US Politics

Misinformation is a key global threat, but Democrats and Republicans disagree about how to address the problem. In particular, Democrats and Republicans diverge sharply on removing misinformation from social media.

Only three weeks after the Biden administration announced the Disinformation Governance Board in April 2022, the effort to develop best practices for countering disinformation was halted because of Republican concerns about its mission. Why do Democrats and Republicans have such different attitudes about content moderation?

My colleagues Jennifer Pan and Margaret E. Roberts and I found in a study published in the journal Science Advances that Democrats and Republicans not only disagree about what is true or false, they also differ in their internalized preferences for content moderation. Internalized preferences may be related to people’s moral values, identities or other psychological factors, or people internalizing the preferences of party elites.

And though people are sometimes strategic about wanting misinformation that counters their political views removed, internalized preferences are a much larger factor in the differing attitudes toward content moderation.

Internalized preferences or partisan bias?

In our study, we found that Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans to want to remove misinformation, while Republicans are about twice as likely as Democrats to consider removal of misinformation as censorship. Democrats’ attitudes might depend somewhat on whether the content aligns with their own political views, but this seems to be due, at least in part, to different perceptions of accuracy.

Previous research showed that Democrats and Republicans have different views about content moderation of misinformation. One of the most prominent explanations is the “fact gap”: the difference in what Democrats and Republicans believe is true or false. For example, a study found that both Democrats and Republicans were more likely to believe news headlines that were aligned with their own political views.

But it is unlikely that the fact gap alone can explain the huge differences in content moderation attitudes. That’s why we set out to study two other factors that might lead Democrats and Republicans to have different attitudes: preference gap and party promotion. A preference gap is a difference in internalized preferences about whether, and what, content should be removed. Party promotion is a person making content moderation decisions based on whether the content aligns with their partisan views.

We asked 1,120 U.S. survey respondents who identified as either Democrat or Republican about their opinions on a set of political headlines that we identified as misinformation based on a bipartisan fact check. Each respondent saw one headline that was aligned with their own political views and one headline that was misaligned. After each headline, the respondent answered whether they would want the social media company to remove the headline, whether they would consider it censorship if the social media platform removed the headline, whether they would report the headline as harmful, and how accurate the headline was.

Deep-seated differences

When we compared how Democrats and Republicans would deal with headlines overall, we found strong evidence for a preference gap. Overall, 69% of Democrats said misinformation headlines in our study should be removed, but only 34% of Republicans said the same; 49% of Democrats considered the misinformation headlines harmful, but only 27% of Republicans said the same; and 65% of Republicans considered headline removal to be censorship, but only 29% of Democrats said the same.

Even in cases where Democrats and Republicans agreed that the same headlines were inaccurate, Democrats were nearly twice as likely as Republicans to want to remove the content, while Republicans were nearly twice as likely as Democrats to consider removal censorship.

We didn’t test explicitly why Democrats and Republicans have such different internalized preferences, but there are at least two possible reasons. First, Democrats and Republicans might differ in factors like their moral values or identities. Second, Democrats and Republicans might internalize what the elites in their parties signal. For example, Republican elites have recently framed content moderation as a free speech and censorship issue. Republicans might use these elites’ preferences to inform their own.

When we zoomed in on headlines that are either aligned or misaligned for Democrats, we found a party promotion effect: Democrats were less favorable to content moderation when misinformation aligned with their own views. Democrats were 11% less likely to want the social media company to remove headlines that aligned with their own political views. They were 13% less likely to report headlines that aligned with their own views as harmful. We didn’t find a similar effect for Republicans.

Our study shows that party promotion may be partly due to different perceptions of accuracy of the headlines. When we looked only at Democrats who agreed with our statement that the headlines were false, the party promotion effect was reduced to 7%.

Implications for social media platforms

We find it encouraging that the effect of party promotion is much smaller than the effect of internalized preferences, especially when accounting for accuracy perceptions. However, given the huge partisan differences in content moderation preferences, we believe that social media companies should look beyond the fact gap when designing content moderation policies that aim for bipartisan support.

Future research could explore whether getting Democrats and Republicans to agree on moderation processes – rather than moderation of individual pieces of content – could reduce disagreement. Also, other types of content moderation such as downweighting, which involves platforms reducing the virality of certain content, might prove to be less contentious. Finally, if the preference gap – the differences in deep-seated preferences between Democrats and Republicans – is rooted in value differences, platforms could try to use different moral framings to appeal to people on both sides of the partisan divide.

For now, Democrats and Republicans are likely to continue to disagree over whether removing misinformation from social media improves public discourse or amounts to censorship. More

For the second time in two days, the White House denounced Fox News over remarks by a host relating to the Israel-Hamas war, following condemnation of Jesse Watters’ apparent incitement of violence against Arab Americans with condemnation of Mark Levin for calling two CNN anchors “self-hating Jews”.Andrew Bates, a spokesperson, said: “President Biden believes in an America where we come together against hate and don’t fan its flames. But not only is Fox News aligning with those who fan the flames of hate – Fox is paying their salaries.”Levin, who hosts Life, Liberty & Levin, a Fox News weekend show, attacked Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper of CNN on The Mark Levin Show, his daily radio show which is syndicated by Westwood One.Though Levin, who is Jewish, acknowledged Blitzer’s family history – all the CNN anchor’s grandparents were killed in the Holocaust – Levin said Blitzer’s parents “weren’t victims”. Regarding Blitzer’s coverage of the Israel-Hamas war, Levin called the host “a dumb bastard” with “a hearing problem and an IQ problem” who “wants Israel to die”.Blitzer was a “self-hating Jew”, Levin said, reaching for a label he previously applied to Tapper.CNN called Levin’s comments “wildly uninformed, inappropriate and shameful”, adding that his “antisemitic rhetoric is dangerous, offensive and should be universally denounced”.On Friday, the White House did so.“Lying to insult the pain that families suffered in the Holocaust has absolutely no place in America,” Bates said. “None. Sadly, this is not the first time in recent months that a Fox News host made sickening remarks about the Holocaust.“Despite condemnation from the Auschwitz Memorial, Fox has not even disagreed with Greg Gutfeld’s reprehensible claim that Nazi labour camps taught Jews to be ‘useful’.”In July, during a debate over the rightwing claim that some Black people benefited from being enslaved, Gutfeld said on air: “Did you ever [read] Man’s Search for Meaning? Vik[tor] Frankl talks about how you had to survive in a concentration camp by having skills. You had to be useful. Utility. Utility kept you alive.”On Friday, in his statement on Levin’s comments, Bates said: “It isn’t even the first time this week that a Fox host chose to abuse their platform and spread hate.”A day before, Bates condemned comments in which Watters, discussing instances of pictures of Israeli hostages held by Hamas being taken down from public display, seemed to advocate violence.Watters said: “If you’re an Arab American in this country, and you rip down posters of Jewish hostages, American hostages, no. No, no, no. Someone is going to get punched in the face.”Referring to a recent killing in Illinois, now the subject of murder and hate crime charges, Bates said: “Even after the heartbreaking killing of a six-year-old Palestinian American child and a surge in violence against Muslims and Arab Americans, two nights ago Jesse Watters made vile comments that attack the dignity of all Americans, saying he’s ‘done’ with Arab Americans and Muslims.“And Fox News continues to promote the cynical, dangerous lie that fighting against Islamophobia is somehow at odds with fighting antisemitism, even as they permit hosts to hurt their viewers with foul antisemitic comments.“President Biden will always stand up against antisemitism, Islamophobia, and all forms of hate. Fox News needs to stop standing up on behalf of hate.”Fox News did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More

Yesterday evening, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed a bill to provide Israel with security assistance as it presses on with its invasion of Gaza and conflict with Hamas. But the measure is not expected to be considered by the Senate, and has attracted a veto threat from Joe Biden over provisions rescinding money from the IRS tax authority and driving up the US budget deficit.Democrats are instead holding out for a larger package that would, as Biden has requested, pay for more military aid to Ukraine and improved border security in addition to aiding Israel, while also avoiding cuts to White House priorities like improving the IRS’s ability to crack down on tax cheats. Such a measure is expected to attract some support from Senate Republicans, most notably Mitch McConnell, who has remained a champion of Ukraine even as polls show many other Republicans are growing wary of paying for the country’s defense against Russia.Back to the House vote, it was 226 to 196 in favor of passage, with all but two Republicans present voting yes and all but 12 Democrats in attendance voting against it. Several of the Democrats who voted for the bill had previously attacked it as inappropriately partisan, including Florida’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who said she nonetheless decided to support it due to her connection to Israel:There appears to be a shift in sentiment towards Israel’s invasion of Gaza in Washington DC, particularly among Senate Democrats. A group of 13 lawmakers has signed on to a joint statement calling for a humanitarian pause in Israel’s campaign to root out Hamas, and in a visit to Tel Aviv, secretary of state Antony Blinken made a similar request. The Senate now seems to be on a collision course with the House, which last night passed a bill to send Israel military assistance while also slashing funding to the IRS tax authority. That’s a nonstarter for Democrats, and their Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, says the measure won’t be considered in the chamber, while minority leader Mitch McConnell also seems uncomfortable with it.Here’s what else happened today:
Next Tuesday is election day for off-year contests, including in Ohio, where voters will be asked to protect abortion access in the state constitution, and Virginia, where Democrats hope to defang Republican governor Glenn Youngkin.
House Democrats are also expressing concerns publicly over the number of civilians killed in Israel’s invasion of Gaza, including California progressive Ro Khanna.
George Santos will run for re-election next year, even if he is expelled from the House, he told CNN.
Pete Buttigieg, the transportation secretary and first openly gay person to serve in a president’s cabinet, condemned Republican House speaker Mike Johnson’s history of anti-LGBTQ+ statements.
Got questions about Israel and Palestine? The Guardian has answers.
It’s not just Senate Democrats who are questioning Israel’s handling of its invasion of Gaza.House Democrats are also publicly worrying over the mounting civilian death toll. Here’s California progressive Ro Khanna telling CNN that while he supports Israel’s right to defend itself, he believes too many civilians are dying in its invasion:Joe Biden has arrived in Lewiston, Maine, site of a mass shooting last week that left 18 people dead.He is currently visiting Schemengees Bar and Grille, one of two locations where army reservist Robert Card opened fire:Biden is expected to meet with first responders in Lewiston, as well as survivors of the attack and family members of the victims, before heading to Rehoboth Beach, Delaware for the weekend.In the weeks since the killings, reports have emerged that people who knew Card tried to sound the alarm about his behavior. Here’s more on that:Transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg, the first openly gay man to serve in a US president’s cabinet, condemned Republican House speaker Mike Johnson for his history of making anti-LGBTQ+ statements.In an interview with CNN, Buttigieg said, “I will admit it’s a little bit difficult driving the family minivan to drop our kids off at daycare, passing the dome of the Capitol knowing the speaker of the House, sitting under that dome, doesn’t even think our family ought to exist.”Here’s more from Buttigieg:Johnson has a long history of disparaging same-sex couples, including in 2004, when he wrote a newspaper op-ed saying homosexuality was “inherently unnatural”. Since being elected speaker last month, he has avoided making similar statements, telling Fox News commentator Sean Hannity in an interview that he “genuinely love[d] all people regardless of their lifestyle choices.”“Go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it – that’s my worldview”, he added. Here’s some further reading on that:With Chuck Schumer saying he will ignore a House Republican bill to give Israel military assistance while cutting funding to the IRS, it seems likely Senate Democrats will soon propose a measure that lines up with Joe Biden’s demands.The president last month asked lawmakers to approve aid to both Israel and Ukraine, and money for border security. At a press conference earlier today, the Democratic House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries said that proposal would be welcomed by his lawmakers:The bigger question is what Republican House speaker Mike Johnson will do with it, and whether it would have the votes to pass Congress’s lower chamber, where a growing faction of GOP members are opposed to aiding Ukraine.There appears to be a shift in sentiment towards Israel’s invasion of Gaza in Washington DC, particularly among Senate Democrats. A group of 13 lawmakers has signed on to a joint statement calling for a humanitarian pause in Israel’s ongoing invasion to root out Hamas, and in a visit to Tel Aviv, secretary of state Antony Blinken made a similar request. The Senate now seems to be on a collision course with the House, which last night passed a bill to send Israel military assistance while also slashing funding to the IRS tax authority. That’s a nonstarter for Democrats, and their Senate leader Chuck Schumer says the measure won’t be considered in the chamber, while minority leader Mitch McConnell also seems uncomfortable with it.Here’s what else has happened today so far:
Next Tuesday is election day for off-year contests, including in Ohio, where voters will be asked to protect abortion access in the state constitution, and Virginia, where Democrats hope to defang Republican governor Glenn Youngkin.
George Santos will run for re-election next year, even if he is expelled from the House, he told CNN.
Got questions about Israel and Palestine? The Guardian has answers.
Proceedings are done for the day in the Trump Organization civil fraud trial in New York, where Eric Trump testified again.Here’s a taste of Lauren Aratani’s report:
Eric Trump, one of the two sons trusted to run Donald Trump’s real estate empire, testified on Friday that he was not involved with the financial documents a judge has ruled to be fraudulent, in a trial that threatens to hobble his family’s business.
In a second day on the witness stand, the former US president’s second son said he relied on outside accountants and lawyers to check financial documents. His older brother Donald Trump Jr made the same argument in his testimony earlier this week.
Prosecutors presented evidence that showed Eric Trump had signed off on documents that estimated the value of trophy properties such as the Trump Seven Springs estate north of New York City and the Trump National Doral golf club in Florida.
That undercut his testimony on Thursday that he knew nothing about those estimates, which Judge Arthur Engoron found were fraudulently inflated to win favorable terms from lenders and insurers.
And here’s Lauren’s report in full.And here’s some further reading, by me, about the Trump boys’ tactics in court:Thirty-one Democrats voted not to expel the Republican lawmaker George Santos from the US House of Representatives because he has not been convicted of any crime and to eject him would set a dangerous precedent for Republicans to expel their ideological opponents, a leading congressman said.“For me this was an easy call,” said Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a law professor and influential progressive who sat on the January 6 committee and was lead manager in Donald Trump’s impeachment for inciting the attack on Congress.Santos “hasn’t been convicted of anything yet, and he has not been convicted of anything in our ethics process”, Raskin told Mother Jones.“The history is very telling. We’ve expelled five people in the history of the US House of Representatives. Three of them were Confederate traitors and the other two had other federal criminal convictions.”James A Traficant, an Ohio Democrat, was the last House member to be expelled, in 2002 and after being convicted of crimes including conspiracy to commit bribery, obstruction of justice and racketeering. After seven years in jail, he attempted to run for re-election.Raskin continued: “For us to take the step of expelling someone who had not been convicted of anything would be a really dangerous manoeuvre, especially with the Republicans in control of the House.”Read on:And also, as a footnote, some recommended reading, in the form of the great David Grann on the curious case of James A Traficant, for the New Yorker. This is just a taste – you really owe it to yourself to buy Grann’s book of New Yorker pieces, The Devil and Sherlock Holmes: Tales of Murder, Madness and Obsession, before today is through…George Santos, the New York fabulist, part-time drag enthusiast, accused fraudster and congressman, told CNN earlier he would “absolutely” run for re-election next year even if he is expelled from Congress over his criminal charges.Santos survived an expulsion vote, over 23 federal criminal charges to which he pleaded not guilty, on a motion brought by members of his own party this week. He could face another such vote after a House ethics committee investigation concludes later this month.Here’s his conversation with the great corridor-haunter himself, Manu Raju, CNN chief congressional correspondent:Raju: “So, if they expel you, and then they put someone else in the seat, you’re going to run in 2024?Santos: “Absolutely.”Raju: “Uh-huh. Can you win a primary, given of all these things that are lined up against you…”Santos: “Yes. Yes.”Raju: “… and the general election?”Santos: “Well…”Raju: This is a Biden-leaning district. And you have all these issues against you.Santos: “Could I have won the general election last time? Nobody said I could. But I survived.”Raju: “It was a different situation.”Santos: “No, I understand. But elections are tricky. There’s no predetermined outcome.Raju: “Your voters thought they were electing one person.”Santos: “Manu, nobody elected me…”Raju: “And that wasn’t true.”Santos: “Nobody elected me because I played volleyball or not. Nobody elected me because I graduated college or not.“People elected me because I said I’d come here to fight the swamp, I’d come here to lower inflation, create more jobs, make life more affordable, and the commitment to America. That’s why people voted for anybody. To say that they voted based on anybody’s biography, I can beg you this. Nobody knew my biography. Nobody opened my biography who voted for me in the campaign.”Unfortunately for Santos, once he got to Congress, lots of reporters did open his biography. And, explaining the volleyball reference, a lot of it turned out not to be true.And that was before the criminal charges.Shifting back to Israel’s ongoing invasion of Gaza, here’s Connecticut’s Democratic senator Chris Murphy on why he is now calling for a temporary pause in the fighting.Murphy and 12 other Democratic senators signed onto a statement advocating for a “short-term cessation of hostilities” to get hostages out of Gaza and humanitarian aid in. He elaborates on the call, in an interview with MSNBC:Also happening next Tuesday are legislative elections in Virginia, where Republicans hope to take full control of Senate and empower GOP governor Glenn Youngkin to enact his agenda unimpeded. The Guardian’s Joan E Greve reports on how a Democratic congresswoman who conquered new territory for the party five years ago is working to help state-level candidates do the same:As two dozen volunteers prepared to knock doors on an unseasonably warm afternoon in late October, Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger reminded them that their work helped flip her battleground House seat in 2018. She predicted it would pay off again for Virginia Democrats this year.“It is how we have won in hard races across Virginia and across the country, and it is certainly why I feel confident that we are on the right path headed towards November 7,” Spanberger said, speaking to campaign volunteers in a sunny parking lot in Manassas.Spanberger has played an active role in boosting Virginia Democrats’ hopes for election day, as the party looks to flip control of the house of delegates and maintain their majority in the state senate. The stakes are high: Republicans would achieve a legislative trifecta in Richmond if they take control of the state senate, allowing them to enact controversial policies like banning abortion after 15 weeks and limiting access to the ballot box.With her carefully crafted political persona as a centrist Democrat, Spanberger may be the right person to deliver her party’s closing message in the final stretch of the campaign. In Manassas, Spanberger laid out her vision for how Virginia Democrats would succeed on 7 November, saying: “There is nothing more important than helping people believe that the policies and the government – whether it be in Richmond or on Capitol Hill – that they want is possible.”The results on Tuesday could affect Spanberger’s own future as well; the congresswoman has reportedly told multiple people that she intends to run for governor in the battleground state. If she is successful, her victory would allow Democrats to take back the Virginia governorship, which is now held by Republican Glenn Youngkin, in 2025.It’s not 2024 yet, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any important elections happening this year. Indeed, next Tuesday is election day in several states nationwide for off-year contests over ballot initiatives, governor’s mansions and other key questions. Here’s the Guardian’s Alice Herman with some troubling news out of Ohio, where voters will decide on whether to protect abortion access in the state constitution:Ohio’s Republican secretary of state quietly canceled the voter registrations of more than 26,000 voters in late September, less than two weeks before the deadline to register to vote in next week’s hotly contested abortion referendum in the state.Voting rights advocates say the process lacked transparency and departed from Frank LaRose’s usual practice of alerting groups before removing registrations from the rolls. And it comes as LaRose campaigns hard against the 7 November constitutional amendment vote – when Ohio voters will decide whether to enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution – as well as a vote on a separate measure to legalize marijuana.“We are disappointed in the secretary of state’s office’s authorization of the voter purge while voting for the November election was already (and still is) under way,” Kayla Griffin, of the voting rights group All Voting is Local, said.Voter list maintenance is a standard, legally required part of the election process, and many if not most of these registrations are for people who have moved away, died or long since stopped voting. The state issues alerts by mail to voters whose registration is flagged for removal, leaving the chance to update or confirm their registration before being kicked off the rolls.But it’s unusual to remove voter registrations this close to an election given the risk of disenfranchising people who intend to vote but simply missed the memo that they had been flagged for removal. In fact, if this was a national election rather than a state-level contest, what LaRose’s office has done would have been illegal. The National Voter Registration Act prohibits elections offices from systematically removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election. More

Virginia Democrats are concerned that non-white voters in the state are getting their mail-in ballots flagged for possible rejection at much higher rates than their white counterparts ahead of a closely watched election day on Tuesday.Virginia, like all states, requires voters to fill out certain information on the envelope in which they return their ballot. In Virginia that includes their name, address, birth year and last four digits of their social security number. If any of that information is missing, voters have until 13 November to provide it. If they don’t provide it by the deadline, the ballot is rejected.An internal analysis by the Democratic Party of Virginia, shared with the Guardian, found election officials have flagged 6,216 mail-in ballots for possible rejection as of Friday – 2.89% of the total mail-in ballots cast. Voters have fixed issues with more than half of those ballots, the party said, so there are 2,783 ballots that could be rejected.Black voters were much more likely than white voters to have their ballots flagged for potential rejection, the party’s analysis showed. Statewide, 4.82% of ballots submitted by Black voters have been flagged for rejection as of Friday, compared with 2.79% for white voters, the party’s analysis showed.“This is unacceptable, and raises the stakes for election officials to get this right. Every Virginian has a constitutional right to vote and have that ballot counted. That means taking the ballot cure process seriously,” Aaron Mukerjee, who is leading the state party’s voter protection efforts said in a statement.The Virginia department of elections did not return a request for comment.Even if the majority of voters are able to cure their ballots, it’s still alarming to see racial disparities in the ballots being flagged, Mukerjee said.“This is just an additional burden, especially for voters of color, who are now having to go through a multi-stage process in order to have their vote counted with no discernible benefit to the security of elections,” he said in an interview.In some localities, the disparity was clear, according to the Democratic party’s analysis. In Richmond, the state capital, more than 11% of ballots returned by Black voters were flagged for possible rejection, compared with about 5.5% for white voters. In Henrico county, more than 6.5% of ballots returned by Black voters were flagged for rejection, compared with about 3% for white voters.And even after significant numbers of voters have cured their ballots in both counties, the potential rejection rate for Black voters remained more than twice as high as their white counterparts.Under state law, local election officials are required to contact voters who turned in mail-in ballots by Friday and inform them that they need to cure their ballot. Mukerjee said the party was concerned because it was hearing from voters who had not received notice from local election offices.While the number of ballots rejected is usually a tiny fraction of the total votes cast, the uncounted votes make a difference in state legislative races, which can be decided by razor-thin margins. In 2018, a house of delegates race resulted in a tie and was determined by a drawing from a hat. The Republican candidate won the contest, giving the party control of the house of delegates.The cure period past election day, something many states allow, also could delay final election results in close races as candidates and parties race to track down those whose ballots have been flagged to try and get them to cure any problems.Virginia recently changed its rules around mail-in voting, making it significantly easier to vote that way. Until this year, Virginia voters had to get a witness to sign their mail-in ballot. That requirement was eliminated on 1 July and replaced with a requirement that voters provide their year of birth and the last four digits of their social security number. At least one local registrar sent out incorrect and outdated voting instructions.It’s not clear what is causing the disparity. Mukerjee said about 40% of the rejections it had studied were because of issues with providing the last four digits of a social security number or birth year.Virginia’s elections next week will determine which party controls the state legislature and could give Governor Glenn Youngkin and state Republicans power to advance new restrictions on abortion among other GOP priorities.Last week, Virginia election officials said they had erroneously removed nearly 3,400 eligible people from the voter rolls, more than 10 times the number they had initially disclosed. Officials have said anyone wrongly removed will be restored to the rolls, though there are ongoing questions about how the error occurred and concerns about lingering confusion.Virginia reported rejecting 2,649 ballots in 2022 – less than 1% of those returned – and said more than 4,300 people had successfully fixed an issue with their ballot. More

As three leading California Democrats vie for a rare opening in the Senate, the Israeli offensive in Gaza has exposed rare fault lines in the candidates’ otherwise aligned platforms.Following Hamas’s attack on Israel last month, all three leading candidates in the race to fill Dianne Feinstein’s seat – representatives Barbara Lee, Adam Schiff and Katie Porter – condemned the group’s actions. But as Israel ramped up its attacks on Gaza in retaliation, their divergent approaches to foreign policy became clear.The fissures between the candidates are a reflection of debates within the broader Democratic party. But in California’s open primary, where voters will choose between leading Democratic candidates with nearly identical platforms, the issue could be a deciding factor for some voters.“These candidates have regularly identified themselves as progressive candidates on a host of domestic policy issues – you can hardly tell the difference between them,” said Sara Sadhwani, a professor of American politics at Pomona College. But when it comes to Israel and Gaza, “from the get-go, we began to see some of these real distinctions”.Lee, who was the sole member of Congress to vote against the authorization for the use of military force after 9/11 that gave the president broad power to wage war, has maintained her position as an unwavering anti-war progressive. She is the only leading candidate to have called for a ceasefire.“I absolutely condemn all violence against civilians – including the horrific terrorist attacks by Hamas. Nothing is more valuable than human life,” she told the Guardian in an emailed statement. “And the surest way to mitigate the suffering in both Israel and Palestine is through a ceasefire.”Lee said the US “must lead the way forward” by supporting humanitarian and reconstruction aid, including food, medicine and water, to the region.On X, she posted: “There is one peace and diplomacy candidate in this race. I am proud to carry that mantle – even if I carry it alone.”Schiff has emphasized that “there are no both sides to the attack” by Hamas. “Israel has a right to defend itself, and the US must do all it can to assist Israel as it protects its citizens and takes all necessary steps to recover the hostages taken,” he said after the group staged its offensive last month. “Hamas is a terrorist group mass-murdering hundreds of innocent Israelis and taking women and children hostage.”Schiff has rejected calling for a ceasefire, a position in line with that of the Biden White House.In a statement on Thursday addressing his vote on a Republican-led House bill providing aid to Israel, he advocated for humanitarian pauses in the fighting, while noting the US should ensure that “Israel has the material support it needs to replenish its defenses, not only against Hamas, but against Islamic jihad, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and their Iranian sponsors, all of whom are endangering the lives of Israelis and threatening to widen the war”.Among several reasons for opposing the bill was its exclusion of humanitarian aid for Palestinian civilians who need food and medical aid, said his communications director Marisol Samayoa.Schiff, who is Jewish, said at a candidate debate in Los Angeles last month that he was proud to have the support of both the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), an influential pro-Israel lobbying group that has backed election deniers and far-right Republicans, and J Street, a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” group.“I stand shoulder to shoulder with the Israeli people,” he said.At the candidate forum, Katie Porter offered a hawkish take that at times appeared to clash with her progressive domestic policy: “There are lost lives in Gaza and Israel and it is because the United States has allowed terrorism to flourish and has refused to take a strong enough stance against Iran who is backing Hamas and Hezbollah,” she said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Orange county Democrat has pushed for stronger action against Iran in the past. Her district has one of the largest concentrations of Iranian Americans and one of her key policy tenets is “fighting for the accountability and change that the Iranian people deserve”.At the same forum – in line with mainstream Democrats – she also said that Israel, in taking action against Hamas, should be mindful not to violate human rights laws. “There is no exception for human rights,” she said.Porter did not respond to a request for further comment.Sadhwani, the Pomona College professor, said younger voters especially, who tend to more strongly empathise with Palestinians under occupation and oppose US military aid to Israel, could be swayed to Lee, for instance, and away from Schiff or Porter. Lee’s vocal support for a ceasefire and aid to Palestine could also sway Arab American voters, who might feel let down by Joe Biden and the broader Democratic party’s support for Israel amid its strikes on Gaza.Schiff’s stance cost him the endorsement of the Burbank mayor, Konstantine Anthony. “Until my congressman joins this peace movement, I can no longer, in good conscience, maintain my endorsement of his candidacy for the United States Senate,” said the progressive mayor, whose city is encompassed in Schiff’s southern California district.But Schiff’s relatively moderate views and hawkish foreign policy – including advocating for Congress to authorise the use of force against the Islamic State, has long drawn criticism from California progressives.In a statewide race where a Senate candidate will also need to pick up moderate and conservative voters, Schiff’s record could be a strength, said Sadhwani.“Who knows where we’ll be, by the time the primary rolls around next year,” she said. “But to the extent that this issue remains at the top of voters’ minds, it could certainly play an important role in their choice of senator.” More

In 1990, Ronald Reagan testified at the trial of John Poindexter, his former national security adviser caught up in the Iran-Contra affair. Two years out of office, questioned for eight hours, the former US president memorably said “I don’t recall” or “I can’t remember” no less than 88 times.This week, the two adult sons of one of Reagan’s Republican successors took the stand in New York, for testimony in a $250m civil fraud trial in which the judge has already determined the family’s guilt and now seeks to determine their penalty.On the campaign trail, Donald Trump often pays tribute to Reagan. In the courtroom, Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump tipped the hat to the master of repetitive deflection under legal examination.On Wednesday, Trump Jr answered several questions in the Reagan manner. Asked, for example, about the Donald J Trump Revocable Trust, and if his father was still one of its trustees, he simply said: “I don’t recall.”On Thursday, Trump Jr was asked about a $2m severance package given earlier this year to Allen Weisselberg, the longtime Trump Organization chief financial officer who went to jail for tax fraud. He could not recall much, he said.Eric Trump followed his older brother on to the stand. Asked if he remembered a 2013 phone call about a statement of financial condition – documents at the heart of the case against the Trumps, prosecutors alleging they routinely made inaccurate statements in search of financial advantage – his answer was longer than his brother’s. But it still contained the magic words.“I don’t believe I ever saw or worked on the statement of financial condition,” Eric Trump said. “I don’t believe I had any knowledge of it. I think I was 26 years old. I don’t recall – I was not aware of it, I never worked on it, and I didn’t know about it until this case came into fruition.”He was asked about an email in which a now former Trump lawyer said she spoke to him about an appraisal for Seven Springs, a family estate in New York that has been at the heart of reporting about Trump’s tax affairs.The appraiser valued the estate at $50m. Eric Trump said he did not share that valuation with Jeff McConney, controller of the Trump Organization and a co-defendant, because “I would have never thought to because I didn’t work on this document”.Eventually, the Trumps valued Seven Springs at $291m.Regarding Briarcliff Manor, a New York golf course, an email was read out in which a Trump Organization lawyer said: “I spoke to Eric and he is aware that the more supportable value at this point is around $45m.” In Trump Organization financial statements from 2013 to 2018, the course was valued $58m higher.In court, Eric Trump said: “I really hadn’t been involved in the appraisal of the property … I don’t recall [the appraiser] at all. I don’t think I was the main person involved. I don’t focus on appraisals, that’s not the focus of my day.”Even when confronted with evidence of his involvement in such matters, Trump would only concede: “It appears that way.”Observers were not impressed. Andrew Weissmann, a former federal prosecutor who worked for the special counsel Robert Mueller on the investigation of Russian election interference and links between Trump and Moscow, said: “Don Jr and Eric Trump’s ‘defense’ … appears so far to be that they were derelict in their duties as executives and trustees.”The main show is yet to come. Donald Trump and his oldest daughter, Ivanka Trump, are due to testify next. But even if the Trump boys were just a warm-up, they put on a masterclass of reliably unreliable recall.Asked if he had been involved in preparing an allegedly manipulated statement about a golf course deal, Eric said: “Not that I recall.”Then, he produced the mot juste: “I don’t know what I knew at the time.” More

His pathway to the presidency looks more forbidding than ever, but tanking poll numbers and a stalled campaign have not dissuaded Ron DeSantis from running foreign policy as if he was the incumbent in the White House.Florida’s Republican governor has raised eyebrows and hackles by using state resources for a series of actions and operations since the Israel-Hamas war began that come under the purview of the federal government.They include “evacuating” hundreds of US citizens from Israel on charter flights; exporting humanitarian aid and claiming to have procured weapons; as well as activating Florida’s militarized state guard “as needed, to respond” to an overseas conflict.Additionally, he has summoned Florida’s legislature for an emergency session next week that will, among other issues, seek to impose more state sanctions on Iran, a key ally of Hamas, replicating measures already in place at federal level for decades.Democrats in Florida, who have become used to their absentee governor campaigning in other states as he pursues his flailing White House run, say DeSantis has crossed a line.“President Biden is the commander in chief of our military, not Ron DeSantis,” Nikki Fried, chair of the state’s Democratic party, said in a statement to the Miami Herald, commenting on the governor’s claim that he helped source weapons, ammunition and other military equipment for Israel, an assertion that later unraveled.“This is a gross breach of norms and a potential violation of federal laws governing the shipment of weapons.”In a statement to the Guardian, a state department spokesperson confirmed it “did not collaborate with the state of Florida on humanitarian and evacuation flights to and from Israel [and] the department was not notified in advance of these flights”.Independent analysts see the behavior of DeSantis, a staunch supporter of Israel, as troublesome.“Any time a governor tries to push a foreign policy agenda, or an agenda related to international affairs, including immigration policy, on their own, it typically infringes on the powers of the executive of the federal government,” said Matthew Dallek, professor of political management at George Washington University.“We’ve seen this with [Governor Greg] Abbott in Texas. If the DeSantis flights to Israel were coordinated with the state department and US military, that’s one thing. If they were not, that’s much more problematic, much more of a line crossing.“He’s a guy who gets off on crossing boundaries, being pugnacious and in your face, and in that sense there’s kind of an ugly streak to him and Trump. They both enjoy, and their political identities are wrapped up in crossing boundaries.”DeSantis employed a familiar argument to justify Florida wading into the Middle East conflict, insisting that the administration of Joe Biden was “not doing what it takes to stand by Israel”. It echoed his citing of the president’s perceived “failures” over immigration to rationalize his sending of state law enforcement personnel to the US southern border, the preserve of the Department of Homeland Security.Contrary to DeSantis’s statement, the federal government has been heavily involved in humanitarian operations in Israel and has run a continuous charter flight operation to repatriate US citizens since the conflict began.The state department spokesperson said more than 6,700 seats on US government chartered transportation were made available to augment commercial flight capacity, and more than 13,500 US citizens had safely departed Israel and the West Bank.The state department flights, which ended on Tuesday through decreased demand, have also run more smoothly than the DeSantis operation, which left 23 Americans stranded in Cyprus for several days at the start of the war.Dallek sees some rationale for DeSantis’s stance.“By virtue of his position as governor he has been involved in some pretty weighty issues, issues that matter to a lot of voters and a lot of Republican primary voters, in particular immigration and the Middle East,” he said.“But this doesn’t seem like an argument that has legs for DeSantis. The many months of his campaign flailing is going to outweigh whatever he says on Israel, and most of the other GOP candidates are vying for that same space of being tough on terrorism, anti-Hamas, pro-Israel. I just don’t think there’s all that much oxygen left for him to take up on this issue.”Transparency advocates in Florida are also critical of DeSantis over the Israel flights, questioning how $50m of taxpayers’ money reportedly handed to a contractor for open-ended charter flights has been used.The recipient is the same contractor that ran the governor’s infamous migrant flights of mostly Venezuelan asylum seekers around the US last year, which led to a criminal investigation in Texas and was criticized by opponents as an inhumane political stunt.The DeSantis administration withheld public records about the migrant flights for months before a judge ordered it to hand them over. The state budgeted more than $1.5m in attorneys’ fees to defend the lawsuit and Bobby Block, executive director of the Florida First Amendment Foundation, fears a similar lack of transparency will cloak the Israel flights.“They talked about $50m, it’s not based on actual records from the state where we know exactly what’s playing out. It’s based on a budget item in emergency management,” he said.“We don’t have absolute clarity on it because of the secrecy of the DeSantis administration. There’s a lot of people, not just journalists, who want to know what it is costing taxpayers in Florida.”DeSantis’s press team and the Florida emergency management department point to a press release issued last week that said more than 700 Americans arrived in Florida on four flights from Israel and received resources from “several state agencies and volunteer organizations”.Block said there seemed to be little interest is ensuring value for taxpayer dollars, noting that uncoordinated state and federal government entities competing for the same limited resources, including chartered flights, tended to push up prices.“The way it’s being managed and promoted, it seems more political and geared towards the governor’s political aspirations than it does to a real emergency response with a state and governor working with the federal government,” he said. More

As two dozen volunteers prepared to knock doors on an unseasonably warm afternoon in late October, Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger reminded them that their work helped flip her battleground House seat in 2018. She predicted it would pay off again for Virginia Democrats this year.“It is how we have won in hard races across Virginia and across the country, and it is certainly why I feel confident that we are on the right path headed towards November 7,” Spanberger said, speaking to campaign volunteers in a sunny parking lot in Manassas.Spanberger has played an active role in boosting Virginia Democrats’ hopes for election day, as the party looks to flip control of the house of delegates and maintain their majority in the state senate. The stakes are high: Republicans would achieve a legislative trifecta in Richmond if they take control of the state senate, allowing them to enact controversial policies like banning abortion after 15 weeks and limiting access to the ballot box.With her carefully crafted political persona as a centrist Democrat, Spanberger may be the right person to deliver her party’s closing message in the final stretch of the campaign. In Manassas, Spanberger laid out her vision for how Virginia Democrats would succeed on 7 November, saying: “There is nothing more important than helping people believe that the policies and the government – whether it be in Richmond or on Capitol Hill – that they want is possible.”The results on Tuesday could affect Spanberger’s own future as well; the congresswoman has reportedly told multiple people that she intends to run for governor in the battleground state. If she is successful, her victory would allow Democrats to take back the Virginia governorship, which is now held by Republican Glenn Youngkin, in 2025.For now, Spanberger has declined to confirm those plans, insisting she remains laser-focused on this year’s crucial elections.“I have enjoyed spending time with people who are in the voting mindset,” Spanberger said in August. “As for anything that I might do in the future, I’m not going to make any announcements until after November.”Spanberger first won election to the US House of Representatives in 2018, capitalizing on her experience as a former CIA officer turned organizer for the gun safety group Moms Demand Action to sway voters concerned about Donald Trump’s leadership. Winning her 2018 race by just two points, Spanberger unseated a Republican incumbent, Dave Brat, who had defeated his last Democratic opponent by 15 points two years earlier.Spanberger joined a freshman House class dominated by Democrats, part of the “blue wave” that helped the party take control of the chamber for the first time in eight years.“She was one of these what I call the ‘national security Democrats’ that were elected in 2018,” said Jessica Taylor, the Senate and governors editor for the Cook Political Report. “I think she still retains that sort of more moderate pragmatic profile, with especially a focus on national security.”Despite Republicans’ repeated efforts to oust Spanberger, the congresswoman has held on to her seat through two hard-fought re-election campaigns. Running in a newly redrawn district in 2022, Spanberger won her race by roughly five points, her largest victory to date. She has also proved herself to be an impressive fundraiser, bringing in nearly $9m in 2022.Over her three terms in Congress, she has developed a reputation as a centrist able to collaborate with Democrats and Republicans alike, as she has advocated for bipartisan initiatives like a ban on House members trading individual stocks and increased funding for police departments. Spanberger enjoys reminding voters that she was named the most bipartisan elected official in Virginia by the non-profit Common Ground Committee.But even as she cultivates a reputation as a pragmatic centrist, Spanberger has been careful to avoid alienating her more progressive constituents through her consistent support of the social issues that remain important to the Democratic base. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund has given Spanberger a score of 100% on its congressional scorecard, as has the LGBTQ+ rights group Human Rights Campaign. Spanberger, who highlighted her work with Moms Demand Action during her first campaign, has also received endorsements from anti-gun violence groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords.This delicate political balance frustrates her Republican rivals, who argue the congresswoman’s voting record proves she is not the centrist she makes herself out to be.“She does campaign as a moderate. Her language is moderate in tone,” said Rich Anderson, chairman of the Republican party of Virginia. “But she votes as a pretty progressive liberal out on the left edge of the spectrum.”The moments when Spanberger has publicly clashed with her party have been rare and notable. She opposed the election of Nancy Pelosi as House speaker in 2019 and 2021, a significant but ultimately inconsequential vote as Pelosi still won the gavel. Spanberger also made headlines in 2020, when the Washington Post reported that she lashed out against progressive colleagues in a phone call focused on Democrats’ losses in key House races. Lamenting the defeat of several centrist Democrats in battleground states, Spanberger reportedly said: “We need to not ever use the word ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again … We lost good members because of that.”“She’s been very careful to pick and choose where she goes against her party,” said Mark Rozell, dean of the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University. “It’s worked for her. That’s the bottom line. It has worked and given her a lot of encouragement that she could run an effective statewide campaign, and that remains to be seen.”As speculation has intensified over her statewide ambitions, Spanberger has made a point to keep her attention on the elections happening this year, crisscrossing the state to promote Democratic candidates.“We want legislators who are focused on the issues that matter,” Spanberger told a crowd of roughly 120 people in rural Orange, Virginia, in August. “We want people in elected and representative offices who are going out and talking to the people that they represent, who are advocating for the issues that matter.”Candidates and voters at the Orange event applauded Spanberger’s seemingly ubiquitous presence in her district. Jason Ford, a former campaign staffer for Spanberger who is now running for a seat on the state senate, recalled a running joke that no one knew where the congresswoman lived in the district because she always seemed to be out on the campaign trail speaking to voters.“She’s willing to show up in every part of the district,” Ford said. “She has consistently shown that hard work, commitment to the people and genuinely caring about the issues that they care about is what it takes to be a good representative.”That approach has won her many fans among Democrats in her district. “She just cares about Virginia. She cares about the things that Virginians care about and not what Youngkin and his crowd think Virginians care about,” said Kate Handley, a 57-year-old from Gordonsville.Bill Maiden, a 58-year-old voter and former Republican from Culpepper, added: “She actually goes out, meets people and does what she says – reaches across the aisle, gets things done … That’s exactly what we need out of a politician.”Spanberger’s constituents voiced optimism about her potential gubernatorial campaign, even as they expressed dismay about the possibility of her leaving the House.“I’d hate to lose her in Congress, but I think she would be a fantastic governor,” said Lynn Meyers, a 78-year-old voter from Locust Grove. “She’s on point. She’s realistic. She’s fair. She’s not like a loose cannon like so many of our folks in politics are today.”But any statewide campaign will have to wait until after the legislative elections next week, which could be instructive for Spanberger and other Virginia politicians weighing their future plans. If Republicans are successful on Tuesday, it may encourage candidates in the Youngkin mold to jump into the gubernatorial race, although experts emphasize that it is too early to get a clear sense of the 2025 field.“It’s essentially impossible to handicap the field before we even know how these elections turn out next week and who is running,” Taylor said.On the Republican side, Virginia’s lieutenant governor, Winsome Earle-Sears, and the state’s attorney general, Jason Miyares, have been named as potential candidates, given that Youngkin is term-limited. Spanberger may also face a rocky road to the Democratic nomination, as Richmond’s mayor, Levar Stoney, has been widely expected to jump into the primary.“My guess is that much of the commentary will focus on her as the centrist candidate and the mayor as the more progressive one,” Rozell said. “That could be a danger point for her, given the low turnout in primaries and the propensity of the more liberal wing of the party to dominate turnout in low-turnout primaries.”Spanberger could forgo a gubernatorial campaign and instead focus on holding her battleground district in 2024, which may bolster her party’s prospects of regaining control of the US House next year. But given Spanberger’s packed campaign schedule over the past few months, Anderson believes there is little question of her future plans.“She is spending a lot of time if not on the road at least making public statements in support of legislative candidates who have been nominated by the Democratic party all around the state, so that tells me that’s exactly where she’s going,” Anderson said. “I think probably within a reasonable period of time after November 7, we’ll have the answer to the question.”Although 2025 is more than a year away, at least one of Spanberger’s admirers is already looking beyond the governor’s mansion.“I could see her as president someday. I really could,” said Willow Drinkwater, an 82-year-old voter from Gordonsville. “Because she brings people together. She’s a consensus-maker.” More