Hack American University historian Allan Lichtman could have chosen to enlighten his audience with genuine perspective on why the 2024 election didn’t fit in his little election-predicting formula. Instead, as I’ve written about here, here and here, he chose to parrot partisan talking points and excuses because, sadly, he is a biased, publicity-seeking hack. Thus I’m forced into doing his work for him. Well, that’s okay. I’m qualified, and unlike him, I have integrity.
Let’s begin with this fact nobody has mentioned: only three men before Trump were elected President after losing a Presidential election. Three. Andrew Jackson was the first, but he gets an asterisk: Andy won the popular vote when he ran the first time but lost to John Quincy Adams in the House of Representatives. Like Trump, he said the election had been stolen from him. The second time a defeated Presidential candidate came back to win was in 1892, when Grover Cleveland, like Trump, ran again after losing his first bid for re-election to win the White House back, thus becoming the 22nd and 24th President. He has the same asterisk as Jackson, however. Grover the Good (in truth, he wasn’t all that good) never lost the popular vote: Benjamin Harrison defeated him with the first fluke Electoral College victory (Rutherford B. Hayes doesn’t count, but that’s another story.) So Cleveland won the popular vote in all three of his Presidential elections.
Richard Nixon is the third member of this odd club. He lost a squeaker to JFK in 1960 ( or maybe he didn’t, but unlike Trump, Nixon refused to challenge the result “for the good of the nation.” If Trump had only followed Nixon’s example, he would have won a real landslide this week), and then came back eight years later to defeat Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace to finally win the Presidency.
When we last left American University Allen Lichtman, he was smarting from his obviously incompetent and biased prediction that Kamala Harris would defeat Donald Trump proving to be spectacularly wrong. On Wednesday after Election Day, Lichtman told USA TODAY, “Right now after a very long night I am taking some time off to assess why I was wrong and what the future holds for America.” That was enough for me to enshrine him in the “Bias Makes You Stupid” Hall of Fame.
So Lichtman thought and he thought, and he reviewed his over-hyped formula that had delivered 9 out of 10 correct predictions in races that anyone could have predicted with no formula at all (Lichtman’s: go with who looks like the obvious winner, and when in doubt, pick the Democrat), and he applied his training and skills as a an American Presidential historian, and guess what he figured out! No, really, guess. I’ll give you time to think…
Ready?
On his YouTube channel, Lichtman that voters were not “rational” or “pragmatic,” succumbed to “disinformation” and Trump’s promotion of “xenophobia,” “misogyny” and “racism”!
Gee, the Ladies of “The View” came up with that, and they’re all biased, Trump Deranged morons. The voters were stupid, the brilliant Democratic message was muted by social media lies, and half of all Americans wouldn’t vote for a black woman as President because of bigotry.
I think the professor should have “assessed” a teeny bit longer. But it probably wouldn’t have done any good.
“I think two things this year, and maybe going forward, broke this premise of a rational, pragmatic electorate, and these are trends that are not new but have exploded this year beyond anything we’ve ever seen before. First is disinformation,” this clown said. “Always had disinformation, but we’ve never had anything remotely on this scale, where billionaires — I don’t know how much Elon Musk is worth, I’m sure more than a hundred billion dollars — who control critical sources of information for the electorate. I mean, Elon Musk owns X, and I’ve seen reports that his disinformation that he’s put out, has been viewed by two billion viewers, vastly more influential than New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, CBS… the incredible explosion of disinformation…makes it very difficult for a rational, pragmatic electorate to operate.”
“Then add to that that we’ve seen Trump and his allies exploit, far more than ever before — even 2016 and 2020 — trends that run deep into American history and still resonate at this time: xenophobia, fear of foreign influences … We have never seen, in recent history, xenophobia to this level, and it digs deep into a trend in American history. It’s not something brand new, and it’s not just white people, you know?” Lichtman said. “People of all races and ethnicities can be subject to xenophobia. And finally, there’s racism, one of the deepest, most pervasive trends in American history. And we have seen, just as Trump and his allies have brought misogyny and xenophobia to a new level, he’s also brought blatant racism to a new level … So we see then the explosion of disinformation and these three dark trends from American history, and that calls into question the whole premise behind the keys of rationality and pragmatism.”
Wow. What a hack!
If I had a son at American, this would be sufficient to have me seek another school to send him to, because such a complete lack of perception, analysis and accountability shouldn’t be permitted on any faculty, in any department.
“Experts” like Lichtman will now validate the fact-free rationalizations of the current Trump-Derangement victims and Democratic Party leadership seeking ways to duck responsibility for running a terrible candidate (whom everyone paying attention knew would be a terrible candidate before she was “selected). He blames Elon Musk? Did Musk magically make Harris sound like an evasive, babbling phony who couldn’t function without a script or a teleprompter? That’s a neat trick! Isn’t part of a college education to learn the life skill of recognizing when you’ve screwed up and learn from the mistake? Clearly Lichtman won’t teach his students that.
Small wonder that Lichtmas thinks Harris was the “rational” choice for President: he’s almost as much of a phony as she is.
Jeez, somebody tell her! Nobody believes this myth any more. That she would even say that on national TV justifies the public’s lack of trust in the mainstream media, the Post, and Rampell. Props to Jennings for not falling off his chair in helpless laughter and rolling on the floor.
The hysterical, fearful diatribe below came from my Facebook feed. This is a friend. A very nice guy. I don’t have the energy or heart to fisk it; if you feel like making the effort, even if you just do part of it, go ahead. It won’t be hard.
I am very angry at the people, officials, celebrities and publications responsible for doing this to my friend. I’m sure he really believes everything he has written. He’s an innocent, caring, trusting soul who was a sitting duck for the diabolical propaganda the Axis marinated good people like him in for almost ten years for their own political agendas.
It can’t feel good believing you and your friends are at “mortal risk.” Deceiving people like my friend so they are terrified of the future is despicably cruel. Yes, my friend is an artist and artists are emotional and often politically unsophisticated and under-educated (and our civic education is terrible anyway.) It is not just artists though. I know lawyers who are expressing essentially the same fears.
Bad, cynical, ruthless and unethical people are responsible for all this crazy panic. Today, the execrable Karine Jean-Pierre was pressed on this point by a Fox News reporter: If Biden was telling the truth about how a Trump administration would create an existential danger to the republic, that if he was elected “rights would be stripped away” and “democracy would crumble,” why did the President say in his remarks today that everything is going to be okay?
Karine, who would have a hard time answering a question about what her favorite color is, gave a rambling non-answer, then complained that the question was unfair, and left the room in a huff. But we know the answer, don’t we? Biden and the Democrats always knew all of that Hitler fearmongering and the “last election ever” warnings were pure nonsense, but they thought it might win the election. If trusting souls like my friend were reduced to permanent anxiety, eh, well, so what? Collateral damage. The ends justifies the means. Screw ’em.
Three anti-Trump-biased post-election pieces came to my attention today and yesterday. I guess “philippics” doesn’t exactly apply to all three of them, but I seldom get to use the words, it’s my blog, and so there. One is disappointing, one is disinformation and deflection, and the third is certifiably deranged.
She never sufficiently buried Biden’s ghost, severely hamstringing her ability to sell voters on the idea that hers was the turn-the-page candidacy. It happened, simply, because Harris refused to make a clean break from the last four years when voters indicated that’s what they wanted. Worse, she hesitated to draw any daylight between herself and her boss on Biden’s biggest vulnerability — his stewardship over the economy — nor identify any specific way her presidency would be different from his tenure beyond naming a Republican to her Cabinet.
Is this denial or deliberate dishonesty? Either way, the authors, Christopher Cadelago and Holly Otterbein are covering for Harris, Walz and their party rather than providing truthful analysis to their readers. Harris’s problem wasn’t strategy. Her problem was Harris (and to a lesser extent, Ol’ Knucklehead). No strategy ever devised can make a metaphorical purse out of a metaphorical sow’s ear, and that’s what Harris was as a potential President: a pig’s ear. And not even a very impressive pig’s ear. She was unpopular and generally ignored as Veep, her past positions were radical if not insane, and she literally cannot speak coherently without a script or a teleprompter. To anyone who has a grain of knowledge of psychology, her manic cackle is a tell: she’s insecure, not exactly a quality we seek in our leaders. The primary (well, I shouldn’t use that word because she never offered herself to voters in a primary) persona she projected to the public, other than an empty suit, was that of a chameleon. She presented her position on the Gazan war diametrically differently to Jewish and Muslim audiences. She was pro-fracking and anti-fracking, she was 100% behind Joe Biden and everything he did, and a candidate of change. She was a law and order candidate who opposes “over-incarceration.” She said there had to be consequences for illegal immigration, then said those consequences should be citizenship.
Harris didn’t follow a bad strategy. She was a bad candidate and ran a terrible campaign. That’s why she lost the election. As Harris would say, “Let’s be clear.” Yes, let’s.
I’m sorry, but to those who are saluting the allegedly classiness of our 44th President, I say “Fool me once, shame on him, fool me 2,576 times, he can bite me.”
Now make no mistake: Obama know how to fake virtues he doesn’t have, and that’s an important leadership skill. Most Americans probably think he really was trying to be a “President for all Americans,” when he was in fact one most disastrously divisive Presidents in our history. He knew how to act Presidential: if only Donald Trump had that skill (or wanted to have it), he might be far more effective. On the other hand, enough people figured out Obama’s act (and Hillary’s, and Biden’s, and Bill Clinton’s, and Joe Biden’s, and Kamala Harris’s…) that they decided that an open vulgarian that didn’t pretend to be something he isn’t (like nice, kind, respectful, dignified, civil, even-tempered…well, ethical, frankly).
There are several tells in the statement, which, of course, is being fawned over as if Michelle and BO didn’t attack Trump personally when they played cavalry to Kamala’s ill-fated metaphorical wagon train to the White House. Obama suggested that Trump was senile, which takes quite a bit of gall for any Democrat, considering that they pretended that Joe Biden was solving Rubik’s Cube blindfolded for years when he really belonged in a home with a drool cup. I don’t call that “good faith and grace.”
But my favorites were the words he used on Kamala and her pathetic campaign.
In the theater world, a constant ethical dilemma is what to say when you go to a friend’s show and the show, or the friend’s performance, stinks on ice. Books have been written about this problem. “I’ve never seen you better!” is a classic response; pure deceit, of course, but effective. “That was memorable!” is another. Obama chooses his words carefully, and the carefully chosen deceitful word he used for Harris’s disastrous campaign was “remarkable.” It was remarkable all right: remarkably inept and ineffective. Before that, Obama calls Knucklehead and Harris “extraordinary.” Same trick. Actually, in theater circles, using more than one of these deliberately two-edged superlatives is considered risky, but I don’t think Obama cares: he has plausible deniability.
Finally, he says, “he couldn’t be more proud.” That one’s a version of the theater classic, “I couldn’t have enjoyed the show/your performance more!” (My personal favorite variation, “I’ve never seen you better!”)
And shameless, too! That statement this morning in a post election autopsywith morning host John Berman (a partisan ally) and Scott Jennings, CNN’s token conservative made my head explode, as you can see above.
The topic was Harris’s assurances to Trump that there would be an orderly and peaceful transfer of power, and that Democrats would accept the will of the voters. Van (and Berman) were pointing out the contrast with Trump’s reaction after the 2020 election.
The gall of these people continues to break previous records. Democrats were fully amped up to challenge the election results if Trump won. Jamie Raskin made it clear that plans were in place to “fight” if the election results showed Trump squeaking out a win. Democrats never accepted Trump’s 2016 election as legitimate. Their supporters rioted on Inauguration Day. They investigated him, impeached him twice, didn’t extend to him even the basic traditional deference and respect every previous elected President since Lincoln had received.
Yesterday, I got up early and drove to my polling station, parked along the side of the road because I knew I wouldn’t find a space on the parking lot of the local Lions Club and got into a line that stretched to the end of said parking lot. The line began to extend onto the side of the road. It was 5:50 AM. It was a beautiful sight.
I was in the door at 6:24 AM. I had my ballot by 6:30 AM. I had filled it out by 6:35 AM. I stuck it in the scanner and got my sticker at 6:40 AM.
When I got home, I took my sticker, wrote “Garbage” on it and wore it proudly all day. I also posted on Facebook Abraham Lincoln’s famous statement from his first Inaugural Address (when the country was in far worse straits than it is now): “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
I kept up with the news all day long. The voting machines in Pennsylvania that didn’t work (that one of the most technologically-advanced countries in the world cannot run an election without these kinds of antics happening is absurd). The Voting Guides handed out in Rhode Island that were allegedly real ballots with the Republicans whited out. The bizarre happenings in Milwaukee where the ballots had to be recounted. The bomb threats in Georgia. Mr. Golden and our son went to vote later in the day and didn’t get stickers because they were out. In fact, the polling station ran out of ballots around 1:30 PM yesterday and had to get more.
1. As I write this, the New York Times‘ model is predicting that Trump will win the popular vote and pegs his chances of winning the election at 90%. It’s a shame that I don’t trust anything the Times says.
2. The best column of the day came from David Harsanyi, a conservative pundit who is not a Trump fan. Best paragraph:
“The unhinged, hysterical meltdown of the Left over former President Donald Trump’s candidacy is unparalleled in modern history. Women who walk around cosplaying The Handmaid’s Tale are living in the wealthiest and freest place women have ever known. They will continue to do so, even if Trump finds his way back into the White House for four years. The very notion that “democracy” hinges on the unfettered availability of third-trimester abortions is a kind of corrosive delusion only partisanship can whip up in otherwise rational people. Then again, we already know if Trump wins, every innocuous tax cut will be treated like the Reichstag fire.”
Bingo.
3. The super fancy computer maps are distracting and no improvement over the old fashioned tote boards of the past; in fact, they are much worse. Over at Fox News, poor Bill Hemmer is constantly saying, “Sorry, sorry…there we go…oops, wrong screen…”
4. MSNBC’s propagandists are furious and in a foul mood, as well as lying their fool heads off, as usual. Joy Reid announced that black men were not supporting Trump any more than in 2020—that’s untrue. Lawrence O’Donnell went on a rant about how the Republicans get “to play by different rules than Democrats,” which qualifies as gaslighting. They were joined by smirking Rachel Maddow in gratuitous Trump-bashing: if you can’t beat him, smear him.
I hope I can stay awake to watch the meltdown if and when Trump is declared the winner.
5. It’s ugly and stupid over on Facebook, as I have had to wrestle my fingers to the floor to stop myself from picking off the ridiculous, poorly reasoned, ignorant claims and rationalizations from people who once were rational even as you and I until their brains were eaten by Trump Derangement.
6. Ann Seltzer, whose polling stunned everyone by showing Harris winning Iowa, a GOP stronghold, needs to go into another field. Trump is winning the state by 14 pts. How incompetent. How embarrassing.
7. Fox News keeps saying that if Trump wins, it will be the greatest comeback in American political history. This is just wrong. Richard Nixon will always have that distinction. He lost the Presidential election in 1960, then lost in an upset when he ran for governor of California in 1962. Everyone assumed he had signed his political obituary when he gave a bitter, self-pitying concession speech and appeared to announce that he was quitting politics. In 1964, he wasn’t a factor in the Presidential race at all, and was just practicing law in New York. Four years later, Nixon was President.
8.[Added, 1:17 am] I can’t let this pass. Juan Williams just got on Fox News and attributed Trump’s increasingly likely victory (the Times now has the likelihood at 95%) to racism and sexism. Over at MSNBC, the horrible Joy Reid actually said that Harris had run a “perfect” campaign, which is so absurd she should have been yanked off the set with a hook. This tells me that the programmed narrative if Harris loses is that it was only bigotry that defeated her, and not the fact that she was a weak and unappealing candidate who ran a terrible campaign.
When I was writing the predecessor to Ethics Alarms, The ethics Scoreboard, I would issue “The Dirty Dozen,” a compendium of the most unethical candidates for elected office every two years. For the first election cycle in Ethics Alarms’ history, I posted on “The Untrustworthy Twenty” and thereafter, I don’t remember why, discontinued the tradition. Sloth? Hopelessness? I just forgot?
After George Santos (above) slimed his way into Congress in 2022 after lying about virtually everything, however, I resolved to resuscitate the project as depressing as it might be. In that old post (2010) I began,
“Trust is the connective tissue that holds societies together: it can be strengthened by demonstrations of ethical values like integrity, loyalty, honesty, civility, responsibility, competence, and courage, and weakened by proof of unethical traits like fecklessness, dishonesty, lack of independent judgment, selfishness, lack of diligence, greed and cowardice. For decades, the American public’s trust in its elected representatives and governmental institutions—and other critical institutions like the news media and the legal system—has been in steep decline. This is not because of some inexplicable public fad or the poisoning of public perceptions by an unholy alliance of the pop culture and Fox news. The decline in trust has occurred because a significant proportion of America’s elected leaders have not been trustworthy, and the reason this has been true is that American voters have thus far refused to make proof of ethical values their main priority in electing them. Because politicians know this, they feel empowered to engage in corruption, self-enrichment and deception in the confidence that partisan supporters will vote for them anyway, as long as they mouth the same policy positions and deliver their quota of pork, earmarks, and government contracts. This, of course, does not benefit of country in the long run, but weakens it. It also creates an increasingly arrogant and power-obsessed political class to which ethical values are like Halloween costumes, donned at regular intervals to disguise who they really are. The core principles of the democratic process do not matter to many of these people, and they don’t see why they should matter.”
Isn’t itreassuring to know that things haven’t changed in 14 years? In fact, they have: they are much worse. I could easily compile an unethical 50, or 100. The two most untrustworthy major party candidates for President of the United States ever to face off in a Presidential election are on the ballot tomorrow, to succeed a a strong competitor for Worst President Ever who has made such a mess of the office and our traditional Presidential election process that the political system may never recover. In that 2010 post, I wrote,
“Public trust cannot keep declining indefinitely, you know. Eventually, a government that cannot be trusted will collapse. Just as addressing America’s fiscal crisis will take hard measures and sacrifice, addressing its equally dangerous crisis in trust requires sacrifice too. It will require voters to establish the principle that being “effective,” experienced or having the “right” policy positions will not be enough to justify electing or re-electing individuals who are demonstrably trustworthy. Voters must establish untrustworthiness as absolutely disqualifying a candidate for election to public office. Any ethical, honest candidate with integrity must be seen as per se preferable to a corrupt, dishonest or unethical candidate, regardless of past achievements or policy views.”
I still believe that, despite being forced to vote for an untrustworthy candidate in this election because a cruel or sadistic god has chosen to make him the only available option to combat an organized and relentless effort to unmake the United States as it was envisioned by its Founders.
In that post, I offered a list of factors that do not justify determining that a candidate is necessarily untrustworthy: Continue reading →
Ethics Alarms 