Behind the Curtain: Democrats fear they're blowing it
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
www.axios.com /2024/10/25/election-democrats-trump-harris-lose
Behind the Curtain: Democrats fear they're blowing it
Mike Allen,Jim VandeHei 6-7 minutes 10/25/2024
Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios
A growing number of top Democrats tell us privately they feel Vice President Harris will lose — even though polls show a coin-toss finish 11 days from now.
Why it matters: Democrats admit they tend to be hand-wringing, bed-wetting , doomsdayers. But what's striking is how our private conversations with Democrats inside and outside her campaign reveal broad concern that little she does, says — or tries — seems to move the needle.
This is after Democrats spent $1 billion — nearly twice as much as Republicans — over the past three months to polish her image and soil former President Trump's. Trump and allied committees raised about half Harris' total, $92 million, from Oct. 1 to 16, the N.Y. Times reports this morning ( gift link ).
- And this is after Trump's cringy 40-minute onstage sway to '80s music, his threats to target "enemies within," calling his opponent "retarded" and "sh*t" — and having his former White House chief of staff say he's fascist and talked admiringly of Hitler. (A new Harris ad uses audio from the New York Times interview with the former aide, retired U.S. Marine Gen. John Kelly).
Between the lines: We're not saying Harris is losing or will lose. An earlier "Behind the Curtain" column spelled out why this is toss-up America .
- Our reporting simply reflects scores of conversations with people close to Harris and intimately involved in swing-state races, including officials inside her campaign and top Biden administration officials.
- Harris' rhetorical journey has mirrored Democratic moods — from "joy" over the summer to darkness this week, when she painted Trump as a dangerous fascist .
What we're hearing: In a troubling sign for the campaign, top Democrats are already starting to point fingers at who'd be more responsible for a Harris loss — President Biden for dragging his feet, or Harris herself. "Going down?" a top Democratic official texted.
- Democrats fear she has made too many different cases against Trump, and still hasn't fully revealed herself to voters, who crave to know more.
- "She is who she is," one longtime Democratic strategist said. "Let's hope it's enough."
Democrats say Harris faces a maddening double standard, as Trump threatens to jail adversaries and strip broadcast licenses . "He gets to be lawless. She has to be flawless," CNN senior political commentator Van Jones said this week .
- Harris' closing ads focus on Trump as the three uns: "unhinged, unstable and unchecked." (Watch the ad, " Total Power .")
The other side: Trump's closing ad campaign has been tightly focused on two clips: an ad focused on transgender rights ( "Kamala's agenda is they/them, not you"), and Harris' own words on "The View" that " not a thing " comes to mind about how she'd differ from Biden. (She has since said she'd bring a "new generation of leadership.")
- Stunning stat: The Trump campaign alone has spent more than $30 million on trans - focused ads (including one in Spanish ) in the past 36 days, according to AdImpact data.
Top Republicans, in private conversations, seem shockingly confident, given the consistent 50-50 polls. They talk in granular detail about White House jobs, and discuss policy playbooks for '25.
- Reflecting the bravado, Dan Scavino, Trump's longtime close aide and ghost tweeter , refers to the 45th president as " 45–47 ," and wrote last week on Trump's Truth Social Platform: "I have ZERO interest in working with anyone who is a former colleague that disappeared upon our departure from the White House—and was no where to be found when DJT announced his candidacy on 11/15/22, or was silent throughout 2023. STOP CALLING. STOP EMAILING. STOP TEXTING——YOU'RE NOT HEARING BACK FROM ME."
The big picture: A common gripe among high-level Dems is that Harris does a nice job explaining why people shouldn't vote for Trump — but struggles to crisply explain why they should vote for her. In other words, she's a strong prosecutor — but struggles as a public defender.
- Democratic insiders loved a line Harris used in the CNN town hall on Wednesday night, and sharpened Thursday nigh t outside Atlanta in Clarkston, Georgia: "Just imagine the Oval Office in three months. ... It's either Donald Trump in there stewing — stewing! — over his enemies list, or me, working for you, checking off my to-do list." The campaign even socialized a 15-point "Kamala Harris' to-do list."
- "Better late than never," a top Democrat told us. Another leading Democrat said: "It's good. We're not dead yet."
Zoom in : Democrats once felt very good about Nevada, a state Biden won in 2020. But early voting has them panicked. Jon Ralston, the top Nevada election expert, writes that the surge in early rural Republican voting — a " rural tsunami " — is ominous for Harris: "There is no good news in these numbers for Dems."
- Pennsylvania continues to worry Harris, despite Biden winning there in 2020. Among the seven swing states , it's the one campaign insiders think she absolutely has to win, with signs of GOP momentum in the state's Senate race.
Reality check: Harris inherited a very tough hand. Establishing and executing a campaign for president starting just 3½ months before an election is unprecedented in modern politics.
- Besides Biden being unpopular, inflation has been the incumbent killer globally. Polls and election results in Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Japan and South Korea all show this anti-incumbent tide .
The bottom line: We can't ignore the reality that no matter what Harris says or does, this country has never elected a woman president and only once elected a Black president. It's never elected a Black woman. Toss in broad concerns about immigration and inflation, and it's a lot to overcome, her advisers say.
Tags
Who is online
380 visitors
What we have here is the mainstream media actively trying to get Trump elected.
Is the article largely inaccurate or should this info be suppressed?
The article is Trump friendly garbage. Dont you think there are Republicans who think Trump is going to lose , because he is the worlds biggest dick? Where is that story?
This article is a laundry list of , not only what is wrong with Harris, but also of why she is destined to lose.
Trump can say every insane thing under the sun and its just blown off. This is as plain as day.
Since when is the American president supposed to be a lunatic? I didnt learn that in social studies sixty or sixty five years ago.
But ain't that America for you and me
It's completely inaccurate fucking garbage.
"Why it matters: Democrats admit they tend to be hand-wringing, bed-wetting , doomsdayers. But what's striking is how our private conversations with Democrats inside and outside her campaign reveal broad concern that little she does, says — or tries — seems to move the needle."
What the fuck is this? Who wrote this garbage?
Mike Allen and Jim VandHei.
It's complete garbage. It's like it was written by a maga
More likely mainstream media showing fear of Trump retribution should he win.
They've all become spineless cowards for that fucking traitor.
The mainstream media has given voters a permission structure to vote for a traitor. It is absolutely disgraceful.
It is much worse than that. Trump is a vindictive, narcissistic loose-cannon. Trump's abysmal character and self-centered philosophy armed with the power of the presidency is dangerous. It is insane to vote for this scoundrel.
Democrats spent $1 billion — nearly twice as much as Republicans — over the past three months to polish her image and soil former President Trump's. Trump and allied committees raised about half Harris' total, $92 million, from Oct. 1 to 16
It's not that easy to buy an election, I guess. Of course, the flip side is how bad would Harris be doing without the advantage of billions of dollar in media in her favor? Maybe Harris is proof you can actually buy an election with a billion dollars.
Someone, in July, compared the Harris rollout to a media campaign for the newer Star Wars movies. Unfathomable amounts of money spent to tell people how great it is with a compliant media echoing the official line. And then it opens and has a 37% audience approval score. That's what the Harris campaign has ended up being, and it makes perfect sense why her handlers hid her for as long as they did. It was their best shot. Let the money and media create the image of a candidate who doesn't exist.
I would vote for you over Donald Trump. Thats how bad he is for this country.
Well, my policies of not destroying the Constitution, respecting the role of Congress, fiscal sanity, enforcing the nation's borders and equality under the law aren't for everyone.
They aren't for trump either.
You forgot to mention your "sly" support for an unAmerican mentally ill traitor.
We don't fear we're blowing it. It's like a maga cultist wrote it - projection to the extreme.
Its actually a mainstream media site that is supposed to be neutral. That is the tragic part.
I've been saying for years that bothsidesism would get Trump re-elected and it is happening right now.
It's still like a maga cultist wrote it.
Like one of the 'authors' here or one of their 'readers'
Gee, that's swell. What's happening down ballot? Harris hasn't helped down ballot Democrats. And Trump hasn't hurt down ballot Republicans.
Bottom line: The Republican Party has changed. The Democratic Party hasn't changed. The fact that Democrats have become dependent upon Republicans to fight Trump speaks volumes. Isn't it possible the 2024 election has become a referendum on the Democratic Party?
Yes, they select and back candidates that are mentally ill traitors.
Yes it has changed to the party of criminals and weirdos and perverts and freaks and rapists and scum spineless traitors themselves.
How do you define traitor? Do you want Kamala Harris to be a repeat of George W. Bush?
Democrats are sounding more and more like neocons and neoliberals from the Republican past. Is that what Democrats want?
The country has turned the page on the kind of Republicans that Democrats are embracing. That's why Donald Trump was elected. Democrats are heaping praise and adoration on John McCain, Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney. What does that say about the future of the Democratic Party?
1. Trump tried to overthrow the government process of transfer of power.
2. He refused to act to stop a riot at the nation's capitol. Its not that he didnt know about it, he was watching it on tv. He didnt try and act to stop it because he wanted it to succeed. You know that, just like everyone else knows that, but you dont care.
Calling him a traitor is the easiest and most accurate thing anyone can do today.
Donald Trump attempted to overthrow the government and prevent transfer of power by refusing to call out the military, refusing to declare martial law, refusing to act like a dictator. That's what you want the public to believe?
Donald Trump was going to remain in power by sitting in his dining room and watching a riot on TV and making disparaging comments. Is that right?
Donald Trump was supposed to stop a riot at the Capitol building by Tweeting, texting, and making an on-camera statement. Even Barack Obama didn't have that enormous amount of influence. You want the public to believe that Donald Trump has more influence than any Democrat? Really?
Donald Trump is a traitor to the Reagan legacy, neocon Republicans, and neoliberals in both parties. Rational people would consider that a good thing considering what has happened to the country. Do Democrats want another George W. Bush in the White House?
for christs sake, Trump claims he did request the National Guard be at the capitol but Pelosi resisted. Are you trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth as much as Trump does?
Now you are claiming that Nancy Pelosi is a bigger dictator than Donald Trump? If Pelosi resisted calling out the National Guard then why isn't she complicit in the conspiracy to overturn the election?
Keep in mind that Nancy Pelosi was responsible for Joe Biden abandoning his reelection campaign. So, it looks like Nancy Pelosi got what she wanted, in the end. Does Nancy Pelosi want another George W. Bush in the White House? Is Nancy Pelosi the autocrat the public should be worried about?
Actually I believe it was that Trump offered the National Guard but that offer was not accepted. And Pelosi herself has admitted that it was her failure.
Because Orangeman bad!
Trump wanted thousands of National Guard troops who would still be personally under his personal command to be there on January 6th specifically to support Trump's insurrection against Congress. So, of course, Nancy Pelosi wisely decline having Trump activate troops who would have been under Trump's own personal command January 6th, because Trump was still in command of the National Guard on January 6th, and not Nancy.Pelosi!
try getting your nose out of right wing lying media
Trump was authorized to at least attempt to deploy the National Guard after the riot started. He didnt do shit. Pelosi actually attempted to get help for the Capitol cops.
Right wing media is ruining peoples minds.
Why don't you include a link to where you are getting your information from. Pelosi talking in her car while being evacuated from the Capital does show her saying what I posted.
One can just as easily tell you to get your nose out of lying left-wing media & fact checkers. AllSides rates Politifact as Left Leaning.
PolitiFact Media Bias | AllSides
Simple questions.
Who is ultimately responsible for security at the Capital? ie, who is the top of that pyramid?
Did Trump offer National Guard troops to help with security before Jan 6th?
Pelosi "took responsibility" for not having the capitol police on better alert for such a massive demonstration (insurrection and riot). She has no control over the National Guard, but guess who does ?
You are being lied to.
Truthful and sums it all up in one word.
Sending the NG at the last minute without a coordinated, rehearsed plan would have been a mistake. the Washington DC NG has one MP Battalion, I don't know how long it would take to recall and equip them.
Not really.
That is up to the authorities to decide. Do you actually believe Trump considered all that when he decided to do nothing. He is not close to being smart enough to understand what you just said. He made no attempt to get help because he wanted the riot/insurrection to succeed. What is wrong with you people that cannot see that?
'Pelosi "took responsibility" for not having the capitol police on better alert for such a massive demonstration (insurrection and riot). She has no control over the National Guard, but guess who does ?'
And they believe the lying traitor over the proof/facts/truth provided countless times.
Also worth mentioning is that an arsenal of guns was being warehoused in a hotel by some of the militia attendees, with a plan to bring them in by boat if needed. Who knows what would have happened if tensions were further inflamed with the intervention of the NG. Maybe what did happen was the least damaging outcome. Who knows - but no matter what it was obvious that Trump was not interested in stopping anything. He was saying “take the mags down, they’re not here to hurt me.”
So this is all completely false?
Chairman Loudermilk Publishes Never-Before Released Anthony Ornato Transcribed Interview - Press Releases - United States Committee on House Administration
And if it's all false, then how did the mayor of DC get National Guard troops to help with traffic control?
I don't know what you think that I fail to see about 6 Jan.
There was only a 40 man QRF standing by at Andrews AFB.
If Trump really wanted Guardsmen standing between the Capital and the protestors, then he didn't know how to make that happen.
I initially stated that Trump offered NG before the 6th. The Loudermilk interview shows that the White House did talk with the Capital and did offer NG troops but they were not accepted. You appear to be talking about what was actually set up on the day. You appear to be confusing the two statements.
4.1.5
You appear to be confusing what MAY have occurred prior to Jan 6th with Trump's responsibility once the riot occurred.
Your argument would be like a police dept saying we're not going to respond to your home invasion right now because you didnt buy the alarm system we suggested to you last week.
So you answered one question. Yes, Pelosi has the responsibility for the failure by not having security better prepared.
But what about the second question? I know that Pelosi doesn't control the National Guard. The question was DID TRUMP OFFER NG TROOPS TO HELP WITH SECURITY AT THE CAPITAL?
Can you disagree that having NG troops ready to back up the Capital Police would have helped to better prepare security for the day?
Nope, you appear to be conflating the two.
That seems to indicate that the White House did attempt to get help to the Capital and the Pentagon was slow to act.
There is no record of any call from the White House to the department of Defense on Jan 6th. Besides that Trump has been specifically asked , at least three times , on national television, about his actions from the oval office during the riot. He has tried to change the subject, immediately, every time. He knows he's guilty.
Ornato would appear to be either a liar or someone who didnt know what was going on.
Trump gave no order and no one knows were the number, 10,000 troops came from.
A phone call on the 4th or 5th isn't planning an operation.
Correct, it was not a planning meeting. But it was an offer of assistance, was it not. Why would Trump call up NG on the 5th if no acceptance of them had been made?
More defense of Trump.
The reality:
This one is huge I believe. She is very strong out there telling people why they should not vote for Trump. But she really doesn't lay out why anyone should vote for her. Just saying Trump is bad does not answer why anyone should vote for her and she continues to avoid answering direct questions.
There's a very basic question that she has not answered. Why her?
You people seriously dont get it. She should not need "reasons" beyond keeping a traitor out of office. In political terms this country is completely fucked.
You see Trump on tv every day. Do you actually believe this person should be running our country?
The endless defense of the indefensible is so fucking tiresome.
At least it will be over hopefully one way or the other on November 5th
And you don't get it. Keeping someone out of office is a valid reason to not vote for that person. But it's not enough to explain why you should then vote for the other person. This seed is more about the "undecided" who don't know which way to vote and the fear from a pair of left-leaning journalists (who are self-admitted activists) that Harris has not done enough to actually win on her merits.
My ballot is already turned in and as I stated before I did not vote for him. Neither one of the two did enough to earn my vote. So give the entire "you people" thing a rest.
You can't provide a reason to vote for her other than to keep Trump out of the office. That's not a good enough reason for me. Like it or not, I really don't care. I'll sleep better at night knowing I voted based on my heart & my head rather than the puffery from some other activist spouting party lines.
You finally got to your point. You dont care if a traitor, lunatic , is in office. Not that readers here havent known that for a long time.
[✘]
Rather I choose not to blindly follow the party line being pushed by Democrats. How many Republican Presidential candidates have been labeled as 'fascist' by Democrats now? That number has grown rather large over the years yet not a single one has been proven to be an actual fascist.
No. I just choose to vote FOR a person rather than AGAINST a person. That's my belief. You don't like it, I really don't care. My vote is my choice.
We get it, you are fine supporting a traitor. I'm not going to sugarcoat it for you.
That would make sense if this was a choice between two normal candidates. It is not. Trump is replete with serious negatives. He should never be allowed access to political power. Your comment treats Trump as if he were a normal but undesirable candidate and glosses over the degree and volume of his negatives.
Arming an loose-cannon, vindictive, narcissistic wanna-be-king is dangerous.
You should care if you care about this nation.
Harris has promised to pack the Court, repeal the filibuster, attacks the first amendment, and supports all sorts of unconstitutional executive power grabs. The idea that she's "normal" is preposterous.
They dont care Tig.
Nor does our national media.
Trump is likely to win, and at that moment our country will be disgraced , likely forever.
I have seen multiple stories yesterday and today saying that if Harris loses it will be her fault and the Democrats fault.
Nothing about it being the Trump voters fault. It is fucking insane.
So many traitor supporters have said similar things - I don't give a fuck what he did, I don't give a fuck what he said. I don't care what he did. I don't care what he said.
Only thing they care about is 'fuck the libs/progressives/Dems'
She has not promised to pack the court, she has promoted getting rid of the filibuster (you got that right at least), she is not against the 1st amendment, and she does not support "all sorts of unconstitutional executive power grabs".
You are conflating Harris with Trump.
As is Harris. Neither one should be allowed to win. You want to carry on about how one is more dangerous than the other yet cannot offer evidence beyond your opinions. You continue to paint Jan 6th as an insurrection where Trump tried to overthrow the government yet it was such a shitty attempt that it failed completely. If Trump was that much of a bad actor then he surely could have planned better. Jan 6th is just a part of why I no longer support Trump and did not vote for him.
Is Harris any better with her desire to repeal the Senate filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, her unconstitutional promises made while campaigning? How is she deserving of the office? Just because she's not Trump is not good enough. As she has not given me any real reason why I should vote for her and I don't care for what promises she has made, I cannot support her and so did not vote for her.
I don't care to follow the crowd, other people should vote as their conscience tells them to. My decision was to not vote for either one of them and I am content with my decision. You don't like my decision, I don't fucking care. My decision is for myself only, I don't try to tell other people how they should think or vote.
As far as the like it or not I really don't care, that was aimed at the person I was responding to. ie, I don't care if someone likes my opinion or not, that's life. As far as caring about this nation, I took an oath 50-some-odd years ago and I still follow it. If needed I am still willing to pick up a weapon to defend it from all enemies foreign and domestic. But being talked down to by some armchair anonymous person on a public chat board does not rise to the level of concern.
And that says it all. You equate Harris' negatives with Trump. That is like equating shoplifting with an armed robbery.
That is a ridiculously obtuse comment. I have penned hundreds of comments on this site with links, videos, legal documents, etc. What a sickening situation to observe people just flat out lie like this and downplay all the negatives of Trump as merely one's opinion ... and to normalize Trump to be just another undesirable politician.
Harris does not plan to pack the SCotUS and your 'unconstitutional promises' claim is completely vague and almost certainly bullshit. Yes she wants to repeal the Senate filibuster rule. That is a perfectly reasonable thing for the Senate to do if it chooses to do so ... they decide on their own rules. Harris can only push it, she cannot order it. The Senate is in control here thus this is a total non issue.
Trump's gratuitous tariffs would impose crazy levels of taxation on imports (Trump has talked as high as 500%). Any tariff is a tax on an import, paid by the importer who then passes on the tax through the supply chain to ultimately be paid by the consumer. Do you understand this? Do you appreciate the economic consequences of this? Trade wars and higher prices. And you worry about the Senate filibuster.
Trump would pull out of support for Ukraine and allow Putin to secure his power grab. Not only does this further the spread of authoritarian rule in the world, but it destabilizes NATO given the USA has shown that it cannot be trusted. And you worry about the Senate filibuster.
Trump has shown that he is a vindictive narcissistic prick. Empowered with the presidency, he has stated (and certainly is capable) that he will use the power of the presidency to go after the "enemies within". And you worry about the Senate filibuster.
Trump had total disregard for the military. He will cast aside and attack anyone who does not kowtow to him. He always thinks he is the smartest guy in the room and demands total fealty. If elected he will surround himself with sycophants willing to do whatever he wants. This is classical authoritarian rule and the CotUS does not prevent the PotUS from doing this. Our CotUS depends on the PotUS being responsible. Trump armed with the relaxed legal liability of the SCotUS is dangerous for our nation and the world. And you worry about the Senate filibuster.
Your oath is utterly meaningless if you do not care that a traitor, a loose-cannon vindictive narcissist who will abuse the power of the presidency and the power of the US military to satisfy his personal desires and not treat the presidency as a duty to serve the nation and be a responsible partner to the good nations on the planet is elected PotUS.
To paraphrase
He lies
They know he is lying
We know he is lying
We know they know he is lying
They know we know they know he's lying
They continue to lie
Ridiculous when all the evidence offered by them is nothing but their opinions and the former 'president traitor's lies.
So fucking partisan it couldn't be any worse. What I equated was that Harris has serious negatives just like you stated Trump has. NOWHERE did I attempt to equate the level, that's all in your mind.
Again bullshit. You put shit out there and get all upset when people don't fall in line. You don't like it, too fucking bad. So many of your links are from biased sites and replete with opinion.
I said desire, not plan. Don't twist my words.
Seems pretty clear that Harris does support expanding SCOTUS.
The 'unconstitutional promise' is so easy to see. She has made a promise as part of her economy plan to offer forgivable loans to black men to start up new businesses. Setting up a federal program based on race is very much unconstitutional.
And please show me where I said that Harris wants to order the senate to repeal the filibuster rule? Again stop trying to twist words around.
The rest of your post is just bla bla, Trump will do bad things. Stop trying to predict the future. Better yet, stop replying to me.
If you dont think Trump did "bad" during his attempt to steal the election and on Jan 6th , there is no help for it. The disconnect from reality is a sad state of affairs.
The combined statement of: Trump is replete with serious negatives. As is Harris. equates the negatives of Trump with those of Harris. I am confident you know exactly what you wrote and that you do indeed see that your words suggest that Trump and Harris are equally bad for the nation. It is not in my mind, it is in your collective comment history. Denying it is pointless.
A distinction without a difference. Is that all you have ... nitpicking on a minor word while ignoring everything else I wrote? You have nothing.
A VP is going to be supportive of the PotUS. It would be unheard of for a VP to go against a PotUS' policy. There is nothing in Harris' plans (as PotUS) regarding packing the court. She has made no mention of this. But she has stated that, like every other PotUS, her administration would reflect her views and experiences and would not be a continuation of the Biden administration.
It is beyond naive to think that Harris is going to do something that is unconstitutional. Harris abides by the law and is well-versed in it. Violating the CotUS is antithetic to the way she operates. You should be worried about Trump, not Harris.
I did not say you stated that. I stated that Harris does not have the ability to repeal the filibuster rule because you stated she wanted to. Hello? As I noted, it does not matter if Harris wants to repeal the filibuster, she has no real say in it other than Walz vote and her influence. As I noted, this is a rule made by the Senate and if they want to change it then it is perfectly within their purview to do so. This is in on way a negative on Harris but you try to make it one.
To not recognize this is beyond naivety.
Of course he did and I've admitted to that several times in the past and that is part of the reason why I do not support him and did not vote for him. Attempting to predict the future is a disconnect from reality and no different than everything else coming from Democrat talking points.
Back to fucking ignore because you cannot have an honest conversation.
The problem is that you apparently cannot deal with solid rebuttals.
Everyone who votes for a candidate is 'predicting the future' in the sense you suggest. This is an exercise in trying to anticipate how a candidate will operate if elected. It is sensible to do that.
While nobody can actually predict the future, we all are capable of being students of history, personality, etc. and make a decent assessment on how someone will behave based on their past deeds and words.
For example, it is an easy prediction that Trump will surround himself with sycophants who are willing to do whatever he wants to stay on his good side. You see that, right?
Similarly, it is easy to predict that if Trump is elected, Ukraine will suffer. He will threaten Zelensky and take actions to force a 'compromise' that Putin approves. No doubt that will involve Russia claiming more land of Ukraine and likely a guarantee that Ukraine cannot become part of NATO.
And it is easy to predict that Trump will continue to be a loose-cannon who destabilizes international relationships. That he will continue to take actions that first benefit himself rather than faithfully perform his duty to serve the American people. That he will be an asshole who is an embarrassment to this nation.
And, of course, it is easy to predict that Trump would abuse the DoJ to remove all lawsuits against him and use it instead to go after his political opponents. He would actually do what he has falsely claimed Biden has done.
Finally it is easy to predict that the military and GOP operatives who worked with Trump (including his longest standing Chief of Staff) have accurately portrayed Trump and that he will prove them correct yet again.
Truly mind boggling that this story is somehow controversial. This is literally what the media is supposed to do, report the state of the nation. The election is incredibly close. You'd have to be an incredibly naive moron with no ability to read a poll to not be nervous if you work for Harris.
The hysteria is, at least, a perfect representative of the proprietary attitude towards the media of the authoritarian left. According to them, the role of media is to parrot the Party's talking points, like Pravda in the USSR. To report reality, when it goes against the party, is heresy. It's a good example of why they should never be trusted with power as they loathe the free press and an independent media.
see