Tag: 2024 presidential election
Voters Wanted Change, And Now That's What They Will Get

Voters Wanted Change, And Now That's What They Will Get

"It isn't a hard choice," we said. On one side was a candidate who would abide by the Constitution and laws of the United States and accept the outcome of elections. On the other was a candidate refusing to accept a 2024 defeat even as memories of his attempted coup in 2020 remain fresh; vowing to punish the "enemy within"; and promising that mass deportations will be "bloody." That was what we meant by democracy being on the line.

Some are coping by pointing out that when an incumbent president is as unpopular as Joe Biden, it's a near impossibility for his party to retain the White House. Perhaps no Democrat could have escaped the Biden undertow, but it was particularly challenging for his vice president.

As to why Biden was so unpopular, some of us (myself included) wrongly attributed it mostly to his age. But exit polls suggest that the economy and the border were also anvils shackled to his — and then Kamala Harris' — ankles. As David Dayen of The American Prospect noted, 2024 saw half the world's population head to the polls, and "with a few notable exceptions ... virtually every party that was the incumbent at the time that inflation started to heat up around the world has lost."

Could Harris have done a better job of blunting the inflation issue? In 2012, the economy had not yet fully recovered from the great recession of 2008-2009. In his reelection bid, Barack Obama shifted blame for the lackluster performance backward toward George W. Bush. Perhaps Harris would have been well-advised to tell a similar story about inflation. Then again, recessions are not as politically lethal as inflation.

As for the border, how could Harris separate herself from Biden? Should she have declared that Biden's approach was a mistake that she would correct once in office? That's a dicey proposition politically. Why would voters upset about the border choose a reformed dove over an aggressive hawk? She might have had a rule-of-law argument — that the Congress must reform asylum law, and until they do, the president lacks the power to address the issue. But when Biden imposed executive orders in June, dramatically reducing border crossings, he vitiated that case.

According to this coping mechanism, the voters were in a sour mood (just consult the right track/wrong track polls) and did what voters always do: punish the incumbent by voting for the change candidate. Nothing more to see here.

But those of us who see a second Trump presidency as a hinge moment of history — a fateful departure from what made us a great nation — think there is a great deal more to see here. To follow Trump's behavior closely is to feel that this election is not like any other. This lying cretin was seen a few days ago pantomiming fellatio on a microphone (which is perhaps preferable to his usual vomit of lies). It's not as if his policy chops somehow counterbalance his vulgarity, cruelty, and self-absorption. His campaign promises consist of ludicrous proposals to magically balance the budget and eliminate the income tax through tariffs, to round up and deport 11 million or more people, and to solve foreign conflicts through his supposed power of intimidation (even as he contradicts this by constantly abjuring war).

The voters have chosen to elevate a cartoon character to the highest office in the land. From that perch, he will close down the federal cases against himself; pardon the January 6 "hostages" or "political prisoners" or whatever he's calling them these days; appoint a series of toadies, fantasists, and low-lives to lead other agencies; and then set about firing most of the capable, responsible civil servants in the government to replace them with the likes of Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Boris Epshteyn, and other loyal goblins.

Trump often derides the United States as a Third World country. Now he will start to transform us into one.

To be sure, many of the people who voted for Trump were not voting for what they will get. And still, it's their fault for not doing their duty to shun him.

Perhaps the voters have never prioritized democracy, the rule of law or fair play. What, then, has changed? This is an elite failure of the first order. The opinion shapers have signally failed to perform their function. In a healthy polity, it falls to entities like political parties, churches, newspaper editorial boards, radio hosts, business executives and news analysts to shape public opinion, not follow it. If not for the excusers and explainers; if not for the whataboutism at places like The Wall Street Journal and National Review; if not for the craven capitulation of Wall Street wizards and Silicon Valley prima donnas, if not for the cowardice of 95% of elected Republicans, ordinary voters would not have felt comfortable voting for a clown with a flamethrower.

If he succeeds in imposing tariffs that spark inflation and a trade war; if his deportations, firings, abuse of the justice system, corruption of law enforcement and degradation of the health care system cause America's quality of life to decline, what then? Will the voters do what voters always do and vote for the change candidate next time? Perhaps. Or will the elites who greased the skids for Trump's second election also excuse and explain away every failure as the work of the "deep state" or "saboteurs"? We are about to find out.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.


James Carville

'I Am Certain': James Carville Predicts Harris Will Defeat Trump

With the United States' 2024 presidential election less than two weeks away, many polls continue to show a very close race. Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris has small single-digit leads in some national and battleground state polls, while her GOP rival, former President Donald Trump, is slightly ahead in others.

The Hill's Amie Parnes', in an article published on October 23, takes a look at Democratic insiders who privately fear that the campaign is "slipping further away" from Harris. But in a New York Times guest op-ed/essay published the same day, veteran Democratic strategist/consultant James Carville lays out three reasons why he is "certain" Harris will win.

A different Democratic strategist, presumably interviewed on condition of anonymity, told The Hill, "Everyone keeps saying, 'It's close.' Yes, it's close, but are things trending our way? No. And no one wants to openly admit that. Could we still win? Maybe. Should anyone be even slightly optimistic right now? No."

Another Democratic strategist, also quoted anonymously, told The Hill, "If this is a vibe election, the current vibes ain't great."

But the 79-year-old Carville doesn't see it that way at all.

In his New York Times op-ed/essay, Carville argues, "There is a palpable anxiety wailing on the winds of American life right now. More than in any other election in my lifetime, I've been consistently asked by people of all stripes and creeds: 'Can Kamala Harris win this thing? Are we going to be OK?' This sentiment is heard over and over from sweaty Democratic operatives who all too often love to run to the press with their woes."

Carville continues, "While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."

According to Carville, Harris is headed for victory because: (1) "Mr. Trump is a repeat electoral loser. This time will be no different," (2) "Money matters, and Ms. Harris has it in droves," and (3) "It's just a feeling."

Carville acknowledges that #3 is "100 percent emotional" but points out that Harris has a very broad range of support — from Republican former Vice President Dick Cheney and his equally conservative daughter, former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), to self-described "democratic socialist" Rep. Alexandria-Occasion Cortez (D-NY).

"If the Cheneys and AOC get that the Constitution and our democracy are on the ballot," Carville writes, "every true conservative and every true progressive should get it too. A vast majority of Americans are rational, reasonable people of good will…. For the past decade, Mr. Trump has infected American life with a malignant political sickness, one that would have wiped out many other global democracies."

Carville adds, "On January 6, 2021, our democracy itself nearly succumbed to it. But Mr. Trump has stated clearly that this will be the last time he runs for president. That is exactly why we should be exhilarated by what comes next: Mr. Trump is a loser. He is going to lose again."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Usha Vance

Vance Defends Racist Remark About Indian-Americans (Like His Wife)

2024 GOP vice presidential nominee Senator JD Vance (R-OH) just doubled down on comments made by Donald Trump ally and far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer last week.

The extremist activist, who could be hired for a position in Trump's administration if he wins the White House, wrote via X last week via X that if Kamala Harris is elected, the White House "will smell like curry & White House speeches will be facilitated via a call center."

Despite condemnation from several conservative lawmakers — like US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — Vance reiterated Loomer's comments Monday.

Journalist John Harwood reported via X: "NBC asked JD Vance about Laura Loomer's racist statement that the WH would 'smell like curry' if Harris wins. Calling it unimportant, Vance replied: 'whether you're eating curry at your dinner table or fried chicken, things have gotten more expensive thanks to her policies.'"

Former FBI agent Asha Rangapappa said: "Curry or…fried chicken? Good lord he’s like the KKK whisperer"

Political analyst Bakari Sellers wrote: "The Dog whistles are bullhorns. Just say n—ger, or 'inmin—ger' like others"

Britni Danielle replied: "JD Vance is a coward. He won't even stand up for his wife and kids"

University of Texas law professor Lee Kovarsky added: "he thinks his voters are the stupidest people alive"

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

'Wow': Trump Openly Extorts Billion-Dollar Bribe From Big Oil

'Wow': Trump Openly Extorts Billion-Dollar Bribe From Big Oil

Bombshell reports from The Washington Post andPolitico are fueling concerns over the promises 2024 Republican presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump reportedly has been making to “Big Oil.”

“What Trump promised oil CEOs as he asked them to steer $1 billion to his campaign,” is the Washington Post’s headline.

“Donald Trump has pledged to scrap President Biden’s policies on electric vehicles and wind energy, as well as other initiatives opposed by the fossil fuel industry,” the Post reported.

“You all are wealthy enough, he said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House. At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation.”

“Giving $1 billion would be a ‘deal,’ Trump said, because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him, according to the people,” the Post added.

“Political contributing is often a type of legalized bribery,” The Bulwark’s Marc Caputo remarked. “But the way Trump is so explicit about making a ‘deal’ is going to raise eyebrows.”

It has.

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, an attorney and University of California-Berkeley professor of public policy, issued this warning:

“Trump asked Big Oil execs to give him $1 billion for his campaign. He promised lower taxes and a rollback of Biden’s climate regulations and clean energy programs in return. Trump is literally willing to take bribes in exchange for the destruction of the planet. Be warned,” Reich wrote.

Rep. Gabe Amo (D-RI) also issued a warning: “Donald Trump is saying the quiet part out loud. Re-electing him will guarantee ‘deals’ that work against our climate future. He cares more about campaign donations from oil tycoons than the fate of future generations and the health of our planet. Take him at his word.”

“We cannot believe this,” wrote government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). “Donald Trump essentially told a room full of oil executives ‘raise a billion dollars for me and I’ll get rid of the regulations that you want.’ This is blatantly corrupt behavior.”

Former Los Angeles Times reporter Steve Weinstein called it, “Bribery straight up.”

“Wow,” exclaimed Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ), “a report today finds donald trump demanded a straight up billion dollar bribe from oil executives. Republicans want to sell you out to big oil to line their pockets.”

Liberal Super PAC American Bridge 21st Century wrote: “New reporting uncovered Trump is already planning to sell the White House to the highest bidder. He’s demanding a $1 billion bribe from oil execs in exchange for massive tax cuts and the repeal of environmental protections and clean energy investments.”

Josh Dorner, a communications executive, responded to the Washington Post’s Heather Long’s summation of the paper’s report, by writing: “Bribery, how does it work?”

Marketing executive Jason Karsh, also responding to Long’s post, wrote: “How cool is it to have a presidential candidate so broke and so corrupt that he’s asking for bribes out in the open. I mean, he’s a Republican so nothing will happen, but this is so clearly what the founders intended, it’s just … *wipes a tear*”

California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom commented, “Big Oil is literally writing up Executive Orders for Trump to sign on Day 1 — with the promise of $1 billion in return. He’s giving away our planet in return for cash. Have we just accepted this as the new norm??”

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Laurie Garrett in a lengthy social media thread reached back into history and compared Trump’s alleged billion-dollar request to the Teapot Dome scandal. “Until now, it was the biggest presidential corruption case in US history,” she wrote.

“The Teapot Dome Scandal was, in the 1920s, the greatest threat to the integrity of the US Presidency the Nation had experienced. Not only was Big Oil bribery unfolding, but Harding, a golfer and womanizer, & had a child out of wedlock,” she noted in one post.

See the social media posts above or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World