I wanted to add a short post-script to the post below about Democratic freak outs. I realized in this context it might be read as “don’t worry! Kamala has this!” I don’t think that’s a fair or logical reading. But people understandably read things and interpret them in the context of the moment. So let me be clear: I’m not saying that. My point is more that there’s very little evidence that anything has changed or changed more than very marginally since two or three weeks ago when the mood was pretty dramatically different. Indeed, I not only hear from people thinking Harris is now going to lose the election. They’re already on to the mistakes she made that led her to lose the election.
My own take is one of very cautious optimism. That’s in part based on the current polling information and various hunches I have about turnout, polls, recent election cycles etc. Those hunches could be totally wrong. Which is why I don’t tend to write about them. By the hard evidence in front of us — which is itself not that hard — the race could easily go either way. Indeed, I’d add an additional point. People say this race is super close, maybe the closest ever. I’m not even sure that’s true. What we have is a very high uncertainty election. That’s not the same thing. I think it’s quite possible that either candidate could rack up a pretty sizable winning margin, at least in the Electoral College. There are just so many untested or minimally tested assumptions upon which the “closest election evah” hypothesis is based.
But again, back to my point. I’m not saying, don’t freak out, Kamala’s got this. I’m saying the race is very similar to where and what it was in the second half of September. Close then, close now.
I’ve had a few of you take me to task recently for writing so much about polls. I’ll take that under advisement, though I hear from many readers that they like those posts. The reality is that most political people follow polls closely, even if they wish they didn’t, and they want insights into just what they mean and how to interpret them. But today I want to discuss something a bit different, albeit still somewhat adjacent to polls. That is, what’s with the Democrats’ tendency to freak out, even in the face of the most limited kinds of disappointing news in polls or other markers of campaign performance?
We’ve discussed this phenomenon from various perspectives in recent years. But, big picture, why does this happen? Why do Democrats freak out like this?
As we veer toward Election Day in just three weeks, Donald Trump’s increasingly fascistic rhetoric is setting himself up to declare any ensuing victory to be a broad mandate for disregarding the rule of law, making unprecedented misuse of the power of the state to punish his political enemies, and targeting people of color and migrants.
Over the holiday weekend, Trump’s language became more sinister, unhinged, and unapologetic, baiting his legions of supporters with promises of violence, retribution, and purifying purges. He continued to evoke key tenets of the Great Replacement Theory: America under attack by migrant invaders soiling the purity of traditional towns and villages. He threatened to unleash police and to use the military to go after “radical left lunatics.” All of this came against the backdrop of Trump refusing to abide by the results of any election he loses.
The way that Trump has ramped up his darkest rhetoric in recent weeks suggests he is building toward an Election Day crescendo that is intended (i) to activate his supporters to vote for him; and (ii) to rally them for his post-election plans to dispute, disrupt, and delegitimize any results that don’t show him as the winner.
At the same time, Trump is giving himself the opportunity to point to any victory – whether by hook or by crook – as creating a mandate for exactly the kind of hard-core, extremist, racist fever dreams he is engaging in during the campaign’s final days.
Whatever you thought of Donald Trump in 2016 or 2020 or even in the aftermath of Jan. 6, 2021, Trump is promising in no uncertain terms a new more apocalyptic and unrepentant version of himself. After a decade of listening to his jeremiads, you may be inclined to tune out Trump by now. But the rhetoric he’s engaged in now – even if it’s mixed into a slop of droning, meandering, and incoherent phrasings – is the Trump that would be elected and the version he would claim has a mandate to follow through on the worst of his threats.
In campaign appearances and national TV interviews, Trump is ratcheting up his threats to misuse and abuse the military to consolidate power and target his political foes, what he is now calling the “enemy from within”:
Trump to Bartiromo on what worries him about election day: "I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within … sick people, radical left lunatics. And it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military." pic.twitter.com/twRsilNJnz
Meanwhile, former Trump national security adviser Gen. Mike Flynn was asked by a supporter if he would “sit at the head of a military tribunal to not only drain the swamp, but imprison the swamp, and on a few occasions, execute the swamp.” Flynn was, ummm, noncommittal.
‘A Fascist To The Core’
Former Joint Chiefs Chair Mark Milley fears being court-martialed if Trump wins, according to Bob Woodward’s new book, which quotes Milley as saying of Trump: “He is the most dangerous person ever. I had suspicions when I talked to you about his mental decline and so forth, but now I realize he’s a total fascist. He is now the most dangerous person to this country.”
Harris Strikes Back
Vice President Kamala Harris is dialing up her direct attacks on Donald Trump as a threat to democracy and to real people: “Donald Trump is increasingly unstable and unhinged,” she told a campaign rally in Pennsylvania on Monday.
In an unusual move, Harris played video for her rally’s audience of Trump’s weekend comments about using the military before she launched into her criticism:
"You heard his words, coming from him … Donald Trump is increasingly unstable and unhinged" — oh wow — Kamala Harris at her rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, plays the clip of Trump telling Maria Bartiromo that he would use the military against his domestic foes pic.twitter.com/nLKxyhoq4U
The Harris campaign has a new video ad up highlighting Trump’s “enemy from within” rhetoric:
Disinfo In The Real World
Armed North Carolina man arrested after allegedly threatening FEMA workers.
Aaron Blake: How reported threats in N.C. trace to Trump-fueled misinformation
Charlie Warzel: I’m Running Out of Ways to Explain How Bad This Is
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) is forced to try to counter Trump’s misinformation.
Irony alert: After whipping up hysteria by falsely claiming Biden was withholding relief aid to Americans, Trump threatens to withhold relief aid to Americans:
Trump threatens to withhold aid to California: We'll force it down his throat and we'll say, Gavin, if you don't do it, we're not giving you any of that fire money that we send you for all the forest fires you have pic.twitter.com/EBneSYZrTG
Kate Shaw: Lawyers Should Not Assist Trump in a Potential Power Grab
WSJ: Trump Loyalists Push for a Combative Slate of New Judges
‘When Did That Become Okay?’
Brian Beutler: Barack Obama asks THE central question of the Trump era — one we should have been asking all along.
Policies That Matter
Jonathan Cohn: What Real People Get About Kamala Harris’ Big New Idea That The Political Set Can’t Grasp
2024 Ephemera
NYT/Siena poll: In Pennsylvania, Harris leads Trump among likely voters 50%-47%. In Arizona, Trump leads Harris among likely voters 51%-46%.
NYT: Harris’s Turnout Machine vs. Trump’s Unproven Alliance
The Guardian: Trump ground game undercut by slow internet that crashes app
NYT: Republican Operatives Function as Hidden Hand Behind Pro-Trump Efforts
Meanwhile, In Florida …
Politico: “Florida’s public universities are purging the list of general education courses they will offer next year to fall in line with a state law pushed for by Gov. Ron DeSantis targeting “woke ideologies” in higher education.”
Trump Gets Even Weirder
A Trump town hall event in Pennsylvania went off the rails Monday tonight. After two separate medical incidents in the crowd, Trump abandoned the Q&A session and turned the rally into a musical event, with him listening to his playlist faves while bobbing and weaving to the music:
Wow — this was weird. Trump wrapped up his "town hall" in Oaks, Pennsylvania, after just a few questions, and right after he said he would take a few more questions. More music then played while Trump stood around on stage. Deeply bizarre scenes. pic.twitter.com/C3SJpsQagV
Last week, the Supreme Court surprised court-watchers by declining to take up an emergency abortion case out of Texas, leaving the state’s near-absolute ban in place.
Former President Trump and Vice President Harris have spent the last 25 years in very, very different ways: Trump as a larger-than-life tabloid icon, Harris as a prosecutor and local, then state, then national politician.
Yet, the reality is much more complex. In 2016, for example, evangelical leaders such as Jerry Falwell Jr. and Robert Jeffresscelebrated Trump’s victory and evangelicalism’s role in bringing America back to God. Others – such as Russell Moore, currently editor of the evangelical magazine Christianity Today – saw Trump as the opposite of what evangelicalism represents.
We have identified and described five varieties, or “types,” within the broader evangelical movement.
Evangelicals and their beliefs
At its core, evangelicalism is characterized by a belief in the literal truth of the Bible.
For example, evangelicals believe that the world and humans were created by God; that Jesus was literally God’s son and also born as a human; that Jesus died and physically rose from the dead; and that God currently acts through humans to achieve his ends for humanity. A hallmark belief for evangelicals is having a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” and a focus on encouraging others to be “born again” or “saved” through Jesus.
Despite sharing the same basic theology, there are differences within evangelicalism politics and social engagement.
We used three criteria to develop our five categories: First, each type shares a basic agreement on evangelical theology. Second, they each understand themselves as existing within the larger tradition of American evangelicalism. And third, their theology motivates how they act in the world, including appropriate social and political actions.
Typologies simplify in order to explain, but they also can blur some of the finer distinctions between categories. Still, the perspectives these different varieties of evangelicals maintain shape not only who they will vote for but also why they vote a certain way.
1. MAGA-vangelicals
MAGA-vangelicals consist of the white Christian nationalist core of the “Make America Great Again” or MAGA, movement, with some Latino, Asian and Black American pastors aligning themselves with this movement.
MAGA-vangelicals have been the most vocal and visible group of evangelicals since the 2016 election.
The origins of this group trace back to the 1980s – the time of the emergence of the religious right. MAGA-vangelicals echo many of the same issues – such as opposition to abortion and LGBTQ+ rights and support for anti-immigration policies. One significant shift, however, since the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, is an increased acceptance of political violence. “Jan. 6 was not an insurrection,” evangelical leader Lance Wallnau has falsely asserted. “It was an election fraud intervention.” The baseless election fraud myth was the pretext for the violence on Jan. 6.
2. Neo-fundamentalist evangelicals
Neo-fundamentalists are evangelicals who are as theologically or politically conservative as MAGA-vangelicals but maintain a theological commitment to remain separate from any relationships – whether personal, social or political – that would, in their view, compromise the teachings of evangelical Christianity and their own identity as evangelical Christians.
For example, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler and Christianity Today editor Russell Moore have opposed Trump due to his, by evangelical standards, lack of values and amoral lifestyle.
However, they support how the Trump administration furthered the political goals of evangelical Christianity. In particular, they support the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and supporting evangelicals’ religious freedom to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people in their businesses.
Yet there has recently been some qualified support among neo-fundamentalists offered for Trump himself, despite their opposition to his personal morals. For example, Mohler has argued that Trump is the better candidate to achieve their goals in 2024, despite his personal shortcomings. Mohler takes the position, though, that this support largely depends on Trump remaining committed to evangelical goals on issues such as abortion.
3. iVangelicals
iVangelicals are evangelicals primarily focused on personal faith and the weekly worship experience in their churches. They are mainly concentrated in the evangelical megachurch movement.
iVangelicals want to reach large numbers of people through their popular worship services, varied social programs and small group ministries.
There is, however, a range of beliefs and commitments among iVangelicals, with some being attracted to groups such as Evangelicals for Harris, a new effort to mobilize evangelicals to move away from Republicans, Trump and MAGA and to vote for Harris. Their approach uses biblical examples and references to argue that true Christian teachings and actions are more aligned with Democrats than Republicans. https://www.youtube.com/embed/23BfwcibYJM?wmode=transparent&start=0 Evangelicals for Harris.
4. Kingdom Christians
Kingdom Christians are evangelicals who, in their churches and ministries, strive to mirror the demographic and socioeconomic mix of the neighborhoods where they are rooted.
They tend to have a more diverse racial and ethnic mix of members than other evangelical churches. Their focus is to be a part of, and to serve, their local communities in a manner that mirrors their conception of the kingdom of God on Earth.
Leaders among Kingdom Christians often critique the economic and political systems that produce poverty and racial injustice. The focus of their efforts, however, is on creating relationships with local businesses and activists in the local community and contributing to policy through engagement with local officials.
Kingdom Christians are present-oriented; the kingdom of God is to be realized in the communities where believers live, as well as in some future spiritual world.
5. Peace and Justice evangelicals
Peace and Justice evangelicals are a loose network of pastors, nonprofit leaders, professors and activists. They are a small segment within evangelicalism often embedded in larger organizations, and they focus their work on key social and political issues such as racial justice, immigration reform and environmental issues. They seek to have a wider impact than just a focus on the local community.
Peace and Justice evangelicals trace their origins to the late 1960s publication, The Other Side, originally Freedom Now, which represented a freshly emerging evangelical social consciousness around issues of racial justice. Following close behind was the Sojourners community, and Sojourners magazine, which is still active today.
This is a small but growing minority in the larger evangelical world, with many belonging to traditional evangelical institutions. For example, Alexia Salvatierra, at Fuller Seminary, is a longtime “faith-rooted” community organizer and has more recently been instrumental in forming Matthew 25/Mateo25, a group that aids immigrants and “defends the vulnerable.” Shane Claiborne, a long-time urban activist, is currently head of Red Letter Christians, a movement that combines “Jesus and justice” and seeks to “live out Jesus’ counter-cultural teachings.”
Evangelicals and the future
Following historical evangelical voting patterns, it is likely that most white evangelicals will vote for Trump in 2024. I believe many will do so with enthusiasm, while others will vote for him because of his policies, while remaining troubled by his rhetoric.
Of the evangelicals who oppose Trump, some will refuse to vote for either Trump or Harris, refusing to cast a vote for president. Others will vote for Harris, following the example of many Republican leaders who are seeking to move beyond the damage that Trump and the MAGA movement have done to the Republican Party and to conservatism.
Meanwhile, for the Kingdom Christians and Peace and Justice evangelicals, the true values of evangelical Christianity will be supported by the more progressive policies of the Democratic Party.
Regardless of how they vote in the 2024 election, evangelicals in all of these categories will continue to promote their distinct vision of evangelicalism and educate members on how they should bring their faith to bear on important social and political issues in American culture.
This story first appeared at ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
They are squat, stationary and seemingly innocuous. But ever since the high drama of the 2020 presidential election, humble drop boxes have been more than a receptacle of absentee ballots; they’ve morphed into a vessel for emotion, suspicion and even conspiracy theories.
In the battleground state of Wisconsin, especially, the mere presence of these sidewalk containers has inspired political activists and community leaders to plot against them, to call on people to watch them around the clock and even to hijack them.
They’ve been the subject of two state Supreme Court decisions, as well as legal memos, local council deliberations, press conferences and much hand-wringing.
Wausau Mayor Doug Diny was so leery of the box outside City Hall that he absconded with it on a Sunday in September, isolating it in his office. It had not yet been secured to the ground, he said, and so he wanted to keep it safe. The escapade was met with a backlash but also won the mayor some admirers online before he returned it.
“COURAGE IS CONTAGIOUS! WELL DONE SIR!” one person wrote on the conservative social media site Gettr.
As early voting for the November election begins and Wisconsinites receive their absentee ballots, they have choices on how to return them. Mail them. Deliver them in person to the municipal clerk. Or, in some communities, deposit them in a drop box, typically located outside a municipal building, library, community center or fire station.
Though election experts say the choices are designed to make voting a simple act, the use of drop boxes has been anything but uncomplicated since the 2020 election, when receptacles in Wisconsin and around the country became flash points for baseless conspiracy theories of election fraud. A discredited, but popular, documentary — “2000 Mules” — linked them to ballot stuffing, while a backlash grew over nonprofit funding that helped clerks make voting easier through a variety of measures, including drop boxes.
Residents drop mail-in ballots in an official ballot box outside of the Tippecanoe branch library on October 20, 2020 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
The movie’s distributor, Salem Media Group Inc., removed it from circulation in May and, in response to a lawsuit, issued a public apology to a Georgia voter for falsely depicting him as having voted illegally. A federal judge dismissed Salem Media Group as a defendant, but the litigation is proceeding against the filmmaker and others.
With all that fuss in the background, Wisconsin’s conservative-leaning Supreme Court outlawed the boxes in 2022. But then this summer, with the court now controlled by liberals, justices ruled them lawful, determining that municipal clerks could offer secure drop boxes in their communities if they wished.
The court’s latest ruling made clear it’s up to each municipal clerk’s discretion whether to offer drop boxes for voters. But the decision has done little to change minds about the boxes or end any confusion about whether they’re a boon to democracy or a tool for chicanery.
This year, four of Wisconsin’s largest cities are using drop boxes — Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay and Racine. But numerous locales that offered drop boxes in 2020, including Kenosha, the fourth-largest city in the state, have determined they will not this year.
Voters have been getting mixed messages from right-wing activists and politicians about whether to use drop boxes, as the GOP continues to sow distrust in elections while, at the same time, urging supporters to vote early — by any means.
“Look, I’m not a fan of drop boxes, as is no great surprise, but if you have to have them, this is not a bad situation,” Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote, which has fostered doubt about election integrity and helped inspire “2000 Mules,” said on a video posted to social media on Sept. 30. It showed her giving a brief tour of a drop box in Madison, Wisconsin’s capital and a bastion of Democrats.
With the camera trained on one of the boxes, Engelbrecht extolled that “the slot is really small, so that’s a good thing,” and that “most of these drop boxes appear to be close to fire stations,” which she also declared a good thing. About a week later, she wrote in a newsletter that True the Vote had collected exact drop box locations statewide and was working to arrange livestream video feeds of them.
Unlike in 2020 when Trump warned against the use of absentee ballots, this year he is urging supporters to “swamp the vote.” And the Wisconsin Republican Party is not discouraging voters from using ballot drop boxes if they are available in their community and are secure.
Still, Wisconsin’s GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate, Eric Hovde, has urged citizen surveillance brigades to watch the boxes. “Who’s watching to see how many illegal ballots are being stuffed?” Hovde told supporters in July, according to a recording of his remarks obtained by The Washington Post. “Look, we’re probably going to have to have — make sure that there’s somebody standing by a drop box everywhere.”
Most boxes have security cameras trained on them. Those surveillance tapes could be used as purported evidence in legal cases if Trump loses on Nov. 5.
Already, Engelbrecht has filed a public records request with the Dane County Clerk’s Office for “copies of video recordings from security cameras used to surveil all exterior and interior ballot drop boxes in Dane County for the November 2024 Election.” The county, whose seat is Madison, does not have access to camera footage, which is kept by municipalities, the county clerk told ProPublica.
After this year’s state Supreme Court ruling allowing the drop boxes, the Wisconsin Elections Commission issued guidance to the state’s roughly 1,800 municipal clerks recommending more than a dozen security practices related to the boxes.
The instructions include that they be “affixed to the ground or the side of the building,” “sturdy enough to withstand the elements,” “located in a well-lit area,” “equipped with unique locks or seals” and “emptied often.”
The commission recommended that clerks keep a record of the times and dates of retrieval, number of ballots retrieved and the names of the people doing the retrieving.
It also referred clerks to federal guidelines.
But even with updated guidelines in place and ballot harvesting prohibited in Wisconsin (individuals can only submit their own ballot, unless helping a disabled person), concerns persist.
Wausau Mayor Doug Diny removed the ballot box outside City Hall and brought it to his office. (via Doug Diny)
In August in Dodge County, some 60 miles northwest of Milwaukee, the sheriff, Dale Schmidt, emailed three town clerks, telling them he had “serious concerns” about drop boxes, according to records obtained by the news site WisPolitics. “I strongly encourage you to avoid using a drop box,” he wrote. The sheriff asked the clerks numerous questions about the boxes, explaining that: “Even if set up the best way possible to avoid the potential for fraudulent activity, criminal activity many times finds ways to subvert even the best plans.”
Two of the clerks — from the towns of Ashippun and Beaver Dam — replied to the sheriff that they would not use them and the clerk from Hustisford told Wisconsin Public Radio that, while she received Schmidt’s email, the town board had already decided against using a drop box out of security concerns. In an email to ProPublica, Schmidt said, “No one was intimidated into choosing not to use the boxes and none of them had heartburn over not using them.”
Brittany Vulich, Wisconsin campaign manager for the nonpartisan voting rights group All Voting is Local, is bothered by how mayors, council members and other officials are seeking to influence these decisions. She notes that municipal clerks — the vast majority of whom are women — are the top election officials in each municipality.
“It’s the undermining of their authority. It’s the undermining of their office,” she said. “It’s the undermining of their autonomy to do their job and to make that decision on whether to use drop boxes or not. And that is what is very alarming.”
Other towns have also balked.
In the city of Brookfield, the Common Council took up a resolution Aug. 20 and voted 10-4 not to have a drop box after reviewing a memo by City Attorney Jenna Merten who found the recommended precautions burdensome.
“The guidance states that for unstaffed 24-hour ballot drop boxes, the City would need a video surveillance camera and storage of the video footage, as well as decals, extra keys and security seals,” she wrote. “Removing the ballots from the drop box would require at least two people and the completion of chain of custody logs.”
During the debate, Alderman Gary Mahkorn, an opponent of drop boxes, argued that they served a purpose during the COVID-19 pandemic but then “became a hugely political issue, and that’s what makes me want to, you know, puke in a way.” He worried that “the further we get away from people trusting our elections, the more our democracy is at stake.”
Instead of having drop boxes, the city will have extended voting hours, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., most weekdays during in-person absentee voting for the two weeks prior to the election.
In Wausau, the box that Diny took to his office is back, bolted to the ground and being used for early voting.
At first, Diny resisted pressure from the city clerk and members of the City Council to return it. The clerk, Kaitlyn Bernarde, reported the matter to the Marathon County District Attorney’s Office and the state elections commission. And Diny arranged to have the clerk reclaim it.
The Wisconsin Department of Justice is investigating. There have been no charges. Diny told ProPublica he believes he did nothing wrong, saying: “None of this was done in a nefarious, secret way.”
At a City Council meeting on Tuesday night, Diny attempted to force a vote on allocating additional funds for drop-box security. But the council showed no interest.
During the public comment period, residents both praised and lambasted the mayor. One local resident rose to say, “Arguing about a box is dumb.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, since she joined the Court, has taken on a singular, likely uncomfortable mantle. She’s often the only one willing to relitigate fights already lost to the conservative supermajority. Often, she does this alone, either out loud or in writing.
Recently a reader asked me why I focus on polls rather than political betting markets for insights into the race and whether I thought polls were more reliable. I was honestly baffled by the question. To me this was like asking whether I thought a scale was a better way to measure weight than dead reckoning. And I’m not trying to be critical of the reader, who is probably reading this. I gave him my answer and we had a good exchange. But I thought it was worth sharing my thoughts on this question.
My analogy about scales is certainly imperfect in a number of ways, just as polls are imperfect. Indeed, it isn’t even really a question of which is better. The most important thing to understand about the relationship between polls and political betting markets is that the latter is largely downstream of the former. Most bets in political betting markets are driven by people looking at polls and betting accordingly. So by definition they can’t be better. Because the bets are derived from the polls.
But there are a few other points that are worth noting and which are worth considering in a broader context.
I heard from a reader yesterday who saw one of the country’s top political journalists give a public presentation about the race. The run-down I got of that event crystallized something I’ve been giving a lot of thought to over the last few months and writing about here and there. At the elite level, political journalists have a basic contempt for Democrats. It’s not even very concealed because in a way it’s hardly even recognized as such. This continues to be the case despite the fact that most of the people I’m talking about, if they vote, probably vote for Democrats. They are socio-economically and culturally, if not always ideologically, the peers of Democrats. We often confuse cosmopolitan social values for liberalism. If anything, this basic pattern has become more the case over the last decade. These people are highly educated. They are affluent. They are the creatures of the major cities.
Are they secretly rooting for Donald Trump? Hardly. Or at least not in the great majority of the cases. Trump is a tiger on the savanna, dangerous but also fascinating and above all alien. That’s why the notorious rustbelt diner interview stories were and are such a staple. They’re safaris. It defines the coverage, and in ways seldom helpful for Democrats in electoral political terms.