View in browser

Item one: "Whether they like it or not." Liz Cheney before a firing squad. He’s finally gone too far.

At closing argument time, it turns out that Donald Trump is making Kamala Harris’s closing argument. What is it? That women should not vote for him. He is making the case better than she ever could. And it looks like it may be sticking.

Let’s start with what Trump said to Tucker Carlson about Liz Cheney at a forum Thursday night. It is, straight up, a very strong contender for the most shocking and vile thing he’s ever said. I know that’s saying something, but judge for yourself: "She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face."

Cheney is a war hawk. I disagree with her about all that. But that’s neither here nor there. A candidate for president of the United States just called for a fellow American to face a firing squad. A firing squad! Who’s the last presidential candidate to do that? Maybe someone like 1820 also-ran William Crawford? More likely no one, ever.

Some might argue that Trump was merely noting that Cheney had never been in the literal line of fire in combat, because he went on to talk about the swagger of Beltway interventionists like Cheney and John Bolton: "They’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building." I’ve opposed most U.S. wars of my lifetime (I thought we were morally and legally justified in responding to September 11 in Afghanistan but worried that we’d overdo it, which of course we did), but I’ve always found that to be a real cheap-seats line—if you’re so crazy about war, why don’t you go fight it? No. If you oppose a war, oppose it on serious grounds, not on the basis of peanut-gallery arguments like that. 

Election Special

Become a TNR member for just $19.99 $9.99. Limited-time offer.

But Trump knew exactly what he was saying here—intentionally suggesting that Cheney should face a firing squad, but doing so in such a way that he could plausibly deny it. No prominent candidate for office has ever taken the next step of saying let’s put such a person in front of a firing squad. It’s a literal and specific sentence of death for a literal and specific human being, and that’s what makes it so outrageous.

And it’s not an accident that he said it about a woman. Trump has contempt for all of humanity, but his contempt for women is special, because women aren’t full human beings with intellect and agency in the same way men are. They’re there for sex, and if they’re not hot enough for sex, why are they hanging around taking up space, food, and water?

Which brings us to Trump’s second hideous comment of the week about women, that he’s going to protect them "whether the women like it or not." Again, he pulled his usual trick of using plausible deniability language; what he meant, he continued, was that he’s going to protect them from migrants and foreign attacks (and I guess his rhetoric has become so offensive on so many levels that the clearly fascist nature of this pledge—that Dear Leader personally will protect them—is now worth only a parenthetical).

Whatever he meant, whatever was sludging through that sewer in his brain when he spoke the words, lots of people (not just women) took the remark as Trump reminding women of the power he has already exercised over their lives and will exercise again if he’s returned to the White House. And that properly freaks a lot of women out.

A month ago in Georgia, Candi Miller, a married mother of three who had lupus and diabetes, found that she was pregnant. She’d been warned by doctors that another baby could dramatically endanger her health. She ordered abortion pills online. They didn’t quite work. She was in need of a procedure that is fairly common—but that the state of Georgia had recently made illegal. She died. She didn’t want to visit a doctor, her family told the coroner, "due to the current legislation on pregnancies and abortions."

That’s just one of many stories we now know about in which women and their doctors have been forced into impossible conversations and decisions because of the hideous laws passed after Trump’s Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. These stories are abstract to men. I very much doubt they’re abstract to women.

And finally: Trump really said Thursday that he’s going to put Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in charge of women’s health? Does he think women don’t hear this, and they don’t understand that Kennedy (before he ended his presidential campaign) said he’d sign a national abortion ban and that he might deny their children vaccines?

They do. And it seems they’re paying attention. The early voters so far are 54 percent women and 44 percent men. That seems an encouraging sign.

People are writing a lot of articles about the gender gap. Supposedly, it’s lower than expected. Supposedly, men are breaking for Trump by larger percentages than women are breaking for Harris.

Of course, this could end up being true. But two points: One, the margin of error on subgroups within polls is high. So say there’s a poll that shows Trump leads among men by 14 but Harris leads among women by only 11. But if the margin of error on those numbers is, say, five points, Trump could be winning men by as little as nine, and Harris could be leading among women by as much as 16. Such polls are not useless, but they’re also nothing to freak out about. 

But second and more important: What matters more than the gender gap per se is what percentage of the overall electorate is female and male. In 2020, according to exit polls, the electorate was 52 percent women and 48 percent men. Isn’t it reasonable to think the female percentage might be a little higher? Might women not be a wee bit more motivated to turn out for Harris than they were for Joe Biden? Pollsters generally will not make that assumption; they tend to base their polls on past electorates. But let’s say women are, oh, just 53 percent of the electorate. If 180 million people vote, that’s 1.8 million voters. If Harris carries them with 55 or 56 percent (which I think is conservative), that’s one million more Harris votes. It depends on where they’re distributed, of course. But in a close election, that’s a lot of votes. 

The media have obsessed over Black people and Latinos turned off by Harris and various other #Demsindisarray narratives. The enthusiasm of women for Harris is a storyline that has been entirely unexplored. Women, and Black women in particular, are invisible in the media, as I wrote two weeks ago. But they exist. And their votes count just as much as the votes of white working-class men in Wilkes-Barre. 

It’s a close election. But Trump is getting weirder and more unhinged every day. Every hour. Who knows what he’ll be saying by Sunday? The true nature of the man is finally becoming unavoidable. And Harris is getting sturdier. A lot of men are too blinded by their prejudices or assumptions to notice this. I suspect women are noticing, in big numbers.

Item two: The economy is a draw, and that’s fine

It feels like people—voters—are beginning to notice that the American economy is pretty good. It’s more than pretty good. It’s the strongest economy in the world today, and 2024, according to all the numbers, is the best economic performance since the late 1990s under Bill Clinton, or arguably since before that, going back to the 1960s. The Economist—which, by the way, has endorsed Kamala Harris, warning that a Trump presidency would be apocalyptic—produced a special issue about the U.S. economy in mid-October under this headline: "The envy of the world."

True, Friday’s jobs report wasn’t good. Just 12,000 jobs. The consensus is that the anemic number reflects the hurricanes and the Boeing strike. Whatever the case, the right will go crazy with this number, and it certainly doesn’t help.

But the broader question is this: Is the state of the economy good or bad for the incumbent, who in this case is Harris, because she inherited the Democratic nomination from the incumbent? It may not be a big plus. Inflation is still inflation, and though it’s lower, prices for many items are noticeably higher than they were four years ago, and that will cost Harris some votes. 

But it’s not likely to be the huge negative many predicted. For one thing, gas prices, which affect voters’ moods more than almost anything, are down from the summer, and sharply down from last summer. Then there’s the famous misery index—the unemployment rate plus the inflation rate. It’s about as low in a presidential election month as it’s been in many years:

1992: 10.45

1996: 8.66

2000: 7.35

2004: 8.92

2008: 7.87

2012: 9.46

2016: 6.29

2020: 7.87

For September 2024, the latest month for which we have numbers, it’s 6.54. 

Election results don’t always correlate to this number, of course. And no one goes to the polls thinking, "My goodness, the misery index is statistically low!" But in general, the current jobs number notwithstanding, the U.S. economy is doing great. And the oft-predicted preelection recession never materialized.

Polls show Harris and Trump about tied on who’ll do better on the economy. In July, Harris was eight or 10 points behind, or more. Before that, Biden was way behind. This is an impressive accomplishment for a campaign that lasted only 14 weeks. It’s probably less because of anything the Harris campaign has done than because of the objective conditions of the economy that people feel, but if she’s fighting to a draw on the economy, that’s good news.

TNR Live: Breaking Down Election 2024

Join us on Tuesday, November 19 as The New Republic’s Editor Michael Tomasky and staff writers Matt Ford, Greg Sargent, and Grace Segers help you digest the election results and the short and long-term implications to our democracy, rights and political institutions.

Quiz time!

Last week’s quiz: "The Candy Man can …" I seem to have jumped the gun on Halloween, which isn’t until next week. But let’s just roll with it and have a quiz on candy.

1. First things first. With regard to cocoa, which two small neighboring countries grow more than half the world’s crop?

A. Guatemala and Honduras

B. Guyana and Suriname

C. Micronesia and Palau

D. Ghana and the Ivory Coast

Answer: D, Ghana and the Ivory Coast. They actually account for 65 percent of the world’s cocoa supply. Production is down lately, owing to El Niño.

2. The Curtiss Candy Company’s Baby Ruth bar was named not after Babe Ruth, the Sultan of Swat, but the infant daughter of:

A. Theodore Roosevelt

B. Grover Cleveland

C. Andrew Carnegie

D. Mark Twain

Answer: B, Grover Cleveland. Oddly, this was 30 years after she was born.

3. List these candy bars in the order in which they were introduced: the Snickers bar, the Clark bar, the Payday bar, the Zero bar, the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup.

Answer: Clark, 1917; Zero, 1920; Reese’s, 1928; Snickers, 1930; Payday, 1932. I wonder if they tasted the same as they do today. I loved Zero and Payday.

4. Which of the below was not an original flavor of Jolly Rancher hard candy, which debuted in 1949?

A. Blue Raspberry

B. Watermelon

C. Apple

D. Fire Stix

Answer: A, Blue Raspberry. The company originated in Colorado. Eventually, Hershey bought it, and of course closed the Colorado plant and moved it to Mexico.

5. Which country consumes the most candy per year on a per capita basis?

A. Sweden

B. Switzerland

C. Japan

D. South Africa

Answer: A, Sweden. There seems to be some debate on this point, but a 2016 study by Jordbruksverket, the Swedish Board of Agriculture, said the Swedes were number one, putting down about 35 pounds of candy per year. Some sources list Germany. The United States is surprisingly low. 

6. Everyone loves gummi bears, but manufacturer Haribo’s attempt to market sugar-free gummi bears ended up being one of the epic fails in the history of the confection industry. Why?

A. They stuck to people’s teeth.

B. They smelled a little like vomit.

C. They started fizzing on contact with saliva.

D. They caused diarrhea.

Answer: D, diarrhea. If so, they ought to just give people these the night before a colonoscopy.

This week’s quiz: "Evil is as evil does …" For some reason this week, my thoughts are turning toward history’s, and culture’s, more malevolent figures. Let’s have a go.

1. Satan figures prominently in "The Summoner’s Tale" in The Canterbury Tales. A friar arrives in hell, asks where all the other friars are, and is told they live: 

A. Across the River Styx

B. Under Satan’s cape

C. In Satan’s anus

D. In a cave Satan opens just once every thousand years

2. Of what tribe was Goliath?

A. Gittites

B. Philistines

C. Levites

D. Sardites

3. According to ShakespeareOnline.com, who is the Bard’s greatest villain?

A. Richard III

B. Lady Macbeth

C. Iago

D. King Claudius

4. Charles Dickens created some great villains. According to DickensBlog.com in 2012, who was his greatest villain?

A. Uriah Heep, David Copperfield

B. Ebenezer Scrooge, A Christmas Carol

C. Bill Sikes, Oliver Twist

D. Mr. and Mrs. Squeers, Nicholas Nickleby

5. According to British GQ, who is the greatest Bond villain?

A. Ernst Stavro Blofeld, You Only Live Twice

B. Le Chiffre, Casino Royale

C. Julius No, Dr. No

D. Auric Goldfinger, Goldfinger

6. Who topped the American Film Institute’s 2003 list of greatest movie villains of all time?

A. Darth Vader

B. Norman Bates

C. The Wicked Witch of the West

D. Hannibal Lecter

That last one was pre–Harry Potter and all those Marvel films; hence, no Voldemort and all those other people. Answers next week, assuming I’m not too depressed to provide them. Feedback to fightingwords@tnr.com.

—Michael Tomasky, editor 

 Update your personal preferences for wdlindsy@swbell.net by clicking here. 

Our mailing address is:

The New Republic, 1 Union Sq W , Fl 6 , NY , New York, NY 10003-3303, United States

Do you want to stop receiving all emails from Fighting Words? 

Unsubscribe from this list. If you stopped getting TNR emails, update your profile to resume receiving them.