Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: AZ GA MD MI NC NV PA TX VA WI
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA
13,000+ words. Thanks for waiting.
Legal News, Part I: Smith Serves Up a Mega-Brief (MAGA-Brief?)
Yesterday was the deadline for Special Counsel Jack Smith to file a brief with Judge Tanya Chutkan in the Donald Trump election interference case. In this instance, "brief" is a little misleading, because Smith got permission to blow past the usual 30 (or so) pages, and instead filed a document that reportedly checks in around 180 pages, not including exhibits.
As you might infer from our use of "reportedly," the brief has not been made public. Exactly when (or if) that happens, and exactly what portions it happens with (if any) is up to Chutkan. However, there's enough information out there to know that some significant portion of the brief is evidence that has never been revealed publicly, even by the 1/6 Committee. Reportedly, the filing has notes from interviews with Ivanka Trump, Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo, some grand jury testimony, and previously unknown documentary evidence. The basic purpose of the brief is to argue that most or all of what Trump did during the insurrection was not part of his official duties, and so is not covered by the Supreme Court's Louis XIV ruling.
The Washington brief is, presumably, not great news for Trump. On the other hand, he did a little better in New York yesterday, assuming you believe you can read the tea leaves from judges' lines of questioning. A New York appeals court (but NOT the New York Court of Appeals, which is that state's supreme court) heard arguments over whether or not the $454 million civil fraud judgment against Trump is excessive. In the original case, the prosecution seemed to do a pretty good job of laying out how much Trump gained through his chicanery (roughly $300 million), and how much he should pay in penalties and interest (the other $150 million or so), but one of the five judges yesterday said the number was "troubling." That said, he's one vote in five, and appeals judges often play devil's advocate. So, while the hearing went about as well as Trump could have hoped for (he wasn't there, which probably helped), keep in mind the tea leaves problem.
And as long as we are talking MAGA World's legal issues, there were a couple of other news stories yesterday. The first of those is that Newsmax and Smartmatic reached a settlement, avoiding a court case that was scheduled to commence on Monday. Judge Eric Davis, who is handling the case, had really primed the pump for a settlement in two ways. First, he ruled that Newsmax definitely defamed Smartmatic, and that point was not up for discussion in court. Second, he said that Smartmatic could only go after actual damages, and could not pursue additional punitive damages. On top of this, as a dinky third-tier cable channel, Newsmax has somewhat limited assets, and somewhat limited income (about $180 million last year). So, there was only so much blood to be squeezed from that particular stone. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, so we don't know yet how much blood Smartmatic got, but maybe that will leak out eventually.
The other dynamic that presumably influenced Smartmatic here is that their real target is the whale among right-wing propaganda outlets, namely Fox. Fox settled with Dominion Voting Systems, of course, but their Smartmatic case is still pending. Since we are not of counsel for Smartmatic, we don't know what their thinking is. They might just be searching for the biggest payment possible. Alternatively, they might want their day in court, in search of headlines like "Fox lied about Smartmatic" and "Smartmatic machines deemed reliable in court case." Fox, for their part, has put out press releases asserting that the same things that limited the exposure of Newsmax (i.e., no punitive damages) will also limit their (Fox's) exposure. Sometime soon, we'll find out if Team Rupert is right about that. Certainly, because of its much greater reach, Fox is going to have to write a much fatter check if there is a settlement.
And finally, yesterday saw yet another nail hammered into the coffin of sad sack former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. The D.C. Court of Appeals issued an order formally disbarring him in the nation's capital. The disbarment is, in a manner of speaking, based on a technicality. The D.C. Bar had recommended that Giuliani be booted from the profession due to his bad behavior in Pennsylvania, overseeing Trump legal challenges there. However, because America's Former Mayor did not bother to show up in court to defend himself, the Court of Appeals did not engage with that question, and disbarred him on the basis of non-response to its subpoena. Either way, disbarment is disbarment and, having also been disbarred in New York, Giuliani will presumably never be able to practice law again. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. (Z)
Legal News, Part II: Eric Adams Is in No Man's Land
Yesterday was not a bright and shiny day for mayors of New York City. At the same time Rudy Giuliani was losing his law license in D.C., current mayor Eric Adams was learning what he's been charged with. The indictment is pretty brutal, and has effectively made Adams a man without friends.
On Wednesday, reporting suggested that Adams faced one felony charge. As it turns out, he was actually indicted on five counts, some dating back to before his time as mayor. The charges are: (1) Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, Federal Program Bribery, and to Receive Campaign Contributions By Foreign Nationals; (2) Wire Fraud; (3 and 4) Solicitation of a Contribution by a Foreign National; and (5) Bribery. The charges are unusually detailed, by the standards of an indictment, and are backed up with substantial evidence. The document runs a total of 57 pages.
If you are not a lawyer and/or you do not want to read a somewhat dry legal document, the basic contention that prosecutors are making is that Adams was in bed with the Turkish government. Some of the alleged misdeeds, while clearly illegal and problematic, are also kind of amusing. For example, Adams was given free flights on Turkish Airways, anytime he wanted, and so he bent over backwards to use them. On one trip, from Chicago to Paris, he flew Chicago-Istanbul-Paris, adding almost 2,000 miles to his itinerary. He also bent over backwards to stay at hotels owned by Turkish interests, because he got steeply discounted rates (90%-95% off). Of course, Adams disclosed none of this.
The Turks also gave money to Adams, both directly and in the form of campaign donations. It is illegal for foreign nationals to give money to political candidates in New York, just as it is illegal for them to give money to federal candidates. No problem; Adams allegedly used U.S. citizens to "make" the donations, thus effectively laundering the money. Further, New York has a matching funds program, so for every $1 in illegal donations, Adams was also getting $8 from the city of New York.
What, on earth, would the Turkish government want or need from a city mayor? Well, like Nate Silver (and unlike us), they thought that Adams had big things in his future, and might be moving up the ladder, perhaps all the way to the White House. Beyond that, there are lots of little favors that a city official might do for a well-heeled foreign country. For example, Adams is alleged to have intervened, and to have persuaded New York officials to call off a planned safety inspection of the Turkish consulate in NYC.
What it boils down to is that Adams is in all kinds of trouble. As we have noted many times, the feds don't go after someone unless they are certain of their case. That's not just a general preference, it's Department of Justice policy, meant to make sure that the government gets maximum bang for its buck. We think it's fair to assume that the feds are doubly and triply careful to make sure their case is tight before they go after someone as prominent as the sitting mayor of New York City. Reading the indictment does nothing to make us rethink that assumption.
On top of that, the current indictment is just the first one to actually come to fruition. There are at least four other investigations involving Adams; the one that looks to be the most dangerous for him involves similar allegations to the Turkey indictment, except involving the government of China. And these are just the investigations that are publicly known; there could be others.
In our Adams item yesterday, written before details of the indictment were publicly known, we proposed that Adams is pretty close to being a Democratic version of Donald Trump. Well, in his press conference yesterday, the Mayor declared that he was only targeted because Joe Biden is using the Department of Justice to target enemies of the administration. Sound familiar?
This sort of conspiratorial thinking is nonsense, of course. In fact, Adams is at least the seventh prominent Democrat to be indicted since Joe Biden became president, joining former senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, former representative T.J. Cox of California, current representative Henry Cuellar of Texas, former Tallahassee mayor Andrew Gillum, Illinois state representative Michael J. Madigan and First Son Hunter Biden. That does not read like a list of enemies, it reads like a list of dubious operators. After seeing the actual indictment, The Washington Post further took a sledgehammer to the conspiratorial thinking, explaining that phony prosecutions do not involve this quantity of detailed evidence. Heck, after the indictment came out, even Fox News, which had previously been parroting the Adams-as-martyr narrative, had to change course, and to admit that the indictment is very solid and very substantive.
So, that is the legal situation. Now the politics. Adams is no longer a player in Democratic politics; he's not going to be elected to some other office, he's not going to be used as a surrogate for the White House or some other Washington concern, he's not going to be asked to campaign or appear at rallies for Democratic candidates. He's done for. However, not unlike the dynamics we saw with "George Santos," he does have the potential to be an anchor around the necks of other Democrats, particularly those in New York. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who never, ever misses an opportunity like this, has already held a press conference where she used the Adams indictment as evidence of the Democrats' "cult of corruption."
Democratic politicians are very sensitive to this (and tend to be broadly anti-corruption, on top of that), and so a huge number of them are calling for Adams to resign. That includes many city officials, such as New York City Comptroller Brad Lander. It includes many members of the New York State legislature, such as State Sens. Zellnor Myrie and Brad Hoylman. It includes members of the New York City Council, such as Councilman Lincoln Restler. And it includes many members of Congress. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is the highest-profile, but the loudest might be the members running for election/re-election in swingy New York districts, who don't want to come up short just because the major of New York City turned out to be a(n alleged) crook.
Will Adams actually resign? He certainly does not seem the type. That said, even if he tries to hold on, he might not be able to do it. Although he is the first sitting mayor ever to be indicted (which is saying something, given how many shady mayors NYC has had), the city charter anticipates a situation like this. There is a procedure by which Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) can remove Adams of her own volition. And if she doesn't do it, maybe because he's an ally, or maybe because he might spill some dirt on her, then it is also possible for a five-member committee made up of the lead counsel to the Corporation of the City of New York, the New York City comptroller, the City Council speaker, one of the deputy mayors (with the mayor getting to make the pick), and the borough president with the longest consecutive service. It takes four of the five to remove Adams, which could be tricky, because one of the posts (lead counsel to the Corporation of the City of New York) is currently vacant.
Since Adams was already historically unpopular even before the indictments (the lowest approval rating of any mayor since approval polls began to be conducted in the 1980s), there was already a long list of Democrats champing at the bit for the chance to take him on in next year's reelection campaign. That includes the aforementioned Lander and Hoylman, along with State Sen. Jessica Ramos and former city comptroller Scott Stringer. There is also talk that former governor Andrew Cuomo might throw his hat into the ring. If Adams was to be removed, then New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams would take over on an interim basis, and then there would be a special election to pick a permanent replacement. All of the wannabe mayors would be pretty happy with that outcome, since it would significantly reduce the amount of time available for additional contenders to jump in.
So, it's quite the soap opera. And with control of the House likely to be decided by just a few seats, it's a soap opera with potential national implications. (Z)
The Debate's Not Yet Over, Part I: The Ball Is In Trump's Court?
We haven't had a chance to tie up loose ends here, but we just have to do it today, because the next debate is nigh (see below). To start, there is much pressure on Donald Trump to agree to do a second debate with Kamala Harris. She has committed to another tilt on CNN on October 23, if he is amenable. And take this with a grain of salt, perhaps, but Fox's Bret Baier said that it's still possible that he and his network might host a debate, but that the hold-up is... Trump.
Thus far, Trump is adamant that there will be no more debates. His excuses are twofold: (1) Two debates is enough, and (2) people have already started voting, so it's too late. Needless to say, neither of these passes the smell test. Historically (in the era of presidential debates, 1976-present), there have been three debates for the presidential candidates, and they are generally held very close to the election. So, "two debates" and "can't do it in late September because people are already voting" are both standards created out of thin air. Further, if the start of voting means there is no longer a need to talk to voters, then why is he still campaigning, holding rallies, airing commercials, etc.? Clearly, he desperately wants to avoid another debate because he hates prepping for them (even a little), and he knows he got bulldozed by Harris at the first one. This is even more obviously true if Baier is right, and Trump isn't even willing to debate in the friendly confines of Fox.
Moving along, we did not get a chance to run down the results of the Bingo game. We are not thrilled that it's taken this long, but we would be even less thrilled if we never got to it. Much of the delay was because we thought that the website we used to collect responses was not working properly. As it turns out, it was actually Microsoft's fault. We could have sworn we heard that cloud computing and applications-by-subscription would be SO MUCH BETTER for users. Hm. Anyhow, we are very much indebted to reader S.C. in Mountain View, CA, who helped us with the spotting of things.
To start, of the 30 possibilities we came up with (assisted by readers), only four did not actually come to pass. Here they are:
- Name of any person known primarily as a musician or actor (100 points)
- Reference to 9/11 attacks (the debate is on 9/10) (80 points)
- Harris: "Excuse me" (60 points)
- Harris: "Weird" (50 points)
That means that 86.6% of the things that we and the readers predicted did come to pass. We know that some readers think this sort of thing is silly, but in our view, there are actual lessons to be drawn. In this case, we think the lesson is that the talking points and issues raised during the debate were very, very predictable. That may help explain why, despite a clear win by Harris, the debate didn't move the needle very much. Anyone who's following politics at any level has pretty much heard it all before.
And now, here are the things that were uttered, in order, along with details:
| Order | Predicted Item | Time (ET) | Notes |
| 1 | Reference to the price of eggs, milk, gas, or any other specific, daily-use commodity (20 points) | 6:03 | Harris talking about specific goods for children |
| 2 | China/tariffs/Xi Jinping (50 points) | 6:05 | Trump talking about how great tariffs are |
| 3 | Trump: "the greatest ever/in history" or "the worst ever/in history" (10 points) | 6:06 | Trump talking about inflation |
| 4 | Reference to the border/immigration (10 points) | 6:07 | Trump talking about the economy |
| 5 | Reference to Project 2025 (20 points) | 6:08 | Harris in follow-up on economy question |
| 6 | Trump: "people say/people are saying" or "people tell me/people are telling me" (30 points) | 6:09 | Trump talking about how people give him credit for rebuilding the military |
| 7 | Trump: "Communist" or "socialist" or "Comrade" (40 points) | 6:15 | Trump "She's a Marxist" |
| 8 | Name of any president besides Trump/Joe Biden (80 points) | 6:17 | Trump mentioned Ronald Reagan |
| 9 | Harris: Calls Trump a liar (70 points) | 6:18 | Harris: "A lot of lies" |
| 10 | Harris: References abortion policy/reproductive freedom (10 points) | 6:19 | In response to question on abortion access |
| 11 | Trump: "Unfair" or "Very unfair" (30 points) | 6:21 | During response on abortion |
| 12 | Trump: Skepticism about Harris' race (100 points) | 6:22 | Question about the issue from David Muir |
| 13 | Reference to Joe Biden's age or mental capacity (90 points) | 6:23 | Trump: "If you can call him a boss, he spends most of his time on the beach" |
| 14 | Name of any person who served in the Trump administration (70 points) | 6:31 | Trump bragging that he fired Mark Esper |
| 15 | Name of any former member of the House (100 points) | 6:32 | Harris: Liz Cheney endorsed me |
| 16 | Afghanistan/withdrawal from Afghanistan (30 points) | 6:33 | Trump blasting Biden's handling of the situation |
| 17 | Harris: References Stormy Daniels or E. Jean Carroll (90 points) | 6:35 | Harris alludes to Trump's history of abusing women |
| 18 | Harris: Calls Trump a felon or criminal (50 points) | 6:36 | Harris: lengthy rundown of Trump's legal problems |
| 19 | Reference to the environment/climate change (70 points) | 6:42 | Harris discussing fracking and the Inflation Reduction Act |
| 20 | Name of any current member of the House (90 points) | 6:46 | Trump attacks Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) |
| 21 | Trump: Whines about 2020 election (60 points) | 6:51 | Trump talks about the election being unfair |
| 22 | Russia/Vladmir Putin (40 points) | 6:56 | Trump monologue about foreign leaders |
| 23 | Israel/Benjamin Netanyahu (20 points) | 6:57 | Question about Israel from Linsey Davis |
| 24 | Gaza/Palestinians/Mahmoud Abbas (60 points) | 6:58 | Harris response to question about Israel |
| 25 | Ukraine/Volodymyr Zelenskyy (40 points) | 7:09 | Question about Ukraine from David Muir |
| 26 | Name of any current state governor (80 points) | 7:29 | Harris: Tim Walz and I are both gun owners |
This list reiterates that the candidates, especially Trump, have become predictable. It also gives some sense of what Harris' and Trump's priorities were in terms of getting their talking points in there, even if they didn't really make sense in the context of the questions being asked.
The maximum possible score was 570 points. Harris laughed at Trump 16 minutes in; that was the tiebreaker. And now, here are the readers with the 25 best scores:
1. S.H. in Lake Helen, FL (540 points; 10 minutes)
2. M.L.C.D.J. in Indianapolis, IN (540 points; 6 minutes)
3. J.G. in Berkeley, CA (530 points; 13 minutes)
4t. F.C. in Simi Valley, CA (530 points; 7 minutes)
4t. C.D. in Berlin, Germany (530 points; 7 minutes)
6t. G.G. in Lexington, KY (520 points; 8 minutes)
6t. M.D. in North Canton, OH (520 points; 8 minutes)
8t. E.L. in Dallas, TX (510 points; 11 minutes)
8t. T.L. in West Orange, NJ (510 points; 21 minutes)
10. J.S. in Hightstown, NJ (510 points; 10 minutes)
11. T.P. in Chattanooga, TN (510 points; 5 minutes)
12. Z.H. in Portland, OR (510 points; 38 minutes)
13. B.B. in New York City, NY (500 points; 12 minutes)
14t. R.L. in Lakewood, OH (500 points; 10 minutes)
14t. K.T. in Longview, TX (500 points; 10 minutes)
16. B.R.P. in San Diego, CA (500 points; 7 minutes)
17. J.S. in Pittsburgh, PA (490 points; 17 minutes)
18. M.R. in Atlanta, GA (490 points; 13 minutes)
19. K.B. in Washington, DC (490 points; 20 minutes)
20. D.S. in Edinburgh, Scotland (490 points; 10 minutes)
21. L.A. in Waynesboro, PA (490 points; 5 minutes)
22. C.M.S. in Lancaster, CA (490 points; 50 minutes)
23. C.S. in Catasauqua, PA (480 points; 13 minutes)
24t. S.F. in Silver Spring, MD (480 points; 12 minutes)
24t. D.M. in Batavia, IL (480 points; 12 minutes)
The average score was 355.8 points. We'll do another bingo game for the VP debate; if you have suggestions for the squares, please send them to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject "Bingo Squares."
We also have one last handful of debate comments that we promised to share, and that we want to share. Here goes:
T.B. in Santa Clara, CA, writes: A family's debate response:
My family of four (my kids are 20 and 16) watched the entire 2-hour debate over dinner and beyond. I honestly didn't expect it, but nobody even looked at a phone! Everyone actually paid attention, with a bit of kibitzing and laughing now and then. Then we had a 2-hour discussion afterwards where the kids each shared their thoughts and observations about the process and proceedings without my wife or me leading them.
Both of them commented on Donald Trump's angry body language vs Kamala Harris' more cheery and in-control body language. My oldest complained that neither one of them seemed to answer the questions posed to them. He suggested that each debater should get a "yes" and "no" button in front of them, and their mic needs to stay off until they at least push one of the buttons to answer the question. My youngest noted that Trump evaded every single yes/no question, even when the moderators reminded him of the question, while Kamala answered a couple of them or, at least, didn't divert off topic.
They pointed out that Kamala gave a few policy proposals, whereas Trump literally said "I have concepts of plans" at one point! Haha. What is a "concept of a plan!?!" We all also laughed at how he literally brought up immigration in EVERY answer, just as Kamala said he would.
Speaking of immigration, my oldest (who doesn't follow politics closely because he thinks they're all liars) didn't trust or understand Kamala when she said "He'd prefer to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem" when talking about Trump killing the immigration bill. He said her answer was so obscure that someone like him who didn't know of the actual event wouldn't understand it. He said she should have clearly said, "the Senate was ready to approve the bipartisan bill, but Trump called multiple senators and forced them to vote against it because it would eliminate his ONLY policy, rendering him useless." I had been frustrated at the weedy and indirect "he'd prefer to run on a problem" comment before my son mentioned it, but his wording would have really nailed it.
Finally, when both kids pointed out how many times the moderators let Trump get in the last word instead of cutting his mic, my oldest also said that on the internet, when someone always has to have the last word, and they post a paragraph rant, everyone automatically knows that person lost the argument because all they had left was a nonsensical rant. This wasn't something I picked up on (I was just annoyed that it happened), but I wonder if all Gen-Z'ers were turned off by that.
R.P. in Kāneʻohe, HI, writes: I thought I would share the view from my living room Tuesday (the debate started at 3:00 p.m. local time out here in the middle of the Pacific—hence the glare-y backlighting in the photo):
I have to say your write-up of the debate was, objectively, pretty-much on the mark. Fair enough—it wasn't an absolute, out-of-the-park grand slam for Vice President Harris. Sure, maybe the needle only moved slightly leftward in terms of actual impact to the election outcome in November.
However, I'm sure I'm not alone among your readership in having experienced an hour and 45 minutes of steadily increasing elation over the course of the debate. Framed against the context of the previous presidential debate, watching this recent debate from the perspective of the blue team was positively glorious! It's not difficult to imagine how, in an alternative (and, arguably, far more plausible) universe in which President Biden had made a different decision, this second debate could have played out very differently. Boy howdy, what a difference 2½ months can make! So, while your assessment as viewed through the lens of a low-information/undecided voter was appropriate and largely correct, I think there is a subtler but not necessarily insignificant deeper dynamic in play here, related to enthusiasm and, for lack of a better word, "momentum," which this debate helped fuel. And, of course, the post by Taylor Swift—itself directly associated with the debate—further bolstered that sentiment.
S.W. in New York City, NY, writes: It was clear to me that Kamala Harris was in command at the debate. What struck me is how "at ease" she seemed to be—she actually looked as if she were enjoying this experience. When both candidates were in camera view and Trump was speaking, she looked relaxed and poised and showed off that photogenic smile. As every actress on film knows, you don't ever want to be in the same camera frame with a more beautiful actress right next to you, as you'll never look as good. This certainly appeared to be the case in the debate—Trump looked old and angry while she looked young, confident, smart and energetic.
And then there was Trump's babbling, while Harris articulated clearly. The one thing I kept thinking during this debate was: "How much money is Harris now raising per minute?"
D.C. in Myersville, MD, writes: When the front page of National Review looks like this, you know your night didn't go well:
S.D. in Canton, MI, writes: When I watched the debate, I was moved by the seemingly mild statement the Vice President made regarding her time as a prosecutor, when she said that she never asked if a person was a Republican or Democrat, but just wanted to know if they were OK. She then went on to say that she wanted to be a president for all Americans.
I felt the sincerity of that statement as genuine warmth and love for people who won't vote for her, and in many ways engenders the values that many Democrats have been waiting a long time to see, particularly those "tree hugging hippies" who simply want a kinder, nicer world to live in, and otherwise would not have voted because they might have seen a "typical candidate" that says the right things but lacks the charisma of a human being. Many will not pay attention to that, as it will undoubtedly be drowned out by other soundbites and noteworthy sentences during the debate, but it bears mentioning.
R.G.N. in Seattle, WA, writes: I was a bit worried when Kamala Harris walked over to Donald Trump at the beginning of the debate and shook his hand. Think about it; do I really want to vote for someone who shakes hands with a convicted felon?
P.C. in Wellsville, OH, writes: After watching the debate, I think the only way Donald Trump will agree to do another one is if it's on Fox. Harris should insist on Newsmax instead. Go for the low-budget unprofessional clown show if you're going to do right wing media, not the one that fancies itself a quasi-respectable news organization. Trump can't say Newsmax is unacceptable either because their audience is his base.
F.P. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: So, to avoid the debate, I went to watch the Phillies game. Missed my connecting train home, so went to a bar to wait for the next train, and the debate was on (though, mercifully, muted, as music was playing). Watching like that, I figured out my take on the debate: He looked like a crotchety old man, trying to return soup, while she looked like the calming doctor, trying to explain to him that he doesn't have any soup, he's in the waiting room for his colonoscopy... which he very much received, last night.
And, with that, we finally close the books on the Harris-Trump debate. Well, except for the next item. (Z)
The Debate's Not Yet Over, Part II: One Last Set of Memes
For every one e-mail we get pooh-poohing the memes, we get five from readers saying how much they enjoy them. As chance would have it, we have enough for one last set, and they are pretty much going to expire on Tuesday. So, it's now or never. Here goes:
Equal Time: This cat apparently disliked the Trump cats and dogs comment even more than the golden retriever who lives with @Tarquin_Helmet.
It's Personal: It would seem that Snoop Dogg was also deeply disturbed, for obvious reasons.
This Guy Must Be British: Only Brits can manage a joke that is this dry.
One More Song: Another bit of musical satire, this time courtesy of the Gregory Brothers, and featuring actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt.
On the Nose: This actually shows two industries that Trump might well be supporting singlehandedly, fact-checkers and fast food.
Irony: Reader K.R. in Austin, TX explains: "A religious fundamentalist Trump supporter I'm Facebook acquaintances with has posted several memes that I agree with, but she and I interpret them completely differently." This is one of the examples K.R. sent in.
Going Back to the Well, Part I: Adapting the clip of Adolf Hitler losing his sh**, from the movie Downfall, is one of the oldest memes on the Internet:
Going Back to the Well, Part II: And chicken-crossing-the-road jokes are considerably older than that.
Zing!: This may be our favorite.
They Don't All Have to Be Snarky: To end on a more serious note, some folks are using the debate to try to do some good:
Similarly, reader J.R. in San Francisco, CA, tells us: "I have made a donation of $34.34 to the Clark County, OH, SPCA, with its headquarters located in Springfield, OH. I noted it was in honor of Donald J. Trump and his 34 criminal convictions."
Our thanks to readers W.F. in Orlando, FL, A.S. in Renton, WA, P.V. in Kailua, HI, S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA and T.K. in Akron, OH for their suggestions!
And with that, the book on Harris-Trump is really closed. (Z)
The Next Debate Is Upon Us, Part I: Walz Prepares for Next Week's Match with Help from Buttigieg
We have already had two presidential debates. Probably that will be it for this cycle (see above). But we do have one vice presidential debate, next Tuesday, between Tim Walz and J.D. Vance. It will be hosted by CBS in New York, which, last we checked, is not a swing state. The debate will be moderated by two women: Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan. We suspect abortion is likely to come up once or twice.
Given how much news Vance has made recently by lying about Haitians eating cats and dogs, it could be a real humdinger. Also, unlike Donald Trump, Vance is very smart and is not likely to fall into any traps Walz might try to set for him. This is not to say the debate will be entirely about the issues, but they will play a bigger role than in the presidential debate. Walz understands this and is already holding mock debates. His stand-in for Vance is Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg has a very sharp tongue and is a good stand-in for Vance, which is undoubtedly why Walz asked him to do it. It must feel odd for Buttigieg to try to goad and irritate a guy he likes by repeatedly lying and hitting below the belt, but that's how today's debates are.
The debate prep is not being organized by Karen Dunn. She deals only with the top of the ticket. Biden White House alumni Rob Friedlander and Zayn Siddique are running the prep show. Walz is also holding policy sessions with members of the campaign team so he can give actual answers to questions should the need arise.
Walz is also trying to lower expectations. He said that he will be up against a Yale Law School graduate who is currently a U.S. senator. He expects Vance will be well prepared and that is likely to be true. Unlike Trump, Vance will probably also listen to his prep team and try to absorb what they have to tell him. He is also known to be a skilled debater.
The conventional wisdom is that vice presidential candidates don't matter much and their debates matter even less. Nevertheless, in a really close election, half a point here and half a point there could matter. Walz' team has probably drilled a couple of key facts into his head, like there are 65 million households with a dog in America and 47 million with a cat. Only 11 million have a pet fish. The moderators might just throw out a sentence containing "dog" and "food" and not with the intention of asking the candidates what they feed their pets. (V)
The Next Debate Is Upon Us, Part II: The Vance Dossier Is Out
Just in time for the vice-presidential debate (Coincidence? We aren't sure what we think.) the Trump campaign's J.D. Vance dossier has finally leaked. Take a look at these eight headlines, drawn from media outlets across the political spectrum:
- Newsweek: Elon Musk Suspends Reporter Who Published JD Vance Dossier
- Axios: X suspends journalist who shared leaked Vance docs
- HuffPost: Journalist Banned From X After Publishing JD Vance Dossier
- New York Daily News: Journalist suspended from X after publishing allegedly hacked Vance dossier
- Mediaite: Journalist Ken Klippenstein Suspended By X After Publishing Hacked JD Vance Dossier
- The New Republic: Elon Musk's X Suspends Journalist Who Reported Leaked J.D. Vance Docs
- Daily Kos: Elon Musk Bans Bombshell Vance Vetting Dossier From "X,"
- The Verge: X blocks links to hacked JD Vance dossier
First, you will note that the biggest outlets—The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN—seem to have ignored the news about the dossier entirely. We are not sure what their motivation is; they were more than happy to run stories based on purloined Hillary Clinton information. If the problem here was potential legal exposure, given the source of the documents (Iran), well, that's no longer an issue. Now the source is an American citizen who put the dossier on his website. They should be able to write away. We suppose it's possible they are nervous about the document being real. If so, well, we examined it closely, and it looks very real to us. Further, the fact that dozens of outlets did go forward with the story AND that Elon Musk tried to bury it, tells us that many other people agree with our assessment.
As to the outlets that DID carry the news, an enormous percentage (not all, but most) took the "Musk censorship" angle. Huh? Musk's suspension of the leaker's Twitter account is bigger news than the actual dossier? That we do not get at all, and we can't even come up with much of a theory. Maybe anti-Musk headlines attract clicks and eyeballs? That's about all we've got.
Whatever is going on with the media coverage, the bottom line is that journalist Ken Klippenstein decided that the public should be able to see the dossier that the Trump campaign put together while vetting J.D. Vance as a possible running mate. If you wish to see it, it's linked on Kleppenstein's website; there's a download button around halfway down the page. The document is a PDF, and is a little over 6 MB, because it is close to 300 pages.
There is nothing that is terribly shocking in the document. In a confirmation of Donald Trump's priorities, the great bulk of the dossier is dedicated to all the nasty things that Vance has said about Trump. And, wow, there are a lot of them. Clearly, Vance did not like Trump (probably still doesn't, in his heart of hearts). Still, in contrast to 2016 or even 2020, saying mean things about The Donald was not disqualifying.
Beyond that, the document includes a few standard warnings. It notes that Vance's positions on the issues are... inconsistent, shall we say, and that he's prone to falsehoods. It points out that he has some potentially concerning associations, in terms of his legal career and his business interests (most obviously, he worked for a law firm that has some major clients in China). The document does not mention Project 2025 by name, but does note that Vance associates with some very fringy right-wing types, like Alex Jones. And in case you are wondering, the word "weird" appears four times. Ironically, they are all in Vance quotes about Trump/Trumpers. The word "couch" does not appear at all.
So, this is not nearly as big a story as it could have been, especially since Vance has created plenty of scandals of his own volition since the dossier was compiled. That said, it's always interesting to get a peek at the campaign sausage being made, especially when it's being made by such weird people (Vance's words, not ours). (Z)
I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Little Deuce Coupe
For last week's theme, we gave the hint: "[P]olitical theorist Friedrich Engels, singer Faith Evans and former representative Fred Eckert (R-NY) would be at an advantage, if they tried to solve it." We later added: "the fellow who starred in the famous anti-littering commercial from the 1970s would [also] have an advantage when it comes to figuring it out." And now, the solution, courtesy of reader N.S. in Los Angeles, CA:
These headlines all contain a word that combine with "iron" to make a popular phrase.The clue, with all the people who have the initials F.E., gave it away, especially so close to "Mike Tyson." By the way, I still remember the code to skip straight to Mike Tyson: 007-373-5963. I assume, like my first phone number, I'll never forget it. Actually I think I also remember the code to skip the first 3 matches: 005-737-5423. Damn, wow.
- In Congress, Part I: Once Again, Time For Senate Democrats to Man (and Woman) Up—Iron Man
- In Congress, Part II: The (New Jersey) Eagle Has Landed—Iron Eagle
- More Scandal in North Carolina: CNN Further Pulls Back the Curtain on Robinson's Porn Habit(s)—Iron Curtain
- TrumpWatch 2024: Was There a Full Moon This Week, Perhaps?—Iron Moon (I'd never heard this one)
- Election Predictions: Two High-Profile Prognosticators are Picking the Lady From California—Iron Lady
- There Is No Place Like Nebraska: Republicans Look to Tighten Their Grip on State's EVs—Iron Grip
- I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!—Iron Mike, appropriately
- This Week in Schadenfreude: The Mask Comes Off (Even More)—Iron Mask
- This Week in Freudenfreude: Where There's a Will...—Iron Will
That means you must also remember the Konami code: Up-Up-Down-Down-Left-Right-Left-Right-B-A-Start.
"Iron Moon," incidentally, is a somewhat well known Chinese poem and documentary film, as well as an American beer flavor. And "Iron Deuce" (the headline for this item) is the nickname of a famous armored unit in the U.S. Army. Finally, the second hint last week refers to the stage name of the not-actual-Native-American who starred in that commercial, Iron Eyes Cody.
The first 50 readers to get the theme:
|
|
D.E. in High Springs notes, correctly, that the theme works with just movie titles. In that case, D.E. points out, the answer for last week's "I Read the News" item is: "Iron Mike: The Mike Keenan Story (2014). Nice bit of misdirection here! After mentioning Mike Tyson in the item, the reference actually leads to a movie aboot... a 'Nade? Is everything OK out there? Have they gotten to you? Blink twice if you need help."
For this week's theme, the Trivial Pursuit category is "Sports," and the theme relies on a single word in some headlines, multiple words in others. As to a hint, we'll say that you might serve while doing this, but nobody is going to eat.
If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject "September 27 Headlines." (Z)
This Week in Schadenfreude: Talk about an Unforced Error
You may not know this, but some Donald Trump supporters are not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer. We think it is fair to include 42-year-old Nathan Thornsberry in that group. He was a participant in the insurrection on 1/6 and, after giving it much thought (or maybe no thought?) he decided to write a book about his experiences. If you would like to read it, it's titled January 6: A Patriot's Story, and it's for sale here.
Thornsberry, unlike many of his fellow rioters, was not identified by law enforcement officials, and so was not prosecuted... before the book was published. If you were to click on the link, Einste... er, Thornsberry thought he could get away with his literary efforts by adopting a pseudonym, Nathaniel Matthews. It apparently did not occur to him that the FBI has a few tools at its disposal when it comes to unraveling these things. So, the Bureau subpoenaed records from Amazon, and found out that the owner of the account that published the book is... Nathan Thornsberry. They also matched the phone number on the account with one found on the Facebook page of... Nathan Thornsberry. And with a blow-by-blow account of what Thornsberry did that day, the Feds were able to go back to the video footage and line up his narrative with video of him committing various crimes, like destroying a police barrier.
So, Thornsberry has now been indicted and arrested. Based on comparable cases, he's likely going to spend a year or two as a very special guest of Uncle Sam. Maybe he can use that time to figure out where the weakness in his plan was. (Z)
This Week in Freudenfreude: You Gotta Love This
Earlier this week, we had an item about the "Harris Coalition," in which we noted that she's doing particularly well among Asian-American voters, as well as younger voters.
The other group that we might have mentioned is... women. Yes, we noted that Kamala Harris is popular among young women, but we could (and probably should) have mentioned she is actually doing well with all women. As in, historically well. For example, according to the latest NBC News poll, she is up among women voters 58%-37%. Other polls have a similar gap; somewhere in the range of 20 points. If that holds, it would be the biggest gender gap of the polling era (in other words, since the 1940s). Oh, and in case you are wondering, Donald Trump's lead among men is around 12 points. Big, but not as big as Harris' lead among women.
In the years since American women first got the vote (1879), and since they got the vote nationwide (1920), they have not always perceived themselves as a distinct interest group. In some eras (the 1970s, for example), yes, and in some eras (the 1950s, for example), not so much. Right now, we are clearly in a time when women voters (not all, of course, but the majority) perceive themselves as a distinct faction with distinct concerns.
That this is the case is hardly surprising. Access to abortion care and other treatments related to the bearing of children is something that affects everyone, but that particularly affects women. From the moment that Dobbs was decided, there was little question that women voters would be one of the big stories of 2024. Heck, in our day-after write-up of the decision, that was all over the piece. It was so obvious that we didn't even need to get out the crystal ball.
There are additional hot-button issues right now that are women's issues, even if that's not always obvious. To give an example, consider Voter ID laws. The most transparent motivation of such laws is to keep people who cannot easily acquire birth certificates/ID cards from voting. That largely means poor people and immigrants, and both groups skew Democratic. However, the great majority of women who get married, even in 2024, adopt their husband's last name (it's about 90%). That leaves them without a "valid" birth certificate and/or ID, creating an extra hurdle that does not exist for, well, their husbands.
Just in case the issues are not enough to awaken American women's group consciousness, the Republican ticket is also lending an assist. VP candidate J.D. Vance has said all manner of sexist things, most memorably his harangues about childless cat ladies. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is a grab-'em-by-the-pu**y sexual assaulter who has been labeled a rapist by the judge who oversaw the case. And he's also said his share of offensive and creepy things. Just this week, for example, he held one of his rallies in Pennsylvania, and specifically addressing himself to the women in the audience, he declared: "I am your protector. I want to be your protector... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger... you will no longer be thinking about abortion." At best, that is off-putting. At worst, well, we've seen numerous (more than we can count on both hands) comments from women who are rape victims, and who say this is how the man who assaulted them talked to them.
We say all of this as prelude to talking about a story from The Washington Post that may not be overtly political, but that we think is political nonetheless. It starts with a woman named Denaesha Gonzalez, who lives in Nashville, TN, and who was visiting her local Target with her 2-year-old son in tow. While shopping the baby aisle, she noticed a less-than-$20 purse that someone had left on the shelf. Given her own experience, Gonzalez had a pretty good idea of the story that purse was telling: A mother had wanted to buy it, but after buying necessary baby supplies, realized the money just wasn't there, and had to cut the purse out of the budget.
This caused Gonzalez to do two things. First, she took a brief (17-second) video of the purse on the shelf. Second, she posted the video to TikTok, with the caption "She deserved the purse" imposed on top of the footage, and the note: "To the Mother who chose themselves last, you deserve the world tonight and always."
The video, as you might guess, went viral, and has been viewed by over 20 million people, with well over 15,000 comments. Among the folks who saw the video is Cecily Bauchman, who is a "mom influencer" with over 2 million followers. She posted her own video, in which she mentioned the Gonzalez video while visiting a Target, buying a $100 gift card, and hiding the card inside a package of diapers with a note "Hey! You deserve that special 'you' thing. You are amazing!"
Thus commenced the #shedeservedthepurse challenge; thus far, many thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of women have followed Bauchman's lead, and have hidden gift cards (or cash) and notes within packages of things commonly purchased by new moms. At least 200 of the beneficiaries have posted their own videos, expressing gratitude for the unexpected pick-me-up. If you're into that sort of thing, watching a few videos of women giving, or receiving the gift cards, might just be a pick-YOU-up.
In short, if that is not evidence of a group consciousness among women, we don't know what is. And if Donald Trump does lose this election, it will be substantially because he and his three Supreme Court justices unleashed forces they did not fully understand, and could not counteract.
Have a good weekend, all! (Z)
Today's Presidential Polls
On the whole, a good group of polls for Kamala Harris. Especially the Pennsylvania polls. (Z)
| State | Kamala Harris | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| Arizona | 48% | 51% | Sep 20 | Sep 24 | Beacon + Shaw for Fox |
| Arizona | 50% | 47% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | Morning Consult |
| Georgia | 49% | 49% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | Morning Consult |
| Georgia | 51% | 48% | Sep 20 | Sep 24 | Beacon + Shaw for Fox |
| Maryland | 63% | 31% | Sep 19 | Sep 23 | UMD for Washington Post |
| Michigan | 48% | 43% | Sep 11 | Sep 19 | YouGov |
| Michigan | 50% | 47% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | Morning Consult |
| North Carolina | 50% | 46% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | Morning Consult |
| Nevada | 52% | 45% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | Morning Consult |
| Pennsylvania | 48% | 46% | Sep 11 | Sep 19 | YouGov |
| Pennsylvania | 51% | 46% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | Morning Consult |
| Texas | 47% | 52% | Sep 22 | Sep 24 | Emerson Coll. |
| Virginia | 53% | 46% | Sep 22 | Sep 24 | Emerson Coll. |
| Wisconsin | 51% | 48% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | Morning Consult |
Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.
Today's Senate Polls
Wow, is Kari Lake a bad candidate. When she gets crushed in November, will she claim she won? And, more importantly, will she finally go away, or is she going to run for something else in 2026? Truth be told, we're not sure she could get elected dogcatcher. Maybe Sheriff of Maricopa County, though. They seem to like their sheriffs insane. (Z)
| State | Democrat | D % | Republican | R % | Start | End | Pollster |
| Arizona | Ruben Gallego | 54% | Kari Lake | 44% | Sep 19 | Sep 24 | Marist Coll. |
| Arizona | Ruben Gallego | 55% | Kari Lake | 42% | Sep 20 | Sep 24 | Beacon + Shaw for Fox |
| Maryland | Angela Alsobrooks | 51% | Larry Hogan | 40% | Sep 19 | Sep 23 | U of Maryland |
| Michigan | Elissa Slotkin | 47% | Mike Rogers | 34% | Sep 11 | Sep 19 | YouGov |
| Nevada | Jacky Rosen* | 53% | Sam Brown | 38% | Sep 09 | Sep 16 | Noble Predictive Insights |
| Pennsylvania | Bob Casey* | 47% | David McCormick | 38% | Sep 11 | Sep 19 | YouGov |
| Texas | Colin Allred | 45% | Ted Cruz* | 49% | Sep 22 | Sep 24 | Emerson Coll. |
| Virginia | Tim Kaine* | 51% | Hung Cao | 41% | Sep 22 | Sep 24 | Emerson Coll. |
* Denotes incumbent
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers