Happy Thursday! Election Day is 54 days away. Have you ever worn a rival sports team’s gear? It looks like President Joe Biden did the political equivalent Wednesday.
Up to Speed
- Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign was quick to request a second debate after the faceoff between her and Donald Trump wrapped up Tuesday night, while the former president indicated Wednesday he would not participate in another before backtracking. “In the World of Boxing or UFC, when a Fighter gets beaten or knocked out, they get up and scream, “I DEMAND A REMATCH, I DEMAND A REMATCH!” Well, it’s no different with a Debate,” he wrote in a Truth Social post. “She was beaten badly last night. Every Poll has us WINNING, in one case, 92-8, so why would I do a Rematch?” Later in the day, however, Trump said he would be open to debating on Fox News or NBC.
- If Trump and Harris agree to a second debate, ratings for the first suggest Americans will tune in. Per Nielsen, 67.1 million viewers watched Harris and Trump in prime time Tuesday evening, making their debate a bigger draw than the Republican nominee’s June 27 debate with Joe Biden, which attracted a healthy 51.3 million viewers. Ratings are based on traditional television and internet streaming platforms. Although ABC News hosted the debate, the network made the program available to all broadcast and cable competitors, just as CNN did in June.
- The Congressional Leadership Fund, the super PAC linked to House Speaker Mike Johnson, released its first round of general election advertisements Wednesday in battleground House districts across eight states. The group announced ads supporting Republican candidates would run in 11 competitive districts: five held by Democrats and six by Republicans. The PAC is targeting House races in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, New York, Ohio, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.
- The Republican and Democratic candidates for Michigan’s open Senate seat released ads attacking each other Wednesday. Former GOP Rep. Mike Rogers hit President Joe Biden’s mandate that would make the majority of cars electric or hybrid by 2032, arguing that it will ship auto jobs to China. “I’ll fight their EV mandates, take on China, and save our jobs,” Rogers says in the ad. Meanwhile, Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin released two ads hitting Rogers for his previous support for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution while he was in Congress, which he has since recanted.
Trump’s IVF Proposal Is Greeted With Skepticism in Congress
Republicans on Capitol Hill this week expressed skepticism about former President Donald Trump’s plan to have the government pay for in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments or mandate that insurers cover them.
Though they said they agreed with Trump’s intentions, many Republican lawmakers were hesitant to endorse such a plan, citing a lack of details or disapproving of a mandate intruding into the free market. Some expressed support for alternative proposals.
“I don’t like the mandate, insurance mandate. I think that creates a lot of problems in the private sector there,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham told Dispatch Politics in the Capitol Tuesday. “I like the tax credit approach. You know, we have tax credits for children. … I’d like to do something to make it more affordable.”
In an apparent attempt to insulate himself from Democratic attacks claiming that he wants to restrict IVF, Trump late last month floated a proposal that would entail government funding or an insurance mandate for the treatment. The former president has not since given more details, though he did call himself “a leader on fertilization, IVF” in his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday.
But the reactions from many of Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill illustrate the difficulty of translating election-year promises into policy.
“I’m still trying to be able to figure out how that would work, what that would be,” said Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, adding that it was “hard for me to really give a perspective on it” without more details. “He’s trying to be able to speak and say, ‘How do we make sure that mom and dad that want to have a child can?’ That’s a fair life position.”
Asked if subsidizing IVF is something he would support in principle, Lankford said he would want to see something concrete. “There’s a lot of different issues with that, trying to be able to figure out what’s the cost, where does that come from, what’s the benefit of that. So, I’d have to see an exact proposal on it, and I haven’t seen it. It’s been a talking point rather than an exact proposal so far,” he said.
Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, a co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, said he needed more information to comment on the proposal, refusing even to give his opinion on the idea in principle. “There’s no ‘principle.’ You’ve got to see the details,” he said.
Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, a Trump ally, told Dispatch Politics last week that he preferred Americans finance IVF treatments through health savings accounts. This week, Scott reiterated that point to reporters on Capitol Hill, stressing that he is “very supportive of IVF” and mentioning he has a daughter going through the treatment.
On the other hand, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia likened Trump’s proposal to “health care for all” when speaking to NBC News. “I think that’s opening up a door that Republicans aren’t willing to open. I’m not for government-mandated funding of IVF,” she said.
Among the congressional Republicans most open to government support for IVF was Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri. He told Dispatch Politics he heard about proposals to make IVF tax deductible or give a tax rebate for it, which he said were “interesting.”
“In general, having a child is extremely expensive, and I’m in support of tax policy that would try and help parents who are trying to have children and then who currently have children,” he said. “So, all that to say, I’m interested. As to the former president’s proposal, let’s see what that actually looks like.”
A Wednesday night report from Axios indicated that Republicans will soon have something specific to comment on. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will introduce a bill similar to Trump’s proposal in the next couple of weeks in a “show vote” to force GOP senators to take a position. Sen. Tammy Duckworth’s bill, which Republicans killed last month, would establish a federal right to IVF and mandate insurers cover it.
Eyes on the Trail
- Vice President Kamala Harris is in North Carolina today, holding a pair of back-to-back rallies in Charlotte and Greensboro. Gov. Tim Walz will be in Grand Rapids, Michigan, for a rally tonight.
- Donald Trump, meanwhile, will be in Tucson, Arizona, today to deliver remarks that the campaign promises will focus on the high cost of housing. From Arizona, Trump will head his Los Angeles-area golf course for a press conference Friday morning. It’s unclear what this press conference will focus on.
- Second gentleman Doug Emhoff has a busy end to the week. The husband of the Democratic nominee will be in Nevada and Arizona today for two separate campaign events. The first is a visit to a Harris campaign field office this afternoon in Henderson, Nevada, followed by remarks in Tucson tonight on “the fight for reproductive freedom.”
- Looking ahead to next week, here’s an alert that got our attention: The Trump campaign announced Wednesday that the former president will hold a rally in Uniondale, New York, on Long Island, on September 18. According to guidance from the campaign, the rally will focus on the effects of illegal immigration and will highlight violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the New York City area. New York, however, is hardly one of the major battleground states and is expected to vote for Harris.
Notable and Quotable
“She mastered the split screen, projecting confidence and wordlessly undercutting him by smiling while shaking her head as he spoke.”
—Karl Rove, “A Catastrophic Debate for Trump,” the Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2024
Please note that we at The Dispatch hold ourselves, our work, and our commenters to a higher standard than other places on the internet. We welcome comments that foster genuine debate or discussion—including comments critical of us or our work—but responses that include ad hominem attacks on fellow Dispatch members or are intended to stoke fear and anger may be moderated.