A lot of you are getting campaign text messages. If they’re pitches for money, those aren’t as important. But I’m particularly interested in ones that are putting nuggets of news in front of you to, in theory, drive your vote for one or the other candidate. If you’re getting these and haven’t requested they stop, I’m very interested to see them. Ideally, if you can screenshot them and send them to me at the regular TPM email, great. If you can cut and paste, that works too. Let me know what you’re seeing. And if possible, let me know where you’re getting them geographically and anything general about your political profile that might help me understand what kind of people the campaigns are sending them to.
The Beltway demand for Kamala Harris to do her ninth or twentieth “substantive” (read: mainstream media) interview is reaching a fever pitch in the wake of Harris’ campaign announcing a new round of podcasts, Late Night and influencer interviews coming right after her appearance on 60 Minutes. Yesterday’s Politico’s Playbook captured the mood in a newsletter edition that managed to be both catty and frivolous, a churning mix of trying to make “fetch” happen and “debate me, bro” hectoring. Yes, she’s doing a bunch of interviews, they announced. But sorry lady, they just ain’t the right ones …
Florida has become the state where elements of a future, second-Trump-presidency America already come into view. We’re seeing some of these things happening right now in Florida. The example I’m about to share with you legitimately shocked me. (That’s a high bar.) It’s about the pro-choice ballot amendment which would restore Roe protections in Florida if it gets the support of 60% of voters. As in most other states, getting to 50% isn’t that difficult. 60% is much harder. To head off even the chance that the ballot initiative might hit that challenging high bar, the state of Florida is already spending a substantial amount of tax payer dollars campaigning against the initiative. Now we learn that the state is quite literally threatening jail time for the employees of stations that agree to run one of the ads for the pro-choice amendment. You heard that right — not sue under some claim of defamation but actual criminal charges.
When I first read this I thought it was one of those civil suits. Opposing campaigns will occasionally do this to scare stations out of running their opponent’s ads. I’ve never seen a state government do it, but particularly litigious campaigns occasionally do. But it’s not a civil suit. They’re threatening criminal charges.
Over the weekend a number of people, independently, asked me if there was some shift in the presidential campaign, some shift in the vibes, some shift in the polls, etc. When I asked what prompted the question, it was usually chalked up to a number of articles over the weekend suggesting that Harris’ campaign is faltering or stalled or somehow blowing the election. The through-line through most of this commentary is that Harris’ campaign is too risk-averse or not running an aggressive enough campaign, which she needs to be doing. There are actually some so-so polls out this morning. But we’ve been in a period of small ups and downs for about a month. So I wanted to tell you what I told these people.
In this morning’s piece I mentioned going back to read articles I’d either missed on publication or read without focusing on these issues of ground game. One of the most interesting pieces in this category is the piece Tim Alberta wrote for The Atlantic which appeared just after the June debate disaster but a couple weeks before Biden’s departure from the race. The article is based on what seems to have been many months of reporting with a lot of access to the team running Trump’s campaign — Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles. There are a number of really quite interesting storylines in the piece. I’m going to focus on the question of ground operations. Even back before the events of the summer, this was a big enough deal that it is one of the two or three dominant issues the piece grapples with.
Let me start by explaining, based in large part on Alberta’s piece, what the Trump campaign’s argument and theory of the election is on its own terms. It goes like this. The suburbs are heavily polarized. There’s not that much being accomplished by traditional door-knocking and canvassing there. And it tends to be a mass game: How many doors you knock, how many conversations you have, etc., with not enough focus on whether you’re zeroing in on the high-value contacts. The campaign points to Iowa, which was a key early test for Trump’s fight for the renomination and also a sore spot from back in 2016 when Ted Cruz got a jump on Trump and actually beat him. In 2024, the campaign tried something different. The key premise of its approach is the belief that there is a substantial population of people who are really into Trump or at least very down with the Trump worldview but just don’t vote. They’re just totally disaffected from politics and the political world. But if they did vote they’d be certain to vote for Trump. This isn’t a crazy idea since disaffection from elite institutions and elements of mainstream culture is sort of inherent in Trumpism.
While the conservative supermajority of the Supreme Court plainly wields an expansive view of gun rights (and a shrinkingly narrow one of agency power), it occasionally butts up against a plea for deregulation with ramifications too extreme for even these justices.
Kate and Josh discuss the VP debate, the last big scheduled event before the election, along with some 11th-hour Senate plays and Eric Adams’ indictment.
Several people involved with the former president’s company, operator of Truth Social, believe the departures were retaliation following internal complaints about CEO Devin Nunes to the company board.
Member Newsletter
