I want to mention one element of the story we’re now seeing unfold before us. We don’t know who’s going to win this thing or just how either candidate might do it. But what has always been the most obvious way for Harris to win this election is to hold the Blue Wall states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. I’ve already discussed with you the issues with the Trump campaign’s decision to outsource its ground operations to super PACs and the way that doesn’t seem to have panned out. But the states themselves aren’t entirely passive players. Or they shouldn’t be. When things are working as they should the national party and the presidential standard bearer’s campaign can plug into a dynamic party organization in a given state.

A pattern that has become more and more clear to me over the last month or so is that to the extent Democrats are outplaying Republicans on the ground a significant part of that is the legacy of Trump’s “Stop the Steal” shenanigans. It’s left a number of these state parties deeply splintered and unable or even unwilling to do the kind of work that keeps a party organization functioning.

I’m seeing more and more data points and testimonials – from both sides of the aisle – that the Democratic ground game in multiple states is superior to the Republican one, in many cases by a substantial degree. Now it’s Republicans who are starting to say it. For Republicans saying this is itself a get out the vote effort, warning of the danger to shake more Republican voters loose and get them to the polls. But looking at it in toto I think they’re saying it because they mean it.

We’ve discussed repeatedly in recent months how poll results aren’t just “the numbers” in some hard, incontestable sense. They include a set of assumptions about the nature of the electorate. For most TPM readers, this is a fairly straightforward point that doesn’t require much convincing or explanation. But this post by a professor at Vanderbilt provides a really helpful real-world illustration. Josh Clinton takes sample data and shows that by using different reasonable and good faith assumptions about the electorate he can get results ranging from Harris +.9 to Harris +8. Don’t pay attention to the fact that these results are all still in her favor. The point is that the assumptions baked into the poll can yield results 7 points apart. It could as easily be Trump +3 to Harris +4. Again, it’s one thing to understand this in the abstract. But the specific explanation and the concrete outputs tell the story in a different way.

If nothing else, this is why that 7 point spread is just a bright flashing neon light that many of us are disregarding or not even seeing while we’re obsessing about win or loss margins of like half a percentage point.

It’s part of the stock in trade of liberal American discourse: threatening or claiming to cancel a subscription to this or that once-revered journalistic institution in response to bad behavior, bad reporting, failing to rise to this or that civic moment. But the rash of cancelations of The Washington Post, in response to the Bezos-driven non-endorsement seems very different, much more sizable in its scope. I should say here I’m not telling anyone to do that. I don’t like telling or pushing people to do things in general. On this whole push I’m genuinely agnostic, neither for or against it. And most importantly, I write in this case simply as an observer, not a cheerleader. But I think the brand damage to the Post may be greater even than people realize and go beyond whatever near-term hit they take on subscriptions. I want to share some thoughts on why I think that is.

A big slice of American is living in a climate of deepening bewilderment. That’s basically Blue America, civic America and the more politicized part of the group I’m describing. This bewilderment is tied to the role of billionaires in public life, the role of Donald Trump in our public life, but it goes beyond both.

Let me share a few quick thoughts on newspaper endorsements. This comes after we learned that first the LA Times and now the Washington Post will break with tradition and not endorse a presidential candidate this year.

First, I’m not sure there’s any point these days in newspapers endorsing political candidates, especially presidential candidates. I don’t think much about it either way. But, especially in the case of the Post, this is a bad and cowardly development. We can’t know for certain what went into these decisions. But the most obvious explanation is that they have billionaire owners who, especially in the case of Jeff Bezos, have other business interests which are vulnerable to adverse regulatory and contracting decisions as well as government harassment of other kinds. Those are very real threats and ones that a lawless president has a lot of latitude to exact without much if any real prospect of redress. It’s not a habeas situation. These are just discretionary decisions in most cases.

Wednesday I mentioned Michael McDonald, the professor at the Univeristy of Florida who is an election data guru. Something I noticed in the first days of early voting was that most of the swing states that surfaced gender breakdowns for early voting showed around a ten point spread between men (~45) and woman (~55). There are more women than men and women vote more than men. So the difference didn’t surprise me. But that spread still seemed pretty big. So I asked McDonald whether that was a signal of any sort. He said, no, that’s roughly the spread you see in early voting.

But over the last couple days, both in my exchanges with him and in a few of his tweet updates, something else has come out of this. That ~10 point spread is about what we should expect from other cycles. But we’re also seeing a lot more Republican early voting. All things being equal that high rate of Republican early voting should be compressing that gender divide. But it’s not.

The Times has a piece up this morning which is largely complimentary of Elon Musk’s political operation and Musk himself. It’s a far cry from the range of critical pieces which have been published elsewhere and which I’ve published. It rather confidently reports that Musk’s canvassers are hitting “well over 100,000 doors a day,” for instance, “according to a person with knowledge of the group’s activities.

Needless to say, that’s almost certainly someone from America PAC or someone who works directly for Musk. So the Times appears to be going purely off their say so. Which strikes me as more than a little odd.