Harris on Fox: Bret Baier Demonstrates How to Fish for Answers

On Wednesday, Kamala Harris sat down with Fox personality Bret Baier for an interview. When it comes to watching the appearance, one of us lives in the wrong time zone and part of the world and the other was occupied with professional obligations. But one of us has definitely watched it now, and here come some thoughts.

To start, let's note that the Harris interview was the star attraction of the evening, but it actually has two Trump counterpoints. The first is a Fox-broadcast, Harris Faulkner-hosted town hall with the former president. That aired a few hours before the interview with the Vice President. The second is a Univision-broadcast, Enrique Acevedo-hosted town hall with Trump. That one aired at the same time as the Harris interview. So, you've got one on the same network, and one at the same time.

We're actually going to start with the Trump event on Fox. Not only did it come first, chronologically, but it also sets the stage for the Harris event in a couple of important ways. We would provide you a link to watch, if you wished to do so, but Fox did not make one available. They want to sell memberships to their premium service, and so it's locked behind a paywall.

The truth of the matter—and surely you knew this—is that you aren't missing anything by not seeing it. This is Fox, which is not a serious journalistic entity. The event, which featured not only a female host, but also an all-female audience, was just a campaign commercial that allowed Trump to deliver his spin and/or his non-answers on "women's issues." Not only did Faulkner toss him an endless supply of softballs, but for the audience, the network recruited Trump supporters. Not only did Fox "forget" to mention this, but they even edited out portions that might have tipped their hand. For example, one woman prefaced her question with "I proudly cast my vote for you today. I hope they count it." That was cut. At another point, the crowd broke into a chant of "Trump, Trump!" That was cut, too. We do not believe that this kind of political theater, performed for an adoring audience (both in the room, and watching at home), can possibly have any impact.

Moving on to the Kamala Harris interview, we were very interested when we heard that Bret Baier drew the assignment. Some commenters described him as a "journalist," and Harris did the same, as a courtesy, during the interview. Please be clear, he is no journalist. He is a partisan, and one who works for a partisan outlet, and knows well what side his bread is buttered on. Speaking in terms of big names, Fox lost its last journalist when Chris Wallace left. Baier only looks like a journalist (sorta) when he stands next to the aforementioned Faulkner, or Sean Hannity, or Laura Ingraham.

That said, Baier knew full well that this interview was going to get a lot of attention, and was going to be watched by a lot of people who are not Fox regulars. So, it was at least possible he was going to be on his best behavior, and was going to play it somewhat down the middle. If you wish to watch for yourself, before we tell you which Bret Baier showed up, here it is:

And now the answer. From the start, it was clear that Baier's intent was to act as a surrogate for the Trump campaign, and that Fox was going to do everything possible to help him. Did he ask a few reasonable questions? Sure. But most of them were gotchas meant to get the Trump campaign's messaging out there.

Heck, even before the actual interview aired, Baier made clear where he was coming from. Keep in mind that the segment was pre-taped (by about an hour), and then included as part of Baier's show. By way of introduction, he carped about Harris showing up 15 minutes late, and suggested that she was "icing the kicker." For those unfamiliar, that's a football strategy wherein the defensive team calls a time out, or otherwise delays the kicking of a field goal/extra point, in hopes of messing with the other team's kicker's mental state. In other words, Baier very clearly sees himself as being on "one team" while Harris is on "the other team."

That Baier had no interest in being "fair and balanced" was also evident from the very moment the interview began. Consider his first question: "How many illegal immigrants would you estimate your administration has released into the country over the last 3½ years?" Not only is that phrasing incredibly leading, it is also presented without context. It's reminiscent of the old no-good-answer Doonesbury question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If you say "yes," you concede you were once an abuser. If you say "no," presumably because you never started, you seem to be an ongoing abuser.

And it actually gets worse. Because Baier viewed himself as more an adversary who was debating Harris, rather than a reporter who was interviewing her, he constantly interrupted her. Over the course of 26 minutes, he must have interrupted at least a dozen times, and probably more like 20. Even if you don't want to watch the whole thing, we highly recommend you click on the link or the embedded video above, and just watch the first 90 seconds. That will give you a very full sense of how the entire interview went. You can judge for yourself if you agree with our take on the tone and tenor.

We know, of course, that "Fox is very biased" is basically dog-bites-man-type news. But even if you know that, it's really remarkable how shameless they are, even when they know that people who are not Fox cultists are watching. Not only did Baier ask mostly loaded questions, but the choice of topics might as well have been the work of the Trump campaign (and, for all we know, WAS the work of the Trump campaign). Something close to half of the appearance was spent on immigration and the border. Another big chunk was spent on Harris' support/tolerance for gender-reassignment surgery for prisoners. There was also time for questions about Joe Biden's mental acuity. By contrast, zero time was spent on abortion, the environment, or healthcare. Are those issues not important to voters? Or maybe are they the issues on which Harris is pretty strong, and Trump is pretty weak? We report, you decide.

Whoever was doing the production for Fox also got in on the "fun." The chyrons that ran underneath the interview often contained editorializing. Here's an example, from about halfway through:

If you actually listen to that part, that's not a fair characterization of what she said (when she wasn't being interrupted by Baier).

The moment that really crystallizes everything we've been saying here came just over halfway through. Baier decided to travel down an odd and disingenuous logical path, arguing that if nearly 50% of the country supports Trump, he must be pretty good. Harris pushed back at that, talking about how his "enemy within" rhetoric is exhausting and divisive. Baier quickly pounced, and played a clip of Trump, from the Fox town hall earlier in the day, that ostensibly addressed that criticism. You can see that segment here:

What you don't know, unless you happened to watch the earlier event, is that Baier/the producers carefully edited the clip. Just moments before the portion shown during the Harris interview, Trump had been repeating, verbatim, the "enemy within" stuff. The cherry-picking was so egregious that yesterday (that is, about 12 hours after the interview aired), Baier conceded that the "wrong clip" had been played. That is some very pleasant spin, we suppose, but Baier gave no indication during the interview itself that the wrong clip had been played, nor did he say anything during his broadcast an hour later. That means he either didn't know it was the wrong clip (which is bad) or he knew full well and somehow didn't expect to get caught (which is worse). For our part, we favor the second explanation, since it is a very convenient "error" to edit the clip to omit, by mere seconds, the moment that makes Trump look bad and Harris look correct.

Remarkably—given that Harris had been on the campaign trail all day, and that the town hall aired just hours before her sit-down with Baier—she was somehow ready for the bait-and-switch. She said, correctly, that the clip was not the relevant one, and that Trump HAD repeated the "enemy within" remarks during his Fox appearance. She also took Baier to task—in a professional manner, but it was a spanking nonetheless.

That leads us to the actual takeaway from the interview (besides "Once again, Fox proves they are not journalists"). Harris dealt with a little over 25 minutes of outright hostility, and she remained calm and collected and handled everything very well. While she certainly pushed back at Baier, she did not lose her temper, she did not struggle to answer the gotchas (even if she sometimes dodged the question), and in general she commanded the room. It is odd to think that an interview would have a winner and a loser, but—and we will die on this hill—Harris was the winner, and Baier was the loser, and it wasn't close.

During the interview—and, again, this speaks to Baier not doing the job he claimed to be doing—we did not learn one thing, policy-wise, that we did not already know. What we did see, however, was that when and if Harris is staring across the table at a Vladimir Putin or a Xi Jingping, she's up to the challenge. We could also see the appearance engendering (no pun intended) some sympathy from women viewers who are on the fence. If there is a woman above the age of 15 that has not had, too many times to count, the experience of a man presuming to interrupt and talk over her, we have not met them.

And finally, there is Trump's Univision town hall. If you want to watch, here it is:

At the very start, they used a picture of UCLA to represent "education." Undoubtedly, Bruins around the world are thrilled to be associated with Trump's policies in that area.

The advantage that town halls have over debates is that the questions are ostensibly being asked by actual voters, and so aren't necessarily the usual debate-host palaver. And indeed, the folks who asked questions during the event asked some really good ones. The disadvantage to town halls is that they suffer from a particularly acute version of the "no pushback" problem. The candidate on stage can say anything they want, and if the question did not get answered, then... oh, well.

Here is an example of both of these things. The questioners all posed their inquiries in Spanish, and were all clearly native speakers of the language. That means that at least some of them are immigrants of recent vintage, perhaps even undocumented immigrants. These would be the same people that Trump villainizes on a daily basis, and promises to expel from the country if he becomes president again. The second question of the evening came from a farmer named Jorge Velasquez, and he asked one of the (several) obvious questions:

Good evening, President Trump. For many years, I have worked with these hands, hunched over picking strawberries and cutting broccoli. This tough job is mainly done by undocumented people. If you deport to [sic] these people, who would do that job and what price would we pay for food?

Here was Trump's rambling answer:

So the problem we have is we had people coming in under my administration, and they were coming in legally. They were coming in through a system that we had, which was great, because I'm the best thing that ever happened to farmers, you know that. I was great.

Farmers are doing very badly right now, very, very badly, under this administration. Under my administration, farmers did very well. We have to have a lot of people come into our country. We just want them to come in legally through a system, because they've released hundreds of thousands of people that are murderers, drug dealers, terrorists. They're coming in totally... Nobody knows who they are, where they come from, and the people that are most against it are the Hispanic people. They are totally against it, what's happened.

The other thing I can say is that a lot of the jobs that you have and that other people have are being taken by these people that are coming in, and the African American population and the Hispanic population in particular are losing jobs now because millions of people are coming in.

So they're coming in, but they're also coming in largely, and tremendous numbers coming in out of mental institutions. They're emptying out mental institutions. They're emptying out insane asylums. That's a step above a mental institution. Worse, bigger, bigger problems, bigger problem people. They're emptying out jails. The jails are being led into our country from Venezuela. But not just South America, from all over the world they're being led in, from jails, from... Nobody's ever seen anything like it. The jail population throughout the world has come way down, and it's all coming into the United States of America.

So we want workers and we want them to come in, but they have to come in legally. They have to love our country. They have to love you, love our people. The problem with this administration is they've totally lost control. It's the worst president and the worst vice president that we've ever had in this country, what they have done to our country in terms of hurting it.

We will make four observations: (1) It's a semi-word salad, (2) it's full of lies, (3) it misrepresents Trump's actual position, and (4) he doesn't come close to answering the question. All of this is par for the course.

In other words, like the Fox event earlier in the day, the Univision town hall was pretty much useless. Trump was able to deliver his talking points, and that was pretty much that. And if you don't believe us, well, the former president of Univision, Joaquin Blaya, said the same thing, describing the event as a "propaganda project" and an "infomercial."

We will note that Trump seemed more mentally sharp, and generally more coherent, than during his Bloomberg interview or during the Donald Trump Autumn Dance Party earlier this week. Maybe he does better when he doesn't feel defensive. Maybe it has to do with sleep, or medication, or something else. Maybe it just depends on the day. In any event, while his answers were unsubstantive, he did work the crowd very effectively, and even managed to deliver a couple of lines that were joke-adjacent, and got a decent laugh from the audience.

That said, Trump's usual braggadocio was on display, and his very first remark was about how great his numbers are, and how he always sets records. That definitely was not true on Wednesday. Harris' appearance on Fox drew 8.5 million viewers, which is a lot for cable news, and more than tripled the usual 2.5 million who tune in to see Baier. Meanwhile, Trump's Fox hit drew 3 million, while his Univision appearance drew less than a million. So, in the only metric he really cares about, he lost bigly. (Z)

Yahya Sinwar Is Dead

Yahya Sinwar, the de facto leader of Hamas for the past 7 years, was killed late Wednesday. This was not an Osama bin Laden-style special ops situation; Israeli soldiers from the Bislach Brigade were conducting operations in the Tal El Sultan area of southern Gaza, engaged a handful of enemy combatants, and learned, to their surprise, that they had dealt a mortal blow to Sinwar. His identity has since been confirmed with both DNA tests and dental records.

Whatever position one takes on the Palestinian people and their cause, there is little to mourn when it comes to Sinwar's passing. He was a vicious man who embraced violence, and who was willing to sacrifice innocent Israelis AND innocent Palestinians in service of his agenda. He was also a major obstacle toward peace in Gaza, inasmuch as he saw continued combat and continued violence as useful in service of both his personal goals and the goals of the Palestinian people, as he perceived them. There are reports that even many Palestinians are relieved that he is gone; we see no reason to doubt this.

So, does that mean peace might come to Israel? Certainly, Joe Biden hopes so. He congratulated the Israeli government on eliminating Sinwar, and declared that now is the time to get serious about peace talks. Kamala Harris said very nearly the same thing.

And there may indeed be reason for optimism. Sinwar was a very important symbol, on both sides of the conflict. For many in Israel, and in particular for many hardliners in the Israeli government, a peace agreement that left Sinwar in power was simply inconceivable. To make use of a parallel we've already deployed once, it would be like a U.S. president trying to reach a peace deal with bin Laden. Not gonna happen, politically impossible.

That said, don't break out your John Lennon records, so you can play "Give Peace a Chance," quite yet. First, it will take some amount of time for Hamas' newly developed leadership vacuum to be filled. Exactly what kind of person fills it will matter a lot. And even if the person/people who replace Sinwar are more open to a resolution, it will take time to hammer out any sort of deal. In particular, it would take a miracle for there to be some sort of serious move toward a cease fire before the U.S. presidential election. Although that IS the part of the world that is known for miracles (it's in the brochures), and it could be that even a little progress toward peace will be enough to influence the election. You never know.

It is also the case that while the specific issue of Palestinian suffering might recede, Israeli combat operations will not, not for a while. The government there has every intention of maintaining a substantial presence in Gaza for a long time. And, of course, the war against Hezbollah will continue, largely independent of what happens with Hamas and Gaza. So, while the passing of Sinwar is a step in the right direction, it's only one of many that are yet to come. (Z)

Israel, U.S. Nearing Consensus on Iran Retaliation, Part II

The other factor, when it comes to how events unfold in Israel, is Iran. Hezbollah and Hamas are both proxies for the Iranian government, and receive money and other support from the Iranians. So, as long as Iran wants a war in Israel, Iran is likely to get a war in Israel.

Last week, we had an item about how Israel was carefully planning its response to the missile attack that Iran had directly launched against them. The Biden administration was a part of this process, trying to moderate the Israeli response in hopes of preventing a much larger war from breaking out in the Middle East.

Reportedly, the Israeli response is ready to go. Not too much is known about it, for obvious reasons, but Benjamin Netanyahu has assured Joe Biden that the targets will be military, and not Iran's oil or nuclear facilities. An attack on the oil would likely send gas prices skyrocketing, which is not something the White House wants right before an election. And an attack on the nuclear plants would potentially unleash vast devastation, harming innocent civilians within, and likely beyond, Iran's borders. Even the Russians have weighed in on that particular issue, telling Israel they better not try it, at risk of facing Russian wrath.

In that piece last week, we also had some commentary on the geopolitics of the Middle East, courtesy of reader P.B. in St. Louis. There was much positive response to that. For example, here's reader M.A.A. in New York City, NY: "This is the sort of informed geopolitical commentary I absolutely live for. The more P.B. is willing to write in with these sorts of perspective pieces, the happier I will be." We tend to agree, particularly with subjects so far removed from our areas of expertise.

That said, there was also much critical commentary. So, we selected one of those that hit on most of the points being raised, and we sent it to P.B. for a response. Here's the reader letter we chose, from O.E. in Greenville, SC:

I have been reading your site for a while, and no commenter has upset me more than P.B.'s recent letter. It is quite upsetting in many ways, both for inaccuracies, and for what the writer appears to be comfortable with.

First, the author wishes to blame many foreign conflicts on Russia, implying that Russia created South Ossetia and Abkhazia as puppet regimes from Georgia, and that Russia "invaded" Moldova to prop up Transnistria. In fact, all three nations declared their independence from both the Soviet Union and the aforementioned former Soviet republics in 1990. Further, any Russian military presence in those regions was agreed to by both Moldova (with the encouragement of Victor Yuschenko of Ukraine) and Georgia (prior to Georgia launching the South Ossetia war).

Second, the author describes Iran as seeking to destabilize Syria. In fact, Iranian and Russian forces led the way in targeting the so-called Islamic State, and helped prevent Syria and Kurdistan from falling into the tender mercies of Daesh.

Thirdly, contrary to the author's estimates, Russia continues to advance in Ukraine. Any Russian costs from sanctions, seizures, and military losses is exceeded by the costs of increased Western military spending, Western businesses in Russia being seized or sold to Russians, increased costs to Westerners from loss of access to Russian resources, and the loss of Ukrainian citizens, be it to war, leaving for the West, or leaving to join Russia.

What is most shocking is the author's praise for the recent ethnic cleansing of Artsakh. Like the aforementioned regions, Artsakh declared their independence in 1990. Unfortunately, Azerbaijan sought to retake the territory, and Artsakh was not able to obtain any outside support. Almost all the residents have fled to Armenia proper, and their long history is under threat, with some referring to it as a second Armenian genocide.

I realize my foreign policy views may not match many of the posters here. I may not have much knowledge of foreign policy, and my education may be less than P.B.'s, but I do not share P.B.'s enthusiastic views on foreign policy, and I find P.B.'s support for the unambiguous ethnic cleansing in Artsakh to be even more disturbing than the views expressed on other topics.

And here is the response from P.B.:

The goal of my letter last week was to outline the thinking of the Biden administration and the majority of the U.S. foreign policy community. The intent was to describe the situation from a U.S.-centric point of view and not to either endorse that point of view as the objective truth, or approve of all actions taken by the U.S. and pro-U.S. entities.

The letter from O.E. in Greenville is a very helpful counterpoint to that description. The author quite effectively describes the same situation from a Russian-centric point of view, and both of our descriptions, taken together, show how conflict almost inevitably arises if states focus primarily on pursuing their geopolitical interests (which most states do). Again, this is not intended as an endorsement of states behaving in this way, just a description of the fact that currently, that is what most states do. Discussing potential alternatives and ways to change this status quo is outside the scope of this letter.

Most of the criticisms that O.E. raises relate to various frozen or semi-frozen conflicts in the Russian/post-Soviet periphery. Modern Russia, like the Soviet Union before it, behaves very much as a continuation of the Russian Empire. That is, it is a large territory, politically centered around and controlled by Moscow and the surrounding regions where ethnic Russians are a majority. When the Russian Empire collapsed in 1917, many of these peripheral regions gained independence from Russia, but were eventually reintegrated into the Soviet Union, largely as a result of World War II. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, many of these regions again regained their independence. Vladimir Putin and his circle of Russian leadership view this disintegration of empire as a political and economic catastrophe, with the Russian President stating in 2005: "Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself."

That's the general geopolitical view of Russian leadership at this time. Now on to the specific criticisms raised by O.E.:

First, the author wishes to blame many foreign conflicts on Russia, implying that Russia created South Ossetia and Abkhazia as puppet regimes from Georgia, and that Russia "invaded" Moldova to prop up Transnistria. In fact, all three nations declared their independence from both the Soviet Union and the aforementioned former Soviet republics in 1990.

O.E. is 100% correct that these three regions declared independence in the early 1990s as part of the breakup of the Soviet Union. Whether or not Russia invaded to create puppet regimes, or merely acted to support the self-determination of people in these regions, definitely depends on one's point of view. I gave the rough perspective of the U.S. government, and O.E. gave the rough perspective of the Russian government. It is important to point out that a number of other regions declared independence in the same timeframe, and only the pro-Russian movements were supported by the Russian military, while others (such as Chechnya) were violently suppressed.

Further, any Russian military presence in those regions was agreed to by both Moldova (with the encouragement of Victor Yuschenko of Ukraine) and Georgia (prior to Georgia launching the South Ossetia war).

I definitely disagree with this characterization of the situation. A Russian military presence only arose in those regions as a result of their intervention in various wars (the 1990 Transnistria War, the 1991 South Ossetia War, the 1992 War in Abkhazia, and the 2008 Russo-Georgian War), and to say that their presence was agreed to in those cases is misleading at best—Moldova and Georgia both lost those wars, and as a result were in no position to dispute the presence of Russian troops.

Second, the author describes Iran as seeking to destabilize Syria. In fact, Iranian and Russian forces led the way in targeting the so-called Islamic State, and helped prevent Syria and Kurdistan from falling into the tender mercies of Daesh.

To be more accurate with my statements, Iran funds and maintains allied militias in Syria with the intent to maintain influence in that country and prevent the formation of a strong government that could oppose Iranian influence. It is certainly true that Iran and Russia helped to target and defeat Daesh (known more commonly in the west as the Islamic State), but that is an unusual situation—Daesh is enemies of everyone and friends to none, and I wouldn't agree that Russia and Iran "led the way" against them. Significant contributions were made by the U.S., the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, the Iraqi government, and Turkey in a complicated and dramatic "the enemy of my enemy is my reluctant ally" situation.

Thirdly, contrary to the author's estimates, Russia continues to advance in Ukraine. Any Russian costs from sanctions, seizures, and military losses is exceeded by the costs of increased Western military spending, Western businesses in Russia being seized or sold to Russians, increased costs to Westerners from loss of access to Russian resources, and the loss of Ukrainian citizens, be it to war, leaving for the West, or leaving to join Russia.

Of all of O.E.'s comments, this comes the closest to parroting Russian propaganda. It is difficult to know exactly what is going on with the Russian economy, but their non-military economy has certainly contracted significantly, their hydrocarbon exports are also down significantly (in both volume and value) from 2022 levels, and somewhere between several hundred thousand and one million Russians, generally skewing well-educated, have left Russia since the start of the Ukraine War. Regarding the ongoing war itself, while there are minor shifts in the front line (including a recent Ukrainian invasion of the Russian Kursk region), the area under control by both sides has barely changed in over a year. As to the costs to the West, they are certainly less than the costs of directly waging a war against Russia, and certainly less than the costs in equipment and human lives being paid by both Russia and Ukraine. Whether the U.S. policy of continued but limited support to Ukraine is the best policy for the U.S. or Ukraine is certainly an open question, but it is also certainly not a benefit to Russia.

What is most shocking is the author's praise for the recent ethnic cleansing of Artsakh. Like the aforementioned regions, Artsakh declared their independence in 1990. Unfortunately, Azerbaijan sought to retake the territory, and Artsakh was not able to obtain any outside support. Almost all the residents have fled to Armenia proper, and their long history is under threat, with some referring to it as a second Armenian genocide.

To be perfectly clear, the recent ethnic cleansing of Artsakh is horrific. Over 100,000 ethnic Armenians were forced to leave their homes and move to Armenia, which may or may not technically constitute genocide but is definitely a type of ethnic cleansing. The situation, however, is more complicated than O.E. implies.

As a quick rundown of the situation, before and during the breakup of the Soviet Union, Armenia and Azerbaijan fought the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. The result was an Armenian victory, resulting in Armenian control of both Nagorno-Karabakh (the Armenian-majority enclave within the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan), as well as approximately 9% of Azeri territory outside of Nagorno-Karabakh. The peace deal, brokered by Russia, saw the freezing of the conflict in a way that helped maintain Russian influence over both countries. In 2020, Azerbaijan launched the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War and defeated Armenia, taking back all of the territory outside Nagorno-Karabakh as well as around 40% of the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave. Again, a peace agreement was negotiated by Russia, and Russian troops were stationed in the region to maintain it. After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Azerbaijan saw an opportunity to launch the Third Nagorno-Karabakh War and conquer the remaining territory.

This series of wars between Armenia and Azerbaijan resulted in terrible atrocities on both sides, and I wish that they received a fraction of the attention in the West that the Israel-Hamas war is receiving. It seems that most western countries don't especially care about the situation, perhaps because the end result is that both countries now, for the first time, maintain sovereignty within (and only within) their internationally recognized borders. However, from a geopolitical perspective, the result is certainly a loss for Russia (and to a lesser extent, Iran).

Thanks to both of you for your contributions. We will point out to readers that we do this not as one of those point-counterpoint pieces, which seem a bit gimmicky to us, but as academics, in the spirit of scholarly debate. (Z)

Dueling Billionaires: Cuban, Musk on the Campaign Trail

We had an item yesterday about the three billionaires—Elon Musk, Richard Uihlein and Miriam Adelson—who are substantially funding Donald Trump's presidential campaign. There were a couple of related news stories yesterday worth noting as a follow up.

To start, the Trumpublicans might have some billionaires on their side, but so too do the Democrats. Indeed, there are probably more billionaire Democrats than billionaire Republicans. Among those billionaire Democrats is Mark Cuban, who actually leans somewhat libertarian, but who thoroughly despises Donald Trump. There's been no indication that Cuban is writing fat checks to Democratic PACs, but he is campaigning with Kamala Harris this week. Perhaps more importantly, he is serving as a media surrogate, and as a liaison to the business world, including to groups like Venture Capitalists for Kamala and Business Leaders for Harris. Interestingly, and we would not have guessed this, Cuban is particularly popular with... Latinos, especially Latinos over 50 (even though Cuban is not a Latino—his ancestors were Russian and Eastern European Jews, but not everyone knows that).

Meanwhile, Musk is both campaigning AND donating. The problem here is that, like his friend Trump, he doesn't care much about what the law says. As readers will likely know, Musk was offering $47 incentives to anyone who signed up a new voter. That's actually legal because it doesn't discriminate on the basis of party (or any other factor). However, from that, Musk moved on to a new scheme, where he gives out tickets to the rallies he's holding, but ONLY to people who sign a petition affirming that: (1) they support "free speech," (2) they support the right to bear arms, and (3) they have already voted in Pennsylvania.

The problem here is that the first two requirements are going to generate a subset of the population that skews Republican/Trumpy. Meanwhile, the third requirement is going to encourage those people to hurry up and cast their ballot, so they can attend a Musk speech/appearance. Tickets to a Musk speech/appearance have some cash value (not to us, but to many people), and so, as election law expert Rick Hasen points out, Musk is either buying votes, or coming dangerously close to doing so. Buying votes is, of course, illegal.

Readers may recall an item we wrote about a month ago, about Ben and Jerry giving out free ice cream to registered voters. Hasen actually made this same observation back then, and so Ben and Jerry started giving out free ice cream to everyone. Similarly, Musk can solve this potential legal problem by dropping the entry requirements, and offering the tickets on a first come, first served basis. Given that he is a stubborn man who tends to think he's above the law, we are not holding our breath.

And since we are on the subject anyhow, and since we imagine most folks could use a pick-me-up at the end of the workweek, how about another ten Donald Trump-Elon Musk band names?

• B.M. in Medford, MA: The Grifters (The Drifters)
  
  
• J.A. in Puerto Armuelles, Panama: Felonious Bunk (Thelonious Monk)
  
  
• A.B. in Huntington, VT: Dunning-Kruger Overdrive (Bachman Turner Overdrive)
  
  
• A.N. in Portland, OR: They Might Be Giant A**holes (They Might Be Giants)
  
  
• E.G. in Rosemount, MN: The Pixie Di**s (The Dixie Chicks)
  
  
• A.R. in Albany, OR: Yo La Mango (Yo La Tengo)
  
  
• C.E. in San Francisco, CA: Mötley Coüp (Mötley Crüe)
  
  
• J.B. in Mitchell, ON, Canada: The Tragically Un-hip (The Tragically Hip)
  
  
• N.K. in San Jose, CA: Creepy Confederate Revival (Creedence Clearwater Revival)
  
  
• D.B. in Washington, DC: Gnashing Bumpkins (Smashing Pumpkins)

Some of these were submitted by multiple readers; these just happen to be the first of each we read. Anyhow, look for another installment next week. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: The GRASS Routine

For last week's headline theme, we gave the hint "if you look carefully we think you'll be OK," while also noting that we could not exactly say whether the theme involved one word or many from the various headlines. We followed that with "Oh, and you need another hint for the headline theme? WTF?"

And now, the answer, courtesy of reader J.N. in Zionsville, IN:

This week's headlines all feature acronyms.

• Tim Walz: Laser Focused—LASER (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation).
• Mad Money: FEC Gives the Republicans an Out—FEC (Federal Election Commission)
• Trump Campaign: The Wrong States Are on the Radar—RADAR (Radio Detection and Ranging)
• Media Matters: Harris Agrees to CNN Town Hall; Trump Rages—CNN (Cable News Network)
• It's Not Just Our Imagination (or Yours), Part II: NYT, WaPo, Others Really Are Downplaying Trump Legal Woes—NYT (The New York Times) and WaPo (The Washington Post)
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Spam Lamm—SPAM (Spiced Ham)
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Not a High-IQ Individual, We Suspect—IQ (Intelligence Quotient)
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Not Even in the Same Zip Code—ZIP (Zone Improvement Plan)

However, is OK (per your clue) an acronym? Not according to the AI response on Google. But I remember some tortured version of the history that's initializing "oll korrect." Whatever... the mind reels.

In answer to the question, the "oll korrect" etymology has achieved wide enough acceptance that it's in the Oxford English Dictionary. That's good enough for us, especially since the second most plausible theory is that it's short for "Old Kinderhook." As to the headline of this item, GRASS stands for "Given, Required, Analysis, Solution, and Statement" (if you're a mathematician) or "Growth factors, Retinoid, Antioxidants, Serum and Specialty, and SPF" (if you are concerned with skincare). We trust we do not need to explain what "WTF," from Saturday's hint, stands for.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

G.M.K. In Mishawaka, IN M.R. in Milford, CT R.D. in Cheshire, CT J.C. in Daytona Beach, FL M.J. in Oakdale, MN P.R. in Böblingen, Germany J.H. in Boston, MA J.N. in Zionsville D.H. in Leesburg, AL R.W. in Bensenville, IL T.T. in Conway, AR T.M. in New York City, NY M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO M.F. in Goshen, KY I.H. in Washington, DC J.F. in Fayetteville, NC J.D. in Indianapolis, IN J.M. in Eagle Mills, NY N.H. in London, England, UK B.G. in Castle Rock, CO M.Z. in Sharon, MA T.P. in Kings Park, NY G.N. in Philadelphia, PA D.L. in Uslar, Germany M.S. in Canton, NY

M.R. in Concord, MA E.B. in Hannover, Germany T.M. in Westerville, OH B.J.L in Ann Arbor, MI R.H. in West Grove, PA B.M. in Battle Creek, MI M.M. in Dunellen, NJ J.S. in Jacksonville, FL A.C. in Kingston, MA J.B. in Kungsbacka, Sweden M.B. in Albany, NY J.B. in Montgomery, IL M.T. in Simpsonville, SC K.H. in Maryville, TN P.F. in Las Vegas, NV J.H. in Portland, OR J.D.W. in Baltimore, MD E.B. in Avon, IN J.L.G. in Boston, MA K.E. in Peoria, IL D.M. in Austin, TX B.G. in Atlantic Highlands, NJ C.F. in Miami, FL J.M. in Silver Spring, MD D.S. in Fort Collins, CO

As to this week's theme, the two Middle East items are not part of it. People are dying there. The theme depends on one word in each of the other headlines, and is in the Trivial Pursuit category "Language." For a hint, we will tell you we had one other item planned for today, and had to hold it because we're running very late and this posting is already very long. The hint is the headline we WOULD have used: "PollWatch 2024, Part IV: Examining the Senate Sausage."

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "October 18 headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Judge Decides to Crack Down on DeSantis

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is a lousy politician and an even worse human being. For folks who write a political blog, like we do, that's two strikes and you're out. We don't need to hide the fact that we hold him in very low esteem.

Last week, we had an item about the latest expression of his fascistic impulses. To review, he wants to defeat the Florida abortion amendment. Consequently, he does not like commercials that advocate for the amendment. And he decided to abuse his powers to try to shut the commercials down, having his hacky surgeon general, the vaccine quack Joseph Ladapo, send letters threatening to prosecute stations that dared air such ads.

It should come as no surprise that, in a state where the executive branch is threatening to jail its opponents, the recipients of the letters headed straight to court for relief. And yesterday, Judge Mark Walker, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, issued a restraining order in which he smacked DeSantis upside the head. The Judge writes:

Plaintiff's argument is correct. While Defendant Ladapo refuses to even agree with this simple fact, Plaintiff's political advertisement is political speech—speech at the core of the First Amendment. And just this year, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the bedrock principle that the government cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly by threatening third parties with legal sanctions to censor speech it disfavors. The government cannot excuse its indirect censorship of political speech simply by declaring the disfavored speech is "false."

Truth be told, this case was enough a slam dunk that we, with no law schooling in our background whatsoever, could have written the decision.

That said, this story didn't become the schadenfreude story of the week just because DeSantis lost (as much as that helps). No, it's the snark that the obviously irritated judge worked into his ruling, just in case the folks running the Sunshine State did not grasp his meaning: "To keep it simple for the State of Florida: it's the First Amendment, stupid." Once we saw that, there was no way this wasn't going to be the pick for this space.

Incidentally, it's not just Walker who is offended by DeSantis' and Ladapo's disregard for the Bill of Rights. John Wilson was the top lawyer for the Florida Department of Health, and thus the person responsible for weighing in on the legality of the strong-arm tactics being pursued by the Governor and the Surgeon General. Yesterday, he quit. His letter of resignation is very diplomatic, but it's not too hard to read between the lines and figure out that while he's anti-choice, he's also anti-abuse of government power.

And so, once again, Ron DeSantis ends up with egg on his face—and we can't think of a better place for it. Though he better be careful, or it will drip on those handsome white boots of his. We understand that eggs make a person's lifts extra slippery. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: 90%? Holy Smokes!

"Back in St. Olaf..." everybody votes, apparently.

Despite what the show The Golden Girls might have you believe, there is no small town in Minnesota that is called St. Olaf and is full of really stupid people. There is, however, a St. Olaf College, and it's apparently full of really smart people. People who appreciate the power of the franchise, and the importance of exercising it.

You see, there is a pro-voting activist group (one that REALLY should have a banner on our site, and soon will) called All In: Campus Democracy Challenge (AICDC). Their purpose is to help and encourage college students to get their ballots cast. AICDC has signed up 1,080 institutions, across all 50 states and Washington, DC, with a combined enrollment of over 10 million students. As you can tell, the group is really good at keeping records and statistics.

In 2020, St. Olaf College topped the list of most-engaged schools, with a remarkable 87.6% turnout rate among its student body. Characteristically, given that they are Minnesotans, the folks at St. Olaf are modest about that accomplishment. They explain that it really helps to be in Minnesota, which works very hard to allow people to vote, and which has, in fact, led the nation in turnout in each of the last three presidential elections.

Undoubtedly, it does help to be in a state that is friendly to voting, and that is friendly to student voting, in contrast to states that work hard to try to keep students from voting (ahem, Texas). However, in their modesty, the St. Olafians (is that the correct demonym?) are neglecting to mention the school's very well-established and well-supported election ambassador program. Over 100 student volunteers, who are connected to all of the various student groups and constituencies on campus, work in a nonpartisan fashion to keep their fellow students informed and engaged. They provide the paperwork needed to register to vote, they set up tables in high-traffic campus spaces and answer questions, they remind people about due dates, and the like.

And, as impressive as that 87.6% turnout in 2020 is, student leaders at St. Olaf think they can do better, and have a target of 90% this year. It's also worth noting that AICDC recognizes many different university accomplishments; in addition to St. Olaf's "highest voting rate," they also handed out awards for "highest registration rate" (Denison University), "most improved voting rate" (Holy Cross), "most improved registration rate" (Wheaton College), and a bunch of others. The group also gives the same awards to various sub-categories of colleges, including JuCos, HBCUs, private schools, and public schools. In total, more than two dozen schools were honored for their good work in 2020.

And so, kudos to AICDC, and kudos to St. Olaf College (and all the other awardees). Uff da! (which, as fans know, is used as a toast in The Golden Girls, even if it's an expression of dismay in some corners of the real world).

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

If you look at the map above, our poll-crunching suggests that Pennsylvania will go one direction, Wisconsin the other, and who knows about Michigan. You know the last time those three states did not all vote the same? 1988. We are therefore somewhat skeptical that the polls are right, at least at the moment. (Z)

State	Kamala Harris	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	48%	51%	Oct 11	Oct 16	YouGov
Arizona	49%	48%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult
Georgia	48%	49%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult
Maryland	64%	31%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult
Michigan	49%	47%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult
North Carolina	48%	49%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult
New Hampshire	50%	41%	Oct 02	Oct 08	U. of Mass.
Nevada	49%	45%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult
Ohio	45%	52%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult
Pennsylvania	46%	45%	Oct 02	Oct 09	U. of Mass.
Pennsylvania	49%	48%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult
Texas	46%	50%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult
Utah	39%	54%	Sep 27	Sep 28	PPP
Washington	57%	32%	Oct 08	Oct 12	Elway Research
Wisconsin	47%	48%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult

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

Today's Senate Polls

When Jack Frost was nipping at his nose, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) fled to Cancun. We wonder where he goes when Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX) is nipping at his heels. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	Ruben Gallego	52%	Kari Lake	40%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult
Arizona	Ruben Gallego	54%	Kari Lake	45%	Oct 11	Oct 16	YouGov
Maryland	Angela Alsobrooks	51%	Larry Hogan	38%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult
Michigan	Elissa Slotkin	48%	Mike Rogers	41%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult
Nevada	Jacky Rosen*	52%	Sam Brown	37%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult
Ohio	Sherrod Brown*	46%	Bernie Moreno	47%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult
Pennsylvania	Bob Casey*	48%	David McCormick	39%	Oct 02	Oct 09	U. of Mass.
Pennsylvania	Bob Casey*	49%	David McCormick	41%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult
Texas	Colin Allred	45%	Ted Cruz*	46%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult
Wisconsin	Tammy Baldwin*	49%	Eric Hovde	44%	Oct 06	Oct 15	Morning Consult

* 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