She's attracting huge crowds as of now, mid-August. She's swerving out ahead of Trump - beyond my wildest hopes. Maybe America is more open to "woke" than we imagine? On the other hand, she is talking about "freedom", a word Dems tend to ignore. She mentions "liberty", another important word ceded to the GOP. These are absolutely good signs. Instead of pronouns, she's onto liberty and freedom and sounds energized and optimistic. She sounds sane, which is good since she can be "woke" and so -- sound a bit out there. But yes, the woke bit may either not bother Americans who aren't MAGA as much as we think or -- people are so sick of MAGA that they don't care. I know I am picking my poison. Kamala is to my left, but as you say, she's also a fierce prosecutor and she's not really the silly and vapid cackler that MAGA sees. Nonetheless, she's to my left but she's smart enough not to be emphasizing her left flank overmuch.
She hasn't said a lot about foreign policy. Possibly, she doesn't want to upset the "Free Palestine" crowd overmuch. Even so, she is ignoring an important topic.
I do think Americans are more worried, right now, about the specter of Project 2025. I know I am. Christian Nationalism is worse than "woke" which can be silly window dressing for trying to be nice and fair-minded... CN strikes me as far more serious than insipid pronoun declarations. So she's running with that and Trump can't get away from it fast enough.
I hope this surge of support for her continues.
Your advice is good -- BTW -- and it would be nice if she took at least some of it.
Your advice to Kamala Harris makes sense. You are right, cackling needs to stop. Harris needs to be serious when attending serious functions. Laughter causes suspicion because it is a tool that con artists use. I am not a Democrat, but earlier this year, I emailed my progressive friends advice for Democrats. If the Democrats were to abolish DEI before November, voters would thank them on election day.
Something Kamala should at least having going for herself among Cosmopolitan Globalists is she did go to high school outside of the US(Canada). This is something pretty rare among American politicians.
Claire, I have been following and admiring your work for several years, but today is the first time I have perused all the comments, top to bottom. Phew! It appears you are a hell of a lot smarter than some of your readers.
"One of her vulnerabilities in November is that voters might view her, not without reason, as more of a left-winger than Mr. Biden. Her record in the Senate included supporting Bernie Sanders’s bill to outlaw private health insurance. She could instead be taking the opportunity to build a defense against what is surely the coming GOP assault to define her as a California progressive.
Yet in Milwaukee she sounded as if her main political task is to get Democrats enthused about finishing the pieces of Mr. Biden’s Build Back Better agenda that failed in the Democratic Senate. That means more government entitlements for healthcare, child care, and more progressive culture war.
Swing voters? Who needs ’em. Perhaps she will grow into her candidacy and realize that her challenge is to put some distance between herself and Mr. Biden, broaden her appeal past her old California constituents, and talk directly to “double haters” and moderates in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona and other states in play." (WSJ.)
I'm sorry folks, but upon reading this splurge of oh so desperate 'reasoning' i have but one thing to say, however vexatious that might be: we may confirm that non-roving reporter Claire Berlinski is now cracking walnuts up her ass, and lots of them.
Sounds like your advice to the democrats is to lie about who they are and to lie about the policies they plan to implement. They would have to say that they are against most of the legislation they have passed during Biden's term. Among other policies, they would have to claim they are for closing the border, deporting all illegals, defunding all subsidies for windmills and solar panels and would end all the mandates for electric vehicles and CO2 reduction.
Many of the top democrat politicians are incredibly good liars, but not this good.
And if they succeed, what would their mandate be?
Once elected should they admit to the public "We lied, too bad. We are now going to enact all the things we just told you we were against"?
BTW, in her talk to her campaign staff that was televised, Harris enthusiastically embraced all of the unpopular Biden policies. Claiming they are great successes. I think she really believes they are (group think alert). If she maintains that position, she reduces her chances of getting elected.
Here is an interesting and honest question? Why should I living on the other side of the country(Massachusetts) care about the fact that Seattle and Washington State is such a dump under the rule of the Democratic Party when my state, my region(New England), and nearest major city(Boston) are NOT dumps(Massachusetts and Connecticut typically take turns being the wealthiest state in the country) under the rule of the same Democratic Party. Yes, we have had periods of Republican Governors(as recently as just two years ago) but still in my corner of America the country hardly seems to be going to hell in a handbasket even if the Pacific Northwest is.
**I have my own thoughts about Boston vs Seattle including the fact the state capital is in Boston not Olympia(in the case of Washington) being a very big important factor.
You are correct about my location. Every state and locality has their own experiences with good and bad local policies. We some of both where I am. My point was only about the national policies that emanate from the Federal government. Harris and the national democrats are embracing policies that many voters associate with inflation, increased homelessness, increased energy prices, increased crime, increases in fentanyl deaths and other bad outcomes. If in the next 100 days they can convince voters that those out-comes are a good thing, then maybe they can win.
Claire appears to be advising the national democrats to, at least for the next 100 days, proclaim that they are abandoning those policies and will do the opposite of what they are currently doing if elected. Even though their intention would be, after the election, to reverse course again and go back to what they are doing now.
Hi Claire. Another good one (I even read it twice!). It must have felt like running on an accelerating treadmill working on this with new seismic political developments coming almost every day. I don’t think I’ve ever lived through a month like this one. As usual, I’m generally in broad agreement with most of your thoughts expressed in this article. Where I might diverge from you a little is that I don’t think I share your confidence that the voters who Democrats need to focus on can be made to care about and/or understand the Trump threat to democracy via sufficiently compelling oratory. This also seems to be a little bit in tension with your “flight from reality” article, in terms of your point about modern electoral politics arriving at a place where voters who feel increasingly overwhelmed and lost are rewarding candidates who offer them easily digestible stories that have little relationship to reality or to governing, but that make them feel more secure/empowered/affirmed on some subterranean level.
To put a finer point on it, Harris needs to provide a permission structure for the undecided moderates with traditional social values, to vote for her. And the solution is obvious: Senator Mark Kelly for VP!
He's proven his electability in the key swing state of Arizona. Just as importantly, he embodies high order masculine virtues that Trump plainly lacks. Kelly is a Navy vet, a former astronaut. A devoted family man who famously stood by and nursed his wife, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, after she was shot.
Trump and Vance are all about boorishness, bullying, and bluster. None of these add up to courage. Not to mention selflessness or service. We hardly need mention Trump's tawdry personal life.
Furthermore, Harris has gotten the "freedom" half of her message right when she speaks of reproductive freedom and democracy. Now she also has to talk about safety. In her book, he notes that as a prosecutor her job was to keep citizens safe. Now she has to keep the country safe from Trump.
She actually has biographical cred on the safety issue and needs to lean into that too. Freedom AND safety could make for a very powerful campaign message.
To your point, she should have used the phrase "environmental protection" rather than "environmental justice" in her speech yesterday at Biden campaign headquarters Then she could have said that no one's child should have to breathe or ingest poison. That would lean into a safety theme that could be so potent for her.
One last thing. When listening to that speech, kindly consider the audience she addressed in that room, which was composed of Biden campaign staff. She needed to rally them, to tell them that their hard work was appreciated, that they still had jobs. She was showing humility in admitting that she did not have time to build a staff from scratch and telling her audience that they were needed and welcome. Yes, the woke stuff needs to go, but in that particular room, there was a reason for it.
I have a thought. Weird, but it happens on occasion despite my best efforts to the contrary. Anyway, many months ago—maybe even a year—I began contemplating the idea that neither Biden nor Trump would be the candidates come November. The reasons that thought permeated my consciousness were several: Indictments, biology, and black swans. None have completely gone away and now, at Midsummer’s swan song, it appears I’m half right. Or, half wrong, depending on one’s perspective. But to bring this all full circle with your counsel to democrats, namely win in a monumental landslide, the thought in my first sentence needs fleshing out, for lack of a better term.
The D party will not take your advice. Even if they loved you, they won’t take your advice. One reason is that there’s no way everyone will suddenly say, “Okay, Claire’s right, let’s do it.” Another is there have been no landslide elections in recent history. No Goldwater or McGovern drubbing will happen. You could devise a brilliant plan to send every American $100,000 tax free and simultaneously reduce the debt to zero, and half the voters would vote against it. That segues to another reason, which, as with Alzheimer’s Disease, campaigns and politics have their own reality.
So, back to the thought. Let’s say Harris’s polls ramp up by a lot. That is not at all inconceivable. Say it’s October or so and Trump gets the same terminal polling news Biden got. He has his legal team, who are now faced with the possibility of not getting paid, secretly ask DoJ for a deal: In return for no jail time, he’ll publicly confess to some of his crimes and agree to drop out of the race. In my admittedly uninformed opinion, the race would end landslide-ishly, and the MAGA movement would be kneecapped for a decade or more.
Your scenario, as unlikely as it is, would result in a landslide victory for MAGA. If Trump dropped out, the nomination would revert to JD Vance. He would wipe the floor with The Cackler. Vance as the newer, younger and smarter leader of MAGA would end up as President for eight years.
Continuing- Greg IP, WSJ: ""The Chips act is bringing to the U.S. the capacity to make advanced semiconductors that now exists exclusively in Asia. The Inflation Reduction Act has encouraged investment in solar energy, electric vehicles and batteries.
The legislation represents a major shift by the U.S. into industrial policy—the use of state instruments to allocate capital to favored sectors. The shift seems likely to endure even if Trump, who shares Biden’s skepticism of free trade and fondness for domestic manufacturing, returns to the White House next year.
Yet while all three laws were broadly popular, they have barely registered in the public’s consciousness. Instead, poll after poll found abysmal approval of Biden’s handling of the economy, a disconnect that frustrated Biden officials and perplexed outside observers. After all, in terms of growth in economic output and jobs, or the decline in unemployment, his record thus far ranks among the best of any presidential term since 1980.
Even inflation, while still higher than the 2% that prevailed before the pandemic, is now down to about 3%, and getting close enough to 2% that the Federal Reserve should soon lower interest rates.
That is overshadowed by the cumulative 20% increase in prices since Biden took office, the unaffordability of homes and the failure of wages to keep up with prices. Those factors contribute to a pervasive sense of instability fueled by changes to life and work brought on by the pandemic, high levels of unauthorized immigration, war in Ukraine and Gaza, and intensifying polarization.
Historians will get to decide Biden’s true economic legacy. For now, the more pressing question is whether public antipathy similarly drags down whoever takes his place as the Democratic nominee for president."
Then, there's the economy, Claire. Greg Ip of The Wall Street Journal: "President Biden wanted to be a transformative president who expanded the state’s role in American life as Lyndon B. Johnson had. To a striking extent, he succeeded, pushing through milestone legislation on infrastructure, semiconductor manufacturing and green energy.
But when the public thinks of Biden’s economic record, they focus on something else: inflation, which in 2022 hit a 40-year high before receding. Inflation had already endangered Biden’s re-election, even before concerns about his age emerged. Those concerns led him to announce Sunday he would no longer seek re-election, and to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee for president.
The question now is whether Harris, or any other Democrat, will be similarly burdened by public unhappiness about the economy—or whether they can pivot to focusing on the future, where the candidate stands a better chance against Republican nominee Donald Trump.
The Democratic nominee will have to contend with Biden’s economic record. The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan that Biden signed shortly after he took office embodied both his ambition and overreach. Biden and his staff saw it as a vehicle for progressive goals such as a vastly expanded child tax credit. It was to be followed by “Build Back Better,” which would shower billions more on green energy, universal prekindergarten, expanded healthcare subsidies, paid leave, child care, eldercare and public housing. And because the economy was in crisis, they reasoned, the more they spent, the better.
But the premise was wrong. The economy wasn’t in crisis. It had been growing rapidly since mid-2020 thanks to stimulus passed under Trump, an end to social distancing, and vaccines. It wasn’t being held back by inadequate demand, but inadequate supply, as the pandemic snarled logistics chains and drove millions from the labor force. The collision of new demand with constricted supply sent inflation soaring.
Build Back Better eventually foundered on opposition from moderate Democratic senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. In retrospect, he may have done Biden a favor. His opposition headed off another potentially inflationary surge of spending. Meanwhile, smaller pieces of Biden’s agenda passed separately as the Infrastructure and Investment Act, the Chips and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, the first two with Republican votes."
She's attracting huge crowds as of now, mid-August. She's swerving out ahead of Trump - beyond my wildest hopes. Maybe America is more open to "woke" than we imagine? On the other hand, she is talking about "freedom", a word Dems tend to ignore. She mentions "liberty", another important word ceded to the GOP. These are absolutely good signs. Instead of pronouns, she's onto liberty and freedom and sounds energized and optimistic. She sounds sane, which is good since she can be "woke" and so -- sound a bit out there. But yes, the woke bit may either not bother Americans who aren't MAGA as much as we think or -- people are so sick of MAGA that they don't care. I know I am picking my poison. Kamala is to my left, but as you say, she's also a fierce prosecutor and she's not really the silly and vapid cackler that MAGA sees. Nonetheless, she's to my left but she's smart enough not to be emphasizing her left flank overmuch.
She hasn't said a lot about foreign policy. Possibly, she doesn't want to upset the "Free Palestine" crowd overmuch. Even so, she is ignoring an important topic.
I do think Americans are more worried, right now, about the specter of Project 2025. I know I am. Christian Nationalism is worse than "woke" which can be silly window dressing for trying to be nice and fair-minded... CN strikes me as far more serious than insipid pronoun declarations. So she's running with that and Trump can't get away from it fast enough.
I hope this surge of support for her continues.
Your advice is good -- BTW -- and it would be nice if she took at least some of it.
Your advice to Kamala Harris makes sense. You are right, cackling needs to stop. Harris needs to be serious when attending serious functions. Laughter causes suspicion because it is a tool that con artists use. I am not a Democrat, but earlier this year, I emailed my progressive friends advice for Democrats. If the Democrats were to abolish DEI before November, voters would thank them on election day.
Something Kamala should at least having going for herself among Cosmopolitan Globalists is she did go to high school outside of the US(Canada). This is something pretty rare among American politicians.
Claire, I have been following and admiring your work for several years, but today is the first time I have perused all the comments, top to bottom. Phew! It appears you are a hell of a lot smarter than some of your readers.
"One of her vulnerabilities in November is that voters might view her, not without reason, as more of a left-winger than Mr. Biden. Her record in the Senate included supporting Bernie Sanders’s bill to outlaw private health insurance. She could instead be taking the opportunity to build a defense against what is surely the coming GOP assault to define her as a California progressive.
Yet in Milwaukee she sounded as if her main political task is to get Democrats enthused about finishing the pieces of Mr. Biden’s Build Back Better agenda that failed in the Democratic Senate. That means more government entitlements for healthcare, child care, and more progressive culture war.
Swing voters? Who needs ’em. Perhaps she will grow into her candidacy and realize that her challenge is to put some distance between herself and Mr. Biden, broaden her appeal past her old California constituents, and talk directly to “double haters” and moderates in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona and other states in play." (WSJ.)
I'm sorry folks, but upon reading this splurge of oh so desperate 'reasoning' i have but one thing to say, however vexatious that might be: we may confirm that non-roving reporter Claire Berlinski is now cracking walnuts up her ass, and lots of them.
Sounds like your advice to the democrats is to lie about who they are and to lie about the policies they plan to implement. They would have to say that they are against most of the legislation they have passed during Biden's term. Among other policies, they would have to claim they are for closing the border, deporting all illegals, defunding all subsidies for windmills and solar panels and would end all the mandates for electric vehicles and CO2 reduction.
Many of the top democrat politicians are incredibly good liars, but not this good.
And if they succeed, what would their mandate be?
Once elected should they admit to the public "We lied, too bad. We are now going to enact all the things we just told you we were against"?
BTW, in her talk to her campaign staff that was televised, Harris enthusiastically embraced all of the unpopular Biden policies. Claiming they are great successes. I think she really believes they are (group think alert). If she maintains that position, she reduces her chances of getting elected.
I assume you are the Ken Snider from WA State?
Here is an interesting and honest question? Why should I living on the other side of the country(Massachusetts) care about the fact that Seattle and Washington State is such a dump under the rule of the Democratic Party when my state, my region(New England), and nearest major city(Boston) are NOT dumps(Massachusetts and Connecticut typically take turns being the wealthiest state in the country) under the rule of the same Democratic Party. Yes, we have had periods of Republican Governors(as recently as just two years ago) but still in my corner of America the country hardly seems to be going to hell in a handbasket even if the Pacific Northwest is.
**I have my own thoughts about Boston vs Seattle including the fact the state capital is in Boston not Olympia(in the case of Washington) being a very big important factor.
Tim,
You are correct about my location. Every state and locality has their own experiences with good and bad local policies. We some of both where I am. My point was only about the national policies that emanate from the Federal government. Harris and the national democrats are embracing policies that many voters associate with inflation, increased homelessness, increased energy prices, increased crime, increases in fentanyl deaths and other bad outcomes. If in the next 100 days they can convince voters that those out-comes are a good thing, then maybe they can win.
Claire appears to be advising the national democrats to, at least for the next 100 days, proclaim that they are abandoning those policies and will do the opposite of what they are currently doing if elected. Even though their intention would be, after the election, to reverse course again and go back to what they are doing now.
""Harris Steers Left." From WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/articles/kamala-harris-steers-to-the-left-5f195c79?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
Hi Claire. Another good one (I even read it twice!). It must have felt like running on an accelerating treadmill working on this with new seismic political developments coming almost every day. I don’t think I’ve ever lived through a month like this one. As usual, I’m generally in broad agreement with most of your thoughts expressed in this article. Where I might diverge from you a little is that I don’t think I share your confidence that the voters who Democrats need to focus on can be made to care about and/or understand the Trump threat to democracy via sufficiently compelling oratory. This also seems to be a little bit in tension with your “flight from reality” article, in terms of your point about modern electoral politics arriving at a place where voters who feel increasingly overwhelmed and lost are rewarding candidates who offer them easily digestible stories that have little relationship to reality or to governing, but that make them feel more secure/empowered/affirmed on some subterranean level.
To put a finer point on it, Harris needs to provide a permission structure for the undecided moderates with traditional social values, to vote for her. And the solution is obvious: Senator Mark Kelly for VP!
He's proven his electability in the key swing state of Arizona. Just as importantly, he embodies high order masculine virtues that Trump plainly lacks. Kelly is a Navy vet, a former astronaut. A devoted family man who famously stood by and nursed his wife, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, after she was shot.
Trump and Vance are all about boorishness, bullying, and bluster. None of these add up to courage. Not to mention selflessness or service. We hardly need mention Trump's tawdry personal life.
Furthermore, Harris has gotten the "freedom" half of her message right when she speaks of reproductive freedom and democracy. Now she also has to talk about safety. In her book, he notes that as a prosecutor her job was to keep citizens safe. Now she has to keep the country safe from Trump.
She actually has biographical cred on the safety issue and needs to lean into that too. Freedom AND safety could make for a very powerful campaign message.
To your point, she should have used the phrase "environmental protection" rather than "environmental justice" in her speech yesterday at Biden campaign headquarters Then she could have said that no one's child should have to breathe or ingest poison. That would lean into a safety theme that could be so potent for her.
One last thing. When listening to that speech, kindly consider the audience she addressed in that room, which was composed of Biden campaign staff. She needed to rally them, to tell them that their hard work was appreciated, that they still had jobs. She was showing humility in admitting that she did not have time to build a staff from scratch and telling her audience that they were needed and welcome. Yes, the woke stuff needs to go, but in that particular room, there was a reason for it.
I have a thought. Weird, but it happens on occasion despite my best efforts to the contrary. Anyway, many months ago—maybe even a year—I began contemplating the idea that neither Biden nor Trump would be the candidates come November. The reasons that thought permeated my consciousness were several: Indictments, biology, and black swans. None have completely gone away and now, at Midsummer’s swan song, it appears I’m half right. Or, half wrong, depending on one’s perspective. But to bring this all full circle with your counsel to democrats, namely win in a monumental landslide, the thought in my first sentence needs fleshing out, for lack of a better term.
The D party will not take your advice. Even if they loved you, they won’t take your advice. One reason is that there’s no way everyone will suddenly say, “Okay, Claire’s right, let’s do it.” Another is there have been no landslide elections in recent history. No Goldwater or McGovern drubbing will happen. You could devise a brilliant plan to send every American $100,000 tax free and simultaneously reduce the debt to zero, and half the voters would vote against it. That segues to another reason, which, as with Alzheimer’s Disease, campaigns and politics have their own reality.
So, back to the thought. Let’s say Harris’s polls ramp up by a lot. That is not at all inconceivable. Say it’s October or so and Trump gets the same terminal polling news Biden got. He has his legal team, who are now faced with the possibility of not getting paid, secretly ask DoJ for a deal: In return for no jail time, he’ll publicly confess to some of his crimes and agree to drop out of the race. In my admittedly uninformed opinion, the race would end landslide-ishly, and the MAGA movement would be kneecapped for a decade or more.
Would you approve of such a deal?
Your scenario, as unlikely as it is, would result in a landslide victory for MAGA. If Trump dropped out, the nomination would revert to JD Vance. He would wipe the floor with The Cackler. Vance as the newer, younger and smarter leader of MAGA would end up as President for eight years.
Two thumbs up.
But what about Trump’s voters? Do they get to be represented in this scenario?
"Justice Eileen Cannon"
Claire, do you mean Judge Aileen Cannon?
I do. I'll fix that.
Actually, that was a "Freudian slip," in that the honorific "Justice" is what Ms. Cannon is seeking with her MAGA sycophancy.
Continuing- Greg IP, WSJ: ""The Chips act is bringing to the U.S. the capacity to make advanced semiconductors that now exists exclusively in Asia. The Inflation Reduction Act has encouraged investment in solar energy, electric vehicles and batteries.
The legislation represents a major shift by the U.S. into industrial policy—the use of state instruments to allocate capital to favored sectors. The shift seems likely to endure even if Trump, who shares Biden’s skepticism of free trade and fondness for domestic manufacturing, returns to the White House next year.
Yet while all three laws were broadly popular, they have barely registered in the public’s consciousness. Instead, poll after poll found abysmal approval of Biden’s handling of the economy, a disconnect that frustrated Biden officials and perplexed outside observers. After all, in terms of growth in economic output and jobs, or the decline in unemployment, his record thus far ranks among the best of any presidential term since 1980.
Even inflation, while still higher than the 2% that prevailed before the pandemic, is now down to about 3%, and getting close enough to 2% that the Federal Reserve should soon lower interest rates.
That is overshadowed by the cumulative 20% increase in prices since Biden took office, the unaffordability of homes and the failure of wages to keep up with prices. Those factors contribute to a pervasive sense of instability fueled by changes to life and work brought on by the pandemic, high levels of unauthorized immigration, war in Ukraine and Gaza, and intensifying polarization.
Historians will get to decide Biden’s true economic legacy. For now, the more pressing question is whether public antipathy similarly drags down whoever takes his place as the Democratic nominee for president."
Then, there's the economy, Claire. Greg Ip of The Wall Street Journal: "President Biden wanted to be a transformative president who expanded the state’s role in American life as Lyndon B. Johnson had. To a striking extent, he succeeded, pushing through milestone legislation on infrastructure, semiconductor manufacturing and green energy.
But when the public thinks of Biden’s economic record, they focus on something else: inflation, which in 2022 hit a 40-year high before receding. Inflation had already endangered Biden’s re-election, even before concerns about his age emerged. Those concerns led him to announce Sunday he would no longer seek re-election, and to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee for president.
The question now is whether Harris, or any other Democrat, will be similarly burdened by public unhappiness about the economy—or whether they can pivot to focusing on the future, where the candidate stands a better chance against Republican nominee Donald Trump.
The Democratic nominee will have to contend with Biden’s economic record. The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan that Biden signed shortly after he took office embodied both his ambition and overreach. Biden and his staff saw it as a vehicle for progressive goals such as a vastly expanded child tax credit. It was to be followed by “Build Back Better,” which would shower billions more on green energy, universal prekindergarten, expanded healthcare subsidies, paid leave, child care, eldercare and public housing. And because the economy was in crisis, they reasoned, the more they spent, the better.
But the premise was wrong. The economy wasn’t in crisis. It had been growing rapidly since mid-2020 thanks to stimulus passed under Trump, an end to social distancing, and vaccines. It wasn’t being held back by inadequate demand, but inadequate supply, as the pandemic snarled logistics chains and drove millions from the labor force. The collision of new demand with constricted supply sent inflation soaring.
Build Back Better eventually foundered on opposition from moderate Democratic senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. In retrospect, he may have done Biden a favor. His opposition headed off another potentially inflationary surge of spending. Meanwhile, smaller pieces of Biden’s agenda passed separately as the Infrastructure and Investment Act, the Chips and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, the first two with Republican votes."
"Bring them home." Recognition. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5124479/neutra-family
Trump supporters? The Gold Star Families. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5124477/christy-shamblin-cheryl-juels-herman-alicia-lopez