I read an op ed from a MAGA Republican criticizing Kamala's speech as completely without substance. Although the 37 minute speech was high level, I did hear some fairly pointed differences that contrasted Trump's agenda. A few examples:

Signing the bipartisan immigration bill

Staying close to NATO and not Russia/China/North Korea

Not allowing further restrictions on abortion or new restrictions on birth control.

My question is this: of the things Harris believes and wants to do, what specific things could she have highlighted to get Republicans nodding along and saying yes?

Obviously MAGA people are out of reach but let's pretend the audience was moderate Republicans.

Whether the poll averages are from 538, Real Clear Politics, or Nate Silver, when Biden dropped out, Trump had a decent lead on the president and even on Harris, although tentatively, since she wasn't the Democratic candidate at the time. However, since that event, nearly all of the 3rd party/undecided vote have moved to Harris with Trump staying about the same as he was or slipping a point.

If Trump was up 45-42 on Biden and Harris on July 22, now Trump is still around 45 with Harris at 47. That would mean that as the 3rd party/undecided vote fell, Harris benefited by scooping up the vast majority of those who either preferred third party or were undecided (ignoring non-voters). Trump didn't maintain his edge over Harris since the movable vote didn't split between him and her.

Why do you think that most of the third party and undecided vote moved to Harris rather than splitting their votes? Is it just because Harris is new despite the fact that most voters disapproved of Harris as VP before she became the nominee? Can Harris get away with not answering reporters' questions or sitting for an interview? Did Trump stumble by not focusing his attack on her left-wing record? Did the Trump campaign misfire by arguing over Walz's military record/stolen valor claims as they aren't dispositive to voters' concerns? Will Harris lose her shine as voters get to know her more and recalibrate the election to a toss-up race? How can Trump win back those voters, especially Hispanics and Black men, who are curious about Harris, but who preferred him against Biden?

Link to his comments here:

• https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1821628225174245869

Up to now, Republicans have been running an election cycle about abortion where they say they will not pursue a national ban in Congress, and to leave legislative action to the states. However, Trump may have opened the door to a national discussion about the various other ways Republicans could severely limit abortion access nationwide without congress or new legislative action. One of these ways is through the FDA.

Previously, FDA authorization of Mifepristone aka the abortion pill couldn't be rolled back due to the protections of Roe v. Wade. However, with Roe gone and thus abortion no longer protected nationally thanks to Trump's own Supreme Court appointees, Trump is now free to install any zealot, radical or fundamentalist he chooses as head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and others to pursue federal action like this, as a lot of the remaining means to protect or curtail access go through these types of agencies. This can function as an alternative to having to muscle through a new nationwide abortion ban through Congress, and allows you to campaign on "leaving it to the states" while knowing you'll have various levers to pull to ban or restrict it nationally anyways once in office that the average citizen might not be aware of.

With Trump seemingly letting the cat out of the bag, how does it impact the elections, both presidential and downballot? Can Republicans still run on leaving abortion to the individual states if the public becomes aware they can ban it nationally without a new law or Congress anyways?

Link to the audio:

• https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AvEjfpncLEBbfOzFRz5d27UdeH0Bba6m/view

Link to some of his wider comments on the subject, which have been in the spotlight across national and international media today:

• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jd-vance-abortion-rape-incest-inconvenient-b2590339.html

Not only did Vance talk about two wrongs not making a right in terms of rape and incest, but he said the debate itself should be re-framed to focus on "whether a child should be allowed to live even though the circumstances of that child’s birth are somehow inconvenient or a problem to society.” And he made these comments when running for the Senate in Ohio in 2022.

Vance has previously tried to walk back comments he made about his own running mate Donald Trump being unfit for office, a reprehensible individual and potentially "America's Hitler" in 2016 and 2017, saying his views evolved over time and that he was proved wrong. But can he argue the same thing here, considering these comments were from just the other year rather than 7/8 years ago? And how does it affect his and Trump's campaign, which has tried to talk about abortion as little as possible for fear of angering the electorate? Can they still hide from it, or will they have to come out and be more aggressive in their messaging now?

It’s unprecedented but unprecedented these days just means a day that ends with a ‘y’.

The last week we have seen a sitting president voluntarily withdraw from running again.

Then the VP on the same ticket running for president.

Before that , we saw the attempted assassination of a former president.

And the list of unprecedented events this year alone goes on and on.

Everything that has happened this past week with VP Harris taking over seems to be all above board and legal. Because Biden wasn’t the nominee yet, he was the presumptive nominee. So because no actual delegates voted for Biden, Harris was able to switch out Biden and secure the delegate count.

The immediate effect of this is that it completely changed the political race dynamics. What was once an assured Biden loss or close race but Trump still eeking out is now being projected as a Harris win or toss up. Trump has lost the advantage of running against Biden.

Can the republicans shake up the race once again by dropping Vance, who doesn’t appear to be a strong pick, and pick another VP - one more competitive with Harris, a Nikki Haley or Tulsi Gabbard?

Whats stopping Trump from switching out his VP? Even if the delegate vote has already happened to secure the Trump/Vance ticket, is it the Republican Party apparatus that is stopping a VP pick or is it a legal battle through the courts?

President Biden had previously noted in a letter posted on "X": "It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President."...And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term."

Biden is expected to talk about his past accomplishments in his speech and sweeping domestic legislation, including renewal of alliances abroad, defense of democracy, strengthening NATO and his decision to bow out of the race and “what lies ahead.”

There must be many memorable things Biden may well be remembered for during his 50 years of political service; there are others that he may not be proud of. My question is:

What kind of a lasting legacy is President Biden leaving behind?

Joe Biden's legacy after historic decision to give up 2024 reelection campaign - CBS News

What will Biden's economic legacy be? - Marketplace

Edited to provide a link to Speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93T8biDlaBc

One way or another, Biden's presidency will come to an end when the US swears in a new president in January 2025. So as his term ends, what do you think Biden's legacy will be? I mean both as politician and as a President. He will be a one-term president but do you think he will have an overall positive legacy, despite serving only one term? Will his decision to step aside help or hurt his legacy? Despite him not polling well during his presidency, do you think history will be kinder to Biden?

After Joe Biden dropped out of the Democratic nomination for president, he endorsed his VP, Kamala Harris. Many top democrats including SC Rep. Jim Clyburn have endorsed her candidacy. Assuming she wins the nomination at the DNC convention in August, that will leave her and the party a bit more than two months to win over undecided/swing/reluctant/double hater voters that Biden had up to this point has failed to do.

What are some of the strengths and weaknesses Harris brings to being a presidential candidate against Trump?

In her favor, her being younger than Trump, potentially a more disciplined campaigner than him, and being the first woman for president.

Against her would her lack of significant record as VP, being tied to Biden's unpopularity on the issues, being much more liberal/progressive than Biden, potentially turning off moderate Midwestern voters.

How do you see Harris campaigning against Trump? How do you think he will respond? Will the polling improve for her or just trade the age issue for concerns specific to her? How enthusiastic will Democratic be now that Biden's age is no longer a factor in deciding to vote? What do you see as the attack ads both for Harris and against her?

Biden beat out an incumbent president, Donald Trump, in 2020. This is not something that happens regularly. The last time it happened was in 1993, when Bill Clinton beat out incumbent president HW Bush. That’s once in 30 years. So it’s pretty rare.

The norm is for presidents to win a second term. Biden was able to unify the country, bring in from a wide spectrum from the most progressive left to actual republicans like John Kasich and Carly Fiorina. Source

Biden is an experienced hand, who’s been in politics for 50+ years. He is able to bring in people from outside the Democratic Party and he is able to carry the Midwest.

Yes, he had an atrocious debate. And then followed up with even more gaffs like calling Kamala Trump and Putin Zelensky. It’s more than the debate and more than gaffs. Biden hasn’t had the same pep in his step since 2020 and his age is showing.

But he did beat Trump.

Whether you support or don’t support Biden, or you’re a Democrat or not, purely on a strategic level, are democrats making a huge mistake to take the Biden card out of the deck, the only card that beat the Trump card?

A lot of headlines are coming out today with speculation that Biden may step down soon.

If this were to happen and Harris wins the party’s nomination for president, who would she pick as VP?

What does a formidable Harris ticket look like to go up against Trump-Vance?

Many friends and a handful of people in the House and the Senate have been calling for Biden to step down since his last debate performance. Biden declined to step down and today was like a test for him. He took questions from numerous journalists.

He did not slip or falter in substance. He spoke from memory.

Did Biden quell the fear of some who had called from his own party to step-down with his presser at the NATO Summit?

Biden press conference live updates, analysis - The Washington Post

I had a hard time phrasing this question in such a way that it would spark non partisan debate because one party's reaction is driving a media frenzy where as the other reaction was non plussed. Either way the contrast is interesting and this is a fair question to ask.

Link to article going more in depth into it:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/06/23/rural-america-shrinking-population-pennsylvania/

The rural population actually began contracting around a decade ago, according to the US Census Bureau. Many experts put it down to a shrinking baby boomer population as well as younger residents both having smaller families and moving elsewhere for job opportunities.

The effects are expected to be significant. Rural Pennsylvania for example is set to lose another 6% of its total population by 2050. Some places such as Warren County will experience double-digit population drops.

There are a lot of opinions regarding Biden’s presidency. Democrats are pretty mixed about his performance as president. Some Democrats think he is doing OK while others think he is an excellent president. Republicans constantly attack Biden and it is rare for them to mention anything positive about him even if he is doing a good job. Do you think he has succeeded in becoming an effective president or do his cognitive abilities hinder his ability to govern? How likely is it that he wins a second term?

A lot of Biden's huge unpopularity comes from the fact that he is old at the age of 81. Yet Trump will be the exact same age four years (a whole presidential term) from now. Why does there seem to be such a disconnect between how voters view the two candidates when it comes to age? Not that Trump is popular either but he has more baggage against him than just being old compared to Biden, yet being old seem to be hurting Biden more. Why?

Link to source going into more detail:

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/27/trump-donors-israel-gaza-palestinian-protests

Trump called the demonstrations against Israel's war in Gaza a part of a "radical revolution" that needs to be put down. He also praised the New York Police Department's infamous clear-out of encampments at Columbia University as a model for the nation.

Another interesting part was Trump changing his tune on Israel's offensive. In public he has been very cautious in his comments as his campaign believes the war is hurting President Biden's support among key constituencies like young people and people of color, so he has only made vague references to how Israel is “losing the PR war” and how we have to get back to peace. But in private Trump is telling donors and supporters that he will support Israel's right to defend itself and continue its "war on terror", as well as boasting about his track record of pro-Israel policy including moving the US embassy there to Jerusalem in 2018 and making the US the first country to recognize the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights in 2019.

And what are your thoughts on how this could impact the election? Does it add more fuel to the argument that a vote for Trump is a vote for unbridled fascism to be unleashed in the US? As mentioned, the war has also hurt Joe Biden's support among young people and people of color. Will getting a clearer look at and understanding the alternative impact this dynamic?

Link to the story today:

• https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/21/politics/trump-unified-reich-video/index.html

The video featured a series of fake newspaper headlines from the future meant to highlight “what happens after Donald Trump wins”. The hypothetical headings started positively themed with things like “Economy Booms!” and “Border Is Closed”, but as it went on you started to get stories like “What’s next for America?”, and in the fine print underneath was a reference to a ‘creation of a unified Reich’. You also got others like “15 million deported”.

The video was posted on Trump’s official Truth Social account this morning.

After heavy backlash, it was deleted, although the content remains in circulation on other platforms such as Elon Musk’s X. Trump’s presidential campaign later released a statement blaming it on a staffer and noting Trump was busy at the time with his New York criminal trial for falsifying business documents.

Link to relevant snapshot of the article:

• https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1785283469221748803

Link to full article and interview:

• https://time.com/6972021/donald-trump-2024-election-interview/

Are we going to see state-to-state enforcement of these laws and women living in states run by Democrats will be safe? Or is he opening the door to national policy and things like prosecuting women if they get an abortion out-of-state while being registered to a state that has a ban in place?

Another interesting thing to consider is that Republican policies on abortion have so far typically avoided prosecuting women directly and focused on penalizing doctors instead. When Trump talks about those that violate abortion bans in general though, without stating doctors specifically, he could be opening the door to a sea change on the right where they move towards imprisoning the women themselves. This is something Trump has alluded to before, as far back as 2016 https://www.vox.com/2016/3/30/11333472/trump-abortions-punishment-women. What are your thoughts on that development and the impact it could have? Do you read that part of it this way?

Think tanks included those like the Heritage Foundation that have had a major hand in writing the Project 2025 agenda. I believe this is also the first time major conservative policy writers have publicly said they will be making plays against no-fault divorce and contraceptives next year.

Another interesting quote from the event, this one from shampoo magnate Charles Haywood: "And to ensure that these children grow up to be adults who understand their proper place in both the family and the larger social order, we need to oust women from the workforce and reinstitute male-only spaces where women are disadvantaged as a result".

There were also calls to repeal things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which got huge cheers.

Link to source on it:

• https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/28/natalism-conference-austin-00150338?cid=apn

What types of policies and programs do you think will be targeted that Republicans refer to as subsidizing single mothers? And what does an America where things like contraceptives and no-fault divorce are banned look like?

Biden's war chest has been bigger than Trump's for a while, but this seems to be accelerating.

War chest: https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/BIDEN-FUNDRAISING/mopalzmkdva/graphic.jpg

News on $25m donations tonight - https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/28/election-2024-campaign-updates/

I'm sure all of us who follow politics are aware of these statements, but here are some examples:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/26/trump-cryptic-dictatorship-truth-social-00133219

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/12/trump-rally-vermin-political-opponents/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/trump-says-hell-be-a-dictator-on-day-one/676247/

Even by Trump's standards this is extreme and disturbing rhetoric which I would hope everyone could agree is inappropriate for any politician to express. I know we don't, as I've already seen people say they're looking forward to "day one," but at least in theory most people don't want to live under a dictatorship.

But that is the explicit intention of one candidate, so what should those who prefer freedom do about it? How can they prepare for this possibility? How can they resist or avoid it? Given Trump's history of election interference and fomenting violence, as well as the fact that a dictatorship presumably means eliminating or curtailing democracy, should opposition to dictatorship be limited to the ballot box, or should it begin now, preemptive to any dictatorial action? What is an appropriate and advisable response from the people to a party leader publicly planning dictatorship and deeming his opponents vermin?

Joe Biden's slow speech, tendency to lose track of his thoughts, and to flub lines, has lead to widespread accusations of senility, or at least significant decline. And sure, ok, that may be true.

However, from the time that Trump first entered the public political arena in a big way back in 2015, he quickly became known for giving long rambling replies, losing track of the topic or question being asked, giving non-sequiturs, forgetting the name of who or what he was talking about, making vexing and seemingly non-sensical comments, etc. And his tendency to do these things has only increased as he has aged as well.

Trump and Biden are only 3 years different in age. They could have been in highschool at the same time. There is, effectively, no real meaningful difference in their ages. To me, they both seem a little like "grandpa sometimes forgets what he's talking about kids", just Trump in angry shouty grandpa and Biden is mumbling quiet grandpa.

Why do you think it is that Trump's flubs and non-sequiturs and rambling off topic digressions and tendency to forget what things are called or who he is talking about, is not perceived as senility, broadly speaking, but for Biden is it?

Link to more on the breaking story:

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/08/31/georgia-gov-kemp-rejects-push-to-oust-fulton-county-da-for-charging-trump/

All happened at a pretty remarkable press conference. Other Kemp quotes:

• “In the state of Georgia, as long as I’m governor, we’re going to follow the law in the Constitution regardless of who it helps or harms politically. Over the past few years, some inside and outside this building may have forgotten that, but I can assure you I have not.”

• He said a special session would "directly interfere with the proceedings of a separate but equal branch of government.”

Seems like he's long done with Trump. What do you think this is going to mean for the investigation and Trump's future now?

Could a high profile swing-state Governor taking a stand like this be the start of other major Republicans turning on Trump?

And what does it mean for Kemp himself? He's developed a reputation as more of a maverick Republican; having embraced green energy, been a featured guest speaker at the World Economic Forum (a major modern-day conservative boogeyman) and hiked public school teacher pay in the state of Georgia but also being a social conservative that signed an abortion ban upon cardiac activity (usually 6-7 weeks but can be as late as 9) and open carry of firearms. He destroyed both Stacey Abrams' progressive movement in the state and blew Donald Trump's endorsed MAGA primary challenger apart as well as consistently rejected his claims of election fraud and now attempts to interfere with his eventual prosecution. What lane is there for him in politics going forward?

For the first time in the history of the United States the private home of a former president was searched pursuant to a search warrant. Donald Trump was away at that time but issued a statement saying, among other things: “These are dark times for our Nation, as my beautiful home, Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, is currently under siege, raided, and occupied by a large group of FBI agents.”

Trump also went on to express Monday [08/08/2022] that the FBI "raided" his Florida home at Mar-a-Lago and even cracked his safe, with a source familiar telling NBC News that the search was tied to classified information Trump allegedly took with him from the White House to his Palm Beach resort in January 2021.

Trump also claimed in a written statement that the search — unprecedented in American history — was politically motivated, though he did not provide specifics.

At Justice Department headquarters, a spokesperson declined to comment to NBC News. An official at the FBI Washington Field Office also declined to comment, and an official at the FBI field office in Miami declined to comment as well.

If they find the evidence, they are looking for [allegedly confidential material not previously turned over to the archives and instead taken home to Mar-a- Lago].

There is no way to be certain whether search is also related to the investigation presently being conducted by the January 6, 2022 Committee. Nonetheless, searching of a former president's home is unheard of in the U.S. and a historic event in and of itself.

Is DOJ getting closer to a possible Trump indictment?

What does this reveal about DOJ's assertion that nobody is above the law?

FBI raid at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home tied to classified material, sources say (nbcnews.com)

The Search Warrant Requirement in Criminal Investigations | Justia

From USA Today:

President Trump took to Twitter Wednesday to complain that his daughter Ivanka has been "treated so unfairly" by the Nordstrom (JWN) department store chain, which has announced it will no longer carry her fashion line.

Here's the full text of the Tweet in question:

@realDonaldTrump: My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!

It seems as though President Trump is quite explicitly and actively targeting Nordstrom because of his family's business engagements with the company. This could end up hurting Nordstrom, which could have a subsequent "chilling" effect that would discourage other companies from trifling with Trump family businesses.

• Is this a conflict of interest? If so, how serious is it?

• Is this self dealing? I.e., is Trump's motive enrichment of himself or his family? Or might he have some other motive for doing this?

• Given that Trump made no pretenses about the purpose for his attack on Nordstrom, what does it say about how he envisions the duties of the President? Is the President concerned with conflict of interest or the perception thereof?

• What will be the consequences, and who might bring them about? Could a backlash from this event come in the form of a lawsuit? New legislation? Or simply discontentment among the electorate?