ReportWire

Tag: 2024 presidential election

  • How AI Is Being Used to Influence and Disrupt the 2024 Election

    How AI Is Being Used to Influence and Disrupt the 2024 Election

    [ad_1]

    Two days before the New Hampshire primary in January, a robocall featuring an AI-generated imitation of President Biden’s voice was sent out to thousands of people in the state urging them not to vote. The call was also spoofed to appear as if it had come from the telephone of a former state Democratic Party official. Independent analysis later confirmed that the fake Biden voice had been created with ElevenLabs’ AI text-to-speech voice generator.

    The New Hampshire attorney general’s office launched an investigation into the robocall and subsequently determined it had been sent to as many as 25,000 phone numbers by a Texas-based company called Life Corporation, which sells robocalling and other services to political organizations.

    On February 23, NBC News reported that a New Orleans magician named Paul Carpenter had admitted using ElevenLabs to create the fake Biden audio. Carpenter said he did it after being paid by Steve Kramer, a longtime political operative then working for Democratic presidential candidate (and AI proponent) Dean Phillips. The campaign has denied having any knowledge of the effort.

    “I was in a situation where someone offered me some money to do something, and I did it,” Carpenter said. “There was no malicious intent. I didn’t know how it was going to be distributed.” He told NBC he was admitting his role in part to call attention to how easy it was to create the audio:

    Carpenter — who holds world records in fork-bending and straitjacket escapes, but has no fixed address — showed NBC News how he created the fake Biden audio and said he came forward because he regrets his involvement in the ordeal and wants to warn people about how easy it is to use AI to mislead. Creating the fake audio took less than 20 minutes and cost only $1, he said, for which he was paid $150, according to Venmo payments from Kramer and his father, Bruce Kramer, that he shared.

    “It’s so scary that it’s this easy to do,” Carpenter said. “People aren’t ready for it.”

    Kramer, who also previously worked on the failed 2020 presidential campaign of Kanye West, was paid nearly $260,000 by the Phillips campaign across December and January for ballot-access work in Pennsylvania and New York. A Phillips campaign spokesperson told NBC News that it played no part in the AI robocall:

    “If it is true that Mr. Kramer had any involvement in the creation of deepfake robocalls, he did so of his own volition which had nothing to do with our campaign,” Phillips’ press secretary Katie Dolan said. “The fundamental notion of our campaign is the importance of competition, choice, and democracy. We are disgusted to learn that Mr. Kramer is allegedly behind this call, and if the allegations are true, we absolutely denounce his actions.”

    In a statement to NBC News, Kramer eventually admitted he was behind the robocall, which he said he sent to 5,000 likely Democratic voters. He claimed he did it to prevent future AI deepfaked robocalls:

    “With a mere $500 investment, anyone could replicate my intentional call,” Kramer said. “Immediate action is needed across all regulatory bodies and platforms.”

    [ad_2]

    Chas Danner

    Source link

  • Trump wins South Carolina primary, as he closes in on the Republican nomination

    Trump wins South Carolina primary, as he closes in on the Republican nomination

    [ad_1]

    (CNN) — Former President Donald Trump won South Carolina’s Republican presidential primary Saturday, further tightening his grip on the nomination and leaving his last remaining major rival, Nikki Haley, to consider her dwindling options.

    The former president has swept all GOP nominating contests to date, first beating the field by large margins in Iowa and New Hampshire, before cleaning up in Nevada, where Haley didn’t appear on the ballot, and in the US Virgin Islands.

    But his romp in South Carolina, which twice elected Haley its governor, might be the most impressive of this campaign.

    [ad_2]

    Gregory Krieg and CNN

    Source link

  • Nikki Haley sides with Alabama Supreme Court on IVF ruling: ‘Embryos, to me, are babies’

    Nikki Haley sides with Alabama Supreme Court on IVF ruling: ‘Embryos, to me, are babies’

    [ad_1]

    (CNN) — Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley on Wednesday sided with the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos are children and those who destroy them can be held liable for wrongful death.

    “I mean, I think embryos, to me, are babies,” Haley said during a pull aside interview with NBC News as she described that she used artificial insemination to have her son, a different process than in vitro fertilization (IVF).

    “I had artificial insemination. That’s how I had my son. So, when you look at, one thing is to save sperm or to save eggs. But when you talk about an embryo, you are talking about, to me, that’s a life. So, I do see where that’s coming from when they talk about that,” she added.

    [ad_2]

    Ebony Davis and CNN

    Source link

  • Inside Kamala Harris’ quiet effort to break through the Biden campaign’s information bubble

    Inside Kamala Harris’ quiet effort to break through the Biden campaign’s information bubble

    [ad_1]

    Washington, DC (CNN) — For some, it’s been a conversation off to the side at the White House congressional holiday party. Others have gathered at actress Eva Longoria’s house in Los Angeles. Still more have huddled on Air Force Two or gathered for a series of Saturday sessions and dinners that Vice President Kamala Harris has been hosting at the Naval Observatory.

    More than two dozen sources tell CNN that Harris has been gathering information to help her penetrate what she sometimes refers to as the “bubble” of Biden campaign thinking, telling people she’s aiming to use that intelligence to push for changes in strategy and tactics that she hopes will put the ticket in better shape to win.

    Multiple leading Democrats, anxious about a campaign they fear might be stumbling past a point of no return, say their conversations with Harris have been a surprising and welcome change, after months of feeling sloughed off by the White House and Biden campaign headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware.

    [ad_2]

    Edward-Isaac Dovere and CNN

    Source link

  • Republicans Are Acting Like 2024 Is Their Last Campaign

    Republicans Are Acting Like 2024 Is Their Last Campaign

    [ad_1]

    Trump’s choice to co-chair the RNC: his daughter-in-law Lara.
    Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

    It’s understandable that Donald Trump regards the 2024 election as his final shot at redemption after a 2020 defeat he still cannot admit. In August, he will very likely become a three-time presidential nominee at the age of 78. His principal agenda (beyond taking the steps necessary to quash criminal prosecutions) revolves around vengeance against his enemies, from the highest levels of the Democratic and Republican Party Establishments and major media organizations to the lowliest “deep state” bureaucrat. That’s a deeply personal undertaking, not something he can pass on to any political or ideological heirs.

    If Trump loses again and cannot achieve the insurrectionary reversal of the outcome he attempted last time around, the odds are pretty good that he will wind up in the slammer or at least spend his declining years in courtrooms, watching his business empire dissolve in the acid of adverse civil judgments and astronomical legal fees.

    So win or lose, in an existential sense it’s all or nothing in November for this turbulent man.

    The former president’s bulletproof standing in the 2024 presidential-nomination contest has made it exceptionally easy for him to begin remolding his party in his own image. This project achieved an early milestone with his planned replacement of RNC chair Ronna McDaniel with an ultraloyalist North Carolina operative named Michael Whatley, along with Trump’s own daughter-in-law Lara, another North Carolinian (in blatant disregard of traditional notions of balanced leadership) as co-chair.

    Lara Trump is not simply a political nepo baby, however. She could well represent the final subjugation of any broader goals or purpose of the national party beyond hailing the chief. Her first comment about what she wanted to do with her RNC post, as Fox News reported, was highly illustrative:

    “The RNC needs to be the leanest, most lethal political fighting machine we’ve ever seen in American history,” Lara Trump told Newsmax …

    “Every single penny will go to the No. 1 and the only job of the RNC — that is electing Donald J. Trump as president of the United States and saving this country.”

    Sure, every presidential campaign and its party satraps treat victory as all-important, but we sometimes forget to notice how often Trump and his supporters identify a second term for him with the continued existence of the United States. That’s the subtext of their exceptionally vicious attacks on Joe Biden as “the destroyer of democracy” and their treatment of boring old mainstream Democrats as “the Radical Left,” “Marxists,” or even “communists.”

    In other words, Trump is projecting his own intense desperation about winning in 2024 onto the party he increasingly controls. That could matter, and not just because making this one election seem like the eschaton is a good way to turn the GOP into “the leanest, most lethal political fighting machine we’ve ever seen.” Supposing Trump loses and again tries to take the election into overtime; Republicans would be more likely to support efforts to reverse the results if they had been told for months that their country could all but cease to exist if Biden remained president. They are already more favorably inclined toward the attempted insurrection than they were in the days immediately after January 6. Michael Anton (later a Trump White House official) earned great notoriety for an essay describing the 2016 presidential election as “the Flight 93 Election,” comparing a Trump victory over Hillary Clinton as a patriotic necessity as urgent as the self-sacrificing attack against 9/11 hijackers by airline passengers. An entire major political party infused with this attitude could become much more authoritarian-leaning than it already is.

    Being a narcissist, Trump himself cannot be expected to distinguish his own fate from that of his party or his country. But Republicans can and should refuse to completely subordinate their party to its leader and force themselves to recognize there are values more basic than the desire to grind their opponents into dust. But they probably won’t.

    [ad_2]

    Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • Do the Hur Report and Biden’s Age and Memory Really Matter?

    Do the Hur Report and Biden’s Age and Memory Really Matter?

    [ad_1]

    Reporters have reached out to a number of neurologists and other experts on memory and aging since the Hur Report came out. Overall, they have have emphasized that a person’s cognitive abilities cannot be accurately assessed based on anecdotes, and with that acknowledged, there wasn’t anything particularly concerning or unusual about the president’s memory lapses as detailed in the report.

    As several doctors made clear to the New York Times, neither they — nor Special Counsel Hur, nor any pundits — are in a position to diagnose Biden, and Hur’s conjecture on the matter (that Biden has a “faulty memory”) was definitely not based on science:

    In its simplest form, the issue is one that doctors and family members have been dealing with for decades: How do you know when an episode of confusion or a memory lapse is part of a serious decline? The answer: “You don’t,” said David Loewenstein, director of the center for cognitive neuroscience and aging at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. The diagnosis requires a battery of sophisticated and objective tests that probe several areas: different types of memory, language, executive function, problem solving, and spatial skills and attention. The tests, he said, determine if there is a medical condition, and if so, its nature and extent. 

    A diagnosis might also require comparing recent memory test results to ones taken at least several years ago; understanding what precisely a person is and isn’t forgetting; interviewing family members and close associates; and ruling out various other factors that could be affecting a patient’s cognitive function, like medication they are taking or a recent injury.

    And “neurologists say blanking on the names of acquaintances or having difficulty remembering dates from the past, especially when under stress, can simply be part of normal aging,” reports NBC News:

    “If you asked me when my mother passed away, I couldn’t necessarily tell you the exact year because it was many years ago,” Dr. Paul Newhouse, clinical core leader for the Vanderbilt Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, said. Almost every older patient has trouble remembering people’s names, Newhouse said. “I think it’s by far the most universal complaint of every person as they age[.”] …

    Dr. Dennis Selkoe, co-director of the Ann Romney Center for Neurologic Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, agreed that forgetting names doesn’t actually provide much insight into potential memory problems. In fact, stress and a lack of sleep, can interfere with memory, no matter how old someone is. “Naming proper nouns is not an adequate basis to make a conclusion about whether an individual has a more consistent and more concerning substantive progressive memory disorder,” Selkoe said. …

    Overall, neurologists tend to worry less about a patient’s ability to remember remote memories from many years ago and more troubled by an inability to recall more recent events.

    And while everyone’s memory declines as they age, and recalling dates and names can become more challenging, it’s not necessarily some universal impairment, as several experts explained to the Washington Post:

    “It’s very clear that there are a number of changes that occur with aging and cognition that are just part of getting older,” said Bradford Dickerson, a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, who’s studied cognitive super-agers. Declines in the ability to think and remember among the elderly are broad and almost universal, he continued. “There’s just not much cognitively that’s better in an 80-year-old than in a 20-year-old.” …

    Still, older brains can often compensate for their growing weakness, Dickerson and other researchers point out. “There’s evidence that older adults can strategically focus memory” on the most important information, [Harvard University psychology professor Daniel] Schacter said. Older brains often become more adept than younger brains at filtering irrelevant information or at making connections between experiences, the researchers agreed, because they’ve had more of them.

    Joel Kramer, the director of the Memory and Aging Center at University of California, San Francisco, made a similar point to Stat News:

    On average, an 80-year-old will not remember as well as a 60-year-old who won’t be remembering quite so much as a 40-year-old. But these are just general trends. And, you can’t really assume that this particular 80-year-old is going to remember less well than the average 40-year-old, or any 40-year-old. …

    When there’s a considerable amount of disease, you might expect a more broad-based decline in memory as well as other [mental] skills. But they are really quite dissociable. And in fact, one of the ways that a lot of older people compensate for their memory problems is by having very good reasoning and planning and judgment. Some people argue that as we get older, you see an increase in wisdom and judgment.

    There was a great study of airline pilots several years ago that showed that older pilots have slower reaction times, unquestionably, but they have more experience and better judgment. So this whole notion that because someone is 80 years old, they therefore have problems in memory and other skills, is completely bunk.

    In a New York Times op-ed, Dr. Charan Ranganath, the director of the Dynamic Memory Lab at U.C. Davis, stresses that “there is forgetting and there is Forgetting”:

    If you’re over the age of 40, you’ve most likely experienced the frustration of trying to grasp hold of that slippery word hovering on the tip of your tongue. Colloquially, this might be described as ‘forgetting,’ but most memory scientists would call this “retrieval failure,” meaning that the memory is there, but we just can’t pull it up when we need it. On the other hand, Forgetting (with a capital F) is when a memory is seemingly lost or gone altogether. Inattentively conflating the names of the leaders of two countries would fall in the first category, whereas being unable to remember that you had ever met the president of Egypt would fall into the latter.

    Over the course of typical aging, we see changes in the functioning of the prefrontal cortex, a brain area that plays a starring role in many of our day-to-day memory successes and failures. These changes mean that, as we get older, we tend to be more distractible and often struggle to pull up the word or name we’re looking for. Remembering events takes longer and it requires more effort, and we can’t catch errors as quickly as we used to. This translates to a lot more forgetting, and a little more Forgetting. Many of the special counsel’s observations about Mr. Biden’s memory seem to fall in the category of forgetting, meaning that they are more indicative of a problem with finding the right information from memory than actual Forgetting.

    [ad_2]

    Chas Danner

    Source link

  • Third-Party 2024 Candidates Can’t Win, But They Can Help Trump

    Third-Party 2024 Candidates Can’t Win, But They Can Help Trump

    [ad_1]

    This man isn’t going to be president, but he may help Trump or Biden win this November.
    Photo: Rebecca Noble/Getty Images

    There’s no telling what the 2024 presidential general election is going to look like after what will probably seem like an endless campaign between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. But both the early polls and recent history suggest that the contest will be close, just like six of the last seven presidential elections. Thanks to widespread disgruntlement with this choice, the odds are also high that the non-major-party vote will be relatively high (more like 2016’s 5.7 percent than 2020’s 1.9 percent) — and that may decide the election.

    But as Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times points out in an important column, the one thing we know for sure is that none of these third-party or independent candidates is going to win:

    [T]o have any hope of fulfilling the constitutional requirement to win a majority of electoral votes, a third-party candidate would need at least a plurality of voters in a huge number of states. The party would need, on a state-by-state basis, to outcompete one of the other two parties, so that it could notch electors under the winner-take-all rules that apply in most states.

    This, unfortunately for anyone with third-party dreams, has never happened. 

    Yes, there is an argument (being suggested most recently by the No Labels crowd, which is seeking ballot access for a yet-to-be-identified presidential candidacy) that a non-major-party candidate can crucially influence the direction of the nation by picking off a few states and deadlocking the Electoral College, thereby gaining massive leverage in the resolution of that deadlock in Congress. But to do that you need a very big regional base of support, as Bouie notes:

     In 1948, with Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina as its candidate, the States’ Rights Democratic Party — better known as the Dixiecrats — won four states and 39 electoral votes despite gaining just 2.4 percent of the national popular vote. Twenty years later, George Wallace and the American Independent Party won 46 electoral votes and 13.5 percent of the popular vote.

    What both results suggest is that under the Electoral College, the next best alternative to a large and well-distributed national constituency is to have a small and intense regional one. It is, it seems, the only other way to win electoral votes as a third party. 

    Both those efforts failed, of course. And if you scan the list of likely non-major-party candidates in 2024 — independents Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West; Green Party aspirant Jill Stein; whoever the Libertarians choose to run; and the “centrist” worthies under consideration by No Labels — there’s no one with the kind of regional base Thurmond or Wallace (or Teddy Roosevelt in his Bull Moose run of 1912) enjoyed. There is a nascent argument that Kennedy might augment his already-significant but highly diffused support (13 percent in the national RealClearPolitics averages in a five-way race) by winning the Libertarian nomination. That’s a bit of a reach given Kennedy’s lefty background and erratic views; he’s just not the sort of person you can imagine as a hero in an Ayn Rand novel, and his support for strong environmental policies might be a deal-breaker for the Libertarian Party, which has plenty of true believers from whom to choose. In any event, whatever RFK Jr. might gain from the easy ballot access Libertarians might offer would be offset by the number of voters who are decidedly non-libertarian.

    As for No Labels, the group may back away from its threat to run a “unity ticket” thanks to internal dissension and the fury of former allies who think the whole effort would just guarantee a Trump victory. But even No Labels’ own highly dubious polling shows any foreseeable candidate would struggle to win electoral votes. To cite one example, the West Virginia voters whose antipathy to Joe Manchin led him to give up his Senate seat aren’t going to back him for president against Donald Trump.

    What all of this suggests is that non-major-party candidacies should be viewed by voters and pundits alike strictly in the context of how they affect the Biden-Trump binary choice. Sure, there are ideological reasons some voters might pull the lever for the candidates of parties like the Libertarians and the Greens; those voters may believe that in the broader scheme of things it really just doesn’t matter whether Biden or Trump is the 46th president. For everyone else, the choice to go independent or third-party isn’t really a choice of that candidate, but of either Biden or Trump.

    Things could change by November, of course, and the implications of non-party candidacies may depend on how many of them there are and who they are. But current polling shows that the current five-way race we are contemplating will likely help Trump defeat Biden, which makes sense when you consider the cohesiveness of Trump’s MAGA base and his inability to win a popular-vote majority. As Bouie puts it: “If Americans want different choices, they will need a different system.” But let’s not accept the premise that those who vote for Kennedy or Stein or Mapstead or Manchin or West are “choosing” any of these people to take office. Like it or not, the only real choice is binary.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • Nikki Haley Doubles Down on Her Ignorance, Claims the U.S. 'Has Never Been a Racist Country'

    Nikki Haley Doubles Down on Her Ignorance, Claims the U.S. 'Has Never Been a Racist Country'

    [ad_1]

    Nikki Haley has come to generally be seen as the least horrible choice of all the Republican presidential candidates left in the 2024 race. Of course, this is an incredibly low bar with Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis being the other options. However, she’s been undermining her “reasonable” image lately when it comes to race and racial relations.

    The former governor of South Carolina made headlines recently for her response to a pretty basic question at a town hall in New Hampshire: “What was the cause of the Civil War?” The answer is obviously slavery. Some states (like hers!) wanted to keep it and some didn’t. But could she just say that? No, she couldn’t. She said it was about how the government would run … and freedoms. No mention of slavery. To which she got called out by a voter and subsequently much of the country at large. She didn’t seem to learn though, as she has made another extremely questionable racial statement.

    In a Fox News interview with Brian Kilmeade, Haley was asked if the GOP is a racist party. Her response? “We’re not a racist country, Brian. We’ve never been a racist country.” But wait, there’s more! She went on to add: “I know I faced racism when I was growing up. But I can tell you, today is a lot better than it was then. Our goal is to lift up everybody. Not go and divide people on race or gender or party or anything else. We’ve had enough of that in America.”

    So Haley has experienced racism but that’s just an individual-level problem? Systemic racism doesn’t exist? Sure. This is clearly illogical but she wasn’t called out for it at that moment because, well, Fox News. I hope someone asks her that question again and makes her elaborate in a different setting that doesn’t have a deep foundation of racism itself.

    Furthermore, the idea that the goal of denying racism exists at an institutional level is to “lift up everybody” is ridiculous and only serves to benefit those racist systems and the (white) people at the top. She then goes on to say the goal is not to divide people on race or gender or anything else etc. Really? Remind me again what party she’s running under. Her own problematic views aside, she worked directly under Divider in Chief Donald Trump and refuses to say outright that she won’t support him if he were the nominee.

    The official Haley campaign released a statement doubling down on the statements she made during the Fox News interview. “America has always had racism, but America has never been a racist country,” a Haley spokesperson said, per CNN.

    The spokesperson added: “The liberal media always fails to get that distinction. It can throw a fit, but that doesn’t change Nikki’s belief that America is special because its people are always striving to do better and live up to our founding ideals of freedom and equality.”

    Talk about a divisive statement! Undercutting all the Black and brown people constantly working to call out and fight racism, just to blame the “liberal media” for all of it. People have to hold these candidates’ feet to the fire. When conservatives blame all the country’s evils on the “liberal media” and no one makes them explain what they are actually talking about, they’re allowed to continue with their nonsense.

    Haley and others like her are wrong in the notion that America can’t simultaneously be racist AND be striving to do better. If we aren’t racist, why are we striving to do better? Hmmmm, Nikki? Saying we have had racism but are not a racist country, at least to me, implies that all of our issues are in the past. Which is just not true. Our past is horrific obviously, but it has impacted nearly every aspect of our society still to this day. This is a view backed by research, but Republicans like Haley cannot admit this because their voters need to believe that they are the real victims of today’s modernized and culturally diverse nation. And that’s the real truth.

    I think Haley knows this but politically she cannot admit it. Welcome to the modern GOP.

    (featured image: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

    Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

    [ad_2]

    Autumn Alston

    Source link

  • Chris Christie Suspends His Presidential Campaign, Upstages Himself in the Process

    Chris Christie Suspends His Presidential Campaign, Upstages Himself in the Process

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump’s biggest foe is now dropping out of the 2024 Presidential Race. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie announced Wednesday that he was suspending his presidential campaign, just hours before another Republican debate (which he had not qualified to participate in).

    In his announcement speech from Windham, New Hampshire, Christie started by discussing how he had always been in the race to tell the truth about Trump and his destruction and divisiveness. He noted that others, like Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis, have been lukewarm in attacking Trump, as they seemingly do not want to alienate his supporters. Christie dedicated much of his speech talking about ambition and the need to put the country before one’s self.

    “For all the people who have been in this race, who have put their own personal ambition ahead of what’s right, they will ultimately have to answer the same questions that I had to answer after my decision in 2016,” Christie said. “Those questions don’t ever leave. In fact, they’re really stubborn. They stay.” 

    Christie also criticized pundits and the media for thinking Trump is a foregone conclusion as the GOP nominee. He admitted that he made a mistake dropping out in 2016 and supporting Trump, so how he’s handling this exit is intriguing. He knows that winning matters and seemingly believes that another Republican candidate besides Trump genuinely has a shot.

    Christie stated that “in no way do I enable Donald Trump to ever be president of the United States again. And that’s more important than my own personal ambition,” while calling out other unnamed politicians who he says know better but still continue to endorse Trump. These people are scared and willing to throw our very democracy down the drain for political gain.

    While I don’t support Christie, I am happy to see him go after his own party. He explicitly said that Republicans need to take responsibility for the role they have played in getting us to where we are. He even added Biden’s former slogan, saying that we need to fight for the soul of the party and soul of the nation. Fascinating tactic I suppose.

    Christie ended by going after Trump personally, saying the former president feeds off of anger because he is an angry person. He went on and on about what he deems “petty politics” and how it is hurting us at home and internationally. Christie admitted that governing amidst “real disagreements” is hard, as he did it a lot as governor of New Jersey, but insists it can be done if we believe.

    This is all inspiring to a degree, but I still question the intelligence of someone who voted for Donald Trump twice. Will Republican voters listen to him or even care? It isn’t looking good on that front but who knows.

    Christie brought up the moment on the debate stage in Milwaukee when most GOP candidates raised their hands and said they would STILL vote for Trump EVEN IF he was convicted. Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, and others, could not have ever imagined that they would be there having a conversation about if a criminal could be the President, Christie exclaimed. He is right though, that there’s not an explicit law against much of what Trump has done because no one really thought someone would do these things and that people would support them. This is a harrowing reminder of how deeply we have fallen, and how much more we can fall if Trump is to get in office again.

    But wait, there’s more!

    Amazingly, Christie managed to upstage his own announcement, as he was caught on a hot mic, going after Haley and DeSantis.

    He said Haley is going to “get smoked” and that she’s “not up to this.” He also said that DeSantis is petrified but the audio didn’t go on further to explain exactly what that meant. How this plays out with him and the other candidates will be very riveting. Even towards the end of his speech he also made a funny quip about how the Civil War was of course caused by slavery. A remark aimed at Haley who couldn’t directly answer that question recently.

    So what does this all mean—and why now? Why did Christie not wait until the New Hampshire primary, where the anti-Trump vote was expected to be the most significant of the early states? While Iowa’s caucus is just next week, Christie wasn’t expected to be a major player in that state. He did have support in New Hampshire, whose primary is next after Iowa, but dropping out now allows his supporters to back another candidate that’s likely not Trump.

    So who will he endorse? According to CNN, 65% of his voters said Haley is their second choice, though his hot mic comments calling her not up to the job undercut any potential endorsement that might have come otherwise.

    We’ll have our eye on this to see if Christie’s dropping out helps boost Haley or if it proves not to have any real impact in the end.

    (featured image: Sophie Park/Getty Images)

    Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

    [ad_2]

    Autumn Alston

    Source link

  • Why Was Trump Removed From Maine Ballot? Answered | The Mary Sue

    Why Was Trump Removed From Maine Ballot? Answered | The Mary Sue

    [ad_1]

    Hands sorting piles of election ballots on a table.

    Right on the heels of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to bar Donald Trump’s name from appearing on the 2024 Republican Presidential primary ballot, Maine’s Secretary of State has followed suit, declaring Trump’s actions on and leading up to January 6, 2021 disqualify him from re-election.

    In her 34-page decision, Shenna Bellows writes, “I am mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection.”

    Just like in the Colorado decision, Bellows issued a stay on her action, suspending the implementation of the decision until it inevitably makes its way through higher courts.

    Still, the decision is a momentous one. Over and over, from impeachment to criminal and civil lawsuits, we’ve seen people hesitant to make Trump face consequences because it’s all so “unprecedented.” No one knows how to enforce a 150-year-old amendment about elected officials engaging in insurrection because they haven’t had to know.

    I don’t hold out much hope for the largely Trump-appointed U.S. Supreme Court treating this issue seriously if and when it reaches them, but we are at least seeing necessary precedents being set across the country.

    (featured image: Andy Manis/Getty Images)

    Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

    [ad_2]

    Vivian Kane

    Source link

  • Lawsuit to block Trump from Colorado 2024 ballot survives more legal challenges | CNN Politics

    Lawsuit to block Trump from Colorado 2024 ballot survives more legal challenges | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A judge has rejected three more attempts by former President Donald Trump and the Colorado GOP to shut down a lawsuit seeking to block him from the 2024 presidential ballot in the state based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”

    The flurry of rulings late Friday from Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace are a blow to Trump, who faces candidacy challenges in multiple states stemming from his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection. He still has a pending motion to throw out the Colorado lawsuit, but the case now appears on track for an unprecedented trial this month.

    A post-Civil War provision of the 14th Amendment says US officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution are disqualified from future office if they “engaged in insurrection” or have “given aid or comfort” to insurrectionists. But the Constitution does not spell out how to enforce the ban, and it has been applied only twice since the 1800s.

    A liberal watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed the Colorado case on behalf of six Republican and unaffiliated voters. The judge is scheduled to preside over a trial beginning October 30 to decide a series of novel legal questions about how the 14th Amendment could apply to Trump.

    In a 24-page ruling, Wallace rejected many of Trump’s arguments that the case was procedurally flawed and should be shut down. She said the key question of whether Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold has the power to block Trump from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment “is a pivotal issue and one best reserved for trial.”

    Wallace also swatted away arguments from the Colorado GOP that state law gives the party, not election officials, ultimate say on which candidates appear on the ballot.

    “If the Party, without any oversight, can choose its preferred candidate, then it could theoretically nominate anyone regardless of their age, citizenship, residency,” she wrote. “Such an interpretation is absurd; the Constitution and its requirements for eligibility are not suggestions, left to the political parties to determine at their sole discretion.”

    Wallace also cited a 2012 opinion from Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, when he was a Denver-based appeals judge, which said states have the power to “exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” She cited this while rejecting Trump’s claim that Colorado’s ballot access laws don’t give state officials any authority to disqualify him based on federal constitutional considerations.

    Trump already lost an earlier bid to throw out the case on free-speech grounds.

    The current GOP front-runner, Trump denies wrongdoing regarding January 6 and has pleaded not guilty to state and federal charges stemming from his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. His campaign has said these lawsuits are pushing an “absurd conspiracy theory” and the challengers are “stretching the law beyond recognition.”

    In a statement on Saturday, the Trump campaign criticized Wallace and her rulings, saying she “got it wrong.”

    “She is going against the clear weight of legal authority. We are confident the rule of law will prevail, and this decision will be reversed – whether at the Colorado Supreme Court, or at the U.S. Supreme Court,” a Trump campaign spokesperson said. “To keep the leading candidate for President of the United States off the ballot is simply wrong and un-American.”

    The 14th Amendment challenges in Colorado and other key states face an uphill climb, with many legal hurdles to clear before Trump would be disqualified from running for the presidency. Trump is sure to appeal any decision to strip him from the ballot, which means the Supreme Court and its conservative supermajority might get the final say.

    In recent months, a growing and politically diverse array of legal scholars have thrown their support behind the idea that Trump is disqualified under the “insurrectionist ban.” The bipartisan House committee that investigated the January 6 attack recommended last year that Trump be barred from holding future office under the 14th Amendment.

    The Colorado challengers recently revealed in a court filing that they want to depose Trump before trial. Trump opposes this request, and the judge hasn’t issued a ruling.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mideast crisis will test whether Biden can make experience an asset | CNN Politics

    Mideast crisis will test whether Biden can make experience an asset | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The escalating confrontation between Israel and Hamas is offering President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to begin flipping the script on one of his most glaring vulnerabilities in the 2024 presidential race.

    For months, polls have consistently shown that most Americans believe Biden’s advanced age has diminished his capacity to handle the responsibilities of the presidency. But many Democrats believe that Biden’s widely praised response to the Mideast crisis could provide him a pivot point to argue that his age is an asset because it has equipped him with the experience to navigate such a complex challenge.

    “As you project forward, we are going to be able to argue that Joe Biden’s age has been central to his success because in a time of Covid, insurrection, Russian invasion of Ukraine, now challenges in the Middle East, we have the most experienced man ever as president,” said Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg. “Perhaps having the most experienced person ever to go into the Oval Office was a blessing for the country. I think we are going to be able to make that argument forcefully.”

    Biden unquestionably faces a steep climb to ameliorate the concern that he’s too old for the job. Political strategists in both parties agree that those public perceptions are largely rooted in reactions to his physical appearance – particularly the stiffness of his walk and softness of his voice – and thus may be difficult to reverse with arguments about his performance. In a CNN poll released last month, about three-fourths of adults said Biden did not have “the stamina and sharpness to serve effectively as president” and nearly as many said he does not inspire confidence. Even about half of Democrats said Biden lacked enough stamina and sharpness and did not inspire confidence, with a preponderant majority of Democrats younger than 45 expressing those critical views.

    But the crisis in Israel shows the path Biden will probably need to follow if there’s any chance for him to transmute doubts about his age into confidence in his experience. Though critics on the left and right in American politics have raised objections, Biden’s response to the Hamas attack has drawn praise as both resolute and measured from a broad range of leaders across the ideological spectrum in both the US and Israel.

    “Biden is in his element here where relationships matter and his team is experienced (meaning operationally effective) and thoughtful (meaning can see forests as well as trees),” James Steinberg, dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and deputy secretary of state under former President Barack Obama, wrote in an email.

    Similarly, David Friedman, who served as ambassador to Israel for then-President Donald Trump, declared late last week, on Fox News Channel no less, that “The Biden administration over the past 12-13 days has been great.”

    These responses underscore the fundamental political paradox about Biden’s age, and the experience that derives from it. On the one hand, there’s no doubt that his age is increasing anxiety among Democrats about his capacity to serve as an effective candidate for the presidency in 2024; on the other, his experience is increasing Democratic faith in his capacity to serve as an effective president now.

    While more Democrats have been openly pining for another, younger alternative to replace Biden as the party’s nominee next year, many party leaders argued that there was no one from the Democrats’ large 2020 field of presidential candidates, or even among the rising crop of governors and senators discussed as potential successors, that they would trust more at this moment than Biden.

    “No one – not a one,” said Matt Bennett, executive vice president for public affairs at Third Way, an organization of centrist Democrats. “That is genuinely the case. And I get people’s uneasiness about him both because he’s old and he has low poll numbers. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t the best person for the job.”

    Familiarity with an issue is no guarantee of success: Biden took office with a long-standing determination to end the American deployment in Afghanistan but still executed a chaotic withdrawal. But in responding to global challenges, Biden, who was first elected to the Senate in 1972, is drawing on half a century of dealing with issues and players around the world; even George H.W. Bush, the last president who arrived in office with an extensive foreign policy pedigree, had only about two decades of previous high-level exposure to world events.

    This latest crisis has offered more evidence that Biden is more proficient at the aspects of the presidency that unfold offstage than those that occur in public. It’s probably not a coincidence that the private aspects of the presidency are the ones where experience is the greatest asset, while the public elements of the job are those where age may be the greatest burden.

    Biden’s speeches about Ukraine, and especially his impassioned denunciations of the Hamas attack over the past two weeks, have drawn much stronger reviews than most of his addresses on domestic issues. (Bret Stephens, a conservative New York Times columnist often critical of Biden, wrote that his first speech after the attack “deserves a place in any anthology of great American rhetoric.”) In Biden’s nationally televised address about Israel and Ukraine on Thursday, he drew on a long tradition of presidents from both parties who presented American international engagement as the key to world stability, even quoting Franklin D. Roosevelt’s call during World War II for the US to serve as the “arsenal of democracy.”

    But even when Biden was younger, delivering galvanizing speeches was never his greatest strength. No one ever confused him with Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama as a communicator and his performance as president hasn’t changed that verdict. Instead, Biden has been at his best when working with other leaders, at home and abroad, out of the public eye.

    Biden, for instance, passed more consequential legislation than almost anyone expected during his first two years, but he did not do so by rallying public sentiment or barnstorming the country. Rather, in quiet meetings, he helped to orchestrate a surprisingly effective legislative minuet that produced bipartisan agreements on infrastructure and promoting semiconductor manufacturing before culminating in a stunning agreement with holdout Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia to pass an expansive package of clean energy and health care initiatives with Democrat votes alone.

    “He’s showed a degree of political dexterity in managing the coalition that would have been very challenging for anyone else,” said Rosenberg. “His years of actually legislating, where he learned how to bring people together and hash stuff out, was really important in keeping the Democratic family together.”

    To the degree Biden has succeeded in international affairs, it has largely been with the same formula of working offstage with other leaders, many of whom he’s known for years, around issues that he has also worked on for years. In the most dramatic example, that sort of private negotiation and collaboration has produced a surprisingly broad and durable international coalition of nations supporting Ukraine against Russia.

    Biden’s effort to manage this latest Mideast crisis is centered on his attempts through private diplomacy to support Israel in its determination to disable Hamas, while minimizing the risk of a wider war and maintaining the possibility of diplomatic agreements after the fighting (including, most importantly, a rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia meant to counter Iranian influence). Administration officials believe that the strong support that Biden has expressed for Israel, not only after the latest attack, but through his long career, has provided him with a credibility among the Israeli public that will increase his leverage to influence, and perhaps restrain, the decisions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    The president “wisely from the very moment of this horror show expressed unfettered solidarity with Israel and that allowed him to then go to Israel and behind closed doors continue the conversation, which I’m sure Secretary [Antony] Blinken started,” said one former senior national security official in the Biden administration, who asked to be anonymous while discussing the situation. That credibility, the former official said, allowed Biden to ask hard questions of the Israelis such as “‘Ok, you are going to send in ground troops and then what? We did shock and awe [in the second Iraq war] and then we found ourselves trapped without a plan. What are you doing? What’s the outcome? Who is going to control Gaza when you’re done whatever you are doing? At least stop and think about this.’”

    In all these ways, the Israel confrontation offers Biden an opportunity to highlight the aspects of the presidency for which he is arguably best suited. In the crisis’ first days, former President Trump also provided Biden exactly the sort of personal contrast Democrats want to create when Trump initially responded to the tragic Hamas attack by airing personal grievances against Netanyahu and criticizing the Israeli response to the attack. For some Democrats, Trump’s off-key response crystallized the contrast they want to present next year to voters: “Biden is quiet competence and Trump is chaos and it’s a real choice,” said Jenifer Fernandez Ancona, vice president and chief strategy officer at Way to Win, a liberal group that funds organizations and campaigns focusing on voters of color.

    Ancona said Biden’s performance since the Hamas attack points to the case Democrats should be preparing to make to voters in 2024. “He’s been a workhorse not a show pony, but that’s something we can talk about,” she said. “You can show a picture of a president working quietly behind the scenes, you can tell a story of how he has your best interests at heart. It is what it is: he’s, what, 80? You can’t get around that. But I do think he has shown he has the capacity and strength and tenacity to do this job. He’s been doing it. So why shouldn’t he get a chance to keep doing it?”

    Likewise, Rosenberg argues, “In my view you can’t separate his age from his successes as president. He’s been successful because of his age and experience not in spite of it, and we have to rethink that completely.”

    Other Democrats, though, aren’t sure that Biden can neutralize concerns about his age by making a case for the benefits of his experience. One Democratic pollster familiar with thinking in the Biden campaign, who asked for anonymity while discussing the 2024 landscape, said that highlighting Biden’s experience would only produce limited value for him so long as most voters are dissatisfied with conditions in the country. “The problem with the experience side is that people feel bad,” the pollster said. “If people felt like his accomplishments improved things for them, they wouldn’t care about his age. … The problem with the age vs. experience [argument] is that experience has to produce results for them, but experience isn’t producing results.”

    William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and long-time Democratic strategist, sees another limit to the experience argument. Like most Democrats, Galston believes that Biden’s response to the crisis has, in fact, demonstrated the value of his long track record on international issues. “This is where all of his instincts, honed by decades of experience, come into play,” Galston said. “He knows which people to call when; he knows whom to send where. As was the case in [Ukraine], this is the sort of episode where Biden is at his best.”

    The problem, Galston argues, is that voters can see the value of Biden’s experience in dealing with world events today and still worry he could not effectively handle the presidency for another term. “It’s not a logical contradiction,” Galston said, for voters to believe that “‘Yes, over the first four years of his presidency, his experience proved its value, and he had enough energy and focus to be able to draw on it when he needed it’ and at the same time say, ‘I am very worried that over the next four years, in the tension between the advantages of experience and disadvantages of age, that balance is going to shift against him.’”

    To assuage concerns about his capacity, Biden will need not only to “tell” voters about the value of his experience but to “show” them his vigor through a rigorous campaign schedule, Galston said. “The experience argument is necessary, but not sufficient,” Galston maintains. “In addition to that argument, assuming it can be made well and convincingly, I think he is going to have to show through his conduct of the campaign that he’s up for another four years.”

    Biden’s trips into active war zones in Ukraine and Israel have provided dramatic images that his campaign is already using to make that case. As Galston suggests, the president will surely need to prove the point again repeatedly in 2024.

    But most analysts agree that what the president most needs to demonstrate in the months ahead is not energy, but results. His supporters have reason for optimism that Biden’s carefully calibrated response to the Israel-Hamas hostilities will allow them to present him as a reassuring source of stability in an unstable world – in stark contrast to the unpredictability and chaos that Trump, his most likely 2024 opponent, perpetually generates. But Biden’s management of this volatile conflict will help him make that argument only if its outcome, in fact, promotes greater stability in the Middle East. If nothing else, Biden’s long experience has surely taught him how difficult stability will be to achieve in a region once again teetering on the edge of explosion.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DeSantis says US should not accept refugees from Gaza | CNN Politics

    DeSantis says US should not accept refugees from Gaza | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said Saturday that the US should not accept refugees from Gaza, as tens of thousands flee their homes following an evacuation warning from Israel ahead of a possible ground assault.

    “I don’t know what (President Joe) Biden’s gonna do, but we cannot accept people from Gaza into this country as refugees. I am not going to do that,” DeSantis, who is vying for the GOP presidential nomination, said at a campaign stop in Creston, Iowa.

    “If you look at how they behave, not all of them are Hamas, but they are all antisemitic. None of them believe in Israel’s right to exist,” he continued.

    DeSantis argued that Arab states should accept refugees from Gaza, who are attempting to cross south into Egypt, rather than refugees being “import(ed)” to the United States.

    DeSantis’ characterization of Gaza residents is not supported by public polling on the issue. In a July poll by the pro-Israel organization the Washington Institute, 50% of Gazans agreed that “Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction and instead accept a permanent two state solution based on the 1967 borders.”

    One of DeSantis’s 2024 rivals, former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, agreed with the Florida governor that the US should not accept refugees from Gaza but warned against making generalizations about them.

    “It’s a danger any time that you categorize a group of people as being simply antisemitic, but I’ve said it also that we should not have refugees in here from Palestine. That’s not our role. It’s the role of those countries surrounding there,” Hutchinson told reporters in Nashua, New Hampshire, on Saturday.

    In the wake of the surprise attack on Israel last weekend by the militant group Hamas, DeSantis and other Republican presidential hopefuls have voiced strong support for Israel. DeSantis and others have used the attack to argue for hardline immigration policies and stronger border security in the US.

    On Thursday, DeSantis pushed back when confronted by a voter at a market in Littleton, New Hampshire, who questioned Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza.

    The voter said that he doesn’t condone what Hamas did or the “killing of any innocent civilians,” but that “Israel is doing the exact same thing with Benjamin Netanyahu, who is a radical, right-wing crazy person,” referring to the country’s prime minister.

    “And I see hundreds of Palestinian families that are dead, and they have nowhere to go because they can’t leave Gaza, because no one’s opening their borders,” the voter said.

    DeSantis said the voter made a “really good point” by bringing up neighboring countries, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

    “Why aren’t these Arab countries willing to absorb some of the Palestinian Arabs? They won’t do it,” DeSantis said.

    The pair continued to have a back-and-forth about the conflict. Before walking out of the market, the voter said: “You had my vote, but you don’t now.”

    DeSantis has also taken steps as governor of Florida to evacuate state residents from Israel. He told reporters in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Friday that he anticipated the first evacuation flight would land in Florida on Sunday. The governor’s press secretary, Jeremy Redfern, confirmed to CNN that the first flight will depart on Saturday and land in Florida on Sunday.

    DeSantis has also seized on former President Donald Trump’s criticism of Netanyahu, slamming the GOP front-runner repeatedly in media appearances and on the campaign trail.

    “He attacked Bibi after the country suffered the worst attack it’s had in its modern history. … And he did that because Bibi did not – Bibi congratulated Biden in November. That’s why he did it. He hates Netanyahu because of that. That’s about him. That’s not about the greater good of what Israel is trying to do or American security,” DeSantis said Friday in New Hampshire.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump, who paved way for Roe v. Wade reversal, says Republicans ‘speak very inarticulately’ about abortion | CNN Politics

    Trump, who paved way for Roe v. Wade reversal, says Republicans ‘speak very inarticulately’ about abortion | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump, who paved the way for the undoing of federal abortion rights protections, said that some Republicans “speak very inarticulately” about the issue and have pursued “terrible” state-level restrictions that could alienate much of the country.

    While avoiding taking specific positions himself, Trump said in an NBC interview that if he is reelected he will try to broker compromises on how long into pregnancies abortion should be legal and whether those restrictions should be imposed on the federal or the state level.

    “I would sit down with both sides and I’d negotiate something and we’ll end up with peace on that issue for the first time in 52 years,” he said.

    The former president targeted GOP primary rival Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in his criticism of how the Republican party has handled the issue, calling Florida’s six-week ban “a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.”

    DeSantis’ camp hit back on Sunday, taking aim at the former president for saying he’d be willing to work with both parties on abortion.

    “We’ve already seen the disastrous results of Donald Trump compromising with Democrats: over $7 trillion in new debt, an unfinished border wall, and the jailbreak First Step Act letting violent criminals back on to the streets. Republicans across the country know that Ron DeSantis will never back down,” tweeted spokesperson Andrew Romeo.

    Trump also warned Republicans that the party would lose voters by advancing abortion restrictions without exceptions for cases of rape, incest or risks to the mother’s life.

    “Other than certain parts of the country, you can’t – you’re not going to win on this issue,” he said.

    Trump’s comments made plain the challenge for 2024 Republican presidential primary contenders: trying to balance the priorities of their conservative base, for whom the Supreme Court’s June 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade was a victory decades in the making, and those of the general electorate, which has consistently supported abortion rights – most recently in the 2022 midterms and the Wisconsin Supreme Court race this spring.

    Abortion could also be a pivotal issue this fall in Virginia’s state legislative elections, which are widely viewed as a barometer of the electorate’s mood in the lead-up to next year’s presidential election.

    Trump’s appointment of three conservative Supreme Court justices paved the way to the reversal of the 1973 decision that guaranteed abortion rights across the United States through the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.

    That reversal left abortion rights up to the states, which has led to a patchwork of laws – including bans on abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy in Florida and Iowa, the first state to vote in the GOP presidential nominating process.

    Abortion rights have been a major fault line in the 2024 Republican primary. Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence, has advocated a federal abortion ban after 15 weeks. DeSantis, Trump’s top-polling rival, has touted the six-week ban he signed into law. However, other contenders, including Nikki Haley, have taken more moderate approaches, warning of the political backlash Republicans could face among the broader electorate by pursuing strict abortion restrictions.

    Trump would not commit to a specific policy preference in the interview. He deflected questions about whether he would support a federal ban – and if so, after how many weeks – or would rather the issue be left to statehouses.

    “What’s going to happen is you’re going to come up with a number of weeks or months, you’re going to come up with a number that’s going to make people happy,” Trump said.

    Trump said he believed it was “probably better” to leave abortion restrictions up to the states instead of trying to pass federal legislation on the issue.

    “From a pure standpoint, from a legal standpoint, I think it’s probably better. But I can live with it either way,” Trump said. “It could be state or could it federal, I don’t frankly care.”

    The intra-GOP debate over abortion took center stage at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition gathering, attended by many of the state’s leading conservative evangelical activists.

    Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, one of the most vocal Trump critics among the GOP contenders, told reporters Saturday in Iowa that Trump has “taken evangelical voters for granted” and is “waffling on important issues.”

    “I think he is looking at the abortion question as not whether it’s going to win evangelical support, but what that’s going to look like down the road, and as he said he wants everybody to like him,” Hutchinson said.

    Asked about federal legislation on abortion, DeSantis continued not to engage on the topic of a national ban, instead pointing to new restrictions in states such as Iowa and Florida.

    “I’ve been a pro-life governor. I’ll be a pro-life president,” DeSantis said. “Clearly, a state like Iowa has been able to move the ball with pro-life protections. Florida has been able to move the ball.”

    Pence reiterated his support for a federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy as a minimum, saying, “It’s an idea whose time has come.” He said Trump and other GOP candidates want to relegate the abortion issue to the states, “but I won’t have it.”

    ‘Personal for every woman and every man’

    However, other contenders more focused on the general electorate, including Haley – the former South Carolina governor and US ambassador to the United Nations – have sought to thread the same needle as Trump.

    Haley on Saturday told attendees at the Faith and Freedom Coalition in Iowa that her beliefs are the “hard truth.” She said pursuing a federal 15-week abortion ban would have “everybody running from us.”

    While Haley opposes abortion, she has emphasized she believes Republicans and Democrats need find a consensus on abortion issues, such as banning later abortions and agreeing not to jail women who get them.

    “This issue is personal for every woman and every man. And we need to treat it that way. I don’t judge anyone for being pro-choice any more than I want them to judge me for being pro-life,” she said.

    Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said on CNN last week that he would be open to signing a federal abortion ban “if it represented consensus,” while admitting the current setbacks to reaching that consensus within the US Senate and across states.

    “I want all of the 50 states to be able to weigh in if they want to, and what their state laws should be, and then let’s see if it’s a consensus,” he said.

    Democrats, meanwhile, are eyeing abortion as one of the most important issues in the 2024 presidential election.

    CNN previously reported that President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign earlier this month made a digital advertising buy highlighting the positions of Trump and other GOP 2024 contenders on the issue.

    “As Donald Trump visits states where women are suffering the consequences of his extreme, anti-abortion agenda, this ad reminds voters in states that have passed some of the most extreme abortion bans of Trump’s key role in appointing conservative justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade,” Biden’s campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, said in a statement to CNN.

    This story has been updated with additional information Sunday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nikki Haley says she views China ‘as an enemy’ in pointed rebuke | CNN Politics

    Nikki Haley says she views China ‘as an enemy’ in pointed rebuke | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and 2024 Republican presidential contender, said Sunday that she views China “as an enemy” in a potential preview of the hardline approach she would take if elected president.

    “China’s been practically preparing for war with us for years,” Haley told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” Sunday. “Yes, I view China as an enemy.”

    America, the former United Nations ambassador said, needs to “make sure that we’re serious about China and they know that we’re serious about them – not going and being nice to them and thinking that they’re going to change.”

    Her comments come while President Joe Biden is in Vietnam trying to secure stronger diplomatic, military and economic ties with a network of allies and partners in response to China’s increasingly aggressive military and economic posture.

    On a separate track, the Biden administration has also pursued more stable ties and improved communication with Beijing over the last year, with a series of top Cabinet secretaries making the trip to China’s capital in just the last few months.

    “How much more has to happen for Biden to realize you don’t send Cabinet members over to China to appease them; you start getting serious with China and say: ‘We’re not going to put up with it,’” Haley said Sunday.

    “They keep sending different Cabinet officials over, Jake, and it’s embarrassing,” she added.

    Discussing the US’ relationship with China in an interview with CBS’ Margaret Brennan that aired Sunday, Vice President Kamala Harris said, “Yes, there’s tension when you are in a competition of any sort. But that does not mean that we are seeking conflict.”

    “And I think it’s important to not conflate the two,” Harris added.

    Detailing what her own approach would look like, Haley stressed the importance of cutting off China’s access to US oil, combating “Chinese infiltration” in American universities, and ending all normal trade relations until the flow of fentanyl to the US is stopped.

    “And then we’re going to build up our military, because China now has the strongest naval fleet in the world,” Haley said.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • CNN Poll: Biden faces negative job ratings and concerns about his age as he gears up for 2024 | CNN Politics

    CNN Poll: Biden faces negative job ratings and concerns about his age as he gears up for 2024 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden faces continued headwinds from broadly negative job ratings overall, widespread concerns about his age and decreased confidence among Democratic-aligned voters, according to a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS.

    There is no clear leader in a potential rematch between Biden and former President Donald Trump, who is widely ahead in the GOP primary. And nearly half of registered voters (46%) say that any Republican presidential nominee would be a better choice than Biden in 2024.

    Meanwhile, hypothetical matchups also suggest there would be no clear leader should Biden face one of the other major GOP contenders, with one notable exception: Biden runs behind former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.

    Since Biden announced his reelection bid earlier this year – where he framed the 2024 contest as a fight against Republican extremism – his approval ratings have remained mired below the mid-40s, similar to Trump’s standing in 2019, and several points below Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton at this point ahead of their reelection campaigns.

    Still, Biden’s prospective opponents face challenges of their own: 44% of voters feel any Democratic candidate would be a better choice than Trump. Among the full public, both Biden’s and Trump’s favorability ratings stand at just 35%.

    Views of Biden’s performance in office and on where the country stands are deeply negative in the new poll. His job approval rating stands at just 39%, and 58% say that his policies have made economic conditions in the US worse, up 8 points since last fall. Seventy percent say things in the country are going badly, a persistent negativity that has held for much of Biden’s time in office, and 51% say government should be doing more to solve the nation’s problems.

    Perceptions of Biden personally are also broadly negative, with 58% saying they have an unfavorable impression of him. Fewer than half of Americans, 45%, say that Biden cares about people like them, with only 33% describing him as someone they’re proud to have as president. A smaller share of the public than ever now says that Biden inspires confidence (28%, down 7 percentage points from March) or that he has the stamina and sharpness to serve effectively as president (26%, down 6 points from March), with those declines driven largely by Democrats and independents.

    Roughly three-quarters of Americans say they’re seriously concerned that Biden’s age might negatively affect his current level of physical and mental competence (73%), and his ability to serve out another full term if reelected (76%), with a smaller 68% majority seriously concerned about his ability to understand the next generation’s concerns (that stands at 72% among those younger than 65, but just 57% of those 65 or older feel the same).

    A broad 67% majority of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters now say it’s very or extremely likely that Biden will again be the party’s presidential nominee, up from 55% who felt that way in May. But 67% also say the party should nominate someone other than Biden – up from 54% in March, though still below the high of 75% who said they were seeking an alternative last summer.

    That remains largely a show of discontent with Biden rather than support for any particular rival, with an 82% majority of those who’d prefer to see someone different saying that they don’t have any specific alternative in mind. Just 1%, respectively, name either of his two most prominent declared challengers, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. or Marianne Williamson.

    Much of the hesitation revolves around Biden’s vitality rather than his handling of the job. While strong majorities of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters continue to say that Biden cares about people like them (81%) and to approve of his overall job performance (75%), declining shares see him as inspiring confidence (51%, down 19 percentage points since March) or having the stamina and sharpness to serve effectively as president (49%, down 14 points from March).

    Asked to name their biggest concern about a Biden candidacy in 2024, 49% directly mention his age, with his mental acuity (7%) and health (7%) also top concerns, along with his ability to handle the job (7%) and his popularity and electability (6%). Just 5% say that they have no concerns.

    “I think he’s a trustworthy, honest person. But he’s so old and not totally with it,” wrote one 28-year-old Democratic voter who was surveyed. “Still love him though. But I also wish he was more progressive. It’s complicated.”

    Others see both positives and negatives to his age. “His age is a bit worrisome, but I would like to see a good strong Democrat as a consideration,” wrote a 66-year-old Democratic-leaning independent voter. “Otherwise I and husband will stick with Biden. He has wisdom many younger do not have nor understand.”

    Asked directly about the potential effects of his age, majorities of Democratic-aligned voters say they are seriously concerned that Biden’s age might negatively affect his current level of physical and mental competence (56%), his ability to win the 2024 general election if nominated (60%), and his ability to serve another full term as president if reelected (61%). Fewer, 43%, say they’re seriously concerned that his age would negatively affect his ability to understand the concerns of the next generation of Americans, although that rises to 59% among Democratic-aligned voters younger than 45. If reelected, Biden would take office in January 2025 at age 82.

    Most Democratic-aligned voters younger than 45 say they approve of Biden’s job performance overall. But in a break from older partisans, substantial majorities also say that Biden does not inspire confidence (63%), does not have the stamina and sharpness to serve effectively (64%), and that his policies have failed to improve the economy (64%).

    In an early gauge of a hypothetical Biden-Trump rematch, CNN’s poll finds, registered voters are currently split between Trump (47%) and Biden (46%), with the demographic contours that defined the 2020 race still prominent. Biden sees majority support among voters of color (58%), college graduates (56%), voters younger than 35 (55%) and women (53%), while Trump has majority support among Whites (53%), men (53%) and voters without a college degree (53%). Independent voters break in Biden’s favor, 47% to 38%, as do suburban women (51% Biden to 44% Trump). Trump holds wide, though not unanimous, support among voters who currently disapprove of Biden’s job performance, with 13% in this group saying they’d back Biden over Trump regardless.

    Presidential elections are decided by the state-by-state votes that determine the makeup of the electoral college rather than by national preferences, and given the distribution of electoral college votes among the states, a near-even race in the nationwide ballot is more likely to tilt to the Republican candidate in the electoral college count than the Democratic one.

    Nearly 6 in 10 registered voters say that their vote in a matchup between Trump and Biden would be largely motivated by their attitudes toward the former Republican president – 30% say they’d vote for Biden mostly to express their opposition to Trump, and 29% that they’d vote for Trump mostly in an affirmative show of support. Only about one-third, by contrast, said they’d see their votes mostly as a way to cast judgment on Biden.

    The criminal cases against Trump loom large over his candidacy, with both those motivated by support and those driven by opposition to him offering strongly held views on the charges. Those who say their support for Biden is more of an anti-Trump vote are near universal in saying the charges related to his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol (96%) and to efforts to overturn the 2020 election (93%) are disqualifying if true, while about seven in 10 of those who say their backing for Trump is to show support for him say the former president faces so many charges largely due to political abuse of the justice system (69%).

    Despite voters’ strong opinions toward Trump, Biden fares no better against any other Republican hopefuls tested in the poll. He is about even with Ron DeSantis (47% each), Mike Pence (46% Pence, 44% Biden), Tim Scott (46% Scott, 44% Biden), Vivek Ramaswamy (46% Biden, 45% Ramaswamy), and Chris Christie (44% Christie, 42% Biden). Haley stands as the only GOP candidate to hold a lead over Biden, with 49% to Biden’s 43% in a hypothetical match between the two. That difference is driven at least in part by broader support for Haley than for other Republicans among White voters with college degrees (she holds 51% of that group, compared with 48% or less for other Republicans tested in the poll).

    As of now, Republican and Republican-leaning voters are more deeply driven to vote in 2024 (71% extremely motivated) than Democratic-aligned voters (61% extremely motivated).

    The CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS from August 25-31 among a random national sample of 1,503 adults drawn from a probability-based panel, including 1,259 registered voters and 391 Democratic and Democratic-leaning independent voters. The survey included an oversample to reach a total of 898 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents; this group has been weighted to its proper size within the population. Surveys were either conducted online or by telephone with a live interviewer. Results among the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 points; among registered voters, the margin of sampling error is 3.6 points, and it is 6.0 for Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tim Scott plots more aggressive approach as he looks to break through in 2024 GOP race | CNN Politics

    Tim Scott plots more aggressive approach as he looks to break through in 2024 GOP race | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Republican presidential candidate Tim Scott has shown a new willingness to needle his rivals in recent days after his affable approach proved a mismatch for last week’s pugilistic first 2024 primary debate.

    The South Carolina senator poked former President Donald Trump for his coziness with Vladimir Putin. He dismissed entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy as a “good showman” who wouldn’t support the United States’ allies. He broadly swiped at Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum for failing to endorse a national 15-week abortion ban.

    In the wake of Scott’s wallflower performance in the Republican debate in Milwaukee last week, his subtle jabs at rivals during a six-day, three-state post-debate campaign swing could signal a shift toward a more confrontational approach for a candidate who has struggled to break through.

    Scott plans to “be more aggressive” in the next debate, one person close to his campaign said.

    “He’s going to come out hot,” the person said.

    What’s not yet clear is how Scott – a candidate who, more than any other 2024 Republican contender, is offering primary voters a clean break from the grievance-fueled Trump era – will work himself into the mix, particularly against the more natural brawlers who are also vying to emerge as the party’s chief alternative to Trump.

    Though their ideological positions are similar, Scott’s approach is diametrically opposed to the Trump-inspired, bare-knuckle tactics of DeSantis, who for months has placed second behind the former president in national and early-state polls of Republican primary voters.

    Haley, Scott’s home-state rival and a onetime US ambassador to the United Nations under Trump, is courting a similar base of White evangelical voters – and is also dependent on a strong performance in South Carolina’s primary, which follows the Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada nominating contests, as a catapult before the race turns national and delegate-rich Super Tuesday approaches.

    While Scott largely stayed out of the mix at the Milwaukee debate, Haley was at the center of its most memorable moments when she lambasted Ramaswamy for his isolationist foreign policy stances and defended US support for Ukraine in its war with Russia.

    “You have no foreign policy experience and it shows,” she said to Ramaswamy at one point.

    A Washington Post/FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll found that 46% of potential GOP primary voters who watched the debate said they would consider voting for Haley – up from 29% before the event.

    Scott’s numbers barely budged in the same poll – from 40% pre-debate to 43% – after a performance in which he largely stuck to his no-fighting approach and stayed out of the squabbling among the candidates.

    Scott spoke the third-least among the eight contenders onstage, with only Burgum and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson commanding less time.

    And Republican viewers ranked Scott’s debate performance near the back of the field, according to the Post/FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll. Just 4% said Scott had impressed them the most – tied with former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and leading only Burgum and Hutchinson. The South Carolina senator was well behind the leaders, DeSantis (29%), Ramaswamy (26%) and Haley (15%).

    Google search trends found that interest in Ramaswamy and Haley spiked after the first debate, while Scott drew just 3% of candidate searches the day after; he was at 1%, tied with former Vice President Mike Pence and ahead of just Burgum and Hutchinson, a little more than a week later.

    Asked about his Milwaukee performance and his approach to the second debate in California later this month, Scott’s campaign pointed to the differences he has expressed in recent days over abortion and foreign policy.

    “Tim was disappointed by the other candidates on the debate stage and their unwillingness to advocate for life and stand with our allies. While other candidates were engaged in a food fight, Tim was focused on beating Biden and defending the values our nation was founded on. Tim’s message of faith continues to resonate with voters across Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina,” Scott spokesman Nathan Brand said in a statement.

    Scott, while campaigning this week in Charleston, South Carolina, acknowledged that he’d been peripheral to the first debate.

    “I learned that the more you insult people, the more time you get,” he said to laughs from the crowd. “I learned having no obvious good home training is another way to get more time.”

    He said he believes that “the longer these debates go on, the more focused on substance they will get, and we will continue to rise to the top.”

    One former Scott adviser said that in sticking with an optimistic message and staying out of skirmishes with rivals, Scott failed to reflect the depth of voters’ frustrations and their desire for a GOP nominee who will fight against what they see as unfavorable political and cultural currents.

    “He’s not just a happy warrior. He’s just happy,” the former adviser said.

    Another Republican strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity said debates are a “bad venue” for Scott.

    “It’s not a ‘Morning in America’ moment, and I don’t know that the appetite is there for a soft-spoken, positive, optimistic dude,” the strategist said, referring to Ronald Reagan’s famous 1984 ad.

    Still, other GOP strategists said the debates – especially those that take place without Trump onstage – won’t reshape the 2024 primary race.

    “If you’re someone that is not Donald Trump, the debates don’t make or break you,” said Republican strategist Jai Chabria. “You’re trying to be a steady voice, you’re trying to be a credible voice, you’re trying to pick up enough institutional donors to keep your campaign going and then you build up enough presence and you figure out a place to make a splash.”

    Scott’s campaign has the financial resources to outlast many of his rivals in what could become a grueling battle to emerge as the party’s top Trump alternative.

    He is a formidable fundraiser whose campaign has already placed $13.7 million in ad buys, according to AdImpact data.

    A pro-Scott super PAC, meanwhile, has already reserved about $37 million in ads and has announced plans to spend nearly $50 million, meaning that early-state voters could see about $64 million in pro-Scott advertising before the first votes of the 2024 GOP race are cast.

    Metal mogul Andy Sabin, who attended a Milwaukee breakfast with Scott supporters the morning after the debate, said he is with Scott “more so than ever.”

    A lawyer who recently co-hosted a Scott fundraiser and spoke on the condition of anonymity lauded the discipline of the candidate’s campaign team, which he described as not “shiny object people.”

    Scott in recent days has also shown an increased willingness to take on his rivals.

    “The loudest voices in the debate were the quietest voices on the issue of life,” he said in an interview with Fox News’ Trey Gowdy, criticizing DeSantis, Haley and Burgum for failing to endorse a 15-week federal abortion ban.

    He also addressed Haley’s clash with Ramaswamy on foreign policy, describing the tech entrepreneur as uncommitted to supporting US allies, including Israel.

    “Standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies like Israel is absolutely essential. We must be loyal to our allies and lethal to our adversaries,” Scott said. “And you heard folks who are good showmen on the stage but they refuse to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies, whether that’s Taiwan, Israel or other countries. That’s a problem if you want to be commander in chief of the United States.”

    In Iowa on Wednesday, Scott drew a sharp distinction between his foreign policy vision and Trump’s.

    “I don’t think you can sit down with President Putin and come to a decision in 24 hours. I think that’s completely unrealistic,” Scott said of a recent Trump claim. “So from my perspective, that aspect of his foreign policy, we’re just on different pages.”

    “I don’t necessarily have high regard for dictators and murderers, even if they are world leaders,” he added.

    Scott also pitched himself as a candidate who can attract a wider group of voters than Trump did in the 2020 presidential election.

    “I think the power of persuasion is incredibly important. If we’re going to win the next election, the ability for us to get independents to vote with us, as opposed to against us, is a very clear area of distinction, not in the substance of the policy, but in the style of the delivery,” Scott said.

    “If you want the power of persuasion so that we win elections going forward, may the Lord bless you to say yes to Tim Scott.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Vivek Ramaswamy has Iowa voters curious, but not yet committed, after standout debate | CNN Politics

    Vivek Ramaswamy has Iowa voters curious, but not yet committed, after standout debate | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Urbandale, Iowa
    CNN
     — 

    At the conclusion of Vivek Ramaswamy’s second campaign stop here on Saturday – his sixth event out of eight over two days in Iowa – his staff rushed him towards their campaign bus. The businessman-turned-politician was late for a flight across the state to his next event. But as reporters and camera crews crowded the bus to see him off, Ramaswamy stopped and took time for questions.

    It was hardly a new occurrence. He’d held impromptu press availabilities after nearly every event on this tour up to that point. More striking was that, nearly 72 hours after playing a starring role in Wednesday’s heated and highly combative Republican primary debate, he was still taking stock of the defining moment of his campaign thus far.

    “I think it’s a major accomplishment that many people are able to pronounce my name now. That’s the true mark of a real milestone on this campaign,” Ramaswamy joked. “If we got there, anything’s possible.”

    Ramaswamy’s ascent from political unknown to attention-grabbing insurgent has been one of the most unexpected developments of the Republican primary so far. The only candidate in the race with no previous role in public life, he became a central figure in the first primary debate, standing in the middle of the stage and receiving sharp attacks from several Republican rivals after pre-debate nationwide polls of Republican voters put him in third place behind Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former President Donald Trump, who did not attend the event.

    For many voters in Iowa, the debate was their introduction to the 38-year-old candidate. Some told CNN they came away intrigued, if not entirely convinced, by his message.

    “I’m really intrigued by this new candidate. He’s very young, very personable. There’s a spark there,” Mara Brown, a retired teacher from Des Moines, Iowa, said.

    Brown considered herself a “dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporter” heading into Wednesday night’s debate. But after seeing Ramaswamy speak, she said she’s giving his candidacy further consideration. She felt she was able to connect with Ramaswamy personally when he spoke and commended him for how he handled the barrage of attacks.

    “When it was dished out, he was able to very calmly and compassionately turn it around on the other candidates,” she said. “He is absolutely the biggest standout out of all the candidates.”

    Those who tuned in saw Ramaswamy’s policies and perspective under intense scrutiny from the other candidates on stage. Former Vice President Mike Pence called Ramaswamy a “rookie” and frequently emphasized his lack of experience in public office. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie poked at his verbose rhetorical style, comparing him to the ChatGPT artificial intelligence tool. Arguably the most piercing blow came from former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley, who forcefully attacked Ramaswamy’s polarizing proposals to amend US foreign policy toward Russia, China and the Middle East at the expense of Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel respectively.

    “Under your watch, you will make America less safe,” Haley said to Ramaswamy. “You have no foreign policy experience, and it shows.”

    Yet despite being the subject of a deluge of criticisms, early indications show voters thought Ramaswamy made a strong impression. A survey of potential Republican primary voters who watched the debate conducted by The Washington Post, FiveThirtyEight and Ipsos showed 26% of voters thought Ramaswamy won the debate, second highest behind DeSantis. Ramaswamy’s favorability ratings rose among voters who watched the debate compared to their views beforehand, but his unfavorability ratings rose, too. Still, the Ramaswamy campaign said it raised $600,000 in the day after the debate, the largest single-day total since its launch.

    After the debate concluded, Ramaswamy told CNN in the spin room that he viewed the critiques against him as an indicator of the strength of his campaign.

    “I took it as a badge of honor,” he said in Milwaukee on Wednesday. “To be at center stage and see a lot of establishment politicians that threatened by my rise, I am thrilled that it actually gave me an opportunity to introduce myself to the people of this country.”

    In his first campaign stops after the debate, Iowans packed into restaurants and event halls, looking to hear more about his vision for the country. Melissa Berry, a nurse from Winterset, Iowa, came to see Ramaswamy speak in her hometown because she’d never heard his views prior to the debate but liked what she saw in his performance. She said economic issues and safety were her two biggest concerns and connected with how Ramaswamy talked about those issues.

    “I feel like all the principles that he brings forth is what I support and there wasn’t anything that I really disagreed with,” Berry said. “I like what he stands for and he’s been very successful, and I felt like that can bring a lot to our country and help our country flourish.”

    Jake Chapman, Ramaswamy’s Iowa co-chair, said the candidate’s impassioned delivery and highly-charged message are creating a unique atmosphere at his recent campaign stops.

    “There is an energy level in these rooms where people come out of the room inspired and wanting to do something,” Chapman said. “It’s one thing to go hear a boring political speech. That’s not what you get with Vivek Ramaswamy.”

    These Iowa voters thought Republican debate had a clear winner. Hear who

    Ramaswamy’s recent rise in the polls was among the biggest storylines heading into Wednesday night’s debate. A former biotechnology CEO, he first stepped into politics when he found an investment management firm that specialized in “anti-woke” asset management and refused to consider environmental, social and corporate governance factors when investing. His wife, Apoorva, told The Atlantic magazine recently that Ramaswamy hadn’t mentioned running for political office until December 2022, when he floated the idea of running for president.

    When his campaign launched in February, many Republicans didn’t seriously consider the Ohio-based entrepreneur amid a wide field of possible presidential hopefuls. A Quinnipiac poll from March showed Ramaswamy with less than 1% support from Republicans and Republican-leaning voters nationally.

    But since then, Ramaswamy has catapulted himself from unknown outsider to center stage, largely through a combination of non-stop interviews and cross-country campaign travel mixed with a willingness to embrace and engage with ideas that fall outside the mainstream principles of many of his Republican rivals.

    Ahead of the debate, national Republican primary polling showed Ramaswamy as high as third behind Trump and DeSantis, but still lagging behind in support among Republicans in Iowa.

    Milt Van Grundy, a retired physician from Marshalltown, Iowa, started to seriously consider Ramaswamy after seeing him at the debate. His wife had been intrigued by him before Wednesday, but he said he liked hearing Ramaswamy propose a forward-looking vision for the country.

    “He’s offering a new way of trying to do business in Washington, DC, that I think is good for the country,” he said.

    Van Grundy voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020 but said Ramaswamy’s youth and Trump’s age have turned his head away from the former president, self-effacingly referencing his own age in explaining his thinking.

    “I’m 77, and I don’t want to be president,” he joked. “These guys that are 80 and up, not interested.”

    Ramaswamy has closely tied himself to Trump’s ideology, and, at times, to Trump himself. He has referred to the former president as a “friend” and credited him with redefining conservative thinking on a number of issues, from immigration and foreign policy to the federal bureaucracy. He has also gone further than any other candidate in defending Trump amid the multiple state and federal indictments he currently faces. Ahead of Trump’s arraignment hearing in Florida following the former president’s indictment for retaining classified documents, Ramaswamy held a news conference outside the courthouse where he pledged as president to fully pardon Trump and called on other candidates to do the same. During Wednesday’s debate, Ramaswamy praised Trump as “the best president of the 21st century.”

    When he does distance himself from Trump, he does so primarily to pitch himself as the candidate who can advance Trump’s agenda more successfully than the former president. Ramaswamy told reporters after speaking to a crowded restaurant in Indianola on Friday he believes his background – and Trump’s baggage – make him more likely to bring their overlapping worldview to a broader group of voters.

    “President Trump, through no fault of his own in my view, in large part is – when he’s in office, about 30% of this country loses their mind. They become psychiatrically ill, disagreeing with things they once agreed with, agreeing with things they never agreed with,” Ramaswamy said. “I’m not having that effect on people. I think it’s because I’m a member of a different generation, because I’m somebody who’s lived the American dream, because I speak about the country for what is possible for where we can go even though I do recognize the downward slide we’ve long been in.”

    “I think that positions me to not only unite the country, but to go further than Trump did with the America first agenda,” he added.

    Haloti Tukuafu grew up in Maui but moved to Clarion, Iowa, after his wife got a job nearby. He said he sees Ramaswamy as a “mini-Trump,” and likes that he’s reaching out to younger voters. He supported Trump in 2016 and 2020, but currently he’s split between Trump and Ramaswamy and concerned the multiple indictments against Trump could negatively affect his chances of beating President Joe Biden.

    “Trump didn’t have the younger voters. Vivek has that connection with the younger crowd to bring in more in the Republican party than anybody else,” Tukuafu said.

    Despite their different faiths, Pam McCumber – a Christian from Newton, Iowa, who came to see Ramaswamy, a practicing Hindu, speak at a Pizza Ranch restaurant in her hometown – said she feels she can connect with the Ohio-based entrepreneur, and recognizes some characteristics of the former president in him.

    “He’s got the energy that Trump does, but then he’s also got the personality that most, I say, hometown Christians want. You know, don’t have to be worried about what he’s going to say next,” McCumber said.

    His willing alignment with Trump made Ramaswamy a focal point for many of his rivals even before the debate. A strategy and research memo released by a research firm aligned with the super PAC backing DeSantis urged the Florida governor to “hammer” Ramaswamy and outlined various contradictory statements he’s made on several issues. Haley tipped off her forthcoming attack on Ramaswamy’s foreign policy views with a statement ahead of the debate highlighting his proposal to withdraw aid from Israel. And Pence helped elevate a podcast interview Ramaswamy gave earlier this month where he suggested an openness to conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks, an issue that resurfaced just ahead of the debate when The Atlantic published an interview he gave questioning whether federal officials may have been involved in the attacks.

    The underlying criticisms made by his rivals have left lingering questions in the minds of some, including Gene Smith, a retiree from Des Moines. She and her husband, Terry, like Ramaswamy’s message, but she’s concerned his lack of government experience would make it difficult for him to execute his policy vision if he became president. She cited the pushback Trump received during his four years in office toward some of the policies he tried, but ultimately failed, to enact.

    “He’s never held political office, and it is truly a swamp in DC,” she said. “I think even Trump, who’s a very experienced person, was I think blindsided by it. I think when you get into politics you are blindsided by the corruption.”

    Gay Lee Wilson, a retiree from Pleasant Hill, Iowa, and a Christian, cares deeply about Israel, and was confused by Ramaswamy’s proposal to suspend aid to the US’ strongest ally in the Middle East, a proposal Ramaswamy has since backed away from.

    “That is a big deal for me. And I thought, well, maybe somebody’s misstating, misquoting him. But then he said it himself. But then he was saying, ‘no, that isn’t exactly –’ So, I don’t know where he stands,” Wilson said.

    To her, the questions about his policy toward Israel raise questions about his broader foreign policy judgment and his commitment to protecting Judeo-Christian values.

    “I think if his thought process is of backing away from our support of Israel, that I want to know why he’s thinking that. Because as a believer, I don’t think you would think that if you knew biblically, and if you knew world politics and everything, I think you would think differently about that,” she said.

    After Ramaswamy’s prepared remarks in Winterset, Iowa, Ramaswamy took a question from Cory Christensen, who had traveled a half hour from Waukee, Iowa, to hear him speak. He said he responded to almost everything Ramaswamy said at the event but had “one residual doubt” about his proposal to negotiate a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine that would see Russia take control of territory they currently occupy in Ukraine.

    “I’m hard pressed to believe that allowing Russia’s aggression to stand is in our American interests, so can you help me understand your policy?” Christensen asked.

    Ramaswamy proceeded to give a winding, intricate, nearly 10-minute long answer to Christensen’s question, touching on former President Richard Nixon’s foreign policy strategy, criticizing the US aid packages to Ukraine, warning of Chinese technology inside US critical infrastructure systems, and portraying the stark danger of a nuclear war with either Russia or China before ultimately laying out the details of his proposal to allow Russia to claim Ukrainian territory and receive assurance Ukraine would not join NATO in exchange for commitment from Russia to “exit its military alliance” with China.

    After the event, Christensen said he found Ramaswamy’s answer “persuasive.” He said he’s nearly ready to commit to caucusing for Ramaswamy and has already donated to his campaign but is holding out for now with the caucuses still over four months away.

    “I found it pretty persuasive,” Christensen said. “I’m not 100% of the way there yet, but well on the way.”

    Christensen said he much preferred to hear him speak in an unrestricted format like the event in Winterset, as opposed to hearing him at the debate, which left him with unanswered questions following his back-and-forth with Haley.

    “The tagline and attacking Nikki on you know, you’ve got your Raytheon board seat or whatever – that doesn’t help me. It didn’t help me at all. And I want to like him,” Christensen said.

    “I would have loved to see it in the debate, something, even if he condensed his argument here on Ukraine into like, five bullet points. I would rather see that than sort of just attacking her on ‘Hey, you’re just a part of the establishment,’ and those sort of superficial answers,’ he added.

    Ramaswamy acknowledged the downsides of being an inexperienced politician while speaking to reporters after an event in Clarion, Iowa, but also highlighted the benefits of approaching issues with a different perspective.

    “There’s always going to be tradeoffs, but with experience comes tiredness, defeat, status quo, biases, corruption. I don’t have any of that. And I think that that’s both an advantage and – and also, in some ways, you don’t know what you don’t know. So, I’ll admit that,” he said.

    The Ramaswamy campaign plans to continue visiting Iowa and answering voter questions like Christensen’s around the state, Chapman told CNN. He dismissed state polling that showed Ramaswamy lagging behind where he stands in the national polls and said Ramaswamy will continue to show up in towns around the state to carry his post-debate momentum forward.

    “We go from having 20 people in a room to now hitting max capacity of some of these rooms, and we’re going to continue to build that energy,” Chapman said.

    “I think here in Iowa, ultimately, we reward people who are willing to put in the hard work. And he’s willing to do that,” he added.

    Chapman says the campaign doesn’t plan on advancing Ramaswamy’s message in the state through television advertising any time soon, dismissing the traditional campaign strategy as a “short-lived tactic” that he believes only helps some candidates marginally.

    “You have career politicians that they believe they can buy elections. The more money they spend, they can get more votes, and sure, that has helped some of them here and there. But Iowans see right through that,” he said.

    Hillary Ferrer, a former teacher and writer from Pella, Iowa, said she really likes Ramaswamy’s ideas, but is concerned about his appeal to a mainstream audience and wants to support a candidate she sees as electable. She thinks more exposure to voters around the state could help him leapfrog DeSantis and Trump, but acknowledged one built-in disadvantage for Ramaswamy she encountered when spreading his message to her circle of friends.

    “I mean, he’s not lying. He’s got a hard name to say,” Ferrer said. “I couldn’t spell it out when I posted something today.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why most of Trump’s Republican rivals won’t attack him | CNN Politics

    Why most of Trump’s Republican rivals won’t attack him | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Polls show Donald Trump leading Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, his nearest rival for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, by about 40 points. You might think this would cause the former president’s GOP rivals to attack him in an attempt to eat into that support, which stands at north of 50% of the primary vote.

    Yet, most of his opponents seem hesitant, if not totally unwilling, to do so.

    A look at the numbers reveals why. Those who have gone after him have seen their popularity among Republican voters suffer, while those who have risen in primary polling are either mostly not mentioning Trump or are praising him.

    You needn’t look further than former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to understand what happens when a Republican candidate is highly critical of the former president. Christie is setting records for intraparty unpopularity.

    His net favorability rating in the latest Quinnipiac University poll stands at minus-44 points among Republicans. An astounding 61% of Republican voters hold an unfavorable view of him.

    Indeed, Christie has, if anything, become more unpopular as the presidential campaign has gone on.

    From what I can tell, he appears to have the lowest net favorability rating at this point in the cycle of any Republican running for president since at least 1980.

    This doesn’t mean that Christie does not have a base of support within the GOP. A New York Times/Siena College poll from July illustrates the point well.

    The former New Jersey governor led the Republican field (with 22%) among likely GOP primary voters who cast ballots for Joe Biden in 2020. The problem is this group makes up less than 10% of the Republican primary electorate. Christie earned only about 1% support among the remaining 90-something percent.

    Christie’s not alone in his poor favorability ratings among Republican presidential candidates seen as anti-Trump.

    Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson – who has called on the GOP to move on from Trump – was the only presidential contender during the first GOP debate last week not to raise his hand when candidates onstage were asked if they would back the former president as the party nominee even if he were convicted in a court of law. (Christie raised his hand but later gestured with a pointed finger, saying that Trump’s conduct should not be normalized. The former president skipped the Milwaukee debate.)

    Prior to the debate, most Republicans (65%) hadn’t heard enough about Hutchinson to form an opinion, according to Quinnipiac. Those with an opinion viewed him unfavorably by more than a 3-to-1 ratio (26% unfavorable to 8% favorable, a net favorability rating of minus-18 points).

    Former Texas Rep. Will Hurd, another Trump critic, didn’t make the debate stage, and the vast majority of Republicans (83%) haven’t heard enough of him to form an opinion. Among those who have, Hurd has a similar net favorability ratio to Hutchinson’s – 4% viewed him favorably and 11% unfavorably. This isn’t shocking given that Hurd has signaled he wouldn’t back Trump if the former president were the nominee.

    Other polling data confirms the dilemma facing Christie, Hutchinson and Hurd. Beyond the fact that Trump is consistently viewed favorably by about 80% of his party – and as “strongly favorable” by more than 50% – most Republicans simply don’t want Republicans making the case against Trump.

    A CBS News/YouGov poll taken prior to the GOP debate found that 91% of likely Republican primary voters wanted candidates to make their own case for the GOP nomination onstage. Just 9% wanted them to make the case against Trump.

    That 91% figure makes it clear why South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott has been hesitant to attack other Republicans. He’s been seen as a happy warrior of sorts.

    As a result, Scott has gone up in the polls and is at a consistent third place in Iowa. His net favorability rating among Republicans in the latest Quinnipiac national poll was plus-41 points, with 49% holding a favorable view of him and 8% an unfavorable one.

    Scott has been a rare Republican to break through besides Trump and DeSantis.

    The other Republican to do so has been Vivek Ramaswamy. The Ohio businessman has been unrelenting in his praise of Trump, going so far as pledging to pardon the former president if elected to the White House should Trump be convicted of a crime in federal court.

    Ramaswamy was a top target at last week’s debate. That makes sense considering he is polling in third place on average nationally.

    His net favorability rating was at plus-30 points in the Quinnipiac poll. Thirty-nine percent of Republicans had a favorable view of him, eclipsed only by the 51% who couldn’t even form an opinion.

    Of course, the ultimate issue when it comes to going against Trump can perhaps best be seen in the CBS News poll. The former president’s supporters were asked about the truthfulness of what they hear from others. The vast majority of them (71%) felt that what Trump tells them is true – a higher percentage than those who said the same about friends and family (63%).

    Given that Trump is commanding a majority of the GOP vote, Republicans seen as too negative toward him aren’t likely to go anywhere in the primary.

    This leaves Trump’s GOP rivals with a conundrum that even Harry Houdini would find difficult to solve: how to eat away at Trump’s support without being seen as trying to bring him down.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: The first Republican presidential debate of the 2024 election | CNN Politics

    Fact check: The first Republican presidential debate of the 2024 election | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Republican presidential candidates delivered a smattering of false and misleading claims at the first debate of the 2024 election – though none of the eight candidates on stage in Milwaukee delivered anything close to the bombardment of false statements that typically characterized the debate performances of former President Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner who skipped the Wednesday event.

    Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina inaccurately described the state of the economy in early 2021 and repeated a long-ago-debunked false claim about the Biden-era Justice Department. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie misstated the sentence attached to a gun law relevant to the investigation into the president’s son Hunter Biden. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis misled about his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, omitting mention of his early pandemic restrictions.

    Below is a fact check of those claims and various others from the debate, some of which left out key context. In addition, below is a brief fact check of some of Trump’s claims from a pre-taped interview he did with Tucker Carlson, which was posted online shortly before the debate aired. Trump made a variety of statements that were not true.

    DeSantis and the pandemic

    DeSantis criticized the federal government for its handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, claiming it had locked down the economy, and then said: “In Florida, we led the country out of lockdown, and we kept our state free and open.”

    Facts First: DeSantis’s claim is misleading at best. Before he became a vocal opponent of pandemic restrictions, DeSantis imposed significant restrictions on individuals, businesses and other entities in Florida in March 2020 and April 2020; some of them extended months later into 2020. He did then open up the state, with a gradual phased approach, but he did not keep it open from the start.

    DeSantis received criticism in March 2020 for what some critics perceived as a lax approach to the pandemic, which intensified as Florida beaches were packed during Spring Break. But that month and the month following, DeSantis issued a series of major restrictions. For example, DeSantis:

    • Closed Florida’s schools, first with a short-term closure in March 2020 and then, in April 2020, with a shutdown through the end of the school year. (In June 2020, he announced a plan for schools to reopen for the next school year that began in August. By October 2020, he was publicly denouncing school closures, calling them a major mistake and saying all the information hadn’t been available that March.)
    • On March 14, 2020, announced a ban on most visits to nursing homes. (He lifted the ban in September 2020.)
    • On March 17, 2020, ordered bars and nightclubs to close for 30 days and restaurants to operate at half-capacity. (He later approved a phased reopening plan that took effect in May 2020, then issued an order in September 2020 allowing these establishments to operate at full capacity.)
    • On March 17, 2020, ordered gatherings on public beaches to be limited to a maximum of 10 people staying at least six feet apart, then, three days later, ordered a shutdown of public beaches in two populous counties, Broward and Palm Beach. (He permitted those counties’ beaches to reopen by the last half of May.)
    • On March 20, 2020, prohibited “any medically unnecessary, non-urgent or non-emergency” medical procedures. (The prohibition was lifted in early May 2020.)
    • On March 23, 2020, ordered that anyone flying to Florida from an area with “substantial community spread” of the virus, “to include the New York Tri-State Area (Connecticut, New Jersey and New York),” isolate or quarantine for 14 days or the duration of their stay in Florida, whichever was shorter, or face possible jail time or a fine. Later that week, he added Louisiana to the list. (He lifted the Louisiana restriction in June 2020 and the rest in August 2020.)
    • On April 3, 2020, imposed a statewide stay-home order that temporarily required people in Florida to “limit their movements and personal interactions outside of their home to only those necessary to obtain or provide essential services or conduct essential activities.” (Beginning in May 2020, the state switched to a phased reopening plan that, for months, included major restrictions on the operations of businesses and other entities; DeSantis described it at the time as a “very slow and methodical approach” to reopening.)

    -From CNN’s Daniel Dale

    Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and US ambassador to the United Nations, said: “Donald Trump added $8 trillion to our debt, and our kids are never going to forgive us for this.”

    Facts First: Haley’s figure is accurate. The total public debt stood at about $19.9 trillion on the day Trump took office in 2017 and then increased by about $7.8 trillion over Trump’s four years, to about $27.8 trillion on the day he left office in 2021.

    It’s worth noting, however, that the increase in the debt during any president’s tenure is not the fault of that president alone. A significant amount of spending under any president is the result of decisions made by their predecessors – such as the creation of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid decades ago – and by circumstances out of a president’s control, notably including the global Covid-19 pandemic under Trump; the debt spiked in 2020 after Trump approved trillions in emergency pandemic relief spending that Congress had passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.

    Still, Trump did choose to approve that spending. And his 2017 tax cuts, unanimously opposed by congressional Democrats, were another major contributor to the debt spike.

    -From CNN’s Daniel Dale and Katie Lobosco

    North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum claimed that Biden’s signature climate bill costs $1.2 trillion dollars and is “just subsidizing China.”

    Facts First: This claim needs context. The clean energy pieces of the Inflation Reduction Act – Democrats’ climate bill – passed with an initial price tag of nearly $370 billion. However, since that bill is made up of tax incentives, that price tag could go up depending on how many consumers take advantage of tax credits to buy electric vehicles and put solar panels on their homes, and how many businesses use the subsidies to install new utility scale wind and solar in the United States.

    Burgum’s figure comes from a Goldman Sachs report, which estimated the IRA could provide $1.2 trillion in clean energy tax incentives by 2032 – about a decade from now.

    On Burgum’s claim that Biden’s clean energy agenda will be a boon to China, the IRA was specifically written to move the manufacturing supply chain for clean energy technology like solar panels and EV batteries away from China and to the United States.

    In the year since it was passed, the IRA has spurred 83 new or expanded manufacturing facilities in the US, and close to 30,000 new clean energy manufacturing jobs, according to a tally from trade group American Clean Power.

    -From CNN’s Ella Nilsen

    With the economy as one of the main topics on the forefront of voters’ minds, Scott aimed to make a case for Republican policies, misleadingly suggesting they left the US economy in record shape before Biden took office.

    “There is no doubt that during the Trump administration, when we were dealing with the COVID virus, we spent more money,” Scott said. “But here’s what happened at the end of our time in the majority: we had low unemployment, record low unemployment, 3.5% for the majority of the population, and a 70-year low for women. African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians had an all-time low.”

    Facts First: This is false. Scott’s claims don’t accurately reflect the state of the US economy at the end of the Republican majority in the Senate. And in some cases, his exaggerations echo what Trump himself frequently touted about the economy under his leadership.

    By the time Trump left office and the Republicans lost the Senate majority in January 2021, US unemployment was not at a record low. The US unemployment rate dropped to a seasonally adjusted rate of 3.5% in September 2019, the country’s lowest in 50 years. While it hovered around that level for five months, Scott’s assertion ignores the coronavirus pandemic-induced economic destruction that followed. In April 2020, the unemployment rate spiked to 14.7% — the highest level since monthly records began in 1948. As of December 2020, the unemployment rate was at 6.7%.

    Nor was the unemployment rate for women at a 70-year low by the end of Trump’s time in office. It reached a 66-year low during certain months of 2019, at 3.4% in April and 3.6% in August, but by December 2020, unemployment for women was at 6.7%.

    The unemployment rates for African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians were also not at all-time lows at the end of 2020, but they did reach record lows during Trump’s tenure as president.

    -From CNN’s Tara Subramaniam

    Scott said that the Justice Department under President Joe Biden is targeting “parents that show up at school board meetings. They are called, under this DOJ, they’re called domestic terrorists.”

    Facts First: It is false that the Justice Department referred to parents as domestic terrorists. The claim has been debunked several times – during the uproar at school boards over Covid-19 restrictions and anti-racism curriculums; after Kevin McCarthy claimed Republicans would investigate Merrick Garland with a majority in the House; and even by a federal judge. The Justice Department never called parents terrorists for attending or wanting to attend school board meetings.

    The claim stems from a 2021 letter from The National School Boards Associations asking the Justice Department to “deal with” the uptick in threats against education officials and saying that “acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials” could be classified as “the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.” In response, Garland released a memo encouraging federal and local authorities to work together against the harassment campaigns levied at schools, but never endorsed the “domestic terrorism” notion.

    A federal judge even threw out a lawsuit over the accusation, ruling that Garland’s memo did little more than announce a “series of measures” that directed federal authorities to address increasing threats targeting school board members, teachers and other school employees.

    -From CNN’s Hannah Rabinowitz

    Haley, the former ambassador to the United Nations and governor of South Carolina, said the US is spending “less than three and a half percent of our defense budget” on Ukraine aid, and that in terms of financial aid relative to GDP, “11 of the European countries have given more than the US.”

    Facts First: This is partly true. Haley’s claim regarding the US aid to Ukraine compared to the total defense budget is slightly under the actual percentage, but it is accurate that 11 European countries have given more aid to Ukraine as a percentage of their total GDP than the US.

    As of August 14, the US has committed more than $43 billion in military aid to Ukraine since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, according to the Defense Department. In comparison, the Fiscal Year 2023 defense budget was $858 billion – making aid to Ukraine just over 5% of the total US defense budget.

    As of May 2023, according to a Council of Foreign Relations tracker, 11 countries were providing a higher share in aid to Ukraine relative to their GDP than the US – led by Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.

    -From CNN’s Haley Britzky

    Former Vice President Mike Pence said Wednesday that the Trump administration “spent funding to backfill on the military cuts of the Obama administration.”

    Facts First: This is misleading. While military spending decreased under the Obama administration, it was largely due to the 2011 Budget Control Act, which received Republican support and resulted in automatic spending cuts to the defense budget.

    Mike Pence, a senator at the time, voted in favor of the Budget Control Act.

    -From CNN’s Haley Britzky

    Christie said President Biden’s son Hunter Biden was “facing a 10-year mandatory minimum” for lying on a federal form when he purchased a gun in 2018.

    Facts First: Christie, a former federal prosecutor, clearly misstated the law. This crime can lead to a maximum prison sentence of 10 years, but it doesn’t have a 10-year mandatory minimum.

    These comments are related to the highly scrutinized Justice Department investigation into Hunter Biden, which is currently ongoing after a plea deal fell apart earlier this summer.

    As part of the now-defunct deal, Hunter Biden agreed to plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and enter into a “diversion agreement” with prosecutors, who would drop the gun possession charge in two years if he consistently stayed out of legal trouble and passed drug tests.

    The law in question makes it a crime to purchase a firearm while using or addicted to illegal drugs. Hunter Biden has acknowledged struggling with crack cocaine addiction at the time, and admitted at a court hearing and in court papers that he violated this law by signing the form.

    The US Sentencing Commission says, “The statutory maximum penalty for the offense is ten years of imprisonment.” There isn’t a mandatory 10-year punishment, as Christie claimed.

    During his answer, Christie also criticized the Justice Department for agreeing to a deal in June where Hunter Biden could avoid prosecution on the felony gun offense. That deal was negotiated by special counsel David Weiss, who was first appointed to the Justice Department by former President Donald Trump.

    -From CNN’s Marshall Cohen

    Burgum and Scott got into a back and forth over IRS staffing with Burgum saying that the “Biden administration wanted to put 87,000 people in the IRS,” and Scott suggesting they “fire the 87,000 IRS agents.”

    Facts First: This figure needs context.

    The Inflation Reduction Act, which passed last year without any Republican votes, authorized $80 billion in new funding for the IRS to be delivered over the course of a decade.

    The 87,000 figure comes from a 2021 Treasury report that estimated the IRS could hire 86,852 full-time employees with a nearly $80 billion investment over 10 years.

    While the funding may well allow for the hiring of tens of thousands of IRS employees over time, far from all of these employees will be IRS agents conducting audits and investigations.

    Many other employees will be hired for the non-agent roles, from customer service to information technology, that make up most of the IRS workforce. And a significant number of the hires are expected to fill the vacant posts left by retirements and other attrition, not take newly created positions.

    The IRS has not said precisely how many new “agents” will be hired with the funding. But it is already clear that the total won’t approach 87,000. And it’s worth noting that the IRS may not receive all of the $80 billion after Republicans were able to claw back $20 billion of the new funding as part of a deal to address the debt ceiling made earlier this year.

    -From CNN’s Katie Lobosco

    Trump repeated a frequent claim during his interview with Carlson that streamed during the GOP debate that his retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House was “covered” under the Presidential Records Act and that he is “allowed to do exactly that.”

    Facts First: This is false. The Presidential Records Act says the exact opposite – that the moment presidents leave office, all presidential records are to be turned over to the federal government. Keeping documents at Mar-a-Lago after his presidency concluded was in clear contravention of that law.

    According to the Presidential Records Act, “upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.”

    The sentence makes clear that a president has no authority to keep documents after leaving the White House.

    The National Archives even released a statement refuting the notion that Trump’s retention of documents was covered by the Presidential Records Act, writing in a June news release that “the PRA requires that all records created by Presidents (and Vice-Presidents) be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) at the end of their administrations.”

    -From CNN’s Hannah Rabinowitz

    While discussing electric vehicles, Trump claimed that California “is in a big brownout because their grid is a disaster,” adding that the state’s ambitious electric vehicle goals won’t work with the grid in such shape.

    Facts First: Trump’s claim that California’s grid is currently in a “big brownout” and is a “disaster” isn’t true. California’s grid suffered rolling blackouts in 2020, but it has performed quite well in the face of extreme heat this summer, owing in large part to a massive influx of renewable energy including battery storage. These big batteries keep energy from wind and solar running when the wind isn’t blowing and sun isn’t shining. (Batteries are also being deployed at a rapid rate in Texas, a red state.)

    Another reason California’s grid has stayed stable this year even during extreme temperature spikes is the fact that a deluge of snow and rain this winter and spring has refilled reservoirs that generate electricity using hydropower.

    As Trump insinuated, there are real questions about how well the state’s grid will hold up as California’s drivers shift to electric vehicles by the millions by 2035 – the same year it will phase out selling new gas-powered cars. California state officials say they are preparing by adding new capacity to the grid and urging more people to charge their vehicles overnight and during times of the day when fewer people are using energy. But independent experts say the state needs to exponentially increase its clean energy while also building out huge amounts of new EV chargers to achieve its goals.

    -From CNN’s Ella Nilsen

    Trump and the border wall

    Trump claimed to Carlson, “I had the strongest border in the history of our country, and I built almost 500 miles of wall. You know, they’d like to say, ‘Oh, was it less?’ No, I built 500 miles. In fact, if you check with the authorities on the border, we built almost 500 miles of wall.”

    Facts First: This needs context. Trump and his critics are talking about different things when they use different figures for how much border wall was built during his presidency. Trump is referring to all of the wall built on the southern border during his administration, even in areas that already had some sort of barrier before. His critics are only counting the Trump-era wall that was built in parts of the border that did not have any previous barrier.

    A total of 458 miles of southern border wall was built under Trump, according to a federal report written two days after Trump left office and obtained by CNN’s Priscilla Alvarez. That is 52 miles of “primary” wall built where no barriers previously existed, plus 33 miles of “secondary” wall that was built in spots where no barriers previously existed, plus another 373 miles of primary and secondary wall that was built to replace previous barriers the federal government says had become “dilapidated and/or outdated.”

    Some of Trump’s rival candidates, such DeSantis and Christie, have used figures around 50 miles while criticizing Trump for failing to finish the wall – counting only the primary wall built where no barriers previously existed.

    While some Trump critics have scoffed at the replacement wall, the Trump-era construction was generally much more formidable than the older barriers it replaced, which were often designed to deter vehicles rather than people on foot. Washington Post reporter Nick Miroff tweeted in 2020: “As someone who has spent a lot of time lately in the shadow of the border wall, I need to puncture this notion that ‘replacement’ sections are ‘not new.’ There is really no comparison between vehicle barriers made from old rail ties and 30-foot bollards.”

    Ideally, both Trump and his opponents would be clearer about what they are talking about: Trump that he is including replacement barriers, his opponents that they are excluding those barriers.

    -From CNN’s Daniel Dale

    [ad_2]

    Source link