A compendium of the best reporting and commentary surrounding the pivotal 2024 elections in the United States. You won't find horse race coverage here, or the standard "both sides" BS that passes so often for political journalism. What you will find are links, with brief commentary, to work that I believe advances the conversation we should be having about America's – and the world's – future. Remember: Everything is at stake this year. (Unfortunately, some of the work I point to is behind paywalls.)
Note: The Harris-Trump debate took place after I finished this edition of the newsletter. Given that it was breaking news – and that all of the "wisdom" you heard in the instant analysis is just people talking off the top of their heads – I doubt I'd have found anything useful to add. I'll be looking for meaning in the morning, and will share the best of what I find in tomorrow's edition.
For all three, the name of the game is economic populism. The candidates have been avoiding “culture war” issues like LGBTQ+ rights or abortion in favor of conversations on labor, inflation, and antitrust policy. ... Christiansen grew up working-class in rural Nebraska and now works in the agricultural industry as an engineer. Kunce too, grew up in a working-class family before going on to serve in the Marine Corps. Osborn, a longtime industrial mechanic at an Omaha Kellogg plant, earned his credentials by leading a successful 2021 strike. The three candidates have also seized upon their opponents’ ties to corporate money and power, as well as their Washington insider statuses, to try to siphon off votes.
This article is a fascinating, nuanced, and somewhat optimistic look at three economic populists running in what recently has been a hostile environment for Democrats. Their efforts may be a long shot, but these are issues that can appeal to a wider slice of the electorate. That's especially true in places where national economic policies – making the rich and powerful even more rich and powerful – have caused enormous damage to average people. Our cartel economy broadly reduces opportunity, stacking the deck for those already on top. The Biden administration has done more to address this structural imbalance than any White House since (Franklin) Roosevelt. Tim Walz, the vice presidential candidate, comes from this tradition in many ways. Maybe these three candidates will fail, but what they're doing is essential.
“People want someone to be executed,” Cook said referring to calls, emails and social media posts directed at her and her elections staff. “I was the subject of a comment that said I should be drawn and quartered.”
This excellent report from CBS News explains the huge increase in election officials leaving their jobs. They're doing it amid right-wing extremists' attacks on the people who work so hard to give us fair and honest elections. The extremists' disruptive tactics, including threats (and some acts) of violence, are have the intended effect: to throw the entire system into turmoil. State and local officials around the country aren't sitting still for this, and are working to inoculate their jurisdictions against those who want to degrade trust in voting.
Musk’s online utterances don’t stay online. His false and misleading election posts add to the deluge of inaccurate information plaguing voting officials across the country. Election officials say his posts about supposed voter fraud often coincide with an increase in baseless requests to purge voter rolls and heighten their worry over violent threats. Experts say Musk is uniquely dangerous as a purveyor of misinformation because his digital following stretches well beyond the political realm and into the technology and investment sectors, where his business achievements have earned him credibility.
This Washington Post does a fine job of covering Musk's torrent of lies about elections. (Of course they are too timid to use the word "lie"...) Musk has become more dangerous than any other media boss, with the possible exception of Rupert Murdoch. Both routinely inject poison into our public sphere, and they have no conscience. Regarding exTwitter, I have to say this again: Journalists who remain active at the site are actively supporting a man who is doing more to bring down our democracy – and freedom of the press – than almost anyone else. They know this and they do not care. Shameful.
Here is the New York Times' confession, in writing tonight, in this article: "Often his mangled statements are summaries in news accounts in ways that do not give the full picture of how baffling they can be." The New York Times has done that every single day that the New York Times has been covering Trump the politician – including in this article tonight.
This O'Donnell piece is, as usual, is well worth a listen (and do read the NYT article). The MSNBC headline doesn't reflect the commentary. Big Journalism is finally deigning to notice its critics' (well-founded) contempt for what passes for political journalism. But our top political journalists – and more importantly, their bosses – have keep demonstrating that they doesn't have the inclination, or the integrity, to both acknowledge their repeated failures and do the right thing. One indirect confession, to use O'Donnell's word, is not even close. Not coincidentally the Times article was written by the paper's number-one normalizer of extremism and journalistic business as usual, Peter Baker.
Voting is just part of democracy, but it's the essential place to start. Make sure you're registered. Doublecheck in the fall, well before Election Day, because in some states Republican officials are removing people, mostly those who tend to vote for Democrats, from voting rolls.
Please send your suggestions
I spend a lot of time looking for essential coverage, and hope you'll help me by letting me know about the good stuff you find. Let me know.
Emma Janssen
