US elections 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Mike Johnson says he does not believe Senate talks would ‘stop the border catastrophe’ – live

      by

      Mike Johnson reiterated his attack on the Senate’s immigration policy deal, saying that, though its exact provisions have not been released yet, he does not think it would cut down on migrant arrivals to the degree he demands.“Last Friday, President Biden came out in support of the Senate’s deal, which we haven’t seen yet. There is no text yet. But from what we’ve heard, this so-called deal … does not include … these transformational policy changes that are needed to actually stop the border catastrophe,” the House speaker said.He specifically took issue with reports that, under the deal’s proposed terms, the border would be closed once crossings exceeded 5,000 people in a given day:
      Apparently, we’re concocting some sort of deal to allow the president to shut down the border after 5,000 people break the law. Why is it 5,000? If you add that up, that’d be a million more illegals into our country every year before we take remedial measures. It’s madness. We shouldn’t be asking what kind of enforcement authority kicks in at 5,000 illegal crossings a day. The number should be zero.
      “Anything higher than zero is surrendering our border, surrendering our sovereignty and our security,” Johnson said.He has now concluded his remarks.In his first speech on the House floor since winning the speaker’s gavel, Mike Johnson recited familiar rightwing talking points regarding undocumented migrants, while again warning that he did not like what he was hearing about measures under discussion in the Senate to tighten immigration policy. That’s a bad sign for a potential deal Republicans have demanded to support Joe Biden’s request for another round of military assistance to Ukraine, and to Israel. In the Senate, Democratic majority leader Chuck Schumer made clear he did not think much of the House GOP’s impeachment of homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, indicating the chamber would acquit him if a trial occurs.Here’s what else happened today:
      Congresswoman Cori Bush demanded an apology from rightwing lawmaker Troy Nehls, who referred to her husband as a “thug”, and Bush as “loud”. Yesterday, Bush acknowledged she was under investigation by the justice department over allegedly misusing federal funds.
      James Biden will appear for an interview with a House committee leading the impeachment inquiry into his brother, the president.
      Nikki Haley says America doesn’t need any more “Grumpy Old Men”.
      Rob Menendez, a Democratic House lawmaker from New Jersey, accused Republicans of kowtowing to “the orange Jesus” with their charges against Mayorkas.
      Taylor Swift is the latest subject of a rightwing conspiracy theory.
      Later this evening, the House is expected to vote on a bipartisan bill that would extend tax credits for low-income families, as well as restore some tax breaks for businesses.It’s unclear if it will pass the House, but the below comment, captured by Semafor, from Republican senator Chuck Grassley is raising eyebrows nonetheless. Asked about the bill’s chances in Congress’s upper chamber, Grassley seems to imply that passing the legislation would be a bad idea, because measures to assist poor families could boost Joe Biden’s re-election chances:It’s unclear how many Republican lawmakers feel the same way, but the sentiment could bode ill for Congress getting any major legislation passed prior to November’s presidential election.A high-profile lawsuit filed by entertainment giant Walt Disney alleging retaliation by Florida governor Ron DeSantis has been dismissed by a federal judge, but the company appears set to file an appeal, Reuters reports:
      A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed Walt Disney’s lawsuit against the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, and members of a state board for allegedly retaliating after the company criticized state limits on classroom discussion of sexuality, according to a court filing.
      “This is an important case with serious implications for the rule of law and it will not end here,” a Disney spokesperson said.
      “If left unchallenged, this would set a dangerous precedent and give license to states to weaponize their official powers to punish the expression of political viewpoints they disagree with. We are determined to press forward with our case.”
      DeSantis and other defendants had urged Allen Winsor, the US district judge in Tallahassee, Florida, to dismiss the case because Disney could not sue them over constitutionally enacted state laws.
      The dispute began after Disney criticized the classroom discussion ban, dubbed the “don’t say gay” law by opponents. DeSantis began repeatedly attacking what he termed “woke Disney” in public appearances as he geared up for his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, an effort he abandoned earlier this month.
      State lawmakers stripped Disney of its control over the special development district that since 1967 had given the company virtual autonomy around its theme parks, including the Walt Disney World Resort.
      In the latest clash between pro-Palestine protesters and the Biden-Harris campaign, two women claim they were kept out of an event with Kamala Harris because they were wearing hijabs. The campaign says they had disrupted other events. Here’s what we know about the incident, from the Guardian’s Gloria Oladipo:Two women have accused Biden-Harris campaign staffers of Islamophobia, claiming they were profiled and disinvited from a campaign event because they were wearing hijabs.Staff with the campaign have since countered that the women were barred after disrupting other events held by Democratic leaders.The incident was captured on video and shared to X (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday by an account named Nevadans for Palestinian Liberation.The viral video, which has garnered over 2m views, shows an unidentified staffer for the Get the Vote Out event in Las Vegas on Saturday telling the women that they are not allowed to enter the venue.“We are choosing who’s going in and out of the event. I’m sorry,” the staffer said.Off camera, one woman responds: “Why are you choosing us not to go in when we have an invite?”A separate woman, also off camera, says: “You specifically singled us out.”Speaking of Donald Trump, he’s within striking distance of winning the Republican presidential nomination, but his last remaining rival, Nikki Haley, is not giving up.Today, she launched another salvo at one thing the former president and the current president have in common: their advanced age. Joe Biden is 81, Trump is 77, and both are too old for the presidency, Haley argues. She also debuted a meme that will look familiar to those fluent in early 90s cinema:Atlanta-area district attorney Fani Willis, who indicted Donald Trump and 18 others on charges related to trying to overturn Georgia’s election result in 2020, has been subpoenaed to testify regarding her relationship with a prosecutor she hired for the case, ABC News reports.Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney for co-defendant Michael Roman, earlier this month accused Willis and Nathan Wade, who she hired to work on the case, of having an improper relationship that resulted in financial gain for both of them. Merchant has asked for Willis to be removed, and the indictment dismissed.Here’s more on what the subpoena means, from ABC News:
      Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, one of her top prosecutors in the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald Trump and 18 others, have been subpoenaed to testify at an upcoming evidentiary hearing set to examine allegations that they were involved in an improper relationship while investigating the former president, according to a new lawsuit filed in Georgia this week.
      The claim that Willis and Wade had been subpoenaed to testify was contained in a copy of the lawsuit, obtained by ABC News, that was filed by the attorney for one of Trump’s co-defendants in the election case, accusing the Fulton county district attorney’s office of “intentionally withholding information”.
      The lawsuit accuses the office of “stonewalling” the attorney, Ashleigh Merchant, in her efforts to obtain records from the office through public information requests.
      In a statement to ABC News, a spokesperson for the DA’s office said they had not yet been served the lawsuit, and said, “We provided her with all the materials she requested and is entitled to.”
      In a letter sent to Merchant on Friday, provided to ABC News by the DA’s office, the DA’s office pushed back on her allegations that they have failed to meet their obligations, writing they “disagree with your disingenuous implication”.
      The issuing of the subpoenas could set up a high-stakes battle for both Willis and Wade, who have remained virtually silent on the issue but may now have to testify under oath during the televised hearing on 15 February, as Trump and other co-defendants seek to use the allegations to have the two removed from the case and the indictment thrown out.
      Away from domestic politics, the AP is reporting that the US has attributed a drone attack that killed three American troops in Jordan to umbrella group Islamic Resistance in Iraq.James Biden will appear before House Republicans for a private interview next month as lawmakers seek to regain some momentum in their monthslong impeachment inquiry into his brother, Joe Biden, The Associated Press reports.The House Oversight and Accountability Committee announced on Wednesday that the Democratic president’s younger sibling will come to Capitol Hill on February 21. The date was set after months of negotiations between the sides.
      We look forward to his interview,” the committee posted on X, the website formerly known as Twitter.
      James Biden’s interview will take place just days before the president’s son Hunter Biden will be deposed in private by the Republican-run committee, which has been investigating the Biden family’s overseas finances for the past year.Both James and Hunter Biden were subpoenaed by the committee in November. So far, the GOP investigation has failed to uncover evidence directly implicating the president in any wrongdoing.A lawyer for James Biden said at the time that there was no justification for the subpoena because the committee had already reviewed private bank records and transactions between the two brothers. The committee found records of two loans that were made when Joe Biden was not in office or a candidate for president.
      There is nothing more to those transactions, and there is nothing wrong with them. And Jim Biden has never involved his brother in his business dealings,” lawyer Paul Fishman said in a statement in November.
      Joe Biden kicked his re-election campaign into high gear earlier this month. So, too, have protesters upset over his policy towards Israel’s invasion of Gaza, the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington reports:Joe Biden had barely started speaking at a high-profile re-election campaign rally focusing on abortion rights in Virginia last week when the carefully choreographed made-for-TV spectacle exploded into a cacophony of angry yelling.“Genocide Joe!”, a protester holding up a Palestinian flag cried from the back of the hall. “How many kids have you killed in Gaza? How many women have you killed in Gaza?”Biden looked bemused, blinking silently into the cameras. In all, he was to be interrupted at least 13 more times. “This is going to go on for a while,” he said at one point. “They’ve got this planned.”As Biden’s 2024 re-election campaign gets under way, it is becoming increasingly clear that they have indeed got it planned. A decentralized network of pro-Palestinian groups and individuals, including Muslim Americans, Jewish Americans and anti-war organizations, are hounding Biden over his firm support for Israel despite the heavy cost in civilian lives of its war against Hamas.“Our community is going to be active, with actions big or small, until this genocide ends and there’s a permanent ceasefire,” Mohamad Habehh told the Guardian. He was the individual who stood up and shouted: “Genocide Joe!” in Virginia.Habehh said that Biden should expect much more of the same as election year unfolds. “Every event the president does, no matter where it is, not matter what state or city, there will be Americans who stand against his stance on Gaza.”In his first speech on the House floor since winning the speaker’s gavel, Mike Johnson recited familiar rightwing talking points regarding undocumented migrants, while again warning that he did not like what he was hearing about measures under discussion in the Senate to tighten immigration policy. That’s a bad sign for a potential deal Republicans have demanded to support Joe Biden’s request for another round of military assistance to Ukraine, and to Israel. In the Senate, Democratic majority leader Chuck Schumer made clear he did not think much of the House GOP’s impeachment of homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, indicating the chamber would acquit him if a trial occurs.Here’s what else is going on:
      Congresswoman Cori Bush demanded an apology from rightwing lawmaker Troy Nehls, who referred to her husband as a “thug”, and Bush as “loud”. Yesterday, Bush acknowledged she was under investigation by the justice department over allegedly misusing federal funds.
      Rob Menendez, a Democratic House lawmaker from New Jersey, accused Republicans of kowtowing to “the orange Jesus” with their charges against Mayorkas.
      Taylor Swift is the latest subject of a rightwing conspiracy theory.
      Mike Johnson reiterated his attack on the Senate’s immigration policy deal, saying that, though its exact provisions have not been released yet, he does not think it would cut down on migrant arrivals to the degree he demands.“Last Friday, President Biden came out in support of the Senate’s deal, which we haven’t seen yet. There is no text yet. But from what we’ve heard, this so-called deal … does not include … these transformational policy changes that are needed to actually stop the border catastrophe,” the House speaker said.He specifically took issue with reports that, under the deal’s proposed terms, the border would be closed once crossings exceeded 5,000 people in a given day:
      Apparently, we’re concocting some sort of deal to allow the president to shut down the border after 5,000 people break the law. Why is it 5,000? If you add that up, that’d be a million more illegals into our country every year before we take remedial measures. It’s madness. We shouldn’t be asking what kind of enforcement authority kicks in at 5,000 illegal crossings a day. The number should be zero.
      “Anything higher than zero is surrendering our border, surrendering our sovereignty and our security,” Johnson said.He has now concluded his remarks.This speech by Mike Johnson has thus far amounted to a lengthy attack on the Biden administration’s immigration policy, and migrants themselves.The Republican speaker said he had received a letter from former FBI officials warning of “a soft invasion along our southern border”, and said the migrants trying to enter the United States from Mexico “are not huddled masses of families seeking refuge and asylum. These are people coming into our country to do only God knows what and we are allowing it – the Biden administration is allowing it. And we’ve noted that they’re coming from adversarial nations, from terrorist regions. We have no idea what they’re planning.”Speaking out the House floor, Republican speaker Mike Johnson has again signaled he is not happy with the Senate’s immigration policy negotiations.He kicked off his speech decrying the impact of undocumented immigrants on communities nationwide, before describing the Senate talks as focused on “a so-called border security deal”. That’s not a good sign for the prospects of the deal, if one emerges, in the House, and, by extension, aid to Ukraine and Israel.Republican Mike Johnson is set to give his first speech on the floor of the House since becoming speaker, where he is expected to discuss immigration policy.Johnson has criticized the Senate’s bipartisan negotiations on the border, the success of which Republicans have linked to supporting another round of aid for Ukraine’s military.We’ll let you know what Johnson has to say. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Arizona Republican says state lawmakers, not voters, should pick president

      by

      A proposal from an Arizona lawmaker calls for the state legislature to decide on presidential electors instead of adhering to a popular vote.The state senator Anthony Kern, a Republican, served as a fake elector in 2020, falsely asserting that Donald Trump won the state. Those involved in the fake electors schemes in several states have been charged. In Arizona, the fake electors are under investigation by the Democratic attorney general, her office has confirmed. Kern also attended the 6 January 2021 rally at the US Capitol.The senate concurrent resolution says that the “sole authority to appoint presidential electors” should fall to the legislature. It calls on the legislature to stay in session during presidential election years for this purpose. As a concurrent resolution, the proposal does not require the governor’s signature and does not have the force of law; it functions more to state the legislative body’s position on an issue.Such a change would be a dramatic departure from today’s democratic process, where voters elect a candidate for president and states allocate electors according to whoever won the popular vote in their state as part of the electoral college process.As a key swing state, Arizona’s elections will again take center stage in 2024. The state’s Republicans have remained gripped by election fervor, with prominent lawmakers and candidates insisting the 2020 election was stolen and seeking changes to laws that could limit voters’ power. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Illinois board votes unanimously to keep Trump on primary ballot

      by

      The Illinois board of elections has voted unanimously to keep Donald Trump on its primary ballot, rejecting objections brought by voters who challenged Trump’s eligibility on grounds that he had aided in insurrection on January 6.The decision was made on narrow procedural grounds, and is almost certain to be appealed. It is just the latest in a mixed series of official rulings on whether Trump can appear on the ballot amid a wave of challenges to his candidacy in multiple states.Officials in Colorado and Maine have ruled that Trump cannot appear on their ballots, though those decisions are facing further legal challenges, while Illinois becomes the latest state where officials have rejected attempts to boot Trump from the ballot.The US supreme court has scheduled oral arguments on this question for next week, and will likely have the final say on whether Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run for president because of his actions leading up to the January 6 attack at the US Capitol.At issue in this particular case was the question of whether or not the board of elections has the authority and jurisdiction to interpret constitutional questions. Matthew Piers, an attorney representing the objectors, argued the board “not only has the authority to determine an objection based on the United States constitution, but indeed you have the clear mandatory duty to do so”.Adam Merrill, Trump’s counsel, flatly denied Trump had participated in insurrection and argued the elections board could not make a determination on the question anyway.One Republican member of the bipartisan board made it clear that her decision was based on the question of whether the state board had the authority to weigh in on this question, not on whether Trump should be disqualified.“I want it to be clear that this Republican believes there was an insurrection on January 6,” declared GOP board member Catherine McCrory. “There’s no doubt in my mind that he manipulated, instigated, aided and abetted an insurrection on January 6. However, having said that, it is not my place to rule on that today.”The Illinois petitioners calling for Trump to be excluded from the Illinois ballot argued he is disqualified from office given article 3 of the 14th amendment, which states that any public official who has taken an oath of allegiance to the constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or given “aid or comfort” to its enemies must be disqualified from running for office again.In their 87-page petition, the Illinois voters said the January 6 attack was insurrectionary – and that “the effort to overthrow the results of the 2020 election by unlawful means” amounted to rebellion.On 28 January, Clark Erickson, a hearing officer for the board of elections tasked with evaluating the ballot challenge, said he agreed that Trump had committed insurrection and should be disqualified from appearing on the ballot – but that the matter should be left to a higher court.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe attorney representing the challengers seeking to remove Trump from the ballot indicated immediately after the decision that the petitioners would appeal it in court.Petitioners in more than a dozen states have invoked the 14th amendment to attempt to bar Trump from the ballot in 2024 on grounds that his involvement with the January 6 insurrection disqualifies him from office. Ratified in the wake of the civil war, the 14th amendment also establishes birthright citizenship and guarantees everyone in the US “equal protection” under the law.Trump’s lawyers have asked the US supreme court to put a “swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts”, which, they argued, “threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans”.The Trump campaign has similarly argued the push to disqualify him from ballots across the US amounts to an unfair and anti-democratic campaign by his detractors. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Nikki Haley was swatted twice within days amid ‘spike’ in threats to officials

      by

      Nikki Haley was targeted by a second “swatting” attempt on New Year’s Day – just two days after authorities responded to a similar call regarding Haley, according to Reuters.This time, the call was made by someone who said Haley’s daughter had been shot and was lying in a pool of blood. The caller, who told police her name was Rose, also said she was on the phone with Haley, who was threatening to shoot herself.A Charleston county sheriff’s deputy responded to the scene and it was soon discovered the call was a hoax.After the 2024 Republican presidential candidate and former governor of South Carolina confirmed, on NBC’s Meet the Press on Monday, that she had been the victim of a swatting hoax, new information from an incident report obtained by Reuters has revealed she was actually swatted on two separate occasions.Police first responded to a swatting call – or a prank call intentionally made to lure resources such as a Swat team to a location to respond to a false threat of danger – at Haley’s home in Kiawah Island, South Carolina, on 30 December. Haley was not present at the time of the swatting, but her parents were home with a caregiver.Haley’s son was also away from the home, as was her husband, Michael, who is serving overseas.Haley called the ordeal an “awful situation”.“It put the law enforcement officers in danger, it put my family in danger,” Haley said. “It was not a safe situation.”“That’s what happens when you run for president,” Haley said. “What I don’t want is for my kids to live like this.”According to an email including comments from Kiawah Island public safety, obtained by Reuters, authorities were called to Haley’s house after a man called 911 and “claimed to have shot his girlfriend and threatened to harm himself while at the residence of Nikki Haley”.The 1 January incident marks the second swatting attempt against Haley.Haley is now one of several high profile politicians targeted by swatting calls.In December, the home of the Florida senator Rick Scott was also swatted. The homes of two other members of congress, the New York congressman Brandon Williams and Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, were also swatted. Greene said on X that she had been a victim of a swatting call several times, including once on Christmas Day.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFalse cries of danger were also conducted on a larger scale earlier this month, when at least nine state capitol buildings across the US were under evacuation orders due to bomb threats that turned out to be fake.A judge in Donald Trump’s federal election subversion case was also targeted. Police responded to a report of a shooting at a Washington DC home revealed to belong to the US district judge Tanya Chutkan. Authorities quickly determined there was no threat of a shooting.The White House is not immune to these dangerous prank calls. On 15 January, multiple Washington DC emergency crews rushed to the president’s home following a call received at 7.03am.Joe Biden was not in the building at the time.The US attorney general, Merrick Garland,described a “deeply disturbing spike” in threats against public officials.“These threats of violence are unacceptable,” Garland said. “They threaten the fabric of our democracy.” More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Can Biden win back Iowa rural voters who shifted away from Democrats?

      by

      During the eight years he served in the Iowa state Senate, Tod Bowman was a self-described “door knocker”, trekking to the front porches and patios of constituents in the rural counties he represented to appeal for votes.They would, in turn, tell Bowman, a moderate Democrat, of their concerns – that government assistance programs amounted to a “handout”, that too many undocumented migrants were entering the country, that Barack Obama, the president for much of Bowman’s time in office, was planning to take their guns away. Occasionally, whoever opened the door would start interrogating Bowman before he even finished introducing himself.“Are you a Democrat or a Republican?” was the typical demand, Bowman remembered. The former high school teacher and wrestling coach came up with his own disarming reply: “I’m an Iowan.”By 2018, such encounters were happening more and more frequently, and that November, voters in the farms and small towns that made up Bowman’s eastern Iowa district replaced him with a Republican. While Bowman believes a combination of alienation from the national Democratic party and dislike of some bills he supported led to his defeat, he saw only one man to blame for the rising hostility he faced on the campaign trail.View image in fullscreen“Trump certainly made it almost acceptable in our psyches to name call, to lie, to manipulate, to be very aggressive instead of civil,” Bowman said in an interview at his house in the town of Maquoketa. “I really feel he’s changed politics, probably, if not forever, for a certain, significant period of time.”Beyond altering the tone of American politics, Donald Trump’s ascension to the helm of the Republican party undid progress Democrats had made in winning the trust of voters in rural areas nationwide, and many of their election victories ever since have relied on support from cities and suburbs. Whether this trend continues could prove crucial in deciding the victor of this year’s presidential election, where turnout in rural areas could tip swing states towards either Trump or Joe Biden. It will also play a role in determining control of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the latter of which Republicans are trying to gain by winning seats in Montana, West Virginia and Ohio.Few states exhibit the consequences of rural voters shifting away from Democrats better than Iowa. Once viewed by the party as a swing state, Trump won Iowa decisively in 2016 and carried 31 counties that had twice voted for Obama – the most of any single state. In the 2020 election, Biden won none of them back, and the president this year is not expected to campaign for victory in the Hawkeye state.The rise of Trump also undid a fragile tie that voters had unknowingly reached in Wyoming, a town of 523 people in Bowman’s district that was, at the end of 2015, the only community in Iowa with a population of more than 500 evenly split between registered Democrats and Republicans, according to a Des Moines Register analysis.The next year, Wyoming voters overwhelming voted for Trump. So, too, did the surrounding Jones county, which supported a Republican candidate for the first time in 28 years. Wyoming voted again for the New York real estate mogul in 2020, and today, there are more than twice as many registered Republicans than Democrats in town, according to the county auditor.“People are thinking that, you know, there’s a way to make a living, and there’s a way to do things, and I think it’s caused them to change parties. They’re tired of the way that the nation has been run,” the town’s mayor, Steve Agnitsch, a Republican, said by way of explanation for why Trump did so well with his neighbors.Tony Amsler, the chair of the county Democratic party, views the once-and-perhaps-future-president as a politician whose message seemed almost tailored to Iowa. “Democrats have traditionally been progressive when it comes to social issues. Iowans are very conservative when it comes to money. Those things are something, and then comes Donald Trump,” he said.“He certainly represented those who have been disenfranchised, those who think politics wasn’t listening to them. If you add this all together, you’ve got a juggernaut, and it’s hard to change direction.”The former president was the pick of Wyoming’s Republicans last week, when the Iowa caucuses were held. In the months preceding the first-in-the-nation contest, neither Trump nor any other candidate stopped in what is nicknamed “The Christmas City” for the lights Wyoming residents string all over its Main street each year. A few blocks of houses and businesses bisected by a state highway, Angitsch described his town as a community that is avoiding the stagnation that can grip the midwestern countryside. There are new buildings in its high school, the library is open five days a week and though Wyoming’s sole grocery store closed not long ago, a Dollar General was built just down the street.As for Trump, Biden, and their ilk, few in Wyoming believe either man, or anyone else in Washington DC for that matter, thinks much about the town.“We’re in podunkville. Nobody cares about the simple people in life,” said 67-year-old farmer Steve Wherry from a barstool at Rack’s Swinging Door, Wyoming’s main watering hole, where the television was showing a local news broadcast about Trump’s angry outbursts during his defamation trial in New York City that day.Wherry had voted for Trump in the past two presidential elections, and planned to do so for a third time in November, but with all the drama he heard from the news about the former president, he was less upbeat about his candidacy this time.View image in fullscreen“I think there’s people that are not gonna vote for him because of all the trials and all that stuff that’s going on, and there’s people that don’t think that he can guide this country in the right way,” Wherry said. “He’s got himself in trouble a little bit.”Sitting on the opposite end of the bar, 71-year-old retiree Craig Taylor said Trump’s troubles were enough to make him want to vote for someone else.“He’s all about the United States and the country, but they’re just not going to leave him alone,” said Taylor, who twice voted for Trump after supporting Obama in 2008.“We need to make America great again, but we need someone better than him to do it,” Taylor said, as he cracked open a Miller Light. But who? Conspiracy theorist and vaccine opponent Robert F Kennedy Jr was appealing, but Taylor didn’t think he would get much farther. “They’re not going to let him get in,” he said.Heather Campbell, a 39-year-old human resources manager, believed she had found a candidate who cared about communities like Wyoming in Tim Scott. Campbell saw the South Carolina senator speak when he visited her workplace in a nearby town, and was impressed by how he refrained from attacking any of his rivals.But Scott ended his campaign two months before the caucuses, deepening Campbell’s disillusionment with politics. “That’s what sucks,” she said, as she picked up dinner for her family. “He didn’t have the funding, he didn’t have the media funding, and that’s not right.”How communities like Wyoming ultimately vote can have ripple effects across the county. Republicans were able to create the current conservative supermajority on the supreme court only after Democratic senators were defeated in rural states like North and South Dakota, Missouri, Arkansas and Iowa, paving the way for the appointment of justices who have limited environmental regulation and allowed states to ban abortion.“The rural skew in especially the Senate and the electoral college is really shaping our institutions in a way that I don’t think people fully comprehend,” said Matt Hildreth, executive director of progressive group RuralOrganizing.org.Three years ago in Virginia, Republican Glenn Youngkin used strong support from the countryside to become governor of a blue state, while last year, a Democratic-aligned judge was elected to a crucial seat on Wisconsin’s supreme court, in part because of votes from the state’s smaller towns.In November, Democrats’ continued control of the Senate will hinge on the re-election of imperiled lawmakers from Montana and Ohio, both red states where rural voters are plenty. And in the expected rematch between Trump and Biden, turnout by right-leaning voters outside of population centers could determine if it is the former president or the current president at the inauguration next year.For Democrats, “You’re not looking to win some of these rural counties, you’re looking to cut the losses, maybe by two or three points, which could make a difference in a close race,” said Robin Johnson, an adjunct political science professor at Monmouth College in Illinois, who has consulted with the party on how to improve their rural support.View image in fullscreenIn his view, Democratic candidates have suffered in rural areas because they neglected campaign tactics that work. Chief among them: yard signs, which he says can greatly boost their visibility.“When I was working campaigns, you were taught that yard signs don’t vote. But in rural areas, it’s important because your neighbors notice. If you’ve got a sign up for a Democrat and you normally vote Republican, it kind of gives an okay to consider that person,” Johnson said.Two years ago, Amsler ran for a state house seat representing an area that included Wyoming. He met many voters who spoke approvingly of Biden and were supportive of his candidacy, but didn’t want to display a yard sign for his campaign.“I’m afraid of what those fanatics will do to my lawn, to my home,” they’d tell him.Amsler’s Republican opponent beat him handily, the same year the GOP gained a supermajority in the state senate, and defeated the last Democrat in its congressional delegation.“When I ran for office, I knew I would not win. I wanted to move the needle,” Amsler said. A year-and-a-half later, he’s not sure if he did. “What really concerns me is, we’ve had that real shift from purple to red.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      US historians sign brief to support Colorado’s removal of Trump from ballot

      by

      Twenty-five historians of the civil war and Reconstruction filed a US supreme court brief in support of the attempt by Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot under the 14th amendment, which bars insurrectionists from running for office.“For historians,” the group wrote, “contemporary evidence from the decision-makers who sponsored, backed, and voted for the 14th amendment [ratified in 1868] is most probative. Analysis of this evidence demonstrates that decision-makers crafted section three to cover the president and to create an enduring check on insurrection, requiring no additional action from Congress.”Lawyers for Trump argue that the presidency is not an “office” as described in the 14th amendment, that only congressional action can stop someone from running, and that Trump did not incite an insurrection.Trump was impeached in Congress (for the second time) for inciting an insurrection: the Capitol attack of 6 January 2021, an attempt to overturn defeat by Joe Biden now linked to nine deaths, more than 1,200 arrests and hundreds of convictions.Impeached with the support of 10 House Republicans but acquitted when only seven Senate Republicans voted to convict, Trump now dominates his party and its presidential primary, 91 criminal charges (17 for election subversion), civil trials and ballot challenges notwithstanding.Maine has also sought to remove Trump from its ballot, a ruling delayed, like that in Colorado, while the supreme court considers the issue. Oral arguments are set for 8 February.Amicus briefs allow interested parties to make relevant arguments. Earlier this month, nearly 180 Republicans joined a brief in support of Trump.The 25 historians – among them James McPherson of Princeton, the pre-eminent civil war scholar – pointed to 1860s congressional debate.“Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, a Democratic opponent of the 14th amendment, challenged sponsors as to why section three omitted the president. Republican Lot Morrill of Maine … replied, ‘Let me call the senator’s attention to the words “or hold any office civil or military under the United States”.’ Johnson admitted his error; no other senator questioned whether section three covered the president.”The historians also cited Andrew Johnson, in 1868 the first president impeached, referring to himself as “chief executive officer”.Pointing out that section 3 of the 14th amendment is self-executing, and that “no former Confederate instantly disqualified from holding office under section three was disqualified by an act of Congress”, the historians also noted that Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, cited his own disqualification as reason an indictment for treason should be quashed.“Contemporary information provides direct evidence of the enduring reach of the 14th amendment,” the historians wrote. “Congress … chose to make disqualification permanent through a constitutional amendment.“Republican senator Peter Van Winkle of West Virginia said, ‘This is to go into our constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present.’ To this end, the Amnesty Acts of 1872 and 1898 did not pardon future insurrectionists.”The historians also said “adverse consequences followed” amnesty, many ex-Confederates winning office and “participat[ing] in the imposition of racial discrimination in the south that vitiated the intent of the 14th and 15th amendments to protect the civil and political rights of the formerly enslaved people.”The historians concluded: “The court should take cognisance that section three of the 14th amendment covers the present, is forward-looking, and requires no additional acts of Congress for implementation.”Some political and legal observers have suggested Trump should be allowed to run regardless of the constitution, because to bar him would be anti-democratic.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn a forthcoming article for the New York Review of Books, seen by the Guardian, Sean Wilentz of Princeton – an eminent historian not part of the supreme court brief – calls such arguments “risible”.“By their reasoning,” Wilentz writes, “Trump’s misdeeds aside, enforcement of the 14th amendment poses a greater threat to our wounded democracy than Trump’s candidacy. In the name of defending democracy, they would speciously enable the man who did the wounding and now promises to do much more.”Trump and allies including Elise Stefanik of New York, a House Republican leader, have refused to commit to certifying the result should Trump lose in November.Wilentz continues: “Whether motivated by … fear of Trump’s base, a perverted sense of democratic evenhandedness, a reflexive hostility toward liberals, or something else, [commentators who say Trump should stay on the ballot] betray a basic ignorance of the relevant history and thus a misconception of what the 14th amendment actually meant and means. That history, meanwhile, has placed the conservative members of the supreme court in a very tight spot.”Wilentz says justices who subscribe to originalism, a doctrine that “purports to divine the original intentions of the framers [of the constitution] by presenting tendentious renderings of the past as a kind of scripture”, will in the Colorado case have to contend with evidence – as presented by the historians’ brief – of what the framers of the 14th amendment meant.Recently used to remove the right to abortion and to gut voting rights, originalism now threatens, Wilentz says, to become a “petard … exploding in the majority’s face.”He also writes: “The conservative majority of the supreme court and the historical legacy of the [Chief Justice John] Roberts court have reached a point of no return. The law, no matter the diversions and claptrap of Trump’s lawyers and the pundits, is crystal clear, on incontestable historical as well as originalist grounds … the conservatives face a choice between disqualifying Trump or shredding the foundation of their judicial methodology.”If the court does not “honour the original meaning of the 14th amendment and disqualify Donald Trump”, Wilentz writes, “it will trash the constitutional defense of democracy designed following slavery’s abolition; it will guarantee, at a minimum, political chaos no matter what the voters decide in November; and it will quite possibly pave the way for a man who has vowed that he will, if necessary, rescind the constitution in order to impose a dictatorship of revenge.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The search for Trump’s running mate: ‘like auditions for The Apprentice’

      by

      The last person who occupied the job of US vice-president ended up the target of a violent mob calling for him to be hanged. Even so, as Donald Trump closes in on the Republican nomination for 2024, there is no shortage of contenders eager to be his deputy.It is safe to assume that Mike Pence, who was Trump’s running mate in 2016 and 2020, will not get the job this time. His refusal to comply with his boss’s demand to overturn the last election caused a permanent rift and made Pence a perceived traitor and target of the January 6 insurrectionists.Undeterred, Trump’s campaign surrogates in the recent Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, both of which he won handily, have been trying to outdo each other with extravagant displays of fealty. “It’s very clear he’s holding these open auditions like it’s The Apprentice,” said Kurt Bardella, a Democratic strategist. “He will flirt with everyone. He will make them dance. They will all debase themselves and humiliate themselves and jockey for that spot.”When he first ran for president in 2016, Trump understood that he needed a vice-presidential pick who could help shore up support among Republican evangelicals and social conservatives, who were suspicious of the thrice-married reality TV star. Pence, the then Indiana governor and fierce social conservative, was from what Trump likes to call central casting.This year Trump’s allies and Republican strategists believe that he needs help attracting suburban swing voters in a handful of battleground states, where November’s election will likely be decided. Many commentators therefore predict that he will choose a woman or a person of colour, especially since the demise of the constitutional right to abortion.Michael Steele, a former chair of the Republican National Committee, said one of the factors important to Trump is “just how much of a sycophant they would be, not just in terms of ‘Oh, I love you, Donald Trump’, but do you love me enough when I tell you to violate your oath of office in the constitution that you’ll do it?’ And that person for me is Elise Stefanik.”Stefanik, 39, the highest-ranking woman in the Republican conference in the House of Representatives and one of the first members of Congress to endorse Trump, appears to have timed her run perfectly.She gained national prominence last month after embarrassing the heads of three top universities about antisemitism on their campuses during a congressional hearing, which prompted two of them to later resign. Stefanik claimed victory and declared: “I will always deliver results.” Trump reportedly described her as a “killer”.Since then she has outdone even the notoriously obsequious Pence. Soon after Trump described those convicted of crimes in the insurrection as “hostages”, she parroted the same term on NBC television’s flagship Meet the Press programme. When Trump confused rival Nikki Haley with former House speaker Nancy Pelosi while discussing January 6, Stefanik brazenly denied what everyone had heard.Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said: “She’s running flat out for it. That’s the only explanation for the things she says and does. I’m embarrassed for her but she’s not embarrassed because she only has one career goal. She says whatever she thinks he’ll like. He does like it.”In what is currently Washington’s favourite parlour game, the smart money is currently on Stefanik. Bill Whalen, a former media consultant for politicians including the former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, said: “Just based on what she did at that congressional hearing, what could make Trump more pleased than watching her take apart the Ivy League presidents? That would be very appealing for him to put her on the ticket.”Another contender is Kristi Noem, serving her second term as South Dakota’s governor after a landslide re-election victory in 2022. She gained national attention after refusing to impose a statewide mask mandate during the coronavirus pandemic. Noem campaigned for Trump at several events in Iowa earlier this month.Then there is the South Carolina senator Tim Scott, who is African American and could help Trump make inroads among Black voters. Scott was a one-time Republican rival to Trump but dropped out of the race in November. He has since endorsed Trump and told him during his victory speech in New Hampshire: “I just love you!” He also just announced his engagement to be married.Other potential running mates are Trump’s former White House press secretary and current Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders; Ben Carson, who was Trump’s housing secretary; Kari Lake, who narrowly lost a gubernatorial bid in Arizona in 2022 and is now running for the Senate there; Florida congressman Byron Donalds; Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene; and Ohio senator JD Vance.There appears to be broad resistance to picking Haley, Trump’s former UN ambassador and his last rival for the Republican nomination. On 19 January she said being a running mate was “off the table” while Trump said he would “probably” not pick her. Since then relations between the two have soured with Trump using insults such as “birdbrain” and Haley critiquing his age and mental acuity.In addition, Haley’s hawkish views on foreign policy, including military aid for Ukraine, are anathema to Trump’s “America first” base. Rightwing broadcaster Tucker Carlson vowed recently: “I would not only not vote for that ticket, I would advocate against it as strongly as I could.”Trump has publicly said he has already made up his mind, but he is reportedly still calling friends, supporters and donors for advice on whom he should pick. The stakes are unusually high this time and the oft-quoted old saw from Franklin Roosevelt’s deputy John Nance Garner – “The vice-presidency isn’t worth a pitcher of warm piss” – may not apply in 2024: Biden is 81 and Trump is 77, meaning that a vice-president’s ability to assume command has never been more pertinent.Whalen, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution thinktank at Stanford University, said: “A wary, sceptical voter is going to be thinking: ‘OK, what happens if … ?’ It makes the choice of the running mate all the more important.“We talk about this every election and we then dismiss it as voters don’t really think that way. But it’s on the table in this election in ways it hasn’t been in the past because you are focusing on the candidate’s health and their mental faculty, and the chance that one or both could not finish out a term.“That does lead to a different calculation with Trump in this regard. It’s not so much about picking up some electoral votes or reaching out to a group. It is the question of picking somebody who credibly can say they’re ready to lead from day one. You would think their chops would be more important than just their demographic.”Trump may not be in a hurry to make a final decision. The longer he dangles the prospect of the vice-presidency, the more that aspirants will genuflect and make elaborate attempts to get in his good graces.Wendy Schiller, a political scientist at Brown University, agreed. She said: “He doesn’t think he needs anybody to win this election so my guess is he’ll require lots of prominent people to come and pay homage to him. Then he’ll wait for the convention [in July] to announce it because he wants to make clear that VP – that they’re irrelevant. Generally, we worry more who his VP will be than he does.” More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      The Truce review: deep dive on Democrats’ dynamics and divisions

      by

      Joe Biden is more unpopular than Donald Trump. The Democrats’ upstairs-downstairs coalition frays, riven by the Israel-Gaza war, crisis at the US-Mexico border and inter-generational tensions. The party convention in Chicago in August carries the potential for a repeat of 1968. Then, pandemonium in the Windy City helped cost Hubert Humphrey the White House.But for sustained Republican efforts to gut reproductive rights, a strong issue for Democrats to run on, Biden and Kamala Harris would be in even deeper trouble. Even on the economy: strong GDP numbers and an invigorated bull market have yet to yield political profit.After three years on the job, the 46th president is widely viewed as a back-slapping north-eastern pol and Hunter Biden’s dad – not the transformational figure he sees when he looks into the mirror. Worse for him, at 81, majorities say he’s just too old.With The Truce: Progressives, Centrists, and the Future of the Democratic Party, Hunter Walker and Luppe B Luppen cast a sympathetic eye toward the party of Biden, Barack Obama and the Squad, prominent progressives of color in the US House. Walker is an investigative reporter at Talking Points Memo who covered the White House for Yahoo News. Luppen is a lawyer with a social media presence. In the past, he has donated to Democrats including Obama and Hillary Clinton.Mindful of Democrats’ internal divisions, the authors warmly describe Biden’s shift left and the political cover conferred. Convincingly, Walker and Luppen argue that the tilt from the center united the party and helped Biden enact legislation – until the House was lost.“This rapprochement culminated in Joe Biden’s 2023 State of the Union address,” Walker and Luppen write, of a speech that “leaned hard on progressive policy priorities from promoting organized labor to getting a handle on police violence”.Unfortunately, it failed to make Biden any more palatable to much of the public. On the one hand, 71% are sympathetic to unions, the highest level since 1965. On the other, Democrats remain seen as soft on crime. In 2020, protesters’ demands to “defund the police” were a boost only to Trump.“Bernie [Sanders] may have lost the election,” the Massachusetts senator Ed Markey reportedly told Ilhan Omar, a Squad member from Minnesota, after the State of the Union, referring to the Democratic primary in 2020. “But he won the speech.”Sanders, from Vermont, is the only socialist in the Senate. Biden also needed the centrists, Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema but they were never his. To a point they gave him cover but they never embraced his agenda. Manchin, from West Virginia, now mulls a third-party White House run. Sinema became an independent.Walker and Luppen also describe the enthusiasm shown for Biden’s State of the Union by Jamaal Bowman, a New York congressman and Squad member.“Mr President, that was awesome – that was awesome!” Bowman is quoted as saying.“Did you write the speech?” he is shown asking Sanders.Bowman has attracted controversy of his own. In September, he pulled a fire alarm in a congressional office building, then denied doing so in an attempt to delay a crucial vote. He did plead guilty to a misdemeanor.More recently, Bowman praised Norman Finkelstein, an American academic who has accused Israel of using the Holocaust to justify its actions against Palestinians, who has said Holocaust deniers should be allowed to teach, and who on 7 October, the day Hamas fighters raped and murdered Israelis, wrote: “It warms every fiber of my soul [to see] the scenes of Gaza’s smiling children as their arrogant Jewish supremacist oppressors have, finally, been humbled.”Introducing Finkelstein at a panel session, Bowman said he was “starstruck” and had “watched him all the time on YouTube”. Under fire, Bowman said he had been “unaware of Norman Finkelstein’s completely reprehensible comments”.Encapsulating Democrats’ deepening divide over Israel, Bowman now faces a primary challenge from George Latimer, the Westchester county executive. Two months after that vote, the party will most likely face a convention fight fueled by the same issue.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDoubt also swirls around Biden’s vice-president. Walker and Lappen distill it. “Kamala is not ready for prime time”, a “senior White House aide” is quoted as saying, adding: “She ain’t made for this.” Fifty seven percent of registered voters concur. Walker and Luppen are not done. “This person should not be president of the United States,” a “top aide” to the former California senator’s 2020 campaign says.“The problems Harris and her team experienced on her campaign persisted during her time as vice-president,” Walker and Luppen write, adding that a source offered a damning assessment: “It was, they said, Game of Thrones.”HBO also aired Veep.The Truce also shines a light on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, of New York and perhaps the most prominent Squad member. In the process, the book dishes on Corbin Trent, a former senior aide, and Riley Roberts, the congresswoman’s fiance.“I was hooked on fucking pain pills,” Trent acknowledges. Walker and Luppen stress that Ocasio-Cortez did not know. These days, Trent is back in the news for allegedly siphoning $140,000 in Pac money and for attempting to oust Biden as the nominee.As for Roberts, Walker and Luppen remind us of how his feelings for the police and his entrepreneurial spirit came to coincide. The authors recall a now-deleted site on which Roberts pushed the “Cop-Out Collective”, boasting, “High-end hemp t-shirts with our logo will be available for sale.”According to one poll, 47% of voters see the Democrats as too liberal, a seven-point swing since 2020. In another survey, only 57% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners expressed satisfaction with Biden as their nominee. More than seven-in-10 Republicans and allies are content with Trump.The Democrats have ceded economic policy to Sanders, their social agenda to Ivy League professors. When pivoting left on economics, it is imperative to remain in the cultural center. Democrats, including Biden, ignore this at their peril.
      The Truce is published in the US by WW Norton More