Polls Show Harris' Lead Exceeds The Margin Of Error


The chart above is from the Angus Reid Poll -- done between September 13th and 16th of a nationwide sample of 1,707 registered voters, with a 2 point margin of error.


The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between September 15th and 17th of a nationwide sample of 1,445 registered voters, with a 3.2 point margin of error.

Good Kitty!

Political Cartoon is by Clay Jones at claytoonz.com.
 

More Republican Support For Kamala Harris


Following is an open letter from over 100 former officials in Republican administrations and for Republicans in Congress: 



Polls Continue To Favor Kamala Harris In 2024 Election


 




The charts above are from the Monmouth University Poll -- done between September 11th and 15th of a nationwide sample of 803 registered voters, with a 3.9 point margin of error.






The two charts above show the average of polls by The Economist.


The chart above is from the Morning Consult Poll -- done between September 13th and 15th of a nationwide sample of 11,022 likely voters, with a 1 point margin of error.

Trump: Look In The Mirror To See Who's Causing Violence


Donald Trump has delivered more violent political rhetoric than any other modern presidential candidate. But he wants to blame Democrats. That's not unusual. He commonly blames others for things he is guilty of doing.

Steve Benen at MSNBC.com explains why Trump's blame game on political violence is ridiculous:

First, the investigation into the alleged would-be shooter is just beginning. The idea that the former president can speak to the suspect’s motivations, in detail, is difficult to take seriously. Given the preliminary evidence, Ryan Wesley Routh’s politics were, to put it mildly, idiosyncratic, supporting Republican, Democratic and independent candidates — including, in 2016, Trump himself. To characterize him as some kind of lifelong Democratic partisan is a stretch.

Second, Trump clearly sees accusations that he’s a “threat to democracy” as beyond the pale, but, in reality, the Republican candidate really has endorsed an authoritarian-style vision that would undermine democracy. This assessment is based almost entirely on Trump’s own rhetoric and public statements. When the former president’s critics, in Democratic politics and elsewhere, accuse him of being a threat to democracy, their case is rooted in fact.

Third, these assessments aren’t just coming from the left. Trump’s own former defense secretary, Mark Esper, has described the former president as a “threat to democracy.” The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, who remained neutral in every presidential race throughout his lengthy career, made an exception for Trump, calling him a “threat to democracy.” Retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig, a giant of conservative jurisprudence, directly accused Trump and his allies of waging a “war on democracy,” adding that the former president is a “clear and present danger” to American democracy.

Fourth, if Trump genuinely believes that accusations about “threats to democracy” are beyond the pale, he should probably take a moment to explain why he keeps accusing people he dislikes of being “threats to democracy.” At last week’s presidential debate, for example, he pointed at his Democratic rival and declared, “They talk about democracy. ‘I’m a threat to democracy.’ They’re the threat to democracy.”

Fifth, the hypocrisy surrounding the former president’s latest rant was staggering. In the same interview with Fox News Digital in which he accused Democrats of creating security threats by using caustic rhetoric, Trump said Democrats “want to destroy our country” and are currently “destroying the country.” He added — again, in the interview in which he was arguing that Democrats ought to dial down their comments — that Democrats are “the enemy from within” and “the real threat.”

The Senate Race In Texas Is Closer Than Expected


 From The Hill:

“Anybody that says, ‘It just doesn’t happen in Texas’ — it doesn’t happen until it does,” pollster Brett Loyd said of the possibility Allred scores an upset in the Senate race.

The contest between Cruz and Allred, whose entry last year shifted Cook Political Report’s rating of the Senate seat from “solid” Republican to “likely” Republican, is one of a small handful that have emerged as unexpectedly competitive in the high-stakes fight for the Senate this fall. 

Cruz fended off a strong Democratic challenge six years ago, when O’Rourke came within 3 percentage points of flipping the seat. O’Rourke’s bid benefited from the broader “blue wave” in the midterm election that year, and some in the state are skeptical that Allred can snag the energy he needs to finish the job this cycle. In 2022, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) defeated O’Rourke’s bid for the governor’s mansion by double digits.

But several recent polls show Cruz struggling to cross the 50-percent mark, making the Texas Senate race a potential bright spot for Democrats as they battle to hold their slim majority in the upper chamber.

“If you’re Ted Cruz or a Ted Cruz fan, if in the closing months of an election, you’re not at 50 percent and you’re not closing that margin up towards 50 percent, that’s going to be problematic,” Loyd said.

U.S. Should NOT Restrict Ukraine's Use Of Provided Weapons

Russia continues to attack Ukraine with every kind of weapon it has, and has recently increased its attacks on Ukraine's civilians. But Ukraine is unable to do the same to Russia. That's because the U.S. (and NATO) has restricted the use of weapons they provide to Ukraine (especially long-range weapons the provided like missiles and F-16's).

In effect, we are forcing Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind their back. That's ridiculous, and it must change. War is a messy and horrible business. But if it must be fought, it should be fought on equal terms.

So far, Ukraine has attacked Russia, but only with their home-made drones. That's not good enough. They, like Russia, should be able to attack with any weapon they have (or can get).

I know that Russia has threatened to declare war on NATO if we allow Ukraine to use the weapons provided to attack Russia. That's just bluster. 

It's become obvious that Russia cannot defeat Ukraine, and is having a lot of trouble just hanging on to the eastern provinces it has taken. Declaring war on NATO would be a serious mistake - and Putin knows it. NATO has the weaponry and strength to quickly push Russia out of all of Ukraine - and easily defend all NATO nations.

The same is true for nuclear weapons. Putin knows he cannot use them without causing Russia to suffer massive destruction!

The U.S. and NATO should provide Ukraine with all the weapons they request, and then let them use those weapons without any restrictions.  Not allowing them to fight on an equal basis with Russia just makes no sense!

Another Poll Shows Harris Won The Debate And Grabbed A lead


 




The charts above are from the Yahoo News / YouGov Poll -- done between September 11th and 13th of a nationwide sample of 1,755 adults, with a 2.9 point margin of error.

Trump Wants To Give Putin A Win In His War Against Ukraine


Fearing a race against Joe Biden, Donald Trump asked Ukraine to start an investigation of Mr. Biden. Ukraine refused to illegally interfere in the U.S. election. Now Trump wants to punish Ukraine by giving his buddy Putin a win in the Ukraine war.

The following is part of an op-ed by David French in The New York Times:

He (Trump) refused to say — in the face of repeated questions — that he wanted Ukraine to win its war with Russia. Trump emphasized ending the war over winning the war, a position that can seem reasonable, right until you realize that attempting to force peace at this stage of the conflict would almost certainly cement a Russian triumph. Russia would hold an immense amount of Ukrainian territory and Putin would rightly believe he bested both Ukraine and the United States. He would have rolled the “iron dice” of war and he would have won.

There is no scenario in which a Russian triumph is in America’s best interest. A Russian victory would not only expand Russia’s sphere of influence, it would represent a human rights catastrophe (Russia has engaged in war crimes against Ukraine’s civilian population since the beginning of the war) and threaten the extinction of Ukrainian national identity. It would reset the global balance of power.

In addition, a Russian victory would make World War III more, not less, likely. It would teach Vladimir Putin that aggression pays, that the West’s will is weak and that military conquest is preferable to diplomatic engagement. China would learn a similar lesson as it peers across the strait at Taiwan.

If Vladimir Putin is stopped now — while Ukraine and the West are imposing immense costs in Russian men and matériel — it will send the opposite message, making it far more likely that the invasion of Ukraine is Putin’s last war, not merely his latest.

But that’s not how Trump thinks about Ukraine. He exhibits deep bitterness toward the country, and it was that bitterness that helped expose how dangerous he was well before the Big Lie and Jan. 6. . . .

Trump’s reluctance to say the plain truth — that a Ukrainian victory is in America’s national interest — demonstrates that he is still a prisoner to his own grievances, and there is no one left who can stop him from doing his worst.

Harris Has The Race Lead (And Won The Debate)


 


The charts above are from the Data For Progress Poll -- done on September 12th and 13th of a nationwide sample of 1,283 likely voters, with a 3 point margin of error.

The Choice Is Stark For Voters In The 2024 Election


 In most of the presidential elections in this century, voters have faced a choice of policies. 

In Bush - Gore (2000), Bush - Kerry (2004), Obama - McCain (2008), and Obama - Romney (2012), the policies of the candidates were different. But all of the candidates, minus their policies, were fundamentally decent people.

They were people you could have an enjoyable conversation with. They were people you wouldn't mind having a drink or dinner with. They were people you wouldn't mind living next door. You might disagree with them, but they weren't bad people.

That changed in 2016, when Donald Trump became a candidate. I can understand why some people voted for him that year, because a lot of voters really didn't know that much about him.

But after his four years in office, the public came to know who he was, and most didn't like it. He exposed himself as different from past candidates - dishonest, greedy, angry, disrespectful of others, and dangerously narcissistic. And they rejected him in 2020 - choosing instead another fundamentally decent person in Joe Biden.

In 2024, voters are again faced with a stark choice. It's not a choice between fundamentally decent candidates with different policies. It's a choice between good and bad. It's a choice between decency and indecency. It's a choice between hope and fear. It's a choice between someone who thinks about others and someone who thinks only of himself.

Donald Trump has shown us who he is - and he's not a good person. Kamala Harris, whatever you might think of her policies, is a good person.

I hope voters will again reject the bad person. The presidency is too important, to this country and the world, and it requires a good and decent person to serve in the office.

It really is good versus evil. Make the right choice.