I figured this was as good a time as any to come clean about reasons Democrats are fretting the 2024 election results despite some quite positive signs for Kamala Harris, so I wrote them up at New York:
One of the most enduring of recent political trends is a sharp partisan divergence in confidence about each party’s electoral future. Democrats are forever “fretting” or even “bed-wetting;” they are in “disarray” and pointing fingers at each other over disasters yet to come. Republicans, reflecting the incessant bravado of their three-time presidential nominee, tend to project total, overwhelming victory in every election, future and sometimes even past. When you say, as Donald Trump often does, that “the only way we lose is if they cheat,” you are expressing the belief that you never ever actually lose.
The contrast between the fretting donkey and the trumpeting elephant is sometimes interpreted as a matter of character. Dating back to the early days of the progressive blogosphere, many activists have claimed that Democrats (particularly centrists) simply lack “spine,” or the remorseless willingness put aside doubts or any other compunctions in order to fight for victory in contests large and small. In this Nietzschean view of politics, as determined by sheer will-to-power (rather than the quality of ideas or the impact of real-world conditions), Democrats are forever bringing a knife to a gun fight or a gun to a nuclear war.
Those of us who are offended by this anti-intellectual view of political competition, much less its implicit suggestion that Democrats become as vicious and demagogic as the opposition often is, have an obligation to offer an alternative explanation for this asymmetric warfare of partisan self-confidence. I won’t offer a general theory dating back to past elections, but in 2024, the most important reasons for inordinate Democratic fear are past painful experience and a disproportionate understanding of the stakes of this election.
It’s very safe to say very few Democrats expected Hillary Clinton to lose to Donald Trump in 2016, or that Joe Biden would come so close to losing to Donald Trump in 2020. No lead in the polls looks safe because in previous elections involving Trump, they weren’t.
To be clear, the national polls weren’t far off in 2016; the problem was that sparse public polling of key states didn’t alert Democrats to the possibility Trump might pull an Electoral College inside straight by winning three states that hadn’t gone Republican in many years (since 1984 in Wisconsin, and since 1988 in Michigan and Pennsylvania). 2020 was just a bad year for pollsters. In both cases, it was Trump who benefitted from polling errors. So of course Democrats don’t view any polling lead as safe. Yes, the pollsters claim they’ve compensated for the problems that affect their accuracy in 2016 and 2020, and it’s even possible they over-compensated, meaning that Harris could do better than expected. But the painful memories remain fresh.
If you believe the maximum Trump ‘24 message about Kamala Harris’s intentions as president, it’s a scary prospect: she’s a Marxist (or Communist) who wants to replace white American citizens with the scum of the earth, which her administration is eagerly inviting across open borders with government benefits to illegally vote Democratic. It’s true that polls show a hard kernel — perhaps close to half — of self-identified Republicans believe some version of the Great Replacement Theory that has migrated from the right-wing fringes to the heart of the Trump campaign’s messaging, and that’s terrifying since there’s no evidence whatsoever for it. But best we can tell, the Trump voting base is a more-or-less equally divided coalition of people who actually believe some if not all of what their candidate says about the consequences of defeat, and people who just think Trump offers better economic and tougher immigration policies. While the election may be an existential crisis for Trump himself, since his own personal liberty could depend on the outcome, there’s not much evidence that all-or-nothing attitude is shared beyond the MAGA core of his coalition.
By contrast, Democrats don’t have to exercise a lurid sense of imagination to feel fear about Trump 2.0. They have Trump 1.0 as a precedent, with the added consideration that the disorganization and poor planning that curbed many of the 45th president’s authoritarian tendencies will almost certainly be reduced in 2025. Then there’s the escalation in his extremist rhetoric. In 2016 he promised a Muslim travel ban and a southern border wall. Now he’s talking about mass deportation program for undocumented immigrants and overt ideological vetting of legal immigrants. In 2016 he inveighed against the “deep state” and accused Democrats of actively working against the interests of the country. Now he’s pledging to carry out a virtual suspension of civil service protections and promising to unleash the machinery of law enforcement on his political enemies, including the press. As the furor over Project 2025 suggests, there’s a general sense that the scarier elements in Trump’s circle of advisors are planning to hit the ground running with radical changes in policies and personnel that can’t be reversed.
An important psychological factor feeding Democratic fears of a close election is the unavoidable fact that Trump has virtually promised to repeat or even surpass his 2020 effort to overturn the results if he loses. So anything other than a landslide victory for Harris will be fragile and potentially reversible. This is a deeply demoralizing prospect. It’s one thing to keep people focused on maximum engagement with politics through November 5. It’s another thing altogether to plan for a long frantic slog that won’t be completed until January 20.
Trump has been working hard to perfect the flaws in his 2020 post-election campaign that led to the failed January 6 insurrection, devoting a lot of resources to pre-election litigation and the compilation of post-election fraud allegations.
Though if you look hard you can find scattered examples of Democrats talking about denying a victorious Trump re-inauguration on January 20, none of that chatter is coming from the Democratic Party, the Harris-Walz campaign, or a critical mass of the many, many players who would be necessary to challenge an election defeat. Election denial in 2024 is strictly a Republican show.
As my colleague Jonathan Chait recently explained, the odds of Republicans winning control of the Senate in November are extremely high. That means that barring a political miracle, a President Harris would be constrained both legislatively and administratively, in terms of the vast number of executive-branch and judicial appointments the Senate has the power to confirm, reject, or simply ignore.
If Trump wins, however, he will have a better-than-even chance at a governing trifecta. This would not only open up the floodgates for extremist appointments aimed at remaking the federal government and adding to the Trumpification of the judiciary, but would unlock the budget reconciliation process whereby the trifecta party can make massive policy changes on up-or-down party-line votes without having to worry about a Senate filibuster.
Overall, Democrats have more reason to fear this election, and putting on some fake bravado and braying like MAGA folk won’t change the underlying reasons for that fear. The only thing that can is a second Trump defeat which sticks.
Ray Stevens and Obamacare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc_-L4fyLUo
Breaking News! Just in:
The United States Constitution has just been found in a dumpster behind the White House:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=UZkvkLmkYVg
Pretty good summary of what is known – how much more is hidden ?
$34,000:
The amount of federal taxes that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (D) failed to pay during his employment at the International Monetary Fund despite receiving extra compensation and explanatory brochures that described his
tax liabilities. True: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/01/timothy_geithner_obamas_nomine.html
$75,000:
The amount of money that the head of the powerful tax-writing committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), was forced to report on his taxes after the discovery that he had not reported income from a Dominican Republic rental property. His excuses for the failure started with blaming his wife, then his accountant and finally the fact that he didn’t speak Spanish. True http://www.nypost.com/seven/09102008/news/regionalnews/rangels_spanish_excuse_128444.htm
$93,000:
The INCREASE in the amount of petty cash each of our Congressional representatives voted to give themselves in January 2009 during the height of an economic meltdown. That’s a $40 + million INCREASE! http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/01/its-recession-congress-gives-lawmakers.html See video here from Fox
$1 33 ,900:
The amount Fannie Mae “invested” in Chris Dodd (D-CT), head of the powerful Senate Banking Committee, presumably to repel oversight of the GSE prior to its meltdown. Said meltdown helped touch off the current economic crisis. In only a few years time, Fannie also “invested” over $105,000 in then-Senator Barack Obama. True: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html
$140,000:
The amount of back taxes and interest that Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle (D) was forced to cough up after the vetting process revealed significant, unexplained tax liabilities. True: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123335984751235247.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall Street Journal
$356,000:
The approximate amount of income and deductions that Tom Daschle (D) was forced to report on his amended 2005 and 2007 tax returns after being caught cheating on his taxes. This includes $255,256 for the use of a car service, $83, 33 3 in unreported income, and $14,963 in charitable contributions. True: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123335984751235247.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall Street Journal
$800,000:
The amount of “sweetheart” mortgages Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) received from Countrywide Financial, the details for which he has refused to release details despite months of promises to do so. Countrywide was once the nation’s largest mortgage lender and linked to Government-Sponsored Entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their meltdown precipitated the current financial crisis. Just days ago in Pennsylvania , Countrywide was forced to pay $150,000,000 in mortgage assistance following “a state investigation that concluded that Countrywide relaxed its underwriting standards to sell risky loans to consumers who did not understand them and could not afford them.” True: http://rightvoices.com/2008/08/21/more-sweetheart-loan-details-on-senator-chris-dodd-d-ct-chairman-of-the-senate-committee-on-banking-housing-and-urban-affairs/
$1,000,000:
The estimated amount of donations by Denise Rich, wife of fugitive Marc Rich, to Democrat interests and the William J. Clinton Foundation in an apparent quid pro quo deal that resulted in a pardon for Mr. Rich. The pardon was reviewed and blessed by Obama Attorney General and then Deputy AG Eric Holder, despite numerous requests by government officials to turn it down. True: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/20/nation/na-holder20
$12,000,000:
The amount of TARP money provided to community bank One United despite the fact that it did not qualify for funds, and was “under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses.” It turns out that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), a key contributor to the Fannie Mae meltdown, just happens to be married to one of the bank’s former directors. True: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258284337504295.html Wall Street Journal
$23,500,000:
The upper range of net worth Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) accumulated in four years time according to The Washington Post through earmarks of “tens of millions of dollars to groups associated with his own business partners.” True: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051401032.html Washington Post
$2,000,000,000:
($2 billion) the approximate amount of money that House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) is earmarking related to his son’s lobbying efforts. The son, Craig Obey, is “a top lobbyist for the nonprofit group” that would receive a roughly $2 billion component of the “Stimulus” package. True: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/a_plan_for_stimulus_money_national_parks/C530/L37/
and this as a list of these related stories: http://search.yahoo.com/404handler?src=news&++++fr%3D404_news%26ref%3Dhttp://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-democrats-by-numbers.html&url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_co/stimulus_national_parks_2
$3,700,000,000:
($3.7 billion) not to be outdone, this is the estimated value of various defense contracts awarded to a company controlled by the husband of Rep. Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Despite an obvious conflict-of-interest as “a member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband’s firms.” True: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/22/MN310531.DTL
$4,190,000,000:
($4.19 billion) the amount of money in the so-called “Stimulus” package devoted to fraudulent voter registration ACORN group under the auspices of “Community Stabilization Activities”. ACORN is currently the subject of a RICO suit in Ohio . True: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/stimulus-economy-percent-2295331-bill-pelosi
$1,646,000,000,000 ($1.646 trillion):
The approximate amount of annual United States exports endangered by the “Stimulus” package, which provides a “Buy American” stricture. According to international trade experts, a “US-EU trade war looms” which could result in a worldwide economic depression reminiscent of that touched off by the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act. True: http://www.asiaing.com/2008-national-export-strategy-the-new-global-main-street.html and http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022685.php Background: Smmot-Hawley Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act
It’s becoming a culture of corruption and stupidity. In addition, these folks appear to be above the law. All of the aforementioned are still in office, living like the royalty they think they are. Remember folks: This all happened in just the FIRST QUARTER!
With 10 percent unemployment (17 percent U6), and many, many people having lost their homes and money as a result of the 2008 global recession, you can bet your remaining dollars that Democrats’ strongly and persistently blaming Republicans for the mess we’re in will be a winning strategy in 2010 and beyond.
Does anyone really believe that those who lost so much, and the vast majority of Americans, are ignorant of the fact that Republican policies caused those losses, or that those job, house and money losers and their sympathetic fellow Americans are still not seething as await the time, this November, when they can exact their cathartic revenge?