ReportWire

Tag: elections and campaigns

  • Photos: 2022 US midterm elections | CNN Politics

    Photos: 2022 US midterm elections | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    The midterm elections on Tuesday will decide which party controls the chambers of Congress for the next two years.

    Democrats are playing defense in blue-state strongholds such as New York, Washington and Oregon as they aim to hold on to the House of Representatives. Republicans only need a net gain of five seats to win back control of the House.

    A handful of swing state showdowns will decide the destiny of the Senate, which is currently split 50-50. Some of the key Senate races to watch are in Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and Pennsylvania.

    A Republican triumph in either the House or the Senate has the potential to curtail Joe Biden’s presidency and set up an acrimonious two years of political standoffs ahead of the 2024 race for the White House.

    Dozens of governorships, secretaries of states and attorneys general are also on the ballot.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Donald Trump just sent Ron DeSantis a 2024 warning shot | CNN Politics

    Donald Trump just sent Ron DeSantis a 2024 warning shot | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    On the day of the 2022 general election, Donald Trump sent a very clear 2024 message to Ron DeSantis: Stay out of the race or else.

    “I would tell you things about him that won’t be very flattering – I know more about him than anybody – other than, perhaps, his wife,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News Digital.

    (Trump, a Florida resident, did say Tuesday that he had voted for DeSantis for another term as governor.)

    Trump’s rhetoric is the most open threat he has made against DeSantis in recent weeks. At a rally in Pennsylvania over the weekend, Trump referred to DeSantis as “Ron DeSanctimonious.”

    That nickname came less than a month after Trump called it a “BIG MISTAKE” when DeSantis endorsed Colorado Republican Senate nominee Joe O’Dea. O’Dea had previously told CNN’s Dana Bash that he would “actively” oppose the former president if he ran for the White House in 2024.

    And it comes after Trump has repeatedly insisted that DeSantis would be unwise to run against him. “If I faced him, I’d beat him like I would beat everyone else,” Trump told Yahoo Finance in October of last year of DeSantis. “I think most people would drop out, I think he would drop out.”

    That may be a bit of wishful thinking by Trump.

    DeSantis appears to be on the verge of a victory Tuesday over former Gov. Charlie Crist, a win that could serve as a springboard for a 2024 bid. As Politico has noted, DeSantis raised $200 million – a staggering sum – for his reelection race and had $90 million left in the bank.

    He has also avoided bowing and scraping to Trump as so many other elected Republican officials have done. DeSantis did not even seek Trump’s endorsement in his 2022 campaign.

    Trump has routinely said that he effectively created DeSantis by endorsing him in the 2018 Republican gubernatorial primary. He repeated that claim on Tuesday in an interview with NewsNation.

    “He was not going to be able to even be a factor in the race, and as soon as I endorsed him, within moments the race was over,” Trump said. “I got him the nomination. He didn’t get it, I got it. Because the minute I made that endorsement, he got it. I thought that he could have been more gracious, but that’s up to him.”

    There’s no question that Trump’s endorsement helped DeSantis, who was, at the time, a relatively unknown member of Congress. But since then, DeSantis has emerged as a force all his own. He was openly skeptical of shutdowns triggered by Covid-19. He has positioned himself as perhaps the most vocal opponent in the country of the teaching of critical race theory and other allegedly “woke” policies.

    Most polling done on the 2024 GOP primary race shows Trump comfortably ahead. But DeSantis often garners double-digit support – usually the only other Republican contender to do so.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How to follow election night in America | CNN Politics

    How to follow election night in America | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    It’s Election Day in America. Voters are deciding on crucial contests across the country that will determine who controls Congress and state governments, as they cast their ballot for the US Senate, the US House of Representatives and other down ballot races, including for secretary of state and attorney general. Voters will also have the chance to weigh in on dozens of statewide ballot measures.

    Here’s everything you need to know about when polls close and how to watch CNN’s special coverage.

    CNN’s Election Night in America Special Coverage will stream live starting at 9 a.m. ET on Tuesday, November 8, through midnight ET on Thursday, November 10, without requiring a cable log-in via CNN.com and CNN OTT and mobile apps under “TV Channels,” or CNNgo where available.

    You can follow along with results on CNN.com and with our live updates. CNN’s decision desk will be monitoring results and will make projections accordingly.

    CNN has numerous election-related resources available to readers:

    The last polls close at 6 p.m. ET in:

    • Indiana’s 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th Congressional Districts and Kentucky’s 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Congressional districts. Polls for the remaining House districts and all statewide races in Indiana and Kentucky close at 7 p.m. ET.

    The last polls close at 7 p.m. ET in:

    • Georgia
    • Indiana
    • Kentucky
    • South Carolina
    • Vermont
    • Virginia
    • Note: In Florida’s 3rd through 27th Congressional Districts, the polls close at 7 p.m. All other races in Florida close at 8 p.m. ET.

    The last polls close at 7:30 p.m. ET in:

    • North Carolina
    • Ohio
    • West Virginia

    The last polls close at 8 p.m. ET in:

    • Alabama
    • Connecticut
    • Delaware
    • Florida
    • Illinois
    • Maine
    • Maryland
    • Massachusetts
    • Mississippi
    • Missouri
    • New Hampshire
    • New Jersey
    • Oklahoma
    • Pennsylvania
    • Rhode Island
    • Tennessee
    • Note: Polls in the following House districts close at 8 p.m. ET: Kansas’ 2nd, 3rd and 4th Congressional Districts; Michigan’s 2nd through 13th; Texas’ 1st through 15th, 17th through 22nd and 24th through 38th. Polls for the remaining House districts and all statewide races in these states close at 9 p.m. ET.

    The last polls close at 8:30 p.m. ET in:

    The last polls close at 9 p.m. ET in:

    • Arizona
    • Colorado
    • Iowa
    • Kansas
    • Louisiana
    • Michigan
    • Minnesota
    • Nebraska
    • New Mexico
    • New York
    • North Dakota
    • South Dakota
    • Texas
    • Wisconsin
    • Wyoming

    The last polls close at 10 p.m. ET in:

    • Montana
    • Nevada
    • Utah
    • Note: In Idaho’s 2nd congressional district, the polls close at 10 p.m. ET. All other races in Idaho close at 11 p.m. ET.

    The last polls close at 11 p.m. ET in:

    • California
    • Idaho
    • Oregon
    • Washington

    The last polls close at 12 a.m. ET in:

    The last polls close at 1 a.m. ET in:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What midterm elections could mean for the US economy | CNN Business

    What midterm elections could mean for the US economy | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story first appeared in CNN Business’ Before the Bell newsletter. Not a subscriber? You can sign up right here. You can listen to an audio version of the newsletter by clicking the same link.


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    Tuesday’s midterm elections come at a time of economic vulnerability for the United States. Recession predictions have largely turned to “when” not “if” and inflation remains stubbornly elevated. Americans are feeling the pain of rising interest rates and are facing a winter filled with geopolitical tension.

    The results of Tuesday’s election will determine the makeup of a Congressional body that holds the potential to enact policies that will fundamentally change the fiscal landscape.

    Here’s a look at what policy issues investors will pay particular attention to as they digest election results.

    Tax changes: Last week, President Joe Biden suggested he may impose a windfall tax on Big Oil companies after they recorded record profits on high gas prices. Republicans would be less likely to approve that windfall tax on oil company profits and also are generally not in favor of tax hikes on the wealthy, reports my colleague Paul R. La Monica.

    “What do midterms mean for the markets? If Republicans get the House, tax hikes are dead in the water,” said David Wagner, a portfolio manager with Aptus Capital Advisors.

    What about tax cuts? If Republicans do take control of Congress, it would be difficult to enact any major tax reductions without some backing from Democrats or President Biden, meaning there could be grandstanding without much action.

    Debt limit: The federal debt ceiling was last lifted in December 2021 and will likely be hit by the Treasury at some point next year. That means it will need to be raised again in order to ensure that America can borrow the money it needs to run its government and ensure the smooth operation of the market for US Treasuries, totaling roughly $24 trillion.

    A fight seems to be brewing between Democrats and Republicans. House Republicans indicate that they may ask for steep spending cuts in exchange for boosting the ceiling.

    If the government ends up divided and brinkmanship continues, there could be bad news for markets. The last time such gridlock occurred, under the Obama administration in 2011, the United States lost its perfect AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor and stocks dropped more than 5%.

    Spending: Democrats have indicated that they intend to focus on parts of the fiscal agenda proposed by President Biden in 2021 that have not yet become law, including expanding health coverage and child care tax credits. A Republican win or gridlock could table that. Goldman Sachs economists also note that a Democratic victory could likely increase the federal fiscal response in the event of recession, while Republicans would be more likely to avoid costly relief packages.

    Social Security: Popular programs like Social Security and Medicare face solvency issues long-term and the topic has become a hot-button issue on both sides of the aisle. The topic is so closely watched that even debating changes could impact consumer confidence, say analysts.

    Democratic Senator Joe Manchin said last week that spending changes must be made to shore up Social Security and other programs which he said were “going bankrupt.” He said at a Fortune CEO conference that he was in favor of bipartisan legislation within the next two years to confront entitlement programs that are facing “tremendous problems.” Republican Senator Rick Scott has proposed subjecting almost all federal spending programs to a renewal vote every five years. Analysts say that could make Social Security and Medicare more vulnerable to cuts.

    The Federal Reserve: Lawmakers have been increasingly speaking out against the pace of the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes meant to fight inflation. Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren, alongside Banking Chair Sherrod Brown, John Hickenlooper and others have called on Fed Chair Jerome Powell to slow the pace of hikes.

    Now, Republicans are getting involved. Senator Pat Toomey, the top Republican on the Banking Committee, asked Powell last week to resist buying government debt if market conditions remain subdued. Expect more scrutiny from both parties after the elections.

    The stock market under President Biden started with a boom, but as we head into midterm elections, markets are going bust, reports my colleague Matt Egan.

    As of Monday, the S&P 500 has fallen by 1.2% since Biden took office in January 2021. That marks the second-worst performance during a president’s first 656 calendar days in office since former President Jimmy Carter, according to CFRA Research.

    Out of the 13 presidents since 1953, Biden ranks ninth in terms of stock market performance through this point in office, besting only former Presidents George W. Bush (-32.8%), Carter (-8.9%), Richard Nixon (-17.2%) and John F. Kennedy (-2.1%), according to CFRA.

    By contrast, Biden’s two immediate predecessors headed into their first midterm election with stock markets surging. The S&P 500 climbed 52.2% during the first 656 calendar days in office for former President Barack Obama and 23.9% under former President Donald Trump, according to CFRA.

    American consumers borrowed another $25 billion in September, according to newly released Federal Reserve data, as higher costs led to further dependence on credit cards and other loans, reports my colleague Alicia Wallace.

    In normal economic times, that would be a concerningly large jump, said Matthew Schulz, chief credit analyst for LendingTree, wrote in a tweet. “However, it is actually the second-smallest increase in the past year.” Economists were anticipating monthly growth of $30 billion, according to Refinitiv consensus estimates.

    The data is not adjusted for inflation, which is at decade highs and weighing heavily on Americans, outpacing wage gains and forcing consumers to rely more heavily on credit cards and their savings.

    In the second quarter of this year, credit card balances saw their largest year-over-year increases in more than two decades, according to separate data from the New York Federal Reserve. The third-quarter household debt and credit report is set to be released Nov. 15.

    Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated the number of calendar days in the analysis as well as the stock market performance under various US presidents during that period.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Twitter could be a new wild card for the midterms | CNN Business

    Twitter could be a new wild card for the midterms | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN Business
     — 

    For years, Twitter has been a leader in countering misinformation and protecting elections. It was often ahead of its peers in creating and enforcing new policies, and it was the first major platform to ban former President Donald Trump after the Capitol insurrection, pushing others to follow suit.

    But concerns are growing that tumult inside Twitter in the first week after it was acquired by Elon Musk could weaken its safeguards for elections, just before the midterms are set to take place.

    Musk’s Twitter laid off thousands of employees across the company last week, including cuts to its public policy and trust and safety teams, and extensive cuts to its curation team, which helps elevate reliable information on the platform about elections and other news events. The chaos was only amplified over the weekend as Twitter first appeared to roll out, and then postponed, a controversial plan allowing any user to pay to be verified — a proposal critics had said would cause confusion during the midterms about which accounts and tweets users could trust.

    Musk promised not to alter any of Twitter’s content policies until after the midterms. But the changes he has already made to the company have left it weakened and vulnerable, said Paul Barrett, deputy director of New York University’s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights.

    “The Musk-induced Category 5 hurricane at Twitter has the potential to disrupt the midterms,” Barrett said, “because large numbers of Twitter employees who otherwise would be paying attention to misuse of the platform have already been fired, are worrying that they’re next on the chopping block, or are distracted by the plight of co-workers being ushered out the door.”

    The threats Twitter could face on Election Day and its aftermath include known risks, such as misleading claims of election fraud, attempts at voter intimidation or violent rhetoric, Barrett said. But the disarray at Twitter also means the company will be even less equipped to identify and counter novel manipulation tactics for which there is no playbook, he added.

    US officials overseeing the election say there is so far no evidence of any specific or credible threats to election infrastructure, but made clear private platforms such as Twitter are on their own, and responsible for managing any misinformation that may appear on their sites.

    “We don’t flag anything to platforms around misinformation, disinformation,” Jen Easterly, director of the US government’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), told CNN Saturday evening. “That is entirely up to those platforms — Twitter, social media — based on their terms of service and how they enforce it.”

    Twitter has said it’s still committed to protecting elections and that the job cuts last week — which struck half of the company’s workforce — were less extensive in its trust and safety team, where about 15% of workers were let go. (Twitter didn’t respond to a request for comment for this story, and attempts to reach one company spokesperson resulted in an email bounceback message that implied Twitter’s communications team was also affected by the layoffs.)

    But the company has been largely opaque about how exactly the layoffs may hinder Twitter’s ability to combat misinformation. When addressing the layoffs Friday, Yoel Roth, the company’s head of safety and integrity, said 80% of Twitter’s incoming content moderation volume had been “completely unaffected,” as was the daily volume of actions Twitter took to moderate content. But Roth was describing Twitter’s ability to moderate content in relation to an internal policy change made the week prior, not staffing cuts, and the period he referenced ended prior to the mass layoffs of Nov. 3 and 4.

    “With early voting underway in the US, our efforts on election integrity — including harmful misinformation that can suppress the vote and combatting state-backed information operations — remain a top priority,” said Yoel Roth, the company’s head of safety and integrity, on Friday evening.

    But while Twitter’s cuts to its content moderation workforce may have been less severe than at other parts of the company, the broad layoffs in certain cases eliminated whole teams, some with important roles to play in election coverage.

    One of them was reportedly Twitter’s curation team, according to tweets by ex-employees, including Andrew Haigh, Twitter’s former senior curation lead for Europe, the Middle East and Africa. The curation team had been responsible for the site’s Moments feature, which showcased important world events and explained to users why certain topics were trending.

    In recent years, Moments were increasingly being used to debunk misinformation or highlight major news stories, according to a person familiar with the inner workings of the curation team — in other words, the person said, “the type of coverage you’d want on election day.”

    Civil rights leaders have slammed the layoffs, saying that no matter what Twitter claims, the reduced headcount will impair Twitter’s ability to enforce its election policies even if the rules themselves have not changed.

    “He cannot enforce content moderation policies if he doesn’t have the staff to do so,” said Jessica González, co-CEO of Free Press. (Roth said Friday evening that “front-line moderation staff” were among the least affected by the cuts.)

    Civil rights groups have spearheaded a campaign targeting Twitter’s largest advertisers, calling on them to pause their ad spend on the platform. Already this past week, major brands including General Mills and Audi have suspended their Twitter advertising, contributing to what Musk has called a steep revenue decline at the company.

    To shore up Twitter’s finances, Musk has proposed a paid verification feature enabling any user to pay $8 a month to receive a blue check mark on their profiles. But that too could lead to its own form of election chaos by making it harder to weed out misinformation.

    Twitter on Saturday appeared to roll out roll out an app update for iOS users on Saturday that suggested the feature was already live for users in the United States and other English-speaking countries.

    However, the product didn’t match the marketing — users found that while they could pay for the subscription service, Twitter Blue, the promised check marks did not appear on user profiles.

    Esther Crawford, a director of product management at Twitter, confirmed the service was not yet live, writing on Saturday in a tweet: “The new Blue isn’t live yet — the sprint to our launch continues but some folks may see us making updates because we are testing and pushing changes in real-time.”

    The company delayed the rollout of account verifications for its paid Twitter Blue subscription plan until after the midterm elections, a source with knowledge of the decision confirmed to CNN.

    But even if the changes don’t complicate Election Day itself, they could introduce added uncertainty in the critical period afterward as votes are counted – not to mention the 2024 presidential campaign, which could kick off later this month as Trump reportedly nears a formal announcement of his run.

    The sprint to roll out an untested feature opens the door to unintended consequences following the election, such as the potential impersonation of election officials, said civil rights groups.

    “Any right-wing troll can pay $8… get a blue check mark, and then change their name to CNN or Georgia’s secretary of state,” Rashad Robinson, CEO of Color of Change, told reporters on the call.

    Musk has argued that charging for a blue check mark will fight spammers by increasing their costs. But misinformation researchers have told CNN well-resourced adversaries, such as highly motivated state-backed actors looking to meddle in elections, would simply see the paid verification as another cost of doing business.

    Chris Krebs, the former CISA director, said Musk’s proposal changes the meaning of verification and alters the information that the symbol conveys to the user. “The verified logo has been a marker of trust I.e. ‘We’ve confirmed the person is who they say they are,’” Krebs tweeted. “Now it’s ‘we’re taking their $ & their word for it.’”

    The shakeup at Twitter has turned the company itself into an election wildcard.

    “My instinct is that the actual impacts of these changes may take a bit longer to be felt,” John Scott-Railton, a cybersecurity and disinformation researcher at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab. “But they are going to be dramatic.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democrats confront their nightmare scenario on election eve as economic concerns overshadow abortion and democracy worries | CNN Politics

    Democrats confront their nightmare scenario on election eve as economic concerns overshadow abortion and democracy worries | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Democrats close their midterm election campaign Monday facing the nightmare scenario they always feared – with Republicans staging a gleeful referendum on Joe Biden’s struggling presidency and failure to tame inflation.

    Hopes that Democrats could use the Supreme Court’s overturning of the right to an abortion and a flurry of legislative wins to stave off the classic midterm election rout of a party in power are now a memory. Biden faces a dark political environment because of the 40-year-high in the cost of living – and his hopes of a swift rebound next year are clouded by growing fears of a recession.

    On the eve of the election, Democrats risk losing control of the House of Representatives and Republicans are increasingly hopeful of a Senate majority that would leave Biden under siege as he begins his reelection bid and with ex-President Donald Trump apparently set to announce his own campaign for a White House return within days.

    It’s too early for postmortems. Forty million Americans have already voted. And the uncertainty baked into modern polling means no one can be sure a red wave is coming. Democrats could still cling onto the Senate even if the House falls.

    But the way each side is talking on election eve, and the swathe of blue territory – from New York to Washington state – that Democrats are defending offer a clear picture of GOP momentum.

    A nation split down the middle politically, which is united only by a sense of dissatisfaction with its trajectory, is getting into a habit of repeatedly using elections to punish the party with the most power.

    That means Democrats are most exposed this time.

    If the president’s party takes a drubbing, there will be much Democratic finger-pointing over Biden’s messaging strategy on inflation – a pernicious force that has punched holes in millions of family budgets.

    Just as in last year’s losing off-year gubernatorial race in Virginia, which the president won by 10 points in 2020, Democrats are closing the campaign warning about democracy and Trump’s influence while Republicans believe they are addressing the issue voters care about most.

    “Here’s where the Democrats are: they’re inflation deniers, they are crime deniers, they’re education deniers,” Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday.

    Hilary Rosen, a longtime Democratic consultant, said on the same show that her party had misjudged the mood of the electorate.

    “I’m a loyal Democrat, but I am not happy. I just think that we are – we did not listen to voters in this election. And I think we’re going to have a bad night,” Rosen told CNN’s Dana Bash.

    “And this conversation is not going to have much impact on Tuesday, but I hope it has an impact going forward, because when voters tell you over and over and over again that they care mostly about the economy, listen to them. Stop talking about democracy being at stake.”

    Rosen is not the only key figure on the left uneasy with the midterm strategy. Former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, urged the White House to do more to stress economic concerns in recent weeks even while acknowledging the crisis of democracy and the importance of abortion rights. In retrospect, it appears Democrats were slow to recognize that a favorable period over the summer, spurred by falling gasoline prices and a hot streak for the president in passing legislation, wouldn’t last long enough to compensate for a ruinous political environment caused by the economy.

    In effect, Biden’s stress on the threat to US political institutions posed by Trump essentially asks voters to prioritize the historic foundation of America’s political system over their own more immediate economic fears.

    It’s a message that resonates strongly in Washington, DC, where the scars of the US Capitol insurrection are keenly felt. And it is undeniably important because the survival of the world’s most important democracy is at stake. After all, Trump incited an insurrection that tried to thwart the unbroken tradition of peaceful transfers of power between presidents.

    But outside the Beltway bubble of politicians and journalists, democracy feels like a far more distant, esoteric concept than the daily struggle to feed a family and to be able to afford to commute to work. From Pennsylvania to Arizona, the return to normality after the Covid-19 nightmare that Biden promised remains elusive to many as the economic after effects of the once-in-a century health emergency linger.

    The impossibility of the political environment for Democrats was laid bare in a CNN/SSRS poll released last week. Some 51% of likely voters said the economy was the key issue in determining their vote. Only 15% named abortion – a finding that explains how the election battleground has tilted toward the GOP. Among voters for whom the economy is their top concern, 71% plan to vote Republican in their House district. And 75% of voters think the economy is already in a recession, meaning that Biden’s efforts to stress undeniably strong economic areas – including the strikingly low unemployment rate – are likely to fall on deaf ears.

    It’s too simple to say that Biden has ignored the impact of inflation, or doesn’t understand the pain it’s bringing to the country.

    The premise of his domestic presidency and his entire political career has been based on restoring the balance of the economy and restoring a measure of security to working and middle class Americans. His legislative successes could bring down the cost of health care for seniors and create a diversified green economy that shields Americans from future high energy prices amid global turmoil. But the benefits from such measures will take years to arrive. And millions of voters are hurting now and haven’t heard a viable plan from the president to quickly ease prices in the short-term.

    There is no guarantee that plans by Republicans to extend Trump-era tax cuts and mandate new energy drilling would have much impact on the inflation crisis either. And divided government would likely mean a stalemate between two dueling economic visions. But the election has turned into a vehicle for voters to stress their frustration, with no imminent hope that things will get better soon.

    Biden has resorted to highlighting bright spots of the economy – claiming to have reignited manufacturing, high job creation and a robust effort to compete with China. He’s now warning that Republicans would gut Social Security and Medicare on which many Americans rely in retirement.

    And in practice, there is not much a president can do to quickly lower inflation on their own. The Federal Reserve is in the lead and the central bank’s strategy of rising interest rates could trigger a recession that could further haunt Biden’s presidency.

    Inflation and high gas prices are also a global issue and have been worsened by factors beyond Biden’s control, including the war in Ukraine and supply chain issues brought on by the pandemic. At the same time, however, economists are debating the wisdom of Biden’s high-spending bills that sent billions of dollars into an overheating economy. And the White House’s repeated downplaying of the soaring cost of living as “transitory” badly misjudged the situation and was another thing that battered Biden’s credibility – on top of the confidence some voters lost in him during the US withdrawal from Afghanistan last year.

    The Republican Party also got exactly what it wanted as Trump has delayed his expected campaign announcement until after the midterms, depriving Biden of the opportunity to shape this election as a direct clash with an insurrectionist predecessor whom he beat in 2020 and who remains broadly unpopular. Such a confrontation might have enabled the president to dampen the impact of his own low approval ratings and win over voters who still disdain the twice-impeached former president.

    Ironically, Biden’s struggles in framing a believable economic message could bring about the very crisis of democracy that he is warning about.

    Any incoming GOP majority would be dominated by pro-Trump radicals. Prospective committee chairs have already signaled they will do their best to deflect from Trump’s culpability on the January 6, 2021, insurrection and go after the Justice Department as it presses on with several criminal investigations into the ex-President’s conduct. And Tuesday’s election could usher in scores of election deniers in state offices who could end up controlling the 2024 presidential election in some key battlegrounds. GOP dominance of state legislatures could further curtail voting rights.

    High inflation has also always been a toxic force that brews political extremism and tempts some voters to be drawn to demagogues and radicals whose political creed is based on stoking resentment and stigmatizing outsiders.

    If Democrats do lose big on Tuesday night, Trump will be a beneficiary.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Twitter delays $8 ‘blue check’ verification plan until after the midterms | CNN Business

    Twitter delays $8 ‘blue check’ verification plan until after the midterms | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    Twitter is delaying the rollout of account verifications for its paid Twitter Blue subscription plan until after the midterm elections, a source with knowledge of the decision confirmed to CNN.

    The decision to push back the new feature comes one day after the platform launched an updated version of its iOS app that promises to allow users who pay a monthly subscription fee to get a blue checkmark on their profiles, a feature that CEO Elon Musk has proposed as a way to fight spam on the platform.

    The app’s latest update was outlined on Apple’s App Store, stating that users will now have to pay $7.99 per month for the company’s Twitter Blue verification feature, “just like the celebrities, companies, and politicians you already follow.” The checkmark has long been used to confirm the authenticity of government officials, prominent figures and journalists.

    CNN’s testing of the service on Saturday afternoon suggested the rollout was not yet complete ahead of Sunday’s decision. A fresh Twitter account created by CNN that opted for the paid feature did not show the checkmark on its public profile. Twitter also still appeared to be charging $4.99, an outdated price.

    The decision to delay the rollout comes as the entire decision to charge users for verification has faced wide public backlash. In a display of defiance, some celebrities on the platform posed as Musk over the weekend and revealed a potential flaw in the “Blue Check” system.

    Comedian Sarah Silverman used her verified account to troll Musk, copying his profile picture, cover image and name. The only thing distinguishing a tweet coming Silverman’s account was the @SarahKSilverman handle.

    “I am a freedom of speech absolutist and I eat doody for breakfast every day,” Silverman tweeted Saturday. Her account also retweeted posts supporting Democratic candidates.

    Silverman’s account was labeled as “temporarily restricted” Sunday, with a warning that “there has been some unusual activity from this account” shown to visitors before clicking through to the profile. The comedian then changed her account back to its usual form, complete with her own name and image.

    Television actress Valerie Bertinelli similarly changed her account name to the Twitter CEO’s, tweeting Friday that “[t]he blue checkmark simply meant your identity was verified. Scammers would have a harder time impersonating you. That no longer applies. Good luck out there!” She then answered a follower who asked how the checkmark no longer applies, writing, “[y]ou can buy a blue check mark for $7.99 a month without verifying who you are.”

    After changing her profile name to Musk, Bertinelli tweeted and retweeted support for several Democratic candidates and hashtags, including “VoteBlueForDemocracy” and “#VoteBlueIn2022.”

    The actress changed her account name back to Valerie Bertinelli Sunday, tweeting, “[o]key-dokey I’ve had my fun and I think I made my point.”

    On Sunday, Musk tweeted that, “Going forward, any Twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying ‘parody’ will be permanently suspended.” He also tweeted that a name change on Twitter will “cause temporary loss of verified checkmark.”

    Additionally, Musk said Twitter users will no longer receive warning before being suspended. “This will be clearly identified as a condition for signing up to Twitter Blue,” he tweeted.

    The trolling activity comes in the wake of Musk purchasing the company and pledging to restore the accounts of users who were previously banned from the platform, most notably former President Donald Trump. Musk has also said he will limit the company’s content restrictions and require the paid subscription for account verification.

    In recent months, Musk has shared conspiracy theories about the attack on Paul Pelosi, called Democrats the party of “division & hate,” compared Twitter’s former CEO to Joseph Stalin and warned that “the woke mind virus will destroy civilization.”

    – CNN’s Brian Fung contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Klobuchar pushes back against Newsom’s claim that Democrats are ‘getting crushed on narrative’ by Republicans | CNN Politics

    Klobuchar pushes back against Newsom’s claim that Democrats are ‘getting crushed on narrative’ by Republicans | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar on Sunday pushed back on California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s argument that their party is “getting crushed on narrative” by Republicans and right-wing media outlets.

    “You know what? He’s out there in California right now, and I am out here and been all over Ohio with Tim Ryan, in Pennsylvania with John Fetterman, with Mandela Barnes in Wisconsin and Cheri Beasley in North Carolina. I think either we are ahead in these races or we are in striking distance,” Klobuchar told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” referring to Democratic Senate nominees in key contests.

    “We’re going to win these races. So he can talk about all he wants out there. I am in the middle of it,” the Minnesota Democrat added.

    Newsom told CBS in a recent interview that he agreed with the sentiment that a red wave was likely in this year’s midterm elections.

    “It goes to my fundamental grievance with my damn party. We’re getting crushed on narrative. We’re going to have to do better in terms of getting on the offense and stop being on the damn defense,” the California governor said.

    Newsom also said in September at the Texas Tribune Festival that the GOP was “winning right now” as that party controls the national conversation – arguing that Democrats’ failure to offer a “compelling alternative narrative” has put the “entire rights agenda” of the last half-century at risk.

    On Sunday, Klobuchar was asked about her party’s strategy of boosting some Republican candidates during the primary season this year in hopes they would be easier to defeat in the general election. Bash brought up the example of Democrats spending money to benefit Republican Don Bolduc in the primary in New Hampshire now that he is locked in a tight race against incumbent Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan.

    “I’m not going to at one moment concede this race because Maggie has been ahead every step of the way,” Klobuchar said. “First of all, I’m not going back over past strategy right now two days before the election. … I’m not a big fan of spending money on other candidates and messing around. I will admit that, and I’ve said that.”

    Bolduc, a retired Army brigadier general, has consistently pushed election falsehoods, though he has given shifting answers related to false 2020 election claims since securing the Republican nomination.

    Klobuchar, who ran for president in 2020, said that she would support President Joe Biden in the 2024 election after CNN reported last week that former President Donald Trump could launch his next presidential bid as soon as this month.

    “President Biden has made clear he is running, and I support him,” she said. “And what I will say about this is, Donald Trump cannot be president again. The American people know it.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump and other Republicans are already casting doubt on midterm results | CNN Politics

    Trump and other Republicans are already casting doubt on midterm results | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump posted on social media on Tuesday to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the midterm election in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania. “Here we go again!” he wrote. “Rigged Election!”

    Trump’s supposed evidence? An article on a right-wing news site that demonstrated no rigging. Rather, the article baselessly raised suspicion about absentee-ballot data the article did not clearly explain.

    In 2020, Trump and his allies made a prolonged effort to discredit the presidential election results in advance, spending months laying the groundwork for their false post-election claims that the election was stolen. Now, in the weeks leading up to Election Day in 2022, some Republicans have been deploying similar – and similarly dishonest – rhetoric.

    Trump is not the only Republican trying to baselessly promote suspicion about the midterms in Pennsylvania, a state that could determine which party controls the US Senate.

    After Pennsylvania’s acting elections chief, Leigh Chapman, told NBC News last week that it could take “days” to complete the vote count, Republican gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano, who has repeatedly promoted false conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, said on a right-wing show monitored by liberal organization Media Matters for America: “That’s an attempt to have the fix in.”

    It isn’t. It simply takes time to count votes – especially, as Chapman noted, because the Republican-controlled state legislature has refused to pass a no-strings-attached bill to allow counties to begin processing mail-in ballots earlier than the morning of Election Day.

    But other prominent Republicans piled on. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas tweeted a link to an article about Chapman’s comments and added: “Why is it only Democrat blue cities that take ‘days’ to count their votes? The rest of the country manages to get it done on election night.”

    Even aside from the fact that the big cities that tend to lean Democratic have many more votes to count than the small rural counties that tend to lean Republican, Cruz’s claim is plain false.

    Counties of all kinds across the country – including, as PolitiFact noted, some Republican counties in Cruz’s state of Texas – do not complete their vote counts on the night of the election. In fact, it is impossible for many counties to have final counts on election night.

    Even some of the country’s most Republican states count absentee ballots (or, in some cases, specifically absentee ballots from members of the military and overseas citizens) that arrive days after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. And some states, including some led by Republicans, give voters days after Election Day to fix issues with their signatures or to provide the proof of identity they didn’t have on Election Day.

    American elections authorities do not declare winners or official vote totals on election night. Rather, media outlets make unofficial projections based on incomplete data.

    The health challenges of the Democratic candidate in Pennsylvania’s Senate race, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, have also been used to cast preemptive doubt on the possible outcome.

    After Trump was defeated by Joe Biden in 2020, some right-wing personalities insisted the election must have been stolen because Biden was such a poor candidate. On Fox last week, as Media Matters noted, prime-time host Tucker Carlson made a similar argument about Pennsylvania’s Senate race – suggesting people should not accept a Fetterman win because it would be “transparently absurd” for a candidate who has had difficulties with public speaking and auditory processing since a stroke in May to legitimately prevail.

    But there would be nothing suspicious about Fetterman winning in a state Biden won by more than 80,000 votes in 2020. Fetterman has led in many (though not all) opinion polls – and polls have repeatedly found that Pennsylvania voters continue to view him far more favorably than they view his Republican opponent, Dr. Mehmet Oz.

    The city of Detroit, like other Democratic-dominated cities with large Black populations, has been the target of false 2020 conspiracy theories from Trump and others. And now the Republican running to be Michigan’s elections chief is already challenging the validity of tens of thousands of Detroit votes in 2022.

    Less than two weeks before Election Day, Kristina Karamo, a 2020 election denier and the Republican nominee for Michigan secretary of state, filed a lawsuit asking a court to “halt” the use of absentee ballots in Detroit if they weren’t obtained in person at a clerk’s office and declare that only those ballots obtained via in-person requests can be “validly voted” in this election. That request would potentially mean the rejection of thousands of votes already cast legally by Detroit residents – in state whose constitution gives residents the right to request absentee ballots by mail.

    Karamo’s lawyer vaguely softened the request during closing arguments on Friday, The Detroit News reported. And other prominent Republicans have so far kept their distance from the lawsuit.

    Nonetheless, the suit sets the table for Karamo, who is trailing in opinion polls, to baselessly reject the legitimacy of a defeat.

    Other Republican candidates have vaguely hinted at the possibility that Democrats might somehow cheat on Election Day or during the counting of the votes.

    Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told reporters this week that “we’ll see what happens” when it comes to accepting the results of his reelection race, The Washington Post reported, adding: “I mean, is something going to happen on Election Day? Do Democrats have something up their sleeves?”

    The Daily Beast reported that Blake Masters, the Republican Senate candidate in a tight race in Arizona, told a story at an October event about how he can’t prove it’s not true that, if he beats Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Kelly by 30,000 votes, unnamed people won’t just “find 40,000” for Kelly. He told a similar story at an event in June.

    There is no basis for the suggestion that there could be tens of thousands of fraudulent votes added to any state’s count. But Masters’ comment, like Karamo’s lawsuit, achieves the effect of many of Trump’s pre-Election Day tales in 2020: prime Republican voters to be distrustful of any outcome that doesn’t go their way.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why 2022 may bring a new peak of political instability | CNN Politics

    Why 2022 may bring a new peak of political instability | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    All year, the principal question looming over the 2022 campaign has been whether Democrats could defy political gravity.

    As we’re nearing the end, the answer appears to be: no, or at least not entirely.

    Midterm elections have almost always been bad for the party holding the White House, and they have been especially bad when most Americans are dissatisfied with the economy and the president’s performance. Those conditions are present in force now, with polls showing that most Americans disapprove of how President Joe Biden has handled crime, the border, and especially the economy and inflation. Pessimism about the economy is pervasive. Historically such attitudes have generated big gains up and down the ballot for the party out of the White House – in this case, the Republicans.

    That may be how the election ultimately turns out, especially in House and state legislative races where the individual candidates are less well-known, and many voters are likely to express dissatisfaction with the country’s direction by voting against the party in power. The president’s party, in fact, has lost House seats in all but three midterm elections since the Civil War. If there is a surprise in the House, it’s less likely to come from Democrats maintaining their majority than the Republicans exceeding the average 26 seat midterm gain for the party out of power since World War II.

    But Democrats have remained unexpectedly competitive in the higher-profile Senate and gubernatorial races by focusing attention not only on what Biden has done, but what Republicans might do, with power. Many of these statewide contests have become a “double negative election”: while most voters in the key states consistently say they disapprove of Biden’s job performance, most also say they hold negative personal views about the GOP candidates, many of whom were propelled to their nomination by support from Donald Trump. If Democrats hold the Senate, or hold their own in the top governor races, a principal reason will be the large number of voters who viewed GOP nominees as unqualified, extreme (particularly in their desire to ban or restrict abortion), a threat to democracy, or all of the above. The same dynamic could also save some House Democrats in districts where Biden has fallen well below majority support.

    So many races are so close – within the margin of error in public polls – that the results Tuesday could range from a true red wave to a Democratic sigh of relief. The scary precedent for Democrats is that in wave years almost all of the close races often tip in the same direction – toward the party out of power. A reason for Democratic hope is that in the final surveys, their candidates are consistently running better among all registered voters than among those the pollsters consider most “likely” to vote. That means the party could outperform expectations if even slightly more of its key constituencies (particularly young people) show up than pollsters anticipate – an outcome that groups such as the powerful union Unite Here is trying to achieve with 1,000 canvassers knocking on doors each day in Arizona, Nevada and Pennsylvania. “We are in the battle every place,” says Gwen Mills, the union’s secretary-treasurer. “All of [these races] are within the margin of effort.”

    If Republicans take back either chamber this week, it would mark the fifth consecutive election in which a president who went into a midterm with unified control of government had it revoked by the voters. That happened to Donald Trump in 2018, Barack Obama in 2010, George W. Bush in 2006 and Bill Clinton in 1994.

    No president, in fact, has successfully defended unified control of Congress through a mid-term since Jimmy Carter in 1978 – and he was insulated by the huge Congressional margins Democrats had amassed after Watergate, as well as his party’s strength in what was then still a “solid South” for Democrats. (The sole asterisk on this pattern is that Republicans under George W. Bush regained unified control of Congress in the 2002 midterm held a year after the September 11 attacks after a party switch by a Republican senator in early 2001 flipped control of the chamber to Democrats and broke the GOP’s unified hold on Congress.) A Republican takeover of either or both chambers would extend one of the defining trends of modern politics: Neither party has held the White House and Congress for more than four consecutive years since 1968. That’s a stark departure from most of the 20th century when each side, at different times, cemented lasting control for as long as 14 consecutive years.

    No matter what happens Tuesday, most experts don’t anticipate either party shattering this fragile modern stand-off to establish a lasting edge. “I don’t see either side getting a durable advantage,” says Gary Jacobson, a professor of political science emeritus at the University of California at San Diego. “They are highly polarized parties, and they are very closely balanced overall.”

    From that angle, Republican gains Tuesday would simply continue a long-standing tendency toward instability in our political system, with the initiative rapidly shifting back and forth between the parties. But the election could also ratchet that instability to a combustible new level. The strong tide behind Republicans virtually guarantees victories for some, maybe many, of the hundreds of candidates who have embraced Trump’s lies about the 2020 elections and signaled that they will seek to tilt the electoral rules toward the GOP or simply deny future wins by Democrats. Some of those candidates, if they lose this week, seem likely to emulate Trump after 2020 and refuse to concede, claiming fraud. (Arizona GOP gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake and Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin have each suggested as much already.) The most important legacy of this week’s voting may be the beachhead inside the electoral system it will likely establish for Republican officeholders untethered to America’s democratic traditions as we have known them.

    In more conventional political calculations, Tuesday’s results seem likely to resurface debates, that had somewhat receded during the Trump years, over the structural electoral challenges Democrats face in the battle to control Congress.

    The modern period of Congressional elections arguably began in 1994, when Republicans captured both the House and Senate in the backlash against Bill Clinton’s chaotic first two years. That ended an era in which Democrats had held the House majority for 40 consecutive years, and controlled the Senate, usually by wide margins, for all but six years over that long span.

    Since 1994, though, Republicans have controlled Congress more often than Democrats. The GOP has held the Senate for about 16 and a half years (counting the roughly half year before the party switch cost them their majority in 2001) and Democrats for only about 11 and a half years. The imbalance in the House has been even more lopsided: Republicans have held it for 20 of these past 28 years, and Democrats for just eight. Especially ominous for Democrats is that if they lose the House on Tuesday, it would mark the second consecutive time they have surrendered their majority only four years after regaining it. (The previous case came when they were swept from the majority by the Tea Party uprising in 2010, just four years after they recaptured the chamber in 2006.) By contrast, Republicans held the House for 12 consecutive years from 1994 through 2006, and then for eight from 2010 through 2018.

    What makes this disparity especially striking is that it has come even as Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections since 1992 – something no party has done since the formation of the two-party system in 1828. (No Republican candidate has reached even 51% of the presidential popular vote since 1988.) These results clearly suggest the modern Democratic electoral coalition, on a nationwide basis, is larger than the Republican coalition. And yet, Republicans, more often than not, have controlled the Congressional majorities in this era anyway.

    Aggressive GOP gerrymanders partly explain that difference in the House. But that doesn’t fully explain the GOP’s House advantage and it isn’t a factor at all in the party’s Senate edge. Instead, the Republican Congressional success largely reflects geographic and demographic limitations of the Democratic coalition that almost certainly will be evident again this week.

    Tuesday’s election is likely to remind Democrats again that they are competing in too few places to establish a durable majority in Congress. In the House, Republicans have established such an overwhelming hold on rural and exurban districts that Democrats must win a very high share of urban and suburban districts to reach a majority. In a good year, like 2018, Democrats can meet that test. And even now, the continued resistance of college-educated suburban voters to the Trump-era Republican Party has provided Democrats a chance to hold down their losses in white-collar districts. But ceding so many rural, exurban and small-town seats leaves Democrats too little cushion to lose some of their suburban seats – as they inevitably will when discontent over the economy, and secondarily crime, is this high even in those places.

    If anything, the Democrats’ geographic challenge is even greater in the Senate. A dominant trend in modern US politics is that both parties are winning virtually all the Senate seats in states that typically support their presidential candidates. The challenge for Democrats is that, despite their repeated victories in the popular vote, slightly more states reliably lean Republican than Democrat in presidential races. Democrats already hold 39 of the 40 Senate seats in the 20 states that voted against Donald Trump both times (Susan Collins in Maine is the only exception). But 25 states voted for Trump both times, and they provide Republicans an even larger Senate contingent, with the GOP holding 47 of their 50 seats. Democrats have squeezed out their precarious 50-50 Senate majority only by capturing eight of the ten seats in the five states that flipped from Trump in 2016 to Biden in 2020 (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia).

    This geography is what makes this week’s Senate elections so crucial to Democrats. This year’s key races are occurring almost entirely in states that Biden won, albeit mostly narrowly, with Democrats defending seats in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire, Colorado and Washington, and targeting Republican-held seats in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. (With longer odds, Democrats have also mounted serious challenges to Republicans in Ohio and North Carolina, two states that twice voted for Trump.) Given that map, Democratic strategists recognize it’s critical for the party to expand, or at least maintain, its Senate margin now.

    After this year, the Senate terrain will rapidly become more foreboding for Democrats. In 2024, they will be defending all three of the seats they hold in the two-time Trump states (Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Joe Manchin in West Virginia and Jon Tester in Montana), as well as seats in half a dozen other swing states that could go either way in a presidential contest (including Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.) If most of the toss up Senate races fall to the Republicans on Tuesday, those gains, combined with the 2024 map, could put the GOP in position to dominate the upper chamber throughout this decade. “If Republicans take the Senate, I don’t see in our immediate lifetime how Democrats are going to take back” the majority, says Doug Sosnik, a senior White House political adviser to Bill Clinton.

    Much of the Democrats’ Senate problem is rooted in the constitutional provision that provides two Senate seats to every state. That magnifies the influence of sparsely populated, rural and strongly Republican interior states. There’s no political repositioning that is likely to provide Democrats a realistic chance any time soon to win Senate seats in Wyoming and Idaho or North and South Dakota.

    But many Democratic strategists argue that the party must expand its map in the Senate by finding ways to attract more non-college and non-urban voters, especially with white people, but across racial lines, in at least a few more states. That list of potential targets includes places like Ohio, Iowa and Florida where Democrats competed much more effectively as recently as under President Barack Obama. Rebuilding the party’s competitiveness in those states could take years and likely require a significant change in its positioning and message.

    Jim Kessler, executive vice president for policy at the centrist Democratic group Third Way, points out that while the party’s modern coalition of young people, racial minorities and college-educated whites has allowed it to effectively contest the presidency, it doesn’t represent a winning majority in enough states to reliably hold the Senate. “When you look at the electoral college, college educated [and diverse] America is close to enough to elect you president,” Kessler says. “But it is not close to getting you a majority in the Senate.”

    Tuesday’s election could also demonstrate the reemergence of a second demographic challenge for Democrats in the battle for Congress, what analysts in the past have called the “boom and bust” nature of their electoral coalition. The biggest remaining uncertainty for Tuesday’s election may be how many young people, who polls show continue to back Democrats in large proportions, turn out. Usually, turnout falls more for young people than for older generations between presidential and midterm elections (hence the “boom and bust” risk). But in 2018, robust youth turnout helped power the Democratic gains.

    Large-scale polls focused particularly on young adults (such as the Harvard Institute of Politics survey) have found them expressing levels of interest comparable to 2018. Yet their participation in early voting has been lackluster, and several recent national surveys (such as CNN’s poll last week) found their engagement lagging. If turnout among young adults disappoints on Tuesday, it will strengthen those Democrats who argue the party must prioritize regaining ground among middle-income, middle-aged voters, especially those without college degrees. (That includes non-college Latinos, particularly men, who may continue to drift away from Democrats at least somewhat this week.) The sharpest post-election debates among Democrats are likely to revolve around whether the party must embrace more conservative approaches on crime and immigration, two issues Republicans wielded to powerful effect, in order to earn a second look from more non-college educated voters across racial lines.

    History says that a bad result on Tuesday need not panic Democrats about 2024 (though, in practice, it probably will). Midterms have not had much value forecasting the result of the presidential election two years later. Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush had relatively good first-term midterms and then lost their reelection races. The president (or his party) did lose the White House two years after bad midterms in 1958, 1966, 1974 and 2018. But Harry Truman in 1948, Ronald Reagan in 1984, Bill Clinton in 1996 and Barack Obama in 2012 all won reelection, usually convincingly, two years after stinging midterm losses. Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist who has built models that project presidential outcomes based on economic and public opinion data, says the results of the midterm add literally no predictive value to the forecasts.

    The 2024 presidential election will begin almost immediately after Tuesday – probably before all the last votes are counted. Though midterm gains are the rule for the party out of power, Trump is likely to interpret GOP victories as a clarion call for his return; aides say he could announce a 2024 candidacy as soon as this month. White House officials believe Biden is certain to run if Trump does because he views the former president as an existential threat to American democracy. On Election Day 2024, the combined age of these two men will be nearly 160 years. Polls show that one of the few areas of broad public agreement is that most Americans do not want either to run again.

    Yet, long before any newly elected officials take office, or any gavels in Congress change hands, the first consequence of Tuesday’s bitterly fought election may be to place America more firmly on the path toward exactly such a rematch. And this time, such a confrontation could occur with the electoral machinery in decisive states under control of Trump allies who share his willingness to tilt or even subvert the system. Whatever storms rattle the political system this week, the real tempest won’t arrive until 2024 – and it may bring the greatest strain on the nation’s fundamental cohesion since the Civil War.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What critics of progressive prosecution get wrong about crime spikes and the reform movement | CNN

    What critics of progressive prosecution get wrong about crime spikes and the reform movement | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Joaquin Ciria knows firsthand the power of the so-called progressive prosecutor movement, which seeks to make the US criminal legal system less harsh and more ethical.

    In 1991, he was convicted of first-degree murder for the shooting death of his friend, Felix Bastarrica. Despite flaws in the case against Ciria – including the fact that the jury never heard from alibi witnesses – the Black 29-year-old was sentenced to 31 years to life in prison.

    Ciria wasn’t released until April of this year. His salvation was an investigation by the San Francisco District Attorney’s Innocence Commission – a group of experts working to revisit claims of wrongful conviction. If a majority votes to vacate the conviction, the group takes its findings to the DA, who makes the final decision. The DA who secured Ciria’s release: Chesa Boudin.

    Ciria, now 61, holds a tremendous amount of reverence for Boudin, who in June was booted out of office in a historic, widely-watched recall election.

    “He’s not afraid,” Ciria told CNN, referring to Boudin. “He don’t play politics with people’s lives.”

    At a time when fears about crime have prompted intense political scrutiny of Boudin and other progressive prosecutors – last week, Republicans in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives filed articles of impeachment against Larry Krasner, asserting that the Philadelphia DA’s policies are a threat to public safety – some have argued that the former San Francisco DA’s recall illustrates that the movement is out of touch with voters’ concerns.

    But the claim that reform-minded prosecutors’ approach is fueling violent crime is false, per recent research. Further, some experts say, to focus overmuch on Boudin’s fate is to disregard progressive prosecutors who are successfully plowing ahead with ambitious agendas as midterm elections loom – and even to diminish the value of efforts to reshape a system that disproportionately disadvantages people of color.

    “Less punitive prosecutors are a form of harm reduction, not the solution,” the legal observer Josie Duffy Rice noted earlier this year. “The paradox of prosecutors is this – they have the power to cause a lot of problems, but not enough power to solve them.”

    She added, “Prosecutors are still prosecutors. But having someone in office who practices some level of restraint is necessary. It will not fix deeper-rooted problems in San Francisco or anywhere. That’s not the job. But it will reduce harm.”

    Speaking with CNN, James Forman Jr., a Yale University law professor and the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning 2017 book, “Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America,” echoed some of Rice’s sentiments.

    “For most of my lifetime, the only way you became a prosecutor was by saying that you were going to lock up more people – and for longer and in worse conditions – than your opponent,” said Forman, who used to be a public defender. “The idea that there’s a new generation of people who are saying things like, ‘Let’s talk about decriminalizing low-level offenses. Let’s talk about restorative justice. Let’s ask ourselves if a long prison sentence is justified in all of these cases. Let’s look at old convictions to see if they were obtained using false information’ – we need people asking these questions throughout the system. And one place we need them is in the prosecutor’s office.”

    As the country prepares for key DA races – including in San Francisco, Arizona’s Maricopa County (Phoenix) and Minnesota’s Hennepin County (Minneapolis) – reformist prosecutors and their supporters insist that the movement to rethink the criminal legal system must continue.

    The freedom of people like Ciria may depend on it.

    While some argue that Boudin’s recall spells doom for progressive prosecutors elsewhere, such predictions might be rash.

    For one thing, a number of factors made the election somewhat unique and, in consequence, difficult to draw sweeping conclusions from.

    “Boudin clearly struggled as a politician, including at one point saying that a person had committed murder during what appeared to be a ‘temper tantrum.’ And unlike normal elections, recalls do not pit two candidates against each other, and thus may reflect people’s views of the person more than their policies,” the Fordham University law professor John Pfaff wrote for Slate in July.

    He continued, “Not to mention that it is risky to draw big conclusions from low-turnout elections, something even those pushing a bigger narrative concede. And San Francisco voters were wary of Boudin from the start: By the end of the city’s ranked choice voting process in 2019, he barely won, edging out the much more moderate Suzy Loftus 50.8 percent to 49.2 percent.”

    Plus, though some progressive prosecutors are embattled – remember the campaign against Krasner, or the backlash from certain quarters against Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg – others are experiencing success.

    For instance, in August, in Chittenden County – Vermont’s most populous county – the reformer Sarah George prevailed in her primary. In Contra Costa, California, the progressive-leaning DA Diana Becton won reelection in June. And the month before, in Durham, North Carolina, the reformer Satana Deberry handily won her primary.

    Boudin summarized why his recall wasn’t a meaningful bellwether moment.

    “Since my recall, there have been (at least) three major successes for the criminal legal reform movement,” he told CNN. “One, the failure of the recall against (the Los Angeles County DA) George Gascón. Two, the reelection of Sarah George in Vermont. And three, the ouster of an extremely conservative, reactionary, 10-year incumbent in Tennessee (Amy Weirich) by a progressive reform Democrat (Steve Mulroy).”

    Like the former San Francisco DA, George is “really optimistic” about the future of progressive prosecution.

    “Around the same time that Chesa’s recall was successful, there were other progressive DAs in California up for reelection against more tough-on-crime people. They won,” she told CNN. “So, I feel really good about the movement. I think that it’s definitely growing.”

    Experts CNN spoke with say that, in the run-up to the midterm elections, it’s important not to lose sight of the fundamental value of attempts to reimagine the country’s criminal legal system.

    “It’s hard to find people anymore who haven’t been impacted by our legal system, who haven’t seen up close the ways it doesn’t work,” Miriam Krinsky, the executive director of the group Fair and Just Prosecution, told CNN. “They’ve seen it affect a loved one or a friend or a colleague or a neighbor or some other member of their circle.”

    She paid special attention to the fact that the traditional tough-on-crime approach disproportionately burdens people of color.

    “We know that racial disparities are present at every stage of the criminal system: who gets stopped, who gets arrested, what their treatment is post-arrest, who gets prosecuted, for how long they end up behind bars and, in the most extreme cases, for whom the death penalty is sought and when it’s imposed,” Krinsky added.

    Lara Bazelon, a law professor at the University of San Francisco and the chair of the Innocence Commission, put some of these sentiments a little bit more bluntly.

    “Before the commission existed, no DA in San Francisco’s history had ever agreed to exonerate anyone,” she told CNN. “Instead, they fought tooth and nail to keep innocent people locked up – which is absolutely shameful, particularly in a city that says that it’s progressive.”

    Bazelon went on, “I don’t believe that going back to the days of tough on crime is going to make us safe. And I think that there are stacks and stacks of academic and empirical studies that prove that point.”

    It’s worth reiterating that progressive prosecution is no panacea for crime.

    “There’s no single thing that’s going to undo 50 years of harshness built across 50 states and 3,000 counties and every single institution in our criminal system,” Forman, the Yale law professor, said.

    In short, pushback must come from every quarter: judges who won’t lock up people merely because they’re poor, legislatures that are prepared to revisit long sentences for a wide range of offenses, public defender’s offices that receive more money, prosecutor’s offices that take a progressive approach to the law.

    Forman explained that, in the future, he’d like to see progressive prosecutors commit to shrinking the size and scope of their offices – because if they’re successful, they’re going to find ways to reduce crime that don’t rely on policing and prison.

    “I actually think that victory will be when they’re not needed,” he said. “Now, we know that such a world is probably never going to exist, because every country in the world for all of history has had crimes. But if we set that as a goal, as a dream, we can measure success by whether we’re taking steps in that direction.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Cheney endorses another Democratic congresswoman, saying Virginia’s Abigail Spanberger is ‘dedicated to serving this country’ | CNN Politics

    Cheney endorses another Democratic congresswoman, saying Virginia’s Abigail Spanberger is ‘dedicated to serving this country’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney endorsed Virginia Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger on Saturday, weighing in on another highly competitive House race in the final days of the midterm election campaign.

    Spanberger, a former CIA officer who was among the class of national security Democrats first elected in 2018, is locked in a tough contest with Republican challenger Yesli Vega to represent Virginia’s 7th Congressional District.

    “I’m honored to endorse Abigail Spanberger. I have worked closely with her in Congress, and I know that she is dedicated to working across the aisle to find solutions. We don’t agree on every policy, but I am absolutely certain that Abigail is dedicated to serving this country and her constituents and defending our Constitution,” Cheney said in a statement.

    “Abigail’s opponent is promoting conspiracy theories, denying election outcomes she disagrees with, and defending the indefensible,” she continued.

    The move is Cheney’s latest endorsement of a member of her opposing party. The Wyoming Republican campaigned for Michigan Rep. Elissa Slotkin on Tuesday and endorsed her last week saying, “While Elissa and I have our policy disagreements, at a time when our nation is facing threats at home and abroad, we need serious, responsible, substantive members like Elissa in Congress.”

    Spanberger has campaigned on issues like infrastructure and lowering prescription drug costs, while her opponent, Vega, has said she will work to keep the Biden administration in check if elected.

    Virginia’s 7th District House race is rated as “tilt Democratic” by Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales.

    CNN has reached out to Spanberger’s campaign for comment on the endorsement.

    Cheney is leaving Congress at the end of her current term after losing the Republican primary for her at-large Wyoming seat in August. Her continued criticism of former President Donald Trump for his role in inciting the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol was seen as a key factor in her defeat.

    Cheney said last month that she would not remain a Republican if Trump is the GOP nominee for president in 2024.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Polling shows that most voters say economic concerns are top of mind | CNN Politics

    Polling shows that most voters say economic concerns are top of mind | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Economic issues remain a top concern for most voters ahead of the 2022 election, a review of recent polling finds, with many also worried about America’s democratic process itself. But voters’ highest priorities are divided along partisan lines, with abortion rights continuing to resonate strongly for Democrats, while Republicans remain sharply focused on inflation. Concerns about other issues, from gun policy to immigration, are often similarly polarized. And some topics that drew attention in previous elections – like the coronavirus pandemic – are relatively muted this year.

    Recent polling provides a good general sense of which issues have become the focal points of this year’s elections, and for whom. But what voters truly consider important, and how those concerns influence their decisions, is too complicated to be fully captured in a single poll question.

    As we’ve noted previously, voters tend to say they care about a lot of different issues. That, however, doesn’t necessarily mean any of those issues will be decisive in a specific race, either by motivating people to vote when they wouldn’t have otherwise, or by convincing them to vote for a different candidate than they would have otherwise.

    In practice, few campaigns revolve around a single issue, with voters left to weigh the merits of entire platforms. In a recent NBC News poll, for instance, voters were close to evenly split on whether they placed more importance on “a candidate’s position on crime, the situation at the border, and addressing the cost of living by cutting government spending,” or on “a candidate’s position on abortion, threats to democracy and voting, and addressing the cost of living by raising taxes on corporations.”

    And in some cases, voters’ primary focus may not be on the issues at all. In CNN’s recent polls of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, a majority of likely voters in both states said that candidates’ character or party control of the Senate played more of a role in their decision-making than did issue positions.

    Here’s a recap of what the polls are showing now.

    CNN’s most recent polls have examined voters’ priorities from two different angles. A survey conducted in September and early October asked voters to rate a series of different issues on a scale from “extremely important” to “not that important,” while a second survey conducted in late October asked them to select a single top priority. On both measures, the economy emerged as a top concern.

    In the first poll, nine in 10 registered voters said they considered the economy at least very important to their vote for Congress, with 59% calling it extremely important. And in the second poll, 51% of likely voters said the economy and inflation would be most important to them in their congressional vote, far outpacing any other issue.

    While economic concerns rank highly among both parties, the CNN surveys found a pronounced partisan divide. Among registered voters in the first poll, 75% of Republicans called the economy extremely important to their vote, compared with about half of independents (51%) and Democrats (50%). And in the second, 71% of Republican likely voters called the economy and inflation their top issue, while 53% of independents and 27% of Democrats said the same.

    The Republican Party also holds an advantage on economic issues. In a Fox News poll, voters said by a 13-point margin that the GOP would do a better job than the Democratic Party of handling inflation and higher prices. And in a mid-October CBS News/YouGov poll, voters were nine points likelier to say that GOP control of Congress would help the economy than to say it would hurt. Voters also said, by a 19-point margin, that Democratic economic policies during the last two years in Congress have hurt, rather than helped.

    At the same time, voters express concerns beyond pocketbook issues. In that CBS News/YouGov survey, 85% of likely voters said that their “personal rights and freedoms” will be very important in their 2022 vote, while a smaller 68% said the same of their “own household’s finances.”

    Following the Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe v. Wade, abortion has taken far higher precedence in this midterm than in recent past elections, particularly among Democrats.

    In CNN’s September/October poll, nearly three-quarters (72%) of registered voters called abortion at least very important to their vote, with 52% calling it extremely important. The share of voters calling abortion extremely important to their vote varied along both partisan and gender lines: 72% of Democratic women, 54% of independent women and 53% of Republican women rated it that highly, compared with fewer than half of men of any partisan affiliation.

    And in CNN’s latest poll, 15% of likely voters called abortion their top issue, placing it second – by some distance – to economic concerns. Democratic voters were about split between the two issues, with 27% prioritizing the economy and inflation, and 29% placing more importance on abortion.

    Abortion policy does stand out in some surveys as particularly likely to serve as a litmus test. In the Fox News poll, 21% of voters named abortion or women’s rights as an issue “so important to them that they must agree with a candidate on it, or they will NOT vote for them,” outpacing issues including the economy and immigration, and far greater than the 7% who named abortion when asked the same question in a 2019 survey.

    To the extent that abortion serves as a voting issue, it’s more of a factor for abortion rights supporters – something that was not necessarily the case in the past. In the mid-October CBS News/YouGov poll, just 17% of likely voters say they view their congressional vote this year as a vote to oppose abortion rights, while 45% say it’s in support of abortion rights, with the rest saying abortion is not a factor. In a recent AP-NORC survey, the Democrats hold a 23-point lead over Republicans on trust to handle abortion policy, their best showing across a range of issues; in a recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, the Democrats lead by 12 points.

    Immigration’s role as an electoral issue has grown increasingly polarized. In CNN’s September/October poll, 44% of registered voters called immigration extremely important, on par with concerns ahead of the 2018 midterms. But Republican voters were 35 percentage points likelier than Democratic voters to call immigration extremely important, up from a 17-point gap four years ago.

    That partisan dynamic also plays out in which party is more trusted to handle immigration-related topics: In the NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, voters say by a 14-point margin that the GOP would do a better job than the Democratic Party on dealing with immigration. In the Fox poll, voters say by a 21-point margin that they trust the GOP over the Democrats to handle border security, making it by far the Republicans’ strongest issue by that metric.

    But with Republicans overwhelmingly focused on the economy, immigration isn’t at the forefront of many voters’ minds this year. In the latest CNN poll, just 9% of Republican voters and 4% of Democratic voters called it their top issue.

    This year also finds voters concerned about the electoral process. An 85% majority of registered voters in CNN’s September/October poll called “voting rights and election integrity” at least very important to their vote, with 61% calling those topics extremely important. Both 70% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans said the issue was extremely important, in comparison with a smaller 47% of independents. Seven in 10 registered voters in a Pew Research survey out in October said that “the future of democracy in the country” will be very important to their vote this year, with 58% saying the same about “policies about how elections and voting work in the country” – in each case, that included a majority of both voters supporting Democratic candidates and those supporting Republicans.

    But levels of concern can vary depending on how the issue is framed. In the NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, 28% of registered voters, including 42% of Democrats, picked “preserving democracy” as the issue that’s top of mind for them in this election. In CNN’s latest poll, just 9% of likely voters, including 15% of Democrats, called “voting rights and election integrity” their top issue.

    The driving factors behind voters’ worries also vary significantly. In the Fox News poll, 37% of voters said they were extremely concerned about candidates and their supporters not accepting election results, while 32% were extremely concerned about voter fraud. In an October New York Times/Siena poll, about three-quarters (74%) of likely voters said they believed American democracy was currently under threat, but in a follow-up questioning asking them to summarize the threat they were envisioning, they diverged. Some cited specific politicians, most notably former President Donald Trump (10%) or President Joe Biden (6%), while others offered broad concerns about corruption or the government as a whole (13%).

    In CNN’s September/October poll, 43% of registered voters said that the phrase “working to protect democracy” better described the Democratic congressional candidates in their area, while 36% thought it better fit their local Republican candidates. In the NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, voters said, 44% to 37%, that the Democratic Party would do a better job than the Republican Party of “dealing with preserving democracy.”

    Most voters in this year’s elections express concerns about guns and violent crime, but relatively few voters call either their top issue. There’s also a notable partisan divide depending on the framing, with Republicans more concerned about crime, and Democrats more attentive to gun policy.

    In a late October CBS News/YouGov poll, 65% of likely voters said crime would be very important to their vote, and 62% said gun policy would be very important. An 85% majority of Republican likely voters, compared with 47% of Democratic likely voters, called crime very important. By contrast, while 74% of Democratic likely voters called gun policy very important, a smaller 53% of Republican likely voters said the same.

    According to Gallup, voters’ prioritization of gun policy spiked this summer following a wave of high-profile mass shootings, before fading as a concern in the fall; the Pew Research Center polling found less significant changes in voters’ priorities over that time.

    Neither issue is currently widespread as a top concern. In the latest CNN poll, 7% of likely voters called gun policy their top issue, and just 3% said the same of crime.

    In an October Wall Street Journal poll, 43% of registered voters said they trusted Republicans in Congress more to handle reducing crime, compared with the 29% who said they trust Democrats in Congress. Voters who were instead asked about reducing “gun violence” gave Democrats a 7-point edge.

    The polling also reveals a few issues that aren’t receiving similarly widespread public attention this year. Among them is coronavirus, which just 27% of likely voters in the latest CBS News/YouGov poll called very important to their vote, rising to 44% among Democrats. Despite this year’s major climate change legislation, that issue ranked last among the seven issues CNN asked about in the September/October poll, with only 38% of registered voters calling it extremely important to their vote – although the issue had far more resonance among Democrats (60% of whom called it extremely important) and voters younger than age 35 (46% of whom did). And relatively few in the electorate are substantially focused on the war in Ukraine: in Fox’s polling, just 34% of registered voters said they were extremely concerned about Russia’s invasion of the country.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Oath Keepers leader testifies 2020 election was ‘unconstitutional,’ paints himself as anti-violence | CNN Politics

    Oath Keepers leader testifies 2020 election was ‘unconstitutional,’ paints himself as anti-violence | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the right-wing Oath Keepers who prosecutors say called for a “bloody revolution” to keep then-President Donald Trump in power, painted himself as an anti-racist Libertarian who believed the 2020 election was unconstitutional as he testified in his own defense on Friday.

    Rhodes is the first of the five defendants charged with seditious conspiracy in federal court in Washington, DC, to testify.

    The courtroom was packed during his testimony, and Rhodes choked up several times discussing his family, suicide rates among veterans and other subjects highlighted by his lawyer, Phillip Linder. He spoke directly to the jury and appeared very comfortable on the stand.

    Rhodes explained to the jury that he didn’t believe either Trump or Joe Biden won in 2020 because the election itself was “unconstitutional.”

    “I believe the election was unconstitutional, and that made it invalid,” Rhodes testified. “You really can’t have a winner of an unconstitutional election.”

    Rhodes told the jury that, as he saw it, election laws in several states were changed by “executive fiat” and not through the state legislature.

    “In multiple states especially in the swing states … you had them putting in new rules in direct violation” of state laws, Rhodes said.

    “Everyone kept focusing on the computers” and other theories of voter fraud, Rhodes said, instead of the constitutional issues, which they needed to discuss before figuring out “whether there’s fraud on the ground.”

    Rhodes did not detail any specific laws that were changed. CNN has found no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

    Prosecutors have alleged that Rhodes wanted Trump to remain in power and that the militia leader supported a “bloody revolution” to secure the presidency.

    Rhodes told the jury Friday how he was honorably discharged from the military and went on to study law at Yale, focusing his attention on the Bill of Rights – which Rhodes called “the crown jewel of our Constitution” – and protecting civilian rights in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks.

    Rhodes, a self-described Libertarian, testified that he founded the Oath Keepers in 2009 to “reach, change and inspire” people about what rights the Constitution afforded them.

    Pushing back on what he saw as narratives that the Oath Keepers were racist or white nationalists, Rhodes said the organization traveled to various cities for racial justice protests, claiming the group protected “minority business owners” in Ferguson, Missouri.

    “Frankly we kind of embarrassed the police, Rhodes testified, “because we showed them how to do it right, protecting the business owners while still respecting the rights of the protesters.”

    Oath Keepers rules, Rhodes claimed, specifically bar any member who “advocates for the overthrow of the United States.”

    During the first several weeks of the seditious conspiracy trial against the far-right organization, prosecutors presented evidence that the Oath Keepers stockpiled weapons at a hotel in Virginia on January 6 as part of a so-called quick reaction force. Prosecutors alleged that the five defendants intended to use those weapons in case called upon by Trump to stop the transfer of power to Biden.

    Rhodes told the jury that wasn’t the case and claimed that the QRF’s were set up at an event the Oath Keepers attended to “respond in case there is an emergency,” including if his men were ever injured.

    The Oath Keepers also used QRFs every time they provided security, Rhodes said, including several events in Washington, DC. After the election, Rhodes testified he was concerned Antifa would “attack the White House,” and claimed the leftist organization was threatening to “drag Trump out” if the president refused to concede.

    In November, “I was concerned that this might actually happen,” Rhodes told the jury, citing his rhetoric on a recorded meeting prosecutors showed the jury in which Rhodes allegedly said that “there’s going to be a fight.”

    If Antifa did try to attack the White House, Rhodes said that “President Trump could use the Insurrection Act, declare this an insurrection, and use myself and other veterans to protect the White House.”

    No such attack at the White House occurred.

    Rhodes is expected to continue his testimony on Monday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New York Democrats are bracing for stunning Election Day losses, and they already have a fall guy | CNN Politics

    New York Democrats are bracing for stunning Election Day losses, and they already have a fall guy | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Democratic officials and strategists in New York tell CNN they are bracing for what could be stunning losses in the governor’s race and in contests for as many as four US House seats largely in the suburbs.

    With crime dominating the headlines and the airwaves, multiple Democrats watching these races closely are pointing to New York City Mayor Eric Adams, accusing him of overhyping the issue and playing into right-wing narratives in ways that may have helped set the party up for disaster on Tuesday.

    “He was an essential validator in the city to make their attacks seem more legit and less partisan,” said one Democratic operative working on campaigns in New York, who asked not to be named so as not to compromise current clients.

    Other Democrats argue this has it backwards. While they accuse Republicans of political ploys they call cynical, racist and taking advantage of a situation fostered by the pandemic, they insist candidates would be in better shape if they had followed Adams’ lead in speaking to the fear and frustration voters feel.

    But going into Election Day, New York Democrats worry about a double whammy from how they’ve struggled to address crime: Swing voters turned off by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul and suburban House Democrats go vote Republican, while base Democrats in the city, dejected by talk of how awful things are, don’t turn out at all.

    “Crime today has been compared to the ’80s and the ‘90s, and the fact of the matter is that crime is lower now than it was then,” said Crystal Hudson, a Democratic New York City councilwoman from Brooklyn. “That’s emboldened the right to use crime as their narrative and put Democrats in a bad spot for these midterm elections.”

    Rep. Lee Zeldin, Hochul’s GOP opponent, has taken to regularly invoking Adams on the campaign trail, to the point that some Democratic operatives have grimly joked that Zeldin could just run clips of Adams talking about crime as his closing ads.

    There are national ripples: Democratic groups like the Democratic Governors Association are moving in millions of dollars to prop up Hochul in a deep-blue state instead of spending that on tight races elsewhere, with Vice President Kamala Harris flying in on Thursday in one of her own last campaign stops and President Joe Biden heading to Westchester County, north of New York City, on Sunday to rally with the governor. Republicans, meanwhile, are seizing opportunities to pad a potential House majority by targeting seats that Democrats had been counting on as backstops.

    Adams was elected mayor last year on a tough-talking, tough-on-crime message, then embraced as such a hero among many Democratic leaders that rumors circulated he might be eyeing a 2024 presidential run himself. In office, he’s often talked about the bad shape the city is in, including citing statistics he says demonstrate connections between the rise in crime and a 2019 progressive-led state law change that barred judges from setting cash bail for all but the most serious offenses.

    Multiple top Democrats argue that Adams could have used his credibility to buttress Hochul – whom allies point out is in a tricky political spot talking about crime in New York City as a 64-year-old White woman from Western New York – instead of loudly pushing the governor to call a special session of the legislature to roll back more of the new bail laws. Hochul also seemed to be caught surprised by the attacks and unsure of how to defend her record, with several elected officials and operatives saying she appeared to be balancing between different factions of the party rather than setting a firm agenda of her own.

    That’s fed an increasingly tense relationship in the campaign’s final weeks, though Adams recently appeared with Hochul at both an official government event announcing she’d allocate state money to pay for overtime for police patrolling the subways and at a campaign stop in Queens as she seeks to prove to voters that she’s taking crime seriously. Adams has also shifted to blaming the media for sensationalizing the crime problem.

    Appearing on “CNN This Morning” on Friday, Hochul said there’s never been a governor and mayor in New York with as strong a relationship as the one she has with Adams. While she acknowledged that violent crime is up and that the issue was rooted in voters’ sincere fears, she said Republicans were “not having a conversation about real solutions.”

    She cited her record of getting more cops and cameras on the street and help for the mentally ill, and Zeldin’s opposition to gun control.

    “Crime has been a problem,” she said. “I understand that. Let’s talk about real answers and not just give everybody all these platitudes.”

    Rep. Kathleen Rice, a retiring moderate Democrat from just outside New York City and a former Nassau County district attorney, said at first she was encouraged by Adams. As a former police officer, he understands the problem, she said, but “the general consensus is that he hasn’t shown he has focused on the issue enough for it to have made a difference.”

    Rice said she’s heard from constituents from just outside the city who are turned off by reports of Adams spending late nights at pricey private restaurants juxtaposed with stories about murders on the subways and other horrific incidents.

    “People want to feel safe first before they go to a club,” Rice said.

    Rice’s seat is one of two Democratic-held seats on Long Island now seen at risk. Democrats are also in danger of losing two seats north of New York City – one held by Rep. Pat Ryan and the Lower Hudson Valley district of Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, the chair of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

    “It is an issue for voters, but it is not because they have personally experienced crime in the Hudson Valley or their neighbors are talking about crimes committed in the Hudson Valley as much as it is the narrative pushed by the industrial fear machine at Fox and the New York Post describing New York City as a lawless hellscape,” Maloney said in an interview. “That, understandably, is raising concerns among suburbanites.”

    Months ago, Maloney warned other House Democrats, in conversations and in a March memo sent around by the DCCC and obtained by CNN, to be ready to respond and rebut attacks for being weak on crime. The guidance started with telling candidates to be firmly against calls to “defund the police” but also to talk about the more than $8 billion Democratic lawmakers had secured for law enforcement in bills such as the American Rescue Plan.

    Maloney pointed to his votes for legislation to fund programs for body cameras and plate reading technology for local police departments in his district, as well as for the gun control measures enacted over the summer.

    He also stood by a remark he made last July – catching several Democratic operatives’ attention at the time – when he stood with Adams on the steps of the Democratic National Committee headquarters and called him “a rock on which I can build a church.”

    “What I meant is that I like his combination of respecting good policing and understanding the need for public safety with a genuine passion for justice and fairness in our system,” Maloney said in an interview. “He may not get everything right, and it may not be everything I would do. But he recognizes that we’re not where we should be. And I support his efforts to clean it up.”

    Others have not been convinced.

    “The concern over crime is real. It is acute,” said Rep. Mondaire Jones, a progressive Democrat who lost a primary to represent parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn after Maloney opted to run for a redrawn suburban seat that also included parts of Jones’ district. “But once this election is over, I hope people have an honest conversation about how Democrats like Eric Adams have validated a hysteria over crime that is uninformed and that has been debunked.”

    Conversations about crime in New York are bound up in the debate over reforming the bail laws, and in well-worn internal political power struggles among officials. In phone calls and meetings at the beginning of the year, Adams urged top officials in Albany to change the laws, warning them that crime would likely be a major political liability in the fall, according to people familiar with the conversations.

    Legislative leaders have already passed two partial rollbacks, including one supported by Hochul earlier this year. But they have resisted doing more, despite warnings from suburban members.

    Adams has charged that the “insane broken system” of bail laws now puts criminals back on the street who then tend to get back to committing crimes. According to figures from the New York Police Department, in the first half of the year, 211 people were arrested at least three times for burglary and 899 people were arrested at least three times for shoplifting, increases of 142.5 percent and 88.9 percent, respectively, over the same period in 2017. The mayor’s office also pointed to statistics that show double-digit jumps in recidivism for felony, grand larceny and auto theft.

    Still, crime statistics don’t tell as simple a story as what shows up in political ads. Suburban counties are reporting safer streets and communities – a report in February by the Westchester County executive from just north of New York City, for example, showed a 26.5 percent drop in its crime index.

    Murders and shootings are down in the city from last year, but rape, robbery, felony assault, burglary, grand larceny and auto theft are all up, by over 30 percent from 2021 in several categories, according to New York Police Department data.

    But those are the stories which play on the same local news – and campaign ads during the breaks – that reach into the homes of suburban voters who may not have been crime victims themselves, or even spent much time in the city for years. And that’s left Hochul and Democratic House and state legislative nominees leaching support in Long Island, Westchester and the northern New York City suburbs.

    “A lot of the story that’s being told is of New York City crime,” said Democrat Bridget Fleming, a former prosecutor who’s been endorsed by police unions in the House race for much of the area Zeldin currently represents on Long Island. “We’re making sure law enforcement is supported – and other than gun crime, we’re keeping crime down here.”

    Evan Roth Smith, a pollster working on several local races, said Adams “may be a drag on Democratic trustworthiness on crime.”

    But Adams spokesman Maxwell Young said the mayor’s job isn’t to put a rosy spin on things in a way that could benefit Hochul’s or any of the other candidates’ campaigns.

    “We can’t, and won’t, ignore the reality,” Young said. “Those who claim we aren’t making progress or, conversely, that we’ve been crying wolf aren’t paying attention and have no idea what they’re talking about.”

    Evan Thies, a top Adams political adviser, said he wished other Democrats had taken lessons from the mayor’s win last year.

    “You have to convince people you’re worthy to lead by following their lead on issues and meeting their urgency, not by disagreeing with them,” Thies said. “The mayor became mayor by listening to and advocating for people in high-crime communities – he’s not going to abandon them now.”

    Democratic Rep. Adriano Espaillat, whose district covers Upper Manhattan and parts of the Bronx, points to how many systemic, as well as larger societal and economic issues, are involved in making a real impact on crime – and that Adams has only been on the job for 10 months.

    “He’s really trying hard. This is not easy,” Espaillat said. “It’s going to take some time.”

    Biden had his own bromance with Adams, from hosting him in the White House weeks after he won his mayoral primary to offering him half of his peanut butter-and-jelly sandwich as they rode together in the limo in February during a presidential visit to New York to talk about gun violence. White House chief of staff Ron Klain praised Adams for tapping into the same coalition of pragmatic, working-class and African American voters, which won Biden the 2020 Democratic nomination.

    Through an aide, Klain did not respond to questions about how he and the president view Adams these days.

    But what many Democrats are left with as they approach the end of campaigning in New York is a potentially devastating example of failing again to break a decades-long paradigm of Republicans capitalizing on calling them soft on crime.

    “The paradox here is: Crime is high in some of the reddest parts of the country where they have the weakest gun safety laws. We needed to tell that story and done so loudly to neutralize the issue. You can’t sit idly by and wish it away,” said Charlie Kelly, a political adviser to former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s gun safety group Everytown and former executive director for the Democratic-aligned House Majority PAC.

    In New York and beyond, some Democrats are already hoping for a post-election recognition and realignment that pushes their party both toward a tougher attack on Republicans and a more forceful deflection of their own left flank.

    “We can’t dismiss people’s concerns,” said Justin Brannan, a New York City councilman from a moderate district in Brooklyn. “It’s another thing to be a Republican, to say, ‘If you go outside, you’re going to die.’”

    “It’s both true that crime is down from the 1990s and that it has been increasing and that people feel uncomfortable,” said Mark Levine, the Manhattan borough president. “Democrats have to be able to talk about that and offer real solutions.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump aides eye third week of November for 2024 announcement | CNN Politics

    Trump aides eye third week of November for 2024 announcement | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Top aides to former President Donald Trump have been eyeing the third week of November as an ideal launch point for his 2024 presidential campaign, sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.

    Two sources said Trump’s team has specifically discussed November 14 as one possible announcement date, which would come less than a week after the midterm elections and just days after the former president’s youngest daughter Tiffany is due to be married at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

    This person cautioned that no date has been locked in and Trump could move up his desired announcement date – or push it back – depending on how Republicans fare in the elections on Tuesday and the availability of venues.

    Trump has been advised by several of his key lieutenants to announce his third presidential campaign from one of the battleground states he narrowly lost to Joe Biden in 2020, according to a person familiar with the conversations, though others have encouraged him to remain in Florida, where he remains deeply popular among the state’s Republican voters.

    Taylor Budowich, a spokesman for Trump, declined to comment to CNN about the impending announcement.

    The former president has long been eyeing the post-midterm period before Thanksgiving as an ideal announcement timeline for his next political act, hoping to capitalize on what he and allies believe will be a red wave for the GOP next Tuesday. At a rally Thursday in Iowa, Trump told the audience to “get ready” for his return to the presidential campaign trail, noting that he “very, very, very probably do it again,” in reference to running for the White House.

    News of Trump’s potential November 14 announcement was first reported by Axios.

    This story is breaking and will be updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Obama and Trump bring dueling visions for America in return to campaign trail | CNN Politics

    Obama and Trump bring dueling visions for America in return to campaign trail | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Midterm elections are almost always about incumbent presidents, especially when they are unpopular. But in a unique twist this year, two ex-presidents who lost control of the House while in office have turned into their parties’ closing messengers.

    Barack Obama and Donald Trump personify two rival visions of the meaning of America itself and are extending their bitter years-long duel as they find themselves on opposite sides of a profound confrontation over the future of US democracy.

    Obama remains an avatar of progressive change and an increasingly diverse nation, who’s far more popular than current Democratic President Joe Biden. He’s the most sought-after political fireman for Democrats struggling to survive tight swing state races and is being used to energize young, minority and suburban middle-class voters.

    Trump has mobilized his Make America Great Again movement, which first emerged as a backlash to the first Black presidency and is built around the notion that the cultural values of a largely White, working-class nation is under siege from political correctness, undocumented migration, experts and the establishment.

    Obama is lambasting politicians, celebrities and sports stars who peddle conspiracy theories, fear and social media “garbage” of which Trump is the most prominent exponent. And he’s delivering searing take-downs of the 45th president’s proteges who are running for election on the platform of his 2020 election falsehoods – like Arizona GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake.

    “Why would you vote for somebody who you know is not telling the truth about something? I mean, on something that important, I don’t care how nicely they say it. I don’t care how poised they are or how well-lit they are,” Obama said of the former local TV news anchor, who has emerged as a rising MAGA star, in Arizona on Wednesday.

    “What happens when truth doesn’t matter anymore?” Obama added. “If you just repeat something over and over again, and it’s a lie, and yet because your side is saying it, it’s okay.”

    Trump adopted exactly that tactic in his return to the campaign trail in Iowa on Thursday night, in what was ostensibly an appearance for veteran GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, but felt like a first-in-the-nation caucus warmup for 2024.

    He falsely claimed that he had won in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in 2020, two of the states that helped Biden win the White House.

    “Your favorite president got screwed,” Trump told his crowd on a frigid night in Sioux City, in which he repeated false conspiracies that Obama spied on his campaign in 2016.

    One interesting comparison of the styles of Trump and Obama on show in their rival rallies is in their use of humor. Trump has long used comedy – often dark and cruel – to bind himself to his audience, a feature that doesn’t always come across on TV. Often his crowds look like they are having a whale of a time, enthralled by a rule-breaking bull in a china shop trashing decorum with every word and lacerating his opponents with outrageous accusations and belittling nicknames.

    On Thursday, Trump had his crowd in stitches in a digression from an otherwise dystopian speech as a stiff wind blew around the teleprompters showing his prepared remarks.

    “I’ve got these teleprompters waving like a flag,” he said. “I’m going to get sea sick!”

    Obama’s humor is typically warmer, although no less cutting, but he uses it effectively to ridicule Republicans before delivering a devastating political hit. For instance, in Wisconsin last weekend, he branded Republicans as the party of the rich when he accused Sen. Ron Johnson of voting for a tax break for private plane owners.

    “He fought for this. And then, his adult children bought not one, not two, but three private planes because apparently, carpooling was not an option. Now, I mean, you need three?” Obama joked.

    People in Obama’s extended circle have remarked that their former boss has been on fire this campaign season. Lacking the burdens of presidential office, unlike his former vice president, Obama has shown the kind of freedom and relish for big political rallies that rocketed him to the Democratic nomination in 2008.

    It’s easy to tell when the 44th president doesn’t have his heart in his task. In the early rallies of his 2012 election race, for instance, he was lethargic and weary, and he didn’t approach top form in his events last year in an off-year election in Virginia.

    But his rallies this year have rocked with the pulsating energy and enthusiasm that is often lacking at appearances by the incumbent president, an older, more conventional politician. Obama has also come up with far more relatable and focused economic messages than Biden has managed – ironically performing the same role for the current president as another ex-president, Bill Clinton, performed for him in the 2012 campaign – a service that led Obama to dub the 42nd president “the explainer-in-chief.”

    Obama’s talent for oratory is undiminished and he looks like he’s having great fun showing it off. He’s like a basketball star who after years retired makes a comeback and suddenly starts draining three-pointers. And his popularity means he can drop into the most crucial states where candidates running away from Biden’s unpopularity wouldn’t welcome a visit from the president.

    Yet Obama’s prominence is a reminder of the kind of A-list political talent that the modern Democratic Party lacks. It’s an indictment that its best messenger first ran for president 14 years ago.

    But despite his rhetorical impact, the question is now how effective Obama will be in driving out the vote. The former president often struggled while he was in office to translate his stardust onto other Democratic candidates and lesser talents. And the question in this election is whether he’s simply preaching to the converted in addressing Democrats who already planned to vote, or whether he’s actually making the sale to independents and disaffected anti-Trump Republicans who Biden badly needs to show up to vote for his party.

    Former Obama political strategist David Axelrod, who is now a CNN commentator, said that this onetime boss is being used by his party on a specific electoral mission.

    “In the main, this is the time when you try and get your base out and for Democrats this is really important because the reason why incumbent parties generally lose in midterm elections is that their base is not as motivated as the out-of-office party which tends to come and vote its grievances,” Axelrod said. “There is an enthusiasm gap, at least in the polls, between Republicans and Democrats.”

    While Obama is rekindling memories of a past presidency, Trump is out on the trail seeking to build the foundation for a future one.

    The most recent ex-president has demonstrated the extraordinary hold he still has on the Republican Party by promoting and endorsing a roster of candidates in his election-denying image. There is a question, however, whether Trump’s role in orchestrating inexperienced or extreme nominees, like senatorial candidates like Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, Herschel Walker in Georgia and Blake Masters in Arizona, could cost his party the critical seats in swing states that will decide control of the Senate.

    Republican officials have worried all election cycle about the former president putting his own political ambitions ahead of his party. Many still blame his false claims of voter fraud for helping two Democrats, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, win Senate seats in Georgia runoffs, which enabled their party to control the 50-50 chamber with the help of the tie-breaking vote cast by Vice President Kamala Harris.

    While he’s heading out in to the country again, Trump has not been doing his normal routine of multiple rallies in the most closely contested states.The GOP has succeeded in the last few weeks in returning the focus of the election to Biden, high inflation and the economic anxieties that are spooking voters.

    But there are increasing signs that Trump may not wait much longer to announce a 2024 bid, not least because he has already signaled he would use a presidential campaign to brand legal investigations he faces related to his hoarding of classified documents in his home in Mar-a-Lago and his conduct leading up to the Capitol insurrection on January 6, 2021, as proof of political persecution.

    “They are weaponizing the Justice Department,” Trump said at his rally Thursday, accusing Democrats of a transgression of which he himself was guilty when he was in the White House and treated attorneys general as his personal lawyers.

    Former Trump White House senior counselor Kellyanne Conway praised the former president for not taking the focus off the GOP’s midterm message, a decision that may repay him with a radical Republican House majority that he could use to weaken Biden in the run-up to the 2024 election.

    “He’d like to have done it already. … I think you can expect him to announce it soon,” Conway said of Trump’s anticipated campaign launch. “He’s being urged by some people to still have a November surprise.”

    “Donald Trump is just getting started. I think you should keep your cellphone on,” Conway told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast on Thursday.

    The former president used his rally in Iowa to tease a new campaign.

    “I will very, very, very probably do it again,” he said, drawing cheers from the crowd.

    If he follows through, this midterm is unlikely to be the last election when Trump and Obama cross swords on the campaign trail.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Exclusive: DOJ mulling potential special counsel if Trump runs in 2024 | CNN Politics

    Exclusive: DOJ mulling potential special counsel if Trump runs in 2024 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    As Donald Trump inches closer to launching another presidential run after the midterm election, Justice Department officials have discussed whether a Trump candidacy would create the need for a special counsel to oversee two sprawling federal investigations related to the former president, sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.

    The Justice Department is also staffing up its investigations with experienced prosecutors so it’s ready for any decisions after the midterms, including the potential unprecedented move of indicting a former president.

    In the weeks leading up to the election, the Justice Department has observed the traditional quiet period of not making any overt moves that may have political consequences. But behind the scenes, investigators have remained busy, using aggressive grand jury subpoenas and secret court battles to compel testimony from witnesses in both the investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his alleged mishandling of national security documents kept at his Palm Beach home.

    Now federal investigators are planning for a burst of post-election activity in Trump-related investigations. That includes the prospect of indictments of Trump’s associates – moves that could be made more complicated if Trump declares a run for the presidency.

    “They can crank up charges on almost anybody if they wanted to,” said one defense attorney working on January 6-related matters, who added defense lawyers have “have no idea” who ultimately will be charged.

    “This is the scary thing,” the attorney said.

    Trump and his associates also face legal exposure in Georgia, where Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is investigating Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election in the Peach State and expects to wrap her probe by the end of the year.

    Indicting an active candidate for the White House would surely spark a political firestorm. And while no decision has been made about whether a special counsel might be needed in the future, DOJ officials have debated whether doing so could insulate the Justice Department from accusations that Joe Biden’s administration is targeting his chief political rival, people familiar with the matter tell CNN.

    Special counsels, of course, are hardly immune from political attacks. Both former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and special counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the FBI’s Russia probe came under withering criticism from their opponents.

    The Justice Department declined to comment for this story.

    The Justice Department has brought in a brain trust for high-level advice on the Trump investigations, according to people familiar with the moves.

    Top Justice officials have looked to an old guard of former Southern District of New York prosecutors, bringing into the investigations Kansas City-based federal prosecutor and national security expert David Raskin, as well as David Rody, a prosecutor-turned-defense lawyer who previously specialized in gang and conspiracy cases and has worked extensively with government cooperators.

    Rody, whose involvement has not been previously reported, left a lucrative partnership at the prestigious corporate defense firm Sidley Austin in recent weeks to become a senior counsel at DOJ in the criminal division in Washington, according to his LinkedIn profile and sources familiar with the move.

    The team at the DC US Attorney’s Office handling the day-to-day work of the January 6 investigations is also growing – even while the office’s sedition cases against right-wing extremists go to trial.

    A handful of other prosecutors have joined the January 6 investigations team, including a high-ranking fraud and public corruption prosecutor who has moved out of a supervisor position and onto the team, and a prosecutor with years of experience in criminal appellate work now involved in some of the grand jury activity.

    Taken together, the reorganization of prosecutors indicates a serious and snowballing investigation into Trump and his closest circles.

    The decision of whether to charge Trump or his associates will ultimately fall to Attorney General Merrick Garland, whom President Joe Biden picked for the job because his tenure as a judge provided some distance from partisan politics, after Senate Republicans blocked his Supreme Court nomination in 2016.

    Attorney General nominee Merrick Garland at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Several former prosecutors believe the facts exist for a potentially chargeable case. But Garland will have to navigate the politically perilous and historic decision of how to approach the potential indictment of a former President.

    In March, Garland avoided answering a CNN question about the prospect of a special counsel for Trump-related investigations, but said that the Justice Department does “not shy away from cases that are controversial or sensitive or political.”

    “What we will avoid and what we must avoid is any partisan element of our decision making about cases,” Garland said. “That is what I’m intent on ensuring that the Department decisions are made on the merits, and that they’re made on the facts and the law, and they’re not based on any kind of partisan considerations.”

    Garland’s tough decisions go beyond Trump. The long-running investigation of Hunter Biden, son of the president, is nearing conclusion, people briefed on the matter say. Also waiting in the wings: a final decision on the investigation of Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, after prosecutors recommended against charges.

    It likely won’t take long after the midterms for focus to shift to the 2024 presidential race. That could incentivize top DOJ officials to make crucial charging decisions as quickly as possible, including whether to bring charges against Trump himself or other top political activists, other sources familiar with the Justice Department’s inner workings say.

    “They’re not going to charge before they’re ready to charge,” one former Justice Department official with some insight into the thinking around the investigations said. “But there will be added pressure to get through the review” of cases earlier than the typical five-year window DOJ has to bring charges.

    Matters could also be complicated by the situation in Georgia, where Willis is investigating Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election there. Willis has said she’s aiming for a special grand jury to wrap up its investigative work by the end of the year.

    Willis has observed her own version of a quiet period around the midterm election and is seeking to bring witnesses before the grand jury in the coming weeks. Sources previously told CNN indictments could come as soon as December.

    Key Trump allies, including South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows are among witnesses that have tried to fight off subpoenas in the state probe into efforts to interfere with the Georgia 2020 election.

    How those disputes resolve in Georgia – including whether courts force testimony – could improve DOJ’s ability to gather information, just as the House Select Committee’s January 6 investigation added to DOJ’s investigative leads from inside the Trump White House.

    The months leading up to the election have provided little respite from the political and legal activity around the investigations. The DC US Attorney’s Office–which is still shouldering the bulk of the January 6 investigations–has dealt with burnout in its ranks, as prosecutors are taking to trial or securing guilty pleas from more than 800 rioters who were on the grounds of the Capitol and still look to charge hundreds more.

    Trump has also foiled the DOJ’s efforts to keep things quiet in the weeks leading up to the election, leading to a steady barrage of headlines related to the investigation.

    Trump’s legal team successfully put in place a complicated court-directed process for sorting through thousands of documents seized from Mar-a-Lago, to determine whether they’re privileged and off limits to investigators. But the Justice Department and intelligence community have had access for weeks to about 100 records marked as classified that Trump had kept in Florida.

    The outcome of the intelligence review of those documents may determine if criminal charges will be filed, according to one source familiar with the Justice Department’s approach.

    Yet in both investigations, under-seal court activity never subsided, with the Justice Department trying to force at least five witnesses around Trump to secretly provide more information in their grand jury investigations in Washington, DC, CNN has previously reported.

    On Tuesday a federal judge ordered Trump adviser Kash Patel to testify before a grand jury investigating the handling of federal records at Mar-a-Lago, according to two people familiar with the investigation.

    Judge Beryl Howell of the DC District Court granted Patel immunity from prosecution on any information he provides to the investigation— another significant step that moves the Justice Department closer to potentially charging the case.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden’s plea for democracy is a strong election-closing argument for a different election | CNN Politics

    Biden’s plea for democracy is a strong election-closing argument for a different election | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Joe Biden’s eloquent defense of democracy was a message Americans needed to hear. But it was not the one voters most want now from their president – that relief is at hand from the soaring cost of living.

    Biden’s speech Wednesday, delivered blocks from the US Capitol that was ransacked by ex-President Donald Trump’s mob on January 6, 2021, was a strong election-closing argument. But for an election other than the one taking place next week.

    That’s not to say that the warning was misplaced. The fact that Biden felt the need to say, “We can’t take democracy for granted any longer,” underscores the grave threat posed to America’s core values by political violence and election denialism. If a president does not safeguard this historic legacy, who will? The chaos and violence Trump incited after the 2020 election show what unfolds when a president chooses to try to destroy democracy for personal gain.

    Biden’s speech was deeply personal, reflecting his own view of the mission handed him by history. It was also highly political given that the midterm elections, which feature scores of pro-Trump candidates spouting his stolen election nonsense, are only five days away. And it came days after the latest shocking example of political violence – the attack on the 82-year-old husband of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And since Biden launched his 2020 campaign as a quest to save America’s soul from what he sees as the aspiring autocracy of Trump, it was a statement of a mission unaccomplished – as well as a potential opening volley of a possible 2024 showdown for the White House between the 45th and 46th presidents.

    “You have the power, it’s your choice, it’s your decision, the fate of the nation, the fate of the soul of America lies, as it always does, with the people,” Biden told voters.

    Elections should be about more than one thing. Voters can walk and chew gum at the same time. But the harsh truth is this: In Washington, where just a glimpse of the towering Capitol dome reminds politicians and their media chroniclers of the January 6 horror, the threat to democracy feels visceral.

    But in the heartlands of Pennsylvania, the suburbs of Arizona and cities everywhere, the gut check issue is less the somewhat abstract and age-old concept of self-government. It’s the more basic one of feeding a family. This is an election more about the cost of a cart full of groceries or the price of a gallon of gasoline than America’s founding truths.

    As Scottsdale, Arizona, retiree Patricia Strong told CNN’s Tami Luhby: “The price of everything was better during Trump,” adding, “We were looking forward to retirement because everything was good.”

    Declining stock markets have hurt retirement accounts and Americans with credit card debt took another blow Wednesday when the Federal Reserve raised its short-term borrowing rate by another 0.75%. There are fears the Fed’s strategy could pitch the economy into recession and ruin one of the best aspects of the Biden economy – the low unemployment rate.

    Biden’s argument is implicitly that while inflation will fall, and economic damage can be repaired, the current election – and its legions of anti-democratic Republican candidates – could cause political wreckage that is beyond mending.

    But it’s a tough case to make in such a doom-laden political environment for Democrats. The millions of Republicans who believe Trump’s falsehoods about the last election don’t listen to Biden and his call for national unity anyway. His low approval ratings don’t help. And in a new CNN/SSRS survey published on Wednesday, for instance, 51% of Americans said inflation and the economy was most driving their vote in the midterms. Abortion – the issue Democrats hoped would save them next Tuesday after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade this summer – was the only other concern in double figures, polling at 15% of likely voters. And voting rights and election integrity – the focus of the president’s speech on Wednesday night – polled at only 9%.

    But Biden effectively asked voters to make a concern well down the list of their priorities the decisive factor when they cast their ballots.

    “This year, I hope you’ll make the future of our democracy an important part of your decision to vote, and how you vote,” he said. “Will that person accept the outcome of the election, win or lose?” he added, at the end of a campaign in which several GOP nominees have not guaranteed they would accept voters’ will.

    In places where Biden is unpopular, Democrats in tight races have made an explicit point about distancing themselves from the national party.

    “You know, the national Democratic Party has never been really good at strategic political decisions. So you know, it is not a surprise here, and thank God that I have enough experience that I’ve built this campaign not needing them and we really don’t want them at this point. We’re gonna do this thing with all the grassroots people we have here,” Rep. Tim Ryan, who is in a tight race for US Senate in Ohio against J.D. Vance, told “CNN This Morning” on Thursday.

    It’s not that Biden hasn’t been also talking about high prices. His pitch is that the billions of dollars of spending in his domestic agenda will lower the cost of health care, lift up working families and create millions of jobs. That may be the case, but things that could happen in the future can’t ease the pain being felt now.

    While Biden may be talking at cross purposes with the electorate on these issues, they are linked, in a fateful way, that he did not mention in his speech at Union Station on Wednesday evening. The president’s failure – whether it is all his fault or not – to quell inflation and the worries of a nation already demoralized by a once-in-a-century pandemic created the electoral conditions that look likely to restore Trumpism to power, in the form of a volatile, extreme GOP majority in the House of Representatives at least, with the Senate still on a knife’s edge.

    Throughout history, inflation has often been a pernicious political force that breeds desperation in an electorate and seeds extremism as a potential response. That’s why politicians fear it so acutely and why it is so curious that the Biden White House initially didn’t take the surge of prices that seriously, repeatedly insisting that this was a “transitory” problem caused by Covid-19.

    The president also renewed his call for national unity that he delivered in his inaugural address in front of a still violence-scarred Capitol in 2021. He explained that American democracy was primarily under attack because “the defeated former president of the United States refuses to accept the results of the 2020 election.”

    “He has abused his power and put the loyalty to himself before loyalty to the Constitution. And he’s made the Big Lie an article of faith in the MAGA Republican Party – a minority of that party,” Biden said, being careful not to insult every GOP voter as he did when referring to “semi-fascism” earlier this year.

    The president also argued that Trump’s threat was far broader now than it was in the 2020 election. “As I stand here today, there are candidates running for every level of office in America: for governor, Congress, for attorney general, for secretary of state who won’t commit – who will not commit to accepting the results of the elections they’re running in,” the president warned.

    Biden also hinted at a lack of understanding of Trump’s MAGA supporters, who have embraced his anti-democratic, populist, nationalist appeal to mainly White voters, which grew out of a backlash to the first Black presidency of Barack Obama. The 44th president has been making his own searing defenses of democracy and repudiation of Trump on the midterm election campaign trail in recent days.

    “You can’t love your country only when you win,” Biden said. The president is right – the essence of democracy depends on the loser in an election accepting the verdict of the people. This is why Trump’s behavior was so noxious in 2020 since his refusal to admit defeat did not just ruin one election. It tore at the fundamental principle of the political system that made America great two-and-a-half centuries before Trump’s political career and caused damage that will long outlast the shockwaves of one administration.

    But the essence of the Trump message exists in direct contradiction to Biden’s logic. Such voters can only love their country when their party wins because they see the Democrats that they lose to as the antipathy of their vision of America itself. These dueling understandings of what America actually means are at the core of the current, great political struggle that will not just play out next Tuesday, but in the 2024 election and beyond.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Warnings about a fragile democracy hit home for some Arizona voters as election deniers compete for key offices | CNN Politics

    Warnings about a fragile democracy hit home for some Arizona voters as election deniers compete for key offices | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The voters who poured into a Phoenix high school to hear from former President Barack Obama were looking to send a message of defiance Wednesday night.

    They said they are determined to defeat former President Donald Trump’s hand-picked slate of election deniers – including gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake, Senate nominee Blake Masters and Secretary of State nominee Mark Finchem – and will not allow their state’s voters to be intimidated by activists who turned up to monitor ballot drop boxes late last month – some of them armed, masked and wearing camouflage.

    As President Joe Biden warned Americans from Washington, DC, on Wednesday night that democracy is at stake, it’s here in Arizona that democratic institutions look most fragile ahead of next week’s midterm elections and the 2024 presidential election, in which Arizona is likely to be a pivotal battleground.

    Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who successfully defeated Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, now finds herself locked in a tight race against Lake, who has said she will accept the results of a “fair, honest and transparent election,” after previously refusing in an interview with CNN to commit to accepting the results if she lost. And Finchem, who could become the state’s chief elections administrator, is still trying to overturn the results of the last election.

    “If you do need one more reason to vote, consider the fact that our democracy is on the ballot. And nowhere is that clearer than here in Arizona,” Obama told the crowd Wednesday, later adding that “democracy as we know it may not survive in Arizona” if election deniers fill all the top state offices.

    Maricopa County was the site of repeated “audits” after the 2020 election – including the sham partisan review conducted by the now-defunct firm known as Cyber Ninjas. Both political parties are now girding for another potential battle over the election results in a state Biden won by less than 10,500 votes. And the GOP candidates at the top of the ticket are setting that tone.

    Joann Rodriguez, a registered Democrat from Maricopa County, said it was scary that “radical Republicans” in her state were able to elevate candidates like Lake and Masters, who won their primaries in part by echoing Trump’s falsehoods about the 2020 election.

    “What are they running on, aside from Trump’s talking points that the election was stolen?” Rodriguez said. She noted that “a lot of Trumpers” are still driving their trucks with Trump flags around her Glendale, Arizona, neighborhood. “And they’re walking around with guns on their hips, showing up at the ballot boxes or showing up at the election sites – for what reason? I mean, do they think that their intimidation tactics are going to work?”

    Hobbs touted her record as secretary of state Wednesday night. “I stood for democracy when I refused to give into the insurrectionists who surrounded my home after I certified the 2020 election and I’m still doing it today in this race for governor,” she said.

    A New York Times/Siena College poll released this week showed her in a dead heat race with Lake. Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales rates the race a Toss-up.

    The state was on edge as Obama arrived in Arizona less than a week before the midterm election to campaign for fellow Democrats, including Sen. Mark Kelly, who is in a close race with Masters. The fact that those top statewide contests may be decided on a razor’s edge is what brought Obama to the Grand Canyon State as he seeks to fire up the Democratic base and make sure that young voters and Latino voters – who will be critical to victory in Arizona – turn out in a midterm election year.

    Both Biden and Obama have been arguing that the fate of democracy is at stake, but Biden, who has not been invited to campaign in top swing states, had to make his argument from the opposite side of the country.

    The political climate and concerns about the sanctity of the election results are what brought Keith Greenberg, a registered Republican from Maricopa County, to Obama’s rally. He said in an interview that he wasn’t voting for Democrats in this election, he is voting against the Trump ticket.

    “The Republican Party today is not the Republican Party I’m a part of,” said Greenberg, who described the 2020 election as fair and honest. “That’s more like the American Nazi Party and I can’t put up with that – the lie.”

    If the Trump ticket wins, Greenberg said, “It means that the state of Arizona has lost its mind. And this is no longer a safe place to live. If Mark Finchem wins and says, ‘Well, I don’t care what the people voted. I’m going to do this’ – then what’s the point? We’ve lost our democracy.”

    Arizona’s status as a tinderbox of election controversies is underscored by the fact that two lawsuits have already been filed in federal court on behalf of voters who felt intimidated by the aggressive patrols at ballot drop boxes late last month.

    Voters filed complaints to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office after some activists were taking pictures of voters and their license plates – apparently inspired by debunked conspiracy theories about so-called “mules” who stuffed ballot boxes in 2020. A federal judge issued a ruling in one of the cases on Tuesday barring members of a group known as Clean Elections USA – whose leader has falsely asserted the 2020 election was rigged – from openly carrying guns or wearing body armor within 250 feet of drop boxes.

    Because of the ruling, the group’s members are also now barred from speaking to or yelling at voters who drop off their ballots, and they may not photograph or film voters at the drop boxes. The Justice Department had weighed in on the case that was brought by the League of Women Voters. The DOJ did not formally take sides, but in a legal brief, federal prosecutors said the right-wing group’s “vigilante ballot security efforts” were likely illegal and “raise serious concerns of voter intimidation.”

    The depth of the belief among Republicans about Trump’s election lies was underscored by a CNN poll conducted by SSRS that was released on Wednesday: 66% of Republicans said they don’t believe Biden legitimately won the election.

    That dynamic is even more pronounced in a state like Arizona where Trump acolytes control the Republican Party and have censured figures like outgoing Republican Gov. Doug Ducey and former Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake for what they said was insufficient loyalty to the former president.

    Michelle Gonzales, a registered Democrat from Maricopa County, said she believes that people came to see Obama Wednesday night “so they could feel hopeful” about the democratic process amid all the noise.

    “With everything, all the rhetoric going on, I think it’s important to really hear from someone – that we trust and we believe in – that we can be hopeful about this election,” she said. “You can see all these people out here. Thousands of people waiting. I just want to believe that people want to believe in something better – that they have morals and values that we all should have as human beings and not elect these liars and con people.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link