The Federal Reserve’s go-to inflation gauge held at 2.5% in July, Commerce Department data showed Friday. That’s better than anticipated and shows progress — but still underscores the bumpy process for inflation’s descent.
Friday’s report also reaffirmed that the backbone of the US economy — the consumer — is still holding strong, although their piggy banks are getting lighter.
Spending was up by 0.5%, or 0.4% when adjusted for inflation, landing above expectations for the month when car dealerships were back in gear after a massive software outage in June and when Amazon puts on its annual Prime Day sales event.
The Personal Consumption Expenditures price index, which the Fed uses for its 2% target rate, was 2.5% for the year ended in July, unchanged from June. On a monthly basis, prices increased 0.2% versus 0.1% the prior month.
The latest inflation reading, which served as further confirmation that the pace of price hikes is sustainably cooling, comes just weeks before the Fed is expected to start easing monetary policy and cutting interest rates.
“I thought the report was right down the strike zone,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, told CNN in an interview Friday. “Bottom line, it indicates that inflation continues to moderate and is within spitting distance of the [Fed’s] target.”
The core PCE index, a closely watched measure of underlying inflation that strips out the more volatile components of food and energy, held steady as well by rising 0.2% for the month and 2.6% annually.
The biggest reason why inflation is not yet at 2% is housing services, particularly the implicit cost of homeownership, Zandi said. Rental and housing inflation has cooled substantially in the market but is measured with a lag in PCE and other inflation gauges, such as the Consumer Price Index.
For all intents and purposes, the Fed has achieved its inflation goals, Zandi said.
“We’re there, and it’s a bright green light for them to start easing interest rates,” he said.
Absolute incoherence, can’t keep track of a thought from one second to the next, bubbling over with whiny rage. Where are the headlines?pic.twitter.com/6OHe4s85zp
Ah, the lazy, crazy days of August during a presidential election year are upon us. That’s when the political press decides that the Democratic candidate is not being accessible enough to them so they spend weeks badgering them for interviews and demanding press conferences always insinuating that he or she much be hiding something.
I’m reminds me of the 2016 cycle when, during the month of August, the press had a collective tantrum when HIllary Clinton’s people roped her off as she walked in a parade in order to keep reporters and photographers from turning the event into a paparazzi style scrum. I wrote at the time:
Aaron Blake recounted the event in all its chilling detail and then rather sheepishly admitted that nobody in America really gives a damn about how Hillary Clinton treats the press. (A point I made a month ago.) After all, the press is held in only slightly higher esteem by the public than loan sharks and puppy mill operators. The thinly veiled threat underneath all this outrage is that the media will react to being treated badly by giving the candidate bad press, but it’s pretty clear that train left the station a long time ago when it comes to Clinton, so the cost-benefit analysis probably doesn’t argue in favor of the campaign giving a damn either.
You could not blame her. That election year was the worst. It was the “but her emails” campaign and we all know how the political media dropped the ball on that. They hysterically chased rumors that Clinton had brain damage and was hiding serious health issues, demanding that she open her medical records to the public and share the details of every doctor visit. (They happily relied on her opponent’s Dr. Feelgood for a laughable rundown of Donald Trump’s health. )
As far as we can tell, they never accepted their culpability in that shocking upset despite their knowledge that it was a ridiculous obsession that was relentlessly pursued out of a desire to get the “scoop” that would finally bring Hillary Clinton down. If they weren’t that far gone, they did think it was good sport since they were sure that Donald Trump couldn’t possibly win. The consequences of that behavior were world changing.
This year we’ve had another version of that same dynamic with the relentless demands earlier in the year for President Biden to sit down for an interview with the NY Times. In retrospect, it’s clear that they were looking to confirm the rumors of his alleged incapacity, which he ended up confirming on his own in a debate that his team had asked for. But the imperiousness of the NY Times in their quest to expose him is still galling.
Take, for example, this interview with Times editor Joe Kahn with Semafor back in April in which he was asked about a comment by former Obama official Dan Pfeiffer who said: “They do not see their job as saving democracy or stopping an authoritarian from taking power.” Kahn replied:
To say that the threats of democracy are so great that the media is going to abandon its central role as a source of impartial information to help people vote — that’s essentially saying that the news media should become a propaganda arm for a single candidate, because we prefer that candidate’s agenda
Needless to say, Pfeiffer wasn’t talking about Biden or Trump’s policy agenda. He was talking about the “Big Agenda” to destroy democracy (Project 2025?) which Kahn made clear later that he really doesn’t see as a problem. He went on to say that the papers job is to write about what people care about and democracy is way down the list after immigration and crime. He sounded very sanguine about Trump winning another term.
Keep in mind, though, that at this moment he and his reporters and editorialists were pounding on Biden over his age. Now that might very well be a legitimate line of inquiry but when you pursue that line without also probing the increasingly batshit crazy behavior of Donald Trump (who is also elderly) you give away the game.
Biden was hostile to the Times and other members of the elite press because they refused to give him credit for a somewhat miraculous economic recovery (ostensibly because of vibes) and dogged him about his advanced age. Trump, on the other hand, lives for media attention even though he rarely says anything that makes sens so they see him as a candidate playing by the rules because he makes himself available to spout his gibberish.
I had thought when Biden finally withdrew and Harris became the nominee that they might be satisfied and give Harris some running room. (They do that with certain Democratic candidates they like.) But that was not to be. Sure, she’s running against someone who is getting in fights with the Army,flip-flopping so violently it’s only a matter of time before he comes out for MediCare for All and a 60% tax on millionaires but they don’t seem to be bothered much by it. Rather than the relentless, focused coverage we saw with “butheremails” and “Bidenis old” they’re covering him like just another candidate. As Kahn said in that interview:
It’s our job to cover the full range of issues that people have. At the moment, democracy is one of them. But it’s not the top one — immigration happens to be the top [of polls], and the economy and inflation is the second. Should we stop covering those things because they’re favorable to Trump and minimize them?
Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Trump’s “ideas” about all those things are, to use a technical term, cracked. More importantly, there is a massive story unfolding before our very eyes in which one of America’s political parties has turned itself into an authoritarian cult led by a convicted criminal. All those “issues” Kahn believes are so important to present in a fair unbiased manner are informed by this much more important story. Whether or not Americans are going to go along with Trump’s dark, foreboding vision of the future or will choose something normal is what this election is about.
Last night Harris and VP candidate Tim Walz appeared on CNN for an interview. When it was announced, many people criticized the dual appearance, suggesting that she needed Walz to lean on so she must be weak. But it’s actually a tradition for the ticket to appear together for a big interview, often right after the convention. (The press knows they, they just played dumb.)
(Former President Bush even refused to meet without Vice President Cheney for the interview by the 9/11 Commission. Talk about a crutch.)
Harris and Walz gave a very predictable, anodyne interview. They are both experienced politicians and know how to do these things. As usual, they had to spend about half the time rebutting right wing smears, dutifully regurgitated by the host Dana Bash. Harris clearly did not need Walz as a crutch and he was his usual charming self when called upon. They got into some policy details, both seemed comfortable, that was it. It was hard to see what all the media frenzy was about.
But it hasn’t ended. Almost immediately there were calls for a press conference. Maybe she should just do one like Trump does: say anything she wants for a hour and then just take three or four questions and call it a day. They seem perfectly satisfied when he does it.
Why must these candidate interviews be masturbatory efforts designed more to boost the journalist’s profile, reinforce media-created narratives, sell ads, and provide filler for the 24-hour news cycle than to, you know, actually inform the voters?
Most Americans are not political geeks. They don’t spend their mornings writing things like this, or reading things like this. They don’t stay up late at night generating charts trying to get politicos higher up the food chain to address turnout anomalies that could help them win up and down the ballot. (UNA stands for UNAffiliated voter.)
Most Americans don’t really pay attention to the fall elections until after Labor Day. Nor do they pay attention to crucial downballot races that have much more impact on their daily lives than the presidential contest.
It’s basically Labor Day. That means Election Season for most Americans, who avoid politics better than they do COVID, has finally begun.
Of course, this particular election—with its 34 felony convictions, Republican-on-Republican shooting, and miraculous elevation of Kamala Harris to the top of the ticket—has attracted more attention than most presidential races. And the surprising result of all this mishegas is that Democrats are pumped.
But what’s depressing as hell is that all the joy for the top of the ticket isn’t helping downballot candidates. Instead, it’s actually hurting them.
And no one would know better than our patron saint of Reverse Coattails, who has worked with hundreds of young, progressive downballot candidates, operating basically as the farm team for the Democratic Party and democracy itself.
Check out the video above to hear her explain the current fundraising crisis. She then quickly offers a perfect example of why winning downballot races is essential to ending our crisis, where our freedoms are on the line every election. If you’re not inspired to go downballot and back Run for Something after listening to this two minutes and 26 seconds, democracy may not be for you.
But the truth is nothing can replace money doing directly to downballot campaigns for a simple reason: it frees candidates up to reach out to voters in every possible way.
Some imagine a trickle-down effect from the money sent to the top of the ticket. And, yes, an exceptional presidential campaign can lift most boats. But Harris/Walz isn’t going to take that extra cash and start spreading it out. First of all, there’s no such thing as extra cash. Campaigns should spend every dime to ensure the candidates win, and that’s why donors send checks to a particular campaign.
Without the money in the bank, the campaign and the candidate cannot plan; they can’t invest in ads, swag, or staff. And the time when they can do that is quickly fading.
So if you have the money you can give, please give it to a downballot candidate as soon as possible. And if you need ideas about where the best opportunities are, check out Downballot for Democracy, and please share this with anyone who cares.
Do. Not. Forget. Downballot candidates.
It is legend here in N.C. that Chief Justice Cheri Beasley lost her seat on the state Supreme Court in 2020 by 401 votes out of 5.5 million cast. Voters fill in the top of the ticket races and “drop off” as they go down the ballot. They leave blank critical races. Help remind your neighbors how important those races are. Democrats here lost control of the state’s highest court and have suffered the gerrymandering and vote-suppressing consequences.
Don’t let this happen to you.
Pro Tip: Don’t just trust what comes out of the computer.
Notice he didn’t actually say he would vote for it but either way you can see what quicksand this is for him. He went out to speak to his rally goers shortly thereafter and complained about the “horrible” interview he just had to give.
For years, the anti-abortion activist Lila Rose has pushed the GOP to curtail access to abortion. But now, as Donald Trump and his running mate JD Vance conspicuously soften their abortion message ahead of the November election, Rose — who leads the prominent anti-abortion group Live Action — is embracing a more radical strategy: Urging her followers not to vote for Trump unless he changes course.
You’ve been arguing online that Trump and Vance’s position on abortion has made it “impossible” for anti-abortion voters to support them. What was the breaking point for you?
[My] direct quote is that “they’re making it impossible” for us. This is an active thing. The recent statements that they have been making — increasingly pro-abortion statements — and the positions that they are choosing to take are making it untenable for pro-life voters to get out the vote for them. This is, unfortunately, the path that they’ve chosen.
So just to be clear, as things currently stand, you don’t plan to vote for Trump. Is that correct?
I am going to see how the next few weeks unfold.
[…]
Anti-abortion activists who support Trump and pro-abortion rights activists who oppose him seem to implicitly agree with each other that Trump is just moderating his message on abortion for political purposes, but that a second Trump administration would ultimately benefit the anti-abortion movement. Do you think that’s wrong, and if so, why?
You’re saying that people think Trump’s lying about his position right now, and when he gets into office he’ll secretly do pro-life things?
Yeah, that he’s moving to the center for the general election, but if you look to his first term as a guide —
I think that’s pie-in-the sky thinking. I’ve received no confirmation from the Trump campaign that they’re going to secretly lie about abortion and then go do pro-life things afterward. I think that’s a narrative that there’s no proof to back up. And I think that if he actually is secretly pro-life and he’s just doing this to win both — I think it’s morally wrong and it’s extremely misguided politically.
He’s alienating his base. Kamala Harris spent a whole week at the DNC rallying her pro-abortion base. Abortion was a headline issue at the DNC, and Trump’s response to that is saying, “Well, I guess I’m going to alienate my base.” He’s not getting Kamala’s base.
You said you have not received any assurance from Trump that he will substantively help the anti-abortion movement in office. Have you sought those assurances from his campaign?
In my personal capacity, I’ve reached out to both campaigns, but I’ve certainly reached out to the Trump campaign…
They have not told me, “Oh, we’re lying with our public statements, and we’re actually going to go back on our public statements and do otherwise in our administration.”
I think this is a foolish narrative to say Trump is just going to lie, say pro-abortion things, secretly somehow get the pro-abortion vote, then he’s going to be in office and then he’s going to do pro-life things. I don’t think there’s any evidence to back that up.
I think people look at his record [on overturning Roe] and extrapolate forward — but I take your points.
If you look at the 2016 campaign, he was much more vocally pro-life than he is now, and he had more public promises to do pro-life advocacy. Now he’s changed his position. And he is not only not saying pro-life things — he’s actively saying he would support pro-abortion policy. That’s a very important distinction, and no amount of “Well, it’s just politics” cover up that fact. Vance has come out and said that [Trump] would veto an abortion ban, that he supports abortion pills, that he supports “reproductive rights” without clarifying what that means. [Trump] was behind the RNC platform being weakened on this, which for four decades was strong on life, and now it’s been weakened.
Don’t get me wrong — I would love to see Trump coming out standing strong with life and say, “I’m going to fight for life” [with] a strong pro-life message. I would love to see him stop saying this nonsense about supporting abortion. But unfortunately, that’s not the case.
They’re beyond the “wink wink, nod, nod” strategy that they were content to use in years past. They got a big win with Dobbs and now they want it all.
Democrats deal with single issue voters like this all the time and it’s difficult. But it’s unusual for the Republicans, especially Trump, who are used to styrick loyalty and adherence to the company line. This is will be an interesting little side story, although I have little doubt that the anti-abortion zealots will come around in the end. Most of them are hypocrites anyway.
All the polls are showing Harris either tied or ahead in the swing states. She has opened up the map.
Simon Rosenberg:
We’ve had a lot of polling this week and taken together it is all showing the same thing – the election has seen a 6-7 point shift towards the Democrats, and Harris now has a 3-4 point lead in national polling. We are tied or lead in all seven battleground states and are closer to 270 than Trump now. All seven states are clearly in play, and we are competing hard in all seven. As things are still close in the battlegrounds we still have a lot of work to do to have 2024 become the election we all want it to be.
Here is what Fox News’ polling unit released last night:
This polling, and new polls today from USA Today showing Harris up 5, 48%-43%, and Ipsos/Reuters showing her up 4, 45%-41%, is making it impossible for Trump to continue say, as he does at the beginning of every interview, that he is leading in the polls. And this matters. For as we’ve discussed, the entire brand architecture of the Trump campaign is built upon him being ahead in the polls and being strong, and his opponent trailing in the polls and being weak. It is in essence all they ever had and they don’t have it any more.
Trump: “Everyone is saying who the hell is Harris. Nobody knows who Harris is. What's the vice president's name? They have no idea what the name is.” pic.twitter.com/v7c4HYTjyv
— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) August 29, 2024
Trump: I hear that I don't do well with American women. I don't know how that’s possible pic.twitter.com/q0OqBH7faQ
Trump: I make a speech, I speak for two hours. Everybody loves it. I got thousands of people, by the way, outside trying to get in. I never— they never said Trump's a great speaker. I don't even want that. But I must be a great speaker, right? pic.twitter.com/HGMDnRCDL6
Trump: We will bring back the American dream better, stronger and just better, bigger, better. They don't talk about it. They copy every thing else I do so I guess that'll be next. They'll be copying saying the American dream. pic.twitter.com/d4Z1JHiEAw
Josh Marshall on the Arlington scandal is really good. He makes the important point that the whole thing was designed as a campaign stunt to make Harris look bad for supposedly failing to honor the dead. We all know how that worked out:
Three days ago, the Trump campaign held a campaign event at Arlington National Cemetery. The idea was to lay a wreath honoring the 13 members of the U.S. military who were killed during the evacuation of Kabul in 2021 and film a political ad. They would distribute the video and attack Vice President Harris and President Biden for not “showing up” for their campaign event, which they sought to portray was an established memorial. As soon as the video circulated, military policy experts I know said right off the bat they were shocked that the campaign had been allowed to hold a campaign event on the grounds of the cemetery and circulate video of it. It isn’t just unseemly. It’s against the law. How were they allowed to do that?
That turned out to be a good and prescient question.
The first hint that anything else had happened on the visit came in a brief NPR article, published a day later, which reported that cemetery staff had sought to prevent the campaign from violating the law by holding a political event on the cemetery grounds. The details were limited but it seemed a verbal altercation became violent and two Trump campaign staffers physically assaulted a cemetery employee. The impression I got from the article was that they likely shoved the woman to the ground. But the details were cryptic.
What wasn’t cryptic was the Trump campaign’s wildly over-the-top response. Campaign spokesman Stephen Cheung denied a physical altercation had taken place and claimed the campaign was prepared to prove its claim with the release of a video tape. “We are prepared to release footage if such defamatory claims are made.”
He then proceeded to make a series of bizarre claims suggesting the attacked employee was actually some random person undergoing some sort of psychotic break. “The fact is that a private photographer was permitted on the premises and for whatever reason an unnamed individual, clearly suffering from a mental health episode, decided to physically block members of President Trump’s team during a very solemn ceremony.”
Later the campaign’s hyper-aggressive co-chair Chris LaCivita gave an even wilder comment to the Times, calling the assaulted cemetery employee “a despicable individual” and “a disgrace” who “does not deserve to represent the hallowed grounds of Arlington National Cemetery.”
What’s so perverse about this is that this isn’t one of Trump’s predatory moments. There’s just something broken about the man since it doesn’t occur to him that a grinning thumbs up isn’t appropriate at the grave of a fallen soldier.
It was worse than we imagined:
The cemetery employee, a woman, filed a report about the incident. But she later declined to press charges, fearing — according to military officials who spoke to The New York Times — that Trump supporters would try to retaliate against her. So the woman was assaulted for trying to enforce federal law. She filed an official report about the incident but later declined to press charges because she feared reprisals from violent Trump supporters. Late this evening, the Daily Caller reported that Speaker Mike Johnson actually got involved to force cemetery officials to allow Trump to hold his campaign event on the grounds. The Caller, unsurprisingly, portrays this as the Gold Star families requesting help from Congress after Arlington officials tried to prevent Trump from accompanying them to the cemetery.
Spin aside, what I take as the relevant point is that Arlington cemetery officials could see this was a trainwreck-in-the-making from the start. And the Speaker of the House was brought in to overrule cemetery officials simply trying to enforce the prohibition against holding partisan political events on the cemetery grounds, especially in the area of recent burials. This whole thing went on, involving an assault on a cemetery employee, and it was all under the media radar until this NPR report.
It was one thing if Trump wanted to privately pay homage to the dead at the request of one of the families. That’s not a problem. But Trump isn’t alive unless he’s on camera and he and his henchmen thought using dead soldiers as a campaign prop was a great way to troll Kamala Harris. That’s what this was all about.
Considering that LaCivita is one of the swift boa strategists , we shouldn’t be too surprised. Using the military for crass political purposes is in the GOP DNA. But they should be smarter than to have Donald Trump pull a stunt like this. The guy who is known for saying that dead soldiers are suckers and losers probably ought to stay away from military cemeteries. Nothing good can come of it.
