Caitlin Jewitt and Geoffrey Skelley address a question of interest, “Will Harris’s late start help or hurt her in the general election?” at 538/abcnews.com, and write that “there is also a school of thought that long, competitive nomination contests like the 2008 Democratic primary can energize the party base, generate excitement and enthusiasm, and help the eventual candidate create campaign infrastructure across the states….Harris’s campaign, with its unusual circumstances, may still feature aspects of both a short and long nomination fight. Not unlike past nominees who secured their spots after lengthy primary campaigns, Harris has had to quickly pivot to a general election campaign relatively late in the election calendar. Yet the 2024 cycle for Democrats actually had many trappings of a short nomination battle, exemplified by the party’s efforts to rally to Biden and a lack of serious opposition to him in the primaries and even the fact that Democrats were already looking to speed up the vote to confirm Biden as the nominee when his candidacy began to come apart after his poor showing in the June 27 debate….Democrats’ moves to unify quickly behind Harris ensured that it did not result in the type of prolonged infighting sometimes characteristic of lengthier primary races. The party even set a new precedent to confirm Harris as quickly as possible — though the Democratic convention doesn’t begin until next week, Harris has already officially become the party’s nominee, by virtue of a virtual vote of delegates to nominate a candidate….This expedited timeline — prompted in part by concerns about ballot access laws in a few states, the time needed to vet a vice presidential candidate, and guarding against Republican legal challenges — also likely insulated Harris from other challengers materializing..”

Jewett and Skelley continue, “Harris’s situation differs in other key respects, too. For one thing, because she did not wage a primary campaign, she was not battered by attacks from party rivals in the ways Ford or Mondale were, which can give the other party fodder for attacks heading into the general election….She was able to raise record amounts of money in a short timeframe as her candidacy energized Democratic voters. Plus, she has been able to more easily utilize the already-existing Biden-Harris campaign infrastructure, unlike the alternative choices Democrats may have considered….Ultimately, it’s unclear if there’s a meaningful relationship between when a candidate becomes the presumptive nominee and their success in November: Out of the eight races that were settled in June or later (excluding the 2020 and 2024 races because they didn’t have protracted nomination fights), the nominee went on to win the general election in three.” I like the late winning of the nomination for a different, but related reason: Campaigns get stale. even I, a  partisan Democrat, simply got tired of hearing all about the ‘excruciating minutiae’ of campaigns. to cop a phrase from Seinfeld. There is more political news coverage now than ever before, and it is only a matter of time before your favored candidate chucks in a distracting gaffe, or some reporter magnifies a trifling incident, which has little or nothing to do with major issues and gets an insane amount of coverage (e. g. Hunter Biden). There is such a thing as too much political news, which is why a lot of voters don’t pay much attention until October. The truncated campaign also makes candidates seem fresher, while the years-long slog has the opposite effect. Democrats ought to re-design their process to take this phenomenon into consideration. Let the Republicans have long, constipated campaigns, while Democrats do quiet organizing and fund-raising behind the scenes, do localized videos instead so much travel and have our candidates lay comparatively low as much as possible until late Spring or Summer. It might also result in less wear and tear on our candidates.

The “no tax on tips” idea favored by both Trump and Harris sounds like a pro-worker idea on the surface. But is it really? Abdallah Fayyad argues against it at Vox: “….The policy doesn’t really hold up under any scrutiny. And that’s because at best, “no tax on tips” looks a lot less like a tax cut for low- and middle-income families, and a lot more like a subsidy for big businesses….“I’m not at all saying that workers won’t get anything,” said Heidi Shierholz, president of the Economic Policy Institute. “But I think that a meaningful share of the [federal] expenditures on a tax exemption like this will go to the employers of tipped workers.”….That might be why industry lobbyists have backed the proposal. “It’s not a surprise that the National Restaurant Association loves this,” Shierholz said, referring to the lobbying group that represents many of the country’s major restaurant chains….At worst, the tax policy might even put a downward pressure on service sector wages by allowing employers to keep their workers’ baseline pay low because the tax cut could instead raise the workers’ take-home pay….“I think there is no question that it would” weigh wages down, Shierholz said. The only question, she says, is just how much….So while “no tax on tips” might make for a good sound bite or campaign slogan, it doesn’t necessarily translate to wise policymaking.” That’s the nut of the strongest argument against it – that it would encourage employers to keep the hourly wages low, currently just $2.13, although a handful os states have abolished the subminimum wage for tipped workers.” (See also this WaPo editorial).  Who could fairly blame tipped workers for not reporting all their tipped income? Many people are also unaware that some foreign restaurant owners split tips with workers, a practice which is not uncommon among restaurants that hire servers from different countries. One of the political problems associated with the “no tax on tips” idea is that it may piss off other low-wage workers, like cashiers who gain nothing from the proposal. There are 3.6 million of them the U.S., one of America’s most common jobs, compared to about 2.7 million wait staff. The Democratic presidential nominee should not get distracted by Trump’s boutique ideas, and hold firm to raising the minimum wage and union membership as the best ways to improve the living standards of all American workers.

Courtenay Brown explains why the “Latest CPI report confirms inflation is easing” at Axios: “For more than two years, the economy’s big problem was inflation — it was the key irritant for policymakers, the White House and American consumers….Wednesday’s Consumer Price Index report confirms that is no longer the case: Prices are no longer rising rapidly, which means the battle to kill inflation appears all but over….Why it matters: Inflation looked to be coming down alongside a still-flourishing economy — until recently. The string of upbeat inflation data is all but certain to allow Fed officials to more comfortably shift their attention to the weakening labor market and lower interest rates….What they’re saying: “[T]he cumulative improvement in the overall inflation data over the past year now gives the Federal Reserve cover to move into risk management mode with the intent of protecting and preserving the soft landing,” Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at accounting firm RSM, wrote Wednesday….By the numbers: Overall CPI rose 2.9% in the 12 months ending in July, dropping below 3% for the first time since 2021.

• Core CPI, which excludes food and energy prices, rose 3.2% — the smallest increase in three years.
• By a different measure, inflation looks more benign. Over the last three months, core CPI rose 1.6% on an annualized basis, down from 2.1% in June….
• Grocery costs have been rising at a mild pace since February, including a 0.1% increase in July. Prices are up just 1% compared to the same time last year.
• Used vehicle costs fell 2.3% in July, a bigger drop than that seen the previous month. New vehicle prices fell 0.2%, the sixth-straight month of price decreases.

The intrigue: The bad news was in the housing sector, where prices have kept upward pressure on inflation….The shelter index is a huge component. It accounted for over 70% of core CPI’s 12-month increase through July, the government said….The sector is “solely responsible for core inflation remaining above the Fed’s 2% target,” Preston Caldwell, senior U.S. economist at Morningstar, wrote Wednesday….In the CPI report, the rent index rose 0.5%, up from 0.3%. Owner’s equivalent rent, which the government uses to account for inflation in homes that people own, rose 0.4% after slowing in June….”This is now a labor data-first Fed, not an inflation data-first Fed, and the incoming labor data will determine how aggressively the Fed pulls forward rate cuts,” economists at Evercore wrote in a note Wednesday morning.”….Yes,  many voters will continue to grumble about the high prices for meat, gas and housing. But Dems can at least be assured that they have done nearly all they can to contain inflation. They should now continue to inform the public about the good statistics under Biden-Harris and the price-gouging by agribiz and big oil through social media memes, articles and word of mouth. Those who hold fast to Trump’s doom and gloom preachments are not going to change – they are the die hard MAGA voters. Dems should focus their anti-inflation messaging on the persuadable voters in the swing counties and states. Meanwhile, pundits should give President Biden and the Democrats high marks for economic management and making the best of a tough situation.