PMC Commentary

One poll's wrap-up of pessimism vs. optimism among the electorate

The two latest national polls reflect distorted mirror images, while the second result shown demonstrates, if nothing else, the volatility of polling within the industry.   

The chief distortion between the two polls is that Quinnipiac surveyed likely voters; The Journal, registered.

The phrase "statistically insignificant" has been popular in 2024's presidential polling, and again it's applicable to Quinnipiac's +2 (with all candidates included) when compared with Suffolk University's recent finding of +5 for Harris. Nevertheless, insignificant becomes somewhat jarring for readers who glance at RealClearPolitics' poll listings — to see +5 suddenly morph into +1 on RCP's page.

The collective admixture of stats morphs also into a blur, thus one can be forgiven for asking, What does it all mean? There's nothing complicated involved, yet the flurry of +s careening from 1 to 5 of late reminds one of Shakespeare's "much ado," but perhaps about something? No more than the industry's internal volatility, it would seem.

As for the two polling results above, they look identical but they're not. Aside from their conflation of registered vs. likely voters, Quinnipiac is considered a reliable polling operation (2.8/3.0) by 538; The Journal's was done by Michael Bocian, GBAO (1.2/3.0) and David Lee of Fabrizio, Lee & Associates, (1.7). Take from that what you will. My take is that the WSJ cut its costs at the expense of readers, which is one way Rupert wound up with billions of dollars.

In Quinnipiac's internals, 98% of Democrats support Harris, 94% Republicans support Trump, and Independents are split at 45%, which isn't good. What is good is that Harris possesses a 21-point lead among women, 58%–37%. Trump's male support explains why I'm embarrassed by my own kind. Among us three-legged primates he has an 18-point advantage, 57%–39%. As I'm said for years, America's men exemplify brawn over brains.  

Also in the (sort of)  Good News Department is that RFK Jr.'s favorability rating as gathered by Quinnipiac is 32% — by itself, mind-bindingly bad, but an encouraging 10-point drop from what Suffolk gathered. Harris' 47% favorability matches her unfavorability, and Trump's favorability is underwater by 6 points, 47% to 52%.

Oh, and Quinnipiac discovered — it really did — that 1% of its respondents said they "haven’t heard enough about" Trump to form an opinion. Quinnipiac polled 1,611 respondents, nearly all them by conventional means. But somehow the pollster managed to reach 16 people who've been without newspapers, television news, internet service and even telephonic communication for lo these many years, as they hunkered deep in faraway caves. 

So my hat goes off to Tim Malloy, a top man (among the brains-over-brawn minority) with Quinnipiac University's polling operation. And I'll close with this observation from Malloy, one that may be the poll's most significant finding: "Nearly 7 in 10 voters see brighter days on the horizon. While Democrats are the most hopeful, followed by independents then Republicans; in the aggregate, Americans are choosing optimism." Kamala Harris' choice. 

What's playing on cable, satellite and the internet tubes

As part of the Harris campaign's $370 million ad campaign, it's spending an estimated $50,000 to run one ad in Florida, but just part of it — the part that houses Mar-a-Lago. In the exquisitely targeted tradition of super-spook psy-ops campaigns, the ad is directed at only one brain, Donald Trump's. Anything to make him hurl another ketchup-stained plate and then do something else too stupid even for an actual toddler.  

The one break from tradition: The Harris people admit their objective. "We thought it was important for Donald to see how much voters hate his Project 2025 plans to control their lives, seek revenge on his enemies, and rule as a dictator on day one," said Harris spokeswoman Sarafina Chitika.

If you're wondering, the ad is also showing in every battleground state. 

On the internet is this Lincoln Project bit that highlights Trump's insurrectionism, criminality, illicit lust, indictment avalanche, corporation corruption, alienation of former WH officials — all of it topped off with one of his rare remarks of honesty: "I don't care about you, I just want your vote."

A poll finding on the effect of RFK Jr.'s withdrawal and endorsement of Trump

More tomorrow on Quinnipiac's latest poll. But this shouldn't wait. 

In the wake of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. suspending his presidential campaign as an independent candidate and endorsing Donald Trump, a majority of likely voters (64 percent) say RFK Jr.’s endorsement does not have an impact on their view of Trump, while 19 percent say it makes them think more favorably of Trump and 15 percent say it makes them think less favorably of Trump.

A total wash. 

This is how you know they're hurting

Children — a few of their entries from Trumpland, during and immediately after the CNN interview. These are some of the Big Boys & Girls of Twitter's neuroses, which is to say, here are the Trumpian children with over 100,000 followers, some with millions of followers. The last entry is a little different; it's from an unnamed toddleskins (with nearly one million followers) who merely reposts the lies of Trump's Truth Social. I captured the tweets last night, except for this one that I just ran across. I'm share it as (another) example of how utterly and pathetically self-unaware these people are: "When Kamala speaks she has a hard time keeping the thread of the conversation." On to last night's wrap-ups.     

Kamala Harris has high grade anxiety. She is a nervous wreck. Not ready for prime time.

She is on more drugs than Biden.

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 30, 2024

She committed a coup against her own running mate and sitting President.

She looks tired and soulfully corrupted.

Her look and shaky voice in this interview shows it all. pic.twitter.com/OaCyd2Po5C

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) August 30, 2024

I looked to see what Mark Levin had to say. But I had forgotten. He blocked me. I must have revealed some truth about something long ago. 

This person is worse than Biden. At least we knew that he at one point he COULD have answered such a question. https://t.co/dEZ3jvWTaP

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) August 30, 2024

Omg this is so bad

Kamala is a mess

And Walz is sitting there like a mute dummy

— Monica Crowley (@MonicaCrowley) August 30, 2024

What a lame interview, @DanaBashCNN. Does Harris own inflation, high gas prices, Afghanistan pullout, 12 million illegals in the country under Biden-Harris—after all Harris said when Biden makes decisions, she’s always “the last person in the room”?!?

We STILL didn’t know.

— Larry Elder (@larryelder) August 30, 2024

Fake News CNN failed on a spectacular level tonight. One of The worst interviews I’ve ever watched. This was a career opportunity to hold Kamala Harris and Tim Walz accountable for their radical, extreme and frankly dangerous policies for the country.

Here is what Fake News CNN…

— Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 (@seanhannity) August 30, 2024

I have a guilty confession to make. The Kamala Harris campaign was RIGHT to hide her from the press.

This interview is a TRAIN WRECK. pic.twitter.com/OhOElV1QOW

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) August 30, 2024

I look so forward to Debating Comrade Comrade Kamala Harris and exposing her for the fraud she is. Harris has changed every one of her long held positions, on everything. America will never allow an Election WEAPONIZING MARXIST TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.

Donald Trump Truth…

— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) August 30, 2024

Are voters really "eager to hear more" about Kamala's policies? Dana Bash thought so.

Last night I wrote my assessment of Kamala Harris' CNN interview as it was proceeding, so my published notes were more impression than analysis. In that vein, I wrote toward the end of the post that "I'm going to hold off" on commenting about Dana Bash's lead-in question, "Voters are eager to hear what you'll do" policy-wise, adding that I'll address that matter in the morning. My apologies, I'm a little late.

My reason for postponing remarks was that an hour before the interview aired I was looking at the results of a newly released Wall Street Journal poll. And what I found then brought forth a chuckle a bit later, when hearing the question posed by Bash. But time pressures preventing me from going into it "live." 

In her query, the CNN anchor was repeating what the media has been criticizing for weeks: You, candidate Harris, have been far too vague about the policies you've proposed, and so voters are eager to hear more; indeed they're demanding to hear more.

Pop quiz: What that true or false? It's the latter, decisively. The Journal's polling discovered that only 15% of voters believe they know too little. 

So much for Dana Bash and the entire press corps' opinion of public opinion. But in this particular arena, the media in general has been fundamentally flawed in another way — a more egregious, and much less forgivable, way. 

As noted, its principal criticism of Kamala Harris has been the indistinctness of her proposed policies, which, it is true, she laid out in only a broad fashion roughly a month ago. Yet ... let's see ... oh yes, now I remember ... for precisely 236 years presidential candidates have campaigned on indistinct policies. That Harris has been unique in her presentations is sheer humbug.  

I should qualify the above. Presidential candidates who won their elections campaigned on vague, indistinct policies. Where Democratic candidates have too often gone wrong is in presenting specifics; heaps of them, policy details that voters neither cared about nor understood. Although the media is quite aware of both phenomena, it nevertheless bangs away, demanding to know more.

And that's OK, because that happens to be the political media's job. So in what way has its 2024 campaign coverage been egregiously flawed? And unforgivable to boot?    

When was the last time you heard a political reporter press Trump on his policy proposals? For that matter, what policy proposals? The manner in which he promises voters an idyllic America is that he'll accomplish it. Period. And usually on Day One. It's magical — by repeatedly expanding and narrowing the distance between his hands he'll remake the United States into a goddamn garden of Eden. Such are Donald J. Trump's policy proposals.

And what does that political reporter do, after sitting and listening to this blowhard bullshit? He or she moves right along to the next question, which invariably has nothing whatsoever to do with policies. Trump has trained the media to do this. His training is packaged in the latest "outrage," which he knows the reporter is far keener to ask about. That sells.

Meanwhile, Kamala Harris' campaign days are filled with reporters demanding specifics about her presidential governance. After all, as Dana Bash said last night, voters are eager to hear more. They feel they just don't know enough about her policies to have a firm opinion of her.    

And that's true — for 15% of voters. 

This is not how the Arlington incident should have ended - at least by half

Two ways this odious affair should not have ended.

1. "The unidentified female staff member has declined to press charges due to concern over retaliation." (The Army said in a statement that the staffer, despite being "abruptly pushed aside … acted with professionalism and avoided further disruption.")

Astounding, is it not? An Army lady overseeing a cemetery has infinitely more character than a man who could possibly become the next president of the United States. If Trump had been treated that way? He'd be suing Biden, Harris, Walz, every "weaponized" government department from Defense to Health and Human Services and filing assault & battery and attempted murder charges.

2. "The Army said in a statement Thursday morning that it considers the matter closed." And a "Pentagon official said the department is not taking any legal action against the Trump campaign at this time."

Why? For sure, Trump & Co. is ignorant but ignorance of the law is no excuse, as many judges have had to inform far less blame-worthy subjects. Yet the Trump campaign can't even plead its usual condition of being grossly unenlightened. 

Politico: "Army officials say they fully informed the Trump team about a federal law prohibiting the filming of partisan political advertisements at national cemeteries." Yes, and Willie Sutton was fully informed about the feds frowning on bank robbery. Your point being? he asked. Speaking of career criminals ...

I once maintained that the vilest creature in Trump's circle of hell is Boris Epshteyn. He bears a creepy resemblance to Al Capone and has a thuggish, reptilian brain to match. Boris has been twice arrested for barroom bashfests, which Al once did for a living; he was "Co-Conspirator 6" in one of Trump's many indictments, and he's now under an indictment of his very own in Arizona. 

At any rate, Mr. Epshteyn has made himself scarce of late, which has mitigated the appeal of hating his guts even more than others ... bear with me; there is a point to this .... but, through immense serendipity, Steven Cheung quit as Goldfinger's caddy to become Trump's, and otherwise sit in for Epshteyn as the vilest among the vile as the campaign spokesman.  

A reporter once described the modus operandi of this professional guttersnipe and cheapest-of-shots artist as "You come at us and we’re going to kick you in your fucking teeth." Keyboard jockeys who brandish feigned tough-guy talk generally wind up in real trouble. And so what I can't understand is how Cheung has managed to keep his facial oriface relatively unmutilated.

Had he said something along the teeth-kicking line not to Arlington's woman but to a male Army staffer, he might have soon been collecting his from the cemetery's nicely mowed lawn. If not for that, for damn sure he would have after "abruptly pushing aside" the Army dude. Violating a law is one thing; physical assault quite another.

But as the classic bully-as-coward, Cheung, from the bodily safety of his campaign cubical, did what he spends each day doing — defaming someone. And in this case he defamed the Army lady who had been abused, alleging she was “clearly suffering from a mental health episode," just for the exhilarating fun of it, one supposes.

Again, an Army spokesperson was too gentle, saying only that it's "unfortunate that the ANC employee and her professionalism has been unfairly attacked."

And that brings us back to "it should not have ended this way" #1. Although the U.S. Army considered "the matter closed," the "unfortunate" ANC employee had the granddaddy of all defamation lawsuits to bring against Cheung and the Trump campaign. That her identity will be exposed is a given, thus real harm was done to her reputation.

In addition, with better guidance, the prospect of "retaliation" from the Trump syndicate would have inspired rather than discouraged the woman from pressing charges against the abusive campaign member. Through Cheung, Trump Inc. had already played out its hand, exposing itself to considerable legal liability by subjecting her to public ridicule via the false accusation of her suffering from a psychoneurotic state. "Female hysteria," it was once called.

No, the Arlington incident should not have ended this way. The U.S. Army and Pentagon would have been abundantly justified in treating this as an open matter and bringing charges. Yet unlike Trump, they operate in the real world, whose politics barred such actions. Ethically, their dispositions of the incident were wrong, but realistically inevitable. 

Not so with the Arlington employee. Dismissing the incident and thus shelving it along with Trump's innumerable other crimes, public obscenities and cynical mockeries of the law were improper and far from inescapable. The woman may have been pressured from above to just drop it. If so, I'd be sympathetic but not quite understanding.

The appropriate action was to nail his and his campaign's ass to the wall — through the media, accompanied by a pledge that proceeds from a legal settlement would go to Arlington. America needs good inexpensive cigars and more E. Jean Carrolls. If "the system" can't bring down Trump, perhaps each of his victims, individually, can. 

A successful Harris interview on CNN tonight

I admit I was a bit nervous about Kamala Harris' first nationally televised interview. I'm glad I was nervous, because my relief when it went swimmingly was twice as powerful.

She was steadfastly serious — no laughing, which for some odd reason unsettles some folks — and direct, confident and firm in her answers.

She was quite strong, for instance, in response to Dana Bash's effort to expose her frightful hypocrisy on the issue of fracking. You said .... something something in 2019 about fracking ... and now you're saying ... something something ... different, pressed Bash. How can you possibly square the 180? Simple, responded Harris. I changed my mind in 2020 and have remained in support of fracking since. Sooo, you satisfied? Next question, Dana. 

This whole business of You said something five years ago which is not what you're saying today is actually pretty damned silly, especially in this election. I heard just a a few seconds of CNN's pre-interview discussion panel. A commentator pointed out that Trump quite literally changes positions on major issues within a period of five minutes. Rather lame, then, to harp on a Harris switch over five years.

The nominee was also particularly strong on immigration. She succinctly laid out Trump's devious political self-interest in sending word to his congressional allies that he wanted the robust, muscular, bipartisan and essentially conservative immigration bill killed. As president she'll see that the legislation gets to her Oval Office desk — and she'll sign it.  

A mere one hour allotted for Kamala's first major interview and Ms. Bash asked — I stopped to make sure I heard this one correctly – if she'll appoint a Republican to her cabinet. Good grief. More informative — seriously — would have been Harris' answer to an inquiry into which presidential portraits she'll hang in her office. And which bronzed busts she'll want. Oh, and any color changes throughout the WH's residential quarters? OK, that one not so serious.

Bash's initial question, which centered on "Voters are eager to hear what you'll do" policy-wise, is a matter I'm going to hold off on for now. I'll address it tomorrow morning. Because what I learned tonight was a real eye-opener.

What followed those policy questions was of much lesser importance; essentially, wasted airtime. The one expected question that I suppose may have interested some viewers was on her racial makeup, which Kamala batted away as she's done for several years.

All told, a success, a solid performance. And I'm breathing much easier now.

(By the way, before someone says, "I knew you'd say her interview was successful," if Harris had bombed, I would have said so. You can take my word for that, or not. Makes no difference to me.)

Essential news I overlooked

Until tomorrow ...

I don't know how these things get by me. From The Free Press, dateline, 10 Aug.: 

On July 20 in Omena, a small town in the "little finger" of northern Michigan, a crowd of about a hundred locals gathered in a church parking lot for the inauguration of their new mayor. A brass band played "The Stars and Stripes Forever" as Sally Viskochil, president of the local historical society, walked across the patriotically festooned stage to make the announcement.

"And our new mayor is. . . " There was a collective intake of breath. "Lucky!"

There was a smattering of applause, but a few members of the audience looked stunned.

Perhaps not by choice, Lucky happens to be a horse. But he's also an effective political campaigner, which is by choice. Whether he derived his rhetorical whinnying skills from being part American Quarter and part American Paint, I can't say. But I also can't argue with success.

[He's] the first equid to be elected mayor of Omena, [reports the Press]. Until now, this race has only ever been won by a dog—and, once, a cat. You could say Lucky was an underdog in securing the town’s highest office, except he beat twelve actual dogs, five cats, and a goat. Many of them were in attendance. The victor was not. 

"Who's Afraid of Verbal Wounds?" And, living with blinders.

From the department of common knowledge: Trump is terrified of debating Kamala Harris.

Her brain isn't Trumpian mush, she does her homework, knows her stuff, she has come into her own and she's aggressive in verbal sparring, as most former prosecutors are. I'd be afraid of taking her on, and my brain hasn't yet reached Donald's stage of otherworldliness and serious deterioration. (Full disclosure: Then again, I haven't "aced" two cognitive tests for dementia as he has.)  

The Daily Beast has recapped some the above-referenced common knowledge. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said on MSNBC, "The felon is afraid of the prosecutor—and for damn good reason." On CNN, former Trump aide Alyssa Farah Griffin said, "There are things he’s going to have to answer for in this debate… and I think he’s afraid of that." And on Bill Maher, CNN's Kaitlin Collins said, "I think Trump is really nervous about [the debate]…. I talk to a lot of sources in his world." 

With such knowledge widely recorded and laying heaped on the table, naturally Republicans have taken to turning it around. No no, it's not Trump who's nervous. It's Kamala. From the Beast, an exemplary source: "Fox News’ Sean Hannity said, '[Harris] is evidently afraid to debate Trump,' then cited the fact that she rebuffed Trump’s suggestion of a debate on his network, stating it would be 'too risky' and she’s 'too incompetent,' to visit the land of Fair and Balanced." 

The Beast then notes that "the conservative Washington Examiner published the headline, 'Kamala Harris is scared of debating Trump, as she should be.'" Such headlines and the copy below them, which most Trumpers dismiss — reading is so bothersome, are designed to prop up the flagging spirits of the heretofore assured and triumph-convinced. When the chips look as though they may be headed southward, the right-wing propagandists lunge into feel-good, everything's OK psychological uplift and mind-pampering. 

Hannity, the Examiner and lord only knows how many other righty-tighty outlets of sheer humbug rang my short-term memory bell — about yesterday's post, titled "You find comfort where you can get it." Whether in politics or war, some people insist on hearing, sometimes reading, only the rosiest of forecasts. But blinkered eyes and closed ears are the front lines of sure defeat. Any competent commander in war would demand intel on every aspect of the enemy's strengths before a campaign, as would most politicians — and as their followers should.    

That too has been common knowledge, at least in war, since Sun Tzu, dead for more than 2,500 years. Yet in politics? Today? I could not be happier that Trump's followers prefer to live with blinders, and that they get their vision supplies from the proto-fascist media. Unfortunately, too numerous are Democratic outlets that also convey only cheerleading news, which is just as wrong, and just as dangerous.

Harris, or her housekeeper — both are incalculably more fit for the White House than Trump. Yet Kamala is in a brawling street fight with a gangster who possesses no reasonable right to any polling stat above 1% (estimate based slightly below U.S. prison and jail population), which even the blind should be able to see. I can think of no better way to hobble Kamala Harris than for her supporters to dismiss the enemy's strengths, as unfathomable as they are. Perhaps unwittingly, some Democratic sites contribute to such counterproductive notions.  

On the upside, Dem voters aren't as inclined as Trumpers to be overconfident, because — they're Democrats. Their hopes have been waylaid too many times to be Pollyanish about elections. The year 2016 was particularly educational. But in a razor-thin contest, even the slenderest of excessive optimism — blindness — can be a killer. Those of that ilk are inclined to stay home on Election Day.       

Today's political weather: It's raining polls

Before proceeding, see Addendum, at bottom. Added two hours later after posting. 

RealClearPolitics overlooked this Reuters/Ipsos poll. More important than the topline number is the finding that Trump's lead over Harris on the economy and crime has shrunk to insignificance and invisibility. On the economy, he led by 11 points a month ago, now his lead is 3%, which is in the MoE. On crime, his lead is precisely a tie, with voters preferring both candidates by 40%. Harris trailed by 5 in July. 

As for Ipsos' national polling of registered voters, Harris leads 45% to 41%. Ipsos is rated 2.8/3.0 by 538.

The USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds Harris ahead of Trump nationally by 5 points. USA's headline, which I've shortened and added emphasis, is either enchanting or enchanted, your choice, mine is the latter: "Harris surges ahead of Trump."  

What's better than the 5-point lead? The Suffolk poll (2.9/3.0) is of likely voters. What's more, the university has announced that all its surveys from now till the election will be such. The slightly higher result for Harris reflects this greater reality.  

Key findings, from USA: "The vice president's small lead was fueled by big shifts among some key demographic groups ... including Hispanic and Black voters and young people. Among those with annual incomes of less than $20,000, in the biggest change, a three-point Trump edge over Biden in June has become a 23-point Harris advantage over Trump in August."

This YouGov poll was commissioned by the Economist. Yesterday I posted YouGov's polling results for Yahoo News. My "issues" with this poll are twofold; again, registered voters were surveyed rather than likely voters; and the registered account for 88% of responses, not all responses. (On page 117 of the poll's full results it is noted that 1,555 U.S. citizens were surveyed, among whom 1,368 were registered to vote.) The topline statistic:

The empty space after "Kennedy" (Suffolk's, too) is puzzling in a Why-did-they-bother? way. Since he's no longer a candidate, the only polling done on RFK Jr. was on his favorability.

As a conscientious citizen concerned about your mental health, before relating his favorability stat I am obligated to remind you that Americans were surveyed, many of whom spend a good deal of their time on planet Bizarro. They would no more be familiar with the humongous oddities of Bobby Kennedy Jr. than I am with the intricacies of Guatemalan lesbians' sex life, although I'd love to learn.

OK, now that I've braced you for the almost unbelievable, here it is, the man's favorability number: 41%. That's a combination of "very favorable," 12%, and "somewhat favorable," 30%. In addition to my yearning to learn more about Guatemalan lesbians, I'm every bit as interested in knowing what the 30% found "somewhat" appealing about Bobby. Was it that he only pretended to eat a barbecued dog? That he kinda likes bears? The 12% are of no interest. They reside full-time on planet Bizarro.  

Considering all of today's polls, it does appear that Kamala Harris' nominating convention failed to give her the usual bounce. That's disturbing, but it also strikes me as inexplicable, so I won't venture mere guesses as to why.  

Yesterday, Fox News released its poll of battlegrounds. Noted FoxNews.com's headline, "Harris closes gap with Trump in Sub Belt states." She's doing better there than Biden did, anyway. Fox commissions Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research for its polling, which is highly rated, 2.8 of 3.0. It results: 

These states remain a textbook definition of the jitters. The numbers are unlikely to rise until Harris' national polling of likely voters reaches at least 7+.  

***

Addendum. Reader Anne J. remarked below, "Do you really think she will go above +7? I'm just not seeing it."

I took a look at the polling average for Biden vs. Trump, just before Election 2020. So yes, you bet it's possible. Unfortunately, the graph was cut short, but candidate Biden came in at nearly 52% to Trump's 43, rounding both. 

A recent history guide for use during tonight's CNN interview

In 2019 and 2023, The Times' Astead Herndon interviewed presidential candidate Kamala Harris and Vice President Harris. Yesterday in The Times' "On Politics" newsletter, its host, Jess Bidgood, asked Herndon for his impressions of Harris as an interviewee. Below I'm providing segments of Herndon remarks while omitting Bidgood's questions; it's only the journalist's general observations that are of interest.

I thought this might be a kind of helpful guide to watching tonight's CNN bash with Harris and running mate Tim Walz. I was about to write my own justification of this exercise until I noticed CNN had done it for me. "[She] will be hoping ... to avoid the types of unforced errors that plagued her first presidential bid in 2019, as well as her early days as vice president."

This retrospective might be helpful in gauging your assessment of her success or failure in avoiding past blunders; you'll be re-familiarized with specifics. Some of Herndon's observations are neutral, e.g., hearing Harris speak as though she's grilling Brett Kavanaugh, or her insistence that race and gender were irrelevant to Biden's VP strategy. But it's how viewers interpret Harris' style and responses that will matter. Here's Herndon. 

"In both those interviews, I was trying to sift through platitudes to try to find a specific vision or a story that she was telling about herself, because it wasn’t really clear."

"I asked her if she liked her [veep] job, and she said she did — but that she didn’t like doing this. I was putting her in a position to self-reflect, and to articulate her own story of growth and change. I thought she would want to tell a story on that front, and was surprised that she did not."

"She does not view herself with labels and feels confined by those boxes.... I don’t think she loses any sleep over whether you think she’s a moderate or progressive. I think she thinks, 'I’m a person who makes big and hard decisions, with all the evidence in front of me.' That’s what’s mattered most as a prosecutor and attorney general, and I think that’s how she views political leadership." 

"Some of the tone of the interviews feels like the Senate hearing version of Harris — which is something lots of Democrats love." 

"Skepticism is what she has overcome in the last month, by showing that she’s an improved candidate who can get people excited, and then showing that some of the questions people have about her ideology are not as important as what she does represent."

"A portion of the interview that she didn’t engage in was when I asked her about her own identity and its role in her selection as Joe Biden’s vice president. She essentially said that it didn’t matter why she was chosen — it only mattered that she was chosen. And that’s really turned out to be true.... Whether race or gender had anything to do with that selection initially is now sort of a moot point."

"I want to know what becomes a priority under a Harris administration that wasn’t prioritized during Biden’s. The labels aren’t important, but labels are proxies for a story you’re telling the country about yourself.... Even if that is a rejection of traditional boxes, like race and gender and ideology, I would want her to explain why rejecting those is important to her."

Vance to Harris: "Go to hell"

If this little exhibition of crass, ungentlemanly behavior toward a woman is an indication of his debate tactics when he meets Tim Walz, then Kamala Harris will be the primary beneficiary. Here's the clip, and you need only watch the first 16 seconds.

His remarks yesterday about his candidate's flagrant violation of federal law at Arlington National Cemetery were entirely unrelated, to use Vance's word, to the disgraceful incident. That's to be expected. He's a master at the dodge. But he also stepped onto dangerous ground, which, I trust, Mr. Walz will readily make the viewing audience aware of.

Vance's misdirection centered on "what happened" at the Kabul, Afghanistan airport — that gruesome day in 2021 when 13 U.S. service members lost their lives in a terrorist bombing. Ever since, President Biden has been the sole target of blame for the tragedy. Some of that blame is fairly placed. But Trump shares as much if not more culpability for the service members' deaths. 

While still dishonoring the presidency in countless others ways, Trump signed a U.S.-withdrawal agreement with the Taliban  The deal signed included the trustworthy Taliban's consent to "prevent any group or individual in Afghanistan from threatening the security of the United States." That, of course, would further include a Taliban promise to abstain from murdering American soldiers.

There was so much Trumpian ineptitude and giveaways to a cutthroat enemy in the agreement it can be difficult to isolate its more wretched components. One, however, leaps out to this day. Trump agreed to the U.S. release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners, many of them either bona fide terrorists or in apprenticeships. And one or more of them might well have been involved in the deadly Kabul airport bombing.

The frequency of reputable journalism's readership among American voters is appallingly low, thus huge swaths of the electorate were unaware of Trump's immensely pro-Taliban agreement that posed such danger to the men and women of the U.S. military that awful day. (Incidentally, on behalf of Afghanistan's vastly abused female population, I have come to believe that U.S. withdrawal was an ignoble act, perhaps better left undone.) And they remain unaware.

Again, I trust Mr. Walz will correct this mass oversight when JD inevitably launches into a repeat of today's counterfeit umbrage. He even got an assist today from David Sanger, The Times' foreign affairs correspondent.

"If the Harris campaign is looking for devastating time capsules," wrote Sanger, "it might start with a photo of Mike Pompeo, then the secretary of state, standing in Doha with a leading member of the Taliban. Later Mr. Pompeo declared: 'I met with them myself when I was in Doha; I looked them in the eye,' as Taliban members swore to oppose Al Qaeda and abide by the accord." 

I gather Pompeo overlooked that vital second step of looking them in the eyes — that of seeing their souls. It sure worked for George W. Bush when he sat with Vladimir Putin. 

How would Trump with a "P" conduct himself in 2025? Read on.

"Federal law prohibits political campaign or election-related activities within Army National Military Cemeteries."

Some laws are mind-spinning in their ambiguity. Not that one. Arlington National Cemetery says that it "widely shared this law" with all presidential campaigns. That's nice, Arlington, but you forgot something. Donald Trump is not subject to U.S. laws. And now, it seems, neither is his campaign staff. 

I heard only the tail end of NPR's reporting yesterday on Trumpian immunity from the U.S. code of criminal conduct even when he's not in the White House. I didn't know. But Supreme Court rulings can be one of those mind-spinning things. Anyway, NPR then kindly put this tawdry Monday affair into words that show what a second Trump presidency would look like.  

"[A] cemetery official tried to prevent Trump staffers from filming and photographing in a section [of Arlington] where recent U.S. casualties are buried. The source said Arlington officials had made clear that only cemetery staff members would be authorized to take photographs or film in the area, known as Section 60.

"When the cemetery official tried to prevent Trump campaign staff from entering Section 60, campaign staff verbally abused and pushed the official aside, according to the source."

Trump spokesman Steven Cheung shot right back, as is his wont. And what he said strongly suggests something else that would come with a second Trump presidency. "An unnamed individual, clearly suffering from a mental health episode, decided to physically block members of President Trump's team," wrote Cheung in a statement. (Italics mine.)

You want Soviet-like actions? You won't get them from Kamala Harris. But Cheung's statement is a thumping hint. The Soviet Union locked up thousands of political prisoners in psychiatric facilities. And if another Trump regime is foisted on America, what bigger, more beautiful way to dispose of troublesome political opponents? They're clearly suffering from mental health episodes, the poor dears. They need help. 

Do I sound paranoid? Hysterical? As though I too am suffering from a breakdown? I would have said yes, had I written what I just wrote back in 2015 or '16. But those were the years. Those were the years in which nothing, no matter how ignorant or feckless or even tyrannical, became possible in America.

With a Gaza in ruins, now the West Bank. The objective unfolds.

As we live in distress about the potential of American authoritarianism, nearly three million West Bank Palestinians live under military authoritarianism each day. And it just got worse. Overnight, the Israeli army staged a massive "raid" — a euphemism for "invasion" — on the enclave, including drone strikes. "At least 10 people were killed," reports The NY Times.

The Israeli government's justification of the invasion fits the pattern. Palestinian violence has increased. This cannot be tolerated. That's one-half of the pattern. The other half is to ignore that Israeli extremists have increased their violence against Palestinians and their homes. And while the violent natives of the West Bank must be punished, most murderous Israeli mobs face no "corrective measures" whatsoever.  

The word "raid" is The Times' usage. This is odd, since Israel's foreign minister, Israel Katz, describes the operation as a "full-fledged war." He went on — to no one's surprise, I should think — to say the West Bank is no different from circumstances in the Gaza Strip, and so the military must apply the same force, the same tactics.

Goodbye West Bank, Palestine, now that you've already sent your condolences to Gaza. There will be no Palestinian state, not under the likes of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his jingoistic war cabinet. Bibi means to stay a while, and he probably shall. As long as he can keep Israel on a war footing, keep the Israeli citizenry petrified and keep receiving arms from the United States, he can have his wars.      

In medias res, these are not really wars. They are slaughters. More than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza. As of Sunday, "the death toll among Israeli troops [stood] at 337," reported the Jewish New Syndicate. In the West Bank, since 7 October more than 580 Palestinians have been killed (a United Nations estimate). Today, The Guardian reports that "19 Israelis – soldiers and civilians [some, the extremists involved in violent attacks] – have been killed" since 7 Oct.  

So far, the Israeli army has concentrated its forces in the West Bank cities of Jenin and Tulkarm, militant strongholds. There has also been movement in the Far’a neighborhood farther east, writes The Times. It is there that drone strikes were reported by locals. Jenin, a northern city, is pinpointed in the map, Tulkarm is in the northwest. If Foreign Minister Katz is correct about a "full-fledged war," then as in Gaza, the slaughter will move southward.

There is an instructive — as well as stupefying — entry in The Times' reporting. Noting that Jenin is a symbol, it continues: "The city is synonymous with Palestinian rebellion.... More recently, the impoverished city has been a hotbed for recruiting by Hamas and the militant group Islamic Jihad, as well as newer militias that have emerged among a disaffected younger generation."

Netanyahu knows this. He knows that the more he pushes and the more Palestinian civilians he kills, Hamas and other militant groups will swell in numbers, the young replacing the older dead faster than Israel's war cabinet can kill them, too. And surely most Israelis have figured this out: No amount of deadly force can kill a movement for freedom. 

But on it goes, bloodier and more lethal than ever, while a final resolution of all the death, destruction and misery lies on an unattended negotiating table. Meanwhile, the U.S. conducts a self-defeating — in fact a self-defeated — policy toward Israel. It pushes the two-state solution as it ships yet another cargo of arms to Israel, with which it only continues the slaughter.

The latest polls; rather, a poll - a rather misleading poll

This morning the right is probably celebrating and the left, as it were, might well be disconsolate. For there was no joy from Chicago, mighty Kamala stuck out. So says the latest YouGov poll. 

The highest of top-line numbers from YouGov suggests a) there was no bounce from the DNC convention and b) Harris-Walz has slipped from their recent 4+ averages. I can't swear that both are untrue, not without seeing polls yet to come. But there is a strong likelihood that Chicago's bounce is unrepresented in this poll and Harris' averages have not suddenly taken a dive.

YouGov surveyed registered voters only, while other polling operations have moved on to surveying likely voters. I's the latter, by and large, that have improved Harris' numbers. Still, Yahoo News, which commissioned the poll, reiterates a reality that does disconcert, year upon year: The survey is "a sign of how polarized the U.S. remains, and how fixed Americans’ political allegiances have become."

Other findings from YouGov are encouraging. Harris' favorability is up, her performance rating as vice president is up, and when respondents were asked to describe each candidate in a word, "the most frequently chosen" for Harris were those such as "honest" and focused," while Trump's were "dishonest," "chaotic" and — the power of communications — "weird."    

On the downside, only 16% of Americans at large see Harris as moderate. (In 2020, 28% said that of candidate Biden.) Again, such is the power of communications; Trump's unrelenting slanders of Harris-Walz as "communist" and Soviet-like have taken hold in the popular mind. In American politics there are few daggers quite as sharp as the immoderate one. If there is consolation, it's that Trump's moderate score is 11%. 

Yahoo News' lede is peculiar. I can only guess that its reporter was trying to avert cases of sudden clinical depression among Democrats who saw nothing but the 1+ statistic. "Americans now think Vice President Kamala Harris has a better chance of winning the November election (39%) than former President Donald Trump (36%)." Such is the opening of Yahoo's report. 

In sum, the YouGov survey appears to be something of a wasted effort and expense. The presidential contest is now roughly a two-month race in duration, too close to Election Day to be polling registered, not likely, voters. On the other hand, Yahoo News is regrettably correct in reinforcing the sad state of the U.S. electorate. 

The partisan armies are about evenly matched — a dispiriting and perilous state, considering that one of the forces is halfwittingly in support of an authoritarian state. Hence the battle is likely to go down to the wire, with nerves rattling along the way.