No, Harris Would Not Have Won If She'd Just Done the Opposite Of Everything She Did

There's an episode of The Simpsons where Homer attempts to coach Bart in miniature golf.

Homer: Keep your head down, follow through.

[Bart putts and misses]

Homer: Okay, that didn't work.  This time, move your head and don't follow through.


Democrats are experiencing something like that in the aftermath of the election. That is, the misbegotten belief that we would have won if we'd simply done the opposite of everything we did or did not do. This belief is wrong but has taken hold in the party to the point of mass delusion.

Kamala Harris ran a virtually flawless campaign. Before she became the nominee, her approval rating stood at 38%. By October, it had risen to 45%, exceeding that of Donald Trump. Her biggest accomplishment was pulling virtually even with Trump on the question of whom voters trust more on the economy; Trump had led Biden by 15% on that metric. Harris handily defeated Trump in their lone debate. She also raised a staggering $1.5 billion from donors, putting Republicans at a considerable resource deficit. On the issues on which she campaigned, she had overwhelming bipartisan support. And she did it all in just over 100 days.

The truth is, it was always extremely unlikely Democrats could win in 2024. Two reasons:
1. No party in power has ever won another term given such dismal voter sentiment. Specifically:
* 52% of voters say they are worse off than they were four years ago.
* Nearly half of voters say the economy was the most important issue of the election. But 75% rate the economy as fair or poor, only 25% as excellent are good. And 62% say the economy is getting worse.

2. The pandemic. From Cooper Burton of ABC News: "Among democracies that held elections this year, over 80 percent saw the incumbent party lose seats or vote share from the last election. That includes democracies of all kinds and in all corners of the globe."

And yes, I predicted Harris would win, despite an environment that I'm now describing as extremely unfavorable to her. I still think my call for Harris was reasonable under the circumstances. The polls underestimated Trump's support for the third consecutive election.

But as soon as the vote came in, the second guessing of Democratic strategy started. And Democrats, progressive thinkers and other pundits all seem to have the same reaction: Harris would have won if only she'd taken the opposite tack on one important issue or another. And of course no one offering this sage advice can agree with anyone else.

1. According to Pete Buttigieg, the campaign was too online, and did not make enough in-person connections.
The Daily Show's Jon Stewart says the opposite, mocking the Harris campaign for too much direct contact with swing-state voters.

2. Senator Bernie Sanders says the problem is that Harris abandoned the working class by not running to the left and talking more about social justice.
Senator John Fetterman says Harris should have run harder to the right, talking more about border security.

3. Some say Harris needed to embrace the Palestinian movement.
On the contrary others say Harris needed to distance herself from the Palestinian movement.

4. Or, you name it:
Harris was sunk by "woke" issues. (Never mind that Harris did not run on woke issues at all).
Harris needed to talk less about abortion.
Harris should not have asked billionaires to campaign with her.
Harris should not have tried to win over Republicans by campaigning with Liz Cheney.
Harris spent too much on celebrity appearances.


I thought this noise would die down after a few days, but it hasn't. I just read an article from Lucian K. Truscott IV on nationalmemo.com explaining that the problem was that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz were too cheerful. Yes, you read that right. "Kamala Harris’ smile, on display everywhere she went, was genuine. So was Tim Walz’s jolly demeanor. But voters didn’t want someone nice to take command of an economy and a country they saw as failing them." So Harris should have stopped smiling and being positive. Anything else?

Yes. According to Democratic pundit James Carville this weekend, if Joe Biden had dropped out sooner, Democrats would have won the election, "And it wouldn’t have been that close because we would have had so many frickin’ talented people that were running." So apparently the problem was that the nominee was not someone other than Harris herself. For the record, polls taken around the time Biden dropped out did not show any potential Democratic nominees other than Harris polling any better than she did against Trump.

Exactly twenty years ago, I was devastated by John Kerry's loss and did not know how to move forward. But Democrats found a way. And Donald Trump's second term is shaping up to be a complete complete train wreck as he appoints a cabinet made up entirely of insane criminals, conspiracy theorists and sexual predators, while at the same time embracing tariffs and deportations that will wreck the economy. If Trump does enough damage, the Democratic party will start performing better even if it can't find another Barrack Obama.

Tweet

2024 Final Predictions. I'm Calling It A Blue Wave. Here's Why.

Harris to win the electoral college 325 to 213.

Here's why I'm calling all the swing states for Harris:
** More than one-third of the vote is already in. We know the demographics of which groups are turning out in force and which are not. We also have high-quality exit polls.
** Women are voting far more than men. Even a massive turnout by men on election day is hardly likely to close the gap. Harris leads female voters by 14% while Trump leads by only 6% with men.

** The vote is showing extraordinary crossover support for Harris by registered Republicans. Here's an example:
North Carolina:
Actual early voters: 55% Harris, 43% Trump, 3% others
Early voter party ID: Dem 33%, GOP 34%, Ind 33%
- Assuming virtually Democrats and about 60% of independents are voting for Harris, to get to 55% of the total vote Harris must be getting in excess of 10% of Republicans. PA and WI show similar rates of defection of Republican voters. The rate is even higher in AZ, GA and MI.

** Harris is doing well with the most crucial voting block: seniors. Minorities are not defecting to Trump the way Republicans have hoped. Younger men are not turning out the way Trump needs.

** Harris has outstanding get-out-the-vote operations. Trump's are a disaster.

** Harris has a massive fundraising lead.

** Democrats are way ahead in voter enthusiasm in a key Gallup poll.

** Late-deciders are breaking for Harris.

** And finally, a bombshell poll dropped yesterday: Harris by 3% in Iowa. This is from the highly-respected Selzer organization, who, for example, correctly predicted that Trump would win Iowa by 14% in 2020. If Harris is doing anything like as well as this poll suggests, Democrats will have a good night on Tuesday.

The Senate

Current Senate: 51 D, 49 R

New Senate: 50 D, 50 R

This forecast for the Senate may be overly-optimistic, but here we go.
* The Republicans will pick up West Virginia.
* Jon Tester has survived close contests before in Montana, but I think this one is out of reach. The Republican will probably win. (Or maybe Tester survives but we lose NV or OH).
* I'm calling Texas for Democrat Colin Allred. The polls are within the margin of error, and I expect Harris to lose Texas by only 3 points or so. That's close enough for Allred to knock off Ted Cruz, whom nobody likes.

The House

Current House: 221 R, 214 D

New House: 222 D, 213 R

Gubernatorial

Democrats to pickup North Carolina.

Tweet

Remembering Phil Donahue. When Cable News Found Out It Had One Liberal, It Fired Him.

Giant of TV talk Phil Donahue passed away at age 88 last month. I can't say I ever watched his shows, but I do remember one thing about him. He certainly proved that TV cable news does not have a liberal bias.

Today there is widespread belief that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake, even among many conservatives. American support for the invasion was in excess of 70% when the war started. Five years later, that support had fallen by half.

In early 2003 Phil Donahue had the highest rated show on the young MSNBC network. George W. Bush had told a whole series of lies to gin up an illegal invasion of Iraq. Donahue invited anti-war voices on his show. For this, Donahue was fired.

Amy Goodman, producer of the news podcast Democracy Now! has described what happened at MSNBC: "In 2003, Phil Donahue was fired from his primetime MSNBC talk show during the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It was the most popular talk show on MSNBC at the time. The problem wasn’t Phil’s ratings, but rather his views. An internal MSNBC memo warned Donahue was a, quote, “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war,” providing a, quote, “home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity,” unquote."

Phil's own description of the situation: "I think what happened to me, the biggest lesson, I think, is the — how corporate media shapes our opinions and our coverage. This was a decision — my decision — the decision to release me came from far above. This was not an assistant program director who decided to separate me from MSNBC. They were terrified of the antiwar voice. And that is not an overstatement. Antiwar voices were not popular. And if you’re General Electric, you certainly don’t want an antiwar voice on a cable channel that you own; Donald Rumsfeld is your biggest customer. So, by the way, I had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I could have Richard Perle on alone, but I couldn’t have Dennis Kucinich on alone. I was considered two liberals. It really is funny almost, when you look back on how — how the management was just frozen by the antiwar voice. We were scolds. We weren’t patriotic. American people disagreed with us. And we weren’t good for business."

Jeff Cohen, senior producer of Donahue's show, has described the situation at the network in 2003 in similar terms, "But “the suits” ruined our show when they took control and actually mandated a quota system favoring the right wing: If we had booked one guest who was antiwar, we needed to book two that were pro-war. If we had one guest on the left, we needed two on the right. When a producer suggested booking Michael Moore—known to oppose the pending Iraq war—she was told she’d need to book three rightwingers for political balance."

I'm glad Phil Donahue lived long enough to see the lies and and warmongering politics of George W. Bush be completely discredited. And also that he lived long enough to see MSNBC come to its senses and hire great progressive journalists like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes. MSNBC isn't perfect, but perhaps it has recognized that in America, if the news seems a bit too "liberal" it's because (as Stephen Colbert once said), "Reality has a well-known liberal bias".

 

 

Tweet

It Was Wrong for Democratic Party Leaders and Donors to Force Joe Biden Out

Joe Biden has ended his campaign. Party leaders, major donors, and apparently about two-thirds of Democratic voters wanted him out.

I did not. The party has made a mistake.

After Biden's disastrous June debate against Trump, there was widespread agreement among the faithful that we needed to have a conversation about whether Joe Biden is mentally and physically well enough to continue as nominee. And we had that conversation. And the answer was, yes, Joe is old and frail, but he is healthy enough to do the job he was chosen to do.

But then as they say, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. Persons who saw Joe Biden as a weak nominee decided they wanted him replaced, with, well, anyone at all. And they won the argument.

Folks, this is not how democracy is supposed to work.

A little history. The modern Democratic Presidential nomination process began in 1972. That was the first election where the results of the primaries really counted more than the opinions of the super delegates in choosing the nominee. And in four of the next five elections, the Democrats looked like a party that couldn't do anything right. McGovern was crushed in '72. Carter nearly lost a virtually unlosable race in '76. And the less said about 1980, 1984 and 1988 the better.

But one thing we did not do in any of those elections was to choose a nominee, then press the panic button when that nominee fell behind in the polls and force him out.

Now that we've done this:
1. We've sent a message that we will betray anyone the minute the going gets tough.

2. We've given major donors and party leaders the power to deny the choice of the voters.

3. We look ridiculous. We became a squabbling, circular firing squad as soon as our campaign had problems.

4. We haven't gained anything. It's not as if Kamala Harris or anyone else polls any better against Donald Trump.

5. Right up to today, Professor Alan Lichtman, who has predicted the last 10 elections correctly, has pointed out that Joe Biden was still on track to win, largely because he's an incumbent President in a strong economy. Now we've thrown that away.

Perhaps we will win. Perhaps we will lose so badly that in four years the party will have new leadership. We need new leaders who believe in the democratic process, who believe that when the going gets tough, the tough get going, and who believe, maybe just a little, in loyalty to a very successful President. Assuming we ever win another election.

Tweet

A Few Links to Dispel Conservative Myths Part 21.1: Red State "Freedom" - Tennessee

Between 2020 and 2022 Idaho, Montana and Florida, all red states, had the greatest population growth among U.S. states. Meanwhile, New York and Illinois suffered the biggest population losses. California saw a population decrease of about 1%, although the Golden State's population rose in 2023.

Some folks would have you believe that there is some kind of mass migration from blue states to red states due to quality of life issues. First of all, the idea of a blue-to-red state exodus is overstated; my very blue home state of Washington has seen continued growth while the very red states of Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia have seen population fall. In terms of raw numbers of people relocating, bluish-purple states like Arizona, Georgia and Nevada are seeing a lot of population influx. Second, people are moving for any number of reasons; I'd say the biggest driver of folks leaving the west coast is to find cheaper housing costs as the increase in remote work options means tech workers no longer need to live near the very expensive urban cores of cities like San Jose.

But the point of this post is to dispel an idea I see a lot in conservative media: that people are moving to red states because life there means more "freedom". Or as Glenn H. Reynolds of the New York Post said of new arrivals to the state of Tennessee, "They come seeking a place where they are free from tyrannical governments, where their businesses and money are safe from destruction and confiscation, where they and their families feel safe and included."

I don't know exactly how "businesses and money" are not "safe from destruction and confiscation" in blue states; Reynolds doesn't say in the Post article, although he does mention migration from blue states, "in favor of red states where taxes are lower, intrusive government bureaucracy is less and political violence is uncommon."

OK, sure, the tax burden in Tennessee is lower than many blue states. But I think it presumes too much to say that what blue state migrants really want is to live in a state like Tennessee where spending per capita on public school students and teacher pay, as well as public health outcomes are among the poorest in the country, and where the public infrastructure is crumbling, only because they base quality of life largely on a slightly lower tax burden.

As for why someone from a blue state would feel more "safe" in Tennessee, I'm sure I can guess. Conservative Americans feel safer in public when more people are carrying guns. In reality, Tennessee is not safer; the violent crime rate there is 45% higher than New York and 65% higher than Washington state. The gun death rate in Tennessee is more than twice that of California and nearly four times that of New York. And as for "political violence", Nashville wasn't spared violence during the George Floyd protests in 2020 any more than other cities. The Metro Courthouse was set ablaze when a May protest became a violent riot.

Onward to freedom from tyrannical governments. Let's look at some hot button issues of the day, and how Tennessee fares when it comes to freedom.

1. Reproductive rights
Abortion is banned in Tennessee.

2. Marijuana
In Tennessee, both medical and recreational uses of marijuana are illegal.

3. Voting rights
"Tennessee has one of the most draconian laws in the country stripping voting rights from people convicted of felonies." "One in five Black residents of Tennessee are prohibited by state law from voting." - The Center for Public Integrity. Tennessee also has a bizarre law, imposing criminal charges and fines on voter registration groups over incomplete forms and missed deadlines. "Voter rights groups contend that the law is intended to prevent people, particularly African Americans and other minorities, from registering to vote in a state that has one of the lowest voter registration rates in the nation." - The Hill

4. Libraries
"Tennessee is at the national forefront of book challenges and book bannings" - The Nashville Scene

5. Transgender care
Tennessee law not only prohibits medical providers from treating transgender youth with evidence-based gender-affirming medical treatment, this year it passed a first-in-the-nation law penalizing adults who help minors receive gender-affirming care without parental consent.

6. Gay rights
In 2023, Tennessee became the first state to explicitly ban drag performances in public spaces. The law was struck down by a federal court.

7. Protest rights
From 2020: "New Tennessee Law May Make Protests Illegal - After more than two months of protests against police brutality, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed a new law revising criminal laws surrounding protest-related offenses and making it illegal to camp on state property." - The law firm of Burch, Morrison and Stewart

8. Health Care rights
Tennessee is one of only nine states that have not accepted Medicaid expansion making it possible for low-income persons to obtain health insurance.

9. The rights of people not permanently housed
In Tennessee it is a felony to camp in a park or other public space.

10. Democratic elections
A 2023 federal lawsuit, "charges the Tennessee Legislature, during the redistricting process following the completion of the 2020 U.S. Census, subordinated traditional redistricting principles in order to minimize Black votes by "cracking" and "packing" methods of gerrymandering, limiting voter input and participation".

In conclusion, some folks may be moving to Tennessee because they like the things listed above. But those things do not represent any reasonable definition of freedom.

---
Of course for some folks, "freedom" is all about the right to kill oneself and others with covid virus. I'll be covering that next time.

Tweet

A Few Links to Dispel Conservative Myths Part Twenty: COVID-19

The pandemic is now endemic. Last week, there were more hospitalizations from Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2 than there were per week during the fall of 2020, a time when vaccination against COVID was not yet available. 

For the past four years, red state Americans have resisted government solutions to prevent the spread of COVID, cope with its effects and vaccinate against it. And, not surprisingly for a group of people known to reject science, red state Americans have and continue to spread lies and misinformation about COVID, with deadly consequences.

A picture is worth a thousand words. This chart, courtesy of ABC News, graphs death rate per capita from COVID versus percent of the population immunized against it from April 2021 through February, 2022. In red states such as Wyoming, Tennessee, West Virginia, where vaccination rates barely exceeded 50%, COVID deaths per capita were more than double that of blue states such as Vermont, Hawaii, and Connecticut where vaccination rates exceeds 75%.

For red-staters, resistance to vaccines followed years of resistance to taking any precautions at all against the spread of COVID. A good place to start is this meme created by a Canadian political activist named Gregory Allen Elliott.

 

Myth: Masking is not effective in preventing the spread of COVID. The Cochrane Review proved it!
Fact: In 2023, a commentary from the Cochrane Library database of health care reviews suggested that when authorities introduced mask mandates, and people largely ignored those mandates and did not mask, then COVID spread rapidly. Well heck, I could have told you that without any data.
Fact: In 2022, the CDC published a study that found that consistently wearing a mask in public reduces the risk of Covid between 56% and 83% depending on the quality of the mask worn. LINK.

Myth: Social distancing is not effective in preventing the spread of COVID.
Fact: A 2020 study showed that countries that implemented social distances policies quickly saw a 65% reduction in new COVID cases.

Myth: The vaccines were "rushed" making them unsafe.
Fact: From Anisa M. Ibrahim, MD: "Although widespread use of mRNA vaccines is new, the technology to make the vaccine has been studied for decades before the pandemic. Scientists also have spent decades studying coronaviruses, like the one that causes COVID-19." "There were no shortcuts. Once they knew what virus was causing the pandemic, it was more straightforward for them to make a vaccine. That's why the COVID-19 vaccine works similarly to other vaccines your child has had. All safety processes were followed and none were rushed."

Myth: Many people have died from the COVID vaccines themselves, possibly more than from the virus. (A poll in 2023 showed that 33% of Americans believe that it is definitely or probably true that, "The COVID-19 vaccines have caused thousands of sudden deaths in otherwise healthy people.")
Fact: There have been no deaths directly caused by the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. Three people died in 2021 from blood clots after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. LINK. These were persons who already had low blood platelet health concerns.

Another set of myths regarding prevention of COVID revolves around things "we were told" that turned out to not be true. But all that's turned out to not be true was that we were ever told these things in the first place. For example, just this week an embittered Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, going off-topic while speaking about his failed campaign for the Republican presidential nomination said:

"They lied to us about the COVID shot. Remember? They said if you take a COVID shot you will not get COVID? How true was that? Not at all. Now, every booster you take you’re more likely to get COVID as a result of it. And they would never talk about any type of side effects. Think about this. Any pharmaceutical that is put on the market when they run these commercials, it’s like the first 30 seconds of the commercial, it’s usually like a married couple, probably like 60 to 65, just walking on the beach, whatever, laughing, having fun, because of this miracle drug, right? And then the next 30 seconds is, like, ‘you could die, heart attack, this, stroke.’ They list all the possible side effects because they're covering their rear ends. But yet when the mRNA shots came out, they said with a very short lead time, ‘Oh, yeah, you know, no problem, you can’t have any questions,’ and that’s just not the way these things go."

A lot of myths here in one oration. Here's a good response to the Governor from blogger Aldous J Pennyfarthing of dailykos:
"Shall we break it down? No one ever said you couldn’t get COVID-19 if you got vaccinated against it. Even early on, health officials acknowledged there would be breakthrough cases. Secondly, the idea that people taking boosters are actually more susceptible to COVID is easily debunked nonsense, much like DeSantis himself. Finally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has always been upfront about side effects, going so far as to pause the administration of the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine to evaluate a blood-clotting disorder that occurred in just six women who had taken the shot. What we do know for sure is that the vaccines have saved millions of lives worldwide and that taking the jab(s) significantly decreases one’s chance of dying from COVID-19."

There are actually more myths about COVID and its treatments and vaccines than I care to cover, but here are some "best of the rest" examples:

Myth: COVID vaccines contain microchips that allow the vaccinated to be tracked.
Fact: No they don't.

Myth: Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID.
Fact: Horse dewormer is not effective to treat COVID, and not healthy for humans.

Myth: Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID.
Fact: "In June 2020, the FDA ended the emergency use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for treatment of COVID-19. Over time, clinical trials showed hydroxychloroquine:
1. Led to serious heart problems in some people.
2. Did not effectively treat COVID-19.
3. Did not prevent infection with the virus that causes COVID-19." - The Mayo Clinic

And finally, who can forget:
Myth: President Donald Trump, April, 2020: "So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just a very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't been checked because of the testing." "And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that, too."
"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."
Fact: "There is some evidence that, in general, viruses on surfaces die more quickly when exposed directly to sunlight." "This is only about infected objects and surfaces - not about what happens once the virus is inside your body." - BBC News
"This notion of injecting or ingesting any type of cleansing product into the body is irresponsible and it’s dangerous." "It’s a common method that people utilize when they want to kill themselves." - Dr. Vin Gupta

Good night, and good luck.

Tweet