Good morning. We're covering the strategic risks that Harris and Trump are taking — as well as "Saturday Night Live," the New York City Marathon and sleep deprivation.
20/20 foresightOnce an election is over, hindsight can make the winner's strategy look perfect and the loser's seem doomed. As my colleague Jonathan Swan said recently on "The Daily": "The winning campaign, everything they did was genius, and then the losing campaign are just a bunch of idiots. And the truth is that neither is necessarily true." The truth instead tends to be that presidential campaigns make strategic decisions that come with benefits as well as costs. And those decisions aren't guaranteed to succeed or fail. In today's newsletter, I'll analyze a core strategy that Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have each pursued. After Tuesday, I suspect we will come to see both as crucial, albeit in different ways. Harris's cautionOn paper, Harris is the underdog. In rich countries around the world, incumbents are doing badly; the ruling parties in Australia, Britain, Germany, Italy and Japan have all recently lost power. In the U.S., President Biden has a 40 percent approval rating, and less than 30 percent of adults are satisfied with the country's direction. Nate Cohn, The Times's chief political analyst, points out that voters appear eager for change and specifically seem skeptical of progressivism. (I recommend his essay on the subject.) Given this backdrop, Harris has run a strikingly cautious campaign. Game theorists would describe it as a low-variance strategy. She and her aides avoided moves that might have gone very well — and might have gone very poorly. Can you name her campaign's central theme, for example? Many of her main messages are vague ("when we fight, we win"), Trump-focused ("in it for himself") or both ("turn the page"). Asked on television how her presidency would differ from Biden's, Harris said, "There is not a thing that comes to mind." She could have taken a different approach. She could have run on the populist, anti-corporate message that is helping Democratic Senate candidates — or gone in the opposite direction and portrayed herself as a business-friendly centrist. She could have picked an issue, like housing, and signaled that it would be her No. 1 priority, much as health care was for Barack Obama. Instead of offering a bold, thematic message, Harris has announced a series of modest policies. Her low-variance strategy is also evident in her decision not to explain why she reversed her stances on immigration and fracking. Many voters say they want to know more about Harris — who became a candidate only three months ago — and she hasn't always filled in the blanks. The strategy is evident with the Middle East, too. She didn't pick as her running mate the popular Jewish governor of Pennsylvania partly because many Israel critics opposed him. Her campaign also didn't invite any Palestinians to speak at the Democratic convention, which may hurt her in Michigan. When possible, Harris has avoided conflict. All these decisions have benefits, to be clear. Making the Middle East more salient is rarely smart in American politics. Explaining why she changed her mind about the border could have made her look weak. Doing more town halls and interviews to explain her views could have exposed one of Harris's weaknesses: Although she is an excellent debater, she can struggle in less structured settings. But if Harris loses, her caution will look problematic. Game theory usually dictates that an underdog should pursue a higher-variance strategy and hope a few risks pay off. Harris has instead bet that the U.S. will not follow the global anti-incumbent pattern — and that our election will be a referendum on Trump more than on Biden and her. Trump's gambleTrump is such an instinctual politician that it can sound strange to analyze his behavior strategically. But his advisers do think strategically, and they have urged him to make some different decisions. Trump has overruled them, as Jonathan Swan has reported. They have told him the economy is his best issue and the one that matters most to Americans. Focusing on it could help Trump appeal to undecided voters, including those who liked the results of his presidency but don't like his erratic style. Many of these people — Nikki Haley supporters, for example — are college graduates who will vote, one way or the other. Economic arguments often bore Trump, however, and he has instead focused on immigration. "That beats out the economy," he said at a recent rally. It's part of a closing message focused on grievance, insults and divisive cultural subjects, including his TV ads on trans issues. This anger can be appealing to Americans who are frustrated with the country's direction and view the Democratic Party as elite, establishment and too far left. Many younger, male and nonwhite voters fall into this category. But relying on this group comes with a downside: It includes many people who don't regularly vote. Trump has made a big bet on turnout — and the idea that he will win by accentuating his persona rather than moderating it.
Voting
Republican Campaign
Democratic Campaign
International
Other Big Stories
Who are you voting for? Harris. Harris has promised to continue Biden's work of making housing affordable, reducing childhood poverty and lowering prescription drug costs, The Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial board writes: "America deserves much more than an aspiring autocrat who ignores the law, is running to stay out of prison, and doesn't care about anyone but himself." Trump. The Biden-Harris administration has been marked by inflation and war, while Trump's is remembered for stability and economic growth, The Las Vegas Review-Journal's editorial board writes: "When we weigh the policy results of Mr. Trump's four years in office against those of Ms. Harris and Mr. Biden, the contrast becomes difficult to ignore."
Women have died in a post-Roe America. Your vote matters, India Baird writes. Here are columns by Ezra Klein on how both parties view their enemies and Lydia Polgreen on Democrats' treatment of Muslim and Arab Americans. Ends soon: Our best rate on unlimited access for Morning readers. From in-depth coverage of Decision 2024 to unlimited news and analysis, Games, Cooking, The Athletic and more, subscribe now for only $1 a week for your first year.
Strange and unpredictable: The New York City Marathon is today. Runners described what goes through their heads over 26.2 miles. (See where to cheer and how to track runners.) The Daily Beast: Can two new executives turn the struggling website around? Their team isn't sure. Tired? Here's how to know if you're sleep deprived. Routine: How an Instagram-famous pizzeria owner spends his Sundays. Vows: Their plans changed after a dream about a shoe-store wedding. Lives Lived: As a running back for the Cleveland Browns, Dub Jones once scored six touchdowns in a single game. He died at 99.
"Conclave," by Robert Harris: Harris's short, muscular page-turner whisks us to the Vatican's inner sanctum, where 118 cardinals gather to vote on a new pope. Ancient resentments abound, as do sacred traditions, inconvenient secrets and ugly mysteries. Beltway politicos appear tame compared to this sharp-elbowed crew. Our tour guide is Jacopo Lomeli, dean of the College of Cardinals, played by Ralph Fiennes in the movie version that opened last week. (Onscreen, he's Cardinal Lawrence.) For an equally dazzling performance, check out Roy McMillan's audiobook narration. He even sings in Latin! More on books
This week's subject for The Interview is Peter Singer, who is perhaps the world's most influential — and controversial — living philosopher. His new book, "Consider the Turkey," examines the overwhelming amount of animal mistreatment involved in the traditional Thanksgiving meal. We spoke about that, as well as what it really means to do good in the world. It feels hard to deny the unacceptable level of suffering that goes into our Thanksgiving turkey dinners. But millions of people are still going to have them. Do you ever feel as if you're banging your head against the wall with this stuff? No. I feel like I'm banging my head against something which is pretty hard but not completely unyielding. In some parts of the world, we've made progress in the laws and regulations concerning animals. On the whole, yes, things are still bad, but it's possible to make progress, and we have to keep bringing these facts in front of the public and getting them to think about what they're eating. The Thanksgiving meal seems like a good place to start. I suspect most people see themselves as, on balance, a net good for the world. But how does someone know? Very few people are doing enough to make the world a better place. They're probably not. I don't think that I'm doing enough to make the world a better place. But how would you know? You would look around for other ways of doing more to make the world a better place, and you would say, "There aren't any." That's the extreme position. Where's the line short of that? The line short of that is to say: "I'm doing a lot more than the current social standard is. I'm trying to raise that standard. I'm setting an example of doing more than the current standard." If you can say those things, you can be content with what you're doing. Read more of the interview here.
Click the cover image above to read this week's magazine.
Buy a good trench coat for fall. Avoid sitting all day. It could shorten your life. Keep water cold with these bottles. Mash potatoes with ease.
Store-bought gnocchi are best appreciated when seared until crisp, Ali Slagle writes in this week's Five Weeknight Dishes newsletter. She suggests saucing them with a mix of honey, mustard and horseradish. Ali also recommends making harissa and white bean chili, and sheet-pan gochujang chicken.
Here is today's Spelling Bee. Yesterday's pangram was graphic. Can you put eight historical events in chronological order? Take this week's Flashback quiz. And here are today's Mini Crossword, Wordle, Sudoku, Connections and Strands. Thanks for spending part of your weekend with The Times. Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. Reach our team at themorning@nytimes.com.
|
-
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario