DCUM Weblog

I didn't write a blog post yesterday because I was devoting myself to helping with Thanksgiving preparations. Moreover, Thanksgiving is traditionally one of the slowest days of the year on DCUM. Today I will discuss the most active threads of the past two days, the most active of which was titled, "Trump will rollback student loan forgiveness" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a story on politico.com discussing plans by the incoming administration of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump to roll back initiatives by President Joe Biden to forgive student loans. Republicans have consistently opposed student loan forgiveness, and the Biden administration was marked by a pattern of forgiveness efforts being implemented by Biden which were then rejected or stalled by the courts. The result is a number of efforts at various stages, many in limbo. Unrolling the various initiatives will be a complicated process, but one that Trump appears to be prioritizing. Student loan forgiveness is, in many ways, the perfect topic to illustrate the reality of today's politics. People have incredibly strong feelings about it, but most lack the most basic understanding of the details. The issue lends itself to demagoguery, which means that it is practically tailor-made for Republicans. To hear Republicans tell it, student loan forgiveness is a handout to privileged individuals who unnecessarily took out loans in order to pursue worthless liberal arts degrees that left them unemployable, and who now want the poor working people of America to pay for them. Reality is more complicated. As college degrees became increasingly essential, the cost of college increased. Easily obtainable loans were practically shoved into students' pockets, often with promises that repayment would be a breeze. What ended up happening, however, is that millions of graduates were chained to never-ending college debt. Most of those whose loans Biden wanted to forgive had already paid more than they originally borrowed and still have more to pay. Significant college debt has led to putting off purchasing homes, getting married, or starting a family. There is a strong argument that loan forgiveness has important economic and social benefits that reach far beyond those whose loans are forgiven. Nevertheless, MAGAs thrive on resentment, and the idea that the working class was being forced to pay the loans of freeloading college students was a powerful motivator of resentment. Making things worse was a generational divide. Older Americans have generally not understood the massive increases in college costs. Those who decades ago paid for their college tuition with a summer job don't understand why today's students can't do the same. A summer job wouldn't even pay for the meal plan at many universities these days. The bottom line is that student loan forgiveness makes sense when the details are understood. But in the lack of such understanding, it is easy to caricature. In the current climate in which Republicans are eager for revenge, the opportunity to stick it to liberals is too appealing to miss.

Because the top four most active threads yesterday were all ones that I've already discussed, I'll start with the fifth most active thread which was titled, "What's weird about where you are staying - Thanksgiving 2024 edition" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. As the original poster suggests by including a designation of the edition of this thread, topics of this sort are an annual tradition on DCUM. There will likely be a series of similar threads during the holiday season. Several posters didn't have any interesting stories to add to the thread, but joined to encourage others to post and to say how much they enjoyed these annual threads. The original poster of this thread is visiting her mother-in-law who keeps her house so cold that the original poster is freezing despite being wrapped up in a blanket. In addition, the original poster's mother-in-law insists on hosting Thanksgiving even though she hates cooking and does not have a full-sized oven. The original poster ends up doing the cooking which is a struggle in the circumstances. This set off a series of posts complaining about dull knives, old spices, and room temperatures that were either too cold or too hot. One notable post involved a new requirement for the poster and her family to wear paper booties inside the poster's in-laws' house. She thought that her mother-in-law might have suddenly become a neat freak, but it turned out that she had adopted three rescue dogs that had gone to the bathroom all over the house. The booties were to protect them from the stains that covered the carpets. The temperature at which those hosting Thanksgiving keep their homes was an especially big topic this year. There were posters who reported being forced to wear jackets inside the house because it was kept so cold and other posters who were sweltering because they were visiting homes that were kept too hot. In some cases, posters resorted to staying in hotels due to the temperature of the house. In some other cold houses, posters snuck in space heaters or electric blankets. I laughed at the poster who is stuck sleeping in a "little tikes fireman bed that was probably made in 1987". On top of that, the house is in the middle of nowhere in Wisconsin and doesn't appear to have heat in her room. In some cases, posters were actually hosting for the holiday, and their complaints were about their guests. One of the funnier examples was a poster who left her mother-in-law alone in the house for a couple of hours. The mother-in-law then asked in front of the entire family what was in "the red container in the basement freezer", suggesting that she had snooped through the entire house while the others were out. Based on other posts, it seems that snooping mother-in-laws are not uncommon. As for the contents of the red container, as of this writing, that remains a mystery.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and will, therefore, skip today. After those was a thread titled, "Backlash against college educated women" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster feels like this year's election was a backlash against college-educated women more than anything. She thinks that men are gaslighting women by claiming that colleges are indoctrination centers. In addition, she thinks that social media pundits have been so successful at denying centuries of women having no rights that other women have even come to believe it. Most polling of voting motivations suggests that concerns about the economy were the primary driver. Therefore, I don't think the original poster is correct to claim that a backlash against women played more of a role than anything else. But that is basically a nitpick with her argument. I don't think that there can be any doubt that resentment of women played an important role in the election's outcome. One need look no further than the triumphant taunting by Nick Fuentes claiming, "your body, my choice" to see where his mind immediately went after the election. Even earlier Democratic strategist James Carville argued that "too many preachy females" were turning men away from the Democratic Party. In recent years, women have outpaced men in college attendance, resulting in better employment and financial success. As a result, women are less likely to be dependent on men in general. This lack of dependence has enabled women to become more selective in the dating market, resulting in some men facing difficulties in finding a partner. Undoubtedly, this has led to increased resentment in some quarters. But not all women are on board with the original poster's argument. Indeed, despite hopes that things might finally change, the majority of White women once again voted for President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. While Vice President Harris did win among college-educated women, plenty of them also voted for Trump. Ultimately, women — like all other voters — had a variety of motivations for their voting choices. For some, concerns about inflation were foremost. As was pointed out in earlier threads that I discussed, in many families women do the bulk of the grocery shopping and, therefore, are more cognizant of price increases for food. Similarly, many women were likely to have the same concerns as male voters with regard to a range of issues such as public safety, immigration, and foreign policy. While I don't have any evidence to support my gut instinct on this, I suspect that women might have even been more likely than men to vote based on concerns regarding Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza. Some women, including some posters in this thread, agree that colleges are, in fact, liberal indoctrination centers. Still, I think the role of misogyny in the election cannot be discounted. I have written before that Harris was held to a much higher standard than Trump. Trump, who has been married three times, is a serial cheater, was found liable for sexual assault, and convicted of covering up payments made in connection to having sex with a porn star, was somehow the candidate of those with strong religious convictions. Harris, on the other hand, was attacked for not having given birth to children. The suggestion that women's primary role should be motherhood — rather than academic or professional achievement — is still soundly embedded in society.

The most active threads over the weekend were mostly ones that I've already discussed. That was the case with the most active overall, but the second most active thread, which was titled, "Here’s Why Asian Americans Shifted Right by 9 points" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, was one that I haven't previously addressed. Therefore, I'll start with that one. This thread was started on Saturday and is currently 26 pages long. I was a bit confused reading the first post of the thread because the original poster did not indicate that the text was entirely a quote. When I started reading, I was under the impression that the original poster had personally conducted detailed research into the voting patterns of Asian Americans. I eventually figured out that the original poster was actually quoting from an article published on the Real Clear Politics website. The main point of the quote is that Asian Americans voted for President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump in greater numbers than was initially believed and that their motivation was the Democrats' focus on "woke" issues, especially affirmative action. I think that it is worth pointing out that Real Clear Politics is a right-leaning website, the author of the article is an employee of the conservative Manhattan Institute, and it appears that only right-wingers were quoted in the article (at least in the portion quoted). That doesn't mean that the conclusions are wrong, but it is worth noting the perspective being presented. What was wrong, however, is the spin the original poster gave the thread. The thread's title suggests that the thread will explain why Asian Americans shifted toward Trump. Then the quoted passage only deals with "woke" issues, giving the impression that Asian Americans were mostly motivated by opposition to woke policies. However, the article itself says that Asian Americans were primarily motivated by concerns about the economy and secondarily by worries about public safety. The original poster, who did not mention the economy or public safety, was quite misleading in how this was presented. "Asian Americans" are getting a lot of attention these days, especially in topics surrounding education such as affirmative action. What is normally missing from such discussions is the diversity of the Asian American community. Not only are there East Asians and South Asians who differ significantly, but there is tremendous diversity even within those groups. It is somewhat ironic that at a time when Democrats are being criticized for "identity politics", it is conservatives engaging in identity politics when it comes to Asians. Moreover, there are some shortcomings in the analysis presented in this article. The author appears to have entirely judged the "shift" in Asian American voting based on presidential votes. It would be interesting to know if a similar voting pattern occurred in other races. In addition, the author seems to have relied on sources who are far from objective. For instance, local right-wing firebrand Asra Nomani is quoted throughout the article. Nomani's perspective is not all that widely shared even locally among Asians — at least as I can determine from DCUM posts — let alone nationally. Nevertheless, she is quoted as citing admissions changes at Thomas Jefferson High School as a reason for changes in Asian American voting. Call me skeptical that anyone outside the Northern Virginia region even knows about TJ, let alone changed their votes because of the admissions changes.

Once again, the two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed. Coincidentally, both of those threads involve school controversies. The most active thread for the past several days has been the one about the Hayfield football team scandal. With all that is going on in the world, it is interesting that high school football is getting so much attention. The second was the thread involving the former Head of School of the National Child Research Center preschool. That one is likely to stay near the top of the most active list for some time. After those was a thread titled, "Matt Gaetz is out" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As I am sure readers are aware, Matt Gaetz was a Congressman from Florida who has been embroiled for years in a sex scandal involving a 17-year-old that Gaetz allegedly paid for sex. Gaetz was chosen by President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump to serve as Attorney General in Trump's second term. Almost immediately after the announcement that Trump had picked him, Gaetz resigned from Congress. Now, as the original poster of this thread says, Gaetz has withdrawn his name from consideration for the Attorney General post. Gaetz always seemed like a long shot to be confirmed, with even Trump reportedly saying that Gaetz only had a 50% chance of confirmation. A number of Republican Senators announced that they vote against Gaetz's confirmation. When the news that Gaetz would no longer pursue the Attorney General position broke, posters in this thread immediately began speculating about what had caused him to drop out. One theory is that the entire thing was orchestrated, possibly by Trump, to simply get Gaetz out of Congress. I'm not much of a believer in the theory that Republicans in Congress were able to rope Trump in on a conspiracy against Gaetz. A more likely theory is that the ethics report that has been drafted regarding Gaetz's sex and drug escapades was going to be particularly damaging. It is true that Gaetz's unusual resignation from Congress came just before the Ethics Committee was due to vote on the release of the report. Release of the report was ultimately voted down on party lines. Interestingly, however, the Republicans were not actually against the release of the report, just the release in draft form. This suggests that if Gaetz remained in federal politics, the report might be finalized and then released at a later date. As a result, some posters suggested that the report probably hardened opposition to Gaetz in the Senate. But, as other posters pointed out, Gaetz has been uniquely successful at alienating members of his own party. Some of the harshest and most revealing statements opposing Gaetz were provided by other Republicans. Therefore, some posters suggested that Gaetz would probably not have been confirmed even if the report were not an issue. Finally, just after Gaetz said that he would no longer pursue the Attorney General position, CNN issued a statement saying that less than an hour earlier they had contacted him about plans to report on an allegation of a second sexual encounter with the 17-year-old. That might have also motivated Gaetz. Other discussion revolved around what Gaetz would do next. There was some speculation that he would return to Congress since he was elected to serve in the next Congress. However, his resignation statement had ruled that out. Others suggested that he might run for the Senate seat being vacated by Senator Marco Rubio, who has been picked as Trump's Secretary of State. More than likely, however, Gaetz will avoid anything that will cause his past to be investigated. Therefore, his most likely fate is an appointment in the Trump administration, perhaps in a White House role.

Because the two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed, I will start with the third most active thread, which was titled, "Democratic pipeline of talent is sad". Posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster repeats what has basically become a broken record among centrist Democrats in the forum, claiming that the election was lost because of progressives in the Democratic Party. Never mind that Vice President Kamala Harris ran as exactly the candidate the original poster and those who share her beliefs wanted. Given the choice of recognizing that their strategy failed and blaming powerless progressives, they reflexively blame the left. The original poster then went on to denigrate several potential future Democratic presidential candidates, often using Republican talking points. This is where we are at the moment. So-called "Democrats" are devoting their efforts to mimicking Republicans while attacking the best political organizers in the party. Meanwhile, the original poster and those like her seem completely oblivious to the threat being presented by President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Instead of organizing to resist Trump, these posters are spending their time attacking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Not unexpectedly, these days, almost before the first page was complete, this thread had gone off-topic. Instead of discussing the pipeline of Democratic political talent, posters simply discussed how terrible leftist Democrats are and how they have ruined the party. That discussion has been had plenty of times already, so I am going to stick to the original topic. The main point that the original poster seems to be making is that there are no centrist Democrats poised to be strong presidential contenders. If the original poster is correct, the fact that centrist Democrats have proven to be unelectable can hardly be blamed on progressives. But, in fact, the original poster is wrong. She mentioned Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear herself, but brushed him off as "a nobody". However, another moderate Democrat is North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper. I think the bigger issue here is that politics no longer exists on a simple left-right spectrum. The old labels don't work, but those like the original poster haven't yet figured that out. The real division shown in the last election was not between the left and the right, but rather between populists and establishment politicians. When Harris first announced her candidacy, she took a populist slant and was boosted by a wave of popularity. Soon, however, establishment Democrats — the so-called "adults in the room" — took over the campaign and tamed things down. Instead of engaging in populist rhetoric, Harris took to campaigning with Liz Cheney, one of the most establishment figures in existence. A populist message that speaks to the working class will be necessary for the Democrats' future. But engaging populism while not alienating the Democrats' current base of affluent urban and suburban voters will take some talent. In that regard, I humbly suggest consideration of Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff. Ossoff is a liberal who has managed to win in a red state. He is a Jew who last night voted to embargo weapons to Israel. He is a young man in a party that has suffered from the age of its leaders. Most importantly for this discussion, he is a populist who can also appeal to urban elites. If someday the original poster realizes who our real opponent is and stops firing on fellow Democrats, I suggest that she take a look at Ossoff or one of the many other Democrats that make up a pipeline full of talent.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Head of School at National Child Research Center (NCRC) - Arrest warrant issued" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. By the time I learned that this thread existed yesterday, the title was already out of date. The original poster started this thread after learning of reports that an arrest warrant had been issued for James Carroll, the Head of School at the National Child Research Center (NCRC), an elite Washington, DC preschool. Less than half an hour later, Carroll's arrest for attempted coercion and enticement of a minor was announced. For me, this thread provoked an immediate sense of déjà vu. Back in 2006, when DCUM's forums were still in their infancy, a scandal involving a teacher at Beauvoir was the subject of what would become, at that time, the most active thread in DCUM history. That case involved Eric Toth, a 3rd grade teacher at Beauvoir who was found to have taken sexually explicit photos of children using a school-owned camera. Toth fled and ended up replacing Osama Bin Laden on the FBI's Most Wanted list after Bin Laden was killed. Toth, who was later arrested in Costa Rica and is now in prison, had actually been an active DCUM poster. My immediate reaction upon seeing this thread was to think that we were going to have another Beauvoir situation. Carroll has a long history in the DC private school world, including a Beauvoir connection. He apparently was teaching 3rd grade along with Toth at Beauvoir at the time of the Beauvoir scandal. That is an eerie coincidence to say the least. Carroll later joined the Beauvoir administration before leaving to become the head of school at Concord Hill School for two years. He has been head of school at NCRC since July 2018. The criminal complaint provided in this case is pretty tough to read and definitely not for the faint of heart. According to that document, Carroll came to the attention of an administrator of the Discord social media network when he uploaded a photo of "two naked prepubescent boys". The Discord employee contacted the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children about the photo, and NCMEC alerted the FBI. The FBI was able to trace the Discord account used to upload the photo to IP addresses associated with NCRC and Carroll's home. A review of Carroll's Discord account showed that he "had engaged in conversations with other Discord users about child sexual exploitation, circumcision of teenage boys, urinating on teenage boys and adults, and had discussed the removal of adult male’s penises." In addition, the FBI discovered several "selfies" picturing Carroll. An FBI undercover law enforcement officer using an undercover Discord account established contact with Carroll and engaged in conversation about child sexual exploitation. The undercover officer posed as a father of a nine-year-old boy who was interested in sexually exploiting his child. Carroll provided suggestions for acts the "father" might commit. Reaction in this thread is, as you would expect, a mix of shock and anger. Many posters have children who were exposed to Carroll over the years and are desperately trying to ensure that their children were safe. Many are outraged at the continual flow of scandals involving private schools, not just Carroll and Toth but a number of others as well.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and will skip today. The third most active thread was titled, "Trump wants Ann Selzer punished for her Iowa poll Predicition." and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster links to a New York Post article describing a demand by President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump for an investigation of J. Ann Selzer. Selzer is the pollster behind the highly regarded Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll. Despite its reputation for accuracy, Selzer's poll had a big miss in this election, predicting that Vice President Kamala Harris would win Iowa by 2 points. Instead, Trump won by 13. Right-wingers have long viewed polls with skepticism, accusing pollsters of skewing polls for the past several elections. Moreover, it is fairly routine for MAGA posters on DCUM to brag about lying to those conducting polls. They are apparently invested in ensuring that polls are inaccurate. Trump did not specify what sort of investigation of Selzer he wants to see conducted. Selzer recently announced that she would be leaving the Des Moines Register, a departure that has been long planned and is unconnected to the polling failure. The MAGAs in this thread are certain that Selzer intentionally skewed her poll in order to boost Democratic morale and give a false impression of Harris' chance of winning. Some go so far as to describe it as an illegal campaign contribution. Liberal posters don't see any advantage to Selzer posting false polling results and accuse Trump of interfering with freedom of the press. The best explanation that I've seen of why Selzer missed so badly was posted as a response in this thread. According to the poster, Selzer's method of identifying "likely voters" unintentionally overlooks many likely Trump voters and leads to Trump voters being underrepresented in her poll. According to this poster, Trump voters tend to be hostile and uncooperative, if not downright belligerent, in response to polls. Selzer discards responses from those who are not cooperative as unlikely voters. In reality, antagonistic Trump supporters are apparently very likely voters. Don't forget that some of this lack of cooperation includes outright lying. At any rate, many posters question why Trump is bothering with Selzer given that he won the election. Some suggest, correctly, that Trump voters are mostly motivated by anger, and Trump needs to provide a constant stream of reasons to be angry. I think another explanation for Trump's threat is his desire for dominance. Josh Marshall, editor of Talking Points Memo, has spent years discussing Trump and dominance. As he has pointed out, Trump does not seek compromise with his opponents, but rather complete dominance over them. His goal is to leave them cowed and unwilling to challenge him in the future. This explains his frequent ritual humiliations of those who have crossed him. There is no question that Selzer's reputation has been severely hurt by her last poll. Normally, that would provide plenty of satisfaction for her critics. But not for Trump. By piling on, Trump is sending a message to anyone else who might challenge him. Act in a way in which Trump disapproves and he will come after you. Intimidation and bullying are Trump's tools of the trade. We can expect to see this behavior frequently during his second term.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "John Oliver slams Democrats who think transgender people lost them the election" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Immediately after the election, Democrats began looking for scapegoats on whom to place blame for Vice President Kamala Harris' defeat. Many centrist Democrats immediately focused on support for transgender rights. During the campaign, President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump spent hundreds of millions of dollars highlighting old statements Harris made regarding gender-affirming care for prisoners and claiming that while Trump was for "you", Harris was for "they/them". Many found these ads to be effective, and they were never countered by the Harris campaign. Centrist Democrats were generally predisposed to blame the transgender issue because many of them have been vocally opposing pro-trans positions all along. The topic came to a head when Democratic Congressman Tom Suozzi criticized Democrats for support for trans girls playing in girls' sports. Another Democrat, Congressman Seth Moulton, made similar remarks. The original poster of this thread highlighted a portion of John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight" show in which Oliver slammed Democrats such as Suozzi and Moulton for "jumping to predetermined conclusions that don't match the campaign that just wrapped up." As Oliver pointed out, Suozzi and Moulton blame "pandering to the left" on trans issues for the loss and urge a move to the center. But Harris' entire campaign strategy involved moving to the center. She never brought up trans issues other than when pushed on the topic in a Fox News interview. Her response was a reluctant commitment to "follow the law", hardly a ringing endorsement. Harris talked more about her Glock handgun than she did about trans rights. She campaigned with Liz Cheney, took a hard line on immigration, and refused to make the slightest compromise to Arab and Muslim Americans regarding her complete support for Israel in its wars in Gaza and Lebanon. As Oliver says, centrist Democrats got the campaign that they wanted and lost. Rather than questioning their strategy, they are blaming support for trans people. Some argue that even though Harris did not campaign as a trans-supporter, the Democratic brand is tarnished because of "woke" issues, especially trans rights. This would be a more persuasive argument if Democratic Senate candidates had not been successful in swing states that Harris lost. In Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, Democratic candidates prevailed despite Harris losing their states. While Pennsylvania appears to be going to the Republicans, it is by a hair's breadth. This is hardly the sign of a damaged Democratic brand. Rather, it indicates that Harris had problems that the Senate candidates didn't, and that wasn't simply support for trans people. Oliver suggested a strategy to counter the Republican attacks on trans rights, especially trans youth in sports, based on a factual recital of data showing how marginal this issue is in reality. Few trans kids are actually involved in sports. I disagree with Oliver on this. I think the issue is emotional and a rational response, while correct, would not have been effective. Rather, I think Harris should have turned Trump's attacks around by reminding voters that trans people are our neighbors, our friends, and our family members. When Trump attacks "they/them", he is really attacking "us". While Trump is campaigning against "us" and causing division, Harris was working for "us" with policies that encourage new factories in the U.S., accessible healthcare, reproductive rights, and controlling inflation. Trump is working for himself and his billionaire friends. Harris works for "us" because we are all in this together.