The former president's son called out the Democratic Party’s obsession with donor-class validation — the folks who confuse Vanity Fair clout with voter outreach.
I'm just gonna write what a lot of the others have said - Professor Ealy writes so well and with such clairty ; he somehow unearths " proto-issues " or ' Semithoughts" or "foggy specters" roaming around in the back of my mind, shines a light on them and clarifies them into real think and speech ! - so , yeah --- what he said!
Thank you so much for reading and for this incredibly kind comment. I’m genuinely honored that my writing helps bring clarity to those “foggy specters” you described so perfectly. That’s exactly why I write—to give form to the stuff we all feel but don’t always get to name. Truly appreciate you being part of the conversation. 🙏🏾
Well stated! I appreciated your willingness to call out third party voters (or those who simply sit out an election) who believe their high-minded sense of morality is somehow virtuous. It is not. It is why we are now trapped in this freak show, watching an all-out assault take place on democracy.
Thanks for this! I’ve been making all these same points for a while now starting from the debacle following the Presidential debate. It’s difficult to watch a party tasked with defeating a candidate as flawed as Trump and bungle it before your eyes! I agree with you that voting for third party candidates or staying home was irresponsible but I think the blame for that lies more with the party than with the voters.
If you lecture and berate large swaths of left leaning voters in order to flatter the egos of a small group of elites, can you blame those voters for feeling unwelcome? When the folks who hate Trump are desperate for reasons to justify voting for you and you can’t even give them a crumb, then maybe you need to re-evaluate your strategy.
Praise DOG!! Finally, someone to validate my thoughts after seeing snippets of Hunter's interview--I thought he was beautifully blunt to all the insipid-let's-play-fair against the Thug party--so exhausting. You've called out the frauds I used to believe had their fingers on the democratic pulse. My special thanks, Kris, for vindicating Kamala-we lost BIGLY treating her as a scapegoat and pawn. Shame on all of the enablers of snatching defeat from victory.
Thank you so much for reading, Carol. I’m truly grateful for your kind words—and I’m especially glad this piece was able to give voice to what you’ve been feeling. You’re not alone. One of the main reasons I’ve been beating this drum for so long is because so many readers and students have told me the exact same thing: “These are my thoughts, but I didn’t know how to say it—or if anyone else felt the same.”
What happened to Kamala Harris was not just political negligence—it was strategic malpractice. And the enablers, whether intentional or not, helped hand the narrative to her detractors. I’m honored this resonated with you, and I’ll keep calling it out until the party starts listening to its own base.
I was raised in a republican family, my first vote was for Nixon. Was I sorry for that vote, later on yes, but it got me involved in researching candidates and what they stood for. Started me thinking that we should be an informed electorate. I did change my affiliation to as my parents called it "the other party." However, after W got elected I became an Independent, It was a you got to be kidding me moment. The better party is the Democratic Party. My problem with them is exactly what Hunter said. Doesn't anyone remember Pelosi having her daughter take care of Dianne Feinstein and not letting anyone near her. That is political sabotage of her own party. Dianne was gone, mentally, and Pelosi knew it, yet she hid her. The Governor of California should have replaced Feinstein, thanks to Pelosi it wasn't done in the timely manner it should have been. Plus she got out of a hospital bed to fly back to DC to get the troops to vote against AOC. She old and needs to go, she is another one who stops any forward momentum the party has. I only give her credit for being a good Speaker. Look I'm old but I understand my limits being old. They need to change the age limits from 35 to 30 to run and the limit needs to be 65. We have a president that has dementia and no one is doing a thing. Cognitive happens and he's is a walking talking example. The world is at his command, so he thinks.
Angela, thank you for sharing all of that—I really felt every word of your comment. I completely relate. I grew up in a lot of evangelical churches, so I know the kind of pressure and messaging you’re describing. It’s exhausting and relentless. My grandmother, who’s now 93, has always been a petty conservative—but not politically. To this day, she still has the discernment to call out nonsense when she hears it, especially from these clownish preachers on TV. My mom’s a little more unhinged politically—I’m fairly certain she voted for Trump three times, but she won’t admit it to me. And honestly? That’s probably for the best. She knows how I am.
As for me, I started recognizing at a pretty young age that a lot of what I was being taught—whether in church or through that old-school Republican framing—was just ideological junk food. So I let go of all that and started forging my own understanding early.
I wasn’t around in the ’70s, but I’ve gone back and watched Nixon’s old ads and media appearances—especially the ones with people like Sammy Davis Jr.—and I get why some folks thought he seemed like a decent guy. He was packaged that way. But behind the branding, we now know what he really stood for. So I understand your regret.
And yes, your point about Feinstein and Pelosi hits hard. That moment was political malpractice, plain and simple. It’s not ageist to expect our leaders to be mentally and physically capable—it’s common sense. We need generational accountability, not just party loyalty. And I agree—Hunter said what needed to be said. The party’s better than the alternative, but it’s got a long way to go when it comes to momentum, message discipline, and recognizing when to pass the torch.
Thanks again for being in this conversation. You clearly see the game for what it is, and I’m grateful you shared your story.
Your rejection of Clooney's observation that Biden had no chance after that debate suggests you share the Biden family's claim he still could have won. Please tell us how you calculate that. (Carville can go to hell; I don't entirely disagree with your list.)
Thanks for reading, Whit. That said, I think you missed the entire point of my article.
I don’t actually care whether Biden could’ve won or not. I don’t even care if he lost or died in office. My argument is that Vice President Harris should’ve been given more support—or at the very least, a clear and fair path to run in 2028.
If Biden had won and gotten sick, Kamala Harris would have been more than capable of stepping in. She wouldn’t need a committee or a crisis manager—or ChatGPT—to tell her how to lead. She’s the sitting Vice President of the United States. The Democratic Party’s failure wasn’t just in how it handled Biden’s decline—it was in how it treated Harris as a liability instead of preparing the public to see her as a future president.
That’s what this piece was about. Not fantasy football predictions about the 2024 scoreboard.
Kristoffer, appreciate the reply. Yes Harris deserved more. How was your slam of Clooney related? He may have moved Biden's withdrawal up by a week or so, clearing the path. Are you suggesting it would have been better for Harris if Biden had lost to Trump instead of her? How? The lack of respect she got from many commentators as VP would never have been corrected by her in-the-circumstances well-run campaign. It's only because of that, that those paying attention know she'd be a fine president. Trump won largely with voters who were never paying attention.
Whit, I appreciate the follow-up—but I don’t think you’ve been tracking George Clooney’s public behavior as long or as closely as I have.
Clooney has a pattern of making big, emotionally reactive statements—especially when he’s frustrated by media narratives or political pressure—and then walking them back after the damage is done. He’s done it with paparazzi, he’s done it around his own career, and he’s done it politically before. So when he drops an op-ed in The New York Times less than two weeks after co-hosting a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser for Biden with Julia Roberts, it doesn’t look like thoughtful leadership. It looks like misdirection.
And I say that as someone who almost paid for that fundraiser. My wife and I seriously considered attending. We both make solid money, but no one has $2,000 to throw away on a PR disaster. If we had gone and then seen Clooney publicly jump ship like that, we would’ve been furious. Because if the party had already resigned itself to Biden losing, why not just let him lose? At least then we could’ve had an honest conversation about where to go next. Instead, we got vague celebrity interventions, zero infrastructure investment, and no clear messaging plan. That’s not political courage. That’s lazy PR.
Like Hunter said, I’m sure Clooney’s a nice guy. I’d probably enjoy a beer and a round of pool with him. But in this moment, he was used as a political pawn by the same feckless consultants and donors who have spent years undermining Kamala Harris while hoping she’d quietly fade into the background. He didn’t stand outside the machine—he became part of it.
And here’s the thing: Clooney has the privilege to fly to Lake Como and wait this out. The rest of us are here, living with the fallout. So unless he’s out there doing real political organizing or showing the data that led to his “no path forward” conclusion, I’m going to keep calling him out. Because this is my field—I teach it, I research it, I write about it, and I don’t just vibe with narratives. I dissect them.
Now to your point about Kamala: you’re right that she’d make a fine president. But the party did nothing to prepare voters to see her that way. They gave her no real platform, refused to defend her when the attacks came, and then acted shocked when voters were hesitant. That’s not a Kamala problem—that’s a messaging and leadership failure.
And if we’re being completely honest? Biden losing might’ve actually been better for her in the long term. Because at least then, she would’ve had more than three months to introduce herself, run a full campaign, and define her own message. Three months isn’t enough time for anyone, let alone the first Black woman vice president to ever seek the presidency under that kind of pressure.
Whether Biden won or lost, we were going to end up with Trump either way. The question is: would we also have a clearly positioned, fully supported successor ready to fight back? The answer is no. And that’s entirely on the Democratic establishment that failed to prepare—not on her.
One cannot look past what the GOP did in 2024 to win the election There was a groundswell of electorate support This is a word of warning Not saying that what Ealy writes doesn't have a kernal of truth but internal bickering and ignoring the external factors leads to the same result
Not into conspiracy theories but there is lots of evidence that Cheeto and his Nazi party launched a multiprong subversive effort to corrupt the election And this has unconsciously pissed off the American electorate to feel that they got ripped off Hence the growing intensity of the protests across the country Here’s a list of what we know so far
Rockland County Board of Elections vs SMART Legislation to be heard Sept 2025
I am a member of verifiedvoting.org They promote intermediate paper ballots that make recounts and fraud detection possible.They also publish info on technology of all states. Most, but not all, states now have a paper step.
I agree with Ealy that the Dems need uncheatable margins. It's what I told my distressed kid when Dubya won on hanging chads.
Thanks for engaging—I always appreciate someone taking the time to respond. Just to be clear, I’m a political scientist. I don’t chase vibes—I read voter files, turnout reports, exit polls, and precinct-level data. So let’s ground this in what we actually know.
Trump didn’t win in 2024 because of a secret election plot. He won because of predictable, measurable voter drop-off in key battlegrounds:
• In Michigan, youth turnout dropped nearly 12 percentage points from 2020, with the steepest decline among Black men under 35.
• In Georgia, the suburban Black turnout rate fell below 2018 midterm levels, despite a higher number of registered voters.
• In Arizona, Latino turnout dropped by over 9 points, largely due to disengagement and mixed messaging around the Senate ticket.
• In Pennsylvania, Democrats lost over 220,000 2020 Biden voters who simply didn’t show up again. That alone could’ve closed the gap.
There were no credible findings of widespread fraud or foreign interference. The Election Integrity Partnership, FiveThirtyEight, and multiple secretaries of state confirmed the results were legitimate. The problem wasn’t rigging—it was turnout.
Now, I’ve studied Greg Palast’s work for years. I believe in his findings on voter suppression, purged rolls, and GOP-run election sabotage. That’s real. But the truth is: even if all of that is true, it still comes down to turnout on our side. You can believe in suppression and still accept that we didn’t show up in the numbers we needed to. And no matter how you slice it, we just didn’t.
And let’s say for argument’s sake we had won. Barely. By one or two states, hanging on by a thread. That still would’ve been a huge problem. A narrow win gives you no mandate, no breathing room, and a GOP Congress ready to impeach on day one. We’ve seen that movie already.
We’ve got to start winning landslide elections—especially at the presidential level. Not just to hold power, but to govern like we intend to use it. Because when we win small, we govern scared. And when we govern scared, we lose the base. And when we lose the base, we lose everything.
Dr Ealy really appreciate your response No dispute of the variables of electorate turnout but Cheeto only won by 1.5m votes and Palast showed that just his vigilante challenge analysis was enough for Harris to have won the electoral college
But it's all the other evidence cited to suggest a multipronged subversive attempt particularly the "comma effect" analysis seen in precincts by ETA How does that happen except in Russia
And as you write "water under the bridge" But there is no question that this last effort has prodded the GOP to up their game for 2026 since impeachment is on the line So it will be all hands on deck to do it again The point is "high level of alertness" to gaming the system
Lastly the days of "landslide" elections in this day and age is hypothetical at best and overall the Democrats need to grow a spine and create an aggressive agenda SCOTUS reform, return to a metallic standard as demanded in the Constitution, Women's Reproductive Health mandate, strengthening voting rights
Dr. Dean—first off, you raise some strong points here. I really appreciate the level of thought you’re putting into this. You’re absolutely right that the GOP is already gearing up for 2026, and I fully agree that we need a “high level of alertness” when it comes to how they’re gaming the system. They’ve gotten more strategic, more shameless, and more coordinated in their subversion. The comma effect analysis you referenced, along with other statistical anomalies, are absolutely worth watching closely.
And I also agree with your larger point: Democrats cannot afford to play defense or respond to fascism with feel-good slogans. If they’re serious, they should ride the Epstein file fallout all the way into the midterms and make the case that this isn’t about salacious headlines—it’s about corruption, abuse of power, and institutional rot. That narrative connects if we do the work.
That said, I have to reiterate something I’ve mentioned before: because of my positions—both as a professor and as a journalist—I have a duty to operate based on hard proof. That doesn’t mean I discredit or dismiss valid questions or patterns. But I also can’t make public claims without a level of verification that meets professional standards.
So in this case, here’s how I break it down:
• Hard proof would be: verified internal documents, leaked emails, whistleblower testimony, court-admitted evidence, or confirmed communications linking intentional electoral manipulation to specific individuals or directives.
• Circumstantial or suggestive evidence includes statistical anomalies, unverifiable eyewitness claims, or uncorroborated trends that raise eyebrows but don’t independently prove malicious intent. These are still valuable—but they need more than pattern recognition to become actionable in my line of work.
I’m following people like Greg Palast too. And I take a lot of his work seriously, especially around voter suppression and precinct-level manipulation. But until some of these new leads get that final layer of sourcing or corroboration, I have to tread carefully in how I write and speak about them.
You also made a great point about landslide elections feeling out of reach in this era—and while I get that, I wouldn’t rule them out entirely. I think it’s still possible. But we have to navigate this fractured media landscape carefully. That starts with informed voices speaking plainly and credibly—on platforms like Substack, on sites like Lincoln Square, and through pages like mine and others doing the work of cutting through the noise.
We’re in a trench war now. And unless Democrats build a spine and stop running away from bold structural reform—SCOTUS accountability, voting rights protections, reproductive autonomy—they’ll keep losing to louder, meaner opponents with worse policies and better propaganda.
Let’s hope this moment sparks a realignment—and that the protests aren’t just noise, but fuel.
Thanks again for being in the fight and pushing the conversation forward.
thanks for your insights Kristoffer and understand that public speculations can be problematic....that's why these forums are so important for voices like yours to come forth since MSM doesn't have the platforms to encourage public dialogues but Substack does
Having become a professional protester I'm very much encouraged by their effect in overcoming the right wing propaganda noise And the response by passing by cars is encouraging The 1960's movement taught us a lot of good things about how to defeat the right and this era is no different
First the coverup, then distractions(Russian election 2016 intervention, release of MLK files against family wishes, treasonous Obama) with Todd Blanche interviewing Maxwell in a courthouse The theatrics of this scandal cannot be more apparent, raises many questions as this scorcher continues in a downward spiral, and will produce more damaging evidence of this suppressed information over almost 30y
With further leaked revelations about the birthday book and that many copies exist, the visit with Maxwell is not only legally extraordinary, it looks like two defense attorneys getting together to discuss some form of plea bargain It is obvious that Blanche has no historical memory of past events and so his only theatrical position is to try to set up some form agreement so that Maxwell can lie for Cheeto Maxwell is a viscious predator, has already been convicted on 2 counts of plagiary, and through her past interactions with prosecutors it’s clear Maxwell will try to confuse, deceive, and obfuscate in order to get leniency or a pardon
The Epstein estate may very well become the card that Congress can play and not rely on a deceitful Cheeto regime
But the MAGA universe has drawn the redline on pedophilia and protecting the country’s wealthy elite(Dershowitz, Clinton, Leon Black, etc) And even though Blanche has told Maxwell what kind of story to put out, the story will be a hard sell
Thanks for your comment. There are definitely points in here that are grounded in reality—especially around the redlining of narratives to protect the ultra-wealthy and the MAGA movement’s reflexive defense of anyone in their orbit, no matter how compromised. I also agree that the Epstein files are explosive and should be investigated fully, with transparency and accountability across the board.
That said, I have to be careful. As both a professor and a journalist, I don’t have the luxury of running with conspiracy-adjacent theories unless they’re backed by peer-reviewed data, vetted reporting, or crosstabs from public records. I know there’s evidence that potential Kamala Harris voters were purged from the rolls, and that’s serious and real. But when it comes to broader allegations—especially those not corroborated by direct data—I have to be measured in how I write and speak about it. Not just for credibility, but because I don’t get to keep my job by “vibing” with a narrative, no matter how compelling it might feel.
I appreciate your passion and the links you’ve shared. We’re aligned in our outrage—but I also know my responsibility is to stick with what can be proven.
Thank you for your perspective. I didn't see the Hunter interview but I especially agree with you regarding Clooney as well as the Misogyny regarding Kamala Harris. Some people say there was racism but no sexism. The Misogyny was as plain as day to me! I also agree with you on "being a Democrat...you don't have to be in love, just be involved".
Thank you so much for reading, Elizabeth. I really appreciate your thoughtful comment. You’re absolutely right—what happened to Kamala Harris wasn’t just racism, it was misogynoir, and it was as obvious as it was shameful. People tried to act like questioning her readiness or calling her “the status quo” was some kind of neutral critique, but it was deeply gendered and racialized. The double standards were on full display.
And yes, I’m glad you picked up on that line—being a Democrat doesn’t require being in love, but it does require being engaged. That’s the only way we get better. Thank you again for the kind words and for being part of the conversation.
My first chance to vote in a presidential election was 1980. I voted for John Anderson. Yes, it’s embarrassing and it’s a lesson: Don’t waste your vote. (The word “strategery” comes to mind.)
Don’t feel bad, Sharon—when I was a 19-year-old dumbass, I voted for Ralph Nader. I was surrounded by adults at the time repeating all kinds of bad logic about “sending a message” and “breaking the two-party system.” I learned my lesson in 2004 and never looked back. The point is: you learned from it, too. That’s what matters.
Well said! Thank you Professor Ealy. Although I did cancel my Democrat designation and am officially Independent, I do everything I can to help Democratic candidates. That being said, my focus is on the organization "Leaders we deserve". Established by David Hogg et cie. Love the candidates they support. All young and progressive. No corporate dems need apply. They've been successful in getting a number of young people elected to Congress. And elected to local offices. They give me hope.
Back in the distant past, I voted for Ross Perot. I was young and dumb, but it took me less than 48 hours to realize I wasted my vote. I will never (have never) voted third party again, for all the reasons you mentioned.
I totally agree on this! Hunter Biden is totally correct and as 50 year democrat I was totally taken a back by George Clooney and Nancy Pelozi just writing off President Biden the way they did. I’m so very sick of the party never coming out strong against the republicans letting them tell lies across the country loudly while we stay either silent or talk like we’re at a tea party.
I'm just gonna write what a lot of the others have said - Professor Ealy writes so well and with such clairty ; he somehow unearths " proto-issues " or ' Semithoughts" or "foggy specters" roaming around in the back of my mind, shines a light on them and clarifies them into real think and speech ! - so , yeah --- what he said!
Thank you so much for reading and for this incredibly kind comment. I’m genuinely honored that my writing helps bring clarity to those “foggy specters” you described so perfectly. That’s exactly why I write—to give form to the stuff we all feel but don’t always get to name. Truly appreciate you being part of the conversation. 🙏🏾
Well stated! I appreciated your willingness to call out third party voters (or those who simply sit out an election) who believe their high-minded sense of morality is somehow virtuous. It is not. It is why we are now trapped in this freak show, watching an all-out assault take place on democracy.
Thanks for this! I’ve been making all these same points for a while now starting from the debacle following the Presidential debate. It’s difficult to watch a party tasked with defeating a candidate as flawed as Trump and bungle it before your eyes! I agree with you that voting for third party candidates or staying home was irresponsible but I think the blame for that lies more with the party than with the voters.
If you lecture and berate large swaths of left leaning voters in order to flatter the egos of a small group of elites, can you blame those voters for feeling unwelcome? When the folks who hate Trump are desperate for reasons to justify voting for you and you can’t even give them a crumb, then maybe you need to re-evaluate your strategy.
I saw this and it was great. Hunter unleashed
Thanks for reading, Kathy. Agreed!
Very, very well said!!! I’m glad you wrote this! Putting words to thoughts I’ve had helps me to feel like somebody’s eyes were open besides mine!!!
Thank you for reading, Claire! Hunter said what a lot of us were thinking.
Praise DOG!! Finally, someone to validate my thoughts after seeing snippets of Hunter's interview--I thought he was beautifully blunt to all the insipid-let's-play-fair against the Thug party--so exhausting. You've called out the frauds I used to believe had their fingers on the democratic pulse. My special thanks, Kris, for vindicating Kamala-we lost BIGLY treating her as a scapegoat and pawn. Shame on all of the enablers of snatching defeat from victory.
Thank you so much for reading, Carol. I’m truly grateful for your kind words—and I’m especially glad this piece was able to give voice to what you’ve been feeling. You’re not alone. One of the main reasons I’ve been beating this drum for so long is because so many readers and students have told me the exact same thing: “These are my thoughts, but I didn’t know how to say it—or if anyone else felt the same.”
What happened to Kamala Harris was not just political negligence—it was strategic malpractice. And the enablers, whether intentional or not, helped hand the narrative to her detractors. I’m honored this resonated with you, and I’ll keep calling it out until the party starts listening to its own base.
I was raised in a republican family, my first vote was for Nixon. Was I sorry for that vote, later on yes, but it got me involved in researching candidates and what they stood for. Started me thinking that we should be an informed electorate. I did change my affiliation to as my parents called it "the other party." However, after W got elected I became an Independent, It was a you got to be kidding me moment. The better party is the Democratic Party. My problem with them is exactly what Hunter said. Doesn't anyone remember Pelosi having her daughter take care of Dianne Feinstein and not letting anyone near her. That is political sabotage of her own party. Dianne was gone, mentally, and Pelosi knew it, yet she hid her. The Governor of California should have replaced Feinstein, thanks to Pelosi it wasn't done in the timely manner it should have been. Plus she got out of a hospital bed to fly back to DC to get the troops to vote against AOC. She old and needs to go, she is another one who stops any forward momentum the party has. I only give her credit for being a good Speaker. Look I'm old but I understand my limits being old. They need to change the age limits from 35 to 30 to run and the limit needs to be 65. We have a president that has dementia and no one is doing a thing. Cognitive happens and he's is a walking talking example. The world is at his command, so he thinks.
Angela, thank you for sharing all of that—I really felt every word of your comment. I completely relate. I grew up in a lot of evangelical churches, so I know the kind of pressure and messaging you’re describing. It’s exhausting and relentless. My grandmother, who’s now 93, has always been a petty conservative—but not politically. To this day, she still has the discernment to call out nonsense when she hears it, especially from these clownish preachers on TV. My mom’s a little more unhinged politically—I’m fairly certain she voted for Trump three times, but she won’t admit it to me. And honestly? That’s probably for the best. She knows how I am.
As for me, I started recognizing at a pretty young age that a lot of what I was being taught—whether in church or through that old-school Republican framing—was just ideological junk food. So I let go of all that and started forging my own understanding early.
I wasn’t around in the ’70s, but I’ve gone back and watched Nixon’s old ads and media appearances—especially the ones with people like Sammy Davis Jr.—and I get why some folks thought he seemed like a decent guy. He was packaged that way. But behind the branding, we now know what he really stood for. So I understand your regret.
And yes, your point about Feinstein and Pelosi hits hard. That moment was political malpractice, plain and simple. It’s not ageist to expect our leaders to be mentally and physically capable—it’s common sense. We need generational accountability, not just party loyalty. And I agree—Hunter said what needed to be said. The party’s better than the alternative, but it’s got a long way to go when it comes to momentum, message discipline, and recognizing when to pass the torch.
Thanks again for being in this conversation. You clearly see the game for what it is, and I’m grateful you shared your story.
Your rejection of Clooney's observation that Biden had no chance after that debate suggests you share the Biden family's claim he still could have won. Please tell us how you calculate that. (Carville can go to hell; I don't entirely disagree with your list.)
Thanks for reading, Whit. That said, I think you missed the entire point of my article.
I don’t actually care whether Biden could’ve won or not. I don’t even care if he lost or died in office. My argument is that Vice President Harris should’ve been given more support—or at the very least, a clear and fair path to run in 2028.
If Biden had won and gotten sick, Kamala Harris would have been more than capable of stepping in. She wouldn’t need a committee or a crisis manager—or ChatGPT—to tell her how to lead. She’s the sitting Vice President of the United States. The Democratic Party’s failure wasn’t just in how it handled Biden’s decline—it was in how it treated Harris as a liability instead of preparing the public to see her as a future president.
That’s what this piece was about. Not fantasy football predictions about the 2024 scoreboard.
Kristoffer, appreciate the reply. Yes Harris deserved more. How was your slam of Clooney related? He may have moved Biden's withdrawal up by a week or so, clearing the path. Are you suggesting it would have been better for Harris if Biden had lost to Trump instead of her? How? The lack of respect she got from many commentators as VP would never have been corrected by her in-the-circumstances well-run campaign. It's only because of that, that those paying attention know she'd be a fine president. Trump won largely with voters who were never paying attention.
Whit, I appreciate the follow-up—but I don’t think you’ve been tracking George Clooney’s public behavior as long or as closely as I have.
Clooney has a pattern of making big, emotionally reactive statements—especially when he’s frustrated by media narratives or political pressure—and then walking them back after the damage is done. He’s done it with paparazzi, he’s done it around his own career, and he’s done it politically before. So when he drops an op-ed in The New York Times less than two weeks after co-hosting a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser for Biden with Julia Roberts, it doesn’t look like thoughtful leadership. It looks like misdirection.
And I say that as someone who almost paid for that fundraiser. My wife and I seriously considered attending. We both make solid money, but no one has $2,000 to throw away on a PR disaster. If we had gone and then seen Clooney publicly jump ship like that, we would’ve been furious. Because if the party had already resigned itself to Biden losing, why not just let him lose? At least then we could’ve had an honest conversation about where to go next. Instead, we got vague celebrity interventions, zero infrastructure investment, and no clear messaging plan. That’s not political courage. That’s lazy PR.
Like Hunter said, I’m sure Clooney’s a nice guy. I’d probably enjoy a beer and a round of pool with him. But in this moment, he was used as a political pawn by the same feckless consultants and donors who have spent years undermining Kamala Harris while hoping she’d quietly fade into the background. He didn’t stand outside the machine—he became part of it.
And here’s the thing: Clooney has the privilege to fly to Lake Como and wait this out. The rest of us are here, living with the fallout. So unless he’s out there doing real political organizing or showing the data that led to his “no path forward” conclusion, I’m going to keep calling him out. Because this is my field—I teach it, I research it, I write about it, and I don’t just vibe with narratives. I dissect them.
Now to your point about Kamala: you’re right that she’d make a fine president. But the party did nothing to prepare voters to see her that way. They gave her no real platform, refused to defend her when the attacks came, and then acted shocked when voters were hesitant. That’s not a Kamala problem—that’s a messaging and leadership failure.
And if we’re being completely honest? Biden losing might’ve actually been better for her in the long term. Because at least then, she would’ve had more than three months to introduce herself, run a full campaign, and define her own message. Three months isn’t enough time for anyone, let alone the first Black woman vice president to ever seek the presidency under that kind of pressure.
Whether Biden won or lost, we were going to end up with Trump either way. The question is: would we also have a clearly positioned, fully supported successor ready to fight back? The answer is no. And that’s entirely on the Democratic establishment that failed to prepare—not on her.
—Kristoffer
One cannot look past what the GOP did in 2024 to win the election There was a groundswell of electorate support This is a word of warning Not saying that what Ealy writes doesn't have a kernal of truth but internal bickering and ignoring the external factors leads to the same result
Not into conspiracy theories but there is lots of evidence that Cheeto and his Nazi party launched a multiprong subversive effort to corrupt the election And this has unconsciously pissed off the American electorate to feel that they got ripped off Hence the growing intensity of the protests across the country Here’s a list of what we know so far
Rockland County Board of Elections vs SMART Legislation to be heard Sept 2025
https://bit.ly/43Hm61y Dissent in Bloom Substack June 2025
https://bit.ly/4n3TeIr SMART Elections Substack 2.25
http://bit.ly/4kZqXAH Morningstar coverage 5.25
https://bit.ly/43BfwJJ Economic Times 6.25
https://bit.ly/4l5EAP6 Reddit article 4.25 Review of voting in Pa and NV
Greg Palast Vigilante Challenge https://bit.ly/3XUt1kr or bit.ly/43K4Gl2 have to pay to get the documentary/audio of interview bit.ly/41UelTx this is free
Election Truth Alliance(ETA) ongoing statistical analysis of precincts in swing states
website electiontruthalliance.org videos are very convincing
Russian interference https://bit.ly/4l6AlCU\
Substack resume https://bit.ly/43ZBNkO
And what the Nazis are doing to attack voting rights in the future
Elias timeline of DOJ antivoting strategy https://bit.ly/4lgGD36
Cheeto blatant notice to rig Texas elections https://bit.ly/4kJXnyG
Elias and GOP state gerrymandering ramp up https://bit.ly/4lvRnuF
I am a member of verifiedvoting.org They promote intermediate paper ballots that make recounts and fraud detection possible.They also publish info on technology of all states. Most, but not all, states now have a paper step.
I agree with Ealy that the Dems need uncheatable margins. It's what I told my distressed kid when Dubya won on hanging chads.
Thanks for engaging—I always appreciate someone taking the time to respond. Just to be clear, I’m a political scientist. I don’t chase vibes—I read voter files, turnout reports, exit polls, and precinct-level data. So let’s ground this in what we actually know.
Trump didn’t win in 2024 because of a secret election plot. He won because of predictable, measurable voter drop-off in key battlegrounds:
• In Michigan, youth turnout dropped nearly 12 percentage points from 2020, with the steepest decline among Black men under 35.
• In Georgia, the suburban Black turnout rate fell below 2018 midterm levels, despite a higher number of registered voters.
• In Arizona, Latino turnout dropped by over 9 points, largely due to disengagement and mixed messaging around the Senate ticket.
• In Pennsylvania, Democrats lost over 220,000 2020 Biden voters who simply didn’t show up again. That alone could’ve closed the gap.
There were no credible findings of widespread fraud or foreign interference. The Election Integrity Partnership, FiveThirtyEight, and multiple secretaries of state confirmed the results were legitimate. The problem wasn’t rigging—it was turnout.
Now, I’ve studied Greg Palast’s work for years. I believe in his findings on voter suppression, purged rolls, and GOP-run election sabotage. That’s real. But the truth is: even if all of that is true, it still comes down to turnout on our side. You can believe in suppression and still accept that we didn’t show up in the numbers we needed to. And no matter how you slice it, we just didn’t.
And let’s say for argument’s sake we had won. Barely. By one or two states, hanging on by a thread. That still would’ve been a huge problem. A narrow win gives you no mandate, no breathing room, and a GOP Congress ready to impeach on day one. We’ve seen that movie already.
We’ve got to start winning landslide elections—especially at the presidential level. Not just to hold power, but to govern like we intend to use it. Because when we win small, we govern scared. And when we govern scared, we lose the base. And when we lose the base, we lose everything.
Dr Ealy really appreciate your response No dispute of the variables of electorate turnout but Cheeto only won by 1.5m votes and Palast showed that just his vigilante challenge analysis was enough for Harris to have won the electoral college
But it's all the other evidence cited to suggest a multipronged subversive attempt particularly the "comma effect" analysis seen in precincts by ETA How does that happen except in Russia
And as you write "water under the bridge" But there is no question that this last effort has prodded the GOP to up their game for 2026 since impeachment is on the line So it will be all hands on deck to do it again The point is "high level of alertness" to gaming the system
Lastly the days of "landslide" elections in this day and age is hypothetical at best and overall the Democrats need to grow a spine and create an aggressive agenda SCOTUS reform, return to a metallic standard as demanded in the Constitution, Women's Reproductive Health mandate, strengthening voting rights
Hopefully the protests will engage the electorate
Dr. Dean—first off, you raise some strong points here. I really appreciate the level of thought you’re putting into this. You’re absolutely right that the GOP is already gearing up for 2026, and I fully agree that we need a “high level of alertness” when it comes to how they’re gaming the system. They’ve gotten more strategic, more shameless, and more coordinated in their subversion. The comma effect analysis you referenced, along with other statistical anomalies, are absolutely worth watching closely.
And I also agree with your larger point: Democrats cannot afford to play defense or respond to fascism with feel-good slogans. If they’re serious, they should ride the Epstein file fallout all the way into the midterms and make the case that this isn’t about salacious headlines—it’s about corruption, abuse of power, and institutional rot. That narrative connects if we do the work.
That said, I have to reiterate something I’ve mentioned before: because of my positions—both as a professor and as a journalist—I have a duty to operate based on hard proof. That doesn’t mean I discredit or dismiss valid questions or patterns. But I also can’t make public claims without a level of verification that meets professional standards.
So in this case, here’s how I break it down:
• Hard proof would be: verified internal documents, leaked emails, whistleblower testimony, court-admitted evidence, or confirmed communications linking intentional electoral manipulation to specific individuals or directives.
• Circumstantial or suggestive evidence includes statistical anomalies, unverifiable eyewitness claims, or uncorroborated trends that raise eyebrows but don’t independently prove malicious intent. These are still valuable—but they need more than pattern recognition to become actionable in my line of work.
I’m following people like Greg Palast too. And I take a lot of his work seriously, especially around voter suppression and precinct-level manipulation. But until some of these new leads get that final layer of sourcing or corroboration, I have to tread carefully in how I write and speak about them.
You also made a great point about landslide elections feeling out of reach in this era—and while I get that, I wouldn’t rule them out entirely. I think it’s still possible. But we have to navigate this fractured media landscape carefully. That starts with informed voices speaking plainly and credibly—on platforms like Substack, on sites like Lincoln Square, and through pages like mine and others doing the work of cutting through the noise.
We’re in a trench war now. And unless Democrats build a spine and stop running away from bold structural reform—SCOTUS accountability, voting rights protections, reproductive autonomy—they’ll keep losing to louder, meaner opponents with worse policies and better propaganda.
Let’s hope this moment sparks a realignment—and that the protests aren’t just noise, but fuel.
Thanks again for being in the fight and pushing the conversation forward.
—Kristoffer
thanks for your insights Kristoffer and understand that public speculations can be problematic....that's why these forums are so important for voices like yours to come forth since MSM doesn't have the platforms to encourage public dialogues but Substack does
Having become a professional protester I'm very much encouraged by their effect in overcoming the right wing propaganda noise And the response by passing by cars is encouraging The 1960's movement taught us a lot of good things about how to defeat the right and this era is no different
thanks again for your thoughts
Orange Cheeto’s Theatrics and the Epstein Coverup
First the coverup, then distractions(Russian election 2016 intervention, release of MLK files against family wishes, treasonous Obama) with Todd Blanche interviewing Maxwell in a courthouse The theatrics of this scandal cannot be more apparent, raises many questions as this scorcher continues in a downward spiral, and will produce more damaging evidence of this suppressed information over almost 30y
With further leaked revelations about the birthday book and that many copies exist, the visit with Maxwell is not only legally extraordinary, it looks like two defense attorneys getting together to discuss some form of plea bargain It is obvious that Blanche has no historical memory of past events and so his only theatrical position is to try to set up some form agreement so that Maxwell can lie for Cheeto Maxwell is a viscious predator, has already been convicted on 2 counts of plagiary, and through her past interactions with prosecutors it’s clear Maxwell will try to confuse, deceive, and obfuscate in order to get leniency or a pardon
The Epstein estate may very well become the card that Congress can play and not rely on a deceitful Cheeto regime
But the MAGA universe has drawn the redline on pedophilia and protecting the country’s wealthy elite(Dershowitz, Clinton, Leon Black, etc) And even though Blanche has told Maxwell what kind of story to put out, the story will be a hard sell
Thanks for your comment. There are definitely points in here that are grounded in reality—especially around the redlining of narratives to protect the ultra-wealthy and the MAGA movement’s reflexive defense of anyone in their orbit, no matter how compromised. I also agree that the Epstein files are explosive and should be investigated fully, with transparency and accountability across the board.
That said, I have to be careful. As both a professor and a journalist, I don’t have the luxury of running with conspiracy-adjacent theories unless they’re backed by peer-reviewed data, vetted reporting, or crosstabs from public records. I know there’s evidence that potential Kamala Harris voters were purged from the rolls, and that’s serious and real. But when it comes to broader allegations—especially those not corroborated by direct data—I have to be measured in how I write and speak about it. Not just for credibility, but because I don’t get to keep my job by “vibing” with a narrative, no matter how compelling it might feel.
I appreciate your passion and the links you’ve shared. We’re aligned in our outrage—but I also know my responsibility is to stick with what can be proven.
Thank you for your perspective. I didn't see the Hunter interview but I especially agree with you regarding Clooney as well as the Misogyny regarding Kamala Harris. Some people say there was racism but no sexism. The Misogyny was as plain as day to me! I also agree with you on "being a Democrat...you don't have to be in love, just be involved".
Thank you so much for reading, Elizabeth. I really appreciate your thoughtful comment. You’re absolutely right—what happened to Kamala Harris wasn’t just racism, it was misogynoir, and it was as obvious as it was shameful. People tried to act like questioning her readiness or calling her “the status quo” was some kind of neutral critique, but it was deeply gendered and racialized. The double standards were on full display.
And yes, I’m glad you picked up on that line—being a Democrat doesn’t require being in love, but it does require being engaged. That’s the only way we get better. Thank you again for the kind words and for being part of the conversation.
—
My first chance to vote in a presidential election was 1980. I voted for John Anderson. Yes, it’s embarrassing and it’s a lesson: Don’t waste your vote. (The word “strategery” comes to mind.)
Don’t feel bad, Sharon—when I was a 19-year-old dumbass, I voted for Ralph Nader. I was surrounded by adults at the time repeating all kinds of bad logic about “sending a message” and “breaking the two-party system.” I learned my lesson in 2004 and never looked back. The point is: you learned from it, too. That’s what matters.
—Kristoffer
Well said! Thank you Professor Ealy. Although I did cancel my Democrat designation and am officially Independent, I do everything I can to help Democratic candidates. That being said, my focus is on the organization "Leaders we deserve". Established by David Hogg et cie. Love the candidates they support. All young and progressive. No corporate dems need apply. They've been successful in getting a number of young people elected to Congress. And elected to local offices. They give me hope.
Back in the distant past, I voted for Ross Perot. I was young and dumb, but it took me less than 48 hours to realize I wasted my vote. I will never (have never) voted third party again, for all the reasons you mentioned.
I totally agree on this! Hunter Biden is totally correct and as 50 year democrat I was totally taken a back by George Clooney and Nancy Pelozi just writing off President Biden the way they did. I’m so very sick of the party never coming out strong against the republicans letting them tell lies across the country loudly while we stay either silent or talk like we’re at a tea party.
Well said.
In line with your presentation remind Democrats that MAGA means “My Acquiescence Guarantees Autocracy.”
Good one.