After the last post – in which I indicated that today’s Packers/Lions game would provide us in Wisconsin a brief respite from election obsession — a very close friend of over 50 years – a Chicago Bear fan, to boot – pointed out to me the error in my thinking: “This game is providing probably the most compelling political turf during the final minutes of this nail-biter election. The NFL ad space between two of the NFL’s hottest teams will provide not just an audience in two of the critically contested states with a great demographic (politically) but a great national audience as well.”
He is of course right (sigh 😉 ). Although I record Packer games, and may well record this one, my conscience as a citizen won’t allow me to fast-forward through the commercials, as I normally do; indeed, if – perish the thought – Green Bay loses, I’ll probably fast-forward through the game, and only watch the political commercials 🙂 .
Our friend also wondered what I thought the respective campaigns’ ad themes might be for today’s game. We’ll soon know; their choices will obviously be data driven, intended to micro-target specific voter segments. I’m guessing that the Trump team will pound inflation and immigration, weighting the former over the latter. [The MAGAs already have all of the votes of all of the Midwest citizens who are truly worried that the illegals are coming to take them away (Ha-Haa 😉 ). It may well feel that it needs to make a final pitch to young women on tight budgets who find former President Donald Trump personally repellent]. Without the benefit of data, if advising the Harris Campaign my instinct would be to target women and young males of color. Although Vice President Kamala Harris prefers an uplifting message, negative ads have for decades been proven the most effective, and we’re now down to the figurative final minutes of the campaign. I’d recommend that the Harris team pound the loss of women’s reproductive rights wrought by Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court appointments (and raise the augur of the likelihood of further MAGA reproductive restrictions if he is re-elected), use “permission” ads aimed at the moderately conservative women repulsed by Mr. Trump (my favorite is in the link below), and an ad depicting a montage of last weekend’s Trump Rally at New York City’s Madison Square Garden, with the so-called comedian at referring to Puerto Rico as floating garbage and referencing watermelon with an African American and Mr. Trump’s reported reference to American citizens as the “enemy within.” [I’d like to include an ad combining clips of Mr. Trump declaring on January 6, 2021, that his supporters had to “fight like hell” or they wouldn’t have a country any more together with clips of the ensuing Capitol riot, but I would guess that the case against Mr. Trump on this issue has already been established with citizens (like me) most motivated by these appeals.]
An ad I’d make room for:
Lebron James’ recent Twitter endorsement of Ms. Harris. The link is below.
Clips of Mr. Trump calling immigrants vermin, mocking the handicapped, and telling his supporters to beat up demonstrators at his rallies, followed by Arnold Schwarzenegger (who has endorsed Ms. Harris) talking into the camera: “Bullies are not strong. They are weak. I’m voting for Kamala Harris. You should, too.”
An ad that I wish existed, and would run repeatedly if it existed (but if there was any prospect it was coming, the story would be too big; we’d already know about it):
Former President George W. Bush – who, shamefully, hasn’t endorsed Ms. Harris despite the fact that all are aware that he detests Mr. Trump – talking into the camera:
“When you elected me I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. My oath didn’t end when I left the oval office. Country over party. I’ve voting for Kamala Harris, and you should too.”
The latest game odds I saw favor the Lions by 2.5 points over the Packers. I would have thought that Detroit would be favored by more, even in Lambeau Field. To win, the Green and Gold need to play close to error-free football – which has not been starting Quarterback Jordan Love’s tendency this season – and win the turnover battle by at least two. That said, I am confident that even the most diehard of Packer fans will agree that today’s game is not the most important contest we’ll witness this week. There has never been a time in our lifetimes in which it has been clearer that our most important colors are Red, White and Blue.
To state what you already know: given polling trends, Vice President Kamala Harris’ surest path to the 270 Electoral College (EC) votes she needs to win the White House remains the “Blue Wall” states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin plus the single vote in Omaha, NE’s congressional district.
Let’s take Omaha first. Although former President Donald Trump is vastly ahead of Ms. Harris in Nebraska as a whole, Ms. Harris is up by double digits in Omaha. Since the state allocates its EC votes by congressional district – an idiosyncrasy that may well be vital to Democrats’ hopes — that vote is as secure for Ms. Harris as California’s.
Let’s look at Michigan next. President Joe Biden defeated Mr. Trump there in 2020 by about 150,000 votes, and Ms. Harris presumably picked MN Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate instead of PA Gov. Josh Shapiro in part to avoid having Mr. Shapiro’s sharply pro-Israel stance in the Israeli-Hama conflict alienate Michigan’s powerful progressive Muslim, pro-Palestinian constituency. Right now, although the polls indicate that the race in the state remains close between Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump, if she can’t win despite all of the support she will get in the city of Detroit, from the endorsement of the United Auto Workers, from Michigan’s two huge state universities, and from the progressive Muslim voter segment, she’s not going to win the presidency.
On to Pennsylvania. As all who have read any number of notes posted here are well aware, I have been obsessed with the Keystone State’s 19 EC votes since it became clear that the MAGA movement wasn’t fading away. Although it is mathematically possible for the Democratic presidential nominee to win the presidency without winning Pennsylvania, such a path has looked (and looks) to me to be considerably more doubtful. I have seen it reported that the Trump camp feels that if it can win both Pennsylvania and North Carolina, it will win the presidency, and from purely a mathematical standpoint, it’s hard to disagree.
I’ve always thought that Pennsylvania was going to be this election’s Ground Zero, and it may well still be. Mr. Biden defeated Mr. Trump in 2020 by 80,000 votes out of almost 7 million cast – decisive but hardly overwhelming. I have noted here earlier the observation of James Carville, former President Bill Clinton’s chief political strategist, that between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is Alabama. That said, if there is going to be an “October Surprise” in this race – akin to then-FBI Director James Comey’s declaration, less than two weeks before the 2016 Election Day, that the FBI was reopening an investigation into Democratic Nominee’s Hillary Clinton’s emails – it may well have come at the Trump rally at New York’s Madison Square Garden this past weekend, in which a so-called comedian declared, Latinos “love making babies. There’s no pulling out. They come inside, just like they do to our country,” and “There’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico.” I have seen it reported that the Puerto Rican community is understandably outraged, and that there are approximately 500,000 citizens of Puerto Rican descent living in Pennsylvania. If these citizens are registered or can still register to vote, they can be decisive. While one has to assume that the vast majority of Pennsylvanian Puerto Rican citizens who cast a vote in 2020 supported Mr. Biden, it would also seem that the so-called comedian’s remarks could markedly increase turnout among Pennsylvanian Puerto Rican and other Latino voters for Ms. Harris. I would submit that if the traditional Democratic turnouts in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Mr. Shapiro’s enthusiastic and able assistance, and a galvanized Puerto Rican/other Latino citizen voting bloc don’t provide Ms. Harris a decisive edge over Mr. Trump in Pennsylvania, she’s not going to win the presidency.
Which brings us to – I note with a sigh for all Badger State residents – Wisconsin. If Ms. Harris can’t win Wisconsin’s 10 EC votes, she needs to win either Arizona (EC 11) – where according to 538, she trails Mr. Trump by 2 points, and in which, despite an abortion referendum on the ballot, Mr. Trump’s stand on immigration appears likely to provide him a decisive edge in this border state – Georgia (EC 16) — where 538 indicates that Mr. Trump holds a similar 2-point edge that seems impressive in a race this tight – or North Carolina (EC 16) – seemingly her best shot to claim a “reach” swing state, where 538 has her but a point down, with a Democratic governor and a population slowly becoming more liberal, but a state that Mr. Trump has carried twice. North Carolina might surprise for the Democrats in 2024, as Georgia and Arizona did in 2020, but it must certainly be considered a Democratic long shot.
The Harris-Walz ticket’s best chance for the final EC votes it needs to win is clearly Wisconsin. It won’t be easy – 538 has Ms. Harris ahead of Mr. Trump by only half a point, and Mr. Trump has scored better in the state than polls indicated he would in both 2016 and 2020. That said, the state has a Democratic governor, a Democratic senator running for re-election, a marked preference for abortion rights (clearly Mr. Trump’s substantive policy Achilles heel) and a burgeoning population of young science and technology workers in Dane County (Madison), the county that provided Mr. Biden his edge over Mr. Trump in 2020. (Of note: the state didn’t lose an EC vote in the last census, as both Pennsylvania and Michigan did. Whether or not it was because of an influx of these younger, predominately liberal voters, it certainly wasn’t because older rural voters are flooding into the state. 😉 ) The Harris-Walz ticket also has … Mr. Walz. We’ll get back to him.
I don’t pay attention to candidate campaign schedules, but if I was advising the Harris-Walz ticket, I would suggest that it deploy Mr. Biden to Pennsylvania, former President Barack Obama to Michigan, Mr. Obama and Mr. Clinton to the Democratic strongholds of Georgia and particularly North Carolina, and former U.S. WY Rep. Liz Cheney to the Republican suburbs of all of the cities of all of the Blue Wall states. As for Ms. Harris: although she obviously needs to make a showing in all of the Blue Wall states in the final days, I would submit that her primary focus in these final days is generating turnout in Milwaukee, Madison, and other liberal bastions within Wisconsin.
Finally, as to Mr. Walz. By all accounts, he didn’t fare well in his debate against MAGA Vice Presidential Nominee U.S. OH Sen. J.D. Vance. Furthermore, I think it’s hard to dispute what I’ve noted earlier in these pages: that if Ms. Harris picked the Minnesota Governor to hold the swing state older white males more likely to lean toward Mr. Biden than they would toward her, the pick probably hasn’t brought the returns she hoped for. That said, I would submit that now is Mr. Walz’ moment. I would suggest that Mr. Walz could play a key defensive role in these final days, akin — as every baseball fan will understand – to a left-handed reliever, whose sole value to his team is to enter in a late inning to get out the other team’s key left-handed hitter. If Wisconsin is ground zero, Mr. Walz should be everywhere in the hinterlands of the state, seeking to persuade older white men (speaking as an older white man 😉 ) that Mr. Trump is too hateful, that what he proposes isn’t in keeping with the America in which we were raised. Mr. Walz’ job wouldn’t be to win the Trump counties; it would be to hold down the Trump totals. If he would be successful in doing that, while Ms. Harris hopefully hypes turnout in the Wisconsin Democratic strongholds, they can win the state.
Speaking for my fellow Wisconsinites – in this rare instance, for the Trump supporters as well as for the Harris supporters – I think we’re all exhausted at being Ground Zero. But it is what it is, and we are where we are. I suspect that all of us Badger Staters are looking forward to the brief respite that Sunday’s NFL NFC North first-place showdown between the Packers and the Detroit Lions will provide. I don’t hold out that much hope for the Green and Gold – the team is not as good as its record indicates and the Lions may be the class of the NFL’s NFC – but the game will, for a few brief hours, serve as a blessed distraction in which we can all join hands.
After that, all focus will be on the battle for our democracy.
I apologize for any undue burden this recent proliferation of notes, or any hereafter posted between now and Election Day, impose; raking leaves provides additional mental space for idle ruminations 🙂 .
This week, we’ve heard political pundits intone, “Eight days to Election Day,” “A week to Election Day,” and so on. Actually, it already is Election Day. Early voting has started in the three “Blue Wall” states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin that polls indicate is Vice President Kamala Harris’ most likely path to an Electoral College victory. What I will go to bed wondering every night between now and November 5 is whether, by how much, and in which direction early voting impacted the outcome of the election.
This campaign has had the ebbs and flows of a classic NFL football game. The MAGAs jumped out to a substantial early lead, and seemed to be coasting to victory against the President Joe Biden-led Democrats; the Democrats brought in a replacement quarterback, Ms. Harris, and staged a furious comeback for over a month that brought the teams even; then – while others might differ, I would place it at the Vice Presidential debate, in which MAGA Vice Presidential Candidate U.S. OH Sen. J.D. Vance is generally credited with besting Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate MN Gov. Tim Walz — the Democrats’ offense seemingly stalled while the MAGAs continued to grind out their propaganda, and over the last month the Trump-Vance ticket appeared to have crept back ahead by about a field goal. Now, in the figurative last two minutes of the game, the Democrats seem to be back on the march.
By all appearances, the MAGAs are supremely confident – putting aside my obvious sympathies for Ms. Harris, I’d venture that from an objective standpoint, they seem over-confident. Frankly, I don’t know how they can be; just going by the majority of presidential elections in this century, as Americans gravitated to cell phones and became ever more distrustful of pollsters, nobody’s numbers have been that precise in closely-contested elections. Two factors have arguably helped the Democrats regain ground in the last couple of weeks: first, inflation, a serious concern to perhaps a pivotal number of swing state voters, continues to ebb and what I believe are the last major economic indicators to be released before the election demonstrate a continually improving U.S. economy with strong job numbers; and second — staying away from the despicable substance, and speaking strictly in terms of political handicapping – there have been former President Donald Trump’s inexplicable and egregious unforced errors so late in the campaign: expanding his execrable rhetoric about immigrants to labeling American citizens who disagree with him as “enemies within,” compounded by the Trump Campaign’s Madison Square Garden rally this past Sunday, in which a so-called comedian declared, Latinos “love making babies. There’s no pulling out. They come inside, just like they do to our country,” and “There’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico.” If that wasn’t enough, the so-called comedian also made an allusion to a black man and a watermelon, another rally speaker referred to Ms. Harris as the “Anti-Christ,” and yet another referred to her “pimp handlers.” Trump aide Stephen Miller declared, “America is for Americans” – seemingly not quite as loathsome until one remembers that Mr. Miller’s remarks echoed similar declarations at a Nazi rally in the old Madison Square Garden in 1939. I am not a fan of horror movies, so I may have these references wrong, but it seems like Mr. Trump has removed a smiling mask of himself (itself hard enough to imagine 😉 ) to reveal the fictional Freddy Krueger underneath. These later incidents have perhaps – finally — created determinative doubts among the former president’s softest supporters who had been heretofore very reluctantly planning to vote for him.
My gut tells me that every day between now and Election Day will help Ms. Harris. In a razor-thin race, timing is everything. MSNBC’s Morning Joe’s Joe Scarborough has mentioned a number of times over the years that Mr. Trump indicated to him after winning the presidency in 2016 — when the two men were still talking – to the effect that if 2016 Election Day had been a week sooner or a week later, Mr. Trump would have lost. Similarly, some will recall that AR Gov. President Bill Clinton beat then-President George H.W. Bush by criticizing Mr. Bush for an economic recession that economists later concluded had ended before Election Day 1992.
The political maxim has always been that early voting helps the Democrat; a relatively larger share of Democratic voters have traditionally been less motivated to cast ballots than Republicans, and were also more likely to have conflicting commitments on Election Day which interfered with their voting, so the longer voting period helped Democratic turnout. (At least in 2020, Mr. Trump seemed to ascribe to this theory and disparaged early voting. While his pronouncements may have cost him some votes, I’ve seen no reports indicating that he lost enough votes in any swing state to have changed any such state’s outcome.)
This year, we’ll see. Assuming that Ms. Harris has regained some slight momentum, what I wonder is whether it will carry her far enough, and the riddle I ponder is whether early voting helps her or hurts her. Conventional wisdom would hold that if the early votes were tallied today, she would win handily and that if Mr. Trump ultimately prevails, it will be because he stages a “comeback” on Election Day. But at the same time, I would submit that virtually all of the votes she’s “banked” would have registered on Election Day anyway against as polarizing a figure as Mr. Trump, and am wondering whether early voting might have cost her the votes of some moderately conservative Republican suburban women and Latinos who might have shifted to her – or in any event, not voted for Mr. Trump — had they had another week to consider Mr. Trump’s and his surrogates’ hateful, racist, anti-American rhetoric.
What you’ve just read is clearly idle speculation, which you may easily dismiss. On one hand, one can justifiably point out that moderately conservative suburban women – the “hidden women’s vote” that so many liberal pundits wistfully allude to and fervently hope exists – and the Latino community – which Democrats have been too slow to recognize is not a monolithic block – have had nine years to figure out that Mr. Trump is a blackguard, and one more week wouldn’t have made any difference to how they voted; on the other hand – while of course deferring to two accomplished psychologists that read these pages 🙂 – one might argue that Ms. Harris still has time to nudge these potentially decisive voters to her side, because anybody truly unsure about an important decision will generally wait as long as possible before proceeding, so any citizen who has been truly torn about which presidential candidate to vote for hasn’t yet voted.
We’ll see what happens. Once one has voted, there is little to do except idly speculate … and make Noise 😉 .
In an entry yesterday, I suggested that Vice President Kamala Harris needed to toughen her message against Mr. Trump in order to win the presidency. A very close and very discerning woman friend of ours thereafter sent me an email, indicating that she feared that if Ms. Harris followed my recommendation, “being angry might backfire on a woman because she’d be perceived as being too emotional and ‘out of control’ to become the president.” It did make me ponder whether, in such a razor-thin contest, Ms. Harris might alienate more potential supporters than she would gain by being more combative as I had suggested.
Today, we got an answer. If the Vice President had had any idea of our exchange, I’d say that she had thread the needle and addressed both our friend’s and my concerns.
As all who care are aware, retired Marine Corps. General John Kelly, the longest-serving Chief of Staff in the Trump Administration, has within recent days gone on record with the New York Times stating that Mr. Trump meets the definition of “fascist.” Below is a link to a short speech Ms. Harris gave today in the wake of Mr. Kelly’s remarks. I would submit that the extremely grave tone she struck was perfect for the message – neither plaintive, nor too strident — the tone of a president addressing us about a true crisis. The three-minute length was perfect: short enough that any media outlet that wishes to air it can do so in its entirety. Two notes she made particularly resonated with me: first, without undue emphasis she recast her reference to Mr. Trump’s allusions to the “enemy within” to include anyone who might disagree with the former president, not just government officials or journalists; second, she employed the ultimate word about Mr. Trump (while being able to correctly attribute the characterization to Mr. Kelly): fascist.
I don’t know how many voters’ sympathies can be shifted in the days culminating on November 5; I will affirm that I consider Ms. Harris’ efforts today to be pitch-perfect.
On October 18, Branding Pundit Donny Deutsch observed on MSNBC’s Morning Joe:
“You feel the campaign – it’s within the 48-yard lines … [M]y message to … Vice President [Kamala Harris] is, ‘Just keep punching.’ People want to see strength. I know the ‘Joy’ thing was kind of okay for a while. ‘Joy’ is great, but strength and power and aggressiveness is what I think she needs right now.”
I raise this because TLOML was watching at the time, and she immediately looked at me and said, “He said exactly what you said!” (And here, I had been pretty sure that she had long since zoned out on my political rants 🙂 ).
For quite a while, I thought that Ms. Harris might catch a wave in the campaign’s last days as Ronald Reagan did in 1980 – that race was close until the end, when all the citizens seemingly leaning toward then President Jimmy Carter decided that they couldn’t support Mr. Carter for another four years and voted in a landslide for Mr. Reagan. I no longer think that’s going to happen for Ms. Harris, primarily because I’ve realized that the people who deserted Mr. Carter in 1980 were leaning Democrats. Democrats are mavericks by nature (remember the old Will Rogers line: “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”), while Republicans are by nature more doctrinaire, more “Rah, rah, team.” The people she needs to desert former President Donald Trump in order to prevail are leaner Republicans. If she hasn’t persuaded them to vote against Mr. Trump before they vote, for too many muscle memory will take over in the ballot box. They’ll vote for Mr. Trump. If in the days remaining before the election, the main topic on voters’ minds is immigration or the economy (the latter inexplicable to me, even for those genuinely threated by inflation), Mr. Trump will win. If the main topic is Mr. Trump, she will win. She needs to set the dynamic.
Mr. Deutsch has earned millions dispensing his opinions; I haven’t, so I am confident you will – as you of course always do with all Noise – take the following with a grain of salt. If I was counseling Ms. Harris, and having seen clips of her speeches over this past weekend, I would have the temerity to qualify Mr. Deutsch’s (and my 😉 ) message a bit and advise this: You not only need to punch; you need to sharpen your jabs. The overriding tone of disappointment, regret, sorrow — what have you – that I see you exhibit on the stump about Mr. Trump’s rhetoric and past deeds won’t get you over the 50 yard line. You need to be angry. You need to be outraged. You need to be (speaking as I would if we were together in a Wisconsin pub) … pissed off. Although you dress impeccably – you look like a president – you need to take off the jacket, literally roll up your sleeves, and go after Mr. Trump. Also – it’s time to be explicit – you need to attack Fox News, try to bait them into airing your attacks on Mr. Trump.
In an earlier note, I suggested that Ms. Harris risked damaging her brand if she got into a mudslinging contest with Mr. Trump; we all understand the adage (again, excuse my lapse from blog tone), “You can’t win a pissing contest with a skunk.” Generally, good advice. However, I would suggest that if she picks her spots carefully, she can show anger and she can score. People never get offended by anger if you’re angry on their behalf, or they consider the outrage warranted.
I leave it to you; I don’t — despite the title of the link – consider Ms. Harris’ remarks a “win”; I consider her tone in that clip a plaintive one of regret, NOT anger: that Mr. Trump’s despicable accusations are “a huge risk for America.” She sounds like she’s advising a friend against adding sugar and cream to a Starbucks coffee. She had the crowd –she led them right up to it – and thenshe dropped it. After talking about journalists, election officials, and judges, she should have ended with, “… and then … and then … he’s going to come after you. If you think enough of this campaign to come have out tonight as you have, you’re the ‘enemy within’ that Trump will target some day if he gets back in the White House. What are you going to do about it? And you know what else? Fox News doesn’t have the guts to air any of this – they’re in the bag for Trump.”
Fear mongering, you say? Not if the risk is real. I think it is. On to Mr. Trump’s lies:
We have two swing states, Georgia and North Carolina, which have been devastated by Hurricane Helene. Ms. Harris should go into the ravaged areas of these states and loudly declare, “Trump and Vance say we haven’t been helping you. [GA Gov. Brian Kemp/NC Gov. Roy Cooper] is saying that we’re giving you all the help he asked for. Trump and Vance are lying. They’re making you scared to get the help that is right there. They don’t care. They’ll sacrifice you and your family to win this election. And you know what else? Fox News doesn’t have the guts to air any of this – they’re in the bag for Trump.”
On the Haitian migrants in Springfield, OH: “Trump keeps saying that illegal immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating dogs and cats. It’s a bald-faced lie. Trump and Vance are lying. The only animal being eaten in this campaign is the bull that Trump is feeding the American people. And you know what else? Fox News doesn’t have the guts to air any of this – they’re in the bag for Trump.”
On the 2020 election: “Trump is still saying he won the 2020 election that he lost. Trump is a lying whiner. He lost 60 lawsuits challenging the results. He knows he lost. His election lawyers have pled guilty to criminal offenses for fraud. Hundreds of people are in jail now because they believed his lie. And you know what else? Fox News doesn’t have the guts to air any of this – they’re in the bag for Trump.”
On January 6th: “Trump says that January 6th was ‘a beautiful day.’ Trump is lying. He started a violent riot. You tell the families of the cops killed that day by people that Trump told to go to the Capitol that it was ‘a beautiful day.’ And you know what else? Fox News doesn’t have the guts to air any of this – they’re in the bag for Trump.”
On Mr. Trump’s felony convictions and sexual assault verdict: “Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts, stemming from the fact he cheated on his wife with a porn star. A different jury found that he assaulted a woman that he said under oath looked like his second wife. He still denies that he cheated or assaulted. He’s been adjudged a liar. Even his supporters know he’s lying – they don’t want their wives or daughters around him. And you know what else? Fox News doesn’t have the guts to air any of this – they’re in the bag for Trump.”
Finally, Ms. Harris should attack the macho image that Mr. Trump likes to project. I see two avenues:
Russian President Vladimir Putin. Polls show that even the majority of Trump supporters detest Putin. Inasmuch as Mr. Trump has criticized everybody at some point during his political career except Putin, I’m guessing that even Trump supporters think that there’s something … odd there.
“Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine over two years ago. Millions — millions — of innocent, peaceful Ukrainians have been killed, injured or displaced because Putin is a monster. Trump called the invasion “smart.” There are only two reasons why Ukraine is still free: because of the courage of the Ukrainian people and because of our support of NATO. Trump has said that he doesn’t care if Putin invades a NATO country. Trump says he’ll settle the Ukraine war. You know how he’ll do that? By selling Ukraine out to Putin. He’ll bend over and kiss Putin’s butt – if he can even bend over that far. And you know what else? Fox News doesn’t have the guts to air any of this – they’re in the bag for Trump.”
Last: Mr. Trump’s refusal to debate Ms. Harris again. Mr. Trump has waved that away, and so far it hasn’t hurt him. I’d use his refusal to target the demographic whom polls indicate have the least affinity for Ms. Harris: young males of all ethnicities.
“You know that I’ve challenged Trump to another debate. I’d still be happy to do it this close to the election if he would. He has refused. You know why? He’s gutless. Because I kicked his butt the first time, and he knows I’ll do it again. He’s afraid to debate a girl. And you know what else? Fox News doesn’t have the guts to air any of this – they’re in the bag for Trump.”
Some reading this might be a bit offended by my suggestion that the Vice President of the United States, a candidate for the presidency of the United States, might refer to herself as “a girl.” I would counter that almost all have heard Finley Peter Dunne’s fictional Mr. Dooley’s observation that “politics ain’t bean-bag.” Such is the kind of usage that those she is wishing to move understand – and it sounds decidedly “unwoke,” a major plus. It’s time to put niceties aside; democracy is at stake; it’s time to win. Actually, the fictional Mr. Dooley’s full declaration was:
“Sure, politics ain’t bean-bag. ‘Tis a man’s game, an’ women, childer, cripples an’ prohybitionists’d do well to keep out iv it.”
Are the suggestions here too strong? Should the Vice President instead continue the tempered tone she has maintained thus far? Will maturity bring enough people over to her for her to eke out a victory? I obviously have significant misgivings, but it’s up to her to decide. These are the kinds of nuanced calls we expect our president to make; if she is elected it will be up to her to decide whether recalcitrant Congressional Republicans should be cajoled or bullied, how to respond to Putin’s recurring threats to use tactical nuclear weaponry in the Ukraine war, etc., etc., etc. Either way, it’s time to prove that at the American presidential level, Mr. Dooley had his head up his ass. (I know, I know; let the importance of the struggle by my excuse 😉 ).
In the meantime, I’ll take solace from the fact that after almost 50 years, my most important audience of one apparently still listens to me — at least once in a while 🙂 .
Last week, I indicated that the manner in which former President Donald Trump was increasing the ferocity of his rhetoric about illegal immigrants to stoke fear to get his low-propensity-voter supporters to the polls was smart strategically if loathsome morally.
I was right on both counts. Although polls are notoriously inaccurate, it has become commonplace in political punditry to observe that it is the polling trends that matter; currently, the trends are seemingly moving toward Mr. Trump and away from Vice President Kamala Harris. I am stunned and sickened (simply indicating that I’m appalled isn’t strong enough) to see how successful such hateful and deceitful tactics have been. It is blatantly apparent to anyone willing to employ the discernment of a rock that the vast, vast majority of those seeking to enter our country aren’t “murderers and rapists” as Mr. Trump claimed at the beginning of his political rise, but rather people with the courage to take incredible risks to seek a safe and better life for themselves and their families, doing what any of us would do if s/he had the guts and was in their place; indeed, doing exactly what virtually all of the forebears of all natural born American citizens, except for those of Native Americans and those brought here in chains, did do. One can be for a firm and fair immigration policy and strong border security – this is a necessary reality; there are criminal elements exploiting our border — without dehumanizing the overwhelming majority of migrants seeking to enter our country peacefully and add to our national fabric: talking in malignant absurdity of being “occupied” by migrants as Mr. Trump did over the weekend, calling them vermin as he has in the past, echoing Adolf Hitler from a century ago. But Mr. Trump has to demonize them, because if Americans see these migrants as people – albeit a significant policy challenge, like many others we face (the stress migrants place on our resources cannot be ignored) — and not as a threat, his argument loses its emotive power, and he loses the election.
If Mr. Trump is elected, the MAGA movement will obviously start with illegal immigrants, but by the former president’s past words and deeds one has every reason to assume … that it won’t stop there. A couple of years ago, we watched a Ken Burns PBS documentary, “The U.S. and the Holocaust.” I was particularly struck by an observation in the first segment: that the Nazis themselves didn’t actually begin slaughtering Jews in the early years of the Reich; the Final Solution was developed later, after they had driven the Jews further and further into countries they kept conquering, when there was finally no place left to put them. The documentary indicated that much of the early hatred and ostracization to which Jews were subjected was instead primarily wrought upon them by their former Gentile friends and neighbors, whose minds had been polluted by a constant stream of Nazi propaganda. Cue the alt-right media.
MAGAs detest the different, the other every bit as much as they abhor illegal immigrants. While not even the MAGAs can deport or exile everybody, history is littered with example of despotic regimes’ power to subjugate. The MAGA movement will move from illegal to legal immigrants of color (Mr. Trump and MAGA Vice Presidential Nominee U.S. OH Sen. J. D. Vance already sometimes fail to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants on the stump), the poorer, less powerful ones at first. Then, it will reach for the easiest pickings: legislating against the practices of American citizens of untraditional sexual and gender preferences and of those seeking abortion rights. Over time, it will reach for non-Christian American citizens. It will at some point reach for American citizens of color. (Although I understand the frustration of some of our non-white naturalized citizens, who “stood in line” to obtain citizenship, at the talk of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants (the vast majority of whom have almost certainly come across our southern border), I would submit that any of these citizens who vote for Mr. Trump because of his anti-immigration stand, and those African American males reportedly intending to vote for Mr. Trump because of the macho image he presents, are on a fool’s errand; MAGAs will in time come for them.) Ultimately, MAGAs will seek to silence those white, straight, Christian, tax-paying, law-abiding, American citizens who won’t bow to their fascist impulses, who continue to indicate through word or deed that they believe that the American promise can allow for more than one cultural paradigm. As all who care are aware, over this past weekend, Mr. Trump declared, “I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within. … We have some very bad people, we have some sick people, radical left lunatics, and … it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by the National Guard or if really necessary by the military. [Emphasis added].” [Translation: recall that this is the man who was willing to have peaceful demonstrators in Washington, D.C.’s Lafayette Square gassed in the summer of 2020 to give himself a photo opportunity. Even if you’re a white, straight, Christian, tax-paying, law-abiding, American citizen who (depending upon your vintage 😉 ) perhaps voted for Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney but will if appropriate be willing to publicly express opposition to Trump Administration policies after Mr. Trump is inaugurated (because he obviously won’t have command of the National Guard or the military until then), you are the “radical left lunatic” for whom the National Guard and the military may be placed on watch.] (Given that I voted for several of the aforementioned Republican presidential nominees, with the benefit of hindsight regret that I didn’t vote for a couple more, and would now prefer a number of them over of Ms. Harris if they appeared today as they were when they ran for president, the notion that Mr. Trump might well consider me a “radical left lunatic” makes me, as Arsenio Hall used to say, go “Hmmm.” 🙂 )
At some point, some of the citizens who vote for Mr. Trump this November will say, “This is wrong. This is too much. I never intended this.” By that time, it will be too late. In this context, the shame will be on them, not on him; he has made his designs perfectly plain.
In the same manner as I was reading a lot of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s mid 1930s – early 1940s writings and speeches in the early months after Russia invaded Ukraine – an invasion that Mr. Trump called “smart” – I am currently going back over the writings and speeches of President Abraham Lincoln in the days leading up to the Civil War. (Fair warning: I might well be posting a number of Mr. Lincoln’s statements between now and Election Day 😉 ). On September 11, 1858, during his unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. Senate from Illinois, Mr. Lincoln said in Edwardsville, IL:
“Now, when by all these means you have succeeded in dehumanizing the negro; when you have put him down, and made it forever impossible for him to be but as the beasts of the field; when you have extinguished his soul, and placed him where the ray of hope is blown out in darkness like that which broods over the spirit of the damned; are you quite sure that the demon which you have roused will not turn and rend you? … Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, every where [sic]. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage, and you are preparing your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you have lost the genius of your own independence, and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises. [Emphasis in Original].”
When I quote Mr. Lincoln, I almost always give him the last word. However, it seems more fitting to conclude here with a poem we first saw in the United States Memorial Holocaust Museum by Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemoller, who was imprisoned on Hitler’s orders in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp from 1938 until he was liberated in 1945:
“First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me”
On October 8th, the panel on MSNBC’s Morning Joe went on at length about the fact that former President Donald Trump is seemingly veering out of control on the stump, reporting that Trump insiders indicate that the former President isn’t listening to the advice from his campaign counselors, and chortling that contrary to the advice from such advisors – who believe that effectively exploiting economic issues will bring the former President victory in November — Mr. Trump is instead doubling down on his lies and rhetoric of hate and racism against migrants.
While I’m just an old retired blogger and these are an array of seasoned political analysts, I think that as loathsome as his tactics are, Mr. Trump’s instincts are strategically right and his advisors and the pundits are wrong. Not long ago, a close friend texted me about an observation that James Carville, formerly President Bill Clinton’s key political strategist, had made about Pennsylvania (seemingly likely to be the pivotal 2024 Electoral College state): That between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, it’s Alabama. In what both sides clearly consider a turnout election rather than a persuasion election, Mr. Trump – either cognitively or viscerally – seems to recognize that to win the state he needs to motivate the low-propensity Trump supporters in the small, picturesque but mostly destitute communities in the expanses between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. For Mr. Trump to instead try to convince moderately conservative suburban Philadelphia and Pittsburgh women – who are probably personally repulsed by him, who probably aren’t feeling inflationary pressure, and who have watched their stock portfolios soar during the four years of the Biden Administration – that they should vote for him because of a bad economy, seems a longer stretch. Better to play on impoverished Trump supporters’ natural fears and biases. As Adolf Hitler noted in Mein Kampf: “Faith is harder to shake than knowledge … Hate is more enduring than aversion.”
That said, if Mr. Trump is defeated – although right now, I fear that the Vice President’s campaign is flagging a bit — my instinct is that it won’t be because of his stands on most substantive issues; I would submit that aside from his clearly unpopular positioning on abortion (which he knows is hurting him, and he keeps trying to run away from), if the former President loses it will be because of his gargantuan and – crucially – blatantly obvious personal moral defects: the narcissism, the self-aggrandizement, the transparent lying, the sexual predation, the adultery, the pettiness, the instability, the greed, the conniving, the overt racism (as contrasted with subtle racism, which much of America unfortunately seems to accept); in a word, his amorality. To anyone who retains common sensibilities – even among some who may end up voting for him despite his evident failings — he’s … distasteful.
I think most scholars agree – with all due respect to many others across many forms of endeavor – that English playwright and poet William Shakespeare has been the most effective wielder of the English language in human history. Mr. Shakespeare built his tragedies around seemingly formidable figures, such as Hamlet, Richard III, Macbeth, Othello, and King Lear, who were subject to a “tragic flaw” – a trait that ultimately led to the protagonist’s downfall. (The fictional Hamlet is highly insightful, but his ability to see all sides causes him to be indecisive, to hesitate when he should act.) I would submit that Mr. Trump’s ability to draw from inside himself to release Americans’ basest instincts – openly declaring and giving license to what millions of others were clearly feeling, but realized that they should repress, and did not theretofore give voice to – fueled his rise and has maintained his prominence; but at the same time I would suggest that if he loses in November, it will have been his own obvious amorality, rather than any substantive policy position (possibly save abortion), to be the “tragic flaw” that will have caused his ruin. (Note: in the Shakespearean lexicon, a flaw was considered “tragic” because it led to the downfall of the character. If Mr. Trump’s amorality does repel a sufficient number of voters that he loses, such will be tragic for him, but constitute salvation – or at least a reprieve — for our republic.)
But what if the next MAGA messiah – and there will be one – isn’t so obviously personally flawed? While those who wish to protect our democracy need to focus today on beating Mr. Trump and MAGA Vice Presidential Nominee U.S. OH Sen. J.D. Vance, the very fact that Mr. Trump, despite all of his personal baggage, currently retains at least an even chance to win the presidency means we cannot delude ourselves that even an unassailable Harris victory next month – although it may mean the end of Mr. Trump’s political career – will be the end of the MAGA movement or quench the dark passions within our citizenry which Mr. Trump has unleashed.
I fear that even if Mr. Trump loses, what comes next may be every bit as toxic but harder to contest. By all accounts, Mr. Vance won the recent Vice Presidential Candidate Debate. He didn’t do so because of sterling reasoning or better policy positions [he certainly continued his lies about the Springfield, OH Haitian immigrants being illegal (they’re legal) and claimed that during his presidency, Mr. Trump tried to save the Obama Administration’s Affordable Care Act (a whopper that anyone with the sense of a goose could see through)], but because the television camera loves style. Mr. Vance, notwithstanding his lies, appeared smooth and of pleasant demeanor throughout. He didn’t look crazy; he didn’t look “weird”; he didn’t look threatening; he came across as normal and sane while espousing the same positions and spewing the same lies that Mr. Trump does. This is terribly dangerous.
I read Hillbilly Elegy in 2016. Mr. Vance is without doubt an intelligent and insightful man who sometime over the last eight years decided that he was willing to sacrifice principle in return for power and prominence. (Recall Mr. Trump himself noted in September, 2022, “J.D. is kissing my ass he wants my support so bad.”) If Ms. Harris defeats Mr. Trump, the day after the inauguration Mr. Vance will be the leading candidate for the 2028 MAGA Presidential nomination.
So what happens perhaps four years from now, when the hypothetically incumbent President Harris seeks reelection while being lambasted daily by alt-right propaganda, facing latent and overt sexism and racism, and carrying the weight of eight years of Democratic incumbency? When she faces a MAGA – we can now picture him – perhaps a white Christian married family man who appears stable, intelligent, reasonable, not self-aggrandizing and seemingly committed to positions larger than himself, a slyer liar than Mr. Trump and not greedy, not an adjudged sexual assaulter, not an adulterer, not a convicted felon, who will if elected set out to enact (more efficiently than Mr. Trump ever could) the policies set forth in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (Project 2025)?
If that time comes – although right now, those who believe in democracy need to be focused on winning this election – let’s refer again to The Bard to sum up the challenge we will then face:
“[M]eet it is I set it down, That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain …”
William Shakespeare: Hamlet; Hamlet, Prince of Denmark
At the time this is typed Project 538 poll averages find Democratic Presidential Nominee Vice President Kamala Harris narrowly ahead of former President Donald Trump in the “Blue Wall” states of Michigan (15), Pennsylvania (19), and Wisconsin (10) – enough [with the Nebraska Second District (Omaha; 1)] to provide her with 270 Electoral College votes if the polls are accurate (she also leads in Nevada, 7; nice to have but not enough by itself to compensate for a loss of any Blue Wall state) – but trailing MAGA Presidential Nominee former President Donald Trump by similar narrow margins in Arizona (11), Georgia (16), and North Carolina (16). (As I have obsessively observed in these pages, if the Vice President wins Michigan and Wisconsin but loses Pennsylvania, she loses the presidency unless she can win either North Carolina or Georgia and pair it with a Nevada win.) I have the same twin gut reactions now as I had the day after the Democratic Convention: that if the election was held today, Mr. Trump would win (he has entrenched, implacable support, and a record of scoring better on Election Day than polls indicate); and that there is still time for Ms. Harris to eke it out if she’s savvy – although we’re now into the late innings.
The Vice President and Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee MN Gov. Tim Walz face a conundrum: “Joy” took them as far as it could – it brought them essentially even with the Trump-Vance ticket – but it hasn’t put them notably ahead, and their progress has stalled. In clips of her recent appearances I have seen, Ms. Harris looks visibly tired – no longer on the emotional high she felt through her debate with Mr. Trump. At the same time, while Mr. Trump and MAGA Vice Presidential Nominee U.S. OH Sen. JD Vance can be and are unscrupulous spewers of lies and hate – it’s their campaign brand — Ms. Harris and Mr. Walz cannot afford to get into a mud wrestling match without damaging their brand.
Ironically, in one sense the campaign has turned out to be a contest between President Joe Biden and former SC Gov. Nikki Haley after all: Mr. Trump is seeking to capture swing state men (black and white) who had been leaning toward Mr. Biden before he withdrew but polls indicate are less enthusiastic about Ms. Harris, while Ms. Harris is seeking to capture those Republican primary participants sufficiently disenchanted with Mr. Trump to have still been voting for Ms. Haley, another woman of Indian ancestry, weeks after Ms. Haley suspended her campaign and Mr. Trump had become the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.
Lately, there has been a lot of discussion among pundits in the media we follow about Republican voters claiming to be torn about the upcoming presidential election, who allegedly maintain deep reservations about Mr. Trump (perhaps: “I know that he’s a fascist fantasizing about a return to the 1950s, and he’s lying about the 2020 election, and he’s a convicted felon, and he incited the Capitol riot, and I wouldn’t want him around my daughter, but geez, I’ve voted Republican all my life …” 😉 ). These voters are supposedly still looking for what has been described as a “permission structure” to vote for Ms. Harris and against Mr. Trump.
In a way, these “Permission Seekers” are the most exasperating of the Trump adherents to me; unlike the racist nationalists supporting Mr. Trump (who make clear who Their Guy is), or those supporting him out of religious fervor (whether or not misplaced), or the willingly credulous (who support him because they trust alt-right propaganda outlets), or those understandably stressed by price increases [who unfortunately have not made allowances for the fact that the (albeit now-receding) inflationary surge they confront was arguably an unavoidable consequence of Democratic COVID relief that kept them afloat in the pandemic’s wake], the Permission Seekers know better. They know Mr. Trump is unfit to be President of the United States. While some may cite party loyalty to cloak uglier motives, some are seemingly genuinely paralyzed by the notion of abandoning a lifetime’s political paradigm.
(An aside: these Permission Seekers have naturally caused me to research the behavior of … lemmings. Apparently, lemmings don’t mindlessly follow each other over cliffs; such is a myth attributed to a 1950s documentary. It thus appears that the average lemming has a greater sense of independence and discernment than these conflicted Republicans.)
If the reporting and polling I’ve seen are accurate, Ms. Harris needs to make inroads with three currently reluctant voter segments to win: Republican Permission Seekers; White Male Biden Leaners; and Black Male Biden Leaners.
To woo the Republican Permission Seekers, I would like to see the Harris Campaign cut a number of 30-second spots highlighting each of Mr. Trump’s most glaring weaknesses, in which Mr. Trump does the talking (with Ms. Harris to provide a voice-over conclusion; see below), and run them staccato, such as: (1) January 6th: “If you don’t fight like hell, you won’t have a country anymore,” followed by scenes from the Capitol riot; (2) Abortion: the clips in which Mr. Trump pledged to nominate anti-Roe v. Wade Justices, and his bragging about the result; (3) NATO: the clips of Mr. Trump praising Russian President Vladimir Putin and declaring the he wouldn’t care if Russia invaded a NATO country; (4) Display Mr. Trump’s social media post calling for termination of the Constitution to overturn an election he clearly lost; (5) Social Security and Medicare: the clip in which Mr. Trump states they need to be modified; (6) COVID: note the 1 million American deaths, and the respective clips in which Mr. Trump first suggested that the virus would just go away and later that it could be cured though an injection of bleach; and (7) Immigration (I think Ms. Harris needs to address it): use Republicans to describe how conservative the border bill was, followed by the clip in which Mr. Trump says to “blame me” for its failure.
I would end each spot with Ms. Harris voicing, in a truly neutral, even tone – not ironic, pejorative, or in any way confrontational: “Do you want to go back to that?” Such ads would, if well done, hit hard and align with Ms. Harris’ oft-repeated declaration, “We won’t go back,” while allowing the Permission Seeker to come to his/her own conclusion.
The Democrats’ reportedly have the war chest; they’d better use it.
Next, if the polls are accurately reflecting that Ms. Harris has lost some of the support Mr. Biden had among swing state white males before his withdrawal, one can infer – no matter how good or able a man Mr. Walz is, or how fine a Vice President he will be if elected – that if Ms. Harris picked Mr. Walz to hold this demographic segment, the pick probably hasn’t brought the returns she hoped for. [Before all you Walz supporters go back on the warpath against the Noise 🙂 , let me add that a close friend with a child living in Michigan recently told me that her child has indicated that the pivotal progressive Michigan Muslim voter segment is sufficiently motivated by the Israeli-Hamas conflict that if Ms. Harris had picked PA Gov. Josh Shapiro (whom I preferred) – a staunch defender of Israel – instead of Mr. Walz, Ms. Harris would have lost Michigan, which instead now appears to be her safest swing state.] However, the answer to the White Male Biden Leaner challenge seems straightforward: to the extent finances allow, get Mr. Biden on the road to encourage these voters. (The campaign cost of having a President of the United States barnstorm must be daunting.) I wouldn’t have Mr. Biden campaign in the big cities; I’d have him land (Air Force One, all the trappings of the presidency) in all the areas of swing states where Mr. Trump is campaigning – the middle of Pennsylvania, the center of Wisconsin, etc. – to reassure his white male supporters about Ms. Harris, and attempt to blunt Mr. Trump’s electoral advantage.
(A continuing lament about former President George W. Bush: if, as widely understood, he detests Mr. Trump and all Mr. Trump stands for, if he would stop cowering in his abode, endorse Ms. Harris and join Mr. Biden in the campaign stops described above – as former U.S. WY Rep. Liz Cheney has recently joined Ms. Harris in Ripon, WI — my gut again tells me that the duo would effectively limit Mr. Trump’s advantage among white males in those areas. Alas, Mr. Bush stays mum.)
Finally, I’ve seen reported that a recent NAACP poll has found that Ms. Harris isn’t faring relatively as well among black males as previous Democratic presidential nominees. She clearly needs to shore up this constituency, but it’s obviously one with which I have little familiarity. I expect that the campaign will look to former President Barack Obama to shore up Democratic support among older black males. I’m absolutely confident that the campaign is working hard in trying to determine how to attract younger men of color. Ms. Harris’ current apparent weakness with black males relative to her Democratic presidential nominee predecessors is perplexing to me, but made me reflect upon a point of interest that I think I remember from the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination contest between Mr. Obama and former U.S. Sec. of State Hillary Clinton (but haven’t been able to confirm via Internet research, so I welcome correction if I’m experiencing yet another senior moment). In that nomination contest, I recall that Mr. Obama consistently took about 90% of the black vote, which arguably indicated – since his and Ms. Clinton’s substantive policy positions weren’t very different – that at least in 2008, most black women identified more by race than by gender. Since Ms. Harris has reportedly lost some of Mr. Biden’s black male (but not black female) supporters to Mr. Trump, one might infer that given the unabashedly race-baiting nature of the Trump Campaign, at least in 2024, a relatively larger percentage of black men (as contrasted with black women in 2008) identify more by gender than by race.
One thing that Democrats can’t do: cede the airways on highly-rated events. Many who read these notes are aware that I tape Packer games rather than watch them live, and generally only watch replays of victories (TLOML’S decades-old suggestion; it’s easier on my viscera and less wearing on those around me 😉 ). I naturally fast-forward through commercials. I can’t vouch for the political ads in the first half of yesterday’s Green Bay – Los Angeles Rams game – it only occurred to me to slow down for political ads during the second half — but during the second half the only presidential election ads were Trump ads attacking Ms. Harris. Packer games are the only media event I can think of that is sure to simultaneously capture a large statewide share of the eyes of Wisconsin Republican Permission Seekers, White Male Biden Leaners, and Black Male Biden Leaners. Unless the Democrats ran their ads in the first half, an opportunity wasted.
The intelligence behind political target marketing has obviously become unnervingly good. TLOML and I are inundated with Democratic pleas for contributions and assurances that we will vote. We receive nothing from Republicans.
In a contest this close, there are still innings to play; either side can still prevail (just ask the New York Mets or Milwaukee Brewers about the possibility for late comebacks). Let us hope that Ms. Harris and Mr. Walz, with the help of both liberal and conservative surrogates and the Democratic party “ground game,” effectively address their electoral shortcomings during the next couple of weeks (as early voting begins in earnest). Our democracy depends on it.
Our recent ramblings have provided little opportunity to post in these pages. A few notions over the last couple of months:
First, a mea culpa: I indicated in an August preview of the Democratic Convention, “I suspect that there will be no rising Democratic stars given prime time speaking slots … I doubt that delegates will be offered any opportunity for second guessing, … thinking … ‘“We nominated the wrong ‘guy’.”’ In fact, every rising star I listed by name in that post spoke, as well as everybody who wants to be a rising Democratic star, as well as your Uncle Fred. Democratic Presidential Nominee Vice President Kamala Harris obviously emerged from the convention stronger than before. Well, as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once observed: “I have never developed indigestion from eating my own words.” 🙂 .
As of the time this is typed, Ms. Harris has run a truly effective campaign. Keeping in mind that I am frequently – and accurately — chided as Mr. Pessimism, I consider her performance thus far to continue to offer her a real chance for victory against the implacable support of MAGA Presidential Nominee former President Donald Trump. (I can’t be more bullish than that.) I thought her debate performance was masterful; she has clearly grown exponentially as a debater since her 2020 run for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. She baited Mr. Trump while she ignored his barbs and kept repeating her own messages, demonstrating better control than I think I could have mustered. Yet more intriguing was her strategy to let Mr. Trump talk. Although Mr. Trump whined about the ABC moderators’ unfairness in the wake of his obvious debate debacle, I counted only three times when the moderators corrected his obvious lies, but many more than three times when the moderators turned his microphone back on, contrary to my understanding of the debate rules, to let him respond to a point she had made. At the time, I was irritated at the moderators; in retrospect, I realized that she hadn’t objected because she recognized that once she gotten him off-stride, his talking helped her. All that said, I found her 63%-37% victory in CNN’s snap poll of undecided watchers to be instructive. In a sane world, she should have won 100% – 0%. Even so, from the perspective of the real world to which we have become accustomed, I scored it closer — perhaps 55% – 45%. Hopefully, whomever she swayed in the debate will remain in her camp. To her credit, Ms. Harris is seeming to continue to run with an underdog mentality. She had better.
We’ve heard a lot about Mandate for Leadership: the Conservative Promise, popularly known as, “Project 2025,” the Heritage Foundation 900+ page opus setting forth a policy framework for Mr. Trump or some other MAGA winning the White House. I try to avoid expounding on a subject without reading the primary source myself. Months ago, I started visiting the Heritage Foundation website to buy a copy (the Heritage Foundation has posted full test online, but these old eyes can’t withstand 900+ pages onscreen), but for all these months, the volume has remained sold out. Any political think tank normally looks to grab any dollar it can. I have read snippets of the work, and think it is fair to infer from the Heritage Foundation’s otherwise curious failure to reprint a sure income generator that the Foundation – as well as Mr. Trump, who has tried to distance himself from it in front of mainstream audiences while embracing it in MAGA conclaves – recognizes that most Americans would find its prescriptions as anathematic as liberals and progressives claim they are. For those with stronger eyes than mine, a link to the volume’s pdf is set forth immediately below.
I hate it when I am scooped by national media on a Wisconsin-related point that I intended to enter here 😉 ; I will enter it here nonetheless. On September 20, the New York Times ran an article, “How the Fastest-Growing County in Wisconsin Is Scrambling the Presidential Race,” describing how technology and science workers are flooding into Dane County (where Madison is located) and how these voters may be shifting the statewide balance toward Ms. Harris and away from Mr. Trump. A link is provided below for those who can get behind the Times’ paywall. TLOML and I happen to live on Madison’s west side amid burgeoning technology and science concerns. We see it first-hand. At rush hour, it is now a struggle to even get on the entrance ramps to Madison’s primary expressway that are respectively east and west of our home. It has never been this way – not even four years ago, when President Joe Biden narrowly bested Mr. Trump in Wisconsin where the Dane County turnout – not the Milwaukee County turnout – was ultimately considered decisive. These new Dane County residents are young, highly educated, overwhelmingly progressive, motivated to vote, and present a decided advantage for Ms. Harris.
Feeling good about Wisconsin? And yet, a note of caution. Recall that in 2022, White WI Gov. Tony Evers beat his MAGA opponent by three points, while Black WI Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes lost by a point to White Trump Toady U.S. WI Sen. Ron Johnson, who ran a crime-focused, thinly-veiled race-baiting campaign. This state is a long way from former President Barack Obama’s wins in 2008 and 2012. The Democrats’ last female presidential nominee, former U.S. Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, lost to Mr. Trump although Mr. Trump had made clear his intent to appoint Supreme Court Justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade. In both 2016 and 2020, Mr. Trump ended up with a higher percentage of the Wisconsin vote than polls had suggested he would; it is accordingly not unreasonable to anticipate that such might occur again this year. We won’t know the Wisconsin outcome until late on election night or the next day, when the vote counts in the Republican-leaning counties around Milwaukee report; Mr. Biden won in 2020 – by a narrower margin than Mr. Trump had in 2016 – because these Republican strongholds didn’t give Mr. Trump enough boost to overcome Mr. Biden’s Milwaukee and Dane County totals.
I’ve been cleaning out my study, getting rid of documents that no longer matter (at least insofar as the their impact on the upcoming election is concerned). It is stunning to see how much water – or better said, bile – has flowed under the bridge since Mr. Trump came down his escalator to start his 2016 presidential campaign: the Mueller Report; former U.S. Attorney General William Barr’s written attempt to whitewash the Mueller Report; the U.S. Senate Report on Russian interference in 2016 Election on Mr. Trump’s behalf; the Memorandum of the Mr. Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy; the U.S. House of Representatives’ impeachment resolutions against Mr. Trump; the federal indictments handed down against Mr. Trump for defrauding the United States and mishandling of classified documents. There is so much filth connected to one man that you can’t really mentally grasp it all at once, although we have lived it. If I had been presented in 2014 with the hypothetical that a Trump-like demagogue could rise in this country – not only preaching populism and racism but carrying all the ancillary personal baggage that Mr. Trump carries, I would have dismissed it as pure fantasy.
I pitched it all. Old news. While one might argue that the sleaze is why so many Americans detest Mr. Trump, the fact remains that today he nonetheless remains an extremely viable, if not the leading, candidate for the presidency of the United States. It is a frightening example of the powers of propaganda and hate that Adolf Hitler elucidated in Mein Kampf over a century ago.
A related notion: an indication how Mr. Trump’s influence has finally completely contaminated the previously-conservative political ecosystem: the hullaballoo attending MAGA Vice Presidential Nominee U.S. OH Sen. J.D. Vance’s despicable trumpeting of entirely false claims that legal Haitian immigrants are eating cats and dogs in Springfield, OH. Let’s put aside the irony, noted by some commentators, that in Hillbilly Elegy (which I have read, published when Mr. Vance was a sane voice before morphing into Junior Demagogue), Mr. Vance describes Ohioans’ bias in the 1950s against Mr. Vance’s own Kentucky Hillbilly forebears for allegedly engaging in practices not dissimilar from those for which he now loudly condemns the Haitians. To me the crucial point is that Mr. Vance has admitted that what he is saying about the Springfield Haitians is a lie – that there is no evidence it is happening – and he keeps on with it anyway. I’m a political junkie. As certain as death and more certain than taxes is that all politicians fudge, exaggerate, distort. They always have; they always will. That said, before Mr. Trump, I think it was extremely rare to find a politician who would know something was a lie, get called on it, and justblatantly, nakedly, keep on lying. Mr. Trump has now spawned a whole generation of politicians in his image who have no regard for truth, Mr. Vance now being the scariest of his progeny, because we must now assume that he will keep up his assault on truth à la Mr. Trump if he becomes Vice President, or … President of the United States.
We had the opportunity to hear former U.S. WY Rep. Liz Cheney speak on September 20. Although my views vary from Ms. Cheney’s on domestic issues, my respect for her patriotism and, as a Republican, lonely stand against Mr. Trump has earned my unbounded respect. Although I consider the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, strongly supported if not spearheaded by her father, then-Vice President Richard Cheney, to be the most egregious foreign policy failure of the last 50 years, Mr. Cheney, like his daughter, has forthrightly endorsed Ms. Harris due to the threat to democracy they recognize in Mr. Trump. For the remainder of my days, no matter how I feel about the Iraq invasion, I will always have the mental qualifier about Mr. Cheney: on the most important issue of his conscious lifetime (he was, after all, born during World War II 🙂 ) … he got it right.
At the same time, my current disdain for the reticence of former President George W. Bush cannot be overstated. I agree with pundits who suggest that given the hundreds of prominent Republicans (including former Trump Administration officials) who have already spoken out against Mr. Trump, additional Republicans endorsing Ms. Harris won’t matter, with one exception: Mr. Bush. It is common knowledge that he despises Mr. Trump. To speak plainly: if he has any guts, he should issue a statement to this effect: “During my presidency, I asked our people to give their lives in our nation’s cause. The least I owe them is to tell them directly what I think is best for our nation. I consider Donald Trump to present a direct threat to American democracy. I have honest disagreements with Vice President Kamala Harris on many issues, but she is honorable and will safeguard our way of life. I encourage you to join me in voting for Ms. Harris in the upcoming election.” If Mr. Bush fails to issue such a statement within the next couple of weeks – before advance voting starts in earnest across the country — he will for all time confirm what many of us have long concluded: he was indeed the wanting son of truly remarkable parents.
Finally, something particularly struck me watching the Democratic convention: it was (to state the obvious) a celebration of the predominantly young, multi-colored, multi-ethnic, multi-gender, multi-faithed. It presented a gender, youth, and racial revolution away from our traditional male, white, straight, Christian mores which was markedly more pronounced to me this year than it was in earlier electoral cycles in this century when the Democrats nominated other objectively tradition-shattering candidates — more so than in 2008, with Mr. Obama (cerebral, reserved, witty, beautifully tailored, traditional husband and father, Christian, Ivy graduate, incredible orator, another John Kennedy in all ways but skin color, who went to great lengths to not look threatening), or in 2016 with Ms. Clinton (a traditional Democratic presidential candidate in all ways but gender who was burdened, by having been in the public eye for so long, with sufficient baggage that she somehow forfeited the “change agent” mantle to Mr. Trump). I would submit that the cultural evolution that we have been more or less considering in these last decades is now upon us. We are at the tipping point. Ms. Harris represents not a rejection of tradition but the notion that our nation can accommodate more than one cultural paradigm. Mr. Trump is the embodiment of the posture that there can be only one. I don’t know which way this struggle will go; but I do believe that whether our nation will flourish or wither over the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren depends upon the outcome.
This is what occurs when one ponders without the attendant opportunity to expound 😉 . We’ll see what happens.
We’ve just returned from a trip to the United Kingdom; amid the many wonderful experiences we had during our stay, by far the most arresting for me – no surprise to anyone who reads these pages – was a visit to the Churchill War Rooms and the Churchill Museum in London. (TLOML had to finally drag me out, noting that we were in danger of missing a tour we had paid for 🙂 ). Certain aspects of our trip are well worthy of a post at some point in the future, but reviewing the War Rooms and Museum exhibits setting forth the details of the fascist danger that British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the British people confronted alone from mid-1940 until the end of 1941 – the period after the Nazis overran Europe until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor finally brought isolationist members of Congress to support America’s entry into the war – is causing me to straightforwardly repeat here what I have indicated in the past: I perceive former President Donald Trump and his MAGA cohort to be a fascist threat to our way of life. I thought that if the former president was defeated in 2020, the spell he had cast over so many of our citizens would dissipate. Given the support he maintains despite his manifest unfitness for office, it would seem that that spell is even more intensely entrenched now than it was four years ago.
You who honor me by reviewing these posts are acutely aware of the many (and frequently wordy 😉 ) notes I have entered here. That said, if I was to list five entries set forth in these pages for which I have the most regard, “The Fourth Election,” which I posted in two parts in June, 2020, would certainly be among them. Its thrust was that the need to defeat Mr. Trump in the then-upcoming 2020 election was as critical to preserving the American life as the elections of 1788 (George Washington), 1860 (Abraham Lincoln) and 1932 (Franklin Roosevelt). I generally feel that I am “cheating” a bit if I quote a previous post to make a substantive point in a subsequent post, but in this instance, I can’t say it better the second time than I did the first. What follows are excerpts from “The Fourth Election,” edited only to clarify references. All emphasized text was emphasized in the original. (I hadn’t initially recalled that it included the longest litany of Mr. Trump’s personality failings that I have ever put together 😉 ). While, given its publication date, there is obviously no reference to Mr. Trump’s subsequent lying denial of his 2020 election defeat, nor to his subsequent seditious instigation of an attack on our Capitol, nor to the Project 2025 document (which, despite his denials, his actions in his last months in office make manifestly clear that he will implement if he is reelected), this 2020 post’s observations now seem prescient, given the glaring demonstrations we have seen since its posting of the authoritarian dangers a second Trump presidency will present.
The Fourth Election
…
On February 5, 2020, President Donald Trump was acquitted by the United States Senate at the conclusion of his [first] impeachment trial. Two days after the acquittal, President Trump removed from their respective positions European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondlund and Director for European Affairs for the United States National Security Council Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, two witnesses whose undisputedly truthful testimony implicated the President in a scheme to pressure a vital but vulnerable ally for his own domestic political purposes. Four days after the acquittal, the United States Department of Justice, led by U.S. Attorney General William Barr, said that it was reducing the sentence it was recommending for convicted Trump confidante Roger Stone – described by former Trump Administration Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon during Mr. Stone’s trial as an “access point” to Russia conduit Wikileaks for the Trump Campaign — after the President tweeted that the 7-9 year term initially recommended by DOJ was “disgraceful” and a “miscarriage of justice.”
I tend to buy books in clusters. Largely driven by these Trump Administration actions … I went to my local bookstore to acquire specific titles that I considered appropriate supplements to my copy of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer: Mr. Putin, by Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy; The New Sultan, the story of Turkey’s President (and now autocratically inclined) Recip Tayyip Erdogan, by Soner Cagaptay; Fascism: A Warning, by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; and … a final selection — a volume generally available, but a title that causes you to lower your voice when requesting: Mein Kampf (in English, “My Struggle”), by Adolf Hitler.
At my last request, the young woman with whom I’d been working glanced up at me a bit sharply, then relaxed; apparently – thankfully — I look like a researcher, not a believer. She located Hitler’s opus, glanced at the price, added it to my pile, and observed sympathetically, “That’s a lot for such trash.” Then she added: “My Dad says I shouldn’t wear this necklace out like this.” I hadn’t previously noticed, but saw then: at the base of her neck was a small Star of David.
That is where we are today. Throughout President Trump’s term, we have seen countless instances of his deliberately sowing seeds of division among us, his lying, racism, religious bigotry, sexism, xenophobia, bullying, instability, narcissism, erraticism, avarice, pettiness, and flouting of norms, rules, and laws, his virulent attacks on the principled who disagree with him, a free press, and free speech, and his collaboration with foreign enemies for his own ends. Even so, never seriously did I contemplate the potential for his dictatorial inclinations until – after he was acquitted in the Senate — he dismissed Messrs. Vindman and Sondlund and meddled in Mr. Stone’s sentencing. Since that time, the Justice Department has sought to drop its prosecution of Mr. Trump’s former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn (after Mr. Flynn twice pled guilty), Mr. Trump has dismissed four Inspectors General (dismissals U.S. UT Sen. Mitt Romney called “a threat to accountable democracy”), he has issued an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship after Twitter added corrective links to his completely unsubstantiated tweeted claims of fraud related to mail-in voting, he has called upon the nation’s Governors to “dominate” protestors in the wake of George Floyd’s killing, and on June 1 had peaceful protestors cleared from Lafayette Square, in part through the use of chemical agents, in order to provide himself with a photo opportunity.
The above list isn’t exhaustive, but it is indicative. Clearly Mr. Trump has considered himself unfettered since his acquittal, and has felt free to exact revenge and pursue vendettas against those he considers to have wronged him or his entourage. Does anyone think that Mr. Trump will be more restrained if he is re-elected?
…
Former President Barack Obama is reportedly fond of a statement by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” With all due respect to Messrs. King and Obama, I consider the sentiment poppycock. What is right and just is not inevitable; it must be defended. Messrs. Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant, and Messrs. Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Douglas MacArthur didn’t prevail in their struggles because they were right; they won because they had more troops and better weapons than the enemy. I would submit that this is the Fourth Election in which the American way of life is at stake. We citizens have only votes to defend the freedom this nation provides. The existential threats [existing as of the 1788, 1860, and 1932 elections] were brought about by outside circumstances beyond the control of the Presidents called upon to address them; in this election, [Mr. Trump] is the existential threat. His presidency has revealed both the strength and fault lines within our system of government.
…
Although perhaps those that read these posts are already aware of this, it is nonetheless worth noting that Messrs. Hitler, Putin, and Erdogan all first assumed their leadership positions by Constitutional means in what were then actual democracies; none had to overthrow an established order before beginning their accumulation of control over their respective nations. While I draw a measure of solace from the manner in which [former Secretary of Defense Mark] Esper and [former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark] Milley have recently distanced themselves and the military from Mr. Trump’s Lafayette Park stunt – one can’t be an autocrat without an army – there are plenty of other Defense Secretary candidates and Generals from whom Mr. Trump can choose from if he is re-elected. I have seen a number of pundits suggest that Mr. Trump’s presidency is “over.” I suggest that we need be watchful, lest his dictatorship start.
In normal times, I consider politics to be the “sports page” of world affairs: Who’s winning, who’s losing, who might employ what strategy. Today, in the United States of America, politics is where the substantive battle to protect our way of life will be fought. Although the ammunition in this contest must remain ballots, the struggle to protect the ideals upon which this nation was founded is every bit as much at issue in the current campaign as it is on Ukrainian lands. The political exchanges we will see over the next two months – and given our experience with the 2020 Election, perhaps all the way to Inauguration Day – will determine whether the American experiment in democracy survives.
McCoy's Noise 