Donald Trump’s political rivals have denounced him as an “unhinged madman” and a “dangerous and mentally unbalanced individual” after he directed a string of expletives at the Iranian regime. “Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell!” the US president said on his Truth Social platform .

But Trump is far from the only potty-mouthed politician, and trends suggest that swearing in politics is increasingly going from taboo to mainstream.

‘Profanity seal’

Woodrow Wilson “broke the profanity seal” in 1919, when the then president recalled a time he made a “conspicuous ass of himself”, said Joseph Phillips, a politics lecturer at Cardiff University. “Since then, presidents, their seconds-in-command, and presidential hopefuls have used profanity at least 692 times” – but the vast majority of curse words, 87%, occurred in the last 10 years.

We’ve “come a long way from our shock” at John Major, not knowing he was being recorded, using the word “bastards” while prime minister in 1993, said Robert Crampton in The Times. Although “tough talk is nothing new in politics”, leaders “long avoided flaunting it”, said The Independent. But now, public vulgarity is “in vogue”. During a political rally in 2025, Trump “used profanity at least four times”. J.D. Vance has also sworn publicly, and former vice president Kamala Harris “earned a roar of approval from her audience” last October when she said of the Trump administration that “these mother******* are crazy”.

Members of Congress and the Senate have also sworn as a “volley of vulgarities underscores an ever-coarsening political environment” on social media. Posts that “evoke the strongest emotions are rewarded with the most engagement”.

‘Anti-intellectualism’

There’s a “misguided belief” that “profanity is more ‘honest’ or ‘authentic’ than polite speech”, said Solomon D. Stevens in the Illinois paper the Journal-Courier. This suggests that politicians who swear are “telling it like it is” or “being real”, while those who don’t must be “holding back and not telling the truth”. But “politicians who swear are just politicians who swear. They can lie just as easily as those who don’t swear.”

There’s also “an anti-intellectualism at work”, as politicians who swear imply that those who don’t are “putting on airs”. While some intellectuals can “certainly be pretentious”, “refraining from coarse language” is not in itself a sign of that.

Trump’s “disinhibited language” sounded like a “tantrum”, said Melanie Phillips in The Times. It “suggested that he’d lost self-control because Iran wouldn’t do what he wanted”. Swearing points to an “emotional release and thus a loss of reason”.

The president’s recent profanity also distracted from “the message itself”, said the Deseret News. A “rousing and well-crafted argument” could have “built a compelling case for ousting the country’s ruling regime”, because “when it comes to war, calm self-assurance speaks louder than ranting expletives”.

Politicians aren’t “bawling swear words because they can’t contain their outrage”, said Barton Swaim in The Wall Street Journal. They do it because, “like preteen boys trying to sound tough”, they believe “the odd public expletive enhances their authenticity” and gives them “an air of pugnacity apropos to the moment”. But they are mistaken. “Most Americans still prefer their leaders to talk like grown-ups.”

Nevertheless, Democrats are pushing back against the right, using bad language themselves and embracing more confrontational and crass tactics. They see it as a way to beat Maga at its own game, attempting to “step outside the bounds of the political correctness that Republicans have accused Democrats of establishing”, said The New York Times.

‘“Scream 7” shows us a different way to survive the night’

Kris Brown at USA Today

Amid the “usual jump scares and plot twists, there’s an important safety lesson in the latest installment of ‘Scream.’ And it’s likely something you didn’t even notice: firearms stored locked up in a safe,” says Kris Brown. These “depictions matter.” Storing guns safely is a “key step to preventing these kinds of tragedies,” and “when writers and directors take the time to show characters properly storing their firearms, we can inspire audiences everywhere to do the same.”

Read more

‘Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no.’

Arwa Mahdawi at The Guardian

Kamala Harris “hasn’t ruled out running for president again,” and it “would be very satisfying to see Trump’s misogynistic reign end with a woman in the White House,” says Arwa Mahdawi. But “unless she fundamentally changes as a politician, that woman is never going to be Harris.” The “sooner Harris realizes that and abandons her presidential ambitions the better for all of us. We can’t afford to have the run-up to 2028 be a battle of Democratic egos.”

Read more

‘The idea that Trump was anti-war was always delusional’

Michelle Goldberg at The Seattle Times

The “ludicrous idea of Trump as a promoter of peace — a notion his 2024 campaign leaned into — rests on a deep, willful misunderstanding of Trump’s record and character,” says Michelle Goldberg. It is “true that he broke with key elements of neoconservative ideology, particularly when it comes to nation-building and promoting democracy.” But “what Trump has always hated isn’t conflict but sacrifice, the notion that American power should ever be constrained by a veneer of idealism.”

Read more

‘The economics of night-time work’

Soumaya Keynes at the Financial Times

In “America, it seems, night owls are becoming less common,” says Soumaya Keynes. The “most obvious explanation for the shift is that our economic requirements have evolved in favor of daytime pencil pushers.” Maybe people “do still need some night-time workers to taxi us to early flights or tend to our wounds in the wee hours.” But “perhaps demands elsewhere — and for employees competent enough to do their work in the allotted time — have been stronger.”

Read more

At a moment when Democrats should be focused on the future, the party is yet again engaged in “self-destructive debates about the past,” said Lauren Egan in The Bulwark. “The latest hop in the DeLorean” comes courtesy of Kamala Harris’ new campaign memoir—titled 107 Days, after her short and failed White House run—in which the former vice president writes it was “recklessness” that led her and fellow Democrats to not question President Joe Biden’s decision to seek re-election at age 81. It wasn’t a choice, she said, “that should have been left to an individual’s ego.” But she dismisses claims that Biden was too frail to serve as president and blames tiredness for his June “debate debacle” against Donald Trump, after which Biden dropped out and Harris took over the Democratic ticket. Biden world has “reacted with rage” to the book, said Alex Thompson in Axios. One former White House official fumed that Harris was “simply not good” at being veep or a presidential candidate, and that her talents were limited to sitting for “stilted photo ops.”

Biden’s late exit isn’t the only reason for Harris’ bitterness, said Max Burns in MSNBC. Her memoir “paints a picture of a vice president willing to suffer petty humiliations to maximize Democrats’ chances of beating Trump in 2024.” Team Biden dismissed her proposals to increase engagement with Black communities and didn’t push back on Republicans’ mischaracterization of her role as “border czar,” which led her to be villainized for surging immigration numbers. “Their thinking was zero-sum,” Harris writes. “If she’s shining, he’s dimmed.”

This narrative of “Team Biden sabotage” doesn’t fully explain why she lost to Trump, said Ed Kilgore in New York. It may have been “a handicap as she began her uphill climb to November,” but Harris had done plenty already to damage herself in the public eye. One of Trump’s most effective attack ads—“Harris is for they/them, President Trump is for you”— came from her disastrous 2020 presidential campaign, when she endorsed “free gender-transition surgery for imprisoned criminals who were also illegal immigrants.” And if Harris really was treated as dismally by Biden aides as she claims, perhaps she could have talked about it during the campaign “to distance herself from an unpopular president.” Instead, she couldn’t bring herself to say one negative thing about Biden. Maybe Harris thinks this airing of grievances will help position her to run for the Democratic nomination in 2028, but “it all sounds like sour grapes.” Still, “she has every right to tell her side of the sad story.”

‘The rising threat of extreme heat for young athletes’

Laura Schifter at Time

The “devastating consequences of extreme heat are no longer freak weather events but a dangerous new reality for young people,” says Laura Schifter. As “millions of children return to fall sports, these threats continue.” We “can’t shield kids from intense heat. But we can give them language, strategies, and confidence to recognize risks.” Even “when coaches are acquainted with the risks, kids themselves often don’t know about them, leaving children unable to recognize danger early.”

Read more

‘The quiet force imperiling our booming stock market’

Bryce C. Tingle at The New York Times

There is a “puzzling contradiction at the heart of America’s economy,” says Bryce C. Tingle. Stocks are “reaching record highs. But a growing number of American companies are refusing to participate in public markets at all.” The “impact can be felt in every corner of our economy.” The “decline of our public markets goes hand in hand with the meteoric rise of private equity, which too often weakens companies and leaves them less committed to their employees.”

Read more

‘Team Biden never gave Kamala Harris a chance’

Renée Graham at The Boston Globe

Kamala Harris has confirmed “what became apparent during her years as this nation’s No. 2: those most loyal to her boss, Joe Biden, spent more time undermining her than uplifting her,” says Renée Graham. What “comes across is that Team Biden valued the optics of having a Black woman as vice president but not the woman herself.” As “Harris learned, getting in the door isn’t necessarily the hardest part.” It’s the “high price of admission.”

Read more

‘What would a No Kings budget look like?’

David Dayen at The American Prospect

Democrats have “now confirmed what was an open secret last week: They’re going to use their leverage in the upcoming government funding showdown,” to “ask for health care changes,” says David Dayen. But this “diminishes the urgency of the moment.” Presenting the “upcoming battle as an event where Democrats fight for a health care provision is a woefully inadequate way to send a big flashing signal to the public about our shared reality.”

Read more

What happened

Former Vice President Kamala Harris said Wednesday she will not enter the 2026 race to become California's next governor. The announcement ended months of speculation about the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee's plans for the contest while reigniting questions about her political future. "I love this state, its people and its promise," Harris said in a statement, but "for now, my leadership — and public service — will not be in elected office."

Who said what

Harris would have "begun the race" to succeed term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) as an "imposing frontrunner," Politico said, and her announcement "upends" what had been a "largely static" contest. This is the "clearest sign yet" that Harris may "still be considering a third run for president," said the Los Angeles Times.

Harris had been "exploring a run for the state's top office" since returning to Los Angeles in January but "had done little to express enthusiasm for the job," The New York Times said. And she only "weighed in selectively" as President Donald Trump's immigration raids and military deployments ushered in a "summer of political turmoil in California."

What next?

Harris is now "exploring the prospects of forming new groups" designed to "keep her involved in politics and positioned to advocate for the ideas she championed during her 2024 campaign," according to The Washington Post.

Kamala Harris came close to being elected president in 2024, and she could make another try in 2028 or instead run for governor of California. Democrats are still not sure what her next move is or should be.

Observers across the political spectrum believe Harris would "have better odds running for California governor" than making another presidential run, said The Associated Press. No potential competitor for the governor's office "could match her resume" of having served as San Francisco district attorney, state attorney general, U.S. senator and vice president. But it is not a certainty she would win. Harris is a "highly polarizing figure," said San Francisco-based Democratic consultant Eric Jaye to the outlet.

Harris has "kept a low profile" while considering a gubernatorial bid, said The Washington Post. Golden State Democrats have "reverence and appreciation" for the former vice president, but they also have "ambivalence about whether she should run for governor." Her relative silence in public since losing the presidential race to Donald Trump is a factor in that ambivalence. "We don't hear from her," said a Pasadena Democrat who attended a recent party convention. "We don't see her."

What did the commentators say?

Kamala Harris is "not right for the job" of California governor, Tad Weber said at The Fresno Bee. The right candidate "must prioritize pocketbook issues central to the lives of the middle class," but it will be difficult for Harris to make that case. She did, after all, serve in a Biden administration that "brought high inflation back to America" despite economists' warnings. The next governor must focus on "making California affordable again."

"Of course Kamala Harris should run for governor," Stephanie Finucane said at The Sacramento Bee. She is not a perfect candidate, but her resume is "unmatched by any of the dozen or so serious candidates" who have already thrown their hats in the ring for the 2026 election. The next governor will "face enormous challenges" in the face of the climate crisis, homelessness and natural disasters. The gubernatorial field "will be stronger if her name is on the primary ballot."

What next?

While Harris is "still on the fence," other candidates are already working for support, said Politico. The potential field includes former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter and Stephen J. Cloobeck, a big-spending entrepreneur. Some of those candidates are "sure to clear the way for Harris" if she does run, and she would "instantly hold front-runner status if she does."

Though the front-runner, there are signs that Harris' electoral support is tepid. A recent Emerson College survey found "half of those polled would prefer she not run," said The San Francisco Standard. That makes it clear that "Harris has some vulnerabilities," said Jason McDaniel, a professor of political science at San Francisco State University, to the outlet. Even if she gets into the race, it is "not going to be a cakewalk."

'America's roads are killing us'

Andrew Rogers at The Hill

For "generations, America has approached road safety with a reactive mindset: wait for fatalities, then fix the road," says Andrew Rogers. This has "left us with roads built for speed and sprawl, not safety and sustainability." Americans "need to stop looking in the rear-view mirror when it comes to safety — and start seeing risk before it becomes tragedy." Drivers "interact with smart traffic signals, adaptive speed enforcement, telematics and digital sensors." These "patterns reveal design flaws we can fix."

Read more

'Like Michelle Obama, I lost my mother last year. Here's what the year has taught me.'

Desiree Cooper at MSNBC

Exhausted "mothers never retire. If they live long enough, they become matriarchs," says Desiree Cooper. Michelle Obama "isn't having it." It's a "cruel twist to tell a woman she needs to become the top trad-gran after she's already dedicated the lion's share of her life to her family." If Obama "doesn't want to become her tribe's connective tissue, then she may also need to use her time in therapy to define what it means to be a matriarch."

Read more

'Kamala Harris 2028? Hard pass.'

Liza Featherstone at The New Republic

The "most important factor in Donald Trump's win was that Kamala Harris lost," says Liza Featherstone. Harris is "not lacking in charisma," but she "embodies the stereotype of the out-of-touch political elite that Democrats should be rejecting." Her "proximity to the Silicon Valley rich kept her from embracing even a Biden-level of populism and helped her lose the 2024 election." The "next party leader should not come from the social circles of the coastal superrich."

Read more

'I work with sex trafficking victims. Here's how Diddy's trial could help them.'

Beck Sullivan at USA Today

With "Sean 'Diddy' Combs' trial for sex trafficking charges now underway, the public will be exposed to a rare, high-profile human trafficking case," says Beck Sullivan. But there is an "invisible audience paying close attention: current victims of human trafficking who don't yet recognize their own exploitation." When "inaccurate media representations become our cultural standard for human trafficking, real victims will continue to go unseen." It's "crucial we resist the urge to fit victims into familiar molds."

Read more

There is generally no right or wrong way to be a failed presidential nominee. While some past candidates have gone on to have a second act in public service, others have receded from the public eye. Former Vice President Kamala Harris spent the first few months of the Trump administration hewing to the latter — until this week. Delivering her first major speech since President Donald Trump assumed office on Wednesday, Harris reemerged into the political spotlight, raising speculation about her future.

A 'calculated return'

Although Harris has made several lower-profile appearances since losing the 2024 presidential election, this speech (delivered at a fundraiser for Emerge, an organization focused on Democrats recruiting and electing women) was her "most pointed to date," said the Los Angeles Times. It also marked the "first time since leaving office that she's publicly mentioned Trump by name."

Harris used the address to encourage supporters to "speak out and fight back" against what she framed as the White House's "efforts to roll back decades of progress," said The Washington Post. Her return to public life comes at a "moment of deep anger and frustration" within the party, with some Democrats "ready to turn the page on the Biden era and a disappointing 2024 election." Harris conveyed a "very negative, often angry-sounding message," said Fox News, accusing Trump of the "wholesale abandonment" of American ideals.

The remarks were part of a "calculated return," said The New York Times, in which the former vice president "acknowledged her monthslong departure from public life" while "not once" mentioning her future plans. The speech retained the "cautious approach" that has long defined Harris' "political brand."

'Ramping up' her public presence

Harris' speech and the interest it has generated come as she is "set to possibly re-enter politics in the coming months," said ABC News. Her "shadow" has "shaped the early months" of the upcoming California gubernatorial race, into which she would "probably vault to the top of the field" should she decide to run, said the Post. It is "no longer certain," however, that her candidacy would "clear the field" of high-profile Democrats vying to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). Her speech was attended by "several prominent Democrats already vying for governor in 2026" who sat in the front row, Politico said. While she didn't raise any "explicitly state-related issues or political fights" in her remarks, she might be "saving her powder until she's made a decision."

By "ramping up her public presence" while Democrats "search for a path forward after November's election," Harris is leaning into the fact that she "retains unique influence and would reshape any future race she chooses to enter," said The Associated Press. She has "not discouraged speculation" about joining future elections — including another potential run for the White House — and "continues to fundraise, using a joint committee that includes Harris for President, the Democratic National Committee and state Democratic parties."

Ending her speech on Wednesday, Harris struck a tone of cautious optimism, telling attendees that "things are probably going to get worse before they get better." But, she said, "we are ready for it."

Since the post-1968 reforms that opened presidential nominations to binding primaries and caucuses, there have only been four cycles that didn't feature an incumbent or former president. But assuming that President Donald Trump doesn't seek an unconstitutional third term, 2028 will be one of them. These are some of the names being bandied about by political insiders looking ahead to the next election.

The Democrats already jockeying for position

Pete Buttigieg

Buttigieg served as Secretary of Transportation from 2021 to 2025, and his frequent appearances on right-wing outlets like Fox News "have been master classes in poise and articulation," said Advocate. He recently decided not to seek a Senate seat in Michigan, a "decision framed by several allies and people in his inner circle as putting him in the strongest possible position to seek the presidency," said Politico.

Gavin Newsom

Newsom has been governor of California since 2019. He "built his national profile opposing the Republican president during his first term," said Los Angeles Times. But in March Newsom caused a stir by inviting far-right operative Charlie Kirk onto his podcast, "angering many of the liberal activists whom Newsom would need to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028," said The Washington Post.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

The New York Democrat has taken on a leading role opposing the Trump administration's policies, including barnstorming the country with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-N.Y.). Ocasio-Cortez is "positioning herself well for a run," and the 35-year-old "would bring much-needed youthful vigour to a decaying party," said UnHerd.

JB Pritzker

The governor of Illinois since 2019, Pritzker has chosen a very different lane from Newsom, standing up for communities under fire from the Trump administration. He has distinguished himself by "pitching his potent combination of working-class issues, sharp business sense and reputation as a good-natured brawler," said Bloomberg. But Pritzker, who is not subject to term limits, "has yet to say whether he will seek a rare but not unprecedented third term as governor," said the Chicago Tribune.

Josh Shapiro

Shortlisted as Kamala Harris' running mate in 2024, Pennsylvania's governor is still in his first term. Shapiro has been "performing a balancing act in approaching the Trump administration," said NBC News. He has "cemented his image as a moderate willing to work across the aisle," said The Philadelphia Inquirer but remains "largely untested on the national stage."

Tim Walz

The 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee remains Minnesota's governor until 2027 and said he would "rather fight Trump from his position as governor" than seek the state's open U.S. Senate seat next year, said The New Yorker. That decision means that Walz may throw his hat in for the 2028 nomination. Walz "launched a national tour of town halls in Republican House districts, traveling the country," said Axios, further fueling speculation about 2028.

Gretchen Whitmer

The two-term Michigan governor was one of the many names discussed to replace former President Joe Biden during the summer of 2024. Her double-digit reelection in a down year for Democrats in 2022 combined with her popularity in the purple state of Michigan turned her into a national figure. In terms of 2028 contenders, "there are few politicians talked about more than" Whitmer, said The New York Times.

Other names

Former vice president and 2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris is "expected to make a decision by the end of the summer" about running for governor of California, said the Los Angeles Times, and could still run for president again. Popular Democratic governors like Jared Polis of Colorado could join the fray, as could prominent Trump critics in the Senate like Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), whose day-long filibuster in April means that he is "most likely going to run again," said The Conversation. Celebrities like businessman Mark Cuban and ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith are also in the mix.

A shorter list of Republicans in the shadow of J.D. Vance

Nikki Haley

In the past, the runner-up in the GOP primary often had the inside track on the next open nomination. It is not clear whether this rule will apply to former UN Ambassador and 2024 GOP runner-up Nikki Haley, who at this point represents a defeated faction in the party. It is also "not likely she would have" President Trump's backing "if she runs in 2028," said Fox News, which could cripple her chances.

Ron DeSantis

Like Haley, the Florida governor's biggest challenge as he prepares a 2028 presidential bid is to "win back supporters of the Republican leader whom he dared to challenge in the last election," said The Associated Press. DeSantis, who ended his 2024 campaign after a disappointing showing in the Iowa GOP caucus, remains popular in Florida and was reelected by nearly 20 points in 2022 in what was once a swing state.

Kristi Noem

Noem, now the Secretary of Homeland Security, was "floated as a potential running mate for Trump last year" before he picked J.D. Vance and "has since become a loyal and vocal supporter of the president, said The Hill. She seems to have survived the scandal from her memoir, in which she found herself "under fire for killing her family's 14-month-old dog and boasting about it," said The New York Times.

Marco Rubio

Rubio ran unsuccessfully for president in 2016, losing the nomination to Trump. Now, the former Florida senator is the Secretary of State in the second Trump administration and "needs to decide how much he wants to go along with things that clearly run counter to his previous principles," such as siding with Russia in the Ukraine conflict, said The Washington Post.

J.D. Vance

The sitting vice president is just 40 years old and will benefit from having a "group of younger, more populist Republicans who are vocally advocating" for him as Trump's successor, said Semafor. No incumbent vice president in the modern period who has sought his or her party's nomination has failed to get it. Even better, "Trump's longtime aides and allies have begun throwing their support behind Vance," said The Independent.

Glenn Youngkin

Rumored as a more mainstream alternative to President Trump for the 2024 GOP nomination, Youngkin never ended up throwing his hat in the ring. Virginia's popular GOP governor is subject to the state's unusual one-term-at-a-time limit and cannot seek re-election in 2025. He is "seen as staunchly conservative but has a broad appeal, stretching outside of the MAGA movement," said The Hill.

Other names

Vance's presumed dominance of the field makes the GOP's long-list considerably shorter than those of the Democrats. But those who received support in a recent Yougov poll include the president's son Donald Trump, Jr., Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, CIA Director Tulsi Gabbard, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Booked-out diaries, assassination fears and an assault in a hotel lift: Donald Trump impersonators have had quite a ride since the Maga original returned to the White House.

With "appearances at parades, golf tournaments and even kids' parties" the Trump lookalike industry is booming, said The Independent.

And there's serious cash to be made from being a Donald doppelganger: on Gig Salad, a platform used to book performers, prices for a personal appearance range from $100 (£77) to $20,000 (£15,500).

'Bulletproof vest'

Business had been good even before Trump entered the White House for the second time, Florida-based Trump impersonator Thomas Mundy told The Independent. After Trump lost the election in 2020, "people were so p***ed, my bookings doubled". And when Trump got indicted, "my business quadrupled".

Since Trump's re-election in November, Mundy's business has been "insane". He was even approached by a woman to appear at her five-year-old's birthday party. His act is "pretty raunchy", Mundy said, so he and the mother are still "in negotiations".

There is also money to be made on this side of the Atlantic. A Trump impersonator from Southampton, whose income has already increased by 40% since Trump was re-elected, told The Guardian he is expecting an "unstoppable" four years of business. Mike Osman, also known as "Donald Trumped", says the secret to mimicking the US president's skin tone is to "slap on the matt foundation with a brush and then use a lighter colour around the eyes".

But the rewards of imitating such a polarising political figure are not without risk. John Di Domenico, "the world's most famous Trump impersonator", said he has been urged by friends to wear a bulletproof vest after he was attacked "by a livid liberal" in a Las Vegas lift last summer, said The Sun. Di Domenico told the paper that feelings about Trump run so high, he now "requires security staff for gigs".

Fortunes and fate

It's been a different story for the comedians who "lampooned" Kamala Harris and Joe Biden: they're finding out the hard way that impersonators' fortunes "rise and fall based on the fates of the people they portray", said The New York Times.

Allison Reese "found fame online" with her impression of former US vice-president Kamala Harris, earning hundreds of thousands of followers on TikTok, interviews on national news programmes and even a movie role. But since Harris ran for president and lost to Trump, Reese has "had some professional mourning to do", as interest and demand for her impersonations quickly dried up.

Still, there's always room for a pivot. John Morgan once made "over a million dollars" impersonating former US president George W. Bush but, he told The Independent, he has now "transitioned onto the Trump scene".

'How the Thanksgiving holiday can help heal America's political rifts'

Michael Morris at Time

As "Thanksgiving approaches on this election year, many of us can't help but think of politics," says Michael Morris. But "this doesn't mean that our tribal psychology is a curse that ineluctably dooms our democracy." Thanksgiving "can also work to redress our rifts today — in our polarized nation and even in our families." People "can feel at a visceral level the sense of meaning and purpose," Morris adds. Americans "need traditions and tribalism because we need each other."

Read more

'Report from inside the "deep state": We're not going anywhere'

Marc Fisher at The Washington Post

Career employees "stayed with the government for decades because in good times, they are on the cutting edge of progress," and "in tough times, they are the bulwark, the last line of defense against decay and decline," says Marc Fisher. The "deep state is the permanent government, which can be slow and frustrating but is also a bedrock." Federal prosecutors are "determined not to let one four-year patch of trouble change their career plans."

Read more

'The limits of "Black Girl Magic" — why marketing Kamala as a celebrity failed'

Torraine Walker at Newsweek

The election "showed just how little pop culture messaging resonates with the majority of American voters," says Torraine Walker. Kamala Harris "was the political extension of the idea of Black Girl Magic," but "in focusing so heavily on that selling point, the Democrats created for themselves blind spots that ignored the aggressive pushback against Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) from the far-right." Still, Harris' loss is "by no means a repudiation of the concept of Black Girl Magic."

Read more

'JK Rowling and Nancy Mace are right: Women deserve their own safe spaces'

Ingrid Jacques at USA Today

Women "are sick of being treated like their rights don't matter, and they're standing up for themselves," says Ingrid Jacques. The "'female' category is being destroyed, with businesses that don't want to bother with bathroom squabbles offering shared, gender-neutral restrooms." Wherever "clothes are coming off, whether a bathroom or locker room, is a situation where we as women are at our most vulnerable." It's "not bigotry" to "want to preserve that for women."

Read more

The Democratic Party appears to be in limbo following an unexpected electoral sweep by the GOP; Republicans won back the White House with the reelection of Donald Trump, and they will also control the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. This Republican trifecta means the Democrats won't control a single branch of government for the first time since 2019.

While finger-pointing among Democrats has been ongoing since Vice President Kamala Harris' loss, many within the party are searching for a new way forward. According to most experts, there seems to be a two-pronged strategy: opposing President-elect Trump while also looking for paths to recapture working-class voters, who largely shunned the Democratic Party at the ballot box.

How is the Democratic Party retooling its strategy?

Many Democrats are "seeking to build their second wave of opposition to Mr. Trump from the places that they still control: deep-blue states," said The New York Times. In places like Illinois, New York and California, Democrats "envision flexing their power in these states to partly block the Trump administration's policies — for example, by refusing to enforce immigration laws." Democratic governors have also proposed "passing state laws enshrining abortion rights, funding paid leave and putting in place a laundry list of other party priorities."

This strategy "resembles what Republicans have done during President Joe Biden's administration," said the Times. Republican governors have "pursued an agenda that flouted the administration by taking steps to restrict abortion rights, limit transgender rights, ban diversity programs and pursue other conservative priorities," and Democratic governors will likely look to do the same.

But some Democrats are also recognizing that working with Trump on certain issues will likely be inevitable. Democrats have "got to be willing to fight the fight when it needs to be fought and find common ground when that's what circumstances dictate," Gov. Phil Murphy (D-N.J.) said to Politico.

How are Democrats looking to recapture voters?

Democrats "need to be clear-eyed about some hard truths in the results from election night," Jen Psaki, President Biden's former White House press secretary, said at MSNBC. Trump cruised to victory largely because turnout for the Democratic Party was lower. Psaki "[looks] at this from my vantage point as a college-educated white person, which is one of the only demographics Trump didn't increase his share of the vote with, and I can tell you that the message of the party is geared too much toward me."

To win working-class voters back, Democrats "must become more populist and more ambitious," said The Guardian. There is also a chance to capture people who "voted for Trump not because they are committed to MAGA, but out of frustration with the status quo." Instead of spending time and money "listening to the Liz Cheney-loving consulting class and the cable ad-buying gurus," Democrats need the "kind of political determination that drove Susie Wiles to swing Florida firmly to the right and enabled Republicans to paint Texas a deep red," said the outlet, referring to Trump's campaign manager and incoming chief of staff.

There "was some good policy, but the American people and Southerners need to feel it in their gut," Democratic Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said to the Times. If Democrats are "talking about the outrage of the day in Washington, D.C., and you're talking about the crazy thing a politician said last night, and then you're talking about jobs, you're only talking about jobs a third of the time." Beshear and others have pointed to this shift in dialogue as one of the key motivators for Democrats over the next four years.

'Aliens? UFOs? You cared more about Mike Tyson vs. Jake Paul.'

Kristin Brey at USA Today

You would think if "anything could break through the noise of our news cycle, UFOs could," says Kristin Brey. Last week's "collection of testimony indicates that UAPs are very real in the sense that there are unexplained phenomena," but the hearings weren't even a public "blip," partly due to lack of detail. So "right now is the right time for these tight-lipped folks in defense and intelligence departments" to "declassify everything. Tell us the truth is out there."

Read more

'What 'mass deportation' actually means'

Dara Lind at The New York Times

It is "tempting to assume that after his first term and four more years of planning, Trump and his administration will find no obstacles to impose their will," says Dara Lind. But "no executive order can override the laws of physics and create, in the blink of an eye, staff and facilities where none existed." The "question is not whether mass deportation will happen. It's how big Trump and his administration will go, and how quickly."

Read more

'How Britain squandered the best hand in the world'

Janan Ganesh at the Financial Times

The U.K. is "now outside its own regional club and exposed to a protectionist America and having to defrost its relationship with China after a period of mindless neglect," says Janan Ganesh. Britain "isn't entirely to blame for its loneliness," but "Brexit was a choice," and "so was the sheer extent of the cooling towards China under the last few Conservative premiers." The "structural forces point towards some U.K.-EU rapprochement, perhaps in the 2030s."

Read more

'Harris disappointed Gen Z'

Sean Eifert, Lydie Lake, K.M. Slade and Dahlia Tarver at The American Prospect

Kamala Harris' "attempts to turn out young voters weren't nearly as successful as she would have hoped," say Sean Eifert, Lydie Lake, K.M. Slade and Dahlia Tarver. Her "failure is a direct result of a weak Democratic brand that once again abandoned Generation Z and undermined young voters' trust in government institutions." Democrats "must ensure Gen Z has a future that they can be enthused about" by "combating 'doomer' and fatalistic mindsets permeating politics."

Read more

'Trump's tariffs would smother his economic successes'

Phil Gramm and Donald J. Boudreaux at The Wall Street Journal

Donald Trump "hopes to supercharge economic growth" by "imposing across-the-board tariffs of at least 10%," but there is "strong evidence that such measures wouldn't achieve the president-elect's objectives," say Phil Gramm and Donald J. Boudreaux. The tariffs "would also likely trigger a trade war that would erode, if not overwhelm, the positive effects of tax reform and deregulation." They would additionally "increase our production costs and reduce our competitiveness at home and abroad."

Read more

'Biden's legacy is secure, but he could augment it by stepping aside'

Carrie Friedman at The Washington Post

Joe Biden should "step down and install Vice President Kamala Harris as the 47th president of the United States," says Carrie Friedman. Biden "could show the world, show us all — but especially this country's moms, daughters, and the Black and Brown women who have carried this country on their backs — that it can happen, it can be done." The Supreme Court has "given the president immunity for official acts of the presidency. It's time to take advantage."

Read more

'DEI attacks are widening the racial wealth gap'

Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman at Bloomberg

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion work "offers a path to real, lasting wealth generation, helps create a bigger consumer class, and it's good for the economy," says Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman. If "DEI is thoughtfully implemented, it complements — and doesn't overshadow — industrious, creative work." But "biases can push Black and Latino people into career pathways that are divorced from wealth-building," and "as a result, underrepresented minorities remain a substantial part of America's permanent economic underclass."

Read more

'Apps love to show us old photos. It might be harming us more than we think.'

Louis Staples at Slate

Many "digital memory prompts — being told 'You have a new memory!' by a device or app — are now a normal part of our lives," says Louis Staples. But "sometimes, we're reminded of things that aren't so funny." Smartphones "don't always get it right, and they might be making our lives more difficult." These "flashbacks also strip images of vital context," and "only posting the good parts of our lives can contribute to feelings of distress" in others.

Read more

One reason Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election: Democratic voters simply didn't go to the polls.

Voters in traditional "liberal strongholds" failed to show up for Vice President Kamala Harris, said The New York Times. Those strongholds — cities and suburbs, along with traditionally blue states like New Jersey — gave Harris nearly 2 million fewer votes than Joe Biden won four years earlier, while Republican-dominated areas gave Donald Trump an additional 1.2 million votes over 2020. Turnout was also down among traditional Democratic constituencies like Black Christians and Jewish voters. "Many Democrats sat this election out," said the Times.

Harris "tried to build it, but they didn't come," said The Wall Street Journal. It wasn't just Democrats: Overall voter turnout was down from four years ago, but the Democratic losses were "especially sharp." Harris actually did better in the battleground states than in the rest of the country where "turnout plummeted," said the Journal. "What really happened," political science professor John Aughenbaugh told WTOP News, was a "whole bunch of previous Democratic voters were upset with the Democratic Party."

What did the commentators say?

The election was dominated by "fury from the middle class over how much it costs to get by in today's America," Will Bunch said at The Philadelphia Inquirer. Democrats embraced "big money" instead, highlighting billionaires like Mark Cuban and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, the latter of whom taunted Trump at the Democratic National Convention by referring to himself as an "actual billionaire." That's not a winning message for a party that built itself in the 20th century "by turning out the working class," Bunch said. It's time to return to those roots and find candidates who "will reject all billionaire and corporate contributions."

"Not nearly enough people turned out to vote for what the Democratic Party was selling nationally," said MSNBC's Jen Psaki, who previously served as President Joe Biden's press secretary. The party's messaging in the campaign's final days — that Trump represented a fascist turn away from democracy — was "geared too much" toward college-educated white voters. "Clearly that message just didn't connect with enough people," Psaki said. Trump, meanwhile, increased his support among every demographic group, including men, women, young people and Latinos. "If that's not a hard truth," Psaki said, "I don't know what is."

What next?

How bad did the election get for Democrats? More self-identified independents went to the polls than Democrats, said Reuters. Independents piled up 34% of the vote — same as the GOP share — while registered Democrats came in at 32% of the electorate. The independent share was up 8 points from 2020, when independents were a "distant third" to both Democrats and Republicans.

The sharp drop in Democratic turnout has fed some conspiracy theories on the left, suggesting that Harris was robbed of rightful votes, said PolitiFact. That's simply not true. "There is no evidence that any votes disappeared," said Ishan Mehta, director of media and democracy at Common Cause. Turnout simply "ebbs and flows" from election to election. If Democratic voters didn't turn out, that just means they "made a decision not to cast a ballot, either not turn out at all, or not check the top contest," said Paul Gronke, a political science professor. "That's the end of the story."

'Democrats ignored Gaza and brought down their party'

Peter Beinart at The New York Times

Israel and Palestine have "triggered one of the greatest surges in progressive activism in a generation," says Peter Beinart. Not "only did Harris not break with Mr. Biden's policy, she went out of her way to make voters who care about Palestinian rights feel unwelcome." This "provided Trump an opportunity," and "people who are passionate about Palestinian rights rarely occupy influential positions in Democratic campaigns." The "Palestinian exception is not just immoral. It's politically disastrous."

Read more

'How Trump will change the world'

Peter D. Feaver at Foreign Affairs

The "known unknown is how the rest of the world will react and what the ultimate outcome will be" in Trump's second term, says Peter D. Feaver. The "more extreme factions will have the upper hand, and they will press their advantage to ice out more moderate voices." The "essence of Trump's approach to foreign policy — naked transactionalism — remains unchanged. But the context in which he will try to carry out his idiosyncratic form of dealmaking has changed."

Read more

'Trump is a big reason Americans are fractured. We must rally around each other.'

Suzette Hackney at USA Today

America "struggled with the racial and gender equality that would have been necessary to elect Harris," says Suzette Hackney, and it's "something we'll likely grapple with for at least the next four years and beyond." Some "lacked confidence in Americans to look beyond our gender and racial biases." Republicans are "tired of the status quo, that Democrats have allowed the country to grow stagnant," but "what's more status quo than the idea that America is unable to elect a woman president?"

Read more

'Sanctions evasion helps Russia dominate former Soviet republics'

Janusz Bugajski at The Hill

Russia's "blatant interference in the general elections in Georgia and Moldova demonstrates its determination to regain control over other former Soviet republics, despite its inability to install a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine," says Janusz Bugajski. Russia "also relies on extensive violations of Western economic sanctions to pull the South Caucasus and Central Asia states back into its orbit." These "schemes pose a challenge for Western governments seeking to sever Russia's economic lifeline for its military aggression."

Read more

What happened

World leaders congratulated President-elect Donald Trump Wednesday on his decisive electoral victory. President Joe Biden invited him to the White House to start the presidential transition, and Vice President Kamala Harris made her own congratulatory phone call to Trump before giving a concession speech to the country.

Who said what

Harris told supporters it was important to "accept the results of this election," because Americans "owe loyalty not to a president or a party but to the Constitution." But "while I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fueled this campaign," she added. "Do not despair. This is not a time to throw up our hands. This is a time to roll up our sleeves."

The vice president's "defiant and emotional" 12-minute concession speech at Howard University was more than Trump "ever offered" her or Biden "after they defeated him in 2020," The New York Times said. Trump has still "not conceded that race, in public or private." Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said that when Harris called to congratulate the president-elect, Trump "acknowledged" Harris "on her strength, professionalism and tenacity throughout the campaign."

"U.S. markets, banks and bitcoin all stormed higher" yesterday, The Associated Press said, as "investors looked favorably on a smooth election" and anticipated lower taxes and less regulation.

What next?

As Trump starts choosing his Cabinet and other high-ranking officials, special counsel Jack Smith has begun "discussing how to wind down the two federal prosecutions of the president-elect," given that the "Justice Department has long recognized that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution while in office," The Washington Post said. Winding down the cases "could give Smith time to deliver a final report detailing the findings of his two probes to Attorney General Merrick Garland," who has indicated he would "make special counsel reports public if they reached his desk."

Donald Trump has been elected the 47th president of the United States, and will take office on Jan. 20, 2025, following an unexpectedly dominant victory over Vice President Kamala Harris. Before that, though, he will have to complete a process that has been undertaken by all of his predecessors: the transition to the presidency.

Trump's second go-around as commander-in-chief will see him work to implement his official platform, known as Agenda 47. This comes amid continuing controversy over the conservative brainchild Project 2025; Trump claims to have no affiliation with the project, though it overlaps heavily with his official agenda. The transition will also involve assembling a Cabinet and working to implement other agenda items.

What are the main parts of the presidential transition?

To implement a transition to the White House, the winning candidate will look to their transition teams, which are "responsible for organizing the personnel vetting, policy planning and management agendas to turn campaign promises into governing," according to the nonpartisan Center for Presidential Transition (CPT).

Both major candidates typically begin planning for a presidential transition in the months leading up to the election. However, the transition can't move ahead without the General Services Administration (GSA). This little-known government agency "provides support to eligible candidates, inter-agency transition teams, the presidential inauguration effort, and the outgoing president and vice president," according to the GSA website.

Meanwhile, the presidential transition teams work to help the president-elect with a variety of tasks. This includes selecting "more than 4,000 presidential appointees, including more than 1,200 who require Senate confirmation" and creating a "set of legislative, executive and agency proposals based on the campaign platform," said the CPT.

What happens when transitions get complicated?

The 2020 election showed that there were cracks in the transition process, particularly when it came to the GSA. At that time, Trump's "refusal to concede froze the ability of President Joe Biden's transition team to gain access to federal funding and information for several weeks," said Politico. The GSA eventually ascertained Biden's victory amid unsuccessful lawsuits from Trump challenging the election.

After that, Congress "passed a law in 2022 allowing multiple leading presidential candidates to get transition resources before a winner is determined in a contested election," said Politico. The law, the Presidential Transition Improvement Act, states that the GSA must begin the transition within five days of the election — and must do so for both candidates if neither has conceded. This means in future elections, a candidate's "campaign staff could still have access to key operations of government, including sensitive information, while courts and lawmakers battle over the final results," said The Washington Post.

The law "effectively mandates federal support and cooperation for both candidates to begin a transition," and "states that such support should continue until 'significant legal challenges' that could alter electoral outcomes have been 'substantially resolved,'" said The Associated Press. But in an election where one candidate launches a barrage of legal challenges, this means the "government potentially bestowing enough backing that both sides can prepare an administration until mid-December — only about a month before Inauguration Day on Jan. 20." This is unlikely to occur in 2025 given Trump's large-margin victory, but it raises questions about future elections.

In the past, it was "neither candidate gets the funding" until a winner was declared, but "now it's both," Derek Muller, a University of Notre Dame law professor, said to the AP. The dueling transitions "can last into mid-December. There's no question that's a risk. But I think it's a risk that they want to take."

'Democracy is not over'

Tom Nichols at The Atlantic

An "aspiring fascist is the president-elect, again, of the United States," says Tom Nichols. But "Trump's reckless venality is a reason for hope." He has the "soul of a fascist but the mind of a disordered child." Trump "will likely be surrounded by terrible but incompetent people," and "all of them can be beaten: in court, in Congress, in statehouses around the nation, and in the public arena." Nothing is "inevitable, and democracy will not fall overnight."

Read more

'Is the US becoming more like Nigeria?'

Nosmot Gbadamosi at Foreign Policy

U.S. elections "matter to African nations because they serve as a barometer for democracy," says Nosmot Gbadamosi. Often, "polarization, disinformation, and hatred have marred Nigerian ballots — often resulting in violent protests and the refusal to accept election results," and "other familiar practices, such as vote buying, are now being observed in the U.S. campaign." But the "United States can also learn about accepting ballot results from recent elections in Senegal, South Africa, and, most recently, Botswana."

Read more

'The Trump mandate'

Daniel McCarthy at The American Conservative

Donald Trump has won a "victory even more stunning than his upset defeat of Hillary Clinton eight years ago," says Daniel McCarthy. And "now he has the symbolic yet potent mandate of a popular vote majority." This "majority adds psychological force that makes the Trump revolution cultural as well as political." The "Trump movement isn't some rogue ideological faction or a personality cult only interested in its celebrity leader." Trump speaks "to, and for, America's democratic majority."

Read more

'Railroading Russia through unconventional warfare'

Doug Livermore and Alexander Noyes at Newsweek

The United States should "ramp up support to organize, train, equip, and share intelligence with Ukrainian national resistance warfare efforts. Doing so could help tip the balance," say Doug Livermore and Alexander Noyes. Ukraine has "keenly focused on targeting railway junctions, bridges, tunnels, and other chokepoints in Russia's supply chain." While this "sabotage campaign is impressive, for it to have a real strategic impact the United States and other allies of resistance will have to do more."

Read more

What happened

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump spent the final weekend of the 2024 campaign holding rallies in mostly battleground states, though Trump visited Democratic-leaning Virginia and New Mexico while Harris stopped in New York City to appear on "Saturday Night Live." More than 77 million people have already voted.

Who said what

Trump and Harris have both been "racing through rallies and impromptu appearances in the battleground states," The New York Times said, but "in message and demeanor" their closing events "could not have been more different." Trump, 78, "appeared particularly tired" Sunday morning, and "his voice was hoarse and his pace was slow as he delivered remarks marked by grievances and the occasional vulgarity," saying at one point that things were so great at the end of his term, "I shouldn't have left, I mean, honestly."

Harris, 60, "has mostly stopped mentioning Trump," The Associated Press said. "She is promising to solve problems and seek consensus, while sounding an almost exclusively optimistic tone reminiscent of her campaign's opening days" in July. "We have momentum. It is on our side," she said at a rally in East Lansing, Michigan, last night. "Can you feel it?"

Watching the two candidates yesterday, "it could feel at times" like "the bottom is falling out" for Trump, Adam Wren said at Politico. But the fact that he's "still in a margin-of-error election" after his "week of unadulterated indulgences on the trail" shows his remarkable political "durability."

What next?

Harris holds events today in Pittsburgh and Allentown before ending the campaign with a late-night Philadelphia rally featuring Lady Gaga and Oprah Winfrey. Trump will visit North Carolina and Pennsylvania before closing the campaign in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Most polls continue to show the race a dead heat, though some outliers — like a well-regarded Des Moines Register poll that found Harris leading by 3 percentage points in Iowa — suggested the possibility that most polls may be weighing their samples wrong in either direction or missing some other dynamic.

The topic of education has been mostly absent from this year's presidential campaigns. But the future of American schools and universities could hinge on the choice between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

There are "very sharp differences" between the two candidates when it comes to education, Amna Nawaz said on PBS NewsHour. America faces "this drop in the ability of fourth graders and eighth graders to do basic math and to read at a grade level," said her colleague William Brangham. Trump's ideas are "contradictory," Brangham added — he wants to eliminate the Department of Education, but also pay "very granular attention" to school curricula to snuff out so-called "woke" topics like critical race theory and gender issues. Harris and Democrats, meanwhile, have called for universal free preschool for American kids.

The two candidates have "distinct track records," American University's Robert Shand said at The Conversation. Trump's platform calls for "universal school choice and more parental control over schools," while Harris served in a Biden administration that tried to expand funding for "full-service community schools" that work to address non-classroom factors, "such as access to health care and healthy food," that can affect student performance. Succinctly, Shand said, Harris wants a "broader role" for the federal government, while Trump wants to push much of the issue to "states, localities and parents."

Trump: 'Chopping block' for federal ed programs?

Trump tried — and failed — to "tear down the U.S. Department of Education" during his first term in office, said Education Week. Expect a new attempt if he gets a second term. "I think he's going to come into office full steam ahead and get things done," said Ryan Walters, Oklahoma's conservative superintendent of education. But the former president has "never been specific" about the fate of programs — like Title I funding for low-income schools — the department administers. As in his first term, it's likely Trump would attempt to put federal K-12 funding on "the chopping block," Education Week said.

While K-12 programs get the most attention, "by far the Department of Education's biggest expenditure is on higher education," said The New York Times. The bulk of its $224 million budget goes to the federal student aid program. Disbanding the agency would have to go through Congress, which is a "highly unlikely proposition," said the Times. That doesn't mean a shift is impossible. Derrell Bradford — the president of 50CAN, a pro-school-choice nonprofit outfit — said both Democrats and Republicans like "the idea that local entities should be in control of education at the local level."

Harris: A focus on pre-K education

Harris and her allies have talked about pre-K federal policies "as much, if not more" than K-12 policies, said NPR. In addition to universal preschool, Democrats have also proposed expanding the Child Tax Credit to give a boost to families with young learners. For older students, Harris supported the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness efforts, as well as proposals to make community college free to students. During her first presidential bid in 2019, Harris also proposed boosting teacher pay. "God knows we don't pay you enough," she said to teachers union members.

Harris' most notable statement on education might have been her selection of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a former teacher, as her running mate. As governor he signed an anti-book-banning bill to stop school and university libraries from removing a book "based solely on its viewpoint or the messages, ideas, or opinions it conveys," said School Library Journal. "Public education," Walz said at the signing, is a force for good in this country."

What happened

Kamala Harris slammed Donald Trump Thursday for vowing to "protect the women" of America "whether the women like it or not." Trump allies, meanwhile, said they were outraged by a pro-Harris ad telling married women they can keep their vote secret from their Trump-loving husbands, and by Harris supporter Mark Cuban saying "you never see" Trump "around strong, intelligent women — ever" — because "they're intimidating to him."

Who said what

Trump's "like it or not" comment at a rally Wednesday "was another hairpin turn that took the presidential race from literal trash talk to gender issues in its closing stage," The New York Times said, each candidate "trying to inflict political wounds." Trump "simply does not respect the freedom of women or the intelligence of women to know what's in their own best interests and make decisions accordingly," Harris said in Phoenix. "But we trust women."

Trump's "comments evoked, for many critics, the numerous sexual misconduct allegations against him and his history of misogynistic remarks," including his infamous "Access Hollywood" hot-mic conversation, now getting a second life on TikTok, The Washington Post said. On the other hand, "some female supporters of the former president see the protector line as reassuring."

The pro-Harris "what happens in the booth stays in the booth" ad, produced by a liberal evangelical Christian group and narrated by Julia Roberts, drew particular ire from Trump allies Charlie Kirk and Fox News' Jesse Watters, who said secretly voting for Harris was "the same thing as having an affair."

What next?

Cuban said his comment about Trump and "strong, intelligent women" was referring to Nikki Haley, Trump's former GOP primary rival. Haley told Fox News' Bret Baier on Tuesday she's just waiting for Trump's call to campaign for him. But his "bromance and masculinity stuff, it borders on edgy to the point that it's going to make women uncomfortable," she added. "That is not the way to win women."

Influence can come in many forms but in US politics it most often comes in the form of money. Never has that been more true than today, said The Washington Post. “In an era defined by major political divisions and massive wealth accumulation for the richest Americans, billionaires are spending unprecedented amounts.”

In 2024, 100 billionaire families donated $2.6 billion to candidates across state, congressional, senate and presidential elections – more than two-and-a-half times the amount spent in 2020, according to Americans for Tax Fairness.

The “eye-popping amounts speak to the shifts in political power granted to the affluent and corporations” since “unlimited campaign donations” were permitted in 2010, said The Guardian. The landmark Citizens United ruling effectively classed campaign donations as constitutionally protected speech and extended personhood rights to corporations. It unleashed a 28-fold increase in election spending and, as a result, US politicians are “more dependent on the largesse of the billionaire class than ever before, giving one-four-hundredth of 1% of Americans extraordinary influence over which politicians and policies succeed”, said The Washington Post.

Nor are donations the only path to power for the ultra-wealthy; according to the Post, at least 44 of the 902 US billionaires on Forbes magazine’s 2025 list were either elected or appointed to state or federal office in the past 10 years or are married to spouses who were.

While the majority of mega-donors back the Republicans and Donald Trump, some of the richest Americans have risked the administration’s ire by throwing their support behind the Democrats.

Larry & David Ellison: Republicans

Larry Ellison, the Oracle founder who briefly became the world’s richest person in September, has been a friend of Trump and a Republican donor for decades. It had been thought the 81-year-old was close to calling it a day in public life, but his profile has “taken on a new dimension” since Trump returned to the White House, said the BBC. He, along with his son David, has pursued a series of deals “that would give them control over some of the biggest media companies on the planet”.

In August, David Ellison’s Skydance Media secured an $8 billion deal to purchase Paramount and its subsidiaries, including the influential CBS News network. Since then, the company “has been accused of bowing to Trump”, said CNN, paying the president millions of dollars over a “60 Minutes” edit of its interview of former vice president Kamala Harris, and cancelling Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show”, “one of the most bitingly critical-of-Trump shows on TV”.

Now Ellison has turned his attention to Warner Bros. Discovery, the media conglomerate behind brands like HBO, TBS and CNN. Last week, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said he was looking forward to Paramount’s ownership of the influential news network, “amplifying fears” that CNN, which has long been a target of the president, “will shift coverage to appease the Trump administration”, said the Los Angeles Times.

This emerging empire straddling tech, media and politics has sparked alarm on the left, with US media watchdog Fair warning that “the Ellison duo taking over both CBS and CNN, as well as controlling a major social media network like TikTok, would be dangerous for democracy. And given their closeness to the Trump regime, that seems to be the point.”

Elon Musk: Republicans

The Tesla, X and SpaceX boss emerged as one of the most vocal Trump supporters – and prominent donors – during the 2024 election campaign. He spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars backing Trump and other Republican candidates, according to Federal Election Commission filings reported by CBS News. While this made him the largest donor in the 2024 election cycle to either party, it represented just a fraction of his estimated $658 billion fortune. Aside from financial support, Musk’s ownership of X (formerly Twitter) provided a crucial platform to support the Maga message before – and after – election day.

Musk went on to become one of Trump’s closest advisers, earning him the nickname “First Buddy”. Efforts to “reshape” the federal government through the Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) made him “perhaps the most important figure in the new administration”, said The New York Times.

While Musk’s relationship with Trump “went up in flames” last summer, with the pair engaging in a tit-for-tat spat on social media that at one point threatened to overwhelm the president, it has since “been rebuilt”, said Politico. The world’s richest person has predicted that the US is at the start of a “great 12-year span” composed of the second Trump administration followed by two consecutive J.D. Vance terms.

Though he has “taken a step back from politics, the tech mogul – and his dramatically outsized political spending – would be a powerful booster for Vance if he runs in 2028 and Musk chooses to be involved”.

Jeff Bezos: Republicans

In 2016, the founder of Amazon, and the world’s fourth-richest man, warned Trump could “erode” American democracy. Once derided as a “woke” capitalist, over the years Bezos has “changed his tune” when it comes to dealing with Trump, said The Seattle Times.

In the run-up to the 2024 presidential election he blocked his newspaper, The Washington Post, from endorsing a candidate for the first time in decades, sparking an “uproar”, including a quarter of a million cancelled subscriptions and concerns about conflicts with Bezos’ financial interests, said the paper.

Since then, under Bezos’ supervision the Post has undergone a “political realignment” that saw an “exodus of top talent”, said Vanity Fair. The Amazon founder has faced further backlash for recently cutting a third of staff at the storied newspaper, which Trump “has long regarded as an adversary”, said the Daily Beast, while at the same time splashing out tens of millions of dollars on a documentary of the first lady, Melania.

All this may have won him few friends on the left, but it appears to have paid dividends for Bezos, with his Blue Origin space company winning a $2.3 billion contract from Nasa. Amazon is also among a number of tech giants, including Apple, Google, Microsoft and Meta, that have contributed funds to the ever-spiralling costs of Trump’s multimillion-dollar White House ballroom project.

Mark Zuckerberg: Republicans

The relationship between the Facebook founder and Trump has not always been easy – the president has in the past threatened to send Zuckerberg to prison for life – but the tech titan and world’s fifth-richest person has tried to ingratiate himself with Trump since he returned to the White House.

Over the past year, Zuckerberg has “appeared to go out of his way both publicly and financially to please the 79-year-old Trump”, said Bloomberg. He’s also “pushed through key corporate and product changes Trump favours – like eliminating hate speech rules and dismantling diversity and outside fact-checking efforts”.

For now, their “interests are aligned”, said the Financial Times. Zuckerberg has pledged to invest at least $600 billion in the US up to 2028, “allowing Trump to tout his administration’s success in cementing US corporate supremacy over China”. As for Zuckerberg, his newfound “responsiveness to Trump has been good for business”.

Bill Gates: Democrats

One billionaire who “isn’t in on the boys’ club throwing money and support behind the president” is Bill Gates, said Fortune.

The Microsoft co-founder privately donated $50 million to a non-profit organisation supporting the Kamala Harris campaign, The New York Times reported.

“I have a long history of working with leaders across the political spectrum, but this election is different, with unprecedented significance for Americans and the most vulnerable people around the world,” he said in a statement.

The philanthropist, who has given away much of his fortune over the past two decades, has criticised Trump’s decision to cut US foreign aid disbursements, and has voiced surprise at “a significant right-of-centre group” of tech billionaires in Silicon Valley who support the Republicans, said The New York Times.

Yet his stance towards the Trump administration has become more nuanced in recent months. He has attended several events with the president and was accused of pandering to the Maga base when he publicly argued for pushing the climate crisis down the international agenda, in favour of more focus on health issues.

“It may be that he is really worried that Trump will bully him the way he has bullied other ultra-wealthy business people,” former vice president and climate activist Al Gore said. “It looks like it may be possible that he’s scared of Trump.”

Michael Bloomberg: Democrats

The founder of Bloomberg and former Republican New York mayor has been one of the most high-profile critics of Trump over the years. A major Democrat donor, his “total financial commitment toward Democratic causes” reportedly neared $100 million during the 2024 election, said Forbes.

He warned during the campaign that “Trump is not fit for high office”, said Bloomberg, and his huge personal fortune – not to mention international media organisation – may prove hugely influential in taking the fight to the Republicans over the coming years.

In the immediate aftermath of Trump’s second inauguration, Bloomberg stepped in to “provide funding to help cover the US contribution to the UN climate body's budget” after the president pulled out of the Paris climate agreement, said Reuters. In April, it was reported that Bloomberg’s gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety, was planning to spend $10 million to help elect Democratic attorneys general in 2025 and 2026, “an investment it says is meant to help protect the rule of law and democracy while President Trump holds the White House”, The New York Times said.

Warren Buffett: Democrats

A long-time Democratic supporter, the legendary investor – known as the “Sage of Omaha” – appeared on stage with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election.

Since then, the world’s 11th-richest person, who stepped down from his role as Berkshire Hathaway CEO at the end of last year, has “avoided donating to federal political candidates as he aimed to spare his companies and employees from any potential backlash”, said Bloomberg.

But in a rare interview with CBS News last year, the 95-year-old attacked Trump’s plans to introduce trade tariffs on foreign goods, a move he called an “act of war”. The warning to Wall Street was all the more “deafening”, said Yahoo! Finance, “when you consider that Buffett typically tries to stay out of politics”.

George Soros: Democrats

The Hungarian-born financier is a major backer of the Democrats and the bête noire of right-wing populists and conspiracy theorists.

In 2022, Soros was the US’ single largest donor, personally giving $170 million during the midterm election cycle to help Democratic campaigns and political action committees. In 2024, a nonprofit founded and funded by Soros donated $60 million to the left-wing Democracy PAC, according to a filing with the Federal Election Commission.

In August last year, Trump said the 95-year-old and his son Alex, who has taken over the running of his Open Society Foundations (OSF) nonprofit, should face criminal charges for supporting violent riots in the US, “a baseless claim that the president has pushed before”, said Al Jazeera.

Trump followed up this threat in September by claiming Soros was “a likely candidate” for prosecution, and that the OSF could face investigation by the US government.

Mass shootings, a depressingly common occurrence in the United States, have generally led to greater support for more restrictive gun laws. Twice this century — after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012, and the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting — there have been dramatic shifts in polling that have led to a seemingly permanent increase in the share of Americans who say they support stricter gun laws. Yet the political coalition to pursue sweeping reform has never materialized. Still, Democrats have long supported a suite of what they call "common sense" gun reforms that stop well short of a wholesale revision of gun ownership rights in the United States, and Kamala Harris is no exception.

A gun owner's modest reform platform

Harris stunned many liberals during her Sept. 10 debate with Republican nominee Donald Trump when she said that she was a gun owner. "This business about taking everybody's guns away — Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. So stop the continuous lying," she said in response to Trump claiming that she wants to confiscate guns. She owns a gun "for probably the reason a lot of people do: for personal safety. I was a career prosecutor," Harris said during her unsuccessful run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2019. Many prosecutors and judges around the country worry that they will be subject to retaliation for their role in proceedings against those accused of crimes. During that campaign, Harris also supported mandatory assault weapons buyback programs, which would require owners of such weapons to turn them in for cash compensation in the event that Congress passes a renewed ban similar to the one that was in place from 1994 to 2004. Harris now says she no longer supports buybacks

As a U.S. senator from California, Harris co-sponsored bills that would impose a new assault weapons ban on certain kinds of rifles and require universal background checks for potential gun buyers. As vice president, she has backed the administration's efforts to prod states into passing "red flag laws." Such laws create a "civil proceeding that allows people — usually police officers and family members — to petition a judge for an emergency order that would temporarily remove firearms from a person found to be at risk of harming themselves or someone else," said The Guardian. Advocates say that such laws would have prevented many suicides and mass shootings had they been in place, while critics say they infringe on individuals' Second Amendment rights.

The 2022 bipartisan gun safety bill signed into law by President Joe Biden created a national office to implement red flag laws. It also included background checks for gun buyers between the ages of 18 and 21, and strengthened laws to prevent domestic abusers from obtaining a firearm. Because of her past stances on the issue as well as the Biden-Harris administration's efforts and accomplishments, Harris has been endorsed by all of the major gun reform advocacy groups, including Everytown For Gun Safety. "Her positions represent a direct attack on the Second Amendment and will destroy your Constitutional right to bear arms," said the National Rifle Association, which has endorsed Trump.

All quiet on the gun front

Her official campaign page has nothing to say about guns, and Harris has not unveiled any new proposals related to firearm legislation during the campaign. In public appearances, however, she has reiterated her support for a new assault weapons ban. Assault weapons like the AR-15 used in so many American mass shootings "are literally tools of war," Harris said in a Sept. 13 interview with Philadelphia's ABC News affiliate. She also expressed her support for universal background checks, another intervention that advocates believe will help keep guns out of the hands of mass shooters and criminals.

While she supported more restrictive measures on handguns as San Francisco District Attorney, including a ban on manufacturing, owning or selling handguns, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that such measures violate the Second Amendment, and Harris insists that she does not support legislation that would target handguns.

What happened

Vice President Kamala Harris made the closing argument of her presidential campaign Tuesday night, speaking to a large crowd outside the White House that stretched back to the Washington Monument. Her campaign estimated that more than 75,000 people attended. Speaking at the Ellipse — the spot where Donald Trump urged his supporters to "fight like hell" and march to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — Harris asked voters to "turn the page" on Trump's "division" and "chaos" and choose a "new generation of leadership" offering a "different path" that benefits all Americans.

Who said what

"In less than 90 days, either Donald Trump or I will be in the Oval Office," Harris said. "On Day 1, if elected, Donald Trump would walk into that office with an enemies list. When elected, I will walk in with a to-do list full of priorities on what I will get done for the American people." She pledged to "always put country above party and above self," to "fight for the people" and to listen to experts and stakeholders but also critics, because unlike Trump, "I don't believe people who disagree with me are the enemy. He wants to put them in jail. I'll give them a seat at my table."

Harris combined a "blistering critique of Trump" — a man "unstable, obsessed with revenge and consumed with grievance" who "is not thinking about making your life better" — with "her policy vision for the country," The Wall Street Journal said. She "measured her policy plans against Trump's," CNN said, saying she "would expand Medicare to cover home health care, where Trump would try to cut the program," for example, and "back women's reproductive rights, where Trump would further restrict them."

"You might not know it reading the news or following X," but Harris and Trump both "firmed up" their closing messages weeks ago, David Weigel said at Semafor, and "they are hammering swing state voters with simple, direct arguments," mostly on the economy, "even as the media cycle spins out of control" with flashier outrage bait from their rallies.

What next?

The Ellipse speech "was framed as a campaign finale," The Associated Press said, but "it's far from Harris' last campaign event. She'll be hitting all the key battleground states this week as she makes her last pitch to voters," especially the tiny sliver of persuadable undecideds.

For 75 years, America has served as NATO's backbone. And NATO has backstopped Ukraine in its war against Russia. Kamala Harris says that commitment would remain if she becomes president.

Harris would be "steady on NATO," said Reuters. That stands in "sharp contrast" to Donald Trump's efforts to remake America's relationship with the military alliance. But Harris steadiness on NATO would continue the Biden administration's "staunch support" for the organization, Reuters said. And Harris has vowed to stand by Ukraine against Russia, which she has said is waging "barbaric and inhumane" war with its neighbor.

That support may only go so far. Harris has shied away from saying whether she would back Ukraine's bid to become a member of NATO, Bloomberg said. That's a question for the future, she told CBS' "60 Minutes." "Right now, we are supporting Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russia's unprovoked aggression," she told the program. An anonymous aide later said Harris believes "Ukraine's future is in NATO," Bloomberg said.

NATO: Quiet continuity

"Europe can expect continuity from Kamala Harris," Jen Kirby said at Internationale Politik Quarterly. If Harris becomes president, America would "remain a strong supporter of NATO" — and remain committed to the organization's Article 5 requirement that an attack on one member be treated as an attack on all. (That provision is mostly seen as an American commitment to Europe's defense, though it was invoked after 9/11 to bring European countries into the fight against al-Qaida.) It is unclear, tbough, if voters care. "Foreign policy has not factored" into the campaign, Kirby said.

"Europe is far from the center of attention for the U.S. foreign policy set," said Politico. Neither Harris nor Tim Walz, her running mate, have talked much about NATO or Europe on the campaign trail. Europeans are anticipating changes, even if Harris wins, simply because U.S. leaders seem ready to pivot to China as a main focus. Europeans, said Lithuania's foreign minister, should "realize that America is and will be focused on [the] Indo-Pacific."

Ukraine: No surrender

Harris has also been steadfast in backing Ukraine. She has "slammed" proposals that Ukraine trade territory to Russia in exchange for peace, said The Associated Press. "They are proposals for surrender," she said at a September appearance with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. She warned that America's enemies would be emboldened if the country abandoned Ukraine and allowed Russian leader Vladimir Putin to win the war. "The United States supports Ukraine not out of charity but because it's in our strategic interest," she said.

"Events on the ground in Russia and Ukraine will also shape the future president's decisions," Angela Stent said for The Brookings Institution. While it appears that Harris' Ukraine policy would "represent continuity" with the Biden administration, it is likely that she would ask advisers to review that policy once in office. President Joe Biden has been reluctant to let Ukraine have some offensive weapon systems; Harris might be "more forward-looking" on the issue. One question about Ukraine must still be answered by American policymakers, Stent said: "No one in the White House has defined what winning or prevailing might mean."

Never in modern history has a US presidential race been so tight so close to Election Day.

With just a week left, Kamala Harris will deliver her presidential election campaign's closing argument in Washington tonight, with the vice president leaning on the symbolic location to paint her rival as a threat to democracy. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has planned rallies this weekend in New Mexico and Virginia, two Democratic states where the former president is trailing.

"After $2.8 billion spent on campaigning, two assassination attempts, the withdrawal of a president from his re-election bid, two highly consequential debates and endorsements ranging from Taylor Swift to Hulk Hogan, Americans are still evenly split over who their next leader should be," said the Financial Times.

What are the polls currently saying?

Most polls put Harris and Trump nearly neck and neck, with Harris' slight edge narrowing in Trump's favour recently – but as the winner is decided in the Electoral College, most analysts believe the election will come down to results in just a few crucial swing states. Polling averages show razor-thin margins in all seven battleground states, within a tiny margin of error.

The Republican campaign has been "buoyed by polling showing Trump in a better closing position" than this time in 2016 and 2020, said Semafor. However, "after what happened in 2020, and the 'red wave' that didn't materialise in 2022, there are more sceptics than there are optimists," said one campaign insider.

But Harris campaign aides are also "growing cautiously optimistic", said The New York Times, believing the race is "shifting in her favour". Strategists believe the campaign's emphasis on Trump as a fascist, an "expansive battleground-state operation" and "strength among female voters" over abortion rights will carry Harris to a "narrow triumph".

Internal polling puts Harris "slightly ahead" in the three northern states: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Trump's aides believe he can win at least one; they are "particularly hopeful about Pennsylvania". Harris campaign officials believe she "remains competitive" in the four Sun Belt battleground states: Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona and Nevada.

Who has already voted?

The majority of voters will go to the polls on Election Day, but many have already cast their vote using the postal voting system or early voting. As of today, more than 43 million ballots have been cast across 47 states and the District of Columbia, according to CNN.

Pre-election voting is "down significantly" from record levels during the pandemic in 2020. Generally, Democrats prefer to cast their ballots in advance while Republicans "strongly prefer to vote on Election Day". But in a "major shift" from 2020, when the Trump campaign warned against pre-election voting, the Republicans are trying to encourage it.

When might we know the final result?

Generally, Americans can expect "relatively quick race calls for elections", said The Hill. In the past few decades all have been "called" by the morning after the election, except for 2000 (delayed for weeks because of a recount in Florida).

The 2020 election marked a "sharp difference" from the norm; the public had to wait almost five days before "most major news outlets" could call a result, due largely to delays processing the "historic increase" in postal voting caused by the pandemic.

Since then, almost all states have changed their policies to allow envelopes for postal votes to be processed ahead of Election Day, and about half allow machines to scan the ballot papers as long as the results aren't aggregated, according to a recent report by the Center for Election Innovation & Research. Fewer postal votes this year should "speed the process up", said The Hill.

If the election comes down to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (neither of which allow envelope processing until Election Day), a "quick race call might be impossible". Ultimately, just how close the race is may decide "how long the country is holding its breath".

Most voters think Trump will not concede the election even if he loses, according to a CNN poll conducted by SSRS of 1,704 registered voters across the US. A "sizeable minority of his backers" say that losing candidates "have no obligation to do so".

In 2017, just weeks into Donald Trump's first term in office, The Washington Post officially announced a new slogan for the storied and celebrated journalistic institution: "Democracy Dies in Darkness," allegedly a favorite phrase of iconic reporter Bob Woodward. While the paper's executives insisted they had "come up with a slogan nearly a year ago, long before Trump was the Republican presidential nominee," the mantra was quickly — and understandably — taken by many as a rallying cry, not just for the Post, but for the media at large during the already-evident tumult of the Trump administration.

Seven years later, as Trump approaches Election Day with promises of retribution and violence, the Post's slogan is once again in the spotlight — this time in light of the paper's sudden and unexpected decision to nix a planned presidential endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris, allegedly "made by owner, Jeff Bezos," the Post's union said on X.

Although the impact of the Post's decision not to endorse a candidate may, at this stage of the 2024 campaign, be electorally minimal (the same as if it had endorsed someone), the implications of such a move may be more concerning.

"This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," former Post editor Marty Baron said to NPR. "Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate the Post's owner" and other media owners.

What did the commentators say?

The Post's decision to cancel its planned endorsement of Harris — coupled with a similar decision by the Los Angeles Times not to endorse a candidate this year after having endorsed Democrats for the previous four elections — is an example of "anticipatory obedience," the Columbia Journalism Review said. Owners like Bezos and the Times' publisher Patrick Soon-Shiong are preemptively acting out of fear that "if Trump wins he could take vengeance on companies that cross him." What's the use of having a net worth of over $200 billion if Bezos can't buy "fearlessness in the face of a carnival-barking, would-be authoritarian who is basically a coin toss away from being, yet again, president of the United States?" asked Brian McGrory at The Boston Globe.

In the wake of the nonendorsement announcement, the "#BoycottWaPo hashtag spawned dozens of anti-Post comments, as well as remarks from notable public figures and influencers about canceled subscriptions," the Post itself said in an article on reactions to the decision. The nonendorsement "already seemed to be impacting subscriptions," said Semafor, with some 2,000 people canceling within the first 24 hours after the announcement — "an unusually high number," according to one Post employee. By midday Monday, 200,000 people had canceled their subscriptions, said NPR.

Not everyone agrees with how best to respond, however. Cancellations "do Donald Trump's work for him," Baron said to The New Yorker. "He would like to actually weaken these institutions and eliminate them."

"Canceling a newspaper subscription helps politicians who don't want oversight," said CNN's Jake Tapper on X. Doing so "does nothing to hurt the billionaires who own the newspapers," and ultimately "will result in fewer journalists trying to hold the powerful to account."

Although newspaper cancellations are a "reasonable impulse" for average people with "few ways of combatting forces bigger than them, forces such as the threat of authoritarianism," The Atlantic said, doing so only hurts journalism as a whole. Subscribers should instead be "canceling their Amazon Prime subscriptions," which are ultimately the engine of Bezos' fortune.

What next?

Under Bezos, the Post "surely did more at the margins to help Harris by spiking the editorial — by outraging her supporters — than if it had been published on Sunday," said Politico's John Harris. Still, by dint of his own role in the power structure the paper is meant to hold to task, Bezos should either sell the paper outright or "somehow put it in the hands of a truly independent nonprofit entity."

More broadly, the episode is an "argument against billionaires buying newspapers," said MSNBC's Jarvis DeBerry. While there may have been hell to pay if the Post and the Times had endorsed Harris, and then Trump won, that hell "will be visited on more vulnerable people to a much greater degree." It is "unforgivable," then, that these owners are "more concerned with their own interests than the interests of the readers they serve."

What happened

Kamala Harris kicked off the weekend discussing reproductive rights before a crowd of 30,000 in Houston and Donald Trump capped it with a rally Sunday night before a capacity crowd of nearly 20,000 fans in New York's Madison Square Garden. With eight days to go, the race is essentially tied nationally and in the battleground states, where the two candidates spent the bulk of the weekend.

Who said what

Trump's 78-minute speech in Manhattan was billed as the "closing message of his campaign," The New York Times said, but by the time he spoke, two hours later than scheduled, it "had instead become a carnival of grievances, misogyny and racism." The rally opened with comedian Tony Hinchcliffe joking that Latinos "love making babies," with a crude line about not using birth control, and another calling Puerto Rico a "floating island of garbage."

Hinchcliffe also mocked Jews as cheap and Palestinians as rock-throwers and joked about Black people carving watermelons for Halloween, but it was his digs at Puerto Ricans — a sizable voting bloc in Pennsylvania — that got swift and bipartisan blowback. Puerto Rican superstar Bad Bunny posted both Hinchcliffe's jokes and Harris' outreach to Puerto Ricans in Philadelphia earlier in the day, throwing his support behind the Democratic candidate. Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony posted similar comments to their large social media followings.

The Trump rally versus Harris outreach was a "split screen the Harris campaign welcomed," Adam Wren said at Politico. "If Donald Trump loses on Nov. 5, the racist carnival he curated at Madison Square Garden could be remembered as the day that cost him this margin-of-error election."

Even the "normally pugnacious Trump campaign took the rare step of distancing itself from Hinchcliffe," The Associated Press said, saying his Puerto Rican joke "does not reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign." But "other speakers also made incendiary comments," including a Trump childhood friend calling Harris "the Antichrist" and "the devil," and a businessman suggesting she was a prostitute with "pimp handlers."

What next?

Both parties "saw the night as a win," Shelby Talcott said at Semafor. Republicans pointed to the huge media coverage for Trump's message on immigration and the economy in the packed "iconic venue" in a blue state, while Democrats highlighted the dark vitriol and "crude and offensive" insults to key blocs of voters.

The Democrats are beginning to panic, said Alex Shephard in The New Republic – and who can blame them? It appears Kamala Harris is incapable of establishing a meaningful lead in this election, no matter what her rival says or does.

Donald Trump is running "an explicitly authoritarian, if not outright fascist, campaign". His speeches have become ever more rambling, and his behaviour downright odd. After one of his meetings was interrupted last week by a medical emergency in the crowd, he abruptly abandoned the question-and-answer format and spent half-an-hour swaying on stage to a playlist of his favourite songs, including "Y.M.C.A." and "Nothing Compares 2 U". Yet despite all this, he's still level-pegging with Harris. On three occasions in this campaign, she has had a boost: when she first became the nominee; when she picked Tim Walz as her running mate; and when she bested Trump in the TV debate. Yet each time the momentum has dissipated. Harris just can't close the deal.

If Harris is failing to cut through, it's partly down to the way the media is covering this race, said Jill Filipovic on Slate. We've heard lots about how Harris isn't doing enough interviews or proposing detailed enough policies. Yet reporters have become so inured to Trump's outrages and garbled syntax that these barely receive any attention. Earlier this month, Trump launched into a "eugenicist rant" on a TV show, claiming that many migrants have "murdered far more than one person" and that being a murderer is in people's genes – "we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now". Although this received some coverage, you'd never have guessed from the headlines that he had said something so shocking. However habituated media commentators have become to Trump's behaviour, they need to tell people "exactly what the man who wants to be president is saying".

There's method to Trump's apparent madness, said Jonah Goldberg in the Los Angeles Times. By amping up his rhetoric, he's seeking to win over undecided voters. This might seem counterintuitive, as such voters are usually thought of as moderates who dislike extremist politics. But those swing voters are relatively few in number. The undecided voters Trump is after are the far larger group who are firmly Republican but might not bother going to the polls. Policy details won't sway them, but "apocalyptic" rhetoric might. Even in 2020, America's "highest-turnout national election in more than a century, a third of eligible voters – about 80 million people – stayed home". If Trump can enlist even a fraction of these people to vote for him, it could win him the White House.

The data experts reckon it will come down to each party's ability to get out the vote, said Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal. The Democrats are believed to have the edge with the ground game. But Harris could do more to help her cause. Having at last started to do more interviews, she now needs to start offering more concessions to conservatives in order to secure the centrist votes she needs to win.

A bit more urgency wouldn't go amiss either, said Maureen Dowd in The New York Times. You still don't get a sense that Harris really knows why she wants to be president. Asked recently whether she would have done anything differently from Joe Biden, she replied that "there is not a thing that comes to mind". This from a supposed change candidate. Why doesn't she just admit that the border policy was "bollixed up" and that Biden wasn't tough enough with Israel's PM, Benjamin Netanyahu? For Harris to win, "we need less mulling and more action in a do-or-die moment".

The United States experienced a temporary, violent crime wave during the Covid-19 pandemic. According to official data, many violent crimes are currently on track to be at or near historic lows since the FBI began tracking data. Even though the worst of that post-pandemic crime wave has passed, public concern about crime remains high. A September 2024 Pew survey found that violent crime was fifth on voters' list of priorities this year. That means that both major party campaigns are trying to reassure voters that their policies will address the problem.

From reformer to hardliner

Vice President Kamala Harris promised to "fundamentally transform how we approach public safety" as a candidate for president during the summer and fall of 2019. Harris – then a U.S. Senator from California – released a criminal justice reform platform in September 2019 that promised to end mass incarceration, abolish private prisons, abandon the war on drugs and establish a new national commission to study the criminal justice system and recommend reforms. She also sought to reform the juvenile justice system. The proposal promised to "end life sentences of children and offer opportunities for sentence reduction to young people convicted of crimes."

During the George Floyd protests in the summer of 2020, after she dropped out of the 2020 presidential race but before she was selected as Joe Biden's running mate, Harris appeared to endorse aspects of the "defund the police" movement, arguing that funding police departments to the exclusion of social priorities was misguided. The Biden-Harris ticket that year then promised significant reforms to the criminal justice system.

Yet the pandemic crime wave put the brakes on Harris' criminal justice reform platform almost immediately, as the newly-inaugurated administration realized that the public appetite for reform had been eclipsed by fears of a violent crime wave. Leading Democrats have yet to return to their previous messaging about tackling police violence and addressing systemic racism in the criminal justice system despite the drop in crime rates. "The change reflects a broader shift in thinking among Democrats and their nonpartisan allies who work in violence reduction, criminal justice and police reform," said Marin Cogan in Vox.

A promise to legalize marijuana

Since becoming the Democratic Party nominee in August after President Biden withdrew from the race, Harris has had very little to say about crime or criminal justice. One exception is federal marijuana policy. Despite the increasing number of states that have fully legalized recreational marijuana, more than 200,000 people were arrested on marijuana charges in 2023. As a senator, Harris cosponsored a bill in 2019 to decriminalize marijuana.

The Biden-Harris administration announced in April 2024 that it would ask the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to change its appraisal of marijuana to classify it as a less harmful substance that has medical uses but stopped short of recommending outright legalization or decriminalization. And then on October 14, Harris said that as president she would support legalization of marijuana, a stance that goes much further than the official policy of President Biden. In 2023, 70% of respondents said that they supported legalizing the drug, a record high in Gallup's long-running poll of the issue.

Harris has made few concrete promises about either criminal justice reform, violent crime or policing. There is no section on crime or law enforcement in her campaign's 82-page policy booklet that was released in September. In her convention speech, she did not address crime directly but said that as a prosecutor she worked on behalf of victims and that "everyone has a right to safety, to dignity and to justice." She has instead positioned herself as a tough-on-crime prosecutor who supports law enforcement.

Harris is "embracing her identity as a prosecutor in a way that would have been unimaginable four years ago," said Shaila Dewan in The New York Times. That posture may also be an effort to portray former president and Republican nominee Donald Trump – who was convicted on 34 felony counts by a New York jury in May – as a criminal. How well that plays with voters remains to be seen.

Elon Musk has never met a problem he couldn't throw a fortune at. With more money to his name than anyone else in the history of the human race, the Tesla CEO has made little secret of his plans to put that historic wealth in the service of reelecting Donald Trump — particularly in the perennial battleground state of Pennsylvania, where Musk appeared alongside the former president at a recent rally, urging the MAGA faithful to "just be a pest" about voter registration for their friends and family.

Now, with just weeks to go before polls close on the 2024 presidential election, Musk is once again betting big that his money will be a decisive factor in an election cycle that's already blown past fundraising records on both sides of the aisle. Last weekend, Musk announced he would award $1 million every day to a new, randomly chosen registered Pennsylvania voter who signs a conservative-skewing petition created by his pro-Trump America PAC. "I think this is kind of fun," Musk said on Saturday, as he introduced a man identified as John Dreher, his first newly-minted millionaire. "It seems like a good use of money basically."

While Musk is of course free to give his money to whomever he'd like, his plan to entice and reward signatories of his not-so-subtly pro-Trump enterprise by bumping them to a higher tax bracket is slightly more complicated — and potentially illegal.

What did the commentators say?

While Musk has obviously succeeded at pulling eyeballs to his sweepstakes, the fact that the first two recipients of his largesse were "Republican voters who had participated in recent non-presidential elections and already cast their ballots by mail this year" raises the question of whether the scheme is "activating a new segment of voters — incentivizing people to register or cast ballots — or just tapping into an existing pool of Musk and Trump fans," Politico said. Musk's skill as a "pitchman able to draw attention" is without question, but "what he offers in oversized cardboard checks for $1 million doesn't have much value," said Chris Brennan at USA Today.

Crucially, because Musk's sweepstakes are technically nonpartisan, Democrats can also "sign this petition and get a shot at the $1m and then vote for Kamala Harris," Sun Microsystems co-founder and fellow tech billionaire Vinod Khosla said on X. Democrat entrants would not only "gum up Musk's operation" by "muddying his database with an unknown number of Democrats," said Fortune, but they could ultimately "drain resources that could have otherwise gone to mobilizing voters for Donald Trump by wasting it on the opposing side."

Risk of Democratic gamification aside, Musk's giveaway faces a more immediate, acute threat as well: the question of legality. The sweepstakes operates in a "legal gray zone that appears to be open to interpretation," said Fox News. While paying someone to vote or register to vote is illegal, offering benefits to help people vote is "legal and common," The New York Times said, citing rides to polling places, or workplaces affording employees paid time off to vote as examples of allowed behavior. Because Musk is "not directly paying for voter registration — but rather for a petition signature that happens to be open only to registered voters," the billionaire's supporters argue that the giveaway is ultimately within the bounds of federal election law. Legal technicalities notwithstanding, the sweepstakes has already earned the suspicion of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D). Musk's giveaway is "something that law enforcement could take a look at," Shapiro said last week on NBC's "Meet the Press."

What next?

If he is violating the applicable election law statute, Musk could face up to five years in prison, and $10,000 in fines, although "I don't think it would be likely that he would suffer such a serious fine," UCLA election law professor Richard Hasen said to NPR. However, if Musk was "warned that this is illegal activity and continued to do it, I think that would create a different kind of situation."

To that end, a group of former Justice Department officials and Republican lawmakers have petitioned Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Musk's giveaway, arguing in a letter obtained by The Washington Post that the sweepstakes is in clear violation of election law. "We are aware of nothing like this in modern political history," the group said. Although law enforcement is "appropriately reluctant to take action shortly before elections that could affect how people vote," the letter said, "serious questions arising under laws that directly regulate the voting process must be an exception."

What happened

Vice President Kamala Harris took questions from undecided voters in suburban Philadelphia on Wednesday, in a CNN town hall scheduled to replace a second debate Donald Trump rejected. Harris explicitly called Trump a "fascist" and said voters should heed the "911 call to the American people" from retired Gen. John Kelly and a growing number of other top Trump administration officials "who know him best" and are sharing their "legitimate fear, based on Donald Trump's words and actions, that he will not obey an oath to support and defend the Constitution" in an uninhibited second term.

Who said what

Harris also talked about her faith and reiterated her plans to lower housing and grocery costs and have Medicare cover home elderly care, among other ways she "will not be a continuation of the Biden administration." But the warnings from former Trump allies about his fascist and dictatorial proclivities "are factoring heavily into Harris' closing message," The Washington Post said. Her campaign "wanted voters to hear her strongest case" about the dangers of a guardrail-free Trump restoration "before they flipped the channel back to 'Survivor,'" The New York Times said, and they "got their wish."

CNN's undecided voters asked Harris "often pointed questions," and "she didn't always answer them directly," Politico said. Asked if she believes Trump is antisemitic, for example, Harris said, "I believe Donald Trump is a danger to the well-being and security of the United States of America," and Americans don't need a president "comparing oneself, in a clearly admiring way, to Hitler."

"Trump, predictably, took the bait," Adam Wren said at Politico, "lashing out" at Kelly on social media, calling the four-star general a mendacious "LOWLIFE and a bad general" who was both "tough and dumb." Trump has also frequently called Harris a fascist — along with a communist, dumb, lazy and other slurs — but "nobody is wringing their hands about the insult" because "nobody actually believes Harris is a fascist," Jonathan Chait said at New York.

What next?

While Trump has "largely stuck to conservative safe spaces and friendly podcast interviews," Harris has "sat for a series of big-audience interviews with independent and — last week on Fox News — combative news outlets," the Times said. "Whether voters give her credit for her willingness to be questioned remains to be seen."

The days of "just say no" are over. Now candidates across the political spectrum are embracing legal pot.

Marijuana reform is "the rare bipartisan issue" in this year's presidential election, said The Wall Street Journal. Both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have offered support for easing restrictions — Trump has said he'll vote for legal weed in Florida's upcoming referendum on the issue, while Harris has vowed to legalize the drug — putting cannabis "on surer footing than ever." More than two dozen states and the District of Columbia have legalized adult marijuana use. But the industry says more reforms are needed. "Democrats want this, Republicans want this — both sides should be able to come together and have something reasonable happen," said one executive.

Advocates and opponents now cross party lines. In Florida, Bradford County Sheriff Gordon Smith — a Republican — made an ad backing that state's referendum, said Florida Politics. Legalization will "let us focus on serious crime, making our streets and neighborhoods safer," Smith said. But Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) is fighting the proposal, said NBC News. The one-time GOP presidential candidate is campaigning against the referendum, one observer said, "as if it's his own name on the ballot."

What did the commentators say?

It's "good politics" for Harris to back pot legalization, and it's "good for the country, too," Robert Gebelhoff said at The Washington Post. Two-thirds of voters — including more than half of Republicans — favor federal legalization. Now Democrats can argue against the government "micromanaging people's personal consumption habits" while promoting new regulations that rein in newer versions of weed that have 20 times the levels of THC than the drug did 40 years ago. Anybody who misses the old days of prohibition? "Good luck with that."

Florida's weed referendum makes it easy to buy a "socially harmful substance," Charles Fain Lehman said at The Wall Street Journal. "That breeds the kind of disorder Mr. Trump is known for standing against." There is a difference between decriminalization — not sending people to jail for possessing small amounts of marijuana — and "commercial legalization, which allows businesses to sell marijuana directly to consumers." That removes "all checks" on pot consumption: The likely result is "disorder and dysfunction."

What next?

Support for legal weed isn't unanimous: Florida's Catholic bishops have urged a no vote on the referendum. They increasingly stand alone. An "overwhelming" number of Americans — 88% — say marijuana "should be legal for medical or recreational use," said Pew Research Center. There are some partisan differences. Republicans are likelier than Democrats to "cite downsides" of legal recreational weed. Even then, just 17% of Republicans say marijuana should be completely illegal.

"The U.S. is divided when it comes to state and federal marijuana policy," said The Associated Press. While some states have legalized the drug, it still technically remains illegal under federal law. The overwhelming voter consensus means that the divide could be "coming to an end," said AP. In the meantime, state efforts roll on: Along with Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota all have ballot initiatives this fall allowing some sort of marijuana legalization.

The mailbox at the end of my driveway is crammed to bursting with political fliers. My phone chirps with text after text from pollsters and get-out-the-vote activists. Every weekend, I get stuck in the traffic overflow from yet another candidate's event. And I can't turn on the TV without seeing endless commercials for Donald Trump, for Kamala Harris, for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Josh Stein (the commercials for Mark Robinson, his Republican opponent, abruptly stopped a few weeks ago, after he was outed as a fan of trans porn and a self-proclaimed "black Nazi"). That's right, I live in North Carolina, one of this year's crucial swing states.

My state started early voting this week and promptly got stampeded by candidates and canvassers. Nobody can tour the western region around Asheville, where they're still digging out from Hurricane Helene, but the rest of the state was one big rally. The Democrats gave us Harris filling the Eastern Carolina University coliseum in Greenville, then running mate Tim Walz in the central cities of Durham and Winston-Salem, and then Bill Clinton hitting a bunch of small towns on a bus tour. The Republicans sent veep pick J.D. Vance to speak in Wilmington on the coast, while Trump will swing by a suburb of Charlotte next week. It's unclear whether all this electioneering will make a difference. North Carolina is often called purple, but we're really more of a deep magenta. We haven't voted for a Democrat for president since 2008. It's true that we often split our ballots and pick a Democratic governor even when we prefer the Republican as president — but that might just be a reflection of a state GOP that is much further to the right than the average Carolinian and offers extremists as nominees

Still, the political experts seem to think it's a toss-up, so our mailboxes and stadiums and cellphones will be under siege for another month. Of course, it could be worse. At least I don't live in Pennsylvania.

This is the editor's letter in the current issue of The Week magazine.

Kamala Harris is depending on one big issue to help her win the 2024 presidential race: abortion.

Abortion is the "key issue" in Harris' campaign, said CNN. One poll found that 54% of likely voters trust her more than Donald Trump to do a better job on abortion rights. (He pulled in 41% of respondents.) Her advantage is even bigger among young people, Black and Latino voters. That is why Harris has adopted a "rapid-response mentality" on the topic, CNN said. She is quick to highlight developments like ProPublica's reporting on two Georgia women who died because of delayed care related to that state's abortion ban.

Harris has been a "leading voice" on abortion rights, said The Washington Post. Her key position: She wants legislation to restore the national abortion rights that were eliminated when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. That change created a "horrific, heartbreaking reality" for women in states where abortion bans have passed, she has said. And Harris has vowed to protect access to the abortion drug mifepristone — her office in March called the drug "essential medication."

'Threw her weight' into abortion cases

Harris "has a long record of supporting abortion rights in California," said CalMatters. "As long as I have known her, this has always been a core issue," said San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu. As California's attorney general, she "threw her weight" behind cases involving abortion, including investigating allegations that Planned Parenthood was selling fetal remains and advocating regulation of anti-abortion pregnancy centers. That gives her "credibility" among reproductive rights groups, CalMatters said.

It also earns the ire of anti-abortion activists. Harris has "passionately" advocated a "pro-abortion agenda," Richard Doerflinger, a fellow with the National Catholic Bioethics Center, said at National Review. In 2020, Harris "taunted" then-candidate Joe Biden for supporting the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal funds for abortions. Harris, Doerflinger said, could be expected to rescind the band. The vice president has, he said, been "singularly obsessed" with abortion.

But some progressives think Harris doesn't go far enough. She "has not said whether she supports Roe's restrictions," said Politico. Under the old precedent, states could limit abortions during the third trimester. That is frustrating for some abortion-rights supporters who believe "government has no role in regulating abortions even after fetal viability."

Eliminating the filibuster

One sign of Harris' seriousness on abortion: She supports ending the Senate filibuster so the chamber can pass pro-choice legislation with 51 votes, NPR said. (Under the filibuster, most controversial legislation requires 60 votes to pass.) "I've been very clear, I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe," she said in a public radio interview.

Will the issue swing the election? Arizona progressives, for example, are worried a state-level ballot measure to protect abortion rights is not helping aid Democratic candidates at the polls, Politico said. Voters are "prioritizing other issues," said one abortion rights activist. We don't expect the ballot initiatives to deliver these states for us," said a Harris campaign adviser. In a close race, the adviser said, abortion is a "motivating issue that could bring more people to Harris' side."

Back-to-back hurricanes have wreaked havoc across America's southeastern states in the past month, said Rex Huppke in USA Today. And as if officials didn't have enough on their plate, they're also having to contend with a mass of lies and misinformation.

The primary source of this stuff is Donald Trump. Among his recent false claims is that Democratic officials had gone "out of their way to not help people in Republican areas"; that Kamala Harris had spent all the federal relief funds on housing illegal migrants; and that President Biden hadn't been in touch with governors in affected states. Trump's lies have been amplified by his "minions": Elon Musk tweeted that federal officials had been "ferrying illegals" into the country, instead of "saving American lives"; the Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene suggested that the government can control the weather, and was deliberately directing hurricanes towards Trump country.

If anyone has sought to exploit this crisis, it's Harris, said Kirsten Fleming in the New York Post. She interrupted the storm clear-up last week by accusing Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, of refusing to take her call, saying it was "irresponsible" and "selfish". He insisted that he didn't know she had called, pointing out that he had been rather busy. Harris is right that a natural disaster is a time to work together and not to play politics. Shame she didn't take her own advice.

There's a difference between playing politics and deliberately propagating lies, said Elaine Godfrey in The Atlantic. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has had to set up a dedicated webpage for debunking the rumours spread by Trump and his allies. It doesn't augur well for the 5 November election. Given the closeness of the race, the result could remain unresolved for a few days, creating ripe conditions for a similar campaign of misinformation. Instead of hurricane-related conspiracy theories, there'll be claims of "secret bins full of uncounted ballots". Instead of being blamed for hogging relief funds, undocumented migrants will be accused of illegally voting en masse. "The Maga loyalists in Congress and the pro-Trump media ecosystem will amplify these claims." Musk will helpfully fan the flames on X/Twitter. It has been a bad hurricane season, but in a little over a fortnight, America could be engulfed in "a storm of a different kind".

Technology has always transformed presidential elections. John F. Kennedy benefitted from the rise of television. Donald Trump won his first race with the help of Twitter. This year, podcasting may be the breakthrough medium.

Kamala Harris could soon sit down with popular podcaster Joe Rogan as she "works to shore up support with male voters," Reuters said. It's potentially a huge audience for Harris: Spotify says Rogan has 14.5 million followers on the platform, in addition to millions more who see podcast clips on Instagram and YouTube. If the interview happens, it will be the latest salvo in the "all-important Bro-Podcast War of 2024," Matt Stieb said at New York magazine.

Podcasts are "transforming the presidential election," Brady Brickner-Wood said at The New Yorker. Harris has already appeared on the "Call Her Daddy" podcast to discuss women's issues, while Trump has appeared on just about every male-oriented podcast imaginable, including those hosted by Theo Von and Lex Fridman. Why the newfound podcast popularity? Traditional interviews — like Harris' visit to "60 Minutes" — can feel "especially rigid." Podcasts offer candidates an "affable, jovial hang." And they reach voters.

What did the commentators say?

Some mainstream reporters are dismayed that Harris has "dispensed with legacy media as gatekeepers," Jennifer Rubin said at The Washington Post. In addition to the "Call Her Daddy" podcast, the vice president has also appeared on the NBA-oriented "All The Smoke" podcast and shows with radio hosts Howard Stern and Charlamagne Tha God. That's because "traditional news audiences are shrinking" while podcasts and other alternative formats offer "vastly more voters and potential voters" to candidates. Harris' media strategy is "exactly the right thing."

Harris' "Call Her Daddy" appearance "wasn't a hard-hitting accountability interview," Helen Lewis said at The Atlantic. But it did contain a "substantive policy discussion" about abortion rights, housing costs and other issues. Most Americans who do follow "hard news" have already decided how they'll vote. "Nailing down undecided voters — including those who don't currently plan to cast a ballot — is vital." Trump has already been on the podcast trail for months. Harris' decision to do the same is a "smart tactic."

What next?

The podcast presidential campaign reflects the Internet-era "scattering of audiences" that has left legacy outlets less powerful than they once were, Axios said. Hit podcasts, meanwhile, "over-index with audiences public figures want to reach." They also offer a different look at the candidates — Trump, for example, "showed a rarely seen softer side" while discussing his late brother's alcoholism during one podcast interview.

"The campaigns are still holding to some traditional tactics," said The Boston Globe. Together, Harris and Trump are expected to spend $2.1 billion on TV, radio, digital, and other media advertising during 2024, making this year's race the "most expensive election cycle in history." But podcasts are steering the conversation as never before, said media columnist Margaret Sullivan. "As journalists," she said, "we have to realize we are not the gatekeepers of information as we once were."

Climate change has long been a core priority for Democrats in national elections, with the party's voters much more likely than Republicans to believe that climate change is real and caused by human activities. U.S. climate policy has oscillated wildly between partisan administrations this century, with former President Trump pulling the country out of the Paris Climate Accords and President Biden rejoining them. While it has so far not been a top issue in the 2024 election, vice president and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris has climate plans that differ significantly from those of her Republican rival for office, former President Donald Trump.

What is Harris' climate history?

When Harris was California's junior senator from 2017 to 2021, she co-sponsored legislation that became known as the Green New Deal, outlining a series of goals designed to kickstart green energy production and make the U.S. gradually less dependent on fossil fuels. The text of the bill called for "eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible," but stopped short of a ban on fossil fuel consumption or production. It set a goal of "meeting 100% of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources." As a candidate for president in 2019, Harris backed the Green New Deal and endorsed a ban on hydraulic fracking, a controversial method of natural gas extraction that is prevalent in the swing state of Pennsylvania.

As vice president, Harris cast the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which contained a variety of measures to boost clean energy production and expanded a clean vehicle tax credit to incentivize car buyers to choose electric vehicles. IRA also created new incentives for homeowners to adopt clean energy appliances and energy sources.

What is Harris' climate future?

There are no specific proposals related to clean energy or the climate crisis in the 82-page economic plan that the Harris-Walz campaign released in September. Climate change did not figure prominently in Harris' acceptance speech at the 2024 Democratic National Convention either. She said only that she believes in "the freedom to breathe clean air, and drink clean water and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis."

Harris stands by the provisions in the IRA but has since backed away from her previous stance on fracking. Her campaign does not use the language of the Green New Deal, and in his debate with Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, Harris' running mate Tim Walz appeared to disavow the idea. Speaking about farmers in Minnesota who are getting battered by climate change, Walz said, "these are not folks that are Green New Deal folks," suggesting that the campaign regards the phrase as too extreme. Harris has pointed to the fact that the IRA also grants new leases for natural gas drilling as proof that she has consistently backed domestic fossil fuel production as vice president, and Walz similarly highlighted, in his debate, the fact that natural gas and oil production in the United States has increased under the Biden-Harris administration.

Why is Harris choosing not to emphasize her climate policy?

The Harris campaign has so far not released a detailed climate plan. The campaign website says only that she would work to "unite Americans to tackle the climate crisis," and mentions issue-areas like disaster resilience without outlining any specific proposals. This may be because polling shows climate change is not a top issue for voters in the 2024 election, and negative perceptions of the economy are making voters unwilling to entertain the idea of further sacrifices for the sake of the environment. In Gallup polling, the share of respondents who say that "protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth" has fallen from a high of 65% in 2019 to 52% in 2024. The Democratic Party Platform's section on climate change largely restates the policies in the Inflation Reduction Act and adds little in the way of new promises.

What happened

Vice President Kamala Harris held a rally in Pennsylvania Wednesday with more than 100 Republican former officeholders and officials who are backing her over Donald Trump, then sat down for a combative interview with Bret Baier on Fox News. Trump appeared in a Fox News town hall, taped Tuesday in Georgia, with a friendly audience of women, then recorded a Univision town hall in Florida with more skeptical Latino voters.

Who said what

Harris and Trump may have "appeared on the same network," but the dueling Fox News events showcased "their divergent media and electoral strategies," The Wall Street Journal said. Trump "has largely been sticking to conservative media," working to "boost voter turnout among people who support him already," while Harris is doing "more challenging interviews" to expand her coalition. Harris' Fox News debut — essentially "going into the lion's den" — was a play to "reach millions of voters, especially conservative-leaning women, who have probably not heard much of her message," The New York Times said. The half-hour interview was "contentious from the start and stayed that way throughout," Kierra Frazier said at Politico. Baier "recycled Republican talking points into accusations and frequently interrupted the vice president," while Harris highlighted Trump's "threats in recent appearances to use the military to go after his critics" and accused Baier of whitewashing those threats.

What next?

Harris "deserves credit for doing the interview," RealClearPolitics president Tom Bevan said on X, but "I don't think it helped her change any minds. Critics think it was a disaster, supporters think she did great." Most people, "especially swing voters," will only "see clips and get a general sense" of how the interview went, and "by that standard," Harris "did just fine," Jonathan Alter said at the Times. She "should have been better prepared" for "certain predictable questions," but the "sound bite that lingers" will be her line: "My presidency will not be a continuation of Joe Biden's presidency."

Kamala Harris is walking a delicate line as she campaigns for the presidency: She is committed to Israel's right to defend itself after last year's Oct. 7 attack by Hamas — but also wants Israel to curb the violence it has inflicted on Gaza's civilians in the year since.

"Let me be clear, I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself," she said in an October speech, according to NPR. But, she added, the "scale of suffering" in Gaza is "heartbreaking." Along with President Joe Biden, Harris has pushed for Israel to negotiate a cease-fire with Hamas that brings the remaining hostages home. But she has also been more vocal than Biden about the challenges and devastation Gazans have faced. The fighting must end, she said, so Palestinians can obtain "dignity, security, freedom and self determination."

Asked during a CBS News interview if she considers Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu a "real close ally," Harris hedged. "I think, with all due respect, the better question is, do we have an important alliance between the American people and the Israeli people," Harris said. "And the answer to that question is yes."

A 'critical role' in the Middle East

Some observers believe that the U.S. has "lost influence" in its efforts to restrain Israel, Bloomberg said. And the Biden-Harris administration has come in for criticism from Arab-American voters who have "vocally opposed U.S. support for Israel" during the war. (Many of those voters are located in the critical swing state of Michigan.) But Harris says America still has a "critical role" in the Middle East, Bloomberg said, including in helping bring the war to an end. "And we're not going to stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel and in the region, including Arab leaders," she said to CBS News.

It's not clear that American Arab voters are comfortable with that stance, Josephine Riesman and S.I. Rosenbaum said at Slate. The question is whether Harris would backtrack from Biden's "unwavering support" for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). "We need action, which means an arms embargo," said Natalia Latif, of the pro-Palestinian Uncommitted movement. But Harris has "little room to maneuver," Riesman and Rosenbaum said, given that a "huge part" of the Democratic Party base is "still deeply attached to Israel."

Seeking a two-state solution

Harris said she remains committed to a "two-state solution" that ultimately offers Palestinians their own state alongside Israel, PBS NewsHour said. "In that solution there must be security for the Israeli people and Israel and in equal measure for the Palestinians," she said during the September debate with Donald Trump. But a plan to actually achieve the two-state solution, long favored by policymakers, has proven elusive for decades.

There are still many unknowns. It is believed that Harris "might be somewhat to Biden's left on Gaza," Nicole Narea said at Vox. But it is an "open question" what that would actually look like, policy-wise. It seems unlikely that Harris would "substantially deviate" from Biden's policies. The trick for her is to try to keep both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian voters in the Democratic tent. That, Narea said, leaves Harris "with a difficult political tightrope to walk."

'Are Americans ready to give up on Ukraine?'

Robert Kagan at The Washington Post

Ukrainians are "being urged to abandon the romantic path of hopeless resistance and pursue the heroic path of realism," says Robert Kagan. But "if they do, what is to stop Russia from taking the rest of Ukraine whenever it is ready?" Ukrainians "won't soon forget the death, destruction, murder and torture suffered at Russia's hands during the war." There will be "potent strains of revanchism as Ukrainians mourn their lost territory and yearn for its eventual return."

Read more

'The little-known factor driving up housing costs: Dirty money'

James K. Boyce and Léonce Ndikumana at Politico

The "number of  housing units in the nation has grown faster than the number of households," so housing is "not just a supply problem," say James K. Boyce and Léonce Ndikumana. It's the "people with money — especially those with a lot of money — who drive up prices for everyone else." There are people "buying luxury real estate who have a lot of money. Dirty money. And that money is distorting the market for ordinary homebuyers."

Read more

'Harris and Trump are tied in the polls — so I conducted my own less traditional research'

Arwa Mahdawi at The Guardian

Polling is an "inexact science at the best of times, and "more importantly, pretty much all the results of recent Trump-Harris polls have been within the margin of error," says Arwa Mahdawi. People can "scrutinize the numbers ad infinitum, but when it comes down to it, the truth is that nobody knows what is going to happen in November other than it's (probably) going to be very close." Polling is "basically astrology for political nerds at this point."

Read more

'"Megalopolis" is a spectacular failure'

Spencer Neale at The American Conservative

The "greatest sin an artist can commit is to allow time to pass them by unnoticed," but that is "exactly what has happened to the legendary filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola," says Spencer Neale. His film "Megalopolis" is "evidence of just how far Coppola has fallen." The film "spirals from one green screen scene to the next as stilted dialogue and unsure acting awkwardly pace the blockbuster." Coppola "simply can't get out of the way of his best-laid plans."

Read more

On paper, Kamala Harris is a solid choice, arguably better qualified than any incoming president since George H.W. Bush. 

She has been both attorney general and senator of the nation's most populous state, California; she has served on the Senate Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee. As vice-president, she has presided over the Senate for four years, shepherding though major laws such as the Inflation Reduction Act, and she has met more than 150 world leaders. 

Harris is, though, the first Democratic presidential nominee in 50 years to have been selected outside the usual system of primary elections, because of Joe Biden's abrupt decision to drop out. And, of course, if she wins the election on 5 November, she will be the first woman, the first black woman and the first Asian American to be the US president – as she has been in so many of her previous roles.

Where did she grow up?

Harris was born in Oakland, California, in October 1964. Her Indian-born mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was a breast cancer researcher at Berkeley, University of California; her father, Donald Harris, is a distinguished Marxist economist from Jamaica. Both were civil rights activists: they met at Oakland's influential AfroAmerican Association, and took Kamala to protests from a young age. 

They separated when she was five, and she was largely raised by her mother, who immersed her and her sister in Oakland's black culture, taking them to a Baptist church as well as a Hindu temple. Harris was bussed from her largely black neighbourhood to a majority white school in a rich part of Berkeley, as part of a controversial desegregation plan. 

After high school, she enrolled at Howard University in Washington DC, one of the bastions of black American political and cultural life. She majored in political science and economics before attending law school in California.

What did she achieve in her legal career?

In 1990, Harris took a job at the Alameda County district attorney's office; she specialised in prosecuting sex crimes. In 2003, at 39, she was elected as San Francisco's district attorney. Eight years later, she became attorney general of California. 

Serving as a prosecutor was controversial in her milieu, because the criminal justice system was seen as oppressive to African Americans. Harris says in her memoir, "The Truths We Hold", that she thinks the system is "broken", but wanted to be "on the other side" to effect change. 

She was a "progressive" prosecutor who opposed the death penalty and launched rehabilitation initiatives to cut reoffending, but she was also not afraid to be "tough on crime". As California's attorney general, she tripled the number of felony offenders sent to state prison.

What explains her political rise?

Harris is said to be an excellent networker, and she has many influential allies. She was an early backer of Barack Obama, and is good friends with Gavin Newsom, California's governor. She's also a formidable campaigner: she beat Loretta Sanchez, a congresswoman of 20 years' standing, to the Democratic Senate nomination in 2016; she won the seat on the night that Donald Trump won the presidency. 

On the Senate Judiciary Committee, she became known for her grillings of Trump officials and Supreme Court nominees: "Can you think of any laws that give government the power to make decisions about the male body?" she asked the conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh, to his clear discomfort. Her performances cemented her status as a rising star of the Democratic Party; before long she was being touted as a possible presidential candidate to take on Trump in 2020.

Why did her first presidential bid fail?

It started well, with a rally 20,000 strong in Oakland in January 2019, and she outshone Joe Biden in the first candidates' debate in June. But she failed to capitalise on her early momentum, quitting the race in December, before the primary votes began. Pundits agreed that she'd failed to articulate a clear narrative and that, by trying to appeal to both moderates and progressives in her party, she had pleased neither. 

Yet she was chosen by Biden in August 2020 to be his presidential running mate; Republican critics often scornfully describe her as a "diversity hire", because the decision came at the height of the Black Lives Matter movement.

How has she fared as VP?

She got off to a rough start. Biden handed her the thorny portfolio of addressing the "root causes" of illegal immigration to the US from Central America – a vague brief which left her indelibly linked with the administration's failure to curb the flow of migrants across the Mexican border. At her lowest point, fully 55% of voters had an unfavourable opinion of her; there was even speculation that Biden would drop her from the ticket to improve his re-election chances. 

But her standing improved after the Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to abortion in 2022: she became the White House's leading voice in defending reproductive rights, and on gun control. That endeared her to the Democratic base, helping her cruise to the nomination this year.

What does she believe in?

Harris is still seen as something of a political chameleon (not helped by her penchant for rather convoluted "word salad" public statements). Her positions on healthcare funding and immigration have notably hardened in recent years: she now supports a hardline bipartisan border security package put forward by Biden. But on reproductive rights and gay marriage she retains clear liberal positions. 

On foreign policy, she has vowed to support Ukraine against Russia "for as long as it takes". On Israel, she has been a long-term supporter of a two-state solution, and she was one of the first members of the Biden administration to call for an "immediate ceasefire" in Gaza.

Momala: the co-parent

Harris first stepped into the public eye in 1994, when Clint Eastwood spilt champagne on her at the 60th birthday party of Willie Brown, then the speaker of the California State Assembly, whom Harris was dating at the time. San Francisco Chronicle gossip columnist Herb Caen described Harris, then a 30-year-old deputy district attorney, as "something new in Willie's love life. She's a woman, not a girl." They split after two years.

In 2013, she met Doug Emhoff, an LA-based entertainment lawyer, now her husband. They were set up on a blind date by a mutual friend. "It felt like we had known each other for ever," Emhoff remembered, but Harris warned him that she was a busy woman. "I didn't want it to end," he said. "And so the next morning, I pulled the move of emailing her with my availabilities for the next four months, including long weekends." 

A year later, when Harris was 49, they were married. Harris became a stepmother (or "Momala") to his son Cole, 30, and daughter Ella, 25. When J.D. Vance, Trump's running mate, complained that the Democrats were led by "a bunch of childless cat ladies", Emhoff's first wife, Kerstin, retorted that Harris was an excellent "co-parent" to her children: "loving, nurturing, fiercely protective, and always present".

The 2024 presidential election might be decided by the undecided. In an era of hyperpolarization, the idea that there are still "undecided voters" might seem unbelievable. But they exist — and they could choose who wins in November.

"There are different strains of 'undecided,'" Philip Bump said at The Washington Post. Many of those Americans aren't so much divided between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris — instead, they're "undecided" on whether or not to vote. Others have "complex" calculations to make about how the candidates align with their own values. And others simply aren't paying much attention. There have always been Americans who are "loosely attached" to politics, Bump said. "This isn't new."

Campaigns sort undecideds into two groups: "Persuadable" and "irregular." "Persuadable voters get the most attention from the media," Ronald Brownstein said at The Atlantic. But the irregulars — folks who don't always go to the polls — "can loom much larger in the outcome." Why? Because they're much more likely to turn out in a presidential election. "There are more humans who are non-habitual voters than there are voters who swing back and forth," said one Democratic strategist.

Views 'all over the place'

Undecideds are often seen as voters who sit "squarely in the middle of today's polarized politics," Jay Kaspian Kang said at The New Yorker. In reality, their views are "all over the place." The press has hyperfixated on these people, though, because presidential elections now come down to a "small number of voters in swing states." Despite the relentless effort to understand undecideds and what makes them tick, it seems we're no closer to answer. "We know the undecided voter will decide our destiny," Kang said, "but we cannot conjure up their face."

But they will matter. Harris' polling lead is "within the margin of error," said PBS NewsHour. "The band of undecided voters is getting narrower and narrower by the day," said a Republican strategist. Eight in 10 voters say their minds are "completely decided." But a few still want to learn more about Harris, who entered the race at a relatively late stage. "The fact that they're unsure is a better place to be than they're against you," said Faiz Shakir, a Democratic operative.

Shifting with the 'political winds'

"The firm line we've drawn between the 'decided' and the 'undecided' may not exist," Vinay Mehra said at Harvard's Institute for Quantitative Social Science. Most voters are "swaying" in response to the national mood, recent events and other factors. Undecideds are "simply those most visibly affected by this swing." They don't sit in the middle of the political spectrum — instead, they're most likely to move from one side to the other "when the political winds shift." That means the way undecided voters move is "just a reflection of the swings happening across the electorate."

Or perhaps the winds simply blow ill. The existence of undecided voters might be a sign that the existing candidates and parties "don't merit public confidence," Ross Douthat said at The New York Times. If voters are given two bad options, he said, "they will often choose the one you are sure is worse."

Polls suggest voters trust Donald Trump more than Kamala Harris on immigration. Harris is trying to make up the difference with a hawkish platform on the topic.

Harris has "called for further tightening of asylum restrictions," said The Associated Press after the Democratic candidate visited the U.S. border with Mexico. Among her plans: "More serious criminal charges" for migrants who repeatedly cross the border illegally, as well as a new requirement that asylum claims be made only at official U.S. ports of entry. "I reject the false choice that suggests we must choose either between securing our border and creating a system that is orderly, safe and humane," she said during the border visit.

Most Democratic presidential candidates have usually framed immigration as a "matter of legalizing undocumented immigrants," Jennifer Rubin said at The Washington Post. Harris, though, treats the matter as a "law enforcement issue at the border." Border security is the first priority — after that, Rubin said, Democrats can turn to issues "ranging from temporary agricultural workers to dreamers to high-skill workers brought in under H-1B visas."

Hawk, or 'faux border hawk?' 

At her campaign website, Harris highlights her support for the bipartisan border security bill that Trump helped kill earlier this year. The bill would have provided new funding for 1,500 new border agents, as well as funding for "more detection technology to intercept fentanyl." (The legislation would also have "given the president greater authority to shut down the border when crossings are high" and closed some asylum loopholes, said The Washington Post.) Harris said she would revive that bill — part of an approach that includes both "strong border security and an earned pathway to citizenship" for migrants, her website said. 

Conservatives are skeptical. Harris is a "faux border hawk," Rich Lowry said at National Review. The Biden-Harris administration "tore up a border system that was working" and only turned back toward enforcement after realizing the resulting tide of migrants was a "political gift" for Trump. Harris can't erase that she "spoke out forcefully against immigration enforcement just a few years ago," Lowry said. As senator, she even sponsored bills to loosen enforcement. On immigration, "she wants to be something she's not."

'Shift that mirrors the far right'

There are also skeptics on the left. Harris "isn't fighting Trump on immigration policy," Anna Lekas Miller said at The Progressive. "She's echoing him." Her emphasis on border enforcement "symbolizes a significant shift that mirrors the far right" and leaves migrants and their advocates without a "meaningful alternative." The scuttled border bill that Harris favors did not include any "meaningful path to citizenship" for undocumented migrants, Miller said. Harris is "playing politics and shoving immigrants under the bus." 

Harris' tough-on-migration message on immigration reflects a "changing national mood," Sahil Kapur said at NBC News. Tougher border controls will be a priority "regardless of which party wins the 2024 elections." That may be working for Democrats: A January poll showed Trump with a 35-point lead over President Joe Biden on the issue. As of late September, that lead — now against Kamala Harris — had narrowed to 21 points.

What happened

Kamala Harris and running mate Tim Walz faced tough questions on "60 Minutes" Monday night, amid a blitz of interviews with less-traditional media. The Democratic ticket declined most interviews during the first few weeks of their truncated campaign. Then Harris appeared on the basketball-centered podcast "All the Smoke" last week and on "Call Her Daddy" Sunday, and her schedule today (Tuesday) includes Howard Stern's SiriusXM radio show, "The View" and "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert." Walz, who did Fox News Sunday, also sat down for the "SmartLess" podcast and "Jimmy Kimmel Live" Monday.

Who said what

Harris and Donald Trump, who did his own podcast tour last month, recognize the need to "hit every corner of a fragmented media landscape" because a lot of people are avoiding TV news and getting their political information from podcasts and social media, The Wall Street Journal said. Stern, for example, is "estimated to have 10 million viewers, most of whom are non-college educated men," Politico said. "Call Her Daddy" is popular among Gen Z women and "The View" reaches older suburban women. Young men watch late-night TV, and Harris' Univision town hall in Las Vegas on Thursday should hit Hispanic voters.

"As a journalist, I wish both campaigns were doing more tough interviews," Helen Lewis said at The Atlantic. But going on podcasts to reach "normie audiences" in key groups is a "smart tactic." And while Harris' 40-minute appearance on Alex Cooper's "Call Her Daddy" — the No. 2 podcast on Spotify last year — "wasn't a hard-hitting accountability interview," Lewis said, "it did contain a substantive policy discussion."

The Trump campaign "has long depended on its candidate's ability to attract free media attention," The Washington Post said. But it has "shown caution" in recent weeks. Trump backed out of the "60 Minutes" interview — a ritual for every major candidate since 1976, CBS said — "citing, among other things, the network's promise to fact-check him on the air," The New York Times said.

What next?

Unpredictable interviews "always carry the risk of a misstep or ill-chosen phrase," the Post said, but Harris is "locked in a margin-of-error race" and this is "one of the few levers she has left" to expand her audience and break through to disengaged potential voters.

Tax policy is an area that tends to invite highly specific ideas during U.S. presidential campaigns, as virtually all Americans are forced to reckon with the tax regime every April. To that end, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have starkly different tax proposals. Harris, the Democratic Party nominee, has released additional details about her proposed economic agenda in recent weeks that have helped paint a more complete picture of what her administration's approach to taxes would be if she were to win the election.

Tax credits dominate

One of the key points that Harris has tried to reinforce is that her administration would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year. Rather than proposing any kind of sweeping overhaul of the tax system like the so-called flat tax that Republicans once campaigned on, Harris' plans mostly rely on tweaks on the margins to deliver relief to families and businesses. 

The Harris campaign wants to make the structure of the pandemic-era Child Tax Credit, which was briefly distributed as a monthly direct cash payment in 2021, permanent. Researchers credited that expanded tax credit with a dramatic drop in child poverty, but it was allowed to expire at the end of 2021 when Democrats were unable to secure the votes to renew it. Harris has also proposed a new $6,000 tax credit for new parents, to help with the blizzard of costs associated with bringing a new child into the world. Finally, Harris has suggested an unspecified increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which benefits lower income individuals and families. 

Raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy

Harris wants to raise the tax rate on corporations from its current 21% to 28%. Republicans, under President Donald Trump, had dropped that rate from 35% to 21% with their 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Harris also supports raising taxes on wealthy Americans through a variety of schemes, including raising the capital gains tax, levying a tax on unrealized capital gains, increasing taxes on the sale of things like stocks, bonds and real estate, increasing the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax and putting a 25% tax on individuals with assets of over $100 million. She also wants to raise the tax on stock buybacks from 1% to 4%. 

The Harris tax plan seeks to make housing more affordable. It would offer incentives to developers to build new low-income housing through an expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and the creation of a new tax credit, what the campaign calls the Neighborhood Homes Tax Credit, which would support building new homes or rehabbing existing housing stock in lower-income communities. Harris has also proposed a $10,000 tax credit and up to $25,000 in down payment support for "first-generation home buyers" — i.e. first-time home buyers whose parents did not own their own homes. 

Harris has advocated for a significant increase in the size of the tax credit for new businesses, from $5,000 to $50,000. Following Trump's promise to abolish taxes on tips, Harris has also discussed eliminating some taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers making less than $75,000. 

The response

"We find the tax policies would raise top tax rates on corporate and individual income to among the highest in the developed world, slowing economic growth and reducing competitiveness," said the conservative Tax Foundation. A Penn Wharton School of Business analysis of Harris' overall economic plan predicted a GDP decrease of 1.3% over the next decade. Lower and middle-income Americans would do better under the Harris plan than wealthier Americans, according to Penn Wharton. 

A Reuters analysis found that Harris' plans will have a less adverse impact on the federal budget deficit than Trump's. Some budget analysts, though, have not yet been able to fully model the impact of Harris' new plans and revisions to existing proposals. "The campaign talking points are moving faster than the budget models," said Shai Akabas of the Bipartisan Policy Center to Reuters.

With the 2024 presidential election just weeks away, pundits are once again awaiting the possibility of an October surprise. Described by Merriam-Webster as a "revelation disclosed in the month prior to an election, often orchestrated in the hopes of dramatically influencing the result," October surprises in the final days of an election cycle can drop bombshells on a candidate's hopes — or not move the needle at all.

1920: Racial questions about Warren G. Harding

In the weeks leading up to the 1920 election, rumors began circulating that Republican candidate Warren G. Harding was African American, hoping to tap into the racist sensitivities of the era. The rumor started to brew nationally "when a racist professor at the College of Wooster in Ohio, William E. Chancellor, declared presidential candidate Harding unfit to be president because of his African heritage," said the law website Justia.

These rumors were the "1920 version of the modern 'birther' conspiracy theory," said Politico. However, the rumors — which were proven to be untrue — did not stop Harding from winning the White House.

1980: The Iran hostage crisis

This October surprise concerned allegations that Republicans met with Middle Eastern leaders to "urge them to tell Iran to keep the U.S. hostages in Tehran until after the election that pitted GOP candidate Ronald Reagan against then-President Jimmy Carter," said The Intercept.

There is "powerful evidence that the Reagan campaign did — as has been alleged for decades — strike a deal with the Iranian government to prevent the hostages from being released," said The Intercept. The hostages were kept through the end of the year, and Carter ended up losing the election in a landslide.

2000: George W. Bush's DUI

Then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush admitted days before the 2000 election that he was "arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in Maine" in 1976, said The Washington Post. His "decision not to volunteer the information early in his campaign represented a calculated political risk by a presidential candidate."

There were initial reports of the DUI before Bush's admission, and he said "repeatedly that he had suspicions why this report had come out somehow 'four or five days before an election,'" said The New York Times. The election was one of the closest in American history, and Bush was declared the winner after the Supreme Court interjected.

2012: Mitt Romney's '47%' video

One month prior to the 2012 election, a secretly recorded video of GOP candidate Mitt Romney emerged in which he said 47% of Americans were "dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims," adding that his "job is not to worry about those people."

As Democrats were "striving to define Romney as an out-of-touch plutocrat," Romney himself provided "hard-and-fast evidence, in his own words, of a demeaning attitude toward nearly half the country," said Mother Jones. The video "did shake up the race and place Romney on the defensive," and he ended up losing to incumbent President Barack Obama.

2016: Access Hollywood tape

Exactly one month before the 2016 election, a 2005 tape emerged of then-candidate Donald Trump claiming that "when you are a star, they let you do" anything to women, adding that you can "grab them by the pussy." Trump would later describe the video as "locker room talk."

The tape caused a "crisis within the Trump campaign and pandemonium across the Republican Party," said The New York Times. Though the tape did not stop Trump from winning the 2016 election, it became a topic of conversation again during his defamation trial with E. Jean Carroll, as prosecutors "mentioned the tape at various stages" his criminal trial.

What happened

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) campaigned with Kamala Harris in Ripon, Wisconsin, Thursday as the Democratic presidential nominee ramped up her efforts to win over Republicans and GOP-leaning independents repelled by Donald Trump and his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. Standing under a "Country Over Party" banner, Cheney said she was "proudly" casting her ballot for Harris, her first time ever voting for a Democratic nominee, because "putting patriotism ahead of partisanship is not an aspiration" this election, "it is our duty."

Who said what

The Harris-Cheney rally in Ripon, a "small city known as the birthplace of the Republican Party in the middle of a battleground state," was an "exercise in unsubtle and unlikely campaign optics," The New York Times said. The two women "agree on little politically beyond their distaste" for Trump and "had next to no relationship" before Cheney decided to endorse Harris last month.

Trump is "petty" and "vindictive" and voters should reject his "depraved cruelty," said Cheney, the No. 3 House Republican, before she jettisoned Trump after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. "Anyone who recklessly tramples on our democratic values as Donald Trump has" must never be president. Trump called Cheney a "stupid war hawk" yesterday on Fox News, then "reiterated his familiar false claim that he had won the 2020 election" at a Michigan rally "notable mainly for his continued false statements and exaggerations on a number of subjects," the Times said.

What next?

Cheney is "set to continue campaigning against Trump next week," The Washington Post said, joining three former Trump White House aides — Cassidy Hutchinson, who endorsed Harris on Wednesday, Alyssa Farah Griffin and Sarah Matthews — for a rally in the Philadelphia suburbs.

Kamala Harris entered the race against Donald Trump with one big disadvantage: Voters trust him more on economic issues. Now she is putting forward an economic plan aimed at narrowing the gap.

Harris is promising a "focus on manufacturing and middle-class opportunities," said The Wall Street Journal. The centerpiece: A package of tax credits, totaling $100 million over 10 years, with the intent of "revitalizing factory towns and retooling existing factories" as well as raising wages and encouraging "union partnerships." That's a departure from "traditional free-market views," said the Journal, in favor of a government-led "industrial policy" to compete with China.

Factories aren't the only focus. Harris has a goal of "25 million new small business applications in the first two years" of her White House term, said Forbes. Start-up small businesses currently get an initial $5,000 tax credit — Harris' plan would increase that to $50,000. Tax credits are at the heart of many Harris economic proposals: She is also seeking to expand credits for developers who build affordable housing and to restore the $3,600-a-year pandemic-era child tax credit for parents of young children.

'Practical solutions to problems'

Polls show voters are concerned that Harris is "too liberal," said Politico. The candidate says she is "pragmatic" on economic issues. "I believe we shouldn't be constrained by ideology, and instead, should seek practical solutions to problems," she said in a Pittsburgh campaign speech on the economy. To that end, she also promised to end degree requirements for some federal jobs and reform permitting processes to make it easier for developers to build. But the details of how she'd implement those promises are "still light on specifics," Politico said.

To a great degree, Harris and Trump "have many of the same stated goals for the economy," said The New York Times. Both want to slash regulations and middle class taxes, as well as encourage domestic manufacturing. It's their methods that "diverge sharply." Trump would use the stick of tariffs and import bans to achieve his goals, while Harris would emphasize the carrot of tax breaks. And with moderate stances on issues like capital-gains taxes and cryptocurrency, Harris is trying to "signal that she would be a responsible, pro-growth steward of the economy," said the Times.

How to fix a 'mixed bag' economy?

If this plan is so good, "why hasn't the Biden-Harris administration been following it for the past four years?" Nicole Russell said at USA Today. The economy under that administration is a "mixed bag" — stocks are high and unemployment low, but "tens of millions of Americans say they're struggling" to pay their bills. Harris' economic proposals are "like fixing a flat to plug holes in an economy that desperately needs major repairs," Russell said. She has had four years to make the fixes, but "she hasn't done it."

Trump's advantage over Harris on the economy "has dropped dramatically in recent weeks," said The Washington Post. Early polls showed him with a double-digit lead on the topic — that has now dropped to a six-point edge. "Voters are beginning to give [Harris] the benefit of the doubt," said Frank Luntz, a longtime GOP pollster, "and that's really significant."