US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Taylor Swift’s Harris endorsement has thrilled fans – but will it move the election needle?

      by

      Addy Al-Saigh had already gone to bed on Tuesday night when her phone woke her up with a notification: Taylor Swift had added a post on Instagram.The pop star had endorsed Kamala Harris for president. Al-Saigh was thrilled.“She has this impact on such a large amount of people that it is super important that she uses her voice, which I’m so glad she did,” said Al-Saigh, a 19-year-old college student who lives in Virginia. “I am hopeful, definitely hopeful, that this will help push voter registration and push more people to get out and speak up and use their voice.”Perhaps no celebrity endorsement has ever been as hotly anticipated as Swift’s – and she delivered in Miss Americana style on Tuesday, voicing her support for Harris and Tim Walz just minutes after the presidential debate between Harris and Donald Trump concluded.“I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos,” Swift wrote of Harris. “I was so heartened and impressed by her selection of running mate Tim Walz,” who Swift tagged, “who has been standing up for LGBTQ+ rights, IVF and a woman’s right to her own body for decades”.The question on many minds is: does it matter? Although it’s difficult to measure the impact of celebrity endorsements, they can move the needle in elections, especially by energizing voters who may otherwise sit on the sidelines. After Swift encouraged her fans to vote in 2023, Vote.org recorded more than 35,000 registrations in a single day. Al-Saigh first registered to vote because Swift had posted a voter registration link in her Instagram Stories.In January, polling conducted for Newsweek found that 18% of voters say they are “more likely” or “significantly more likely” to vote for a Swift-backed candidate, while 17% say they are less likely. Swift’s endorsement is likely to hold particular sway among Americans under 35, since about 30% of that group say they are more likely to vote for someone Swift supports. More than half of Swift’s most avid fans already identify as Democrats, a 2023 Morning Consult poll found. The other half of her fanbase is split evenly between Republicans and independents.Swifties for Kamala, which is working to mobilize fans of Swift and has raised more than $150,000 for the Harris campaign, celebrated the endorsement. “We knew she would speak when the time was right and are so excited to keep up the fight,” Irene Kim, the organization’s co-founder and executive director, said in a statement. “Swifties are a diverse group – it’s what strengthens our connections to one another and shapes our shared values.”Trump, meanwhile, dismissed Swift’s endorsement. “She’ll probably pay a price for it in the marketplace,” he said Wednesday on Fox & Friends. Matt Gaetz, the Republican congressman from Florida, said that although he liked Swift’s music, he wanted “to live in a world where liberals make my art and conservatives make my laws”.Jasmine Amussen, a 35-year-old Democrat in the swing state of Georgia who previously responded to a Guardian survey about Swift’s political power, was particularly struck by the musician’s mention of how Trump had used AI-generated images of the pop star to falsely suggest that Swift had endorsed him.“It really conjured up my fears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation,” Swift wrote in her Instagram post.“I think young people, especially young women, are, like, really grossed out and horrified by things like that,” said Amussen, who said her vote was not personally affected by Swift’s endorsement. “For people who have spent their whole life online and who have experienced a lot of really negative things about being online, like revenge porn and the Nudify websites and things like that, I think it really meant something that she said it like that.”Swift signed off her endorsement as “Taylor Swift, Childless Cat Lady” – a reference to comments by Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, denigrating women who do not have children. Shortly afterward, Elon Musk, a Trump supporter, responded with a tweet that drew widespread condemnation.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Fine Taylor … you win … I will give you a child and guard your cats with my life,” Musk tweeted.“I found it disgusting,” Jared Quigg, a 22-year-old Swift fan in Indiana, said of Musk’s post. “I despise that man.”Still, Quigg doesn’t think that Swift’s post will motivate many voters. “If she were to speak up on specific issues, I think that would move the needle on things. But as far as her endorsement, she didn’t really delve too much into issues,” said Quigg, who plans to vote for Harris even though he doesn’t “really like her much at all”.“Now, if she were to speak up about fracking or Palestine, issues that might be considered more important to progressives, perhaps that could have an impact on the party”, Quigg added.Al-Saigh, for her part, wants to get her Virginia college’s Swift fan club to do work around the election, such as helping register people to vote, now that the musician has made her views clear.“Taylor Swift is such a global sensation that if she cares about something, it’s important,” Al-Saigh said. “That’s the way I feel, and that’s the way I think a lot of other people feel too.” More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      ABC’s debate moderators did what they said was impossible: fact-checking Trump | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      They said it couldn’t be done. For years, we’ve heard all the reasons – excuses, really – that presidential debates cannot and should not be fact-checked in real time.Countering lies is not the job of the moderators, we were told; it is strictly the role of the candidates themselves. Fact-checking would take up too much time and interrupt the flow of the debate, we were told. And what about impartiality? How could moderators be expected to decide whom to challenge with fact checks?Fact-checking, we were told, was impractical and inappropriate, and simply a very, very bad idea. Yes, even in the age of Donald Trump, who wakes up each day and immediately begins lying about his dreams.But then came Tuesday night’s debate between Trump and Kamala Harris – and that memorable moment when the moderator Linsey Davis of ABC News piped up with just a few words after Trump went into one of his evidence-free rants about babies being executed.“There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born,” Davis said in an even tone. It didn’t take a lot of time, it did correct an oft-repeated lie and it did establish something important: the most egregious falsehoods might well be challenged by these moderators. The candidates were put on notice.Davis wasn’t alone in this. Her co-moderator, David Muir – in much the same neutral, polite tone and with much the same admirable brevity – did the same. After Trump made a wild claim about migrants in Ohio eating pets, Muir calmly stated that ABC had pre-checked this one and determined that it wasn’t true. And in another instance, Muir countered Trump’s charges of uncontrolled and rising crime, especially involving migrants, with this: “As you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country.”It was noticed. And largely, though not universally, praised. The moderators also did a good job of returning to questions that had not been answered, and in some cases, pressing for a clear yes or no.Trump’s allies were outraged, naturally, that he wasn’t allowed to fib at will. How terribly unfair, they charged. Why weren’t there equal numbers of fact checks and challenges for Harris, they demanded, never stopping to acknowledge that she had mostly stuck to that crazy little thing called the truth. (A lengthy New York Times listing of questionable statements by both candidates, published after the debate, identified a couple of times that Harris has strayed from reality or misled; but, as expected, there was really no comparison with Trump’s litany of lies.)Trump later posted on social media calling the moderator “hacks”. The debate, he charged, was “THREE ON ONE!”But, as CNN’s Abby Phillip drily observed: “When there is asymmetrical lying, there will be asymmetrical fact-checking.”The post-debate media coverage, in general, was up to its usual tricks of giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. Overall, it too often failed to convey with clarity what had happened in a debate dominated by the cool strength of Harris and the angry, incomprehensible ravings of Trump. Headlines tended to lapse into neutralizing, conventional language like this one in the Washington Post: “Harris crisply attacks Trump, prompting retorts with fiery language.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionNPR, to its credit, noted: “The spotlight should now be on Trump’s incoherence and general lack of any serious grasp on policy.”And even over on Fox News, there were some abnormal glimmers of reality, as when Brit Hume allowed that Trump had “had a bad night”.No doubt, the debate was a win for Harris.And, with the help of ABC’s moderators, a better-than-usual night for the truth.

      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More

    • 238 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on the US presidential debate: Kamala Harris’s triumph isn’t transformative, but it was essential | Editorial

      by

      If presidential debates don’t really matter, as some have contended, Kamala Harris would not have been on the stage in Philadelphia on Tuesday night. Yes, the spectacle can lead to excessive focus on their impact. But Joe Biden’s disastrous performance, which triggered his withdrawal from the race, showed how these choreographed political events can catalyse, if not create, voters’ sentiment about candidates.Only weeks before the nation makes its choice, Ms Harris’s success was critical. Debates are often remembered, as in Mr Biden’s case, when things go wrong. The vice-president didn’t merely clear the very low bar set by her boss – basic competence – but soared over it. Her desire to stick it to Donald Trump may not have elucidated matters for undecided voters who say they want to know more about her and her policies. She did mention a few, including measures to codify abortion rights and promote an “opportunity economy”, but was keener to focus on the broad messages.However, Donald Trump thought the 2024 election would be about his supposed strength against Mr Biden. In contrast, it was Ms Harris who dominated the debate, from the moment she took the physical initiative by crossing the stage to shake his hand – dispelling uncomfortable memories of him looming behind Hillary Clinton in 2016 – to her remark that Vladimir Putin “would eat you for lunch”.Mr Trump’s vanity made him incapable of resisting the obvious bait she laid out for him, especially her observation that supporters were so bored they were leaving rallies during his rambling, incoherent speeches. Her air of amused disdain for his lies gave her the air of, well, an experienced prosecutor listening to the desperate bluster of a felon. In hitting him on abortion, on healthcare, on democracy itself, she was clear and incisive. When he lied about Haitian immigrants eating people’s pets, she simply mocked him: “Talk about extreme.”Mr Trump’s claim was symptomatic of his reliance on rightwing memes, while Ms Harris sought to reach across the aisle, touting her gun ownership and talking of an America where “we see in each other a friend”. He is still struggling to navigate a position on abortion that will maintain his evangelical support without alienating other voters, but on Tuesday he ludicrously claimed that Democrats wanted to “execute the baby”.There was no doubt that this was the vice-president’s victory, albeit one facilitated by strong moderation. In a flash CNN poll, 63% of viewers said that Ms Harris had turned in the better performance, while 37% opted for her rival. Yet Ms Clinton was judged to outperform Mr Trump by a similar margin after their first debate in 2016 – and edged up less than 1% in the polls over the next week.A boost for Ms Harris is desperately needed because polls suggest the candidates are effectively deadlocked, with Mr Trump gaining some ground recently after her initial surge. Inflation has softened to the lowest level since February 2021, and the Federal Reserve is preparing to cut interest rates. But improvements in the economic picture may not feed through to voting intentions quickly enough to help the Democrats. Cumulative disgruntlement at the cost of living is not quickly dispelled even when price rises slow and are offset by wage growth.An extraordinarily turbulent race may yet have more surprises in store. Nonetheless, in a contest that comes down to a tiny fraction of the electorate, across a handful of battleground states, everything matters, be it debate success or – yes – Taylor Swift’s endorsement. Ms Harris’s campaign knew they needed a clear victory on Tuesday. But even as they celebrate, they know it is only one step along the way.

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans dismayed by Trump’s ‘bad’ and ‘unprepared’ debate performance

      by

      Donald Trump’s campaign was in damage control mode on Wednesday amid widespread dismay among supporters over a presidential debate performance that saw Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent, repeatedly goad him into going wildly off-message and missing apparent opportunities to tackle her on policy.Even with Trump insisting to have won the debate “by a lot”, Republicans were virtually unanimous that Trump had come off second best in a series of exchanges that saw the vice-president deliberately bait him on his weak points while he responded with visible anger.The Republican nominee – who took the unusual step afterwards of visiting the media spin room, a venue normally frequented only by candidates’ surrogates – was non-committal on Wednesday to the Harris campaign’s proposal for a second debate. Despite widespread opinion to the contrary, Trump suggested she needed it because she had lost. “I’d be less inclined to because we had a great night. We won the debate,” he told Fox & Friends.Harris had not commented herself on her debate performance by Wednesday afternoon, accompanying Joe Biden on official appearances as the US president and vice-president attended a series of events commemorating the 23rd anniversary of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the US, traditionally a non-partisan occasion.Some of the Fox network’s high-profile presenters took a different view from Trump, too. “Let’s make no mistake. Trump had a bad night,” the Fox News analyst Brit Hume said immediately after the debate. “We just heard so many of the old grievances that we all know aren’t winners politically.”Many commentators said the tone of the debate was set at the beginning when Harris walked on to the stage and – after a slight hesitation – approached Trump’s lectern to introduce herself and shake his hand. It was the first handshake at a presidential debate since 2016.The gesture enabled Harris to turn the tables on Trump – who has a track record of condescension towards women – by establishing dominance, wrote Politico.Another defining moment of the 105-minute encounter came when Trump’s eyes flashed as Harris depicted people leaving his rallies “early out of exhaustion and boredom”. Rather than let the jibe go or respond to a follow-up question by the ABC moderator David Muir on an immigration bill, Trump went off on a tangent to compare the two candidates’ rallies. Harris smiled and stared at him, resting her chin on her hand.That exchange – along with several others – crystallised what many Republicans described as a clear defeat for Trump. There was also grudging praise from Republicans for Harris, who won respect for being well-prepared.“She was exquisitely well prepared, she laid traps and he chased every rabbit down every hole instead of talking about the things that he should have been talking about,” Chris Christie, the former Republican governor of New Jersey who helped Trump prepare for his 2016 debates with Hillary Clinton, told ABC.“This is the difference between someone who is well prepared and someone who is unprepared. Whoever prepared Donald Trump should be fired.”“Trump was unfocused and poorly prepared,” agreed Guy Benson, editor of the conservative website Townhall on X . “[Harris] basically accomplished exactly what she wanted to here. I suspect the polls about the debate will show that she won it.”Congressional Republicans voiced disappointment over Trump’s inability to discipline himself and press home key policy issues. He even seemed preoccupied with the absence of Joe Biden, whose calamitous performance at the previous debate in Atlanta in June prompted his withdrawal from the race, to be replaced by Harris. “Where is he?” Trump asked. “They threw him out of the campaign like a dog.”“I’m just sad,” one House Republican told the Hill. “She knew exactly where to cut to get under his skin. Just overall disappointing that he isn’t being more composed like the first debate. The road just got very narrow. This is not good.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionEven as pro-Trump commentators criticised Muir and his fellow moderator, Linsey Davis, for fact-checking Trump but not Harris, there was acknowledgment that the Republican nominee was the architect of his own failings.“Trump lost the debate and whining about the moderators doesn’t change it,” the conservative radio host Erick Erickson wrote on social media. “He didn’t lose because of their behavior. He lost because of his own performance while his lips were moving, not theirs.”Harris also provoked Trump by saying he was deemed “weak” by US allies, who saw him as toadying up to Vladimir Putin, “who would eat [him] for lunch”.Insisting that he was widely respected, Trump invoked the support of Viktor Orbán, the far-right prime minister of Hungary, who has dissented from Nato’s support for Ukraine in its war with Russia and shares much of the former president’s anti-immigrant rhetoric.“Viktor Orbán is known for destroying Hungarian democracy using techniques Trump has tried to copy,” said David Driesen, a constitutional law professor at Syracuse University, who has written on the capture of democratic institutions by autocratic leaders. “It was surreal to hear Trump cite Orbán’s praise as validation of his own leadership.”“The headline for the next few days will be how he lost this thing,” one GOP representative told Politico. “I expect him to do something drastic, whether it’s a campaign shake-up or some other wild antic, by the end of the week to change the upcoming news cycle.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Mike Johnson scraps vote on funding bill after Republicans signal opposition

      by

      The House Republican speaker, Mike Johnson, hastily scrapped a planned vote on his government funding package on Wednesday after at least eight members of his own conference signaled opposition to the plan, raising more questions about how Congress will avert a partial shutdown before the end of the month.Johnson had combined a six-month stopgap funding bill with the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (Save) Act, a controversial proposal that would require people to show proof of citizenship when they register to vote.Donald Trump had already further complicated Johnson’s efforts by insisting on Tuesday that Republicans should not pass any government funding bill without addressing “election security”, as he leveled baseless accusations against Democrats of “trying to ‘stuff’ voter registrations with illegal aliens”.Johnson acknowledged he did not have enough support to pass the bill, given that he could only afford four defections within his conference if every House Democrat opposed the plan. Johnson told reporters on Capitol Hill that he and his team would work through the weekend to reach an agreement on funding the government.“No vote today because we’re in the consensus-building business here in Congress. With small majorities, that’s what you do,” Johnson said. “We’re having thoughtful conversations, family conversations within the Republican conference, and I believe we’ll get there.”Johnson’s bill would have extended government funding until 28 March, more than two months after the new president takes office in January. If Congress does not take action on federal funding this month, the government could partially shut down starting 1 October.Despite the lack of appetite for a government shutdown so close to election day on 5 November, Democrats and some Republicans balked at Johnson’s proposal. Democrats largely oppose the Save Act, which Republicans claim is necessary to prevent noncitizens from casting ballots. Critics of the Save Act note that it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote, and they warn that the policy could prevent valid voters from casting their ballots. The House passed the Save Act in July, but Senate Democrats have shown no interest in advancing the bill.In a “Dear Colleague” letter sent on Monday, the House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, condemned Johnson’s proposal as “unserious and unacceptable”. He called on Congress to pass a stopgap bill, known as a continuing resolution, that would keep the government funded past election day and allow lawmakers to pass a full-year spending package before the new year.“In order to avert a GOP-driven government shutdown that will hurt everyday Americans, Congress must pass a short-term continuing resolution that will permit us to complete the appropriations process during this calendar year and is free of partisan policy changes inspired by Trump’s Project 2025,” Jeffries said. “There is no other viable path forward that protects the health, safety and economic wellbeing of hardworking American taxpayers.”Even among fellow Republicans, Johnson had encountered resistance. At least eight Republicans had indicated they would oppose the bill, complaining that it did not do enough to cut government spending. Thomas Massie, a Republican congressman `of Kentucky who has repeatedly clashed with Johnson, mocked the speaker’s proposal as “an insult to Americans’ intelligence”.“The [continuing resolution] doesn’t cut spending, and the shiny object attached to it will be dropped like a hot potato before passage,” Massie said on Monday.Johnson had simultaneously fielded criticism from the congressman Mike Rogers, the Republican chair of the House armed services committee, who expressed concern about how the stopgap bill might affect military readiness. The defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, has described passing a full-year spending bill for the Pentagon as “the single most important thing that Congress can do to ensure US national security”.Johnson will now confer with fellow House Republicans to try to cobble together a majority, but even if he does manage to drag his bill across the finish line, the proposal has virtually no chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled Senate.In his own “Dear Colleague” letter sent on Sunday, the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, suggested that Democrats would only pass a clean funding bill with no “poison pills” attached.“As I have said before, the only way to get things done is in a bipartisan way,” Schumer said. “Despite Republican bluster, that is how we’ve handled every funding bill in the past, and this time should be no exception. We will not let poison pills or Republican extremism put funding for critical programs at risk.”Trump’s ultimatum, meanwhile, could put Johnson in a bind, and it increases the risk of a partial government shutdown taking effect just weeks before Americans go to the polls.Trump said on Tuesday on his social media platform, Truth Social: “If Republicans in the House, and Senate, don’t get absolute assurances on Election Security, THEY SHOULD, IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, GO FORWARD WITH A CONTINUING RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET.” More

    • 250 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Harris clearly beat Trump – not that you’d know it from the rightwing media. Shame on them | Emma Brockes

      by

      Short of sticking two pencils up his nose and muttering the word “wibble”, Trump’s appearance on the debate stage on Tuesday night was never going to prove, decisively, to those on the fence, that he is unfit for high office. Unlike Biden’s disastrous turn two and a half months ago, chaos is part of Trump’s appeal – and if his thoughts are garbled, it signifies nothing beyond business as usual. And yet, even for Trump, aspects of his debate performance in Pennsylvania came so close to the edge on Tuesday that the next day what seemed most astonishing wasn’t that Harris had performed so well but that so many apparently sentient human beings were still shilling for her unhinged opponent.Heading into the encounter, one had the strangest sense both of the height of the stakes and also of the sheer entertainment value of the encounter. I found myself wondering about Harris’s nerves – how a person handles them in such a unique situation. In the debate’s opening moments, the vice-president did indeed seem nervous. But she settled, and about 15 minutes in, it started to happen: while Harris’s keenly controlled anger rose to a point, Trump, mouth bunching, eyes disappearing into his head, unravelled.A reference by Harris to her endorsement from Trump’s alma mater, the Wharton School, and some senior Republicans including – confusing for liberals! – Dick Cheney triggered a volley of “she”s from Trump. She, she, she, he said – always a sign he is losing it against a female antagonist. “She copied Biden’s plan and it’s like four sentences, like Run Spot Run!” And off he went on his downward spiral.The next day, consumers of American rightwing media were partially apprised of Trump’s performance, but it was pretzeled around a lot of excuse-making. Even this very mild acknowledgement of Trump’s weakness, however, was a departure from the full-throated support of the Murdoch press in 2016. In the pro-Trump New York Post, the paper admitted that Trump had been “rattled” but bleated about unfairness from the debate moderators on ABC News. (They pulled Trump up on his lies about immigrants eating American pets and Democrats legalising infanticide – there were times, on Tuesday night, when the task of debating Trump looked a lot like trying to debate a copy of the National Enquirer.)Over on Fox News, there was a lot of glum post-debate punditry. Brit Hume said sadly of Harris: “She came out in pretty good shape.” The most Sean Hannity could manage was that the “real loser” was ABC. Jesse Watters said: “This was rough,” pronounced that most people watching wouldn’t think “any of these people won”, and observed: “All the memorable lines were from Donald Trump.” Which, of course, technically was true. (Apart from the pet-eating thing, my two favourite Trump lines were “Venezuela on steroids” and “I told Abdul: don’t do it any more!” – an absolute corker from Trump on the subject of how he stuck it to the Taliban.) Then Trump himself popped up on the network to accuse the debate of being “rigged” – a sure sign, whatever the competition, that he had in fact lost.On X, eugenics fan and world’s richest man Elon Musk admitted Trump had had a bad night and that Harris had “exceeded most people’s expectations”. This was grudging but had the advantage over the reaction of other Trump supporters of actually acknowledging reality. He followed up with: “We will never reach Mars if Kamala Harris wins” – a fact that, assuming Musk himself plans to undertake the journey, would be one drawback to a Harris win indeed.In the rightwing British press, meanwhile, there were various milquetoast attempts to mitigate Trump’s failure, including the Daily Telegraph’s post-debate assertion that it was “difficult to crown Harris the victor when she said so little about her own platform”. Was it, though? Was it really that difficult to pick a winner between the woman who, if she loses in November, we can be fairly certain won’t refuse to accept the decision versus the guy shouting “Execute the baby!” and citing Viktor Orbán as a character witness? And yet the conclusion in the Daily Mail was: “Pathetic, both of them.”Given the evidence before us, these moments of cognitive dissonance are becoming increasingly hard to process. Because the truth, of course, is that Trump looked like a lunatic on Tuesday night. As he got angrier, his shoulders slumped, his body twisted and certain familiar phrases started to pop up in his speech. “I’m not, she is”; repeated use of the word “horrible”. Of Biden he said, referring to Harris: “He hates her; he can’t stand her.” For my money, however, his craziest moment wasn’t any of this, or even the pets thing, but when he wandered off on a diversion about the horrors of solar energy, then said: “You ever see a solar plant? By the way I’m a big fan of solar.” During some of these rants, Harris, despite the tremendous pressure of the moment, actually succeeded in looking bored.Much has been made of how calm she was, and of how her smirk – what the New York Post disapprovingly called her “dismissive laugh” – goaded Trump to greater depths of incoherence. But I think the best parts of the debate were when Harris, too, grew angry. As a candidate, she has had the problem of being tricky to read and has been accused of being too scripted. But in the abortion section of the debate, one felt she jumped beyond the rehearsed remarks, and you could feel the engine of her conviction roaring to life.She was angry – seething, in fact – when she delivered the line about a miscarrying woman “bleeding out in a car in the parking lot” because an emergency doctor might be too frightened to treat her. I got that same flash of genuine outrage when, in relation to Russia’s expansionist ambitions, she said to Trump: “You adore strongmen instead of caring about democracy.” She was, one felt, a beat away from taunting him with: “You want to kiss Putin on the lips, you do.”And then her language changed register, moving into a realm generally more favoured by Republicans than Democrats. “That is immoral,” Harris said of Trump making decisions about women’s bodies. It was a striking moment, this use of a word that might apply equally to all the high-information Americans and their allies in Britain continuing to excuse Trump this far into the game.

      Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Feline frenzy: could cats swing the US election?

      by

      Take a shot at a cat, and you’d better not miss. It all started in 2021, with a remark by JD Vance, long before he became the Republicans’ vice-presidential candidate. To be fair to the guy, Vance lives in a low-consequence universe, where you can hate Trump one minute and love him the next, with no ding to your credibility, so he must have been gobsmacked in July when he was called on this historic remark.“It’s just a basic fact,” he had told Tucker Carlson back in 2021. “You look at Kamala Harris, [transportation secretary] Pete Buttigieg, AOC [congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] – the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children. And how does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?” This elision of parenthood and long-termism is the acceptable face of the childlessness taboo in politics: you can call it dumb, but you can’t call it misogynistic, since it isn’t gendered.However, he then blew it by saying the quiet part out loud, which, if we substitute “quiet” for “batshit crazy” is the new Republican playbook. They’re “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too”.When those remarks resurfaced this summer, Harris’s campaign team said that Vance was “not pro-family [but] anti-women”. One of the most sincere interventions came from Jennifer Aniston, who has had a well-documented struggle with infertility, and said on Instagram: “Mr Vance, I pray that your daughter is fortunate enough to bear children of her own one day.” Simultaneously, he had managed to offend all step-parents (Kamala is only childless if you don’t count her two stepchildren with Doug Emhoff), all gay parents and all adoptive parents (Buttigieg has adopted two children with his husband, Chasten).View image in fullscreenBut never mind the children – won’t someone think of the cats? Taylor Swift is merely the highest-profile member of a large constituency that isn’t just unashamed to be childless, but is actively proud of their cats. She signed off her endorsement of Harris’s presidential bid on Tuesday with “childless cat lady”, to which Elon Musk responded – and there’s no other word for this than creepily – “Fine Taylor … you win … I will give you a child and guard your cats with my life.”Will this hit the Republicans, electorally, and if so, where? First of all, forget about dogs since they’re “purple” – dog owners are equally likely to be Democrat or Republican. If Vance was trying to speak to an imagined base – “We, dog people, despise the barren keepers of cats” – that won’t fly. Democrats are somewhat more likely to have a cat (40%) than Republicans (35%), but that’s still a significant number of red voters who, if they love their pet more than their politics, could be alienated. The numbers are very even, in terms of cat-devotion: 31.8% of Democrats and 33.3% of Republicans with a cat said it was the most important member of their family, from which I’ve decided to infer that Whiskers is definitely more important than the president.Determining swing states is a dark art, but it is easy to say which states have the most cat owners: Vermont, Maine, West Virginia, Indiana, New Hampshire, Iowa, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas and Wisconsin. Per the New York Times, only one of those is a swing state (Wisconsin) but using the Nate Silver method (which I prefer not to, as he predicts a Trump landslide in electoral college votes) puts New Hampshire also in contention. If we imagine everyone with a cat, even those who also have children, falling in behind Kamala, that is at least some low-hanging fruit for the Democrats.Looking at Trump’s debate with Harris this week, it is just about imaginable that his claims about Springfield, Ohio, were a last-minute attempt to reorientate his campaign as friend-to-the-cat. The peculiar thing about Trump is that you simply cannot imagine him communing with any animal, not even an iguana. A cat would be too aloof and challenge his narcissism; a dog would baffle him with affection – which, deep down, he would know he’d done nothing to deserve – and would itself be baffled, because his commands would make no sense.But anyway, back to Springfield, where immigrants from Haiti are “eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats”, according to Trump. “They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.” This false rumour has its proximal roots in a video where a Springfield resident claims that recent immigrants were eating the ducks from a pond, but it’s an existing right wing trope. Repurposed to cover domestic pets, it sounds even more fanciful, but immediately sparked a load of AI-generated images, with Trump as a Francis of Assisi figure, protecting cats and dogs, and one bold billboard campaign by the Republican Party of Arizona, which read: “Eat less [sic] kittens – Vote Republican!” Can this win back the cat vote? I’m going with: not in a million years. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Jon Stewart on Harris’s debate performance: ‘She crushed that’

      by

      Late-night hosts recapped the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on ABC News.Jon StewartJon Stewart took over his guest perch at the Daily Show on Tuesday for a live post-debate show, reeling from over 90 minutes of heated conversation between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.“I just want to say that after surviving the PTSD of the last presidential debate, how unbelievably refreshing it is to go back to the same old nobody is going to answer any fucking questions! We’re back!” Stewart joked of the “cliches” and “baseless ad hominems” of American political theater.Early in the matchup, Trump claimed that “everybody” wanted Roe v Wade overturned and the legality of abortion left up to states, which Harris accurately disputed. “I have talked with women around our country,” she said. “You wanna talk about, this is what people wanted? Pregnant women who want to carry a pregnancy to term, suffering from a miscarriage, being denied care in an emergency room because the healthcare providers are afraid they might go to jail – and she’s bleeding out in a car in the parking lot? She didn’t want that.”“Holy shit! She crushed that,” said Stewart.Stewart ran through highlights of the debate, including when Harris got under Trump’s skin about the crowd sizes at his rallies, or when Trump tried to deny that he had any role in January 6. But ultimately, “I don’t know if this debate is going to change anything,” said Stewart. “People are often set in the manner that they view these proceedings. What I think is a home run answer for one candidate, someone else views as a dodge or a lie.“It doesn’t matter what they say any more, but one thing will always be true – and it is the quality of the former president I respect the least,” he continued. “Whenever he is cornered and forced to face even the smallest of consequences for his own mendacity and scheming, he reverts to the greatest refuge of scoundrels.”That would be the classic line of deflection – “it wasn’t me” – which Trump basically used for January 6.“This man, who constantly professes to be your champion, who says they’re going to have to go through him to get to you, will always, when the boat is going down, be the first into the lifeboats,” Stewart declared with palpable anger. “Because in that moment, he will always say the same thing: ‘I didn’t know anything about it, I was just told to show up for a cruise.’ Even though, everybody knows, he was the fucking captain of the ship.“In any other country, that lack of accountability would be disqualifying,” he concluded.Stephen Colbert“Unlike the first presidential debate back in June, this time the Democratic candidate was able to walk out to the stage without pausing for a nap,” said Stephen Colbert on the Late Show.The host was impressed with the vice-president’s performance. “Kamala Harris came in needing to rattle Trump’s cage,” he said. “And now that it’s over, they are still looking for pieces of his cage in low orbit.“Harris got under his skin like she was stuffing in butter and rosemary. It was beautiful,” he continued. “By the end of the debate, the meat was falling off the bone.”Trump was “so nonsensical” throughout the debate, that Harris “looked at him the way a parent looks at a kid giving a presentation on why they should be allowed to get a pet tiger”.When the moderators asked a basic question on Roe v Wade, Trump “lied so fragrantly” that the ABC News moderator Linsey Davis had to intervene with the fact-check “there is no state where it is legal to kill a baby after it is born”.“Follow up question: can a moderator win a debate?” Colbert quipped.Harris often returned to a theme of looking toward the future, to “turn the page” on the Trump years.“Actually, turning the page seems kind of mild,” said Colbert. “I would say we should burn the book, but that’s really more his thing.”Jimmy KimmelIn Los Angeles, Jimmy Kimmel also dug into “the debate of the decade”.“It was like watching the Lorax debate the Grinch tonight,” he said. “Usually when Trump gets a spanking like this from a woman it’s with a Forbes magazine. Kamala was pushing his buttons like a 12-year-old playing Fortnite.”Though Republicans urged Trump to stay focused on the issues, he did anything but. “Who are we kidding? This election isn’t about the issues,” said Kimmel. “Dick Cheney isn’t voting for Kamala Harris because he agrees with her on the issues. He’s voting for her because there’s a rhinoceros charging, and she has the tranquilizer gun.”Kimmel zeroed in on the moment when Trump repeated false stories about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, eating cats and dogs, which has been repeatedly debunked. Nevertheless, Trump said: “They’re eating all the pets of the people that live there.”“I want you to imagine that we’ve never heard of Donald Trump before, and the first time you’ve ever seen him was during tonight’s debate,” said Kimmel. “What would your reaction be right now? You’d be in shock. The Republican party would have to close their headquarters and turn them into a Spirit Halloween store.“How is it possible that half of this country thinks that it’s a good idea to give the guy who tried to overthrow our government another chance to run our government?” he concluded. “Like if someone poisoned all the jalapeño poppers at TGI Fridays, you wouldn’t interview them to be the chef!” More