Top Stories Daily Listen Now
RawStory
RawStory

All posts tagged "2024 election"

CNN's Kasie Hunt floored as highly-anticipated DNC report leaves out key detail

CNN anchor Kasie Hunt was stunned on Thursday as the Democratic Party's long-awaited report appeared to withhold a serious detail.

In her opening, Hunt questioned the Democrats' autopsy of the 2024 election and what prompted President Donald Trump to win and defeat Vice President Kamala Harris, when she raised a revelation that hadn't been mentioned before.

"Or was it because Kamala Harris then declined to sit for an interview with one of the country's biggest media figures?" Hunt asked, sharing a clip from Joe Rogan's popular podcast.

In the clip, Rogan claimed he had invited Harris to Texas to sit down with him for an interview.

"I literally gave them an open invitation. I said, 'Any time, I'll do it at nine in the morning, I'll do it at 10 p.m., I'll do it at midnight. She's up,'" Rogan said.

But Hunt pointed out that there was still unknown information.

"So even though a version of the Democratic National Committee's 2024 so-called autopsy report, an autopsy saying why something happened the way it did, it was released today, a year and a half after the election. We still don't really know the answer to any of those questions," Hunt said. "Because the 192-page report, which was meant to be, which was sold as an honest evaluation of what went wrong for Democrats and which the DNC had withheld for months, did it address any of those things? No, no, it did not."

5 things to know as DNC's long-buried 2024 autopsy leaks to CNN

CNN obtained the Democratic Party's long-private autopsy of the 2024 election on Thursday.

CNN Senior Reporter Edward-Isaac Dovere told anchors Wolf Blitzer and Pamela Brown how he had access to the report, saying the report was "not ready" but that over time, he had discovered more information and worked with DNC chair Ken Martin to release it. CNN opted to publish the report in full.

"The plan was not to release this report. The report was released to me after I had obtained a lot of the detail and contents in there," Dovere said.

The public version published on CNN was annotated by DNC lawyers, "undercutting a lot of what was in the report," he explained. "We are publishing the full report so people can see it and read for themselves."

Here are five things to know about the "autopsy" report.

1. The release was delayed from its original release date and prompted a number of conspiracy theories.

The report was originally set to be released in spring 2025.

"Then, DNC chair Ken Martin promised members at their summer meeting last August in his home state of Minnesota, 'Three weeks,'" Dovere said. "Then October. Then after the November elections. Then, with Martin offering no explanation other than he suddenly didn’t want to look backward, he announced he wouldn’t be releasing it at all."

Conspiracy theories were mounting in the wake of the report's delayed release.

"Martin was trying to protect Kamala Harris as she considers another presidential run, Obama campaign alumni were protecting each other, high-priced consultants were trying to keep millions in fees from being revealed, or the party was trying to hide how voters reacted to the Gaza crisis," Dovere said.

"Or one of the most widespread: Maybe the autopsy didn’t even exist at all," Dovere added.

2. The Biden White House and campaign neglected Kamala Harris and her campaign.

"The autopsy accuses the Biden administration of not doing more to boost Harris long before the president’s June 2024 debate performance forced him to withdraw, particularly on immigration given the Trump campaign tying the issue to her as the administration’s so-called 'border czar,'" Dovere said.

3. The Harris campaign was in the dark on key DNC decisions — and may have taken too much for granted.

"Martin entrusted a top priority to a friend, Democratic consultant Paul Rivera, who volunteered to work on it part-time and waited several months to contact key officials with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ campaigns," Dovere reported. "Many top decision-makers in the campaigns were ultimately never interviewed, and Harris herself has expressed frustration privately that questions about the document have gone on."

4. The report revealed both campaigns — Biden and Harris — failed to define Trump.

Republicans appeared better at messaging to voters and learning from past elections. This was identified as a pain point during the aftermath of the 2024 election.

5. Not all questions surrounding the election and what happened are included in the current report.

"It gets into things about spending decisions and organizing that was done by the DNC, ways to possibly improve it," Dovere said. "But there are a lot of things in that version that are incomplete and also, it does not touch a couple of topics a lot of people are very interested in and thought were the reasons for this report not being out. There's nothing about Joe Biden and what happened in the debate, there's nothing about Kamala Harris getting the nomination without any kind of primary process and also there's nothing about the way that voters were responding to Gaza and how the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris policies and comments about it were hitting their minds."

CNN fact-checker busts Trump over 'truly bananas' claim to reporters

A CNN fact-checker called out President Donald Trump's false claims that the presidential elections in 2016, 2020 and 2024 were "rigged" against him in a rant to reporters on Wednesday.

Trump was speaking to press at Joint Base Andrews when a reporter asked him if he saw himself in Spencer Pratt, a MAGA-backed Los Angeles mayoral candidate. The president called elections in California "dishonest," which CNN Senior Reporter Daniel Dale pointed out was false.

"If we had Jesus Christ come down and count the votes, I would've won California. Because I do great with Hispanics. But it's a rigged vote," Trump claimed.

Dale described why Trump's comments were incorrect.

"Truly bananas claim President Trump has made on multiple occasions. He lost California by 30 points in 2016 (more than 4 million votes), 29 points in 2020 (more than 5 million votes) and 20 points in 2024 (more than 3 million votes). Votes are counted accurately in every state," Dale wrote in a post on X.

Trump has repeatedly argued that elections are rigged against him, which started in his complaints about the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Joe Biden. These claims have been rejected by election officials and courts, although Trump has continued making allegations about other elections and voting processes.

'Strange' omission in Jack Smith's testimony revealed by legal expert

A CNN legal expert revealed something surprising during former special counsel Jack Smith's testimony on Thursday.

Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig described how Smith omitted something in his first public testimony over his investigations of President Donald Trump before the House Judiciary Committee hearing. CNN anchor Briana Keilar asked Honig to respond to the questions involving the timing around Smith's pursuit of going to trial against Trump.

"To your question, Brianna, the last congressman we saw brought up the fact that Jack Smith demanded a trial date four months out, five months out in a case involving 13 million pages of documents," Honig said. "There is no defense lawyer in the country who can constitutionally prepare for trial and defend his client on that short of time frame. The implication was you were rushing to get this in before the 2024 election. Jack Smith did not defend himself, by the way. He didn't say a word about that, which I found, I found strange... And he didn't defend."

Smith, who has maintained that he is a nonpartisan prosecutor amid the fiery hearing with Republican and Democratic lawmakers, responded to questions over whether Smith was trying to push the trial for Trump forward ahead of the 2024 elections. At the time, Trump had called for retaliation against people with whom he disagreed politically, which Smith discussed with lawmakers during the hearing.

"And Jack Smith has always maintained this veneer that he never thought about the election. Of course he did," Honig said. "Why would you demand such a quick trial date? But there's a contrast that some of the Democrats made, which is, here you have Donald Trump explicitly calling for prosecutions of people. So some of Jack Smith's conduct gives rise, I think, to a fair conclusion that he was trying to rush it before the election. And Donald Trump is explicitly saying, 'go after this person, DOJ, go after that person who I don't like politically.'"

Smith, a career federal prosecutor, was appointed as a special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022 to investigate Trump's handling of classified documents and his role in the events surrounding the Insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

Smith led high-profile criminal investigations and prosecutions against Trump on multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and violations of the Espionage Act related to classified materials at Mar-a-Lago, though the cases faced significant legal challenges and delays, with Trump ultimately avoiding trial on these charges following his 2024 election victory.

CNN's Jake Tapper is dead to me

It’s Political Book Season, and you can almost smell the stink, er, ink in the air!

You are going to start hearing a lot from the Inside-the-Beltway, so-called journalists about all the things that were happening, or maybe more importantly not happening, that ultimately led to Democrats’ across-the-board defeats in November.

A big theme in the books will be Joe Biden’s age, and who knew what on the inside of the White House about the man’s physical and mental capacity to actually run for office again.

If you’ve read me for any length of time you know what I generally think of these books: Very little.

As I have written:

“There are two different types of political books. The book that’s written to describe the mayhem and/or context behind a significant news event, or the scope of one’s beat is one type. The book that is written to break news is quite another.”

I’m not sure how much news is being broken in CNN Anchor Jake Tapper’s new book, co-authored with Alex Thompson of Axios, but I do know I was suffering whiplash trying to stay atop of the election, and whether Biden should have stayed in or out.

I am no political expert, because none exist, but do know plenty about the press, and spent most of my time raking them over the coals for their massive failure to cover the threats another Trump presidency would introduce.

I admittedly will not be reading Tapper’s book, or even giving its title here, because I was done with him three years ago when he made it clear he wasn’t a serious journalist, but was plenty keen to help Ivanka Trump sell her loathsome husband’s book:

Back then I went to Tapper and CNN for an explanation for this shoddy disregard for journalism, and was roundly ignored.

I wrote:

And if you are saying, “Hey, it’s just a silly retweet give the guy a break,” I am saying, I am sympathetic to that, but only if he owns up to his recklessness and publicly apologizes for it.

Tapper hasn’t said a single word, though, so the guy who is one of the twinkly faces behind the “most trusted name in news” is officially playing fast and loose with his reputation and that trust.

Ultimately, he should have been fired, because there was no damn explanation for any of this. Instead, he helped keep the sinking USS Trump afloat by legitimizing anything coming from that grotesque family.

The only thing I am sure about that damn 2024 election is this: The mainstream media did an absolutely atrocious job of warning us about what was coming if, God forbid, Trump won again. They failed catastrophically to cover the most important story in America since the Civil War: Republicans attack on the rule of law and our Democracy.

You could write a book about it.

Say, speaking of the attack on common decency, our rule of law and Democracy … while returning from his grifting expedition in the Mideast this week, the America-attacking Trump decided this warranted the nation’s attention:

Yes, it’s real.

It should surprise absolutely nobody, except maybe our press, that the first public statement the convicted woman-abuser made during his return to America was to attack yet another woman.

As he has proven time and time again, the only thing he hates more than this country are the women who live here.

But just to show he can always lower his sewer-like standards, he then quickly used his nuclear-powered cell phone to follow up with this public shot at America’s real Boss, Bruce Springsteen, who has been appropriately critical of the America-attacker’s never-ending assault on our country and its women:

Imagine if he held our enemies like Vladimir Putin with such disdain …

So … fresh off this absolutely INSANE behavior by a sitting president, I will tap my foot and wait for all the stories that are sure to be coming from Tapper and his collection of insiders about the mental capacity of a guy who is a textbook psychopath, and can’t be removed from office fast enough.

Oh, and here’s the definition of a psychopath just in case anybody somehow thinks I am being hyperbolic: a person with a psychopathic personality, characterized by a lack of empathy, remorse, and guilt, along with manipulative and deceitful behavior.

Anything you see there that doesn't track?

Can you imagine the attention those posts would have gotten if Biden had written them? The world’s press would have been camped out at the White House 24/7, waiting for him to be hauled away on a stretcher.

With Trump it’s just another day …

And while we are having this discussion of the psychopath’s trip to the Mideast, among many topics that have been barely touched upon by Tapper’s incompetent press have to do with the psychopath’s revolting children — unless, of course, they have books to sell.

In the lead-up to his cash-and-airplane grab, the psychopath’s eldest sons, Donny and Eric, were busy canvassing the region drumming up business and greasing the skids for Daddy Psychopath’s visit, while making deals and funneling money into the oily "Trump Organization."

This was happening wide out in the open, and got absolutely no significant mention that I could find. I mention this here because what they were doing was almost certainly illegal, and 100 percent unethical.

Now their daddy is hate-posting after leaving the region with millions of dollars worth of party favors, including a brand-new airplane.

Just for the hell of it, here’s what the U.S. Constitution says about that stuff:

Article 1, Section 9, states, “No person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” (This means that U.S. government officials cannot accept gifts or money from foreign officials or foreign countries.)

But hey, the Constitution is being treated as nothing but a nuisance by the psychopath, so why bother getting upset, right?

You know, I remember way back in the pre-fascist days of 2024, when this kind of thing would have received nonstop attention by Tapper’s earnest brethren in the White House press corp — attention that might have even resulted in a hard look by our nation’s Attorney General.

Because this is exactly what happened to Hunter Biden. Remember all that?

Apparently, six months later, the press has already forgotten.

There are books to sell after all …

(D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. You can find all his work here, and follow him on Bluesky here.)

Yes: VP pick Tim Walz matters for winning the election. History shows it.

Growing up in Texas, we were treated to stories of colorful political characters. Few could top John Nance “Cactus Jack” Garner, who once pronounced that the vice-president position “is not worth a bucket of warm spit.” (Some say Garner said worse.)

That seems to be the opinion of more than a few pundits and political scientists. National Public Radio, The Economist and Politico have all run articles asserting how little impact a vice presidential pick makes on the ultimate outcome of a presidential election.

I take a different approach, comparing vice presidential picks’ performance in their states to how the party did in that state four years earlier.

Vice presidential picks: a recent history

To test their hypothesis, I analyzed how a party’s presidential ticket performed in the vice president nominees’ state in a given election year. Then I compared it to how the party’s ticket did in that state four years earlier.

It turns out that more often than not, a vice presidential candidate running as vice president for the first time helps you perform better in his or her state than four years earlier when that VP candidate wasn’t on the ticket.

ALSO READ: Tim Walz's personal finances are extraordinarily boring — and that may help Harris

For example, did Mike Pence help Donald Trump’s performance in Indiana during 2016 compared to how Republicans did in 2012? This case matters, given that Democrats won Indiana in 2008.

By the same token, did Democrats do better in Virginia with Sen. Tim Kaine as Hillary Clinton’s running mate in 2016 than Democrats did in the same state during 2012?

In these most recent 17 cases, where the vice presidential nominee isn’t already a vice president running for reelection — such as Joe Biden in 2012 — the vice presidential candidate boosted the party ticket 10 times in his or her home state. On seven occasions, the VP candidate did not do as well for his or her party as the party did four years ago in the state.

There were three cases where the vice presidential candidate boost or drag on the ticket was less than a percentage point. Taking those three out means that on nine occasions, the vice presidential candidate improved the ticket in his or her state. In five cases, the VP candidate did not help the ticket in the state he or she is from.

The average boost a vice presidential candidate gets a ticket in his or her own state is 4.4 percentage points, when considering all 17 cases.

That difference definitely matters in 2024.

As recently as last month, some polls put Trump ahead of Biden in Minnesota, which Biden had won by about 7 percentage points in 2020.

With Biden off the ticket, the advantage has swung back toward Democrats, but Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s addition to the ticket Tuesday will all but ensure that Minnesota — a must-win for Kamala Harris’ presidential chances — stays blue.

In three cases (1976 Democrats, 1980 Republicans and 1992 Democrats), a vice presidential candidate helped flip a state. In 2016, Kaine boosted the Democrats in his swing state of Virginia in a tight election — Clinton won Virginia, even if she lost the election.

One should also consider the cases where a presidential candidate would have done much better, possibly winning the overall election, with a better vice presidential selection.

ALSO READ: Why ‘vanilla’ Tim Walz is the ingredient to beat Trump: Dem lawmakers

Imagine President Gerald Ford keeping Vice President Nelson Rockefeller — and winning New York in 1976. It could have meant the difference in Ford defeating Democrat Jimmy Carter and winning his own four-year term after assuming the presidency from disgraced Richard Nixon. Instead, Carter narrowly won New York — and the election.

It’s also hard to imagine Democrat Al Gore losing Florida with the highly popular Sunshine State politician Bob Graham — a senator and governor — in 2000. Instead, he picked Connecticut's Joe Lieberman.

Republicans would have almost certainly fared a bit better against Democrat Barack Obama with a ticket of John McCain and Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania in 2008, instead of McCain and then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) might have helped Mitt Romney in 2012, at least in Ohio.

Still need convincing?

Many others in the media and academia have challenged the idea that vice presidential picks matter.

The Economist takes issue with the notion that vice presidential nominee Lyndon B. Johnson delivered the 1960 election to John F. Kennedy, who edged out Nixon in one of the nation’s closest elections in history.

And they might be right, given that the only states that voted for Democrat Adlai Stevenson II in 1952 and 1956 were from the South. Yet Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican, did win Johnson’s home state of Texas in both elections, and Kennedy captured Texas in 1960.

In a recent interview with A Martínez from National Public Radio, professor Kyle Kopko at Elizabethtown College takes issue with the idea that a VP candidate can deliver an election:

MARTÍNEZ: All right. So if the Harris campaign is thinking about picking a VP candidate to help them carry one of November's swing states, what is your message to them? Kyle, let's start with you there.

KOPKO: Well, first of all, it's probably not going to happen. Whenever we estimate a number of statistical models dating back decades, it's pretty rare that we find a vice presidential candidate that can deliver a battleground state. And even if they could, then it really has to be the decisive state in the Electoral College really to make a difference. So you can think about this as lightning needing to strike ever just right for it to count in the presidential election.

In a Politico article two elections ago, Kopko and Christopher Devine go into more detail about their model.

They look at state-level election returns from 1884-2012. They also delve in public opinion polls from 1952-2008 to see how much a vice-presidential candidate means for their home state.

Here are their findings: “While presidential candidates typically enjoy a home-state advantage (approximately 3 points to 7 points), vice presidential candidates generally do not. In each of the three analyses described above, a presidential ticket performs no better in the vice-presidential candidate’s home state than we would expect otherwise. Statistically speaking, the effect is zero.”

It's not that Kopko and Devine are wrong, but they are looking at eras with many blowout elections.

Think of Republican victories from 1896-1908 (William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt), 1920-1928 (Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge), and 1952-1956 (Eisenhower), or Democratic dominance from 1932-1944 (Franklin D. Roosevelt).

It wouldn’t have mattered if you put Superman on the ticket for the losing side, even with the X-ray vision.

But in more recent years, with 24-hour media and social media coverage, we learn a lot more about Palin, Pence, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden than America ever heard about Thomas Marshall, Thomas Hendricks, Levi P. Morton or Allen G. Thurman in those days.

Legacy of Charles not-quite-in-charge

But in more recent years, from 1976-2020, one could say that it’s a whole new ballgame for vice presidential picks.

And the selections of J. D. Vance of Ohio and Walz of Minnesota are likely to have a much bigger impact than Charles Fairbanks, Charles G. Dawes, Charles Curtis, Charles W. Bryan and Charles L. McNary (all vice presidential picks between 1904-1940) ever did.

John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia. His views are his own. He can be reached at jtures@lagrange.edu. His “X” account is JohnTures2.

'N----- for Trump' creator: I launched PAC to counter 'White Dudes for Harris'

While former President Donald Trump was addressing an audience of Black journalists on Wednesday, a new super PAC using the N-word sprung into existence, with official paperwork filed with the Federal Election Commission.

But the timing for the creation of "N----- for Trump" was "genuine coincidence," Jeremiya Mitchell, the 25-year-old man who created the super PAC, told Raw Story in an exclusive phone interview.

Mitchell told Raw Story that the fundraising committee is legitimate and has plans to fundraise for Trump "in the making."

"I've spoken with a couple people, and we have got the ball rolling, but we haven't set up any events or anything yet, but hopefully that will be coming in the near future," said Mitchell, who also created the official "Real N----- For Trump" X account.

By law, super PACs may raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates, although many neither raise nor spend much. Mitchell said the FEC has been "really helpful" in the process of setting up the PAC, and he's been in touch with conservative fundraising platform, WinRed.

"We cannot comment on specific committees," Judith Ingram, FEC press officer, told Raw Story via email.

The FEC sent Mitchell a letter on Aug. 1 requesting verification of the statement of organization for "N----- for Trump," saying it came to the agency's attention that the filing may have "failed to include the true, correct or complete committee information."

WinRed did not immediately respond to Raw Story's request for comment.

The idea for the PAC's name came in response to this week's "White Dudes for Harris" livestream that raised more than $4 million for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris.

RELATED ARTICLE: N-word political committee materializes during Trump interview with Black reporters

"I saw the 'White Dudes for Harris' thing, and it was so cheap. It's like a slap in the face," Mitchell, of Brewton, Ala., said. "This is kind of like the other side of the coin to that because too often Black men are overlooked and disregarded completely when it comes to politics because nobody gives a f--- about us really."

Mitchell said politicians don't care to "push an issue" for Black men and took issue with Harris' Atlanta rally that featured rappers Quavo and Megan Thee Stallion.

"There's no specific policies for us, but you'll have somebody like Kamala Harris come to a predominantly Black city like Atlanta and not talk any policy, but have rappers up there shaking their a-- and stuff, so this is kind of to send a message that we're serious and then we're gonna stand with who is willing to do something for us," Mitchell said.

Mitchell, who says he previously worked in election coordination and field management for PACs, including Young Americans for Liberty and Make Liberty Win, became a Trump supporter in 2016.

Make Liberty Win is not associated with "N----- for Trump" and became aware of the organization when reached by Raw Story, said Barrett Young, executive director for Make Liberty Win, in an email.

"Mr. Mitchell was an employee of Liberty Staffing, a [professional employer organization] we utilize as a vendor to knock doors in independent expenditure campaigns in a low-level role as a door knocker," Young said.

Young Americans for Liberty did not immediately respond to Raw Story's request for comment.

Mitchell said if more isn't done to address illegal immigration, "the first people who are going to feel that is the Black community."

"Donald Trump was the first president of my adult life, and comparing my life from then to now is night and day," Mitchell said.

Mitchell said many people mistakenly thought he was "trolling" or a "white person trying to make this to maybe make Trump look bad."

"I’m Black myself, I can say ‘n----’ in whatever context I want. So in this context, it's a term of endearment," Mitchell said. "'N----- for Trump' isn't just limited to Black men. We got white n-----, Mexican n-----, so this isn't just an exclusionary party or PAC like 'White Dudes for Harris'."

White Dudes for Harris' X account was suspended Monday evening shortly after the fundraising call but reinstated Tuesday.

Harris' and Trump's campaigns did not immediately respond to Raw Story's request for comment.

This story has been updated to include comment from Make Liberty Win and a new letter from the FEC.

Kamala Harris: What her California years reveal

This article originally appeared in CalMatters, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

As President Joe Biden today bowed to the growing chorus of elected Democrats and Democratic voters calling for him to exit the 2024 race, everyone is taking another good hard look at Kamala Harris.

“Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala Harris to be the nominee of our party this year, ” Biden wrote in a social media post, calling his selection of Harris to be his vice president “the best decision I’ve made.”

Vice presidents rarely get much attention. What attention Harris has gotten on the job hasn’t been particularly positive. Counter to the reputation she cultivated early on in her career as a pragmatic politician and sharp-minded prosecutor, public opinion on Harris soured in the summer of 2021 and had mostly stayed sour.

That was in part thanks to the White House saddling her with a series of unenviable and intractable tasks. Beyond that her role, like that of most vice presidents, has been high on profile, but low on actual responsibility. It’s a job perhaps best described by fictional Veep Selina Meyer as the political equivalent of being “declawed, defanged, neutered, ball-gagged, and sealed in an abandoned coal mine.”

Nor was Harris faring much better with voters in her home state. Last year 59% of California voters in a Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll said they would not welcome her on the top of the ticket.

Why Nancy Pelosi was key to nudging Biden out: ‘For her, it’s all about winning’

But as Harris emerged as the favored substitute for Biden, more voters seem to be warming to her. A Washington Post poll found that the vast majority of Democratic voters nationwide would be “satisfied” with Harris at the top of the ticket. The same poll found her narrowly beating Trump in a head-to-head election among registered voters.

Today she issued a statement saying she was honored to have Biden’s endorsement and “my intention is to earn and win this nomination….We have 107 days until Election Day. Together, we will fight. And together, we will win.”

And so the nation is catching itself back up to speed on all things Harris — and that means catching up on a life of accomplishment and controversy here. More than any other vice president in generations, Kamala Harris’ biography is singularly Californian.

Born in Oakland, bussed to school in Berkeley, tested by San Francisco’s cutthroat municipal politics and propelled onto the national stage as the state’s top law enforcement officer and then its first female senator of color, Harris’ approach to politics and policymaking were honed here.

Now that voters are reconsidering whether Harris has what it takes to be president of the United States — and as Donald Trump and J.D. Vance train their oppo-machine upon her — we’re resurrecting this look at her California years and career. Here are nine ways that California shaped Kamala Harris, and that Harris shaped California.

1. A child of Berkeley

In a state full of transplants, Harris is a lifelong Californian.

She was born in 1964 in Oakland — at a hospital a little over a mile from the city hall where, more than half a century later, she would announce her short-lived 2020 bid for the presidency. Born to immigrant parents who met while getting their PhDs and protesting for civil rights at UC Berkeley, she spent her childhood in Berkeley. Harris’ father, Donald Harris, is from Jamaica and her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, is from India. The couple split when Harris was 7, and Harris and her sister Maya were raised mostly by her mother, who died in 2009.

In the first Democratic presidential debate in 2019, Harris famously skewered Joe Biden — then her campaign rival — for his past opposition to federally mandated busing to desegregate public schools. For Harris, she said, the issue was “personal.”

Specifically, Harris rode the “red rooster” from Berkeley’s working-class flatlands to Thousand Oaks Elementary School at the base of the affluent north Berkeley hills. This was 1969, just one year after Berkeley Unified introduced its “two-way” busing program across its elementary schools. Berkeley being Berkeley, unlike local integration plans across the country, the city had undertaken this one on its own accord.

After the debate dust-up, Harris clarified that she does not support federally mandated busing, a policy stance not so dissimilar from the one she needled Biden over.

Traversing back and forth between different strata of society — black, white and Asian; well-off and working-class — is a familiar trope in Harris’ biography.

“It wasn’t a homogenous life,” said Debbie Mesloh, a friend who has also worked for Harris as a communication director and a consultant. “She’s a very resourceful person in that she can move in between these worlds.”

Vice President Kamala Harris graduated from Howard University in 1986. Her graduating year photo is in the bottom row, second from right.

Vice President Kamala Harris graduated from Howard University in 1986. Her graduating year photo is in the bottom row, second from right.

Harris spent her teenage years in Montreal, moving there with her sister and mother when Gopalan accepted a university research position there. She earned a political science and economics degree at Howard University in Washington D.C. but returned to California to get her law degree in 1989 at the University of California, Hastings in San Francisco.

Until her most recent move to Washington, she called California home.

Fresh out of law school, she joined the Alameda County district attorney’s office in 1990, serving there eight years before crossing the bay to San Francisco. In 2003, she unexpectedly won election as San Francisco district attorney, where she served two terms before her narrow election as state attorney general in 2010. She was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2016.

2. The influence of king/queen-maker Willie Brown

Former state Assembly Speaker and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown has helped accelerate many a successful political career in California (including that of Gov. Gavin Newsom). Harris got a boost from Brown, too.

In March 1994, San Francisco Chronicle’s legendary columnist Herb Caen described the scene at Brown’s surprise 60th birthday party. Clint Eastwood was there, wrote Caen, and he “spilled champagne on the Speaker’s new steady, Kamala Harris.” Brown had a reputation for dating much younger women. In his column, Caen described Harris, then a deputy district attorney of Alameda County, as “something new in Willie’s love life. She’s a woman, not a girl.”

The relationship ended after two years, but her connection to Brown, three decades her senior, did have an outsized effect on her career.

Willie Brown and Kamala Harris in 1994.Willie Brown and Kamala Harris in 1994.

“I would think it’s fair to say that most of the people in San Francisco met her through Willie,” John Burton, who used to be president pro tem of the state Senate, former chair of the California Democratic Party and a San Francisco political powerhouse in his own right, told Politico.

The speaker gave Harris a couple plum positions on two state regulatory boards — the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission. “If you were asked to be on a board that regulated medical care, would you say no?” Harris told SFWeekly a few years later.

Harris’ connection to Brown also helped her make connections across San Francisco high-society and California political elite. In 1996, a year after Brown became mayor and Harris broke off the relationship, she joined the board of trustees at San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

When Harris ran for San Francisco district attorney nearly a decade later, her first contributioncame from Elaine McKeon, chair of the museum’s board. More — much more — poured in from donors with last names like Fisher, Getty, Buell, Haas and other noble houses of the Bay Area.

But from the beginning of her political career, Harris has seen her connection with Brown as a liability — a cudgel that opponents can use against her and, at worst, a tired, sexist trope used to question the legitimacy of her ascendant career. In the first run to be San Francisco’s district attorney, Harris deliberately hired a campaign consultant known for working with clients outside the Brown political machine. During that same campaign, she described her past relationship with the former speaker and mayor as “an albatross hanging around my neck.”

And in 2020, Brown wrote that if Biden offered her the chance to be his running mate, she should turn him down — noting that “the glory would be short-lived, and historically, the vice presidency has often ended up being a dead end.”

He recently told a reporter, regretfully, that he and Harris are no longer in touch.

3. A lack of clarity

You saw it in the presidential race. You’ve seen it in her as vice president. As the New York Times once put it: “the content of her message remains a work in progress.” We saw it before in California.

While running the California Department of Justice, Harris was often loath to wade into the political battles taking place just a few blocks away in the state Legislature.

There was the bill that would have required her office to investigate police shootings. She did not take a formal position (though she did tell a reporter it would be bad policy). The bill died.

There was the proposal to force police departments to gather data on the ethnicity and race of the civilians they stop. Harris also declined to take a position. It passed anyway.

And on the biggest criminal justice overhaul in California in a generation, Harris also kept mum.

Prompted by a judicial decree that the state had to dramatically cut the population of its overcrowded prison system, “realignment” was a package of state policies passed in 2011 that shifted tens of thousands of inmates out of state custody and into county jails or onto the rolls of local probation systems.

Despite in many ways reflecting the lessons described in her book “Smart on Crime,” which argued that non-violent criminals can be redirected into less punitive systems without jeopardizing public safety, Harris, the state’s top law enforcement officer, was silent on the policy.

“The idea that she would have consistent positions on issues informed by ideology isn’t who she is.”
COREY COOK, POLITICAL SCIENTIST AND PROVOST OF ST. MARY’S COLLEGE

That earned a rebuke from the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board, which wrote in its endorsement of her 2016 Senate candidacy that Harris “has been too cautious and unwilling to stake out a position on controversial issues, even when her voice would have been valuable to the debate.”

What some critics call prevarication or flip-floppery, her supporters call pragmatism. Those are just two ways of describing the same quality, said Corey Cook, a political scientist and provost at St. Mary’s College, and a longtime observer of San Francisco politics.

“She’s not an ideologue,” he said, meaning rather than stake out the boldest, ideologically-coherent agenda, she tends to focus on individual fixes to specific problems. Hence the “3am agenda” of her presidential campaign, a collection of policy changes designed to address the problems that keep the average voter up at night.

“The idea that she would have consistent positions on issues informed by ideology isn’t who she is,” said Cook. Harris may appear to pick her battles, he said, because for her “the only lasting solutions are going to be the ones that are able to sustain a majority coalition of support.”

4. Making a mark: sex crimes, domestic violence, child abuse

Harris has never shied away from the “tough on crime” label when it comes to a certain class of criminals: domestic violence perpetrators, child abusers and sex traffickers.

After nearly a decade in Alameda County and a short stint as a deputy district attorney in San Francisco (she left, calling the leadership there “dysfunctional”), in 2000, Harris joined the San Francisco city attorney’s office under Louise Renne.

Renne said she was looking for someone to head the office’s Child and Family Service unit, which investigates child abuse cases. This was not considered a prestigious post. Prosecutors inside the unit had taken to calling it “kiddie law.”

Renne thought Harris, who had focused on child abuse and sexual exploitation cases in Alameda County, would be a good fit.

“She comes into my office and says ‘Come on, Louise, we’ve got to go over to court. There are going to be adoptions today,’ and she had all these teddy bears.”
LOUISE RENNE, FORMER SF CITY ATTORNEY

That instinct was confirmed on Harris’ first day on the job, Renne said, when a number of children who had been separated from their parents were formally adopted into new families.

“She comes into my office and says ‘Come on, Louise, we’ve got to go over to court. There are going to be adoptions today,’ and she had all these teddy bears,” Renne recalled. “She knew the occasion. She knew it was an important one and it should be celebrated.”

Harris’ focus on the victims of abuse and exploitation continued after she was elected as San Francisco’s District Attorney.

“I don’t know what the term ‘teenage prostitute’ means. I have never met a ‘teenage prostitute.’ I have met exploited kids,” Mesloh, then Harris’ communications director, recalls her boss saying at her first all-staff meeting. Harris then ordered her prosecutors not to use the term in court. A year later, Harris sponsored a bill putting the crime of human trafficking into the state criminal code.

Some Democrats say Harris’ prior life as a prosecutor with a focus on sex crimes would be a key advantage in a potential general election contest against Trump, who has been found liable in a civil case for sexual assault and recently became the first former president to be convicted of a felony. In that case, the 34 counts were related to the falsifying of business records in connection to an alleged sexual encounter with a pornographic film actress.

But using the full force of the law to penalize pimps, traffickers and other abusers has earned Harris some criticism from civil libertarians and from advocates for sex workers.

In one of her final acts as California’s attorney general, Harris had the CEO of Backpage.com, Carl Ferrer, arrested on pimping charges. Backpage was an online classifieds site known for its “adult services” section, which prosecutors had long warned served as a marketplace for sex traffickers.

The arrest was based on a contentious legal argument that pit anti-trafficking fervor against the First Amendment. Since Backpage was merely a platform for ads, its lawyers argued, it was protected by the same law that protects Google from being held liable for illicit websites listed in its search results. A superior court judge agreed and threw out the case, though an amended charge, pursued by Harris’ successor, then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra, led Ferrer to plead guilty to money laundering and conspiracy to facilitate prostitution and to the shuttering of the site.

5. The Harris mantra: ‘Smart on Crime’

One of the reasons Harris became known as a rising-star District Attorney was her focus on prevention, which she explained in her book, Smart on Crime, written in 2009, the year before she ran for attorney general.

“Public health practitioners know that the most beneficial use of resources is to prevent an outbreak, not to treat it,” Harris wrote. “Instead of just reacting to a crime every time it is committed, we have to step back and figure out how to disrupt the routes of infection.”

Former San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris on June 18, 2004. Photo by Marcio Jose Sanchez, AP PhotoKamala Harris as San Francisco District Attorney on June 18, 2004. Photo by Marcio Jose Sanchez, AP Photo

Harris’ “Back on Track” program, considered the most successful implementation of this idea, redirected first-time, non-violent drug offenders into supervised education, job training courses, therapy sessions and life skills classes. It was a modest program, but a novel one compared to what most other big city law enforcement officers were doing in 2005.

“In that time period, I think that she was a radical,” said Mesloh. The program has since been emulated by cities around the country. When Harris became attorney general, she launched a similar pilot program for Los Angeles County.

Harris’ focus on prevention produced some of her key accomplishments as district attorney. But in the context of the 2020 presidential primary, some of those same accomplishments struck many critics on the left as overly punitive.

The year after launching Back on Track, Harris introduced an anti-truancy initiative. Based on a statistical correlation that chronic class skippers are more likely to be both perpetrators and victims of homicide, Harris’ office began threatening the parents of persistently absent students with prosecution.

Harris has been quick to point out that the “stick” in this carrot and stick approach only came out after a series of escalating interventions, including mandatory meetings with school staff and social workers. No one went to jail under the program, though a handful of parents were fined. Within a few years, city truancy rates fell by a third and Harris took credit.

In 2010 her office sponsored a bill to take the program statewide. In the hands of other district attorneys, the statute was used in at least a handful of cases to put parents behind bars. Critics have said that the policy has been disproportionately wielded against poor parents of color.

In a 2019 interview, Harris said she regretted any “unintended consequences” of the state law.

6. Harris has (almost) always opposed capital punishment

Her opposition to the death penalty has been one of the most controversial stands in her career, but it’s also an example for those who criticize her lack of consistency.

On April 10, 2004, three months after her inauguration as San Francisco’s new district attorney, 29-year-old police officer Isaac Espinoza was gunned down by a 21-year-old with an AK-47. Three days later, Harris made good on a campaign promise and vowed not to seek the death penalty for the shooter. David Hill was later convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

The decision engendered a predictably fierce backlash from the police union and rebukes from politicians. “This is not only the definition of tragedy,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at Espinoza’s funeral, “it’s the special circumstance called for by the death penalty law.” The assembled officers cheered while Harris remained seated.

Gavin Newsom for president? Tallying up his assets and liabilities

Some of Harris’ critics say she has wavered in tougher political circumstances.

In 2014, when a federal court judge ruled that California’s administration of the death penalty was unconstitutional, Harris appealed the decision as state attorney general, arguing that it was “not supported by the law.”

Harris later said that she was obligated to defend capital punishment as the legal representative of the state. Many have pointed out that she was happy not to defend a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that voters passed in Proposition 8 when it was challenged a year earlier. Harris’ response: She was merely reflecting the position of her client, Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration.

She also explained that the judge’s ruling, which held that the long delays between sentencing and execution in California amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment,” could be used to justify speeding up the state’s system of capital punishment.

7. Prosecutorial overreach controversies

Both as district attorney and as state attorney general, Harris led offices that criminal justice advocates say was overly aggressive in pursuing convictions and lacked transparency in a way that belies Harris’ brand as a “progressive prosecutor.”

In March 2010, just as Harris was campaigning to become California’s attorney general, San Francisco authorities shut down a police department crime lab in the city’s Hunters Point naval yard. A technician named Deborah Madden was accused of skimming drugs, raising broader questions about the lab’s ability to appropriately handle evidence in criminal cases. (Madden later pleaded guilty).

Harris immediately dismissed 20 drug cases, but the number eventually grew to over 1,500after documents showed that prosecutors within Harris’ office had known about Madden’s potential unreliability months before the lab was closed, but had neglected to tell defense attorneys.

A superior court judge later excoriated Harris’ office, writing that the violations infringed on the defendants’ constitutional rights.

Afterward, Harris formed a unit to handle the sharing of evidence with criminal defense attorneys. She has also said that she did not know about the problems at the crime lab until after the scandal blew up.

But that hasn’t done much to assuage the concerns of critics who say Harris had a tendency toward prosecutorial overreach, which continued once Harris became the state’s attorney general.

Kamala Harris is sworn in as California’s attorney general on Jan. 6, 2011. Photo via the Office of the Attorney General of California.

In 2015, for example, lawyers for an inmate convicted of murder attempted to have the case thrown out after new evidence suggested that Riverside County prosecutors lied on the stand during the initial trial. Harris’ office, representing the state prison system, resisted, only backing down after footage of one of her deputies being eviscerated by three federal judges went viral.

A spokesperson for her since-abandoned presidential campaign said Harris ordered her office to drop the challenge as soon as “she became aware” of the case.

Critics point to other examples. There was her office’s decision to defend a molestation conviction that local prosecutors had secured with a false confession.

Asked about that case, the spokesperson said that it was “long-standing practice” for prosecutors within the Californian Department of Justice to file legal motions without the express approval of the Attorney General, implying that, again, Harris was not aware that her office was making the argument. But in this case, the spokesperson added, state prosecutors believed “the original case…was valid and that the victim in the case deserved justice.”

Another example: her office’s refusal to take over a 2011 Seal Beach mass shooting case after a judge recused the entire Orange County District Attorney’s office for widespread prosecutorial misconduct. Harris defended her decision: “it was being handled at the local level.”

Such a track record is to be expected of any prosecutor, said Sally Lieber, who worked with Harris on human trafficking legislation while representing Mountain View in the state Assembly.

“It is an adversarial system and so she was filling a particular role, but I think that she was able to do it in a very sophisticated, smart and responsive way,” she said.

8. As California’s AG: Playing hardball

Harris’ biggest accomplishment while California’s attorney general was to secure a financial settlement with some of the country’s largest banks accused of illegally foreclosing on homeowners.

In September 2011, Harris pulled out of ongoing negotiations between attorneys general from nearly every US state and the five banks, calling the proposed deal of $2-to-$4 billion “crumbs on the table.”

Harris was not the first attorney general to walk away, but the departure of the country’s largest state seemed to have its intended effect.

A few months later, with California back in the mix, a new deal was struck. This time, California got $20.2 billion in debt reductions and direct financial assistance.

Still, some consumer groups and outside experts were critical of the deal, arguing that the banks would have been forced to write off much of that bad debt eventually. “All sizzle, no steak,” is how Georgetown law professor Adam Levitin put it.

But Harris’ willingness to play hardball did result in a bigger settlement, said Rob McKenna, former Washington attorney general who was part of the negotiations.

“It’s possible for states to overstate the impact they had on the final settlement. The former New York Attorney General (Eric Schneiderman) would sometimes make claims about the settlement and improvements he had obtained,” he said. “But it’s fair to say that Attorney General Harris negotiated and obtained some improvement in the settlement for California.”

9. Kamala the campaigner

Harris launched her 2020 presidential campaign high on fanfare and hype, only to flame out less than a year later before even making it to Iowa. It was a historically stark underperformance from a candidate that many Democratic insiders believed would be a formidable contender.

In California, Harris’ electoral track record has been mixed.

Her first spin on the campaign trail was a superlative success. In her 2003 race for San Francisco District Attorney, she pushed out a two-term incumbent and won more votes than any other candidate running for a city-wide office that year.

Harris’ first run for statewide office didn’t go quite smoothly. Her race for Attorney General against Republican Steve Cooley wasn’t called until weeks after Election Day. Yes, Harris won. But she did so by less than a percentage point.

Now, after 18 years in which not a single Republican has won statewide office in California, it’s easy to look back at that nail-biter of an election and see an early sign of Harris’ weakness as a candidate. But at the time, the calculus was a little different. Cooley, a relative moderate, was considered the favorite to win against Harris, a San Francisco liberal. This was 2010, which proved to be a historic landslide election for the GOP. The fact that Harris eked it out despite those headwinds, and as the first woman and person of color to hold that office no less, cemented her status as a rising star in the Democratic Party.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris talk as they asses the damage during the Creek Fire at Pine Ridge Elementary on Sept. 15, 2020, in Auberry. Photo by Gary Kazanjian, AP PhotoGov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris talk as they assess the damage during the Creek Fire at Pine Ridge Elementary on Sept. 15, 2020, in Auberry. Photo by Gary Kazanjian, AP Photo

Also rising was Gavin Newsom. The two were San Francisco friends and ran in the same social circles even before their political careers ignited. They share the same political consultants. And when the two most prestigious California elective offices opened up — for governor and U.S. senator — they sidestepped a ballot rivalry when she successfully ran for the Senate, as did he for governor.

Newsom has said — and recently reiterated — that he would not challenge Harris for the Democratic presidential nomination should Biden withdraw. Although Newsom’s name frequently appears on lists of hypothetical Biden replacements, Biden’s endorsement indicates she is the heir-apparent.

This story incorporates prior reporting and interviews from CalMatters’ 2020 election coverage.

Trust Joe Biden to beat Donald Trump

I watched the Biden-Trump debate in horror, like millions of moderates.

Here was a slick conman with a national bullhorn — sans fact checking — next to a decent man who tells the truth but can’t get his words out.

Even Republicans know Trump’s performance last week was a firehose of lies, but after-the-fact fact-checking is just background noise, irrelevant to all but political junkies. (We know who we are.) Trump’s base also knows he is a serial liar, which they consider a feature, not a bug. Whattaya do with that?

The sad reality is that facts vs. lies and the grave geopolitical risks facing us have now been upstaged by Biden’s pauses, weak voice and halting delivery, all of which seemed to confirm supporters’ fears about Biden’s age — he’s 81 — and fitness for serving out a second term, when he’d be 86.

Why, oh why, didn’t Biden open with, “Folks, I have a cold, bear with me, my voice is rough, but we’ll get through it…”? Instead, his voice gravelly and barely audible, he bumbled, even though most facts were on his side. Biden, far more forceful at a North Carolina rally right after debate, freely admits he stumbled. “I don’t debate as well as I used to,” he said, but “I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong.”

ALSO READ: How The Onion’s founding editor finds humor in the dismal age of Trump

Biden’s style, rather than the substance delivered by either Biden or Trump, has nevertheless dominated headlines. Too many Democrats are now calling for Biden to leave the race, without considering that Vice President Kamala Harris often polls worse than Biden, and picking someone else to top the 2024 Democratic presidential ticket would alienate black, young and many female voters — and rightly so.

As I see it, if Biden demures, Harris must either forcefully decline her candidacy — forcefully enough that her supporters would believe she’s doing it of her own volition — or, if she is ready to run and inside data show her path to victory, Biden should resign the presidency now so that she has four months as an incumbent.

Here’s a better option: Biden quadruples down. He marches toward the presidency in a fashion even Trump — who himself faced Republican calls to step down after his “Access Hollywood” debacle in October 2016 — couldn’t match. He lives the line of a poem he once quoted to a friend: “Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

What Biden has done in office in nearly four year counts far, far more than a bad 90-minute “debate.” As Harris said in her post-debate interview, “I got the point that you're making about a one-and-a-half-hour debate tonight. I'm talking about three-and-a-half years of performance in work that has been historic ...”

And she’s right: If this is a contest on the merits, on substance, Biden wins hands down.

Pundits don’t really know what’s next

The whole debate cringe fest was a Fox News fantasy come to life. I cried for my country, popped an Ambien and went to bed.

I realize, at this point, pundits are just echoing each other. No one really knows what the fallout will be, or how the undecideds felt about the debate. I have some shred of hope that Americans are smart enough to cut through the slick lies vs. bumbling truth and consider what both men actually said.

ALSO READ: Marjorie Taylor Greene buys condo in 'crime ridden hell hole'

But honestly, MAGA exists because about 30 percent believe violence and retribution are sexier than competent policy. Every. Single. Time.

Also, low information voters get juiced by hate, which stimulates the brain like an opioid. Hate is the brain’s most powerful motivator — right up there with fear — which means hate-filled people tend to vote in higher numbers than complacent moderates.

This, very simply, is why the stupidest 20 percent of the United States has been able to impose minority rule, supported by the morbidly rich seeking to avoid regulations and taxes. It’s also why Trump keeps trashing our country and lying about crime — it’s an opioid pump for his base.

Darwin suggests we get real serious about real education, real fast.

The gaslighting got upstaged, but it was masterclass

During the debate, Trump’s gaslighting on foreign policy was astounding, even for Trump.

When Trump said Hamas attacked Israel and Putin attacked Ukraine because Biden is weak, I worried, because many voters won’t think this through. No one should need any spin; Putin himself has said his invasion goes back to the 17th century, Peter the Great and his personal power-lust for restoring the Soviet Empire.

The complexities of the Israel-Hamas war are even deeper. They far exceed Trump’s cranial capacity, going back decades, marginally beginning with Hitler’s atrocities. Israel’s history exceeds most voters’ attention spans, including mine. Biden has walked a tightrope, empathizing with suffering on both Israeli and Palestinian sides. He has forcefully denounced and criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cruelty, and he immediately denounced the naked brutality of Hamas. No one alive could do a better job navigating Israel’s scorching complexity.

Suffering Palestinians deserve all the aid, support and compassion they are getting – far more – student protesters on the left are right in that regard. But where they’re wrong is in failing to understand that if Biden cut off support to Israel, Trump would collect tens of millions of dollars in donations overnight and storm back into power, and few people would ever hear or care about Palestinian suffering again.

Those who worked with Trump are warning us

Trump’s mendacity was unprecedented in U.S. presidential history, even before the Supreme Court ruled he was above the law. The damage he has already caused will linger for decades. His offenses are too numerous to list, including nominating Supreme Court justices who helped end the federal right to abortion, adding $8 trillion to the deficit, lavishing billionaires with tax cuts, selling the climate to big oil … blah blah blah. It’s redundant already.

Biden is running for reelection not to stay out of prison or engage in retribution, but to save America from Trump and his army of sycophants addicted to power. They are dangerous.

During his awful debate performance, Biden managed to reference — albeit far too softly — that a national study conducted by the University of Houston and Coastal Carolina University rated Trump the worst president in the history of the United States. Ever. According to America’s apolitical historians.

Don’t trust your own instincts after the debate? Let that sink in.

Not enough? Consider that Trump’s closest military and domestic advisers have warned us how dangerous it would be to return him to power. While most Trump toadies are too afraid of Trump to disagree with him, these are statements made on the record by Trump advisers, as CNN reported:

1. His vice president, Mike Pence: “The American people deserve to know that President Trump asked me to put him over my oath to the Constitution. … Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.”

2. His second attorney general, Bill Barr: “Someone who engaged in that kind of bullying about a process that is fundamental to our system and to our self-government shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oval Office.”

3. His first secretary of defense, James Mattis: “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people – does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us.”

4. His second secretary of defense, Mark Esper: “I think he’s unfit for office. … He puts himself before country. His actions are all about him and not about the country. And then, of course, I believe he has integrity and character issues as well.”

5. His chairman of the joint chiefs, retired Gen. Mark Milley: “We don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We take an oath to the Constitution and we take an oath to the idea that is America – and we’re willing to die to protect it.”

6. His first secretary of state, Rex Tillerson: “(Trump’s) understanding of global events, his understanding of global history, his understanding of U.S. history was really limited. It’s really hard to have a conversation with someone who doesn’t even understand the concept for why we’re talking about this.”

Dozens of other professionals who worked alongside Trump until they realized what he really was have issued similarly dire warnings.

Biden may not be as physically or mentally robust as he was 20 or 30 years ago- few are. But I will take this old man over a con man any day of the week, because Biden is a better man. Always has been, always will be. And he still has time to prove to America that he’s the right choice — and he is — in November.

I’ll close with Robert DeNiro’s words because I really can’t top them. Here’s what he just wrote in a post-debate email:

"Over the years, I’ve played my share of vicious, low-life characters. I’ve spent a lot of time studying bad men. I’ve examined their characteristics, their mannerisms, and the utter banality of their cruelty. Donald Trump is a wannabe tough guy with no morals or ethics who will do whatever he can to obtain power. As an actor, I could never play him. There’s not a shred of humanity to hang on to. I strongly support Joe Biden. He’s a lifelong public servant with great personal integrity. I trust him completely to run the country. He puts you first. Trump cares only about himself."

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25 year litigator specializing in 1st and 14th Amendment defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

How The Onion’s founding editor finds humor in the dismal age of Trump

Sometimes this election seems a lot more dangerous and existential than just a scary Joe Biden-Donald Trump debate, as parodied by The Onion.

As the presidential rematch bounces between an edgy legal thriller and a Stephen King horror story, a good laugh is perhaps the best medicine.

That’s what Scott Dikkers, the founding editor of humor publication The Onion, told me during an interview at the monthly meeting of the Atlanta Writers Club.

“Humor can’t exist in a state of fear, so we need it,” Dikkers told me. “If you’re too scared, you can’t do humor, so we need it. When people say ‘too soon,’ comedians say ‘It’s never too soon.’”

ALSO READ: NRA no longer 'human rights group' on Google

The long-serving editor of The Onion added: “Humor is a coping mechanism, an underrated method for dealing with life’s tragedies. All who do comedy professionally know this, which is why they do it.”

He agreed with me when I related stories of being in Russia during its painful transition from Soviet communism to something resembling capitalism. I heard a lot of Russian jokes about the economy. For example, “What did Russians use for light before they had candles? Answer: Electricity!”

Now with Vladimir Putin in charge, jokes, and even laughter in Russia, may be illegal, as Russians are increasingly finding out.

“How do you create a balance with joking about Democrats and Republicans?” I asked.

“We don’t think of the divide as between Democrats and Republicans,” Dikkers replied. “We see the divide as between the haves and have-nots. It used to be [that] both parties would appeal to a different 50 percent. Now it’s one percent versus 99 percent as both parties appeal to the elites. And comedians want to appeal to the 99 percent. One party used to appeal to the 99 percent, but now it’s all muddied. Democrats used to appeal to labor, and the Republicans used to appeal to the rich establishment, but nobody seems to represent the have-nots anymore. So we can poke fun at both parties.”

For many Americans, nothing seems funny about the present moment. It’s a sobering summer. Civic tension is palpable. Laughter is scarce.

“How do you find humor in unfunny subjects?” I just had to know.

Dikkers answered my question with a question.

ALSO READ: Federalism for Dummies: How to survive Supreme Court stupidity without losing your mind

“I mean, how do you make fun of nuclear weapons, the arms race, the Cold War?” he began while harkening back to one of The Onion’s historical publications, which poked fun at famous news events of yore.

He explained how The Onion got an idea from an old Bob Hope joke about the nuclear weapons test at Bikini Atoll: “Army finds the one place in the world untouched by war and blows it up.”

As “Uncle Ben” keeps reminding us in countless Spiderman movie remakes: “With great power comes great responsibility.”

With that in mind, the humor newspaper has had its share of newsmaking outside of its own humor headlines, such as it sale by G/O Media to something called “Global Tetrahedron” (which really sounds like a spoof from The Onion). Global Tetrahedron is actually a Chicago-based group of self-described digital media fans of The Onion who named their real company after a fake one created by the humor paper.

The Onion has also had to weather criticism from some purists that argue the newspaper’s humor just isn’t the same as before (like duh!).

Meanwhile, the humor newspaper waded into a Supreme Court debate over free speech rights.

After satirist Anthony Novak was arrested and charged with designing a fake website for the City of Parma, Ohio, police department, Novak sued Parma following his acquittal in court. The Onion wrote what has to be the funniest “friend of the court brief” (amicus curae for non-Latin dorks) on behalf of Novak v. The City of Parma (2022) to challenge the 6th Circut’s Court of Appeals move to dismiss the lawsuit.

The 23-page “brief “is replete with such gems as “Rising from its humble beginnings as a print newspaper in 1756, The Onion now enjoys a daily readership of 4.3 trillion and has grown into the single most powerful and influential organization in human history” to “The Onion regularly pokes its finger in the eyes of repressive and authoritarian regimes, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, and domestic presidential administrations. So The Onion’s professional parodists were less than enthralled to be confronted with a legal ruling that fails to hold government actors accountable for jailing and prosecuting a would-be humorist simply for making fun of them.”

Despite being the best brief in American legal jurisprudence (or at least the favorite one in my students’ law classes), the Supreme Court refused to grant Novak’s case a writ of certiorari in 2023, upholding the lawsuit’s dismissal, which was a chilling outcome for free speech in the United States.

Additionally, Dikkers noted several times in his talk about The Onion’s history where the publication faced lawsuits and “cease and desist orders,” showing that not all public officials can take a joke.

Thankfully, the comedic writing of The Onion team may be just enough to help us through the 2024 election — a battle to see whether our democracy will be sponsored by Facebook or Tesla.

John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia. His views are his own. He can be reached at jtures@lagrange.edu. His “X” account is JohnTures2.