You Can't Spell "Temper Tantrum" without T-R-U-M-P

Tim Walz and J.D. Vance met for their first and only debate of the campaign last night, and showed the country that the key to having a normal debate is making sure Donald Trump is not on stage. It was a generally substantive, generally collegial affair, and one almost entirely without the drama that attends a Trump debate.

If you haven't watched the debate, and you would like to, you can do so here:

You can also read a transcript here.

Normally, when we write up the debates, we work our way through each of the key players on stage. However, the way that last night's meet-up unfolded pretty much demands that we consider Walz and Vance together, as they were similar in a lot of ways, including their basic approaches to the debate.

The Candidates

Nerves: Before the debate, Walz admitted that he was nervous. And for the first several minutes, it showed. Take a look at his answer to the very first question that was posed to him:

Note the frequent appearances of the disfluency "uh."

After a few minutes, however, Walz settled down, and was actually quite good. He's an experienced teacher with extensive public speaking experience, and his instincts clearly kicked in. He looked into the camera, spoke clearly, was mindful of his body language, and generally projected an air of competence.

Vance, who decided to forego his usual eyeliner, was also nervous at the outset. He did not overrely on "uhs" and "ums," but he did speak far too rapidly. You can see his first answer here:

Like Walz, Vance also settled down after 5-10 minutes. And like Walz, Vance performed very capably. The difference between Walz and Kamala Harris, in terms of delivery, is relatively small. Harris was better, but not by leaps and bounds. The difference between Vance and Donald Trump, by contrast, is enormous. The content of Vance's remarks was problematic (keep reading), but he certainly looked like a grown-up and a serious politician. Trump looks like someone who is 5 minutes from: "We just can't take care of dad anymore, and he's going to have to move into an assisted living facility."

What Was the Question, Again?: Vance and Walz both looked like veteran politicians (and, for that matter, veterans). They both also demonstrated a veteran politico's ability to answer the question they wanted to answer, rather than the one that was actually asked. We watched the whole debate, and yet have no idea whether Walz would support a preemptive strike on Iran, or Vance actually believes that the U.S. Army can be used to execute mass deportations.

This said, Vance was generally a bit clumsier when it came to dodging the moderators' questions. If you watch his first answer, for example, you will see that he was absolutely, no doubt about it, going to get 45 seconds of "I'm just a hillbilly" stuff in there first, regardless of what the first question was. The single most obvious dodge of the whole night, because the moderators returned to it several times without success, was whether or not Vance believes Trump won the 2020 election.

Normalcy: So, both Walz and Vance looked and acted like grown-ups. And both Walz and Vance looked and acted like politicians. They generally behaved themselves, and did not often speak over each other or the moderators. There were also numerous occasions, on both sides, where they acknowledged that the other side has a point, or the other side is honestly interested in doing the right thing for America. There were even moments where one candidate expressed appreciation or empathy for the other, such as when Vance told Walz that he (Vance) was sorry that Walz's son was witness to a public shooting.

Not to keep dumping on Donald Trump, even if he deserves it (did you hear he decided the best way to honor Jimmy Carter's 100th birthday was to badmouth the Peanut Farmer?), but the debate gives one hope that The Donald really is sui generis, and that once he exits the political stage, a lot of the obnoxious stuff will exit with him. Vance is plenty Trumpy, but he was still able to act like a human being.

Authenticity: Both men clearly came in to the debate looking to emphasize their credentials as "regular folk." They both had some success, we suppose, though Walz did a better job than Vance did.

First of all, Walz is better at projecting "regular guy," because he clearly IS a regular guy. Some of his "man of the people" content was clearly pre-planned, but a fair bit of it seemed to come out naturally and organically, like when he quoted scripture (Matthew 25:40) or said "I'm a union guy" or talked about environmental legislation by mentioning its impact on his farmer friends.

Second, the current incarnation of Vance (who is something of a chameleon) is pretty far removed from "regular guy," especially on the campaign trail. Shakespeare observed that "one man in his time plays many parts," and returning to the role of "hillbilly" is not so easy for the Senator. Whereas Walz managed to get many and varied "regular guy" details in there, Vance basically kept repeating the same details, about his poor family, his mother's drug abuse, and his being raised by his meemaw. We almost expected him to provide a link to the Amazon page for Hillbilly Elegy.

Track Record: Walz and Vance spent some time trying to make an affirmative case for their running mates. But, at least to us, it seemed that they put higher priority on tearing down the other man's running mate.

This is yet another area where we think it was advantage Walz. Donald Trump is considerably easier to critique, since there is more there to criticize, and since he was actually president. One of Walz's very most effective moments was when he talked about the Sen. James Lankford (R-OK)-negotiated border bill that Trump torpedoed:

Truth be told, Walz did a better job of laying that out than Kamala Harris did in her debate. On the other hand, he gave a clumsy answer about his own experiences in China, and his previous misstatements therein. Harris did not have any fumbles as significant as this one.

Vance had two related issues on this front. The first is that he did not have a president to tear into, he was attacking a vice president. We think that roughly 100.0% of voters know where the buck stops, and it ain't with the VP. The Senator's tortured attempts to slam the "Harris Administration" (really the Biden Administration, of course) were further undermined by his propensity to exaggerate. To give one example, among many: "So there's an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand." Unless you already dislike Harris and the Democrats, this is a bit hard to take seriously.

Lies: There was much attention given to CBS' announcement that the moderators would do little to no real-time fact-checking during the debate, in contrast to what happened during the Trump-Harris debate on ABC. It was, and is, hard to avoid the conclusion that CBS was worried about getting the sort of blowback that ABC got. No less than Dan Rather, former anchor of the CBS Evening News, slammed his former employer as "spineless."

As it turns out, this was not all that big a problem. Live fact-checking works well with outright falsehoods. It is much less plausible with politician lies. And to the extent that Walz, and particularly Vance, issued forth with falsehoods last night, those falsehoods were almost exclusively politician lies. The "Harris border wand" line is a politician lie; it's not entirely a fabrication, it's more a biased framing coupled with some exaggeration. To take another small-ish example, Vance said that Trump governed based on "commonsense wisdom." That's ridiculous, but it's not exactly something that can be fact-checked.

The most egregious politician lies came from Vance, near the end of the evening. Pretty much the most tense exchanges of the debate involved the events of 1/6. Vance has to tote his running mate's water at all times, and he certainly can't admit to any wrongdoing on that particular day, so he made three assertions of extremely dubious merit: (1) Trump left office peacefully and without resistance, (2) Democratic censorship of conservatives is a worse threat to democracy than anything that happened on 1/6, and (3) the party that REALLY refuses to accept election results is the Democrats, because Hillary Clinton complained about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

We think all three of those assertions are nonsense, but they are as much opinion as they are fact, which is why fact-checking would be tough or impossible. We also tend to think that because Walz and Vance both indulged mostly in politician lies, low-information voters could have a tough time discerning what is truthful and what is not. Not because these low-information viewers are stupid, but because evaluating much of what Walz and Vance said requires context that only fairly well informed viewers would have.

The Moderators

On the whole, moderators Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan did a pretty good job. They largely maintained decorum, they asked some good questions, and they were clearly well prepared. Of course, it helps when, you know, there's no Donald Trump on stage.

As we note above, the fact-checking thing turned out to be much less a problem than anticipated. That said, we do have two criticisms for the duo. The first is that they tried to do too much. Yes, we get it, they and their network get 90 minutes in the sun, and then that's it for 4 years (or more). However, their questions did tend to be too long and complicated, which really invited the candidates to just talk about whatever they wanted to talk about. Also, their repeated declarations that "we have a lot to get to" got tiresome. We have previously taken the position that depth is better than breadth. Nothing that happened last night caused us to revisit that opinion.

Our other criticism is that, as journalists, they were sometimes unacceptably sloppy in their verbiage. In particular, talking about "the border crisis" and "the childcare crisis" effectively advances Republican messaging on those issues. Moderators, who are ostensibly as neutral as Switzerland, should not be doing that.

Takeaways

Now that we've put our thoughts to paper (well, to pixels), let's take a look at what others have to say. The debate is big news, and takeaways pieces are pretty easy to write, so most major outlets already have one up.

CNN:

• Vance dodges on January 6
• Midwestern nice... up to a point
• Springfield pet-eating claims feature in immigration clash
• Walz says he 'misspoke' about his presence at Tiananmen Square
• A dividing line over abortion
• Conversation on gun violence
• Scrutinizing Trump's 'concepts of a plan' on health care

The Hill:

• Vance shows his debate skills
• Walz stumbles with answer on China story
• Vance makes appeal to center on abortion
• CBS draws fire over fact-checking, mics
• Debate is civil

The BBC:

• Mics muted after a tussle over immigration
• Middle East tensions loom large
• Vance vow to win back voters' 'trust' on abortion
• "I'm a knucklehead at times," Walz admits
• Vance defends Trump over Capitol riot
• Politeness takes centre-stage

ABC News:

• Civility ruled the day
• A more policy-focused debate
• Both forced to answer for past comments
• Vance refused to say if he will accept election, doesn't condemn Jan. 6
• Vance did not back down on false claims about Springfield

NBC News:

• It wasn't really about Vance or Walz
• Walz admits he flubbed Tiananmen Square story
• Vance defends his flip on past criticism of Trump
• Walz and Vance pick through their running mates' economic records
• Vance's revisionist history on Trump's Obamacare repeal push

The Washington Post:

• Walz struggled, Vance tried to recast himself
• Vance tried to massage the abortion issue
• Vance wouldn't let go of the Haitian migrants issue
• It was a remarkably civil debate
• Walz landed a moment on Jan. 6

Fox had a takeaways piece, too, but they didn't break it into sections, so it doesn't fit this format. If you want to read it, however, it's here.

Surveying the lists above, it appears that the main storylines are: (1) the debate was a civil/grown-up affair, (2) Vance's 1/6 answers were problematic, and (3) Walz dropped the ball on the Tiananmen Square answer. We don't object to that list, though we thought that Walz did answer the Tiananmen Square question as well as he could.

There have already been a few insta-polls. The Washington Post's swing-state voters panel had it 14-8 (63%-37%) for Vance. Debate host CBS did a poll, with 42% of respondents giving the nod to Vance, 41% to Walz, and 17% calling it a tie. CNN's poll had it 51% for Vance, 49% for Walz.

Reader Response

We erred a little bit in our own insta-poll setup, but readers were able to figure it out. About 10% of Electoral-Vote.com respondents felt that Walz helped himself a lot, whereas 25% thought he helped himself a little, while 15% thought Vance helped himself a little. That means half of the respondents thought that neither candidate moved the needle. On a scale of 0-100, where 0 is "no impact" and 100 is "changed the entire trajectory of the race," readers gave an average score of 16. So, it was a minor tremor, at most, and not an epic earthquake.

Here is a selection of reader comments:

• B.M. in Chico, CA: So nice to see civility in a debate. I had almost forgotten what that was like.
  
  
• S.L. in Glendora, CA: While I thought Walz gave generally better answers, I thought Vance came off as much more likable than I expected. I think that he may have blunted the perception that he is a worse VP choice than Sarah Palin.
  
  
• J.W.H. in Somerville, NJ: I thought the first half was a draw, then Walz was a bit stronger in the second half. One miss was letting Vance continually claim that the last 3 years were Harris's responsibility instead of Biden, and Walz didn't call him on that.
  
  
• D.M. in Burnsville, MN: Bah. Ho Hum. It's always good to see Tim Walz speak, because he's so Minnesotan. Vance, on the other hand, was so full of double-talk that I would not buy a used car from this guy.
  
  
• Z.Z. in Coarsegold, CA: I found it interesting that Walz talked about his accomplishments as an adult. In contrast, Vance mainly focused on his childhood and didn't delve into his adult achievements, apart from being a practical MAGA talking head.
  
  
• B.A.R. in South Bend, IN: I feel that it was a fairly even performance from both candidates. Walz was obviously nervous at first, but found his groove and was able to speak passionately and earnestly about several issues. Vance was as slippery as a weasel, especially on his refusal to say whether Biden won the 2020 election, but he's a good debater. Walz won on sincerity but it wasn't a knockout. I'd like to see another presidential debate.
  
  
• A.J. in Ames, IA: No big moments. A few TikTok lines. Everyone who was voting for Trump still votes for Trump. Everyone voting for Harris still voting for Harris. Anyone who hasn't decided yet should just stay home.
  
  
• K.F. in Edison, NJ: I thought both candidates did very well. I didn't see any missteps from either candidate. If I had to break the tie I would give it to Vance since he had more to prove than Walz. Also, bonus points to Vance for not saying the word "cats."
  
  
• S.S. in Frisco, TX: Watching the debate gave me a few flashes of the way things used to be in politics prior to hyper-partisanship and prior to the degradation of the Office of the President from 2017 to early 2021. If I didn't know better about the two candidates who spoke tonight, I would say that the dialogue seemed passably cordial and generally policy-oriented. My 10-year-old son watched with me, something that didn't happen for the top-of-the-ticket debate. That said, I do unfortunately know that one of the candidates tonight did a great job of window dressing his true beliefs. Thankfully, I don't believe that anything said here moved the needle in one direction or the other. I will be glad when we reach the end of the next 5 weeks, and hopefully democracy will have prevailed; I'd really like my son to watch another debate with me in 4 years.
  
  
• R.J.J. in San Francisco, CA : Watching tonight, my big takeaway is J.D. Vance is Joe Isuzu without the believability.

Thanks to everyone who weighed in!

The Bottom Line

With voting already underway in 20 states, this is probably the last "major" scheduled event of this campaign cycle. Not only is Donald Trump insisting he won't debate Kamala Harris again, but yesterday he unexpectedly pulled out of the customary 60 Minutes special in which both candidates are interviewed. Harris will still appear, but Trump was apparently frightened of appearing on any outlet that will not feed him a steady diet of softballs.

As readers can probably tell from our remarks above, we think Walz had the better night overall. It was nowhere close to a blowout, as with Trump-Harris, but we think it was a slight win for the Democrat. That said, because we believe the debate would have been very tough to parse, unless a viewer was already pretty well informed, we tend to think it won't have much impact on the election. Well-informed voters are usually already pretty set in their choices by this point in the cycle. This is not a particularly bold assessment, as VP debates rarely seem to have much impact.

So, those are our thoughts. We are now, quite literally, in primetime for October surprises. Beyond that, it looks to be full speed ahead to November 5. Although we will have one more debate item on Friday. (Z)

A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall

This weekend's mailbag was pretty stuffed, which would have made squeezing in this submission from D.E. in Lancaster, PA tough. Meanwhile, debates take a long time to watch and write up, leaving not so much time for other items. So, why not kill two birds with one stone? Take it away, D.E.:

Speaking of forces, right after reading your last line on Friday, "And if Donald Trump does lose this election, it will be substantially because he and his three Supreme Court justices unleashed forces they did not fully understand, and could not counteract," I saw that Stevie Nicks just released a new song and video, "The Lighthouse."

Nicks wrote this song as a response to the Dobbs decision. She has had a personal history with the subject, having aborted a pregnancy she had with her then-boyfriend, Eagles co-founder Don Henley. Her Fleetwood Mac song "Sara" is said to address this incident. It must also be noted that Nicks is scheduled to be the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on October 12 (Ariana Grande, another vocal Kamala Harris supporter, is the host). I'm willing to bet that Nicks will perform this song and Grande will join her (and maybe some others) which is sure to make it go viral.

As readers might remember, I am a fan of Ms. Nicks (although to be honest, I didn't buy the last couple of her solo albums). Putting aside the excesses of music videos, I found the song itself quite powerful. Rock is often known as the music of protest, but not lately. Maybe it's because so much of popular music nowadays is so corporate and homogenized, that this really stands out to me as a very daring move. It certainly raised my eyebrows because, when I was a young adult, people and politicians did their best to avoid mentioning the subject of abortion.

I was in college when "Sara" was released. One semester, I decided to take as an elective, a philosophy class called "Modern Moral Problems" or something like that. Being a science fiction nerd, I was expecting that we would be dealing with topics such as nuclear war/winter/energy, cloning, genetics, IVF and euthanasia, all which were topics in the forefront of the news at the time. The professor was a new hire and this was his first class. On the first day, the professor handed out a topic syllabus, listing the subjects to be covered. I was happy to see that most of my issues were listed, but I also noticed abortion, capital punishment and gay rights were included, which seemed legit. On the second day of class, the professor dragged out one of those clacky school projectors, saying he wanted to show us a film. The whole class was still very much unsuspecting as to what was about to be unleashed.

It so happened that I was right beside the projector and as the professor was doing a preamble to the film, I couldn't help but notice that the professor's leg was trembling like crazy, a motion I had only witnessed in boys who think they are about to score. The film was one of the many "fetus in the trash can" propaganda films that the anti-abortion supporters loved to show. At first, the professor tried to couch his lectures as being neutral, but it didn't take us long to realize that he was an avid/fervent/rabid right-to-lifer. From that day forward, every class consisted of alternating between "Abortion Horror" film (to all propagandists, all shock value becomes null after about the third "fetus in a trashcan" shot) and a 60 minute non-stop anti-abortion harangue by the professor, often with the photos of the "fetuses in the trashcan" propped up on his desk. There was never any attempt of presenting the pro-abortion side. Anyone who tried to present another viewpoint was immediately and viciously shot down. Even college students know that if your hand gets burnt you don't put it back on the stove eye. The "discussions" quickly silenced to one voice harping.

During the first couple of classes, I watched the faces of my classmates turn off, one by one. I'm not talking the bored look of student wishing they were back in their dorm partying, but rather a completely blank face of "I'm not here." I found myself also checking out, in that I don't remember the vast majority of the semester. Several years ago, I ran across my notebook for that class with the topic syllabus in it. The first couple of pages consisted entirely of my art doodles and sketches; but after a few weeks even those disappeared. The rest of the notebook was blank pages, as I had found some way to completely disengage. His heated voice preaching like a revival minister became the white noise in the background.

In the class meeting before the exam, the professor sat on the desk and good naturedly laughed to himself saying that because the class had been so engaged on the subject of abortion (my mind began to stir awake because no one was engaged or even spoke in this class) he had (chuckle) let the whole semester slide by without covering any other subjects. He proposed that he would go through the list of other topics quickly (my mind awakened more, wondering how the very complicated subjects of genetics, nuclear war and cloning could go through a speed round). He then proceeded to give quick proclamations about a few topics. My mind stirred even further awake by wondering how someone who non-stop preached about the sanctity of life was so quick to embrace capital punishment, but also embrace the most vicious and brutal forms of capital punishment. The "eye for an eye" guys had nothing on him. He was also vehemently anti-adoption.

The very next subject he made a pronouncement on was like a very loud alarm clock making me sit bolt-upright. He stated that on the subject of gay rights, that clearly AIDS was "God's revenge against faggots." I didn't even raise my hand but instead blurted out, "Hold it. You need to stop right there." Around me, I saw all the other students awake in shock. I then proceeded to talk about what a heinous statement that was from a religious, moral and personal level (at the time, I was pretty much in the closet so I substituted myself as "a friend of mine" even though I'm often my own worst enemy). To my surprise, one of the school's cheerleaders also spoke up, not only being pro-gay rights but against his non-stop tirade against abortion. The professor's mouth fell open in complete shock. He definitely had never experienced someone refuting his statements before. He mumbled a few words, dismissed the class early and rushed out of the room. The rest of the class followed in silence, leaving me alone with the cheerleader.

We looked at each other, eyes wide open in shock, clearly not believing we had just spoken out. It felt good but on the inside I was freaking the fu** out, feeling like I had just come out unintentionally to the entire world. Surely, that outburst would end up on my (gasp) Permanent Record. We thanked each other. She said something about "I guess that means we just failed this class." I replied, "Well, that will be a fun grade to explain." We gathered our things and trudged to the door. To my shock and horror, the entire class was standing in the hallway, waiting for us. Visions of gay bashings starting dancing in my head. But instead of rebuke or criticism, all the students thanked us for speaking up. They said that during the entire semester that they wanted to speak up, but were afraid to. So many expressed anger and frustration at being bombarded by his rigid and hateful rhetoric. One student said that while she considered herself pro-family, the professor went way too far. After a few minutes, the students dispersed, leaving the cheerleader and me alone in the hall. She turned to me and said, "Let's go to the dean and save our grades."

My college was a small, private college that, while it had a religious background, was a nonsectarian place of learning. The college (it's now a university) placed its emphasis on hiring professors who wanted to teach, first and foremost. Faculty research and scholarly writing came a distant second in their interview process. The previous year, I had been chosen to represent the freshman year students on a panel that was going to give the award to the best professor for the year. As a part of that panel, I was given unprecedented access to the five nominated professors' files, syllabi, and interview notes. For the first time in my academic career, the head of the school knew me for a positive reason. So when the cheerleader and I showed up unannounced at his office, he quickly opened the doors and we were ushered in. His listened silently to both of our stories. After we finished, he too thanked us, for speaking out and coming to him. He said in no uncertain terms that was not the course the college approved to be taught. He told us that we did not have to attend the final exam and that we didn't have to worry at all about our grade (we both received an A). This was a spring semester class and I found out in the fall that the final exam for the whole class had been canceled, that our grades were determined by a board based on essays we had written, and, most importantly, that professor was not on the faculty. I would like to say that was the last I heard of him, but about 5-6 years later, I spotted his name in the local paper. He was going to prison for colluding with a man who had planted a pipe bomb at an abortion clinic (luckily, the bomb did not explode because it was so ineptly made). I entered that class a complete abortion agnostic but that's not the way I left it.

I have lived through "The Silent Majority," the Religious Right, the Contract with America, the "Compassionate Republicans," the Moral Majority, the Tea Baggers (their original and most accurate name) and now the MAGA Cult. Throughout the years of all these nihilist movements by the Right, I have heard Americans from all walks of life and a wide variety of backgrounds say that they wished they had spoken up against this kind of extremism. One year, when I bartended at a poolside bar/snack stand at the Washington Hilton, the Moral Majority had their convention there. I met a middle-aged widow from Maine, who would sit at my poolside gazebo sipping a soft drink, and would talk to me.

One particular grey-about-to-drizzle day, she said to me out of the blue, "You know, I don't know why I come to these things. I don't believe in any of the issues they push. I hate the things they say. That's not me. I simply, one day at church, filled in a questionnaire that was handed to me and I guess because I checked yes on a few common sense items the next thing I know I'm getting an invitation to join the Moral Majority. And I did because I was lonely and everybody I knew was joining. I don't like these people. They scare me. They bully everyone. I keep saying this time I'm going to speak up but I never do." To this day, I hold that conversation near and dear to my heart. She was a genuine and beautiful person. As she was leaving to go home, she stopped by and gave me a swan that she carved from a block of soap and told me if I ever wanted to visit Maine to look her up. I kept both the carving and her contact information for years.

I know thanks to algorithms, that the stories I read, the videos I watch, and the postings I read are geared to be in alignment with my thoughts. Having said that, in previous elections, the left has always been a little shy about speaking their minds. Even when gathered together, they would speak demurely and with caution so as not offend. With Barack Obama's election there was rejoicing but also a lot of naivety. There was still a reluctance to be too loud in criticism of the Right. Again, I might be biased through a selective lens, but this election, I hear more and more people who are mad at what the MAGA Cult has done to our country. Now, this isn't an aggressive anger but a completely defensive one. The phrases I keep hearing are "Enough is enough" and "This has gone on too far." When I think on how fast the Harris coalition came together, I stand in awe. It reminds me of when they talk about the Perfect Storm that all these various elements have to fall together in the right time and the right place to create a powerful storm.

One of my favorite Stevie Nicks songs has this lyric, "Never have I been a blue calm sea/I have always been a storm." I hope this doesn't sound like empty left-wing rah-rah propaganda because I have never been a good cheerleader kind of guy (pep rallies in school always left me dismayed and confused); but I do sense a huge storm brewing off the coast. To those who have never lived near the sea, this is not hyperbolic power but something you can physically feel. You talked about Trump and the extreme right unleashing "forces they did not fully understand" in regards to the overturning of Roe. Yes, abortion is leading the way but a whole slew of other issues are following in its wake, too many to even list.

Trump's Project 2025, if it has its way, wants to defund the agencies that track storms and hurricanes, making the tracking of these forces of nature impossible. Hurricane Helene, as of this writing early Friday evening, has left 38 dead in five states. The MAGA Cult is the road to madness and for too, too long these extremists have had their voices amplified. Hurricanes are known for their death and destruction, but they also bring benefits in their wake. They replenish the aquifers in the South and along the east coast. Anyone who has experienced a hurricane knows that after the storm has passed the air is wonderfully fresh and clean. Gone are the oppressive fevered humors that collect before a storm, but at least the air is clean as you survey the damage the storm wrought. Let's stop worrying about the pet-eating Haitians under the bed, and start worrying about the madman at the door. The dangers are real. I think we are in the midst of a sea change as a country, that going forward we will defend the things we know are right and moral; that we have stopped letting the fascist elements of the conservative party dictate our conversations. We—and by that, I mean the true silent majority, the decent well-meaning and kind Americans—are speaking up and our voice will be heard. Our strength will be felt. As Stevie sings in her new song, "This has happened before... Don't let them take your power!"

Thanks, D.E.! We think that piece is a pretty good complement to the debate. (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

There are going to be lots and lots of polls of Pennsylvania and North Carolina in the next month. And we cannot imagine anything, at this point, that is going to cause them to communicate something other than "the race is on knife's edge." (Z)

State	Kamala Harris	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	48%	52%	Sep 27	Sep 28	Emerson Coll.
Georgia	45%	50%	Sep 25	Sep 29	Quinnipiac U.
North Carolina	48%	49%	Sep 25	Sep 29	Quinnipiac U.
North Carolina	48%	50%	Sep 25	Sep 29	George Mason U.
North Carolina	49%	50%	Sep 27	Sep 28	Emerson Coll.
Pennsylvania	49%	49%	Sep 27	Sep 28	Emerson Coll.
Pennsylvania	50%	47%	Sep 17	Sep 24	Fabrizio + Anzalone

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

Today's Senate Polls

We have a hard time accepting that an incumbent vs. carpetbagger race is this close. That may suggest a problem with these pollsters' samples, or their models. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	Ruben Gallego	52%	Kari Lake	41%	Sep 27	Sep 28	Emerson Coll.
Pennsylvania	Bob Casey*	47%	David McCormick	45%	Sep 27	Sep 28	Emerson Coll.
Pennsylvania	Bob Casey*	49%	David McCormick	45%	Sep 17	Sep 24	Fabrizio + Anzalone

* 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