US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The election deniers with a chokehold on Georgia’s state election board

      by

      A rule passed last week, which bipartisan election officials in Georgia say will delay the counting of votes in November, was introduced by an election denier who appears to believe in various rightwing conspiracies and whose apparent experience in elections dates only to February.The rule – which requires poll workers to hand-count ballots at polling locations – was passed by an election-denier majority on the Georgia state election board on Friday. It was introduced by Sharlene Alexander, a Donald Trump supporter and member of the Fayette county board of elections, who was appointed to her position in February. Alexander’s Facebook page alludes to a belief in election conspiracies, the Guardian has found.Alexander is one of 12 people – all election deniers – who have introduced more than 30 rules to the state election board since May, according to meeting agendas and summaries reviewed by the Guardian. Of those, the board has approved several, including two that give county election officials more discretion to refuse to certify election results, in addition to Alexander’s hand-count rule.Alexander’s lack of experience in elections underscores the recent phenomena of unelected, inexperienced activists in Georgia’s election-denial movement successfully lobbying the state election board to pass rules favored by conspiracists. Democrats, voting rights advocates and some Republicans have said the rules are not just outside the authority of the state election board, but may result in delays in the processing and certification of results.“There is widespread, bipartisan opposition to these anti-voter rule changes and opposition from the local elections officials, as well as experts in the field,” Lauren Groh-Wargo, CEO of the voting rights group Fair Fight, said in a statement. Groh-Wargo noted that Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state, and bipartisan county election officials from across the state as well as former governors Nathan Deal and Roy Barnes have said the recently passed rules are “destroying confidence” in Georgia’s election systems.Raffensperger and other Georgia election officials have warned that Alexander’s rule and the two certification rules “are going to make counting ballots take longer”. Those delays could be used by Trump and Republicans to call results of the election into question, representatives of Raffensperger’s office have said.Anyone can submit a rule to the state election board, but all but one of the 32 rules submitted since May have come from a small but vocal group of election officials and activists who believe in Trump’s false claims of widespread voter fraud, including Alexander. The board hadn’t implemented a new rule since 2021, and between September 2022 and May, no rules were introduced. Since then, Alexander and a group of election-denying officials and activists – called “petitioners” in the parlance of the state election board – have introduced 31 rules that will affect millions of Georgia voters.View image in fullscreenThese petitioners include Julie Adams, a member of the Fulton county election board who also works for the rightwing groups Tea Party Patriots and the Election Integrity Network, which is run by prominent national election denier Cleta Mitchell; Michael Heekin, Adams’ Republican colleague on the Fulton county election board, who has refused to certify results this year; David Cross, an election denier who has pressured the state election board since 2020 to take up investigations into unfounded claims of voter fraud; Garland Favorito, head of the election denier group VoterGA; David Hancock of the Gwinnett county election board; Bridget Thorne, a Fulton county commissioner who ran a secret Telegram channel in which she discussed election conspiracies; and Lucia Frazier, wife of Jason Frazier, an election denier whom Republicans in Fulton county tried and failed to appoint to the election board there, and who recently withdrew a lawsuit claiming the county had allowed ineligible voters to remain on voter rolls.Like many county election officials in Georgia, Alexander makes her beliefs in election and other rightwing conspiracies known on her personal Facebook page. Last week, she posted a claim that 53 counties in Michigan have more registered voters than citizens who are old enough to vote. The claim is part of a lawsuit brought by the Republican National Committee that seeks to purge voters from Michigan’s voter rolls – one of a slew of lawsuits that Republican groups have filed across the country claiming that voter rolls are bloated with ineligible voters.Jocelyn Benson, the Michigan secretary of state, has called the lawsuit “meritless” and “filled with baseless accusations”, noting that her office has removed more than 700,000 voters from voter rolls in her tenure.Other posts from Alexander allude to a belief in conspiracies about the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as transphobic sentiment and fear of immigrants.“Vote like your daughters and granddaughters chances to compete in sports and their right to have private spaces to dress and undress in it depends on it. Because it does,” reads a post Alexander shared on 11 August.Alexander did not immediately respond to questions for this story.Under previous iterations of the board, rules introduced by election-denying activists were regularly dismissed, said Sara Tindall Ghazal, the lone Democrat on the board. But that began to change earlier this year, when Republicans in Georgia’s legislature appointed two new members to the board – Janelle King and Rick Jeffares – after pressure from Trump to replace the former board chair, Ed Lindsey, a more moderate Republican who didn’t concede to demands from deniers.Dr Janice Johnston, a driving force behind much of the board’s work on behalf of the election-denial movement, was appointed to her post in 2022.View image in fullscreenMatt Mashburn, a Republican who preceded Lindsey as chair of the state election board, told the Guardian that the board’s new members were in uncharted territory.“The people voting to pass these new rules at this late date don’t seem to have any idea how these new rules are supposed to be implemented and they don’t seem to care,” Mashburn said.Bipartisan election officials across the state have asked the board to stop implementing rules so close to the November election, with the Spalding county attorney calling them “unfunded mandates”. But Trump has lauded the trio of Johnston, King and Jeffares, calling them “pit bulls … fighting for victory” at a rally in Atlanta on 3 August. As the crowd cheered, Johnston stood and waved.Since then, the three – none of whom has previous experience administering elections – have passed several more rules.In August, the board passed a rule that allows county election officials to refuse to certify results if they feel a “reasonable inquiry” is necessary to investigate claims of fraud or irregularities, and another rule that allows local officials to request a virtually unlimited number of election-related documents before certifying results.Those rules were introduced by two election deniers, Adams and Salleigh Grubbs. Adams has sued for more power to refuse to certify results with the help of the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute; Grubbs is the chair of the Cobb county Republican party whose involvement in elections stems from Trump’s false claims of widespread voter fraud in 2020.That year, she chased a refuse truck that she believed was carrying shredded paper ballots, the Atlantic reported. There is no evidence that paper ballots were discarded in that incident, election authorities have said.Both women are members of a behind-the-scenes network of election officials and activists who call themselves the Georgia Election Integrity Coalition, the Guardian revealed. The group has coordinated on policies and messaging key to the success of the election-denial movement in the state. Johnston has been in frequent contact with the group’s members, working with them to craft at least one of the certification rules the state election Board recently passed.The movement’s success continued last week when the board passed Alexander’s hand-count rule. The rule requires poll workers to open boxes of ballots collected by machines and count them by hand, increasing the chance that legal chain-of-custody requirements could be violated, according to Raffensperger.Alexander and others in Georgia’s election-denial community believe that the practice of hand-counting ballots will prevent falsified ballots from being scanned into voting machines – a conspiracy theory that bipartisan election officials have said has no basis in fact.

      This article was amended on 26 September 2024. A previous version incorrectly stated that former Georgia governor Roy Barnes was a Republican. More

    • 200 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Be a man and vote for a woman’: Kamala Harris’s unlikely edge in America’s masculinity election

      by

      A man in a baseball cap strides through a field of corn. A woman in flannel turns and smiles, a line of trucks visible behind her. As piano music swells, an American flag ripples in a gentle breeze. This video is pure, uncut Americana. Naturally, it’s a political ad.Specifically, it’s an ad made by the Lincoln Project, a group of moderates and former Republicans united by a desire to topple Donald Trump and support Kamala Harris. And it’s making one of the most obvious appeals to men and masculinity yet in the 2024 election.As the ad nears its crescendo, the deep voice of Sam Elliott, an actor best known for playing grizzled but folksy cowboy types, demands: “What the hell are you waiting for? Because if it’s the woman thing, it’s time to get over that.” He continues: “It’s time to be a man and vote for a woman.”Masculinity and people’s views on gender roles may be more important than ever in 2024 – and not just because Harris is the first woman of color to ever secure a major-party nomination for president. The 2022 overturning of Roe v Wade thrust women’s rights to the forefront of the election. Numerous identity-based groups, including White Dudes for Harris, have gathered to drum up enthusiasm. An extreme gender gap has also yawned open among the youngest US voters: having come of age in the era of #MeToo, gen Z women are becoming the most progressive and politically active cohort ever measured – while gen Z men are increasingly apathetic to politics and drifting further to the right.Conservatives are openly using anxiety around masculinity to win this election, telling men that their problems stem from not being man enough. Josh Hawley, the influential Republican senator from Missouri, published a book called Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs. The Fox News host Jesse Watters went even further.“I don’t see why any man would vote Democrat. It’s not the party of virtue, security. It’s not the party of strength,” Watters said, shortly after White Dudes for Harris held a call with more than 190,000 participants. Watters added: “I heard the scientists say the other day that when a man votes for a woman, he actually transitions into a woman.”Watters is not a serious person, but Americans’ obsession with masculinity is, to the point that it can determine the outcome even of presidential elections where two men are running. (So, most of them.) Americans revere presidents as role models, fixating on their status – real or perceived – as founding fathers, real fathers, war heroes, and masters of diplomacy and making money and cheating on their wives without getting caught (or, at least, without getting divorced). Because presidents epitomize American notions of manhood, elections reveal what kind of man, what type and degree of masculinity, is most respected and deserving of power.View image in fullscreenTrump has turned his campaign into a pitch for hyper-traditional masculinity. At this year’s Republican national convention, he walked on stage to the James Brown song It’s a Man’s Man’s Man’s World and was introduced by Dana White, the president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship who was caught slapping his wife on camera. On the campaign trail, he has hammed it up with YouTubers and podcasters who have male-centric audiences and dim views of women.With the general public and her opponent so preoccupied by masculinity, Harris is not emphasizing her pioneering nomination. Rather, in order to win a contest that no woman has ever won, she’s trying to take advantage of stereotypes about men, women and leadership – and, when they can’t work in her favor, using them to kneecap Trump instead.Masculinity, it turns out, may be the most partisan issue in US politics.A few good menWhen people conjure up the image of a “good man” or a “real man”, they tend to imagine the same qualities: someone who is dominant, successful and tough – and who is nothing like women, according to Theresa Vescio, a psychology professor who studies gender, politics and privilege at Penn State.This way of thinking is so pervasive that people gender political matters that, objectively, have no sex. National defense and the economy are seen as topics that men care about, because men are expected to prize being providers for and protectors of their families. Healthcare – including abortion rights – and education are seen as women’s issues, because women are supposed to be compassionate caregivers. (In reality, at least among gen Z, young women care about all of these issues more than young men do.) Even the political parties themselves are gendered: Republicans are associated with more masculine issues and traits, Democrats with feminine ones.These stereotypes inform American ideals of the presidency. “What we expect in a good leader is that they’re powerful, high status, top, able to lead. That overlaps substantially with stereotypes of masculinity and men,” Vescio said. “So when we think about who would be a good leader, stereotypes of men fit and complement. There’s no incongruity.”They complement one another so seamlessly, in fact, that the role of masculinity in elections was once invisible. We’re so used to seeing men run for office, and seeing “gender” only become a buzzword when a woman steps into the fray, that we often don’t even recognize that men have a gender, let alone that male candidates offer up different, competing visions of masculinity.But they do compete, even in the most animalistic ways. For example, presidential candidates are more likely to succeed when they have one key, traditionally masculine physical quality: height.The taller candidate is more likely to win more votes and be re-elected; they are also more likely to be seen by experts as being better leaders and simply “greater”. This link between height and presidential preference is so strong and so subconscious that when Richard Nixon ran against John F Kennedy in 1960, voters tended to think their chosen candidate was taller. (Kennedy was taller, and he won.) Ron DeSantis might have been laughed at for reportedly wearing ill-fitting heels when he ran for president, but he would have been right to worry.If you’re still not convinced, take the 2004 race between George W Bush and John Kerry, which hinged on the candidates’ supposed manhood to a startling degree. Bush sold himself as a down-home rancher who may have occasionally been “misunderestimated” but who you wanted to grab a beer with. Kerry, meanwhile, was a Vietnam combat veteran with a deep understanding of policy. This presented a problem for Bush: how could he be “the man’s man” when his opponent was part of the uber-masculine military?“What they did was, they went and they attacked his service record, because that was his greatest political strength,” said Jackson Katz, author of the book Man Enough? Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and the Politics of Presidential Masculinity. An advocacy group, technically formed independent of Bush, dedicated itself to questioning Kerry’s record.View image in fullscreenKatz continued of Kerry: “His attitude was like: ‘This is beneath me, to respond to these attacks.’ And it backfired. Because in the masculinity narrative, if you don’t defend your honor that’s being besmirched, you’re emasculated, you’re not strong.”Kerry, of course, lost.The architect of the attack to undermine Kerry is now working on Trump’s 2024 campaign, which is attempting to run the same playbook against Tim Walz. JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, has suggested that Walz left the national guard to avoid serving in the Iraq war.In fact, Walz was in the national guard for 24 years and left to run for Congress several months before his unit was deployed to Iraq. Walz has defended his record – but Team Trump isn’t typically all that worried about the truth.Masculinity subtext comes textWhen Trump descended down a golden escalator during the 2016 primary, we entered a new, far more obvious era of presidential masculinity. During that primary, Trump loved to talk about “Little Marco” Rubio, which prompted Rubio to attack Trump for his supposedly undersized hands. There is no better proof that masculinity underscores presidential elections than two candidates subtly accusing one another of having small penises.Well, maybe there is: Trump, the man who started the dick-measuring contest, won the one for the White House, too.The more people believe that traditional notions of masculinity are good and true, the more likely they were to vote for Trump in 2016, when Trump ran against a woman, and 2020, when Trump did not, Vescio found in a 2021 study. This finding held true regardless of people’s party, gender, race or level of education. It also held true even after Vescio controlled for people’s trust, or lack thereof, in government, undermining the idea that Trump’s popularity is due to his populism rather than his masculine posturing.When it comes to cosplaying masculinity, one of Trump’s greatest assets is his disinterest in reality. In other words: he’s good at making big, bold, often untrue statements, and people like that in a man.“Trump promises, more than anybody else: ‘I’m going to do this.’ Oftentimes, in violation of what the president can actually do,” said the political scientist Dan Cassino, who studies male gender identity at Fairleigh Dickinson University. “But he says he’s going to go in and fix a problem. ‘I’m going to do this on day one. Whatever Congress says doesn’t matter.’ That sort of agentic behavior is perceived as being very, very masculine.”Republicans, especially, really like this kind of behavior in a man. This can partially be chalked up to demographics. Both men and older people, who are more likely to embrace traditional gender roles, are likelier to be Republicans. It can be explained by the nature of conservatism itself. Conservatives want to preserve tradition.View image in fullscreenThere’s also another explanation: sexism.“As researchers, we differentiate between hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism is: ‘Women are terrible and it’s OK to beat your wife,’” Cassino said. “Benevolent sexism is more like: ‘Oh, women are pure and precious, we have to protect them.’ That means keeping them out of things like politics, putting up separate spheres.”Lilliana Mason, a Johns Hopkins University professor who studies partisan identity, measured people’s hostile sexism by asking whether they agreed with statements like: “Women seek to gain power by getting control over men.” Republicans, she found, were on average about twice as likely as Democrats to show signs of hostile sexism.“The better predictor of being Republican is not gender, but sexism,” Mason said. “There are a lot of women who hold sexist attitudes and are pro-patriarchy and believe that women shouldn’t be in power.”I’ve encountered shades of this attitude: in January 2020, I met a woman in her 30s from Louisiana, at the March for Life, the largest annual anti-abortion gathering in the United States. Women, she told me at the time, should not be president, because they just can’t be leaders in the same way as men.“Women and men are completely different biologically,” she said. “And so for that reason, I believe that they should have specific jobs for who they are, biologically.”She planned to vote for Trump.Sexism is more than a collection of views about women – it’s a belief system about how men and women should interact. (And that men and women are the only two genders.) But as much as Trump may benefit from the GOP’s sexism, he doesn’t seem all that interested in gender relations. He has praised and attacked individual women, including his accuser E Jean Carroll, often over their looks, but he rarely speaks about women as a category.Instead, he has largely delegated that to JD Vance.In addition to claiming that “traditional masculine traits are now actively suppressed from childhood all the way through adulthood”, Vance has denigrated childfree women as “childless cat ladies”, agreed that the purpose of the “postmenopausal female” is to help raise grandchildren, and claimed women who prioritize careers over families are on “a path to misery”.“Vance is very much doing appeals, I think, less about masculinity, more about benevolent sexism,” Cassino said. “At its edges, it goes into what is called natalism, that the job of women is to reproduce, which is the extreme, extreme end of benevolent sexism.”This is the Vance innovation on the already masculine Trump ticket: he operationalizes Trump’s static vision of white-man hypermasculinity into a blueprint for how genders should live with one another. If Trump and Vance win, that blueprint could be turned into policy.View image in fullscreenThere are signs that Trump is coming around to Vance’s approach – at least when it comes to abortion, one of Trump’s biggest electoral weaknesses and an issue that has quite a bit to do with male-female relations.“I WILL PROTECT WOMEN AT A LEVEL NEVER SEEN BEFORE,” he posted to TruthSocial over the weekend. “THEY WILL FINALLY BE HEALTHY, HOPEFUL, SAFE, AND SECURE.”The feminine catch-22When Harris walked out on stage at the Democratic convention to accept her party’s nomination for president, Kelly Dittmar was immediately struck by one thing.“She didn’t wear white,” said Dittmar, who, as the director of research at Rutgers’ Center for American Women and Politics, makes something of a living noting how powerful women present themselves in public.White is the color of the suffragettes who fought for women’s right to vote in the late 19th and early 20th centuries; Democratic women regularly don it for the major rituals of US politics, including the convention. “Like half the crowd was wearing white,” Dittmar pointed out.But not Harris. She wore a navy suit and a matching pussy bow blouse.It was an unmistakable declaration: Harris did not want to focus on how she has made history. In the weeks since, she has stayed true to that stance. When presidential debate moderators brought up abortion and Donald Trump’s racist lies about her identity, Harris didn’t respond with anecdotes about her experience as a woman of color. Instead, she told the audience: “I do believe that the vast majority of us know that we have so much more in common than what separates us.”If Hillary Clinton stands accused of focusing on her gender too much when she ran for president in 2016, Harris is doing everything she can to avoid falling into the same trap. But the braided nature of masculinity, leadership and politics leaves female political candidates in such a bind that even the act of raising an eyebrow becomes fraught.During the debate, Harris didn’t bother to hide her skepticism at Trump’s boasts, lies and rambling. “If she wants to win, Harris needs to train her face not to respond,” the pollster Frank Luntz posted on X at the time. “It feeds into a female stereotype and, more importantly, risks offending undecided voters.”It’s not clear what “female stereotype” Luntz – who said nothing of Trump’s tendency to smirk while Harris spoke – was referring to. (The female stereotype of having expressions?) But it is true that “as a female candidate, you have to be feminine, because otherwise you’re not a good woman”, Cassino said. “But you also have to be masculine, because in the US, we’ve decided that leaders are masculine. So you have to have masculine traits and feminine traits.”When it comes to telegraphing her masculine credentials, Harris has a built-in advantage: she spent years working in law enforcement, a field associated with toughness, victory and men. In her very first speech as the presumptive Democratic candidate, Harris recalled her time as a prosecutor and California attorney general.“In those roles, I took on perpetrators of all kinds,” she said, using a line that has since become a part of her stump speech. “Predators who abused women. Fraudsters who ripped off consumers. Cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain. So hear me when I say: I know Donald Trump’s type.” Translation: she knows how to dominate the worst of the worst.“Democrats don’t need Harris to go out and shoot guns in her campaign ad or on the campaign trail,” said Nichole Bauer, a Louisiana State University professor who studies political communication. “But they do need her to display those masculine qualities that we associate with political leaders, and those are really masculine qualities that we don’t always think of as being gendered – like talking about her experience as a vice-president, an attorney general, a senator.”Last week, Harris sat down with Oprah, who had been stunned to learn, during the debate, that the vice-president owns a gun. “If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” Harris said. Then she laughed. “Probably should not have said that.”That exchange encapsulated Harris’s balancing act. She’s got a gun and she’s not afraid to use it, but she’ll laugh about it. That laugh, experts said, may be one of Harris’s best assets when it comes to convincing voters that she is both competent and warm. It helps burnish her claim that she’s a “joyful warrior”, an image that “creates a distinct persona that I think bridges those gendered expectations”, Dittmar said. Joy, she continued, “alludes [to] kindness and even empathy, which is more traditionally associated with femininity and women”.There are very few true independents in the US electorate; all but 3% of self-identified independents lean Democrat or Republican. But that tiny fraction of the population can decide a close election. When judging a candidate, undecided voters tend to rely heavily on racial and gendered stereotypes, according to Bauer.“If Harris displays masculinity in a super aggressive way, similar to how Trump and Vance might do it, then she risks falling into this ‘angry Black woman’ stereotype that we’ve been socialized to think of as a negative stereotype, as something incompatible with political leadership,” Bauer said. “It’s just this really narrow set of behaviors that she has to fit into to try to show her leadership qualities.”In past elections, the men who have tried to take down Trump attempted to outman him. Rubio suggested he had a bigger you-know-what; DeSantis sold himself to voters as the grown-up version of Trump; in a 2020 debate, Joe Biden snapped: “Donald, would you just be quiet for a minute?” But running on full-tilt masculinity would never work for Harris. Not only did it not work for most of those men, but as a woman, she cannot win a masculinity-off.View image in fullscreenInstead, her supporters’ best shot at defeating Trump may be to unman him. That Lincoln Project ad, for example, framed Trump next to images of the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. Harris, meanwhile, is pictured giving a salute. “The images of Trump in the ad are chaotic. It’s social unrest,” pointed out Erin Cassese, a University of Delaware political science professor. The ad seems to ask: would a real man lose control like Trump did?During the debate, Harris urged viewers to go to one of Trump’s rallies. “He talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter. He will talk about ‘windmills cause cancer’,” she said. “And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.”Those attacks – the kind of attacks that could once have been directed at Biden – also undermine Trump’s masculinity. Cassino summarized the message as: “He’s kind of old and confused and weird. This is not a masculine guy.”‘Toxic’ masculinityAs much as the internet may like to call traditional stereotypes of masculinity “toxic”, they are not necessarily bad. Success, hardiness, being a provider and protector – those can all be good qualities.The problem, for individuals, is that stereotypes of masculinity can be so strict and stifling that they are impossible for anybody to live up to. No one can be in power at all times. You might be the boss at the office, but when you get home, your teenage children are still likely to ignore your commands.And, for US society as a whole, clinging to a narrow notion of masculinity really can be toxic. “It allows for aggression towards groups that aren’t appropriately masculine, which would be different kinds of groups of men that we define as problems, and women,” Vescio said. “It masks racism and sexism.”Harris isn’t right or wrong to lean into some masculine stereotypes. After all, if a woman can harness them well enough to win the most masculine office in US history, then maybe such attitudes and behaviors won’t be considered “masculine” any more. Maybe they’re just ways that people, of all genders, can act. Maybe voters will start to value “feminine” traits in leaders, too.View image in fullscreen“The only way we can ever stop defining our politics in terms of men versus women is, have so many women run that is just not notable any more,” Cassino said.Sending Trump back to the White House may affirm his brand of masculinity on a national scale. The more Trump larps masculinity, the more Republicans grow to like it; the more deeply invested they become in masculinity, the more polarized the United States may become. People who support traditional masculinity also tend to show signs of sexism (benevolent and hostile), anti-Black racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia.But, in Dittmar’s view, voting Harris into office may indicate that people don’t want to shove women into a separate sphere.“We’re voting on a lot of things, but among them is that version of leadership and our evaluation of these gendered versions of it,” Dittmar said. “As well as, even more broadly, our sense of the appropriate roles of women, the ways in which women should be treated by our political leaders.” More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Where will abortion be on the ballot in the 2024 US election?

      by

      This November, abortion will be on the ballot in 10 states, including the states that could determine the next president.In the two years since the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, abortion has become the kind of issue that decides elections. Outrage over Roe’s demise led Republicans to flounder in the 2022 midterms, and abortion rights supporters have won every post-Roe abortion-related ballot measure, including in red states such as Ohio, Kentucky and Kansas.This year, most of the ballot measures are seeking to amend states’ constitutions to protect abortion rights up until fetal viability, or about 24 weeks of pregnancy. Because a number of the measures are in states that have outlawed abortion, they could become the first to overturn the post-Roe ban. Others are in states where abortion is legal, but activists say the measures are necessary to cement protections so they can’t be easily overturned if Republicans control the government.These are the states slated to vote on abortion this election day.ArizonaAbortion rights supporters in Arizona, a key battleground state in the presidential election, are vying to pass a measure that would enshrine the right to abortion up until viability in the state constitution. A provider could perform an abortion after viability if the procedure is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of a patient.Arizona currently bans abortion past 15 weeks of pregnancy. Earlier this year, the state supreme court reinstated a 19th-century near-total abortion ban, generating nationwide outrage that prompted the state legislature to quickly repeal it in favor of letting the 15-week ban stand.ColoradoColorado’s measure would amend the state constitution to block the state government from denying, impeding or discriminating against individuals’ “right to abortion”. This measure also includes a one-of-a-kind provision to bar Colorado from prohibiting healthcare coverage for abortion – which could very well pass in the deep-blue state.Because Colorado permits abortion throughout pregnancy and neighbors five states with bans – Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, Utah and Nebraska – the state has become a haven for people fleeing abortion bans, especially those seeking abortions later in pregnancy.FloridaOnce the last stronghold of southern abortion access, Florida in May banned abortion past six weeks of pregnancy, which is before many women know they’re pregnant. Its measure, which needs 60% of the vote to pass, would roll back that ban by adding the right to an abortion up until viability to the state’s constitution. Providers could perform an abortion after viability if one is needed to protect a patient’s health.Florida Republicans’ tactics in the fight against the measure has alarmed voting rights and civil rights groups. Law enforcement officials have investigated voters who signed petitions to get the measure onto the ballot, while a state health agency has created a webpage attacking the amendment.MarylandLegislators, rather than citizens, initiated Maryland’s measure, which would amend the state constitution to confirm individuals’ “right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end the individual’s pregnancy”. Like Colorado, Maryland has become an abortion haven because it permits the procedure throughout pregnancy. It is also relatively close to the deep south, which is blanketed in bans. MissouriAbortion opponents went to court to stop Missouri’s measure from appearing on voters’ ballots, but the state supreme court rejected their arguments and agreed to let voters decide whether the Missouri constitution should guarantee the “fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which is the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive healthcare, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions”.Missouri, which was the first state to ban abortion after Roe fell, only permits the procedure in medical emergencies. If the measure passes, it is expected to roll back that ban and permit abortion until viability.MontanaIn the years since Roe fell, Montana courts and its Republican-dominated legislature have wrestled over abortion restrictions and whether the right to privacy embedded in Montana’s constitution includes the right to abortion. Abortion remains legal until viability in Montana, but the measure would amend the state constitution to explicitly include “a right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion” up until viability. Providers could perform an abortion after viability to protect a patient’s life or health.NebraskaNebraska, which bans abortion past 12 weeks of pregnancy, is the lone state with two competing ballot measures this November. One of the measures would enshrine the right to abortion up until viability into the state constitution, while the other would enshrine the current ban. If both measures pass, the measure that garners the most votes would take effect.NevadaAlongside Arizona, Nevada is one of the most closely watched states in the presidential election. Its measure would amend the state constitution to protect individuals’ right to abortion up until viability, or after viability in cases where a patient’s health or life may be threatened. Nevada already permits abortion up until 26 weeks of pregnancy.New YorkNew York state legislators added a measure to the ballot to broaden the state’s anti-discrimination laws by adding, among other things, protections against discrimination on the basis of “sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health”.Although sky-blue New York passed a law protecting reproductive rights in 2019, advocates say this measure could be used to defend abortion rights against future challenges. However, the ballot language before voters will not include the word “abortion”, leading advocates to fear voters will not understand what they are voting on. Democrats pushed to add the word “abortion” to the description of the measure, but a judge rejected the request, ruling that the amendment poses “complex interpretive questions” and its exact impact on abortion rights is unclear.South DakotaSouth Dakota’s measure is less sweeping than other abortion rights measures, because it would only protect the right to abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. Under this measure, South Dakota could regulate access to abortion “only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman” in the second trimester of pregnancy. In the third trimester, the state could ban abortion except in medical emergencies. Right now, South Dakota only allows abortions in such emergencies.Although this measure will appear on the ballot, there will be a trial over the validity of the signatures that were collected for it. Depending out the outcome of the trial, the measure – and any votes cast for it – could be invalidated. More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Elon Musk has gained a concerning level of power over US national security | Robert Reich

      by

      Shortly after the apparent second assassination attempt against Donald Trump, Elon Musk wrote in a now deleted post on X, formerly known as Twitter: “And no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala,” with an emoji of a person thinking.Musk later said his post was intended as a joke. But it could be interpreted as a call to murder Joe Biden and Kamala Harris – at least by one of Musk’s almost 200 million followers – which is presumably why the Secret Service is investigating it.Under 18 US Code Section 871, threatening a president or vice-president or inciting someone to harm them is a felony that can result in a large fine and up to five years in prison.Yet even as Musk posted a potential death threat against the sitting commander-in-chief, his multiple defense contracts with the US government have given him access to highly sensitive national security information.Musk has reportedly gained national security clearance notwithstanding his admitted use of drugs, not necessarily illegally: the tech billionaire, who says he has submitted to random drug testing at the request of the government, has smoked weed in public and also uses ketamine (for which he claims to have a prescription).Apart from the drugs, when was the last time the US government gave access to sensitive national security information to someone who posted a potential death threat against the president and vice-president?Underlying this is a broader question: when in history has one unelected individual held such sway over US national security?Musk’s SpaceX has nearly total control of the world’s satellite internet through its Starlink unit. With little regulation or oversight, Musk has already put more than 4,500 Starlink satellites into orbit around the globe, accounting for more than half of all active satellites. He plans to have as many as 42,000 satellites in orbit in the coming years.SpaceX and its Starlink system have become strategically critical to the American military. Starlink is providing connectivity to the US navy. The US space force signed a $70m contract with SpaceX late last year for military-grade low-Earth-orbit satellite capabilities. According to Reuters, the National Reconnaissance Office, which oversees US spy satellites, has a $1.8bn contract with SpaceX.This gives Musk, the richest person in the world, remarkable power. Single-handedly, he can decide to shut down a country’s access to Starlink and the internet. He also can also gain access to sensitive information gathered by Starlink. “Between, Tesla, Starlink & Twitter, I may have more real-time global economic data in one head than anyone ever,” Musk tweeted in April 2023.Meanwhile, Nasa has increasingly outsourced spaceflight projects to SpaceX, including billions in contracts for multiple moon trips and $843m to build a vehicle that will take the International Space Station out of commission.Conflicts of interest between Musk’s ventures around the world and US national security abound, and they are multiplying.When Vladimir Putin attacked Ukraine, Musk and SpaceX’s Starlink provided Ukraine with internet access, enabling the country to plan attacks and defend itself. (This was not a charitable move by Musk; most of the 20,000 terminals in the country were funded by outside sources such as the US government and those of the United Kingdom and Poland).But in the fall of 2022, when Ukraine entered territory contested by Russia, Musk and SpaceX abruptly severed the connectivity. Musk explained at the time: “Starlink was barred from turning on satellite beams in Crimea at the time, because doing so would violate US sanctions against Russia!”But who was Musk to decide what actions would or would not violate US sanctions?skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn fact, it seems as if Musk was trying to push Ukraine to agree to Russia’s terms for ending the war.At a conference in Aspen attended by business and political figures, he appeared to support Putin. “He was onstage, and he said: ‘We should be negotiating. Putin wants peace – we should be negotiating peace with Putin,’” Reid Hoffman, the co-founder and executive chairman of LinkedIn, recalled. Musk seemed to have “bought what Putin was selling, hook, line, and sinker”.Soon thereafter, Musk tweeted a proposal for his own peace plan, calling for referendums to redraw the borders of Ukraine and grant Russia control of Crimea. In subsequent tweets, Musk portrayed a Russian victory as virtually inevitable, and attached maps highlighting eastern Ukrainian territories, some of which, he argued, “prefer Russia”.US foreign policy experts also worry about the conflicts of interest posed by Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now X), given his business relationships and communications with the Chinese government. China has used X for disinformation campaigns.Some are concerned that China may have leverage over Musk due to his giant Tesla factory in Shanghai, which accounts for over half of Tesla’s global deliveries and the bulk of its profits, and the battery factory he’s building there. “Elon Musk has deep financial exposure to China,” warned Mark Warner, US senator from Virginia, who chairs the Senate intelligence committee.Most of these concerns, by the way, came before Musk reactivated the accounts of conspiracy theorists and white nationalists on X and began pushing his own rightwing narrative on the platform, and before he announced his support for Trump in the upcoming election and posted a potential incitement to assassinate Biden and Harris.Elon Musk poses a clear and present danger to American national security. The sooner the US government revokes his security clearance, terminates its contracts with him and the entities he controls, and builds its own alternatives to Starlink and SpaceX, the safer America will be.

      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy at the University of California Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His newest book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The presidential race is far tighter than many Democrats probably realize | John Zogby

      by

      Amid the turbulence, conflict, hyperbole, unprecedented misogyny, and downright hate that provides the backdrop for US elections this year, one thing remains in equilibrium: the 2024 presidential election. Vice President Kamala Harris may lead following a honeymoon, a great nominating convention, and a solid debate performance, but she never leads by much. Former President Donald Trump may at other times lead nationally and in a few battleground states, but by one or two percentage points, more or less.Around 5%-8% of voters remain undecided but they are probably not really focused on anything more than keeping their job, getting the kids off to school, grocery shopping, and the other demands of everyday life. And there is only a little wiggle room, with so many decided voters firm in their support for their candidate or their intense disgust for the other candidate.Here’s where we stand: Momentum appears to be with Harris, who leads in four of the last five nationwide polls (in one by as many as six points) and is tied in the other. She also leads in five of the critical seven battleground states. But her leads are under two percentage points and mainly under one percentage point. The reverse is true for Trump, who presently holds tiny leads in only two states.What makes this dynamic so intriguing is that, in this context, a shift of one or two points can change the leader, or the perception of the leader, making these minor bumps appear larger than they really are. What also makes this so fascinating is seeing some of the normal voting group alignments shifting.We pollsters began to take notice of the “gender gap” in 1988, when men supported Republican George HW Bush and women were highly in favor of Democrat Michael Dukakis. There have been such gaps in every election since, but in 2024 they are especially acute. In the latest New York Times/Siena College poll, Trump leads Harris by 17 points among men in Georgia while in the same state she is ahead among women by eight – a 25-point gap. The gender gap is 15 points in Pennsylvania and strong double digits in other states and nationwide.We are also paying close attention to the breakdown of voters by race. When Joe Biden left the race in late July, he was only about 60%-65% among Black voters. Harris is now polling at around 80% in most battleground states – including 82% percent each in all-important Pennsylvania and Georgia. In some states, however, Trump is polling close to 20% among Black voters – with his support among young Black men approaching 30% in several instances.By way of historical comparison, Black Americans normally give around 90% of their vote to Democratic presidential candidates. Barack Obama received 96% and 93% of the Black vote in his two elections, where they represented around 13% of the total vote. By way of contrast, Hillary Clinton won 87% support when Black turnout was only 11% of the total and, while she won the overall popular vote, this meager turnout hurt her in a few states. Trump picking up such a larger piece of the Black turnout could hurt the Democrats significantly.What we need to watch closely from here is gender and race. Harris will focus her attention on appealing to young women on the issue of reproductive rights, closely followed by the dangers of climate change and gun violence. These may not be the top three issues to all voters, but they are certainly critical to young women. And she needs them. Meanwhile, her running mate Tim Walz will represent the ticket to white working-class voters in the Midwest to prevent the bleeding among that group among Democrats.At the same time, look for Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, to continue to do the aggressive male thing – attacking childless women, calling their opponent a diversity hire, and the like. Trump’s latest gambit is patronizing women by telling them they do not need abortion to achieve self-actualization and empowerment, that he will protect them, that they don’t need to be worrying their pretty little heads about abortion rights.This message is not directed at women at all: it is an appeal to young men who are confused in a world where the definition of manhood is changing, who find it difficult to steer their lives when girls are doing better on test scores, attending and completing college in higher rates, and otherwise outperforming males in a world that men had once dominated. It is men who are finding it harder and harder to define their careers and future, who fear they are losing ground.So Trump and Vance will continue to promise a return to an America where, in the words of Archie Bunker, “Girls were girls and men were men”, the same world where communities were white and the US was always right.At the moment, the presidential race is in balance. The numbers are tied. The fears of another election too close to call and the turbulence beyond are very real. We are at equilibrium and very possibly at the calm before the storm.

      John Zogby is senior partner at the polling firm of John Zogby Strategies and is author of Beyond the Horse Race: How to Read the Polls and Why We Should More

    • 300 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      God knows we need an antidote to all the lousy men in the news – and I think I’ve found one | Emma Brockes

      by

      For the past month, every woman I know has been having versions of the same conversation, roughly opening with: for the love of God, how rapey is the news? No period of history has been free from accounts of male sex-offending. But the present roll call of alleged offenders – Diddy, Fayed, the French rapist and his endless accomplices, various scandals in broadcasting, and last week, new charges for the man who keeps giving on this subject, Harvey Weinstein – is particularly grim. For just one day, I would like to turn on the news without having to hear a presenter struggling to find a way to say “lube” in a BBC voice. So let’s talk about something else: Doug Emhoff.Doug Emhoff! Kamala Harris’s husband and consort, a man very possibly in line to be the first first gentleman of the United States and, as far as we can tell, an antidote to lousy men everywhere. This week, I heard Emhoff referred to as a “wife guy”, which made me smile – wife guy being simultaneously a nice term of affection for men who unreservedly support their wives, and also a reminder that no word for a female equivalent can exist. (What use the tautology of being a “husband chick” when, for straight women, embedded in the definition of the word “wife” is total, unwavering support of your husband).Anyway, Emhoff – what a rare beast. A former entertainment lawyer, a music person who named his kids after jazz legends, a man extremely adept at playing the lovable goofball, which doesn’t rule out the possibility he’s a lovable goofball, and a husband seemingly completely happy to promote, support and cheerlead his high-profile wife. To my eye, Emhoff, who is 59, has Dan Aykroyd, or maybe John Goodman, energy: the American every-dad who can rock a plaid shirt at the weekend, and on Monday whip up a quick lawsuit to vanquish your enemies.Exactly how Emhoff has nailed this vibe comes down to a mixture of things. The fact he’s called Doug definitely helps. Has there ever, in public life, been a bad “Doug”? (No.) Doug is easygoing. Doug is dependable – but not boring! Doug shows up. Doug quit his job when his wife became vice-president so he could give her his all. Doug is a mensch, although on the subject of his Jewishness, opponents of leftwing positions around Israel assert that Doug has overplayed his heritage for political gain. This sounds perilously close to Donald Trump’s observations about Harris’s background, but anyway, it’s all part of the 360 degrees of Doug Emhoff. After all, Doug isn’t perfect!I mean, he really isn’t. Earlier this year, Emhoff acknowledged that the end of his first marriage to Kerstin Mackin in 2008 was messy and that he had been unfaithful. It’s not ideal, I know. It is telling, however, that Emhoff’s first wife, who has kept his name, has been extremely active promoting Harris’s bid for the presidency. When JD Vance went after Harris for not having biological children – a sentence it still seems wild to have to type – Kerstin Emhoff popped up to defend the Democratic candidate, calling Vance’s remarks “baseless attacks”. She told CNN that, “for over 10 years, since Cole and Ella were teenagers, Kamala has been a co-parent with Doug and I”. She was, she said, grateful to have her as part of their blended family.Which brings us to the Emhoff kids. To anyone’s knowledge, has there ever been a hipster first son or daughter in the White House? Of course, go back enough years and who knows; maybe in 1798, Abigail Adams was riding around the West Wing on a penny farthing drinking mojitos out of a teacup. But in recent memory, ranging back over Trump’s children, the Obama kids, the Bush twins and Chelsea Clinton, every one of them looked perfectly primed for a postgrad internship at Goldman Sachs or a nepo arrangement in Hollywood. Ella Emhoff, by contrast, is a designer specialising in knitwear, who lives in Bushwick, Brooklyn. She turned up at the Democratic convention earlier this year covered in tattoos and wearing pebble glasses and a vintage frock.There are other wife guys out there, although you have to search quite hard to find them. A friend suggests Alexis Ohanian, husband to Serena Williams and millionaire co-founder of Reddit. Ohanian has his own thing going on, which doesn’t guarantee that a man won’t resent his wife’s success. But in public, Mr Serena Williams always seems over the moon to be by her side. There’s an argument for Prince Harry as wife guy. You’ve probably got to rope Denis Thatcher into this conversation. I’m sure there are others.But this is about Doug Emhoff, who, to the extent that we can ever know anything about other people’s relationships, offers further proof of Harris’s good judgment. She could have had anyone, but she chose Doug, and there’s a lesson in that for all of us. Whoever they may be, find your Doug Emhoff – possibly on the second go-around, just to be safe – and run for the biggest job you can imagine.

      Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Lucky Loser review – how Donald Trump squandered his wealth

      by

      Donald Trump started his career at the end of the 1970s, financed by his father Fred Trump. Over the years this transfer of wealth added up to around $500m in today’s money in gifts. My rough calculations say that, had he simply taken the money, leveraged it not imprudently, and passively invested it in Manhattan real estate – gone to parties, womanised, played golf, collected his rent cheques and reinvested them – his fortune could have amounted to more than $80bn by the time he ascended to the presidency in 2017.And yet Trump was not worth $80bn in 2017. Instead, Forbes pegged him at $2.5bn – which, given the difficulties of valuing and accounting for real estate, is really anything between $5bn (£4bn) and zero (or less). It is in this sense that Pulitzer prize-winning New York Times reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig call Trump a “loser”. He is indeed one of the world’s biggest losers. By trying to run a business, rather than just kicking back and letting the rising tide of his chosen sector lift his wealth beyond the moon, he managed to destroy the vast majority of his potential net worth.How he did that is what Buettner and Craig chronicle in a book dense with facts and figures, but punctuated with moments of irony and dark humour – particularly when contrasting Trump’s public bravado with the often pathetic reality of his money management. The combination turns what might have been a rather boring tome, of interest only to trained financial professionals like me, into something of a page turner. Buettner and Craig paint a picture of Trump’s businesses as “mirage[s], built on inherited wealth, shady deals, and a relentless pursuit of appearances over substance”. And yet, Road Runner-like, he runs off the edge of the cliff, looks down, shrugs – and keeps going until his feet touch the ground again on the other side.Buettner and Craig delve more deeply into this story than anyone I have encountered. They have done their interview and newspaper-morgue homework, checked it against tax information and business records spanning three decades, and so gained an unprecedented look into the real workings of Trump’s financial empire. They uncover, I think as much as we can get at it, the truth behind the narrative of his wealth and its indispensable support: the myth of a genius businessman that he has spun and that, deplorably, much of the press and his supporters have bought, hook, line and sinker. Their conclusion? He was always exaggerating how rich he was, and always skating remarkably close to the edge of financial disaster.But though he squandered a great deal, it’s also true that he was extremely lucky. First, and most importantly, he was a beneficiary of the absolutely spectacular Manhattan real-estate boom. Second, he had things break his way at many crucial junctures that ought to have sunk him into total and irrevocable bankruptcy. Third, he was able to use his celebrity developer-mogul image to attract new business partners after his old ones had washed their hands of him. He was also lucky in the complacency of many of them with respect to his shenanigans: their willingness to play along and not find a judge to pull the plug.What sort of psychology produces this kind of behaviour? Buettner and Craig psychoanalyse Trump as unable to take the hit of recognising his relative incompetence. A deep need for public validation as the master of the Art of the Deal led him, over and over again, to make increasingly risky decisions. The illusion of success had to be maintained at all costs, which meant that a loss had to be followed by an even bigger bet.And so there Trump was at the start of 2017, in spite of everything, stunningly successful. Buettner and Craig call this an “illusion”. I profoundly disagree. To repeatedly save yourself from bankruptcy – to somehow manage to hand responsibility off to the people you do business with while you hotfoot it out of the picture – demonstrates considerable skill and ingenuity of some sort. Trump has exhibited great (if low) cunning and resilience when faced with what often appeared to be near-certain financial, entrepreneurial and business doom. It is, Buettner and Craig say, a combination of “bravado [and] branding” that allowed him to always “walk away with something – usually at the expense of others”.Many of us hope that Trump’s story will end with a proper comeuppance, restoring the appropriate and just moral order of the universe, in which his galaxy-scale hubris does indeed ultimately call forth a satisfying nemesis. Until then, we must regard him as a remarkable success – although few philosophers would judge Trump’s brand of success as the kind worth having.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris decries Trump’s abortion comments in first solo TV interview

      by

      Kamala Harris sat for her first solo interview as the Democratic presidential nominee on Wednesday, laying out her plan to boost the middle class and condemning her rival Donald Trump on his comments over abortion.During the interview with MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle, which was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the vice-president painted Trump as a candidate focused on the rich at the expense of the middle class, and herself as better equipped to handle the economy.“The top economists in our country have compared our plans and say mine would grow the economy, [and] his would shrink it,” she said during the interview.On his economic record, Harris said: “Donald Trump made a whole lot of promises that he did not meet.”Harris also showed disdain over Trump’s comments over abortion, expressing he needs to trust women to make their own reproductive decisions. Her comments came after Trump, at a Pennsylvania rally, called himself a “protector” of women, claiming American women will not be “thinking about abortion” if he is elected.“Donald Trump is also the person who said women should be punished for exercising a decision that they, rightly, should be able to make about their own body and future,” Harris said.On a lighter note, Harris confirmed that she worked at McDonald’s, pushing back against Trump’s allegations that she did not.“Part of the reason I even talk about having worked at McDonald’s is because there are people who work at McDonald’s who are trying to raise a family,” she said, alluding to her economic policy plan to help working-class families.“I think part of the difference between me and my opponent includes our perspective on the needs of the American people and what our responsibility, then, is to meet those needs,” Harris added.The interview comes at a time when Harris faces harsh criticism over the lack of media interviews she has done. Earlier this month, Axios reported that the Harris-Walz campaign has so far given fewer interviews than any other candidates in modern history.Trump and JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential pick, have used it as ammunition during their campaign speeches. On X, Vance responded to news of Harris’s interview by saying: “This is legitimately pathetic for a person who wants to be president. Ruhle has explicitly endorsed Harris. She won’t ask hard Qs. Kamala runs from tough questions because she can’t defend her record. If you want open borders and high groceries, vote for status quo Kamala.”In August, Harris was interviewed on CNN alongside Walz. The interview was hosted by Dana Bash and was aired as a one-hour primetime special. After the interview, Republicans criticized the joint interview with Walz for being pre-recorded and not live.Since then, Harris has given a handful of interviews, mostly with local outlets or more niche forums, including an appearance with Stephanie “Chiquibaby” Himonidis, a Spanish-language radio host and podcaster.Harris also appeared in a live-streamed “Unite For America” event with supporters hosted by Oprah Winfrey last week. More