US Politics

John Fetterman can help lift the stigma around mental illness and depressionAkin OllaThe US senator checked into a hospital for clinical depression – and has provoked a conversation about mental healthMy senator, John Fetterman, has checked into a hospital for clinical depression.This is an action that an increasing number of Americans will likely take in their lifetimes, given the rising rates of depression. Still, Fox News has already pounced: Tucker Carlson argued that Fetterman is “unfit to serve in the United States Senate”, while Laura Ingraham went as far as to imply that Fetterman’s wife has worked to hide his condition and that the act was “craven or a cruel political calculation by a stage wife and political nihilist”.Fetterman isn’t exactly the only person in the United States suffering from some form of depression. According to a Boston University study, “[d]epression among adults in the United States tripled in the early 2020 months of the global coronavirus pandemic – jumping from 8.5% before the pandemic to a staggering 27.8%”, and it only got worse from there. According to the same study, rates of depression continued “climbing to 32.8% and affecting 1 in every 3 American adults”.Stroke victims, which Fetterman is, are particularly susceptible to depression. According to a study in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, “depression occurs in roughly one-third of stroke survivors.” In terms of major depression, which involves at least two weeks of depressive symptoms like problems with sleep and sense of self-worth, the National Institute of Mental Health reported that roughly 8.4% of all Americans had at least one depressive episode in 2020, with higher rates among “adult females (10.5%) compared to males (6.2%)”.This disparity is why it’s important for women in positions of influence like Olympian Simone Biles and former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Arden to speak out about their own mental health struggles. Similarly, it’s important for men in positions of power like Fetterman, especially given the reluctance of men in particular in seeking treatment. Trying to push Fetterman out of politics belittles millions of Americans and signals to roughly one-tenth of the country that they are not worthy of being elected to office.Fetterman, like many Americans who have experienced clinical depression, can still accomplish much of what he sets out to do. Shooting him down now would be similar to what was done to Thomas Eagleton, the original running mate of democrat George McGovern’s 1972 run for the presidency. Eagleton was essentially shamed out of the position after it was revealed that he’d suffered from depression in the past and received electroshock treatment for it. Despite the slights against him and his resignation from the candidacy, he’d won the heart of his constituents and served another two terms as senator.Every day, millions of depressed Americans go to work, the country wouldn’t function without them. While Fetterman may need to step down or decline to run in the future as Arden did, he should actually be given a chance to govern.Fetterman seeking treatment should not trigger calls of incompetency. Instead, it should trigger empathy and questions of how we can ensure that others can seek the help that they need.In the words of Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota, who spoke openly about her depression in 2019: “De-stigmatizing and de-mystifying mental illness is just the beginning. Everyone can be a friend to those in need by urging them to take advantage of the resources available to them. But the one hundred of us here in the Senate have a responsibility to make sure those resources are available to everyone.”
Akin Olla is a contributing opinion writer at the Guardian US
TopicsDepressionOpinionMental healthUS politicsHealthUS CongressPennsylvaniacommentReuse this content More

George Santos admits being a ‘terrible liar’ to Britain’s Piers MorganRepublican congressman tells broadcaster it ‘wasn’t about tricking anybody’ while defending his comments on being JewishGeorge Santos, the embattled Republican congressman from New York who fabricated large swaths of his resume, admitted in an interview on Monday with Britain’s Piers Morgan that he had been a “terrible liar”.Santos was elected to represent portions of the New York City borough of Queens and neighboring Long Island in November and a staggering number of falsehoods have come to light since. His lies include claiming to be Jewish, graduating from college, working at finance giants Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, and that his mother was in the World Trade Center during the Al-Qaida terrorist attack on 11 September 2001.‘We don’t know his real name’: George Santos’s unravelling web of liesRead more“I’ve been a terrible liar on those subjects,” Santos told the broadcaster and journalist Morgan in an interview on Talk TV. “What I tried to convey to the American people is I made mistakes of allowing the pressures of what I thought and needed to be done in order to … this wasn’t about tricking anybody.“It wasn’t about tricking the people, this was about getting accepted by the party here locally.””I’ve been a terrible liar…”Piers Morgan grills republican George Santos, the man who’s been branded the biggest fibber in politics.Watch it on TalkTV at 8pm.@piersmorgan | @Santos4Congress | @TalkTV | #PMU pic.twitter.com/bNaIDJLlzG— Piers Morgan Uncensored (@PiersUncensored) February 20, 2023
Santos pushed back, however, on the suggestion that he had lied about being Jewish.“I never claimed to be Jewish. I’ve always made a party-favor joke. I’ve done it on stages across the country,” Santos said.Morgan shot back: “What’s funny about falsely claiming you’re Jewish?”Santos said: “Not falsely claiming I’m Jewish. I’d always say I’m Catholic but I come from a Jewish family so that makes me Jew-ish. It’s always been a party favor, everybody’s always laughed, and now that everybody’s cancelling me, everybody’s pounding down for a pound of flesh.”Morgan replied: “Because you’re not Jewish.”Santos also defended his comments on Judaism by pointing out that members of the Republican Jewish Coalition, an influential group, had found his comments funny when he spoke before them in November. He didn’t mention that the group has since denounced him and said Santos deceived them.He also insisted that he had not lied about his mother’s presence in the South Tower of the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan on 9/11, when terrorists hijacked passenger jets into both of the edifice’s twin towers, even though the New York Times obtained records showing his mother, Fatima Devolder, was not in New York that day.Will George Santos’s dog scandals finally bring him down? | Arwa MahdawiRead more“Specifically on the point that nobody can find any evidence that your mother worked at the World Trade Center at all, ever, could you have just got this wrong?” Morgan said.“Are you telling me that I got wrong what my mother told me?” Santos said. “She wasn’t one to mislead me.”“There’s no record that she was there at all that day. There’s a record of every single person in both those towers,” Morgan said.“I stay convinced that that’s the truth.”Santos has faced calls to resign from Congress from his constituents and fellow Republicans, but has refused so far. He also faces federal and local investigations over his campaign finances. He recently resigned his membership on several congressional committees.TopicsGeorge SantosRepublicansUS politicsPiers MorgannewsReuse this content More

Democrat Barbara Lee announces bid to replace Dianne Feinstein in US SenateLee is the highest-ranking Black woman in House Democratic leadership and seeks to take seat in hotly-contested raceUnited States congresswoman Barbara Lee on Tuesday formally launched her campaign for the Senate seat held by the retiring Dianne Feinstein, joining two fellow House Democrats in the race in the nation’s most populous state.California senator Dianne Feinstein, 89, announces she will not seek re-electionRead moreIn a video posted on Twitter, Lee ran through a list of the personal and professional battles she has taken on in her life, including fighting to be her school’s first Black cheerleader, championing protections for survivors of domestic violence and being the only member of Congress to vote against the authorization for the use of military force after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.“Today I am proud to announce my candidacy for US Senate. I’ve never backed down from doing what’s right. And I never will,” Lee said in the video. “Californians deserve a strong, progressive leader who has delivered real change.”Today I am proud to announce my candidacy for U.S. Senate. I’ve never backed down from doing what’s right. And I never will. Californians deserve a strong, progressive leader who has delivered real change.#BarbaraLeeSpeaksForMe pic.twitter.com/sEjmABg2BS— Barbara Lee (@BarbaraLeeForCA) February 21, 2023
Lee, a former chair of the congressional Black caucus, filed federal paperwork last week to enter the campaign shortly after the 89-year-old Feinstein announced she would step down after her term ends next year. Feinstein, the oldest member of Congress, has held the seat since 1992.Democratic US congresswoman Katie Porter, who is known for her use of a whiteboard during congressional hearings, and Adam Schiff, the lead prosecutor in then President Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial, announced their Senate campaigns last month.The three Democratic candidates occupy much of the same political terrain, so the race could be shaped by other factors that distinguish them.Lee’s district in the San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most liberal in the country and includes Berkeley and Oakland. Porter represents a politically divided district in Orange county, south-east of Los Angeles, that was once a conservative stronghold. Schiff’s district runs north from Los Angeles and includes Hollywood and Burbank, where he lives.Lee is the highest-ranking Black woman appointed to House Democratic leadership, serving as co-chair of the Policy and Steering Committee. Schiff and Porter are white. Lee, at 76, is the oldest of the group. Porter is 49, and Schiff is 62.In a nod to her age, Lee said she was the same fighter she has always been.“For those who say my time has passed, well, when does making change go out of style?” she said in the video. “I don’t quit. I don’t give up.”There are no Black women in the Senate, and there have been only two in the chamber’s history: Vice-President Kamala Harris, who was California’s first Black senator, and Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, who served one term.None of the candidates has run statewide before. They face the challenge of becoming more widely known, though they each have established political reputations.Lee and Porter have been leaders in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Schiff describes himself as a progressive champion but was once a member of the House’s centrist Blue Dog Coalition.Why are Americans paying $32m every hour for wars since 9/11? | Barbara LeeRead moreLee has long been on outspoken defender of abortion rights. In 2021, she was one of several members of Congress who shared personal testimony about their own abortions during a congressional hearing.She became pregnant at age 16 in the mid-1960s. Abortion in California was illegal at the time, so a family friend helped send her to a back-alley clinic in Mexico, she said at the time.She had no ill effects from the procedure, but she said many other women weren’t so lucky in that era.Democrats are expected to dominate the contest in the liberal state. A Republican hasn’t won a statewide race in California since 2006, and the past two US Senate elections had only Democrats on the November ballot.TopicsCaliforniaUS CongressUS politicsDemocratsDianne FeinsteinSan FrancisconewsReuse this content More

Arizona improves college access for undocumented students. Activists say it’s a ‘first step’Proposition 308 now makes higher education more affordable for undocumented immigrantsAndrea Vasquez, a social worker at a high school in Tucson, Arizona, was approached by a student in her senior year. She was asked how difficult it would be to attend college as an undocumented immigrant.Vasquez, 29, immediately flashed back to a younger version of herself, studying at the school where she now works, Palo Verde Magnet high school, and remembering her own struggle to get to college while being undocumented.More than a decade later, she has better news for the latest generation.“Her dream is going to a four-year university,” Vasquez said.In last November’s elections, voters in Arizona, who typically support anti-immigrant policies, narrowly approved ballot measure Proposition 308 to make undocumented immigrants eligible for the same fees and state financial aid at state universities and community colleges as local US citizens.Previously, despite growing up in Arizona’s state public school system, undocumented youth wouldn’t have been able to apply for state aid for higher education and would be classed as out-of-state students, who pay much higher fees. This was the fate imposed on Vasquez when she was graduating high school.Vasquez recalled that as a teen applying for college, the base out-of-state tuition at the time could exceed $16,000 annually at a state university. That made financial means rather than academic performance the gateway to higher education for people like her.Vasquez, who was brought to the US from her native Mexico as a migrant at the age of two, said: “I was fourth in my graduating class, I played sports, did community service [but] I couldn’t afford a four-year university.”Revealed: Trump secretly donated $1m to discredited Arizona election ‘audit’ Read moreShe cleaned houses with her mother to pay for two years at Tucson’s Pima Community College.“I wish this Proposition [308] happened when I graduated high school,” she said.In 2011, when she was in high school, Arizona adopted the strictest anti-immigration state law in the country. It allowed local law enforcement to ask anyone suspected of being in the country unlawfully to present proof of legal immigration status during routine traffic stops. It made it an offense to be caught without those papers.Arizona’s large Hispanic communities effectively lived under siege, with the law championed by hard-right Republican governor Jan Brewer, notorious Maricopa county sheriff Joe Arpaio and the late state senator, Russell Pearce.Then, in 2012, US president Barack Obama turned Vasquez and other migrants brought to the US as minors into Dreamers – the scheme now under threat because of legislative inertia and legal fights that started during the Trump administration.Dreamers became eligible for work permits and renewable protection from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) program. Nevertheless, higher education barriers persisted nationwide – especially in Arizona.Until Proposition 308, Arizona was one of three states, alongside Georgia and Indiana, that barred undocumented immigrants from in-state tuition.In her first State of the State speech last month, Katie Hobbs, the first Democratic governor elected in Arizona in 16 years, celebrated Proposition 308 and pledged to expand opportunities by allocating $40m to a new fund, the Promise for Dreamers Scholarship Program.“I was so pleased that the governor and her budget included the program, which wouldn’t even ask for a citizenship requirement,” said Raquel Terán, an Arizona state senator and a proponent of Proposition 308.“It’s unfair that many of the students who have been part of our education system, part of our communities, had to pay three times the in-state tuition,” she added.The American Immigration Council advocacy group issued a report supporting Proposition 308, noting: “The state is facing critical workforce shortages across the skills spectrum … Arizona will need … global talent to complement US-born workers [and to] build career pathways for immigrants already living in the state.”At her high school, Vasquez tells undocumented students about Proposition 308 but adds that they’re still ineligible for federal aid. Every year, more than 3,600 undocumented students graduate high school in Arizona.Ex-Arizona governor’s illegal makeshift border wall is torn down – but at what cost?Read moreMeanwhile, another hurdle faces Fernando Contreras, 19, as he aspires to become a doctor. Arizona is struggling with critical healthcare staff shortages exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. But when he was still a senior at Mountain View high school in Mesa, he found out most medical internships that he would need on the way to getting licensed require a social security number. He doesn’t have one: he arrived from Mexico at the age of 12 without documentation.For now, Contreras is studying at Pima Community College and is enrolled at Grand Canyon University, a private Christian school where Proposition 308 doesn’t apply, while working numerous jobs including babysitting.“The biggest downside is knowing you have to work twice as hard as anybody else to achieve what you want,” he said.Since the ballot measure passed, fees have dipped at the community college and he’s looking into whether it would be possible to transfer to Arizona State University.Jose Patiño, a 33-year-old Daca recipient and vice-president of education and external affairs at Aliento, a youth-led organization that advocated for the passing of Proposition 308, said that Contreras and many like him need a law like HB2796. It’s a bill that was introduced recently by Democratic state representative Flavio Bravo, allowing undocumented students to get licensed in the medical field by submitting a federal tax identification number in lieu of a social security number.But the bill never made it out of committee and died in the state legislature.“It’s unfortunate but there is very little understanding of the urgency of a bill like this one,” Bravo said.Patiño is still encouraged by Proposition 308, however.“The change in Arizona is partly because many of us were afraid for so long and now we are fighting back,” said Patiño, who was born in Guanajuato, Mexico in 1990 and brought to the US six years later.“Proposition 308 is the first step, but we have to keep fighting. We have learned from this country that nothing is going to be given to you.”TopicsArizonaMigrationMigration and developmentUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

ReviewThe Independent review – Jodie Turner-Smith and Brian Cox chase political scandalTurner-Smith and Cox team up as journalists investigating a presidential candidate. But there is none of the insider authenticity of director Amy Rice’s earlier Obama documentaryFilm-maker Amy Rice spent two years on the campaign trail with Barack Obama to make a 2009 fly-on-the wall documentary. So it’s massively disappointing that her new fictional political thriller is so insipid and unsatisfying, and completely lacks any kind of authentic insider knowledge of Machiavellian political skullduggery. It’s as generic as they come, though British actor Jodie Turner-Smith is brilliant as a rookie reporter for the fictional Washington Chronicle who uncovers a scandal with the potential to blow open the presidential race.Turner-Smith’s character, Eli James, is increasingly frustrated at having to write clickbait lifestyle articles such as “college dorm must-haves”. But when she uncovers a lottery scandal, she teams up with the paper’s Pulitzer-winning columnist Nicholas Booker (Brian Cox, giving a lefty-intelligentsia version of his alpha-ego male in Succession). Their relationship is nicely played, especially by Turner-Smith, who makes Eli a satisfyingly complicated woman: super smart and competitive, a bit reckless and most of all determined – as she’s had to be as a woman of colour in a largely male, mostly white world.The lottery scandal is linked to political funding and seems to lead right to the Republican presidential candidate Patricia Turnbull (Ann Dowd, channelling Matilda’s Mrs Trunchbull). She’s neck and neck with the Democratic incumbent; then an independent enters the fray. This is mega-celebrity Olympic gold medallist Nate Sterling (ex-WWE wrestler John Cena): he’s promising to take action on climate change, and has the right kind of lantern-jawed all-American jock appeal for rightwingers. Eli’s boyfriend Lucas (Luke Kirby) is a speechwriter for Sterling – who may be too good to be true.There’s a twist at the end that is anticlimactic and uninteresting, and the script is unforgivably clumsy in places. Twice, characters obtain vital information illicitly from computers left unlocked by individuals with a lot to hide. Cox’s veteran journalist is famous for eating his steaks cooked bloody – not just rare. But really this film could be juicier.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTopicsFilmThrillersUS politicsNewspapersBrian CoxreviewsReuse this content More

In Wisconsin’s supreme court race, a super-rich beer family calls the shotsMembers of the Uihlein dynasty are pouring millions into opposite sides of one of this year’s most important electionsWhen Wisconsinites vote on Tuesday in primary elections for a justice’s seat on the state’s supreme court, few will be aware that much of the big money pouring into this race hails from just one family whose fortunes flow from beer.‘Stakes are monstrous’: Wisconsin judicial race is 2023’s key electionRead moreMillions of dollars have been injected into the battle by members of the Uihlein family, a manufacturing dynasty with roots in Milwaukee. The huge sums could help determine the balance of power on the state’s top court and in turn influence critical areas of public life – from abortion to voting rights, and potentially even the 2024 presidential election.The source of the Uihleins’ fabulous wealth traces back to 1875, when Joseph Schlitz, the owner of a brewing company, died in a shipwreck off the Isles of Scilly. Control of the firm passed to four Uihlein brothers who were next in the line of inheritance and who went on to build the brand into the largest beer producer in America. Schlitz became ubiquitous under the jingle: “The beer that made Milwaukee famous.”Though its star has fallen, Schlitz beer is still popular in the midwest, and the Uihleins have gone on to become even richer and more powerful. They have also diversified their wealth and in recent years have started to wield it as a political weapon.Tuesday’s election for a Wisconsin supreme court position has been the target of huge amounts of Uihlein money – surprisingly, on both sides of the political divide. On one side stand the billionaire couple Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, owners of the Wisconsin-based shipping supplies company Uline, who are on track to pump millions of dollars into the race in support of a conservative judicial candidate, Dan Kelly.On the other side, Richard’s cousin Lynde Bradley Uihlein, a prominent funder of progressive causes, has already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the liberal-leaning judges vying for the supreme court seat.An expensive raceHow just one family rose to such pre-eminence in political spending, only to become split between opposing factions, is a very Wisconsin story. The state once prided itself on its campaign finance rules that put voters before donors, bore down on conflicts of interest and corruption, and required openness and transparency.But in 2010, the US supreme court unleashed untold amounts of corporate and individual wealth into elections through its controversial ruling Citizens United. Five years later the Republican-controlled Wisconsin legislature lifted the ceiling on personal donations to political parties in the state.The result was an avalanche of outside spending on elections in Wisconsin, which in recent cycles has become an increasingly key battleground state with the ability, through its 10 electoral college votes, to make or break presidential campaigns. The abundance of money has now reached even the lesser-known contests over judicial positions, as Tuesday’s primary amply illustrates.Four candidates are running in the primary: two conservatives, Kelly, a former supreme court justice, and judge Jennifer Dorow; and two liberals, the county court judges Janet Protasiewicz and Everett Mitchell. The two candidates who gain most votes in the primary will face off in the general election in April.Revealed: Trump secretly donated $1m to discredited Arizona election ‘audit’ Read moreConservatives currently command a 4-3 majority on the Wisconsin supreme court, but with the retirement of one of the conservative justices there is now a chance to flip the court. That would potentially allow progressives to legalise abortion, push back extreme Republican gerrymandering in the drawing of electoral maps and resist any election-denying challenges in next year’s presidential battle.With stakes so high, vast sums are already being channeled by outside groups into political TV and radio advertising. The Brennan Center’s Buying Time 2023 database has already recorded more than $6m of political ad orders for the primary alone – a statistic that might be overshadowed once the general election gets underway.A slew of special interests have waded into the race, with an offshoot of the anti-abortion group Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America promising to invest six figures in Kelly’s campaign. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Kelly himself has predicted that total outside donations could reach $20m – a sum that dwarfs anything Wisconsin has ever seen – bragging that he was the candidate best placed to attract the cash.The Brennan Center’s counsel Douglas Keith said that the supreme court election was on track to be the most expensive in Wisconsin history, “and could very well end up being the most expensive in the country’s history”.“It’s escalating rapidly,” said Barry Burden, a political science professor at University of Wisconsin – Madison. “If $15m, $20m, $25m is spent on this race it’s more than you see in governor’s races in some states.”A family dividedAmid the millions being flung at the election, the Uihlein family name stands out – both for the sheer scale of its spending and for the fact that family members are fighting each other across the political schism.Over the past decade, Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein have joined the top five biggest Republican mega-donors in the US. They have lavished more than $230m on federal candidates alone.Among the politicians they have championed are some of the most notorious allies of Donald Trump. They include Ron Johnson, the Republican senator from Wisconsin, who ran a racially charged re-election campaign last November, and Marjorie Taylor Green, the extremist congresswoman from Georgia.The Uihleins live in a suburb of Chicago, but their heritage lies in Wisconsin. Richard’s great-grandfather was August Uihlein, one of the four brothers who inherited the Schlitz beer empire following the fateful shipwreck.According to the Brennan Center’s database of ad spending and official Wisconsin campaign finance records, Richard and Elizabeth have already given $40,000 of their own personal fortune to support Kelly, while injecting almost $2m more into the supreme court race through an outside group. Fair Courts America, a Super Pac largely bankrolled by Richard Uihlein, was created in 2020 with the aim of combatting the “woke mob” by shifting the balance of state and federal courts towards the far right.Latest figures compiled by the Brennan Center show that Fair Courts America has already placed TV and radio ad orders of $1.8m backing Kelly. “Madison liberals are trying to take over the Wisconsin supreme court,” one of the Super Pac’s ads says. “That’s why we need to elect conservative justice Dan Kelly.”Deploying her vast wealth in the opposite direction is Lynde Bradley Uihlein, another direct heir to the Schlitz brewing empire. Her grandfather, Harry Lynde Bradley, founded the Bradley Foundation, a rightwing powerhouse that has created a network of thinktanks and dark money groups that has helped transform Wisconsin over the past decade into a conservative bastion.Like her cousin Richard, Lynde Uihlein operates largely in the shadows, to the extent that it remains unclear why she would have bucked the family tradition and sided with progressive rather than conservative causes. She has given $20,000 of her own wealth – the maximum allowed under Wisconsin law – directly to the campaign coffers of the liberal-leaning judge Protasiewicz.In addition, she has donated $200,000 to Democratic groups in the past year as well as $250,000 to A Better Wisconsin Together, a political fund that funnels dark money – contributions whose origins cannot easily be traced – to progressive statewide candidates.Conservative donors pour ‘dark money’ into case that could upend US voting lawRead moreA Better Wisconsin Together has become the main financial backer of the two liberal candidates in the state supreme court race, pumping almost as much cash into the election as its conservative rival, Fair Courts America. The latest tally from the Brennan Center shows A Better Wisconsin Together ordering $1.6m of political TV and radio ads in the primary election alone.Keith of the Brennan Center said that the financial injection of rival Uihlein money in the election raised a profound question: “Do we want who sits on our state supreme courts to be decided as a result of a fight between the members of one of the wealthiest families in the state?”Matthew Rothschild, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a non-profit monitoring money and politics, said this week’s election was a “grotesque example of what happens when you get rid of campaign donation limits that restrict how much the super-rich can throw around.“We’re suffering the results: the voice of the average person is being drowned out.”TopicsWisconsinLaw (US)US politicsUS political financingfeaturesReuse this content More

02:09AnalysisJoe Biden’s train ride to Kyiv makes history but will it win him a second term?Julian Borger in WarsawVisit to Ukraine is a defining moment for the US president but foreign policy does not necessarily win elections

Russia-Ukraine war – latest news updates
John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan had their speeches in Berlin. Joe Biden now has Kyiv, a moment to define his presidency and its era.There was no one phrase in Biden’s remarks in Kyiv to match Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” in 1963 or Reagan’s “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall” in 1987, but the trip itself was the statement. As the White House underlined repeatedly on Monday, there was no precedent in modern times. Visits to the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq were different, as the US military ran security in those countries.In going to Kyiv, Biden was entering a war zone and putting his safety in the hands of the Ukrainian armed forces, and also those of the Russians. Moscow was given a heads-up a few hours before he crossed the border. The calculation was that Vladimir Putin would not risk the precedent of presidential assassination or all-out war for that matter. A reasonable calculation but a risk nonetheless.It was a coup heightened by complete surprise. The secret did not leak, signalling that the bravery was underpinned by competence. The visit cemented Biden’s claim of leadership of the free world, but among Washington’s allies that has not really been challenged since the full invasion of Ukraine began a year ago this week.A tougher question to answer – and it may take a week or two before the result is clear – is whether this will help Biden’s standing at home, where his popularity has not recovered from the hit it suffered from the shambolic Afghanistan withdrawal, inflation and the energy price shock of the invasion.The popularity slump, which began in August 2021, has not so far been reversed by recent strong economic figures, a solid legislative record, and a lively, combative performance in his State of the Union address earlier this month.In an average of recent polls, Americans who disapprove of his performance outnumber those who approve by 52% to 42%.Much of the problem is an overall impression that Biden at 80 is too old, too doddery and gaffe prone to lead the country with vigour, especially into a second term. The bold appearance in Kyiv, strolling through the city in aviator sunglasses, alongside a grateful and admiring Volodymyr Zelenskiy, on the US Presidents Day holiday no less, is intended to address that perception head on and reframe the conversation on age and fitness for office.Donald Trump was notably risk averse as president. On his single visits to Afghanistan and Iraq, he stayed inside heavily fortified US bases. The Kyiv visit, with its very real jeopardy, makes it less likely that Biden’s Republican challenger in 2024, whether it is Trump or the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, or another, will challenge him directly on courage. But the Republicans are already pivoting to portraying the president’s starring role abroad as an abandonment of suffering Americans at home.“I and many Americans are thinking to ourselves: OK, he’s very concerned about those borders halfway around the world. He’s not done anything to secure our own borders here … we have a lot of problems accumulating here,” DeSantis told Fox TV.The very success of the Biden visit in underlining the US’s commitment to Ukrainian resistance could end up accelerating the drift of the Republicans towards anti-Ukrainian positions, now the preserve of a pro-Trump minority on the far right of the party, as the leadership looks for attack lines against Biden.In his Fox interview, DeSantis downplayed the Russian threat. “I think it’s important to point out, the fear of Russia going into Nato countries and all that, and steamrolling, that has not even come close to happening,” he said, sketching out what may become the Republican line in 2024.The conventional wisdom, reinforced by decades of polling, is that foreign policy does not tend to sway presidential elections. What Kennedy and Reagan’s famous Berlin speeches would have done for them electorally is unknown. Kennedy was killed before he could stand for a second term, and Reagan had already been re-elected and was in his penultimate year in office.For Biden, the jury is out. The train ride to Kyiv will go down in history, but making history does not necessarily win elections.TopicsJoe BidenUS politicsUkraineBiden administrationEuropeUS foreign policyanalysisReuse this content More

Joe Biden has made it clear he intends to stand for re-election in 2024. But despite his state of the union address reflecting a fighting spirit that many interpreted as another indication for a 2024 bid, Biden’s intention may not necessarily hold up.

Within the Democratic party, concerns have grown over the president’s age and his low approval ratings. Recent news of classified documents found in his Delaware home have certainly not helped in soothing these concerns.

If Biden does not run, the 2024 Democratic primaries would become a much more open contest. And there are several potential candidates.

Kamala Harris

As the current vice president, Kamala Harris would appear to be the obvious second choice if Biden decides not to run. But, much like the president, she has done very poorly in approval ratings. In early February, she had an approval rating of just 39%.

While a vice president’s approval ratings have historically been tied to those of the president, Harris would have to find a balance between setting herself apart from Biden and not diminishing the administration’s efforts.

Stacey Abrams

When Georgia flipped blue in 2020, many credited Stacey Abrams for the success. The former minority leader of the Georgia House of Representatives was a prominent campaigner for Democrats ahead of the 2020 election.

But despite this success in the south being attributed to her, Abrams comes with a difficult electoral record. She stood for governor in Georgia in 2018 and 2022 and lost both times, which could certainly cast some doubts on her electability within the party and among the voting public.

Pete Buttigieg

Pete Buttigieg went from local to national politics within the span of just a few months. The former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020 and won the Iowa caucuses. But he dropped out of the race shortly thereafter. When Biden took office, he appointed Buttigieg as transport secretary – and since his move to Washington, Buttigieg has continued to make a name for himself.

Darling of the progressives: Pete Buttigieg is the first openly gay man to run for a presidential nomination.
EPA-EFE/Caroline Brehman

Within the Democratic party, he appears to enjoy much popularity. He was “the most requested surrogate on the campaign trail” ahead of the 2022 midterms. If elected, Buttigieg would be the youngest ever president and the first openly gay man to become president.

But the proposed changes to the Democratic primary schedule may pose a challenge for Buttigieg, who has previously had significant difficulties securing support from minority voter groups.

Read more:
Diversity and moderation over tradition – why Democrats moved South Carolina to the start of the 2024 presidential campaign

Amy Klobuchar

The first woman elected to represent Minnesota in the US Senate, Amy Klobuchar has been on the national political stage since 2007. During the confirmation hearings for supreme court associate justice Brett Kavanaugh, she made headlines and drew praise for her sharp line of questioning. Klobuchar previously ran for president in 2020 and put her support behind Biden after exiting the race.

She is seen as a moderate, someone who could unite both sides of the party and might be a close alternative to Biden. However, she has lower name recognition than her possible opponents within the party and had difficulties securing excitement for her campaign in 2020, an issue that could block her path again.

Gavin Newsom

California governor Gavin Newsom, who won a second term at the midterms, made headlines last year when he paid for billboards in conservative states like Texas and Indiana advertising that abortion is still legal in California.

Newsom is less disliked than Biden and Harris but is still polling in the single digits according to latest data. But this may be explained by his slightly lower name recognition among voters. Data from the January Granite State Poll in New Hampshire shows that some voters felt they do not know enough about him to form an opinion yet.

If Newsom enters the race for the Democratic nomination, his early campaign strategies would thus need to be focused on raising his public profile across the nation.

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren, the senator for Massachusetts since 2013, previously ran for president in 2020 and quickly became known as the candidate with the most detailed plans for every issue on the agenda. While she did not win the nomination, she has since continued to make waves on Capitol Hill with passionate speeches on issues such as abortion rights.

‘Angry’: Elizabeth Warren decries the supreme court decision over abortion rights, May 2022.

Behind Biden and Harris, who naturally have high name recognition due to their positions, Warren is best known among potential candidates. Additionally, she is less disliked than the president and vice president.

Among voters in two of the key proposed early primary states, New Hampshire and South Carolina, Warren enjoys particular popularity according to recent data from the Granite State Poll and South Carolina Policy Council polling.

Gretchen Whitmer

After winning a second terms as governor in the November 2022 midterms, defeating a Trump-backed Republican and increasing her win margin from 2018, Gretchen Whitmer has entered the 2024 stakes as a wild-card contender.

Whitmer was first elected to the Michigan House of Representatives in 2000, and gained national attention for her speech on abortion rights in 2013, where she revealed that she had been sexually assaulted as a young woman. She was the target of a kidnapping plot thwarted by the FBI in October 2020.

Whitmer is well known for her ability to work across the aisle and has passed more than 900 bipartisan bills as governor. With Michigan poised to move up in the Democratic primary calendar, Whitmer could have an early home advantage if she decides to run.

Whether vice president or wild card favorite, no Democrat except Biden has declared an intention to run. The ball is in the president’s court. But if he decides not to run amid increased calls for him to step aside, the Democratic party certainly has options and the primaries could shape up to become a highly competitive contest. More