I just got this note from TPM Reader RL who lives in NY-16 and says he just voted for Latimer. He brings up something that didn’t figure in my piece at all: the fire alarm. I’d always written off the idea that Bowman was trying to delay that vote. It simply didn’t make sense to me. It seemed like he was in a rush. The door was locked. And he pulled the fire alarm to unlock the door. RL says it actually played a significant role in his vote, not because it was a huge deal in itself but because it was just dumb and made him a story when the GOP was imploding. As I told RL, perhaps it’s the same difference. It you’re in a rush and a door is locked, setting off a fire alarm in a large office building is not a smart thing to do. Terrible judgment and possibly even dangerous. It just seems like the kind of move, whatever the motivation, that is very much a Jamaal Bowman thing that you’d never see Hakeem Jeffries, Dan Goldman or AOC doing. Just not ready for prime time, quite apart from ideology.

Now RL …

We hear a lot that the press is making all the same mistakes with Donald Trump that it did back in 2016. There are certainly many ways this is the case. But not in all the ways. Indeed, I think Trump has perversely and paradoxically benefited from one thing most news organizations have done very differently. They don’t carry his speeches live. They don’t report all his latest nonsense. I think this has been a net plus for him, especially in a rematch with Biden, since there’s less reminder of just how out there, unhinged and violence-inciting he is. That benefit is only starting to ebb now as we’re getting into the meat of the campaign proper and people really are hearing a lot of it. Thursday night’s debate will bring that to the fore.

Which brings us to the debate.

One thing I’m very curious about is whether certain parts of Trump’s schtick will just seem stale the third time.

I was reading a piece in Axios this morning that happened not only to be smart but also erudite. Surprise! When I looked at the byline: Felix Salmon. Okay, not a surprise. Axios actually publishes a lot of good stuff outside its narrowly political content. There’s good stuff there too. But on politics it’s mostly narrowly captive to DC conventional wisdom and conceits. But to the good Felix Salmon piece: he compares billionaire and business giving to and support of Trump to Pascal’s Wager: It makes sense to believe in God because if God exists you’ll be glad you did and if he doesn’t exist it won’t matter.

Salmon makes the point that high-profile business leaders have a big incentive to support Trump even if they want him to lose or at least think Biden would be a better President or better for the economy. If Trump wins your personal support could end up mattering a lot to your business or your company and vice versa. If Biden wins, he’s not going to try to retaliate against you for supporting Trump. Not how the Biden folks operate. This is a bit far fetched but I could even see how you might have a fiduciary responsibility to support Trump for just the same reason. I know it’s a bit more complicated than that. But the effect on your bottom line could be very, very real.

If you are an Inside member, you’re familiar with the Inside Briefings we’ve done over the years. We’re launching a new kind of briefing: Inside TPM. This will be a series of monthly interviews with TPM staffers (and down the road, potentially alumni and friends-of-site) to help readers and viewers and listeners better understand TPM and the people who work here.

In the first episode, I spoke with Josh Kovensky about covering the Trump hush money trial, what he learned from his time in Ukraine, and much more. I hope you enjoy and we’ll be back next month with another video.

I wanted to share a few thoughts on Tuesday’s primary in New York’s 16th congressional district, which pits Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D) against Westchester County Executive George Latimer. It is apparently going to be the most expensive congressional primary ever. The headlines are that AIPAC itself, and a number of AIPAC adjacent pro-Israel groups, are pouring money into the race and Bowman is being wildly outspent. And that’s true. Limited polling suggests Latimer is a strong favorite. But this headline version misses a lot of the story. Or, more specifically, it mistakes cause and effect.

A new episode of The Josh Marshall Podcast is live! This week, Kate and Josh discuss the proliferation of deceptively edited videos of Joe Biden, the finalization of rules for the first debate and the Biden campaign’s new ads.

You can listen to the new episode of The Josh Marshall Podcast here.

There’s a wrongheaded tendency to think the Court isn’t quite as bad or corrupt when it hands down one of these “good” decisions as it did today in the domestic abusers gun case. Resist the urge. One of the many things I’ve learned from my podcast colleague Kate Riga in our many podcast discussions is that we get a lot of these cases lately because, in addition to taking many fewer cases in general, the Court is now basically open season for culture-war cases. Even in relative terms there are many fewer of the cases that are on some obscure dimension of the tax code or other important-but-to-most-people-obscure questions that don’t obviously line up with hot-button political issues.

This case was one of those cases on a few different levels. The fact that the plaintiff succeeded at the circuit court level is astonishing and scandalous in itself. But let’s start with some basics. The landmark Heller decision in 2008 did not uphold the kind of absolute 2nd Amendment “gun rights” advocates have long claimed. It was terrible, but it didn’t do that. What it did was for the first time find an individual right to own and possess firearms. Like all rights, any regulation of that must be justified by and balanced against some legitimate public interest or need.

Yesterday I opened my inbox to an Axios email with the subject line: “Dems Fear Biden Loss.” Needless to say, versions of this story have become almost a stock piece of the 2024 campaign. And, look, I fear a Biden loss as well. He could totally lose and that would be really, really bad. But I got the sense that the import of this item was a bit more totalizing than that. And well … I was right. The item presents a picture of a campaign cocooned from outside input, intolerant of dissenters who aren’t confident of a win and largely the work of Biden and top advisor Mike Donilon, who is portrayed as having a strategy that is little more than a preciously naive hope that in the end voters will “do the right thing.”

But the heart of the piece comes at the top with a quote (emphasis added) from someone described as a “Democratic strategist in touch with the campaign.”

“It is unclear to many of us watching from the outside whether the president and his core team realize how dire the situation is right now, and whether they even have a plan to fix it. That is scary.”

Here’s a an interesting look at the history of TPM, and its origin story, from Rick Perlstein at The American Prospect. It’s not exactly my take, despite being based on an interview with me. But I found it very interesting and enlightening and you might too.

If you haven’t been watching, the vibes were way, way off on the Bob Good race I discussed below. At the moment McGuire, the Trump fanboy stooge, is ahead but only by a few hundred votes. Everyone thought Good was toast. And he may still be toast. But he might survive.

9:58 PM: Since I wrote the above the lead has passed back and forth several times. Dave Wasserman says the remaining precincts give some slight advantage to Good but too close to make any confident predictions. This is nonstop popcorn. Two election denying freaks in a too close to call race in which the true may not be known for some time. Karma.