I’m a big supporter of helping Ukraine. But not this. It’s an escalation too far. … How can this be decisive without launching deliberately damaging strikes against Russia? … Putin is threatening war with the West. He’s always threatening wider war. But this is definitely different. … Second link via John Ellis’s News Items.

David Van Voorhis, aka Statman at Scott Van Voorhis’s newsletter, has a fascinating analysis (scroll to bottom) on post-debate polling in general, raising key points people should consider in the wake of Tuesday’s presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris: 1.) Trump has a record of losing presidential debates by an average of 23 percent, so Tuesday night’s performance statistically wasn’t too off from the norm. 2) results from the last 21 presidential debates since 1996 suggest Harris could see a bump of 1 to 1.5 percent in post-debate polls. 3.) quoting polling guru Nate Siliver, Van Voorhis says it may take a week or two to get accurate post-debate polling. …

Definitely read his full analysis. A 1 to 1.5 percent bump for Harris sounds about right to me, btw.

This is interesting. From WaPo: “Nearly every state-led effort to ban food waste analyzed by researchers appears to be failing — except one, according to a new study. The study, published Thursday in the journal Science, singled out Massachusetts for reducing the amount of food that gets tossed in the trash.”

Not sure if I agree with everything Jedediah Britton-Purdy proposes, but he’s right to say Kamala Harris has to develop a more substantive, detailed economic plan. … As I noted yesterday morning after the debate: “The flowery platitudes aren’t working.” … I still think my $1,000-for-every-American (or most Americans) idea is a winner. It won’t solve inflation, but it will ease its impact. Voters will love it.

So that’s the problem! …

Most pundits think Kamala Harris won last night’s big presidential debate. But Harris needs the support of undecided voters, not the plaudits of pundits. And this NYT article notes she didn’t overly impress some undecided voters. … The Times’ Kathleen Kingsbury agrees that voters “learned very few new details” about Harris’s plans. … Yet the Washington Post surveyed uncommitted swing-state voters in real-time last night and found a small shift in Harris’s favor. … Registered voters in a CNN insta-poll last night declared Harris the winner. But saying someone won a debate is not the same as saying someone won a lot of votes. … I’m eager to see other post-debate poll results. I assume Harris will get some sort of bump from last night, but it will probably be small. …

… The Globe’s James Pindell is a tough grader, giving Harris a ‘C’ and Trump a ‘C-.’ He makes good arguments for the low marks. … Did MSNBC take over Politico? The latter’s staff reactions are a little too cheerleader-ish. …

OK, here’s what you’ve been waiting for, i.e., my reaction: Harris clearly won. And I’m content with that. I was afraid she’d lose. Her performance may help a little in the polls, but not decisively so. …. One note of concern: Can her operatives please come up with more substantive things to say when she’s asked for details about her polices? The flowery platitudes aren’t working.

Update –  Trump, Republicans and other right-wing media types are typically whining about the media. … When things go wrong, they have to find a villain, I suppose.

Here’s more evidence that the Israeli government is trying to find a face-saving way to declare victory and end the war in Gaza, i.e. they’re now reportedly offering Hamas leader Yahya Sinar safe passage out of Gaza in a bid to end the conflict. … As previously mentioned, Israel’s declared goal of destroying Hamas was never realistic. That’s why they’ve unofficially set a new goal of simply getting rid of Sinar, one way or the other.

At the Atlantic, Harvard economist David Deming takes on “insular and status-obsessed’ economists within his profession, arguing they’re increasingly out of touch with regular people and writing too many “mathematically sophisticated papers that get them tenure but have little effect on the real world.” …

And, oh, he cites a recent economic paper by economists showing how award-winning economists tend to be concentrated at just eight elite universities. 

This is just a great business story. … There’s something about free shrimp, or super-cheap shrimp, that brings out the worst in people, btw.

Update – And here’s another good business story, via the BBJ, on the closing of Boston’s Motif FoodWorks, after the Ginkgo Bioworks spinout raised $226 million in funding. That’s a lot of money to lose on a start-up.

The reviews are in: T12 failed in his debut yesterday as a Fox NFL game analyst. But I’d argue he failed even before he failed. The ridiculous $375 million contract he got from Fox was bad enough, a figure so over the top that it alienated fans and raised legit questions about whether anyone deserved so much for so little. But all the pre-game hype about how much he practiced and studied tapes before his debut blah, blah, generated the impression that he wasn’t a natural, that it was all contrived and studio-tested. That was more damaging to his debut than the contract, if you ask me.