Trump Presser: 28 Days Later

Today, of course, is August 9. That makes today the 28th day since July 13. As it happens, July 13 is the day that Donald Trump was targeted in an assassination attempt.

The night of the 13th was probably the highest point for the Trump campaign thus far (and it may well prove to be the highest point for the entire cycle). Joe Biden had botched the presidential debate (on June 27), and the "he's too old and feeble" attacks that the GOP spent years crafting were landing. Biden was actively, if inadvertently, helping Republicans sell that line of argument with additional, post-debate missteps. Consequently, not only did Trump have a lead in polls, but his advantage was growing, such that he was well on the way to "commanding lead." Then there was the assassination attempt, and the raised-fist photo, which made Trump sympathetic to some and heroic to others. Looking ahead to the VP announcement and then the RNC, both set to happen just days after the assassination attempt, the Trump campaign thought it was running away with this thing.

In the 4 weeks (a.k.a. four lifetimes) since, it's been almost all downhill for Trump '24. It's pretty clear, at this point, that the campaign botched the VP pick, as whatever J.D. Vance brings to the ticket is almost certainly outweighed by his baggage and his off-putting persona. The RNC started with a message of "kumbayah," but quickly devolved into the same-old, same-old culture wars/general nastiness. Trump's acceptance speech was the encapsulation of this; he started out with 20 minutes or so of positivity, but then descended into a long, boring hour of griping and score-settling.

And then, of course, Joe Biden withdrew from the race, just hours after the Republicans had spent an entire week using piles of ammunition against him. The Democratic Party insta-coalesced behind Kamala Harris, with a speed and in a manner that stunned us, and surely must have done the same for the Trump campaign. In retrospect, maybe it shouldn't have been so surprising. Not only did many Democrats spend this entire cycle saying, in so many words, "Well, I have no real choice but to vote for Biden," that was also the situation for many members of the blue team in 2020 and 2016 (sub in "Clinton" for "Biden" in the latter case). Put another way, there are many Democratic voters who have been waiting 12 years for another candidate they can feel excited about, following Barack Obama. Looking through that lens—that Harris is benefiting from a decade's worth of pent-up enthusiasm—the overwhelming response to her candidacy makes a lot of sense.

This week, with post-assassination lifetime #4 underway, Harris announced Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN) as her pick for running mate, and... the party just kept going. As we noted before the pick was announced, the Democrats are feeling so good right now that any VP pick might well have been greeted with a round of "Huzzah!" That said, for reasons we laid out in great detail, Walz appears to have been a very savvy pick (and see below for more). Certainly, Walz is doing more for the Democratic ticket than Vance is doing for the Republican ticket.

The upshot is that, in just under a month, the entire complexion of the race has changed. And this is not merely a subjective judgment; it's supported by objective fact. Consider just the poll-related news from the last 24 hours. Marquette just released their first national preference poll since June 6. In the June poll, it was Trump 50%, Biden 50% among registered voters and Trump 51%, Biden 49% among likely voters (both are shares of the major-party vote when third-party candidates were included). In the poll released yesterday, it is Harris 47%, Trump 41% among registered voters and Harris 50%, Trump 42% among likely voters (again, both are shares of the major-party vote when third-party candidates were included). That is a swing of 10 points among likely voters. Some of that swing is probably due to the imprecision implicit in polling, but only some.

Consistent with that result, it's also become increasingly clear that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—who was, and still is, being propped up by Trump supporters—is taking more votes from Trump than from Harris. The Washington Post has an analysis that shows that Trump consistently loses 1-2 points when third-party candidates are included in polls. Some of those people who say they plan to vote third-party won't actually do it, when the time comes. But if RFK Jr. and the other third-party candidates cost Trump just half a point, there is every chance that could be fatal for the former president.

To give one other data point, the folks at The Cook Political Report are paying close attention to all of this. They are also very cautious when it comes to changing their predictions. However, yesterday, editor-in-chief Amy Walter announced that the site has moved Arizona, Georgia and Nevada from "Lean Republican" to "Toss-Up." Readers presumably don't need us to remind them that those are the three states that are key to the "southern route" to victory. For Biden, that path was close to hopeless, but for Harris, it's now perfectly viable.

All of that is approximately 1,000 words' worth of prologue to this observation: Trump is uneasy right now (as well he should be). Keep in mind, this isn't just about wins and losses, even though he cares greatly about being a "winner" and not a "two-time loser." His very freedom is tied up in victory, since that is his best (and maybe only) chance to dodge the various criminal cases in which he is a defendant. His net worth is also on the line, as his best (and maybe only) remaining source of wealth is his TMTG stock, which will tank if he's not reelected. He really, really needs 4 years during which it will remain reasonably valuable, so he can slowly sell off a big chunk of his holdings.

In view of Trump's unease, and his desire to try to change the narrative and grab some headlines, he held a press conference at Mar-a-Lago yesterday. If you have not had your recommended daily allowance of crazy, and you would like to watch it, you can do so here (it's a little over an hour in length). While we normally wouldn't pay all that much attention to an unhinged Trump press appearance, this one is pretty important in view of current circumstances and also what was said. So, here's a rundown of the ten most important points from the presser:

1. Debates: The biggest news that emerged from the press conference is that Trump has de facto surrendered (at least for now); he said he has "agreed" to three debates, one with Fox "News" (Sept. 4), one with ABC (Sept. 10) and one with NBC (Sept. 25). This change of course may be the single-best indication that Trump is worried about his position, and is looking for ways to change the trajectory of the race.
   
   Harris, for her part, said she is pleased to see that Trump will appear on Sept. 10, as promised. Later she added that additional debates will be predicated on how the Sept. 10 debate goes. In other words, she appears to have maneuvered the situation so that: (1) the Fox debate is off the table, (2) Trump will have to honor his commitment to show up for the ABC debate, and (3) Trump will have to act like a grown-up during the ABC debate if he wants another debate after that. Someone is playing checkers here, and someone is playing 3-D chess. We'll leave it to readers to decide who is who.
   
   
2. Honeymooners: Trump said that Harris is enjoying a "honeymoon" right now, and that it will soon come to an end. Needless to say, he's just guessing/hoping here. Nobody (including us, of course) knows how long the current wave of enthusiasm for Harris will last. That said, given that her campaign is only going to last 100 days (the traditional length of a political honeymoon), and given the pent-up feelings we describe above, and given the Zoom calls and the rallies and the other things that continue to stoke the flames, there's no guarantee that the honeymoon will end.
   
   
3. Radical: Predictably, and stereotypically, Trump continued his efforts to paint both Harris and Walz as radical leftists who make Karl Marx look like Ronald Reagan. The former president backed up this claim with vague assertions about Harris' time as San Francisco DA and about Walz' support for trans youth. We do not know if such attacks are landing with anyone who is not already a Trump voter. He and his party play the "radical leftist" card so often, we may be in "boy who cried wolf territory" by now.
   
   
4. Off the Road Again: During the 2020 campaign, Trump and his supporters made much of the fact that Trump was making regular appearances on the campaign trail while Joe Biden was largely holed up in the basement of his residence in Delaware. This was presented as "proof" that Biden was too old and feeble to handle the rigors of campaigning (much less the presidency). Of course, Biden also had a good non-age-related reason for staying at home, namely the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
   
   These days, the shoe is on the other foot. While J.D. Vance is being worked like a dog (and is basically shadowing the Harris campaign), Trump has remained at Mar-a-Lago for most of the time since the Republican convention. For example, this week, he has only one scheduled public appearance, in Montana. If staying off the campaign trail is a sign of infirmity and inability to withstand the rigors of campaigning, what does that say about Trump? A reporter thought to ask that question, and the former president barked at her that it was a "stupid question" and then answered with a word salad that included references to Russia, his polling in ruby red states, Kim Jong-Un and World War III.
   
   
5. Hiding Out: Trump's camping out at Mar-a-Lago not only creates a parallelism with the behavior he mocked Biden for in 2020, it also creates a contrast with Harris, who has been campaigning vigorously. The former president's answer to that is that he holds press conferences, and she doesn't, since she's afraid to do so.
   
   We must confess that whenever this particular issue comes up, we don't fully understand it. There are many different ways that politicians interact with the press, and formal press conferences are just one of them. So, when we read that [POLITICIAN X] isn't holding press conferences, but we also read that [POLITICIAN X] answered [QUESTION Y] or commented on [ISSUE Z], it seems like the "no press conferences" complaint is very inside baseball and is also kind of a technicality. In any case, Harris is clearly out there in the world. And, just in case, she answered questions from reporters yesterday afternoon.
   
   
6. Size Doesn't Matter: Trump was also asked about the turnout for his rallies as compared to the turnout for Harris' rallies. We showed the pictures on Wednesday; at the moment, Harris is leaving Trump in the dust, attendance-wise. Trump responded to this question by saying that his rallies used to have WAY more people than Harris' ever had (he specifically claimed a turnout of 107,000 for a rally in New Jersey; the real figure was less than half that). He also said that it's really about enthusiasm, and that size doesn't really matter. This is presumably the first time he uttered that phrase since the infamous meet-up with Stormy Daniels.
   
   
7. Abortion: Yet another reporter asked Trump how he will be voting on the abortion initiative in Florida. Trump said he would reveal that information "at the appropriate time." Presumably, the appropriate time is right after he reveals his tax returns, his plan for peace in the Middle East and his framework for an Obamacare replacement. Time will tell if he can get away with dodging this question through the election cycle (and through the debates). Maybe he can, but we can envision Kamala Harris saying something like: "Do you notice how he's afraid to answer the question? If I lived in Florida, I would be first in line to vote to keep abortion legal. Why are you afraid to tell us where you stand, Donald?"
   
   
8. Lies, Lies, Lies: It would not be a Trump presser if it wasn't chock-full of lies. If you would like a relatively comprehensive accounting, the Associated Press has you covered here. For our part, we will just highlight the ongoing, and outlandish, claim that Harris and Walz support post-birth abortions. Is there ANYONE who believes this? First of all, that would be murder. Second, there is no woman who would go through the entire process of carrying a pregnancy to term, including giving birth, and THEN would have an abortion. It makes no sense. The only thing that is in the ballpark is that sometimes an infant is born with an unsurvivable condition, and is placed in a version of hospice care. But that is not, in any way, an abortion.
   
   Our view is that when a candidate issues forth with lies/exaggerations that don't come close to passing the smell test (much less surviving a Google search), it reduces the chance that more plausible lies/exaggerations might actually land.
   
   
9. Cue the Racism: As far as we can tell, there is a near-universal consensus that Trump's appearance before the National Association of Black Journalists was a disaster, with the single-worst moment being his claim that Kamala Harris arbitrarily chose to be Black once it was politically expedient. Naturally, given all the blowback he got, Trump used yesterday's press conference to... double down on the claim, and to insist that Harris isn't really Black.
   
   Now, please note that this is a real divide that exists among some people in the Black community (particularly the activist class). That is to say, is the experience of someone who is Black, but not a descendant of enslaved Americans (something true of both Harris and Barack Obama) really comparable to the experience of someone who is Black, and IS a descendant of enslaved Americans? However, this is mostly an academic debate that does not generally trickle down to the broader Black community since the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified 159 years ago. Further, to the extent that Black people are to be sorted into categories, it's really not the province of a wealthy white guy to do it.
   
   
10. I Have a Dream?: Finally, blending together his penchant for racially insensitive language with his penchant for exaggeration, Trump compared himself to Martin Luther King Jr. and claimed that the audience for his 1/6 speech was larger than the audience for the "I Have a Dream" speech. This is, of course, not remotely true. In fact, the best estimates are that King spoke to ten times as many people (250,000 vs. 25,000).

Again, everything here points to a candidate who is growing desperate: holding a press conference in the first place, the change of course on the debates, the bigger and bolder lies, the doubling down on things that resonate with the base but that don't land with anyone else.

Meanwhile, many Democrats (though not all) will be pleased by the Harris campaign's response. It put out a statement that contained a bit of snark (the press release headline was "Donald Trump's Very Good, Very Normal Press Conference") along with a blow-by-blow fact check of all of Trump's lies (two full pages; 31 distinct items). We often get e-mails asking "Why don't the Democrats push back against Trump's narratives." Well, now they are. (Z)

Fu** Democracy, Part I: Changing the Rules on the Fly

Continuing the theme of "Republicans are starting to get desperate," there has been a noticeable uptick in the past few weeks when it comes to the energy being put into potential chicanery. In a number of states, election rules and procedures are changing rapidly and not always for the better.

Let's start with Georgia. The state Elections Board used to toil in obscurity. No longer. Meetings are loud, bitter and partisan. While the board does not oversee elections directly, it does set the rules for elections that the counties must follow. In May, a new member was appointed to the five-member board, giving Republicans the majority. Some of them are Trumpy election deniers.

Georgia Republican Party Chairman Josh McKoon said of that appointment: "I believe when we look back on Nov. 5, 2024, we're going to say getting to that 3-2 election integrity-minded majority on the State Election Board made sure that we had the level playing field to win this election."

You can probably see where this is going. The Republican majority favors boosting the number of poll watchers each party can send to watch over elections. The Democrats fear that large numbers of partisan poll watchers will lead to intimidation and chaos.

Another hot issue is how much freedom counties have in refusing to certify results. The statewide results can't be certified until all the counties have certified and election deniers at the county level can thus block statewide certification by claiming that something was crooked in their county. For example, the "wrong" person won. In the past, the counties just reported the results. It was previously not up to the local boards to determine if something was wrong with the election. That was up to the courts, but now the local boards can carry out their own "investigations."

And even if a county is willing to certify the results, that doesn't mean they will get certified, at least in Georgia. A 2021 law gives the secretary of state the power to take over county election boards—for example because he doesn't like the results somewhere. Election administration is just another front in the culture wars now.

Arizona is another state where the rules are being fought over. There are longstanding rules in Arizona prohibiting certain kinds of voter intimidation, such as making photos and videos of voters and yelling at voters. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jennifer Ryan-Touhill just ordered county officials to stop enforcing these bans because, in her view, they inhibit free speech. Apparently, the First Amendment guarantees partisan poll watchers the right to scream at voters and intimidate them. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) has said he will appeal the ruling, but early voting starts in only 2 months, so there isn't much time left.

In particular, the Judge does not like the new Elections Procedures Manual, which was approved by Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ) and AG Kris Mayes earlier this year. It was updated in response to what happened in the last cycle, when heavily armed people wearing body armor intimidated people trying to deposit ballots in drop boxes. The executive director of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club testified at that hearing that the new manual was ambiguous and its members could be prosecuted for activities that they did not consider threatening. It is not known when the appeals hearing will be held.

And there is more than this going on in Maricopa County (Phoenix). Stephen Richer (R) is the Maricopa County Recorder who tried endlessly to run fair elections in the face of boatloads of disinformation and death threats. A couple of weeks ago, he was defeated in the Republican primary by state Rep. Justin Heap (R), an election denier whose campaign was run by one of the indicted 2020 fake electors. Heap wrote on eX-Twitter: "This November, we will end the laughingstock elections that have plagued our county, state and nation." In November, Heap will face Democrat Timothy Stringham. The results of the election will not affect the 2024 results, but will affect future elections. And numerous other election deniers won primaries in Arizona, as well.

All in all, not good news for democracy. Though keep reading. (V)

Fu** Democracy, Part II: Of Aliens and Vote Certifications

Yesterday, Joe Biden sat for his first interview since dropping out of the presidential race. Among other things, he said that he is "not confident at all" that Donald Trump will accept the election results if they produce a Harris victory.

This is a very reasonable conclusion, given not only what happened in 2020, but also what is happening now. As we note above, Trumpers are doing what they can to muck around in election laws, ideally making changes close enough to Election Day to have them implemented, but without enough time to hash things out in court. There are also plenty of Trumpy election officials threatening to refuse certification of the election results, with the idea of throwing the whole system into chaos. This could well include Trumpy election officials in counties where Trump will win. Even if the votes would help Trump, withholding the tallies will interfere with states trying to certify statewide results (and with them, the winner of the state's electoral votes).

At the same time, Trump and his acolytes are laying the groundwork for their pseudo-theory of the election, which will be used to justify withholding certification. It's exactly what you think: the claim that in many states, millions of non-citizens are being allowed to vote. Trump made this claim at his press conference yesterday, and the MyPillow guy has been all over those cable channels that will still have him, beating the same drum. The GOP is squeezing much mileage, in particular, out of a story from that noted bastion of quality journalism that is Breitbart, claiming that ONE green-card-holding resident of Minnesota received a vote-by-mail ballot during Tim Walz' tenure as governor. Because Breitbart does not show its math, it's a little hard to figure out how this happened (perhaps the person had a very generic name?) and, in any case, everyone agrees the ballot was not actually cast. Plus, as we understand it, ONE ballot is not MILLIONS of ballots.

And as long as we're on this unpleasant subject, we'll also pass along that it's not just Georgia where Republicans are trying to recruit "poll watchers" (see above). The grifty organization True the Vote has recruited several county sheriffs to assist with their "monitoring" operations. Specifically, head grifter Catherine Engelbrecht said she is working with "three very influential sheriffs," though she neglected to specify exactly what that means. Since her focus was on Wisconsin during that interview, it is very likely that one of them is former Milwaukee County sheriff and fellow grifter David Clarke, who doesn't have any actual power anymore.

And finally, let us also note this op-ed from Lawrence Lessig and Matthew A. Seligman. They write that they have looked carefully at the electoral system, with particular attention to chinks in the armor. And they conclude that the thing that worries them the most is the possibility that a state legislature will decide, after the election, to ignore the vote tally and to direct its electors to vote for Donald Trump. The legality of such a maneuver would be left to the Supreme Court to determine and, well, those aren't the best hands in which to be putting the fate of democracy these days.

That is a pretty comprehensive round-up of the bad news. We wish we could tell you it's much ado about nothing, and that the sky is not falling. Unfortunately, we cannot do that. What we can do, however, is observe that there remain quite a few roadblocks to stealing the election. To wit:

1. Oxygen: To a greater or lesser extent, most of these tricks rely on the perpetrators flying under the radar. The more attention they get before the election, the less effective they will be.
   
   
2. Delayed Certification: If red counties delay certification of the results, that will certainly create chaos. It's actually much harder to see how it could change the outcome of the election. Remember what happened back in 2020 when whack job Couy Griffin and two of his fellow Republicans tried the trick. They got hauled into court, and his two co-conspirators backed down, so as to avoid going to prison. It won't be so easy to drag things out for 10 weeks, and even if the Trumpers can do it, the likeliest end result is that there is no legally elected president and VP, and the Speaker of the House assumes the presidency. In an election where Kamala Harris wins, it is likely that Speaker will be... Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). That is not exactly an upgrade from the vantage point of a Trumper.
   
   
3. Poll Watching: Poll watching, which is really just a nice name for voter intimidation, was pretty effective in the 1960s. It is likely to be less so today, given the potential to vote via mail, not to mention people who are forewarned that such trickery is coming, and show up to vote as an act of defiance.
   
   
4. Geographically Limited: A lot of the scheming that is outlined here will only work in limited circumstances. For example, the shenanigans in Georgia (see above item) will still be subject to the supervision of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R), who showed himself to be a person of integrity back in 2020. The "three sheriffs" that True the Vote is working with may be out of office, or may well be serving in ruby-red states where the outcome is not in doubt. And for Lessig and Seligman's fears to come to pass, you would need a swing state where Republicans nonetheless have the trifecta (since the legislature would have to vote to put aside the electoral vote tally, while the governor would have to sign the certificate of attainment). There are, at most, two swing states with a Republican trifecta. One of those is Georgia, which we have already discussed. The other is... New Hampshire. Among the remaining swing states, Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have a divided government, while Minnesota and Michigan have a Democratic trifecta.
   
   
5. SCOTUS: It is true that the Supreme Court has issued some very Trump-friendly rulings in the last year. It is also true that in 2020, they were completely unwilling to tote his water when it came to election chicanery. In particular, if the Supremes agree that states can choose to ignore the popular vote after the fact, they would de facto be blowing up democracy. We suspect at least two of the six conservatives would not be willing to go there.

So, is there reason to be worried? You betcha. But there are also guardrails still in place, and a very good chance they will hold. (Z)

More on Swiftboating: Looks Like a Dead End for Republicans

Yesterday, we had an item on the attacks being made against Tim Walz's military record. We had to write that at the last minute, because the news story reached critical mass pretty late in the day on Wednesday. Our initial response was that J.D. Vance and the Republicans are making mountains out of molehills. Now that another 24 hours has passed... we still think that.

Because this is a pretty important news story, we thought we should quickly revisit it, and pass along some insights from readers who know the issues better than we do. We got a few e-mails like this one from reader N.N. in South Bend, IN, who is a captain in the U.S. Army Reserve:

The "context" of Tim Walz's service and retirement that you mention do not support any of the assertions made by J.D Vance:

1. Improper Use of Rank: Command Sergeant Major (CSM) is both a position title, and a rank. Walz served in the position and thus earned the title. The Minnesota National Guard has issued public statements affirming this.
   
   
2. False Claims of Service Duty: Did Walz point a weapon at the enemy in a hot zone during his post-9/11 deployment? No. Was he assigned and issued a weapon that left Minnesota with him during an ordered deployment in support of an active armed conflict? Most likely. (If not, then this is semi-legitimate criticism, though casting the first stone with regard to exaggerating one's past is mighty rich for someone on a ticket with former president Trump.)
   
   
3. Abandoning of Unit: Enlisted retirements in the military must be approved by the chain of command. Walz's retirement was approved by the Minnesota National Guard BEFORE the unit received orders to mobilize to Iraq; had his request been submitted after the mobilization order, it would have been denied. Additionally, the "2 months" refers to the time from Walz's retirement to when the mobilization orders were issued, NOT to when the unit was wheels-up.

So, two completely false accusations and one teetering on the knife's edge. I will leave it to others to compare both men's service, or to explore the motives of individuals behind the initial accusations made against Walz, and close with this: the military is a vast, complex beast with plenty of nuance, and each servicemember's experience is unique. To exploit that nuance in order to cast aspersions on a fellow veteran via rumor and innuendo is the height of dishonor. J.D. Vance, semper fu** off.

Meanwhile, on the second point, R.M. in Eugene, OR, adds this:

Ah, for the lack of a comma or two.

"We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried, in war is the only place where those weapons are at."

People do not speak according to the textbook rules of grammar, as any linguist will tell you.

And on the third point, D.M. in Massapequa Park, NY, notes this:

The line of attack on Walz's military service and his "abandoning" his unit is even more despicable when one realizes that in 2005 the Department of Defense had instituted a "stop-loss" policy, forbidding active duty soldiers from ending their enlistment periods and freezing retirements. If Walz was able to retire after his 20+ years of service, it was with official blessing from the Department of Defense and not something he should have been ashamed of. Furthermore, retirement from the military at that rank (E8/E9) does not happen overnight and can take upwards of a year for the paperwork to process. There is no way he could have simply walked into his commanding officer's office and just quit; there was a process to go through that had to be initiated long before his unit was even selected to go overseas.

Thanks to the three of you for the benefit of your expertise!

We will also add a link to this article from Task & Purpose, which is a news site for the veteran community. That publication also backs Walz' version of events, and includes a detailed timeline of the last couple of years of Walz' career, including his first known conversations about retirement with his superiors (March 2005), his actual retirement (May 2005), the issuance of a deployment order for his unit (July 2005) and actual deployment (March 2006).

In short, not only do Vance's claims appear to be lacking in substance (a conclusion we also reached yesterday), but they also appear to be pi**ing off many members of the military community (which we speculated might happen). So, it sure looks like trying to swiftboat Tim Walz is a losing play, which means the Trump/Vance ticket should abandon it. That said, questioning Kamala Harris' Blackness also looks to be a losing play, and yet Trump is still sticking with it (see above), so you never know. (Z)

Foreign Policy: Is This The Thing the Trump Campaign Should Run On?

Another possible angle for the Trump/Vance campaign is to highlight Kamala Harris' and Tim Walz' lack of foreign policy experience. After all, Trump spent 4 years as America's chief diplomat, even if he often did not pay attention, and he wasn't very good at it. Harris' and Walz' backgrounds are both in state-level politics, and do not include foreign policy chops, right?

Not so fast. You could certainly argue that Walz' time spent in China (as a teacher) and in Italy (as a soldier), as well as his gubernatorial dealings with Canada (trade pacts) give him some insight. Meanwhile, and this doesn't seem to have been public knowledge until recently, Harris has apparently been a key member of Joe Biden's foreign policy team.

Biden himself, of course, is a pro in the area of foreign policy. By virtue of his long service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and then his work as an envoy for Barack Obama, he came to the White House with the strongest foreign policy credentials of any president since Richard Nixon. And it turns out that Biden made Harris into something of an apprentice in this area. She attends nearly every National Security Council meeting and, perhaps more importantly, almost every President's Daily Brief. According to insiders, she listens carefully, asks questions, and always stays until the very end of the sessions. What this means, among other things, is that she is entirely up-to-date on what's going on in terms of U.S. intelligence and security, and she presumably knows many things that are not public information.

Harris has also gotten hands-on experience. She's taken 17 foreign trips on behalf of the Biden administration, visiting 21 countries and meeting with more than 150 foreign leaders. She's also led the U.S. delegation at several events, including three Munich Security Conferences. Some of these events were just paint-by-numbers diplomacy—going to the funerals of foreign leaders, for example—but others required substantive efforts on her part. In particular, and as is widely known by now, she was deeply involved in securing the release of prisoners from Russia.

Attacking a candidate's foreign policy credentials is easy, particularly when you can say something like "How much foreign policy do they conduct in the People's Republic of Communist-fornia?" And responding to such attacks can be tough. But if you have the bona fides, and Harris apparently does, it's possible. In particular, if Trump tries to hit her on foreign policy knowledge during the debate, she could well reel off a Hillary Clinton-style answer that makes clear that she knows the issues and the players very, very well. It's enough a risk that Trump probably shouldn't try it. And so, another line of attack looks to be a loser. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: The Devil Inside

For the headline theme last week, we gave the hint that "you're probably at an advantage if you are wearing hosiery that is uncolored, or red-hued." We then added: "if you're still working out the Friday headline theme for this week, we'll note that you might THINK we included Canada in the theme, but if you look carefully, you'll see we avoided doing so (phew!)."

And now, the answer key, courtesy of reader C.B. in Lakeville, MN:

The theme appears to be nicknames of U.S. professional sports teams:

• Election Results: Rising [Dallas] Star[s] Likely to Fall
• Free at Last: Biden Administration Executes [San Francisco] Giant[s] Prisoner Exchange
• In Congress: Right Now, Every [Buffalo] Bill[s] Is a Messaging [Buffalo] Bill[s]
• Another Look: Is There Any Method to Trump's [Minnesota] Wild Statements?
• VanceWatch 2024: VP Candidate Can't [Anaheim] Duck[s] His Past... or His Present
• Reading the Tea Leaves: [Washington] National[s] Trendlines Looking Good for Harris
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Iron [Philadelphia] Eagle[s]
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Canadians Caught [Cincinnati] Red[s]-Handed
• This Week in Freudenfreude: [San Diego] Padre[s] Receives Medal of Freedom

The initial hint refers to the Boston Red Sox and Chicago White Sox; we operated under the assumption that the latter technically still counts as a pro sports team (they currently have a .239 winning percentage). The second hint refers to the fact that the Schadenfreude headline may appear to refer to the Montreal NHL team, but actually does not, because the team's name is spelled "Canadiens" and not "Canadians." Also, the hints were all singular and "Canadians," even if you assume we misspelled it, is plural. The headline of this item adds [New Jersey] Devil[s] to the list.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

C.B. in Lakeville R.S. in Milan, OH G.W. in Avon, CT B.S. in Ottawa, ON, Canada J.N. in Zionsville, IN E.K. in Arlington, MA M.Z. in Sharon, MA D.R. in Washington, DC J.K. in Sandy Spring, MD M.J. in Oakdale, CA S.F. in Pemberton Borough, NJ R.H.O. in Portland, ME C.W. in Newport, RI M.S. in Canton, NY G.M. in Chevy Chase, MD S.E. in Okemos, MI H.B. in Berlin, Germany M.B. in Albany, NY R.C. in Eagleville, PA J.K. in New Orleans, LA V.F. in Bowie, MD J.F. in Fayetteville, NC M.W. in Newington, CT M.K. in Austin, TX B.E. in Porter, OK

M.C. in Falls Church, VA K.F. in Berea, KY J.H. in Lake Forest, CA R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY D.B. in Pittsboro, NC S.S. in Carmel, IN M.G. in Arlington, VA N.P. in Santa Rosa, CA K.R. in Austin, TX P.D.N. in La Mesa, CA S.E. in Haiku, HI M.N. in Manahawkin, NJ D.S. in Tinley Park, IL G.V. in Plano, TX P.W. in Tulalip, WA B.B. in Avon, CT G.K. in Calgary, AB, Canada J.W. in Newton, MA D.B. in Farmville, VA D.L. in Springfield, IL M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada J.S. in Pittsburgh, PA A.D. in Lewisville, TX M.L. in West Hartford, CT C.G. in Austin, TX

We also got some pretty good alternate answers this week. For example, J.S. in Columbia, MO, wrote: "I hunted for clues and ducked all decoys. The headlines have a reference to ducks: bill, wild, duck, eagles, Canadian redheads, fall (season)." And R.H.O. in Portland, ME:

• Kamala Harris delivered remarks to a meeting of Alpha Kappa Alpha members in Dallas on July 10. (Dallas *Stars*)
• Kamala Harris lived and worked for much of her career in San Francisco. (San Francisco *Giants*)
• Kamala Harris visited Buffalo in 2022 to attend the funeral of Ruth Whitfield (Buffalo *Bills*)
• Kamala Harris toured a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota on March 14, 2024 (Minnesota *Wild*)
• Kamala Harris owns a home in Los Angeles (Is that close enough to work for the clue Anaheim *Ducks*? Really struggling with this one...)
• Kamala Harris lives in Washington, D.C. as Vice President (Washington *Nationals*)
• Kamala Harris will hold her first event with her VP candidate in Philadelphia on Tuesday (Philadelphia *Eagles*)
• Kamala Harris attended high school in Montreal (Montreal *Canadiens*)
• Kamala Harris visited San Diego on May 31 for a fundraising event. (San Diego *Padres*)

R.H.O. adds: "I knew it was too easy at first. Or maybe I'm making this harder than it needs to be..." Indeed.

As to this week's theme, it appears in every headline, sometimes relying on one of the words to the right of the colon, sometimes relying on several. It fits in the Trivial Pursuit category "Entertainment." As to a hint, readers named Jason or Freddy might have an advantage here.

If you have a guess, please send an e-mail to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "August 9 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Musk Told eX-Twitter Advertisers to Get Out... and They Did

When Elon Musk took over Twitter, he declared that it would be a "free speech" zone. As it turns out, what he actually meant by that was that it would be a free speech zone for people on the far right. And so, the last year or so has seen the return of a flood of white supremacists, antisemites, fascists, and the like.

It turns out—and who could have guessed?—that many businesses do not particularly want their ads to appear next to a tweet from, say, a Nazi. And so, a whole bunch of major advertisers fled the platform. Some of them made clear that they could be wooed back, if some changes were made. But nobody puts [the] baby into a corner. And so, rather than trying to work with the advertisers (i.e., his customers), Musk told them to—and this is a direct quote—"Go fu** yourself. Go. Fu**. Yourself."

In another complete and total surprise... the advertisers took Musk's suggestion to heart, and made their withdrawal from eX-Twitter permanent. That means that the hemorrhaging of money, which was already bad, has gotten worse. It also means that alleged CEO Linda Yaccarino is getting desperate. And so, she posted a video to eX-Twitter and to YouTube warning eX-Twitter users that their freedoms are at risk:

She appears to have had lessons in public speaking from Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL). If you don't care to watch it—and we don't blame you—Yaccarino announced that eX-Twitter is filing an antitrust lawsuit against the industry group Global Alliance for Responsible Media and against several individual advertisers for engaging in "an illegal boycott." She asks users to support the lawsuit, since the users' free speech rights are being jeopardized by all those meanie advertisers who decided to heed Musk and to "fu** off."

We are not lawyers, but we're not sure there is such a thing as an illegal boycott. Illegal discrimination, yes, but an illegal boycott? If such a thing does exist, this certainly isn't it. Advertisers are free to spend their advertising money with any outlet they wish. This is part of that whole First Amendment thingy that Yaccarino claims to be so gung-ho about.

We recognize that Musk still has his fans, but even if one admires his work with Tesla and SpaceX, he's still an ass as a person. And that was before he went off the deep end with the conspiracy theories and the alt-right trolling. In any event, he arrogantly thought that he could re-invent Twitter, and that he didn't need to pander to his biggest customers while doing so. Now, he and his lackey (his laccarino?) have learned otherwise. There's definitely some schadenfreude in that. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: What Walz' Students Saw

If you are a former student of Tim Walz, from back in the days he was a teacher, there's a very good chance that you've heard from at least one reporter this week asking you to talk about your experiences. He was only tapped as Kamala Harris' running mate a few days ago, and yet there has already been a deluge of "Here's what Walz' students think of him" pieces, from at least a dozen different outlets.

And now the surprising part. Almost always, pieces like this are partly or wholly negative. "We talked to people who knew [CANDIDATE X] before they were in politics, and opinions are mixed/very critical." And so, we are kinda surprised that the Walz pieces are all... glowing. His students apparently loved, loved, loved him.

To start, as a teacher, he earns universal good marks (see what we did there?). And speaking as teachers ourselves, the comments ring true, because the described conduct of Walz' classroom is consistent with what tends to produce positive reviews. Walz favored a Socratic approach, in which he encouraged students to reach their own conclusions, rather than just passively absorb whatever it was that he had to say. One student, for example, told The Washington Post how her class, following a discussion of genocide, correctly predicted that the next one would be in Rwanda (this was, of course, many years ago).

Walz' students also have good things to say about his personality. Explained one: "He's been a ton of joy. He is just so joyful in everything that he does, but I think also standing up for what he believes to be right, stands up to bullies, sees folks that may normally not be seen by individuals and he's always been a joy to be around and just a genuine, authentic, kind, caring human being and I think I think the world of Mr. Walz." Another former student noted that Walz was involved in every activity, "from prom to sports." He also dressed up as Santa Claus for Christmas.

Walz' lefty political leanings were also on display during those years. As we have already noted, he sponsored his school's gay-straight student alliance. And one former student, Jacob Reitan, sat for an interview this week in which he described, in detail, how Walz made sure to protect him from bullies. Several years later, Walz invited Reitan to witness the signing ceremony in the Oval Office when Barack Obama signed the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

We've been following politics for a long time, and we've therefore read a LOT of news coverage of elections and candidates. And we honestly can't think of someone whose debut on the national stage was greeted with this much positive coverage. There were so many "what a great teacher" stories, in fact, that many outlets had to find a specific angle so as to avoid repeating what all the other outlets were saying. For example, The Times of Israel had a piece talking about Walz' masters thesis (on the Holocaust), and how he worked to combat ignorance about the Holocaust, and to connect educators with the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

We write this item, then, for two reasons. First, because it affirms our general point, made earlier this week, that Kamala Harris seems to have chosen well. If you make people feel joy, they sometimes reward you with their votes. Second, because the stories about Walz and his teaching are an awfully nice respite to the relentless negativity that tends to permeate coverage of politics.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

More evidence that the southern route is plausible for Kamala Harris. The Great Plains route, however? Not so much. (Z)

State	Kamala Harris	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Georgia	48%	48%	Jul 24	Jul 31	Fabrizio + Impact
Montana	40%	55%	Aug 05	Aug 06	Emerson Coll.

Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.

Hill to Ord (right) Ord back to Hill (left), Hill to Temple (right), Temple to Grand (left) Grand to 3rd (left), cross Alameda +2 blocks 3rd to Alameda (left), Alameda to 5th (right)

---

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