President Biden spoke in the Rose Garden yesterday. I still haven’t watched his speech and I’m not going to. I saw someone say that he sounded fine and why did the party even make him drop out of the race. As I said previously, that will be one of the biggest political mysteries/what-ifs in modern American political history. What would have happened if Democrats had Biden’s back and they held strong with him, in the same way Republicans held strong and dumb for Trump for the past nine years? What if Democrats had a white man on top of the ticket, the same white man who is the only person to ever beat Trump? Well, there’s been a blizzard of postmortems from Democrats since Election Day, most of which are just idiotic, too idiotic to even amplify. But I did find this analysis interesting, from a former Biden staffer:

Barack Obama has been blamed for the Democrats’ election loss after “pushing” Joe Biden out of the white house. The outgoing president believes he was forced to step down from the race to challenge Donald Trump by Mr Obama, sources say.

“There is no singular reason why we lost, but a big reason is because the Obama advisers publicly encouraged Democratic infighting to push Joe Biden out, didn’t even want Kamala Harris as the nominee, and then signed up as the saviours of the campaign only to run outdated Obama-era playbooks for a candidate that wasn’t Obama,” a former Biden staffer told the Politico news website.

There is a sense that Mr Obama, who once brokered a deal to install Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate to face Mr Trump in 2016, has contributed to their party’s last two defeats, Mr Biden’s aides also told CNN. Mr Obama started quietly manoeuvring to pressure Mr Biden to drop his bid for a second term in office earlier this year amid questions over the president’s mental fitness. Sources said Mr Biden’s aides feel this was the wrong decision, just as when Mr Obama pushed for Mrs Clinton to be given the Democratic nomination.

Inside the Biden camp, there is now a feeling the president would have had a better chance of winning over white, working class voters, who ultimately opted for Mr Trump over Ms Harris.

[From The Telegraph]

I covered this as it unfolded over the summer – Obama and Obama’s former staffers were a huge part of the intraparty coup and the move to push Biden out of the race. Once Biden did drop out, Obama refused to endorse Kamala Harris for days until Democrats publicly called him out for his lack of support for both Biden and Harris. In those awful weeks in July, Obama could have calmed a lot of nerves across the board as a party elder, but instead he let it be known that he thought Biden should drop out and that Democrats needed a mini-primary, rather than supporting Kamala Harris. In the midst of all of that, Obama centered himself and told everyone that he saw himself as the uniter of the party, just as VP Harris was literally uniting the party behind her.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been seen! I thought the Mail, the Sun, the Times and the Express all insisted that Meghan and Harry had separated and that they would never be seen together again? You mean to tell me that was all projection because a different royal couple has been largely separated for years? Weird. Anyway, Harry and Meghan sent in a video message to Colombia’s “inaugural Global Ministerial Conference on Violence Against Children.” As many will remember, one of the reasons for H&M’s trip to Colombia was to highlight children’s issues, specifically with regards to children’s access to dangerous online spaces. That’s why the Sussexes were invited to speak at this conference:

Today, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle appeared in a new video message at the inaugural Global Ministerial Conference on Violence Against Children in Colombia. It was the first joint appearance the Sussexes have carried out since their trip to the country in August.

In the video, the Sussexes spoke about a cause that is near and dear to them: Digital violence against children. For the address, which appeared to be filmed in California, the couple coordinated in dark blazers, accessorizing with meaningful poppy pins. (Every November, British royals honor fallen troops by wearing a crimson poppy.) Meghan’s blazer appears to be the Parker Wool Crepe Jacket from Ralph Lauren.

“The first ever ministerial conference on ending violence against children comes at a crucial time, and quite frankly, should not be required,” Harry began, “but, here we are. We are at a crossroads where the urgency to reassess and redefine our approach to protecting children has become increasingly evident. While the necessity has always been apparent, it is now time to translate that awareness into meaningful action.”

The Duchess of Sussex continued, “My husband and I recognize today’s reality is marked by greater connectivity and advanced technology, which of course has many positives, but which also compels us to better understand how digital violence against children is manifesting itself in this age. At the Archewell Foundation, we engage with young people, families, and experts worldwide learning how every aspect of a child’s life—from their livelihood to their physical and mental wellbeing—now operate within an online economy that has the power to both shape, and misshape, our connections.”

The Sussexes then spoke about launching the Parents’ Network, which Harry described as “a support network for families dealing with online harm. Through trauma-informed practices, we help parents come together to forge strong bonds, offering healing support through community with the ultimate goal of prioritizing safety at the source.” Meghan added that the stories of the parents from the Parents’ Network “have helped us to understand that as we better equip parents and caregivers, and work to establish norms around the use of and access to technology as they relate to preventing violence, we must also commit to establishing standards that prioritize children’s safety.”

Prince Harry concluded their video message with a call to action: “Young people are calling for help. Families are desperately seeking support. They are urging us to leverage the resources in this room to confront the new reality our youth are facing. We look forward to the actions and outcomes of the discussions that will take place here in Colombia, and are grateful for the leadership, expertise, and testimonies that will come together in this room to address all forms of violence targeting the most vulnerable in our world.” Meghan ended by sharing, “Thank you again for your commitment to preventing violence against children, both offline and online. Together, we can harness this moment to drive lasting change.”

[From Town & Country]

Well done – just by sending in this video, they’ve drawn more attention to what Colombia is trying to do and drawn more attention to the larger issue of children’s health in regards to online spaces. I was like “why are they wearing poppies, this issue has nothing to do with Remembrance?” But then I remembered that British royals tend to wear poppy pins throughout the month of November, regardless of what they’re doing. It’s interesting that Meghan chose to wear her poppy pin too.

“Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex applauded the efforts of those actively addressing this critical issue and stressed the importance of tackling digital violence to prioritize children’s safety in today’s connected world.” pic.twitter.com/hWK0nKGHPq

— R.S. Locke / Royal Suitor (@royal_suitor) November 7, 2024

Screencap courtesy of video, additional photos courtesy of Backgrid and Cover Images.

Cillian Murphy is currently promoting Tim Mielants’s Small Things Like These. Cillian produced it, and he asked Matt Damon and Ben Affleck’s Artists Equity to step in as producers as well (they agreed). The film is adapted from a book of the same name, a fictional story based on the real horrors of Ireland in the 1980s – the Magdalene Laundries and the “fallen women,” the pregnant girls and women who were kidnapped and abused by the Catholic Church. Cillian recently spoke to the Irish Times and it got very personal about how horrible Ireland was forty years ago:

Cillian on the horrors of Ireland in the 1980s: “Let’s put it into perspective. It’s 1984 going into 1985. In 1984 you had the Kerry babies. In 1985 you had the moving statues. No abortion. No divorce. I think you were just able to get condoms, maybe by prescription. But it’s like the f**king dark ages compared to now. The film deliberately is trying to blur the lines. When you look at it, it could be the 1950s in many ways….you hear Come on Eileen and you think, ‘We’re in the 1980s.’ But a lot had remained the same since the 1950s. I have talked to my parents about it. We were young, obviously. I was 11 or something. We were kids, but it was a totally different time. I think when people call this a historical drama it seems bizarre. But it really does feel like another country.”

How women were viewed back then: “My mum told me this amazing expression. She said that, when she was growing up, there was this expression, ‘Lipstick on the lips, dust on the shelf.’” Good Lord. Meaning, presumably, that the sort of woman who would wear make-up wouldn’t clean the house? “So think about that. If that was something people would say, that shows you how women were viewed. That sort of stuff, it’s just mind-blowing.”

Why Cillian moved his family back to Ireland after living in London for years: “People ask me that question a lot, and I’m sure it’s the same for you. We came back for reasons that were about the kids and being near their grandparents. About having a quieter life. We weren’t motivated by politics or what’s happening socially in Ireland. We left pre-Brexit, actually. It was good timing. It worked out. It feels like an Irish story. You move away and you learn about yourself. You find yourself in London or New York. You do what you want to do and then you come home. It seems to be just a very common Irish narrative.” But it wasn’t always that common. “Oh, yeah. In the world of this movie all the young people are leaving, and they ain’t coming back.”

[From The Irish Times]

Some of what Murphy speaks about is incredibly recent – abortion wasn’t legalized in Ireland until 2018. Divorce wasn’t allowed/legalized until 1995. It was 1985 before regular people could buy condoms without a prescription. I had never heard of the Kerry Babies, but I looked it up and it’s a horrific story. All of it has happened within Cillian’s lifetime and he’s not that old.

Anyway, this interview got a lot of attention when the Irish Pro Life Campaign made a big statement slamming Cillian for… supporting abortion and reproductive choice. It’s just as crazy as the anti-choice sh-t we get here in America – you would think that the Irish anti-choice campaigns would actually sit back and say “you know what, given the Church’s catastrophic history in Ireland, we should just shut our mouths.”

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

Daniel Craig on who will replace him as James Bond: “I don’t care.” [Socialite Life]
Billy Zane’s transformation into Marlon Brando is incredible. [LaineyGossip]
Seven states passed pro-choice amendments. [Jezebel]
An update on Zach Bryan & Briana Chickenfry. [Pajiba]
People share their thoughts on the election. [Buzzfeed]
It’s hilarious that JJ mixed up Prince William in their headline (they’ll probably fix it, but they call him “Prince Harry” in the original headline). [JustJared]
Which celebrities will leave the country? [Hollywood Life]
Billy Dee Williams was on Guiding Light? [Seriously OMG]
Demi Moore wore Chanel! [RCFA]
Tom Ford’s Flordia real estate swaps. [OMG Blog]

Two Fridays before the election, the Washington Post announced that they would not endorse a presidential candidate. As it turns out, WaPo’s editorial board had a Kamala Harris endorsement locked and loaded, but WaPo owner Jeff Bezos killed the endorsement, as did his hand-picked Murdoch-lackey CEO Will Lewis. Bezos tried to defend the choice, but he sounded like a f–king a–hole. Well, look who finally endorsed Donald Trump:

Big congratulations to our 45th and now 47th President on an extraordinary political comeback and decisive victory. No nation has bigger opportunities. Wishing @realDonaldTrump all success in leading and uniting the America we all love.

— Jeff Bezos (@JeffBezos) November 6, 2024

I saw someone mention that Bezos never publicly congratulated Joe Biden on his victory in 2020, so I spent a few minutes looking through Bezos’ Twitter feed. His last tweet in 2020 was in February of that year, regarding a meeting with Emmanuel Macron. Bezos stayed publicly silent throughout the 2020 election, he didn’t congratulate President Biden at any point, and he also stayed silent about the January 6th insurrection. From Feb. 2020 through September 2021, Bezos didn’t tweet at all. His Sept. 2021 tweet was congratulating Elon Musk and SpaceX. Then in 2022, Bezos is suddenly and publicly hyper-critical of Pres. Biden’s economic policies. Yeah… the reason why Bezos killed the Post’s endorsement was because he, the billionaire owner of the Washington Post, did not want Kamala Harris to win. It was that simple. The billionaires – all of whom got richer in the Biden economy – all decided that it wasn’t enough that they got richer, they wanted the middle class to suffer under Donald Trump. Congrats to Trump’s oligarchs, they got it done.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Accusations and recriminations are already ringing out throughout the Democratic Party. How did Kamala Harris lose this demographic or that demographic, why did millions of white women still vote for Donald Trump, why did Trump make such inroads with the Latino vote? One of the most startling post-mortems on the election is the analysis of the “Gen Z vote” though. Democrats have always, always made direct appeals to younger voters with the implicit understanding that younger people are always going to skew more liberal than their parents and grandparents. Not Gen Z. Young white men aged 18-29 voted for Donald Trump in droves. As it turns out, an astonishing number of white men under 30 are basically Hitler Youth, radicalized by Joe Rogan and internet fascists.

Donald Trump and his authoritarian vision for the country swept to power on Tuesday. While several demographics played into the Republican takeover, a survey of 120,000 voters conducted by the Associated Press found that young men played a critical role in his win, voting decisively for the MAGA leader.

Men between the ages of 18 and 29 turned away from Democrats in droves, shattering illusions that Gen Z—a cohort that statistically reads fewer books, comprehends less information, and predominantly gets their news from social media—skews more progressive than previous generations. The key demographic of young men has shifted nearly 30 points to the right since 2020, when they voted for President Joe Biden by a margin of 15 percent, according to the AP.

Millennial men also continued the growing trend of deference toward Trump at the ballot box. In 2020, men between the ages of 24 and 39 voted for President Joe Biden by a margin of 20 percentage points, according to data from the Pew Research Center. Even that result was a radical shift from the demographic’s politics four years earlier, an increase of eight percentage points in Trump’s favor from 2016.

[From The New Republic]

A 30-point swing in four years is fundamentally insane. While Kamala Harris won other youth demographics, she didn’t win by the kinds of margins she expected to, especially given the campaign’s very youth-oriented social media and campaign style:

Despite the Brat Summer hype, all the clever and demure posts from KamalaHQ, and the promise of generational change, in the end it turned out that Gen Z wasn’t very interested in Kamala Harris. It became clear early enough on Tuesday evening, when the exit polls arrived and certain counties were going sideways for Democrats, that Harris was underperforming old man Joe Biden’s 2020 numbers with younger voters.

Back then, Biden won 18-29 year olds by a massive 25-point margin. Harris won them by only 13 points. Put bluntly, her performance among young voters was an abject disaster for Democrats and a troubling omen for the party’s political future. The youth gender gap that was supposed to favor Harris—with an army of young women showing up under the battle flag of abortion rights—never really materialized. Yes, Harris won young women by 20 points, but she was supposed to do better: The gold standard Harvard Youth Poll had her winning those women by 30 points just a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, Donald Trump won young men by 10 points, flipping them from Biden. And for the first time in decades, Republicans won young white voters outright.

The results confirmed what I’ve been seeing all year in my reporting, for Puck and Snapchat: Trump and Republicans have made real inroads with Gen Z. But not just with the “Trump bros,” who have occupied so much of the media conversation, and not just by hanging out in the manosphere talking to Joe Rogan and Theo Von. Sure, young white dudes broke for Trump. But Harris also underperformed with almost every kind of young person: white women, Black voters, and young Latinos, who went for Harris by only 6 points. Harris even ran behind Biden in cities and counties that are home to big college towns, at the University of Wisconsin, at Penn State, at East Carolina, at the University of Georgia, and so on.

[From Puck]

Puck goes on to say that young people’s biggest concern was “the economy,” rather than social and cultural issues which usually drive the youth vote. I don’t buy that, but whatever. I’ll admit that I’m f–king shocked by these demographic shifts. As an old Xennial, I thought that young women would be radicalized post-Dobbs, radicalized by the cultural misogyny that permeates through MAGAland. I thought that younger men would either stay unengaged, or they would follow their female generational peers. I was wrong, and the Harris campaign was wrong.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

Here are photos of Day 3 and Day 4 of Prince William’s big, keen trip to South Africa. I have no idea who is paying attention to this at all, even within the British media. Thankfully, today is William’s final day in South Africa, and last night was the big Earthshot Prize ceremony in Cape Town. Heidi Klum was there, so was Nina Dobrev. I honestly wonder if Eartshot pays appearance fees to celebrities for coming out. I feel pretty confident that Earthshot picks up the celebrity guests’ travel costs and accommodations. Which begs the question – why are they wasting all of that money just to have some “celebrities” at these stupid events?

Anyway, unlike the previous Earthshot Prize ceremonies, William didn’t wear a tuxedo or any kind of formalwear indicating that this was an evening event. He wore a vintage blazer from a local store (in London, I guess) and he wore sustainable sneakers which are “zero-plastic and biodegradable.” I get that William is making a point to highlight sustainable men’s fashion, but it also looks like he didn’t care enough to get dressed up for the one time Earthshot was held in an African country. The women are in formalwear – William is in sneakers.

The Prince of Wales, 42, was the guest of honor at the awards night in Cape Town, South Africa on Nov. 6. It was the focal point of his four days in South Africa, which began on Monday, Nov. 4 and conclude on Thursday, Nov. 7.

“I’m feeling good. I can’t quite believe we’re here, fourth year, in Africa,” Prince William said on the green carpet. “But I’m really pleased because I’ve been looking forward to an Africa Earthshot for a long time. I love the continent, and I’m so pleased we’ve managed to get here to Africa.”

“Africa’s been a big part of my life since I’ve been a young boy, since I first came to Africa,” he continued. “I felt really connected to the place spiritually and kind of from an environmental and people point. And every time I come here I get a warm welcome. Every time I come here I can be myself and get away from all the stuff that happens in my normal life. And so it’s a really special place, a home from home for me.”

[From People]

He’s copying Harry, etc. I find it interesting that Harry has spent so much time on the ground in Lesotho and Zimbabwe, not only working but building friendships and a surrogate family. And then William just… pops into Jecca Craig’s estate in Kenya every three years or so and that’s about it.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

George Clooney wrote his now-infamous New York Times editorial in July, wherein he insulted President Biden for being too old and said that Biden should step aside and the Democrats should pass over the sitting vice president and hold a mini-primary before the convention. Clooney’s delusion became THE talking point for many Democratic donors as they dreamt of installing someone like Wes Moore or Mark Kelly as the nominee with zero money and zero credibility with average Democratic voters nationwide. Many elected Democrats publicly echoed Clooney’s words, including Nancy Pelosi and a dozen senators. Then, eleven days later, Biden dropped out and endorsed Kamala Harris, and the party quickly coalesced behind her and she raised a billion dollars. When Clooney was in Venice, he was asked about his NYT op-ed, and he said that “none of that is going to be remembered.” Guess who remembered? Everyone.

Democratic voters would like a quick word with movie star George Clooney. Clooney, the movie star whose New York Times editorial heralded the ouster of President Joe Biden from the 2024 presidential race, was the subject of some frustration after former President Donald Trump secured the nation’s highest office.

“Someone bring me George Clooney,” wrote altNOAA, the veteran-led political commentator group launched in response to the Trump administration’s so-called “gag order” on the Environmental Protection Agency. “We need to have a… talk.”

Clooney was among a slew of high-profile Americans who urged Biden to walk away from the race after his lone debate against Trump raised concerns about the 81-year-old’s ability to defeat the MAGA Republican.

Biden later claimed he had a cold, but Democratic critics such as Clooney argued that was beside the point considering the stakes if he continued — and what he said was the likelihood that another candidate could easily defeat Trump.

“We’re all so terrified by the prospect of a second Trump term that we’ve opted to ignore every warning sign,” Clooney wrote. “All of the scary stories that we’re being told about what would happen next are simply not true. In all likelihood, the money in the Biden-Harris coffers could go to help elect the presidential ticket and other Democrats.”

[From Raw Story]

The tweets are there, the outrage is there. It will be one of the great political unknowns in American history, “what if Democrats hadn’t been such bedwetters and stayed in lockstep behind an enormously successful president?” While Biden’s approval rate was very low six months ago or whatever, I maintain that most people were not paying attention to Biden or anything else before Democratic turncoats began screaming about his age. Democrats have to reckon with how they mishandled all of that, because they looked disorganized and incredibly eager to stab Biden in the back. But yeah… Clooney can f–k all the way off.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Bradley Whitford is a big Democrat and Democratic activist. He did appearances and speeches for the Harris-Walz campaign, and he and his old coworkers from The West Wing reunited to do some stuff to support the Democratic Party. Whitford happened to be in Washington DC on Wednesday, and he spoke to the Independent outside of the White House just hours after the election was called for Donald Trump:

Actor Bradley Whitford from The West Wing and The Handmaid’s Tale wants Democrats to avoid falling into “despair” after Donald Trump’s second victory, he told The Independent in an exclusive interview. Whitford, known for his Emmy-winning West Wing performance as the firebrand political strategist Josh Lyman, said he was surprised by Trump’s decisive win. The 65-year-old has long been a Democratic ally, and most recently spoke at a Harris rally in Wisconsin on October 22.

“I absolutely thought we were going to win,” Whitford told The Independent outside the White House on Wednesday afternoon, less than 12 hours after Donald Trump secured his second term. “I thought it was going to be closer. But whenever any of my friends asked me, I would end it with, ‘You can never underestimate how you know, racist and sexist this country is.’”

Whitford then called on Democrats to take action in response to their historic losses this Election Day.

“Despair is a luxury our children cannot afford, and action is the antidote to despair, and we will continue the fight to hold this country up to its spectacular, unfulfilled aspiration,” Whitford said.

“Cynicism and despair is what they want you to feel, and despair is a luxury that the future can’t afford,” he added.

When The Independent asked what he would tell Trump if given the chance, Whitford took a beat to consider his answer. “Blend your makeup,” he said with a laugh.

Whitford also shared a 40-year-old anecdote about the first time he learned of Trump. “My first awareness of Donald Trump: I went to college, and then I went to acting school in New York,” Whitford told The Independent. “And when I got to acting school, there were some fourth-year guys who were really upset, because they’d spent the summer working for this real estate guy who had never paid them. They had confronted him — this is 1981 — and he said, ‘What are you going to do? Going to sue me? You know, you’re effing actors.’ It is completely bewildering to me, the cult that has formed around a narcissist like this, the worst person in show business, and that’s a tough category,” Whitford concluded.

[From The Independent]

“Cynicism and despair is what they want you to feel, and despair is a luxury that the future can’t afford.” I’m seeing a lot of white Democrats talk this way in the wake of Trump’s victory. They’re trying to get the band back together and rally the Resistance. It’s hard to see a path forward this time around, but I understand the urge to feel like doing something, anything. “You can never underestimate how you know, racist and sexist this country is.” It’s true. It’s crazy that Barack Obama won two times so handily, so comprehensively, but in some sense, everything that’s happened post-Obama has been a national backlash to the sheer fact that we had a Black president. I would also argue that in 2024, this is more about the sheer hatred of women. But racism played a part too.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

President Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith in November 2022. Smith was given the assignment of overseeing and prosecuting the two federal cases against Donald Trump. One case for inciting the January 6th insurrection, and one case for the theft of highly-classified documents from the White House. The cases have been handled methodically and slow-walked by the courts, with the implicit understanding that if Trump lost the election, the prosecutions would have an easier path to move forward. Well, now that Trump has won, guess what’s happening with the federal cases?

Donald Trump started this year fighting two federal prosecutions that threatened to send him to prison. But he will end it free and clear of his most significant criminal legal problems. With his resounding victory at the polls, and a longstanding Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president, the key question is not if, but when, prosecutors move to dismiss or delay his federal election interference case in Washington, D.C.

Trump recently said he would fire special counsel Jack Smith “within two seconds” after he returned to the White House. Now, that won’t be necessary to bring his federal criminal troubles to an end.

Smith is taking steps to end both federal cases against Trump before the president-elect takes office, according to a source familiar with the Justice Department deliberations.

A grand jury in Washington indicted Trump this year on four felony charges in connection with his effort to cling to power in 2020, culminating in the violent siege on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Judge Tanya Chutkan had set a trial date for March 2024, but that date came and went, after the Supreme Court accepted the case and ultimately handed Trump significant immunity from prosecution for official actions he took in the White House. The judge is just now beginning to consider what parts of the prosecution’s case amount to official acts, and which are private conduct of a person seeking rather than holding office.

The Justice Department has appealed in a separate criminal case against Trump that accuses the former president of hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort and refusing to the return them to the FBI. Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by Trump, dismissed the documents case on July 15, the first day of the Republican National Convention this year, reasoning that the way the special counsel had been appointed violates the Constitution. The Justice Department has been seeking review by a higher court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

[From NPR]

NPR points out that it’s unlikely that Trump will even need to fire Smith on Day 1, because Smith will follow the legal precedent that sitting presidents can’t face federal prosecution. NPR also notes that the insurrection case will likely be folded up first, but the classified documents case is trickier because Smith is also prosecuting two other defendants – Trump’s aide and the property manager at Mar-a-Lago. Are we ready to have a conversation about how Merrick Garland f–ked up by not appointing a special counsel a lot sooner?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.