In The Atlantic, Lora Kelley digs into the complicated reality of what role nominees for vice president have in determining election outcomes. This, plus polling about J.D. Vance, gives me optimism about Kamala Harris’s campaign, and I have some thoughts on Senator Mark Kelly’s credibility on a unique set of important issues.
On the U.S. Supreme Court majority’s policy choices in Trump v. United States and Trump v. Anderson: “They’re not textual, they should not be constitutional, and they contradict the wiser judgment of the founders in key ways.”
Jamelle Bouie makes a good argument for “a plain reading of Section 3”—and against objections to disqualifying Trump as a candidate in the 2024 presidential election.
Putin is the wealthy, vulgar boss of a system in which all of the political actors are oligarchs, and in which money and political influence work in tandem — exactly the kind of system that Trump and his children aspire to create.
But why protest when they could proselytize? For the reasons acknowledged by Krugman, Brooks, and Page, Trump’s attracting marginalized Americans. Some are racist thugs, but others are victims of circumstance and the very Americans for whom, though apparently not to whom, Bernie Sanders, for one, says he speaks. Why do Trump’s opponents antagonize these people when they could be trying to win them over?