Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: AZ GA MI MO NC NV PA WI
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ
Harris, Walz Interview: Democratic Ticket Goes the Distance with Dana Bash
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz sat down for their much-discussed interview with CNN's Dana Bash last night. If you would like to watch it, you can do so with these links: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. Why did CNN break it up into 10-minute chunks, as opposed to just posting the whole thing as one clip? The charitable answer is that they wanted to make it easier for people to work with, in the event that they are data-limited (say, watching on a cell phone) or are trying to link to some specific moment. The less charitable answer is that posting it in multiple segments increases CNN's clickthrough numbers and their advertising haul. We don't know which it is, but it's possible that all of these considerations played a role.
We watched the whole thing, of course (it's only a shade over 30 minutes, if you wish to do the same). We didn't know if we'd have much to say but, as it turns out, we do. So, here we go with the 10 things that most stood out to us:
- Going The Distance: As many readers will know, the phrase "going the distance" originated
in the world of boxing, to refer to a match in which neither participant was knocked out. We think that is a pretty good
metaphor for last night's interview, which was decidedly adversarial in nature, and did not produce any "knockout"
blows, as far as we could see. That is to say, Bash certainly tried a few "gotchas" (keep reading for specifics) but
Harris and Walz parried effectively, such that there are not going to be any "Can you believe what Harris/Walz said?"
stories today, outside of right-wing media. And, in fact, maybe not there, either. We took a quick look at some of the
platforms where you would expect to find nuttery, and the two (fairly related) claims being made are that the interview
was scripted, or that it was edited to remove embarrassing portions. When folks are grabbing at vague, conspiratorial
claims like these, isn't the implicit message: "We really couldn't find anything specific to carp about"?
- Dear Mr. Fantasy: One of the questions that really stuck in our craws was
the very first one:
"What would you do on Day One in the White House?"
Now, there are two ways to interpret this question. You could understand it as asking about your top priorities, should you get to sit in the big chair. And that is how Harris responded initially, giving a broad, politician answer about strengthening the middle class.
That did not satisfy Bash, who intended the second interpretation of the question, namely "What will be the very first thing you do, the second after you sit down in that chair?" Harris did not particularly want to answer that version of the question, but she eventually said she'd push for the passage of, and would sign, the bipartisan border security bill, and that she'd extend the child tax credit.
The reason we don't care for this question is that it essentially demands that the candidate participate in a fantasy of how democracy works. Yes, a president can issue executive orders on Day One, and some of those are meaningful. But in terms of legislation, it's a slog. And Bash knows that, which makes it distasteful to us when she pretends otherwise.
That said, at least Harris has no intention to assume dictatorial powers on Day One. Or, if she does, she's smart enough to keep it to herself. - Gish Gallop: Readers will recall that the Gish Gallop is a debate technique where you
throw out more stuff than your opponent can possibly respond to, meaning that some or all of your assertions thus go
unchallenged, and so effectively are allowed to stand. Now, you might expect us to apply this notion to the two
Democrats, but we're actually going to apply it to Bash. We wouldn't say she Gish Galloped, per se, but some of her
questions were, in our view, Gish Gallop-adjacent.
Let us give an example. One of Bash's first few questions was this: "But I wonder what you say to voters who do want to go back when it comes to the economy, specifically, because their groceries were less expensive, housing was more affordable, when Donald Trump was president." This framing strikes us as extremely problematic. We are not expert enough in macroeconomics to evaluate how accurate the statement actually is, in the context of inflation, wage growth, etc. We suspect that the real answer is "it's complicated."
Here is what we do know. If Bash had said, "for the last three decades, food and housing prices have climbed steadily upward, relative to wages," that would be a fair point. But to present it the way Bash actually presented it strongly implies that Donald Trump's policies were somehow better in terms of kitchen-table concerns than Joe Biden's policies. We are certain that is not true, because Trump had no policies focused on kitchen-table concerns. If things really were better under him, then surely it's due mostly or entirely to the vagaries of macroeconomic trends, right?
In any event, the Gish Gallop-y element is this: There is absolutely no way, in the context of a 30 or 60 second answer, that Harris can push back at the statements of "fact" offered by Bash and can also present and explain meaningful policy ideas in response. As it was, Harris largely focused on the positive parts of the Biden-Harris economic record, while noting that the pandemic skewed everything, and conceding there is still plenty of work to be done. - What the F**ck?: We know what you are thinking, but note the extra letter/asterisk in
that sub-head. Another area that Bash wanted to cover was Harris' apparent change of heart on fracking. As readers will
recall, Harris was against fracking (through 2019) before she was for it (2020 to present).
We all know why Harris changed course. When you are trying to get elected in California, you have to stand for (some) different things than when you are trying to get elected nationwide. Is this sleazy? Maybe, but it's the nature of the game. And you could actually argue that it's not sleazy, if you want. Since a politician is supposed to represent their constituents, it's perfectly justifiable to take new positions on some issues when you assume a new political position. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) took a lot of flak when she changed from representing a rural district near Albany to being a senator representing all of New York State. She basically said her job was to represent all of her constituents and now she had different constituents. What mattered was their opinions, not her personal ones.
Although we were critical of some of Bash's other questions (see above), we have no issue with the fracking questions. The reason we mention it is that, prior to last night's interview, there was at least some supposition in some quarters that Harris just can't handle the heat, which is why she was staying out of the kitchen. This is nonsense; she's been in politics for decades now, and has done plenty of tough interviews. And if there was any doubt, she demonstrated her politician-fu last night, and managed to come up with politician answers to questions she didn't want to answer, just like any other veteran politico can do. In the case of fracking, she did not address her change of position, and merely reiterated several times that she's been consistent on this issue since 2020.
One other thing on this point. There did not appear to be any questions, even the tricky ones, that Harris was unprepared for. You would certainly think that being ready for the obvious curveballs would be de rigueur for anyone presuming to appear on a major-party presidential ticket. And yet, recent experience has shown that is not always the case. - Thought: Moving away from specific questions, one thing that was evident in the interview
was that Harris really thinks about things before answering. This may have been particularly obvious to (Z), since
Harris does the same thing he does while trying to formulate an answer, namely look upwards for a moment. Here's an
example:
Note, in the event you did not watch any of the footage, that Bash was sitting camera right. So, Harris is not looking at her at this moment (and to the extent Harris is looking in the direction of anyone, it's Tim Walz, who was sitting camera left).
We pay pretty close attention to body language, and Donald Trump rarely shows any sign of careful thought. Either he hides it well, or else his answers are: (1) pre-programmed and/or (2) whatever damn thing happens to pop into his head. - Empathy: Another character trait that was on display, from both Harris and Walz, was empathy.
To take one example, both of them laughed several times. And it was real laughter, with the
Duchenne smile
and all. Can you recall, off the top of your head, an occasion where Trump laughed, and it seemed genuine?
There must be a few of those, but we cannot easily think of one.
To take another example, Bash asked Harris about how she learned Joe Biden was dropping out of the presidential race. And Harris told the tale, in much greater detail than she's done previously, noting that she was sitting down to Sunday breakfast with her family when she got the call. In response to follow-up questions about how she responded to this news, Harris said: "Well, my first thought was not about me, to be honest with you. My first thought was about him."
This stuck out to us because, of course, Donald Trump would never say such a thing. And if he somehow did, it would be wholly unbelievable. Now, we recognize (having written it above) that Harris is a veteran politician, and might just be saying whatever sounds good. However, our strong impression was that she was telling the truth. Readers can watch that moment for themselves, if they wish to reach their own conclusions. - Disengagement: It may not have been a "Gotcha!" question, but it was certainly
gotcha-adjacent, we think, when Bash brought up Donald Trump's remarks about whether or not Harris is really
Black. What the CNN anchor, and her network, were hoping for was to launch a juicy pi**ing contest. That
is the kind of thing that makes headlines.
Unfortunately for Bash and CNN, Harris did not take the bait. Her entire response: "Yeah. Same old tired playbook. Next question." We commend her for declining this opportunity to poison the discourse a little more (and also see the last item today). - Arm Candy: We're not entirely sure why Tim Walz was there, since there were only a couple
of questions addressed to him. We will tell you the most important thing he said, in our view, despite the fact that we
know that NOBODY is going to write anything about this. Walz was asked about his military service, and his answer
included this:
"Well, first of all, I'm incredibly proud, I've done 24 years wearing the uniform of this country. I'm equally proud of
my service in a public school classroom."
We understand why Americans work so hard to honor the service of veterans and, to a lesser extent, police officers and, to a lesser extent than that, firefighters. However, and we've noted this before, there are other professions where people have equally committed themselves to service and to the greater good, despite the work often being difficult, and these professions are celebrated much, much more rarely. Medicine (and, especially nurses and orderlies). Social work. Public defenders. And certainly elementary and high school teachers. It was nice to see Walz choose not to privilege one form of public service over another. - What Did We Learn?: It should come as no surprise that, even if you watch the whole
interview, you're not going to know much of anything that you didn't already know before. This speaks to the
observation
we made
earlier this week that maybe these interviews aren't so important after all (and keep reading).
To the extent that we learned something useful, it's probably the "character" stuff we discuss above. Or, if you want something more specific, Harris committed to putting a Republican in her Cabinet. That is the first time she's said that, apparently. That said, it's not exactly the world's most earth-shaking news, for two reasons. First, it's fairly standard for Democratic presidents to find room for at least one Republican on their team. Second, Joe Biden said he was going to put a Republican in his Cabinet, and he didn't do it. In other words, it's just a vague promise, and even if she follows through (unlike Biden), it's not that radical a promise. As we have mentioned before, we think Liz Cheney for Interior might be a good choice. A somewhat less likely choice would be Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) for some post. That would flip a Senate seat since Maine governor Janet Mills is a Democrat. Collins will be 72 in December. She has been in politics her whole life (and her mother was mayor of their town and her father was a state senator). Ending her career as a cabinet officer might be a nice capstone. She has chaired the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, so that could be a good fit.
- Stirring the Pot: Just in case you have any doubts that CNN was hoping to generate a little
controversy, take a look at this:
If you closely examine the time stamps, you will see that CNN first posted the "big news" clip, about the Republican in the Cabinet. Then they posted a clip of Trump complaining about the interview, followed by a clip of the (unsuccessful) attempt to get Harris to respond to his race-baiting. And THEN the network posted the actual interview. Interesting priorities.
Clearly, our assessment of the interview is pretty CNN-critical and pretty Bash-critical. Earlier this week, in the piece linked above, we expressed some skepticism about how useful these interviews really are, and how much they really serve the needs of democracy. We invited readers to share their views as to whether Harris was wrong in avoiding the interview chair for so long. We really expected that a majority, or at least a sizable minority, would disagree with us and tell us that OF COURSE she should be engaging with the fourth estate. To our surprise, the many folks who wrote in were entirely in agreement with us. Here are a half-dozen of those responses:
- M.B. in Granby, MI: Harris is not wrong.
The media's political coverage has been execrable.
Granted, Trump is sui generis when it comes to politicians. He lies like a rug—something the media are loath to admit. He has no policy details—mass deportation is a policy—something the media is loath to question. Trump apparently accepted a $10 million donation from Egypt, which Bill Barr may have covered up. It has been largely ignored.
The media has a de facto partisan bias, not because it's motivated by partisanship, but because they see Kamala Harris as normal and perfect for the nitpicky, horse-race coverage they are accustomed to.
The other reason: the mainstream media, sadly, in my opinion, is increasingly irrelevant. It has done a poor job covering politics and now other media channels are superseding it. Harris barely needs them. - J.S. in West Hartford, CT: I have voted in all 13 presidential elections since 1972, the
first year I was eligible to vote. NOT ONCE have I watched or read any formal interview of any candidate. Formal
interviews are like formal painted portraits, with the journalists (and their editors) presenting their "artistic" view
of the candidate through their questions and editing. Some people like studying these formal "portraits." I am not one
of them.
- J.H. in Seattle, WA: The wailing and gnashing of teeth has been particularly acute among
reporters of the New York Times and Washington Post. Joe Biden, in particular, invited much needling from
the Times by denying the "paper of record"
the interviews it felt it deserved. Given how badly the legacy elite media has been acting in the past years, twisting
every headline into a "this is why this is bad for Biden/Harris" subhead (not to mention their outright hostility to
trans people, dishonest reporting on the economy, and ridiculous desire for a contested convention solely for the drama
and clicks), Harris should steer clear. The fact that her campaign is booming without indulging their precious need for
"access" just reinforces how unserious they've been making themselves. Harris should snub them and instead sit down with
more honest publications like The Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, or even (Teen) Vogue.
- P.M. in Beaverton, OR: In a word: No.
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have a traveling press corps everywhere they go. Those press representatives have considerable access. There is little to gain and something to lose by sitting for CNN's inevitable array of click-bait-feeding gotcha questions. Even the network choice makes little sense. CNN is not exactly tearing it up in terms of viewership, and they have been tilting ever rightward as their market share has slipped. If an interview with an at-a-desk national television news personality had to take place, choosing a network that still broadcasts over-the-air (like ABC) perhaps would have reached an audience Harris/Walz has so far missed. - M.A. in Knoxville, TN: Personally, I think the complaints about Kamala Harris and Tim Walz
not having done an interview with the media are stupid. The complaints from Republicans can easily be ignored as their
usual stupid political games and culture-war bulls**t.
The complaints from the news media seem to be a case of the media thinking they're far more important than they actually are. In the past they were important, but that was back when everyone got their news mainly from newspapers and TV. Back then, there were only really three choices for TV news: ABC, CBS and NBC. Now most people get their news online from multiple sources and don't watch TV at all. (For example, while I technically have a basic cable TV package, I only have it to get a cheaper bill than Internet access was alone. I don't even have the cable box hooked up.)
Due to the above, I just don't see Harris and Walz doing interviews with TV media as making any real difference in the election. The voters it might make a difference with don't follow political news much, if at all, so they're unlikely to watch the interview in the first place. Most everyone else has their minds made up already. - M.G. in Weymouth, MA: Harris is not obligated to give an interview. Her public
appearances and DNC speech speak for themselves. CNN will do ANYTHING to capture a "gotcha" moment, if only for
ratings, and has shown itself to be a craven media source.
By the way, I also opposed Biden debating, and warned my friends that it would be a sh** show. Unfortunately, my prediction was an understatement.
Unless a message somehow got lost, there was not a single reader who disagreed with us. Again, big surprise. Oh well, the more you know.
Anyhow, it's T-minus-10 days and counting to the debate, and the next time we'll be writing a piece like this. (Z)
Post-Convention Polls: Strange Brew
In the past week, two things have happened. First, the DNC is now over. Second, Bobby Kennedy Jr. suspended his campaign and endorsed Donald Trump. Will Kamala Harris get a bump from the convention? Will Trump inherit all or most of Kennedy's supporters? Or maybe both will happen and they will cancel each other out? Pollsters are going to really have to work overtime to brew their "secret sauce." Anyhow, polling is starting to come in now.
Emerson College polled the seven swing states over the Aug. 25-28 timeframe. In other words, the polls started 3 days after the DNC ended and 2 days after Kennedy endorsed Trump. It sometimes takes a while for people to update their opinions, even after some big event happens. They have to talk to friends, and so on. Still, this is a start. Here are the head-to-head horse-race numbers in the seven swing states:
| State | Harris | Trump | Net |
| Arizona | 47% | 50% | Trump +3 |
| Georgia | 49% | 48% | Harris +1 |
| Michigan | 50% | 47% | Harris +3 |
| Nevada | 49% | 48% | Harris +1 |
| North Carolina | 48% | 49% | Trump +1 |
| Pennsylvania | 48% | 48% | Tied |
| Wisconsin | 48% | 49% | Trump +1 |
What do we have? A really close race. Harris is ahead in three states with a total of 37 electoral votes. Trump is ahead in three states with a total of 37 electoral votes. Pennsylvania is tied. Did we mention that it is close? And did we mention that both campaigns are betting the farm on Pennsylvania? Also note that none of the totals add to 100%. Are the missing voters for Jill Stein or Cornel West? Or are they truly undecided now? Or maybe still for Kennedy?
We think there is a footnote here. In the Arizona Senate race, Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) is crushing Kari Lake. A Fox poll just out has Gallego ahead by 15 points, 56% to 41%. If this poll is true and the Emerson poll is also true, that means at least 9% of the voters support Gallego and Trump. So many people who support the fairly progressive Gallego over the Trumpy Lake also support Trump? We find that hard to swallow. Also, the abortion initiative isn't factored in here. Our suspicion is that the combination of Gallego swamping Lake and the abortion measure bringing marginal young women to the polls is going to affect the presidential race, but that may not show up when the questions are all asked separately.
Emerson also provided crosstabs by state, breaking out independents, voters under 30, women, and men. Here they are.
| State | Independents | Under 30 | Women | Men |
| Arizona | Harris +6 | Harris +30 | Harris +2 | Trump +8 |
| Georgia | Harris +16 | Harris +25 | Harris +10 | Trump +10 |
| Michigan | Harris +3 | Harris +30 | Harris +15 | Trump +11 |
| Nevada | Trump +6 | Harris +42 | Harris +9 | Trump +7 |
| North Carolina | Harris +2 | Harris +16 | Harris +7 | Trump +10 |
| Pennsylvania | Harris +8 | Harris +30 | Harris +12 | Trump +14 |
| Wisconsin | Harris +9 | Harris +13 | Harris +11 | Trump +13 |
The big story here is the gender gap. Harris is scoring big with women and Trump is scoring big with men. The gender gap could be 20 points this time. With independents and young voters, Harris has a commanding lead, excepting independents in Nevada.
The second storyline is Trump is being crushed by unheard-of numbers among young voters. If Harris can get them to turn out in force, Trump will have a huge problem. Harris has to think carefully about how to get through to them. Making TikTok videos? Appearing at music festivals? Asking Taylor Swift what it would take to get her overt endorsement? Imagine the impact of a free concert on the National Mall where Swift welcomed Harris to the stage and endorsed her. That could draw a million people. How would Trump match that?
Emerson also asked people what their top issues were. Here is that breakdown:
| Issue | Issue #1 | Issue #2 | Issue #3 |
| Arizona | Economy (31%) | Immigration (26%) | Housing (13%) |
| Georgia | Economy (44%) | Housing (11%) | Democracy (10%) |
| Michigan | Economy (44%) | Democracy (11%) | Housing (10%) |
| Nevada | Economy (37%) | Housing (15%) | Immigration (13%) |
| North Carolina | Eonomy (48%) | Healthcare (9%) | Education (8%) |
| Pennsylvania | Economy (51%) | Democracy (11%) | Immigration (8%) |
| Wisconsin | Economy (46%) | Democracy (13%) | Housing (7%) |
By a mile, it is the economy, stupid. Democracy, immigration and housing are also important. We were surprised that abortion was not in the top three anywhere. At first we thought: "Did Emerson forget to include it in the list? So we checked the spreadsheet with the full results. It's in there, all right, but generally comes in fourth or fifth.
The message here is that Harris has to explain what she will do on the economy. Most likely by "economy," people mean "cost of living," rather than "jobs" or "stock market." One approach is to blame big companies for price gouging. Another is to be honest and say "no president can force prices down, but I will break up monopolies and oligopolies to create competition, and that will help bring prices down." Placing the blame on big greedy companies is probably a relatively easy sell. Once she gets specific, Trump will be forced to respond with his plan. Placing tariffs on all imports will raise prices, not lower them.
Yet another question is Project 2025. Is it starting to sink in? Emerson asked about it and whether: (1) it made people more likely or less likely to support Trump, (2) it made no difference or (3) they didn't know what it is. Here are those results:
| State | More likely | Less likely | No difference | Don't know what it is |
| Arizona | 13% | 38% | 37% | 13% |
| Georgia | 15% | 37% | 36% | 13% |
| Michigan | 15% | 39% | 34% | 12% |
| Nevada | 14% | 39% | 37% | 10% |
| North Carolina | 17% | 35% | 37% | 11% |
| Pennsylvania | 14% | 37% | 37% | 13% |
| Wisconsin | 13% | 38% | 38% | 11% |
We have our doubts about this one. We're the last people to insult the intelligence of the American people. OK, that's not true, but we are not the first people to insult the intelligence of the American people. Maybe fourth or fifth or so. According to these numbers, 87-90% of respondents know what Project 2025 is. We really doubt that. We suspect many people didn't want to come off as ignoramuses and said it makes no difference rather than admitting they don't have a clue what it is. As Harris continues to advertise about it, more people will genuinely learn what it is.
It is striking that among people who do know what it is, it is very unpopular. This suggests that: (1) Harris should keep talking about it and (2) she should emphasize the specific aspects that people don't like. This may require a number of focus groups to find out what people really think, rather than polling with multiple-choice questions. Harris should also emphasize that it was written by Trump's former advisers. For Trump, dealing with it could be tricky. Maybe he could talk about replacing the "deep state" (meaning the merit-based federal civil servants) with his own people, but it could be a tough sell for many people, even Republicans.
One last question was about not taxing tips. Here, 65% to 75% of respondents support the idea, even though most economists say it is a horrible idea and could lead to demands to not tax police agents, firefighters, nurses, or teachers, which could tear the entire tax system apart. A far better approach from an economic perspective would be to eliminate the tipped minimum wage and say that all workers must get the normal minimum wage and also advocate for raising that to $12 or $15 or some other amount. That would benefit all workers, not just those who get tips.
Morning Consult also polled The Big Seven. Their poll was done roughly a day earlier than Emerson's, so in theory, it could be slightly less up to date. Here are the Morning Consult results.
| State | Harris | Trump | Net |
| Arizona | 48% | 48% | Tied |
| Georgia | 49% | 47% | Harris +2 |
| Michigan | 49% | 46% | Harris +3 |
| Nevada | 49% | 45% | Harris +4 |
| North Carolina | 49% | 47% | Harris +2 |
| Pennsylvania | 51% | 47% | Harris +4 |
| Wisconsin | 52% | 44% | Harris +8 |
Except in Michigan, the results are better for Harris across the board. Does this mean Harris slipped a bit between the two polls? No. What it shows is a dirty little secret of polling. The model of the electorate matters. No poll of 1,000 people is going to have precisely the right number of young blonde left-handed white vegetarian college-educated lesbians. So all pollsters make corrections based on their model of what the electorate (the people who actually vote) will be. Different organizations have different models of the electorate. In this case, Emerson's model might have more people who are Trump supporters than Morning Consult's. Maybe more 45-65 year olds. Maybe more rural voters. Maybe more blue-collar workers. We don't know. It is also possible the difference is just due to chance since the margin of error on most polls is about 4 points. Pollsters all know that their model of the electorate is important and no doubt are constantly tinkering with it as new data become available. We're going to have to live with this uncertainty. This is why for the map and our averages page we use the most recent poll and average it with all other polls within a week of it. The hope is that effects due to incorrect models cancel out, but it is only a hope. (V)
Arlington Mess Gets Even Messier for Trump Campaign
If you do not like "boy, this sure makes Trumpy Republicans look bad" items, then this just isn't your day, blog-wise. On the other hand, if you are a fan of such items, it's gonna be pretty much wall-to-wall schadenfreude from here on out. We note this in order to make clear that we are mindful when any particular day tilts aggressively in one direction or another. That said, we follow where the news leads us. We're not going to dig up some additional item in service of some vague performance of "balance." And because we ran so long today, we actually held yet another item that makes Trumpublicans look bad. We'll have that one next week; it's about the shenanigans in Texas and elsewhere.
Anyhow, earlier this week, we wrote about Donald Trump's visit to Arlington National Cemetery on the third anniversary of the Abbey Gate attacks in Afghanistan. It is not legal to hold campaign events at military cemeteries, and it's even more problematic when the graves of recently deceased soldiers get involved. If the former president had just stuck with the Tomb of the Unknowns, it probably would have been tolerated. But when he headed over to Section 60, he crossed a line, and park personnel endeavored to put a stop to it.
Yesterday, two things became very clear. The first is that it was most certainly a campaign event, and had nothing to do with any sort of desire to honor America's servicemen and women. The Trump campaign posted a TikTok video in which Trump contrasts his "record" (nobody killed in Afghanistan) with "their record" (Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are not named, but are clearly being blamed for the 13 deaths at Abbey Gate). The campaign also circulated this icky photo on social media:
How has nobody impressed upon him, at this point, that there are some contexts where thumbs up is not appropriate?
Incidentally, Trump is justifying his visit based on the fact that he had "permission" from the families of some of the soldiers in Section 60. This line of argument is 100% pure, unadulterated B.S. First of all, private citizens do not have the right to waive federal law, even if they are relatives of the deceased. The issue here is plain; when Trump shows up for a photo-op like that, he's using all of the graves and all of the soldiers as political props, not just the soldiers/graves he has "permission" for. If Trump had been in Section 19A of Riverside National Cemetery, the location of (Z)'s maternal grandparents' graves, (Z) would be furious. His grandparents were liberal Democrats who both gave 4 years to the service of their country in World War II and, if they still lived, would hate Trump and everything he stands for. (Z) is their remaining representative on Earth, and has a responsibility to honor their memory and their wishes as best as possible.
That reminds us that, in our previous item, we said that if we were veterans, Trump's actions at Arlington (e.g., using dead soldiers as props) would make our blood boil. Here is a piece from at least one veteran who feels that way. Will Selber writes:
I don't know what part of this story makes me the saddest. It could be the fact that one of the two major parties, the one I've always been predisposed toward, has nominated—for the third straight time—a man who has consistently demonstrated an inability to understand honor and dignity.
It could be Trump's persistent (and undisciplined) flouting of the rules.
It could be that all of this is a distraction from the real issues facing veterans and the military: the moral injury that's eating our veterans from the inside out and hampering recruitment; the utter lack of accountability for two lost wars; the imbalance of having the smallest military since World War II even as the world gets more dangerous; the serious doubt about whether the American military or the United States as a country is prepared to win a major war.
But I think most of all it's this: The rules against using images or video of Section 60 in political campaigns are there for a reason. The people who gave their lives didn't swear an oath and give all to a party or a candidate. They swore to protect the Constitution and they sacrificed to protect this country. Their sacrifice is one of the last reminders we have that there exists an American project that is bigger than parties and tribes and campaigns, and that it's worth fighting, dying, and even killing for. All that's asked in return is that we don't subject them to our politics, that we keep them in an elevated, venerated place where they belong.
If we can't do that—if we let Section 60 become just another political weapon to use against each other—then what was all that sacrifice for?
We'll also have some letters from readers on this subject on Sunday.
Moving along, the second thing that has now become very clear is that the Trump campaign was lying when it claimed that nobody from the campaign assaulted an employee of the cemetery. Recall, for example, that Trump spokesman Steven Cheung decreed that not only was there no altercation, but to the extent there was an incident, it was the responsibility of someone "clearly suffering from a mental health episode." We actually had some e-mail questions about Cheung. The best way to think about him is that he's the "Baghdad Bob" of the Trump campaign. He not only lies constantly, he does so outlandishly to the point of being comical. Sometimes the truth might emerge from his lips, in the same way that even a broken clock is sometimes right. But the signal-to-noise ratio is so poor, you just can't take anything Cheung says even slightly seriously. Maybe he could run for governor of Arkansas some day.
Anyhow, the Trump campaign's lies about this were so egregious, and were doing enough harm to the reputation of Arlington personnel, that the U.S. Army took the very unusual step of issuing a statement that: (1) reiterates that what Trump did is against the law, (2) advises that Trump was told not to photograph his visit despite having "permission" from some soldiers' family members, and (3) confirms that a cemetery employee was indeed assaulted by a Trump staffer. She considered pressing charges, but ultimately declined because she feared recrimination from one or more angry Trump supporters.
And so it is, once again, that Trump showed disregard for America's veterans, that he and his staff lied, and that he is basically going to get away with multiple crimes. Not only was it illegal to film at Arlington, it was also illegal to post the images to social media. Oh, and it's also a felony to assault a federal employee (specifically, a violation of 18 U.S. Code 111). However, none of the law enforcement officers who were there for the original act, including the Secret Service, were willing to hold Trump and his staff accountable. The woman who was attacked is too afraid to do it. And anyone in the hierarchy who might make an issue of this either has the same fears as the victim, or doesn't want to be accused of engaging in political gamesmanship. Never let it be said that Trump's use of his base's fanatical loyalty, of lawyers and appeals, and of his victimhood complex is not very, very effective in allowing him to escape the consequences of most of his actions.
Politically, Trump is trying to get as much mileage as he can out of what happened in Afghanistan. The visit to Arlington appears to have done more harm than good, but J.D. Vance is trying to salvage the situation by angrily blaming Kamala Harris for the 13 deaths. At a campaign event on Wednesday, he declared:
And there hasn't been a single investigation or a single firing. I don't know. I don't, look, sometimes mistakes happen. That's just the nature of government, the nature of military service. But to have those 13 Americans lose their lives and not fire a single person is disgraceful. Kamala Harris is disgraceful. We're going to talk about a story out of those 13 brave, innocent Americans who lost their lives. It's that Kamala Harris is so asleep at the wheel that she won't even do an investigation into what happened. And she wants to yell at Donald Trump because he showed up. She can. She can go to hell!
Obviously, Harris is going to try to take credit for all the good things the Biden administration has done, while Trump and Vance are going to try to blame her for any and all failures. In this case, however, we think Vance is stretching things to the limit, and beyond. We checked our copy of the Constitution, and we see nothing that empowers the VP to initiate investigations. There is also the small problem that the hasty withdrawal was occasioned by an agreement with a hard deadline negotiated by... Donald Trump. (Z)
Trump IVF "Policy": Give It Away
Former representative Tulsi Gabbard was never particularly believable as a Democrat. There is a reason that, when she ran for president, all of her support came from, well, non-Democrats. Anyhow, now that she no longer needs to get elected in blue, blue Hawaii, she's embraced her true identity as an "independent" who is really a Trumpublican. And, as you may have heard, she's out campaigning with Trump right now, after having been announced as a member of his "transition team" (along with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) earlier this week.
Yesterday, Trump held a town hall in Wisconsin with Gabbard as "moderator." We are not sure who would take something like that seriously, since she's not in position to "moderate," what with being a bona fide member of the campaign and all. The event came shortly after Trump spoke to NBC News. And, in both the interview and the town hall, the former president declared that he is a big fan of in-vitro fertilization, and that if he is reelected as president, he will make either the government or insurance companies pay for the procedure.
It could not be more obvious what Trump is doing here. He has seen at least some of the polling like the Emerson poll above, and knows he is getting killed by Kamala Harris among young and women voters. He can't exactly come out as pro-choice (or, apparently, take any position on abortion access at all), so he's trying to glom onto the one reproductive freedom position that he might get away with and that might help him with pro-choice women.
Any voter who takes him at face value on this, of course, is being foolish. First of all, this new policy position came out of nowhere, almost like he thought of it during the NBC interview. He's presumably hoping that the anti-choice folks that make up his base will swallow hard and accept that he's just saying what he has to say in order to win the election. But if the evangelicals, or if Trump's advisors, squawk loudly enough, he will reverse course. It's gotta be, what, 50/50 that this even survives the week? That's why we call it a "policy" in the headline rather than a policy.
Further, should Trump get elected, and should he decide he's serious about this, we run into the problem that exists with pretty much all of his proposals: How will he take it from vague proposition to substantive reality? IVF is not cheap, costing well into the five figures. Where will the money come from if the government picks up the tab? Or, how can insurance companies be forced to cover the procedure? Neither of these paths is likely to get support from Republican members of Congress, who tend to be anti-government-spending, anti-new-rules-for-private-businesses, and anti-choice.
And so, even if Trump does believe in what he said (dubious), it's just vaporware, not unlike "Mexico will pay for the wall." We seriously doubt that pro-choice voters will fall for it, while the announcement might just alienate some anti-choice voters who might be getting a little tired of Trump not falling sufficiently into line. (Z)
Republican Investigations: All Revved Up With No Place to Go
It is not a secret that many House Republicans are using their investigative powers to settle scores and to score political points, and not so much to do the work of the people. In case one needed a particularly clear indication of that fact, it was provided this week.
At the moment, the House has a special task force charged with looking at the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, and exactly how security broke down so badly. This is a very good thing for the House to investigate, exactly the sort of thing that the members should be using those powers for. And the task force is bipartisan, with seven Republicans and five Democrats.
Here, however, is the issue, at least for those being guided primarily by political considerations. The FBI just affirmed, yet again, that they can identify "no definitive ideology" on the part of the shooter. It certainly appears that he was just generally angry/lonely, and was in search of attention and fame. He would have just as readily shot at a Democrat, a prominent celebrity, an athlete, the Pope, etc. Trump just happened to be the opportunity that presented itself.
What this means is that, despite drooling over the possibility, Republicans aren't going to be able to weaponize this against Democrats. Team Trump won't be able to say, "See? With their criticisms of Trump, this is what the Democrats have done. They have blood on their hands!" This being the case, several Republican members of the assassination task force appear to have lost interest. There was a rather important meeting this week, on the site of the assassination attempt, so that members of the task force could get the lay of the land. And while all five Democrats showed up, only three Republicans did. Reps. Pat Fallon (R-TX), Mark Green (R-TN), Clay Higgins (R-LA) and Michael Waltz (R-FL) apparently had better things to do.
Thus far, despite extensive coverage of their decision, none of the four absentees has explained themselves. If they had some legitimate reason for missing something that critical, like a sick family member, they presumably would have shared that. It would also be unusual for 57.1% of the GOP members to all be unavoidably detained at the exact same time, especially when 0.0% of the Democratic members were. This all supports the inference that the Republicans aren't seeing the point of the investigation, if all it's going to produce is the truth. (Z)
I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Brown Mayonaise
Pro tip: None of the 10 most popular condiments in the United States is supposed to be brown (even brown mustard is actually yellow). So, if yours turn that shade, probably best to throw them out. This advice is less useful to our British readers, as THEIR Top 10 condiments list literally includes brown sauce.
Moving along, the first hint we gave as to last week's headline theme was this: "[We] are feeling very blau that we could not find a way to get Braun into a headline." We followed with the note that the headlines COULD have been put in chronological order, and revealed what order they would have appeared in, if we had done that. Here, now, is the answer, courtesy of reader R.B. in Fairfax, VA:
Your theme this week was Black women Members of Congress:I usually just enjoy the puzzle and don't write in, but I had to this week because of the clue: "[W]e are feeling very blau that we could not find a way to get Braun into a headline." A reference to Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, D-IL, the first Black woman Senator. But it's that other word that really got my attention (for reasons that will be obvious to you but not to your readers)—"blau" literally means "blue" in German, but did you know that the slang meaning is "drunk"? Was this item written by the staff mathematician?
- DNC, Day 4: It's Harris' Party—Kamala, of course, was a Senator from California
- DNC Diary, Day 4: The Convention Hall Was Electric—Katie Hall, D-IN, served in the House from 1982-85, first Black woman elected from Indiana
- Supreme Court: Nobody Is Going to Love This Ruling—Mia Love, R-UT, the first and so far only Republican eligible for this list
- I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: A Hunter on the Chisholm Trail—Shirley Chisolm, D-NY, the first Black woman elected to Congress
- This Week in Schadenfreude: Vance Just Can't Fudge It—Marcia Fudge, D-OH, served in the House from 2008-2021
- This Week in Freudenfreude: Still Waters Run Deep—Maxine Waters, D-CA, incumbent
Not written by the staff mathematician, but written by (Z), who only passed German in college because he wrote an amusing essay about a drunken man on his German 3 final.
Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:
|
Note that we accepted "ballpark" answers.
As to this week's theme, we decided to return to songs for the first time in a while. Sometimes the song title is the whole phrase to the right of the colon, sometimes it's just part. That said, we tried to use famous songs from famous bands, and generally with fairly distinctive titles. The Trivial Pursuit category, beyond World of Music (from Trivial Pursuit Master Game - Walt Disney Family Edition), would be Sports & Leisure & Food (from Trivial Pursuit for Juniors). As to a hint, we'll say that if a headline word appears to be misspelled on "headlines theme" day, it almost certainly is not.
Note also that the theme is ALWAYS limited to the words to the right of the colon. That means that if a headline has no colon, it's not part of the puzzle. As noted in the past, we exclude headlines for items where, in our judgment, a game seems inappropriate. This week, that's the Arlington story.
If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com, ideally with subject line "August 30 Headlines." (Z)
This Week in Schadenfreude: (Don't) Play that Funky Music, White Boy
You know, Donald Trump can use the song "God Bless the USA," by Lee Greenwood, to his heart's content. He also has the catalogs of Ted Nugent and Kid Rock at his disposal. Apparently that is not enough, however. In just the past month (or so), he's gotten blowback from a bunch of artists who are not one of those three men, and who don't want Trump using their music. Here's a rundown:
- Foo Fighters: The band says that Trump is most certainly not their hero, and should not be
using "My Hero" at rallies. They told him to cease and desist, and said that they would donate any royalties earned from
Trump's use of the song to Kamala Harris' campaign.
- Céline Dion: Dion laughed uproariously when she found out that Trump had been using
"My Heart Will Go On." She knows what Team Trump presumably does not, namely that the song became famous in a movie
about a ship headed for one of the greatest disasters of all time. Dion also said she wants Trump to stop using her music.
- ABBA: Minnesota has more people of Swedish descent than any other U.S. state. ABBA is from
Sweden. Some member of the Trump campaign put those two facts together, and decided to use the band's "The Winner Takes
It All" and "Money, Money, Money" at Trump campaign events in the state. The band's members, all four of them, have told
Trump to knock it off.
- Beyoncé: After the DNC, which made liberal use of "Freedom" (with permission),
Trump used the song in a video. The artist told him to remove the video from the Internet, and he (well, one of his
staffers) did.
- Jack White: If you attend any sporting event these days, there is an excellent chance
you'll hear "Seven Nation Army," which White wrote and performed with his former band, The White Stripes. That is because it
is an exceedingly adrenaline-pumping tune. So, it's no surprise it found its way into Trump campaign events. But when
White found out, he blew his top: "Don't even think about using my music you fascists. And as long as I'm here, a double
fu** you DonOLD for insulting our nation's veterans at Arlington you scum."
- The Smiths: The band's "Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want" was co-written by
guitarist Johnny Marr. When Marr found out Trump was using the song at rallies, he tweeted: "Ahh... right... OK. I never
in a million years would've thought this could come to pass. Consider this sh** shut right down right now."
- Sinead O'Connor: It might actually be correct to play "Nothing Compares 2 U" when Trump
appears on stage. But the meaning of that phrase in the song, and the meaning as it applies to Trump, are not the same.
O'Connor is deceased, but her family has no doubt that the very left-wing singer would not want to be associated with
The Donald, inasmuch as she called him "the devil" while she was alive. So, O'Connor's estate has told him to stop
playing the song. He might be able to get away with playing an alternate version of the song, since O'Connor didn't
actually write it. However, that would probably just result in a cease-and-desist letter from the estate of Prince, who
did write it.
- Isaac Hayes: Apparently, Trump has used "Hold on, I'm Coming" at least 135 times at various events. Hayes himself is deceased, but his family has filed a lawsuit against Trump.
Remember, this is just a month's worth. There were undoubtedly more angry musicians before that, and there will be more as the campaign reaches the finish line.
We know some readers are interested in the legalities here, so we'll give a brief overview. Public venues, like sports stadiums and bars and restaurants, can purchase a license from one or more of the major performance rights associations (ASCAP, BMI and/or SESAC) that entitles that venue to play any song in that association's catalog, albeit sometimes with some songs excluded. What the venue is supposed to do is keep track of what songs are played during the lifetime of the license, and then the organization will divide up the licensing fee among the artists whose work was used. In other words, if Joe's Bar and Grill paid $10,000 for its license this year, and 5% of the songs played over the course of the year were Led Zeppelin songs, then the rights-holders of Led Zeppelin songs get $500.
A political campaign can also acquire the same sort of license. And, as with Joe's Bar and Grill, they are supposed to keep track of what songs are used and file a report with ASCAP/BMI/SESAC. The Isaac Hayes lawsuit, which we note above, asserts that the Trump campaign has never documented or paid for any of its 135 uses of the Hayes song. It's not clear if the Trump campaign just decided not to get a license, or if it has a license but isn't doing its documentation properly. Note, incidentally, that there is also paperwork if an artist "gives away" the right to use their music. That's a campaign contribution, and has to be handled as such, up to and including the upper limit on contributions (i.e., they can only waive $3,300 in royalties per election).
Further, even if an artist's music is covered by a performance license, the artist still has rights. Most relevant, in this particular case, is that any group or venue that holds a public performance license cannot turn around and use an artist's music to imply an endorsement. For example, Ford Field in Detroit is entitled to play Bruce Springsteen songs during Lions games, but that does not mean that Ford can turn around and use Springsteen's music in Ford commercials (at least, not without additional permissions). Obviously, the line between "public performance" and "endorsement" gets a little fuzzy when we are talking about a campaign event, which is much more overtly political than a football game or a night at Joe's Bar and Grill. Normally, what happens is that the artist advises that they want their songs excluded from the license granted to [Candidate X], and their licensor agrees. At that point, if Trump or any other candidate so affected decides to keep playing the songs, they are just gambling they won't get sued.
Back to the schadenfreude, Trump has always wanted to be one of the cool kids, and to be accepted by the cultural elite. But none of the cool kids are interested, and the only artists who want to have anything to do with him are broken-down old has-beens. This is the price of conducting yourself as Trump has. To adapt an old phrase, and to take a cue from Jack White: "Play fascist games, win fascist prizes." (Z)
This Week in Freudenfreude: Better Man (Or, in This Case, Better Woman)
As we note above, we very much approve of Kamala Harris' decision not to engage in useless mudslinging. That is not to say she can't spar with Donald Trump, nor that she can't utilize well-crafted snark. But when it comes to an old white guy making stupid claims about her Blackness, there's just nowhere to go with that but into the gutter.
Similarly, in view of that, we decided to make use of a tip from reader J.J. in Los Angeles, CA, who is a member of a group called "Creatives for Harris." Taking note of Donald Trump's propensity for using insults, Creatives for Harris has set up a website called Insults for Good.
If you click on the link, you will see that they have put together various products meant to turn the insults of Trump (and J.D. Vance) from a negative into a positive. You can buy, for example, "Tampon Tim" stickers. Remember those "I Did This" Joe Biden stickers that people were putting on gas pumps? Well, this is the same thing, except for feminine hygiene products, so as to highlight Walz's support for putting such products in restrooms at schools.
There are other options, of course, like a Kamabla friendship bracelet, or a shirt that has a tie-dye style background and the words "Kama Kama Kama Kama Kamala-on," which is a reference to Vance slurring Harris as a "chameleon." Our favorite item is a coffee cup that says "Kamala Turned Black." Normally, it is white colored, but when you fill it, it turns black. J.J. also tells us that a button for debate watchers, that says "weird," is about to be unveiled. Oh, and all the profits will be donated to pro-Harris causes.
One of the dominant themes of modern American politics is the coarsening of the discourse. Again, we do not object to spirited disagreements or even to snark, but childish insults and vicious personal attacks add little to the discussion, and run the risk of starting a vicious cycle. So, it's nice to see these folks who are trying to respond to Trump's nasty verbiage in a manner that's positive and uplifting. Way to go, Creatives for Harris! And have a good weekend, all! (Z)
Today's Presidential Polls
We covered the Emerson and Morning Consult polls above. They generally agree, although Emerson gives Trump a slightly better result. That said, the two houses are 9 points different in Wisconsin. Either they are both pretty far off, or one of them is WAY off. (Z)
| State | Kamala Harris | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| Arizona | 47% | 50% | Aug 25 | Aug 28 | Emerson Coll. |
| Arizona | 48% | 48% | Aug 23 | Aug 26 | Morning Consult |
| Georgia | 49% | 47% | Aug 23 | Aug 26 | Morning Consult |
| Georgia | 49% | 48% | Aug 25 | Aug 28 | Emerson Coll. |
| Michigan | 49% | 46% | Aug 23 | Aug 26 | Morning Consult |
| Michigan | 50% | 47% | Aug 25 | Aug 28 | Emerson Coll. |
| Missouri | 41% | 54% | Aug 08 | Aug 16 | YouGov |
| North Carolina | 48% | 49% | Aug 25 | Aug 28 | Emerson Coll. |
| North Carolina | 49% | 47% | Aug 23 | Aug 26 | Morning Consult |
| Nevada | 49% | 45% | Aug 23 | Aug 26 | Morning Consult |
| Nevada | 49% | 48% | Aug 25 | Aug 28 | Emerson Coll. |
| Pennsylvania | 48% | 48% | Aug 25 | Aug 28 | Emerson Coll. |
| Pennsylvania | 51% | 47% | Aug 23 | Aug 26 | Morning Consult |
| Wisconsin | 48% | 49% | Aug 25 | Aug 28 | Emerson Coll. |
| Wisconsin | 52% | 44% | Aug 23 | Aug 26 | Morning Consult |
Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers