"This Time We Have to Hold the Democratic Party Elite Responsible for This Catastrophe."

Writes Jeet Heer in The Nation. Subheadline: "Trump won because the opposition party is committed to ancien régime restoration in a country that desperately wants change."

The key to understanding the Trump era is that the real divide in America is not between left and right but between pro-system and anti-system politics. Pro-system politics is the bipartisan consensus of establishment Democrats and Republicans: It’s the politics of NATO and other military alliances, of trade agreements, and of deference to economists (as when they say that price gouging isn’t the cause of inflation). Trump stands for no fixed ideology but rather a general thumbing of the nose at this consensus....

Democrats... need... to embrace radical policies to change that status quo. This is the only path for the party to rebuild itself and for Trumpism....

"That little thing called special."

I liked that locution in Trump's victory speech last night.

Context, from the transcript:

"We're gonna turn our country around. Make it something very special. It lost that, lost that little, it lost that little, that little thing called special. We have to make it, so we're gonna make this so great. It's gonna. It's the greatest country, and potentially the greatest country in the world by far and right now we're gonna just work very hard to get all of that back. We're gonna make it the best it's ever been. We can do that. We just, if we had to wait longer. I don't know. It was going bad and it was going bad fast...."

"I’m worried that if the Harris campaign wins on an abortion, abortion, abortion, presidential message, that the Democrats will take the lesson..."

"... that the way to win is to divide America along gender lines and convince young women that the essence of their political identity should be focused on making sure that they have the right to terminate their unborn children in the womb. That, I think, would be a very depressing future for American liberalism and would make me unhappy for my daughter’s future."

Said Ross Douthat, on November 1, in "This Election Is the Tiebreaker Over Trumpism/The hosts dig into what they got right, and what they got so wrong, about this campaign season," an episode of the NYT "Matter of Opinion" podcast.

The Democrats, most emphatically, did not win the election, and I wonder: Did they learn that it's not a winning strategy to divide us along gender lines?

Scanning the headlines of columns this morning, I get the impression that the response is to double down on gender division. I'll just link to Maureen Dowd's "It’s This Man’s, Man’s, Man’s World":

"Mr. Vance will become the nation’s youngest vice president since 1953, when Richard M. Nixon..."

"... who celebrated his 40th birthday just days before inauguration, was sworn in as Dwight D. Eisenhower’s vice president. John C. Breckinridge, who was 36 when he assumed office in 1857 as James Buchanan’s vice president, holds the record for the nation’s youngest vice president."

From "JD Vance, Trump’s MAGA Successor, Will Be One of America’s Youngest Vice Presidents/Mr. Vance’s victory caps his ideological reversal from anti-Trump author to pro-Trump senator" (NYT).

With Trump limited to one last term, Vance embodies his hope of continuing his vision and influence into the future. We've just seen a Vice President fail to acquire the distinction needed to convince American voters that she was presidential material. You could say she was tapped awfully late and suddenly thrown into the arena. But it was obvious from before the start of Biden's term that he lacked what it takes. I thought, when he was sworn in, that within a few months he'd be out and Harris would be President.

"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden."

About that dead horse.

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but can we go back to what happened here? pic.twitter.com/FkScNHivuU

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 6, 2024

"... and quietly just do whatever we want."

Lil X and Elon Musk with Tucker Carlson.

The best video you'll see on the internet today. 🫶🏻 pic.twitter.com/fnCTOqO4R5

— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) November 6, 2024

I heard Dana Bash say it at 1:15 a.m. on CNN: “We’re all living in the manosphere now.”

I can't find anyone else quoting that — I quoted it here, in real time. And I want it preserved.

And let's see who else was talking about the election in terms of the "manosphere." 1. November 5, 6:15 AM, in The Washington Post: "Into the nervy climax of the 2024 elections/Our columnists are trying to keep calm as this year’s immensely consequential vote wraps up." The columnist James Hohmann speaks of the "manosphere"... disparagingly:

The party’s coalitions are changing. We’re going through this realignment that Trump has hastened. And Republicans are now much more dependent than they really ever have been in our lifetimes on low-propensity voters. They’re counting on the "Manosphere," the Joe Rogan listener, the crypto bro, “the guy who vapes.” And these are not high-propensity voters.

2. November 5, 8:09 AM: "Joe Rogan Reminded of His Own Brutal Words After Trump Endorsement/Joe Rogan just endorsed Donald Trump. Here’s what he once had to say about the former president":

The king of the manosphere has spoken. Celebrity podcast host Joe Rogan officially endorsed Donald Trump in a lengthy post Monday evening on X. Receipts immediately followed... Fans were quick to point to the many times Rogan has criticized Trump....

3. November 1, at NPR: "America's Next Top Scapegoat; plus, Inside the Black Manosphere":

Then, Brittany is joined by Code Switch's Gene Demby to explore the roots of a corner of the conservative internet that may have surprising effects on the election: The Black Manosphere.

ADDED: There's also, from September in Atlantic: "How Joe Rogan Remade Austin/The podcaster and comedian has turned the city into a haven for manosphere influencers, just-asking-questions tech bros, and other 'free thinkers' who happen to all think alike" (previously blogged here).

And, to go back to August 2016, something from The New Yorker — previously blogged here — there's "WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE DECIDE EVERYONE ELSE IS A NARCISSIST," a New Yorker article by Jia Tolentino, who quoted "An Essay on the Fear of Narcissism" by Kristin Dombek:

"'If you are an especially giving person, warns the Internet, you are a prime target for narcissists,' Dombek writes. The narcisphere has a gendered inverse, which some call the manosphere and which is dedicated to teaching men how to dominate women by feigning self-confidence. This is the realm of pickup artistry. It is much worse than the narcisphere...."

And here's something I blogged in November 2018:

"What I was surprised to find was the extent to which [the 'manosphere' is] using ancient Greek and Roman figures and texts to prop up an ideal of white masculinity," said Donna Zuckerberg, interviewed in "Donna Zuckerberg: ‘Social media has elevated misogyny to new levels of violence’/When the academic, sister of Mark Zuckerberg, began exploring online antifeminism, she discovered far-right men’s groups were using classical antiquity to support their views" (The Guardian).

"Baldwin officials said the numbers were not final but that she has taken the lead and the margin is too large for Hovde to make up."

It says here in "Tammy Baldwin declares victory in Wisconsin Senate race in 2024 election over Eric Hovde" (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel).

With 97.3% of the votes counted, Baldwin led Hovde by 49.2% to 48.7% — a margin of nearly 16,000 votes — in a race that drew attention and big bucks from around the country. Absentee ballots had not yet been counted in Racine and Oshkosh and votes had not all been counted in various places in Oshkosh.... The Democratic incumbent outperformed Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, who was losing to former President Donald Trump by more than 41,000 votes.

Control of the Senate doesn't hinge on this race: "Republicans Clinch Control of the Senate/After picking up seats in West Virginia and Ohio and winning an unexpectedly close race in Nebraska, the G.O.P. had enough for a majority. Tight races in swing states will determine their margin" (NYT).

Just now: The NYT observes that Trump has won.

 

It was the calling of Wisconsin that put him over the numerical line, chez NYT:

ADDED: I saw — at 6:03 Eastern — that the NYT called it at 6:03 because my son Chris texted me the image of that map above. It was funny that I — who'd been clicking around — got the NYT news from Chris, because last night he texted me that he was going to look away from the reporting of the returns. Going off to read last night, he said: "I predict I will find out the outcome of the election even if I try to avoid it."

It's Election Night at last, and the results are almost in.

I hope to hear The Big Answer before I fall asleep, and that is not an expression of hope for insomnia. I hope there's a nice big juicy clear result that comes in early. A good brisk dose of reality. And then we can all stop fighting, come together, and get some rest.

I'll update this as we go along... if I've got anything to say and I don't conk out.

But, please, get the comments started. The first polls close in about half an hour. 

ADDED, at 12:37 AM: Just woke up after sleeping 3 hours. I see I got what I wanted, a nice clear outcome. Hope you’re happy… or at least keeping your wits about you. 

AND: Dana Bash, on CNN at 1:15: “We’re all living in the manosphere now.”

Morning rain walk — 9:42, 9:44.

Write about anything you want... except the election results. I'll put up a dedicated post for that.

"You can read Ivanka’s inane musings below, but they’re not the real point. She turned 43 on October 30."

"There is no reason to post this thread on November 4, the night before Election Day, other than to emphasize that she’s not even thinking about Donald Trump’s reelection bid. Ivanka basically found a way to tell her dad, 'I really don’t care, do U?' via Twitter thread, rather than donning an ugly jacket...."

Writes Margaret Hartmann in New York Magazine, reacting to Ivanka's stoicism-studded thread on X.

What's up with Ivanka? Who knows? She was the favored child, it always seemed, or at least the favored daughter. Maybe you're wondering Should I care? Just consult Marcus Aurelius — "You have power over your mind—not outside events" — or Epictetus — "Anyone capable of angering you becomes your master."

"Our ruling class is disgusting."

Hear Tucker narrate this ad. It captures the truth and emotion. Chills. 👇🏻🔊✊🏻

pic.twitter.com/qTAlLQcsRh

— Sheri™ (@FFT1776) November 4, 2024

"Trump and allies have primed supporters to falsely believe he has no chance of losing."

That's the headline at NPR for a piece by political reporter Stephen Fowler.

What does "primed" even mean? It seems to admit that Trump never said he has "no chance of losing," but he said something that has caused a belief. And then what's the evidence that Trump supporters believe that? No chance of losing — who believes that? And then to ding these people for "falsely" believing this thing Trump never said... well, the "falsely" ought to be appended to this NPR article: NPR political reporter falsely believes Trump somehow caused his supporters to believe he has no chance of losing.

Am I being unfair to Fowler? As Shakespeare put it: "Fair is foul, and foul is fair: Hover through the fog and filthy air."

Okay, let's hover. Fowler writes:

Republicans pounce... on Peanut.

I'm reading "How the Death of a Celebrity Squirrel Became a Republican Rallying Cry/After P’Nut and a raccoon named Fred were taken by wildlife agents and euthanized, Donald Trump and local candidates accused New York Democrats of 'state overreach'" (NYT).

In the frantic last days of an election when candidates are scrabbling for any edge, the death of P’Nut (who also went by Peanut) has been pounced on by some Republicans as something of a fur-covered November surprise....