Democrats

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Democratic voters say Biden could be doing a lot more for the climate crisis

      by

      Democratic voters say Biden could be doing a lot more for the climate crisisA Pew survey found more Americans favor stricter environmental laws and regulations – even at an economic cost More than 80% of Democrats think the government is not doing enough to tackle the climate crisis, according to a large nationwide survey that found younger voters across both parties are most frustrated with the pace of political action on green issues.Overall, Americans are largely split along party lines in how they view Joe Biden’s record on pressing climate and environmental challenges like clean water and air quality, according to the Pew Research Center survey of more than 10,000 adults.Just 15% of Republicans think the president’s climate policies are taking the country in the right direction compared with 79% of Democrats.Global dismay as supreme court ruling leaves Biden’s climate policy in tattersRead moreBut worryingly for Biden, whose popularity among his own party has fallen steeply according to recent polls, almost two-thirds of those broadly supportive Democrats think he could be doing a lot more to tackle the climate crisis. As it stands, the US is unlikely to meet its pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as Biden’s climate legislation has been stonewalled by fossil fuel friendly Democratic senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and the entire Republican party.The political stagnation is shocking given that 71% of those polled by Pew said their community had suffered an extreme weather event in the past year. This included severe floods or storms (43%), heatwaves (42%), droughts or water shortages (31%), large wildfires (21%), and shoreline erosion due to rising sea levels (16%). Overall, more than eight in ten of those affected by extreme weather believe the climate crisis contributed to the event.The survey was conducted over the first week of May – before the supreme court’s monumental decision limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to set standards and emissions. In another sign that the conservative justices do not reflect the views of most Americans, Pew found that 72% of Americans favor requiring energy companies to use more renewable sources such as wind and solar, while 68% support linking corporate taxes to carbon emissions.The results are an indication of Biden’s struggle to translate rhetoric – he has called climate change “the existential threat to human existence as we know it” – into tangible action. Any hopes of passing significant climate legislation could be essentially snuffed out within weeks if the Republicans come out on top in the November midterms, with dire long-term implications for people suffering worsening heatwaves, droughts, floods and other impacts in the US and overseas.Yet the need for urgent transformative political action could not be clearer. The US was battered by 20 separate billion-dollar climate and weather disasters in 2021, one of the most catastrophic climate years on record, which led to at least 688 deaths, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa).After a myriad of dangerous backward steps under Donald Trump, climate action was expected to be a top priority of the Biden administration after the US rejoined the Paris climate agreement and passed a major infrastructure bill with funding for adaptation and renewables.But Biden’s Build Back Better bill, championed as the most aggressive action ever proposed to combat global heating, has been sunk by the opposition of Manchin, who holds a crucial swing vote in an evenly split US Senate.Democrats still hope to scramble about $300bn in clean energy spending in a separate bill before the Senate begins its summer recess in August, after which focus will switch to midterm elections that are expected to go badly for the party. But there is no guarantee Manchin will agree to this, given his objections to support for electric vehicles and a reluctance to do anything that sidelines fossil fuels, an industry in which he is personally invested in via a coal trading company.“If there’s people that don’t want to produce more fossils, then you got a problem,” Manchin said on Monday, citing fears that reduced oil production will further add to inflation.Scientists have said the world must cut emissions in half this decade if disastrous heating is to be avoided, and there is little chance this will happen without swift action from the US. Biden’s administration is now reportedly contemplating allowing various polluting projects, such as a gas pipeline in West Virginia, as well as oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, in return for Manchin’s support to bolster renewable energy.This previously unthinkable trade-off by the White House has dismayed climate activists already critical of Biden’s call for increased oil production to bring down gasoline prices and his failure to meet a campaign promise to halt fossil fuel leases on public land.“Locking in decades of deadly, planet-heating fossil fuels is an outrageous trade that negates the benefits of an ever-weaker climate bill,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Pandering to Manchin has proven disastrous, and continuing to do so will have catastrophic consequences.”Despite Manchin’s fear mongering, according to the Pew survey 53% of Americans believe stricter environmental laws are worth any associated cost to the economy – though this is down from 65% in 2019. On this issue, the partisan divide is actually widening: three-quarters of Republicans say stricter environmental laws would hurt jobs and the economy – up 20 percentage points from 2019. Among Democrats, only 21% have a negative view of stricter environmental laws and regulations, up from 14% in 2019.There is some common ground across the political divide. The vast majority of Americans (90%) say they favor planting a trillion or so trees to absorb carbon emissions to help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and 79% favor tax credits to encourage businesses to develop technology to capture and store carbon.But despite record high fuel prices Biden, and whoever succeeds him in the Oval Office, has an uphill battle persuading Americans to give up gas-guzzling cars. Pew found that 55% of people oppose phasing out new gasoline cars and trucks by 2035.TopicsClimate crisisBiden administrationJoe BidenDemocratsUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Joe Biden is deeply unpopular. But can Democrats find an alternative for 2024? | Ross Barkan

      by

      Joe Biden is deeply unpopular. But can Democrats find an alternative for 2024?Ross BarkanFor now, Biden is emboldened. No prominent Democrat will cross him and he will feel especially motivated if Trump is back on the campaign trail The Democrats find themselves with a 2024 conundrum. Joe Biden, the party’s standard-bearer, is widely disliked. A new poll found that a 64% of Democrats would want a candidate other than Biden to seek the nomination in two years. Rapid inflation has eaten away at the 79-year-old president’s popularity and he is viewed as increasingly out of touch, a vestige of another era that many voters want to leave behind.At the same time, Biden will easily win a Democratic primary if he runs again. Sitting presidents are rarely forced aside. The top candidates in a hypothetical primary don’t want to take him on – almost all of them ruled out the idea of waging a direct challenge. This is understandable, since no single governor or senator has the ability to defeat Biden, one-on-one. Democrats look warily to examples like Ted Kennedy, who ran a primary against President Jimmy Carter and was soundly beaten. Carter went on to lose the general election, in 1980, to Ronald Reagan.What should be done? In an ideal world, Biden would recognize that he’ll turn 82 shortly after election day in 2024. There are plenty of Americans who are vigorous at that age, but none of them are governing large states or nations. Biden could fully deliver on the promise of his 2020 campaign that he would defeat Donald Trump and be a bridge to the next generation of Democrats. In not seeking another term, he could declare victory on a host of matters, like overseeing much-needed infrastructure funding and finally ending the war in Afghanistan. There are plenty of American presidents who have done less than Biden in one term.If Biden decides against another term, there will be a healthy open primary for the nomination. One problem for the Democrats is that the obvious frontrunner will be Biden’s vice-president, Kamala Harris. Though his poll numbers are slipping, Biden can still make the credible case that he can defeat Donald Trump a second time if Trump chooses to run again. Harris’s polling numbers are as frail as Biden’s, and she ran a very poor campaign for the presidency in 2019. Harris is simultaneously well-positioned to defeat any Democrat who takes her on, and is poorly suited for a general election, where she’d carry all the baggage of the Biden years without being able to summon the memory of Barack Obama, who Biden served with for eight years. A Kamala Harris 2024 campaign, for Democrats, could end up the worst of all worlds.Ideally – and this would not happen, because Harris is ambitious – Democrats would find a way to hold an open primary without any of the candidates tied directly to the Biden administration. Beyond Biden, there are a growing number of Democrats across America who could be viable in a general election against Trump or Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, the most politically potent Republican hovering around 2024 right now. If they win re-election, Georgia senator Raphael Warnock and Michigan’s governor, Gretchen Whitmer, could be top contenders, having won multiple times on forbidding swing turf. Warnock would be particularly strong as a charismatic Black candidate – he was a prominent pastor – with the potential to recreate Obama’s multiracial coalition. Colorado’s governor, Jared Polis, assuming he survives his 2022 re-election campaign, is another purple-state Democrat who would be an intriguing national candidate, having made a name for himself by defying liberals on unpopular Covid restrictions.Part of Harris’s weakness is that, as a California senator, she was never battle-tested in a state where Democrats don’t dominate. Both JB Pritzker, the governor of Illinois, and Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, have the Harris problem: they run states where Republicans are increasingly impotent. As executives, they can argue, unlike legislators, they have to make tough decisions each day that affect millions of people. Pritzker is attempting to be a national leader on gun control and Newsom is taking on DeSantis directly, running ads in Florida promoting California as a place that won’t infringe on abortion rights and meddle in the classroom.Progressives don’t have the equivalent of a Bernie Sanders, who is not going to run again. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is unlikely to run in 2024, when she will just turn 35, the age to be legally president. Like Ocasio-Cortez, Ro Khanna, a former Sanders campaign co-chair, is in the House, which is a historically tough place to mount a successful presidential bid. Both, though, could be strong future candidates, particularly if they win Senate seats.For now, Biden is emboldened. No prominent Democrat will cross him and he will feel especially motivated if Trump is back on the campaign trail. Biden and Trump crave a rematch, even though each political party would be better off if both men moved on.
      Ross Barkan is a New York-based journalist
      TopicsJoe BidenOpinionDemocratsUS elections 2024US politicscommentReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      January 6 hearings: Trump tried to contact witness, Cheney says – live

      by

      Hi there, it’s Maanvi Singh – taking over the blog for the next few hours. John Bolton, the former national security advisor, had an interesting reaction to today’s revelations. In response to CNN anchor Jake Tapper’s reflection that “one doesn’t have to be brilliant to attempt a coup”, Bolton responded that he disagrees, “as somebody who has helped plan” coups. Jake Tapper: “One doesn’t have to be brilliant to attempt a coup.”John Bolton: “I disagree with that. As somebody who has helped plan coup d’etat, not here, but other places, it takes a lot of work.” pic.twitter.com/REyqh3KtHi— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) July 12, 2022
      After the hearing concluded, Capitol insurrectionist Stephen Ayres approached some of the law enforcement officers who defended the building on January 6 and were present for today’s proceedings.Ayres was seen shaking hands with Aquilino Gonell, a US Capitol Police sergeant who was beaten during the insurrection and can no longer work in law enforcement because of his injuries.But one of the law enforcement officers who spoke to Ayres, former Metropolitan police department officer Michael Fanone, said he was unmoved by the man’s remorse.“That apology doesn’t do shit for me. I hope it does shit for him,” Fanone told the AP.I asked MPD office Fanone if he accepts Ayers apology and he said: “That apology doesn’t do shit for me, I hope it does shit for him.” https://t.co/iEvjkYotDa— Farnoush Amiri (@FarnoushAmiri) July 12, 2022
      In a bizarre, angry and “unhinged” White House meeting on 18 December 2020, outside advisers to Donald Trump screamed insults at presidential aides who were resisting their plan to seize voting machines and name a special counsel in pursuit of Trump’s attempt to overturn the election.The meeting – which the House January 6 committee in its public hearing on Tuesday described as a “heated and profane clash” – was held between those who believed the president should admit he lost the election to Joe Biden, and a group of outsiders referred to by some Trump advisers as “Team Crazy”.They included Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani; the retired lieutenant general Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser; and a lawyer for his campaign team, Sidney Powell.In testimony to the House January 6 committee played at the hearing, Giuliani said that at the meeting he had called the White House lawyers and aides who disagreed with that plan “a bunch of pussies”.Eric Herschmann, a White House lawyer, said that Flynn “screamed at me that I was a quitter and kept standing up and turning around and screaming at me. I’d sort of had it with him so I yelled back, ‘Either come over or sit your effing ass back down.’”Trump allies ‘screamed’ at aides who resisted seizing voting machines, January 6 panel hearsRead moreCommittee member Jamie Raskin, who co-led today’s hearing with Stephanie Murphy, condemned Donald Trump’s actions on January 6 in his closing statement.“American carnage: that’s Donald Trump’s true legacy. His desire to overthrow the people’s election and seize the presidency, interrupting the counting of electoral college votes for the first time in American history, nearly toppled the constitutional order and brutalized hundreds and hundreds of people,” Raskin said.“The Watergate break-in was like a cub scout meeting compared to this assault on our people and our institutions.”Raskin argued that the most important element of the January 6 hearings is determining what actions can be taken now to prevent similar violence in the future.“The crucial thing is the next step — what this committee, what all of us will do to fortify our democracy against coups, political violence and campaigns to steal elections away from the people,” Raskin said.“We need to defend both our democracy and our freedom with everything we have to declare that this American carnage ends here and now.”In her closing statement, Liz Cheney also shared additional footage from Pat Cipollone’s interview with the committee behind closed doors on Friday.In the clip, Cipollone said that he and a number of other senior White House officials were urging Donald Trump to call off the insurrection on January 6.“I felt it was my obligation to continue to push for that. And others felt it was their obligation as well,” Cipollone said.Asked whether it would have been possible for Trump to make some kind of public statement shortly after the insurrection started to call off the violence, Cipollone said yes, it would have been possible. Trump refused to do so for hours.Cheney noted that Cipollone’s testimony will feature prominently in the committee’s hearing next week, which is expected to focus on Trump’s actions and words as the insurrection unfolded.Liz Cheney, the Republican vice-chair of the January 6 committee, said that Donald Trump himself tried to contact one of the witnesses in the investigation.According to Cheney, the witness, who has not yet been publicly revealed as a participant in the committee’s investigation, declined the call.Instead, the witness informed their lawyer about Trump’s attempted call. The lawyer then informed the January 6 committee, who passed the information along to the justice department.“Let me say one more time: we will take any efforts to influence witness testimony very seriously,” Cheney said.Cheney warned at the last hearing that at least two witnesses had been contacted by Trump allies urging them to stay loyal to the former president in their testimony to the committee.Those efforts raise questions about potential witness tampering, which could open Trump and his allies up to criminal charges.Jason Van Tatenhove, a former spokesperson for the far-right extremist group Oath Keepers, said the Capitol insurrectionists had planned “an armed revolution” on January 6.He noted that the insurrectionists set up a gallows for Mike Pence, as the vice-president oversaw the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.“I mean, people died that day,” Van Tatenhove said. “This could have been the spark that started a new civil war, and no one would have won there.”Capitol insurrectionist Stephen Ayres said his life has changed significantly since January 6. He lost his job and had to sell his house, in addition to pleading guilty to a federal charge.“It changed my life — not for the good. Definitely not for the better,” Ayres said. Asked how he feels when he sees Donald Trump continuing to peddle lies about widespread fraud in the 2020 election, Ayres said, “It makes me mad because I was hanging on every word.”Stephen Ayres, who participated in the Capitol insurrection and has pleaded guilty to one federal charge of disorderly conduct inside a restricted building, said he closely followed Donald Trump’s lies about the 2020 election over social media.Liz Cheney, the Republican vice-chair of the January 6 committee, asked Ayres whether it would have made a difference to him if he knew that Trump had no evidence of widespread fraud in the election.“Oh, definitely,” Ayres said. “Who knows? I may not have come down here then.” Ayres said Trump had gotten “everybody riled up” by telling his supporters to come to Washington on January 6, as Congress certified Joe Biden’s victory in the election.“We basically just followed what he said,” Ayres said.Asked when he decided to leave the Capitol on January 6, Ayres said he departed after seeing Trump’s tweet asking his supporters to leave the building. “Basically, when President Trump put his tweet out, we literally left right after that come out,” Ayres said. He added that he might have left before then if Trump had sent his tweet earlier.Jason Van Tatenhove, a former spokesperson for the far-right extremist group Oath Keepers, said he decided to leave the organization after he heard members suggest that the Holocaust wasn’t real. (That is, of course, a baseless lie.)“I can tell you that they may not like to call themselves a militia, but they are. They’re a violent militia,” Van Tatenhove told the January 6 committee.The Oath Keepers were one of several violent militia groups that helped orchestrate the violence on January 6, alongside the Proud Boys and the Three Percenters.Brad Parscale, a former senior campaign adviser to Donald Trump, said he felt “guilty” about helping him win election in the days after the Capitol insurrection.Parscale described Trump as “a sitting president asking for civil war,” in reference to his efforts to disrupt the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory.Responding to Parscale’s text message, fellow Trump adviser Katrina Pierson said, “You did what you felt right at the time and therefore it was right.”Parscale responded, “Yeah, but a woman is dead.” He later added, “If I was Trump and I knew my rhetoric killed someone.”Pierson replied, “It wasn’t the rhetoric.”“Katrina,” Parscale said. “Yes it was.”The committee identified 10 Republican House members who attended a White House meeting on December 21 to discuss options for overturning the results of the 2020 election.According to the committee, those members were:
      Brian Babin
      Andy Biggs
      Matt Gaetz
      Louie Gohmert
      Paul Gosar
      Andy Harris
      Jody Hice
      Jim Jordan
      Scott Perry
      Marjorie Taylor Greene (then a congresswoman-elect)
      In his closed-door testimony before the January 6 committee, Pat Cipollone, Donald Trump’s former White House counsel, applauded the actions of Vice-President Mike Pence on that violent day.Despite intense pressure from Trump and some of his allies, Pence refused to go along with the then-president’s plans to interfere with the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory.After the Capitol attack, Pence returned to the Senate chamber on January 6 to finish the certification process, clearing the way for Biden to take the oath of office.“I think the vice-president did the right thing. I think he did the courageous thing,” Cipollone told investigators on Friday.“I think he did a great service to this country. And I think I suggested to somebody that he should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his actions.”Committee member Stephanie Murphy shared a draft tweet written by Donald Trump encouraging his supporters to march to the Capitol on January 6.“I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House),” the draft tweet says. “Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!”The draft tweet, obtained by the committee from the National Archives, was undated, but it was stamped with the words “president has seen”.”PRESIDENT HAS SEEN”@January6thCmte obtained drafted, unsent tweet. pic.twitter.com/yYg3sKFv96— CSPAN (@cspan) July 12, 2022
      Murphy said, “The evidence confirms that this was not a spontaneous call to action, but rather a deliberate strategy decided upon in advance by the president.”The committee also showed messages from some of the January 6 rally organizers indicating that they knew of the plans to march to the Capitol but kept them quiet.Rally organizer Kylie Kremer said in one message that Trump was just going to call for the march to the Capitol “unexpectedly”. The January 6 hearing resumed after a short break, and committee member Jamie Raskin shared additional information about collaboration between far-right extremist groups in the weeks leading up to the Capitol attack.Raskin displayed a Facebook post written by Oath Keepers leader Kelly Meggs on 19 December, the same day that Donald Trump sent a tweet encouraging his supporters to come to Washington on January 6 for a “wild” event.In the post, Meggs said he had organized an “alliance” between the Oath Keepers and two other far-right militia groups, the Three Percenters and the Proud Boys.“We have decided to work together and shut this shit down,” Meggs said in the post.Raskin said the committee had obtained phone records showing that Meggs spoke with Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio for several minutes later that afternoon.“The very next day, the Proud Boys got to work,” Raskin said. More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      January 6 panel to examine Trump’s ties to extremist groups in latest hearing – live

      by

      The January 6 committee was originally expected to hold another hearing on Thursday detailing Donald Trump’s response to the insurrection as it unfolded.But a committee aide said yesterday that the panel would hold only one hearing this week, and members are instead expected to reconvene next week.The aide said the delay was meant to give committee members an opportunity to review “new and important information” that has been received “on a daily basis” as the hearings unfold.But the committee has not provided any further details about the next hearing, which could be the panel’s last hearing for the time being.Donald Trump’s former top strategist, Steve Bannon, suffered heavy setbacks in his contempt of Congress case on Monday after a federal judge dismissed his motion to delay his trial, scheduled for next week, and ruled he could not make two of his principal defences to a jury.The flurry of adverse rulings from District of Columbia district judge Carl Nichols – a Trump appointee – marked a significant knock back for Bannon, who was charged with criminal contempt after he ignored a subpoena last year from the House January 6 select committee investigating the attack on the US Capitol by extremist Trump supporters in 2021.Nichols refused in federal court in Washington DC, to delay Bannon’s trial date set for next Monday, saying that he saw no reason to push back proceedings after he severely limited the defences that the former Trump aide’s lawyers could present to a jury.The defeats for Bannon stunned his lead lawyer, David Schoen, who asked, aghast: “What’s the point of going to trial if we don’t have any defences?”Read the Guardian’s full report:Bannon suffers setback as judge rejects delaying contempt of Congress trialRead moreToday’s January 6 hearing is expected to feature clips from the select committee’s interview last week with Pat Cipollone, who served as Donald Trump’s White House counsel.Cipollone met with investigators behind closed doors for more than eight hours on Friday, after he was subpoenaed by the committee last month.Jamie Raskin, who will co-lead today’s hearing with Stephanie Murphy, said Cipollone corroborated key elements of the testimony already heard by the committee. That includes the testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Trump’s White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows.“Cipollone has corroborated almost everything that we’ve learned from the prior hearings,” Raskin told NBC News today. “I certainly did not hear him contradict Cassidy Hutchinson. … He had the opportunity to say whatever he wanted to say, so I didn’t see any contradiction there.”Hutchinson’s explosive testimony at a committee hearing last month included detailed descriptions of Trump’s outrage on January 6 and in the weeks leading up to the Capitol attack, as he peddled lies about widespread fraud in the 2020 election.According to Hutchinson, Trump was informed that some of his supporters were carrying weapons on January 6 and still told them to march to the Capitol, as lawmakers met to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the election. Hutchinson said that Trump planned to go to the Capitol with his supporters and tried to grab for the steering wheel of his car when his team told him that he would instead return to the White House after his speech on January 6.Ex-White House aide delivers explosive public testimony to January 6 panelRead moreAn aide to the January 6 committee said the members would focus on a meeting held on 18 December 2020, with Donald Trump and members of his legal team, including Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.At that point, there was a growing schism within Trump’s inner circle between those who believed it was time for the president to accept his electoral defeat and those who pushed even more radical actions such as seizing voting machines or appointing a special counsel to investigate the election.Hours after the meeting, Trump sent a tweet that Murphy perceived as a “siren call” to militia groups that 6 January 2021 would be the “last stand” in a sprawling effort to overturn the results of an election he lost.“Big protest in DC on January 6th,” Trump wrote in that December tweet. “Be there, will be wild!”The tweet was a “pivotal moment that spurred a change of events including a pre-planning by the Proud Boys”, the aide said.Capitol attack panel to examine role of far-right groups in January 6 violenceRead moreGreetings from Washington, live blog readers.The House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol will hold its next public hearing this afternoon.The panel will examine Donald Trump’s links to far-right extremist groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, whose members participated in the January 6 insurrection.Committee members have said the hearing will particularly focus on Trump’s 19 December tweet urging his supporters to come to Washington for a “wild” event on 6 January, the day that Congress was scheduled to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.Committee member Stephanie Murphy, who will lead today’s hearing alongside Jamie Raskin, said Sunday that Trump’s tweet served as a “siren call” to far-right extremists.“People will hear the story of that tweet and then the explosive effects it had in Trump world and specifically among the domestic violence extremist groups, the most dangerous political extremists in the country at that point,” Raskin said on Sunday.The hearing will get under way at 1pm ET, so stay tuned.Here’s what else is happening today:
      The Senate judiciary committee is holding a hearing on the end of Roe. The lieutenant governor of Illinois, Juliana Stratton, will testify alongside four other witnesses.
      Biden is meeting with the Mexican president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador. The two leaders will discuss “their visions for North America and their efforts to address global challenges such as food security, continued cooperation on migration, and joint development efforts”, per the White House.
      The White House will host the Congressional Picnic this afternoon. After the picnic, Biden will fly from Washington to Jerusalem.
      The blog will have more updates and analysis coming up. More

    • 225 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats are certain to lose seats in the midterms. But how many – and why? | Musa al-Gharbi

      by

      Democrats are certain to lose seats in the midterms. But how many – and why?Musa al-GharbiThe outcome seems certain. How we get there is the question In the Abrahamic religions, there is a profound mystery in how to reconcile belief in free will with faith in divine providence. Similar mysteries lie at the heart of political science.For instance, over the past 45 years, every time there has been a change of party in the White House, the opposing party won the governorship of Virginia a year later.Over the past 45 years, the governorship of Virginia has moved countercyclically to the White House. pic.twitter.com/n5YMJCRzXE— Musa al-Gharbi (@Musa_alGharbi) July 11, 2022
      2021 was no exception. Democrat Joe Biden took the White House, Republican Glenn Youngkin became governor of Virginia. In media circles this outcome was widely described as a ‘shock.’ Given the electoral pattern over the past several decades, it shouldn’t have been.How Elise Stefanik rose from moderate Republican to Maga starRead moreThe outcome of that race was chalked up to debates over “critical race theory” in K-12 schools, among other things. While those narratives may not be wrong exactly, the historical pattern over nearly the last half-century suggests that even if these specific issues had not been salient, some other controversy would have risen to the fore, and the outcome for Democrats would have been roughly the same.Similar patterns hold at the national level. For instance, every time there is a change of party in the White House, the new incumbent party loses seats in the House of Representatives during the subsequent midterm elections. Here, we can go all the way back to the creation of the Democratic and Republican two-party system, and there are only two exceptions to the rule:From the foundation of the @TheDemocrats v. @GOP two-party rivalry, whenever there has been a change of party in the White House, the incumbent party virtually always loses seats in the House of Representatives during their inaugural midterms. pic.twitter.com/H8myMjWcDS— Musa al-Gharbi (@Musa_alGharbi) July 11, 2022
      Following the outbreak of the Great Depression, which FDR had been elected to fix, his party actually gained seats in the House and Senate. Likewise, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, with its unprecedented ‘rally around the flag’ effect in full bloom, George W Bush’s party gained seats in the House and held their ground in the Senate.In every other instance, the newly-elected party lost seats. It didn’t matter which party was in the White House. It didn’t matter if the economy was up or down or if there was war or peace. It didn’t matter if the president was popular or unpopular or what the big topics of contention were. All of that was immaterial to the basic outcome: the incumbent party experienced a net loss in the House regardless.The magnitude of those losses varied. At the low end, three seats changed hands. At the high end, 125.The pathways to those losses varied too: different demographics shifted in different cycles, apparently for different reasons. Different seats changed hands, driven by a wide range of factors. Yet, the net losses occurred like clockwork. The mean loss was 41 seats. The median loss was 26. The modal loss was between 10 and 20 seats.A majority in the House of Representatives requires 218 seats. Democrats currently have 220. Assuming all seats get filled by the end of this cycle, should Democrats lose more than 2 seats net in the upcoming elections, they will lose their majority in the House. Put another way, Democrats would have to outperform the Lincoln and Kennedy administrations in retaining their seats if they want to keep the chamber.It seems highly unlikely that they will be able to pull off such a feat. Joe Biden’s net favorability rating is lower than any president on record. Even most Democrats want Biden to retire when his term is over rather than seeking reelection. But it’s not just the president. In the generic ballot, the Democratic Party is also underwater. Democrats saw a slight boost after the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, but the gains seem to have levelled off, and it’s unclear whether the small bump will sustain over the next four months. But even if it did, again, Democrats would still be net-negative going into the midterms.It is no wonder that both formal modeling and prediction markets put Republicans as the likely winners of the House by a ratio of nearly 9:1. The Senate is more of a toss-up. There’s a real chance for Democrats to hold that chamber, although it seems like that will be a steep climb too.If and when Democrats see significant losses in 2022, critics will certainly chalk them up to rising inflation, growing concerns about crime, Biden’s failure to pass most of his Build Back Better proposal, his lack of action on gun control or abortion, his reneging on campaign promises to broadly erase student loan debt, missteps related to Covid or foreign policy, his administration (and the Democrats more broadly) leaning too heavily into “identity politics”, a failure to appropriately leverage the January 6 committee findings against the Republicans, and more.While these narratives may not be exactly wrong, again, it is likely that the party would have seen losses even if Biden had passed Build Back Better, waived student debt, abstained from ‘woke’ identity politics, and so on. Something else would have worked against the party instead – including, perhaps, their own accomplishments.Although perceptions of being ineffective can lead to disillusionment, it can also be a liability if an administration is perceived as too effective. If a party rapidly passes a bunch of major legislation or otherwise implements dramatic changes, this often leads to even bigger blowback at the ballot box as Americans try to pump the brakes.There seems to be a sweet spot of tangible accomplishments that an administration can point to, promises fulfilled on issues that voters prioritize most – where the change is not perceived as too dramatic, or as too many changes happening too fast. Hitting that sweet spot while avoiding self-sabotage can help minimize losses. But it’s generally difficult to discern exactly where that sweet spot is. And again, even for administrations that really seem to get it right, they still see net losses in the House during their inaugural midterms, just smaller losses.As far as how the likely losses will come about in 2022:Independent and moderate voters aligned themselves with the Democrats to an unprecedented degree in 2020, playing a pivotal role in Biden’s victory. These voters have shifted dramatically towards Republicans since.Democrats have been seeing consistent attrition of non-white voters over the past decade. Polling and surveys suggest that these trends are likely to continue among Black, Hispanic and Asian voters.Democrats also saw significant declines in vote share among younger voters (18-29) in 2020 as compared to 2018. This alienation among young voters seems like it may persist or grow through the midterms as well – although recent supreme court rulings may blunt this a little.Democratic losses with working-class voters seem likely to continue apace.In the aftermath of the race, there will be all sorts of stories told about why these voters shifted to the right. Some of those stories may have a lot of truth to them. Many others will be nonsense. But even compelling narratives about the election should be taken with a grain of salt. Again, if these particular groups didn’t shift towards the GOP, other voters would likely have shifted instead. That is, even if they’d retained these voters, the outcome of the midterms may not have changed much.Losses are pretty much a guarantee for a party’s inaugural midterms. It doesn’t matter who is in charge or what they do, they will still lose seats in the House. How big the losses are, among whom, and why – which specific seats change hands, in which districts – these all remain to be determined by the specifics of the cycle. The broad outcome seems fixed, how we get there is not. In this, political science and theology seem to converge.
      Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F Lazarsfeld fellow in sociology at Columbia University. His book We Have Never Been Woke: Social Justice Discourse, Inequality and the Rise of a New Elite is forthcoming with Princeton University Press. He is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionDemocratsJoe BidencommentReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The Republican party is terrible.. So why may Democrats lose to them this year? | Robert Reicb

      by

      The Republican party is terrible. So why may Democrats lose to them this year?Robert ReichSome commentators think Democrats have moved too far to the left – too far from the so-called ‘center’. This is utter rubbish Much of today’s Republican party is treacherous and treasonous. So why are Democrats facing midterm elections that, according to most political observers, they’re likely to lose?Having been a loyal Democrat for some 70 years, including a stint as a cabinet secretary, it pains me to say this: the Democratic party has lost its way.Some commentators think Democrats have moved too far to the left – too far from the so-called “center.” This is utter rubbish. Where’s the center between democracy and authoritarianism, and why would Democrats want to be there?Others think Biden hasn’t been sufficiently angry or outraged. But what good would that do? After four years of Trump, why would anyone want more anger and outrage?It’s time for Democrats to fear their own voters | David SirotaRead moreThe real failure of the Democratic party is its loss of the American working class.As Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg concluded after the 2016 election: “Democrats don’t have a ‘white working-class’ problem. They have a ‘working-class problem’, which progressives have been reluctant to address honestly or boldly. The fact is that Democrats have lost support with all working-class voters across the electorate.”The working class used to be the bedrock of the Democratic party. What happened?During the first two years of the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, they scored some important victories for working families: the Affordable Care Act, an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, for example.But they also allowed the middle class to hollow out and the working class to sink.Clinton passed free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who consequently lost their jobs a means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.His North American Free Trade Agreement and plan for China to join the World Trade Organization undermined the wages and economic security of manufacturing workers across America, hollowing out vast swaths of the Rust Belt.Clinton also deregulated Wall Street. This led to the financial crisis of 2008 – in which Obama bailed out the biggest banks and bankers but did nothing for homeowners, many of whom owed more on their homes than their homes were worth.Obama didn’t demand as a condition for the bailout that banks refrain from foreclosing on underwater homeowners. Nor did Obama demand an overhaul of the banking system. Instead, he allowed Wall Street to water down attempts at re-regulation.Both Clinton and Obama stood by as corporations hammered trade unions. They failed to reform labor laws to allow workers to form unions with a simple up-or-down majority vote, or even to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violated labor protections.Biden has supported labor law reform but hasn’t fought for it, leaving the Protecting the Right to Organize (Pro) Act to die inside his ill-fated Build Back Better Act.Clinton and Obama allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify, enabling large corporations to grow far larger and major industries to become more concentrated. Biden is trying to revive antitrust enforcement but hasn’t made it a centerpiece of his administration.Both Clinton and Obama depended on big money from corporations and the wealthy. Both turned their backs on campaign finance reform.Obama was the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon to reject public financing in his primary and general election campaigns, and he never followed up on his re-election promise to pursue a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United vs FEC, the 2010 supreme court opinion opening the floodgates to big money in politics.Joe Biden has tried to regain the trust of the working class, but Democratic lawmakers (most obviously and conspicuously, Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema) have blocked measures that would have lowered the costs of childcare, eldercare, prescription drugs, healthcare, and education. They’ve blocked a higher minimum wage and paid family leave.Yet neither Manchin nor Sinema nor any other Democrat who has failed to support Biden’s agenda has suffered any consequences.Why hasn’t Biden done more to rally the working class and build a coalition to grab back power from the emerging oligarchy? Presumably for the same reasons Clinton and Obama didn’t: the Democratic party continues to prioritize the votes of “suburban swing voters” who supposedly determine electoral outcomes, and it still depends on money from big corporations and the wealthy.The most powerful force in American politics today is anti-establishment fury at a rigged system. There is no longer a left or right. There is no longer a moderate “center”. The real choice is either Republican authoritarian populism or Democratic progressive populism.Democrats cannot defeat authoritarian populism without an agenda of radical democratic reform – a pro-democracy, anti-establishment movement. Democrats must stand squarely on the side of working people against oligarchy. They must form a unified coalition of people of all races, genders, and classes to unrig the system.Trumpism is not the cause of our divided nation. It is the symptom of a rigged system that was already dividing us.
      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new 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
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionDemocratscommentReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden’s executive order on abortion is better than nothing. But not much better | Moira Donegan

      by

      Biden’s executive order on abortion is better than nothing. But not much betterMoira DoneganThe president boasted his administration would use ‘every tool available’ to secure abortion access. So why is his order so lacking? Probably the most enthusiastic assessment that an abortion rights advocate can make for President Biden’s executive order that aims to “protect access to reproductive health services” is that it’s better than nothing. That’s because the order, signed by Biden in a brief ceremony at the White House on Friday as vice-president Harris and secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra looked on, has been spoken of by the White House in only the vaguest terms. The order consists of a series of directives aimed at HHS and the justice department, but these directives are imprecisely worded. They create few obligations for these agencies; they appear designed not to ruffle any feathers. It’s unclear what, precisely, the order will mean for abortion access, and specifically what actions those agencies will now be required to take.Joe Biden signs executive order protecting access to abortionRead moreThe executive order calls for expanded access to abortion medication in states where abortion has not been outlawed; it doesn’t say whether this will include eliminating the current, medically unnecessary restrictions on the drugs or making them available over the counter, as abortion rights advocates have called for. It asks HHS to make “updates to current guidelines”, for emergency medical care, in an effort to reduce deaths in pregnant women whose doctors refuse to intervene in medical crises for fear of harming a fetus and incurring liability; it does not call for HHS to solidify these guidelines into a rule that would more forcefully protect women’s lives.It asks the Department of Justice to convene volunteer lawyers to represent people trying to get or provide legal abortions and gestures vaguely at providing women defense for things like crossing state lines or obtaining care in one state that is illegal in the one where they live. But it doesn’t say whether the administration will work to support the attorneys already doing this work, like those at the Texas-based Jane’s Due Process or the legal non-profit If/When/How, and it does not say how it will make sure that this supply of volunteer, pro bono legal assistance doesn’t dry up. The order talks about protecting privacy and combatting disinformation, but it makes no mention of crisis pregnancy centers, the fake clinics that deceive patients, disseminate false information about abortions, and suck up large amount of information about the women they lure through their doors. The order calls for HHS to expand access to contraception, but doesn’t say how.The short version seems to be, that the Biden administration will make no effort to reverse the sadistic and draconian attacks on women’s rights in red states. But it will make some kind of vague, still-undefined effort to stop them from spreading to blue ones.It’s not much of a payoff, considering the massive amount of pressure from abortion rights advocates that it took to elicit this response from the Biden administration. Despite having a six-week heads-up on the coming overturn of Roe after a draft of the majority opinion was leaked in early May, and in spite of having more than a year since the case, whose outcome was never in doubt, was granted cert by the US supreme court, the Biden administration seemed flat-footed and caught off guard by the end of national abortion rights.Reporting from CNN claims that the White House was unique among court watchers in being surprised when the Dobbs decision was released on 24 June. In a sign of how seriously the administration is taking women’s rights, an aide assigned to respond to the Dobbs decision was out getting coffee when she heard about the opinion’s release from a push notification on her phone. For his part, Biden himself is so enthusiastic about abortion rights that he was planning to nominate an anti-choice Republican judge to a lifetime appointment on a federal district court in Kentucky that very same day.Overall, the administration has seemed unwilling to move towards a more robust defense of women’s freedoms, and unwilling to treat the reversal of Roe as the disaster for equal rights and civil liberties that their base sees it as. They issue capacious statements – and, now, a capacious executive order – that are light on specifics, and tend to conspicuously avoid the word “abortion.” When Joe Biden began his signing ceremony for his executive order, he did not immediately turn to the reason why he was there – the rollback of a fundamental civil and human right for half of his constituents. Instead, he took a moment to boast about some promising jobs numbers. When the signing ceremony concluded, the first question the president took was from a male reporter, who asked about the assassination of former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe.Perhaps what’s most noticeable about Biden’s executive order is what it doesn’t say. It does not say that the administration will make federal lands in red states available for abortion services, as some legal experts have urged. It does not say that the DoJ will bring lawsuits against states that ban abortion medication, on the theory that such bans violate the FDA’s supremacy. It does not pledge a repeal of the Hyde amendment.The somewhat lukewarm reception of Biden’s EO from the reproductive rights community may have been tempered by reporting from Bloomberg on Friday that the administration had dismissed the idea of declaring a national health emergency in response to the supreme court ruling, a move that would have empowered the administration to respond proportionately to the massive and ongoing threat to women’s safety and liberty. According to Bloomberg, Biden and his advisers ditched the idea because they didn’t want to get sued over it. In his statements before signing the executive order, Biden said that his administration would “use every tool available” to secure abortion access. Well, apparently not every tool.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsRoe v WadeOpinionUS politicsAbortionJoe BidenDemocratscommentReuse this content More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘If I’d not got help, I’d probably be dead’: Jason Kander on PTSD, politics and advice from Obama

      by

      Interview‘If I’d not got help, I’d probably be dead’: Jason Kander on PTSD, politics and advice from ObamaDavid Smith, Washington bureau chief He was a rising star in the Democratic party and ‘sorta ran for president’ but, as he recounts in his new book, haunted by his experiences in AfghanistanAs luck had it, Jason Kander’s book tour in New York coincided with a family wedding. The star turn was his 95-year-old great-uncle, composer John Kander, who performed Married from Cabaret, the revered musical he wrote with lyricist Fred Ebb.“It was very cool,” smiles Kander, a day after breakfasting with his famous relative. “He’s still writing: he’s got a musical coming out next year. He is my life goal. People who meet him probably figure he’s in his late 70s. He always says if you just keep doing what you love, it will keep you young. There’s something to that.”Twenty years on from 9/11, is US democracy working?Read moreJason Kander is only 41 but already well into his third act. His new, unflinchingly honest memoir tracks his journey from soldiering in Afghanistan to politicking in his native Missouri, from sitting in the Oval Office with Barack Obama to being put on suicide watch in a windowless cell.Invisible Storm: A Soldier’s Memoir of Politics and PTSD tells how Kander endured post-traumatic stress disorder for 11 years – and kept it secret from everyone. The more his political star shone, the darker his hinterland became. He tried to outrun his demons by seeking elected office, including the presidency, until an epiphany led him to finally confront his mental illness.“I went to get help because, if I didn’t go get help, I was probably going to kill myself,” says Kander, wearing a grey “army” T-shirt and speaking via Zoom from a functional New York hotel room.“It’s not like, ‘Oh, man, if I’d hung around, maybe I’d be president!’ If I’d hung around and not got help, I’d probably be dead. Instead I’m really enjoying my life and I wasn’t before. It’s not to say I’ll never run. It’s just to say, I’m glad I didn’t then and, if I ever do choose to run, I’ll be doing it as a person who has dealt with their shit. And maybe we need more of that.”Kander trained as a lawyer but, after the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, felt the compulsion to serve and be tested like his grandfather and other relatives. To his surprise, he loved the military with its sense of order and mission.He spent four months in Afghanistan in 2006-07 and was not involved in firefights or direct combat (later a source of constant guilt that he somehow wasn’t worthy of PTSD). His work as an intelligence officer involved going with an interpreter to meetings in remote locations with people who might be “bad guys” linked to the Taliban, terrorism or corruption. The prospect of being kidnapped and killed was real.“I was 25 years old and it was an exhilarating experience and that’s why they don’t send 41-year-old fathers of two to war,” he reflects. “If I went into those meetings now, I’d be very aware of everything I had to lose but also probably very aware of how much danger I was in.”When he got home to Kansas City, Kander turned to politics in search of the same sense of purpose and belonging to something bigger than himself. Knocking on thousands of doors, he outworked and outcampaigned rivals to win election to the Missouri state house of representatives and, later, as secretary of state.In 2016 he ran for the US Senate against the Republican incumbent, Roy Blunt, and caught national attention with a campaign ad in which he assembled an AR-15 rifle while blindfolded and advocating for background checks on gun buyers. Kander still lost but by a much narrower margin than Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump in the same state.PTSD trailed him like a shadow, however.There was insomnia and night terrors: bad dreams in which he was back in Afghanistan with someone rushing into a room, taking him captive and lining him up for a beheading video on YouTube. Over time these evolved into fears about home invaders threatening his family.There were nights when Kander patrolled the house with a loaded gun. He had symptoms such as back pain, a twitch in his left eyelid and an aversion to sitting in restaurants with his back to the door. “It’s exhausting to be on alert all the time and then, when you combine that with about 10 years without a good night’s sleep, you just get worn out. When you get worn out enough and have all these other feelings of shame and guilt and then you’re having these symptoms, eventually you get depressed. When you’re depressed long enough, eventually you have suicidal thoughts.”His political career, he assesses now, was a quest for redemption. “I had this idea that I hadn’t done enough for my country, I was an irredeemable piece of shit personally and, while I was achieving all these things politically, people didn’t really know that I was completely undeserving of this praise or adulation.”The Hollywood version of redemption for Kander would have had him winning the presidency and casting PTSD aside on inauguration day. And for a while it seemed possible. When, in his final Oval Office interview, Obama was asked who gave him hope for the future of the country, Kander’s was the first name on his lips. The pair had a private meeting in which Obama gave “mentorship-type advice”.Kander was exalted as the Democrats’ new hope, a veteran from the heartland who could provide the antidote to forces that put Trump in the White House. He made frequent visits to early presidential nominating states; his Twitter bio says he “sorta ran for president”.But after a major speech in New Hampshire, things unravelled.“Like any other addict who is not dealing with their own trauma, their own underlying stuff, I was addicted to the adulation, to the crowds, to performing and to the adrenaline that came with it. The only time I felt truly present was when I was in front of a crowd or doing an interview that really mattered.“Those endorphin highs generally for a long time worked in the sense that they would hold me over until the next one. So when I had this moment that was the zenith of my career as a political performer and it lasted about 12 hours, I realised that was a real problem. This wasn’t working any more.”When someone suggested that he lower his sights and run for mayor of Kansas City instead, Kander grabbed the chance to ease the pressure. He was comfortably ahead in the polls and in fundraising when, on 1 October 2018, he walked into the Kansas City Veterans Affairs medical center and acknowledged suicidal thoughts going back 10 years.He was duly put in a windowless cell with pale-green walls and dressed in dark-green scrubs that were about five sizes too big. “So this was suicide watch,” he writes.Most of the staff instantly recognised him but a young resident psychiatrist did not. For half an hour, Kander bared his soul about the night terrors and his consuming fear of someone hurting himself and his family. Then the psychiatrist asked: “Do you have a particularly stressful job or something?”Kander said he was in politics and explained: “I almost ran for president, but then decided to run for mayor instead, and tomorrow I’m planning on calling that off.”Confused, the psychiatrist said: “You were going to run for president? Of what?”Kander told him: “Of the United States.”The psychiatrist asked: “Who told you that you could run for president?”Now irritated, Kander said: “I don’t know what to tell you, man. I mean, I spent an hour and a half talking it over one on one with Obama in his office, and he seemed to think it was a pretty good idea.”The psychiatrist sat back in his chair and remarked: “Barack Obama told you that you could run for president? So how often would you say you hear voices?”Kander can laugh about the exchange now and includes it in his book.The therapy has worked wonders – “It’s getting a master’s in yourself,” is how his great-uncle John described it – and allowed him to rediscover the joys of marriage (his Ukrainian-born wife, Diana, contributes moving passages in the book), fatherhood (their children are eight and one) and baseball (he coaches a little league team).“The difference is now I will frequently choose to sit facing the door but I can sit with my back to the door usually without fidgeting a great deal. I generally don’t get the twitch in my eye. I generally don’t have, most of the time, nightmares.“PTSD treatment is not about getting cured. It’s about getting to the point where the symptoms of PTSD don’t disrupt your life and that’s what I was able to achieve in therapy.”Kander is also better equipped to deal with difficult ruptures such as last year’s chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan. He admits: “At first it was quite triggering and then I got very involved in evacuating people I care about from the country. That experience was newly traumatic and I had to go back and see my therapist again but I’m glad I did. It’s not simple but now I have the tools to navigate that.”Kander is the president of national expansion at Veterans Community Project, a non-profit organisation to which he will donate all the book’s royalties, and host of Majority 54, a political podcast. Kander has little time for the perennial moderates v progressives narrative dividing the Democratic party. “Everybody is engaged in this debate about whether the party needs to go further to the left or stay closer to the middle and they’re all completely missing the point. That’s not what’s going on in the part of the country I live in. You don’t get points for being less liberal; you get points for caring about what people are going through.”Kander says he wrote Invisible Storm because it was the book he would have wanted to read 14 years ago. He hopes it will encourage people to confront their own problems and understand that recovery and post-PTSD growth are possible.But given the bottomless cynicism in politics today, there will doubtless be somebody somewhere who theorises that the book is a calculated move towards resurrecting Kander’s career, perhaps even his White House ambitions.He finds that idea absurd.“I wrote this book understanding that if I ever get the desire to run for president again, people are going to say we can’t have a president who could end up stalking the White House at night because he’s worried about intruders,” he says. “If I ever run, it will be on me to be like, ‘I don’t have to do that any more because I got therapy.’“Yeah, that’s probably not the ideal debate to have in a presidential campaign. But I made the decision that if this book turns out to be something that precludes me from ever being able to to run for president but, if it helps a lot of people and saves a lot of lives, that is absolutely a trade I’m willing to make.”TopicsBooksUS politicsDemocratsMental healthinterviewsReuse this content More