US elections 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump says maybe God saved him from assassination attempt to fix ‘broken country’

      by

      Donald Trump told a Fox News host that he thinks God believes he will “straighten out” the country after he survived an assassination attempt in July at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania.“I think you think like, if you believe in God, you believe in God more. And somebody said like, why? And I’d like to think that God thinks that I’m going to straighten out our country,” Trump told Mark Levin on Life, Liberty & Levin after the host asked him if the shooting on 13 July had strengthened his belief in the almighty.In recent months the former US president and current Republican presidential candidate has increasingly sought to mobilise his religious base and some of its most extreme elements – such as Christian nationalists – as he seeks to get re-elected to the White House.Trump has previously suggested that it was divine intervention that the bullet from Matthew Crook’s gun merely clipped his ear. Soon after the shooting, he told reporters, “I’m not supposed to be here. I’m supposed to be dead.”“By luck or by God, many people are saying it’s by God I’m still here,” he said.During his Fox News interview, Trump pivoted to floating God’s political purpose for his survival. “Our country is so sick and it’s so broken. Our country is just broken. And maybe that was the reason, I don’t know. I don’t know, a lot of people have said that.”For evidence, he cited the view of his sons, both hunters, who had told him, he said, “there was no chance that he (Crooks) could have missed from that distance”. He added that he thought the shooter, who had been spotted by rallygoers, “was probably rushed”.Trump praised his Secret Service detail, which has come under intense criticism for failing to stop Crooks before he took up position on a rooftop less than 300ft away from the stage and fired off eight shots, killing one and seriously wounding two others.“Obviously, somebody should have been on top of that roof. And there was some problems. But I have to tell you – Secret Service. They were on top of me and they were bullets were flying over us–and there wasn’t one of them that said, ‘Oh gee, I’m not doing that,’” Trump said.The former US president’s invocation of a divine purpose comes as his former commerce secretary Wilbur Ross publicly warned him against being too “big and strong” in his upcoming debate against Vice-President Kamala Harris on 10 September.“The only danger is Trump being big and strong and a man,” Ross told radio host John Catsimatidis over the weekend. “He has to be careful not to be seen as piling on a woman. People don’t like to see a woman pushed too hard,” Ross said.During his term in the White House, Trump advisers frequently went on TV to express opinions that they wanted the president to consider. Ross said the debate should not be about theatrics but rather about “real topics” like inflation, foreign affairs, and the country’s southern border.“I think he needs to smoke her out as to what her positions are on those topics and subject them to real debate,” Ross said. “I think if he sticks to those issues, I think he’ll do just fine.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Why are so many Democratic politicians appearing on Fox News?

      by

      Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden’s transport secretary, introduced himself to Democrats at their convention earlier last month in unusual fashion. “I’m Pete Buttigieg and you might recognize me from Fox News,” he told the crowd in Chicago.The comment drew laughter, but beneath it was a certain truth: in the final two months of the 2024 election, politicians and campaign aides are less siloed in their ideologically aligned media bubbles in an effort to poach potentially persuadable voters.Buttigieg said he is proud to go on conservative outlets to speak on behalf of the Harris-Walz campaign because their arguments and facts might not otherwise be aired to that audience. So too have the Democratic governors Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore and Gretchen Whitmer, and senators Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, John Fetterman and Chris Coons also dropped in on the network.Meanwhile, Trump campaign adviser Corey Lewandowski has been on MSNBC’s The Beat with Ari Melber, and JD Vance on CNN. Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris told CNN she would find a place in her cabinet for a Republican if elected.In an election that is likely to turn on a small number of undecided voters in a handful of swing states, and considering that the Harris-Walz campaign has been on a bus tour of heavily Republican, mainly pro-Trump rural Georgia where there aren’t many votes to get, the cross-border forays into enemy TV territory makes sense.“We have so many hyper-close elections in swing states that even if you only get a point or two that you take away from Republicans and put in your column can be the 10,000 votes that give you that swing state,” said the University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato.The same is true for going on a cable news station holding perceived political biases. When Buttigieg goes on Fox News, Sabato says, he is “not just addressing Republicans, but also getting Democrats indebted to him for the unpleasant task he’s performing”.But the media too likes to play the game – albeit for different reasons. The issue of the media, and its perceived political biases, has become a central campaign issue in the US and there is a deep public hostility to journalists. For the more partisan television networks like Fox and MSNBC, there is an advantage to having people from the other side on – as it may somewhat defuse accusations of one-sidedness.It is also a long tradition. Fox News used to have a now-distant show called Hannity & Colmes that was presented by conservative Sean Hannity and liberal Alan Colmes. Typically, Colmes would come off worse – and indeed was often the subject of much mockery.“Both play a game here,” said Sabato. “Fox News chooses people who are quote-unquote Democrats who haven’t been in the game for sometime or who are out of sync with the party, and the same is true with Republicans on CNN. They feel an obligation – if not balanced, then at least a voice to the other side.”The passage of Democrats to Fox may also be entirely pragmatic given the power of the channel. Nielsen Media Research shows Fox News is the highest-rated network in all swing states. According to a recent YouGov poll –54% of Republicans, 22% of Democrats and 28% of independent voters had watched the cable station in the past month.An Axios/Harris 100 Poll also found that Fox News has gained ground this year with more independents and Democrats in terms of trust. Jessica Loker, vice-president of politics at the network, told Bloomberg that the network sees ratings go up when Democrats are on. The Fox News anchor Bret Baier told Axios: “If you build it, they will come.”A Fox News spokesperson confirmed that the outlet has seen, even before the Democratic convention in Chicago, a 41% increase in Democrat guests, excluding strategists, in the year to August.But that comes as politicians are fighting daily battles over media representation, most recently over whether microphones at the ABC-hosted Harris-Trump debate on 10 September would be muted when it is the other person’s turn to speak. Before that, the campaigns were locked in disputes over which network would host and when.“The inner workings of the political process are so much the subject matter, and that includes how the political process interacts with the media,” said Robert Thompson, director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture. “If they’re talking about microphones, or if it’s a fair place, then they’re not talking about the issues that they should be talking about in a debate, which they may or may not actually talk about that debate.”Moreover, Thompson points out, “the whole debate over doing a presidential debate on ABC or Fox demonstrates how much everyone assumes that each one of these operations are part of a set of established political ideologies.”“The things being debated are newly self-generated parts of how journalism has become so intimately part of the story as opposed to being the medium by which we communicate these two people,” said Thompson.And it is apt to go wrong. Last week, MSNBC’s Ari Melber threatened to sue Lewandowski for lying about him over comments he made over the attempted Trump assassination. Trump is suing ABC News and George Stephanopoulos over the anchor’s assertion that a jury concluded Trump had raped magazine writer E Jean Carroll. So, it seems, even if Democrats are venturing on to hostile territory more and more, the terrain still remains thoroughly part of a battlefield. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans are lining up to oppose Trump. Will it make a difference?

      by

      Donald Trump has a knack for rallying a remarkable range of political opinion around a common goal: preventing his return to the White House.That now includes prominent names from his own Republican party and top aides who worked under him as president. From former White House officials and national security staff to a once-worshipful press secretary, a host of one-time Trump fans are now lining up to join Democrats in declaring him unfit for another term in office.White House lawyers who served Republican presidents going back to Ronald Reagan and retired senior military officers have also denounced Trump as a danger to democracy.Adding to Trump’s humiliation, even members of his own cabinet – who once pledged their fealty with a subservience that would not displease Vladimir Putin – are declining to endorse him for re-election in November.It’s not entirely a one-way street. For his part, Trump has managed to win over Robert F Kennedy Jr, scion of the US’s most renowned Democratic family and erstwhile presidential candidate, and Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic member of Congress.Trump has added the pair to his transition team but the impact of their endorsement was tempered by Democrats swiftly reminding voters that Kennedy once described Trump as “a terrible president” and his policies as “absurd and terrifying”. Neither will more reasoned Republicans be reassured by Kennedy’s anti-vaxxer views, which have drawn the scorn of at least one major party donor.The anti-Trump messages are principally aimed at persuading Republicans who may formerly have voted for him that they should put country before party to keep a dangerous populist from a second term in the White House. Opinion polls say that 9% of likely voters who support Trump are prepared to at least consider switching to the Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris.In early August, her campaign launched “Republicans for Harris” to target voters thought most likely to switch, particularly those who backed Trump’s rival in the primaries, Nikki Haley.On Monday, 200 Republicans who worked for President George W Bush and the former presidential candidates Senators Mitt Romney and John McCain, released an open letter in support of Harris and her running mate, the Minnesota governor, Tim Walz.The letter warned that there was more to fear from Trump than a repeat of his first term because he is now bound up with the authoritarian plan to impose rightwing control across the entire US government, including non-partisan federal agencies, known as Project 2025.“Of course, we have plenty of honest, ideological disagreements with Vice President Harris and Gov Walz. That’s to be expected. The alternative, however, is simply untenable,” the letter said.“At home, another four years of Donald Trump’s chaotic leadership, this time focused on advancing the dangerous goals of Project 2025, will hurt real, everyday people and weaken our sacred institutions. Abroad, democratic movements will be irreparably jeopardized as Trump and his acolyte JD Vance kowtow to dictators like Vladimir Putin while turning their backs on our allies. We can’t let that happen.”The signatories included Jean Becker, President George HW Bush’s chief of staff; David Nierenberg, the campaign finance chair for Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign; and two former chiefs of staff for McCain.View image in fullscreenThe Trump campaign communications director, Steven Cheung, scorned the letter as written by nonentities.“It’s hilarious because nobody knows who these people are. They would rather see the country burn down than to see President Trump successfully return to the White House to Make America Great Again,” he told Fox News.But many Trump supporters will have heard of Stephanie Grisham who served as White House press secretary and routinely appeared on conservative media outlets promoting the then president. Grisham spoke at the Democratic national convention in August where she described how she was once “a true believer” but by the end of Trump’s presidency had concluded that “he has no empathy, no morals, and no fidelity to the truth.“Trump mocks his supporters. He calls them basement dwellers,” she told the DNC and millions of Americans voters watching on television.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionGrisham, who was the first senior White House official to resign after Trump stoked the January 6 insurrection, called on Americans to vote for Harris.“I love my country more than my party. Kamala Harris tells the truth. She respects the American people and she has my vote,” she said.A former member of Congress, Adam Kinzinger, who was one of just 10 Republicans to vote to impeach Trump after the attack on the Capitol, also denounced him from the Democratic convention podium for having “suffocated the soul of the Republican party”.Other Republicans have joined the criticisms of Trump by saying that it is not enough to stand by and not vote in November.A dozen former White House lawyers who served Republican presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W Bush backed Harris in a letter warning that returning Trump to office “would threaten American democracy and undermine the rule of law in our country”. The letter appeals to “all patriotic Republicans, former Republicans, conservative and center-right citizens, and independent voters to place love of country above party and ideology” and vote for Harris.“We cannot go along with other former Republican officials who have condemned Trump with these devastating judgments but are still not willing to vote for Harris. We believe this election presents a binary choice, and Trump is utterly disqualified,” it said.That appears aimed at former officials such as John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, and former defense secretary Mark Esper who have both denounced Trump as unfit for office but declined to endorse Harris.The letter signed by the 200 former officials said the last presidential election was decided by “moderate Republicans and conservative independents” in swing states who “put country far before party” to defeat Trump four years ago.“We’re heartfully calling on these friends, colleagues, neighbors, and family members to take a brave stand once more, to vote for leaders that will strive for consensus, not chaos; that will work to unite, not divide; that will make our country and our children proud. Those leaders are Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov Tim Walz,” it said.Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s center for politics, said the appeals by the anti-Trump Republicans are aimed at a narrow slice of the electorate given that he doubts many voters are truly undecided.“A lot of those undecided are just people who are not going to tell the pollster who they’re voting for. There just aren’t that many undecideds. It’s people’s way of avoiding an argument. Also, I don’t think it changes one Republican’s mind who wasn’t open to the idea of not voting for Trump and there aren’t that many of them,” he said.“But it can make a difference for people who pay attention and who are movable. It also makes a difference for Democratic-leaning independents. It justifies the decision to support Harris they’ve already made. For that reason it matters because these are people, many of them, who’ve worked closely with Trump in the White House and they’ve seen up close how incompetent he is and how unsuited he is for the presidency. It’s critical to get these people on the record.” More

    • 238 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The right’s obsession with childless women isn’t just about ideology: it’s essential to the capitalist machine | Nesrine Malik

      by

      A woman without biological children is running for high political office, and so naturally that quality will at some point be used against her. Kamala Harris has, in the short period since she emerged as the Democratic candidate for US president, been scrutinised over her lack of children. The conservative lawyer Will Chamberlain posted on X that Harris “shouldn’t be president” – apparently, she doesn’t have “skin in the game”. The Republican vice-presidential candidate, JD Vance, called Harris and other Democrats “a bunch of childless cat ladies miserable at their own lives”.It’s a particularly virulent tendency in the US, with a rightwing movement that is fixated on women’s reproduction. But who can forget (and if you have, I am happy to remind you of a low point that still sticks in my craw) Andrea Leadsom, during the 2016 Conservative party leadership election, saying that Theresa May might have nieces and nephews, but “I have children who are going to have children … who will be a part of what happens next”. “Genuinely,” she added, as if the message were not clear enough, “I feel that being a mum means you have a real stake in the future of our country, a tangible stake.”It’s an argument about political capability that dresses up a visceral revulsion at the idea that a woman who does not have a child should be vested with any sort of credibility or status. In other comments, Vance said that “so many of the leaders of the left, and I hate to be so personal about this, but they’re people without kids trying to brainwash the minds of our children, that really disorients me and disturbs me”. He appears so fixated on this that it is almost comical: a man whose obsession with childless women verges on a complex.But his “disorientation and disturbance” is a political tendency that persists and endures. It constantly asks the question of women who don’t have children, in subtle and explicit ways, especially the higher they rise in the professional sphere: “What’s up with that? What’s the deal?” The public sphere becomes a space for answering that question. Women perform a sort of group plea to be left the hell alone, in their painstaking examinations of how they arrived at the decision not to have kids, or why they in fact celebrate not having kids, or deliberations on ambivalence about having kids.Behind all this lies some classic old-school inability to conceive of women outside mothering. But one reason this traditionalism persists in ostensibly modern and progressive places is that women withdrawing from mothering in capitalist societies – with their poorly resourced public amenities and parental support – forces questions about our inequitable, unacknowledged economic arrangements. A woman who does not bear children is a woman who will never stay home and provide unremunerated care. She is less likely to be held in the domestic zone and extend her caregiving to elderly relatives or the children of others. She cannot be a resource that undergirds a male partner’s career, frailties, time limitations and social demands.A mother is an option, a floating worker, the joker in the pack. Not mothering creates a hole for that “free” service, which societies increasingly arranged around nuclear families and poorly subsidised rights depend on. The lack of parental leave, childcare and elderly care would become profoundly visible – “disorienting and disturbing” – if that service were removed.“Motherhood,” writes the author Helen Charman in her new book Mother State, “is a political state. Nurture, care, the creation of human life – all immediate associations with mothering – have more to do with power, status and the distribution of resources … than we like to admit. For raising children is the foundational work of society, and, from gestation onward, it is unequally shared.”Motherhood, in other words, becomes an economic input, a public good, something that is talked about as if the women themselves were not in the room. Data on declining birthrates draws comment from Elon Musk (“extremely concerning!!”) . Not having children is reduced to entirely personal motivations – selfishness, beguilement with the false promise of freedom, lack of values and foresight, irresponsibility – rather than external conditions: of the need for affordable childcare, support networks, flexible working arrangements and the risk of financial oblivion that motherhood frequently brings, therefore creating bondage to partners. To put it mildly, these are material considerations to be taken into account upon entering a state from which there is no return. Assuming motherhood happens without such context, Charman tells me, is a “useful fantasy”.It is a binary public discourse, obscuring the often thin veil between biological and social actualisation. Women who don’t have children do not exist in a state of blissful detachment from their bodies and their relationship with maternity: a number have had pregnancies, miscarriages, abortions and periods. A number have entered liminal stages of motherhood that don’t conform to the single definition from which they are excluded. A number extend mothering to various children in their lives. Some, like Harris herself, have stepchildren (who don’t count, just as May’s nieces and nephews didn’t). A number have become mothers, just not in a way that initiates them into a blissful club. They experience regret, depression and navigate unsettlement that does not conform to the image of uncomplicated validation of your purpose in life.But the privilege of those truths cannot be bestowed on creatures whose rejection of the maternal bond has become a rejection of a wider unspoken, colossally unfair contract. Women with children are handed social acceptance for their vital investment in “the future”, in exchange for unrewarded, unsupported labour that props up and stabilises the economic and social status quo. All while still suffering sneeriness about the value of their work in comparison with the serious graft of the men who win the bread.On top of that, women have to navigate all that motherhood – or not – entails, all the deeply personal, bewildering, isolating and unacknowledged realities of both, while being subject to relentless suffocating, infantilising and violating public theories and notions that trespass on their private spaces. With that comes a sense of self-doubt and shame in making the wrong decision, or not being as content with those decisions as they are expected to be. It is a constant, prodding vivisection. That, more than anything clinical observers feel, is the truly disorienting and disturbing experience.

      Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump shares posts of Gold Star families praising cemetery visit and criticizing Harris

      by

      Donald Trump shared statements from the relatives of 13 soldiers killed during the chaotic US evacuation from Kabul as they hit out at Kamala Harris after she criticized the former president’s involvement in a ceremony honoring the service members.The dispute over the ceremony at Arlington national cemetery, during which Trump campaign aides allegedly shoved a cemetery worker so they could film Trump laying a wreath, contravening rules against political activity at the site, escalated after the vice-president said Saturday that Trump “disrespected sacred ground, all for the sake of a political stunt”.But eight members of the “Gold Star” families who lost relatives posted messages on Trump’s Truth Social platform Saturday saying they had invited Trump to the ceremony and criticized the Biden-Harris administration for the Afghanistan pull-out three years ago.“Why did we want Trump there? It wasn’t to help his political campaign,” Mark Schmitz, father of Marine lance corporal Jared Schmitz, said in one video. “We wanted a leader. That explains why you and Joe didn’t get a call.”Darren Hoover, the father of Marine staff Sgt Taylor Hoover, said Harris lacks “empathy and basic understanding” about the event, and emphasized that Trump’s appearance was respectful.The army said this week that a cemetery official was “abruptly pushed aside” while interacting with Trump’s staff.On Saturday, congressional Democrats called on the army to deliver a report on what had taken place at the cemetery on Monday. Harris later posted on Twitter/X that the military burial site is “not a place for politics”.“Let me be clear: the former president disrespected sacred ground, all for the sake of a political stunt,” Harris added, and said she would “never politicize” such an event.The dispute continued on Sunday, when former Democratic congresswoman and Iraq veteran Tulsi Gabbard, now a member of Trump’s transition team, told CNN’s State of the Union that she was at the ceremony and saw “a very grave and somber remembrance and honoring of those lives that were lost”.Gabbard said she saw Trump “spending time at the invitation of these Gold Star families with them” and did “not see or hear about any kind of altercation until something came out in the news later on”.Gabbard rejected Harris’s statement saying she stood with the veteran’s families. Gabbard told CNN: “President Biden and Harris, I heard, were invited by some of these family members. They not only didn’t come – they didn’t even respond to that invitation.”Senator Tom Cotton continued the Republican pushback, telling NBC’s Meet the Press that the Gold Star families had invited Trump, but also Joe Biden and Harris, and he disputed that photos and video were meant for political purposes.“Joe Biden was sitting on a beach. Kamala Harris was sitting in her mansion in DC … She was four miles away. Ten minutes. She could have gone to the cemetery and honored the sacrifice of those young men and women,” Cotton said.A White House official and a Harris aide disputed Cotton and Gabbard’s account that the president and Harris had been invited to the ceremony, according to NBC News.As the political fallout from the Arlington ceremony continues, it has drawn in Utah governor Spencer Cox, a moderate Republican who kept his political distance from the Republican presidential candidate until the attempted assassination on Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July.Cox, a Latter-day Saint, later said he believes God had a hand in saving Trump’s life, even calling it a miracle.Cox attended the controversial ceremony and published photos from the event on his official account. Cox’s re-election campaign later issued an apology.“Honoring those who serve should never be ‘political’,” it read, adding that the campaign was committed “to ensure that we run the best campaign possible and we’ll accomplish that by not politicizing things that shouldn’t be politicized”. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Senior adviser rejects rumors of shake-up in Trump campaign leadership

      by

      Trump campaign senior official Corey Lewandowski has rejected rumors of shake-up in the management of the former president’s election bid, saying the operation’s leadership will not change.Lewandowski, Trump’s 2016 campaign manager who recently joined the 2024 team, told Fox News Sunday that campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita will remain at the top.“We are solely focused on one thing, which is making sure Donald Trump has the opportunity to lay out his vision for America over the next nine weeks,” Lewandowski said.Lewandowski, a controversial figure who was fired by Trump in 2016 after grabbing the arm of a reporter and four years later lost his position overseeing a pro-Trump political fund amid claims he made unwanted sexual advances on a Trump donor, was re-admitted to the campaign last month.That prompted speculation that Lewandowski would be appointed campaign chairperson as Trump’s polling began to slip against a reformulated Democratic party operation with a new candidate. Some reports asserted that Trump had “been feeling superstitious and nostalgic of late”.But rising speculation that Wiles and LaCivita might be pushed aside in favor of Lewandowski and former presidential counsellor Kellyanne Conway have not materialized into a campaign shake-up.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionA Trump campaign statement last month said that Trump “thinks Ms Wiles and Mr LaCivita are doing a phenomenal job and any rumors to the contrary are false and not rooted in reality”.An ABC News/Ipsos poll released on Sunday showed Kamala Harris with a four-point lead over Trump among registered voters 50%-46%, and a six-point advantage among likely voters, 52%-46%.But neither Trump nor Harris appeared to get a boost from their respective party’s conventions. However, more voters were also willing to say Harris is “too liberal” to be president (46%) than indicate Trump is “too conservative” (43%).“The race between them remains close, with no overall bounce in support for Harris out of her nominating convention,” said Gary Langer, president of Langer Research Associates, which conducted the survey. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      RFK Jr sues North Carolina elections board to remove his name from ballot

      by

      Robert F Kennedy Jr is suing North Carolina’s state board of elections after it refused to remove his name from the electoral ballot following his decision to drop his independent presidential campaign and endorse Donald Trump.The legal action comes after a series of ballot woes that initially impeded Kennedy’s campaign but are now threatening to undermine the impact of his decision to end it.Kennedy announced the suspension of his presidential bid on 23 August, saying he planned to remove his name from the ballot in 10 states, including vital swing states where his was presence was likely to damage Trump in knife-edge contests with Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee.“Our polling consistently showed that by staying on the ballot in the battleground states, I would likely hand the election over to the Democrats, with whom I disagree on the most existential issues,” Kennedy told journalists when he announced his withdrawal in Phoenix, Arizona, last month.He has since been enthusiastically embraced by Trump, who has appointed him to his transition team, despite concerns among conservative Republicans about Kennedy’s Democratic past and his support for abortion rights.However, Kennedy’s request to remove his name in North Carolina – a key battleground where recent opinion surveys have shown Harris taking a small lead – was rejected by the state election board after it said around 1.7m ballot papers had already been printed and that producing new ones would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.“It would not be practical to reprint ballots that have already been printed and meet the state law deadline to start absentee voting,” the board said in a 29 August statement.Sixty seven of the states 100 counties have already received their absentee mail-in ballots, meaning creating batches would create logistical problems, officials said. “When we talk about the printing a ballot we are not talking about … pressing ‘copy’ on a Xerox machine. This is a much more complex and layered process,” the election board’s executive director, Karen Brinson Bell, said.Board members split three to two along Democratic-Republican party lines in denying Kennedy’s request.A law suit filed on his behalf claims that the decision has damaged his rights of free speech.“By refusing to acknowledge Kennedy’s statutory rights and entitlements, defendants have irreparably harmed him,” the suit argued. “Even worse, by forcing Kennedy to remain on the ballot against his will, defendants are compelling speech in violation of [the US constitution].”The dispute with North Carolina is mirrored in two other states seen as vital to the outcome of the 5 November election.Kennedy has also been refused permission to remove his name from the ballot in Wisconsin and Michigan, where polls indicate his presence could help Harris at the expense of Trump.In Michigan, Harris gains 0.1% with Kennedy’s name on the ballot, according to RealClearPolitics, which already gives her a 2.2% lead over Trump from recent polling averages. The same analysis sees her gaining 0.5% through Kennedy’s presence in Wisconsin, where she already has a one point advantage in recent surveys.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWisconsin – where Kennedy was nominated by the Natural Law Party – rejected his request to remove his name on 27 August, citing election law that states that only death could result in a candidate’s removal once nominated.“Any person who files nomination papers and qualifies to appear on the ballot may not decline nomination,” the state’s election law says. “The name of that person shall appear upon the ballot except in case of death of the person.”Kennedy has successfully removed himself from the ballot in several other battleground states, including Pennsylvania, Nevada and Arizona.His struggle to get off the ballot in some states has been mirrored by his difficulties in getting on in others, where his presence is unlikely to affect the outcome.In New York, an appeals committee last week upheld a judge’s decision to exclude from the ballot on the grounds that he lived in California and that an address he filed as a state residence was that of a friend.“This is not a situation where Kennedy erroneously listed a former residence in the nominating petition, but rather, Kennedy listed an address at which the record evidence reflects he has never resided,” the panel of judges wrote.Ironically, Georgia – another battleground state where Kennedy’s presence could adversely affect Trump – recently ruled that he was “not qualified” to appear on the ballot because of doubts about his New York residence. The Georgia secretary of state’s office has said that Kennedy’s name “will not be appearing on the ballot in Georgia this election”. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      For decades, it’s been a man’s world on Capitol Hill – that’s finally changing

      by

      The halls of the US Congress were, for many years, a man’s world. The first woman elected to Congress, the Republican Jeannette Rankin of Montana, joined the House in 1917, three years before the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote and decades before the civil rights movement enabled ballot access for women of color.Now, more than a century later, 150 women serve in Congress, marking an all-time high. And as more women have joined the House and Senate, the ranks of senior staffers on the Hill have shifted alongside them. More women, specifically young women, are leading congressional offices as chiefs of staff, giving them invaluable access to lawmakers and opportunities to influence the policies that shape Americans’ lives.Data shows that white male staffers are still more likely to hold senior roles on Capitol Hill, but the young women who lead congressional offices want to help change that. And among Democratic chiefs of staff, this year represents an inflection point: many of them were first inspired to get involved in politics after Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016, and the country now has another opportunity to not only defeat Donald Trump but elect Kamala Harris as the first female president.“It’s really important for women in positions of power to be speaking out and sharing their experiences,” said Marie Baldassarre, 29, chief of staff to the Democratic congressman Ro Khanna. “The more of those examples that young women can have, then the less we doubt ourselves – because we’ve seen other people do it.”A call to action after 2016Multiple Democratic chiefs of staff said they had not envisioned a career in politics before Trump’s victory in 2016. They certainly did not expect to rise to the level of a chief of staff, who holds the most senior role in a congressional office and can directly consult with a House member on legislative and political decisions.After her family emigrated to the US from Iran when she was seven, Armita Pedramrazi, chief of staff to the Democratic representative Mary Gay Scanlon, thought she might go into pro-bono immigration law. Then a mentor suggested she apply for a job with the then congresswoman Susan Davis.“I applied completely on a whim, thinking there was absolutely no way that someone without political connections or without some sort of leverage could work for a congressional office,” said Pedramrazi, 32. “It felt like this incredibly far away, impossible thing.”She got the job and eventually moved to Washington DC in 2016, expecting to do immigration policy work with Hillary Clinton’s administration. That did not come to pass, but she stayed on in her legislative role with Davis before arriving in Scanlon’s office and working her way up to chief of staff.For Amy Kuhn, chief of staff to Democratic congresswoman Sara Jacobs, Clinton campaign’s in 2016 marked her first foray into political work. And although Clinton lost, the experience allowed Kuhn to meet her current boss and underscored the importance of the work.“I’m a gay woman who grew up in the very red state of Montana, so a lot of my life has been very political by its nature,” said Kuhn, 35. “[The Clinton campaign] was such a good experience, but the outcome was so personal and painful, and we were all reckoning with what it meant for Donald Trump to become president.”If Trump’s presidency spurred them into action, several chiefs of staff said the overturning of Roe v Wade in 2022 served as a reminder of why they chose this professional path.“My mom dedicated her career to fighting for reproductive rights, and that was something I really viewed as a threat when I first got involved in politics,” Baldassarre said. “Now that Roe has been overturned, it just motivates me that the fight isn’t over.”Since launching her campaign, Harris has placed a renewed emphasis on the importance of protecting abortion access. She has embraced the rallying cry of “we’re not going back” to bolster her argument that this election represents an existential fight over Americans’ fundamental freedoms.For young women working in Democratic politics, the excitement around Harris’s candidacy demonstrates the importance of deploying effective messengers who understand the gravity of issues like abortion access.View image in fullscreen“She’s a trustworthy narrator. She can talk about the issue from personal experience, as so many women can,” said Abby May, 28, chief of staff to the Democratic congressman Wiley Nickel. “Being able to speak to the millions of women out there who are worried about having their rights ripped away, and knowing that she’s someone who understands exactly what’s at stake, is hugely impactful.”The same logic applies to the young women who lead congressional offices, Pedramrazi argued.“Being a young woman in this moment, there are ways that we can talk about the issues facing the electorate and our constituents that are much more personal,” she said.“To me, that’s the benefit of any type of diversity. You have people who are bringing a different kind of fire to the issues that affect them personally. And I think that is as true being a young woman chief of staff as it is for anyone.”More work remainsEven as more young women step into senior roles in congressional offices, they remain somewhat of an anomaly. According to 2019 data compiled by the left-leaning thinktank New America, 22% of female Hill staffers serve in senior roles compared to 33% of male Hill staffers. Women were also less likely than men to serve in roles focused on political leadership, which tend to be more senior and better paid. Among female staffers on the Hill, 11% of them worked in political leadership in 2019, compared to 17% of male staffers.People of color face their own challenges on the Hill. According to a 2022 report from the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, people of color account for only 18% of top House staff, even as they make up 40% of the national population. In the personal offices of white Democratic members, people of color represent 14.8% of top staff, compared to 5.2% in the personal offices of white Republican members.And although those under 35 made up a majority of Hill staffers, political leadership roles tend to be held by those more advanced in their careers. In 2019, the average tenure for all staffers was roughly three years, according to New America’s data, but the average tenure for those in political management roles was more than 14 years.The impact of remaining in the minority is felt by many of the staffers. May said that, even as her boss has expressed unwavering confidence in her capabilities, she has still had the experience of being mistaken for his daughter or intern.“I think the main challenges are with external folks who come in expecting one type of face when they’re meeting with the chief of staff and get mine,” May said. “Being taken seriously at all levels when we are doing such important work is still a reality that I think all women chiefs of staff – and women around the country – deal with.”Baldasarre echoed that sentiment, while praising Khanna and other mentors for giving her opportunities for advancement. “I think the biggest challenge that I’ve faced has actually been much more subtle, which is that women, people of color, younger people, we just aren’t given the same benefit of the doubt when we walk into a new room,” she said.Despite those challenges, there are signs of slow change. The New America data found the percentage of women in senior staffer roles increased by 5%, from 17% to 22%, between 2017 and 2019, although the percentage of men in senior staffer roles rose by 11 points in that same time period. The report from the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies found that the percentage of people of color in top House staffer positions rose from 13.7% to 18% between 2018 and 2022.“I’m grateful that the institution of Congress is sort of changing along with us,” Kuhn said. “We go into weekly meetings with all the Democratic chiefs, and it is a remarkably diverse room.”The young women chiefs of staff are bringing about change in their own offices as well, encouraging colleagues to take mental health days and providing younger employees the opportunity to voice their opinions.Pedramrazi wants to build an experience for her younger coworkers that feels distinctly different from her own early memories on the Hill, when she often felt condescended to by external groups. She got the impression that her contributions or concerns were dismissed out of hand because she wasn’t taken seriously by external advisers.“No one really was standing to attention when a brown, 24-year-old young woman was speaking,” Pedramrazi said. “And I think part of the amazing experience of being a chief of staff now is … creating a really safe environment for our staffers – regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, race – to feel really heard in the office.”May hopes that by building more equitable offices, more young women will be motivated to get involved in politics. In a year where the enthusiasm of young voters could decide the outcome of a presidential election, that mission feels more urgent than ever.“Representation of young women only encourages more young women to get involved and get their own seats at the table,” May said. More