Main page    Jul. 25

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page

New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA ME MI NV NH PA WI

DNC Rules Committee Sets a Virtual Roll Call

The Rules Committee of the DNC convened yesterday and formally adopted the rules the Democrats will use to choose their nominee. Candidates for the nomination have until Saturday at 6 p.m. EDT to submit their names for consideration. Then wannabe nominees have until Tuesday to submit signatures of at least 300 convention delegates, with no more than 50 from any one state. The rule also requires the names of both the presidential and vice presidential nominee. This will force Kamala Harris to make her choice of running mate known fairly soon (unless she can convince the committee to make an exception for her).

Once the nominees are known, the procedure depends on how many candidates are nominated. If there is only one, delegates will be sent electronic ballots and voting will begin on Aug. 1. If more than one person is nominated, then all candidates will get 5 days to make their cases to the delegates. Once that period has passed, the delegates will get at least 36 hours advance notice as to when electronic voting will start.

In any event, the voting will be completed by Aug. 7. This unusual procedure was forced by an Ohio law that states parties must present the names of their candidates to the Ohio secretary of state 90 days before the election, which is Aug. 7 this year. In the past, the legislature always waived the rule for whichever party held its convention in August, but Democrats don't trust Ohio this time. The legislature did pass a new law moving the deadline up by 2 weeks, but that law doesn't take effect until Sept. 1. The DNC didn't want to take any chances about court cases keeping Harris off the Ohio ballot. If the nomination is official on Aug. 7, all state deadlines will be met.

Nevertheless, social media is full of disinformation. In particular, one post on Instagram said that Biden's name is already on the ballot in nine states and cannot be removed. That is simply false. Biden's name could not be on any ballot yet because the DNC has not chosen a nominee yet. Instagram users may not know that but the 50 secretaries of state certainly do. That notwithstanding, it is likely that many people will read the post and believe it. (V)

Biden Speaks...

Speaking from the Oval Office, Joe Biden addressed the American people yesterday for the first time since deciding to drop out of the presidential race. Here is the speech, if you didn't see it already (or you can read a transcript here):



He spoke for 11 minutes. The executive summary: It was... OK.

The President had three things he wanted to accomplish. The first was to "explain" why he dropped out of the race. And his explanation was that he decided he needed to "unite [his] party" and to "pass the torch to a new generation." That's certainly part of the explanation, but it omits a fair bit of the story, as well. In particular, right wingers are hopping mad that Biden did not say anything about his health.

The second goal was to convey what he plans to do with his remaining time in office, and to talk about what has already been accomplished. If Biden was going to openly urge people to vote for Kamala Harris, this is when he would have done so. He kept it a touch more subtle, however, declaring: "I would like to thank our great vice president, Kamala Harris. She is experienced, she is tough, she is capable. She's been an incredible partner to me and a leader for our country." Although it's legal for a president to engage in electioneering from the Oval Office (because the president is explicitly exempt from the Hatch Act), Biden and his team clearly decided that being too overt would be in poor taste, and an abuse of the platform he was being given.

The third goal, which got the lion's share of the verbiage, was to warn the American people that democracy is at risk. He was not terribly specific as to WHY it is at risk; viewers get to fill in the blanks for themselves. Biden did not mention his immediate predecessor by name, though he did mention George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Maybe the rule was that you had to win the popular vote in order to make the speech.

Anyone who already believed that Biden has declined significantly will find affirmation of their views in his performance. The President tripped over his tongue roughly half a dozen times, despite reading from a teleprompter. The stumbles were probably due to his stutter. However, it is now well established that Biden skeptics do not really distinguish between "stutter" and "evidence of dementia."

Beyond the tongue-tied moments, Biden's delivery was a little flat. That is not too surprising; it can't be easy to summon up enthusiasm for giving up the presidency. The language of the speech endeavored to be poetic and inspiring, but didn't hit the bullseye. And the White House still hasn't solved the problem of positioning the teleprompter so that the speaker can read while also looking at the camera. And so, Biden was sorta looking at the viewing audience, but not exactly, which is just a tiny bit unsettling.

It was at least plausible that if the speech had been a Kennedy- or Reagan-style home run, it might have given Harris a little bit of a boost. But as it is, we don't think it will have much impact, one way or the other. (Z)

...And So Does Netanyahu

Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a badly divided Congress yesterday. About 80 liberal Democrats did not attend, including Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). President of the Senate Kamala Harris did not preside over the joint session, citing a "scheduling conflict," even though the date of Netanyahu's speech has been known for weeks. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) went further. He said: "Benjamin Netanyahu is the worst leader in Jewish history since the Maccabean king who invited the Romans into Jerusalem over 2,100 years ago." Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) did not shake Netanyahu's hand when he entered the chamber. Several Democratic senators also skipped the speech.

The speech was as much aimed at Israelis as at the members of Congress or the American public. This is why it was set for 2 p.m., which is 9 p.m. in Israel. Netanyahu described the war in Gaza in almost Biblical terms, as a battle between good and evil, between civilization and barbarism. It was a fiery speech with lots of drama. He is a very good speaker.

The PM also was clever enough to lavish praise on both Joe Biden and Donald Trump. He tried to make it clear that the war was also America's war. He said, "Our enemies are your enemies. Our fight is your fight. And our victory will be your victory." Republicans gave him raucous standing ovations multiple times. Natanyahu wore a lapel pin with crossed American and Israeli flags (to show that America's interests and Israel's interests are the same):

Benjamin Netanyahu after addressing Congress July 24

In his speech, Netanyahu described what happened on Oct. 7 in graphic detail. He said that 3,000 Hamas barbaric terrorists stormed into Israel, raped women, and burned babies alive.

Netanyahu knows that Biden wants a cease fire, so he offered a proposal. If Hamas disarms, surrenders, and returns all the hostages, the war would end immediately. Needless to say, Hamas has no interest in doing that, since that would end all of its leverage. He also wants a security alliance with Saudi Arabia and some other Arab countries. They want it too, but they can't proceed as long as the war in Gaza continues. But if Netanyahu were to tell the Israeli Army to stop fighting without the other side conceding anything, his government would fall and there would total chaos. Also, Hamas would interpret that as weakness, and in that part of the world, the weak are eaten.

Experts said that for decades, support of Israel has been bipartisan. If that support erodes and support of Israel becomes just another partisan issue, that would change the nature of the U.S.-Israeli relationship for the worse. Netanyahu sort of tried to avoid being openly partisan, but given the different views of the Republicans and some Democrats, there is no real bipartisan position.

Outside, an estimated 5,000 pro-Palestinian demonstrators protested his speech, called Netanyahu a war criminal, and demanded that the U.S. stop sending arms to Israel. Netanyahu did not help his "bipartisan" case by saying that the protesters are standing with Hamas, standing with rapists and terrorists. He called them Tehran's useful idiots. That was probably for domestic consumption in Israel, but won't go over well in the U.S.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian-American in Congress, held up a sign reading "WAR CRIMINAL" on one side and "GUILTY OF GENOCIDE" on the other. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) went over and sat next to her and had a brief interaction with her. Rep Steny Hoyer (D-MD), a former House majority leader, called the sign "unfortunate."

Biden and Netanyahu will meet at the White House today. Netanyahu is expected to meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, possibly Friday.

Structural Factors Point Both Ways

Who's going to be elected president? Beats us. And everyone else. Don't believe people who claim to know. We will have more polls in a week or two, and probably some swing state polls soon, but it takes time for people to process something as momentous and unprecedented as a candidate swap. Double haters, especially those who think anybody older than grandpa is too old to be president, need time to reassess their position. Nevertheless, there are a number of structural factors that are clear now. How big each one will be is impossible to say, though. And there could be more known unknowns (e.g., debates) or unknown unknowns (?) that roil the race.

Here is a short list of factors, but we have added a number of others we thought of ourselves below. The number of items in each list is not terribly important because some of them may be huge and others microscopic.

Factors Working for Trump

Looks great for Trump and glum for Harris? Not so fast. There are also a fair number of structural issues that work the other way:

Factors Working for Harris

One issue we don't have in either list is the economy. By traditional measures, the economy is in good shape. Inflation is under control, wages are up, jobs are easy to find, the stock market and people's 401(k) plans are way up. This should work for Harris. Her problem is that for many people, all they see is that eggs and milk cost more than they used to. Harris can run ads full of graphs of wages and prices but voters are not particularly knowledgeable about or concerned with macroeconomics, so that could be hard to pull off. As to Trump, he could make ads with people grousing about how much eggs and milk cost nowadays, but would that affect anyone who is not already angry about how much eggs and milk cost nowadays? In short, we don't really know who would or could benefit from making the economy an issue. (V)

It's Deja Vu All over Again

"Could a woman break through that last glass ceiling?" is a question that seems to come up from time to time. In dozens of countries, including Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Tunisia, Ukraine, and the U.K., the answer is "been there, done that." So far, not the U.S. though. Could it happen now? Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than Donald Trump in 2016, but they weren't distributed the right way. Still, a lot has changed since 2016. For example, the work force now has more college-educated women than college-educated men. That wasn't true in 2016. The #MeToo movement happened. The Dobbs decision resulted in making abortion unavailable in half the states.

Also, Kamala Harris is not Hillary Clinton. Clinton had a lot of baggage and many people strongly disliked her as a person and thought she was arrogant. Harris has far less of that, although there are probably more people who hate Black women than hate white women. The other candidate is the same person, but has changed. Donald Trump is far more misogynistic now than he was in 2016 and voters are more sensitive to that now than they were then.

Certain attitudes have also changed. Back in 2016 you were either a man or a woman. For some young voters now, gender is more fluid, with many possibilities. For these voters, which of the many genders someone is doesn't count for much.

Also, people are now more used to seeing women in high elective office. Currently, 25 senators, 128 House members and 12 governors are women. When a woman runs for high office, in most cases, the fact that she is a woman doesn't play an especially large role in the campaign. More important is whether she is a Democrat or a Republican. (V)

Vance May Be a Net Negative for Trump

Donald Trump probably didn't vet his potential running mates carefully. Vetting requires getting down into the weeds and checking out everyone's background thoroughly. Trump doesn't do that. He goes with his gut, and J.D. Vance was the most MAGAtastic of them all, so he got the nod. Trump may soon regret that.

As mentioned above, Vance doesn't bring in a lot of new voters because the people who like him were already going to vote for Trump. But it is worse than that. As oppo researchers dig into his past, they are turning up things that may actively repel some independents and undecideds, and maybe even some weak Trump supporters who don't actually like Trump but who have always been Republicans and were planning to vote for him out of a vague sense of party loyalty.

Vance's problem is that he is part of the New Right. The people there are intellectuals, activists, politicians, and influencers who hold a variety of views and have different policy goals. But one theme that runs through the movement is disrespect for women, or "childless cat ladies," as they are known. A key thing they largely agree on is rolling back women's gains in many areas and pushing back on gender equality. And some of Vance's earlier remarks about women are going to come back to haunt him as they become better known.

Vance is strongly opposed to abortion, and has suggested it is wrong even in cases of rape and incest: "It's not whether a woman should be forced to bring a child to term, it's whether a child should be allowed to live, even though the circumstances of that child's birth are somehow inconvenient or a problem to the society." He has compared abortion to slavery. When the Dept. of HHS was finalizing a rule that would have prevented law enforcement from accessing women's medical records relating to reproductive health, Vance was one of only 28 members of Congress to oppose the rule. He is against divorce and said that people now shift spouses like they change their underwear. He has argued that people in unhappy, even violent, marriages should stay together for the good of the children. Watch:



The host mumbles incomprehensibly for the first 50 seconds with the mic in his mouth, then Vance starts talking. He is clearly speaking as an editor of the Yale Law Review and not some country hick from Appalachia. He is intellectual and knows what he wants to say and says it well. Hillbillies don't talk with deep knowledge of "labor force participation rates" as Vance does. If you want to skip the economics stuff (which is interesting because it shows you that Vance is a lot smarter than the average bear), the divorce stuff where he says women should stay in horrible marriages for the sake of the kids starts at 2:43.

Something like 40-50% of first marriages end in divorce and something like 60-65% of second marriages end in divorce. Nearly 70% of divorces are initiated by the woman. Telling women that they should stay in a violent marriage for the sake of the kids is not likely to be a big vote getter with the ladies.

Vance is friendly with the Claremont Institute, which is home to a variety of industrial-strength misogynists such as Prof. Scott Yenor, a fellow there. Yenor has said that career-oriented women are "more medicated, meddlesome, and quarrelsome than women need to be." Also there is Jack Murphy, who once said "feminists need rape." Many of the members are also part of a pro-patriarchy fraternal organization, the Society of American Civic Renewal. (V)

Harris' Strategy Laid Bare

Kamala Harris' strategy is not a secret. In fact, her campaign manager, Jen O'Malley Dillon, wrote a memo describing it and gave it to Politico for publication.

First the campaign will target five specific demographics where Harris is already much more popular than Donald Trump. The goal here is to drive up turnout. The groups are Black voters, Latino voters, Asian American/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander voters, women voters, and young voters. For example, Harris is running 54 points ahead of Trump among Black voters, so getting every possible Black voter to the polls is a top priority, Similarly, among women, Harris' favorability runs 21 points ahead of Trump's

Another group consists of voters who didn't vote for Biden in 2020, but have moved toward the Democrats since then, in part due to the extreme candidates the Republicans ran in 2022. These people include the remaining white college-educated voters who aren't already Democrats, as well as seniors. These two groups were formerly solidly Republican, but that has changed rapidly in recent years and Dillon wants to encourage the holdouts to switch parties as well.

Still another group in Harris' sights is the undecideds. It is about 7% of the electorate. Most are Black or Latino and under 30 and don't pay a lot of attention to politics. They need to be aggressively targeted.

The states Dillon will target are the three blue-wall states (Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania) as well as the sunbelt states of Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina. No real surprises here.

Dillion also discusses the enthusiasm of Democrats. As of Tuesday evening, Harris had raised $126 million from small donors. Since Sunday, 1.4 million grassroots donors contributed to her campaign, 64% of whom had not contributed before. In addition, 74,000 donors signed up for recurring contributions, providing a steady stream of money.

Since Sunday, over 100,000 people have volunteered to work for the campaign and another 2,000 applied for jobs with the campaign. These people will work out of 250 offices with 1,300 existing staff, soon to be expanded to 1,500 paid staff.

Dillon expects the race to be close but says it is winnable. She could hardly say otherwise. (V)

Wray Testifies about the Assassination Attempt

FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump by Thomas Matthew Crooks. The FBI found and unlocked Crooks' computer and was able to report on some of the things they found there. On July 6, a week before the shooting, Crooks registered to attend the rally in Butler, PA, where he shot Trump. Also that day he did an online search for: "How far away was Oswald from Kennedy?" That clearly suggests he spent at least a week on his plan to kill Trump and was starting to work out the mechanics of doing it. However, that doesn't shed any light on why he wanted to kill Trump, since he (Crooks) was a registered Republican.

Crooks was definitely thorough. He visited the rally site on July 7, the day after he registered to attend, and then two more times later in the week. The day of the rally, he flew a drone for 11 minutes around the area 2 hours before it started. Wray thought it was for surveillance. Authorities also found two explosive devices in his car so it is also possible that Crooks had a plan to send and remotely detonate the devices near Trump. The police found the drone and its controller in Crooks' car.

Wray also said that the firearm Crooks used had a collapsible stock, making it easier to conceal. That would explain why he didn't attract much attention before he got to the roof. However, once he was up on the roof and in position to shoot, he was spotted by a local law enforcement officer. Crooks saw that he had been spotted, realized that he didn't have much time left, and opened fire almost immediately. The FBI found eight spent casings on the roof along with Crooks' body.

When asked if there were any accomplices or coconspirators, Wray said there is no indication so far of anyone else being involved.

Wray said that Crooks was a shooting hobbyist and had gone to a shooting range the day before the attempt, possibly to work on his marksmanship.

The opening statement by Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) was highly partisan, as usual for him. He said he wanted a second-by-second timeline of what happened that day. The hearing itself, which ran for 3 hours, was orderly, with House members asking serious questions and waiting for answers. (V)

Dean Phillips Was Right

As you might vaguely remember, Rep. Dean Phillips (DFL-MN) ran against Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination for a bit earlier this year. So did Marianne Williamson, but Phillips is a three-term member of the House and the company he co-owns makes a mean gelato, so his candidacy carried a bit more weight (but not much).

Phillips didn't disagree with Biden's policies. In fact, he voted for them 100% of the time. His pitch was that Biden was too old to win the election. Everyone pooh-poohed him. Biden was in great shape and certainly not too old to win.

Phillips didn't actually want to be president. He just wanted somebody out there to prevent Biden from getting the nomination because he was convinced Biden was not up to another 4 years and could not win the election. He wanted to prevent a Trump presidency at all costs. He called Govs. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) and Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) to try to get them to run. Neither returned his calls. Giving advice runs in his family. His grandmother, Pauline Phillips, wrote the Dear Abby advice column.

When Phillips failed to get any high-profile Democrat to jump in, as a desperation measure, he jumped in himself. Not that it did a lot of good. For whatever consolation it might be to Phillips, nobody believed Cassandra either, even though she was right, too. (V)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers