stevenkesslar

Mark Halperin just said something really interesting that got under my skin on his 2Way podcast on Friday. I am curious whether other people agree with him? First I'll quote what he said directly, since it was long and nuanced. It was in response to a viewer question, who referenced his statement to Stephen Colbert in 2016 that Trump's election was, other than the Civil War and WW2, the "most cataclysmic event the United States has ever seen". Halperin just said he stands by that. So here's what else he said. (This is a few minutes of talk at 59:00 in the slightly more than one hour video, if you would rather just watch it.) Q: "What would it mean if Trump got elected again to you? Halperin: "I think about 50 % of the country would have severe mental health difficulty. I'm not saying that glibly. I think it would plunge about half the country into an extreme mental health crisis, because they would not recognize the country in which they live." Q: Do you feel the same way if Kamala was President? Halperin: No. A lot of people would be upset, but it wouldn't plunge anything like the same number of people ... The people who oppose Donald Trump, there are two things that are generally true about them. One is they don't understand on any emotional or intellectual level the basis for his support ... that nearly half the country supports him. They just don't understand it at all. And two, they think he's the worst possible person to be President. And they will be shaken to their core that the person who was President and showed us who he was, that he was chosen again. That will shake their connection to their own country." There's a lot there. And it is serious stuff. Arguably existential stuff, the way he frames it. Do people agree with him? ------ I'll share three reactions, which are complicated and contradictory. And this is edited. I had like twelve immediate reactions. First, Halperin did not say the words Trump Derangement Syndrome. But it felt that way. He clearly did say that people who support Harris don't have a clue what is driving close to half the country to support Trump. So it kind of felt like, "Oh. I have a disease." But what's interesting is that Halperin right now, more than any journalist, is using his 2Way thing to test the limits of how much you can bring together people with wildly different and opposing views to talk calmly and respectfully. If anything, I'd argue Harris has an edge at the margin because she is clearly talking about how America can unify and move forward. While Trump is clearly talking about how America is in decline. And it is because of murdering immigrants and communists among us. Trump does not even try to disguise that he is trying to divide and conquer. Second, Halperin is right. Part of the reason 2016 was shocking, and a Trump win in 2024 would be shocking, is that I clearly don't get it. I don't see how a majority of Americans could vote for him. Because in a two way race, it will take a majority like Biden won - both nationally and in the key swing states - in 2020. To add a few sentences, even though I am a liberal I could get how Reagan won two landslides because of his popular conservative ideas. And his perceived success in turning the economy around and defeating real communism. I was wildly opposed to W.'s Iraq War. But, being in a clear minority at the time, I could get how the majority went along for the ride, for a while. Because they wanted to believe what W. was saying was right. I can't say the same things about Trump. Yeah, before COVID the economy from 2017 to 2019 grew and was strong. I get that. But Trump is a raping, lying nightmare, And an authoritarian who has proven he will push democracy to its limits. And a felon. Why do people not see that? Or see it, and not care? Third, Halperin is wrong. Now I will sound like an elitist. It's not that I don't get MAGA and Trump. It's that they don't get the facts. Or give a shit about facts. Two clear examples. First, violent crime went up 30 % in one year, 2020, under Trump. And violent crime is now down about 20 % under Biden and Harris. Harris was a prosecutor. Trump is a felon. So this notion that Trump kept us safe and is the law and order guy, and Democrats and their illegal aliens have brought on a reign of murder, is totally devoid of fact. Trump supporters just dismiss all that. It's Trump's Kool Aid. Second, Trump lost the 2020 election. When Democrats won by millions of votes in 2000 and 2016, but lost narrowly in the electoral college, we were graceful enough to play by rules we do not like or agree with. Trump was an ugly liar and riot starter. He sent a mob to the Capitol who beat cops, broke bones, and tried to overthrow a peaceful transfer of power. And now these thugs want to pretend somehow they were the victims of their own riot and authoritarian radicalism. And if Harris wins - or any Democrat - it is because they cheated. The only fair election is one Trump wins. And any election Trump does not win was stolen, because Democrats cheat. So I could argue that I will be shocked if Trump wins. But not because I don't get it. Because I do get it, very clearly. And I am disgusted by it. And I get other things as well. That one hour Halperin podcast linked above is in itself a great encyclopedia of some of the reasons people support Trump that sound positive, or at least neutral. He is an outsider. People who don't usually vote, let alone trust government, wanted and still want someone to just flip the table and break the glass. They don't want forever wars, including Ukraine. They think Big Media lies to them. I get all that. That is all part of his appeal. And RFK's. It is complicated.

You will love this Ron Brownstein interview. For the first few minutes I was watching it I was thinking, Why does Brownstein look irritable? He usually looks warm and friendly. Then he opened up his mouth and unloaded on RFK. I think the right phrase here is that Trump won the battle but will likely lose the war. On a tactical level, there will no doubt be some RFK votes that RFK helps direct Trump's way. But the bigger picture is what I said about Lichtman's keys. RFK sank on his own because of his weird shit about brain bugs and eating bears he tosses in Central Park. But part of his rise was discontent with Biden. And when Harris entered he just collapsed. That is good news for how people view Harris. More concretely, it now means Trump has to get close to 50 % of the vote to win. Which he has NEVER been able to do. In Pennsylvania he got just over 48 % of the vote in 2016, when he won. And just under 49 % in Pennsylvania in 2020, when he lost. So that is the difference right there. Hillary's loss in Pennsylvania in 2016 can be entirely explained by the 50,000 votes that went to Jill Stein. Maybe Trump can top 50 % in Pennsylvania in 2024 - unlike 2016, or 2020. But nationally right now OVER 50 % disapprove of Trump, but UNDER 50 % nationally disapprove of Harris. So unless they can make her a lot more unpopular, those numbers favor Harris in a race where someone has to get to 50 %. Castellanos is someone I admire. But his points on this one made me laugh. First. Mr. Brain Bug Bear Eater as heir to Camelot just sounds like too big a stretch. Second, I was thinking about "intersectionality". There's no doubt Republicans can have a field day tearing apart woke sounding Democratic ideas about intersectionality. Including by just using the word. But think about this: what is Trump/RFK intersectionality? What kind of voters who do not already plan to vote for Trump instead of RFK is RFK going to draw to Trump? What conspiracies do they believe? What kind of unusual animals do they eat? Republicans Increasingly Oppose School-Mandated Vaccines—Though Americans Still Support Childhood Vaccines, Poll Finds I was curious about what Brownstein said about vaccines. As always, he has his facts down. 70 % of parents support vaccine mandates in public schools, down from over 80 % less than a decade ago. And the whole change is Republicans, only 57 % of whom now support vaccine mandates in public schools. So Democrats who already have succeeded in making Trump and Vance look weird, based on the weird things they say, now have more fringe and weird and dangerous shit to tie around Trump. Which in this case even most REPUBLICANS do not agree with. Have fun, losers.

Call me giddy on Kamala. But I am still holding out a little bit of hope for Florida. And I am thinking Senate seat. This much is true. Texas has been three things, for sure: One, a red state. Two, a red state. Three, a red state. So, shockingly, nothing has changed! Florida is now supposedly a red state. But that boils down to a few good years, in part when DeSantis was popular because of how he handled a natural disaster. (Andy Beshear did the same in Kentucky. It does not mean Kentucky is blue). It is true that it has been a long time since Florida elected a Democratic Guv. But most statewide elections for most of the last decade have been close. And Obama won there twice, albeit over a decade ago. It's also true the Republicans have run up a huge registered voter advantage. But voters can, and do, change their minds. Are Republicans losing the culture wars? So that is a bunch of anecdotes. But I think you can make the case that the Republican culture war has peaked and is now becoming a liability. Abortion is Exhibit A. But Florida is Exhibit B. "Ron's Glorious Culture War Presidency" never came to pass. Why? BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE FUCKING TIRED OF CULTURE WAR. So things would have to break perfectly for Harris to create a wave so powerful that it swept through Florida and swept out Rick Scott. But I don't think that is impossible. Texas is just a completely different thing. Cruz is a nut. But he will be a much harder nut to crack.

And that's the issue: generic Democrats. Biden was vastly underperforming both generic Democrats, and almost any actual Democrat running for US Senate in a swing state. So one explanation of what has happened is Harris is now the generic Democrat. And the good news is that generic Democrats have a slight polling advantage, as you state. Whether they are some unnamed Democrat, or Kamala Harris. The danger is that once she is no longer generic, and is instead the radical San Francisco Biden clone, she may lose some of the romance. And instead be the unpopular [fill in sexist and racist Trump insult of choice]. That is clearly what MAGA wants to do. It is interesting. Even the "normie" Republicans on TV - like Scott Jennings on CNN, or GOP pollsters or consultants on Halperin - are basically saying that all this "joy" shit is just NOT the public mood. They are literally arguing that maybe voters want pessimism and American decline and insults. It is really fucking weird. It can work the other way. Actual Democrats - named Rosen or Gallego or Casey or Baldwin or even Brown - are doing better than Harris in their states. So she may have opportunity to go up, as well as down. I think what has happened so far is the likely suspects - youth, Blacks, Browns - have come back to the generic Democrat. And some Independents, too. But she clearly knows she has to close the deal with a lot of people in the middle. This is more related to something in another thread, but I'll just add it in here. The polling thing is scary. I was playing around on 538 and I looked back at their 2020 final poll averages. Biden was supposed to win Michigan by 7.9%, Wisconsin by 8.4 %, Pennsylvania by 4.7 % in 2020. He was also slightly ahead in North Carolina and Florida. Of course, he won the first three by much smaller margins, and lost the other two. The best explanation I have read is that Trump voters are the most politically alienated and least likely to vote. So they are usually underweighted in polls. Allan Lichtman argues that the pollsters have now compensated for that and erred the other way. Which is why the 2022 red wave never happened, for example. He is correct that, lately, most Democrats actually do as well or better than projected in polls. But the other factor is that whatever happened in 2022 or 2023 it could be that there are just Trump voters that come out when Trump is on the ballot. So I don't think anyone knows. But the good news is if you go by election results, not polls, it is the Democrats who are actually winning most of the statewide races in most of the swing states. One reason to think Georgia is the hardest one for Harris is that it is the one swing state that still has very solid statewide Republican control, other than for Rev. Batman and his young sidekick Robin. 😉

Didn't even think of it. But that is another reason why Trump and Kennedy are a natural team. Trump knows how to handle stains, after all.

I think we need to pray for him. And the J6 folks.

Like he has next to no ground game, is what I have read. I haven't read much. But the snapshot I have read is that there is a huge reliance on digital (geez, doesn't Trump own DJT?) and a belief they can micro-target and mobilize voters that way. This could be a sleeper factor, as you say. Pelosi recently said she wasn't much impressed with Biden's political operation. And she would be a good judge. But most of what I've read for years is under Biden and the DNC's Jaime Harrison there has been a lot of emphasis on building up grassroots party structures and organizing. In 2022 that was one theory about why Democrats stopped a red wave. So now in 2024 there are volunteers at the local level crawling out of the woodwork - for Harris. Now it looks like rich donors will pay outside groups to run much of Trump's ground game. Trump’s Ground Game Is No Longer In Our Hearts Several articles, including this one, state that it is hard to believe that parachuting in paid canvassers at the end for GOTV is going to be a match for Democratic grassroots work that has been building for years. We'll see.

Or, arguably, he is worse than Trump. One of my nephews has an interesting view of RFK and Trump. He sees Trump as being just an old blowhard and fool who isn't really a threat to democracy at all. He feels Biden, Harris, or Trump would all be these business friendly Presidents who will just keep the economy and stock market going. Which, in fact, both Trump and Biden did as POTUS. Trump will be happy as long as he can sit behind the big desk and feel he is The Guy, my nephew thinks. Probably related, he has a somewhat typically cynical view that Presidents don't really do much or matter much, anyway. So just let him be a blowhard and fool, since it makes no real difference. He's anti-Trump, but he also doesn't see him as this huge threat. On the other hand, this nephew has a very negative view of RFK. Mostly based on the anti-vax stuff. His point is that RFK is the kind of rigid asshole who, unlike Biden or Harris or Trump, would try to force his very idiosyncratic views on all of us. Meaning it would be a debacle and a disaster. And he is at least partly right about Trump. Trump did go with the flow of what his party wanted, for the most part. You want your tax cuts to billionaires? Fine. You want to kill Obamacare? Fine. Pass it, and I'll sign it. You can't be rigid about your idiosyncratic views or values when you don't have any firm views or values, anyway. If I use my family as a model, I think there is some generational shift here. My Dad, while an ideological conservative, was a veteran who would have agreed with the argument about Trump being a threat to democracy. One of my brothers who is also a veteran and probably most ideologically like my Dad, center/right, despises Trump for that reason. Especially for his attacks on John McCain. Meanwhile, none of that resonates for this nephew, or any of my nieces and nephews as far as I can tell. In terms of younger voters, Harris was perhaps wise to put aside the more old fashioned talk about abstract threats to democracy. I'm fine if she can defeat Trump by making him small. Because he is just a blowhard and a fool. And old. And weird. Meanwhile, thank God RFK is now out of the race. I think my nephew is right that he is the kind of rigid asshole who in many ways would have been an even worse President than Trump. Not that he ever even ran a serious campaign, of course. At least we can be happy that two egomaniacal losers found each other. Now they can share the pain of losing together. Poor RFK won't even get the Trump job he sold the soul he doesn't have for.

You made several very important points. I forgot about what you said about 2020. Nice that all those fears about not wanting to go talk to people because of COVID are now a distant memory. There were a lot of people who complained about how Democrats basically had one hand tied behind their backs in 2020. One specific memory is Lauren Underwood, one of my favorite US Reps. I grew up in the Chicago burbs, which were red as could be when I was a kid. So the idea that Lauren Underwood could win a US House seat in the Chicago burbs was unthinkable. First it was a push to get Harold Washington elected Mayor of Chicago, then Obama as President, and only then could you get a Black Democrat in the Chicago burbs. But she almost lost in 2020, unexpectedly. One of the political consultants who worked with her (and a lot of other Dems) wrote an essay at the time saying Democrats screwed up across the board by suppressing their own turnout, in effect. I gave money and followed all the SoCal House races in 2020, when Democrats lost several of the seats we picked up in 2018. Several of those candidates, if I recall right Harley Rouda in particular, blamed the reversal on the Republicans doing strong turnout and Democrats being timid due to COVID. Anyway, if that was an explanation for 2020, that does not apply in 2024 as you say. That said, the Trump polling underweight makes complete logical sense. If the only people who voted were the most likely voters, Harris would win big. If the only people who voted are the people least likely to vote, Trump would win in a landslide. He attracts people who thinks politics sucks. So of course it makes sense that the people who don't vote in midterms but will vote for him - maybe - are going to be a wild card. I didn't think of it until reading your post. But in that more sobering article from Sean Trende he does mention that one problem with his model is he is using results from the Washington primary, which have been very predictive in the past. But, as he says, things can change between the primary and the general. This year would be a perfect example. The primary was August 6th, after the Kamala Effect had started. But Democratic enthusiasm went from lagging all year to now being off the charts. At least as of right now, it looks like the big shift that started right about then could underestimate how well Democrats will do in November. That does depend on how much the campaign can create the energy of an unstoppable movement. And one expert who agrees with you about North Carolina is Ed Rogers, the Republican political consultant. He said on Halperin's 2Way talks that he doesn't see Harris winning Georgia, but he worries about North Carolina. He pointed to how the NC Democratic Guv is wildly popular, and the MAGA Republican Guv candidate is not.

It's like old times, Sis. I love it when you get excited.

And he did it. It is interesting that this will probably go down in history as what my Dad used to call "a nobody nobody knowser". (As in, when shit got broken and none of my four brothers and I would admit who did it). Nobody knows whether Perot helped Clinton in 1992. It seems pretty clear that Jill Stein hurt Clinton in 2016. RFK presumably thinks he is helping Trump. Or at least helping himself get a job with Trump. What a pathetic slime. I think this week nailed Trump's coffin shut, if you go by Allan Lichtman. He is teasing out his official prediction, which he will make in early September. But he has been super clear that there are four of his keys left to turn. And Harris would need to lose three of the four to be predicted to lose. That's no longer possible now. So he will soon predict Harris will win. One of the four keys is his social unrest key, which last turned in 2020 (Black Lives Matter) and before that in 1968 (riots, including in Chicago). So he said he was waiting to see if there was any unrest in Chicago. The opposite. It was a lovefest. Which showed a highly unified and energized Democratic Party that really wants to win. Another key is his third party key. And Lichtman is black and white on that. He says a vibrant third party movement (which ends up with at least 5 % of the vote) is ALWAYS going to hurt the incumbent party. Because his basic model is stability versus earthquake. And it does make common sense that a third party suggests rumblings for change against the existing order. Had all those third party voters gone for Clinton in 2016, she would have won. So RFK dropping out means that key is no longer in play against Harris. Third parties will not get anywhere near 5 % of the vote. Bottom line is that Lichtman is saying Harris would need to lose three of the four remaining keys to lose. And with a DNC lovefest and RFK out of the way, that is simply no longer possible. So unless he really changes his very consistent tune, he will soon predict Harris will win. His other two keys are the foreign policy keys, both of which he will probably turn against Harris. But, again, that leaves her with 5 of 13 keys against her, which says she will win. THANKS RFK, YOU STUPID SOULLESS POND SLIME. If Lichtman is right 11 out of 11 times, you just put the final nail in Trump's coffin. Couldn't happen to a slimier guy!

There was an interesting article about how some politicos think they should send Clinton out to reddish parts of the Rust Belt swing states to do his magic. Then others said we tried that. In 2008, when Clinton got a bit uppity, and Obama won. And in 2016, when it just didn't stop white Bubba guys in the Midwest from nailing his wife's coffin shut. All politicians have a shelf life. And my reaction is Bill was underwhelming. So it could be, to your riff, that his time has simply passed. As you noted, he was arguably a necessary transition from Reagan back to the left - very slowly. This was NOT 2012, when a younger Bill gave what I really emotionally felt was THE speech of the convention. And perhaps it is noteworthy that the 2012 speech was about thinking more than feeling. In 2012 he was just folksy, and made sense. The highlights of 2024 DNC to me were about feeling, not thinking. And Kamala (she wants to be called Kamala) blew the fucking roof off that. It had to be electric to be there. To judge 2024 by the same standard as 2012, my feeling is Barack is the new Bill. Barack felt like the engaging elder statesman who is still relevant. Bill just felt kind of old, and talked about being old. Maybe there is some marginal benefit to him going out and talking to old White guys. But, if there is a benefit, it is marginal. The bottom line is that if Kamala is going to lose, she is going to lose because of old White guys. And, to be mercilessly blunt, these old White guys will die sooner than the multi-racial younger majority that replaces them. So maybe 2024 is their chance to say, "Fuck y'all, y'all. Fuck y'all and your fancy Latinx whatever the fuck Gay queer bi shit world I don't like much. Yeah, fuck y'all. I'm a man. And I damn well fucking know what a man is. So I'm voting for Trump. I could care less if he grabs pussy, because he is NOT a pussy like your girly men whatever the fuck men are. Fuck y'all." How hillybilly is that? So here's two articles that offer an interesting point/counterpoint, neither of which can be judged yet. The Surprising Word Democrats Keep Using to Describe Kamala Harris’ Campaign The word is "movement". And that article certainly speaks to the feel of the moment. At least for Democrats. But, as most people quoted in the article say, all we really know at this point is that the Harris campaign has elements of a movement. It is too early to tell. This is certainly NOT 1932. Democrats won't win a landslide victory based on a Great Depression - no matter how pissed off people are about higher costs of living. The JFK comparison is more interesting. One of the models for the Biden/Harris era I have had in my mind since 2020 is the 1960's. But in reverse. Biden is the old party hack, like LBJ, who without LBJ's majority still managed to get a lot of important legislation passed. Harris is more like a JFK figure. Can you call it a movement if it was a really close election, like 1960? Maybe not. If there is an element of "movement" that makes sense to me, going back to Bubba Bill, it is that there is some obvious "passing of the torch" and generational change at work. JFK was just a younger and handsome White guy in a line of White guy Presidents. Harris and her family are like what America is today, and will be in the future. So that is not necessarily a movement. But in 20 or 30 years it could be that this is seen as the moment where America really embraced being the vibrant multi-racial democracy it now is. Where a Black man born in Hawaii or a melting pot woman with a charming Jewish hubby can be POTUS. Bill, and even Hillary, are just old school by comparison. I never bought the idea that young people and Blacks and Hispanics were flocking to Trump, which I still view - at core - as the minority movement of pissed off and losing old White guys. Harris has certainly proved just by being her that young Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics are not thinking, "Gosh. Donald Trump is God. How did I not get that I just need to be as MAGA as possible?" MAGA's moment looks more than ever like it has passed. But, speaking of close elections: Washington Primary Points Toward Another Nailbiter That article is a perfect, down to earth antidote to all the magical feelings of movement described in the first article. Sean Trende, as always, is boring and geeky. So who gives a shit what he has to say? Except that he is probably right. So, if you want to skip a boring and geeky article, his point is that the Washington primary tells us 2024 will be a nail biter. Again, 1960 and JFK might be a good comparison. Maybe a feeling of a movement. But not a landslide. To be very specific, his data analysis says Harris will do 1.8 % worse than Biden, who won by 52.5 % popular vote in 2020 (that's excluding third party votes, so Trump + Biden = 100 % of votes cast in 2020). The good news is that if Trende is right, Harris would win a narrow popular vote victory (52.5 % - 1.8 % = 50.7 %, which is a win). The bad news is that a 50.7 % Harris popular vote win could mean an electoral college loss. Certainly, the polls tell us that there is no reason to think Trump will do worse than in 2020, when Democrats were doing better in the polls than today. Which, again, brings us back to Bubba Bill. I'll end my rant with a great talk Mark Halperin had with some of the old school top politicos on Harris's chances. The sobering point that was made several times is that Harris is going to lose if this is up to men. Especially White men without college degrees. They slaughtered Hillary in 2016, and they can slaughter her in 2024. No one disagreed. But, Doug Sosnik (Bill Clinton's whiz) said if this thing turns into a movement for the future, it can be very hard to stop Harris. I think it will be close. And I think all of these themes speak to the tipping point. It is now a race between going back to the America of the past, and going forward to the America of the future. It would be good if Bubba Bill, or Tim Walz, or Joe Biden, could bring some of the old White guys along somehow.

I read somewhere that RFK offered to endorse Harris in return for a Cabinet appointment. Maybe just a rumor. If true, glad she said no. It would be seen as pandering. For Trump, of course, pandering is what he is and does. As well as being a felon, of course!

Are you saying it's something in the water? 😲

Russia to promote anti-Ukraine politicians ahead of US election: Report Absolutely no surprises here. It just confirms that Genocide Man will use the tools of democracy to promote the mass murder of children, women, and people who fight for freedom from the criminal thug and his criminal gang of rich cronies who profit off his genocide. Russia will fail. It's only a matter of time. All the murderous monsters from Lenin on bankrupted the Soviet Union morally, technologically, financially, and poitically. And it failed. Putin is well on his way to doing the same thing. Genocide has never won for long. And it never will. The failed Russian state is on its way to collapse. Desperate Genocide Man! No wonder raping lying felon Trump is good company for Putin. But all the evidence is that this is a reason for Republicans who don't want Putin, don't want authoritarianism, and don't want genocide to hold their nose and vote for Harris and Walz. Thanks, Vlad, for a twofer. You are pushing your failed state to become weaker, and you are pushing Republicans into the arms of Harris.

That's probably right. What obviously helps Republicans is they went from having equal registrations with Democrats in 2021 to now having a 1 million registered voter edge. One Florida politico said that, in effect, shifts Florida from a generic R+2 to an R+10. If true, that's pretty overwhelming. That said, what comes up may come down. DeSantis was definitely on a roll for a while. As far as I can tell from polls, he peaked after the hurricane, due to bipartisan support for the job he did cleaning up. But the Florida culture war show that led up to 2024 did not go so well for Ron - either in Florida, or nationally. So just because COVID and a hurricane led to a period of Republican dominance, I'm not sure I'd assume that is now long lasting. A lot of it depends on Hispanics, at least some of whom seem to be shifting to Harris. At the Presidential level, there are four recent Florida polls. RCP says the average is Trump +6.3 in Florida. But the two polls in July when Biden was the candidate average Trump +8.5, whereas the two polls with Harris running average Trump +4 The most recent one, just out by Florida Atlantic, says Trump +3. So it seems to be getting closer. There's an interesting comparison between two new polls by ActiVote, one of the nation and one of Florida. In the national vote, Harris leads by 5. In the Florida vote, Trump leads by 8. ActiVote spells out how they weighted the voting. Here's national: And here's Florida: So in both cases ActiVote says conservatives are stronger than the unweighted sample. But particularly in Florida they say conservatives just massively outnumber liberals. Again, if true, that is overwhelming. Right now ActiVote is saying Harris is doing better than her national average, which is +3, and worse than the Florida average, which as I said above is as low as Trump +3 in one recent poll. All of this does suggests that the math just ain't gonna work for Democrats in Florida. But if it close, Democrats could flip back some other seats. Which leads us back to the Senate. Rick Scott has never run anything other than a close race, for Guv or Senate. So maybe the Republican 1 million voter registration edge is his magic bullet. But I wouldn't rule it out as possible yet. In most recent polls, Harris is also doing slightly better than Trump with centrists and Independents. ActiVote fits with another trend. When Biden was running, slightly more Democrats were going to vote for Trump than Republicans voting for Biden. Presumably based on worries about Biden's age. Now it has flipped. Trump is losing more of his base to Harris than Harris is to Trump. That's what he gets for being a crook and a liar, I guess. 😉

That's the funny part. Tragic for MAGA world. But funny for me watching the losing raping lying felon just do his level best to lose. And lose big. I mean, they just don't normally make losers that lose so big. But the losing raping lying felon can't help himself. He loses, and he breaks law. Can't stay focused on issues or platforms or messages if his life depended on it. Which it kind of does, since soon he's headed to the slammer. This isn't me speculating about what a loser he is. Ed Rogers did it a few days ago to Mark Halperin. Alex Castellanos does it constantly. That's not even mentioning the Never Trumpers like Rick Wilson. Or the Republican donors. So we have all these Republican politicos who have won and won and won, all the way back to Reagan, saying Trump is a pathetic lying losing mess. And he's gone lose.

Agreed. Some of her bounce seems like it was based on the fact that she's not old, and she is inspiring. I think we now know for sure that Biden was a drag on teh ticket, as he seemed to be. Hopefully Joe gets it, and it will helps him forgive Nancy. And Harris closed some of the gap with Senate candidates. But there is still a pretty big difference, that in theory shows that she has room to grow Here's current polling averages on 538 for President. They don't have averages for Senate races, so I posted the range of recent polls: Wisconsin President; Harris + 3.5 Wisconsin Senate; Baldwin +5 to + 11 Pennsylvania President; Harris + 2.1 Pennsylvania Senate: Casey +5 to +14 Michigan President; Harris + 3.5 Michigan Senate: Slotkin +1 to +10 Arizona President; Harris + 0.7 Arizona Senate: Gallego -1 to +11 Nevada President; Trump +0.2 Nevada Senate: Rosen +2 to+12 In theory she has room to grow in every one of those states. Republican Ed Rogers was on Halperin's 2way a few days ago and said he thinks North Carolina is more likely to go Harris's way than Georgia. He said he has a bad feeling about NC, as a Republican. Roy Cooper is very popular, and the MAGA Republican Guv candidate is not. So that's another example of the difference. Democratic Guv candidate Klein is up between +4 and +10 in polls. Meanwhile Harris is one point behind Trump in NC when you average the six most recent polls. It's appropriate that she will now start to talk issues and agenda, as opposed to vibe. Now she needs to sell it.

A few points on this, which are part guessing and maybe part wishful thinking. John Della Volpe, who is considered the scholar of the "youth vote", was on MSNBC or CNN a few days ago on a polling segment. He commented on how Harris now has about 55 % of voters 18-29. He commented on how she has work to do, but she should be able to firm that up to 60 %. Which is what Biden won with that age group in the exit polls in 2020. He clearly thinks it's doable. The latest polls show Blacks voting in the high teens for Trump, compared to 12 % in 2020. So the shift that has already occurred from RFK or undecided to Harris puts Harris in a slight lead, both nationally and in swing states. If she can in fact solidify and expand and excite that base vote, getting Biden's 2020 numbers would give her a more substantial lead. And in terms of the persuadable vote, I think it's possible that there will be a big rejection of MAGA at the polls in November. It depends on Trump, I think. He should be hammering away at inflation and immigration. All the weird and deranged stuff he instead babbles about reminds people why they just really want to be free of the lies and division and weird creepy rapey cringe of the felon who loses and loses and loses. And, yeah, there are some flat earth Republicans. But that guy surprised me. He's the former Lieutenant Guv of Georgia, who won by about 3 points in 2018. He chose not to run again in 2022 because of all Trump's lies about the election. In May 2024 he wrote an article about why he was voting for Biden, and other Republicans should, too. And then there is this piece conservative David French just wrote. So who knows. The polls say the MAGA crowd is excited and highly motivated. But I can hear my Reagan Republican Dad in these conservatives voices. Like, let's just cut out the cancer now and be rid of it and grow back a party that is healthier and less cruel. I think part of it is a lot of Republicans, like these two, realize Trump is tying them to a movement that only looks backward. And mostly loses.

I'm starting to wonder whether Democrats can actually keep the Senate? The "Biden must go" campaign was partly based around Pelosi and the idea that, at the very least, Democrats MUST keep the House as a bulwark against the worst things Trump could do. The flip side is that now, if I go by the generic Congressional vote, Democrats have at least a 50/50 shot of keeping the House. But, to get anything done, they will need the Senate. Manchin's seat is already gone. So the 50/50 split scenario means Democrats must win in two red state: Brown in Ohio, Tester in Montana. That of course assumes that every Democrat in a swing state wins. But that actually seems like at least a 50/50 chance, too. They are all leading in the polls, by more than they were when Biden was running and losing in their states. Now Harris is winning or tied in their states. So the idea that we have at least 48, and Democrats win every swing state, seems realistic. The only example of Senators beating the tide, meaning a Republican won in a state that voted for Biden, is Collins in 2020 and Johnson in 2022. Of course, if you go back to 2018 Brown and Tester did both win in states that Trump won in 2016. So they have done it before. Maybe they can do it again. Right now Brown has a small lead in the polls, and Tester is a few points behind. I just read one alarming thing is Trump is internally several points behind where he was in 2020 in Ohio. More than enough to win by, but weaker than 2020. So native hillbilly venture capitalist JD ain't helping. But the other interesting one is Florida. Harris is now way ahead in polls in Dade County. It was Hispanics in and around Miami that helped turn Florida into what looks like a red state now. And there is no getting around the massive surge in Republican registration in the state since 2020. But it was only six years ago that DeSantis barely won Guv, and Rick Scott barely won his Senate race. The last three polls show Scott up by +4, +2, and +13. The +13 poll was from June, from The Tyson Group. The +2 was also from June, from Florida Atlantic University. The +4 poll was as recent as July 27, from University of North Florida. I checked in 2022. Back then, in October, University of Florida had Rubio at +11, and Florida Atlantic had Rubio at +6. There was no Tyson Group poll in 2022. But average the two polls from October 2022 and they suggested Rubio would win by something like 8.5 points. He won by 8.8 points. They were accurate. Right now, if the same two polls are accurate, Scott is only 3 points ahead, with the wind at the Democrats' back and a candidate that always barely wins. I've grown used to the idea that Florida is a waste of money. It certainly was in 2022, at least as far as the Senate race went. But maybe in 2024 that Senate race could be in play. And if Democrats could beat the odds and pick up a seat, it would be an insurance policy if Tester in particular loses. Plus, it would be a national symbol that all that magic of both Trump and DeSantis has peaked. DeSantis has one of the highest governor disapproval ratings, poll finds Those are not awful numbers. He has 44 % disapproval, but 51 % approval. It's a lot worse than 2022, when he was riding a wave of bipartisan approval after being seen as doing a good job after the hurricane. Then he squandered it all on his right wing agenda, which neither Florida nor America wanted. Which says something in itself. So it could be another cycle of close but not quite. But if the momentum keeps building maybe that Senate seat in Florida could be in play???

So I already gave my answer above, but I will surrogate for smart guys giving separate answers. My Sister In Cock Suckrates is right. Either Harris will win or lose. And all the fretting over polls doesn't mean squat. I will again add Lichtman's point: this is a referendum on governance, not campaigning or slogans. Most of what gets discussed day to day is bullshit by politicos and pollsters who think they are smart and get paid a lot of money to bullshit us. As if it really matters. I think that is in large part true. That said, here's an answer to your question from two former Republican Guvs, a Republican political consultant, and Trump's own former Press Secretary, all of whom say really smart things. Halperin's 2way format is always interesting. Because it's the kind of informed bipartisan discussion people are hungering for again. Which in itself hurts Trump, I think. Because he caused the divisiveness people are sick of. But there's a really fascinating discussion around 26:00 in that video, keyed off by Castellanos, that I think speaks to your question. Castellanos focuses on how Trump's superpower is theater. He's a showman to his fans, and a snake oil salesman to the rest of us. And there is this sense that perhaps history has left him behind. It is NOT his show anymore. He lost the show in 2020, and he ain't getting it back. A new show is beginning. Those are my words, not Castellanos. But it is consistent with his point, which everybody nods their head and agrees to. So if you buy that theory, let Trump flail. Most of that half hour discussion is about how Trump is flailing, because he has no clue what to do. Let the little losing mini-Donald wail like a baby about fake crowds or stolen elections or whatever his mini-Donald baby ego wants to wail about. Most people could give a shit. Meanwhile, Kamala should talk about the future, and what she will do. To this point about how politicos and pollsters are always interested in making themselves sound more important than they are, I think you can take what Castellanos says - which makes it sound like it is all about how you campaign - and easily fit it into a broader theory of history, like Lichtman does. And also add a dash of movement politics. Lichtman's main point about 2016 was that it was THUMBS DOWN on Democrats. Because too many things were against them. You could argue Trump won in 2016 because it was theater. I would argue it was theater laser focused on the Rust Belt. And a real problem that Democrats did not solve: the working class was losing, and all this NAFTA and globalization stuff Trump pinned on Clinton was largely why. Whether Trump just got lucky or it was a form of political genius on his part, who knows? But that is why he won. We know there were a lot of working class people who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 who voted for Trump in 2016 and have been with him ever since. I always have viewed 2016 as a kind of peasant's revolt against a system they don't trust, and they feel screwed them. And it was a powerful movement. As Castellanos says, it was powerful enough to take down not one but TWO political establishments: first Republicans (Jeb!) and then Democrats (Hillary!). And Trump did play to that masterfully, as theater. He is a show man. So the question now is whether Castellanos is right and history has just passed Trump by. My guess is he is right. Harris and Walz are trying to be the stars of The Future Show. They need to talk about the issues and values and leaders a majority of people want. They are well on their way to doing that. Lichtman later this month will likely argue that his Keys, and history, are on their side anyway. Why not make the most of it, and try to get some kind of mandate? If you view 2016 as a peasant's revolt, it kind of worked. Globalization is out. Reshoring is in. But I would add this: who got the infrastructure bill passed? Who got the CHIPs bill passed? Why are all these factories being built in Arizona and Georgia? It took a while. But Democrats did come up with a response to the revolt, more than Trump did. Lichtman would argue Democrats will get four more years because at the end of the day they earned it - at least by enough to win.

It's both/and rather than either/or. But I definitely think the former. I like Walz's thing, which is certainly not failing. This guy is a bully with a loud mouth who says weird shit. Shrink him. He's a loser and a pest and we all need to just shrink his lying felon ass. Little lying losing mini-Donald can bitch and moan all he wants. Harris is having a nice honeymoon, and the "vibes" and "values" thing is working. But if it seems like she is trying to avoid issues, at some point that will backfire. I assume they will focus on an issues agenda - this is what Democrats will fight for - at the DNC. It's hard to imagine that since Trump actually has good issues - resentment about inflation, immigration - he wouldn't be all over it. But, for the reasons you say, it actually isn't hard to imagine. I'll keep quoting Republican politico Alex Castellanos, who keeps saying Trump is the only Republican POTUS candidate he knows who can lose an election against himself. I went on at length with a lot of data in another thread on this final point. This campaign will likely be a test of a populist economic agenda that Clintonian pollster Stan Greenberg and liberal Data For Progress keep saying is wildly popular, on paper at lest: raise taxes on the rich, lower prescription drug costs, bolster Social Security, restore the 2021 child tax credit. My guess based on the data, or at least my hope, is that if Harris and Walz are talking about that, and Trump and Vance are talking about stolen elections and childless cat ladies, Trump is history.

So I know this thread is a data geek post and I am mostly debating myself. But here goes with more data. This is really good news for Harris and Walz. On a whole list of populist economic issues, Americans support the populist working class Democratic proposal. So, no, the Democratic/Harris/Walz agenda is NOT too radical. At least according to this poll. What it reinforces to me is that Republicans need to create hysteria about the border, and violent crime - which went up 30 % under Trump and down 20 % under Biden - and just plain LIE and LIE and LIE. Because they don't have voters on their side on a lot of bread and butter and working class issues. So three version of the same results. Here is the Data For Progress poll. Below that is an article in The Guardian and a video of Bernie on Velshi talking about how these ideas are wildly popular, even among Independents and Trump voters. To summarize, this is a list of policies that are supported by at least 2 in 3 Americans, including over 50 % of Independents and Trump voters: There are a lot of other policies in that poll that are supported by a majority of Americans, but not a majority of Independents and Trump voters. So my point is that if Harris and Walz want policies that are populist and broadly unifying, and that will help Americans in their pocketbooks, they can start and stop with the four above. That said, I will add the specific poll results for two other policies, since they say a lot about America and Trump's Republicans, I think: To be clear, this is about the refundable child tax credits of up to $3600 which cut child poverty in half for one year, 2021, until they expired because Manchin and all Republicans refused to go along with continuing them. Most Independents and even close to a majority of Trump voters support restoring these credits. In fact, some of those Trump voters are working class families with kids that might not be Trump voters if Democrats push policies that help them and their kids in their pocketbooks. The other reason this matters is that there are three groups that have been hit hardest by inflation. First, anybody poor, by definition. Inflation has not been hard for billionaires or Silicon Valley venture capitalists. Second, seniors, because they live on fixed incomes. Third, working class families with kids, because having kids costs money. So the top three policies above are, and should be, very popular with seniors. The child tax credits are overwhelmingly popular among working class families with kids. Including Trump voters. This is a way to help them, not demonize them. One final interesting poll result: It's noteworthy that this is the LEAST popular policy polled, largely because the party that supports the working class - Republicans??? - overwhelmingly opposes a law to help labor unions. By the way, most Americans support labor unions - 2 out of 3 - and a majority of labor union members vote Democratic. Wonder why? It's worse than that. In the video below, Bernie Sanders says Republican support in Congress is ZERO. ZERO Republicans support the Pro Act. Yet they want to claim they are the party of the working class. Here's an article in The Guardian and a video of Bernie being interviewed going over the same points and poll results: Democrats should run on a progressive economic agenda. Americans are ready A few partisan political points. I think maybe some or most MAGA folk, starting with Trump, genuinely believe Kamala Harris is just a dumb Black woman who is a DEI hire and is not ready. And can not even speak intelligently. Let's be compassionate and just stipulate that Trump is a slow learner with limited mental acuity, who is getting a bit up in years. I think the expectation is that when they debate Harris will get off her teleprompter prosecutor lines about fraud and rape and Trump being a lying felon, all of which are true. But what happens when she starts talking about corporate taxes, helping seniors, and helping working parents? Trump is horrible about talking about policy, or anything other than his own grievances. We're going to get some answers in 2024 to what I consider some of the mysteries of 2016 and 2020. Bernie was so popular in 2016 that it ended up splitting the party and hurting Hillary, with 20/20 hindsight. Then he came out roaring in 2020. Polls in both 2016 and 2020 showed consistently that in a head to head match up with Trump, Bernie would have won. Meanwhile, Rick Wilson of The Lincoln Project argued that you can forget the polls. Once Trump got done with Bernie he would have been toast. And a lot of Democrats agreed. Because for some reason - still kind of unknown - there was a massive and organic wave for Biden and against Bernie on Super Tuesday 2020. The conclusion I reached and still hold is that Bernie's policies were wildly popular. But Bernie himself came off as too much, too quickly. Once we get past the "vibes" and honeymoon phase, I think this will be a real election with a real debate. And I'm pretty sure this is the list of very popular policies Harris and Walz will talk about, in the context of helping the working class and middle class. So it will be a graduate level course in how this plays out in the real world.

I'll dispute that. Again, I am Lichtmanite. Which is to say I'm a pragmatist. If a guy predicts 10 times who will be elected, and gets its right 10 times, and says "Here's why" I want to listen. His point is simple and common sense. Americans vote thumbs up or down on the party in power. If that party did a good enough job, they get four more years. If they didn't, we get a political earthquake. So the issue in 2016 was not really Hillary. Or Biden, if he had run and lost, which Lichtman thinks he would have. It was that there just wasn't enough there in Obama's second term for four more years of "this". I agree with that analysis. We know from history that running for any President's third term is always difficult, but not impossible. (Bush 41 did, but after Reagan won in two landslides.) I think if the Republicans had instead nominated someone like John Kasich he would have won more decisively in 2016. And he probably would have been re-elected in 2020, because he would have governed better. (Kasich was elected overwhelmingly as Ohio Guv.) The fact that Trump is a racist autocrat helps explain why he lost in 2020 more than why he won in 2016, I think. And I'm 99 % sure later this month Lichtman will predict Harris will win. One way to think about it is that if Trump were Reagan, if he really inspired people, if he moved "Reagan Democrats" to his side like actually happened in 1980 and 1984, maybe Trump would beat Harris. But, no. As you say, he is a racist autocrat who actually turns people off. Republicans will hold their nose and vote for Harris because they don't want that racist autocrat cop beating woman raping business cheating lying felon back. Those are just the facts. And it makes complete common sense. He is a racist autocrat. He appeals to a narrow cult, many of whom like authoritarian bullies. He is a loser. He and his cult leaders lost in 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2023. He will lose again in 2024.

More light and more joy. An absolutely wonderful interview with Walz's #2 ,Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan. Two things I particularly like about this piece. You have a Black former Republican Lt. Gov, a Native American Democratic Lt. Gov., and two women, just warmly celebrating where we are as a nation. It's not a big deal anymore that you can have Black Republicans and Native American women in leadership positions. It just feels like it makes us stronger, and more interesting. This is why the love and joy that so many people are feeling is grounded in reality. The second thing I love about this is what it says about leadership., legacy, and light. When Paul Wellstone died it was a dark moment. The circumstances - a plane crash - were ugly. And it all happened in the middle of the Iraq War when things just seemed very dark. That all culminated in Obama's 2008 landslide. The guy who ran Wellstone's winning Senate campaigns and Wellstone's two surviving children (his wife and daughter died with him in the plane crash) founded Camp Wellstone, which continued to do what Paul did: inspire leaders, lift people up, raise voices. Flanagan was an early instructor there. Walz was an early and improbable student. At that time, in 2005, with W. and Iraq, the idea that Walz would win in the red 1st Congressional District did seem like a joke. But the country was reacting to the darkness, and lots of people like Walz were swept into power. So it it is true that Wellstone's legacy is more alive today than ever. That whole agenda they passed in Minnesota last year - for children, for women - is so Wellstone. And the leaders running it, both in front of the camera and behind the scenes, came up through his inspiration and encouragement and training. It's a lot of joy, and a lot of light, and a lot of positive legacy It is so NOT Donald Trump and JD Vance and Chris LaCivita.