Anxiety about the election: plus, why would people vote for Kamala?
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].
We are all Winston Smith now.
(Well, some of us…)
File under (sigh)…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKDloS2gBHs
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
US Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 8:
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.
Richard Aubrey:
You write:
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.
Both parties have contributed equally to where America is at today. We didn’t get here overnite.
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:
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 possiblyvoted against Trump ‘n REPs this time…Anxiety this year? Nope, not humble me. Alfred said it best: What, Me Worry?
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.
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.
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.
“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
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.
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.
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
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.
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??
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Neo…here’s a summary of abortion laws in Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe
…for example,14 weeks in France, 12 weeks in Germany,
I think most Americans are unaware of this; many probably thing the restrictions existing in the US are a world exception, driven by those Christian Nationalists.
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….”
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.
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.
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.
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.
neo writes, “but find politics generally distasteful.”
In that clip from the Aviator I linked Hepburn’s family finds talk of money distasteful.
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.
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.
Infidel 753’s comments are deranged, all of them.
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.
Cicero:
Why “deranged” rather than “deeply mistaken”?
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?
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.
“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.
“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?
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?”
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 .
Neo,
It’s power. The pursuit of, the maintenance of, etc. There’s nothing more intoxicating, nothing.
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.
“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.
“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/
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.
Sennacherib:
It’s power for leftists in government. It’s not power for the average Democrat voter.
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.
Snow on Pine, she doesn’t know that Muslims don’t eat pork? That little head really is empty.
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.
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.
“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.
Richard Aubrey:
You write:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here would be an interesting test.
Play this clip on free speech and see how many Harris supporters don’t see this as a serious/potential problem and how many Trump supporters do and vice versa.
2024 Election: Free Speech’s Final Stand [Supercut]
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1853303465637818447
In a nutshell…
(To be read as reasons why one ought to support Harris.)
“I am tired of leaders who hate me”—
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2024/11/04/i-am-tired-of-leaders-who-hate-me-n3796662
H/T Instapundit.
https://instapundit.com/682146/
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.
@Snow On Pine,
Hmmm…was that cameraman related to the one who was covering a Trump rally, and when Trump said “All our rallies are full!”, s/he panned the arena to show hundreds of empty seats?
https://www.wionews.com/world/watch-trump-boasts-his-every-rally-is-full-as-cameraman-pans-to-empty-seats-773105
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.
Richard Aubrey and others:
Two older posts of mine that are very relevant to this question are this one and this one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
FWIW
https://nypost.com/2024/11/04/us-news/joe-rogan-announces-endorsement-of-trump-while-promoting-elon-musk-interview-on-x/
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!