ReportWire

Tag: Democratic Party

  • Joe Biden Isn’t Popular. That Might Not Matter in 2024.

    Joe Biden Isn’t Popular. That Might Not Matter in 2024.

    [ad_1]

    By almost any historic yardstick, President Joe Biden is beginning the reelection campaign he formally announced today in a vulnerable position.

    His job-approval rating has consistently come in at 45 percent or less; in several recent high-quality national polls, it has dipped closer to 40 percent. In surveys, three-fourths or more of Americans routinely express dissatisfaction with the economy. And a majority of adults have repeatedly said that they do not want him to seek a second term; that figure rose to 70 percent (including just more than half of Democrats) in a national NBC poll released last weekend.

    Those are the sort of numbers that have spelled doom for many an incumbent president. “Compared to other presidents, Biden’s approval is pretty low [about] a year and a half from Election Day,” says Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, in Atlanta. “It’s not where you want to be, for sure.”

    And yet despite Biden’s persistently subpar public reviews, there’s no sense of panic in the Democratic Party about his prospects. No serious candidate has emerged to challenge him for the party’s 2024 presidential nomination. No elected leaders have called on him to step aside. And though some top Democratic operatives have privately expressed concern about Biden’s weak standing in polls, almost every party strategist I spoke with leading up to his announcement said they consider him the favorite for reelection.

    There are many reasons for this gap between the dominant views about Biden’s immediate position and his eventual prospects in the 2024 race. But the most important reason is encapsulated in the saying from Biden’s father that he often quotes in speeches: “Don’t compare me to the Almighty; compare me to the alternative.” Most Democrats remain cautiously optimistic that whatever concerns Americans might hold about the state of the economy and Biden’s performance or his age, a majority of voters will refuse to entrust the White House to Donald Trump or another Republican nominee in his image, such as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

    “I think there’s no question that neither Trump nor Biden are where they want to be, but … if you project forward, it’s just easier to see a path for victory for Biden than for Trump or DeSantis,” says the Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg, who was one of the few analysts in either party to question the projections of a sweeping red wave last November.

    Rosenberg is quick to caution that in a country as closely split as the U.S. is now, any advantage for Biden is hardly insurmountable. Not many states qualify as true swing states within reach for both sides next year. And those states themselves are so closely balanced that minuscule shifts in preferences or turnout among almost any constituency could determine the outcome.

    The result is that control over the direction for a nation of 330 million people could literally come down to a handful of neighborhoods in a tiny number of states—white-collar suburbs of Detroit, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and Atlanta; faded factory towns in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania; working-class Latino neighborhoods in Las Vegas; and small-town communities across Georgia’s Black Belt. Never have so few people had such a big impact in deciding the future of American politics,” Doug Sosnik, the chief White House political adviser for Bill Clinton, told me.

    On an evenly matched battlefield, neither side can rest too comfortably about its prospects in the 2024 election. But after Trump’s upset victory in 2016, Republicans have mostly faced disappointing results in the elections of 2018, 2020, and 2022. Across those campaigns, a powerful coalition of voters—particularly young people, college-educated white voters, those who don’t identify with any organized religion, and people of color, mostly located in large metropolitan centers—have poured out in huge numbers to oppose the conservative cultural and social vision animating the Trump-era Republican Party. Many of those voters may be unenthusiastic about Biden, but they have demonstrated that they are passionate about keeping Trump and other Republicans from controlling the White House and potentially imposing their restrictive agenda nationwide. Biden previewed how he will try to stir those passions in his announcement video Tuesday: Far more than most of his speeches, which typically emphasize kitchen-table economics, the video centers on portraying “MAGA extremists” as a threat to democracy and “bedrock freedoms” through restrictions on abortion, book bans, and rollbacks of LGBTQ rights.

    “The fear of MAGA has been the most powerful force in American politics since 2018, and it remains the most powerful force,” Rosenberg told me. “It’s why Democrats did so much better than the fundamentals [of public attitudes about Biden and the economy] in 2022, and that will be the case again this time.”

    After the Democrats’ unexpectedly competitive showing in the midterm election, Biden’s approval rating ticked up. But in national polls it has sagged again. Recent surveys by The Wall Street Journal, NBC, and CNBC each put Biden’s approval rating at 42 percent or less.

    Sosnik said the pivotal period for Biden is coming this fall. Historically, he told me, voter assessments of an incumbent president’s performance have hardened between the fall of their third year in office and the late spring of their fourth. The key, he said, is not a president’s absolute level of approval in that period but its trajectory: Approval ratings for Ronald Reagan, Clinton, and Barack Obama, each of whom won reelection, were all clearly rising by early in their fourth year. By contrast, the approval ratings over that period fell for George H. W. Bush and remained stagnant for Trump. Each lost his reelection bid. Economists and pollsters say voters tend to finalize their views about the economy over roughly the same period and once again tend to put less weight on the absolute level of conditions such as inflation and unemployment than on whether those conditions are improving or deteriorating.

    With that crucial window approaching, Biden will benefit if inflation continues to moderate as it has over the past several months. He also could profit from more time for voters to feel the effects of the massive wave of public and private investment triggered by his trio of major legislative accomplishments: the bipartisan infrastructure and semiconductor bills, and the climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

    But Biden also faces the risk that the economy could tip into recession later this year, which some forecasters, such as Larry Summers, the former Clinton Treasury Secretary who predicted the inflationary surge, still consider likely.

    If a recession does come, the best scenario for Biden is that it’s short and shallow and further tamps down inflation before giving way to an economic recovery early in 2024. But even that relatively benign outcome would make it difficult for him to attract more supporters in the period through next spring when voters traditionally have solidified their verdicts on a president’s performance.

    That means that, to win reelection, Biden likely will need to win an unusually large share of voters who are at least somewhat unhappy over conditions in the country and ambivalent or worse about giving him another term. Historically that hasn’t been easy for presidents.

    For those who think Biden can break that pattern, last November’s midterm election offers the proof of concept. Exit polls at the time showed that a solid 55 percent majority of voters nationwide disapproved of Biden’s job performance and that three-fourths of voters considered the economy in only fair or poor shape. Traditionally such attitudes have meant disaster for the party holding the White House. And yet, Democrats minimized the GOP gains in the House, maintained control of the Senate, and won governorships in most of the key swing states on the ballot.

    In 2022, the exit polls showed that Democrats, as the party holding the White House, were routed among voters with intensely negative views about conditions. That was typical for midterm elections. But Democrats defused the expected “red wave” by winning a large number of voters who were more mildly disappointed in Biden’s performance and/or the economy.

    For instance, with Trump in the White House during the 2018 midterms, Republicans won only about one in six voters in House elections who described the economy as “not so good,” according to exit polls; in 2020, Trump, as the incumbent president, carried only a little more than one-fifth of them. But in 2022, Democrats won more than three-fifths of voters who expressed that mildly negative view of the economy.

    Similarly, in the 2010 midterm elections, according to exit polls, two-thirds of voters who “somewhat disapproved” of Obama’s performance as president voted against Democrats running for the House; almost two-thirds of the voters who “somewhat disapproved” of Trump likewise voted against Republicans in 2018. But in 2022, the exit polls found that Democrats surprisingly carried almost half of the voters who “somewhat disapproved” of Biden.

    The same pattern persisted across many of the key swing states likely to decide the 2024 presidential race: Democrats won the governors’ contests in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and Senate races in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, even though the exit polls found a majority of voters in each state said they disapproved of Biden’s performance. Winning Democratic gubernatorial candidates such as Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania, and Katie Hobbs in Arizona each carried at least 70 percent of voters who described the economy as “not so good.”

    Why did Democrats so exceed the usual performance among voters dissatisfied with the country’s direction? The answer is that many of those voters rejected the Republican Party that Trump has reshaped in his image. The exit polls found that Trump was viewed even more unfavorably than Biden in several of the swing states, including Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And nationally, more than two-fifths of voters who expressed negative views about the economy also said they considered the GOP “too extreme.” Particularly on social issues such as abortion rights and gun control, the 2022 results demonstrated that “Trump and these other Republicans have painted themselves into a corner in order to appeal to their base,” Abramowitz told me.

    Biden may expand his support by next year, especially in the battleground states, if economic conditions improve or simply because he may soon start spending heavily on television advertising touting his achievements, such as new plant openings. But more important than changing minds may be his ability to replicate the Democrats’ success in 2022 at winning voters who aren’t wild about him but dislike Trump and the GOP even more. “While there are not an overwhelming number of people who are tremendously favorable to Biden, I just don’t think there is an overwhelming number of persuadable people who hate him,” says Tad Devine, a long-time Democratic strategist. “They hate the other guy.” A new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll released today offered one concrete measure of that dynamic: In an echo of the 2022 pattern, three-fourths of the adults who said they mildly disapproved of Biden’s performance in office nonetheless said they did not want a second term for Trump.

    Lynn Vavreck, a political scientist at UCLA, told me that dynamic would likely prove powerful for many voters. Even Democratic-leaning voters who say they don’t want Biden to run again, she predicted, are highly likely to line up behind him once the alternative is a Republican nominee whose values clash with their own. “The bottom line is that on Election Day, that Democratic nominee, even the one they didn’t want to run again, is going to be closer to most people’s vision of the world they want to live in than the Republican alternative,” she said.

    In both parties, many analysts agree that in a Biden-Trump rematch, the election would probably revolve less around assessments of Biden’s performance than the stark question of whether voters are willing to return Trump to power after the January 6 insurrection and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. “President Biden by every conventional standard is a remarkably weak candidate for reelection,” the longtime Republican pollster Bill McInturff told me in an email. But “Biden’s greatest strength,” McInturff continued, may be the chance to run again against Trump, who “is so terrific at sucking up all the political oxygen, he becomes the issue on which the election gets framed, not the terrible economy or the level of Americans’ dissatisfaction with the direction of the country.”

    On both sides, there’s greater uncertainty about whether DeSantis could more effectively exploit voters’ hesitation about Biden. Many Democrats and even some Republicans believe that DeSantis has leaned so hard into emulating, and even exceeding, Trump’s culture-war agenda that the Florida governor has left himself little chance of recapturing the white-collar suburban voters who have keyed the Democratic recovery since 2018. But others believe that DeSantis could get a second look from those voters if he wins the nomination, because he would be introduced to them largely by beating Trump. Although Devine told me, “I do not see a path to the presidency in the general election for Donald Trump,” he said that “if DeSantis were to be able to get rid of Trump and get the credit for getting rid of Trump…I think it’s fundamentally different.”

    One thing unlikely to change, whomever Republicans nominate, is how few states, or voters, will effectively decide the outcome. Twenty-five states voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020, and the strategists planning the Biden campaign see a realistic chance to contest only North Carolina among them. Republicans hope to contest more of the 25 states that voted for Biden, but after the decisive Democratic victories in Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2022, it’s unclear whether either is within reach for the GOP next year. The states entirely up for grabs might be limited to just four that Biden carried last time: Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin. And as the decisive liberal win in the recent state-supreme-court election in Wisconsin showed, winning even that state, like Michigan and Pennsylvania, may be an uphill battle for any Republican presidential nominee viewed as a threat to abortion rights.

    In their recent book, The Bitter End, Vavreck and her co-authors, John Sides and Chris Tausanovitch, describe hardening loyalties and a shrinking battlefield as a form of electoral “calcification.” That process has left the country divided almost in half between two durable but divergent coalitions with antithetical visions of America’s future. “We are fighting at the margins again,” Vavreck told me. “The 2020 election was nearly a replica of 2016, and I think that largely this 2024 election is going to be a repeat of 2020 and 2016.” Whatever judgment voters ultimately reach about Biden’s effectiveness, or his capacity to handle the job in his 80s, this sorting process virtually guarantees another polarized and precarious election next year that turns on a small number of voters in a small number of states.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • What will be Biden’s biggest hurdles in expected reelection run?

    What will be Biden’s biggest hurdles in expected reelection run?

    [ad_1]

    What will be Biden’s biggest hurdles in expected reelection run? – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    President Biden is expected to formally announce he’s running for reelection as early as Tuesday. CBS News has also learned he has chosen one of his senior advisers, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, to run his campaign. Ed O’Keefe has the latest.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democrats’ State-Level Comeback Hits Its Limits

    Democrats’ State-Level Comeback Hits Its Limits

    [ad_1]

    MILWAUKEE ― A few weeks before her victory, Janet Protasiewicz, the liberal ― and de facto Democratic ― nominee for Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, issued a warning about what could happen if her conservative opponent, Dan Kelly, managed to pull off a victory: It could flip the 2024 presidential election.

    “Don’t you think our elections should be fair and free?” Protasiewicz asked HuffPost. “Don’t you think there should be a Supreme Court justice who wasn’t going to vote to overturn the 2024 election results? If they don’t come out the way that he wants, that’s what I think will happen.”

    The idea that an off-year April election could swing control of the presidency would’ve seemed ludicrous not long ago, before the GOP’s lurch toward authoritarianism and whole-hearted embrace of former President Donald Trump’s lies about the election. But for thousands of liberals and Democrats across the country who poured cash into Protasiewicz’s campaign, the threat was a central motivator.

    Protasiewicz’s eventual 11-point victory was the latest example of how Democrats have made major progress in clawing back power at the state level, with party leaders in key states effectively turning state-level elections into extensions of national political causes, tying them to the outcome of the next presidential election and hyping up the importance of state-by-state battles over abortion rights.

    The strategy has fired up college-educated voters, who are more likely to vote in off-year elections, and convinced liberals around the country to pour small-dollar donations into electoral contests once considered far too obscure to merit outside investment.

    The results of these tactics speak for themselves: 57% of Americans live in a state with a Democratic governor. The 17 states where Democrats have a trifecta ― meaning they control the governorship and both chambers of the state legislature ― equal 41.6% of the country’s population. The 22 Republican trifectas, mostly built in smaller states, amount to just 39.6% of the country.

    But as the party continues a long slog back from its 2010 wipeout ― when Republicans jumped from 9 trifectas to 22 in a single night and gained control of a redistricting process enabling them to lock Democrats out of power in states across the country ― the chances for further progress are shrinking.

    “We have to be realistic,” said Mallory McMorrow, the Michigan state senator whose viral speech defending gay and transgender rights helped raise millions to power Democrats’ eventual victory in the state’s legislative elections last fall. “People asked me how it feels for everything to change overnight. But it wasn’t overnight. There has been a persistence and a dedication to down-ballot races from Republicans that Democrats simply haven’t had.”

    Recent weeks have shown the promise and peril of the comeback so far. Victories in Wisconsin, and Michigan’s moves to repeal an abortion ban and right-to-work legislation, have been offset by the Wisconsin GOP’s pick up of a state Senate supermajority and the defection by a Democratic state legislator in North Carolina, both of which illustrated how stop-start the party’s progress is, and how fragile its gains can be. And the expulsion of two Democrats from the Tennessee House of Representatives shows how helpless the party remains in some states more than a decade after the 2010 wipeout.

    Republicans now have supermajorities in 20 states, having picked up veto-proof majorities in three states with Democratic governors since the 2022 midterms: Wisconsin, where the GOP won a special election the same day as Protasiewicz’s victory, and in North Carolina and Louisiana, where Democratic legislators switched parties.

    Many states where the party is at its weakest are in the South, with some of the largest Black populations in the country, giving the party little power to defend its most loyal voting bloc. Of the 10 states with the largest Black population share, seven have GOP governors, seven have GOP legislative supermajorities and six have both.

    “We have to admit that we have a problem before we work to address a problem,” said Antjuan Seawright, a Democratic strategist in South Carolina and political adviser to House Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.). National Democratic groups should “continue to prioritize the South, the rural South and the constituencies that primarily make up the South and that’s Black folks.

    A Badger State Revival

    Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler brought techniques and strategies he learned running the national progressive group MoveOn to his home state, helping revitalize the state party.

    Daniel Boczarski via Getty Images

    Wisconsin is both a case study for Democrats’ new appreciation of the stakes of state-level fights and a reminder of how the gerrymandering that emerged from the 2010 election continues to stand in the party’s way.

    When Republican Scott Walker became Wisconsin’s governor in 2010, he set out to shift state politics rightward through gerrymandering and the evisceration of the state’s once-powerful labor unions. Trump’s victory in the Badger State in 2016, just eight years after Barack Obama carried it by 14 percentage points, spoke to Walker’s success in that endeavor.

    Amid public outrage over Trump that helped Democrats make inroads in the suburbs, the party ousted Walker in 2018. But in April 2019, conservatives narrowly triumphed in a statewide supreme court race that liberals had hoped to win.

    Witnessing that defeat was one of the reasons that Ben Wikler, a Madison native then serving as Washington director of MoveOn.org, decided to jump back into politics in his home state. He was elected chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in June 2019.

    Leveraging skills and contacts, he had acquired in the world of national grassroots organizing, Wikler turned the state party into a fighting force. Among other techniques, he used his growing social media following to raise funds for the party, which he plowed into a hiring spree, prioritizing field organizing as well as communications. The latter ignited a virtuous cycle in which the party got more press coverage and thus generated more fundraising that enabled it to continue hiring.

    The Democratic Party of Wisconsin now boasts 118 paid staffers, including some interns and part-time workers ― up from 24 employees when Wikler took over.

    “The Republican infrastructure in the state of Wisconsin used to be far superior to the Democratic infrastructure,” said a Milwaukee-area Republican strategist who requested anonymity to speak freely. “[Wikler] has built a finely tuned, fast-moving, well-oiled machine. And so they are playing better on the field than they used to.”

    The party’s advances under Wikler, and a concurrent shift toward Democrats among highly educated voters who are more likely to show up in off-season elections, helped a liberal justice win a state supreme court race in April 2020 and subsequently flip the state for Biden that November.

    This year, presented with the chance to shift control of the state supreme court from conservatives to liberals, Wikler didn’t hesitate to mobilize the party’s resources to their fullest. Ironically, thanks to a set of campaign-finance reforms that Walker oversaw in 2015, there were no restrictions on how much the Democratic Party of Wisconsin was able to transfer to liberal Justice-elect Janet Protasiewicz. The party ended up giving Protasiewicz more than $9 million in her bid for the officially nonpartisan office.

    Democrats’ involvement in Protasiewicz’s bid sparked allegations from conservatives that she would serve as a partisan activist rather than an impartial judge ― a charge she sought to defuse by promising to recuse herself from cases involving the state party.

    For Wikler, though, the net benefits of electing Protasiewicz, including the possibility of obtaining less Republican-leaning congressional and state legislative maps, made campaigning for Protasiewicz an easy decision.

    “Republicans are not shy about doing everything in their power to elect far-right judges,” he told HuffPost in late March. “And Democrats have a choice: Either they can roll over and let the extreme right dominate the courts, or they can fight back with everything they’ve got.”

    That bet paid off. But Protasiewicz’s coattails were not quite enough to carry Democrat Jodi Habush Sinykin, an attorney, across the finish line in a special state Senate election in the same Milwaukee suburbs that have been trending more Democratic in recent years. Habush Sinykin’s narrow defeat gave Republicans a two-thirds majority in the state Senate, enabling them to impeach and expel Democratic elected officials on a party-line vote. That could theoretically endanger everyone from liberal judges and prosecutors to Protasiewicz and Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D).

    Wikler isn’t too worried, though. If Republicans target Protasiewicz or other liberal judges, Evers would have the power to name those officials’ replacements. Wikler also called Habush Sinykin, the unsuccessful Democratic contender for state Senate, a “dynamite candidate” who had suffered from the gerrymandered nature of her district.

    “What’s happened in Wisconsin can be a playbook for Democrats across the country,” Wikler said.

    Officials in other state parties are already trying to learn from the strides made in Wisconsin. Following the dramatic expulsion of two Black Democratic lawmakers in Tennessee, Wikler spoke to the Tennessee Democratic Party Chairman Hendrell Remus about “what the channels are to fight back.” The Democratic Party of Wisconsin also sent out an email fundraiser for its Tennessee counterpart and matched the first $25,000 of the $38,000 the email raised.

    “Republicans are abusing supermajority powers that they haven’t earned,” Wikler said. “Tennessee Democrats have a chance to make that backfire.”

    Money And Media In Michigan

    Michigan State Sen. Mallory McMorrow’s speech defending herself against GOP attacks went viral a year ago this week, enabling her to tap into a national donor base that has become invested in previously obscure state legislative contests.
    Michigan State Sen. Mallory McMorrow’s speech defending herself against GOP attacks went viral a year ago this week, enabling her to tap into a national donor base that has become invested in previously obscure state legislative contests.

    McMorrow’s speech, delivered a year ago on Wednesday, came after a GOP colleague implied she was a “groomer” for supporting transgender rights and opposing Republican-led efforts to block discussion of gay rights and racism in public schools.

    The speech went viral, attracting millions of views and helping McMorrow soon raise $1.2 million, 85% of it from outside the state. Much of that money was sent to help state legislative candidates. She said the key was airing television ads turning those candidates into actual people rather than just ballot lines with a D or R next to their names, noting that surveys have shown that 80% of Americans can’t identify their state legislator.

    “We connect to stories of people,” McMorrow said. “Trying to sell the story that we’re just trying to flip a state legislature is not relatable.”

    McMorrow said that keeping the money coming in relied on repeatedly connecting to national audiences by emphasizing national battles happening on the ground in Michigan.

    “Something that we really tried to do intentionally was to continue to seek out national media opportunities, to tell the story of what’s happening in Michigan, but making that connection to national politics because that’s the only way to break through to people,” McMorrow said.

    Helping McMorrow and others out was a liberal media ecosystem fully ready to talk about state-level contests. After her speech, McMorrow was twice a guest on “Pod Save America,” the liberal podcast founded by former staffers for President Barack Obama. The podcast also held a special episode in Madison to draw attention to Protasiewicz’s campaign.

    The way Democrats have been able to tap into national small-dollar donors to fund state races was visible in Wisconsin. In providing Protasiewicz with $8 million of the $14 million she raised, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin counted on a surge in grassroots donations that complemented the big checks that came in. In the nearly four years since Wikler took over as chair, the state party took in more than 777,000 donations, compared with just under 65,000 over the same period preceding Wikler’s arrival.

    “It takes resources to run your own operation, but when you do, it means that every individual candidate will have a political network and a volunteer network that takes years to build,” Wikler said.

    Protasiewicz also outperformed her conservative opponent, Dan Kelly, in direct fundraising from small-dollar donors, raising nearly 25,000 donations of $50 or less, compared with Kelly’s 3,800.

    The big picture gap is most evident from how the Democratic Governors’ Association (DGA) has been able to develop a small-dollar fundraising program the Republican Governors’ Association (RGA) has so not been able to match, enabling the former group to come close to matching the GOP dollar-for-dollar in key races for the first time in decades. (Both the DGA and RGA take extensive sums directly from corporations and wealthy donors, but the RGA has long had more success in that area.)

    Laura Clawson, the DGA’s digital director, said the committee was able to build its online donor base by drawing people in with e-mails touching on national issues and figures, then explaining how giving to governors can matter, even if it increased the digital difference between opening an initial email and making a donation.

    “A lot of people’s goal is to just get someone onto that contribution page with as little friction as possible,” Clawson said. “Implementing that flow allowed us to do donor education about why this matters. And we’ve seen a huge, huge increase in our donations.”

    North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, the chair of the DGA in the 2022 cycle, said the committee was able to spend three times the amount it did in 2018. The party picked up governorships in Maryland and Massachusetts while losing Nevada, marking only the second time since 1934 the president’s party has increased its governorships during a midterm.

    “Who your governor is matters more than ever,” Cooper said, citing pandemic response and fights over abortion rights. “Democratic governors demonstrated we will protect your pocketbook, your freedoms and the foundations of our democracy.”

    Problems Money Can’t Solve

    Tennessee State Rep. Justin Pearson, expelled from the state legislature and then reinstated, has shown Democrats do not always need electoral power to push for change.
    Tennessee State Rep. Justin Pearson, expelled from the state legislature and then reinstated, has shown Democrats do not always need electoral power to push for change.

    The expulsion ― and lighting-fast reappointment ― of Tennessee Reps. Justin Pearson and Justin Jones was, like McMorrow’s speech, a singular moment for Tennessee Democrats to seize the advantage. Pearson and Jones became instant superstars, with national leaders like Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) raising money for them online.

    In a different state, the momentum could carry Democrats to a modicum of power. But after losing control of both legislative chambers in 2010, the party has only spiraled downward in the Volunteer States. Heavily gerrymandered maps mean Democrats only have one congressman left in the state, and Republicans hold more than three-quarters of the seats in the state House and the state Senate.

    And most of those seats are deep red: Only four of the 75 Republicans in the state House received less than 60% of the vote in their most recent election. While strategists in the state hope the party can use gun violence as an issue to potentially flip a handful of seats in the growing suburbs of Nashville, it shows how if the Democratic comeback is built on maps, money and media, the latter two can’t matter much without the first.

    “Republican extreme gerrymandering really locked Democrats out of power artificially for the last decade and created artificial barriers that you can’t overcome with a standard campaign,” said Kelly Burton, the former president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

    The NDRC, chaired by former Attorney General Eric Holder, was founded in 2016 as a counterpoint to longstanding GOP efforts to shape legislative and congressional maps. It spent millions pushing for referenda to block partisan gerrymanders, challenging GOP-drawn maps and backing candidates in judicial, legislative and governor’s races.

    But gerrymandering does not explain away all of the Democrats’ struggles in Tennessee. Trump’s margin of victory in 2020 was 23 percentage points, and the state is heavy on white working-class voters and evangelical Christians.

    While Democrats have progressed in many states, most deep red states remain firmly in control of the GOP. In places like the Dakotas and the deep South, Republicans don’t need to gerrymander to maintain a firm grip on power.

    When Pearson talked to HuffPost’s Phil Lewis earlier this month, he encouraged Tennesseans to do more than just vote to make a change in the state: “We need people who are actively, consistently, consistently engaged in democracy. [People] who protest, who make phone calls, who show up to hearings, who stay engaged, all the time, all year round.”

    Of course, Pearson and Jones have shown you do not necessarily need electoral power to create change. Their protest, and the subsequent GOP overreaction, shined a brighter light on a legislature riven with problems but largely ignored by the public. It also created momentum for Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, to push for a red flag law.

    Tennessee’s legislative session ended on Friday without any actions on guns and with many Republican legislators still deeply opposed. But Lee said he would soon call for a special session on gun reform, citing the “broad agreement that dangerous, unstable individuals who intend to harm themselves or others should not have access to weapons.”

    It’s a reflection of the public pressure Pearson and Jones brought.

    “Throughout history ― Southern history and Black history ― it has always taken some sort of shockwave event for folks to tune into our issues and our communities in a very intentional way,” Seawright said. “What happened in Tennessee was another of those shockwave events in history.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Montana transgender Rep. Zooey Zephyr silenced by state House’s Republican speaker

    Montana transgender Rep. Zooey Zephyr silenced by state House’s Republican speaker

    [ad_1]

    Helena, Mont. — Montana’s House speaker on Thursday refused to allow a transgender lawmaker to speak about bills on the House floor until she apologizes for saying lawmakers would have “blood on their hands” if they supported a bill to ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, the lawmaker said.

    Rep. Zooey Zephyr, who was deliberately misgendered by a conservative group of lawmakers demanding her censure after Tuesday’s comments, said she would not apologize, creating a standoff between the first-term state lawmaker and Republican legislative leaders.

    Speaker Matt Regier refused to acknowledge Zephyr on Thursday when she wanted to comment on a bill seeking to put a binary definition of male and female into state code.

    “It is up to me to maintain decorum here on the House floor, to protect the dignity and integrity,” Regier said Thursday. “And any representative that I don’t feel can do that will not be recognized.”

    Regier said the decision came after “multiple discussions” with other lawmakers and that previously there had been similar problems.

    Democrats objected to Regier’s decision, but the House Rules committee and the House upheld his decision on party-line votes.

    “Hate-filled testimony has no place on the House floor,” Republican Rep. Caleb Hinkle, a member of the Montana Freedom Caucus that demanded the censure, said in a statement.


    Supreme Court declines to enforce West Virginia ban on transgender athletes

    01:28

    Zephyr said she stands by what she said about the consequences of banning essential medical care for transgender youth.

    “When there are bills targeting the LGBTQ community, I stand up to defend my community,” Zephyr said. “And I choose my words with clarity and precision and I spoke to the real harms that these bills bring.”

    zooey-zephyr.jpg
    A screengrab from the Montana Public Affairs Network’s live broadcast of an April 18, 2023 debate on the state House floor shows Rep. Zooey Zephyr addressing fellow lawmakers about a bill that would ban youth gender affirming medical care.

    MPAN


    Regier also declined to recognize Zephyr Thursday when she rang in to speak about another bill, which was unrelated to LGBTQ+ issues and seeks to reimburse hotels that provide shelter to victims of human trafficking.

    “The speaker is refusing to allow me to participate in debate until I retract or apologize for my statements made during floor debate,” Zephyr said.

    The issue came to a head Tuesday when Zephyr, the first transgender woman to hold a position in the Montana legislature, referenced the floor session’s opening prayer when she told lawmakers if they supported the bill, “I hope the next time there’s an invocation when you bow your heads in prayer, you see the blood on your hands.”

    She had made a similar comment when the bill was debated in the House the first time.

    House Majority Leader Sue Vinton rebuked Zephyr on Tuesday, calling her comments inappropriate, disrespectful and uncalled for.

    Later, the Montana Freedom Caucus issued its censure demand in a letter that called for a “commitment to civil discourse” in the same sentence in which it deliberately misgendered Zephyr. The caucus also misgendered Zephyr in a Tweet while posting the letter online.

    “It is disheartening that the Montana Freedom Caucus would stoop so low as to misgender me in their letter, further demonstrating their disregard for the dignity and humanity of transgender individuals,” Zephyr said in a statement Wednesday.

    Zephyr also spoke emotionally and directly to transgender Montanans in February in opposing a bill to ban minors from attending drag shows.

    “I have one request for you: Please stay alive,” Zephyr said then, assuring them she and others would keep fighting and challenge the bills in court.

    The legislature has also passed a bill stating a student misgendering or deadnaming a fellow student is not illegal discrimination, unless it rises to the level of bullying.

    At the end of Thursday’s House session, Democratic Rep. Marilyn Marler asked that the House majority allow Zephyr to speak on the floor going forward.

    “This body is denying the representative … the chance to do her job,” Marler said.

    Majority Leader Vinton, before moving for adjournment, said: “I will let the body know that the representative … has every opportunity to rectify the situation.”

    The House meets again Friday afternoon.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 2023’s most important election: Turkey

    2023’s most important election: Turkey

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    For Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, next month’s election is of massive historical significance.

    It falls 100 years after the foundation of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s secular republic and, if Erdoğan wins, he will be empowered to put even more of his stamp on the trajectory of a geostrategic heavyweight of 85 million people. The fear in the West is that he will see this as his moment to push toward an increasingly religiously conservative model, characterized by regional confrontationalism, with greater political powers centered around himself.

    The election will weigh heavily on security in Europe and the Middle East. Who is elected stands to define: Turkey’s role in the NATO alliance; its relationship with the U.S., the EU and Russia; migration policy; Ankara’s role in the war in Ukraine; and how it handles tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean.

    The May 14 vote is expected to be the most hotly contested race in Erdoğan’s 20-year rule — as the country grapples with years of economic mismanagement and the fallout from a devastating earthquake.

    He will face an opposition aligned behind Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, nicknamed the “Turkish Gandhi,” who is promising big changes. Polls suggest Kılıçdaroğlu has eked out a lead, but Erdoğan is a hardened election campaigner, with the full might of the state and its institutions at his back.

    “There will be a change from an authoritarian single-man rule, towards a kind of a teamwork, which is a much more democratic process,” Ünal Çeviköz, chief foreign policy adviser to Kılıçdaroğlu told POLITICO. “Kılıçdaroğlu will be the maestro of that team.”

    Here are the key foreign policy topics in play in the vote:

    EU and Turkish accession talks

    Turkey’s opposition is confident it can unfreeze European Union accession talks — at a standstill since 2018 over the country’s democratic backsliding — by introducing liberalizing reforms in terms of rule of law, media freedoms and depoliticization of the judiciary.

    The opposition camp also promises to implement European Court of Human Rights decisions calling for the release of two of Erdoğan’s best-known jailed opponents: the co-leader of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party Selahattin Demirtaş and human rights defender Osman Kavala.

    “This will simply give the message to all our allies, and all the European countries, that Turkey is back on track to democracy,” Çeviköz said.

    Even under a new administration, however, the task of reopening the talks on Turkey’s EU accession is tricky.

    Turkey’s opposition is aligned behind Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, nicknamed the “Turkish Gandhi” | Burak Kara/Getty Images

    Anti-Western feeling in Turkey is very strong across the political spectrum, argued Wolfango Piccoli, co-founder of risk analysis company Teneo.

    “Foreign policy will depend on the coherence of the coalition,” he said. “This is a coalition of parties who have nothing in common apart from the desire to get rid of Erdoğan. They’ve got a very different agenda, and this will have an impact in foreign policy.”

    “The relationship is largely comatose, and has been for some time, so, they will keep it on life support,” he said, adding that any new government would have so many internal problems to deal with that its primary focus would be domestic.

    Europe also seems unprepared to handle a new Turkey, with a group of countries — most prominently France and Austria — being particularly opposed to the idea of rekindling ties.

    “They are used to the idea of a non-aligned Turkey, that has departed from EU norms and values and is doing its own course,” said Aslı Aydıntaşbaş a visiting fellow at Brookings. “If the opposition forms a government, it will seek a European identity and we don’t know Europe’s answer to that; whether it could be accession or a new security framework that includes Turkey.”

    “Obviously the erosion of trust has been mutual,” said former Turkish diplomat Sinan Ülgen, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Europe think tank, arguing that despite reticence about Turkish accession, there are other areas where a complementary and mutually beneficiary framework could be built, like the customs union, visa liberalization, cooperation on climate, security and defense, and the migration agreement.

    The opposition will indeed seek to revisit the 2016 agreement with the EU on migration, Çeviköz said.

    “Our migration policy has to be coordinated with the EU,” he said. “Many countries in Europe see Turkey as a kind of a pool, where migrants coming from the east can be contained and this is something that Turkey, of course cannot accept,” he said but added. “This doesn’t mean that Turkey should open its borders and make the migrants flow into Europe. But we need to coordinate and develop a common migration policy.”

    NATO and the US

    After initially imposing a veto, Turkey finally gave the green light to Finland’s NATO membership on March 30.

    But the opposition is also pledging to go further and end the Turkish veto on Sweden, saying that this would be possible by the alliance’s annual gathering on July 11. “If you carry your bilateral problems into a multilateral organization, such as NATO, then you are creating a kind of a polarization with all the other members of NATO with your country,” Çeviköz said.

    A protester pushes a cart with a RRecep Tayyip Erdoğan doll during an anti-NATO and anti-Turkey demonstration in Sweden | Jonas Gratzer/Getty Images

    A reelected Erdoğan could also feel sufficiently empowered to let Sweden in, many insiders argue. NATO allies did, after all, play a significant role in earthquake aid. Turkish presidential spokesperson İbrahim Kalın says that the door is not closed to Sweden, but insists the onus is on Stockholm to determine how things proceed.

    Turkey’s military relationship with the U.S. soured sharply in 2019 when Ankara purchased the Russian-made S-400 missile system, a move the U.S. said would put NATO aircraft flying over Turkey at risk. In response, the U.S. kicked Ankara out of the F-35 jet fighter program and slapped sanctions on the Turkish defense industry.

    A meeting in late March between Kılıçdaroğlu and the U.S. Ambassador to Ankara Jeff Flake infuriated Erdoğan, who saw it as an intervention in the elections and pledged to “close the door” to the U.S. envoy. “We need to teach the United States a lesson in this elections,” the irate president told voters.

    In its policy platform, the opposition makes a clear reference to its desire to return to the F-35 program.

    Russia and the war in Ukraine

    After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Turkey presented itself as a middleman. It continues to supply weapons — most significantly Bayraktar drones — to Ukraine, while refusing to sanction Russia. It has also brokered a U.N. deal that allows Ukrainian grain exports to pass through the blockaded Black Sea.

    Highlighting his strategic high-wire act on Russia, after green-lighting Finland’s NATO accession and hinting Sweden could also follow, Erdoğan is now suggesting that Turkey could be the first NATO member to host Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    “Maybe there is a possibility” that Putin may travel to Turkey on April 27 for the inauguration of the country’s first nuclear power reactor built by Russian state nuclear energy company Rosatom, he said.

    Çeviköz said that under Kılıçdaroğlu’s leadership, Turkey would be willing to continue to act as a mediator and extend the grain deal, but would place more stress on Ankara’s status as a NATO member.

    “We will simply emphasize the fact that Turkey is a member of NATO, and in our discussions with Russia, we will certainly look for a relationship among equals, but we will also remind Russia that Turkey is a member of NATO,” he said.

    Turkey’s relationship with Russia has become very much driven by the relationship between Putin and Erdoğan and this needs to change, Ülgen argued.

    Turkey brokered a U.N. deal that allows Ukrainian grain exports to pass through the blockaded Black Sea | Ozan Kose/AFP via Getty Images

     “No other Turkish leader would have the same type of relationship with Putin, it would be more distant,” he said. “It does not mean that Turkey would align itself with the sanctions; it would not. But nonetheless, the relationship would be more transparent.”

    Syria and migration

    The role of Turkey in Syria is highly dependent on how it can address the issue of Syrians living in Turkey, the opposition says.

    Turkey hosts some 4 million Syrians and many Turks, battling a major cost-of-living crisis, are becoming increasingly hostile. Kılıçdaroğlu has pledged to create opportunities and the conditions for the voluntary return of Syrians.

    “Our approach would be to rehabilitate the Syrian economy and to create the conditions for voluntary returns,” Çeviköz said, adding that this would require an international burden-sharing, but also establishing dialogue with Damascus.

    Erdoğan is also trying to establish a rapprochement with Syria but Syrian President Bashar al-Assad says he will only meet the Turkish president when Ankara is ready to completely withdraw its military from northern Syria.

    “A new Turkish government will be more eager to essentially shake hands with Assad,” said Ülgen. “But this will remain a thorny issue because there will be conditions attached on the side of Syria to this normalization.”

    However, Piccoli from Teneo said voluntary returns of Syrians was “wishful thinking.”

    “These are Syrians who have been living in Turkey for more than 10 years, their children have been going to school in Turkey from day one. So, the pledges of sending them back voluntarily, it is very questionable to what extent they can be implemented.”

    Greece and the East Med

    Turkey has stepped up its aggressive rhetoric against Greece in recent months, with the Erdoğan even warning that a missile could strike Athens.

    But the prompt reaction by the Greek government and the Greek community to the recent devastating earthquakes in Turkey and a visit by the Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias created a new backdrop for bilateral relations.

    A Turkish drill ship before it leaves for gas exploration | Adem Altan/AFP via Getty Images

    Dendias, along with his Turkish counterpart Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, announced that Turkey would vote for Greece in its campaign for a non-permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council for 2025-26 and that Greece would support the Turkish candidacy for the General Secretariat of the International Maritime Organization.

    In another sign of a thaw, Greek Defense Minister Nikos Panagiotopoulos and Migration Minister Notis Mitarachi visited Turkey this month, with Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar saying he hoped that the Mediterranean and Aegean would be a “sea of friendship” between the two countries. Akar said he expected a moratorium with Greece in military and airforce exercises in the Aegean Sea between June 15 and September 15.

    “Both countries are going to have elections, and probably they will have the elections on the same day. So, this will open a new horizon in front of both countries,” Çeviköz said.

    “The rapprochement between Turkey and Greece in their bilateral problems [in the Aegean], will facilitate the coordination in addressing the other problems in the eastern Mediterranean, which is a more multilateral format,” he said. Disputes over maritime borders and energy exploration, for example, are common.

    As far as Cyprus is concerned, Çeviköz said that it is important for Athens and Ankara not to intervene into the domestic politics of Cyprus and the “two peoples on the island should be given an opportunity to look at their problems bilaterally.”

    However, analysts argue that Greece, Cyprus and the EastMed are fundamental for Turkey’s foreign policy and not much will change with another government. The difference will be more one of style.

    “The approach to manage those differences will change very much. So, we will not hear aggressive rhetoric like: ‘We will come over one night,’” said Ülgen. “We’ll go back to a more mature, more diplomatic style of managing differences and disputes.”

    “The NATO framework will be important, and the U.S. would have to do more in terms of re-establishing the sense of balance in the Aegean,” said Aydıntaşbaş. But, she argued, “you just cannot normalize your relations with Europe or the U.S., unless you’re willing to take that step with Greece.”

    [ad_2]

    Nektaria Stamouli

    Source link

  • Brandon Johnson, Progressive Union Organizer, Elected Mayor Of Chicago

    Brandon Johnson, Progressive Union Organizer, Elected Mayor Of Chicago

    [ad_1]

    Overcoming a major fundraising gap, accusations that he would “defund” the police and public polling that predicted his defeat, progressive Brandon Johnson, a Cook County commissioner and organizer for the Chicago Teachers Union, won a hotly contested race for mayor of Chicago, the nation’s third-largest city.

    Johnson, who is a Black leftist and former schoolteacher, defeated former CEO of Chicago Public Schools Paul Vallas, a white technocrat at the conservative edge of the contemporary Democratic coalition.

    Johnson’s victory in one of the starkest ideological proxy battles in the annals of recent municipal politics is a historic achievement for the activist left that is likely to have ripple effects across the county. Its significance for intra-Democratic Party politics is rivaled perhaps only by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s surprise ouster of then-Rep. Joe Crowley in 2018.

    That Johnson prevailed amid an uptick in crime and economic uncertainty that has strengthened the hand of the moderate wing of the Democratic Party in the past three years is that much more remarkable.

    In remarks to supporters on Tuesday night, Johnson extended an olive branch to Vallas’ voters, promising that he would be their mayor, too. But he made it clear that he will not let that slow his efforts to make Chicago a more equitable and livable city.

    “We will not allow the politics of old to turn us around,” Johnson declared.

    “We are building a better, stronger, safer Chicago. We’re doing it together,” he continued. “It’s a multicultural, multi-generational movement that has literally captured the imagination of not just the city of Chicago but the rest of the world.”

    Since the start of the runoff, Vallas raised about $13 million to Johnson’s $7 million. Even that level of cash would not have been possible for Johnson without the support of the Chicago Teachers Union and other labor organizations that were responsible for 90% of the money he raised over the course of the entire campaign.

    Johnson’s candidacy was the culmination of a decade of organizing and political institution-building by the CTU. His win over Vallas, a charter school proponent and outspoken critic of CTU, likewise solidifies a leftward shift in education policy that has gained steam over the same period.

    “CTU’s influence in politics is absolutely crucial to his victory,” said Tom Bowen, a Chicago Democratic consultant who advised Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s unsuccessful reelection campaign.

    Vallas, who was endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, the city’s main police union, hammered Johnson relentlessly for his sympathy for calls to “defund the police” in 2020. Johnson interpreted the slogan as a desire to reallocate funding from law enforcement to social programs that attack the root causes of crime.

    As a mayoral candidate, however, Johnson promised not to cut a dime of police spending and issued dubiously worded denials that he had ever embraced “defund the police” in the first place.

    But unlike Vallas, Johnson did not promise to increase police funding or fill the 1,600-person backlog that the Chicago Police Department faces relative to its 2019 staffing levels.

    He instead proposed redirecting wasteful or unnecessary parts of the police budget to add 200 more detectives to the police force through internal promotion.

    Johnson also ran on raising taxes on businesses and affluent households to fund a host of social programs that he billed as the surest route to lower crime in the long run. Key parts of his agenda include reopening shuttered mental health clinics, doubling the city’s summer jobs program for young people and sparing city taxpayers another property tax hike.

    The son of a Christian preacher from Elgin, Illinois, Johnson employed soaring oratory to appeal to Chicagoans’ compassionate ideals. Anyone paying a moment’s notice to the race knew that Johnson planned to “invest in people.”

    “If we’re going to get a better, stronger, safer Chicago, we have to do what safe American cities do, and they invest in people,” Johnson said in a televised debate against Vallas on March 8.

    That message resonated, including among many older and more moderate Black voters who Vallas courted.

    LaTrell Rush, a resident of the Woodlawn neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side, told HuffPost that her priorities for a mayor would be to “stop the killing” and provide better resources for people with mental illnesses.

    “Paul ― I’m not connecting with his vibes,” Rush said. “With Brandon, my vibes connect.”

    Arjette James-Wallace, a retired emergency medical technician from West Englewood, walked out of the room when Vallas addressed the congregation of New Beginnings Church on March 26. The church’s pastor, Rev. Corey Brooks, had endorsed Vallas, but James-Wallace backed Johnson, whom she described as the “lesser of two evils.”

    James-Wallace liked Johnson’s plan to fund mental health clinics and disliked Vallas’ hysteria about crime, which she said reflected a white racial bias. “When it started affecting people not of color, then they want to put it on the news,” she said.

    Other voters supporting Johnson simply did not believe that he would be able to defund the police, even if he wanted to do so.

    “I don’t think Brandon’s going to do that,” said Ahmed Hattab, an IT specialist living in northwest Chicago’s Belmont-Cragin neighborhood. “It’s not that easy to do.”

    Hattab blamed what he sees as the excesses of the Black Lives Matter movement for making police afraid to do their jobs. But his 17-year-old daughter, Jenin, who accompanied him to the polls, helped convince her father to support Johnson.

    “He’s the kind of person who starts from the bottom,” Hattab said. “And he worked with the schools a lot.”

    Johnson is due to succeed Lightfoot, the city’s first Black woman mayor and first openly gay mayor.

    Paul Vallas, center, celebrates a strong showing in the first round of voting on Feb. 28 that enabled him to proceed to a runoff against Johnson on Tuesday.

    Nam Y. Hu/Associated Press

    Amid unrelenting criticism from the left and right and public outcry over the crime rate, Lightfoot did not survive the first round of Chicago’s instant-runoff elections on Feb. 28.

    Johnson’s rise was likely made possible by a fateful miscalculation that Lightfoot made. The incumbent mayor largely ignored Johnson during the first round, focusing her resources instead on cutting down U.S. Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.), who ultimately came in fourth place.

    In the runoff against Vallas, Johnson consolidated his existing support among largely young and white progressive voters on the city’s North Side while adding to his coalition in the majority-Black precincts on the South and West sides where Lightfoot was dominant in February.

    To achieve the latter, Johnson succeeded in framing the race as a choice between an heir of the Black civil rights movement and a reactionary Republican posing as a “lifelong Democrat.” He enlisted the support of local Black icons like Cook County Board of Commissioners President Toni Preckwinkle and Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., alongside national Black surrogates like Rev. Al Sharpton and House Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.).

    Vallas’ long trail of impolitic comments on conservative talk shows — from his 2009 admission that he was “more of a Republican than a Democrat” to more recent remarks disparaging former President Barack Obama — made Johnson’s job easier. And while Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) stayed out of the race, Vallas’ criticism of Pritzker’s management of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted Pritzker’s team to take a swipe at Vallas.

    Johnson and Vallas are “both candidates who come from their bases, and they’re both candidates that are flawed,” Bowen said. “The winner is the one that essentially covered up those flaws best.”

    As hard as the campaign was for Johnson, the challenges that await him in City Hall are perhaps even more formidable. He stands to inherit the same public safety crisis and fiscal challenges as Lightfoot and possibly face even more political opposition. The Chicago City Council, which is expected to be more moderate than Johnson, recently voted to expand its power vis-a-vis the mayor.

    In addition, the Fraternal Order of Police and major business groups have signaled that they are hostile to Johnson’s agenda.

    Bowen predicted that forces outside of Johnson’s control would force him to disappoint his base and govern more from the middle.

    “An odd thing about Chicago politics is that the extreme left hates you and the extreme right hates you, which just automatically forces you to the center,” he said.

    But some of Johnson’s allies have already indicated that they are aware of the limitations that Johnson will face once in office.

    “People will have everyone else believe that if Brandon becomes mayor, that, magically, generations of underfunding, generations of segregation, generations of an equitable application of school funding is suddenly going to be over,” Stacy Davis Gates, president of the Chicago Teachers Union, told HuffPost in an interview in late March. “That’s not going to happen.”

    In that way, Johnson’s mayoralty is a “starting point” rather than an “endpoint,” she added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Top Democrats Arrested Outside Florida Legislature For Protesting 6-Week Abortion Ban

    Top Democrats Arrested Outside Florida Legislature For Protesting 6-Week Abortion Ban

    [ad_1]

    Eleven people, including some high-profile Democrats, were arrested in Tallahassee on Monday night during a peaceful protest against the proposed six-week abortion ban that is quickly moving through the Florida legislature.

    Among those arrested were state Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book (D) and Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried.

    Protesters were sitting in a circle, singing “Lean On Me” around 8 p.m. Eastern in front of the Tallahassee City Hall building when around 18 police officers descended from City Hall to handcuff and arrest them, according to several activists and lawmakers at the scene.

    The six-week abortion ban passed the Florida Senate on Monday afternoon along party lines, except for two Republicans who voted against the restriction. The Florida House will likely vote on the bill in the next week or two, and the ban would then be on Gov. Ron DeSantis’ (R) desk sometime this month.

    The legislation not only bans abortion at six weeks — a point at which most people don’t realize they’re pregnant — but also bans telehealth for abortion care and allots $25 million annually for deceptive anti-abortion pregnancy centers.

    Officers told protesters they were arrested and detained because the group was trespassing after 8 p.m., Book and several other arrested activists told HuffPost.

    Two police officers told the activists around 5 p.m. that the director of City Hall had closed the building and that the group needed to vacate the area, the advocates said, adding that there was a sign in the park that stated people could be there until sundown. The activists elected to stay, despite the confusion.

    “The Republican legislature seems to be blinded by the power of Gov. DeSantis and his ambitions to run for president,” Fried told HuffPost. “They’re passing one of the most restrictive bans in the entire country on the backs of the women of our state so he can run for president. And we just weren’t going to take it.”

    “What’s happening here in Florida isn’t going to stay in Florida.”

    – Kate Danehy-Samitz, founder of Women’s Voices for Southwest Florida

    Book has loudly supported abortion care in Florida, giving an impassioned speech against the state’s 15-week abortion ban before it passed last session and again on Monday before the six-week ban passed the state Senate.

    “I feel a deep sense of responsibility to stand up as the Democratic leader in the Florida Senate who was responsible, quite frankly, for the Senate races that we lost,” she told HuffPost. “Coming back in a superminority … I feel like I had a job to do and it didn’t get done, and so I have to do everything — give up everything that I have — to make sure that women and girls are kept safe.”

    The group was booked and detained until around 2:30 a.m. on Tuesday morning. Fried and Book told HuffPost they were released together around midnight.

    State Rep. Anna Eskamani (D) was at the jail to help the activists get released. Democratic state Sens. Lori Berman, Jason Pizzo and Linda Stewart were also at the jail working to get all 11 people released.

    “Those who are expressing a First Amendment right in opposition to [the six-week abortion ban] have every right to do so. It was unacceptable that they were arrested for peacefully protesting,” Eskamani, who worked at Planned Parenthood for six years before joining the Florida House, told HuffPost.

    “This is just another indication that Florida is where freedom goes to die,” she added.

    The six-week ban is expected to pass, but will not go into effect until the Florida Supreme Court rules on a challenge to the state’s current 15-week ban on abortion.

    Florida Democratic Chair Nikki Fried is arrested by Tallahassee police outside of City Hall on April 3, 2023.

    Alicia Devine/Tallahassee Democrat via AP

    Sarah Parker, president of Women’s Voices of Southwest Florida, was another one of the activists arrested Monday night.

    “If you are considering arresting us, know that these are mothers. We have children to go home to, including myself,” Parker recalled telling one of the police officers earlier in the day. Six of the 11 arrested were from Women’s Voices of Southwest Florida, one of the main groups behind demonstrations on Monday.

    Pro-choice activists from a coalition of groups showed up at the state Capitol building early Monday morning to protest ahead of the full Senate vote on the legislation. Several activists interrupted the floor vote from the galley, shouting pro-choice statements while anti-choice lawmakers spoke.

    “Maternal mortality rates are three times higher in states that banned abortion post-Dobbs,” Kat Duesterhaus, the communications director at Florida National Organization for Women, yelled from the gallery before being escorted out.

    “Don’t like abortion? Just ignore them, like you do with the 400,000 children in foster care,” another protester shouted. The interruptions caused state Senate President Kathleen Passidomo (R) to clear the public from the gallery before the full vote took place.

    The day of demonstrations was organized by Occupy Tallahassee, a coalition of groups that included Women’s Voices of Southwest Florida, Florida NOW, the League of Women Voters, Indivisible Pro-Choice Pinellas and Planned Parenthood’s Bans Off Our Bodies.

    Kate Danehy-Samitz, founder of Women’s Voices for Southwest Florida and one of the protesters detained, issued a warning to the rest of the country.

    “What’s happening here in Florida isn’t going to stay in Florida,” they told HuffPost. “What Ron DeSantis is doing is using Florida as a stepping stool, as a playbook, for his plans for America. And that’s not an America we can live in. That’s not a free country.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Brussels to Berlin: We’ll find a way to save the car engine

    Brussels to Berlin: We’ll find a way to save the car engine

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    On the future of the internal combustion engine, Germany has gotten its own way, again.

    The European Commission and Germany’s Transport Ministry announced a deal Saturday morning that commits the EU executive to figuring out a legal way to allow the sale of new engine-installed cars running exclusively on synthetic e-fuels even after a mandate comes into force requiring sales of only zero-emission vehicles from 2035.

    “We have found an agreement with Germany on the future use of e-fuels in cars,” the Commission’s Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans said on Twitter. “We will work now on getting the CO2 standards for cars regulation adopted as soon as possible.”

    The deal heads off a row over car legislation that was all-but-agreed until Germany, along with a small club of allies, slammed on the brakes just days before formal final approval on a law that is the centerpiece of the EU’s green agenda.

    Timmermans said the Commission would “follow up swiftly” with “legal steps” to turn a non-binding annex to the law, introduced originally at the insistence of Europe’s car-making titan Germany, into a concrete workaround allowing new vehicles running on e-fuels, which do emit some CO2, to be sold post-2035.

    As a first step, the Commission has agreed to carve out a new category of e-fuel-only vehicles inside the existing Euro 6 automotive rulebook and then integrate that classification into the contentious CO2 standards legislation that mandates the 2035 phase-out date for sales of new combustion-engine vehicles.

    The terms of the final deal from Timmermans’ cabinet chief Diederik Samsom, seen by POLITICO, say the Commission will reopen the text of the engine-ban law if EU lawmakers manage to stop the introduction of a technical annex that would make space for e-fuels alongside the agreed CO2 standards. Reopening the proposed law’s text is a move that is fundamentally opposed by the European Parliament and green-minded countries.

    The crux of the standoff was that Germany demanded binding legal language that would ensure the Commission would find a way to satisfy Berlin’s demands even if the European Parliament, or the courts, moved to block any tweaks or legal annexes to the 2035 zero-emissions legislation covering cars and vans.

    In the statement, Samsom promised the Commission will publish its full e-fuels proposal as a so-called delegated act this fall. In practice, that means the original 2035 legislation will pass at first — offering the European Commission a critical win — but it sets up a future fight over the technical additions needed to satisfy Berlin.

    “The law that 100 percent of cars sold after 2035 must be zero emissions will be voted unchanged by next Tuesday,” said Pascal Canfin, the French liberal lawmaker spearheading the file in the assembly. “Parliament will decide in due course on the Commission’s future proposals on e-fuels.”

    Engine endgame

    The deal means energy ministers can sign off on the original 2035 proposal during a meeting on Tuesday given that Berlin now has assurances that its demands will be met. In advance, EU ambassadors will review the bilateral deal between Brussels and Berlin on Monday, an EU diplomat said.

    The agreement caps a decade of German pushback on EU automotive emissions rule-making.

    In 2013, then-Chancellor Angela Merkel intervened late to water down previous iterations of car emission standards legislation, securing tweaks critical to the country’s hulking automotive industry.

    The deal means Germany has effectively dropped its last-minute opposition to the car engine ban law | Sean Gallup/Getty Images

    Since the Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal, most carmakers have shifted their investments toward electric vehicles, but some industry interests, notably high-end carmakers such as Porsche and Germany’s web of combustion engine component makers, have sought to save traditional gas guzzlers from the clutches of a de facto EU sales ban.

    Figuring out a final workaround on e-fuels in the 2035 legislation will still take some months, given that technical standards haven’t yet been clarified for setting out a “robust and evasion-proof” system for selling cars that can only be fuelled on synthetic alternatives to petrol and diesel, according to Samsom’s statement.

    The timeline is already clear in Berlin’s perspective. “We want the process to be completed by autumn 2024,” said the German Transport Ministry, which is run by the country’s Free Democratic Party. The FDP, the most junior in Germany’s three-way governing coalition, had wanted fixed legal language to guarantee a loophole for e-fuels, which can theoretically be CO2-neutral but which wouldn’t normally comply with the emissions legislation since they do still emit tailpipe pollutants.

    With the FDP’s popularity tumbling, the car policy row with Brussels has been a popular talking point in German media over recent weeks. One survey reports that 67 percent of respondents are against the engine ban legislation. Ahead of national elections in late 2025, the FDP is betting on driver-friendly policies such as e-fuels, new road construction initiatives and a block on the implementation of a national highway speed limit, to raise its profile.

    Market watchers don’t anticipate e-fuels to offer much in the way of a mass-market alternative to electric vehicles, given that they are costly to produce and don’t exist in commercial volumes today. A study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research reports that even if all global e-fuel production was allocated to German consumers, the output would only meet a tenth of national demand in the aviation, maritime and chemical sectors by 2035.

    “E-fuels are an expensive and massively inefficient diversion from the transformation to electric facing Europe’s carmakers,” said Julia Poliscanova from the green group Transport & Environment.

    Auto politics

    Despite not being on the formal agenda, the issue dominated discussions on the sidelines of this week’s summit of EU leaders in Brussels. A deal between Brussels and Berlin was only struck at 9 p.m. on Friday, hours after leaders left the EU capital, before being formally announced on social media early Saturday.

    “The way is clear,” said German Transport Minister Volker Wissing in announcing the agreement. “We have secured opportunities for Europe by keeping important options open for climate-neutral and affordable mobility.”

    The deal means Germany has effectively dropped its last-minute opposition to the car engine ban law, collapsing a blocking minority of Italy, Poland, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic that had put a roadblock in front of final ratification by ministers of the deal reached last October between the three EU institutions. 

    It remains unclear whether Italy’s attempts to find a separate workaround for biofuels — promoted personally by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni at the summit — also succeeded. However, without Berlin’s support, Rome doesn’t have a way to block the legislation.

    German Transport Minister Volker Wissing | Maja Hitij/Getty Images

    Responses to the Commission working up a bespoke fix for its biggest member country on otherwise agreed legislation were generally negative, with many arguing the e-fuels issue is a diversion.

    “The opening for e-fuels does not mean a significant change for the transformation to electric cars,” said Ferdinand Dudenhöffer, a professor at the Center for Automotive Research in Duisburg. He said the Commission’s dealmaking raised “new investment uncertainties” that undermined the bloc’s efforts to catch up with China, the world’s leading producer of electric vehicles.

    Still, most are just happy that the combustion engine row is ended, for now.

    “It is good that this impasse is over,” said German Environment Minister Steffi Lemke, who backed the original 2035 deal without a reference to e-fuels. “Anything else would have severely damaged both confidence in European procedures and in Germany’s reliability inside European politics,” the minister said in a statement.

    [ad_2]

    Joshua Posaner

    Source link

  • Gen Z Takes the Dems

    Gen Z Takes the Dems

    [ad_1]

    Maxwell Frost represents a generational shift in the Democratic Party—one where activism is at the fore.

    [ad_2]

    Abigail Tracy , Chris Murphy

    Source link

  • Pat Schroeder, pioneer for women’s and family rights during long career in U.S. Congress, dies at 82

    Pat Schroeder, pioneer for women’s and family rights during long career in U.S. Congress, dies at 82

    [ad_1]

    Former Rep. Pat Schroeder, pioneer for women’s rights, dies


    Former Rep. Pat Schroeder, pioneer for women’s rights, dies

    00:36

    Washington – Former U.S. Rep. Pat Schroeder, a pioneer for women’s and family rights in Congress, died Monday night. She was 82. Schroeder’s former press secretary, Andrea Camp, said Schroeder suffered a stroke recently and died at a hospital in Celebration, Florida, the city where she had been residing in recent years.

    Schroeder took on the powerful elite with her rapier wit and antics for 24 years, shaking up stodgy government institutions by forcing them to acknowledge that women had a role in government.

    Her unorthodox methods cost her important committee posts, but Schroeder said she wasn’t willing to join what she called “the good old boys’ club” just to score political points. Unafraid of embarrassing her congressional colleagues in public, she became an icon for the feminist movement.

    Obit Schroeder
    U.S. Rep. Pat Schroeder, D-Colo., sits on the porch outside her Capitol Hill headquarters in Denver, July 18, 1994.

    Joe Mahoney/AP


    Schroeder was elected to Congress in Colorado in 1972 and became one of its most influential Democrats as she won easy reelection 11 times from her safe district in Denver. Despite her seniority, she was never appointed to head a committee.

    Colorado Governor Jared Polis said in a statement that he was “deeply saddened by the passing of my friend and mentor,” and he lauded Schroeder for “her wit, her passion, her love for country,” which he said would be “missed not only by those who knew her, but by our whole state and the entire nation.”

    Schroeder helped forge several Democratic majorities before deciding in 1997 it was time to leave. Her parting shot in 1998 was a book titled “24 Years of Housework … and the Place is Still a Mess. My Life in Politics,″ which chronicled her frustration with male domination and the slow pace of change in federal institutions.

    In 1987, Schroeder tested the waters for the presidency, mounting a fundraising drive after fellow Coloradan Gary Hart pulled out of the race. She announced three months later that she would not run and said her “tears signify compassion, not weakness.” Her heart was not in it, she said, and she thought fundraising was demeaning.

    She was the first woman on the House Armed Services Committee but was forced to share a chair with U.S. Rep. Ron Dellums, D-Calif., the first African American, when committee chairman F. Edward Hebert, D-La., organized the panel. Schroeder said Hebert thought the committee was no place for a woman or an African American and they were each worth only half a seat.

    Republicans were livid after Schroeder and others filed an ethics complaint over House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s televised college lecture series, charging that free cable time he received amounted to an illegal gift under House rules. Gingrich became the first speaker reprimanded by Congress. Gingrich said later he regretted not taking Schroeder and her colleagues more seriously.

    Earlier, she had blasted Gingrich for suggesting women shouldn’t serve in combat because they could get infections from being in a ditch for 30 days. According to her official House biography, she once told Pentagon officials that if they were women, they would always be pregnant because they never said “no.″

    Asked by one congressman how she could be a mother of two small children and a member of Congress at the same time, she replied, “I have a brain and a uterus, and I use both.″

    It was Schroeder who branded President Ronald Reagan the “Teflon” president for his ability to avoid blame for major policy decisions, and the name stuck.

    One of Schroeder’s biggest victories was the signing of a family-leave bill in 1993, providing job protection for care of a newborn, a sick child or a parent.

    “Pat Schroeder blazed the trail. Every woman in this house is walking in her footsteps,” said Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., who took over from Schroeder as Democratic chair of the bipartisan congressional caucus on women’s issues.

    Schroeder said legislators spent too much attention on contributors and special interests. When House Republicans gathered on the U.S. Capitol steps to celebrate their first 100 days in power in 1994, she and several aides clambered to the building’s dome and hung a 15-foot red banner reading, “Sold.”

    A pilot, Schroeder earned her way through Harvard Law School with her own flying service. Schroeder became a professor at Princeton University after leaving Congress, but said politics was in her blood and she would continue working for candidates she supported.

    For a while, she taught a graduate-level course titled “The Politics of Poverty.” She also headed the Association of American Publishers.

    Schroeder continued working in politics after moving to Florida, going door to door, speaking to groups and mentoring candidates. She was politically active for issues and candidates across the country and campaigned for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Among other activities she served on the board of the Marguerite Casey Foundation.

    Schroeder was born in Portland, Oregon, on July 30, 1940. She was a pilot who paid for college tuition with her own flying service. She graduated from the University of Minnesota before earning her law degree in 1964. From 1964 to 1966, she was a field attorney for the National Labor Relations Board.

    She is survived by her husband, James W. Schroeder, whom she married in 1962. Also surviving are their two children, Scott and Jamie, and her brother, Mike Scott, as well as four grandchildren.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nancy Pelosi: ‘Follow the Money’

    Nancy Pelosi: ‘Follow the Money’

    [ad_1]

    The former speaker of the House discussed Silicon Valley Bank, January 6 revisionist history, the coming election, and more in a South by Southwest interview focused on money and greed.

    Travis P Ball / Getty for SXSW

    House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi’s message at the annual South by Southwest festival could be summarized in three words: Follow the money.

    Pelosi uttered that specific phrase—and similar versions of it—several times during her interview with Evan Smith, a contributing writer at The Atlantic, as part of the magazine’s Future of Democracy summit this morning in Austin, Texas.

    Pelosi, who represents California’s 11th congressional district, began by discussing the recent collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and the anxiety sweeping through not only her home district but the tech and financial industries as a whole. “I don’t think there’s any appetite in this country for bailing out a bank,” she said. “What we would hope to see by tomorrow morning is for some other bank to buy the bank.” She said there were multiple potential buyers, but she couldn’t reveal their names. Pelosi pointed out that former President Donald Trump had authorized the reduction of certain Dodd-Frank protections that had been instituted following the 2008 financial crash: “If they were still in place and the bank had to honor them, this might have been avoided,” she offered. Rather than repeating our recent history and using taxpayer money to rescue the failed institution, Pelosi said the focus should be on protecting depositors and small businesses at risk of closing or not making payroll. “We do not want contagion,” she said.

    Pelosi pointed to money—the reckless use and exploitation of it—as the root of virtually every problem facing America and the world today. Whether the potential fallout of a failed bank like SVB or the rise of autocracy around the world, it all comes down to money, money, money, and little else. “Money buying Russian oil is paying for the assault on democracy in Ukraine,” Pelosi said. She accused China of “buying” votes from smaller countries at the United Nations, and said the U.S. must join with the European Union “in using the leverage of this big market to have the playing field be more even.”

    Pelosi refused to say Trump’s name even once during her one-hour session, referring to the 45th president instead by “What’s his name” under her breath. Still, she condemned the extremism and anarchy that had overtaken American politics since Trump began his rise nearly eight years ago. Her husband, Paul Pelosi, who was struck in the head with a hammer by a home invader last fall, joined her on today’s trip to Texas, which was unusual, given that he’s still recovering from the attack. “I was the target,” she said. “He paid the price.”

    She spoke of the January 6 insurrection with sadness and disgust—anarchists “making poo-poo on the floor of the Capitol”—and acknowledged the rioters’ goal to put a bullet in her head that day. Her successor, Speaker Kevin McCarthy, recently gave a trove of January 6 material to Fox News in the name of governmental transparency. Fox’s biggest star, Tucker Carlson, downplayed the severity of the Capitol storming in a broadcast last week. “Something must be wrong with Tucker Carlson,” Pelosi said. “There’s money that runs a lot of it.”

    Taking a brief conciliatory note, she said she was hoping “for the best” for McCarthy as he continues his first year as House speaker. “We need to listen, and I hope that Kevin will listen to other than just the very radical, right-wing fringe of his party,” she said, apparently gesturing at Trump and other election deniers. When asked about the prospect of Trump again becoming the GOP nominee in 2024, she was ready with a canned line: “If he is, we impeached him twice, and he’s gonna lose twice.” (Left unsaid was that neither impeachment resulted in Trump’s removal from office.)

    As for President Joe Biden, Pelosi called him a “magnificent leader” and said that she “certainly hopes” he will run again. (She joked that he’s younger than she is.) Nevertheless, Pelosi seemed slightly agitated that Biden had yet to formally declare his candidacy, leaving other potential candidates in the Democratic party with few options. “I think it would be efficient for us to have a president seek reelection, and we should be moving on with it when we can. Whatever decision he makes, we’d like to know.”

    [ad_2]

    John Hendrickson

    Source link

  • The Case for a Primary Challenge to Joe Biden

    The Case for a Primary Challenge to Joe Biden

    [ad_1]

    Joe Biden seems like he’s running again, God love him.

    He will most likely make this official in the next couple of months, and with the support of nearly every elected Democrat in range of a microphone. That is how things are typically done in Washington: The White House shall make you primary-proof. The gods of groupthink have decreed as much.

    Unless some freethinking Democrat comes along and chooses to ignore the groupthink.

    In private, of course, many elected Democrats say Biden is too old to run again and that they wish he’d step away—which aligns with what large majorities of Democrats and independents have been telling pollsters for months. The public silence around the president’s predicament has become tiresome and potentially catastrophic for the Democratic Party. Somebody should make a refreshing nuisance of themselves and involve the voters in this decision.

    Yes, this would be a radical move, and would anger a bunch of Democrats inside the various power terrariums of D.C., starting with the biggest one of all, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. There would be immediate blowback from donors, the Democratic National Committee, and other party institutions. But do it anyway. Preferably before Biden makes his final decision, while there’s an opening. If approached deftly, the gambit could benefit the president, the party, and even the challenger’s own standing, win or lose.

    There has to  be one good Challenger X out there from the party’s supposed “deep bench,” right? Someone who is compelling, formidable, and younger than, say, 65. Someone who is not Marianne Williamson. Someone who would be unfailingly gracious to Biden and reverential of his career—even while trying to end it.

    Before we start tossing out names, let’s establish a big to be sure. To be sure, primaries can be very bad for presidents seeking reelection. There is good reason no incumbent has been subjected to a serious intraparty challenge in more than three decades—not since the Republican Pat Buchanan launched a populist incursion against President George H. W. Bush in 1992. A dozen years earlier, President Jimmy Carter had endured an acrid primary challenge from Senator Edward Kennedy. Both Carter and Bush managed to hold off their challengers, but they came away battered and wound up losing their general elections.

    Biden, however, is a special case, for two reasons. The first concerns the disconnect between how affectionately most Democrats view him versus their desire to move on from him. Recent surveys show that 60 percent of Democrats don’t want Biden to run again. These spigots of cold water in the polls have been accompanied by icy buckets of liberal commentary and chilly assessments from (mostly) anonymous elected Democrats in the press. By contrast, large majorities of Republicans wanted Donald Trump to seek reelection in 2020, and an overwhelming consensus of Democrats wanted Barack Obama to run again in 2012. Same with Republicans and George W. Bush in 2004, and Democrats and Bill Clinton in 1996.

    Why should Biden not enjoy the same coronation? He’s done a good job in the eyes of the people who voted for him in 2020. His party overperformed in the midterms. He seems to be humming along fine—feisty State of the Union here, muscular visit to Ukraine there, and endless jokers to the right. He has achieved important things, has clearly enjoyed the gig, and appears quite eager for more. The difference in Biden’s case, of course, goes directly to the second reason for his special predicament. It begins with an 8.

    Allow me to point out, as if you don’t already know this, that Biden is old. He is 80 now, will be 82 on Inauguration Day 2025, and will hit 86 if he makes it all the way through a second term. He was born during the Roosevelt administration (Franklin, not Teddy, but still).

    The Delaware Corvette has flipped through the odometer a time or two. I’ve pointed this out before, in this publication. The White House did not like that story. But it was true then, and it’s truer now—by eight months, and a lot more Democrats are getting a lot more anxious.

    “This is not a knock on Joe Biden, just a wish for competition,” says Representative Dean Phillips of Minnesota, one of a tiny number of elected Democrats who have expressed on-the-record trepidation about Biden’s plans. Phillips couches the absurdity of this in terms of free enterprise. “In the business world, if the dominant brand in a category had favorability ratings like the current president does, you would see a number of established brands jump into that category,” Phillips told me. “Believe me, there are literally hundreds in Congress who would say the same thing,” he said. “But they simply won’t fucking say a word.”

    Here’s the deal, as Biden would say. No one wants to be accused of messing around with established practices when the alternative—very possibly Donald Trump—is so terrifying. But just as Trump has intimidated so many Republicans into submission, he also has paralyzed Democrats into extreme risk aversion. This has fostered an unhealthy capitulation to musty assumptions. And if you believe groupthink can’t be horribly wrong, I’ve got some weapons of mass destruction to show you in Iraq, not to mention a Black man who will never be elected president and, for that matter, a reality-TV star who won’t either.

    The big riddle is: Who? Let’s assess an (extremely) hypothetical primary field. First, eliminate Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, and any other member of Biden’s administration from consideration. Such an uprising against the boss would represent an irreparably disloyal and unseemly act and simply would not happen. Let’s also eliminate Senator Bernie Sanders from consideration, because been there, done that (twice), and he’s actually Biden’s senior by a year.

    Otherwise, indulge me in a bit of mentioning. Here is a hodgepodge of possible primary nuisances: Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer; Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey; Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut; Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; former Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio; Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York; California Governor Gavin Newsom; Maryland Governor Wes Moore. This is a noncomprehensive list.

    Let’s take the first Challenger X on the list, the newly reelected Whitmer, who, for the record, says she will not be running in 2024, regardless of what Biden does. She declared as much after her double-digit crushing of Republican Tudor Dixon in November. “Gov. Gretchen Whitmer says she is committed to a full second term,” reads the report in Bridge Michigan, the local publication to which she revealed her plans. The article refers to the 46th president as “aging Democratic incumbent Joe Biden.”

    What might it look like if Whitmer did make a run at said “aging Democratic incumbent”? The how dare you types would be unpleasantly aroused. Words like ingrate, disloyal, and opportunist would be hurled in her face. She would be blamed for creating a turbulent situation for the self-styled “party of grown-ups,” and at a time when they can credibly portray Republicans as an irresponsible brigade of nutbags, cranks, and chaos agents. Whitmer would also, implicitly, be accused of not “waiting her turn.” Just as Obama was in 2008, when he opted to skip the line and sought the Democratic nomination, even though the groupthink memo at the time stipulated that it was Hillary Clinton’s turn.

    But perhaps the pushback would not be as rough as Challenger X expected. In all likelihood, it would occur mostly in private or anonymously. Biden would be somewhat obliged to project calm and indifference in public. “The more the merrier,” the president and his surrogates would say through tight smiles. Nobody would benefit from any appearance of resentment.

    Challenger X could earn goodwill by campaigning with class and expressing unrelenting gratitude to Biden. She could simply nod and shrug in response to the various admonitions. Emphasize her own credentials and the grave threat posed by Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, or any other Republican. Say repeatedly that she would do whatever was necessary to help and support the president if primary voters nominated him again.

    For any Challenger X, the main selling point would fall into the general classification of representing “new blood,” a “fresh start,” or some such. These terms would serve as polite stand-ins for the age issue rather than smears about Biden’s mental capacity. Another thematic argument would involve popular American ideals such as “choice” and “freedom.” As in: Democrats deserve a “choice” and should enjoy the “freedom” to vote for someone other than the oldest president in history—the guy well over half of you don’t want to run.

    Challenger X would almost certainly receive tons of press coverage—probably good coverage, too, given that the media are predisposed to favor maverick-y candidates who inject unforeseen conflict into the process. When the voting starts, maybe this upstart would overperform—grabbing 35 percent or so in the early states, say. Maybe they wouldn’t surpass Biden, but could still reap the good coverage, gracefully drop out, and gain an immediate advantage for 2028. Or maybe Biden would take the hint, step away on his own, and let Democrats get on with picking their next class of national leaders. To some degree, the party has been putting this off since Obama was elected.

    Quite obviously, Democrats today have a strong craving for someone other than the sitting president. (Also obvious: That someone is not the current vice president.) Many voters viewed Biden’s candidacy in 2020 as a one-term proposition. He suggested as much. “Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else,” Biden said nearly three years ago at a campaign event in Michigan, where he appeared with Harris, Booker, and Whitmer. “There’s an entire generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. They are the future of this country.”

    Some mischief-maker should give Democrats a path to that future starting now. Voters bought the bridge in 2020. But when does it become a bridge too far?

    [ad_2]

    Mark Leibovich

    Source link

  • Jennifer McClellan Projected To Become Virginia’s First Black Congresswoman

    Jennifer McClellan Projected To Become Virginia’s First Black Congresswoman

    [ad_1]

    Virginia state Sen. Jennifer McClellan (D) was projected to defeat her Republican opponent on Tuesday to become the first Black woman to represent the state in Congress, according to The Associated Press and early vote counts.

    McClellan, 50, led Republican Leon Benjamin by about 40 percentage points on Tuesday during a special election to fill a seat vacated by the death of Rep. Donald McEachin (D). McEachin died of cancer in November, shortly after he was elected to a fourth term in office.

    Her victory, while expected in a blue-leaning district that includes Richmond, is a milestone in Virginia politics. McClellan painted her bid as an honor heavy with responsibility to be the state’s first Black woman to head to Congress, pointing to her family’s experiences in the Jim Crow era. She told The Associated Press that her father and grandfather were required to pay poll taxes and her mother wasn’t able to vote until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    “It’s poetic justice, thinking about what not only my family has been through, but what our country has been through,” McClellan told The Washington Post after her projected victory. “To be the first Black woman from Virginia, which was the birthplace of American democracy but also the birthplace of American slavery.”

    Her victory was hailed by the Virginia Democratic Party.

    “Jennifer McClellan’s history-making victory as the first Black woman to be elected to Congress from Virginia will have ripple effects across the Commonwealth,” Susan Swecker, the chairwoman of the party, said in a statement Tuesday night. “Her leadership will expand upon the outstanding progress and advocacy for which we remember Congressman A. Donald McEachin ― I cannot think of a better way to honor his life and legacy.”

    McClellan has served as a state legislator since 2006, sponsoring many Democratic initiatives, including bills that expanded voting access and abortion rights. She pushed forward a clean energy initiative and has pledged to work toward similar efforts while in Congress.

    Only three Black men have ever represented Virginia in Congress. McClellan will join 29 other Black women now in the House of Representatives.

    “It’s a huge honor, and responsibility, to ensure that I’m not the last,” she told AP.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden faces divided Congress in State of the Union

    Biden faces divided Congress in State of the Union

    [ad_1]

    Biden faces divided Congress in State of the Union – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    President Biden will deliver his State of the Union address Tuesday night and is expected to tout the nation’s economic progress and call for more bipartisan solutions to the nation’s problems. Weijia Jiang has a preview.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DNC passes new primary calendar making South Carolina first and booting Iowa

    DNC passes new primary calendar making South Carolina first and booting Iowa

    [ad_1]

    The Democratic National Committee (DNC) officially passed their new early primary calendar on Saturday, which drastically shakes up the order of states to first cast votes in the presidential nomination process. 

    The plan, which was supported by President Joe Biden, makes South Carolina the first state on the presidential primary calendar on Feb. 3, 2024, followed by New Hampshire and Nevada three days later. The proposal would also move battleground states Georgia and Michigan up in the calendar.

    Iowa, whose caucus has kicked off the process for Democrats since 1972, is now out of the early window according to the DNC. 

    Supporters of the calendar say the changes do a better job of representing minority voters that are the main bloc of voters for the party. In Biden’s December 2022 letter to the Rules & Bylaws Committee (RBC), which handles the primary calendar order, he says “it is time” to update the primary process “for the 21st century.”

    “This calendar does what is long overdue. It expands the number of voices that can be heard, women and diverse communities are at the core of the Democratic party,” DNC Chair Jamie Harrison said. 

    South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Trav Robertson told CBS News earlier this week that South Carolina’s position at first “not only transforms the way we nominate presidents, it transforms South Carolina.”

    But for New Hampshire, Georgia and to an extent Iowa, the DNC’s full passage does not make their dates or place in the primary set in stone. 

    Since 1979, New Hampshire has had a state law in the books about being the first primary in the nation and at least seven days before any other similar election. But it traditionally has held the first primary slot since 1920. 

    In recent weeks, New Hampshire Democrats have been butting heads with the DNC and state Republicans about being unable to change their primary date. 

    Less than a mile away from the DNC’s Winter Meeting in Philadelphia, New Hampshire’s Democratic Party held a press event on Friday to essentially reiterate there is no political will from state Republicans, who control every level of state government, to move their primary date and go after another primary. 

    But while New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley said the party would continue to work with the DNC in “good faith” on their primary date, he and other state party members also signaled very little appetite to find a way to change the date.

    He shot down the possibility of changing the primary to a convention-style event for the nominating process, and talked openly about the consequences they’ll face from the DNC for skipping ahead and holding a primary before South Carolina’s such as losing 2024 convention delegates or preventing Democratic presidential candidates from campaigning in the state. 

    Joanne Dowdell, a DNC committeewoman from New Hampshire, floated another consequence of punishing the state for skipping the line: Mr. Biden could be barred from filing for re-election in the state, which could “provide an opening to an insurgent candidate to rise in the state and potentially win the first presidential primary of 2024, something that no one in this room wants to see.”

    Dowdell added she’s “frustrated” because “Republicans in the state are already weaponizing this proposed calendar and using it to attack Democrats.”

    Mo Elleithee, a DNC RBC member from Washington, D.C., argued that New Hampshire’s place in the new primary calendar is no different than the longstanding Iowa-New Hampshire order.  

    “There’s nothing’s wrong with New Hampshire. I think New Hampshire is great. It’s played an important role. We said keep playing the same important role you have always played. But there’s there are other states that deserve to also have their voices heard early in the process,” he told CBS News earlier this month 

    Georgia Democrats have been trying to move their primary date, but are running into Republican resistance. Republican leaders say the primary has to be on the same day for both parties, and even if Georgia moved up the date, the Republican National Committee could penalize Georgia for doing so. 

    “Our legal team has continuously stated that both party primaries are going to be on the same day and we will not cost anyone any delegates,” said Georgia Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs.

    If the state is unable to comply, they would likely revert back to their primary slot on “Super Tuesday” or the first Tuesday in March of 2024. 

    Iowa, which was kicked out of the window completely, also has a legal snafu ahead of them. Iowa has not yet finalized their primary date, but state codes say they have to hold their primary before any other state. 

    State Republicans, who control the levers of state government, and the Republican National Committee have said they would not change the date. 

    Iowa DNC committeeman Scott Brennan, a member of the Rules & Bylaws Committee, voted against the calendar. 

    “We can pass this calendar, but we will leave here with absolutely nothing settled,” Brennan said at the general session meeting. 

    New Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart said the lack of Democrats, or Mr. Biden, in the state during the 2024 primaries, will allow Iowa “to be flooded with Republican hopefuls sharing their damaging message to every corner of our state.”

    Moving Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as the introduction of Georgia and Michigan, has opened up the window of possibility for other states to see themselves in the process. 

    Democrats from Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan and Nevada sent a letter to the DNC earlier this week calling for a battleground state to be the first-in-the-nation primary, and argued with “the potential return” of former President Donald Trump “or Trumpism to the White House,” first-in-the-nation resources should be allocated to a state that will be competitive in the 2024 general election. 

    The calendar changes could all become just an academic exercise or serve as a trial run for Democratic early primaries without Iowa and New Hampshire. The DNC says they can change the calendar, or at least has the option to, before every presidential cycle. 

    Nevada Democrats, who campaigned in the summer of 2022 to be moved to the first slot, say they’ll be making a play again to go first in 2028.

    “We’re going to do everything we can to make sure we do a really great job in 2024. And we’re going to put everything in place to show that Nevada is important, that our voices are important, that our diversity is important. And we’re going to make a case for that in 2028,” Nevada Democratic Chair Judith Whitmer said. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A Rare Reprieve From the Permanent Presidential Campaign

    A Rare Reprieve From the Permanent Presidential Campaign

    [ad_1]

    Does anyone want to be president?

    Typically, by the time a president delivers the State of the Union address at the start of his third year in office, as Joe Biden will on Tuesday, at least half a dozen rivals are already gunning for his job. When Donald Trump began his annual speech to Congress in 2019, four of the Democrats staring back at him inside the House chamber had already declared their presidential candidacies.

    Not so this year. The only Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) officially trying to oust Biden is the former president he defeated in 2020. Trump announced his third White House run in November and then barely bothered to campaign for the next two months before holding relatively small-scale events in New Hampshire and South Carolina in January. Trump will finally get some company next week, when Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador, plans to kick off her campaign in Charleston. More Republicans could soon jump into the presidential pool. But the 2024 campaign has gotten off to a decidedly slow start, and the first weeks of 2023 have brought a rare reprieve from what has become known—with some derision—as the permanent campaign. This pause is not the result of some collective cease-fire; it’s what happens when you have a former president who lost reelection but still inspires fear in his party, along with a Democratic incumbent—the oldest to ever serve—who is not exactly itching to campaign.

    Even New Hampshire—normally one of the first states to welcome would-be presidents—has been subdued. “Other than Trump, I can’t think of a leading person being here for the last couple of months,” Raymond Buckley, the longtime chair of the state’s Democratic Party, told me. He said he’s used the lull to prioritize party building, “instead of constantly focusing on one Republican senator or governor after another.”

    The same is true in Iowa, that other presidential proving ground with a year-round appetite for stump speeches. “It’s pretty quiet on the western front,” David Oman, a Republican strategist and former co-chair of the Iowa state GOP, told me. As my colleague McKay Coppins recently reported, most of the Republicans who want the party to nominate someone other than Trump are, once again, reluctant to actually do anything about it. Trump’s potential GOP rivals have been similarly shy about taking him on; until Haley put out word about her announcement last week, no one in the emerging field—which could include Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, among others—was willing to be the first target of the barrage of insults and invective Trump would surely hurl their way.

    The momentary quietude has dampened any pressure for Biden to shift back into campaign mode, and he’s in no rush anyway. Tuesday’s State of the Union address will likely yield even more performance reviews than usual, as pundits and viewers alike judge the toll that Biden’s advancing age has taken on his oratory. As for the substance of his speech, White House officials told me Biden will continue the project he began months ago: promoting the accomplishments of his first two years in office, especially his bipartisan infrastructure law and the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act that he signed last summer.

    In the absence of a fully formed GOP presidential field, Biden has been content to use the new House Republican majority as a foil—adopting a strategy that Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama employed after Democrats lost power in Congress during their first terms. Biden has vowed to protect programs such as Medicare and Social Security from GOP budget cuts; refused to negotiate over the debt ceiling (although the White House said last week he’d entertain “separate” conversations on deficit reduction); and eagerly highlighted ill-fated GOP proposals to replace the federal income tax with a 30 percent national sales tax.

    Yet with Speaker Kevin McCarthy seated behind the president on the House rostrum for the first time, Biden is expected to stress conciliation over confrontation. “The president will once again amplify his belief that Democrats and Republicans can work together,” a White House official told me, speaking anonymously to preview a speech that hasn’t been finalized, “as they did in the last two years and as he is committed to doing with this new Congress to get big things done on behalf of the American people.”

    Biden allies expect the president to formally announce his reelection bid sometime after the State of the Union, but they note that could still be months away. Such a wait isn’t unusual for incumbents, who don’t need to introduce themselves to the electorate and generally want to be seen as focused on governing. But no president since Ronald Reagan has faced as much uncertainty about whether he would seek a second term. (Then the oldest president, Reagan was eight years younger in 1983 than the 80-year-old Biden is now.) Outgoing Chief of Staff Ron Klain pointedly referenced a reelection bid as he departed the White House last week, telling Biden he looked forward to supporting him “when you run for president in 2024.” But other White House officials routinely affix the qualifier “if he runs” to discussions about a potential campaign, suggesting it remains less than a sure thing.

    Aiding Biden is the fact that no Democrats of note (besides Marianne Williamson) have made any moves to challenge him for the nomination, and the president’s allies are operating under the assumption that he will have the field to himself. “I would be shocked at this point if this becomes a competitive primary,” Amanda Loveday, a senior adviser to the pro-Biden super PAC Unite the Country, told me.

    The bigger question is how many Republicans will challenge Biden knowing they’ll have to get through Trump first—and when they’ll see fit to jump in. GOP officials told me they expect Haley’s announcement to prompt others to enter the race soon. But Trump clearly froze the field for a while. All through 2021 and most of 2022, Buckley told me, “rarely a week went by without a major visit” to New Hampshire from a White House aspirant. “It all came to a grinding halt once Trump announced,” he said. Jeff Kaufmann, the Republican Party chair in Iowa, told me that the first months of 2021—the brief period after January 6 when Trump’s political future was in doubt—were busier for GOP hopefuls than this past January, just a year before the caucuses.

    For most of American history, the observation that barely anyone was campaigning more than a year and a half before the election would be entirely unremarkable. Only in this century has a two-year campaign for a four-year term in the White House become the norm. (As recently as 1992, the governor of a small southern state declared his candidacy only 14 months before the election, and he did just fine.)

    For most of the country, this respite from presidential politics is probably welcome, especially for voters who were inundated with nonstop campaign ads leading up to the midterm election. The view is a bit different, however, in Iowa and New Hampshire, where the quadrennial pilgrimage of politicos brings welcome attention and a sizable economic boost. Republicans in both states want to ensure that the GOP does not follow the Democrats in trying to leave them behind. Kaufmann told me he wasn’t worried; Senator Tim Scott would be coming out to Iowa in a few weeks, and others were calling to schedule events, perhaps preparing their launches. By March, he assured me, all would be back to normal. This extended presidential halftime will be over, and America’s never-ending campaign will resume in full.

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • McCarthy says he looks forward to meeting with Biden, as debt ceiling debate continues

    McCarthy says he looks forward to meeting with Biden, as debt ceiling debate continues

    [ad_1]

    Biden, McCarthy to have debt limit meeting


    Biden to meet with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to discuss debt ceiling standoff

    04:38

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy tweeted Friday that he has an accepted an invitation from President Biden to meet and discuss, among other things, a solution to addressing the debt ceiling. 

    The White House has previously said there would be no negotiations with Republicans on the debt ceiling, that there must be a clean increase to the debt limit, that is, without conditions attached. Still, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a briefing Friday that the president “is looking forward to meeting with Speaker McCarthy” about topics including the debt ceiling. 

    “President Biden: I accept your invitation to sit down and discuss a responsible debt ceiling increase to address irresponsible government spending,” McCarthy tweeted Friday afternoon. “I look forward to our meeting.”

    Later Friday, Jean-Pierre issued a statement emphasizing that no date has yet been set for a meeting.

    “President Biden looks forward to meeting with Speaker McCarthy to discuss a range of issues, as part of a series of meetings with all new congressional leaders to start the year,” Jean-Pierre said. “Like the president has said many times, raising the debt ceiling is not a negotiation; it is an obligation of this country and its leaders to avoid economic chaos. Congress has always done it, and the president expects them to do their duty once again. That is not negotiable.”

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announced the country reached its borrowing limit on Thursday, and estimated the federal government can use “extraordinary measures” to avoid a crippling credit default until about June. 

    Many Republicans like McCarthy want an agreement on lowering federal spending before supporting a debt limit increase. Congress suspended the debt ceiling three times under former President Trump. 

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said this week he believes the debt ceiling will have to be addressed in the first half of this year. 

    Mr. Biden was former President Barack Obama’s chief emissary during negotiations on the debt ceiling in 2011. Ultimately, Congress and the White House reached a deal and increased the debt ceiling in August of that year. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Barbara Lee Tells Congressional Colleagues She Plans To Run For Senate

    Barbara Lee Tells Congressional Colleagues She Plans To Run For Senate

    [ad_1]

    Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) told her colleagues on Wednesday she intends to run for Senate, a source familiar with the discussions told HuffPost.

    Politico first reported that the representative mentioned her plans to run for Senate in 2024 during a closed-door meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus. Lee said she is waiting to make a formal announcement about her candidacy out of respect for Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has yet to say if she’ll run for a sixth term, and the ongoing storms and resulting floods currently plaguing California.

    “Right now, in respect to [Sen.] Dianne Feinstein and the floods and what I’m doing, I’m doing my work. And we’ll let them know when I intend to go to the next step. But now’s the time not to talk about that,” she told Politico.

    Lee intends to make an official announcement “when it’s appropriate,” but has already spoken to Feinstein about her intention to run, The Washington Post reports.

    News of Lee’s plans to run for Senate emerged a day after Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif) announced her candidacy. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has also hinted at a run. Meanwhile, Feinstein said Tuesday that “everyone is of course welcome to throw their hat in the ring” and that she’d make an announcement about her electoral future “at the appropriate time.”

    Lee represents Oakland and Berkeley and has served in the House of Representatives for over two decades. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) reportedly considered Lee to replace Kamala Harris in the Senate in 2020 but opted for California elections chief Alex Padilla instead.

    HuffPost’s Igor Bobic contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rep. George Santos refuses to resign amid GOP criticism

    Rep. George Santos refuses to resign amid GOP criticism

    [ad_1]

    Rep. George Santos refuses to resign amid GOP criticism – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Republican Congressman George Santos says he will not heed the growing calls from both sides of the aisle to resign. CBS News congressional correspondent Scott MacFarlane joined “Red and Blue” to discuss the latest reactions from lawmakers, including a growing number of Republicans.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Europe turns on TikTok

    Europe turns on TikTok

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    In the United States, TikTok is a favorite punching ball for lawmakers who’ve compared the Chinese-owned app to “digital fentanyl” and say it should be banned.

    Now that hostility is spreading to Europe, where fears about children’s safety and reports that TikTok spied on journalists using their IP locations are fueling a backlash against the video-sharing app used by more than 250 million Europeans.

    As TikTok Chief Executive Shou Zi Chew heads to Brussels on Tuesday to meet with top digital policymaker Margrethe Vestager amid a wider reappraisal of EU ties with China, his company faces a slew of legal, regulatory and security challenges in the bloc — as well as a rising din of public criticism.

    One of the loudest critics is French President Emmanuel Macron, who has called TikTok “deceptively innocent” and a cause of “real addiction” among users, as well as a source of Russian disinformation. Such comments have gone hand-in-hand with aggressive media coverage in France, including Le Parisien daily’s December 29 front page calling TikTok “A real danger for the brains of our children.”

    New restrictions may be in order. During a trip to the United States in November, Macron told a group of American investors and French tech CEOs that he wanted to regulate TikTok, according to two people in the room. TikTok denies it is harmful and says it has measures to protect kids on the app.

    While it wasn’t clear what rules Macron was referring to — his office declined to comment — the remarks added to a darkening tableau for TikTok. In addition to two EU-wide privacy probes that are set to wrap up in coming months, TikTok has to contend with extensive new requirements on content moderation under the bloc’s new digital rulebook, the DSA, from mid-2023 — as well as the possibility of being caught up in the bloc’s new digital competition rulebook, the Digital Markets Act.

    In answers to emailed questions, France’s digital minister Jean-Noel Barrot said that France would rely on the DSA and DMA to regulate TikTok at an EU level, though he “remained vigilant on these ever-evolving models” of ad-supported social media. Barrot added that he “never failed to maintain a level of pressure appropriate to the stakes of the DSA” in meetings with TikTok executives.

    Ahead of Chew’s visit to Brussels, Thierry Breton, the bloc’s internal market commissioner, warned him about the need to “respect the integrality of our rules,” according to comments the commissioner made in Spain, reported by Reuters. A spokesperson for Vestager said she aimed to “review how the company was preparing for complying with its (possible) obligations under our regulation.”

    That said, the probes TikTok is facing deal with suspected violations that have already taken place. If Ireland’s data regulator, which leads investigations on behalf of other EU states, finds that TikTok has broken the bloc’s privacy rulebook, the General Data Protection Regulation, fines could amount to up to 4 percent of the firm’s global turnover. Penalties can be even higher under the DSA, which starts applying to big platforms in mid-2023.

    Spying fears

    And yet, having to fork over a few million euros could be the least of TikTok’s troubles in Europe, as some lawmakers here are following their U.S. peers to call for much tougher restrictions on the app amid fears that data from TikTok will be used for spying.

    TikTok is under investigation for sending data on EU users to China — one of two probes being led by Ireland. Reports that TikTok employees in China used TikTok data to track the movements of two Western journalists only intensified spying fears, especially in privacy-conscious Germany. (TikTok acknowledged the incident and fired four employees over what they said was unauthorized access to user data.)

    One of the loudest critics is French President Emmanuel Macron, who has called TikTok “deceptively innocent” and a cause of “real addiction” among users | Pool photo by Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images

    Citing a “lack of data security and data protection” as well as data transfers to China, the digital policy spokesman for Germany’s Social Democratic Party group in the Bundestag said that the U.S. ban on TikTok for federal employees’ phones was “understandable.”

    “I think it makes sense to also critically examine applications such as TikTok and, if necessary, to take measures. I would therefore advise civil servants, but also every citizen, not to install untrustworthy services and apps on their smartphones,” Jens Zimmermann added.

    Maximilian Funke-Kaiser, digital policy spokesman for the liberal FDP group in German parliament, went even further raising the prospect of a full ban on use of TikTok on government phones. “In view of the privacy and security risks posed by the app and the app’s far-reaching access rights, I consider the ban on TikTok on the work phones of U.S. government officials to be appropriate. Corresponding steps should also be examined in Germany.”

    For Moritz Körner, a centrist lawmaker in European Parliament, the potential risks linked to TikTok are far greater than with Twitter due to the former’s larger user base — at least five times as many users as Twitter in Europe — and the fact that up to a third of its users are aged 13-19. 

    “The China-app TikTok should be under the special surveillance of the European authorities,” he wrote in an email. “The fight between autocratic and democratic systems will also be fought via digital platforms. Europe has to wake up.”

    In Switzerland, lawmakers called earlier this month for a ban on officials’ phones.

    Call for a ban

    So far, though, no European government or public body has followed the U.S. in banning TikTok usage on officials’ phones. In response to questions from POLITICO, a spokesperson for the European Commission — which previously advised its employees against using Meta’s WhatsApp — wrote that any restriction on TikTok usage for EU civil servants would “require a political decision and will be based on the careful assessment of data protection cybersecurity concerns, and others.”

    The spokesperson also pointed out that “there are no official Commission accounts” on TikTok.

    A spokesperson for the European Parliament said its services “continuously monitor” for cybersecurity issues, but that “due to the nature of security matters, we don’t comment further on specific platforms.”

    POLITICO reached out to cybersecurity agencies for the EU, the U.K. and Germany to ask if they had or were planning any restrictions or recommendations having to do with TikTok. None flagged any specific restrictions, which doesn’t mean there aren’t any. In Germany, for example, officials who use iPhones can’t use or download TikTok in the section of their phone where confidential data can be accessed.

    The European Commission has previously advised its employees against using Meta’s WhatsApp | Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP via Getty Images

    For Hamburg’s data protection agency, one of 16 in Germany’s federal system, restricting TikTok on official phones would be a good idea.

    “Based on what we know from the available sources, we share, among other things, the concerns of the U.S. government that you mentioned and would therefore welcome it appropriate for government agencies in the EU to refrain from using TikTok,” a spokesperson said.

    This suggests that the most immediate public threat for TikTok in Europe is privacy-related. Of the two probes being conducted by Ireland’s privacy regulator, the one looking into child safety on the app is the closest to wrapping up, according to a spokesperson for the Irish Data Protection Commission.

    Depending on the outcome of discussions between EU privacy regulators — the child safety probe is likely to trigger a dispute resolution mechanism — TikTok could face new requirements to verify age in the EU. The other probe, looking into TikTok’s transfers of data to China, is likely to wrap up around mid-year or toward the end of 2023 if a dispute is triggered, the spokesperson said.

    Antoaneta Roussi contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Nicholas Vinocur, Clothilde Goujard, Océane Herrero and Louis Westendarp

    Source link