↓
 
Home » Anxiety about the election: plus, why would people vote for Kamala?

Anxiety about the election: plus, why would people vote for Kamala?

The New Neo Posted on by

I have zero idea what will happen tomorrow – or even how long it will take to name a president-elect. But when I think about the possibility of a Harris win I get more frightened than I ever have been of any election result before in my life. And that’s saying something.

Prior to the 2008 election I pretty much knew that Obama would win. It was hard to accept, and I also knew he would be very destructive. His pretense of being moderate and of being a racial uniter had already been revealed by his campaign as phony. In 2012 I was even more worried because now I knew how dangerous his administration had been in setting us on a leftist path, including the enabling of Iranian power and a very subtle way of undermining race relations while feigning being a lofty healer.

In 2016 I disliked both candidates, and although I knew I detested Hillary Clinton and worried about what I saw as a possible continuation of Obama’s terrible policies and approaches if she were to be elected, I also worried that Trump was a loose cannon who would be in way over his head and would cause chaos. It took me a few months after Trump’s inauguration to realize that wasn’t the case, and to relax. But then the 2020 election – after COVID and riots had reduced Trump’s chances of winning, and with the always-mediocre yet now cognitively-challenged Biden as a possible winner – represented a nail-biter. And the 2020 experience of going to bed thinking Trump had won and waking up seeing that he hadn’t was deeply disturbing.

And then of course there was the 2022 red wave that turned into a tiny trickle.

But none of those elections can compare to what I feel now. I perceive Kamala Harris as representing the worst of all those worlds: the duplicity and dislikability of Hillary, the leftist policies of Obama on steroids, the cluelessness and uniformly poor decisions of Biden as well as her own seeming cognitive (or purposefully vague?) way of not making sense when she speaks. Couple that with the further leftward movement of the Democrats, and knowing how radical their legislative agenda is, plus a lack of faith in voting security and the strong sense that they wouldn’t hesitate to do whatever they they can to win and then to consolidate power that will last indefinitely, has got me in a tizzy. I alternatively reassure myself that Kamala won’t win, and then fear that she will. Back and forth and back and forth.

So, why would so many people vote for Kamala – including almost everyone I know? Don’t they see and hear the vacuous meaningless statements, the relentless lies, the strange affect? Don’t they know her extreme leftist history? I actually think that the majority of Democrats I know have not watched her interviews and do not see and hear – or at any rate, that what they do see and hear is processed differently from the way a person on the right sees it. They either pay little attention and vote in a reflexive way for the Democrat – and a woman! and a black woman! and Republicans will take away your birth control! – or they have only seen Harris debate with Trump and her speech at the DNC, and in both of those appearances she probably seemed fine to them. And, even more importantly and decisively, they truly believe that Trump is all the horrible things the left says about him and their fear of him is real.

And no, they are not dumb. The ones I know are for the most part very smart indeed in most areas of their lives. But they continue to swallow propaganda without even realizing that’s what it is.

Now, you might say, as commenter “Chris B” does here:

The thing is, it is so easy to learn the truth nowadays if one really wants to. Even with biased search engines, anyone can google “did Trump really say…” and find out that what they are being told is a lie. I believe that in reality they don’t want to know the truth. The intense hatred they have for Trump they find intoxicating. The last thing they want is to to lose the high they get from expressing their righteous hatred with like minded friends.

I spend many hours a day trying to “learn the truth” as best I can, and I really want to, as well. And yet I would never call it “easy” to do so, much less “so easy.” For example, the search engines are more than somewhat biased; they are constructed so that a person ordinarily has to scroll through reams and reams of suggestions that seem to validate all the bad things said about Trump and all the good things said about Harris before finding anything that differs.

So a person has to be committed to finding differing opinions and reading them, and to take some time in the process, while meanwhile all the anti-Trump propaganda is constantly reinforced by the search. When someone on the right does a search like that, the person knows it will be a quite a hunt, and he or she is aware of the need to be patient and to persevere. Plus, the person on the right is at least somewhat impervious to the propaganda; a mind is a difficult thing to change.

But there is no particular reason for the Democrat to be so patient, and that person probably is not already aware of the bias in the search results. That person will almost certainly see result after result that doesn’t challenge the propaganda but instead extends it and solidifies it. Why would that person keep going and going in the face of all that? And then, even if that person does keep going and finally finds a pro-Trump article, it’s from Fox or some other source on the right that the person has been told for decades is biased towards the right. Yes, every now and then a fact-check site defends Trump, but that’s often difficult to find as well unless one is willing to dig deep.

What’s more, why would a person start such a quest in the first place? To do so, the person would have to have a reason for challenging his or her own very solid and long-held belief system. Such a motive is rare on the left, but it’s actually rare on either side of the political spectrum. Political change is something I’ve written about at length, and most people will not ever be motivated to seek it.

And after all, as Chris B notes, not only does hatred have its own satisfactions, but righteous hatred can be a bonding experience: “the last thing they want is to lose the high they get from expressing their righteous hatred with like minded friends.” Indeed. I’m aware, for example, that my own presence in a group somewhat inhibits the people from a nice satisfying anti-right rant, and therefore including me in a group puts a damper on the fun even if I don’t say anything in opposition.

Why would Democrats be curious to learn whether the bad things they think about Trump are false? There aren’t many people in the world on any side of any issue who are eager to discredit their own belief system. All of most Democrats’ long-trusted media sources, and often all their friends, and all the professors and lawyers and smart people and oh-so-erudite NeverTrumpers agree: Republicans bad, and Trump just about the worst of all. To search for alternative points of view would require something that has engendered doubt about that proposition, and although that sometimes happens it’s easy enough to shake it off if it’s just an occasional flicker of hesitation.

For example, the very idea that Trump wasn’t referring to Nazis and white supremacists in Charlottesville as “fine people” would have to enter a person’s mind in order for the person to be motivated enough to look it up and check it out. And why would most Democrats ever do that? Why would it even occur to them? They’re not hearing it on the news they watch or read, and for those who live in blue cities their friends aren’t saying it either. The thought that it’s not true is in the nature of an unknown unknown – nearly unthinkable. And to at some point accept that it’s not true would require not only initially entertaining the thought that it isn’t true, but a much bigger shock: the knowledge that one’s political worldview, erected over a lifetime, might be a house of cards.

Don’t underestimate how threatening and difficult it is to even entertain that notion, much less believe it. It’s a long process and a shattering one, as I can report from personal experience.

And what’s the result? Why, you get to be a pariah to a lot of people you trusted and loved. Not all of them, of course; some will stand by you, and those are pearls of great price. But you are risking a lot. And it’s a facile response to say to that person, “Oh, if they desert you or grow cooler to you they weren’t ever your real friends.” Because you have a history that says they were friends, and especially if you’re older it is very difficult to replace those friends. In fact, you can’t, and you can’t replace family. Political change can even break marriage bonds and cause tragic outcomes for children.

So I have no problem whatsoever imagining why most people don’t pursue a course of challenging their own deeply-held belief system on politics. I never set out to do it myself, either – or not exactly. Although I actually always have been one to challenge a belief or a fact I think is true, changing my politics as a whole was something I never saw coming over twenty years ago when the whole thing started for me. I just followed this link and that, with a certain amount of naivete about the social consequences for me – in fact, with complete and utter naivete.

And yet once you cross that Rubicon there’s usually no turning back. I’ve gained a great deal from following where the quest led, but I’ve lost things too, and I don’t make light of why so many people would be deeply reluctant to even entertain a thought that might take them to that sort of upheaval.

[ADDENDUM: Please also see this relevant post that I wrote not long after the 2020 election].

Comments

Anxiety about the election: plus, why would people vote for Kamala? — 133 Comments

  2. I think the one you missed is a variation of fear: Money

    – “My livelihood depends on the current regulatory state.”
    – “I get direct payments from the government and that would be jeopardized.”

  3. Then there is always the possibility that people who would be inclined to vote for Harris are motivated by one of the oldest impulses known to mankind: spite. One side is voting for “I think he’ll do good things for our country,” while the other side is voting for “she’ll hurt those awful people who live in flyover country.”

  4. I find that generally for an adult person of at least moderate intelligence to actually change a long held opinion or belief about the world, something pretty significant has to happen. And that something is usually bad, involving a hard reality with unignorable consequences. The expression “Mugged by reality” comes from this.

    The problem is that middle to upper middle class progressive people can often be somewhat shielded against any negative effects that the very policies they espouse can result in when they’re enacted.

  5. Your description of why most people will not even start to change reminded me of this from Macbeth Act 3 Scene 4
    It’s not exactly right but it is where you may find you self if you start to move away from friends and family in beliefs

    Macbeth: All causes shall give way: I am in blood
    Stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more,
    Returning were as tedious as go o’er:
    Strange things I have in head, that will to hand;
    Which must be acted ere they may be scann’d.

  6. A vote for Harris is a vote for the unelected people who run the system under which we have always lived (not just state and Federal governments, the whole system: banks, insurance companies, etc). Almost everyone voting for Harris knows that. It’s not just about propaganda or selective filters on reality. There are people who prefer the kind of stability that Harris represents, and some of those people run giant corporations employing thousands of people, or have in trust large amounts of other people’s money, or both.

    That huge increase in the national debt over the last four years represents revenue to a lot of connected people, and it was passed by both parties and both Houses of Congress. They need it to continue.

    It’s not really about Harris or Biden vs Trump. It’s about the system vs something else that no one knows what it will be.

    And that’s why I’m sure the election will ultimately be determined to go to Harris. I would be delighted to be proved wrong, I’m tired of living in a banana republic, and I did all for Trump’s election that my vote can do.

    But the system we never voted for will not be upended by anything the system allows us to vote for, not this year anyway.

  7. nonapod and Chris B are right.

    In various discussion groups–I was once characterized as being “on the periphery”–the issue is rarely a differing interpretation of a given fact. It’s whether the fact is actually correct, or if there are offsetting facts.

    As neo says, to have the interest in learning about whether a fact one believes is correct, a possibly contradictory fact must enter the person’s mind. That Trump didn’t say that about Charlottesville is out there sufficiently that it’s impossible that very many people do not know there’s a contradiction which might well be investigated. But they know, or suspect, the truth and can’t afford to do whatever might invalidate their own views.
    And the same is true about so many other items. Michael Brown and “hands up”. Lots of argument. Can’t miss it.

    I have an acquaintance who has several relations who’ve been in the military. But, still, the weapon whose awfulness takes her breath away is the tiki torch.

    I should say, though, that in one discussion group, talking about “banned books”, I suggested searching for “explicit readings”. Most everybody wrote it down as if the entire concept were new. Maybe they’ll look. But I was surprised to see that the idea was new to so many of them.

    I have a metaphor, following Occam. These folks only know what comes down on the Moral Outrage Alert Weekly Bulletin. They are instructed to ostentatiously display their highly virtuous moral outrage. I also suspect there’s an appendix listing issues which, should they be encountered, should be dismissed, forgotten, denied.

    Obviously, I think, there’s no such publication. But you have to admit it’s pretty parsimonious, considering the alternatives.

    But Chris B’s “high”…. Forty years ago, in a small group with certain administrative responsibilities for social justice and peacemaking, I had a great example. A speaker gave the larger group a heated, condemnatory lecture on how awful we were for using foam cups with their CFCs ruining the ozone hole.
    Our group was instructed to Do Something. So, for our next meeting, I went to the office kitchen and brough a carton of foam cups which said on the side, “No CFC used in manufacture of this product.” I’d talked to the manufacturer–had a college connection–and confirmed it. Nobody used CFC.
    Our small group was practically salivating–oh, maybe I exaggerate–and when I showed them the carton the disappointment was palpable. Not gratitude that at least one threat to the ozone layer was not actually happening. No. They had a huge mad on and no place to put it.

    As Chris B says, this cannot be overlooked.

  8. I know several people who are measured in most ways but become borderline enraged when Trump’s name is even mentioned. Occasionally I’ll ease in a question about boys playing girl’s sports and they’ll agree that it’s wrong. Or I’ll try to subtly mention the problem with the wide open border and they’ll agree that it also is wrong. Or men using women’s restrooms, etc. But they never state their agreement with any intensity at all. Do they suspect that I’m going to eventually ask them “Then why are you voting for Harris?” I’ve come to the conclusion that TDS is a real thing and not a cliche as has been used re George W. Bush and some others. To go back to what you touched on Neo, I wonder if they hate him enough to not WANT to know any exonerating facts about what he said or didn’t say because of this intense hatred. Is it possible that they do get a certain high from this hate? Can I be arrested for practicing armchair psychology?

    ++- I hope I don’t get arrested for practicing armchair psychology.

  9. well that would be bad in ways you can’t fathom, I don’t see how they would ever chance a return to normalcy again, which means a world with law and order borders the internal combustion engine and the bill of rights,

  10. chazzand:

    The people I know who are voting for Harris – and I know a lot of them, and many of them I know very very well – are as I’ve described. I mentioned that there is both a habitual and deeply-entrenched hatred and fear of Trump, and that there is also a group bonding that goes with it. So it’s a combination of things. But over and above all of that is the reluctance to undergo the cognitive dissonance that would be involved in changing one’s mind, something I see as a general human trait.

  11. Well, some of the comments sound like the joke(?) we used to hear down South; “My Granddaddy voted Democrat, my Daddy voted Democrat, and by “Gawd”—
    But people did change. Some of it was due to a change in demographics; but much was beTcause people were paying attention.
    I have changed over the past several years. I positively detested Trump. Then I watched what he did. Now, I admire him in many ways. His undisciplined mouth is not one of his admirable traits.

    There were a couple of factors that facilitated my change in attitude; and they are not necessarily widely shared.. First, as I am retired, I have the time to ‘look behind the curtain’ so to speak. Few have the time, or are willing to use their free time for that effort.
    The other factor was that I developed an antipathy long ago–in the Vietnam era– for the massive propaganda machine that calls itself the ‘news media’; nor have I ever been impressed by the blather of elitist celebrities on subjects for which they are unqualified. Maybe Jane Fonda triggered that.
    I view the future with trepidation. There are many currents, and most are flowing the wrong way.

  12. “why would people vote for Kamala?”

    If you really want to know, I took a shot at explaining it here:

    https://infidel753.blogspot.com/2024/10/why-country-needs-democratic-landslide.html

    Among the major points:

    I could not afford health insurance without Obamacare, which Republicans have repeatedly tried to get rid of, and I couldn’t survive without Social Security, which at least some Republicans have attacked (Rick Scott wanted to “sunset” it, for example).

    The right to abortion is a fundamental freedom. There’s no attack on freedom more primal that forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want.

    We need to raise the minimum wage to be more in line with what other advanced countries have. We need restoration of reasonable tax rates on the ultra-wealthy to help get the deficit under control. Puerto Rico and DC deserve statehood. We need a federal ban on gerrymandering that will really be enforceable. If the Democrats win the House, Senate, and presidency, they will likely do at least some of these things. There’s no chance the Republicans would.

    Trump, as president, would very likely cut off aid to Ukraine, which in turn could result in Russia conquering Ukraine, facing the West with a full-blown September-1939-level crisis. This would almost certainly lead to a world war.

    Support for Harris and for Democrats generally has very little to do with Trump’s gaffes (real or alleged) or with whether Harris is good at making speeches or not. It’s primarily about the very real policy differences involved.

  13. Oldflyer:

    Also, in addition to what you mention, you were not a Democrat when you changed your mind about Trump. The re-adjustment of viewpoint you underwent was quite small compared to someone who had been a Democrat all along.

  14. It is easy to change one’s mind when one’s identity is not involved.

    We all know the Marxist disdain for religion and traditional family structures – precisely because these provide alternative loci for identity and moral judgement.

    The Left has successfully weakened these sources of self-definition, leaving the most detached from tradition clinging desperately to political doctrine – to cover their nakedness, to adopt and consume an identity.

    Something similar has happened with the arts and entertainment industry, which was not previously so influential. If you don’t go to church and have been trained to sneer at one’s parents – and professors! – then artists are pressed into service as prophets and entertainers really do become idols. On who else can people model themselves?

  15. Infidel753:

    Have you noticed that Harris has not answered questions asked her? That she has a history of being a far leftist? That she has zero understanding of economics and that her economic policies would cause more inflation? That her obvious weakness would encourage all sorts of mayhem from bad actors on the international stage? That she would continue appeasing and empowering Iran, as Obama and Biden did? That she cannot speak coherently?

    And you are almost certain that Trump would cut off aid to Ukraine – why? Because you read it on Twitter or in The New York Times? If you want to get up to speed on what Trump has actually said so far about actual aid to Ukraine, see this. And here’s what Zelensky has said about Trump and Ukraine recently.

    Republicans are trying to replace Obamacare with a better system. If they don’t come up with one they won’t be repealing it. And abortion is NOT a “fundamental freedom.” It is not guaranteed in the Constitution. But if you would like it to be a fundamental freedom under the law, there is a simple remedy and it might even work: an amendment to the Constitution.

    As for the minimum wage, raising it is often counterproductive. There are lots of articles to that effect, such as for example this one. Raising the minimum wage has all sorts of associated negatives along with the seeming positives.

    Almost 100% of my friends and friendly are Democrats who can’t stand Trump and are voting for Harris, so I know quite well what’s going on with a representative group of Democrats. I also read the mainstream media and am well aware of what is written there.

  16. I don’t have to admire Trump.**
    I don’t have to like him.
    I don’t even have to want him.

    All I have to do is look at his opponents.

    ** I do, though.

  17. I ran into a somewhat humorous argument that when Trump says that Harris supports funding transgender surgeries for prisoners with taxpayer money, it sounds so outrageous that Democrats assume Trump must be lying.

    Except, of course, he is not.

  18. https://hotair.com/david-strom/2024/11/04/i-am-tired-of-leaders-who-hate-me-n3796662

    When they repeatedly tell you they hate you, maybe you better believe that what’s at stake is your very existence as a free human being. Rusted on Kamala voters (and the ‘system’ calling the shots & pulling the strings) want to take from you every last drop of your free existence.

    This cannot end here… even if by some miracle Trump crests 270. They won’t have it. Hatred of this magnitude will not go down quietly.

  19. US Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 8:

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

    State? Not a bit of it!

    Congress ought to reclaim in totality all jurisdiction over DC, abolishing any and all pretense of local sovereignty altogether. Back to work, ya lazy Representatives.

  20. Richard Aubrey:

    You write:

    That Trump didn’t say that about Charlottesville is out there sufficiently that it’s impossible that very many people do not know there’s a contradiction which might well be investigated. But they know, or suspect, the truth and can’t afford to do whatever might invalidate their own views.

    I could not disagree with you more on that. I don’t think you understand that for many many people who read the MSM and whose friends almost all do the same and believe the same, that news has absolutely not penetrated and they are completely unaware of what you’re talking about. For the most part they are not news junkies but do follow the news from mainstream sources, and they have never heard – literally never heard – that something like “Trump said white supremacists were fine people” isn’t true. After all, all their friends think it was what he said, and every single media source they’ve heard heard (CNN, network news, etc.) say it’s true and what’s more the Democrat candidates repeat it and repeat it and repeat it.

    When I have mentioned to people that it is not true, they are genuinely shocked and of course disbelieving. Some want me to prove it, which I can do. But it’s just a drop in the bucket, because their belief system is built on thousands and thousands of untrue “truths” that they unaware are falsehoods. It takes much more that a single fact to get people to change their minds, and often they do find ways to reject facts like that and resolve the unpleasant cognitive dissonance they are experiencing.

    It’s a very common human trait.

  21. Both parties have contributed equally to where America is at today. We didn’t get here overnite.

    In 2016 I disliked both candidates, and although I knew I detested Hillary Clinton and worried about what I saw as a possible continuation of Obama’s terrible policies and approaches if she were to be elected, I also worried that Trump was a loose cannon who would be in way over his head and would cause chaos. It took me a few months after Trump’s inauguration to realize that wasn’t the case, and to relax.

    I didn’t think that at first—about Trump; however, after recovering from Trump’s 2020 loss, and lots of research over the past year or two—that is pretty much how I would describe him now. Maybe change “in way over his head” to terrible Basic Leadership Ability.

    As Alfred once said:

    Want me to change my mind? OK – you change yours first.

    I voted against Harris ‘n DEMs this year—not for Trump ‘n REPs. Both parties are just different sides of the same *BIG GOVT* coin.

    If Harris ‘n DEMs had dropped their top agendas of Child Grooming, Child Abuse, Child Brainwashing, Child Butchery, and Abuse of Women ‘n Women’s Sports—then I would’ve very possibly voted against Trump ‘n REPs this time…

    Anxiety this year? Nope, not humble me. Alfred said it best: What, Me Worry?

  22. Why would people vote for Kamala?

    One of my older new friends & I were talking just a couple days ago, and the presidential race came up. For reasons I’ll skip, this friend is one of the very few new friends that I’ve told that I’m a conservative. (Excluding a few that I knew were conservatives too.)

    So she said, “I was watching Trump on TV at one of his rallies, and he just rambled aimlessly, at length, about nothing.” Lots of questions come to mind about that statement, but moving on, I spoke of Kamala’s word salad responses to interview questions or in public engagements. She had no idea what I was talking about.

    Almost everything we see has been selectively edited. You really have to watch the live telecasts to get an inkling of the realities.

    Just recently I did some searches, usually with Bing. But one was so shockingly stilted towards left-wing sites that I tried DuckDuckGo, and it wasn’t much better.
    _______

    Fear for our nation, and the Hillary versus Kamala question is interesting. One of the things about Hillary that neo didn’t mention, is that I perceived her as a genuinely vicious person. That scared me a great deal when she was on the ballot. But now in hindsight & looking back on it, while I still believe that she’s vicious, I also think that she had some basic understanding of the American system and a few of the things that make it work, and that she would have taken some care in preserving much of that.

    I don’t think Kamala is particularly vicious, but I do think she is some combination of dumb, ignorant of valuable parts of our current system, and pretty much doesn’t give a damn if considerable portions of it are wrecked. Add in the idea that she’s probably lazy and happy to delegate almost everything to “capable” staffers, & it’s an exceptionally scary proposition.

  23. There is a reason that the left wants to control comments by ordinary people . Regular people might challenge the accepted narrative and a Democrat might hear something they never thought of. Yahoo News articles, for example, regularly delete my comments for being against ” community standards.” But still I comment. Drop some truth in that maybe some person never heard of.

  24. Fundamental freedoms aren’t defined by the US Constitution. If they were, fundamental freedoms couldn’t exist anywhere outside the US, nor could they have existed during all the centuries before the Constitution was written. Constitutions and laws can recognize rights and give them legal status, but do not create them.

  25. “And after all, as Chris B notes, not only does hatred have its own satisfactions, but righteous hatred can be a bonding experience: “the last thing they want is to lose the high they get from expressing their righteous hatred with like minded friends.””

    I discussed this phenomenon at my post Conformity, Cruelty, and Political Activism:

    https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/70696.html

  26. Here’s the scary thing –

    I have seen leftists on X post the truncated “very fine people” hoax, only for someone ( or rather, MANY someones) to comment the full quote in an attempt to get that person to see the truth.

    And yet – they double down! They say they see absolutely no difference in the full quote vs the snippet they posted, and that Trump was so obviously talking about the Neo nazis and supporting them.

    That’s what scares me – the ones who are shown the truth and still only see/hear what they want to hear.

  27. Regarding media influence and ‘learning the truth’, these days I often think of something once said to me by a wise executive:

    “When you’re running an organization, you’re not seeing reality. It’s like you’re watching a movie where you get to see maybe one out of every thousand frames, and from that, you have to figure out what is going on.”

    If this is true about running large organizations–and it largely is—it is even more true of the voter in a large and complex country. No one can observe very many of the relevant facts directly–the border, Gaza, employment & unemployment, etc–so they are dependent on what is portrayed, and this gives enormous power to those who choose what frames are shown and in what sequence.

  28. OK. CNN commentator Van Jones is worried about the election and I like it like that. Furthermore he wrings his hands about the Jewish vote in Pennsylvania:
    ________________________________________

    “Well, I’m just nervous all the time, so I don’t feel good about nothing and I’m not going to feel good about nothing until it’s over,” he said.

    “I’m worried,” he admitted. “Philadelphia is where we’ve got to run up a big margin. And — but Philly overall has been trending down not in terms of going toward the Republicans, just people not getting out to vote. And so you’ve got people out there like Pastor Carl Day who has got a bunch of young men with him knocking on doors and trying to get people to come out. It’s a bigger, tougher fight in Philly to get that vote count up than it has been in the past. That has me worried.”

    Jones is also worried about the Jewish vote.

    “Biden won the Jewish vote by 70% — 70 to 30 — last time,” he pointed out. “Some polls show Kamala at 50-50. That is 70,000 votes we bled away. That is the margin for victory.”

    https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/11/04/van-jones-is-worried-that-kamala-is-pulling-a-hillary-n4933960

  29. Of course, both the executive and the voter have things they can do to improve the information situation. In the case of the exec, it’s largely a matter of how the organization is designed, who is chosen for the key jobs, what reporting and incentive procedures are put in place, and deep if selective in-person involvement. In the case of the voter, it’s mainly a matter of using multiple information sources and talking with many different kinds of people. But in both cases, it’s important o remember that you are seeing only a slice of reality, and that much of what you are seeing is necessarily an abstraction rather than actual raw data.

  30. Re: the Charlottesville hoax.

    I swear the following is true and I’m not blowing smoke.
    I watched the much of those things as they were happening on live TV. Including when Trump spoke about it. When he made the “fine people” comment, I immediately shouted “Oh, noooo!” Then he retracted the blanket statement to exclude supremacists, and for a couple seconds I thought, “Oh, thank you, that’s good!”

    But a few seconds after that, the reality hit me. That correction he made won’t make any difference at all. He just royally screwed himself.

    If a major news network can selectively edit George Zimmerman’s 911 recording to falsely make him out to be a racist, then what do you think they will do to Trump??

  31. Neo:
    To follow up on your comment on my post: Yes, it is difficult to change one’s longtime beliefs. My conversion took many years, starting with defending Mondale’s positions and continuing through Dukakis until I realized that I’m defending them for the sake of defending them. I didn’t agree with hardly anything they said. That said, the quality of GOP candidates didn’t help speed my changing positions. I didn’t vote for either Bush or McCain (bleah! as Snoopy used to say). I reluctantly voted for Romney because I saw what a terrible disaster Obama was. Trump is the 1st one who I didn’t vote for who wasn’t just the lesser of 2 evils. Now with people like DeSantis and Vance and Kim Reynolds, the future looks hopeful if we can just get through without 4 years of Harris.

  32. neo
    I agree with NS It’s out there and the reactions are to deny it or dismiss it. Never met anyone who’s not heard there’s an issue with that quote. They simply don’t want it to be true.

  33. Richard Aubrey:

    You said it is impossible that a person wouldn’t have heard there’s an issue with that quote. You say that everyone you have met knows there’s an issue.

    I said I’ve met lots of people who have never heard there’s an issue with the quote. Therefore you are wrong.

  34. NS:

    Yes. Some people double down no matter what. Some of those are political activists who know they’re lying. Some, however, are just trying to deal with cognitive dissonance by some sort of rationalization or sophistry.

    You can read a good analysis of how that process works here.

  35. infidel753:

    Of course there are fundamental freedoms outside the Constitution – but it depends who you’re talking to, what those freedoms might be. Only the ones protected by the Constitution are part of our federal law. If you want abortion to be legal in all states as a matter of federal law, amend the Constitution.

    What’s more, abortion was NEVER recognized as a fundamental right until quite recently, in terms of history. And what kind of abortion? Most Republicans are not trying to outlaw all abortion; such a bill would not pass, anyway. Most are in favor (including Trump) of a European-style abortion law that would allow it for 15 weeks, for example. That is the case in much of Europe.

    So the right to unlimited abortion isn’t fundamental even in Western Europe. The GOP’s position is much like that of most of Europe, actually. And the right to abortion – especially unlimited abortion – was never fundamental even here. Your saying it and believing it doesn’t make it so and doesn’t make it law.

  36. Neo,

    I feel your pain. Can I say that a part of it comes from living among deep blue Massholes? Living in CT I thought that the whole country must be nucking futs.

    Moving to FL has been such a mental health liberation. I know, tribe mentality, but it’s so nice to have neighbors who think similar and not having to self censor just to keep people from going full TDS rage.

  38. neo
    Is there a common thread or characteristic among those who have never heard there’s an issue?
    The most whacked-out folks I know will sneer at the issue but they’ve heard of it.

    “I know, but….” don’t believe, don’t care, didn’t mean it,

    Never “Really? No kidding?” Never.

    “You know,”, I say, “the transcript is out there.” ‘Yeah, but….”

  39. Richard Aubrey:

    Common threads: they are usually well-meaning, not especially politically-oriented but follow the news through the MSM and NPR and the like, and have mostly friends who are the same. Their political discussions tend to be with like-minded people and not especially detail-oriented. They pick up on the prevailing media narratives but find politics generally distasteful, and are involved with jobs and families. They are quite conservative for the most part in their private lives, at least the ones I know.

    Those are generalizations, of course. But the exceptions to those generalizations are each idiosyncratic and harder to describe. One person, for example, shies away from unpleasant things if she can. She’s had various griefs and sufferings n her life but right now things are going very well for her, emotionally speaking, and she doesn’t want things to get complicated or sad again, now that she’s quite elderly. So she actually says things like: “Ignorance is bliss,” – meaning, don’t upset her. She finds the costs too high, in terms of her own mental health.

  40. There are probably a handful of different reasons tens of millions of citizens will vote for Kamala Harris in this election and neo’s list and several of the commenters here probably encapsulate the main ones.

    But for me it’s something more fundamental.

    Does one value liberty above all else when electing one’s representatives in our representative democracy?

    Like neo, I wasn’t surprised Obama won. He was a unique avatar for our nation. But when he won re-election I concluded a majority of the U.S. voting public values security (comfort) over liberty.

    Like Obama, Trump is sui generis. He barely won in 2016 and the scales may have been tipped by his celebrity image. Who knows? There was no reason to suspect he would fight for liberty and conservative values based on his prior political statements. It’s unlikely his election was an indication that our nation was then valuing liberty over comfort and control.

    In this election we have another clear choice in that Kamala Harris represents control and government expansion. Trump is still a bit of a cipher (he says a lot of stuff and some of it conflicts with his own statements), but he is mostly surrounded by drain the swamp and decrease federal control icons; Ramaswamy and Musk (size and budget of federal workforce), Gabbard (limit U.S. military involvement in foreign affairs), RFK Jr. (reduce power of FDA, Ramaswamy is big on this also) and Stephen Miller and many others who represent immigration and border control.

    If Harris wins tomorrow I think it will be similar to Obama’s win over Romney. It will be an indication that a majority of our fellow citizens prefer comfort and security over liberty and personal responsibility.

    If Trump wins it means that there is still a sizeable electorate in the U.S. that prefers liberty and localism over federal control.

  41. My very retired parents watch nothing but the Democrats Propaganda Ministry channels. My mother thinks I am in a cult following Trump. On line at Ace some other commenter is having a sibling with the exact views. They both didn’t come to the same conclusion separately out of the blue.

  42. It’s interesting how few of you, especially those of you who are well educated (credentialed), can’t simply admit that your Democrat or die friends are tribal.

    Voting for Bush with his Texas accent, or Mitt Romney (a Mormon!) or a guy who speaks boorishly like Trump is simply not something members of their tribe do. It doesn’t matter that J.D. Vance or Ron DeSantis graduated at the heads of their class at Yale. Vance was a marine and his family are hillbillies. Kamala’s parents are College Professors. They don’t dirty their hands collecting rents, like Trump did as a youth.

    Elon Musk? Who cares that he came from nothing in South Africa to become the richest man in the world through the sheer genius of his grasp of science and technology and his work ethic? Your friends never ran into his parents vacationing on Martha’s Vineyard in the ’90s.

    It’s city mouse/country mouse. It’s “Caddyshack.” Voting for “their kind” is simply not done.

    Most of you have probably seen this scene from “The Aviator” where Howard Hughes has dinner with Katherine Hepburn’s family. https://youtu.be/br-ljup5Bow?si=72gg-0Q_t7m5-XGk What could Howard Hughes possibly say to get any of these people to vote for Trump, or to do anything different from what their tribe does?

    This scene from “Back to School:” https://youtu.be/uSLscJ2cY04?si=UwiGCVcw7r0Z_h8e
    could very well be Donald Trump attending an Economics lecture given by Paul Krugman. It’s well written, funny and accurate. But accuracy has nothing to do with the Professor’s purpose in his lecture. Even if you haven’t seen the movie, it will come as no surprise that the Economics professor schemes behind the scenes to use his clout in the Administration to get Dangerfield’s character thrown off campus. The Professor isn’t interested in truth. He’s interested in protecting his credential and signaling his in status with the credentialed class.

    It’s tribalism.

  44. Rufus T. Firefly:

    You’re assuming quite a bit about my Democrat friends, but I don’t generally run in the circles you describe. Of course, I know some highly-credentialed people who live in academia. But the majority of the people I’m friendly with where I live – or acquainted with where I live, the bulk of the people I’m referring to in this post – are not part of the tribe you describe. Quite a few either didn’t even finish college or didn’t go to any especially good college – state schools, for example – and they’re not rich.

  45. Richard Aubrey @ 3:41pm,

    I had two similar episodes to your CFC story; one as the member of a School Board and one as a member of a work committee. Both times I assumed my teammates would be happy to hear the scientific facts proving the recycling proposals were not only NOT needed, but actually detrimental. I thought they’d be happy my research negated the need to spend money on the projects.

    Nope.

  47. Rufus T. Firefly:

    I agree with your comment at 5:56 PM.

    I’ve written about the topic on numerous occasions. Please for example see this from 2020.

  49. Neo.
    Suppose you said, about Charlottesville, to your completely clueless friends, “You know, the transcript of the whole thing has been out since about day two. Like to see it?”

    Would it be honest surprise?

  50. infidel753: Another point, besides Neo’s excellent ones, is that Republicans are not going to take away your Social Security. That’s a Democrat talking point without foundation. I do think at some point they’re going to have to means-test it, that is, put a limit on how much people can draw, so that higher-income retirees, who have other sources of income, won’t get as much. But that won’t hurt people like you, who, as you say, depend upon it.

  51. “Quite a few either didn’t even finish college or didn’t go to any especially good college – state schools, for example – and they’re not rich.” -Neo

    I suspect you didn’t mean for that to come out the way it reads, unless you really believe that state schools aren’t especially good.

    What’s funny is Victor Davis Hanson was on someone’s YouTube channel and said tech companies are more interested in hiring from universities like Georgia Tech than prestige universities like Stanford, because they’ve gone so deep into DEI that the quality of students is pretty low.

  52. “None are so blind as they who will not see.” [my emphasis]

    Infidel753, Re: “Constitutions and laws can recognize rights and give them legal status, but do not create them.”

    Who creates fundamental rights?

  53. neo,

    Sorry, I’m not trying to judge everyone’s acquaintances, or their behavior. It’s just that a lot of this genuinely is tribalism. Even folks who attend state schools (quelle horreur!) may strive to fit in with a social group.

    Let’s take the example of a boy identifying as female competing in a girls’ High School track meet. Fathers in Connecticut love their daughters just as much as fathers in Oklahoma. When it happens in Connecticut the fathers sit quietly in the stands. If it were to happen in Oklahoma the boy wouldn’t get out of the starting blocks. In both instances the fathers are behaving in a manner customary with their local tribe. The father in Connecticut can cite eloquent reasons for his behavior, but the reasoning follows the tribal cues, not vice versa.

    It doesn’t matter if the “New Yorker” is correct. It matters that the New Yorker states it. For many, “what does NPR say on the matter?” doesn’t mean, “what is the information on the topic?” It means, “what is our groups’ belief?”

  54. I have given up trying to understand why anyone thinks or believes what they think or believe; and not just in the area of politics.

    Most folks IMHO make decisions or have belief systems based primarily on their emotions. They believe and think whatever will make them feel comfortable, and this can be anything at all.

    This is why there exists a flat earth society; why there are people who are convinced that the moon landings took place in a Hollywood studio; and why there are people that believe Bush, Cheney, Halliburton and the Mossad were behind
    the Twin Towers disaster.
    Try talking to any of the above and see how far you get.

    Having to actually think and question one’s beliefs constitutes a threat to their sense of well being; so they stick their head in the sand and mimic Sgt. Schultz (of Hogan’s Hero’s fame; ” I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing.”)

    When folks are unwittingly presented with a scenario that challenges or destroys their strongly held beliefs , it is a punch in the gut. People will do anything to avoid that punch in the gut.

    The best example that I know of is this here:

    https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html

    This Trump / Hillary Clinton debate play took place in Manhattan; a left wing, Trump is a Nazi , socialist / liberal progressive bastion, that could easily assemble a jury and convict Trump – TODAY – of assassinating Abe Lincoln in 1865, even though Trump was born in 1946.
    What I found most interesting about this play was the audience reaction; the audience being your typical Manhattan neo-communist / socialist / liberal progressives.
    Some audience members had to be comforted by their partners because they were so disturbed by what they saw; it was a real punch in the gut .

  55. Neo,
    It’s power. The pursuit of, the maintenance of, etc. There’s nothing more intoxicating, nothing.

  56. It’s because Trump is a rapist and he’s the ultimate thought criminal, the standard bearer for all those horrible -isms and -phobias.

    I recently saw a clip from The View from early 2015 when he said he was thinking of running for president. The View ladies loved him then. It was only once he started running that he became Donald Emmanuel Trumpenstein.

    Who were those khaki-dressed and tiki-holding men (and a few women) anyway? How come we don’t know who they are and why weren’t they ever seen again? I am convinced that most or all were feds.

    Our liberal friends would wither and die without stupid, horrible people — deplorables, garbage and fascists as our “leaders” have said — to demonize, look down on and shun. Who would they even be otherwise? The last thing most of them would ever do is take a good, hard, honest look at the shortcomings of their own beliefs, ideology, policies, and public figures, whether those are in politics, entertainment, or media.

  57. “It will be an indication that a majority of our fellow citizens prefer comfort and security over liberty and personal responsibility.” -Rufus T.

    They may think they’re voting for comfort and security, but how comfortable are people with the cost of living? How many young people who would like to own a home will be comfortable or secure under Kamala? With unchecked illegal immigration that brings crime and drugs into our cities, how comfortable and secure will people feel?

    They may think they want security and comfort, but that’s not what they’re going to get under a Kamala regime. They are “low information voters.” (LIVs) And that is a big problem in this country. How many of them can tell you what causes inflation and how it’s brought under control? 10%? 15%? Not many or they would not be voting Democrat.
    How many understand that the country has been invaded by as many as 20 million illegals under Biden/Harris? The main duty of the executive is to defend our sovereignty. Biden and Harris have been intentionally allowing the invasion. Where’s the security in that? If Democrat voters think they’re voting for security, they are fools.

    What do they think about the wars that have sprung up under Biden/Harris? Apparently, they don’t think about them in terms of how they could affect their security and comfort. They are LIVs. Their votes are based on MSM lies or lack of knowledge/interest in issues of vital importance to their security and comfort.

    We are too far down the slippery slope. Too many LIVs. Even if Trump wins, they will spend immense efforts, including violence, to foil anything he tries to do.

    I am very thankful to have lived in this country before the Gramscian march through our institutions had begun. The 1950s were a time of comfort and security. Even with the Korean War, people were mostly united, mostly happy, and with vast opportunities ahead.

    The Gramscian march began during the 1960s and Vietnam. I have tried to do what I can to stem the tide. I’ve been a conservative through it all, and have always cast my vote for Republicans because, as imperfect as they often are, they are far more conservative and freedom loving than any Democrat.

    But I’m also disappointed that I’ve not been effective in leaving the country in better shape. Trump could possibly stem the tide for a while, but it’s going to take some really hard times for the majority of citizens to wake up. I predict rough times ahead no matter who wins the election. I hope I’m wrong.

  58. “Stupid is as stupid does.” Apparently ol’ Kamala really is that stupid, and uninformed.

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    In the final couple of days before the Vote, and in an effort to appeal to Muslims, Kamala Harris starts to be interviewed on a web video, “Subway Takes,” run by a Muslim and directed toward the Muslim community and, for some strange reason, and out of the blue, Harris brings up the subject of bacon, and starts talking about how delicious it is, and how it is really actually a spice, and that it makes food taste so much better.

    Whereupon the pissed off Muslim videographer shuts down the interview, which does not air.*

    Self-sabotage at its best.

    * See https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/11/shes-cooked-kamala-harris-interview-popular-web-video/

  59. J.J.:

    I think you’re correct that it’s tough times no matter what. But a different kind of tough times, depending who wins.

    Also, I think Harris voters think they’e voting for security and comfort a la The Grand Inquisitor speech; see this.

  60. Sennacherib:

    It’s power for leftists in government. It’s not power for the average Democrat voter.

  61. Rufus T. Firefly:

    Re your comment at 7:11 PM, I don’t see what’s gained by calling it “tribalism.” Certainly it’s true that some areas that aren’t politically purple but are instead deep red or deep blue have a majority of people following a certain way of thinking, politically. But why is that? There are a host of things that go into making a political identity. And birds of a feather often flock together, as well. There are demographic trends in regions regarding race, religion, ethnicity, education, socioeconomic status, that sort of thing. And certain political views have a tendency to go along with those traits but are not determined by them. Is that what you mean by tribal? I simply don’t know what you mean, except that there’s a certain amount of political conformity to one’s surroundings.

  62. Snow on Pine, she doesn’t know that Muslims don’t eat pork? That little head really is empty.

  63. Happily for me, I won’t have to worry all day tomorrow. I will be working sixteen hours as an election worker in my local precinct. We have 8,000 registered voters. Fortunately, more than half have already voted. I’ll be too busy to worry. Y’all can take care of that for me, and I’ll check in late tomorrow, or maybe Wednesday morning.

  64. Brian E:

    I wasn’t commenting on how good or bad such schools are, although it did sound like I was. I was actually trying to say “good” schools with scare quotes – as in, schools that people of the type being described tend to think are good, whether they are or not.

  65. “It’s power for leftists in government. It’s not power for the average Democrat voter.”

    True. Which will not save the average Democrat voter from the fate they have enabled. A fate that their willful blindness makes deserved. Were that fate strictly personal, it would be merely Shakespearean in its irony. That their willful blindness has and will lead to perhaps millions of innocents suffering greatly is a truly mortal sin upon their souls.

  66. Richard Aubrey:

    You write:

    Suppose you said, about Charlottesville, to your completely clueless friends, “You know, the transcript of the whole thing has been out since about day two. Like to see it?”

    Would it be honest surprise?

    I have said things of that sort many times about many quotes and many things that have happened, things about which I would have thought everyone knew the counter-arguments. I have been gobsmacked by the lack of knowledge of what I’m talking about, and it sounds extremely sincere. Remember, most Democrats do not listen to or read news sources on the right; they would have to seek them out because they don’t normally encounter them. The people I know still trust the MSM very much and don’t ordinarily hear much challenge to it. So their surprise is genuine.

    What they do when I tell them is that some of them ask me to send them links to the articles that explain. They seem interested in knowing. However, as I wrote to you in my comment at 4:37 PM:

    Some want me to prove it, which I can do. But it’s just a drop in the bucket, because their belief system is built on thousands and thousands of untrue “truths” that they unaware are falsehoods. It takes much more that a single fact to get people to change their minds, and often they do find ways to reject facts like that and resolve the unpleasant cognitive dissonance they are experiencing.

    I recently sent several people a VERY long tome with many links about many things of which most Democrats I know are unaware. That was just a few days ago. It would be interesting to see what responses I get, if I get them. But as I’ve said over and over, a mind is a difficult thing to change. It’s a very disturbing process to go through, and it’s a common human trait to want to resist it.

    And so it is that, although some people want me to send them links, other people just want to change the subject when we start talking about politics and I bring up a fact which challenges something they believe.

  67. Geoffrey Britain:

    I very strenuously disagree with your comment at 8:04 PM. You and I have had this disagreement before, I believe.

    For most people I know, their blindness is not “willful.” The facts are an unknown unknown to them. They think they are getting the truth and the facts from their sources.

    And for others who do at some point hear the truth, it is relatively easy to deny it is the truth and/or to rationalize it away or consider it a one-off. Most people on earth will do that when something challenges a long-held belief system.

  68. OldFlyer: Trump’s mouth may be “undisciplined,” as you say — but it’s authentic. It’s this authenticity that resonates and sets him apart from almost all present-day politicians. In his first campaign debates, his refusal to surrender to politically correct speech was one of the elements that catapulted him into the lead.

  69. Well, I’m the Planet of the Apes guy. Humans are mostly driven by emotions and tribal loyalties, not by cogent arguments.

    Furthermore, going against one’s tribe is in no small part going against one’s survival. One loses social support and in the modern world one risks financial security as well.

    Why can’t a human be more like an Enlightenment philosopher?

    –“My Fair Lady – Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man – Rex Harrison”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcpwuK1Fmx4

  70. It’s easy to understand Lefties if you look at them as 5th Columnists. They really do hate self-governance and will do whatever it takes to destroy it. Remember that Communists lie about everything to everyone including themselves.

  71. Just a quick note to say, yeah, I’m anxious, too. Frightened, even, as you say. I’m probably not going to watch the returns tomorrow night. I’ll wait till Wednesday, hoping that it won’t be still undecided.

    It’s not just the election. I just don’t see how a culture can renew itself from the level of decay to which we’ve descended.

  72. As with oldflyer above who had misgivings about Trump in 2016, so did I and did not vote for him. At the time I was undergoing a huge change of attitude about capitalism. Having run a small business and seen the evolving predatory nature of financialization and its ever increasing rule of markets, Trump seemed to be the perfect example of it. While he did build things, it was very often at the expense of suppliers who got shafted, or property owners who lost out to his government bought condemnation trickery. Then there was his draft evasion. The man had a bump on his Achilles tendon that got him permanently deferred after college and during the height of the Vietnam War. After 5 years of college I got no such break and enlisted rather than be drafted to fight and possibly die in a war that I detested. And to be blunt, I couldn’t stand his New York smartass demeanor. Some of us change the other way, Neo, and I was in the process of reevaluating my lifelong political beliefs. But by 2020 I’d come back to my senses and could see that Trump genuinely had the best interests of the country at heart, and that he did not represent the vulture capitalist, Wall Street financier elite. In fact they hated his guts. Guess I’ve also gotten used to that New York personality and swagger.

  73. I’ve been in a debate with a longtime Republican friend about Trump. Not a never Trumper, but a Very Reluctant Trumper.
    He has spent the last 30 years as a state legislator, then a lobbyist for a small business organization.
    He views Trump as a con man, looking out only for himself. His source of news is the MSM and views Fox and other more conservative sources as biased.

    So I would speculate it’s the source of your news that drives your perspective. If you’ve invested significant time relying on them as your truth– there is no real reason to investigate other sources as truth– since they’re obviously spouting misinformation.

    In addition, I would speculate the personality of “establishment” vs. “contrarian” affects your likelihood of ever investigating other sources of truth.

    Will another four years of Trump change minds? Probably not, since the same sources of truth are never going to admit they were wrong.

  74. Gosh, huxley (8;26) & I think alike. Yes, yes!

    Rufus’ comments at 5:56, and I generally love his comments, is a little off to my mind, because virtually none of these people who are voting are thinking like a William F. Buckley or a Patrick Henry. Much too lofty!

    I agree with the tribalism idea, or as huxley says, emotions and loyalties. whole heartedly.

    If one wishes to think in terms concepts, I see it as a contrast between liberty (as Rufus sees it) and libertinism. Understanding liberty in that context is a bit of a lofty reach, but libertinism simply means you want free health care, free education, free food, support in retirement, and if you are French, free vacations. Oh, and access to marijuana.

    And tribes aren’t just formed from demographic and gross social strata differences. Since my wife’s passing a few years ago, I’ve met a large number of new people. I like live music a great deal and have been surprised at the quantity in a community that is not terribly large. However, these new friends and acquaintances really band together along certain lines. There are the “ballroom” or partner dancing people; and the cover band, drinking and free dancing people; and the people who want to play music and be in a band; and people who want to play music and do drugs. Some are “toxin free” and drink rarely or not at all.

    I was invited to a party very recently, and I was sort of the new addition to the group and before all of the guests had arrived, they all began to congratulate themselves for being correct thinking Kamala supporters and not nasty Trump supporters. It wasn’t particularly vehement and when someone pointed out that I hadn’t said a word, no one got agitated. Now this group were all musicians or music lovers and also liked booze and weed in moderation (usually). Also, they pointed out that a couple late-to-arrive guests were those sadly wrong thinking types.

    Tribes are a very organic thing. Oh, and I almost forgot! This latter group at the party actually labels themselves a “tribe.” I was going to give out their tribal name, but thought better of it.

  75. People don’t want to admit that they voted the wrong way in 2020 — in spite of all the bad consequences of Biden’s election. I can sort of understand that. I regret voting for GW Bush, who was not a good president. John Kerry was worse, though, so that takes away some of the regret. That’s what it is: no matter how bad things get for the country, Democrats always believe that Trump would be worse.

    Some Democrat voters don’t have the information. They’ve never heard the other side. Other Democrats have heard the other side, but they dismiss it all as propaganda. For some Democrats, right and wrong, true and false don’t matter. What matters is beating the other side, and anything that helps the party win is permissible and praiseworthy. I suppose one could say the same thing about Republicans, but there are many Democrats who believe themselves to be extremely well-educated and well-informed and yet have never heard anything or taken anything seriously that contradicts their worldview. If you’re a Republican or conservative and get somewhat educated and informed you can’t avoid hearing what Democrats think and have probably wondered at some point if they might be right about something.

    That story of Kamala Harris, the bacon and the Muslim podcaster is worthy of “Veep.” “Bacon bits” are a “spice” or seasoning and they contain no bacon. I don’t know if vegans can eat them, but they don’t contain anything recognizable as meat. Of course, they aren’t as savory as actual bacon. I can’t blame Harris for loving bacon and keeping it “top of mind.” Her miserable fail might have been a humanizing moment in another context.

  76. Why vote for Kamala?
    The non-stop lying by the Democrats and their media operatives AND the sheer and total—INSANE—hatred of Trump.

    How did we get there?
    This piece amay help to explain, at least in part, how that sheer, extraordinary hatred was manufactured, generated and spread by the lies invented and endlessly repeated by the Democrats and their media operatives.

    “THE SCROLL;
    “The Big Story”—
    https://thedailyscroll.substack.com/p/nov-4-show-time
    H/T Powerline blog.

    Actually it’s two major stories: Obama’s/“Biden’s support of Iran, and Obama’s/Biden’s Russia gate.

  77. I thought for a while that people voting Democrat to “save democracy” this election was kind of a joke, a superficial talking point, on our side – “hahah look at all these people voting for a party that staged a coup to save democracy!” Then I realized it was actually true: there really are people voting Harris/Walz because they think they have to in order to “protect our democracy.” It’s unbelievable. It’s like the people voting because they think Trump will ban abortion, or because they think Republicans are racist. You’d think those talking points would get so old and tired, but for some people, they don’t.

    And yet… with the people Trump has chosen to surround himself with this time, I started feeling a lot of hope during this election. For the first time, I felt like I wasn’t voting out of anger or spite or with a sense of resignation. I was actually voting out of love. Even for the misguided who think they voted for Democrats to “save democracy.” I voted with a sense that I was voting for people who would actually usher in positive change. I voted with excitement. If we win, I’ll be happy – I won’t be gleeful about the people who are sad to have lost. I’ll be happy for them, too, because I think if Trump wins, and a sizable number of Republican candidates win across the board, a lot of good things are going to happen for a large percentage of our society. (Good things won’t happen for the bureaucratic swamp, fingers crossed.)

    So every time I think “what if we don’t win?” I just go back to that hope and excitement and the sense that big things were about to happen, which I started to feel a few months ago. That’s how I’ve been getting through these past couple of days with a smile, anyway.

  80. Neo

    Sorry to keep swatting this horse; your, for want of a better term, “charlottesvilleproof” friends have never even heard there’s a dispute? Not that they’ve heard the other side. That they’ve heard some folks object to the story as laid out?

    There are what might be called “offsetting stories”. George Floyd and Justine Damond. Kyle Rittenhouse and Darrell Brooks. Matthew Shepard and Jesse Dirkhising. Duke laxers and Katie Rouse.
    In each case, the first went national and engendered much ostentatious moral outrage. All were local stories but the first of each went national and the second stayed local.
    You have to be right wing to know about the second of each, since the mainstream didn’t cover them. Powerline, being based in Minneapolis, were close enough to the first two examples to see the local news of the Damond and Brooks cases. Reading Powerline makes one right wing, I suppose, so only right wingers get local news from elsewhere. But is following local news “right wing”?

    But, I submit, these and others are not Charlottesville. That there is a dispute about Charlottesville has been “out” long enough that it is incomprehensible that very many people at all don’t know it. What they know about it is something else.
    But what they know about it is not the point. That the dispute exists is the point and I find it difficult to believe nobody knows it. Sure, some people dismiss it with a disgusting nasal snort, but they don’t deny it. I’ve heard convoluted explanations about why the entire part of Trump’s talk is a tacked-on hoax. But nobody has ever evinced real surprise. Never. That they may have a change of mind if they look into it is not the point, either. That they are not at all likely to have been completely unfamiliar is the point.

    Okay. I’ll take it that some of your friends are information-proof even if it plunks itself in front of them when they were thinking of something else.

    But in my experience, instead, every last one is information-resistant.

  82. Richard Aubrey:

    I don’t know why you’d find it so hard to believe that people who aren’t political junkies or newshounds, and who follow the news in a fairly surface fashion on the MSM, are unaware of any sort of substantive dispute about the context of the “fine people” quote.

    I would even wager that, if I had the same level and type of news consumption habits I had until around 2001, I would be unaware of the “fine people ” dispute too.

  84. I believe the main reason people are voting for Harris is Abortion. They seem to mistakenly believe that President Trump will end that “right”. President Trump on numerous occasions has said that the Abortion issue, and many others, should be left up to the individual state.

    Infidel753 mistakenly believes that the Constitution exists to LIMIT the rights of individuals.

    Wrong.

    The Constitution is supposed to limit a government’s ability to take away the rights of American Citizens.

    It is really sad how badly indoctrinated the supposedly college ‘educated’ are.

  85. Neo – Thank you so much for expressing my anxieties, so many of my thoughts, and many of my experiences (especially as a Conservative in NYC w/ quite a few liberal (very) friends).
    Altho’ many might be surprised to learn that there are actually quite a few silent Conservatives in Manhattan. I have. The slip of a comment on something political.. furtive looks exchanged… and then a whispered “Are you one of us?” Followed by a bit of laughter and, relief, and camaraderie. I’ve been surprised quite a few times. Pleasantly so.

  86. csimon:

    Good to see you again.

    I’ve had people come up to me privately after I say something about politics in a group, and quietly tell me they’re on the conservative side too but will never be declaring it publicly and that I should keep it a secret.

  87. People will vote for Kamala for two main reasons. First, she’s not Trump. Second, they want to see the first (non-white) woman president.

    Harris, I’m afraid, will win. And “make history.” I’m not sure if I’m going to vote simply for the fact I had a long working day; I’d have to wake up at 5:30 a.m. to get a decent spot in line. I work in public schools so I have Tuesday off. I have numerous errands to fulfill and then start work (my second job) in the evening. Unlike the last two elections my enthusiasm to fulfill my civic duty has dwindled.

    But do I care who wins on Tuesday night? I do, I guess, but very little.

  88. “People will vote for Kamala for two main reasons. First, she’s not Trump. Second, they want to see the first (non-white) woman president.” – GRA

    You might be right– other than missing abortion as a reason, which doesn’t bode well for the country. The two parties do have different paths for America, which will have consequences.

    Trump’s path is to empower the private sector to grow the economy. Harris’s path is to growth the government.

  90. Re Bing and DuckDuckGo: I had read previously that DDG uses Bing results, which this article confirms (along with Yahoo and others).

    https://thedroidguy.com/does-duckduckgo-use-bing-results-the-ultimate-search-engine-guide-1261346
    ————————————————————-
    I note that the Harris-supporting “infidel753” said nothing about unvetted millions of people streaming into the country.
    ————————————————————–
    I’m not anxious about the election. God is in control and my Savior is walking with me. If (as I pray) Trump is elected, it will be a dire battle to begin restoring the Republic and Rule of Law. If Harris is elected, we will face the same battle.

    My other prayer is that Trump can be a unifier, which sounds crazy, but is not impossible!

    I used to wonder how people could vote for Harris (or Biden) but I’m done with fretting about it. All I can do is shake my head, chuckle and live my best life, after doing all I can to help the patriotic candidates. But I am well aware that many people I meet are truly political enemies!
    ————————————————————–
    GRA: I’m sorry that you may not bother to vote. Your salary comes from our taxes. At least you recognize that it is your civic duty to vote. Hope you have it in you to exercise it tomorrow!

    Perhaps an economic turnaround under Trump would let you drop your second job, have more free time, and be better rested!

  91. Outstanding post and discussion.
    It will take me most of tomorrow to ponder some of connections examined and the linked articles recommended.

    It appears that many people here have had varying experiences with Democrats,
    but they are all talking about the same elephant.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
    (Not implying any of you are blind, but it’s the analogy that comes to my mind.)

    I suppose, in this case, I ought to retell the parable by having the conservative “blind men” describe a donkey.
    Substitute “big teeth” for the “tusk” and I think that will do it.

    There are many kinds of people, and all of us know a different subset of any particular large group.
    Some people are friends mostly with Democrats who are the trunk type; some, with the leg type; some, with the tail type; etc.

    I could do a Venn diagram if you really want one. 😉

    Wikipedia, despite being now a mostly left-wing-leaning source, unwittingly undercuts a prime element of their dogma, by correctly explaining the point of the story.

    In some versions, they stop talking, start listening and collaborate to “see” the full elephant. In another, a sighted man enters the parable and describes the entire elephant from various perspectives, the blind men then learn that they were all partially correct and partially wrong. While one’s subjective experience is true, it may not be the totality of truth.

    I thought it was an article of faith on the left that there was no truth to have a totality of.
    Each of the Blind Men, had they been Democrats examining a Republican elephant, would have just retorted that they had their Own Truth and were sticking with it.

  92. I think that Infidel753 demonstrates very well the POV of what Neo means by by describing her Democrat friends as being MSM-dependent for all of their information. The points in Infidel’s comment are exactly the ones we can see being made by Democrat pundits and supporters, and are advanced as rational disagreements on policy.

    It’s convenient to have so many of them in one place.

    I agree with Neo, who asked Cicero, “Why “deranged” rather than “deeply mistaken”?”

    Infidel’s comments aren’t “deranged” in totality.

    Truly deranged comments are things like: Trump is going to put all the Democrats in camps; Trump is going to execute Liz Cheney; Trump is going to reveal all our national security secrets to Putin, and so forth. There are Democrats saying those things, but they aren’t in Infidel’s list.

    Infidel is deeply mistaken about Trump’s positions on:
    Abortion, repealing Obamacare, ending Social Security, and cutting off aid to Ukraine. The media purveying those mistaken positions are mostly doing so deliberately, but their captive audience (as Neo relates) isn’t hearing what Trump actually says.
    That most of those points are in conflict with reality, as Neo and others demonstrate, is irrelevant: that is what they believe and you cannot convince them otherwise.

    However, there are also some moderately deranged points in Infidel’s comment because the Democrat positions are themselves deranged:

    We need to raise the minimum wage to be more in line with what other advanced countries have. We need restoration of reasonable tax rates on the ultra-wealthy to help get the deficit under control. Puerto Rico and DC deserve statehood. We need a federal ban on gerrymandering that will really be enforceable. If the Democrats win the House, Senate, and presidency, they will likely do at least some of these things. There’s no chance the Republicans would.

    As Neo says, the evidence is overwhelming that minimum wages do NOT help the poor, but it sounds like a good thing and gets votes from the economically illiterate, including most of the media pundits. The advanced countries with high minimum wages have plenty of problems as a result, although that’s also part of their entire “package” of socialism and too big to address in the limited amount of time your Democrat friends might possibly listen to you.

    The restoration of reasonable tax rates (how high? reasonable by what standard?) on the ultra-wealthy (how rich?) to help get the deficit under control. The first two points are discussable, and have been adjusted countless times over the years; the “purpose” as stated is prima-facie evidence of derangement. Increased tax revenues always go to new spending, not to deficit reduction.

    The Democrats strenuously object to the Electoral College (when they lose), but they want PR and DC each to have 3 reps on that deeply evil institution; that’s not necessarily deranged (it has utility to them), but it is hypocritical and logically inconsistent.
    Puerto Rico may “deserve” statehood, and that can be a subject for reasonable discussion, but they keep turning it down in referendums, so to continue asking for it is moderately deranged.
    DC does not deserve anything. See sdferr on November 4, 2024 at 4:32 pm.

    No federal ban on anything as nebulous as gerrymandering (who decides what boundaries are forbidden?) is completely enforceable (by whom? how?) and invites continuous litigation (by that dreaded Conservative Court that the Democrats despise — for now).

    If the Democrats win the House, Senate, and presidency, they may do some of these things; they didn’t try for some of them when Obama had all three branches, they failed at other times. They will talk about doing them, maybe.

    There’s no chance the Republicans would, because those policies are deranged.

    Note that border control, government collusion in media censorship, terrorist eradication, preventing Iran from getting a working nuke, and other important policies where Trump and the Democrats differ are NOT in Infidel’s list at all. Nor does the list touch the new third-rail of Palestine-Hamas-Israel.

  93. @ TommyJay > “If a major news network can selectively edit George Zimmerman’s 911 recording to falsely make him out to be a racist, then what do you think they will do to Trump??”

    I think that was when I finally accepted that the media as a group were actively lying to support Democrat positions. I had at one time thought that Dan Rather’s lies about the Bush letter were a result of his own personal bias, and did not expect to learn, over the succeeding years, that it was actually an expression of deep systemic partisanship.

    It really doesn’t matter if Trump had originally phrased his statements to make the distinction between the neo-nazis and the nice people crystal clear; the regime media would have edited it otherwise anyway.

  94. @ Brian E > ” tech companies are more interested in hiring from universities like Georgia Tech than prestige universities like Stanford,”

    This isn’t really new, although DEI and Woke and Post-Modernism have made it worse.
    When AesopSpouse and I decided to go back to Texas in the late 1980s, he was able to take a position in a law firm with one of our college friends, himself the son of a lawyer. The friend said his dad would never hire anyone from Yale, Harvard, etc, but rather from a modest state school, because they were actually taught about laws and statutes and the practical aspects of lawyering, not the grandiose philosophies of the legal profession.

  96. @ Barry – David Strom at Hot Air makes some good points, and also mentions a Deranged position I forgot to put in my screed about Infidel’s comment.

    “Many liberals have been worked up into a frenzy over Trump just as they were over COVID. They trust, for some reason, the decency and veracity of the people who are in positions of influence. They cannot believe that their “experts” or “elite” or “leaders”–whatever you want to call them–would perpetrate hoaxes. So they live in a bizarro world where Trump will send Seal Team Six out to kill them.”

    Also ties back to huxley’s comment about Democrats refusing to believe Trump when he tells them about something Kamala did in fact propose doing.
    “it sounds so outrageous that Democrats assume Trump must be lying.”

  97. @ Barry > “This piece may help to explain, at least in part, how that sheer, extraordinary hatred was manufactured, generated and spread by the lies invented and endlessly repeated by the Democrats and their media operatives.”

    MacDougald’s post in Tablet’s The Scroll is great, as you implied.

    At their Substack “Truth Over News,” independent journalists Jeff Carlson and Hans Mahncke report on the newly obtained transcript of a Jan. 17, 2017 meeting between then outgoing President Barack Obama and 17 unnamed “progressive” journalists, in which they discussed Trump’s upcoming term and allegations that Trump had colluded with Russia
    …
    I highlight this briefing not only because the transcript is new but also because it points to the origin point for the derangement of American politics over the past eight years: the Obama faction’s weaponization of the security state and the press to deny the American people a legitimate opportunity to reject their agenda at the ballot box.

    Embedded in the story, behind the ellipsis, was this nugget of wisdom from Obama, who was talking about Trump but actually describing himself, as Democrats often do.

    What I would simply say would be that any time you have a foreign actor who, for whatever reason, has ex parte influence over the president of the United States, meaning that the American people can’t see that influence because it’s not happening in a bilateral meeting and subject to negotiations or reporting—any time that happens, that’s a problem. And I’ll let you speculate on where that could go.

    But this was the kicker, at the bottom of the article, after discussing a Tweet thread by pundit Jeremy Senderowicz, “a friend of the newsletter and no fan of Trump’s,” who is switching to Trump anyway:

    Richard Spencer, 2016’s most famous white supremacist, endorsed Kamala Harris on Friday.

    That appears to be true. Spencer also endorsed Biden in 2020.

    https://redstate.com/wardclark/2024/11/03/noted-white-supremacist-endorses-kamala-harris-n2181440

    Can we revisit that Charlottesville quote again?

  98. PS Scroll past MacDougald’s main story for some other interesting news and a great essay by Walter Russell Meade, which covers a lot of the points raised in Neo’s post & the comments. Very long but RTWT if you can make the time.

    https://thedailyscroll.substack.com/p/nov-4-show-time

    Some snippits (not in block quotes)
    *********************
    That’s a photo, shared by our friend Liel Leibovitz on X, of Aliza Shagrir, an Israeli television presenter who was among the four people killed in the 1980 bombing of the Rue Copernic synagogue in Paris, France, by a cell of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Last year, a French court convicted a Canadian man of Lebanese descent, Hassan Diab, in absentia for the murders. Who is Diab? Currently, he is a professor of sociology at Carleton University in Canada, where he teaches a course on “social justice in action.”
    **************************
    With the IDF’s Monday announcement that it had eliminated Abu Ali Rida, a regional Hezbollah commander, the Israelis have now killed 19 of the “idea’s” top 19 leaders—no doubt a decisive defeat for the Israelis, according to the Biden-Harris logic that killing your enemies is counterproductive. On the bright side, if you know any young men struggling in the current economy, we can now decisively identify one organization that offers quick paths to promotion. Benefits are negotiable, but there’s a dress code, and relocation to Beirut is a must. Candidates should, however, be able provide their own beepers, due to ongoing issues with the supply chain.
    **********************
    That, from Nachman Mostofsky on X, is a video of an Orthodox Jewish pro-Trump caravan in Rockland County, New York. As Mostovsky writes, “I’ve never in my 40+ years of life seen the Orthodox Jewish community push a presidential candidate as if it was a local one.” Trump has also sought—and received—the favor of the other peoples of the empire. On Saturday, Trump nabbed an endorsement from several leaders of the Minneapolis Somali community, and the weekend before that, he was endorsed by a group of Arab and Muslim leaders in Michigan, including Imam Belal Alzuhairi and Dearborn Heights Mayor Bill Bazzi. According to a recent report in Fox, Amish voters in Pennsylvania are also enthusiastic for the former president, especially following state police raids on Amish farms earlier this year for the crime of selling raw milk.
    ******************
    How Teddy Roosevelt can help save us from our Marie Antoinette problem
    by Walter Russell Mead

    The biggest single crisis facing the United States on the eve of the election does not come from Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. It does not come from our enemies abroad. It does not come from our dissensions at home. It does not come from unfunded entitlement commitments. It does not come from climate change. Our greatest and most dangerous crisis is the decay of effective leadership at all levels of our national life, something that makes both our foreign and domestic problems, serious as they are, significantly more daunting than they should be.

  99. @ huxley > “it sounds so outrageous that Democrats assume Trump must be lying.”

    The source for your example was posted earlier by NancyB:
    https://www.thenewneo.com/2024/11/02/its-lies-all-the-way-down-and-you-can-fool-some-of-the-people-much-of-the-time/#comment-2769716

    Subtitle: Republican activists say they have to water down the reality of their opponents’ agenda in focus groups. ‘They just don’t believe it’s true. It can’t be.‘

    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/democrats-insanity-defense

  101. @ Snow > “Harris brings up the subject of bacon,” – to a Muslim interviewer.
    @ Kate > “That little head really is empty.”

    Obama had the same problem, and he was raised among Muslims.
    But maybe it was Hillary’s fault. Another of those mistakes like her Russian “reset” button.*

    https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/us/politics/25invite.html

    WASHINGTON ? It was an attempt by President Obama to reach out to Iran with a classically American invitation: celebrate the Fourth of July with hot dogs and hearty fellowship at United States Embassies worldwide. Now, hot-dog diplomacy is the latest casualty of the bloody clashes in Tehran.

    On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who had authorized diplomatic posts this month to invite Iranians to their Independence Day parties, sent out a cable rescinding the invitations.

    Embassies that had already invited Iranian diplomats were instructed to disinvite them.

    It is not clear whether this will be much of a snub to the Iranians. The State Department spokesman, Ian C. Kelly, said he was not aware of a single diplomat who had R.S.V.P.’d anywhere in the world.

    Now, the norm for us plebes is pork, sometimes mixed with chicken. Maybe Barry meant them to chow down on some good kosher Hebrew National beef dogs, which comes with its own set of problems, but those were an expensive treat in my grocery stores.

    *Clinton’s translation faux pas, plus Obama’s offer to Putin of greater flexibility after his re-election and his jibe to Mitt “Russia is our greatest international threat” Romney about the 1980s wanting its foreign policy back, immediately made me suspect that the claim about Trump being a Putin stooge was a hoax of some kind, although it took years for the details to come clear.

  102. “That Trump didn’t say that about Charlottesville is out there sufficiently that it’s impossible that very many people do not know there’s a contradiction which might well be investigated.”

    Well just yesterday a clean articulate black man who used to hold a very high government office and has a nice sharp crease in his pants said that Trump did say that. So how can we not believe it?

  108. On the Equal Time Rule for NBC situation, I think Ed Morrissey has the correct conclusion. There was no fear of a fine or other punishment from the FCC or FEC for letting Harris have a free gig on SNL unless they balanced it with enough free ads for Trump to make equal time. But NBC did it anyway (one after the Nascar race and one after an NFL snoozer game).

    https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2024/11/04/nb-see-the-difference-network-backs-down-after-snls-kamala-promotion-n3796646

    My suspicion is that NBC execs are looking at the same Gallup poll that has Jeff Bezos changing directions at the Washington Post. They have a big night coming up tomorrow, and they want as much of the audience as they can get. Allowing that Harris spot on SNL to go unrebutted would underscore their corporate bias against Trump and his supporters, which would then mean their broadcast audience might not get much larger that [than] the draw for MSNBC, their cable home for shrieking progressives. It’s relatively cheap to offer Trump two sixty-second spots to bury this contretemps before Election Night. Better to patch over the credibility issue than let it fester into Tuesday.

    Not that it will really help NBC’s credibility. But it will at least put an end to more damage.

  110. I’m curious about why so many people are coming out with endorsements of either candidate on the day before the election, when a lot of people have already voted, when those who haven’t may not even hear about the endorsement or be swayed by it, and when it could alienate up to half of their “followers” (on social media or business associates/customers or church members or whatever).
    That goes double for people who are endorsing contra their expected party affiliation. (I think Joe Rogan was an independent/neutral; IDK for sure.)

    What’s the deal with putting down markers after the game is almost over?

  111. If a lot of people who hadn’t voted yet see this story (at any outlet), it could be the real October Surprise in November, and a Black Squirrel event to oust the renowned Black Swans.

    https://hotair.com/david-strom/2024/11/03/sunday-smiles-for-peanut-and-fred-n3796632

    Some stories take on a life of their own, and Peanut the Squirrel’s and Fred the Raccoon’s certainly did that.

    I have a very small Twitter account–around 4000 followers–and a typical post I put up gets around 500 or fewer views. Let’s just say I am no Ben Shapiro or Elon Musk when it comes to followers.

    Yet I tweeted about Peanut and this happened.

    Why does the Peanut the Squirrel story matter? It demonstrates the reality of government. Petty bureaucrats can, at a whim, terrorize people. Nobody was being hurt, good things were being done, but some petty rule was broken. They mobilized goons and destroyed something good. https://t.co/uT8cIaU9Qd

    — David Strom (@DavidStrom) November 2, 2024
    As I write this, the tweet has nearly a million views, and I expect it the final total to be at least 50% greater. It has been retweeted eight and a half thousand times, has 37,000 likes, and the views move so fast that I can see them change in real-time.

    Why? It’s simple: because big problems are easy to make complicated, and it’s difficult to wrap your head around the fate of the country, but we all understand that the government raiding a home to murder a squirrel is WRONG in so many ways. The event is the grain of sand around which the pearl of understanding grows.

    People get this story: a Karen who was jealous that a squirrel had more Instagram followers than she calls the authorities, the authorities use a technicality to raid an animal shelter/home (300 rescue animals are housed on the farm) funded by donations driven by Peanut the Squirrel videos, four judges and countless bureaucrats mobilize to turn a home upside down to kidnap the squirrel, and then they kill it.

    That’s government abuse in a nutshell, as it were. For my friends, anything. For my enemies, the law.

    Peanut and Fred were beautiful creatures. The New York government decided that they needed to be put down to check if they had rabies.

    They did not have rabies. pic.twitter.com/dBoCYIARe7

    — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) November 2, 2024

    [AF: nor was it likely that they did, in their situation]

    Peanut and Fred the Raccoon, also killed, were hurting nobody. They were in fact, helping raise money for an animal shelter that protects everything from swans to horses that have been injured, abused, abandoned, or can’t live in the wild for some reason.
    …
    This story is viral–it has taken over Twitter/X in fact–because you either see the evil or you don’t. It is about bureaucratic indifference, government overreach, setting priorities, determining what “helps” or hurts society be better. If you think killing a pet squirrel and a pet raccoon whom people love makes things better, then look in the mirror and ask why murderers are set free but squirrels raising money for animal rescue get killed.
    …
    Peanut was not “just” a squirrel, and Fred was not “just” a raccoon. They were companions. And bureaucrats killed them.

    The outpouring of grief from MAGA is partly for their saviors, but equally it is driven by rage at the faceless of a government that doesn’t care about people and instead worships power. Many liberals shrug and say “this is the law” and they [sic] killers were just doing their jobs.

    Yes. That is the problem.

    On to the memes: …

    … which include several really good ones.

    Astute readers will note the significance of “just doing their jobs” in the current context where Democrats relentlessly label Trump as “Hitler.”

    (I guess we have to retire Godwin’s Law permanently.)

  112. The Wikipedia article starts out with a fair history of the origin and development of Godwin’s Law, its use in early internet threads, its extensions and “folk meaning,” and the times when comparisons to Hitler are legitimately invoked.
    From whence they segue into justifications for ditching all of the above, because, Trump.

    Then Herr Godwin drinks the Kool-Aid himself.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

    In 2023, Godwin published an opinion on The Washington Post stating “Yes, it’s okay to compare Trump to Hitler. Don’t let me stop you.” In the article, Godwin says “But when people draw parallels between Donald Trump’s 2024 candidacy and Hitler’s progression from fringe figure to Great Dictator, we aren’t joking. Those of us who hope to preserve our democratic institutions need to underscore the resemblance before we enter the twilight of American democracy.”

    FWIW, I wrote in Cthulhu/SMOD on my ballot today.
    (Well, I thought about it….)

  113. The DOJ continually worries about doing something that might influence an election by acting within (30,60,90) days of the (official) voting day — so they didn’t investigate Hillary Clinton’s email server or Hunter Biden’s laptop — which is now well known to have deprived voters of essential information about the Democrat candidates’ fitness for office.
    BUT they can announce abruptly, without prior negotiation with the States, inserting themselves into an election ON the Day.

    https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2024/11/04/new-missouri-sues-doj-over-poll-monitors-n2181543

    It’s a contest between federal might and a state’s right as we head into the waning hours of the 2024 election. The Department of Justice announced that it would be sending lawyers out to 86 polling locations in 27 states to monitor them on Tuesday.

    But some of those states are pushing back, including Missouri, which filed suit against the DOJ on Monday challenging the feds’ right to have monitors in place.
    …
    Missouri isn’t the only state raising objections to the DOJ monitoring announcement. Both Texas and Florida have taken issue with the practice as well.

    They alleged a clearly spurious reason for overseeing “86 jurisdictions in 27 states that the department will monitor on Election Day “for compliance with federal civil rights laws in elections,” according to a DOJ announcement issued on Nov. 1.”

    We all remember what happened to the New Black Panthers who threatened and intimidated voters during the Obama years.
    And we know that the DOJ lies in order to prosecute conservatives.
    What could go wrong with having their monitors at the polls?

    From Missouri’s complaint:

    To secure elections, Missouri exercised that traditional authority by enacting a law that strictly limits who, besides voters, can be present in a polling location. Poll monitors employed by DOJ are not on that list. Yet without specifically citing any federal authority authorizing its actions, DOJ announced on Friday November 1 its intent to displace Missouri law and place unauthorized poll monitors in polling locations in the City of St. Louis.

    If Garland really thought he needed to have his minions watching out for the civil rights of whoever he was concerned about, he should have started negotiations with the states months ago.
    The hearing should already have happened, so maybe Red State will have an update Tuesday morning.

  115. Also from Strom’s post, a video that’s a tad NSFW although I didn’t see anything that hasn’t appeared on TV, the internet, or pretty much everywhere these days without any noticeable reticence.

    (Somehow, despite the abundant trigger warnings for woke snowflakes, no one protects the tender feelings of those who don’t really care for crude coarseness.)

    But, it’s hilarious, if it weren’t so close to true.

    https://x.com/freethepeople/status/1852123392276644285

  116. The title is “James Bond fights hate speech in Censorship Royale.”

    You have been warned.

  118. One more changer for the early hours.
    Maybe a tad late to be an effective endorsement, but Berenson has been sliding right for a long time — or rather, staying put while the Democrats slid left.

    Some may recall that he was an early “Covid denier” and got cancelled for his reward, and now has a lawsuit against Facebook that has a good chance of winning.

    https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/why-im-voting-for-donald-j-trump?

    Why I’m voting for Donald J. Trump
    He is an imperfect vessel – to say the least – but the country needs change
    …

    Two years ago, I said I would vote for a Democrat over Donald Trump in 2024. I wrote that during a Republican primary I hoped Florida governor Ron DeSantis would win; DeSantis had stood almost alone against Covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates, forever earning my respect.

    But Trump crushed DeSantis in the primary. Ever since, I have struggled over what to do in this election.

    In one sense, my vote doesn’t matter. I live in New York, which Kamala Harris is sure to win. But it must at least a little, because many of you – a surprising number – have asked or urged me to repudiate my 2022 words and endorse Trump.

    With three days left in this most brutal of campaigns, I am.

    In some ways, this choice pains me.
    …

    Yet when I pull back and consider the issues, I see:

    It is the Democratic Party that stands against free speech; that forced mRNA vaccines on tens of millions of healthy adults; that opened America’s southern border until public outcry forced it closed; that supports decriminalization of drugs and “decarceration” of violent criminals; that presides over one giveaway after another to its favored interest groups; and that is willing to risk the American economy over its fears of climate change – it has, with little notice, pushed through regulations that will make gasoline-powered vehicles all but unaffordable within a decade.

    What exactly does Kamala Harris stand for, if not more of the same?

    …

    He [Trump] is working harder to win votes than he ever has, in the face of an elite media that hates him more than ever. For all his complaints about rigged elections, he wants to win this one quite badly.

    So, yes, Donald Trump is angry. He has the right to be.

    We ALL have the right to be. For too long, our self-appointed betters – in the media, in public health, in academia – have told us they know best. They have told us that men can be women if they just click their heels three times, that the United States is an evil nation founded mostly to protect slavery, that there’s no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Most of all they have tried to shut down – to cancel, to censor -anyone who disagrees.

    They’ve gone too far. And with their lawfare, they have proven that they will do anything to stop the man they abhor.

    So I will be voting for Donald Trump.

    It is not an easy choice – not for me, anyway – but it is the only choice.

  120. A long thread full of great comments that I had to catch up with this morning. My one small anecdote on dealing with the “left”. I generally stay away from political topics as I don’t feel I’m very competent in that area. I will take on anyone with regard to climate change and some other areas of physics. I’ve written a short monograph which summarizes many of the salient points of contrary data. Kate, and Paul in Boston have seen it.

    So a few months ago I got into it with a fellow who is a mutual “facebook friend” with a guy I knew in grad school. This fellow is the definition of a young, arrogant, leftist. We went back and forth a bit, and then I suggested he give me his email so I could send him my paper. He agreed. All the data in my paper are from published sources including NOAA and even the IPCC. I asked him to refute any of the data with other published data. He couldn’t, and then started the usual attack saying if what I wrote was so good why didn’t I publish it? I again stated there’s no point in publishing data that has already been published and again asked him to provide counter arguments. At that point, he said I have to be an idiot of a scientist. I’ve heard that before in similar contexts of climate change.

    It’s an old story here at Neo’s. Breaking though that wall by argument from the other side just does not work. I think I am wired differently, though I also think I was well-trained as an experimental physicist. We are constantly bombarded by contrary data in our lab and have to always question every measurement. It’s not so much as being a skeptic about everything, as much as understanding there is a certain foundation from which to operate, and then making sure one is not fooling one’s self.

  121. NEO, they had this exact same discussion on Tim Pool’s show last night.

    https://www.youtube.com/live/lbgfXH4Bp_o?si=eKGuih4Ui1c9xfnx&t=2910

    The link above should be timestamped to just before the 50 min mark. Tim tells a story of showing a bill, it’s exact text, to a friend of his who would not believe it.

    This is why the Left freaked out about Musk buying Twitter. He didn’t even do anything to them, he just made it “more free” – which they can’t stand because their entire cause rests upon the edifice of lies and deception. So when a possible avenue to the truth opens up, they have to go into overdrive to close off any chance someone might listen to it. Thus the conditioning begins on how evil and bad Musk is (when the day before he was a beloved hero) and Twitter is now all about fascism. The point is to erect guards in their followers’ minds against the truth. It’s a great liars’ trick. Accuse the person trying to protect your mark of being the one that’s lying, not the liar. Even if the liar doesn’t convince the mark of this, the liar can often exhaust the mark from trying to filter out what’s true so then the mark doesn’t bother listening to either side – which is still a better outcome than realizing that the liar is one.

  123. Few people are voting enthusiastically for Kamala Harris because they think she’s a brilliant woman and would be a great president. They are voting against Donald Trump and that is something I warned about over two years ago.

  124. AesopFan,

    “FWIW, I wrote in Cthulhu/SMOD on my ballot today.”

    I feel your pain.

  125. RTF @ 5:56: “… when [Obama] won re-election I concluded a majority of the U.S. voting public values security (comfort) over liberty.”
    Reminds me of the 2004 book Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty by Randy Barnett. You may already know about it, too?

    But no matter who wins “… there is still a sizeable electorate in the U.S. that prefers liberty and localism over federal control.” Even Romney’s 47-6-47 comment back in the day is wider than today’s 48-4-48 [at best] situation today.

    And JJ at 7:38: +++ on your response to RTF. In your subsequent discussion of the LIV’s maybe this adjustment? “How many [even well educated and credentialed folks] can tell you what causes inflation and how it’s brought under control? 10%? 15%? Not many or they would not be voting Democrat.” Even writers in the conservative City Journal confuse price increases due to supply/demand changes as “inflation”; rather than recognizing “real inflation” is only due to monetary devaluation from an excess supply of money. Those who truly understand this may be only 3% of the voters, at best?

    While I agree with you saying “… it’s going to take some really hard times for the majority of citizens to wake up”; I believe this is incorrect: “The Gramscian march began during the 1960s and Vietnam.” Even if he developed his ideas in the 1920’s/30’s, we can look to Woodrow Wilson and John Dewy as prior exemplars of illiberal approaches to social and governmental actions. Some people even blame TR for his advancing Progressivism.

    Kate @ 6:51: “… Republicans are not going to take away your Social Security. That’s a Democrat talking point without foundation.” While recognizing your qualifying remarks about lower income folks and older age cohorts retaining what they were promised, we should be talking about taking away the deeply flawed “pay as you go” SS Ponzi scheme for the younger folks [maybe 50 and below or 40 and below?]. Convert those payroll taxes into private IRA account equivalents, with much better long term retirement ROI’s., greater personal control, etc. Make such investing mandatory if [abosulutely] necessary.

  126. Thus the strategic “brilliance” of calling one’s political opponent a “Nazi”.

    See, one can tell any lie, commit any crime, destroy any person, city, society or country…to PREVENT a “Nazi” from being voted into power. (Or even to exist….)

    And if it backfires? Hey, if one’s policy is societal breakdown and national destruction—sorry, “TRANSFORMATION—it can’t possibly backfire.

    That the Democrats have ALREADY been engaging in such behavior since Obama’s first term (or perhaps even before that) is immaterial(!)—cf. TRANSFORMATION.

    See, calling Trump and his supporters “Nazis” is the Democratic Party’s grand, over-arching GET-OUT-JAIL-FREE card, which enables, permits, allows—JUSTIFIES—anything and everything they wish to do and say…and have already done…and said.

    The country? But what about the country??

    Awww, get with the program!
    “IF YOU DON’T VOTE FOR US YOU AIN’T AMERICAN” (In fact you’re an “Enemy of Democracy” and “our great nation!!!”)

    Like I said, absolutely brilliant.
    (Indeed, a great illness has befallen the land…”. Time to try to heal it, fix it repair it, succor it, nourish it, help it, SAVE IT. Which means saving it from those intent on destroying it.)

  127. AesopFan on November 5, 2024 at 6:51 am: You Hot Air quote just says it so very well:
    ” … we all understand that the government raiding a home to murder a squirrel is WRONG in so many ways. The event is the grain of sand around which the pearl of understanding grows.”

  128. Both parties have contributed equally to where America is at today. We didn’t get here overnite
    ==
    You’re not in a forum dominated by the ignorant. Take it somewhere else.

  131. Not that this will convince anyone, such is the current polarization of the masses…but here goes:
    “The real threat to democracy comes from above”—
    https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/11/04/the-real-threat-to-democracy-comes-from-above/
    H/T Blazingcatfur blog.
    https://blazingcatfur.ca/2024/11/05/the-real-threat-to-democracy-comes-from-above/

    + Bonus (Turley):
    Modus operandi…
    “Ha Ha, Thump:
    “Why the Last-Minute SNL is No Laughing Matter”—
    https://jonathanturley.org/2024/11/05/ha-ha-thump-why-the-last-minute-snl-pitch-for-harris-is-no-laughing-matter/
    H/T Powerline blog.

  132. The problem isn’t Kamala. Like Biden, she will just be a facade. The problem is the deep state (or whatever you want to call it), that is actually running things.

  133. neo.
    We move in different worlds. Even my leftist acquaintances are different from yours. As regards Charlottesville and similar issues, for none of my lefty acquaintances is that new news. They may dismiss it angrily, but the all, emphasis on ALL, know there is a Think to which they are reacting.

    The offsetting stories which I listed are different because they didn’t go national.

    Maybe my Moral Outrage Alert Weekly Bulletin isn’t really a metaphor…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑