Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. We are a week out from the election. Kamala Harris said the other day that she thinks Donald Trump is a fascist. Do you agree?
Gail Collins: Well, it does tend to sound a little harsh right up front, but if we’re talking about a politician who wants to impose his will on the public, by force if necessary, can’t say Trump hasn’t gone down that road. And let’s not forget the revolting rally he held Sunday night at Madison Square Garden …
Bret: True, though I’m not sure it was smart of Harris, politically speaking, to use the F-word. It could alienate voters she desperately needs to win, who might feel she’s indicting them as would-be fascists by implication.
Gail: Are you worrying about what will happen if he wins or if he loses?
Bret: Both! But, as far as the election itself is concerned, the scenario that worries me most is a really narrow victory by one side or the other, which leads to multiple recounts in one or more states, along with weeks of legal uncertainty. At that point, we’re staring into the abyss.
I certainly don’t see Trump summoning the grace to concede the election the way Al Gore did in 2000. But there could also be trouble if Harris comes up short and her supporters think they have a choice between “resistance” and “fascism.”
It’s scary. This could be the most consequential month in modern American history, and I don’t mean that in a good way. Alternatively, we could have an early night and a clear winner. Care to venture a prediction?
Gail: Wow, the polls are so tight. I’m so desperate for Harris to win that I fear I may be over-optimistic when I say that Trump supporters may not actually go to the polls in as big a number as Harris voters — partly because women are more diligent about this stuff — and Harris has disproportionate strength on the female side. What’s your thought?
Bret: That’s a good point. A recent USA Today/Suffolk poll gives Trump a 53 percent to 37 percent lead among men, and Harris a 53-36 lead among women. But women historically vote in higher numbers than men, which could give Harris the edge. On the other hand, pollsters badly undercounted Trump’s support in 2016 and 2020, which makes me wonder if the polls are still missing two- or three-percentage points worth of his supporters.
So nobody knows nuthin’. But, if I had to place a very modest bet, no more than, say, a Kistler chardonnay, I’d say he’s going to win. I think a majority of Americans feel that the story of the Biden-Harris years is a loss of control: control of the border, control of prices, control of social order, control of world events. And Trump, with his authoritarian instincts, seems like the guy promising to restore that lost sense of control — as crazy as he seems to me.
Gail: Crazy is beginning to sound like an understatement. Let’s move on, but first tell me about the reaction you’ve been getting for deciding that you’re gonna vote for Harris after all. Are people crossing the street to shake your hand? Or crossing the street to avoid sharing the sidewalk with you?
Bret: I’m a little stunned by all the attention. Who in their right mind cares what I think?
Aside from my conservative friends, who thought I should have stuck with my original position of not voting, the main reactions have been: (1) Thanks, but what took you so long? And (2) Why are you still kvetching about her positions and performance? The answer to the first is that I forced myself to watch most of a Trump rally, which reminded me of what bat guano sounds like. The answer to the second is that those are my honest doubts — and that the case for Harris is more convincing to wavering voters if I present those doubts candidly.
Different subject, Gail: How do you feel about the wisdom of the Harris campaign in getting Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to campaign for her?
Gail: Appears to be a way to balance out Harris’s extensive sucking up to Wall Street. The latter seems less charming to me, but I appreciate that this is the way presidential campaigns go.
Does it really bother you?
Bret: It does. A.O.C. is the congresswoman who wanted to vote against funding for Israel’s “Iron Dome” missile-defense system, which has no purpose other than to protect innocent civilian lives from terrorist rockets. She then wept and apologized to her constituents when, for political reasons, she voted “present” because she lacked the courage of her despicable conviction.
My larger concern is what this means in terms of the role the far left of the Democratic Party might play in a Harris administration. Is Harris a centrist at heart, making the opportunistic political calculation that she needs to take advantage of A.O.C.’s popularity with younger voters in the last stretch of the campaign? Or is Harris further to the left than she lets on?
Gail: Cool down, Bret. Any candidate for president is going to accept the support of a member of Congress who isn’t facing a scandal or indictment.
Bret: By that logic, Democrats should be fine with Trump using Marjorie Taylor Greene as a surrogate.
Gail: I suspect you’re just balancing your Harris endorsement with a bunch of reservations that will make it clear you aren’t going over the Democratic cliff.
Bret: I’m not trying to be clever or tactical here. The thought of what a Harris administration might portend makes me ill, especially because I think she’s unready for a major foreign policy crisis, and we’re already in the midst of several. Only the thought of Trump makes me … iller.
Gail: By the way — any Senate or House races you want to take sides on?
Bret: I won’t take sides but I’m definitely curious about the Senate race in Nebraska. Ever since I was chided for knowing nothing about the state other than that it takes forever to drive across, I’ve read up on the race between the colorless Republican incumbent, Deb Fischer, and her charismatic challenger, Dan Osborn, an independent labor leader who’s running less than a percentage point behind her in the polls. It shows that conservatives won’t have a lock on rural states forever, especially if they keep trying to ban abortion.
Gail: Dan Osborn is a great candidate. And a wonderful example of the potential political power of an evolved labor movement. We also both like Senator Sherrod Brown, who’s running for re-election in a tough race in Ohio.
Go on.
Bret: The other Senate races I’m following closely are in Arizona and Pennsylvania. The Democratic candidate Ruben Gallego is way ahead of the Republican Kari Lake in Arizona, even though Trump is polling six points ahead of Harris there. Are people really going to split their tickets? And the Republican candidate in Pennsylvania, Dave McCormick, is pulling closer and closer to Bob Casey, the incumbent Democrat, which also makes me wonder whether Harris can take the state.
What other races should we be thinking about?
Gail: Even if the Pennsylvania race wasn’t part of that game-changer scenario in the presidential election, I wouldn’t be thrilled with McCormick, the former head of a huge hedge fund. Too many candidates, especially Republicans, seem to be running on a hey-I’m-rich ticket.
Bret: Unlike, say, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, or former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to name a few Democrats who belong in the Nine Figures Club. Sorry, go on ….
Gail: That includes Wisconsin, where Senator Tammy Baldwin is being challenged by Eric Hovde, an, um, very rich former banker who’s been stressing the fact that Baldwin is gay.
Bret: I watched the ad. I didn’t think it was homophobic. My objection to it is that it was anti-Wall Street.
Gail: Now tell me this, Bret. If you knew Trump was going to lose, you’ve said you want a Republican House or Senate to balance Harris. Any limits on who you’d vote for to make that happen?
Bret: Well, I’m on record as saying I’d swallow a third Ted Cruz term if that’s what it took to keep one house of Congress red in a Harris administration. But I’d probably draw the line at someone like Kari Lake. Let me turn the question back on you: Is there any Democrat you really think should lose his or her race? I mean, other than Eric Adams?
Gail: Here’s an admission: When it comes to executive jobs like president or governor, I want to make a serious judgment of a candidate’s intelligence, character, personal history. But for a member of a legislature — senator, representative — I go for the party. Can’t see voting for a Republican senate candidate because he or she seems like the person you’d rather hang around with.
Bret: Fair enough. I tend to go for the person, which is why I like Dave McCormick and John Fetterman. They each have a deep integrity.
Gail, we almost never talk about Joe Biden anymore. Yet last Friday, he was in Arizona on a visit to the Gila River Indian Community, where he formally apologized for the federal government’s appalling mistreatment of Native American children. Thousands were forcibly taken from their homes from the 1800s to the late 1960s — the remaining survivors are now reaching old age — and put into federal boarding schools, where roughly 1,000 died. Our news-side colleague Michael Levenson wrote a searing report about what these brutish schools were like, and it’s important to read it. It’s a wretched and inexcusably neglected chapter in American history; as the president said, “there’s no excuse that this apology took 50 years to make.”
Good for him for doing the right thing. The statute of limitations on apologies never expires.
The post Crazy Is Beginning to Sound Like an Understatement appeared first on New York Times.
