It's Kamala Harris

By now, everyone who follows politics—and most people who don't—has heard the news: Joe Biden decided to select Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) as his running mate. She becomes, of course, the first woman of color to appear on a major-party ticket.

We (and everyone else) said that the VP pick would give a great deal of insight into the thinking of the Biden campaign. Well, here is what we learned:

• Do no harm: Harris was a very safe pick, quite probably the safest pick among the options that Team Biden was considering. This was probably the most important point in her favor. It was (and is) very unlikely that the "right" VP pick was going to attract new voters to the Biden 2020 banner, but it was certainly possible that the "wrong" one could cost Biden some support. This is not to say that Harris' selection won't ruffle a few feathers, but it will ruffle fewer than, say, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) or Susan Rice.
  
  Further, by virtue of her presidential campaign and her having won elections in America's largest state, Harris has already been pretty thoroughly vetted. With her, it is much less likely that a surprise skeleton will emerge from the closet, as compared to, say, Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms (D-Atlanta) or Rep. Val Demings (D-FL) or Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA). Quite clearly, and quite correctly, Team Biden is playing defense these days. Although there were higher-upside picks available, there's no need for a campaign with a 10-point lead in national polls to take big risks.
  
  
• Cut Trump off at the pass: Donald Trump is going to run the nastiest campaign possible, and is going to say the nastiest things he can think of to say. In fact, his campaign already dropped an anti-Harris ad that slurs her as a radical leftist who will be Biden's puppetmaster:
  
  

  pic.twitter.com/jXoffXyZed

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 11, 2020

  
  Trump's problem is that he actually has very little talent when it comes to thinking up nasty things to say. His most effective lines of attack—like, say, Hillary Clinton's e-mail server—were handed to him on a silver platter by someone else. Former NSA Susan Rice was, by all indications, neck and neck with Harris. But picking her would have given Trump and his campaign some ready-made lines of attack that the American people are already primed for (e.g., Benghazi). With Harris, all Trump has is standard, and rather old hat, anti-Democratic Party rhetoric. It's not even particularly effective rhetoric in Harris' case; slurring her as a "radical leftist" doesn't pass the smell test. And while she has her weaknesses, Trump is not going with "she was too hard on people of color who were charged with crimes," for obvious reasons.
  
  
• Black women voters: It has been said that black women are the most important constituency in the Democratic Party, and there may be something to that. There was a period of time, a couple of months ago, where it looked like Biden might have "permission" to choose a white running mate. Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) went so far as to say that it wasn't absolutely necessary for Biden 2020 to include a Black woman on the ticket. However, as we so often observe, in politics a week is a lifetime. Since Clyburn gave "permission," George Floyd and police violence became the issue du jour (along with COVID-19), meaning the Biden ticket needs to be strong on that issue (but without embracing "defund the police"). Further, the campaign dangled the promise of a Black woman running mate out there for a bit too long to yank it back, especially since there were just too many highly qualified Black women for Biden to overlook them all. And given his habit of sticking his foot in his mouth, including his recent "the Black community is not diverse" blunder, Biden needed to shore up his credibility on race in general.
  
  
• Getting to know you: Harris is most certainly not Biden's best friend among the field of VP contenders; he's closer with Warren and Rice, among others. However, Biden and Barack Obama were also not particularly close when they teamed up in 2008, and that worked out. Clearly, Biden thinks he can develop a good working relationship with Harris, and that is what really matters. Plus, given that Harris attacked him in that first Democratic candidates' debate, it allows Biden to signal that he can be the bigger man, and can forgive slights. Against Donald Trump, who is incapable of being the bigger man, and who never forgives slights, that's probably a useful message to send.
  
  On a very much related note, Biden said that one of his priorities was finding someone who is "ready to hit the ground running." Undoubtedly, Harris is good enough on that front, but it's hard to argue that she's more ready than Rice or Warren. Team Biden obviously took note of the fact that ability to govern doesn't matter if you don't win first, and so prioritized "most able to help the ticket win" over "most able to govern on Jan. 20, 2021."
  
  
• The progressive wing: Harris actually does have a pretty lefty voting record, and is part of the liberal "San Francisco Regency" that also includes Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Gov. Gavin Newsom (both D-CA). That said, she's not going to excite the populist-progressive folks who supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the primaries (the pragmatic-progressives, who supported Warren, are already on board). Clearly, Team Biden felt the number of persuadable Sanders voters not already on board the S.S. Biden was not large enough to pursue.
  
  
• The brain trust: Barack and Michelle Obama were pushing hard for Rice. Biden's brain trust, led by longtime aide and advisor Ted Kaufman, was pushing hard for Harris. Obviously, we know who won that one. Undoubtedly, the Obamas will be an important source of advice for Biden, should he claim the presidency. However, he's clearly his own man, as he declined the Obamas' input on the first truly major decision of his would-be administration.
  
  
• Geography: As we and others have pointed out many times, VP candidates rarely swing their home states. The pros know this, which is why they rarely concern themselves with finding a running mate from a swing state. This year might plausibly have been different, but Team Biden did not see it that way, as Harris is from the ultra-safe state of California. The campaign clearly thinks that the must-have states of Michigan and Wisconsin are safe, and that their candidate can carry them by himself without an added boost from a Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) or a Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). A boost in Georgia (former state Rep. Stacey Abrams, Bottoms) or Florida (Demings) would be nice, but the overwhelming likelihood is that in any election where Biden wins either of those states, he sweeps the must-have Rust Belt states, making the Sun Belt states a luxury.

And now, we sit back and see what the response is. The early returns are promising for the Biden campaign; they had their best hour and their best day of fundraising ever after making the announcement, taking in a total of close to $11 million. And now that Biden has chosen a woman of Indian descent as his running mate, we wonder if that will put additional pressure on Trump to throw Mike Pence overboard in favor of Nikki Haley (nee Nimrata Randhawa), another woman of Indian descent. (Z)

More Voters Head to the Polls

Connecticut, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Vermont had primary elections last night, while Georgia had its primary runoffs. Here are the main storylines from the latest round of voting:

• In the only Senate races of the evening, Sen. Tina Smith (DFL-MN) crushed Paula Overby (DFL), 87.1% to 5.2%. On the other side of that contest, former representative Jason Lewis (R) dispatched Cynthia Gail (R) nearly as easily, 78.1% to 7.2%. Lewis lost by 5 points as an incumbent in an R+2 district in 2018. He's not going to do better as a challenger in a D+1 state in 2020.
  
  
• Also in Minnesota, Rep. Ilhan Omar (DFL) was not in as much danger as it seemed, apparently. She knocked off the very well funded Antone Melton-Meaux, 57.4% to 39.2%. Inasmuch as MN-05 is D+26, she can go ahead and renew her lease in Washington for two more years.
  
  
• To the west, in MN-07, Rep. Collin Peterson (DFL-MN) found out the identity of his opponent. It's Michelle Fischbach, who was a state senator, president of the Minnesota Senate and, for about a year, lieutenant governor. The district is R+12 and went for Donald Trump by 30 points, so Peterson is certainly in some danger, and will learn if being one of only two Democrats to vote against impeachment will be enough to win him a 16th term.
  
  
• Over in Vermont, the only governor's races of the evening were routs. Gov. Phil Scott (R) easily won renomination, and will face off against Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (D), who also won his primary with ease. Scott's pretty popular, and should win in the general, though it is worth noting that there were close to 100,000 votes cast on the Democratic side of the contest, as compared to just over 50,000 on the Republican side.
  
  
• Down in Georgia, the big news is that Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) easily defeated John Cowan (R) in GA-14. Since that district is R+27, she'll be heading to Congress, and she'll be taking her predilection for conspiratorial thinking, racism, and anti-Semitism right along with her. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) was shunned and shorn of his committee assignments for hinting at things that Greene is happy to say out loud. Exactly how Republicans will deal with her is yet to be seen, though they certainly didn't work hard to defeat her. Democrats, for their part, are going to make her the poster child for what the party of Lincoln has now become.
  
  
• Also in Georgia, gun-loving, Trump-loving, alleged-tax-dodging veteran Andrew Clyde won his primary in GA-09, which is R+31, so he will be joining Greene in Washington. Maybe they can carpool.
  
  
• In Wisconsin, Democrats got their preferred candidate in the R+5 WI-01. It's Roger Polack, a lawyer who worked as a civil intelligence officer in Afghanistan and also served in the Treasury Department. He will try to win the seat formerly occupied by Paul Ryan, and currently occupied by Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI).
  
  
• In the other interesting Wisconsin congressional district, the PVI-Even WI-O3, Franciscan brother Mark Neumann's progressive challenge to Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) came up way short, 81% to 19%. Kind will defend his seat against Trump-loving former Navy SEAL Derrick Van Orden (R), who claimed 66% of the vote in the GOP primary.
  
  
• And then there is Connecticut, where we really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find anything to talk about. No gubernatorial race, no Senate race, and of the 10 congressional races (5 Democratic, 5 Republican), only two were contested. The headline, such as it is, is that Thomas Gilmer (R) may well win the Republican nomination in CT-02 despite having been arrested in connection with a "possible domestic assault" on Monday night and having dropped out of the race. Whether he wins or not (it's too close to call), it shouldn't matter since Rep. Joe Courtney (D) is an incumbent and the district is D+3.
  
  
• As long as we're at it, we will note that Hawaii voted this weekend; the most notable result was that State Sen. Kaiali'i Kahele (D) will be Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's (D-HI) successor in HI-02. Also, Puerto Rico tried to vote this weekend, but they ran out of ballots. It's not clear what they're going to do to rectify the problem, as Puerto Rican law does not cover this particular situation.

Next Tuesday, as the Democratic National Convention is getting underway, Alaska, Florida, and Wyoming will have their non-presidential primaries. (Z)

Democrats Appear to Prefer Vote-by-Mail

Marquette has a new poll of Wisconsin out; it has Joe Biden leading Donald Trump in state by 5 points. However, that is not the part that everyone is paying attention to. No, it's one of the cross-tab questions, namely: "In the election this November, do you plan to vote in person on Election Day, vote in person during the early voting period, vote absentee by mail or do you think you might not vote this time?" Here are the numbers they came up with:

Ballot Type	Biden support	Trump support	Neither	Undecided
Election Day, in person	26%	67%	3%	3%
Early, in person	50%	45%	2%	1%
Absentee by mail	81%	14%	3%	2%

This is just one poll, of course, but these numbers square with other evidence we've seen this cycle. And it did not take long for commenters, like Political Wire's Taegan Goddard and CNN's Chris Cillizza, to notice that: (1) Trump's ballots are going to get counted first, giving him an apparent lead; (2) Joe Biden's ballots are going to get added later, potentially giving him an apparent come-from-behind victory; and (3) This will give Trump an excuse to cry foul, claiming fraud, and filing lots of lawsuits.

With all due respect to Goddard, Cillizza, et al., here is how we feel (and, in particular, how Z feels) about this news: So what?

First of all, Joe Biden could win by a hair, like JFK in 1960, or he could win in a landslide, like Ronald Reagan in 1984. Whatever happens, Donald Trump is going to claim all sorts of chicanery—undocumented voters voting by the millions, fake absentee ballots, Chinese interference, deep state involvement—and his base is going to believe it. You can take it to the bank. We know this because Trump has already run the same playbook, claiming all sorts of chicanery back in 2016, despite the fact that absentee balloting was far more limited than it will be this year and despite the fact that he won the election.

Because of this, it will be incumbent on the media to make clear what is really going on as the returns come in. Goddard supposes that "the media will almost certainly make it seem like Trump is winning while the mail-in votes are being counted." Frankly, we (and, in particular, Z) are shocked that he even wrote that. We have watched many, many election nights' worth of coverage, and assume he has as well. And outside of the Fox Newses and OANNs of the world, the commentators are incredibly careful to put returns in context. If you watch CNN, to take one example, there will be literally hundreds of occasions where John King or Wolf Blitzer says something like "but this is with only 22% reporting" or "we're still waiting for results from Dade County, which historically votes more than 80% Democratic" or "this is close enough that the outcome won't be known until the millions of mail-in ballots are counted." Every single one of the non-partisan commentators is going to know that the mail-in ballots have been skewing Democratic, and every single one of them is going to mention that many times over the course of the evening. It is inconceivable that they would create the impression that Trump is winning if the evidence does not clearly support that.

Further, we also believe that viewers are sophisticated enough to figure things out for themselves, no matter what the commentators say. Every single politics-watcher has had the experience of watching a political race, hoping for an outcome, and remaining on eggshells with 70% or 80% or 90% of the vote counted because you just never know. After all, there are often late swings. If Trump is up by 10 points in Wisconsin with 30% of the vote counted, is it really believable that people are going to take that to the bank, and are going to conclude that any further movement in the numbers is evidence of fraud? We are dubious that will be the response (again excepting people, like Trump himself, who have already concluded the election is fraudulent before it's even happened).

Under ideal circumstances, the results would come in both fast and accurate. But if we have to choose only one, particularly under the extraordinary circumstances of 2020, we choose the latter. And if it takes Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or Florida or Ohio two days or five days or a week to get things right, and Trump spends the entire time on Twitter grousing and threatening lawsuits, again we say: So what?

There is, first of all, no guarantee (and no likelihood, for that matter) that Trump will magically lead in every state that has lots of absentee balloting. And if he "comes from behind" in, say, Texas, and Biden does the same in, say, Michigan, it's rather tenuous to argue that one was legitimate and the other wasn't. North Carolina will be an interesting state to watch. It is in the Eastern time zone and doesn't have much of a history of using absentee ballots, so it may have a larger percentage of in-person votes than, say, Florida, where absentee voting is common. Still, this year, North Carolina will have a lot more absentee voting than normal. And if Biden is doing well in the in-person voting in North Carolina, it could be a bellwether.

Further, it seems that Trump's ability to trample on virtually all norms of governance, and his savant-like ability to avoid consequences (so far) have persuaded people that he need only file a lawsuit and he's a winner. It's true that he's stacked the federal courts with some friendly judges, but electoral irregularities are generally a state matter. And it's not enough for Trump and 3 million of his closest friends in Alabama to think the Wisconsin returns are phony. They've got to have a cause of action, and they've got to persuade a judge (or, more likely, many judges) that their claim is valid, while being matched by the army of lawyers the Democrats also have at the ready. Oh, and even if the suits find their way into federal court, let us remember that the President often fails to secure the outcome he wants there.

None of this is to say that shenanigans are impossible. And everyone agrees that both the media and election officials should do everything they can to educate people in advance of a highly unusual election. However, we wonder what the value is in all these worst-case-scenario pieces, especially when they seem to be poorly thought out. Indeed, one could argue that by writing and publishing these items, the authors are doing a disservice to the democracy. If Trump and the GOP file a bunch of frivolous lawsuits on Nov. 4, that should be shocking and irregular. But every time we are warned that "Trump could use X as an excuse..." and "Reason Y could give Trump the cover he needs..." then it normalizes and maybe even legitimizes his anticipated bad behavior. (Z)

Are You Ready for Some Football?

If yes, you may be disappointed. Although the NFL says they are moving onward and upward, college football is in limbo, due substantially to its decentralized nature. The five so-called "power" conferences (Pac-12, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, and SEC) are the foundation of the sport, and are pulling in different directions. On Tuesday, the Pac-12 and Big Ten announced that they are canceling all sports this calendar year, and will consider conducting a football season in spring, if viable. The ACC and SEC say they are sticking with fall football, though most will play only other conference teams. The Big 12 has yet to figure out its plans.

Needless to say, like all things these days, this has become politicized. Donald Trump recognizes that college football drives a lot of local economies, and is also a signifier of normalcy. So, he said it would be a "tragic mistake" if the season was canceled or postponed (translation: any risk is acceptable if it improves my chances of reelection). Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), who takes his cues from the President, vowed that his state's Power Five teams (FSU, Florida, and Miami) would play on if he has anything to say about it (basically, he doesn't). On a macro level, it is not hard to notice that the two conferences that are sticking to their guns include schools located mostly in red/red-leaning states, while the two conferences that have already pushed the eject button include schools mostly in blue/blue-leaning states. For what it's worth, the still-undecided Big 12 has member schools exclusively in red/red-leaning states (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, and West Virginia).

We shall see what happens here, but it is going to be difficult to stage a meaningful season with two major conferences (and several non-power conferences, like the MAC and the Ivy League) opting out. The bowl games won't really work, nor will it be plausible to award a national championship. Further, if players get sick and/or die, then in the inevitable lawsuits, the plaintiffs' lawyers are going to point out that the risk was so great that other schools didn't even try to play football. Our guess is that 2021 is going to feature the first-ever post-Easter Rose Bowl. (Z)

The Vaccine War Is Well Underway

On Tuesday, Russian "President" Vladimir Putin announced that Russia has successfully developed and deployed a COVID-19 vaccine. In fact, it was already administered to Putin...'s daughter. What is there to be skeptical about?

A lot, actually. Putin, of course, is an inveterate liar, and his primary concern appears to be "winning" the race and propagandizing the idea that Russia remains a scientific titan. Public health is not at the top of his list, to say the least. In support of their developed-too-quickly-to-be-believable vaccine, the Russians have offered...zero data. No clinical studies, no examples of successfully immunized people, nothing.

However, despite the overwhelming likelihood that this is just дым и зеркала (smoke and mirrors), it's eating Donald Trump up inside. He does not like to be beaten, even by his good buddy, and he desperately wants a vaccine in place before people start casting ballots next month. The Donald does not have the power to proclaim a fake vaccine, the way Putin does (at least not yet), but on Tuesday he did the best he could, announcing that the federal government has signed a $1.525 billion deal with Moderna for 100 million doses of its COVID-19 vaccine, whenever it is ready.

Trump will try to spin this as major progress toward defeating COVID-19, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. The vaccine in question has just begun clinical trials, and there is all sorts of potential for things to go off the rails. Further, distributing that many doses—should the vaccine prove workable—is no small feat, and even then, 100 million doses is nowhere near enough. Also concerning is that the vaccine is being produced "at risk," meaning that Moderna is already making doses, to be deployed the second the vaccine is approved (assuming that it is). They therefore have a huge financial stake in its success (or its "success"), while Trump has his huge political stake. The motivation to cut a corner here and there is...substantial, shall we say. (Z)

COVID-19 Diaries: Research Notes

It is now (mostly) accepted that masks and social distancing are both smart ways to slow the spread of COVID-19. There is very solid evidence documenting the value of both. Face shields have only recently been added to the list of things we can use to help prevent the spread of the virus.

It was well known that a virus could travel through the tear ducts to infect someone. What is new is that researchers found that there are receptors directly on the eyeball where the virus can attach. This was not unexpected news as health care providers (and other first responders) wearing masks were still becoming infected from time to time. These same receptors are less prevalent in children's bodies than in adults, which may help to explain why children are less susceptible to the virus.

Most studies show hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as having little or no value in treating or preventing COVID-19. There is a useful video that summarized the recent research (note: requires sign-up and approval). The video covers peer reviewed, double-blind studies that have researched HCQ usage in hospitalized patients (4 studies), outpatients (2 studies) and prophylactic (2 studies) settings. In each study, there was no evidence that the drug provided any benefits. In some cases, outcomes were actually worse when using HCQ. That said, there is good science that indicates HCQ interferes with viral replication, so it is still possible that HCQ might have some value, particularly early in the progression of COVID-19 or in preventative support of very high-risk individuals (for example, medical workers in at-risk categories). However, there is little evidence that this drug is any kind of game changer. On the other hand, Remdesivir appears to be much more effective and consistently shows value in studies.

On a different note, J.B. in Stratford, NJ sent this in:

Researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory say that the R0 is not in the 2-3 range, it is way over five. Wow! What would this do? It would require a much higher herd immunity before the COVID-19 pandemic is tamed. We are talking in the 80-90% range before herd immunity ensues, if this holds up. So far there is no one contradicting this important article. This runs into the anti-vaccine crowd. Lots of people will refuse to get a vaccine, which is all the more reason to immunize tens of thousands of people per drug, in order to get the rare reactions into the public domain. There is nothing worse than terrible surprises. That said, this is the most depressing article I have read in a while. Comments?

I agree that it is depressing, but it does not change the basic story. The reality is that COVID-19 can be beaten if we take it very seriously and aggressively. If we do not take it seriously, then it rages unchecked through the population. The situation in the U.S. appears increasingly hopeless. However, China, Sweden, Ireland, Austria, Norway, Finland, and New Zealand all seem to be doing reasonably well (although there are increases in new cases showing up recently). New Zealand has virtually conquered COVID-19. Their last death was in May, and they have not reported more than 5 new cases on any single day since May 2. In spite of their stellar record, the U.S. State department just issued a "Level-2: Exercise Increased Caution" travel advisory based on alleged increased COVID-19 activity. I wonder what they did to deserve that?

Regarding your (J.B.'s) comment on vaccinations: I am not in any way an anti-vaxxer. However, I am only willing to get a vaccine that has been put through rigorous testing to prove safety and efficacy. It is not possible to have a vaccine ready before the election that has been adequately tested. However, I suspect that such an announcement will be one of the October surprises. (PD)

---

Dr. Paul Dorsey works in medical software, providing software to support medical practices and hospitals nationwide.

Today's Presidential Polls

Emerson consistently gives Donald Trump better numbers than pretty much any pollster not named Rasmussen (or Pulse). Still, even with their polls in the database, Joe Biden has 303 EVs in the "Strongly" or "Likely" Dem categories. (Z)

State	Biden	Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	53%	47%	Aug 08	Aug 10	Emerson Coll.
Georgia	46%	44%	Aug 06	Aug 08	SurveyUSA
Maine	44%	36%	Jul 28	Aug 09	Critical Insights
Minnesota	51%	49%	Aug 08	Aug 10	Emerson Coll.
North Carolina	49%	51%	Aug 08	Aug 10	Emerson Coll.
Pennsylvania	53%	47%	Aug 08	Aug 10	Emerson Coll.
Wisconsin	50%	46%	Aug 04	Aug 09	Marquette Law School

Today's Senate Polls

Politico had an item yesterday headlined "Is Lindsey Graham Actually in Trouble in South Carolina?" Their answer was: He could be, since a lot of voters are angry with his Trump lapdoggery, and since he's drawn the toughest opponent imaginable (young, Black, well-connected, good fundraiser, etc.). This poll does nothing to argue against Politico's conclusion.

Meanwhile, we already knew that Sens. Martha McSally (R-AZ), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Thom Tillis (R-NC) are actually in trouble, even without Politico's help. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	Mark Kelly	48%	Martha McSally*	43%	Aug 03	Aug 04	OH Predictive Insights
Arizona	Mark Kelly	52%	Martha McSally*	41%	Aug 08	Aug 10	Emerson Coll.
Georgia	Jon Ossoff	41%	David Perdue*	44%	Aug 06	Aug 08	SurveyUSA
Maine	Sara Gideon	43%	Susan Collins*	38%	Jul 28	Aug 09	Critical Insights
North Carolina	Cal Cunningham	44%	Thom Tillis*	41%	Aug 08	Aug 10	Emerson Coll.
South Carolina	Jaime Harrison	44%	Lindsey Graham*	47%	Jul 30	Jul 31	PPP

* Denotes incumbent

---

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