SATURDAY: The Times agrees to play the fool!

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2024

Id and Idiocracy: It isn't like something's hard to grasp about this ridiculous claim.

The ridiculous claim belongs to the apparent nutcase, Elon Musk. In one of several such presentations, he made the claim at Candidate Trump's October 27 Madison Square Garden event.

Hulk Hogan, a former "wrestler," directed a sexual insult at Kamala Harris that day—a sexual insult the New York Times, and Blue American tribunes in general, chose to disappear.

Musk didn't take that lowbrow route! Instead, he told a jampacked arena that Trump would be able to cut at least $2 trillion from the annual federal budget.

That, of course, is a lunatic claim, made by an apparent nutcase. Nor is that assessment hard to explain. In this post about the Garden Party, Kevin Drum explained it in the manner shown:

MSG report #3

Elon gets a whole post to himself. Not because he said something racist, but because he said something so massively dumb.

ELON MUSK: "I think we can rip out at least 2T out of the wasted 6.5T Harris/Biden budget."

Elon used to be smart enough to do simple addition, but he thinks we can cut "at least" $2 trillion from federal spending—which amounted to $6.7 trillion in FY2024, not $6.5 trillion.

The arithmetic here is simple. If you add up Social Security + Medicare + defense + veterans pensions + interest on the debt you get $4.4 trillion. There's only $2.3 trillion left.

So Elon is claiming we should literally zero out the entire rest of the federal budget. Everything. The FBI, national parks, food stamps, Medicaid, education, NASA, the EPA, farm support, the NIH, all federal R&D grants, embassies worldwide, the FAA, the Department of Justice, the VA, the weather service, the border patrol, etc. etc. Everything.

Drum included three footnotes, further detailing the obvious: 

As two of the footnotes noted, Candidate Trump had specifically pledged that that he wouldn't cut Medicare or Social Security. Also, Trump had pledged that he'd increase spending on Defense. In the third footnote, Drum noted that interest on the debt is legally obligated, as is the payment of veterans pensions.

In the face of these basic facts, so what? Thus spoke Muskathustra, at the Garden Party! 

As everyone knows, Musk's ludicrous claim makes no earthly sense. On last evening's Washington Week, Dan Balz and Jonathan Karl went through those same basic budget facts in the program's first five minutes, as you can see by clicking this link.

Elon Musk's demented claim makes no earthly sense. As his post continued, the understandably frustrated Drum let him anti-freak flag fly:

What is it that didn't just move Musk to the right, but turned him into a screaming, drooling lunatic with the effective IQ of a squirrel? I won't say I've never seen anything like it, but I've never seen it quite so unhinged from a basically sane and brilliant starting point.

In some ways, we think that Drum was possibly being too kind. That said:

In this morning's New York Times, four major reporters, on the front page, roll over and die in service to Musk and in deference to power.

We think it's important to say their names. We're going to say them here:

The names of the Times reporters:
David Fahrenthold
Alan Rappeport
Theodore Schleifer 
Annie Karniv

Who knows? Maybe it was their editors' doing! But those are the names which appear on the front-page report, and so we say them here.

Those of you with a Times subscription can read the full report. In this morning's print editions, the lengthy report starts as shown, dual headline included:

NEWS ANALYSIS
 Musk’s Pledge To Ax Trillions Faces Reality
Legal Fights and Lags Will Await His Efforts

These are frenzied times for the nascent Department of Government Efficiency.

In Silicon Valley, tech leaders are eagerly seeking positions or introductions to the department, even though for now it is not an actual part of government, but a loose grouping that Elon Musk named after an internet meme. On his social media platform, X, Mr. Musk posted a “Godfather”-style photo of himself as the “Dogefather,” asking government employees, “What did you get done this week?”

And in Washington, a House subcommittee has been announced to help push through President-elect Donald J. Trump’s vision, announced on Nov. 12, for a department that would slash the $6.7 trillion federal budget.

Members of Congress—even Democratic ones—have been offering up ideas for where to cut what Mr. Musk said could be $2 trillion out of the budget.

“It’s going to be very easy,” Elon Musk’s mother, Maye Musk, told Fox News on Tuesday, after she sat in on some of her son’s meetings. Mr. Musk will lead the department along with Vivek Ramaswamy, a former Republican presidential candidate.

The coming months will show if her prediction proves right.

These deferential reporters today! Early in their "News Analysis," the four reporters specifically cite the world's most ludicrous claim—the silly claim made by the apparent nutcase, Musk.

Thet cite the claim in Paragraph 4. They then cite the clueless mother of the apparent nutcase son. Astoundingly, they directly suggest that her ludicrous claim could turn out to be right!

The reporters quickly do those things. Here's what they never do:

In the course of their lengthy report, they never tell their paper's subscribers that Mother Musk's ridiculous claim, like the silly claim by her son, makes no earthly sense.  

As those headlines suggest, they focus on the bureaucratic obstacles which will stand in the way of the crusading Musk. They never tell Times subscribers that the stated goal of the planet's richest person makes no earthly sense.

In that way, the deferential reporters roll over and die, feet in the air, bowing to new political power. Along the way, they're even willing to insult Times subscribers by including this:

[I]n recent weeks, some members of Congress have shown enthusiasm for Mr. Musk and Mr. Ramaswamy’s ideas.

Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa, took to social media this week to outline what she called “easy” steps to cut $2 trillion in spending. But even those steps showed the complexity of the task awaiting Mr. Musk and Mr. Ramaswamy.

Some of Ms. Ernst’s recommendations would be relatively manageable but for negligible savings—at least in proportion to the immense size of the federal budget. She said, for example, that the government could save $16.6 million by no longer providing campaign help to long-shot presidential candidates.

And one of her ideas directly clashes with one of Mr. Musk’s and Mr. Ramaswamy’s. The billionaires’ idea is to force federal workers to work five days a week in the office, with the idea that they will become more efficient or quit. But Ms. Ernst wants to take the opposite tack: allow federal employees to work from home and sell off the office space they no longer visit.

Presumably, Senator Ernst has simply decided to play the fool with respect to this topic too. That said, no one is playing the fool quite the way Farenthold and the others are as they paraphrase Ernst's ridiculous claim—her ludicrous claim that it would be "easy" to cut $2 trillion in spending.

Everyone, Ernst included, knows that claim is insane. That includes David Farenthold, who was once believed to be a fact-obsessed financial reporter.

Everyone knows that Musk's claim is insane. Everyone except Times subscribers, who are condemned to the task of reading today's "News Analysis."

The anthropologist Cummings seemed to know The Farenthold Four best. He chose to state his anthropological findings in the form of a bitter poem:

Humanity i love you

Humanity i love you
because you would rather black the boots of
success than enquire whose soul dangles from his
watch-chain which would be embarrassing for both

[...]

Humanity i love you because
when you're hard up you pawn your
intelligence to buy a drink...

So true! Meanwhile, the public is being conned today on the front page of the Times. 

In this 2006 feature film, Mike Judge predicted the emergence of an "idiocracy." Today, the Trump-Musk id is in the saddle, and the idiocracy seems to be here.

This morning, the New York Times rolls over and dies. Elsewhere, Blue America's tribunes keep engaging in the practices through which our tribe has earned its way out down through the years. All too often, our Blue elites are joined in that project by our Blue rank-and-file.

We Blues! We've pursued that project for at least sixty years; we've pursued it hard in the past four years. As with all known human tribes, it is often hard for us to see such facts about ourselves.

It's hard for us Blues to see what we do. We return to that topic on Monday.

FRIDAY: Is Elon Musk a genuine nut?

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2024

There is no cure for nutcase: To many observers in Red America, the former candidate was drunk once again. She was drunk, or maybe on drugs.

Within the realm of American journalism, we don't have a language for discussing such statements. More on that problem below. 

Candidate Harris was drunk again, or possibly she was stoned! On the plains outside sacred Troy, within the ranks of Red America, so an array of tribunes said or suggested. 

They did so everywhere from the Fox News Channel on down.

Within our journalistic culture, there is no language for describing such people. More on that shortfall below—but first, let's consider Elon Musk's latest remarkable threat against the established order.

Mediaite reports the threat in the manner shown below. Is "something wrong with" Elon Musk? Do we even have a language which lets us explore such questions? 

CNN Anchor Warns Americans Not to ‘Dismiss’ As ‘Bluster’ Elon Musk’s Latest Threat

CNN anchor and chief national security analyst Jim Sciutto warned on Thursday that Americans should not “dismiss” as “bluster” Elon Musk’s threat of the death penalty against Alexander Vindman, a key witness during Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial.

Musk wrote on X Wednesday, “Vindman is on the payroll of Ukrainian oligarchs and has committed treason against the United States, for which he will pay the appropriate penalty.” Vindman, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who worked at the National Security Council during Trump’s first term, has not been investigated or tried for treason, an offense that carries up to the death penalty.

[...]

Russian pro-democracy activist Garry Kasparov also sounded the alarm on Musk’s threat, writing, “America, this is your next four years, or longer. Oligarchs protected by Trump accusing former public officials of the gravest crimes without evidence or even pretense to provide any. Trial by social media, which of course is owned by said oligarch. Russia in the Wild West 90s.”

Thus spoke Elon Musk, who seems to live in some other world.

Musk is said to the world's richest person. Colloquially, he also seems to be a genuine, stone-cold nutcase. That said, our journalism lacks a language for making such observations. More on that linguistic shortcoming below.

Musk has now seemed to suggest that Alexander Vinman should be put to death. So it goes with the type of nutcase under discussion here. 

In our view, Musk qualified as the nuttiest major player over the Thanksgiving break. Not too far behind was Donald J. Trump, presenting an unusual video sugarplum at his Truth Social site.

Newsweek offered a full report. You can see the incoming president's peculiar video there:

Trump Shares Edited Thanksgiving Video of Himself Popping Out of a Turkey

President-elect Donald Trump shared an edited—and bizarre—video that appeared to show him popping out of a turkey on Thanksgiving while dancing to The Village People's Y.M.C.A.

The clip is an edited version of a famous scene from the movie National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation...

Newsweek was willing to use the word "bizarre." Earlier, the incoming president had offered a "Happy Thanksgiving" post, whose text we posted yesterday:

TRUMP (11/27/24): Happy Thanksgiving to all, including to the Radical Left Lunatics who have worked so hard to destroy our Country, but who have miserably failed, and will always fail, because their ideas and policies are so hopelessly bad that the great people of our Nation just gave a landslide victory to those who want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

The incoming president extended his holiday wishes to everyone, even to the radical lunatics who want to destroy the country.

Judged by any traditional standard, that was strange behavior. Of course, so was the systemwide claim that Vice President Harris must have been drunk again, this time when she recorded a short message on videotape. 

Yesterday, we said we'd tell you about the "drunk" claim, and so we'll make ourselves do it. 

Last Tuesday, Harris recorded a brief video message in which, among other things, she offered this traditional thought:

HARRIS (11/26/24): As you heard we say many times, we like hard work...And in doing our work, we will remain committed and intentional about building community—building coalitions, reminding people that we all have so much more in common that what separates us.

We all have so much more in common! 

In our experience, the theme that Harris must have been drunk arrived during the 7 o'clock hour on Wednesday night, on The Ingraham Angle. GOPAC Chairman David Avella spoke with guest host Brian Kilmeade:

AVELLA (11/27/24): Let's start with that video for a second, Brian. When you produce a video like she did last night and put out, and then one of the number-one search results on the Internet today is "Kamala drunk," you're not getting the intended results that you were hoping for.

KILMEADE: Ha ha ha ha ha.

Let's be totally fair. Avella wasn't calling her "drunk!" He was merely noting the fact that other people—people on the Internet—seemed to be doing that.

As we've noted, the idea that Harris is constantly drunk or on drugs was a repeated theme on the Fox News Channel during the White House campaign. 

(Sexual insults were also common. Lordly orgs like the New York time choose to avert their gaze from such trivial matters.)

At any rate, Avella wasn't making that claim himself! He was merely suggesting that other people seemed to have some such idea.

Kilmeade enjoyed a good laugh. Three hours later, a D-list comedian went there again, this time on the Gutfeld! program:

DYE (11/27/24): I hesitate to make fun of Harris because I love drunk ladies.

PANEL: [Group laughter, especially Kat Timpf]

AUDIENCE: [Applause]

So it went on the Gutfeld! show, with Tom Shillue as guest host.

To his credit, Avella's statement was technically accurate. Online, some of Red America's leading organs were pushing the idea that Harris must have been drunk all over again when she created that brief bit of videotape.

For an instructive display of moral and intellectual breakdown, we'll suggest that you review the slippery treatment this topic received at the gruesome Western Journal, in a report which appeared under this headline:

Watch: Speculation About Kamala Being Drunk Explodes When Video to Her Voters Goes Horribly Wrong

In fairness, such speculation did explode in regions of Red America. For better or worse, The Western Journal peddles this motto: EQUIPPING READERS WITH THE TRUTH.

At any rate, Vice President Harris was drunk this week, and Musk was seeking the ultimate price. Elon Musk seems to be a genuine nutcase, but our highly primitive high-end journalism has no language for discussing such discomfiting states of affairs. 

Then again, there was Joy Reid's screed at the end of her show Wednesday night. It seems that Reid's remarks may have been triggered by a sardonic remark by Bill Maher. 

Red America is being told about Reid's presentation; Blue America, not so much! They haven't even posted the video at the ReidOut site!

We Blues! We've long been inclined to earn our way out—but how did we ever manage to lose, even if narrowly, to a guy like Candidate Trump?  

We did so in an assortment of ways.  Given the ways we humans are built, we're often unable to see such facts about ourselves, and we're likely to keep it up.


THANKSGIVING: The former candidates speak!

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2024

The disorder we all live with: This morning, C-Span's Washington Journal had its head near the clouds.

The C-Span program focused on ways to "bridge the political divide"—on ways to promote "civility in politics." Some callers seemed to grasp the idea. Some callers possibly didn't. 

Then too, we have the former candidates, each of whom spoke this week. On Tuesday, former candidate Harris went first:

Former candidate Kamala Harris, 11/26/24: 
As you heard we say many times, we like hard work. Hard work is good work. Hard work can be joyful work. And in doing our work, we will remain committed and intentional about building community—building coalitions, reminding people that we all have so much more in common that what separates us.

So said the one former candidate in a videotaped statement. To see the C-Span videotape, just click here, then move to the four-minute mark.

On Tuesday, so said former candidate Harris! Yesterday, former candidate Donald J. Trump offered his own remarks in this thoughtful Truth Social post:

Former candidate Donald J. Trump, 11/27/24: 
Happy Thanksgiving to all, including to the Radical Left Lunatics who have worked so hard to destroy our Country, but who have miserably failed, and will always fail, because their ideas and policies are so hopelessly bad that the great people of our Nation just gave a landslide victory to those who want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

So it went on Truth Social, with holiday wishes to all. For the record, the margin in that "landslide victory" is now down to 1.5 points.

With respect to the Harris statement, reaction was swift, and was deranged, within many of Red America's enclaves. That included the Fox News Channel, where tribunes were quickly saying, working from established script, that former candidate Harris seemed to be drunk, or must have been drunk, when she taped her statement.

The so-called "democratization of media" has created this situation. Tomorrow, we'll give you more detail about these soul-draining, braindead reactions from within Red America's world.

Now, a bit of historical context:

Way back when, Norman Rockwell created a famous cover for the Saturday Evening Post. His illustration was called The Problem We All Live With.

You can see that painting here

The so-called "democratization of media" has created a newer problem. In large measure, our nation's discourse, such as it is, belongs to the least of us now. 

Increasingly, this is the problem we all currently live with. It isn't clear that here's an easy way to extricate ourselves from this disordered mess. 

In fairness, we also had the recent statements by those two Hollywood stars. Their statements are part of this problem too, and they spoke from Blue America's part of the playing field.

One former candidate must have been drunk. Meanwhile, the other former candidate extended his holiday wishes even to the radical lunatics who have worked to destroy our country.

This is the problem we currently live with. The New York Times will maintain its silence. We'll give you more detail tomorrow.

November is the most grisly month!

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2024

The cable news ratings are IN: Go figure!

For unknown reasons, the people at Nielsen Media Research release their monthly viewership numbers before the month in question is over. 

In accord with that puzzling procedure, Nielsen has already released its average viewership numbers for the month of November.

Go figure! At any rate, the Fox News Channel has been on a well-buttered roll during the current month. At Mediaite, Alex Griffing's report begins exactly as shown:

Fox News Scores Record Share of Total Cable News Audience...

The 2024 election season brought surging ratings to Fox News as it dominated the competition and scored a record share of the overall cable news audience while marking its 45th straight month at number one.

In November, Fox News accounted for an unprecedented 62% of the total viewership across the industry, according to Nielsen Media Research. Post-election that number soared as Fox News captured 73% of the cable news audience in prime time for the second to last full week of the month. MSNBC scored 16 percent, while CNN had 11 percent of cable news viewers during prime time.

So it has gone as an army of Stepfords continue to churn the malarkey.

Now let's get down to brass tacks! Griffing lists the five top-rated shows at our nation's "cable news" channels, along with their average number of viewers for the (current) month: 

Most-watched "cable news" shows, November
The Five: 4.4 million viewers
Jesse Watters Primetime: 3.9 million
The Ingraham Angle: 3.32 million
Gutfeld!: 3.30 million
Special Report with Bret Baier: 3.26 million

That's right! All five most-watched shows come from that same "news channel." For the record, the nation's most-watched cable news program, The Five, increasingly goes by an alternate title:

The Bar Scene from Star Wars, plus Tarlov

By the one name or the other, Fox News has been cleaning up! That said, what are the top-rated shows from MSNBC and CNN? According to Griffing, you can read 'em and weep:

Most-watched shows, MSNBC and CNN
Deadline: White House: 1.4 million viewers
Erin Burnett OutFront: 680,000

The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell averaged 1.2 million viewers this month. The show got scorched by Gutfeld!, the dumbest and most squalid show in the history of "cable news."

A certain malaise is afflicting Blue America's cable. The Fox News Channel is indefensible, but is it possible, in some possible way, that Blue cable has earned its way out?

We'll have more on that in the days ahead. For today, we'll pose this question:

At such programs as Deadline: White House, were we Blues well-served by the astonishing focus on trying to lock him up?

BLUE DERISION: These Low-Information Voters Today!

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2024

Could they perhaps include Us? Just how badly was she defeated in this year's presidential election?

It all depends on what the meaning of "how badly was she defeated" is! Also, it all depends on the origin of the tribal messaging.

If you're watching the Fox News Channel, the messaging continues unabated. It's delivered by the ever-changing assortment of Stepfords placed on the air every night. 

How badly was Candidate Harris defeated? Here are snatches of that messaging, as delivered on a pair of yesterday's primetime shows:

How badly was Candidate Harris defeated? 

Harold Ford, The Five, 11/26/24: Let me be clear. I said this yesterday. The Democrats need to step back and understand, we just lost. We got thrashed at the polls. I agree with you, Dana. One interview is not going to change that.

Jim Norton, Gutfeld!, 11/26/24: She reminds me of an incel at a sorority party. She just won't leave. Like she's just lurking from person to person, going, "Hey's what's going on?" and they're like, "Nobody likes you. We don't want to talk to you. We're not interested in you, somebody else invited you," and she just won't take the hint.

It's gotta be hard when you're that close, when everybody's telling you that, "Oh, Trump sucks, he's not going to win," and then all of a sudden you get creamed. You gotta think, like something went wrong.

To watch Ford's statement, just click here. To see Norton offer his thoughtful remarks, click this

On Fox News Channel programs, the insults continue apace. They accompany the messaging in which Candidate Harris got "creamed" on November 5, or perhaps got "thrashed at the polls." Very few numbers will ever be offered—numbers which now look like this:

Nationwide popular vote (to date), 2024
Candidate Trump: 77,108,788 (49.83%)
Candidate Harris: 74,709,131 (48.28%)

As votes continue to trickle in, the victory margin is nearing 1.5 points. In the three Blue Wall states, the overall margin is closer to one percent.

By normal standards, that would be scored as a close election. Then again, until quite recently, insults of the type Norton delivered would never have been permitted within major news orgs, with major orgs in Blue America agreeing that they mustn't notice or report such departures from long-standing norms.

Yesterday, the insults were general on Fox News Channel programs. These insults are delivered each night from deep within a revolt of the masses.  Over here, in Blue America, our own tribunes can often be numbered among the ranks of "they who choose not to see."

When an election is fairly close, its outcome can be "explained" a hundred different ways. In a close election, many such "explanations" are plausible to some degree or another.

In the current case, 77 million different people decided to vote for Candidate Trump. Within the ranks of Blue America, millions of people who lean Blue decided not to vote. 

Presumably, many reasons lie behind the tens of millions of decisions which produced those numbers. That said, we who frequently choose not to see prefer to offer simple solutions to the puzzle of Why Our Blue Candidate Lost:

Blue American explanations:
Thom Hartmann: More than half of American voters are just "deeply racist."
Speaker McClinton: "This nation does not want a woman president."
Roxanne Gay: People who voted for Trump don't share the same reality We do.
Michael Moore: "We [Americans] are not a good people."

The Stepfords are crawling all over Fox. But the Stepfords often seem to be general in our own Blue America too. 

Long ago and far away, all the way back on November 8, a person who was perhaps a bit less verklempt offered a starter list of possible reasons for Candidate Harris's defeat. 

We refer to Tim Alberta, speaking on the PBS program Washington Week. As a cultural matter, Alberta doesn't hail from Blue America, but he's strongly anti-Trump. Simplifying matters a bit, he offered this starter list of possible explanations:

Tim Alberta's possible reasons:
1) The Biden administration's handling of the southern border
2) The cost of living in the past four years
3) The apparent dissembling about President Biden's apparent mental decline

We'd be inclined to agree! Almost surely, all those topics helped move the electorate over towards Candidate Trump. 

Before we're done, we'll add at least four more possible reasons for Harris's (rather narrow) defeat. But for today, let's look at one more (self-defeating) explanation—an explanation which comes with great regularity from our own Blue American camp:

Additional Blue American explanation:
BLUE AMERICAN OBSERVER (11/16/24): That Harris was swept in all of the battleground states suggests that 3-4% of Americansthe folks we call low-propensity/low-information voters—had bought what Trump was selling.

Why would they buy his lies? Because they're low-propensity/low-information Americans...

Lots of groups and people are responsible. The only solution is to let these folks see the consequences of their choices so that it won't be repeated in the midterms. Beyond that, well, Americans have short memories.

Why did Candidate Harris lose? According to this familiar explanation, "the folks we call low-information voters" bought what Candidate Trump was selling, all of which is represented here as a passel of lies.

(Is it possible that Candidate Trump, however disordered, ever made any valid points? Not in this presentation, no!)

Without any question, certain parts of that observer's full presentation are accurate. Sadly, one such accurate element is this:

Over here in Blue America, we do refer to people as "low-information voters." In fact, we do so with great regularity. When we discuss the Others, we do that all the time!

We also have a strong inclination to refer to "Americans" as if the term doesn't include Us. In this presentation, "Americans" are said to have short memories. We'll only suggest that this sneering denigration doesn't seem to be directed at any of Us.

The passage we've posted is drawn from a comment to this post by Kevin Drum. This comment seems to come from a regular person. As far as we know, it doesn't come from a Democratic Party official or from a media figure..

That said, this kind of comment is quite common in Blue America. In the past two days, two major movie stars have given voice to their versions of this familiar denigration. In our view, it's the kind of reflexive denigration which helps explain why the candidate of our Blue America could possibly have lost an election to a widely disliked and disordered candidate like Candidate Donald J. Trump.

We Blues! We love to refer to "low-information voters" (transformed in that presentation into "low-information Americans"). It never seems to occur to us that the ranks of "low-information Americans" could also perhaps include Us!

Indeed, Pogo may have said it best. We'll adjust his statement a bit:

We've met the low-information voters and the low-information voters are Us!

Why dd Candidate Harris (narrowly) lose to a guy like Trump? We'll be expanding on Tim Alberta's list of possible reasons on the days ahead. 

We expect to end up with a list of (at least) seven possible reasons. In those ways, we Blues could be said to have earned our way out. Tribal denial, a powerful force, tends to blind us to this fairly obvious state of affairs.

It may be too late for a gain in tribal self-awareness to mitigate the damage which has already been done. Sacred Troy must die, Hector said. The same may be true around here!

Having said that, we'll also say this:

We Blues!  Our role in this mess dates back many years. We ourselves were there at the start!

Next: An additional, angrier list

BLUE DELUSIONS: On the one hand, she came amazingly close!

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2024

Still, how did we lose to him? How in the world could Kamala Harris have lost to Donald J. Trump?

It's a perfectly reasonable question. On the one hand, we'd have to say this:

On the one hand, it can seem pretty amazing that she came as close as she did!

She didn't even get into the race until late July of this year. This followed a long, drawn-out, embarrassing meltdown by her party's sitting president—by the unpopular person she served as vice presidential nominee and then as vice president over the prior four year.

Mixed with other global patterns, those circumstances can make it seem pretty amazing that she came as close as she did! On the other hand, we'd also have to say this: 

On the other hand, she lost an election to Donald J. Trump! How in the world did we superior beings in Blue America ever get defeated by him?

How did we ever lose to that guy? For denizens of our own Blue America, it's the most natural question in the world. 

Unfortunately, our vastly self-impressed tribe is routinely gripped with tribal denial and tribal delusions—with a tribal blindness which leaves us offering the sorts of delusional explanations we've cited in recent days. 

Why did Candidate Harris lose to Candidate Trump? Full disclosure follows:

The possible reasons go on and on, and many of the reasons track straight back to Us! Again and again, we Blues have managed to earn our way out—and like tribal groups since the dawn of time, we're often unable to see this.

We lost a lot of time on this alternate Tuesday—much more than we'd expected. We'll return to this exploration tomorrow, and to our basic question: 

In what ways did those of us in Blue America actually earn our way out? It may be too late for it to matter, but we'll start listing answers tomorrow.

Some of the answers date back many years, perhaps to the 1960s.

Some of the answers are quite recent. They feature varieties of self-defeating behavior which continue this very day.

BREAKING: We won't post until this afternoon!

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2024

It's one of those alternate Tuesdays: Sure enough, it's one of those alternate Tuesdays.

For that reason, we won't be posting until this afternoon.

We're sure we know what we're talking about!

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2024

All too often, we don't: We the people are often quite sure we know what we're talking about.

All too often, we don't! Consider something which happened just yesterday on C-Span's Washington Journal.

During the 8 o'clock hour, Charlie Cook—he of the Cook Political Report—was the guest for a full segment. In his initial assessment of this year's election, he downplayed the idea that Trump had won in a landslide. He also suggested that Trump's relatively narrow victory margin might not constitute some sort of clearcut "mandate."

(Regarding the lack of an obvious "mandate," he said the same thing about Biden's 4.5-point victory margin back in 2020.)

The very first caller was able to see right through what Charlie was selling! She was thoroughly sure of herself, and she basically didn't seem to know what she was talking about:

MODERATOR (11/24/24): Let's get to your calls with questions for Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report. We'll start with Henrietta in Fort Pierce, Florida, on our line for Republicans.

HENRIETTA FROM FLORIDA: Yes. Hi, good morning. I think this gentleman is just giving us lots of drivel. This was a mandate. Three hundred and sixteen [sic] electoral votes? Puh-leeze! When's the last time someone got that? 

In addition to that, it's been twenty-plus years since a Republican won the popular vote. In addition to that, this was a statement from America as a whole that we rejected everything that the Democrats have done for the past four years.

MODERATOR: So Henrietta, before we get to your question for Charlie, I do just want to point out that Trump won 312 electoral college votes, not 316.

To the hear the phone call, click here, then jump ahead to the 13-minute mark.

Forget the minor error concerning the precise number of electoral votes. Forget the absurdity of the claim that "America as a whole" has issued the denunciation the caller described—in an election which Candidate Trump won, on a nationwide basis, by only 1.6 points, with slightly more than half the electorate voting for someone else.

This highly self-assured C-Span caller was full of vinegar this day. We were most struck by the rhetorical question in which she hoped to prove that the election had produced a mandate. Her question went like this:

Three hundred and sixteen [sic] electoral votes? Puh-leeze! When's the last time someone got that? 

When's the last time someone got that? Let's take a look at the record:

Electoral votes, winning candidate
1992:  370 (Clinton)
1996:  379 (Clinton)
2000:  271 (Bush)
2004:  286 (Bush)
2008:  365 (Obama)
2012:  332 (Obama)
2016:  304 (Trump)
2020: 306 (Biden)
2024: 312 (Trump)

When's the last time someone got that? Bill Clinton exceeded the number in each of his elections. So did Barack Obama. A bit farther back in time, Reagan got 525 electoral votes in 1984. Bush the elder got 426 four years later.

The caller was thoroughly sure of herself. She knew that Cook's assessments were ridiculous drivel.

That said, she didn't seem to know her brief—nor was she ever corrected on this particular point. Neither Cook nor the C-Span moderator noted the actual facts of this particular case. 

The caller was full of tribal certainty. Also, she was wrong. 

Especially under current arrangements, it's frequently like that in Red America—but also, alas, Over Here!

BLUE DENIAL: In our view, there's none so blind...

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2024

...as Blues who will not see: As it seems to have shaken out, Candidate Harris lost a fairly close election to Candidate Donald J. Trump.

Judged by any traditional metric, it wasn't a landslide, and it wasn't even a rout. According to the Cook Report, here's where the nationwide vote currently stands with few votes left to count:  

Nationwide popular vote (to date), 2024
Candidate Trump: 77,027,112 (49.86%)
Candidate Harris: 74,557,993 (48.26%)

He didn't get to fifty percent? As it turns out, he didn't even get to 49.9!

Nationwide, the winner won by roughly 1.6 points. Meanwhile, his margin in the Blue Wall states was even more slender than that:

Winning margin in the Blue Wall states
Pennsylvania: 1.7 points
Michigan: 1.4 points
Wisconsin: 0.8 points

His winning margins weren't great. And those are the margins by which he vanquished an accidental opponent who didn't even get in the race until late July of last year!

On the other hand, the winning candidate was Donald J. Trump. Over here in Blue America, many of our fellow citizens are wondering how a candidate like Trump could possibly have won—indeed, how a person like Donald J. rump could possibly have received any votes at all.

Why would anyone have voted for Candidate Trump? This morning, on this latest of many Blue Mondays to come, the New York Times has published letters in which We Who Can't or Simply Refuse To See are trying to puzzle it out.

Why would anyone have voted for Trump? Seventy-seven million people did, but many of us in Blue America can't seem to imagine any respectable reasons which might lie behind such a vote.

In the Times, today's letters are responding to a column in which David Brooks noted some demographic outcomes within this year's exit polls which he found surprising. Here's part of what Brooks wrote:

BROOKS (11/15/24): In 2024, Kamala Harris did worse among Black voters than Joe Biden did in 2020. She did worse among female voters. She did much worse among Latino voters. She did much worse among young voters.

She did manage to outperform Biden among two groups: affluent people and white voters, especially white men.

According to Brooks, Candidate Harris did worse among black voters than Biden did, but better among white voters! Meanwhile, full disclosure:

The exit polls are subject to error! That said, the exit polls seem to show that Harris (2024) and Biden (2020) each received 41% of the white vote.

Also, they seem to show that Trump gained one (1) point among black voters in 2024, moving from 12% versus Biden in 2020 to 13% against Harris. Those exit polls are subject to error, but those changes don't seem to be vast.

(For the 2020 exit polls, just click here. For this year's exit polls, you can just click this.)

All in all, whatever! Candidate Biden won in 2020; Candidate Harris lost this year. On this latest of many Blue Mondays, we citizens of Blue America are trying to figure it out.

Let's take a look at the record! One letter in the Times comes from Bala Cynwyd, Pa. In full, the letter says this:

To the Editor:

David Brooks wisely quoted the British jurist Patrick Devlin’s warning: “Without shared ideas on politics, morals and ethics, no society can exist.” And Mr. Brooks concluded, “We need a national narrative that points us to some ideal and gives each of us a noble role in pursuing it.”

I really thought Vice President Kamala Harris provided that positive narrative, that noble role, when she told us repeatedly she wanted to unite the country, which has been seriously divided by Donald Trump, and asked us to join her to work together to help working people and the middle class; to lift all people, regardless of party, age, identity or background; to cut the red tape and create more housing, reduce costs and propel American children out of poverty.

What more could she have said to convince the public that she really cared about all of the American people and our future, and that she would be a better president than a felon, racist, misogynist, insurrectionist, liar, bully and cheater? What am I missing?

"What am I missing?" the writer asks. In our view, it's an extremely important question.

In the view of this Harris voter, Candidate Harris offered a positive narrative, proposed that each of us had a noble role to play. That said, she was defeated by a candidate who is "a felon, racist, misogynist, insurrectionist, liar, bully and cheater."

What more could Harris have done, this writer asks. "What am I missing?"

Another writer seems to know what she's missing.  He writes from Great neck, New York—and the Times notes that he's a psychiatrist:

To the Editor:

David Brooks, whom I regard highly, failed to emphasize the obvious: 76 million people elected a patently unqualified person to be president of the United States.

I would not venture an explanation for the cause of this mind-boggling phenomenon, but the hold of irrational over logical thinking comes to mind. Interviews with voters reveal the “feel” factor: “I feel things were better,” or “I feel he didn’t mean it.” Whatever the snake oil magic Donald Trump had, it was “feeling,” not rational assessment, that fed him to a receptive people.

The writer says he won't offer an explanation, but then he instantly does. The receptive people who voted for Trump succumbed to the hold of irrational thinking. Trump had offered these people snake oil magic, and these sub-rational voters succumbed.

"What am I missing?" the one writer asked. The second writer answered. Neither writer seemed able to imagine a reason why rational or decent person might have decided to vote for Candidate Trump.

The one writer seems to be puzzled by the way those 77 million people voted. The other writer seems to have a sweeping explanation.

Ever since November 5, such ruminations have been general over Blue America. In the days which follow, we'll list some of the obvious reasons why some of those 77 million people may have decided to vote for Candidate Trump—or may perhaps have decided to vote against Candidate Harris.

Why did people vote for Trump? Within the past week, Thom Hartmann seemed to say that Trump's voters are all "deeply racist." 

Writing in last Sunday's New York Times, Roxanne Gay seemed to say that Trump's voters are bigots, but she explicitly sad that they are participating in "a mass delusion."

She said they want to believe nonsense and conjecture—that we shouldn't act as if they're sharing the same reality as ours. To peruse the text of what she said, see last Wednesday's report.

Last Friday night, Speaker McClinton (D-Pa.) grasped a different part of the elephant. As we noted on Saturday, she told Jonathan Capehart that this is why "America" voted for Trump:

MCCLINTON (11/22/24): We need to be honest. This nation does not want a woman in charge. That is what we need to agree upon. 

We need to agree upon the fact that people understood everything our former president stood for, all of the promises he made on that campaign trail abut dismantling our democracy. The deadly insurrection that he provoked on the sixth of January in 2021. 

Nevertheless, all of the things that occurred, they decided they didn't want what will probably be one of the most accomplished women to ever run to be the president—a former prosecutor both locally and at the state level, a member of the United States Senate, the first woman vice president. 

That is what we need to acknowledge. This nation decided they [sic] didn't want that.

Telling us what we need to acknowledge, she seemed to grab the misogynist part of the elephant. As with Hartmann, so too here. There was no suggestion that there could be any understandable reason behind a vote for Trump. 

On this, the latest of our Blue Mondays, letter writers in the Times are trying to puzzle it out. In our view, there is none so blind as we Blue Americans when we refuse to see. 

That said, our Blue America is full of such dysfunction. It keeps us from seeing the long list of ways those of us in Blue America have long worked to earn our way out, down through the past five or six decades but also during the Biden years.

For ourselves, we never considered voting for Trump. That said, it's easy to compile a list of reasons which explain why the Others may have cast that vote.

The list goes on and on and on, but in a very dangerous move, we Blues keep refusing to see.

I'll count you as part of the problem, Maher said. We think he got it right.

Tomorrow: Back to our starter list

SATURDAY: Why did "America" vote for Trump?

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2024 

Plus, the 700 pages: Why did Candidate Harris (narrowly) lose this year's election after her (remarkably truncated) three-month campaign?

Given the way we humans are built, a large number of Blue American pundits have been offering simple, one-part explanations. With respect to any such effort, we'd offer two suggestions:

First, try to avoid explanations which don't even seem to make sense. 

Also, try to get your pronouns in line. More specifically, try to avoid referring to us as them.

Last night, Jonathan Capehart sat in for Lawrence O'Donnell on The Last Word. At one point, this exchange occurred:

CAPEHART (11/22/24): You know, Speaker McClinton, there is this notion that Democrats lost because they leaned too far into identity politics, and that a stronger populist economic message was needed. 

Do you agree with that assessment?

SPEAKER MCCLINTON: Absolutely not. We need to be honest. This nation does not want a woman in charge. That is what we need to agree upon. 

We need to agree upon the fact that people understood everything our former president stood for, all of the promises he made on that campaign trail abut dismantling our democracy. The deadly insurrection that he provoked on the sixth of January in 2021. 

Nevertheless, all of the things that occurred, they decided they didn't want what will probably be one of the most accomplished women to ever run to be the president—a former prosecutor both locally and at the state level, a member of the United States Senate, the first woman vice president. 

That is what we need to acknowledge. This nation decided they [sic] didn't want that.

CAPEHART: How are you going to make sure they hear that?

And so on from there.

Who the heck is Speaker McClinton? To watch the full six-minute segment, you can just click this. To see the exchange in question, you should move ahead to the 2:40 mark.

According to Speaker McClinton, everyone who voted for Candidate Trump understood everything he ever said. And not only that—the 76.8 million people in question all understood the things he said in the same way she did!

Beyond that, we'll cite two historical facts:

In 2016, a preponderance of "this nation" did in fact vote to put "a woman in charge!" And in this year's election, the accomplished woman who was forced to conduct that shortened campaign came within a point and a half of winning the nationwide popular vote again.

Beyond that, we'll restate the point we made in the face of a recent statement by Bill Maher:

Blue Americans, when we refer to "America" or to "this nation," it probably helps to get our pronouns right. On an obvious political basis, it's better to refer to "this nation" as us—not to describe it as "them."

If you want to know who Speaker McClinton is, you can click right here. But so it frequently goes when those of us in Blue America continue laying the groundwork for additional future defeats/

We Blues! We tend to seek the one explanation for this year's (narrow) defeat. There can only be one such reason, and that reason doesn't have to make any obvious sense. 

Also, the blame must all be laid directly on The Others—on the eternal Them. By the time we get through emitting our jumble, "this nation" won't even include the 74.4 million of Us!

Are we built for this line of work—for conducting a sensible discourse? For some time, we've been suggesting that the answer is no. 

As further evidence from a different sphere, consider this wonderfully comical passage from Stephen Budiansky's book about the greatest logician since Aristotle. For background, see yesterday afternoon's post.

We focus here on a sidelight concerning Bertrand Russell. In the highlighted passage from page 108, Budiansky almost seems to be chuckling a bit at Lord Russell's expense:

Journey to the Edge of Reason: The Life of Kurt Gödel

[...]

SHAKY FOUNDATIONS 

In deciding to take on the fourth of the challenges Hilbert had put forth at the Congress of Mathematicians in 1928, Gödel placed himself at the very center of the storm over mathematical foundations, which had broken with a deeply unnerving discovery Bertrand Russell had made at the turn of the century while working on Principia Mathematica. Russell's idea had been to establish the soundness of mathematics by showing how it could all be reduced to principles of logic so self-evident as to be beyond doubt. Defining even the simplest operations of arithmetic in terms of what Russell called such "primitive" notions, however, was far from an obvious task. Even the notion of what a number is raised immediate problems. The laboriousness of the methodology and notation was all too evident in the (often remarked) fact that that it took more than seven hundred pages to reach the conclusion, "1 + 1 = 2," a result which Russell and Whitehead described as "occasionally useful."

Say what? Russell and Whitehead spent more than seven hundred pages proving the fact that 1 + 1 = 2? 

Budiansky seems to be chuckling a bit at this point. On the next page, he describes the way Russell wrestled with the discovery which came to be known as "Russell's Paradox."

This new paradox brought Russell up short. It seems to us that Budiansky may be chuckling again:

"Russell's Paradox," as it came to be known, echoed paradoxes that had been around since antiquity. The prototype is the Liar's Paradox, attributed to Epimenides the Cretan, who asserted, "All Cretans are liars." Russell noted that this was akin to the conundrum posed by a piece of paper on which the sentence, "The statement on the other side of this paper is false" is written on one side, and the sentence "The statement on the other side of this paper is true" on the other.
"It seemed unworthy of a grown man to spend his time on such trivialities," Russell later recalled, and "at first, I supposed that I should be able to overcome the contradictions quite easily, and that there was some trivial error in the reasoning." The more he thought about it, the more he realized it was a flaw in the reasoning too deep to be ignored.

Alas! Russell decided the contradictions couldn't be overcome, which led to the 700 pages and to the remarkable weight of the eventual text. According to Budiansky, Russell and Whiehead's "massive manuscript, with its complex notation which could only be written out laboriously by hand, had to be carted in a four-wheeler cab to the offices of the Cambridge University Press when it was finally done."

Did any of this activity actually make any sense? We're speaking here of received intellectual giants, but Budiansky seems to be chuckling a bit, and we can't say the answer to our question is obvious.

At any rate, before Hitchcock filmed the 39 Steps; Russell had produced the 700 pages. Those pages were built upon an apparent conundrum which lurked within an ancient paradox which, to be perfectly honest, was and is the embarrassing equivalent of a silly parlor trick.

That said, we humans have always tended to reason in such ways, from our greatest scholars on down to our current political tribunes. It isn't clear, in any way, that we were built for this type of work.

Why did people vote for Trump? Given the tens of millions of people involved, there may be more than one answer to that question.

Last night, one tribune offered a remarkably simple story, much like Thom Hartmann before her. In our view, her story didn't even seem to make sense. 

Russell produced the 700 pages. Just as it ever was, Blue America's "cable news" produced that last night's (well-intentioned) exchange.

We humans! We love love love our simple stories. All too often, we'll tolerate nothing else. 

We scan The Atlantic's idea of deep thought!

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2024 

The sound of zero hands clapping: Are we the humans actually capable of conducting a serious discourse? Are we built for such work?

As we noted along the way, it isn't clear that the answer is yes. This brings us to new essay for The Atlantic by Arthur Brooks.

No one with any serious "training," analytical or comedic, could have resisted its principal headline. That principal headline says this:

Three Ways to Become a Deeper Thinker

Three ways to become a deeper thinker? Who could have passed that up?

Starting in 1991, Saturday Night Live put Jack Handey in charge of that program's Deep Thoughts. In fairness, Handey was and is a humorist; Brooks is serious all the way down.

Are we wired for this sort of work? Dual headline include, the Brooks essay starts like this:

Three Ways to Become a Deeper Thinker
You don’t have to become a Buddhist monk to realize the value of contemplating hard questions without clear answers.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

You may have encountered this cryptic question at some point. It is a koan, or riddle, devised by the 18th-century Zen Buddhist master Hakuin Ekaku. Such paradoxical questions have been used for centuries to train young monks, who were instructed to meditate on and debate them. This was intended to be taxing work that could induce maddening frustration—but there was a method to it too. The novitiates were not meant to articulate tidy answers; they were supposed to acquire, through mental struggle, a deeper understanding of the question itself—for this was the path to enlightenment.

That's the way the essay starts, beneath that dual headline.

It's possible that there's some cultural tradition within which that "cryptic / paradoxical question" might be seen as making some kind of sense, or perhaps as serving some mind of purpose. 

Here within the western world, things may not work that way. Here within the western world, when we talk about "clapping your hands," we're talking about something that's done with two hands.

It isn't obvious what you'd mean if you spoke about clapping your hand [singular]—if you spoke about "clapping" just one hand. Of course, a person could always explain what he meant by some such locution, but absent some such explanation, there would be no obvious way to know what the person might have meant, and it wouldn't make any obvious sense to try to figure it out.

This silly piddle from Zenmaster Arthur came on a glorious day. Even as post-election intellectual chaos controls the discourse on every front, we decided today to return to a more fundamental question:

Does Kurt Gödel's "incompleteness theorem" actually make any sense?

We took Stephen Budiansky's bio of Godel with us to the medical joint, which doubles as an excellent reading room. This is the volume in question:

Journey to the Edge of Reason: The Life of Kurt Gödel. W.W. Norton & Company, 2021.

Gödel's theorem is regarded as a major masterwork. Gödel himself is routinely described as "the greatest logician since Aristotle."

Is it possible that Gödel's master theorem doesn't make any sense? We dipped into Budiansky's book for the first time in several years, and we were surprised by our initial reaction:

Counterintuitive as it might seem, we'll guess that the answer ain't yes.

(Can anything linked to "Russell's paradox" actually make any sense?)

The Atlantic chose to publish the Arthur Brook piece. Regarding the question we've been asking about the way we humans are built, that decision, all by itself, along may allow us to rest our case.


BAYOUS: The reasons go on and on and on!

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2024

The problem is frequently Us: Even if only apocryphally, Diogenes wandered through classical Athens, looking for one honest man (sic).

We Blues have been in a similar pickle in the wake of the recent election. 

Why in the world would anyone have voted for Candidate Trump? Again and again and again and again, we've gone looking for even one acceptable reason. 

Why did anyone vote for Trump? Once again, we think you should consider what Thom Hartmann recently said.

Hartmann is a good, decent person. Last Sunday, on C-Span's Washington Journal, he offered this assessment:

MODERATOR (11/17/24): I'll go back to something you mentioned earlier. You mentioned that, since the 1960s, the Democrats have been the party that supports racial minorities, according to your assessment. But also, I want to look at this chart here about the distribution of white voters in particular. 

The Democrats have not won the vote among white Americans since 1964. Overwhelmingly over the years, white voters have voted Republican, and Democrats have lost support among white voters even since Barack Obama in 2008. And what do you think that means for the future of the party and the party's dynamics?

HARTMANN: Well, I think what that reflects is the deep racism that is still extant among white people in America, you know. And certainly, the Trump presidency, and even his successful campaign in 2016, frankly shocked me.

[...]

I don't have an explanation beyond for this very clear racial division which has existed since 1964, beyond just the shocking reality that at least half of America, and arguably a little more than that, is just deeply racist.

To watch the video of Hartmann's full remarks, you can just click here. The exchange we've excerpted, including Hartmann's fuller remarks, starts at the eight-minute mark.

Just for the record, Thom Hartmann is a good, decent person. That said, who is Thom Hartmann?

The dude has had a substantial career. The leading authority on his life offers such excerpts as these:

Thom Hartmann 

Thomas Carl Hartmann (born May 7, 1951) is an American radio personality, author, businessman, and progressive political commentator. Hartmann has been hosting a nationally syndicated radio show, The Thom Hartmann Program, since 2003 and hosted a nightly television show, The Big Picture, between 2010 and 2017.

[...]

Hartmann's national program, on the air since 2003 and now in the noon to 3 pm. ET daypart, was chosen by Air America to replace Al Franken on most Air America affiliates in 2007. From 2008 to 2011, Talkers Magazine rated Hartmann the most popular liberal talk show host in America, rising from number 10 among all talk show hosts in 2008 to number 8 in 2011 and 2015. According to his then-syndicator Dial Global, more people listened to Hartmann's show on more stations than any other progressive talk show in America. The Thom Hartmann Program is estimated by industry magazine Talkers to have 7 million unique listeners per week.

We can't vouch for the perfect, up-to-date accuracy of some of those statements, but Hartmann has been a very successful, highly influential progressive figure. 

To see his program's current website, you can just click this. Hartmann is a good, decent person, and he's still going strong.

Have we mentioned the fact that Hartmann is a good, decent person? That said, we'd have to leaven that assessment in the following way:

In our view, his C-Span statement lies on the borderline of insane.  We've never seen the famous film, but just as Destry is said to have ridden again, so did the unfortunate "basket of deplorables" comment when this good, decent person spoke, except his claim was much stronger.

Almost surely, Hartmann's statement on C-Span can be parsed in various ways. As with members of all human groups, many of us in Blue America are highly skilled at this practice. 

Like President Biden's unfortunate statement about "garbage," Hartmann's statement can probably be explained, or perhaps explained away. Even so, we're forced to suggest that, on its face, the statement seems to say this:

If someone voted for Candidate Trump, that person must be deeply racist.

These Trump Voters Today! In this circumstance, calling them "racist" wasn't enough. They had to be deeply racist!

We've decided to end our series this week with this one statement by Hartmann. We're going to suggest that his statement is just this side of completely insane—and yes, he's a good and decent, highly accomplished person.

Why may people have voted for Trump? Warning! More than 77 million people did, so there may be more than one answer.

That said, we humans are wired to seek simply solutions to our epistemic dilemmas. This human impulse is bred in the bone, over there in Red America but also over here, among Us.

Why did people vote for Trump? Like Hartmann, we voted for Candidate Harris ourselves. The thought of voting for Candidate Trump never crossed our mind.

We voted for Candidate Harris ourselves. That said, we've spent a good chunk of our life trying to learn how to avoid making crazy statements.

Alas! Starting at least in the 1960s, we Blues began convincing ourselves that We are the highly moral, highly intelligent people. 

Wasn't it pretty to think so?  Given the ways our species is built, this flattering portrait isn't accurate and it never was. 

Why might "normal, decent" people have decided to cast their votes for Candidate Trump? We'll start listing a passel of blindingly obvious possible reasons in Monday morning's report.

The possible reasons go on and on and on. Like members of all human tribes, those of us in Blue America may not be able to see this.

We've met the enemy, Pogo said. Will we Blues ever ride again?

A controversial term: A bayou can be a type of backwater. Roy Orbison to the side, an array of "Blue Bayous" exist in the world, not all of them welcoming, helpful or pleasant.


Why did some "normal" people vote for Trump?

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2024

Bret and Gail opine: We were struck by what Gail Collins said midway through this week's Conversation with Bret Stephens.

As their colloquy began, the pair swapped comments regarding the horrors of Hegseth and Gaetz and  Gabbard and Bobby. Eventually, Stephens switched gears—and Collins' statement surprised us:

Avengers, Assemble

[...]

Bret: Switching gears, Gail—Joe Biden is kinda slinking out of office. With the election behind us, how would you rate his presidency?

Gail: I’m so torn on that one, Bret. In the future people may well look back on his administration’s achievements—from expanding health care access to the fight against global warming—and give him a high grade.

But at this particular, painful moment, I can’t forgive him for hanging on to his office so long that it became impossible for the Democrats to hold primary elections to find a successor.

How about you?

Collins seems to feel that Biden's refusal to step aside made it impossible for Trump to be defeated. We were surprised by what she said, less so by Stephens' assessment:

Bret (continuing directly): On a ranking of presidents, I’d have to place him alongside Franklin Pierce or John Tyler: inconsequential in a generally bad way.

[...]

Through hubris, Biden destroyed his single greatest accomplishment, which was the defeat of Donald Trump. Through diffidence, he failed to achieve what might have been the most impressive goal of his term, which would have been Russia’s battlefield defeat in Ukraine, thanks to rapid and overwhelming U.S. assistance. Through inattention, he allowed a preventable immigration crisis to unfold, along with a huge spike in inflation that was the predicted result of his reckless overspending. Through imprudence, he permitted the Justice Department to prosecute his predecessor in a way that did more to resurrect Trump’s political fortunes than it did to bury them. Through self-delusion, and the dishonesty or silence of his close confidants, he covered up the extent of his mental decline. Through political malpractice, he anointed Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee instead of encouraging a more open process that could have yielded a better candidate.

I bet you think I’m being way too harsh.

Gail: Well, um, yeah.

Bret: But don’t worry. After another four years of Trump, we’ll all look back at Biden as Abraham Lincoln II. 

Our summary: Stephens is heavily negative on Biden, thinks Trump is massively worse. 

In our view, that list of horribles Stephens presents is food for us Blues to chew on. Almost surely, lurking there are some of the factors which help explain Candidate Trump's 1.6-point win. 

Many of us in Blue America seem to have no ability to comprehend this fact. Trump voters are bigots and racists and deliberately dumb. Having offered this sweeping assessment of the Others, we achieve a full stop.

Among us humans, tribal delusion has always worked that way. It's part of the way we humans are built. It can't be anything we might have done. 

Eventually, Stephens said this:

Bret (continuing directly): Question is: Will the Democrats have learned the lessons of this election so they can win in ’28?

Gail: Well, if the lesson is to point out when a president’s too old, there’s certainly a whole new opportunity.

Bret: Touché. Although the problem with Trump isn’t senility. It’s … sinisterility.

Gail: We’ll be spending the next couple of years fighting Trump and giving points to the governors and legislators who are doing the best job of pushing back against his worst excesses.

Bret: Paging Ritchie Torres, Seth Moulton, John Fetterman, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and any other Democrat capable of understanding why normal, decent people still voted for Trump.

Say what? According to Stephens, some people who are "normal and decent" did in fact vote for Trump! Some normal people had decent reasons which led them to cast that vote.

We voted for Candidate Harris ourselves, but we agree with that assessment. And according to Stephens, there are at least four Democratic office holders who understand this point.

Diogenes is widely said to have looked for one honest man. In our view, we Blues should possibly make a better effort to shine some light on the reasons why some normal, decent people may have decided to vote for Trump.

In our view, the reasons go on and on and on. But so does Blue denial.

BAYOUS: Why would anyone have voted for Trump?

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2024

The possible reasons go on and on: Just for the record, the madness has always been general. The madness is bred in the bone.

We actually aren't "the rational animal"—and that's even true Over Here, within our own Blue America.

Irrational conduct belongs to us too! Such conduct has been widely observed as we Blues have tried to answer this question:

Why in the world would anyone have voted for Candidate Trump?

For the record, we ourselves didn't vote for Trump. We voted for Candidate Harris. 

A whole lot of people did vote for Trump. Here's where the total currently stands, according to The Cook Political Report:

Nationwide popular vote (to date), 2024
Candidate Trump: 76,898,763 (49.87%)
Candidate Harris: 74,391,431 (48.25%)

Eventually, the record will show that more than 77 million people voted for Candidate Trump. 

Most likely, that will be slightly less than half the electorate. But it's still a lot of people, spread across the vast expanse of the planet's fourth largest nation

A lot of people voted for Trump—but why in the world did they do that? Here's what happened when Thom Hartmann, a good, decent person, answered a version of that question on C-Span's Washington Journal.

The moderator posted a graphic. Her question then went like this:

MODERATOR (11/17/24): I'll go back to something you mentioned earlier. You mentioned that, since the 1960s, the Democrats have been the party that supports racial minorities, according to your assessment. But also, I want to look at this chart here about the distribution of white voters in particular. 

The Democrats have not won the vote among white Americans since 1964. Overwhelmingly over the years, white voters have voted Republican, and Democrats have lost support among white voters even since Barack Obama in 2008. And what do you think that means for the future of the party and the party's dynamics?

To see this full exchange, you can click this link. After that, you should skip ahead to the eight-minute mark.

That was the moderator's question. For the record, the chart showed Candidate Obama receiving 43% of the white vote in 2008, with Candidate Biden receiving 42% of the white vote in 2020.

As the chart's fine print disclosed, those numbers were estimates, based on (imprecise) exit polls. According to this year's exit polls, Candidate Harris received 41% of the white vote—and yes, allowing for possible errors in these estimates, that's a drop from the percentage Obama received in 2008.

Indeed, according to this year's exit polls, white voters favored Candidate Trump over Candidate Harris, 57%-41%. We wouldn't call that margin "overwhelming," which may not be what the moderator meant. But that's where the numbers stand, such as the numbers are.

As the Republican candidate always does, Candidate Trump did win a clear majority of the white vote this year. For the record, he also won a fair amount of non-white votes—and more than 77 million individuals voted for him nationwide.

Again, why in the world did people do that? Hartmann gave a lengthy answer to the moderator's question. Below, you see where the answer began, and you can also see where it ended:

HARTMANN (continuing directly): Well, I think what that reflects is the deep racism that is still extant among white people in America, you know. And certainly, the Trump presidency, and even his successful campaign in 2016, frankly shocked me.

[...]

I don't have an explanation beyond for this very clear racial division which has existed since 1964, beyond just the shocking reality that at least half of America, and arguably a little more than that, is just deeply racist.

Why did people vote for Candidate Trump? As you can see, Hartmann started by talking about "white America." By the end of his statement, he was talking about "at least half of America, and arguably a little more than that."

By the end of his reply, he seemed to be talking about Trump voters in general, not just those who are white. But he seemed to have only one explanation for what happened this year:

It isn't just that Trump's many voters apparently had to be racist. This candidate's voters are deeply racist, this good, decent person now said. 

He offered no other possible reason for all those millions of votes. According to Hartmann, "at least half of America, and arguably a little more than that, is just deeply racist."

Thom Hartmann's a good, decent person. Still, we'd say that his answer to that question comes to us straight outta the illogic which has always been bred in the bone. 

Also, straight outta the tribal madness which has always dogged the earth.

It comes to us from Salem Village. It comes to us from the plains outside the towering walls of Troy.  It comes to us from the place where tribal Storyline takes control and sensible assessment ends. 

In our view, it's an amazingly unintelligent statement—and we'd say a recent statement by Michael Moore is perhaps a second cousin to what Hartmann said.

Moore's statement was made in a Substack essay. When Mediaite reported Moore's statement, their report carried this headlineMichael Moore Rages at Americans For ‘Evil Deeds’ Over Trump Victory: ‘We Are NOT a Good People.’

That's how it seemed to Mediaite. Headline included, here's how Moore's essay begins

Hey, If You Can Kill 20 Million Native Americans, Enslave 12 Million Africans, and Let Biden Fund the Slaughter of 40,000 Women, Children and Elderly...

If you stop and think about it, we’ve come up with a lot of doozies in our history. Like the genocide of 20 million Native Americans. Or the enslavement of 12 million kidnapped Africans. Or us invading Vietnam and killing 4 million Asian people for no reason at all. 

We are not a good people. We have a non-stop cavalcade, a sordid laundry list of evil deeds that led us directly to last week...

Briefly, let's be fair. If you read Moore's full essay, or if you simply look at his headline, you'll see him inferentially suggesting possible reasons for Trump's win—possible reasons which go beyond the alleged "deep racism" of "at least half of America." 

For example, some voters may have been affected by the way President Biden allegedly funded the slaughter of thousands of women and children. That might have affected somebody's vote, with "deep racism" left to the side.

At any rate:

We are not a good people, Moore declared, basing his logic on events which took place when no one who voted in this election was actually alive. We Blues! We'd call that statement a logical mess, but also a political disaster—a type of political disaster we Blues sometimes seem to enjoy. 

We'd also call it profoundly unwise. But then, what else is new?

Then again, as we noted yesterday, there was Roxane Gay in last Sunday's New York Times. From the highest platform in Blue America, this is what she said:

Enough

[...]

Mr. Trump’s voters are granted a level of care and coddling that defies credulity and that is afforded to no other voting bloc. Many of them believe the most ludicrous things: babies being aborted after birth and children going to school as one gender and returning home surgically altered as another gender even though these things simply do not happen. Time and again, we hear the wild lies these voters believe and we act as if they are sharing the same reality as ours, as if they are making informed decisions about legitimate issues. We act as if they get to dictate the terms of political engagement on a foundation of fevered mendacity.

We must refuse to participate in a mass delusion. We must refuse to accept that the ignorance on display is a congenital condition rather than a choice. All of us should refuse to pretend that any of this is normal and that these voters are just woefully misunderstood and that if only the Democrats addressed their economic anxiety, they might vote differently. While they are numerous, that does not make them right.

These are adults, so let us treat them like adults. Let us acknowledge that they want to believe nonsense and conjecture. They want to believe anything that affirms their worldview. They want to celebrate a leader who allows them to nurture their basest beliefs about others. The biggest challenge of our lifetime will be figuring out how to combat the American willingness to embrace flagrant misinformation and bigotry.

Roxane Gay is a good, decent person. In her world, Trump voters can't simply be wrong in their overall assessment. They can't be wrong on balance.

In her world, Trump voters have chosen to be mistaken and wrong. Inevitably, we return to Hartmann's claim:

Those 77 million Trump voters have chosen to embrace bigotry.

Major thought leaders in Blue America reason in such sweeping ways a great deal of the time. Almost surely, these familiar screeds help explain why some people voted for Trump.

Why did people vote for Candidate Trump? We voted for Candidate Harris ourselves, but the reasons which cut the other way go on and on and on and on, and then they continue from there.

Quite routinely, we Blues seem unable to grasp this fact. That says something very important about Us.

Why did people vote for Trump? Exactly as it ever was, the Others are evil—we aren't!

Tomorrow: Why might people have voted for Trump? A return to our starter list


Professional wrestlers and D-list comedians...

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2024

...and hints of Caligula's horse: It's hard to get one's head around the inanity and the moral squalor surrounding the culture today.

It's true—Greg Gutfeld is still working his primetime beat on the Fox News Channel. That said, it isn't entirely clear what century this strange man thinks he's in.

Last night, he opened his program with a series of six (6!) jokes about (imagined) sexual misconduct by—who else?—Bill Clinton. 

These priapic politicians today! There was no mention of Matt Gaetz or of Pete Hegseth. Gutfeld was entertaining the rubes with the greatest hits from the long-ago 1990s.

Question: 

Has this 60-year-old termagant ever done a joke which turns on the sexual (mis)conduct of a fellow named Donald J. Trump? We can't say that he ever has! These are the wages of human inanity, but also of the modern "journalistic" practice known as "segregation by viewpoint."

As always, Gutfeld opened with a few minutes of jokes. After that, he delivered his opening issue-based monologue. 

Last night, the handful of opening jokes was finished at 10:02. His monologue dealt with the horrific defeat the Democrats suffered this month. 

Inevitably, this was the very first statement of his issue-based discussion:

GUTFELD (11/19/24): It's been fourteen days since the Democrats had to face the truth—they stink worse than the Capitol's men's room after Jerry Nadler's lunch of curry clam soup.

AUDIENCE: Whooaaa!

The misogyny and the fat jokes never stop on this primetime "cable news" program. On many nights, body parts and bodily waste will seem to be all this little guy knows.

Largely as a matter of choice, this seems to be all this idiot has. At some point, we'll make ourselves go into more detail, but we hope you'll excuse us today.

For the record, Gutfeld's squalor-based inanity has been a very big seller on the Fox News Channel. What Trump is currently doing may turn out to be much more consequential, but it's all a part of the cultural inanity which has been gripping our failing society for the past quite a few years.

Trump may end up as a Caligula—but with the New York Times averting its gaze, people like Gutfeld have spent years showing the way.

This idiocy goes on every night. Along with everyone else in Blue America, the Times keeps averting its gaze.

Full disclosure: The Internet Archive hasn't returned to full, round-the-clock taping of "cable news" programs.  For that reason, we can't link you to last night's Gutfeld! show.

BAYOUS: Blue observers, we must heal ourselves!

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2024

The disorder is also in Us: This morning, Ed Luce takes his place on the pile.

There he is, in the Financial Times, beating up on a famous madman and on the horse he rode out on. His column begins as shown:

Trump’s demolition of the US state

It is time to study Caligula. That most notorious of Roman emperors killed what was left of the republic and centralised authority in himself. Donald Trump does not need to make his horse a senator; it will be enough to keep appointing charlatans to America’s great offices of state.

Rome was not destroyed by outsiders. Its demolition was the work of barbarians from within.

The question of whether Trump consciously wants to destroy the US federal government is irrelevant. You measure a leader by his actions not by his heart. To judge from what Trump has done within a fortnight of winning the presidency, his path is destruction.

Other than a handful of moderate Republican senators, who may or may not have the guts to reject some of his nominees, there is little standing in his way.

As is often done, Luce says "senator" instead of "consul" when he discusses the horse, but the point he makes is the same. As he continues, he compares a string of Trump's recent nominees—specifically, Hegseth and Gaetz and Gabbard and Kennedy—to the Roman emperor's favorite extremely fast steed.

Along the way, he even trashes Musk and Ramaswamy, the crackpot co-heads of the new alleged strongman's Department of Government Efficiency. After that, he returns to the horse:

DOGE will be the advisory equivalent of X, Musk’s social media platform, which is algorithmically rigged to churn out disinformation.

Serious paring of US bureaucracy requires knowledge of what it is for. Musk and Ramaswamy routinely betray sweeping ignorance of their subject matter.

Americans might come to wish that Trump had nominated a horse to head the US Department of Health and Human Services. Instead, he has chosen Robert F Kennedy jnr, whose goal is to reverse the public science of the past couple of centuries.

So it goes, as an ancient Roman madman returns to the scene of the discourse.

Will the new version of President Trump turn out to be Caligula all over again? At this point, we can't necessarily tell you that, but we can't say that he won't.

Below, we'll offer praise for our own work–but first, we'll remind you of something we noted in Monday's report:

When the leading authority thumbnails Caligula, a banished word quickly appears:

Caligula

Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (31 August 12 – 24 January 41), better known by his nickname Caligula, was Roman emperor from AD 37 until his assassination in AD 41. He was the son of the Roman general Germanicus and Augustus' granddaughter Agrippina the Elder, members of the first ruling family of the Roman Empire. He was born two years before Tiberius was made emperor. Gaius accompanied his father, mother and siblings on campaign in Germania, at little more than four or five years old. He had been named after Gaius Julius Caesar, but his father's soldiers affectionately nicknamed him "Caligula" ("Little boot").

Germanicus died in Antioch in 19, and Agrippina returned with her six children to Rome, where she became entangled in a bitter feud with Emperor Tiberius, who was Germanicus' biological uncle and adoptive father. The conflict eventually led to the destruction of her family, with Caligula as the sole male survivor. In 26, Tiberius withdrew from public life to the island of Capri, and in 31, Caligula joined him there. Tiberius died in 37 and Caligula succeeded him as emperor, at the age of 24.

Of the few surviving sources about Caligula and his four-year reign, most were written by members of the nobility and senate, long after the events they purport to describe. For the early part of his reign, he is said to have been "good, generous, fair and community-spirited" but increasingly self-indulgent, cruel, sadistic, extravagant and sexually perverted thereafter; an insane, murderous tyrant who demanded and received worship as a living god, humiliated his Senate, and planned to make his horse a consul...

The horse appears in paragraph 3, but so does the banished word.

Did Caligula actually plan to make his horse a consul? As the lengthy profile continues, we're told that it's quite possible that he didn't. 

That said, we highlight the key word "insane." We're not experts on the history, but that passage, and what follows, suggests that a certain concept was already part of human discourse when the earliest pseudo-histories of Caligula appeared.

Was the emperor Caligula some version of "insane?" We can't answer your question, but we'll once again tell you this:

Under modern rules of the road, such questions can't even be asked about our flailing nation's incoming possible strongman. Within the upper-end American press, everyone except George Conway has signed on to a basic group agreement:

Issues of  medical / mental / psychological / psychiatric disorder must be disappeared in the case of our own "living God."

This agreement is widespread within our own Blue America. We offer that as a possible hint at a wider problem—a wider problem which we denizens of Blue America may not be able to see.

Is our society coming undone, as once happened with Rome? Everything is possible! To our credit, we were the first to float such a possibility—and we did it more than a decade ago, well before the Age of Trump, when we started recalling this murky prophecy by a long-forgotten star of the Blue American 1960s, the classicist Norman O. Brown:

BROWN (5/31/60): I sometimes think I see that societies originate in the discovery of some secret, some mystery; and expand with the progressive publication of their secret; and end in exhaustion when there is no longer any secret, when the mystery has been divulged, that is to say profaned...

And so there comes a time—I believe we are in such a time—when civilization has to be renewed by the discovery of some new mysteries, by the undemocratic but sovereign power of the imagination, by the undemocratic power which makes poets the unacknowledged legislators of all mankind, the power which makes all things new.

Professor Brown came to very hot in the 1960s, but what in the world was he talking about when he made that murky statement as part of this Phi Beta Kappa address?

All in all, we have no clear idea. Nor do we have any idea why that statement began to float up into our head more than a decade ago, when we started posting it as part in the work of this helpful site.

Initially, we believe we assumed that the murky statement must have come from one of the books which made Brown so hot, back when Vietnam was still raging. At the time, we read or attempted to read those books, just like everyone else. The books in question are these:

The books which made Brown hot:
Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press (1959). 
Love's Body. New York: Random House (1966).

We read those books back in the day, just like everyone did. We have no idea how that obscure formulation from that obscure Phi Beta Kappa address ever made its way into our head.

We'll guess that the gods must have placed it there! At any rate, there was Professor Brown, suggesting that our own society had begun a process which he said would have it "ending in exhaustion." 

Today, a possible modern Caligula is possibly trying to put a team of steeds in power. As he does, those of us in Blue America—the former "elf" Conway excepted—have agreed to accept a rule which forbids us from discussing the possible source of this conduct.

(Not that it would likely help if we did conduct that discussion.)

Those of us in Blue America have long been self-assured. Dating back to those same 1960s, we Blues have been certain that we're the smart and honest and principled ones, and that The Others just aren't. 

(As happenstance had it, we were physically present when this unhelpful attitude began displaying itself.)

We Blues! We've signaled this belief a thousand different ways. We've rarely noticed this behavior.

Over there, The Others have. 

We've long been sure that we're the smart / good / insightful ones, and that The Others just aren't. Half of them have been said to be deplorable, irredeemable. In October, our own tribe's sitting president almost seemed to say that all of The Others are "garbage."

(That may not be what the gentleman meant. On its face, it sounded like what he had said.)

As noted, we Blues are vaccinated against seeing such things. As an example of what we mean, we'll cite the recent portrait of The Others—that is to say, of "Mr. Trump's voters"—which appears below, one-word headline included.

This portrait was written by a good, decent person. Her lengthy essay appeared in print editions of this past Sunday's New York Times:

Enough

[...]

Mr. Trump’s voters are granted a level of care and coddling that defies credulity and that is afforded to no other voting bloc. Many of them believe the most ludicrous things: babies being aborted after birth and children going to school as one gender and returning home surgically altered as another gender even though these things simply do not happen. Time and again, we hear the wild lies these voters believe and we act as if they are sharing the same reality as ours, as if they are making informed decisions about legitimate issues. We act as if they get to dictate the terms of political engagement on a foundation of fevered mendacity.

We must refuse to participate in a mass delusion. We must refuse to accept that the ignorance on display is a congenital condition rather than a choice. All of us should refuse to pretend that any of this is normal and that these voters are just woefully misunderstood and that if only the Democrats addressed their economic anxiety, they might vote differently. While they are numerous, that does not make them right.

These are adults, so let us treat them like adults. Let us acknowledge that they want to believe nonsense and conjecture. They want to believe anything that affirms their worldview. They want to celebrate a leader who allows them to nurture their basest beliefs about others. The biggest challenge of our lifetime will be figuring out how to combat the American willingness to embrace flagrant misinformation and bigotry.

The Others don't "share the same reality as ours." Also, it seems that The Others are all just alike—all 76.6 million of them (and counting).

We Blues! We're very dumb about these things—and given the way our species is built, we're rarely able to see this fact about ourselves.

We voted for Candidate Harris ourselves. Something like 77 million people voted for Candidate Trump.

There's a very long list of reasons why someone may have made that decision. The author of that essay in Blue America's leading newspaper seems to be completely unable to come to terms with that fact.

We started to list some possible reasons last week, working from a statement on Washington Week by the strongly anti-Trump Tim Alberta. In the days and weeks ahead, we'll be adding to that list.

In truth, the list goes on and on and on. After that, it goes on some more.

We voted for Candidate Harris ourselves. But that list is actually real, and the essay in the New York times is itself a work of tribal "delusion."

According to Luce, Rome was destroyed by the work of insiders—more specifically, by the lunatic conduct of a certain mad emperor.

According to Luce, the same thing may be happening here. We can't flatly say that's wrong, but tribal delusion is bred in the bone and the syndrome can even be found Over Here.