The Veepstakes Is On...

Kamala Harris could theoretically wait until the Democratic National Convention to reveal her choice of running mate but, well, we saw how well that worked out for the last presidential candidate who did it that way. Plus, there's the fact that Democrats don't really trust Ohio Republicans to play by the rules established by Ohio Republicans. These things being the case, Harris is looking to make her pick by August 7.

There has been much movement on the VP front in the last 24 hours. Here's the rundown:

Rising

Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg: Tactically, Buttigieg makes little sense. He's gay, he's from Indiana and his personality is similar to Harris'. As a campaigner, however, he makes all the sense in the world. There may be no Democrat in the country who is better on TV, including unfriendly outlets like Fox. Buttigieg underscored that over the past few days with very successful appearances on Fox and on The Daily Show. Democratic insiders remain skeptical that Harris will tap Buttigieg, but acknowledge that "the vibes are high right now." We will also note that the type of person most likely to survive the vetting process is someone who's already survived it before. Among the people on the shortlist, that describes only Buttigieg, who had to be vetted prior to his Cabinet appointment. He was also under the giant microscope when he ran for president in 2020.

Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN): Minnesota is nominally a swing state, but not really, since if the Democrats lose there, they will also lose in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. So, the pro-Walz contingent argues that the case for Walz is that he's the rare Democrat who can connect with rural Americans, and that he's also very popular with organized labor. Also, he apparently has the "Midwest grit." We thought that was something you got removed from your vehicle at the car wash, but maybe not. Reportedly, Walz is getting a long look from the Harris campaign.

Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI): Here's a name that wasn't often mentioned before yesterday. Peters comes from a key swing state, he's also popular with organized labor, he's got many years' experience in government and he's a shrewd tactician when it comes to campaigning. Insiders say he's definitely in the mix.

Falling

Gov. Roy Cooper (D-NC): Yesterday, Cooper announced that he is withdrawing from consideration, explaining that this "just wasn't the right time." Given that he will be 71 the next time there is a presidential election, we are not sure what the right time might be. In any case, when someone drops out, coupled with vague excuses, it usually means that they know they're not going to be the pick, and they are saving face. Also, the only reason to run for veep is to be positioned to run for president in 8 years. Cooper would be 75 then and given all the fuss about candidates' ages, that would be a deal killer. Also, Cooper is afraid that if he is out of state campaigning, the crazy lieutenant governor, Mark Robinson, would wreak havoc with the state. It makes much more sense to run against Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) in 2026, since you can be 90 in the Senate and it is OK if you are not completely senile.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI): She also declared herself to be out of the running yesterday. In her case, we think it's more plausible that she really didn't want the job.

Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) Shapiro has some potential skeletons in the closet. On the #MeToo front, a high-ranking aide named Mike Vereb was accused of sexual harassment. The state paid a six-figure settlement to the accuser and Vereb quietly resigned; critics say Shapiro "swept it under the rug." First Amendment advocates have concerns about his aggressive anti-protester actions on college campuses, while environmentalists think he's a little too cozy with Big Petroleum.

Mixed

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ): On one hand, Democrats on the Hill are pushing hard for him because they believe he can help win both the state and the open Senate seat, and that he can help neutralize the border as an issue. However, Fox reported (well, re-reported) yesterday that a company Kelly owns, which makes weather balloons, has received some funding from Chinese company Tencent.

Looking at the details, this does not appear to be a substantive issue. Tencent's investment is small and entails no voice in the management of the company. And the company is just a side gig for Kelly, one that he currently takes no role in, having put his interest into a blind trust. However, "Chinese money" and "weather balloon" are not a good combination, optics-wise. The whole thing has the feel of Hillary Clinton and the Russian uranium. And if the Harris campaign picks Kelly, it means they're hoping/gambling that this story won't be a big deal. Sometimes, such gambles about candidates' skeletons/semi-skeletons do not pay off (see Trump, Donald and Vance, J.D.).

So, that is where things stand right now. As both the Harris campaign and the reporters look under every stone for any dirt they can find, the picture could change rapidly.

And we're going to re-start our presidential tracking poll today, having paused it due to the uncertainty surrounding the Democratic ticket. Here are the questions for this round:

1. Who do you think will win the presidential election, Kamala Harris or Donald Trump?
   
   
2. If the choice was entirely up to you, would you prefer that Joe Biden be the Democratic candidate, or Kamala Harris?
   
   
3. Which would you vote for?: Biden, but not Harris; Harris, but not Biden; both Harris and Biden; neither Harris nor Biden.
   
   
4. How has the ascension of Harris affected your feelings about the Democratic ticket?: More enthusiastic, less enthusiastic, no change.
   
   
5. How has the ascension of J.D. Vance affected your feelings about the Republican ticket?: More enthusiastic, less enthusiastic, no change.
   
   
6. Who do you think will be chosen as Harris' running mate (pick up to three)?

If you want to participate, the link is here. We will have the results the day after Harris announces her pick. (Z)

...And So Is the ABC Debate, It Would Seem

There has been a fair bit of moving and counter-moving when it comes to the second presidential debate, currently slated to be the only Kamala Harris-Donald Trump matchup. However, it looks like the game is over, and Trump has been checkmated.

Over the weekend, the folks at ABC made clear that they were still all-in on hosting the debate, telling CNN that it was "full steam ahead," and that David Muir and Linsey Davis would definitely be the moderators. Yesterday, Harris' campaign announced that she will be there, with a spokesperson explaining that "As Vice President Harris said last week, the American people deserve to hear from the two candidates running for the highest office in the land and she will do that at September's ABC debate."

This doubly puts Trump into a corner. First, if he was willing to debate an older white guy, but he's not willing to debate a younger woman of color, it makes him look weak. Second, if ABC is present for the event, and Harris is present for the event, and Trump is not present, then it turns into a town hall and a free 90-minute commercial for Harris '24. If Biden was still the candidate, people might take a pass, because they already know about him. But with Harris still a cipher for many voters, viewership would likely be substantial.

Trump knows the score, and when he was asked yesterday about participating in the debate, he moved away from his response of the last week ("I don't know"), replacing that with saying he will "probably" debate, though he "can also make a case for not doing it." He really doesn't want to go up against a former prosecutor. And he really, really doesn't want to see a bunch of articles about how he "lost" to a woman of color, which is a real possibility if the debate goes forward. However, he's also aware of the downsides of not showing up. And he almost always makes the choice that allows him to be active (participating in the debate) as opposed to passive (sitting at home).

And so, mark your calendars (again) for September 10. Will there be a second presidential debate? Or a vice-presidential debate? Those remain open questions, although both Fox and NBC have reportedly offered to host the former, while CBS was already committed to hosting the latter. (Z)

Harris Backs Biden Supreme Court Reform

Yesterday, in our item about Joe Biden's proposals to reform the Supreme Court, we added: "by the time you read this, we expect that Kamala Harris will have already said she is for it." That was a very easy prediction, along the lines of predicting that the next time you see Donald Trump, his tie won't be tied properly.

Harris did indeed come out for the plan, issuing a statement that read, in part:

In the course of our Nation's history, trust in the Supreme Court of the United States has been critical to achieving equal justice under law. President Biden and I strongly believe that the American people must have confidence in the Supreme Court. Yet today, there is a clear crisis of confidence facing the Supreme Court as its fairness has been called into question after numerous ethics scandals and decision after decision overturning long-standing precedent.

That is why President Biden and I are calling on Congress to pass important reforms - from imposing term limits for Justices' active service, to requiring Justices to comply with binding ethics rules just like every other federal judge. And finally, in our democracy, no one should be above the law. So we must also ensure that no former President has immunity for crimes committed while in the White House.

These popular reforms will help to restore confidence in the Court, strengthen our democracy, and ensure no one is above the law.

So, instead of being the Biden plan, it's now the Biden-Harris plan. Of course, you can be absolutely certain that the presumptive Democratic nominee had input into the plan before it was released.

We have written it before, when Biden first began talking about Supreme Court reform, and we'll now write it again: This is smart politics. Approval ratings for the Supreme Court are very low; Gallup has the Supremes at 43% approve (vs. 52% disapprove), and other pollsters have it even worse. The specific reforms that Biden is proposing have broad support. For example, among 2020 Biden voters, 69% want term limits for justices while only 6% oppose them. Even among 2020 Trump voters, 54% want term limits versus 20% who oppose.

When you have an issue that nearly your entire party agrees on, and that the majority of the other party agrees on as well, you'd be a damn fool not to ride it for all it's worth. You can bet that Biden and Harris both saw polls telling them that this is a winner, and we presume she's going to make it a signature issue. As an added bonus, it dovetails well with the Democrats' other big winner of an issue, namely abortion access.

Meanwhile, few people think that everything is copacetic with John Roberts and his merry gang. This makes it pretty difficult to take the other side of the issue, so much so that we only found one outlet doing so (The Wall Street Journal, another Rupert Murdoch paper; more on that below). Even Donald Trump does not appear to have blasted the Biden-Harris plan, as yet. We even reviewed his account on his about-to-drop-below-$30-a-share social media platform, and it was all just repostings of clumsy anti-Harris memes from users like "Mar-a-Lago Dog" and "LEFTURD SLAYER."

What we did see yesterday were pieces like this one, decreeing that the Biden-Harris plan is unrealistic and isn't going to become law. First of all, you never know—almost every constitutional amendment seemed impossible, until it wasn't. Second, this misses the point. Biden is a skilled practitioner of the strategy of starting with a BIG opening bid, and then settling somewhere in the middle. Remember that the $1.5 trillion American Recovery Act started out as the $7 trillion American Recovery Act. Yes, $1.5 trillion is way less than $7 trillion, but it's also way more than $0 trillion. It's clear to us, at least, that Biden and Harris are making an opening bid, and doing what they can to slide the Overton Window in their direction. Then, if she's elected (and the Democrats get the trifecta), she'll compromise on something less substantive than two constitutional amendments and an ethics code, but more substantive than "nothing."

On a semi-related note, Harris also announced yesterday that, if she is elected president, she will not push to ban fracking. Being anti-fracking is rather necessary for a Democrat trying to get elected in California. It is not a great position for anyone trying to get elected nationally, since nearly all Republicans like oil, and many Democrats come from states where fracking is popular (Sens. John Fetterman, D-PA, and Jon Tester, D-MT, leap to mind as strongly pro-fracking members of the blue team).

The Trump campaign, aided by right-wing media allies, is trying to make hay out of Harris' shifting position on this issue. However, Trump criticized her over the weekend for being anti-fracking, which means... he got what he wanted. It's a little tricky to turn around and criticize her now for being pro-fracking. Also, voters tend to have some tolerance for the fact that politicians sometimes have to change their stances on second-tier issues, depending on which constituency they are endeavoring to represent. Compare Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), for one example.

What connects Supreme Court and fracking is that Harris is right in the middle of introducing herself to the country, which means it's prime time for her to make very clear where she stands on the issues. She's also very clearly in the middle of a "honeymoon" phase, which may last a week, or may last until Election Day—who knows? In any case, the time to take on new "causes," and definitely the time to distance one's self from troublesome past stances is while the honeymoon is still underway, since many people don't know about her old positions. (Z)

The New York Post Is a Worthless Rag

Forgive the rather loaded headline, but we wanted to be accurate. It's no secret that The New York Post is a sensationalist tabloid, following in the tradition of the muckraking papers of William Randolph Hearst. It's also no secret that the paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is more than happy to have his media platforms used to disseminate gossip, propaganda and outright lies, as long as the dollars keep rolling in. These two things do not make for a good combination.

Last week, the Post provided a particularly clear object lesson in how it's the worst major newspaper in the country, from a journalistic perspective. Under the headline "Obama doesn't believe Kamala Harris can beat Trump, which is why he hasn't endorsed her," the paper "reported" that, well, Barack Obama was not planning to endorse Kamala Harris because: (1) He does not think she can win, (2) He thinks she's incompetent, (3) He wanted some other candidate to replace Joe Biden. The article then descends into a series of personal attacks on both Harris and Obama, based almost entirely on anonymous "sources." The only "source" who was willing to go on record was Democrat-turned-Trumper Rod Blagojevich, who just might be a less-than-reliable narrator.

Nothing here passes the smell test. In particular, Obama is a loyal party man and a person whose legacy still hangs in the balance. You can be certain that whatever his personal feelings about a Democratic candidate for president might be, he's going to be all-in on whoever the blue team nominates. And indeed, the Post's reporting officially went counterfeit on Friday night, when both Obamas got on the phone with Harris and bestowed their endorsements.

It was obvious the Obamas would climb on board, and that the only issue was timing, as indicated by the methodical way in which Nancy Pelosi endorsed Harris, followed by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). Why the Post would stick its neck out on a story that was so obviously going to be proven false, we do not know. What we do know is that they are a garbage newspaper, and that it's useful to have a reminder of that once in a while. The only thing the Post is good for is lining the bottom of the birdcage, and even then, only if you don't like the bird very much. (Z)

Republican Ticket Tries to Put Out Fires

The Bulwark has an interesting piece up headlined "Trump Just Had His Worst Week--Ever." This is not a "new" subject for Trump pieces; there were dozens and dozens of articles like this while he was president. However, those focused on things that should have done him harm—scandals, criminal acts, etc.—but largely didn't. This one focuses on the change in his political circumstances, change that appears to be real.

On the weekend following the Republican National Convention, Trump was riding high. He was coming off the assassination attempt; as Winston Churchill observed, "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result." The Convention itself was a Trump lovefest, with the speakers—particularly on the fourth day—chosen based not so much on their appeal to American voters, but on their appeal to Trump's ego. Trump himself hogged the spotlight with the longest acceptance speech in American history. He had his newly minted running mate, also chosen based substantially on appeal to Trump's ego. The polls were trending in the right direction, and the media, even the non-right-leaning media, were hammering Joe Biden for being too old and feeble. Everything was coming up roses for Trump '24.

And then, things kinda imploded. The Convention, and in particular Trump's speech, was not well-received by people watching at home. Vance turned out to have more baggage than Terminal C at LaGuardia, and his selection was also poorly received, both by Democrats and by many Republicans. Joe Biden withdrew from the race, and the Democrats almost instantly coalesced around Kamala Harris, backing her with both money and enthusiasm. The polls took a shockingly sharp turn, particularly in terms of Harris' approval (headed up!) and Trump's approval (headed down!). Given that Trump is near-immune to the things that would damage any normal politician, it did not seem possible his fortunes could decline so far in so short a time. He could still win this thing, of course, but The Bulwark may be right that he's never had a week as poor as this last one, in terms of his odds of victory on Day 1 as compared to his odds of victory on Day 7.

Much of this was beyond Trump's control, but not all of it was. In particular, both members of the ticket have shot themselves in the foot with ill-chosen words. And they've spent the last couple of days trying to clean their respective messes up, without a lot of success.

Starting at the top of the ticket, Trump's damaging moment was his remark before an adoring crowd of supporters:

Christians, get out and vote, just this time. You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it will be fixed, it will be fine, you won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians. I love you Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you, get out, you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote.

As we noted yesterday, one reading of this is that Trump envisions a world where there won't be any more elections, as he will have installed himself as dictator. Another reading is that there's only going to be one more election with him on the ticket, and he doesn't give a damn what happens to the Republican Party after that.

Both of these readings are problematic, politically. Immediately after Trump said it, his spokesman Steven Cheung could not provide a non-problematic explanation for what the former president meant. Trump eventually said he was "joking," which is not much of an explanation, either.

It's not just us who see that; Trump mouthpiece/Fox entertainer Laura Ingraham sees it, too. She had Trump on her show yesterday, and tried to get him to clean it up. Initially, he answered her inquiries like this:

That statement is very simple. I said vote for me, you're not going to have to do it ever again. It's true, because we have to get the vote out. Christians are not known as a big voting group. This time vote. I'll straighten out the country, you won't have to vote anymore. I won't need your vote. You can go back to not voting.

First, it is laughable that Christians are not known as a big voting group. That's like saying gun owners are not known as a big voting group. Second, this "clarification" could still be read as saying "I'm going to straighten out the country by bringing an end to elections." So, Ingraham took another bite at the apple, and asked "You meant you won't have to vote for you because you have four years in office. Is that what you meant?" Trump dodged the question, only noting that voting would no longer be necessary because "we will have such love." Whatever that means.

Meanwhile, the remark that is dogging Vance, of course, is his comment from 2021 that "childless cat ladies," like Kamala Harris, should not have as much voting power as people with children because they (the cat ladies) aren't as invested in the success of the country. To the surprise of everyone (and, by everyone, we mean "Donald Trump and J.D. Vance"), a lot of people took offense at the arrogance and the presumption entailed in this judgment. And so, Vance did an interview with Megyn Kelly to try to explain himself:

I've heard from a lot of conservative women, and frankly, a lot of liberal women who said "I'm actually glad that you pointed out there's become something profoundly anti-family in our public policy in our republic conversation." Obviously, it was a sarcastic comment. I've got nothing against cats, I've got nothing against dogs, I've got one dog at home and I love him. But look, people are focusing so much on the sarcasm and not on the substance of what I actually said. And the substance of what I said, I'm sorry, it's true. It is true that we become anti-family. It is true that the left has become anti-child. It is simply true that it's become way too hard to raise a family. I myself had a lot of step-parents when I was growing up. I certainly was enriched by some of those step-parents and frankly not enriched by others.

The careful reader will note that Vance has already mastered the Trumpian technique of attributing his evidence to unnamed "people." In any case, this is what is known as a non-apology apology. Put another way, "Sorry if you were offended, but I was just joking, and besides, what I said is true."

Obviously, this appearance did not get it done, and so Vance took another shot at it on Sunday night, appearing on Trey Gowdy's Fox show. Here's what Vance said during his second swing at the piñata:

If you look at what the left has done, they have radically taken this out of context and, in fact, aggressively lied about what I've said. What I do think is true, Trey, and this goes to the heart of what I was talking about three years ago in those comments but it's going to be something I continue to talk about, is that the left has increasingly become explicitly anti-child and anti-family.

This is another non-apology apology. It's also a misrepresentation of Vance's original argument, which was much more extreme. And finally, the argument that Democrats are "explicitly anti-child and anti-family" simply does not stand up to scrutiny, when considering the legislative records of the respective parties over the last 20 years.

Vance's second effort was no more successful than his first, and so yesterday, Trump tried to step in and make the repairs. During the aforementioned Ingraham appearance, the former president explained that:

Well, first of all, [Vance] has got tremendous support, and he really does among a certain group of people. People that like families. I mean, you know, he made a statement having to do with families. That doesn't mean that people that aren't members of a big and beautiful family with 400 children around and everything else, it doesn't mean that a person doesn't have - He's not against anything, but he loves family. It's very important to him. He grew up in a very interesting family situation and he feels family is good, and I don't think there's anything wrong in saying that.

Three things: (1) There are those anonymous "people," again, serving as proof of concept; (2) What families have 400 children? Maybe Genghis Khan's family, but beyond him... and (3) This, yet again, does not actually address what Vance said. He did not say he loves his family. He did not say the Democrats are anti-family. He said that the Democrats are run by people who don't have children, and that people like that should have their influence watered down, to the point of reducing the value of their votes, because they aren't real Americans with a real investment in the future of the country.

The fundamental problem here could not be clearer. Trump does not WANT to back off of his comments about there being no further need to vote after 2024. Vance does not WANT to back off of his remarks about childless cat ladies. Both of those men said the things they said because that is what the base wants to hear. But now the duo is running a national campaign, and under circumstances much changed from a week or two ago. They don't want to anger centrist voters with extreme rhetoric, but they don't want to anger the base by backing down from the extreme rhetoric, either. And they are dealing with this by explaining that it's all very clear and mumble, mumble, mumble.

In short, they are doing a pretty terrible job of trying to have it both ways, with the result that they are not putting out the fires at all. And what will happen when and if the media try to pin the pair down about what they really think about abortion?

In particular, Florida, where Trump votes, is going to have an initiative on the ballot to enshrine the right to an abortion in the state Constitution. It is called Amendment 4. Reporters are going to ask him: "Will you vote "Yes" or "No" on Amendment 4?" He wants to leave abortion to the states. Fine. What does he think his own state should do? Trying to weasel out of that isn't going to make anyone happy. (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger