From “Early Voting Set to Begin in the 2024 Election: What to Know” by Aneeta Mathur-Ashton and Julia Haines at U.S. News: “Election Day is less than 80 days away, but voters in more than a dozen states will be able to vote as early as next month….In Pennsylvania, a key battleground state, voters can cast their ballots as early as Sept. 16, less than 10 days after Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump face off for a debate, the first since she took over the Democratic ticket in July. The candidates are circling a second debate, reportedly in October, that could potentially occur after early voting has begun in some states….The landscape of the race has changed dramatically in the last few weeks and voters in these states will fill out their ballots well before millions of other Americans, with other states starting early voting later in October. Some offer early voting in person, while others offer the option by way of absentee ballots.” Here’s the skinny on three possible  swing states, which have early voting dates in September: “All elections in Arizona must support early voting, including ballot-by-mail voting and in-person early voting. Early voters receive a ballot at their voting location and must not take the ballot away from the location….Voters on the Active Early Voter List can request to receive a ballot by mail. The completed ballots can be dropped off at official ballot drop-off sites or voting locations throughout the county that issued them and have to be received by 7 p.m. on Election Day, Nov. 5….The last day to register to vote in the state is Oct. 7….Voters in Pennsylvania can cast a ballot as soon as Sept. 16. Voters can pick up their ballots at county election offices and have the option of filling them out there, mailing them in or dropping them off later. The last date to apply for a mail ballot in person is Oct. 29 at 5 p.m., and the last date to drop it off is 8 p.m. on Election Day….Matt Heckel, press secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of State, says the state handles early voting differently than other states….“Once a county’s ballots are finalized and printed, a registered voter can apply for their mail ballot in person at their county election office, complete it, then submit it all in one visit,” Heckel says….Voters in the [VA] commonwealth will have the chance to cast their ballots in person and by ballot drop-off as early as Sept. 20, according to Andrea M. Gaines, external affairs manager with the Virginia Department of Elections….Voters can apply to vote by mail and, after receiving a ballot, can return it by mail, in person to a local general registrar’s office by 7 p.m. on Election Day or to a drop-off location. If returning a ballot by mail, it must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by the office by noon on Nov. 8.”

Among the  numerous articles about the effects of RFK, Jr.’s endorsement of Trump, here’s what G. Elliott Morris and Mary Radcliffe write about it in “How much momentum will RFK Jr.’s endorsement give Trump?“at ABC News via 538: “Kennedy’s bid failed to garner enough support to contend in any state, and support for him in national polls fell by nearly half after President Joe Biden dropped out of the running to be the Democratic Party’s nominee….Our analysis of the polling data suggests Kennedy’s endorsement of Trump will have a minimal impact on the race. Kennedy, who has consistently polled around 5 percent since Vice President Kamala Harris became the presumptive nominee, was drawing roughly equally from both Trump and Harris, with that support coming from both traditionally Democratic and traditionally Republican groups. His endorsement of Trump may marginally help the Republican among white, male, and older voters. But the effect of his departure on overall support for either candidate will be small.” Morris and Radcliffe deploy a couple of wonky methods to crunch available polling and demographic numbers to reaffirm their argument that the effect will be small. But sometimes small effects swing elections.

Nebraska is not considered a swing state at the moment. But it could be consequential in the presidential election, as Ed Kilgore recently noted. Meanwhile,  Margery A. Beck of Associated Press reports that “Nebraska voters will choose between two competing abortion measures to either expand abortion rights or limit them to the current 12-week ban — a development likely to drive more voters to the polls in a state that could see one of its five electoral votes up for grabs in the hotly contested presidential race….Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen announced Friday that the rival initiatives each gathered enough signatures to get on the November ballot, making Nebraska the first state to carry competing abortion amendments on the same ballot since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022….Nebraska also becomes the last of several states to put an abortion measure on the November ballot, including the swing states of Arizona and Nevada where abortion ballot measures could drive higher voter turnout. Others are Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana and South Dakota. New York has a measure that supporters say will effectively guarantee access, though it doesn’t mention abortion specifically….One of the initiatives, like measures on ballots elsewhere in the U.S., would enshrine in the state constitution the right to have an abortion until viability or later to protect the health of the pregnant woman. Organizers said they submitted more than 207,000 signatures….The other measure would write into the constitution the current 12-week ban, with exceptions for rape, incest and to save the life of the pregnant woman. Organizers said they submitted more than 205,000 signatures….It’s possible voters could end up approving both measures, but because they’re competing and therefore cannot both be enshrined in the constitution, the one that gets the most “for” votes will be the one adopted, Evnen said.”

At The American Prospect David Dayen addresses an important, but largely ignored question of consequence , “Will the Senate Take Off the Handcuffs?” As Dayen writes, “In the Democratic National Convention hall, in side events in hotel ballrooms and conference centers, and on the campaign trail, lawmakers and candidates are promising big change. They have promised to codify Roe v. Wade and end the assault on reproductive rights. They have promised to end gerrymandering and voter suppression in a pair of consequential voting rights bills, the For the People Act and the John Lewis Freedom to Vote Act. They want to address affordable housing, and child care, and paid family and medical leave, and child poverty; they want to transform the tax code; and so on….To accomplish all of this, or at least to make it unencumbered by artificial constraints and rules and processes, they need to end the circumstance whereby a minority of members in the U.S. Senate get a veto over everything the chamber does. At the heart of the entire agenda that this convention’s pitch is predicated upon is the imperative to reform the filibuster….Republicans will not vote for abortion rights or voting rights; under a 60-vote Senate, those bills will fail. You could technically get tax reform and care economy investments done the way it was done in 2022 in the Inflation Reduction Act, by using budget reconciliation. But that carries with it complicated rules about spending limitations within the ten-year budget window….The only way to ensure the full agenda can be passed without constraints is by ending the filibuster….“The two folks who have been most opposed to filibuster reform are Manchin and Sinema, and both are retiring from the Senate,” said Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI), chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), at a pen and pad briefing on the sidelines of the DNC. The inference is that, with Manchin and Sinema out of the way, the Senate can get on with doing the people’s business….The filibuster has evolved into a constant block on progress. Democrats are promising to change the world, but will they change the Senate rules to make that happen?” All of which presupposes that Dems hold their Senate majority in November.

Like a lot of Democrats, I’m exhausted at the end of this exhilarating week, but did want to offer my insta-reaction to Kamala Harris’s big speech in Chicago that I wrote for New York:

Kamala Harris’s acceptance speech was relatively simple, almost stripped back, but laser-focused on a few objectives: introducing herself with autobiographical details that other speakers have been citing all week; defending herself forcefully against the attacks to come on her intelligence, strength and common-sense policy objectives; and making a clear and concise case against Donald Trump. She did not bother to defend the Biden administration’s record, and presented herself as focused on the future. It will not be easy for Republicans to depict this tough-sounding, highly articulate woman citing traditional American values and speaking to a crowd of flag-waving delegates as a “communist” or a “radical leftist” or unintelligent, as Trump has often done. And while she did not descend into wonkiness, she did describe enough of a policy agenda to create a real debate with Trump and his party.

As for her delivery, the contrast between Harris’s crisp, forceful, coherent and succinct presentation and Trump’s rambling screed in Milwaukee will be grist for the mill for some time. Indeed, this should make Democrats savor the upcoming debate, where there is every prospect for Harris to show up her opponent as the narcissistic would-be tyrant she spoke of in this speech. It was a fine start for the short sprint to November 5, and it showed she is not complacent but is determined to fight for swing voters while keeping her base excited.

Now on to the debate!

There are lots of good “takeaway” articles about the Democratic convention (See here, here, here and here, for example)  Nearly all of the wrap-up articles note how well-produced it was and cite it as likely to produce a nice ‘bump’ of indeterminate length for Harris-Walz. Here are some excerpts from “Democrats rejoice as ‘joyful’ Kamala Harris puts them back in the game,” Ed Pilkington’s analysis at The Guardian:

On Tuesday, the Obamas added their own ideas on how to tackle Trump. Focus by all means on fears of a possible second Trump presidency – “the deep pit in my stomach”, as Michelle put it – but also bring him down to size, make him look as small as he is.

A good point, and somebody needed to say it. Pilkington notes, further:

It was fitting that the most forceful put down of Trump during the week came from Harris herself. “In many ways, Donald Trump is an unserious man,” she said. “But the consequences of putting him back in the White House are extremely serious.”

She invited her audience to contemplate what Trump would do if he were returned to power, fortified by the recent US supreme court ruling that makes him largely immune from criminal prosecution.

“Just imagine Donald Trump with no guardrails,” Harris said, “and how he would use the immense powers of the presidency.”

A party leader unleashed. A new mood of positivity and optimism. Fresh ways to hit Trump. The Democratic party emerges from the convention in much more robust health than it entered it.

Also,

Messages were pumped out designed to soothe the doubts of wavering voters. A Harris presidency would be tough on crime, good for your family’s budget, lower your middle-class taxes, secure the border – and do all this with compassion and kindness, not the other side’s disparagement and hate.

The convention repeatedly bashed Trump for overturning abortion rights, driving the point home with heart-wrenching accounts from women denied health care in states with abortion bans, including a woman raped by her stepfather aged 12 and a second woman who miscarried in her bathroom having been turned away from hospital.

“This is what’s happening in our country because of Donald Trump, and he is not done,” Harris said.

In addition,

Latest polls put Harris just a few points up over Trump in battleground states like Wisconsin without which Harris will have difficulty prevailing. That’s a dramatic improvement on Biden, but it is still well within the margin of error.

Meanwhile, Trump is not letting up on his pursuit of darkness. As Harris was preparing to address delegates on Thursday, he was down at the US border with Mexico scaremongering about “hardened criminals pouring into our country”.

Will it work? Nobody knows.

What Democratic strategists do know is this. If they let their party faithful leave Chicago, turn off the TV, sit back and relax as they bask in the glow of so much talk of joy and freedom and a new beginning, then they lose.

As conventions go, this one had many more ups than downs. On the whole, was it was much better than any other in recent memory. Democratic leaders and rank and file should now prepare for the Republican’s all-out assault and mobilize an unrelenting counter-attack, one which will show that 2024 Democrats are ready to win.

E, J, Dionne, Jr. explains how “Harris can seal the deal this week by being new, improved — and loyal” at The Washington Post: ““New and improved.” It’s one of marketing’s most hallowed slogans. The idea behind it is doing wonders for Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party. Hanging on to the benefits of offering a brand-spanking new choice to Americans while remaining loyal to President Joe Biden is one of Harris’s central challenges at her party’s convention this week. Getting it right will make her president….What’s remarkable is that switching candidates has also reduced Democratic vulnerabilities on issues that were working for Trump. In a poll from the Financial Times and University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business released last week, 42 percent of voters said they trusted Harris more to handle the economy, compared with 41 percent for Trump. That’s a seven-point improvement over Biden’s July numbers….So, on one of most vexing issues facing Democrats, Harris has room to level the playing field or tilt it in her favor. She’s trying to do this by offering fresh policies and emphasizing issues that had slipped from the top of Biden’s agenda — notably family leave, child care and elder care.”

Kyle Kondik reports that “North Carolina Moves to Toss-up, Setting Up November Battle for Magnificent Seven Swing States” at Sabato’s Crystal Ball: “The polling bolsters the case for North Carolina to be a Toss-up, given that the race there is basically a tie right now, and its polling is broadly in line with the other 7 states (although there is, of course, variation). The familiar 2000-2020 electoral pattern of Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina being redder than Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin is also present in the polls. It is perhaps a little surprising to see Nevada polling among the redder group (at least in the “average of averages”), although Harris is actually slightly ahead in 2 of the 3 averages in Nevada. Regardless, Nevada is the one state on this list where we have a fair amount of experience with polls understating Democrats. On the flip side, Democratic margins were routinely and often heavily overestimated in Wisconsin polls in both 2016 and 2020, so it being the second-bluest state in these averages merits a little skepticism too….We do think Michigan is still the best candidate to be the bluest state among these in 2024 again, and North Carolina the best candidate to be the reddest, but it wouldn’t take much to change this alignment in some way. It’s not a stretch to imagine Arizona moving to the left of Nevada, given that the latter is more working-class and thus perhaps more amenable to the current GOP than historically Republican but more suburban-focused Arizona. We addressed the differences between Georgia and North Carolina above. Again, we’re skeptical North Carolina will be more Democratic than Georgia, but there’s also not a ton of daylight between the pair, currently. And all 7 of these states are close enough that we think they should be grouped together in our ratings, at least at the moment….Now that the election is getting closer and we are almost past the conventions, the polls probably should carry more weight, imperfect instruments though they are. We’ll be watching to see if Harris can maintain or build upon these polling numbers after the Democratic National Convention concludes. If so, it may be that one or more of these “Magnificent Seven,” to borrow the famous movie title, won’t be Toss-ups anymore.”

 In “The New Silent Majority that will deliver a Blue Wave” J. Nash Bowie writes at Daily Kos: “Yes, polling shows a close race. I think the polls are wrong (in terms of percentages—the trends are probably more accurate). I think there is a new Silent Majority in this country who are ready to move beyond the chaos, hostility, and division. They are young adults who don’t answer pollsters. They are suburban and rural wives who don’t want to make waves by coming out in support of Democrats but who know how important it is to elect them. It is Black and Latino voters who had tuned out over the last couple of years but who will come home in big numbers. It is disaffected Republicans who can’t stand Trump (a lot of whom voted for Nikki Haley in the primary) and who recognize the dangers of Project 2025. I strongly suspect that polling is not capturing these voters….This is not just wishful thinking or naive “unskewing”. Over the last two years, we’ve seen polling consistently miss outcomes that favor Democrats and liberalism. The last example is just a few days ago in Wisconsin when the GOP tried to slip in two constitutional amendments to disempower the Democratic governor in a petty act of revenge—polling had those amendments passing by 3-10 points and they ended up going down to defeat, one 57-43 and the other 58-42. There are dozens of examples like this, and almost none going the other way….I know that predicting a Democratic win evokes the horror of 2016 and the hand-wringing mantra, “Don’t get complacent!” (nevermind that 2024 is almost nothing like 2016). The win I’m predicting is based entirely on the expectation of hard work, a large volunteer army, smart strategy, flush campaign coffers, and high energy. And so far, this expectation is bearing out in ways far beyond my wildest dreams. As far as I can see, Democrats are the polar opposite of complacent right now.”

As a admirer of RFK and his brothers, this report, “RFK Jr. expected to drop out of race by end of week, plans to endorse Trump: Sources” at abcnews.com and many others like it at various news outlets, felt like a gut punch. The extended Kennedy family, which includes Sargent Shriver, who ran as a vice presidential candidate on McGovern’s ticket, played such a storied role in the modern Democratic Party. JFK brought a rare spirit of hope to the nation before he was assassinated. His brother and campaign manager, RFK, enhanced the party’s commitment to compassion and eloquence before he was assassinated. Teddy Kennedy was a tireless Democratic senator who led his party’s opposition under Republican presidents. All were strong, no-nonsense Democrats, leaders of vision who built bridges of hope, not walls of division. Along comes RFK, Jr. to pervert this great legacy. If he endorses Trump it will be a sad, twisted conclusion to his family’s remarkable role in history. I remember thinking as recently as a few weeks ago, ‘surely he will drop out and endorse the Democratic ticket.’  I hope he reconsiders his endorsement.

Some perceptive observations from “At the Convention in Chicago, Kamala Harris Can Seal the Deal” b y Jeet Heer at The Nation:

Writing in The Atlantic, the veteran political analyst Ronald Brownstein makes a powerful argument that this week’s Democratic National Convention could be one of the history-making ones, thanks to the fact that Kamala Harris, like Clinton before her, remains for much of the public an unknown quantity—a blank slate ready to be filled in. Brownstein contends that “no presidential nominee in decades has approached their convention with a greater opportunity to reshape their public image than Vice President Kamala Harris.”

Aside from the comparison with Bill Clinton, Brownstein also notes, “Harris is the first nonincumbent since Hubert Humphrey in 1968 to claim either party’s presidential nomination without first enduring months of grueling primary contests. Because Harris did not experience the setbacks and triumphs that come from waging such a fight, public impressions of her are uncommonly shallow for a nominee on the convention’s eve, strategists in both parties agree.”

While acknowledging that the current era of partisan polarization means candidates have only a narrow room to rise (or, conversely, to sink), Brownstein makes a convincing case for 2024 offering Harris the chance to solidify her standing in a way that is essential to her presidential bid.

Harris heads into the convention already riding a wave of enthusiasm. But if Brownstein is accurate in gauging the opportunity the convention presents, Harris has a chance to catch an even bigger wave—one that would ensure a solid electoral victory.

Heer notes further, “It seems America is hungry for a fresh face—a fact that has already allowed Harris to take a lead in polls and election models (notably that of Nate Silver, who was bullish on Trump but now sees Harris as the favorite). Political analyst Joshua A. Cohen estimates that more than 100 Electoral College votes that were previously leaning toward Trump have shifted toward Harris—an astonishing reversal that puts the Democrats in a far more favorable position.” Also,

Harris has the wind at her back precisely because many Americans who hate Trump had also been dispirited by Biden. So far, they seem willing to give Harris a chance. Harris’s challenge is to turn these feel-good vibes into a fully mobilized electorate ready to flood the polls on Election Day.

Harris will be helped by the fact that she is not just a fresh face in the campaign. She also has a gripping biographical story that speaks to the emerging America. Harris’s late mother was an immigrant from India, and her father is an immigrant from Jamaica. Donald Trump has tried to use Harris’s multiethnic family history as a wedge to divide Black voters by absurdly claiming that Harris is not really Black. But the meeting of Harris’s parents is a very American story, one that speaks to an optimistic vision of the country as a haven for all. It is also a story that serves as an eloquent rebuke to Trump’s xenophobia and racism.

So far, Harris has been chary of defining herself as anything more than a generic Democrat, a profile reinforced by her pick of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. Harris has made a few policy pitches that are gratifyingly progressive, notably her promise to fight corporate price gouging on food and to provide financial support to low-income first-time homeowners. With the eyes of the nation watching the DNC, Harris would be well-advised to offer many more such policies to help economically struggling Americans. That would turn a feel-good event into durable political support.

Heer adds, “Barack Obama, the most skilled living orator in American politics, will take the stage on Tuesday. Former first lady Michelle Obama will speak the same evening, as will Harris’s husband, Doug Emhoff. Emhoff’s prominent role at the event stands in contrast to Melania Trump’s silent, sullen presence at the GOP convention. The following evening’s highlights include speeches from Bill Clinton and Tim Walz, Harris’s running mate. Harris herself will be the primary speaker on the final night of the convention on Thursday.”

Heer concludes, “The danger of a divided—and divisive—convention is real. Harris’s ability to navigate the Israel/Palestine divide is the first big test of her political acumen. Harris has a difficult task ahead of her, but if she can manage to secure the votes of wavering parts of the Democratic coalition, this convention will truly be historic.”

Some signs that Georgia is already confounding Trump’s electoral college strategy from “1 big thing: Trump’s devil-in-Georgia problem” by Jim Vandehei and  Mike Allen: “Polling released yesterday by the N.Y. Times and Siena College showed Harris opening up a Sun Belt route through the fast-growing, diverse states of Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina. That gives her an alternative to the Blue Wall states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, which were President Biden’s only plausible path….Harris had narrowed Trump’s lead among likely voters in Georgia to 4 points (50% to 46%, with a margin of error of ±4.4 points). In the Times-Siena poll in May, Trump enjoyed a 9-point Georgia lead….Between the lines: Harris’ rise in the state is partly, but not entirely, due to Black voters, who make up one-third of the state’s electorate….Harris is a more effective messenger on reproductive rights in a state with a controversial ban on abortions after about six weeks….A top Democratic operative told us Harris “is just a much better fit than Biden for the Georgia electorate, which has younger and more Black voters. Much easier to see Stacey Abrams and [Sen. Raphael] Warnock firing up the pews” for Harris than for Biden….As The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported, Trump’s campaign and biggest aligned super PAC spent four times as much on TV ads in the Peach State in the two weeks after Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee than in the rest of 2024 combined….Of the $37 million in ad buys the Trump campaign has placed over the next week or so, almost $24 million (65%) are in Georgia, Democratic campaign strategist Doug Sosnik points outin The New York Times….The growing urgency of Georgia can also be seen in the Trump campaign’s long-range ad buys. The Trump campaign’s share of TV spending planned in Georgia doubled from 21% in August to 43% in September and 46% in October, according to calculations for Axios by the ad-tracking firm AdImpact….Trump has placed advance ad buys for this fall in only two states. Wait for it … Pennsylvania and Georgia.”

At The New Republic Greg Sargent reports that a “Brutal New Poll for J.D. Vance Reveals a Big Trump-MAGA Weakness,” and observes regarding Vance ”

• He is viewed favorably by only 24 percent of independents, versus 39 percent unfavorably.
• He is viewed favorably by only 23 percent of self-described moderates, versus 41 percent unfavorably.
• He is viewed favorably by only 22 percent of 18- to 39-year-olds, versus 44 percent unfavorably.
• He is viewed favorably by only 32 percent of women, versus 40 percent unfavorably (interestingly, Vance fares a tad worse among men).
• He is viewed favorably by only 28 percent of Hispanics, versus 39 percent unfavorably.
• He is viewed favorably by only 9 percent of Blacks, versus 50 percent unfavorably.
• He is viewed favorably by only 32 percent of suburbanites, versus 42 percent unfavorably.
• He is viewed favorably by only 33 percent of college-educated whites, versus a striking 55 percent unfavorably.

Unsurprisingly, Vance is viewed positively by non-college whites (+9 points), rural voters (+13 points), and white evangelicals (+37 points)….To be fair, Vance has more time to improve his image, as large percentages of voters still have no opinion of him.”

Here’s an encouraging graph:

“Kamala Harris, as widely previewed, gave her first major economic address today,” Robert Kuttner writes at The American Prospect. “Two key themes were cutting housing costs and resisting corporate price-gouging of consumers. She also proposed restoring the refundable Child Tax Credit and topping it up to $6,000 a year for new parents in the first year, as a baby bonus. Take that, J.D. Vance….The toughest of these policy areas is housing. Unless the federal government spends massive sums to increase the supply of affordable housing, the cost of both rental and owner-occupied homes will continue to outstrip incomes….In the absence of a supply strategy, Harris’s proposal of a $25,000 subsidy for first-time homebuyers, though beneficial, will bid up prices. Her commitment to build three million new affordable units over four years, using a mix of tax incentives and grants to local governments for innovative approaches, is a decent start, but only a start. Two other good housing ideas that chime with her attack on predatory corporations are measures to remove the tax advantage from Wall Street speculators in housing and stopping predatory AI tactics for raising rents….Harris’s general emphasis on price-gouging is a policy area where government can make a huge constructive difference without spending large sums. It is good economics and smart politics on several counts….First, it vividly connects with the issue of inflation where ordinary people feel it. Grocery store prices have increased only slightly over the past year, but consumers remember exactly what a quart of milk or a dozen eggs cost before the supply shocks of the pandemic. In addition, supermarket profits are notably higher than before the pandemic, which means that prices should have moderated more….Second, the plan reframes the issue from whether Biden or Trump was better at containing an abstraction known as inflation to how corporate concentration opportunistically drives price hikes. The right remedy for that ill is not slowing the economy generally, as the Federal Reserve has done, but going after the root cause. This is also a useful shot across the Fed’s bow…Third, the approach recasts the struggle as ordinary people vs. predatory corporations rather than impersonal forces, with Harris in the role of champion of beleaguered consumers….There has been a lot of chatter about whether Harris is positioning herself to the left of President Biden and whether that is a good idea. Supposedly, by moving left, Harris risks alienating swing voters. But swing voters also buy groceries. The only voters whom Harris risks alienating by championing consumers are large corporations and their allies. They have few votes.”

The following article by Ruy Teixeira, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, politics editor of The Liberal Patriot newsletter and co-author with John B. Judis of “Where Have All the Democrats Gone?,” is cross-posted from The Liberal Patriot:

There’s been a lot of good news lately for the Harris campaign. Every national polling average has her ahead of Trump with margins ranging from 1 point in the New York Times average to 3.1 points in Nate Silver’s average (average lead = 2.1 points).

Silver’s state-level polling averages, which are relatively aggressive in incorporating new information, have Harris enjoying big improvements relative to Biden every swing state and now has her ahead in all these states except for Georgia and North Carolina. Moreover, his forecasting model makes her the favorite in Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and tips her as a 57 percent overall favorite to take the Electoral College.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that Harris is still running significantly behind where Biden and Hillary Clinton were at this point in the 2020 and 2016 cycles. Using the RCP averages (538 does not provide 2016 averages but their 2020 average closely tracked the 2020 RCP averages), at this point Biden was ahead of Trump by 7.7 points and Clinton was ahead by 6.8 points. That compares to the current RCP average of 1.1 points.

Moreover, looking at the “Rustbelt three”—Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—which loom so large in this election, here are the RCP averages for this point in the cycle for 2024 Harris-Trump, 2020 Biden-Trump, and 2016 Clinton-Trump in that order and for each state:

Michigan: +2.4/+6.7/+6.8

Pennsylvania: -.2/+6.4/+9.2

Wisconsin: +1.2/+6.5/+9.4

Given that Clinton lost all three of these states in 2016 and Biden carried them by an average of only 1.6 points in 2020, this pattern does not inspire confidence. In general, and particularly with these data in mind, the race is still way too close for comfort.

Of course, just because the polls tended to underestimate Trump support in 2020 and 2016 both nationally and in key states doesn’t mean they are today. But that remains a possibility. As Sean Trende notes:

[T]here is a sound social science concept of which we should be aware. In fact, it is particularly dangerous right now. It is known as partisan non-response bias. The idea is this: When events favor one political side or the other, partisans become more (or less) likely to take a poll.

The intuition is this: After Biden’s disastrous June debate, Democrats really didn’t want to talk about the election. Republicans on the other hand, wanted to talk about nothing else. It was probably the best time to be a Republican in a presidential election since, well, Mitt Romney beat Barack Obama in the first presidential debate. Some of Trump’s poll lead in July probably was due to a newfound Republican eagerness to respond to polls.

At the same time, Democrats are overwhelmingly engaged right now. They have reason to believe they just avoided a near-death scenario and potential wipeout. They have a new presidential nominee, about whom they are overwhelmingly excited, and they like the vice presidential selection. They would love nothing more than to talk to you, or a pollster, about the 2024 election.

Unfortunately, there is no way to know for sure whether this is happening or not. But it could be in which the case the race, already close, may be closer than it looks. If you’re the Harris campaign you want to keep this in mind and take appropriate evasive action. “Kamalamania” may be more fragile than it appears.

A relevant cautionary tale is provided by an earlier example of a politician suddenly ascending to be their party’s standard-bearer and rocketing into the lead. This is the example of “Jacindamania” where Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand in 2017 replaced Labour leader Andrew Little who appeared to be headed to a landslide defeat (sound familiar?). Her candidacy caught fire and very soon her party was in the lead. But the conservative party, the National Party, counter-attacked, aiming withering fire at Ardern’s considerable vulnerabilities. By the time the election arrived the National Party actually out-polled Labour and Ardern by 7 points. (She was still able to form a government, but only by forming a coalition with New Zealand’s right-populist and green parties.)

This suggests a missing part of the current Trump campaign that is no doubt helping Harris—disciplined, withering fire directed at Harris’s vulnerabilities, of which there are many, has been lacking. Trump, by general consensus, has done a poor job on this politics 101 part of his campaign, indulging his proclivities for dwelling on various pet beefs, rather than concentrating attacks where they would most hurt his opponent (see this brutally effective ad from the McCormick Senate campaign in Pennsylvania for how this could be done). If he continues on the former course, the Harris campaign may continue to dominate; if he and his campaign take the latter path, Kamalamania may go the way of Jacindamania.

The question for the Harris campaign therefore should be how to armor themselves against such a turn in the campaign. This is where recovering the ancient wisdom of the Obama era could come in handy. Harris is perfectly willing to disavow previous unpopular positions on controversial issues and allude in very general terms to a current position that is closer to the center of public opinion. But what’s she’s not willing to do is piss off the left. And unless you’re willing to piss off the left, you can’t convincingly and durably occupy the center of American politics. That’s the real insurance against a counterattack by the GOP.

Obama understood this. He was willing to piss of the left in pursuit of a broader coalition. Here are a couple of examples but there are many more.

On immigration:

“We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants to this country.”

He added that those who employ people living in this country illegally “disrespect the rule of law.”

On energy/climate change:

“We need an energy strategy for the future—an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.”

He added that his administration had “quadrupled the number of operating oilrigs to a record high” and “opened up millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration.”

Different times, different politician for sure. And of course the progressive left within the Democratic Party is much stronger now than it was then. But the principle remains valid. If you want to define yourself as being in the center of American politics you have to be willing to piss off those who are constantly trying to push you out of the center.

This is particularly important for the Harris campaign among difficult demographics like white working-class voters, where recent improvement—particularly in the Rustbelt—has been key to the campaign’s improved fortunes. These voters could stick or they may be just visiting; much will depend on whether the Harris campaign can convince them she is truly a different kind of Democrat than what she used to be.

It seems like a long time ago but it really wasn’t when Democrats generally understood the need to aggressively capture the center and, if the left stood in the way, the need to push them aside. Clinton and Obama understood this and they prospered accordingly. What seems to have happened is that intense criticisms within the party of various policy actions of these leaders—some justified, some not—have induced a collective amnesia about that era’s political wisdom. As a result, today’s Democratic leaders are now absolutely terrified of pissing off the left even where it would be greatly to the party’s benefit to do so.

It’s time to recover that ancient wisdom. The stakes are high and the time is short. Democrats can’t afford to rely on Trump’s incompetence to cede them the center of American politics. They must seize it.

One of the odd subplots of this strange election cycle is the possibility of an electoral vote being purloined by Nebraska Republicans, as I warned at New York:

If you like to play with interactive maps laying out a host of presidential-election scenarios, you may be acutely aware that two of the 50 states award an electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district rather than allocating them statewide. These would be Maine, which adopted the practice in 1972, and Nebraska, which started splitting electoral votes in 1992. Until 2008, when Barack Obama snared an electoral vote from deep-red Nebraska’s Omaha-based Second Congressional District, it was all kind of academic. Then in 2016, Donald Trump won the Second Congressional District of Maine even though Hillary Clinton was the statewide winner. In 2020, both Nebraska and Maine split their electoral votes, essentially canceling each other out.

It was the general expectation that the same thing would happen this year in a Biden-Trump rematch. But then in April, Trump activist Charlie Kirk came to Nebraska and ignited a MAGA grassroots effort to convince the state’s Republican governor and legislative leaders to change the state back to a winner-take-all system to keep Democrats from again winning the Second District’s electoral vote. With a special legislative session focused on property-tax issues already pending, Governor Jim Pillen offered to go along only if he could be assured the votes to overcome a certain Democratic filibuster. Meanwhile, these developments were being monitored in Maine, where Democrats control the legislature and the governor’s office. Maine Democrats threatened to take countervailing action to deny Trump a shot at an electoral vote in their state if Nebraska fired first.

Things quieted down after Pillen decided against including the electoral-vote issue in the call for a special session. But then the presidential race retightened after Joe Biden handed off the Democratic nomination to Kamala Harris, who proceeded (though there’s no evidence the Second District issue was at all a factor) to choose native Nebraskan Tim Walz as her running mate. For whatever reason, the Trump camp is again putting pressure on Pillen to call a second special legislative session in September to ensure the 45th president gets all the state’s electoral votes, as the Nebraska Examiner reported:

“Nebraska Republican Party Chairman Eric Underwood confirmed what state senators have told the Examiner privately, that the issue is not dead for 2024, and Pillen and legislative Republicans are waiting for the right moment to bring it forward. …

“’It’s a delicate opportunity,’ Underwood said. ‘When we’re ready to go I’ve connected with the Trump Force team. I’ve connected with Turning Point Action. … When this opportunity presents itself, what we need to do is to be the support network for those individuals because this will be a national change.’”

In deciding whether and when to pull the trigger on this effort to rig Nebraska’s electoral votes for Trump, Republicans will presumably want to make sure Maine is not in a position to carry out its earlier threat to retaliate. Maine’s legislature has been out of session since May.

Does a single electoral vote really matter? It seems far-fetched, but there is a very common scenario in which Democrats win the “blue wall” battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin while losing the Sun Belt battleground states of Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina. That would give them 269 electoral votes — with the Nebraska Second District vote putting them over the top. That’s a bit less likely with Kamala Harris, who seems stronger in the Sun Belt states than Biden, heading the ticket, but it’s still feasible.

It’s certainly worth noting that Tim Walz is headed to Omaha for campaign appearances this very weekend. This could present Nebraska Republicans with a red flag (or perhaps more appropriately a blue flag; the Second District is often called “the blue dot” in the red map of Nebraska) that motivates them to act, or perhaps just a vivid Harris-Walz demonstration that the heartland does not entirely belong to Trump.

Political junkies talk a lot about various constituencies based on race, class, age, sex etc., and who they do and don’t support and why. But we tend to overlook one of the largest groups of American voters who share some unique concerns — people running and employed in small businesses, which had less than 12 employees on average in 2023. Many of them are working-class contractors, while some of them have managerial or professional training. But they are all engaged in private enterprise, often competing against huge corporations and sometimes working on government contracts. For starters, consider that 61.7 million people were employed in more than 33 million small businesses in 2023, according to the small Business Administration. 

So, please check out “How Kamala Harris can win over small businesses” by Gene Marks, founder of The Marks Group, a small-business consulting firm, which is cross-posted from The Hill:

Pew Research reports that two-thirds of the nation’s 33 million small-business owners have fewer than four employees. Also, 85 percent of them are white and 76 percent are men. More than half are over age 50.

Today, these small-business owners are not a happy bunch. Despite a surge in startups, lower inflation, a softening labor market, fewer supply chain issues and a growing economy, their sentiment and confidence levels are still at historic lows.

Not surprisingly, more than half of small-business owners in one recent survey say they believe another Donald Trump administration would have the best impact on their businesses, compared with only 14 percent for Joe Biden. In another recent survey, 33 percent of small-business owners believe that Trump winning the election will positively impact their business, versus 16 percent for Biden.

Today, Kamala Harris has taken over for Biden as the Democratic nominee. So now this is her challenge. Can she win over small-business owners this election year? I believe there is a way.

When government is friendly toward business, businesses feel more comfortable investing, hiring and taking risks. Taxing “the rich,” going after “the wealthy” to “pay their fair share” and vilifying “big corporations,” on the other hand, makes businesses seem evil. This may be a great plot line for a Hollywood movie or for populist fringe groups, but it’s not a terrific strategy for a government that needs to win over a large swathe of voters.

Remember that there are many small-business owners who, with their spouses, do make more than $400,000 per year (the “wealthy”) but use a substantial amount funds to reinvest in their companies. Also remember that countless small businesses — from pizza shops to landscapers — rely on big corporations and their employees for their livelihoods. And while it’s important to help business owners of color or in historically disadvantaged neighborhoods, it’s also important to recognize that 85 percent of us would not be included in that group. We need support and a little love too.

As I’ve previously written, the Republicans will work hard to make permanent the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which includes many provisions that benefit small-business owners. Without that, my tax bill personally will increase between 20 and 30 percent.

Harris has so far been mostly silent on this issue, so most of my clients are assuming she’ll continue with Biden’s policies, letting the tax cuts expire. My advice for her is to compromise and champion a few of the TCJA’s provisions that specifically benefit small businesses — most importantly the Qualified Business Income Tax. She should also support making permanent first-year deductions for capital equipment and research and development expenditures. That would make me, and many of my clients, much less concerned about a tax increase if she were elected.

Over the last few years, we’ve seen many new regulations emerge from various government agencies working under Biden’s direction that require all businesses to reclassify certain independent contractors, pay more overtime wages, eliminate non-compete contracts and be subject to new and more rules (and fines) for safety, harassment and discrimination violations. These are important. But they come with significant costs.

Big corporations can absorb these costs, which is why an overwhelming number of both Republican and Democratic small-business owners say business policies today favor large companies over small businesses. Small businesses struggle to keep up with and pay for these regulations. A blanket exemption on many of these rules for employers with less than 10 employees or so would win over many voters.

Isabella Guzman is perhaps one of the best Small Business Administration leaders I’ve ever seen. She’s worked hard and travelled extensively. She deserves a promotion to the Department of Commerce or Department of Defense, where she can do the same thing for the many small-business programs there that need attention. And she should be significantly involved in choosing her successor at the SBA to ensure that her work continues.

Harris also needs to set forth a plan on immigration, which needs to be a priority. Congress must compromise and pass a bill already. No one wants to see families physically deported, but everyone knows that illegal immigrants are breaking the law and creating a burden. Sort this out with Congress, secure the border and create a better legal path for citizenship. Small businesses need workers. The economy needs more entrepreneurs. Law-abiding business owners need help competing with those that flout the law and hire illegal workers. The country needs a strong president who will work with Congress to fix this major problem.

Finally, consider a new funding program for succession. As mentioned above, the majority of small-business owners are over the age of 50 (the average age is about 55). Many of my clients are thinking hard about exiting their businesses over the next few years, and many others have already gotten started. Sales of business are up more than 20 percent from a year ago. But tax, financing and other obstacles remain.

Harris would do well to support and expand the tax benefits for Employee Stock Ownership Plans, so that more workers can have equity in their workplaces and business owners can get help cashing out. Direct the SBA to create special financing programs for those looking to buy businesses. This is not only an enormous opportunity to provide for retirement but also a chance for younger generations — and even employees — to own businesses.

I’m a moderate Republican business owner. My vote is still up for grabs. Taking the above actions would go a long way toward winning my support — and the support of many other business owners — for Kamala Harris.

The more we look at the kind of voters who seem to be returning to the Democratic banner under Kamala Harris, the more it seems she could become the real “change” candidate, as I explained at New York:

When Joe Biden withdrew from the 2024 presidential contest and endorsed his vice-president as his successor, Kamala Harris enjoyed as quick and thorough a coronation to become party nominee as anyone could have imagined. All the talk of an “open convention” or a “blitz primary” that would find some ideal candidate without Harris’s perceived shortcomings vanished almost instantly as every party faction and every interest and constituency group dutifully, and soon enough joyfully, embraced the long-time heir apparent. All the comparisons of Biden’s situation to that of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968 fell apart upon the realization that totally unlike LBJ’s veep, Hubert Humphrey, Harris would be in an unassailable position going into her party’s convention. And in addition to a united party, she inherited Biden’s formidable campaign organization and sizable treasury.

But it has gotten even better than that for Harris: Because Biden’s age and deteriorating vigor and communication skills had become an even bigger problem than dissatisfaction with his record or policy platform, the substitution of Harris for the 78-year-old president felt like the arrival of a fresh breeze, and not just to Democrats worried about a loss to Donald Trump. A grim rematch between two unpopular old white men, which much of the country seemed to dread, was reset overnight by this relatively young, multiracial woman who offers a very different option.

Or does she? Harris isn’t an AOC or a Pete Buttigieg, signaling a millennial wave finally sweeping away boomer pathologies. She’s 59 years old, and this is her seventh race for public office (she’s climbed from district attorney to state attorney general to U.S. senator to vice-president). Her refreshing running mate, Tim Walz, is another boomer, a year older than her and often described as everyone’s favorite grandpa. Neither Harris nor Walz has been a conspicuous dissenter from any of Biden’s policy decisions or issue positions; indeed, Harris has been universally praised for the intense loyalty she displayed toward Biden as he slowly came to recognize the need to pack it in.

So potentially the Harris-Walz ticket can enjoy the best of two worlds, leading a united incumbent party without all of the baggage of the incumbent president. More importantly, Harris can offer something Biden obviously could not: a way out of the political era symbolized by both Trump and Biden, for which there was a sizable constituency just waiting to be mobilized. It was an absolutely poisonous symptom of Biden’s basic problem that for the first time in living memory, Democrats were hoping for a low-turnout election while seeking to blow-torch non-major-party options like the independent candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to which voters unhappy with the Biden-Trump choice might resort. And much as Kennedy’s own claim that Democrats and Republicans are an indistinguishable “uniparty” is completely absurd and dangerous, there’s not much question that voters were becoming equally tired of the octogenarian leadership of both major parties. It’s probably not a coincidence that Harris’s advent has been accompanied by a decline in support for Kennedy.

Republicans may grumble that Harris cannot avoid responsibility for the unpopular aspects of Biden’s record, particularly on issues like immigration and inflation where voters mistakenly but clearly think Trump had the more successful presidency. But Harris’s sudden appearance at the top of the Democratic ticket is presenting them with a real dilemma: Do they simply treat her as Biden 2.0 and continue the 2024 campaign as originally planned (without all the references to a senile or puppetlike opponent), or do they acknowledge Harris’s distinct persona by focusing on politically vulnerable positions she took during her brief 2020 presidential campaign, or in the Senate, or as a state official in wicked California? It’s looking more and more as though they will take the bait and depict Harris as far more of a radical leftist than Biden, if only they could get their own candidate to lay off the blatant racism and sexism and nursing of stupid grievances long enough to point at Harris and yell: “Communist!”

Perhaps this old-school McCarthyism will work once again to distract persuadable voters from Trump’s and the GOP’s own extremism. But it could also help free Harris from Biden’s shadow and allow her to stand for a political future full of possibilities that Trump would destroy instantly in a self-absorbed second term dominated by vengeance.

If we hear more and more about “the future” in Harris’s communications going forward, it will be clear she’s aiming at voters who are less interested in “making America great again” than in putting the past firmly in the rearview mirror. Her novelty as a presidential candidate has already turned around a Democratic campaign that was floundering on the very edge of viability. If she can take shrewd steps to avoid being McCarthyized (which she will be free to do given her party’s unified determination to take down Trump) and take advantage of the fresh start she has come to represent, then she can win over voters who had written off Joe Biden entirely. And what was looking to be a teeth-grinding effort to convince the country that anyone would be preferable to a vindicated 45th president could remain joyful and upbeat right up to and beyond November 5.