180 Comments

Concerning "shy" Harris voters, I think there may be many women who live in Maga country who may possibly vote for Harris and never admit to doing that - because of the awful abortion laws in some states, and because of IVF and contraception stances taken in red states.

Expand full comment

Interesting show with very sound suggestions. I hope the Harris team is listening.

Expand full comment

For the interview, she needs to do a couple of things. First, is to correct the perceptions of things she said regarding the economy in the press conference she had, and her tax policy. Secondly, is to flip the script, so to speak, on what are perceived to be the issues that are the Biden/Harris policy weaknesses and, thus, Trump strengths. Namely: Crime, the border, the green new deal (and related change on fracking) and the economy.

Perceptions on her press conference on the economy:

1) Perception that she may be talking about rent controls.

She never said that and she needs to clearly state that. What she said is anti-competitive price fixing via algorithms. She was talking about the company RealPage, inc. She couldn't mention them by name at that time, because the DOJ had not yet file their lawsuit against them. Last Friday, the DOJ did just that, so she can now talk about them. I've been following this ever since a lawsuit was bought against them in San Diego in Oct. 2022. Basically, large corporate property owners, controlling about 80% of the rent market in San Diego, use this The complaint alleges that RealPage contracts with competing landlords who agree to share with RealPage nonpublic, competitively sensitive information about their apartment rental rates and other lease terms to train and run RealPage’s algorithmic pricing software. This software then generates recommendations, including on apartment rental pricing and other terms, for participating landlords based on their and their rivals’ competitively sensitive information. The complaint further alleges that in a free market, these landlords would otherwise be competing independently to attract renters based on pricing, discounts, concessions, lease terms, and other dimensions of apartment leasing.

2) Grocery price gouging:

Economist went up in arms as they heard this as price controls, and pointed out that Grocery stores have razor thin 2% margins. She needs to clearly state that she is not proposing price controls. I believe (hope), however, that his is not what she was talking about. If you recall she led into this stating her support for free markets. This is largely, though not completely, about the producers that provide products to the stores. If you look at many of these large companies, they have reported record profits. In their quarterly earnings teleconferences, the CEOs attributed much of this due to expanded margins as they were able to raise prices more than increases in cost inputs. This could be construed as price gouging, and the CEOs essentially admitted to it. This also includes non-food items that consumers buy at grocery stores. An example of this are diapers. Prices have increased nearly 50% since the pandemic. This started because wood pulp prices quadrupled due to supply issues from covid. However, wood pulp prices have long since dropped to pre-pandemic levels, but diaper prices have not. This could be construed as price gouging. Two companies control 70% of the diaper market. Had there been a number of companies making diapers, with no single company having more than a 15% market share, free market forces would have brought the price of diapers back down long ago. So, while price gouging is probably not a major driver to the inflation at the Grocery store, a case can be made that it has had some impact.

3. The 'wealth tax', more specifically tax on unrealized gains for individuals worth over $100M:

I don't she has specially said she will do this, however, it is in the latest overall Biden tax proposal, which the campaign has said she endorses. She needs to step away from this. Not only is it bad policy, for a number of reasons, it also plays into the claim that she is a far left radical (Warren/Sanders type). Perhaps she can say that she doesn't not support a tax on unrealized gains, rather, we need to examine the ways Billionaires access cash on these assets, and determine if some should be considered taxable events. Also, put a cap on the current step-up in cost basis for when these assets are inherited. The step-up in cost basis means that these gains are never taxed.

Secondly, flipping the script on perceived weaknesses:

Continued on my reply to this post.

Expand full comment

Flipping the script

Crime:

She has started this by discussing the real crime stats

Southern border:

She has started this by pointing out that Trump stopped the recent border security bill. But she needs to do more. She needs to correct the perception of her as the “Border Czar” and why Biden took so long to take the executive action order. The latter will be tricky, but it an be done. She can point out that early on they tried to get funding for more border patrol agents, asylum courts and technology to stop fentanyl, but it was rejected in congress. She can point out that fentanyl does not come over on the backs of illegals through the many holes that are easily cut in Trumps metal fence (not the big beautiful concrete wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for), rather through legal ports transported by US citizens. Newer advanced technology needs to be used to catch this. Funding for this technology was in the original request, as well as the bi-partisan bill that Trump thwarted. The bi-partisan bill also made needed changes to our antiquated asylum laws. Executive orders are only a bad-aide as they can easily be overturned by courts, as what happened with title 42, or reversed by a subsequent president. When the other attempts failed, Biden had to resort to the executive order. But he also got Mexico to use their police and army to stop asylum seekers before they get to the border. There is a chart that Trump uses, the point he turned his head to look at that may he saved his life in the assassination attempt. She can take this chart, and update it to extend to the current date, thus showing the recent decline, and also extend it back to 2013 cover the entire of Trump’s term and years leading up to it. Also change it from breaking it down by families vs individuals, to showing the numbers by country. This will show the success of her efforts for Guatemala, as well as the changing dynamics at the border necessitating the changes in our laws.

Green new deal, change on fracking and green energy portion of the IRA:

Reframe this as not just about tree-hugging, but our economic future as well as a national security issues against China. She can say something along the lines of:

Fracking

“It is important to understand what I meant. I am not against fracking per se. Rather that it has to be done smartly. The national gas generated from fracking has been key to the US being a net exporter of energy (the right misstates this as being energy independent). Natural gas is a cleaner fossil fuel than other forms and is important to our orderly transition to a green economy. However, natural gas generates methane. Methane is actually a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, but it dissipates in the atmosphere much quicker than CO2. So, it is vital that we extract it smartly to eliminate the gas that leaks into the atmosphere when not done smartly. It is also important that we burn it an in efficient way to minimize the methane that can be released when burned. I will work closely with Josh Shapiro on this. No politician is more knowledgeable about fracking than Josh. He will be key to helping us to make the enhancements to fracking to minimize methane leakage in a way that maintains US jobs and keeps costs low. When it comes to oil, we now extract the most oil than any country in history! This is not something we want to maintain forever, but is also important to our transition to a green economy”.

Green New deal:

She can respond to any question or attack with “I was in the senate for four years, so I know how legislation gets done. It’s all about negotiations and compromise. The comments I made were nothing more than a start to the negotiations, you might say it is the art of the deal (coyly smiling when saying this). The green energy component of the IRA is an example of what I was seeking. Republicans have responded by mischaracterizing what is in it. They say that it mandates that Americans buy only EVs, that is simply not true. Some have said that it hands battery manufacturing to China, in fact, it is the exact opposite. First, we need to recognize two facts, 1) green energy is the future, whether we like it or not, for a number of reasons. 2) Currently, China dominates in green energy component manufacturing (and power generation). They are the number one manufacturing of EVs. In fact, one Chinese company, BYD, is the single largest manufacture of EVs, even larger than Tesla. They are the number one manufacturer of solar panels. Producing nearly 80% of panels used in the US. We can bury our heads in the sand, and let China’s domination only increase, giving them nearly all of the jobs and gaining leverage over the economies of all other nations. We learned from the pandemic that sourcing critical components, in that case chips, give that country leverage over our economy. This is a national security issue. The green energy component is already enabling the US to challenge China in green energy, with the goal of US dominance, rather than China. We are already seeing the impact of the IRA with capacity and jobs being created across what has been called the Battery belt- in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio, down through Kentucky, and out across Tennessee, Georgia and the Carolinas. Solar panel manufacturing and capacity is already expanding in the US. This will only continue and can ultimately lead to millions of new jobs in the US, helping our economy and workers in the transition to green energy. Preventing China from dominance, enhances our national security.” “Years ago, scientist predicted that one impact of climate change would be an increase in the number, and intensity, of storms and hurricanes. As well as wild fires. We are already seeing this come to fruition. This not only disrupts the how Americans live, but has also driven skyrocketing insurance rates in certain areas in the US. The inflationary impact causes severe strain on many Americans. We are also seeing dramatic impacts to our agriculture regions and dairy farmers. This will not only lead to inflation, but can cause food scarcity, and lead to reliance on foreign sources of food. This will not only create adverse impacts to our economy, but become a national security issue as well. It is vital that we take our heads out of the sand and strategically plan our transition to green energy to mitigate the threat this poses to our economy and national security.” We can let China have all of the future green energy jobs and gain leverage over our economy, or we can take action now!” This allows her to pivot from the criticism but makes the case while she supports working class jobs, climate change while also making it about our national security.

Economy continued on my nest reply

Expand full comment

Biden's economy has defied economist predictions. We haven't experienced the predicted stagflation, nor 5 years of 6% unemployment in order to tame inflation. Instead, we had 60 year record unemployment numbers (27 straight months under 4% including a month at 3.4%) and very strong GDP (by far the strongest of western economies), with inflation now under 3%. Had Biden told us in 2021 that we would see this, economist would have called it was fantasy thinking. The economists would have been wrong, just as they were with their dire predictions about the ARP. These economists with the incorrect dire predictions had mis-applied the macroeconomic models, using bad assumptions.

Keep in mind that other western economies have seen the same inflation, worse than ours some cases (UK & EU), as we have, but not the same unemployment and GDP numbers. You measure a president's performance not where the results are the same as other western economies, rather where the results differ. He inherited an economy in tatters from covid. The economic performance we have seen under Biden has been astonishingly great. Ask yourself this, if Biden caused our inflation, then why are the other western economies seeing the same inflation? When you look at the other western economies, common sense tells you that the Biden's ARP did not cause inflation, rather it saved the economy.

Some selected data: Cumulative inflation as been 23% in the EU, 22% in the UK, 20% in the US and Canada 17%. Our unemployment rate has averaged the past 2 1/2 years at 3.7%, while Canada and the EU have been over 5.8%. Our compounded annual GDP growth rate during Bidens term has been an excellent 3.4%. Even from Dec 2019 (thus including offsetting the drop during covid) has been a very strong compounded annual 2.4% per year, far better that all others. Food inflation (incl. food away from home) in Canada has been the same as ours, while it had been worse in the EU and UK. At home food (groceries) inflation under Trump during covid in 2020 averaged an annual 4% rate. The past 15 months has average an annual average rate running below 1%, while 2024 YTD from January has been 0%, ie. flat.

A simple way to think of it, just as covid has long covid symptoms, it has also had economic long covid symptoms. These symptoms being low GDP growth, high unemployment and inflation. Biden quickly cured the lowed GDP and high unemployment symptoms (the best of all western economies) with the unemployment rate below 4% by the end of 2021, while keeping inflation in-line with the average the others. Our post covid economy truly is the envy of the world.

Where Biden inherited an economy in tatters, Trump inherited a strong and growing economy. While he kept it going, at the same time though, ballooning the national debt, even excluding the covid spending. In his second two years in office (2018&2019, before covid but after his tax cuts) he added $2.7T to the debt, not much below what Obama added in his entire 4 year second term. A "greatest economy ever" would never run up the national debt the way Trump did

Whenever it is said that Trump needs to stick to the issues to win, with the biggest being the economy and inflation, these statements are left unchallenged, implying the is economy really is bad. The economy is a strength of Biden/Harris, not a weakness. What to know what a bad economy looks like? Look at late 1970's/early 1980's. Inflation over 10%, unemployment peaking at 11% and mortgage rates peaking at 18%! Trump's current economic proposals now, will ruin the economy!

Now how she says this will be difficult in an interview setting, it also may sound like defensive BS coming from her. It would be nice if an economist could submit a Mea Culpa opinion piece to the times on this. Not Larry Summers, though, He is a pompous ass who can never admit he was wrong.

Expand full comment

Appreciate you AB!

Expand full comment

Great conversation. You and JVL are a fabulous team.

Expand full comment

Thanks for zeroing in on what demonstrates that Donald Trump is indeed more than just emotionally arrested, a crook and a con man, and a narcissist - it's his cruelty that proves he is truly a sociopath.

Expand full comment

Hi great to see JVL back and I hope you enjoyed your time off. Other than tampons in the boys room, what actual policies has Walz implemented that is extreme left??

Expand full comment

Please tell Mona that all the Olympics events are still available on Peacock. Also, the US Open is coming up, so there will be SO MUCH EXCELLENT TENNIS to watch at the end of this month.

Expand full comment

Wow, just WOW Mona! Your Bulwark article https://www.thebulwark.com/p/mans-man-vs-man-child-walz-vance?sort=top on the challenges to masculinity in 2024 and how Harris' Walz pick addresses it is absolutely the best thing the Bulwark has published this month. You put a lot of thought and research into it. I will share it all around. Thank You.

Expand full comment

The Democrats swapped out Biden before the election.

Perhaps The WSJ believes that Trump can be swapped out after the election should he win it.

Expand full comment

Mona, I look forward to your piece on Tim Walz as a badly needed corrective to the Manly Man, Big Boys don't have any feelings but anger... etc etc. I look forward to the Dad jokes that are sure to come. And appreciate your framing Trump's total amorality and absence of human caring as sociopath. I always thought "narcissist" didn't go far enough.

Expand full comment

Mona and JVL started talking about character and I nearly blew a gasket! Character, what happened to it? Not that long ago, a candidate's character was the most important hurdle to clear, BEFORE one could get to policy. Look at the cultish 'Always Trump' MAGA crowd. Call this a phenom of social media but I am still old-school and I refuse accept Trump's reprehensible behavior based on lies and fabrication. No policy discussion for him. Not that he can anyway and yeah it's not his fault wink wink!

Expand full comment

Welcome back JVL - we missed you! Perhaps "WeWork from the Beach" could become a new Bulwark holiday pod...?

Expand full comment

It was kind of amusing watching you two grapple with the Tim Walz pick like you didn’t get your first choice prom date, but still looking forward to the dance.

I think low info voters don’t generally pay close attention to their candidate’s policies, but I think Kamala is doing a great job positioning herself as a bulwark *against* Trump’s policies aka project 2025. The latest Umass Amherst poll shows this is breaking through:

“ According to the poll, conducted July 29-Aug. 1, more than half (53%) of Americans – and two-thirds of Democrats – indicated that they had read, seen or heard at least something about “Project 2025” – and they don’t particularly care for it.”

Expand full comment

I liked JVL's framing of the pick as what it said about Harris. Maybe she learned an obvious lesson from the 2016 election. Clinton lost because she could not hold on to all of her base. Too many progressives stayed home or voted third party. Shapiro posed a risk, however small, of a repeat and Waltz did not. Is that "caving to the left" or sound judgment on the best path to beating Trump, where she will need every Democratic vote?

Expand full comment

Blah blah blah.

Expand full comment