Some Thoughts on the Results of the US 2024 Election

 Some thoughts after the most consequential US election in my lifetime:

1. The pollsters got it wrong -- for the third time in as many US Presidential elections.  The vote tallies were not razor thin, or even just plain thin by any margin.  Donald Trump won the popular vote by more than 5 million votes, and the Electoral College by 292 to 224 at this moment.  He won the swing states of Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, with Arizona and Nevada still too close to call.  He lost New York State, but Kamala Harris did much more poorly than Joe Biden in New York four years ago.  The polls predicted none of this.  Maybe it's time to stop paying so much attention to them -- or any attention at all.

2. Maybe all the Democrats who hounded Joe Biden out of the race after his unsettling performance in his debate in June with Trump should have thought twice about coming after Biden.  I said at the time that debate performance has nothing to do with Presidential decision-making and governing.  But everyone from George Clooney to Adam Schiff* were so sure that just about anyone other than Biden would do better than the man who was born in Scranton -- one of the reasons that Biden did so well in Pennsylvania in the 2020 election -- that they went on and on in the media as if it were their sacred duty to make sure Biden stepped down.  Kamala Harris would have made a great President.  But she would have been far more likely to beat Trump or any opponent four years from now, after she had served another term as VP in a second Biden administration.  Of course, no one can know now if Biden would have bested Trump in yesterday's election, but I and everyone who expressed concern about Biden being driven out of the election can't help but think that he might well have done better, much better, in the election just concluded, given his success against the same opponent in 2020.

*No doubt influenced by the same polls that later said the Harris/Trump run for the White House was way too close to call.

3. The US House of Representatives is still up for grabs.  If the Democrats don't retake control of the House, we can expect unobstructed Republican rule, with the courts as the only check on their power. And we've already seen more than once where the Supreme Court stands on that.

I may have some further thoughts as the day goes by.

Harris vs. Trump Presidential Debate: Eating Dogs and Viktor Orban

I don't recall ever seeing a Presidential debate like this, Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump: a cool, passionate, articulate champion of democratic values and principles vs. well, a lunatic and fascist admirer.

One of Trump's lies which struck me most -- lies are too weak a word for it -- was Trump's claim that immigrants are eating dogs.  One of the moderators, David Muir, quietly pointed out that the City Manager of one of the allegedly afflicted places said that dogs were not being eaten in his town.  Among the plethora of Trump's lies, this one strikes me as one of the most indicative of Trump's mental maladjustment.  It's far less serious, of course, than Trump's continuing charge that governors in Democratic states allow killing of newborn babies -- denounced as a lie by both Harris and the other moderator, Linsey Davis.  That's an egregious lie about a crucial issue.  But the claim about immigrants and dogs is somehow vivid evidence that the former President is not in his right mind.

As for his politics,what I found most significant and disturbing was Trump's citing the pride he takes in Viktor Orban's praise of him.  A fascist, neo-Nazi, who has systematically put down and tried to pull down the press and democratic structures in his country, Hungary.  I couldn't help thinking that if Hitler was alive, and said anything good about Trump. the former President would have cited him as an admiring ally too.

Kamala Harris aptly pointed out that the most important thing in Trump's book and psyche is flattery from others.  Everything she said in the debate was astute and on target.  In fact, I can't think of a single off-key thing she said.  Sure, that's because I agree with everything she said, but I still think her performance was objectively excellent.  That includes her facial reactions to Trump's lies and absurdities, which we've known since the 1960 JFK/Nixon debates are at least as important as what the candidates actually say.

As for the moderators, better than CNN's in the Biden-Trump debate in June, but that's faint praise. They did quietly point out a few of Trump's lies, but maybe I'm old fashioned thinking that they should have called out every single one of them.  Loudly and clearly.

Big good news arrived shortly after the debate in Taylor Swift's ringing endorsement of Harris for President.  I'm pulling for a landslide.

Trump Impeachment Aftermaths

Here are some of my thoughts about the Trump impeachment acquittal and where we go from here, a week after the conclusion of the Senate trial:

1. Mitch McConnell's vote and statement:  I of course was very disappointed but not surprised by McConnell's vote to acquit Trump.  I was surprised by McConnell's accompanying statement, both the content and the intensity.  In particular, that McConnell said 

There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it.... Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen. Unless the statute of limitations is run, still liable for everything he did while he was in office. Didn’t get away with anything, yet. Yet. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation and former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one.  [See here for the transcript of McConnell's statement.]

There's no doubt that the country -- and therefore the world -- would have been better off had Trump been found guilty and thereby prohibited from ever holding public office again.  But McConnell's statement is nonetheless part of the record of the impeachment process, and is and will be of great value.  It shows that, whatever McConnell's reasons for voting for acquittal, he nonetheless thought Trump was responsible for the insurrectionist riot, and, just as important, ought to be held accountable for his actions and non-actions.  Coming from the Republican Senate Minority leader, that's significant, and will be prominently noted by historians.

2. Republican attacks on Republican Senators who voted to convict Trump:  McConnell also said that "I respect my colleagues who’ve reached either conclusion" about whether a conviction of Trump in the impeachment trial would be constitutional.  Not so some other Republicans around the country, including  local Pennsylvania  GOP Chair Dave Ball,  who said

We did not send him [Senator Pat Toomey, who voted to convict Trump] there to vote his conscience or ‘do the right thing' or whatever he said he was doing there.  We sent him there to represent us.  [Interview on KDKA-TV]

Now there's been a debate as old as our republic about whether our elected representatives should vote their conscience or ascertain what the people who elected them want.  I've always been a strong supporter of conscience, on general principle, and also given the unreliability of polling in discovering what the voters want.  But the position of finding out what the public wants and basing your vote on that at least has a logic to it, and is consistent with the democratic process.  Is that what Ball was urging?  I don't think so.  The "we" in that last sentence more likely refers to the Republican Party, who put Toomey up for general election and supported his campaign.   And if that was what Ball was saying, that Toomey should keep in line with his party's policies, that's disturbingly reminiscent of insistence on adherence to the party line in totalitarian societies like the former Soviet Union.

3. Biden Administration response to Trump acquittal:  The Biden Administration clearly wants to focus on the pandemic and other challenges it views as more urgent than what to do now about Trump.  Vice President Kamala Harris said today on the Today Show:

Right now I'm focused on what we need to do to get relief to American families and that is my highest priority, it's our administration's highest priority, it's our job, it's the job we were elected to do, and that's my focus. [See more on that here.]

I agree completely with Biden and Harris.  Not only is the pandemic an obviously immediate life and death matter -- on a massive scale -- but there are other ways to hold Trump to account.  New York and Georgia are already investigating criminal charges against Trump, and the U.S. Attorney General's office, which Biden wants to be non-political, i.e., not serving Biden's political interests as Attorney General William Barr did Trump's, can investigate Trump and seek to indict him, without instruction from Biden.

In sum, although conviction of Trump in the impeachment trial was amply merited and would have benefited the country, we who value justice and freedom and democracy are in a good position to do something about the fascist former President who did so much damage to our country.

The View Looks Better from Here

I wrote here the morning after the election in November that there were grounds for optimism -- Biden was gaining in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona, which provided enough votes to win in the Electoral College. The last stage of that anachronistic, indirectly democratic process, but the only process we have right now, was completed last night.

I don't like Vice President Pence in the least.  He's enabled and promoted four years of Trump's fascist regime.  But, in the end, he did his job in Congress certifying the electoral vote yesterday.  It's a measure of how far we've gone away from decency and integrity in the Trump regime that a Vice President deserves praise for doing his job, but there you have it.

Yesterday also brought the news that the Democrats will control the Senate, and therefore both houses of Congress.  Warnock's and Ossoff's victories in George are profound game changers, which will open the way for Biden with Harris's help to enact all the major components of his rebuilding a better America. (In addition what needs to be done in making health care universal, countering racism, gun control, protecting the environment -- I've also long yearned, on a relatively minor, personal level, for a rail system in the United States as high-speed and effective as the ones in Europe and Japan, and I think that will now finally happen.)

There's still an enormous amount of danger to be dealt with, ranging from every minute Trump is still in the White House to the tap root of fascism Trump called forth* to the still-raging pandemic.  But we've finally reached the light at the end of one of the long, deep tunnels we've been struggling the navigate, and the view looks better from here.

*The storming of the U.S. Capitol, which happened a few hours after this blog post, is a tragic and infuriating example of what this fascism can do.  See my comments in the NY1 video below:

Truth Wins in the Marketplace of Ideas

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 155, in which I put Joe Biden's victory in some philosophic context: it offers proof of John Milton's argument, way back in the Areopagitica, that truth can win in the marketplace of ideas, even this age of social media.

 

Check out this episode!

Running Scared: Trump Withdraws from Second Presidential Debate

 I was not in the slightest surprised to just hear this news: 

“I’m not going to do a virtual debate,” Trump told Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo... “I’m not going to waste my time on a virtual debate. That’s not what debating’s all about. You sit behind a computer and do a debate — it’s ridiculous. And then they cut you off whenever they want.”

I and many others have been calling for moderators to have the technological capacity to cut off microphones during the Presidential and Vice Presidential debates.  Trump interrupted Biden just about every time the Democratic candidate started talking in their first debate, and Pence repeatedly talked far over his allotted time in the VP debate last night.  Moderator Chris Wallace in the first debate and Susan Page in the second debate complained and chastised Trump and Pence, but to no avail.  A capacity to cut off the microphone would have been  useful indeed, and would have well served the goal of the debates to give the American people a chance to see and hear the candidates discuss the issues.

Of course, there's no guarantee that a moderator, in-person or virtual, would use the option to cut off the microphone of a bullying (Trump) or over-talkative (Pence) debater.  But without such an option, the moderator's ability to reign in abusive and errant debaters is limited.  I would have liked to have seen Wallace and Page stand up and refuse to allow the out-of-line candidate to continue talking, but I recognize that that's easier said than done.  

A cut-off switch would have surely helped, and muting someone in an online conversation is easier and far less confrontational than in person.   Not to mention that online debates cannot be vectors of COVID-19.  But Trump cares as much about personally spreading the virus as he does about adhering to the rules of civil debating, which is to say, not much at all.  So, with his poll numbers plummeting, and his desire to keep faith with those who like his truculence, he ran scared and pulled out of the upcoming virtual debate.  Good riddance, and looking forward to November 3.

Harris vs. Pence in VP Debate: Pence Avoids Answering Most of the Questions

I didn't keep a strict count, but I'd say VP Pence avoided answering more than half the questions put to him by Susan Page in the just concluded VP 2020 debate.  The most egregious avoidance came near the end, when Pence didn't answer Page's question about what Trump would do if he lost the election.  That is, the all-important question of whether Trump would peacefully leave office, as the law requires, if Biden won the election.

And that, in turn, raises the question that was raised last week about Chris Wallace: why wasn't Page more forceful in holding Pence to account when he ignored her questions?  She was somewhat better than Wallace in challenging Pence when he talked over his allotted time, but as a moderator, shouldn't she have insisted that the candidate answer the questions put to him?   Is that part of the job of a moderator?  As it was, she complained a lot but took little action.  Once again, a mute button would have helped.

Meanwhile, Harris had a good outing.  She more than once stopped Pence when he was talking over her, intruding on her time, and offered a both logical and passionate defence of her and Biden's progressive positions.  For his part, Pence was far better than Trump in presenting his conservative positions or whatever exactly they were than was Trump, but that's faint praise indeed.

In general, I doubt that this debate changed many if any minds.   But Biden is now so far ahead in the polls, that probably doesn't matter.  What Trump needed tonight was a decisively powerful and winning performance from his Vice President.  What he got was a somewhat weary, smug presentation which will likely do nothing more than seal the much deserved fate of this rapidly disintegration administration. 

Written Report on 3rd Day of 2020 Democratic National Convention

What a speech by Barack Obama on the third night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention, the first virtual National Democratic or Republican Convention in history.  I thought the speech was so pertinent and powerful it was even better than his speeches as President, and in his campaigns for that office.  Unafraid to call out the monster, the would-be destroyer of our democracy, now in the White House.  Sobering, inspiring, chilling, and so very necessary.

Kamala Harris gave an outstanding speech, too, accepting her nomination as Vice President on the Democratic ticket.  Her empathy for the victims of racism and COVID, combined with her astute attack on Trump, and her winning charm, show what a wise choice Joe Biden made in selecting her as his running mate.  And wasn't it excellent to see him come out on stage and join her after her speech, especially impressive in this age of COVID.

Elizabeth Warren's speech was powerful, as well, preceded by real people across the country whose businesses have been jeopardized to the edge of extinction by the COVID pandemic and the poor leadership -- non-leadership -- of Donald Trump.   I hope she gets a prominent position in Biden's cabinet.

And the segment on victims of gun violence, followed by Gabby Giffords, was also ever timely and necessary.  Good for the Democratic National Committee for not letting this life-and-death issue get lost in the toxic sea of COVID and racism and attempts to suppress the vote that beset all Americans. 

So this third night was a real joy and inspiration.  Biggest surprise for me: Mariska Hargitay of Law & Order SVU endorsing Biden for President!  You just can't beat a Benson endorsement!

I'll see you back here tomorrow after the fourth and final night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention.

See also Written Report on 1st Night the 2020 Democratic National Convention ... Written Report on 2nd Night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention

Blog Post: Kamala Harris: The First Step Back from the Precipice

I wrote a few days ago (and also posted a podcast) about why I strongly disagreed with Wade Davis's conclusion, in "The Unraveling of America" in Rolling Stone, that America was so far gone, in ways that the abysmal treatment of the COVID-19 pandemic epitomizes but didn't initiate, that nothing could reverse that decline.  Nothing, including and especially, the upcoming Presidential election.  I explained why I thought such a conclusion was not only dangerous but wrong, and cited FDR's election in 1932 as a ringing example of how a Presidential election can indeed make a difference, in that case, lifting us out of Great Depression, and enabling us to the lead the free world to defeat the Nazis.

I offered that argument two days before Joe Biden selected Kamala Harris to be his VP running mate.  I see that selection as America, via Joe Biden's wise decision, taking the first step back from the precipice.  In an ideal world, a person's ethnicity and gender wouldn't matter.  All that would count in anyone's being a candidate for any job, would be the candidate's talent and capacity to do the job as effectively and as excellently as the job could be done.  But we don't yet live in such an ideal world, and, in order to get there, we need people in public positions who come from ethnicities and genders (i.e., women) who have been shut out from such public positions, because of the racism and sexism from which our free society emerged, and which is still very much with us.  In such a world - which is this, our world, our country - Kamala Harris breaks an wide array of barriers, an array amazing for one person.  She is an African-American woman, with an Indian (Asian Indian) heritage.

But Kamala Harris would be an impressive candidate even if she were a white man.  She is articulate, sharp as whip, reflective, passionate, and strategic in her thinking.  She is an ideal balance for the more deliberative Biden, and will make an ideal governing partner when they both get into office.   (Note added: If you want an idea of how Harris stands up to the current Vice President, compare her heartwarming speech of a fighter, just delivered in Wilmington, Delaware after Joe Biden introduced her, to the unctuous pap that daily comes out of Pence's mouth.)

So, to return to Davis, elections do make a difference.  A Democrat in the White House, with a black woman as his Vice President, and a Senate and House of Representatives in Democratic control, can and will turn this country around.   But to make that happen, we have to get out and vote.

Third 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate: Winners and Losers

The third 2020 Democratic Presidential debate just concluded in Houston on ABC-TV.  It was longer the first four - nearly three hours - and was just one debate, of the ten leading candidates, rather than the two debates of ten each, one day after the other, which is the way the Democratic debates proceeded in June and July.  I thought tonight's debate was also better.

Joe Biden, in his quiet way,  had a very strong and successful night.  He was excellent on a variety of topics, including health care.  Contrary to Castro's calling out Biden for forgetting that Biden just said that Biden's health care plan required people to "opt in," Biden did say that people who couldn't afford any health care would be automatically enrolled.  (More on Castro below, who owes Biden an apology.)  Biden was also strong on both defending Obama's immigration policy and saying, also, that times have changed - I think that's a fair and accurate appraisal.  Biden was also Presidential in the public appreciation he expressed to Beto about his comforting the survivors of the El Paso shooting. And Biden's closing response about the personal tragedies in his life and how those gave him purpose rang deep and true.

Amy Klobuchar also had a good night.   She consistently was a unifying voice, and was 100% on target in her attack on Mitch McConnell.   It's important but easy enough to say Trump is a disgrace to his office.  But McConnell's freezing of the Senate on everything from gun control to immigration is also a crucial piece of why our country is in such difficult straits.  Beto O'Rourke was especially good on gun control and his insistence on taking away the most dangerous guns that are out there in so many hands.  And Kamala Harris had an effective night, with her blend of social sensitivity and prosecutorial zeal directed at Trump.

Elizabeth Warren was ok, and didn't get enough time.   Cory Booker did a little better than in his previous two debates, but loses points for saying "dagnabbit".   Pete Buttigieg were good but didn't really break any new ground.

And then it went seriously downhill.  Bernie seemed haggard and haranguing, and also said nothing new.   Yang was irrelevant.  And, I truly think Castro talked himself out of Presidential contention with his ill-informed and graceless attack on Biden.

I'll see you back here after the next debate.

See also First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ...   First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers ... Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ... Second Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

The headline of the second part of the Second Democratic Presidential Debate, just concluded on CNN, is that Joe Biden did a lot better than he did in the First Democratic Presidential Debate on MSNBC last month. He was still a little inarticulate at times, and a little too prone to let the moderators interrupt him, but he was very impressive.  And so was just about everyone else on stage in Detroit tonight.

Some highlights -

• De Blasio is completely right that current, private health care premiums, deductibles, out of pocket expenses, not to mention costs of prescribed medications, are far more expensive than what we would pay in taxes for universal, government-provided heath care.  On the cost of pharmaceuticals, good for Biden for highlighting that these obscenely high costs need to be brought under control
• Castro and Gillibrand were right to call on De Blasio to immediately fire Eric Garner's killer, officer Daniel Pantaleo (Harris joined in on this call, too.)
• Inslee was right to call for end of Senate filibuster.
• Biden handled criticism of some of his past decisions pretty well.  He explained what he was trying to accomplish at the time, on issues ranging from busing to the Hyde Amendment, and he got support from Gabbard and Bennet.
• In general, just everyone on stage was sharp and combative when needed.  I'd say the weakest, in terms of ideas and constructive engagement, was Andrew Yang.

One point about Harris: she again wrongly contrasted science vs. science fiction in Democratic vs. Republican positions on climate.  Not that the Republican positions aren't fantasy and counter-factual, it's that science fiction is not that, and not the opposite of science.  She did the same thing in the first debate last month.  Here was my response.

The September debate is next up, and there will no doubt be fewer candidates up on stage for that.  I'll be back with an assessment of what should be another exciting, even inspiring, night.

See also Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers

Minor Quibble with Kamala Harris: The Opposite of Science Fact is not Science Fiction

Although it's at most a minor quibble with Kamala Harris's superb performance in this past Thursday's Democratic debate - see my assessment of that over here - I thought, as a past President of the Science Fiction Writers of America (1998-2001), that I ought to weigh in on a concern which has made it all the way to The Washington Post.

The concern arises from Harris's point made during the debate that our response to climate change needs to be based on "science fact not science fiction".   Unfortunately, this contrast, likely the product of one of Harris's writers not what she herself may think, shows a woeful misunderstanding and ignorance of science fiction.  Anyone who has read any of Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke, not to mention Verne and Wells, would know that science fiction does not deny or belittle science.  To the contrary, the essence of science fiction is to use science as a foundation to explore dramatic situations, including global catastrophes, and predictions of the future.

As a science fiction author myself - of novels and short stories - I have had the majority of my short stories (some 17) published in Analog Magazine, aka Analog Science Fiction and Fact Magazine.  Over the years, newer writers have asked me what I would recommend for enhancing their chances of getting published in Analog.  My answer: get your science right, and make sure it plays a decisive part in your story.

The fundamental connection between science fiction and science fact has been recognized by scientists such as Marvin Minsky, who said Asimov's robot stories inspired Minsky's life-long work in AI, and by Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, who cited Asimov's Foundation series as inspiration for Krugman's work in economics.

And, to get back to Harris's inapt comparison, it's not that hard to find suitable opposites to science - pseudo-science, fantasy, conspiracy theory, all would have worked well in Harris's formulation.

But, as I said, this is a minor quibble, and now that I've gotten it of my system, I can return to thinking about who is the best candidate to beat Trump.  Harris's performance on Thursday makes her a major contender.

First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

I thought the second part of the first 2020 Democratic Presidential debate was better than the first part - on yesterday - in that more of the ten on stage had standout moments.   My assessment follows, in descending order of what I thought were the best performances:

Harris was clearly outstanding and the best tonight.  She was powerful and eloquent on health care and immigration.  She was strong on the need to curb racism, including an attack on Biden for working with Southern racist Senators.  I liked her intention to take executive action on banning assault weapons (though Swalwell was even stronger on this issue), and she had the best closing statement.

Gillibrand did a lot of good for herself on the need to curb gun violence, and on the danger of compromising on women's rights.  I think she'll rise in the polls as a result of tonight's performance.

Among all the crucially important issues that beset us, I put reducing gun violence, aka gun control, at the top of the list.   I therefore agree completely with Swalwell putting gun control at the top of his list.  His plan to buy back assault weapons makes good sense, and he captured the stakes in this issue well with his observation that we need to "love our children more than our guns".

Bennet was correct to speak about Nazi concentration camps in his denunciation of the camps for immigrants at our Southern border, and he was right to stress the need to win back the Senate in the 2020 election (as Booker did last night).

Sanders had a strong closing statement, and he was passionate as always on the need to equalize wealth in America.

Buttigieg was powerful and articulate on the need to end police racism, but Swalwell did him one better by challenging him to fire the Police Chief of South Bend.

Biden took a long time to come alive - too long - and responded pretty well to Harris's attacks (but he should have kept talking).   He was excellent on the evil of putting children in cages, strong on the need to get our troops out of Afghanistan, and right to hold gun manufacturers responsible (but why let the NRA off the hook?).  His closing statement was ok - which is about the best you could say about his overall performance.

The other three either outright crazy (Williamson), too focused on a single issue (Yang), or nothing special (Hickenlooper).  I don't expect any of them to be on stage for the next debate.

But I'll be back here with another review.

See also First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers



Joe Biden does become President in this 2014 novel