The Other McCain

The U.K. Daily Mail reports:

Category: Crime, New York

Death of a Freak

Posted on | December 4, 2024 | Comments Off on Death of a Freak

October is celebrated as “LGBTQ+ Liberation Month” on the campus of the University of Rhode Island [URI], and as part of that celebration in 2023, URI’s Gender and Sexuality Center hosted an “OnlyFans Entrepreneur Panel” featuring Apollo Moon. Let us pause here to ask an important question: “WTF? A state university is sponsoring panel discussions to encourage students to be ‘entrepreneurs’ on OnlyFans?” What next? “How to Support Your Meth Addiction as a Hooker”?

Leaving aside questions about the lunacy taking hold in academia, what about “Apollo Moon”? Turns out that “he” was a woman originally named Hannah Lynn Harader, who had undergone transgender treatment (mastectomy and testosterone) to become a “trans male porn performer.” Being a journalist, curiosity is a career requirement, so I felt compelled to investigate exactly what “Apollo Moon” did to pay the bills. You should probably hit my tip jar to compensate me for the psychological trauma of seeing it. Why anyone would enjoy watching that — let alone pay to watch it — is a profound mystery, but then I remember that nearly 75 million Americans voted for Kamala Harris, and it’s somewhat less mysterious. In a nation of 335 million people, where everybody’s got access to the Internet, it’s not actually difficult to find an audience of several hundred people who are into whatever kink or fetish you’re peddling, so that “Apollo Moon” could probably collect a few thousand a month as a “trans male porn performer.” The idea that this made her an “enterpreneur” who should be featured in a panel discussion at a public university — well, why not just go down to the nearest truck stop and find some “lot lizards” to tell your students about enterpreneurship?

R.I.P., Apollo Moon, who died last week at age 26, probably by suicide, according to Andy Ngo. “Apollo”/Harader had recently decided to quit “his”/her career as a porn performer, and had a lot of social-media posts about “his”/her personal problems, as @TTExulansic exposed at length.

Deceased trans ftm porn star Apollo Moon was taking more testosterone than she was prescribed. Testosterone is an addictive controlled substance. She was afraid to tell her doctor she was misusing it, but not the internet. pic.twitter.com/7G9LShuGpn

— ??ulansic ? (@TTExulansic) December 4, 2024

Just days before his death, Moon wrote on X: ‘Being trans brought me so much joy and there was nothing in this world that made me happier than sharing that experience with my community.’
In October, Moon announced he was leaving the porn industry after it took a toll on his mental health.
‘When I started my career in 2020 I was excited and loved it. Over the years it took a toll on my mental health,’ he wrote.
‘My financial and mental health became reliant on how others view and put worth on my body. I love the community that I was able to build and I am grateful for my coperformers for being such supportive people to me.’

By the way, “Moon”/Harader’s friends and family won’t say that “his”/her death was suicide, but if it wasn’t foul play or an accident or natural causes, the process of elimination leaves few alternatives.

The promoters of transgender ideology don’t want the larger public to be aware of how often medical “treatment” yields such outcomes. Young people with profound mental health problems are vulnerable to recruitment into transgender identity, which is presented to them as a panacea for adolescent woe. The teenage/young adult years are difficult for most kids, and the appeal of transgenderism is that, for a certain subset of young misfits, it seems to explain all their problems, and provides them with a sense of belonging to a sort of community. The obvious downside is that this “community” is full of damaged freaks. Belonging to the Transgender Freak Club doesn’t confer any real benefits on its members, and tends to alienate them from the world where successful, happy and emotionally stable people live. Your “community” is essentially a free-range lunatic asylum, and that’s not a good life.

“Apollo Moon” may be an extreme example of this, but “he”/she is in many ways typical of what’s wrong with transgender ideology. Hannah Harader traveled the same path as many other such people, the only difference being that “he”/she went farther down the path than most, gaining a certain level of notoriety (it seems wrong to call it “fame,” and perhaps the better word is infamy) as a porn performer.

That officials of the Univerity of Rhode Island would celebrate such a person as a heroic role model of “LGBTQ+ Liberation” raises a lot of questions about what kind of “liberation” they are advocating.

Category: The Transgender Cult

For the Benefit of Nate Silver (and Anyone Else Who Has Just Now Discovered How Selfish and Dishonest Joe Biden Really Is)

Posted on | December 3, 2024 | 1 Comment

Much of the outrage directed at Joe Biden since the announcement that he would pardon Hunter Biden — a blanket pardon, covering any crimes committed during an entire decade, back to 2014 — is obviously disingenuous. The earlier public pronouncements by Biden that he would not pardon his son, which were echoed by his White House spokeswoman and various media pundits, were never credible, and only a fool would have believed them. Surely Nate Silver is not so naïve, and I don’t know why he’s stamping his feet about the Hunter Biden pardon now, given that it was so predictable and, indeed, was predicted months ago by many commentators. But just in case Nate Silver or anyone else was previously under the mistaken impression that Joe Biden was honest, let me tell you a story about a truck driver from Pennsylvania.

One December afternoon in 1972, Curtis Dunn was driving a flatbed truck north on Delaware Route 7 near the village of Hockessin when a station wagon, heading west on Valley Road, suddenly pulled into the highway. There was no chance for the driver to stop, and the truck T-boned the station wagon, hurling it some 150 feet north along the highway. Nowadays, there is a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 7 and Valley Road, but in 1972, there was no signal — just stop signs for the traffic on Valley Road, and none for the traffic on the highway. Probably, the driver of the station wagon simply failed to look both ways at the stop sign, but that’s just speculation, because the driver was killed in the tragic accident. Her name was Neilia Biden.

The crash on Route 7 was investigated, and the truck driver was cleared of any wrongdoing; Neilia Biden was entirely at fault for the accident, which not only killed her, but also killed her 18-month-daughter, and injured her two sons. Despite this, however, Joe Biden repeatedly slandered Curtis Dunn, claiming that the truck driver was drunk (he “drank his lunch,” Biden said) at the time of the accident, which was clearly false. We know for a fact that Biden told this lie at least twice — in 2001 and 2007, because it was quoted in news reports at the time — but I suspect he threw this bogus story into his stump speech on many other occasions that didn’t get reported.

Don't even get me started on the police report being lost, that's bizarre but here is the story. pic.twitter.com/VcYdTuy7Z6

— Rosie Memos (@almostjingo) October 16, 2019

This accident haunted Curtis Dunn to the day he died in 1999. In 2009, after Biden was criticized for this slander, Curtis Dunn’s daughter Pamela Hamill said Biden called her to privately apologize, but another one of Dunn’s daughters, Deborah Criddle, later pointed out the obvious: Biden never publicly retracted that slander. You don’t defame someone in public and then clear your wrongdoing by apologizing in private.

What is so disturbing about this is that, as Jack Fowler wrote in 2019, the defamation of Curis Dunn was so unnecessary. What purpose could possibly be served by Biden’s lie about this innocent man? Was the idea to make Biden seem more sympathetic, by turning the truck driver into a villain? Or was Biden perhaps trying to exculpate his deceased wife, who died because of her own bad driving? We can merely speculate on the motives of Biden’s dishonesty, in the same way we can do no more than speculate why Nailia Biden didn’t look to her left before she drove past that stop sign into the path of a truck on the highway. But as to the fact of Biden’s lie, isn’t this one case — to ignore every other proven lie that Biden has ever told — enough to convince anyone that they should never trust Joe Biden to tell the truth about anything? If you would lie about how your own wife died, and in the process smear the reputation of an innocent man, how can you expect anyone to trust you?

So now we have the Hunter Biden pardon, and Nate Silver’s indignation because the White House “consistently lied” about it — and? AND? What’s your point here, Nate? As if the White House hasn’t been lying about everything, from the day Biden became president?

SUPERCUT!

Corporate media: Obviously Biden would never pardon Hunter pic.twitter.com/gJRhASCAUs

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) December 2, 2024

See, this is what’s really all about. The media, playing their part as “Democratic operatives with bylines,” voluntarily repeat whatever message they’re handed by their political overlords, and only complain about this arrangement when it results in embarrassment — when the lies are exposed so clearly that everybody can see that the media are unreliable narrators. The TV talking heads who repeatedly assured their audience that Joe Biden would not pardon Hunter have now been made to look like fools, and they’re angry about it. It was the same way after the June 27 debate exposed Biden as hopelessly senile. Suddenly, the same media personalities who had assured us that Biden was “sharp as a tack” began clamoring for him to step aside and let someone else be the Democratic presidential nominee. He had become a source of embarrassment, and in the process had exposed the media’s own dishonesty, and for that reason, Joe had to go.

Now, with the Hunter Biden pardon, the same media personalities are again exposed as untrustworthy, and thus are either trying to change the subject — “WHAT ABOUT TRUMP?” — or trying to convince us that they are shocked, shocked, to discover that Joe Biden is a liar.

Does anyone believe this play-acting? I hope not.

Amazon Warehouse Deals
Empire of Bones
Shoot The Devil – Martyr’s Militia
Cyber Monday Deals
Best Sellers – AutomotiveNew Releases – Automotive

Category: Joe Biden, Media Bias

In The Mailbox: 12.02.24

Posted on | December 2, 2024 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 12.02.24

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Thanks to everyone who bought stuff through my Amazon links last month!
Speaking of buying things, the Black Friday/Cyber Monday Based Books sale ends today. Go buy books from people that don’t hate you.
This post is being done before I head down to Las Vegas 1) because of the aforementioned Based Books Sale and B. to make sure it doesn’t get skipped/postponed because I’m too tired when I get to the Stratosphere tonight.
Silicon Valley et Hamas delenda sunt.

Apparently some dimwit at Jalopnik slammed Buc-ee’s over the weekend. Shaitan requite them for their evil.

OVER THE TRANSOM
357 Magnum: The 2024 Election Dissected by My Favorite Leftist, also Georgetown University Study – 1.67 Million Self-Defense Incidents Per Year
EBL:Crap Weasel Andrew McCabe does not like Kash Patel running the FBI, Kamala Harris still panhandling for donations, JOE BIDEN PARDONS HUNDER BIDEN, and Coup Happening in Syria?
Twitchy: Bill Maher Repeatedly Fact-Checks Startlingly Stupid Jane Fonda About All Things Far Left, DNC Finance Committee Member Calls For Audit Of Kamala’s Campaign, and New Damning Stat Comes Out About Kamala’s Election Results
Louder With Crowder: Geico Employees Forced To Undergo Mandatory Pronoun Training, Actress Sharon Stone Calls Americans “ignorant and arrogant” for Electing Trump, and “I’ll be the first one to call up ICE”: NY Governor claims she’s gonna deport illegals now
Vox Popoli: The Takeaway, Darkness in London, Never Sell Out, Color Revolution in Georgia, and Yes, Fake and Gay
Upstream Reviews: An Empire of Bones, Upstream for the Holidays, and Shoot The Devil – Martyr’s Militia
Cedar Sanderson: Sandwich Rules, and Get Stuffed
Stoic Observations: David Brooks Is Right, David Mayer & The Freysa Hack. Enemies, and Upserts into Redshift with AWS Glue
Bacon Time: 5k #8 – The Turkey Trot

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
CDR Salamander: Syria’s Jenga Tower
Dana Loesch: President Biden Pardons His Son,
Don Surber: Tale of two Cabinets
Michele Catalano: the week in joy
STUMP: Election Post-Post Mortem, The Week In Meep – Happy Advent 2024! and Movember 2024 – Heart Disease, Cardiac Arrest, & Winter Activities,

Category: Linkagery

Rule 5 Sunday: Cheerful Bikini

Posted on | December 2, 2024 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Almost sounds like some kind of top secret codeword, doesn’t it? It’s been a while, but I think I yoinked this from kbdabear on X.
Ceterum autem censeo Silicon Valley et Hamas delendam sunt.

ANIMAL MAGNETISM: Rule Five LUCA Friday, and the Saturday Gingermageddon.

EBL: Heretic, Clara Jumi Kang, Thanksgiving Night Girls With Guns, MAGA Trumpsgiving, Downfall of Democrats, Sweethearts, and Saturday Night Girls With Guns.

FLAPPR: Serious Matters & Unfolding Trends For 11.29

BACON TIME: Rule Five Butt Its Friday

Thanks to everyone for all the luscious links!

Amazon Warehouse Deals
Deals on Premium Beauty Products
Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop
Shop Sex & Sensuality Gifts

Category: Rule 5

The Dumbest Take on the 2024 Election

Posted on | December 1, 2024 | Comments Off on The Dumbest Take on the 2024 Election

A few weeks ago, I bought a copy of Thomas Sowell’s 1987 book A Conflict of Visions as a gift for a young man who was struggling with his political views. My intention is, once he’s finished reading that, to give him the second book of that Sowell trilogy, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (1995), which I consider the best analysis of liberalism as a psychological phenomenon.

You will never understand that Left until you come to grips with how their ultimate motivation is deeply rooted in their self-image, their belief in their own moral superiority to others. They view themselves as enlightened, and consider those who don’t share their politics to be benighted, ignorant, morally inferior. All of us see the stark irrationality of leftists, but Sowell explains the cause of this irrationality with a remarkable clarity — the aspect of “self-congratulation” involved, where liberals continually applaud themselves for their good intentions, without regard for the practical consequences of the policies they advocate.

This solipsistic factor in the liberal worldview — politics as an exercise in the display of one’s moral superiority — is profoundly relevant to Sarah Bernstein’s take on the 2024 election in the New York Times op-ed page. Like so many other Democrats, Bernstein has become fixated on exit-poll data about which demographic blocs voted for Donald Trump, and particularly on the pro-Trump preferences of young men:

Joe Rogan. Elon Musk. Representatives of bro culture are on the ascent, bringing with them an army of disaffected young men. But where did they come from? Many argue that a generation of men are resentful because they have fallen behind women in work and school. I believe this shift would not have been so destabilizing were it not for the fact that our society still has one glass-slippered foot in the world of Cinderella. . . .

Resisting the temptation to fisk the whole thing, I’ll just say that it’s difficult reading, because it’s so obnoxiously stupid. Merely by skimming through it, I’m sure my IQ decreased by a couple of points in the process. If you read the whole thing word-for-word, you’d be completely retarded by the time you finished. What Bernstein has done (and this kind of “analysis” is everywhere among liberal commentators the past few weeks) is to hyperfocus on a few facts as the basis of a syllogism:

Elon Musk bought Twitter;
Donald Trump did an interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast;
Trump beat Kamala Harris;
and
Exit polls showed young men favored Trump.

Ergo, “bro culture” is to blame for Kamala’s defeat.

Because I do not want to “smarten a chump,” I won’t explain in detail why this analysis is so wrong, but if you’re willing to risk retardation, you can read the entirety of Sarah Bernstein’s op-ed column and notice that she never once entertains the possibility that the Biden administration’s policies were unpopular because they were bad policies. Nor does it seem to cross Bernstein’s mind that perhaps Kamala Harris was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign. No, if Democrats lose an election, Bernstein automatically assumes, it’s because the voters are wrong.

But how is “dating culture” to blame? Bernstein explains:

[O]ur cultural narratives still reflect the idea that a woman’s status can be elevated by marrying a more successful man — and a man’s diminished by pairing with a more successful woman. Now that women are pulling ahead, the fairy tale has become increasingly unattainable. This development is causing both men and women to backslide to old gender stereotypes and creating a hostile division between them that provides fuel for the exploding manosphere.

Again, note her assumption that “the exploding manosphere” explains the election result. Would you care to guess what percentage of men under 30 voted for Donald Trump? Forty-nine percent, according to exit polls. However much the “manosphere” may be exploding, in other words, Kamala still got about half of the votes of under-30 men (assuming, that is, that exit polls are reliable). But never mind this, Bernstein is fixated on the idea that hypergamy (the general preference of women for higher-status males as romantic partners) is the ultimate explanation for why “bro culture” elected Donald Trump:

Recently, men’s and women’s fortunes have been trending in opposite directions. Women’s college enrollment first eclipsed men’s around 1980, but in the past two decades or so this gap has become a chasm. In 2022, men made up only 42 percent of 18-to-24-year-olds at four-year schools, and their graduation rates were lower than women’s as well. Since 2019, there have been more college-educated women in the work force than men. . . .
Women’s growing success, coupled with the belief that a male partner must always be more successful, gives the shrinking pool of more successful men tremendous power. . . .

All of this may be true, but how does it explain why Kamala lost the election? This is where Bernstein’s solipsism is starkly displayed. Because she is a 30-something single woman with high-status credentials (BA, Brown University; MFA, Hunter College), whose marital prospects are near-zero because of the relative shortage of high-status men, she engages in psychological projection, assuming that men are similarly motivated — politics is personal, and therefore . . . ?

According to Richard Reeves, whose book “Of Boys and Men” explores the reasons behind the growing gender achievement gap, heterosexual men who fall behind their female peers often experience a hit to both their romantic prospects and their sense of identity, leaving them searching for ways to affirm their manhood.
Enter the manosphere: a space occupied by new media podcasters and their favored politicians who win eyeballs, votes and dollars by selling a retrograde version of masculinity as the fix for men’s woes. In the final month of his presidential campaign, Mr. Trump skipped traditional outlets for a manosphere media blitz, which many credit for his 14-point lead among young men.

This is a non sequitur. The Trump campaign decided to focus on young men, and therefore aimed to reach that audience through podcasters who had large followings among young men. But it does not follow from this bit of campaign strategy that the young men who voted for Trump are more likely than those who voted for Harris to be suffering from a “gender achievement gap” that harms “their romantic prospects.” Are young men who listen to Joe Rogan more or less likely to be in romantic relationships compared to other young men? If Sarah Bernstein doesn’t have data to support such a claim — if she can’t show that Rogan’s young male listeners are low-status losers seeking to “affirm their manhood” — then her argument falls apart. Of course, she doesn’t even consider the possibility that she is the one dealing in “gender stereotypes” here.

Something else that never seems to occur to Sarah Bernstein is the role of government policy in producing the social problems affecting young men. Like most feminists, she takes it for granted that “women’s growing success” is something that just happened, rather than the result of any anti-male bias in government policy. She never even thinks to ask whether the declining percentage of men on college campuses may be due to the fact that college administrators treat men as persona non grata.

Bernstein was a student at Brown University at a time when a male student at Brown was denied due process after being falsely accused of rape. This happened during the same time-frame as the University of Virginia’s rape hoax, when the fictitious “Haven Monahan” was proclaimed to be conclusive proof that men had made university campuses into a hive of “rape culture.” Bernstein wishes us to forget all this, to deny the role that feminists have played in fomenting anti-male prejudice in the educational system, and in particular, making it hazardous for any college boy to seek romantic involvement with his female classmates, who have been empowered — as a matter of policy — to ruin his life in a campus kangaroo court system where he will be denied basic due process. Maybe this doesn’t have anything to do with who won this year’s election, or why young men listen to Joe Rogan’s podcast, but if a “gender achievement gap” played some role in any of this, why does Sarah Bernstein automatically assume that male grievances are illegitimate? There are other women (e.g., Christina Hoff Sommers) who don’t make such assumptions, who believe that public policy is implicated in the socioeconomic trends that Bernstein cites, but feminists denounce Sommers as a traitor to “women’s rights,” and she can’t speak on any university campus without provoking a riot.

Protesters start singing again about no-platforming fascists. @CHSommers looks at audience in dismay. pic.twitter.com/STw1DhYFqi

— Andy Ngo ???? (@MrAndyNgo) March 5, 2018

Intolerance of dissent has become a central tenet of liberalism during the past decade, which is why Sarah Bernstein is able to ramble on about “bro culture” without fear of contradiction, because the New York Times would never publish anyone who disagrees with Bernstein’s point of view. Anyone who doesn’t vote for Democrats is always wrong — they are bad people — according to the New York Times, and thus Bernstein is permitted to rant for 1,300 words about What’s Wrong With Men. And here is the stupid conclusion to her stupid column:

Over the past 60 years, as girls and women have fought their way into classrooms and boardrooms, society has expanded its idea of womanhood accordingly, yet our definition of manhood has failed to evolve alongside it.
Letting go of the male breadwinner norm is not an instant fix for our culture, but we can’t move forward without that step. After all, “breadwinner” is not only a limiting identity; it’s also a relative one. If we don’t release men from the expectation, any plan to help them regain lost ground will have to also ensure that women never catch up.
This zero-sum paradigm has always been a feature of Trumpism, which is all about keeping resources with the right kind of people. But if we are willing to reject the manosphere’s narrow ideas of masculinity, we will find that it is possible for both men and women to thrive at the same time — in work and in love. This future is ours to create. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s a fairy tale.

Whatever truth there may be in any of this, it is utterly useless in terms of explaining why Kamala lost and Trump won. And she engages in some wild projection, claiming that the “zero-sum paradigm” is central to “Trumpism,” ignoring the fact that feminism has always been rooted in such a paradigm, e.g., systematically destroying all-male institutions based on the theory that anything which is good for men is inherently bad for women (and, of course, vice-versa). Feminists like Sarah Bernstein are always oblivious to this element of their ideology, and will deny any malicious intent toward men in the same breath as they advocate anti-male policies, which can only be justified on the basis of an assumption that women will automatically benefit from any policy that harms men — abolish the Boy Scouts and make VMI go coed, because how dare we let men have anything of their own!

Being a liberal means never being called to account for your own hypocrisy, and Sarah Bernstein is confident that she can denounce “the breadwinner norm” as part of “old gender stereotypes” without anyone saying to her, “OK, you go first.” If hypergamy is so problematic, Ms. Bernstein, why don’t you go out there and find yourself a low-income uneducated husband? How about you stop dating college-educated guys with professional careers and instead start hooking up with working-class dudes or low-status nerds living in their mother’s basements?

Of course she’s not going to do any such thing because, in her feminist worldview, women are never the problem. If Donald Trump won the election, it’s because men — who are inherently bad — voted for Trump. And if contemporary dating culture is “messed up,” this can’t be blamed on anything that women are doing; no, men are to blame, because men are always to blame. This is how Sarah Bernstein thinks, and no argument will ever persuade her otherwise, mainly because she would never encounter such an argument, living as she does in a liberal cocoon, an echo chamber of ideology conformity where dissent is not permitted.

Trump’s election has provoked a state of cognitive dissonance among liberals, who are struggling to explain to themselves how something they deemed impossible could have become reality, thus leading to what Mark Halperin accurately predicted as “the greatest mental health crisis in the history of the country.” Sarah Bernstein is Patient Zero.

FMJRA 2.0: Not Thinking About Baseball For Once
A View From The Beach
EBL
357 Magnum

Category: Education, Election, Feminism, Intellectuals, New York Times

FMJRA 2.0: Roster Like A Hole

Posted on | December 1, 2024 | Comments Off on FMJRA 2.0: Roster Like A Hole

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Not looking forward to the impending 1973 draft in Pete’s league. After relying on Ken McMullen for so many years as my go-to third baseman, I have to find somebody else to fill in since Ken’s missing most of the season. Also, a bunch of my regulars from last season turned into pumpkins, so I need replacements for them, too, and I need to completely rebuild the bullpen after last season’s disaster. Going to be interesting.
Ceterum autem censeo Silicon Valley et Hamas delendam sunt.

omfg what happened to Super Jew?

Rule 5 Sunday: Nothing’s Fishy
Animal Magnetism
A View From The Beach
Flappr
EBL

In The Mailbox: 11.25.24
A View From The Beach
EBL
357 Magnum

The Agony of #NeverTrump: His Comeback Has Destroyed Their Prestige
A View From The Beach
EBL
357 Magnum

In The Mailbox: 11.27.24 (Afternoon Edition)
A View From The Beach
EBL
357 Magnum

In The Mailbox: 11.27.24 (Evening Edition)
A View From The Beach
EBL
357 Magnum

Happy Thanksgiving to All!
A View From The Beach
Flappr
EBL
357 Magnum

Democrats: Please Do Not Listen to Advice From This Attractive Young Woman
A View From The Beach
EBL

In The Mailbox: 11.29.24 (Belated Thanksgiving Turkey Coma Edition)
EBL
A View From The Beach
357 Magnum

In The Mailbox: 11.29.24 (Black Friday Evening Edition)
EBL
A View From The Beach
357 Magnum

Top linkers for the week ending November 29:

(tied) A View From The Beach & EBL (10)
357 Magnum (8)

Amazon Warehouse Deals
Pursue The Pennant
Cyber Monday Deals
Baseball Prospectus 2025

Category: FMJRA Award

Are Democrats Starting to Get a Clue?

Posted on | November 30, 2024 | 1 Comment

In case anybody missed the message yesterday, I am against Democrats figuring out why they lost the election. My preference is for them to engage in a lot of finger-pointing and misguided scapegoating, making excuses and engaging in self-serving rationalization, rather than learning their lessons and correcting their actual errors. We want Democrats to stay clueless, to keep drifting leftward into fringe irrelevance and permanent minority status. So this story is not good news:

Democrat senators are reportedly admitting their party’s failure on border security was part of the reason President-elect Donald Trump (R) won the 2024 election.
During a recent meeting, the senators discussed why their party lost the election, the Hill reported Friday. . . .
One Democrat senator said, “We destroyed ourselves on the immigration issue in ways that were entirely predictable and entirely manageable. We utterly mismanaged that issue, including our Democratic caucus here.” . . .
According to the Hill, Democrat lawmakers said they lost a lot of votes because of how their party handled border issues and they want to figure out why Vice President Kamala Harris (D), who lost to Trump, failed to secure the seven battleground states:

“We need to look at exactly what happened. We know we lost men, we lost Hispanics, we lost women. We’re not connecting with people, but also it’s part of the pendulum swinging” back to the right and “Trump appealing to people in ways” that Harris couldn’t, said a third Democratic senator who requested anonymity to comment on internal Senate Democratic Caucus discussions about what went wrong.
This lawmaker said social media platforms such as X — formerly known as Twitter — and TikTok spread Trump’s message more effectively than Biden’s or Harris’s.

So, it’s bad news that Democrats realize they “utterly mismanaged” the immigration issue — we’d prefer them to remain oblivious, of course — but at the same time, we can take consolation that they’re still trying to frame this as a “message” failure, rather than actually admitting Democrats are wrong in terms of the underlying policy question.

We don’t want Democrats to be right on immigration. We want them to keep singing from the oper-borders hymnal, openly espousing their real preferences — Democraats love foreigners, because Democrats hate Americans. “The Great Replacement” is not a right-wing conspiracy theory, it is the actual policy of the Democratic Party. And please, Democrats, don’t ever change. Keep on keeping on, and we will keep voting against you, and you will never win another election.