How Harris raised the stakes for herself

And other mailbag questions

Happy Thursday! Let’s kick off the morning by dipping into my inbox and taking some mailbag questions. As always, if you have questions about American politics you want to see answered in the newsletter, you can reach me at gabe@wakeuptopolitics.com.

---

Photo by Stephen Harlan on Unsplash

Dave Kagan asks: I was listening to Chuck Todd’s podcast this morning and he contends that the issue of Kamala Harris not having done media interviews has become a bigger deal than it would have been if she had held a few press briefers with a cross-section of media outlets over the course of the past three weeks. (Yes, she’s been plenty busy.) In short, its importance is now magnified beyond what it needed to be. I think he’s right. What do you think, Gabe?

This point has been made by a few other commentators, including New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait, and I think it’s exactly right.

From a strategic standpoint, Harris has backed herself into a corner by waiting so long to give an interview. Waiting ensured that it would become A Story, when the first interview could have merely been a minor hurdle on her way to the nomination if done earlier on. But, more than that, waiting and then only giving a single interview has guaranteed an enormous amount of pressure and attention on that single outing. (Harris, along with her running mate Tim Walz, will sit for an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash today.)

If she had simply given a bunch of interviews right out of the gate, it would have muted the attention paid to a mistake in one of them, since there would have been a heap of other interviews to sift through. Instead, we’ve landed in a situation where CNN literally has a clock counting down to its One Big Interview with Harris; all eyes will be on this lone exchange. Her campaign has unnecessarily upped the stakes for itself.

Just as we received an answer in June to why President Biden has given fewer interviews than any president in modern history, it’s worth asking now why the Harris campaign has similarly been dodging media access. My guess is it boils down to two reasons: caution on the part of the candidate, who has struggled in interviews in the past and clearly does not want to repeat the experience (she avoided interviews for an entire year as VP after one embarrassing exchange with NBC’s Lester Holt), and a feeling on the part of her staff that they are better off keeping their campaign as vague as possible. They clearly feel — and polling seems to confirm it — that the campaign’s best hope of uniting the Democratic coalition is avoiding taking many firm policy positions, a tack that obviously becomes harder when a reporter is grilling you.

And yet, you are going to have to subject yourself to that grilling eventually, so you might as well rip the Band-Aid off and do it early and often, to soften the blow that might come from messing up in one interview or another. The fact that Harris’ campaign has not adopted that strategy seems to signal that the fears outlined in the previous paragraph run very deep indeed. (Her rivals, it should be noted, seem to understand this reality well: after a shaky VP rollout, JD Vance has taken to giving frequent interviews and taking questions on the trail. Pretty quickly, he got all the “childless cat lady” questions out of the way, and now you barely even hear about a Vance interview. Similarly, Trump has long had the strategy of “flooding the zone” with interviews, making it difficult for any one incendiary comment to break through.)

Harris has also received criticism for doing her first interview with Walz. Her campaign has responded by noting that running mates doing interviews together is a long tradition, dating back decades. That’s true, but there’s no precedent for it being the first interview a candidate does after announcing. (Obviously, the circumstances of this particular launch were, well, very abnormal — but that doesn’t change the fact that she could have given a solo interview first and then a joint interview.)

More to the point, having her first interview be a joint interview only guarantees that the pressure will stay on, since reporters will now be urging her campaign to give a solo interview. Instead of ending the media clamor, she has only guaranteed its prolongment. (Calling for a solo interview might sound superficial — but it’s true that having two subjects means the interviewer will be able to cover less ground, likely preventing important questions to Harris from being asked. It also all but guarantees some softer questions, about their relationship and stuff like that, which again has the effect of crowding out actual questions on policy.)

Mike Nolan asks: It’s my understanding that the Supreme Court is “on vacation” from the end of June until the beginning of October. So why is it that they still make rulings during that period, such as the recent stay of Biden’s student-debt relief plan?

Yes, it’s true that a Supreme Court term lasts from October to June. But that doesn’t mean the justices do nothing during that time. In addition to teaching in glamorous locations and taking luxury vacations, the justices tend to the emergency docket — situations when a lower court has made a ruling, and the losing side asks the Supreme Court to block the ruling from going into effect while the appeals process continues. (In fact, since 1980, the court does not even officially adjourn after its last in-person meting in June, technically remaining in session through the summer to consider these requests.)

In the case of Biden’s student loans plan, the Biden administration asked the justices to pause a lower court ruling overturning the plan. The justices declined to do so, which means the program will remain dormant as the case works its way through the courts. Other examples this summer have included SCOTUS temporarily reviving part of an Arizona voting law that had been struck down by a lower court (while allowing another part of the law to remain on hold).

Importantly, unlike cases on the merits docket, the justices do not hear oral arguments before making these decisions, and often their rulings are handed down via short, unsigned opinions without any explanation. Often, you will see emergency applications for capital punishment cases, as prisoners seek emergency relief just before facing the death penalty.

The emergency docket has been in place for decades, but Mike’s question is a fair one — since its use has expanded considerably in recent years. “Our summers used to be actually summers,” Justice Elana Kagan recently lamented at an event in California, adding that the court has “gotten into a pattern where we’re doing too many of them,” referring to emergency appeals.

If you want to read more about the emergency docket, I highly recommend Steve Vladeck’s book “The Shadow Docket,” which contains more detail on these emergency appeals (and why they matter) than you ever would have thought you needed.

Gina Lefferts asks: All the turmoil over election certification has me wondering about who will certify this presidential election, since the current Vice President is one of the candidates.

Still the Vice President! Nothing changes about the January 6th certification if a VP is on the ballot — although it does add to the poignancy of the event. In 1989, Vice President George H.W. Bush had the pleasure of certifying his own presidential victory; meanwhile, it fell to Al Gore and Richard Nixon to formally announce their own defeats. (It should also be noted that plenty of vice presidents have certified the victory or loss of their own ticket, even if they weren’t the presidential candidate, when running for a second term as VP.)

Here’s video of Al Gore certifying his rival George W. Bush’s victory after the contentious 2000 election. As you’ll see in the video, some House members attempted to challenge the results, but since no senators joined the challenge (unlike in 2021, when senators did join the challenges), it fell to Gore to gavel down members of his own party who were trying to object to his defeat.

Craig asks: Here in Canada, a tie would likely keep the party of power in for another term. Would something similar happen there?

Hello from down south! Here in the U.S., if the Electoral College ties 269-269, the House elects the president in what’s known as a “contingent election.”

Per the 12th Amendment, the way that would work is each state would get one vote, and whichever candidate receives the vote of a majority of state delegations wins the White House. (The Senate, meanwhile, would choose the vice president, voting individually like normal.) Presidential contingent elections have taken place in 1800 and 1824; a vice presidential contingent election took place in 1836.¹

Not to be That Guy, but a realistic Electoral College tie isn’t actually that hard to conjure up in this campaign. If Kamala Harris wins the “Blue Wall” battleground states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania) but Donald Trump wins the “Sun Belt” battlegrounds (Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina) and Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district,² we’d be in a 269-269 situation.

FiveThirtyEight’s model currently pegs the odds of that happening at less than 1%, but that’s partially because the model says Harris is heavily favored (75% odds) to win Nebraska’s 2nd. If that lone congressional district flipped to Trump, suddenly an Electoral College tie wouldn’t be that hard to imagine, since Harris generally polls better in the Blue Wall than the Sun Belt. (Maybe that’s why Harris has sent Nebraska native Tim Walz to the district.)

Republicans, who currently control 26 state delegations to Democrats’ 22 (with two delegations split), would be heavily favored in a contingent election, since no delegations seem particularly ripe to flip this cycle.

---

More news to know

The latest on Arlington-gate, via Politico:

The Army is defending an Arlington National Cemetery official involved in an incident with the Trump campaign this week at the national memorial, saying the woman was “abruptly pushed aside” and “unfairly attacked” by the Trump staffers and its surrogates.

The unidentified female staff member has declined to press charges due to concern over retaliation, and the Army, which runs national cemeteries, said in a statement Thursday morning that it considers the matter closed.

Former President Donald Trump took part in a wreath-laying and gravesite visit on Monday to commemorate the three-year anniversary of the U.S. pullout from Afghanistan, and his campaign has since been accused of violating a federal law that prohibits photography and video at the site for political purposes.

After the incident was first reported, the Trump camp denied that the employee was shoved and called her “despicable” and had mental health problems.

Shot… WaPo: Trump, without evidence, in part faults Biden, Harris for assassination attempt

Chaser… Sky News: Trump gunman spent months researching potential targets, including Joe Biden, before assassination attempt

They’re baaaaack… NYT: How the Federal Cases Against Trump Came Sputtering Back to Life

But someone else isn’tt… Politico: Why Gavin Newsom lost star surrogate status under Kamala Harris

Posting spree… WaPo: 24 hours of Trump: QAnon tributes, crude attacks and hawking pieces of his suit

Latest polls… A set of Fox News polls out yesterday found Harris with slight leads in Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada, while Trump has an edge in North Carolina. The advantages are well within the margin of error — but it still marks a stark turnaround from how the states polled when Joe Biden sat atop the Democratic ticket. Even more notably, the poll found Democratic Senate candidates boasting 15- and 14-point leads in Arizona and Nevada, respectively, while the Democratic candidate in North Carolina’s gubernatorial race is up by 11. Generic Democrat continues to be a powerful electoral weapon.

The Fox poll also found ballot initiatives protecting abortion rights heavily favored to pass in both and Arizona and Nevada, with the measures drawing 75% support in both states, including majority support from Republican respondents.

---

The day ahead

• President Biden has nothing on his public schedule.

• VP Harris and Gov. Tim Walz will tape an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash this afternoon, before later holding a campaign event in Savannah, Georgia.

• Former President Trump will deliver remarks on the economy in Potterville, Michigan, and hold a town hall in La Crosse, Wisconsin.

• Sen. JD Vance will speak at a firefighters union convention in Boston.

• Congress is on recess.

---

That’s all for today! Thanks for reading. — Gabe

1. Why has there never been a presidential and vice presidential contingent election at the same time? Well, 1800 was back when the vice president was just the losing presidential candidate, so no need for a contingent VP election then. In 1824, there was no Electoral College majority because four candidates split the presidential vote. But one candidate won the VP vote by being on a ticket with two of them simultaneously. And then in 1836, a presidential candidate won a majority of the Electoral College vote, but one state’s electors refused to vote for that candidate’s running mate, leaving him one vote short of a majority, throwing the VP election to the Senate. If the Electoral College were to tie this year, barring some freak situation with faithless electors, it is highly likely that contingent elections would be held for both president and vice president

2. Reminder for those confused: Maine and Nebraska each award two of their electoral votes to the statewide winner, and the rest to the winner of each congressional district in their state. Joe Biden won Nebraska’s 2nd in 2020 and Donald Trump won Maine’s 2nd; a 269-269 tie would also be created if you take the situation I described, but put both Nebraska’s 2nd and Maine’s 2nd in the blue column.