CBS has a new one and it shows that Harris has made up the ground Biden lost but it’s still looking like hand to hand combat… for now, anyway:
Boosted by Democrats, younger and Black voters becoming more engaged and likely to vote, and by women decidedly thinking she’d favor their interests more, Vice President Kamala Harris has reset the 2024 presidential race.
She has a 1-point edge nationally — something President Biden never had (he was down by 5 points when he left the race) — and Harris and former President Donald Trump are tied across the collective battleground states.
Looking ahead, voters are also defining why the next few weeks could be critical.
On one hand, Harris has additional edges with the wider electorate that Mr. Biden did not: she’s leading Trump on being seen as having the cognitive health to serve, a measure that was of course central to the campaign before Mr. Biden stepped aside.
And on policy generally, Harris is seen as a little different from Mr. Biden, opening some possibility of defining her stances for the electorate now, either way.
But to Trump’s advantage, some critical things have not changed: he keeps his sizable lead on voters saying they’ll be financially better off with him and that his policies would decrease migrants at the border.
The percentage of Democrats who say they’ll “definitely vote” has risen to its highest point this year. That narrows the partisan “turnout gap” we’ve seen throughout the campaign.
And today much higher numbers of Black voters say they’ll vote, compared to July when Mr. Biden was the nominee.
More generally, all this points to how the election might well hinge on turnout and specifically on marginal-turnout voter — those who don’t always show up to vote.
For example, among those who generally describe themselves as “sometimes” or “rarely” voting — but say they’ll definitely vote now — Harris is currently winning.
Related to this, the gender gap has widened some from earlier in the campaign. Harris leads Trump among women by a bigger margin than Mr. Biden had, while holding roughly the same support Mr. Biden had among men.
Most Democratic voters, and nearly half of voters overall, say that Harris as the Democratic nominee makes them feel more motivated to vote. (There is some countering effect, too: about a third of Trump voters are also more motivated to vote now that Harris is the nominee.)
It’s not just that Democrats are more excited, but also on a number of candidate qualities they feel they’ve gotten a candidate that can match up more closely with Trump.
Harris has an advantage over Trump on being seen as having the mental and cognitive health to serve, which was a critical deficit for Mr. Biden.
Black voters think Harris will look out for everyone, including Black people.
Republicans and Trump voters think Harris will help the interests of Black people more so than of White people; Harris’ voters think she’ll look out for everyone across gender and race lines.
Trump’s voters also think he’ll help the interests of everyone, though the wider electorate tends to think he’ll help the interests of men and White people more so than others.
Watching Trump the last few days it’s been obvious to me that he’s stressed and upset about the race. He didn’t get any kind of bump from his assassination attempt and the RNC which was no doubt a huge shock to him. (Hubris is his middle name, after all.) The new polls show Kamala now slightly ahead with momentum and it’s driving him crazy.
Two weeks ago, Donald Trump was riding high, envisioning a landslide victory against Joe Biden after beating an assassination attempt, briefly proclaiming himself to be a new man, and enjoying a drama-free convention that felt like an early victory party. Days later, of course, Biden euthanized his campaign, elevating his vice president as his presumptive replacement and definitively resetting the table. Trump, who is now at parity in the polls with Kamala Harris, has responded with his own stages of grief: complaining at the unfairness of a new challenger; befuddled by the inability of his campaign to land a punch against Harris; furious at the suggestion, proffered by his own team, that her gains were inevitable; and annoyed at having to clean up J.D. Vance’s messes.
Predictably, the campaign’s loss of elevation has all manner of Trump courtiers and advisors blaming each other for the past week’s various fuckups and distractions—including at least one major unforced error by the principal, himself. “It’s just two weeks, and I’m like, what the hell is going on,” one stunned Mar-a-Lago denizen told me.
In many ways, their frustration is understandable. For months now, Trump’s campaign has been lauded for its eerie proficiency under the co-management of political professionals SusieWiles and ChrisLaCivita. And yet, in recent days, Wiles has faced an unusual degree of criticism in Trumpworld, after she quickly jumped on the Vance train and was charged with vetting him. LaCivita, for his part, is getting lashed for publicly gloating about Trump’s ostensible path to 320 electoral college votes. Some detractors blame both Wiles and LaCivita for not having a backup plan for Harris (a source familiar countered that they were “exceptionally ready”); others are frustrated over the statement Wiles and LaCivita issued celebrating the resignation of Paul Dans, the director of Project 2025, after Democrats made it politically toxic. “They danced on the grave after Dans resigned,” said one Washington insider. “It was a ‘Let this be a warning to anyone who claims to have the president’s ear,’ but with a knife.”
Naturally, there’s an emerging consensus that this insider squabbling, reminiscent of an earlier chaotic era, is distracting from the race. In one pointed example, twentysources took the time to blame Kellyanne Conway for leaking negative stories about J.D. Vance to The Bulwark’s Marc Caputo. “A lot of people are very frustrated. There are cracks within the ranks and team, why are the consultants knifing Kellyanne in the Bulwark?” said another Trump ally. “They should be focusing on Kamala.”
Until this week, I’m told Trump was still enjoying the honeymoon stage with Vance, and largely ignoring the brutal savaging his V.P. pick has received on social media. In particular, he was distracting himself with the promise of the Silicon Valley money that Vance might haul from tech billionaires like Marc Andreessen and Elon Musk. Now, however, Trump is said to be perplexed that the furor over Vance’s “childless cat ladies” comment hasn’t died out, forcing him to waste time defending an underling. As I’ve previously reported, Trump has long viewed the requirement that he pick a vice president as unnecessary, a perspective he shared openly this week, when he toldFox News’s Harris Falkner that Vance would have no impact on the election. “If he keeps slipping in the polls, he’ll blame J.D. Vance, but he would never take him off the ticket,” said the Mar-a-lago denizen. “That’s a very drastic move. He’d have to admit he made a mistake.”
I hadn’t heard that Trump thinks he shouldn’t have to name a VP. Lol!
It becomes more obvious every day that he’s lost a step. Vance didn’t have a honeymoon for him to enjoy.. The cat lady and couch stuff was all over social media and it’s going to dog him (no pun intended) for the rest of his career. I certainly believe he was busy counting the money from the tech bros but if he thought things were going well he needs to get out of the Mar-a-Lago fever swamp.
This campaign has been endlessly promoted in the media as super professional and extremely well run. It’s hype. There’s no evidence that they’ve put together any kind of ground game and they obviously didn’t bother to vet Vance. They clearly have no influence on Trump. He’s unlikely to make any changes unless he really starts to slip in the polls. (And he’ll just say that the polls are rigged and so is the election so…)
Just before rallying supporters in Atlanta on Saturday, Trump unleashed a tirade on the state’s popular Republican governor, Brian Kemp, whose vaunted ground game operation Trump may need in November, ripping into him on Truth Social for “fighting Unity and the Republican Party.”
And when Trump took the stage, he went at him even harder.
“He’s a bad guy, he’s a disloyal guy and he’s a very average governor,” Trump told supporters, eliciting boos toward Kemp from the crowd.
The attack — on social media and in person at the Georgia State University Convocation Center — marked an escalation of Trump’s longstanding criticism of Kemp. And it instantly unsettled Georgia Republicans, who warned Trump’s comments threaten his already shaky prospects in the state.
“I’m sitting here scratching my head,” Bobby Saparow, a Republican operative and Brian Kemp’s former campaign manager, told POLITICO. “Attacking the popular governor of a pivotal swing state makes zero sense. If we want to actually unite, ask for the support of the guy who beat your endorsed primary opponent by 52 points and handily defeated Stacey Abrams.”
Or, as Erick Erickson, the Georgia Republican and radio host, told POLITICO: “Over 30,000 people refused to vote for [Trump] in Georgia in 2020 and he lost by about 12,000 votes. All he’s doing is reminding everyone why they don’t like him. And he has no Georgia ground game and will have to rely on Kemp. It’s going to hurt him.”
Many Republicans inside and outside of Georgia still nurse raw feelings about how Trump’s fixation on the 2020 election in the state contributed to a major setback for the party in the 2021 Senate runoffs. Democrats won two Senate seats in Georgia that January, when Trump’s false claims about a stolen election were widely credited with dampening Republican turnout
He has said publicly that he doesn’t believe he needs a ground game because his followers love him and will come out for him if he tells them to. He wants the campaign to concentrate on suppressing and contesting the vote so this makes sense to him. That arena not being full last night should tell him that his strategy may be flawed but I doubt he will see it.
If you are wondering where JD Vance, Elon Musk et al are getting their creepy ideas, they stem from one very creepy guy:
In 2008, a software developer in San Francisco named Curtis Yarvin, writing under a pseudonym, proposed a horrific solution for people he deemed “not productive”: “convert them into biodiesel, which can help power the Muni buses.”
He then concluded that the “best humane alternative to genocide” is to “virtualize” these people: Imprison them in “permanent solitary confinement” where, to avoid making them insane, they would be connected to an “immersive virtual-reality interface” so they could “experience a rich, fulfilling life in a completely imaginary world.”
Yarvin’s disturbing manifestos have earned him influential followers, chief among them: tech billionaire Peter Thiel and his onetime Silicon Valley protégé Senator J.D. Vance, whom the Republican Party just nominated to be Donald Trump’s vice president. If Trump wins the election, there is little doubt that Vance will bring Yarvin’s twisted techno-authoritarianism to the White House, and one can imagine—with horror—what a receptive would-be autocrat like Trump might do with those ideas.
Trump’s first campaign was undoubtedly a watershed moment for authoritarianism in American politics, but some thinkers on the right had been laying the groundwork for years, hoping for someone to mainstream their ideas. Yarvin was one of them. Way back in 2012, in a speech on “How to Reboot the US Government,” he said, “If Americans want to change their government, they’re going to have to get over their dictator phobia.” He had also written favorably of slavery and white nationalists in the late 2000s (though he has stated that he is not a white nationalist himself).
Both Thiel and Vance are friends of Yarvin. In The Contrarian: Peter Thiel and Silicon Valley’s Pursuit of Power, reporter Max Chafkin describes Yarvin as the “house political philosopher” of the “Thielverse,” a term for the people in Thiel’s orbit. In 2013, Thiel invested in Tlön, a software startup co-founded by Yarvin. In 2016, Yarvin attended Thiel’s election night party in San Francisco where, according to Chafkin, champagne flowed once it became clear that Thiel’s investment in Donald Trump would pay off.
Since entering politics, Vance has publicly praised—and parroted—Yarvin’s ideas. That was worrying enough when Vance was only a senator. Now that he could soon be a heartbeat away from the presidency, his close ties to Yarvin are more alarming than ever. Superficial analyses of why certain tech billionaires are aligning with Trump tend to fixate on issues like taxes and regulations, but that’s only part of the story. Tech plutocrats like Thiel and Elon Musk already have money. Now they want power—as much as money can buy.
Here’s a sample of the kind of thing our potential VP (and very likely eventual president since Trump is old as dirt) is involved with:
Yarvin is the chief thinker behind an obscure but increasingly influential far-right neoreaction, or NRx, movement, that some call the “Dark Enlightenment.” Among other things, it openly promotes dictatorships as superior to democracies and views nations like the United States as outdated software systems. Yarvin seeks to reengineer governments by breaking them up into smaller entities called “patchworks,” which would be controlled by tech corporations.
“The basic idea of Patchwork is that, as the crappy governments we inherited from history are smashed, they should be replaced by a global spiderweb of tens, even hundreds, of thousands of sovereign and independent mini-countries, each governed by its own joint-stock corporation without regard to the residents’ opinions,” he wrote in Patchwork: A Political System for the 21st Century.
Each patchwork would be ruled by a “realm”: a corporation with absolute power. Citizens would be free to move, but every other realm would also be ruled by corporate governments with chilling impunity. For example, Yarvin says the tech overlords of the San Francisco realm could arbitrarily decide to cut off its citizens’ hands with no fear of legal consequences—because they’re a sovereign power, beholden to no federal government or laws.
The realm, having sovereign power, can compel the resident to comply with all promises. Since San Francisco is not an Islamic state, it does not ask its residents to agree that their hand will be cut off if they steal. But it could. And San Francisco, likewise, can promise not to cut off its residents’ hands until it is blue in the face—but, since it is a sovereign state, no one can enforce this promise against it.
In “Friscorp,” as Yarvin calls the San Francisco realm, an all-seeing Orwellian surveillance system would enforce public safety: “All residents, even temporary visitors, carry an ID card with RFID response. All are genotyped and iris-scanned. Public places and transportation systems track everyone. Security cameras are ubiquitous. Every car knows where it is, and who is sitting in it, and tells the authorities both.”
It’s like something out of science fiction. But it’s real.
These people are exceptionally weird. And incredibly rich.
"No, that's actually not what he said. He said he would pardon those who assaulted police officers. Do you support that or not?" — this interview was a disaster for Byron Donalds. George Stephanopoulos was not putting up with his BS, which is why MAGA Republicans rarely go on… pic.twitter.com/zDkkoqhuix
Good for Stephanopoulos for pushing back but it’s like talking to a wall. These people will never concede … anything.
By the way, the AP headline Donalds refers to said that Harris was the first Indian American Senator because she was. She was not the first Black Senator which is why they didn’t mention that she was Black. It makes me feel crazy that we have to make that clear. Which is the point.
First off, by the schedule of convention events and the fact that I lose an hour of morning blogging time (Central vs. Eastern) I’m unlikely to be posting in this space from August 19-23. I am a delegate from North Carolina to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
I attended the 2012 convention in Charlotte on a press pass. This year’s experience will be very different. Before President Joe Biden dropped out, I’d expected to be an extra at a four-day infomercial. This feels much more monumental.
For you who’ve ever thought about being a national convention delegate, a few things I’ve picked up.
Becoming a delegate: Every cycle, random callers tell us they’d like to be convention delegates. Doesn’t that sound like fun? They have no clue how this works. Delegates pledged to a candidate and vetted by the campaign(s) are elected by Democrats active in your congressional district. Or you must be an elected official or party insider to win a delegate slot. I am one of five pledged delegates elected from my district. Others are elected at large at state conventions. Party Leaders or Elected Officials (PLEOs) also secure a certain number of slots. And of course DNC members attend.
Caveat: In 2016, Bernie Sanders won my district in the primary. Delegates are gender-balanced and there are diversity targets. The female party regulars who’d signed up to be delegates were mostly pledged to Hillary Clinton. When Sanders unexpectedly won the district, two women (one from my precinct who I’d never heard of) who had signed up pledged to Sanders won slots without facing an election. They won them by default. No others had applied. A fluke, they they vanished from the scene quickly after the convention.
Costs are your own: Travel and lodging could run as much as $5,000 depending on where the convention is, your assigned hotel’s rates, and where you’re coming from. Does this make convention-going a more elite exercise and less of an inclusive one? Yup. Some younger delegates have to raise cash from family, friends, and supporters. Saving on a cheap hotel remote from the center of the action is a nonstarter. Delegates (and press) get a new set of credentials each day, and those are issued to delegates early each morning at the delegation’s hotel. By my experience in Charlotte, food and drink are free and plentiful, especially after hours at side events sponsored by allied groups. Not a large expense.
Speaking of elites: Costs alone make this an elite excursion that limits participation. But a surprising (and off-putting) aspect of this game is how many delegates have made a career of being delegates. A few boast of attending every convention going back 20 years. (Talk about insiders.) Some I’m sure go mostly for the opportunity to rub elbows with celebrities and national political figures, and for the bragging rights. But the air of entitlement that accompanies these boasts leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Guests: First-time delegates ask if they can bring spouses. Sure, but they won’t get into the convention unless they luck into one of the limited, coveted daily guest credentials. Otherwise, they cannot expect to see their partners between 7 a.m. and midnight (except for an afternoon change of clothes). You’ve seen the contests in your email. Sign up to win guest passes to the convention, all expenses paid. Good luck.
I’ll probably have more later.
BTW: As a low-rent blogger, I could not be on the floor or view from an elite press box during Granholm’s speech (above). I was at a press work area on a dark mezzanine behind the stage backdrop (w/no wi-fi). I could hear the speech but not see it.
As Kamala Harris closes in on her selection of a running mate this weekend, a renewed focus is being placed on Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, people familiar with the search told CNN, even as the vice president continues to weigh whether Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro or Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly would help deliver a victory in their battleground states.
The potential for a VP pick helping deliver electoral votes has to be a consideration, which is why Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, perhaps the most popular Democratic governor in the U.S. doesn’t get a mention in the lede.
NEW: We've published our latest governor and senator approval ratings.
Yes, a VP pick historically is no sure thing on that score, but history may have little to say about this crazy election. Beshear is “said to still be under consideration” nonetheless.
“Harris’ top consideration is electability, sources familiar with her thinking told CNN.”
“The atomic bomb made the prospect of future war unendurable. It has led us up those last few steps to the mountain pass; and beyond there is a different country.”
-J. Robert Oppenheimer
Hiroshima, following the 1945 nuclear bombing that killed an estimated 66,000 people in seconds.
[Shame mode] All the times I’ve zipped by the I-82 turn-off to Richland, Washington while driving on I-90 and thought “hey, isn’t that where that Hanford superfund nuclear thingy is?” I’ve never stopped to ponder its historical significance. Adjacent to the Hanford Nuclear Site that was built in the early 1940s to house nuclear government workers at the height of the Manhattan Project, Richland is, in essence, a company town; a true “atomic city” with a problematic legacy.
Then again, according to Irene Lusztig’s absorbing documentary Richland (which I caught at last year’s Tribeca Film Festival), how “problematic” depends on who you talk to. Many current residents don’t see why anyone would fuss over the local high school football team’s “mascot”, which is …a mushroom cloud.
The town manufactured weapons-grade plutonium for decades following the end of WW2-to which they had a direct hand in “ending”, via providing the plutonium for the ”Fat Man” nuclear bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki. Lusztig incorporates archival footage for historical context; these segments reminded me of the 1982 documentary The Atomic Cafe. I wasn’t able to track down whether the film is streaming anywhere; but here’s the trailer:
Speaking of which…we are several days away from the 79th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing. So what have we learned since 8:15am, August 6, 1945-if anything? Well, we’ve tried to harness the power of the atom for “good”, however, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, that’s not working out so well (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, et al).
Also, there are enough stockpiled weapons of mass destruction to knock Planet Earth off its axis, and no guarantees that some nut job, whether enabled by the powers vested in him by the state, or the voices in his head (doesn’t matter-end result’s the same) won’t be in a position at some point in the future to let one or two or a hundred rip. Hopefully, cool heads and diplomacy will continue to keep us above ground and rad-free.
After all, if history has taught us anything, it doesn’t take much to trigger a global conflict. Interestingly, just last week TCM ran their premiere showing of Nathan Kroll’s 1964 documentary The Guns of August. The film is based on historian and journalist Barbara W. Tuchman’s eponymous Pulitzer Prize-winning 1963 book, which focuses on the first year of World War I (1914) and the events leading up to it (Kroll’s film covers the entire conflict through 1918).
I hadn’t seen the film in decades; I’d forgotten how straightforward and sobering it was in illustrating how an unfortunate series of blunders, miscalculations, misinterpretations and failed diplomacy among the ruling houses of Europe triggered a conflict that ultimately led to 20 million people dead and 21 million wounded (military and civilian casualties combined).
Most famously, the flashpoint occurred on June 28, 1914 with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (presumptive heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne) and his wife Sophie, the Duchess of Hohenberg by a Bosnian Serb revolutionary (and the rest, as they say, is History).
Now we’d like to think that such arcane regional bickering and random acts of political violence half a world away from our comfortable living rooms cannot possibly lead to a horrific global conflict ever again…right? I mean, in this day and age? What are the odds?
The U.S. is adding to its military presence in the Middle East in an effort to help defend Israel from possible attacks by Iran and its proxies in the coming days, as well as to protect U.S. troops, the Pentagon says.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said on Friday that he ordered more ballistic missile defense-capable cruisers and destroyers to the Middle East and Europe. An additional fighter jet squadron will also be sent to the Middle East. Austin added that the U.S. is also taking steps “to increase our readiness to deploy additional land-based ballistic missile defense.”
The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group will also be moved to the Middle East in order “to maintain a carrier strike group presence.” It will replace the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group after the end of its deployment.
This week, tensions in the Middle East pushed to a critical point after top leaders from the militant groups Hamasand Hezbollah were killed and Iran and its proxies vowed revenge. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said Saturday that Tehran’s retaliation will be “severe and (taken) at an appropriate time, place, and manner,” Reuters reported. […]
Austin said in a statement on Friday that while the U.S. is taking additional measures to support Israel, its priority is to prevent a wider war in the Middle East.
Let’s hope so. In such volatile regions of the world, prevention is preferable to escalation.
Speaking of which …in light of the upcoming presidential election in November, one of the most pressing questions (no pun intended) voters should ask themselves before marking their ballots is this:
Whose finger would you rather see hovering over the proverbial “red button”? Which candidate is less likely to fumble the “nuclear football”? The what?
Officially called the “ Presidential Emergency Satchel, ” the “nuclear football” is a bulky briefcase that contains atomic war plans and enables the president to transmit nuclear orders to the Pentagon. The heavy case is carried by a military officer who is never far behind the president, whether the commander-in-chief is boarding a helicopter or exiting meetings with world leaders.
Today, nearly 80 years after the beginning of the nuclear age, the risks posed by nuclear weapons are escalating. U.S. presidential leadership may be the most important factor in whether the risk of nuclear arms racing, proliferation, and war will rise or fall in the years ahead.
As UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in a June 7 statement: “Humanity is on a knife’s edge. The risk of a nuclear weapon being used has reached heights not seen since the Cold War. States are engaged in a qualitative arms race. [W]e need disarmament now. All countries need to step up, but nuclear weapons states must lead the way.”
American voters are increasingly aware and, according to recent polling, deeply concerned about nuclear weapons dangers. A 2024 national opinion survey found that a majority of Americans believe that nuclear weapons make the world more dangerous. Overall, just one in eight Americans (13 percent) think nuclear weapons are making the world a safer place, while 63 percent think the opposite, and 14 percent say neither.
In 2024, the candidates’ approaches to these dangers deserve more scrutiny.
How exactly the winner of the 2024 race will handle the evolving array of nuclear weapons-related challenges is difficult to forecast.
Just something to keep in mind come November. No pressure.
With those happy thoughts in mind, I thought I’d share my picks for the top 15 cautionary films to watch before we all go together (when we go). Uh…enjoy?
The Atomic Café – Whoopee, we’re all gonna die! But along the way, we might as well have a few laughs. That seems to be the impetus behind this 1982 collection of cleverly reassembled footage culled from U.S. government propaganda shorts from the Cold War era (Mk 1), originally designed to educate the public about how to “survive” a nuclear attack (all you need to do is get under a desk…everyone knows that!).
In addition to the Civil Defense campaigns (which include the classic “duck and cover” tutorials) the filmmakers have also drawn from a rich vein of military training films, which reduce the possible effects of a nuclear strike to something akin to a barrage from, oh I don’t know- a really big field howitzer. Harrowing, yet perversely entertaining. Written and directed by Jayne Loader, Pierce Rafferty and Kevin Rafferty (Kevin went on to co-direct the similarly constructed 1999 doc, The Last Cigarette, a take down of the tobacco industry).
Black Rain– For obvious reasons, there have been a fair amount of postwar Japanese films dealing with the subject of nuclear destruction and its aftermath. Some take an oblique approach, like Gojira or I Live inFear. Other films, like the documentary Children of Hiroshima and the anime Barefoot Gen deal directly with survivors (who are referred to in Japan as the hibakusha).
One of the most affecting hibakusha films I’ve seen is Shomei Imamura’s 1989 drama Black Rain (not to be confused with the 1989 Hollywood crime thriller of the same title that is also set in Japan). It’s a simple tale of three Hiroshima survivors: an elderly couple and their niece, whose scars run much deeper than physical. The narrative is sparse, yet contains more layers than an onion (especially considering the complexities of Japanese society). Interestingly, Imamura injects a polemic which points an accusatory finger in an unexpected direction.
The Day after Trinity– This absorbing 1981 film about the Manhattan Project and its subsequent fallout (historical, political and existential) remains one of the best documentaries I have seen on the subject. At its center, it is a profile of project leader J. Robert Oppenheimer, whose moment of professional triumph (the successful test of the world’s first atomic bomb, three weeks before Hiroshima) also brought him an unnerving precognition about the horror that he and his fellow physicists had enabled the military machine to unleash.
Oppenheimer’s journey from “father of the atomic bomb” to anti-nuke activist (and having his life destroyed by the post-war Red hysteria) is a tragic tale of Shakespearean proportion. I think this documentary provides a much more clear-eyed (and ultimately moving) portrait than Christopher Nolan’s well-acted but somewhat overwrought 2023 blockbuster Oppenheimer.
Two recommended companion pieces: Roland Joffe’s 1989 drama Fat Man and Little Boy, about the working relationship between Oppenheimer (Dwight Schultz) and military director of the Manhattan Project, General Leslie Groves (Paul Newman); and an outstanding 1980 BBC miniseries called Oppenheimer (starring Sam Waterston).
Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb- “Mein fuehrer! I can walk!” Although we have yet to experience the global thermonuclear annihilation that ensues following the wheelchair-bound Dr. Strangelove’s joyous (if short-lived) epiphany, so many other depictions in Stanley Kubrick’s seriocomic masterpiece about the tendency for those in power to eventually rise to their own level of incompetence have since come to pass, that you wonder why the filmmakers even bothered to make it all up.
It’s the one about an American military base commander who goes a little funny in the head (you know…”funny”) and sort of launches a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. Hilarity and oblivion ensues. And what a cast: Peter Sellers (as three characters), George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden, Slim Pickens, Keenan Wynn, James Earl Jones and Peter Bull. There are so many great quotes, that you might as well bracket the entire screenplay (by Kubrick, Terry Southern and Peter George) with quotation marks.
Fail-Safe– Dr. Strangelove…without the laughs. This no-nonsense 1964 thriller from the late great director Sidney Lumet takes a more clinical look at how a wild card scenario (in this case, a simple hardware malfunction) could ultimately trigger a nuclear showdown between the Americans and the Russians.
Talky and a bit stagey; but riveting nonetheless thanks to Lumet’s skillful knack for bringing out the best in his actors. Walter Bernstein’s intelligent screenplay (with uncredited assistance from Peter George, who also co-scripted Dr. Strangelove) and a superb cast that includes Henry Fonda (a commanding performance, literally and figuratively), Walter Matthau, Larry Hagman, and Fritz Weaver.
There’s no fighting in this war room (aside from one minor scuffle), but there is an almost unbearable amount of tension and suspense. The final scene is chilling and unforgettable.
I Live in Fear-This 1955 Akira Kurosawa film is one of the great director’s most overlooked efforts. It’s a melodrama concerning an aging foundry owner (Toshiro Mifune, unrecognizable in Coke-bottle glasses and silver-frosted pomade) who literally “lives in fear” of the H-bomb. Convinced that South America would be the “safest” place on Earth from radioactive fallout, he tries to sway his wife and grown children to pull up stakes and resettle on a farm in Brazil.
His children, who have families of their own and rely on their father’s factory for income, are not so hot on that idea. They take him to family court and have him declared incompetent. This sends Mifune spiraling into madness. Or are his fears really so “crazy”? It is one of Mifune’s most powerful and moving performances. Kurosawa instills shades of Shakespeare’s “King Lear” into the narrative (a well he would draw from again in his 1985 film Ran).
Ladybug, Ladybug– I didn’t have an opportunity to see this chilling 1963 drama until 2017, which is when Turner Classic Movies presented their premiere showing (to my knowledge, it had never been previously available in any home video format). The film marked the second collaboration between husband-and-wife creative team of writer Eleanor Perry and director Frank Perry (The Swimmer, Last Summer,Diary of a Mad Housewife).
Based on an incident that occurred during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the story centers on how students and staff of a rural school react to a Civil Defense alert indicating an imminent nuclear strike. While there are indications that it could be a false alarm, the principal sends the children home early. As teachers and students stroll through the relatively peaceful countryside, fears and anxieties come to the fore. Naturalistic performances bring the film’s cautionary message all too close to home.
Miracle Mile- Depending on your worldview, this is either an “end of the world” film for romantics, or the perfect date movie for fatalists. Anthony Edwards and Mare Winningham give winning performances as a musician and a waitress who Meet Cute at L.A.’s La Brea Tar Pits museum. But before they can hook up for their first date, Edwards stumbles onto a fairly reliable tip that L.A. is about to get hosed…in a major way.
The resulting “countdown” scenario is a genuine, edge-of-your seat nail-biter. In fact, this modestly budgeted, 90-minute sleeper offers more heart-pounding excitement (and much more believable characters) than any bloated Hollywood disaster epic from the likes of a Michael Bay or a Roland Emmerich. Writer-director Steve De Jarnatt stopped doing feature films after this 1988 gem (his only other feature was the sci-fi cult favorite Cherry 2000).
One Night Stand – An early effort from filmmaker John Duigan (Winter ofOur Dreams, The Year My Voice Broke, Flirting, Sirens), this 1984 sleeper got lost in the flurry of nuclear paranoia movies that proliferated during the Reagan era (Wargames, The Manhattan Project, Red Dawn, et.al.).
Four young people (three Australians and an American sailor who has jumped ship) get holed up in an empty Sydney Opera House on the eve of escalating nuclear tension between the superpowers in Eastern Europe. In an effort to quell their anxiety over increasingly ominous news bulletins droning from a portable radio, the quartet find creative ways to keep up their spirits.
Uneven, but for the most part Duigan (who scripted) deftly juggles romantic comedy, apocalyptic thriller and anti-war statement. There are several striking set pieces; particularly an affecting scene where the group watches Fritz Langs’s Metropolis as the Easybeats “Friday on My Mind” is juxtaposed over its orchestral score. Midnight Oil performs in a scene where the two young women attend a concert. The bittersweet denouement (in an underground tube station) is quite powerful.
Special Bulletin– This outstanding 1983 made-for-TV movie has been overshadowed by the nuclear nightmare-themed TV movie The Day After, which aired the same year (I’m sure I will be raked over the coals by some readers for not including the aforementioned on this list, but frankly I always thought it was too melodramatic and vastly over-praised).
Directed by Edward Zwick and written by Marshall Herskovitz (the same creative team behind thirtysomething), Special Bulletin is framed as a “live” television broadcast, with local news anchors and reporters interrupting regular programming to cover a breaking story.
A domestic terrorist group has seized a docked tugboat in Charleston Harbor. A reporter relays their demand: If every nuclear triggering device stored at the nearby U.S. Naval base isn’t delivered to them by a specified time, they will detonate their own homemade nuclear device (equal in power to the bomb dropped on Nagasaki). The original airing apparently panicked more than a few South Carolinian viewers (a la Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds radio broadcast in 1938). Riveting and chilling. Nominated for 6 Emmys, it took home 4.
Testament- Originally an American Playhouse presentation, this film (with a screenplay adapted by John Sacred Young from a story by Carol Amen) was released to theaters and garnered a well-deserved Best Actress nomination for Jane Alexander. Director Lynne Littman takes a low key approach, but pulls no punches; I think this is what gives her film’s anti-nuke message more teeth and makes its scenario more relatable than Stanley Kramer’s similarly-framed but more sanitized and preachy 1959 drama On the Beach.
Alexander, her husband (William DeVane) and three kids live in sleepy Hamlin, California, where afternoon cartoons are interrupted by a news flash that nuclear explosions have occurred in New York. Then there is a flash of a different kind when nearby San Francisco (where DeVane has gone on a business trip) receives a direct strike.
There is no exposition on the political climate that precipitates the attacks; this is a wise decision, as it puts the focus on the humanistic message of the film. All of the post-nuke horrors ensue, but they are presented sans the melodrama that informs many entries in the genre. The fact that the nightmarish scenario unfolds so deliberately, and amidst such everyday suburban banality, is what makes it very difficult to shake off.
As the children (and adults) of Hamlin succumb to the inevitable scourge of radiation sickness and steadily “disappear”, like the children of the ‘fairy tale’ Hamlin, you are left haunted by the final line of the school production of “The Pied Piper” glimpsed earlier in the film… “Your children are not dead. They will return when the world deserves them.”
Thirteen Days– I had a block against seeing this 2000 release about the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, for several reasons. For one, director Roger Donaldson’s uneven output (for every Smash Palace or No Way Out, he’s got a Species or a Cocktail). I also couldn’t get past “Kevin Costner? In another movie about JFK?” Also, I felt the outstanding 1974 TV film, The Missiles of October (which I recommend) would be hard to top. But I was pleasantly surprised to find it to be one of Donaldson’s better films.
Bruce Greenwood and Steven Culp make a very credible JFK and RFK, respectively. The film works as a political thriller, yet it is also intimate and moving at times (especially in the scenes between JFK and RFK). Costner provides the “fly on the wall” perspective as Kennedy insider Kenny O’Donnell. Costner gives a compassionate performance; on the downside he has a tin ear for dialects (that Hahvad Yahd brogue comes and goes of its own free will).
According to the Internet Movie Database, this was the first film screened at the White House by George and Laura Bush in 2001. Knowing this now…I don’t know whether to laugh or cry myself to sleep.
The War Game / Threads– Out of all of the selections on this list, these two British TV productions are the grimmest and most sobering “nuclear nightmare” films of them all.
Writer-director Peter Watkins’ 1965 docudrama, The War Game was initially produced for television, but was deemed too shocking and disconcerting for the small screen by the BBC. It was mothballed until picked up for theatrical distribution, which snagged it an Oscar for Best Documentary in 1967. Watkins envisions the aftermath of a nuke attack on London, and pulls no punches. Very ahead of its time, and it still packs quite a wallop.
The similarly stark and affecting nuclear nightmare drama Threads debuted on the BBC in 1984, later airing in the U.S. on TBS. Director Mick Jackson delivers an uncompromising realism that makes The Day After (the U.S. TV film from the previous year) look like a Teletubbies episode. It’s a speculative narrative that takes a medium sized city (Sheffield) and depicts what would likely happen to its populace during and after a nuclear strike, in graphic detail.
Both productions make it clear that, while they are dramatizations, the intent is not to “entertain” you in any sense of the word. The message is simple and direct-nothing good comes out of a nuclear conflict. It’s a living, breathing Hell for all concerned-and anyone “lucky” enough to survive will soon wish they were dead.
When the Wind Blows– This animated 1986 U.K. film was adapted by director Jimmy Murakami from Raymond Brigg’s eponymous graphic novel. It is a simple yet affecting story about an aging couple (wonderfully voiced by venerable British thespians Sir John Mills and Dame Peggy Ashcroft) who live in a cozy cottage nestled in the bucolic English countryside. Unfortunately, an escalating conflict in another part of the world is about to go global and shatter their quiet lives.
Very similar in tone to Testament (another film on this list), in its sense of intimacy amidst slowly unfolding mass horror. Haunting, moving, and beautifully animated, with a combination of traditional cell and stop-motion techniques. The soundtrack features music by David Bowie, Roger Waters, and Squeeze.
The Washington Post has published a blockbuster expose about a big Trump payoff when he was president in 2017. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that his cronies at DOJ shut the investigation down:
Five days before Donald Trump became president in January 2017, a manager at a bank branch in Cairo received an unusual letter from an organization linked to the Egyptian intelligence service. It asked the bank to “kindly withdraw” nearly $10 million from the organization’s account — all in cash.
Inside the state-run National Bank of Egypt, employees were soon busy placing bundles of $100 bills into two large bags, according to records from the bank. Four men arrived and carried away the bags, which U.S. officials later described in sealed court filings as weighing a combined 200 pounds and containing what was then a sizable share of Egypt’s reserve of U.S. currency.
Federal investigators learned of the withdrawal, which has not been previously reported, early in 2019. The discovery intensified a secret criminal investigation that had begun two years earlier with classified U.S. intelligence indicating that Egyptian President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi sought to give Trump $10 million to boost his 2016 presidential campaign, a Washington Post investigation has found.
Since receiving the intelligence about Sisi, the Justice Department had been examining whether money moved from Cairo to Trump,potentially violating federal law that bans U.S. candidates from taking foreign funds. Investigators had also sought to learn if money from Sisi might have factored into Trump’s decision in the final days of his run for the White House toinject his campaign with $10 million of his own money.
Those questions, at least in the view of several investigators on the case, would never be answered,The Post found.
Within months of learning of the withdrawal, prosecutors and FBI agents were blocked by top Justice Department officials from obtaining bank records they believed might hold critical evidence, according to interviews with people familiar with the case as well as documents and contemporaneous notes of the investigation. The case ground to a halt by the fall of 2019 as Trump’s then-attorney general, William P. Barr, raised doubts about whether there was sufficient evidence to continue the probe of Trump.
The first Trump administration was the most corrupt in American history. No other presidency even comes close. We’re talking about bags of money here. If you read further you’ll see that there were other henchmen involved in cover this up. Imagine what he will get away with in a second term with the entire DOJ filled with MAGA loyalists dedicated to presidential immunity and punishing his rivals. He’ll be carrying out his vengeance on his enemies — and making a profit at it.
This is the tech billionaire election and they’re almost all supporting Trump. One of them is Elon Musk. This is his latest contribution:
Elon Musk’s new super PAC is collecting scores of voters’ personal information under the guise of inviting them to register to vote, as part of his effort to boost Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
Earlier this month, Musk denied reports that he would be donating $45 million a month to Trump’s campaign during an interview with right-wing commentator Jordan Peterson. Instead, the technocrat clarified that he had created a new super PAC, called the America PAC.
Musk’s America PAC is a door-to-door canvassing operation, which allows it to work in direct coordination with the Trump campaign, according to an FEC advisory from earlier this year. This allows Musk, and his fellow Silicon Valley donors, to stick their hands—and their cash—right into the presidential race on Trump’s behalf.
How exactly they plan to do this is even more disturbing.
The America PAC has launched a series of digital ads using the image of Trump’s assassination, to invite people browsing Google to “register to vote,” CNBC reported Friday. In states where the outcome is certain, such as California, the ads actually do direct them to a voter registration site.
But in key battleground states, users are directed to a very different page, which prompts them to enter their phone number, address, and age. Once complete, users are then greeted by a “Thank You” page, with no actual link to voter registration in sight.
Musk’s America PAC has poured $800,000 into digital advertisements to target voters in the key battleground states of Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, according to AdImpact. The information collected from user responses to this ad campaign will inform the PAC’s canvassing efforts in those states.
Musk’s America PAC has already attracted the financial support of a few Silicon Valley billionaires. Douglas Leone and Shaun Maguire, general partners at Sequoia Capital, donated a whopping $1 million and $500,000 respectively, according to The American Prospect. (Their V.C. firm is also an investor in Musk’s SpaceX.) Joe Lonsdale, one of the co-founders of the military contractor Palantir, donated $1 million in June. Palantir was founded by Peter Thiel, who helped to fund J.D. Vance’s start in politics.
Apparently, Musk’s plan for the America PAC is already off to a rough start. After spending at least $15 million with In Field Strategies, a field vendor that organizes canvassers, the PAC ended its relationship with the company, two people familiar told The New York Times. It’s unclear what happened to that money, and now, more than 100 canvassers who had been hired by In Field on America PAC’s behalf in mid-June have been left scattered across the country, looking for work.
The PAC will now have to scramble to mount its canvassing campaign before early voting can begin, according to the Times. Trump campaign manager Chris LaCivita called the Times report “more fake news … the New Program 100% better than the old gang. Solidly support this effort,” in a post on X.
Yeah, right, If Musk’s operation is as savvy as most right wing voter operations LaCivita is lying.
Remember, Elon Musk never invented anything. He buys companies he doesn’t create them.
