Griffiths is the editor of Independent Voter News, where a version of this story first appeared.
Kamala Harris was high on Joe Biden's list of possible running mates from the start, for a range of reasons being exhaustively discussed now that he's chosen her. One poll receiving modest attention in all the talk reveals the California senator had the broadest support among Democratic voters — which could only have helped her cause.
The unusual aspect of the survey is that it was conducted two ways: the standard manner, where each person polled was asked to pick one candidate, and an alternate method allowing respondents to list their three favorites in order. Harris emerged as the plurality pick the first way. But she was the only candidate with majority backing once the top three choices were combined.
That marks a symbolically important victory for advocates of ranked-choice voting, who see this alternative election method as the key to minimizing polarized partisanship while maximizing the chances for candidates who are consensus-driven and outsiders, especially women and people of color.
FairVote, the nation's largest group promoting the switch to ranked-choice elections, hired SurveyUSA to poll 1,296 Democratic and independent voters July 30-31 about seven potential running mates for Biden.
In the standard poll, 32 percent chose Harris, 27 percent chose Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and 17 percent chose former White House national security adviser Susan Rice.
The ranked poll operated the same way that so-called RCV elections are normally conducted: Since no candidate accrued more than half the top-choice votes, the one with the fewest first-choice votes was removed and her votes went to each voter's next-ranked choice. This process was repeated until one candidate secured a majority of the vote.
Harris ended up with 55 percent support after her first, second and third place showings were combined. Warren trailed by a significant margin, with 45 percent.
Democrats preferred Harris as a top choice (36 percent) followed by Warren (26 percent), while independents preferred Warren as a first choice (28 percent), followed by Harris (23 percent). There was lots of crossover support between Harris supporters and Warren. Harris voters tended to select Warren as a second choice, and the reverse was also true.
Survey takers were also asked why they selected their first choice, and the most common response was that she "best reflects my values and policy views."
While FairVote and other RCV advocates see the survey as buttressing their cause, by showing which candidates have the most demonstrable breadth of support, both senators likely saw a boost from name recognition — since the two are far more well-known compared to the other candidates on the roster following their own runs this year for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The two were the only candidates to be ranked by at least half of respondents. The other options in the poll were Rice, former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Rep. Val Demings of Florida and Rep. Karen Bass of California.
Respondents had an opportunity to express their opinion in a different way than they are used to, ranking their preferences rather than just choosing a single candidate. An overwhelming majority took advantage of ranked-choice voting, as 87 percent ranked at least two candidates and 69 percent had a first, second, and third choice.
As a result, the survey includes data that a choose-one voting method would not have been able to provide; namely, the depth of support each candidate had among survey takers — an important variable to consider when picking a vice president.
Asked about their opinion on ranked-choice voting, 56 percent said they would support its use in elections where they lived.
Visit IVN.us for more coverage from Independent Voter News.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.