Josh Marshall
Yes. Trump Started The Fire. And Everyone Knows It. 
When a young man took a shot at Donald Trump in July it was the first time political assassination, attempted or otherwise, had intruded into presidential politics in more than 40 years. Now it appears to have happened a second time in two months. What’s going on here? It comes almost a week after Donald Trump and JD Vance began a campaign of racist anti-immigrant incitement focused on Springfield, Ohio, an effort so destructive and reckless that the Republican mayor and at least two of the three Republican County supervisors have either begged Trump to stop or publicly questioned whether they will even vote for him because they’re so upset about it. The city has been rocked over the last week by repeated bomb threats, school evacuations, the shuttering of one local college which has moved to remote study. This isn’t even counting the experience of Haitian migrants who are being terrorized by the pro-Trump extremists Trump and Vance have incited against them.
Read More
Public Menace: How Trump Mobilizes the Violent Extremists in His Midst for Political Ends
TPM Reader DB pressed me yesterday to connect the dots. Because of JD Vance’s racist incitements to violence, now joined by Donald Trump, immigrants from Haiti in Springfield, Ohio, are cowering in their homes, holding their children back from school. Bomb threats have forced evacuations of the town municipal buildings and schools. We can only hope that it doesn’t escalate from here to assaults and murders. But there’s no question this is a community under siege. Vance says full speed ahead, tweeting to his supporters to “keep the cat memes flowing” or, in other words, keep pushing the story.
Read More
Trump’s Two Campaigns
I wrote soon after Kamala Harris become the de facto Democratic nominee that I did not think that Donald Trump had the mental acuity, stamina or energy to fight for the presidency from behind. As long as he was a bit ahead — very durably a bit ahead — his energy and focus didn’t seem to matter. Everything I’ve seen since then has confirmed this judgment. Tuesday’s debate did so perhaps more than anything. But what I’ve also been increasingly aware of is that Trump has two campaigns in a way that is almost unique in modern presidential politics.
First, there’s Donald Trump, the guy we saw in the debate, the guy we see at the rallies and the guy Trump is, mostly, on social media. (People like Dan Scavino tweet for him sometimes. But even then it’s more an impersonation of feral Trump.) This persona was really the entirety of the campaign in 2016 because there just wasn’t any campaign infrastructure around, though a bit was built up in the last couple months. This campaign is mostly about Trump’s anger and grievances and shows all the signs not only of his longstanding degeneracy but his cognitive and personal decline over the last decade. Let’s call it the Trump campaign. But then there’s an entirely distinct and relatively traditional campaign being run by Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles. That campaign wants to talk about inflation and the southern border. That campaign is running a vast and complex TV air war across all the swing states. Let’s call this the “Trump” campaign.
Read More
The Day After the Beating
I wanted to share a few more thoughts about last night’s debate. You can find my overnight wrap-up here.
There are two realities: First, the race is going to remain close. It’s going to be a slog right up to Election Day, and Trump could win. Second, Harris thoroughly dominated and even humiliated Trump from the first minutes of the debate right through to the end. These things are both true. We just don’t know exactly how those two realities are going to interact over the next two months as they combine with other developments, news cycles and possibly new shocks we can’t predict.
Kate and I just recorded this week’s podcast which was basically all about the debate. In those conversations there’s some urge to hold back on saying just how thoroughly Harris dominated him because you don’t want to sound too frothy or exuberant or give people any sense that that thoroughness will be reflected in changes in the polls. My best guess is that it may have a small impact on the horse race polls and drive some negative news cycles for Trump.
Read More
Debate Wrap Up: No One Has Ever So Thoroughly Dominated Donald Trump
I feel obligated to note at the top that you can win a debate and lose the election. Donald Trump isn’t a momentary candidate. He has a big national political following that has remained loyal over almost a decade. Nothing happened tonight that is going to shake the confidence of his supporters. But with that said, this debate was an absolute rout. Harris had a minute or two of nerves in her opening statement. But from the very first exchange she maintained the initiative, kept Trump on the defensive the entire time and simply dominated him. I don’t see any way to contest that basic verdict.
She set a tone at the very start when she walked right into his space to shake his hand and made him almost pull back into himself in response. She was in charge and never stopped being in charge.
Read More10:38 PM: In any war, in any sport, you maintain the initiative and you’re on the road to victory. Harris has controlled the entire debate. She’s effectively baited him in a way no other candidate has ever been able to do. It’s not like she’s going to rocket into some big lead. People aren’t going to abandon Trump. But she needed to show she can dominate him, be the one in control. She has. It’s as simple as that. She’s also gotten him to spend most of the debate showing his most feral and angry self. This debate was a rout. I don’t think there’s any other way to put it.
10:19 PM: Is she actually going to overmatch him on the Afghanistan withdrawal question?
10:05 PM: Trump has simply been on the defensive for every moment of this debate. She delivers her messages, while also baiting him and he responds and gets angrier in a way that makes him even less coherent than normal. She’s controlling the tempo and frankly dominating the debate. Meanwhile he’s spent most of the debate talking about his worst vulnerabilities.
9:55 PM: Trump’s definitely not going to be a strongman and his character witness is Viktor Orban.
9:54 PM: They say you’re a disgrace. Wow.
9:48 PM: So Trump spent his time saying that Nancy Pelosi did January 6th.
9:44 PM: So I’m going to say that energy answer wasn’t great for Trump. Good lord.
9:37 PM: I keep hoping she’ll say one thing and then she doesn’t. But she says something better. She’s hitting her points.
9:33 PM: Obviously Afghanistan is a good issue for Trump. It is what it is. But Trump’s getting angrier and angrier. It’s visible.
9:29 PM: She’s just baiting him and he’s taking the bait. He’s hitting points he wants to certainly. But he is reacting to her.
9:23 PM: JD made a crunchy sound after Don threw him under the bus.
9:21 PM: Harris’s response on abortion was literally perfect.
9:20 PM: There are technical points I was hoping Harris would hit on abortion. But what she’s actually doing is much better. “Trump abortion bans”.
9:18 PM: This is a good example of a case in which his furry and fast talking could give the appearance of coherence. But it’s all nonsense. I’m listening now to the abortion answer. It just sounded like jibberish.
9:14 PM: She’s spinning him in the circles. I’m not trying to be over-optimistic. But every exchange so far is her pressing a point that is important to her campaign and he’s responding and often with a fugue of nonsense.
9:11 PM: She’s driving this debate so far.
9:08 PM: Harris started a bit nervous, a touch wobbly. But she’s hitting the points she needs to hit. She’s making him respond. That’s what I’m seeing so far.
9:01 PM: Why is he calling him “President Trump”. He’s the former President. He’s not Prsident.
Okay, let’s do this.
Getting Our Heads Around Tonight’s Debate
Tonight we have the second presidential debate of the 2024 campaign cycle and the first for this presidential campaign. Much as I would like to buck the conventional wisdom, the stakes are genuinely quite high. One poll I saw this morning showed a remarkably high, really impossibly high percentage of voters said that the debate would have a major impact on their vote: 30%. But as debate watchers we come back to a basic conundrum: if you’re paying enough attention to be worked up about the debate you are almost certainly not the intended audience. And not only are you not the intended audience but your experience of the campaign and politics generally is so totally different from that of the intended audience that absent a real suspension of disbelief, a real effort to separate yourself from your own impressions, you’ll have a hard time knowing how each candidate did for the audience that matters.
Read MoreI wanted to look at a decent number of new polls out today. They paint a mixed and complicated picture. There’s no other way to put it. Two new national polls have a tied race. On it’s face, that’s not a great sign for Harris. A tie popular vote is very likely to mean defeat. But it’s not that simple. The two polls are from Pew and the Harris Poll. Pew is a very solid poll but generally unfriendly to Democrats in recent cycles. So for instance at the height of the Kamala surge they had her up one point over Trump. Now it’s even. Not a big a difference. The Harris poll (really the zombie Harris poll now owned and operated by Mark Penn) meanwhile is not just extremely unfriendly to Democrats but closer to Rasmussen territory. (Just to avoid confusion, let’s christen it the Penn-Harris poll.) In other words, we’re not just talking a house effect generally unfriendly to Democrats but really a question in my mind whether it should even be considered a legitimate poll. Taken together I think it’s fair to assume there may be some leveling off of Kamala Harris’ support. But I don’t think there’s real evidence of some kind of sea change in the race.
Read MoreI wanted to share a few thoughts about the Times/Siena poll which has sent more than a few people reeling today. If you haven’t seen it, the new Times/Siena poll shows Donald Trump with a one-point lead over Harris nationally. That’s the first major poll to show Trump in the lead in weeks. What do I make of it? Not a huge amount. And I would recommend the same to anyone else.
It’s certainly possible that this is a leading indicator of a shift in support away from Harris after a month and a half of generally positive news and poll numbers. But you simply can’t change your whole theory of the race around a single poll. I’m not going to get into picking apart all the details of the poll. And I’m definitely not going to try to unskew it. It’s a quality poll. But it does show a very different race than other polls we’re seeing — ones taken over the same time period, ones with which we’re able to make pretty straightforward apples-to-apples comparisons. It’s not just the top-line number that’s different. It shows a more popular Trump, a less popular Harris, key demographics much closer to how they were when Joe Biden was still the nominee.
Read More