Wednesday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday the most active threads were again all related to the election, but at least there was enough differentiation that I can write about them separately. The most active of the bunch was titled, "Why did Kamala lose ?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Ultimately, Vice President Kamala Harris lost because she did not get as many votes as her opponent, President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. That may sound trite, but Harris saw support drop from the level received by President Joe Biden in 2020 almost across the board. As a result, there are surely multiple reasons for her defeat. I don't think this was a case of one major failure, but rather more like a death of a thousand cuts. Certainly, as I wrote yesterday, her association with Biden's support of Israel's wars in Gaza and Lebanon cost her votes among important constituencies. Voters upset about inflation also turned to Trump in great numbers. As this 58-page thread demonstrates, there are a host of reasons voters had for not supporting Harris. There are the traditional Republican complaints about immigration, crime, and the economy, but there are a slew of other issues as well. There is a tendency in threads like this for posters to highlight their own pet issue. For instance, there is a longtime DCUM poster who is absolutely obsessed with H1B visas. There is no topic for which the poster will not find an H1B connection, and no surprise, this poster blamed Harris' loss on the Biden administration's support for H1B visas. Another poster blamed Harris' selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for her defeat. For others, the issue was not really Harris herself, but more a reflection of their disenchantment with Democrats in general. These posters tended to blame an alleged leftward tilt of the party, particularly when it comes to so-called "woke" issues and specifically support for transgender rights. This highlights one other factor in Harris' loss. She explicitly ran to the right, campaigning with Liz Cheney and hoping to appeal to moderate Republicans who were believed to be reluctant to support Trump. That strategy failed, not only with Republicans, but with some centrist Democrats as well who remained convinced that she would fill high school locker rooms with trans girls. Many simply did not believe that Harris deserved to be President. They tended to describe her as a "DEI candidate" who had only been selected as Vice President due to her race and gender and then "selected" as the Presidential nominee rather than winning the position in a primary. I am sure that there are some interesting Ph.D. theses on the topic of voter motivation, but the DCUM political forum has been a sort of laboratory that I've observed for nearly 20 years. My conclusion is that, for many, the decision between two candidates is emotional rather than rational. For reasons that they probably can't explain, posters prefer one candidate over the other. They then simply fill in the blanks to come up with a rationale. This used to be described as choosing the candidate with whom you would rather have a beer. Because of this, I think that there may be more to the accusations that racism and misogyny played a significant role in Harris' defeat. It has been well-established that women are held to higher standards concerning what is acceptable behavior than men. A disconcertingly high number of people didn't like Harris because of her laugh, and it is hard to argue that those opposing her because of "DEI" are not motivated by race. I'm no expert, and with my track record of being wrong about this election, you should probably ignore anything I have to say. But if I had to pick one reason for Harris' loss, it would probably be her inability to escape blame for inflation. Also, as much as I hate to say it, some credit must be given to the Trump campaign for effective campaigning. Sometimes you lose, and sometimes you just get beaten. I think this election was a bit of both.

The next most active thread was also posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Who gets mass deported?", the original poster is referring to President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's plan to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. The original poster asks for details of this plan, such as who will be included in the deportations. Will it just be Latinos or will it include Middle Easterners? How will deportees be selected, and will it just be limited to those who are undocumented? To where will they be deported? These are all questions that, for the most part, Trump has avoided answering. Trump's deportation plan is emblematic of the way in which his policies serve as Rorschach tests. People look at them and see different things. Among both Trump supporters and Trump opponents are posters who are quick to suggest that the plan is nothing to fear. According to some, the plan was never intended to be anything other than campaign rhetoric, and there is no intention of implementing it. Others argue that the plan will be so well implemented that nobody will object to it. Similarly, there are both Trump supporters and Trump opponents who believe that Trump fully intends to do as he has said he will do. Opponents are fearful of what will happen, while supporters cannot contain their glee. Trump has provided few details of his plan, but the few that he has provided are disconcerting. For instance, he has suggested that the military would be involved in rounding up those to be deported. On the other hand, he has suggested that the first targets would be violent criminals. The lack of details leaves room for posters to describe versions of the plan that are sourced primarily from their own imaginations rather than anything Trump has said. Similarly, the few details that have been provided justify the worst-case scenarios described by other posters. Reading this thread causes a certain amount of whiplash as posts go from those suggesting that the entire plan will amount to nothing more than a photo op to those joyfully describing millions of immigrants being rounded up and summarily dumped in any country that will take them. While much of what will happen is unknown at this point, a few things can be clearly stated. For one, there are individuals close to Trump who are open about their desire to enact mass deportations. It is likely that some of these individuals will be placed in positions within the Trump administration which will allow them to begin implementing these plans. There is clearly a number of Trump supporters who are clamoring for mass deportations and who will create a demand for action. There is also a host of lower-level officials, for instance, county sheriffs, who are more than willing to participate. Therefore, it is likely that some sort of deportation program will at least be initiated. This could be aimed at convicted criminals who are already in prison or jail. Larger-scale deportations, however, will likely elicit pushback from those who rely on immigrant labor. Whether that opposition will moderate the program or simply result in complaints about leopards eating faces from those who voted for the leopards eating faces party is an open question. Some believe that an attempt at massive deportations that provokes widespread demonstrations is exactly the plan as it would give Trump an excuse to implement the Insurrection Act and arrest his opponents.

Next was a thread titled, "Time to come together and move forward as one nation" and, again, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she is tired of the divisive rhetoric of the past few months and urges everyone to come together to make America a better place. Quite a few of those responding agree that unity is a laudable goal, but few can agree on what unity involves. For many of the MAGA posters, unity can only be achieved by Trump opponents submitting to the Trump agenda. As one poster wrote, "‘Unity’ will not be defined as consensus governing to accommodate radical Dem policies." But for many Trump opponents, compromise is not possible with Trump or his supporters. Trump has advocated policies that would harm them personally. Moreover, Trump has advocated for revenge against his opponents. Those who are his opponents can hardly expect to agree to their own punishment. Many posters are not near to being in a frame of mind suitable for unity. Many Trump opponents are angry about the results and fearful for the future. They are enraged at those who voted for Trump and want to have nothing to do with them. Resentment has always been one of the strongest motivations of Trump supporters and the thread is full of Trump supporters who still carry grudges. One poster demanded that Trump opponents personally apologize to him for having called him a Nazi and garbage. What I always notice about threads like this is the disconnect that is a result of Trump's policies that have very personal impacts on others. For instance, one Trump supporter suggests simply sitting down with someone who voted for Trump and listening to their explanation for their vote. He seems to believe that this will result in either agreement or a polite agreement to disagree. I've frequently argued that this sort of thing works if you simply disagree about tax rates or defense spending, but rarely is practical where Trump is concerned. If you are a trans person who may be fearing a loss of rights, someone worried about women's healthcare, an immigrant concerned about being caught up in mass deportations, or a federal employee worried about losing your job, the fact that a Trump voter claims to only be concerned about inflation is hardly reassuring. But what many posters want is not necessarily agreement on policies or acceptance of Trump's plans, but just a lowering of the temperature. "Just disagree politely" seems to be the argument. Mostly, however, such pleas are aimed at Trump opponents. Nobody seems to expect Trump to soften his rhetoric, and plenty of Trump supporters — as evidenced in this thread — have little interest in doing so either. Therefore, in many ways, this is a demand for unilateral disarmament. Along these lines, few expect that Trump has any hope of being a unifier. To the contrary, he has been threatening retribution and revenge. This does not lead to a climate conducive to unity. As a result, hope as they might, those arguing in favor of unity are having little success.

The final thread that I will discuss was, like the other threads today, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Was Walz a mistake?", the original poster simply asks whether Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was the wrong choice for Vice President. I am not sure what the purpose of this discussion might be. Given the scope of Vice President Kamala Harris' defeat, no pick for her running mate could have made a difference. The thread is little more than posters rehashing the same criticism of Walz that they have had all along. For instance, there has always been a small group of supporters of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. They have been like broken records since the day Walz was selected, complaining that Shapiro was not the choice. Their logic now is a little contradictory. They argue that Harris lost Pennsylvania and, had she picked Shapiro, she could have won the state. Harris won Walz' home state of Minnesota, but in this case, the argument is that she would have won it anyway. I am not sure how these posters support either claim other than by wishful thinking. Moreover, even if Shapiro had been the choice and helped win Pennsylvania, Harris would still have lost the election. Arab and Muslim Americans are rapidly becoming the most popular scapegoats for Harris' loss, and in this thread, they are blamed for Shapiro not being chosen. The argument is that because he is Jewish and pro-Israel, he would not be accepted by proponents of the Palestinians. In fact, there were criticisms from pro-Palestinian quarters about Shapiro, but they were not due to his religion. Rather, it was a result of his repression of pro-Palestinian protests at universities in Pennsylvania and his volunteer service in the Israeli military. He also had previously written articles arguing against peace with the Palestinians. However, there is no evidence that any of this influenced Harris's choice. Rather, she is said to have had better chemistry with Walz. In fact, Walz has generally been extremely popular, not only among Democrats, but even among some Republicans. Many posts in this thread describe Walz being more popular than Harris among friends or relatives. Similarly, many of the posts in this thread argue that Walz would have been a better Presidential candidate than Harris. Similar to one of the points in the first thread that I discussed today, there were posters arguing that whether Walz was a good or bad candidate was not important. Rather, these posters argued that they were opposed to Democratic policies and would oppose any Democratic candidate. Similarly, some Democratic posters also argued that it didn't matter whether Walz was the best choice because the election was between good and evil and even a less than perfect candidate on the good side was better than any candidate on the evil side. Unfortunately for these posters, evil won. Some posters had suggestions for longshot VP candidates such as Oprah or Michelle Obama, but several posters didn't think even they could have saved Harris in this election.