Yesterday on MSNBC's early Sunday show, they had a very interesting -- and encouraging -- discussion about the ground game between the parties.  Obviously, any discussion still falls into the “Who knows?” category, and there was an aspect of bias in the conversation.  But…the discussion was very low-key and (importantly) supported with data and experience, and appears to be as objective as possible.  (I like, too, that they quote Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg several times, and he’s someone who I like a lot.) 

Later in the morning, there also was an excellent, related-interview that Jen Psaki did on her show with the head of the Harris-Walz campaign on a related subject.  I don't usually find such talks all that interesting, generally just addressing policy talking points, so I often fast-forward through, but this was different.  And, I thought, notable,
 
I’ll post the 10-minute video of the "early show" segment below, so it's not necessary to address it here in detail, excellent though it is.  However, it’s worth highlighting one important thing that especially stood out  from the round-table conversation.
 
It stood out as notable because, although an issue that does get mentioned a bit, I haven’t it heard addressed in this specific context before.  The point was, now that early voting has begun, when we hear reports of how many Republicans and Democrats have voted early thus far, it should not be assumed that all Republican votes are for Trump.  After all, 20% of votes cast in the Republican primaries were “Nikki Halley voters”, and not all of them (or even most, for all we know) are necessarily for Trump.  They may not vote for Harris, but it is reasonable to assume that at least some, if not many, will not be voting for Trump.  And some (or more) may well for Harris.

Which brings us to a very interesting discussion that dealt with a related subject when host Jen Psaki interviewed Harris-Walz campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon.  Yes, of course, as the Democrats' campaign manager, she’s totally biased, but biased or not, she made two good and very thoughtful comments, including one that, the more I thought about it, was most-especially reasonable.  Both of the comments concerned low-propensity voters, those who rarely go to the polls.

The first subject was about the get-out-the-vote effort in dealing with such people – something that is important for getting those votes, of course, but also because these votes don’t generally show up in polls, since they aren’t “likely voters.”  And O’Malley Dillon discussed how actually getting them to vote takes a great deal of extra work, where you have to go directly to them and literally knock on the doors and talk with him, and address why they don’t vote and why they should this year.  And she mentioned how this weekend Democrats had 1.2 million people knocking on doors in Swing States.  Now, on the surface, that sounds great – but as I thought about it, it sounded even better under the surface, for two reasons:
 
One reason is we know that Republicans don’t have an organized ground game like this, and have instead farmed it out to Elon Musk’s group that has literally no experience.  And the second reason it seems even better is that, while we keep hearing about Trump going on these podcasts for low-voting men to reach them, what I realized is, yes, he’s reaching them on podcasts, but that's all he doing.  As low-propensity voters, they are most likely nodding along in agreement, but (being people who don’t usually vote) they are only nodding in agreement and are not getting that critical, personal contact that gets them motivated enough to go out and actually vote.

The second, intriguing topic O’Malley Dillon discussed (and I think even more important) was the general concept of people who don’t usually vote.  Not surprisingly, she felt that all the Democratic efforts with low-propensity voters were more favorable than Republicans.  But while that can be dismissed as biased, the more I thought about it, the more I sensed a shift in my thinking on why her comments were objective, as well --
 
After all, it’s my sense that most deeply loyal Trump voters are going to vote for him, and likely have in the past.  As a result, there aren’t all that many Trump loyalists who are low-propensity voters.  Some perhaps, but not many.  But as for standard Republicans who don’t usually vote, if they haven’t voted for Trump in the past, what can a GOP “get-out-the-vote” operative say or do to convince those people to actually go out and vote for Trump this time – especially since he’s even far-more Trumpier and fascist and dystopian than in the past, now convicted of 34 felonies and found liable of rape, and with far more clear signs of dementia, when they didn’t vote, not just for him but at all, period??!  On the other hand, a low-propensity Democratic voter who just doesn’t usually bother to vote is someone who actually does now have strong issues you can reach him or her on – like that Trump is a fascist, Trump is showing signs of dementia, and (especially for women who don’t usually vote) Trump takes responsibility for banning abortion.  There’s no guarantee, of course, that any low-propensity voter of either party will vote this year, but it seems fair to think that there’s much more reason why some Democrats who don’t usually vote have a far-better chance of being convinced to vote this year than Republicans who don’t vote.
 
And I’ll add in one thing – someone who doesn’t usually vote might be convinced, but just won’t be bothered to go to the polls, especially in a Swing State where they have to stand in line.  But…you can tell them, “Just use a mail in ballot and vote from home.”  But a Republican who doesn’t vote has been convinced by the party that voting by mail is evil.

This is all “Who knows?” but it’s still encouraging, for specific and (I think) realistic reasons.

Here's the MSNBC video.  It’s excellent, and encouraging.

​On this week’s ‘Not My Job’ segment of the NPR quiz show Wait, Wait…Don’t Tell Me!, the guest contestant is Diane Lane.  Her conversation with host Peter Sagal is a bit disjointed, in part from her saying she’s a bit of an introvert, although she has some fun tales of her start in acting with the famed La MAMA experimental theater at the age of six. 
 
This is the full Wait, Wait… broadcast, but you can jump directly to the “Not My Job” segment, it starts around the 18:45 mark.

​The guests on this week’s Al Franken podcast are Laura Bassett from The Cut and Sarah Zhang of The Atlantic. As Al writes, “This election could all come down to abortion. Both Laura and Sarah have been writing about the issue of abortion and how it’s playing into this election. Sarah’s recent piece in The Atlantic examined how Idaho’s draconian abortion laws have set the state’s healthcare back for women. Laura has been writing about the issue for years and says that it poses a serious threat to Ted Cruz’s reelection campaign in Texas.”  Together, they discuss the impact of abortion on the 2024 election.

​From the archives.  This week's contestant is Judy Delaney from Rochester, New York.  I got the hidden song surprisingly quickly, though I'm not sure if most people will.  Even host Fred Child wasn't able to get it.  But it's a song from an area of music that's in my wheelhouse.  I took a guess on the composer style, but it was just a stab in the dark, and I was wrong.  Though as it turns out, I was closer than I thought I'd be.

Given the two pieces I’ve written this week, including one of them last night, about billionaire owners of newspapers blocking presidential endorsements – or to put it another way, refusing to let their papers endorse someone other than Trump, I thought that it was appropriate to post Jon Stewart’s video podcast this week, since it’s titled, “Jon Stewart Exposes Billionaires’ Influence Over Elections.”

The show, which was recorded before​ the news, writes, “From elections big and small across the country, the super-wealthy are using their money to reshape democracy in direct and in-direct ways. On this episode, Jon is joined by New York Times reporters Teddy Schleifer and Ken Vogel to explore how rich donors leverage their resources across the political landscape to benefit themselves.”