Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: NY
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: GA PA
Today's the Day
Kamala Harris has a big rally scheduled for tonight in Philadelphia, and then a jam-packed campaign schedule for the rest of the week. For these reasons, it is expected that she will announce her choice of running mate today, and then the full Democratic ticket will debut at the event tonight. Indeed, the odds are good that by the time you read this, the pick will already be publicly known.
Does the choice of running mate really matter? This is a question of much interest to historians, political scientists, pundits, psephologists, political advisers and many others. It is also virtually impossible to answer with any certainty. A presidential campaign, and a presidential election, are complicated things with many moving parts. Trying to tease out the impact of any one part of the equation is not dissimilar to searching for a needle in a haystack. The best technique, such as it is, is to make comparisons across elections. For example, if Ronald Reagan chooses a veteran as his running mate (which he did), and the next three Republican presidential nominees go with a non-veteran (which they did), then maybe you can compare the share of the veteran vote for Reagan with the share of the veteran vote for the three Republicans after Reagan, and see if George H.W. Bush helped with that constituency.
This sounds easy enough, but it comes with all kinds of complications. First, depending on the available exit polls, you might not be able to figure out exactly how veterans voted. On top of that, while the Reagan ticket had a veteran as VP (and as P, for that matter), the Bush 41 and John McCain tickets had veterans at the very top of the ticket. So, how do you tease out the effect that VP-candidate Bush had with veteran voters in 1980 and 1984? The answer is: you basically don't. If we want to put it in somewhat scientific terms, there are far too many variables in presidential elections and far too few trials.
This said, we're going to try to answer as best we can. There are, broadly speaking, three ways that a VP candidate might affect a ticket. The first of these is their impact, or their potential impact, across the board. They could add a point or two in the polls, or they could cost a point or two (or more), just based on who they are. You can look pretty long and hard to try to find a clear example of a VP in this category, and when you do, the examples almost always involve running mates who had a negative impact, and cost their ticket a point or two. J.D. Vance might well be one of those (more on him below). Because Vance has such a long and problematic media trail, he could drive some Democrats to the polls who might not otherwise vote. And because Donald Trump is neither young nor healthy, Vance could drive some Republicans or independents away from the Republican ticket, for fear that he might get real power.
The second way a VP can potentially shape a race is to attract some specific constituency. This is the best-known potential impact of a running mate; maybe they can bring in some women voters, or some Black voters, or they can drag their state into their party's column. When it comes to attracting various interest groups, the scholarship has no great answer. Again, for the reasons we outline above, it's too tough to isolate in a satisfactory fashion. Further, when you speak of the constituencies that tend to be included in today's VP discussions, well, there have been a grand total of three women VP candidates, along with two Catholics, one person of color, one Jew and zero openly LGBTQ people. So, there's virtually no data here when it comes to running mates with those profiles.
As to a VP bringing their state into the fold, the effect is weak, but it does exist. If the VP is popular in their home state, and if their home state is very, very close, then it is at least possible that the VP can make the difference. The textbook example here is Lyndon B. Johnson and Texas in 1960; that one was decided by 46,257 votes, and Johnson almost certainly brought that many Texas votes to the ticket (possibly legitimately, possibly not-so-legitimately). For what it is worth, Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) is very popular in his home state, which was decided by 80,555 votes in 2020; Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN) is very popular in his home state, which was decided by 233,012 votes in 2020; Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) is popular in his home state, which was decided by 10,457 votes in 2020; and Vance is not terribly popular in his home state, which was decided by 475,669 votes in 2020. What it boils down to is that it is at least possible that Shapiro or Kelly could bring their home states along with them, if they are tapped. Walz and Vance, almost certainly not.
The third way a VP candidate can matter is as a reflection on their running mate. That is to say, picking a VP is not only the first major decision a presidential candidate makes, it's also an important signal of what kind of campaign they want to run and, very possibly, the kind of political program they want to implement. Though it is impossible to isolate from other factors, this is nonetheless unquestionably the most important impact the VP has on the ticket.
There is some overlap here with the previous categories, particularly the first one. For example, Sarah Palin might seem like an example for group one—people voted against the McCain-Palin ticket because they were voting against her. And there probably was some of that, since the VP is one heartbeat away from the presidency, and McCain was a candidate with a long history of health problems. However, the evidence suggests that the bigger problem with Palin was what her selection said about McCain. It utterly undercut his image as a maverick and someone willing to work across the aisle, and painted him as a person willing to kowtow to the extreme elements in his party.
Exactly where J.D. Vance fits is an interesting question. Is the reaction to him because of him, and the fact that he might become president one day (or, even if he doesn't, that he might exert influence over a second Trump administration)? Or is the reaction to him really a reaction to Trump, with the Vance pick a reminder of how the former president conducts his business (i.e., from the gut, without much care or thought)? Probably some of both.
We have absolutely no doubt that whatever other impacts Kamala Harris' running mate will have, they will have an impact in this area. Thanks to the unique nature of her rise to "nominee" status, this decision is the first big thing that many voters will "know" about her candidacy. It is, in effect, a substitute for the Democratic primary. If Harris picks well, she could absolutely pick up a point or two in the polls, and see that stick. If she picks poorly, she could absolutely lose a point or two. The good news for her is that Democratic (and all anti-Trump) voters appear to be eager to remain unified. So, she's probably got a bigger margin for error than is normally the case.
In short, we think Harris' pick does matter, at least some. And it could matter a lot. In fact, under the circumstances, it might prove to be the most important VP pick, for electoral purposes, since Harry S. Truman in 1944. So, who is it gonna be? Well, here is how the readers of Electoral-Vote.com have the top five:
| Candidate | Odds |
| Mark Kelly | 28% |
| Tim Walz | 18% |
| Josh Shapiro | 16% |
| Pate Buttigieg | 14% |
| Andy Beshear | 13% |
Obviously, most of these votes were cast last week, without benefit of the latest information.
The betting markets see things a little differently. Here are the top five candidates, with implied odds, according to PredictIt:
| Candidate | Odds |
| Josh Shapiro | 56% |
| Tim Walz | 37% |
| Mark Kelly | 4% |
| Andy Beshear | 2% |
| Pate Buttigieg | 1% |
The sixth-most-likely candidate, according to PredictIt? That would be... Kamala Harris. Presumably, that is an after-effect of all the money wagered on her when she was the heavy favorite to be VP. These days, her actual odds of being the Democrats' VP candidate have got to be pretty close to the odds of J.D. Vance being the Democrats' VP candidate. What conceivable sequence of events could knock her out of the #1 slot without knocking her entirely off the ticket?
Meanwhile, if you prefer the rumor-mill approach, well, the scuttlebutt is that Harris has narrowed it down to Shapiro or Walz, with Shapiro the frontrunner. Soon, all will be known. (Z)
What Not To Do, VP Edition
We think that a presidential candidate's running mate matters, at least a little (see above). But if you ask the two guys on the current Republican ticket, they don't agree. Not since Sarah Palin ran for vice president has any candidate for that office taken as much flak as J.D. Vance has. It's probably because Vance wasn't vetted thoroughly. Donald Trump just liked the way he was the ultimate toady, and went with him. Trump is trying to defend himself by saying, in so many words, "Veep, schmeep. Who cares?"
Vance, for his part, said: "My attitude is, it doesn't really matter, as much as this hits my ego. People are going to vote primarily for Donald Trump or for Kamala Harris. That's the way these things go." Denigrating the office you are running for is, well, weird. Normally, VPs don't pi** on the bucket of warm pi** until they've been sworn in and have experienced how little power they really have (in most administrations).
Vice presidential candidates are like doctors. Their first rule is: Do no harm. Vance has done quite a bit of harm already. Somebody should have told him that childless cat ladies are allowed to vote and kids have no vote. Maybe that will be different after a second Trump administration, but in November the cat ladies can vote, so insulting them probably doesn't fall in the category of "do no harm." His characterization of pregnancies resulting from rape as "inconvenient" is probably not going to win a lot of votes from women who have been raped, or from their family members.
At the NABJ conference last week, Trump was asked whether Vance was ready to be president on Day 1. Trump refused to answer. Ooops. When Vance was asked about potential Democratic veep nominee Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA), Vance said: "I've seen a lot of clips of him talk, and he talks like Barack Obama." Whoa. Is that a put-down or a compliment? Obama is widely seen as one of the best orators since William Jennings Bryan or Abraham Lincoln. Shapiro didn't respond to Vance with a brilliant speech. Instead, he just called Vance's remark weird. If Kamala Harris wins in November, the Merriam-Webster's word of the year is going to be "weird," taking over from 2023 word of the year, "authentic."
Vance is trying to fight back against the Democrats' use of "weird" to describe him and his running mate. At a rally over the weekend, the Ohioan went on a Trump-style rant:
Kamala Harris says we're weird. Well, Kamala. I'm glad you brought that up. Let's talk about some things that are weird.
We think it's weird that Democrats want to put sexually explicit books in toddlers libraries. We think it's weird that the far left wants to allow biological males to beat the living crap out of women in boxing. We think it's weird for a presidential candidate to bail convicted rapists and murderers out of prison, and that's what Kamala Harris did.
And I think it's especially weird when Kamala Harris comes to Atlanta, I believe came here to this arena. Kamala Harris comes to Atlanta and talks with a fake southern accent. Even though she grew up in Canada. You can't make it up. That's pretty weird. Go watch the clip.
She sounded like a southern belle. Even though she grew up in Vancouver. It doesn't make any sense. But on November 5th, she can go back to using her San Francisco accent. Because we're going to send her packing and we're going to reelect Donald J. Trump.
In our view, this is a terribly ineffective response. First of all, as noted, it is a rant. It comes off as the result of a recipe that calls for a lengthy listing of right-wing red-meat grievances, topped with a light dusting of weirds. That gives the impression of a man whose fee-fees are hurt, and who is saying, in so many words, "Nuh, uh. I'm rubber and you're glue; whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you."
Consistent with that, Vance is also trying WAY too hard to come up with new and fresh grievances to carp about. For those who have not followed the story, the bit about boxing is a reference to Imane Khelif, an Algerian boxer who will win at least a bronze medal in this year's women's 66 kg division. To make a long story short, Khelif has had a lengthy career as a boxer, and never had any questions in terms of eligibility until she beat a previously undefeated Russian boxer in 2023. Just days later, the International Boxing Association (IBA), which sanctioned the bout, declared that Khelif had failed a testosterone test, that she was biologically male, and that her victory was therefore null and void. That sounds pretty bad, until you learn three additional facts: (1) the IBA is based in Russia and is led by an ally of Vladimir Putin, (2) the IBA is so corrupt it was stripped of its official status and is no longer recognized as a legitimate sanctioning body by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and (3) the IBA has never provided any proof of its claims.
The upshot here is that it's within the realm of possibility that Khelif is not eligible to compete, but Occam's Razor says otherwise, especially since she's passed every other test, including the ones administered by the IOC this Olympic cycle. So, Vance's claim about allowing "biological males to beat the living crap out of women in boxing" is dubious, at best. Further, despite Vance's allegations to the contrary, we have not heard of any Democrat weighing in on the question, since the U.S. government has no role to play in a pseudo-dispute over a non-American competition involving a non-American boxer. On the other hand, if you want to argue that Vance's acceptance of the IBA's version of events is a reminder that he, his running mate, and their party tend to be useful idiots willing to uncritically accept Russian propaganda as truth? That we'll allow.
In addition to his struggles with "weird," Vance continues to dig new holes for himself. On Friday, he did a podcast interview as part of his ongoing media blitz, and he told a "fun" story:
My son, who is seven, is in the hotel room with me. And he is really into Pokemon cards right now, he's going through a Pokemon phase... I mean he's really into it, so he is trying to talk to me about Pikachu and I am on the phone with Donald Trump, I'm like "son, shut the hell up for 30 seconds about Pikachu. This is the most important phone call of my life, please just let me take this phone call."
We've read it over numerous times, and we're not sure what about this was meant to be heartwarming or funny or... whatever. And we're not surprised, meanwhile, that the lesson that many people took from the story is "Vance is a jerk and a bad father."
Now, maybe it is not fair that Vance's every utterance is being put under a microscope like this. But that's life when you accept a spot on a major-party presidential ticket. In fact, the treatment that Vance is getting right now pretty closely parallels the treatment that Joe Biden got in the weeks after the debate. Once the narrative became "the President is losing his marbles," then every utterance was scrutinized for additional evidence. The narrative has now taken hold that Vance is weird and, well, an a**hole who looks down upon people who are not parents. So now he gets to be scrutinized, particularly when he talks about his own parenting. Time will tell if Vance can survive this phase of his political career; we all know what happened with Biden. (V & Z)
Harris Continues to Rise in the National Polls
As she announces her VP pick, and then heads into the Democratic National Convention, things continue to come up roses for Kamala Harris, polling wise. Here are the four new national preference polls published since Friday of last week:
| Pollster | Harris | Trump | Net |
| SurveyUSA | 48% | 45% | Harris +3 |
| Morning Consult | 48% | 44% | Harris +4 |
| Issues & Insights | 44% | 42% | Harris +1 |
| CBS/YouGov | 49% | 47% | Harris +2 |
There remain many reasons for caution. It's still early in the Harris candidacy, and she's still in the honeymoon period. National preference polls are an imprecise instrument for predicting an election that will be decided by 50 state-level elections (plus D.C.). Polls in general are semi-imprecise instruments, particularly when the likely electorate is in flux.
All of this said, one cannot avoid certain observations. First, Harris clearly has momentum, and there will be every chance for her to continue that in the next couple of weeks, thanks to today's announcement and then the DNC. She is also approaching, or in, "victory" territory. That is to say, a Democrat has to win the popular vote by roughly 3 points to win the Electoral College. And Harris is on the cusp of that kind of lead.
Thanks to a wave of good polls, Harris is now leading in almost all of the main national polling average trackers. RCP now has her up 0.2%. The New York Times has her up by the same margin. 270toWin has her leading by 1.8%. FiveThirtyEight has her leading by 1.9%. Only The Hill still has Donald Trump in the lead... by 0.1%. Also, for what it's worth, Nate Silver announced yesterday that his formula has Harris as a favorite for the first time, 51% to 48% (with the other 1% being "a tie"). Silver then turned around and blasted his former platform, FiveThirtyEight, claiming (without evidence) that their forecasting model is still suspended because it has Trump winning, and the staff wants to wait until it has Harris winning. This makes very little sense, since their model is based substantively on fundamentals (which favor Harris) and partly on polling input (which favors Harris, too, at least right now).
Whether one believes these various numbers are meaningful in terms of their predictive value, there is one way in which they are unquestionably meaningful. And that is in their impact on the conduct of the campaigns. The Harris campaign, for its part, has interpreted the data as indicating that both the northern route and the southern route are viable, and so it's worthwhile to pursue both. Put another way, the Biden campaign was investing its resources mostly in the northern swing states. The Harris campaign, in command of the largesse that is $300 million in donations in 10 days, is now investing heavily in the southern swing states. If you live in Georgia or Nevada or Arizona, and you hate being bombarded with presidential campaign ads, well, this is not good news for you.
More importantly, the Trump campaign is responding to the polling numbers. And that is because its candidate is responding to the numbers. It was remarkable the extent to which Trump '24 had become a disciplined, professional operation. Donald Trump was backing only viable candidates, and not any nutter who kissed his rear end. He was remaining on-message and, perhaps even more amazing, kept his mouth closed while Joe Biden dug himself into a giant hole.
It is now remarkable how quickly that all fell apart. With a couple of years to plan, the Trump campaign had Project 2025 for the base, plus a boatload of anti-Biden ammunition for everyone else. Someone got to Trump himself and persuaded him to play along. But in just 2 weeks, it's all out the window. Trump has tried to disown Project 2025, and he's whined and moaned about Biden's departure from the race, and the alleged "coup" staged by... someone? He's signaled his unhappiness with his own VP pick, chosen for very different circumstances. And, most importantly, he's reverted to trusting his gut. The problem here is that his gut, perhaps more than most, has sh** for brains. It is his gut that produces disasters like what happened with the NABJ last week. It is his gut that causes him to lash out against Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA), when doing so has many downsides and no upsides.
We're not the only ones who see this. Many Republican politicians and operatives are distraught at what some are calling a "public nervous breakdown." This could well turn into a doom loop, in which Trump does something id-driven and ill-advised, his numbers drop, and that causes him to do something else id-driven and ill-advised. Rinse and repeat.
If nothing else, Trump's flailing around means that he is having zero success with creating a framing for who Harris is. The "Sleepy Joe Biden" thing had stuck pretty well, and obviously "Crooked Hillary" proved to be a home run. If the former president wastes this window, which is prime-time for establishing a framing for Harris, that may be unrecoverable. Her campaign will dominate most of the next 15 or so news cycles. By the time we are on the other side of that, it may be too late for Team Trump to define her and make it stick. (Z)
Emoluments Clause? What Emoluments Clause?
While Donald Trump struggles to shape voters' perceptions of Kamala Harris, he's not helping himself when it comes to the perception that he's a grifter who wants to be president again for fun and profit.
To start, Mar-a-Lago announced yesterday that it would be accepting four new members. The price tag for this "honor"? A cool $1 million. That's an increase of 43% from the previous fee of $700,000, which itself was seen as wildly inflated. There are few private clubs that are, in and of themselves, worth that kind of outlay. And to the extent that such clubs exist, Mar-a-Lago is not one of them. However, Mar-a-Lago does offer one thing that no other club can: The potential to hobnob with the sitting President of the United States. For, say, the CEO of a billion-dollar conglomerate, $1 million is a bargain for the chance at regular presidential face time.
In other words, it looks like Trump is selling presidential access, and before he actually has that commodity in stock. If he is reelected, one can only imagine what the price of a Mar-a-Lago membership will be. Maybe $3 million? $5 million? $10 million?
And that's not all. Trump Media and Technology Group (which lost 7% of its value in yesterday's sell-off) just made its first big purchase. It's buying software and hardware from a firm (Perception Group, Inc.) that will help with "Truth" Social's video streaming. In the TMTG press release, the identity of a major shareholder in Perception Group, Inc. was somehow, some way, omitted. It's JedTec LLC, which is owned by billionaire James E. Davison. Davison won a $17 million road-building contract from the Trump administration. More importantly, Davison's main holdings are in petroleum, and so he constantly has business before the federal government. Might be nice to have a friendly face—say, a business partner—in the Oval Office.
And wait, there's more. During the same rally where J.D. Vance ranted about Kamala Harris' weirdness (see above), Trump announced that he's apparently no longer opposed to electric vehicles. Why the change of heart? Well, per The Donald: "I am for electric cars. I have to because Elon Musk endorsed me very strongly. So, I have no choice."
We appreciate that the remark might not have been meant literally, and might have been tongue-in-cheek, at some level. However, that's far from certain, since Trump ISN'T funny, and since he IS transactional in everything he does. Certainly, given that Musk has seemingly offered big bucks to help elect Trump, and given how egregiously Trump has blurred the lines between his business interests and his political career, it is a remark he should not have made.
Oh, and there is this. The government of Egypt loves to give money to American politicians (see: Menendez, Bob). But not just to senators. A Washington Post investigative reporter, Carol Leonnig and her colleague Aaron Davis, has uncovered evidence that the Egyptian government withdrew $10 million in cash from a bank account linked with Egypt's intelligence agency (say, Egypt's CIA) in Jan. 2017. It was carried away from the bank by four men as it weighed over 200 pounds. This was most of Egypt's foreign currency reserve, so the order had to have come from President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi. No one else would have had that authority.
Was this compensation for the $10 million of his own money that Trump put into his 2016 campaign close to the end? Was there some kind of deal here? Inquiring minds want to know.
So did the DoJ. To make a long story short, the DoJ had lots of evidence of what was basically a bribe to Trump but when the DoJ investigators brought this information to then-AG William Barr in 2019, he killed the whole investigation. If you would prefer to watch Leonnig tell the story rather than read it in print, here it is.
In short, to paraphrase Sonny and Cher, the grift goes on. And some voters might not be pleased when they learn about that. (Z)
Trump Legal News: Double Trouble
There were a couple of stories worth noting on the Trump legal front yesterday. To start, the state of Missouri had filed a silly lawsuit in which it demanded that the gag order in Donald Trump's criminal fraud case be set aside, and the sentencing be postponed until after the election. The reasoning behind the suit was that the "right" of Missourians to hear from presidential candidates was being violated by the New York proceedings.
If this is true, then it would seem that the defendant should have been Trump. After all, it is his actions that led to a situation where he cannot be "heard" by Missourians. Anyhow, you might have noticed that we keep referring to the lawsuit in past tense. That is because the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, by a vote of 7-2. The two, of course, were Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who never heard a conservative-friendly legal argument they didn't like.
Meanwhile, way over in Arizona, former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis signed a cooperation agreement with prosecutors in which she agreed to turn state's evidence in that state's fake electors case. Trump is not one of the defendants there, so this doesn't affect him directly. However, it does mean the case is back in the headlines, and that whatever truths Ellis has to share will likely come out before the election.
And someone who IS charged in Arizona is Rudy Giuliani. This is the same Rudy Giuliani who is facing all sorts of legal issues, not to mention financial ruin. The more of Giuliani's co-defendants in Arizona who flip, the more pressure there is on him to do the same, before he's the one left holding the bag. And if he flips in Arizona, he'd probably flip in Georgia, too, where Trump IS one of the defendants. So, Ellis' plea deal is ultimately pretty bad news for the former president. (Z)
Keep in Mind, Kennedy Is Weird, Too
At the moment, there is a national conversation going on about how weird Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are. However, those two are relatively newcomers to the S.S. Weird. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., by contrast, is a longtime passenger on that particular transport, as he reminded everyone yet again this weekend.
At the center of the latest whackadoodlery from the son of Bobby, if you haven't heard already, is a dead bear. Over a decade ago, he was in upstate New York on a falconing trip (because apparently he's a medieval feudal lord). While on that trip, Kennedy came across a dead bear. And he did what anyone (read: nobody else) would do in that circumstance: He loaded the bear into his car, so he could take it home and chop it up into some juicy bear steaks.
Apparently, depending on the extent you believe RFK Jr., he ended up not having time to take the dead bear home for butchering before leaving town. So, he drove to Central Park and left it there, with an old bicycle he had in his car. The joke, it would seem, was: "Ha! A bike rider crashed into a bear and killed it! Hahahahahaha!" Um.... OK. Maybe that's how your mind works when part of it was eaten by a worm.
Kennedy thought he'd gotten away with the prank, but he got a call last week from The New Yorker, which was planning to run a full exposé. To get out ahead of the story, Kennedy spilled the beans on himself in a video he posted to eX-Twitter. And his audience for this confession was, of all, people... Roseanne Barr. Yes, the (justly) canceled comedian who loves a good conspiracy theory, who dabbles in casual racism, and who somehow manages to be both Jewish and an antisemite at the same time. Indeed, one side effect of the bear video is that this photo staged by Barr a few years ago was circulating widely on social media over the weekend:
There are just so many layers of bizarro here, it's hard to parse them all.
That's not the only RFK Jr. news, either. The same New Yorker profile also included some text messages the candidate sent to a friend of his, in which he described Donald Trump as "a terrible human being," "the worse [sic] president ever," "barely human" and "probably a sociopath." This certainly is not going to help Kennedy get a job in a second Trump administration.
The question that the New Yorker article is trying to answer, without much success, is exactly what RFK Jr. is trying to achieve with his campaign. We don't know either, although keeping in mind that Kennedy makes most of his money hawking anti-vaxx books and videos, we tend to assume he's on the Marianne Williamson plan. The thing that is clear is that he's slipping; from a high of nearly 10% in some of the polling averages, he's now down to 4-5 points in most of them. And his loss appears to be mostly Kamala Harris' gain. So, his ongoing strangeness is germane to the presidential campaign, far more so than it ought to be. (Z)
Today's Presidential Polls
Kamala Harris is going to win New York, a state that hasn't gone for a Republican since 1984. Who knew? That aside, in the previous poll of New York, it was Biden +8. Now it is Harris +14. If that movement is also going on in other states, it could be significant. (Z)
| State | Kamala Harris | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| New York | 53% | 39% | Jul 28 | Aug 01 | Siena Coll. |
Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers