Well, This Whole Thing Is Hinky, After All

Jennifer Van Laar at Red State broke the initial story, at least on a national platform, that there may have been an as-yet-undisclosed medical event, not just a positive COVID test, that caused Joe's sudden premature departure from his Las Vegas campaign tour on July 17. But this is just one of the whole series of events between the July 13 assassination attempt on Trump in Butler, PA, and Joe's July 21 announcement on Twitter from his Delaware basement that he was withdrawing from the November race. The juxtaposition seems at minimum incongruous.

The most extensive analysis of that chain is on Seyumour Hersh's Substack behind a quasi-paywall, which I've so far been unable to bypass, even though it's theoretically possible. However, Van Laar now provides a pretty good summary in this piece at Red State. In her interpretation of Hersh's story, there are many unanswered questions:

According to Hersh's latest reporting the Democrat inner circle plan was to keep Joe's impairment covered up, apparently until he was re-elected. . . . What was the end game, then? For Biden to be re-elected and for whomever is running the country currently to continue? Or for Biden to be re-elected and for Harris to take over when the decline was too big to deny? That doesn't really make sense, since they could have had Harris invoke the 25th Amendment and take over at any point - unless they didn't think Kamala could get elected on her own.

. . . Until thnat fateful debate.

But the additional question for me is that the debate was on June 27, and whatever may have been said behind the scenes, the official line from Obama on down was that it was just a "bad night", and in fact, as commentators have been saying ever since, it didn't affect Biden's standing in the polls. Although Pelosi in particular had begun to make noises about Joe deciding to "do the right thing", there was no public sense of urgency -- until after the assassination attempt, which had nothing to do with Joe. That bothers me. Van Laar continues,

Hersh went through the days leading up to Biden dropping out, beginning with Monday, July 15, when Biden flew to Nevada. On the 16th he spoke to the NAACP and was successful in quashing some of the "He must drop out!" talk. On the 17th he was scheduled to give a speech to a Latino group, but after a meet-and-greet at a Mexican restaurant that speech was canceled, Biden's motorcade sped toward the airport - and the President wasn't seen publicly for a week.

. . . The official story was that Biden had tested positive for COVID and had some symptoms, so was rushing back to Delaware to isolate. But everyone saw the writing on the wall, and the events in Las Vegas set off a cascade of events culminating just a few days later in Biden's withdrawal from the 2024 campaign. It didn't help that Biden was unreachable[.]

But Van Laar makes it clear that while there had been some pressure for Joe to drop out, things didn't become urgent until the weekend of July 13, in other words, after the assassination attempt:

Congressional leaders were involved in pressuring Biden for at least a week before Obama was "deeply" involved, and Politico reported that Pelosi had an arm-twisting meeting with the Bidens over the weekend of July 13 imploring him to drop out.

But Obama didn't start the final, decisive push until Joe was back in his Rehoboth basement. This confirms for me yet again that the June 27 debate, while problematic, wasn't a decisive factor for the lizard people -- they could continue to discount or excuse it as they'd been doing all along for earlier episodes like his wandering away toward the skydivers at the G7 meeting or freezing at the Hollywood fundraiser. Bad as all this was, it apparently didn't get urgent until the weekend of July 13.

As homicide detectives say, there's no such thing as a coincidence. Hersh's version, reported widely, is that Obama called Joe the following Sunday morning, July 21, and threatened to have Kamala invoke the 25th Amendment. Apparently Joe had been unreachable since July 17, and maybe this was the soonest Obama could get hold of him. But what was the efficient cause of the call? An unspecified medical episode in Las Vegas, something to do with the business in Butler, or some combination of those factors?

Now we get to the FBI. The official statement from the FBI's deputy director as of yesterday is,

Thus far, though absolutely nothing has been ruled out, the investigation has not identified a motive nor any co-conspirators or others with advance knowledge.

Nevertheless, in the same statemeent, the FBI deputy director said,

Something just very recently uncovered is a social media account, which is believed to be associated with the shooter in the 2019 to 2020 timeframe. There were over 700 comments posted from this account. Some of these comments, if ultimately attributable to the shooter, appear to reflect anti-Semitic and anti-immigration themes, espouse political violence, and are extreme in nature.

While the investigative team is still working to verify this account to determine if it did belong to the shooter, we believe it important to note, particularly given the general absence of information to date reflecting on the shooter’s potential motive.

Yeah, and while the FBI doesn't know for sure, maybe the security guard Richard Jewell planted the Atlanta Olympic bomb. Deputy Director Abbate's version was immediately contradicted by the platform on which Crooks is thbought to have posted:

BREAKING: The FBI is now claiming that the Trump shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks had an unspecified "social media account" in 2019/2020 (when he was 14/15 years old) that posted "anti-immigrant and anti-semitic" content.

This is not consistent with Gab's understanding of the… pic.twitter.com/UPPJSAkPqp

— Andrew Torba (@BasedTorba) July 30, 2024

Elon Musk replied,

It sure looks like the FBI leadership engaged in perjury … https://t.co/tU1M7fs9lj

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 30, 2024

As homicide detectives say, a lie is as good as a confession. If I had to come up with a working theory of the case, I would say that if the July 13 Butler attempt had been successful, it would have left the November race wide open. Trump hadn't selected Vance as his running mate yet, and Joe was still the presumptive Democrat nominee. It would have been possible -- maybe a stretch, but just possible, with Trump out of the picture -- to present Joe as the stable alternative to a Republican nomination process thrown into chaos, especially absent the medical emergency on July 17 that supposedly did change the picture for Joe.

The weekend before the Rpuublican convention was in fact both the perfect and the last opportumity for the insiders to pull this off -- but as far as I can see, that particular window is now shut, with Vance as Trump's backup and Joe out of the running, and now people are starting to ask questions. As I said on July 21, the unexpected set of circumstances of the prior week has left the lizard people without a Plan B.

I don't think we've heard the end of this, and it's at least strange that so many days after the event, we've been told so little.

Whew, That Was A Short Honeymoon!

Here's what's plain as day, but nobody mentions it. First, when people say "the polls", they mean the Real Clear Politics "averages", which is the word they use, but these numbers aren't the "arithmetic mean", they're something cooked up in their "model", which is the same sort of thing that told us there'd be mass graves in public parks in 2020 after the hospital ships ran out of beds or something. But second, the polls on which they base their models are a select group of approved pollsters that release predictable results on a monthly basis.

What happens every month is one pollster releases predictably favorable results for Trump -- let's say Rasmussen has him up by 6 over Joe or Kamala. RCP feeds it into their model, which spits out Trump up 3. Then a pro-Harris poll comes out, maybe Reuters/Ipsos, with Harris up 2. RCP runs its model, and it comes out with Trump now up only 1.2 -- or whatever. This goes on all month, every month, and the results have been exactly the same since last year: depending on what poll just came out, Trump has been up on RCP ("the polls") between maybe 0.7 and 3 depending on what day, month after month.

There are people who are paid -- I'm not sure why -- to look at these meaningless numbers and think they're finding a "trend", when the differences come only from the day of the month you're looking at. This piece in the Never Trump National Review is at least aware of the odd consistency of "the polls" month to month:

Substituting Harris for Biden has helped Democrats claw back to the position they occupied before the first presidential debate — both at the national and swing-state levels. But Democrats were losing the race for the White House even before the debate.

This is another way of saying that if you looked at "the polls" after the June 27 debate, early in July, the latest Rasmussen would have kicked the RCP model up to Trump ahead 3. But a week or two later, WSJ and Reuters/Ipsos would have brought the model back down to 1.7, which was what had been happening all year anyhow, debate or no debate, Harris or no Harris. This is the same "trend" commentators were finding after Joe's State of the Union, which had Joe gaining ground against Trump the same way -- until he wasn't, and Obama and Pelosi finally told him to get lost, even though "the polls" hadn't changed at all.

That, of course, was the point Joe kept trying to make, it was a margin-of-error race and a tossup, but it did him no good. But doesn't that suggest that the Democrat insiders weren't taking "the polls" seriously? No matter how you sliced "the polls", as far as the lizard people were concerned, Joe was going to lose. But the legacy media, and even some on the right, were ginning up a "honeymoon" narrative.

The polls ["the polls"!] are in after a chaotic few weeks in the 2024 presidential election, and they point to a newly hyper-competitive race.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ elevation has jolted the race and blunted the momentum former President Donald Trump could have seen coming out of the Republican convention and the assassination attempt that preceded it. Though polling showed Trump building a lead over President Joe Biden following their debate last month, that advantage has mostly evaporated against Harris in the fresh round of surveys conducted since she became the all-but-certain Democratic nominee.

Translated: the predictable monthly fluctuation in the RCP model has fluctuated yet again, and the fluctuation continues in precisely the range it's had since the start of the year. Depending on where you are in the month, Trump "has a lead", or his previous "advantage" has "mostly evaporated". At least, that's for public consumption. The lizard people, though, aren't buying it:

Democrats are privately expressing concerns over Harris’s candidacy. One source familiar with the internal discussions told the Hill that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was “lukewarm” about Harris becoming the nominee, a view that appears to be widespread among the party elites.

“She wasn’t a great candidate,” a Democrat senator told the Hill about Harris’s 2020 presidential campaign. Harris ended her campaign before the Iowa caucuses. “And she may not be as a political campaigner as good as Biden was in his prime,” the senator said.

Another story makes an important point:

After numerous gaffes as vice president, Harris shied away from the press and has not sat for a single one-on-one interview with the media since becoming the de facto nominee.

Any interview, and especially any debate against Trump, is likely to be as disastrous for Kamala as Joe's June 27 debate --but at the same time, it isn't going to be reflected in "the polls", just as Joe's June 27 debate wasn't, and just as the assassination attempt in Butler wasn't. But if "the polls" weren't affected by such momentous events, why did the lizard people force Joe out? Were they disingenuous?

Democrats at the highest levels are making a critical push for President Joe Biden to rethink his election bid, with former President Barack Obama expressing concerns to allies and Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi privately telling Biden the party could lose the ability to seize control of the House if he doesn’t step away from the 2024 race.

My view continues to be that whatever finally influenced the lizard people, it wasn't "the polls". They let Joe dither for fully two weeks after the June 27 debate, but something between the assassination attempt on July 13 and his abrupt retreat to Rehoboth June 17 changed things irrevocably, and apparently after a final nudge from Obama, he withdrew on July 21.

Did the lizard people seriously expect something to change if they swapped out Joe? I would have to guess that they didn't if the replacement was Kamala, which might be reflected in the Seymour Hersh report that Obama's first choice was Mark Kelly -- but even there, Kelly wasn't, and isn't, a national figure; at 60, he's the same age as Kamala but looks older; and he isn 't a cheerful or optimistic figure. If he was the best alternative, well, fine, but they couldn't choose him no matter what, because Kamala.

The coup had to be some sort of desperate last resort when everything else failed, but whatever it was, it wasn't, and isn't, "the polls". Nor is swapping Joe out for Kamala, however desperate a move it may have been, going to change a thing. Why they did it is still a puzzle.

The Power Of The Image

Remember Fani Willis? Seems like years ago, but just last January, the Georgia racketeering case, according to CNN,was "key",

because as a state case, it’s not something that could be dismissed through a presidential pardon, which applies only to federal matters. Trump’s lawyers have long considered this case the most significant legal threat given the jury pool and the fact that it is beyond pardon powers.

Within weeks of that assessment, that "most significant legal threat" had disintegrated amid jokes about Nathan's Famous Hot Dogs. This is just one example of Trump's extrordinary combination of luck and deftness that's driven his campaign, especially his ability to exploit subliminal cues. This is a factor with the insertion of Kamala Harris into the race that's so far completely eluded commentators.

Let's take the latest Democrat talking point that emerged over the weekend, which seems to have come simultaneously from so many different people that it must be coordinated, Trump and JD Vance are "weird":

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz continued making his increasingly popular argument that Trump and his running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, are “very weird.” Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker echoed Walz . . . .

“Listen to the guy. He's talking about Hannibal Lecter and shocking sharks and just whatever crazy thing pops into his mind,” Walz said of Trump on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “Have you ever seen the guy laugh? That seems very weird to me, that an adult can go through six and a half years of being in the public eye — if he has laughed, it's at someone, not with someone — that is weird behavior, and I don't think you call it anything else.”

Walz, a progressive former congressman serving in his second term as governor in Minnesota, made waves last week when he said of Republicans in another TV appearance “these guys are just weird” and that Trump and Vance seem like they are running for “He-Man Women Haters Club” of “The Little Rascals” fame.

On MSNBC, Jen Psaki called Vance Trump's "weirdo running mate". But what on earth makes Vance a weirdo? He's a successful straight white guy with a stable marriage and kids? That kinda turns the whole definition of weirdo upside down. But let's look at what's weird, for instance, Second Dude Doug Emhoff's purported family arrangement:

The ex-wife of second gentleman Doug Emhoff on Wednesday defended Vice President Kamala Harris against sexist criticisms about her lack of biological children, calling them “baseless” and expressing her gratitude for the presumptive Democratic nominee.

“These are baseless attacks. For over 10 years, since Cole and Ella were teenagers, Kamala has been a co-parent with Doug and I,” Kerstin Emhoff said in a statement first provided to CNN. “She is loving, nurturing, fiercely protective, and always present. I love our blended family and am grateful to have her in it.”

Are there boundaries here, or not? What kind of "family" is this? And that takes us back to that weird smooch at last year's State of the Union:

What's up with all this extended family stuff, anyhow? Talk about weird:

Trump doesn't even need to say a word, but likely he will:

The War Of The Assassination Narratives

Isn't it odd how the composition of the photo above very faintly echoes Michelangelo's Pieta, just as the more famous one of Trump pumping his fist beneath the flag echoes the photo of the flag raising at Iwo Jima? Says something important, I think -- and neither of those photos was remotely posed, they were lucky catches by the photographers. This is part of the underlying authenticity of the whole event.

As I noted yesterday, it seems as though the most momentous events of the campaign so far don't seem to move the polls. There are several possible explanations. One is that the impact of certain events isn't easily quantifiable, or at least not over a short time. Another is the Rush Limbaugh theory, that the polls are carefully curated and massaged to shape the news, not to report it. Another is that some of the most momentous events don't even reach the news, and as one example, here is a report from Seymour Hersh via The Gateway Pundit:

As The Gateway Pundit’s Kristinn Taylor reported, Biden suffered an “undisclosed medical emergency” while in Las Vegas on July 17 that was never disclosed to the public.

Now, according to a report from a respected longtime investigative journalist, an equally explosive incident followed just a few days later.

On Saturday, Seymour Hersh wrote on his substack that sources told him that Barack Obama had called Biden three days after the disturbing incident. Obama reportedly told Biden on July 20 that he had Kamala Harris’s approval to use the 25th Amendment to kick him out of office.

Now, I'm not going to try to vouch for either The Gateway Pundit or Seymour Hersh; Gateway is often wrong, and Hersh has always been overrated. But the story exists because of all the unexplained gaps in the post-June 27 timeline. The calls for Joe to "pass the torch" intensified after the debate, but he stubbornly resisted for two weeks until the strange few days between the July 13 assassination attempt and whatever it was that sent him suddenly back to Rehoboth the following Wednesday.

Was it an "undisclosed medical emergency"? It's hard to believe it was just COVID. It's also hard to ignore the juxtaposition of whatever it was so soon after the Butler assassination attempt. Joe had clearly been under a great deal of stress at least from his trips to Europe in early June; the mere fact of the assassination attempt and the almost immediate surge of enthusiasm for Trump, whether reflected in the polls or not, may well have triggered some type of health event for Joe.

Whatever happened, it's hard not to take the assassination attempt as the efficient cause that led to whatever it was, medically or in the schemes of Pelosi and Obama, that broke Joe's stubborn insistence on becoming the 2024 nominee. It's also hard to explain otherwise the strange war that broke out last week over the assassination narrative: was Trump hit by a bullet, or maybe just a piece of flying glass from a shattered teleprompter? The clear subtext was the need to minimize what happened in Butler, because clearly it was very, very important -- the subliminal effect of the photos in the immediate wake of the event is too powerful.

The first major battle in the war, following the initial skirmishes of media speculation that it wasn't a bullet, or it wasn't a wound at all, the bandage was fake, was the testimony of Secret Service Director Cheatle in front of the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday. Cheatle effectively refused to answer any questions, deferring to some sort of final report that would be completed 60 days hence.

There have been bipartisan calls in Congress for Cheatle’s resignation and a push by Republican lawmakers to impeach her. Lawmakers were particularly incensed after her appearance in front of the House Oversight Committee on Monday, where she was unwilling to answer many of the committee’s questions.

During her House Oversight appearance, Cheatle acknowledged that there were “significant” and “colossal” problems with the security at the rally, but still rebuffed demands for her resignation.

“I think I am the best person to lead the Secret Service at this time,” Cheatle said Monday.

House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters that the resignation is “overdue.”

The following day, despite her insistence that she wouldn't resign, and despite words of support from both Joe and Secretary Mayorkas, resign she did. Like the question of who phoned Joe and told him it was over, we know nothing of who phoned the Director and said what, and we may never learn anything more, except that someone must have decided that Kim Cheatle was not a hill to die on.

Something similar happened to FBI Director Wray later in the week:

Friday, during an appearance on Fox News Channel, Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), also a former White House physician, blasted FBI Director Christopher Wray, who appeared on Capitol Hill a day earlier and called into question whether a bullet actually hit former President Donald Trump during an assassination attempt earlier this month.

Jackson called Wray’s effort “politically motivated” and suggested that Wray and other elements of the so-called D.C. establishment felt threatened by what was happening in American politics at the time.

. . . "I think that the establishment in general, in D.C., the D.C. establishment, and I will include the FBI director in that category, I think that they are completely threatened by what’s going on right now. You know, President Trump is an American icon and he is so to a lot of people that didn’t consider him that before this happened.”

On this, I think Dr Jackson is completely correct, and somehow, the FBI as an organization mysteriousy but officially backtracked on its Director's assertion the following day:

FBI statement:

“What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject’s rifle.”

— Jacqui Heinrich (@JacquiHeinrich) July 26, 2024

It's plain that the organs of state security felt threatened by the subliminal effect of the Trump assassination attempt and did whatever they could, with the assistance of legacy media, to deflect the narrative. And they lost that particular war. But the whole war was fought over an issue that, as the link in yesterday's post indicated, caused barely a blip in the polls. But Trump himself is fully aware of how the narrative shapes his message:

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Saturday said he will continue to hold outdoor rallies just two weeks after a bullet grazed his ear during an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania.

In a post on his social media platform Truth Social, the former president said:

"I WILL CONTINUE TO DO OUTDOOR RALLIES, AND SECRET SERVICE HAS AGREED TO SUBSTANTIALLY STEP UP THEIR OPERATION. THEY ARE VERY CAPABLE OF DOING SO. NO ONE CAN EVER BE ALLOWED TO STOP OR IMPEDE FREE SPEECH OR GATHERING!!!"

Beyond that,

In a post on the social media platform Truth Social, Trump said on Friday that he is coming back to Butler County for a rally to honor Corey Comperatore, who was shot and killed during his July 13 rally in Butler Township on the Butler Farm Show grounds, and the two men who were injured. Trump did not say the date or location of the rally, only stating, "Stay tuned for details."

A gutsy guy. He underatands the enormous power of the authentic non-verbal image. The polls are missing this. Of course, that's what the polls are set up to do. Hey, they're scientific!

Why Is So Much Happening, When The Polls Are So Stable?

An uncharacteristically insightful piece at Hot Air this morning leads in passing to an intriguing question:

First, Biden didn't really crater all that much from the debate. On June 27, the day of the debate, Biden's RCP average was 45.1, and it bottomed out on July 3 at 43.6. By the time Biden withdrew, though, he'd recovered most of that lost ground to have an RCP average of 44.8. Trump went from 46.6 on June 27 to 47.9 on July 21, but much of that gain came after the assassination attempt and then the GOP convention.

Second: Harris only negligibly improves on Biden, even in the honeymoon week. On June 27, before the debate, Biden was 1.3 points behind Trump in the RCP average. Trump had a 3.1-point lead on Sunday, when Biden withdrew. Now, at the end of what should be the friendliest news cycle Harris will ever get, Trump still leads by 1.7 points -- slightly better than his lead when the debate aired.

The writer thinks this is about Kamala, but I think the bigger question is the stability of the polls, not just since the debate, but since last fall. The fact is that statistical chatter has put Trump ahead in the meaningless Real Clear Politics national "average" between 1 and 3 points for the better part of a year. The June 27 debate didn't change the polls, and Joe dropping out of the race in favor of Kamala didn't change them, either.

Nevertheless, the story, at least for now, seems to be that the Lizard People decided that the June 27 debate was the factor that said it was time for Joe to go -- when, as I pointed out yestesrday, it was time for Joe to go at least a year ago, and the Lizard People missed it. Nevetheless, if the debate was what drove their decision over the past month, why did they discount the polls?

After all, right up to last Saturday night in Rehoboth when Joe is said to have met with his handlers who finally told told him it was over, Joe was insisting that the polls were stable in a margin-of-error race, and he was in fact correct. One answer might be that the RCP national "average" is in fact meaningless, but Trump was ahead in enough of the battleground states to put the race out of reach -- but even there, even if Joe consistently trailed Trump in each of them, it was often by margin-of-error amounts.

And in fact, respectable opinion had been stable since late last year that the race was a tossup. What put the Lizard People into such a panic after the debate? I think there are several explanations. One is almost certainly that the Lizard People don't take the polls seriously, especially the RCP "average". The polls underestimated Trump in the 2016 and 2020 elections by around 3 points, so a 1-point margin for Trump in the polls is actually 4 points on election day.

The second issue isn't the movement in the national "average", but the increase in the actual number of battleground states. This is a trend that had begun before the debate. The week before, RCP expanded its list of of battlegrounds to include Virginia, Minnesota, and New Hampshire, and by the end of last week, Trump was leading in Virginia and behind by roughly 3 points in the other two, which allowing for poll bias against Trump was worrisome.

But now we have a puzzle: even though the polls have been stable since Kamala replaced Joe, and we night expect them to continue his way in the new battlegrounds as well, RCP has removed the new battlegrounds from its list and reverted to the old standbys of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia. I noted on June 16,

It seems to me that the "close election" paradigm hinging on the "battleground" states of 2016 and 2020 is beginning to fail. As of right now, it seems likely that Joe can at best carry only two or three of those "battlegrounds", which makes his chances of a narrow Electoral College victory slimmer and slimmer. But with polling data coming in that Minnesota and Virginia are already in play, this puts a potential wider Trump Electoral College victory within the realm of possibility, which renders the whole "battleground" model inoperative.

But this was never reflected in the RCP "average", which was still unchanged even when the Lizard People realized it was time to dump Joe. So there must be another factor, which I think is the fallacy behind the Hot Air piece at the top link. A bigger factor driving the Lizard People's decision, I think, was the failed assassination attempt in Butler on July 13. Back in June, before Butler, I mused on the subliminatl effect of two other unsuccessful assassinations:

Many years ago, I read someone suggesting that Gerald Ford lost the 1976 election simply because he was the subject of failed assassination attempts by two women ( Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme in Sacramento September 5, 1975; and Sara Jane Moore in San Francisco on September 22, 1975).

Of all the other possible reasons for Ford's loss -- especially his pardon of Nixon -- this one immediately struck me as most persuasive. On one hand, that the attempts would be unsuccessful goes to the stereotype of the incompetent woman. On the other, that bumbling women would target Ford canceled his standing as an alpha male.

So the attempts against Ford somehow reinforced a subliminal context that Ford himself was bumbling and feckless. The attempt against Trump, on the other hand, was deadly, well-planned, and certain, enabled by the weaponized incompetence of a deep state agency. That this wasn't just a bumbling attempt like those against Ford was demonstrated by the death and wounding of bystanders. A credible explanation for Trump's near-brush with a Lee Harvey Oswald-style assassination was the intervention of the Almighty, not the incompetence of the assassin.

The powerful subliminal effect of this image was something Trump immediately and instinctively grasped after the shooting when he stood, pumped his fist, and uttered exclamations that might have been "Fight!" or maybe another F-word. This, I think, was the image the Lizard People grasped when, a week later, they finally impressed on Joe that it was time to go. It had nothing to do with the polls, or even the debate. It had everything to do with Trump's astonishing political instincts, which he'd been demonstrating repeatedly since last fall.

I'll have more to say about the subliminal aspect of the campaign.

How Did The Lizard People Get Themselves Into This Pickle?

Frank Miele, the retired editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell, MT, has become a regular at Real Clear Politics, which is an indication that whatever he writes is likely to be as cautiously conventional as you're likely to find. His piece today is Who Engineered the Political Coup Against Biden? The title suggests he's going to veer into the sort of Ferdinand Lundberg territory that I favor, the populist notion that a cabal of wealthy families controls US politics and media, but since this is RCP, there's no way that's going to happen.

And it didn't. He raises a potentially interesting point:

[Joe] had the delegates, and he had the nomination unless he willingly surrendered it. But something happened. About the same time Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt and raised his fist in defiance, Democrats seemed to have concluded that Biden could not win in November.

. . . [S]omeone needs to tell the truth about the 10 days that shook the nation, from the moment Trump took a would-be assassin’s bullet on July 13 to the afternoon Biden inexplicably dropped his reelection bid and Kamala Harris was coronated.

Yeah, OK, can we learn the gist of the phone calls among Laurene Powell Jobs, Alex Soros, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama when they decided Joe finally had to go? But Frank Miele being Frank Miele, this isn't what he wants to learn:

And the first question that needs to be answered, and which no one in the mainstream media is asking, is “Who convinced Joe Biden that debating Trump on June 27, nearly two months before the Democratic convention, was a good idea?”

But let's face it, that was just one blunder among maybe half a dozen big blunders that had Joe consistently behind in the polls since last fall. For instance, setting the June 27 debate was an efficient cause of the coup, but it wasn't a material cause, which lies in the bigger question of how Joe came to be surrounded by incompetent handlers, who variously brought about the failed "lawfare" strategy or prevented a 2024 Democrat primary process. If the June 27 debate didn't happen to cause Joe's candidacy to collapse, some other event would have. This is the point Miele misses, and he then proceeds to waste everyone's time for the rest of his essay.

The material cause of the coup, as far as I can see, was a Democrat strategy that began in 2016, which has been outlined by leaks from Biden family sources in recent days; viz, in 2016, Obama, presumably with the support of Laurene Powell Jobs, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, and others, who for convenience I'll identify as the Lizard People, determined that Hillary Clinton was a better presidential candidate than Joe Biden, and they apparently prevailed on Joe not to run. Trump's victory in that election was a complete surprise.

By 2020, their goal was to beat Trump. The leading candidate in the primaries that year was Bernie Sanders, whom the Lizard People determined could not win against Trump. But once Joe won South Carolina by promising Rep James Clyburn that he would choose an African-American woman as his running mate, the Lizard People grudgingly got behind Joe as the only credible alternative to Sanders. And Joe, helped considerably by his handlers and the media who were able to sustain a basement campaign that minimized his incapacity, beat Trump, but at the cost of making Kamala his vice president.

The leaks from the Biden family suggest that Joe's support from the Lizard People was never wholehearted, and in fact, they were insufficiently grateful to Joe for beating Trump in 2020. Part of the Lizard People's ambivalence may stem from an initial expectation that Joe wouldn't run for re-election in 2024. This may have been closer to the material, rather than the efficient, cause for their coup over the past week -- this was a job they always knew needed doing, and they should have attended to it a year ago.

In fact, if they'd dissuaded Joe from running last year, there would never have been the "lawfare" blunders that resuscitated Trump's career, and quite possibly someone like Lynne Cheney or Mitt Romney would have secured the Republican nomination and lost to -- well, whom? Probably a young, attractive white guy Democrat, a Beto O'Rourke, a Pete Buttigieg, or even a Mark Kelly.

This in fact brings us to what the Biden family version suggests is now Obama's preferred nominee, or was until he finally endorsed Kamala yesterday, Mark Kelly, although Kelly is 60 and looks it. The problem is that Kelly, unlike Kamala, has never even tried to fun for president, and once Joe announced he was running for re-election, Kelly didn 't have the option in 2024. For the Lizard People to insert him into the line of succession at this point, having never even tried to run for national office, is just a little too contrived.

And we're back to the dilemma of 2020: the Lizard People knew Sanders wouldn't win against Trump. and now they've been forced to accept a 2024 DEI candidate whose policy positions are to the left of Sanders. If Kelly runs for vice president with Kamala on the ticket, he's ending his political career even if he stays in the Senate after the election. They might prevail on him to take a bullet for the party, but Kamala's still going to lose -- the implicit reason for taking Joe off the ticket was to save the down ballot Democrats, but the presidency is already lost.

So as far as I can tell, the Lizard People were asleep at the switch while their media arm continued to cover for Joe's increasing disability over the past several years, until it became too late to do anything about it. Even if Joe's handlers hadn't scheduled the June 27 debate, it was plain that Joe wasn't in a condition to conduct a re-election campaign, and if it wasn't a bad debate, it would have been something else. We still don't really know what led Joe's handlers to rush him back to Delaware from Las Vegas last week, for example.

It may well be that Joe did outsmart the Lizard People by choosing Kamala in 2020; she was in fact his insurance policy. He fell just a few months short of getting away with it. But why did the Lizard People let this happen when they had three years to deal with it? That's the question about which RCP continues to be deliberately obtuse.

The Obama Leakers Are Back

Per the new York Post,

Former President Barack Obama hasn’t endorsed Kamala Harris’ presidential bid because he doesn’t think she can beat Donald Trump, according to a source close to the Biden family.

Following President Biden’s shocking exit from the race on Sunday, and his immediate endorsement of the vice president, most of the Democratic elite have been quick to rally behind Harris — but Obama is a notable exception.

“Obama’s very upset because he knows she can’t win,” the Biden family source told The Post.

But notice this comes from "a source close to the Biden family", when previous leaks from the Obama camp have come in the form of attributed attacks from David Axelrod and George Clooney that had Obama's tacit approval. The Biden family is leaking this now, because Joe seems still to believe he could have pulled out the November election, while Kamala can't. The story continhues,

“Wait until the debate . . . She can’t debate. She’s going to put her foot in her mouth about Israel, Palestine, Ukraine. She’s going to say something really stupid,” the source said.

. . . According to the source, Obama’s hope was to get Biden out of the way, and an op-ed written by George Clooney in the New York Times asking him to step aside was a part of that plan.

However, the higher-ups in the Democratic Party didn’t count on Biden endorsing Harris right away and “Obama was shocked” when the president endorsed her, according to the insider.

After Biden’s ouster, Obama — who did not return a request for comment Wednesday — wanted Arizona Sen. and former astronaut Mark Kelly “at the top of the ticket” when the Democratic National Convention is held next month, the source said.

Obama is “furious” that things haven’t gone his way, “which is why he is not joining in the Democratic Party’s support of Harris,” the Biden source added.

So in this reading, Joe's final revenge is to thwart the Democrats' plan to swap him out for a younger white guy who might have won, when now they're stuck with Kamala. The Biden camp may have a point, but this isn't the conventional wisdom -- for that, we go to one of the paradigmatic dullards of our time, Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics:

[I]rrespective of [Harris's] abilities as a politician, the 2024 presidential race has probably returned to a toss-up. Perhaps Trump has an edge, but it is not an overwhelming one.

. . . Even if Harris has limitations on the stump, this isn’t your typical campaign. There are roughly 100 days until Election Day, and about five weeks until early voting starts. Her public appearances are likely limited until the convention, which will be well-scripted. Presumably, she’ll deliver a well-received acceptance speech in Chicago. From there, she heads into a post-convention tour, basking in what both sides assume will be with doting media coverage.

. . . Democrats were understandably concerned that Biden wouldn’t be able to stay out of his own way while pressing the case against Trump. Instead, his rallies, press conferences, and interviews would inevitably focus on his gaffes, misstatements, and memory lapses. In short, Biden’s debate performance transformed the election irrevocably into a pure referendum on his presidency. Presumably, Harris will be more effective at focusing undecided voters’ minds on Trump’s shortcomings and creating more of a choice narrative.

. . . What’s changed is that Harris has an upside that post-debate Biden no longer possessed. This was a close race, even with a diminished Biden running, and it will likely finish up even closer.

Harris's "upside" is that she isn't 81, but that's about it, even in Trende's calculation. Yes, if Harris is able to stay in a bubble and avoid unscripted encounters with the press, she might be able to turn the race into a tossup, but that was the hope all along with Biden, and even he had to face problems with inappropriate behavior, with the press nevertheless kept many yards away. But Kamala has exactly Joe's same problem with gaffes, misstatements, and memory lapses -- she's a poor study; by accounts, she resists staff briefing, and she's a poor public speaker.

The YouTube psychologist Dr Todd Grande, who has posted at various times on many political figures, gives some insight into Kamala's pattern of speech in a recent post:

At 3:47, he starts,

A major concern with Kamala Harris, at least for those who value clear communication, is her tendency to use "word salad". Over the years, she has made many statements that are nonsensical, disjointed, and incoherent. Her opponents have latched onto these statements as evidence that Kamala is disrespectful, disorganized, and lazy. Her supporters have argued that Kamala's critics are simply functioning as the grammar police. Let's take a look at 12 examples of "word salad" statements made by Kamala Harris.

When talking about COVID, Kamala said, "it is time for us to do what we have been doing, and that time is every day." In a talk about banking, she stated, "We invested an additional $12 billion into community banks, because we know community banks are in the community and understand the needs and desires of that community, as well as the talent and capacity of community." On another occasion, Kamala mentioned the word "community" when she said, "When we talk about the children of the community, they are the children of the community."

When referring to a Supreme Court decision, Kamala said, "I think of this moment as a moment that is great momentum." Offering words of wisdom about high speed internet, she stated, "The governor and I, we were all doing a tour of the library here and talking about the significance of the passage of time, right, the significance of the passage of time, so when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time in terms of what we need to do to lay these wires, what we need to do to create these jobs, and there is such great significance to the passage of time when we think about a day in the life of our children."

. . . A few patterns are evident in the speaking style of Kamala Harris. She appears to have a fascination with the words "time", "moment", "community", "work", and "together"; she rarely answers the original question or makes any type of point. Kamala is frequently repetitive, but delivers her speeches as if she is saying something profound. Maybe she believes that by being the vice president, anything that she says is automatically amazing -- people should be dazzled by her statements, like there is no actual work necessary.

Other politicians throughout history who have delivered memorable quotes must have done so simply because they were politicians. Kamala doesn't understand how thought leads to coherent statements. Thinking is actually important and, one could argue, necessary. Even though many of her statements are nonsensical, simplistic, and confusing, Kamala has never apologized. She appears to have a lack of insight.

. . . The problem with Kamala's speaking style is significant. It's not like her critics are pointing out something common, like dysfluencies or occasinally losing a train of thought. Kamala is speaking in circles and then expecting people to understand what she is saying.

In other words, Kamala lacks insight, but she thinks she's entitled to the job despite glaring defects in her public performance, which means we're simply back to Joe, who still lacks insight and still feels he should have had the job despite glaring defects in his public performance. But his assessment of Kamala is correct: she's going to have to do interviews sooner rather than later, and she's ultimately going to have to debate.