Democrats

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      How can the candidate with most votes lose? The US electoral college explained

      by

      Even though the United States touts its status as one of the world’s leading democracies, its citizens do not get to directly choose the president. That task is reserved for the electoral college – the convoluted way in which Americans have selected their president since the 18th century.Contrary to its name, the electoral college is more a process than a body. Every four years, in the December following an election, its members – politicians and largely unknown party loyalists – meet in all 50 states on the same day and cast their votes for president. Then they essentially disappear.In recent years there has been growing criticism of the electoral college, accelerated by the fact that two Republican presidents – George W Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016 – have been elected president while losing the popular vote. But there’s no sign that US elections will change any time soon.Here’s everything you need to knowWhat exactly is the electoral college?Article II of the US constitution lays out the process by which a president is elected.Each state has a number of electors that’s equal to the total number of representatives and senators it has in Congress. Washington DC gets three electoral votes. In total, there are 538 electors. A candidate needs the votes of 270 of them, a simple majority, to win.The constitution says that state legislatures can choose how they want to award their electors. All but two states have long chosen to use a winner-take-all system – the winner of the popular vote in their state gets all of the electoral votes.To complicate matters further, two states, Maine and Nebraska, award their electors differently. In both states, two electoral college votes are allocated to the statewide winner. Each state then awards its remaining electors – two in Maine and three in Nebraska – to the winner in each of the state’s congressional districts.Why does the US have an electoral college?When the founding fathers gathered in Philadelphia to draft the US constitution in 1787, they had a lot of trouble figuring out a system for choosing a chief executive. Initially, they proposed a plan that would have Congress choose the president. But that led to concerns that the executive branch, designed to be independent from Congress, would be subject to it.A contingent of the delegates also favored electing the president through a direct popular vote. But the idea never got broad support and was shut down repeatedly during the convention, the historian Alexander Keyssar wrote in his book Why do we still have the electoral college.There were a number of reasons the idea was not widely popular. First, the convention had adopted the racist three-fifths compromise in which slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for population purposes. This was a win for the southern states, in which slaves made up a sizable chunk of the population. A popular vote system would have disadvantaged the southern states because they had fewer people who could vote.There were also concerns about giving too much power to larger states and that voters would be unable to learn about the candidates from different states, according to Keyssar. It was a debate driven more about pragmatics than about political rights, he writes.Towards the end of the convention, a committee of 11 delegates was appointed to deal with unresolved matters and one of them was how to select the president. They proposed a version of what we have now come to understand as the electoral college.“This brief nativity story makes clear that the presidential election system enshrined in the Constitution embodied a web of compromises, spawned by months of debate among men who disagreed with one another and were uncertain about the best way to proceed,” Keyssar wrote. “It was, in effect, a consensus second choice, made acceptable, in part, by the remarkably complex details of the electoral process, details that themselves constituted compromises among, or gestures toward, particular constituencies and convictions.”What is a swing state?States that either presidential candidate has a good shot at winning are often called “swing states”.In the 2024 election, there are seven swing states: Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Michigan (15 electoral votes), Georgia (16 electoral votes), North Carolina (16 electoral votes), Arizona (11 electoral votes), and Nevada (six electoral votes). Whichever candidate wins the election must carry some combination of those states, which is why the candidates will spend the majority of their time and resources there. Joe Biden carried all of those states bar North Carolina in the 2020 election.The idea of a swing state can also change over time because of changing demographics. Until recently, for example, Ohio and Florida were considered swing states, but they are now considered pretty solidly Republican. Michigan was considered a pretty solid Democratic stronghold until Donald Trump won it in 2016.Does the electoral college allow for minority rule?There have been five elections in US history – in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016 – in which the candidate who became the president did not win the popular vote. This has led to wider recognition of imbalances in the system and a push from some to abolish the electoral college altogether.The loudest criticism is that it’s a system that dilutes the influence of a presidential vote depending on where one lives. A single elector in California represents more than 726,000 people. In Wyoming, an elector represents a little more than 194,000 people.Another critique is that the system allows a tiny number of Americans to determine the outcome of the presidential election. In 2020, about 44,000 votes between Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona allowed Biden to win the electoral college. Such a slim margin is extraordinary in an election that 154.6 million people voted in.In 2016, about 80,000 combined votes gave Trump his winning margins in key swing states.Do electors have to vote for a specific candidate?State political parties choose people to serve as electors who they believe are party stalwarts and will not go rogue and cast a vote for anyone other than the party’s nominee. Still, electors have occasionally cast their votes for someone else. In 2016, for example, there were seven electors who voted for candidates other than the ones they were pledged to. That was the first time there was a faithless elector since 1972, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.Many states have laws that require electors to vote for the candidate they are pledged to. In 1952, the US supreme court said that states could compel electors to vote for the party’s nominee. And in 2020, the court said that states could penalize electors who don’t vote for the candidate they’re pledged to.How has the electoral college remained in place for so long?Since almost immediately after the electoral college was enacted, there have been efforts to change it. “There were constitutional amendments that were being promoted within a little more than a decade after the constitution was ratified,” Keyssar said. “There have been probably 1,000 or more constitutional amendments to change it or get rid of it filed since 1800. Some of them have some close.” (There were more than 700 efforts as recently as 2019, according to the Congressional Research Service.)When the idea of a national popular vote was proposed in 1816, Keyssar said, southern states objected. Slaves continued to give them power in the electoral college, but could not vote. “They would lose that extra bonus they got on behalf of their slaves,” he said.After the civil war, African Americans were legally entitled to vote, but southern states continued to suppress them from casting ballots. A national popular vote would have diminished their influence on the overall outcome, so they continued to support the electoral college system.The country did get close to abolishing the electoral college once, in the late 1960s. In 1968, George Wallace, the southern segregationist governor, almost threw the system into chaos by nearly getting enough votes to deny any candidate a majority in the electoral college. The US House passed the proposed amendment 339 to 70. But the measure stalled in the Senate, where senators representing southern states filibustered.That led to continued objections to a national popular vote so that southern white people could continue to wield power, according to the Washington Post. President Jimmy Carter eventually endorsed the proposal, but it failed to get enough votes in the Senate in 1979 (Joe Biden was one of the senators who voted against it).“It’s not like we are suddenly discovering this system really doesn’t work,” Keyssar said.Is there any chance of getting rid of the electoral college now?The most prominent effort to get rid of the electoral college today is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The idea is to get states to agree to award their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the outcome in their specific state. The compact would take effect when states having a total of 270 electoral votes – enough to determine the winner of the election – join.So far 16 states and Washington DC – a total of 205 electoral votes – have joined the effort.But the path ahead for the project is uncertain. Nearly all of the states that haven’t joined have either a Republican governor or legislature. And legal observers have questioned whether such an arrangement is constitutional – something that would probably be quickly put to the US supreme court. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Harris and Trump pushed to extreme plays for support in knife-edge race

      by

      With just half a month to go, the US presidential election is deadlocked, as Kamala Harris and Donald Trump jockey for any advantage in ways that illuminate their stark political differences; the Democratic nominee most recently announced a plan to campaign with the Obamas, while the Republican nominee doubles down on threatening his enemies.In the past week, Trump has gone further than ever in branding his political opponents “the enemy within” and talking about deploying the military against them, while Harris herself entered uncharted territory by finally agreeing to label him “fascist”.The latest polling figures seem to mirror such sharply polarised rhetoric, with the seven crucial swing states almost split down the middle in allegiance.In a particularly graphic example, a Brookings Institution/Public Religion Research Institute survey published on Friday showed more than a third of voters – 34% – agree with one of Trump’s most incendiary contentions: that illegal immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of America, rhetoric that has drawn comparisons with Hitler and fueled warnings of looming fascism.Evidence that such warnings are failing to electorally hurt the Republican nominee is displayed in the Guardian’s most recent 10-day poll tracker. As of 16 October, it showed Harris ahead nationwide by just two points, 48% to 46% – figures unchanged from a week ago and a significantly tighter margin than she enjoyed several weeks ago.The races in the battleground states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada and Arizona – are, if anything, even more cliffhanging, with numbers within error margins in each.The pair are level pegging in Michigan and North Carolina, well within any statistical margins of error. The latter state saw early in-person voting begin at 400 sites on Thursday, as it continues to clear up the devastation left by Hurricane Helene last month, an operation marked by lies and misinformation from Trump and his supporters.Harris has tiny leads in Pennsylvania and Nevada, while Trump is ahead in Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina, though the races remain far too close to predict with any certainty.With Harris scrambling for a vital edge, Barack and Michelle Obama announced on Friday that they would campaign alongside her next week. It will be the former first lady’s first appearance since a widely lauded speech at the Democratic national convention in August, when she skewered Trump.The lack of clarity over the election’s outcome seems all the more remarkable in a race that has had so many seemingly clarifying moments, not least within the past week.One came last Saturday when Trump, in a speech in Coachella, California – a state Harris is certain to carry emphatically – talked darkly about “the enemy within”. a description he applied to the Democratic congressman Adam Schiff. He repeated the riff the following day in a Fox News interview with a friendly host, going on to suggest that the armed forces or national guard should be used against agitators causing “chaos” on election day – while stressing that these would not be on his side.The line seemed to give Harris an opening. Last Monday evening, at a rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, she took it, labelling Trump “unstable and unhinged” while playing her audience footage of the most extreme rhetoric from the Republican nominee’s public appearances in what was seen as an unusual political innovation.At almost the same moment, in a scene of disconcerting levity, Trump stood onstage swaying along to some of his favourite songs after a town hall event near Philadelphia had been interrupted by two medical emergencies.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionRather than continue a question-and-answer session, he requested a playlist that included James Brown, Luciano Pavarotti and Guns N’ Roses while importuning the gathering to listen and dance along for the next 40 minutes.Harris’s campaign attempted to highlight the episode as more evidence of Trump’s unfitness for office and supposed declining mental condition.The vice-president went further the following day, agreeing with Charlamagne Tha God in an interview for a Black radio station in Detroit that Trump’s vision amounted to “fascism”.“Yes we can say that,” she said, while still avoiding actually uttering a word that has been applied to Trump by others, including Gen Mark Milley, the former chair of the joint chiefs of staff, who has called him “a fascist to the core”.The gaping chasm between the two candidates was further illustrated in contrasting appearances on two Fox News events on Wednesday.Trump went into one, an all-female town hall gathering, with the stated aim of wooing women voters, among whom polls shows he lags far behind Harris. In a comment that again provided fodder for Democrat mockery, he proclaimed himself to be “the father of IVF”, a form of fertility treatment that Senate Republicans voted against earlier this year. CNN later reported that Republican women’s groups had arranged for the audience to be packed with Trump supporters.For her part, Harris engaged in a combative interview with one of Fox’s Bret Baier in what was broadly viewed as a successful exercise in entering hostile terrain by going on a rightwing network that has vocally cheerled for Trump.Yet despite – or perhaps because of – these sharply diverging pictures, surveys show voters remain locked in entrenched positions,with the next couple of weeks likely to feature a desperate trawl on both sides for independent or undecided electors, bolstered by late get-out-the-vote efforts aimed at the less motivated sections of their respective bases. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      US presidential election updates: Trump and Harris spar over stamina in Michigan

      by

      Kamala Harris took aim at Donald Trump’s energy levels as both candidates scrambled across the battleground state of Michigan, with election day looming. Harris referenced a report that the former president was “exhausted,” saying “being president of the United States is probably one of the hardest jobs in the world and we really do need to ask … is he fit to do the job?”Questions about Trump’s energy levels emerged after he backed out of some interviews with mainstream media outlets, including 60 Minutes and CNBC. But speaking before a rally in Detroit, the Republican candidate shot back, saying: “I’ve gone 48 days now without a rest … I’m not even tired. I’m really exhilarated.”With both candidates in Michigan, focus turned to the midwestern state that promises the winner 15 electoral college votes. Polling shows razor-thin margins in the state, which Trump won by 11,000 votes in 2016. In 2020, Joe Biden beat Trump by 155,000 votes.Here’s what else happened on Friday:Donald Trump election news and updates

      Trump was back in Detroit, Michigan’s largest city, for a rally that got off to a difficult start after the former president’s microphone stopped working. “I won’t pay the bill for this stupid company that rented us this crap,” he said after the audio started working.

      In a Fox & Friends interview earlier in the day, Trump griped about negative television ads on Fox and said he would ask Rupert Murdoch to ensure such ads are not broadcast until Election Day.

      Trump said he would impose additional tariffs on China if China were to “go into Taiwan”, the Wall Street Journal reported. “I would say: if you go into Taiwan, I’m sorry to do this, I’m going to tax you, at 150% to 200%,” the former president was quoted as saying. Asked if he would use military force against a blockade on Taiwan by China, Trump said it would not come to that because Chinese president Xi Jinping respected him.

      Trump has raised more money from the oil and gas industry than at this stage of his previous campaigns for the US presidency, with a surge of fossil fuel funding coming in the six months since he directly requested $1bn from oil executives and then promised he would scrap environmental rules if elected. While the Republican nominee hasn’t quite managed to get to that $1bn figure, he has received $14.1m from the oil and gas industry in the period up to 31 August, donation filings show.
      Kamala Harris election news and updates

      Harris campaign in Grand Rapids, the heart of more conservative western Michigan. She is reportedly shifting the strategy of her whirlwind campaign to win over more Republicans and men of all races.

      In Oakland County, Harris welcomed members of the Arab American community to her rally and touted prospects for peace in the aftermath of the death of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.

      Some prominent Lebanese Americans endorsed Harris, saying in a letter that the US had been “unrelenting” in its support for Lebanon under the Biden administration. A number of Arab Americans and Muslims are abandoning the Democratic party over the administration’s support for Israel in its war with Hamas.
      Elsewhere on the campaign trail

      A new poll has revealed that more than a third of Americans agree with Trump’s warning that undocumented immigrants in the US are “poisoning the blood” of America. “This is a truly alarming situation to find this kind of rhetoric, find this kind of support from one of our two major political parties,” said Robert Jones, president and founder of the Public Religion Research Institute.

      At a campaign event in Arizona, former president Barack Obama said: “I understand why people are looking to shake things up … What I cannot understand is why anyone would think that Donald Trump will shake things up in a way that is good for you.”

      Barack and Michelle Obama will make their first appearances alongside Harris on the campaign trail next week, aiming to provide a powerful boost in the closing weeks of the election. Harris is scheduled to appear with the former president in Georgia on 24 October and with Michelle Obama in Michigan on 26 October.
      Read more about the 2024 US election:

      Presidential poll tracker

      Harris and Trump policies

      What to know about early voting More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris questions Trump’s stamina: ‘Is he fit to do the job?’

      by

      Kamala Harris used a rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on Friday to seize on reports that Donald Trump had been canceling media interviews to question whether he has the stamina for a second presidency if voters choose him over her in November’s election.“If he can’t handle the rigors of the campaign trail, is he fit to do the job?” the Democratic vice-president, 59, told rallygoers about the 78-year-old Trump.She said: “Trump is unfit for office.”Harris and her Republican opponent were in Michigan as the weekend began while trying to shore up support in a battleground state that could decide their 5 November race. Polling suggests Michigan as well as its fellow “blue wall” states of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin remained in play for both candidates as the campaign’s waning days arrived.“This is the place that is going to decide the election, right here,” Democratic congresswoman Hillary Scholten told Friday’s audience as she opened the event.Among the crowd, some Harris supporters struck a hopeful tone. “It’s about time for a woman to lead,” said Jenifer Lake, who took her daughter Adeline Butts to the rally for a chance to “see history in the making”.Butts, who will be old enough to vote for the first time this election, described herself mostly concerned about the cost of living, tuition and housing affordability. And her fellow attender Bill Bray, who came to the rally from Adrian, Michigan, said he believed Harris would better promote economic opportunity for those situated like him than Trump would.Bray grew up “in a poor neighborhood” but said he is doing well thanks to benefits from his prior military service as well as his long career at Ford Motor Company. He said he wants other people to have a chance at that same trajectory.“Trump doesn’t understand equality,” said Bray, a veteran of the Vietnam war who also accused the former president of dodging the military draft that would have sent him to the same conflict.Bray also said he supports stronger federal gun control after seeing “what guns to do to people” and has no faith in Trump – who is widely supported by the firearms industry – taking that issue seriously.Other attenders said abortion access was at the top of their mind. Harris has campaigned on preserving abortion access while three of Trump’s appointees to the US supreme court helped eliminate federal abortion rights in 2022.“It’d be nice to have control of my body back, and then I’ll think about listening to the other side,” Kim Osborn said.Lauren Rockel said she would like to see Harris fight to reinstate the Roe v Wade protections that Trump’s supreme court appointees helped strip away.“There are people dying” as a result of abortion restrictions that have since gone into effect in many states, Rockel said. “It’s awful.”To them, Harris said it was “time to turn the page” on Trump.The Democratic governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, spoke before Harris took the stage. Four other Democratic state governors joined her.Her presence and that of the other governors “shows how important you are, Michigan,” Whitmer said. She told the crowd that they would be the ones to “take our country forward” if they helped send Harris to the White House.Michigan’s Democratic US senator Debbie Stabenow also spoke before Harris, alluding to how it got “scarier and scarier” the more she thought about the proposed policies of Trump’s supporters. The former president has sought to distance himself from the far-right Heritage Foundation, whose Project 2025 plan calls for the mass firings of civil servants and exalts the idea outlawing abortion altogether during a second Trump presidency.But he has struggled to effectively do that, with Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, having written the foreword for a book by the Heritage Foundation’s president. And, echoing Stabenow, many attenders said they were fearful and terrified of what a return to the Oval Office for Trump may produce.The Democratic nominee’s message resonated with Richard Bandstra, who described himself as a “former Republican”. Bandstra said he came to the rally to hear a message of hope – and, as he saw it, to fight for what he called the most important issue of the race: preserving American democracy. More

    • 250 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      A Democratic ex-mayor is running for Senate in one of the most Republican US states. Does he have a chance?

      by

      The man in the blue shirt leveled his gaze at Glenn Elliott, who had just walked into his yard in the quiet, conservative town of Moundsville and introduced himself as a candidate to represent West Virginia in the US Senate.“It would take a lot to make me like any politician right now,” the man replied.It wasn’t an unfamiliar sentiment for Elliott, a former city mayor running as a Democrat to represent a state that has become one of the most Republican places in the country in recent years. Voter disenchantment is inevitable in West Virginia, which ranks at or near the bottom in most quality of life measures, from childhood poverty rates to overdose deaths. But Elliott has his ways of keeping the conversation going.“Well, I’m running against Jim Justice,” he replied. The man’s interest was piqued, and when he agreed to accept a flyer from Elliott, the tall, silver-haired 52-year-old exclaimed, “So, you’re saying there’s a chance!”View image in fullscreenJustice is the state’s Republican governor, who, because of West Virginia’s strongly conservative tilt, is viewed as a shoo-in for the seat being vacated by Joe Manchin, a one-time Democrat who is leaving the Senate after acting as a thorn in the side of Joe Biden during the first two years of his presidency.Democrats are scrambling to maintain their 51-seat majority in Congress’s upper chamber, a task made harder by Manchin’s decision last year not to run again, and by the fact that their best pathway to another two years in the majority requires the re-election of Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, and Montana’s Jon Tester, two senators representing red states.Recent polls have shown the latter coming up short against his Republican challenger, and the party is now hoping for perhaps even more unlikely victories by candidates in Florida and Texas. Should those efforts fail and Republicans take the Senate as Trump returns to the White House, they could confirm his rightwing picks for supreme court, cabinet and powerful federal regulatory agencies. Even if Harris wins, a Republican-controlled Senate could block her choices for the same positions.West Virginia was for decades a Democratic stronghold, but after giving Trump two of his biggest victories of any state in 2016 and 2020, the party’s leaders have essentially written off its Senate seat. The party’s decline was confirmed earlier this year, when Manchin switched his registration to independent, meaning there are no longer any Democrats in statewide office.Elliott is on a mission to change that, and prove Justice wrong. He argues that Justice, whose businesses are enveloped in a legal storm of lawsuits and unpaid bills, is not as popular as he appears, and is pressing on with his campaign despite little support from national Democratic power brokers.There are few polls of the race in West Virginia, but those that exist show Elliott, who Manchin has endorsed, badly trailing. Justice was up 62% to Elliott’s 28% in an August survey by MetroNews West Virginia, and another poll, commissioned by the Democrat’s campaign that same month, showed him doing only slightly better, with Justice’s lead at 58%.“I’ve never thought it was a high probability race, but I’ve always known there’s a chance,” Elliott said during an interview in his storefront campaign headquarters in downtown Wheeling, the city in West Virginia’s northern panhandle he led from 2016 until June. “Perhaps I’m naive, but I do believe that West Virginia voters can see the contrast in me and Governor Justice just in the way we’ve run this campaign.”Elliott may be on to something, though there are no indications it amounts to enough to win the race. In an interview with the Guardian, the man with the blue shirt, who did not want to give his name but said he was a registered independent and Donald Trump supporter, made clear he loathed politicians – Justice included.“Jim Justice is for those who are against us,” he said. Holding Elliott’s flyer, he said he would think about voting for him.View image in fullscreenTrump’s strength in West Virginia has political forecasters predicting no surprises in November. GOP candidates are expected to sweep the governor’s mansion and federal offices up for grabs, and party fundraisers and campaign organizations have sent little money to Elliott or any other candidate.“I think it absolutely was an error,” said Shawn Fluharty, a West Virginia house delegate who has managed to hang on to his seat representing Wheeling for the past 10 years, even as the state has grown more Republican.“I think that Jim Justice is not as well liked as he was probably two years ago when they started polling that race. And I believe there was an opportunity. If Glenn had the full backing of the DNC, this race would be a hell of a lot closer than what the polls currently show.”A businessman with interests in coal and agriculture, Justice was a Democrat as recently as 2017 then changed parties to become a reliable Trump ally, signing an abortion ban and a law banning transgender athletes from participating in public school female sports.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut West Virginians have also grown used to hearing stories of his companies being sued or not paying their bills. Last year, the justice department sued the governor, alleging his family companies owed more than $7.5m in unpaid penalties, and this year, a helicopter owned by one of his businesses was auctioned off to satisfy a judgment that resulted from a lawsuit involving a Russian mining firm.“I knew that there’s some vulnerability there, and frankly, thought that I could outwork him and work hard to overcome what would be a pretty built-in advantage for him as the incumbent governor with an R next to his name,” said Elliott.Polls of the Senate race found solid majorities of voters did not know much about Elliott, who has put issues such as healthcare, abortion rights and support for organized labor at the center of his campaign. In an effort to change that, he has visited every county in the state since winning his primary in May, knowing full well that to win, he would need to convince West Virginians who were sure to vote for Trump to also vote for him.“The former president definitely has the attention of a lot of voters who feel like they’re being ignored,” he said. “I’m not running against him, I’m running against Jim Justice.”

      Don’t miss important US election coverage. Get our free app and sign up for election alerts
      On a sunny Wednesday afternoon, he followed the highway that curves south along the Ohio river from Wheeling to go door knocking in Moundsville, arriving at the door of 86-year-old retired coalminer Bob Parsons. When Parsons learned that Elliott was a Democrat, he asked the former mayor to name one good thing Biden and Harris had done.Elliott mentioned that the president’s policies had helped pay for new sewage infrastructure in Wheeling. “They definitely missed opportunities and they screwed up the border,” he added.Though Parsons was a devout Trump supporter – he kept a sticker reading “It’s not my fault, I voted for Trump” on the back of his pickup truck’s camper shell – he also split his ticket between the parties, and was not impressed with Justice.“I just don’t see Jim going to DC much,” he said.Further down the street, Elliott encountered Melody Vucelick, a Democrat whose faith in the party was waning. Biden had disappointed her with his handling of immigration, and Vucelick said she was “totally against” Harris.“I really want Trump to get in there to close that border,” the 71-year-old retiree said in an interview. “Small towns like this, I feel for my own safety, being alone.”But in this one instance, Elliott need not worry. Vucelick said she still planned to support Democrats for every other spot on the ballot, and he will have her vote. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      A third of Americans agree with Trump that immigrants ‘poison the blood’ of US

      by

      A new poll has revealed that more than one-third of Americans agree with Donald Trump’s warning that undocumented immigrants in the US are “poisoning the blood” of America.A significant 34% of the respondents to the poll, conducted by the Brookings Institution and Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), agreed with the statement previously made on the election campaign trail by the former US president and Republican party nominee for the White House, Donald Trump.“One-third of Americans (34%) say that immigrants entering the country illegally today are ‘poisoning the blood of our country’, including six in 10 Republicans (61%), 30% of independents, and only 13% of Democrats,” a summary of the annual poll stated, which surveyed more than 5,000 individuals from 16 August to 4 September.“This is a truly alarming situation to find this kind of rhetoric, find this kind of support from one of our two major political parties,” said Robert Jones, president and founder of the PRRI, during a presentation of the poll’s findings. “That language is straight out of Mein Kampf. This kind of poisoning the blood, it’s Nazi rhetoric.”Trump told supporters during a rally in New Hampshire in December 2023 that immigrants coming into the US are “poisoning the blood of our country”.“They let – I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” Trump told the crowd. “That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.”He repeated the phrase in a social media post after the rally and had previously used it in a September 2023 interview.“Blood poisoning” was a term used by Adolf Hitler in his Mein Kampf manifesto. Trump’s comments incited a strong rebuke from the Biden campaign at the time.The former Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie responded to Trump’s comments by stating: “He’s disgusting.”The television presenter Geraldo Rivera recently cited the comments made by Trump in an interview with NewsNation, explaining why he would not vote for the former president. “I don’t know how any Latino person of any self-esteem, any self-respect, would be in favor of the ranting, the poisoning the blood of the country.”The poll also found nearly one in four Trump supporters, 23%, believe if he loses the election that he should declare the results invalid and do whatever it takes to assume office. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Two rulings restore calm to Georgia elections rules – for now

      by

      Two court rulings in Georgia over the last week have beaten back efforts by Republican activists to empower political challenges to November’s election results, though the expected legal fight over the election is far from concluded.Robert McBurney, a Fulton county superior court judge, ruled on Tuesday that elections officials had a legal obligation to certify an election, leaving disputes over results and allegations of misconduct to investigation by local district attorneys’ offices. The ruling rejected the assertion of Trump-aligned attorneys working with Julie Adams, a Republican appointee to the Fulton election board, that board members could exercise their discretion in certification.A day later, another Fulton county superior court judge, Thomas Cox, issued a stern order after a short hearing, invalidating seven rules made by Georgia’s state election board this year. One of the invalidated rules required ballots to be hand-counted on election night. A second allowed elections officials to conduct a poorly defined “reasonable inquiry” into discrepancies before issuing a certification. And a third would have required elections officials to turn over volumes of documents to board members for review before certification.The rules, passed by a three-person bloc of Trump-aligned members on the five-person board, were “unsupported by Georgia’s Election Code and are in fact contrary to the Election Code”, according to the ruling, which added that the state election board lacked the authority to create rules that go beyond state law. The ruling sharply limits the power of the state election board to make further rules.The Georgia Republican party said it would appeal the ruling, while voting rights groups hailed the victory.“Striking down the state election board’s hand-count and other rules is a major win for voters, election integrity and democracy as a whole,” Nichola Hines, president of the League of Women Voters of Georgia, a plaintiff in the suit challenging the state election board, said in a statement. “These rules were introduced with bad intentions and aimed at causing chaos in Georgia’s secure elections process. The League remains committed to standing up for Georgia voters every step of the way.”

      Don’t miss important US election coverage. Get our free app and sign up for election alerts
      The state election board’s rule-making put it at odds with many county elections directors, voting rights advocates and the attorney general’s office, which advised the board that the rules it was considering would probably be found unconstitutional.Janelle King, one of the three board members Trump praised as being “pit bulls for honesty, transparency and victory” at an Atlanta rally earlier this year, defended the board’s actions in an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on its Politically Georgia podcast on Thursday.“I feel like the benefit in all of this is that, I hope people see that has never been and isn’t a partisan issue,” she said. “A Republican brought this case against us,” she added, referring to Scot Turner, a retired Georgia state representative who was a plaintiff suing the board.With regard to the hand-counting of ballots, King said that the board’s rule-making was meant to ensure an accurate vote count.“This is not saying anything sinister is going on,” King said. “We keep talking about human error. If we know there’s going to be human error, then it’s important for us to create rules that are surrounded by laws that allow us to plug that hole. That’s what I thought I was doing and what I will continue to do.”Voting rights organizations disagree with her characterization of the board’s rule-making.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“The 11th-hour rules adopted by the state election board only serve to cause disruption to the electoral process and confusion for voters,” Campaign Legal Center’s voting advocacy and partnerships director, Jonathan Diaz, said. “We are glad one state court has agreed that the hand-count rule cannot go into effect for the upcoming election and we encourage other courts to follow suit.”The board itself is under fire by Democratic lawmakers, who see its members as partisan in ways that may violate the law. A suit by the Georgia state senator Nabilah Islam-Parkes, former Fulton elections board chair Cathy Woolard and state senator-elect Randall Mangham sought to force Governor Brian Kemp to investigate the board for conflicts of interest and potentially remove some of its members.Judge Ural Glanville dismissed the suit earlier this month, ruling that the Democrats could not simply label their accusations “formal charges” and compel the governor to act.The three have appealed the ruling, Mangham said.“Look, these people clearly have conflicts of interest and ethical violations and are intentionally violating the law,” Mangham said. He referred to comments by one state board member, Rick Jeffares, who suggested his interest in becoming a regional Environmental Protection Agency director to a former Trump campaign aide. “This atmosphere is coming from a rogue elections board. Just a few rogue people. These people who are lining up for a job in the new administration … It’s like an umpire is lobbying for a job on the team and can then go and call a play fairly. And then you don’t want to investigate it?”The last-minute rule changes struck down by Georgia judges would never have happened under the provisions of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the US supreme court, Mangham said. “The preclearance requirement would keep all of this from coming.” More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Do Democrats have a ‘men’ problem? – podcast

      by

      The Harris campaign, which has been praised for how it has managed to reach out to women, is now having to balance their attention and pitch some policies that would appeal to men.
      But is it too little too late? Jonathan Freedland speaks to Richard Reeves, the president of the American Institute for Boys and Men, and Gloria Oladipo, a breaking news reporter for Guardian US, about why men could decide this year’s election and why both campaigns might be taking them for granted

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More