As Donald Trump blames Kamala Harris for "backing out" of Fox News debate on Sept. 4, Dem pollster shows original contract remains in force, with both parties agreeing to debate on Sept. 10 at ABC News

 

Harris v. Trump: Is Sept. 10 debate on shaky ground (Getty)

Donald  Trump had a meltdown yesterday after, he claims, Kamala Harris backed out of a debate that Trump had set for Sept. 4 on Fox News. (Does a day ever pass without Trump melting down about something?) In typical Trump fashion, his statement on the matter is filled with deceit, and he blames someone else for a problem that he caused. We will provide details in a moment, but here are key takeaways:

(1) Harris had never agreed to a debate on Fox News, so she did not back out of anything. At this moment, it's not clear if Harris actually has declined any debate with Trump. He essentially put those words in her mouth after unilaterally setting up the Fox News date, apparently without seeking any input from the Harris camp;

(2) Harris says she is planning to debate Trump on ABC News Sept. 10, a date both parties have agreed to in writing. She has said she will attend that event and hopes Trump will do the same. 

(3) Trump claims he could terminate the ABC agreement once Joe Biden stepped out of the race, allowing Harris to move to the top of the Democratic ticket. In other words, Trump claims he had agreed to debate Biden -- and only Biden. The contract, as we will learn in a moment, does not say that. A gentleman named Matt McDermott has played a major role in educating the public about the actual debate terms.

(4) Trump now has pulled out of the ABC debate and insists that he will debate Harris only on Fox News, even though he admits she has not agreed to it. So, who is responsible for this jumbled mess? The answer is Trump.

(5) What could be a sticking point here? A report at PBS provides a clue:

Trump now says he will appear on Fox News on Sept. 4 in Pennsylvania with rules that he called “similar” to his debate with Biden, but with a full audience instead of a mostly empty studio. Trump said that if Harris, the likely Democratic nominee, does not agree to the new network and date, he will do a “major Town Hall” with Fox News.

When Joe Biden and his team negotiated the original debate terms, they wisely included terms -- no live studio audience, moderators would have the ability to cut off microphones -- that would help ensure the event did not turn into a free-for-all. Harris likely knows a studio audience would include a heaping helping of wild-eyed, raucous MAGA types who would make it virtually impossible for her to speak and be heard. She likely is insisting that the parties stick to the terms in the original agreement, which are still in place. In my view, that would be a wise move. Trump is trying to pull a scam that would put Harris in an uncomfortable position, where she cannot even communicate. She should insist that the original agreement, which still is in force, be followed.

What about reporting in the press on the latest debate tempest? The New Republic (TNR) got into the proper mood with this headline: "Trump Melts Down After Harris’s Debate Decision Leaves Him Rattled; Donald Trump is scrambling to seem tougher than Kamala Harris on presidential debates. Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling writes:

While the Democratic National Convention was kicking off in Chicago, Donald Trump was posting to Truth Social, claiming that Vice President Kamala Harris had rejected a debate against him on Fox News on September 4.

“Comrade Kamala Harris has just informed us that she will NOT do the FoxNews Debate on September 4th,” Trump wrote. “I am not surprised by this development because I feel that she knows it is very difficult, at best, for her to defend her record-setting Flip-Flopping on absolutely everything she once believed in, including her statements that THERE WILL BE NO FRACKING IN PENNSYLVANIA and her HORRIBLE Performance on the Border, our ‘Border Czar,’ where millions of criminals and people from mental institutions and terrorists, have been allowed to pour into our Country, totally unchecked and unvetted. It’s called, and she LOVES IT, an OPEN BORDER!!!”

But, according to Trump, the show would go on—with or without his Democratic opponent.

“Rather than the debate on September 4th, I have agreed to do a Tele-Town Hall, anchored by Sean Hannity, for Fox,” Trump continued. “It will take place in the Great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania—Details to follow!”

The September 4 debate was not originally in the cards. Traditionally, a presidential cycle has two debates between the presidential candidates, as well as one debate between the potential vice presidents. But during a short-notice press conference at Mar-a-Lago earlier this month, Trump spontaneously announced that he was willing to face off against Harris three times before November: September 4 on Fox News, September 10 on NBC News, and another September 25 debate on ABC News. (Trump mixed up the stations of the last two debates, but got the dates correct.)

Harris’s camp had not initially signed on to the Fox debate, and it’s currently unclear whether she’s actually rejected the date outright, as Trump suggested. The first official debate is scheduled for September 10.

The drama of it all may be an aggressive strategy for Trump to reframe himself as unafraid to show down against the famed prosecutor after he stunningly disappointed some of his fans by backing out of one of the debates earlier this month. (He has since flip-flopped.) Fans were so upset by the supposed strongman’s decision that they got the hashtag “#TrumpIsACoward” trending on Truth Social after the news broke.

Democratic pollster Matt McDermott unquestionably is the most knowledgeable person on this subject -- in fact, he has shot holes through Trump's unlawful claims related to the matter -- so let's examine his words on questions raised by this post:

(1) How did Trump get it so wildly wrong on terms for any debates -- terms that still are in force, per the original contract? This report from Raw Story helps explain: 

Donald Trump says he only agreed to debate President Joe Biden, and not Vice President Kamala Harris, on ABC, but the terms of the actual debate agreement didn't make that specification, according to one pollster.

Trump has declared his refusal to debate Harris, who has now clinched the Democratic nomination, on ABC, saying he would instead insist on a Fox News debate with an audience. For her part, Harris has said she will show up at the previously agreed debate, whether the former president attends or not.

Trump claims Biden's decision to drop out warrants a new negotiation with Harris' team over the new terms of their debate, but that's not quite true, according to Democratic pollster and strategist Matt McDermott.

"I keep seeing a talking point from Trump supporters that Trump agreed to 'debate Biden' on ABC. That’s not accurate," McDermott said. "Trump agreed to debate terms that invite any and all candidates who meet a polling and ballot- access threshold. The terms did not specify Biden," he wrote on social media. "The terms of the ABC debate have remained the same. Absolutely nothing changed."

McDermott goes on to say, "The only thing that’s changed is the candidates who meet the terms."

"Trump backed out for one reason: he’s afraid to debate Kamala Harris," the pollster said. "There’s no other explanation."

He went on to link to ABC's site outlining the existing presidential debate terms.

"Here are the terms of the ABC News debate. You’ll find that, despite Trump supporter attempts to claim that Trump only agreed to 'debate Biden,' the name 'Joe Biden' is mentioned zero times in the debate terms," he added.

(2) Here are additional insights on the debate terms fromAlternet, where Elizabeth Preza writes under the headline "'Factually untrue': Strategist dispels GOP talking point on Trump’s debate agreement":

Democratic strategist Matt McDermott has fact-checked an effort by Republican operatives to claim Donald Trump did not walk back a specific agreement to debate Vice President Kamala Harris on Sept. 10 on ABC News.

Donald Trump challenged Harris to a Fox News-hosted debate on Sept. 4 and claimed the Sept. 10 ABC News debate “has been terminated in that [President Joe] Biden will no longer be a participant.” 

McDermott pointed out " the ABC News debate is not ‘terminated,’” and argued Trump “is actually afraid of debating” Harris. 

The Harris campaign on Saturday likewise claimed Trump is “running scared” by avoiding the ABC News debate.

Replying to a tweet purportedly posted by a “Forensic Video Analyst for USMS/DHS/CBP,” which argued there was no “specific messaging from the Trump campaign to this exact debate date and network against” Harris, McDermott argued “the debate agreement outlined terms of the debate, which are about viability, not specific candidates.”

“ Trump agreed to the terms of the ABC [News] debate,” McDermott wrote. “They make zero reference to Biden or any other candidate.”

A July 26 ABC News memo outlined the debate qualifications, which “ include the following”:

All participants must meet the requirements outlined in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution to serve as president and must have filed a Statement of Candidacy with the Federal Election Commission. All participants must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots, as certified by the Secretary of State or the relevant election authority in each state, to attain a majority (270) of electoral votes in the presidential election by Sept. 3, 2024. All participants must agree to accept the rules and format of the debate, as formulated by ABC News.

Candidates must also “reach at least 15 percent support in four separate national polls of registered or likely voters,” with the final determination on eligibility to be made “after Sept.3.

 

(3)  Here are insights from Newsweek, again citing McDermott, with Ewan Palmer reporting under the headline "Donald Trump's Rules for Kamala Harris Debate Spark Mockery: 'Terrified'" Palmer writes:

 

Donald Trump has been mocked after he announced that he has accepted a Fox News debate with Vice President Kamala Harris.

A number of Trump critics have accused the former president of being "terrified" to debate Harris in a neutral setting, and will only face off against the 2024 Democratic candidate under rules determined by the conservative news network and in front of a crowd of his supporters.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he has agreed to take part in a September 4 debate, moderated by Fox News anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, held in the key swing state of Pennsylvania.

Trump said the rules of the September 4 debate will be similar to the ones at the June 27 CNN debate between him and President Joe Biden, which featured muted microphones, but this time will feature a "full arena audience." (Note: The original contract, which still is in force, does not allow for "a full arena audience" -- and Trump agreed to those terms.)

It is not known if Harris has accepted the terms of the Fox News debate. The Democrat was previously prepared to face off against Trump at the pre-arranged ABC News debate on September 10, which had been scheduled before Biden ended his reelection campaign.

Michael Tyler, Harris' campaign communications director, later accused Trump of "running scared and trying to back out of the debate he already agreed to and running straight to Fox News to bail him out.

In response to Trump's announcement,  X (formerly Twitter), account for the liberal media network Meidas Touch posted: "Donald Trump has again said he is BACKING OUT of the scheduled ABC debate.

"He says he will only debate on his safe space on Fox News with a packed arena and moderators of his choosing. He is absolutely terrified of Kamala Harris."

Columnist Laura Bassett said Harris is still going to "show up to the ABC debate he's backing out of and get the photo op with the empty podium. He's an idiot.

"Saying he's confident enough to debate Biden on ABC but only confident enough to debate Kamala on Fox, in a big full MAGA arena set up to be as close as possible to one of his own rallies, is humiliating, and should be treated as such."

While referencing the Olympic gold medalist swimmer and mocking Trump's tendency to occasionally post in all caps, former Barack Obama speechwriter David Litt said: "I HAVE AGREED TO A SWIM MEET WITH KATIE LEDECKY SO LONG AS SHE WEARS A FULL SUIT OF ARMOR AND HOLDS HER BREATH THE WHOLE TIME ALSO I GET A JET SKI."

Democratic pollster and strategist Matt McDermott added: "Let's be clear: the ABC News debate is not 'terminated.' It's scheduled, and both candidates already agreed to participate. Donald Trump is backing out, because he's afraid of actually debating Kamala Harris.

"It's not even worth responding to the laughably absurd suggestion that Fox, a propaganda arm of the Republican Party that's actively working to elect Donald Trump, host a presidential debate."

Writing on Truth Social, Trump said: "As everyone knows, the Democrats have Unconstitutionally taken a Candidate, who was acknowledged to be defeated, and unceremoniously replaced him with a new Candidate.

"This has never been done before, and is a Threat to Democracy, but I am totally prepared to accept the results of this 'coup,' and replace Joe on the Debate stage with Crazy Kamala Harris. I spent Hundreds of Millions of Dollars, Time, and Effort fighting Joe, and when I won the Debate, they threw a new Candidate into the ring. Not fair, but it is what it is!

"Nevertheless, different Candidate or not, their bad Policies are the same, and this will be strongly revealed at the September 4th Debate. I look forward to meeting and debating Kamala Harris on September 4th. This date is convenient and appropriate in that it is just prior to the September 6th start of Early Voting in the 2024 Presidential Election."

Harris' campaign team accused Trump of being "too scared" to face the vice president in a debate and that the Republican "needs to man up."

Stephanie Grisham, former Trump press secretary, reveals in DNC speech that she supports Kamala Harris, and Trump mocks MAGAs behind closed doors

 

Stephanie Grisham (Getty)

A prominent member of Donald Trump's White House team (2-17-2021) leveled 1-2 punch to her former boss during a  speech last night at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.. stephanie Griham, who served as Trump's press secetar, made it clear she was supporting Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race and also revealed Trump has little respect for his core supporters, often mocking them when cameras and microphones aren't around.

How did that go over in MAGA World? Not well, according to The New Republic (tnr)  under the headline "Ex-Trump Staffer’s Support for Harris Sparks Furious MAGA Backlash; Donald Trump’s allies lobbed attacks at Stephanie Grisham for backing Kamala Harris,"Edith Olmsted writ3s:

Far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer made shallow attacks against former Donald Trump aide Stephanie Grisham, who called the former president out at the Democratic National Convention Tuesday night for mocking his base. But the failed politician couldn’t deny the truth of what Grisham was saying.

Grisham, a former White House press secretary, revealed that Trump “mocks his supporters behind closed doors,” and claimed that Melania Trump had refused to call for peaceful protests as the January 6 riot was unfolding. Grisham also voiced her support for Vice President Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention.

Loomer, ever the pro-Trump hate-poster, didn’t like that one bit.

“Another traitor who got rich off Donald Trump and then turned on him on J6,” Loomer wrote in a post on X. “I guess she started eating uncontrollably ever since she quit Trump. She must have gained about 75 pounds since she ‘resigned.’”

“Now she’s voting for @KamalaHarris. That’s what happens when you hit the wall,” Loomer wrote.

Loomer's attacks on Grisham did not seem to land more than a glancing blow, according to Olmsted:

It’s not unusual for Loomer’s criticisms to take on a personal, substanceless approach to their subjects. Last month, she landed in hot water for calling former Representative Gabby Giffords, who survived an assassination attempt, “brain dead.”

But Grisham held her ground, hitting back against Loomer’s attack. “I’ve actually hit menopause, which sucks a ton & yes it’s a weight struggle,” Grisham wrote on X. “Def not rich either—I run a non-profit animal sanctuary & could barely afford the blazer I wore tonight. BUT…I told the truth & plan to keep doing so.”

Mercedes Schlapp, Trump’s former White House Director of Strategic Communications, also failed to refute Grisham’s damning claims about Trump, similarly opting to attack Grisham personally. On stage, Grisham had said she hadn’t held a briefing at the White House because, “Unlike my boss, I never wanted to stand at the podium and lie.”

Grisham is lying,” Schlapp wrote in a post on X. “No one in the White House had the confidence in her to effectively answer reporters’ questions at the podium.”Gisham has tangled with some of the most seasoned journalists around the globe, and Schlapp's slap did not seem to bother her in the least. 

If Grisham threw enough daggers to get the MAGAs seething and fuming with rage, I would say that was a heckuva apeech -- one that gets an A+ in my gradebook.

In a separate TNR piece, under the headline "Ex-Trump Staffer Reveals What Trump Really Thinks of His Supporters; Paige Oamek reports that Grisham used her speech at the Democratic National Convention to expose what Donald Trump is like behind closed doors.Oamek writes:

Former Trump White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham had a lot to say about Donald Trump at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday. Taking the podium, Grisham who described herself as an original “true believer” and one of Trump’s closest advisers, said that “behind closed doors Trump mocks his supporters” and calls them “basement dwellers.”

It also seems that Trump believes his followers aren’t too bright either. “He used to tell me ‘it doesn’t matter what you say, Stephanie, just say it enough and people will believe you.’”

“He has no empathy, no morals, and no fidelity to the truth,” said Grisham. She also explained that her decision to never hold a White House briefing had to do with Trump’s lack of care about the truth. “Unlike my boss, I never wanted to stand at the podium and lie.”

Grisham also exposed texts between herself and Melania Trump during the January 6 insurrection. “Do you want to tweet that peaceful protests are the right of every American, but there is no place for lawlessness & violence?” Grisham texted. Melania Trump allegedly replied with just one word: “No.” 

Other Republicans speaking at the DNC include Ana Navarro-Cárdenas of The View, host of night two of the convention, former Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger, former Pence adviser Olivia Troye, and a three-time Trump voter working in construction, Kyle Sweetser, who spoke earlier Tuesday.

Three-time Trump voter working in construction, Kyle Sweetser, who spoke earlier Tuesday.

“I started to see Trump’s tariff policy in action, costs for construction workers like me were starting to soar,” Sweetser said. “I realized Trump wasn’t for me, he was for lining his own pockets.”

“Now I’m not left-wing, period.” he added, “but I believe our leaders should bring out the best in us. Not the worst. That’s why I’m voting for Kamala Harris.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Swing States Rule: Latest polls show Harris leads, or is tied with, Trump in five of seven battlegrounds, trailing by small margins in N. Carolina, Pennsylvania

The crowd looked like an enthusiastic bunch last night as the Democratic National Convention kicked off at the United Center in Chicago. A report at The New York Times (NYT) on the latest polling numbers show Democrats have reason to be optimistic. That's because a compilation of polls shows the Democratic ticket of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz leads the Republic tandem of Donald Trump and J.D. Vancy by 2 percentage points -- 49 % to 47% -- in the 2024 presidential race. It is an 3xtremely tight race -- essentially a toss-up --  but Democrats, fueled by recent gains in swing states, have shaved significant chunks off Trump's once sizable lead. That all has happened in roughly four weeks since Joe Biden stepped aside, allowing Harris and Walz to rise to the top of the ticket. 

Let's take a close look at the highlights from the latest polling numbers, as compiled from The New York Times and Yahoo!, You can follow along with the full report at this link. From The Times/Yahoo!/' political-reporting team.

The question of the moment is "Who is winning the 7 key swing states, Harris or Trump? Inside the latest polls." Let's take a look at the analysis and see what we learn. Andrew Romano, of Yahoo!, is the primary reporter. He writes:

In the United States, winning the most votes nationwide isn’t enough to win you the presidency. Just ask Hillary Clinton, who bested Donald Trump by nearly 2.9 million votes in 2016 — and still lost the election.

The real trick is to rack up the most votes in the right places.

So which states will be this year’s battlegrounds? And which forces — local or otherwise — will determine whether each battleground state ultimately sides with Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee?

Here’s a handy Yahoo News guide to the 2024 map.

Why do battleground states matter?

To win a U.S. presidential election, you don’t necessarily need to win the popular vote (i.e., the combined tally across all 50 states). You need to stockpile electoral votes by finishing first in individual states.

With minor exceptions, the candidate who gets the most votes in a particular state on Election Day is awarded all of that state’s electoral votes, which are proportional to its population. Whoever finishes first in enough states to secure at least 270 electoral votes — a majority — wins the Oval Office.

Because of these winner-take-all rules, candidates tend not to campaign in states that consistently vote Democratic (blue states) or Republican (red states). Instead, they focus on the small number of states (known as swing states, battleground states, toss-up states or purple states) that could go one way or the other.

How do we know which states will be battlegrounds in November?

History helps. Certain demographic groups tend to vote Democratic or Republican, and certain states tend to have a 50/50 mix of Democratic- and Republican-leaning groups. The vote in those states tends to be close.

But state demographics can change over time. The political preferences within each demographic group can change too. As a result, a former battleground state might start to lean red or blue.

Ohio is a good example. From 1900 to 2012, the Buckeye State accurately chose the winning presidential candidate 93% of the time (including in every election from 1964 to 2016). But as white, working-class voters increasingly gravitated toward Republicans, so did Ohio. In 2020, Trump won there by a comfortable 8-point margin — even though Joe Biden won the election.

Missouri followed the same trajectory; Florida has been trending rightward as well. New Mexico, Colorado and Virginia, on the other hand, have veered to the left.

So to figure out this year’s battlegrounds, you can’t just cut and paste the previous list. You need to look at which states are too close to call right now. And to do that, you need to consult the latest polls.

Can we trust state polls?

To a degree. National polls tend to be more reliable; on the state level, it’s hard for pollsters to drill down on the most representative mix of respondents (i.e., one that will have the same demographic characteristics as the eventual electorate).

But you can still get a fairly accurate sense of where things stand by averaging together the most trustworthy state polls — and you can further improve that average by incorporating it into a statistical model that includes campaign “fundamentals” as well (such as how the economy is performing and how the state has voted in the past).

Data journalist Nate Silver, formerly of The New York Times and FiveThirtyEight, does just that with the latest version of his Silver Bulletin election forecast. It’s the most comprehensive ranking of 2024’s battleground states to date.

So what are the numbers saying right now?

The Silver Bulletin model currently projects that Harris and Trump could finish within 3 points of each other in seven states. Here’s how those states rank in terms of closeness, along with how they voted in 2020:

1. Arizona (Trump +0.6% in 2024; Biden +0.3% in 2020)

2. Georgia (Trump +0.9% in 2024; Biden +0.2% in 2020)

3. Pennsylvania (Harris +1.0% in 2024; Biden +1.2% in 2020)

4. Nevada (Harris +1.1% in 2024; Biden +2.4% in 2020)

5. Wisconsin (Harris +1.9% in 2024; Biden +0.6% in 2020)

6. North Carolina (Trump +2.0% in 2024; Trump +1.4% in 2020)

7. Michigan (Harris +2.6% in 2024; Biden +2.8% in 2020)

These were the seven closest states in 2020 as well. But under the surface, key dynamics seem to be shifting.

Before Biden dropped out in July, polls showed Trump cutting into the president’s 2020 margins among several traditionally Democratic groups: Latino voters, Black voters (especially Black men) and younger voters.

Previously, Biden had been outpacing his Democratic predecessors with some groups that usually favor Republicans, including college-educated white voters and senior citizens (especially white seniors).

That kept him in the hunt.

But the president’s swing-state numbers started to crater after his worrisome debate performance on June 27, and Trump pulled ahead nearly everywhere. Lacking a clear path to victory, Biden was finally forced to step aside.

Since entering the race, Harris has largely reversed the damage, taking narrow (forecasted) leads in the Rust Belt states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Yet Trump remains relatively strong — compared to 2020 — in the younger, more diverse Sun Belt states.

The big question going forward is whether Harris — a younger, more diverse candidate than Biden — can surpass Trump in the Sun Belt as well. Unlike Biden, Harris now leads Trump in the Nevada forecast, and she’s partially closed the gap in Georgia, Arizona and North Carolina.

Who would win if the election were held today?

The national polls now show Harris edging Trump by an average of about 2 to 3 percentage points. She was trailing when she entered the race.

In 2020, Biden beat Trump with electoral votes to spare: 306 to 232. If 2024’s eventual results match today’s Silver Bulletin forecast — with Arizona and Georgia flipping to Trump; with North Carolina remaining red; and with Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania staying blue — Harris would win with 279 electoral votes.

But that’s a big if. Another way to think about the election is in terms of probabilities. The Silver Bulletin model currently thinks Harris would win the Electoral College 55 times out of 100; Trump would win the other 45 times. It’s hard to get much closer than that.

What might change between now and Election Day?

In general, voter demographics and distribution determine the vast majority of each state’s eventual outcome. College-educated white Pennsylvanians, for instance, don’t vote in a wildly different way than college-educated white Arizonans. The question is how many of them live and vote in each state.

But when the winning margins are narrow — like they were in 2020 — local dynamics can make a difference. A few to watch between now and November:

• Battleground states with key Senate and gubernatorial elections, including Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Why? Because high-profile statewide races can affect who turns out to vote for president.

• Battleground states with hot-button ballot measures, including (potentially) abortion in Arizona and Nevada and immigration in Arizona. Why? Because such measures can get otherwise unmotivated voters to show up on Election Day to vote for or against the new policy — then cast a ballot for president while they’re at it.

• Battleground states where Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is on the ballot, including Nevada, Michigan and North Carolina (and possibly Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania as well). Why? Because RFK Jr. could play the spoiler, siphoning just enough votes to put Harris or Trump over the top.

• Battleground states with their own idiosyncrasies, with Michigan being the prime example. Home to the nation’s biggest bloc of Arab Americans, the Great Lakes State could prove unpredictable if opposition to the Biden-Harris administration’s Gaza war policy disrupts that group’s usual Democratic voting patterns.

  Could Harris or Trump expand the battleground map by putting other states in play?

  That’s unlikely. If some big event or force — such as an economic collapse or a federal Trump conviction — were to alter the fundamental dynamics of the race in favor of one candidate or the other, then yes, the next tier of states could become battlegrounds.

  These include Florida (Trump +4.7%, according to Silver Bulletin), Virginia (Harris +5.5%), New Hampshire (Harris +5.8%), Texas (Trump +6.8%), Maine (Harris +7.6%), New Mexico (Harris +8.0%) and Ohio (Trump +8.1%).

  But even then, the current, core group of seven battleground states would still prove decisive, because the margins there are closer — so they would break for Trump or Harris first. Piling up extra electoral votes elsewhere would just be icing on the proverbial cake.

Democrats have a busy week planned for Chicago's United Center as the Harris-Walz ticket seeks to build on momentum that is reflected in the latest polls

Workers prepare the United Center for the DNC (Getty)

 

The Democratic National Convention begins tonight in Chicago,, and the convention committee has put together a jam-packed schedule for viewers who want to check out a major event in a 2024 campaign that has changed radically since Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz moved to the top of the ticket roughly three weeks ago. What is on the agenda, tonight and for the rest of the week? Here is a roundup from ABC News and the Microsoft Network (MSN):

Vice President Kamala Harris will set out what Democratic officials are touting as a "bold vision for America's future" at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago this week, as her campaign looks to maintain the momentum that has so irked former President Donald Trump.  

The Democratic National Convention Committee on Sunday released a list of speakers for the Chicago event, which will run from Monday to Thursday. Each day will have a dedicated theme, bullet-pointing Harris' presidential pitch to voters.

Primetime speakers will include former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, as well as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and second gentleman Doug Emhoff, DNC officials have confirmed to ABC News.

MORE: 5 things to watch at the Democratic National Convention

President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden will both speak on Monday night. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker will speak on Monday and Tuesday, respectively.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz will give his vice presidential acceptance speech on Wednesday, with Harris taking the stage on Thursday to accept her nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate.

MORE: As Chicago braces for Democratic National Convention, concerns over safety mount

Democratic officials have said that the convention will open on Monday with the theme, "For the people." Tuesday will be dedicated to "a bold vision for America's future," and Wednesday to "a fight for our freedoms."

Thursday, when Harris takes the stage, will be themed: "For our future."

Trump's barb toward Minnesota voters might come back to bite him now that the state's governor, Tim Walz, has joined Kamala Harris' Democratic ticket

Donald Trump and Tim Walz (Getty)

 

Donald Trump's big mouth has been known to get him in trouble, and that habit might come back to bite him again now that Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is Kamala  Harris' choice as a running mate in the 2024 presidential race. As we reported on Monday (8/5/24), Democratic insiders had come to see Walz as the "momentum candidate" as Harris' search moved into its final days. That might have been enough to give  Walz an edge over Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and U.S. Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona.

How did Trump's mouth get him in trouble this time? Travis Gettys, of Raw Story,  tells the roundabout tale under the headline "'I lose Minnesota, I'm never coming back': Trump comments resurface as Walz gets VP nod." Gettys writes:

Donald Trump's long-shot hopes for winning Minnesota appear to have dimmed even further with the selection of the state's Gov. Tim Walz as Kamala Harris' running mate.

The former president has been fixated on expanding the map in November's general election, and Politico resurfaced a report from May showing that Trump remains bitter that he was losing Minnesota although he campaigned there three months ago, during a break from his hush money trial, in an effort to flip the Midwestern state.

“I lose Minnesota,” he said in 2020, “I’m never coming back." Senior campaign advisers showed polling data to top donors in early May to argue that Minnesota and Virginia were two states that could be in play in November, but that seems even less likely with Walz joining the Democratic ticket after Harris replaced president Joe Biden and chose the governor as her vice presidential candidate.

“Minnesota is a blue state,” said Michael Brodkorb, a former deputy chair of the Minnesota Republican Party. “On a good day for Republicans, it can be a little bit of Vikings purple.”

No GOP presidential candidate has won the state since Richard Nixon in 1972, and no Republican has won a statewide race since Tim Pawlenty in 2006.

So, Trump's chances in the state never were great, and his smart-ass comment about Minnesota probably makes those chances even dimmer now.

The Trump campaign and the journalism world are rattled as hacking of internal documents point to an operation involving Iran and probably not Russia

(YouTube)

 

The reporters and editors of POLITICO are used to covering news stories. But they now find themselves in the middle of a major news story, one with a fair amount of international intrigue. So, how did a group of professionals who normally report on the news suddenly find themselves part of the news? I have more than 40 years of experience in professional journalism, and I suspect the folks at POLITICO are more than a little unnerved by that question. National political reporter Alex Isenstadt provides details on how the current situation unfolded. Under the headline "We received internal Trump documents from ‘Robert.’ Then the campaign confirmed it was hacked; The campaign suggested Iran was to blame. POLITICO has not independently verified the identity of the hacker or their motivation," Isenstadt writes:

Former President Donald Trump’s campaign said Saturday that some of its internal communications had been hacked.

The acknowledgment came after POLITICO began receiving emails from an anonymous account with documents from inside Trump’s operation.

The campaign blamed “foreign sources hostile to the United States,” citing a Microsoft report on Friday that Iranian hackers “sent a spear phishing email in June to a high-ranking official on a presidential campaign.” Microsoft did not identify the campaign targeted by the email and declined to comment Saturday. POLITICO has not independently verified the identity of the hacker or their motivation, and a Trump campaign spokesperson, Steven Cheung, declined to say if they had further information substantiating the campaign’s suggestion that it was targeted by Iran.

“These documents were obtained illegally from foreign sources hostile to the United States, intended to interfere with the 2024 election and sow chaos throughout our Democratic process,” Cheung said. “On Friday, a new report from Microsoft found that Iranian hackers broke into the account of a ‘high ranking official’ on the U.S. presidential campaign in June 2024, which coincides with the close timing of President Trump’s selection of a vice presidential nominee.”

Cheung declined to say whether the campaign had been in contact with Microsoft or law enforcement about the breach, saying it would not discuss such conversations.

The response from Cheung indicates POLITICO staff members are not the only ones unnerved by these events. The Trump campaign clearly considers this a major security breach. Isenstadt writes:

On July 22, POLITICO began receiving emails from an anonymous account. Over the course of the past few weeks, the person — who used an AOL email account and identified themselves only as “Robert” — relayed what appeared to be internal communications from a senior Trump campaign official. A research dossier the campaign had apparently done on Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, which was dated Feb. 23, was included in the documents. The documents are authentic, according to two people familiar with them and granted anonymity to describe internal communications. One of the people described the dossier as a preliminary version of Vance’s vetting file

The research dossier was a 271-page document based on publicly available information about Vance’s past record and statements, with some — such as his past criticisms of Trump — identified in the document as “POTENTIAL VULNERABILITIES.” The person sent part of a research document about Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who was also a finalist for the vice presidential nomination.

The person said they had a “variety of documents from [Trump’s] legal and court documents to internal campaign discussions.”

Asked how they obtained the documents, the person responded: “I suggest you don’t be curious about where I got them from. Any answer to this question, will compromise me and also legally restricts you from publishing them.”

The scope of the information obtained by the hacker is unclear. But it represents a major security breach for Trump’s campaign.

The communications from "Robert" likely rattled individuals in and outside the campaign. U.S. intelligence officials were not surprised to learn of a hacking operations that appears tied to Iran. In fact, the latest events come near the end of a 10- to 12-year period when hacking for political purposes has become increasingly common. Officials reportedly see no signs that Russia is involved in the Trump hack. From Isenstadt's POLITICO report:

Last month, reports emerged of the U.S. intelligence community receiving increasing evidence suggesting Iran was working on plots to kill Trump in retaliation for his decision to order the assassination of Iranian military officer Qassem Soleimani in 2020. There is no indication that the shooter who targeted Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania last month was connected to the plot.

In his statement Saturday, Cheung pointed to those reports, saying, “The Iranians know that President Trump will stop their reign of terror just like he did in his first four years in the White House.”

Iranian government officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

In 2016, top Democratic Party officials were hacked ahead of the presidential election. The breach resulted in the leak of embarrassing emails documenting the inner workings of the party and former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign. National security officials later blamed Russia for orchestrating the hacking effort. Many of those emails were later disseminated to WikiLeaks, a website that publishes leaked documents, and were published in the run-up to Election Day with an eye toward embarrassing Clinton’s political operation.

In 2017, the Justice Department launched an investigation into Russian interference in the election and what role Trump associates played in the hacking effort. Special counsel Robert Mueller ultimately concluded he lacked sufficient evidence to seek criminal charges against Trump or his campaign for allegedly conspiring with the Russians. However, he described a Trump campaign that encouraged the hack and was eager to capitalize on the materials, and he described significant efforts by Trump and some allies that hampered investigators’ ability to obtain key communications and testimony that might have shed more light on the matter.

Donald Trump's croneys slink away with bruised psyches from the rubble left by an Elon Musk interview that turned into a painful trainwreck for the ages

(YouTube)

Donald Trump's advisers reportedly left Monday night's Elon Musk interview in a sour mood after listening to their candidate make a string of nonsensical comments. News outlets have reported that a number of Trump's Republican allies are encouraging him to speak on issues as a way to slow Kamala Harris' momentum, which has driven her into the lead in several swing states. Based on the Musk interview, especially its curtain-closing minutes,  that message did not get through to Trump.

How did the Musk gig turn into such a dreary affair for Trump supporters? Hafiz Rashid, of The New Republic (TNR), explains, under the headline "Team Trump Fumes After Trainwreck Elon Musk Interview; Donald Trump sat down for a disaster of an interview with Elon Musk. Now his team is pissed."  Rashid writes:

After Donald Trump’s bizarre livestreamed interview with Elon Musk Monday night, Kamala Harris’s campaign released a biting statement that touched a nerve with the Trump camp.

The statement called out the glitches with the livestream, as well as Trump’s extremism and association with the heavily criticized Project 2025. In response, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung called the Harris campaign “f***ing cowards.”

The Harris campaign's statement apparently caused the Trump Team to come unglued. Based on Cheung's comment, it also gave them a bad case of potty mouth. Here is the statement,:

Trump’s entire campaign is in service of  people like Elon Musk and himself — self-obsessed rich guys who will sell out the middle class and who cannot run a livestream in the year 2024.

Harris must learn not to play so rough with Trumpers and their fragile psyches.  What does Rashid make of the Harris statement and the impact it had on the Trump crowd? Here is his answer:

The statement is a sign the Trump team is likely fuming behind closed doors after a trainwreck interview on X. When the interview wasn’t facing technical glitches and Trump wasn’t slurring his words, the former president made one crazy statement after another. Trump said he’d welcome climate change because he thinks he’ll “have more oceanfront property,” praised Musk for firing striking workers, and told Musk that “if something happens with this election, which would be a horror show, we’ll meet the next time in Venezuela because it will be a far safer place to meet than our country.”

Trump came back to X Monday, likely to help promote the livestream, after only posting once in the three years since January 2021, when he was banned from the platform for inciting violence during the Capitol insurrection. Musk helped promote Trump’s return, pushing new advertisements from Trump on the platform and elevating the hashtag #TrumpIsOnX ahead of the interview.

Trump’s posts on X came at the expense of his social media venture, Trump Media & Technology, which saw its share price plummet after the former president and convicted felon returned to the platform that banned him more than three years ago. But Trump is desperate after seeing his polling advantage disappear with Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 election and Harris’ ascent.

The Harris campaign’s popularity has skyrocketed in the last month, and it experienced another boost after she chose Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate. Those close to Trump are worried about the campaign’s 2024 strategy, and the stable genius himself is going nuts over how well the Harris campaign is succeeding. Cheung’s response shows that even Trump’s inner circle is getting agitated.

It also shows that, like Trump himself, members of the inner circle have very little class.

Hack against Trump campaign and threats against other U.S. politicos, could be tied to Trump's order of a fatal 2020 drone strike against Iranian military leader

(CBS)

The FBI and other authorities, who are investigating the apparent hack-and-leak of Trump campaign documents -- which Donald Trump blames on Iran -- suspect the hackers were able to compromise the personal email account of longtime Republican and Trump operative Roger Stone, according to a report at CNN. The hackers are believed to have attempted a breach of emails belonging to the Kamala Harris-Tim Walz campaign. It appears the attempted hack of Harris-Walz documents was unsuccessful.

In an unusual twist, the hackers managed to work through the Politico news site, and we will have more about that element of the story in an upcoming post.

 Under the headline "Suspected Iranian hackers breached Roger Stone’s personal email as part of effort to target Trump campaign, sources say," CNN's Sean Lyngaas, Evan Perez, and Kristen Holmes write:

The hackers used access to Stone’s email account to try to break into the account of a senior Trump-campaign official as part of a persistent effort to access campaign networks, one of the sources said. The hacking incident, which occurred in June, set off a scramble in the Trump campaign, the FBI and Microsoft, which spotted the intrusion attempts, to contain the incident and to determine if there was a broader cyber threat from Iran.

Stone was informed by Microsoft and the FBI that his personal email was compromised by a “Foreign State Actor,” with the intention of utilizing the account to phish officials in the Trump campaign into opening a link that would give perpetrators access to that person’s computer, one of the sources  said.

“Mr. Stone was contacted about this matter by Microsoft and the FBI and continues to cooperate with both,” said Grant Smith, an attorney for the Republican operative. “Mr. Stone will have no further comment at this time.”

The Washington Post first reported that Stone’s account was targeted. The Trump campaign declined to comment on whose account was breached.

The FBI also briefed the Biden-Harris campaign in June about Iranian hackers targeting that campaign, one of the sources said.

“Our campaign vigilantly monitors and protects against cyber threats, and we are not aware of any security breaches of our systems,” a Harris campaign official told CNN.

The FBI said in a statement Monday that it was investigating the reported cyberattack on the Trump campaign but declined to comment further.

US intelligence officials have briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee on the hacking incident, another source familiar with the matter told CNN.

It is not clear how Iranian officials intended to benefit from the hack or what kind of information they might have obtained, but experts say the hack bears the hallmarks of an Iran operation, CNN reports:

Iran has denied the allegations, and the US government has not publicly or officially pointed the finger at Iran. But the techniques used by the hackers to target the Trump campaign match those associated with Iranian hackers, according to one source familiar with the matter.

The news adds to growing evidence that Iranian operatives are mounting an aggressive effort to influence the 2024 US presidential election, overshadowing activity from the Russians. US intelligence officials last month warned of an ongoing covert social-media campaign by Iran to undercut Trump’s candidacy and to increase “social discord” in the US ahead of the November election. That activity has included creating fake news sites targeting liberal and conservative voters, according to Microsoft.

The US director of national intelligence, Avril Haines, has also accused Iran of attempting to covertly stoke protests in the US related to the Israel-Hamas conflict by posing as activists online and in some cases providing financial support to protesters.

A report from Associated Press (AP) provides background on the roles of Microsoft and Politico in the hacking operation, plus possible connections to Iran's threats to retaliate against Trump for ordering a fatal drone strike in 2020 against  prominent Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani. AP's Bill Barrow, who notes signs that the hacking could extend beyond Trump to other U.S. political figures, writes:

Former President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign said Saturday that it has been hacked and suggested Iranian actors were involved in stealing and distributing sensitive internal documents.

The campaign provided no specific evidence of Iran’s involvement, but the claim comes a day after Microsoft issued a report detailing foreign agents’ attempts to interfere in the U.S. campaign in 2024.

It cited an instance of an Iranian military intelligence unit in June sending “a spear-phishing email to a high-ranking official of a presidential campaign from a compromised email account of a former senior advisor.”

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung blamed the hack on “foreign sources hostile to the United States.” A spokesperson for the National Security Council said in a statement that it takes any report of improper foreign interference “extremely seriously” and condemns any government or entity that attempts to undermine confidence in U.S. democratic institutions, but said it deferred to the Justice Department on this matter.

Iran’s mission to the United Nations, when asked about the claim of the Trump campaign, denied being involved. “We do not accord any credence to such reports,” the mission told The Associated Press. “The Iranian government neither possesses nor harbors any intent or motive to interfere in the United States presidential election.”

Iran, however, long has been suspected of running hacking campaigns targeting its enemies in the Middle East and beyond. Tehran also long has threatened to retaliate against Trump over the 2020 drone strike he ordered that killed prominent Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

The U.S. Justice Department this past week unsealed criminal charges against a Pakistani national with ties to Iran alleged to have plotted assassination attempts against political figures in the United States, including potentially Trump, and to have sought to hire purported hitmen who were actually undercover law enforcement officials. Court documents in that case pointedly noted a desire by Iran to conduct operations against perceived enemies of the regime and to avenge the killing of Soleimani.

What roles did Politico (perhaps unwittingly) and Microsoft play in the hacking story? AP's Barrow provides details:

Politico first reported Saturday on the hack. The outlet reported that it began receiving emails on July 22 from an anonymous account. The source — an AOL email account identified only as “Robert” — passed along what appeared to be a research dossier the campaign had apparently done on the Republican vice presidential nominee, Ohio Sen. JD Vance. The document was dated Feb. 23, almost five months before Trump selected Vance as his running mate.

“These documents were obtained illegally” and “intended to interfere with the 2024 election and sow chaos throughout our Democratic process,” Cheung said.

He pointed to the Microsoft report issued Friday and its conclusions that “Iranian hackers broke into the account of a ‘high-ranking official’ on the U.S. presidential campaign in June 2024, which coincides with the close timing of President Trump’s selection of a vice presidential nominee.”

“The Iranians know that President Trump will stop their reign of terror just like he did in his first four years in the White House,” Cheung said, adding a warning that “any media or news outlet reprinting documents or internal communications are doing the bidding of America’s enemies and doing exactly what they want.”

Cheung did not immediately respond to questions about the campaign’s interactions with Microsoft on the matter. Microsoft said Saturday it had no comment beyond its blog post and Friday report.

In that report, Microsoft stated that “foreign malign influence concerning the 2024 US election started off slowly but has steadily picked up pace over the last six months due initially to Russian operations, but more recently from Iranian activity.”

The analysis continued: “Iranian cyber-enabled influence operations have been a consistent feature of at least the last three U.S. election cycles. Iran’s operations have been notable and distinguishable from Russian campaigns for appearing later in the election season and employing cyberattacks more geared toward election conduct than swaying voters.”

“Recent activity suggests the Iranian regime — along with the Kremlin — may be equally engaged in election 2024,” Microsoft concluded.

Specifically, the report detailed that in June 2024, an Iranian military intelligence unit, Mint Sandstorm, sent a phishing email to an American presidential campaign via the compromised account of a former adviser.

“The phishing email contained a fake forward with a hyperlink that directs traffic through an actor-controlled domain before redirecting to the listed domain,” the report states.