Trump Takes Lead over Harris

Two things I want to say, briefly.  First, in the furor and excitement of the campaign, it's been easy to forget that until late July, Kamala was not a candidate and had no reason to think she ever would run for president again.  In 2020, she seemed like a great running mate for Joe Biden, nicely rounding out the ticket:  old and young(er), male and female, white and black, east and west, etc.  I expected Joe would put her to good use in his administration.

But then once they got into office, we heard less and less of Kamala way down here in the provinces, until finally she just seemed to vanish into the woodwork.  In fact, when I heard that Biden had dropped out of the race last July, and started wondering who could replace him as candidate, it was 20 or 30 minutes before I remembered Kamala at all:  she has been that invisible for most of his time in office.

All of which is just to say, in recent days it has come to my mind that she must be under a terrific strain, having to jump overnight from a quiet, nearly forgotten role into the heat of a full-fledged campaign. When you consider that, you realize just what a very fine, even astonishing job she is doing.  And I just pray the Lord will strengthen and sustain her in that mission, along with Walz and all others who are fighting the good fight now.  It's a desperate, historic fight, and uphill all the way.  The light of History will gleam upon their helmets, whether they prevail or fall.

The other thing I want to say is, how strange that for weeks we have been hearing about Kamala's slow but steady rise in the national polls; but this week, suddenly it's Trump who is pulling ahead, markedly.  And this after some of the most filthy, most outrageous, most reprehensible lies, threats, and calumnies he's ever made.  Why is that?  Yes, I get the fact that polls are imperfect, subject to all kinds of errors and adjustments, yada yada.  But why now, after weeks of being in the (small) lead, is Kamala dropping behind?  Very odd.

I guess it is just like a real horse race, where sometimes, for no apparent reason to the untrained eye, as they near the finish line one horse pulls ahead and another can't keep up.  Either that, or someone, somewhere is doing some manipulating of a kind I can't even imagine.  All I know is, the only thing that will stop Trump from taking over is a massive blue wave at the polls.  So let's do our best, fellas, and keep hope alive.  It's not over till it's over.

A few stats from the Wall Street Journal, which leans Republican:

P. S. -- Blogger tells me this is my 4600th post on the Blue Truck.  No kidding?  Hard to believe.  That's an average of about 285 posts a year since I started in 2008.  I know it's mostly boring stuff, and nothing to brag about, but it gives this old shitkicker something to do.

-----

Midterm Election Results: The Blue Ripple

Well, the American populace had its say on Trumpism last night, and spoke out of both sides of its mouth.  The Democratic Party hoped a big "blue wave" of fired-up voters would give them control of Congress; but they gained a majority only in the House of Representatives, the Republicans still controlling the Senate.  Well, that's disappointing, but it's a start.  At least now there is a power of resistance to the Trumpocracy in one of the three branches of government.

I found some videos that concisely summarize the election returns and results, in case my readers (like me) weren't glued to the TV set last night.  But whether you are interested in those or not, do take a moment to watch this rather heartwarming story of civility in a political race in Vermont - introduced by the delightful and ever-pleasant Jane Pauley, whom it's so nice to see again on screen.  (Where has she been all these years?  And why didn't NBC hang on to her, the fools?)



Well, that was a sweet story.  Maybe there' s still some hope left for this country.  Let us pray.

Wikipedia has the breakdown on all of last night's races here, if you want to burrow down into the numbers (though not all returns are in yet).  You could also take a look at the BBC's informative charts and maps if you care to.  If not, here's a quick summary of last night's election coverage from the Wall Street Journal:




The New York Times gives brief glimpses of some notable Democratic winners, including Jared Polis, the first gay governor of Colorado, or of any state, hooray:




Who knows what the percentage of red and blue will be, come the next election?  The NYT guesses at the future of American politics in this prognostication:

How Many Queers, Cont'd

As a follow-up to my recent post on the latest figures from the Williams Institute, here's the Wall Street Journal's explanation of why it's so damned hard to come up with a reliable estimate of the number of gays (and other queer people):

In recent years more surveys have included questions about sexual behavior and identity, giving researchers a better shot at making an estimate. They also have learned how difficult it can be to define homosexuality, and to determine to what extent survey answers are affected by the way the questions are asked.

The Census Bureau, for instance, says it saw the number of people who identified themselves as spouses to someone of the same sex drop by more than 50% in 2008 from a year earlier just because of how the questionnaire was organized. "It's a very difficult statistical issue," says Howard Hogan, the agency's associate director for demographic programs, of counting same-sex couples. . . .

One problem [that demographers have noted about the Williams Institute] findings is that they combine results from surveys with different sample sizes and interview formats. The California Health Interview Survey canvassed about 50,000 Californians in 2009 by phone, finding that 3.2% identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual. In contrast, roughly 5,900 people took Indiana University's online National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior in 2009, and nearly twice as many— 5.6%—identified themselves that way.

"I think there are a lot of problems with every one of those data sets," says Randall Sell, associate professor at Drexel University's school of public health. A concern, he says, is that people are more likely to reveal their sexual identity via computer than by phone or in person.

Dr. Gates [author of the Williams Institute report] says without more information about the validity of each survey, averaging the results is the best compromise. "You can make an argument they're all credible," he says.

So.  If a stranger knocks on your door, or calls you on the phone, and asks, "Are you gay?" - how many people will give a straight answer to that question?  Online and anonymous, more people might be comfortable telling the truth - but that limits your field to people who are young and smart and affluent enough to own a computer - and who care about answering that kind of survey.  Which is not reflective of the whole population. 

And what does "gay" mean, anyway?  Having come out in 1980, the question has long been settled in my own mind.  But ya know, guys, I have met friends in recent years who put off coming out till they were past 50; and meanwhile were married or had girlfriends, maybe some kids too.  Think of Jack and Ennis in Brokeback Mountain, which is very true to life out here on the prairie. 

Likewise, I've also known mature women who were happily married, doing the wife-and-mommy thing; then one day woke up to the fact that they liked girls.  Women's sexuality is often much more nebulous and fluid than men's, I've concluded, for reasons that have a lot to do with the plumbing and wiring.

Then too, I've, um, known guys who merrily fooled around with other guys in the rush of teenage sexuality; but later married a girl and have lived happily ever after with never a backward glance.  So the question of "how many" is not totally clear until you decide on the "what" to count, see?

Which is why Kinsey - who is constantly misquoted by the media on this subject - brilliantly came up with the Kinsey Scale.  Which is much more reflective of the reality of sexuality, I think, than any simplistic gay/straight dichotomy.  A truly accurate survey would have to be based on something like that, seems to me.

Bottom line:  Your Head Trucker's experience strongly suggests that no more than 3 to 5 people out of a hundred, at most - depending on where you are, and what kind of group you are in - are gay enough to raise a blip on my gaydar.  Which is not all that good, I'm sorry to say - but that's been my consistent experience for the last thirty years or so down here in Dixie.

The Kinsey Scale

Today's Quote

From "Gay Marriage and the California Courts," an opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal by Wiliam McGurn, former Chief Speechwriter for the current President Bush; I don't agree with his politics, but I think he makes a very good point:

[W]hen courts usurp the role of the people, they inject cynicism and bitterness into America's body politic. In his dissent in Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia put it this way: "[B]y foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue [legalized abortion] arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish."

Plainly this is what we have seen with abortion. With the latest intervention by the California Supreme Court, it is beginning to look the same for same-sex marriage. How much healthier our politics would be if those so convinced of the rightness of their views would have equal faith in the decency of their fellow Americans -- and their openness to being persuaded by clear, fair and honest argument.

What I say: I don't know whether the California Supremes will go for the legal arguments now being made to overturn Prop 8 on constitutional grounds. But I do think if the court overrides the election results, our opponents will feel deeply upset, cheated, as if we have pulled a fast one on them.

In the long run, it would be much better for all concerned if we won our equality and civil rights in a fair fight at the ballot box. I'm not saying the courts should never be involved, they certainly should when appropriate. But right now in California, I think we should plan for 2010 and do the hard work necessary to win the votes of the people.

We'd expect the other side to do the same, wouldn't we? So what are we afraid of?