Open Threads

KamalaHQ is hammering Trump’s Medal of Honor comments yesterday at his New Jersey ex-wife burial ground and golf club, so I assume the Harris campaign thinks those remarks are pretty damaging.  Trump’s comments also clearly show that attacks on Walz’ military record have zero credibility from the Republican ticket, but I don’t think they were gaining much traction anyway, since they seem to have been replaced by false anguish over Kamala making fun of Walz’ white guy tacos.  (Again proving that the sensitivity of the white male to even the slightest of slights can never be overstated.)

Kamala’s comms team is very good, but Harris and Walz are also experiencing a moment where their excitement is feeding the public’s excitement, and the public excitement is feeding back into their excitement and energy.  This is where every campaign wants to be, a sweet spot where their momentum seems like it will never end.

Of course, this is rare:  a campaign can be doing everything right, yet they’re faced with an uninterested public.  Or, the campaign might have a message that would interest the public, but perhaps the candidate can’t deliver it for a number of reasons like age, poor retail political skills, etc.  That’s what I thought about when I saw this (from a Fake LBJ account that is written by some history profs at some university in Texas):

I haven’t been paying close attention to Allred’s campaign, but let’s assume that fake LBJ is right:  Cruz is weaker than ever, and the Allred campaign is following a pretty worn out playbook.  The cause isn’t just money — they’ve raised $37 million to Cruz’ $57 million, and even though the concept of “enough” in political fundraising is hard to gauge, $37 mil is enough to run a decent campaign anywhere.  So if it isn’t money, is it candidate? Is it an unreceptive public?  Is it that Democrats often run very conservative campaigns in general?  I mean, whatever you want to say about Beto, the guy knew how to fight.

I’m wondering about this because the Harris campaign is doing something special and rare.  If Democrats are going to win in Texas, or Florida, or some of the other reddish-purple states that always seem to elude our grasp, we need to be able to replicate some of what’s led to this moment for the Harris/Walz campaign.

(Also, as usual, if there are Texans or people who know Texas politics reading this, tell me what I’ve missed about Allredl)

What Does it Mean to Fight?Post + Comments (274)

The Harris campaign has released their policy proposals [gift link]:

The most striking proposals were for the elimination of medical debt for millions of Americans; the “first-ever” ban on price gouging for groceries and food; a cap on prescription drug costs; a $25,000 subsidy for first-time home buyers; and a child tax credit that would provide $6,000 per child to families for the first year of a baby’s life.

[…] Perhaps Harris’s most surprising policy announcement was her plan to ban “price gouging” in grocery and food prices. While details were sparse, the measure would include authorizing the Federal Trade Commission to impose large fines on grocery stores that impose “excessive” price hikes on customers, her campaign said.

When I was visiting family in the Dakotas last month, there were no end to the complaints that the small grocers in our small town were gouging, and they were.  (Those complaining the loudest were, of course, the ones that were going to vote for Trump the hardest.)

…Harris endorsed a slew of measures to expand housing supply — including an expansion of tax credits to incentivize housing construction — but also a new $25,000 in federal down-payment assistance to more than 1 million first-time home buyers…

…Harris also pledged to work with states to cancel medical debt for millions of Americans, building on one of her signature policy issues as vice president. That effort could involve using federal funds to buy and forgive outstanding medical debt from health providers….

…Other policies endorsed by Harris in her five-page policy document included expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit for lower-wage workers by up to $1,500, as well as extending subsidies for Americans on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.

Anyway, this is all good stuff, and I’m looking forward to the whole list after Harris’ speech in North Carolina today.  But god damn are the brains of the people writing this story broken:

Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday unveiled an aggressively populist economic agenda, providing the most detailed vision yet of her governing priorities since becoming the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee…

In the weeks leading up to this announcement, at least two outside advisers privately suggested to the Harris campaign that she signal a move to the center by backing income tax cuts for middle-class households or a tax break for small businesses, according to the people aware of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private conversations…

“The days of pivoting to the center to win on economics are over, even though there are good economic reasons to do so, especially on fiscal policy,” said Bill Galston, a former Clinton policy aide.

Why are tax cuts for the middle-class “centrist” while caps on prescription drugs, elimination of medical debt, and tax credits for children “populist”?  Middle-class folks pay for prescription drugs, often have medical debt, and they do have children.  Middle-class 20-30 somethings can’t afford housing, and their parents really care about this issue.  A policy is not “populist” simply because a poor person could benefit from it.

How the hell is this framing adding anything to our comprehension of Harris’ economic policies?  The simple fact is that it isn’t, that broken DC brains think it matters whether some specific policy is “centrist” or not, and nobody else actually cares.

Populist Centrist What?Post + Comments (180)