Uncharacteristically, I'll say that Dems should stop beating up on themselves and firing volleys back and forth. (They can get back to that later.) American voters - as I've been warning for years - are changing, and becoming more like Trump. That's hard to counteract. /1
Maybe the mistake we all made was thinking America would elect a Black woman. I had a gut feeling they would not. But in any case, when elections are about feelings, fantasies, boredom, and resentment, the candidate who services those delusions has a natural advantage. /2
Democrats are understandably focused on voters who flipped because they're suffering economically. But a far larger number of voters werfe un-flippable and not poor! They're the comfortable Trumpers who think, like, Canada conspired with Michelle O to hijack voting machines. /3
When millions of people think that way, you can't agonize *too* much over losing another 3 pts during a global backlash against inflation (that no govt could have stopped and that the US handled well).
Especially when you've won impt House/Senate races in all those states./4
The Democrats should definitely have a reckoning about their inability to recognize that becoming the party of the college-educated (which is what the GOP used to be) has affected their ability to message. And you're seeing some rumbles already. /5
But no Dem can change the fact that millions of ungettable GOP votes are set in stone not because of economic conditions - which were the best any candidate could have hoped for - but because even relatively affluent voters have spent years marinating in complete craziness. /6
And I'll add, again, that this is not some post-hoc rationalization based on this week. I've written about this for years, and warned about it at length in a book I wrote more than four years ago. That's really why I just couldn't be optimistic about this election. /7x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Okay, I admit, I've been kind of rope-a-doping some of the people angry over my "it's okay to drop friends over politics posts." So I'll wrap up:
I don't recall anyone on my right getting mad when I wrote this in a right-wing - now insanely right wing - magazine in 2016. /1
The reason I got very little pushback, I suspect, is that no one expected Trump to win. But now, people on the right are stuck having to defend what they've done and itchy about it.
But interestingly, the same magazine also now has this:
/2
If you're angry over dropping friends and family over Trump now, but weren't in 2016, or aren't over calls now to de-recognize other citizens as Americans (and I assume that means friends who voted for Harris)...well...
/3
It's right on brand for the "fuck your feelings" crowd to say their vote, and the things they advocated for, must have no effect on any of their relationships with friends or family. Not only is that unrealistic, it's definitely whiny.
(And now let's remember some history.) /1
As a kid, I saw relationships among friends and family break over several issues - and especially Vietnam. No one back then said "You must treat me like a beloved friend or family member no matter what I say." People were, you know, grownups. They owned their politics. /2
I was there the night my parents and another couple ended their friendship because of Vietnam and the draft. (They said they'd drive their son to Canada if he was drafted.) When they left, all four of them knew it was done. As it turned out, that was okay with all of them. /3
Just as in 2016, Trump voters are the angriest winners I've ever seen.
🧵
/1
The thing that unites Trump voters with other extremists from right to left is that they are totalitarians. For them, winning an election isn't enough. Deep down, they doubt their own cause so they want you not only to accept their win, but to affirm them.
/2
An example on the left that appalled me was when SCOTUS ruled about gay marriage. There were a lot of people on the left who demanded not only that people accept the ruling, but embrace it and bake those gay wedding cakes. Sorry, but that's not how any of this works. /3
I used to encounter this among some senior officers I worked with who didn't think war college faculty should have tenure. But those who disliked the word "tenure" didn't dislike it enough that they stopped their kids from applying to top schools with faculties built on it. /1
And I know this because I asked. Many years ago, I asked an admiral where his colleagues sent their kids to college. He reeled off some impressive names. "Did they call and ask for the untenured faculty, or demand to see an ROI for one year at those schools?"
Response: 😡
/2
What it was really about is that some in the military leadership back then didn't want empowered and superior civilian faculty - for many reasons, which I'll write about another day. /3
I've been thinking about this article, and have now read the full CSIS report. Eliot and Phillips make some important points about expertise. But the idea that the experts botched this at the beginning seems to me to be some unduly harsh revisionism. /1
The basic issue seems to be: Why did so many analysts overestimate RU and underestimate UKR? And the answer seems to be something like: Because they're intellectually ossified and they did stuff like count tanks instead of thinking more about social and political factors. /2
I'm not sure that's fair, but in any case, it was only the reasonable bet to assume that Russia would be more competent. It was also, for UKR, the worst-case scenario - which most analysts are paid to think through and focus on.
Experts do not, and should not, wishcast. /3
Okay, think about this "fact-checking" mania so many of you have for the debates: That's not how the public scores debates.
Look, when Reagan said "there you go again," he wasn't fact-checking Carter. He was emphasizing to the public: Aren't we tired of this guy?
/1
When Bentsen skewered Quayle with "You're no JFK," was it a fact-check, or was it: Get a load of this guy, thinking he's JFK.
When Clinton stood up between Perot and Bush in 1992, he wasn't fact checking. He was saying: I am the only guy here who gets you.
/2
All Harris and Walz have to do is go out there and talk to Americans like normal people. That's the debate. NO ONE CARES ABOUT FACT-CHECKS.
/3