Dem
49
GOP
51
It's "now or never" time, when it comes to endorsements. Actually, we would argue that "now or never" time really arrived a couple of weeks ago, when early voting really kicked in. But in any case, with just 4 days left to the election, would-be endorsers are out of time if they're going to speak up. And there have been a few interesting endorsements in the last 24 hours or so.
We'll start with a few folks who have now climbed on board the S.S. Harris. On Wednesday, Arnold Schwarzenegger became the latest prominent Republican to back the vice president. He explained that he does not much care for the Democratic Party or its policies, but noted that "I will always be an American before I am a Republican," and said that he finds Donald Trump and what Trump represents to be reprehensible. It's not much of a secret that Schwarzenegger and Trump loathe each other, but now the Terminator has taken care to remind everyone. His support is at least a little bit meaningful, because by approval rating, he's the most popular Republican in America (and the second most popular politician overall, behind only Jimmy Carter). Jesse Ventura had already endorsed Harris, so the Democratic nominee now has a monopoly on the 80s-action-stars-turned-state-governors vote.
Harris also picked up another grudging endorsement, also of the "we don't love her, but the alternative is far worse" sort. This one is from The Economist. The publication's editorial board remarked that Harris certainly has shortcomings, but "none of them are disqualifying." On the other hand:
Tens of millions of Americans will vote for Mr. Trump next week. Some will be true believers. But many will take a calculated risk that in office his worst instincts would be constrained. If Trump wins the election, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace.
The Economist is British, of course, but it has a fairly substantial American readership. It's also got a reputation for thoughtful analysis and for calling balls and strikes. So, the endorsement could cause a few folks to sit up and take notice.
The final big-time Harris endorsement yesterday was an obvious one, one we thought had already been given. However, NBA star LeBron James actually waited until the Thursday before the election to make it official:
What are we even talking about here?? When I think about my kids and my family and how they will grow up, the choice is clear to me. VOTE KAMALA HARRIS!!!
That tweet was accompanied by a video that juxtaposed racist/violent comments from Trump (and from some of his favorite comedians) with scenes from the Civil Rights movement. James is well known for being politically involved and for being a Democrat, so again, nobody should be surprised by his announcement. That said, the hardest group to get to the polls is younger voters. And the kiddies don't read The Economist (unless they are Alex P. Keaton) and most of them don't know who that 77-year-old guy with the Austrian accent is. So, James' endorsement, even though it was obvious, could end up being the most important of the three. We just don't know; we can see a case for any of the trio we discuss here.
Meanwhile, Trump also picked up a pretty good endorsement, from a person who has a fair claim to being America's greatest living hero. That would be 94-year-old Buzz Aldrin, who is the last living member of the three-person team that made the first trip to the moon. Aldrin announced on Wednesday that he would be voting for Trump, and that he encouraged others to do the same. Aldrin later added that the reason he supports Trump is because of the former president's backing of space exploration.
This is actually kind of interesting, and is worth examining. On the surface, Trump was very pro-space (very spacey?). He "created" the U.S. Space Force while president, and he also talked a lot of talk about sending a manned expedition to Mars. If that did happen, it would be a pretty clear bookend to what Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins did back in 1969.
That said, looked at through another lens, Trump wasn't actually pro-space at all. The Space Force was good theater, but it really was just taking a piece of the Air Force, and spinning it off into a separate service. Nothing much changed, except some new uniforms. Similarly, talking about going to Mars is like talking about building a wall. Talk is cheap; actually following through is somewhere between "unbelievably difficult" and "impossible."
Further, Trump was actively anti-space if you dig down a bit and look at his budgets and his other actions. He tried to put an end to NASA's study of climate change. He cut the budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which often works with NASA, and wants to get rid of the agency entirely if reelected. The former president also tried to kill several satellite-based missions, like the PACE Mission, which put a satellite in orbit to monitor the oceans.
Our default assumption is that Buzz Aldrin knows more about space policy than we do. So, maybe he took a look at everything, and decided the pros (the new frontier!) outweighed the cons (what climate change?). Alternatively, maybe at 94, and well over 4 decades removed from his time as an astronaut, he's not really on top of space policy anymore, and he's just being impressed by theatrics. A third possibility is that Aldrin, well known as a conservative Republican, was going to endorse Trump no matter what, and the space stuff was a convenient way to explain that without having to answer questions about the less savory aspects of Trumpism. This is a pretty good case study of the question that is raised by the support of a lot of Trumpers: Is it based on actual policy, on perceptions of policy, or something else and the policy is just an excuse? (Z)