ReportWire

Tag: iab-elections

  • RNC chair says requiring loyalty pledge for participation in GOP presidential debates is a ‘no-brainer’ | CNN Politics

    RNC chair says requiring loyalty pledge for participation in GOP presidential debates is a ‘no-brainer’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said Sunday that she expects 2024 GOP presidential contenders will have to sign a pledge to back the party’s ultimate nominee in order to participate in primary debates.

    “We haven’t put the criteria out, but I expect a pledge will be part of it. It was part of 2016. I think it’s kind of a no-brainer, right? If you’re going to be on the Republican National Committee debate stage asking voters to support you, you should say, ‘I’m going to support the voters and who they choose as the nominee,’” McDaniel told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” in her first interview since winning a contentious race for a fourth term as RNC chairwoman.

    “As RNC chair, if I said I wouldn’t support the Republican nominee, I would be removed from office,” she said.

    Asked if there would be other requirements for candidates to get onto the debate stage, McDaniel said, “I think there should be a threshold.”

    “You want to make sure you have people on the debate stage who are running for president. We don’t want people who are running for book deals, or media contracts, or Cabinet positions,” she said.

    Republicans who have launched presidential bids include former President Donald Trump, former US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, but many more are signaling interest. Among them are Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, and Mike Pompeo, Trump’s former secretary of state.

    A Trump campaign spokesperson told CNN later Sunday in response to McDaniel’s pledge expectation that “President Trump will support the Republican nominee because it will be him.”

    Earlier this month, Trump hesitated when asked if he would support the eventual GOP nominee if it were not him.

    “It would depend,” the former president told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt during an interview on radio show. “It would have to depend on who the nominee was.”

    DeSantis called for “some new blood in the RNC” prior to McDaniel’s win in January, while offering praise for Harmeet Dhillon, one of her opponents for the chair position. Asked by Bash if she had spoken to the Florida governor since then, McDaniel said, “Ron and I have a good relationship. And we’re going to work well together,” adding that she campaigned with DeSantis’ wife, Casey, “quite a bit” in the last election.

    The primary is still in its early stages, and it could take months before the field fully rounds into form and candidates make more than occasional visits to states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, which will kick off the GOP’s nominating process.

    “We can’t be attacking each other so much that we lose sight of: We have to beat the Democrats. We have to beat Joe Biden in 2024. And we may have divisive primaries and differences of opinions, but in the end we have to settle those to win the big picture, which is governing our country and doing right by the American people,” McDaniel said Sunday, leaning on the message of unity she put forward in her campaign for another term atop the RNC.

    Asked Sunday about compelling certain White House hopefuls who have broken with party leaders – such as former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson – to sign a loyalty pledge, McDaniel offered: “I think you support the voters.”

    “I am Mitt Romney’s niece and I was appointed to the RNC by Donald Trump. And I would support both of them … if they were the nominee of our party over Joe Biden. But I don’t know if they would support each other,” she said.

    McDaniel was also asked about the decision by Republicans in her home state of Michigan to choose Kristina Karamo as state party chair. Karamo has falsely claimed that Trump won the state in the 2020 election, and she has yet to concede her loss in last year’s race for Michigan secretary of state.

    “I don’t know her very well. And I wasn’t at this recent convention,” said McDaniel, herself a former Michigan GOP chair. “But I’m committed to Michigan. It’s my state.”

    “We have a Senate seat. We have House seats. I love our great state. And the RNC is absolutely committed to Michigan,” she said.

    This story has been updated with additional reaction.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Incumbent Lightfoot fights to make runoff in Chicago mayoral primary | CNN Politics

    Incumbent Lightfoot fights to make runoff in Chicago mayoral primary | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is fighting for her political survival, seeking to finish in the top two in Tuesday’s crowded primary and advance to an April runoff in her quest for a second term.

    Lightfoot, the first Black woman and first out gay person to serve as mayor of a city often pilloried by conservatives in national debates over violence and gun control, rose to prominence as a pugnacious reformer promising a break from the corruption and clubby governance that had long marked Chicago politics.

    But years of contentious brawls over policing, teacher pay and Covid-19 public safety policies, as well as mounting complaints about long waits in Chicago’s public transit system, have left Lightfoot vulnerable, raising the prospect of the Second City ousting its Democratic mayor in the first round of voting.

    Voters on Tuesday will sort through the nine-candidate field – including eight Democrats and one independent. No candidate is expected to top 50% of the vote, which would mean the top two finishers will advance to an April 4 runoff.

    Campaigns and Chicago political observers describe the contest as wide open, with four candidates emerging at the top: Lightfoot; progressive US Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García; Cook County Commissioner Brandon Johnson; and Paul Vallas, a law-and-order candidate and a onetime head of schools in Chicago, Philadelphia and New Orleans.

    If the outcome is close, it could take days to determine the top two finishers, as mail-in votes postmarked by election day get delivered.

    Powerful interests with which Lightfoot has at times brawled are split among her major challengers. Conservatives and the police have aligned behind one rival. Teachers have backed another. And many progressives are backing a third major contender.

    Above all else, concerns about crime and public safety have rattled Chicago. Violence in the city spiked in 2020 and 2021. And though shootings and murders have decreased since then, other crimes – including theft, car-jacking, robberies and burglaries – have increased since last year, according to the Chicago Police Department’s 2022 year-end report.

    Lightfoot and her rivals have placed the issue at the forefront of their campaigns.

    “We absolutely need to hire more officers,” Lightfoot said at a WTTW mayoral forum earlier this month. “This is one of the toughest times in the country to recruit, and mayors all over the country are experiencing the difficulty.”

    Chicago’s municipal elections are nonpartisan, which means all voters – Democrats, Republicans and independents – can participate. However, Chicago is an overwhelmingly blue city, and all the major contenders say they are Democrats.

    Vallas, however, has attracted support from conservatives, and has described the Democratic Party as moving away from him in recent years on certain issues. Lightfoot, in an email to supporters, said Vallas “has so strongly aligned himself with Republican views that he can’t even be considered a moderate Democrat.”

    Vallas, who unsuccessfully ran for Illinois governor as a Democrat in 2002 and was the losing Democratic lieutenant governor nominee in 2014, was endorsed by the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police, the same organization that hosted Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in nearby Elmhurst earlier this week.

    “I have talked about the need to take our city back from the criminals that are preying on our residents and preying on our businesses,” Vallas told CNN in an interview.

    Johnson, meanwhile, has floated the idea in the past of diverting some funds from the police budget to alternate sources, saying he wants to “invest in people.”

    He has the backing of the Chicago Teachers Union, a powerful organization that has repeatedly clashed with Lightfoot – including over teachers’ pay and class sizes in 2019 that led to an 11-day strike and then last year as Lightfoot pushed teachers to return to classrooms at a time of rising Covid-19 cases.

    “The reason we don’t have enough police officers is because we are asking them to be social workers, therapists and marriage counselors,” Johnson said at the WTTW forum. “I’m actually investing in actually having social workers, therapists to show up on the front line, to actually free up law enforcement to deal with the more severe crime that happens in the city of Chicago.”

    García – a former Cook County commissioner who in 2015 forced then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel into a runoff – has sounded similar themes.

    “Hiring more civilians to free up more police officers with their guns and badges to walk the walk, to talk to people, rebuild trust is the most important. The other important element is investing in communities and investing in violence prevention programs,” he told CNN.

    Vallas, whose message has revolved around a tough-on-crime message, said Chicago needs more police on “L” station platforms and on trains as part of a push to place more officers on local beats.

    He said combating violent crime is the “first, second and third priority” of his campaign.

    “Everything becomes undermined if you can’t provide public security,” Vallas told CNN.

    Lightfoot in recent days has lambasted Vallas after he told a crowd that his “whole campaign is about taking back our city, pure and simple.”

    The mayor told reporters that Vallas was “blowing the ultimate dog whistle.”

    “Take our city back, meaning what? To what time? And take our city back from whom?” she said.

    When pressed by CNN, Vallas said he was referring to criminals in his remark that Lightfoot has criticized.

    “I have talked about the need to take our city back from the criminals that are preying on our residents and preying on our businesses,” he said.

    For her part, Lightfoot has touted Chicago’s lawsuit against an Indiana gun store – part of an effort to demonstrate that the influx of firearms into the city isn’t a result of Chicago’s gun policies, but rather neighboring states with more lax laws.

    She has also touted her administration’s efforts to hire nearly 1,000 additional police officers, put privatized, unarmed security on public transit and create teams and task forces focused on car-jacking, halting the flow of guns into the city and more.

    The Chicago Tribune, the city’s largest newspaper, has endorsed Vallas. The newspaper’s editorial board credited Lightfoot’s financial management of the city and her navigation of the Covid-19 pandemic and said it hopes the mayor will advance to face Vallas one-on-one in the runoff.

    “Vallas has the ear of rank-and-file police officers on the street. We will expect him to use that trust to improve police conduct and the abysmal clearance rate for violent offenses,” the editorial board said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Widespread voting delays hinder tense Nigerian election as millions go to the polls | CNN

    Widespread voting delays hinder tense Nigerian election as millions go to the polls | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Abuja, Nigeria
    CNN
     — 

    Widespread delays overshadowed a crucial presidential election in Nigeria Saturday, as millions voted to elect their new leader. The hotly contested poll is being held simultaneously with elections for representatives for the country’s parliament.

    CNN confirmed reports from eyewitnesses of isolated violence at two polling stations in Lagos, with the military forced to intervene. CNN has reached out to INEC for comment.

    In chaotic scenes at a polling unit in Maraba, an Abuja suburb, a large crowd of voters struggled to cast their ballot, a CNN team witnessed. Those who did manage to cast a ballot did so in the full glare of those standing next to them, in contravention of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) guidelines which establish privacy for voters.

    “People are voting in exposed spaces, and everyone can see who they are voting for. There’s no privacy. I won’t be surprised if this polling unit is canceled,” Elias Ajunwa, one registered voter, said.

    Ajunwa expressed unease about the situation. “There’s the possibility of any hooligan carting away INEC materials because of how vulnerable the INEC officials and their materials are,” he added.

    About 93 million Nigerians in a country of 200 million people are registered to vote, according to electoral body INEC, but only 87 million are holders of a permanent voter card (PVC), a main requirement to cast a ballot. The election will be Africa’s largest democratic exercise.

    Nigeria's Labour Party's candidate Peter Obi casts his vote during the presidential elections in Agulu, Nigeria.

    The Chief Observer of European Union Observation Mission to Nigeria, Barry Andrews, told CNN it was premature to make any conclusions about widespread delays.

    “We’ve taken note of those reports and we will look across the country to see whether this a pattern or whether it has in any way hindered the exercise of people’s political rights to vote or caused frustration or caused people to turn away. For the moment, it’s premature to make any conclusions about it.”

    People were still waiting to cast their ballots despite polls being expected to close at 2:30 p.m. local time (8:30 a.m. ET). Voting did not start until after the scheduled opening time in some polling stations.

    One polling station in Lagos delayed opening as officials were still setting up after polls were meant to open, a CNN team witnessed. An official urged eager voters to be calm and “treat each other with love” as they continued to wait.

    The same issue dogged several other voting locations, including in northern Kano State and southern Bayelsa State, with no election officials in sight at 8:30 a.m. local time, according to Reuters. In previous elections, voters in some areas have complained that polling stations opened hours late or did not materialize at all.

    Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) officials set up voting materials at a polling station in Ojuelegba, Lagos, on February 25, 2023, before polls opened.

    All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate Bola Tinubu and his wife Oluremi Tinubu arrive to vote at a polling station in Lagos on Saturday during Nigeria's presidential and general election.

    Ballots will be counted at polling places at the close of voting and transmitted electronically in real-time to INEC’s Result Viewing portal (IReV), a first of its kind in Nigeria, the commission tells CNN.

    “With the electronic transmission system (IREV), people will already know the winners before the official announcement is made,” adds Rotimi Oyekanmi, a spokesman for INEC’s chairperson.

    To win, a candidate must garner a sufficient number of ballots to meet the 25% vote spread in 24 of Nigeria’s 36 states. In the absence of this, a second round run-off between the top two candidates will be held within 21 days.

    Eighteen candidates are on the ballot for Nigeria’s top, but three are leading the race for the popular vote, according to pre-election surveys.

    One of the key contenders is Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the candidate of term-limited President Muhammadu Buhari’s party, the All Progressives Congress (APC). Another is the main opposition leader and former vice president Atiku Abubakar, of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). And third strong contender, Peter Obi, is running under the lesser known Labour Party, and altered early predictions of the presidential vote, which has typically been two-horse races between the ruling and opposition parties.

    Seventy-year-old Tinubu, 70, is a former governor of Nigeria’s wealthy Lagos State, who wields significant influence in the southwestern region where he is acclaimed as a political godfather and kingmaker.

    He boasts of aiding the election of Buhari to the presidency and declares it is now his turn to lead the country.

    Candidate of the opposition party PDP Abubakar, 76, is a former Nigerian vice president and a staunch capitalist who made his fortune investing in various sectors in the country.

    Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Peter Obi, and Atiku Abubakar

    Here’s what to know about Nigeria’s presidential election

    Abubakar’s presidential bid (his sixth attempt) had fueled concern that it might usurp an unofficial arrangement to rotate the presidency between Nigeria’s northern and southern regions, since he is from the same northern region as the outgoing leader, Buhari.

    Labor Party’s Obi is a two-time former governor of southeastern Anambra State and has been touted as a credible alternative to the two major candidates by his hordes of supporters, mostly young Nigerians who call themselves ‘Obidients.’

    Obi is also the only Christian among the leading candidates. His southeastern region has yet to produce a president or vice president since Nigeria returned to civil rule in 1999.

    Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi (C) talks to the media at outside a polling station in Amatutu in western Anambra State on Saturday.

    The ruling party’s Tinubu, from the religiously mixed southwestern part of the country, is a Muslim and also chose a Muslim running mate, despite the country’s unofficial tradition of mixed-faith presidential tickets.

    All top three candidates are confident they can turn Nigeria’s fortunes around if voted into power, as the country battles myriad economic and security problems that range from fuel and cash shortages to rising terror attacks, high inflation, and a plummeting local currency.

    One voter, Wandu, told CNN’s Larry Madowo in Lagos on Saturday that the most important issue is security: “We need someone that has a hold and an understanding of the security challenges that we have. The economy is in free fall. We need someone that has a fair understanding of what we need to be better.”

    A voter casts her ballot at a polling station in Amatutu in western Anambra State on Saturday.

    Nigeria’s security forces have mobilized personnel to ensure hitch-free electioneering across the country.

    The run-up to the polls has been fraught with violence that stemmed from protests against unpopular government policies and lethal attacks by armed criminal gangs.

    On Wednesday, a senatorial candidate for the Labour Party, was shot and burned in his campaign vehicle in the country’s southeastern Enugu State, police said.

    Electoral body INEC suspended the election in Enugu East Senatorial District following the death of the candidate, it tweeted on Saturday, adding that the election will now be held on March 11.

    Before the killing, violent protests had erupted across Nigerian states as citizens railed against the scarcity of gasoline in petrol outlets and a shortage of cash that followed a controversial currency redesign.

    INEC hasn’t been spared from the chaos; its facilities have been torched in parts of the country.

    Voting was canceled at more than 200 planned polling units across Nigeria and voters redirected to other poll locations, INEC said, due to security concerns.

    Ahead of the elections, national police ordered a restriction of non-essential vehicular and waterway movements from midnight on election day until 6 p.m., while the country’s immigration service has ordered the closure of Nigeria’s land borders from midnight Saturday until midnight Sunday.

    Weeks before polling day, the service had confiscated over 6000 voter cards from illegal migrants, whom it said had other national documents in their possession.

    A Department of State Services (DSS) official stands guard at a polling station in Amatutu in western Anambra State on Saturday.

    INEC spokesperson Oyekanmi nevertheless insists the poll results will be free and fair.

    “The experience Nigerians will have for the 2023 elections will be far better than previous elections and the integrity (of the polls) will be clear for everyone to see,”Oyekanmi told CNN days before the election.

    Final results are expected to be announced a few days after polling.

    Current President Buhari tweeted on Thursday: “There should be no riots or acts of violence after the announcement of the election results. All grievances, personal or institutional, should be channeled to the relevant Courts.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Colorado discipline office moves toward ethics complaint against ex-Trump attorney for 2020 election gambits | CNN Politics

    Colorado discipline office moves toward ethics complaint against ex-Trump attorney for 2020 election gambits | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The disciplinary office that regulates attorney conduct in Colorado is taking steps toward potentially bringing an ethics complaint against Jenna Ellis, the lawyer who played a prominent role in former President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

    Colorado’s Attorney Regulation Counsel, an independent office in the state, indicated last week that it had been authorized to prepare and file a formal complaint against Ellis, according to a February 17 email provided to CNN by Project 65, a group of bipartisan lawyers that is asking for disciplinary action against Ellis and other pro-Trump attorneys who tried to overturn and undermine the 2020 election.

    “We expect the Complaint will be filed within the next month or so,” said the email, which was sent to the head of a group that asked the disciplinary office to investigate Ellis.

    Under Colorado attorney disciplinary rules, the office still has the option to reach a settlement or stipulation with Ellis at this point in the process, so it’s not guaranteed that an ethics complaint will ultimately be filed against her.

    Jessica Yates, who runs the disciplinary office, told CNN that the office cannot comment on specific cases. The email was sent to Michael Teter, the managing director of the 65 Project.

    Ellis did not respond to CNN’s attempts to reach her for comment. When the 65 Project asked for the ethics investigation into Ellis last March, she told CNN that she would not be “intimidated by this dirty political maneuver to undermine the legal profession.”

    Teter told CNN that the recent move by the disciplinary office “demonstrates the seriousness of her misconduct in her attempt to overturn the 2020 election by abusing the court system and making fraudulent, baseless allegations.” Ellis was the public face of many of Trump’s election-reversal gambits, working on Trump’s legal efforts as well as the failed bid to convince state legislatures to nullify President Joe Biden’s win.

    Several other Trump-aligned lawyers have faced potential professional consequences – including the possibility of suspension or disbarment – for their post-election legal conduct. However, some of the bids to discipline those attorneys have run into roadblocks.

    The disciplinary action that was brought against Sidney Powell, who put forward some of the most outlandish false claims about the presidential vote, was thrown out by a Texas judge on Thursday.

    But an attorney disciplinary committee in DC made the preliminary finding last year that former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani violated ethics rules for his work on a Trump lawsuit that tried to throw out hundreds of thousands of votes in Pennsylvania. There will be more rounds of appeal before that finding is finalized and a punishment is handed down, but the DC Bar’s disciplinary counsel has asked for Giuliani to be disbarred. And Jeffrey Clark, the former Justice Department lawyer who tried unsuccessfully to get the department to validate Trump’s false voter fraud claims, is also facing attorney ethics proceedings in DC.

    If the attorney regulation counsel in Colorado moves forward with a complaint against Ellis, and there isn’t a settlement, the matter will be go through rounds of proceedings in front of a disciplinary judge, including a potential trial-like hearing before a panel made up of the judge and two other volunteers. The decision by that panel can then be appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Seven months since he left office, Britain is still reeling from Boris Johnson | CNN

    Seven months since he left office, Britain is still reeling from Boris Johnson | CNN

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Seven months since he announced his resignation as prime minister of the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson’s shadow still looms large over the ruling Conservative party.

    Despite being forced from office in disgrace and presiding over a massive decline in support for both himself and his party, Johnson is still attempting to influence government policy. His supporters say his interventions are the Conservatives’ last hopes at saving the party from decimation at the next election. His critics think he is not only undermining current PM Rishi Sunak, but, by reminding voters – with many of whom he is unpopular – of his existence, he is damaging his party’s electoral prospects.

    A quick recap: Johnson was forced to resign after multiple ethics scandals made his position untenable. Those scandals included the notorious “Partygate” where Johnson became the first sitting PM to be found guilty of breaking the law by holding illegal gatherings during the pandemic lockdown. The final straw came for Johnson after it allegations emerged that his deputy chief whip, Chris Pincher, had been sexually harassing party members while drunk. Johnson hired Pincher despite being aware of rumors about his conduct.

    Johnson has spent much of the past week leaving Westminster guessing as to whether or not he is going to publicly come out against Sunak as he attempts to negotiate an agreement with the European Union to fix part of the 2019 Brexit deal. It is worth noting that Johnson himself negotiated and signed that deal, calling it “oven ready” during his election campaign that same year.

    The part of the deal causing all the problems is the Northern Ireland Protocol, an arrangement that theoretically prevents a hard border between Northern Ireland, which left the EU along with the rest of the UK, and the Republic of Ireland, an EU member state. Both sides agree a border should not exist for fears of provoking tensions and violence. Northern Ireland has been largely peaceful since a 1998 accord ended the three-decades-long “Troubles,” in which more than 3,500 people were killed.

    The UK has not implemented the protocol in full for fears it would damage trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Northern Irish pro-British unionists claim the protocol cuts the province off from the rest of the UK, while hardline English Brexiteers believe the protocol – and any deal Sunak might make to revive it – is essentially a capitulation to the EU, despite them supporting the deal in 2019.

    Those hardliners, along with Johnson, believe that Sunak should specifically not abandon a piece of proposed legislation that Johnson introduced during his time in office, the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which allows the UK government to rip up parts of the protocol. Critics say this would break international law. The constant noise and anticipation of a Johnson intervention has effectively killed talks of an agreement being reached with the EU and left many questioning Sunak’s strength to deliver as PM.

    Johnson has also publicly implored Sunak to become the first Western leader to send fighter jets to Ukraine as the conflict marks its 12-month anniversary.

    The vast majority of MPs that CNN spoke with are sick of Johnson’s “attention seeking,” as many of them described it. They all declined to speak on the record for fear of derailing Northern Ireland talks which, as many of them were quick to say, is a very dangerous situation, pointing to the shooting of a detective that took place in the province just this week.

    “I just wish he would get on side and realize that his efforts would be best spent supporting Rishi,” said a former government minister who served under Johnson. “The next election is going to be hard enough without this distraction. Boris is still popular in certain parts of the country that we might lose seats. He should be up there campaigning, not teasing a return to the frontline.”

    Another government minister who also served under Johnson is less optimistic about Johnson’s ability to help, even if he wanted to.

    “He is fundamentally too selfish to want to help the people who he no doubt believes kicked him out of office unfairly,” the former minister said. “And he is unpopular enough that the prospect of him returning to the frontline could be one of the biggest motivating factors for people to vote against us.”

    Many Conservative MPs are fed up with Johnson's

    The polls back up this theory. A recent Ipsos MORI survey revealed that Johnson is still less trusted than either Sunak or leader of the opposition Keir Starmer. Poll after poll on the outcome at the next general election predicts the Conservatives suffering heavy losses. The dip in the Conservative’s fortunes can be traced directly back to the start of the Partygate scandal. Before that, Johnson was enjoying an unusually high level of support, thanks in large part to the UK’s successful Covid vaccine roll-out.

    Johnson’s supporters don’t entirely believe the polls and challenge the narrative that the collapse in the Conservatives’ support was due to a media obsession with Partygate.

    One Johnson loyalist told CNN that “people forget he won us the largest majority since Margaret Thatcher” and believes he is still “a giant” in the eyes of the public. His supporters in the party welcome his interventions, with one saying of the Northern Ireland debate, still taking aim at the press, that the media “should welcome the widest possible debate on this major constitutional issue for our nation.”

    Boris Johnson may have won a landslide election victory on his claim to have

    Other Conservatives fear that the Johnson loyalists, who are mostly at the harder end of the Brexit-supporting spectrum, will learn the hard way that their assumptions are wrong.

    “Most of his supporters in parliament have either already decided to stand down at the next election, probably because they know the writing is on the wall, or stand a very good chance of losing their seat,” the former government minister said.

    A senior Conservative and former cabinet minister who worked in government with Johnson looks on with some degree of bewilderment. “I don’t really know what these hardline Brexiters are hoping to achieve. The public largely views Brexit as a mistake, so why double down on it so aggressively,” they  mused.

    There are an increasing number of Conservatives who look at the polls and think a heavy loss at the next general election is inevitable. They see one big advantage of Johnson returning to the frontline: that him lose losing might finally kill the myth that he is the “chosen one” and finally draw a line under the whole Johnson experiment.

    It seems unlikely that Johnson will end his agitation from the backbenches, especially over policies that he believes might trash his legacy. However, the louder he shouts and the harder he stamps his feet, the biggest threat to the Johnson legacy could easily become Boris Johnson himself. Whether he brings down his party too seems a matter that doesn’t unduly bother many of his supporters.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • West Virginia brothers who brought bats to the US Capitol on January 6 sentenced | CNN Politics

    West Virginia brothers who brought bats to the US Capitol on January 6 sentenced | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Two West Virginia brothers who brought bats to the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, were sentenced Thursday by a federal judge in Washington, DC.

    Eric Cramer, 43, who pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in a restricted area and tried to grab a baton from a police officer, was sentenced to eight months in prison. His brother, Country Cramer, 38 – who entered the Capitol for two minutes on January 6 – was sentenced to 45 days of home detention after pleading guilty to unlawfully parading or picketing.

    The brothers traveled together to DC to support members of Congress who were contesting the certification of the 2020 Electoral College vote in several states, according to their plea agreement.

    While at the Capitol, Eric Cramer – wearing a gas mask throughout the day and carrying with him a baseball bat – grabbed an officer’s baton and attempted to pull it from his hands before another officer came forward and Cramer backed away, the judge said during the hearing.

    Eric Cramer posted a photo on Facebook of a police baton which, he wrote, he took “from the cop that hit me with it … so I guess that’s my trophy,” according to court documents.

    Judge Randolph Moss told Eric Cramer the Justice Department could have charged him with a felony for interfering with law enforcement officers and that the baseball bat – though there is no evidence it was ever used as a weapon – concerned him greatly.

    Someone carrying a baseball bat, Moss said, was likely “engaging in threatening behavior unless they’re walking up to the plate.”

    “It is just more and more disturbing the more I see,” Moss said of the Capitol attack. “It was one of the most regrettable days in our country.”

    Before being sentenced, Eric Cramer apologized for his actions and said he understood how the bat could be seen as threatening, adding that he only brought it for protection after seeing how violent some protests had become over the previous year.

    “I know in my heart though that I was not there for negative anything,” Eric Cramer told the judge.

    According to investigators, the FBI received a tip from a classmate of Eric Cramer’s daughter, after she posted a photo of Cramer’s Facebook post bragging about the baton. “MY DAD YALL,” his daughter allegedly wrote, adding a rock-and-roll emoji along with one of an American flag.

    Prosecutors did not mention the baton during the sentencing Thursday and the plea agreement does not say whether the baton in the photo was stolen from an officer.

    Country Cramer brought a miniature baseball bat with him, which he told the judge he kept in his backpack while on Capitol grounds.

    Country Cramer told the judge, “Had I known how the day would have turned out on the 6th, I would have never of came.” He said he brought the small bat and wore a helmet because he expected to walk back to their car in the dark that night and “that can be a little scary” – citing past violent protests.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘It’s a major blow’: Dominion has uncovered ‘smoking gun’ evidence in case against Fox News, legal experts say | CNN Business

    ‘It’s a major blow’: Dominion has uncovered ‘smoking gun’ evidence in case against Fox News, legal experts say | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Fox News is in serious hot water.

    That’s what several legal experts told CNN this week following Dominion Voting Systems explosive legal filing against the right-wing talk channel, revealing the network’s executives and hosts privately blasted the election fraud claims being peddled by Donald Trump’s team, despite allowing lies about the 2020 contest to be promoted on its air.

    While the legal experts cautioned that they would like to see Fox News’ formal legal response to the filing, they all indicated in no uncertain terms that the evidence compiled in Dominion’s legal filing represents a serious threat to the channel.

    “It’s a major blow,” attorney Floyd Abrams of Pentagon Papers fame said, adding that the “recent revelations certainly put Fox in a more precarious situation” in defending against the lawsuit on First Amendment grounds.

    A version of this article first appeared in the “Reliable Sources” newsletter. Sign up for the daily digest chronicling the evolving media landscape here.

    Rebecca Tushnet, the Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law at Harvard Law School, described Dominion’s evidence as a “very strong” filing that “clearly lays out the difference between what Fox was saying publicly and what top people at Fox were privately admitting.”

    A cache of behind-the-scenes messages included in the legal filing showed Fox Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch called Trump’s claims “really crazy stuff,” and the cable network’s stars — including Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham — brutally mock the lies being pushed by the former president’s camp asserting that the election was rigged.

    It also showed attempts to crack down on fact-checking election lies. On one occasion, Carlson demanded that Fox News White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich be fired after she fact-checked a Trump tweet pushing election fraud claims.

    Tushnet said that in all of her years practicing and teaching law, she had never seen such damning evidence collected in the pre-trial phase of a defamation suit. “I don’t recall anything comparable to this,” Tushnet said. “Donald Trump seems to be very good at generating unprecedented situations.”

    David Korzenik, an attorney who teaches First Amendment law and represents a number of media organizations, said that the filing showed Dominion’s case against Fox News has serious teeth.

    Korzenik stressed that while the law allows for bias and ratings-seeking behavior by media outlets, it does not allow for the publication of material one knows to be false. The filing, Korzenik said, “certainly puts Fox in the actual malice crosshairs and puts them in real jeopardy.”

    RonNell Andersen Jones, a professor and media law scholar at the University of Utah, described the evidence as “pretty voluminous” and said that she too had never seen evidence like it collected in a high-profile defamation case against an outlet as enormous as Fox.

    “This is a pretty staggering brief,” Jones said. “Dominion’s filing here is unique not just as to the volume of the evidence but also as to the directness of the evidence and the timeline of the evidence.”

    “This ‘out of the horse’s mouth’ evidence of knowing falsity is not something we often see,” Jones added. “When coupled with the compelling storyline that Dominion is telling about motivation — the evidence that at least some key players in the organization were actively looking to advance some election denialism in order to win back viewers who had departed — it makes for a strong actual malice storyline.”

    In a statement, Fox News accused Dominion of generating “noise and confusion,” adding, “the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution and protected by New York Times v. Sullivan.”

    “Dominion has mischaracterized the record, cherry-picked quotes stripped of key context, and spilled considerable ink on facts that are irrelevant under black-letter principles of defamation law,” the network said. “Their motion for summary judgment takes an extreme and unsupported view of defamation law and rests on an accounting of the facts that has no basis in the record.”

    But the attorneys said Dominion’s filing showed it had built a powerful case against Fox.

    “The dream for a plaintiff’s attorney is what Dominion claims to have here,” Jones said, “smoking-gun internal statements both acknowledging the lie and deciding to forge ahead with perpetuating it.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Proud Boy testifies in sedition trial about far-right group being the ‘tip of the spear’ on January 6 | CNN Politics

    Proud Boy testifies in sedition trial about far-right group being the ‘tip of the spear’ on January 6 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The sole Proud Boy to plead guilty to seditious conspiracy in connection to the US Capitol riot testified on Wednesday that members of the far-right organization believed the country was barreling toward revolution and that they were the “tip of the spear.”

    Jeremy Bertino, a top lieutenant to Proud Boys Chairman Enrique Tarrio, testified as part of a cooperation deal that he struck with prosecutors against Tarrio and four other members of the Proud Boys charged with conspiring to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election.

    “We had a big fight on our hands. It was going to be an uphill battle, and everyone had turned against us,” Bertino testified. “My belief was that we had to take the reins and pretty much be the leaders that we had been building ourselves up to be.”

    His testimony allowed prosecutors to show jurors how the events of January 6, 2021, unfolded in the mind of a top member of the organization as he watched it online from his North Carolina home, sending messages to his “brothers” about targeting then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and assuring them that members of the far-left group Antifa weren’t there to stop them.

    Some of the messages featured in court were from defendants in the case, whom Bertino said he would “take a bullet for.” But Bertino and the five defendants – Tarrio, Ethan Nordean, Zachary Rehl, Joseph Biggs and Dominic Pezzola – rarely made eye contact during the testimony.

    There was not a premeditated or specific plan to storm the Capitol, Bertino testified, adding that getting the Proud Boys to communicate and work together was like “herding cats.” The Proud Boys had several group messages from the days before the riot where members mentioned descending on the Capitol building, according to exhibits shown by prosecutors.

    As court challenges to the 2020 election failed, members of the Proud Boys – who saw themselves as the “foot soldiers of the right” – began to believe the country was headed toward an “all-out revolution,” Bertino testified.

    “I felt it coming,” he said.

    The Proud Boys believed that the government was controlled by “commies,” he testified, and they began to turn against the police, whom the group increasingly saw as their enemy. Everybody in the organization felt “desperate,” including Tarrio, Bertino told the jury.

    “His tones were calculated,” Bertino said of Tarrio. “Cold, but very determined. He felt the exact same way that I did.”

    Members also were inspired by then-President Donald Trump’s reference to their organization in a 2020 presidential debate, where he told the group to “stand back and stand by.” Bertino testified that there were “nonstop requests for membership” after the debate, specifically from people who wanted to attend rallies, and that the group did less vetting of new members to keep up with applications.

    During cross examination, Bertino said that he thought the Proud Boys had a goal to stop the 2020 election but had no knowledge of how that goal would be achieved.

    “I didn’t have a direct idea of where they were going, how they were going to get there.”

    Bertino was not in Washington, DC, on the day of the riot because he was at home recovering from a stab wound he suffered during a previous pro-Trump rally, but he testified that he watched on a livestream video. He saw the mob as starting the “next American revolution,” and told others Proud Boys he was brought to tears during the attack.

    “I was happy, excited, in awe and disbelief that people were doing what they said they would do,” Bertino told the jury. When the crowd descended on the Capitol building, “it meant that we influenced people, the normies, enough to make them stand for themselves and take back their country and take back their freedom,” he said.

    In chats to other Proud Boys, Bertino encouraged members to move forward, telling them that he could see the Capitol building on a livestream and that no members of Antifa would be at the building to stop the pro-Trump mob.

    Bertino also messaged: “They need to get peloton” – which he testified was a misspelled reference to Pelosi. “She was the talking head of the opposition and they needed to remove her from power,” he said.

    By the evening of January 6, Bertino grew angry at Trump supporters for leaving the Capitol building, he told the jury.

    “The way I felt at the moment, if we give that building up, we were giving up our country,” Bertino testified. He sent encrypted messages to other Proud Boys members, saying that “we failed,” and “Half measures mean nothing,” and, referring to lawmakers inside the Capitol, “Fuck fear: They need to be hung.”

    “Once they took that step, there was no coming back from it,” Bertino testified Wednesday. “And they decided basically to balk and walk away after creating all that chaos down there.”

    “The revolution had failed,” he continued, “because the House was still going to go on and certify the election.”

    Bertino told the jury that after January 6, he tried to delete what he saw as incriminating messages on his phone and he wasn’t fully truthful with FBI agents when they asked him about the Capitol attack.

    “I guess it’s a natural instinct to protect yourself and protect those you love,” Bertino testified.

    “I love them,” he said of the five defendants. “I didn’t want to see anything bad happen to them. Still don’t.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House January 6 investigator says it’s ‘likely’ 2020 election subversion probes will produce indictments | CNN Politics

    House January 6 investigator says it’s ‘likely’ 2020 election subversion probes will produce indictments | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The top investigator on the House committee that probed the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack said Wednesday it is “likely” that the Georgia and federal investigations into efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election will produce indictments.

    Timothy Heaphy told CNN’s Kate Bolduan on “Erin Burnett OutFront” that “unless there is information inconsistent, which I don’t expect, I think there will likely be indictments both in Georgia and at the federal level.”

    In Georgia, the foreperson of the Atlanta-based grand jury that investigated former President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election told CNN on Tuesday that the panel is recommending multiple indictments and suggested “the big name” may be on the list.

    The grand jury met for about seven months in Atlanta and heard testimony from 75 witnesses, including some of Trump’s closest advisers from his final weeks in the White House.

    Now that the grand jury is finished, it’s up to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to review the recommendations and make charging decisions. Willis’ decisions in this case will reverberate in the 2024 presidential campaign and beyond.

    Trump, who has launched his 2024 campaign for the White House, denies any criminal wrongdoing.

    At the federal level, special counsel Jack Smith is overseeing parts of the criminal investigation into the Capitol attack and has subpoenaed members of Trump’s inner circle. On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that Smith had subpoenaed the former president’s daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner for testimony.

    “I think it could be very important,” Heaphy said of the pair’s potential testimony.

    “They were present for really significant events. The special counsel will want to hear about the president’s understanding of the election results and also what happened on January 6. And they both had direct communications with him about the events preceding the riot at the Capitol,” he said.

    The special counsel has a massive amount of evidence already in-hand that it now needs to comb through, including evidence recently turned over by the House January 6 committee, subpoena documents provided by local officials in key states and discovery collected from lawyers for Trump allies late last year in a flurry of activity, at least some of which had not been reviewed as of early January, sources familiar with the investigation told CNN at the time.

    “He will not stop because of a family relationship, because of purported executive privilege,” Heaphy said of Smith. “He believes that the law entitles him to all of that information, and he’s determined to get it.”

    Ivanka Trump and Kushner previously testified to the House select committee, which expired in January after Republicans took control of the House. The panel had referred the former president to the Justice Department on four criminal charges in December, and while largely symbolic in nature, committee members stressed those referrals served as a way to document their views given that Congress cannot bring charges.

    This story has been updated with additional information Wednesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lawmakers in 32 states have introduced bills to restrict voting so far this legislative session | CNN Politics

    Lawmakers in 32 states have introduced bills to restrict voting so far this legislative session | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Lawmakers in 32 states across the US have introduced or pre-filed at least 150 bills aimed at making it harder to vote, according to a new analysis from the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school.

    The report, which covers legislative activity through January 25, 2023, was released Wednesday morning. The number of proposed bills represents an uptick in comparison to bills introduced at the same time in 2022 and 2021.

    “This doesn’t necessarily mean that the country will have a record number of new restrictive voting laws by year’s end, but the high number of bills is an indicator that many legislators are still focused on making it harder to vote,” Jasleen Singh, counsel in the Brennan Center’s democracy program, told CNN.

    The restrictive voting bills are part of an ongoing Republican-led push to change election laws following record turnout in the 2020 presidential election and unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud.

    Proposals in two states would open new doors for election results to be overturned.

    One bill proposed in Texas would allow presidential electors to set aside election results if passed.

    In Virginia, one piece of proposed legislation aims to allow citizens to demand forensic audits of results, which would then be presented to a jury of “randomly selected residents,” who could vote to invalidate the election.

    Of the 150 bills, more than half aim to limit access to mail-in voting which gained popularity during the coronavirus pandemic.

    Some of the bills also propose increasing or imposing voter ID requirements for in-person voting and registration. Of the bills, 32 would require voters to present a photo ID at the polls. Opponents of voter ID laws say they disproportionately impact minorities, people with disabilities and those from low-income backgrounds who may not have the necessary forms of identification.

    The report notes that no bills aimed at restricting access have been proposed in Georgia where a controversial election law was passed in 2021.

    The push to restrict voting access has been met with legislative efforts to expand access to voting.Thirty-four states pre-filed or introduced 274 expansive voting bills since new legislative sessions began, according to the Brennan Center report.

    Should any of the bills aimed at restricting or increasing voter access pass and be signed into law, they would go into effect ahead of the 2024 presidential primaries and election.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tester to run for reelection in 2024, providing boost to Democrats’ Senate hopes | CNN Politics

    Tester to run for reelection in 2024, providing boost to Democrats’ Senate hopes | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Montana Sen. Jon Tester announced Wednesday morning that he will seek reelection in 2024, providing a boost to Democrats’ hopes of retaining the Senate.

    “It’s official. I’m running for reelection,” Tester tweeted. “Montanans need a fighter that will hold our government accountable and demand Washington stand up for veterans and lower costs for families. I will always fight to defend our Montana values. Let’s get to work.”

    Tester is one of several Democratic senators in red and purple states who are likely to face competitive challenges this cycle. Along with West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, Tester was one of the top incumbents being urged by party leadership to seek reelection.

    Reacting to the announcement, the National Republican Senatorial Committee swiftly moved to tie Tester to President Joe Biden in the deep-red state, calling him the president’s “favorite senator.”

    Democrats have a difficult road to maintain their slim 51-49 majority, with 23 seats to defend compared to just 11 for the GOP.

    Plus, they’ll have to hold onto Democratic seats in GOP terrain, such as in Ohio and West Virginia – not to mention keep their seats in swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Nevada. The map provides them with scant pickup opportunities, since Republican incumbents are mostly running in ruby-red states or states that have trended to the GOP, like Florida.

    Tester has nearly $3 million in his Senate campaign account as he gears up for the campaign.

    This story has been updated with additional background information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump leadership PAC spent more than $16 million on legal services in 2022 | CNN Politics

    Trump leadership PAC spent more than $16 million on legal services in 2022 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump’s leadership PAC spent more than $16 million on legal services in 2022, according to a tally of the Save America PAC distributions through the end of December. The number represents a massive set of bills from lawyers at a time when the former president faces multiple criminal inquiries, lawsuits and other challenges.

    The money appears to be largely geared toward firms representing Trump and his business and family interests. The disbursements show that Save America PAC paid more than $12.5 million to 16 law firms that have aided in his representation, either in the criminal matters or other legal disputes, according to CNN’s review of the data and additional reporting. Some of those law firms also represent others who’ve been sought out as subjects in the inquiries around Trump.

    The firm of a Trump defense attorney, Alina Habba, took in nearly $2 million from Save America in 2022. Habba Madaio & Associates has represented him opposite a New York State attorney general probe and in other lawsuits.

    Another firm, van der Veen, Hartshorn and Levin, which has lawyers who represented Trump in his 2021 impeachment proceedings and also represented a Trump Organization entity in New York, was paid $1.4 million, according to federal election records. And the two law firms of Trump’s primary criminal defense attorneys, Evan Corcoran and James Trusty, were each paid $1.2 million, Save America PAC reported.

    Some law firms receiving Save America’s payments represent close contacts of Trump’s, such as McGuireWoods, which represents his former chief of staff Mark Meadows.

    The large law firms McGuireWoods and Squire Patton Boggs, which represents former Trump White House speechwriter staffers, received almost $900,000 and $250,000, respectively, while several smaller law firms that represent key witnesses in ongoing investigations received payments into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    In all, nearly 30 law firms received at least $100,000 from Save America PAC.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How an old debate previews Biden’s new strategy for winning senior voters | CNN Politics

    How an old debate previews Biden’s new strategy for winning senior voters | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    In pressing Republicans on Social Security and Medicare, President Joe Biden is reprising one of the most dramatic moments of his long career.

    During the 2012 vice-presidential debate, Biden engaged in a nearly 11-minute exchange with GOP nominee Paul Ryan over Republican plans to reconfigure the two massive programs for the elderly, several of which Ryan had authored himself.

    Biden and many Democrats felt he had won the argument on stage. Yet on Election Day, Ryan and GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney routed Biden and President Barack Obama among White seniors, and beat them soundly among seniors overall, exit polls found.

    That outcome underscores the obstacles facing Biden now as he tries to recapture older voters by portraying Republicans as threats to the two towers of America’s safety net for the elderly. While polls consistently show that voters trust Democrats more than Republicans to safeguard the programs, GOP presidential nominees have carried all seniors in every presidential election back to 2004 and have reached at least 58% support among White seniors in each of the past four contests, exit polls have found. Democrats have likewise consistently struggled among those nearing retirement, older working adults aged 45-64.

    Those results suggest that for most older voters, affinity for the GOP messages on other issues – particularly its resistance, in the Donald Trump era, to cultural and racial change – has outweighed their views about Social Security and Medicare. Those grooves are now cut so deeply, over so many elections, that Biden may struggle to change them much no matter how hard he rails against a range of GOP proposals that could retrench or restructure the programs.

    Biden’s charge that Republicans are threatening the two giant entitlement programs for the elderly – which triggered his striking back and forth exchanges with GOP legislators during the State of the Union – fits squarely in his broader political positioning as he turns toward his expected reelection campaign.

    As I’ve written, the 80-year-old Biden, at his core, “remains something like a pre-1970s Democrat, who is most comfortable with a party focused less on cultural crusades than on delivering kitchen-table benefits to people who work with their hands.” As president he’s expressed that inclination primarily through what he calls his “blue-collar blueprint to rebuild America” – the planks in his economic plans, such as generous incentives to revive domestic manufacturing, aimed at creating more opportunity for workers without a college degree. Politically, Biden’s staunch defense of Social Security and Medicare, programs critical to the economic security of financially vulnerable retirees, represents a logical bookend to that emphasis.

    “We all know that whose side you are on is a critical debate point for every election and this debate over Social Security and Medicare really helps crystallize whose side Biden is on versus whose side Republicans are on in a very effective way for him,” said Democratic pollster Matt Hogan, who helped conduct an extensive series of bipartisan polls during the 2022 campaign measuring attitudes among seniors for the AARP, the giant lobby for the elderly.

    From Franklin Roosevelt through Hubert Humphrey and Tip O’Neill, generations of Democrats have framed themselves as the defenders of the social safety net for seniors against Republicans who they say would unravel it. Biden showed how comfortable he was stepping into those shoes during his 2012 vice-presidential debate with Ryan, then a young representative from Wisconsin who Romney had selected as his running mate.

    Nearly 30 years Biden’s junior, Ryan was an unflinching advocate of restructuring Social Security and Medicare to reduce costs over time. In particular, Ryan was the principal supporter of a conservative plan to convert Medicare, the giant federal health insurance program for the elderly, into a system called “premium support.” Under that proposal, Medicare would be transformed from its current structure, in which the government directly pays doctors and hospitals who provide care for beneficiaries, into a voucher (or “premium support”) system, in which the government would provide recipients a fixed sum to purchase private insurance. Ryan had also drafted proposals to partially privatize Social Security by allowing workers to divert part of their payroll taxes into private investment accounts, a change that would have reduced the tax dollars flowing into the system and eventually required substantial cuts in guaranteed benefits.

    For nearly 11 minutes during the debate in October 2012, moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC skillfully guided Biden and Ryan through a heated, but civil and substantive, discussion of Social Security and Medicare’s future. Ryan insisted that changes were needed to preserve the programs’ long-term viability and that current seniors and those near retirement would not see their benefits reduced.

    Biden appealed openly to the Democrats’ historic image as the programs’ protectors and condemned Ryan and the GOP for wanting to partially privatize them. At one point in the debate, Biden declared: “we will be no part of a [Medicare] voucher program or the privatization of Social Security.” A few moments later, he insisted: “These guys haven’t been big on Medicare from the beginning. And they’ve always been about Social Security as little as you can do. Look, folks, use your common sense. Who do you trust on this?”

    At the time, Democrats felt Biden had at least held his own, restoring the party’s momentum after Obama’s surprisingly listless performance eight days earlier in his first debate against Romney. And Democrats through the rest of the campaign railed against the Republican ticket as a threat to Social Security and Medicare.

    But on election day, those arguments did not translate into gains for Obama and Biden among seniors or the older working adults (aged 45-64) nearing retirement. As Hogan noted, the newly passed Affordable Care Act, which generated some of its funding through savings in Medicare, was extremely unpopular at the time among older voters. Obama and Biden not only lost seniors and the older working age adults, but actually ran slightly more poorly among both groups in 2012 than they did in 2008.

    In fact, no Democratic presidential nominee since Al Gore in 2000 has carried most seniors in a presidential campaign; Obama in 2008 was the only one since Gore to carry most of the older working age adults. Among older Whites, the Democratic deficit is even more pronounced: the Republican presidential nominee has carried around three-fifths of both White seniors and those nearing retirement in each of the past four elections. Biden in 2020 slightly improved on Hillary Clinton’s anemic 2016 performance with both groups, but still lost to Trump by 15 percentage points among White seniors and by 23 points among the Whites nearing retirement, according to the exit polls conducted by Edison Research for a consortium of media organizations including CNN. Biden performed especially poorly among older Whites without a college degree – an economically stressed group heavily reliant on the federal retirement programs.

    Estimates by Catalist, a Democratic targeting firm, and the Pew Research Center likewise found that Trump in both 2016 and 2020 beat his Democratic opponents among both seniors and the older working adults. Like the exit polls, the Catalist data show the Republican nominees carrying about three-fifths of White seniors and older working adults in each of the past three presidential elections.

    The story is similar in congressional contests. In House elections, the exit polls found Republicans winning all seniors and older working adults comfortably in the 2014 and 2022 midterm campaigns and narrowly carrying them even in 2018 when Democrats romped overall. In all three of those midterm congressional elections, Republicans carried about three-fifths of the near retirement White adults, while they also reached that elevated threshold among White seniors in both the 2014 and 2022 campaigns.

    Republicans have maintained these advantages with older voters despite polls showing that most Americans trust Democrats more than the GOP to protect Social Security and Medicare, and that most Americans, especially seniors, oppose the intermittently surfacing GOP proposals to partially privatize both programs.

    Politically, “Democrats have used Social Security and Medicare really a lot over the past two or three decades, maybe four decades,” said Jim Kessler, executive vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist Democratic group. “The payoff has been a lot less than Democrats have generally thought it would be.”

    Could this time be different for Biden and the Democrats? Congressional Republicans have certainly provided plenty of evidence for his claim that they still hope to restructure the programs. The proposed 2023 budget by the Republican Study Committee, the members of which include about three-fourths of House Republicans, reprises the ideas of converting Medicare into a premium support system and establishing private investment accounts under Social Security, while also raising the retirement age for both programs and reducing Social Security benefits over time. And although Florida Sen. Rick Scott renounced the idea late last week, his “Rescue America” agenda did include a proposal to require Congress to reauthorize all federal programs, including Social Security and Medicare, every five years.

    These ideas have precipitated an unusual degree of open Republican dissension. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell repeatedly, and unreservedly, denounced the Scott plan until the Florida senator backed off. Trump recently released a video in which he declared the GOP should not cut “a single penny” of Social Security or Medicare benefits – which put him directly at odds with the three-fourths of House Republicans in the Republican Study Committee. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, bending more toward Trump’s position, seems unlikely to incorporate into the GOP budget plans the RSC’s most sweeping changes in Social Security and Medicare.

    Kessler believes Biden may succeed where other Democrats have failed at hurting the GOP with the issue, and he argued that the conspicuous Republican infighting demonstrates they share that concern. “We are watching a high-profile battle that I’ve never really seen before on these issues in the Republican Party,” Kessler said. “And part of it is clearly they think it’s a problem when they didn’t years ago. If they think it’s a problem, maybe it’s a problem.”

    Stuart Stevens, who served as Romney’s chief strategist in the 2012 campaign but has since become a fierce critic of the Trump-era GOP, also believes the party could face more risk over its entitlement agenda than it did back then. The reason is that he thinks the idea of sunsetting Social Security and Medicare every five years, even if Scott is trying to jettison it, may prove more immediately tangible and understandable to voters than Ryan’s complex ideas of partially privatizing both programs.

    “The question I always ask myself in campaigns is ‘are you talking about something the other side doesn’t want to talk about?’” Stevens said. “That’s probably a good sign that they are losing on the issue.”

    Whether Biden proves more effective than other recent Democrats at attracting older voters around Social Security and Medicare will likely pivot on whether seniors believe the GOP genuinely would cut the programs if given the power to do so, argued Robert Blendon, a professor emeritus at the Harvard School of Public Health, who specializes in public attitudes about the social safety net. “If the senior community actually believes that it’s being threatened it really would affect their votes,” he predicted. But, he added, “as long as they are not threatened, the other values of seniors on top issues more and more correspond with Republicans.”

    There’s no doubt about the second half of that equation. Polling has consistently found that older Whites, in particular, are more receptive than their younger counterparts to hardline Trump-era GOP messages around crime, immigration and the broader currents of racial and cultural change: for instance, about half of Whites older than 50 agree that discrimination against Whites is now as big a problem as bias against minorities, a far higher percentage than among younger Whites, according to a new national survey by the Public Religion Research Institute. Older Whites are also more likely than younger generations to lack a college degree or to identify as Christians, attributes that generally predict sympathy for GOP cultural and racial arguments.

    Through the 21st century, those cultural and racial attitudes among older White voters have consistently trumped any concerns they may hold about the Republican commitment to Social Security and Medicare. Despite Biden’s impassioned articulation of the case against the GOP, that didn’t change even in 2012 when Republicans placed on their national ticket a vice presidential nominee who directly embodied the GOP aspirations to reconfigure and retrench those programs.

    Even small changes in seniors’ preferences could have a big impact in closely balanced states with a large retiree population like Arizona and Pennsylvania. But the entrenched GOP advantage among older voters over the past two decades suggests Biden’s hopes in 2024 may pivot less on improving with the “gray” than maximizing his vote among the “brown”: the diverse, younger generations that recoil from the same Republican messages on culture and race that electrify so many older Whites.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Wisconsin voters head to polls for high-stakes state Supreme Court election | CNN Politics

    Wisconsin voters head to polls for high-stakes state Supreme Court election | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Wisconsin voters on Tuesday will cast their primary ballots in what’s turned into an expensive and high-stakes battle for control of the state Supreme Court in a key political battleground where power is divided between a Democratic governor and a Republican-controlled legislature.

    Voters will narrow the field of candidates down to two, who will then advance to April’s general election for a seat on a court where conservatives currently hold a 4-3 majority. Although the election is technically nonpartisan – there are no party labels on the ballot – interest groups align, party operations mobilize and money flows into races for its seats as if they were partisan contests.

    The departure of a conservative justice, Patience Roggensack, has given liberals an opportunity to seize the majority on a court that could decide on issues such as abortion, redistricting, and voting rights ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

    Conservatives have controlled the state’s high court for 14 years – a span in which the court has sided with Republicans’ union-busting efforts and affirmed voting restrictions, including ID requirements and a ban on ballot drop boxes.

    “This seat is crucial to the balance of the court, and the court is crucial to the balance of the state,” said Barry Burden, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and director of its Elections Research Center.

    The candidates hoping to advance to the April general election are liberals Janet Protasiewicz, a Milwaukee County circuit court judge, and Everett Mitchell, a circuit judge in Dane County; and conservatives Daniel Kelly, a former state Supreme Court justice, and Jennifer Dorow, a judge perhaps best known for presiding over the trial of a man convicted of killing six and injuring scores more in a 2021 attack on a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin.

    Outside money has flooded the race, surpassing candidate spending. As of Thursday afternoon, orders for TV and radio ads focused on the race had hit $7 million, according to advertising tracked by Kantar Media/CMAG for the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school. Experts say the spending on the race could smash the previous record – $15.2 million spent on a 2004 Illinois Supreme Court race, according to the liberal-leaning Brennan Center – for the most expensive campaign for a single state Supreme Court seat.

    The court could become the final arbiter on a host of critical issues in Wisconsin in the coming years – including the fate of the state’s 1849 law prohibiting abortion in nearly all cases. The US Supreme Court’s decision last summer ending federal legal protections for the procedure has super-charged the rhetoric – and spending – around abortion in the Wisconsin race.

    The state Supreme Court could also play a crucial role in the 2024 election. Wisconsin was a key location of former President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 loss, and the refusal of a conservative justice on the state Supreme Court to go along with an effort that year to toss out ballots in two heavily Democratic counties looms large in the rivalry between the two right-leaning candidates in this year’s race.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Michigan election denier who has yet to concede her 2022 loss will chair state GOP | CNN Politics

    Michigan election denier who has yet to concede her 2022 loss will chair state GOP | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Michigan Republicans have chosen Kristina Karamo, who has yet to concede last year’s secretary of state race, as their next chair, putting an election denier at the head of the party in a crucial battleground state.

    Karamo tweeted Sunday that she was “honored to lead the Michigan Republican Party.”

    On the heels of the GOP’s midterm losses in Michigan last year, the state party backed Karamo at its Saturday night convention over Matthew DePerno, who had former President Donald Trump’s backing in the race. DePerno ran unsuccessfully for attorney general last year.

    Trump congratulated Karamo on Truth Social Sunday, calling her a “a powerful and fearless Election Denier, in winning the Chair of the GOP in Michigan.”

    “If Republicans (and others!) would speak the truth about the Rigged Presidential Election of 2020, like FoxNews should, but doesn’t, they would be far better off,” he said.

    Karamo, a former community college professor, rose to prominence in Michigan after the 2020 election when she alleged to have witnessed fraud as a poll challenger during the state’s count of absentee ballots. She has falsely claimed Trump was the true victor in Michigan in 2020 and has spread the conspiracy theory that left-wing anarchists were behind the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

    Trump had backed Karamo in the 2022 secretary of state race, which she lost by 14 points to incumbent Democrat Jocelyn Benson.

    A CNN review in November 2021 of Karamo’s podcast and writings on her now defunct personal website revealed her declaring herself an “anti-vaxxer” in 2020 even before the Covid-19 vaccine became a political flashpoint. She opposed teaching evolution and called public schools “government indoctrination camps.”

    CNN’s KFile reported last year that Karamo called abortion “child sacrifice” and a “satanic practice.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Primary voters aren’t excited about Biden or Trump. What does that mean for 2024? | CNN Politics

    Primary voters aren’t excited about Biden or Trump. What does that mean for 2024? | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The first phase of the 2024 presidential primary season is officially underway, bringing with it a cavalcade of early polling designed to answer a seemingly basic question: whether President Joe Biden and his predecessor, Donald Trump, have the support of their respective parties.

    That topic, though, is more complicated than it seems, reflecting voters’ complex attitudes toward the two men, which in both cases fall far short of either an enthusiastic endorsement or a definitive rejection.

    At first glance, Trump, who launched his third bid for the presidency in November, and Biden, who is yet to officially announce his reelection plans, seem to face similar challenges.

    Just 44% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll said they’d prefer to see Trump win the party nomination in 2024, with an even slimmer 31% on the Democratic side saying they’d like to see Biden renominated.

    That’s in line with other recent polls, including a December CNN survey that found just 38% of Republican-aligned voters and 40% of Democratic aligned-voters thought their parties should renominate Trump and Biden, respectively.

    But while many Republicans and Democrats would prefer to see someone else nominated, the vague concept of “someone else” isn’t an eligible challenger for the presidency. And when it comes to specific, viable rivals, Trump and Biden currently face very different situations.

    So far, one potential primary challenger to Trump has significantly broken through among the GOP faithful, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, although polls have varied on his precise strength against the former president.

    When a recent Monmouth University poll asked GOP and GOP-leaning voters an open-ended question about whom they’d like to see as their party’s nominee next year, most named either Trump (33%) or DeSantis (33%). Two percent or fewer mentioned anyone else as a possible nominee – including former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, the latest entrant into the GOP race who’d yet to declare when the survey was taken.

    CNN’s December polling found that among Republican-aligned voters who favored a nominee besides Trump, 47% had a particular alternate candidate in mind, including 38% who singled out DeSantis.

    There are no similarly prominent rivals to Biden: 72% of Democratic-aligned voters in CNN’s December poll who wanted to see the party nominate someone else said they had nobody specific in mind.

    Despite the lukewarm partisan reactions to Trump’s and Biden’s 2024 candidacies, both are well-regarded within their parties, for the most part.

    In the Post-ABC poll, 79% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said they’d feel positively if Trump were elected to the White House in 2024, with 72% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners saying the same about the prospect of Biden being reelected. Just 7% on the Republican side said they’d be angry to see Trump return to office, with only 3% on the Democratic side saying they’d be angry to see Biden serve another term, the Post-ABC survey found.

    And in a January CNN poll, 29% of Republican adults said they viewed Trump unfavorably, compared with the 14% of Democrats who expressed an unfavorable view of Biden.

    With nearly a year to go before any votes are cast, the 2024 primary landscape remains liable to change, as new candidates enter the race and voters learn more about them. That’s particularly true on the Republican side, where a number of politicians have openly signaled interest in running; Democratic leaders, by contrast, have largely shied away from calls to challenge a Biden reelection campaign.

    None of the recent survey findings predict how the presidential primary landscape will develop in the months to come, or how public opinion might evolve in response. But taken together, they help to paint a fuller picture of where things stand now.

    Both Trump and Biden remain generally well-liked by their respective parties, even as Democrats and Republicans also express a shared eagerness to find alternatives. And so far, Trump, unlike Biden, has seen at least one real potential challenger emerge.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fox News executives refused to let Trump on-air when he called in during January 6 attack, Dominion says | CNN Politics

    Fox News executives refused to let Trump on-air when he called in during January 6 attack, Dominion says | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump tried to call into Fox News after his supporters attacked the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, but the network refused to put him on air, according to court filings from Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation case against the company.

    The House select committee that investigated the January 6 attack did not know that Trump had made this call, according to a source familiar with the panel’s work.

    The panel sought to piece together a near minute-by-minute account of Trump’s movements, actions and phone calls on that day. His newly revealed call to Fox News shows some of the gaps in the record that still exist, due to roadblocks the committee faced.

    “The afternoon of January 6, after the Capitol came under attack, then-President Trump dialed into Lou Dobbs’ show attempting to get on air,” Dominion lawyers wrote in their legal brief.

    ‘He could easily destroy us’: See Tucker Carlson’s private text about Trump

    “But Fox executives vetoed that decision,” Dominion’s filing continued. “Why? Not because of a lack of newsworthiness. January 6 was an important event by any measure. President Trump not only was the sitting President, he was the key figure that day.”

    The network rebuffed Trump because “it would be irresponsible to put him on the air” and “could impact a lot of people in a negative way,” according to Fox Business Network President Lauren Petterson, whose testimony was cited by Dominion in the new filing.

    Dobbs’ show on Fox Business – in which he routinely promoted baseless conspiracies about the 2020 election – was canceled a few weeks after the January 6 insurrection.

    Fox News and its parent company have denied all wrongdoing and are aggressively fighting Dominion’s defamation lawsuit. In a previous statement, a Fox spokesperson claimed that Dominion “mischaracterized the record” in its court filing and “cherry-picked quotes” that were “stripped of key context.”

    The most prominent stars and highest-ranking executives at Fox News privately ridiculed claims of election fraud in the 2020 election, despite the right-wing channel allowing lies about the presidential contest to be promoted on its air, damning messages contained in a Thursday court filing revealed.

    General view of Fox Plaza on February 8, 2023 in New York City.

    Haberman describes ‘striking’ claim that stood out to her from court documents

    The messages showed that Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham brutally mocked lies being pushed by Trump’s camp asserting that the election had been rigged.

    In one set of messages revealed in the court filing, Carlson texted Ingraham, saying that Sidney Powell, an attorney who was representing the Trump campaign, was “lying” and that he had “caught her” doing so. Ingraham responded, “Sidney is a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy [Giuliani].”

    giuliani screengrab

    Court filings show Fox stars ridiculed Giuliani over 2020 election fraud claims

    The messages also revealed that Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of Fox Corporation, did not believe Trump’s election lies and even floated the idea of having Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham appear together in prime time to declare Joe Biden as the rightful winner of the election.

    Such an act, Murdoch said, “Would go a long way to stop the Trump myth that the election stolen.”

    The court filing offered the most vivid picture to date of the chaos that transpired behind the scenes at Fox News after Trump lost the election and viewers rebelled against the channel for accurately calling the contest in Biden’s favor.

    Dominion filed its mammoth lawsuit against Fox News in March 2021, alleging that during the 2020 presidential election the network “recklessly disregarded the truth” and pushed various pro-Trump conspiracy theories about the election technology company because “the lies were good for Fox’s business.”

    Fox News has not only vigorously denied Dominion’s claims, it has insisted it is “proud” of its 2020 election coverage.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why it’s better to start a presidential campaign early | CNN Politics

    Why it’s better to start a presidential campaign early | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The nascent 2024 presidential campaign seemed to hit a different gear this week with Nikki Haley entering the Republican primary. The former South Carolina governor and onetime United Nations ambassador joins former President Donald Trump as the only major competitors to declare bids for the presidency.

    Haley’s announcement, and the lack of one so far from President Joe Biden and a slew of Republicans, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, got me thinking: Do primary winners tend to be early or late entrants to the presidential race?

    The answer depends on who else is running. If you’re in a primary without an incumbent, then it’s better to be early, while it matters far less with an incumbent running.

    The modern primary era began in 1972 on the Democratic side and in 1976 on the Republican side. Since then, hundreds of major candidates have decided to run for president or at least formed exploratory committees with the Federal Election Commission. For each of them, I jotted down whichever date was first, to see if there was a pattern.

    It turns out that the median date for candidates to enter a presidential primary without an incumbent has been March 16 the year before the general election. There has been a wide variation on that from year to year. Some years, the median candidate gets in really early (January 2007 for the 2008 cycle on both the Democratic and Republican side), while other years it’s much later (August 1991 for the 1992 cycle on the Democratic side).

    There is no real correlation between how late or how early a field forms and the eventual nominee’s success in the general election. Democrats, for example, won the presidency in both 1992 and 2008, even with a much later start in 1992.

    What does seem to matter for winning a primary is when candidates get into the race compared with their competitors. In the 17 primaries since 1972 that did not feature an incumbent, 10 of the winning candidates entered earlier than that year’s median candidate. Two of the winners were the median candidates. Five got into the race later than the median candidate.

    There were six who started running about one and a half months or more before that cycle’s median candidate. Democrat George McGovern, in the 1972 cycle, started nearly a full year before the median hopeful that cycle.

    McGovern remains the only major-party nominee who had less than 5% of the vote in early national surveys while the polling leader had more than 20% support. McGovern’s success is part of the reason why primary campaigns seem to start so early compared with when the actual voting takes place.

    Getting in the public eye early, raising money and building an organization are key to winning a presidential campaign. If you fall too far behind, it can be a disaster.

    Even candidates you might “think” entered the race late, often got in far earlier. Trump’s June 2015 official announcement became well known for his ride down the escalator. Less remembered was the fact that he started an exploratory committee in March 2015, and he was already campaigning at the time.

    Of course, joining a presidential race early is no guarantee of success. Former Florida Gov. Reubin Askew in the 1984 cycle and ex-Maryland Rep. John Delaney in the 2020 cycle filed with the FEC for the Democratic primary less than a year after the previous presidential election. Neither got very far.

    Still, on the whole, joining early is better than getting in late. After all, the winners who have gotten in late didn’t get that late. The latest, for example, was Republican Ronald Reagan in the 1980 campaign. He entered less than three months after the median candidate.

    Biden, in the 2020 cycle, was the other winning candidate to enter more than 15 days after the median candidate.

    Both Biden and Reagan shared some qualities that few others had. They had previously run for president and were well known nationally, so they didn’t need time to build name recognition or a campaign and fundraising apparatus.

    What we’ve seen more often is the late-entering “savior” candidate who enters on a white horse – and fails. Think about former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson in the 2008 cycle and then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry in the 2012 cycle. Both Republicans entered with a splash and proceeded to win zero primaries combined. The same was true for Democrat Mike Bloomberg in the 2020 cycle, though he won American Samoa.

    For incumbents, meanwhile, there’s a much greater ability to wait before indicating publicly that they’re going for another term.

    The median date, since 1976, for presidents to either form an exploratory committee or announce their campaign is April 30 of the year before the general election. That’s about a month and a half later than when the median nonincumbent’s campaign gets started.

    Some presidents do go early. Trump’s failed 2020 reelection campaign started the moment he entered the White House. (He formed an exploratory committee on Inauguration Day.)

    Later is the general rule, however, for incumbents. Reagan’s highly successful 1984 reelection campaign, for instance, didn’t get underway until October 1983. George H.W. Bush, likewise, got going on his 1992 reelection bid in October 1991.

    It shouldn’t be too surprising that incumbents can afford to go later. They rarely have any major competitors for their party nomination. They have universal name recognition, and incumbents don’t need the same amount of time to ramp up their campaign infrastructure to raise money.

    All of that seems to match up with what Biden is going through at this point. In fact, some reports suggest he’ll likely announce a reelection bid in April.

    But for Republicans wondering whether it’s too soon to start campaigning, history is pretty clear. It’s better to start sooner or you might fall too far behind to recover.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Key senators torn over retirement decisions as party leaders try to fortify 2024 standing | CNN Politics

    Key senators torn over retirement decisions as party leaders try to fortify 2024 standing | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Sen. Joe Manchin, torn over whether to run for reelection, says he’s “given everything I possibly can” over four decades of holding public office. Sen. Jon Tester is close to making his final decision on a 2024 bid and concedes there’s a risk of his seat flipping next year.

    “It’s a commitment,” the Montana Democrat said of another run.

    They’re not the only ones in a tough spot.

    Sen. Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat, is weighing health considerations after treatment for prostate cancer. Sen. Bernie Sanders, 81, says he’ll make a decision about whether to run for a fourth Senate term in Vermont “at the appropriate time.”

    And Sen. Mitt Romney, a Utah Republican who has gone to battle with former President Donald Trump, says he’ll decide whether to run for a second term by mid-April, sounding ready to take on his party’s MAGA wing if he runs again.

    “People understand that every action has a consequence, and you accept the consequences for the actions that you think are right,” Romney, 75, said of potentially facing a stiff challenge from the right. He then added bullishly: “If I run, I’ll win.”

    As the 2024 landscape begins to take shape, the senators’ decisions about their political futures will dramatically alter the map and hold major ramifications for the makeup of the institution itself.

    For Democrats, the concern is the most acute. They already have a difficult road to maintain their slim 51-49 majority, with 23 seats to defend compared to just 11 for the GOP.

    Plus they’ll have to hold onto Democratic seats in GOP terrain, such as in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia – not to mention keep their seats in swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Nevada. The map provides them with scant pickup opportunities, since Republican incumbents are mostly running in ruby-red states or states that have trended to the GOP, like Florida.

    Then there’s the complicated dance for both parties in Arizona, if Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, now an independent, decides to run again for a seat that would put her up against a Republican and Democrat in a messy, three-way race. For Republicans, fear is growing that the hard-right Kari Lake may mount a bid and put their hopes for a pickup in jeopardy.

    And with few pickup chances, Senate Democrats recognize they’ll have to limit losses – and prevent retirements – in order to cling to power.

    “I’m doing everything I can to help Manchin in West Virginia,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told CNN when asked if he were concerned that the conservative Democrat might hang it up, referring to legislative actions.

    After Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow announced she’d retire, Schumer and his top deputies are hoping to prevent others from following suit, recognizing that an open seat would give Republicans an even better chance of seizing control of the chamber they lost in the 2020 elections. The exception is California, where the 89-year-old Dianne Feinstein announced her retirement this week, something widely expected, as Democrats are expected to keep the seat in their control in the blue state.

    In particular, Democratic leaders are urging Tester and Manchin to run again, knowing full well that finding another Democrat to win in those conservative battlegrounds will be an extremely tall order in 2024.

    “Clearly, it’s important for them to run,” said Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Democratic campaign arm, when asked about Tester and Manchin. “I don’t know where they are. I’ve talked to them, but they’re just working through issues, personal issues for themselves as to what they want to do. So we just have to give them time to think that through and I look forward to their answers.”

    Peters acknowledged that his party’s effort to keep the Senate will grow bleaker if either or both men retire.

    “Those are states that are very Republican,” Peters told CNN, referring to Montana and West Virginia. “And I know they can win again, but they’re without question the strongest candidates in those states. It’d be more difficult without them running.”

    Democrats acknowledge they have close to no backup plans in Montana or West Virginia. But they have been heartened by the polls that are being released publicly by Republican groups in those states, showing their numbers have been better than expected – and perhaps encouraging – for the incumbents.

    But neither Manchin nor Tester seem concerned that the seat could turn red if they retire.

    “That’s not my factor,” Manchin said in the interview. “I’m not weighing that because of my, what it might do to the numbers as far as up here. No, I’ve been at this for quite some time. This term being up, there’ll be 42 years I’ve been in public service so I’ve given everything I possibly can.”

    Several Democratic operatives involved in planning for Senate races tell CNN they expect that ultimately, Tester will run and that Casey will as well after his successful surgery this week. Manchin has them more on edge, and they anticipate that’s how they’ll remain for almost a year: the West Virginia filing deadline isn’t until next January.

    That, after all, is what he did in 2018.

    Manchin, a former governor and state legislator who has served in the Senate since 2010, insists he’s not concerned about the prospects that the GOP governor, Jim Justice, is strongly considering a run against him, though Justice would have to escape a difficult primary against Rep. Alex Mooney and potentially the state’s attorney general, Patrick Morrisey, who may run as well. He has acknowledged that Justice would be the toughest candidate to face, though he insists he could still pull off a victory.

    Manchin, 75, just doesn’t know if he wants to do it again as he looks back at the last several years – especially in the 50-50 Senate in the last Congress where he was at the peak of his power in the chamber and played a central role shaping major laws. The question Manchin is weighing: whether he’ll have the same kind of impact with another six years.

    “I make a decision based on if I’ve been able to deliver for the state, have I been able to support the Constitution and the oath I’ve taken, I think I have,” Manchin said, confirming he’s been urged by Biden and Schumer both to run. “Is there more I can do in different, other areas? I don’t know.”

    Tester, who also said Schumer has been urging him to run, conceded that his seat could flip if he bows out.

    “Oh, absolutely there’s a risk of flipping there’s no doubt about that but so are all of them,” Tester said.

    But he contended other Democrats could mount a vigorous challenge for the seat.

    “Actually, we’ve got some really good folks in the wings that can run,” Tester, 66, said before he noted that things have gotten dire for Democrats in recent cycles. “We haven’t had the best of luck the last few cycles in Montana but I think that’s as much self-inflicted as it is the state turning red.”

    But Tester pointed to key positions he holds – chairing a subcommittee on Pentagon spending and running the veterans panel – as he weighs another run.

    “I’m at a point and time where we can get a lot of good things done because of my position on Veterans Affairs and defense chairman but it’s just something where I think you just need to take the time to think over,” he said.

    Yet Democrats could benefit from a potentially divisive GOP primary in Montana – with the possibility of candidacies from two House members, the governor and the state attorney general. That will put the other Montana senator, Republican Steve Daines, to the test as he plans to use his National Republican Senatorial Committee to be more assertive in GOP primaries to root out lackluster general election candidates, though it’s unclear how he would handle his home state.

    In an interview, Daines was noncommittal when asked about one candidate in particular – Rep. Matt Rosendale – a hard-right Republican who lost to Tester in 2018 and is considering running again. He said “it’s early” since candidates have yet to declare and that the field will get “sorted out,” contending the race is “winnable.”

    “These are three red states where the only statewide elected official left that’s a Democrat is a US Senator. That’s Montana, it’s West Virginia, it’s Ohio,” Daines said. “These are going to be spirited races.”

    And after last cycle’s GOP debacle, where several Donald Trump-aligned candidates petered out in the general election and effectively cost them winning the majority, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell is determined not to allow that to happen again.

    “I just think we need to focus on candidates who can win in the general election,” said Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas and close McConnell ally. “We had some great primary candidates, but that won’t get the job done. You got to have somebody who can have a broader appeal than just the base. That was one of the most important lessons of this last cycle.”

    Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego, at left, is challenging Sinema, at right, for her US Senate seat in 2024.

    Senate leaders in both parties see Arizona as the biggest wildcard – depending on what Sinema decides to do and which Republican decides to run.

    Lake, the Trump-aligned Republican who lost one of the nation’s premier governor’s races last fall, recently met with officials at NRSC headquarters – even though many Republicans are nervous about her potential candidacy and one GOP strategist called the potential of a Lake Senate run “disastrous.”

    As she made the rounds in Washington, Daines told CNN that he spoke with Lake.

    “I want to see a candidate who can not only win a primary, but can win a general election,” Daines said when asked about that visit, not commenting on Lake directly.

    Other top Republicans are unnerved about Lake – and her evidence-free claims of widespread election fraud – and are pushing for other candidates to jump into the race.

    “I’ve just said to any of our candidates or potential candidates in 2024, that you got to talk about the future, not the past,” said Senate Minority Whip John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 2 Republican. “And I think if you’re building your campaign around the theme of a stolen election, that’s not a winning strategy. We’ve seen that. So if she does decide to do it again, I think she’s gonna have to talk about the things that are on the hearts and minds of American people.”

    Schumer and Democratic leaders, themselves, are in a bind in the state, refusing to say if they’ll back their party’s nominee with Sinema still undecided on a run. The reason: They need Sinema to continue to organize with them in order to maintain their 51-49 majority and are in no mood to alienate her.

    But some Democrats are angry at their leaders for refusing to say if they’ll back their nominee, especially backers of Rep. Ruben Gallego, the party’s leading candidate in the race.

    “At some point, they’re going to have to endorse a Democrat,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, a fellow Arizona Democrat who backs Gallego, noting it would be “problematic” if party leaders didn’t dump huge resources to help their party’s nominee win a general election.

    “If they don’t, that would be an insult at many levels,” Grijavla said.

    While some Democrats are nervous that Gallego and Sinema would split the vote and give Republicans a victory, Gallego dismisses the possibility and says only a “strong Democrat” can win.

    “No matter what happens, Kyrsten Sinema is always going to be in third place,” Gallego said. “I also doubt she fully runs.”

    As she’s grown more alienated from her former party, Sinema has grown closer to Republicans, including one – Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – who told CNN she would endorse the senator if she ran again.

    “I absolutely support Sen. Sinema,” Murkowski said, noting she’s also backing Manchin. “She’s not afraid to take on hard things, and I’m gonna be supporting her too.”

    Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan speaks to members of the media at the U.S. Capitol on August 03, 2022 in Washington, DC.

    Even in safe Democratic seats, there’s the potential for a shakeup that could bring more diversity and younger members into the ranks, including in Maryland and Delaware where Sens. Ben Cardin and Tom Carper, respectively, have not made a final decision to run yet.

    Cardin, 79, who hasn’t spent much time fundraising yet, said he would make his decision sometime in the spring, while Carper, 76, said he’d be ready to run but noted that campaigns are “way too long.”

    In Hawaii, Sen. Mazie Hirono said she plans to run again, as did Maine’s Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats.

    “There’s only two ways to run: Scared or unopposed,” King said.

    In more contested states, Nevada’s Jacky Rosen said she is running, as did Ohio’s Sherrod Brown. And in Wisconsin, Sen. Tammy Baldwin said she’d make her announcement about her plans in the spring after upcoming elections in the state.

    In Texas, Sen. Ted Cruz has announced plans to run for a third Senate term, and Democrats are weighing whether to mount a serious effort to try to unseat him in the red state – with a focus on whether Democratic Rep. Colin Allred will try to mount an upset bid against the conservative senator.

    In Michigan, where Stabenow’s retirement is leaving Democrats with an open seat in a swing state, Rep. Elissa Slotkin is eying a run and could get some implicit help from the outgoing senator herself. Stabenow has spoken by phone with several prominent Michigan Democrats, and while some have perceived that as dissuading some weaker candidates from running, a Stabenow spokesperson says she’s just been giving everyone advice on the challenges of running statewide in Michigan and not trying to clear the field.

    Republican recruitment efforts in the state are also up in the air, with a push for newly elected Rep. John James, who has lost two previous bids for the Senate. If he passes, GOP leaders believe other contenders will emerge, potentially former Rep. Peter Meijer and even some current members of the House delegation or local officials.

    While several potential Democratic candidates have decided not to run, other political players in the state remain unsure about Slotkin’s statewide strength and have continued talking privately about finding an alternative.

    Given how much Democrats in the state rely on high turnout in heavily African-American Detroit, finding a candidate who could run strong there has been a major topic in those discussions. Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist, who got his start in Detroit politics is “very seriously thinking about making a run” and is expected to make a decision over the next month, according to a person familiar with his thinking.

    Meanwhile, several Democrats in Michigan tell CNN they have been surprised by outreach they’re getting from “The Good Doctor” actor Hill Harper, whose political experience mostly relates to being Barack Obama’s law school roommate, but who owns a coffee shop in Detroit and has gotten involved with the local business community there. Harper did not return a request for comment.

    Stabenow said she’s not endorsing any candidate in the primary to replace her.

    “What I’m saying to folks is that I want somebody that is strong, effective, who can raise money, who can win,” Stabenow said. “But I’m talking to everybody.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden administration releases data breaking down student loan relief applications by congressional district | CNN Politics

    Biden administration releases data breaking down student loan relief applications by congressional district | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Department of Education released a breakdown of federal student loan forgiveness applications by congressional district on Friday, providing a new window into the demographics of borrowers seeking relief across both Republican and Democratic-represented districts.

    The new data is being released as the fate of President Joe Biden’s debt relief plan remains in limbo, with the US Supreme Court set to soon hear cases challenging its legality later this month. The initiative would offer up to $20,000 of individual debt forgiveness to millions of low- and middle-income borrowers, but ongoing legal challenges have meant that no one has received relief – including millions of borrowers whose applications have already been approved.

    The White House says the plan is vital in order to provide targeted debt relief to certain federal student-loan borrowers affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. But many Republicans say that the relief will make inflation worse and argue it’s unfair to individuals who didn’t take out student loans or have already paid them off. They’ve also criticized the administration’s legal justification for issuing the relief through executive authority.

    The Department of Education received about 26 million applications for debt relief by the time a federal district court judge blocked the program in November. More than 16 million of those borrowers’ applications were fully approved and more than 40 million borrowers would qualify for the program, according to the administration.

    “Across the country, in every congressional district there is a strong desire for the Biden-Harris Administration’s one-time debt relief program,” a Department of Education official said about the new data. “In every single congressional district, at least half of eligible borrowers either applied or were deemed auto-eligible for debt relief, and that was only in the one month that the application was available before the program got blocked because of lawsuits.”

    In every congressional district, the official said, at least 30% of eligible borrowers were approved to have their debt discharged before the program was blocked. Some 81% of all applications for relief came from the bottom 80% of congressional districts when broken down by average income, the official added.

    A new Politico analysis of additional zip code data from the department obtained though a public records request also shows that borrowers living in lower-income areas applied for relief at a higher rate compared to those who live in wealthier neighborhoods, and most applications came from places where the per-capita income is under $35,000. Non-White majority zip codes accounted for more forgiveness applications per capita than majority-White zip codes.

    Friday’s data build on earlier numbers released by the Department of Education which showed a state-by-state breakdown of student loan forgiveness applications, which were published shortly after independent auditors questioned the estimated cost of the program.

    The the latest release coincides with the Supreme Court planning to hear two cases pertaining to Biden’s student loan forgiveness program later this month, including one from several Republican-led states.

    Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina say that the Department of Education did not have the legal authority to issue such a cancellation. They argue that it violates the separation of powers and that Biden is using the pandemic as a pretext to mask his true goal of fulfilling a campaign promise to erase student-loan debt.

    They put forward several theories that they say allow them to get into court to challenge a program they argue unlawfully invokes Covid “to assert power beyond anything Congress could have conceived.”

    Another case being heard by the high court this month was brought by two individual borrowers – Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor – who are not qualified for full debt relief forgiveness and who say they were denied an opportunity to comment on Education Secretary Miguel Cardona’s decision to provide targeted student loan debt relief to some.

    Earlier this month, 126 House Republicans – led by Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx of North Carolina and South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan – filed an amicus brief opposing the debt forgiveness effort.

    According to the White House data, in Foxx’s district, approximately 61% of borrowers, some 46,300 people, applied or were automatically eligible for relief. In Duncan’s district, about 59% of borrowers, 51,400 people, applied or were automatically eligible for relief.

    A number of members in Republican leadership, including Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Majority Whip Tom Emmer, Conference Chair Elise Stefanik and Policy Committee Chair Gary Palmer also signed onto the brief.

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy did not sign onto the brief, but he has been critical of the president’s plan.

    McCarthy’s home state of California, the most populous state in the nation, has 2.3 million people who have applied or were automatically eligible for relief – the most out of any state. Approximately 60% of borrowers in the speaker’s district applied or were automatically eligible for relief, with 31,600 borrowers already fully approved for relief out of 49,800 who have applied or were automatically eligible.

    Representatives for Foxx, Duncan, Scalise, Emmer, Stefanik, Palmer and McCarthy did not respond to CNN’s request for comment on the new data.

    [ad_2]

    Source link