I came around somewhat on Allan Lichtman, who was running around on many a media outlet with his “keys to the White House” presidential forecast — because watching his by-weekly streams he did out in the equivocation of “I am not all-knowing, I could be wrong.”. The problems of “the map is not the terrain” And more subjectivity than he wants to admit (what is a “foreign policy failure?”. Republicans were selling the Afghanistan withdraw as such, even though it is mostly just the case that you can see why President Trump scheduled it for the after the election. ) And within this I spotted one aside that I wanted to tack back on it it came to a Trump win, “something may be different and have changed than with every election since 1860.  If it is, I think I know what it may be — and I will get there if it happens.”. The tone goes at odds with this weird pile of YouTube clickbait images I was seeing for ” How Trump destroyed leftist’s career” (Never mind his fame of the moment came from predicting Trump winning in 2016).  (Incidentally, he predicted Gore winning in 2000, and sticks by that as accurate).  And “Lichtman Loses It” — though his election night feed showed nothing much off kilter — but it is where everyone gets “DESTROYED” or “Evisorated!!!!”.  His answer on why his “keys” failed and what “is different” — a broken scattershot news media and this is the first instance where the incumbent party trashed their incumbent president.  I do have an idea that if he were defining his terms from the perspective of after this presidential election and looking back at all the rest as opposed to right after Reagan, he might have a different definition for “Charisma” — understandably, Trump does not qualify ala broadly popular Reagan or Kennedy or Roosevelts — but if examining what it is that propels votes to him absent specifics in policy or politics, the thing they share along with war hero Eisenhower — is that they gobble up all the attention and exhaust the ability for an opponent to get a word in edgewise – – you have to think these things through on the particulars of causes and effects.

I listened to the “pod save America” “exit”/”autopsy” interview with two managers of the Harris campaign, and trying to digest meaning from it I may listen over it again. I have never listened to this one before — am familiar with its existence — only so much “dead center of the Democratic Party talk” I want to bother with. Overall in the weird electioneering a number of moments where I was thinking “I don’t think this is effective but I hope it is” (the “women winking at each other in the voting booth passing off their domineering husbands” “no one needs to know” ads which in terms of personal identities — you are putting people’s marriages on trial here) and things that depress me But no one else (noted the laste election eve campaign event in Philly. Ricky Martin was on stage. Opra came by. Mock Trump and his b-list celebrity has been but we are back in the same boat of micro-targeting no longer a -listers, whoever a-listers are these days.)

Looking over I see the next episode and something bothersome to possibly only me. The descriptor has “the hard questions about where the Democratic Party needs to go from here, the liberal media landscape, what the Harris campaign told us about why they lost, and yes, a jobs program for incels.”. Incel. Do words have any meaning anymore, because I have a feeling this in neither capturing either the narrow definitions first tossed out in a hyper-online subculture, maybe expanded to a still reasonably narrow definition of the literal oxymoron “involuntary celibate”. Here it seems to wash away into “non college educated man” broadly speaking, and taking in all assumptions of a broad sexual frustration. I suppose since the term “woke” had shifted some definition and then collapsed by broad use — and is now useless, the word “incel” might as well go the same route.