'Searching for bright spots': CNN's Abby Phillip describes Harris team's silence

'Searching for bright spots': CNN's Abby Phillip describes Harris team's silence
Democratic presidential nominee and U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at North Western High School in Detroit, Michigan, U.S., September 2, 2024. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign has fallen into radio silence as they search for any remaining path for outstanding votes to deliver them an election victory, CNN's Abby Phillip told Jake Tapper on Tuesday evening.

"Let me just give you a gut check here about what we are hearing here, as we've been sitting here reporting from the Harris headquarters," said Phillip. "And I think the operative word right now is silence. There's not a lot being said, because the Harris team appears to be searching for bright spots in the map, as these results very very, very slowly come in."

At the moment, she said, some Harris aides still believe she has a path to pulling out a win in Georgia, "but it is very, very close."

Ultimately, Phillip added, "the blue wall still remains the best option for her in this moment. That's just, Jake, where things stand right now. Usually, as the night goes on, the campaign is trying to spin these numbers as they come out ... there's been a slowdown in that spin, because they really are digging into these numbers as they are coming in and trying to understand what's left out there for them, especially in these big urban centers, Jake."

Watch the video below or at the link here.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

Donald Trump’s selection to replace Jerome Powell as the chair of the Federal Reserve has a history that leads many observers to believe the president is not going to like what comes next after his Senate confirmation, according to the Washington Post.

Trump has prioritized lowering interest rates throughout his criticism of Powell's tenure. However, Trump also campaigned on making housing more affordable — goals that may conflict with nominee Kevin Warsh's policy priorities.

According to Post reporter Andrew Ackerman, Warsh believes the Federal Reserve's bond portfolio is unsustainably large and should be reduced. Trimming the $6.6 trillion portfolio of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities could push mortgage rates higher, potentially undermining Trump's affordability objectives.

The tension reflects a fundamental policy conflict. Warsh has consistently criticized the Federal Reserve's balance sheet as "bloated and distortionary," arguing that an oversized central bank portfolio artificially suppresses long-term interest rates and inflates asset prices.

Bill English, former director of the Federal Reserve's division of monetary affairs, noted the contradiction: "If all he does is move to a smaller Fed balance sheet, it's hard to see how that would be consistent with lower mortgage rates, and that creates some tension with the president."

Trump recently stated, "We can drop interest rates to a level, and that's one thing we do want to do. That's natural. That's good for everybody."

This contrasts sharply with Warsh's stated philosophy: "Each time the Fed jumps into action, the more it expands its size and scope, encroaching further on other macroeconomic domains. More debt is accumulated… more capital is misallocated… more institutional lines are crossed… risks of future shocks are magnified."

Jon Hilsenrath, visiting scholar at Duke University's economics department, suggested the fundamental tension will constrain Warsh's ability to satisfy Trump. "Almost everywhere you look, Warsh is kind of hamstrung, including on the balance sheet."

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

Sunday night’s Super Bowl was great. The guys wearing blue beat the guys wearing white, and Bad Bunny and Lady Gaga made MAGA snowflakes cry.

But the NFL can also teach Americans a huge lesson about economics, “socialism,” and the differences between Republican “free market” nuts and FDR’s re-regulation of the American economy that created the largest middle class in history and the first in the world to include more than half of a nation’s citizens.

Most Americans would be highly offended, for example, if the NFL took big bucks from Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg or somebody like these monopolists to change the rules so whichever team gave the league the most money could have an extra three players on the field at all times.

But that’s pretty much exactly what Reaganomics and deregulation have brought us in our marketplaces; it’s the staggering difficulty that every small business in America faces today in the form of massive corporations like Walmart, Facebook, X, Google, and Amazon.

For capitalism to work in a way that doesn’t produce oligarchs and monopolies, it must be regulated. Capitalism, after all, is just a game that people play using money and mutually agreed-upon rules. Just like football.

The NFL heavily regulates football in the United States, at least the football played by its teams. Those regulations include how many players are on the field at any time, exactly what constitutes a down or a touchdown, and rules about how players may physically contact each other, and under what circumstances.

The NFL’s super-socialist regulations also decide which team gets first pick of new players: they decided that the worst-performing teams should have first choice of newly available players, giving every team an opportunity to rise up through the ranks in the following season.

It’s much like progressive income taxation and the estate tax, giving the little guy a chance while slightly restraining those already at the top. These regulations guarantee the safety and stability of the game itself, and also guarantee that fans of football have a consistent experience, because everybody understands and follows the rules.

That’s not meritocracy; it’s planned redistribution of future resources to maintain league balance. If American public policy worked this way, the millionaire opinion bots at billionaire-owned Fox “News” would spontaneously combust.

The league also pools its television and licensing revenue and divides it equally among all teams: No owner gets richer just because they’re in a bigger market. In a pure “free market,” the Cowboys and Giants would drown everyone else in cash. The NFL says, “Nope, everybody eats.” That’s redistribution by design.

And they impose a hard salary cap so rich owners can’t simply buy championships, and they require owners to spend what is effectively a minimum wage on players rather than hoarding profits. Teams that overspend are punished: that’s collective control of capital to prevent oligarchy, the exact thing conservatives scream about.

NFL teams are also required to spend a minimum percentage of shared revenue on their players. Owners can’t just hoard money; they must reinvest in labor. That’s closer to social democracy than laissez-faire capitalism.

The NFL figured out something America forgot after Reagan: markets only work when rules prevent the powerful from rigging the game.

In other words, the NFL is a regulated market with enforced rules that prevent monopolies, protect labor, and preserve competition. And because of that, small-market teams can win, dynasties don’t last forever, and fans get a fair game.

If the American economy were run more like the NFL, we’d have fewer oligarchs, more competition, and a much healthier middle class.

But imagine if Milton Friedman, Robert Bork, or the other idiots like them who first advised the Reagan administration and now have guided Republicans ever since were to have taken over the NFL.

The teams with the wealthiest owners would always get the best players, and thus would win every game. They might even decide that the team that gave the NFL the most money could have an extra player or three on the field at various times.

They’d assure us that the teams that didn’t perform as well just have to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” Perhaps their problem is just that their players are “lazy,” these people would tell us, and the solution is to cut their salaries and reduce the amount of protective equipment they can wear so that they will have a “incentive” to play harder and increase their performance.

Then the richest teams would begin buying the poorer teams, until all the teams are owned by three or four billionaires. Sounds like every industry in today’s America. But conservatives would try to convince you it would create a football paradise, right?

Of course it wouldn’t be a paradise: Fans would stop watching, kids would stop dreaming of playing, and the game itself would collapse under the weight of rigging and unfairness. Not to mention that if the socialist NFL ever actually tried some crazy “free market” stupidity like that, Congress would be holding hearings within a week and the public outrage would be deafening.

But when the same thing happens in our economy, we’re told by Republicans that it’s just “the free market.” We’re told that “monopolies are natural,” that “billionaires are geniuses,” and that working people who can’t get ahead in a rigged system somehow “deserve their fate.”

We’re told by these fools that any attempt to re-write the rules so the American economy is fair again and our middle class can recover from the massive $50+ trillion hit it’s taken from 45 years of Reaganomics is “socialism,” even though FDR’s system is exactly how every successful capitalist system in history has worked.

Franklin Roosevelt understood this. He knew markets don’t self-police any more than football does. Without referees, rules, and consequences, the biggest and most ruthless players take over, the game stops being a game, and democracy itself is put at risk. And when the morbidly rich write the rules, they inevitably only benefit themselves; everybody else gets screwed.

The NFL doesn’t regulate football because it hates competition: it regulates football and “redistributes” wealth and opportunity so competition can exist at all. America once did the same thing with capitalism, and the result was the greatest middle class the world had ever seen.

Two-thirds of us were in the middle class when Reagan came into office, and could get there with a single paycheck thanks to FDR‘s and LBJ‘s “socialist” New Deal and Great Society policies. Today it’s only roughly 45 percent of us, and requires two paychecks. All because of 45 years of Reaganomics.

The choice in front of us is simple. We can keep pretending that letting billionaires write the political and economic rules and own the media is “freedom,” or we can remember that a fair game is what freedom actually looks like.

Because when the rules only work for the owners, the rest of us aren’t players anymore. We’re just there to watch, pay, and lose what little we have so the billionaires can buy another super-yacht.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) has accused FBI Director Kash Patel of lying to Congress about the Jeffrey Epstein files.

The Kentucky Republican made the allegation in a social media exchange with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, whom Massie prodded to unredact the names of potential co-conspirators to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

"In response to my posts on X today, DOJ 1) unredacted an FBI file that LABELS two individuals as co-conspirators 2) unredacted a file that lists several men who might be implicated 3) tacitly admitted that Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem was the sender of the torture video," Massie posted.

The Department of Justice unredacted the name of billionaire Les Wexner in a document that Massie said also contained the names of numerous victims, and he said the retail magnate's name already appeared thousands of times in documents that have been released.

Massie said the document directly contradicted testimony that Patel had given to Congress.

"This is significant because Kash Patel testified to Congress that FBI had no evidence of other sex traffickers," Massie added. "This is FBI’s own 2019 document listing [Les] Wexner as coconspirator in child sex trafficking. It wasn’t unredacted until tonight."

Massie then disputed Blanche's insistence that DOJ was "committed to transparency" and "hiding nothing."

"Here DOJ acts as if they were justified in redacting the men’s names simply because the document contains victim's names," he said. "Tonight they learned you can redact victim names while still publishing the other names, per our law."

"Until tonight no one knew who sent the torture video to Epstein," Massie added. "I went to DOJ, unredacted the email, and reverse searched the email to discover it was a Sultans. Our law requires VICTIM’s information to be redacted, not information of men who sent Epstein torture porn!"

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}