Philippa Kaur

Young people could decide the 2024 presidential election.

It’s a tale as old as time – a story that pops up every election, almost like clockwork.

The narrative is the same this election cycle. There is a palpable excitement about the possibility of young people making their voices heard in 2024.

Young people, in particular, have broadly voiced their support for Vice President Kamala Harris, who will officially accept her party’s presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention on Aug. 22, 2024.

Harris’ young supporters have created popular TikTok videos and widely-shared memes with coconut trees and ample allusions to the trendy term “brat.”

Both former President Donald Trump and Harris are trying to build on young people’s excitement – through participating in livestreams with popular, young content creators and by copying some of the specific colors and themes that often come up in young people’s online content.

The vibes suggest, perhaps, that a “youth wave” is coming.

Donald Trump looks to young supporters as he holds a rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., on July 20, 2024.
Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

Young people mostly support Harris

At present, Harris holds a commanding lead among young people.

Depending on the poll that you look at, if the election were held today, Harris would probably command about 50% to 60% of the youth vote, meaning people ages 18 to 29, or in some cases 18 to 34.

Trump would pull in only about 34% of young people.

That’s a big difference. A person might see that difference and think that young people could, indeed, tip the scales at the ballot box in November.

Knowing exactly how many young voters Harris needs to win over to carry the election is difficult, but many political pundits have argued that Harris needs to make sure that she secures a dominant majority of them.

But regardless of whether they support Harris in preelection polling, my research finds that many young people aren’t likely to show up and actually cast their ballots.

Young people often don’t vote

Young citizens’ track record of participation in American elections is dismal. Although young people are the biggest group of citizens who are eligible to vote, they turn out at significantly lower rates than older Americans.

In the November 2022 midterms, for instance, only 25.5% of 18- to 29-year-olds cast a ballot, whereas 63.1% of those age 60 or older voted.

Though November 2020 set records for youth voter turnout, only 52.5% of 18- to 29-year-olds cast a ballot, compared with 78% of those 60 or older.

While it’s hard to know how many young people will cast a ballot in November 2024, early indicators – such as the number of young people who say they plan to cast a ballot – suggest that this pattern of low youth voter turnout will continue.

The United States has one of the lowest rates of youth voter turnout in the world. The gap between 18- to 29-year-olds and those over 60, a common measuring stick, is more than twice as large here than it is in other countries such as Canada or Germany.

In our 2020 book, “Making Young Voters: Converting Civic Attitudes into Civic Action,” political scientist Sunshine Hillygus and I tried to better understand what stops young people from voting and what can be done to change this trend.

Why more young people don’t vote

Two main hurdles stand in the way of young people casting a ballot. One problem is that young people are not especially interested in voting. In recent polls, for example, about 77% of young people say that they plan on definitely voting in the upcoming November election.

For older citizens, that number is 90%.

However, a second – and a perhaps more consequential – problem is that young people who are interested in voting often don’t follow through on their intentions.

By examining survey data and conducting interviews with dozens of young people in 2018, Hillygus and I found that many young people lack confidence in themselves and their ability to navigate the voting process for the first time.

Many told us that in their busy, hectic and ever-changing schedules, voting often simply falls by the wayside.

With school and work commitments, as well as a lack of experience filling out voter registration forms and casting a ballot, voting seems like an insurmountable burden for many young people.

Supporters of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz look on during a campaign event at Temple University in Philadelphia on Aug. 6, 2024.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

What works to increase youth voter turnout

A common assumption of many youth advocacy groups seems to be that more young people would vote if voting were considered cool. We’ve seen that approach again this cycle, with advocates clamoring, for example, for celebrity endorsements from the likes of singer Taylor Swift.

The problem is that this approach doesn’t square with the fact that young people care about politics – they just struggle to follow through.

The biggest hurdle for many young people, in particular, is voter registration. In 2022, data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that only 40% of young people said they were registered to vote in the midterm election.

Programs that help young people register to vote can be particularly effective at getting them to cast a ballot.

It has also become increasingly common for political campaigns to help young adults make a plan to vote – by outlining when and where they are going to vote, as well as how they will get to their polling location.

Other methods, such as sending text message reminders, creating automated calendar reminders and offering transportation to the polls, are also effective at helping young people who want to vote actually do so. Though some of these strategies are being used in the 2024 election, many are not common.

Government policies that make registering to vote and casting a ballot easier would also increase youth voter turnout.

Same-day voter registration is particularly effective at encouraging young people to vote. Likewise, letting 16- and 17-year-olds preregister to vote before they turn 18 can also substantially increase the number of voters under 30. At present, 21 states, including California, Massachusetts, Florida and Louisiana, let 16- and 17-year-olds preregister to vote.

Our research suggests that when states implement these types of reforms, they close the gap between older and younger voters by about a third.

There is some evidence that Harris has reinvigorated the youth vote.

Whether young citizens will show up and deliver the presidency to Harris or stay home and yield to Trump remains to be seen. More

Donald Trump suggested he was open to revoking access to the abortion pill if he won the presidential race, after being asked by a reporter last Thursday if he would “revoke access” to the drug. The following day, Trump’s campaign office said he didn’t hear the question properly.

Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, has since said abortion policy should be made by the states and the pair want to “make sure that any medicine is safe, that it is prescribed in the right way”. But it’s unclear exactly what this means for American women’s future access to abortion.

The abortion drug they’re talking about is mifepristone, otherwise known as RU486.

Mifepristone is one of the medications used in a medical abortion. It acts by blocking the effect of progesterone, one of the hormones important to the development of a pregnancy.

The second medication involved is misoprostol, which contracts and empties the uterus.

In Australia these two medicines are prescribed in a combination pack called MS-2 Step which is registered for use in women up to nine weeks of pregnancy.

What happens during a medical abortion?

When a woman undergoes a medical abortion, she first swallows the mifepristone tablet. This blocks a hormone called progesterone, which is needed for the pregnancy to continue. This might result in some spotting or bleeding.

Between 36 and 48 hours later, she places the misoprostol in her cheek and lets it dissolve.

Strong cramps and bleeding will start and it will feel like a very heavy period with blood clots and tissue being passed. This is the lining of the uterus and the pregnancy being shed.

Doctors often prescribe anti-nausea pills and pain relief medications to deal with these symptoms.

The whole process is like having a miscarriage and usually lasts between two and six hours.

Once the pregnancy has passed, symptoms start to settle. Women will continue to bleed like a normal period for about five days, and some lighter bleeding may continue for between ten days to a month.

Medical abortion is safe and works more than 98% of the time when carried out early on in a pregnancy. There is only a 0.4% risk of a serious complication such as an infection or haemorrhage requiring hospitalisation or transfusion.

If a woman has very heavy bleeding (passing clots bigger than a small lemon or filling or soaking through two or menstrual pads per hour for more than two hours in a row), she should go to the emergency department because of the small but serious risk of haemorrhage.

If she develops a fever over 38 degrees, she may have developed an infection and should contact her health-care provider.

Women should also do a follow up blood test seven days after taking the MS-2 Step to make sure the abortion was successful.

What are the other options?

While medical abortion is rapidly becoming the most common way to have an abortion early in the pregnancy, it is not the method of choice for all women.

And it’s not suitable for everyone, especially those without support, such as homeless women or those experiencing domestic violence.

For some women, surgical abortion might be their method of choice or a better option. It can be helpful to use a decision aid, which sets out the pros and cons of each method.

When did Australians get access?

Like everywhere else in the world, having medical abortion available in Australia has enabled women to access an abortion when they previously wouldn’t have been able to.

Prior to its introduction in Australia in 2012, abortions were carried out surgically, requiring a one-day stay in a hospital or surgical facility, and an anaesthetic.

Read more:
Arrival of RU486 in Australia a great leap forward for women

Surgical abortions were then – and still are – difficult to access. Unlike surgical procedures such as knee replacements or having your appendix removed, surgical abortions are not always provided in public hospital settings, especially hospitals run by faith-based organisations.

For women living in rural areas, this has been a big problem. Many surgical providers of abortion are located in metropolitan settings and many women have felt judged and stigmatised or had barriers put in their way by doctors who did not believe in a woman’s right to choose.

Now a woman can receive a prescription for MS-2 Step through her local doctor and undergo a medical abortion in the comfort of her own home.

If her local doctor doesn’t provide this service, she can consult a doctor who does via telehealth. Medicare provides rebates for consultations related to sexual and reproductive health issues carried out either over the phone or via online video. Unlike most other telehealth consultations, for sexual and reproductive health issues, you don’t need to have seen the GP face-to-face in the last 12 months to get a rebate.

This means a woman who is living in Western Australia, for example, can have a consultation with a doctor in Queensland and receive a prescription for MS-2 Step via text message or email.

She can then go to her local pharmacy to have the medication dispensed, undergo the medical abortion at home and then have her follow up consultation again via telehealth a couple of weeks later.

What’s the situation in America?

In America, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe Vs Wade in 2022, it removed women’s constitutional right to abortion, allowing many states to introduce bans on abortions. This meant many clinics providing surgical abortions closed down.

The availability of mifepristone has, however, meant that women have been able to bypass these state-based laws and obtain medical abortion pills via telehealth or online through services like Plan C or Women on Web.

If Donald Trump wins the election and restricts access to mifepristone, American women’s options will become even more limited and they may resort to unsafe abortion methods. Restricting access to abortion never stops it, it just drives it underground and makes it less safe. More

“Donald was pissed. Boy, was he pissed.”

This is how Fred C. Trump III describes the moment, sometime in the early 1970s, when his uncle, Donald J. Trump, “came stomping” back into the family home in Queens, New York.

As Fred III puts it in his memoir, All In The Family, he had spent a bucolic day

kicking a soccer ball in the backyard before taking a break for a Coke with Gam. Just a normal afternoon for preteen me. Yet I remember it like it was yesterday because of what happened next.

It turns out Donald wanted his nearly ten-year-old nephew to take a look at the car parked in the driveway: his white convertible Cadillac Eldorado. There was “a giant gash, at least two feet long, in the canvas roof. There was another, shorter gash next to it.”

Review: All In The Family: The Trumps and How We Got This Way – Fred C. Trump III (Simon & Schuster)

Fred remembers his uncle, in a fit of pique, uttering the N-word twice in quick succession – without proof of his accusations, nor regard for the impact of his words:

Donald hadn’t seen whoever had done this. […] He returned to where he’d left his beloved Eldorado, saw the damage, then went straight to the place where people’s minds sometimes go when they face a fresh affront.

Having made it clear he has no time for such language, Fred turns to the elephant in the room. “So, was Donald a racist?”

Racially charged remarks

Stephen Chueng, Trump’s 2024 presidential electoral campaign spokesperson, clearly doesn’t think so. In a recent statement to ABC News, Cheung flatly refuted Fred III’s claims, dismissing them as fabricated and “fake news of the highest order”.

Moreover, in Cheung’s performatively outraged estimation, it simply beggars belief that “a lie so blatantly disgusting can be printed in media”. He continues: “Anyone who knows President Trump knows he would never use such language, and false stories like this have been thoroughly debunked.”

This rings a bit hollow, given Trump’s racially charged remarks about Kamala Harris’s ethnicity at the National Association of Black Journalists convention. “I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black and now she wants to be known as Black. So, I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?”

And today, from a Mar-a-Lago press conference, Trump said of his presidential opponent: “Well … uh, she’s a woman. She represents certain groups of people.”

Donald Trump suggested Kamala Harris ‘happened to turn Black’ at the National Association of Black Journalists convention.
Charles Rex Arbogast/AAP

Indeed, as Jennifer Ho points out, Trump’s comments, which evoke memories of his “birtherism” attacks on Barack Obama, “tapped into the long history of racism in America, where some white people have defined racial categories and policed the boundaries of race”.

In any case, Cheung surely hasn’t spent much time with Trump’s onetime political advisor, cheerleader (and convicted felon) Steve Bannon. According to journalist Michael Wolff, Bannon believed his former employer wasn’t antisemitic, but “he was much less confident that Trump wasn’t a racist. He had not heard Trump use the N-word but could easily imagine him doing so.”

In the end, Fred hedges his bets. “This was Queens in the early 1970s,” he insists:

Back then, people said all kinds of crude, thoughtless, prejudiced things. I don’t need to list them here. In one way or another, maybe everyone in Queens was a racist then. Like many things in life, it was partly a matter of situation and degree.

Not like his sister

Fred C. Trump III.
Simon & Schuster

Equivocations of this sort are the order of the day in Fred’s frustrating, yet undeniably heartfelt account of the Trump clan. It comes four years after the publication of Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man (2020), written by Fred’s younger sister, Mary L. Trump.

Mary’s score-settling invective did not go down well with the Trumps. Fred acknowledges this in the closing sections of his book. The collective reaction was unbridled fury. Fred’s uncle, Robert, attempted to block the publication of Mary’s book, citing a breach of confidentiality.

Fred is at pains to distinguish his take on things from that of his sister. “The book was Mary’s point of view, which she had every right to. It just wasn’t mine.”

Mary Trump.
Simon & Schuster

Unlike Mary, Fred is determined, in spite of everything, to maintain vaguely cordial relations with the rest of the Trumps. In part, this explains the measured approach and tone of his memoir, which is characterised by a curious mix of cliché, cruelty and compassion.

While it doesn’t contain all that much in the way of revelatory material or insight, it does offer a fresh perspective on the dynamics of a family whose name has, for better or worse, somehow become inextricably linked with the fate of a nation. “As go the Trumps,” Fred argues, “so goes America.”

Fred is all too aware that he has a name “that is extraordinarily polarizing, and keeps getting more so”. He also appreciates that his book has the potential to ruffle family feathers:

Things could be tense on the gold course the next time Uncle Donald rolls up in his cart. And I am certainly a flawed messenger. I have my faults – many of them. Who doesn’t in this family … or any other? The difference between me and my relatives is that none of them will admit that, and I just did.

‘A win was a win was a win’

The family portrait he paints is far from flattering. “Who planted the seeds of narcissism? When did winning become everything? How did Trump loyalty become such a one-way street?”

These are some of the questions Fred poses at the outset of his memoir, which opens on the day of his grandfather’s funeral. “My father’s father was the Trump who first defined what it meant to be a Trump,” Fred says, “long before Uncle Donald marched the family name into Manhattan and gave it that shiny 1980s glow”.

Fred’s grandfather, with whom he shares a first name, “was an old-style patriarch, presiding over a large, rambunctious family, whose members he managed to dominate and sometimes pit against each other”. Moreover, in Fred’s reckoning, it is impossible to explain the personalities of his grandfather’s five children without understanding “what he did for – and to – each of them”.

Fred Trump I (right, beside wife Mary Trump, who’s between him and Donald) was ‘was an old-style patriarch’ who liked to sometimes pit his family members against each other.
Charles Rex Arbogast/AAP

Much like his domineering father, Donald Trump, “whose ferocious ambition and drive had to compensate for a lack of compassion, subtlety, and book smarts”, has a tendency to view life as a series of zero-sum conflicts and cash grabs. From an early age, Fred understood that to his uncle

a win was a win was a win, whether or not the other person even knew the game was on. There was nothing that couldn’t be turned into a competition and nothing more satisfying than yet another win. And for Donald to be the winner, someone else had to lose.

‘Maybe you should just let him die’

As a case in point, Fred gestures to the ferocious dispute that erupted over his grandfather’s will in 1999. All In The Family details how his Uncle Donald, who had recently suffered a number of massive financial hits, spearheaded not one, but two attempts to cut Fred and Mary out of the Trump estate.

Discovering they had been effectively disinherited, the siblings, as Fred recounts, launched legal action. To say the response – led again by Uncle Donald – to the lawsuit was callous would be underselling things. Fred recalls receiving word that his medical insurance, which his grandfather had provided to all of the family, was being cut off:

Of all the cruel, low-down, vicious, heartless things my own relatives could do to me, my wife, and my children, this was worse than anything else I could possibly imagine. Which, I suppose was the point.

It was the worst thing the Trumps could possibly do because Fred’s youngest child, William, who was born in 1999, has a lifelong neurological disability and requires full-time medical care and assistance.

This brings us to what is arguably the most callous and contentious moment in Fred’s memoir. Decades later, having settled the lawsuit and somehow managed to make peace with his family’s actions, Fred describes how, over the course of a phone call with his uncle (by now US president), the issue of William’s ongoing medical expenses were brought up.

He recalls his uncle taking a second to assess the situation, before letting out a sigh and telling him that William “doesn’t recognize you. Maybe you should just let him die and move down to Florida.”

Shocking as that statement is, the most depressing thing is that Donald Trump, who, as Fred acknowledges, had long contributed to William’s medical expenses, doubles down.

In 2020, Fred Trump visited the White House with fellow advocates for people with developmental and intellectual disabilities. After the Oval Office meeting had finished and the visitors had left, Donald called Fred back to the room. He was cheerful. Fred imagined he was “touched by what the doctor and advocates in the meeting had just shared”.

But then his uncle said: “These people … the shape they’re in, all the expenses, maybe those kinds of people should just die.” Horrified, Fred reflects: “He was talking about expenses. We were talking about human lives.”

Little wonder, then, that Fred says he’ll vote for Harris in November. More

If the Yippies – a group of young activists known for political dissent – had their way, Americans would have elected a 145-pound pig named Pigasus as president in 1968.

The Yippies were famous for their unconventional tactics and were at the heart of the 1960s counterculture movement in the U.S. They demanded that Pigasus be treated as a legitimate candidate with Secret Service protection and foreign policy briefings.

Police arrested several Yippies for disorderly conduct after they paraded Pigasus outside the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Pigasus was taken into “protective custody” by police and eventually wound up at a farm.

Since the first Democratic National Convention in 1832, the event has had a long and storied history with headline-grabbing moments – some of which have left a mark in politics.

The Democratic Party will next converge at its convention in Chicago, Aug. 19-22, 2024. Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz will officially accept their party’s nomination as the Democratic candidates for president and vice president.

As a scholar of the presidency, I think it is useful to remember that national political conventions often function like pep rallies, leading up to the big game of the general presidential election. These conventions can be places where new faces are launched, or they can be so dull that the country is functionally put to sleep. Here are a few of the more memorable moments to emerge from a Democratic National Convention.

The Yippies gather with a pig named Pigasus outside the Democratic National Convention in August 1968 in Chicago.
Bettmann/Getty Images

A first lady steps into the spotlight

In 1940, Eleanor Roosevelt became the first first lady to ever address the Democratic National Convention.

Democrats at the convention were divided over both the U.S.’s participation in World War II and the prospect of nominating Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or FDR, as he was known, to a third term. No president had served more than two terms at this point. It was about a decade before the 22nd Amendment was ratified and became part of the Constitution, restricting presidents to two terms in office.

FDR was trying to break a two-term presidency tradition that started with George Washington.

Eleanor Roosevelt got up in front of the contentious and squabbling convention and said, “This is no ordinary time. No time for weighing anything except what we can do best for the country as a whole, and that responsibility rests on each and every one of us as individuals.”

Eleanor Roosevelt’s influential speech helped reframe the first lady as a powerful advocate for the president, without being simply a mouthpiece for him. Her depiction of 1940 as “no ordinary time” helped people accept that the country was facing an extraordinary moment in history that needed consistent leadership.

Roosevelt won another two terms and went on to serve as president until his death in 1945 during his fourth term.

Eleanor Roosevelt addresses the Democratic National Convention in July 1940, becoming the first first lady to speak during a national public convention.
Bettmann/Getty Images

A fresh vision

Years later, when John F. Kennedy accepted the nomination at the Democratic National Convention in 1960, he said that voters needed to choose “between national greatness and national decline.” Kennedy’s speech, known as the “New Frontier,” helped show voters that a Kennedy presidency could overcome problems with a forward-looking vision.

“Today our concern must be with that future. For the world is changing. The old era is ending. The old ways will not do,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy also called for a new America that was not weighed down by nostalgia.

Texas politician Ann Richards also supercharged her career with a Democratic National Convention keynote address in 1988. Her speech, funny and sharp, was also a commentary on the growing role of women in politics – and what an achievement it represented.

In her opening words, Richards talked about Fred Astaire, one of the most famous Hollywood movie stars in the 1930s, as well as Ginger Rogers, his co-star and dance partner.

“Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels,” Richards said.

Richards skewered the perception that Astaire was the bigger star by pointing out Rogers was every bit as capable and talented – and even did it in uncomfortable shoes.

At the time, Richards was the treasurer of Texas. But her witty speech propelled her into the national spotlight and helped her become governor of Texas in 1991.

The introduction of hope

In 2004, Barack Obama, then a 43-year-old Illinois state senator, launched himself on the national scene with his speech at the Democratic National Convention.

Obama gave a passionate speech paying tribute to his background, stating, “I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible.”

And he offered a self-deprecating observation, saying the country embodied “the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. The audacity of hope!” These ideas of hope and unity later became key hallmarks of Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Obama’s speech outshone the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry, and helped position him as the party’s rising star. News commentator Chris Matthews noted after Obama’s speech, “We’ve just seen the first black president.”

Michelle Obama addresses the Democratic National Convention in August 2008.
Associated Press

A political blunder

Some speeches are so memorable, they are even recycled.

Michelle Obama, the wife of then-Sen. Barack Obama, memorably stressed the importance of dignity and hard work in her speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention – the convention at which her husband was formally nominated for president. Obama said that she and Barack were raised with the same values: “That you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you’re going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them.”

Melania Trump heavily paraphrased this speech in her 2016 Republican National Committee speech. She, too, said that her parents raised her with values – “that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect.”

Trump’s speechwriter, Meredith McIver, took responsibility for the blunder, since she thought the draft speech shared with her contained Melania’s words. But in reality, Trump had given her Obama’s speech as an idea for what she wanted incorporated in her own speech.

Potential for magic

I believe that national party conventions matter only for moments of mistake or magic. While these events are supposed to motivate voters and help reach out to the undecided, modern conventions more often are uninspired echo chambers of blather.

They do little to sway swing voters and only offer confirmation to voters already committed to their choice. Everyone in the audience is there to cheer and be energized by their home team.

Moments of greatness are far and few between at national conventions. But when lightning strikes, it can turn a phrase into an iconic moment that encapsulates an entire era. More

Hours after Kamala Harris announced her choice of running mate for November’s election, she and her vice-presidential pick, Minnesota governor Tim Walz were on stage at a rally of 12,000 people in Philadelphia. Turning his sights on Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, the schoolteacher and football coach turned politician gave a taste of the rhetorical style which is said to have won him his place on the ticket.

“Donald Trump sees the world a little differently than us,” he said. “First of all, he doesn’t know the first thing about service. He doesn’t have time for it because he’s too busy serving himself”. Putting the focus on Trump’s legal woes, he added: “Violent crime was up under Donald Trump … That’s not even counting the crimes he committed.”

Harris had announced Walz’s vice-presidential candidacy earlier in the day with an Instagram post in which she extolled his personal history and political achievements.

In a typical vitriolic attack, the Trump-Vance campaign immediately called Walz a “dangerously liberal extremist” and that he had spent much of his governorship “spreading California’s dangerously liberal agenda far and wide” – in a negative reference to Harris’s background as a Californian.

Read more:
To win the White House Kamala Harris must first overcome the ‘California curse’

But, speaking to NBC news, former House speaker Nancy Pelosi countered this narrative, insisting that “to characterize [Walz] as left is so unreal. He’s right down the middle. He’s a heartland-of-America Democrat.”

Former US president, Barack Obama, released a statement saying that not only did Walz have “the values and the integrity to make us proud” but also “the experience to be vice president”.

As Obama insisted, Walz certainly has an extensive resume. A former high schoolteacher and football coach, who served in the National Guard for 24 years, he was elected to the US Congress in 2006 and won the governorship of Minnesota in 2018.

Read more:
Walz pick turns focus on what a VP brings to White House — 3 essential reads

He says he governed on the principle that “you win elections to burn political capital and improve lives”. This meant policies such as legalising recreational marijuana and expanding background checks for prospective gun owners.

Harris pointed to Walz’s record of ensuring access to abortion rights in Minnesota as one of the outstanding features of his governorship. With the subject likely to be a key part of Harris’s campaign, this will underline the Democrats commitment to protecting those rights after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 2022.

But it’s not just abortion rights where Walz would be a significant benefit to the Democrat’s campaign for the White House. Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Action Fund said the Harris-Walz partnership was “the winning ticket on climate”.

This is likely to increase his appeal to millennial and Gen Z voters. Walz has enacted some of the more progressive climate policies at state level, such as mandating zero-carbon electricity by 2040.

People I have spoken to in midwestern America have called Walz “a normal guy” that would relate to everyone from small business owners to veterans, from ethnic minorities to rural families, progressives to centrists to unions. The Harris-Walz ticket now has the sort of broad appeal that could prove crucial in gaining votes in those key “flyover” states, many of which traditionally lean to the Republican Party.

Changing the dynamic

The announcement of Walz as Harris’ running mate was accompanied with a considerable spike in reported fundraising by the Harris-Walz campaign. Harris is now reported to be outdoing the Trump campaign by a considerable margin.

It’s a completely different atmosphere to the stuttering Biden campaign of last month, when several high-profile donors were reported to have withdrawn their funding support.

Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn chairman and a major Harris donor, called Walz “a lifelong public servant who represents the best of our country”. Entrepreneur Mark Cuban, another big Harris donor, posted on X that Walz would appeal to those tired with ideologues who and want to vote for somebody they can relate to.

Walz attracted national media attention when he called Trump and Vance “weird” in an interview on MSNBC. The comment went viral and has become a label many online users have applied to Republicans.

There is a new vibrancy to the Democrat campaign, one which already has captured the attention of voters. Isaac Chandler, 30, from Oklahoma, told the BBC that the Harris-Walz partnership was “more representative of the wider American public than the Vance-Trump ticket”.

This is in stark contrast to the Republican campaign which has seemingly stalled after such a promising start. Less than a month ago, opinion poll surveys put Trump as much as five points ahead of any Democrat contender for the White House.

The attempted assassination of Trump gained further public support for the former president. It forced Democrats to rethink their strategy of identifying Trump as a threat to American democracy.

The Republican convention which followed appeared to be a coronation ceremony for the former president. And the announcement of Trump’s selection of Vance as his vice-presidential candidate was praised by many as an astute way of wooing working class voters.

Since then, however, the campaign has gone into free fall. Vance’s attack on Harris’s parenting skills and general comments on childless couples’ place in American society, coupled with Trump’s disastrous performance at a Q&A session with the National Association of Black Journalists, has had a disastrous impact on Trump’s polling.

If the Democratic campaign’s momentum can be maintained over the next couple of months, the recent swing in the polls in favour of Harris could prove to be even more significant and have an impact on the result in this November’s election. More

Kamala Harris has been the presumptive Democratic nominee for US president for less than a fortnight, but some key themes are becoming clear from her campaign. One of those is abortion, about which she has spoken frequently since Joe Biden declared her his preferred successor.

Just over two years ago, the US Supreme Court overruled the 49-year-old precedent of Roe v Wade and withdrew constitutional protection for the choice to terminate a pregnancy. In the June 2022 majority judgment in the case of Dobbs v Women’s Health Organization – the case that overturned Roe v Wade – Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote that Roe v Wade had been “egregiously wrong from the start”. He concluded that: “Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.”

Under the guise of undoing this wrong, the Supreme Court returned the issue of abortion law to state jurisdiction. Americans have been watching the consequences unfold ever since, as various states have passed laws restricting or banning women from being able to terminate pregnancies.

Harris led the Biden administration’s response to this decision, visiting an abortion clinic and speaking out about reproductive freedom. Even before she took on the presidential candidacy, campaign rallies and adverts from the Democratic campaign were focused on the decision restrict women’s reproductive freedom.

The results of the 2022 midterm elections suggest this could be a useful strategy. The Democrats did significantly better than expected – and abortion was considered a major factor. Certainly successful ballot initiatives in California, Michigan and Ohio (which added constitutional protections) and defeats for abortion restriction measures in Kansas, Kentucky and Montana suggested an increased turnout of Democrat voters.

This November, a possible 11 states could have abortion-related initiatives on the ballot, including Arizona, a key swing state in this election. In such a tight race, parties are looking for any possible advantage.

Possibly mindful of this – and of the fact that most Americans continue to support some access to abortion – the Republican party recently softened its official stance, removing language calling for a federal abortion ban which appeared in both 2016 and 2020. Some Republican state legislators have urged caution about strict abortion bans that may alienate potential voters.

Widespread impact

Speaking regularly about reproductive rights also helps keep in voters’ minds the widespread consequences of the Dobbs decision on abortion and how it affects pregnant women and medical professionals across much of the country.

Only half of states protect abortion, at least until the point of foetal viability. These states – particularly those which border two or more states with abortion bans such as Illinois and Ohio – have become centres for those seeking abortion care and who are able to travel.

Fourteen states have outright bans on abortion access. Some have exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the pregnant women, but many do not. Another 11 states have gestational limits that are earlier than the previous 24-week limit. Some are so early that most pregnant women don’t even yet know they are pregnant.

More than half of states have other restrictions: waiting time requirements, mandated counselling, required ultrasounds, multiple visits to the doctor, spousal or parental consent laws and others.

The most recent estimates suggest 48% of women now live in states with some form of abortion restrictions. That figure rises to 57% for black women and higher for Native American women. The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research organisation, estimates that almost one in five pregnant women now have to travel out of state for abortion access.

Indirect attacks on access

By speaking out on abortion, the Harris campaign is also seeking to galvanise pro-choice voters by reminding them that the threats come in many forms.

In June, an attempt to undermine access to the abortion pill, mifepristone, was rejected by the Supreme Court. The case was, in effect, a back door attempt to further restrict abortion access.

There was a fierce and immediate backlash to the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022 to overturn Roe v Wade.
EPA-EFE/Etienne Laurent

And, although interstate travel is constitutionally protected in the US, some localities in Texas have been trying to prevent use of their roads by those seeking to leave the state to access abortion care.

Two University of Texas at Austin professors sought the legal right to academically fail students who take time off for abortion care, while Idaho academics were warned they could no longer advise students about anything relating to abortion.

And, as the New Republic reported, anti-abortion laws are increasingly being used by domestic abusers to threaten and harass partners.

Healthcare consequences

As anti-abortion advocates continue to press for greater restrictions across the US, data from the Guttmacher Institute show that they continue to fail to achieve their aim of reducing abortion rates. In 2023, abortion rates were higher across the country than in previous years.

But, as many doctors are pointing out, the restrictions are regularly putting the lives of pregnant women at risk. Mimi Zieman, an obstetrician from Georgia wrote: “If I were finishing my training today and choosing somewhere to practice, I would not come to this state or anywhere with these restrictions on practice.”

Many agree with her. Recent studies suggest as many as 70% of gynaecology students in the US are less likely to consider residency in a state with abortion restrictions.

This risks leaving pregnant women without both abortion access and good, reliable, accessible reproductive healthcare. In a country that already has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed nations, this suggests further declines.

Testimony from practitioners overwhelmingly indicates that threats to medical licences and risk of prison terms are deterring doctors from undertaking vital healthcare provision.

And pregnant women are suffering as a result. Stories now abound of women like Kate Cox, who was forced to travel outside of Texas for an abortion when the state refused to determine that her case was sufficiently life threatening to qualify under their exemption. Or that of Nicole Miller, airlifted to a nearby state because the abortion she required to medically stabilise her was unavailable in her home state of Idaho.

Harris and the Democrats want voters to remember these stories as they go to the polls in November. And they want voters to remember that it was Trump, and his Supreme Court appointees, who made it possible. More

A former teacher and football coach who a majority of Americans had never heard of before is now running for vice president of the United States alongside Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

While the two names at the top of the Democratic and Republican tickets – Harris and Donald Trump – will largely define the next three months in the US presidential race, both campaigns will still focus considerable attention on defining Tim Walz, Harris’ largely unknown running mate.

So, who is Walz? And what will his addition to the Democratic ticket mean for Harris and the Democrats’ chances of winning the election?

Teaching in rural public schools

Walz undeniably has strong roots in rural and working-class America, despite being a member of a Democratic Party that has become increasingly urban and highly educated in recent years.

Born in a small Nebraska town to a school teacher father and a school administrator mother, Walz enrolled in the National Guard at 17. He later graduated from a small public university with a degree in social science education.

Walz met his wife, Gwen, while teaching in rural Nebraska. She soon persuaded him to move to her home state of Minnesota, where they got jobs teaching at the same school.

Walz devoted the next decade of his career to the school in Mankato, Minnesota, where he was a social studies teacher, American football coach and faculty adviser for the student gay-straight alliance.

One particular incident then spurred Walz’s decision to embark on a career in politics. In 2004, he took a group of students to a rally for then-presidential candidate George W. Bush. They were initially denied entry because one of the students had a campaign sticker for Bush’s rival, John Kerry.

Walz was reportedly irate – and signed up to volunteer for Kerry’s campaign the next day. He then ran for Congress himself in a rural southern Minnesota district bordering Iowa, which he won in 2006.

As a former command sergeant major, he was the highest-ranking enlisted military member in the history of Congress. And as a representative, he become known as a workhorse, eventually leading the Veterans Affairs Committee.

After winning six terms in a row in a once reliably Republican district, Walz ran for and won the Minnesota governorship in 2018. He was re-elected in 2022.

Then-gubernatorial candidate Tim Walz, along with his wife, Gwen (left), celebrates with supporters after winning the Democratic governor’s primary in Minnesota in 2018.
Anthony Souffle/Star Tribune/AP

Walz’s political positions

In his first congressional campaign, Walz presented himself as a moderate Democrat, touting endorsements from the National Rifle Association.

As a veteran and one of very few Democrats to represent a mostly rural district, Walz bucked the party line on some issues, including opposing a decrease in military spending. A key reason was his concern about China.

Walz taught English for a year in China and spent his honeymoon there. He and his wife even started a company leading student tours of China.

Given this history, Walz has a deep familiarity with the country. When he got to Congress, he joined the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, a legislative group monitoring human rights and the rule of law in the country. He co-sponsored a number of resolutions condemning China’s human rights abuses and poor environmental standards.

Walz has also championed democracy activists in Hong Kong and regularly meets with exiled Tibetan leaders, including the Dalai Lama.

He and his wife were even married on June 4 1994 – the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing in 1989 – because, his wife said, he “wanted to have a date he’d always remember”.

Walz’s time as governor of Minnesota – a state that is more Democratic-leaning than neighbouring Wisconsin or Michigan – has undoubtedly seen him turn more progressive.

Aided by the fact Democrats hold a small majority in the Minnesota legislature, Walz’s tenure has led to a number of progressive legislative wins, including:

Governor Tim Walz listens as President Joe Biden speaks in Minnesota in November 2023.
Andrew Harnik/AP

Defining Walz

From teaching on a Native American reservation to a school in China not long after the Tiananmen Square massacre, Walz’s life story has had many diverse turns. So much so, his staffers once called him Forrest Gump, after the Tom Hanks character with a colourful life.

Both the Harris and Trump campaigns are now angling to define his latest chapter.

The Harris campaign is hoping Walz’s straight-talking, Midwestern dad persona, combined with his background as a National Guardsman familiar with everything from turkey hunting to repairing pickup trucks, will make him relatable to a wide swathe of voters in middle America. He’s a conventional politician.

This is particularly important given his running mate, Harris, is anything but “conventional” – if she wins in November, she would be the first woman, first Black woman and first South Asian president in US history. She’s also from California – a state that hasn’t produced a president since Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

The campaign will also seek to juxtapose Walz’s perceived normalcy against the Trump-Vance ticket, which it is depicting as “weird”.

Walz first used this word to describe the Republican ticket, and it instantly went viral. He’s since become referred to as a “cool dad” online and has become the source of a stream of memes in recent days.

For the Trump campaign, they are hoping to define Walz by his more progressive tenure as Minnesota governor, ultimately alienating more moderate voters.

In the hours after Walz was announced as Harris’ running mate, Republicans began highlighting the unrest in Minnesota that followed the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in 2020 and criticising Walz for being too slow to call in the National Guard to quell the violence.

While Walz would ultimately call in a sizeable number of National Guardsmen, the Republicans have nonetheless zeroed in on this attack line – even highlighting how Harris sought to raise funds for protesters who had been arrested in Minnesota.

Crime is a challenging issue for Democrats. When pollsters asked Americans last year which political party does better on crime, Democrats trailed Republicans by ten percentage points.

Where to from here?

Ultimately, Harris made clear what she views as Walz’s addition to the Democratic ticket, highlighting his background as a school teacher and National Guardsman. She also told him on Tuesday, “you understand our country”.

Over the next few months, we’ll see how accurate that statement is – if Walz’s understanding of the country actually helps Harris to win the race in November. More

Who is Kamala Harris?

Though Harris has had a very public life in politics for decades, speculation about who exactly she is and what she stands for has circulated across social media platforms and news stories for several years.

Many of these conversations focus on the historic nature of Harris’ presidential candidacy, since she is a mixed-race, Jamaican and Indian woman who does not have biological children and who was born to two immigrant parents in Oakland, California.

As I’ve previously written about Harris’ mixed-race identity, some have questioned how authentic her Black or Asian identities are. Interest in Harris’ familial background and race was reignited on July 31, 2024, when Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump falsely suggested that Harris has misled voters about her racial and ethnic identity.

“I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black and now she wants to be known as Black. So, I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?” Trump asked during an interview with the National Association of Black Journalists in Chicago.

By saying this, Trump tapped into the long history of racism in America, where some white people have defined racial categories and policed the boundaries of race.

More than 33 million Americans identify as multiracial and likely see themselves reflected in Harris’ layered background. But many Republicans are also trying to use Harris’ identity against her.

For ardent Trump supporters, Harris may seem to represent all that they oppose, including woke politics and Democrats being “controlled by people who do not have children,” as Trump’s running mate JD Vance has said.

For Democrats, Harris represents the U.S.’s multiracial, feminist future.

Which means, what people believe about Harris largely depends on the party they already plan to vote for more than who the Democratic presidential nominee really is.

A Kamala Harris supporter holds a sign following President Joe Biden’s July 22, 2024, announcement that he will not seek reelection.
Loren Elliott/Getty Images

Harris and her many firsts

Many political observers and voters alike agree that Harris has breathed new life into the Democratic Party, precisely because she is a Black-South Asian woman. Many Asian American, Black, Latino and female voters see elements of themselves in Harris: the celebration of her ethnic cultures, her achievements as a person of color, and her unprecedented and pathbreaking model being a woman of color who is the nominee of a major party seeking the highest office in the country.

A variety of fundraising meetings in July and August centered on the identities of those who support Harris.

Black women for Harris, Black men for Harris, white women for Harris, white dudes for Harris, South Asians for Harris, LGBTQ+ people for Harris, among others, have all gathered in Zoom meetings that had tens of thousands of attendees – one even had a record-breaking 200,000 attendees. These online gatherings have jointly raised more than $15 million for Harris.

The number and diversity of people rallying for Harris shows her widespread appeal. Harris’ white male supporters – a key voting demographic for Democrats – also show how Harris’ candidacy is inclusive to many different kinds of people.

Inclusivity may be a keyword of Harris’ campaign, especially in opposition to her rival’s campaign. Vance’s comments about childless cat ladies has spawned endless memes tapping into the rancor of people who recognize the insensitivity and ignorance of such a remark.

Harris’ supporters have responded to the GOP’s critiques of her and turned them into positive political memes celebrating her identity, attesting to Harris’ popularity with a younger, media-savvy electorate.

Using Harris’ identity against her

Republicans, meanwhile, are questioning Harris’ qualifications precisely based on her ethnic and racial identity, calling her a “DEI” candidate. This is a reference to the term “diversity, equity and inclusion.” The exact definitions of DEI can vary, but in workplaces or school settings it can look like treating everyone equally and fostering a culture where all people, regardless of their background or identities, feel welcomed. DEI policies intend to respond to the historic oppression that marginalized people have faced.

As the scholar Susan Harmeling wrote recently, “The term ‘DEI hire’ actually implies that only heterosexual, white men are qualified for such high leadership positions.”

Some in the GOP have renamed the DEI acronym “Didn’t Earn It.” U.S. Reps. Tim Burchett and Harriet Hageman both have disparaged Harris as a DEI hire, with Hageman going a step further by saying that Harris is “intellectually, just really kind of the bottom of the barrel.”

The gender factor

Harris is the second woman major-party presidential nominee, following Hillary Clinton’s candidacy in 2016. So far, Harris doesn’t seem to be facing persistent questions about whether women are fit to lead, as Clinton once did.

But Harris has faced both sexist and racist comments, particularly online. One 2021 study found that 78% of disparaging sexist and racist comments on Twitter, now called X, during November and December 2020 were directed at Harris.

Some Republicans have continued making sexist attacks on Harris in this election campaign. In a July 3, 2024, social media post, Jackson Lahmeyer, the head of the group Pastors for Trump, called Harris a “ho,” or whore, riffing off a right-wing meme of “Joe and the Ho.”

Christian nationalist Lance Wallnau took to social media on July 22 to call Harris a representative of the “spirit of Jezebel.” Other conservative pundits have claimed that Harris slept her way to the top, citing an early relationship she had with Willie Brown, a prominent Democratic politician from San Francisco and later speaker of the California State Assembly, as the reason for her success.

This false story of Harris’ romantic past aligns with old stereotypes of Black women being promiscuous, rooted in the rape of Black women by white slave owners during antebellum slavery.

And the tactic of questioning Harris’ authentic racial background could apply not just to Harris but to nearly all multiracial people.

Yet there are millions of Americans who identify as multiracial and see in Harris their own story. More