Democrats
Subterms
More stories
- in US Politics
Beware the Biden factor, Keir Starmer: you can govern well and still risk losing the country | Jonathan Freedland
The smile was the giveaway. Asked whether he was “just a copycat” of Tony Blair at the launch of his Blair-style pledge card on Thursday, Keir Starmer positively glowed. He was delighted with the comparison, which the entire exercise was surely designed to encourage. Blair “won three elections in a row”, Starmer said, beaming. Of course, he’s thrilled to be likened to a serial winner. And yet the more apt parallel is also a cautionary one. It’s not with Starmer’s long-ago predecessor, but with his would-be counterpart across the Atlantic: Joe Biden.It’s natural that the sight of a Labour leader, a lawyer from north London, on course for Downing Street after a long era of Tory rule, would have people digging out the Oasis CDs and turning back the clock to 1997: Labour election victories are a rare enough commodity to prompt strong memories. But, as many veterans of that period are quick to point out, the circumstances of 2024 are very different. The UK economy was humming then and it’s parlous now. Optimism filled the air then, while too few believe genuine change is even possible now. And politics tended to be about material matters then, tax and public services, rather than dominated by polarising cultural wars as it is now.All of which partly explains why it’s a comparison to the US president that Starmer should be thinking about – even if it’s not nearly so encouraging.Start with those aspects of the Biden story that can give Starmer heart. The veteran Democrat showed it is possible to win office thanks less to a wave of popular enthusiasm than a hunger for change after years of chaos. He proved that you can make a virtue of a lack of swash and buckle, offering steady solidity as a respite after frantic drama. In 2020, Biden demonstrated that dependable and capable can be enough to win when voters have had enough of charismatic and crazy. It worked for him after the era of Donald Trump, just as it’s working for Starmer after an era that, for all Rishi Sunak’s efforts, is defined by Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.In other words, in 2020, Biden showed that playing a hand much like the one dealt to Starmer can be enough to win. The trouble is, in 2024 he’s showing why that might not be enough to win twice.Take a look at the New York Times poll published this week. The headline findings are bad enough, with Biden trailing in five of the six battleground states where the election will be decided. Behind in Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Michigan, he’s ahead in Wisconsin alone. The underlying numbers are worse still with, improbable as it may seem, Trump gaining among Black, Latino and young voters especially. Most alarming for Biden is the finding that 70% think the US political and economic systems need major change – or should be torn down altogether. It makes the 2024 contest a change election in the US, just as it is in the UK – and for an incumbent such as Biden, that is dangerously bad news.Put another way, the US appetite for change is so great that it is causing the unravelling of key parts of the Obama coalition – minorities and the young – and its reassembly behind Trump. Barack Obama offered himself as the change candidate in 2008, an outsider who would challenge the establishment, and Trump, even though he is a self-described billionaire and a former president less than four years out of office, is successfully making the same rebel pitch.What’s more, those Americans itching for something new are prepared to use as their agent of change a man who incited a violent insurrection against the US government, sought to overturn a democratic election, has made no secret of his dictatorial ambitions for a second term, has been found liable for sexual abuse and is now standing trial on criminal charges in New York. When so many Americans are willing to flock to that person as the alternative, it tells you how much they dislike what they have now.There is a warning here for Starmer. Not for his prospects in the coming election – Biden’s success in 2020 tells him he can be confident – but for the election after that. The former Conservative cabinet minister David Gauke thinks Priti Patel is a decent bet as the next Tory leader, perhaps offering to keep the seat warm for the return of Boris Johnson. If Trump makes the comeback to end all comebacks in November, do not think Johnson will not be tempted to repeat the trick.How is it that a second Trump presidency is even conceivable; how is it that Biden can be lagging behind such a flawed, widely loathed rival? The US economy is improving; the stock market is roaring; inflation is falling. The US is set to grow at double the rate of its fellow G7 nations this year. More to the point, through a series of landmark legislative achievements – a record that outstrips Obama’s – Biden has spread the jobs and investment around, even to those parts of the US left derelict by decades of post-industrial decline. Take his gargantuan infrastructure package, the poorly named Inflation Reduction Act: more than 80% of its green investment dollars have gone to counties with below-average wages. This is levelling up made real.And yet, Biden is struggling, even in those places he has helped most. It’s a reminder of a core fact that is so often forgotten. That politics is an emotions business, one that turns not on what people think but what they feel. All the economic data in the world won’t help you if voters feel squeezed and reckon the country is on the wrong track.As the US commentator Joe Klein puts it, politics often comes down to “the art of competitive storytelling”. The successful politician tells a story that goes beyond the practical matters of pay and public services, speaking instead to voters about the way they see their own lives and the future, for themselves, their families and the country. In that competition, Trump beats Biden. His story is dark and vengeful, pitting his people against a menacing other, but it is compelling. Biden has a narrative, too – he will protect democracy and abortion rights from the Trump threat – but it is defensive.This is the gap Starmer needs to plug – and you can see how he might do it. One Labour luminary says that too many Britons “don’t just feel a loss of income, but a deficit of dignity” and that politicians have to address that. Starmer gets close when he speaks of “dignity at work”, of the human need for respect. It sounds authentic, as if it might even be his animating purpose, when he recalls the way his father, a toolmaker who worked in a factory, “always felt … that he was looked down on. Disrespected.”Whatever the story is, he needs to tell it. Right now, what Keir Starmer offers will almost certainly be enough to get him into No 10. But the lesson of Joe Biden is that, if he wants to stay there, it will take much more.
Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist More - in US Politics
Biden and Trump are betting on debates to help magnify the other’s weaknesses
It’s game on for a pair of presidential debates between two unpopular candidates most Americans wish weren’t running for the nation’s highest office.In a ratatat social media exchange on Wednesday, Joe Biden and Donald Trump agreed to participate in two debates on 27 June, hosted by CNN, and on 10 September, hosted by ABC.“Make my day, pal,” Biden said in a video, challenging his predecessor and rival to a high-stakes showdown. Trump, who had been insisting for months he would debate Biden “anytime, anyplace”, quickly accepted the offer: “Let’s get ready to Rumble!!!”The arrangement jolted a general election campaign that had begun to feel stagnant. And if their plans hold, Americans will be treated to a presidential matchup far earlier than usual – before either candidate will have formally accepted his party’s nomination.“The candidates realize the value of the debates, especially given their ages,” said Aaron Kall, director of debate at the University of Michigan. “They need to show that they have the stamina to debate for 90 minutes or two hours to reassure the country.”The decision to square off at least twice before the November election reflects a careful calculation by both candidates who believe televised confrontations will help magnify the other’s weaknesses.Trump has repeatedly cast the 81-year-old president as greatly diminished. At his rallies, Trump, just four years the president’s junior, often mocks Biden as confused in an exaggerated impersonation that draws laughter and applause.But Democrats argue that Biden can more easily draw a contrast with Trump and remind voters why they rejected his Republican rival in 2020.“We need voters to see Trump 2024 with their own eyes,” the Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg wrote on Thursday, “a candidate who is far more extreme and dangerous; whose performance is far more erratic, wild, impulsive and disturbing.”Biden is clearly eager for an opportunity to change the trajectory of the race, which has remained largely unchanged despite the start of Trump’s criminal trial in New York, a brightening economic outlook and tens of millions of dollars in advertising touting the president’s record and blaming Trump for the wave of unpopular abortion bans.While both campaigns are bracing for an extremely close contest in November, a series of recent New York Times/Siena College surveys found Biden trailing Trump in five of six critical battleground states.Widespread discontent over his handling of the economy, immigration and Israel’s war in Gaza have hurt the president’s standing with key Democratic constituencies, particularly young people.Even in a polarized media environment, presidential debates remain the “SuperBowl” of politics, Kall said, offering candidates what is likely to be the most prominent platform of the election cycle. For both Biden and Trump, the events are high-risk, but also potentially high-reward.“Everyone is expecting the election to be decided by half a dozen states. Those states will be decided by thousands or tens of thousands of votes,” he said. “So a debate that 70 or 80 million people watch could certainly change enough votes to matter.”In 2020, Biden and Trump’s first face-off drew 73 million viewers, according to Nielsen ratings, while Trump’s debate against the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016 captured 84 million viewers.Many more Americans will not watch the events live but will pay attention to reactions on social media.“A lot of people who don’t tune into the actual debate will likely know what the breakout moments of the debate are,” said Yanna Krupnikov, professor of communication and media at University of Michigan. “What happens afterward is going to be really, hugely important.”Americans are arguably more familiar with Biden and Trump than any pair of presidential challengers in American history. Voters may still tune in to hear what the president and former president have to say about major issues, such as the Israel-Hamas war. But Emily Van Duyn, an associate professor of communication at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, who specializes in political communication, expects most will be watching for how the candidates perform.“For the most part, it’s going to be an assessment of: can these dudes hold up?” Van Duyn said.Democrats say Biden must deliver an energetic performance that reassures voters unsure whether the oldest president in American history is up for a second term.“The debate is the hurdle he has to cross,” David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to Barack Obama, said on CNN. “He needs to dispel that notion in that debate.”Voters tend to express fewer concerns about the 77-year-old former president’s age, but Democrats believe a debate could highlight Trump’s tendency toward verbal slips and gaffes.He is also likely to be pressed on his criminal cases. By then, the Manhattan hush-money case should be finished. Polls suggest a sizable share of Republican and independent voters would be uncomfortable voting for a candidate convicted of a felony.The format poses different challenges for each candidate.Trump feeds off the energy of a crowd. CNN has said its debate at the network’s Atlanta studios will take place without an audience, which was a prerequisite for the Biden campaign.Trump turned off voters in 2020, when he repeatedly hectored and interrupted Biden during their first debate. “He needs to play to the voters that may like his policies but not his temperament,” Kall said.Biden, meanwhile, has built a political brand around defying expectations, as he did earlier this year with a rousing State of the Union speech and in the 2020 debates.. “People will say he can’t do it, it’s too late at night,” Kall said. “Then as long as he doesn’t fall down or forget something, people will say he did OK.”The terms of the campaigns’ agreement, which bypasses the non-partisan commission that has hosted presidential debates for more than three decades, was designed to ensure a head-to-head between Biden and Trump.In a tweet, Robert Kennedy Jr, the independent candidate for president who is unlikely to qualify for the CNN debate, accused the frontrunners of “colluding” to exclude him. “Keeping viable candidates off the debate stage undermines democracy,” he said.While jumpstarting the debate season creates an opportunity for an early reset, it also makes the events less “existential” for the campaigns, said Tommy Vietor, a co-host of Pod Save America, discussing the development on his podcast with the former White House press secretary Jen Psaki.After the September debate, there are still weeks to recover from a potentially subpar performance or embarrassing gaffe. Though momentum from a strong showing could fade before election day, early voting means millions of Americans will have already cast their ballots.Psaki said the back-and-forth between Biden and Trump this week was part of a new approach. Whereas four years ago, Biden led with sophisticated appeals to democracy and civility, he’s now playing humor as a way to tweak his famously thin-skinned opponent.“It’s figuring out how to land the best needles,” Psaki said.In a sign of Biden’s more pugnacious approach, the president opened public negotiations over the general election debate on Wednesday, the one day a week Trump is not confined to a New York courtroom. “I hear you’re free on Wednesdays,” Biden said in the video, suggesting a date for their face-off. His campaign is now selling merchandise that read: “Free on Wednesdays.”On Thursday, Biden’s re-election campaign also announced that it had accepted an offer from CBS News to participate in a vice-presidential debate and proposed two dates for that fall after the Republican national convention in July. Trump has yet to choose his running mate, but a carousel of Republican hopefuls have been openly auditioning for the role.With just weeks before the first debate, both candidates have an abbreviated timeline to prepare.Neither has participated in a debate since their final showdown in 2020. This year, Trump declined to take part in the Republican primary debates and Biden as the incumbent faced only nominal challenges.In an MSNBC interview this week, Mitt Romney, the Utah senator and 2012 Republican presidential nominee, insisted that the debates still mattered to voters and predicted a “huge audience” would tune in for the spectacle.As far as what they would see, Romney quipped: “the image that comes to mind is those two old guys on the Muppets”. More
- in US Politics
Alleged ‘deal’ offer from Trump to big oil could save industry $110bn, study finds
A “deal” allegedly offered by Donald Trump to big-oil executives as he sought $1bn in campaign donations could save the industry $110bn in tax breaks if he returns to the White House, an analysis suggests.The fundraising dinner held last month at Mar-a-Lago with more than 20 executives, including from Chevron, Exxon and Occidental Petroleum, reportedly involved Trump asking for large campaign contributions and promising, if elected, to remove barriers to drilling, scrap a pause on gas exports, and reverse new rules aimed at cutting car pollution.Congressional Democrats have launched an investigation into the “ethical, campaign finance and legal issues” raised by what one Democratic senator called an “offer of a blatant quid pro quo”, while a prominent watchdog group is exploring whether the meeting warrants legal action.But the analysis shared with the Guardian shows that the biggest motivation for oil and gas companies to back Trump appears to be in the tax system, with about $110bn in tax breaks for the industry at stake should Joe Biden be re-elected in November’s election.Biden wants to eliminate the tax breaks, which include long-standing incentives to help drill for oil and gas, with a recent White House budget proposal targeting $35bn in domestic subsidies and $75bn in overseas fossil fuel income.“Big oil executivess are sweating in their seats at the thought of losing $110bn in special tax loopholes under Biden in 2025,” said Lukas Ross, a campaigner at Friends of the Earth Action, which conducted the analysis.Ross said the tax breaks are worth nearly 11,000% more than the amount Trump allegedly asked the executives for in donations. “If Trump promises to protect polluter handouts during tax negotiations, then his $1bn shakedown is a cheap insurance policy for the industry,” he said.View image in fullscreenSome of the tax breaks have been around for decades, and are a global issue, but the US oil and gas industry benefited disproportionately from tax cuts passed by Trump when he was president in 2017.Next year, regardless of who is president, a raft of individual tax cuts included in that bill will expire, prompting a round of Washington deal-making over which industries, if any, will help fund an extension.Lobbying records show that Chevron, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Occidental, Cheniere and the American Petroleum Institute (API) have all met lawmakers this year to discuss this tax situation, likely encouraging them to ignore Biden’s plan to target the fossil fuel industry’s own carve-outs.Chevron and ConocoPhillips, the analysis shows, lobbied on a deduction for intangible drilling costs, the largest federal subsidy for US oil and gas companies, which is worth $10bn, according to federal figures.View image in fullscreenOther lobbying centered on more generalized tax breaks that the oil and gas industry has taken advantage of. ExxonMobil lobbied for a little-known bill that would restore a bonus depreciation deduction to its full value, which, according to Moody’s, would allow big oil to avoid Biden’s newly established corporate minimum tax.“Unlike previous administrations, I don’t think the federal government should give handouts to big oil,” Biden said following his inauguration in 2021. But Congress and the president will have to agree to any new tax arrangements next year, and the fossil-fuel industry continues to have staunch support from Republicans and some Democrats.The API insisted its industry gets no favorable treatment in the tax system. “America’s energy industry proudly invests in communities, pays local, state and federal taxes and receives no special tax treatment from the federal government,” an API spokesperson said.“This nonsense report is another attempt to distract from the importance of all energy sources – including oil and natural gas – to meet America’s growing energy needs.”Who was at Mar-a-Lago?The high stakes for the fossil-fuel industry, as well as for the climate crisis, have placed scrutiny upon those who attended Trump’s dinner at Mar-a-Lago. Although representatives of large oil companies were present, the majority of known attendees were executives of smaller firms focused on specific subsections of the fossil-fuel industry, such as fracking or gas exporting.Those companies are not often held to account in international forums such as the UN climate talks or the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, which means they are less likely to make buzzy climate pledges. They may also be more threatened by regulations on individual parts of the US fossil fuel economy, such as auto-emissions standards aiming to quell gas-car usage.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“The oil majors … see their future in plastic [production]. That doesn’t apply to the smaller companies who don’t work across the industry,” said Kert Davies, director of special investigations at the Center for Climate Integrity. “They’ve got nothing to shift to.”Among other reported attendees were the head of the company Venture Global, which rivals Qatar as one of the world’s leading liquefied natural gas exporters. This year, the company came under fire after it was revealed to have been using millions of gallons of water to construct a Louisiana LNG terminal while a nearby community faced extreme shortages. The firm was also accused late last year of reneging on its contracts by Shell and BP.Another attendee: Nick Dell’Osso, CEO of Chesapeake Energy, which after years of court fights had to pay $5.3m to Pennsylvania landowners who say they were cheated out of gas royalties. The company’s earlier CEO, John McClendon, was indicted in 2016 on charges of conspiring to rig bids on oil and gas leases in Oklahoma.Billionaire oil tycoon Harold Hamm, who founded fossil fuel exploration company Continental Resources, was also present. He helped raise money for Trump’s 2016 presidential run and was under consideration to be Trump’s energy secretary, and was reportedly one of the seven top donors who had special seats at Trump’s inauguration. Though he eschewed the former president after his 2020 loss, he donated to his primary campaign in August.View image in fullscreenAsked about the meeting, API spokesperson Andrea Woods said the organization “meets with policymakers and candidates from across the political spectrum on topics important to our industry”. She said the premise of Democrats’ investigation into the meeting is “patently false and an attempt to distract from a needed debate about America’s future – one that requires more energy, including more oil and natural gas”.Amid the scrutiny of last month’s Mar-a-Lago dinner, Trump is continuing to court oil-tied funders. On Tuesday evening, he held a Manhattan fundraising dinner that cost a minimum of $100,000 to attend.Among the event’s hosts, advocacy group Climate Power noted, was John Catsimatidis, the chief executive of the much-scrutinized gas refiner United Refining Company and owner of two grocery chains, a radio station and holding company Red Apple Group.Between 2017 and 2023, United Refining Company’s small refinery in western Pennsylvania was the most dangerous refinery in the country, with federal data showing it reported 10 times the average number of injuries for a refinery – 63% higher than the next-most dangerous facility.The company also reportedly sought to dodge environmental regulations using a process championed by Trump’s EPA administrator Scott Pruitt.Catsimatidis has also been criticized for neglecting vacant gas-station properties and for blaming gas prices on “open” borders, corporate taxes and worker benefits. The Pennsylvania town home to United Refining pays some of the highest gas prices in the state, despite the presence of the refinery, raising suspicions among some residents about the company’s practices.Trump this week also held a fundraiser hosted by the US senator JD Vance, who is one of the largest recipients of big-oil funding in Congress, and another with Joe Craft, a major Trump donor who owns massive coal producer Alliance Resource Partners. In 2016, Craft reportedly gifted Pruitt courtside basketball tickets after the agency crafted pro-coal regulations. More
- in US Politics
Louisiana must use House map with second mostly Black district, US supreme court rules
The US supreme court on Wednesday ordered Louisiana to hold congressional elections in 2024 using a House map with a second mostly Black district, despite a lower-court ruling that called the map an illegal racial gerrymander.The order allows the use of a map that has majority Black populations in two of the state’s six congressional districts, potentially boosting Democrats’ chances of gaining control of the closely divided House of Representatives in the 2024 elections.The justices acted on emergency appeals filed by the state’s top Republican elected officials and Black voters who said they needed the high court’s intervention to avoid confusion as the elections approach. About a third of Louisiana is Black.Like much of the south, voting is racially polarized in Alabama so any majority-Black district is likely to favor Democrats. Republicans narrowly control the US House and are fighting for an advantage in every seat.It is the latest development in a long and twisted legal saga over Louisiana’s congressional districts.Louisiana lawmakers were forced to add a second majority-Black district last year after a federal judge said the map they drew violated the Voting Rights Act. The state approved a map, but then non-white voters challenged it in court, saying lawmakers relied too much on race when drawing it. Lower federal courts agreed the map should be struck down, and the state said it should not be required to use the map for this year’s elections.The supreme court’s order on Wednesday halts that argument and means the map with a second majority-Black district will be used for this year’s election. What happens after that is unclear.The supreme court has previously put court decisions handed down near elections on hold, invoking the need to give enough time to voters and elections officials to ensure orderly balloting. “When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road must be clear and settled,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote two years ago in a similar case from Alabama. The court has never set a firm deadline for how close is too close.The court’s three liberal justices, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, all said they would not have granted the request to intervene. Only Jackson explained her reasoning.“There is little risk of voter confusion from a new map being imposed this far out from the November election,” she wrote in a brief dissent. “We have often denied stays of redistricting orders issued as close or closer to an election.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionJackson was objecting to what has come to be known as the Purcell principle – a novel idea adopted by the supreme court that they should not intervene in an election dispute when election day is near. The liberal justices and other critics have accused the court of using the principle to benefit Republicans.Louisiana has had two congressional maps blocked by federal courts in the past two years in a swirl of lawsuits that included a previous intervention by the supreme court. More
- in US Politics
Joe Biden and Donald Trump agree to two US presidential debates
Shortly after the Biden-Harris re-election campaign proposed two TV debates between Joe Biden and Donald Trump ahead of November’s presidential vote, both men have agreed upon two debate dates: 27 June and 10 September.CNN confirmed that it would host the first debate of 2024 on that date at 9pm ET from the crucial battleground state of Georgia.ABC later confirmed they’d host a second debate on 10 September during prime time.A third date, 2 October, has been proposed by Trump in a Truth Social post on Wednesday afternoon: “Let this TRUTH serve to represent that I hereby accept debating Crooked Joe Biden on FoxNews. The date will be Wednesday, October 2nd. The Hosts will be Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. Thank you, DJT!”Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles, with the Trump campaign, told ABC News of the upcoming and pending debate dates: “We propose a debate in June, a debate in July, a debate in August, and a debate in September, in addition to the Vice Presidential debate. Additional dates will allow voters to have maximum exposure to the records and future visions of each candidate.”On Wednesday morning, Biden said in a video shared on social media: “Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020, and since then he hasn’t shown up for a debate. Now he’s acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. I’ll even do it twice.”He then jabbed: “So let’s pick dates, Donald. I hear you’re free on Wednesdays,” referring to the free day in Trump’s current campaign finance violations trial in New York.In a post on Twitter/X, independent candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr accused Biden and Trump of “colluding to lock America into a head-to-head match-up that 70% say they do not want. They are trying to exclude me from their debate because they are afraid I would win. Keeping viable candidates off the debate stage undermines democracy.”Biden’s proposal bucked a tradition of three debates, typically held in the fall, that are organized by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. Democratic party officials said in a release on Wednesday that moving the timing up, reducing the number of debates and ending them sooner reflected changes in the “structure of our elections and the interests of voters”.The Democrats’ proposal also noted that debates in previous elections cycles had not concluded until after early voting started and the commission’s debates were “structured like an entertainment spectacle and not a serious exchange of ideas that reflect the enormous stakes of the election”.The commission “has consistently demonstrated an inability to enforce their own rules” in the debates and called for a firm time limit on answers, and alternate turns to speak “so that the time is evenly divided and we have an exchange of views, not a spectacle of mutual interruption”.Later on Wednesday morning, Trump accepted Biden’s offer to debate him in June and September, telling Fox News Digital that “it is time for a debate to take place – even if it has to be held through the offices of the Commission on Presidential Debates, which are totally controlled by Democrats and who, as people remember, got caught cheating with me with debate sound levels”.He added on Truth Social: “Crooked Joe Biden is the worst debater I have ever faced – he can’t put two sentences together.”That missive concluded with Trump saying: “I would strongly recommend more than two debates and, for excitement purposes, a very large venue, although Biden is supposedly afraid of crowds – That’s only because he doesn’t get them. Just tell me when, I’ll be there. Let’s get ready to Rumble!!!”Biden volleyed back with a message on X shortly after Trump’s various remarks, saying he was up “for a debate on June 27th. Over to you, Donald. As you said: anywhere, any time, any place.”Arranging the presidential debates has become increasingly vexed, with both parties seeking a competitive advantage. But they are considered highly important in gaining the attention of crucial swing voters who may only then be tuning in to the choice of candidates.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWhile not mandated in any constitutional sense, they are now considered an intrinsic part of the election process. But even the Democrats’ proposal on Wednesday was designed for point-scoring.“As Donald Trump has said he will debate ‘anytime, anywhere’, we hope both campaigns can quickly accept broadcast media debate invitations on the parameters above,” the Biden campaign chair, Jen O’Malley Dillon, wrote in a letter to the commission before Trump’s acceptance of the challenge. “Americans need a debate on the issues – not a tedious debate about debates.”The Biden campaign had said it would work directly with news organizations to set up the debates, sidelining the debating commission which has overseen them since 1988. In CNN’s press release announcing the 27 June debate, the news organization noted it would take place “in CNN’s Atlanta studios” and “no audience will be present”.Until now, there has been uncertainty about whether Biden would agree to debate Trump at all. Trump skipped every Republican primary debate, pointing to his polling lead in that selection process, and Biden refused to debate his Democratic challengers.Trump, who has polling leads in five of six crucial swing states, has goaded Biden often, saying last month he was willing to debate his rival “anytime, anywhere, any place”, starting “now”.The Trump campaign called for presidential debates to be held earlier and more frequently so voters “have a full chance” to see the candidates in action and argued that by the time of the first scheduled debate, on 16 September, more than 1 million Americans will probably have already voted, with more than 8.7 million voting by the third debate, penciled in for 9 October.Last month, 12 US news organizations issued pleas to the campaigns to agree to TV debate schedule.“If there is one thing Americans can agree on during this polarized time, it is that the stakes of this election are exceptionally high,” the organizations including ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, PBS, NBC, NPR and the Associated Press said in a statement.“Amidst that backdrop, there is simply no substitute for the candidates debating with each other, and before the American people, their visions for the future of our nation,” they added.In 2020, Biden and Trump debated twice, with a third debate canceled after Trump tested positive for Covid-19. More
- in US Politics
We’re in a pivotal moment in American history. We cannot retreat | Bernie Sanders
In 1776, Americans, living in a British colony, put their lives on the line and fought for independence from the king of England. They wrote the strongest democratic constitution that had ever been written as they created a new nation. That was a pivotal moment in American history.In 1861, civil war broke out in the United States and more than 600,000 Americans died in the war between the states. Slavery was abolished. Over the ensuing decades, racist forces regained power and established an apartheid form of government throughout the old confederacy. That was a pivotal moment in American history.In 1929, Wall Street collapsed. The United States and much of the world experienced the Great Depression. Unemployment rose to 25% and millions of Americans descended into economic desperation. In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected president and the federal government’s role in addressing the needs of working people was transformed. That was a pivotal moment in American history.In 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and an unprepared United States was forced to mobilize and fight a world war on two fronts: Hitler in Europe and Japan in Asia. The future of democracy and the prevention of barbarism in the world was at stake. That was a pivotal moment in American history.Today, in 2024, our country once again faces a pivotal moment in American history. The crises facing us are enormous. The consequences if we fail are unthinkable.As the nation moves rapidly toward oligarchy, the billionaire class exerts enormous influence over the economic and political life of the nation. While the rich become much richer, 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and real, inflation-adjusted wages for the average US worker have actually declined over the last 50 years. Never before have the 1% done so well, or enjoyed so much power.Our political system is corrupt. Thanks to the disastrous Citizens United supreme court decision, billionaires and their Super Pacs are able to spend hundreds of millions to elect or defeat candidates they target. As a result, more than 90% of House elections and more than 80% of Senate elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money.Our life expectancy and birth rate are in decline. Despite spending far more per capita on a broken healthcare system, the average American now lives 77.5 years – 18 months less than in 2019 – and the lowest of any wealthy nation on earth. Further, our total births last year fell to 3.59 million, the lowest level ever recorded.The climate crisis threatens the very future of the planet. The last 10 years have been the 10 warmest years on record. 2023 was by far the hottest year in recorded history and 2024 is on track to be even hotter. Unless there is a huge reduction in carbon emissions we will continue to see more drought, more flooding, more forest fires, more extreme weather disturbances, more mass migrations and more deaths as a result of the climate crisis.Artificial intelligence and robotics are radically transforming our society, causing enormous anxiety among workers. Most of the jobs we have today will likely not be here in 15 years. Will the increased productivity that AI brings simply make corporations wealthier as they discard their employees, or will workers benefit? The wellbeing of tens of millions depends upon that answer.The basic human rights that women have struggled to win are under severe attack. Since the supreme court’s disastrous decision overturning Roe v Wade, 14 states have passed near-total abortion bans, some with no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. Will the war against women continue? Will women once again, be reduced to second-class citizenship?The US now spends almost 1tn a year on the military, more than the next 10 countries combined. This is more than all federal funding for food, housing and education. Tens of billions of those dollars are currently supporting the horrific war in Gaza waged by the rightwing extremist Israeli government of Netanyahu.So. That’s where we are, and it’s not a pretty picture. People feel hopeless. They are exhausted. They are worried about the kind of future that awaits their kids and grandkids.We are in the midst of another pivotal moment in American history. How do we respond?First, we cannot simply turn away from the painful and complex realities that we face and bury our heads in the sand. We cannot stop reading the news or turn off the TV. The world is what it is. It is a mess. And the situation is not going to improve unless we do the hard work required.Second, we must be actively involved in the 2024 national elections – the most consequential in our lifetimes.Yes. I know. Biden is not popular and many progressives, including me, strongly disagree with his policies regarding Israel and this disastrous war in Gaza.But, let’s be clear. Biden is not running against God. He is running against Donald Trump, the most dangerous president in American history whose second term, if he is re-elected, will be worse than his first. And, on his worst day, Biden is a thousand times better than Trump.Are you concerned about the extreme income and wealth inequality we are experiencing, and the decline of the middle class? Trump wants to give huge tax breaks to billionaires and, as president, appointed viciously anti-union officials to high office. Biden, on the other hand, is the first president to ever walk a picket line – in support of striking UAW workers. He has helped create millions of decent paying jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and investing in manufacturing. Biden has also forgiven the debts of millions of struggling young people.Are you concerned about the right of women to control their own bodies? Trump brags about how he appointed three supreme court justices who helped overturn Roe v Wade. Biden is solidly pro-choice.Are you concerned about the climate crisis? Donald Trump thinks climate change is a “hoax”. A Trump victory will tell the entire world to continue their support for fossil fuels, and the planet we leave our kids and future generations will be increasingly unhealthy. Biden, on the other hand, has helped invest more money into sustainable energy and energy efficiency than any president in history.And if you have problems with Biden’s position on Israel and the war in Gaza, Trump’s position is far worse. Biden has at least restricted some powerful bombs from going to the Israel and has been critical of Netanyahu. Trump and his Republican colleagues are “all in” for the massive destruction of the Palestinian people.Oh. And there’s one other thing. And that’s the small matter of retaining our democracy. Biden is a traditional American politician who believes in democracy, free elections and the right of dissent. That’s not what Trump believes. He and his supporters have spent the last four years undermining faith in the rule of law and our democratic form of government. He is weighing pardons for more than 800 of his supporters who attacked the Capitol in the January 6 insurrection. And his advisers are drawing up plans to invoke the Insurrection Act to allow him to deploy the military against civil demonstrations.Clearly, our job is not just to re-elect Biden. It’s much more than that. We must defend the many progressives that we have elected to the House, some of whom who face significant financial opposition from Aipac and other special interest Pacs. And we must elect more strong progressive candidates who are on the ballot to the House, and state and local governments.We must work in coalition with all those who understand that we must do everything possible to defeat Donald Trump and his extreme rightwing Republican party, not just because he is “worse”, but because nothing less than the future of our democracy is at stake in this election.Further, we must demand that Biden and the Democrats begin campaigning on a truly progressive agenda that addresses the needs of the working families of our country.Yes. Healthcare is a human right.Yes. The billionaire class must start paying their fair share of taxes.Yes. We must raise the minimum wage to a living wage and make it easier for workers to join unions.Yes. We must seriously address the housing crisis, which exists in almost every state in the country.Yes. We must strengthen public education in our country and make higher education available to all regardless of income.Bottom line: we must have the guts to take on and defeat a powerful and greedy ruling class and create a government which works for all, not just the few. The path forward is not easy. But now is not the time for despair or cynicism.During this pivotal moment, we must do what Americans have always done when change is needed: we must stand together, organize and fight for the country we know we can become.
Bernie Sanders is a US senator, and chairman of the health education labor and pensions committee. He represents the state of Vermont and is the longest-serving independent in the history of Congress More - in US Politics
Ex-Capitol officer Harry Dunn loses congressional primary in Maryland
Former US Capitol police officer Harry Dunn has lost his congressional primary election in Maryland, after a pro-Israel group spent millions of dollars supporting another Democrat in the crowded race.Dunn, a first-time candidate who gained national attention after publishing a book about his experiences protecting lawmakers during the January 6 insurrection, lost to state senator Sarah Elfreth in Maryland’s third congressional district.When the Associated Press called the race at 10.27pm ET, about two and a half hours after polls closed in Maryland, Elfreth was leading Dunn by 11 points. Their 20 other primary opponents lagged far behind.With the primary over, Elfreth is heavily favored to replace the retiring Democratic congressman John Sarbanes in the House of Representatives. The Cook Political Report rates the district, which covers Annapolis and the suburbs of Washington and Baltimore, as “solid Democrat”.Dunn’s defeat concluded a contentious election that ultimately cost several million dollars. Dunn proved himself to be an impressive fundraiser, bringing in $4.6m across the election cycle. Small-dollar donors made up most of Dunn’s fundraising base, as the candidate often boasted, and his team told the Guardian that the average campaign contribution was $21.64.Elfreth raised roughly a third as much money as Dunn, bringing in $1.5m, but her candidacy received substantial outside financial help from the group United Democracy Project (UDP), a Super Pac affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac). UDP spent at least $4.2m supporting Elfreth’s campaign, according to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission.Elfreth’s victory comes one week after UDP notched a major win in Indiana, with the primary loss of former Republican congressman John Hostettler. UDP spent $1.6m in its effort to prevent Hostettler, who was criticized for making comments that were deemed antisemitic, from returning to the House. In March, UDP suffered a defeat in California’s 47th congressional district, where Democrat Dave Min advanced to the general election despite the Super Pac spending $4.6m against him.UDP’s decision to invest in the Maryland primary came as somewhat of a surprise, given that neither Dunn or Elfreth had been especially outspoken about US-Israel relations or the war in Gaza. However, fellow candidate and labor lawyer John Morse, who received the endorsement of senator Bernie Sanders, made his support for a ceasefire in Gaza the focal point of his campaign. (When the primary race was called, Morse had captured just 1% of the vote.)Morse’s candidacy may have motived UDP to get involved in the race. In a statement to HuffPost last month, UDP’s spokesperson acknowledged Dunn’s “support for a strong US-Israel relationship” but suggested concern about other candidates in the primary.“There are some serious anti-Israel candidates in this race, who are not Harry Dunn, and we need to make sure that they don’t make it to Congress,” spokesperson Patrick Dorton said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFaced with an onslaught of UDP spending in support of his biggest rival, Dunn chose to turn the Super Pac’s involvement in the primary into a campaign issue. In a statement to the Guardian last week, Dunn framed the infusion of Super Pac money into the race as a threat to democracy and an insult to the legacy of Sarbanes, who made campaign finance reform one of his top priorities over his nine terms in Congress.“These groups, funded by Republican extremists, are coming after our movement to protect American democracy. Congressman John Sarbanes spent his career trying to get dark money out of politics; now those same dark money groups are trying to buy this seat,” Dunn said. “When I get to Congress, I know who I will work for and I will be accountable to – and it won’t be the dark money donors or the special interest groups.”But that argument was not enough to carry Dunn to victory, and Elfreth now appears poised to win a House seat in November. More
