What if Kamala wins?

 Earlier this week, I took a look at what might unfold if Donald Trump wins the election and becomes president once again. The outcome of the election remains a coin flip, so today, I’ll address the possibility of a Kamala Harris presidency.

To start with, the betting markets are giving Trump the edge and Republican pundits are practically coronating The Former Guy, but the polling remains extremely close in both national polling and swing states. In fact, as Trump closes in national polling but the Electoral College remains a tossup, it opens up the possibility of a Trump win in the popular vote with a Harris win in the Electoral College. That would be deeply ironic but not good for the country at all.

By Gage Skidmore - https://www.flickr.com/photos/22007612@N05/53915639353/, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=151375856

Share

However it happens, a Harris presidency would start with a crisis as Donald Trump challenges the outcome of the election and whips MAGA into a violent frenzy. I think there is a chance of violence if Trump wins, but the chances are much greater if Trump loses.

For the first few months of the crisis, Kamala won’t be president, but she will undoubtedly have some influence over the Biden Administration’s response. How Harris and Biden respond to this crisis will set the tone for her presidency. As Garry Trudeau pointed out in Sunday’s “Doonesbury” comic, it would be an official act with absolute immunity if the Biden Administration simply locked up Donald Trump to keep him from causing trouble. However fun this is to think about, I don’t think it would be a good course.

Once Kamala takes office, things get immediately murky. Where Trump has a disturbing track record, Harris doesn’t have much of one at all. In fact, there seem to be two Kamalas. One was the hardcore progressive that ran for president in 2020 and the other is the more moderate candidate from this year. Which is the real Kamala?

I have not performed an exhaustive investigation of Harris’s policy positions over time, but speaking to Jamie Weinstein on The Dispatch Podcast, David Frum made the case that she is a typical liberal rather than a staunch progressive. Frum pointed out that she veered left in 2020 based on faulty polling and that it didn’t work. He speculates that she learned from the experience and may be less inclined to chase public opinion in the future. If so, that would be a good thing in a President Harris.

I think there is hope that Kamala will maintain her moderate positions from the campaign, especially after seeing how the backlash to progressive policies from the Biden Administration almost put Donald Trump back in the White House. Harris may realize that her best hope for a second term is to govern from the middle rather than veering back to the left. As I’ve said before, whichever party realizes that they can be sane and win the middle repeatedly will seize on a long-term majority… as long as they can keep their crazies in check.

And even if Harris tries to veer left, she probably won’t be able to. The odds are very good that Republicans will control at least the Senate and possibly the entire Congress. This would make Harris’s agenda DOA from the outset.

Republican control of the Senate would also eliminate any possibility of Harris pushing to remove the filibuster. There would be no point in taking the public opinion hit on nuking the filibuster if the opposition party had a congressional majority.

Harris has advocated ending the filibuster for abortion legislation, but even if Democrats hold a majority in the Senate, it won’t be her call. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said only that the Democratic caucus would “discuss” the proposal. Schumer may well remember the price that Democrats paid after Harry Reid nuked the judicial filibuster. They are still paying it with a trio of Trump appointees that could not be blocked and a long list of increasingly partisan judges.

When it comes to abortion, without the end of the filibuster, there will no codification of Roe and no national abortion ban. With the filibuster in place, there is a stalemate between the evenly divided parties. Without the filibuster, we might find that the situation gets worse as the pendulum swings between very permissive abortion laws and outright bans with successive Administrations and Congresses.

There might be more hope for immigration reform, however. Republicans and Democrats came very close to agreement earlier this year on a bill largely authored by immigration hawks. Donald Trump scuttled that bill from his campaign, but if Trump loses, there is a real chance that Democrats, who got hammered on the border this election, will be able to find enough common ground with Republicans to reform the system. As I’ve said before, anything a president can do unilaterally is nothing more than patchwork on a badly broken, antiquated, and often contradictory system.

Foreign policy is one of Harris’s strongest areas. While Harris is not a free trader, she is better than Trump on international trade and tariff policy. She is a strong supporter of Israel (the Biden Administration actually deployed US troops to Israel to help defend against Iranian missiles) and in one of the most important differences with Donald Trump, she is also a strong supporter of Ukraine. Helping Ukraine to defend itself is vital to prevent Russia from starting an even larger war as well as to keep China from getting aggressive ideas about Taiwan.

Culture war issues are where Harris would be weakest. She would likely continue unpopular Biden policies on transgender education and sports. This bureaucratic rulemaking is being reined in by the Supreme Court, however. A ruling last summer overturned the Chevron deference and severely limits the ability of federal agencies to make new administrative law. The decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and Relentless v. Department of Commerce puts the legislative ball back in Congress’s court where it belongs and limits the authority of presidents to do Congress’s job.

Harris’s ability to act on other culture war issues will be similarly limited by the courts and Congress. Even Democrats should applaud this because it will help to save the party from itself. In a perfect world, the new dynamic will force Congress to focus on crafting laws rather than soundbites.

If Kamala Harris turns out to be the mediocre president that Republicans predict, the Democratic Party will pay a price at the polls. Midterm elections could extend Republican majorities if they can find candidates who aren’t crazy. Statistics and logic would also favor a Republican victory in the presidential election in 2028, again assuming Republicans can pick a candidate who isn’t crazy.

Kamala Harris is a bit of an enigma. That may be a negative, but the fact that Trump is not an enigma is a definite negative for him. A different Republican would probably be running 10 points ahead of Harris, but Trump is stuck in a dead heat and created more trouble for himself with a racist comedian at a Madison Square Garden rally.

The set by Tony Hinchcliffe singled out Puerto Rico as a “garbage island” in the most quoted joke, but Hinchcliffe also attacked blacks, Jews, and Palestinians. The Bulwark reported that the set had initially included a joke calling Harris a “c-nt.” That joke was axed by the Trump campaign but not the racist ones. Trump has not personally renounced the performance, which may be a bigger problem than the comedian himself. In most years, October surprises come from the other campaign, but again Trump has to be different.

The good thing for Harris skeptics is that she would almost certainly be constrained by congressional Republicans. The same is not true of Donald Trump who, for at least two years, might have control of both houses of Congress and a party that is unwilling to tell him no about anything.

An election that gave us Kamala and gridlock is not the worst outcome we could hope for.

Thanks for reading The Racket News ™! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

GEORGIA WALZ RALLY: Attending a rally by the Democratic vice presidential nominee was not on my bingo card. Ten years ago, I’d have called you a liar if you had told me that’s what I’d be doing.

But yesterday, a friend invited me to hear Tim Walz in Columbus, Georgia and I took him up on it. Walz is an excellent speaker, probably the best of any of the top-of-the-ticket candidates. He was lively (as was the crowd in the packed house) and entertaining. He didn’t drone on for hours or say anything crazy.

And yes, there were Trump supporters outside yelling that Harris voters were going to hell. Thanks for asking. (But it’s not a cult.)

Tim Walz speaking in Columbus GA 10/29/24 (David Thornton)

As a bonus, I got to see his campaign plane when he flew in. If you’re curious how a vice-presidential candidate travels, it is in style on a Boeing 757. With lots and lots of security.

Tim Walz’s Boeing 757 at Columbus GA, 10/29/24 (David Thornton)

Some of you may recall that I’ve also seen Joe Biden and Donald Trump at my local airport, but I’ve only been to rallies for Senator Mack Mattingly, which featured Ronald Reagan (I wrote about that a long time ago), in 1986 and Marco Rubio in 2016.

From the Racket News

Ukraine and the Axis of Evil

 Over the past few months and years, an interesting dynamic has been emerging in the Russo-Ukraine war. Russia, which began the war on its own back in 2014 and was still on its own when it launched a full-scale invasion in 2022, has built its own coalition.

Unlike NATO, which began life as a Cold War alliance against the Soviet Union, the new Russian coalition is not a continuation of the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet bloc answer to NATO. Ironically, many former Warsaw Pact members and former Soviet republics are now members of NATO. Instead, the new Russian confederation bears a strong resemblance to the Axis of Evil.

Photo: Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un in September 2023/courtesy of the Kremlin and Wikimedia

For those of you who don’t remember, George W. Bush coined the term, “Axis of Evil,” in 2002. In a speech just a few months after September 11, Bush labeled three rogue terrorist states, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, saying, “States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.”

We know what happened to then-Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Within a few short years, a US-led coalition deposed Saddam and ultimately tried and executed him for a long list of crimes against the people of Iraq. Today, Iraq has its problems but it is no longer a terrorist state.

Iran and North Korea are still around, of course, and it’s interesting to note that both are actively involved in the Russian effort in Ukraine.

Last spring, I did a feature on the drone war in Ukraine, and as it turns out, Iran is a major supplier of high-tech drones and ballistic missiles for the Russians. Often, these weapons are used in terror attacks against Ukrainian civilian targets, which is pretty much par for the course for both Iran and Russia.

In fact, Danny Citrinowicz of the Atlantic Council reports that Iran is usurping Russia’s longtime role as a major global arms supplier. A variety of factors that include both sanctions and the underwhelming performance of Russian soldiers and equipment in Ukraine have combined to diminish Russia’s role as a weapons exporter.

Likewise, North Korea has long been supplying Russia with military equipment and munitions such as artillery shells and missiles. In return, Russia provides North Korea with food, economic aid, and military assistance. The obvious question is how hard up does Vladimir Putin have to be to look to North Korea for help?

Pretty hard up for manpower as it turns out since Russia has suffered an estimated 600,000 casualties, including 115,000 dead, since 2022. Just this week, news broke that North Korea has assigned at least 3,000 soldiers to train in Russia and possibly take part in fighting. NBC News reports that 10-12,000 North Koreans are ultimately expected to possibly deploy to Ukraine.

But wait, there’s more!

Share The Racket News ™

China was not a member of Bush’s original Axis of Evil, but they are a mostly silent partner in Putin’s anti-Ukraine coalition. China has flouted sanctions to become Russia’s largest trading partner, an action that has allowed Vladimir Putin to continue the war and engage in recent escalations. While China has not overtly provided weapons to Russia, it has supplied dual-use goods that aid the military effort.

China has a vested interest in helping Russia to avoid a defeat. Putin’s war has strained NATO and EU relations while also making the West focus on Europe. China also likely hopes that Western countries will be slow to adapt and replace weapons systems and munitions stocks transferred to Ukraine.

Make no mistake, China has its eye on Taiwan as is confirmed by recent war games simulating a blockade of the island nation. If Russia can break the West’s will in Ukraine, it will give China an advantage in its attempt to reclaim Taiwan. Even drawing out the Ukraine conflict and sapping the West’s strength would give China an advantage. If Ukraine is lost (or even saved) after a long and unpopular war, the West will be less likely to intervene when China makes its move on Taiwan.

And then there is Russia. Russia also was not part of the original Axis of Evil, but it is increasingly clear that Vladimir Putin is an aggressor with imperialist designs on the countries that used to be part of the various Russian empires and spheres of influence. That includes much of Europe.

This isn’t speculation. Putin has told us that he believes his historical destiny is to rebuild the Russian empire. As the saying goes, when authoritarians tell you what they want to do, believe them. That’s especially true when the authoritarian has already been acting on these goals for decades.

The problem for Putin is that, like the Ukrainians, other people for whom Russian domination is a recent and vivid memory are not anxious to go back under the thumb of Mother Russia. Vladimir Putin is going to have a very bloody time trying to enslave them once again.

Share

To make the situation even more strange, the American MAGA movement has emerged as a de facto ally of Putin’s Axis of Evil. Although some MAGA members align with Putin more or less openly, many others deny that their positions put them in Putin’s corner. Still, most of the MAGA world is virulently anti-Ukraine and anti-Zelensky. The Republican MAGA faction single-handedly blocked American aid to Ukraine for months last year despite a recent poll showing that 37 percent of Republicans favor aid to Ukraine (we’ll call this the Nikki Haley faction). MAGA is obviously taking its marching orders from Donald Trump, whose plan to end the conflict essentially involves hanging Ukraine out to dry and giving Putin whatever he wants.

I think MAGA antipathy to Ukraine is based on several different factors. At a very basic level, Trump and MAGA blame Ukraine for Biden’s 2020 victory and Trump’s first impeachment. If Zelensky had played ball with Trump by announcing an investigation into the Bidens, there is little doubt that MAGA would view the country and conflict in a different light.

There is also a visceral desire to see anything associated with Joe Biden fail. When Russia launched its invasion in 2022, MAGA was quick to blame Biden for losing the country. Only Ukraine was not lost, thanks in large part to Biden and US aid. I am certain that at least part of anti-Ukraine sentiment is due to the country not conveniently dying in order to prove Trump right and make Biden look bad. Two years later, Trump’s prophecy of a Ukrainian defeat must be fulfilled because Trump is always right.

Take those ingredients, stir in Trump’s well documented affinity for dictators and MAGA’s isolationism and resistance to foreign aid to anyone (except maybe Israel), and I think we’ve got a pretty fair estimation of MAGA’s motives in Ukraine. The war and US aid converge at the same point where a lot of MAGA hot buttons intersect.

It may be off the mark to say that Ukraine’s fate depends on the outcome of the US presidential election. I think the war will continue as long as Putin thinks he can take the country. Even taking the entire country won’t end the fighting. A collapse of Free Ukraine would only transform the conflict into a guerrilla war. Nothing I’ve seen from the Ukrainians makes me think they’ll stop fighting for their freedom.

But aid to Ukraine does make the difference between having the weapons to defend themselves capably or dying noble-but-wasteful deaths. If Trump wins and Republicans control Congress, there is very little chance of meaningful US aid continuing.

And to bring it back full circle, that brings up a question MAGA should be asking itself: If you believe that Iran, North Korea, and China are hostile powers, why are you working to advance their goals when it comes to Russian aggression in Ukraine?

There are many things the MAGA right should think carefully about, but soul searching why their movement is aligned with Putin’s Axis of Evil should top the list.

Isolationism in the 1930s included some Americans who openly sympathized with Nazis. That isolationism gave way to the bloodiest conflict in human history in the 1940s. It isn’t so far fetched to think that modern isolationism might encourage the various members of the Axis of Evil to continue attacking their neighbors, eventually igniting another very bloody conflict that would almost certainly involve the US.

America has made mistakes as the leader of the free world, but one thing is certain: The world is a better place with us at the forefront of world affairs than it would be without us.

Thanks for reading The Racket News ™! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

TRUMP AND HITLER’S GENERALS: Former Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly told the Atlantic that Trump once said, “I need the kind of generals that Hitler had” and “Hitler did some good things.” Kelly elaborated that Trump wanted generals who were “totally loyal.” The same article details how Trump reneged on a promise to pay for the funeral of a US Army soldier because “It doesn’t cost 60,000 bucks to bury a fucking Mexican!”

Other Trump alumni dispute Kelly’s account, but it won’t matter anyway. Trump’s supporters won’t believe anything bad about his character, and with two weeks left, there is little time for undecided voters to hear of the remarks.

HECKLER POLL: Following a discussion on my recent article about Kamala Harris’s response to heckling, we ran polls on Substack, Twitter, and Threads. Respondents overwhelmingly said that the hecklers called Harris a liar in a video of the incident. Here is the breakdown:

Substack: Lies-55%, Jesus is Lord-29%, Something else-16% (31 total votes)

Twitter: Lies-83%, Jesus is Lord-0, Something else-17% (24 total votes)

Threads: We only received two votes in the Threads poll. One for “lies” and one for “something else.”

From the Racket News