What is it to be – unbearable lightness or boisterous aggressiveness?

A cabal suddenly dumps Biden

A cabal is defined as a small group of people, who are involved in secret plans to get political power, and lo and behold a small cabal of Democrats suddenly decided to give up all previously orchestrated pretence of unity behind Biden, shortly after having democratically chosen Biden as their Presidential nominee.

The cabal gave up pretence that president Biden was mentally fit for a second term as president, even though they must have known for long time that he certainly was not fit for four more years.

When people began to question the wisdom of pretending that President Biden was fit for office and even for four more years, liberal media and even members of the cabal scolded those daring to question Bidens mental acuity.

On June 4, 2024 the Wall Street Journal dared question Biden’s ability to stand four more years, arguing that behind closed doors people were seeing that Biden showed signs of slipping.

Nancy Pelosi immediately sprang to the defence of Biden, even though she must have known better. On X/Twitter she wrote “Many of us spent time with @WSJ to share on the record our first-hand experiences with @POTUS, where we see his wisdom, experience, strength and strategic thinking, … Instead, the Journal ignored testimony by Democrats, focused on attacks by Republicans and printed a hit piece.”

Then came the infamous Biden vs Trump debate on ABC on June 27. After that all pretence was in vain, denial was tried, but no one seem to listen anymore.

The Bifurcation jump

The Democratic cabal (members would have included Pelosi and the Obamas), suddenly realised that there was no chance that Biden would win the election, leading them to hasty nefarious action. It certainly cannot have been their realization that Biden was not fit for office, as they must have known for some time that he wasn’t. Instead, they now must have realised that the game was up, that they could no longer cheat the voters, that the Democrats had no chance of winning with Biden.

And thus, the cabal went into action. Forcing an angry Biden to give up and stand down, and pulling like magician a Kamala Harris out of a hat, that most believed was completely empty. She hadn’t stood as a candidate for nomination, but was pushed upon the stage accompanied by the cabal’s appeal that everyone help to confirm her as a presidential candidate. Democracy and the usual presidential nomination process was pushed aside, timing was everything.

The strange process was criticized rather eloquently by nonother than the man hiding a dead bear pup in the park, Robert F. Kennedy: “How did the Democratic Party choose a candidate who has never done an interview or a debate during the entire election cycle? We know the answers. They did it by weaponizing government agencies. They did it by abandoning democracy…They did it by silencing the opposition and by disenfranchising American voters. What most alarms me isn’t how the Democratic Party conducts its internal affairs or runs its candidates. What alarms me is the resort to censorship and media control and the weaponization of federal agencies.” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (New York Post, August 25, 2024).Right, one might get the impression that what happened, looked strangely like the secret leader selection processes in autocratic countries.

The cabal’s hasty choice of Kamala Harris must mean that they hoped that Democrats in desperation would be willing to take the proverbial “Leap of Faith,” where you want the people to believe in something that is not easily to be believed for a rational mind.But that’s what the cabal did, and as it seems for the moment with some success, although it is still a very flimsy construction of positive sounding verbiage and vibe, that may expand like a lighter than air hot air balloon. An up-up-and-away-the-air thing, where substance presumably will follow.

Like a contest among children in a playground …

The presidential election campaign in the U.S. seems unbelievable childish, funny perhaps, but certainly lacking in substance.

Take an example from the Trump-Biden presidential debate, where they suddenly discussed their proficiency playing golf. Ending with Trump saying: “let’s not act like children”, and Biden retorting: You are a child.” A visible confused and angry Biden later even calling Trump “sucker” and “loser.”

Well, the change to a Trump- Harris fight does not seem to have elevated the interchange much from a playground level.At his recent new press conference at Bedminster, flanked by grocery items like Wonder Bread and Campbell’s Soup, wanted to attack Kamala Harris for not tackling the recent inflation, certainly a relevant subject. But then he descended into child mode here and there, when calling Kamala Harris “not smart.” When asked if he wasn’t expected to focus on policy. He actually argued like child might have done, that she had attacked him personally, thus “I think I'm entitled to personal attacks.”

On the other side the Harris campaign had already chosen child mode, when sending out fake a “Media Advisory” with this headline: “Donald Trump to Ramble Incoherently and Spread Dangerous Lies in Public, but at a Different Home.” Afterwards the Harris campaign also posted this: “We aren’t sure what we just watched and neither is America,” (The Hill)

Wonder if this is how the rest of the presidential campaign is going to be conducted. Which in a way would be rather stupid, as both candidates seem to have large fairly loyal groups of partisan voters, while the election may be decided by those who are less partisan, those having not made up their mind, and thus perhaps susceptible to more hardnosed political and factual arguments.

For the moment though it looks as if the campaigns of Harris and Trump is like jousting match on very small horses, armed rubber lances. Unfortunately, it seems as if mainstream media is enjoying the joust, just playing along and focusing on the most outrageous childish displays by the two candidates and their veeps. But there are important differences between the combatants, with Harris seemingly acting with what must be for Trump an almost unbearable lightness, while Trump seems to rely on his well-worn boisterous aggressiveness.

The lightness of Kamalaon changes

When Kamala (lotus flower in Sanskrit) apparently pronounced “comma-la” suddenly and rather unexpectedly entered the presidential campaign, it was if collective sigh of relief was heard from the Democrats, and suddenly the presidential campaign evoked youthful enthusiasm.

Animated in curious way by Charli XCX, an English hyperpop singer/songwriter, when she tweeted “kamala IS brat.” Suddenly it seemed it could be a very light hearted funny lime-green brat summer. Not the least on Tik Tok.What is a brat? An unruly badly behaving child, like spoiled brat? No, it must be the Charli XCX brat: “You’re just like that girl who is a little messy and likes to party and like maybe says some like dumb things sometimes who like feels herself but then also maybe has a breakdown but then kinda like parties through it, is very honest, is very blunt, a little bit volatile, yeah, like does like dumb things, but like it’s brat, you’re brat, that’s brat.” (Charli XCX).

Then there is the unbelievable stupid coconut meme thing. In a 2023 speech Kamala Harris wanted to emphasize the importance of being part of a community, rather than in an isolated silo. Taking an argument for her mother: “My mother used to—she would give us a hard time sometimes, and she would say to us, ‘I don’t know what’s wrong with young people. You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?’” Perhaps fittingly the quote is from Glamour magazine. The result, coconut memes all over the place, mostly completely meaningless, but sense does not seem to be necessary in young people’s exuberance

While this also rather child-like brat thing and non-sensical coconut memes may have created a ballooning enthusiasm among young voters and people too young to vote, one would hope that something else explains the current democratic high-spirited enthusiasm.

Is it a kind re-enacted “California dreaming” thing? During the Biden Trump jousting match, the outlook for Biden turned increasingly sinister, more and more it looked as if Trump might win the election in November. The mood among Democrats turned sour, they were looking a kind cold, grey and losing future. The mood must have hit rock-bottom after the Biden-Trump debate, when the careful constructed Potemkin facade of Biden’s phenomenal mental abilities crashed to the ground. A Democratic cabal in desperation then pulled VP Kamala Harris out of hat, and oh wonder, suddenly within days the dark mood lifted, a new sunlit California Dreaming vision exploded with a laughing, high spirited happy Kamala, probably unable to grasp what just happened.

Trump – From a shot in ear to sombre aggressiveness

On July 13 Trump was speaking a campaign rally in Butler Pennsylvania, when the Gods were smiling at him, or was it just a coincidence, that the sniper just hit Trumps right ear?Any way what is remembered from the shooting, is Trump’s fast reactions, with blood gushing down from his ear, he pushed himself from the tight protective embrace of secret service agents, raised his right fist in air, from some angles with stars and stripes seen in air behind him, and [inaudible] yelled “fight” three times, while pumping fist in the air.To some a sign of an irrepressible fighter, symbolized in so many Hollywood movies, that it would have stirred the hearts and minds of many, and of one in particular, Elon Musk, who took to X writing “I fully endorse President Trump and hope for his rapid recovery.”

The shot in the ear brought a new enthusiasm social media and in the Trump campaign just up to the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. There was even talk of a changed Trump “GOP allies, in roughly a dozen interviews, used words like “emotional” and “serene” — even “spiritual” — to describe Trump in the days since the attempt on his life. A person close to the former president’s family described him taking on “humility, in the biblical sense.” (Politico).

With Biden torn to shreds in mainstream media after their sudden irreversible 180 degree turn on Biden, the shot in ear and the new Trump enthusiastic VP candidate, the prospect were starting to look bright for the Trump campaign, to dismay of liberal media, now grudgingly preparing themselves, like political leaders everywhere for a future Trump presidency.

Then on July 21 the pin prick from President Biden in letter on X, announcing his standing down as presidential candidate, and later his short text endorsing Kamala Harris to the nominee. The pin prick announcement first meant little, but days later changed the whole mood of the Trump campaign, after the wave of enthusiasm following Kamala Harris.With little political noise and mostly welcomed by liberal media, a virtual rollcall confirmed Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, on August 2.

No wonder that Trump felt cheated by a Democratic cabal forcing Biden off the race and lifting VP Kamala Harris up upon the stage. The Trump campaign lashed out almost immediately: “Kamala Harris — the least popular vice president in modern US history — has just officially been installed as the presumptive Democrat nominee for president without a single vote cast in her name,” it said. “In a process more reminiscent of communist China, Democrat elites deposed their previous nominee when their coverup of his decline was no longer tenable, then coronated Kamala in the least democratic way possible,” (News 18, August 3, 2024)

Trump himself, no longer serene and spiritual, lashed out in anger in a mass email: “24 HOURS UNTIL WE UNLEASH HELL. At this time tomorrow, Crooked Kamala’s worst nightmares come true. When I take the rally stage in DEEP BLUE Atlanta to a packed house with THOUSANDS of MAGA Patriots, she won’t be able to hide from the truth any longer. Tomorrow, I step on stage and deliver Open Border Czar Kamala Harris the WORST defeat of her failed political career.”

The old boisterous aggressive Trump was certainly back at the rally in Atlanta on August 4: “If Harris wins this election, you will quickly have a Kamala economic crash. You’re going to have a crash. You could also have a crash like in 1929, more specifically, because that’s where we’re headed. When we win, you will rapidly see a brand new Trump economic boom. It’s going to be booming like it was four years ago … But with four more years of Kamala the California socialist, you know she destroyed San Francisco? Then she destroyed the whole state. Look at what’s going on in California, with your family and our country, it’ll never recover”… Harris has the most ultra-left-wing agenda of any presidential candidate ever in history. There’s never been anybody like this. She is considered more left-wing than crazy Bernie Sanders. Look at her. She’s worse than Bernie, and she happens to be really a low-IQ individual. She really does. She has a very low IQ.” (Transcript of Trump’s speech in Atlanta)

Calling her and her team grossly incompetent, he warned that we would end up in World War III, no less. Trump back in his old form, denigrating, personal, and abhorrent to many. Will it work like in 2016 or more like in 2020? Scaring away the undecided voters, and only reinforcing the views of the already die-hard Trumpian voters?

?A hasty superficial glance at the campaigns here in August shows a sunlit ballooning of enthusiasm for Kamala Harris and a red faced, angry and gloomy Trumpian campaign appearing to have lost momentum, slowly sinking backwards in the polls.

The Wall Street Journal, even doubting the energizing effect of Trumps foremost tools, in the shape of campaign rallies. “Trump rallies have become like Grateful dead concerts, with many of the same deadheads, now Trumpians showing up.”“Is the game over for Donald Trump?” The Hill asked in an opinion piece on August 14, pointing to Trump’s decline in the polls “After a year and a half commanding the headlines and coasting toward a general election victory, Trump’s campaign now seems to be falling apart in every way imaginable. Judging by his private fury, Trump is well aware that his moment is slipping away.” (The Hill, August 14, 2024.).It might look that way. Mainstream media, that a short time ago were getting used to Trump winning the presidency, now eyeing the distinct possibility that he might lose, and mainstream liberal media is ready contribute in any way possible to his downfall. Getting back in their old role of supreme Trump bashers.

Suddenly giving their best to elevate a former colourless and drab VP Kamala Harris to level, they would have sworn she could never achieve. Just take look back to June 2024. At the time a “POLITICO/Morning consult poll reveals that only a third of voters think it’s likely Harris would win an election were she to become the Democratic nominee, and just three of five Democrats believe she would prevail. A quarter of independents think she would win.” (Politico, June 12, 2024). She had the same poor rating as President Biden, with Kamala Harris at 52% unfavourable, and 42% favourable. A recent poll also showed that voters strongly disapprove her handling of the job as VP.

Now, suddenly liberal media accept to support a very light and flimsy, almost not there Kamala political agenda. Doesn’t matter that substance is lacking, as long it helps bring Trump down in the polls.

And it works, doesn’t it? Just take a look at polls.

Ballooning Kamala enthusiasm in the polls?

Well, polling is here to stay so let us see what they say about the combatant at this moment in time. Later we will take a lot at the substance, that is to say what Kamala Harris and Trump have to say on topics important to the voters. With Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee, it is as if a spring of enthusiasm among Democrats has been released.

Take a lot at the Monmouth University polling in August:

Enthusiasm among voters in general has jumped from lacklustre 48% in June to 68% in early August. And democratic voters have almost gone through the roof with a jump from 46% to 85%. Even among independents enthusiasm is on the rise. While the previous existing high level of enthusiasm among the Republicans has turned flat at the high level of 71%.

PEW Research have also looked at the favourability of the Kamala Harris and Donald Trump among U.S. adults. Here the percentages who say they have a favourable or unfavourable opinion of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump:

It evident that the favourability of Kamala Harris Kamala Harris has taken a decisive upturn in August, while Trumps jump favourability is less pronounced. Looking at democratic and Republican voters, the changes become more pronounced. More like the enthusiasm picture in the Monmouth poll. What is evident is the polarization among Democrats and Republican. Kamala Harris judged by Republicans results in unfavourability rating of 89%, while Trumps unfavourability among democrats stand at 92%.

The Economist election tracker hub show the changes in voting intention over time showing the abrupt change when Biden left the field. Here the version from August 29:

The euphoric rise for Kamala Harris is evident, while the intention to vote for Trump takes a dip. A another look at who at who is leading overall in the polls at the moment confirms a steadily rising lead for Kamala Harris, While Donald Trump seems to tread water at the same level or even lower level. Here view of changes up to the August 18. (New York Times, (September 1, 2024):

Kamala Harris at 49%, with Trump trailing at 46%, but note the spread in the polls.

The picture confirms what we have seen above, a very marked rise for Kamala Harris compared to earlier. While Donald Trump seems to slide downwards ever so slightly since Kamala Harris became Democratic nominee. What have here is just today’s overall picture, and it just shows that the expected euphoric rise for the surprise nominee, after a Democrat cabal pulled their rabbit-out-of-the-hat trick. And a lightweight it certainly is. The euphoria may wear out in the coming days when Kamala Harris will have to put some substance into the euphoria.

The overall poll of voting intentions may not even be very interesting giving that each party is counting on a number of safe states, meaning that election may be decided in the so-called battleground or swing states. This is where the real battles for votes take place. In 2024 there seems to be 7 to 10 battleground states. Often emphasized are Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia.

In addition, it is important to remember the special electoral college system used to decide the presidential election. When voters in each state vote for a Presidential candidate, they aren’t actually voting for President. They instead telling the State which candidate they want your State to vote for at the meeting of electors. The States use these general election results (also known as the popular vote) to appoint their electors.

Every State is allocated a number of electoral votes equal to the number of Senators and Representatives in its U.S. Congressional delegation—two votes for its Senators in the U.S. Senate plus a number of votes equal to the number of its Congressional districts, with District of Columbia allocated 3. There are thus 538 (100 + 435 +3) electors in the college. Meaning that a majority of 270 is required to elect the President.

Five battleground states have the following numbers of electors Pennsylvania 19, Michigan 15, Wisconsin 10, Arizona 11, and Georgia 16. But they have inordinate influence on the election.

What is picture for Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in the battleground states at this moment in time? New York Times had the following picture on August 14 (NYT, August 14, 2024).

If the Kamala Harris and Donald Trump win in their so-called safe states, it would mean that Kamal Harris would need 44 electoral votes from the Toss up battleground states, while Donald Trump would need only 35. (According the New York Times).On September 1 it would seem that Harris may for the moment have a little advantage in some of the swing states, but it remains a tossup. Meaning that the whole election is still up in the air.

That’s why it may be more important to see, how they are polling on issues important to the votes.

Polling everywhere – all the rage and no regrets?

“Kamala Harris is more trusted than Donald Trump on the US economy!” says a Financial Times polling (FT headline, August 11, 20224). A small sensation that was repeated everywhere in the media. Now what did poll the Financial Times-Michigan Ross Nationwide poll conducted in beginning of August, actually show? Take Question 13:

Actually, Trump scores about the same as earlier. New is that Kamal Harris scores somewhat higher than Biden earlier, even though they must have represented the same economic policies. So, what is new? Perhaps the voters have caught a glimpse of Kamala Harris vague, but rather light blue from the sky promises in relation to combatting inflation, while Trump is messing about in the same way he always does.

?On the other hand, and perhaps a little confusing take a look at the following Question 15:

Compare this with Question 16:

Although the topic has changed, it does look a little different, as opinion here has shifted back to Trump.

How about other important subjects. Well, an Associated Press/NORC Research Center Survey also found surprising results, when asking how Democrats and Republicans viewed Kamala Harris and Donald Trump on series of subjects. For instance in these rankings:

Take Honesty, where just 52% of Republicans would describe Donald Trump as honest, while 79% of Democrats would describe Kamala Harris as honest. A similar spread is found i relation to Committed to democracy and being Disciplined, less distance in relation Cares about people like you. The distance narrows for Vision for the country, and Capable of handling crises.

Astonishing, only 71% of Republicans see Trump as a Strong leader, while 85% the Democrats now see Harris as a Strong leader.

Less astonishing are the next scores on topics like Issues related to race and racial inequality with Trump at 60% and Harris at 89%

No surprises in relation to Abortion, but take a look at next topics, where it certainly looks as if Democrats, previously having a rather low opinion of Kamal Harris abilities, have undergone a volte-face or had a great revelation (perhaps even an epiphany) in their view of Kamala Harris

Take the War in Ukraine, suddenly the Democrats seem to see competence, although where this comes from remains a mystery

The score on Crime might explained by her previous role as Attorney General in California.

But look at the sensational values for The economy, Immigration and even The war in Gaza, where Republicans are less optimistic with regard to Trump, than the suddenly exuberant Democrats are in relation to Kamala Harris abilities.

Now take a look back a few months and remember how Democrats rated Kamala Harris VP. “Harris faces pessimism about her future role in the party from a bloc of Democrats and a far larger share of independents. The poll found that a majority of voters don’t view Harris as a strong leader (48 percent to 42 percent). Nor do they see her as trustworthy (46 percent to 43 percent).

She performed relatively well on popular liberal issues like Health care, Gender inequality and LGBTQ+ rights, but is well below a majority in terms of how much voters trust her to handle Immigration (40 percent), Relations with China (37 percent) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (35 percent).” (Politico, June 12, 2024).

The ugly duckling has metamorphosed into a marvelous, cackling swan, with an unbelievable sudden spread of imaginary wings effortless carrying the swan higher and higher. Within a span of few weeks Kamala Harris became a political star, igniting a kind of Kamalamania: “Political power of joy, giving rise to effervescent vibes. Democrats resigned to a “grim death march” toward certain defeat, as one national organizer put it, felt their gloom replaced by a jolt of hope.” (A democratic organizer in The Hill). Is that what it is, are these strange vole-faces in the polls, simply indicating jolts of hope, not founded on experience and acts, but on sheer vibes. Leading to a re-invention of Kamala Harris, that conveniently erases her past as ugly duckling VP.

And polls like these may in fact reinforce the vibe. In that their eye-catching headlines in liberal media may influence opinion, and help persuade undecided voters to trust Kamala Harris more with almost every topic rated in this selection of polls and surveys. There is a clear risk, that such headline reporting, will confirm beliefs that might actually be based more on wishful thinking, than factuals, leading/persuading undecided voters to trust something that has the eerily quality of a dream. Meaning that unfounded ideas and opinions reflected in polls may have a real effect on facts so to speak, and if that happens it would be a problem, confirming voter’s belief in unfunded political statements and their positive representation in the media. In essence making such polls strengthen superficial vibes and trends, confirming fiction as facts, while journalistic focus, reality and objectivity will be pushed into background.

A somewhat different picture is painted in a Redfield& Winton/ The Telegraph poll on a series of important issues in the battleground states (Redfield& Winton Strategies, August 19, 2024)..

??Asked who they trust more on the following issues, the poll shows this result:

The contrast to the previous survey it is evident. Now the result sems to confirm the previous prejudices in relation to Kamal Harris and Donald Trump. Perhaps even having a female/male slant.

?Harris and Trump on high priority issues for voters

Let us see what policies and promises Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are serving us and the voters in relation the issues that are important to the voters.

From the previous Financial Times-Michigan Ross Nationwide poll conducted in beginning of August we get this list prioritized issues (FT headline, August 11, 20224):

Let us take a look at the how the Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have treated and are treating a few of these important issues.

Kamala Harris on the economy: Strange ideas and loose promises

Inflation has been and continues in certain areas to be a big issue, even though overall inflation is declining, as can be gleaned from this graph.

Inflation rate (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics):

?But it might be important to have a look at the components. This table from Tradingeconomics.com, shows high core inflation (where food and energy prices are taken out,) and even higher rent inflation:

What does Kamala Harris, VP have to say about inflation and how to fight it. Here her convoluted and unbearable light on substance answer as VP in 2021:

"Let's start with this: Prices have gone up, and families and individuals are dealing with the realities of — that bread costs more, that gas costs more," Harris said. "And we have to understand what that means. That's about the cost of living going up. That's about having to stress and stretch limited resources. That's about a source of stress for families that is not only economic but is on a daily level something that is a heavy weight to carry …

So that is something that we take very seriously, very seriously. And we know from the history of this issue in the United States that when you see these prices go up, it has a direct impact on the quality of life for all people in our country. So it's a big issue, and we take it seriously, and it is a priority, therefore." (Fox Business, August 5, 2024).

So, has she since then become any clearer on inflation and economics?

On Friday August 16, 2024, she at least revealed some of her plans for economic policies.

On inflation she seems to rely on a rather simpleminded approach. Here in her own words from the rally in Raleigh on August 16.

?“When I am elected president, I will make it a top priority to bring down costs and increase economic security for all Americans. As president, I will take on the high costs that matter most to most Americans, like the cost of food …

?A lo- — a loaf of bread costs 50 percent more today than it did before the pandemic. Ground beef is up almost 50 percent. Many of the big food companies are seeing their highest profits in two decades. And while many grocery chains pass along these savings, others still aren’t.?

As attorney general in California, I went after companies that illegally increased prices, including wholesalers that inflated the price of prescription medication and companies that conspired with competitors to keep prices of electronics high. I won more than $1 billion for consumers. So, believe me, as president, I will go after the bad actors. And I will work to pass the first-ever federal ban on prou- — price?gauging?[gouging] on food. My plan will include new penalties for opportunistic companies that exploit crises and break the rules, and we will support smaller food businesses that are trying to play by the rules and get ahead.“ (Transcript from Kamala Harris Raleigh speech).

So, inflation is caused by bad actors, not by government polices (like for instance the Inflation reduction Act?) initiated by the Biden/Harris. Strange? And her remedy is even stranger. Apparently, she sees some price rises as resulting from some kind of criminal activity, and exploitation by big companies. The remedy according to her, would seem to include some kind of price control, fixed prices, and criminal investigation of what she calls illegal conspirations to raise prices.

“Notice there is no talk about disinflation, but an ambition to bring down prices and some specific areas where Harris would like to act. Taken literally, this is a call for the Fed and other parts of government to lower the price level and seek deflation. If this were literally true, the only valid response would be, “you cannot be serious”. (FT, August 13, 2024)

Still convoluted and unbearable light on substance, it is no wonder that her suggestions have been torn apart. Wall Street Journal writing: “Fixing prices is a recipe for shortages, as controls would discourage grocery suppliers. Voilà, empty store shelves. Price controls have led to shortages everywhere they’ve been tried, from Moscow to Caracas.”

Kamala Harris has also proposed remedy for many young families unable to afford a home due to the Biden/Harris inflation, is simple. “Harris wants to provide $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time home buyers and is calling for the creation of three million new housing units within the next four years, proposing a tax credit for developers who build starter homes and investing $40 million in an innovation fund to tackle the housing crisis.” (Forbes, August 16, 2024) Conveniently forgetting or not realizing that this may drive home prices even higher.

Like a proverbial Father Christmas Kamal Harris continues in a verbal gift giving or rather promising mood. She wants to provide families with an expanded $3,600 child tax credit with an extra bonus raised to $6,000 for new-borns. Costing according to WSJ more than $1.2 trillion over a ten-year period.

Ah, taxes, she will also lighten taxes for low-income jobs, and stealing a popular idea from Donald Trump, she also wants to get rid of taxes on tips, although it would seem only to a certain degree.

And there is more. On health care she also wants to lighten burden with expanding subsidies for Affordable Health Care plans. Then there are ideas for paid leave, and minimum wages, and price limits on prescription drug prices.

On Economics at least we may conclude that is she still just as convoluted and unbearable light on substance, as when she got entangled in her own explanation of inflation. No wonder that most commentators seem to agree with Wall Street Journal’s conclusion:“The ideas she claimed as her own Friday reveal a candidate whose economic judgment is deeply flawed.” (WSJ, August 16, 2024).

Over to Trump on inflation and economic plans.

Donald Trump on the economy – exclamation marks and much more

The short version of Trumpnomics is found in a Bloomberg interview (Bloomberg Businessweek, July 16, 2024), which actually was quite sensible, with less rambling than usual. Here in nutshell are some Trump’s economic plans:

“Low interest rates and taxes, low taxes, tremendous incentive to get things done, and to bring business back to our country. And if you have to use tariffs and other economic means to do it, that’s fine. We have to do to other countries what they’ve been doing to us for 50 years, for 100 years. We have to bring business back to our country.2 (Bloomberg Businessweek, July 16, 2024).

What Trumps plan is sorely lacking are concrete measures and policies. Take inflation for instance. Trump’s plans for curbing inflation, have had little substance, they are more a kind of one-line shouts. To curb price rises on gasoline, his simple solution has been to shout “drill baby, drill” to promote the U.S. oil production. Since gasoline prices have actually come way down, and inflation on the whole seems to declining in the U.S. at the moment. something else might in fact be needed.

No matter. In very strange ways Trump serves us with outburst on inflation with curious focus on the price of bacon in one instance and on typical groceries in his Bedminster talk, where groceries were arranged on tables beside his desk, although he did not actually talk much about groceries and the prices.

In Trumps long talk with Musk, they actually talked about inflation. Musk providing several relevant cues related to problem with inflation to Trump, arguing that inflation is effectively “a tax on people that save money, who ran off course with them. “ (Bloomberg interview).

And of cause Trump has strong words on inflation: “It’s a disaster with inflation, the inflation. It doesn’t matter what you make. The inflation is eating you alive. If you’re a worker or if you’re a just a middle-income person, you can’t afford, you know, four years ago, five years ago, people were saving a lot of money. Today, they’re using all their money and borrowing money just to live. It’s a horrible thing that’s happening. And we’ll end that.” Then he got the price of bacon: “You know, when I look at bacon costing five, four or five times more than it did a few years ago, when you look at some of the food products and groceries, those people go, they can’t believe it. They used to be able to buy a whole cart and today, you know, a lot of people just don’t have the money. They go in and they can’t buy anything.”

Now it might interesting to hear how Trump would bring an already sinking inflation down and keep it down. What we have found are arguments that might actually bring inflation up, and at the same time some loose ideas for bringing inflation down. Trump the businessman is all for deregulation to bring prices down and promote growth. For making housing more affordable as “So 50% of the housing costs today and in certain areas like, you know, a lot of these crazy places is environmental, is bookkeeping, is all of those restrictions. Building permits. Tremendous [restriction].” We get it, deregulation in housing market and in business is one of Trumps solutions to bring prices down. Here Trump certainly has point, but deregulation may be a very difficult political project to carry out.

Then we have one of Trumps big pet projects. Trump’s plans for high tariffs on Chinese goods. A 50% and 60% tariff has been mentioned in the media. The problem is that a high tariff on cheap Chinese goods, would result higher prices for. U.S. consumers having to spend more to buy the Chinese goods or finding costlier U.S. made goods. Thus, contributing to inflation.

But perhaps Trump tariff plays are not quite as simple-minded as those criticizing his ideas think. “Tariffs do two things. Economically, they’re phenomenal. And a lot of people will say, Oh, that’s terrible. It’s very dangerous when you say that because you probably have your views and a lot. I can’t believe how many people are negative on tariffs that are actually smart people. It does two things: Economically, it’s great. And man, is it good for negotiation. I’ve had guys, I’ve had countries, that were potentially extremely hostile coming to me and say, ‘Sir, please stop with the tariffs. Stop.’ They would do anything.” (Bloomberg Businessweek, July 16, 2024).

Perhaps this is where we find the real Trump advantage in relation to economics. He is playing a pragmatic power game to bring about the best possible deal. And remember the Biden administration actually continued the Trumpian tariff play. So maybe there is more to Trump, than boisterous blustering and exaggerating his case. Whether it’s about bacon or China tariffs.

Perhaps this is also the case with his much criticized talk about having a say in The Fed’s (The Federal Reserve Board) interest rate setting. Trump arguing at Mar-a-Largo press conference: “I feel that the President should have at least say in there, yeah, I feel that strongly, … I think I have a better instinct than, in many cases, people that would be on the Federal Reserve, or the chairman.”

As usual Trump is wont to go too far in loud exaggerations and exclamations. No wonder The Economist thinks that Trumps‘s comments on inflation and the Fed thing can be summarized by the phrase: “I’m the best.” (Economist, August 13, 2024).

Kamal Harris on the border – change of policies and empty promises

On March 24, 2021 President Biden officially tasked VP Kamala Harris “to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle…in stemming the movement of…migration to our southern border.” Making her the “border czar.” Thus, giving her the responsibility to alleviate the long-standing border problem related to the growing number of illegal immigrants.

The border czar failed miserably in the task allotted to her. All she did apparently was telling people not to come. It is evident that her “Don’t come” warning did not work. The stats for the number of encounters at the borders from 2021 to 2024, stands little more that 8 million. Which certainly might be seen as a serious problem

FY Southwest land Border Encounters for the years 2021 to 2024 (cbp.gov):

So, what is her plans, now she has become Democratic presidential nominee? In a rally at Glendale in Arizona on August 9, 2024 she ignored her own failings as border czar and tried to convince people that as president she would go tough on the border. To help in her efforts to convince people she played the tough public prosecutor. “I was attorney general of a border state. I went after the transnational gangs, the drug cartels and the human traffickers, … I prosecuted them in case after case and I won, so I know what I’m talking about.”

She confessed that the present immigration system was broken and argued that she knew what it would take to fix it. A comprehensive reform with strong border security and an earned pathway to citizenship.”Why people should now believe that she would do a better job as president on migration, than when the border problem was more or less her only major task, beggar’s belief.

What she and her team is doing is trying do is to paint a completely new version Kamal Harris, with carefully orchestrated airy string of Potemkin like promises, and with her strutting on scene full of words and sound that actually signify … nothing.

Trump as drastic as ever on migration and the border

?First the famous chart made by Trump assistants that apparent saved his life, as he turned to point at a board showing this chart, at the moment the shots were fired at the Butler rally:

?The Chart demonstrates Trump had more success limiting the border encounters than President Biden and his border czar administration. One caveat though, the low point marked with red arrow, is found during the Corona epidemic, which lowered border crossings.

And trump certainly still has his focus on the migrants streaming across the Southern land border. In the Bloomberg interview he again went over the top, when getting to migration: “Now, one of the things happening is that millions of people that are flowing in are costing the country a fortune, on top of all this. This is a new phenomenon. And I would say, you know, some people say it’s 16 million, 17 million, some people say it’s 9 million, 10 million. The 9 million, 10 million are way off 1. It could be much, it could be more than 17. It could be 20 million, but it certainly will be probably 20 million by the time this character, who’s the worst president in the history of our country. He’s destroying our country.” (Bloomberg Businessweek, July 16, 2024). As we seen during the Biden administration the number of encounters is a little more than 8 million.

Sometimes Trump reminds me of the gas guzzling US cars from the say the sixties, big flashy, covered in chrome, over the top, always exaggerating, just like Trump. And he continues, when characterizing the illegal immigrants streaming over the border, “You have a lot of people that just shouldn’t be. I think it’s a much bigger number than you think. They’re allowing people from their jails. And if you were running one of these countries where they’re coming from, you would have had all of them.” (The Musk-Trump talk).

No wonder then that he wants to strengthen the border, but what is he going to do? In interview with Time in April 2024, he vowed he would use drastic remedies, including the largest deportation operation in U.S. history. “Because we have no choice. I don't believe this is sustainable for a country, what's happening to us, with probably 15 million and maybe as many as 20 million by the time Biden's out. Twenty million people, many of them from jails, many of them from prisons, many of them from mental institutions.” (Time April 30, 2024). Trump even wants to the use the National Guard in the operation.

Surely, he must realize that that such operation would be almost impossible, politically, legally, and perhaps even stupid. When asked if this is really what he wants, giving this might result in a shortage of workers in several sectors of the economy, he shows a different side. Trump is actually all for immigration: “I want them to come in. I want a lot of people to come in, but they have to come in legally.” And they have to be checked.

?Of cause, he is also back to his border closing program and wall building to prevent migrants from crossing the border illegally. Remember what he said, when if he wanted to a dictator. “Only for one day. I want to close up the border … After that, then I never want to be a dictator.” (Time April 30, 2024)

?One gets the impression some of his wild statements is just his kind bravado, his way of showing (off) that he really intends to do something. And perhaps using all the exaggeration he is in a way talking like the way Americans see themselves in movies brash, loud, confident used to having their it their way, Meaning the Trump’s brashness might rime with very well with his core voters. And for them he certainly leaves the impression that he is going to do something, about their big issues like illegal migration. Contrary to Kamal Harris he can also point to his previous border actions like wall-building, stay in Mexico and Title 10 actions to prove that he means business.?

Kamala Harris on foreign policy, war and peace – and the Schr?dinger cat problem?

The Biden administration is leaving a trail of serious foreign policy problems, open fires, smouldering war and peace problems in their wake. What has been Kamala Harris’ role in Biden’s policy and actions, if any, and most importantly how would she handle all these problems and wars if she became President? Mostly we are looking at empty space, there is little to show what her role has been in Biden’s foreign policy.

While we are mostly in the dark in relation to Kamala Harris possible future foreign policies and war and peace arrangements, it would seem that as VP she has mostly been replicating simple versions of Biden’s dismal foreign policy efforts, the ongoing an escalating proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, the to and fro support for Israel’s war against Hamas and Hezbollah, the uncertain ambiguousness in relation to Iran, the lingering prospect of trade war with China, the loss of influence in Africa, South America and the Middle East, the miserable and unfortunate policies and actions forcing Russia and China closer together, and the inability to do much about North Korea etc. etc.

Not really a glowing success of war and peace for the Biden administration. What then is Kamala Harris views, if she any of her own. What we find first seems to paraphrase the Biden position. Looking at Kamala Harris speech at the Munich Security conference in February 2024.

First, she asked these rhetorical questions: “Whether it is in America’s interest to continue to engage with the world or to turn inward. Whether it is in our interest to defend longstanding rules and norms that have provided for unprecedented peace and prosperity or to allow them to be trampled. Whether it is in America’s interest to fight for democracy or to accept the rise of dictators. And whether it is in America’s interest to continue to work in lockstep with our allies and partners or go it alone.” (Transcript of Kamala Harris’ speech Munich Security conference in February 2024).

Then she answered all positive questions with the expected positive statements. Yes, she believes it is in the fundamental interest of the American people for the United States to fulfil our longstanding role of global leadership. Followed by these assurances and self-gratulatory statements.

Commitment to build and sustain alliances that has helped the USA to become the most prosperous and powerful country.

An economic vision that has ensured that America’s economy remains the strongest in the world

Managed competition with China, standing up to Beijing when necessary and also working together when it serves our interest. “In the Indo-Pacific, we have invested heavily in our alliances and partnerships and created new ones to ensure peace and security and, of course, the free flow of commerce.”

Standing with Ukraine: “The skill and the bravery of the people of Ukraine, along with the leadership of President Zelenskyy and the 50-nation coalition the United States has led, has allowed Ukraine to achieve what so many thought was impossible.” Except the outcome is very unsure and the conflict is escalating and getting more dangerous at the moment.

On NATO: “NATO is central to our approach to global security. For President Biden and me, our sacred commitment to NATO remains ironclad. And I do believe, as I have said before, NATO is the greatest military alliance the world has ever known.”

On Israel “we are working to end the conflict that Hamas triggered on October 7th as soon as possible and ensure it ends in a way where Israel is secure, hostages are released, the humanitarian crisis is resolved, Hamas does not control Gaza, and Palestinians can enjoy their right to security, dignity, freedom, and self-determination.” In addition, the U.S. will work to counter Iran aggression.

In passing Kamala Harris also talks about strengthening partnerships in Africa and in the Caribbean.

Now Kamala Harris has surprisingly become the Democrats presidential nominee, and in the meantime the conflicts and problems she touched upon in Munich remain not only unresolved, but are becoming more fiery and dangerous, and other smouldering pyres are cropping up here and there with the Houthis, Hezbollahs, Iran and in Africa’s Sahel region.

So, what is Kamal Harris stance now. Not much to go on, but some topics popped up in her speech at the Democratic convention in August. Mostly reassuring non-substantial repetitions, though this this time elevating her own foreign credentials. Like this: “We must also be steadfast in advancing our security and values abroad. As vice president, I have confronted threats to our security, negotiated with foreign leaders, strengthened our alliances and engaged with our brave troops overseas. As commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world. And I will fulfil our sacred obligation to care for our troops and their families, and I will always honor and never disparage their service and their sacrifice.”

As president she will stand strong with Ukraine, mentioning that she helped mobilize a global response to Russia’s invasion. She will “always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself,” but we are working to end this war “such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination.” An endeavour that has proved impossible to realise since 1948.

Finally, she vows to stand against the tyrants and dictators of this world: I will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to defend our forces and our interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists. I will not cozy up to tyrants and dictators like Kim Jong-un, who are rooting for Trump. Who are rooting for Trump. Because, you know, they know — they know he is easy to manipulate with flattery and favors. They know Trump won’t hold autocrats accountable because he wants to be an autocrat himself.”

This is what we know about her expressed stance on foreign policy, on war and peace, and mostly it is verbiage, supporting popular liberal Democratic views, but avoiding the difficult question, how she would be able to extricate herself from Biden’s misguided diplomatic efforts and his glaringly lack of success in creating peace, instead leaving the next president ongoing wars, and the smouldering fires in several places.

Apart from the saying she will stand up to tyrant dictators, she leaves us guessing how would handle China, the possibly growing problems in relation to Taiwan, not to mention North Korea and Iran. She has many blind spots, and giving her real lack of foreign policy substance, one might expect others will have to fill her empty foreign policy vessel.

She might be influenced by the Diplomate Philip H. Gordon, who actually is since 2022 has been serving as “Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to the Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris.” It would seem that he might have a different view of America’s role in world giving his writings, and thus perhaps indicate that Kamala Harris might be influenced by ideas that might lead her to a revised foreign policy and war and peace approach.

As an example, take Philip Gordon’s view of misguided U.S. polices and wars in the Middle East. “The U.S. policy debate about the Middle East suffers from the fallacy that there is an external American solution to every problem, even when decades of painful experience suggest that this is not the case, … And regime change is the worst “solution.” (Philips Gordon, (Quoted inn Boston Review August 26. 2024). Gordon also has suggested new strategies for confronting challenges in the Middle East, including two state solution to Israel Palestine problem, diplomacy to contain Iran, a secure Iraq and Afghanistan, and more outreach to Turkey as a stabilizing force.

Perhaps showing the possibility of a different, more realistic foreign policy, more aware of the real limits to a forceful, overconfident and interventionist U.S. foreign policy. But we do not know giving the limited foreign experience of Kamala Harris.

That is why we refer to the Schr?dinger’s cat-in-box thought experiment used to illustrate a problem in quantum theory. German physicist Erwin Schr?dinger imagined placing a cat in a sealed box along with a poisonous substance, that has an equal chance of killing the cat—or not—within an hour. After an hour the cat could be said to be both alive and dead, in a superposition of states, until the box is opened, That act of observation randomly determines whether the cat is alive or dead. Perhaps drawn out a little too far, but it would seem that a future President Kamala Harris foreign policy and much else about her policies would seem at the moment to be in a kind of superposition, being both a Biden continuation with all its problems and something new that even she has no idea about, until and if she opens the foreign policy Schr?dinger box as President of the USA.

On secnd thought: It could be a Pandora's box that would be opened?

Donald Trump – the surprising peacemaker?

?In contrast to Kamala Harris, a Donald Trump often portrayed a giving in to seemingly irresponsible and impulsive actions, we at least have his previous foreign policies as guidelines, from which to judge his present ideas.

While it is to be expected that a President Kamala Harris in reality will have to be dependent on others to make a foreign policy for her. There is no doubt about who will decide a President Trump’s foreign policy – he will. No doubt his foreign policy will marked by strong words, but given what we have seen in 2017-2020 he will leave no one in doubt that there is a also big stick somewhere. Trump excels in threatening language a lot, but evidently Trump also avoid costly wars.

Perhaps we can paraphrase what Trump said about tariffs. “Strong threats do two things. They get attention. And man, is it good for negotiations.” Let us take a look at the present catalogue of war and peace problems and see his ideas for how to handle them.

Ukraine war and Russia. First his usual exaggerating boasts on how fast and simply he would end the costly proxy war in Ukraine. “Trump’s proposal consists of pushing Ukraine to cede Crimea and the Donbas border region to Russia, according to people who discussed it with Trump or his advisers and spoke on the condition of anonymity because those conversations were confidential. That approach, which has not been previously reported, would dramatically reverse President Biden’s policy, which has emphasized curtailing Russian aggression and providing military aid to Ukraine.” (Washington Post April 7, 2024).

His rather simple solution seems to be that he will be pressuring both parties to negotiations. Russia will be threatened with more support for Ukraine. While Ukraine will be threatened with diminishing support, in order to force them to negotiate. Perhaps we may conclude that for a Trump/Vance administration, the fate of Ukraine will be far less important that other foreign problem areas, which in itself will make Ukraine more likely to accept giving up land for peace. In Trump’s game the Europeans don’t have a say, except perhaps supporting the rebuilding of what is left of Ukraine.

The Europeans, who until now have slavishly followed Biden’s “standing with Ukraine as long as it takes,” Trump’s drastic policies may be embarrassing for present leaders in Europe, but they have never presented any good alternative for ending the war, except perhaps longing secretly for some policy an end to a war. A war that may no longer be supported by the people.

The NATO question? According to talks with insiders in the Trump campaign, “Trump would not only expect that European countries drastically increase their spending on NATO — his main complaint when he was president — but also undertake what one defense expert familiar with the thinking inside Trump’s national-security advisory circle, Dan Caldwell describes as a “radical reorientation” of NATO.” (Politico July 2, 2024).

This plan might include that U.S. keeps its nuclear umbrella over Europe, and keep its main bases. While, the bulk of infantry, armour, logistics and artillery would ultimately pass from American to European hands. It is all a bit speculative, but it seems to fit the Trump/Vance global refocusing on other areas of the World.

Especially of cause China. And strangely we may actually judge what a Trump Presidency would mean in relation to China, by looking at what the Chinese would expect. “In the current Chinese assessment, a second Trump term will most likely see a tougher U.S. stance on trade and economic relations with China, leading to further decoupling of the two economies. Earlier this year, Trump floated tariffs of 60% or higher on all Chinese goods and a 10% across-the-board tariffs on goods from all points of origin, as part of his campaign rhetoric.” (Bookings commentary, May 31, 2024).

Then there is the Taiwan problem. In the previous mentioned Bloomberg interview Trump was asked: “Would you defend Taiwan against China? Trump: “Look, a couple of things. No. 1, Taiwan. I know the people very well, respect them greatly. They did take about 100% of our chip business 1. I think. [92% of advanced chips]. Taiwan should pay us for defense. You know, we’re no different than an insurance company. Taiwan doesn’t give us anything. Taiwan is 9,500 miles away. It’s 68 miles away from China. A slight advantage, and China’s a massive piece of land, they could just bombard it.”

Perhaps we should take that to mean that Trump would find it unrealistic for the U.S. to defend Taiwan, and perhaps even more important, indicating Trumps preference for deals rather than wars. He would presumably focus more on trade deals with Chin, than getting involved in a very risky war to defend Taiwan. Perhaps arguing like Churchill: “Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.”

The Middle East and Israel. During Trumps presidency he was a very strong supporter of Israel, tending to ignore the plight of the Palestinians. What he did was something almost magical giving the morass of problems that has confounded every attempt to create solution. Bypassing the Palestinians and going to decisive Arab countries his team brought forth the famous Abraham accords, that would seem to point to a way to create calm in this part of the World. Attempting to establish better relation between Israel and Arabian states, might mean the Palestine problem might be pushed into a calmer negotiation arena, decided not in direct negotiations with the Palestinians, which have never worked, but with Arabian states whose support of lack of it might help create a viable peace. Notice how Trump could give Israel a free hand in some of the occupied areas, and even move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, without actually creating much uproar.

Then there is Iran, where Trump dropped the JCPOA (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and instead went for sanctions on Iran. Asked about Iran in the Bloomberg interview Trump referred to his previous actions “When I came in, I saw what was happening, they were on the path to a nuclear weapon. I ended the Iran nuclear deal, which was very important to do, It was the stupidest deal. The problem is Biden has done nothing with it. I ended it. He’s done nothing with it. But we would have had a deal. So they were broke. They didn’t have any money for Hamas. And they had no money for Hezbollah or any of the 28 they call them—organizations of terrors.” (Bloomberg, July 16, 2024).

This might not be enough in a possible second Trump term. Remembering that we now have a dangerous, loose axis of US-antagonists consisting of China, Russia, North Korea and Iran.

What we are missing in Trump’s foreign policy is also the rest of the Worlds big regions, what about the Indian subcontinent, what about Africa, remembering Trump’s previous disinterest, and likewise South America, and the Pacific.

What is important to remember is that Trump did not start any new wars, in marked contrast to Biden, but instead negotiated a planned closing of the Afghanistan war with U.S. arch-enemies, the Taliban. No wonder that a Foreign Affairs article concludes:“Trump was a peacemaker—a fact obscured by false portrayals of him but perfectly clear when one looks at the record. Just in the final 16 months of his administration, the United States facilitated bringing peace to Israel and three of its neighbors in the Middle East plus Sudan; Serbia and Kosovo agreed to U.S.-brokered economic normalization; Washington successfully pushed Egypt and key Gulf states to settle their rift with Qatar and end their blockade of the emirate; and the United States entered into an agreement with the Taliban that prevented any American combat deaths.” Until the botched Biden withdrawal that is.

Kamala Harris psych profile – dominant, outgoing, but light on substance?

In 2020 The department of psychology at Saint John’s University took detailed look at the political personality of Kamala Harris. In their preliminary study they find:

“Harris’s personality composite can be characterized as high-dominance charismatic — charismatic by virtue of the elevated Ambitious–Outgoing amalgam.

“Dominant individuals enjoy the power to direct others and to evoke obedience and respect; they are tough and unsentimental and often make effective leaders. Ambitious individuals are bold, competitive, and self-assured; they easily assume leadership roles, expect others to recognize their special qualities, and sometimes act as though entitled. Outgoing individuals are dramatic attention-getters who thrive on being the center of social events, go out of their way to be popular with others, and have confidence in their social abilities.”

“Harris’s major personality strengths in a political role are her confident assertiveness and personal charisma (rooted in dominant, ambitious, and outgoing qualities). Her major personality-based shortcomings (rooted in an outgoing tendency in concert with low conscientiousness) are likely to be a diminished capacity for sustained focus, insufficient attention to detail, and occasional lapses in emotional restraint.” (Emphasis added). (https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/131/).

From sample observations at time, they find that “Harris has at times compensated for her lack of precision and detailed policy prescriptions by lapsing into prepared remarks, turning to legislation she supports — even when it indirectly relates to the question — and leaning on anecdotes to connect with audiences.” (Emphasis added).

A recent example of that is found in her first interview at CNN after she became nominee. In relation to the ongoing war Israeli-Hamas war, she is asked “Would you do anything differently? For example, would you withhold some US weapons shipments to Israel? Her non-answer “I say today, Israel had a right — has a right to defend itself. We would. And how it does so matters. Far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. And we have got to get a deal done.” (CNN August 29, 2024).

On the other hand: “she has some of that ‘it’ — the smile, the joyous laugh, the ability to intersperse inspiration with policy responses. ... She doesn’t get lost in airy platitudes or in the weeds of policy.” But then as a non-deliberative leader Kamala Harris might be inclined ““to force decisions to be made prematurely,” lose sight of her limitations, and place “political success over effective policy””

Take the strange answers in the CNN interview relating to her changing views on fracking. She had previously argued, when asked if she would ban fracking “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking. So yes,” Now she will not ban fracking. Asked what changed her mind, she gave this confusing answer: “Well, let’s be clear. My values have not changed. I believe it is very important that we take seriously what we must do to guard against what is a clear crisis in terms of the climate” and then began to talk about “The Inflation Reduction Act.”

Looking at her potential qualities as a prospective a President of the U.S. the study conclude: “By dint of her dominant, ambitious, and outgoing qualities, Kamala Harris’s major personality strengths in a political role are her confident assertiveness and personal charisma. Her major personality-based shortcoming, rooted in a distinctive outgoing tendency, in conjunction with low conscientiousness, is likely to be a predisposition to occasional lapses in emotional restraint or self-discipline.”

In the CNN interview she certainly want to convey the conviction that she is up to it: “You know, I — listen, I am running because I believe that I am the best person to do this job at this moment for all Americans, regardless of race and gender. “(CNN, August 29, 2024).

Those who doubt that Kamala Harris has certainly become the best person to be President of the U.S. and so-called leader of the free World, may argue that although her unbearable lightness might lift the spirit among voters, spirit is not enough. What is lacking is conscientiousness, he quality of doing things carefully and correctly.

In fact, one may get impression that she might the spirited, good natured, laughing, assertive leader, with no real consistent, well founded, convictions and policies of her own. An almost empty vessel, influenced by spur of the moment ideas and “directed” by an as yet unknown number people. Directing her like an ambitious movie director in a Hollywood movie would do. But then we are back with the Shr?dinger box’s uncertainty, until opened.?

Donald Trump psych profile – narcissist with a strange aggressive charisma

An article in The Atlantic, which certainly is trying to find fault with Donald Trump, carries this characteristic: “Trump’s personality is certainly extreme by any standard, and particularly rare for a presidential candidate; many people who encounter the man—in negotiations or in interviews or on a debate stage or watching that debate on television—seem to find him flummoxing.“ Indicating that Trump is a riddle, not easy to characterise… Trump plays his role in an outgoing, exuberant, and socially dominant manner. He is a “dynamo—driven, restless, unable to keep still.” (The Atlantic, June 2016).

The same institution that made a psych profile of Kamala Harris, has also done one for Donald Trump. In their summary they write: “Trump’s executive leadership style in office has been bold, competitive, and self-assured (i.e., ambitious); tough and directive (i.e., dominant); impulsive and undisciplined (i.e., outgoing); and disruptively tradition-defying, with an inclination to shade the truth and skirt the law (i.e., dauntless). (https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/129/).

On the other hand, they find this is greatest strengths: “By dint of his outgoing personality in concert with supreme self-confidence, is mobilization, which will be instrumental in rallying, energizing, and motivating his supporters.

In the sphere of orchestration, Trump’s dearth of personality traits related to conscientiousness (e.g., diminished capacity for sustained focus and insufficient attention to detail), along with his extravert’s impulsiveness and susceptibility to boredom, may serve as an impediment to presidential performance.

Finally, his ambition and dominant personality attributes, including the drive to excel, goal-directedness, and proficiency in taking charge and seeing that the job gets done, will serve Trump well in the arena of consolidation, potentially augmenting his outgoing, “retail” politician’s skills in consummating his policy objectives.” (https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/129/).

In relation to Trump’s leadership qualities the study finds that he is “As an extraordinarily confident individual with an unshakable belief in his own talents, leadership ability, and potential for success, a quest for power will be the prime motivator for Trump’s leadership behavior, punctuated by a need to control situations and dominate adversaries. Furthermore, Trump’s outgoing nature suggests concern with popular approval and a striving for self-validation to affirm his inflated self-esteem. In addition, he will likely be more pragmatic than ideological in pursuing his political objectives.” (Emphasis added). And just as in The Atlantic article, this study finds that a President Trump would be tireless, committed, and energetic as a President.

The study certainly also hits the mark, when it expects that Trump will have a tumultuous relationship with the media, “Trump’s sensitivity to personal slights.” The study (remember this is 2017) has this view of Trump as President: “the matter of greatest concern regarding President Trump’s fitness to govern is the question of temperament.” Combined with “a perilous combination of sparse political experience and the potential for a level of impulsiveness and hubris rarely… seen in occupants of the Oval Office.”

Well now the world has had the experience of a President Trump, and lo and behold, without any sort of catastrophe, in contrast to Bidens’ four years, with no new wars, and a long war being closed down in negotiation with the U.S. arch-enemies. There was a cause of lot of uproar especially over his foreign policy actions, not the least in relation to Europe and the NATO question.

But the legacy of President Trump is also polarization. A Brookings scoring of U.S. political polarizing show Donald Trump as the most polarizing, a step above even President Lincoln. And the polarizing effect of Donald Trump is also marked in academic circles. A recent scoring of best and worst presidents by a number of historians ranked President Trump at bottom with a score of 10.92 (how precise can you really be?) and President Biden above the medium 50, at 62,66. But historians judging the present would seem to a rather stupid activity for historians.

The problem with these scores is that they may not only relate to qualities of the president scored, but to polarization in the U.S. populace itself, and media opinions. Meaning that scores may by almost meaningless in themselves. Just an example, a February 2020 rating Trump’s approval rating stood at 49% according to Statista, but in December 2020 it stood at 34%. Perhaps not really reflecting President Trump, but the dire Covid 19 situation.

?Let’s finish with the polarizing French author Michel Houellebecq and his view of President Trump in an article in Harper’s Magazine in 2019. “President Trump seems to me to be one of the best American presidents I’ve ever?seen. On the personal level, he is, of course, pretty repulsive.” But “You have to get used to the idea, worthy American people: In the final analysis, maybe Donald Trump will have been a necessary ordeal for you.”

Trump and Harris: The short version and strangeness of the fight

Kamala Harris letting up liberal and woke hot air balloons filled with mint green promises, that may be deflated by the sharp edges of an uncompromising reality. Her light touch and confusing views of reality means that she really may turn out to be as superficial as her Brat like characteristic in her lack of convictions. Like a Brat saying maybe some dumb things sometimes, but then kind of like laughing through it, bit volatile, yeah, like does like dumb things.” In interview in the Elle Magazine Harris once said: “Optimism is the fuel driving every fight I’ve been in.” And looking at the polls it seems that her optimism is taken seriously, by voters and liberal media, while her literally unbearable light and shifting political views, should not be taken seriously.

Trump’s realism and an important pragmatism, is hid under his barrage of foul-mouthed gross distortions fired like shotgun against those who don’t agree. Underneath there seem to be a harsh realism, disturbing to a liberal, educated crowd, but perhaps more realistic in real world politics, where the U.S. dominated rules-based views have a rapidly declining influence in the world. In an old article in The Atlantic, a commentator wrote: “The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.”

Last, but not least it is a strange fight, where both Harris and Trump seems to add to a further polarisation of the U.S. populace, by living up their own caricatures in the media and to the views of their stalwart supporters, while the election is decided by the as yet undecided but persuadable minority of voters in the swing states. Perhaps 10% on each side or there abouts, that are looking for something that might persuade them to vote for one of the candidates.

?