This site requires Javascript to function properly - please enable Javascript in your browser

Why I'm Voting for Kamala Harris - by Charlie Sykes

John Russell » Groups » NEWSMucks » Discussions » Why I'm Voting for Kamala Harris - by Charlie Sykes

Via: John Russell • one week ago • 7 comments

By: Charlie Sykes

A swing state endorsement

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

S E E D E D C O N T E N T

A swing state endorsement

Charlie SykesOct 11, 2024

There are 25 days until Election Day. Happy Friday.

I doubt this will come as a surprise to anyone who has followed me over the last few years, read anything I've written, or seen or heard any of my commentary. But I thought I'd explain things to our local media in the swing state of Wisconsin — especially for those folks who remember when I was very much on the other side of the political divide.

So, yesterday, I sat down with some local media, starting with this interview with my old station, WTMJ-TV4 in Milwaukee: "Why former conservative radio host Charlie Sykes is voting for VP Kamala Harris (tmj4.com)"

He was the voice of conservative radio in Milwaukee for nearly 25 years. But these days, Charlie Sykes spends his time as a fierce critic of Donald Trump.

Now, he's taking it a step further by voting for Vice President Kamala Harris.

TMJ4's Chief Political Reporter Charles Benson asked Sykes why during an exclusive interview.

Sykes was required listening on the radio for Republicans, as he often annoyed Democrats with his cutting commentary on the state of Wisconsin politics.

But now, it's Republicans—specifically former President Donald Trump—on the receiving end of his take on this year's presidential race.

"I don't think this is a normal election, so I'm doing something that I have to admit would have been a big surprise to me—even a few years ago," Sykes said. "But Donald Trump cannot be allowed back in the White House, and the only way to prevent that from happening is to support Kamala Harris."

(You can watch the full interview here.)

Sykes has been a Never Trumper since 2016, when he angered some of his listeners with his tense on-air clash with then-candidate Donald Trump during the April Wisconsin primary.
Trump sent Sykes a personal message attached to a New York Times article, hoping the radio host would change his mind.

Sykes says his conservative principles or beliefs haven't changed, but he thinks the Republican Party has under Trump. He admits to being skeptical of Harris and Democratic policies.

"This is not about whether I agree on tax policy or agree on student loan debt, which I don't," Sykes said. "It's about whether we are going to have fidelity to democratic norms. It's whether or not you are going to be a decent person or someone who is going to tear apart the fabric of this country."
Sykes joins a list of Republicans who are not voting for Trump.1 He was with longtime Republican Liz Cheney—an outspoken critic of Trump's for the January 6 Capitol riot—when she endorsed Kamala Harris at a campaign event in Ripon.

Via Mediaite, here's some of our exchange:

Sykes also had a message for people like Paul Ryan who want to write in someone else:

CHARLES BENSON: So why vote for her and not maybe take the Paul Ryan route, vote for somebody else that you would want as a conservative?

CHARLIE SYKES: Well, I mean, let's stick with that because it is an extraordinary moment where so many of the people who work closely with Donald Trump are saying we're not going to support him.

Now, they may not be endorsing Kamala Harris, but his vice president, Mike Pence, the former speaker, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, the nominee of the of the Republican Party, all saying we do not think that this man is fit for office.

But they haven't crossed over to vote for the Democrat. And I understand that because there's a lot of partisan muscle memory. And I understand that for a lot of Republicans and conservatives, pulling that lever is a very, very difficult choice.

But ultimately, it's either going to be him or it's going to be her. And if you regard Donald Trump as an existential threat to our constitutional Republican values, then I don't think that there's any choice.

It might feel good, might feel warm and fuzzy to write in George Washington, but George Washington's not on the ballot this time.

CHARLES BENSON: What'd you do in 2020?

CHARLIE SYKES: I did vote for Joe Biden. … But again, that wasn't an endorsement of all of his policies. I said I expect to disagree with him on a lot of things.

But ultimately, this is not about whether I agree on tax policy, or he will agree on student loan debt, which I don't. It's about whether you're going to have fidelity to democratic norms. It's whether or not you're going to be a decent person or someone who's going to tear apart the fabric of this country.

CHARLES BENSON: Well, what would you say? I mean, I was just at one of his rallies and he often brings up, you know, people may not like him personally or concern about style versus the substance. You know, you're going to hear it from your conservative friends.

Charlie? Charlie, what's wrong? You know, are you missing the bigger picture here by sticking to one issue, which is important but without seeing the bigger picture?
CHARLIE SYKES: This is the bigger picture. It is a bigger picture when you have somebody kowtowing to dictators fawning on Vladimir Putin, willing to abandon our allies and NATO. I mean, I remember when America was the shining city on the hill where the rest of the world looked to us for democratic values to shred those democratic values. That's the big picture. What is America? Who are we? What do we stand for?

BONUS: The highlight of my day:

The Wisconsin Trump campaign sent the following statement in reaction to the news that Sykes would vote for Harris:
"If a so-called 'conservative' - who also happens to be a rabidly anti-Trump MSNBC talking head - is advocating for another four years of unfettered illegal immigration and rising prices under Kamala Harris, he's neither conservative nor worth listening to." - WI Team Trump Communications Director Jacob Fischer.

Will any of this make a difference? Who knows.

Over at the Dispatch, Nick Catoggio writes: "My easiest Eeyorish prediction for November is that the 'Republicans for Harris' vote will turn out to be an enormous bust. The right has spent nine years being conditioned to believe that loyalty to the tribe isn't just the supreme civic virtue; it's the only civic virtue. That conditioning will pay off."

But…

He also points out these intriguing poll numbers: The latest New York Times poll found that Harris "has begun making inroads among Republicans: 9 percent said they planned to support her, up slightly from 5 percent last month."

A new poll for The Bulwark also finds that more than a third of Republican and independent voters who backed Nikki Haley in the primaries could also end up voting for Harris next month.

And, right here in Wisconsin, where the race is essentially tied, the latest Marquette Law School poll found a small, but potentially decisive group of undecided voters. Who are they?

They are mostly moderate Republicans and independents, according to Marquette's polling, since Democrats have almost entirely consolidated behind Vice President Kamala Harris.

"It's the double-haters and the conflicted partisans," said Marquette pollster Charles Franklin, using two overlapping terms describing most undecided voters in his polling.
The conflicted partisans are mostly Republican voters who have big personal qualms about Trump.

Thus, the importance of Liz Cheney's visit to Ripon, Wisconsin last week and the Harris campaign's aggressive outreach to Never Trump Republicans (which is very different from the approach of the Biden campaign four years ago.)

Speaking of Wisconsin…

The polls are definitely tightening here. So, what's happening?

This is what I heard from a very smart Democrat on the ground here: There is, he said, "real movement across multiple polls with different methodologies, in both Baldwin-Hovde and Harris-Trump in Wisconsin."

"Election feels very tight. Impossible to say if polling error goes in one direction or the other this year but right now the numbers say it's a toss-up here."

Why does he think the numbers are moving? He suggested that it might be the result of "the flood of scorched-earth ads."

You might say "that was always going to happen"—which, is fair, but the truth is that Dems have had a major advantage on the airwaves in WI in the 2020 presidential, 2022 Gov, and 2023 Supreme Court (not always more money, but more ads—because we've spent more efficiently).
At this point, this year, in the presidential and Senate race, the ad traffic is roughly even. Which is more like the Senate race in 2022…. And the ads are a lot like the ones against [Mandela] Barnes {who lost to Ron Johnson], led (again) by LaCivita. If I had to name one factor that made it this close, that would be it.

Are the lies and lunacy… working?

I wanted to flag this (alarming!) analysis by Dem pollster Stan Greenberg:

"Trump shifted the momentum in the race when he began his outrageous, slanderous, and racist statements about Haitian immigrants. He has also made immigrants the cause of high rents and food prices and spread the false rumor that FEMA ran out of funds for North Carolina hurricane victims."

"It was very effective and is still shaping the race."
"Trump's daily blows pushed up Republican enthusiasm ahead of Democrats and shifted white working-class and Hispanic voters. They shifted votes toward Trump in North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada. And critically, they dropped Harris's margin in Pennsylvania from near 2 percent to a half percent. Polls in Pennsylvania and nationally show her support trending down."

FFS.

As Joe Klein notes in his excellent Substack newsletter: "This is depressing and terrifying." And it speaks to the mindset of our fellow Americans in a less than flattering way.

I am boggled by the idiot credulity of my fellow citizens, but then democracy always was a close-run thing and the founders never imagined the radically untrammeled democracy we have now; indeed, Madison feared it. They chose a representative republic—if we could keep it—with limitations on who could vote: property owners, men, white people. We have bent the arc of freedom toward a more just democracy since then—but I wouldn't be upset if you had to pass a certified national civics test (once) in order to vote.
Certainly, the failure of a near-majority of our electorate to know a charlatan showboat hater when they see one—or worse, to like Trump's viciousness—speaks to a certain moral retardation among the people. The least incredible, but still ridiculous, rationale for people to vote for Trump is that they've "seen" him run "his business" decisively on The Apprentice, but that was just make-believe. Given the lax, waning state of American education, this shouldn't be all that surprising.

If anything, it's getting worse:

Marjorie Taylor Greene doubles down on weather control conspiracy theory despite experts rubbishing 'hurricane modification' | The Independent
The MAGA Maniacs Are Going All In on Deranged Hurricane Conspiracies | The Nation
Russia shares AI images of Hurricane Milton as disinformation abounds in US | Hurricane Milton | The Guardian

So, today's must-read: Charlie Warzel, in The Atlantic: "I'm Running Out of Ways to Explain How Bad This Is."

The truth is, it's getting harder to describe the extent to which a meaningful percentage of Americans have dissociated from reality. As Hurricane Milton churned across the Gulf of Mexico last night, I saw an onslaught of outright conspiracy theorizing and utter nonsense racking up millions of views across the internet.
The posts would be laughable if they weren't taken by many people as gospel. Among them: Infowars' Alex Jones, who claimed that Hurricanes Milton and Helene were "weather weapons" unleashed on the East Coast by the U.S. government, and "truth seeker" accounts on X that posted photos of condensation trails in the sky to baselessly allege that the government was "spraying Florida ahead of Hurricane Milton" in order to ensure maximum rainfall, "just like they did over Asheville!"

In a press release, the Harris-Walz campaign wrote: "Sykes' endorsement also builds on the historic momentum behind the campaign's Republicans for Harris-Walz outreach efforts across the county, with recent endorsements from more than 100 Republican former national security officials; 300 Reagan, Bush, Romney, and McCain alumni; a dozen former Reagan aides; several former Nikki Haley campaign staffers; a dozen White House lawyers who served under Republican presidents; former Vice President Dick Cheney; former Arizona Senator Jeff Flake; former Kansas Senator Nancy Kassebaum; former U.S. Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales; son of the late Senator John McCain, Jim McCain; retired 4-Star General Larry Ellis; former Trump administration officials Olivia Troye, Cassidy Hutchinson, Stephanie Grisham, and Anthony Scaramucci; former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger; former Republican Georgia Lieutenant Governor Geoff Duncan; and more.