Those who deny the peaceful transfer of power to others should not be surprised when others deny the same to them.
No, it doesn’t help the situation. It is more likely to help Trump than it is to help Harris, but it is more likely yet to help neither and to quickly get buried in the fast-moving news cycle, just like the last assassination attempt (which got a lot closer to achieving its goal) did. Assassination attempts don’t have a good track record of achieving their desired goals, but they are not surprises in the current political context, either.
Those who deny the peaceful transfer of power to others should not be surprised when others deny the same to them.
To look at it from an Eastern philosophical perspective, it’s karma. The one who threatens violence on others himself becomes a victim of violence.
Or, to look at it from a more Western perspective, it’s norm erosion, something self-professed conservatives used to be concerned about. But Trump is a fascist, not a conservative.
Conservatism is not about inciting a putsch to stay in power.
Conservatism is not about stringing together bald-faced lies demonizing immigrants and minorities.
Conservatism is not about clinging to those lies even after they are shown to be lies, because at least the lies rally your base, the ends always justifying the means.
Fascism, by contrast, is all about norm erosion. The Nazi Party enthusiastically did all of the above (well, their putsch was to get into power, not to stay in it). Fascism is all about the ends justifying the means.
And, not surprisingly, they tried to kill Hitler, too. Multiple times.
In a further historical parallel, it seems that Ryan Wesley Routh is a disgruntled conservative. At least one of Hitler’s erstwhile assassins, Claus von Stauffenberg, was a disgruntled conservative.
Those who deny the peaceful transfer of power to others should not be surprised when others deny the same to them.
She did exactly what she needed to do: goad Trump into ranty old man mode.
The problem is, she also came across looking very much like she was doing just that. Would have been a significantly more effective tactic if she had been more subtle about it, then the ranting would have appeared unprovoked and thus been more jarring.
Overall though, Trump did do damage to himself, albeit not as much as he would have if Harris had been more subtle.
An imperfect win is still a win. Sure beats a self-immolation like what happened in July.
It is unlikely to be either candidate significantly burnishing their candidacy. It is unlikely to be Harris damaging herself. It is unlikely to be either candidate directly damaging the other to any significant degree. This is because the candidates are mostly known quantities and the voters have mostly made their minds up.
The only wildcard is whether and how effectively Trump can keep a lid on his ranting, rambling old man mode, which has been manifesting itself to an increasing degree in recent months. If he can, he will prevent further damage to his cause.
If he can’t, he will damage his cause. He’s been ranty and incoherent in his own rallies many times recently, but that’s his rallies, attended by his loyal base, the folks he wouldn’t lose support from even if he shot someone in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue. This time, however, more than that base will be watching and paying attention. In the worst case, it could be self-inflected damage that approaches the damage Biden did to himself last July.
I was initially skeptical that Trump could keep a lid on it. And I’m certain that he can’t do so in general. But the debate is a mere 90 minutes. There is a chance he could keep a lid on it that long.
Harris’ job, therefore, is to try and trigger that mode in Trump. She needs to pay as much or more attention to how she says things as what she says. Goad Trump without it being immediately transparent she is goading him. This should be possible, given Trump’s general nature (but if Trump resists being triggered, he resists doing damage to himself).
If Harris successfully does the above, she will by her own actions increase her chance of winning, but she will have done so as a result of getting Trump to tarnish his. It will, in the final analysis, be more what Trump said than what Harris said. Hence my phrasing in the list above.
But that’s just one metric, and although it has had a remarkable run of being accurate, no metric is infallible. Plus, there are always judgement calls, and many of Lichtman’s calls are in retrospective only, when confirmation bias can enter the picture (e.g. Lichtman wasn’t around when McKinley was running against Bryan).
However, there are other signs in Harris’ favour.
Trump Is No Longer a Purely Theoretical Threat
In 2016, he was. Nobody so extreme and so unqualified had won before. Therefore it was easy for voters to wave it off as a purely theoretical threat and cast protest votes against Hillary Clinton (a historically unpopular and weak candidate).
This factor helped Biden in 2020, and given that Trump is running again, it helps Harris this time as well.
Trump Is More Tarnished than Ever
This is the first election Trump has run in after he tried to instigate a coup to remain in power. That coup attempt cost Trump; some top Republicans like Liz Cheney who had reluctantly gone along with him until that point broke with him.
Moreover, Trump is older than ever and his age is now exacting an increasingly visible toll on him. Mental decline means Trump is more rambling and erratic than ever. (This, after Trump spent months making age a campaign issue when he was running against Biden.) Yet more tarnish.
Because of how polarized and how fascism-friendly many Republicans are, this won’t cost Trump very much support. However, it doesn’t have to cost Trump very much support. Because the electorate is so closely divided, every little bit of lost support measurably hurts Trump. For every Cheney and Kinzinger there are thousands of GOP-leaning voters in swing states who won’t be voting for Trump this time.
Harris Excites Her Base the Way Biden Did Not
There is a real Obama vibe about Harris. Like Obama, Harris is a groundbreaking candidate; she would be the first female president. Left-leaning (and even many centrist) voters are real suckers for such things. Yes, it is petty and not policy-based. So what. We are talking about actual voters in actual US elections, not hypothetical voters in some hypothetical ideal republic.
Atypically, Democrats are Campaigning Competently
One of the most frustrating things about US politics is the rank incompetence of the Democratic Party. Election after election, they make stupid campaign mistakes that leave easily winnable votes on the table. Sometimes they manage to win regardless, which goes to show just how badly Republican administrations sometimes manage to mess things up.
Not this time. For the first time in literally sixty years, Democrats are doing a good job at campaigning (yes, LBJ, whatever his flaws, was the last Democrat both willing and able to play political hardball).
Also Atypically, Republicans are Campaigning Incompetently
A lot of this is due to just how much the GOP has become an inward-looking political subculture. The rest of it is due to the Harris campaign’s competent nature. Republicans just can’t process how well the whole “weird” rhetoric worked against them. The idea that they might be the political weirdos and not, as their mythology insists, the voice of the Real America, the Middle America (Harris’ choice of a Midwesterner as a running mate really paid off), just makes their brains explode.
For once, it is the Democrats that are setting the terms of the debate, while the Republicans are assuming the role of suckers by responding to the term-setting (whenever the Republicans talk about not being weird, the debate is still over whether the Republicans are weird, i.e. the debate the Democrats want).
Conclusion
Odds really do seem to favour Harris. This is not to say it won’t be close (given polarization, it probably will). This is not to say that Trump could not win (odds favoured Hillary Clinton in 2016). But the odds do really seem to be in Harris’ favour; this is not just wishful thinking on my part.
I mean, anyone who thinks it was a surprise really wasn’t paying attention to who was paying RFK to run.
He was being paid to run by rich Trumpers for the purpose of siphoning votes away from Biden. After Biden dropped out and it became clear that RFK was taking more votes from Trump than Harris, the whole purpose of the RFK campaign (i.e. helping to elect Trump) was mooted.
So of course his paymasters stopped throwing good money after bad.
And of course RFK then dropped out and endorsed Trump. Why wouldn’t he? He was out of money, and he’s a conspiracy-mongering political grifter, just like the orange fascist that he now openly supports.
No surprise that one total scumbag would support another. None at all.
Having interacted with some on the Internet, I feel qualified to offer this. By “Trumpers” here I mean simply those planning on voting for Donald Trump this November. Note that the sets are not disjoint: one can for example easily be a part of both the Weirdos and Sheep category.
The Weirdos
These people are, simply put, mentally not all there. It becomes clear when trying to engage them in online conversation. I am not a trained psychoanalyst, and not analyzing them in person, but it’s just obvious they have issues going on upstairs.
The Sheep
These people live deep within the right-wing media bubble. Their mental facilities are, however, intact and normal. They’ve just been brainwashed and turned into cult members. As such, any information from outside the cult is highly suspect and (given that it threatens to take their cult, which they are psychologically heavily invested in, away from them) threatening. It it this crowd that is the greatest driver of the problem with the GOP being inward-facing that I recently wrote about.
The Reluctant
These people will agree that Trump is a deeply flawed candidate. Sometimes (often) you will have to go back and forth a bit to wear them down with repeated reality checks, but eventually they will agree with you. Facts are facts, after all. It’s just that, for them, one personal fact is that they strongly prefer right of centre politics, and given the US two-party system, they have no other choice to express that preference but the currently-Trumpified GOP. So, like it or not (and most of them do not), Trump it is.
What This All Means
Namely, that you should pay attention to the full content of tweets like this one. Specifically the about a third part. He’s talking about roughly ⅓ of 46% (in other words, about 15%), not the full 46%.
If Harris wins in November (and that’s definitely still an if), politics in the USA could for the most part move beyond Trumpism relatively quickly, in a way that’s not possible if roughly 46% were committed Trumpers. That’s because only about 15% (the Sheep plus the Weirdos that for whatever reasons decide to stick with Trump after the GOP realigns itself) are the true committed fascists. The others are merely somewhere on the fascism-curious to fascism-tolerant axis, and are likely to get a lot less curious and/or tolerant about fascism if it shows itself once again to be a loser at the ballot box.
Then you have the conservatives who are neither fascism-tolerant nor fascism-curious, i.e. the Never Trumpers. They would love to go back to voting for a centre-right party, if only a sane one existed. Add their numbers to the Reluctant, and whatever Weirdos decide to come along for the realignment away from fascism, and you have the makings of a realignment.
Self-interest, in other words, can act to motivate the sort of political realignment that morals failed to.
So it’s Walz. Sort of a surprise, though he was always listed as one of the finalists.
It’s a risky move: two liberals on the ticket, neither one from a swing state. One wrinkle is that Walz is an excellent propagandist; this, in addition to his politics, is likely what Harris found appealing in him.
If it does work (and that’s definitely an if), the resulting Harris/Walz victory will be pretty close to the ultimate electoral slap in the face to Trumpism, because it will mean that enough fence-sitters found flat-out liberalism to be a more attractive message than Trump’s warmed-over fascism.
Mind you, it’s certainly possible that it could work, much as I might have preferred not to run this sort of risk in such a high-stakes election. In a more normal election, I would have said “Go for it.” I have long been an advocate of trying to make a left of center message more appealing to the middle, and Walz excels at this. So many Americans are political unsophisticates that effective propaganda can buy one a whole lot. But I digress.
So, at this point, despite Harris’ unconventional choice, the election is still anyone’s to win.
So, who will it be? Rule No. 1 is that a moderate presidential candidate should select a liberal, and a liberal should select a moderate, so as to round out the ticket. Rounding out also means picking a White man is likely. With that said, here are my thoughts on some of the names being thrown around.
Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear
A red state governor who has vetoed some of the most noxious right-wing bills passed by his state’s legislature, had those vetoes upheld, and yet maintained his popularity and been reelected despite all that. Definitely a contender. His biggest drawback is that he will not help win his home state; Kentucky leans so strongly towards Trump that all a Beshear nomination is likely to accomplish is cutting into Trump’s margin there somewhat.
North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper
Another governor of a red Southern state. However, he is not going to be VP, so there is no point is discussing him further.
Arizona Senator Mark Kelly
This one is interesting. An ex-astronaut turned swing state senator, whose wife is former representative Gabby Giffords, who suffered a severe brain injury in an assassination attempt. Not only can he win in swing states (and definitely help deliver his home state), he has a very personal message to hammer home about gun control and right-wing domestic terrorism. However, he’s apparently not the best attack dog, his record on labor issues could be stronger, and going big on gun control is likely to alienate rural voters.
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro
He’s a swing state governor who is very popular in that state. His biggest Achilles’ heel is that he’s gotten heat from the Left for being excessively pro-Israel. Although some of his positions are more nuanced than the Left echo chamber would suggest (he did not compare all demonstrators critical of Israel to the KKK, just the ones advocating violence) he does definitely have some baggage here. It is generally best to select a VP that broadens one’s base without alienating anyone in one’s existing base, and like it or not Shapiro would fail at achieving this criterion.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz
Speaking of attack dogs who are good at negative campaigning, he’s one of the best, and he combines it with a Midwestern regular guy persona that really undercuts the Republican rhetoric about liberals all being big-city elitists from coastal states. He managed to become Governor in a state that is not always reliably Democratic, and to get a remarkably liberal agenda through a legislature his party barely controlled, all the while maintaining his popularity. However, Minnesota is decidedly more of a blue state than a swing state, and he is a liberal not a moderate. The latter is a Rule No. 1 violation, and I call it Rule No. 1 for a reason.
So, What Is My Guess?
Beshear. He’s been effective at communicating with people outside the Democratic base, is a centrist, and doesn’t have any big negatives to his name. No, he won’t deliver his home state but he is likely to have rhetorical skills useful in helping deliver swing states. Failing that, Kelly as the second most likely choice.
Update
A list of finalists has been leaked, and it contains:
Andy Beshear
Pete Buttigieg
Mark Kelly
J.B. Pritzker
Josh Shapiro
Tim Walz
Pritzker and Buttigieg have not yet been reviewed, so:
J.B. Pritzker
The serving Governor of Illinois. His problem is that Illinois is not by any measure a swing state (thank you, Chicago). As such, selecting him would violate Rule No. 1.
Pete Buttigieg
The openly gay currently-serving Secretary of Transportation. His problem is that he is a lightweight. Before serving as Secretary of Transportation, he was mayor of South Bend, Indiana. That’s it. Despite that, for some reason he’s long been a darling of the establishment media, getting way more serious attention than his background would warrant. His lack of experience would make him a weak choice.
I still think it is going to be Bashear or possibly Kelly.
The first time I took apart a thermostat, as a teen, I noticed this mysterious “anticipator” adjustment inside the thing. It was calibrated in these weird decimal fractions from roughly
0.15 to 1.2.
How could an inanimate object anticipate the future? It seemed like magic! Moreover, when I tinkered with the control, the heater’s cycles got longer and shorter. It was almost as if the thermostat did really know what was going to happen as it turned the heat on! And just what was the significance of those strange numbers, anyhow?
It took embarrassingly long (years!) for me to figure it out. See illustration below:
That’s right, the “anticipator” is nothing more than a tiny electric heater in series with the switch contacts on the thermostat.
How Does the Anticipator Work?
When the switch closes, the tiny heater is placed in series with the current flowing through the main heater’s relay coil. This causes current to flow through the tiny heater, and it heats up. This helps counter the thermal mass of the thermostat itself by heating it up, too, hopefully approximately in tandem with the air inside the building. The thermostat therefore reacts faster to what the heater is doing, as if it is anticipating future heating.
What Are the Strange Numbers on an Anticipator Scale?
They mark the recommended starting set point for a given current draw for a standard 24-volt system, as measured across the thermostat when it is open (i.e. not calling for heat).
Because anticipators must run on a traditional two-wire thermostat circuit, they must be placed in series with the thermostat switch point and the load the thermostat switches. Because this is a series circuit, more anticipator resistance means more total series resistance. This means that the overall circuit uses less power, and that the thermostat’s anticipator consumes a greater fraction of that power.
Somewhere between the minimum and maximum settings, anticipator heating is maximized, and somewhere between no anticipation and maximum anticipation is the proper value for a given situation. There are so many site-specific particulars that it is not possible with certainty to say in advance what the optimum setting is; all one can do is arrive at a good first guess. Sometimes that guess will be correct, sometimes it will take further refinements to arrive at the correct value.
For a high current system, only a small amount of resistance suffices. At 1.2 amps, even a small amount of resistance heating is excessive. In fact, there will probably be enough heating from the switch points’ resistance to act as a sufficient anticipator. So the 1.2 setting is for no (extra) anticipation, i.e. no extra series resistance. The anticipator is bypassed at this setting.
For a millivolt system, there is both limited power and limited voltage available. Voltage drop already can be a problem with millivolt systems, even without an anticipator. So dedicated millivolt thermostats do not have an anticipator, and millivolt-capable thermostats have instructions saying to use a setting of 1.2 on a millivolt system.
For a low current system, significant resistance is needed to extract enough power to get significant heating in the anticipator. So the lowest numbers select the maximum extra resistance.
What about the instructions that say to set the anticipator to 0.3 for electric, 0.4 for gas or oil heat, and so on?
Those are the recommended starting set points if you don’t have an ammeter reading or an existing thermostat setting to use.
What is the meaning of “longer?”
It denotes an arrow pointing to the direction to move the setting to make heating cycles longer. Note that the word “longer” is, perversely, often at the end of the scale that offers the shortest cycles (i.e. the most anticipation). It is the arrow pointing to the direction with which to move the setting to get longer cycles that counts.
Which setting is correct?
Whichever one works best! Start with one of the set points recommended by the thermostat manufacturer, but remember that they are only recommended ones. What is best depends on the particulars of your system (different ones draw different currents), your thermostat, your house, and where in your house the thermostat is mounted. There are so many particulars that it is impossible to say in general.
If you have an existing thermostat with an anticipator, copy its setting. If you have an ammeter, use that to determine a setting. If you have neither, use the instructions that came with your thermostat and set it according to your heat type. Failing all that, use whatever the thermostat happens to be set at as you got it.
What happens? Is temperature regulated properly? Congratulations, you’re at the correct setting! Don’t touch that anticipator adjustment! Does the heat run too long and cause temperature overshoot? Move it to a lower number. On a cold day or morning, does the heat tend to turn off too soon, forcing you to turn the thermostat above a set point in order to reach it? Move it to a higher number.
If you find it necessary to experiment with settings, take notes. It often takes several days of experimenting to arrive at the optimal setting.
There is much celebration within the Democratic Party as Kamala Harris is proving herself to be a decidedly more viable candidate than Joe Biden was. Because of course she is.
Don’t celebrate prematurely. We’re barely a week into her campaign, in a year where the news cycle has at times moved very quickly. Remember the assassination attempt on Trump? Seems like really old news, yet in fact it was a little over a fortnight ago.
Celebrating now is the equivalent of celebrating a touchdown that ties the score at the beginning of the final quarter. That score is irrelevant. The only score that matters is the score at the moment the final whistle blows.
There will be dirt that comes to light about Harris. Because of course there will be. All candidates are flawed. The real test is how effectively her campaign responds to that dirt.
Just because the Trumpers haven’t announced any really good dirt yet doesn’t mean that they don’t already know of some, yet are keeping a lid on it …for now… because they want to do damage later on when it will be more strategically harmful. (No, Trump himself couldn’t stop blabbing about it. But at least some of his strategists have the sort of self-control that Trump lacks.) And then there’s the currently hidden dirt that the Trump campaign has yet to unearth, but is sure to find later.
Do not assume that current absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
And that’s just the dirt we are talking about. Then there’s Harris herself. She really blew it in the 2020 primary. Hopefully she learned her lesson and will listen to her handlers this time. (She also has more and better handlers. Last time, she was one of many primary candidates in a large field, and thus competing for a limited supply of campaign advisors. Now, she has basically unrestricted access to the Democratic Party’s top advisors.) If she fails to exercise sufficient self-discipline, however, these advantages could be for naught.
The time to celebrate will be when the polls close and the election is called for Harris. We’re not there yet. Not by a long shot.
