US elections 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘This is not time for retreat or apathy’: Black women dissect Harris loss

      by

      Misogynoir, the intersection of racism and sexism, was the main reason behind Kamala Harris’s loss in the 2024 general election, a panel of Black female experts argued, noting how post-election coverage has failed to contend with how white supremacy undergirded the election results.In a conversation titled “Views from the 92%: Black Women Reflect on 2024 Election and Road Ahead”, several academics dissected how and why the vice-president lost, particularly given Trump’s problematic history.The panel was hosted by the African American Policy Forum, a social justice thinktank co-founded by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles and Columbia University.“Racism is designed in such a way to make you question your humanity, but sexism is also. Sexism is really a power move,” said LaTosha Brown, co-founder of the Black Voters Matter Fund. “When you combine those two things together, I think that that best explains what [Harris] experienced.”Throughout the 2024 election campaign, Trump and other conservatives launched an onslaught of racist and sexist attacks against Harris: repeatedly claiming that Harris “slept her way” into political power, was unintelligent and that she was not a Black woman.Such attacks are unsurprising given American’s history with racism against Black women, the call participants said. But what was especially frustrating were platforms Trump was given to spread disinformation, Crenshaw argued, specifically calling out Trump being featured at the 2024 National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) convention.Karen Attiah, the former co-chair of the convention, who stepped down after the announcement that Trump would be interviewed, said the interview was a “viscerally painful experience” which was excused by many “white liberals”. During the contentious interview, Trump questioned Harris’s race, saying she suddenly “became a Black woman”. “Is she Indian or is she Black? I respect either one but she obviously doesn’t because she was Indian all the way and then all of sudden she became a Black woman.” Trump was also repeatedly combative with the interviewer Rachel Scott, the senior congressional correspondent for ABC News, accusing her of being “rude”.“The responses that I personally got for stepping down from white allies or people who are white leaders, was, ‘Well, he was racist and he destroyed your conference, but we needed to see that’ and I was like, ‘At the expense of our dignity[?]’,” she said.Following the general election on 6 November, exit polling showed that 53% of white women voters still supported Trump, calling into question who the legitimate allies of Black women’s interests are, said Melanie Campbell, president and CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation.“After going through this last presidential election, we really have to reassess and have real deep conversations about when these people say they’re your allies. What does that really mean?” she said, arguing that internal organizing of Black women needed to continue taking place.“There was a majority of white women who voted against democracy, against women’s interests, for a racist, for somebody who is proud to have taken away our right to choose.”Crenshaw also called out the mainstream media for failing to hold Trump accountable, as well as post-election coverage that ignored voter suppression tactics carried out by Trump supporters, including a multimillion-dollar initiative led by the billionaire Elon Musk.“Donald Trump was the biggest beneficiary of identity-based preferential treatment in terms of his media coverage,” she said. “He was like a Teflon-coated pan. Unlike Kamala, who was rendered by the media like a static, clean repository, anything would stick to her over and over again. It’s hard to imagine anybody other than a wealthy white male claiming he could shoot someone in broad daylight and get away with it, and then prove to us that this is, in fact, virtually true.”In light of Trump’s win, Black women – who voted for Harris more than any other demographic, need to be prepared to deal with racist attacks from far-right Republicans, argued Barbara Arnwine, president and founder of Transformative Justice Coalition.“It is critical for Black women to not just talk about our magic … We gotta talk about how we fight, how we become a fighting formation, how we are able to know that these battles are going to come, that these kind of things are going to be said, that these kind of attacks are going to be launched.”Looking forward, experts emphasized the importance of continuing to organize internally despite feelings of despondency.Rebuilding freedom schools – educational programs in marginalized communities – creating spaces of communication on social media, akin to “Black Twitter”, targeting disinformation being spread by artificial intelligence, and addressing ongoing attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion are just some of the potential strategies, said the speaker Fran Phillips-Calhoun, an Atlanta Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta.“This really is not time for retreat or apathy,” said Phillips-Calhoun. “We really do have to turn inwards so we can build again.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      California Democrat Adam Gray unseats Republican as last House race decided

      by

      Democrat Adam Gray captured California’s 13th congressional district on Tuesday, unseating Republican John Duarte in the final US House contest to be decided in the 2024 elections.Gray’s win in the farm belt seat that cuts through five counties means Republicans won 220 House seats this election cycle, with Democrats holding 215 seats.Gray won by a margin of fewer than 200 votes, with election officials reporting on Tuesday that all ballots had been counted.Duarte captured the seat in 2022 when he defeated Gray by one of the closest margins in the country, 564 votes. He was often listed among the most vulnerable House Republicans given that narrow margin of victory in a district with a Democratic tilt – about 11 points over registered Republicans.Gray said in an earlier statement: “We always knew that this race would be as close as they come, and we’re expecting a photo-finish this year, too.”Duarte told the Turlock Journal he had called Gray to concede, adding “That’s how it goes.”“I’m a citizen legislator, and I didn’t plan on being in Congress forever,” Duarte told the newspaper, though he didn’t rule out a possible future campaign.In a tough year for Democrats nationally, the party picked up three GOP-held House seats in California.Both Gray and Duarte stressed bipartisan credentials during the campaign.Gray, a former legislator, was critical of state water management and put water and agriculture at the top of his issues list. He also said he wants improvements in infrastructure, renewable energy and education.Duarte, a businessman and major grape and almond farmer, said his priorities included curbing inflation, crime rates and obtaining adequate water supplies for farmers in the drought-prone state.There is a large Latino population in the district, similar to other Central Valley seats, but the most likely voters statewide tend to be white, older, more affluent homeowners. Working-class voters, including many Latinos, are less consistent in getting to the polls. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      The resistance starts here: inside the 6 December Guardian Weekly

      by

      As Donald Trump continues to shape his incoming White House administration, there have been sporadic gasps at his controversial choices of top posts but little by way of a unified response from Democrats, nor evidence of a party coming together to evaluate what lay behind its defeat.For this week’s big story, Washington bureau chief David Smith contrasts the subdued atmosphere in Democrat and progressive circles with the Women’s March of 2017 which brought a million people into Washington in a show of resistance. Some of those Smith speaks to talk of feeling jaded and disillusioned; however others are determined that not only will they work to preserve progressive policies but have learned from past missteps.It’s a story of smaller, community-based activism and gathering strength to face specific policies once Trump assumes office. In what is a dark time of year for the northern hemisphere, the seeds of hope are small but visible nonetheless.As we head towards a new year and a change of US administration, the Guardian Weekly will continue to bring you stories from around the world from places where optimism is taking root.Get the Guardian Weekly delivered to your home addressFive essential reads in this week’s edition1Spotlight | Clean-up begins as Lebanon faces uncertain futureAn under-resourced Lebanese army has the job of ensuring Hezbollah’s compliance with a fragile truce while defending national territory, reports William Christou from Beirut2Health | Against the grain: how salt took over our dietsMost of us consume far too much salt, which can lead to high blood pressure, heart attacks and strokes. But you can retrain your palate, explains Rachel Dixon3Feature | The call of natureAcross the globe, vast swathes of land are being abandoned to be reclaimed by nature. To see what happens to the natural world when people disappear, look to Bulgaria, says Tess McClure4Opinion | The Arab world is changing beyond our recognitionThe Arab world is increasingly divided between those who are losing everything, and those who have everything, argues Nesrine Malik5Culture | How The Play That Goes Wrong got it all so right A farce about a gaffe-f illed amateur dramatic whodunnit has become one of Britain’s greatest ever theatrical exports. Chris Wiegand finds out howGet the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home addressWhat else we’ve been readingTerry Griffiths was a household name in 1980s Britain, when a televised snooker craze gripped the nation. The Welshman, who died this week aged 77, became a world champion of the sport despite only making his first century break at the age of 24 – unthinkable in the modern game, as this informative obituary by Clive Everton explains. Graham Snowdon, editorI’m fascinated by stories of Hollywood’s heyday, and Stephen Bogart paints an illuminating picture of the lives of his parents, Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. The first paragraph of Xan Brooks’ interview is simply astonishing. Clare Horton, assistant editorOther highlights from the Guardian website Audio | What’s going on with fluoride? – Full Story podcast Video | Australia’s social media ban for under-16s is now law. There’s plenty we still don’t know Gallery | Feeling blue: how denim built AmericaGet in touchWe’d love to hear your thoughts on the magazine: for submissions to our letters page, please email weekly.letters@theguardian.com. For anything else, it’s editorial.feedback@theguardian.comFollow us Facebook InstagramGet the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address More

    • 250 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump didn’t win by a historic landslide. It’s time to nip that lie in the bud | Mehdi Hasan

      by

      Remember the “big lie”? In 2020, Donald Trump lost the presidential election so Republicans just brazenly lied and insisted he won.In 2024, we have a new post-election lie from the Republican party. Trump didn’t just win, they say, but he won big. He won a landslide. He won an historic mandate for his “Maga” agenda.And it was Trump himself, of course, on election night, who was the first to push this grandiose and self-serving falsehood, calling his win “a political victory that our country has never seen before” and claiming “America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate”.Republican politicians, masters of message discipline, quickly followed suit. The representative Elise Stefanik called his win a “historic landslide” while the senator John Barrasso called Trump’s a “huge landslide”. “On November 5 voters decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change, and they deserve to get it,” wrote the “Doge” co-heads Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in the Wall Street Journal on 20 November.None of this is true. Yes, Trump won the popular vote and the electoral college. Yes, Republicans won the Senate and the House. But, contrary to both Republican talking points and breathless headlines and hot takes from leading media outlets (“resounding”, “rout”, “runaway win”), there was really nothing at all historic or huge about the margin of victory.Repeat after me: there was no “landslide”. There was no “blowout”. There was no “sweeping” mandate given to Trump by the electorate. The numbers don’t lie.First, consider the popular vote. Yes, Trump became the first Republican for two decades to win the popular vote. However, per results from CNN, the Cook Political Report, and the New York Times, he did not win a majority of the vote. Barack Obama did in both 2008 and 2012. Joe Biden did in 2020. But Donald Trump failed to do so in 2024.And the former president’s margin of victory over Harris is a miniscule 1.6 percentage points, “smaller than that of every winning president since 1888 other than two: John F Kennedy in 1960 and Richard M. Nixon in 1968”, as an analysis in the New York Times noted last month. In fact, in the 55 presidential elections in which the popular vote winner became president, 49 of them were won with a margin bigger than Trump’s in 2024.We actually know what a landslide in the popular vote looks like: the Democrat Lyndon Johnson defeated the Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964 by an enormous margin of 22.6 percentage points!Second, consider the electoral college. Trump won 307 votes, which is 37 more than is needed to secure victory in the electoral college. But it’s still far fewer than Bill Clinton won in 1992 (370) and 1996 (379) and far fewer than Barack Obama won in 2008 (365) and 2012 (332). And it is pretty similar to what Trump himself won in 2016 (304) and what Biden won in 2020 (306). Trump’s margin of victory in the electoral college ranks 44 out of the 60 presidential elections in American history.We actually know what a landslide win in the electoral college looks like: the Republican Ronald Reagan won re-election with a whopping 525 electoral college votes in 1984!By the way, did you know that Trump won the crucial blue wall states – Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – by 231,000 votes? So if just 116,000 voters across those three swing states – or 0.7% of the total – had switched from Trump to Harris, it is the vice-president who would have won the electoral college … and the presidency!Third, consider the so-called “coattails” effect, where a presidential candidate’s massive margin of victory also boosts their party’s numbers in Congress. In 2024, Republicans flipped the Senate and held onto the House but Trump still ended up having “limited coattails”, to quote from the New York Times analysis. Of the five battleground states (Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) which held Senate races in November, the Republican candidate triumphed in only one of them (David McCormick in Pennsylvania, by a narrow 16,000 votes). Democrats held on to the other four.So where were the Trump coattails in the Senate?Meanwhile, over in the House of Representatives, Republicans held onto control of the chamber with the aid of an extremely partisan and anti-democratic gerrymander in North Carolina, signed off by a conservative-majority state supreme court. They are on course for what the CNN election analyst Harry Enten is calling a “record small majority”.So where were the Trump coattails in the House?And yet, the president-elect and his army of Republican sycophants cannot stop bragging about the landslide that wasn’t. You almost have to admire their chutzpah.But there is also method to their megalomania. As the political scientist Julia Azari has observed, when a president and a party claim a sweeping mandate it has “historically been connected to unprecedented expansions of presidential power” and can become a way “to give an unchecked executive the veneer of following the popular will”.Trump, the 49.9% president, doesn’t represent the popular will. Yes, he won the election fair and square, and won the popular vote for the first time, but if we are to prevent him from expanding his power in the Oval Office we must resist this new Republican election lie. We must not allow him to pretend that he has some sort of special “mandate” for controversial policies and personnel.Repeat after me: there was nothing unique or unprecedented about the election result last month. Republicans may feel they won a huge victory over the Democrats. And Trump may feel his election win was historic. But, to borrow a line from the right, the facts don’t care about their feelings.

      Mehdi Hasan is the CEO and editor-in-chief of the new media company Zeteo More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      How anti-woke spin hit home for Donald Trump | Letters

      by

      While Nesrine Malik is right in stating that woke talking points weren’t a key part of Kamala Harris’s campaign, she is incorrect in concluding that progressive stances on social issues were in no way responsible for Donald Trump’s election victory (‘Woke’ didn’t lose the US election: the patrician class who hijacked identity politics did, 25 November). Like Malik, I see structural issues as the primary determining factor, my focus as a Democratic activist being on an economy touted as thriving but in fact failing to benefit a populace struggling with obscenely high grocery prices. But having heard Harris equivocate rather than reject controversial statements that were catnip to Trump, I can assure you that there was palpable cultural antagonism too.Those ads of Trump packed a punch, not least “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you”, which capitalised on Harris’s failure to clarify her 2019 support (based on a reading of constitutional law) for taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgeries for prisoners. But just as Harris failed in this regard in 2024, the Democratic leadership has mangled election messaging over many years – opening itself to charges of cultural (certainly not economic) extremism.I find it interesting that Malik has to define “defund the police” after claiming that “even a cursory glance shows” it “is not to abolish policing”. No, a cursory glance at this ludicrous slogan implies, however unintentionally, just that. And to refuse to believe that anti-woke propaganda, sometimes false but often made possible by Democrats’ own missteps, played a part in the disastrous 2024 election results is to refuse the obvious.Karen Thatcher-SmithSonoma, California, US Nesrine Malik argues that a “cursory glance” would show that “defunding the police” was never about abolishing the police but rather a call to invest in preventive measures. This rather begs the question: why on earth did progressives campaign with such a slogan? It is hard to imagine populist agent provocateurs coming up with a more effective means of separating well‑meaning progressives from the public at large.Alex CampbellBrighton, East Sussex Nesrine Malik is right that the “common enemy is the way in which society itself is designed”. The economic moguls ruling the patrician class successfully sold to many a self-fulfilling investment in a fearful characterisation of wokeness as an absurd and impertinent intrusion in our lives. It is a compelling, too-easy answer when an underlying fear of loss of privilege or self‑challenging the pain of false beliefs around our rightful place in the social order is at stake. Inertia rules – for the moment.Genuine, universal change is hard. It’s hard for the privileged to give up their luxuries and for the oppressed to imagine deserving and enjoying a better life in a truly egalitarian society.Wokeness itself is not the problem. There is no such thing as woke, there is only waking. It is a never-ending process. It is a journey that we must all undertake – towards a society that fully values and expresses the spirituality, democracy, caring, sharing, learning and joy inherent in a naturally evolving life, and no one must be left behind.Daniel O’SullivanMcLeans Ridges, New South Wales, Australia More

    • 200 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We’re still in this fight’: the resistance to Trump considers its options after bruising election defeat

      by

      LA Kauffman remembers the day hundreds of thousands of women, men and children marched in the streets of Washington. “If you’ve never been in a crowd that large, it’s hard to convey how powerful the feeling is of standing together with so many people who share your goals and that feeling of community and connection,” says the political organiser, activist and author.The Women’s March, held the day after Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, was the biggest single-day protest in US history until the demonstrations that erupted after the police murder of George Floyd three years later. Both were among the most spectacular examples of “the resistance” to Trump’s first term as president.Now Trump is heading back to the White House and a People’s March on Washington is scheduled for 18 January, two days before the inauguration. But there are fears that it will be a pale imitation of the historic first protest. The mood feels more muted this time. Some people speak of feeling jaded and disillusioned and turning off the news because they are simply Trumped out.Bill Maher, the comedian and political commentator, argues that there is a “marked difference” between the reactions in 2016 and 2024. “2016 Trump won and there was 3 million people in the streets,” he said on his HBO talkshow. “Remember the pussy hats and all that? I mean, it was the biggest demonstration ever. This year: nothing. What is this, resignation?”Jen Psaki, an MSNBC host and former White House press secretary, commented at the Washington screening of a documentary about Trump’s family separations policy at the border: “People are just exhausted of fighting against policies that they feel are immoral, policies they’re opposed to – people who voted for Kamala Harris and feel disappointed with the outcome. It feels a little bit like the same opposition or calling-out energy is not there in this moment.”The sense of malaise around “Resistance 2.0” may in part be because, whereas Trump’s first victory felt like shocking accident of history, his second was delivered by an electorate that knows exactly what it is getting. Whereas he lost the national popular vote to Hillary Clinton in 2016, he gained more votes nationwide than Harris and claims a mandate. For many liberals, that result was a gut punch that seemed to undermine the work of three election cycles.Teja Smith, the Los Angeles-based founder of Get Social, a social media agency that specialises in political advocacy and social awareness, said: “I got into social justice work almost a decade ago and truly have been working tirelessly to keep Trump out of office, essentially.“The first time it was a lot of people not really being interested in the election; we had Hillary running and she won the popular vote. There was just a lot of like, ‘Ah, well, these things happen.’ This time it was just overwhelmingly people voted for him and that’s where we are. This is what you voted for: how much else can we fight it?”After Trump was declared the winner over Harris, who would have been the first woman of Black and south Asian descent to win the presidency, many politically engaged Black women said they were so dismayed by the outcome that they were reassessing their enthusiasm for electoral politics and prioritising self-care.Smith noted that Black women have consistently shown up and voted at a 92% rate for the Democratic candidate. “At this point, Black women are just tired,” she continued. “The act of resistance right now that we’re calling on is to rest because we can only keep so much sanity. I have a husband, I have a two-year-old, and I spent my entire year campaigning, going all around America to fight this good fight, to fight for our rights, and misinformation won.”But Smith does not doubt that Black women will keep fighting. “Next year we’re going to understand what this presidency is going to mean and what electing him is actually going to do. That’s going to be the time where we’re not going to have a choice but to step up. Do we want to? Yes. But are we tired of having be the ones to be called on? Absolutely.”View image in fullscreenThe sentiment was echoed by LaTosha Brown, cofounder of the voting rights organisation Black Voters Matter. She said: “We going to always fight to protect our communities but I can tell you, for me personally, I’m going to be much more strategic with how I use my time and what fights I take on. I’m going to be much more intentional about protecting myself and my family, which I feel like I have neglected over the last decade, and I’m going to be much more discerning.”Indeed, for all the gloom, it is far too conclude that the second resistance will turn into resignation. There are also signs of resilience and adaptation. Once Trump takes office, and launches policies such as mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, the backlash could be spontaneous and swift.Kauffman, the political organiser and writer who attended the first Women’s March, said: “I don’t know what will be the spark that will bring people out in the streets but I don’t think Americans are so easily cowed. The atmosphere of fear that was carefully cultivated throughout the election campaign works in the short term but people are not going to stay in that kind of fear in the long term.“People are going to respond when they see injustice as they have at other crucial points, as they did not only the week of Trump’s first election but with the announcement of the Muslim ban. At airports all over the country people rushed to speak up for targeted immigrants. We may see that kind of rapid response again.”There is a growing emphasis on “Trump-proofing” blue states, with calls for Democratic governors and legislatures to take proactive measures to protect progressive policies. There are also signs that activists are shifting strategies, moving away from mass protests and focusing on more targeted, localised efforts such as state-level initiatives and issue-specific campaigns.Speaking from the Hudson valley of New York, Kauffman added: “What I’m seeing is that people are looking to find a way to meet those needs for community connection in quieter, more intimate ways. There’s a lot of gatherings that are happening in people’s homes and community centres and neighbourhoods. It’s not a mass coming together that gave us a feeling of enormous collective togetherness. It’s happening in smaller, tighter, face-to-face communities.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFor Leah Greenberg and Ezra Levin, there is a sense of deja vu. The former congressional staffers co-founded the progressive group Indivisible in response to Trump’s first win in 2016. Over the weekend after Thanksgiving that year at Levin’s home in Austin, Texas, they started writing the Indivisible Guide to help people organise locally to fight back against the Trump agenda.The guide captured the public imagination and inspired the creation of thousands of Indivisible groups that played a crucial part in saving former president Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law. The Indivisible movement also helped Democrats regain the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections.Since the 2024 election, Greenberg and Levin have released a new guide, Indivisible: A Practical Guide to Democracy on the Brink, focusing on local action and targeted campaigns, and note that about a hundred new Indivisible groups have since formed in red, blue and purple states.Levin said: “I’m encouraged that the general response I’m getting from our folks on the ground is that they’re determined. That was the word that came up in the poll of Georgia Indivisibles when I joined them the weekend after the election. They’re going through a lot of different parts of the stages of grief but they do not show signs of just totally checking out.”A further question mark concerns the media. Some outlets are reaffirming a commitment to accountability journalism but grappling with fatigue, audience disengagement and loss of trust while trying to avoid amplifying every Trump outburst. Ominously, the Washington Post declined to endorse a presidential candidate ahead of election day.The first resistance was not entirely liberal and Democratic. It was a coalition that also included “Never Trump” Republicans. Among the most pugnacious was the Lincoln Project, a political action committee founded in December 2019 by moderate conservative operatives to eviscerate Trump and noted for its eye-catching, hard-hitting adverts.One of its cofounders, Rick Wilson, is determined to keep at it. He said: “People say, we’re done, we’re out, we can’t keep fighting. I’m sorry, I’m just not wired that way as a person or as an activist and neither is our organisation. We’re still in this fight.“We lost an election as part of a big coalition. We were on the wrong side of the electoral fight but we’re not on the wrong side of history so we’re going to keep punching and trying to make sure that both the people and the policies he wants to impose on America aren’t successful.”For all the monument scale of the Women’s March, it did not prevent women losing a fundamental right the following year when the supreme court ended the constitutional right to abortion. Wilson, who worked as a consultant and political ad maker for numerous candidates and state parties, commented: “As excited people were by the whole pussy hat thing, it didn’t work, so if people are taking a beat in the broad movement to decide what messaging they need to do and what’s the smart way to do it, that’s a good outcome.“That’s not a sign of weakness. That’s a sign of strategic caution and posture, taking a moment to figure out what’s going to work. Because, again, pink pussy hats didn’t close the deal. They didn’t change the outcomes that we needed to have.”He added: “I’m results-oriented and win-oriented and even though some people are depressed and down and beat up right now, you got to at some point lick your wounds and get back up, get back in the fight. Because die on your feet or die on your knees, one of the two, and I prefer to go standing if I’m going to have to go.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Disenfranchised and demobilized’: Native Americans face ballot box barriers in Arizona

      by

      The calls started coming in to the Arizona Native vote election protection hotline around 6am on election day.Voters in Apache county, where a sizable chunk of the population is Diné, also known as Navajo, were seeing problems at the polls. One location was locked and several others were having trouble printing ballots, according to an affidavit filed in state court. As the day went on, voters reported hours-long waits and observers reported that people were leaving. A local judge would eventually agree to extend voting in nine precincts in the county by two hours.“It was just a mess from what we could tell and from our folks,” said Jaynie Parrish, the executive director of Arizona Native Vote, a nonprofit civic engagement organization focused on Native communities.While delays in opening polling sites and glitches that lead to long lines are not uncommon, they can be particularly acute in Native communities, where voters can travel hours to get to the polls and face other unique barriers, like non-traditional addresses and language access issues. Taken together, those barriers result in a significant gap between turnout among those living on tribal lands and those who live off of them, according to a new study from the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit that studies voting rights and elections.“There are systemic issues that prevent Natives from getting to the ballot box – some intentional,” said Samantha Blencke, a staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund, which had poll watchers in six states this election. For a voter who travels a far distance to cast a ballot, a polling place not opening on time could make a big difference, she said. “That’s it,” she said. “That’s their one shot to vote.”Native American voters are an influential voting bloc in Arizona, where they comprise 5% of the population. Both Republicans and Democrats courted Native voters this year. Election results analyzed by the New York Times showed that Donald Trump gained in many counties where Native Americans comprise a majority of the population.In addition to long travel times, Native voters also face a litany of unique hurdles. Many lack traditional addresses, making it more difficult to vote by mail. Tribal identification cards can get rejected at the polls. And there can be significant issues in translating ballots into Native languages.Turnout among those living on tribal lands was on average 11 points lower than turnout among people living off them between 2012 and 2022, according to the Brennan Center’s study. In presidential elections, the gap was 15 points.Tribal lands that had the highest share of Native voters also had the lowest turnout rates, the study found. And those who live on tribal lands were also less likely to use mail-in voting than those who lived off them.“These findings demonstrate that Native Americans living on tribal lands are uniquely disenfranchised and demobilized from participating in federal elections,” the report says.This year, after election day, Navajo voters sued Apache county again. Arizona gives voters five days after election day to address any issues with mail-in ballots. But county officials had delayed making public the number of voters who had problems with their ballots until two days before the deadline, the lawsuit said. With just two days left, they notified that there were 182 people who needed to cure their ballots, setting off a scramble to contact them.A judge rejected the request after elections employees said they had made a reasonable effort to contact anyone who was at risk of having their ballot rejected.For years, Leonard Gorman, the executive director of the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission has been concerned about the way ballots have been translated into Navajo. Translation is required under the Voting Rights Act, and accurately describing things like ballot measures on abortion and fentanyl can be immensely challenging, Votebeat reported earlier this year. Navajo is a historically oral language, and translators come up with audio that those who are not proficient in English can listen to at the polls, according to Votebeat.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOver the years, Gorman said he’s heard glitches and poorly worded audio. And when he showed up at a polling location in Apache county in late October, the machine that offered the audio translation wasn’t working, he said.“It only said in literal translation or interpretation: ‘If you want to listen to the ballot, press any button,’” he said. When he pressed a button, the instruction would simply repeat. “That was the worst experience I’ve ever had.”Apache county election officials did not respond to an interview request.Chelsea Jones, a researcher at the Brennan Center who co-authored the nonprofit’s study, said its findings showed that people who live on tribal lands face unique barriers that haven’t thus far been addressed by federal laws. A piece of legislation, the Native American Voting Rights Act, that would address many of the systemic challenges Native voters face, has stalled in Congress.“Any of these common ways that we participate in elections have really layers of barriers for people who live on tribal lands,” Jones said. “Each of those numbers represent hundreds of thousands of people who are not able to or have a harder time participating. And so that’s what’s the hardest for us to grasp is that this many people are being left out of what is a fundamental right for all Americans.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump victory not a mandate for radical change, top election forecaster says

      by

      Despite Donald Trump’s decisive victory in the presidential election, a political scientist who developed a model that correctly predicted his sweep of battleground states warns that voters have not necessarily given the president-elect a mandate to make radical changes.In a paper released with little fanfare three weeks before the vote, Cornell University professor of government Peter Enns and his co-authors accurately forecast that Trump would win all seven swing states, based on a model they built that uses state-level presidential approval ratings and indicators of economic health.In an interview with the Guardian, Enns said his model’s conclusions suggest voters chose Trump not because they want to see his divisive policies implemented, but rather because they were frustrated with the state of the economy during Joe Biden’s presidency, an obstacle Kamala Harris was not popular enough to overcome.“If this election can be explained by what voters thought of Biden and Harris and economic conditions, it really goes against the notion of a mandate for major change from Trump,” said Enns.“If Trump was looking to maximize support, being cautious about changes that are massive changes would be what the model suggests is the optimal strategy.”On the campaign trail, Trump promised norm-shattering measures to accomplish his objectives, ranging from deploying the military to carry out mass deportations of undocumented immigrants to levying trade tariffs against allies that do not cooperate with his administration.On 5 November, voters responded by giving Trump an overwhelming victory in the electoral college, and also by making him the first Republican to win the popular vote in 20 years.Both outcomes were predicted in the paper released on 15 October by Enns, Jonathan Colner of New York University, Anusha Kumar of Yale University School of Medicine and Julius Lagodny of German media firm El Pato. At the time, polls of the seven swing states showed Trump and Harris tied, usually within their margin of error, signaling that the election was either’s to win.Rather than focusing on the candidates’ support nationwide or in the swing states, Enns and his co-authors built a model that combines two types of data: presidential approval ratings from all 50 states using data from Verasight, the survey firm he co-founded, among others, and a Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia index measuring state-level real income, manufacturing and labor market conditions. Both sets of data were compiled more than 100 days before the vote.Enns first deployed the model in the 2020 presidential election, where it correctly predicted the outcome in 49 states, with the exception of Georgia. This year, Enns and his co-authors wrote that Harris, who took over as the Democratic nominee for Biden in late July, was on track to lose both the popular vote and the electoral college, including battleground states Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Georgia.“If Harris wins the election, we will not know exactly why, but we will know her victory surmounted conditions so disadvantageous to the Democratic party that the incumbent president dropped out of the race. She will have added major momentum to the Democratic campaign and/or Trump and the Republican party will have squandered a sizable advantage,” Enns and his co-authors wrote.The forecast wound up being accurate, though, with ballot counting continuing in a few states, Trump seems set for a plurality victory in the popular vote, not the 50.3% majority they predicted.Then there’s the question of whether Biden would have done better if he had stayed in the race. The 82-year-old president has been unpopular through most of his term as Americans weathered the highest inflation rate since the 1980s, even as the labor market recovered strongly from the Covid pandemic. Biden was also dogged by concerns about his age and fitness for office, which culminated in a terrible debate performance against Trump in June that led him to drop out of the race weeks later.“Given Biden’s low approval ratings and economic conditions, our model forecasted less than a one in 10 chance of a Biden victory if he had stayed in the race. Even after accounting for Harris’s approval ratings, which are notably higher than Biden’s, the Democrats face an uphill battle,” the authors wrote.If Harris had a chance to overcome the disadvantages she entered the race with, Enns said it would have required convincing voters she would be a very different president than her boss – which it appears she failed to do.“There’s some economic headwinds, there’s the Biden incumbency headwinds. And what I think that suggests is, given these headwinds that Harris faced, the optimal strategy would have been to differentiate herself more from Biden,” Enns said.But the vice-president’s fate may have been sealed in the years that preceded her bid for the White House, when she failed to build the sort of public profile that would have pushed her approval ratings up to the level that she needed them to be.“If she had been more popular, you can think about what could have happened to make our forecast wrong. So the fact that 100 days out, our forecast was so accurate, that really enhanced the campaign, had minimal effect on the outcome,” Enns said.“The task at hand was to outperform the forecast, and her campaign wasn’t able to do that.” More