Thank you for posting this critical commentary. I'm sharing this everywhere.... I wish the corporate news media would have printed all of your articles months ago, in an ongoing series of necessary public information. Sadly, they all chose to ignore this critical information and "sane wash" the vitriol and demented ideology of the orange Mussolini. I can only hope that he doesn't win the Electoral College. It's terrifying to consider another presidency with that individual in the White House. 😞
That event is the "clowns" and "circuses" thing, as in if you want a circus expect clowns and vice versa. Except that it's deadly serious and not entertaining but sickening. Vote Blue. I already did by mail. "Hope is the thing with feathers..." (Dickinson)
Dr Lee, i am a little disappointed by some of things you mentioned. And the gist of these things itself represent the bankruptcy of current political system. You say that Dem Party should've nominated someone like Michelle Obama who had wider popular lead margin. Dr Lee, popularity of candidate cannot substitute for competence and expertise that is required from a leader. This is precisely the crisis of today's democracy and its celebrity culture where the focus is on POPULARITY, POPULAR appeal of a candidate rather than his/her actual substantive leadership qualities (experience, wisdom in areas of economics-science-history, intellectual capacity, philosophical thinking etc).
Today's politics has become a Kayfabe, celebrity culture and reality TV where the POPULAR appeal is the only thing that matters. That itself is partly responsible for rise of Trump.
Regarding Kamala Harris. I am no fan of Harris or Biden or any politician for that matter. I see significant flaws in all of them. But they are alternate to Donald Trump who i believe is the Armageddon candidate, a great threat to civilization. I don't expect any great things from Kamala Harris but she's a predictable conventional politician which is in contrast to highly unpredictable erratic maniacal Trump who will unleash chaos.
Dr Lee, Taylow Swift is a very popular person but that doesn't mean she should be elected President. Dr Lee, you have maintained the message that "expertise should be valued". But paradoxically you also suggest that political candidate should be selected on "popularity".
I also like to point out that from my understanding of US politics. After Biden's retirement, Harris was a sensible and obvious choice. An open convention would've been a disaster. A cacophony that would've upended the Dem Party and given 2024 elections to Trump on a platter. I don't have a high opinion of Harris but that matters little in current setup of things where defeating Trump is a primary objective. Second guessing choice of Harris at this time is pointless.
Thanks for this incisive comment. I was a bit puzzled by the remarks about Michelle Obama as a better or more electable candidate. An interesting suggestion, and when she is speaking, one cannot help but be admiring and inspired. Her addresses have been among the most memorable of the campaign, and she has always been a powerful orator over the years. Taking nothing from Mrs. Obama, but I have been pleasantly surprised by how inspired and laser-focused Harris has been from day one of this campaign. Her "retail" political skill set has been impressive and has daily improved; though it has not been without some stumbles and fall-back replies, she has been rising to the moment for a couple of years, most notably as a spokesperson for reproductive rights post-Dobbs (and maybe other things I haven't seen). There were many practical reasons to have chosen her having to do with her presence as the VP on the ticket, her experience in the Senate, and the ability for Biden to bequeath her the sizeable war chest of money that had accumulated. As a woman of color, this also fit in with the aspirational goals of the party and the need for a strong contrast to what MAGA was offering -- and what Dems had been offering. The collapse of Biden as a viable candidate had not been evident to me after the SOTU address, but this was not what we saw at the debate. That event created perhaps the greatest crisis in American politics in my lifetime, paralleled perhaps only by LBJ's resignation from the campaign of 1968 -- an instructive example. I agree with you that a "brokered convention" would have been a messy and divisive disaster, as well as leaving the gap of over a month without a candidate from Biden's withdrawal until the DNC. Harris made a lot of sense and she was able to step in seamlessly. I think it "cauterized the wound" in a quick and effective way, and she has surpassed expectations with her energy, enthusiasm, hopefulness, warmth, intelligence, and strength. All that being said, I am not a huge "fan" nor have I had a religious conversion. I just think she has done a remarkable job to this point, and would be, as you say, a solid & conventional sort of president who could do the work of the American people. The alternative is not acceptable, to understate the obvious. Actually, I think Michelle Obama would not have been a good choice because of the connection to her husband -- just as Hillary carried much historical baggage for Bill Clinton (and herself) that incited the opposition. She was virtually nominated by the Left the day after Obama's 2012 victory and I was shaking my head even then. Foreclosing on her as the one and only candidate for a long time was a mistake that cost the country dearly. So, in a way, I am wondering if Mrs. Obama as candidate might have incited a similar backlash in some parts of the electorate -- for reasons that are distasteful and dumb, of course, but she would not have necessarily been "the most popular" candidate perhaps. Besides, I think she has said she is not interested in politics as a vocation, though she could easily get elected to the House or Senate, take a cabinet post, be an ambassador, etc. if she had the interest. I don't see why it was necessary for Dr. Lee to bring up the Michelle Obama issue at this late date, and I rarely quibble with anything Dr. Lee has said for many years. It is like when people start second-guessing Tim Walz as the VP pick instead of Josh Shapiro. There were reasons to pick Walz and he has mostly proven to be a good choice who has nicely balanced the ticket. He brought a folksy-old school flavor to counter the vapid madness of Trump/Vance. Shapiro was maybe one attorney too many, and he had some controversial opinions he had voiced, etc., though himself a powerful, charismatic figure. Yes, he might have put PA in the bag, but might have turned off other demographics, too. Harris went with her gut and it was a very good choice. I feel they have put Walz maybe too much in the background at this point, he has a very warm, witty, common-sense style and occasional wisdom that has added much.
Your main point, though, was about popularity and I think this was where you hit home for me. Popularity, or the capacity to become even-more popular, is an important trait for a candidate. They have to be likeable, they have to grow on people, they have to inspire people, they have to have substance, and they have to have the feeling of destiny attached to them. Sometimes it helps if they play the saxophone or can crack a good joke. Being a strong orator is important but not always the key thing. Looks are not the key thing. They have to be able to draw large and diverse groups of people to them. That is popularity, I suppose. But not the kind of crass, faux-opulence, grandiosity, viciousness, corruption, and diffuse manic spray of Donald Trump. How THAT got to be popular beyond tabloids and TV is beyond me. Clearly, he has revealed the depths of his psychopathy over time and yet this has NOT offended tens of millions of people. It is a kind of "dark popularity" that also seems to have a sense of destiny to it that these crowds not only like, but worship. Their worship makes them blind, or perhaps it just clouds their vision and better judgment. Most are regular citizens who do a good job at work, cook for the family, fix a broken light switch, bowl with their friends, go to church, stick to the speed limit... They are not psychopaths themselves, but have nonetheless been captured by the Trump contagion, and they do not reject an obviously unfit candidate as they do many others who are less-unfit (eg Jeb Bush, Chris Christie). The Bunuel film, The Exterminating Angel, offers an analog: a group of boorish elites attend a party and when the evening draws to a close, cannot seem to leave the rooms where the party has been. They cannot go across the threshold to leave. There is no barrier, nothing stopping them other than a feeling that they must stay. This spreads to all the guests, and they wind up virtually trapped in the room for days, weeks under disgusting and vile conditions. And no one is able to enter the premises to rescue them! Without spoiling the movie, let's say at one moment the insight arrives that exit is possible, and just as inexplicably, the crisis is ended. The MAGA crowd has become trapped in its own gravity and we can only hope they will someday figure it out and deprogram themselves en masse or one-by-one. We see this via Nikki Haley voters, the Never-Trumpers and RVAT type movements, as many RINOs (haha) refuse to go over the ledge again. They see MAGA for what it is and they are voting for Harris or John McCain. We need as many of those as we can get! Sorry for this super-long reply and for the indulgence of anyone who got this far :)
Maybe that is the dividing line: a president needs to be popular and likeable, but should not be seeking to be worshipped, should not be promoting themselves as infallible or perfect, should not be elevating themselves beyond the common clay of the People. They need to be highly-qualified to do a very special job, and they need to be humble about the privilege of that opportunity granted to them for a few years by the People.
I've never heard anything other than that Michelle Obama hates politics. She's a fabulous person as is Harris & I would have been thrilled with either as the nominee. The natural choice, was of course, Harris & she has done an amazing job in a very short amount of time.
Thank you, Dr. Lee, for the public health emphasis in this article update. May Americans and people of all countries always make healthful leadership choices!
For readers wondering how to disconnect between reliable reality and gleeful ruse without Biostatistics under one's belt, stastica.com appears to be academically objective and can help one to cope equally to being armed to the teeth with all pundit inputs. It may be bruising to leaf through piles of political paperwork even for kicks...
It's crazy, pardon the pun, that most folks aren't listening or getting the message that the answer to the question of why it's a close race resides in the psychology and psychiatry realm. It's unfortunate that more people don't understand how to access information and use critical thinking to find good sources to explain this seemingly impossible phenomenon of social contagion
I don’t think its even going to be close, electoral-wise. Though I am interested in the national spread of this derangement syndrome. The blame ultimately rests on both parties not doing enough for the middle and working classes, although the Dems have a better track record of doing more. It still comes down to why people vote against their own interests. A government that doesn’t care if you get your soc sec check vs one that expands child care credits?
I probably usually overwhelm with my comments where my thoughts focus on our “failure to imagine”, places a lot of people are afraid or unwilling to consider.
Today I’ll use a little light hearted humor after I share generally what I am, anecdotally, observing as a poll worker in NC. I feel hopeful about the outcome of the election. I think there is a lot of noise with polls and sane-washing/both sides reporting. 1. Much of the piling on of black men and POC is smoke and mirrors. They are overwhelmingly supporting Harris. 2. I see one of the biggest problems as white women! I will qualify that by saying a majority of white women are voting for Harris. But, a larger percent of white women are voting for Trump than any other cohort except white men. Why, this constituency is let off the hook in the media while they analyze black men and Latinos is frustrating. There’s never an analysis of white women voters and how/why they vote against their interests, only focus groups. 3. That said, there is an undercurrent where I am working that is positive in favor of Dems. A lot of Republicans, I believe are not voicing their vote for Harris, but they are voting for Harris!
If you got this far, Bad Bunny will be our national hero! On my trip back from Europe I watched a special about the rising popularity of Latin artists. I’m one of those who doesn’t speak Spanish but listens to Bad Bunny because of his story (he lives in Puerto Rico not far from where my husband grew up). He is the Taylor Swift of music across the Latin music genre and around the world.
FYI, Anne Applebaum just posted an excellent article in The Atlantic website. She listed online resources that people might consult to help protect voting:
That is a powerful and bracing summary of the Conference conclusions and warning as well as of the deteriorating health of America’s national psyche. Along with the types of expertise you plan to incorporate into limning the lineaments of our national mental illness of Trump psychotic contagion, Bandy, I would suggest -- as you have done previously with Jason Stanley -- adding the perspectives of political and moral philosophers, as well as those with a psychological bent, to the analytical mix, along with historians of fascism like Timothy Snyder and Ruth Ben-Ghiat, and theologians, etc.
Michelle Obama has always said she was not seeking office. Crystal Carson, director of communications for her office, has reported this to news sources before. But, wow, that would have been phenomenal if she had been the VP pick. <3 her!
Thank you Dr Bandy Lee. This is serious. I know and we know. I tried to reach out to family and friends. Those that are awaiting the religious fulfillment of their beLIEfs. They would not have any of the facts. All they see is the news they watch and all else is fake news. The right to lie without the fairness doctrine didn’t help. Your duty to warn is commendable. I already voted.
With about a quarter of votes in ahead of November 5, the U. S. Presidential election is impressively close, regardless of predictions engendered by the event. Whilst I am not a participant in partisan politics, it appears that true blue, comprehensive consistency up to November 5 (being "a president for all Americans") has advantages over alarmed, frenetic scrabbling to gain the upper hand in particular constituencies. Billionaire support is results-contingent ( the more success the more money and vice versa..), but ordinary person support is far reaching. Of course, a presidential candidate does well to focus statistically on all voting constituencies and to respond effectively: energetically but calmly, always maintaining comprehensive commitment. After all, a candidate who wins some swing states, with the others closely contested, and enough of the rest of the 50 states, is well placed to emerge ultimately victorious.
Thank you for posting this critical commentary. I'm sharing this everywhere.... I wish the corporate news media would have printed all of your articles months ago, in an ongoing series of necessary public information. Sadly, they all chose to ignore this critical information and "sane wash" the vitriol and demented ideology of the orange Mussolini. I can only hope that he doesn't win the Electoral College. It's terrifying to consider another presidency with that individual in the White House. 😞
That event is the "clowns" and "circuses" thing, as in if you want a circus expect clowns and vice versa. Except that it's deadly serious and not entertaining but sickening. Vote Blue. I already did by mail. "Hope is the thing with feathers..." (Dickinson)
Dr Lee, i am a little disappointed by some of things you mentioned. And the gist of these things itself represent the bankruptcy of current political system. You say that Dem Party should've nominated someone like Michelle Obama who had wider popular lead margin. Dr Lee, popularity of candidate cannot substitute for competence and expertise that is required from a leader. This is precisely the crisis of today's democracy and its celebrity culture where the focus is on POPULARITY, POPULAR appeal of a candidate rather than his/her actual substantive leadership qualities (experience, wisdom in areas of economics-science-history, intellectual capacity, philosophical thinking etc).
Today's politics has become a Kayfabe, celebrity culture and reality TV where the POPULAR appeal is the only thing that matters. That itself is partly responsible for rise of Trump.
Regarding Kamala Harris. I am no fan of Harris or Biden or any politician for that matter. I see significant flaws in all of them. But they are alternate to Donald Trump who i believe is the Armageddon candidate, a great threat to civilization. I don't expect any great things from Kamala Harris but she's a predictable conventional politician which is in contrast to highly unpredictable erratic maniacal Trump who will unleash chaos.
Dr Lee, Taylow Swift is a very popular person but that doesn't mean she should be elected President. Dr Lee, you have maintained the message that "expertise should be valued". But paradoxically you also suggest that political candidate should be selected on "popularity".
I also like to point out that from my understanding of US politics. After Biden's retirement, Harris was a sensible and obvious choice. An open convention would've been a disaster. A cacophony that would've upended the Dem Party and given 2024 elections to Trump on a platter. I don't have a high opinion of Harris but that matters little in current setup of things where defeating Trump is a primary objective. Second guessing choice of Harris at this time is pointless.
Thanks for this incisive comment. I was a bit puzzled by the remarks about Michelle Obama as a better or more electable candidate. An interesting suggestion, and when she is speaking, one cannot help but be admiring and inspired. Her addresses have been among the most memorable of the campaign, and she has always been a powerful orator over the years. Taking nothing from Mrs. Obama, but I have been pleasantly surprised by how inspired and laser-focused Harris has been from day one of this campaign. Her "retail" political skill set has been impressive and has daily improved; though it has not been without some stumbles and fall-back replies, she has been rising to the moment for a couple of years, most notably as a spokesperson for reproductive rights post-Dobbs (and maybe other things I haven't seen). There were many practical reasons to have chosen her having to do with her presence as the VP on the ticket, her experience in the Senate, and the ability for Biden to bequeath her the sizeable war chest of money that had accumulated. As a woman of color, this also fit in with the aspirational goals of the party and the need for a strong contrast to what MAGA was offering -- and what Dems had been offering. The collapse of Biden as a viable candidate had not been evident to me after the SOTU address, but this was not what we saw at the debate. That event created perhaps the greatest crisis in American politics in my lifetime, paralleled perhaps only by LBJ's resignation from the campaign of 1968 -- an instructive example. I agree with you that a "brokered convention" would have been a messy and divisive disaster, as well as leaving the gap of over a month without a candidate from Biden's withdrawal until the DNC. Harris made a lot of sense and she was able to step in seamlessly. I think it "cauterized the wound" in a quick and effective way, and she has surpassed expectations with her energy, enthusiasm, hopefulness, warmth, intelligence, and strength. All that being said, I am not a huge "fan" nor have I had a religious conversion. I just think she has done a remarkable job to this point, and would be, as you say, a solid & conventional sort of president who could do the work of the American people. The alternative is not acceptable, to understate the obvious. Actually, I think Michelle Obama would not have been a good choice because of the connection to her husband -- just as Hillary carried much historical baggage for Bill Clinton (and herself) that incited the opposition. She was virtually nominated by the Left the day after Obama's 2012 victory and I was shaking my head even then. Foreclosing on her as the one and only candidate for a long time was a mistake that cost the country dearly. So, in a way, I am wondering if Mrs. Obama as candidate might have incited a similar backlash in some parts of the electorate -- for reasons that are distasteful and dumb, of course, but she would not have necessarily been "the most popular" candidate perhaps. Besides, I think she has said she is not interested in politics as a vocation, though she could easily get elected to the House or Senate, take a cabinet post, be an ambassador, etc. if she had the interest. I don't see why it was necessary for Dr. Lee to bring up the Michelle Obama issue at this late date, and I rarely quibble with anything Dr. Lee has said for many years. It is like when people start second-guessing Tim Walz as the VP pick instead of Josh Shapiro. There were reasons to pick Walz and he has mostly proven to be a good choice who has nicely balanced the ticket. He brought a folksy-old school flavor to counter the vapid madness of Trump/Vance. Shapiro was maybe one attorney too many, and he had some controversial opinions he had voiced, etc., though himself a powerful, charismatic figure. Yes, he might have put PA in the bag, but might have turned off other demographics, too. Harris went with her gut and it was a very good choice. I feel they have put Walz maybe too much in the background at this point, he has a very warm, witty, common-sense style and occasional wisdom that has added much.
Your main point, though, was about popularity and I think this was where you hit home for me. Popularity, or the capacity to become even-more popular, is an important trait for a candidate. They have to be likeable, they have to grow on people, they have to inspire people, they have to have substance, and they have to have the feeling of destiny attached to them. Sometimes it helps if they play the saxophone or can crack a good joke. Being a strong orator is important but not always the key thing. Looks are not the key thing. They have to be able to draw large and diverse groups of people to them. That is popularity, I suppose. But not the kind of crass, faux-opulence, grandiosity, viciousness, corruption, and diffuse manic spray of Donald Trump. How THAT got to be popular beyond tabloids and TV is beyond me. Clearly, he has revealed the depths of his psychopathy over time and yet this has NOT offended tens of millions of people. It is a kind of "dark popularity" that also seems to have a sense of destiny to it that these crowds not only like, but worship. Their worship makes them blind, or perhaps it just clouds their vision and better judgment. Most are regular citizens who do a good job at work, cook for the family, fix a broken light switch, bowl with their friends, go to church, stick to the speed limit... They are not psychopaths themselves, but have nonetheless been captured by the Trump contagion, and they do not reject an obviously unfit candidate as they do many others who are less-unfit (eg Jeb Bush, Chris Christie). The Bunuel film, The Exterminating Angel, offers an analog: a group of boorish elites attend a party and when the evening draws to a close, cannot seem to leave the rooms where the party has been. They cannot go across the threshold to leave. There is no barrier, nothing stopping them other than a feeling that they must stay. This spreads to all the guests, and they wind up virtually trapped in the room for days, weeks under disgusting and vile conditions. And no one is able to enter the premises to rescue them! Without spoiling the movie, let's say at one moment the insight arrives that exit is possible, and just as inexplicably, the crisis is ended. The MAGA crowd has become trapped in its own gravity and we can only hope they will someday figure it out and deprogram themselves en masse or one-by-one. We see this via Nikki Haley voters, the Never-Trumpers and RVAT type movements, as many RINOs (haha) refuse to go over the ledge again. They see MAGA for what it is and they are voting for Harris or John McCain. We need as many of those as we can get! Sorry for this super-long reply and for the indulgence of anyone who got this far :)
Maybe that is the dividing line: a president needs to be popular and likeable, but should not be seeking to be worshipped, should not be promoting themselves as infallible or perfect, should not be elevating themselves beyond the common clay of the People. They need to be highly-qualified to do a very special job, and they need to be humble about the privilege of that opportunity granted to them for a few years by the People.
I've never heard anything other than that Michelle Obama hates politics. She's a fabulous person as is Harris & I would have been thrilled with either as the nominee. The natural choice, was of course, Harris & she has done an amazing job in a very short amount of time.
Couldn't agree more!!!
Thank you, Dr. Lee, for the public health emphasis in this article update. May Americans and people of all countries always make healthful leadership choices!
Readers might also like - "Megalomania in the American Psyche: A Dangerous Conscious and Unconscious Influence" from Op-Med. Read on @Doximity from 2023 https://opmed.doximity.com/articles/megalomania-in-the-american-psyche-dangerous-conscious-and-unconscious-influence
and
MOSF 18.10: Treating America’s #1 Addiction: Abusive Power (Part 1) https://eastwindezine.com/mosf-18-10-treating-americas-1-addiction-abusive-power/
and for another view of this situation as a struggle for belonging -
And btw, I think we got this -
MOSF 19.18: Trump v. Harris: Catastrophizing the Electorate v. Reason, Growth, and Change (closing argument of a psychiatrist for Kamala Harris and the American People) https://eastwindezine.com/mosf-19-18-trump-v-harris-catastrophizing-the-electorate-v-reason-growth-and-change/
MOSF 19.19: Taking Stock – Engaging Our Ongoing Psycho-Spiritual-Historical-Electoral Struggle with Joy and Clarity https://eastwindezine.com/mosf-19-19-taking-stock/
MOSF 19.11: The People and Harris v. An Increasingly Unhinged Trump (the Rising Culture of Democracy and the Beloved Community v. the Culture of King and Cult) https://eastwindezine.com/mosf-19-11-the-people-and-harris-v-an-increasingly-unhinged-trump/
For readers wondering how to disconnect between reliable reality and gleeful ruse without Biostatistics under one's belt, stastica.com appears to be academically objective and can help one to cope equally to being armed to the teeth with all pundit inputs. It may be bruising to leaf through piles of political paperwork even for kicks...
It's crazy, pardon the pun, that most folks aren't listening or getting the message that the answer to the question of why it's a close race resides in the psychology and psychiatry realm. It's unfortunate that more people don't understand how to access information and use critical thinking to find good sources to explain this seemingly impossible phenomenon of social contagion
I don’t think its even going to be close, electoral-wise. Though I am interested in the national spread of this derangement syndrome. The blame ultimately rests on both parties not doing enough for the middle and working classes, although the Dems have a better track record of doing more. It still comes down to why people vote against their own interests. A government that doesn’t care if you get your soc sec check vs one that expands child care credits?
ACTIONS BY EVERYONE GROWS FREEDOM
How to Prevent "GOP MASS PSYCHOSIS - How an Entire Population Becomes MENTALLY ILL"
❤️ Discredit totalitarian propaganda everywhere
🤣 Mock GOP worship of dictators
❤️ Grow joyful unifying structures
❤️ c 1st 📈
https://youtu.be/09maaUaRT4M
I thought this video very informative. Thanks for posting.
I probably usually overwhelm with my comments where my thoughts focus on our “failure to imagine”, places a lot of people are afraid or unwilling to consider.
Today I’ll use a little light hearted humor after I share generally what I am, anecdotally, observing as a poll worker in NC. I feel hopeful about the outcome of the election. I think there is a lot of noise with polls and sane-washing/both sides reporting. 1. Much of the piling on of black men and POC is smoke and mirrors. They are overwhelmingly supporting Harris. 2. I see one of the biggest problems as white women! I will qualify that by saying a majority of white women are voting for Harris. But, a larger percent of white women are voting for Trump than any other cohort except white men. Why, this constituency is let off the hook in the media while they analyze black men and Latinos is frustrating. There’s never an analysis of white women voters and how/why they vote against their interests, only focus groups. 3. That said, there is an undercurrent where I am working that is positive in favor of Dems. A lot of Republicans, I believe are not voicing their vote for Harris, but they are voting for Harris!
If you got this far, Bad Bunny will be our national hero! On my trip back from Europe I watched a special about the rising popularity of Latin artists. I’m one of those who doesn’t speak Spanish but listens to Bad Bunny because of his story (he lives in Puerto Rico not far from where my husband grew up). He is the Taylor Swift of music across the Latin music genre and around the world.
FYI, Anne Applebaum just posted an excellent article in The Atlantic website. She listed online resources that people might consult to help protect voting:
https://866ourvote.org/
https://866ourvote.org/volunteer/
https://allvotingislocal.org/getinvolved/
https://rideshare2vote.com/volunteer/
https://polls.pizza/
https://protectdemocracy.org/
https://statesunited.org/
https://www.brennancenter.org/
https://www.democracydocket.com/
https://www.ruleoflawrepublicans.com/
That is a powerful and bracing summary of the Conference conclusions and warning as well as of the deteriorating health of America’s national psyche. Along with the types of expertise you plan to incorporate into limning the lineaments of our national mental illness of Trump psychotic contagion, Bandy, I would suggest -- as you have done previously with Jason Stanley -- adding the perspectives of political and moral philosophers, as well as those with a psychological bent, to the analytical mix, along with historians of fascism like Timothy Snyder and Ruth Ben-Ghiat, and theologians, etc.
Michelle Obama has always said she was not seeking office. Crystal Carson, director of communications for her office, has reported this to news sources before. But, wow, that would have been phenomenal if she had been the VP pick. <3 her!
Thank you Dr Bandy Lee. This is serious. I know and we know. I tried to reach out to family and friends. Those that are awaiting the religious fulfillment of their beLIEfs. They would not have any of the facts. All they see is the news they watch and all else is fake news. The right to lie without the fairness doctrine didn’t help. Your duty to warn is commendable. I already voted.
🕊️💙🇺🇸💙🕊️
With about a quarter of votes in ahead of November 5, the U. S. Presidential election is impressively close, regardless of predictions engendered by the event. Whilst I am not a participant in partisan politics, it appears that true blue, comprehensive consistency up to November 5 (being "a president for all Americans") has advantages over alarmed, frenetic scrabbling to gain the upper hand in particular constituencies. Billionaire support is results-contingent ( the more success the more money and vice versa..), but ordinary person support is far reaching. Of course, a presidential candidate does well to focus statistically on all voting constituencies and to respond effectively: energetically but calmly, always maintaining comprehensive commitment. After all, a candidate who wins some swing states, with the others closely contested, and enough of the rest of the 50 states, is well placed to emerge ultimately victorious.