Is There A Backstory To This Election?

I mean, what really happened? It was clear from early on that, one way or another, 2024 wouldn’t be a simple repeat of 2020. Obviously, part of that story was the Trump team upping their legal game. The ruling class political establishment was aware that any steal would have to take that into account, and two steals in a row might have been viewed as just too hinky even for Americans to put up with. But then we had the switcheroo and the failure of several major media outlets to endorse. And on election night there was the NYT telling the world—before the election was called—that Trump had a 91% chance of winning. Not that any of these media outlets were happy, but it really had the look of a more or less normal election—as normal as American elections get. It really looked like the establishment had decided that, when push came to shove, they’d have to let Trump win.

So what was up?

This is just my speculation, but I go back to Mark Milley’s—former Joint Chief—statement in an interview, in which he stated point blank that we are now in a multi-polar world. This was just days before the election. Is it possible that Milley’s statement was him speaking for the Deep State, voicing their consensus? That along with the realization that we’re in a multi-polar world, that the catastrophic NATO defeat in Ukraine against Russia could be followed by another disaster in the Middle East and East Asia, the Deep State decided that they simply could not afford another four years of Neocon imperial overreach?. That, come what may, Trump would have to be allowed to win? That they somehow put out the message to the Dems that, no, the CIA or whoever wasn’t going to drag them over the line again?

Speaking of major losers, how about that Keith [yes, sic] Starmer? Sending 100 Laborites to meddle in our election? No wonder Trump thought it was important to reiterate in his victory speech that he’d be ending wars, not starting wars—here’s lookin’ at you, British Empire. A banquet with Chuck? Who needs it?

Philip Pilkington @philippilk

Britain is completely rekt. The Special Relationship is being downgraded to Overtly Hostile Relationship. I nominate @DavidLammy for the Unserious Clown Diplomat of the Year Award.

Quote

Sir Peter Morris: Just fed up of all the nonsense. @petemorristwit

How's Lammy going to wriggle out of this one?

7:44 AM · Nov 6, 2024

And I forgot to mention among priorities for Trump 2.0—getting a handle on America’s very serious drug problem. We can’t let it slide. Dope legalization? A catastrophe. JDVance was famous for saying that the ruling class outsourced the factory jobs that allowed men to support families, and gave them drugs instead. Well?

For some reason Foreign Policy sends me emails. This one that I just received actually makes some humorous points—between the lines, because the don’t consciously do comedy:

The postmortems about U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris’s loss to Donald Trump in the 2024 U.S. presidential election will go on for a long time. Many books will be written, pundits’ reputations made and unmade, and academic careers launched as the polling data behind this baffling, unprecedented election are pored over for years to come. But as a first rough draft of history, there are a few ominous road markers that stand out.

After a remarkable start to her campaign, Harris failed to close the deal rhetorically. In an unfortunate echo of Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016, Harris spent far too much time trying to argue that Trump was unfit for the presidency and too little time delivering a coherent message about why she would be better.

Right, so Kama Sutra spent too much time insulting and—incredibly for her—talking down to Americans. And then Zhou delivered the coup de grace with his “garbage” gag. And I found the “Despite” that begins this next paragraph quite humorous—as if boatloads of money would somehow prevent a loser like Kama Sutra from “floundering”?

Despite overpowering Trump in their only debate on Sept. 10 and raising more than $1 billion in donations in just three months—a new record—Harris often floundered when challenged to deliver a convincing summary of her agenda on critical issues such as the economy and immigration. She also fumbled badly in explaining her flip-flops on issues such as fracking (which she once opposed and later supported, but without pointing out the simple fact that improved technology had made it environmentally safer). That led Wall Street Journal commentator Peggy Noonan to label Harris an “artless dodger.”

And, in the end, Harris failed to find a politically agile way of distancing herself from her unpopular boss, U.S. President Joe Biden.

In an interview with Politico in the final weeks before the election, Trump campaign manager Jason Miller put his finger on what he called the turning point of the race. This came after weeks of polling in Harris’ favor following her abrupt—and, by some accounts, undemocratic—emergence at the top of the ticket on July 21. Miller said it was Harris’ botched answer to an easy question from a friendly TV anchor, Sunny Hostin, co-host of The View, who asked Harris on Oct. 8 if she would have done anything differently from Biden over the past four years. “There is not a thing that comes to mind,” Harris awkwardly responded, horrifying her advisors and sparking an eruption of Trumpian triumphalism online.

In subsequent weeks, Harris tried to recover, telling CNN, “[My administration] will not be a continuation of the Biden administration,” but the damage was done. “Who would have thought that Sunny Hostin from The View really killed Kamala Harris’s candidacy?” Miller said. “But you can make the case that Sunny did.”