We lost half the day to an Internet scam!

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2024

A review of what happened last night: We'd planned to show you what we meant when we referred to the "doctored-adjacent" videotape of What Trump Was Asked and Said.

We refer to something Trump was asked when he appeared with Maria Bartiromo last Sunday on Fox. Sadly, the bulk of our day was eaten up as we battled with an online financial scam.

For that reason, we can't show you the full transcript of last Sunday's exchange. Instead, we'll leave you with some basic points about What Happened Last Night:

Bret Baier's behavior: In our view, Baier disgraced himself with his appalling behavior last night. At the New York Times, Michael Grynbaum isn't real far behind, given the mush-mouthed, "both sidesy" way he has now described last evening's events.

In our view, Baier's behavior was a disgrace. Last evening, in the 6 o'clock hour, he spent the first half hour attacking Harris. He then spent the second half hour attempting to justify the three hundred things he had done.

The other hirelings said he'd been great. Harold Ford played along.

Bret Baier's Palm Beach lodgings: Did you know that the fair-and-balanced anchor in question recently purchased a $37 million Palm Breach mansion? We didn't know that either! 

As a bit of professional courtesy, the mainstream press corps agrees that such matters must never be discussed. But it's just as we told you a long time ago:

You can't run a middle-class democracy with a multimillionaire press corps.

We're sorry, but no—it can't be done! Meanwhile, also this:

Who's being naive [now], Kay?

This is a problem within Blue America's multimillionaire pundit corps, as well over there in the land of the Red. This has been a problem in Blue America dating back to the days when Jack Welch ran NBC News.

What's up with those polling figures? Has anyone ever produced a set of polling figures like the ones Fox News has now offered? According to those new polling results, Trump is ahead by two points nationwide—but Harris is ahead by six points across the seven key battleground states!

Do those numbers make any kind of sense? We spent the day entangled in a scam, so we haven't had a chance to see what anyone may have said.

Concerning the southern border: As Bill Whitaker did on 60 Minutes, Baier asked an obvious question about policy at the southern border from 2021 right on through early 2024.

Candidate Harris failed to answer this obvious question again. 

Tomorrow, we'll walk you through that disappointing aspect of her performance. You can also look forward to this:

Before the week is through, we'll discuss an emerging theory in which we try to explain why the Biden Administration—not "the Harris Administration"—may have decided to do what it did.

For the record, our theory predates this recent post by Kevin Drum—and our theory may be laughably wrong. But people have asked and asked and asked about why the border was handled the way it was for those first three years, and no one has ever tried to explain, even when they're directly asked. 

This year's election may well be decided by these (almost) four years of silence—years of silence which rolled by as the millionaire stars of Blue America's cable news acted like there was nothing to look at there. Instead, the stars stayed focused on the sacred task of getting Trump locked up, a type of focus the Harris campaign seems to have cast aside as a political loser.

(As of last night on All In, Rachel Maddow was still obsessing about Stormy Daniels! Reportedly, Maddow is paid $30 million per year.)

On balance, we've been badly served by those massively-paid giant TV stars. The giant sums our stars get paid are a Baier-style problem too.

You can't run a middle-class democracy with a millionaire press corps?

We thought we'd just say it again.

A DISTANT LAND: "Just let me finish," the newsman said!

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2024

Palm Beach is forever: Is there any possible chance the latest poll is "right?"

We refer to the latest poll from Fox News. Yesterday, results of that survey were reported, including on the Fox News Channel itself. 

Those new results seem very odd. Online, the news report at the Fox news site starts off exactly like this:

Fox News Poll: Trump ahead of Harris by 2 points nationally

Former President Trump is ahead of Vice President Kamala Harris in the presidential contest 50%-48%, according to a new Fox News national survey. That’s a reversal from last month, when Harris had a narrow advantage.

Harris, however, is ahead by 6 points among voters from the seven key battleground states...

That raises the question of whether the Democrat could win the Electoral College while losing the national popular vote. In 2000 and 2016, it was the GOP candidate who lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College.

Is anything like that possible? Given recent electoral history, is it even imaginable that Candidate Trump could win the nationwide vote by two points, with Candidate Harris sweeping to substantial wins in the battleground states?

In theory, everything's possible! That said, some polling results may seem to come to us from a far distant land.

Yesterday, (we believe) we saw Bret Baier announce the two-point nationwide lead for Candidate Trump. After Baier proceeded to "interview" Candidate Harris, we did see Martha MacCallum come on the air and announce that Harris was ahead by six points across the battleground states.

Given recent history, those numbers seem to come from a distant land. For the vast majority of American citizens, so do the basic facts about Brett Baier's Florida mansion.

Last evening, the interruptions came thick and fast as Baier "interviewed" Harris. If it's dark comedy you enjoy, the dark comedy arrived quite quickly, during the session's first two minutes.

Below, you see Baier's first question for Harris, along with what immediately followed. Also, you see his first array of interruptions, the second or third or fourth of which includes an unintentionally comical twist.

That's the only statement we'll highlight in this ridiculous mess:

BAIER (10/16/24): You know, voters tell pollsters all over the country and here in Pennsylvania that immigration is one of the key issues that they're looking at this election, and specifically the influx of illegal immigrants from more than 150 countries. How many illegal immigrants would you estimate your administration has released into the country over the last three and a half years?

HARRIS: Well, I'm glad you raised the issue of immigration because I agree with you. It is a topic of discussion that people want to rightly have, and you know what I'm going to talk about right now, which is—

BAIER: Yeah, but just a number. Do you think it's one million, three million?

HARRIS: Brett, let's just get to the point, okay? The point is that we have a broken immigration system that needs to be repaired. And—

BAIER: So your Homeland Security Secretary said that 85 percent of apprehensions—

HARRIS: But I'm not finished. I'm not finished. We have an immigration system—

BAIER: It's a rough estimate of six million people—

HARRIS: —that needs to be—

BAIER: —have been released into the country. Let me just finish, and I'll get to the question. I promise you.

HARRIS: I was beginning to answer you.

At that point, Baier added a mini filibuster. We'll post that text below. To watch the entire "interview," you can just click here.

At any rate, there you see the first two or three or four interruptions, depending on how you're counting. Imaginably, the first interruption could even perhaps be defended, although the sheer volume of insistent interruption became absurd and indefensible as the auto-da-fe adjacent "interview" rolled along.

Just that quickly, though, the dark comedy arrived on the scene! "Let me just finish," the major star of cable news said at one point to Harris. 

"Let me just finish, and I'll get to the question." He even included a promise!

Too funny! "Ler me just finish," the newsman said, as if he was the person running for office and she was the querulous journalist who wouldn't let the public hear what the candidate had to say!

"I was beginning to answer you," the actual candidate said. From there, Baier continued along with the aforementioned filibuster as the nominee finally realized that, at least for the moment, she would just have to sit and watch.

For our money, Baier staged an inexcusable gong-show in those opening moments, and the behavior continued from there. We'll guess that a mansion which exists in a distant land may have been part of the calculation which lay behind this procedure.

Despite what Lawrence O'Donnell would later angrily claim, Baier is not typically part of the extensive propaganda wing of the Fox News Channel. Yesterday, for whatever reason, another side of Bret Baier seemed to arrive on the scene.

Was that mansion in Palm Beach some part of Baier's calculation? Long ago and far away, the Washingtonian's Mimi Montgomery had perhaps pre-explained last evening's inexcusable performance by Baier.

Montgomery's report appeared in October 2023. Headline included, her report started like this, with plenty of photos to follow:

Fox News’s Bret Baier Lists DC Home for $32 Million—a Potential Record

A potentially record-setting DC home has just gone on the market: Fox News’s Bret Baier and his wife, Amy, are listing their French chateau-style [upscale Washington DC] home for $31.9 million, reports The Wall Street Journal. If it goes for asking price, it’ll be the most expensive residential sale in DC history...

The 16,250-square-foot estate was completed last year and sits on 1.47 acres, with five bedrooms, seven bathrooms, and two half-baths. Other touches include a custom bar in the living room with a floor-to-ceiling wine display; a primary suite with two primary baths and heated floors; a home gym; a cinema; a spa; a two-story, indoor sports court; and a golf simulator. Throughout the gated property, you’ll also find a paved motor court with a fountain, tiered gardens, a 56-foot-long heated pool, a chipping and putting green, and two three-car garages.

This isn’t the Baiers only recent real-estate news: They purchased a $37 million Palm Beach mansion earlier this year. They sold their previous DC property, an over 10,000-square-foot home in Phillips Park, for $6.5 million in 2021, according to DC property records.

For the record, it was almost surely the "floor-to-ceiling wine display" which drove up the asking price on the newsman's otherwise modest 16,250-square-foot D.C. estate. The background to the proposed sale of that mansion might seem to go like this:

When Baier acquired the $37 million Palm Beach crib, he apparently had to let his French chateau-style Washington D.C. estate go! That said, according to Montgomery's report, the Baiers have been movin' on up in the real estate world over past four years:

The heartwarming story might be titled, Up from The Middle Class! By dint of hard work and coupon-clipping, the Baiers have come all the way up from the relative poverty of their previous 10,000-square-foot shack—all the way up to the Palm Beach cottage they'd already managed to acquire.

Just a guess! For most American citizens—for those who live in Red America and for those who live in Blue—knowledge of Baier's Palm Beach mansion exists in some unexplored distant land.

As we've noted many times in the past, information like this about media figures is almost never mentioned or discussed by other media figures. We'll guess that it wouldn't occur to many voters that a figure like Baier is moving and shaking in the distant land described in Montgomery's report.

That said, is it possible that the gentleman's Palm Beach mansion played a role in the way he conducted yesterday's "interview" of Candidate Harris? In this case, we're going to say that some such thing is extremely possible!

In our view, Lawrence O'Donnell went over the top in various ways as he ranted about Baier's journalism on last evening's Last Word. O'Donnell has many strengths as a journalist, but this is a less  helpful impulse to which he's strongly inclined. 

He tends to get his Boston Irish up, at which point he starts referring to everything as a "lie." So it went last night, though there were other problems with his angry, 12-minute opening statement, which you can watch by clicking here.

At one point, like almost everyone on CNN and MSNBC, O'Donnell played a lightly doctored piece of videotape from Trump's appearance on Fox last Sunday morning with Maria Bartiromo. 

(Is that edited bit of videotape better described as "doctored-adjacent?" We'll leave that up to you!)

However you want to score it, we regard that edited videotape as basically misleading. It's not as bad as what Baier did throughout the course of last evening's "interview," but it reminds us of a basic point:

If somewhere there does exists a discourse run by fully competent journalists, that discourse is taking place in a far distant land from here. 

In our view, Bret Baier adopted a new role last night:

Normally, he isn't part of the extensive propaganda wing of the Fox News Channel. He isn't Hannity and he isn't Gutfeld.  He isn't even Judge Jeanine, and he isn't Laura Ingraham.

In his normal performance, he isn't like the nine (9!) regular co-hosts who patrol the Approved Tribal Landscape as part of the Fox & Friends franchise. We refer to the nine (9!) co-hosts who appear on Fox & Friends, on Fox & Friends Weekend or on Fox & Friends First.

He certainly isn't Mark Levin, also known as The Man Who Screams. He isn't like the rotating panelists who all agree with each other about every point on The Big Weekend Show.

Normally, Baier actually doesn't function as part of that well-equipped army, but last night, he plainly did. Just a guess:

People sometimes get released by Fox, and Baier may have a note on that Palm Beach mansion he has to keep up.

Baier's performance was awful. Four hours later, O'Donnell came on and ranted in a familiar way.

For ourselves, we were disappointed—almost dismayed—by at least two parts of the candidate's performance. Here's what will happen next:

On Fox, voters will be told about those parts of her performance all day long today and then on into the night. On CNN and MSNBC, those non-answer answers by Candidate Harris will be disappeared—will be swept far away.

Does a competent national discourse exist somewhere, monitored and moderated by a fully competent press corps?

If so, that discourse is underway in a land far distant from here. We'll try to get to that doctored videotape in the next few days. We'll definitely look at two non-answers by Candidate Harris in tomorrow's installment.

Did someone gain from last night's event? We have no idea! Candidate Harris may have gained a bit of support, or it could be that she lost some. 

Meanwhile, could that new Fox News poll possibly be "right?" Is it possible that Trump could win the nationwide popular vote, but get swept away in the battleground states?

Our answer to your question is this:

Polling comes and polling goes—but Palm Beach may be forever.

Tomorrow: Once again, Harris is asked about the southern border during the first three years

Saturday: At long last, our emerging theory about southern border policy during those first three years

He blustered ahead from there: "Let me just finish," the newsman implored, and then he blustered ahead.

The candidate was getting in very few words. Continuing our transcript from above, here's what the newsman said next:

BAIER: Let me just finish, and I'll get to the question. I promise you.

HARRIS: I was beginning to answer you.

BAIER: And when you came into office, your administration immediately reversed a number of Trump border policies, most significantly the policy that required illegal immigrants to be detained through deportation, either in the U.S. or in Mexico, and you switched that policy. They were released from custody awaiting trial. So instead included in those were a large number of single men, adult men, who went on to commit heinous crimes.

So looking back, do you regret the decision to terminate Remain in Mexico at the beginning of your administration?

On and on the newsman went as the candidate sat and watched. In the modern media landscape, it's Palm Beach mortgages which must be paid, attention perhaps a bit less.

Kevin Drum nails the Fox News Channel!

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2024

A rarely discussed distant land: Sometime in 2023, we began watching the Fox News Channel on a much more regular basis.

We did so because we'd come to feel, rightly or wrongly, that MSNBC's major programs had become unwatchably bad. Our incomparable complaints:

Total agreement on all points among all panel members. Unbelievably trivial legal minutia pretty much all the way down. 

Near total focus on seeking ways to "lock him up." Refusal to pay attention to the types of actual issues and actual topics which affect the livesand affect the votesof people who aren't solidly inside Blue America's political camp.

At any rate, we began to watch Fox News. It had been a while since we'd spent a lot of time doing that.

We were surprised by what we saw. Indeed, we remain astonished by what we now see, on a daily and nightly basis, within that distant land.

Does Blue America really know what happens inside that land? It's right there on cable for all to see. But is anyone in Blue America actually watching this channel's programs—and if so, are Blue America's major news orgs willing to report what is taking place?

With those questions as background, we strongly recommend a new post by Kevin Drum. The post starts as a report about Candidate Trump—but it ends with a note about Fox.

The headline pretty much speaks for itself. Here's how Drum begins:

Notes on Trump’s Bloomberg interview

Here are a few miscellaneous thoughts about Donald Trump's sit down at the Economic Club of Chicago with Bloomberg editor John Micklethwait. The full thing is on YouTube,,,

In that passage, Drum is vastly understating the force of the content which follows. 

Other observers have focused on the candidate's many evasions during yesterday's interview session, or on the various political topics on which Trump was questioned.

Instead, Drum offered a laundry list of alleged groaners by Candidate Trump concerning economic issues. Here are two examples:

[At one point] Micklethwait made the mistake of asking Trump precisely what he'd do to cut waste in the government. It probably seemed like a nice, concrete question, but Trump wouldn't answer. Instead he took the opportunity to yet again brag about how he saved $1.7 billion dollars almost overnight on a new pair of Air Force Ones. All he had to was call the CEO of Boeing and ask, something that no one before him had ever thought to do.

This is yet another Trump fantasy. He played no role in negotiating the Boeing contract, which ended up where everyone always thought it would. But no one ever challenges him, so he keeps repeating this tall tale every chance he gets.

On the subject of fantasies, Trump also insisted that he gave Apple a break on tariffs but only if they started manufacturing in the US. And they did! They opened a factory in Austin to make Mac Pros.

Except for one little detail: that factory opened in 2013, long before Trump was around. But he's been taking credit for it anyway since 2019.

Concerning the opening of that Apple plant, Drum provides a link to a New York Times "news analysis" piece from November 2019. 

(From that 2019 report: "The moment was part of a bizarre afternoon in Texas, where the president played up a six-year-old factory as evidence of his three-year-old presidency’s success in bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States.")

Concerning Trump's claims about Air Force 1, Drum provides a link to his own report for Mother Jones back in 2018. (Headline: "Here’s the Unremarkable Story of America’s New Presidential Jet.")

All across Blue America's landscape, the candidate has been mocked for his rambling evasions during yesterday's session, but also for his trademark groaners and howlers. But at the end of Drum's post, he offers this additional account—a brief account of what was being said in a far distant land

After it was all over and Trump had done nothing but repeat his usual lies and demonstrate that he knows nothing about the economy, his fans at Fox News immediately began marveling at Trump's masterful performance in schooling Micklethwait. Why, Trump's command of economics was so overwhelming the poor guy never stood a chance. Seriously, they said that. It's a case study in toadying unrivaled in recent history.

Kevin left it there. For examples of the buckets of praise being dumped on the candidate's head, we recommend David Gilmour's report at Mediaite

Headline included, Gilmour starts like this:

Sean Hannity Gushes Over Trump After Chaotic Interview With Bloomberg Editor

Fox News host Sean Hannity delivered effusive praise for former President Donald Trump following a chaotic interview with Bloomberg News editor-in-chief John Micklethwait, lauding Trump’s performance as his “all-time greatest moments on the campaign trail.”

Despite the former president’s meandering responses and frequent tangents during his interview on Tuesday at the Economic Club of Chicago, at one point answering a completely different question to the one asked by Micklethwait.

The sense that the interview was not going well seemed underlined as pro-Trump talking heads rounded the wagons to heap excessive praise on the former president. Fox News host Mark Levin, watching live, wrote on TruthSocial that the appearance was “extremely impressive” and the interviewer “screamingly hostile.”

Trump senior advisor Stephen Miller also went all out: “President Trump’s Bloomberg interview at the Economic Club of Chicago was the greatest live interview any political leader or politician has done on the economy in our lifetimes. Period.”

Videotape is provided. In that one statement, Miller comes close to having the candidate replace Raymond Shaw as "the kindest, bravest, warmest, most [intelligent] human being I’ve ever known in my life."

Can such a nation long endure—a nation half-Red and half-Blue? More to the point, can our nation long endure when major orgs in Blue America refuse to report the foolishness being trafficked to millions of people, around the clock, within that distant land?

(Also, when such orgs ignore the undisguised ugliness which passes without comment each night on the astonishing Gutfeld! show?)

Blue orgs don't seem to want to tangle with Fox. Can a nation locked inside Red and Blue silos expect to long endure?

For extra credit only: Opening joke on Monday evening's Gutfeld!:

GUTFELD (10/14/24) Happy Monday, everybody. 

So in a viral clip, a McDonald's worker accidentally mistook Bill Clinton for Joe Biden.

At first, Bill was disappointed. Until he realized this means he might be able to bang Dr. Jill.

[AUDIENCE GROANS]

Yeah, too old for him.

On Gutfeld!, someone is always trying to "bang" or [BLEEP] Jill Biden. This garbage can gets opened each night. It goes downhill from there.

There's never an ending to Paris, Hemingway said. So too with Greg Gutfeld's anger and moral disorder, or with his flyweight panels.


A DISTANT LAND: At the Post, Bump gets it right!

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2024

Angelina's distant land: We were thrilled by the version of Candidate Harris which emerged yesterday as she spoke with Charlamagne tha God.

More on that this afternoon. For now, if we had a Pulitzer prize to bestow, we'd give it to Philip Bump.

Bump's report appeared yesterday in the Washington Post. (The Post calls his piece a "column.") In it, Bump transcribes one of the "answers" Donald Trump gave during his widely-discussed "town hall" event in Pennsylvania on Tuesday night.

Trump went on stage in Oaks, Pennsylvania at 6:56 p.m. Kristi Noem was serving as moderator of the event. 

(To view the entire C-Span videotape, you can click right here.)

At roughly 7:10 p.m., Noem introduced a conventionally attractive, youngish woman identified only as Angelina. This was the question she asked, the second of the night:

ANGELINA (10/14/24): My name's Angelina, and I was raised in a Philadelphia Democrat household—a union household. As a blended—as the mother of a blended family, my top issues are the same issues that face all Americans.

Illegal immigration hurts black Americans. Inflation hurts black Americans, and dangerous cities hurt black Americans. 

[APPLAUSE]

Like my fellow Americans, my grocery bill has not gone down. Everything is still so very expensive. What steps will your administration take to help American families suffering from this inflation?

To see Angelina ask that question, you can simply click this.

That was the question this young woman asked. For the record, she's asking about one result of recent inflation, not about current inflation itself.

That was this young woman's question. In his report in the Washington Post, Bump performs a heroic measure. He transcribes the entire five-minute monologue presented by Candidate Trump in lieu of a response.

We say in lieu of a response because nothing Trump said, in that entire five minutes, addressed this young mother's actual question. Instead, the candidate wandered the countryside, touching on every possible topic except the specific topic he'd been asked to address.

This particular Q-and-A[bsence of an answer] was the sole subject of Bump's report in the Post. Dual headline included, here's the way Bump began:

Here’s how Donald Trump would lower grocery prices
In his own words.

Donald Trump’s town-hall-style campaign event in Pennsylvania on Monday understandably attracted more attention for its conclusion than for its contents. But the actual question-and-answer period did provide useful insights that should not be overlooked.

One of the questions posed to Trump—apparently prescreened by the campaign—came from a Black woman standing behind him on the stage. Reading from a card, the woman said she had been raised in a Democratic, union household in Philadelphia before (as other question-askers said as well) seeing the light about America’s problems—and, in particular, how they affect the Black community.

“Like my fellow Americans,” the woman said, “my grocery bill has not gone down. Everything is still so very expensive. What steps will your administration take to help American families suffering from this inflation?”

So begins Bump's report. Heroically, he proceeds to present Trump's entire five-minute reaction, in which the candidate fails to provide anything resembling an answer to the question he'd been asked.

In all honesty, we can't recommend three cheers for Bump; we'll restrict ourselves to two-and-a-half. We do that because Bump never directly articulates the point his essay was plainly designed to display:

He never directly states the obvious. In his rambling and endless non-answer monologue, Candidate Trump never says a word that is directly relevant to the perfectly decent question he had been asked.

This sort of thing has been happening roughly forever with this particular candidate. (Full disclosure: In some of her recent interviews, it must be said that Candidate Harris has avoided answering direct questions too.)

That said, it seems to us that major orgs like the New York Times have largely avoided coming to terms with the strangeness of this particular candidate's statements and behaviors. In our view, that's especially true of the truly crazy things he frequently says—No one was present at Harris's rally!—but also with respect to the violent ideation and rhetoric to which he routinely turns.

Still, two-and-a-cheers for Philip Bump for performing the time-consuming process of transcribing Trump's non-response. We won't be posting that lengthy transcript here—we want to move on to a different point—but you can read the text of the full filibuster by clicking to Bump's report.

Angelina asked a question. The candidate offered an endless non-response. With that, we turn to Angelina herself—but mainly, to the "distant land" from which her question may seem to have emerged.

As noted, Angelina is a youngish woman who we'd describe as conventionally attractive. In our view, she displayed a strikingly pleasant demeanor at Tuesday evening's event. 

She seems like someone you'd want as your next-door neighbor. She said she's the mother of a blended family. Bump describes her as Black.

She grew up in a Democratic household, but she seems to be a Trump supporter.  She seems like a thoroughly pleasant person. The question we pose is this:

Within what distant land was Angelina's decision made? From what sort of distant land has her decision emerged?

We ask this question for an obvious reason. Here inside Blue America, those of us who will be voting for Candidate Harris often act as if the people who vote for Candidate Trump hail from some such unknown land.

We can't imagine why a decent person would make so unlikely a choice. Baffled in this particular way, we turn to our various demonologies to explain our nation's Angelinas.

We take out our bombs and begin calling names. But then, this real Angelina appears.

For ourselves, we can't imagine voting for Candidate Trump—but we also know that tens of millions of fellow citizens will be doing just that. In our view, we inhabitants of Blue America are engaging in mountains of denial when we refuse to acknowledge the fact that there could be reasons for such a vote which aren't based on racism or bigotry, or on some other deplorable quality.

Sadly, there are quite a few reasons why people like Angelina might have decided to turn their backs on the contemporary world of Blue America, or on the works of the Biden Administration itself. 

Sadly in our view, Candidate Harris is currently saddled with some of the downsides of President Biden's behaviors and decisions—but also with the downsides of some of the judgements she herself made in the past. 

When we within Blue America's silos refuse to acknowledge the existence of those downsides, we're engaged in the same act of denial and delusion we frequently attribute to Trump voters systemwide.

For ourselves, we don't agree with Angelina. We'll be voting for Candidate Harris. She'll be voting for Trump. 

That said, she seems to be a good, decent person. Why has she decided to vote for Trump? If you squint a bit, you can perhaps begin to see the across the border into a version of sacred Thoreau's "distant land:"

Walden; or, Life in the Woods

[...]

I should not talk so much about myself if there were anybody else whom I knew as well. Unfortunately, I am confined to this theme by the narrowness of my experience. Moreover, I, on my side, require of every writer, first or last, a simple and sincere account of his own life, and not merely what he has heard of other men’s lives; some such account as he would send to his kindred from a distant land; for if he has lived sincerely, it must have been in a distant land to me. 

On the one hand, Angelina almost seems to live in a distant land. Why in the world would someone who wasn't a snarling racist decide to vote for Candidate Trump? 

For those of us who are willing to be "confined by the narrowness of [our own] experience," there may be no possible answer to that question. On the other hand, Angelina seems to be completely sincere—and she's not only a fellow citizen, she's also somebody's neighbor and she's somebody's friend.

We Blues! Being human, we're often willing to be confined by the narrowness of our experience. This keeps us from knowing how to persuade people to cross the border into our own Blue America—to abandon that far distant land.

What explains Angelina's decision? We'd like to see somebody ask! 

That said, journalists at the New York Times often seem, at least to us, to be huddled in a second type of "distant land"—and the same is true of the endless array of spear-chuckers who work for the Fox News Channel. Tomorrow, we'll turn to those distant lands. 

Yesterday, speaking with God, Candidate Harris began to break loose. We acknowledge the decency of the world's Angelinas, but we're hoping it's not too late.

Tomorrow: "If a lion could talk, we could not understand him." (Other distant lands.)


Is something wrong with Candidate Trump?

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2024

Taboos decimate discourse: As you may have heard, Candidate Trump ended up staging an unusual event in Oaks, Pennsylvania last night. 

It started out as a typical if somewhat ersatz "town hall," with citizens directing questions to Candidate Trump and Kristi Noem moderating. 

Governor Noem was especially insulting toward Candidate Harris. This is part of the way our rapidly failing national culture works at the present time.

For starters, what made the event a bit ersatz as a "town hall?" Because the questions and questioners had been pre-selected by the Trump campaign, it was really just a standard Trump rally speech. All the usual presentations were offered amid a slight change in the staging.

You can watch the C-Span video here. C-Span has augmented the tape since we watched it early this morning, but we'll proceed as best we can.

As it started, the evening was normal. You can see Trump introduced by Noem eight minutes into the C-Span tape, and he does start taking questions. This produces the same old rambling answers, until medical emergencies halt the proceedings on two separate occasions.

(Apparently, it was very hot in the hall.)

Whether to his credit or not, the candidate struggled ahead for almost an hour in the face of these interruptions. At 1:05 on the C-Span tape, you can see Trump and Noem saying, "Thank you, everyone."

That's when the music seizes control of the night.

The musical part of the evening continues along from there. It continues for well more than half an hour, depending on when you want to say the unusual event reached its end.

We don't exactly agree with Kevin Drum's pair of posts about this event. Nor do we agree with the way this event is being played by the Washington Post.

In his second post, Kevin links to the report in the Washington Post. For Kevin's first post, click here.

Here's the dual headline which sits atop Aaron Blake's report:

How big a political problem is mental acuity for Trump?
Polls show it’s nowhere near as big as it was for Biden, but it has grown as a liability for Trump—amid increasingly strange scenes.

All in all, we see two problems here:

First, does this event raise a question of "mental acuity" in a way which parallels the earlier questions which still surround President Biden?

We aren't entirely sure that it does. More to the point, how about this:

Should Blake by focused on what "polls show" about this—on the "political problem?" Or should he be focused on the (potentially dangerous) medical reality, to the extent that the medical reality can be discerned?

In our view, the polls are important, but so is the truth. Kevin seems to like Blake's report. We think Blake's report is a continuation of the same old set of taboos.

In the case of CandkidateTrump, there has been a longstanding press corps taboo against discussing the possibility that he is clinically ' diagnostically disordered, perhaps in a dangerous way.

In the case of President Biden, a certain taboo seemed to keep Blue America's press corps from exploring the possibility that he had developed some sport of cognitive shortfall. 

(That possibility was extensively examined within Red America's press. This is one of those areas where the Fox News Channel was arguably closer to journalistic relevance than was the New York Times.)

In each case, a joint taboo is or was in effect: For better or worse, journalists will not ask (carefully selected) medical specialists to offer their professional views of the apparent evidence. In the case of the Blake report, the Post has gone straight to issues of the polls, thereby sidestepping the more essential question of the medical reality.

Indeed, Blake goes straight to thumb-sucker ideation, quickly referring to Candidate Trump's alleged difficulty "pronouncing words." The larger question about Candidate Trump has always involved something else—his possible sociopathy.

For better or worse, journalists like Blake, and orgs like the Post, are never going to go there. They're going to run to a safer and sillier ground:

Can Candidate Trump pronounce words?

Whatever may or may not "be wrong with" Candidate Trump, the more dangerous parts of his affliction almost surely don't match the kinds of problems which may still be afflicting President Biden. For the record, from the June 27 debate right up to the present day, the Post and the Times have refused to engage in serious reporting about President Biden's possible condition.

In short, taboos have guided every part of this two-headed mess, right up to the present day.

To our eye and ear, there are major questions about Candidate Trump's medical / psychological / psychiatric state. These questions were laid out in detail in 2017:

For better or worse, Blue America's major orgs have taken a total pass, just as they later did with respect to President Bien.

The Post and the Times have taken a pass for years. This isn't about pronouncing words, and it almost surely isn't the same situation as obtained (as obtains?) with President Biden.

Finally, how strange was last night's town hall event?

In our view, it was unusual, but it wasn't gigantically strange, especially given the circumstances. 

(In case we haven't noticed by now, Candidate Trump has gone a very long way doing a wide assortment of things which depart in some way from the norm.

In our view, last night's event was much less strange than the endless array of very strange, menace-laced things this candidate relentlessly says. That said, our orgs have steadfastly refused to establish that dangerous state of affairs—his endless array of very strange statements and claims—as a basic front-page news hook.

The New York Times finally published a thumb-sucker piece last week. In our view, Blake has largely followed suit.

The danger here is something different. For better or worse, these major orgs—including MSNBC—will just keep taking a pass.

Within the last two weeks, the Times has twice examined the Harris "word salad." Today, we have pronouncing of words.

For better or worse, these timid news orgs want to leave things right there.


A DISTANT LAND: "How Could the Election Be This Close?"

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2024

Bret Stephens tries to explain: Will Candidate Harris win next month's election?

At this point, there's no way to know. 

Is she even ahead at this point? That's unknowable also!

On this morning's Morning Joe, the usual pundits began pushing back against the recent appearance that Harris's numbers have slid a bit in the nationwide polling.

Late in the 6 o'clock hour, an indignant John Heilemann insisted that "the race is tied, statistically." But in the limited sense that Heilemann's statement is true, that doesn't mean that the race is tied out there in reality—or in the electoral college. 

It's widely assumed that, under current arrangements, a tie election in the nationwide vote goes to the Republican candidate in the electoral college. It's widely assumed that Candidate Harris may have to win the nationwide vote by as much as four points to be able to win in the college.

That's one possible source of gloom for those of us in Blue America. This morning, in his weekly conversation with Gail Collins, Bret Stephens—he won't be voting for Candidate Trump—cites a second possible problem:

Three Weeks to Go, and That’s All Anyone Is Sure Of

[...]

I sense she isn’t closing the sale. At this point, we should assume that Donald Trump has a secret three- or even four-percentage-point advantage in the states that the polls are missing, just as they did when he ran in 2016 and 2020.

At least as things appear at this point, a certain limited number of states will end up deciding the electoral college. Is it possible that Candidate Trump will outperform his current polling numbers in those battleground states?

Will there be a hidden vote for Candidate Trump—a hidden vote the polls are missing? We don't have the slightest idea! There's zero way to know such things—and there' no way to know, with absolute certainty, that the race is currently "tied."

Either candidate could end up winning—and ten of millions of neighbors and friends are going to vote for Candidate Trump. For many of us in Blue America, those tens of millions of fellow citizens seem to live "in a distant land." 

As we laid it out yesterday, we're making a play on Thoreau's turn of phrase. But we'll be employing that evocative turn of phrase in several ways this week.

Fuller disclosure! In last week's Conversation,  Stephens and Collins started by pondering a familiar type of question. It's a type of question those of us in Blue America have been asking at least since 1988, when Saturday Night Live's version of Candidate Dukakis couldn't believe that he was "losing to this guy."

Below, you see the start of last week's Conversation. In our view, the headline speaks to a certain shortcoming which exists right here in Blue America, where the smartest and best people live:

How Could the Election Be This Close?

Bret Stephens: Gail, why isn’t Kamala Harris running away with the election? The race in the battleground states is basically a tie, despite Harris spending three times as much money as Donald Trump and having a much bigger ground game—and despite Trump putting in a terrible debate performance and generally making a spectacle of himself, or worse, every time he opens his mouth.

Gail Collins: Hmm. I guess I should refrain from pointing out that I’m being asked that question by a person who has yet to commit to voting for Harris himself.

Bret: Much as I love to inflate my importance, I think I’m more of a symptom of Harris’s problems than the cause.

How can the election be this close, that plaintive headline asked. Stephens began to answer that question last week—but in this morning's Conversation, he lays it right on the line in a fuller discussion of what may be holding Candidate Harris back.

Warning! We don't exactly think Stephens is wrong in the critique he offers today! In a bit of foreshadowing, this week's rumination on the election starts with this:

Three Weeks to Go, and That’s All Anyone Is Sure Of

[...]

Bret: Switching topics: Gail, any thoughts on Harris’s media tour?

Gail: Seemed to go pretty well. No signs that she’s going to be a sensational presidential conversationalist, but she seemed pleasant, well prepared and not nuts, like some candidates I could mention.

What did you think?

No signs that she’s going to be a sensational presidential conversationalist? In that slightly snarky disclaimer, even Collins seems to suggest that last week's "media tour" wasn't a giant success.

As the exchange continues, Collins keeps putting the best face on things. Eventually, Stephens makes a simple, direct assessment—and we can't exactly say that he's just totally wrong:

Bret (continuing directly): I’m glad she put herself out in front of at least one real journalist, Bill Whitaker of “60 Minutes,” who pitched no softballs and didn’t let her off the hook when she tried to evade certain questions, as she so often does.

Gail: Well, sometimes does.

Bret: On the other hand, I can’t believe she had no real answer to a question about what she’d do differently from President Biden, when he’s one of the most unpopular incumbents in recent history. And she generally gives the impression of someone who is either trying to hide her real views or hide the fact that she doesn’t have real views.

She’s just not a great candidate, which was my worry about her all along. And I sense she isn’t closing the sale. At this point, we should assume that Donald Trump has a secret three- or even four-percentage-point advantage in the states that the polls are missing, just as they did when he ran in 2016 and 2020. 

"She’s just not a great candidate," Stephens says.  With that, a full disclosure:

In our view, Candidate Trump is, by far, the worst general election candidate in modern American history. But we can't say that Stephens is totally wrong about Candidate Harris, whether in that initial assessment or in what follows

Gail (continuing directly): Have to admit I’m worried about the apparent lack of enthusiasm among Black and Hispanic men. Barack Obama did a good job tackling that problem in a recent speech, but we need a lot more politicians and celebrities to speak out. Enthusiastically.

Bret: Maybe Harris should do more to help herself. She has two big problems: A lot of voters, including me, fear she isn’t really up to the job, which could be the reason she’s mostly avoided tough interviews.

Gail: Hey, she’s getting better at that.

Bret: If you say so. She also hasn’t really articulated why she wants the job or what she means to do as president, other than to be a kind of consensus seeker. My advice—and I realize she’s not asking for my advice—is a town-hall event in front of an audience of undecided voters that dispels this impression and offers her vision for the country. That would be a good place to start, assuming that vision is more than just a list of wan liberal talking points and vague references to “my plan.”

So said Stephens, whenever this piece was composed. For ourselves, we would offer this:

From the beginning, we've stressed the fact that Candidate Harris has faced a major disadvantage, given the way she had to enter the race very late in the game, from a standing start.

That would have been a major challenge for any presidential candidate, but we have to admit that we agree with much of what Stephens has said. To some extent, we'd say that Collins may also agree, if only in secret, based on that original statement.

In our view, Candidate Harris delivers a sensational speech. That said, among major politicians on the national stage, she has proven to be remarkably limited when it comes to answering even the most basic questions.

Stephens is right! She didn't serve herself well last week with her answers to questions about how she differs from President Biden, or with her refusal to answer Whitaker's thrice-told question about the southern border. 

That doesn't mean that Harris couldn't turn out to be the best president we ever had. But if we're wondering why her numbers seemed to go sideways last week, that may be part of the answer.

In our view, Candidate Trump is almost surely the worst candidate who ever sought the office. That said, tens of millions of neighbors and friends don't see things that way.

It doesn't help when we the people of Blue America put our tribal blinders on and refuse to see the possible reasons why some people won't be voting our way this year. In our view, there are quite a few possible reasons for such a vote.

We ourselves don't agree with such assessments. But we're talking about possible reasons which are neither crazy nor strange.

We inhabitants of Blue America are frequently quick to say that the people who are voting for Trump have chosen to block out reality. In many instances, that may be true—but it doesn't help our tribe, or the nation or the world, when we refuse to see the reasons which may be driving some Red American voters.

For many of us in Blue America, people who are voting for Trump seem to live in "a distant land." We then turn to our most unflattering Storylines to explain why those otherized people would decide to do such a thing.

In fact, there are quite a few "distant lands" operating in this year's election landscape as our faltering nation continues to slide toward the sea. We'll be exploring several of those "distant lands" as the week proceeds. 

As of Sunday night, it looks like Candidate Harris has decided to come out swinging much harder. We think that's a very good decision, and we hope she succeeds.

"I sense she isn't closing the sale," Stephens says in today's Conversation. In that same Conversation, he trashes Kari Lake and Ted Cruz and also Bernie Moreno. He expresses his admiration for Sherrod Brown and for Ruben Gallego. He says how much we as a nation gain from Haitian immigrants.

He takes Blue America's side in all those matters. That said, we can't say that his short-term assessments of Candidate Harris are just totally wrong. 

Her problems will of course only begin when she actually wins this race. Given our view of Candidate Trump, we can only hope that she succeeds, in a major way, over the next three weeks.

Tomorrow: Exploring another type of "distant land"


BREAKING: We won't be posting until this afternoon!

 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2024

Distant lands appear: We're losing a chunk of time this morning. For that reason, we won't be posting until this afternoon.

As of today, we're exactly three weeks out from Election Day! Various "distant lands" are coming into view, some of them possibly located not all that far from our own sprawling campus here in Blue America.

(It seemed to us that today's Morning Joe was littered with misrepresentations, possibly of the "they doth protest too much" type.)

Who's ahead in the White House race? This afternoon, we'll most likely be starting right there.