Second Debate Sets Viewing Record

Data from the TV-viewer-counting-company Nielsen showed that 18.1 million people watched the second Democratic debate on Thursday, exceeding the 15.3 million who watched the first one on Wednesday. The Thursday debate was the most-watched Democratic primary debate in history, easily beating the Oct. 13, 2015, tilt between Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), which attracted 15.4 million viewers. The first debate almost matched that. The great viewership for the second Democratic debate was due to the luck of the draw, which put most of the main contenders on the second night. The most watched primary debate in history is the Republican debate of Aug. 2, 2015, shown on Fox News. This was the largest audience ever on a cable channel for a non-sports program, with 24 million viewers.

Previous debates rarely hit even 10 million. The greater interest this time is due to the enormous polarization and politicization of the country and the consequent greater interest in politics. The next debates will be on July 30 and 31 in Detroit. Given that they will be in the middle of the summer, viewership is likely to be down somewhat unless beaches around the country quickly upgrade their WiFi capabilities. (V)

Harris Raises $2 Million in 24 Hours after Debate

In the first 24 hours after the second Democratic primary debate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) raised a stunning $2 million for her campaign. She received donations from over 60,000 people, 58% of whom were new contributors. The average contribution was $30, larger than what she had been previously averaging. If she can keep up this pace, she will be one of the top fundraisers this cycle.

However, Pete Buttigieg has been raising money like there is no tomorrow, so when the Q2 financial reports come in around July 15, he may well beat her. In fact, it is likely he will do so, because he's been working very hard to pull in a big number, just for PR purposes. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have also shifted his fundraising operation into overdrive, while Joe Biden has an army of bundlers working for him. So, expect some very gaudy numbers in the next couple of weeks. (V)

Harris' Attack on Biden Was Carefully Choreographed, Months in Advance

Many people (especially the pundits) were blindslided by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), and her blistering attack on Joe Biden Thursday. They were expecting Bernie Sanders to be the one going after Biden, not Harris. But the attack wasn't the result of Harris just happening to be in a feisty mood last week. Her team had been preparing it for months. Inside her campaign, advisers had seen the first debate as the real start of the campaign all along.

Her campaign team knew that a slugfest was going to arise between the progressive and moderate wings of the party, and the debate was potentially a way for her to attract voters who were not firmly attached to either group. But step one was taking Biden down a couple of pegs, which she tried hard to do. Her team also decided that bringing up her personal history would soften her "prosecutor" image.

The attack on Biden for working with former senator James Eastland (D), an unrepentant segregationist from Mississippi, was carefully planned. Of course, the team didn't know how Biden would react. It could have been anything from a full-throated apology, which would have taken the wind out of her sails, to a defense of bipartisanship, something many voters and almost all pundits see as the holy grail of politics. So, Team Harris gamed out every possible scenario and how their candidate should respond to it. Biden's best course of action might have been to say: "I don't want to make the campaign about what happened 30 or 40 years ago. I want to make it about the future of America, in particular my plans to provide every American with good health care, good education, and a good job." If she had persisted on talking about what happened decades ago, he could have come back with: "I'm not going to talk about the hundreds of black men you put in prison as a prosecutor. I'm going to talk about the future of this country. Sorry if you don't like it." But that's Monday-morning quarterbacking—unless she tries the same stunt the next time, in which case he is surely going to be better prepared.

Harris was also lucky. She wasn't on stage with Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), so she was the only black candidate on stage. She also didn't have to face Elizabeth Warren, who is more popular than she is with progressives. Next time she might not be so lucky.

Harris spent the weekend appearing on TV shows and basking in her new-found glory. Fundraising is through the roof (see above). It's a great time for her. But remember, in politics, a week is a long time. In particular, as the winner of the star-of-the-week contest, she has a target on her back now. Biden was taken by surprise last week; he won't be next time. (V)

Harris Jumps Way Up after Debate

Kamala Harris' stellar performance in the first debate has translated into a doubling of her support, from 6% to 12%, putting her in a tie with Elizabeth Warren for third place according to a new Morning Consult poll. Here are the results for the candidates polling above 1%.

Candidate	Pct.	Change
Joe Biden	33%	-5%
Bernie Sanders	19%	0%
Elizabeth Warren	12%	-1%
Kamala Harris	12%	+6%
Pete Buttigieg	6%	-1%
Cory Booker	3%	0%
Beto O'Rourke	2%	-2%
Andrew Yang	2%	0%

The change column shows how much change there has been between the June 17-23 poll and the June 27-28 poll. Other than Harris' huge jump up, what is also noteworthy is that Julián Castro has flatlined at 1% despite his relatively good debate performance. But remember, this is just one snapshot, and there are 11 debates, innumerable cattle calls, and 50 state primaries and caucuses yet to come. If the race were a baseball game, we have now finished 1/12 of it, which means we are in the first inning with two outs.(V)

Democrats Defend Harris after Trump Jr.'s Tweet

On Friday, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted that Kamala Harris was not black enough to be discussing the plight of black Americans. Harris has a Jamaican father and an Indian mother. After Junior's tweet, there was a firestorm of criticism and he quickly deleted the tweet. Shortly thereafter, most of the Democratic presidential candidates came to her rescue. Here are some of the comments:

• Joe Biden: "The same forces of hatred rooted in 'birtherism' that questioned Barack Obama's American citizenship, and even his racial identity, are now being used against Senator Kamala Harris."
• Elizabeth Warren: "The attacks against Kamala Harris are racist and ugly."
• Bernie Sanders: "Donald Trump Jr. is a racist too. Shocker!"
• Pete Buttigieg: "The presidential competitive field is stronger because Kamala Harris has been powerfully voicing her Black American experience."
• Amy Klobuchar: "These troll-fueled racist attacks on Senator Kamala Harris are unacceptable."
• Beto O'Rourke: "There's a long history of black Americans being told they don't belong."
• Jay Inslee: "The coordinated smear campaign on Senator Kamala Harris is racist and vile."
• Tim Ryan: "The attack on Kamala Harris is racist and we can't allow it to go unchecked."

The Democrats weren't the only ones to pile onto Junior. Meghan McCain, daughter of the late senator John McCain, also denounced him, saying: "What's happening to @KamalaHarris is disgusting and unquestionably racist."

If anyone were to take Junior's tweet to its logical conclusion, namely, that only the descendants of American slaves could discuss race, then white people (for example, Junior) would have no business doing it. The idea is obviously absurd. Harris has never claimed to be descended from slaves in the South.

Also, if Don Jr. had thought things through a bit, it might also have occurred to him that people of African descent are no more native to Jamaica than they are to the American South, and that both populations probably ended up where the did in the same basic way. And that is indeed the case; the British introduced slavery to the island in the mid-1700s so that there would be a labor force to work sugar plantations. So, if one's ancestral background is somehow germane here—as if experiencing racism oneself isn't enough—well, she's got it covered. (V)

Pelosi and Schumer Feel Betrayed--By Each Other

Normally, speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) work as a seamless team, but something went wrong in the run-up to passing the border-funding bill, resulting in the Republican version being passed unmodified. What Pelosi didn't expect was that nearly all the Senate Democrats would vote for the Republican border-funding bill. She was expecting a close vote, followed by a very different House bill, forcing a conference committee to find a compromise. She didn't get what she wanted.

She blamed Schumer for not being able to corral his caucus and have them all vote against the Republican bill. Schumer blamed Pelosi for not getting a very different bill through the House. She wasn't able to do so, because the blue dogs in her caucus rebelled against the House bill, which cut funding for ICE, something that could be used against the them in 2020. So now the two most powerful Democrats in the country are angry with each other. Members of each caucus are blaming the other chamber. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), for example, said: "Senate Democrats did us a huge disservice."

In fairness to the Senate Democrats, though, the Senate bill was already a big compromise. The White House had originally proposed a far more draconian bill, but Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Vice Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT), neither of whom is a fire-breathing partisan, got together and worked out a compromise acceptable to both of them. Most Senate Democrats thought that Leahy had done a good job of getting rid of the worst features of the administration's proposal, so they all voted for the compromise bill, which had Schumer's blessing.

Meanwhile, over in the House, Pelosi was having trouble herding the cats. With a rebellion in her own caucus and a bipartisan vote in the Senate, she was in a very weak position and ultimately had to concede and accept the Senate bill. It was one of her infrequent defeats. It goes to show that when the Democrats are divided, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will easily get his way. (V)

Judge Blocks Wall

U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam, a Stanford University Law School graduate appointed to the bench by Barack Obama, ruled Friday that Donald Trump could not spend billions of dollars of military funds to build a wall on the Mexican border. Gilliam had earlier temporarily blocked use of the funds. On Friday, he made the ruling permanent. The lawsuit was brought by the ACLU and Sierra Club, both of which challenged the use of a "national emergency" to divert military funds from the purpose for which Congress had appropriated them.

The administration immediately responded by appealing the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is based in California.

In a related case, Gilliam also ruled that Trump could not do any construction of walls in New Mexico or California while cases brought by those states were being heard. California AG Xavier Becerra (D) celebrated both rulings. In these cases, the plaintiffs claimed that only Congress has the authority to determine how federal funds are spent. (V)

Florida Governor Signs Bill that De Facto Redisenfranchises Felons

OK, we're not sure if "redisenfranchises" is really a word. If it isn't, it should be because that is precisely what Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) just did when a signed a "voting rights" bill late on Friday. Last November, by a very wide margin, Florida voters passed Amendment 4, which gave most former felons who have served their time the right to vote again.

Florida Republicans didn't like what the voters had done (because felons skew poor and minority and those groups tend to vote for Democrats). So the state legislature passed a law saying that former felons could only get the right to vote back after they had paid all court fees and costs, and court-ordered reimbursements to victims. Florida has notoriously high court fees, often thousands of dollars, and most people just released from prison have no assets and no job and cannot possibly pay any fees or other costs. So in practice, with this new law, they can't vote. How clever of the state Republicans.

The ACLU, NAACP, and other groups joined together to file a lawsuit in federal court, challenging the law, saying that it is no different from a poll tax, which is unconstitutional. Needless to say, this case is going to end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, and like so many politically sensitive cases, is likely to be a 5-4 decision. (V)

Monday Q&A

Back to a regular Q&A, now that the debates are in the rear-view mirror. Well, until the next round, at least.

Can you think of any reason why Congress could not legislatively define a "senior status" for Supreme Court justices? For example, after age 70, justices could advise, research, write, and give speeches, but would no longer select cases or participate in hearings, case conferences, or decisions. The president would then fill the senior vacancies with additional, active justices. Old justices would not be forcibly retired (possibly in violation of the Constitution), and no Constitutional amendment would be necessary. G.A., Berkeley, CA

This is, of course, an alternate way of solving the two problems Bernie Sanders was trying to solve with his "court rotation" scheme, namely: (1) that the composition of the Court has become problematic and highly politicized, and (2) judges can't be terminated unless they are impeached. We think your approach is probably more likely to fly than Sanders' is. As we've pointed out before, there is already precedent for Congress to set a mandatory retirement age: federal law enforcement officers and firefighters must retire at 57, unless given special dispensation. Though it is not well known, there is also precedent for Congress to establish a "you're still active, but with reduced duties" status. Namely, five-star officers are not legally able to retire, and remain on active duty for the remainder of their lives, even if they have no command. We haven't had a five-star officer in a long time, of course, but the precedent is still there. (Note: Dwight D. Eisenhower's commission was suspended while he was president, and then restored the moment he left office).

Sanders' proposal would, in the end, result in a demotion for SCOTUS justices. On the other hand, the "senior status" proposal would result in a promotion (albeit a symbolic one) to something like "Justice Emeritus" status. Hard to say how it would play out in court, when the inevitable lawsuits were filed, but this does not seem to automatically run afoul of the terms set by the Constitution or the various Judiciary Acts.

---

I notice you and many other outlets refer, somewhat sarcastically, to the election as being more than 500 days away. While true and it's notable that it is indeed far away, everything now is leading to primaries, not the general. It is currently about 220 days to the Iowa caucus and especially for candidates looking to break out, the time is rapidly dwindling. Considering that summer is mostly about family vacations and mid-November to New Year's Day is family time, I would subtract 105 days (60 for summer and 45 for holidays) that people are paying attention to this. That leaves roughly 115 days to make an impression, especially with this large of a field of candidates. I just think it would be more objective to look to first caucus, not the general election. A.G., Santa Clarita, CA

You make a good point, and we generally try to draw a distinction between activities geared toward the primaries, and those geared toward the general election. For example, we usually eye roll a little less when talking about the Democratic debate schedule, and a little more when talking about a Trump rally, since the latter has nothing to do with primary season. That said, it's definitely worth keeping in mind that (some) people are going to be pulling the lever (or in Iowa, arguing with their neighbors) much sooner than it seems.

---

I feel it is waaaaaay early in the elections cycle, with my California primary some 9 months away and the election itself some 500+ days away. So much is unknown and, as you often remind us, this is an absolute eternity in politics. So, I just can't justify giving a dime to any candidate right now. Doing some simple math, 65,000 unique donors times 20 candidates (on the debate stage) equals a minimum of 1.3 million donors. Probably there are more than that, as I'm sure high profile candidates may already have 100K+ donors. So my question is, who are these donors? Is there a profile of people willing to part with their hard-earned cash so early in the election cycle to a candidate with basically a 1-in-24 chance of securing the nomination? R.L., Alameda, CA

Well, as the previous questioner noted, it's not that long until the earliest primaries. And to some people, at least, $30 (see above) is a relative drop in the bucket. In any event, campaigns keep information about their donors to themselves, trying to achieve a level of secrecy that we generally associate with the nuclear codes, the redacted parts of the Mueller report, and who it is that makes Sean Hannity's toupees. So, we can only make an informed guess in response to your question. We suspect that most donors fall into one or more of these five categories:

• The Gamers: No, not video gamers or board gamers. By this, we mean that the DNC's current debate setup has incentivized "Hail Mary" donations, given specifically to game the system and to get candidates on stage who don't really belong there.
  
  
• The Horse Racers: Some people can only watch sports if they have a bet riding on the outcome. And we suspect that the same basic phenomenon happens in politics; that some people enjoy following along more if they've got a "bet" on one of the horses in the horse race. Of course, they could place an actual bet at sites like PredictIt, but $20 donated to Elizabeth Warren or $50 donated to Pete Buttigieg serves much the same purpose.
  
  
• The Early Voters: The current phase of the primary process is not irrelevant to the final result; candidates who raise serious money can build a ground game, can lock up the good staffers, and so forth. Further, headlines like "Buttigieg raises $10 million" and "Swalwell raises enough to buy one pack of gum, maybe two if he shops around online and looks for a bargain" shape perceptions. Undoubtedly, there are folks who are itching to pull the lever for "not Donald Trump," but can't do so right now, and donating is an outlet for that energy. That energy is flowing particularly strongly right after a debate, and so right now is the time for candidates with "momentum" to ask for money. For example, Elizabeth Warren sent out 11(!) fundraising e-mails on Sunday alone.
  
  
• The Candidate Loyalists: There are some folks who really like one of the candidates in the field, and are happy to do whatever they can to help that candidate, including sending them money. Put another way, some people like, say, Bernie Sanders so much that it's worth it to them to invest in him, even if he only has a 5% or 10% chance of getting the nod. Also, don't overlook the power of positive delusion here; many candidate loyalists overstate their candidate's actual chance of winning.
  
  
• The Party Loyalists: There is also a group of people who build regular donations to the blue team into their annual budgets. For these folks, the donation is already a done deal, the only question is who gets it.

So, that's our best guess, based on the parts of the fundraising process that are publicly visible.

---

I was wondering if you have any thoughts as to why presidential candidate and former representative John Delaney has not gotten any traction in the polls and the public discussion. He appears to be a serious candidate with reasonable policies. Is it because he is a "boring white guy" or does not have a MacGuffin such as Sen. Sanders (a grumpy old socialist)? K.W., Lafayette, Indiana

We think that there are two answers, and they are both contained within your question. The first problem is "boring white guy." There are lots of serious candidates with reasonable policies, including at least 15 of them up on the debate stage last week. There's only enough money, and media attention, and cognitive space to go around, and a candidate had better have mega-charisma, or some really great ideas, or some other angle if they're going to get some traction.

It is likely that the bigger issue, however, is "former representative." There's a reason that only two men (Abraham Lincoln and James Garfield) went from the House of Representatives to the White House with no other political position in between: It's not easy to build a national constituency if all you have is local fame. True, Pete Buttigieg appears to be doing it, but he has shown considerably more charisma than Delaney and he has a MacGuffin: first openly gay Democratic candidate (however, Fred Karger was an openly gay Republican candidate in 2012, and James Buchanan (D) was almost certainly gay but this was not well known outside of D.C.)

---

I've been thinking about the trial of Donald Trump (a.k.a. New York State v. Donald John Trump), loosely scheduled to start in either 2021 or 2025. Many comparisons are being made to the trial of Al Capone for tax evasion, but this question isn't about the charges or the evidence; it's about the jury.

One would assume that a New York City jury pool will be full-to-bursting with fiery blue Democrats. As such, I suspect Trump's lawyers will do all they can to find and seat at least one staunch Republican, if not two. Assuming the jury has one or two ruby red Republicans on it, would the trial most likely end in a hung jury and failure to convict? And alternately, if the prosecution is successful in limiting the jurors to only those on the left and left-center of the political aisle, won't the former president's lawyers have a reasonable grounds for appeal based on the jurors not truly being made up of Trump's "peers," (since they would by definition need to be conservative and Republican)? Is this, perhaps, the way that Donald J. Trump stays out of spending his twilight years in a state prison? J.L., Los Angeles, CA

As we always remind readers when we get legal questions like this, we're not lawyers. And we are happy to hear from actual lawyers if any corrections or clarifications are needed. However, assuming there is a trial in New York state court, we do not think it likely that Trump will be saved by a friendly juror or two, for a number of reasons. First of all, most people are basically honest. When Paul Manafort went on trial, one of the jurors admitted that she really wanted to exonerate him, but that the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, and she had no choice but to find him guilty. Second, the jurors are going to be asked if they can be fair and impartial, and if they appear to have lied in their answer to that question, they are at risk of getting popped for perjury. And third, there are going to be some alternate jurors (state law allows up to 6, or more in extraordinary circumstances, which this would surely be). If 10 or 11 jurors are ready to convict, and they are dealing with one or two intransigent jurors who have no particular explanation for their position, then the judge would likely just dump the intransigent jurors and replace them with one of the alternates.

Trump is even less likely to win a "Democratic jurors are not my peers" appeal. The courts have made clear, again and again, that "jury of one's peers" means people who are the person's equals as citizens, and not their dopplegängers. If the lawyers feel a juror is problematic, it's their job to figure that out during the voir dire process, and to disqualify them. If they only "discover" the jury was unfair after a verdict is rendered, well, every judge in the land is going to tell them they didn't do their jobs properly, and is going to toss the appeal.

---

I am from Oregon, where the Republican state senators have decamped to prevent a vote on a climate bill. This has broken the state government and got me to wondering, can counties switch states? In the west, in particular, could the eastern counties of Washington and Oregon join Idaho? Could the eastern counties of California join a Nevada that ceded Clark County (the home of Las Vegas) to California? I know that creating new states is a dead end, but would this be possible? G.H., Newport, Oregon

Nobody really knows the answer, because no county has ever made a serious effort to secede to another state. The first issue, of course, is the Constitution. Art. IV, Sec. 3 reads:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

It is not clear if, say, Clark County joined California, would that make a "new state" (also called California)? Or was the third clause in that sentence referring only to brand-new states (like, say, if Clark County in Nevada and Inyo County in California tried to join to form the state of Nevafornia?).

Another issue is this: Counties are not sovereign entities, and may not have the legal right to initiate secession proceedings. And yet another issue is the status and rights of the citizens of those counties who did not wish to secede.

Add it up and, at very least, the two states involved, the majority of the citizens living in the counties involved, and the court system would all have to sign off. Congress might also have to sign off, too. If all these various stakeholders said "yes," then it could probably happen, but the odds of them all actually doing so are very small. The courts, in particular, would be likely to decide that state-switching destabilizes the union and is not in the public good.

---

There has been a lot of press lately about Average Joe Biden being not so average anymore. When did we, in this land of opportunity, start finding fault with someone who achieves success? I was raised in abject poverty and managed to retire comfortably at 55. I remember what it's like not to have food or gas money. I can't find fault with someone that has achieved some success. I'm wondering if we don't admire success as we did in past years? F.S., Idaho Falls, Idaho

This is not a new phenomenon. For at least two centuries (basically starting when the franchise was extended to non-property-owning citizens), running as a "regular guy" has been a pretty good political strategy, at least for those candidates who can pull it off. However, anyone running for president is probably not much of a regular guy, at least not by the time their political career has reached maturity. So, there's an inherent tension there.

The first "regular guy" campaign in U.S. history was run by Andrew Jackson, who really did come from humble roots. His family was poor, he was orphaned at a young age, he didn't have much education, and so forth. On the other hand, he became a successful and wealthy plantation owner, a general, a judge, and a powerful politician. His net worth, upon his election, was equivalent to over $130 million today.

Jackson's opponents were flummoxed by his popularity, and could not understand how working class voters could be so enamored of a man that violated the norms of democratic government, was openly racist, spoke at a fourth-grade level, engaged in all manner of petty intrigues, went through Cabinet officers more quickly than he went through socks, and openly expressed his disdain for those voters that did not vote for him (Jackson did not, however, lead his supporters in chants of "Lock Adams Up!"). Anyhow, the anti-Jacksonians, who eventually coalesced into the Whig party, took two approaches to trying to tear him down. Some of them smeared him as a boor and an uneducated ignoramus who could barely spell his own name. Others, however, portrayed him as an autocrat and an elitist snob who was out of touch with the citizenry:

It didn't work, of course. Jackson was reelected handily and exited office as one of the most popular presidents in U.S. history, leaving his veep, Martin Van Buren, to reap the rewards of the Jackson administration's unwise fiscal policies, not to mention its Indian policy.

Turning our attention back to Biden, he certainly came from humbler roots than many politicians. And he famously spent his lengthy career in the Senate carrying his lunch in a brown paper bag, and riding the train from Delaware, and wearing suits off the rack, because he didn't have the millions of some of his colleagues (ahem, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and John D. Rockefeller IV).

On the other hand, being born white and male already gave him a step up over many folks. Graduating college gave him another, and spending half a century in the halls of power gave him yet another. Does Biden know how much a gallon of milk costs right now? Has he stood in line at the DMV anytime this millennium? Has he ever had to choose between health insurance for his kids and paying the electric bill? Has he ever been pulled over by a police officer for no particular reason? Has he, at any time in the last half century, had his credit card declined because it was maxed out, or had to drive a car that badly needed repairs he could not afford, or had to worry that his job was going to be shipped abroad?

In short, people don't begrudge Biden his success. What they may begrudge is his pretensions to understanding the issues of the working class, especially since it's been at least 50 years since he was anything remotely close to being blue collar.

---

If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer, click here for submission instructions and previous Q & A's. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at corrections@electoral-vote.com.

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger