An internal communication from Chief Justice John Roberts to his colleagues in the Supreme Court was leaked to the press, the Washington Examiner reported. This is the second time such a breach has occurred at the high court.
On Sunday, the New York Times published an article titled "How Roberts Shaped Trump’s Supreme Court Winning Streak." The leftist hit piece insinuated Roberts was in Trump's pocket after three decisions went the former president's way.
However, the piece also included information from a Feb. 22 memo Roberts penned to the eight other justices on the court. The missive followed a decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit regarding former President Donald Trump's federal election interference trial.
Roberts said the decision made by the court was "inadequate and poorly reasoned" in the memo. "I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers differently," he wrote, according to the Times.
Perhaps this second leak points to a troubling trend at the high court. The first leak came in 2022 when the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization draft opinion was leaked to the press before it was finalized.
The decision would lead to the overturning of the Roe v. Wade decision that had granted abortion rights via judicial fiat. Dobbs erased nearly half a century of bad precedent, but the document's premature release was even more remarkable.
No other decision in the Supreme Court's 235-year history has ever been made public before it was supposed to. The Supreme Court's marshal questioned nearly 100 employees of the court and sifted through forensic evidence to no avail.
"But the team has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence," the final report noted in January 2023. Speculating who could be responsible for these two leaks is nearly unthinkable.
The eight-month probe came up empty, though many believed it was one of the four clerks assigned to each judge. However, if it's the same person or persons, that would be unlikely considering each justice receives a new slate of clerks every term.
It's unknown what the motives of the person or persons behind these leaks are. However, in both instances, these actions have real-world ramifications beyond the contents of a memo or draft decision.
South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman believes that the second leak has caused the most harm. In a blog post published to The Volokh Conspiracy on Sunday, he said the Times received the memo as well as insider information about the court's workings on these cases.
"This tapestry would require insights from so many different people. Moreover, all of this comes after the Dobbs leak when Chief Justice Roberts (apparently) put strict limitations on access to Court information," Blackman noted.
"What did all of those measures accomplish? Apparently not much," he wrote. Notably, the first leak led to a threat to Justice Brett Kavanaugh's life by a man upset about the decision, the Washington Post reported at the time.
By definition, both of these leaks are inside jobs. Whoever is doing this is playing a dangerous and partisan game with the safety of those on the court while undermining trust within the highest court in the land.
The Montana Supreme Court refused to hear state Democrats' case to have the Green Party candidate removed from November's ballot for U.S. Senate, Daily Montana reported. The five-judge panel unanimously denied the request Tuesday.
The Montana Democratic Party had requested a writ of supervisory control on the basis that the Green Party improperly replaced its candidate. Michael Downey won the Green Party's nomination in June but withdrew from the race on the very last day allowed.
The Green Party then replaced him with Robert Barb. The Democratic Party panicked and sued, arguing that the Green Party failed to follow its own bylaws and state laws about replacing candidates.
The state Supreme Court also indicated it would uphold an earlier denial for an injunction, which the Democratic Party requested earlier. This comes just ahead of the Sept. 20 deadline to mail out military and overseas ballots.
The Democrats' lawsuit stemmed from issues with "nomination" versus "appointment" in the different rules and laws on replacing candidates. Ultimately, the court said that any obstacles to naming a replacement candidate "would be at odds with allowing ballots to be printed and distributed in a timely fashion" if they must wait for approval.
"Although such would not be an absurd result, it would not give effect to the purpose of the statute, which in part requires political parties to comply with their own bylaws in appointing replacement candidates in the event of the death or withdrawal of a nominee after the primary election," the decision from the court stated. The court also admonished Democrats for its "merely speculative" reasoning.
"MDP has thus failed to demonstrate that it is likely that the Montana Green Party violated its party ‘rules’ when its state central committee appointed Barb to fill the vacancy created by Downey’s withdrawal," the court noted. The court also found no evidence that the lower court erred in denying an injunction.
"Since we have not concluded that the District Court is proceeding under a mistake of law, this matter is not susceptible to writ of supervisory control," the court said. Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen believes the Montana Supreme Court made the right call.
"I’m pleased that the Supreme Court unanimously rejected this hail Mary attempt to undermine Montana election law," Jacobsen said in a statement. "From the start, this lawsuit was a baseless political game from Washington elites that showed complete disrespect for Montana and our election officials.”
Replacing parties' candidates has been a prominent issue in this election year. The highest-profile swap-out happened in the presidential race after an abysmal debate performance.
According to the Associated Press, President Joe Biden stepped down as the Democratic presidential nominee, and the party eventually replaced him with Vice President Kamala Harris. Despite never winning a single primary vote, she became the pick because Democrats were desperate.
Meanwhile, independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has been fighting to have his name removed from November's ballot since he dropped out last month. As CBS News reported, he will remain on the ballot in over 30 of the 50 states, including some battleground states.
Kennedy endorsed former President Donald Trump after stepping aside, signaling to supporters to switch to backing Trump. However, state officials may be digging in to keep his name on with the belief that he will siphon votes from the Republican candidate.
This election cycle is contentious, and many races are close as it is. With the additional issues with the ballots, it could mean the difference between defeat and victory for some, and Democrats know it.
Ryan Wesley Routh, who is implicated in former President Donald Trump's second assassination attempt, may have had "inside information," the UK Daily Mail reported. Routh was arrested after allegedly pointing a rifle through bushes outside the Trump International golf course in West Palm Beach near where the former president was playing.
There are many questions about how and why Routh showed up to the golf course where Trump would be playing a round. Authorities say he was there about 12 hours before he was apprehended.
It's unclear how Routh got so close to Trump without being discovered sooner, especially since there was already one attempt in July to take his life. Moreover, Trump does not make his daily schedule public, which begs the question of how Routh knew where Trump would be and when.
A former top FBI official said this could point to one of several possibilities, including that the gunman was tipped off in Trump's orbit. If that's the case, Trump could be in continued danger.
The former FBI official said there were one of three "possibilities" to explain this lapse in security. "One is this guy had inside information, and having enough time to get to that fifth hole—that location between the fifth and sixth hole—and get himself set up," the source told the Daily Mail.
When examining the timing, the likelihood that someone fed Routh this information becomes apparent. "So if somebody tipped them off, at the time Trump went off the first tee, it would have been about an hour and 15 hour and 20 minutes before he got to that that spot," the former FBI official said, noting it would give Routh "plenty of time" to set up.
'The other possibility is that he's been surveilling the former president, and either a watching Mar-a- Lago as to when when he leaves, or actually physically following him and his vehicle and determining exactly where he went," the source continued. This is questionable as the Secret Service around him would likely spot when they're being tailed.
The former FBI official had a third theory: Routh simply "got lucky" in guessing Trump would be at that club on that day. Trump often golfs, but the source thinks some happenstance is the least likely explanation.
"I don't think that's the case. I think it's one of the first two, and neither one of them has good implications," the former official concluded.
It appears the investigators have similar suspicions about Routh's ability to access the GOP presidential candidate. According to the New York Post, several club workers were asked whether they shared information with someone else.
One employee told the Post that the Secret Service and FBI "asked a couple questions about who I tell when President Trump is here," the staffer said Monday. "They asked everyone if we tell our friends when he comes and goes," the worker added.
Workers are strictly prohibited from sharing that Trump is at the club. "They’ve told us for a long time that we are putting him in danger if we text a friend to say that he’s here, even if the friends are fans of him. So I have never once done that, and I don’t think a lot of my coworkers have either," the staffer said.
They also denied seeing or even knowing Routh after authorities showed them photos. "Everyone was actually really nice to us; they said that we weren’t suspected of anything, and they made sure I wasn’t too shaken up when they started talking to me," the worker said.
It's reasonable to believe that there was some tip-off to Routh that Trump would be there that day. Only time will tell, but it's reasonable to explore several theories in the meantime, including that an insider betrayed him.
Ryan Wesley Routh, who was caught Sunday with a rifle and scope at a golf course where former President Donald Trump was playing, could spend up to 20 years in prison, the Washington Examiner reported. Routh faces two federal weapons charges, with more likely coming at the state level for the convicted felon.
Authorities believe Routh was at the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach intending to assassinate the former president, the second such incident since July. Congress, the Secret Service, the FBI, and the state of Florida are all investigating the circumstances surrounding Routh's offense.
On Monday, Routh appeared in federal court in West Palm Beach for his first hearing. He was charged with illegally possessing a weapon as a felon after he was caught with the "AK-47 style rifle with a scope" by authorities.
That charge carries a $250,000 fine and up to 15 years in prison, with another three years of supervised release. Routh was also charged with Possession of a Firearm with an Obliterated Serial Number, which carries another $250,000 fine and five years in prison with three years of supervised release.
According to Fox News, Routh's demeanor in court was incongruous to the gravity of his situation. Although cameras were not permitted, reporters noted that the 58-year-old smiled and laughed a few times as the judge questioned him.
When asked whether he could afford an attorney, Routh said that his income was insufficient and that he had no assets. He makes only $3,000 a month and has no real estate holdings or liquid savings.
The would-be assassin also claimed that he was supporting his 25-year-old son. Despite his lack of assets, Routh was resourceful enough to plan his ambush against Trump.
Secret Service agents discovered Routh after seeing the muzzle of his rifle sticking out through the bushes just 400 yards from where Trump was playing. They fired on him, and he fled the scene, leaving his rifle, scope, GoPro camera, and two backpacks.
The gun, which authorities told Fox was an SKS-type rifle, is not available in Florida and was likely transported over state or country lines, though no charges to that effect have been filed. Investigators are still trying to piece together a motive, but Routh has a troubled history.
Routh has a checkered past that includes many run-ins with the law. One of the most notable is his 2002 conviction in North Carolina for "possessing a weapon of mass destruction," The Hill reported.
Following a traffic stop, Routh holed up in his roofing business with a machine gun. He was later convicted of the weapon charges as well as driving with a revoked license, resisting an officer, and carrying a concealed weapon, which could all impact his sentencing for the assassination attempt.
However, Routh served no jail time for that incident but was put on probation. The charging officer, Tracy Fulk, was shocked to hear about Routh's recent "escapades" involving the president.
"I figured he was either dead or in prison by now," Fulk said. Over the years, Routh has been charged with writing bad checks and several traffic violations, though it doesn't explain his move to political violence.
Routh deserves to be behind bars if convicted of this attack. Unfortunately, the people around Trump weren't more diligent in making sure someone like him wouldn't get so close to a former president and current GOP presidential candidate.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) announced on Sunday night that the state will conduct its own investigation into the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump despite the FBI's investigation into the incident.
“The State of Florida will be conducting its own investigation regarding the attempted assassination at Trump International Golf Club,” DeSantis wrote Sunday evening in a post on the social platform X. “The people deserve the truth about the would be assassin and how he was able to get within 500 yards of the former president and current GOP nominee.”
The would-be assassin stuck his AK-47 through the bushes 300-500 yards away from where Trump was golfing before a Secret Service agent fired shots to thwart the attempt.
Unlike the previous assassination attempt in July in Butler, Pennsylvania, the would-be assassin didn't get any shots off this time despite lying in wait for Trump for 12 hours.
Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, fled the scene in a car but was later arrested after a witness took a picture of the license plate.
Routh was convicted in 2002 of possessing a weapon of mass destruction in North Carolina, but it was not immediately clear what that entailed.
The motive for the attempt wasn't clear, but Routh did post support online about the war in Ukraine and donated to Democrat causes.
DeSantis was in the running to be the Republican nominee, but was overshadowed by Trump.
He has since endorsed Trump and shown support for his candidacy. Florida has voted Republican in the last few presidential elections after increasing its Republican voter registration.
Trump was on the fifth hole when Routh was discovered by the Secret Service.
Although the previous assassination attempt on Trump exposed numerous Secret Service failures, this one seems to have been handled better even though the detail was not as robust as it would have been if Trump were president.
Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw made it clear that if Trump were protected the same way as a president, the entire perimeter around the golf course would have been secured.
Members of Congress from both parties as well as the editorial board of the Washington Post called for Trump to get the same Secret Service protection as a sitting president due to the multiple attempts on his life.
“Two assassination attempts in 60 days on a former President & the Republican nominee is unacceptable,” tweeted Rep. Ro Khanna (D).
As the November presidential election draws nearer, issues of ballot access continue to make their way through the courts, with yet another rearing its head in Nevada.
According to The Hill, the Green Party in Nevada is seeking U.S. Supreme Court intervention after the state's highest court excluded its candidates – including presidential hopeful Jill Stein – from the general election ballot.
As the outlet explains, in a 5-2 decision, the Nevada Supreme Court booted Green Party candidates from the ballot, citing clerical problems with the group's signature collection practices.
Notably, a lower Nevada court had sided with Stein and her party, but on appeal, the Supreme Court found that they “did not substantially comply with the requirements” in place to have their candidate appear on the ballot.
The Nevada Supreme Court's decision was greeted with approval by Democrats in the state, who hoped to keep Stein off the ballot, fearing that she could divert votes away from Vice President Kamala Harris in her battle against former President Donald Trump.
Nevada's status as a closely watched swing state ensures that the Green Party's emergency appeal now filed with the U.S. Supreme Court will garner the attention of the nation as voters await resolution.
Working on behalf of the Green Party in this legal action is Jay Sekulow, who has a substantial history representing Trump in a range of matters.
In its application to SCOTUS, the Green Party contended, “The lower court's action preventing Applicant ballot access was extraordinary, denying Applicant both due process and equal protection under the federal Constitution.”
The filing went on, “Given the timing of the lower court's actions, emergency relief in this Court is the only relief available that prevents an ongoing and irreparable harm to Applicant's exercise of one of Americans' most sacred rights.”
The Green Party's application was lodged with Justice Elena Kagan, who has jurisdiction over emergency matters originating in Nevada, and she has set a Tuesday deadline for responses from those opposing the request.
The news from Nevada's high court was not the only hurdle faced by Stein last week, as she also had an embarrassing moment during an interview on the popular radio show The Breakfast Club as Salon reports.
Guest host Angela Rye pressed Stein on why she felt the election was “winnable” in every state in the union when her name will not appear in at least 13 of them – several of which do not provide for write-in options.
Stein responded by simply suggesting, “We will be on the ballot for 95% of voters,” a fact she said was sufficient to achieve a victory.
Perhaps most damaging, however, was when Rye asked Stein for the number of sitting members of the House of Representatives, and rather than offering the correct answer of 435, Stein wondered aloud, “What is it 600, some number?” uttering a response that left many questioning her basic understanding of American government let alone her capacity to serve as commander in chief.
Former first lady Michelle Obama is not expected to actively campaign for Vice President Kamala Harris, Breitbart reported. This comes as Harris struggles to gain momentum ahead of Election Day.
Obama had delivered a speech on Harris' behalf at the Democratic National Convention in August. "So, consider this to be your official ask: Michelle Obama is asking you — no, I’m telling y’all — to do something," she said at the Chicago, Illinois, event.
"Because, y’all, this election is gonna be close. In some states, just a handful — listen to me — a handful of votes in every precinct could decide the winner. So, we need to vote in numbers that erase any doubt," Obama implored Democrats.
However, CNN's Edward Issac Dovere hinted that the former first lady will take a lesser role in the final push. "Former first lady Michelle Obama, who delivered a rallying cry speech in Chicago, is not expected to campaign, instead sticking with her officially non-partisan voter registration efforts," Dovere wrote a piece published Friday.
Obama has repeatedly denied that she has any political ambitions. However, her trepidation at supporting Harris suggests that Obama may be worried about her political future if she's connected with a losing candidate.
Harris isn't doing well despite all the talk of "vibes" this campaign season. In many states, Harris is polling closely with her opponent, former President Donald Trump.
Her debate performance temporarily boosted campaign morale, but those who understand how it all works are rightly nervous. Trump has a solid base ready to turn out, while Democrats struggle with a candidate who is a replacement for the incumbent president.
“There’s a quiet confidence and security in what we’re doing and the mission, but no one thinks we have this in the bag. It’s going to be a grind until Election Day, and after," a Harris campaign aide shared.
Meanwhile, the Harris campaign is grasping at straws to make any strides in the tight race. They are wishing and hoping for pop star Taylor Swift to turn her Instagram endorsement into something more for the campaign.
While Michelle Obama will have a minimal role, term-limited ex-Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama will be stumping for Harris. They will join twice-failed presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail, NBC News reported.
Barack Obama will go as far as lending his name to campaign materials and running fundraisers for Harris. "His strategy this fall will be driven by where he can move the needle with Democrats and persuadable voters, especially in states with key races," said Eric Schultz, senior Obama adviser.
Another senior adviser said that the Obamas "are both extremely energized by Harris’ candidacy, enjoyed their time at the convention, and they’re looking forward to being helpful in any way they can in the course of her campaign." Meanwhile, the Clintons will be utilized elsewhere.
Arkansas native Bill Clinton will get out the rural vote while his Chicago-bred wife will court the woman and LGBTQ demographics. Along with the usual cohort of sycophantic celebrities and media personalities, all of them will be pushing a candidate nobody ever really wanted.
Despite all of the talk about enthusiasm and outside support, Harris remains unpopular. Whether the machine will overcome that fact is still anyone's guess, as just weeks remain before Election Day.
Sheila Nix, Vice President Harris' campaign chief of staff, has pushed for online voting despite security concerns, Just the News reported. Critics recognize the pitfalls of mobile voting, including massive exposure to fraud.
Democrats insist that America's elections are fair and free from fraud. However, they always support methods that open up the possibility of fraud, whether vote-by-mail or mobile voting.
Nix is yet another in a cacophony of left-wing voices calling for things that will jeopardize the legitimacy of elections. She and disgraced former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich co-founded an organization favoring this idea.
As the president of Tusk Montgomery Philanthropies, she and the organization's co-founder Bradley Tusk penned an opinion piece championing mobile voting. They glossed over the problems of fraud and hacking in this 2017 piece.
The Observer piece, titled "The Best Argument for Mobile Voting? Abysmal Primary Turnouts," justified online voting to drive turnout. This opinion piece came on the heels of former President Donald Trump's 2016 presidential win.
"We all perform complicated transactions on our phones every day—we move money, buy goods and services, and express our views and ideas using them. For most of us, our phone is more than a utility—it’s indispensable," Nix and Tusk wrote.
"Yet when it comes to the act that fundamentally maintains our democracy, we toss aside the object we rely on most and revert to an outdated, difficult approach." They mentioned obstacles, including work hours and childcare and the hassles of finding the polling place and dealing with the people running it.
"Not surprisingly, few people bother. The solution is simple: If we want more people to vote, we have to make it easier to do so. If voting requires just opening an app, a lot more people will do it," Nix and Tusk argued.
They only gave cursory acknowledgment of the problem of fraud. "Some will be legitimate (such as concerns about fraud and hacking), but most will not. But there will be some officials brave enough to do what’s right. We need to find them and convince them to begin the process," the opinion piece asserted.
If voting for America's leaders is so crucial to democracy, as Democrats say, then there's no reason they should be calling for methods that are easy to hack. Still, Democrats routinely object to commonsense concerns about vote-by-mail and fight voter ID laws tooth and nail.
In 2021, Georgia sought to tighten its election laws with simple changes like limiting the number of drop boxes for ballots and providing proof identification for absentee ballots. The left, including President Joe Biden, went absolutely insane over this.
"I’m convinced that we’ll be able to stop this, because it is the most pernicious thing—this makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle. This is gigantic what they’re trying to do and it cannot be sustained," Biden barked.
There is nothing racist about secure elections, but the narrative is always the same. For Nix to push online voting, which makes it significantly easier to commit fraud, only adds to the suspicion that fraud is a feature and not a bug.
There's no reason people can't show up on Election Day once a year for something so important as voting. Objections to traditional voting provide convenient cover for the least secure options, and Democrats push for it every time.
Prince William said Tuesday that he is cautiously optimistic following Kate Middleton's announcement that she's cancer-free after nine months of treatment, Fox News reported. He cautioned that there "is still a long way to go" for his wife, the Princess of Wales.
In March, Kate announced in a video that she had been diagnosed with cancer and would be treated with chemotherapy. She didn't disclose what type of cancer she has, but her diagnosis followed an abdominal surgery in January.
Kate once again released a video, this time to update the public. "Although I have finished chemotherapy, my path to healing and full recovery is long, and I must continue to take each day as it comes," the princess said.
The prince similarly expressed his hopefulness but with the same caveat. "It's good news, but there is still a long way to go," he told reporters.
The princess shared the good news about her illness and what it has been like for her family. "As the summer comes to an end, I cannot tell you what a relief it is to have finally completed my chemotherapy treatment," Kate said in the stylized video clip posted to X, formerly Twitter.
"The last nine months have been incredibly tough for us as a family. Life as you know it can change in an instant and we have had to find a way to navigate the stormy waters and road unknown," Kate went on.
"The cancer journey is complex, scary, and unpredictable for everyone, especially those closest to you," the princess added. She spoke about having the support of her husband and the public as well as the perspective her illness has imparted.
"To all those who are continuing their own cancer journey – I remain with you, side by side, hand in hand. Out of darkness, can come light, so let that light shine bright," Kate later concluded.
A message from Catherine, The Princess of Wales
As the summer comes to an end, I cannot tell you what a relief it is to have finally completed my chemotherapy treatment.
The last nine months have been incredibly tough for us as a family. Life as you know it can change in an… pic.twitter.com/9S1W8sDHUL
— The Prince and Princess of Wales (@KensingtonRoyal) September 9, 2024
Following the release of Kate's message, it became clear that she and William were moving away from how the royal family typically deals with such subjects. Rather than the stilted, factual delivery of her cancer announcement, Kate chose a softer approach this time around.
Kate's words overlaid videos of her relaxing outdoors with her husband and children. It was an intimate look at her family as seen through the eyes of the video's producer William Warr, creative director at Details Film, the Associated Press reported.
This was a welcomed change to many who followed the royals. Public relations and crisis consultant Mark Borkowski noted that the clip was "a tectonic shift in how the royal family controls its image" in the past.
"Kate’s journey is profound and deeply personal, but they’ve learned that emotion can be controlled – and weaponized – in small, potent doses. By doing this through a polished film, they maintain dignity and control while still appearing relatable," Borkowski pointed out.
Cancer does not discriminate between commoners and royals. Kate and William have shown great resilience in the face of such tragedy, and their openness will surely help others battling the disease.
Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign apparently copied and pasted President Joe Biden's "issues" page and passed it off as her own, Breitbart reported. This plagiarism came after critics hammered her for weeks about having no publicly available policy agenda.
The Harris campaign finally posted its agenda Sunday, more than two months after she replaced Biden as the Democratic presidential candidate. However, X user Corinne Green shared a screenshot showing Harris' campaign didn't even bother to change the coding.
"[T]hey copied and pasted the policy page code from biden's website and couldn't be assed to change it. 'join our campaign to re-elect joe biden today!'" Green posted to X, formerly Twitter, Monday.
they copied and pasted the policy page code from biden's website and couldn't be assed to change it. "join our campaign to re-elect joe biden today!" pic.twitter.com/cDlL8xn01Q
— Corinne Green (@gaynarcan) September 9, 2024
The New Republic, a left-leaning publication, was the first to break the story in an article titled "Embarrassing Copy-Paste Plagues Harris’s Launch of Policy Platform." It featured the X user's post and explained the digital breadcrumbs that gave Harris away.
According to the author's piece Hafiz Rashid, the Harris campaign left language from Biden's website in its metadata. "This language was visible when links to the campaign site were shared and in the website’s description on Google searches," .
The author noted that "this creates the impression that at least some of the Harris campaign’s policy language was copied and pasted from Biden’s documents." It called this fact an "embarrassing miscue," especially because Democrats need to distance themselves from Biden's record more than ever.
"It doesn’t help that the section on her website about her Israel-Palestine policy seems very similar to what Biden’s campaign was saying," Rashid added. Meanwhile, a separate article in the same publication publicly worried about her lack of policy stances in favor of "vibes" over substance.
"She had nearly two months to show voters who she is and what she stands for. Instead, she has played it safe, hoping to maintain the positive vibes and momentum of the summer by deliberately not staking out positions on controversial policies," Alex Shephard's article "Kamala Harris Can’t Keep Running Like This" noted on Tuesday.
The Harris campaign decided to plagiarize Biden's policies exactly at a time when a departure is what's needed the most. "This is dangerous territory for Harris, given that the Times poll found that more than 60 percent of voters wanted the next president to represent a 'major change' from Biden—and only a quarter felt that Harris represented that change," pointed out.
"That makes sense, given that she’s his vice president! But it means she should be working overtime to distinguish herself from her boss," Shepard added.
"Instead, she’s doing precisely the opposite. Unwilling to break publicly with Biden—to criticize his handling of say, inflation, immigration, or Israel—she has simply positioned herself as a younger version of him."
"Whether that’s intentional on her part, or the result of her campaign being run largely by the same people who ran Biden’s disastrous reelection bid, is unclear," the author noted. Harris is running out of time before Election Day to distance herself from the administration.
Harris' victory hinges on the hope that people will forget what the past three and a half years have been like with her as second in command. Copying and pasting from the administration Americans are eager to forget is not the way forward if she wants to win.