November

Last February, a thread in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum alerted me that a novel centered on a fictional District of Columbia-based private school that is clearly meant to be Sidwell Friends was going to be published. The thread, which was titled "Novel based on Sidwell coming out in summer", also mentioned that the book featured a parenting website named "dcparentzone.com" that is clearly a fictionalized DCUM. I was intrigued that DCUM, even in fictional form, might figure in a novel and made a note to read the book, which was named "It's a Privilege Just to Be Here: A Novel", once it was available. Before I had the chance to read the novel, I learned of a second novel named, "All the Dirty Secrets", that went even further in portraying DCUM. This book not only used the real name of the website but included fictional posts said to have been in the forum. I promptly added that book to my reading list as well. I was then contacted by Jon Hart about his debut novel, "Party School", that he thought would be of interest to DCUM readers. That book also went into my queue. I've now had a chance to read all three novels and want to provide brief overviews of each.

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.

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 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.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "What are the ways you'll resist?", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster asks how others will "resist the current administration". I assume that the original poster is actually referring to the incoming administration of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, which won't begin until early next year. The current administration is still that of President Joe Biden, and I don't think anyone would be making plans to resist Biden at this late date. When Trump was elected the first time, he was immediately met by the giant women's march. Protests soon became a feature of the early days of his administration. The later years of Trump's first term were characterized by Black Lives Matter protests, especially following the killing of George Floyd and ANTIFA-led protests in places like Seattle and Portland. The protests became a sort of wedge issue, with many who might otherwise support the causes growing tired of the disruption the protests caused and Trump using them as an excuse for increased militarization of the police. Add to this the slew of protests against Israel's war in Gaza, and mainstream Democrats are sick and tired of protests. As such, there is little interest in what many now see as an ineffectual tactic. In fact, while Democrats have been told, and many believe, that Trump is a unique threat to democracy, very little has been done to prepare to resist him. More common is a sense of resignation, often coupled with an expectation that Trump's administration will be a series of failures that often harm his supporters the most. MAGA posters are taking great pleasure in trash-talking Trump opponents and gloating over their victory. They search for any signs of "liberal tears" and make wild claims over what they expect to happen to the vanquished Democrats. The lack of any notable resistance actually is a disappointment to them. MAGAs want to point and laugh at the futile struggles of Democrats, but can't find anything worth the effort. As one poster wrote, referring to MAGA posters, "This board has been four years of them [MAGAs] whining about everything. And when they don't get the big freakout they've been waiting for, they whine about that." Some posters actually accused the original poster of being a MAGA troll trying to stir up drama that hasn't developed organically. As for the Democrats, they seem more interested in participating in a circular firing squad than resisting Trump. Centrist Democrats don't appear likely to be satisfied until every progressive has publicly renounced any use of pronouns and agreed that the subject of gender will henceforth never be mentioned again. As for progressives, they are too busy resisting other Democrats to worry about Trump. There actually seems to be more interest in resisting First Lady Elon Musk than there is in resisting Trump. People are cancelling X accounts left and right and refusing to allow Teslas to merge in front of them. Unrelated to the thread, but the saddest people on Earth right now must be liberal Tesla owners who bought the cars in order to help the environment and are now being tagged as Trump supporters.

Over the weekend, the most active threads were, once again, all related to the election. The most active of the bunch was the one about Democrats engaging in self-reflection that I discussed last week. After that was a thread titled, "Did you really think Kamala would win? Deep down inside, did you?", and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she had doubts about whether Vice President Kamala Harris would win the election. I think we should stipulate that, by nature, nearly every Democrat is predisposed to pessimism. Harris could have had a poll lead of 40 points, and the majority of Democrats would still be having sleepless nights and imagining scenarios for an upset. In this case, the polls always showed a very tight race that was never anything more than a toss-up. Therefore, a certain amount of doubt was justified. But now with the benefit of hindsight, you would get the impression that nobody thought that she could win. Some posters say that they always feared that what they believe to be the innate sexism and racism of American society would be too strong for a Black woman to overcome. Others claimed that race and gender were not issues but rather Harris' own shortcomings. The same criticisms that were made during the campaign — such as complaints about her media interviews — were repeated. I often felt during the campaign that many people were looking for an excuse not to support Harris instead of reasons to support her. Votes for President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump would be justified by the smallest fault that could be found in the Vice President. This impression is strengthened by responses in this thread. There is a general feeling of, "Well, Harris has this or that flaw, so I had no choice other than to vote for Trump". Never mind Trump's innumerable more and worse flaws. For my part, I believed that Harris would win the election, but I also had reasons for concern. One, that I voiced here repeatedly, was the impact of her position regarding Israel's wars in Gaza and Lebanon. This did turn out to hurt her in Michigan and likely had a negative impact elsewhere. My other worry also appears to have turned out to be true. Harris clearly predicated her campaign on the assumption that moderate Republicans, particularly women, could be persuaded to vote for her. My belief is that these Republicans may not like Trump, but were prepared to vote for him minus a compelling enough alternative. Late in the campaign, I became convinced that Harris was not successfully providing that alternative and, therefore, moderate Republicans would return to form and vote Republican. I still thought, or perhaps hoped, that Harris could pull out a victory, so I am not retroactively claiming that I didn't think Harris would win. The other thing happening in this thread — and I know I am paddling upstream trying to change anyone's mind about this — is that Harris' defeat is being exaggerated. With the exception of Arizona, her losses in swing states were by less than 2%. All the geniuses in this thread who claim that it has been obvious all along that Harris would lose should realize that it wouldn't have taken much to swing 2% of the voters in those states a different direction.

The most active threads yesterday continued to be related to the election. The most active thread of the day was titled, "Time for reflection as a dem?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster asks whether, as a result of the resounding Republican victory in the election, Democrats should have a moment of reflection and stop pushing so hard to the left. This thread is 37 pages long, and I don't have time to read much of it, so I am just going to give my own thoughts on this topic. From what I've seen in DCUM discussions, "The Left" normally refers to those who have certain views on social issues rather than economic policies. Those on the left are identified by a commitment to "woke" issues and, especially, support for the rights of trans people. From what I've read in this thread, this is how the term is used in the discussion. In this thread, as well as many other recent threads, posters are eager to attack support for transgender people and blame "the left's" support of trans rights for the election loss. Let me be as clear as possible with regard to this point. For me, trans rights is a moral issue and, as such, not something that I will abandon for political expediency. Moreover, I have no plans to open DCUM to additional anti-trans discussion. If not being able to attack trans rights is a deal-breaker for you, my only response is, "see you". I am sure you will find a website more accommodating to your views elsewhere. The millions of dollars that President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump spent demonizing trans people during the campaign is really the epitome of bullying. He went after a small, marginalized community that is basically harmless. Let's accept the anti-trans narrative for a second and assume that occasionally a trans girl or woman competing in sports deprives a non-trans woman of an award or maybe a scholarship. That is concerning, true, but do you know what is worse? Trump's party's support for anti-abortion laws that are literally killing women. If you are withholding your support for the Democratic Party because your opposition to trans rights is stronger than your concern about women dying, I am skeptical that your true concern is women's rights. Beyond social issues of this sort, Democrats may want to reflect, but could logically come to the opposite conclusion of the original poster. Almost all analysis of voting behavior in this election suggests that inflation was the number one concern. If that is true, Vice President Kamala Harris should have spent more time addressing that issue rather than campaigning with Liz Cheney and Mark Cuban. Harris clearly moved her campaign to the right and ran as a centrist. Perhaps she would have been better served by running on a message closer to what Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders might propose? Imagine that she had spent the bulk of the campaign criticizing the high price of groceries and promising to punish corporate price gouging? Imagine her standing in front of the headquarters of State Farm and demanding that they get car insurance rates under control? Maybe she could have said that one issue on which she differed from President Joe Biden was his deference to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, who kept interest rates too high and waited too long to lower them? Wouldn't this have appealed more to the blue-collar workers who abandoned her for Trump than the billionaire Cuban criticizing Harris' own proposal to tax unrealized capital gains? Yes, Democrats should have some self-reflection. Do they want to be nothing more than a warmed-over version of the Republican Party, or do they want to fight for the votes of those they lost in this election? Or, do they simply want to scapegoat transgender people and call it a day?

All of the most active threads yesterday were about the election and, while they might have started out discussing different aspects of the topic, they eventually ended up talking about the same things. Therefore, rather than writing about four threads that are essentially the same, I'll just write one entry today. For the record, the most active thread yesterday was titled "2024 Election Results" and was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread, which was only started around 6:30 p.m. yesterday, is currently 174 pages long. That is almost 2,000 posts. As everyone surely knows by now, the outcome of the election was not what I either expected or hoped it would be. The morning after an election, everyone is suddenly an expert and, in this regard, I guess I am no different. However, it is with quite a bit of humility that I write this today. MAGA posters seem to have a strong desire to hear folks like me admit that we were wrong. So, let's get that out of the way. I was wrong. Right up until about 9:00 p.m. last night, I was expecting Vice President Kamala Harris to win. In the daylight of a morning after what was, for me anyway, an electoral disaster, I am not even sure where to start when trying to make sense of things. As such, here are a few random, early thoughts.

The most active thread yesterday was one that was started on Sunday, but gained traction yesterday. It was titled, "Anxiety level going uppppp.." and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. I suspect that many DCUM users can relate to the original poster who says that her anxiety level has gone up, resulting in her eating a bunch of her kids' Halloween candy and increasing her anti-anxiety medication. She asks if anyone else is getting anxious about Tuesday and suggests that she should probably start watching less news. Whenever someone brings up anxiety surrounding politics, there are posters who react almost with scorn, suggesting that the outcome will have little impact. For instance, one poster wrote, "The world will still keep turning no matter who is elected. It’s only 4 yrs. All the doom and gloom talk on both sides is just theatrics." Such posters don't seem to understand the real effect that politics can have on people's lives. I can only assume that such posters live privileged lives because for a great many people, the outcome of an election does have a direct impact on them. It is popular to suggest that both parties are guilty of exaggerating the threat posed by the other side. There is an important difference, however. The campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz bases its warnings on the actual statements and actions of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. When they warn that Trump is a threat to abortion rights, it is based upon Trump's bragging that he is responsible for Roe v. Wade being overturned. When they warn about Project 2025, they know that, despite his distancing himself, Trump has praised the project and several of his closest associates were responsible for the effort. When they warn about a national sales tax on imported goods, it is based on Trump's repeatedly expressed plan for tariffs on all imports. The naysayers either think Trump is lying or won't be successful in imposing his plans. Trump, on the other hand, simply lies in his warnings about Harris. He says the country will be destroyed. He claims that we will be involved in World War III. He says that the doors will be opened to millions of immigrants who will be granted citizenship. There is no basis to believe any of these things. The result is that while MAGAs could legitimately be advised to calm down and maybe take a Xanax, liberals are justified in being anxious. Imagine being a transgender person — or the friend or relative of one — and being told that, after millions of dollars of anti-trans advertising by the Trump campaign, the outcome of the election doesn't matter? The threat posed by having Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. — a nutcase anti-vaxer who would be a threat to food safety — responsible for food and medicine or Elon Musk made responsible for government efficiency is huge. We should feel anxious about those possibilities. But another question is now to control that anxiety. At this point, there is little that the average person can do about the election once they have voted. Being able to accept that something is outside your control and that all you can do is wait is an important skill and one that many people will need to exercise today.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Harris beating Trump in Iowa" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. For years, the Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll has been referred to as the "gold standard" for polls of Iowa politics. Pollster J. Ann Selzer has not been afraid to deviate from conventional wisdom and other pollsters and has often announced findings that are surprising at the time but later prove prescient. In 2016, Selzer spotted a trend toward former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump that other pollsters had missed. Her polling predicted that Trump would win Iowa by 7 points. He ended up winning by 9. Four years later, the DMR poll showed that Trump would win Iowa by 7. The actual result was Trump winning by 8 points. Selzer's final poll of this cycle showing Vice President Harris leading Trump 47% to 44% among likely voters was easily the most surprising news over the weekend. For Democrats, this was an invigorating shot of adrenaline. Democrats are by nature a pessimistic bunch, likely to see black clouds regardless of the amount of sunshine. For once, they began showing a hint of optimism as a result of the poll findings. Selzer found that the impetus for Harris' lead was support from older women. For many DCUM posters, this was not surprising because, they argued, many of these women had lived in a world where abortion was prohibited and were well aware of the dangers such a state of affairs can bring. They are furious about rights being stripped away. Moreover, this is one of the most dependable voting blocks in existence. As such, the Iowa findings might also translate to other states. The general attitude among DCUM liberal posters was that even if Trump were to pull out a slim victory in Iowa — something that is within the DMR poll's margin of error — he would be in terrible circumstances nationwide. The conservative response was one of disbelief and anger. Ignoring Selzer's history of accurately predicting Trump victories, Republican posters accused the poll of being a "Democratic poll," something that is obviously not true. Some suggested that Selzer had been bribed by the Democrats. Others argued that she is retiring and that the poll was her parting gift to Democrats. Others pointed to poll results by Emerson that were released the same day. That poll showed Trump leading by 10%. However, the DMR poll has a much better record than Emerson. Many of the conservative posters mocked liberals for taking the DMR results seriously, saying that there is no way that Iowa would vote for Harris. There is no doubt that if this poll turns out to be a big miss, it will be reputation-ending for Selzer. On the other hand, if the results are correct, it is likely that Trump has no hope of winning the election. As one pundit in my social media feeds said, this poll will either be the end of Selzer or Trump. They both can't survive these poll results.