White House Race- September 29, 2024

37 Days Until Election Day

With just a month and a week before election returns start rolling in, there is of course so much to consider and look at in regards to national events. This week, portions of the southeast were hit hard by Hurricane Helene. There was also much in the news regarding foreign affairs, especially with world leaders speaking last week at the United Nations. Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelenskyy was in the United States and met with both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Many on the right were furious at what they saw as him making a campaign appearance presumably on behalf of the Democrats/. I do not think there is much doubt about whom Zelynskyy wants to win this election and I think he has the right to advocate for his country here. The voters will make their own choices. Perhaps as a reaction though, a meeting was scheduled at Trump Tower between Zelynskyy and Donald Trump. The Ukrainian leader was forced to stand somewhat silently while the former President and Republican nominee spouted off his usual nonsense. At one point though, Zelynskyy did push back against Trump when Trump talk about how great a relationship he has with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. The fact that Trump likes to brag about such a thing says it all.

Of course, those on the right who were angry at the Ukranian leader for "campaigning" for Harris on American soil would have no such qualms if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu campaigned here on behalf of Trump. Many think he has basically done so before. I also think Netanyahu has every right, as Zelenskyy does, to advocate for the survival of their nation. At the UN, Netanyahu appropriately called the body an "antisemitic cesspool." Then, very soon after his speech was over, he returned to Israel as his nation had just launched strikes inside of Lebanon that killed the leader of Hezbollah and many other terrorists at their headquarters. Israel has been doing a remarkable job in recent weeks in eliminating its enemies.Somehow, this is divisive within the United States. It should not be. Neither should Ukraine's fight against Russia. Yet, shortsighted partisans on the fringes of both political parties disparage Ukraine or Israel every chance they get. (Some even attack both, but at least they maybe deserve points for consistency.) This will continue to be a problem for both political parties, regardless of which candidate wins the election. However, I maintain that a Harris victory would do far more for keeping up traditional American norms and alliances, (including with Israel) than whatever may come with another Trump term.

Now, as many know, some who dislike either candidate are having a hard time figuring out what they will do in regards to their personal vote. As I have talked about, I am a lifelong conservative Republican who opposed Donald Trump from the day he announced his candidacy. There is no chance I could ever vote for him. In 2016 I wrote someone in, and in 2020, I made the late decision to cast a vote for Joe Biden. I also live in the state of Illinois which Kamala Harris will carry regardless of how I will vote.

After four of disappointment however, on a variety of fronts, with the Biden-Harris Administration, could I actually cast a vote for Harris, even though I openly admit that I am rooting for her to win the election? I have been leaning no, but keeping an open mind. I figured I would probably make the decision when the actual ballot was in front of me. This week though convinced me that it would now be much harder to vote for Harris and it relates to one specific matter.

Let me clear about something though. If I lived in any sort of swing-state or any place where the receiver of the electoral votes were in doubt,  I would put any reservation behind and vote for Harris. I believe that people that live in let's say 10 truly competitive states should do just that. My state is not one them though, so I can afford to be stubborn and act on my own sense of conscience.

This week, Harris said that if she were President, she would support eliminating the filibuster in the United States Senate in order to pass a law that will legalize abortion nationally once again. In saying this, I do not think she actually thinks it can be done, but said it as a matter of political pandering on an issue that she thinks will work to her advantage. It is also appears increasingly likely that if she wins, the Senate may flip from Democrat to Republican. This would end any effort of a change to the filibuster, so that is now an outcome I have to root for. I want Harris to beat Trump and frankly hope she does so in a "bigly" matter. I also think, especially as it relates to the counting of the votes on January 6th, that it is better for America if Democrats narrowly take the House from Republicans. Now though, for policy reasons, and the protection of traditional political norms and limits, I have to hope Republicans narrowly capture the U.S. Senate.

I have always been staunchly Pro-Life on the issue of abortion, but my opposition to Harris goes beyond this. We do not have consensus on this issue in America and thus any sort of national bill, either for or against abortion, should not be passed by Congress or signed by a President. We ought to work in realistic, human ways to limit abortion, and those who are on the Pro-Life side have been failing towards that goal and may pay the price politically.

We should not get rid of the filibuster though for bills that relate to policy. I think matters related to judicial nominations are a different matter. We also should perhaps enforce the filibuster traditions and make Senators in the minority of an issue have to actually hold the floor and speak. The fact is that both parties love the filibuster when they are in the minority and are incredibly frustrated by it when they are in the majority. Donald Trump wanted Mitch McConnell to get rid of the filibuster to pass legislation he wanted and McConnell rightly said no. Now, Kamala Harris is saying she will demand the same thing of her party. This sets a very bad precedent that can easily backfire down the road on those who would support it. Even now, with a possibility that Trump could win in November and Republicans control the Congress, they now have back-up to get rid of the filibuster to do whatever they want. and that could include a national abortion ban. After all, Harris said that it should be gotten rid of. Mich McConnell will no longer be the Senate Republican Leader next year. If Trump wins, there may be nobody to stop this from happening. Even if not, if Democrats do succeed in setting this precedent, it can easily be done in the other direction on the issue of abortion or literally any other matter, once party control would switch in the Senate again someday. As we know, party control in Congress does switch hands from time to time. 

While I still think it is important for America that Trump loses (which means Harris must win), her taking this stance just feels like a deal-breaker to me. Others, such as West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, who had basically endorsed Harris a couple months ago, is now saying the same thing.Those of us on the right, who have opposed Trump for reasons including his disrespect for American traditions and norms also should oppose Democrats when they promise to act in the same way. We already have a House of Representatives. The United States Senate should play its own role and all of us, regardless of our political philosophy, will find ourselves grateful for the filibuster and the 60 vote threshold one way or another.

I suppose Donald Trump could indeed say something so completely outrageous in the next month plus to get me angry enough to actually vote for Harris in Illinois, but at this point, there is pretty much nothing he can say or do that would shock me. If she needed my vote, she would get it. She does not need it. If she loses the election, herself and Democrats should do a lot of self-reflecting. If they win, I think they will be wise to not try to steamroll the opposition and work in a way that can generate support from a majority of Americans on important matters. That should have happened after Biden's win in 2020 and in many ways have not.

This Tuesday, we will see the Vice Presidential debate between Democrat Tim Walz and Republican JD Vance. I will discuss that next weekend. Vice Presidential debates usually do not matter much to American voters, but this is supposedly going to be the "final word" in debates this cycle. It is also worth nothing that Vance, who has proven to be very unpopular, as a national figure, is the running-mate of a 78 year old man who is the oldest person to ever be running for President, at least this late in the game. Walz, has like Harris, had very few unscripted moments on this campaign trail, and it will be interesting to see how he does. I would not be surprised if he gets the best of Vance and I also would not be surprised if Walz just bombs and causes great consternation to Democrats.  The entire Harris-Walz media strategy continues to be controversial and risky. So, the VP debate may wind up meaning a lot and it may wind up meaning absolutely nothing.

Until Election Day, all of us who follow politics, will continue to look at the polls. There are of course national polls and those in swing states. Every election cycle, partisans of either party will choose to discount polls that show their candidate doing badly and love polls that show their candidate doing well. They always seem to find a rationale to discount or "toss" the polls they do not like. The fact of the matter is that right now, the polls show that while Harris is probably in a little bit of a better position than Trump, the race is pretty much still a tossup. One might have thought that Harris would have benefited from a successful convention and a widely perceived debate victory over Trump to have moved out to a solid lead, but for whatever reason, that has just not happened. This continues to be a very divided country and there are a lot of Americans, who look at issues such as the economy and immigration and are upset at the record of the last four years under a Democrat President and will vote for "change" regardless of whom the change agent is or what he may represent. On the trail this past week, Walz had an odd moment by saying something like, "we cannot afford four more years of this." Really? Does he not realize which party has been in the White House the last four years?

I will say though, that like the 2022 midterms, there seem to be a lot of polls out there, that show somewhat promising data for Republicans, and causes the online partisans on the right to be very buoyed and optimistic about the election. Two years ago, there were many surprised that a "red wave" did not materialize and so much more is at stake this year.  There have been some recent developments for example that should lead to genuine questions about Rasmussen Reports, a particular favorite of Republicans. We already know that the current owners of Rasmussen Reports (which do not include Rasmussen himself, who had a pretty successful polling track record years ago) are very pro-Trump and anti-Democrat. Now, it seems like they might be sharing information with the Trump campaign on data, even if that campaign is not paying them. Such a thing might very well be illegal. The bottom line to all of this is that political junkies need to be more mindful than ever about the political leanings of the organizations taking all these polls.

One cannot forget though that each time Trump has been on the ballot as a general election candidate, he has over-performed the polls. Perhaps, this has led to some correction in how data is gathered to fix that error. It may happen again though. I think Harris will probably need to win the national popular vote by four points in order to achieve the needed 270 electoral votes. Unless there is some very late break towards one candidate or another in the late October polls, everyone should be very cautious about them. Ground games and organization will matter,and in that regard, Trump may be at a distinct disadvantage in 2024.