The influence of celebrity when it comes to election races should not be underestimated, and it isn’t something new either. The 2024 Presidential Election has seen celebrities come out in droves to voice their support for their candidate, but artist Chappell Roan is not getting involved.
Vice President Kamala Harris has seen a huge turnout from the celebrity crowds as she runs for office, with online sessions such as White Dudes for Harris seeing the likes of Jeff Bridges, Mark Ruffalo, and Mark Hamill turn up to endorse her. The big golden goose that many were hoping, and fearing, would join the discussion was Taylor Swift, whose influence is not to be sniffed at. The artist has tried to steer clear of making a public decision in the past, but after Trump won the 2016 election she has been a lot more vocal, and has thrown her immense influence behind Harris.
Of course, some celebrities wish to remain clear of the whole ordeal, either for their own privacy or, in Roan’s case, because they don’t have faith in the government in general. The singer has rocketed to fame in the last year, having just finished her tour in the UK over the previous weekend. Her hit song ‘Femininomenon’ has been co-opted by the Harris campaign which has called for a “femininomenon” at the polls, sharing images alongside images of Trump and Harris on their social media.
“I have so many issues with our government in every way. There are so many things that I would want to change. So I don’t feel pressured to endorse someone. There’s problems on both sides. I encourage people to use your critical thinking skills, use your vote – vote small, vote for what’s going on in your city.”
The singer has also declined an invitation to the White House to perform at its Pride event, telling crowds at the Governor’s Ball festival in June, “We want liberty, justice, and freedom for all. When you do that, that’s when I’ll come.” Roan is a staunch ally of LGBTQ+ issues and trans rights, with £1 for every UK tour ticket sold going to the charity Kaleidoscope Trust. She states that her biggest hope for change is “Trans rights. They cannot have cis people making decisions for trans people, period.”
The Mary Sue is supported by our audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Learn more about our Affiliate Policy
A man who claims to be Janet Jackson’s former manager said the pop star and her brother, Randy Jackson, fired him because he tried to clean up her P.R. mess after she was quoted in an interview with the Guardian asserting that Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris is “not Black.”
“Janet Jackson fired me due to disagreements between me, her, and Randy, after her meeting with the Guardian and her unbalanced statements,” Mo Elmasri told the Daily Beast in an emailed statement.
“That’s all I can say,” Elmasri added, saying he could not talk by phone due to “the large number of calls” coming in. But Elmasri added to the Daily Beast: “All support to Kamala Harris.”
Elmasri’s statement to the Daily Beast comes after Jackson’s official rep issued a statement to the media Sunday, saying that the “apology” made on behalf of Jackson from “manager” Elmasri was not authorized by her at all. In fact, this Jackson rep told People magazine and other outlets that Elmasri is not her manager, nor is he affiliated with her camp. The rep said that Randy Jackson is the singer’s manager.
Jackson, 58, sparked online fury Saturday after her interview with The Guardian went viral. In the interview with the U.K. outlet, Jackson repeated a debunked right-wing conspiracy theory, promulgated by Donald Trump, that the Oakland-born, Berkeley-reared vice president is “not Black.”
During the interview, Jackson was asked what she thought of Harris potentially becoming the first Black woman to be elected president. In response, Janet said: “Well, you know what they supposedly said?”
“She’s not Black,” Jackson continued. “That’s what I heard. That she’s Indian.” When the reporter responded that Harris has dual heritage, Jackson falsely claimed, “Her father’s White. That’s what I was told. I mean, I haven’t watched the news in a few days.”
Harris is both the first Black and Asian-American vice president. Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was born in India, while her father, Donald J. Harris, was born in Jamaica.
After Jackson’s comments left the reporter “floored,” the singer backtracked a bit, by saying in a whisper: “I don’t know. Honestly, I don’t want to answer that because I really, truthfully, don’t know. I think either way it goes is going to be mayhem.”
While the reporter said she didn’t think Jackson falls into “the hardcore QAnon-adjacent, Trump-loving conspiracy theorist” camp, her remarks echoed false and controversial statements Trump made during an interview in July at the National Association of Black Journalists convention in Chicago.
“She was always of Indian heritage and she was promoting Indian heritage,” Trump said at the convention. “I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black. So I don’t know, is she Indian, or is she Black?”
The drama surrounding Jackson’s incendiary statements about Harris grew more complicated when Buzzfeed News reported that the singer had issued an apparent apology, according to the Daily Beast. The statement, attributed to Elmasri, said that “Janet Jackson would like to clarify her recent comments,” explaining that she spoke “based on misinformation” about the Democratic presidential nominee’s family and ethnicity.
The statement continued: “She recognizes that her statements regarding Vice President Kamala Harris’ racial identity were based on misinformation. Janet respects Harris’ dual heritage as both Black and Indian and apologizes for any confusion caused. She values the diversity Harris represents and understands the importance of celebrating that in today’s society. Janet remains committed to promoting unity and understanding.”
But Elmasri’s claims to represent Jackson were subsequently be called into question, first by Variety, which reported that she is in fact managed by her brother Randy. Jackson’s team also told TMZ that Elmasri doesn’t represent the singer. Meanwhile, Jackson herself has yet to weigh in on the drama over Elmasri or whether she’d like to apologize for her Harris comments, the Daily Beast said.
Deadline reported that Elmasri is listed as Jackson’s manager on her IMDb page, though it is widely known that Randy Jackson is her longtime manager. Elmasri is also listed on another industry site, Celebrity Service, as her manager, the Daily Beast said. The site says his status was last verified Sept. 22.
Elmasri’s personal IMDb page cited himself as an Egyptian filmmaker who “now works as a creative consultant for many global superstars, including Janet Jackson,” the Daily Beast said.
This week, more than 100 Republican elected officials or national security advisers endorsed Kamala Harris. The argument that united these figures, many of whom worked directly for Donald Trump, is simple: Trump is a maniac. More specifically, Trump worships dictators, a fact with disturbing implications for his foreign policy, and even more disturbing implications for his use of domestic power (Trump has attempted a coup, promises to free the criminals who joined his coup attempt, and threatens regularly to imprison the media and opposition if he wins). In the face of the extraordinary threat to the system posed by a second Trump term, normal political disagreements over budgets, social policy, and the like simply don’t register.
Oddly, this logic has not won over two of the most prominent conservative columnists at the New York Times, whom you might expect would have an easier time supporting a Democrat than would, say, Dick Cheney.
Both Ross Douthat and Bret Stephens have written columns explaining why the choice between nakedly authoritarian, paranoid racist criminal Donald Trump and regular Democrat Kamala Harris leaves them flummoxed and, for now, undecided. I am not a conservative, so for me the choice is extremely obvious. Even granting that conservatives have different priorities and preferences, however, the case for indecision strikes me as feeble.
Stephens’s column begins with a series of specific policy questions he wishes Harris would answer. These are all perfectly valid questions, of course, but there’s something comical about demanding this level of specificity from one candidate — “Are there any regulations she’d like to get rid of in her initiative to build 3 million new homes in the next four years? What role, if any, does she see for nuclear power in her energy and climate plans? If there were another pandemic similar to COVID-19, what might her administration do differently?” etc. — when the other candidate’s platform ranges from incoherent blather to promises or threats so outlandish his own party is reduced to hoping he is simply lying. Stephens sounds like a parent who is unsure about whether he should hire a serial killer to babysit his children because the only other candidate hasn’t supplied enough references.
After listing his questions that Harris must answer (and that Trump, of course, not only hasn’t answered but is mentally incapable of answering), Stephens addresses the obvious objection about the alternative:
“Yet Trump victory or no, the Republican Party isn’t likely to revert to its former ideological leanings. And the argument that Trump is our Mussolini, scheming with ever-greater malevolence and cunning to end the Republic, is getting a little long in the tooth.
Trump may be much the worse sinner, but Democrats aren’t blameless when it comes to weaponizing the instruments of state power to interfere with the will of the voters. Otherwise, what does it mean to try to kick a candidate off a state ballot, or use a nakedly politicized prosecution to turn an opponent into a convicted felon, or have powerful insiders anoint a presidential candidate without the benefit of a single primary vote?”
Begin with the second paragraph. Stephens is trying to equate Trump’s naked authoritarianism with various actions by “Democrats.” Two of those, the Manhattan prosecution (which I think is shaky) and a lawsuit to disqualify him in California, have nothing to do with either Harris or the national party. The third, the party’s quick coalescing around Harris rather than jury-rig a speed primary, is both an understandable response to an emergency and one that is perfectly normal party behavior. There are no rules in place for how a party responds to a medical emergency by its nominee. Speed elections aren’t realistic. In any case, parties used to anoint their candidates without voting at all. To even compare quibbles about the nominating process with Trump’s belief he is entitled to prevail whatever the voters say, and that all opposition to him is inherently criminal, is an insult to democracy.
I think the weakness of this argument is explained by the paragraph preceding it, in which Stephens laments that the old Republican Party is not returning, and that complaints about Trump’s unfitness are getting old. Obviously, the passage of time does not make concerns about an authoritarian president less compelling, especially when his authoritarianism is growing more blatant, while his party’s willingness to check it is faltering. But what does weaken with time is political willpower. Stephens’s thought process is laid bare by his fretting that the old party is not returning. His period of brief exile, which he first imagined would last months until Trump was defeated, and then four years until the party returned to sanity, is now stretching out indefinitely. And that is why his implied threshold of acceptability for Trump is now getting lower and lower.
Douthat’s argument for indecision is somewhat more frustrating. He argues that the Democratic Party lurched leftward during the Trump era. Douthat concedes that it has been chastened, both on substantive grounds (inflation rose surprisingly fast) and political grounds (the public turned out to be much less progressive than the Twitter-influenced bubble of 2019–2020 implied). Yet his complaint is that Democrats have failed to acknowledge and apologize for their leftward lurch:
“The ‘ask’ is to ratify a record of substantial policy failure and conspicuous ideological fanaticism, dressed up for the moment in a thin promise that we won’t make those mistakes again …
Then the bill comes due, the elites backpedal and obfuscate and conveniently forget (What do you mean, Kamala Harris endorsed publicly funded gender reassignment surgery for illegal aliens? Sounds like Fox News nonsense!), and the unhappy swing voter is informed that no real price can be exacted for any of this folly, because the populist alternative isn’t fit for power.”
It isn’t enough for Douthat that Harris has renounced nearly all her progressive stances from 2019 and is running a campaign far more centrist than the one Joe Biden ran in 2020. He demands a price be paid for the progressivism. An apology? A truth and reconciliation commission for the unjustly canceled? One can understand his impulse to desire these things without being able to fathom how they could amount to a rationale for electing Trump, the very lunatic who helped set off the excesses that he’s still so angry about.
Yes, the public-health experts overshot their certainty — but that was both more tempting for them to do, and easier for them to get away with, when the president was spinning absurd lies that the virus would go away on its own in a few days or could be cured with Ivermectin. Yes, the Robin DiAngelo / Ibram Kendi fad was embarrassing and even harmful, but racism sure seems like a more serious problem when the president of the United States says racist things constantly.
Douthat, like Stephens, manages to identify his own emotional processes without diagnosing them fully. For Douthat, it’s the lack of an option — he cannot take out his frustration on the Democrats “because the populist alternative isn’t fit for power.”
It’s frustrating. I get it. If the Republicans were still in the hands of Bush-Romney types, and the Democratic Party fell into the thrall of, say, a Hugo Chavez, I would have to vote Republican. The give-and-take of normal policy disagreement can only proceed under a relatively healthy democracy. If the only party that could be trusted with democracy was only taking, and not giving, my policy priorities, I would feel growing frustration. The system is unfair. The elites must pay a price.
But it is not the system that has brought us to this unfortunate point. It is the Republican Party. I would very much like to have a world in which we had two parties to choose from that could be trusted not to destroy democracy. But until we do, small-d Democrats have only one choice. That their alternative is unsuitable for power is not the Democrats’ fault.
(CNN) — The day after President Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race and endorsed Kamala Harris to become the Democratic presidential nominee, CNN reported that Beyoncé had given her sign-off for the Vice President to use “Freedom” as her official campaign song. So, it was a seemingly antagonistic choice when the Republican nominee’s campaign played the same Beyoncé song as the backdrop of a recent social media video to showcase former President Donald Trump.
From Celine Dion and Foo Fighters to Bruce Springsteen and Prince’s estate numerous artists over the years have objected to the use of their music by the Trump campaign. But depending on how and where their music is used, musicians may have grounds to take action beyond rebuking, according to legal experts.
In Beyoncé’s case, it wasn’t just a social media post. The Trump campaign has also used her music during at least one rally this summer, even though Beyoncé endorsed the Biden-Harris ticket in 2020 and is a longtime Democratic supporter.
Her song “Texas Hold ‘Em” from the album “Cowboy Carter” was played at a Trump event on July 31 at the New Holland Arena in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, according to a video of the rally viewed by CNN.
Beyoncé’s representatives did not respond to CNN’s requests for comment. But last week, Rolling Stone reported her label threatened to send a cease-and-desist to the Trump campaign after they had used “Freedom” in the social media video, which was posted by Trump’s campaign spokesperson, Steven Cheung.
Shortly after Beyoncé’s team reportedly threatened legal action, the video was taken down.
In a statement to CNN, Cheung said he used “Freedom” to provoke the opposing party.
“The purpose of the post just proved the point that Democrats are all about banning things, including freedom. They fell for it hook, line, and sinker,” Cheung said.
Isaac Hayes performs on the Open Air stage during the third day of the Big Chill music festival at Eastnor Castle Deer Park in the Malvern Hills on August 5, 2007 in Herefordshire, England. (Jim Dyson/Getty Images via CNN Newsource)
Music licensing and approval
Licensing music and obtaining rights and clearances is an expensive, complicated and litigious business. Movie studios regularly pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain the rights to a single song, while brands can pay millions to repeat a tune in commercials to help sell a product.
Political campaigns are no exception.
“A license is required for any use of music whether in a venue, convention, online via YouTube or social media platform,” attorney Heidy Vaquerano, a Los Angeles-based partner at the law firm Fox Rothschild who specializes in music, told CNN.
Even if a license is obtained, artists may still be able to object to the use of their music by political campaigns.
Just days ago, Foo Fighters said they did not authorize the Trump campaign to use their song “My Hero,” which was played at a rally in Arizona where Trump was joined by Robert Kennedy Jr., shortly after he endorsed the former president. A representative for Foo Fighters told CNN the band was not asked permission by the Trump campaign, and said any royalties received “as a result of this use will be donated to the Harris/Walz campaign.”
Trump’s spokesperson, Cheung, told CNN, “We have a license to play the song.”
But the band’s representative reiterated, “Foo Fighters were not asked permission, and if they were they would not have granted it.”
There are some legal protections for artists around the use of their name, image or likeness. Even with a public performance license to play a song at a rally, the Trump campaign could be in violation of an artist’s publicity rights or a “false endorsement, where use of an artist’s work implies [an] artist supports the candidate,” Vaquerano said.
In order for a political campaign to use an artist’s song on social media, the campaign would have to reach out to songwriters, the publisher and the artist’s label for approval, she added.
When Trump ran in 2016 and 2020, Rihanna, Phil Collins, Neil Young, Pharrell, Rolling Stones, Adele, Guns N’ Roses and the estate of the Beatles all spoke out about Trump using their music. That pattern has continued this election cycle.
Earlier this month, Dion’s “My Heart Will Go On” was played at a Trump rally in Bozeman, Montana, along with a video of the star singing on the big screen. After videos surfaced on social media, the singer’s team spoke out.
“In no way is this use authorized, and Celine Dion does not endorse this or any similar use…And really, THAT song?” her team posted on X.
The estate of Isaac Hayes took things a step further, filing a copyright infringement suit against Trump for using the soul artist’s songs at rallies, also naming the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee and the National Rifle Association among the defendants.
In the complaint, Hayes’ estate said Trump began using Hayes’ material as “outro” music at campaign events in 2020 and have continued to use his music in 2024, as seen in one of Trump’s recent posts on Truth Social in which Hayes’ song “Hold On, I’m Comin’” can be heard playing at a rally.
According to court documents obtained by CNN, attorneys for the estate claim that the campaign has not “obtained a valid public performance license,” and are asking for “compensatory damages for the unauthorized use” of Hayes’ music. Hayes’ estate was granted an emergency hearing on the matter in federal court on September 3.
Vaquerano believes that the Hayes estate has a viable case.
“If the campaign did not obtain the necessary licenses,” the attorney said, “then each use of the music constitutes a new infringing use and the respective copyright owners would be entitled to statutory damages and actual damages for loss of sales, licensing, revenue or other provable financial loss caused by the use of the music in the Trump campaign.”
Trump is known to be selective about music. Sources with first-hand knowledge told CNN that Trump chooses some of his rally songs himself. At his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, he’ll pick out the patio playlist on an iPad set up for guests at his dinners, according to these sources.
Back on the stump, Trump may be well-served to stick with music by artists who have endorsed him, like Kid Rock.
The line outside of an early voting site in Jonesboro on Sunday, November 27, 2022. Photo by Donnell Suggs/The Atlanta Voice
There are less than 70 days till Election Day, which takes place on November 5. In Georgia, just like in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, there are certain restrictions and requirements for voting. With just over two months to go, there are a number of ways Georgia voters can prepare themselves for the big day: registering to vote, making sure you are registered to vote in your county, early voting, and knowing where your designated polling place is.
The Atlanta Voice wanted to put together an easy-to-follow voting guide for Georgians. Here are some important dates and requirements that voters need to know before they go.
Are you registered to vote?
The last day to register to vote in Georgia is Monday, Oct. 7. To learn if you’re registered to vote, Georgians can visit vote.gov/register/Georgia . A quick visit to the site will offer the opportunity to not only check your registration but register to vote if needed. The final day to register to vote by mail is also Monday, Oct. 7.
For everyone ready to vote right now, you’re going to have to wait a bit longer. Early voting in Georgia begins on Tuesday, Oct. 15. The last day to request an absentee ballot is 10 days later on Friday, Oct. 25.
Where can I vote?
There are designated polling places depending on which county you are registered to vote in. All registered voters have received voter registration cards and the designated polling place is on that card. If you don’t have your card, no problem. You can find out what your designated polling place is on the Office of the Secretary of State’s website or at the County Board of Registrar’s Office website.
What will I need to vote?
If you are registered to vote and are at your designated polling place then all you will need is a valid piece of photo identification. A list of valid pieces of identification are available on the Georgia Office of the Secretary of State website and include valid drivers licenses, Georgia public college or university identification cards, a valid United States passport, and a U.S. military identification card.
NEW YORK — Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance says Donald Trump would not support a national abortion ban if elected president and would veto such legislation if it landed on his desk.
“I can absolutely commit that,” Vance said when asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” whether he could commit to Trump not imposing such a ban. “Donald Trump’s view is that we want the individual states and their individual cultures and their unique political sensibilities to make these decisions because we don’t want to have a nonstop federal conflict over this issue.”
The Ohio senator also insisted that Trump, the former president who is the Republican nominee this year, would veto such legislation if it were passed by Congress.
“I mean, if you’re not supporting it as the president of the United States, you fundamentally have to veto it,” he said in an interview that aired Sunday.
Vance’s comments come after Democrats spent night after night of their national convention in Chicago last week assailing Trump for his role in appointing the Supreme Court Justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to abortion in the United States and paving the way for bans and restrictions across Republican-led states.
But efforts to try to neutralize an issue that Democrats hope will galvanize voters this fall also risk alienating parts of Trump’s base opposed to abortion rights.
“God have mercy on this nation if this is now the position of what was the Pro-Life Party,” wrote Family Research Council president Tony Perkins in a post Sunday linking to a story on Vance’s comments.
While Trump has repeatedly boasted about his role in overturning Roe, he has, in recent days, pushed back on Democrats’ warnings that he will go even further to restrict access if he wins a second term.
“My Administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights,” he wrote Friday on his Truth Social platform, appropriating language used by abortion rights activists and the left.
His comments drew a wave of criticism from anti-abortion advocates, including the editor of the conservative National Review, which published an article titled “Trump’s Abandonment of Pro-Lifers Is Complete.”
Trump repeated his claim hours later at an event in Las Vegas.
“I’m very strong on women’s reproductive rights. The IVF (in vitro fertilization), very strong. I mean, we’re leaders in it. And I think people are seeing that,” he told reporters.
Democrats have responded to Trump with deep skepticism.
“American women are not stupid and we are not going to trust the futures of our daughters and granddaughters to two men who have openly bragged about blocking access to abortion for women all across this country,” said Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren told NBC.
Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., brushed off a question asking how Trump would be “great’ on reproductive rights.
“You need to ask him about that. What I would say is that President Trump was a very good pro-life president,” he told CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“The pro-life community,” Graham said,, “is organized around the well-being of the child, giving the mother options other than an abortion.” Graham said “that movement will continue after he’s gone.”
Trump has often struggled to talk about abortion. Before he entered politics, he had described himself as “very pro-choice.” Earlier this year, he grappled with his stance on a federal abortion ban, suggesting at one point that he would support one at around 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk. He then settled on his current position: That restrictions should be left to individual states.
Trump has not said how he plans to vote on an upcoming ballot measure on Florida’s six-week ban.
In an interview with CBS News earlier in the week, Trump said he had “no regrets” about his role in overturning Roe v. Wade. But after months of confusing statements, he said he would not use a federal law known as the Comstock Act to try to ban the distribution of medication that is used as an alternative to surgical abortions. That is something that some of his allies have urged and that Vance supported in the past.
“We will be discussing specifics of it, but generally speaking, no,” he said. “I would not do that.”
“It’s going to be available and it is now. And as I know it, the Supreme Court has said: ‘Keep it going the way it is.’ I will enforce and agree with the Supreme Court, but basically they’ve said, keep it the way it is now,” he said.
Abortion has been a powerful motivator for Democrats since the Roe decision in the summer of 2022, and the party expects it to continue to play a key role this year.
On stage at the Democratic convention, women told harrowing personal stories of having to carry unviable pregnancies to term and being denied miscarriage care, putting their future fertility at risk.
“This is what’s happening in our country because of Donald Trump. And understand, he is not done,” Vice President Kamala Harris said in her speech accepting her party’s nomination.
Trump, who had been responding to the speech in real time, falsely insisted that, “Everybody, Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, and Conservatives, wanted Roe v. Wade TERMINATED, and brought back to the States.”
“I do not limit access to birth control or I.V.F. – THAT IS A LIE, these are all false stories that she’s making up,” he wrote. “I TRUST WOMEN, ALSO, AND I WILL KEEP WOMEN SAFE!”
Warnock gave The Atlanta Voice a few minutes to speak about his momentous speech.
“I was deeply honored last night to have the opportunity to have the country hear from Georgia,” said Warnock, who spoke to this reporter by phone. “What I endeavored to do was stand in the moral tradition of Georgia’s native son, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Asked what he felt like immediately after the speech, Warnock said it was the “honor of his life to represent the people of Georgia.”
“That’s a sacred commitment and covenant,” he continued. “It’s not unlike my commitment as a pastor.”
Georgia Congressman Sanford Bishop. Photo by Donnell Suggs/The Atlanta Voice
Long-time Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson (2nd district) and Congressman Sanford Bishop (4th district) were on hand for the breakfast and both used the words “proud” and “sermon” when they spoke about Warnock’s speech.
“It was right on point. He told us what we needed to hear, he told America what they needed to hear,” Bishop said of the speech. “He was able to translate what would normally be a sermon into a message.”
Johnson said, “Reverend Warnock is a gifted speaker, a motivational speaker, and a truth-teller. What is so unique about Warnock is that he speaks to all Americans regardless of their religion. I was so proud of him as one of Georgia’s senators.”
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker. Photo by Donnell Suggs/The Atlanta Voice
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the event’s host, Georgia Democratic Party Chair Nikema Williams, were all complimentary of Warnock’s turn on stage that night.
“What a great speech he gave yesterday,” Whitmer said of Warnock. The Michigan Governor was one of several politicians who took the stage during the breakfast, which took place inside the Hyatt Regency downtown.
Pritzker, in his second term as governor, echoed a popular sentiment that if people around the country didn’t know Warnock, they did now following his speech.
Senator Cory Booker, who was a surprise guest to the breakfast, took the stage and was immediately complimentary of Warnock as well, stating that Warnock was a strong presence in the United States Senate and a great representative for Georgia.
OpenAI said on Friday that it caught an “Iranian influence operation” using ChatGPT. The group, known as Storm-1679, generated articles and social-media comments to shape public opinion around Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, according to OpenAI. In addition to targeting 2024 U.S. presidential candidates, OpenAI said Storm-1679 also generated content around Israel’s invasion of Gaza and its presence at the 2024 Olympics, the rights of U.S.-based Latinx communities, Venezuelan politics, and Scottish independence from the U.K.
Most of the posts and articles spotted by OpenAI received little pickup from real people, the company said. Still, it described the incident in detail on its blog, writing that it found a dozen X (formerly Twitter) accounts posing as conservatives and progressives and using hashtags such as “#DumpTrump” and “#DumpKamala.” Storm-1679 also tapped at least one Instagram account to spread AI-generated content, per OpenAI.
OpenAI has previously described “state-affiliated threat actors” using its tools, but this is the first time it’s disclosed a specific election interference campaign utilizing ChatGPT.
OpenAI said it responded to said discovery by banning a “cluster” of accounts that created the content; the company also said it “shared threat intelligence with government, campaign, and industry stakeholders.” The firm did not name those stakeholders specifically, but it did share screenshots of a few of the posts. Those screenshots featured view counts ranging from 8 to 207 views and hardly any likes.
OpenAI said Storm-1679 also shared ChatGPT-generated articles across several websites that “posed as both progressive and conservative news outlets.” The firm added, “The majority of social media posts that we identified received few or no likes, shares, or comments. We similarly did not find indications of the web articles being shared across social media.”
An August 6 report from Microsoft described Storm-2035 in a similar manner — as an Iranian network with “four websites masquerading as news outlets.” According to Microsoft, the network created “polarizing” posts about the election, LGBTQIA+ rights, as well as Israel’s invasion of Gaza.
Reports of online foreign interference in U.S. elections are now virtually commonplace. Microsoft’s August 6 report, for example, also detailed an Iran-linked phishing attack that targeted an unnamed, “high-ranking” U.S. campaign official. Shortly after Microsoft dropped the report, the Trump campaign announced that “foreign sources” had stolen some of its emails and documents in an attempt to influence the 2024 presidential election. Eight years earlier, a Russia-linked hacking group known as Guccifer 2.0 made off with Democratic National Committee emails through a similar phishing attack; they ultimately leaked thousands of DNC emails and documents ahead of the 2016 Democratic National Convention.
RALEIGH, N.C. – The speech was billed as the first major economic address of her presidential campaign, and United States Vice President Kamala Harris did not disappoint. Addressing a small but vocal crowd of supporters at the Scott Northern Wake Campus of Wake Tech Community College in Raleigh, the Vice President outlined a series of economic reforms designed to provide much-needed relief to those struggling through tough economic times.
“This election is about two different visions for our nation,” Harris said as she began her remarks. “One, ours, is focused on the future, and the other is focused on the past. We see that contrast in many ways, including the way we see the economy. We sadly remember the millions of Americans who were out of work. We were facing one of the worst economic crises in history. And today, by virtually every measure, our economy is the strongest in the world.”
Photo by Julia Beverly/The Atlanta Voice
It was the first among many enthusiastic applause lines for Harris, who gave a detailed breakdown of the policy areas she plans to address as President of the United States, while also touting the success of the Biden/Harris administration. Harris spoke about the creation of 16 million new jobs, historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy, and the lowering of inflation to less than three percent during the Joe Biden presidency.
“As president, I will be laser focused on creating opportunities for the middle class that advance their economic security, stability and dignity. Together, we will build what I call an ‘opportunity economy.’ Building up the middle class will be a defining goal of my presidency.”
(Photo by Julia Beverly/The Atlanta Voice)
Harris’ plans include several major policy initiatives, which include the following:
· The elimination of medical debt impacting consumer credit scores
· A ban on price gouging for groceries
· A cap on prescription drug costs
· A $25k subsidy for first time home buyers
· A child tax credit that would provide $6k per child for families for the first year of a child’s life
Prior to Harris’ speech, North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, the Democratic Candidate for Governor, and current Democratic Governor Roy Cooper, each took the stage, both receiving raucous cheers from the audience.
“Vice President Harris is here today to shed a bright light on the urgency of lowering costs and make life more affordable for the people of North Carolina,” said Stein, who is in a tight race with Republican candidate Mark Robinson, the current Lt. Governor.
“I believe that if you work hard, where you come from should never limit how far you can go. To deliver on that promise, we must invest in our people and their future,” Stein added.
“I have been out there on the campaign trail and talking to people, and I have that 2008 feeling!” said Cooper, evoking memories of the presidential campaign of Barack Obama, and sparking an additional round of cheers.
“Vice President Harris has ignited a firestorm of excitement as we head into the final stretch of this election and today she has chosen us, North Carolina, to unveil key highlights of her economic agenda.”
Cooper described Harris as tough, focused, and as someone who will fight for the people who need her.
Several times during her speech, the crowd interrupted Harris to chant “We’re not going back! It was a line Harris used herself as she continued to contrast her plans with those of Donald Trump, and what she called his backward-looking agenda of Project 2025. On that point, the audience was in enthusiastic agreement.
“If you want to know who someone cares about,” Harris said in closing, “look who they fight for. Now is the time to chart a new way forward.”
“Black Vote, Black Power,” a collaboration between Keith Boykin and Word In Black, examines the issues, the candidates, and what’s at stake for Black America in the 2024 presidential election.
I’m in Philadelphia for Kamala Harris’s campaign rally, and the energy here is electric.
Harris just picked Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to be her running mate, and I couldn’t be more excited.
Who is Tim Walz? He’s a small-town boy who grew up working on a farm. A patriot who joined the National Guard and served for 20 years. A high school social studies teacher. A high school football coach. A veteran. A hunter, a gun owner, and a skilled marksman. A midwesterner who knows rural America. He’s the type of man Republicans claim to love, but unlike the men who lead today’s Republican Party, Walz has a heart.
Thank you for bringing back the joy.
Tim Walz
Walz is pro-union, supports a strong minimum wage, and voted for President Obama’s Affordable Care Act when he served in Congress. And unlike the coach stereotype, he had the courage to serve as the faculty adviser for the student LGBTQ group on campus. He’s funny on the stump, but he’s a great attack dog. And he means business. Walz appointed Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to prosecute Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis police officer who murdered George Floyd. But even though progressives love him, he doesn’t come across as threatening to middle America.
“And in 91 days,” as Harris said today, “the nation will know Coach Walz by another name: Vice President of the United States.”
As soon as Walz was announced, independent progressive Bernie Sanders endorsed him on the left, and conservative Joe Manchin endorsed him on the right. Do you know how hard that is to get those two to agree on anything? That’s like a Nobel Peace Prize in Democratic politics. Heck, even AOC endorsed him.
Walz helps heal the party and avoids a big conflict at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago over Gaza. He keeps the momentum going for Harris, and he matches her joyful energy.
But isn’t he another old white guy? Um, hello. Tim Walz, Kamala Harris, and I are all about the same age. We were born 16 months apart. And all of us are younger than Barack Obama. So, in my biased opinion, he’s still a young guy. Yes, he looks a lot older than Kamala and me, but we all know black don’t crack.
And actually, his avuncular appearance and relatable life story make him much more appealing to the voters Harris needs to win the battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Comparing JD Vance to Walz is like a “matchup between the varsity team and the JV squad,” Harris said today.
He balances the ticket, and his energy matches Kamala’s.
I know some people wanted other candidates, and they all had different assets. Mark Kelly is an astronaut. Pete Buttigieg is a great communicator. Josh Shapiro is hugely popular in the critical state of Pennsylvania. And originally, I wanted Andy Beshear, the youthful governor of Kentucky.
But in the past few weeks of watching him campaign for Harris, Walz won me over.
“You’ve legalized recreational marijuana, you passed universal background checks on guns, you expanded LGBTQ protections, you implemented tuition-free college for low-income Minnesotans. There’s free breakfast and lunch for school kids,” Jake Tapper said to him in a recent CNN interview.
Walz didn’t skip a beat. “What a monster,” he said. “Kids are having full bellies so they can learn.” He didn’t shy away from his record. He firmly defended it.
Republicans are already trying to sow division in the party by claiming that Harris didn’t pick Shapiro because he’s Jewish and claiming, “No Jews allowed at the top of the Democratic Party.” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer quickly put that argument to rest, but the nerve of the straight, Christian, white male-dominated Republican Party to complain about diversity in the Democratic Party. Give me a break.
The 60-year-old midwestern governor is pro-union, supports a strong minimum wage, and voted for President Obama’s Affordable Care Act when he served in Congress. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Democrats nominated the first woman for vice president in 1984 (Geraldine Ferraro, the first Jewish candidate for vice president in 2000 (Joe Lieberman), the first Black president in 2008 (Barack Obama), the first woman candidate for president in 2016 (Hillary Clinton), and now the first Black woman and first South Asian woman for president in 2024 (Kamala Harris). Meanwhile, Republicans have given us nothing but white men on the ticket for the past four elections.
That’s why I like Walz. He balances the ticket, and his energy matches Kamala’s. Other candidates are good on the attack, but Walz does the same with a smile. And when they join forces, they make a great team. As Walz said in Philadelphia today, “Thank you for bringing back the joy.”
Harris and Walz are happy warriors fighting for a hopeful future, while Trump and Vance are mean-spirited men stoking fear with a backward-focused campaign of doom and gloom.
Many of you don’t know who Tim Walz is, but trust me, when you see him in the next few weeks, you will not be disappointed. Kamala Harris made a bold choice in picking Walz. Now let’s go win.
Keith Boykin is a New York Times–bestselling author, TV and film producer, and former CNN political commentator. A graduate of Dartmouth College and Harvard Law School, Keith served in the White House, cofounded the National Black Justice Coalition, cohosted the BET talk show My Two Cents, and taught at the Institute for Research in African-American Studies at Columbia University in New York. He’s a Lambda Literary Award-winning author and editor of seven books. He lives in Los Angeles.
As the whirlwind of an upcoming presidential election approaches, immigration is once again a pivotal issue on the minds of many voters. Often, those against immigration argue that undocumented immigrants are “stealing jobs” and not contributing to the U.S. economy.
In some states — such as New York, Florida, and Texas — contributions by undocumented immigrants exceed $1 billion annually.
Nationally, undocumented immigrants contributed $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022, with $37.3 billion going to state and local governments. Providing work authorization to all current undocumented immigrants would increase their tax contributions by $40.2 billion per year.
“This study is the most comprehensive look at how much undocumented immigrants pay in taxes. And what it shows is that they pay quite a lot,” Marco Guzman, ITEP Senior Policy Analyst and co-author of the study, said in a statement. “The bottom line here is that regardless of immigration status, we all contribute by paying our taxes.”
Furthermore, the study found that for every 1 million undocumented immigrants residing in the country, public services receive $8.9 billion in additional tax revenue, money that would be lost if these individuals were deported. Additionally, more than a third of the tax dollars paid by undocumented immigrants go toward payroll taxes dedicated to funding programs like Social Security and Medicare, which these workers are unfairly not allowed to access.
In Michigan, undocumented immigrants pay a higher state and local tax rate of 8% compared to the top 1% of Michigan households, which pay 5.7%.
A press release noted that “while this study is the most comprehensive analysis of taxes paid by undocumented immigrants, it is worth noting that it does not attempt to quantify broader impacts that flow from the increased economic activity created by these individuals.”
Considering the ripple effects, it is likely that undocumented immigrants have an even larger significance to public revenue.
“This study is another reminder that undocumented immigrants are contributing to our economies and our shared public services,” the press release continued. “Immigration policy choices made in the years ahead will have significant consequences for public revenues.”
On July 23, the day after Harris quickly established herself as the Democratic Party’s new presumptive nominee, Trump told reporters that “I haven’t agreed to anything” regarding debating Harris. “I agreed to debate with Joe Biden.”
He insisted he would “absolutely” debate Harris. “I want to debate her, and she’ll be no different because they have the same policies,” he said. “I would be willing to do more than one debate, actually,” he also said.
Trump adviser Jason Miller told Axios on Thursday, July 25, that “a [Trump-Harris] debate will happen” and also called for “multiple debates” — but that “I’m not sure it will be ABC.”
Later that day, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said the campaign would not agree any specifics regarding a debate with Harris until she was officially the Democratic nominee. Cheung’s statement doubled as a multipronged attack on Democrats and Harris, and he echoed the far-fetched speculation on the right that former president Barack Obama didn’t support Harris:
Given the continued political chaos surrounding Crooked Joe Biden and the Democrat Party, general election debate details cannot be finalized until Democrats formally decide on their nominee. There is a strong sense by many in the Democrat Party — namely Barack Hussein Obama — that Kamala Harris is a Marxist fraud who cannot beat President Trump, and they are still holding out for someone “better.” Therefore, it would be inappropriate to schedule things with Harris because Democrats very well could still change their minds.
Obama’s endorsement was already imminent at that time and was officially announced on Friday morning.
The answer’s yes, I’ll probably end up debating. I think actually the debate should take place before the votes start getting cast. So the answer’s yes. But I can also make a case for not doing it.
Only as little as 72% of the $20 billion housing bond will be spent to actually build affordable housing for extremely low-income, very low-income, and low-income households. Ten percent can be spent on grants for “transportation, schools, and parks.” Notably, only 80% of the proceeds of the bond issue need to be spent in the county funding the bonds. Thus, Contra Costa County residents could end up paying for parks in San Mateo County.
The decision to place the bond on the ballot was made by the MTC, which includes unelected, unaccountable officials and is therefore like taxation without representation. We can and must do better.
In his critique of Kamala Harris, Bret Stephens mentions high staff turnover during her time as vice president and the fact that she failed the bar exam on the first try.
Regarding turnover, he should have started by looking at the mile-long list of senior and mid-level Trump people who quit or were fired.
As for the bar exam, Harris is in good company. Others who took the exam more than once include Franklin D. Roosevelt, Michele Obama, John F, Kennedy Jr., and former California Governors Jerry Brown and Pete Wilson.
He also claims she has been a bad campaigner. He’s entitled to his opinion, but her first speech in Milwaukee looked pretty impressive to me, in contrast to Donald Trump’s 93-minute meandering speech at the Republican convention.
It is now obvious that the cost of this heat — both in dollars and in human lives — far outstrips the cost of reducing CO2 emissions. Are we going to follow Ben Franklin’s advice: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”? Or John Paul Jones, “I have not yet begun to fight”? We need to get serious, folks.
The scary truth is most Californians are only a few bad breaks away from homelessness. The unlucky blow may come from a wildfire or, worse, an unexpected medical bill. Insurers profit most off denying coverage, that is, if you were fortunate enough to have health insurance in the first place.
Capitalism turns housing into a scarce commodity and then blames people who lack it. Rather than treating the unhoused as untouchable, we should give them security and more chances. It is the Christian thing to do and a humane imperative.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s executive order to sweep away homeless encampments is cruel. It does nothing to solve the systemic problems that cause homelessness in the first place. And by treating other people like trash, the Ggovernor has proven he’s garbage.
Alan Marling Livermore
Harris win is best hope for multiracial society
I was one of 50,000 Black men on a call for Kamala Harris, a day after 44,000 Black women got together. I haven’t seen this level of excitement since Barack Obama in 2008. Black women and men being this energized is how we will win the fight for a multiracial democracy.
The California Donor Table has moved over $60 million to progressive community organizations and candidates. With skyrocketing support from voters of color, we will win the presidency, retain the Senate and win eight contested California House districts to take back the House
Kamala was born at the same Oakland hospital as my son. In 2020, hundreds of us danced in front of her former Berkeley apartment to celebrate her victory. And boy will we party if, natch, when she wins the presidency.
A letter writer complained that the Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimundo now prevents federal administrative agencies from “resolving statutory ambiguities.” But that is exactly how it should be. That’s what courts do.
While agencies may have certain “expertise,” they are not courts. Courts have the expertise to resolve ambiguities in the law; agencies don’t. I don’t want an agency expert to interpret a legal ambiguity; that is not the job of a federal bureaucrat. That expert might be a conservative or liberal who lets his or her worldviews influence a decision.
If an agency finds an ambiguity in the law, have them go to Congress to clarify the issue. That is the job of our representatives.
Do these two big weirdos know what they’re doing? Photo: Emily Elconin/Bloomberg/Getty Images
The replacement of Joe Biden with Kamala Harris as Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee has created a veritable frenzy of speculation about the new strategic options her candidacy might open up for her party. And it’s very clear from all the carping about a “coup” that Republicans who have been planning a campaign against Biden for years have been wrong-footed by the switcheroo. But does the new Democratic ticket significantly change the Trump-Vance strategy or message? Let’s consider the likely ramifications:
To the extent he didn’t already undermine it with his nasty off-script rant at the RNC, Trump will likely abandon any further “national unity” messaging. It was based on the idea of a mellowed and softened 45th president offering a reasonably safe harbor for voters alarmed by Biden’s alleged senility-driven incompetence. So such talk likely went away for good the moment Biden withdrew from the contest.
It might still make abundant good sense for Trump to make some unprecedented effort to “seize the center” with less rabid rhetoric, given the doubts that already exist about Harris’s ideological positioning. But it fits Trump’s personality vastly better to “seize the center” purely and simply by pushing Harris out with intense attacks on her as a “radical.”
Early polling indicates that Harris may be within shouting distance of Trump in the Sun Belt battleground states (Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina) where Biden was losing badly, in no small part because of her stronger appeal to Black, Latino and under-30 voters. This is very significant since Biden’s only path to 270 electoral votes appeared to be via a sweep of the Rust Belt battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
But just as Harris can recoup some of Biden’s impending losses among Democratic “base” voters, there’s an opportunity for the Trump campaign to keep her from hanging onto the small but critical slice of white working-class voters who voted for Biden in 2020 and were still open to supporting him in 2024. As Ron Brownstein points out, if Harris slips to Hillary Clinton levels of support among non-college-educated white voters she could lose the Rust Belt states just as HRC did.
The Trump campaign has chosen to hold back its campaign treasury for the stretch drive to the general election even as the Biden campaign was spending freely to shore up his position. The odds are good now that Republicans will cut open the purse-strings and spend massively to define Kamala Harris before she can fully define herself.
That means now, prior to Harris’s big moment in the sun at the Democratic National Convention that begins on August 19 (following a virtual roll call vote nominating her a couple of weeks earlier). Team Trump will want to get a clear sense of how vulnerable she is to pure negative messaging before re-framing the choice of candidates for the final stage of the campaign.
Republicans have a lot of experience, both positive and negative, in waging pure ideological warfare on Democratic presidential candidates. Pounding them as “too liberal” worked extremely well against Mike Dukakis in 1988, and reasonably well against John Kerry in 2004. It did not work against Bill Clinton and Barack Obama at all, in part because both those candidates made impressive efforts to position themselves as moderates open to a bipartisanship that swing voters craved even if Republicans spurned it.
It’s likely that the Trump campaign will calculate that Harris is more like Dukakis and Kerry than Clinton and Obama. They’ve done reasonably well in convincing voters that Joe Biden is “too liberal.” Harris with her California background and vulnerable issue positions should be an easier target, at least unless she counter-punches fiercely.
Trump, to be clear, has a strong head start in labeling Harris as a lefty, having called her a “communist” in 2020. And just this week he said this about her at Truth Social: “We’re not ready for a Marxist President, and Lyin’ Kamala Harris is a RADICAL LEFT MARXIST, AND WORSE!” He’ll keep this up whether or not his campaign makes it a centerpiece. It’s objectively moronic, but that’s never stopped Trump before.
We already know that Kamala Harris will lean on her extensive experience as a state and local prosecutor to depict herself as a tough defender of the law and of basic rights on a mission to hold the convicted felon Trump accountable and keep him out of office. So you can definitely expect Republicans to go directly after this strong point of her background by characterizing her as a rogue progressive prosecutor bent on justifying illegal behavior and emptying the prisons. Already the Trump campaign and its allies are scouring the public records for anything they can use to accuse her of wanting to “defund” or hamstring the police, secure short sentences or early release for violent criminals, or decriminalize misconduct entirely.
For some persuadable voters the whole ballgame may boil down to whether Harris comes across as “Kamala the Cop” or “Kamala the Border Czar.” And it’s worth remembering that Trump’s co-campaign manager, Chris LaCivita, was a major player in the 2004 “Swift Boat” assault on the military record of war hero John Kerry.
It’s been interesting to watch some Republicans shush other Republicans from going right to the racism and sexism with attacks on Harris as a “DEI hire” or someone strictly defined by her ethnicity and gender. But even if they mute the overt stuff (including, believe it or not, “birther” smears about her eligibility to serve as president), it’s going to linger in the background just as it did in Republican campaigns against Obama and HRC. Finding ways to reinforce personal fears about Harris among diversity-averse voters without diving directly into the cesspool will be a tricky business for Team Trump, particularly among the less-inhibited MAGA social media warriors (like X owner Elon Musk).
The earlier question about Trump’s demographic strategy could help determine how far his fans go in drawing attention to Harris’s identity. If Republicans wind up doubling down on white working-class voters and largely abandoning Black voters, it could get really ugly.
When Trump chose J.D. Vance as his running-mate, the idea was to display a young, vibrant, cerebral demagogue who could go feral against Uncle Joe and hold his own in a debate with Kamala Harris. Now it doesn’t look like as smart a move. Vance’s rich history of extremism and incautious rhetoric is becoming a problem for a Trump campaign trying to project stability, and it’s likely Vance will be debating someone resolutely normie like Roy Cooper, Mark Kelly, or Tim Walz. Given Trump’s own erratic personality, the last thing Republicans need is the perception that with a world of options to serve as the former president’s successor, they settled on a big weirdo.
Probably the smartest strategy for the Trump-Vance ticket is to remember that substantive concerns about the condition of the country under Joe Biden’s administration (along with friendly amnesia about the Trump administration) have given Republicans the upper hand for most of this election cycle. Panicking and going medieval on Kamala Harris could squander that advantage and make the election a choice about the kind of change Americans want instead of a simple referendum on an unpopular presidency.
What’s unclear is whether Trump and his MAGA minions have the temperament to stay the course instead of making the final stages of the 2024 campaign 100 days that feel like January 6.
If you haven’t seen it, you might want to read the synopsis of Project 2025. Essentially it’s a manifesto for Donald Trump to take over every aspect of American lives, but only to benefit him and his loyalists.
They plan to remove government employees and agencies. They have no regard for non-Whites, LGBTQ, abortions, women, foreigners and non-Trumpists. There will be no need for Congress or the Supreme Court because all decisions will come from the demagogue himself and his self-designed army.
Was “1984” a primer for Trump? How much surveillance will there be? How many jails and holding camps will they build for all those in opposition? Will they restore a vigorous execution system?
They want to end American democracy as we know it. If you’re not concerned about this, then study Germany in 1939.
Stuart Shicoff Martinez
Back Harris to beat Trump at ballot box
Presidents Biden and Obama are the two best presidents I have experienced in my lifetime. I applaud, admire and respect President Biden so much for sacrificing for our good and not focusing on himself. He and his team, including Vice President Harris, pulled us out of an extremely dark time.
In November, we have two choices: democracy vs. dictatorship. It’s time to finally put aside gender and race and focus on the issues that matter to us all.
If you haven’t yet read Project 2025, please read it. There’s a summary on Wikipedia so you don’t have to read 900 pages. It’s Donald Trump’s blueprint for a dictatorship and police state and covers all of the issues that are important to Americans. Kamala Harris is the most qualified and experienced individual who can beat Trump at the ballot box. It’s a no-brainer.
Ramona Krausnick Dublin
Democrats’ whitewashing of the coercion of Biden
According to Martha Raddatz, ABC News, senior White House sources recently said that Joe Biden was lashing out at any suggestion of dropping out.
But with a political tidal wave of Democratic elites knocking over his determination to continue running on the basis that he could not win, and after the final assault by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, Biden was finally forced to resign from the race. A New York Times opinion piece calls this “a noble patriotic move; a selfless American giving up power willingly for the good of the country.” Coercion is more like it.
This narrative is a Democratic Party line whitewashing reality which we will see repeated ad nauseum.
Shaun McCutcheon, chairman of the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, advocates for the shooting of protesters: “Rioters don’t riot where they will be shot.” He says that leftist leaders who were soft on protesters were the causes of the Donald Trump assassination attempt.
This scary kind of thinking confirms the wisdom of voting for the best Democratic candidate in November.
Steve Turnwall Lafayette
Upcoming federal case pivots on free speech
The case against the Uhuru 3 — Omali Yeshitela, Penny Hess, and Jesse Nevel — is a troubling challenge of our most important constitutional right.
Under the guise of bogus conspiracy charges and failing to register as “foreign agents” after criticizing the U.S. role in the war in Ukraine, these three have been indicted for using their right to free speech to openly criticize the U.S. government. The outcome of their upcoming trial will be an important moment in history, setting a precedent on whether or not our government can attack its own citizens for exercising their right to free speech.
Progress in this country has come from its citizens speaking their mind and advocating for change, knowing they are protected by their First Amendment right. The outcome in this trial will be extremely important in securing our right to keep speaking freely and pushing for progress.
Don’t count on Speaker Jeffries to contain President Trump. Photo: Ting Shen/Bloomberg/Getty Images
One of the ideas coming out of the agonizing intra-Democratic debate about Joe Biden’s fitness to beat Donald Trump is a sort of plan B. Donors, we are told, are considering shifting resources to an effort to flip control of the House (just four seats away) in order to block a Trump-led Republican trifecta and a bacchanalia of authoritarian extremism next year. The reigning assumption is that absent a presidential win (which provides the tie-breaking vote in the Senate), maintaining Democratic control of the upper chamber will be almost impossible, since Republicans are sure to flip West Virginia, and all the other competitive races are on Democratic turf. So making Hakeem Jeffries House Speaker offers the best return on investment and perhaps relief from the agony of watching Biden like a hawk every time he’s on-camera.
It’s an interesting strategy but not terribly promising from a historical point of view. The last time House control flipped in a presidential-election year was in 1952, when Republicans benefited from a presidential landslide. The last six times House control has flipped (in 1954, 1994, 2006, 2010, 2018, and 2022), it’s happened in midterm elections featuring a very common backlash against the president’s party. You know how often a party has lost the White House and flipped the U.S. House in the same election? Zero times. There were times when Senate races (with their highly eccentric landscapes thanks to only one-third of seats being up in any one election) moved in a very different direction from the presidential election. But the House has always been harnessed to White House results in fundamental and even predictable ways, as political scientist David Faris points out:
Political scientist Robert Erikson found in 2016 that for “every percentage point that a presidential candidate gains in the two-party vote, their party’s down-ballot candidates gain almost half a point themselves.” A 1990 study by James E. Campbell and Joe A. Sumners found that for every 10 points that a presidential candidate gains in a state, it boosts that party’s Senate contender by 2 points, and its House hopefuls by 4. This basic logic is a large part of why the past five presidents brought congressional majorities into office with them when they were elected to their first term.
And most of this historical record, mind you, was forged in the bygone era of relatively nonideological major parties that made ticket-splitting immensely more common. House Democrats entered the 2024 cycle optimistic about making gains since 16 Republicans are in districts carried by Biden in 2020 while only five Democrats are in Trump ’20 districts. But as J. Miles Coleman of Sabato’s Crystal Ball observes, an even Biden-Trump race in the national popular vote would turn six Democratic-held House districts red. A 3.3 percent Trump advantage in the national popular vote (his margin in the polling averages Coleman was using) would turn 19 Democratic-held House districts red.
Flipping the House if Biden loses decisively is hard to imagine. Even now, with polls showing a close presidential race, all of the major House prognosticators give Republicans a slight advantage (Cook Political Report, for example, shows the GOP favored in 210 races and Democrats favored in 203, with 22 toss-ups, half of them currently controlled by each party). The congressional generic ballot, polling that estimates the House national popular vote, is dead even (on average, Democrats lead by 0.5 percent in FiveThirtyEight, Republicans by 0.3 percent in RealClearPolitics). This will be an uphill fight for Democrats in the best of circumstances. And it should be remembered that Biden’s party lost 13 net House seats in 2020 even as he won the White House.
History, current analysis, and common sense indicate that abandoning the presidential ticket to focus on House races as though they are isolated contests is a fool’s errand for Democrats. Whether it’s Biden, Kamala Harris, or some improbable fantasy candidate heading the ticket, the presidential race needs to stay highly competitive if Democrats want to make House gains. If Trump rides back into the White House with a solid win, his toady Mike Johnson will almost certainly be there to help him turn his scary plans into legislation.
On Friday, July 12, President Biden held a rally in a Detroit high school gymnasium.
The politician promptly addressed his recent name mix-ups at the NATO Summit earlier this week. Biden didn’t hesitate to criticize Donald Trump and call him out for making similar mistakes.
“People would rather talk about how I mix up names. I guess they don’t remember that Trump called Nikki Haley, Nancy Pelosi. No more! Donald, no more free passes,” Biden said during the rally.
He even went as far as labeling Trump as a “convicted criminal” and discussed the businessman’s guilty verdict in the hush money trial.
“Today we’re going to shine the spotlight on Donald Trump. We’re gonna do what the press so far hasn’t, but I think they’re gonna soon. Folks Donald Trump is a convicted criminal. He was convicted by a jury of his peers of 34 felonies for paying hush money,” Biden continued.
According to The Detroit News, when President Biden mentioned Trump, the crowd erupted in chants of “Lock him up!”
The outlet also reported that Biden remained firm in his decision to continue in the election and expressed confidence in his ability to succeed against Trump.
“I am running. And we’re going to win,” Biden affirmed.
Social Media Reacts To President
The Roomies quickly responded to Biden’s remarks at his Detroit rally. Even Fat Joe joined The Shade Room comment section to give the president props writing, “That’s the Joe i know🔥”
Instagram user @aguilo.ju wrote, “They increased his dosage today.”
Instagram user @_suckafreesi wrote, “My mans took his meds and had a nap and woke up swinging 😭”
While Instagram user @nadiamonyea wrote, “I was scared a little bit when he started coughing but he pulled it together real quick. Yeah Joe 😅🦾🦾🎉”
Then Instagram user @_honey.bai wrote, “That was damn near a tongue twister and he said it without stuttering. Let me find out they flipped his switch at the debate.”
Instagram user @iron_barbii wrote, “Retrumplicans will take anything and twist it when it fits their agenda. He’s speaking just fine to me…..”
Lastly, Instagram user @nonsky wrote, “Where was this energy at the debate? lol”
Biden Goes Viral For Mistakes At Summit
Despite his recent mistakes and ongoing speculation about the future of his campaign, Biden appeared to be in good spirits during the rally.
Earlier this week, President Biden went viral and raised concerns after accidentally confusing Vice President Kamala Harris with Donald Trump at the NATO Summit.
“Look, I wouldn’t have picked Vice President Trump to be Vice President if I think she’s not qualified to be president,” Biden stated while onstage.
As if that wasn’t enough, he then went on to introduce Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“And now I want to hand it over to the president of Ukraine, who has as much courage as he has determination. Ladies and gentlemen, President Putin. “He’s going to beat President Putin. President Zelensky. I’m so focused on beating Putin. We got to worry about it. Anyway, Mr. President.”
The Capitol Hill building where Democratic senators heard from top Biden aides Mike Donilon, Steve Richetti, and Jen O’Malley Dillon had two exits, one on a side street with a nice view of the Supreme Court and the other emptying out onto four lanes of traffic on Constitution Avenue with no shade from the July sun. Most senators invariably used the second, because it was the one where they wouldn’t be interrogated by reporters.
The few who trickled out of the first exit were reluctant to answer any questions at all about the meeting where they sought reassurance from the president’s team that there was a way he could win reelection. They didn’t even answer questions about what was for lunch.
Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal offered the cryptic answer that “some of my concerns are allayed, some others have been deepened” after the meeting — which Politico reported didn’t seem to have changed anyone’s minds. Still, Blumenthal insisted ahead of Biden’s press conference that he has to “go to American people, not just in one meeting, in one press conference, or in one speech but consistently and constantly.”
“Tonight will be important,” he said. “The press conference will be potentially a turning point, but there has to be more than one.”
Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire offered a panglossian spin, rare among Democrats who have been increasingly stone-faced in recent days. “The best way to defeat Donald Trump is to reelect President Biden,” she said. “I thought the presentation we had was a really excellent one.”
The windows of the building, which was headquarters of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, were plastered with stickers encouraging passersby to look up www.goponabortion.com — a campaign website where they criticized Republicans for their opposition to Roe v. Wade. No one outside was pulling up the website though. They were too busy reading the statement from the latest House member to demand that Biden drop out.
Democrats may not believe Joe Biden is the strongest candidate to defeat Donald Trump in November, but there seemed to be a grim resignation on Capitol Hill on Monday night that none were willing to take the steps that might actually push Biden to drop out. If Democrats could simply wave a magic wand to remove the president from the ticket, they would. But all they have are knives, and few are inclined to use them.
The fretting was based on the calculus that while Biden was likely to lose if he remained on the ticket, an unsuccessful effort to oust him would just widen the margin of defeat (and the resulting down-ballot casualties). Many took an abstract view of the process as if it was some intellectual question that needed to be worked out on a blackboard. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland told reporters “I think we are having an important national conversation and I am confident that the president will make a decision in the best interest of the country.” There was no sense that Biden has already announced that decision a number of times, including hours before in a letter to Congressional Democrats and again during a phone interview with Morning Joe.
Fatalism gripped the Democratic Party on Monday, fueling a desire among many just to resolve all of this quickly. As one donor said “the longer it lingers, the worse it is going to be in November.” Only Joe Biden could really decide to remove himself from the ticket, and barring a shocking turn of events, he wasn’t going to relinquish that grip. In the meantime, the more the media feeding frenzy continued, the tougher it would be for Democrats in competitive races. After all, the last thing Democrats want to do is spend day after day answering questions about Joe Biden’s cognitive abilities, and until there was a definitive resolution, they wouldn’t have a choice. There would be no open convention, no Sorkinesque sacrifice — just another grim four months of plodding along with a flawed nominee.
One senior Democratic aide invoked the T.S. Eliot line that became a cliche long before even Biden was born: “This won’t end with a bang but a whimper.”
This section of the interview focused on the widely reported concerns about Biden’s capacity to be a winning candidate, and his current standing in the race — and the president’s answer is unlikely to assuage those concerns. From the transcript (video of the exchange here):
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: If you are told reliably from your allies, from your friends and supporters in the Democratic Party in the House and the Senate that they’re concerned you’re gonna lose the House and the Senate if you stay in, what will you do?
PRESIDENT BIDEN: I’m not gonna answer that question. It’s not gonna happen.
STEPHANOPOULOS: What’s your plan to turn the campaign around?
BIDEN: You saw it today. How many– how many people draw crowds like I did today? Find me more enthusiastic than today? Huh?
STEPHANOPOULOS: I mean, have– I don’t think you wanna play the crowd game. Donald Trump can draw big crowds. There’s no question about that.
BIDEN: He can draw a big crowd, but what does he say? Who– who does he have? I’m the guy supposedly in trouble. We raised $38 million within four days after this. We have over a million individual contributors, individual contributors. That– that’s less than 200 bucks. We have– I mean, I’ve not seen what you’re proposing.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You haven’t seen the fall-off in the polls? You haven’t seen the reports of discontent in the Democratic Party, House Democrats, Senate Democrats?
BIDEN: I’ve seen it from the press.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, I’ve heard from dozens of your supporters over the last few days, and a variety of views, I grant you that. But the prevailing sentiment is this. They love you, and they will be forever grateful to you for defeating Donald Trump in 2020. They think you’ve done a great job as President, a lot of the successes you outlined. But they are worried about you and the country. And they don’t think you can win. They want you to go with grace, and they will cheer you if you do. What do you say to that?
BIDEN: I say the vast majority are not where that– those folks are. I don’t doubt there are some folks there. Have you ever seen a group– a time when elected officials running for office aren’t little worried? Have you ever seen that? I’ve not. Same thing happened in 2020. “Oh, Biden, I don’t know. Man, what’s he gonna do? He may bring me down, he may…”
STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. President, I’ve never seen a President with 36 percent approval get reelected.
BIDEN: Well, I don’t believe that’s my approval rating. That’s not what our polls show.
