Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: CA MD NC NH OH PA SD WI
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA NV WI
Dueling Accounts of Assaults Against Women Emerge
We live in a #MeToo world, and yesterday, both presidential campaigns were hit with claims of a past assault against a woman.
First up, since the news broke first, is Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff. The Daily Mail reported the story of "Jane" (an alias, obviously), who says she dated Emhoff a year before he commenced his relationship with Kamala Harris. Jane says that during a trip to Cannes, a drunken Emhoff grew angry that she was flirting with another man, and slapped her "so hard I [spun] around." Jane has corroboration for her story. The newspaper reprinted documentation showing that the trip did happen, and also spoke to a friend of hers who said that Jane called him shortly after the incident and described what happened.
The Harris campaign, as you might imagine, issued a denial. And there are at least a few red flags here that raise some questions. First, the story has been reported almost exclusively by right-wing and/or sensationalist outlets (The New York Post, The Washington Times, etc., in addition to The Daily Mail). Maybe the more mainstream outlets are still checking their sources, or maybe they took a look and don't think the story passes the smell test. Second, as part of her comments, Jane opined that Harris "clearly has not done due diligence on [Emhoff]," noting: "He's putting the hard sell on her, like he did with me." That's a pretty loaded statement, which seems less about getting Jane's truth out there, and more about scoring political points. We tend to doubt that Emhoff has managed to fool Harris as to his true nature for 10 years (they commenced dating in 2014). Third, the timing also suggests a desire to score political points. Jane says she and her husband are Democrats, and that they donated $10,000 to Joe Biden's campaign in 2020. If true, that would certainly go far in terms of dispelling the notion that she's trying to help the Trump campaign. However, The Daily Mail did not provide any evidence of this, even though it would have advanced the paper's goals if it had done so. And since Jane is otherwise anonymous, nobody else can look into the matter.
Next up, of course, is Donald Trump. Yesterday, former Sports Illustrated swimsuit model Stacey Williams sat for an interview with CNN in which she said that, in the early 1990s, she was dating disgraced and deceased sleazeball Jeffrey Epstein, and Epstein took her to visit Trump's offices. During that visit, she says, Trump groped her, likely to show off for Epstein. Later, she says Trump sent her a postcard with a picture of Mar-a-Lago on it and the message: "Stacey, Your home away from home. Love, Donald." Like Jane, Williams has corroborating evidence. That includes documentation of her relationship with Epstein, as well as the postcard from Trump (though the Trump campaign claims it's not his handwriting). Williams also told her story to friends—at least three of them, who all confirmed the conversations to CNN.
With the Emhoff story, given the information we run down above, we could be persuaded that Jane's story is true or that Emhoff's story is true, or that the real truth lies somewhere in the middle. In the case of the Williams story, on the other hand, we think it's pretty much a slam dunk that she's speaking the truth. The situation she describes is Trump's well-established MO, which he has bragged about on camera, and for which he has been hammered in court. Further, the Trump campaign did not really deny the story, as much as they claimed it was a Democratic stunt to take attention away from the Emhoff story. As to the red flags we describe for Jane, they don't really apply to Williams. All of the media outlets have the Williams story, not just those of a particular partisan stripe. Williams did not say anything that rings false. And while one could question her timing, she has a pretty good explanation for why she spoke up when she did. There was a documentary about Sports Illustrated and its swimsuit issue that was made in 2022, for which Williams was interviewed, and in which she told the Trump story, without using his name. That documentary was released... this week. So, she says that is why she finally came forward, while noting that she just wasn't quite ready 2 years ago.
Will any of this move the needle? Is one story or the other the "October surprise"? We tend to doubt it. As to the Emhoff story, there are the red flags we mention and, besides, he is not the one running for office. As to the Trump story, it's considerably more plausible, but this kind of behavior is baked into who he is, and the voters who support him clearly don't care. Put another way, why would they overlook the E. Jean Carroll story, but then be outraged by the Stacey Williams story? So while we decided that we could not let this news pass, because we certainly don't want to be a part of normalizing this kind of violence, we do not think it will end up having much impact. (Z)
Trump the Fascist
Here's an item we've been working on for a couple of days, and where we wish we had a couple of days more. But that's just not how it works, and so we proceed. As some readers will know, Saturday Night Live often has more sketches than can be squeezed into their 90-minute broadcast window. These sketches, which are usually on the more surreal side of the humor spectrum, are basically an insurance policy so the show doesn't end up with 5 minutes of air time with nothing to show to viewers. After all, the host can only thank so many people at the end of the broadcast. Back in the day, some of the "cut for time" sketches vanished into the ether, while others were pushed to future weeks (the infamous nude beach sketch, for example, was originally a Tom Hanks vehicle before being recycled for Matthew Broderick). These days, the "cut for time" sketches usually end up being posted to the show's YouTube channel (since the sketch did not make the show, they post the rehearsal).
We bring this up because we have a similar dynamic. Most weeks, we choose a bunch of questions for Saturday, and then sometimes we run out of time to answer them all. So it was this last weekend, where we ended up holding this question (among several):
M.S. in Groton, MA, asks: I have a childhood friend who is no fan of Donald Trump but tends to fall into the "both sides are bad" line of reasoning (he still brings up Hillary's e-mails... I know, I know). He particularly bristles at anyone—including me and some of our mutual friends—calling Trump "fascist;" this came up again when I sent him an article about Mark Milley's recent allegation in Bob Woodward's book. My friend insists on identifying specific policies that Trump put into place that qualify as fascism. From his view, Trump was president once, and we didn't become a fascist dictatorship; ipso facto, Trump isn't fascist.
Personally, I think the only reason Trump didn't implement fascist policies in his first term is because the guardrails of American democracy held up (this time). While I believe Trump is a fascist at heart, this can be relatively easily dismissed as "just an opinion" because, technically, it is.
My question is: Do you consider Trump fascist? If yes, why? If not, can you identify a better descriptor?
Note that when we hold questions, it's not based on merit or lack thereof, it's based on "we're out of time, and this one will take a pretty long time to answer."
We intended to try to get back to that question this upcoming weekend, but then someone rather prominent beat us to it. That would be John Kelly, who is not only a retired four-star Marine Corps general, but was also Donald Trump's longest-serving chief of staff. In other words, he knows something of world affairs and of history, and he also knows Donald Trump very well. On Tuesday, Kelly declared that Trump fits into the general definition of a fascist. He knows what a fascist is, including the part about the leader being a dictator. Kelly also noted that Trump spoke of his admiration for Adolf Hitler and wanted his generals to be like Hitler's generals and simply follow all orders without questioning them.
So, Kelly endorsed Kamala Harris, right? Well, no. Facing Saddam Hussein's army in Iraq was easy, but facing Donald Trump's full wrath, even when the Constitution is at stake, that's apparently a bridge too far. He merely kind of dis-endorsed Trump, but didn't suggest that maybe people should vote for Harris. His (flimsy) excuse is that he is ex-military. But although active-duty military personnel aren't allowed to join campaigns (but of course can vote), there is no law or rule prohibiting former officers, including four-star generals, from speaking out on any political topic or endorsing any candidate. All it takes is guts. And he seems to have lost his, at least at the moment, despite a stellar career in the Marine Corps.
And Kelly wasn't the only person this week who knows Trump and who weighed in on the question. The General was seconded by former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. He encouraged people to look up the definition of "fascism" and ask whether Trump fits the bill. But then he gave his own view: "It's hard to say that he doesn't, when you kind of look at those terms."
Naturally, key Democrats quickly pounced on this. That includes, at least indirectly, Joe Biden. When a reporter asked press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre whether Biden thinks Trump is a fascist, she gave a long, rambling answer, and then ultimately said "Yes." Kamala Harris spoke up, too, saying: "This is a window into who Donald Trump really is, from the people who know him best, from the people who have worked with him side by side in the Oval Office and in the Situation Room."
All of this said, it is absolutely the case that some people either don't really understand what "fascist" means, or they deliberately misuse the term in order to make a point or to be provocative. A very good example is CNN talking head Scott Jennings, who is nearly always on call to deliver some Trumpy propaganda when needed. In response to Kelly's remarks, Jennings had this to say:
I don't know John Kelly, but I agree, I think he's an honorable person. His family and his son certainly made the ultimate sacrifice for the country, so he certainly earned an opinion here. And he's earned a political opinion.
But I think, like everything else with Donald Trump, opinions vary, whether you're coming out of the military or the private sector or government or anything else. And I agree that two weeks before an election will cause some people to look at this in a jaundiced way, like, you know, you're trying to drop this here at the end. And there will be people who don't believe it, there will be people who refute it, and Donald Trump himself also refutes it.
I would just humbly submit to Mr. Kelly that, if he's worried about Hitler and he's worried about fascism, he ought to pick up the newspaper. There's thousands of Hitlers running around this country right now, running around college campuses, running around New York City, chasing Jewish people around, blocking their access on college campuses. If you're worried about Hitler and you're talking about Donald Trump, maybe open your eyes and take in what's happening on the American left in this country. Those are the Hitlers I'm worried about.
It won't happen, but Jennings should be fired for this. Adolf Hitler was most certainly an antisemite. And he was most certainly a fascist. Oh, and he was also a genocidal maniac with few parallels in human history. To propose that antisemitism (or perceived antisemitism) = fascist = Hitler, as if all are one and the same, is outrageous and offensive. And ironically, Jennings could not help but out himself, at the very same time, as someone who is, at very least, fascist-tolerant. That bit at the beginning, the part that suggests that Kelly is especially entitled to have an opinion because of his military service? That is pretty much as fascist as it gets. (See the movie Starship Troopers for some biting commentary on this point.)
Of course, we still haven't answered if WE think Trump is a fascist. We will answer, but we must start by pointing out that the question is actually objectively unanswerable. Fascism is like pornography; to borrow the words of Associate Justice Potter Stewart: "I know it when I see it." What makes it so tough is that there are many different flavors of fascism, and a proper definition has to make room for all of them. As useful evidence of this, note that there are literally dozens of statements and checklists about what is, and is not, a fascist. The Wikipedia article "Definitions of fascism" has a good rundown of a bunch of those; the list from Umberto Eco tends to be particularly widely cited, since he was both a gifted observer of the human condition AND an Italian who lived through Benito Mussolini (albeit as a child). If you would like a definition of fascism tailored to Donald Trump, Will Saletan at The Bulwark had one earlier this week.
Now that we've laid that foundation, we'll give our definition. We prefer to keep it as simple as possible, so our list is nowhere near as long as Eco's (or many of the others). Here are the four defining features of fascism, according to Electoral-Vote.com:
- Supremacy of the Nation-State: If we were going to shorten our list to just ONE item, this
would be the one. The whole philosophical foundation of fascism is that it is the strength of the nation-state that
matters most, and that the people are merely cogs in the machine who exist in service of that goal. "Germans may die,
but Germany is forever," that sort of thing. By contrast, incidentally, the philosophical foundation of communism is
that it is the strength of the people that matters, and the nation-state merely exists in service of that goal. In
theory, that is the mirror image of fascism. Of course, as Joseph Stalin illustrated, a communist state can end up
looking an awfully lot like a fascist state. For that reason, Soviet Russia is sometimes described as "red fascism" (and
note that Karl Marx would certainly have deplored what the U.S.S.R. became).
- Cult of Personality Surrounding the Leader: Fascist leaders do whatever they can to
elevate themselves to demigod-type status, and to encourage anything from "hero worship" to "outright worship." There is
a reason that the leaders of fascist states generally appear in military garb—it makes them look strong and
powerful, and it reminds everyone that they are the one running the show. And that's just part of the theater; there's
lots more. Did you know that there is only one recording extant of Adolf Hitler speaking in his real voice (and that one
was captured surreptitiously)? Hitler wanted Germans only to hear and see the thundering, frightful Hitler. Similarly,
as most readers will know, the Kims in North Korea claim/claimed all kinds of godlike feats, like playing golf and
scoring 18 holes-in-one, or running a 2-minute mile, or directing every movie that is released in that nation. To take a
third example, Idi Amin famously declared himself to be the King of Scotland. Guess it didn't matter that nobody in
Scotland knew about their new monarch, as long as the people of Uganda believed it.
Incidentally, some people think Vladimir Putin is a modern-day fascist. That argument's a bit of a leaner; it could go either way. Certainly, the criterion that the Russian leader meets the least is this one. Putin has tried to create a cult of personality, but he hasn't had the success of a Stalin or a Hitler. In our view, Putin is just an authoritarian, and not a fascist (or red fascist), but there are arguments to be made to the contrary. - Us vs. Them: It is not so easy to maintain a fascist system; you're basically squeezing a
square body politic into a round hole. One way to mitigate that problem, at least for a while, is to identify a group of
insiders (or patriots, or true [NATIONALITY], or whatever) and to encourage them to seek out (and perhaps destroy) those
who are not granted that status. Scott Jennings' bit about how military service makes you more worthy fits in nicely
right here. The outsiders, of course, could be people of the wrong religion, or the wrong immigration status, or the
wrong political outlook, or the wrong sexuality, or the wrong race, or... all of the above.
- Competence: Further to the problem of a fascist system being difficult to maintain, the people who have risen to power as fascists have tended to be hyper-competent (and, of course, hyper-ruthless). Readers will presumably be familiar with the old line that "Mussolini made the trains run on time." That's not factually true, but it certainly captures the general aesthetic of fascism. That fascist leaders have to be very hands-on, and very skilled, helps explain why they tend to be overthrown and/or executed when they begin to slip a little. It also helps explain why fascists are rarely succeeded by other fascists (North Korea notwithstanding). It's pretty rare that two people with the necessary skill set come along, back-to-back. And even if they do, it's pretty rare that the people are willing to tolerate the handover of power from one fascist to the next one (remember, a cult of personality is wanted, and that's not so easy to transfer).
There you have it, our definition of fascism.
So, is Donald Trump a fascist? In his approach, he most certainly is. Does a guy who celebrates military power, who hates alliances, and who wants to see all enemies—foreign and domestic—suffer believe in the supremacy of the nation-state? That's a yes. Has Trump cultivated a cult of personality? Yes (and if you doubt it, see the golden Trump statue that circulates at many Trumpublican events). He doesn't wear a military uniform in public, it is true, but he definitely does in trading cards and in other fantasy images created by members of the cult. Does he speak CONSTANTLY about who is an insider and who is an outsider? You betcha. His bit about "enemies within" could not be clearer on this point. And that's before we talk about all his railing against specific individuals and groups, from immigrants to the "deep state" to Californians to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Kamala Harris.
The rub here, and the strongest counterargument, is the one pointed out by the friend of M.S. in Groton. Donald Trump is not competent. Period. End of sentence. And, as a sidebar, let us note that we've gotten some extra-nasty e-mails this week from people accusing us of being biased, or dishonest, or fa**ots, or all of the above (sorry for the strong language, but there have been several e-mailers who hurled LGBTQ slurs, and it speaks to the mindset). Readers, both regular and one-time, may reach whatever conclusions they want about us. However, Trump's lack of competence is not an opinion, it's a well-established fact. He's gone bankrupt more times than we can count on one hand. He's had countless business ventures that failed outright, or were undermined by his fraudulent behavior. As president, he got virtually none of his legislative program implemented, despite having a Republican trifecta for half of his term. Hitler, Mussolini, Amin, the Kims, Francisco Franco and Ferenc Szálasi, among others, were/are all awful people. But from a competence standpoint, they all leave Trump in the dust.
So, if Trump is reelected, is the U.S. safe from a fascist takeover simply because he's not capable of pulling it off? It certainly helps a lot. Although some of the guardrails from his first term (e.g., Cabinet members who try to rein in the worst impulses of Trump and his fascistic underlings) will likely be missing, others will still be in place. Congress is not likely to roll over for him, nor are the courts. The military is another problem for him; most fascists rose up through the ranks (or, at very least, served in the armed forces) and seeded the upper leadership with loyalists. None of this is true for Trump, and we think the top brass is unlikely to comply with fascistic orders. It also helps that the U.S. is extremely decentralized, both in terms of sovereign power (in other words, states have a lot of the power) and in terms of geography (it's not so easy to impose the will of a person in Washington over an area of more than 4 million square miles). Another insurance policy, ironically, is Trump himself. Those who would take the country in a fascist/Christofascist direction (e.g., the Project 2025 crew) are champing at the bit as they prepare to manipulate Trump into doing their bidding. But Trump HATES to be told what to do, and if he senses he is being manipulated, he may rebel against that and go in the opposite direction, just to spite the manipulators. Lyndon Johnson had this in spades. Trump doesn't always realize when he's being played (see Putin, Vladimir), but he certainly seems to have awakened to the fact that the Project 2025 people were planning to use him as a pawn.
Here is the one scenario that, in our view, is plausible (albeit still not that likely). It's not much of a secret that Trump has declined mentally, even if it's not clear exactly how far gone he is. Let us imagine a scenario where he declines to the point of being nearly insensible, while considerably more competent and ruthless people (Stephen Miller? J.D. Vance?) keep him on as the public face (because of the cult of personality) while secretly running the show behind the scenes. This would be somewhat akin to the Japanese fascism of the 1930s and 1940s, with the Emperor as the public face, and Hideki Tojo and a military junta running the show. Note that Tojo is not always included in lists of fascists these days. All we can say to that, beyond the fact that he (with the Emperor) checks the boxes above, is that the people who watched Tojo in action thought he was a fascist, just like the European fascists of that era.
Again, the barriers to American fascism, even today, are pretty substantial. If a second Trump administration is somehow going to take thought and turn it into action, then our guess is that it would be on the Japanese model. But again, it's not too likely. That is not to say that Trump v2.0 would not result in a lot of damage, but there is a pretty big gap between "a lot of damage" and "an overtly fascist state." And note that we would not normally write an item like this, but we got the question we got, and then John Kelly said what he said, so... there you go. As a reminder, additional observations, thoughtful criticisms and hate mail all go to comments@electoral-vote.com. (V & Z)
Endorsement Watch: More Republicans Prefer Brains over Brawns
Fascism, as we note, is about being strong. There is an irony to that, since fascism actually tends to eat away at the foundations of a government, leading to its fall. How many fascist regimes manage to last more than a generation? Yes, there are the Kims in North Korea, but they are the outlier.
Anyhow, there are many Republicans out there who have clearly seen the light, and concluded that country and, you know, sober, rational leadership are paramount right now. So, Kamala Harris continues to pick up some important endorsements from that side of the aisle. Yesterday, two more folks explicitly added their names to the list, and both spoke about their fears of what Trump represents. Fred Upton, who represented Michigan for 18 terms in the House, said he is backing Harris, and explained that it is because "Trump's just totally unhinged." Meanwhile, Mayor Shawn Reilly, who serves the Wisconsin town of Waukesha, a GOP stronghold, explained that he could not just remain silent and cast his vote for Harris, he felt the need to tell everyone that "I am terrified of Donald Trump becoming our next president." Will those two gentlemen make a (small) difference? Not on a national level, they won't, but in the two swing states they live in, they certainly could.
That said, we thought the most interesting "endorsement" yesterday came from the nation's capital. We put endorsement in quotations, because it most certainly is not a direct endorsement. However, we would argue that it functions as something of a backdoor endorsement. As readers will know, because we've already written about it a couple of times, Mitch McConnell has a biography coming out called The Price of Power. Yesterday, the publisher released another excerpt from it, in which the Majority Leader absolutely decimates Trump, referring to the former president as a "sleazeball" and a "narcissist," opining that he should have been removed from office after the events of 1/6, and decreeing that the "MAGA movement is completely wrong" and that Ronald Reagan "would not recognize" the modern-day Republican Party.
McConnell is not the author of the book, but it is being written with his cooperation. We find it hard to believe that he has zero control over the contents, and zero control over what is released and when. Similarly, we struggle to accept that it's just a remarkable coincidence that this came out less than 2 weeks before the election. And even if the Kentuckian had nothing to do with this—even if he was staunchly opposed to the release—the fact is that his words are now out there, and their message is exactly the same as that of Upton, Kelly and many other Reagan Republicans: You should not vote for Trump, because he's destructive to both the country and the Republican Party. So, even if McConnell is officially backing Trump, it ends up being a backdoor endorsement for Harris.
And we would say there was a second backdoor endorsement, as well. Stuart Stevens is a Republican strategist who used to work for Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT). We can find no indication that Stevens has endorsed in the presidential race this year. However, he did just do an interview where he said that all Trump has is "intimidation" and "chaos," and that "I think the Harris campaign is running what we're probably going to look back at as the best presidential campaign ever run." He also guessed the VP would win the election "fairly comfortably."
Finally, as long as we are on the endorsement beat, there is another high-profile endorsement that Kamala Harris won't be getting, that of The Los Angeles Times. The Times most certainly has a lefty slant, and had already worked its way up the nominations pyramid, endorsing a whole bunch of Democrats (including Adam Schiff for the U.S. Senate). When it came time to finish the series, there was no question the paper would endorse Harris. But before they could, billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, who bought the paper in 2018, stepped in and forbade it. He suggested the editorial board run a side-by-side comparison of Harris and Trump, so that readers could decide for themselves. To do that would be a really awful version of bothsidesism, and it's also just not how endorsements are done (if so, they would not be called "endorsements," they would be called "comparisons"). The board refused, and the head of the board, Mariel Garza, resigned in protest.
The general assumption in Los Angeles (and nationwide) is that Soon-Shiong is just a Trumpy billionaire who wants more of those sweet, sweet tax cuts, and so doesn't want a cross word spoken about the former president. Maybe so; (Z) has been in Los Angeles for Soon-Shiong's entire public career, and has no idea what the man's politics are, despite his prominence. However, it's not like California has any chance of voting for Trump, and by doing this, Soon-Shiong not only aggravated his staff, he also brought vastly more attention than if the newspaper had been allowed to just endorse the candidate everyone knows the staff favors anyhow. Streisand effect, anyone? Oh, and note that Soon-Shiong didn't say anything in 2020, when the staff endorsed Joe Biden.
Because the default answer to the question of what happened doesn't hold up too well, we have an alternate theory. Keep in mind that Trump has held Jeff Bezos responsible for the things printed by the newspaper Bezos owns, namely The Washington Post. Then take note that the primary source of Soon-Shiong's wealth is pharmaceuticals and biotech. That means his various firms do a lot of business with the federal government. Could this be a case of silencing Peter to protect Paul, in the event of another Trump administration? Seems a much cleaner explanation to us. Of course, using government power, or the implied threat of government power, to silence critics is also a part of the fascist playbook. (Z)
I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: To Produce Paprika, You Need a Sodder
For last week's headline theme, we gave a couple of clues. First, we said we had to hold an item, that otherwise would have had the headline "PollWatch 2024, Part IV: Examining the Senate Sausage." On Saturday, we added that "race car driver Tony Stewart and Baseball Hall of Famer Joe Williams would surely both approve of our choice this week."
And now, the solution, courtesy of reader D.K. in Chicago, IL:
Things that are smoked:
- Harris on Fox: Bret Baier Demonstrates How to Fish for Answers—Smoked fish
- Dueling Billionaires: Cuban, Musk on the Campaign Trail—Cuban cigars
- I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: The GRASS Routine—"Grass" is slang for marijuana
- This Week in Schadenfreude: Judge Decides to Crack Down on DeSantis—Crack cocaine
- This Week in Freudenfreude: 90%? Holy Smokes!—"Smokes" is slang for "cigarettes"
Sausage, from the lost headline, is also often smoked. As to the Saturday hint, it helps if a reader knows (or googles) that Joe Williams is always known as "Smokey Joe Williams," while Tony Stewart's nickname is "Smoke." Oh, and paprika, from today's headline, is often sold smoked.
Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:
|
|
We must admit, we think this week's theme is tough. First, it's a little trickier than usual. Second, it took a long time to hammer out the fascism item, meaning we did not have time to finish a (difficult) item on polling. Between that, and the fact that we are not going to make a game out of assaults against women or a fascist takeover of the U.S., that means the number of in-play headlines, and thus the number of clues, is rather limited.
Anyhow, we can tell you that the theme relies on one word per headline and that it's in the Trivial Pursuit category "Language." We'll tell you that the missing item, the one about online betting, would have had the headline "Can Your 'Puter Tell You Who's Going to Win the Election?" Since there are so few clues, relatively speaking, we'll give the additional hint that solving the puzzle will likely require a lot of mettle.
If you have a guess, send it to us at comments@electoral-vote.com. Please use the subject line "October 25 Headlines," so we can easily separate out those messages from the ones that are going to tear us to pieces for the fascism item. (Z)
This Week in Schadenfreude: For One Artist, Jan. 6 Led to Inspiration
There are protests, and there are protests. Reader M.G. in Boulder, CO brings to our attention a particularly... interesting protest that appears to be the work of artist Julia Jimenez-Pyzik. Having received a permit to install an artwork on the National Mall (the permit expires October 30), Jimenez-Pyzik installed this:
That's set up on the site of the 1/6 insurrection (the Capitol is immediately behind the photographer) and depicts what is supposed to be Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) desk, adorned with... well, you can see (as a result of this, we now have a file called pelosi_poop.jpg on our servers). Frankly, we are disappointed that we had to wait to hear from M.G. in Boulder, and that the staff dachshunds did not flag it first.
In case any viewer happens to miss the sarcasm, there's also a plaque mounted on the platform on which the desk stands:
It's not too easy to read in the photo, but what it says is: "This memorial honors the brave men and women who broke Into the United States Capitol on January 6th, 2021 to loot, urinate, and defecate throughout those hallowed halls in order to overturn an election. President Trump celebrates these heroes of January 6th as 'unbelievable patriots' and 'warriors.' This monument stands as a testament to their daring sacrifice and lasting legacy."
We don't have too much to add to that, but we do appreciate some snark, as well as a person who finds a way to uphold the American traditions of free speech and protest without feeling the need to, say, threaten to deploy the U.S. Army against those with whom they disagree. (Z)
This Week in Freudenfreude: Stopping the Steal
We hear weekly from readers who have Harris-Walz (or other) lawn signs. We also hear sometimes from readers who HAD lawn signs, but the signs were defaced or stolen. We think those readers will, in particular, enjoy the tale of Laura McCaskill.
McCaskill is presumably a Democrat, and is certainly a Kamala Harris supporter. Consistent with her 2024 preference, she had a Harris-Walz sign on her lawn. And it got stolen. And then she got another, which was also stolen. And then a third, which was stolen yet again. That gets pretty tiresome, obviously.
When McCaskill got her fourth sign, she decided she'd had enough. So, she attached an Apple AirTag to it. That's a little bit of a gamble, since an AirTag costs $15-$20, and only a stupid thief would hold on to a stolen sign, as opposed to trashing it somewhere. Fortunately for McCaskill's sense of justice, it was indeed a stupid thief. She managed to track the AirTag to a car parked in front of a house in her hometown of Springfield, MO. The owner of the car turns out to be a Trump fan who lives with his mom. And, consistent with being, well, stupid, he not only had McCaskill's sign, but 58 others, as well.
McCaskill got her sign back, of course, and now she has filed a police report. The same is true of many of her neighbors. The law says that each stolen sign could result in a year's imprisonment and a fine of $2,500. That means the sign thief could end up doing 59 years and paying $147,500. He won't get anywhere near that, but he's not going to get zero punishment, either. And presumably, he'll think twice before filching someone's signage.
Have a good weekend, all! (Z)
Today's Presidential Polls
It looks like it will be nerve-rackingly close. We are going to live blog on Election Night, but we suspect we could still be at it on Nov. 7 or later while the last 50 votes trickle in. (V)
| State | Kamala Harris | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| California | 59% | 33% | Oct 07 | Oct 15 | Public Policy Inst. of Calif. |
| Maryland | 61% | 33% | Oct 17 | Oct 22 | U. of Maryland |
| New Hampshire | 50% | 47% | Oct 21 | Oct 23 | Emerson Coll. |
| North Carolina | 48% | 50% | Oct 21 | Oct 22 | Emerson Coll. |
| North Carolina | 47% | 46% | Oct 17 | Oct 20 | SurveyUSA |
| Ohio | 43% | 50% | Oct 10 | Oct 21 | YouGov |
| Pennsylvania | 49% | 51% | Oct 21 | Oct 22 | Emerson Coll. |
| Pennsylvania | 49% | 50% | Oct 09 | Oct 20 | Franklin + Marshall Coll. |
| South Dakota | 37% | 62% | Oct 19 | Oct 22 | Emerson Coll. |
| South Dakota | 33% | 59% | Oct 12 | Oct 16 | Mason Dixon |
| Wisconsin | 49% | 50% | Oct 21 | Oct 22 | Emerson Coll. |
Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.
Today's Senate Polls
At first Democrats were afraid that popular former governor Lary Hogan would beat an unknown county executive, but now it appears Angela Alsobrooks will win easily in very blue Maryland. (V)
| State | Democrat | D % | Republican | R % | Start | End | Pollster |
| Maryland | Angela Alsobrooks | 52% | Larry Hogan | 40% | Oct 17 | Oct 22 | U. of Maryland |
| Ohio | Sherrod Brown* | 47% | Bernie Moreno | 45% | Oct 10 | Oct 21 | YouGov |
| Pennsylvania | Bob Casey* | 47% | David McCormick | 46% | Oct 21 | Oct 22 | Emerson Coll. |
| Pennsylvania | Bob Casey* | 49% | David McCormick | 48% | Oct 09 | Oct 20 | Franklin + Marshall Coll. |
| Wisconsin | Tammy Baldwin* | 48% | Eric Hovde | 48% | Oct 21 | Oct 22 | Emerson Coll. |
* Denotes incumbent
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers