All presidential administrations leak, but "so far, the Trump White House has gushed," says The Washington Post's Paul Farhi. "The breadth of the leaks has surprised — and, of course, delighted — journalists," he adds, noting that reporters aren't quite sure what's driving the unprecedented look behind the scenes in the White House and the executive orders Trump's team is mulling over.
Some journalists view the leaks as the byproduct of a rivalry-torn White House rife with senior officials trying to sideline the competition, others see it as a form of whistle-blowing to expose damaging policy before it is enacted, some suspect the leaks are policy trial balloons, while others still suggest Trump officials are just taking a cue from their rules-flouting boss. "I tend to think chaos begets chaos begets chaos, and that's what we're seeing here," a reporter familiar with some of the senior players tells Farhi. Trump says he thinks the leaks are coming from career national security staffers, and he's firing them.
Trump blames the leaked transcripts of phone calls with the leaders of Mexico and Australia on "Obama people," he told Fox News' Judith Miller over the weekend, adding that his team is searching "very, very hard" for the leakers and replacing the holdover staff from the previous administration still working in the White House and National Security Council. "It's a disgrace that they leaked because it's very much against our country," Trump said, during a ball at his Mar-a-Lago private club. "It's a very dangerous thing for this country."
Trump characterized the chats with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Mexican President Enrique Peña Niego as "cordial," though the transcripts suggest otherwise. But generally the White House hasn't disputed the veracity of the leaks. Mother Jones' David Corn says he doesn't think the leaking will stop, either. "It's going to be a continuing problem for him and his administration," he told The Washington Post. "But it's going to be good for the public. And it's going to be very good for journalists." Peter Weber
At this point in the 2020 presidential race, you'd probably rather be Democratic nominee Joe Biden than President Trump. "Polls are getting worse and worse for Trump," showing him tied in Texas and drowning in must-win Pennsylvania, John Harris and Daniel Lippman write at Politico. "Still, journalists just can't bring themselves to count him out." That's one reason Trump's advisers still see "gleams of hope," Annie Karni reports at The New York Times.
Trump's "internal numbers over the past three weeks have stabilized after the double whammy of the first presidential debate" and his "subsequent hospitalization for the coronavirus," Karni reports. And Biden isn't "breaking decisively into a double-digit lead" in places like Wisconsin and Arizona, "leaving open the possibility that the race will tighten on Election Day, when in-person ballots come in." Thursday's debate also gives Trump one last chance to reset the race. And, of course, Trump proved everyone wrong in 2016.
Despite Trump's constant feuding with the press, including individuals like CBS's Lesley Stahl and Thursday's moderator Kristen Welker, "by historical standards, Trump's press coverage is actually favorable," Politico's Harris and Lippman argue. Thanks to the ghosts of 2016, self-doubting journalists and political professionals are "giving generous allowance for the possibility that things aren't as bad as they seem for the incumbent, and that he may yet have another surprise in store for anyone who thinks that conventional dynamics of politics apply to him."
That's a big gift, says veteran GOP election lawyer Ben Ginsberg. It "helps Trump because he can hold out a sliver of hope for his supporters so they don't give up the ship. Nobody likes a loser; you're not going to admit you're a loser."
A comeback isn't impossible, "but if Trump loses, the biggest factor won't be COVID-19 or the economic meltdown or the social unrest," Tim Alberta argues at Politico Magazine. "It will be his unlikability." Pollsters and journalists have long "fixated on the question of which candidate voters would rather have a beer with — a window into how personality translates into political success," he explains. But Trump is "like the drunk at the bar, he won't shut up. Whatever appeal his unfiltered thoughts once held has now worn off. Americans are tired of having beers with Trump. His own supporters are tired of having beers with Trump," and it's probably too late to change that. Peter Weber
The Supreme Court late Wednesday lifted an injunction put in place by a federal judge, allowing Alabama to ban curbside voting in counties that wanted to allow it this election. The court's five conservative justices did not give a reason for their decision, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained in a dissent she would have left the injunction in place to allow people with disabilities or other risk factors to vote from their cars during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court's two other liberal justices signed on to her dissent.
"The Alabama dispute is the latest in a flurry of election-related fights to reach the justices in recent weeks," including a 4-4 deadlocked decision Monday that allowed Pennsylvania to count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day for three days after the election, Politico reports. "The series of decisions suggests the high court, in its current configuration after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month, is poised to block election-related changes ordered by federal courts, while allowing state officials to make adjustments even without clear buy-in from the state legislature."
Democrats lost another voting rights battle on Wednesday when the Iowa Supreme Court upheld a state law that makes it harder for county officials to process absentee ballot requests with information missing, Reuters notes. "Opinion polls suggest a larger share of Democrats will cast absentee ballots — which include those returned by mail — than will Republicans." Peter Weber