GAETZ WILL GET THE JOB ONE WAY OR ANOTHER

Many people believe that Donald Trump picked Matt Gaetz to be attorney general as a ploy:

I worry that Gaetz is the sacrificial lamb and who Trump really wants through is Tulsi and the Fox host.

— Allie A (@alliea.bsky.social) November 13, 2024 at 6:52 PM

Hypothesis: Gaetz is the sacrificial lamb Trump is giving to the Senate to make it more likely Hegseth - who Trump actually wants - gets through.

— Jeff Lazarus wants to live in a democracy (@jlazarus.bsky.social) November 13, 2024 at 8:40 PM

He probably nominated Gaetz as a sacrificial lamb so he can push through Paxton on the second try.

— jeanjeanie.bsky.social (@jeanjeanie.bsky.social) November 13, 2024 at 5:51 PM

But that seems a lot less plausible coming from Trump than this scenario, from a very connected figure in the right-wing legal world:

Hope it's wrong, but I'm hearing through the grapevine about this bonkers plan: Trump would adjourn both Houses of Congress under Article II, section 3, and then recess-appoint his Cabinet.

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) November 13, 2024

Article II, section 3 says that the president

may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses [of Congress], or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper....

The "extraordinary Occasion" in this case would be adult toddler Trump saying, "WAAAAHHHH! I'm not getting my own way!"

And will the Senate really put up resistance? The Bulwark's Marc Caputo reports that even a senator who had unpleasant interactions with Gaetz is open to voting for him:

... an old clip of Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) quickly resurfaced in which he noted that, in the House, Gaetz would show colleagues videos “of the girls that he had slept with” and “brag about how he would crush ED medicine and chase it with an energy drink so he could go all night.”

But ... even the once tough-talking Mullins signaled on Wednesday afternoon that he’d be at least open to voting for Gaetz.

“I completely trust President Trump’s decision-making on this one,” Mullins told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “He has to answer those questions. And hopefully, he‘s able to answer the questions right. If he can, then we’ll go through the confirmation process.”

If there's sufficient resistance, I think the Senate will get Gaetz the job via a recess appointment, with the Senate calling the recess or Trump using the Constitution to call it. The Supreme Court didn't ban recess appointments -- it said that if the Senate is effectively in recess but is holding pro forma sessions so it's technically in session, the president can't treat that as a recess and slip in an appointee. Previous presidents had done that, but when Barack Obama did it, the Court ruled against him. Trump will get his way.

I agree with Marc Caputo that this is extremely important to Trump:

In Trump’s mind, there is no more important post than attorney general, both because of the sheer number of federal investigations and indictments he’s weathered since leaving office and his conviction that he was let down by feckless or non-loyal AGs when he served as president.

And I can easily imagine that Trump sees Gaetz, the subject of Justice Department probes himself, as his new Roy Cohn:

[Gaetz's] attitude has won him many enemies on the Hill. But it was also fundamental to Trump’s decision to choose him for the AG slot, according to a Trump adviser familiar with the transition process.

“None of the attorneys had what Trump wants, and they didn’t talk like Gaetz,” the adviser said. “Everyone else looked at AG as if they were applying for a judicial appointment. They talked about their vaunted legal theories and constitutional bullshit. Gaetz was the only one who said, ‘Yeah, I’ll go over there and start cuttin’ fuckin’ heads.’”

... those familiar with Trump’s thinking say he’s deadly serious about getting Gaetz in at DOJ.

But if Gaetz doesn't get the job one way or another, I'm not sure it will matter much. Slate's Mark Joseph Stern writes:

It is a shocking choice, surely by design, that reflects an obvious desire to corrupt the agency from the top down. If Gaetz is confirmed, it’s no exaggeration to say that the Justice Department will be permanently damaged, as civil servants flee (or face termination), partisan loyalists take their place, and the entire agency reorients around settling old scores against Trump’s perceived enemies. If Senate Republicans do not draw the line here, then a line does not exist.

But if Gaetz doesn't get the job, anyone Trump appoints in his place will be there to do exactly the same thing. Trump ran for office to do precisely this. It was the main goal of the campaign. Trump just thinks Gaetz will do it harder than anyone else will do it.

TRUMP LIKES TO WATCH, SO HE PICKED HEGSETH

I think Emptywheel is half-right about this:

Yesterday, Donald Trump picked a Fox News pundit, Pete Hegseth, to lead the largest military in the world.

... Trump skipped over people like former Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, longtime Trump national security aide Keith Kellogg, and Representative Mike Rogers, who were considered candidates. And tellingly, we know that Miller was willing to check the litmus test in place when he was picked in 2020: a willingness to invoke the Insurrection Act.

There’s something else that Hegseth is happy to do that the others are not. The possible choices are gutting the military of women, people of color, LGBTQ soldiers, launching nuclear first strikes, committing war crimes, and treating leftists as terrorists — all are things he has espoused before.

I agree that Trump wants a defense secretary who's willing to keep women out of combat, exclude trans people from service, use the military against domestic enemies, and tolerate war crimes (Hegseth was the top media defender of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher and two other servicemembers charged with war crimes during Trump's first term, and he persuaded Trump to show leniency to all of them). Hegseth will do everything Trump asks him to do. But I'm far from certain that Trump went through a list of qualified people, discovered that each of them resisted one or more of his litmus tests, and concluded, with a regretful sigh, that his only remaining choice was the TV guy.

Trump loves TV. Trump loves people who defend him on TV, particularly on Fox. What's more, Hegseth has a jawline that conveys a cartoon kind of manliness. I'm sure Trump told people around him that Hegseth looks as if he's straight from "Central Casting."

Hegseth lacks traditional qualifications, but does that matter? Right-wing dogma will decide much of what he does in office. If he's ever confused, he can just watch Fox and learn what the conservatively correct course of action is. And while his inevitable confirmation will coincide with a purge of allegedly "woke" generals, I'm sure those generals will be replaced by officers who are crazy ultra-rightists but who, unlike Hegseth, have some detailed knowledge of warfighting and strategy. Will China, North Korea, and Russia take advantage of the brain drain? Or will they restrain themselves, on the assumption that Trump is unafraid to start World War III? Who knows!

I've seen it argued that the inexperienced Hegseth will be putty in the hands of defense contractors. But he used to the CEO of Concerned Veterans for America, a Koch network front organization that's largely focused on efforts to privatize military health care. Hegseth, I assume, believes large corporations can do no wrong (as long as they're not "woke"), so he'll give contractors whatever they want knowingly and willingly, not because they're taking advantage of his inexperience.

This appointment seems alarming now, but I think it will rank fortieth or fiftieth on the list of appalling things Trump will do in the next few months. The results won't be very different from what they'd be if Trump had chosen someone with actual qualifications.

MY UNPOPULAR OPINION: ELON MUSK ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE SOON

In The New York Times yesterday, David Nasaw confidently told us that Elon Musk's fifteen minutes as Donald Trump's bestie were almost over:

So sorry, Elon Musk, but the bromance is not going to last. I know the president-elect put you on the phone with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine the night after the election. And I know that in Donald Trump’s victory speech ... he celebrated your super-genius as only he could, in a disjointed, discombobulated, wildly overextended paean and declaration of love. “Oh, let me tell you, we have a new star,” he said. “A star is born, Elon.”

Yet therein lies your problem, Mr. Musk. There’s room for only one star, one genius in the Trump White House.... He is not going to share his victory and center stage with anyone.

We know this will happen, Nasaw told us, because it's happened in the past when rich men have tried to cozy up to presidents. For instance, William Randolph Hearst tried to become an FDR insider, but that didn't work:

Hearst’s contributions to Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 presidential campaign were ... extensive and varied. In addition to huge financial assistance, Hearst used his media empire to conduct virulent and near-daily assaults on the incumbent, Herbert Hoover.

The day after the election, Hearst’s wife, Millicent, sent a telegram to say that she “had seen Roosevelt last night. He said he was going to telephone you. You are getting all the credit for this victory from everybody I meet.” Hearst responded by forwarding his recommendations for cabinet appointments and an 11-point recovery plan, only to be ghosted by the president-elect: no letters, no telegrams, no phone calls. Almost two months later, Roosevelt finally issued an invitation to Hearst to visit him for private talks. The publisher declined....

But Trump isn't snubbing Musk that way. Just the opposite:

Multiple sources have told CNN that amid the post-victory buzz around Mar-a-Lago, the Tesla CEO has been at Donald Trump’s Florida resort almost every single day over the past week, with Instagram posts under the location tag showing him dining with the president-elect and his wife on Sunday, as well as spending time on the grounds with his son over the weekend.

“Dining with him on the patio at times, today they were seen on the golf course together,” network anchor Katilan Collins said in a broadcast on Sunday. “Musk has been in the room when world leaders have called, and tonight we have learned he’s also weighing in on staffing decisions, making clear his preference for certain roles even.”

Trump's granddaughter Kai tweeted this from Mar-a-Lago:

Elon achieving uncle status 😂 pic.twitter.com/vufSffziZN

— Kai Trump (@KaiTrump) November 10, 2024

Tech commentator Kara Swisher has the conventional wisdom:

“He definitely inserts himself all the time, that’s his style,” tech journalist Kara Swisher told CNN on Monday morning. “I’ve heard from Trump people, calling me saying, ‘Oh, wow. This is odd’. And it is.”

Swisher goes further to speculate that Trump and Musk’s bromance likely won’t survive the pressure of two planetary-sized egos vying for space in the halls of power.

“They’re both narcissists, and there can be only one narcissist as head of the country, and that’s Donald Trump,” Swisher said. “Trump goes through people like tissues, essentially. And even if it’s Musk, they’re going to clash at some point.”

But for whatever reason, Musk isn't acting like a narcissist around Trump. He's acting like Wayne and Garth in the presence of Alice Cooper.



He's not leaking anything that suggests a belief that he could do Trump's job better than Trump is doing it, unlike other Trump courtiers, past and present.

Per source RFK Jr. did not want Rubio for SoS - we’re seeing a potential bucking of his preference by Trump early on

— Hanna Trudo (@HCTrudo) November 12, 2024

As I said in a post last month, in that famous rally photo, Musk was clearly acting deferential to Trump. He was the hype man supporting Trump as lead vocalist (or maybe he was the head cheerleader and Trump was the football hero):

And it's hard to imagine William Randolph Hearst (or Nasaw's other examples, Andrew Carnegie and Joseph Kennedy) publicly acknowledging their sense of vulnerability and need for a president who'll protect them:



Swisher says that "Trump goes through people like tissues," but there are quite a few people he hasn't discarded -- Lindsey Graham (who's always a deferential admirer), Stephen Miller, Roger Stone, Susie Wiles (aides who never try to steal the spotlight from him), and a wide range of tycoons, many of them based in the New York area, whom he's known for years, and whose advice he solicits on issues they know nothing about. To some extent, Trump probably sees Musk as a Robert Kraft or Steve Wynn, a guy with a business empire, and therefore, in Trump's view, a smart person to consult. (Tryump also likes using Musk's money, obviously.) Beyond that, Musk seems to be acting more like Lindsey Graham than like a fellow egomaniac who wants Trump's throne.

I'm not sure why. It could all be an act -- but I think it's noteworthy that Trump is the same age as Musk's father. If Musk is an alpha male, he's a weirdly wounded one -- before he went full Nazi on X, he seemed to be using it to get love, in a quest to become the world's most famous shitposter. Now Trump seems to be giving him the love he needs.

Trump might dump him, but I'm not sure why. I don't think their interests are likely to conflict. If the bromance ends, I think it's more likely to end because other Trump insiders plant stories about him, accurate or not, that make Trump mad. For now, I assume Musk is taking great pains not to offend Trump, cynically or genuinely.

TRUMP MIGHT GET A THIRD TERM, BUT NOT THIS WAY

This is effective ragebait, but I'm not taking it seriously:



Transcript:

HARRIS FAULKNER (ANCHOR): I had forgotten how much they had thrown at him until just this moment, I mean I hadn't been focused on that in the last 10 days or so. But when you look at it stacked like that, and add onto that Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, who said just this week she plans to go after him. She campaigned on trying to get Trump, what do you make of all of it?

TREY GOWDY (FOX HOST): Keep talking, keep doing it. That's exactly why you got hammered on Tuesday night. Keep doing that. Keep using our justice system as a political weapon and he may, who knows, they may amend the constitution and let him serve a third term. We may get a super majority in the House and the Senate if these coastal elite liberals continue their thought process when it comes to our justice system.

Trump might get a third term, assuming he wants one, but it won't happen through the normal process of holding elections and then amending the Constitution.

A constitutional amendment would need to win the votes of two-thirds of the House (290 members) and two-thirds of the Senate (67 members). In the next Congress, Republicans will have 53 senators and (if all the current leaders win) 223 members of the House.

After that, an amendment would need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states -- 38 states, in other words. After this election, Republicans will have full control of 27 state legislatures. In this election, Trump won 31 states.

(A constitutional convention could also pass amendments, but two-thirds of the states -- a total of 34 -- would need to call for a convention, and any amendments would still have to be ratified by 38 state legislatures.)

Gowdy is imagining a Trump administration so popular and a populace so outraged by attacks on Trump that the party in the White House will massively increase its congressional representation in the midterms. That never happens. Usually the opposite happens. And even if literally every Senate Democrat were to lose in 2026, that would add only 13 new Republicans to the Senate, for a total of 66, one short of the number Republicans would need for this. That would mean Democratic losses in blue Massachusetts, Illinois, Rhode Island, Colorado, New Mexico, Delaware, and Oregon, among other states.

Now, Republicans might find Orbanesque ways to prevent Democrats from ever winning another election. But then we're through the looking glass, and Trump will have other ways to obtain the right to serve a third term. I've always assumed he might argue that he was under investigation throughout his first term, so it shouldn't really count, and I can imagine a Trumpist Supreme Court accepting that argument. I think "SCOTUS pulls a rationalization out of its ass" is more likely than a process that uses legitimate means like the constitutional amendment process. So is "Trump sees a few scattered left-wing protests and suspends elections in 2028."

But does Trump really want to be president for life? Sure, he wants to be out of prison for life. Does the rest of it matter to him? It's likely that he ran again this time primarily to end his legal woes, and also in order not to go out a loser. We might rid ourselves of Trump if the opposition is so neutered that it can't pursue him again, or if the system is more or less intact but we agree not to pursue him. Or he might die or slip into dementia. But I don't think he wants to stay in office if he can have a sweet life as a retiree.

NO, THE ELECTION WASN'T RIGGED

I'm seeing some Democratic election trutherism out there.

The only thing I'll say about the election results, is that at the very least, I believe the American people deserve a #SwingStateHandRecount.

— John Pavlovitz (@johnpavlovitz) November 8, 2024

Isn’t it curious that no one is discussing the statistical improbability of 7 swing States, all dead even and within the polling margin for error, all going to Trump? I’m not a mathematician but I’m pretty sure the odds of that are astronomically against.

— Shoq (@shoq.bsky.social) November 8, 2024 at 10:01 PM

That last argument is absurd. Nate Silver has said for years that presidential polling is always somewhat inaccurate, and when it's inaccurate, it's generally inaccurate the same way in much of the country. In a race that polls said was neck-and-neck, that's why he consistently said the most likely scenario was a sweep of the swing states by either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. In late September, he thought a Harris sweep was somewhat more likely, with a Trump sweep as the second most likely outcome. Various splits of the swing states were, in his opinion, less likely. By late October, Silver was saying the same thing, but his model said a Trump sweep was a slightly more likely outcome, followed by a Harris sweep. A Trump sweep is what we got.

But the biggest reason I don't believe there was cheating is the New York Times "Shift from 2020" map:

Each arrow represents a county. Red arrows indicate a county where Trump's victory margin increased or margin of defeat decreased (or a county that Trump flipped). The blue arrows indicate the opposite for Harris. (There are very few arrows in California and some other Western states because the vote totals aren't final or close to final.)

Notice that there are very few blue arrows. Trump did better all over the country. This is consistent with Nate Silver's theory that voting shifts tend to be national. But on the subject of possible fraud, does it make sense that Republicans would cheat in nearly every county in America? Does it make sense that they'd be able to?

There are red arrows in extremely blue states such as Massachusetts and Maryland. Did Republicans cheat there? Why? Why bother?

In Massachusetts, Joe Biden beat Trump 66%-32% in 2020. Harris is leading there 61%-37%. In Suffolk County, which includes Boston, Biden won in 2020 by an 81%-17% margin. This year, Harris is leading 74%-23%. That's a rightward shift. But why would Republicans bother to rig -- or slightly skew -- any part of Massachusetts? They were always going to be trounced there. They lost every county in 2020 and they lost every county this year. And how would Republicans rig Massachusetts? Who are the officials who would have allowed it to happen? Massachusetts, Suffolk County, and Boston are all run by Democrats.

(But, of course, Trumpers seriously argue that Democrats rigged the 2020 election in a Republican-run country, and even in Republican-run states like Georgia. So I suppose it's no surprise that a few Democrats think Republicans could rig an election in a Democratic-run country, and in states like Arizona and Michigan that are currently run by Democrats.)

Yes, downballot Democrats won in states where Harris lost. But some of them didn't win by much: Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin and Elissa Slotkin in Michigan won by less than a point. Jacky Rosen in Nevada and Ruben Gallego in Arizona won by less than 2.

If there's a discrepancy, it's likely because voters want to punish the president when they're unhappy with the economy, and Harris is seen as a stand-in for Biden, in a way that even incumbent senators aren't. (And three incumbent Democratic senators lost, of course: Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and Jon Tester in Montana.)

This election wasn't rigged. Democratic voters and voters who were gettable for Democrats just didn't feel as much urgency to defeat Trump as they did when they were experiencing his rule in real time. The Democratic presidential candidate wasn't white or male, in a country where there's still a great deal of racism and sexism. (I think many voters, including some women, will vote for a female senator but not a female president because they think there's some level of testosterone toughness needed for the presidency, even though women have led countries through tough situations all over the world.) And voters generally weren't happy. That's what the numbers are showing us.

"ELITE" IS NOT A SYNONYM FOR "DEMOCRATIC VOTER"

The opinion section of The New York Times is full of op-eds directly or indirectly blaming "elites" for Kamala Harris's defeat -- here's one by Thomas Frank, here's another by Maureen Dowd:

Democratic candidates have often been avatars of elitism — Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and second-term Barack Obama. The party embraced a worldview of hyper-political correctness, condescension and cancellation, and it supported diversity statements for job applicants and faculty lounge terminology like “Latinx,” and “BIPOC” (Black, Indigenous, People of Color).

We all know about "Latinx" because pundits -- most of them "elite" -- never tire of denouncing it. But "BIPOC"? Does any non-elite Trump voter even know that word exists?

The best of these columns is by Ben Rhodes, who now travels the world getting a firsthand look at the global rise of illiberalism, and who believes economic elitism deserves a great deal of the blame:

In the West, neoliberalism — that blend of free trade, deregulation and deference to financial markets — hollowed out communities while enriching a global oligarchy.... The financial crisis came through like a hurricane, wrecking the lives of people already struggling to get by while the rich profited on the back end.

His analysis goes beyond economic matters, but his critique of elitism focuses on those at the very top, the ones with real power:

We should merge our commitment to the moral, social and demographic necessity of an inclusive America with a populist critique of the system that Mr. Trump now runs; a focus more on reform than just redistribution. We must reform the corruption endemic to American capitalism, corporate malfeasance, profiteering in politics, unregulated technologies transforming our lives, an immigration system broken by Washington, the cabal of autocrats pushing the world to the brink of war and climate catastrophe.

The column by David Brooks is the worst because it implies that every Democratic voter is a privileged, powerful elitist dripping with contempt for the have-nots:

For the past 40 years or so, we lived in the information age. Those of us in the educated class decided, with some justification, that the postindustrial economy would be built by people like ourselves, so we tailored social policies to meet our needs.

Our education policy pushed people toward the course we followed — four-year colleges so that they would be qualified for the “jobs of the future.” Meanwhile, vocational training withered.

Did you vote to eliminate vocational training? I didn't, or if I did, I didn't know it. I'm an Ivy grad, so I'm "in the educated class," but I'm in favor of vocational training. Maybe it's because I grew up blue-collar, but even liberals I know who didn't grow up that way want non-college grads to have opportunities.

We embraced a free trade policy that moved industrial jobs to low-cost countries overseas so that we could focus our energies on knowledge economy enterprises run by people with advanced degrees....

We shifted toward green technologies favored by people who work in pixels, and we disfavored people in manufacturing and transportation whose livelihoods depend on fossil fuels.

I've always thought that the shift to renewable energy could find ways to transition manufacturing and transportation away from fossil fuels, but what do I know? I'm just a dumb elitist.

That great sucking sound you heard was the redistribution of respect. People who climbed the academic ladder were feted with accolades, while those who didn’t were rendered invisible. The situation was particularly hard on boys. By high school two-thirds of the students in the top 10 percent of the class are girls, while about two-thirds of the students in the bottom decile are boys. Schools are not set up for male success; that has lifelong personal, and now national, consequences.

I started screaming at my laptop when I read this. Why is "the situation ... particularly hard on boys"? They go to exactly the same schools their sisters attend. They have the same parents and home lives. If girls do better, whose fault is that?

Oh, I forgot: Boys are naturally restless and rambunctious. Girls aren't. Schools suppress boys' essential nature while rewarding girls. Why is this demand for special treatment of boys -- a sort of affirmative action -- a conservative idea?

You know who didn't believe this codswallop? The nuns at my mid-1960s working-class Catholic school. They believed that if girls could sit still in class, so could boys. I suppose David Brooks would now say they were being "woke." (I was there. They absolutely weren't "woke.")

A recent American Enterprise Institute study found that 24 percent of people who graduated from high school at most have no close friends. They are less likely than college grads to visit public spaces or join community groups and sports leagues. They don’t speak in the right social justice jargon or hold the sort of luxury beliefs that are markers of public virtue.

What? You can't join the company softball team unless you say "Latinx" or "BIPOC"?

I could continue quoting this and tell you how Brooks gets from here to Trump's victory, but I'd rather quote you some of the comments in response to it, especially the "Reader Picks." Here's the most recommended comment:

Just stop with the argument that a billionaire from NYC whose campaign was largely funded by the world’s richest man is not part of the “elite.” It’s even more risible to contend that Trump will actually help working class Americans.

The top commenters know who the real elites are:

Elon Musk isn't an elite?
RFK, Jr, isn't an elite?
Trump and Vance aren't, themselves, elite?
Jeff Bezos isn't elite?
The Koch brothers aren't elite?
The Supreme Court justices in Trump's pocket aren't elite?

****

We didn’t move industry jobs in order to focus on anything- and certainly not to focus on “a knowledge economy.”
Manufacturing jobs were moved so that the captains of industry didn’t have to pay American workers a living wage, or have to abide by regulations intended to protect human beings....

****

And what policies are Trump and his Grand Oligarch Party going to deliver to make working class lives better ?

The Republican Party is one of the most anti-worker, anti-union, wage suppressing parties in history....

And they're justifiably sick and tired of being called elitists themselves, because they aren't elitists:

Enough already with the talk of 'elites'. I do not have a college degree and my husband did not graduate from high school....we are small business owners and work with our hands. We believe in working towards the American Dream of self determination and the promise of equal opportunity for all. We understand that we are not there yet and anyone who believes that DT is the guy to move the dial in that direction is not paying attention....

****

I am tired of being called an elite just because I have a college degree. I work every day in an office, more than 40 hours a week my husband just retired after working decades as a teacher. We do not see ourselves as elites but regular middle-class. If somebody is elite, I would think that it is Donald Trump, who never had to work in his life. Also elite is Vance who was able through education to move up on the ladder and now is a lawyer, his wife is one too, and they are wealthy. To vote for them is voting for rich, elitist people who have no connection to the regular working class. It makes no sense.

****

If I hear “elites” one more time, I’m going to scream.

If my non-college-educated parents can maintain an openness to science and progress, and the humility to admit that they may not be experts on every subject, so can Trump voters....

****

There are millions of us out here who are not "elites," who didn't go to an Ivy League college or perhaps any college at all, who grew up in rural towns in western PA or the midwest, who were raised on so-called "family values," and who reject Donald Trump, Trumpism, and at this point the entire Republican Party with its kowtowing to a wannabe dictator. However, the elite Republicans, or, as you now try to label yourselves, "Conservative" voices always put the onus of something like this at the feet of anyone who is not a "Conservative." Meanwhile, you yourselves are "elites." I am not. And I'm tired of being lectured to by the moneyed classes, which by the way, include Donald Freaking Trump and a significant portion of the Republican Party.... Take the elite talk and turn it on yourselves and your own party for once.

Most of the people reading this post are liberals or progressives who don't have elite power. Most of you don't even live in the places where powerful people live. I'm on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, so I live in proximity to power, but my neighbors wielded power in this election by writing postcards to Pennsylvania voters, and sending relatively small donations to Democratic candidates. They don't steer American industrial policy. They're just people who took advantage of opportunities this society provided and managed to make comfortable lives for themselves, and they want that for other people, including Trump voters.

We're not monsters, and we're not the people who made the conscious choices that got us into this mess.

THE ELECTION EXPLAINED, IN TWO CHARTS

This election wasn't about trans athletes or voters rejecting "smarty-pants, suburban, college-educated" Democrats. It wasn't about the fact that Kamala Harris didn't go on Joe Rogan's podcast. It wasn't even about Harris's futile quest to win Republican votes.

Here's why Kamala Harris lost the election, in two charts (and I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself):

As the first chart notes, "Debt Balance Credit Cards in the United States ... reach[ed] an all time high of 1.14 Trillion USD in the second quarter of 2024." The second chart is from a 2023 CNBC story.

Credit cards are practically charging “loan shark interest rates” after hitting historic highs this year, said Barry Glassman, a certified financial planner and member of CNBC’s Advisor Council....

The average interest rate for all credit card accounts hit 20.68% in May, the highest on record, according to most recent Federal Reserve data.

And they're even higher now, hitting 21.76% in August.

Harris fell victim to forces that have swept the globe:

Worth remembering before the blame-game gets too personal: "Democrats join 2024’s graveyard of incumbents", @jburnmurdoch https://t.co/2S3Y9JMpk6 via @ft pic.twitter.com/fU81JAyloK

— Tim Bale (@ProfTimBale) November 7, 2024

Ordinary people were already struggling more than their parents, then inflation struck in 2021. It hurt incumbent parties all over the world.

Yes, it has receded in America. Yes, we now have the strongest economy in the world.

But the two charts at the top of this post show how the economy looks to people who were already struggling to pay their bills every month when inflation hit. In all likelihood, they pulled out credit cards to buy necessities, and now they can't pay those credit cards off.

My wife and I can afford to pay our credit card bills in full every month, but I don't look down on people who can't. If your family is bigger than ours, if you're younger(we're in our sixties), if you've ever had a stretch of unemployment or big medical bills, you have it harder than we did. If you went to college or grad school in the past twenty years, you'd be shocked at how small our student loan burden was in the 1970s.

By economists' criteria, this is a booming economy. It's pretty sweet for people who can afford it. But I completely understand that it doesn't look so sweet if you're living paycheck to paycheck.

I tried to run a one-person business for a while in my twenties and early thirties and got myself in debt. It sucks. It sucks to pay a partial bill and see no decrease in the debt because the interest keeps compounding and compounding. I managed to get out of that debt and never looked back, but when you're in the thick of it, it's miserable.

If you've never been in that situation, count your blessings. If you think everyone who gets into debt is a bad person, well, I guess I was a bad person.

For millions of Americans, this is still a bad economy, just as it is for people around the world. There are other people who voted for Trump because they like his swagger or his misogyny, but I think Trump would have won because the rising tide in America failed to lifted millions of boats.

I'll be happy when the news cycle shifts to Trump's plans, or even to some non-political story. Right now it's dominated by politicians and pundits who want Democrats to throw trans people under the bus, or stop using the word "Latinx" (a word Democratic politicians don't actually use), or generally become Republican Lite, even though that didn't work this year. But this was apparently an unwinnable election for Democrats. If we have elections in the future, they'll be under different circumstances. There are mistakes Democrats can correct, but they can't fight history.

And always remember: Kamala Harris got 48% of the vote. This was not a blowout. It was not a landslide. Harris's voters were close to half the country. If Trump had lost with 48% of the vote, pundits would be urging Democrats to be conciliatory to Trump voters. We deserve a respect we'll never get.