Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

The Enemy Within

Published by digby on October 14, 2024

I think everyone reading this already knows that Trump is planning to purge the nation of millions of non-citizens. Most people think he’s just going to round up undocumented immigrants (of color, he certainly won’t target any Swedes or Brits who’ve overstayed their visas and are working illegally.) This past weekend he amended that to say that he’s going to deport Haitians who are in the country legally so I think we can assume that he’s not going to stick to any of those pesky legal niceties. He plans to deport millions and millions of foreigners from the “shithole countries” he loathes so much.

But as Philip Bump points out in this piece, and I’ve been writing here non-stop for months, on the stump he’s more and more often targeting “the enemy within” by which he means his political enemies:

“You know, I always say: We have the outside enemy, so you can say China, you can say Russia, you can say Kim Jong Un, you can say — but that’s — it’s going to be fine. If you have a smart president, no problem,” he said at a rally in Aurora, Colo., that itself was predicated on exaggerated claims about the dangers of immigrants. The bigger problem is “the enemy from within,” he continued. “All the scum that we have to deal with that hate our country. That’s a bigger enemy than China and Russia.”

He reinforced that point in an interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo, perhaps the single most credulously pro-Trump voice in American media.

“We have two enemies. We have the outside enemy, and then we have the enemy from within. And the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous than China, Russia and all these countries, because if you have a smart president, he can handle them pretty easily,” Trump said. He insisted that he had done so when in office previously.

“But the thing that’s tougher to handle are these lunatics that we have inside, like Adam Schiff,” he said of the California congressman and Senate candidate. He called Schiff “a total sleazebag” and then, explicitly, “the enemy from within.”

Importantly, this came soon after Bartiromo had asked Trump about the risk of violence emerging around the election. She reminded Trump about the purported threat posed by immigrants from China and debunked claims about murderers crossing the border. She mused that “these outside agitators [might] start up on Election Day.”

“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within, not even the people that have come in and destroyed our country, by the way, totally destroying our country. The towns, the villages, they’re being inundated. But I don’t think they’re the problem in terms of Election Day,” Trump said. “I think the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical-left lunatics. And I think they’re the — and it should be very easily handled by — if necessary, by National Guard or, if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

Trump is not going to be the president on election day so he has no power to call out the National Guard or the Military to quell this imaginary leftist uprising. So no, he’s not talking about that. He’s talking about what he plans to do after the election if he wins. Something like this:

NPR:

“The president was enraged,” Esper recalled. “He thought that the protests made the country look weak, made us look weak and ‘us’ meant him. And he wanted to do something about it.

“We reached that point in the conversation where he looked frankly at [Joint Chiefs of Staff] Gen. [Mark] Milley and said, ‘Can’t you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?’ … It was a suggestion and a formal question. And we were just all taken aback at that moment as this issue just hung very heavily in the air.”

A little reminder of what happened to political enemies in a previous fascist regime:

 Given the Nazis’ public aims of destroying the “Marxist” threat in Germany and tearing up the Versailles Treaty, aims that were shared by a majority of the German population, Hitler’s political opponents were the first victims of systematic Nazi persecution.

Various German authorities established the first concentration camps in Germany soon after Adolf Hitler’s appointment as chancellor in January 1933. The SS, SA (Storm Troopers), the police and civilian authorities set up hundreds of makeshift “camps” in empty warehouses, factories, and other locations across Germany. The camps served as “temporary” detention centers for political opponents who were incarcerated without trial and under conditions of great cruelty.

The Storm Troopers (SA) established the Oranienburg camp near Berlin in March 1933. The first prisoners were German political prisoners, primarily Communists and Social Democrats. Oranienburg became known for the maltreatment of inmates. Here, the Nazis attempt to undermine the charges of brutality by showing the “normal” prisoner routine. Oranienburg was gradually deactivated, closing by 1935. Most of the other early camps were also closed, to be replaced with larger camps run by the SS.

Ok, ok, it’s ridiculous to compare the two countries. Something like that could never happen here. Of course, people thought it could never happen in Germany either.

It always pays to remember that Hitler was legitimately elected and formed a government with the political establishment which thought it could control him. Yeah.

Here’s JD trying to clean it up but basically endorsing Trump’s call to go after the “far left” and his political enemies.

Even Nixon Was More Of A Patriot

Published by digby on October 14, 2024

Chris Wallace was on TV promoting his new book about the 1960 election and they featured this quote from Nixon after he presided over the counting of the electoral votes as VP after his razor thin loss to Kennedy:

“I don’t think we can have a more striking and eloquent example of the stability of our Constitutional system and of the proud tradition of the American people of developing and respecting and honoring institutions of self-government”

I hadn’t heard that before. Nixon was famously bitter about that loss and there were plenty of reasons to be suspicious about it. But he didn’t whine like a little baby and throw a tantrum. Even he had more dignity than that.

Here’s Al Gore, in the same position, presiding over the same process in 2000, when he and the Democrats had a much better case for objecting to the results than Nixon in 1960 or Trump did in 2020. (He won the popular vote and the election was decided in a 5-4 partisan decision of the Supreme Court …)

That’s how it used to be done. Even if the candidate felt the result of a close election was unfair (which Trump’s was not) they’d take the L and move on for the good of the country. Not anymore.

Worst Case Scenario

Published by digby on October 14, 2024

Better late than never, Axios has decided to look at what will happen if Trump wins the White House. In this case their patented style is actually quite useful:

If former President Trump wins the election, and Republicans keep the House and flip the Senate, the U.S. would witness a dramatic consolidation of new right-wing populist power at scale.

A Washington fully controlled by Trump and his allies would institutionalize the MAGA movement, with massive consequences for governance, civil rights and international relations.

This period, lasting at least two years, until the next congressional races, would allow Republicans to move ambitiously — with few brakes beyond the Senate filibuster.

  • The vast majority of congressional leaders are now Trump loyalists. The days of empowered never-Trumpers are basically over, at least in Congress.
  • Trump would pursue a dramatic expansion of presidential power — gutting the federal bureaucracy and installing thousands of executive branch loyalists to rip off the guardrails that restrained his first term.

The big picture: We got our hands on a fascinating private presentation by FGS Global, a worldwide communications and public affairs consultancy advising huge clients on how to prep for various election outcomes. The presentation is based on a CIA method of anticipating, understanding and navigating geopolitical outcomes.

  • FGS uses it to help corporations brace for big, potentially sweeping, changes to policies or regulations in the new government. We realized it would also help Axios readers brace for what’s next.
  • This is the first of four columns exploring the most likely outcomes — and consequences — of the election. It combines our reporting with the FGS “Alternative Futures” analysis.

What to watch in FGS’ “MAGA momentum” scenario, with Republicans controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue:

Immigration, border control

Trump’s immigration policies would echo nationally — and quickly. The wall along the Southwest border would likely be expanded. Efforts to curb both legal and illegal immigration would accelerate.[…]

  • A Trump source told us: “90% of what Trump will do on the border will happen under executive action, so it won’t matter who wins Congress.” […]

Culture wars intensify

Social and cultural issues would become legislative priorities, as Trump and the GOP lean heavily into the culture wars. Expect significant legislative attention on what the GOP calls “woke” policies in education and corporations.

  • Efforts to defund diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives would gain traction. New restrictions on gender-affirming care, particularly for minors, would become central to the agenda.
  • Republican lawmakers would push anti-LGBTQ+ policies, and may seek to impose restrictions on teaching race and gender in schools.
  • A Justice Department stacked with Trump loyalists could prosecute political enemies, including in the corporate world. Republican-led investigations into tech companies, accusing them of anti-conservative bias, would likely intensify.
  • Schools, workplaces and local governments would become battlegrounds on issues of race, gender and free speech. Washington Republicans would side with local Republicans.
  • Corporate America, under pressure from both sides, would struggle to balance these demands, with risk to consumer relations.

    Foreign policy, global relations

An unrestrained Trump surrounded by “America First” loyalists — rather than the generals and establishment hawks who held key posts in the first term — would take U.S. foreign policy in unpredictable directions.

  • He’d likely withdraw further from international institutions, opting for bilateral deals focused on U.S. advantage. U.S. relations with some key allies would become strained as Trump focused on a more transactional, quid pro quo foreign policy.
  • A strong anti-China stance would dominate, with tariffs and sanctions becoming central. Tensions with Beijing could escalate as GOP hawks push a “decoupling” agenda, roiling global markets and trade.
  • Trump would likely move to cut off U.S. funding for Ukraine, forcing Kyiv into a peace settlement that favors Russia. He’d pressure NATO countries to ramp up their military spending, while broadly disengaging from the alliance’s strategic priorities.
  • Trump would seek to reinstate his “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign against Iran and empower Israel to “finish the job” of eliminating Hamas in Gaza and crippling Hezbollah in Lebanon.
  • An emerging axis of right-wing populists would give Trump new friends on the world stage, empowered to reshape the liberal international order, strengthen borders and challenge “globalist” priorities like fighting climate change.

Post-election risks: This path could lead to significant instability. A close or contested election could mean protests or violence.

  • Claims of voter fraud, particularly in key battleground states, could undermine confidence in the electoral system and inflame tensions. The legitimacy of institutions — especially the courts and election bodies — could come into question, deepening the divide between left and right.
  • Protests — think the 2017 Women’s March — are likely. Asked on Fox News about potential Election Day violence, Trump warned about “the enemy from within,” and floated deploying the National Guard or military against “radical left lunatics.”

There’s much more on topics such as health care, social spending, trade and economic policy etc., all of which are nightmares. I just highlighted the worst of it.

Axios will likely publish the same analysis for Harris but I think we all know that it will not be this kind of fascist agenda, even if she were to win the trifecta. I would imagine they will present it as a similar threat to what you just read above, however. And that’s a big part of our problem.

For all of Trump’s “distancing” this is little different than Project 2025. The wingnuts always have some ridiculous plan and nobody pays attention to it because it’s so outlandish and extreme. This time, we must. They’re serious.

Crown Thy Good With Brotherhood

Published by digby on October 14, 2024

Following up on Tom’s post below. Note Trump’s contribution:

And half of the voters want more of this. Apparently, they love it.

Trump’s Disinfo Militia

Published by Tom Sullivan on October 14, 2024

Watering N.C. with the blood of rescuers. Or something.

N.C. National Guard in Watauga County (N.C. National Guard)

FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell warned that disinformation spread about Hurricane Helene relief in North Carolina would spawn threats against government workers and impede rescue and relief efforts. She was right (Washington Post):

LAKE LURE, N.C. — Federal emergency response personnel on Saturday had employees operating in hard-hit Rutherford County, N.C., stop working and move to a different area because of concerns over “armed militia” threatening government workers in the region, according to an email sent to federal agencies helping with response in the state.

Around 1 p.m. Saturday, an official with the U.S. Forest Service, which is supporting recovery efforts after Hurricane Helene along with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, sent an urgent message to numerous federal agencies warning that “FEMA has advised all federal responders Rutherford County, NC, to stand down and evacuate the county immediately. The message stated that National Guard troops ‘had come across x2 trucks of armed militia saying there were out hunting FEMA.’”

“The IMTs [incident management teams] have been notified and are coordinating the evacuation of all assigned personnel in that county,” the email added.

Two federal officials confirmed the authenticity of the email, though it was unclear whether the quoted threat was seen as credible. The National Guard referred questions to FEMA when asked about the incident. One Forest Service official coordinating the Helene recovery said responders moved to a “safe area” and at least some work in that area — which included clearing trees off dozens of damaged and blocked roads to help search-and-rescue crews, as well as groups delivering supplies — was paused.

While unclear if the threat was credible, teams tasked with clearing trees and repairing damaged and blocked roads were evacuated to a “safe area” for the day. They returned to Rutherford County on Sunday afternoon. An anonymous source familiar with the relief work said, “FEMA has made some operational adjustments” for safety reasons.

Relief workers have heard yelled, “We don’t want your help here” and “We don’t want the government here.” People who need and are entitled to federal and state disaster aid are refusing it. Or else not signing up because of the rumors and conspiracy fantasies circulated by idiots.

Earlier Saturday, a resident came to a supplies distribution center, now largely run by relief group the Cajun Navy with the help of a Baptist Church organization, and threatened FEMA personnel who were also stationed there in a trailer, according to two Cajun Navy volunteers. Lake Lure Police and Rutherford County Sheriff’s offices confirmed the incident.

Sgt. Herbie Martin with the Spindale Police Department, located about 25 miles outside Lake Lure, was circling the parking lot Sunday afternoon. He also confirmed the incident, saying “he hoped FEMA would come back.”

Last night I ran into old friends who live in a cove three miles from here by road. They are still without, water, power, or cell service over two weeks after Helene hit this area. And they live inside Asheville city limits. There is a lot that needs fixing. Idiots with guns playing soldier are not helping.

It’s quite windy today and the power just went out.

Update: The Post added new reporting to its story. Authorities with the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Office have made one arrest.

Capt. Jamie Keever, the spokesman, said the charge is going armed to the terror of the public, a misdemeanor, and the man will be identified later Monday in a news release.

The threats were made at a gas station on Route 9 in neighboring Polk County, prompting an attendant there to share concerns with active-duty U.S. soldiers who visited, Keever said. The Army reported the incident to law enforcement authorities, who arrested the man Saturday night.

Keever said while there have been unconfirmed reports of “truckloads of militia men” in the area, the details in this case do not bear that out. “This was a lone individual,” Keever said. “We’re trying to get the word out about that.”

So, only one idiot. And the power’s back on.

Are There Trump Machetes Yet?

Published by Tom Sullivan on October 14, 2024

There are already Trump AR-15s

Politico reporters watched 20 Trump rallies and, to their credit, reported what they heard. Donald Trump is still preaching the dark “weird shit” of American carnage eight years after his inaugural speech. Rapists and murderers are everywhere, and “animals,” “stone cold killers,” the “worst people,” and the “enemy from within.” The monsters are due on Maple Street.

Trump is one Grade A paranoiac, and he’s likely getting a lot of this from Discount Goebbels.

Haitians, Venezuelans, Mexicans, and Chinese immigrants are targets. And you too, Dear Reader (Heather Cox Richardson):

And on Sunday, October 13, Trump made the full leap to authoritarianism, calling for using the federal government not only against immigrants, but also against his political opponents. After weeks of complaining about the “enemy within,” Trump suggested that those who oppose him in the 2024 election are the nation’s most serious problem. 

He told Fox News Channel host Maria Bartiromo that even more troubling for the forthcoming election than immigrants “is the enemy from within…we have some very bad people, we have some sick people, radical left lunatics…. And it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.”

Politico’s take Saturday:

“Efforts to blame outsiders, a politically voiceless group, which Trump is an expert at doing, has led to atrocities in the United States — everything from Japanese internment to Operation Wetback,” said Ediberto Román, a Florida International University law professor who studies xenophobia and immigration.

Vivid imagery, such as telling crowds of rally attendees that migrants will “cut your throat,” are now a staple of Trump’s speeches. He cites cases of U.S. women and girls allegedly murdered by immigrants in the country illegally, even as studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born Americans.

But Trump says they are — because they are inherently worse people. He’s told nearly all-white crowds in the past that they have “good genes,” even before his explicit suggestion this week that non-white immigrants are genetically inferior — when he told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that migrants have “bad genes.”

Read: eugenics.

“What is so jarring to me is these are not just Nazi-like statements. These are actual Nazi sentiments,” said Robert Jones, founder of the Public Religion Research Institute, the author of “The Hidden Roots of White Supremacy” and a vocal critic of Trump’s rhetoric. “Hitler used the word vermin and rats multiple times in Mein Kampf to talk about Jews. These are not accidental or coincidental references. We have clear, 20th century historical precedent with this kind of political language, and we see where it leads.”

We don’t even have to look beyond the last decade of the 20th century. The Rwandan genocide and the Srebrenica massacre were a mere 30 years ago. Trump is performing Radio Rwanda for white people in preparation for a pogrom. The world watched Trump incite a mob to violence once. He’s doing it again. When Trump told his Aurora rally, “We have to live with these animals, but we won’t live with them for long,” someone shouted, “Kill them!”

Notice, Trump is spending precious days not campaigning in key swing states. Because he’s not planning to win at the ballot box. He’s moved on to Plan B. For that he needs control of Congress.

The backup to Trump’s 2020 Plan B was mob violence. He’s clearly preparing that contingency again.

Trump campaigned over the last week in Aurora, Colorado where, despite local authorities’ and GOP officials’ denials, Trump proclaimed the city a “war zone” occupied by Venzuelan gangs. A Right Side Broadcasting host proclaimed: “These people, they are so evil. They are not your run-of-the-mill criminal. They are people that are Satanic. They are involved in human sacrifice. They are raping men, women, and children—especially underaged children.”

Trump spoke in Coachella, California where he has no hope of winning that state. He has plans for a rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City, evoking comparisons to the American Nazi rally held there in 1939.

Threats of MAGA violence are all over social media. There are already Trump knives and Trump AR-15s. Can Trump machetes be far behind?

This is what it looks like when fascism comes to America. Not just wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross, but echoing rhetoric that led to the worst atrocities of the 20th century. Take this seriously. Get busy beating MAGA soundly at the polls, people.

Taking Off The Gloves

Published by digby on October 13, 2024

It’s time for this message:

I listened to the Pod Save America interview with David Plouffe who’s working on the Harris campaign and he says they have found in their qualitative research that this message resonates. I don’t know if that’s meaningful, but I hope it is because it would mean that the batshit crazy cult worship is confined to a minority and the Democrats may win.

Think about it. Here’s you have Trump acting like a lunatic on the stump and Republicans like Cheney and Pence along with most of his cabinet saying he’s unfit. If most people don’t find that disturbing we’re in bigger trouble than I realized.

I’m reminded of Obama’s righteous indignation at his speech last week. “When did this become ok?”

Ask The Experts

Published by digby on October 13, 2024

A lot of us are looking at our mail-in ballots this week-end and have some questions. Bolts.com is featuring another interesting and useful “Ask the Experts” about the election:

November is fast approaching, and with it a myriad of state and local elections. We published a guide last week to more than 500 races, and why they matter, to help you navigate it.

But we also wanted to hear from you. For “Ask Bolts,” our ongoing series in which we tackle reader questions, we asked you what you wanted to know about these upcoming elections. 

As always, you came through with many thoughtful questions. Today I tackle six of them—a fun opportunity to introduce you to our team’s elections reporting and research in a new way.

Navigate to the question that most interests you here, or scroll down to explore them all at your leisure:

What are the interesting referenda in November?
Jump to our answer.

What is a state auditor, and why should I care?
Jump to our answer.

What’s the best way to find out about nonpartisan judges? So many people tell me they have no idea and leave the ballot blank.
Jump to our answer.

I have a lot of friends who say, “I live in D.C., it’s not like my vote matters that much.” What downballot races can I advocate for?
Jump to our answer.

What’s the most unusual office that’s having elections?
Jump to our answer.

Where can people get involved as poll monitors? I can travel.
Jump to our answer.

Stay tuned for more before election day. And if you have a question, it’s not too late to share it!

Not A Dime’s Worth Of Difference?

Published by digby on October 13, 2024

I’m sure you remember those two NYT headlines from the other day. I wrote about it, along with just about everyone else.

Margartet Sullivan, former ombudsman for the Times, weighs in on it and I think it’s fascinating that one of her former colleagues at the paper professed ignorance about why people were criticizing the paper for it:

Commenting on the second headline, the author Stuart Stevens, who writes about how democracies turn into autocracies, suggested: “These two headlines should be studied in journalism classes for decades.”

After I responded, “Not a bad idea,” a prominent voice from the New York Times chimed in. Michael Barbaro, who hosts The Daily podcast, posed a challenge to me: “Care to explain what the issue is with these headlines?”

Barbaro, whom I know from my days as public editor of the Times, is a smart guy, so I’m pretty sure he knows what the issue might be.

But sure, I’ll explain: The Kamala Harris headline is unnecessarily negative, over a story that probably doesn’t need to exist. Politicians, if they are skilled, do this all the time. They answer questions by trying to stay on message. They stay away from specifics that don’t serve their purpose.[…]

Sullivan points out that the Harris headline is really a reflection of the hysteria among the elite press that Harris hasn’t been giving them the direct attention to which they believe they are entitled. Boo hoo.

So, it’s a negative headline over a dubious story. By itself, it’s not really a huge deal. Another example of Big Journalism trying to find fault with Harris. More of an eye-roll, perhaps, than a journalistic mortal sin.

But juxtapose it with the Trump headline, which takes a hate-filled trope and treats it like some sort of lofty intellectual interest.

That headline, wrote Stevens, “could apply to an article about a Nobel prize winner in genetic studies.” […]

She notes that deep in the article itself they do address the fact that Trump is evoking “the ideology of eugenics promulgated by Nazis in Germany and white supremacists in the United States.” To me that’s the big story and it’s one that’s been out there since Trump came down the escalator in 2015. He really believes in this stuff and it’s never been fully explored even as he’s now not only talking about his own “good German blood” as he used to do but saying that migrants have inferior genes. This is right out of the Nazi playbook and aI would think that if the media made as big a del about this as they did Hillary Clinton’s emails, some Hispanic and Black Americans who think he’s good for the economy might wonder if maybe he’s talking about them — which he is.

But they don’t do that. Sullivan writes:

This is vile stuff. Cleaning it up so it sounds like an academic white paper is really not a responsible way to present what’s happening. What’s more, the adjacency of these stories suggests equivalence between a traditional democracy-supporting candidate and a would-be autocrat who stirs up grievance as a political ploy.[…]

She asked her graduate journalism students at Columbia to comment on the headlines. Without prompting, they didn’t have any problem understanding what the problem was.

She concludes:

In parting, I’ll share with you a post from historian and author Kevin Kruse about Trump.

Historians: He’s a fascist. Political scientists: He’s a fascist. His own aides: He’s a fascist. The NYT: He shows a wistful longing for a bygone era of global politics.

That, in essence, is the issue with these headlines.

Here’s a little reminder of the NY Times coverage of an earlier fascist:

On November 21, 1922, the New York Times published its very first article about Adolf Hitler. It’s an incredible read — especially its assertion that “Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded.” This attitude was, apparently, widespread among Germans at the time; many of them saw Hitler’s anti-Semitism as a ploy for votes among the German masses.

But the really extraordinary part of the article is the three paragraphs on anti-Semitism. Brown acknowledges Hitler’s vicious anti-Semitism as the core of Hitler’s appeal — and notes the terrified Jewish community was fleeing from him — but goes on to dismiss it as a play to satiate the rubes (bolding mine):

He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the “Hakenkreuzler.” So violent are Hitler’s fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew’s night.

But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.

A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: “You can’t expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them.”

Now, Brown’s sources in all likelihood did tell him that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was for show. That was a popular opinion during Nazism’s early days. But that speaks to how unprepared polite German society was for a movement as sincerely, radically violent as Hitler’s to take power.

Ten years later:

How’d that work out for us?

Ugh:

Polling Errors

Published by digby on October 13, 2024

Ezra Klein says to ignore the polls and as you know I feel the same — if only I could. Having said that, it you are refreshing on 538 several times a day anyway, this can help you keep perspective:

Back in 2016, Harry Enten, then at FiveThirtyEight, calculated the final polling error in every presidential election between 1968 and 2012. On average, the polls missed by two percentage points. In 2016, an American Association for Public Opinion Research postmortem found that the average error of the national polls was 2.2 points, but the polls of individual states were off by 5.1 points. In 2020, the national polls were off by 4.5 points and the state-level polls missed, again, by 5.1 points.

You could imagine a world in which these errors are random and cancel one another out. Perhaps Donald Trump’s support is undercounted by three points in Michigan but overcounted by three points in Wisconsin. But errors often systematically favor one candidate or the other. In both 2016 and 2020, for instance, state-level polls tended to undercount Trump supporters. The polls overestimated Hillary Clinton’s margin by three points in 2016 and Joe Biden’s margin by 4.3 points in 2020.

In a blowout election, an error of a few points in one direction or another is meaningless. In the California Senate race, for example, Adam Schiff, a Democrat, is leading Steve Garvey, a Republican, by between 17 and 33 points, depending on the poll. Even a polling error of 10 points wouldn’t matter to the outcome of the race.

But that’s not where the presidential election sits. As of Oct. 10, The New York Times’s polling average had Kamala Harris leading Trump by three points nationally. That’s tight, but the seven swing states are tighter: Neither candidate is leading by more than two points in any of them.

Imagine the polls perform better in 2024 than they did in either 2016 or 2020: They’re off, remarkably, by merely two points in the swing states. Huzzah! That would be consistent with Harris winning every swing state. It would also be consistent with Trump winning every swing state. This is not some outlandish scenario. According to Nate Silver’s election model, the most likely electoral outcome “is Harris sweeping all seven swing states. And the next most likely is Trump sweeping all seven.”

Which is all to say: The polls can’t tell you the way in which they’re going to be wrong, nor by how much. But that’s what matters now.

This morning there were a slew of polls showing the race is tightening, some of them straining credulity. I decided to just ignore them all. I’m also finding that my tolerance for Democratic bed wetting is very thin right now, with everyone and their their grandmother having sage advice for Harris and the Democrats. It’s enervating and counterproductive to have this discussion in public especially since Trump is deploying the Bandwagon Effect and strutting around like he’s 10 points ahead. It’s just not helpful

We’re all still suffering from the horrific 2016 result and stressed out about a possible repeat. We can’t believe that orange monster is even close. I don’t know about you but I’m stressed out beyond belief knowing that so many of my fellow Americans are enthusiastic about putting this freak back in the White House and some, to be generous, just think it doesn’t matter that he’s a fascist because they just want their tax cuts, don’t want a woman in the White House or simply hate Democrats/ desire power so much that they are willing to overlook it. I don’t know how I can unsee that, regardless of the outcome of the election.
But that’s a problem for another day.

If you’re a political junkie there are lots of stories and plenty of information out there to keep you interested. The horserace stuff just isn’t one of them. It’s close. That’s all we need to know.