[Please pardon this note’s length; our life’s circumstances taken together with the timing of the Democratic Convention have caused what are essentially two posts to be compressed into one.]

“Decry my pessimism; berate me if you wish, I would love to be persuaded …”

In this original (“Ouch!) post, while noting that I had nothing personally against putative Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee MN Gov. Tim Walz, I expressed regret that the Presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, had chosen to pass over PA Gov. Josh Shapiro, who I believed that if chosen would have given her the best chance to win Mr. Shapiro’s pivotal, perhaps politically existential for Ms. Harris, Electoral College state of Pennsylvania.

No entry since the Noise started spouting in 2017 has generated more decrying and received more berating.  😉  Some expressing disagreement with the opinion expressed here have thought Gov. Walz’ optimistic demeanor would help Ms. Harris; some that Mr. Walz’ more progressive record (as contrasted with Mr. Shapiro’s more centrist tendencies) would be an asset; others (one as recently as yesterday) that Mr. Shapiro’s staunch support of Israel would be a detriment; others, that it wouldn’t make any difference whom Ms. Harris chose.  I must admit that when one particular dissenter, who is very taken with Mr. Walz’ positive demeanor and progressive record, disagreed with me – across our kitchen counter – I wisely adopted the approach often taken by Lee Childs’ fictional Jack Reacher, familiar to all fans of Mr. Childs’ thriller series:  I said nothing.  🙂 .

Given my lawyer DNA, I thoroughly enjoyed the spirited responses.  Our kind actually relishes the rough-and-tumble of well-intended clashes of views.  (Well, there’s maybe one that it would have been simpler to live without 😉 ).  As I indicated in the post, I most fervently hope y’all are right.

Now that the dust is settling a bit, a few impressions – the most intriguing (which, alas, was not originally mine) last:

It has been reported by credible sources that Israel’s strikes into Gaza against Hamas have killed tens of thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians, including thousands of children.  Recently, yet more Palestinian children have been killed or maimed in Israel’s attacks on schools harboring Hamas terrorists.  It is conceivable that if the Israeli-Hamas conflict cannot be settled soon – and certainly, if Israel bombs more schools or the war widens – Mr. Shapiro’s avid support of Israel could have become a liability to the Harris ticket.

I don’t think any of the aspersions that MAGAs have thus far sought to cast on Mr. Walz will carry any weight with anybody with any sense.  To impugn Mr. Walz’ 24 years of National Guard service because he retired before his unit was deployed to the Middle East rings pretty hollow coming from a party whose standard bearer was clearly a Vietnam draft dodger.  MAGA presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump’s calling Mr. Walz, “Tampon Tim,” because as Minnesota Governor Mr. Walz signed a bill that enabled the provision of feminine hygiene products in Minnesota grade school restrooms is just … stupid.  (Although CNN has largely disproven MAGAs’ claim that the products have been placed in boys’ bathrooms, my question is:  even if Mr. Trump’s claim was true, aside from any miniscule waste of Minnesota taxpayer funds – Who cares?)  Finally, MAGA Oversight Committee Chair U.S. KY Rep. James Comer is now asking the FBI for information on Mr. Walz’ connections to China.  Apparently, Mr. Walz spent a year teaching in China after he graduated from college – a pretty long time ago — and during his subsequent Minnesota high school teaching years organized many student trips to China.  That, at least insofar as I know, is the summary of Mr. Walz’ connections to China.  I would venture that the majority of those reading these pages either went on, or had children who went on, high school trips similar to those organized by Mr. Walz (one of our sons went on a trip to Russia in the late ‘90’s, for pity’s sake.)  This is so pathetic that one can even envision any sane voice left at Fox News saying, “So Walz organized high school trips to China?  When he was a Minnesota high school teacher?  Not even we can make something out of this – Comer’s a moron.”  Is that all they got?  

Now, what I find the most intriguing impression I have heard about Mr. Walz’ selection – one of the million notions I wish I would have thought of before I heard it – from MSNBC Commentator Chuck Todd:  After Mr. Walz was chosen, Mr. Todd observed that an assessment of the respective strategic electoral benefits of Messrs. Walz and Shapiro ultimately came down to whether one viewed the upcoming election as a turn out election or a persuasion election.  In other words:  If one believes that the path to victory is turning out the vote of all those already committed to one’s cause, then the Walz pick made sense because it avoided the potential for a rancorous split among Democrats, including the key student voter segment, who object to Mr. Shapiro’s steadfast support of Israel.  On the other hand, if one views the key to victory as persuading, and thus gaining the vote of, swing state swing voters – mostly suburban conservative independent and moderate Republicans, largely financially secure — that the Democrats are safer than Mr. Trump, then Mr. Shapiro was probably the wiser choice.

These are the kinds of nuanced decisions we expect the President of the United States to make.  Although I remain unpersuaded that Mr. Walz was the wiser choice – I remain fixated on Pennsylvania’s Electoral College votes — Mr. Todd’s comment offered a strategic rationale for Ms. Harris’ selection.  The talk of every Presidential candidate about having picked a running mate “Ready to step in on Day 1,” or “Chemistry,” or as a “Governing Partner,” etc., etc., etc., is all a bunch of bunkum.  If you don’t win an Electoral College majority, it’s irrelevant.

No matter whether one applauds Mr. Walz’ selection or would have preferred that Ms. Harris pick Mr. Shapiro, I think all who seek a Democratic victory can probably agree on this:

If Ms. Harris wins the presidency, she was right whether or not she carried Pennsylvania. 

If she loses the presidency but carries Pennsylvania, it probably didn’t matter which finalist she chose. 

If she loses Pennsylvania and loses to Mr. Trump in the Electoral College by 19 or fewer votes, she was wrong.

The Democratic Convention starts today.  The party has scheduled a celebrated all-star speaking cast.  Notions on the gathering:

First:  I suspect that there will be no rising Democratic stars given prime time speaking slots – no Mr. Shapiro, no U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, no MI Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, no KY Gov. Andy Beshear.  To win, Democrats need to remain united; I doubt that delegates will be offered any opportunity for second guessing, for them to leave the convention hall on Thursday evening thinking – as the Democrats did in 1956 when they nominated U.S. TN Sen. Estes Kefauver instead of then U.S. MA Sen. John Kennedy for Vice President, and the Republicans did in 1976 when they nominated President Gerald Ford instead of then former CA Gov. Ronald Reagan for president — “We nominated the wrong ‘guy’.”

Tonight, former Democratic Nominee, Secretary of State, NY Sen. and First Lady Hillary Clinton will caution Democrats not to be over exuberant, and to remember Electoral College math — that she beat Mr. Trump by 3 million votes, but he won the White House.  She will remind women that although her campaign put tens of millions of dents in the last American glass ceiling, it remains up to voters this year to break through it.

Tonight President Joe Biden will remind voters of all he has accomplished.  Expect an overwhelming, and extraordinarily well-deserved, ovation.  He will talk about the need to pass the torch to the next generation, perhaps even quoting Mr. Kennedy from 1960.  (An aside:  I dismiss claims that Mr. Biden was “pushed out” by the Democratic Party establishment.  While the President obviously withdrew with a heavy heart, he did so because saw what we all saw:  he was going to lose to Donald Trump.  He couldn’t be “pushed aside”; he is the sitting President of the United States, and he had already won enough delegates to clinch the party’s nomination, had he wished to hold it.)

Tuesday night, President Barack Obama will be … Barack Obama.  It takes no prescience to declare that he will deliver the most soaring rhetoric of the Convention.  He has been carefully scheduled not to upstage Mr. Biden, Mr. Walz, or Ms. Harris.  He will speak warmly of Mr. Biden, laud Ms. Harris, excite the young (notwithstanding his now gray hair 😉 ), and lecture voters of color – as only he can – as to the consequences if they don’t come out to vote for Ms. Harris.

Wednesday night, President Bill Clinton will, in his own style (for those with shorter memories, as effective albeit a different manner than the oratory of Messrs. Kennedy, Reagan and Obama), remind voters of how he effectively administered a 1990s growth economy and draw analogies to Ms. Harris’ platform, and emphasize a point he always made extremely effectively in his own campaigns:  our need to think about the future.  (I wouldn’t be surprised if he comes on stage to his campaign song, Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop [Thinkin’ About Tomorrow].”) 

Mr. Walz closes Wednesday night by getting to introduce himself.  He does seem a “Joyful Warrior,” in the style of arguably Minnesota’s most influential politician of all time, the late Vice President and U.S. MN Sen. Hubert Humphry [who was literally known as the “Happy Warrior” (for those of us old enough to remember, Mr. Walz’ cadence is reminiscent of Mr. Humphrey’s)].  He will talk about his family, his upbringing, his military service, his years as a teacher, what he did in Congress (he was a centrist representing a conservative district), what he has done as Minnesota Governor.  If he is effective, he will dispel the Republican claims that he is somehow a military shirker or a wild-eyed liberal.  He will particularly seek to draw a contrast between himself and the extremely inexperienced Republican Vice Presidential Nominee U.S. OH Sen. J.D. Vance.

These are, of course, all merely opening acts.  Ms. Harris needs to bring it home on Thursday night.  She should paint a happy, positive picture while noting her prosecutorial background and blaming Mr. Trump for the repeal of Roe v. Wade, the constant erratic and divisive upheaval of his presidency, the fact that he lost in 2020 and he’s still lying about it, the January 6th assault on the Capitol, kowtowing to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and killing the bipartisan immigration bill.  I’ve been pleased to see that she keeps reminding her crowds that she remains the underdog to Mr. Trump.  She needs to stress that in her acceptance speech.  While she should be careful not to offend moderates by attacking the Electoral College – “It was a compromise that our Founding Fathers struck to form our union” – she should note that Electoral College math presents Democrats an uphill battle.  She might well point out that the Democrat has won the popular vote in all presidential elections since 1992 save one, but Republicans have served three terms White House terms during which they appointed the six conservative justices that overturned Roe; that every vote counts.  She might conclude with, “Our quest is every citizen’s vote; our mission is to save our democracy; our vision is to provide a better future for every American.  God bless America.”

I know, I know.  I’ve read way too many Churchill and Kennedy speeches.

We’ll see what happens.  Enjoy the show.

[Noise Alert:  this breaks this site’s general rule of not publishing a post on the day it is written, and may be the most depressing note ever entered in these pages.  Feel free to pass it.]

So – it turns out that I was wrong.  The Vice President of the United States isn’t following the Noise.  Apparently, it only becomes compulsory reading when one ascends to the Oval Office (and even then, only for those Presidents who are actually willing to read  😉 ).

Nothing will be said here against MN Gov. Tim Walz, whom Presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee Vice President Kamala Harris has chosen to be her Vice Presidential running mate, personally.  Every time I have seen Mr. Walz interviewed, I have been struck by his ability to articulate, his command of the issues, and his down-home, midwestern friendly folksiness, but – and there will literally be NOTHING I EVER enter in these pages for which I will more fervently hope to be proven wrong – I fear Ms. Harris’ selection will ultimately prove to be a critical factor contributing to an Electoral College victory for former President Donald Trump in November.

Mr. Walz reminds me of U.S. VA Sen. Tim Kaine, selected as running mate by former Democratic Presidential Nominee, U.S. Sec. of State, U.S. NY Sen. and First Lady Hillary Clinton in 2016.  Mr. Kaine (still in the Senate) is an able guy and a nice guy who I think – had he been at the top of the 2016 Democratic ticket – might well have beaten Mr. Trump in 2016.  He wasn’t.  If Mr. Walz was the Democratic Presidential nominee, I’d like his chances against Mr. Trump. 

He’s isn’t.  Ms. Harris is.  She needed every edge she could get in what had promised to be a razor-close race against Mr. Trump.  She’s already being painted by the Trump forces as a Wacko Woke Progressive – a label that MAGAs could never effectively pin on President Joe Biden, but will be effective against Ms. Harris (I know; she was a prosecutor.  Doesn’t matter.  Swing state voters are well aware that she’s from California – which is Latin in the rest of the country for, “Wacko Woke Progressive.”)  If Mr. Walz is as progressive as he has been described in the media, he will, no matter his every-man style, have given MAGAs, thus far floundering with misogynist and racist attacks against Ms. Harris, a politically-acceptable wedge with mostly suburban moderate swing state swing voters:  that the Democrats are too left, during a campaign in which Ms. Harris needs to convince them that she’s safer Mr. Trump  – i.e., that she will govern in a steady, centrist manner despite MAGAs’ claims to the contrary.

I have seen media reports that PA Gov. Josh Shapiro was the early front-runner in Ms. Harris’ selection process, but that Gov. Shapiro’s staunch pro-Israel stance in the current Israeli-Hamas conflict created concerted and vehement opposition to his selection in Democratic Party progressive ranks.  One cannot know for sure why Mr. Shapiro was passed over; perhaps there is an unreported factor in his background that Ms. Harris and her advisors feared would ultimately harm the campaign if it came to light; but if she actually turned away from Mr. Shapiro – who has governed as a centrist, and is very popular in the one Electoral College state Ms. Harris most probably needs to win to claim the presidency – because of progressive opposition, she’s a fool, and perhaps warrants the questions regarding her competence that have been circling her since she announced her presidential candidacy in 2020.  Does she really fear that progressives and the young wouldn’t vote for her – a charismatic black woman — or vote for Donald Trump, because of Mr. Shapiro’s views on the Israeli-Hamas war?  She is the one who would be president, and she has made clear her own reservations about the unrestrained manner in which Israel has prosecuted its war against Hamas and concern for the thousands of Palestinian civilians arguably unnecessarily killed or injured as a result.  The progressive Democratic constituencies would have still come out for her despite their concerns about Mr. Shapiro’s Israel-Hamas stand – and Mr. Shapiro would have given her a real chance to claim the one swing state she seemingly can’t afford to lose.

The historical reference is obvious (one can’t have a Noise post without a historical reference 🙂 ).  Then-U.S. MA Sen. John Kennedy horrified liberals when he picked then-Senate Majority Leader U.S. TX Sen. Lyndon Johnson as his running mate in 1960 (reportedly, Robert Kennedy was shocked at his brother’s decision, and argued vehemently against it).  Sen. Kennedy knew better – knew that the liberals would swallow their gripes when the opposition was the detested Richard Nixon – and that he might need Texas’ Electoral College votes to win the presidency.  [If one looks at the 1960 Electoral College totals, it looks as though he didn’t – until one realizes that had Mr. Kennedy not swept the entire South (already uncomfortable with northern liberalism and getting over its hatred of Republicans dating back to Abraham Lincoln, and which ultimately turned decisively Republican eight years later) – he would have lost].  By selecting Mr. Johnson and making liberals abide it, Mr. Kennedy made it clear that he, not they, was in charge.  By her passing over Mr. Shapiro, Ms. Harris appears progressives’ captive rather than their master.

If Ms. Harris couldn’t win Minnesota’s Electoral College votes without Mr. Walz on the ticket, she wasn’t going to win the presidency.  How do you think the Pennsylvania Democratic Party apparatus, undoubtedly very dedicated to Mr. Shapiro, is feeling about Ms. Harris today?  Enthused, or deflated?

I have been told that Gov. Shapiro has announced that he will campaign vigorously for the Harris–Walz ticket.  Of course he will.  One final and arguably apt reference to John F. Kennedy:  after being passed over by a whisker for the Vice Presidential nomination in 1956, he gave a ringing speech at the 1956 Democratic Convention on behalf of the Party’s nominees, Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver — who were never going to beat President Dwight Eisenhower and his Vice President, Mr. Nixon – which essentially amounted to his introduction to the American people and the commencement of Mr. Kennedy’s 1960 presidential campaign.  I would suggest that Mr. Shapiro’s enthusiastic support of the Harris-Walz ticket is in the same vein.  Mr. Shapiro is readying himself for a 2028 presidential campaign.

If there is a 2028 presidential campaign.  Right now, I can’t hide my disappointment. In the last entry in these pages, I indicated that Ms. Harris’ early steps as the Democratic presidential nominee had given me real hope that she could defeat Mr. Trump and protect our democracy.  Decry my pessimism; berate me if you wish, I would love to be persuaded; but I am markedly less confident that there will be a genuine 2028 presidential campaign today than I was yesterday.  

We’ve been away from home for most of the period since President Joe Biden ended his campaign for a second term; during our time away, Vice President Kamala Harris has secured the endorsement of enough delegates to the Democratic Party’s Chicago August convention to be the party’s nominee.  While we haven’t been in a position to digest the news in any great detail, that has perhaps made it easier to focus on overarching circumstances.

One factor in the race that hasn’t changed:  it will be decided by the swing states’ moderate Republicans and conservative independents. 

Another has, diametrically:  I’ve been stunned at the enthusiasm level generated by Ms. Harris’ candidacy among progressives, liberals, minorities, the young, and a segment of women voters.  Ms. Harris has undeniable charm and vitality – I noted here years ago that she has the best smile I’ve seen in politics since former President Jimmy Carter’s – which may well ultimately drive a decisive segment of female, young and minority voters to the voting booth.  (Note:  in a race promising to be this close, every Democratic constituency will need to be decisive.)

Mr. Biden’s withdrawal and Ms. Harris’ nomination have enabled Democrats, if they are adept, to turn voters’ focus back to where it needs to be for them to win the White House and the Congress:  on Donald Trump and the MAGA movement.

Ms. Harris has the opportunity to turn this presidential contest into the Year of the Woman.  Given the seething abortion issue, the time is now.  She has unquestionably been an effective advocate for women’s reproductive rights.  Some 70% of Americans reportedly believe that a woman should have the right to abort a fetus at least through the first trimester; those rights have (obviously) been curtailed by Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court picks.  His current position – “Let the states choose” – does nothing to mollify those seeking to preserve reproductive rights [particularly given the increasingly restrictive views taken by conservative state legislatures and courts, reaching even to In Vitro Fertilization (“IVF”)], while antagonizing many Pro-Lifers as waffling; this is a gaping political vulnerability for Mr. Trump that he won’t be able to run away from.  As if we needed more affronts to women:  Mr. Trump has been found civilly liable for sexual assault, and has in effect been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of cheating on his wife with an adult film star.

(An aside:  I wonder whether Ms. Harris might not also benefit from buyer’s remorse among some moderately conservative swing state suburban women who voted for Mr. Trump in 2016.  The 2016 Democratic Nominee, former U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. NY Sen. and First Lady Hillary Clinton, was unquestionably more competent than Mr. Trump, but for a large segment of the electorate, wasn’t likeable.  I wonder whether some of these women who simply didn’t like Ms. Clinton and voted for Mr. Trump sufficiently rue their 2016 votes that this time, they’ll vote for Ms. Harris.)

Mr. Trump’s threat to democracy.  Swing state swing voters know he lost, know he’s lying about it, and know he incited the January 6^th attack on our nation’s Capitol in an attempt to overturn the valid results of a fair (albeit close) election.  They know he is pledging if elected to pardon those who stormed the Capitol.  They know (or can be reminded) that Mr. Trump has called for termination of the Constitution to overturn the result of an election he knows lost, and that his partisan judicial selections (talk about rigging) have ensured that he will not go on trial for his alleged actions before the election.  I confess that I don’t know why Mr. Trump’s traitorous activities aren’t alone sufficient reason for him to be defeated in landslide that would dwarf those won by Presidents Roosevelt, Johnson, and Reagan – for me, it is the issue – but it is one that is reportedly most telling with older voters, who seem to grasp better than younger voters that if necessary we can survive an inept president but not a determined dictator.  It is with this electoral segment that Mr. Biden can most help Ms. Harris.

Mr. Trump’s obvious subservience to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and his (at best) lukewarm support for NATO.  His comment that he won’t necessarily defend a NATO nation attacked by Russia is decidedly unpopular.  Ms. Harris can credibly argue that after all the Ukrainians’ sacrifice, Mr. Putin will conquer Ukraine if Mr. Trump is reelected.  I saw a poll that 88% of Americans detest Mr. Putin.  You can’t get 88% of Americans to agree on what day of the week it is.

Mr. Trump has indicated that Social Security and Medicare need to be revised.  These programs are incredibly popular, as emotive with seniors as abortion is with women and the young.  (Although Social Security and Medicare do need to be revised, what matters here is saving democracy; Ms. Harris wins the issue by pledging to protect Social Security and Medicare benefits.)  He also continues to criticize the Affordable Care Act, although it is now popular with Americans of all political stripes.

Mr. Trump’s age, mental fitness and competence.  There is more than enough tape of Mr. Trump mixing up names and people – most famously, his confusing former SC Gov. and U.S. U.N. Amb. Nikki Haley with former U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when recounting the events of January 6^th – to place doubt upon his mental acuity among open-minded voters.  If Democrats remind voters that there were at least 500,000 unnecessary deaths attributable to Mr. Trump’s mishandling of the COVID crisis, that at one point he idiotically suggested that injecting bleach into COVID sufferers might help them, and that approximately 40 of his 44 Cabinet members refuse to endorse him, this will stir doubts among swing voters.  Add to that the antics of the last Congress:  it became clear with MAGAs in control of the House of Representatives during the last term that they can’t run a two-car funeral.

Republican Vice Presidential Nominee U.S. OH Sen. J.D. Vance.  It is certainly beginning to look like Mr. Trump made a strategic error in selecting Mr. Vance as his running mate.  The general rule of presidential campaign running mate selection is that a good pick won’t help the campaign, but a bad one will hurt (although a comment below will make clear that I think that there can be exceptions to the rule 🙂 ).  At this point, Mr. Vance seems the most striking example of conventional wisdom since Democratic Presidential Nominee U.S. SD Sen. George McGovern picked U.S. MO Sen. Thomas Eagleton as his running mate in 1972. (After Mr. Eagleton was selected, it was revealed that he had been hospitalized for depression and undergone electroshock treatment.  Mr. Eagleton was dropped from the ticket.  No matter how unfair some might consider it today, the revelation of Mr. Eagleton’s condition and treatment was the death knell for a campaign already an overwhelming underdog against then President Richard Nixon.)  From the outset, I doubted that Mr. Vance, an Ohioan who has without doubt risen from very impoverished beginnings and is author of the 2016 best seller, Hillbilly Elegy, would broaden the Republican ticket’s appeal among the grievance-driven in the pivotal swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  Who in this demographic who wasn’t already going to vote for Mr. Trump will now vote for Mr. Trump because of Mr. Vance?  Nobody.  I also thought Mr. Vance’s unquestioned slavishness to Mr. Trump would be a negative with voters who want a Vice President who, if forced to choose between the President and the Constitution, will be loyal to the Constitution.  Now, Mr. Vance’s comments about “childless cat ladies” and pronouncements that the votes of those citizens without children should count less than those of voters with children (not only repulsive, but about the politically dumbest things I’ve ever heard from a politician) seem likely to alienate pivotal swing state swing voters.  He is sounding notes perhaps closer to political eulogy than elegy.  (I would love to claim credit for this play on words, but it was suggested by someone very, very close to me 😉 ). 

Even on issues which should favor Mr. Trump, Ms. Harris and Democrats seemingly have effective arguments to blunt MAGA advances:

On crime, Ms. Harris’ experience as a prosecutor can be favorably contrasted with Mr. Trump’s 34 felony convictions (“I believe in juries”). 

On the economy, job numbers under the Biden Administration have been historic, and if the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates by September as now predicted, that will be an objective marker that inflation is dropping.  A rate cut may send the stock market even higher.  [I understand that most swing voters hold stocks (directly or mutually) in taxable and/or retirement accounts.]  Mr. Trump will scream that the Fed is biased against him, but Ms. Harris can point out that he first appointed Fed Chair Jerome Powell.   

On the emotive issue of immigration, Ms. Harris has already taken the tack I would have advised:  by pledging to sign the very conservative bipartisan immigration bill that Mr. Biden would have signed and Mr. Trump openly killed because he wanted the campaign issue.  Ms. Harris’ campaign line speaks for itself:  “‘Blame me,’ he said.  Well, blame him.  It’s his fault.”

Feeling good?  Now, to some painful realities.

While the emotional high Democrats are currently riding can be expected to continue through a well-orchestrated convention which will conclude August 22, the next three weeks will also give Mr. Trump and his team, currently in strategic disarray given Mr. Biden’s departure from the race, time to determine the most effective ways to attack Ms. Harris.  Make no mistake:  he and they will figure it out and will be ready to go by Labor Day.  They will be ugly, they will have no scruples, they will bar no holds.  Since the Democrats have the more popular side of most substantive issues, they will attack her gender, her race, her intelligence, her competence, her disposition.  Mr. Trump’s strategists include two professionals who “Swift Boated” Democratic Presidential Nominee and then U.S. MA Sen. John Kerry in 2004, somehow causing the average voter to conclude Mr. Kerry – a decorated Vietnam veteran – was somehow either cowardly or incompetent during his service while then President George W. Bush – who had ordered an Iraq invasion to secure weapons of mass destruction that were never there – was a heroic military figure.  Never forget:  they are very good at what they do. 

If Mr. Trump determines that his pick of Mr. Vance was the egregious blunder it now appears, look for him to blame Mr. Vance, unceremoniously dump him, and select a replacement who will be more reassuring to the swing state undecideds.

Although MAGAs are never shy about sheer fabrication, they will have some genuine kernels to pick with Ms. Harris.  I commented in these pages in August, 2020, when Mr. Biden selected Ms. Harris as his running mate:  “the internet search, ‘Willie Brown Kamala Harris.’”  Somewhat inexplicably to me, in the last campaign Mr. Trump and his team never sought to exploit the fact that Ms. Harris’ political ascent began at or about the time of her undisputed amorous relationship with Mr. Brown, the extremely powerful Speaker of California’s state Assembly 30 years her senior.  I understand that the alt-right media is now energetically pursuing the issue.  (One might expect Mr. Trump to be reticent here, inasmuch as he has been legally adjudged a sexual assaulter and an adulterer, but … nah.  Republicans never shrink from hypocrisy, and will leverage any gender double standard they can.)

I also commented in that long-ago note:  “Ms. Harris’ oft-repeated phrase during the Democratic presidential debates – ‘I will prosecute the case against Donald Trump’ – brought to my mind another potential weakness.  Any trial lawyer on a major case … attempts to conceptualize the appropriate response to … whatever might come up at trial.  A daunting task – but even in complex litigation, the variables are finite.  In a presidential campaign, the variables are infinite, and cannot all be anticipated. … While Ms. Harris is good when scripted, I saw her clutch several times in the early months of the [2020] presidential campaign when reporters asked her questions she did not expect.  In one of the [2020 Democratic Presidential Candidate] debates, Ms. Harris blanked when [challenged in an unexpected way by] U.S. HI Rep. Tulsi Gabbard … How she holds up will be pivotal to the Democratic ticket’s chances.” While the Vice President has unquestionably grown as an official and as a candidate over the last four years, there will still be the potential for her to clutch.  Although right now, Mr. Trump is indicating that he doesn’t want to debate her, if he finds himself trailing, he’ll change his mind – and I think he’ll be a formidable debate opponent for her, because she won’t be able to entirely anticipate what he will say; he is the master of the lie and the unexpected.

There’s credence to the claim that Ms. Harris doesn’t have a great track record as an administrator.  Her 2020 presidential campaign was a shambles:  started with a flourish and a lot of money, but lacked a coherent strategy and chain of command, succumbed to infighting, and ran out of cash.  Expect the Trump Team to find disgruntled former Harris staffers and exploit their complaints.  (I know; Mr. Trump ran the most incoherent Administration in U.S. history.  Won’t matter.  See, above:  Republican hypocrisy. 😉 ).

The Democrats still face difficult Electoral College math.  Current polls show Ms. Harris trailing Mr. Trump by four point in Pennsylvania – the swing state that is closest to politically existential for her – and with a smaller lead over Mr. Trump in Wisconsin than Mr. Biden had.  [The fact that Wisconsin is the only swing state in which she is currently faring worse against Mr. Trump than Mr. Biden (2 point lead v. Mr. Biden’s 3 point cushion) is no surprise to any Badger Stater; notwithstanding former President Barack Obama’s two victories in the state, Mr. Obama was an exceptional political athlete, and this state’s views on race are decidedly more charged now than then.  Mr. Trump always does better in Wisconsin on Election Day than he scores in pre-election polls.]  Ms. Harris doesn’t need Pennsylvania’s 19 Electoral College votes if she wins Georgia (16) (the one Republican-controlled state where the Republican officialdom clearly has no love for Mr. Trump 😉 ) or North Carolina (16) and Nevada (7), and doesn’t need Wisconsin’s 10 Electoral College votes if she wins Arizona (11) (where it appears that there will be an abortion rights referendum on the ballot), but paths outside the Blue Wall States are arguably still dicier.  PA Gov. Josh Shapiro still appears to me the right choice as her running mate (I predict that the progressives currently voicing objections to Mr. Shapiro’s staunch pro-Israel views in the Israeli-Hamas conflict will nonetheless support Ms. Harris if she chooses Mr. Shapiro), with Mr. Shapiro and U.S. PA Sen. John Fetterman – who looks much more MAGA than Mr. Vance – responsible for securing the Keystone State.

MAGAs are implacable.  We were in the center part of Wisconsin when we were away; Trump signs outnumbered Democratic signs 10 to 1; there is no way that anyone who was committed to Mr. Trump before Mr. Biden withdrew will be shifting his/her support to Ms. Harris.

Ms. Harris and her running mate will make mistakes.  We don’t know what they will be, but rest assured:  they will make mistakes.

All of which is to say what you already know:  it’s going to be close.    

I was honored, after President Biden announced his withdrawal from the race, how many friends and family, including those who rarely comment in these pages or don’t follow them regularly, who emailed or texted me about my reaction to this sea change in the race.  At that point, I indicated that Ms. Harris wasn’t the candidate I’d put up against Mr. Trump if I had a blank drawing board (from my Wisconsin perspective, I would have preferred either U.S. MN Sen. Amy Klobuchar or MI Gov. Gretchen Whitmer), but was encouraged by the excitement that the Vice President had evoked.  I now think it’s clear that Ms. Harris is creating greater enthusiasm among minorities and the young than either Ms. Klobuchar or Ms. Whitmer would have generated, and her campaign is arguably laying out alternate Electoral College paths for the Democratic ticket through Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and possibly North Carolina that probably wouldn’t have been open to either Ms. Klobuchar or Ms. Whitmer.  Ms. Harris’ deft early conduct of her campaign and the reaction to her candidacy have given me real hope that we have a real chance to save our democracy.  I had, frankly, been in despair; although Mr. Biden is a good man who has done a great job, it had looked to me that if he stayed in the race that we were going to give up our republic without a fight. 

Any baseball fan will tell you that it’s a long season.  No championship is won in the season’s early months; you simply hope to position yourself to make a run, be within striking distance of the top, on Labor Day.  Those who support Ms. Harris should not be misled by the excitement for her candidacy that they see in liberal media outlets; I think that if the election was held today, Mr. Trump would win.  That said, I would submit that Ms. Harris is within striking distance.  Given the excitement she has generated, the evident danger to democracy that Mr. Trump presents to the open-minded, the many substantive issues upon which she holds the more popular position, and the very deep antipathy Mr. Trump evokes among those who oppose him, my gut tells me that if she plays well the rest of the way, she has a real chance to get there — that she can win.

It’s a long season.  The most crucial games are yet to be played.  We’ll see what happens.

One of the favorite adages of a very able executive whom I worked with during my last years in my organization was, “Watch what you wish for.”  Those Democrats calling for President Joe Biden to be replaced atop their party’s ticket need to be mindful of the very distinct possibility that the best day of the substitute nominee’s campaign may be his/her first day.  That said, what comes to mind for me are scenes from action movies over the years – likely at least one of the Indiana Jones adventures – in which the protagonist, being chased by villains, wild animals, or some other mortal hazard, reaches the edge of a cliff and looks down into water far below.  The choice is to either stand on the cliff and face almost certain doom — or to jump, and hope that the water is deep enough.  Obviously, all jump, and thereby escape the peril.

Although I sympathize with those who are fearful of the ramifications of – to use another old aphorism – jumping from the frying pan into the fire (or if you prefer to stick with water analogies, changing horses in the middle of the stream 😉 ) – I would submit that Democrats have no choice but to jump.  While I don’t believe that there are enough votes of diehard MAGAs to put former President Donald Trump back in the White House, I also doubt that there are enough votes of those who so abhor the prospect of a second Trump presidency that they will vote for Mr. Biden no matter what – in the terms of a close friend, even if he’s “a corpse” – to reelect the President.  Democrats need to change the dynamic, to stem the apparently currently indisputable indications that the undecideds who will determine the outcome of the election are trending toward Mr. Trump.

I have made clear in these pages my high regard for the manner in which Mr. Biden has conducted the presidency.  Furthermore, he is by all indications a genuinely good man.  I deeply regret that he didn’t choose to announce a graceful exit a year ago, when, if the reporting we are now hearing from media outlets sympathetic to him is accurate, he should have recognized his increasing physical limitations.  That said, although his withdrawal at this point will unavoidably be a bit ignominious and certainly accompanied by less acclaim than his over 50 years of service to our country deserve, let us hope for the sake of the country that he is now coming to terms with the fact that a seemingly decisive segment of our citizens have lost confidence in his ability to lead us for another four years.  And let those of us who believe in the Almighty and fear for the future of our democracy if Mr. Trump returns to office pray that if the Democrats (let’s add one more aquatic cliché to this note 🙂 ) take the plunge, they — like Indy – find the water deep enough.

1984: Reagan jokes about Mondale’s youth (youtube.com)

As all are aware, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump hold the first of their two scheduled debates this Thursday.  The Biden Team orchestrated the early date for the first debate – neither man has been formally nominated for president by his party – apparently to combat the notion ceaselessly propagated by the alt-right that 81-year old Mr. Biden lacks the mental acuity and/or stamina to serve a second term.  It may be betting Mr. Biden’s electoral prospects on the expectation that Mr. Biden will reassure the public as President Ronald Reagan did in his debate with former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984 [Mr. Mondale stated after the election that even as he laughed at Mr. Reagan’s (obviously planned) quip, he knew he was going to lose], and not blunder as President Gerald Ford did in his debate against former GA Gov. Jimmy Carter in 1976 (a gaffe that seemed to confirm the wildly incorrect impression that Mr. Ford was dumb, that may have been the difference with undecided voters in what was a very close 1976 result).

While I didn’t necessarily fault the Biden Campaign’s choice to use an early debate to arrest voter concerns about Mr. Biden’s readiness for a second term at the time the decision was made, I wonder whether the Biden Team would make the same call today, since recent polls seem to be trending in Mr. Biden’s behalf.  That said, ever since they were announced I have had deep misgivings about some of the debate rules that the Biden Camp demanded and the Trump Team has agreed to:  primarily, that there will be no audience and each candidate’s microphone will be off when it is not his turn to speak.  In my view, these rules – which are designed to prevent Mr. Trump from overwhelming the proceeding with bombast (he gets revved up by a crowd, and always attempts to shout down/over anyone who disagrees with him) — are counterproductive to what I believe should be a Biden Team goal on a par with proving the President’s readiness:  show that Mr. Trump is crazy and dangerous.  Remember that the key audience here is not policy-wonk Democrats or die-hard MAGAs; it is that slim slice of the electorate in the swing states who may have genuine concerns about Mr. Biden’s continued readiness and may have forgotten how truly outrageous and nutty – as well as authoritarian – Mr. Trump was while in office.  In one-on-one interviews, even when spouting falsehood after falsehood – lies which are not always apparent to those who are not immersed in the nuances of public affairs – the former president can come across as moderate – normal.  Mr. Trump says crazy and dangerous things – i.e., shows his true colors — when he gets revved up (as at his rallies).  I would submit that Biden Team should have had confidence that its man could execute under the barrage – he is, after all, the President of the United States – while giving Mr. Trump every chance to go off the rails.  Recall that Mr. Trump’s performance at one of the men’s 2020 debates was so excessive that afterward, CNN Commentator Dana Bash – who will be one of the moderators of this week’s debate – actually described Mr. Trump’s performance, on-air, as a “shit show.”  (I feel that if she could say it there, I can repeat it here.  😉 .)

When I expressed these reservations to two close friends a couple of weeks ago, they dismissed my concerns and voiced strong agreement with the course the Biden Team has taken.  You may agree with them.  If so – and even if not – the die is cast, so let’s hope they’re right.

To me, equally unnerving were the sentiments I understand were recently expressed by Biden Campaign Chief Jen O’Malley Dillon:

“Joe Biden is … focused on delivering for the American people and him standing on the stage next to Donald Trump is the best way to show that.  Do I think rules are going to protect the American people from whatever Donald Trump might say?  Of course not.  But I do think, you know, having this be serious is what the American people want. … This is a great opportunity earlier in the cycle than ever before for the two of them to stand together and for [Mr. Biden] to talk about what he’s done and what he’s fighting for.  And you know not having an audience, not having distractions, not having to worry about COVID, I think all these things are better for the American people and Joe Biden is going to have a great debate. [Emphasis Added]”  

Pardon me while I rant, talk in this paragraph as I would if you and I were enjoying refreshers in a local pub.  This is so much clueless drivel that it makes me want to go to the nearest restroom and throw up.  I seriously wonder whether Ms. O’Malley Dillon hasn’t wandered in from Hillary Clinton’s campaign debacle.  Mr. Biden didn’t win in 2020 because he was Joe Biden; he won – barely — because he wasn’t Donald Trump.  Democrats seem to continue to think that one wins by explaining the good things one has done.  All the people who think Mr. Biden is doing a good job – of which I am one – are already going to vote for him, and he’s only managing a dead heat.  If Mr. Biden was running against Nikki Haley, he’d be doing the same job he’s doing and his poll numbers would have to look up to see the Titanic.  One wins – a concept that Republicans not only grasp, but excel at – by scaring voters about the other guy.  Certainly, when Mr. Biden is responding to a direct question from a moderator, he should, as Ms. O’Malley Dillon suggested, “talk about what he’s done and what he’s fighting for.”  At the same time, when responding to some false or absurd declaration by Mr. Trump, I’d advise the President to … stick and move.

A very brief clip from one of America’s great film series  😉 :

How does this apply to a political debate?  Never forgetting that the fight judges are that narrow sliver of undecided voters in swing states, it means:  Don’t use your whole response time.  Quick salvos – you stick him — and move (i.e., shut up).  You make your point and look sharp at the same time.  Don’t rely on the moderators to fact check.  Mr. Trump is predictable – you know exactly how he’s going to come at you – just like Joe Frazier in his epic bouts with Muhammad Ali (I feel a little bad about this analogy; by all accounts, Mr. Frazier was a good guy 🙂 ).

• That he won the last election.

“He’s a whiner.  When he loses, he lies.  He lost over 60 election court challenges, many decided by Republican judges.  He has actually said we should terminate the Constitution because of his lie.  Think about that – someone who swore to protect and defend the Constitution who puts himself above the Constitution.  Do you want a president who’s either lying or delusional?”

• That he didn’t instigate the insurrection.

“He calls those that stormed the Capitol ‘hostages,’ and promises to pardon them.  [X#] of those now in jail said during their sentencing hearings that they only went to the Capitol because he told them to go.”

• My felony conviction was a miscarriage of justice – the Biden Justice Department was out to get me, and the New York jury was biased.

“My son was just convicted on charges brought by the same Justice Department.  Does it break my heart?  You bet.  Do I support my son?  You bet.  But we live under a system of laws.  I believe that our people who sit on juries – just ordinary citizens – take their responsibility seriously no matter where they live, and do their best to do their duty.”

• Any reference that the President lacks either the mental or physical stamina to do the job.

If mental:  “Let our staffs agree on a mental acuity test, and let’s both take it, and as long as you agree that the results will be published, let’s see who does better.”

If physical:  “Let’s go for a jog, and see who jogs further.  Or let’s hike a hill, and see who goes higher.  Or let’s ride bikes together, and see who goes further.  Let’s do it tomorrow.  I’m ready.” 

• Things were so good during my years as president.

“40 of the 44 Cabinet officials are refusing to support him for President.  [I’ve seen this number bandied about; it would obviously have to be confirmed before the President could use it.]  Does that sound like they think he did a good job?”

• Immigration is a mess.

“We had a bipartisan immigration bill in the Senate that I would have signed that was negotiated by a very conservative Republican Senator.  The two sides tried to work together – which is what our people want us to do.  It died because he killed it, wanted the campaign issue.  ‘Blame me,’ he said.  Well, blame him.  It’s his fault.”

• I’ll end the Ukraine war in one day.

“His idea of ending the Ukraine war is to give Putin what he wants, cut off our aid to Ukraine.  He always kowtows to Putin.  He has said he trusts Putin more than our intelligence services.  Think about that.  He’s said that he won’t necessarily defend a NATO nation if it’s attacked.  Think about that.  Freedom is about more than money.”

• Abortion:  Leave it to the states.

“This isn’t about states’ rights, this is about women’s reproductive rights.  In 2016, he said he’d appoint Supreme Court Justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade, and he did.  The rollback of women’s rights is in full swing.  Some state are even tampering with IVF.  If he returns to office, he’ll appoint even more judges that will destroy personal rights.  You know it and I know it.”

• Biden is weak on Israel – delaying arms shipments.

“I was in the Senate supporting Israel when Donald was facing his first prosecutions in New York for refusing to rent to African Americans.  We will always defend Israel’s right to exist.  We have sent them literally tons of munitions.  But we have to be aware of civilian casualties.  Thousands of innocents on both sides – Jewish and Palestinian – have lost their lives.  The bombs that Israel is complaining about each weigh 2,000 pounds – a ton.  Weapons like that kill indiscriminately.  We are not prepared to go there.”

• Medicare and Social Security

[No matter what Mr. Trump says – either that he’ll protect them or – as he has said in the past – the programs need to be modified]:  “He has said in the past that he intends to cut Social Security and Medicare.  You know the Republicans want to cut them – they’ve been after these programs ever since they were enacted.  We need to continue to negotiate for lower drug prices – which Republicans oppose — but I will not support any cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits, and veto any that reach my desk.  We need to work on the deficit – but it’s only been made worse by the Republican tax cuts that have overwhelmingly favored rich Republican donors.”

You get the idea.  Mr. Trump has said and done so many hateful or outright dumb things over so many years, it’s easy to come up with short, punchy answers on Mr. Trump’s mishandling of COVID, his attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and a myriad of other issues.  I think the toughest challenge for Mr. Biden will be his response to criticisms of his handling of the economy; all that read these pages are well aware that I’m not an economist, but the nagging inflation we feel is seemingly part hangover from the last COVID relief package that ensured that the U.S. did not drop into recession, and the fact that wages have risen, providing Americans more spending money.  It is human nature for voters to not appreciate what didn’t happen and to take their higher wages for granted while focusing on what they see every day — higher prices.  Even so, the Biden Team has had a month to think about what the President will say, and with all the favorable statistics at its disposal – great jobs numbers, indisputably dropping inflation — presumably will craft a response.

I have the lingering concern that, as former Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina stated on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on June 25, Mr. Trump will have the easier time of it – he just has to look sane.  Even so, unless Mr. Biden makes a Ford-like gaffe (and again, I feel sorry making this analogy, since Mr. Ford was indeed a bright and good guy), there is at least a significant possibility that the state of the contest is likely to be in the same place tomorrow morning as it is today.

Sorry about the length of this note.

We’ll see what happens.      

[Since both President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, will be referred to in this note, to keep the references as straightforward as possible – and since I cling to honorifics; my soul won’t let me resort to “Joe” and “Hunter” 🙂 – the President will be referred to as “Pr. Biden” and Hunter Biden will be referred to as, “Mr. Biden.”]

As all are aware, Hunter Biden was convicted on June 11 of felonies for indicating on a mandatory gun-purchase form that he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.

Mr. Biden has been demonized by MAGAs and the alt-right media pretty much ever since his father entered the 2020 presidential campaign, while progressives and the liberal media have attempted to paint him as the victim of addiction to drugs like millions of other Americans — an addiction which may have been spawned by a series of circumstances including surviving an automobile accident that killed his mother and sister, and having grown up in the shadow of his father and his extremely-accomplished (and now deceased) older brother.  It is apparently undisputed that Mr. Biden is now “clean.”

Those of us of Christian faith have been admonished not to judge, lest we be judged (Matthew 7:1), but while Mr. Biden isn’t the black hat painted by the alt-right, I think it’s fair to say that his behavior throughout much of his life might be considered less than saintly.  One is still responsible for one’s own life choices and mistakes.  I commented in a post some time ago that if the then-current Wikipedia account of Mr. Biden was at all accurate, his primary profession for most of his adult life had arguably been exploiting (albeit legally) his father’s name and position.  It is hard not to consider a Ukrainian company’s selection of Mr. Biden as a board member while his father was Vice President of the United States not only a blatant attempt by Ukrainian interests to curry favor with the United States but a shameless (although legal) willingness by Mr. Biden to leverage his father’s standing for his own benefit.  As for Mr. Biden’s guilt on the felony gun-related charges themselves:  I’ve seen no reports questioning the jury’s diligence or impartiality.  Further, I was struck by one pundit’s comment that if Mr. Biden truly accepted that he was an addict at the time he completed the form, he was indeed lying because he would have understood that, even if then “clean,” he was addicted – he could be a recovering addict, but he would never not be addicted to drugs.  The observation resonated with me because of my own father’s struggles with alcohol.  During the last years of his life, after achieving sobriety, he was a passionate, fervent, emphatic, vehement, vociferous – you pick the adjective, but you get the idea 😉 – member of Alcoholics Anonymous and mentor for other alcoholics within our community; during those years, he always and only considered himself a “recovering alcoholic,” and would regularly say, “A drunk needs to understand he’s a drunk whether he’s drinking or not.”

No matter how one looks at Mr. Biden’s situation from a human standpoint, I would suggest – and early returns indicate that MAGAs and the alt-right media recognize – that as emotionally difficult as Mr. Biden’s conviction is for the Biden family, the conviction is a political plus for his father with the jury that counts – swing voters in swing states:

• It neutralizes the argument that juries can’t be impartial.  While former President Donald Trump continues to bemoan the fact that his trial took place in New York City, a jurisdiction where he has few supporters, Mr. Biden’s trial took place in Delaware, a jurisdiction strongly supportive of Pr. Biden; Mr. Biden was nonetheless convicted.
• It obviously raises doubt in any reasonable mind about Mr. Trump’s assertion that Pr. Biden has “weaponized” the U.S. Department of Justice.
• It cannot be gainsaid that of these two men recently found guilty of felonies, only one is seeking political office.  There is nothing about Mr. Biden’s conviction that will limit Democrats’ opportunity to cite Mr. Trump’s conviction as a reason (among many) why he is unfit for the presidency.
• It perhaps lays a trap for Mr. Trump in the upcoming presidential debate.  If Mr. Trump is called upon to confirm his oft-repeated promise to pardon the January 6^th rioters if he wins in November, while Pr. Biden repeats his pledge to NOT pardon his son no matter the outcome of the election, Mr. Trump is going to look bad.  Really bad.  (Since this is such a likely trap for the former president, I’m sure his debate advisors are working on it.)

Having seen what addiction can do to a person and his/her family, I have sympathy for Mr. Biden.  While he has unquestionably benefited in some ways from being a member of the President’s family, he has clearly faced unusual challenges because of it as well.  To MAGAs, he has all along simply been a pawn, a manner to get at Pr. Biden.  But I would submit – although as a father, I would understand why Pr. Biden might angrily reject this notion – that Mr. Biden’s plight has now turned him into a chip for the Democrats.  If Mr. Biden’s ordeal – it’s hard to believe that he will not be incarcerated for his conviction – persuades even a small segment of voters in pivotal states to vote for Pr. Biden because they either feel sympathy for an anguished father or view Pr. Biden’s refusal to meddle in his son’s criminal trials as proof of the President’s allegiance to the rule of law, then I would submit that Mr. Biden’s hardship might well be viewed as a helpful if unintended sacrifice in the political war being waged to save our democracy.