I was strapped in a dentist’s chair last Friday for three torturous hours, and there wasn’t much time for chit-chat with numerous sticky fixtures inside my mouth as a new molar crown was affixed. The doctor, a no-nonsense lady in her late-30s, did make a few comments during two breaks, and though she missed most of the Democrats’ Awards Show in Chicago, she made one surprising remark. She was disgusted that Kamala bypassed Gov. Josh Shapiro in favor of “Snitch When You Can” Tim Walz because he’s Jewish (no one admits that outright, but really, it’s not 2000 when Lockbox Al Gore selected Joe Lieberman and no one batted an eye). Granted, my crown-provider is a devout Jew, but I was still taken aback when she said that Trump, whom she can’t stand, is far preferable to Kamala on the Israel-Palestine question. Is she a one-issue voter? Maybe, but I didn’t have the fortitude with a bloody mouth to press the matter. Besides, at this point, speculation about the November presidential election—like this brief foray—is all anecdotal.
And not anecdotal in the traditional sense, when a reporter buttonholes an undecided voter in Pittsburgh about the political landscape, conferring supreme heartland wisdom on a person he or she picked at random. The media as a whole is anecdotal, as was demonstrated by the see-no-dark-clouds coverage of the DNC’s spectacle last week. There’s not much to write about, or broadcast—aside from Bobby Jr. flipping off the Chicago switch by endorsing Trump on Friday (my favorite reaction was Bill Kristol, co-president, with confederate David Frum, of Illusionist University, tweeting “The Trump-Kennedy Pact occurs on the 85th anniversary of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany”)—in the dry spell between now and the September 10 debate between Kamala and Trump.
The veep candidates, who were demonized (Vance) and canonized (Walz), will be shuffled along to standard second-fiddle status, when, the country will get its first serious heads-up about which candidate has what George H.W. Bush once, to general mockery, “The Big Mo.” I can’t imagine Kamala, who meanders in unscripted appearances, will come off as more than the vacuous you-don’t-like-my-position-well-here’s-one-we-can-agree-on political opportunist. On the other hand, if Trump, who traditionally relishes debates, is off his game, mean, petulant and insufficiently drugged, and still focused on 2020, that could be taps for him. (It’s given little attention, but Trump mending fences with Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, was significant, perhaps more than Bobby Jr.’s lots-of-tongue kiss.)
The media, political consultants and pollsters—often the same people—have made a fetish this century about how only 10 percent of the voters are the key to victory, since both sides are “guaranteed” 45 percent from their respective bases. I’m not sure that’s true this year: my son Nicky, when we talk politics, speaks of The Great Undecided Voter, a subset of the electorate he insists is far larger than 10 percent. Maybe so: he’s 31, and interacts with more people than me, and speculates that millions under 35 haven’t made up their minds, either out of disgust (and so stay-at-home-on-Election-Day “folks”) or confusion, and though that’s also anecdotal it’s as accurate as the daily media coverage.
Leaving aside the sycophants at garbage websites like Politico, New York magazine (the spectacularly wrong-all-the-time Jonathan Chait claimed Kamala’s speech last Thursday was the greatest he’s ever seen; a snub of Yes We Can Barack?), The Atlantic and Axios, two women on Friday, The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd and The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan, did their duty and penned generally glowing columns about the DNC in general and Kamala in particular. I doubt many read the entire columns (reading time: five minutes!), but if you spelunk to the end, there’s a lot of “On the other hand” warnings for the Democrat.
Dowd: “It was a strong speech but not particularly lyrical: She started slowly and built the drama, giving Americans plenty of details to get a better picture of her. But none of the lines were especially memorable. She made her case like a lawyer, not a poet.” Thank Mario Cuomo for that poetry baloney; Democratic pundits never tire of citing his 1984 speech in San Francisco supporting the hapless Fritz Mondale.
Noonan: [Harris’] weak points aren’t really what the Trump people think—popping off in arias that go nowhere, fumbling when pressed. Her real weak point is policy. She will be perceived by many voters as farther to the left than they want to go.”
—Follow Russ Smith on Twitter: @MUGGER2023