Previous | Next | Senate page
New polls: AZ PA WI
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA ME MI NV NH PA WI
Kamala Harris Is the Nominee
The stars aligned quickly for Kamala Harris. Very quickly, indeed.
On Sunday, Govs. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and Josh Shapiro (D-PA) got the jump on everyone and endorsed Harris. Yesterday, a whole bunch of prominent Democrats joined that pair in bestowing their support: Govs. Wes Moore (D-MD), J.B. Pritzker (D-IL), Andy Beshear (D-KY) and Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI), along with a gaggle of Senators and a gross of members of the House. The list of endorsers includes virtually everyone who might have mounted a challenge to Harris; their endorsement of her thus also means "I'm out."
Ok, Sen. Joe Manchin (I?-WV) hasn't endorsed Harris yet. However, he is also "out." Yesterday, he ended his presidential campaign in about 0.8 Scaramuccis. That's probably the shortest presidential campaign ever. Manchin didn't endorse anyone after dropping out, but he did say he wouldn't be willing to be Harris' running mate, not that there was one chance in 100 gazillion that it would be offered to him.
The four heaviest hitters in the Democratic Party have also been slow to endorse Harris. That would be Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). You should not read their lack of endorsement as a lack of enthusiasm for Harris. They are all nervous about what happened in 2016, and don't want the selection of Harris to look like it came from above. This is especially important given that Harris clearly isn't going to face any competition for the nomination.
Late yesterday, Harris' status as nominee-in-waiting became official, as over 2,000 DNC delegates have now pledged to support her. It takes 1,976 to be nominated, so there is not going to be a brokered convention. Things can happen, as Joe Biden just showed us this week. But she's as much a sure thing as is possible.
Not long after Harris' nomination became de facto official, Pelosi formally endorsed her. Schumer and Jeffries told people in their orbit that they were just waiting for Pelosi to give the go-ahead. We cannot find any indication they've actually taken the plunge, but all of these developments came late yesterday, so we imagine a formal endorsement will be the first item of business for that duo today. Obama's endorsement probably won't wait long, either.
There is also more news on the Harris front. She is quickly building an A-team. Whitmer already signed up to be co-chair of Harris' campaign. She held the same role in Biden's campaign. As governor of a key swing state, her focus is sure to be winning the Upper Midwest. She emphasized that she is not interested in the #2 slot on the ticket. But Harris is not relying entirely on Biden's team. She is also calling in people she knows well from her 2020 run, such as Illinois state Rep. Kam Buckner (D). Harris is also trying to recruit some of Barack Obama's top hands, especially David Plouffe, who managed Obama's 2008 run. He has connections with leaders and donors all over Silicon Valley, and would be a tremendous catch if he is interested. In short, Harris has hit the ground running and is putting together a top team very quickly.
If you find it remarkable that all of these things happened so rapidly, you're not alone. In a span of a bit more than 24 hours, Biden dropped out and Harris managed to lock up a pile of endorsements (including all of her serious would-be rivals), to capture the support of multiple thousands of Democratic delegates, and to start building a campaign infrastructure. Oh, and Biden's announcement came just after the RNC ended and just after the Sunday news shows wrapped for the week, meaning that Donald Trump & Co. wasted a whole lot of ammunition on someone who is not even a candidate.
Maybe Biden just so happened to reach his decision when he did. And maybe the floodgates were already under such pressure, things poured forth with lightning speed when they finally opened. But it's not hard to suspect that the ball got rolling much earlier than currently known, and that the events of the last 24 hours were basically kabuki theater staged for everyone's benefit.
One other thing we might as well point out. This is not the first time the Democrats have pulled off this same basic maneuver in hopes of defeating Donald Trump. In 2020, after Biden won the South Carolina primary, most of his main rivals—Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Michael Bloomberg, and Elizabeth Warren—dropped out within the week and endorsed Biden. Some of them still had money in the bank AND had some possibility of contesting the nomination, but they decided to fall on their swords for the good of Team Blue. Bernie Sanders didn't drop out at that time, but he did withdraw several weeks later, which was much, much earlier than in 2016.
The point here is that the bitter feelings from the 2016 Hillary vs. Bernie election suggested to many people, from humble bloggers like us, all the way up to Nancy Pelosi, that there really had to be some sort of a contest for the nomination, and not just a coronation of Kamala Harris. But there was basically a coronation of Joe Biden in 2020 (a kindness he has now paid forward), and Democratic voters accepted it, because of their fear/dislike of Donald Trump. It certainly could work out again for the Democrats. (V & Z)
Harris' Platform Could Differ from Biden's
Many Democrats who were feeling dismayed as Joe Biden's campaign was in freefall have been revived. They have hope now for the first time in weeks, maybe months. Progressive Democrats have an extra reason to be hopeful. Up until now, Harris has been required to parrot Biden's thinking on all issues. Now she is a free agent and her thinking is different from his in some ways. Here are some issues on which Harris and Biden have different views and which her views will now dominate:
- Abortion: Biden, a Catholic, wants to restore Roe v. Wade but still let states put
some limits on abortion. Harris wants to restore Roe but also put more limits on what states could do. In
particular, she wants federal law to require states with a history of restricting abortion to get preclearance from the
Department of Justice before passing any new laws affecting abortion. This is similar to what the Voting Rights Act did
about changes to voting laws. One problem is that the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act that dealt
with preclearance (albeit not because preclearance was inherently unconstitutional, but because they decided the
guidelines were out of date). Making this happen might involve Supreme Court reform in one way or another. Expanding the
Court is one way, but not the only one. Congress has the explicit power to limit the areas where the Supreme Court has
jurisdiction and could pass a law stripping the Court of jurisdiction in cases involving abortion.
- Gaza: Biden has expressed solidarity with Israel after Hamas terrorists killed over 1,000
Israelis, raped a number of women, and took hundreds of people as hostages. He regrets the deaths among Gaza civilians but keeps
supplying Israel with most weapons it wants. Harris agrees with Biden but has expressed sympathy for the plight of
Palestinian civilians caught in the crossfire. She has also put more focus on long-term peace in the region. She
supports a two-state solution. PM Benjamin Netanyahu will be addressing a joint session of Congress tomorrow, and she
has decided that this is not the right time to be pictured sitting behind him, so she's taking a pass and says she will
meet with him privately.
- Climate Change: Biden got $369 billion to fight climate change through Congress. However,
he doesn't support the Green New Deal and doesn't want to ban fracking. Harris wants to spend $10 trillion fighting
climate change and is a cosponsor of the Green New Deal. She wants to ban fracking. He is leery of abolishing the
filibuster and she is not. Fracking is important to the economy of Pennsylvania, so if Harris wants to ban it, that could
hurt her in the western part of the Keystone state.
- Student debt: Both of them support some debt relief for college students. However, Biden
questioned whether he had the authority to do this by XO. Later the Supreme Court told him, that no, he didn't have that
authority. Only Congress could do it. Harris has focused on eliminating debt for students who went to for-profit
commercial colleges that were basically scams. This might be stronger legally, but ultimately, only Congress could
really do the job completely and Republicans are wildly against this.
- Free college: Biden originally proposed making 4-year public colleges free for students
whose families make under $125,000 per year. Later he focused on making 2-year colleges free, but Congress balked.
Harris wants to make 2-year colleges free for everyone and 4-year public colleges free for all middle-class students.
The difference between their plans is relatively minor and is about exactly who would qualify for free 4-year college.
- Trade: Biden backed the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement after House Democrats got Donald
Trump to make some changes. He also supported Barack Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was designed to build a
trade wall around China in Asia. Harris voted against the USMCA agreement due to environmental concerns and opposed the
TPP because it would move jobs to Asia. Harris has said she is against any trade deals that would outsource American
jobs anywhere. This position would probably be popular with blue-collar workers who support Trump.
- Artificial intelligence: Biden wants the AI industry to regulate itself. Harris doesn't
believe the industry would ever do that and wants the government to regulate it. She strongly opposes deepfakes, biased
algorithms, and disinformation, and wants to make them illegal. This would align her with labor, civil rights, and
consumer protection groups but would make enemies of tech barons who don't want any government regulations at all.
- Data privacy: Biden has urged Congress to do something but it hasn't. Harris has been on
data privacy for more than a decade and enforced California's strict privacy laws when she was AG there. She has said
that she is against having to give up your privacy as the price of using apps. One issue that has come up here is
companies selling location data or turning it over to state governments. For example, in states where visiting an
out-of-state abortion clinic is an in-state crime, getting local data for a woman and discovering that she was at an
out-of-state abortion clinic might be grounds for indicting the woman. Harris wants to make it illegal to disclose
anyone's location data. Some venture capitalists who want to capture and sell this data, such as Marc Andreessen and Ben
Horowitz, are so angry about such limits that they are now supporting Trump.
- Animal welfare: Biden has tried to block a California law requiring farm animals to be
treated humanely (animaly?) Harris has defended California's animal-protection laws, including those banning foie gras
and confined hens.
On these and other issues, Harris is considerably to the left of Biden. Republicans are going to portray her as way to the left of Leon Trotsky. That could be counterproductive, though, because with many young people, that would be a selling point and might encourage them to register and vote. (V)
The Money Is Flowing
ActBlue said that it raised $50 million for Kamala Harris in the first 12 hours after Joe Biden dropped out. But it also said that total donations were $70 million. That means that $20 million was raised for downballot Democrats running for the Senate, the House, and state offices. The day before the $70 million haul, Act Blue processed $7 million. So the haul after Biden dropped out was 10x what it was with him in there. And this does not reflect at all what big donors are going to do, only small ones.
The strong fundraising continued yesterday. In the first 24 hours after Biden's announcement, ActBlue took in $81 million. That is the largest haul in any 24-hour period in the organization's history. Clearly the pessimism springing from Biden's age and shakiness is gone now and Democrats are optimistic from the top of the ballot down to lower offices. This kind of optimism often results in high turnout on Election Day (and before it).
ActBlue handles the small fry. Future Forward is the super PAC that handles the big fry. In the 24 hours after Biden pulled out, Future Forward got pledges of $150 million from large donors. This is on top of the $122 million it had in the bank as of June 30 and the $96 million in the Harris campaign bank account. We'll do the math for you to save you some work: $96M + $81M + $150M + $122M = $449M. You could actually run a campaign on that and the money is continuing to stream in. (V)
Some Random Facts about Harris
Politico reporters have collected 55 random facts about Kamala Harris to save oppo researchers the trouble. Here is a brief selection of some of them:
- Her parents met at U.C. Berkeley and took her to protests in a stroller.
- "Kamala" means "lotus" and is another name for the Hindu goddess Lakshmi.
- Her parents divorced when she was 7 and she was raised by her mother in Berkeley.
- She visited India as a child and was influenced by her maternal grandparents there.
- She attended French-language middle school and high school in Montreal.
- She graduated from Howard University in D.C. and Hastings Law School in San Francisco.
- After a tough day at law school, she came home and helped potty train her sister's toddler.
- In the 1990s, she dated powerful California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.
- She was a successful DA in San Francisco, getting the conviction rate up from 52% to 67%.
- She was somewhat opportunistic on the death penalty and tried to have it both ways.
- Her first win as AG was so close, the San Francisco Chronicle wrongly declared her opponent the winner.
- As AG, she had a mixed record on prosecuting police brutality.
- As senator, she freaked out then-AG Jeff Sessions by asking about the Russia investigation.
- She has a mixed record on whether private health insurance should be allowed.
- Her 2020 presidential campaign was a complete disaster.
- She is a good cook and her go-to entree is roast chicken.
- She wakes up at 6 a.m. and works out then has cereal for breakfast.
- Her motto came from her mom: You may be the first, but make sure you're not the last.
Anything else you need to know about her? One item you are going to hear about endlessly (from Republicans) is her dating Brown. In that period, he helped her get on a couple of state boards that paid well. She admits that he helped her, but also says she did all the work required of board members and nobody ever claimed she wasn't qualified to be on the boards or that she was a no-show. Republicans will phrase this as: "She slept her way to the top." That is only true if you consider the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board to be the top. She was 30 and single at the time. When this topic inevitably comes up, she will counter with: People often get help from friends and family. Donald Trump's father gave him a lot of money to get started in real estate. And it is doubtful Jared Kushner got to manage billions in Saudi money, or Lara Trump got her gig running the Republican Party just because people liked the cut of their jib. Since Harris is not denying the help she got from Brown and this was 30 years ago, it is doubtful this story will last long. Well, OK, it will linger among the misogynists and incels, but they aren't voting for Harris anyhow. (V)
Netanyahu Will Talk to Biden Today and Address Congress Tomorrow
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in D.C. yesterday for talks with Joe Biden today and an address to Congress tomorrow. As we note above, he will also talk to Kamala Harris. It is not known yet if he will talk to Donald Trump, with whom he is on the outs. The PM's visit has become exponentially more complicated by Biden's sudden exit from the race. This means that short term, Netanyahu has to deal with Biden, but longer term, he might have to deal with Harris. He and Biden do not get along at all but he has no history with Harris. He got along with Trump while Trump was president, but he is far too smart to bet the farm on Trump winning, especially now with Sunday's Giant Reset, not to mention Trump's anger over Netanyahu's congratulating Biden on winning the 2020 election.
Netanyahu went to high school in Pennsylvania, has two degrees from MIT, speaks flawless English, and understands American politics better than any other foreign leader as a result of living in the U.S. for more than 10 years. He wants something from Biden—weapons and ammo—but fully realizes that Biden is in a pickle, with some Democrats and most Republicans approving his war in Gaza after the Oct. 7 terrorist attack, but some very noisy others opposing the war. He also knows that Congress controls the purse and is badly divided on this issue. He understands the importance of public relations and his speech tomorrow will be as much to the American people as to the 535 members of Congress. In addition, he is under indictment for corruption in Israel, so he has quite a balancing act to pull off.
Netanyahu is not the only one who wants something from the meeting today. Biden wants Netanyahu to accept a deal that roughly consists of a cease fire in return for Hamas releasing the more than 100 hostages Hamas is holding in secret locations. Of course, the deal has to be something Hamas will also accept. Biden will press Netanyahu hard because he knows that getting a cease fire will take a lot of the wind out of Trump's sails in the campaign.
Although he presumably wants his one-time (and future?) buddy Trump to win, Netanyahu knows Biden is currently in charge and Harris might be on Jan. 20, 2025, so he has to appear extremely bipartisan. Taking sides could be fatal to his goals. He will emphasize how American presidents, Democratic and Republican, going back to Harry S. Truman have supported Israel. He will also emphasize the fact that Israel is America's closest ally in the Middle East and a valuable source of information about all the other countries in the neighborhood. He can bond with almost any American politician over his hatred of Iran.
Netanyahu can be brutally frank in private and may well be so in talks with Biden and Harris, but has to walk a fine line with his address to Congress and other public remarks. He knows there is a lot of opposition to the war in Gaza, not only from the left in the U.S. but also from the left in Israel. His government is hanging by a thread. Over 500 Israeli writers, scholars, and other public figures have expressed their dismay with his visit to the U.S., which they say serves only his personal interests, not those of Israel or the U.S. Can you imagine, a politician interested only in hanging onto power at all costs?
Netanyahu also knows that every word he says will be parsed nine ways to Sunday by the small extreme right-wing parties that prop up his government. If he says anything too conciliatory, they could bolt and force new elections he would probably lose. But if he is not conciliatory enough, Biden and/or Harris may oppose giving him the hardware he wants. That said, if they don't give him the weaponry, he won't agree to a cease fire, which could be politically fatal to Harris. Being President of the U.S. is undoubtedly the toughest job in the world, but being prime minister of Israel probably is up there in the top five. (V)
Trump Held First Post-Assassination-Attempt Rally in Michigan
We wrote this up for yesterday, but it got pushed out by the Giant Reset. Still, it is noteworthy. Together with his newly minted running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), Donald Trump held his first rally (in Grand Rapids, MI) since a bullet narrowly missed his head last week. Did his brush with death change anything? Nope. He mocked the Democrats, called Nancy Pelosi a "dog," Joe Biden "feeble," Kamala Harris "crazy," and lied about everything from the economy to immigration. It was a dark speech, about how prisoners from mental institutions are being let into the country by the Democrats. The fictional cannibal Hannibal Lecter also made an appearance. And there was that old chestnut, that he (Trump, not Lecter) won the 2020 election and it was stolen from him. His motto is: Give the people what they want, whether any of it is true is irrelevant. Trump spoke for almost 2 hours.
At the convention, Trump talked a little bit about unity. That is all gone now. At the rally, he did everything he could to rile up the crowd. It was his standard stump speech, with one notable addition. Trump now claims that he took a bullet for democracy. This was evidenced by the bandage on his right ear. Now it was a small brown one instead of the big white one he had on just after the shooting. How long will it be before he claims he almost died for his supporters' sins? After all, the town where Trump got shot is just a few hundred miles from Bethlehem, PA. That is where that other savior, who also didn't write his own book, is from, right?
One thing that is different from before the attack is security. There were U.S.S.S. officers stationed all over the Van Andel Arena, presumably including many snipers, although photos of snipers are hard to find. There was also a very heavy police presence outside the venue, with at least one officer on every corner for many blocks around it. This time no one was taking any chances.
Before Trump spoke, Vance served as the warm-up act. He spoke for only 13 minutes, though. He is not very well known. One attendee said: "I had to Wikipedia him." "To Google" has long been a verb. Now, "to Wikipedia" has apparently also achieved that status. Will we soon get "to LinkedIn" as a verb? It doesn't sound right, although "I Linked him In" might work. (V)
What Goes Around, Comes Around
All year, Donald Trump has been harping on the fact that Joe Biden is the oldest president ever and in poor health. And if reelected, Trump decreed, Biden would be well into his 80s and declining. Now that Biden is out of the way, there is renewed scrutiny of Trump's age and health. Trump is now the oldest presidential candidate in history and has a history of heart disease and obesity. He has not released his bloodwork or other detailed information on his health and people are starting to demand it.
There is no requirement for a candidate to release medical information, but a refusal to do so could cause voters to wonder why. In the case of Trump, Democrats will soon be harping on the fact that he is the oldest candidate in history and not at all transparent about his health. In 2015, Trump's doctor, Harold Bornstein, released a letter saying that Trump would be the healthiest president ever—even more so than Teddy Roosevelt. Bornstein later revealed that Trump had dictated the entire letter to him, word for word. Bornstein died (of embarrassment?) in 2021.
In 2018, Trump's then-doctor, Ronny Jackson, noted that Trump's coronary calcium score was 133, up from 34 in 2009. CNN's medical correspondent, Sanjay Gupta, said that a value of 133 meant that Trump had heart disease. Trump also released his weight. At 244 pounds, he is clinically obese. Since then, Trump has not released any medical information. Trump has said he aced cognitive tests, but has not produced any reports from any doctor stating that. Trump also has increased risk of Alzheimer's, since his father had it and there is a genetic predisposition to it. (V)
Meet the Flip-Flop Club
More than half a dozen prominent Republicans originally were strongly opposed to Donald Trump and said so very loudly. Then they felt which way the wind was blowing and changed their tune. It is amazing. Here is a sample:
- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):
Then: "Donald Trump's consistently disgraceful behavior is beneath the office we are seeking and we are not going to follow." And "This man is a pathological liar. He doesn't know the difference between truth and lies."
Now: "God bless Donald J. Trump. And let me start by giving thanks to God almighty for protecting President Trump and for turning his head on Saturday as the shot was fired." And "Here's the good news: We can fix it. And when Donald Trump is president, we will fix it. We know this because he's done it before."
- Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL):
Then: "You can be the most worthless Republican in America, but if you kiss the ring, he'll say you're wonderful. You can be the strongest, most dynamic, successful Republican and conservative in America, but if you don't kiss that ring, then he'll try to trash you."
Now: "Life was more affordable when Donald Trump was president. Our border was safer under the Trump administration, and our country was respected when Donald Trump was our commander in chief."
- Nikki Haley:
Then: "How many more times do we have to lose before we realize that he is the problem? He lost in 2018. He lost in 2020. He lost in '22. And he lost last week. This is a pattern that's going to lead us to a President Kamala Harris if we don't change course."
Now: "When Donald Trump was president, Putin did nothing. No invasions. No wars. That was no accident. Putin didn't attack Ukraine because he knew Donald Trump was tough. A strong president doesn't start wars. A strong president prevents wars."
- Vivek Ramaswamy:
Then: "What Trump did last week [inciting the Jan. 6 riot] was wrong. Downright abhorrent. Plain and simple."
Now: "There is one more reason I'm going to ask you to vote Trump, and it's the most important one. It's the one the media won't talk about, but it's the truth. Donald Trump is the president who will actually unite this country, not through empty words, but through action."
- Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL):
Then: "He runs on this idea that he is fighting for the little guy. But he has spent his entire career sticking it to the little guy."
Now: "By giving voice to everyday Americans, President Trump has not just transformed our party, he has inspired a movement. A movement of the people who grow our food and drive our trucks, the people who make our cars and build our homes, the people whose taxes fund our government, and whose children fight our wars."
- Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY):
Then: "I think in the presidential field, there are some candidates—who over the long run and they've already started this process—are somewhat disqualifying themselves with untruthful statements."
Now: "President Trump will bring back moral leadership to the White House, condemning antisemitism and standing strong with Israel and the Jewish people. President Trump will once again deliver the most secure border in our nation's history and unleash the American economy, and he will bring peace through strength as commander in chief, standing with our allies and causing our enemies to fear us. President Trump has done it before and he will do it again."
- JD Vance:
Then: "I'm a Never Trump guy. I never liked him." and "I think that I'm going to vote third-party because I can't stomach Trump. I think that he's noxious and is leading the white working class to a very dark place."
Now: "For the last eight years, President Trump has given everything he has to fight for the people of our country. He didn't need politics, but the country needed him."
The Democrats will certainly consider an ad campaign in which the ads are comprised entirely of people who are current Trumpers saying bad things about Trump. They might pair those ads with compilations of clips from people who worked with Trump in his first administration, and say he's awful/stupid/corrupt. (V)
Vance's Indian-American Wife Is Target of Hate
Unfortunately, racist bigotry is as American as apple pie. We wish it weren't, but we know better. The wife of Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance, Usha Chilukuri Vance, is the daughter of Telugu-speaking Hindu immigrants from India and some Republicans don't like this, even though she was born in San Diego and graduated from Yale. And, after all, she is not the vice presidential nominee, her hubby is. Her father, Radhakrishna Chilukuri, graduated from IIT Madras (think: MIT) in mechanical engineering and teaches aerospace engineering at San Diego State University. Her mother, Lakshmi Chilukuri, is a marine molecular biologist and provost of Sixth College at UCSD. Usha's parents are not undocumented, are not fentanyl smugglers, are not criminals, and are none of the other things Donald Trump is constantly carping about.
Online posts have targeted the vice presidential nominee for marrying a non-white person, particularly one who is not only not a Christian, but a practicing Hindu. White supremacist and all-around bigot Nick Fuentes—who, let us recall, has dined with Donald Trump—recently said: "What kind of man marries somebody that isn't a Christian? What kind of man marries somebody named Usha? Clearly, he doesn't value his racial identity, his heritage. Clearly, he doesn't value his religion. He doesn't marry a woman that professes Jesus Christ? What does that say about him?" Because surely if there's one thing we can agree on, it's that Jesus was all about exclusion, and making sure to identify which people were not pure enough to be a part of his movement.
Many of the racist posts, from Fuentes and others, which talk about the Great Replacement Theory, have gotten hundreds of thousands of views. A group called Stop AAPI Hate has recorded thousands of hate-motivated incidents since 2020, when COVID generally increased hate of all Asian-Americans, even though India was as much a victim of COVID as the U.S. So anti-immigrant hatred is not limited to poor people from Central America wading over the Rio Grande, but is also aimed at highly educated nonwhite immigrants who came to the country legally and who have good jobs and pay taxes. (V)
New Battle: Abortion-Reversal Pills
There is a new front in the never-ending abortion war: pills that are alleged to reverse an abortion. Some people are claiming that after a woman takes mifepristone, she can still change her mind and save the baby by taking progesterone within 24-72 hours. This idea is hugely popular in anti-abortion circles. Medical organizations have said the idea has been inadequately studied and is potentially dangerous. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has called the idea of taking progesterone to cancel an abortion "unproven and unethical."
Some anti-abortion websites are pushing the idea that a woman can change her mind after taking mifepristone. They are urging them to have second thoughts and reverse the abortion. The attorneys general in New York and California have other ideas about this. They have sued proponents of abortion reversal for false advertising. New York AG Letitia James said: "Abortions cannot be reversed. Any treatments that claim to do so are made without scientific evidence and could be unsafe." Colorado went even further and has banned the anti-abortion pills.
But Newton's Third Law of Politics states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So some states are working on legislation that would require abortion clinics to tell patients that abortions can be reversed if you move fast enough. Fifteen states have passed legislation of this general nature. Of course, most of those states don't have any abortion clinics, so these laws are more for show than anything else. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists plans to roll out a course explaining how to reverse an abortion to train doctors on how to do it. The Heritage Foundation has given them $100,000 to produce the course.
A key bit of information that is missing is whether the anti-abortion pills actually work. Dr. George Delgado, who runs a clinic called "Culture of Life Family Services," claims he has used the technique with success. Critics say that he never ran double-blind, randomized, experiments with control groups getting placebos and never published the results in peer-reviewed journals. Consequently, all we have is his word, and he is not exactly a neutral observer interested in the truth.
Back on planet reality, most women who get an abortion want the abortion. It is not like someone going up to an ice cream stand and ordering a strawberry cone and then 30 seconds later deciding that chocolate would be yummier. The number of women who would change their minds voluntarily within a day or two of starting the abortion process is undoubtedly extremely small. What might be greater is the number of teenage girls who get pregnant, take mifepristone, and then tell their parents. The parents could then force-feed the girls anti-abortion pills that might or might not work and might actually be dangerous and could inflict harm on the girls. Even if the pills didn't do anything to affect the course of the abortion, the relation between the girls and their parents would be irreparably damaged by the parents trying. Many girls would likely think or say: "You think a clump of cells is more important than me. Good to know." (V)
Zuck Will Sit This One Out
Meta's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has said that he will not be involved in the 2024 election in any way (other than allowing Donald Trump back on all his platforms). In 2020, he donated a lot of money to help election offices run their elections because many states simply didn't provide enough to do the job.
In addition, Zuckerberg said that he will not endorse any candidates this year, although he did comment in an interview with Bloomberg News: "Seeing Donald Trump get up after getting shot in the face and pump his first in the air with the American flag is one of the most badass things I've seen in my life." Why is Zuckerberg staying neutral? At the very least, he doesn't want Trump angry with him. An angry Trump might help TikTok keep operating in the U.S., thus providing some competition to Instagram, which is owned by Zuckerberg's company. A friendly Trump might make TikTok go away. In addition, earlier this month, Trump threatened to jail Zuckerberg. Trump posted: "We will pursue Election Fraudsters at levels never seen before, and they will be sent to prison for long periods of time. We already know who you are. DON'T DO IT ZUCKERBUCKS, be careful!" Maybe that's what caused Zuckerberg to decide to stay out of it. In view of the above item about Usha Vance, we'll also note that Zuckerberg's wife is Asian, and so his children are part-Asian. It's not impossible that a Trumper could try to do them harm. Hopefully their security is better than what the U.S.S.S. provides.
In contrast to Zuckerberg, who is keeping his wallet closed, Elon Musk has said he will donate $45 million per month to Donald Trump. Also on team Trump are Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz, Peter Thiel and David Sacks. So are former Democratic donors Jacob Helberg and Shaun Maguire.
Incidentally, Sacks got some of the wrong sort of attention yesterday when he parroted a ridiculous Republican talking point that Kamala Harris is guilty of a coup against Joe Biden. This is ridiculous because: (1) Biden stepped aside willingly, (2) the voters who supported Biden actually voted for delegates, whose stated mission includes making choices that "in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them" and (3) the voters who supported Biden also voted for Harris, and with the well-established understanding that she might end up replacing him, one way or another.
Anyhow, here is what Sacks tweeted:
One candidate survived assassination. The other staged a coup. Your choice, America.
You can probably see where this is headed. Sacks was widely mocked, with hundreds of people responding with tweets along the lines of: "I'm confused. Those are both Donald Trump, right?" Game, set and match.
Why are so many tech billionaires suddenly for Trump? One possible reason is they know if they aren't, he could punish them if he wins, because he doesn't give a hoot about the Constitution or the law. They know that the Democrats won't decide to punish people because they were not supporters. In addition, many tech billionaires are libertarians and don't like all the diversity laws California has passed. They want to hire the best people they can find and if they believe the best people are all white men plus a smattering of Indian men, so be it. They don't like having to hire women or minorities just to avoid getting sued. They feel that a Trump administration could pass laws making all forms of affirmative action illegal and they would love that. They want to be freed from D.E.I. and all that goes with it. Note, incidentally, that Mark Cuban, who was a tech billionaire before any of these other folks were, has said D.E.I. initiatives have actually helped his bottom line. So, when people like Thiel and Sacks gripe about this issue, there may be a fair bit of unspoken subtext (e.g., they are racists, or they are macho and don't like to be told what to do).
This said, most of the movers and shakers, and nearly all of the rank and file, in Silicon Valley are Democrats. It's just a handful of very high-profile players who are (often suddenly) Republicans. There are also plenty of top tech people who are for the Democratic ticket, including LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman, former CEO of Zynga Mark Pincus, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla. The fact that a handful of Silicon Valley bigwigs are for Trump is newsworthy because it is so rare. (V)
Congress Grills Cheatle
This is only peripheral to politics and elections, but the Director of the Secret Service, Kimberly Cheatle, was grilled by the House Oversight Committee yesterday. The members wanted to know how it was possible that a 20-year-old kid managed to get up on a roof with a direct sight line to where Donald Trump was speaking and shoot at him, hitting him in the ear. Cheatle admitted immediately that it was an operational failure and took full responsibility for it herself. She said: "The buck stops with me." She also said she will move heaven and earth to make sure it never happens again. Several members of the Committee, including Chairman James Comer (R-KY) and ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-MD), called for Cheatle to resign. Congress has no power to fire her.
Committee members asked Cheatle why no agents were stationed on the roof. She said there was an overwatch, but that could have meant an agent on the roof, a countersniper who was guarding the roof or even a camera pointed to it. Somehow the overwatch failed. She said that if the agency had information indicating a threat, they would have taken it seriously, but it did not have that information in time. She answered rumors that Trump had asked for more resources and his requests were denied by saying that he received all the protection he had requested and nothing was denied.
Many other questions were fired at her. She declined to answer some of them due to the nature of the ongoing investigation. She said a full report would be available in 60 days. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said that such a long period is totally unacceptable with a campaign ongoing.
The hearing was surprisingly civil. The members wanted information. There was little grandstanding. That is quite unusual in Congress these days, especially for a committee that includes Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Nancy Mace (R-SC), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) AND Lauren Boebert (R-CO). (V)
Today's Presidential Polls
These are old polls and so mean nothing now. It may take a week or more to start getting meaningful polls. One very big problem is that all pollsters correct the sample to match their idea of the electorate. So if the pollster believes 15% of the electorate will be young women and in the sample only 13% are young women, it will count every young women in the sample as 15/13 of a person (which is much better than the three-fifths of a person the Constitution speaks of for some people).
Now here's the rub. The "electorate" the pollsters mean is the set of people who will actually vote. It is not the voting-eligible population (i.e., citizens over 18 who are not excluded felons). The electorate is not fixed. With Harris in and Biden out, some double haters who were not planning to vote may have become single haters and are now planning to vote. This changes the electorate and thus requires a different correction to the polling sample. The good pollsters understand this, but figuring out the new electorate isn't so easy. It could take them a while and they could get it wrong. They won't really know for sure until election day and may be forced to use old models of the electorate that they have been using for a while. It is not a simple problem to solve quickly. The obvious fix is to go out and ask a whole bunch of people: "Are you going to vote?" but then we quickly get into the problem of differential nonresponse: shy Trump voters who won't answer the phone, enthusiastic 18-year-olds who don't know that you have to be registered in order to vote, etc. We hope that our method of aggregating polls from multiple pollsters smooths this out somewhat, but there is little else we can do right now. (V)
| State | Kamala Harris | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| Arizona | 44% | 52% | Jul 10 | Jul 11 | PPP |
| Pennsylvania | 45% | 51% | Jul 11 | Jul 12 | PPP |
| Pennsylvania | 46% | 50% | Jul 20 | Jul 21 | SoCal Research |
| Wisconsin | 46% | 50% | Jul 20 | Jul 21 | SoCal Research |
Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers