Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: AZ GA MI NC NV
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: PA
Harris Is Running Ads Tying Trump to Project 2025
Donald Trump's former staffers were deeply involved in Project 2025. Now Trump is saying: "Project 2025? Never heard of it." He's lying through his teeth, of course. Kamala Harris isn't going to let him get away with that and is now running ads explaining the project to voters and tying it to Trump. With all these ads, it is going to be hard for him to deny knowledge of it. Here is one of the ads:
Among other topics, the ad says the plan would make Trump the most powerful president ever with the power to sic the Department of Justice on his enemies. It asserts Trump would also eliminate the Department of Education, defund K-12 schools, have the government monitor women's pregnancies to look for abortions, and slash Social Security and Medicare. It also says that Trump will try to deny it, but these are his plans. It also has a clip of him saying: "Revenge can take time" and ends with the narrator saying: "He'll take control and we'll pay the price." (V)
Don't Ask. Won't Tell.
An initiative called Amendment 4 is on the Florida ballot in November. It is the initiative that would enshrine the right to an abortion in the Florida Constitution. It needs a 60% majority to pass and polling shows it is close. Donald Trump votes in Florida and Amendment 4 will be on his ballot. Anti-abortion activists want to know how he will vote on it. He refuses to say. This is aggravating them enormously.
It is not that they doubt he would sign a national abortion ban if the Republicans got the trifecta, abolished the filibuster, and passed one. He appointed three virulently anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court. The anti-abortion activists know full well where Trump stands. What bothers them is that they believe if he came out strongly as "No on 4," Team MAGA would vote against the Amendment en masse. Since Trump has refused to to take a position, some Republicans will vote yes on 4 and it could pass, as an initiative did in Kansas, a deep-red state.
But Trump—and some of the anti-abortion activists—understand that taking a position on the Amendment would be toxic, no matter which side he is on. Electorally, his best position is to hem and haw and mumble something about secret ballots. That will maximize the chances of his winning, which they very much want. But his hemming and hawing will also maximize the chances that Amendment 4 passes, which is what they very much don't want.
As a result, the anti-abortion movement is divided. Some people in it want him to keep refusing to answer so he can be elected, even if Florida becomes an abortion haven. Others think that is too high a price to pay and want him to urge everyone to vote "No on 4." Florida is especially important due to its location in the South. Here is the national abortion map:
As you can see, abortion is banned everywhere in the South and much of the Midwest. Suppose Amendment 4 passes. Then it is guaranteed that abortion clinics will open in Tallahassee, which is 18 miles from the Georgia border along U.S. 319, and in Pensacola, which is an hour's drive from Mobile, AL, 90 minutes' drive from Pascagoula, MS, and 3 hours from New Orleans. All of a sudden, women in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana will be able to drive to an abortion clinic, have a procedure, and be home the same day. To the anti-abortion forces, this is a horror and some of them want Trump to stop it by telling people to vote "No on 4." But others understand that having Trump say this will probably guarantee that Kamala Harris will be elected president. For women in Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa, the Amendment doesn't matter as much because Illinois is closer. For women in North Carolina and Virginia, Maryland is close enough.
For the anti-abortion forces, it is a tough call. For Trump it is an easy call. He doesn't give a rat's a** about abortion. He cares only about his own ass. He knows that taking a stand either way will probably allow Harris to win, with the consequence that he goes to prison. The debate moderators know this, of course. We would fall off our chairs if none of the moderators were to say: "Mr. Trump, there is an amendment on the Florida ballot that will guarantee the right to an abortion in Florida. Will you vote for it? Please answer 'yes' or 'no' and then explain your answer." Cue the weaselling and cue Harris jumping all over him for it. She will say: "Coward, take a position. There is a similar measure in California and I will proudly vote for it." (V)
Supreme Court Refuses to Reinstate Biden's Plan to Cancel Student Debt
One of Joe Biden's 2020 campaign promises was to cancel some student debt. He has tried, but has been stymied by the courts at every turn. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that Biden does not have the authority to cancel student debt. Only Congress can do that.
The latest incident unfolded yesterday. In July 2023, Biden rolled out a program called SAVE that lowers loan payments for undergraduate loans to 5% of a borrower's discretionary income above 225% of the federal poverty level. It used to apply only above 150%. It also has other features that help borrowers—for example, for borrowers with debts of $12,000 or less who have never missed a payment for 10 years, it cancels the debt. Biden said he had the authority to do these things under the Higher Education Act.
Several state AGs disagreed and sued. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit disagreed and temporarily blocked all loan forgiveness under the SAVE plan. Biden appealed to the Supreme Court, saying that the Eighth Circuit Court misinterpreted the law and asked it to reinstate the SAVE program. Yesterday, the Supremes turned down Biden's request and sent it back to the Eighth Circuit for a final ruling.
Politically, this puts Kamala Harris on the spot. On the one hand, she could say she wants to cancel some student debt, which would win her fans among people who went to college and incurred debt. On the other hand, it could get her enemies among blue-collar workers who borrowed money to buy a truck and aren't getting any relief. They don't see why college students should get their loans canceled but they are required to pay off their truck loans. Abstract arguments like: "The government believes that an educated work force is in the national interest so it wants to help pay for it. Your decision to buy a truck is a personal one, not one related to an important national goal, so no, you don't get relief," aren't going to cut it. Harris definitely wants young voters, many of whom have a student loan, whereas she could conclude that blue-collar workers are a lost cause. This is where her political instincts will be sorely tested. (V)
Maybe America Can't Be Fixed
Both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump say they want to unify the country. But their supporters sure don't want to. On a number of issues, Democrats and Republicans are very far apart, with little hope of bridging the divide. A new Pew Research Center poll shows this starkly. Here are three of the issues where the country is most divided by partisanship:
In short, Harris supporters are strongly pro-gun-control, believe that white people have advantages over Black people, and want a bigger, more aggressive government. Trump supporters strongly oppose all of these things. How can the country be unified when the two sides are so far apart on so many basic things? Maybe the country simply can't be fixed. Maybe there is no way to do it.
Right now, all national elections are almost exactly balanced on knife's edge. It is amazing that this is so stable and for so long. It wasn't always the case that 50,000 votes cast differently in four or five states would change the winner. Here are the 1984 and 1992 electoral college maps. Note the differences:
Will the country always stay on knife's edge? We don't know. We do know that between 1984 (Ronald Reagan's landslide win) and 1992 (Bill Clinton's landslide win) a lot changed, although Ross Perot's presence in 1992 may have distorted the picture a little. What would it take to get off the knife's edge? We don't know. One possibility could be a Harris win in 2024 (even by a hair) and then Donald Trump disappearing from the scene in 2028, either due to death, illness, imprisonment, or the Republicans deciding they have had enough of losing (which Trump calls winning). Then there could be a vicious battle between potential Trump imitators with the Republicans nominating one who didn't have 45-47% of the country locked in. For example, we very much doubt Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) would have a guaranteed 45% floor.
Another factor that could get the country off knife's edge is demographics. Every 4 years, another batch of people who were 14-17 last time get to vote. When young people are offered a candidate they actually like, they could vote in large numbers for the Democrats. Kamala Harris is probably one of these. Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN) is probably not one of these. We could at least imagine that a race in 2032 with, say, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) vs. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) would not be on knife's edge. (V)
Way over Half of Harris' Donors Did Not Give Money to Biden
In case anyone missed the fact that The Great Swap at the top of the Democratic ticket has brought in a whole bunch of new donors, newly released data show that almost 70% of the people who donated to Kamala Harris' campaign in July had not previously donated to Joe Biden's campaign. Harris has activated a whole new group of donors. Since her July donors made 2.6 million contributions averaging $69, they can each be hit up another 47 times before they hit the $3,300 limit.
The expansion of Harris' donor base was nationwide. In every single state, more than half the donors were new. The biggest increases were in the South and Midwest, probably because the Democrats' traditional base is in the Northeast and West Coast. Nevertheless, the most money came in from the traditional locations, with Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Washington leading the way with a total of $49 million in the first 10 days of her campaign. This is because the average donor in, say, San Francisco, is richer than the average donor in Jackson, MS, and can afford to make a bigger donation.
Another footnote here is that South Asian donors in Long Beach (CA), Edison (NJ) and Queens (NY) stepped up to the plate in ways they hadn't before. Also, many more donations came in from Latino neighborhoods and Black neighborhoods. These areas hadn't contributed much to Biden but are now energized.
The link above contains numerous maps showing in detail where the new money is coming from. In short, it tends to be areas where many minorities live. They might have voted for Biden, but now they are activated to also send Harris money. While money isn't the same as votes, it is a good proxy for enthusiasm and determination to vote in November. It is hard to imagine someone sending Harris $50 and then not bothering to vote for her.
This doesn't mean that white voters have lost interest. The published numbers were for July, before Tim Walz was put on the ticket. The August numbers that will be published in a week or two will show whether or not white working-class areas are also full of new donors on account of Walz. (V)
Will The Arizona Fake Electors Get Away with It?
U.S. criminal law is heavily biased. In favor of defendants. The founding parents had a lot of experience with a king who just put anyone who opposed him in prison. To prevent even an elected president from pulling off that kind of stuff, rules were created to give defendants every possible chance to avoid a conviction. This includes challenging indictments nine ways to Sunday and many other (often frivolous) ways to try for Hail Mary plays or just stall until the prosecutors give up due to a heavy caseload. The only catch is that you need to keep paying your lawyers to make all these motions. Some lawyers charge $10,000 for all the research they need to do to write a brief that has at least some chance of convincing the judge. Consequently, this option tends to be available only to rich defendants, defendants with wealthy backers, or defendants who have lawyers who believe in their cause and work pro bono or at a reduced rate.
Today's example of this is the fake electors case in Arizona, where one of the people indicted is Rudy Giuliani, who is definitely not rich (anymore). Nevertheless, the group of indictees has filed a motion to throw out the case altogether on the basis of Arizona's anti-SLAPP law. Many states have similar laws. They were passed to allow judges to throw out obviously frivolous civil lawsuits, where somebody doesn't like something somebody else did, so he or she sues. If the judge thinks the whole case is garbage, he or she can just toss it right off the bat. And in 2022, the Arizona legislature expanded the law to allow judges to throw out vindictive or politically motivated criminal cases as well. The motion filed by Team Fake Electors is asking Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Bruce Cohen to throw out their entire case based on the expanded law.
Prosecutors working for Arizona AG Kris Mayes (D) are going to tell the judge that the motion is nonsense and they have a solid case that each of the indictees violated Arizona law. In all, 16 people have been indicted—not only the actual fake electors and Giuliani, but also Mark Meadows, Boris Epshteyn, Christina Bobb, and Jenna Ellis.
It will be tough for the defendants to make a strong case to the judge, since one of the fake electors has already pleaded guilty to the crimes and Ellis is cooperating with the prosecution. She undoubtedly is going to tell the judge in detail how the alleged crimes were committed and who did what and when. That is going to make it a lot harder for the indictees to show that there were no crimes committed. Nevertheless, the judge (mindful of potential appeals) has scheduled a hearing in which Mayes can present evidence of the crimes. With eyewitnesses who say: "I helped commit the crime" it is going to be tough for the defendants to make a case that no crimes were committed and this is all about politics. After he hears the evidence, he can kill the case or let it proceed on schedule, which means a trial in Jan. 2025. (V)
Democrats Will Spend Big on Elaine Marshall
Elaine Who? Elaine Marshall. Who is she? North Carolina's Secretary of State. She is running for reelection. Why do Democrats care? To paraphrase Joseph Stalin: "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes."
Marshall, a Democrat, has been secretary of state for 27 years and has served with five governors, of both parties. She is generally popular and considered an honest administrator. But now that North Carolina is becoming a swing state, Republicans want to replace her with a compliant Republican, while Democrats want to keep her. Her current term ends in January, but both parties are thinking about future elections. In the past, her office wasn't anyone's top priority, but now it is.
The Democratic Association of Secretaries of State is about to make its first-ever investment in North Carolina, and plans an ad buy in the seven-figure range. How come? North Carolina's elections are currently run by an independent Board of Elections, but Republicans hope to change that. In 2023, the General Assembly passed a law putting the BoE under the secretary's authority. If a Republican were to be elected secretary, that could open up all kinds of shenanigans. The law was struck down by the courts, but Republicans have a supermajority in the Assembly, so they could try again. Hence their big push to elect a Republican as SoS and the Democrats' attempt to keep Marshall. (V)
Harris Is Trying to Do Something That Has Been Done Only Once in Nearly 200 Years
It is well known that the vice presidency is not worth a bucket of some warm liquid. So why would anyone take the job? Well there is the $284,600 annual salary with no work associated with the job unless the Senate deadlocks on a vote. Over 4 years, that is over a million dollars. But many of the people who take the job fully expect to become president after their boss is done. In practice, it is very rare for a sitting vice president to be elected president. In fact, it has happened only one time since 1836. In 1988, George H.W. Bush, then the sitting veep, succeeded his boss, Ronald Reagan. In the past 188 years, that was the only time it has happened.
Needless to say, there is no law preventing the veep from trying for a promotion. For example, in 2000, Al Gore tried. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey tried. In 1960, Richard Nixon tried. None of them succeeded.
Looking at these and other attempts, two factors appear to be critical here. First, the vice president is generally seen as an extension of the president. If the president is unpopular or enmeshed in a scandal, voters won't pull the lever for "more of the same." Second, if the president is popular, his popularity rubs off on #2 only if the president and vice president had a close working relationship.
Gore was hurt by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, even though he obviously was not involved in it at all. Still, at the convention, he practically made out on stage with his then-wife, Tipper Gore, to show the country how much he loved her. If he had done any more, the network censors would have made the cameras cut away from the make-out session on stage.
Humphrey was done in by his vigorous support for the Vietnam War. He was much too tightly tied to Lyndon Johnson's policies on it and by 1968, they were so unpopular, that even the never-popular Richard Nixon was seen by many voters as a better bet, even though he claimed to have a secret plan to end the war. In the end, it turned out that his secret plan to end the war was to lose it. In all fairness to Nixon, it did work.
During Nixon's 1960 campaign, reporters asked President Eisenhower: "Can you name one time when Nixon's advice helped you?" Ike said: "If you give me a week, maybe I could think of one time." That didn't help. Besides, Nixon had not just finished winning WW II like Ike had.
1988 might have been an exception because Reagan was a popular president, there was peace and prosperity in the country, and Reagan openly supported his veep, who promised to continue Reagan's policies. Bush was simply a younger Reagan and people liked Reagan. It didn't hurt that his opponent, Mike Dukakis, was a very weak candidate.
Now what about Kamala Harris? Before he dropped out, only about 40% of voters approved of Joe Biden's performance. That is not great for Harris, but the rap against him was that he is old and tired. She is anything but that, so that is unlikely to hurt her the way Johnson's policies and Clinton's behavior hurt their veeps. Also, all four living Democrats who have served as president are solidly behind Harris. Still, Harris is trying to do something that has rarely been achieved. On the other hand, her opponent is widely hated by close to half the country, an edge none of the previous veeps had. (V)
Who Will Follow Merrick Garland--and Why?
While Kamala Harris might keep on a few members of Joe Biden's cabinet, albeit in new positions (Pete Buttigieg comes to mind), no one expects her to keep AG Merrick Garland. He has come in for much too much criticism, especially from Democrats.
For one thing, many Democrats feel that appointing the very partisan Robert Hur to investigate Biden's minor mishandling of government documents was uncalled for and allowed the media to exhibit their well-loved bothsidesism practices. Donald Trump stole hundreds of classified documents, stored them in his bathroom, and refused to give them back even after being requested to do that many times. Biden had a few documents in a box in his garage and as soon as he found them, immediately gave them back.
For another, Garland tolerated David Weiss' endless investigation of Hunter Biden for things no ordinary citizen would be charged for (saying he was not a drug addict when he purchased a gun, something that might well have been true at the moment of purchase).
Finally, and worst of all, he dawdled forever on seeing that Donald Trump was charged with stealing government documents and trying to steal the 2020 election. He could have had the DoJ handle the case directly or appointed a special prosecutor much earlier than he did and given the special prosecutor orders to move fast.
So Garland is certainly a goner. Who gets his job if Harris wins? Maybe Harris' brother-in-law, Tony West. Nepotism? Not really. In the Obama administration, he was assistant AG in the Civil Division, the largest litigating division in the DoJ. He was confirmed by the Senate 98-1. In that position, he won billions in settlements in cases involving financial institutions that had cheated customers. The cases against Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase were the biggest, resulting in the DoJ recovering $37 billion from them. He also won a number of other important cases. But an anti-nepotism law going back to the reaction to Jack Kennedy appointing his brother, Bobby, as AG, could be an obstacle.
Another possibility is Vanita Gupta, who ran the Civil Rights Division for Obama. She has a strong track record and support in Congress.
The current deputy AG, Lisa Monaco, is probably well qualified, but is too closely associated with Garland, and that could be fatal. A deputy AG during the Obama administration, Sally Yates, has the same experience as Monaco and none of the baggage. Still another possibility is Preet Bharara, who was U.S. attorney in the SDNY and is very well known and very aggressive.
There is some speculation that Gov. Roy Cooper (D-NC) might be a candidate, but he is probably more interested in challenging Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) in 2026. Gov. Maura Healey (D-MA) used to be a state AG, but she just got elected as governor and is unlikely to take the job if offered.
But names aside, a bigger debate going on is what kind of AG Harris would want. Many Democrats feel that what is needed is a bold figure who will aggressively enforce the law, even against high-placed and wealthy people accused of breaking the law, starting with Donald Trump. The biggest complaint against Garland is that he delayed far too long going after Trump. Democrats don't want that to happen again if there are serious allegations against some powerful politician or business leader.
It will be an important appointment, maybe her most important one. But if Republicans control the Senate, if she picks someone who is known to be aggressive, the nominee could be voted down in a party-line vote. One aggressive candidate who might be confirmed, though, is Gupta because Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) might be willing to break ranks to get a woman confirmed. In a 49-51 Senate, the majority leader would have relatively little leverage against her due to the omnipresent threat of her becoming an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. If Republicans control the Senate by two seats, Harris is likely to discuss all nominations in advance with Murkowski and choose only candidates she approves of. (V)
Today's Presidential Polls
The swing states are, well, swinging. We double checked and Activote's Michigan poll was really in the field for a month. We have no idea why. (V)
| State | Kamala Harris | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| Arizona | 47% | 46% | Aug 07 | Aug 14 | Strategies 360 |
| Arizona | 50% | 49% | Aug 23 | Aug 26 | Beacon + Shaw for Fox |
| Georgia | 50% | 48% | Aug 23 | Aug 26 | Beacon + Shaw for Fox |
| Michigan | 50% | 50% | Jul 28 | Aug 28 | Activote |
| North Carolina | 49% | 50% | Aug 23 | Aug 26 | Beacon + Shaw for Fox |
| Nevada | 48% | 42% | Aug 07 | Aug 14 | Strategies 360 |
| Nevada | 50% | 48% | Aug 23 | Aug 26 | Beacon + Shaw for Fox |
Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers