Help keep Salon independent

“Surprising” New York Times poll shows Kamala Harris surge stall ahead of debate

For more than two months, Vice President Kamala Harris has led her party on a dizzying turnabout from despair to euphoria, with many Democrats believing that she was just the savior they needed to deliver them from former President Donald Trump. A New York Times/Siena College poll released on Monday confirms that Harris has improved upon President Joe Biden's performance, while also showing that, far from running away with the election, she remains locked in a dead heat with her GOP rival.

According to the poll of likely voters reached by cellphone, Trump leads Harris nationally by one percentage point, at 48-47, within the three-point margin of error. Their standing is largely unchanged from the last Times/Siena poll taken at the end of July, just after Harris replaced Biden atop the Democratic ticket, an indication that Trump's support has not fractured despite a slew of bad headlines and increasingly fevered rhetoric from the former president.

We need your help to stay independent

Harris' momentum might also have been stalled by the fact that 28% of poll respondents are unsure of what to think of her or her positions, despite the vice president spending more than two months as the presumptive or official Democratic nominee. Two-thirds of those voters said they were eager to learn more about Harris' policies, which at least gives her potential room to grow her support.

Only 9% of respondents said they needed to know more about Trump, who is viewed unfavorably and seen as "risky" by a majority of voters in the poll. But among voters who have some opinion of both, Trump has significant advantages — when asked about their most important issue and then which candidate would better address it, respondents picked Trump over Harris across the board by an average of five points, and on the economy by 13 points. And nearly half of the respondents said that Harris was too far left on the political spectrum, while only one-third said Trump was too far right.

Furthermore, Trump is still seen by more voters as the "change" candidate, despite Democratic hopes that Harris' entry into the race would flip the narrative on its head — 61% of respondents said that Trump represented "change," while only 40% said the same for Harris, who while providing a fresher performance than Biden, has run on a largely generic Democratic platform targeted towards the "middle class" and casting a wide net over issues like fair prices, abortion and defending democracy. That might have been enough for her to claw back some support from traditional Democratic voters like women, young people and Latinos, but the poll finds that she is still below the usual levels of Democratic strength.

We need your help to stay independent

The poll might also provide some insight on what attacks have been working for Harris against Trump. Although the former president has tried to publicly disavow his ties to Project 2025, 71% of respondents who have heard of the right-wing policy blueprint believed that Trump would try to enact some of its policies, with 63% saying they opposed it. Voters also associated Trump closely with the Republican Party's efforts to restrict or ban abortion, with Harris winning on this issue among respondents by 15 points. Attacks on Trump's character and fitness, a staple of his political opponents since 2015, might not have landed — nearly half of Trump voters surveyed said the former president had said something they found offensive but that they would support him anyway.

The Times/Siena results diverge from other surveys taken so far this month, with Emerson, Morning Consult and YouGov recording a four-point, three-point and two-point lead for Harris, respectively. New York Times political analyst Nate Cohn wrote that the Times/Siena poll's findings, which show the first national lead for Trump in about a month, were "a bit surprising," but also suggested that it could be the first of several forthcoming polls that will show a settling of the race after an initial wave of party enthusiasm and largely positive media cycles. Harris, however, has a chance to give herself another positive media cycle if she performs well at the presidential debate Tuesday evening.

What people (including Keith Lee) get wrong about the food in D.C.

In his most recent tour de food, popular TikTok food reviewer Keith Lee made his way to the Washington D.C. area much to the excitement of his countless online fans, including myself. The fact that Lee had chosen the DMV (short for D.C., Maryland and Virginia) — an often overlooked area within the food and restaurant spaces — as his next destination spot was major. Upon his request for local mom-and-pops that serve up “great food and service, but could use the marketing,” Lee received over 20,000 recommendations from his 16.5 million followers. 

Lee, a Las Vegas-based mixed martial arts fighter and beloved online food critic, is best known for spreading positivity through his honest, yet well-mannered reviews. Through his efforts, Lee helps promote the “Keith Lee Effect,” in which he provides generous tips and donations to struggling, mainly minority- and family-owned local restaurants in an effort to boost their sales.   

That doesn’t mean Lee isn’t afraid to leave behind a bad review. If a place has poor customer service or is simply not on par with his own taste, Lee is quick to say, “I’m not the target audience,” and refrains from showing videos of the restaurants that left him unsatisfied.

Unfortunately for D.C., the city earned few praises and a handful of complaints from Lee. He criticized the D.C. dining scene, saying it’s “geared directly towards alcohol,” and added that for those who don’t drink (like himself), “it seems like slim pickings.”

Indeed, many D.C.-based restaurants take pride in their happy hours and the nation’s capital, as a whole, is also hailed for its bottomless brunches. But to conclude that the city’s main focus is solely on alcohol is erroneous and takes attention away from the diverse cuisines that D.C. has to offer. Yes, the city caters to those who enjoy drinking — whether it’s socially or in a more professional setting. But it also caters to those who choose not to. 

We need your help to stay independent

In his criticism, Lee added that only six of the 12 D.C. restaurants he visited and reviewed would be named and featured on his TikTok account. “A lot of food we’ve been recommended since we’ve been here looks like this,” he said, showing pictures of several unappetizing, and what appeared to be soggy and discolored, foods. Lee also alleged that several restaurants, which he left unnamed, followed unsanitary practices and risked cross-contamination with shellfish, to which Lee said he’s allergic. Lee did not post or name those specific restaurants out of respect for their owners and business. 

As for the restaurants he did mention, Lee visited Okonomi Asian Grille, a fast-casual Asian-American restaurant in Fairfax, Virginia, that serves rice and noodle bowls. Lee was pleased with some of the bowls he tried and gave them a rating of 8.5 out of 10. Lee then made his way to Flavor Hive, a food truck based in Alexandria, Virginia, that went viral for its “walking nachos.” Customers bring their own bags of chips, which are then filled with their choice of protein, vegetables, and sauces for just $10 each. Despite the cool concept, Lee wasn’t all that impressed after trying three large bags of chips. The beef and Fritos bag earned the highest rating of 7.9, while the chicken and gyro meat bags earned much lower scores.

Lee’s favorite spot was Dukem on U Street. The family-operated Ethiopian restaurant received widespread support on TikTok after Lydia Tefera, the daughter of one of the owners, said the restaurant was on the brink of shutting down. Lee gave the short ribs a 9 out of 10 and praised Dukem as “the best food we've had in D.C.”

Lee also ventured into Southwest D.C., where he stopped by Hong Kong Delite Carry Out to try fried rice and chicken wings coated in the District’s famed mumbo sauce (he gave his $12 takeout order a rating of 8.6). He also visited Cane, a Trinidadian spot on H Street that earned its highest rating of 7.9; along with Smize & Dream, Tyra Banks’ D.C.-based pop-up shop.


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food's newsletter, The Bite.


Where Lee fell short was his choice of restaurants. Aside from trying Ethiopian food (a cuisine the DMV area is especially known for due to its large Ethiopian community) and mumbo sauce, Lee didn’t try any other notable D.C. specialties. Those include half-smokes, a type of hot dog that’s made from coarsely ground meat (usually half pork and half beef) and is spicier in flavor; pupusas, a thick, stuffed corn cake that’s the national dish of El Salvador; Peruvian chicken; Ghanaian food or, even, a jumbo slice of greasy pizza. There’s also the Chesapeake blue crabs and oysters, (but for the sake of Lee’s health, he can pass on those).

If Lee decides to give D.C. a second chance, he should consider popping into Roaming Rooster, a DMV chain that serves delicious fried chicken sandwiches, wings and fries; along with Stachowski's Market, a chef-driven butcher shop, deli and market that touts a half-smoke with onions and mustard. There’s also Ercilia's Restaurant, which serves tacos, pupusas, burritos and various Central American foods; and Hedzole, a hot spot for Ghanaian-American food.

D.C. isn’t the first major city that Lee (politely) criticized. He garnered backlash last October for his not-so-positive reviews of Atlanta’s food scene.

As for whether Lee will return to D.C., only time will tell. As for whether he should, the answer is a confident yes.

Vengeance is Trump’s only true campaign proposal

After Donald Trump once again demonstrated his monumental ignorance with his answer to a question about child care at the New York Economic Club last week, I was curious about what people in that audience thought about him. There was some clapping and cheering but it wasn't his usual rally crowd so it's hard to tell how enthusiastic they were. The person who asked Trump the question, Girls Who Code CEO Reshma Saujani, told CNN that his word salad answer was insulting, which is true. But what did the Big Money Boyz in the crowd think of Trump's "economic" agenda focused on tariffs and tax cuts but not much else according to his rambling presentation?

"The GOP-leaning business elite I talk to," the Washington Post's Jeff Stein reported, "are convinced the Trump tariff threats are ultimately bluster, position-taking, bluffing."

He may or may not follow through on his inane tariffs or impractical mass deportation, but he damn sure believes in vengeance and there is no doubt he will follow through with that if he happens to eke out another win, especially now that he's been granted immunity by his friends on the Supreme Court.

Trump benefits in numerous ways from being the world's greatest liar. People can believe what they want to believe and these Masters of the Universe are free to think that he's just "blustering" and "buffing" and doesn't actually mean that he will impose policies that are likely to crash the economy. One suspects they think he'll just do what Republicans always do, which is hand out tax cuts to the wealthy, cut regulations, raise military spending and slash domestic programs wherever they can get away with it.

Maybe they're right, although I don't think we can be sure since Trump is surrounding himself with extremists and weirdos and has lost whatever fragile grasp he once had on reality. But they feel confident he won't disturb their fortunes, perhaps because he has one of his own, and that's all they care about.

Trump also made a startling comment in Wisconsin over the weekend about his plan for mass deportation of migrants. He said, "getting them out will be a bloody story."

That's more than a little bit disturbing. It's clear that he's priming his followers to support violence across America as police and the military carry out the Project 2025 policy of round-ups, internment camps and deportation of tens of millions of people.

David Frum in the Atlantic assures us that this won't actually happen because the logistics are too complicated and the cost is much too high. I find it hard to believe that Trump will just give up on this signature policy but perhaps Frum is right and they'll only succeed in forcefully removing a million or so families and possibly only build a few camps instead of the thousands that would be necessary if he followed the proposed program to the letter. Frum points out that the Japanese internment in WWII was met with the cooperation of the 150,000 internees and required ten full-scale detention camps. Imagine how much more complicated and expensive it would be to remove millions of unwilling people.

You have to assume, however, with rhetoric like this, calling his deportation scheme the "conquest and great liberation of America," that he won't follow through at all:

We need your help to stay independent

Many Americans have been worked up into a frenzy over immigration. Still, it's always possible that, just as the Big Money Boys don't take him seriously on the issue of tariffs, most voters know in their heart of hearts that Trump is just hyping it up for electoral purposes. They don't really care if he's able to deport 100% of what he calls the "vermin" who are making our economy function. But it's certainly exciting for them to fantasize about,

Does he really mean any of that stuff? Who knows? Tariffs and immigration are the only traditional "issues" Trump has talked about for years, even as he obviously doesn't really understand them. But do they really mean anything to him? I doubt it. Trump only cares about himself and these two issues are just talking points (kind of like NATO dues or "take the oil") that he came up with years ago and continue to be his answers when anyone asks him about "policy."

But there is one thing he keeps bringing up in his speeches and his rallies that I think he is very, very serious about. I've written about it here many times over the years because it is the one philosophical belief that he has spoken about consistently for decades: vengeance.

"I love getting even when I get screwed by someone," Trump famously wrote in his book "Think Big":

Always get even. When you are in business you need to get even with people who screw you. You need to screw them back 15 times harder. You do it not only to get the person who messed with you but also to show the others who are watching what will happen to them if they mess with you. If someone attacks you, do not hesitate. Go for the jugular.

Just last year he announced to his ecstatic CPAC audience "I am your retribution" and posted a word cloud with the word "revenge" featured prominently on his Truth Social platform. At the Economic Club speech last week, he alluded to it again, whining about his legal travails:

 I didn’t do that to Crooked Hillary. I said, that would be a terrible thing, wouldn’t it? Putting the wife of the President of the United States in jail. But they view it differently, I guess, nowadays, but that’s okay.

And they always have to remember that two can play the game

Over the weekend he posted a threat to his Truth Social platform to prosecute "Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters and Corrupt Election Officials" to the "fullest extent of the Law which will include long prison sentences" over alleged "cheating" which, of course, isn't actually happening. The rant was followed up the next day by another screaming post declaring that Tucker Carlson had interviewed an "expert" who said that 20% of Pennsylvania mail-in ballots are fraudulent and called on the FBI to investigate. Pennsylvania ballots have not gone out yet so it's nonsense but he's already building his case.

If he loses, Trump will once again try to rile up his disappointed followers and who knows what will happen then. But he's not president anymore and it's unclear how that will help him do anything but salve his ego.

If he wins all bets are off.

He may or may not follow through on his inane tariffs or impractical mass deportation, but he damn sure believes in vengeance and there is no doubt he will follow through with that if he happens to eke out another win, especially now that he's been granted immunity by his friends on the Supreme Court. Nothing matters more to him than getting even. He means it. 

The political whiplash effect is Harris-Walz’s secret weapon

This summer in politics has been a whirlwind. Democrats went from what seemed like almost certain defeat by Donald Trump to President Joe Biden stepping aside and handing the political torch to Vice President Kamala Harris. These last eight or so weeks also included the Republican and Democratic Party’s national conventions, an assassination attempt on Trump’s life, and a disastrous first debate between Biden and Trump. Many political experts have described this series of events as being some of the most consequential and rapid in recent American history in the shortest amount of time. We are now on the eve of one of the most anticipated presidential debates in history.

As I have tried to make sense of this summer, and the Age of Trump more generally, I have kept returning to the image of a car going around a racetrack in an endless circle at high speed and unable to stop. It is loud, fast, and disorienting while at the same time being very tedious and repetitive. Those of us in this car — and watching it from the stands — are suffering from motion sickness. With the sudden change of political fortunes in these last weeks, it feels as if the American people have gotten a whiplash or a concussion.

The Centers for Disease Control lists the following signs of a concussion:

•             Can't recall events prior to or after a hit or fall.

•             Appears dazed or stunned.

•             Forgets an instruction, is confused about an assignment or position, or is unsure of the game, score, or opponent.

•             Moves clumsily.

•             Answers questions slowly.

•             Loses consciousness (even briefly).

•             Shows mood, behavior, or personality changes.

Reported symptoms of concussion may include:

•             Headache or "pressure" in head.

•             Nausea or vomiting.

•             Balance problems or dizziness, or double or blurry vision.

•             Bothered by light or noise.

•             Feeling sluggish, hazy, foggy, or groggy.

•             Confusion, or concentration or memory problems.

•             Just not "feeling right," or "feeling down".

Because the personal is the political, these symptoms and effects can apply to both individuals and societies. To that point, public opinion research and other evidence show that the Age of Trump has had many moments where the American people, both individually and collectively, have manifested these symptoms of a concussion.

The next seventy or so days until Election Day will feel both slow and very fast. In addition, to being an example of some type of collective whiplash or concussion, this experience of time distortion is a response to individual and collective trauma.

In a 2023 essay at PsyPost, Eric Dolan explains the concept of “temporal disintegration” and its implications:

Experiencing a psychological phenomenon known as temporal disintegration during or shortly after a collective trauma is associated with higher levels of distress both in the immediate aftermath and over time, according to new research published in Clinical Psychological Science. The findings suggest that the acute temporal distortions experienced during a trauma are an important contributor to future expectations and fears.

Traumatic experiences can profoundly alter an individual’s understanding of the world and trigger various cognitive and emotional processes to cope with the trauma. These experiences can also distort our perception of time.

During and immediately after a traumatic event, individuals may perceive time as slowing down or stopping, focusing only on the present moment with little awareness of the past and future. This distortion of time, called temporal disintegration, can isolate people in a stressful moment and disrupt the linear flow of time that weaves our life story together, affecting personal identity.

Temporal disintegration has been linked to long-term psychological adjustment following exposure to disasters. It can make individuals fixated on past negative events, leading to diminished well-being and increased distress over time. However, there is a lack of information about how trauma-related distortions in perceived time may be associated with our perceptions of the future, creating a gap in understanding the lasting impacts of temporal disintegration.

One can easily substitute “the American people” for “individuals” and the above description still largely applies. The treatment for a concussion or whiplash involves rest and steadying oneself—and limiting or avoiding the movements and activities that caused the injuries in the first place.

During her first major televised interview since becoming the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, on Thursday, Harris, and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, provided an example of what that could look like. Harris, as expected, was confident and poised as she explained her policy positions and how her thinking has changed over the years. She dismissed Trump’s absurd claims about her racial identity in such a manner that it made him look even more ridiculous — as though that is possible. CNN’s host, Dana Bash, as is typical for the mainstream news media, recycled Republican and right-wing talking points and accusations as though they were truth and not partisan attacks. Harris and Walz deflected them, and in total did an excellent job of staying on message and credit-claiming for her accomplishments as Biden’s vice president. In short, Kamala Harris looked “presidential.”

We need your help to stay independent

Trump and his propagandists were left with little to substantively disagree with or attack besides standard talking-point right-wing-playbook grumblings about the length of the interview (it was approximately 30 mins instead of the scheduled 60 mins; CNN edited the interview for length) and that CNN is part of the “liberal media,” which of course is never to be trusted. Donald Trump responded on his Truth Social disinformation propaganda platform by attacking Harris for being a “communist” who will turn the country into a “wasteland” if she becomes president. Trump also made odd comments about the setting for the interview and the size of the desk that Harris sat behind. Trump said it was not befitting a “leader” who will be respected around the world and have to confront political strongmen and bullies such as North Korea’s Kim Jon-un or China’s President Xi. CNN’s interview took place at a Black-owned restaurant in Savannah, Georgia.

The Guardian’s David Smith described the contrast between Trump and Harris in the following way:

Donald Trump spent Thursday in Michigan raving about bacon, windmills, Al Capone, trans boxers, nuclear war and, of course, his crowd size. Weird! Kamala Harris and Tim Walz gave an interview on CNN that was … radically normal.

Just as she did a week ago at the Democratic national convention, the vice-president was comfortable and composed, solid and unspectacular, doing enough to clear the bar and doing herself no harm. She turned a much hyped first interview as nominee into a soon-to-be-forgotten pit stop along the campaign trail.

Perhaps most important was the personality test. The old saw in presidential campaigns was: which candidate would you rather have a beer with? Harris and Walz came over as the couple you’d be fine sharing cake and coffee with at your kids’ birthday party. The same cannot be said of the former president and his running mate, JD Vance.

Democrats’ bet is that Americans crave such relatability after a decade of Trump’s malignant narcissism and Joe Biden’s struggles with old age. The current president turned every interview into a nerve-wracking high-wire act. Harris was a fresh-faced model of steadiness by comparison.

The news site AZCentral.com described Harris’ CNN interview as “too sane to be great TV. And that's a good thing.” Trump’s “brand” as a political figure-entertainer-character is surprise, predictable unpredictability, and the cliffhanger. If the medium is indeed the message, Trump, and his mastery of the logic of television and digital media have been among his greatest weapons. Kamala Harris is offering a radical alternative.

As happy and joyful warriors for democracy and the American project, Harris and Walz are presenting an image (and energy) of responsible leadership, determination, and progress as part of an attempt (and narrative) to reclaim the brand of “patriotism” and “real American values” from Trump, the Republicans, and the larger “conservative” movement.

But at its core, Harris and the Democrats are trying to revitalize a faith and belief in the presidency, democracy, government, and a type of healthy normal that has been so greatly diminished by the Age of Trump.

On Election Day, the American people will choose between the healthy normal of Kamala Harris’ and the Democrats’ vision for America or the whiplash politics and suffering more concussions from Dictator Trump and his MAGAfied Republicans and the other neofascists.

Kamala Harris must now answer for her past positions — then she can flip the script on Trump

Critics say Kamala Harris has run a campaign long on style and short on substance. The media, they complain, has given her a pass. Late Sunday evening, her campaign finally published an issues page on her website. We still suspect that David Muir and Linsey Davis, the ABC News anchors tasked with moderating Tuesday’s debate, the only one scheduled between the two major party presidential nominees, will be gunning for the vice president, eager to show that they are fair and balanced. 

So Harris and her team have holed up in Pennsylvania for nearly a week of debate prep. Here are answers to some anticipated questions for Harris. If she hopes to prevail when she comes face-to-face with Donald Trump tomorrow night, she must account for her own policy changes — and flip the spotlight back onto the 78-year-old former president and convicted felon.

Inflation and affordability

Q: Vice President Harris, let’s start with the economy. As you know, poll after poll shows you trailing Donald Trump on the economy. What do you say to Americans who think their families will do better under former President Trump?

A: I say, “I am the underdog fighting for you, the hardworking people and your family.” I am the candidate who grew up without being given a thing. I worked at McDonalds and made my way up the ladder of opportunity in America. 

I know what it’s like to have a hard time making ends meet and I also know that millions of Americans are experiencing that right now. Look, we’ve made a lot of progress in fighting inflation. But I also know that there is more that we need to do.I promise that I will take that fight personally. I know the price of bread, eggs, and the food Americans consume. I pay attention to the price at the pump for gasoline. I will go after price gouging that is costing you in the grocery store and the fuel pump. Donald Trump won’t. He will protect profits for his friends, the owners of the oil companies and the big grocery chains, profits that are already through the roof. 

They even admit it. Last week, Andy Groff, Kroger’s head of pricing, said in an email that Bloomberg News obtained – I’m quoting now – “On milk and eggs, retail inflation has been significantly higher than cost inflation.” Translation: “We’ve raised prices way higher than our costs, gouging consumers.” 

I won’t stand for that.

I am a believer in capitalism, but it’s fair capitalism that I believe in. I want a federal government that does what some state law already does – imposes fines on big companies that exploit crises to gouge hardworking Americans

As for my opponent, the only capitalism he believes in is crony capitalism: profits for the rich and problems for the poor.

And for hardworking Americans, don’t forget also that we’ve created more than 15 million jobs in four years. The prior administration LOST 3 million jobs.

Here’s one way I’ll keep job growth going and help make American homes affordable at the same time. My plan is to give many first-time buyers $25,000 in down-payment assistance, to build three million new homes and to cut red tape that stands in builders’ way. We need to rebuild the American dream.

One last point on the big picture economy going forward: Last week, even my opponent’s Wall Street buddies at Goldman-Sachs said that under his economic plan – where tariffs will raise prices on goods for everyone – the American economy’s upswing would dive, while under mine, it will thrive. 

Fracking

Q: Madam Vice President, why have you changed your position on fracking?

A: Sorry, my position is the same as it was in the 2020 Vice Presidential debate, when I said a Biden/Harris Administration would not ban fracking. I did not seek to stop fracking as vice president and I will not try to do so as president.

Five years ago, I listened and learned after I said I opposed fracking. I learned that we can move forward with clean energy while we take care of our workers in the oil industry. I’m taking the economy forward, not going back to old positions that don’t do anything for people in states like Pennsylvania where fracking matters. 

Here’s what I don’t do: I don’t do daily or weekly flip-flops like my opponent. 

Take abortion, where he was for it before he was against it, before he tied himself in recent days into a pretzel over it trying to please and appease. He’s the guy who said he was proud to have appointed three Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. 

Me, plain and simple, I’m for reproductive freedom.

I’m also for making sure that we don’t leave anyone behind. Banning fracking would do just that. That’s why it will be part of our energy plan under a Harris administration.

Crime

Q: How do you explain to your progressive supporters that as a district attorney, you championed legislation that allowed parents of chronically truant students to be prosecuted?

School matters to our children’s future. Our children’s future matters to America’s future. Parents who allow their children to be chronically truant are hurting them and hurting us. 

We need your help to stay independent

I fought truancy in California for more than a decade. I added many tools to the toolkit, this being only one. We used it to warn parents there’d be consequences if they didn’t get serious.

Prosecutors know when to use the law as a warning and when to use it as a hammer. I used law as a hammer when I sent to prison transnational cartel gangs that brought drugs into the country. Prosecution is a very effective tool to protect our borders. But I also championed a Back on Track program for young first-time drug users who often deserve a chance to get straight.

And you want to know who’s soft on crime? This guy [pointing to Trump]. He’s the one who, on his last day in office, commuted the life sentence of Jaime Davidson, who went on this summer to get convicted of battering his wife. My opponent also commuted the sentence of Jonathan Braun, a drug dealer who last month was arrested for assaulting his wife twice and punching his 75-year-old father in law. 

Crime was higher when Trump was in office than it is now. That is just a fact. I’ve fought crime all my life. It steals safety, peace and hope from families. 

And guess what? Criminals can also steal elections from a nation, just like a jury of his New York peers decided that Donald Trump did in 2016 when he hid his sex scandal with Stormy Daniels from the American people. 

Trump’s attempt to overturn the vote to stay in power in 2020 is why respected former Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., says he can’t vote for Trump. It’s probably why Mike Pence, my opponent’s own Vice President, won’t endorse him — while former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney has endorsed me 

One of us here has stood up “for the people” in courts of law. One of us has been found guilty of 34 felonies by the people of the state of New York.

Taxes

Q: Your opponent says you will raise taxes. Will you?

A: I’m for easing the tax burden on working people and families and paying for it by demanding their fair share from the ultra-wealthy and corporations.

Any American earning less than $400,000 will not get a tax hike during my presidency. Period. 

Above that, people need to start paying their fair share. People with household incomes over $1 million should have the capital gains tax restored to 28%, where it was in the 1990s when President Bill Clinton was balancing budgets. And for those in the upper .01% of earners, to help us support working families, we need a tax on increases in the value of their assets. 

We also need to recover some of the 14% of corporate taxes lost when my opponent’s 2017 tax package dropped the rate from 35% to 21%. I’m for compromise, going halfway back, to 28% corporate taxes. 

My proposed changes will allow us to help families by restoring the tax credit of up to $3,600 a child, which we had in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. I also want a new credit of up to $6,000 in tax relief for middle- and low-income families during the first year of a child’s life.

And to help new small businesses get started in my “new opportunity economy,” I have proposed expanding the standard tax deduction from $5,000 to $50,000 so we can create 25 million new small businesses. I also want to put in place state and local governments incentives to cut red tape and reduce regulations.

My opponent has no interest in paying for his promised $10.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade. What happened to the Grand Old Party that always wanted to cut the deficit? He’s the one who will burden our children, in part by restoring the 2017 tax deal that so enormously favored his billionaire friends.

Race and gender

Q. Madam Vice President, how important should race and gender, considering your historic run, be in this election?

A. We are electing a president. We are electing someone who will fight for us. We are electing someone who will represent the best that we can be. 

We are electing someone who will move us forward, not take us back. We are electing someone who will be president for every single one of us, including those who do not vote for us. We are electing someone who will reflect dignity and honor upon us, someone who respects the law and our equality before it. 

We are deciding our future and who we want to be. Gender, the color of our skin, or the countries our forebears came from have nothing to do with it. 

We are Americans, all of us with equal rights and equal claims to all our country has to offer. 

That is what makes America great and always has.

Abortion bans are pushing people to terminate later in pregnancy

Dr. Diane Horvath is an OB-GYN who has worked in abortion care over the last 15 years. With training in complex family planning, she has experience seeing patients throughout all three trimesters of pregnancy. But since the Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing states to deny access to abortion, she’s noticed a trend at her clinic in Maryland: abortion bans and gestational restrictions are forcing people who try to get abortions earlier in pregnancy are being pushed to get them later in pregnancy. 

“When people decide they want an abortion, they want to have it as soon as possible — nobody waits until they're 30 weeks and decides, 'Well, I think I'll just have an abortion now.' That just doesn't happen,” Horvath told Salon. “What has happened with a lot of our patients is that they've been trying to have an abortion for months, and the costs and barriers start to compound and become insurmountable until people are later in pregnancy.”

Horvath elaborated that a common situation is this: somebody lives in a state with a near-total abortion ban, for example, Alabama or Florida, which has a six-week limit, a cut-off that occurs before many people even know they're pregnant. Abortion in their state isn’t an option by the time they find out they are pregnant, and for one reason or another, they don’t have access to medication abortion. They start researching getting access to care out of state. They get an appointment a few weeks out, but by that time they will have surpassed that state’s gestational limit. Then they have to start from square one again. 

“It’s not hard to imagine how three, four or six weeks could pass while you navigate this,” Horvath said, noting that 60 percent of pregnant people who get an abortion are already parents. Childcare is another factor to consider when arranging travel plans and taking time off work. Plus, the further along in pregnancy a person is, the more complex and costly the procedure can be. “When we view this with empathy, we can absolutely see how somebody could end up later in pregnancy than they had intended to be, because of all of these barriers and because of people's circumstances in their real lives.” 

"When we view this with empathy, we can absolutely see how somebody could end up later in pregnancy than they had intended to be."

Less than one percent of abortions in the United States occur after 21 weeks of gestation — unlike what many anti-abortion advocates try to portray. However, as Salon previously reported, the phrase “late-term abortion” has made its way into public discourse during this election season. Not only did the first presidential debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump include a very misinformed discussion about “late-term abortions” before Roe v. Wade was overturned, but the Republican Party adopted a “Make America Great Again” policy platform ahead of its national convention that stated in a 16-page document the party will oppose "late-term abortion.” Yet providers say these very policies being pushed by anti-abortion legislators are anecdotally pushing people to have to terminate their pregnancies in second and third trimesters. 

When anti-abortion advocates say “late-term abortion,” an intentionally vague term, they are typically talking about abortions that occur in the second trimester — at or after 13 weeks of gestation. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2021 about 81 percent of abortions in the U.S. occurred at nine weeks of pregnancy or earlier; 94 percent happened in the first 13 weeks, 3 percent occurred between 16 and 20 weeks of gestation.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


Notably, there isn’t any data post-Dobbs available on the rise of abortions happening later in pregnancy as a result of Dobbs-related restrictions. The Guttmacher Institute told Salon they are looking into it and hope to have data in the near future. But for people who work in abortion care, like Horvath and more, they say they are seeing this trend on the ground and it’s a direct consequence of strict abortion laws following the Dobbs decision.

Dr. Jen Russo, chief medical officer at the DuPont Clinic in California, told Salon all of the barriers that exist right now are likely contributing to people being pushed to terminate later in pregnancy. Fear, and funding, are major barriers, Russo emphasized. 

“We are sort of seeing the same types of cases as we've always seen, but the volume that we're seeing has decreased because people are having such trouble accessing funding,” Russo said. As Salon has previously reported, abortion funds are running out of money. “Patients who have fetal anomalies or medical conditions that are dangerous for them in the pregnancy, their doctors might still be afraid to tell them where they can go or how they can access care, and so that leads to delays.”

Sometimes, there are cases where a patient finds out their fetus has a congenital anomaly that isn’t diagnosed until 18 or 20 weeks of pregnancy. 

“They had no idea, they had genetic testing, and it was normal, but then they went for their anatomy ultrasound and found out that they had an anatomic abnormality that isn't genetic,” she said. “Or they are diagnosed with a new medical condition.”

We need your help to stay independent

A 2022 study of patients seeking abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy found that they fell into two categories. Either they had learned new information about their pregnancies, such as the emergence of a serious fetal health issue or something that posed a major risk to their health, or they experienced barriers to abortion services earlier in the pregnancy. Certainly, barriers to access were an issue even before the fall of Roe v. Wade. But the repercussions of more restrictions is being felt in abortion clinics that offer abortions later in pregnancy. 

Dr. Warren Hern, who specializes in fetal anomaly abortions in Colorado, said he has been seeing patients for over 40 years. He is used to seeing the barriers people face to access abortion care later in pregnancy. Today, he told Salon 30 percent of his patients are from Texas. Another 50 percent, he estimates, come from other red states. Despite so-called exceptions for life-of-the-mother or fetal anomalies, Hern said he sees patients from these states, too. 

“Exceptions are meaningless, they’re cosmetic,” Hern said. “It is inexcusable to have any law restricting access to abortion.”

People who are pushing strict abortion laws are “completely disconnected from reality,” he added. “They have no relationship to reality whatsoever; it's about getting elected."

Thanks to Reddit, a new diagnosis is bubbling up across the nation

In a video posted to Reddit this summer, Lucie Rosenthal’s face starts focused and uncertain, looking intently into the camera, before it happens.

She releases a succinct, croak-like belch.

Then, it’s wide-eyed surprise, followed by rollicking laughter. “I got it!” the Denver resident says after what was her second burp ever.

“It’s really rocking my mind that I am fully introducing a new bodily function at 26 years old,” Rosenthal later told KFF Health News while working remotely, because, as great as the burping was, it was now happening uncontrollably. “Sorry, excuse me. Oh, my god. That was a burp. Did you hear it?”

Rosenthal is among more than a thousand people who have received a procedure to help them burp since 2019 when an Illinois doctor first reported the steps of the intervention in a medical journal.

The inability to belch can cause bloating, pain, gurgling in the neck and chest, and excessive flatulence as built-up air seeks an alternate exit route. One Reddit user described the gurgling sound as an “alien trying to escape me,” and pain like a heart attack that goes away with a fart.

The procedure has spread, primarily thanks to increasingly loud rumblings in the bowels of Reddit. Membership in a subreddit for people with or interested in the condition has ballooned to about 31,000 people, to become one of the platform’s larger groups.

Since 2019, the condition has had an official name: retrograde cricopharyngeus dysfunction, also known as “abelchia” or “no-burp syndrome.” The syndrome is caused by a quirk in the muscle that acts as the gatekeeper to the esophagus, the roughly 10-inch-long muscular tube that moves food between the throat and the stomach.

The procedure to fix it involves a doctor injecting 50 to 100 units of Botox — more than twice the amount often used to smooth forehead wrinkles — into the upper cricopharyngeal muscle.

Doctors and researchers don’t understand why the same muscle that lets food move down won’t let air move up.

Michael King, the physician who treated Rosenthal, said he hadn’t heard of the disorder until 2020, when a teenager, armed with a list of academic papers found on Reddit, asked him to do the procedure.

It wasn’t a stretch. King, a laryngologist with Peak ENT and Voice Center, had been injecting Botox in the same muscle to treat people having a hard time swallowing after a stroke.

Now he’s among doctors from Norway to Thailand listed on the subreddit, r/noburp, as offering the procedure. Other doctors, commenters have noted, have occasionally laughed at them or made them feel they were being melodramatic.

To be fair, doctors and researchers don’t understand why the same muscle that lets food move down won’t let air move up.

“It’s very odd,” King said.

Doctors also aren’t sure why many patients keep burping long after the Botox wears off after a few months. Robert Bastian, a laryngologist outside of Chicago, named the condition and came up with the procedure. He estimates he and his colleagues have treated about 1,800 people, charging about $4,000 a pop.

“We hear that in Southern California it’s $25,000, in Seattle $16,000, in New York City $25,000,” Bastian said.

Because insurance companies viewed Botox charges as a “red flag,” he said, his patients now pay $650 to cover the medication so it can be excluded from the insurance claims.

The pioneering patient is Daryl Moody, a car technician who has worked at the same Toyota dealership in Houston for half his life. The 34-year-old said that by 2015 he had become “desperate” for relief. The bloating and gurgling wasn’t just a painful shadow over his day; it was cramping his new hobby: skydiving.

“I hadn’t done anything fun or interesting with my life,” he said.

That is, until he tried skydiving. But as he gained altitude on the way up, his stomach would inflate like a bag of chips on a flight.

“I went to 10 doctors,” he said. “Nobody seemed to believe me that this problem even existed.”

Then he stumbled upon a YouTube video by Bastian describing how Botox injections can fix some throat conditions. Moody asked if Bastian could try it to cure his burping problem. Bastian agreed.

Moody’s insurance considered it “experimental and unnecessary,” he recalled, so he had to pay about $2,700 out-of-pocket.

“This is honestly going to change everything,” he posted on his Facebook page in December 2015, about his trip to Illinois.

The year after his procedure, Moody helped break a national record for participating in the largest group of people to skydive together while wearing wingsuits, those getups that turn people into flying squirrels. He has jumped about 400 times now.

People have been plagued by this issue for at least a few millennia. Two thousand years ago, the Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder described a man named Pomponius who could not belch. And 840 years ago, Johannes de Hauvilla included the tidbit in a poem, writing, “The steaming face of Pomponius could find no relief by belching.”

It took a few more centuries for clinical examples to pop up. In the 1980s, a few case reports in the U.S. described people who couldn’t burp and had no memory of vomiting. One woman, doctors wrote, was “unable to voluntarily belch along with her childhood friends when this was a popular game.”

The patients were in a great deal of pain, though doctors couldn’t find anything wrong with their anatomy. But the doctors confirmed using a method called manometry that patients’ upper esophageal sphincters simply would not relax — not after a meal of a sandwich, glass of milk, and candy bar, nor after doctors used a catheter to squirt several ounces of air beneath the stubborn valve.

André Smout, a gastroenterologist at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, said he read those reports when they came out.

“But we never saw the condition, so we didn’t believe that it existed in real life,” he said.

Smout’s doubts persisted until he and colleagues studied a small group of patients a few years ago. The researchers gave eight patients with a reported inability to burp a “belch provocation” in the form of carbonated water, and used pressure sensors to observe how their throats moved. Indeed, the air stayed trapped. A Botox injection resolved their problems by giving them the ability to burp, or, to use an academic term, eructate.

“We had to admit that it really existed,” Smout said.

He wrote this summer in Current Opinion in Gastroenterology that the syndrome “may not be as rare as thought hitherto.” He credits Reddit with alerting patients and medical professionals to its existence.

But he wonders how often the treatment might cause a placebo effect. He pointed to studies finding that with conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome, 40% or more of patients who receive placebo treatment feel their symptoms improve. Awareness is also growing about “cyberchondria,” when people search desperately online for answers to their ailments — putting them at risk of unnecessary treatment or further distress.

In Denver, Rosenthal, the new burper, is open to the idea that the placebo effect could be at play for her. But even if that’s the case, she feels much better.

“I felt perpetual nausea, and that has subsided a lot since I got the procedure done,” she said. So has the bloating and stomach pain. She can drink a beer at happy hour and not feel ill.

She’s pleased insurance covered the procedure, and she’s getting a handle on the involuntary burping. She cannot, however, burp the alphabet.

“Not yet,” she said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.

Florida voters who oppose the state’s 6-week abortion ban say they are being visited by police

Florida voters who signed a petition to place a pro-choice abortion referendum on the ballot this November say they have been visited by police who are investigating claims of fraud at the behest of Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration, the Tampa Bay Times reported Saturday.

Last year, DeSantis, a Republican, signed into a law a ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. In response, pro-choice campaigners gathered and submitted nearly one million signatures to place on the ballot Amendment 4, a referendum that would overturn the ban and restore reproductive rights in the state.

Now Florida's Department of State is claiming it suspects fraud in the signature-gathering process. In an email to county election officials, the department's Brad McVay requested that they hand over their already-verified petitions so that the signatures can be reexamined, claiming without evidence that those who circulated the petitions "represent known or suspected fraudsters," Tampa Bay television station WTVT reported.

Isaac Menasche, a voter who signed a petition to place the abortion referendum on the ballot, told the Times that he too was contacted by people working for the Florida governor's office. According to Menasche, a plainclothes police officer came to his home to question him, apparently seeking to verify that the signature on the petition was indeed his.

“I’m not a person who is going out there protesting for abortion,” Menasche told the newspaper. “I just felt strongly and I took the opportunity when the person asked me, to say yeah, I’ll sign that petition.”

Another voter, Becky Castellanos, told the Times that she was visited by a state police officer who interrogated her about a family member's petition signature. She said the incident felt intimidating.

"It didn't surprise me that they were doing something like this to try to debunk these petitions to get it taken off of the ballot," she told the outlet.

In 2022, following false claims of voter fraud in the previous presidential election, DeSantis signed into law a measure creating a state Office of Election Crimes and Security. According to its website, the office claims to "proactively identify and thwart those who seek to violate Florida election laws." Last year, Florida Republicans set aside $1.4 million for the office.

Critics charge that the creation of the office was a political stunt, noting that voter fraud is exceedingly rare in the United States. They say the police visits reported by voters like Menasche is further evidence that the DeSantis administration is seeking to intimidate voters under the guise of addressing electoral fraud.

"Any effort to undermine the validity of these petitions is political interference aimed at distracting from the real issue: Florida’s extreme abortion ban, which has no real exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the woman," Lauren Brenzel, campaign director for Yes on 4, said in a statement obtained by the Tallahassee Democrat.

I tried speed dating to find men but instead ended up leaving with female friends

Many 20-something professional women in New York City struggle with love and relationships. I just happen to be one of them.

Finding suitable options among a plethora of casual, unserious daters has become a jading experience. It has prompted my friends to hilariously suggest I go on a dating show like "The Bachelor." But we all saw what happened to Jenn Tran — even "The Bachelorette" got duped by a no-good love bomber.

Dating has become this behemoth, creating such unsettling experiences that women have gone viral crying about their dates, their perpetual singlehood and men in general. Some even claim they've abandoned all hope and are turning to celibacy.

What an unbelievably unsexy topic to bring up during a three-minute speed date.

I’ve felt the same lonely frustrations even though I'm really never actually alone. The vicious cycle of dating hasn't helped: the initial optimism, the fatigue of disappointment and inevitable apathy – rinse and repeat. So I gave myself a challenge this summer: get off my dating apps comfort zone and try other forms of dating. I wasn’t looking for anything in particular. I wanted to experience the dating world outside the digital realm we have all fallen into partly by choice and circumstance. 

One of my friends sent me a flyer for a speed-dating event in Ridgewood, Queens about a 20-minute walk from my home. It was close enough that I couldn’t just blow it off. So I pulled the trigger and bought the $20 ticket. When the Tuesday evening finally approached, my anxiety skyrocketed which is typical before a date. My hands get clammy, my stomach sours and my mind runs with intrusive, imaginatively daunting thoughts. 

The clock read 7 p.m. and I was at the bar that had changed its name from Sundown to Cassette for performative anti-racist reasons. As I made my way to the basement where the event was held, I was told it didn’t actually start at 7 but at 7:30. Great, I think I’m the person who showed up to the date early. My anxiety ramped up when I looked around and no one was there. So I ordered a drink at the bar.

Luckily, I was the second person there; there was another woman. I ordered my cocktail, and she struck up a conversation, asking if this was the first time I was doing this. I nodded my head yes. She too, she said. She reassured me that we would get through this together. We exchanged astrological signs: she was an Aries and I was a Cancer. We quickly bonded in the universal language of astrology. 

From that point, I knew even if the night was a colossal loss I would’ve at least had one interaction with a kind stranger who unknowingly untangled my knotted anxious thoughts.

Eventually, more people funneled into the bar. My options for the night were a whopping pool of seven men — none of whom I could go for outside this speed-dating event. I was disappointed that there weren’t more non-white people there — the minorities were really in the minority. Nonetheless, the setup was cute. The lighting was pink, hearts were projected on a screen, and romantic music attempted to put us all in the mood.

With the start of a three-and-a-half-minute timer, my first date began. There was a bit of pressure because he was the first guy starting off my speed-dating experience. He didn't disappoint with his question: what was the pressing issue on my mind? Unfortunately for him, the only thing that was swirling around in my head was too heavy to talk about in three minutes. I blurted it out anyway.

I explained to him how I had been writing a lot about Kamala Harris for work, and thoughts on the war in Gaza kept intruding into my mental space. I felt conflicted about our personal responsibility in voting for someone who aided in the suffering of countless people. What an unbelievably unsexy topic to bring up during a three-minute speed date. His wide eyes blinked rapidly, but he responded with classic therapy speak, "Thank you for sharing." I can still hear myself apologizing for my "dark and twisty thoughts." I thought, Thank god I will never have to see this person again.

On another date, a postal worker asked me what my biggest fear was. Again, I didn't go to a light and flirty place. Since I was probably five or six, I've had a paralyzing fear of snakes. However, this fear isn't unfounded or delusional. Nearly 20 years ago, my mom told me the horrifying story of her experience in a Somali refugee camp. She had fled Ethiopia after a civil war and famine had threatened to rip apart the fabric of her home country.

Somalia in the late '80s and early '90s wasn't particularly safe either. At the refugee camp, she recalled laying in bed when she felt this pressure along her body. Something was tightly squeezing her leg. She always told me she thought she'd die in that moment. But by chance, luck, or God — the snake slithered away and she was not harmed. The villagers found the snake the next day and had strung it up. Needless to say, that story always shocks people when I tell it, and then they validate my fears. 

I felt detached from any real possibilities of romance or enjoyment in the rapid way I had to package myself in minutes.

The last memorable date was with another white man. As soon as I introduced myself with my name, he asked where it came from. Look, I get it. Nardos is not a name you see often in the Western world but to ask about it on a first date in the first second felt like a microaggression. So I explained like I tirelessly always do. But then I passive-aggressively asked where his boring Anglo-Saxon name came from too. I knew from that moment the night was a total waste of $20. On each minute-long date, I was bringing the energy and oomph, feeling a real lack of effort from the people sitting across from me. Again, this was everything I expected from the dating scene. It was no shock that speed dating also felt transactional. I felt detached from any real possibilities of romance or enjoyment in the rapid way I had to package myself in minutes.

We need your help to stay independent

But thanks to the existence of women, I was able to run away from the bar, around the corner for some comforting Caesar salad, pizza and authentic human interaction. One of the women brought out her little card and told me she matched with absolutely no one. I had written down three names because I felt like I had to give the experience a fair chance. But in reality, I was not interested in these men.

As our food came out, men were the target of our frustrations in our conversation. One women told me a story about a guy who took her to Coney Island for a magical date and then ended up ghosting her when she said she had a great time and wanted to do it again. I laughed in horror when I told her I also had a movie-like romantic date with someone just for him to disappear into thin air. While my newly found speed-dating friend was 10 years older than me, I felt relief knowing no matter our age, some men would never tire from their games.

We ate and commiserated some more until one of the other girls eventually joined us too. We followed each other on Instagram and formed a Speed Dating club to try hitting the different ones across the city together. I received texts from two guys saying we had matched from the event and immaturely I didn't respond. That night no longer felt like it was meant for men. It was meant for a fleeting moment of female solidarity. We may just end up being each other's Instagram mutuals and nothing more but on that Tuesday it was comforting that even if none of the new and old dating fads never work — one thing would stay consistent, and it’s women’s ability to be there for each other.

Why Oasis is gonna live forever on our playlists

Band reunions are a dime a dozen these days, as one of the most effective (and lucrative) career strategies is breaking up for a while and then making a triumphant comeback. Sure, there are notable holdouts—including Talking Heads and the Smiths — but these groups are the exception rather than the rule.

Up until a few weeks ago, Oasis was also in the category of long-term reunion holdouts. The legendary Brits broke up just before a gig in 2009, the culmination of years of disagreements between brothers (and principal members) Noel and Liam Gallagher. But two days before the 30th anniversary of their debut album, "Definitely Maybe," Oasis announced a reunion tour centered on the UK and Ireland. 

They sound like the soundtrack to a time when life is full of possibilities.

For many years, an Oasis reconciliation seemed improbable. The brothers traded sharp barbs online and in the press, with Liam memorably calling Noel a “potato” multiple times on Twitter/X and Noel tossing off casual insults such as “I don’t listen to the albums, because I can’t stand his voice.” Even the Gallaghers’ mom Peggy asking her sons to put aside their differences didn’t lead to a truce. 

Of course, the Gallaghers’ disagreements were nothing new — a 1995 single “Wibbling Rivalry” detailed their squabbling during an interview and just missed the Top 40 in the UK — but the brothers were rather adamantly anti-reunion: In summer 2024, Liam even embarked on a tour celebrating "Definitely Maybe" on his own.

But the timing seems ideal for an Oasis reunion. As is the case with many groups, the band received a massive bump in popularity in the years they were apart. Oasis currently have over 30 million monthly Spotify listeners; “Wonderwall” alone has amassed a staggering 2 billion-plus streams; and another anthem, “Don’t Look Back in Anger,” is also closing in on the coveted 1 billion stream mark. 

Of course, it also helps that both Noel and Liam have continued to tour separately and still play a healthy amount of Oasis songs. In the U.S., the former has also opened high-profile amphitheater tours for groups like Smashing Pumpkins and Garbage in recent years with the High Flying Birds

In the UK, as a solo artist, Liam has become almost as big a draw as Oasis in the UK, given his two-night, sold-out 2022 gigs at Knebworth — where the band played a memorable 1996 gig — and headlining slots this year at the Reading and Leeds festivals. The brothers also still play with musicians who were in various Oasis lineups, so getting back into fighting shape as a band won’t be a stretch.

A big part of their ongoing popularity also stems from younger generations keeping the band’s music alive. That’s a testament to the ongoing resurgence of (and interest in) '90s rock, but also the ageless nature of the band’s albums. From a production standpoint, "Definitely Maybe" and the follow-up, 1995’s blockbuster "(What's the Story) Morning Glory?," don’t sound dated. 

Both albums are certainly influenced by the melodic pop-rock favored by the Beatles — not coincidentally, the Fab Four are another band beloved by younger generations — but the LPs also take cues from classic British glam and swaggering psychedelic rock. Thematically, these albums especially feel timeless, covering the ups and downs of adulthood: ennui and uncertainty, deep longing and the exhilaration of being young. Oasis doesn’t sound like an oldies act steeped in nostalgia; they sound like the soundtrack to a time when life is full of possibilities. 

Of course, Oasis is intimately connected to the mid-1990s Britpop moment, alongside groups such as Blur, Elastica, Supergrass and Pulp. Although a relatively niche movement in the U.S., Britpop can be polarizing elsewhere. Musicians and critics alike have noted the era’s undertones of sexism — and the misconception that the era ushered in gender equality.  

In her wonderful memoir, “Fingers Crossed: How Music Saved Me from Success,” Lush’s Miki Berenyi notes, “The claim that Britpop celebrates sassy women in bands is a veneer,” and added, “The female-led Britpop bands sold a fraction of what the successful bloke bands did. Sure, the girls got a fair bit of attention, but it’s the blokes who ruled the roost.”

The touching part was the number of kids who secured tickets for their parents.

From the fan perspective, the perception that Oasis especially possesses a male-dominated fanbase lingers. Noel Gallagher’s daughter Anais noted that she wouldn’t tolerate gatekeeping within Oasis fandom. “One thing I won’t stand for is the ageism and the misogyny around people getting tickets,” she noted online. “Sorry, if a 19-year-old girl in a pink cowboy hat wants to be there, I will have my friendship bracelets ready.”

Anna Doble’s crucial piece in the Quietus, “Oasisters: Meet Liam & Noel’s 21st Century Female Fan Army,” also pushes back against the stereotype of Oasis fans being all boorish lads — and adds nuance to the perception of Britpop. “Britpop’s focus on working-class life and pushing back against American influence gave it a one and only style that was appreciated by many people, regardless of gender,” said a 22-year-old Brazilian fan, Bella Perozzi. 


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Unsurprisingly, demand for Oasis reunion tickets was off the charts; in fact, the on-sale made the notoriously difficult ticket on-sale for Taylor Swift’s the Eras Tour on-sales look like a walk in the park. The touching part was the number of kids who secured tickets for their parents — as evidenced by the many TikTok videos of old-school Oasis fans crying tears of joy after being surprised with the news they were going to the shows. 

There’s something quite poignant about parents and their kids sharing an Oasis show together — not to mention the band celebrating their legacy with a victory lap. By the end of their original run, the Oasis universe was riddled with drama and acrimony. (In a testament to these perceptions dying hard, people jokingly wondered if the band would break up before even getting to the stage next year.) Britpop certainly isn’t coming back; neither are the ’90s. But as Oasis themselves posited back in 1994, silver linings and second chances are possible if the stars align: “Maybe you're the same as me/We see things they'll never see/You and I are gonna live forever.”

Trump, lying about migrants and crime, says mass deportations “will be a bloody story”

Donald Trump is threatening that a proposed mass deportation of undocumented immigrants if he returns to power will result in blood being spilled, Reuters reported.

Speaking at a rally in Wisconsin on Saturday, the Republican nominee falsely claimed that "crime is through the roof" — it is near a 50-year low following a spike when he was president — and that it will get worse. "You haven't seen the migrant crime yet," he claimed. "It started, and it's vicious, but you haven't seen the extent of it yet."

In fact, immigrants are far less likely to commit crimes than native-born US citizens, according to a study of 150 years of U.S. Census data. Cities that have seen the largest increase in migrants, including New York City and Philadelphia, have seen that influx accompanied by plummeting rates of violent crime.

But Trump, who has long lied about the connection between immigrants and crime, claiming that foreigners are "poisoning the blood of the country," told supporters that asylum-seekers are taking over the country.

"In Colorado, they're so crazy they're taking over sections of the state," he falsely claimed, citing a bogus viral story about Venezuelan gangs taking over an apartment complex in Aurora, a claim denied by police, the city's Republican mayor and residents, who say the claim was spread by a slumlord to deflect blame for poor conditions at their property.

But Trump used the false story to segue to his proposed mass deportation of at least 12 million undocumented people, telling supporters that, "getting them back will be a bloody story."

As The New York Times previously reported, Trump's proposed deportations would be unprecedented in scale, requiring the building of "huge camps to detain people" and the creation of a deportation squad composed of "local police officers and National Guard soldiers voluntarily contributed by Republican-run states."

Trump's comments came the same day that he promised to carry out a sweeping crackdown on his political opponents should he win the 2024 election.

“I find myself buying a lot of unnecessary things”: TikTok algorithm has changed “the shopping game”

Gone are the days of receiving a mail-order catalog and circling the items you wished to buy with a bright red Sharpie. Even scrolling through a retailer's website to see what’s in stock seems outdated. After all, if you can purchase an item in two clicks through a video on TikTok, why would you go through all that work? 

In September 2023, TikTok launched its e-commerce venture, TikTok Shop – reshaping online shopping as we know it. As users scroll through their For You Page, they may come across videos from a user or company promoting an item available through “TikTok Shop.” Often these videos are recorded as a review, showing how the item may look when worn, used or consumed. 

By simply tapping on the name of the product featured in the video, viewers can immediately place the item in their virtual cart. Then, it only takes two clicks to select the payment method and have the item shipped to their home. 

This merger of social media and online shopping has taken the world by storm. At the end of 2023, TikTok had more than 15 million sellers globally, offering products through short-form videos and livestreams. Since then, the venture has only grown, paving the way for future online retail, according to sellers and consumers on the app. 

“It is the next iteration of shopping,” content-creator Rene Lacad told Salon, pointing to how easy it is to purchase an item when it appears on your curated feed. 

“With TikTok Shop, I find myself buying a lot of unnecessary things because of how good it is at getting someone to be interested in something,” Lacad said. “Typically, when you see an ad from a business, it feels forced on you. But when you see an ad fed to you by an algorithm, it doesn't feel forced on you because it feels like you just came across it organically. It’s almost like a recommendation from a friend.” 

Phaith Montoya, a beauty and lifestyle influencer with over 3 million followers on TikTok, told Salon that she now makes a purchase through TikTok Shop “every few days.” 

“My favorite thing about TikTok Shop is that the products just find me, right?” she said, referring to the app’s unique algorithm. “I could go on to any other shopping website and you have to type in what you’re looking for, and you have to do the digging though the reviews. But [now] I will see a video come up on something that I didn’t even know that I needed or liked.”

Small businesses have particularly seen massive success in selling their products through TikTok Shop. A representative for TikTok revealed that between January 2023 and January 2024, Alabama-based beauty business Canvas Beauty saw its sales grow five times year-over-year – allowing the company to grow their employee base 10 times over. During just one livestream video, the beauty company saw tens of thousands of orders placed. 

Amid this success, TikTok announced a partnership with Amazon. By linking their Amazon account with TikTok, users can now make in-app purchases through Amazon via advertisements on the platform. 

A representative for Amazon told Salon this partnership is “making it more convenient for customers to shop in social media” as they no longer have to leave the app after coming across a product they wish to buy. Not only will TikTok users be able to see the product available on Amazon, but they will be shown real-time pricing and delivery estimates, as well as Prime eligibility. 

This partnership helps solidify TikTok’s position in the e-commerce market as it began to threaten other major retailers, industry experts say.

“Amazon will reap some benefit in the sense that it won't be left behind in the competition with TikTok,” said Baruch Labunski, CEO of Rank Secure. “Amazon saw the future, knew it couldn't build a competitive tech architecture quickly so it decided it was better to join them than beat them.” 

We need your help to stay independent

As TikTok Shop’s reach continues to grow, there are still many concerns to consider. For Labunski, one lies directly within the Amazon partnership. 

“My biggest concern is whether this deal will be seen by the government as a monopoly," Labunski said, pointing to an August ruling that declared Google had an illegal monopoly on search. “With the Google case in the courts, there may be smaller entities like eBay or others who will issue a challenge.” 

At the same time, TikTok’s China-based parent company ByteDance is facing pressure from the United States government to sell the popular video app by early 2025 or face being banned in the country. The ultimatum comes as leaders in Congress expressed concerns that the Chinese government could access private user data on the app. 

While TikTok has taken the U.S. government to court, citing First Amendment protections, some say the Amazon partnership may raise other data concerns.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


“The data sharing is interesting, that could lead to much more user data being shared and more personalized ads in the future,” said Tom Leach, director of Norsu Media. “However, whilst TikTok could learn a lot from Amazon’s vast infrastructure – as TikTok [tries] to increase their footprint – it may also end up burning them if they share too much with a powerhouse like Amazon, especially if TikTok risks a ban or forced sale.” 

With TikTok Shop nearing the one-year anniversary of its launch in the U.S., many agree the e-commerce venture is hurtling online-shopping into the future . 

Labunski said consumers are becoming more demanding in their shopping desires, calling for convenience over using multiple websites for their favorite brands. “TikTok Shop is taking advantage of that by incorporating their social media with shopping and paying for their brands in one place,” he said. 

For Montoya, TikTok’s integration of retail into its user-focused algorithm has already changed “the shopping game.” 

“The shopping experience I feel like definitely changed a lot, and I can see a lot of retailers trying to follow suit in the future," she said. "I definitely think that this is such a unique experience to be like, ‘Wow, I didn’t even know… I would care for something like this’ until you see it and you see somebody, a real person – like a mom or student or somebody – just using it in real time. Like wow, this is beneficial."

Trump pledges authoritarian crackdown, saying enemies to be prosecuted at levels “never seen before”

Former President Donald Trump is promising to carry out what he described as an unprecedented crackdown on his political enemies should he win the 2024 election, saying that after his victory there will be a wave of arrests and prosecutions at a level "never seen before in our Country."

The Republican candidate, who recently admitted that he lost the 2020 election, returned Saturday evening to falsely claiming he defeated President Joe Biden but that his victory was stolen from him. In a post shared on social media, Trump reiterated his usual litany of falsehoods about U.S. elections while promising that, "WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences so that this Depravity of Justice does not happen again."

The 78-year-old GOP nominee went on to assert that the country could not be allowed to become a "Third World Nation," a threat his campaign has repeatedly invoked in the race against Vice President Kamala Harris. In August, Trump's campaign shared an ad that echoed white nationalist language on migration, stating: "Import the third world" and "Become the third world," an image of Black men used to depict "your neighborhood under Kamala."

On Saturday, the former president denied the possibility that he could legitimately lose in November. He also emphasized that his promised post-election crackdown would be sweeping in nature, claiming targets would include "Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials." Hundreds if not thousands of people could ultimately be detained, he suggested, writing: "Those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country."

Trump has previously called for terminating the U.S. Constitution so that he could return to power, while also saying he would be a dictator on "day one." Under Project 2025, a plan for a second term drafted by allies at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, Trump would purge the federal government of career, nonpartisan bureaucrats, replacing experts and others with MAGA loyalists.

The threat that a second Trump presidency poses to democracy has prompted even some former leading Republicans to speak out. On Friday, former Vice President Dick Cheney endorsed Harris, saying her opponent could not be trusted with ever wielding power again.

"In our nation's 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump," Cheney said in a statement.

Justice delayed is political: Trump’s election interference case must continue ahead of the election

The Supreme Court conservative majority’s opinion in Trump v. United States has rightly drawn considerable criticism.  Its conclusion that former presidents enjoy presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts committed during their presidency is flabbergasting. As legal scholars across the ideological spectrum have explained, this immunity finds no support in the Constitution’s text and history, or the Supreme Court’s own precedent. A blistering dissent by Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson) exposes this rootlessness and expresses “fear for our democracy.”  

That’s not where the harm ends. The Court’s slow pace in handing down its decision is already largely responsible for delaying for more than 200 days the federal criminal trial of Donald Trump for alleged January 6-related crimes. 

But even though the D.C. District Court has only recently been able to restart its proceedings, Americans already know a lot about Donald Trump’s actions and responsibility for January 6 through rigorous fact-finding developed by two other governmental bodies: (1) the bipartisan House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol; and (2) the Colorado state court system, which adjudicated Anderson v. Griswold.

Over the course of nearly eighteen months and ten widely televised public hearings, the bipartisan January 6 Select Committee investigated the violent attack on the Capitol and the involvement of Donald Trump (and numerous Trump allies) in the attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election. This investigation resulted in a final report that included a referral of Trump to the Department of Justice for multiple crimes, including conspiracy to make a false statement and inciting or assisting an insurrection. These conclusions were informed by over 140,000 documents and more than 1000 interviews and depositions.  Almost all of the witnesses before the bipartisan Select Committee were Republicans, and their testimony—like almost all congressional testimony—was sworn testimony, subject to perjury charges if false. Of course, even when not under oath, individuals who submit false information to Congress can face serious criminal liability.

We need your help to stay independent

More fact-finding occurred through the litigation of Anderson v. Griswold, a case brought by Republican and Independent voters in Colorado to challenge Donald Trump’s ability to appear on the state’s primary ballots. The plaintiffs in this case asserted that Trump’s actions surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, prevented him from holding office pursuant to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution—the Disqualification Clause, which disqualifies from office any individual who took an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same”—and rendered him ineligible to appear on ballots. Trump’s lawyers were given every opportunity to introduce evidence and call witnesses, and they did both. Trump’s legal team was also allowed to dispute evidence, cross-examine witnesses called by opposing counsel, and raise questions of law and fact throughout the trial—all of which they did aggressively and comprehensively. The trial included testimony from eyewitnesses and experts presented by both sides, thousands of pages of documents, and hours of video.  The Colorado trial court meticulously evaluated the evidence and arguments on both sides and concluded that the events of January 6 were an insurrection and that former President Trump engaged in it. The conclusions were reinforced by the Colorado Supreme Court, which further held that Trump was ineligible to appear on the ballot.  

The United States Supreme Court eventually overturned the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision on a technical point, concluding that a candidate for federal office could not be excluded from a state ballot on Disqualification Clause grounds without some sort of federal congressional action.  Critically, however, the Court left all of the Colorado state court’s factual findings intact. The United States Supreme Court did not dispute the lower court’s conclusions that January 6th constituted an insurrection, or that Donald Trump’s actions leading up to January 6th constituted engagement in insurrection.  

There are good reasons for wanting the federal trial of Donald Trump on January 6-related charges to proceed without further delay, and good reasons to laud Judge Tanya Chutkan’s attempts to keep the trial on track in D.C. District Court.  Criminal trials, with their juries of everyday Americans and their high standards of proof—beyond a reasonable doubt versus the lower preponderance of evidence standard used in civil trials—are often considered the gold standard when it comes to understanding culpability for bad acts. But the absence of a guilty verdict in an ongoing criminal trial doesn’t mean the American public lacks information about January 6 and Trump’s involvement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Thanks to the fact-finding of the bipartisan Select Committee and the Colorado courts, we know a lot.

JFK v. Nixon set the debate stage for Harris v. Trump

When Joe Biden repeatedly stammered, slurred, babbled and stared off into space during the first 2024 presidential debate, America's 46th president made history in a way he never intended. Because of his abysmal performance, June 27, 2024 will be remembered as the date when a failed debate set in motion a chain of events culminating in a sitting president withdrawing his reelection campaign.

The task of understanding why Biden fell apart in that debate will fall to future biographers, presumably those with direct access to Biden and the other principals. Comprehending its long-term ramifications for American politics, by contrast, is a much simpler matter: It demonstrated that presidential debates can single-handedly and massively alter the course of human history. To best understand why debates remain so potent in 2024, one need only look to the first presidential debates ever televised — an appropriate parallel, given that Biden's collapse would not have had its massive impact if not for the medium of television. Sixty-four years before America's second Catholic president destroyed his presidential campaign with a bad debate showing, the first Catholic president made history by appearing to be more physically and intellectually vibrant during an opening debate against his sallow and sickly opponent.

The 1960 presidential debates series was held between two men who would both eventually be elected president: John F. Kennedy (JFK), that election's ultimate winner and at the time a Massachusetts senator beloved by liberals but maligned by conservatives; and Richard M. Nixon, the incumbent vice president who had a long-established reputation as a smart and vicious debater fiercely loyal to the Republican Party. Indeed, Nixon had famously triumphed in debates at crucial points during his career: Effectively smearing his opponent as a supposed Communist sympathizer during his first congressional campaign in 1946, then holding his own against the world's most powerful Communist, Soviet Premiere Nikita Khrushchev, during a so-called "kitchen debate" in 1959.

Unfortunately for Nixon, immediately prior to the first debate (held on Sept. 26, 1960) he suffered from a series of health issues — a knee injury, an infection, a fever — and the viewing public was subsequently taken aback by his gaunt and clammy appearance. Kennedy drew a favorable contrast against Nixon with his characteristic handsomeness and eloquence. According to former Trump adviser Roger Stone, whose political career started with work for Nixon's 1972 reelection campaign, "Nixon learned that how you looked and acted in the debate was as important as what you said."

The aesthetics were not Nixon's only shortcoming on debate night.

"It wasn’t just about the visuals," Fredrik Logevall, a JFK biographer and the Laurence D. Belfer Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, told Salon. "More important for [Kennedy], he showed a general command of the issues, came across as poised and articulate, and demonstrated to Americans that he was a plausible alternative to the older, more experienced, more well-known Nixon. He introduced himself to a great many voters who knew little about him prior to that night, and he acquitted himself well. Harris has the same opportunity here. And as in 1960, the candidate who will profit most will be the one who presents better—visually and substantively."

He added, "One other thing: Kennedy spoke to the camera and through it to the nation; Nixon spoke more to the room."

Nixon himself later admitted that he looked more at Kennedy than the nation because he was behaving as a traditional debater, who advocates for their argument and capitalizes on their opponent's weaknesses through direct confrontation. Indeed, according to Chapman University political historian Luke Nichter (who among other things helped edit versions of Nixon's White House tapes), the debates between Kennedy and Nixon would hardly be defined as proper "debates" when compared to the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 or the discussions that regularly occur today in the United States Senate or the Oxford Union.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


"Kennedy spoke to the camera and through it to the nation; Nixon spoke more to the room."

"What we have today is more like a competitive press conference," Nichter said. "Even in 1960, Nixon came ready to debate whereas JFK knew the real audience was the one watching at home. He looked directly into the camera and spoke to them, whereas Nixon was often caught looking at Kennedy – which made him appear deferential. Debates of that era focused more on issues, whereas today they seem more about differences over personality and style – which is what I expect Harris and Trump will focus on, too."

Nixon was astute enough to realize he needed to make these kinds of changes after his sub-par debate performance in 1960. He described the consequences of that first debate for his campaign in his memoir "Six Crises."

The tension before the first round had been very great, but now it was greater. I knew that Kennedy had made a better impression first time out. While the immediate press reaction had been to call it a draw, or to give a very slight edge to Kennedy, as the days had gone by it was more and more referred to as a "decisive" Kennedy victory. I was thus increasingly in the position of having to make a decided comeback, or of being placed at an almost hopeless disadvantage for the balance of the campaign.

Perhaps benefiting from his newfound underdog status, Nixon was widely perceived as successful in his three remaining debates against Kennedy, although the "loser" stigma left over from his initial bad debate followed him politically (and psychologically) for years thereafter. Logevall told Salon "there’s not any doubt that Kennedy profited more from [the debates] than Nixon did," adding that "the debates served Kennedy’s needs more. Nixon should have refused them. And small wonder that he said no to debating in 1968 and 1972" (during his last two presidential campaigns; there were also no debates during the 1964 election, although Nixon was not a candidate that year).

Yet whereas only Nixon had to engage in damage control in the second 1960 presidential debate, both participants in the second 2024 presidential debate — former president Donald Trump and Biden's replacement, Vice President Kamala Harris — are in a position where they must make a "decided comeback" or else be "placed at an almost hopeless disadvantage for the balance of the campaign." Once again, examining the circumstances of 1960 illuminates the situation in 2024.

"I think an important similarity between the 1960 race between Kennedy and Nixon and today's standoff is the razor-thin margin of the contest," Cold War historian Zachary Jacobson, who authored "On Nixon's Madness," told Salon. In the 1960 election, Kennedy and Nixon ultimately came within less than 0.2 percent of each other in the national popular vote (Kennedy had a slight edge). More importantly, slight shifts of a few thousand voters in a handful of swing states would have led to Nixon winning the Electoral College (and thus the presidency) instead of Kennedy. Nixon's campaign manager Len Hall admitted as much to the candidate afterward when he said, "A shift of only fourteen thousand votes, and we would have been the heroes, and they would have been the bums." Virtually all of the reliable pollsters expect the 2024 election to be similarly close — and that makes the debates more potentially consequential. Any random moment in a debate can unexpectedly be the one that sticks in voters' minds not only through Election Day, but decades later when regarding an election's overall legacy.

"Because so few voters differentiated between who lost and who won, who will lose and who will win, a single debate performance can take on outsized importance," Jacobson explained. "I would further point you in the direction of the centrality of personality politics in both elections in which the overlapping stances that the candidates were taking made their images all the more important. The image of the dapper Kennedy and Nixon the persnickety grump weighed all the more because both were staunch cold warriors and both tacked to relatively moderate proposals on the economy and civil rights."

We need your help to stay independent

If there is any comfort for hapless or gaffe-prone candidates, it is that early voting has somewhat blunted the impact of truly terrible debate performances that occur later in election season.

"Before the month of September ends, many Americans will have already voted," Nichter said. "Until we develop the opportunity to vote early and change our mind later, which is something probably coming in the near future once we figure out how to do so securely, most of the fall campaign will occur after people have made their selection. Early voting has also led to the demise of the October Surprise, a feature of many past elections designed to suddenly change voters’ minds on the eve of Election Day."

The most salient legacy of the 1960 debates — not just in 2024, but likely for any year — is that they showed American voters do want to be directly engaged in discussing their nation's political future, even if their methods of drawing conclusions may be less intellectual than visceral.

"They showed the deep interest in the country for events of this kind," Logevall said. "As network executives understood, technology made it possible to reach tens of millions of Americans at once, and in a format that contained immense inherent drama. A precedent was set, even if it took until 1976 for candidates to again go toe to toe."

Logevall also holds out hope that someday the debates will be more like the legendary face-to-face exhibitions that occurred in 1858 between Republican and future president Abraham Lincoln and his Democratic opponent, Senator Stephen Douglas. Even though each candidate did his fair share of partisan grandstanding, those contests involved actual exchanges of ideas directly between the two principals. That debate format, which still prevails in many other contexts, is still not used in American presidential debates. The heavily-moderated approach first used in 1960 remains the status quo.

"It’s interesting that the networks wanted the candidates to question each other directly, and that the campaigns refused; they insisted that the questions come from a panel of journalists," Logevall said. "Thus was established the format that persists to this day: a joint press appearance more than an actual debate."

More articles on psychology and politics:

Reject the lies: Trump only wishes he could have the Biden-Harris economy

Last month, a poll commissioned by the Financial Times found that people trusted Kamala Harris more on the economy than her felony-convicted opponent. To be fair, that poll was something of an outlier — at least until last week, when a USA Today/Suffolk poll also shows Harris’ numbers much improved on the question of the economy. 

Still, the idea that Donald Trump would somehow be better for the economy persists among millions of Americans who remember what prices were like before the COVID pandemic took down the world economy. Trump also benefits from a general bill of goods Americans were sold long ago: the entirely false idea that Republicans do a better job with the economy. 

Democrats should conquer their fears on this topic and calmly continue to point out how entirely wrong that is, even in the face of how people “feel” about the economy — and even if, as Joe Tauke recently wrote in Salon, that seems politically unwise. They should cede no ground on this crucial question — and, generally speaking, they are not. Refusing to stand up for reality is how we wound up with Trumpism in the first place. There is no good reason to surrender to “alternative facts.”

As for the media, it should insist on the truth as well. In our hyper-partisan, non-reality-based political environment, polluted 24/7 by disinformation spewed from Fox News and its faux-journalism spawn, and by corporate talking heads forever forecasting an economic downturn, actual journalists have a responsibility to remind the public that Democratic presidents have almost always done better — in fact, much better — than Republicans when it comes to the U.S. economy.

According to a much-cited academic study by Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson, that’s been true at least since from the Truman administration through Barack Obama’s first term, and is true in every major economic category: GDP growth, job creation, unemployment, growth in real wages and controlling inflation. (That last very much the topic of the moment.)

Sure, inflation spiked during and after the worst months of the pandemic, and that was no fun for anyone. But that was a global problem, and the U.S. economy recovered more rapidly under the Biden administration far better than any other advanced countries. (Inflation has been slowing for more than two years now.)

We can only guess at how disastrously Trump would have done steering the economy in the same period, had he actually won the 2020 election he’s been lying about for four years. He showed us how well he can handle a major crisis during the pandemic, when  he delayed taking action, denied the science, interrupted experts with his blather about ultraviolet light and injecting bleach, and turned masks and vaccinations into political issues that led to countless numbers of needless deaths.

Think we should put that guy in charge of the world’s largest economy all over again? Big men, strong men, well-read men, with tears in their eyes, might ask WTF you’d been smoking. 

Beyond that hopeful but admittedly lonely poll result, you might have missed or forgotten likely missed another positive signal on the economy — or at least a fear of Trump’s addled proposals  — from an interesting, and unexpected, group of people.

We need your help to stay independent

In an op-ed by Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, president of the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute, published by the New York Times in June, we learned that CEOs of top corporations, most of them Republicans, are not supporting Trump — or at least not with their own money. Few of them did so in 2020 either, according to Sonnenfeld.

We know Trump is beloved by billionaire tech-bros and Wall Street hedge fund managers, so what’s up with the corporate CEOs? About a week before Sonnenfeld’s essay appeared, as it happens, Trump had appealed directly to many of those corporate leaders and did nothing help his case. After some CEOs at the Business Roundtable meeting expressed concern about his meandering and often incoherent speech, Trump responded on Truth Social by demanding 100% loyalty from business leaders, saying they should, somehow, be fired for incompetence

Surprisingly, that failed to win them over. 

We can only guess how disastrously Trump would have done steering the economy, had he won the election he’s been lying about for four years. He showed us how well he can handle a major crisis during the pandemic.

Maybe corporate leaders, who infamously don’t peer much beyond Q4, can see in the 78-year-old, multiply-convicted MAGA cult leader what his followers can’t: an increasingly unhinged, criminally minded man-child with no real business sense and, for that matter, no self-control; a man hell-bent on replacing the expertise of careerl civil servants with know-nothing toadies, upending our constitutional separation of powers and our international alliances.

In fairness, none of that sounds good for business.

The truth is, Trump may criticize Joe Biden’s economy but he would love to inherit it, just as he was handed the steadily growing economy of the Obama years, which benefited him until the pandemic hit. 

It fits the pattern in place ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt lifted the country out of the Great Depression: A Republican president fumbles the economy after being handed a typically strong one by a Democrat, increases the national debt in service to the wealthy, oversees the creation of far fewer jobs and often drives the nation into recession.

Or to look at it the other way around, Democratic presidents have often walked into a mess left by a GOP predecessor. Both Obama and Biden were confronted with historic economic meltdowns, thanks to the subprime mortgage financial crisis and the mismanaged pandemic, before they even walked into the Oval Office.

Are we heading toward a recession right now? It’s a valid question, and the answer isn’t clear. There have been conflicting signals, and job-creation numbers are disappointing. After the worst of the pandemic we’re still in uncharted territory. Still, the stock market continues to trend upward. One way to conceive of the economy is as a pendulum, constantly swinging back and forth. You want expert, reasonable, non-political people watching over it.

Presidents have very little ability to affect gas prices or grocery prices, the things voters are most likely to notice. There’s always an element of luck in how the economy fares overall during a particular president’sl term. Even so, as Blinder and Watson note: 

The superiority of economic performance under Democrats rather than Republicans is nearly ubiquitous: it holds almost regardless of how you define success. By many measures, the performance gap is startlingly large — so large, in fact, that it strains credulity, given how little influence over the economy most economists (or the Constitution, for that matter) assign to the president of the United States.

Of the last 11 economic recessions in the U.S., 10 of them have come with a Republican in the White House. Republican presidents have underperformed Democrats in all the ways noted above in the modern era, including their tendency to increase the national debt by running deficits. If luck has anything to do with it, that’s an epic amount of bad luck for Republicans occupying the Oval Office. 

Donald Trump regularly claims, during his current campaign, that Democratic policies have turned the U.S. into a “banana republic,” a “failed state,” a “third-world country” or some such degradation of America. But he actually once said, in a rare moment of honesty and insight, that Democrats were better for the economy.

And despite the media’s facile comparisons of the Trump and Biden economies, Trump’s tariffs and tax cuts did nothing to improve the economy and caused the national debt to soar, after the pattern of his Republican predecessors. 

In contrast, under the Biden-Harris administration the economy has recovered well from the pandemic and, with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, is poised for continued growth, creating jobs in red and blue states alike and building critically needed roads, bridges, airports, waterways, broadband and environmental improvements. 

With investments provided by the CHIPS and Science Act, the United States will no longer depend on foreign supply chains for semiconductors, which will be manufactured domestically. A series of tech hubs across the country are being funded to drive future innovation. Even with the recent slowdown in job growth, they’ve continued to grow quickly in rural “left-behind” counties that largely don’t vote Democratic.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Economic experts tell us that both Trump’s tariff plan and his proposal to extend or deepen tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations would make inflation worse — and so would his blatantly racist and profoundly impractical pledge for the mass deportation of immigrants. Maybe you’ve read about how crops rotted in the fields and hospitals lost critical workers in the U.K. after Brexit. Well, Trump’s cruel and anti-American deportation plan would be like Brexit on steroids. 

Would Trump purposely destroy the good things Biden and his team have accomplished? Without a doubt. Trump is angry and agitated anytime anyone else gets credit for something that works. He will gladly wreck the current economy both because he didn’t create it and because he’s loyal to Big Oil and other corporate behemoths that are gouging Americans with inflated prices and junk fees.

 

Donald Trump regularly claims that Democratic policies have turned the U.S. into a “banana republic.” But he actually once said, in a rare moment of honesty and insight, that Democrats were better for the economy.

Sixteen Nobel-winning economists have warned that Trump’s proposals will reignite inflation and damage the global economy. Of course he doesn’t listen to experts, and tries to ensure his followers won’t either. Any half-reasonable economic advisers Trump may have had during his first term have been replaced, as Sonnenfeld puts it, “by MAGA extremists and junior varsity opportunists.”

What kind of economic decision-making would MAGA’s authoritarian-based anti-wokeness lead to? A prime example is readily available from Florida’s combative, white-booted governor: going to war with your own state’s premier attraction.

It's not just DeSantis versus Disney. Trump and his MAGA minions have attacked a long list of corporations for alleged wokeness, for protecting their employees during the pandemic, for speaking out against his massive lies about the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 Capitol attack — or for just not bowing down to Donald Trump as he demands. Our make-believe businessman, it would seem, resents those who understand the actual art of the deal. 

On the one hand, as Salon’s Heather Digby Parton wrote in July, you have Joe Biden’s historically successful economic policies, which will likely continue under a Harris administration. On the other, you have Trump, the pick of anti-union, misogynist tech billionaires, who teased an infrastructure plan but never came up one, or any other useful economic policy. He’s once again offering only recycled “trickle-down” economics, preposterous tariff policies and a promise to mass-deport workers we desperately need. Trump recently praised Elon Musk for firing employees who complained about working conditions, telling him, “You’re the greatest!”

If we’re paying attention, we might notice that Trump’s undisciplined, self-serving know-it-all behavior has measurable negative consequences. In July, his thoughtless bloviations about Taiwan sent markets plummeting. He has regularly expressed his hopes for an economic crash that might help his election prospects. After a recent stock market drop (it recovered within days), he celebrated the “Kamala crash” and fear-mongered about “world war three” [sic]. Trump’s speech to the Economic Club of New York last week produced an incomprehensible word-salad about how his tariffs might help Americans struggling with child care costs

Comedian John Mulaney may have best captured the chaos and madness of Trump’s first (and, we hope, only) term in the White House: “There’s a horse loose in the hospital.” Do business people want to see that horse, now creaking with age and even more touchy and unpredictable, let loose in the ICU all over again? History should offer them the answer.

Are people more afraid of illness these days?

When COVID-19 began to spread around the world, municipalities did all they could to stop the spread of the deadly virus, shutting down businesses, cancelling events, and telling everyone to stay home except for necessities. The 2020 lockdowns were an isolating and scary time for many, especially as the death toll rose, supply chains ruptured and hospitals were besieged with the sick and dying.

Nearly five years later, the world has seemingly figured out how to live with COVID. Schools and businesses are open. Public spaces no longer have mask mandates. Vaccines are widely available — at least for some in the United States, and an anti-viral medication called Paxlovid exists to treat severe cases and those with a higher risk of developing a severe infection. While much of our public infrastructure has moved on, the way humans approach and react to illness has changed. 

Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease and senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told Salon he’s noticed a change in how people view and approach viruses in two ways: some people now minimize the concern, and some people are hyper-aware of the threats. 

“There was a surge in respiratory viruses in children, with RSV and influenza, as well as bacterial infections like Group A strep, and you had some people thinking of this as the end of the world,” Adalja said. “And then you have people who, anytime there's a disease alert, whether it's about mpox or eastern equine encephalitis (EEE), they think ‘this is the media blowing this out of proportion.’”

Infectious disease, he said, has increasingly become something “viewed through a political, tribal lens” since the COVID pandemic began, rather than something that people view and approach objectively, like other public health problems.

And Adalja isn't alone in his observation. According to a 2023 study in Scientific Reports, a survey of over 1,000 people in Cyprus found that perceived fear of future pandemics is prevalent — a fear that was especially higher among women and individuals vaccinated against COVID. The study was the first to try and quantify how the pandemic has had far-reaching effects beyond infection numbers and deaths. Other studies have found that medical mistrust is significantly associated with vaccination status and that mistakes made during the pandemic have contributed to an increased distrust of scientists.

Infectious disease has increasingly become something “viewed through a political, tribal lens."

Dr. Rajendram Rajnarayanan, of the New York Institute of Technology campus in Jonesboro, Arkansas, told Salon it’s important to remember that COVID isn’t a disease of the past. While hospitalizations and deaths are lower than two years ago, viral activity is especially high this summer. Deaths and hospitalizations from the SARS-CoV-2 are still occurring, not to mention the high number of people who experience long-term symptoms and disability from infection, a condition known as long COVID.

From Rajnarayanan's point of view, society is really at a crossroads of “heightened health anxiety” and “mistrust in public health information,” coupled with “pandemic fatigue” all of which is leading to polarized reactions in how the public reacts to viruses. 

Over the last few years, the country has seen a rise of anti-vaccine groups. A 2021 survey study of 1,000 Americans in the journal Politics, Groups, and Identities found that 22 percent of Americans actively identify themselves as anti-vaccination, with 14 percent saying they are "sometimes" part of the movement and 8 percent saying this is "always" the case. Self-described anti-vaxxers said they "embrace" the label of anti-vaxxer "as a form of social identity.” 

But Rajnarayanan said this isn’t a time for people to be divided on their differing views, but instead engage in productive conversations.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


“We need to protect everyone, and with that mentality, we need to engage in dialogues,” he said. “We need to talk to each other about what's needed.”

Rajnarayanan added how mistrust in vaccines have led to the return of diseases like measles

Steve Sacona, who is 41 years old and based in Brisbane City, Queensland, told Salon via email that the pandemic “flipped” his perspective on illness. 

“What used to be minor annoyances, like colds and flu, now feel like a bigger deal,” he said. “I've embraced a few straightforward yet effective habits, like disinfecting surfaces and maintaining distance in crowded areas.” 

He added that when new viruses make headlines, he’s “all ears.” He realized from the COVID pandemic how quickly a situation can “spiral out of control.” 

"What used to be minor annoyances, like colds and flu, now feel like a bigger deal."

“When I heard about the recent respiratory viruses, I reviewed health guidelines and ensured I was prepared,” he said. “I'm not panicking, but I'm definitely more conscious of emerging health threats and try to stay informed without getting swept up in the hype.”

Amanda Schmitt, who has two children, said her approach to illness has changed since 2020, too. Before the pandemic, if her kids had a runny nose or cough, she wouldn’t “think twice” about taking them out in public. 

“Now, even the smallest symptom prompts me to keep them home to avoid infecting others,”  Schmitt said via email. “We've also started frequently washing hands, disinfecting surfaces and avoiding crowded indoor places.”

News about other viruses, like mpox or bird flu, evoke more worry in her after the coronavirus pandemic. 

“Whereas before I may have brushed them off as minor health threats unlikely to impact my family," Schmitt said. "Now I see how quickly viruses can spread and evolve into pandemics."

We need your help to stay independent

Adalja emphasized that the pandemic was a “traumatic experience” for everyone, and it’s understandable that it pushed some people to be hyper-aware of illness. 

“There was lots of death and destruction, and that can cause people to kind of rethink their whole risk calculation when it comes to infectious disease threats,” Adalja said. “But it's important to remember that infectious diseases occurred before COVID, and they occurred after COVID, and just because you're hearing a lot more about them because of the media, that just doesn't mean that anything has changed.”

Humans might be risk tolerant, or less so, post-pandemic and that is true for any activity that humans take part in, he said.

“Some people might ride a motorcycle and some people might not,” Adalja said. “People have different risk tolerances, and I think you've got to figure out what fits in your life, recognizing that you can't take the risk to zero and that there are lots of tools to make that risk management.”

Bill Maher defends Cheryl Hines, amid criticism for sticking with her husband, RFK Jr.

Over the past year, actress and comedian Cheryl Hines has made more headlines for her marriage to former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. than for her work on "Curb Your Enthusiasm," taking a hit to her reputation for standing by her bear corpse dumping, conspiracy theory pushing, Donald Trump endorsing spouse. But at least she's got Bill Maher on her side.

In a segment of "Real Time" this week, Maher lashed out at critics of Hines, calling them “obnoxious posers” for — in his eyes — essentially throwing the actress into the flames for not ending her marriage over conflicting political beliefs, although she herself has hinted in past interviews that Kennedy's support of Trump would be a dealbreaker for her.

Following his endorsement of Trump, Kennedy spoke of his wife's “trepidation” over it, telling TMZ, “This is the opposite of what she would want to do. She went along with it because she loves me and she wanted to be supportive of me, but it was not something that she ever encouraged." And it's that level of loyalty that Maher is in defense of, apparently.

“His wife is Cheryl Hines, who Larry David was quoted describing as ‘the best person I’ve ever met, the one person in Hollywood who doesn’t have a single enemy,’” Maher said. “Well, now she does . . . because she didn’t throw her husband under the bus when her husband made a decision about something, which she’s made plain she disagrees with . . . You wanna know why I have a bug up my a** about the Left more than I used to? It’s s**t like this. There’s an ugliness they never used to have. The liberals I grew up respecting, none of them were like this. Going after the wife, even the mafia doesn’t do that.”

Watch here:

Make yourself uncomfortable: Documentary analyzes “Sopranos” by putting its creator through therapy

Twenty-five years after “The Sopranostransformed TV, largely for the better, not much hasn’t been said or written about it. Even its creator David Chase looks tired of talking about his career-defining creation at the start of “Wise Guy: David Chase and The Sopranos,” although I may be misconstruing discomfort as fatigue. 

Near the beginning of their dialogue, Chase tells documentarian Alex Gibney that he agreed to participate because he thought this project was about the show’s legacy. Once Chase realized “Wise Guy” was about him, he wasn’t so sure. 

But Gibney has an affinity for disarming his subjects; besides, with interviewers he trusts, Chase isn’t an impenetrable wall. Unnerved as he might have been to step into a recreation of Dr. Melfi’s office, where their interview takes place, Chase gamely plays along as Gibney asks him to cite the parallels between his life and psyche, and those of his New Jersey mobsters.

Completists and superfans already know the basic sketches of “Sopranos” lore outlined in “Wise Guy,” including personal details like the fact that Livia Soprano, Nancy Marchand’s harridan of a mother who took joy in torturing her son Tony (James Gandolfini), was based on Chase’s mother. (Many of the show's writers had tortured relationships with their mothers, which explains a few things.)  True illumination depends more on how the story is told than how much we know about the details, and this is where Gibney’s two-part documentary ignites.

Wise Guy David Chase and The SopranosAlex Gibney and David Chase in "Wise Guy David Chase and The Sopranos" (HBO)“Wise Guy” is less biography than investigation, culturally and psychologically analyzing how Chase’s creation met America on the verge of shifting away from the white picket fence dream. But the most fascinating scenes are the ones where Gibney uses his interviewing skills to analyze Chase, or more accurately, has Chase analyze himself.

Gibney edits Chase’s overview of his childhood as a tumble through memory, layering his spoken details on top of each other as home movie images flashing around highway travel sequences. The sensation is not unlike that of a therapist’s initial notetaking during an intake session, glossing over the quotidian and underlining relevant observations as a reminder to circle back and dig in.

Once we enter his career chapters, the pacing slows considerably. And it is here where Chase hits us with the notion that “The Sopranos” wasn’t only luck, it was in some ways a derailment of his original career aspirations.    

“I came here to Hollywood to make movies, and I got sidetracked into TV, into becoming a writer, basically because of what I would say were my own weaknesses,” he says. “One, I became scared to direct, and also, there was money involved.”

The central pitch of “Wise Guy” is the real winner, which is that Chase’s story is “The Sopranos,” and vice versa, as well as the story of HBO and the birth of prestige television. More than simply being an extension of Chase’s life experiences, “The Sopranos” spoke to the common nagging sensation of living at a time when America’s best days were behind it, a feeling personified by a mob boss suffering panic attacks.  

James GandolfiniSeries Star James Gandolfini in "The Sopranos," HBO's Hit Series About A Modern-Day Mob Boss Caught Between Responsibilities To His Family And His 'Family' (Getty Images)

The most fascinating scenes are the ones where Gibney uses his interviewing skills to analyze Chase, or more accurately, has Chase analyze himself.

Tony Soprano is a walking, talking three-way knife fight between the id, the ego, and the superego, making “The Sopranos” the most Freudian exercise on TV. Viewers may not have recognized that at the time. Chase describes the audience as breaking down between two groups, with one half being hooked on cinematic serialized drama and the “less yakkin’, more whackin’” crowd hooked on its violence. 

Gibney caters to the former by having Chase walk us through the many dream sequences interwoven into each episode along with anatomically breaking down the show’s most unforgettable scenes. Yes, that includes the final cut to black; no, Chase does not reveal what it's supposed to mean beyond pointing to a scene in the third season that informed his thinking.

As for the viewers hooked on the drama’s violence or who saw Tony as a hero, Chase says he wanted to remind the audience that the men they were rooting for are despicable. 

All these years later we might see how Chase’s intentions failed to find purchase in a culture that instead lionized the anti-hero, or that future show creators viewed its sex and violence as a green light to exploit them as titillation. But Chase and his actors are steadfast in their opinion that none of the violence was for prurient or thoughtlessly employed. 

We need your help to stay independent

Lorraine Bracco’s take on that front holds extra weight, given that her character Dr. Melfi’s violent rape was among the first to be depicted graphically onscreen. (Be warned that “Wise Guy” shows that scene pretty much in its entirety.) Bracco remembers angrily demanding that Chase explain why he violated her, saying that she refused to read to the end of the script.

Once she did, she says felt differently.

The Sopranos Lorraine Bracco James GandolfiniLorraine Bracco And James Gandolfini of "The Sopranos" (Getty Images)From the perspective of the post-“Game of Thrones” era many will emphatically disagree with her empathetic defense, and I don’t blame them. “The Sopranos” pushed past many boundaries and unspoken narrative restrictions, inspiring other showrunners to think in more cinematic terms while opening the floodgates for dramatized brutality. 

Chase’s story is “The Sopranos,” and vice versa, as well as the story of HBO and the birth of prestige television.

To this Edie Falco has a very Carmela Soprano response. “The show was always shocking somebody about something,” she says, nonplussed. “The whole point is you want to surprise people and give them feelings that maybe are uncomfortable and have them learn to deal with them. That, my friend, is life. You’re not going to be given trigger warnings when terrible things happen.”

“Wise Guy” is not one of those things. Instead, it’s the type of examination that reminds the audience of why the show was great by playing with its pop culture psychoanalytical themes and delivering the rosy remembrances fans want. 

In doing so it reminds the audience of how much has changed in two and a half decades due in part to what Chase achieved with this show. It’s almost funny to think there was a time when HBO was TV’s bargain basement, but that’s how Michael Imperioli remembers he felt when he went in to read for the part of Christopher Moltisanti. 

Falco, who had by then worked on “Oz,” was shocked at hearing she got the part of Carmela a day after she read for it and recalls thinking that meant the show was one of those “fly by night” productions.

Wise Guy David Chase and The SopranosDavid Chase in "Wise Guy David Chase and The Sopranos" (HBO)

Chase recalled how many people auditioned for each major role and we see many of those tryouts, some involving actors who went on to appear in smaller parts in the series. Along with their massive entertainment value, these segments prove how painstaking it was for Chase to ensure he got the ensemble formula just so, and it’s easy to see how one wrong selection could have diminished everything.

Of course, the genius stroke was landing James Gandolfini to play Tony Soprano. “Jimmy had magic,” recalls Chris Albrecht, HBO’s former chairman and CEO. Nevertheless, it took the network 10 months to greenlight “The Sopranos” to series.

Gandolfini died in 2013, but Gibney centralizes his defining presence through outtakes and clips from long-form interviews, including excerpts from his appearance on “Inside the Actor’s Studio.” Some of the unused footage shows the fun-loving, kind side of the star most people didn’t see. Other excerpts show the darkness that took hold of him during the production, contextualized by Chase and other castmates weighing in.  


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Views of Marchand and the late Tony Sirico, aka Paulie Walnuts, are similarly humanizing, especially when executive producer and writer Terence Winter recalls Sirico’s stubborn refusal to let anybody mess up his hair. (“I think my character acts like me, but don’t tell nobody!” Sirico says in an archival clip.) 

Wise Guy David Chase and The SopranosSteven Van Zandt in "Wise Guy David Chase and The Sopranos" (HBO)The participant roster for “Wise Guy” is more noteworthy for who is present than who isn’t as in Jamie-Lynn Sigler and Robert Iler, who played Tony and Carmela’s kids Meadow and A.J.  Joining Bracco, Falco and Imperioli are Drea de Matteo and Steven Van Zandt, two of Chase’s favorites who shared what may be the series most gutting scene.

Joining their insights with Albrecht, former president of HBO Entertainment Carolyn Strauss, director of photography Alik Sakharov and writer and producer Robin Green leads us to understand what an undertaking it was to ensure every piece fit together perfectly.

During its second segment Gibney points out that therapy should, theoretically, make you a better person. Chase responds that, instead, it made Tony a better mobster. Although interviews and montages of audition tapes what an arduous process of attaining perfection can be, it’s Gibney’s drive through Chase’s psyche that makes “Wise Guy” worth sitting with.

"Wise Guy: David Chase and The Sopranos" premieres at 8 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 7 on HBO and streams on Max.

Nikki Haley says she hasn’t been asked to campaign for Trump, but is “on standby”

Former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley — who suspended her presidential campaign in March, saying at the time that she had no plans to endorse Donald Trump unless he "earned" her support — didn't take long to rebrand her thoughts on the matter. 

In May, despite previously referring to Trump as "chaos," Haley not only declared plans to vote for him but her name was tossed into a fluctuating list of VP contenders — a longshot that Trump himself shot down with a post to Truth Social, writing, “Nikki Haley is not under consideration for the VP slot, but I wish her well.” And yet, still, in a clip of her upcoming appearance on CBS News' "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," she says she remains "on standby" to campaign for Trump, without being asked to do so.

In the clip of the interview, set to air on Sunday, Brennan asks Haley for her opinion on the kind of message Trump sends to women voters by continuing to negate his sexual assault on E. Jean Carroll and pepper his campaign speeches with derogatory statements on the intelligence of his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris. And to this, Haley chose to close one eye on Trump as a man in order to focus on his policies as a presidential candidate. Although one would naturally conclude they go hand in hand.

"I think he is the Republican nominee," Haley said. "And I think putting him against Kamala Harris . . . for me, it's not a question. Now, do I agree with his style, do I agree with his approach, do I agree with his communications? No."

When asked to weigh in further on her possible involvement in Trump's campaign, Haley said, "You know, he knows I'm on standby. I talked to him back in June. He's aware that I'm ready if he ever needs me to do that . . . should he ask, I'm happy to be helpful."

Watch here:

This celebrity chef’s newest venture? Helping to spotlight Montana’s rich culinary landscape

While some may assume the glitzy, high-end food and wine festivals most often take places in large, coastal cities like New York and Los Angeles, this isn't always the case, as shown by one of the newest food and wine festivals, set to debut later this month. The Whitefish Food and Wine Festival is being led by Chef Todd English and aims to spotlight Whitefish, the Flathead Valley and the state of Montana on the whole — a state that isn't often acknowledged enough for its myriad contributions to food, farming, waterways, fishery and more

English  a four-time James Beard award winner and one of the first “big-name” celebrity chefs  has helmed multiple restaurants, penned countless cookbooks and appeared on an endless amount of food television shows and specials.

Now, he’s a founding member of the Whitefish Food and Wine Festival team. 

The inaugural Festival, as per the website, “supports the local culinary scene in the Flathead Valley, from top local chefs to regional farms & ranches, to local culinary programs and beyond.” Salon Food had the opportunity to speak with English about the festival, Montana on the whole, his career, and what’s next for the decorated chef.

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length. 

The event is meant to highlight the Flathead Valley and the greater Montana — what are some of the aspects of the food, the terroir and the other aspects of Montana fare that make it such a  unique place to spotlight? 

Yes, the event is meant to feature Flathead Valley in the greater Montana and celebrate all the great things that are going on there, which are all 100% unique.

Like many places in America, they are creating amazing food. From sushi, to BBQ to Italian, there is so much talent in the restaurant and chef scene. Between the location’s combination of natural beauty, outdoor recreation and its cozy, small-town feel, Whitefish is the ideal spot for a Wine and Food Festival.

As a hub for outdoor enthusiasts, Whitefish has a quaint, friendly vibe with a charming downtown area featuring boutique shops, local restaurants and art galleries. It’s the perfect place for an intimate gathering to celebrate the local wine and food scene.

For the uninitiated, what is Whitefish known for from a culinary perspective? 

Known as one of the top ski towns in the US, Whitefish’s culinary scene has a very diverse style with a variety of restaurants, so you can try a wide range of cuisines when you visit or stay in the area. However, high-quality restaurants and fine dining options are becoming more and more prevalent, so we want to put Whitefish on the map as a culinary hotspot with this festival by showcasing the local talent.

What is it about the Montana food scene that you think is most misunderstood and/or that most people wouldn't be aware of? 

What I’ve seen is that there’s a crowd that really enjoys food and that people are enthusiastic about it. There’s great product in the area all the things that lead to a great culinary vibe. So really just trying to spread the word about that!

Your background is Italian-American, but your restaurants often veer outside of that theme. Is there a certain element, dish or ingredient within Italian or Italian-American fare that you'd say is your favorite?

That is really true, but an American chef showcases the melting pot that we live in. I lived in New York for some years and it is a culinary melting pot of every ethnic food that comes into the country.

I love working with the availability of ingredients and the fact that you can actually pull from many different styles. It’s a fusion in the sense that you understand the ingredients and how they work together in unique ways to create unique combinations and amazing flavor profiles.

Chef Todd English in MontanaChef Todd English in Montana (Whitefish Food & Wine)

I’d love to hear a bit about the English hotel? What are the food offerings like there? 

I spend 200 to 220 days a year on the road and I spend a lot of time in hotels, so obviously I have my opinions about food in hotels. It should be a very comfortable place that has all the basic needs in hotel and some great food offerings are a big part of big driving force of our hotel. Pepper Club is a beautiful mix of Japanese Mediterranean fusion.

Do you have a number-one dish you think best encapsulates your career?  

As an Italian-American: Spaghetti Pomodoro!


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food's newsletter, The Bite.


What are your top three favorite ingredients to work with?

High quality of the following: Olive oilsea saltgrated black pepper 

How do you practice sustainability? 

Sustainability is very important to us – one of the ways we practice that is that we work with local farmers. We really try to be very inquisitive about how things are brought to market, how the farmer handles the food and how it gets to us. We try not to involve pesticides and  we also try to keep things in season  those are all things that lead to sustainability. 

What stands out for you as a formative moment that got you into cooking or food at large?

I was about eight years old and I said I was going to make peach ice cream. It was August in Georgia and my mother went out and bought a white ice cream maker and peaches from the local market. It was just spectacular.

In your career, is there a singular moment that stands out as something you’re most proudest of? 

Along with my beautiful children, I think being recognized by my colleagues. That’s how the James Beard award is judged and I think it’s a great, meaningful way to have colleagues judge each other.

I’ve been very very fortunate I got into the industry and was able to do a lot of things. I’m very ambitious and those are all things that kind of played into my amazing career.

We need your help to stay independent

What do you hope to see the Whitefish Food and Wine Festival accomplish for Montana? For the restaurant industry? For tourism?

I’ve visited Whitefish over many years and for me, I’m just so excited to be able to utilize the Whitefish Wine and Food festival as a way to really support and celebrate the local restaurant scene, as well as the local Chefs. They are doing an amazing job! I believe that a large part of tourism is where you eat and what kind of food there is. Whitefish, Montana is amazing place to visit, they’ve done a great job with tourism with all of the amazing nature, outdoor and activities to do and we’re using the festival as a way to shine a light on what else they have to offer in terms of their culinary and hospitality scene.

We also are using the festival as a way to bring it back to a little bit more grassroots and create an intimate setting within the food and wine scene. I want people to get to know the Chef so they can understand who is behind the scenes and what’s going on. I think that’s the really special thing that the festival is focused on  for Chefs, as well as the guests!

Whitefish, Montana in fallWhitefish, Montana in fall (Explore Whitefish)

You now have a host of restaurants throughout the world, which started all the way back in 1989 with Olives in Charlestown, MA. How have you seen the industry change since then? How does your most recently opened restaurant differ from Olives? 

I mean, there were no cell phones back then and there was no social media, so that alone changed everything.

With Charlestown, it was very much a grassroots and revolutionary way we brought food to the table. Today, I love the social media aspect of the industry, but I also realize that that’s not what it’s all about. We still have to deliver the incredible food, experience and atmosphere and it’s not just about Instagram moments.

Throughout your career, is there an opening  or a restaurant itself — that you have the most affinity for? 

I’d say that my first restaurant was the one that I loved most in the opening because it was my first foray into the industry.  I was really excited and really young. I didn’t really know what I was getting myself into, but there was that innocence that I loved.  I was just working so hard and was so excited to be able to do my own restaurant.

Melania Trump drops promotional video for upcoming memoir, promising “facts”

As Donald Trump presses on in his chaotic campaign for re-election, former first lady Melania Trump is busy doing promo for herself, dropping a teaser video this week for her upcoming memoir, "Melania," which is scheduled for a pre-election release via Skyhorse Publishing, an imprint responsible for such titles as "Honoring Christmas: An Amish Romance," "Practical Pistol" and "Hatreds We Love."

On her website, which features a pre-order link for a signed collector's edition of the book containing bonus photographs, the memoir is described as "the powerful and inspiring story of a woman who has defined personal excellence," promising to offer "an intimate portrait of a woman who has lived an extraordinary life." And while she certainly has the opportunity to pack this book full of juicy details on her years co-existing with Donald Trump and his children, and likely has plenty of photo evidence to back it all up, the timing of its release — not to mention the fact that she's still married to the guy — make it a pretty safe bet that readers will not be getting the good stuff anytime soon. 

And yet, in her new promo video, Melania says that "facts" will be found in her book, which The Daily Beast describes as being "novella-thin," so that tracks.

“Writing this memoir has been a deeply and reflective journey for me. As a private person who has often been the subject of public scrutiny and misrepresentation, I feel a responsibility to clarify the facts,” the former first lady says in the oddly ominous noir-style video, which can be seen below.

 

Why are so many people attending the U.S. Open? It’s not just for the tennis . . .

When a good friend reached out to ask if I’d like to attend the U.S. Open with her (in courtside seats sponsored by her investment firm employer, no less) I jumped at the opportunity. The Grand Slam tournament — set amid the summer’s final feverish days — had long been on my bucket list as a New Yorker. 

As a lifelong runner and intermittent tennis player, one might assume my response to my friend would be related to the world-class athletes we’d get to see play. Instead, I smirked in amusement when, after replying with an enthusiastic “YESSSS” to my friend’s text, we each sent variations of the same messages simultaneously, neither of which were about tennis.

We need to plan our fits.”

We can dress so cute.”

And get the honey deuce.”

Call it womanhood, call it brat summer, but I have a hunch that our instinctive, knee-jerk responses to the news that we’d be attending the U.S. Open together speak to a larger cultural phenomenon. That is, at least for some of the tens of thousands of Open-goers who have flocked to Flushing Meadows Corona Park since the event kicked off late last month. 

“It’s like Black Friday at Walmart,” Long Islander Sally Neal told the New York Times of the crowds this year, the most in the tournament’s 142-year history. 

So why are so many people attending the U.S. Open? It depends on who you ask.

"If you wanna go to the atmosphere, you go to the f**king club, right?"

When it comes to tennis, there’s no denying the U.S. Open’s historical relevance and influence. While not as old or perhaps as prestigious as Wimbledon, which is held annually in London, the U.S. Open is an athletic juggernaut in its own right. Household names like the legendary Serena Williams and John McEnroe are among those who have earned the title of most championships won at the tournament. At last year’s U.S. Open, fledgling phenom Coco Guaff’s singles victory marked the most-viewed women's major tennis final ever on ESPN.

Vinkan Cinaroglu, a 30-something from San Antonio, Texas, told Salon he’d flown to New York to celebrate his birthday and attend the U.S. Open with family. Cinaroglu, an ardent tennis fan, felt confident that more people were present at the event for the game itself than for the social atmosphere. “If you wanna go to the atmosphere, you go to the f**king club, right?” he added, noting how he’d paid a visit to The Box and Little Sister, two nightclubs in downtown Manhattan. 

I was introduced to Scott, a 37-year-old IT worker from Washington, D.C., after he tapped me on the shoulder from across the aisle to politely inform me that my lip gloss had fallen out of my purse. 

“I’m here for tennis,” Scott affirmed before I’d even finished asking my question. He had taken the train from D.C. to see Novak Djokovic, the defending U.S. Open champion who is the same age as Scott. The Serb was surprisingly knocked out of the tournament early, in the third round of play. 

Chris Ivery; Tony Goldwyn; Bellamy Young; Shonda RhimesChris Ivery, Tony Goldwyn, Bellamy Young and Shonda Rhimes attend Day 7 of the 2024 US Open Tennis Championships on September 01, 2024 in New York City. (Gotham/GC Images/Getty Images)While tennis still lags behind more culturally and conventionally popular American sports, such as football, basketball and baseball, its influence on the country more broadly shows no signs of slowing down. A May 2024 report from Statista indicated that in 2023, the number of participants in tennis in the United States peaked at 23.84 million, a 1% increase from the previous year’s figure. This stat is likely to continue surging, thanks to the sport steadily gaining favor in mainstream culture.  “Challengers,” Luca Guadagnino’s tennis-centric drama starring Zendaya, for example, has grossed more than $90 million worldwide since its April release. 

Rose, 35, an attorney sitting in corporate seats, said she also felt the pandemic had to do with why some fans were more invested in attending the U.S. Open this year than they might have been in the past. “After COVID, you appreciate these things a lot more, at least for me,” she said.

And yet, while the opportunity to watch really good tennis remains the true linchpin of the U.S. Open’s relevance, its undeniable social-calendar appeal cannot be discounted. 

“It’s the event of the season,” said Asatta Mesa, a 25-year-old Strategy Associate at JP Morgan told me. “It’s a great social experience with friends. Frankly, I did not learn much about tennis. I learned that this stadium existed in Queens.” Mesa, who was attending her second night of the Open, noted how much of the chatter she’d overheard on her first evening of attendance — in a relatively higher section — had demonstrated an obvious dearth of tennis knowledge.

“There [were] lots of questions being asked about who was playing, which indicated to me that people didn’t come for the players themselves,” she said.

Trying Honey Deuce for the first timeTrying Honey Deuce for the first time (Photo by Gabriella Ferrigine)

"It’s not only just a drink, it’s part of the aura."

Leading the charge for why some people might come is the event’s signature Honey Deuce cocktail. Served in a souvenir highball cup, the $23 dollar drink melds Grey Goose vodka with lemonade and a splash of Chambord raspberry liqueur and is garnished with a trio of melon balls meant to resemble tennis balls. The Honey Deuce, which is set to hit $10 million in sales, is practically synonymous with the tournament, having become a cultural phenomenon in its own right since it was first introduced in 2007. “It’s become one of the more Instagram-worthy cocktails,” mixologist and Honey Deuce creator Nick Mautone told The Athletic. 

For Mesa, however, social media didn’t factor heavily into her decision to buy a ticket. “I don’t know that I’m here for the ‘Gram,” Mesa said. “Just more because it’s something one does in New York City.”

And it’s true — after making our way through the dawdling crowds outside Arthur Ashe Stadium, clutching our Deuces tightly to our chests, the first thing we did after sitting down was take a photo of our drinks in front of the court. “It’s not only just a drink, it’s part of the aura,” Oscar Peña, the lead supervisor of a Grey Goose Bar stand in the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center said to The Athletic. “When you think of the U.S. Open, you automatically think Honey Deuce right after that.”

Then there are the off-court names. In recent years, it feels as though the U.S. Open has become an end-of-summer opportunity for celebrities, influencers and upper-echelon New Yorkers to congregate to be, well, seen. This year’s tournament drew stars like Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour, sporting her trademark oversized sunglasses, and Paris Olympians Simone Biles and Katie Ledecky, freshly minted gold medalists in their respective sports. Ben Stiller was only a few rows in front of me, tossing fans intermittent “Blue Steels” and pausing for selfies whenever he got up to use the bathroom. And the U.S. Open’s Opening Night Gala — a yearly event supporting the U.S.T.A’s charitable efforts — saw songwriter Lin Manuel-Miranda in attendance and Alec Baldwin helm an auction block. As ballet dancer Misty Copeland honestly admitted to the New York Times, she had not read up on tennis ahead of attending her first U.S. Open this year. She had, however, watched “Challengers.” 

“I’m excited to just experience it all for the first time,” Copeland said.

Ben StillerBen Stiller attends Day 7 of the 2024 US Open Tennis Championships on September 01, 2024 in New York City. (Gotham/GC Images/Getty Images)

Copeland and I were simpatico in that regard. Part of that excitement was rooted in my desire to see some of the Open’s storied glitz and glam; however, I was surprised to see that most of the crowd — even in the pricey seats where I was — had opted for relatively unremarkable attire. While many of the spectators sported incredible hair styles, smelled like department stores and wore Cartier bracelets and Italian leather loafers, I had expected significantly more ostentatious energy than I actually witnessed. I suppose this is what distinguishes the U.S. Open from other premier events that amalgamate sports with socializing, like the Kentucky Derby. From my courtside vantage point, it hardly felt like people were trying to draw attention to themselves, subverting my initial assumptions. 

Though the U.S. Open’s crowd was clearly bifurcated into tennis devotees and society seekers, relatively everyone was on the same page when it came to engagement. As the match between the U.S.’s Frances Tiafoe and Aussie Alexei Popyrin crept into its closing rounds, the crowd was locked in, each rally eliciting “oohs” and “aahs” that uncannily mirrored the sound effects spliced into Wii Sports’ virtual tennis. When a few overzealous fans couldn’t contain their excitement, and yelled “C’mon, 'Foe!” just as the American was readying to lob the ball upward in a serve, hundreds of other fans collectively shushed them. It was a clear show of respect, not only for the players but for the broader experience shared by all those gathered in the stadium. 

“I’d say it’s maybe 70-30,” Scott said, regarding the audience’s split. “Like, maybe 70% aren’t the biggest tennis fans. I don’t think it’s a bad vibe or anything. I mean, people are here to have fun. I think that’s what it’s all about anyway.”

“It’s kind of like a ticking time bomb”: Unregulated buy now, pay later programs surge in growth

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, consumers saw a new payment method hit the online shopping scene: buy now, pay later. The buzz around the small retail loans has since seemingly died down — but industry experts say this payment method is here to stay, as it continues to go up against established ways of making a purchase like credit cards. 

Buy now, pay later (BNPL) programs like Klarna, Sezzle, Afterpay, and Affirm allow shoppers to purchase an item – whether it be clothing, home decor, or even food – without paying the full price at once. Instead, consumers can break it up into four interest-free payments on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. 

The launch of this way of paying has coincided with massive growth within the global e-commerce market. In 2023, online retail was worth nearly $24.5 trillion globally, almost $10 trillion more than what it was in 2020. The International Trade Administration has estimated this market will continue to balloon, reaching upwards of $36 trillion by just 2026. 

Tens of millions of Americans have reported using BNPL programs, with research conducted by Capital One finding that around 88.2 million people said they used one during 2023 – up by around 11.6% from 2022. As consumers have turned to these installment payments largely for their convenience, there have long been worries about the long-term viability of the purchasing method and its impact on consumer debt. 

These short-term loans advertise themselves as interest-free, though, shoppers can find themselves in trouble if they miss payments. Depending on the company used for the purchase, consumers may face a fee of up to 25% of the original order amount. 

Amid these concerns, some research indicates the initial growth and usage of BNPL has slowed or fluctuated. In 2022, a survey conducted by NerdWallet found that only around 30% of Americans were using BNPL. One year later, a similar survey found that number had dropped to 25%. However, NerdWallet found in May that the amount of Americans that used BNPL in the last year jumped back up to 33%. 

Separate research conducted by WalletHub has also pointed to a slower expansion than its “rapid growth” in past years – potentially driven by increased regulation, debt concerns and lenient consumer protections, according to analyst Chip Lupo.

Industry experts have pointed to this ebb-and-flow of usership as evidence of BNPL finding its niche of consumers. LexisNexis Risk Solutions tracks transactions and applications of BNPL programs. Based on their research, the number isn’t dropping. But, the type of consumer is, Kevin King, vice president of credit risk and marketing strategy told Salon. 

King explained that the trends over the past 18 months show a drop in new users but a massive increase in return shoppers. This shift in the consumer base may explain the fluctuating surveys, he said. 

“A lot of people gave it a shot in that 2020 to 2022. A lot of people loved it, some didn’t, right?” King said. “And so I think you now have a core base of consumers that leverage it heavily and plan to keep using it in more and more ways. And then you’ve got a lot of consumers who kicked the tires and said, ‘Hey, I get the appeal, but you know, not for me.’” 

We need your help to stay independent

While new users may have dropped off BNPL overall per LexisNexis, the company expects to see a 16% increase in BNPL transactions by the end of 2024. 

For individual companies, that growth may be even higher. Sezzle CEO Charlie Youakim told Salon their BNPL program has continued to see significant growth since launching in 2015. In Q2 of 2024, Youakin said the company saw 38.9% growth year-over-year, up from 33.2% growth in Q1. 

Like other BNPL programs, Sezzle offers a number of products, including a subscription service with priority support, discounts, rescheduling opportunities and other benefits. Even with just this venture, the company has had massive growth, seeing a jump in subscribers from 170,000 last year to 460,000 in 2024. 

“I don’t know where it peaks, but it still feels like the sector’s growing,” Youakim said. “It’s just that there’s less buzz about it, because it’s less new, there’s less chatter.” 

For King, this is all evidence that BNPL programs will continue to be relevant. However, as a newly established payment method, it could face some challenges, particularly as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said in May BNPL should face similar regulations as credit cards. 

Experts warn that stronger regulations directly affecting operations, extreme changes within the stock market, as well as loan defaults and bank failures may shake up the BNPL industry. 


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


“Honestly, I think it's kind of like a ticking time bomb,” warned Vijay Marolia, chief investment officer for Regal Point Capital Management, noting that he avoids using any BNPL programs and urged others to do the same.

“Please keep it as a last resort, unless you’re one of those few people that are gaming the system, so to speak. There’s no free lunch,” Marolia said. 

Others have touted BNPL as a tool, saying that opting into a plan should be based on each shopper's financial situation. 

WalletHub’s Lupo told Salon that before making any BNPL transaction, consumers should make sure they will have the funds for each scheduled payment. He advised BNPL be used only for essential purchases, with only one plan open at the same time. If used alongside a budget, consumers can apply BNPL to their advantage in managing their finances, especially if they have limited access to credit. 

Despite concerns about the future of BNPL and its potential misuse by consumers, King is confident the small-term loans will remain a payment option for years to come. Though, it may never surpass other established methods. 

“I don’t think it’s ever going to knock off credit cards,” King said. “But unless something happens to make up how the industry is currently allowed to operate, I think you’re going to see it 10, 15, 20 years from now, absolutely."