Thanks, Jim, for a sprinkle of sanity on the current state of affairs. I was encouraged by the Iowa poll as well as a report on “Fresh Air”, in which a reporter discussed voting with women whose partners were diehard Trump supporters. Each woman explained the subterfuge with which they felt with their decision to vote for Kamala Harris. Taken together, they lend color to the theory of the shy Democratic voter among women voters, and this makes me somewhat optimistic about the outcome. Meanwhile, fingers crossed!
Bruce, thanks. This is so agonizing at the moment because really no one can be *sure* of how things will look a day from now, or a month, or on January 20.
But if things break in KH's favor, early in a clear way or narrowly, after a long struggle, the female voters of America will be the ones who have saved us. And if things break the other way, the women would have done their best. And many of us will need to recalculate many aspects of our beliefs and plans!
Although time spent reading everything here beats scrolling on social media, and I so appreciate that it's conversation with you, Jim, who are tops for conversing with, I may have missed something like what I'm going to say to contribute a different idea here.
Just hold in mind that if Trump gets into office it could be what saves humanity. So far, none of the ways that this unfair world acts out, that you'd think we would have dealt with -- Trump being case in point -- has gotten us past where half our population is misguided and our world is running on what's unsustainable. Apocalypse ahead unless we deal NOW with all that is threatening us -- global warming, nukes, oligarchy, more. It’s precarious. Humanity could go back to the Stone Age.
If Kamala gets in, that will not be dealt with. If Trump gets in, I'd say it's certain that we finally will be freaked out enough to unite to create the system change which is what will save us. We are that far gone, in the power structure's tight grip, that it could take that unthinkable thing, so hold to a ray of hope that's in an otherwise devastating possible eventuality.
J Ann Selzer's polling history is exemplary. Her Des Moines poll has Harris up 3% in IA. She has explained her methodology as exclusively forward looking with strict criteria for identifying likely voters. Her polls are less likely to suffer model error than most polls that depend to some greater or lesser extent on past performance. In a unique election it's risky to assume demographic groups will perform today based on how they performed in the past. Could be wrong but I remain convinced that Harris is under polling perhaps by 3-4-5%. I see the IA poll as supporting my opinion.
I have followed Selzer's polls over the years and know her reputation and accuracy. I will be surprised if KH ended up actually carrying Iowa. But the fact that's being reported as close has obvious implications for the neighboring states in general and for what the polling may have been systematically missing this year.
I'm the antithesis of a New Ager but...things have been going wrong for my current work as a potter as I prepare for a big show (distributor out of my favorite clay, kiln broke down, kiln fixed but more issues). All the things that can go wrong in this world went wrong. But then I got up this morning and opened the kiln not sure what I would find. It was perfect: every piece came out the way I had hoped for. The problems were fixed! I looked out the window of my studio as it became light out and saw my petunias had made it through another night despite there being snow on the hills a few miles to the west. The world looked beautiful. My email had a message saying my vote had been received and accepted. I feel like there is hope today.
As always, Jim, good job both in this instance and for the accumulated endeavor that will surely continue in the weeks that follow. Thank you... and ditto to all the other commentators here for insightful observations based on life experiences and pithy perspectives...
That said, I'm increasingly convinced that this election and what follows is not about "the Constitution" or "Democracy" but rather about something more profound about the insanity of modern society as deliberately embraced by too many of our fellow citizens and as imposed on the rest of us as a default being cultivated by demagogues and monied interests with unapologetic and irresponsible influence on much of the mass media that is slowly but surely being subsumed by so-called "social media".
Have you ever seen the boxing matches where the combatants play chess at the same time? I'm increasingly drawn to this image in the sense that the entertainment of "professional wrestling" and the raw brutality of MMA have merged with public discourse and debate that is inherent in politics to create a monster that is self-perpetuating while decadent and destructive... and yes, it is sometimes an incredulous hoot to watch and perhaps that's it's secret sauce.
I have also been thinking of the old Texan trope from before the Southern Strategy kicked in about voting for a yellow dog rather than for a Republican. I suppose we could simply say the same thing about the GOP's attachment to an Orange Clown, but that would be an insult to professional circus performers.
For what it's worth, I am actually confident that Harris/Walz will be in the White House when we reach Groundhog Day in February 2025, but I'm not confident enough will have been learned from the other political outcomes in the Congress, State Houses and their Governors, and even in local school boards and city councils to have us "wake up" to a truly new beginning in the months and years that follow...
Ed, thank you. Yes, we lived in Texas in the late days of the "Yellow Dog Democrat" era. And, you're right, that would be replaced by "Orange Man Republican." (Or Orange Clown, or whatever.)
The battle will continue. But let's hope the engagements immediately before us — tomorrow! — will be and advance rather than a retreat or loss. Get out the vote!
PS: ... and yes, the challenges have always been there and the tumult has been worse at times, but is it inaccurate to say that the nature of regional, ideological and generational contestation has become harder and harder to differentiate into distinct categories of disagreement and debate that can each be considered on their merits.
tRump make me think about the campaign joke about Goldwater in '64 (the response to "in your heart you know he's right") in your guts you know he's nuts. My guess is that in event tRump is elected with GOPee majorities in Congress, he will either resign mid-term or be forced out under the 25th amendment and Vance will be president. Vance, of course, is tRump without the entertainment value.
I think if Trump were elected and sworn in, a Vance/Thiel/Musk-powered GOP would be moving him out within a year. As noted, I Am Not A Doctor. But his cognitive collapse seems *so* dramatic and sudden that I think it would trigger action before the mid-terms.
As you note, the most striking thing about Tim Alberta's excellent article is the number of people clearly within the Trump campaign orbit who are willing to spill the beans to Alberta, so close to the election itself.
This leads to one of two conclusions: 1. These people have seen Trump up close and personal and are truly scared for the country if he becomes president again. The leaking is a form of expiation for their cynical sins of helping to put Trump back into the White House or perhaps a covert form of sabotage to ensure that he doesn't emerge victorious?
2. The other alternative: Take a look at the background of J.D. Vance. He's a long-time protege of Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. It's no coincidence that Musk's involvement in the Trump campaign intensified once Vance got the Veep nomination. Vance is in effect the Manchurian Candidate for these guys. So the goal is to use Trump's popularity with the MAGA base to engineer his victory and then let Trump self-destruct, have Congress invoke the 25th Amendment and, lo and behold, we have a Vance presidency (which is a de facto Thiel/Musk presidency, that neither could achieve directly because neither are American born).
Perhaps the two scenarios are not mutually exclusive? In any case, my interpretation might sound pretty Machiavellian, but the more I ponder it, the more plausible I think it is (particularly scenario 2)
I have mulled about this a lot. And between the two, I unfortunately think #2 is more plausible.
And there's a midway possibility #1.5: They think it's a sinking ship, and they want to make sure their rivals/enemies take the blame. I'd put my money on a combination of 1.5 and 2.
Thanks for your work!! You've helped maintain my sanity this year!❣️
Lucian Truscott had an interesting piece last evening regarding Halloween and interstate and state roads. One great take away: the need for experience, organization, planning, expertise to work in Government! No body can realistically foresee ANY of those attributes in a 2nd tRump "administration". 🙏🙏🙏💙💙💙🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
Last night my partner swapped out the flag he bought for his post-menopausal cat lady (https://bit.ly/3C9SD4R) for the VOTE flag. On Wednesday it will be replaced by the rainbow colored PEACE flag.
Thanks for the great Tina Turner clip. In addition to the 1939 Nazi event, another precedent for Trump's clown show in MSG was George Wallace's 1968 rally there:
So, Bill Bradley was probably my favorite politician growing up and, yes, I would be happy if a newly elected Kamala Harris would invite him to sit in on some cabinet meetings or "bipartisan" panel opportunities in the near future. (Politics is the art of compromise.) But I also would love it if the entire American news media had a lobotomy and began to frame all its political stories in some kind of win-win or abundance mentality frame. I mean, why not, what have they got to lose (Like a Rolling Stone - Bob Dylan)? Because the win-lose and scarcity frame that they often use now is just playing into America's lowest common denominator which another Trump will come along soon to relentlessly exploit once again "But this was just a dream; try, cry, fly, try" (Losing My Religion, REM).
Big fan of Bill Bradley as well. When Deb and I were living in Seattle during the 2000 election cycle, we went to see a rally he had there, in his (doomed) primary run against Al Gore.
Who knows whether Bradley would have been stronger against GWB that year. I think we *do* know that Bob Graham would have been a miles better VP choice than Joe Lieberman, starting with the difference he could have made in Florida.
Jim, I subscribed specifically for your election coverage in the past year because I knew it would help me retain my sanity and hope even in the craziest, darkest moments. And—naturally—you have delivered (and then some). Thank you, Mr Fallows!
It helps, too, to read of the thoughts and actions of so many like-minded US citizens, from whom I get an increasing sense that, whatever comes next, they represent the majority in America—honest, decent, compassionate people. All this leads me here: if Harris isn't inaugurated as the next POTUS, it won't be because the other guy won it—it'll be because the guardrails of US democracy failed. This is the focus now, and for all our sakes, let's pray those guardrails hold. Vigilance aforethought.
And I'm thinking of the parallel predictions that James Carville (D) and Stuart Stevens (R) made last week. They both argued that *enough* people would be disgusted by Trump to make the difference, in a wall the polls may have missed.
As someone remarked recently, and it's entirely true: Guardrails are people. Any norm needs to be respected/enforced, any institution acts (or doesn't) through its leadership and staff.
It's very disappointing to see sober-minded James Fallows of all people buying the idea that Trump was simulating a sex act with a microphone. Certainly, Trump is worse than inappropriate *all the time*. But this interpretation is nonsense.
Trump is performing a comedy routine. The act is, "I'm letting you in on some behind the scenes info," with pantomime. The backbone of his schtick is breaking the fourth wall like politicians seldom do. (Jerry Brown did this too, but with serious policy as his foremost purpose.)
Gary Marcus, The Daily Beast, and others interpret one two-second segment of this as fondling the mic. But watch the entire segment in detail. It is no such thing. He is miming his attempt to adjust and then speak into a mic that is too low. Watch the clip 20 seconds later. He strikes the same pose while again acting out the mic check:
"...then I walk in like this and I'm bending. Did you notice? I was bending over like this. 'Hello?'" And then everybody says, is there something wrong with his back?..."
Then literally 20 seconds later, he says (gesturing to one part of the crowd) "I'm going to give you a free performance back in that corner, you got a bad area back there." "performance," he says candidly. That's what the crowd is there for, and that's what he delivers. Policy? Boring!
Because Trump is an entertainer. He honed his chops with World Wide Wrestling, which turns transgression into a fine art. He may be aging and tired and sloppy of mind, but "disinhibition' is his brand.
None of this is to defend Trump's politics, policies, knowledge, judgment, values, or any of the other qualifications for president. Every one of Mr. Fallows' criticisms of Donald Trump as political leader and Trumpism as a political phenomenon is absolutely correct.
But it is equally important to defend common sense, and sanity, and to avoid the traps of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Sometimes a mic is just a mic.
We all make our own judgments about this. You'll note the care with which I described it: "obscene gesture," "instantly notorious," "lewdly caressing."
I did watch the whole thing in context — that is why I provided the link to the full four-minute video. To me, based on everything I have seen over the decades, it was intentionally lewd.
People's judgments will differ. I'm telling you what I saw. (And what a woman I showed it to, outside my household, unprompted said is what she saw as well.) I respect your judgment in seeing it differently.
Are you familiar with the concept of a visual pun? Very common move wherein doing one thing becomes doing, or suggesting something else. What matters on that little performance, which begins as a story of a microphone, which as Trump would have known from Studio 54 back in the day has all sorts of uses), but the shape of his mouth as he bobs his head says something else.
Does it surprise me that he'd do that? For many reasons no. Both because it's a recognizable humor from his place and time and because he has become remarkably disinhibited.
As noted above, that is what I thought too. Based on my experience as a male American for many decades, and my observation of Trump in more recent years.
That you express in-the-end optimism - given that I have such respect for your judgement in these sorts of matters - is indeed heartening. I'll carry that around as much as needed over the coming days and weeks.
It's impossible to predict the results of the election, of course. But there are just two end states of any likelihood: either Kamala wins, or Donald wins. And I think we can guess a little about what'll happen on each tine of that fork. IMO, anyway.
If Kamala wins, we'll still have a deeply divided nation, but the divider-in-chief will probably lose his mojo, because it's a given that he doesn't have another campaign in him. And he's losing his marbles.
So there's some hope that the divisiveness that's characterized public discourse might recede over time, and we can move on to some new public crisis. It'll be turbulent, but likely more so than the past eight years.
If Donald wins, we enter a period of unprecedented chaos, as there'll be a struggle between the most extreme elements of Trump-world and everyone else. Will the US leave NATO? Will we jettison Ukraine? Will we defund vaccines? Will we attempt to deport millions of foreign-born residents, legal and/or illegal? To what extent will the Justice Department pursue Donald's antagonists? To what extent will the Civil Service become a patronage vehicle, and critical skills depart government employ?
And so forth. Some of Donald's worst ideas are wildly impractical, but that doesn't mean there won't be protracted agonizing over them. And then - how fast will Donald's cognitive decline proceed? Because I agree, that's a theme that's going to proceed from the highly partisan topic that it is today to highly consequential in governance terms. How does that play out? How far down the sewer does JD follow him? His sole political instinct seems to be amplify and rationalize whatever Donald says. So how does he separate himself from Donald enough that he carries over any credibility into his own administration? And at what rate does MAGA-world splinter, implode, or produce a super-nova, and what are the consequences of that?
If this were a TV drama, a la "The Diplomat", it would be riveting and highly entertaining. But we're stakeholders, so it's terrifying.
Well put. Disruption and uncertainty in either case. But with Plan A, leading to KH in control, the US will (I expect) have to deal with "normal" range tensions and disruptions. With Plan B, it's beyond anyone's ability to foresee or control.
I am not going to make a prediction, but I share the optimism generally expressed here (which is odd because I am expert in finding the clouds within silver linings). I get the impression that beyond the core MAGA adherents, the squishy Republicans and the independents who want to be forever courted (even though they are just in reality squishy Republicans who do not want to own up to the worst traits of Republican politics and policy), are being pragmatic. They see that Trump is in decline and they know that he is increasingly unpredictable. And no one likes Vance. So they seem to be lining up to vote for the new devil they have come to know. And I don't blame them. Do we have any legal structures in place to deal with a president-elect who goes bonkers between Election Day and Inauguration Day? It wouldn't be the 25th amendment before inauguration. I hope we don't need to extemporize on that one.
Trump will declare victory on Tuesday no matter the vote count. And if that totally misfocused NYT article is any guide, the legacy media will be in full "opinions differ on whether the world is flat" mode. Damn it.
Hooray for California! Tempted to part with $5, even if it will only serve my confirmation bias.
If things should "break" in Trump's direction, then "what to do about a demented president-elect," as you spell out, will be the least of our problems. God save us.
Or more appropriately, before that, let American women save us. I hope (and have begun daring to expect) that is what is in store.
Thanks, Jim, for a sprinkle of sanity on the current state of affairs. I was encouraged by the Iowa poll as well as a report on “Fresh Air”, in which a reporter discussed voting with women whose partners were diehard Trump supporters. Each woman explained the subterfuge with which they felt with their decision to vote for Kamala Harris. Taken together, they lend color to the theory of the shy Democratic voter among women voters, and this makes me somewhat optimistic about the outcome. Meanwhile, fingers crossed!
Bruce, thanks. This is so agonizing at the moment because really no one can be *sure* of how things will look a day from now, or a month, or on January 20.
But if things break in KH's favor, early in a clear way or narrowly, after a long struggle, the female voters of America will be the ones who have saved us. And if things break the other way, the women would have done their best. And many of us will need to recalculate many aspects of our beliefs and plans!
Although time spent reading everything here beats scrolling on social media, and I so appreciate that it's conversation with you, Jim, who are tops for conversing with, I may have missed something like what I'm going to say to contribute a different idea here.
Just hold in mind that if Trump gets into office it could be what saves humanity. So far, none of the ways that this unfair world acts out, that you'd think we would have dealt with -- Trump being case in point -- has gotten us past where half our population is misguided and our world is running on what's unsustainable. Apocalypse ahead unless we deal NOW with all that is threatening us -- global warming, nukes, oligarchy, more. It’s precarious. Humanity could go back to the Stone Age.
If Kamala gets in, that will not be dealt with. If Trump gets in, I'd say it's certain that we finally will be freaked out enough to unite to create the system change which is what will save us. We are that far gone, in the power structure's tight grip, that it could take that unthinkable thing, so hold to a ray of hope that's in an otherwise devastating possible eventuality.
Thanks. I understand the argument but personally am not able to see *any* silver lining in Trump getting through.
Let us hope that remains a theoretical possibility, and attention can turn to the crucial issues you correctly raise.
J Ann Selzer's polling history is exemplary. Her Des Moines poll has Harris up 3% in IA. She has explained her methodology as exclusively forward looking with strict criteria for identifying likely voters. Her polls are less likely to suffer model error than most polls that depend to some greater or lesser extent on past performance. In a unique election it's risky to assume demographic groups will perform today based on how they performed in the past. Could be wrong but I remain convinced that Harris is under polling perhaps by 3-4-5%. I see the IA poll as supporting my opinion.
I have followed Selzer's polls over the years and know her reputation and accuracy. I will be surprised if KH ended up actually carrying Iowa. But the fact that's being reported as close has obvious implications for the neighboring states in general and for what the polling may have been systematically missing this year.
And then they voted. Very depressing. I fear for the country.
I'm the antithesis of a New Ager but...things have been going wrong for my current work as a potter as I prepare for a big show (distributor out of my favorite clay, kiln broke down, kiln fixed but more issues). All the things that can go wrong in this world went wrong. But then I got up this morning and opened the kiln not sure what I would find. It was perfect: every piece came out the way I had hoped for. The problems were fixed! I looked out the window of my studio as it became light out and saw my petunias had made it through another night despite there being snow on the hills a few miles to the west. The world looked beautiful. My email had a message saying my vote had been received and accepted. I feel like there is hope today.
Wonderful!
Thank you, James Fallows. Breaking the News has been one of my anchors this year. You provide a service of immeasurable importance.
Thank you; I am grateful for your attention and support.
As always, Jim, good job both in this instance and for the accumulated endeavor that will surely continue in the weeks that follow. Thank you... and ditto to all the other commentators here for insightful observations based on life experiences and pithy perspectives...
That said, I'm increasingly convinced that this election and what follows is not about "the Constitution" or "Democracy" but rather about something more profound about the insanity of modern society as deliberately embraced by too many of our fellow citizens and as imposed on the rest of us as a default being cultivated by demagogues and monied interests with unapologetic and irresponsible influence on much of the mass media that is slowly but surely being subsumed by so-called "social media".
Have you ever seen the boxing matches where the combatants play chess at the same time? I'm increasingly drawn to this image in the sense that the entertainment of "professional wrestling" and the raw brutality of MMA have merged with public discourse and debate that is inherent in politics to create a monster that is self-perpetuating while decadent and destructive... and yes, it is sometimes an incredulous hoot to watch and perhaps that's it's secret sauce.
I have also been thinking of the old Texan trope from before the Southern Strategy kicked in about voting for a yellow dog rather than for a Republican. I suppose we could simply say the same thing about the GOP's attachment to an Orange Clown, but that would be an insult to professional circus performers.
For what it's worth, I am actually confident that Harris/Walz will be in the White House when we reach Groundhog Day in February 2025, but I'm not confident enough will have been learned from the other political outcomes in the Congress, State Houses and their Governors, and even in local school boards and city councils to have us "wake up" to a truly new beginning in the months and years that follow...
Ed, thank you. Yes, we lived in Texas in the late days of the "Yellow Dog Democrat" era. And, you're right, that would be replaced by "Orange Man Republican." (Or Orange Clown, or whatever.)
The battle will continue. But let's hope the engagements immediately before us — tomorrow! — will be and advance rather than a retreat or loss. Get out the vote!
PS: ... and yes, the challenges have always been there and the tumult has been worse at times, but is it inaccurate to say that the nature of regional, ideological and generational contestation has become harder and harder to differentiate into distinct categories of disagreement and debate that can each be considered on their merits.
tRump make me think about the campaign joke about Goldwater in '64 (the response to "in your heart you know he's right") in your guts you know he's nuts. My guess is that in event tRump is elected with GOPee majorities in Congress, he will either resign mid-term or be forced out under the 25th amendment and Vance will be president. Vance, of course, is tRump without the entertainment value.
Anywho, let's GOTV and elect Harris.
I think if Trump were elected and sworn in, a Vance/Thiel/Musk-powered GOP would be moving him out within a year. As noted, I Am Not A Doctor. But his cognitive collapse seems *so* dramatic and sudden that I think it would trigger action before the mid-terms.
Would there be mid-terms? Or emergencies preventing a vote just now? Ghetto riots? A burning Reichstag?
As you note, the most striking thing about Tim Alberta's excellent article is the number of people clearly within the Trump campaign orbit who are willing to spill the beans to Alberta, so close to the election itself.
This leads to one of two conclusions: 1. These people have seen Trump up close and personal and are truly scared for the country if he becomes president again. The leaking is a form of expiation for their cynical sins of helping to put Trump back into the White House or perhaps a covert form of sabotage to ensure that he doesn't emerge victorious?
2. The other alternative: Take a look at the background of J.D. Vance. He's a long-time protege of Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. It's no coincidence that Musk's involvement in the Trump campaign intensified once Vance got the Veep nomination. Vance is in effect the Manchurian Candidate for these guys. So the goal is to use Trump's popularity with the MAGA base to engineer his victory and then let Trump self-destruct, have Congress invoke the 25th Amendment and, lo and behold, we have a Vance presidency (which is a de facto Thiel/Musk presidency, that neither could achieve directly because neither are American born).
Perhaps the two scenarios are not mutually exclusive? In any case, my interpretation might sound pretty Machiavellian, but the more I ponder it, the more plausible I think it is (particularly scenario 2)
Marshall, thanks.
I have mulled about this a lot. And between the two, I unfortunately think #2 is more plausible.
And there's a midway possibility #1.5: They think it's a sinking ship, and they want to make sure their rivals/enemies take the blame. I'd put my money on a combination of 1.5 and 2.
Thanks for your work!! You've helped maintain my sanity this year!❣️
Lucian Truscott had an interesting piece last evening regarding Halloween and interstate and state roads. One great take away: the need for experience, organization, planning, expertise to work in Government! No body can realistically foresee ANY of those attributes in a 2nd tRump "administration". 🙏🙏🙏💙💙💙🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
Appreciate it, thanks.
Last night my partner swapped out the flag he bought for his post-menopausal cat lady (https://bit.ly/3C9SD4R) for the VOTE flag. On Wednesday it will be replaced by the rainbow colored PEACE flag.
Buckle up.
Nice.
Trump was channeling Tina Turner from the 1969 Stones tour Madison Square Garden date.
I'm sure Trump was there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP9NoivOcpI
I did not know that clip. Whoa!
(But I did see the Rolling Stones at what was, improbably, their first US appearance — in San Bernardino CA!)
Actually, "Route 66" has an even finer pedigree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nuDE1SJlPo
"Get your kicks, on Route 66." - Chuck Berry
Thanks for the great Tina Turner clip. In addition to the 1939 Nazi event, another precedent for Trump's clown show in MSG was George Wallace's 1968 rally there:
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-puerto-rico-george-wallace-racist-hate-madison-square-garden-rcna177637
Wallace was indeed a precursor for Trump in style and rhetoric (and in being shot at). Here's an illustrative 2:47 video about how Wallace confronted protesters, eerily similar to the way Trump does it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=247iW_J_mb4&ab_channel=TheArtofAlabamaPolitics
So, Bill Bradley was probably my favorite politician growing up and, yes, I would be happy if a newly elected Kamala Harris would invite him to sit in on some cabinet meetings or "bipartisan" panel opportunities in the near future. (Politics is the art of compromise.) But I also would love it if the entire American news media had a lobotomy and began to frame all its political stories in some kind of win-win or abundance mentality frame. I mean, why not, what have they got to lose (Like a Rolling Stone - Bob Dylan)? Because the win-lose and scarcity frame that they often use now is just playing into America's lowest common denominator which another Trump will come along soon to relentlessly exploit once again "But this was just a dream; try, cry, fly, try" (Losing My Religion, REM).
Excellent point re the media.
Big fan of Bill Bradley as well. When Deb and I were living in Seattle during the 2000 election cycle, we went to see a rally he had there, in his (doomed) primary run against Al Gore.
Who knows whether Bradley would have been stronger against GWB that year. I think we *do* know that Bob Graham would have been a miles better VP choice than Joe Lieberman, starting with the difference he could have made in Florida.
Jim, I subscribed specifically for your election coverage in the past year because I knew it would help me retain my sanity and hope even in the craziest, darkest moments. And—naturally—you have delivered (and then some). Thank you, Mr Fallows!
It helps, too, to read of the thoughts and actions of so many like-minded US citizens, from whom I get an increasing sense that, whatever comes next, they represent the majority in America—honest, decent, compassionate people. All this leads me here: if Harris isn't inaugurated as the next POTUS, it won't be because the other guy won it—it'll be because the guardrails of US democracy failed. This is the focus now, and for all our sakes, let's pray those guardrails hold. Vigilance aforethought.
Well put.
And I'm thinking of the parallel predictions that James Carville (D) and Stuart Stevens (R) made last week. They both argued that *enough* people would be disgusted by Trump to make the difference, in a wall the polls may have missed.
We'll see.
And thanks for your attention and support.
As someone remarked recently, and it's entirely true: Guardrails are people. Any norm needs to be respected/enforced, any institution acts (or doesn't) through its leadership and staff.
It's very disappointing to see sober-minded James Fallows of all people buying the idea that Trump was simulating a sex act with a microphone. Certainly, Trump is worse than inappropriate *all the time*. But this interpretation is nonsense.
Trump is performing a comedy routine. The act is, "I'm letting you in on some behind the scenes info," with pantomime. The backbone of his schtick is breaking the fourth wall like politicians seldom do. (Jerry Brown did this too, but with serious policy as his foremost purpose.)
Gary Marcus, The Daily Beast, and others interpret one two-second segment of this as fondling the mic. But watch the entire segment in detail. It is no such thing. He is miming his attempt to adjust and then speak into a mic that is too low. Watch the clip 20 seconds later. He strikes the same pose while again acting out the mic check:
"...then I walk in like this and I'm bending. Did you notice? I was bending over like this. 'Hello?'" And then everybody says, is there something wrong with his back?..."
Then literally 20 seconds later, he says (gesturing to one part of the crowd) "I'm going to give you a free performance back in that corner, you got a bad area back there." "performance," he says candidly. That's what the crowd is there for, and that's what he delivers. Policy? Boring!
Because Trump is an entertainer. He honed his chops with World Wide Wrestling, which turns transgression into a fine art. He may be aging and tired and sloppy of mind, but "disinhibition' is his brand.
None of this is to defend Trump's politics, policies, knowledge, judgment, values, or any of the other qualifications for president. Every one of Mr. Fallows' criticisms of Donald Trump as political leader and Trumpism as a political phenomenon is absolutely correct.
But it is equally important to defend common sense, and sanity, and to avoid the traps of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Sometimes a mic is just a mic.
We all make our own judgments about this. You'll note the care with which I described it: "obscene gesture," "instantly notorious," "lewdly caressing."
I did watch the whole thing in context — that is why I provided the link to the full four-minute video. To me, based on everything I have seen over the decades, it was intentionally lewd.
People's judgments will differ. I'm telling you what I saw. (And what a woman I showed it to, outside my household, unprompted said is what she saw as well.) I respect your judgment in seeing it differently.
Are you familiar with the concept of a visual pun? Very common move wherein doing one thing becomes doing, or suggesting something else. What matters on that little performance, which begins as a story of a microphone, which as Trump would have known from Studio 54 back in the day has all sorts of uses), but the shape of his mouth as he bobs his head says something else.
Does it surprise me that he'd do that? For many reasons no. Both because it's a recognizable humor from his place and time and because he has become remarkably disinhibited.
Everything Trump does has some normalizing explanation behind it, whether it's "context" or subtle interpretation of his wording or what have you.
Time after time. Dozens of times. Hundreds of times.
At some point, one simply has to say this walks like a duck/quacks like a duck is in fact a duck.
So yes, I think a disinhibited Trump was simulating a sex act on the microphone.
As noted above, that is what I thought too. Based on my experience as a male American for many decades, and my observation of Trump in more recent years.
That you express in-the-end optimism - given that I have such respect for your judgement in these sorts of matters - is indeed heartening. I'll carry that around as much as needed over the coming days and weeks.
It's impossible to predict the results of the election, of course. But there are just two end states of any likelihood: either Kamala wins, or Donald wins. And I think we can guess a little about what'll happen on each tine of that fork. IMO, anyway.
If Kamala wins, we'll still have a deeply divided nation, but the divider-in-chief will probably lose his mojo, because it's a given that he doesn't have another campaign in him. And he's losing his marbles.
So there's some hope that the divisiveness that's characterized public discourse might recede over time, and we can move on to some new public crisis. It'll be turbulent, but likely more so than the past eight years.
If Donald wins, we enter a period of unprecedented chaos, as there'll be a struggle between the most extreme elements of Trump-world and everyone else. Will the US leave NATO? Will we jettison Ukraine? Will we defund vaccines? Will we attempt to deport millions of foreign-born residents, legal and/or illegal? To what extent will the Justice Department pursue Donald's antagonists? To what extent will the Civil Service become a patronage vehicle, and critical skills depart government employ?
And so forth. Some of Donald's worst ideas are wildly impractical, but that doesn't mean there won't be protracted agonizing over them. And then - how fast will Donald's cognitive decline proceed? Because I agree, that's a theme that's going to proceed from the highly partisan topic that it is today to highly consequential in governance terms. How does that play out? How far down the sewer does JD follow him? His sole political instinct seems to be amplify and rationalize whatever Donald says. So how does he separate himself from Donald enough that he carries over any credibility into his own administration? And at what rate does MAGA-world splinter, implode, or produce a super-nova, and what are the consequences of that?
If this were a TV drama, a la "The Diplomat", it would be riveting and highly entertaining. But we're stakeholders, so it's terrifying.
Well put. Disruption and uncertainty in either case. But with Plan A, leading to KH in control, the US will (I expect) have to deal with "normal" range tensions and disruptions. With Plan B, it's beyond anyone's ability to foresee or control.
I am not going to make a prediction, but I share the optimism generally expressed here (which is odd because I am expert in finding the clouds within silver linings). I get the impression that beyond the core MAGA adherents, the squishy Republicans and the independents who want to be forever courted (even though they are just in reality squishy Republicans who do not want to own up to the worst traits of Republican politics and policy), are being pragmatic. They see that Trump is in decline and they know that he is increasingly unpredictable. And no one likes Vance. So they seem to be lining up to vote for the new devil they have come to know. And I don't blame them. Do we have any legal structures in place to deal with a president-elect who goes bonkers between Election Day and Inauguration Day? It wouldn't be the 25th amendment before inauguration. I hope we don't need to extemporize on that one.
Trump will declare victory on Tuesday no matter the vote count. And if that totally misfocused NYT article is any guide, the legacy media will be in full "opinions differ on whether the world is flat" mode. Damn it.
Hooray for California! Tempted to part with $5, even if it will only serve my confirmation bias.
If things should "break" in Trump's direction, then "what to do about a demented president-elect," as you spell out, will be the least of our problems. God save us.
Or more appropriately, before that, let American women save us. I hope (and have begun daring to expect) that is what is in store.