Trump Has Reportedly Narrowed His VP List

The big horse race won't be over until November, but the mini-horse race is nearing its denouement. Donald Trump has promised he will reveal his choice of running mate at the Republican National Convention, which means there are roughly 3 weeks left for speculation and "insider reports" and the like.

Yesterday, there were reports from several outlets, most of them claiming to be "first" with the scoop, and all of them claiming two, somewhat contradictory things: (1) that Trump has narrowed his list of VP contenders down to three and (2) that he knows which of the three it's going to be. Needless to say, if he knows who the running mate is going to be, then he hasn't narrowed the list down to three, he's narrowed it down to one.

Allegedly, the three "finalists" are Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND). North Dakota is not in play at all, Ohio would only be in play in a blue wave, and yesterday, the Biden campaign conceded that they will not try to win Florida. So, none of these three candidates would help Trump win a state.

Vance is probably best at connecting with the base, but does Trump really need help there? Burgum would help with money, though maybe Trump doesn't need help there anymore, either, now that he's raising fistfuls of cash from his conviction. Rubio would help with... um, we really don't know. We suppose that Trump might have convinced himself that Rubio will help bring in the "Latino" vote. No doubt Rubio will help with the Cuban vote, but the vast majority of Cuban-Americans are in Florida, and that state is already a done deal. And voters from other Latin cultures—say, Mexican Americans—don't look at Rubio and see themselves. We'll also add that Rubio is the least effective of the three when it comes to television and other public appearances; he tends to look uncomfortable, and he tends to say stupid things. Remember MarcoBot.

If we are to believe this list of finalists, then it means that all of the early contenders ended up out of the running. Similarly, all the myriad women contenders didn't make the final cut. Maybe that is because Kari Lake, Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD), Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R-AR), etc. all dropped the ball in various ways. But it's also the case that Trump does not work well with women, and has a hard time seeing them as equals. In fact, he has a hard time seeing them as anything other than sexual objects; dividing them into those he would want to bed, and those he would not. We would have been surprised, and would be surprised, to see him choose a woman as a running mate.

All of this said, though he was president, and though he aspires to be president again, Trump is about the least decisive person on Earth. When he chose Mike Pence the first time, he later noted that he changed his mind several times that day, and that if the lunch at which he extended the offer to Pence had been a few hours later, Pence might not have been the pick. So, even if Trump really has "decided" who the person will be, that's subject to change a dozen times before an announcement is made.

One other thing. We wrote this item because virtually every outlet had a Trump VP story yesterday, treating the latest scuttlebutt as major news. However, Trump is a skilled manipulator of the media, and could well be putting red herrings out there just to get some more attention. The fact that several outlets (CNN, NBC and The Hill, among the ones we saw) thought they all had "the scoop" is consistent with the notion that they're being played like a fiddle.

On this same point, Trump would dominate a couple of news cycles after announcing the VP, and he'll dominate four or five news cycles with the Republican Convention, because that's just how things work. It's very hard to accept that he'd do something so inefficient, when it comes to publicity, as combine the two opportunities. And so, while he says he's announcing the VP at the convention, don't be surprised if the announcement actually comes before the convention—say, the Friday before, so that it draws attention to Trump's campaign and to the upcoming RNC, and basically allows him to dominate seven straight news cycles. (Z)

It's Debate Week! (Part II)

We predicted yesterday that there would be a bunch of debate news each day this week, and thus far we have not been proven wrong. Here's a rundown of the latest:

• Consequential?: In yesterday's debate item, we wrote: "The stars have aligned in such a way that this week's presidential debate could be the most impactful in recent memory. Maybe the most impactful ever."
  
  In response to that, we had a comment/question from reader B.C. in Walpole, ME:

  I just can't imagine why you say that. I don't see that any presidential debate has been terribly important (a couple a little bit) and I can't see why this one would be. Biden will try to be serious, adult, and presidential. Trump will be exactly what we know he is and attempt to cause chaos and disrupt the proceedings, violating the rules at every turn so that he can claim he wasn't treated fairly.
  
  It might help some of us if you make the case for your assertion. I'd be interested to understand your perspective, and I think others would too.

  Very well. Just to start, it can be difficult to tease out the effects of presidential debates from other campaign activity. So, it is difficult to say, for example, how much the second Obama/Romney debate shaped that election. However, there are clear-cut cases where the debates did matter, and did help or hurt a candidate. Gerald Ford certainly hurt himself with "There is no Soviet Domination of Eastern Europe." Ronald Reagan certainly helped himself with "If you are better off than you were 4 years ago, vote for my opponent. If not, vote for me." George H.W. Bush certainly hurt himself when he looked at his watch.
  
  This will be the 36th presidential debate in American history. But only a few have taken place in elections as close as this one appears to be. There are the four Kennedy-Nixon debates, the three Bush-Gore debates and the three Clinton-Trump debates, the two Biden-Trump debates and that's about it. So, this debate is really only in serious competition with about a dozen of the 36 in terms of potential impact.
  
  Meanwhile, as much as is possible, this debate is set up to be "event" television. As the NBA and NHL finals are over, there are no major sporting events remaining this week—just regular-season baseball and women's basketball. The broadcast seasons of the networks are over, and they are into reruns/summer filler season. There are no other presidential debates that just happened, or that will happen soon; if people want to get a look at the candidates going head-to-head, it's now, or wait 3 months. Plus, most major networks are going to be airing the debates, so a lot of the alternative programming won't be available. The two Biden-Trump debates in 2020 attracted 73.1 million viewers and 62.9 million viewers respectively. If you just take the midpoint, then this one would be expected to attract something like 68 million viewers. But if you consider the various factors we list here, not to mention that the population has grown, the audience could well surpass 80 million, as the first Clinton-Trump debate did. And whether it's 60 million, or 70 million, or 80+ million, that's a lot of people, and many of them do not pay close attention to politics.
  
  For those people who do not pay close attention, there are going to be various questions they are aware of, but maybe only vaguely so. Is Joe Biden senile? Is Donald Trump senile? Is Biden screwing up on the border? What's this about Trump being a felon? Is Biden responsible for Israel? What would Trump do in a second term? The debate may provide answers to one or more of those questions that become fixed in voters' minds.
  
  There's also a second cadre worth noting: the double-haters. Many of them are not low-information voters; they are perfectly well-informed voters who just don't care for either candidate. They are looking for something that will help them make their decision. And since people trust what they see with their own eyes more than anything else, the debate could tip some meaningful number of those folks.
  
  And finally, the unprecedented gap in time between this debate and the next one means that anything that DOES become fixed in voters' minds is going to linger, and marinate, and is going to be hard to excise. If Biden performs capably, that could be the final death blow to "he's too old and feeble." If Trump goes on a weird tangent (see below), that could hang the "senile" tag on him, instead. If Biden commits a verbal gaffe when talking about Black voters (which he's done before, several times), or if Trump pulls a brand new policy idea out of his rear end and puts it out there without having thought it through, that could haunt them. And since a lot of the people who will be watching on Thursday do not follow, or do not closely follow, the channels through which the candidates regularly communicate (cable news, social media, rallies, etc.) it will be tough to change the narrative if one forms during the debate.
  
  
• This Is Your Brain...: Donald Trump is once again beating the "Joe Biden is drugged up" drum. Yesterday, the former president posted this on his makes-no-money-but-still-worth-billions social media platform: "DRUG TEST FOR CROOKED JOE BIDEN??? I WOULD, ALSO, IMMEDIATELY AGREE TO ONE!!!" The irony is that the only one of the pair who is actually at risk of being drug tested right now is Trump, by virtue of being a convicted felon in New York State. If a probation officer showed up before the debates and said, "Mr. Trump, time for your random drug test," it's hard to know what would be louder: the howls from Republicans or the laughter from Democrats.
  
  
• Moderators: Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt appeared on CNN yesterday with anchor Kasie Hunt. Leavitt had a very clear agenda, and that agenda was to make the (unsupported) claim that debate moderators Dana Bash and Jake Tapper are in the bag for Biden. Hunt warned Leavitt that slurring the moderators (bashing Bash, as it were) was not appropriate, and was not what Leavitt was invited on air to discuss. Leavitt kept it up, was warned again, kept going again, was warned a third time, kept going, and was finally cut off, with the rest of her segment canceled.
  
  Later, Steve Bannon, who is in the midst of his last few days of freedom before going to Uncle Sam's "summer camp," also interviewed Leavitt. The podcast host/felon decreed this showed that CNN is "so biased that they show absolutely no respect to the president's national press secretary." He also said this was more than enough excuse for Trump to cancel his debate appearance.
  
  
• Conspiratorial Thinking: For the last week, and surely continuing through the debate and beyond, there is also a conspiracy theory circulating that Biden has been given the debate questions in advance by... someone.
  
  Surely this stems, at least in part, from something that really happened in 2016, when Hillary Clinton got the heads up about ONE debate question from then-CNN employee Donna Brazile. However, that was one question one time 8 years ago, and the mole was a person who was a Democratic operative first and foremost (which is why she was hired at CNN) and a CNN employee second. She was also not a journalist. Barring some actual evidence, there is no reason to claim or to suspect that Biden got the questions beforehand. Indeed, if the presumption is that CNN commentators have access to the questions (which they don't), then it's just as likely that Scott Jennings would have given them to Trump. Probably more likely, actually.
  
  In any case, one cannot help but notice that there are all manner of pre-debate efforts by Republicans to discount Biden's performance. Here's the current inventory: (1) Well, Biden is really good at this because he's been doing this for half a century; (2) Biden is going to be high on stimulants; (3) the debate moderators are in the bag for Biden; (4) Biden got the questions in advance. Meanwhile, there are also folks, like Bannon, who are trying to find excuses for Trump to skip the debate entirely. Doesn't all of this strongly suggest that Team Trump thinks their boy is going to lose bigly?
  
  
• Midnight Rambler: Team Biden also has their pre-debate tale to tell, but it's not conspiratorial. It's "Trump has lost his marbles, and you're going to see proof of that on Thursday." As we noted yesterday, the Biden-Harris campaign's Dark Brandon account posted a Tweet about Trump's odd shark/electric boat monologue. The follow-up from Dark Brandon also has to do with water, as chance would have it. This excerpt is from Trump's Philadelphia rally over the weekend:

  No water in your faucets. You ever try buying a new home and you turn on. You want to wash your hair or you wanna wash your hands. You turn on the water and it goes drip, drip the soap. You can't get it off your hand. So you keep it running for about 10 times longer. You trying, the worst is your hair. I have this beautiful luxuriant hair and I put stuff on. I put it in lather. I like lots of lather because I like it to come out extremely dry because it seems to be slightly thicker that way. And I lather up and then you turn on this crazy shower and the thing drip, drip and you say I'm gonna be here for 45 minutes. What? There's so much water. You don't know what to do with it. You know, it's called rain. It rains a lot in certain places. But, now their idea, you know, did you see the other day? They just, I opened it up and they closed it again. I opened it, they close it, washing machines to wash your dishes. There is a problem. They don't want you to have any water. They want no water.

  This actually works pretty well if you read it with the cadence and voice of William Shatner. Otherwise, not so much. And just to keep things interesting, the Biden-Harris campaign posted the original clip, but they also posted a clip of the Fox "News" feed, where the channel cut away from the monologue about halfway through. There's no way to be certain why they cut away, but it certainly LOOKS like some director said: "He's embarrassing himself here; bail out!"
  
  If Trump can keep himself focused on Thursday, then his propensity to ramble won't matter too much. But if he drifts off, and starts sounding like an avant garde performance artist, well, the audience is being primed to pick up on it.
  
  
• VP: Joe Biden's running mate will be at the debate, obviously. And Trump says that he expects that his running mate will be there, too. This is just Trump channeling his inner P.T. Barnum (which, by the way, is an anagram for 'Ban Trump'). Nonetheless, if two of the three men on the supposed "finalists" list are shown on camera, and the third does not appear to be present, then expect much commentary on that point.
  
  
• Bingo: We made a slight error in yesterday's post, when we asked readers for suggestions for Bingo squares. We actually need the suggestions by tonight (Tuesday) at 11:59 p.m PT. If you have 'em, please send 'em to comments@electoral-vote.com.
  
  
• Where to Watch: We are finally satisfied that we have clarity on the broadcast situation. CNN agreed to make its broadcast feed available to any network, with the proviso that they have to retain the CNN logo in the corner. ABC, NBC, C-SPAN and Fox "News" have already agreed to the terms, so the debate will be broadcast on those four networks, as well as on all CNN properties. In addition, many local stations will carry the broadcast, and so too will many PBS stations. PBS is also going to stream the debate on their website and on YouTube; the YouTube link is here. CNN has posted its YouTube stream link; it is found here. And yesterday, of course, we gave the link to the C-SPAN stream.

That's the latest; surely there will be more tomorrow. (Z)

New Study Speaks to Impact of Texas Abortion Ban

There is a new study in this month's issue of JAMA Pediatrics, which is a child and adolescent health journal aimed at medical professionals. It reports that, in comparison to the 28 other states for which there is data, the number of newborn and infant deaths skyrocketed in Texas between 2018 and 2022.

Texas is the focal point of the study because the state found a fairly effective way to ban abortion even before Roe was overturned. So, the Lone Star State can serve as the case study, while the other 28 states serve as the control. And the finding is that infant death increased by almost 13 percent in Texas, as compared to 2% in the other states across the same timeframe, while the number of babies born with congenital defects who later died increased by 23%, as compared to a 3% decrease in the other states.

The study authors do not really delve into the question of why the disparity emerged, but it's not too hard to come up with a plausible theory. In most cases, it's not clear until well after 6 weeks that a fetus is not viable, or may not be viable. And in such cases, well, Texas law forbids intervention unless the mother's life is at risk. So, the mother is compelled to carry the pregnancy to completion, unless she has the means to travel to another state (and she is willing to risk running afoul of various Texas laws that try to stop women from doing that).

In what may seem like a non sequitur here, we are reminded what happened with gay marriage. There was a clear correlation between "I have met a gay person" and "I support gay marriage." As a result, the more out gay people there were, the higher the support for gay marriage became. And we know what eventually happened there, just a few scant years after "stop the gays from marrying" helped propel George W. Bush to victory in 2004.

Already, the anti-choice stance is the minority position. Heck, just yesterday, a poll of Indiana found that 58% of Hoosiers think their state's abortion law is too strict. And the more people who know an actual person who suffered due to these abortion laws—say, a woman who was forced to carry an unviable fetus to term—we have to presume the broader the opposition to the new abortion laws (and the politicians who support them) will become. (Z)

This Week in Republican Whackadoodlery, Part I: Migrant Fights

This weekend, Donald Trump was speaking to a group of Christians (or, perhaps we should write "Christians") in Washington, DC. And, going off on one of his many tangents, he related this "hilarious" anecdote from a meeting he supposedly had with Ultimate Fighting Championship president Dana White (a well-known Trumper):

I said, Dana, I have an idea. Why don't you set up a migrant League of fighters and have your regular league of fighters, and then you have the champion of your league. These are the greatest fighters in the world. Fight the champion of the migrants. I think the migrant guy might win. That's how tough they are. He didn't like that idea too much. But actually, it's not the worst idea I've ever had. No... it's... These are tough people. These people are tough, and they're nasty. Mean. It's incredible that they come totally unchecked.

Reportedly, the crowd was delighted by the story.

Needless to say, this sort of talk—whether it's meant as a joke, or seriously—casts migrants in the role of sub-human animals. It would seem the "Christians" in the audience did not recall the whole Christians vs. lions shtick from Roman history. Oh, and it's worth noting that the Romans started having people fight without their consent for the pleasure of the masses right around the time that they dropped the whole republic thing and became a dictatorship. Hmmmm...

We dislike giving oxygen to the crazy stuff that comes out of Trump's mouth. But we pass this one along, because it's a really good reminder of the kind of person he is in general, and the way he views immigrants in particular. Sometimes, such reminders are called for. (Z)

This Week in Republican Whackadoodlery, Part II: It's a Conspiracy (Or Maybe Not)

This is a very tricky item to nail down, so please bear with us. We'll start with the one fact that is undisputed: Many Trump supporters fear there is a conspiracy within the Republican Party for some group of delegates to seize control at the convention and impose their will on the proceedings.

There appears to be at least some evidence for this, in the form of a meeting in Arizona that took place a couple of weeks ago. The conspirators are far-right, but beyond that, it's not entirely clear what their goal might be, especially since those attendees who spoke to outsiders gave different answers. One possibility is to foist Trump with a hard-right running mate. Another is to replace Trump with someone even harder-right than he is, like Michael Flynn.

There's also a second conspiracy (or, at least, a second conspiracy theory), this one being propagated on right-wing blogs and websites, like Big League Politics. According to the alternate conspiracy theory, the rebel delegates are actually NeverTrumpers who are looking to depose the Donald and replace him with Nikki Haley.

We think it is improbable—like, Samuel Alito coming out as trans and announcing that she will henceforth be known as Samantha and will be voting with the three liberals unlikely—that Trump's nomination will be in danger. However, we pass this story along for two reasons. First, it appears to be a real thing, and so could at least produce some drama at the RNC. Second, it's a reminder that when you see conspiracies everywhere, you begin to see them even in your own house. This, and "you're not extreme enough" are what tend to break up fringe movements, sooner or later. (Z)

This Week in Republican Whackadoodlery, Part III: Lock Him Up

Republicans in the House are absolutely desperate to find some Democrat they can make pay for the crimes of Donald Trump. They may not say it openly, but even the Trumpers know full well he's a sleazeball and a convicted felon. They also know that a lot of voters know it, too. And so, the corrective is to find a high-profile Democrat and show the world that person is also a sleazeball and a criminal. This will theoretically even the score.

Thus far, the House Republican Conference has not had much luck on this front. They impeached DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and... it was forgotten 5 minutes after the Senate pencil-whipped the matter right into the trash bin. House Republicans played some small role in getting Hunter Biden tried criminally, but even though he was convicted, the "Biden crime family" bit hasn't stuck to Joe Biden with anyone except the True Believers.

The latest target, of course, is AG Merrick Garland. The House demanded that he turn over tapes from Special Counsel Robert Hur's investigation of the President, and Garland refused. The House then voted to hold him in contempt, and referred the matter to the DoJ for prosecution. The DoJ declined. What's a partisan who is only interested in performative politics supposed to do?

Well, the answer is that some Republicans have dusted off an idea that got a fair bit of play from Democratic commentators when Donald Trump was in office. They want to order the sergeant-at-arms of the House to toddle over to the DoJ's headquarters (a mere 1.3 miles from the Capitol), arrest Garland, and drag him to the House chamber to face his reckoning. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) floated the idea last week, and Rep. Anna Paulina Loony... er, Luna (R-FL) promised yesterday that she will force a vote on the matter.

There are all kinds of problems here. The first is logistics. Garland has a security detail, and if the sergeant-at-arms shows up to arrest the AG under dubious pretenses, who knows how that will play out. It's also not clear where prisoner Garland would be held, once detained, nor what his rights would be as a prisoner. The second problem is that the base might eat up this sort of red meat, but to everyone else it would make the GOP look like the Banana Republican Party, which would cost them votes. The third problem is that once you set a precedent, you are inviting the other side to return the favor. Imagine how many Trump administration officials could plausibly have been arrested from 2017 to 2021, had this power been first established by Republicans during, say, the Newt Gingrich years.

It is very probable that the Luna vote, once it is called, will fail for these reasons (and probably more). The Mayorkas impeachment cleared the bar by a single vote, and one has to assume there would be even more defectors in this case. Although, with the Party of Trump, you can never be sure. (Z)

Maybe Young Voters Aren't Evenly Divided

Last week, we had an item about the latest Siena College poll. It asserted that Joe Biden's lead among voters 18-29 was just 1 point, 46%-45%.

Yesterday, the newest from CBS/YouGov was released, and it tells a very different tale. The numbers agree that many younger voters are unhappy with the state of the world, and that they blame the older generations. However, they are not equally enamored of Biden and Donald Trump. No, according to the CBS/YouGov numbers, voters 18-29 favor Biden 61% to 38%. That's a gap of 23 points, which is rather larger than 1 point.

If you asked us to choose which poll we believe, we would obviously go with the latter. First, the CBS/YouGov results are much more in line with historical trends. Second, the CBS/YouGov results are internally consistent. For example, the poll finds that the issues young people care most about are the economy, abortion, climate change, and race and diversity. At least three of those are the blue team's bread and butter.

That said, here is the real takeaway from these two polls: Polling this demographic is really, really hard. They don't answer calls, e-mails and texts from pollsters, which can result in very low response rates, and thus great acrobatics when trying to crunch the data and fit it into the model. On top of that, they are the least reliable age cohort when it comes to actually showing up to vote. If you track all 18-29 voters, Biden will do very well. If you track likely voters, the numbers will start to shift in Trump's direction, because his base is fanatical. If you track only certain voters, the numbers will shift in Trump's direction even more, again because of the fanatical base. The Siena poll was based on voters who are certain they will vote, while the CBS/YouGov poll was based on likely voters. And look how different their results were. (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

In case you are wondering, this same poll has Angela Alsobrooks (D) up 11 points on former governor Larry Hogan (R), 45% to 34%, in the U.S. Senate race. We would not be surprised that 5% or 10% or even 15% of Marylanders were willing to do some ballot-splitting, which is about what this poll predicts. We have a hard time accepting that 30% of Marylanders would do it, which is what some previous polls have suggested. (Z)

State	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Maryland	56%	30%	Jun 19	Jun 20	PPP

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

---

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