Hopeful v hopeless: guess who won
Last night’s presidential debate between former President Trump and Vice President Harris conformed to expectations. An ill-tempered Trump lied, rambled, and indulged in conspiracy theories. A smiling and bemused Harris projected herself as an agent of change and optimism. She was amiable and hopeful. He was threatening and hopeless. That’s what really counts.
Policy doesn’t count, but it is still worth considering
The economy: advantage Harris
On the economy, Trump promises little more than steep tariffs on everything, which a president can impose without Congressional approval, and extension of the tax cuts passed in 2017 for the (very) rich. Neither proposition should be attractive to 90% of Americans. He continues to insist that other countries will pay the tariffs, but they will also raise prices whenever they can to recoup whatever they pay. In addition, they will retaliate against US exports. So MAGA means higher prices and loss of market share abroad. Little to celebrate there.
Harris is flogging tax breaks for small business, families, and home construction. Not all of what she proposes makes good sense, and she has not said how she will pay for them. But her proposals respond to what most Americans are concerned about. All of what she wants would have to pass in Congress, which means there is at least a chance to get it right. Even if the Democrats were to gain control of both Houses, it would be difficult to hold together their majorities for proposals that don’t make sense.
Immigration: advantage Harris
This is Trump’s strong suit, but he played his hand poorly. He repeatedly claimed that immigrants are increasing the crime rate in the US. He even claimed that crime is down in Venezuela and other countries because all the criminals are being sent to the US. Harris didn’t respond forcefully on these points. I suppose she was wary of championing immigration. But crime is down in the US and it is not down in Venezuela and other migrant-exporting countries.
Harris hit a solid note with her response. She rightfully claimed Trump had blocked a bipartisan immigration bill that would have sharply increased the number of agents on the border. She did not say what a lot of us know: America needs immigrants. The labor market is tight and immigrants are prolific entrepreneurs who found a large number of new, small companies.
Foreign policy: advantage Harris
Trump was at pains to claim that he got NATO countries to ante up and that the world loves him. But America’s allies have been increasing military expenditures at least as fast under Biden. Trump repeated his claim that he would end the Ukraine war by negotiation before he even took office. The only way he could do that is by signaling lack of support for Ukraine. Trump was only able to cite Hungary’s would-be dictator, Viktor Orban, as a leader who appreciates him. Of course Putin, Xi, and Kim are also in that camp, but they are even less to Trump’s credit.
Harris cited Trump’s love affairs with those miscreants, as well as with the Taliban, as evidence of his failure to align the US with its democratic friends and allies. Even more important is that he failed to get anything worthwhile from his dreadful friends. Harris was effective in parrying Trump’s criticism of the Afghanistan withdrawal, which he had negotiated before Biden won the 2020 election.
Next
I expect the polls to show a visible jump for Harris in the next couple of weeks. She demonstrated at the debate a demeanor, temperament, and acuity that contrasted sharply with Trump’s. He looked and played the part of a tired incumbent. His ideas, insofar as he had any, were stale. Taylor Swift got it right. Kamala Harris will be the next President. That will give the Republicans time to end their romance with a crooked flim-flam man.
Don’t miss it!
![](https://i0.wp.com/www.peacefare.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image.png?resize=550%2C275&quality=80&ssl=1)
This will be a non-technical presentation 12-1:15 September 19 on a subject I have been thinking about for more than 45 years: why does the world have universally respected norms for ionizing radiation (from nuclear power plants and X-rays) that have no legal force? The answer is not only interesting but also applicable to other subjects that entail both benefits and risks, like toxic and climate-change chemicals, pharmaceuticals, genetic engineering, arms control, and artificial intelligence.
Lunch will be available. Also a good look at the new SAIS home at 555 Pennsylvania Avenue. Sign up here. I hope to see you there,
Look who is rigging the elections now
American presidential elections are complicated. Most of the world that wants to follow them by now understands that they are decided in an Electoral College. That however is not necessarily the case.
The Electoral College is a process
The Electoral College is not an institution with a well-tended campus, but rather a process. Each state gets a number of votes in this process equivalent to its number of members of Congress (two Senators for each state plus a number of representatives proportional to its population). The electors will cast their votes in state capitals on December 17 this year. In all but two states (Maine and Nebraska), the electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote (those two states have processes for splitting their electoral votes).
The District of Columbia, which is not a state, also gets three electoral votes. That makes a total of 538 votes (50 states x 2 Senators each, no matter their population, plus + 435 members of the House + 3 for DC). In order to be elected president, a candidate needs a majority, that is at least 270 electoral votes.
The Electoral College process favors the Republicans, who control more smaller population states with disproportionately larger numbers of electoral votes, due to the two senators. Both George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016 lost the popular vote but won in the Electoral College. Trump is likely to lose the popular vote again but could still win in the Electoral College due to his strength in low-population states.
Here’s the rub
If no one gets a majority in the Electoral College, the presidency would be decided in the House of Representatives. There each state would cast a single vote. The Republicans hold the advantage. They control more state delegations. That is why Republicans are working hard to try to prevent certification in enough states to prevent Harris from winning the majority of the Electoral College.
This is election rigging. It is attractive to hope that it won’t pass muster in the courts, as the video above suggests. But the reality is that courts are slow. The Georgia Election Board has already adopted rules intended to make it easier to delay certification. Election officials in other states may do likewise. And violent demonstrations could prevent certification at the state level, as the January 6, 2021 crowd tried to do at the national level. Even the credible threat of jail terms after the fact is unlikely to prevent some miscreants from trying to rig the election.
There is a solution
The solution is an unequivocal election outcome, especially in battleground states. That will not be easy to achieve. We call them battlegrounds precisely because we expect the vote there to be close. In many, Trump and Harris are running neck and neck, even if she is pulling out ahead in the national polls. In Georgia, Harris is still 4 percentage points behind. You shouldn’t expect the Trumpkins to delay certification there if he scores a definitive win.
Enthusiasm for Harris is still growing. Trump is stumbling. He has tried many lines of attack, to no avail. He has claimed she is dumb and that he is better looking. It was no surprise that he gained little traction with those obviously false claims. Trump may have looked viable against an aging Joe Biden. But he is now the aging candidate all too obviously less energetic, articulate, smart, well-informed, and well-prepared than Harris. May the best woman win, big.
What Harris needs to do now
Wow! Even for someone who in early July thought she would be a good candidate, Kamala Harris has overperformed. The Democratic Party unified quickly, she took the reins without hesitation, and she has now claimed high ground.
Donald Trump is flummoxed. Instead of running against a wizened pol hesitant to go on the offensive, he now faces a vibrant, high-energy woman determined to take the fight to him. The polling has already turned in her direction, putting her up a couple of points nationally and at least even in most of the battleground states. What could go wrong?
Lots of hurdles ahead in September
Trump’s effort to label her a communist extremist isn’t gaining much traction. A lot of Americans don’t remember communism. A woman who spent decades as a prosecutor doesn’t fit easily into the extremism box.
But lots of other potential hurdles loom. The presidential debate, if Trump doesn’t back out, will take place on September 10. Harris should be able to slice and dice him when it comes to policy, but a debate is also about image and presence. She wins on those scores with me, but a woman as commander-in-chief is a novelty for Americans. We’ll have to see how it goes.
The vice presidential candidates will also debate, on October 1. There Tim Walz’s normality and J.D. Vance’s weirdness will no doubt be on display. Debates, however, are always high-risk, high-gain events. A single flub or cutting remark can determine the impression a debate leaves.
Between the debates, on September 17 and 18, a Federal Reserve meeting will have an opportunity to begin lowering interest rates. It will act if it thinks the economy is slowing enough to end the post-pandemic inflationary spiral. It will postpone the decision if inflation still looks resilient. Harris will be a lot better off if inflation continues edging downwards toward the 2% annual goal from the 2.9% August figure. The new figure will be out September 11.
October will be about the battlegrounds
Campaigning is already focused mainly on the few states where the outcome is not already clear. The American “Electoral College,” an 18th century anomaly embedded in the constitution, makes that a necessary feature of American presidential elections. Each state has a number of electoral votes equivalent to its members of the Congress (two Senators per state plus a number of Representatives proportional to population). This system favors less populous states, in many of which the Republicans are strong.
270towin.com figures the state-by-state breakdown this way:
The battlegrounds are Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Some might add North Carolina or Ohio. But basically you’ve got a contest in two states in the west, three in the middle west, and one other in the south.
In all these, the main issue will be turnout and ballot access, which is determined by state laws and regulations. Georgia, which is Republican-controlled, has been aggressively trying to limit voting. Such efforts will be undertaken elsewhere as well, including refusal to certify results after the election. The courts will be jammed with efforts to get Republican complaints to the Supreme Court, where Trump can hope his three appointees will once again join in majorities deciding in his favor.
What it will take
The Economist is right. Harris will need more than the good vibes she has already generated to win. But I doubt they are correct about the need for more policy detail. They want principled consistency. Most American voters wouldn’t know if she offered it. The main thing for Harris is to convince Americans that she understands their problems and has the ability and interest to try to solve them. That is where Trump is weakest. It should be where she is strongest.
Obamas let loose, but Harris needs more
Michelle Obama led the assault:
Barack Obama delivered the coup de grâce:
Rhetorical skills however are not all that matters in determining who the next president will be. Harris has already demonstrated that she is the same league with the Obamas when it comes to projecting hope and skewering Donald Trump. She is more than competitive with him in both the national polls and the battleground states. What could trip her up?
Harris’ hurdles
Trump is trying to make Harris out to be an extremist and a communist. That’s not going to work on the merits, though I suppose his repetition of the charges will help solidify his base. More likely, one of these issues will prove problematic:
- Immigration: Trump’s claims to have shut down the border are bogus. In addition he blocked a bipartisan effort in Congress to mitigate the problem of illegal immigration. But there is a big difference between Democrats and Republicans on immigration. Most voters do not however favor the mass expulsion that Trump advocates.
- The economy: Growth has held up well under Biden, but inflation has pretty much erased wage gains and higher interest rates have cut into home affordability. The number of jobs has exploded, but unemployment is up marginally due to more people entering the work force. Still, many job markets are still tight and immigrant workers are needed.
- Crime: Violent crime rates are back down to pre-pandemic levels, but public perception of crime is up, especially among Republicans. Crime in the US is largely a local and state issue, not a Federal one. But it has nevertheless often played a role in presidential elections. Harris’ record as a prosecutor should lend her at least some credibility on crime.
What doesn’t matter
Barring a disaster in Ukraine, foreign policy won’t matter much. All American politicians are now belligerent on China. Trump’s tariff proposals would be expensive for American consumers, but the Democrats haven’t been able to exploit that angle since they have kept his previous round of tariff increases. The Democrats are split on Gaza, but Trump has no way of exploiting the split to gain Arab American votes in Michigan because of his own over-the-top pro-Israel record. Venezuelan American votes count in Florida, but Biden doesn’t seem to be able to do what they want: chase the illegitimate President Maduro out of the country.
Ads will flood the airwaves between now and November 5, but there is little evidence they have a lot of impact. I suppose they would if one side or the other desists, but they won’t. Celebrity endorsements don’t seem critical either. I still hope Taylor Swift, who might be the exception, comes down hard for Harris.
Ground game does matter
“Ground game,” the term of art for retail politicking to convince voters one-to-one and get them to the polls, does matter. It is expensive and difficult to organize. Biden by all accounts had a big advantage over Trump in both money and organization in the battleground states. Harris has inherited that advantage. She now needs to ensure that her campaign uses it effectively. The Trump campaign is working hard to blunt her offensive by limiting who votes and whether their votes are counted.
I have no doubt Walz tonight and Harris tomorrow night will prove themselves worthy at the DNC. He knows how to inspire a team. She knows how to lead one toward the goal. Lots can still happen in the days, weeks, and months remaining. But there is a good chance America will restore itself and end the Trump plague once and for all.
Harris is not risky, the demonstrations are
Tonight’s opening of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago will rightfully bring back memories of the 1968 convention. Then a police riot against anti-Vietnam war demonstrators contributed to wrecking Hubert Humphrey’s prospects for defeating Richard Nixon. Humphrey came within a whisker (42.7% to Nixon’s 43.4%) of winning the popular vote but lost definitively in the Electoral College (191 to 302). The rest of the votes went to segregationist George Wallace. He in 1963 had pronounced in his inaugural address as Alabama Governor:
Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!
It was a scary time
I was a physical chemistry master’s student at the University of Chicago in 1968. It was a traumatic year. The assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy, both favorites among many Democrats, had led to rioting and persistent racial tension. The atmosphere in the South Shore neighborhood in which I lived with my Black fiancée was tense even before the assassinations.
It was much worse after them. A Catholic priest was making his name that spring with the slogan “hold the line at Ashland.” That meant not allowing Blacks to buy houses west of Ashland Avenue. A Christian Orthodox congregation (I don’t remember of which variety) stoned its priest when he showed up one Sunday because he had adopted the Gregorian calendar, presumably on instructions from his church hierarchy. Racial and ethnic passions of all varieties were intense.
By the time of the Democratic Convention in August, we had moved to a much nicer apartment in Hyde Park to housesit. That relatively upscale neighborhood was also tense. As a mixed couple, we attracted a lot of nasty remarks, from Blacks as well as whites. When I was alone, whites would readily indulge in racist commentary.
The Convention made it worse
Richard Daley had been Chicago’s mayor since 1955. He ran the city as a corrupt, largely segregated fiefdom. Abusive use of the police in the aftermath of the assassinations had contributed substantially to the disorder. He was determined to use the police in the same fashion during the Convention.
I went up to Grant Park the afternoon before the Convention opened. The governor had called out the National Guard, which had set up machine guns on the bridges across Lake Shore Drive. The speeches at the demonstration were emotional and all but called for violence. The heavily equipped police, some on horseback, were looking stressed. It took no genius to conclude that the city was about to explode.
I returned to our apartment and suggested we drive east the next day. I was happy to leave racist Chicago in the rear view mirror. The riot started that evening.
It’s different but still risky
I trust Chicago 2024 has overcome much of the racial and ethnic animus of 56 years earlier. It today has a Black mayor whose sympathies on Gaza are with the demonstrators. The demonstrators are protesting Israeli conduct of the war against Hamas in Gaza as well as failure of the Biden Administration to withhold military assistance to Israel. Those issues have split the Democrats–there will be lots of delegates inside the Convention who sympathize with the demonstrators outside, as there were also in 1968.
The key issue will be how well prepared the police are and how skillfully they handle the situation. There will be demonstrators determined to challenge them and try to disrupt the Convention. Preventing a small number from mobilizing the mass of demonstrators to violence will be essential. That said, the city seems determined to protect the right to protest. And the Convention will no doubt hear expressions of support for the causes the demonstrators espouse. All that is good.
Many of the demonstrators will be unsatisfied with Harris’ assertion of sympathy with Palestinian civilians. They need to keep in mind the real alternative. Donald Trump would be much more supportive of Israel than Biden has been. Violence in Chicago in the next few days could throw the election to a Republican who wouldn’t even consider restraining Israel.
If all goes well, Kamala Harris will get the opportunity to extend her remarkable performance of the past few weeks. She is now leading in the national polls and competitive in virtually all the battleground states. The election outcome is of course still in doubt, but the Biden age handicap is gone. Harris is a solid candidate who will do her best to bring the Gaza war to an end. The risk lies not with her but with the demonstrators and their behavior in Chicago this week.