Today there are non-Presidential primary elections in four states, including Minnesota; I hadn’t appreciated back on Super Tuesday that the primary election I’d forgotten about was for the Presidential ticket only. As such, earlier today I voted in a Minnesota federal race for the first time. Not that it was particularly exciting: the only two races on the Democratic ballot were Senator Klobuchar against some no-name challengers, and Representative Craig against one no-name challenger. Still, civic duty and all.

We’re now 6 days away from the start of the DNC, in Chicago. One of the many odd things about the 2024 Presidential election is how policy-free it has been, at least so far; perhaps that will start to change with the DNC coming up. Harris has had a very successful three-week campaign, but that success has generally been all about “vibes”, replacing a politics of fear with a forward-looking politics of joy. It would be nice to understand, for instance, how she feels about tax policy, with many of the provisions of the Trump-era TCJA set to sunset after 2025.

The one piece of tax policy we got out of Harris last week, to my chagrin, was her endorsement of an idea that Trump floated back in June to make tips for service and hospitality workers exempt from taxable income. While I appreciate the appeal of this idea in the key swing state of Nevada, as a general rule I think it’s poor policy to try and grant differentiated tax status to different types of income, as it opens the door to gamesmanship. Having said that, I have more confidence in the Democrats’ ability to implement this idea in a reasonable manner than I do the Republicans.

Both candidates have agreed that the September 10th Presidential debate on ABC is once again on, after Trump had previously said he wouldn’t show up. Trump is advocating for additional debates, to which Harris has been non-committal so far.

There was a surprising development last week in U.S. v. Trump (D.C. edition), where Special Counsel Smith asked for a 3-week extension in responding to Judge Chutkan’s request for a proposal on how to proceed with the case in the wake of the SCOTUS decision in Trump v. U.S. It is not entirely clear what the delay may mean. Some have wondered if perhaps, now that a pre-election trial is off the table, Smith might reverse course and file a superseding indictment that now includes the six unindicted co-conspirators mentioned in the original indictment. Alternatively, Smith is likely consulting more broadly within the DOJ about an appropriate course of action that reflects not just the interests of this case but also the institutional interests of the DOJ with respect to future disputes over presidential immunity. We should learn what Smith has in mind on August 30th, shortly after we should have seen his appeal to the 11th Circuit in U.S. v. Trump (Florida edition).

Finally, in keeping with his lifelong pattern of using lawsuits for both publicity and nuisance purposes, Trump indicated this week that he will be suing the DOJ and FBI for $115 million in damages related to the Mar-a-Lago documents case searches and prosecution.