Well, I’m back, reporting from enemy territory. The wedding I attended was in Huntsville, Alambama. However, Huntsville may not be representative of Alabama, as the main industry there literally is rocket science. There’s a major NASA facility and also a major military facility, both into creating better rockets. I understand there’s a high concentration of Ph.D.s living in Huntsville. In all my looking around I saw maybe two Trump signs, plus a couple of Harris Walz signs. No one was talking about the election. You wouldn’t know there was an election about to happen.
Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally is getting a lot of blowback. David Rothkopf
of Daily Beast says Trump committed political suicide last night. Remarks by “comedian” Tony Hinchcliffe are getting the most attention, and today Hinchfliffe is saying of his critics, “These people have no sense of humor.” Of course. But it wasn’t just Hinchcliffe. David Graham writes at The Atlantic,
A childhood pal of Donald Trump’s called Vice President Kamala Harris “the anti-Christ” and “the devil.” The radio host Sid Rosenberg called her husband, Doug Emhoff, “a crappy Jew.” Tucker Carlson had a riff about Harris vying to be “the first Samoan-Malaysian, low-IQ former California prosecutor ever to be elected president.” Stephen Miller went full blood-and-soil, declaring, “America is for Americans and Americans only.” (In 1939, a Nazi rally at the old Madison Square Garden promised “to restore America to the true Americans.”) Melania Trump delivered a rare public speech that served mostly as a reminder of why her speeches are rare.
Only after this did Trump take the stage and call Harris a “very low-IQ individual.” He vowed, “On day one, I will launch the largest deportation program in American history.” He proposed a tax break for family caregivers, but the idea was quickly lost in the sea of offensive remarks.
Republicans who are not MAGA diehards reacted with dismay and horror—presumably at the political ramifications, because they can’t possibly be surprised by the content at this point. Politico Playbook, a useful manual of conventional wisdom, this morning cites Republicans fretting over alienating Puerto Ricans and Latinos generally. (Yesterday, Harris visited a Puerto Rican restaurant in Philadelphia and received the endorsement of the Puerto Rican pop superstar Bad Bunny.)
Adam Wren wrote 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.” Which does make one wonder, what were they thinking? But of course they weren’t thinking at all. The hate is their best argument for why we should vote for Trump. They don’t have anything else to offer.
Years ago I read a social-psychological study of white supremacists that said such racists sincerely believe other white people are as racist as they are but just won’t aedmit it. And that may be the assumption behind last night. They’re assuming that for every Puerto Rican vote they lose there are more closet white racists they will gain.
Perhaps the best analysis came from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) who properly places the MSG rally in the context of what comes next (4:00 mark):
“This was a hate rally. This was not just a presidential rally, this was also not just a campaign rally. I think it’s important for people to understand these are mini January 6 rallies, these are mini Stop the Steal rallies. These are rallies to prime an electorate into rejecting the results of an election if it doesn’t go the way that they want.”
AOC’s assessment is backed by experts like Ruth Ben-Ghiat, who pointed specifically to rally speakers claiming an unspecified “they” tried to assassinate Trump: “The purpose of this is to conjure a threat environment sufficient to justify authoritarian action if they win. Old trick of those planning coups as well.”
The MSG rally was a harbinger of what’s to come, not just in a Trump II presidency, but as soon as election night next week. Consider yourself warned.
See also Josh Marshall, A Good Piece on Polling
We’ve discussed repeatedly in recent months how poll results aren’t just “the numbers” in some hard, incontestable sense. They include a set of assumptions about the nature of the electorate…. But this post by a professor at Vanderbilt provides a really helpful real-world illustration. Josh Clinton takes sample data and shows that by using different reasonable and good faith assumptions about the electorate he can get results ranging from Harris +.9 to Harris +8. Don’t pay attention to the fact that these results are all still in her favor. The point is that the assumptions baked into the poll can yield results 7 points apart.
It may be that the election really isn’t as close as the polls are reporting, beccause the assumptions are wrong. But we won’t know until the votes are counted.
Update: I’m watching a video of part of the 1939 Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden, and the speaker was going on about how Jews are not Aryans. The joke is that the speaker wasn’t an Aryan, either. Here’s something I wrote about what we know about the actual Aryans and how Europeans somehow created the myth they were special white people.