those of us in Blue America haven't been super-smart at all.

Citizen Thoreau wasn't always especially kind in assessing his Middlesex County neighbors. "Men [sic] labor under a mistake," he said at the start of his famous book. Also, "The mass of men [sic] live lives of quiet desperation."

Those weren't complimentary comments. He even threw this in:

The greater part of what my neighbors call good I believe in my soul to be bad, and if I repent of anything, it is very likely to be my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well? You may say the wisest thing you can, old man,—you who have lived seventy years, not without honor of a kind,—I hear an irresistible voice which invites me away from all that. One generation abandons the enterprises of another like stranded vessels.

That was in his famous book's first chapter! And yet, history, by universal agreement, speaks well of this younger man's famous search.

Blue America is trying to figure why anyone would have voted for a person like Trump. In our view, the reasons go on and on and on and on, and then they go on some more. 

In our view, one miracle of this year's election lies in the fact he won the nationwide vote by so slender a margin.

With respect to what we Blue Americans may have done, down through the years, to let Trump peel away all those votes, we think Jones is conducting a valuable search. Tomorrow, we'll show you more of what he said when he spoke with Cillizza.

Still coming, a gentler version of that same assessment from former president Bill Clinton. Also, as to why we Blues perhaps can't see our own Blue nation's occasional lack of clothes, we will offer you this.

Tomorrow: Frustrated remarks by Jones


Will the Hegseth nomination survive?

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2024

Also, a postcard from Fantasyland: Will Nominee Hegseth get confirmed? We still can't tell you that.

In a new survey by AP-NORC, the nomination boasts only 17% support, with 36% opposed. Those numbers aren't very good—but almost half of the survey's respondents didn't state a view on the matter, and there's still a long way to go if the nominee, and the guy who picked him, decide to stick it out.

Last night, Lawrence O'Donnell devoted a remarkably lengthy opening segment to an accurate observation about this nomination. He noted that Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) still hasn't said that she'll end up voting in favor of the Hegseth pick. 

He also battered the New York Times for the way the paper described Ernst's recent adjustment in messaging about the Hegseth nomination. 

O'Donnell's specific critique of the Times report was certainly accurate, but we couldn't help wondering if O'Donnell, and some others, might not be "protesting [a bit] too much" about the vastly changed political world we're now all living in.

Might O'Donnell be exhibiting bit of denial about the loss of Blue American power in last month's (close) election? As a general matter, we Blues are at the mercy of Donald Trump now.  His nominations may strike us as strange or even as bizarre, but there's basically nothing we Blues can do about it now. 

It all comes down to the Senate's 53 Republicans and to their possible fear of being primaried and losing their Senate jobs.

Full disclosure! Starting with Senators Corker and Flake, political careers have tended to come to an end for Republicans who oppose Donald J. Trump. 

Keeping that recent history in mind, will Hegseth end up making it through? We have no way of knowing.

We thought Lawrence might be protesting too a bit much about the Ernst-Hegseth contretemps. Later, he interviewed Jonathan Capehart, and we thought the pair of thought leaders went (almost all the way) off the rails in a complaint about the way the mainstream press has allegedly applied a double standard to the misstatements of Biden and Trump.

That said, we're having trouble with the Internet Archive. Ever since the invaluable site recovered from last autumn's cyberattack, it seems to us that it's been harder to play its videotapes of our flailing nation's cable news programs.

For that reason, we won't be able to show you the O'Donnell/Capehart lament. (If you want to give it a try, the segment in question starts here.) 

We'll try to transcribe their exchange tomorrow. In our mind, their complaint, however well intentioned, came from a poorly governed province not far from the better-known Fantasyland. 

If Blue America plans to fight back, we're going to have to come to terms with the actual state of the world. It seemed to us that O'Donnell and Capehart were perhaps indulging themselves in an unhelpful form of denial.

REASON(S): Will we take the physician's challenge?

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2024

Blue America's broken toys:  A funny thing happened on the way to the future in Donald Trump's latest interview.

Time magazine had named him its Person of the Year. In the accompanying interview, the incoming strongman allegedly made the statement we highlight below:

Trump Says His 1st Acts Will Include Deportations and Jan. 6 Pardons

[...]

The president-elect’s comments came during a wide-ranging interview conducted on Nov. 25 as part of the magazine’s choice of Mr. Trump to be its person of the year. In the interview, which the magazine said lasted more than an hour, the president-elect bragged that he had run a “flawless” campaign and that Democrats were out of touch with Americans.

Intriguing! That's from the news report in the New York Times about the interview session. We're intrigued for the following reason:

According to the incoming president, he himself ran a flawless campaign this year. Meanwhile, the Democrats—the opposing party—had been "out of touch with Americans" during that same campaign.

In our view, the Times' account of what the strongman said is basically accurate. With apologies for the length of the excerpt, here's the relevant part of Time magazine's fawning transcript: 

TIME (12/12/24): You had an extraordinary year. You lived it and you know it. You cleared the field in the Republican campaign. You spent part of your campaign in a courtroom. You were almost shot to death on the trail. Your opponent dropped out, and then you won the swing states, which many people did not expect. What's one thing that we should know about your experience this year that we don't know?

TRUMP: Well, I think we ran a flawless campaign. It was, it was really quite something. I called it 72 Days of Fury. There were no days off. There were no timeouts. If you made a mistake, it would be magnified at levels that nobody's ever seen before. So you couldn't make a mistake. And I think we just really ran well. It was a drive to go through it. It started 72 days out. For some reason, it just seemed to be it. And I worked very hard. I've been, I've been given credit by, actually, the reporters that followed me, because it was, you know, just, it just was all the time, every day, and we said the right things. We said things that were on the minds of the country. I think the Democrats didn't get it. They just kept going back to the same old nonsense. And it was nonsense, especially in where we are right now. And we hit—we hit something that was very special. We hit the nerve of the country. They don't want to see jails emptied out into our country. They don't want to see people from mental institutions being dismissed from their institutions. 

TIME: Mr. President, what did the Democrats not get? You just said “they didn’t get it.” What did you mean by that? 

TRUMP: I don't think they got the feel of the country. The country was angry because of immigration, because of the people, you know, millions and millions of people. I was saying it could be 21 million people. They were saying a much lesser number, but it wasn't a much lesser number. But even if it was, it was irrelevant, because it was—they were allowing anybody to come into our country. They are right now. They opened it up again. You see what's going on? They're coming. They're pouring up through Mexico and other places. And they weren't using common sense. I said, We’ve become the party of common sense... 

And so on, at endless length from there. 

According to the winning candidate, he himself ran a flawless campaign, Even the reporters give him credit for that, he said, though he cited no specific examples.

As for the Democrats, they didn't get the feel of the country. "They just kept going back to the same old nonsense," the winning candidate said.

What makes that presentation intriguing? With apologies for a type of repetition, the answer is sitting right here:

Nationwide popular vote (to date), 2024 
Donald J. Trump (R): 77,300,739 (49.81%)
Kamala Harris (D):    75,014,534 (48.33%)

For the record, those numbers no longer seem to be changing. We may have reached something like the end of the count. 

With respect to the repetition, we'll offer this bit of wisdom. There are very few actual facts left within our failing culture. We should hold tight to the handful which remain as we try to make sense of our world.

That said, what's intriguing about the strongman's statement to Time? The intriguing part is this:

He says he ran a flawless campaign. He says the other party just kept returning to nonsense.

In short, he ran a flawless campaign against a ship of fools—but intriguingly, he ended up winning by less than a point and a half! He won the battleground state of Michigan by substantially less than that!

Time didn't challenge the Caesar on the apparent incongruity lodged in his claims. That too is a part of the world we've been left—a part of the world which remains.

A steady stream of bogus clams are now part of our national culture. Corrections and clarifications will be offered by some news orgs, but all such corrections will be disappeared by quite a few others.

Our nation is thereby left with very few facts. Plus, the incoming president has, as of this very day, once again added to a collection some will regard as a playhouse of broken toys. 

Who is the latest toy in the toy chest? This very morning, the New York Times offers this report:

Trump Chooses Kari Lake to Lead Voice of America

[...]

Since abandoning her journalism career for electoral politics, Ms. Lake has frequently spread conspiracy theories and false assertions. In her 2022 race, she ran on the falsehood that Mr. Trump had won the 2020 presidential election and spun her own unsubstantiated claims that Ms. Hobbs committed election crimes. After narrowly losing to Ms. Hobbs in 2022, she refused to concede and instead brought legal challenges that were all later rejected by courts.

This year, after Representative Ruben Gallego defeated her in the Senate race by a wider margin than Ms. Hobbs did, she only hinted at a concession.

“I will never stop fighting for the state I love,” she said, in a video posted on her social media.

Is "something wrong" with future director Lake? In Blue America, some citizens may wonder.

 Meanwhile, in Red America, Lake is presented as a champion of clear vision—one whose unsubstantiated claims about rigged elections will be disappeared and ignored.

Within our bifurcated former nation, some people will regard Lake as the latest broken toy. For the record, that report about Lake didn't make this morning's front page—but this other news report did:

Trump’s Middle East Adviser Pick Is a Small-Time Truck Salesman

President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming Middle East adviser, Massad Boulos, has enjoyed a reputation as a billionaire mogul at the helm of a business that bears his family name.

Mr. Boulos has been profiled as a tycoon by the world’s media, telling a reporter in October that his company is worth billions. Mr. Trump called him a “highly respected leader in the business world, with extensive experience on the international scene.”

The president-elect even lavished what may be his highest praise: a “dealmaker.”

In fact, records show that Mr. Boulos has spent the past two decades selling trucks and heavy machinery in Nigeria for a company his father-in-law controls. He is chief executive of the company, SCOA Nigeria PLC, which made a profit of less than $66,000 last year, corporate filings show.

There is no indication in corporate documents that Mr. Boulos, a Lebanese-American whose son is married to Mr. Trump’s daughter Tiffany, is a man of significant wealth as a result of his businesses. The truck dealership is valued at about $865,000 at its current share price. Mr. Boulos’s stake, according to securities filings, is worth $1.53.

[...]

Mr. Boulos will advise on one of the world’s most complicated and conflict-wracked regions—a region that Mr. Boulos said this week that he has not visited in years. The advisory position does not require Senate approval.

Is Boulos another broken toy? Viewers of the Fox News Channel will never be exposed to the representations which fill this front-page report.

That said, do those representations qualify as facts? Very few such creatures are left within our failing national culture. 

Round the decay of the widening wreck, very few facts remain. What may be "facts" in Blue America are non-existent among the Reds. 

Having said that, we need to add this. Sometimes, citizens of Red America are exposed to facts which are largely withheld from Us!

Those of us in Blue America may not be aware of that situation. In our view, that may help explain how a vastly flawed candidate like Donald J. Trump managed to squeeze out a narrow win over an accidental opponent who, through no particular fault of her own, had only three months to campaign.

At this site, we've been poking at a pair of questions in recent weeks. We'd describe the questions as second cousins. These questions are related, but they aren't quite the same:

Two questions in Blue America:
Question 1: How did we ever lose to a guy like Donald J. Trump?
Question 2: Why would any decent person ever have voted for Trump?

Many of us in Blue America can't imagine an answer to that second question. We can't imagine any possible reasons why a decent fellow citizen would have cast such a vote.

Once again, we'll suggest that there are many reasons why a decent person might have decided to vote for Candidate Trump—or might have decided to vote against our own Democratic candidates.

President Biden was going to be the nominee—and then he suddenly wasn't. Three weeks later, Vice President Harris was subbed in. For reasons which still haven't quite been explained, we Blues had become an amateur hockey team changing lines on the fly.

Even in that situation, the flawless strongman managed to win by only 1.48 points! Still and all, he did win—and the consequences could be jaw-dropping, vast, enormous.

In the view of Blue America, broken toys are being put in place all over the emerging firmament. Will we still be in NATO by the end of next year? Can anyone answer that question?

Will a narrow win in a very strange circumstance change the fabric of world history? And how did it [ever] get this far? How did those of us in Blue America ever end up in this place?

We think it started in 1965—and we ourselves were physically present! Also, we think there's an endless array of obvious reasons why a decent person might have decided to vote against us Blue Americans and against our candidates.

The future president describes his own performance as flawless. There's a small irony lurking there:

In all honesty, that's the way we Blue Americans may tend to see ourselves! 

We tend to think of ourselves as the moral, smart people. We may be inclined to see the others as "deeply racist."

It may be too late to make a difference; the die may have been cast. But we think our own tribe's imperfect understanding is the biggest political story here in our own Blue America.

Over there, the incoming strongman keeps anointing broken toys and keeps dispensing bogus claims. But what's it like over here?

How did we ever lose to that guy? Why in the world did 77.3 million people decide to vote for him?

We ourselves never considered voting for Candidate Trump. On the other hand, we don't find it especially hard to understand why many others did.

Starting in 1965, we Blues may perhaps have played with some broken toys of our own. And we may perhaps be blind to that fact. Could our own tribal delusions perhaps have dragged us down?

Blue America, heal thyself? There isn't much else we can do at this point. 

We only lost by a couple of points—but how could it even have been that close?

 Why did anyone vote for him? Next week, our search continues.


Senator Cramer attempts to speak!

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2024

Part of the madness we've chosen: On the brighter side, the interview ended politely.

On last evening's Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer interviewed Senator Kevin Cramer, a Republican from North Dakota. The short session ended in a convivial way. We'll post that exchange below.

On the other hand, there were the astonishing claims which had already been made by the astonishing Senator Cramer. 

Blitzer wanted to know if Cramer had confidence in Kash Patel as a possible head of the FBI. He played videotape of some of Patel's stranger remarks, then asked a fairly straightforward question:

BLITZER (12/11/24): You said earlier today that Kash Patel will root out corruption at the FBI. I want to play a bit of what he's said in the past. Watch this.

PATEL (videotape): I'd shut down the FBI Hoover Building on day one and reopen it the next day as a museum of the deep state. We're going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We're going to come after you. Whether it's criminally or civilly, we'll figure that out. But, yes, we're putting you all on notice.

BLITZER: So, Senator, why does this give you confidence he will act impartially as the FBI director?

That was a fairly obvious question. Cramer's reply was astounding:

CRAMER (continuing directly): Well, because it is the job of the FBI director to oversee an agency that roots out evil, that roots out the illegal activity. It's starting with the FBI itself, by the way. 

I don't find it partisan to want to get to the root of how is it that the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago early in the morning with guns out looking for documents that, if they knew existed, all they had to do was ask for them or get a subpoena and go get them in a peaceful way in cooperation with the president and his lawyers or the FBI that got involved in suppressing information in the Hunter Biden laptop story, which was really election interference.

These are serious problems for an agency whose job is to uphold and enforce the laws of the United States. If somebody doesn't investigate them, then they're derelict in their duty.

For the record, the FBI didn't conduct its "raid"—that is to say, its court-approved search—"with guns out" that day. That said, Cramer's claim that "all they had to do was ask for [the documents] or get a subpoena" was little short of astounding.

To his credit, Blitzer tried to react. This is what happened next:

BLITZER (continuing directly): But as you know, Senator—I assume you know this—they repeatedly, the FBI repeatedly asked for those top secret sensitive compartmented information documents, the most highly sensitive documents around. They repeatedly asked that they be returned, and their requests were repeatedly denied.

CRAMER: There's no question that there were legal activities taking place back and forth in negotiation, but there was no need to arm a bunch of FBI agents to the teeth, put on bulletproof vests, show up in their SWAT outfits, and raid Mar-a-Lago. It shows an indignity of the whole thing. And by the way, here we are today with the whole case being dismissed.

And I think it's a major reason why the American people said on Election Day, you know what? It's not going to happen again. And I think it's one of the biggest reasons Donald Trump is reelected as president of the United States, and now, of course, going forward with a growing approval rating as people see the way he's handling this transition.

Wow! If anything, that statement by Cramer was even worse. 

Ignore the absurdly euphemistic statement in which Cramer said there had been "legal activities taking place back and forth in negotiation."  Also, ignore the way he swallowed the reason which explains why the case has now been dismissed.

Instead, move ahead to the highlighted material. As we would assume that everyone knows, the FBI agents didn't show up that day "in SWAT outfits," "armed to the teeth." According to widespread reporting, and as confirmed by videotape, the FBI agents "dressed down" that day, trying to avoid creating a spectacle. 

By now, Blitzer seemed to be a bit befuddled, but he tried again:

BLITZER (continuing directly): But you know those documents, as I pointed out, were among the most sensitive in the U.S. intelligence community, and many of them were simply lying around various locations in Mar-a-Lago, where all sorts of foreign visitors were showing up. If those documents got into the hands of U.S. adversaries, they could easily compromise U.S. sources and methods and endanger those U.S. sources out there if they got into the wrong hands. Does that not worry you?

For the record, we had now completely abandoned the original question about Kash Patel. Thaks to Cramer's gorilla dust, we were now off in fever swamp land, and Cramer now fled to President Biden's garage:

CRAMER (continuing directly): I don't think former presidents or former vice presidents like Joe Biden should take classified documents out of the White House, but I would remind people that the president does have the authority to declassify documents. The vice president does not. But Vice President Joe Biden took documents and left them in his garage, unlocked, and he got no prosecution, no charges, but justice turns a different way when it comes to Donald Trump.

Again, I think it's that injustice that the American people have seen and said, you know what, I don't trust these guys anymore. I'm going to go with the disruptor.

Now, Cramer was suggesting that Trump had somehow declassified all the documents. He suggested it, but he didn't say it. That led to the pleasant final exchange:

BLITZER (continuing directly): Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, thanks for joining us.

CRAMER: Always a pleasure. Thanks, Wolf.

"Thanks for joining us," Blitzer said. "Thanks for nothing" would have made more sense.

We offer two final disclosures:

First, a massive hubbub has been constructed around that infamous "raid." That wider hubbub is deeply insane. It involves lunatic claims by Candidate Trump last May, followed by even crazier claims by Marjorie Taylor Greene. 

(Greene, posting on X: “The Biden DOJ and FBI were planning to assassinate Pres Trump and gave the green light.")

That's just part of the general madness. but there's also this:

Given his unmistakable bumbling aspect, and given the size of the massive hubbub, we aren't totally sure that Senator Cramer doesn't believe the various things he said. All in all, this is just part of the madness we're lodged in—part of the madness we've chosen.