68 Comments

Harris “word salad”. Two big problems with this curious finding on your part: 1. word salad is used in a psychiatric context to describe the speech of patient suffering from psychosis or a prominent thought disorder. I’m a mental health professional for the last 30 years. 2. I don’t see how you can seriously use that term when compared to the demented word salad of you know who.

Expand full comment

Robert..you nailed it!

Expand full comment

I was going to comment similar. Harris speaks in complete sentences with correct grammar, and sentences in a row that relate to each other (no electric boats, Hannibal Lector and windmills in adjacent sentences). That is not word salad.

Expand full comment

It’s ridiculous to state that someone who has been a prosecutor and a lifelong attorney speaks in word salad style. If there’s any profession that requires cogent presentation, it’s being a trial lawyer.

Expand full comment

"Kamala Harris is a so-so candidate who ran a great campaign." Bluntly, this makes no sense. The candidate largely IS the campaign. She rates a 5 (out of 10) while Trump gets a 3? A two point difference?? Did Chris even follow the past three months? Someone might conclude that Chris is a so-so journalist who has a great Substack audience. Kamala Harris has run a lot of campaigns and won a lot of elections in the largest state in the Union. Some pundits seem to overlook that fact.

Expand full comment

And it seems that Kamala has to be perfect in every sense! 🤷‍♀️. She has brought optimism and smile in contrast to the gloomy speeches from Trump. Chris is too negative towards Kamala.

Expand full comment

Helen, you beat me to the punch. Chris has taken every opportunity to highlight every possible thing that could reflect negatively upon Harris. Even if the original story was fairly neutral, Chris would use one of his posts to dissect it, overlook anything that would put Trumpty-Dumpty in a negative light, and deliberately highlight any last - possible - nugget - that would reflect poorly on Harris.

It's the reason I cancelled my paid subscription.

Expand full comment

As a Californian who’s voted for Harris *many* times already, I agree, Wayne. She’s made a few mistakes, been “stiff” or “wordy”, but nothing too far out of the mainstream. She stumbled in 2019, but *clearly* she’s “course corrected” in 2024.

Expand full comment

I disagree. Kamala was never great in public, but her campaign was pretty close to perfect under the circumstances. Trump was horrible as a candidate, but his campaign till about September had done a great job doing the best it could with that. So candidates and campaigns are separate.

Expand full comment

I would give her at least a 7, and if she wins, a 9!

Expand full comment

Whichever party loses the presidency will have a lot of soul searching to do. If Harris wins, the GOP should absolutely move on from Trump...but they probably won't.

Expand full comment
author

CORRECT!

Expand full comment

Never will the GOP move on until he has left this world. It is a cult.. Cults don't die until their leader does.

Expand full comment

Trump was a terrible candidate, Kamala Harris was a terrific candidate who did an amazing job in a short time.

Expand full comment

I agree with a lot of this but I think you have underrated Harris as a candidate. While you mention strengths (speeches) and weaknesses (media interviews), you don't mention how well she performed in the biggest one-on-one moment -- the debate. She had to perform then and she did. Also, from what I've seen, she's very good when engaging with voters. She's not Obama or Bill Clinton, the gold standards for Democratic candidates, but there's a pretty good argument that she's a better candidate than others the Democrats have nominated in the last 30 years. So, I think at least a 7. A 5 seems hard to defend and based too much on 2020.

Expand full comment

I agree with everything you said! She deserves kudos❣️❣️

Expand full comment

Something to ponder......

Trump really doesn't care if he wins or loses tonight. And he deliberately went waaaay off the rails in the last ten days or so to increase the possibility that he wouldn't win.

Why?

Trump thrives on the attention from his groupies (the MAGA cult). He feeds off of it; it provides him (and his ego) the "nutrition" he needs to stay alive. After the 2020 loss (and yes, Dutch, he did lose, fair and square), pandemic protocols kept him on the sidelines for a while, but as soon as social gatherings were up and running again, so were his rallies. And if he loses tonight (or when all the votes are counted), he's holding the short stack (which I expect him to be), he'll be back doing his rallies and feeding his need for attention. This will continue until the Blessed Lord calls him home, regardless of whether or he receives another vote or wins any primary or election. Forget McDonald's and Diet Cokes, the attention he receives is the only thing that keeps him alive.

Lastly, to expand upon what Chris wrote in point #3, Harris was also smart enough to leave much of the Biden campaign committee intact. Other candidates with more fragile egos would have been tempted to recreate the wheel, resulting in utter failure for the campaign. You can probably change lanes once and keep the apple cart upright, after that you're missing the forest for the trees.

Expand full comment

I think he desperately wants to win in order to stay out of jail.

Expand full comment

Pretty good take on the election, Eric. Whether he wins or loses, Trump will contest the election, like in 2016. He may do rallies if he loses, but who would go? The crowds are sparse now, except for his groupies and they will get sick of going. Plus he has some court stuff to attend to, and who knows where that will go.

As to point #3, if Biden had thrown the Dem nomination to the wolves, Trump would win this handily. I can't imagine a Josh Shapiro as the nominee. But Biden was smart, and named Harris as his replacement. The Dems that wanted Biden out jumped on board, and here we are a day or two away from history.

Expand full comment

Here’s something astonishing, Chris: for the most part, I agree with you! 😉. I hope you’re wrong about the Senate, but I try not to wear “rose-colored glasses”. However, my two disagreements would be on #3 and #9.

3#. Being a Californian and having voted for Harris *many* times, I think she’s a strong candidate that missed the mark in 2019, but figured it out in 2024. Sure, running a 100 day campaign meant she had to come up to speed fast, and consequently made a few errors here or there, but nothing major.

#9. I wouldn’t give the mainstream media *quite* the “pass” that you have. Sure, they were better than 2016 and 2020, but that’s setting the bar VERY low! You use the term “sane-washing” and that term was created to describe how the press made his craziness seem reasonable. They *did* do a better job, but that’s truly not saying much!

Expand full comment

Good analysis but I do think that, if Harris wins, Trump will not run again in 2028. He's 78 now and seems to be running on empty as this race comes to close. Also Trump's legal entanglements will play out differently if he's a private citizen. Of course MAGA won't want him to step aside and Trump may well keep his hand in the game for another couple of years. But he's too old and tired for 2028, and he knows it.

Expand full comment

He's going to claim "election interference" when he gets sentenced on Nov. 26. And I won't be surprised if there's some jail time given his utter lack of remorse and continued lawbreaking.

Expand full comment

I’m hoping for jail time.

Expand full comment

If there's a God in heaven Trump will be on trial in federal court or have been convicted for inciting an insurrection and lying about retaining (or selling) top secret government documents.

Expand full comment

I think you’re probably right on that one, Bob. Chris makes a good point that Trump *probably* won’t “go away” until he dies, but age has a way of catching up with you, particularly given Trump’s unhealthy diet and lack of exercise.

Expand full comment

Chris, what do you think about the relationship between being a good campaigner and a good president? I mean, can’t someone who would be a great president never get there because they are an awful candidate? And can’t someone who is a great campaigner be an awful president? I get that, these days, in order to become president you have to be a good campaigner - but are there any studies, or well thought out opinions, about the linkage?

Expand full comment

Brian B., just look at 2016.

HRC may have been an excellent president--First Lady, Senator, Sec'y of State--but her campaign was underwhelming.

Trump campaigned well enough to win (with assists from the Russians and WikiLeaks), but he didn't impress as a president to earn reelection.

Expand full comment

Yeah, I agree. But I didn’t want to give that example, hoping for more general thoughts rather than something so specific, recent, known, and partisan.

Expand full comment

Chris, thank you for all your good work covering this campaign for us.

Expand full comment

I did not vote for Donald Trump. If he wins, I will move from 'citizen' to 'enemy'. So, I am spending the day getting my affairs in order in the case he does win, as I anticipate his revenge by the end of the week....

Expand full comment

GO KAMALA GO !!!!!

Expand full comment

1. The Dem candidate (who happens to be VP) is very popular. Look at the crowds and the donations. The economy numbers are good, and in spite of what the polls say, I think the voters know it. Plus the abortion issue is extremely important to voters, or it should be. For that reason, it is more the Dem's to lose.

2. Agreed that the GOP base loves Trump by a huge margin over anyone else. But only 47% of the voters vote for him. That's why the only way he can win ANY election is electorally. And he can only way to win that is if there is a 3rd party candidate in the way, or the Dem voters stay home.

3. The fact that Harris is no JFK or Reagan only means something if her opponent IS a Reagan. He is not. He only did interviews where the deck was stacked in his favor.

4. All Biden had to do was look competent at the debate, and he didn't. If the SOTU Biden had shown up, and had done these same interviews and rallies Harris did, he'd be way out in front. He is the incumbent and is well known for like 50 years, while Harris is known for like 100 days.

5. Agreed. The MSG rally could have been a big turning point for Trump, if he and his cronies had laid out a plan for the nation. Instead it was a hate-fest, good for the WWE fans but not the nation.

6. You forget that Mr. Trump has some court dates coming, in fact sentencing quite soon. He can't put them off any longer after he loses. The GOP will get sick of losing with MAGA, and find someone else to embrace.

I pretty agree with the rest.

Expand full comment

Thank god Harris is no Reagan!

Expand full comment

The MAGA enthusiasm is already waning. It is a far cry from where it was 4 or 5 years ago. Should Trump lose, the normie Republicans should take advantage of what may be a limited opportunity to stick a fork in MAGA and take their Party back.

Expand full comment

Agreed. This reminds me of the Tea Party movement. That was hot stuff in 2010, but fizzled 10 years later. I see MAGA doing a similar fizzle. What's next?

Expand full comment

I watched a bunch of your YouTubes last night and feel much more updated on what’s happening! Thanks for all the great work.

Expand full comment
author

Hey! Thanks, Leigh!

Expand full comment

Number 12: whichever party wins the presidency will lose it bigly 😊 in 2028

Expand full comment

100%

Expand full comment

Disagree if it's Harris. She will run again in 2028 and win again, unless she's impeached or something.

Expand full comment