The pro-democracy, pro-liberty coalition supporting Kamala Harris

October 22, 2024

The unprecedented 2024 presidential election has taken another unprecedented turn: Republicans who joined Harris’s pro-democracy coalition are now supporting the pro-liberty movement to protect reproductive freedom. When we defeat Donald Trump and his MAGA movement, it will be in large part because women would not tolerate being demoted to second-class citizens and denied control over their own bodies and reproductive choices.

On Monday, former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney acknowledged that conservative Republicans should not support the draconian state laws that criminalize pregnancy and reproductive healthcare. See The Guardian, Liz Cheney urges conservatives to back Kamala Harris over abortion. Cheney has been making appearances with Kamala Harris in swing states. At one of those campaign stops in a Philadelphia suburb, Cheney said,

I think there are many of us around the country who have been pro-life, but who have watched what’s going on in our states since the Dobbs decision and have watched state legislatures put in place laws that are resulting in women not getting the care they need.

I think this is not an issue that we’re seeing break down across party lines, but I think we’re seeing people come together to say: what has happened to women, when women are facing situations where they can’t get the care they need, where in places like Texas, for example, the attorney general is talking about suing, is suing, to get access to women’s medical records … that’s not sustainable for us as a country and it has to change.

As The Guardian noted, Cheney’s comments are important because they give a “permission structure for conservatives to back Harris.” More broadly, Cheney’s comments give a “permission structure” to vote against Trump and Republican candidates across the nation who seek to restrict women’s access to reproductive healthcare.

Cheney’s comments come as a study by researchers at Ohio State University found that infant mortality in the US increased by 7% after the Dobbs decision—reflecting an overall derease in access to reproductive healthcare by women. See Science Daily, U.S. infant mortality increased 7 percent in months following Dobbs, researchers find.

Because that 7% is a national average, researchers expect that the increase in infant mortality is higher in states that instituted abortion bans after the decision in Dobbs overruled Roe v. Wade. (“This study doesn't reflect variations from state to state, but the researchers said they would expect the impact to be more pronounced in states with more restrictive abortion laws.”)

Although some critics have second-guessed Harris’s decision to elevate reproductive liberty to a campaign-leading message, most of those critics are men who dismiss the importance of reproductive rights to women, their partners, and families.

Polls (designed by men) have consistently downplayed abortion as a top issue in the election; early voting data shows that women are turning out at a rate higher than men. See USA Today, Harris leads Trump 2-1 among the earliest voters, driven by abortion. 

Coincidence? Only if you are a man who doesn’t understand that Dobbs demoted women to second-class citizens who have been denied control over their bodies and healthcare decisions. I believe that pollsters and politicians will be surprised by record turnout and a bigger-than-expected margin of victory by Democrats. Pollsters are not modeling turnout based on an election that follows the abrogation of a fundamental right belonging to half the population.

Although early voting data is encouraging, drawing a straight-line interpolation from early voting data to final election results would be a mistake. And while Democrats lead in returns of early voting ballots in several swing states (including North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania), Republicans are leading in red states (Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona).

Kamala Harris’s leadership on reproductive rights and her decision to campaign with Liz Cheney are not only the right thing to do, but the smart thing, as well. Kamala Harris continues to run the campaign that Democrats want and democracy deserves in its hour of need.

---

Some good news on the voting front

After Hurricane Helene, many readers were concerned that voters in North Carolina could not get to the polls to support Kamala Harris. Although North Carolina still faces challenges because of the devastation of Hurricane Helene, early voting suggests that the storm damage is not deterring voters.

Indeed, because that damage hit more Republican-leaning counties than Democratic counties, Trump and his allies have been supporting efforts to ease voting access to accommodate for the emergency conditions. See The Washington Post, Trump flips stance on making voting easier after storm batters North Carolina. (Accessible to all.)

As explained by WaPo,

The 25 hardest-hit counties are almost all deeply conservative, places where Trump must rack up big margins to offset more liberal urban centers, such as Charlotte and Raleigh, that are likely to net voting gains for Vice President Kamala Harris. [¶]

Since the storm hit, the [Trump] campaign has advocated for changes to voting policy and procedures that mirror the type of pandemic-related accommodations that came under attack from Trump and his allies four years ago.

But the campaign’s rhetoric has puzzled state election officials, who had already authorized counties to move forward with most of the provisions Trump’s team demanded before the campaign circulated them.

In short, the Trump campaign and NC legislature are going all out to ensure that all voters in North Carolina can vote. Indeed, per the WaPo article, only three counties in North Carolina are trailing early voter turnout levels compared to 2020.

In addition, Democrats won two big election cases on Monday. As Marc Elias of Democracy Docket noted, the victories are “further reminder not to confuse the fact that Republicans file a lot of lawsuits with the fact that they win very few.”

See Democracy Docket, Michigan Judge Rejects Republicans’ Effort To Disqualify Certain Overseas Voters.

See Democracy Docket, North Carolina Court Denies RNC Bid to Block Certain Overseas Votes.

While we cannot relent and should take nothing for granted, the media tends to emphasize filing lawsuits but ignore dismissing those same suits. Democracy Docket is a great resource for keeping up with the latest developments!

---

Reader concerns regarding JD Vance

I have received a surge of emails from readers asking me to warn other readers that the 2024 election is a contest between Kamala Harris and JD Vance. Several have sent articles that assert that Silicon Valley billionaires are promoting JD Vance so he can stage a coup against Trump by invoking the 25th Amendment. Most are worried that Trump's obvious signs of mental deterioration will cause the Cabinet to declare Trump unfit to continue his duties as president and remove him from office—allowing JD Vance to succeed to the presidency.

While JD Vance is objectionable, it would be difficult to be worse than Trump. But assuming for the purpose of argument that Vance would be worse than Trump because he would be more effective at implementing the MAGA agenda, let’s consider two questions.

First, what would or should we do differently if it is true that Silicon Valley billionaires are secretly plotting for Vance to take over the presidency? Would we work harder, donate more money, or raise the alarm more loudly than we are regarding Trump's threat to democracy?

I hope the answer to those questions are “we can’t work harder, donate more, or raise the level of the alarm.” We should be working full bore. I just don’t anyone is laying back because they think JD Vance might not succeed Trump. Of course, he might. Trump is in horrible physical shape. The actuarial tables for Trump (given his physical and mental health) are grim.

Second, invoking the 25th Amendment is no easy task. If Trump wins, he will undoubtedly pack the cabinet with loyalists who swear never to invoke the 25th Amendment.

Second, even if the Cabinet were to invoke the 25th Amendment (by a majority vote), Trump could simply send a letter challenging the invocation. At that point, two-thirds of both chambers of Congress would need to vote to remove Trump. Two-thirds is 67 votes in the Senate and 288 votes in the House.

Assuming that Congress is evenly divided, how likely is it that at least 17 Republican Senators and 71 House Republicans will vote to remove Trump? (And those numbers assume 100% of Democrats would vote to remove Trump.)  I think the odds of that happening are close to zero. If you disagree, that’s reasonable, but don’t ignore the difficulty of a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress to remove the president under the 25th Amendment. See generally, Congressional Research Service, Presidential Disability Under the Twenty Fifth Amendment: Constitutional Provisions and Perspectives for Congress.

---

The National Catholic Reporter

In yesterday’s newsletter, I referred to the National Catholic Reporter as a conservative media outlet. Dozens of readers wrote to disagree, saying that the newspaper is a progressive voice within the Catholic Church. They noted that the similarly named National Catholic Register is a conservative voice within the Church. Since I don’t subscribe to either, I accept their characterization and pass it along to you.

DOJ enforcement actions within 60 days of an election

Yesterday, I noted that I believe the DOJ will take action against organizations impersonating the Harris-Walz campaign and will announce an investigation of the Musk $1 million giveaway to Pennsylvania voters who recruit others to register and sign a petition.

Several readers wrote to say that the DOJ “60 Day Rule” makes it unlikely that the DOJ will initiate any enforcement action with only two weeks to go before an election. I disagree, for the reasons noted below.

Prior to 2022, the “60 Day Rule” was an informal and ambiguous policy of the DOJ. In 2022, the Justice Manual was revised to include Section 9-85.500, which provides as follows:

"[Prosecutors] may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, FOR THE PURPOSE OF affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party."

The Rule is poorly written and cannot mean what it says.

First, enforcing election interference laws where one candidate is engaged in illegal activity will inevitably “work to the disadvantage” the party that is cheating. If the DOJ learned that Trump was conspiring with Russia to take down the voting machine network in Pennsylvania on Election Day to prevent Kamala Harris from winning that state, stopping that plot would literally “advantage Harris” and “disadvantage Trump.” The DOJ should nonetheless disrupt the plot despite the language of Rule 9-85.500.

What the rule must mean is that the PRIMARY purpose of enforcing pre-existing criminal laws cannot be to advantage or disadvantage a candidate. Enforcing criminal laws to protect the integrity of an election will almost always have unavoidable, ancillary effects on the candidates’ prospects. Despite those ancillary effects, the DOJ must act. Otherwise, the criminal laws protecting elections are effectively suspended for a 60-day period prior to every election, thereby creating a huge incentive to break the law during that period. Such an interpretation is nonsense—even though that is the literal reading of the rule as written.

Second, the rule cannot rationally intend to prohibit any action that “affects” an election. Suppose that a fictional MAGA Volunteer Army posts a social media statement saying it will shoot any voter approaching the polls in counties with majority Democratic registration. The DOJ announces it will investigate, arrest, and prosecute the persons who posted the statement. Obviously, the DOJ's action would “affect the election”—by making it safe for voters to go to the polls. But the current text of the rule would seem to prohibit the DOJ from acting because such action would boost voter turnout in Democratic-leaning counties facing the threat of violence.

What the rule should say is that the DOJ cannot take any action designed to affect the OUTCOME of any election due to partisan considerations. Someone at the DOJ should revise the rule. Otherwise, its current formulation might dissuade a timid prosecutor from acting to protect the integrity of an election. The Constitution and the American people deserve better protection from the DOJ. Tell a friend at the DOJ.

Merrick Garland has already inflicted grievous injury on our democracy by worrying more about the reputation of the DOJ than the rule of law. He needs to speak now to tell the American people that the DOJ will investigate and prosecute actions that are plainly illegal.

Join Jay Kuo and me on Tuesday, October 22 at 8:00 pm Eastern / 5:00 p.m. Pacific

Jay Kuo and I will be live-streaming a conversation on surviving the onslaught of weaponized polls and failed media through Election Day. I have sent a separate note with details, here. Hope you can join us!

---

Concluding Thoughts

A reader sent a note today suggesting that I include more “joy” in the newsletter. I take the reader’s point. There are millions of Americans working diligently to turn out the vote. I hear from them every day and they are joyful, indeed. They are leaning into their work with determination and hope. They aren’t appearing on cable news programs or the front page of major media outlets. They deserve to be above the fold in newspapers and in the “A block” on cable news. So, I agree. I should be giving them more coverage.

At the same time, as we get closer to Election Day, Trump and MAGA Republicans are becoming more unhinged each day. On Monday, Trump told a Fox interviewer that he wanted to subpoena records from CBS as a prelude to revoking its broadcast license. Why? Because Trump was upset with CBS’s interview of Kamala Harris on 60 Minutes.

That comment would end the career of any other presidential candidate. And yet, I didn’t mention it (above) and the NYTimes didn’t mention the comment on its front page. (In fairness, the Times had five articles about Trump on its front page, all critical.)

Balancing the news in noisy and chaotic news environment is difficult for all of us. One way to handle that noise is to apply a bit of perspective. Which of the stories that unfolded on Monday will still be important in two weeks? Two months? Two years? My instinct tells me that Liz Cheney joining in common cause with Kamala Harris to call for the protection of reproductive liberty is the story that will matter years from now. Because it is the one that may result in legislative changes that will improve the lives and healthcare of tens of millions of women.

On the other hand, Trump isn’t going to succeed in revoking CBS’s broadcast license. The muted response by CBS and the major media reflects their discounting of the likelihood that Trump will follow through on his threat. What is most significant about Trump's threat is that he made it all—a sign that he is eager to exercise dictatorial power whenever and however he can.

That’s the story that will be important months and years from now. In the most optimistic scenario, it will be part of the story about how millions of Americans rose up to stop a wannabe dictator who posed a serious threat to democracy. And part of that story will be their joy, determination, and persistence.

So, it’s all important. The question is one of emphasis. If you can, look past the fog of outrage and disinformation to see the voter in front of you—the one who is waiting for one last nudge to motivate them to vote for the first time in their lives. Let that be you. That story will be important decades and centuries from now, even if your name is forgotten. We aren’t in this for the glory or recognition. We are in it for the joy of living in a free and just society.

Talk to you tomorrow!

---

Daily Dose of Perspective

Below is an image of the Gamma Cygni Nebula—which I snuck in before the moon rose. The nebula is part of a large complex nebula and asterisms that comprise the Cygnus constellation. The nebula is 4,000 light years from Earth.